againe it can never be rationally conceived the people have given away such a naturall liberty such a necessary power for their common safety Unlesse it can be proved that they have done so The proofe then before the Barre of indifferency of judgement and unpartiall conscience will lie on the Doctors part not ours Fourthly But he saith the representative Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure REPL. 2. It hath been so de facto multo but whether it bee altogether so de jure may justly be questioned upon these grounds First for their meeting when the Prince is an Infant or if a prisoner in enemies hands and so cannot give out a legall Warrant for their meeting or if distracted hath not the State power to meet in Parliament for their common safety and the Princes too They have met in the infancy or minority of Kings and made Lawes as in Edw. the 6. time and not by the meere power of the Protectour for the Nobility after put him out his head was cut off afterward by a Law made while he was Protectour It was then and could be nothing else but the inherent power of State to meet so in cases of necessity Yet I beleeve there is no written Law for this but the generall Maxim of Salus Populi suprema lex And this will extend to the case of Tyranny as fully as any of the former if not more Withall did not the Lords in Richard the 2 nds time call a Parliament without the King wherein they had their grievances redressed and this afterward was confirmed in the first of Hen. the 4 th Secondly then for their dissolving It hath indeed beene very much practised by our two last Kings But our Histories so farre as I remember quare whether Hen. 3. did not dissolve some Parliaments in discontent mention not any such thing as a Parliament dissolved in displeasure or against the desire of the Houses But as they meet very frequently oft-times every yeare somtimes oftner so that in the space of a hundred yeares there are counted above a 100. Parliaments So they sate till they had ended the Princes and their owne businesses which went much together and so it never came to a matter of examination or discontent the delay of calling them to meet or the too timely dissolution of Parliaments Parliaments were not wont to bee so odious or dreadfull to Princes as within these forty yeares they have been By whose default they have been so since let the encrochments upon Magna Charta and the Subjects liberties direct any to judge 2. But further for both these First the Parliament averres that there are Lawes that there should be a Parliament every yeare and so they have abated of their Right rather then gained upon the King by the Act of the Trienniall Parliament 2. And for the dissolution I have heard some wisemen affirme that by Law it cannot be dissolved while there are any Petitions of grievances or such matters of importance depending and unfinished Whereunto may be added most justly that in ordinary times Countrey Gentlemen and Noblemen and in a manner the whole body of the Parliament would be as sick of a long Parliament and continuall attendance as the King could wish and would petition rather then be tyed so by the legge for a dissolution or at least a Prorogation And it 's well enough knowne that even this Parliament after the Act of Continuation past were as weary of sitting as need to be desired till the Rebellion in Ireland seconded by the growing evills at home put new spirits into them and forced them to that diligence of attendance and unwearied labours so many as have taken the common good to heart as no Age or Story can parallel here or in any other Kingdome or Nation Thirdly beyond all this I appeale againe to the Kings Answer to the 19. Prepositions formerly mention'd and aske whether if the King have absolute power to forbeare calling them at his will and to dissolve them at his pleasure it be not a meere nothing that hee saith the House of Commons have power to impeach his owne Followers and Favorites who have broken the Lawes even by surreptitiously gotten commands from the King and that the Lords have power to judge and punish and are an excellent skreene between the King and the people to assist each against any incroachings of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve the Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three and that the Power legally placed in both Houses is more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny What serves all this for when his Favourites will keepe him from calling a Parliament perhaps all his dayes unlesse unlook'd for neceâ—sity force him to it We haoe â—eene our selves about 13. yeares without one and had there not beene conceived hopes that there would have beene Money given against the Scots it had not been then called as it was Againe what serves the calling them when the same Favourites being questioned shall counsell a dissolution We have knowne that too even three times in this Kings Reigne and no other dissolution but on these grounds And the last was within three weekes because they would not in all hast and contrary to all former Presidents and Priviledges give mony against the Scots and embroyle the two Kingdomes in a perpetuall Warre not having had one grievance redressed And in the case of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties which is the Doctors Case propounded It is undoubted he will if he can dissolve them as soone as they offer but to punish any of his Favourites and so to crosse the designe unlesse he dare not of which anon because therefore I believe the King in that Answer hath not ascribed more then right to the Parliament It will follow that in right specially in such case they ought not to be dissolved And that if by force they should be or should not have been called at all the People have right to meet together when and where they can in a Parliamentary manner or otherwise to such end as to defend themselves and one another from tyranny and the designed subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties as hath beene often said Fourthly but for the present condition of our Kingdome and Parliament I must professe that as I admire the providence of God in the Act passed for the continuation of this Parliament so I doe for the forementioned expressions of the King in that answer Which laid together may to any understanding men wholly decide this first Question betweene the Doctor and us in point of Legality in our Kingdome if there were nothing else said or to be said that supposing such a designe to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties This Parliament hath if no other had or could have being dissoluble at pleasure compleat power and Authority to
doe all they doe that so they may prevent and restraine the designed tyranny Fiftly Yet I have one thing more to alleadge supposing the power of calling and dissolving wholly in the King ordinarily yet there may be such power in them so long as they doe sit to command Armes to bee rais'd for the suppressing of any Delinquents maintaining themselves with Armes even under the colour of the Kings Authority which I thus make good If there be any such kind of Power in the very Judges in their Courts at Westminster for the whole Kingdome and in their severall Circuits for the Shires they sit in although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will meerly and put out ordinarily at his pleasure and they can neither keepe Assizes at any time nor keep any Terme any where but when and so long as the King pleases to give Commission if I say there be such a power in the Judges and even in one of them then much more in the whole Parliament which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest Judicature in the Kingdome and hath most power during their sitting Now that such a kinde of power is in the Judges I appeale to experience in the case following A private man hath a suite with the King about Land or House and the like The King hath possession and some Officer or Tenant of his holds it for the King The Judges having heard the Cause give Sentence for the Subject adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the Kings Tenant or Officer he refuses and armes himselfe to keep possession still Upon this after due summons and processe of law a Writ of Rebelliâ—n shall goe out against the Officer of the Kings even though he should pretend to keepe possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriffe shall be commanded to raise Armes even the whole posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment from resisting the Kings auâ—hority in his Lawes Here now is raising Armes by the Kings legall Authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer haâ—h a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall bee punisht by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence Aâ—ke the Lawyers whether in sense â—his be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King doth not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not The Parliament then may in the case of necessity raise Armes against the Kings personall Command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all And this by the Kings legall Authority and the resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the Instruments so imployed Legally though with Armes by the Parliament If the Doctor now or any for him will retort upon me as he thinks what I said before that if this be granted a King intending Tyranny will not call a Parliament or if he have called it he will straight dissolve it as soone as they attempt any thing against his mind REPL. I reply he will doe so indeed if hee can perswade the people by the Doctors Divinity or Law to endure him and his followers to take away their Goods and doe what else he list and they for want of a Parliament called or sitting dare not defend themselves at all But if hee find that they believe no such Doctrine but without dispute of Law or Consciences resolve rustically not to be robbed of their goods at pleasure or used like meere slaves but that they will defend themselves and somwhat they begin to doe and beat away or kill some that come to take their goods away in such illâ—gall manner he may then be glad to call a Parliament to quiet the People who perhaps also may begin to mutiny by troopes and be willing to sacrifice perhaps some of his Followers unto them as â—mpâ—oâ— and Dudley were in the beginning of H. the 8. though they proceeded with colour of the penall Lawes and even to provide for his owne Maintenance as 〈◊〉 â— In such a case some against his will cal'd a Parliament Anno of his Reigne And that it may be he will not he dares not hearken to those that would perswade him to dissolve it because then hee should bring all confusion besides want upon himselfe againe which was Hen. the Thirds Case Anno. Therefore I conclude that the Parliament as I said before may have this power and upon advantage of the Kings necessities and Peoples not enduring oppression be able to exercise it even though they meet not but at the Kings will and are dissoluble at his pleasure And so I have said enough of this Section except onely that I must note that in the close of it he either thinks those he hath to doe with Parliament and all grosse fooles or else he shewes himselfe extreamly simple in reckoning up the remedies of Tyrranny though he love not to use so harsh a word but we must when hee hath stated the Case for us of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The denying of subsidies and ayd c. If hee meane in Parliament such a Prince never meanes to call any If out of Parliament this is the grievance that he takes it against Law by Ship-moneys and Monopolies and Imposts and any way and if they deny it themselves are fetcht up by the Pursevants and put in prison and for not executing such illegall commands Fined at pleasure halfe or all their Estates and perhaps starved in prison or little better Kept so close that they fall sicke and dye Nay if the Prince proceed to command his Souldiers or Officers to kill without delay any â—hat shall deny Subsidie or Ayd though never so illegall Hath not then the Doctor propounded a goodly remedy of Tyranny to deny him Subsidy and Ayd As if to quench a house a fire hee should send for a paire of Bellowes to blow a coole breath Let him now consider whether hee uttered those words in scorne or in policie and with what science or skill in common Reason not to say in Politicks and so with how truely an informed conscience he deales justly between the King and the People We have yet some further strength of his reason to examine in the next Section Of which now SECT V. IN this Section hee propounds this Reason as alleadged for the peoples Power that else the State should not have meanes for its owne safety when c. REPLY This Reason we acknowledge ours and considering what a State is a Body composed of many thousands who by themselves or their Ancecestors set up a King over them for their safety and good this Reason is as much Reason as any thing can be betweene Man
that Subjects may not resist a Prince who is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The Apostles Reasons against Resisters are 1. For Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill Now is this a reason why I may not resist such a Tyrant Who can be more a terrour to good workes and not to evill then he that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Ergo of such a Resistance of a tyrant the Apostle speakes not But of Resistance of that Ruler who go's altogether according to Lawes and Liberties which is justly punishable with Damnation without Gainsaying 2. A second Reason or enforcement of the Apostles argument against Resistance is Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power Doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now doth this argue a Tyrant is not to be resisted Is there no cause of feare of him while a man do's that which is good that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Or shall a man have praise in doing good of such a Tyrant Therefore is not a Tyrant that power which may not be resisted But he that stands to the Lawes and Rules according to them Damnation is just against those that resist him without question 3. Thirdly The Apostle proceeds vers 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good and so not to be resisted without resisting the Ordinance of God and so incurring damnation But is this true of a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Is he the Minister of God to thee for good Or the Minister of his owne lusts rather for evill Resistance of such an one then is not the Resistance the Apostle forbids but of one who is the conservatour of Religion for he and he only is the Minister of God to thee for good and worthy is he of Damnation that resists such an one 4. The Apostle adds If thou doe that which is evill feare for he beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Is this man a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties or most directly opposite to Tyranny A Tyrant secures those that do evil so they will joyn with him and serve him in his Tyranny from feare And he beares the Sword not only in vaine in reference to any good end intended by Gods ordinance but altogether contrary to it and is so farr from being the Minister of God that he is as before a Minister of his owne lusts to shelter those that doe evill and to pursue with all wrath and revenge him that doth good and will not be a slave to his lawles designes and desires Still then of such a Tyrant S. Paul argues not that he may not be resisted but him that he describes which is a just Governour and so upon no terms to be resisted 5. Upon all this the Apostle resumes Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake What rules of conscience before laid inferr'd now by the word wherefore urge such an Asinine or stupid suâ—ject as to be subject even passively and not to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties when all that went before speake expresly of another power and Rulers of another temper A man then for feare of wrath not being able to make good his Resistance may yeeld such passive subjection but sure conscience at least not in this place urges him not to it 6. Yet the Apostle goes-on For this cause also pay you Tribute for they are Gods Ministers continually attending on this very thing For what cause Because they may attempt to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Doe we pay Tribute for this cause that they plunder and change Lawes c. Or that they may defend them Also upon what thing are they thus Gods Ministers to attend continually Is it to subvert Lawes c. Or to preserve them The Apostle then speakes not of a Tyrant but a just ruling Prince and pitty but he should be damn'd that resists him 7. Finally he concludes this matter with saying Render to all their due By what Law of God or man may a Tyrant subvert Religion Laws and Liberties or even be let alone in so doing I am sure the Apostle hath not exprest any such thing hitherto It is Ergo but the Doctours mistake though I confesse it hath beene many wise and good mens before him that the Apostle forbids resisting such a Tyrant which as I said above all his Reasons go rather quite contrary unto as describing the Power and Ruler that is to be subjected to and not resisted altogether crosse to Tyranny and his Interpretation and Assertion is altogether crosse to the Apostles Having set the understanding of the maine Text right I come now to those examples that are alleadged to proove That it is lawfull to resist in some cases 1. The example of the peoples resisting Sauls illegall and tyrannicall attempt to have put Jonathan to death without cause If this were lawfull in them in a particular mans case against whom also there was some seemig cause How much more to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties and so to take away the life of many at his own pleasure To this is answered not that it was unlawfull in the people to make this resistance which yet if he deny not he plainly yeelds his cause in his first Proposition and Rom. 13.2 forbids not all Resistance but only that the people drew not into Armes themselves but being there at Sauls command did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawfull command To this I reply 1. If it were lawfull now what hinders but they might have come together to prevent such a mischiefe as Jonathans unjust Death Sure Saul called them not together to resist himselfe in any thing Neither did his calling them together to fight against the Philistines authorize them to fight against him if it were not lawfull of it selfe Our King call'd the Parliament together yet he allowes not them to resist upon that pretence though they are undeniably not the great Councell only but the great Court of Judicature in the Kingdome This peece then of his Answer is nothing but words and pretence 2. As for his loving violence and importunity wherewith he would blanch their Resistance Grant they shewed a love to Saul because Jonathan was Sauls sonne But had Saul counted him his Enemy as he did David afterward It would have sounded harsh violence and out-ragious enough and it was plainly a great deale beyond a loving violence For Saul swore his death and they swore his life that not a haire of him should c. This was Resistance then with an Oath as it were to make Saul forsworne After this Example then our people may sweare an Association that
Estates and in any two of them or all the 3. together is given and is to be used ad Edificationem ad Salutem non ad destructionem for the common good and safety not ruine For in that it is Null and voyd in all reason and equity But the Doctor saith Must the King only trust and not be trusted Must he not alwayes have his security against the other which cannot be but by power of denying REâ—L 1. But he forgets that the Question by himselfe stated is when the Prince will not discharge his trust and more then soâ— is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Then it is sencelesse to trust him till 〈◊〉 shewâ—s another a better mind and it is most ridiculous to allow him in this case a pâ—wer of denying safety for that is to allow him a power of subverting all 2. But when the â—u is as now it â—s made in Hypothesi whether the Prince or the two Houses do mean wâ—ll or ill and who doth or doth not discharge their trust and who doth or doth not intend the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties who can be Judge betweene them or who can amongst men decide the difference but the Body of the People Exercising their understanding and consciences to judge who is in the right by all that hath been said and done on both sides formerly and of late and so their power and strength too to defend the right side and resist the wrong-doers And these whether the Doctor or any under Heaven will or no must have and will have the Power of denying or granting meanes for their owne and others safety and securiâ—y The Doctors reproaches against the Parliament I passe Only where he sayes Conscience might demand for its satisfaction Why should 100. in the House of Commons see more then 300 or 20. in the House of Lords more then 60. that are of a different judgement and withdrawne REPL. Satisfaction may well be given First by saying it is evident the major part of the House of Commons when they were most full were all that way that 100. are now though that be a slander for but a while since there were 300. there The King a yeare agoe in â—anu last commanded all that were in the Countrey to come up which certainly most of them did Yet no Votes but this way they goe now onely things were not then at the â—eighth they now are 2. If yet the Major part were of another judgement they would certainly come and vote and end the businesse The House hath often called the absent and punisht some for it certainly they knew then there were not enough against them of their Members to over-vote them 3. They that are wilfully absent are offenders against the Law and the common good and so are not to be trusted or thought to have wisedome to see things right how many soever they may pretend to be For also 40 being the legall number for the House of Commons to vote any thing It is against all Rules of Politick Bodies that the absence of others there being thâ— Legall Number present should hinder or discredit any Vote or Act of the Legall Body One judge of Assize two Commissioners or Arbitrators and the like suffice for any Businesse and though still the greater number the more honour and comfort yet a legall number must and will ever suffice 5 As for the Lords who pretend their absence forced by reason of Tumults First this by an Almanack as the Doctor speaks elsewhere may be confuted the greatest part of those that came and after withdrew stayed a considerable time after the Tumults till the King was gotten to Yorke and begun to call them away And if his calling them away or their withdrawing themselves shall have power to make the votes or judgement of a part that are yet resident there as the Dâ— hath learned to call them Null or not to be regarded then have the King or such a number of Lords and Commons even out of the Parliament-House power to disanull a Law even the Law for the not dissolving of this Parliament without an Act for it which must passe all the 3. Estates both Houses and the King and in which each have their power of Denying And this alone what ever might be pretended against other Parliaments makes the legall Votes of the two Houses the full judgement and Authority of the whole representative Body of the Kingdome how few soever be present or how many so ever be absent and upon what pretence soever 2. But withall if I were Confessour or Chaplaine to any of those Lords that have withdrawne themselves and upon pretetence of the Tumult deny to returne I would make bold to aske them this Qu. in their eares for their consciences satisfactoin as well as mine owne which City and Countrey rung of them and which produced such and so many Petitions for the setling of the Militia and helping Ireland and outing the Bishops and Popish Lords out of the House of Peeres whether their refusing to concurre in the reliefe of Ireland and in securing the Kingdome even in petitioning the King for the settling of the Militia which yet the King after acknowledged necessary to be setled were not the true and only cause of those tumults that were And if so where was their judgement to see the means of safety or their conscience to provide for it And then whether their owne guilt did not more send or drive them away then any violence of the Tumults Which tumults yet I approve not nor ever did But if God so punished those that would not discharge the trust it is easier to answer that question why so many remaining should see more that is better then thrice so many if so many dissenting and withdrawne As for the Doctors preferring Monarchy before Aristocracy hee shall not have me for his Adversary who thank God I am borne and live and hope to dye under a Monarchy though not absolute as the Doctors Position would make him when he listed though the Doctor wisely disclaimes any such intention But for his reasons why a King should seâ—e better then the Major part of both the Houses because he sees even with their eyes though dissenting from them and hath other Councel besides and that he hath many reasons to perswade him to consent to their free and unanimous Votes All this is most unreasonable as the Question is now stated of a Prince bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties for we are still upon that generall supposition in this Section for whatever they see he will be sure as farre as he sees his owne strength to consent to nothing that shall hinder his designe And therefore to plead his power of denying or his wisdome in this case is to yeeld him all power to bee a Tyrant Which after all the Dr. will yet prove he hath so farre as he may not be resisted in it by the inconveniences
both and then let Conscience exercise charity as it will answer to GOD to it selfe to all it's Fellow English men and Christians and even to the whole World Thus in generall now we must examine some particulars The Dr. names 4 grounds of feares and jealousie with which the people have been possessed All which he first rejects with a gentle comparing of the Parliamont who hath set them forth to the Devill the Arch-accuser This is his charity In stead of rataliating I will onely say the Lord forgive thee His first ground is Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in This he saith was given out before the setting up of the MILITIA to keepe the People amused the easier to draw them into such a posture of defence as was pretended and they are all discovered by time to have been vaine REPL. 1. why will he perpetually forget that the King himself granted the Militia necessary to be setled 2 It was not meerely Forraigne Forces to bee brought in but Papists and Delinquents rising at home that was insinuated a cause of the desire to have the Kingdom put in a posture of defence 3. Who knows not of the billeting of many thousands of Irish upon us even during the fitting of a former Parliament The Project of Germane Horse in the Dukes time is it quite forgotten The Earle of Staffords Councell not only to bring in his Irish Army consisting most of Papists wherewith to reduce this Kingdome was it not proved by the Oath of a Privy Counsellor present and confirmed by his own Notes taken at the time and did not the rest of the advise then given by that Politician that the King being now deserted by his Parliament might doe any act of power Quaere the words in his charge amount to Counselling the bringing in of any forces from any place And why must all intelligences after these prevented bee counted vaine 4. For is all suspition vaine because the thing suspected comes not to passe when mean are used to prevent it Is all preventing Physicke Vaine Is all feare of Pyrates in a Sea voyage vaine if none assault a well man'd and provided Ship Was not such a Navy being secured in safe hands as would under God have made great Forraign Forces repent their comming against the Kingdomee competent reason why those that did mean to come if they might have had no resistance on the Sea now thought it too hot a service 5. But besides the Navy they had no Landing place Hull being contrary to the Court-expectation and attempt as was Noted before secured by the Parliament and so might well be the more discouraged 6. Which is the more considerable because no sooner had they got a Port-Town namely Newcastle but though no Forraign Forces came who could not be so soon ready yet Forraign Ammunition came not a little and Forces of our Country-men who served in Forraign Countries and money too from Forraigne Princes or People And what more is comming if our unhappinesse continue till the Spring who can be secure But for this if it prove so the Dr. hath a defence ready All Christian Kings he saith cannot but thinke themselves concerned in the cause and it will be as just for the King to use them against subjects now in arms as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their naturall King REPL. 1. The Dr. bestirres himself to make the King strong to maintain the Prelacy among other things as himself hath told us before in the former Section he said that they that assist him doe it according to their Allegiance So that he intends that all his Subjects are bound by their Allegiance to assist him and fight against the Parliament even though their Consciences judge them to intend the conservation of Religion Laws and liberties and his followers to intend their subversion And here hee calls all Christian Kings iâ— as themselves concerned in the Cause 2. When the Rochellers took Arms according to their Priviledges and Edicts of the Kingdome to defend themselves And our Protestant or Popish Councellors got 8. Ships to be sent to assist the King of France against them and in the Low-Country they did the like too what will the Dr. say were all the Christian Princes concerned to assist against the Rochellers If hee doe the very souldiers and marriners that went into Ships shall rise up in judgment against him who when they knew what they went for utterly refused to fight against their Religion and so the greatest part of them were set a Shore againe and the rest went on their voyage and did the mischief to help beat the Rochell Fleet and give the King possession of the Haven so as he afterward with the help of the King of Spaine so still Princes are concerned against the Protestant made a Barricado so strong as when a Fleet from hence after re-Voyage attempted to relieve Rochell by Sea being then actually besieged by Land it could not be done 3. What will the Dr. say to that Voyage to Rey and that to releeve Rochell when it proved too late Why was not the King still concerned to helpe the King of France or was he 4 Will it be Just for the King to use Forraign Forces when to the understanding of Common Readers hee hath utterly disclaimed it in more then one Declaration 5 What Counsell would an Enemy to the King and Kingdome that hath read Stories and ours in speciall as the Dr. seemes to have done give but the using of Forraign Forces was not the Kingdome Conquered by this very meanes by the Saxons when King Vorteger was in debate with his Lords and People call'd them in to assist him Did not the Turkes so come into Europe and oft the like hath hapened 6. He counts it damnable to resist for defence meerly much more then as the Barons in K. Iohns time to call in a Stranger to make him King if then to call in other Kings to assist against the Parliament be as just as that was unjust it is a high vertue though to the utter endangering of the whole Kingdom whose Counsellour surely it were pity the Dr. should ever be who hath no more judgment or more Conscience or charity toward the publique good then to advise and commend such a practise 2. Next he propounds the Queens Religion as a matter which is urged to cause feares and jelousies Of which he saith It is no new cause REPL. 1. It is true to the great grief of all that truly love Religion or wish well to her Majestie but had others wish't it otherwise as the Dr. speakes for himselfe who have had accesse unto her She had not bin told by a great man in the Church in the worst season that could be when it is said shee had some Pangs about Her Religion and asked of it that Shee might well be saved in her Religion Or if any give no credit to this passage yet it is notorious
or Priest or Jesuit according to his place even sentence of death if he could not avoidâ— it Onely with two cautions 1. That he should be as favourable as was possible 2. That he should give timely Intelligence of any severe sentence Let now charity judge what circumspection almost can suffice against such a generation of Men Or what jealousie can be too much of them that still professe this treacherous Religion And yet all this notwithstanding at last to have even professed Papists taken in against the Parliament Can this be without a designe in them that have counselled the King to it Was it not in a prudent fore-sight that they should be cal'd and admitted to helpe that the Papists have no where been plundered by the Kings Army though others have who held not with the Parliament 8. As for Ziba David knew not his treachery at the first and his lyes had so blasted honest-hearted Mephibosheth that it appeares David did scarcely beleeve his apology for himselfe Otherwise what ever may now be said of his credulous charity to Ziba to the prejudice of one that was not present to answer for himselfe it was none of Davids good deeds to be imitated to recompence a flattering Sycophant that had brought him a present in a hard time indeed with so large a share in Mephibosheths estate When by the Law of God he was to dye for his false accusation of Treason as Mephibosheth had deserved death had it been true But now our Papists are knowne to be Enemies to the Parliament as was said before and some of their Party in the Country sticke not to say that the Parliaments Intentions of rigour against them already shewed by the executing of so many Priests and Jesuites Men of tender consciences is one part of the Court-quarrell against them They are more like Doeg then Ziba who first accused the Priests and then readily undertooke the execution of a most cruell sentence and executed it with all cruelty But Psal 52. Reades their doome And Psal 54.4 Sutes the Ziphims too those of Davids owne Tribe that came and discovered him to Saul 1 Sa. 23.26 once and againe and so incensed him afresh against him Though Saul blesses them 1 Sa. 23.21 as his speciall good subjects that had compassion of him Conscience must now judge whether the Papists being favoured were any cause of the resistance now made or only the resistance now â—â—de was the cause that they were admitted to helpe the King in his distresse 9. But for the D â— to honour them with the Title of good subjects preferring them before the Parliament and so great a part of the Kingdome as visibly adhere to them is one of the highest reproaches that ever was belcht out against them enough for a Jesuite or a Pope to have said But the Dr. how ever he pretend modesty oft-times and respect to the Parliament stabbs them as desperately as any enemy could doe now and then While he seemes also resolved to justifie all that hath been done against them else he would have been silent in this peece and the next that followes about Ireland 10. In the meane time because he upbraids with a scandall that this resistance brings on our Religion which saith he would not be easily wiped of were it to stand or fall by the doctrines of this giddy age I must needs make bold to tell him that he forgets himselfe strangely and the Doctrines and practises of our Religion when he can scarce name that Country where there are any Protestants that have not taken Armes to defend Laws and Liberties and with them Religion even though not before allowed by Laws Sweden Germany France The low Countries Bohemiah Scotland And did not Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory assist them in France Holland and Scotland and K. James Holland and at least owned the cause of the French though he only sent Ambassadours and K. Charles did send to aide Rochel as I noted before and ownes the Prince of Orange sufficiently who yet is Rebell Generall against the K. of Spain if our Parliaments resistance be Rebellion Indeed we in England are the last and above all other Nations have been by the Court Doctors within this 40 Yeares much prepared to suffer any thing rather then resist Yet Bishop Bilson in the Queens time was suffered to averre that the States of a Kingdome might resist vide But it now above all other times greeves that we offer to doe what all others have done before us upon a great deale lesse Authority considering our Parliament continued by Act and its power granted by the King as I have noted before against all delinquents For if they could have subdued and swallowed us up the other Protestants in other Countreyes would much more easily have been devoured 4. The last Allegation is concerning the businesses of Ireland Of which because the Dr. saith the King hath written enough he had done wisely to have written nothing but that word Though I have not yet been so happy who would be glad to see it to meet with any Answer to the last Peece of the House of Commons which reckons so many particulars of wrong done to that poore Kingdomâ— Therefore till I meete with that I must needs tell the Dr. he saith not enough to cleare the businesse nor the Kings Councellours in that businesse For whereas his whole defence is â—in a word that the Kings necessity made it lawfull to make use of any thing intended for their releefe which he parallels by the Necessity that excused the Scots comming in hither To this divers things may and must be replyed 1. The Scots are no parallell for this carriage toward Ireland Their coming what ever the Dr. affirmes brought no such great detriment to the Inhabitants there if you except their professed enemies Papists and Prelates as the poore Souldiers and other Protestants of Ireland have suffered by the actions done concerning them 2. The King and Parliament have justified by Act of Parliament their coming as necessitated Yet they were proclaimed Traitours againe and againe and it was counted necessary to make War against them one yeare and a second as now against the Parliament The necessity then that is now pretended by the Kings party wants a great deale of the justification that the Scots have had before all the world specially remembring all that was noted before of the doings of the Kings followers before ever the Parliament did any thing but Petition 3. Which necessity by them pretended if it appeare a necessity by themselves made will it not make their actions concerning Ireland more horrid and proclaime the designe to be more rooted 4. But it must by no means be forgotten what hath been pretended for Ireland to which these actions are most contrary 1. When the King rode Northward and the Parliament more then once represented that it would greatly prejudice Ireland The King protested still it should not but he would be as
a body together in the market place and be assaulted by such a number or a quarter so many they must not offer to resist but let them cut all their throates because forsooth in the body politicke one part must not be set against the head and another part of the Whole 4. He grants the body politicke may defend it self against an outward force but not as now one part c. Reply Then belike if the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Parliament and Kingdome they may resist them and is not the case so now at least in part but not if he imploy only English-Cavaleers Surely the mighty wits of the Earle of Strafford who was condemned mainly for counselling to bring in nine thousand Irish to reduce this Kingdome wanted our Doctor to have advised him to forbeare that designe and only Arme English and then the peoples hands and consciences should have been tyed from resisting by the Doctors and his fellow-Chaplaines Divinity and must have yeelded Religion Lawes and Liberties and neckes too for feare of dissolving the whole politick body by defence 5. When the state of the Question by himselfe set is when a Prince is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties What dissolution of the Whole can bee feared by defence and resistance against such intentions worse then that or so bad While therefore he talkes of such defence tending to the dissolution of the Whole he perverts the Question or else forgets that the subverting of Religion Laws and Liberties cannot be accounted lesse then a dissolution of the whole politicke body 6. I say therefore by an Argument à fâ—rtiâ—ri retorting his words upon himself If a private person may defend himselfe a gainst illegall Assaults of the Kings Messenger or even of himselfe as before then much more the representative Body of a State and even any considerable part of the Body with them or even without them to save Religion Lawes and Liberties against an intent to subvert them And if against outward forraigne Force then much more against homebred unnaturall Members who exceed rather then come short of any outward Force in rage and câ—uelâ—y tending to the subversion of the Whole and all such unnaturall and gangren'd members are justly and necessarily cut-off for the safety of the whole though their cutting oâ— cannot be without a maime and lamenesse at least for the present I say for the present for new members will grow up in the politicke body in time though never in the body naturall 2. He hath yet another Answer for us in these words Personall Defence may be without all offence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall resistance by Armes doth which cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-wealth And this makes a large difference 'twixt Elisha's shutting the doore against this Messenger and their shutting-up the way against the King by armed men Repl 1. If some personall defence may be without all offence yet not all And he at least seems to have yeelded all personall defence lawfull so the Kings person may not be violated 2. Whose fault it is originally that generall resistance by Armes cannot be without offence Are the Plunderers not in fault but the defenders must be counted guilty And whose hand is it that strikes immediately at the order which is the life as he saith of the Common-wealth The defendants of Religion Laws and Liberties Or theirs who intend and attempt to subvert them all 3. How doth personall Defence if offensive to the Messengers assaulting strike lesse at the power over us then generall or common defence doth Or rather neither doth since the power over us as intended and ordained both by God and man is for the preserving and defending not subverting Religion Laws and Liberties and so defends the true power strikes not at it 4. If generall Defence cannot be without many unjust violences no more is any warre at all in a forraigne Country de facto But as the impossibility to restrain these wholly do's not make all warrs unlawfull so much lesse doth it a necessary defence in case of such danger to Religion Laws and Liberties 5. Whose fault is it that these unjust violences cannot be avoided the Assaylants or the defendants Let God and conscience be Judge To Him we feare not to appeale and while the conscientious Defendants labour as much as morally they can to prevent and rectifie all such unjust violences whether the danger of some acting them who must be imployed in the defence altogether forbids the generall defence to the utter subversion of Religion Laws and Liberties 6. And this indeed makes a large difference betwen Elisha's case and ours He defended but one against a sudden passionate command He pleades against malicious deliberate intents for defence of many the generall of all faithfull Prophets Magistrates Princes and all with Laws and Liberties for all posterity Let Heaven and Earth judge who is the wrong-doer and whether the defendants may not as Innocents call for justice as well as David against Saul 1 Sam. 24. 26. vide locum As for the Parliaments power to conclude of the Kings intentions without the Spirit Prophetick of Elisha I wonder we had not here also that Elisha defended himself by an extraordinary way being an extraordinary person as well as David before that belongs to the third Proposition handled in his third Section thither I refer it Only saying that since the printing of the Doctors book some bloud hath bin shed by the Kings Counsell of war at Reading in a pretended legality So at Oxford some others have lately been condemned with pretence of Law and what shall become of them who knows whether they will put them to death in terrorem to others Or reserve them for feare some of their party should be served with the same sawce Finally whereas he saith the King desires not any punishment should be inflicted on any that oppose him then what a legall tryall shall adjudge them to which no good Subject ought to decline Reply This were credible if we were assured what is meant by a legall tryall and that it did signifie not a tryall by such Judges and Juries as are apparantly partiall or if we could forget that the six Members accused of High-Treason in January last offered themselves to be tryed and the Parliament offered to try them in Parliament according to their Priviledges being Members of their Houses and from thence forth the Accusation was laid a sleepe till of late notwithstanding the reiterated importunities of both Houses of Parliament who also in one of their Declarations or Petitions to the King urged a Statutes how such accusations ought to be managed and conclude to this effect that by Law and Justice this ought not to be denyed And thus I have vindicated the Examples of Scripture by the Doctor alleadged for us and from
though helping them in and having promise of all favour and then at Marlborow and great cruelties to those that were led away Prisoners and this since the Kings Proclamation against plundring and since that Newbury and many other Townes formerly and of late in Bark shiere Oxford shiere Surrey Buckingham shiere will have little cause to believe the Doctors intelligences or assurances that all protestations that come in the Kings name may be trusted And whereas he urges that we may not raise an evill thought against the King Eccl. 10. What shall we say to those men unlesse that of David concerning Sauls Councellours 1 Sam. 24. That at least they deserve to be accursed that force men either to distrust or to suffer ruine because they have power and will to breake that which we would trust the King in most gladly and desiredly if he had no such men about him I have no desire nor will to prosecute particulars further But the Doctor abuses his Readers to cast an oblique aspersion as if the Parliament had any thoughts of contending for a new frame of Religion which deserves no answer so grosse a slander it is And then 2dly to insinuate plainly that the 19. Propositions were urged as so necessary as unles they were granted the Kingdom must be imbroyled in a civill warr and the reliefe of Ireland neglected The fore-named Petition by the Earle of Holland clears that sufficiently and the Petition too that the Earle of Essex should have presented or sent but the King would receive none from him The rest of the Doctors book is but recapitulations Rhetoricall of what he hath said before and an Answer to the instance of Libna's revolt which I will be no justifier of because so little is said of it in Scripture To which I have only these things to adde 1. Though Absalom which he mentioned before and I slipt did falsly calumniate David what ever petty neglect might be in some officers as appears by 2 Sam. 8. 1 Ch. so being a comly person which takes much with the multitude a strange fâ—atterer of all that came for Justice what ever their cause were 2 Sa. 15. and the heire apparant of the Crown might invegle the people into a Rebellion Yet neither is this any thing like to the causes of complaint or suspitions that we have had and have still nor yet is there any probability that a people justly governed should by Parliamentary Declarations be armed against their King As besides all other Arguments appeares by the small assistance of armed men any Country hath yeelded to the Parliament even where they think them in the right in the cause and themselves too in danger to be plundered 2. If the Parliaments actions in all things about their defence cannot be excused or justified specially by those that see not the whole of their actions and much lesse the reasons of them yet their consciences that see the justnes of the action for the main of defence and grounds to believe their Protestations of their intentions in the defence are not bound to be Neuters much lesse to assist the King against them because they are not or cannot be satisfied in this or that particular For then scarce any warre might lawfully be joyned in 3. In speciall for the sufferance of so many Sects to vent their doctrins with such liberty and to commit unsufferable out-rages upon the worship of God 1 Hath not the Parliament declared against Brownists Anabaptists in the first Remonstrance 2. Have not some Sectaries bin punished as he that made the new Creed was he not imprisoned 3. How many scandalous and innovating Ministers have bin complained of and yet few of them questioned and those not fully censured scarce one by both Houses the Doctor will not lay to their charge the suffering of such which yet he may with more reason as being offendors of longer continuance and more danger 4. The truth is partly the multitude of offendors at first complained of and partly for neare a yeare and an halfe of late their owne extreame danger by the Malignant parties getting strength since the Irish rebellion broke out and so multitude of businesses over-whelming them have hindred that Justice which else those Sects and out-rages the Doctor mentions would have found and may yet in due time if legally proved 5. And if he will say some speciall men favoured them in the very Houses he cannot say more then may be made good of others favouring Superstitions Arminianisme Socianisme and even Popery it selfe Yet this were most unjustly charged upon the Body of either House and much lesse on both And when it shall please God that the Consultation of Divines shall meet for which they have more then once passed the Bill for his Majesty to confirm it will I doubt not appeare to all the world that they never ment to suffer any such opinions or practises as are truly dishonourable to the true Reformed Protestant Religion as even in the mean time the Orthodoxisme and Moderation of the Members of that Assembly generally known to all that know the persons may be a sufficient pledge among them all there being very few that are liable to any pretence of exception for Sects and perhaps none at all for countenancing any such out-rage as the Doctor cryes out upon 6. In fine the worst of the Parliament charged upon them with any shadow in matter of Religion is but omissions or delayes which are but Moats to the beames which the Doctor overlooks in their Adversaries of old and still Who have made stables of Churches but they Who have burned and troden under foot Bibles but their Partisans of Ireland Not to insist on their horrid blasphemies which if Gods word be true as they will one day find it makes our Land groane and mourne under them If a conscience comes to weigh these in the ballance with the Parliament let it if it dare be charitable to the Cavaliers and their Army so as to believe Religion is like to be defended by them when the Parliament intends to ruine it I will say no more to the Doctor but this one thing that a sober conscience that peruses his whole Treatise will wonder what kind of conscience his is that Rhetorizes so for charity on the one side and wholly neglects it on the other telling us more then once that though we lay downe our lives for our Religion it is nothing if we have not the charity he cals While himselfe with all confidence charges the Parliament with many grievous faults against Religion Allegiance Lawes and Liberties and Liberties and discredits all their Protestations and Declarations to the contrary as if he thought that as his great Text Rom. 13. speaks only in his conceit of Monarchs so 1 Cor 13. related also to them only No resisting that higher power but all charity to him what ever he doe or say But as for the Parliament their power is of no regard