needs be done to understanding and vigilant Consciences is but to awaken their memories and send them to their Almanacks as the Dr. speakes or their Memorialls and apply them a little to their hands and hearts To that then the Dr. saith may be replyed first that there was need of setling the Militia When once both Houses petitioned it the King himselfe acknowledged it Yet it was opposed a while by some in both Houses but the Petition was not consented to at the first by the House of Lords No marvell there were Popish and Popishly affected Lords whose designe at least to keep Popery among us still and in some of them no doubt to advance it by the ruine of this Parliament would have been hindred or spoiled by the setling it No marvell then such opposed it who also as was noted before opposed the succours of Ireland till all the Kingdome almost cried out upon them and it with whom joyned to their great Honour at lest the most if not all the Bishops present usually Only once as I remember for Irelands businesse there were two or three Bishops consenting But when once those were outed and the Popish and popishly affected wâ—thdrawnâ— even before some of them withdrew all Votes passed for the Militia as now it is Let consciences now judge whether ought to be stuck to those that were for it or those against it Secondly it is altogether false that a greater number of the House of Commons have declared against the proceedings then have been there and voted their continuance About 6â— and not many more have been cast out for their notorious malignancy and many of them for Actuall Warre against the Parliament But there was ever the Major part for the Militia and so for the consequent proceedings Else as I said before why came not the Maior part to out vote them and set all Right Let Conscience judge The next thing the Dâ— would prove is that the Parliament is not upon the Defensive and then that they keep within the Defensive In the first he puts two questions who was fiâ—st in Armes and what is the cause of the Armes In answering the former because he speakes of an Almanack I must remember him and he seemes onely to thinke of 1642. But 1641. must not be forgotten nor throwne aside as out of date There we finde first a memorandum of the Northerne Army intended to bee brought up against the Parliament By the good then the chiefe Actors and proiectours of it sled beyond Sea in all haste after once the Portugall Ambassadour had disclaimed to Mr. Wadsworth that he knew Sir Iohn Suckling or had any Commission to desire Forces from the King for his Mrs. Service who yet listed and payed diverse Officers and others and gave ouâ— that he was to goe into Portugall with three or 400. Secondly there we find a Memorandum of a great Lord that said when the Scots were once gone they would teach the House of Commons better manners who now did what the list or to this effect Thirdly there we fiâ—nde a Memorandum that about one and the same time there was first a strange businesse GOD will in due time cleare it in Scotland and Secondly the Popish Rebellion brake forth in Ireland and thirdly the Parliament was many wayes threatned in England by Libells of severall kinds Quaeres whether any Acts passed while two Armies were in the Kingdome were valid Relations of Plots against prime Members many intelligence of warning from forraine parts Fourthly there we find a Memorandum of the Irish Rebells boastings of their Partie here threatning to invade the Kingdome 5. There we finde a Memorandum that the King brought Winter with him out of Scotland as he went thither in a kind of storme against the earnest advise of both Houses and after a severe speech made by the Lord keeper in his name and presence all clouds and never a Sun shine day all the yeare after The priviledges of Parliament infringed in two or three things are the two Houses declared to him by a Petition of Decem 1.14 The Parliament guards dismissed and a new one denied though they desired to trust the then Lord Chamberlaine of the Kings House but another was offered to be put upon them under the Command of the Lord Chamberlaine of the Queens House All these Memorandums the Almanak of 1641. affords which all put together make some what toward â—he necessitie of a preparation for Defence at least by petitioning for the Militia to be setled Etsi non placent singula juncta juvant But now no sooner doth our Almanack of 1642. appeare but first it presently presents us with the accusation of the 6. Members and secondly straight after with the Kings comming to the House of Commons to demand the five Members of the House The carriage of which businesse by the Kings Attendants if any one will be ignorant of let him be so Res ipsa loquitur the thing it selfe was so in the sight of the Sunne as was uncapable of a mistake yet did an Answer to a Petition of the Majâ—r and Aldermen of the City upon the occasion of a few dayes after say that the King had no other Attendants but onely Gentlemen armed with their Swords Thirdly about a week aftâ—r the King withdrawes to Hampton-Court and never returned to the Parliament since nor ever passed any Bill save that against Bishops Votes and two or three about Ireland of which what the Lord Digby said to the Cavaliers that came to the House of Commons and how he behaved himselfe at Kingstone upon Thames the Parliament hath sufficiently declared and in their Defence of their Remonstrance of May 26. have shewed that it is evident he did so carry himselfe though it have beene denyed Fourthly his Letter after he was fled to the Queen and another to Sir Lewes Dives counselling the King to retire to some strong place on which the Attempt on Hull hath made an unhappy Comment and another since that surprised written to the Queene signifying what Counsell he gave the King in a Letter about that time which hath been ever since followed Fiftly the Militia denyed for Cities and Corporations upon pretence of a Petition from the City of London contrived by Binion and some few others which was of the greatest consequence for the Parliaments safety and to keep out forraine Forces and this when the Houses thought the King had granted it the meane while the Queen goes for Holland in a strange season of the yeare and on a small occasion the Parliament having the yeare before given Reasons against her offering to goe beyond Sea upon another pretence and how she hath done since her going over is too well knowne Finally the Earle of Newcastle in a disguised habit and Name and Captaine Legge two persons that were named in the businesse of bringing up the Northern Armes came to Hull and one of them I remember now not which but the Papers will
of Israel and Judah for their Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Rep. To this marvell there may be a ready satisfaction if we remember That even in the reigne of the best Kings not only the peoples hearts were usually unprepared and in their greatest seemings hypocriticall and treacherous as appeares by the Story and the Prophets But also the Princes Elders and Nobles were exceedingly corrupt In Joash his time as soone as Jehojada was dead the Princes came and corrupted the King and in the beginning of Esay's Prophesie in Vzziah's time who was among the better Kings he calls them Princes of Sodom and so even in Hezekiah's time how doth Micah complaine of them Ch 3. Jer. 26. and Jeremy in Josiahs time after the Reformation begun Now if they were so bad in good times who can marvell if they were starke nought where the King was rought and helpers forward of his Idolatries cruelties and oppressions And why should it then be expected that the Prophets should call upon them to resist the King being on their side and they on his Sixthly At last the Doctor comes to his maine strength of all namely Roman 13.2 In the improvement of which Text to his purpose he layes downe four Positions and then makes a five-fold Objection and shapes Answers to them all which must come under examination 1. He sayes St. Peter St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the Question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it Rep. But by his leave hee runnes away too fast with his supposition in a double respect 1. That St. Paul here Rom. 13.2 speakes only of resisting the supreame power the King or Emperour or Monarch whereas the word in this second verse is indefinite the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which extends to all in authority in either ranke or degree as well as the supreame as was noted before If he or any for him say that the power v. 2. must signifie no more then the higher power v. 1. which he interprets only of the supreame Repl. Here againe I must tell him he abuses his Readers carelesly at least I will not say wittingly let his conscience looke to that for he alwayes reades higher power in the singular whereas it is Powers in the plurall and the next words There is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God shews the Apostle speakes of all sorts and rankes of Powers Therefore he must take in the other Powers as well as the supreame in both verses and that will be nothing for his benefit as will appeare by this briefe reason If the Powers that are under the Supreame may not be resisted by this Rom. 13.2 Then either the resistance forbidden extends not to resisting though with Armes out-ragious and tyrannicall assaults of illegall violence offered by those officers as suppose a Major Justice or even a Constable or else even one of those officers even a petty Constable is as absolutely over those that are under his office as any Monarch and they slaves to his lusts as well as to an Emperours because the one ought not to tyrannize by the Doctors Confession § 1. no more then the other and the one ought not to be resisted no more then the other by this argument and Text. Now which part of distinction will the Doctor chuse if the former he deserts his cause plainly If the latter then besides the apparant absurdity of it I urge that all men will grant That a Constable and such like officers betweene the people and the supreame are lyable to be themselves punished by Lawes if they offer any out-ragious and illegall violence which cannot possibly be unlesse they may be resisted even with Armes in case any arme themselves to practise violence Also else a few of them as the Major or Aldermen of a Towne joyning together might goe through all the City and robbe and kill as many as they would by force of Armes and no man might offer to resist them by taking Armes against them It remaines therefore that all Magistrates except the supreame to begin with may be resisted even with Armes if offering violence and tyranny And yet St. Paul forbids to resist the Powers without distinction of supreame or other Therefore St. Paul mâ—anes not to forbid resisting Tyranny with Armes But resisting legall and lawfull commands even other wayes as well as with Armes though this be the worst kind of resistance where obedience is due But secondly It must not be granted him for all his bigg words of Absurdity imputed to those that deny it That the King of England is in all considerations the supreame or the highest Power if St. Pauls words were in the superlative This belongs to Politicks and the Doctors Divinity will not reach it himselfe cannot deny it That the King is not supreame in the legislative power Though hee have a negative voyce in Lawes so have either of the Houses distinct Hee can then neither make new Lawes alone nor abrogate old ones Nor violate without injustice the goods much lesse the lives or chastities of any of his meanest Subjects and least of all authorize any of his followers by his warrant or presence to doe so His Supremacy then is bounded by Lawes and is given him be it more or lesse ad salutem non ad destructionem Which yet were not if no Tyranny of his might be resisted But of that more anon But the Doctor will prove the King supreame 3 wayes 1. St. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority The King as supreame and those that are sent by him In which latter ranke are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Repl. 1. Why did the Doctor leave out the word Governours Is he afraid to grant the Houses of Parliament any power of Government 2. What if sent by him referrs not to the King but to the Lord for whose sake all both King and Governours are to be obeyed and by whom both are sent but of this also more anon 3. But grant him his way I aske how it shall appeare that the name of King extends as farre every where as S. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spartans had two Kings and yet neither of them so supreame but under the controll of the Ephori There are also Monarches as supreame as any that have the Title of King The Great Duke of Florence The Great Duke of Muscovy and others Also the Romans in S. Peters time cal'd not their Emperours King Rex Which yet is the ordinary Latine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word he only is supreame whom the Law cals supreame and no further then the Law makes him 2. He saith also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this
Realm and that he is in all causes and over all persons supreame Repl. But some Lawyers will tell him That the Oath of Supremacy is either only against forraigne powers and namely the Pope having to doe here or against all particular persons having authority above the King within the Realme But that with all Law-books intimate a superiority in curia Comitum Baronum c. which is the two Houses of Parliament And secondly That he is supreame not to judge all persons and causes at his pleasure but as assisted according to Lawes with his Counsell and Judges and specially his great Councell and chiefe Judicature during their sitting the two Houses of Parliament His Supremacy then still appeares limited by and according to Law 3 But hee adds This is also acknowledgedged by the Petition of the two Houses addressed unto his Majesty wherein they stile themselves his Loyall Subjects Repl. True and right but still this is to be understood to be Subject according to Lawes and for the good of King and Kingdome neither of which is promoted or preserved by a restraint of a defensive Resistance of tyranny which restraint the Doctor so contends for Adde here what must elsewhere be further urged That the King himselfe in his answer to the 19 Propositions acknowledges that the two Houses have legall power more then sufficient to prevent or restraine Tyranny Which I would faine have any man shew me how it can bee done but by taking up Armes and then I will yeeld him the cause That all Armes taken up are unlawfull But till then the King hath granted the cause legall and just against the Doctors first maine Proposition and all his Arguments His next ground is That in the Text of the Apostle all persons under the higher Power are expressely forbidden to resist for Whosoever in the second verse must be as large as every soule in the first verse and the resistance forbidden here concrnes all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not make these universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from subjection Repl. 1. He still runnes on in his errour to limit the higher power to the supreame But secondly I grant him that all other powers under the supreame are forbidden to resist in the Apostles sence A Constable Justice Major Sheriffe Judge of Assize nor the very Houses of Parliament may not resist the authority of the King commanding according to Lawes But yet it remaines to be prooved that they may not resist his violence when he is bent to subvert Lawes and Liberties and Religion and all Or the violence of his followers even though doing it by his warrant or in his presence Also because he doth so much insist upon the phrase of higher power let me put him a case A wicked Robber that hath committed twenty most bloudy murthers one after another in cold bloud is led away after legall condemnation by the Sheriffe to be put to death Suppose a King would come with armed souldiers and offer to take him violently and by force out of the hand of Justice Who resists damnably now that power which is the Ordinance of God and to whom the Sword is committed The Sheriffe and his men that resist the violence or the Kings followers or even himselfe that resist the due Execution of Justice Let him study on it and give an Answer at his leisure 3. He proceeds In those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell I thinke will or can But now the Emperour being supreame as S. Peter cals him or the higher power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle Thus for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the cause Rep. 1. Doubtlesse Saint Paul wrote not to the Roman Senate nor Saint Peter neither And if the Doctor will proove it unlawfull for them to resist he must proove it from the Law of nature or at least from some ancient Law of the old Testament given to the Ancestours of the Roman Senate Or else shew how this could concerne them who never heard any thing of it For any thing then â—e saith it was lawfull for the Roman Senate and the Heathen Subjects to resist though not for Christians 2. If he or any for him shall say that it suffices for his cause that it was forbidden to Christians and accordingly is now Rep. 2. If you reply that supposing it not forbidden to Heathens No more was it to Christians before S. Paul and S. Peter wrote And if so then belike as was formerly toucht the Apostles laid a yoake upon the necks of Christians worse then all the Jewish ceremonies which the Gentiles were ever freed from For whereas before the Romans might resist their tyrannous Emperours now by becoming Christians their hands must be tyed to have all their throats cut even though the whole Senate were Christians at one Neroes pleasure He that wisht that all Rome had but one neck that he might strike it off at a blow had done wisely to have endeavoured to have made them all Christians and then he and his Guard with him or his Army might by this Doctrine have struck off all their heads or runne them all through one after another as fast as they could deale blowes and so he should have his will in their destruction though there must have beene a little more paines taken about it Surely Christ who came to purchase liberty to his people never meant to enslave them to tyrants above all others of Man-kind The Doctor must goe prove resistance unlawfull from some other grounds of natures law or the ancient lawes of Scripture or else this Text of S. Paul will appeare to have another interpretation even that which hath beene given before in the explication of the Text and inference from it Thirdly I will not therefore trouble my selfe to compare the Authority of the Roman Senate with our Parliament much lesse argue for that power which they had lost about a 100 Yeares before S. Paul writ It suffices he hath not disproved at all their present power of resisting tyranny when S. Paul wrote and that by the same argument I have disproved that S. Paul forbids Christians to take any such power to themselves 4. But he adds was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not only conceived to be enclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and liberties Rep. If it had been before demonstratively proved that resisting the power or higher power did properly signifie taking Armes against the Supreame when he plays the tyrant This fourth step were a just illustration and confirmation of it But now he only beggs the
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
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-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
tell shewed the Kings hand for to have had Hull and the Magazine delivered up to him And all this before the setling of the Militia by an Ordinance or Sir Iohn Hothams taking in Forces to keep Hull safe Let Conscience now judge whether all this gave not just occasion for a preparation for Defence and of a long time after this nothing more was done the Militia setled in very â—ew Countries till the Kings proceedings hath further warned them â—o stand upon their guard in other places besides London It is true the King for a time had nothing but Proclamations and Declarations to oppose them But after he was once gone Northward and the Qu. beyond Sea what did hee ever doe or say but in opposition to them and while his Declarations renounced all thoughts of Warre notes were sent over into Holland for Armes and a beginning of an Army raised at Yorke under the name of a Guard When first the Houses having petitioned the Removing the Magazine at Hull to London Upon a counter-Petition of a very few Gentlemen of Yorkshire pretending the name of the whole County that it might be kept cleare still the King goes instantly to Hull and demands entrance intending as he declares to the Parliament after that he meant so to doe to take possession of the Towne and Magazine and dispose of it and being denyed proclaimes Sir Iohn Hotham Traitor without any processe of Law or sending first to the House to know if they would owne it and after demands justice so peremptorily as to deny before hand all other businesses but that of Ireland and how well that was done we must remember anon and then was the Army raised under Colour of a Guard the Yorkshire men not comming in readily enough to make it appeare a great Army And all this before ever it was declared by the Houses that the King seduced by wicked Councell intended to make war against his Parliament and so before ever they set out the Propositions for Money Plate Horses and therefore certainly before any one man was listed In all which the event hath shewed that they were rather in wisdome too slow then in conscience too quick in their Preparations for defence Remembring also that as soone as the Ship Providence was come to them a provdence indeed to discover what was before intended the Siege was straight â—aid to Huâ— and the Declarations then spoke another Language then common men understood them to speake before For after all the Lords present with the King had subscribâ—d about Iune 16. that they saw in the pretented Guard c. no intention of Warre against the Parliament within few dayes the King tels them that if to seeke to recover Hull and the Magazine then at London and suppresse the Militia in all which the Parliament was engaged as much as could be were to make Warre against the Parliament he ever meant to doe these things and had ever declared so though I beleeve none that beleeved him did or could so understand Let Conscience now judge who began first As touching the cause of these Armes the Doctor would perswade us that it is for somthing which the King hath right to Deny To evince which he first affirmes that it cannot be for Religion or Priviledges and ancient Rights and Liberties for these the King doth not deny REPL. But now sufficient verball promises with such actions done as were noted even now are to secure Religion or the State Conscience must judge and it may a little the better when we come to consider them againe in the proper place for them for here they outrunne their season like Abortives in the next Section Secondly he saith it must then be for denying the Militia the disposing offices of State and such like also the government of the Church and the revenue of it and for not denying his power of denying in Parliament REPL. 1. For the Militia I referre to what hath beene said how just reason the Parliament had to petition the securing it and after to settle it as in case of necessity by Ordinance Of which their Declarations have given more full account 2. For disposing Offices of State it was never desired till the difference was very farre advanced and Hull attempted and Sir Iohn Hotham proclaimed Traitour and the Army raised at Yorke called a Guard And so onely desired as a Security after such a breach and no way a cause of the breach Thirdly For the Kings power of denying it was never in question betweene him and them till the Militia was absolutely and peremptorily denyed And in all their Declarations they never take it away but contrarily in the defence of that May 26. they grant that though the King be bound by Oath and care of his people not to deny any Bill for generall safety and good for in ordinary matters they yeeld he may deny Yet if he doe deny it is no Law without him Onely in case of the common safety they say the two Houses may doe what is necessary and it binds the Subjects for that necessity though he doe deny The denyall then of the Militia only in the case of necessity with other things noted before forced them to doe what they did toward Armes and not any difference about a power of deniall in generall 4. For the government and Revenue of the Church I beleeve indeed it was a part of the cause of taking Armes but not on the Parliaments part the major part of whom in either House never till very lately declared nor shewed any purpose of taking either away quite but only reforming which the Doctor saith his Majesty is alway ready to agree as may appeare even by the great agitations for so long in the House of Commons of the Bill against Episcopacy root and branch and at last it was wholly laid aside which shewes the major part never owned it as their delight Else they would first have absolutely concluded the destructive part and then consulted what to have in the roome Bâ—t to consult first for Successours was Pacuvius his Policy to preserve the Senatours of Capua though he made shew to condemne them all And had the Commons past the Bill against them yet did the Lords never shew any such intendment who were not easily wonne to take away their Votes till their Protestation against both Houses in their absence helped to perswade them to it It can then no way appeare to Conscience that ever the Parliament had thoughts of Armes to obtaine their taking away But I am verily perswaded by all I could ever heare from the Episcopall Party that their feare of this made them who had still enough of the Kings eare and heart urge the King to many Actions which have helped the Warre forward Among the rest I cannot but note one not a weeke passed betweene the 12. Bishops for their Protestation before the King first accused of high Treason the L. Kimbolâ—on and the other five
and then came in that manner to the House of Commons to demand those five And whereas the Doctor saith the King is bound by Oath to maintaine the Government and Revenue as by Law they are establish't REPL. 1. He discovers a secret to us which we understood not before All men stood amazed at the late Oath to this effect for the government and among other Arguments against it not a few considerable men of the Ministry and Gentry before the Parliament lookt at it as an injury to the King and opposite to our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacie and so the Parliament did in effect vote it because it urged men to sweare never to consent to alter the Government which yet the King and State might possibly judge fit to be altered But we never thought that the King was supposed bound by his Oath to it already and much lesse that all Kings in succession would be bound as now the Doctor teaches us by their Oathes to maintaine it as it is by Law establisht This it seems they presumed upon and so thought to have made all sure by swearing all the Ministery and Universities and Masters of Arts and Schoolemasters and Physitians who would have had influence enough into the whole Kingdome within awhile But God laught at this Project turned it upon the Head of the Projectours and all the Party as appeares this Day And so I am perswaded He will doe all their Present endeavours of Warre to recover themselves 2. But in good earnest doth the Doctor or any else thinke the King bound by Oath to maintain Bishops still in England though he hath consented to take them away in Scotland to prevent War even though he hazard the ruine of the Kingdome by a Civill Warre and notwithstanding any inconveniences represented to him by the complaints of his People and the wisedome of his Parliament and his owne too Or doth his Oath bind him to any more then to maintaine them so long as they are establisht by Law as he sweares to maintaine all his other Subjects in their Rights and yet an Act of Parliament may alter many things in mens Rights Are not all Rights of Church and State which are not properly jure divino compromitted to the Parliament the three Estates King Lords Commons every time they meet And may they not alter and change this or that so farre as it is humane and establisht but by the Lawes of the Land The Kings Oath then binds not him and his Parliament from taking away Bishops if they judge them not jure divino and their continuance to be prejudiciall to the State and Church and so of Revenues the same may be said 3. And if the Dr. will not admit this Answere but still contend the King did sweare to maintaine them at his Coronation as they were then by Law established Is not the King beholding to him for charging him with Perjury as in effect hee doth since it is evident that by taking away the high Commission Court and their power in their Courts of imposing Oathes and Penalties and after that their Votes in Parl. hee hath not maintain'd them as they were by Law establisht when he tooke the Oath How the Doctor will answer this I know not sure I am if any Minister having taken the Oath never to consent to alter the Government as it now stands establisht had offered to petition such a taking away of their governing power he should quickly have beene accursed as a perjured person and accordingly so dealt with It remaines then that the King onely swore to maintaine them according to Law while they should stand by Law and not to bind himselfe from any Law-making though to take them away in case it should appeare to be for the good of Church and State And if this be not made good that their taking away will be so let us all fight for them But if it be woe to those men that hazard the King and two of his Kingdomes England and Ireland once more as before they would two yeares one after another have hazarded England and Scotland to maintaine Episcopall greatnesse and Authority 4. What degree of Reformation or any thing like to the Primitive Bishops did they ever offer to be reduced unto which might have contented Parliament and People both if ever propounded in earnest to have asked no more Or what cure for any effectuall Reformation have any of them or their Party ever shewed since the Parliament met to have rendred it any way hopefull that they would bee good instruments hereafter 5. If therfore after all warnings they will needs put the King still on as it appeares even by the Doctors words to fight for their maintenance Let them remember Mr. Brightmans Propheticall Interpretation of the spewing out of the Laodicean Angell And though a vomiting somtimes makes a mans heart sick and ready to dye yet where he hath strength of Nature it comes up at last and proves happy cure Which in this case if it be Christs act as it much seemes to be will not faile to bee fulfilled to our comfort at last how weake soever it bring us first I conclude this then that as Physick is upon the defensive so much more the endeavour to cast up the humour which unprovoked or but a little stirred endangers the Bodies health by Inflamations the like So the late voting down the Bâ—s was meerly defensive and the War so much as it is to maintaine them themselves are and ever were upon the offensive and offenders in and the Parliament not at all Now for the managing of the resistance the Doctor offers to examine whether it hath beene so void of Hostility as that defensive way they pretend to should bee Let us examine it with him Here he contends 1. that the Defendant should be of answerable demeanour to David defending himselfe against Saul REP. But he may be pleased to consider that as all that handle the difference betweene an offensive War and a defensive do rationally maintain that he that is outragiously injuried as David in his Embassadors 2 Sam. â—0 Or dangerously threatned is but on the defensive though he be actually â—n Armes first through diligence and some advantages perhaps so a man keeps himselfe within the bounds of a defence though he actually offend him that does or that would assault him and even though he begin first So David did in the former case invading the Ammonites Country and yet he was properly defensive So a man on the high way if a Robber should assault him if he could prevent his blow and strike first it were but in his owne defence but much more to strike againe and kill if he cannot otherwise defend himselfe which yet is the highest degree of offence betweene party and party Ob. But David still withdrew and having taken the Kings speare and cruse he restored them without demand Rep. True but I have formerly given the reason why he ever
ready to doe all things for Ireland as if he had stayed at London 2. When he had been at Hull and demanded of the Parliament justice upon Sr. John Hotham he declared he would doe no businesse till he had satisfaction in that except only the businesse of Ireland 3. A few dayes after that he would in all haste goe over in Person to subdue the bloody Rebels and venture his Royall Person to recover that poore Kingdome Who now almost can beleeve his Eares or Eyes that any thing should be done to the prejudice of Ireland 4. If the dates be observed of some of those things mentioned in that Answer of the House of Commons they will be found done before the Parliament had done any thing more toward their own defence then when that profession was made after the Kings being at Hull when the King would have ventured himselfe to goe into Ireland 5. It is strange that the puniâ—hing of Sr. John Hotham and the suppressing the Militia the recovery of Hull and the Magazene which at last after many other Declarations perswading of no intention at all of a War against the Parliament the King declares he would loose his life but he would obtaine and this I think Quaere before there was any one man listed for the Parliaments defence should be thought a necessity allowing any retarding much lesse disappointing the crying necessities of Ireland after such Protestations of care for it 6. If the Parliament be not only not so good subjects as the now entertained Recusants but unlesse they be worse then those horrid Rebels of whom some of the Kings Declarations speake with destation enough while the Parliament protests before God and the Kingdome and the world that they have no Thoughts nor Intentions but loyall to the King and faithfull to the Religion and Kingdome and the Popish bloody Rebels who one while avouch they have the Kings authority for what they have done another while seeme to renounce him and to intend a new King But alwayes professe to intend the extirpation of the Brittish Nation and Protestant Religion in that Kingdome and then to come over into England to fight against the Parliament and Puritans and Protestants here If I say the Parliament be not worse then the Irish Traitours it is a prodegy that any necessity can be thought sufficient to doe such and so many acts as that Declaration of the House of Commons mentions or almost any one of them to the woefull prejudice of that bleeding Kingdome and great incouragement of the bloody Rebels It would be too long to insist on every particular which if a man would Rhetorically and but justly amplifie he might astonish all men how the former Protestations and those actions could agree and what necessity could be pretended for some of them as entertaining Irish Rebels c. vide 7. Unto all which adde but this as a corrollary that the whole is a most unhappy verification of that which at the first breaking out of the Rebellion was related as spoken from the Rebels that they had a considerable Party in England in the very Parliament and the Court and that they doubted not but to find us so much work at home as we should have no leisure to send succours to the Protestants there Nor can I forget what I heard a few dayes before the Irish Rebellion brake out that a Steward of a Popish great Lord disswading a Church-warden from obeying the Order of the House of Commons about taking away Idolatrous Pictures c. Bidds him not be too hasty for before a Moneth were at an end he should see great alteration and so it appeared though blessed be God not yet to the full of their hopes Lay now all these things together which the Dr. hath instanced in and forced this descant upon with those in the former Section and then let all consciences exercise their most unpartiall judgement and most ample charity and then suspect in whom the designe hath bin and is which hath necessitated the other party to take Armes to defend themselves and then let them say Amen to an Application of two Stories of Scriptures one of Jotham to the men of Shechem If you have done faithfully c. then rejoyce and â—et your party rejoyce but if not then fire come forth and devoure c. The other of Solomon concerning Abner and Amasa's bloud let it rest on the head of Joab c. but upon David and upon his house and upon his Throne let there be peace from the Lord for ever and let I say all that love God and the King and Justice and Truth say Amen But the Doctor will have us consider what the King hath done to exempt these scruples of feares and jealousies from the peoples minds Which in summe are the passing of Bils this Parliament and protestations for Religion Priviledges of Parliament Laws and Liberties For the first of these what are they worth in ill times and under ill Judges if once the Militia and the Navy be surrendred and this Parliament dissolved what did magna Charta the Petition of Right Articles of Religion serve to prevent all the illegalities and innovations upon Church and State before this Parliament or what did all the Laws and Priviledges of Scotland serve them for If suspected Councellours and followers be still about the King and favoured by him where shall be a security to take away these feares Also for the other What have Protestations prevailed to prevent former danger That unparallel'd danger to the House of COMMONS and the whole Kingdome by his comming into the House with such Followers waiting at the doors so weaponed so behaving themselvs and speaking then and since was it not the very day after his Message denying them the Guard they desired and protesting toward the close We do ingage unto you solemnly the word of a King that the security of all and every one of you from violence is and shall ever be as much Our care as the preservation of Vs and Our Children And how did all men judge that beleeved the Protestations set out at Yorke a while that no war was intended against the Parliament till some strength gotten as was noted before under the name of a Guard out of Yorke-shiere and more endeavoured by Agents in severall parts of the Kingdom and hoped for from beyond Sea altered the language and the face of things till it came to the present extremities Also whatever the Doctors Informations were at the time he was penning his clause of applauding the Kings excellent moderation amidst the pressures and extremities of warr shewing what respect he hath to the Property and Liberty of the Subject whosoever remembers what all but wilfully ignorant or altogether carelesse know of taking away armes from the Countries along to Chester and backe afterward the plundering of Banbury notwithstanding the Kings promise to the contrary and Abington Reading but most specially Brainford and Kingston
SCRIPTURE AND REASON PLEADED FOR DEFENSIVE ARMES OR The whole Controversie about SUBjECTS taking up ARMES WHEREIN Besides other Pamphlets an Answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes Booke entituled Resolving of Conscience c. The Scriptures alleadged are fully satisfied The rationall Discourses are weighed in the ballance of right reason Matters of fact concerning the present differences are examined Published by divers Reverend and Learned Divines IT is this fourteenth day of Aprill 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of COMMONS in Parliament concerning Printing That this Booke entituled Scripture and Reason pleaded for Defensive Armes be Printed by Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith JOHN WHITE LONDON Printed for Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith at the Signe of the three Golden Lions neare the Royall-Exchange M.DC.XLIII To the READER T Is a bitter Controversie that our poore sinfull Nation is fallen upon wherein not onely Armes are ingaged against Arms but Bookes written against Bookes and Conscience pretended against Conscience In this perplexed condition What shall the people doe What shall they resolve They expect to receive Councell from Divines who though it be a mixt Argument are most likely to settle them And they have great reason to doe it for the truth is The world takes sufficient notice that the Cause as it now stands hath many Divines strongly ingaged unto it on either side and that their Resolutions have had a great Influence upon it and upon the people We know upon whom Doctor Ferne layes the burthen when he saith Many in the simplicity of their hearts have been wrought upon by such as misled them But we pleade in the words of the great Apostle That our rejoycing is this that in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisdome but by the grace of God we have had our conversation to the world and more abundantly towards our Congregations To whom wee appeale and to our Sermons preached among them whether wee have taught any thing but humble and holy obedience to all just and lawfull authority sincere love and constant maintenance of the Truth What is it that We may be suspected of What Designes may we be thought to carry on What Interesses What ends What is it that Wee hold deare unto us but the Gospell of our Lord but the soules of our people Did we make a gaine of them Did Titus make a gaine of you Thinke you that wee excuse our selves Wee speake before God in Christ 'T is not a new thing to be challeng'd as Seditious as Tertullus accused Paul To be hurtfull unto Kings aâ—d Provinces as Rehum and others wrote against the Jewes To be setters forth of new Doctrines as the Epicureans blasphemed that chosen vessell But our witnesse is with God and in our consciences and before the people in our preaching and in our conversation That we are not the troublers of Israel That we pray for the Peace of our King and that we seeke the wellfare of our Nation and that we teach no new no other Doctrine then what the Scriptures confirme as this Treatise will fully shew Theâ— what our King himselfe hath allowed in his clearing our Brethren of Scotland by Proclamation when they had Covenanted and taken up Armes then what our State hath formerly favoured in yeelding ayde to Rochell Then what other Churches Scotland the French Protestants the united Provinces and great Divines have given suffâ—â—ge unto And as for the State of this Kingdome in the very Constitution of it The Case is yet clearer King James himselfe blamed a Bishop for a right-Court-Sermon that hee preached before Him and the House of Peeres That hee had not distinguish'd well betweene a King at large and the King of England And in a manner even all the points of the present difference might be answered against the King by the King Himselfe in His Majesties Answer to the nineteene Propositions pag. 17 18 19 20. Which wee desire the Readers seriously againe to peruse as out of which a politicall Catechisme might be drawne to instruct the people just so as wee have instructed them To conclude After the Kingdome hath duely considered the many provocations it hath had which will appeare by the Remonstrances Declarations and Votes of Parliament The Noâ—successe of other Remedies as namely frequent Petitions and Treaties and hath read this following Discourse with a minde not prejudiced We hope that this present Action of Parliament will stand justified and our Judgement and Consciences cleare Especially after this our Protestation That wee seeke nothing but the Truth and to the Truth if others can convince us we are resolved to yeeld SCRIPTVRE AND REASON PLEADED For Defensive Armes SECT I. The Question rightly stated THe Question which the Doctor hath propounded as necessary to be scanned is thus exprest Whether if any King will not discharge his Trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Subjects may take up Armes and Resist He maintaines the negative and his principall place of strength is Rom. 13.2 Whosoever resists shall receive to themselves damnation This he interprets of resisting the higher power mentioned ver 1. by which he understands the King or Supreame and the resisting a resisting by Armes But it seemes to me however he make a shew of distinct handling his matter that he either carelesly or sophistically confounds things which ought to have been more distinctly exprest by one that truly desired to have resolved consciences in so weighty a cause as forbearing to defend Religion Laws and Liberties when they are all in danger of subversion To which purpose I shall make bold to propound divers considerations towards a better clearing of the true state of the question and the strength of his proofes for it 1. It cannot be imagined that a King who is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties meanes to doe this by a meere personall strength For which no Sampson-like strength would suffice but by the assistance of others whether men in office and trusted with the civill Sword under him if he can draw them into his designe or by the souldiery ordinary or extraordinary and that not in one part of the Kingdome but in severall parts as fast as he can get instruments for his turn 2. Here then will come divers questions belonging to the case 1. Whether the resisting by Armes the illegall attempts of an under Officer of Justice suppose a Major or Sheriffe though armed with Commission under the Kings hand or seale be a resisting of the higher power and damnable 2. Whether the resisting a Captaine of the Souldiery comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men though he also have a like Commission from the King be a resisting of the King and so forbidden Both these where the King is not present but in another part of the Kingdome 3. It will be further questioned in case he should grant resistance lawfull thus farr
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
to averre and very hard to prove that the Emperours were or any other Princes are absolute Monarks under whom there is a government by written Lawes as among the Romans were the 12. Tables and many other Lawes But I adde that no Prince can be an absolute Monarch to have power over mens lives at his pleasure or over the chastity of any at all He can have no power but according to the Ordinance of God Now it is certaine God never ordaines any such Arbitrary or iniurious power Therfore no Monarch hath any such de jure As for that any hath de facto as he speakes of the Emperours ruling absolutely or arbitrarily If they did so as they oft did for evill I have formerly shewed and he hath not refelled it that they might have been resisted 2. What he speakes of their becomeing Monarchs touches not our case at all For however he insinuates Who ever hath soberly written for defence and resistance against Tyrranny doth not plead any right in the people of this Land against the succession of this Crown But though the King and his rightfull succcessions ought still to hold the Crown This forbids not a necessary defence against their unjust violences when ever they shall use them 3. Yet withall I add that though so long as there was any in the Roman State who had not by Oath or the like exprest their consent to the usurpation of the Roman Emperours they were free to have thrust them out againe or rather bound to have done it and restore the Senate to their lost authority yet when any have with the generality yeelded to the change of an Aristocracy wherein no man hath personall right of succession into a Monarchy they and specially the posterity of those that have so yeelded are from thenceforth for ever bound to that government according to just and equall Lawes already in being or to be made hereafter even by the Monarke alone if they have trusted him with it alone But never can they lose their right no not by their owne consent of just defence of Chastities or of their lives untill they forfeit them by their misbehaviour against some just Lawes or other 4. As therefore the Doctor disclaimes the pleading for an arbitrary power such as Conquerours use in this crowne so if he can plead no better against resisting our Kings then he hath in the case of the Roman Emperours he will merit but small reward for his paines But for that viderit ipse 5. I come to his last objection That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law but the Religion contended is establisht by Law Hee answers two things First Is the Religion establisht denyed to any that now fight for it c. REPL. This with the rest belongs to matter of fact in the third Proposition and seventh Proposition Thither I referre it that I may not say over needlesly the same things or say but a little here or that which hee will needs make necessary to say a great deale more then I desire Secondly the prohibition saith hee not only concernes Christians but all the people under those Emperors and not only Religion was persecuted but liberties also lost the people and Senate were enslaved by edicts and Lawes then inforced upon them and they according to the principles of these dayes might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition and the Laws then forced upon them or else the State as they usually say had not means to provide for its safety Thus one fancy of theirs thwarts another because both are groundlesse REPL. 1. Wheâ—her the Christian Religion being condemned by law then did deny them resistance in its selfe I shall perhaps give him account in another place Meane time he cannot deny but the difference is very great betweene a Right to defend that which the Law defends and that which the Law punishes Secondly I have proved that the prohibition of resisting Tyranny by armes did not concerne the Heathen Romanes and therefore not the Christians neither Thirdly what ever liberties were lost and new Lawes enforced yet so long and so farre as the Emperours ruled by the Lawes the people and Senate were in no such slavery that they needed resist to save the State But when they used lawlesse violences according to their lusts neither the Lawes nor the Apostle prohibited a defensive resistance So that although Christians might not defend their Religion against Law yet he hath brought nothing to shew they may not defend it when the Law hath establisht it But of the meanes of safety in state he will speake more anon and so will I. And now I shall oppose his conclusion wiâ—h a little change of his words Hitherto of Scripture which how strong so ever it seems against resisting tyranny by Armes yet saith nothing at all to prohibit it rather the Reasons forbidding resistance of just power legally administred favour this resistance of Tyranny as hath bin shewed By which conscience will clearely see that according to the examples of David and Elisha and the rest that have been justified it hath cleare warrant for such resistance of Tyranny notwithstanding all the Dr. hath alleadged to the contrary Now let us see what Reason can enforce SECT III. I Have been so large in refuting his strength from Scripture that I need not spend a like proportion upon the rest and so shall I forbear such a Syllabicall REPLY as I have made to his former SECTION I shall here only touch Materiall Passages the rather becouse of other paines upon the following SECTIONS Our Dr. examines the Fundamentalls of this Government as hee saith though hee after urge that the Fundamentalls talked of are asserted common to all Governments which is true of that which this â—ECTION maintaines Power being Originally from the people at the first Upon this hee descants and meddles not with any particular fundamentalls of our State which indeed is a more proper businesse for Lawyers and Statists then Divines except the peoples right is now in the two Houses of Parliament the representative bodie of the People I will therefore keep only to what he saith and not meddle much with our State in Speciall For if the power of Râ—sistance belong to all States in time of need by the common Fundamentalls of all States it will be reason enough to prove it so in ours And whereas he saith that the Fundamentalls must have a correspondencie with the established Lawes I grant it in a right Sense that is that the Lawes must flow from those Principles which are transcendents to all particular Lawes but not if hee meane that they must be ever limited by particular Lawes In Nature the safetie of the Universe is the Fundamentall of the Harmony of the Elements and the power and inclination of each Creature towards its preservation Yâ—t this Fundamentall is not limited by the particular inclinations of Creatures which as himselfe told us above give way to the safetie of the
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