their power How can the people thinke that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land when the Parliament are the Judges thereof and the people confesse so and therefore the Doctor may be out of feare for this matter Lastly the Doctor saith That seeing some must be trusted in every Estate it is reason that the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and supreme power and that he should have the best security which is worth ten thousand of his subjects Ans I answer therefore the people do trust the King and his Parliament who are the highest power and Court in the Kingdome and if the greatest and best security should be about the King because he is worth 10000. subjects then surely the Kingdome it selfe should have the best security because the King is ordained for his Kingdom In Fine the Doctor presses the oath of Supremacie Allegeance and the last Protestation upon the conscience and wishes men here to consider their power of resistance and taking up of armes is contrary thereto in which he saith We sweare and protest to defend the Kings person Ans And thus we do by taking up of Arms for what man is there that considers things rightly may not easily perceive that if the Popish party should prevaile which are either about the King or of his Armies I say who may not easily thinke if they should prevail that either our King must be a ranke Papist of a dead man Who knows not that if the Papists get the upper hand though now they cry out for Supremacy Supremacy that either they wil force the King to another Supremacie or else quickly make a hand of him Is it not their opinion What better service therefore can a true subject performe to his Majesties person then by force of Armes to deliver him out of the hands of those spoylers that lye in waite for his pretious soule In the oath of Supremacie we sweare him our Soveraigne to be Supreme in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How does our doctrine or practise infringe this In the oath of Allegeance we swear to be his liege Subjects according to Law and that which we doe is so And in our Protestation we protest to maintaine the Kings Person the Parliaments priviledges the Subjects rights and our Religion if we doe not take up arms in this time of Popish insurrection how can we with good conscience say that either we defend the Kings Person from the violence of Papists which according to their owne Doctrine we know shall be made upon our King or the priviledges of Parliament whose power is to send for delinquents and those that are accused before them even by force to bring them into their triall or the liberty of subjects who have this given by nature to defend themselves or the truth of our religion which notwithstanding all flourishes we have seen such invasions made upon and now in our conscience under more hazard because those that are opposite unto it doe professe to defend it whereupon I presume that every good man that maketh conscience of his waies considering these things will not be backward to advance this publicke designe And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others charging men from this resistance upon paine or damnation yet a setled conscience will be no more scared with the Doctors damnation then with the Cavalliers God damne us Sect. VI. NOw the Doctor comes to the application of all in these two fast Sections in which I intend not to trace him into all that he saies The application of all being left unto what men see and know experimentally yet something I must say unto these Sections In this sixth he tells us that we doe not walke up unto our ownâ— principles which are as he saith that our resistance must be omnibus ordin but regni consentientibus that is as he translates it agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous consent of the whole States Ans But is this a good and true translation of the words The Doctor may know that when the matter comes to a scrutiny in the Regent house the matter is to passe with the consent of the Regents non-Regents and heads of the University and though all doe not manimously as one Man consent yet it may be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus But he saith How shall conscience be perswaded that this resistance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States for saith he he that knowes how the Militia in which this resistance chiefly began was brought in with what opposition especially in the Lords House and by what number that at length was voted also how the like proceedings was voted since how that a vote passed by a few upon the place though it have the power and condition of a vote for the formality of law was not passed in full assemblies cannot be perswaded in conscience that this is such an unanimous free generall consent as makes the judgement of the whole Kingdom Ans To the which I answer that by the like reasoning there is no act of Parliament or Law shall be of any force and he may as well question any law that is made for when was there ever any law made which all did unanimously as one man consent to By the constant law of the Kingdome though there be not so many in either House which have been present at these late affairs of the Kingdome it is to be acknowledged for an act of Parliament and so the judgement of the whole Kingdom Then secondly he tells us That we doe not walk up to our second principle viz. that our resistance must be meerly defensive for saith he those that are first in armes cannot be upon the defensive part page 22. and then page 21. saith he who were first in armes He that can number the succession of months and weeks in his Almanacke may decide this he shal find that armed men were thrust into Hull the Militia set up c. Ans To which I answer If those that are first in armes cannot be on the defensive part then surely Davids act was not meere defence as the Doctor saith before for we finde in Scripture that David and his men were gotten into armes before that Saul followed him surely the Doctors Almanack hath not all the months in it for he begins his account only at the businesse at Hull wheras before that the King came in hostile manner unto the Parliament gathered forces about Windsor but this must be left unto mens eies and experienced knowledge it being matter of fact Then the Dr. I know not how comes to enquire into the cause of these armes wherein after some flourishes he saith Would anâ— man have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their liberties Saying further what shall we then generally thinke of this
revolt from allegeance which hath possessed well neare tennâ— Tribes of the twelve and yet in page 21. he tells us of a vote passed by â— few upon the place that this worke of resistance is not carried on with a generall and unanimous consent and yet here he saith ten tribes of twelvâ— are for it In examining the causes of this war and resistance the Dr. saith To speake truth Religion and liberties can be no other then the pretences of this war the King having fortified them with so many acts of his grace passed this Parliament that they cannot be in that danger that is pretendeâ— for the raising of this war It must be something that his Majesty indeed doth deny for which the contention is raised which we shall finde to be his power of armes his power of denying in Parliament the government of the Church and the revenue of it which he is bound by oath to maintaine as by law they are established Ans This is a very bold assertion and scandalous to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with hypocrisie but how doth this agree to the Drs. owne principles who doth declaime against meâ— for their uncharitablenesse in not beleeving the Kings Protestations Is this then no uncharitablenesse in him charging the Houses with pretending one thing and intending another Is not conscience aâ— well bound to be charitable and to beleeve the Protestations of thâ— Parliament as those papers that come out in the name of the King and hath the Parliament and Houses carried themselves so unworthily and basely that under pretence of Religion we should thinkâ— they gape after the revenues of the Church O where is this manâ— charity And if the King be bound by oath as the Dr. saith to maintaine the government of the Church as by Law established yet hâ— is no more bound by vertue of that oath to maintaine that government then any other Law of the Kingdom and as for other Laws iâ— the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale them they may yeâ— without breach of the Kings oath so in this also Then the Doctor comes in the 25. page to open himselfe some what more freely concerning the government of the Church bâ— Bishops where he saith That it is such a government which tâ—â— Church alwaies had since the first receiving of the Christian faith in thâ— land and of all other governments simply the best the abolishing wherâ— of the King hath reason by power of Armes to divert To which I answer First that if the Doctor looke into the story of Queen Maries time he shall finde that suffering Protestant Churches which by reason of persecution were faine to lye hid in London were governed by Elders and Deacons That is simply the best government of the Church which is chalked and ruled out by the Scripture as the Doctor will confesse and if this government bee so I wonder that those that are so much for it should bee of that judgement that there is no particular forme of Church-government laid downe in the word which judgement they must needs bee of unlesse they will hold that the government of other Churches is sinfull and contrary unto the word which they are loth for to doe And truly if this government be simply the best the best hath the worst successe for there is no government in all the Churches of Christendome that hath had so many Sects and Schismes or occasioned so much separation from the Churches of Christ as this hath done There are many Sects and divisions in the low Countries but none of them departing from the Protestant Church there by reason of the Church-government or discipline but by reason of doctrine Let any man but seriously consider the Protestant Churches in Switzerland France Holland Germany Scotland and hee shall easily observe that there is no such separation or division made from the Churches by reason of the Church-government stablished in them as hath been here in England by reason of this Diocesan government And if any man shall say this bad successe here is rather to bee imputed to the wickednesse of the Governours then the corruption of government Why should hee thinke that the Governours in England are more wicked then in other Protestant Churches if the government itselfe did not give scope to their wickednesse And if the government of Diocesan Bishops bee of all governments the best wee wonder that Christ and his Apostles should not appoint it surely they appointed some government in the Church and what they appointed was â—ure Divino and so best whereas this was never counted Iure Divino till of late But if this government bee simply the best it will abide triall in its due time and place but that it should be so good as that the abolishing thereof the King hath reason by power of Armes to divert this is strange Now the Doctor shewes himselfe that hee had rather the Kingdome should be embrewed in a bloody warre then Episcopacie should be put downe and that will stirre up the King to an unnaturall civill warre for the upholding of that order Judge yee O all Englishmen whether it be better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lie imbrewed in their owne gore In the conclusion of this Section the Doctor complaines That the Kings Speare and Cruse and necessary Ammunition and provisions are taken away not restored though often demanded contrary saith hee to the example of David who having taken the Speare and the Cruse from Saul his King restored them againe before they were demanded 1 Sam. 26. Ans But though Sauls Speare was restored before it was demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more doe thee harme because my soule was pretious in thine eyes this day Behold I have played the foole and have erred exceedingly vers 21. Whereupon David arose and said vers 22. Behold the Kings Speare let one of the young men come over and fetch it Neither is mention here made of restoring the Cruse Some other things the Doctor hath in this Section wherein hee doth rather charge then prove but mens knowledge may sufficiently answer to those things SECT VII IN this last Section the Doctor tells us That though Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull to make a defensive resistance yet it can never be perswaded that the King is such as the people must bee made to believe he is for indeed it concernes all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant subverter of Religion and Lawes a person not to be trusted or at least as one seduced to such evill designes by wicked counsels that hee will bring in Popery that hee will not stand to his promises Ans These are sad charges but how groundlesse God and the world knowes
difference betweene us and the Papists in this particular for 1. The Papists contend for the lawfulnesse of deposing Kings which we doe not 2. The Papists plead for a power to depose a Prince in case that he turn Heretick which we doe not for we hold that though a Prince may leave and change his religion the subjects are not thereby excused from their allegiance 3 The Papists doe not onely hold â—â— lawfull to depose and thus to depose their Prince but to kill him also 〈◊〉 that a private man invested with the Popes authority may doe thus all which we abhor from why therefore should the Doctor charge us thus and make the world beleeve that we favour the Popish doctrine in this particular But as the Parliaments Army is scandalized by the adversaries saying there are many Papists in their army to helpe on their designes so is our doctrine scandalized by our adversaries saying that we make use of Popish arguments to strengthen our opinion but the truth of this we leave to all the world to judge of But to prove this the Doctor saith further that by this reason the Pope assumes a power of curbing or deposing Kings for that if there be not a power in the Church in case the civill Magistrate will not discharge his trust the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its owne safety Ans But what likenesse is there between that of the Papists and this of ours The Papists saying the Church hath a power of preserving its own safety and therefore the Pope may depose we say the Kingdome hath a power to preserve it selfe and therefore if the King neglect the trust the State for the present is to look unto it And as for the matter of the Church we turne the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the Officer is an hereticke unlesse the Church have a power to reject him after once or twice admonition then cannot a Kingdome have a power to preserve it selfe when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse the Kingdome have a power either to depose him or to looke to their own matters till things be better setled But the Church hath excommunication granted to it by Christ himselfe for its owne preservation neither can we conceive how a Church can preserve it selfe from evils and errors unlesse it have a power to cast out the wicked officers as in the body naturall it cannot preserve it selfe unlesse nature had given it a power to deliver it selfe from its own burdens therefore the Commonweale also by the like reason cannot have a power to preserve it selfe unlesse it have a power to deliver it selfe from its burden but in case that an Officer be unfaithfull we doe not say that it iâ— lawfull for the Kingdome to depose him therefore it may be lawfull for themselves socially considered Statewise in time of danger to help themselves Neither herein as the Doctor would doe we appropinquate to the Romish doctrine for the Papists from this power of the Church doe infer a power unto the Pope and not unto the Church or community Secondly the Doctor askes us this question by way of his second answer If every State hath such meanes to provide for its safety what meanes oâ— safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperors in or after the Apostles times or the people then inslaved what meanes had they for their liberty had they this of resistance Tertullian in his Apology sayes thus the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand but they had no warrant Ans 1. The question is wrong stated it should have been made thus If any State hath such meanes to provide for its safety what meanes of safety had the Roman State under the Roman Emperours when as he doth say what meanes of safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperours Christian Religion and the State are two different things Secondly in the primitive times the Christians indeed had none of this power of resistance nor warrant for it as Tertullian speaks because the Roman State was not with them but suppose that the Roman Senate or Parliament had stood up for them and with them the representative body of the whole Empire and this is our case not as the Doctor â—ayes it then would not the Christians have made resistance for their owne defence No question but they would and would have knowne that they had warrant therein who may not see that hath but halfe an eye the vast difference betweene the condition of the Christians in the primitive times and ours they not having the State to joyne with them they not being the representative body of the Empire as it is now with us yet this objection maketh a great outcry and there is some threed of it runnes through the Doctors booke but how easily it may be cut let the world judge there being no more likenesse betweene our condition the condition of the primitive Christians then between the condition of private men whom the whole State doth move against and the condition of people whom the State is with The Doctor replyes that though the Senate of Rome were against the Christians of those times yet if the people have the first right and all power bee from the people that people must rise up and resist because the Senate did not disâ—harge the trust and so it will be in this State if at any time a King that would â—ule arbitrarily should by some meanes or other worke out of the two Houses â—he better affected and by consent of the major part of them that remaine comâ—asse his desires the people may tell them they discharged not their trust they â—hose them not to betray them or inslave them and so might lay hold on this power of resistance for the representative body claimes it by them Ans Concerning the Senate of Rome and the people of the Romane Empire we say that though the Emperor and the Senate had been for the â—estructioÌ„ of the Christians yet if the whole body of the Empire had jointâ—y risen for the Christians I make no question but that many of those that â—ied would so far have resisted that they would have saved their owne â—ves but the Emperours and Senate being against them and the body of the Empire jointly considered not rising for them it is true indeed they had no warrant to make resistancâ— but to suffer as they did This iâ— none of our case Secondly whereas the Doctor saith both here and afterward in this Section that if upon our grounds the King will not discharge his truâ—â— that therefore it falls to the representative body of the people to see to iâ— then the people having this power may also say if the Members of the twâ—â— Houses doe not discharge their trust committed to them they doe not that which they were chosen and sent for and then may the multitude by this rule
who may not see how tender the Parliament hath been of the Kings honour Therefore they have not beene willing to beleeve that those Declarations that came out in his name are his owne Therefore they charge all that is done on his counsellors not on himselfe herein being fully like unto David who though Saul came out against him yet did he not impute that unnaturall warre unto Saul himselfe so much as unto those that were about him saying unto Saul If the Lord hath stirred thee up against me let him accept an offering but if they be the children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven mee out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord 1 Sam. 26. 19. Therefore also when the Parliament hath written any thing that might in the least measure reflect upon his Majesty I have observed that they never did write so but to vindicate and to cleare themselves from some aspersions first cast upon them and when they did write so like Shem and Japhet they took a garment and went backward desiring rather to cover then to behold any nakednesse in our dread Soveraigne And woe be unto them from the Lord but I will not curse them with the curse of Cham who put his Majesty upon such actions whereby any nakednesse should bee discovered Then the Doctor comes to the examination of those fears and jealousies which have possessed the people which hee saith are raised on these grounds report of forraine powers to be brought in the Queens religion the resort of Papists to his Majesty his intercepting of meanes sent for the reliefe of Ireland To which he answers first That the report of forraine invasions given out to keepe the people in a muse the easier to draw them into a posture of defence are discovered in time to have been vain But saith he If there be now any foraigne aid comming towards the King as all Christian Kings cannot but thinke themselves concerned in this cause it will be just for him to use them against subjects now in armes Answ To which I answer That it doth not appeare that our fears were vaine because forraigne invasion hath been prevented for we may rather thinke that therefore we have not been invaded by forraigners because the Parliament hath beene vigilant both by sea and land to prevent them But who doth not see that so far as lies in the Doctor he doth invite forraigne forces into the land and so stir up other Princes for to send them and our King for to use them Whether this be agreeable to an English Divine or an English Subject I leave to be judged Then he saith The Queens religion is no new cause Answ To this I say nothing but leave it being matter of fact to the judgement of eyes that have seene actions whether there be no more cause of jealousie now then at her first entrance And thirdly for the resort of Papists and the Kings entertaining them the Doctor strengthens the intrust of it with that example of David we may see saith he what manner of men were gathered to David in his distresse and how Ziba was rewarded Answ To which I say this only how can the Doctor make it appeare that those that were gathered to David were men of another Religion from David and of such a Religion that by the State was counted rebellion who also by the State was to bee disarmed Which if the Doctor does not make good this instance is nothing to our case And 4 for the matter of Ireland I leave that wholy to the Parliaments Declarations who without doubt know the proceedings of those better then this Doctor and what conscience enlightened will not rather rest for satisfaction upon Parliamentary Declarations then upon this Doctors assertion in this matter The other things in this Section are mostly matter of fact and therefore I must referre them to mens sense onely I cannot but observe how in all things the Doctor cleares the King and casts dirt upon the Parliament but still with this cunning when he hath laid the greatest aspertion upon them he retracts in these words I speake not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdom of the great Councell like as before when he had said what he could or happily dar'd for the Kings ruling by conquest he comes oft with this kinde of speech This I speak not as if the Kings of the land might rule as Conquerours and this is an ordinary sleight when men have preached against purity and holinesse with as much bitternesse as they can then they thinke to come off in this or the like manner God forbid that I should speak against purity and holinesse But let him in Gods name cleare the King in what he may as wee are all bound to doe as farre as we can but can he not cleare his Majesty without such foule aspertions cast on the Parliament of whom he saith thus page 30. Men are higly concerned to consider whether they also that are the maine directors of this resistance doe discharge this trust they are called to whether to divest the King of the power of Armes and to use them be to defend his Person Right and Dignity Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this resistance and the imprisoning of their persons for deniall be the maintaining of the right and priviledge of the subjects Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines and to commit such unsufferable outrages upon the worship of God with such licentiousnesse be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church Answ These are foule charges upon the Parliament How can the Doctor say I enter not this discourse to cast the least blemish upon the Parliament Well blessed is the man that condemneth not himselfe in that thing which he alloweth The Doctor confesseth That man to bee subject to higher powers and that we are to submit to them he confesseth also That the Parliament is the highest Court in the Kingdome and it ought to judge what is the Law they having therefore judged this resistance to be lawful if the Doctor shall resist this their declarative power saying it is not law and cast such dirt and reproaches upon them doth he not condemne himself in the thing which he alloweth But in this last clause of his booke he summons conscience to answer upon paine of damnation and I make no question but when men shall have seriously considered his booke the verdict that conscience will bring in will this be As in the sight of God I have perused this Treatise of his and I finde it injurious to the King to the Parliament to the Divines of this Kingdom to the other Subjects to the Treatiser himself To the King for hereby he is put on and exasperated against his Parliament and Subjects further engaged in this war and encouraged to take the assistance of Papists who if he conquer by their meanes what Protestant good subject doth not bleed to thinke what will become of him To the Parliament being charged with the blood that is spilt in these warres with the miseries of Ireland with the Schismes and Sects of this Kingdome with open hypocrisie pretending one thing and intending another To Divines all whom he makes to be of his judgement To the Subjects denying to them the liberty given them by God and Nature and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and calling in forraigners upon them To the Treatiser himselfe who hath needlessely imbarked himselfe in a bad cause And lastly to the Scripture and God and his great Officer on Earth Conscience the Scripture being wrested God dishonoured and the conscience deceived Now the Lord grant that whilst we speake of Conscience we may in all things make conscience of our waies for multi conscientiam habuit adjudicium non ad remedium As concerning the King Give the King thy judgements O God and thy righteousnesse unto the Kings Son And as concerning the two Houses of Parliament Let the mountaines bring grace unto the people and the little hills thy righteousnesse Let the King and Queen and people praise thee O God yea let all our England praise thee FINIS
That in the established Lawes of the Lanâ— we have the Princes will and consent given upon good advice and to obey hiâ— against the Lawes were to obey him against himselfe his suddaine will against his deliberate will so that if there be any established Lawes whereby the King hath given his former deliberate consent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now sounds then this objection is but a false allarum Now though I be no Lawyer and must refer you much to what the Parliament hath said who are the Judges of the Law yet thus much I can tell you as consonant to right reason That unlesse the Parliament have a power to send for delinquents and accused persons to be tried in that highest Court of Justice I say unlesse they have such a power they are no Parliament The King hath often protested to maintaine the liberties and priviledges of Parliament Now suppose a man be complained of to the Parliament for some notorious crime it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Serjeant at Armes for him and if he refuse to come that Serjeant at Armes hath a power to call in more helpe and if the Delinquent shall raise twenty or thirty or a hundred men to rescue himselfe then the Parliament hath power to send downe more messengers by force to bring up the Delinquent and if they may raise a hundred why may they not upon the like occasion raise a thousand and so tenne thousand And if the King shall protect these Delinquents that is but his sudden will the Doctor saith his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his sudden will now this is the knowne Law of the Kingdome and the constant practise of all Parliaments that they have a power to send for their Delinquents and indeed else how can they be a Court of Justice if they cannot force the accused to appeare before them And therefore according to the Doctors owne principles the Kings deliberate will being in his Law he himselfe hath sounded this Trumpet though by his sudden will as he calls it hee is pleased to sound a retreat For though the Doctor saith that the Parliament takes up Armes against the King yet herein he doth but abuse them mistake the question deceive many The truth is they doe but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earle of Essex send for those Delinquents that have beene obnoxious to the State and to deny them such a power as this is to deny them the very being of a Parliament For by the same reason that they may send one Serjeant at Armes for one they may send one thousand for one thousand Then the Doctor tells us That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel for Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Ans I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marvelling For what caâ— be more plaine then that Text 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house anâ— the Elders sate with him and the King sent a man from before him c. buâ— when the messenger came to him hee said to the Elders see how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut thâ— doore and hold him fast at the doore The Dr. wonders if resistance werâ— lawfull why no Prophet should call upon the Elders of the people foâ— this duty of resistance here is the Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings messenger Then lastly the Dr. saith that Scripture Rom. 13. Let every soule be subject to the higher powers and ver 2. Whosoever resists the power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation doth above all give us a cleare manifestation upon the point Ans Now therefore let us here joyne issue and if this place which thâ— Dr. makes the very hinge which all his discourse moves upon be noâ— clearly and fully against him then let the consciences of men be satisfieâ— in all that he saies but if it be against him then let them reject all that hâ— affirmes He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to resiâ— with a forcible resistance the command of a King though he commanâ— what is unlawfull because sayes he that this commandement was given unâ— the Christians to be obedient unto Roman Emperours whose commands were meerly destructive to the Christian Religion and those powers nothing but subverters of that which was good and just Ans That there is no such thing commanded in this Scripture I proâ— by these reasons 1. Because the power that every soule is here commanded to be subject to and not to resist is that power which is not a terrour to goâ— works but to evil The 3. verse being made a reason of the 2. the 2. verâ— saith Whosoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God and they that resâ— shall receive to themselves judgement then the reason is given for Ruleâ— are not a terrour to good workes but to evill ver 3. and therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden is not in things that are uâ— lawfull and contrary to the Law of God 2. The power that we aâ— commanded to be subject to and not to resist is the ordinance of God aâ— the Minister thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good ver 4. â— saies the Apostle speaking of the Ruler that we are to obey he is the Minister of God to us for good but when he commands a thing unlawfull aâ— contrary to the law of God he is not the Minister of God to us for goâ— therefore in this Scripture there is no such thing commanded us to subject to and not to resist the ungodly command of Princes Ob. And if it be said that though his commands are unlawfull yet he may be a penall ordinance of God for our good I answer that in this Scripture we are not commanded to submit unto a penall ordinance because the submission injoyned here by the Apostle reaches to all times and places and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penall ordinance 3. Therein the Apostle commands us in this Scripture to be subject and not to resist wherein the Magistrates are Gods Ministers but in unlawfull commands they are not properly and actively Gods Ministers though God may make use of them though in regard of their place they may be Gods Minister yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not when they command things that are evill and contrary to Law Now so we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action Gods Ministers Verse 6. For this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing 4. It appeares by all the first verses of this
13. Chapter that the subjection and obedience here commanded by the Apostle is not passive obedience or subjection but active for the Apostle having said ver 1. and 2. Let every soule be subject to the higher power and not resist he saith at the third verse Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power doe that which is good and at the sixth verse For this cause pay you tribute also But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and sinfull the Doctor saith we are to be subject only passively therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden in the Scripture not such as relates the unlawfull command of Princes as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things destructive to the Christian Religion accordingly Hierom upon the place Oftendit Apostolus in his quae recta sunt judicibus obediendum non in illi quae religioni contraria sunt And besides the Doctor himselfe confesseth page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary but perpetuall therefore to reach unto those times when the Prince should command that which was good therefore the subjection here commanded was active subjection and not meerly passive But the Doctor saith he will free this place from all exceptions and therefore he saith first I may suppose the King supreme as St. Peter calls him or the higher power as St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question Answ And is it but now put to the question What shall we say then of that speech of Doctor Bilson By superiour powers ordained of God we understand not onely Princes but all publicke States and Regiments some where the people somewhere the Nobles having the same intrust to the sword that Princes have in this Kingdome and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to those that are in authority Suppose we be in some country where there is no King but States doth not this Scripture command us subjection there also How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onely the King The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome and the highest Court of Justice must needs fall within the compasse of these words the higher Powers unto which by vertue of this commandement of the Apostle we are to be obedient How then is this true which the Doctor saith that by the higher Power is meant the King onely or supreme in opposition to the Parliament But I prove it saith he For S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority the King as supreme and all that are sent by him 1 Pet. 2. 13. 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 Ans Calvin and other Interpreters herein is contrary unto the Doctor Nam qui pronomen eâ—m ad Regem refeâ—unt multum falluntur Estigitur huc communi ratioâ—â— commendandam omnium magistratuâ— authoritateÌ„ quod mancato Dei praesunt ab eo mitâ—untâ—r unde sequitur quemadmodum Paulus doâ—â—â— Deo resistere qâ—i ab eo ordi nata non se obedienter submittunt Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who saith thus Those that referre the pronoune him to the King are much deceived for this is that common reason whereby the authority of all Magistrates is commanded because they doe rule by the commandement of God and are sent by him By him being referred to God by other Interpreters and to the King with the Doctor Then the Doctor saith secondly In this Text of the Apostle it is said All persons under the higher powers are expresly forbidden to resist for whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soule in the first Ans That which the Doctor aimes at in these words is to make the whole Parliament subject unto the King And who denyes them to bee the Kings subjects and that as men and Englishmen they should not be subject unto the King But if he meanes that as a Parliament they should be subject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth then how is that true which he saith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is such an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine c. Or if he meane that as a Parliament jointly considered they are to submit passively unto the unlawfull commands of the King and that passive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is so to straiten the Text as never any yet hath straitned it neither indeed can any conscience thinke that when the Apostle commands us to be subject unto the higher powers his meaning is only by way of suffering in his unlawfull commands and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands Thirdly the Doctor saith That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell he thinks wil or can Ans But what then Is it not therefore lawfull for the subjects now to resist the higher power commanding things unlawfull because the Apostle commanded there that we should not resist the higher powers in things that are lawfull Herein lyes the Doctors continued mistake He thinkes this command of the Apostle was given to the Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands whereas the Apostles command in this place reaches to all times and is made to all that are Christians Although they did live under Nero yet it does not follow that the Apostle commanded them to be subject to him in unlawfulls If indeed Nero's commandements were onely unlawfull and this direction of the Apostle was made onely to the Christians in those times and that the subjection commanded were onely suffering subjection then this Scripture might make much for his purpose But though Nero was an enemy to the Christians yet some of his commandements were lawfull and this direction of the Apostle was not made onely to the Christians in those times but as a generall rule for all good men and the obedience and subjection here commanded was not onely to be passive but active which I have proved already wherein I also appeale to the Doctors own conscience whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and subjection to the Prince and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide and his argument null Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed that that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some whom he answers Ans I answer that the Doctor here makes his owne adversary and fights with him Many other answers he refutes also it being not in my purpose to make good every pamphlet but to satisfie mens consciences onely I cannot but here take notice that the Doctor professes against arbitrary
power or such as conquerours use as he did Sect. 1. professe that he was much against arbitrary government But I wish the Doctor would be pleased to consider his own principles as he delivers them in these papers for he sayes that the Roman Emperours were absolute Monarchs and did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily and that they did make themselves such absolute Monarchs by conquest Then he sayes this Crowne of England is descended by three conquests And therefore if one conquest is a reason for the arbitrary government of the Emperour he cannot but thinke though he conceale his minde that his government also ought to be much more arbitrary What else remaines in this Section I have either spoken to it already or shall more aptly in the following Discourse Sect. III. THe Doctor saith That for the proving this power of resistance there is much speech used about the Fundamentals of this power which because they lye low and unseen by vulgar eyes being not written laws the people are made to beleeve that they are such as they that have the power to put new laws upon them say they are Ans Herein he turnes the Metaphor of Fundamentalls too far as if because the fundamentals of a house cannot be seen therefore the fundamentall laws cannot be seen which are not therefore called Fundamentall because they ly under ground but because they are the most essentiall upon which all the rest are built as fundamentall points of Religion are most seen and yet fundamentall Secondly he sayes these fundamentals are not written lawes The Parliament say they are and produce severall written lawes for what they do The Doctor and those that are of his sense say they are not who should the people be ruled by in this case but by the Parliament seeing the Doctor himselfe saith none are so fit to judge of the lawes as they Then the Doctor saith Those that plead for this power of resistance lay the first ground worke of their Fundamentals thus The power is originally in and from the people and if when by election they have intrusted a Prince with a power he will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or as in this kingdome to the two Houses of Parliament the representative body of this Kingdome to see to it they may re-assume the power This is the bottome of their fundamentals as they are now discovered to the people Ans We distinguish as he doth the power abstractively considered from the qualifications of that power and the designation of a person to that power The power abstractively considered is from God not from the people but the qualifications of that power according to the divers waies of executing in severall formes of government and the designation of the person that is to worke under this power is of man And therefore the power it selfe we never offer to take out of Gods hand but leave it where we found it But if the person intrusted with that power shall not discharge his trust then indeed it falls to the people or the representative body of them to see to it which they doe as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince It is one thing for them to see to it so as to preserve themselves for the present and another thing so to re-assume the power as to put the Prince from his office As for example Suppose there be a ship full of passengers at the sea in the time of a storme which is in great danger to be cast away through the negligence and fault of the Steers-man the passengers may for their own present safety that they may not be all cast away desire the Steers-man to stand by and cause another to stand at the Sterne for the present though they doe not put the Steers-man out of his office And this is our case we doe not say that the Prince not discharging his trust the people and Parliament are so to re-assume the power as if the Prince were to be put from his Office which the Doctor not distinguishing thus would obtrude upon us but only that the Prince being abused by those that are about him whereby the charge is neglected the people or representative Body may so looke to it for the present setting some at the sterne till the storme be over lest the whole suffer ship wracke And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us disputing against us as if we went about to depose our King which we contend not for nor from these principles can be collected Then the Doctor saith That however the fundamentalls of this government are much talked of this is according to thâ—n the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and governments for they say power was every where from the people at first and so this would serve no more for the power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey Ans If it be the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and Governments then it seemes it does not lye so low and unseen as the Doctor said before because all the world sees it Secondly whereas he saith this will serve no more for power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey he seemes to insinuate that France and Turkey have no such power of resistance but who doth not know that the Protestants in France are of this judgement with us and practise witnesse that businesse of Rochell Then the Doctor saith we will cleare up these two particulars whether the power be so originally chiefly from the people as they would have it Then whether they may upon just causes re-assume that power and saith first of the originall of power which they would have to be so from the people as that it shall bee from God only by a permissive approbation Ans If the Doctor takes Power for Magistracie it self and sufficiencie of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abstractively considered as distinguished from the qualification of that power according to the divers waies of executing it in severall formes of government and the designation thereof unto some person then I do not beleeve there is any man in the Parliament whom the Doctor especially disputes against or of those who write for them that hold that the power is from the people and by permission and approbation onely of God neither can they for in that they contend so much for the Parliament it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abstract is from God himselfe and for the designation of a person or qualification of the power according to severall forms of government the Dr. himself grants it in this Section to be the invention of man and by Gods permissive approbation Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments That power as distinguished from the qualification thereof and designation is of divine institution Ans Wherein he might have saved his labour in those three arguments for none doth deny
tâ—â— Judges then in the Kings Ans But how come we to this discourse to compare Monarcâ— and Aristocracy and to say that Monarchy is better government thâ— Aristocracy Doth it follow from the word True which the Dr. haâ— said to that proposition many see more then one and more safety 〈◊〉 the judgement of many then of one But seeing he is pleased to say â—he government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still first in Moses then in the Judges then in the Kings let us now diligently observe that Monarchicall government which God made choice of If Moses the Judges and Kings were are all Monarchs and Monarchy the best government Then 1. The best government is such where the people have the free choice of their Governour for so they had in the time of the Judges Chap. 11. 5. And it was so when the children of Ammon maâ—e war against Israel the Elders of Israel went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob and â—hey said unto Jephtha Come and be our Captaine that we may fight with the children of Ammon And Jephtha said unto the Elders of Gilead If â—â— bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon and the Lord â—eliver them before me shall I be your head And the Elders of Gilead said into Jephtha The Lord be witnesse betwixt us if we doe not so according â—o thy word Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead and the people â—adâ— him Head and Captaine over them v. 11. Thus wee see that that government which the Doctor cals the best and set up by God is such when the people have the choice of their King and the derivation of â—is power is from them as I have proved at large in the Preface to â—ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Israel Secondly then the best government is that where the King and â—eople strike a covenant at his Coronation which covenant the King is bound to observe neither doth his covenanting with the peoâ—le make him no Monarch for David was a Monarch yet David â—ade a covenant with the Elders of Israel and so they anointed him King â—ver Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. Thirdly then the best government is such also where the Prince â—oth advise with his people and Elders doing no great matter in State â—â— Religion without their consent and with their consent doing So David 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David consulted with the Captaines of thouâ—ands and hundreds and every Leader and David said unto all the Conâ—â—egation of Israel If it seeme good unto you let us bring againe the Arke â—â— the Lord our God unto us and all the Congregation said that they would â—â— so for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation So that â—â—e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome is â—o way repugnant but consistent with Monarchicall government or â—â—e government appointed by God himselfe Fourthly then also is the best government appointed by God such â—â— doth carry along with iâ— a lawfulnesse for the subjects to take up armes and make forcible resistance for their own security and safety of the Common weale against their Monarchs when cause requireth for did not the people sometime in Israel take up armes against some of the Judges And did not David though yet a subject to Saul take up armes and make forcible resistance It is said expresly 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19. Then David received them and made them Captaines of the Band and there fell some of Manasses to David when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battell The Doctor said before in his Treatise that David tooke up armes onely in his owne defence But doe these words note no more Only I presse them thus far as may shew a lawfulnes for the people to take up armes in a way of forcible resistance against the Kings commandement when the danger is eminent which we finde agreeable to the best government set up by God himselfe as the Doctor acknowledgeth In the fourth place the Doctor answers that such power of resistance will be no meanes of safety to a State but rather a remedy worse then the disease which he proveth from Rom. 13. which I have answered already and from some reasons as 1. This power of resistance if admitted and preserved may proceed to a change of government Ans To which I answer that if severall formes of government be of humane constituâ—ion as the Doctor speaks why should we think that they are utterly unalterable as the laws of the Medes Persians But secondly this principle of ours cannot boyle up to that height for we only say that when the Prince shall neglect his trust the people are to see to it and silenc'd not for deposing 2. He saith This power of resistance is accompanied with the evils of â— civill war Ans No but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre becausâ— some people are mis-led from their own natures to take up armes against their own Country Civill war is from the cause thereof now the Parliament calls for armes only to defend the Country thesâ— make the civill war that are against the Countries defence Thirdly he saith There is danger in this power of resistance for the if the people be discontented and have gotten power they may say the Members of the two Houses doe not discharge their trust and so by this rule takâ— up the power to themselves and so all rapine and confusion brought into thâ— Kingdome Ans There can bee no such inference made from this principle oâ— ours for the people do all acknowledge that we are to bee governed by Lawes and that as the Doctor saith the Parliament is thâ— Judge what is Law the people doe acknowledge according to truth that the Parliament hath the declarative power or the supreme power of declaring the Law the King doth not professe this but rather the contrary that he is no Lawyer nor skilled in the Lawes The Parliament doe professe it and the people acknowledge them to be so and therefore there is not the same reason that they should take their power to themselves in case that the Parliament should neglect their trust for why should the people take that power unto themselves should it be according to Law The Parliament will then tell them that they have done that which is according to law wherein they confesse that the two Houses have the power of declaring But now if the Prince shall neglect his trust and the people take a power to looke to themselves in times of danger by way of forcible resistance the Prince cannot say when the Parliament is against him the supreme power of declaring law doth agree my course to be lawfull so that you see there is not the same reason of both And whereas the Doctor saith That upon the like reason if the Parliament shall neglect their trust the people may call in