a people before there was a King he was ordained for their good and therefore is to serve them Answ So Esau was Iacobs elder Brother yet the elder was appointed to serve the younger and the whole world that great Kingdome was made before man yet made for his sake to serve him not he to serve that indeed a King is no more ordained for the peoples good then they are for his good they are each ordained for other good and both for Gods glory which is most advanced by peace and union so that 't is not Salus populi alone but 't is Salus Regis et populi that is suprema Lex and so highly to be regarded nor doth Salus populi consist in resisting or suppressing the King What saies Pilate the Heathen to them that called themselves Gods people shall I crucify your King q. d. what an unnaturall and unreasonable thing is it for Subjects to goe about to ruinate their own King if they had answered O 't is to save our selves Pilate would have laught them to scorne although indeed perhaps when people go about any such businesse 't is to save some of themselves whose black merits do make them suspicious of the Kings mercy but should they prevaile the effect would shew that the safety of the enemies would never countervaile to the Commonwealth the Kings dammage Some there be that thinke Salus populi to consist in Liberty and Liâ— qerty as they conceive is for every man to do what is right in his owne eyes be of what Religion he please commit Idolatrie and Adultery rob plunder and take away the goods of others be both his owne Carver and his owne Judge and thus it was of old when there was no King in Israel ergo But Sir though some upon a taste of this kinde of Liberty which hath of late been permitted to them cry out O these be the blessed dayes these be the happy times yet you and I cannot but conceive that they are the beginning of sorrowes wil end in bitternesse we know this Liberty is every way destructive and rather Beast-like then Humane whereas this should be Christian which consists cheifly parendo Gods service is a perfect freedome and there was a King set up in Israel to remedy those abuses And thus Sir you see that I doe not apprehend from your reasons or arguments any necessity of such resistance in the case Now concerning the Oath or Covenant which the King takes or makes at his Coronation how that doth countenance a defensive resistance Sect. 12 on the Subjects part if the Prince shall make a breach thereof we shall a little consider First Sir let me minde you of what you yeilded namely that the King is King before his Coronation indeed his Crowne is but a note or ensigne of his Kingly dignity he hath a right unto and is in actuall possession of his Inheritance given him of God before he makes his Covenant on the Coronation day which cannot therefore be supposed to be conditionall with the people nor be thought that he by it from them receives his office with a quandiu bene se gesserit so that of necessity he must forfeit his power unto them if he breakes his promise We read that supreme Princes in ancient times as they were free from Lawes so from Oathes the Romane Empire was not wont to sweare unto the Senate or to the people but they both did take an Oath to him Those Oathes Covenants the Scripture mentions in the Story of the Kings of Iudah were not made or taken by the King if we marke them but by the people to their King or by the King and people together unto the Lord after some generall defection from his worship and service no this custome of a Kings swearing is the Infant of later times it was borne ad faciendum fidem peoples distrust was the parent of it evill suspicion as being for the most part the root of Rebellion was ever counted ominous and therefore to prevent a sinister opinion of a new King it was thought meet by such Princes upon their solemne Coronation day to enter into a visible Covenant with God in the presence of their people And I beleive the custome 's good as a meane by Gods grace to keepe a Prince his will within the bounds of Conscience but in that it was not so ab initio it plainly shewes that a Kings entrance into his Government doth no whit depend upon his Covenant nor doth this Covenant at all diminish his supremacy or derogate from the absolutenesse of his Power no if it were made unto his people as it is not I do not see how of necessity it must make him any way liable to their subjection God himself was pleased ad faciendam fidem to swear to Abraham and to David yet did hee not thereby any way make himselfe their inferiour But indeed the Kings Oath and Covenant is onely unto God 't is His Oath of Allegiance to the Lord and in effect to this purpose that he will discharge the trust imposed upon him by the God of Heaven and earth of whom he holds his Kingdome and this is made visibly in the presence of the people that they might not distrust the faithfulnesse or integrity of that Person to whom is committed by him who knowes all hearts so great a Power And sure as 't is a heavy sinne in a Prince to falsify his Covenant with the Majestie of Heaven so 't is no small sinne in Subjects to distrust a Prince his fidelity upon slight grounds or to expose him by any means to the generall suspicions of his people But now Sir what warrant have the Subjects from hence for their resistance if the King breakes his Oath to God is not God able to revenge his owne cause hath hee not alwayes done it observe stories and see if you can name one example of any King though never so great that brake Covenant with God whom God hath not remembred and is his arme shortned or is not his Justice still the same Ob. O yes say some we have a warrant to helpe the Lord against the mighty Meroz was cursed because she did not Answ Meroz indeed was cursed with a bitter curse and did deserve it because she came not to helpe her King her Captain or supreme Judge whom God had set over her on whose side the Lord was against his Enemies that rose up or went out against him that were so many and so mighty but she is not cursed because she did not resist her owne Governour The breach of our Oath of Alleagiance unto the King is onely an offence against the King and to be punished by him and not by any of his Subjects without his Authority nay if any breake promise and Covenant with one of us our selves onely can justly accuse him and shall we not allow God the same Priviledge by what Authority therefore do you this thing call
Conscience as they will answer the contrary unto God to assist him I believe also that the Authority of a King or supreme Governour is the naturall and essentiall investment of his Person though it extend where his Person is not even all over his dominions yet in him 't is radicated is as unseperable from him as his life is who ever aimes at the one aimes also at the other is the voice both of reason Law and story I do conceive that though the distinction holds good of inferiour Governours that they may be considered as men as magistrates yet not so of the supreme who comes to his Authority by inheritance Hee ought not to be considered of in any notion severed from that of King Sauls Person was Gods anointed In others their Authority is onely sacred and addes veneration to their Persons and is separable from them the man may live when his Authority is extinguished but the very Person of a King in regard of royall birth or unction and of immediate dependance upon God is sacred as well as his Authority and doth adde veneration unto that as well as that to him indeed they adde honour to each other and are inseperable they live and dye together they are of Gods conjunction whereas other Authority is of mans and though man may sever what himselfe hath joyned yet what God hath joyned no man must sever Hence I believe that as hee who resists the Authority of an inferior magistrate resists the King so hee that resists the Authority yea or the Person of a Prince or supreme magistrate resists God not onely his Power intrusted to him but also his wisedome in making and ordaining of him in fastning or bestowing the Authority upon him And as hee that resists the King in his Officers shall from the King receive punishment Pro. 17.11 a cruell messenger shall be sent unto him so they that resist God in the King His Minister Rom. 13. shall receive to themselves damnation either temporall from the hand of him that is resisted unto whom God will deliver them up Pro. 20.26 to scatter and to bring the wheele over or from some other in his place 2 King 14.5 as the Kings Son slew those that slew his father or else eternall if they scape here for Solomon sayth hee that provoketh a King to anger Pro. 20.2 sinneth against his owne Soule God doubtlesse will maintaine the Act of his owne wisedome their devise shall be onely mischeivous to themselves that seek to pull him downe whom God hath exalted Ps 62 4. therefore Solomon well Pro. 30.31.32 against a King there is no rising namely without the confusion and ruine of the risers to prevent which he gives his advise in the next words if thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thy self acknowledge it if thou hast thought evill lay thine hand upon thy mouth Private mens Injuries may be washed off with teares but wrongs done to Princes in regard of God his neare and speciall interest are hardly wiped off but with bloud who ever saies David lifted up his hand against Gods Anointed 1 Sam. 26.9 and was guiltlesse as if he had said can any one out of any story name me a man whom vengeance in such a case hath not alwayes followed I do believe that Military strength and outward wealth are the Sect. 6 nerves and sinews of Authority for by these feare and reverence is procured to that and love to the Princes person in all those who are not able to see God in the face of Majestie of which sort there are too many therefore to take away or with-hold these is to endeavour the weakening of the Kings Authority and to bring the same together with his person into contempt and his life it selfe into danger surely if a King be appointed of God to be the Supreame in Authority it is the Subjects duty to manifest their approbation of Gods will and their obedience to their Prince in yeilding to him the superiority over themselves in such matters true feare of God will make men honour him whom God honoureth and faith in God to trust him whom God trusteth The Hearts of Subjects I beleeve next to the Arme of God are the strength of the Princes strength and the wealth of his wealth and therefore to rob him of these is the greatest theft it is to rend from him his Honour his Reverence his Authority and what ever God hath invested him withall and this is often done by publishing and aggravating his humane infirmities Psal 35.11 but most commonly by laying to his charge things whereof he is not guilty When Absolom and Achitophel went about their horrid Treason they cast Iniquity upon the King they found none upon him but they laid some on Psal 55.3 2 Sam. 15. that so his Subjects might hate him as themselves did and joyne with them against him this I beleeve hath alwayes proved a sinne of a purple dye and is a blasphemy against God as well as against the King for he that speakes evill of the King speaks evill of Gods Law which commands the contrary and so of God himselfe A King is the light of his Israell Act. 23.5 the Sunne of his Kingdome Jam. 4.11 and true Religion which is a light too obscures not that light the Locusts that came out of the Pit were they that darkened the Sunne this condition better becomes Jesuites such as Sanders and Parsons were then Protestants Rev. 9.2 3. A Prince is the breath of his peoples nostrils and his honour is the breath whereby himselfe lives and whosoever have indeavoured to stop or infect this breath have gone about to murder all the Subjects as might be evidenced by examples what ever pretences at first were the issue in the end hath beene the Land was an Acheldama Surely I beleeve that Piety and Allegeance doth instruct a loyall Subject to prize his Soveraignes good name before his owne yea to be glad and joyfull of an occasion even to drowne his owne credit in his Princes service to advance him Scripture teacheth to deny our selves to Honour our King Samuel at Sauls request when he had told him that God had rejected him and so knew him to be actually under Gods displeasure and thereupon was himselfe departing from him in anger yet was content to turne againe 1 Sam. 15.30 to honour him before the people to put all respect that possibly he could upon him as he was a King I beleeve a true religious Subject dares not entertaine an evill thought of his Soveraigne nor beleeve evill of him he dares not conceipt meanly or slightly of the Lords Anointed that place of Scripture doth much awe him Eccles 10.20 Curse not the King in thy heart the word in the originall being disrespect not disesteeme not a disrespectfull thought of a King is an accursed thought and who so harboureth such a thought shall not
hunt or pursue from place to place but it presupposeth a being hunted or pursued and I shall rather take the terme in its ancient and prer signification as perhaps you would have mee thinke you take it as being the more gentle then in that new sense which this boisterous Age doth I conceive by a defensive resistance an active resistance by divers renouncing passive obedience Against the Kings will or personall command if they that maintaine this position be of the privy Councell to this resisting generation we may suspect two things from these their words if they doe not flander 1. That the present war is not principally against those that are with the King as the common people are made to believe but rather against the Kings owne Person Indeed that voice to fight against the King would call together but little money and few men in this Nation nor can all that looke that way hope to weare the Kings Crown but they may promise to themselves a portion in the estates of the Kings friends who if he perish which God defend are sure to fall with him 2. That this warre is not to defend Religion as the ignorant also are perswaded but onely to crosse the King that he might not have His will Indeed the great and onely Controversie between God and man is whose will shall be done no marvell if a good King be in Gods Condition Against the Kings Personall will when it contradicts his Law I suppose the reason is because we must love the Law better then we do the King the fountain of it but how if the Kings will be concurrent with His Law how if he not onely protests he will but actually doth adventure his sacred Person to defend his Law I hope in such a case it will be yeelded without dispute that resistance is unlawfull because haply it would be suspected that those that make it do beare as ill an Affection to the Law it selfe as fearing a triall by it as they do unto the King who would bring them to it But that is not our case you 'l say if you mean that which your self have put I grant the case concernes not us but why then is the position of lawfull resistance now preached do any purpose in aftertimes to get their King into a streight and so force in him some breach of Law to gaine advantage of resistance and therefore would have people by this doctrine ready prepared before hand to aid them against him on the suddaine without scruple well yet I hope the Consciences of true Protestant Subjects will never swallow this principle But concerning the Position I conceive 't is built partly upon that distinction already disliked as improper specially for Subjects to make use of it being indeed of evill and dangerous consequence namely that a King may be considered as a man without his office and as a King in his office for in an Hereditary Kingdome the Kings right to Regality was at the beginning of his Personality they were borne and they die together and therefore not so much as ly Subjects to be considered asunder Indeed the King himselfe may use this distinction in the case of pardoning those that offend his person as he is a Christian he may forgive for he is not borne a Christian though a Prince but those that offend him as he is Pater Patriae as by stirring up Rebellion in the Common-wealth and by shedding the bloud of his innocent Subjects he must punish in regard of his office I confesse 't is a sinne of a purple dye to offend the person of a Prince but true magnanimity can pardon great faults specially when none is offended thereby but he that pardons Againe I conceive the distinction betweene the Kings personall and legall command is of no ancient standing in the School of Christianity Faction bred it and Sedition if let alone will nourse it it hath been already the mother of much strife and I pray God it prove not the Grandmother to confusion but admit it good yet I doe not see how it belongs to Subjects to determine of the Princes will to be contrary to his Law whensoever to outward appearance it seemeth so God sayes Job giveth not account of his matters no more doe Princes those earthly Gods give a reason of all their doings to their Subjects When Solomon pretended to divide the quicke childe betweene the two Harlots 1 King 3. a most cruell and unlawfull thing to outward appearance yet none of his Subjects were so sinfully bold as to resist him in it or to say Thou art ungodly 2 King 10. so when Jehu pretended to serve Baal more then ever Ahab did and Constantine to honour those that would offer sacrifice to Idols and to banish those that would not neither of them were opposed by their people beside the effect shewed that their Wills were as right as their best Lawes notwithstanding those pretences It was once your owne honest interpretation before the publike Congregation that if the Kings Majestie were acquainted with the comeing forth of that booke of Liberty on the Lords day it was onely to discover the consciences of his Clergy how tender and faithfull they would be for the service and day of God their master But I proceed from the fashion or out-side to the matter or substance Sect. 9 of the position it selfe There is a difference made or rather coyned betwixt the King and His Law and the Authors thereof say It is lawfull to resist the King to keep his Law yea necessary as if not obeying and resisting were both one or must of necessity goe together the Apostle sayes Rom. 13. They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation not they that doe not obey doubtlesse therefore there is a difference I have alwayes thought passive obedience to be the Medium or Christian vertue betweene them and surely so it is unlesse Rebellion of late hath tane it from its place made a vice of it and clapt it into prison Reason sayes that by an humble submission to the penalty a man may deny obedience without resistance to the Personall as well as to the Legall commands of the Prince if men obey not the Law when the King forbids nor the Kings will where the Law inhibits neither is resisted had all the Nation beene of this mind we had bad no fighting though the Kings will had truly opposed his Law as is pretended But let them be as some would have it both one you say 't is lawfull to resist the King to keepe his Law and why not as lawfull at least as pious on the other side to neglect I say not to resist his Law to obey him when the thing commanded is not ungodly if the King be greater then his Law we may Nay if to obey the King be Gods Ordinance and to obey the Law but the Ordinance of man it is our duty These two particulars I will briefly prove 1. If
possible live peaceably with all men which the Doctrine of resistance doth manifestly contradict if there be another course to be taken as undoubtedly there is according as I shall shew anon nor will I much mind you of those places where he propounds prayer for and obedience unto not resistance of 1 Tim 2.1 2. Tit. 3.1 Princes and Kings to be the necessary and onely way to live Godly and honestly quietly and peaceably nor yet of that saying ye have not yet resisted unto bloud Heb. 12.4 which not onely the Apostle himselfe but also David Dixon of Scotland and all the godly learned expositors do interpret to be a passive resistance of evill by suffering our owne bloud to be shed after Christs Example in the former verses not an active resistance thereof by shedding the bloud of others I say I will not insist upon these or any other Scriptures of like nature because it will be answered as it hath been already that those places concerne private Christians not a Parliament or publicke State as if a Parliament or publicke State were not bound to do all that is possible to live peaceably as if the members thereof were not chose on purpose to procure the peace of all to settle godlinesse honesty religion and quiet in a Nation as if the Parliament men were no Christians as if by being advanced to that Honour they were exempted from the rules of Christianity or could in their wisedomes devise wayes to promote peace and godlinesse better then those which Gods Spirit hath propounded such language therefore as I conceive how frequent soever is not to the dignity of that High Assembly but as I said before I will not meddle with the power of a Parliament nor do I desire to heare or know any thing of that Court but what is pious and Honourable But the first Scripture which I will alleadge shall be that which some because they cannot evade do scoffingly call our great place viz. Rom. 13.1 2. Let every soule be subject to the Higher power for there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation I first demand what is meant by higher power in this place * Author of the Pamphlet called the glorious name of God the Lord of Hosts pag◠113. one answers mee That Authority which God and man hath put upon a man I demand againe is it onely naked Authority so put without any relation to the man on whom put that must be subjected unto and not resisted He answers yes for 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies power in the abstract or the power of the Law and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more concrete word which may implie also the power of the Person I confesse 't is somewhat difficult to mee to have such an abstrusive apprehension of Authority yet because 't is so Magisterially affirmed I will not resist the higher Spirit though I cannot upon such an ipse dixit beleeve the full and true sense of the text to be The power of the man may not be resisted but the man that hath the power may for I would aske this question why may the man that hath the power be resisted I confesse the answer is ready in respect of his illegall will and wayes why in that respect is it because Authority thereby is abused or misapplied it should seem no for 't is professed in the same page that Power and Authority though abused is not to be resisted where then doth the Burre sticke is Authority subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person though put upon him both by God and man or is Authority it selfe the subject and the person exercising the same a bare accident unto that beeing in it only more separably as pride and folly are in Homine so it may appeare in the same place for saies that Rabbi if one that is in Authority command out of his owne will and not by Law I resist no power no Authority at all if I neither actively nor passively obey no I do not so much as resist abused Authority for why it must be beleived as his fathers the Jesuits teach that the Prince by his disordered will or dissent from Law hath quite lost his Authority and is become like another man and so though Hee be resisted yet Authority is not for that 's fled from Him But by the way if Authority be wholly subjected in the Law who placed it there our great new master yeildeth the Law-makers who it seemes are too indiscreetly prodigall of their Authority to give it all away to their Lawes and keepe none of it to themselves nor can have any save what it pleaseth the Law to returne unto them His words are these if those who have power to make Lawes shall make sinfull Lawes and so give Authority to any to force obedience we say here there must be either flying or passive obedience no resistance whence we may conjecture that those who have power to make Lawes are some Persons in Authority and that those Persons have a possibility in them to make sinfull Lawes as well as good and when they have made those sinfull Lawes they can give power to any to force obedience unto them and those Officers so inabled with power must not be resisted for the sinfull Lawes sake but if hee that made this sinfull Law shall command out of his owne will a thing lesse sinfull then what perhaps the sinfull Law requires He may be resisted and yet no Authority resisted by the resister because no authority abused by the Commander he having uncloathed himselfe thereof to adorne and strengthen his sinfull Law to make that more venerable then himselfe and lesse resistible If this be the mans understanding of the case let us see how by this his Doctrine he must understand the text by Higher powers according to this is meant Humane Lawes and ordinances which are the bounds and bridles of restraint to Kings as well as to other men let every soule the Prince himselfe not excepted be subject unto these and take heed of resisting them for though they be evill yet submission either active or passive must be yeilded to them for the establishment of iniquity by a Law doth make it altogether unopposeable this must be the meaning of the Apostle in this Expounders sense but every faith cannot swallow this construction of Higher powers to be onely Humane Lawes for as he said rightly they may be evill and are ordained by men whereas the Apostle tells us that the powers which he meanes are ordained of God and therefore must needs be all good for God hath nothing to do with the stoole of wickednesse I confesse my selfe lost in that teachers Meanders I am even earth'd in Burrowes and need some faithfull Jeremy to direct mee out of
argue thus with you If we must not by the rules of Divinity resist the Kings will when it commandeth against his Law then surely not when it concurres with his Law not when it contests for his Law not when the King adventures his sacred person in defence of his Law against those that not onely stop all proceedings of Law but directly breake all Lawes both of God and Man such are those that pull downe Religion established by Law that slighting all oathes duties and relations do murder plunder rifle rob and by violence take away all they can lay hold on contrary to Law I say when the Kings personall Will concurres with his Lawes against such persons then we are not to resist him I suppose your selfe will confesse it Or againe from your owne position I could thus argue If it be lawfull to resist the personall will of a King when it opposeth his Lawes as you say then sure 't is much more lawfull and our duty to resist the personall commands of others when they oppose the Law and the King too And if the King be bound to alleadge an established Law for every thing he commands or else may be resisted sure we have reason to looke that others should produce an established Law for all that they require at any of our hands or else we need not obey them specially against the King even sense and reason will make that consequent Thus Sir I could argue but I will leave the Argumentation to your owne conscience Onely there is one more Objection which fell from your lippes at supper against this my judgement which then I said nothing unto and that was this Ob. Then we are all Rebels all that are interessed in this present businesse are in a Rebellion if resistance be unlawfull Answ There is least danger and most safety when mens owne Consciences do make conclusions for or against themselves onâ—ly I say this that Rebellare in a literall acceptation is to strike againe him that strooke first to returne warre upon him that began it and in that sense I thinke you be no Rebells But indeed 't is counted onely a State Businesse in these daies to determine of Rebellion and therefore referrning what I have said to your owne application I will onely as a Brother in the Ministry minde you what in Divinity Rebellion is accounted Rebellion is all kinde of evill 't is the Puddle of all sinnes the Sinke of all villany the breach of all Lawes and relations both towards God and man Pride Prophanesse Perjury envy wrath malice theft murder Cruelty rapine spoile and oppression irreligion and unnaturallnesse are all concenter'd in Rebellion yea all sinnes by all names that sinnes can be named and by all meanes that sinnes can be committed do follow Rebellion and are found among that disordered and disobedient sort of people yea Rebellion is the ruine of Religion Church and Common-wealth of States families and men 't is monstrum horrendum informe ingens cui lumen ademptum a most horrible ugly blind il-favoured Monster quite void of the light of grace or of Gods feare what ever it pretendeth Rebellion saies the Spirit is as the sinne of witchcraft though ugly and Diobolicall in it selfe for the Devill was the first Rebell yet exceeding specious and betwitching 1 Sam. 5.23 because masked commonly with Religion and usherd with pretences of Reformation and therefore it is most odious unto God I may well say of it as the Apostle doth of fornication 't is a sinne not to be named among the Saints Eph. 5.3 of which judgement as may seeme are others too for let but a Minister in these daies pray or preach against Rebellion let him but say God needs it not to maintaine Religion the very mention of the name Rebellion makes him capable of a Prison and liable unto punishment Indeed Rebellion is the Devills sin and a sin as bad as the devill himself for 't is the continent cause of all sin and no more can be said of him 't is a sinne that God hath as surely punished as he hath the Devill I could give you many examples hereof but I spare you onely know this that for my part I resolve with my selfe from these Considerations Ps 66.7 that the Psalmists prayer shall be ever mine in private since I am barr'd from the publicke O Lord thou that by thy power rulest for ever whose eies behold the nations let not the Rebellious exalt themselves And thus Sir you have fully seene my judgement and resolution in the case and the grounds I go upon if your disposition be not altered from what it was you will freely accord with mee or freindly discover unto me wherein I have erred Sect. 14 But yet there is one thing more which I promised in the beginning Reasons why the Authors Conscience cannot permiâ— him to concurrâ— with some oâ— his Brethren in this way of resistance viz. to give you some particular reasons of my dislike of the present practice of so many of my brethren with whom till now I have beene so inwardly and familiarly acquainted for this as a great fault hath beene objected against mee not onely by your selfe but also by others Sir let mee still deale ingeniously without offence I do professe in the presence of God who knowes all hearts that I desire with my soule so farre as my Brethren follow Christ to follow the meanest of them but if my Brethren leave him they must not be angry if I forsake them Saint Paul himselfe desires men to follow him no further then he followed Christ And I do not finde that ever Christ went in that way wherein my Brethren would have mee go after them I dare not doe what Christ did not to please my Brethren I have asked my conscience many a time whether it thinks that Christ if he were here would walke in the path of resistance with my Brethren whether he would say and preach such things as some of them do now urge and presse upon the people and it hath answered mee surely no. for Christ never stirr'd up men to warre or to shed the bloud of one another or to resist their Soveraigne upon any occasion he allwaies preached for pâ—ace Love and obedience and against oppression rapine and wrong He commanded all to deny themselves as himselfe did and to leave their wrongs to God He requires us to learne of him meekenesse and lowlinesse to be so farre from returning blows that rather we should turne the other Cheeke when the one is smitten this was his owne practice when they buffeted his blessed face spit upon it and plucked of his haire truly Sir my Brethren must pardon mee if I preferre Christ before the best of them Besides Sir if I should fancy to follow some of my Brethren in their new way it must be I know not how farre and in all things for should I come short but in one particular I had
stand or no by making an assault against the Royall foundation and the Noble pillars that did support the building and then the Commission to kill slay and destroy all that raised or conducted forces against those who went with the same the King himselfe not being excepted though it might easily be apprehended that He and his faithfull Nobles would be constrained to gather strength to defend themselves did speak such plaine English to my apprehension that when the Chaire-man of the Committee threatned to make such a report of me to the House as should prove little to mine ease unlesse I would goe home and preach to promote that businesse I durst not feare his threats to offend my conscience for I durst not be so unnaturall to my deare Country as to helpe forward its destruction nor indeed so injurious to my unkinde neighbours as to spurre them on to their owne hurt whereunto already they are every way too forward the Lord amend them Pretences move not me as they doe other men when actions speake a contrary language the Pharisees in our Saviours time pretended they were for God and Antichrist now pretends he is for Christ and the Rebels in Ireland pretend they are for the King sed quid verba audiam cum facta videam I must not winke that I may not see Esau may be discovered by his hands and ye shall know them by their fruits sayes our Saviour there is I confesse but one meane under mercy beside the Justice of the Kings cause which gives me hope that God may yet suspend to destroy us utterly and that is the course that hath beene taken of late in casting so many good Ministers and Christians of all sorts both noble and of low degree into prison the best place for prayer and the best meanes to provoke thereto the God of mercy inlarge all their hearts in the duty and stirre their bowels Gainsaying reason 9. This way is against reason for 't is unreasonable to proceed in that path wherein we see all others have perished before us who that hath viewed in Sleidans Commentaries the Story of the Anabaptists at Munster that can deny the proceedings of this generation to be like theirs they pretended the cause of God and against the superstition in Churches and of Church-men as also strange lights and revelations they endeavoured at the ruine of their Governours and Magistrates and they had some Preachers of eminent note for gifts and abilities as Bernard Rotman and others that were assisters in the businesse but did they prevaile and prosper in the end nothing lesse much mischeife indeed they did and much bloud they shed of the best men but the strife did end in their owne destruction So who that hath observed in the French story the waies and doings of them that call'd themselves the Holy League in the daies of their Henry the 3d. but must needs say that the practice of some Associatours in this our nation against their Soveraigne doth most notably in many particulars go parrallell with them 't is said that the Preachers tongues who were for that Holy League did further their affaires more then their souldiers swords and that in those daies it was more feared to speake evill of a Page of such or such a Nobleman who was a Leaguer then of the King himselfe what ever respect was pretended to him Massac of France in the life of Hen. 3. Pag. 164. The intent of the Leaguers saies the Historian was to incroach upon the King and to leave him nothing but a vaine shadow of Royall Authority under the conduction and direction of their Tyranny and as a Bridge to passe to this point they indeavoured to make all his actions odious and intolerable by their false charges and imputations and in another place they were altogether against peace stirring up the poeple to oppose the Kings desires thereto and the edict thereof Pag. 8. But they pretended they were for God for the Honour and increase of Religion the utter extirpation of Heresy to preserve the estate and crowne of the King and to maintaine the rights and priviledges of the Subject yet they swore obedience and service to the Generall that should be appointed over their fellowship ingageing their lives Honours and estates to adhere unto him and all that would not assent to the Association should be persecuted as Enemies to God rebels to the State and perturbatours of the publicke good in which number were also reckoned those that fell from it Let mee alleadge the Historians Expostulation with the Leaguers concerning their Pretences and doings What thinke you to doe O you Leaguers for God for the faith Pag. 8. and 9. for the King you undertake Armes for God who desires nothing but peace you publish Rebellion he commands obedience you trouble the rest and quietnesse of a Christian King God willeth us to endure at the hand of a Prince although he be a Pagan you do it for God whose name you call upon and deny the power you do it for God who detests your actions and knowes your thoughts you do it for God that will confound all those that breed confusion among his people you undertake wars for religion and nothing hinders that more then wars you fight for Holinesse and yet you authorize blasphemies plant Atheisme impiety and despiseing of Devotion in all places you march under pretence of the Churches cause and yet spoile the Clergy and destroy the Churches c. You say 't is for the King if it be where are his Commissions if for his service where are his Commandements if for him why do you it without him if for his obedience wherfore do you adhere to the head of the League can you serve two Masters and be bound by one oath to two Contraries c. Know you not that all bearing of Armes is treason without the Kings Authority that the Subjects cannot make any league without the Prince c and againe Pardon mee I beseech you saies he Noble Princes Prelates Lords and Gentlemen if I tell you that this fortresse which you build will be your overthrow this fire you Kindle will burne your selves these Knives you forge will be tempered in your owne entrailes and that thereby you will leave neither of your selves nor your League but a most pitifull and shamefull memory c. Pag. 170. Sir I write but the Historians words which I leave to your owne thoughts concluding them with his relation of the Lord de Mandelot a Noble Personage of those times that it was to his great comfort upon his death-bed that he had never subscribed to that falsely stiled Holy League but died constant in his religion and the service of his King and I am confident that all those Noble Lords and Gentlemen among us who in that are like him shall when they die partake of his comforts in their Consciences but those on the other side though they may helpe to butcher