being there especially he being desired beseeched by any meanes not to be there but to withdraw himselfe doth the child contract guilt in such a case Hâ—s next Argument from Scripture is That the Prophet reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance First There is much difference betweene Kings now and those Kings The people then did neither give them their power nor limit their power They doe both now when first they are set up Secondly if this be a good argument that because when Kings oppressed the prophet did not cal upon people for resistance therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful then if when people have resisted cast off the Government of their King the Prophets have not reproved them for it then it is lawfull for people in some case to resist He that will harken to his own reason must acknowledge there is par ratio If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance then there may be no resistance sayes the Doctor Then if when there is resistance the Prophets rebuke not that resistance then there may with as good reason be resistance say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression and hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him rather then to his ancient grave counsel the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did but rather seemed to take their parts 1 Kings 12.24 Return every man to his house for this thing is from mee Now the D. comes to his great place again Rom. 13. which he sayes be will free from all exceptions Nay bate me an Ace of that The truth is he vever so much as mentions nor thinks of the great exception which duly considered will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose First he supposes that the King is the supreme as Peter calls him or the higher power as here 1. It is true Peter cals the King Supreame but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man and therefore to be limited by man He may be the chiefe man in authority and yet limited in that authority he is supreame but not absolute We grant that the Houses of Parliament and we all are his Subjects but not Subjects to his will but to that power of his that Law gives him 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power Here observe his mistake Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract Well The King hath the highest power and we must be subject to this power of his and not resist it Who denies all this When all this is granted the D. hath got nothing at all for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him we do not resist the higher power although we do not do nor suffer what hee would have us to do or suffer Then he reasons from the person whosoever every soule There was then sayes he the Senate c. But what power the Senate had for the present upon agreement or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperour by agreement he shews not and if he shews not this he sayes nothing Then he tels us of the cause Christians had to resist because their Emperours were enemies to Religion and had overthrown Laws and liberties To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Laws of the Land be against it we must either suffer or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost parts of the earth rather then resist For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties he must prove that the people Senate had not given absolute power to them for the present for the preventing further evils they feared or else it reacheth not our case for we know our people and Senate have not given any such absolute power We must not be put to prove they had for it is his argument therefore if he wil make it good he must prove they had not And yet suppose they had not if we should gratifie the D. in that thing yet the Argument would be but weak for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hee doth not charge them not to resist their tyrannie Certainly they could have no power but that which was given them by some agreement if they challenged further it was no authority at all such kind of tyrannie as they would assume to themselves the Apostle forbids not the resistance of in that place As for that he sayes that some affirm that prohibition was temporary let them maintain it that affirm it I am ful of the D. mind in that this prohibition is a standing rule As for that distinction which he sayes some make that they resist not the power but the abuse of the power We answer it is not resisting abused power for it is resisting no power at all Abused power is the ill use of what is given to men but the ill use of what was never given to them more then to any other is abuse of their wils but not abuse of their power By Power I do not mean Strength but Authority Further he sayes These Emperours ruled absolutely therefore upon that ground men might resist is for any thing 1. Although the Emperors might use some force to bring themselves to an absolute power yet whether the people were not brought to consent to prevent farther danger that must be disproved when our case ever fals so as we shall be brought to consent to an absolute power although it be out of feare which God forbid then this argument will concerne us but not before 2. What they got and held meerly by force without any consent and agreement was no power no authority at all but might be resisted notwithstanding that prohibition The last thing in that Sect. is whereas we say that our Religion is established by Law theirs was not He answers 2. things 1. Shall the prohibition be good against Christians under Emperors persecuting Religion not against Subjects enjoying their Religion If those who have power to make Laws should prove so wicked as to make wicked Laws against Religion yet I am rather bound to passive obedience in that case then if men never so good should command according to their own will and not according to Law for there is an authority in the one though abused but none at all in the other His second answer is This prohibition did not concern Christians only but all people under the Emperour As before 1. we know not but these people had given up their right 2. If they had not that prohibition doth not reach them in those things wherein they had not Thus his
A briefe Answer to Doctor Fernes Booke tending to resolve Conscience about the Subjects taking up of Arms By JER BURROUGHES THere came to my hand a Book of D. Fern tending to resolve Conscience in the case of the Subjects taking up Armes I find it carryed on without giving any ill termes but in farr expressions sutable to a Treatise that concernes Conscience and the more likely to prevail with it Onely now and then some bitternes breakes forth I shall very briefly yet faithfully give you the strength of it Where he speakes right I will acknowledge it and where he mistakes I will fairly discusse and shew you whence the mistakes arise I confesse he hath great advantage in the subject because it is for the King 1. Because it is safer to plead for the King though a man mistakes but if there be a mistake in lessening the Kings right a man endangers his utter undoing 2. Truth about this argument hath alwayes been tenderly handled those who have pleaded for the King have with courage vented themselves to the utmost but others have been forced to be silent or else but even to whisper and speak halfe out lest they presently meet with not arguments but things of another nature to answer them In which regard the power of Kings hath been raised to the height and men have drunk in such opinions of absolute power in them as they have heard confidently affirmed practised and seen in Books and feeled by many taxations and censures but whatsoever might informe them hath layne in the darke not daring to appeare Therefore well might the D. call what now people begin to heare and enquire after a new doctrine it is an old truth but newly discovering it self The name of King hath taken such impression in the hearts of people that for a while they will be prejudiced against whatsoever may but sound of limiting his power or maintaining our right against it What there is in the Epistle that may prejudice any mans conscience will be answered in what follows Preamble to SECT. I. SO many good people that are come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse are miserably carryed away by a strange implicite saith to beleeve whatsoever is said or done in the name of the Parliament c. to be infallibly true and just It seems those who have not a sense of Religion do not so easily beleeve the truth and justice of what is done in the name of the Parliament This is most certaine who are hardest to beleeve what the Parliament sayes but Papists and notorious blasphemers and prophane livers I condemne not all but compare the generality of the one side and of the other you shall finde an apparent difference in the lives of the one from the lives of the other Yea so it is now that if a man as heretofore were not prophane or loose at least or zealous for ceremonies he was accounted a Puritan so now a Round-head that is in their ordinary interpretation one for the Parliament If it be said This is because Religion is pretended on the Parliaments side So it is on the other with as loud a cry as the Parliaments In such things where I must have regard to humane testimony to what part I see the most that have the sense of Religion to adhere that side I will be on except I see better grounds then yet the D. brings to draw me from it Prov. 2.20 That thou mayst walk in the way of good men and keepe the paths of the righteous SECT. I. IN this Sect. these special things are considerable 1. What he grants 2. what we grant 3. What he sayes we grant He grants we may deny obedience to the King nor onely in things unlawfull by the Law of God but by the established Laws of the Land It is well this is granted Heretofore we know this was the generall Tenet whatsoever was commanded by the King yea by any men in authority if but by a Prelate except it were against Gods Law we were bound to obey it any thing that was not sinne must be yeelded to and that for conscience sake The D. in this is ingenuous he confesseth that not onely Gods Law but mans Law limits Kings power This is a great ease to many mens consciences to know so much And further if this be true that all those Scriptures that urge obedience to Kings and men in authority must be understood with this limitation that is if they command according to the Laws of God and according to the Laws of the countrey over which they are 1. He sayes In point of resistance we grant it must be in such a case where there are Omnes ordines regni consentientes an unanimous consent of the two Houses There is no determination that the greater part present of either House agrees upon but is as truly valid and legal as if there were an unanimous consent of them both It is so in all bodies where things are carried by vote 2. He sayes We yeeld it must be a meere defensive resistance If the King should send any to mischiefe us to say we must onely defend our selves so as not to offend them is a contradiction as for the Kings person is it not the profession of the Parl. to defend it therefore we neede not dispute now about defending our selves against it 3. He sayes this likewise is granted that the Prince must first be bent to overthrow Religion Liberties and Laws and will not discharge his trust before there must be resistance By this he would insinuate that our Arms taken up are unlawfull because the King hath not declared himselfe thus What need we be put to meddle with any thing but this in the case in hand That a Kingdom seeing it self in imminent danger of enemies to infringe the liberties of it may stand up to defend it selfe yea although they come forth against it in the name of the King This is our case and if the D. disputes against any thing but this he fights with his own shadow If this be case as certainly it is then a great part of the Doctors book is impertinent to the businesse of the Parliaments raising forces For forces may bee raised upon other grounds then the Kings being bent to overthrow Religion SECT. II. THe strength of this Section and almost all the book is in that place of Rom. 13. and in this place I beleeve the D. will see or if he doth not others will that he is utterly mistaken in the sense of that place The Apostle sayes expresly Whosoever resists shall receive damnation But he doth not say expresly whosoever resists the highest men shall receive damnation but whosoever shall resist the power Let every one be subject not to the wills of the highest men but to the higher power there is a great deale of difference betweene these two The higher power that is that authority that God man hath put
wherefore God deliver us as I hope he will for ever making use of such a principle It is hard to conceive it possible that a Parliament can so degenerate as to make our condition more grievous by unjust acts then it would be if the power in a Kingdom should returne to the law of nature from whence at first it rose Divers lines together after the objection from want of safety in case of degenerating of Parliament be spends in commending the temper of our government in the three Estates with complaints of some distemper for the present In the one I joyn with him but for the other I undertake not to satisfie all his apprehensions of distractions in the Parliament The man I beleeve lives at a distance from Parliament and so looks at it through multitudes of reports which usually and especially in these times are exceeding false mediums to looke through Straight things will seeme crooked when the object is seene through water that is too thick a medium Reports doe so gather soile before they come to him that when they come they are an exceeding thick medium to see Parliament proceedings by Whereas it is said that many see more then one and there is more safety in the judgement of many then one He answers Why should an hundred in the House of Commons see more then three hundred and twenty in the Lords House see more then sixty that are of a contrary judgement If there were so many of a contrary judgement more then the others why doe they not come and out-vote them in what things are amisse 2. This addes much validitie in common reason to what they determine that they are alwaies a competent number allowable by Law to be Houses of Parliament and they debate and determine things in such an Assembly that is open for so many which all the Countreys and Cities in the Kingdom have chosen to come to debate or contradict as they think fit Such determinations although I doe not say they should be accounted infallible yet they carry with them more likely reason then those who are carried by a few in some secret way Further why should such an Objection be made against the Houses of Parliament that no Court of Justice no Societie that carry things by Vote will admit if it be once set that in such Assemblies there shall be so many at the least there may be three times more yet so many makes up the Assembly so as to enable it to such and such purposes How can this Objection without wrangling be admitted Oh but many were of another mind or some belonging to the Assembly were not present After this the Doctor proceeds to the commending of Monarchy above Aristocrasie and the Kings Negative voice This is nothing to our businesse What though Monarchy be the best and what though the King should have power of a negative voice in the passing all Bils this is granted Then he comes again to his 13. to the Rom. The argument from this place is worn exceeding bare by this time If it were lawfull to resist power abused it would open a way to people to overthrow powers duely administred 1. We do not say that power abused should be resisted but Will where there is no Power may be resisted 2. True there is danger in the peoples abusing their liberties and danger in Magistrates abusing their power He sayes he intends not to lay the least blemish upon the Parliament Yet in the Page before he sayes The Temper of the Parliament is dissolved and upon that saies the distractions in the Common-wealth shew the distempers and the danger of dissolution and what is the cause of it It would fill much paper to gather together the blemishes that this man casts upon the Parliament especially in his last page But that is not my work I would gladly have consciences resolved He proceeds to shew the difference between the Low-Countreys and us which no question is something but not so as can make what they have done lawfull and yet the Doctors tenets right nor what we have done unlawfull He farther enlarges himself in discourse about the evils that accompany resisting of power Still we say power should not be resisted and where it is resisted sinfully yea where men in power are resisted any way there are like to follow sad consequences of affliction But what is all this for the satisfaction to conscience about the Lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of resisting men that have power in any case Then he comes to the oath of Supremacy and the Protestation The Answer to this depends upon what hath been said we swear onely to the Legall power we protest no further then the maintenance of that He saies conscience will look at that power he hath as the ordinance of God True what power he hath that is what the Laws give him we say is an ordinance of God But his abuse of power is a iudgement of God that we must cry to God against and a true informed conscience in that case will rather suffer then resist He still takes abuse of his power to be the doing whatsoever he please we denie that to be abuse of his power We say in that he doth not exercise his authorative power at all therefore he doth not abuse it If indeed some uniust Law should give him any power to do wrong the execution of this would be the abuse of his power and therein it is granted a true informed conscience would rather suffer then resist But in the other case when he doth what Law inables not to do all the arguments of the Doctor cannot so inform our consciences as to beleeve the State must rather suffer then resist Now the Doctor casts up his reckoning and thinks he finds it comes to thus much that he hath found Scripture and reason speak plainly against resisting He cries victorie to himself he tels himself what the issue of his own thoughts come to but he reckons without his Host his conquest is too hastie we are not of his mind I will onely observe one thing more in the conclusion of this Section If any shall be carried away with the name of a Parliament as Papists are with the name of the Church c. If the Church could do as much in matters of Religion as the Parliament can do in matters of the State the Papists were not so much to be blamed for being taken so much with the name of the Church as as we are not for being taken so much with the name of the Parliament For 1. The Church cannot make new Articles of Faith or nullifie the old but the Parliament can make new Maximes to be accounted Law that were not before and undoe what were before 2. The Church hath not a judiciall power of interpreting the Law of God but the Parliament hath a judiciall power of interpreting the Law of the State so as that