Section I.

THe Doctor saith, That in the proposition or principle, by the word resi­stance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command, but a rising in armes a forcible resistance: this though cleare in the question, yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Di­vines [Page 6] of this Kingdom, and upon all those that appear for the King in this cause. Gubernat [...] res ergo in [...]is rebus quae cum de­calog [...] & justis legi­bus pugnant nihil juris aut immu­nitatis ha­bent p [...]ae caeteris ho­minibus privatis; & perpretran­tes id quod malum est, Coguntur tam metue­re ordinati­onem Dei gladium prestante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordi­ [...]asse & in­stituisse po­testatem il­lam gladio defendendi bonum▪ & puniendi malum, & praecipit ut omnis ani­ma (& sic ipsi guber n [...]ores▪ tali Dei ordina­tioni fit sub­jecta, hoc est obligat ad sacien­ [...]m bonum si velit de­fendi ist a. Dei ordina­tione & non ob sua facino [...]a impia puni­ri. Magde­burgensis cent. 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod a [...] ­tem ad nos proprie per­tiner possum enume­rare duode­cim aut etiam am­plius reges qui ob sce­lera & flagi­tia aut in perpetuum carcetem sūt damnati, aut exilio vel morte vo­luntaria ju­stas scelerū poenas fu­gerant nos autemid contendi­mus popu­lum a quo reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vindicant regibus ess [...] potentiorē: Ius (que) idem in cos ha­bere multi­tudinem quod illi in singulos a multitudine habent, B [...] de Gub: Regni apud Sco [...]os.

Here the Dr. would insinuate in the very entrance of his book (that so he might the better captare benevolentiam, curry favour for the matter of his discourse following.) That the Divines of England are of his judge­ment. But if they be so, surely their judgement is lately changed: But indeed what Divines are of his judgement? not the Divines of Germany, not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches, not the Divines of Geneva, not of Scotland, not of Holland, not of England.

Not the Divines of Germany, who say thus: Governours therefore in such things that are repugnant to the Law of God, have no power or immunity above other private men, & they themselves commanding that which is evill, have no power or immunity above other private men, and they themselves comman­ding that which is evill, are as much bound to feare the ordinance of God, bea­ring the sword for the punishment of vice as other private men. For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. saith, that God did institute and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good, and punishing that which is evill, and he commands that every soule (and so the Governours themselves) would bee subject to this ordi­nance of God that is bound to doe good, if they would be defended by this ordi­nance of God, and not by their wicked deeds, make themselves liable to punish­ment.

Not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches; witnesse their taking up of armes for the defence of themselves at Rochell.

Not the Divines of Geneva: For as Calvin in the 4. book of his insti­tutions chap. 10. saith thus: For though the correcting of unbridled govern­ment be revengement of the Lord, let us not by and by think that it is committed to us, to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and suffer; I speak alway of private men, for if there be at this time any Magistrates in the behalfe of the people (such as in old time were the Ephori that were set a­gainst the Kings of Lacedemonia, or the tribuner of the people against the Roman Consuls, or the Demarchy against the Senate at Athens, and the same power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal assemblies) I do so not for­bid them according to their office to withstand the outraging licentiousnesse of Kings, that I affirm, if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty, their dissembling is not without wicked breach of faith, because they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themselves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God.

Not the Divines of Holland, for we know what their practise is to­wards the King of Spaine.

Not the Divines of Scotland: for Buca [...]an saith: for I can number [Page 7] twelve, [...]r more Kings among our selves, who for their sinne and wickednesse were either cast into prison during their life, or else eschewed the punishment by banish­ment. But this is that which we contend for, that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater then the Kings, and the whole mul­titude have the same power over them, as they have over particular men out of the multitude, witnesse also their late taking up armes when they came into England, which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebel­lion.

Not our English Divines, whose judgement Dr. Willet was acquain­ted with as well as our present Dr. who saith thus: Touching the point of resistance certaine differences are to be observed: for when there is an extraordi­nary calling (as in the time of the Judges) or when the Kingdome is usurped without any right, as by Athalia, or when the land is invaded by forraigne ene­mies, as▪ in the time of Maccabees, or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany, in all these cases then is least question of resistance to be made by the generall Councell of the States, yet where none of these concur, God forbid that the Church and Common-wealth should be left without remedy, the former conditions (viz. those alledged by Pareus) observed, when havock is made of the Common-wealth, or the Church and Religion. Thus also Doctor Bilson (whose booke was allowed by publicke authority and printed at Oxford) speakes: If a Prince should goe about to subject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme, or change the forme of the Common-weale from Empery to Tyranny, or neglect the lawes established by common consent of Pr. and people to execute his owne pleasure in these and other cases which might be named: if the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend their ancient and acoustomed liberties, regi­ments and lawes, they may not well be accounted rebells. And the title of that page is, the Law sometimes permits resistance; and the margent is, in some cases the Nobles and Commons may stand for their publicke regi­ment and laws of their Kingdome.

All which judgements of severall Divines▪ I doe not bring forth as if I were of their mindes for deposing or punishing of Princes by the people, which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes, but to shew how the Do­ctors Dr. Willet. Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17. judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Protestant Countries, notwithstanding he would insinuate that our Di­vines of England are of his judgement: and that our judgement is no Bilsons true difference between Christ [...]an subjection▪ and unchri­stian rebel­lion, p. 5. 251. new upstart opinion, you see what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counsell of Basil, where one of them saith thus: That in every well or­dered Kingdome it ought specially to be desired that the whole Realme ought to be of more authority then the King, which if it happened contrary, it is not to be called a Kingdome, but tyranny, so likewise doth he thinke of the Church, &c.

And presently another▪ of the Divines of the s [...]me Co [...]ll saith thus: For the Pope is in the Church, as the King▪ is in his Kingdome, and for a King▪ to be of more authority then his Kingdome this were too absurd, ergo neither ought the Pope to be above the Church; for like as oftentimes Kings which doe wicked­ly rule the Common-weale, and exercise cruelty are deprived of their King­domes, even so it is not to he doubted but that the Bishops of Rome may be dep [...] ­sed by the Church, that is to say, by the generall Councell; neither doe I herein allow them which attribute so large and ample authority unto Kings, that they will not have them bound under any Lawes, for such as doe so say are but flatterers, who do talke otherwise then they think. For albeit that they doe say that the moderation of the law is alwaies in the Princes power [...], that do I thus understand; that when as reason shall perswade, hee ought to digresse from the rigour of the law: for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Common-weale, taketh pleasure in the profit and commodity of the subjects, and in all his doings hath respect to the com­modity of those over whom he ruleth, which if he doe not, he is not to be accounted a King [...], but a Tyrant, whose property it is only to suck his owne profit. For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant, that the one seeketh the cōmodity & profit of them whom he ruleth, the other only his owne: The which to make more manifest, the cause is also to be alledged wherefore Kings were ordained. At the beginning▪ (as Cicero▪ in his Offi­ces saith) It is certaine that there was a certaine time when the people lived with­out Kings: but afterward when [...]and and possessions began to▪ be divided accor­ding to the custome of every Nation, then were Kings ordained for no other cause but only to execute Justice. For when as at the beginning the common people were oppressed by rich and mighty men, they ran by and by to some▪ good and ver­tuous man who should defend the poore from injury, and ordaine Lawes, whereby the rich and poore should dwell together. But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poore were oft oppressed, lawes were ordained and instituted, the which should judge neither for hatred nor favour, and give like care unto the poore, as unto the rich, whereby we doe understand not only the people but the King to be subject unto the Lawes. Then the Doctor tells us, that he is against the Arbitrary way of government. For (saith he) we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God, yea by the esta­blished Lawes of the Kingdome.

Ans. This reason doth no way destroy Arbitrary government but ra­ther erect it. For government is not said to be Arbitrary, because the sub­jects may deny in word, and so left to suffer: For then the Tur [...]ish go­vernment is not arbitrary. For when the great Turke commands his sub­jects to doe any thing, if they will deny and suffer for their deniall they [Page 9] may, and doe sometimes deny their obedience. If there be lawes where­by a King is to rule which he shall command his subjects to breake, and his subjects are neither bound to obey him nor suffer by him, then his go­vernment is not arbitrary; but if there be lawes made, and he may inforce his subjects either to keepe them or breake them, and punish them at his pleasure that shall refuse, and the whole kingdome bound in conscience to suffer whatsoever he shall inflict for not breaking those Lawes, then is his government arbitrary: for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio; which he doth, when either there is no law to rule by but his owne will, or when hee hath a power to breake those lawes at his will, and to punish the subject at his pleasure for not break­ing them; and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government then the former, as it shewes more liberty in the will, that it hath a power to act when reason perswades to the contrary, then if there were no rea­son disswading, and else there should be no arbitrary government in the world. For no State but hath some lawes whereby they rule and are ru­led even the very Indians; onely here lyes the arbitrarinesse of a govern­ment, that notwithstanding the law, the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his subjects according to his owne pleasure. Then the Doctor saith,

We must consider that they which plead for resistance in such a case as is sup­posed, doe grant that it must be concluded upon, Omnibus ordinibus regni con­sentientibus, that is, with the generall and unanimous consent of the two houses.

Ans. 1. First these words are ill translated; for omnes ordines regni may consentire, and yet there may not be an unanimous and generall consent of the Members of the two houses as of one man.

2. If so that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence, why then doth he object against us, that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up armes for the defence of themselves against the Emperors, seeing they had not the consent of all the orders of the Empire, and therefore their case is nothing to ours, as hee pretends afterward. But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them, the representative body of the Empire, then their case had beene more like unto ours; and then no que­stion but they would have taken up armes for the defence of themselves.

Then the Doctor saith, We suppose that the Prince must be so and so dispo­sed, bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, Lawes, &c.

Ans. Here he takes that for granted which was never given, but wee say not that we suppose, but seeing and finding experimentally that a Prince is misled by those about him that would overthrow religion, liber­ties, lawes; that then it is lawfull to take up armes to deliver the King from them, and to bring them to condigne punishment. Then hee pro­ceeds [Page 10] to propound three Generalls, which he endeavoureth to prove in his following Discourse, which I shall speake to in order.

Sect. II.

THe Doctor saith, that the principle is untrue upon which they goe that re­sist, and the conscience cannot finde cleare ground to rest upon for making re­sistance: for it heares the Apostle expresly say, Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Poenam [...] sic malo quam con­demnatio­nem, p [...]to enim hoc in­telligendū de poe [...]â. quam insert magistratus, sicut verba frequentis declarant, &▪ sic verbū [...] acc [...]p [...]tur pro puni [...]e 1▪ Cor. 6. 11. Piscat. Rom. 13. 1▪ Sam. 14.

Ans. In this his resolving of Conscience he endeavours to scare those that are tender with the word of damnation, and forbids this resistance upon paine of damnation; but the word in the Greeke is rather to be [...] translated judgement and punishment, and as Piscator observes thereby i [...] not meant eternall damnation, but the punishment of the Magistrate in this life; as appeares by the following words which are given by the A­postle as a reason of the former, thus: They that resist shall receive to themselves judgement, for rulers are not a terror to good workes, but to evill.

Then he proceeds to some examples of Scripture, which are brough [...] by us to strengthen our Doctrine; wherein he takes what hee pleaseth and leaves out what he lists. The first example alledged is that of the peo­ples rescuing Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, to which he answers the people drew not into armes of themselves, but being there by Saul's comman [...] did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular passionate, and unlawfull command.

Ans. First, here the Doctor grants that the people used a violence which is that that we would prove; but hee doth not make it out by tha [...] Scripture that it was a loving violence, which is the thing hee shoul [...] prove: Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love, for it is said that the people rescued him; and wha [...] is the rescue by men in armes but a violence? 2. According to the Doctors position they should not have rescued him, but onely have defende [...] themselves by prayers and teares, and left Ionathan to suffer; and therefore though he grants but a rescue by loving violence, he gives away h [...] cause in the threshold of his worke.

The second example alledged (saith the Doctor) is Davids resisting [...] Saul, to which he answers, that Davids guard which he had about him was on [...] ly to secure his person against the cruelty of Saul, who sent to take away his life.

Ans. Therefore according to his owne grounds a Parliament may tak [...] up a guard to secure their persons against the cut-throats that are abo [...] a King, and this is more then prayers or teares or meere sufferings whic [...] the Doctor onely allowes in the following part of his discourse.

2. Herein also he gives his cause, for if Davids guard was to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life (as he sayes) they could not secure David but by fighting against those mes­sengers of the King: and if he grants that messengers sent by the king may be resisted by armes, he grants all that his adversaries contend for.

2. The Doctor saith, this practice of Davids was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul.

Ans. But what think you then of Davids words which he used to A­chisb in 1 Sam. 29. 8. And David said unto Achish, what have I done, and what hast thou sound in thy servant so long as I have beene with thee to this day, that I may not goe fight against the enemies of my Lord the King? amongst which enemies was Saul and his cut-throats (as the Doctor calls them) but

2. His adversaries desire no more from this instance of David but an hostile defence: for where there is an hostile defence, though there bee no blowes given, yet the defender would strike if there were cause, else why is he in armes?

3. David also was but one subject; and if it were lawfull for one sub­ject to defend himselfe by way of hostility, much more for the represen­tative body of the whole Kingdome.

4. According to the Doctors principles David ought to have done no more then to have sought God with teares and prayers, and given up himselfe in a suffering way to the fury of Saul, and therefore though it were meerly an hostile defence, yet it is more then his doctrine teacheth, and so in granting of this, he is contrary to what he sayes afterwards.

For the matter of Keilah, the Doctor answers our supposition (as he cals it) with his own saying: but whether David would have defended Keilah against Saul, I leave to the conscience of the Reader, considering that this only is made the reason of his removing from Keilah, because the men of Keilah would not be faithfull unto him, for he did not enquire of the Lord whether it were lawfull for him to abide in Keilah, but having enquired whether Saul would come downe against him, and whether Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand; he removed from Keilah because the Lord answered him that they would deliver him up, not be­cause it was unlawfull for him to keepe the City, but because the City would be false to him.

And whereas the Doctor saith that in all this the example of David was extraordinary, for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul.

Ans. I answer, though David was Gods Anointed, yet he was Sauls subject, and though God did extraordinarily protect David, yet his ex­traordinary [Page 12] protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawfull but doth rather argue it to be more lawfull and commendable: for Go [...] will not give extraordinary protections to unlawfull actions, and if Da­vids demeanour herein was extraordinary, then he had an extraordinary command for what he did. For it is not lawfull for a man to step fro [...] Gods ordinary way, but by some speciall commandement from God, and if he had such a command then how is that true which the Doctor saith afterward, that there is no command in Scripture for such a practice o [...] kinde of resistance as this.

3. In the words immediately before, the Doctor saith, this practice [...] David was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and if so, ho [...] was his demeanour in standing out against Saul a worke extraordinary [...] if it were a worke extraordinary, then it was not a meere defence with­out all violence, for that is an ordinary worke of the subjects toward thei [...] King.

Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries, whereby the [...] contend (as he sayes for resistance, as that of the High Priest resisting the King in the Temple, and Elisha shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger tha [...] came to take away his life; to the first he sayes that the High Priest did no mor [...] then what every Minister may and ought to doe if the King should attempt t [...] administer the Sacrament, that is reprove him, and keepe the elements from him.

Ans. But if that were all, the Priests should not have beene commen­ded for their valour, but their faithfulnesse: and ver. 17. it is said that A­zariah [...] Chron. [...], 17 the Priest went after him, and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men. In that they were commended here for va­liant, it shewes that their worke was not onely reproofe but resistance.

And whereas he saith, that they thrust him out of the Temple because God [...]and was first upon him, smiting him with Leprosie, and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also.

Ans. I answer, how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being smitten with the leprosie was an actuall discharge from his crown [...]

Then the Doctor saith, Elisha's example speakes very little, but let u [...] thence (saith he) take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against th [...] sudden and illegall assaults of such Messeng [...]rs, yea of the Prince himselfe thu [...] far, to ward his blowes, to hold his hand, and the like, &c.

Ans. 1. If you may ward his blowes, and hold his hands, this is mor [...] then praying and crying and suffering.

2. Suppose the King hath an army with him, how can you hold an ar­mies hands without an army? and therefore according to his owne word [...] it is lawfull for the subjects considered State-wise to raise an army to de­ [...]end themselves.

3. But this instance of Elisha tells us that Messengers sent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken prisoners, is not that a resistance? for Elisha said, see you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? looke when the messenger commeth, shut the doore, and hold him fast at the doore, 2 Kings 6. 32.

Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body naturall and politicke, whereby it is argued that as the body naturall, so the body politicke may defend it selfe: to which the Doctor answers, as the natu­rall body defends it selfe against an outward force, but strives not by schisme or contention within it selfe, so may the body politicke against an outward power, but not as now by one part of it set against the head, and another part of the same body.

Answ. Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it selfe against an outward force, and what is the Militia for especially, but against forrainers?

Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personall defence and a ge­nerall resistance by armes. He saith, a personall defence may be without all of­fence, and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us, as generall-resi­stance by armes doth, which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale, which saith he makes a large difference betwixt Eli­sha's shutting of the doore against the Kings messenger, and their resisting the King by armed men.

Answ. But why was Elisha's defence personall? because he was but one person that was defended? then if one man defend himselfe against 1000. in armes that is a personall defence, or was it personall because onely the person of the Prophet made defence and had none to assist him? not so because he spake to the Elders to shut the doore and hold him fast, and if this act of Elisha was contrary to the Kings command, why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him, as our resistance doth now? indeed if the subjects as private men strength­ned with no authority should gather together in a rude multitude to op­pose lawes and governours, then that worke should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a State, but that the State should send out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the highest Court of the Kingdome, that justice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene stanched up, is rather to confirme and strengthen the order and power of authority, and so it is in our case.

Then the Doctor proceeds to some Scriptures, wherewithall hee thinkes to strengthen his opinion, let us follow him: First (saith hee) we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the [Page 14] people against Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16. 3. and perishing in thei [...] sinne.

Ans. I answer that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust, and our question is in the generall laying aside all respect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his trust, and doing that through his ba [...] Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State, may not by the whol [...] State be resisted therein? Now see how extreamly wide this instance [...] from this question.

First of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol [...] people, nor the representative Body, nor any imploied by the whol [...] people.

2. Moses and Aaron had not offended but were innocent.

The Dr. answers, The other supposed they had bin guilty, and that is enoug [...] it seems.

Ans. It seems so indeed by him, that supposalls are enough to charg [...] the Parliament, but with us supposalls are not enough to charge ou [...] Prince.

2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. saying, there the people are let t [...] understand how they would be oppressed under Kings, yet all that violence and in­justice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance, for they hav [...] no remedy left but crying to the Lord, vers. 18.

Ans. In this Scripture Samuel shewed them what their King would do not what he should doe; and when he saith at the 18. verse, You shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lor [...] will not heare you in that day, he telleth them not what should be their duty, but what should be their punishment, for he doth not say, then shall you cry unto the Lord and he shall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promise of acceptance. But he saith you shall cry in that day because of your King, and the Lord will not heare you in that day, setting forth the punishment of that thei [...] choise.

3. The Dr. saith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathe­red together either for civill assemblies or for War but by his command; wh [...] [...]ad the power of the Trumpet, that is the supream, as Moses was, Num. 10.

Answ. The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the supreme power hath given commandement for. For the [...] Doctor saith Section 1. page 2. That in the established Lawes of the Lan [...] we have the Princes will and consent given upon good advice, and to obey hi [...] 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 [Page 15] 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 ca [...] be more plaine then that Text, 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house an [...] the Elders sate with him, and the King sent a man from before him, &c. bu [...] 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 th [...] doore, and hold him fast at the doore. The Dr. wonders if resistance wer [...] lawfull, why no Prophet should call upon the Elders of the people fo [...] 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 th [...] Dr. makes the very hinge which all his discourse moves upon, be no [...] clearly and fully against him, then let the consciences of men be satisfie [...] in all that he saies, but if it be against him, then let them reject all that h [...] affirmes.

He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to resi [...] with a forcible resistance the command of a King though he comman [...] what is unlawfull, because (sayes he) that this commandement was given un [...] 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 pro [...] 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 go [...] works but to evil. The 3. verse being made a reason of the 2. the 2. ver [...] saith, Whosoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God, and they that res [...] shall receive to themselves judgement; then the reason is given: for Rule [...] 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 u [...] lawfull, and contrary to the Law of God. 2. The power that we a [...] commanded to be subject to, and not to resist is the ordinance of God; a [...] the Minister thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good, ver. 4. [...] 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, a [...] contrary to the law of God, he is not the Minister of God to us for go [...] therefore in this Scripture there is no such thing commanded us to [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 (e [...]m) ad Regem refe­ [...]unt multum falluntur. Estigitur huc commu­ni ratio [...] commendandam omnium magistratu [...] authoritatē quod man­cato Dei praesunt & ab eo mit­ [...]unt [...]r: unde sequitur (quemad­modum & Paulus do­ [...]) Deo re­sistere q [...]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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 21] 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 th [...]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 [Page 22] 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 it: yet we will examine what he saith in the argu­ments: 1. he saith, that the Apostle speakes expresly, that the powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God, vers. 2. by which power he un­derstands the power it selfe of Magistracy as distinguished from the qua­lifications thereof, or designation of any person thereto.

1. And if so, how is that true which he saith before, Section 2. where he saith, that the higher power in Paul, Rom 13. is all one with the King as supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confesseth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power? so doth the Apostle himselfe, calling it [...], an humane constitution.

2. If by power here, Rom. 13. be understood Magistracie, and autho­rity it selfe in the abstract, then when we are commanded to submit there­unto, the meaning cannot be that the Christians in those times, must sub­mit to the unlawfull commands of the Emperour, (as the Doctor would have it before) seeing the way of governing by an Emperour or Prince, is but the qualification of the power; surely if by power we are now to understand Magistracie and Authority it selfe in the abstract, then all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to submit thereunto, is to acknowledge a Magistracie, & then all the Doctors arguments, and his strength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible resistance to unlawfull commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground.

Then the Doctor tells us in the same argument, this power is called an or­dinance of man subjective, wherein he la [...]es this distinction, That power is considered two waies, either as it is subjective amongst men, and so it is [...], or else as it is considered causaliter, and so it is [...], of God.

Ans. But this is too strait, for it is called [...], not only be­cause it is amongst men, but it is [...] an humane constitution in foure respects, 1. because it is so causaliter, the forme of severall govern­ments [Page 23] being an invention of man. 2. Subjective, because it is amongst men. 3. Objective, because it is busied about men. 4. Finaliter, because it is ordained for man, and the Common-weale, yet power it selfe is the constitution and ordinance of God.

Then the Doctor proves, That the power is of God, because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God, Rom. 13. vers. 4.

Ans. But here he slips from the power it selfe, to the person designed to the power: for the power it selfe is not called the Minister of God, which was the thing he undertooke for to prove.

And so in this third argument where he saith to the same purpose, speak those other places, By me Kings reigne, I have said ye are Gods, yet he con­fesseth, that the formes of government by Kings and Emperours, is an inven­tion of man in the first argument.

But now suppose the Doctor had proved that the power abstractively considered, is of Gods institution, and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in severall formes of government, and the de­signation of the person thereto be of man, what hath he gotten from, or gain'd upon his imagin'd adversary? For suppose that his adversary should say that they may depose their Prince, if he neglect his trust (which is not our case) because that his power is originally from them, how doth that which the Dr. hath said, weaken this argument? For though he hath proved that the power of it selfe is from God, yet having granted that the formes of that government, and the designation of a person thereto, is from the people, they may as well urge and say therefore we may alter the government, and may depose the person because he was of our desi­gning, as well as they might have argued so, if the power it self had been from themselves.

Then the Doctor saith; The imputation is causlesse which the pleaders on the other side doe heedlessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines, as if we cried up Monarchy, and that only government to be Jure Divino.

Ans. To let passe reproaches, how can we thinke otherwise, if wee should beleeve all that the Doctor saith? For he proves that the power mentioned, Rom. 13. is Jure Divino, and yet he saith, Sect. 2. That the [...]igher power there, is all one with the Supreme, or King in Peter: but this with [...]he nature of Monarchicall government, we shall come to consider more [...]ptly in that which followes.

The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it [...]elfe is of God, that the qualification and designation was firstly of man, which we all grant.

Sect. IV.

NOw we come to the forfeiture (saith the Doctor) of this power, if the Prince, say they, will not discharge his trust, then it falls to the people or the two Houses (the representative body of the people) to see to it, and to re­assume that power, and thereby to resist. This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of power from the people by vertue of election, and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people, as also to be necessary in regard of th [...]se meanes of safety which every state should have within it selfe. Wee will examin [...] them in order.

Ans. Herein he doth charge us with this opinion, that wee hold it lawfull for the people to reassume their power, in case the Prince dischar­geth not his trust, making the world beleeve that we contend for depo­sing of Kings; or that the Parliament goes about such a worke as that is▪ for what else is it for the people or Parliament to re-assume their power from the Prince? whereas we desire all the world should know, that we now take up armes as an act of selfe-preservation, not endeavouring o [...] intending to thrust the King from his Office, though for the present the State sets some under the King at the Ster [...]e, till the waters be calmed, as we said before.

Then the Doctor saith, concerning the derivation of power, we answer, first▪ if it be not from the people, as they will have it, and as before it was cleared, the [...] can there be no re-assuming of this power by the people.

Ans. How doth this follow? for all that the Doctor had cleared be­fore, was this; that power abstractively considered was from God, no [...] from the people; now let us see whether the clearing of that will brin [...] in such a consequence as this, that there can bee no re-assuming of this power by the people: if it will enforce such a consequence, then the syl­logisme is this; [...]f power and magistracy and authority it selfe be of God and the forms of government and designation of persons be of man, the [...] there can be no re-assuming of this power by the people. But the powe [...] itselfe and magistracy is of God, the formes of government and designa­tion of persons is of man (saith the Doctor Sect. 3.) Therefore there ca [...] be no re-assuming this power by the people, saith the Doctor, Sect. 4.

Ans. Will not his imagined adversaries easily deny the sequell? indee [...] if he had proved that neither the power nor the qualification, nor the d [...] ­signation were of man but of God, and cleared that first, then hee had t [...] ­ken that argument from his adversaries: but seeing he hath granted th [...] the wayes of government and designation of persons to bee of m [...] (though he hath proved the power it selfe of God) sure he hath no w [...] stopped the course of their arguments, or practice against whom he d [...] ­putes.

The [...] he comes to shew the inconsequence, and saith. If the people should gi [...] the power [...]absolutely [...]they would have it, leaving nothing to God in it but approbation, yet could they not therefore have right to take that power away, for many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part [...]ith the [...] are not afterward i [...] our power to recall them.

Ans. He supposeth we goe to take the power away from the Prince, (which we doe not, as hath beene said.)

2. There is a difference between disposing of things by way of dona­tion or sale, and disposing things by way of trust: true; those things which we dispose of by way of donation or sale are not afterward in our power to recall, as they were before the donation or sale; as if a man give his childe land, or sell land to his neighbour, it is not in the power of the fa­ther or neighbour to recall or dispose of the land, as before the donation or sale: But if a thing be disposed of by way of trust, then if the fiduciary or trusted shall not discharge his trust, it is in the power (at least of the trusting) to looke to the matter himselfe; as in case that a Steward bee [...]usted with a mans house; and thus when any government is set up in a land by a people, they trust the governour, they doe not give away their liberties or rights, but trust them in the hand of the governour, who if abused that he doe not performe his Stewardly trust as he should, the peo­ple or representative body as an act of selfe preservation (I doe not say, as an act of jurisdiction) are to looketo it. Neither herein doe they so re­assume their power as to take away any thing which they gave to the King, but so as to actuate that power which they alwaies had left in themselves, (as the power of selfe-preservation.)

Then the Dr. saith, Although it were as they would have it, that they give the power, and God approves, yet because the Lords hand also and his oyle is upon the person elected to the Crowne, and then he is the Lords Anointed, and the Mi­nister of God, those hands of the people which were used in lifting him up to the Crown, may not againe be lifted up against him, either to take the Crowne from his head, or the sword out of his hand.

Ans. [...]f this be true, then Princes that are meerly elective and not he­reditary, and whose comming to the Crowne is meerly pactionall, can­not be deposed by the people, for they are the Lords Anointed, and the Ministers of God; but this is contrary to the Doctor himselfe, who in this same Section saith thus, Although such arguments (speaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power in the next line before) may seeme to have some force in States meerly elective, and pactionall, yet can it never be made to appeare by any indifferent understanding, that the like must obtaine in this Kingdome. And to this purpose saith the Dr. Phil. Paraeus ex [...]useth what his father had writ­ten [Page 42] on Romans 13. in the point of resistance: that it was to be understood of e­lective and pactionall government, and when the government is elective and pa­ctionall, are not the Princes the Ministers, and the Lords Anointed?

Then the Doctor saith, How shall the Conscience be sati [...]fied that this their argument grounded upon election, and the derivation of power from the people; can have place in this Kingdome, when as the Crowne not onely descends by in­heritance, but also hath so often been setled by conquest, in the lines of Saxons, Danes and Normans.

Answ. First, how can the Conscience be [...]atisfied in that which the Dr. writes in this his booke, where he acknowledgeth in this Section that it is probable indeed that Kings at the first were by choise here as else where? And in Section 5. saith, that the forms of severall governments (whereof Princedome is one) are from the invention of man, and so by derivation from man.

2. The Drs. great design I perceive by his frequent touching this mat­ter is to make our King a King by conquest; for in Sect. 3. He saith Gods Vice-gerents here on earth came into their Office either by immediate designation, the election of the people, succession and inheritance, or by conquest; now he cannot say that our King came in by immediate designa­tion, & he doth not say that our Princes lay claim to the Crown by vertue of their election, & if by inheritance, then by the right of an election or by conquest; for by meere inheritance a man hath no more, then what those first had whom he doth succeed; Inheritance being but the continuation of the first right upon the children, the right of election he doth disclaim, and of derivation of power from the people, therefore the right that he makes our Prince to have to the Crowne is onely the right of a Con­quest; then if any mans sword be longer or stronger then his, hee may quickly have as much right to the Crowne as the King; which opinion of the Drs. for my owne part I must abhor from, what danger will it not expose our dread Soveraign to? Did not Athaliah reigne as a Conqueresse six yeares? And who knowes not that she was lawfully thrust from the Throne againe by a stronger hand then her owne? Meere conquest be­ing nothing else but an unjust usurpation: and if the Conquerour rule the whole Kingdome, and keepe them under by conquest only, why may not the subject rise and take up armes to deiiver themselves from that slavery? Thus doth the Doctor open the door to greater resistance then those that he disputes against.

3. Though a Prince should hold his right by conquest as the next right, yet if he hold it also by derivation from the people as the remote right, and the last be the more naturall and just way, then arguments [Page 43] grounded on that remote right may be more valid, then those that are grounded on the next right, but thus it is with our Prince who although he doth succeed the conquerour, yet doth also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Common-weale unto his Crowne, which a meer conquerour doth not, but rules without the consent and against the good liking of the people.

Then the Dr. saith, We tell them the Roman Emperors were not to be resisted; they reply that they were absolute Monarchs, was it any other way then by force and arms, the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themselves ma­sters of this people. Ans. Now in these words we see the Drs. mind plainly that he contends for an arbitrary government; for he saith page 11. that the Emperours did rule absolutely and arbitrarily, and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarchs, was it any other waies then by force and arms the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themselves masters of this people, in whose right and lines he saith before, the Crowne descended upon our King. What can be more plaine then this for an arbitrary government? It seems the Dr. was conscious to himselfe that herein he had discovered himselfe, and therefore he saies this, I speake not as if the Kings of this land might rule as Conquerours, but that will not heale it.

Then the Doctor comes to the matter of capitulation or covenant, or oath which the Prince taketh to confirm what he promised, which, saith he, are so alledged as if the breach or non-performance of the Princes part were, a forfeiture of his power. But we answer, saith he, the words capitulation or covenant are now much used, to make men believe the Kings admittance to the Crowne is altogether conditio­nall: whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation.

Ans. Herein the Doctor mistakes us: for though we aknowledge a co­venant, yet we cannot be so weake as to thinke that any breach of the covenant is a forfeiture of the Kings power, for then the best man could not be King long; but we first affirme a Covenant, for though the Kings of Israel were Monarchs, and immediately designed by God himselfe to their office, and so one would thinke there should be no need of their comming to the Crowne by a covenant, yet to shew the necessity of this oath and covenant when they came to their Crowns, they also took an oath, and entred into covenant with the people to protect their rights and persons, 1 Chro. 11. 3. 2. We say that this mutuall covenant betwixt the King and the people, binds the King to the people, as well as the peo­ple to the King, and that therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse his subjects, and to take up armes against them, as for the subjects to take up armes against him.

Thirdly, that hence it followes that the Kings power is limited.

4. From this covenant and capitulation we say, thereby it appeare [...] that the people doe commit a trust to the King: which,

5. If he doth neglect, as he doth not alwaies forfeit his power, so neither are they to forfeit their right of looking to themselves for the present And therefore all that the Doctor saies, that we urge the covenant a [...] capitulation so much as if our King were a conditionall King, and that which he brings to prove that he is a King before Coronation is need­lesly urged against us: for we say and speake plainly, that though the righ [...] that our King hath to the Crowne is firstly by derivation of power from the people, yet he hath his right by inheritance, and is not such an ele­ctive King as is chosen for a time, and his life if he rule well: and so his right to end in himselfe, but to continue upon his posterity: for the people doe derive their power two waies, either so as to chuse a ma [...] into office for his life onely in case he rule well, and so our Kings Predecessors were not brought to the Crowne; or so as to commit the trus [...] of the State unto him, to descend upon his posterity, which when his po­sterity comes to, hath both a right of election and inheritance; it being the right of inheritance as it is left by their fore-fathers, and the right o [...] election in regard of its principle from whence it flowed: and thus w [...] doe estate our King in his Throne, hereby establishing him more sur [...] therein, and then the opposite opinion of conquest doth.

Then the Doctor tells us, That though the King doe breake his covenant or not make performance thereof, yet a forfeiture of his power doth not follow from thence: for saith hee, could they in this covenant shew us such an agreement between the King and his people, that in case he will not discharge his trust, thus it shall be lawfull for the States of the Kingdome by armes to resist, and pro­vide for the safety thereof it were something.

To which I answer, we doe not presse the forfeiture of the Kings po­wer upon non-performance of covenant, but we say this; that the end o [...] his trust being to looke to the Kingdome, though there be no such word expressed in the covenant or agreement betwixt the King and his people that in case he shall not discharge his trust, then it shall bee lawfull fo [...] the State of the Kingdome by armes to resist, and to looke to their own [...] safety: their safety being the end of this trust, & ratio legis being lex in reason that must be implied, there is a covenant stricken betweene man & a woman at Marriage; when they marry one another it is not ve [...] bally expressed in their agreement, that if one commit adultery, th [...] party shall be divorced; and yet we know that that covenant of marri [...]g [...] carries the force of such condition. What followed in this Section i [...] [Page 45] either [...] repetition of what was before, or what in substance we have an­swered already.

Onely at the last the Doctor moveth this question: What then if the Prince take to himselfe more power, or not performe what hee is bound to? and answers, then may the subjects use all faire meanes as are fit to use, cryes to God, petitions to the Prince, deniall of obedience to his lawfull commands, deniall of Subsidies, &c. but are left without all meanes to compell by force or resistance.

Ans. The subjects are considered two wayes:

• Socially
• Severally

Severally as private men, and so it hath beene taken for granted, that in [...]ase of oppression the subjects have used no armes but teares and pray­ers. Before this Parliament, how many oppressions were there upon the people, both in their estates and in Gods worship, by those who had un­ [...]uly gotten authority from the King; and yet wee saw no forcible resi­stance made, but every man quietly subjecting himselfe under that suffe­ring condition.

Socially and joyntly, and so there is other remedy for the subjects then onely prayers and teares, and that the subjects are considered in this posture wherein now we are, professing that wee take not up armes as we are private men barely, but as subjects united and joyned in the re­presentative body of the Kingdome, which never yet was counted un­lawfull by any Divines, as I have shewed before.

Sect. V.

THe Doctor comes unto that which he calls our last reason, the safety of the Kingdome, where he saith first, that we have many weapons sharp­ [...]d for this resistance at the Philistims forge, our arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schooles, as he saith.

Ans. But there is much 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 [...] 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: [Page 46] 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 i [...] 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 o [...] 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 [Page 47] 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 [...]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 dis­ [...]harge the trust▪ and so it will be in this State, if at any time a King that would [...]ule arbitrarily, should by some meanes or other, worke out of the two Houses [...]he better affected, and by consent of the major part of them that remaine, com­ [...]asse his desires, the people may tell them they discharged not their trust, they [...]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 [...]estructiō of the Christians, yet if the whole body of the Empire had joint­ [...]y risen for the Christians, I make no question but that many of those that [...]ied, would so far have resisted that they would have saved their owne [...]ves; but the Emperours and Senate being against them, and the body [Page 48] of the Empire jointly considered, not rising for them▪ it is true indeed, they had no warrant to make resistanc [...] ▪ but to suffer as they did. This i [...] 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 tru [...] that therefore it falls to the representative body of the people to see to i [...] then the people having this power may also say, if the Members of the tw [...] 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 and prin­ciple now taught them, take the power to themselves.

First, I answer, that there is not the same reason why the people should be so ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their trust, being they are very many chosen out of the whole Kingdome for their faith­fulnesse, approved every way for their goodnesse and wisedome; whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown, and so by vertue of his inheritance may rule, though he be knowne to be vitious; as also because it is recei­ved by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes, and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is; as also because the people doe actually elect and trust the Parliament men with the present affaires of the Kingdome. Now though the Prince indeed be trusted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers, whereunto the people doe now consent, yet there is not that actuall election or designation of him unto the present affairs of the Kingdom, as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses; as for example, suppose that a people doe chuse their Minister, trusting him with all the great affaires of their soules, and there doth rise a controversie betweene neighbours, wherein they chuse an arbitrator to umpire the businesses, though these two Parishioners [...]hat have fallen out, have formerly trusted their Minister with all the affaires of conscience, yet they doe not so readily stand to his verdict, by reason of the generall trust, as to the verdict of those arbitrators whom they have now actually chosen for this businesse; neither can they in law o [...] reason so easily revoke or renounce the sentence of Arbitrator, who [...] they have chosen to this businesse, as the sentence of their Minister wh [...] they have trusted in the generall: so in this case of ours, though the Kin [...] be entrusted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of th [...] Kingdome, yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and designe [...] by the people for the present affairs of the Kingdome; and therefore th [...] people take themselves bound to stand to their arbitrement: neither c [...] [Page 49] they thinke, that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitre­ment and sentence, as they are for the deniall of their Princes com­mandement.

Secondly, I say, there is not the same reason that the people should recall their power from the Parliament, in case the Parliament should be unfaithfull, as there is they should see to things in case the Prince be mis-led: I say there is not the same reason, (though both the Par­liament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people) because that the derivation of power from the peo­ple unto the Prince, is not made the sole reason by those that the Dr. disputes against for this their resistance: but the authority that they are clothed with, whereas if a people upon surmises that the Parlia­ment doe not performe their trust, should call in their trust and their power, then they should have left themselves naked of all authority, and should be private men; but now that they looke to themselves in this time of danger, and in that sense doe re-assume their power which they have derived to their Prince, they are still led on by authority.

Thirdly, the Doctor answers, that we cannot expect any absolute means of safety and security in a State.

Ans. Neither doe we expect it, though this be granted which we desire, or that granted which he contends for.

Then he saith, that there is an excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them, and no power of enacting in one or two of them, without the third: for what might follow, if the King and Lords without the Commons, or those and the Lords without the King might determine, the evills of these dayes doe shew: so is this power of denying, for the security of each State against other.

Ans. This both the Doctor and I must leave to the judgement of those that know the Lawes and the Liberties, and the Priviledges of all three Estates.

Further, he saith, that now not onely the name of Parliament which im­plyes the three▪ Estates, is restrained usually to the two Houses, but also that temper is dissolved.

Ans. First, it was alwayes so, that the Parliament was made di­stinct from the King, in ordinary speech saying, The King and his Par­liament: when the Parliament is mentioned alone, it may include the King; but when the King and Parliament are mentioned toge­ther, the speech can intend no more then the two Houses. As when the body is mentioned alone, it includes the head and the members; [Page 50] but when the head and the body are mentioned together, then the bo­dy doth not include the head.

Secondly, that the Doctor saith, this trust of the three States is di [...] ­solved, I conceive it is a scandalous charge, and so I leave that t [...] others.

Then the Doctor saith, If it be replyed, as it is, for the reasonableness [...] of this meanes of safety through that power of resistance, and that many s [...] more then one, and more safety in the judgement of many then of one, I answe [...] (saith the Doctor) true: but 1. Conscience might here demand for its satis­faction, why should one hundred in the House of Commons see more then thr [...] hundred, or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of differen [...] judgement, and withdrawne?

Ans. I answer, if there be three hundred of the House of Common withdrawne, and but an hundred left; and sixty of the Lords Hous [...] withdrawne unto twenty, if indeed there be so many gone away, wh [...] did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote, and th [...] controversie had beene now at an end? Then could it never have bee [...] said to the people, that the Parliament are against the King, the [...] might the three States have all joyned together, and there had been n [...] further question.

Secondly, the Doctor answers, that the Prince, though one, sees wi [...] the eyes of many, for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Counsell to present to his eyes the differences of things, with the reasons of them.

Ans. This needs no other answer then that which followes in th [...] Doctors owne words, where he saith, that the King sometime dissen [...] from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament, so that he ma [...] see with their eyes, and see other things then they doe, and be of dif­ferent judgement from them. And if he may see with other mens ey [...] that are of different judgement from him, because they doe present t [...] his eyes the difference of things, with the reasons of them, then m [...] the Houses of Parliament also see more then he does, because the di [...] ­ference of things, with the reasons of them, are presented to them al [...] ▪

Then the Doctor descends to prove, that Monarchicall government is t [...] best, and that God made choice to set up that still, first in Moses, then in t [...] Judges, then in the Kings.

Ans. But how come we to this discourse, to compare Monarc [...] and Aristocracy? and to say that Monarchy is better government th [...] Aristocracy? Doth it follow from the word True, which the Dr. ha [...] said to that proposition, many see more then one, and more safety [...] [Page 51] the judgement of many then of one. But seeing he is pleased to say, [...]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 ma [...]e war against Israel, the Elders of Israel went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob, and [...]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 [...] bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon, and the Lord [...]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 [...]o thy word. Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead, and the people [...]ad [...] 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 [...]is power is from them; as I have proved at large in the Preface, to [...]ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Israel.

Secondly, then the best government is that, where the King and [...]eople strike a covenant at his Coronation: which covenant the King is bound to observe, neither doth his covenanting with the peo­ [...]le, make him no Monarch: for David was a Monarch, yet David [...]ade a covenant with the Elders of Israel, and so they anointed him King [...]ver Israel, 1 Chron. 11. 3.

Thirdly, then the best government is such also, where the Prince [...]oth advise with his people and Elders, doing no great matter in State [...] Religion without their consent, and with their consent doing. So David, 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David consulted with the Captaines of thou­ [...]ands, and hundreds, and every Leader; and David said unto all the Con­ [...]egation of Israel, If it seeme good unto you▪ let us bring againe the Arke [...] the Lord our God unto us: and all the Congregation said, that they would [...] so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation. So that [...]e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome, is [...]o way repugnant, but consistent with Monarchicall government or [...]e government appointed by God himselfe.

Fourthly, then also is the best government appointed by God, such [...] doth carry along with i [...] a lawfulnesse for the subjects to take up [Page 52] 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 constitu [...]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 [...] civill war.

Ans. No, but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre, becaus [...] 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: thes [...] 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, tak [...] up the power to themselves, and so all rapine and confusion brought into th [...] Kingdome.

Ans. There can bee no such inference made from this principle o [...] ours: for the people do all acknowledge, that we are to bee gover­ned by Lawes, and that (as the Doctor saith) the Parliament is th [...] [Page 53] 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 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 [Page 54] 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 own [...] 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 [Page 55] 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 an [...] 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 tenn [...] Tribes of the twelve, and yet in page 21. he tells us of a vote passed by [...] 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 twelv [...] 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 pretende [...] 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 me [...] 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 a [...] well bound to be charitable, and to beleeve the Protestations of th [...] 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 think [...] they gape after the revenues of the Church? O where is this man [...] 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 h [...] 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, i [...] the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale them, they may, ye [...] 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 b [...] Bishops: where he saith, That it is such a government which t [...] Church alwaies had since the first receiving of the Christian faith in th [...] land, and of all other governments simply the best, the abolishing wher [...] [Page 57] 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 [...]ure Divino, and so best; whereas this was never counted [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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; 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 [Page 60] 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, [Page 61] 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.