A brief Answer to Doctor Fernes book, tending to resolve Conscience, about the Subjects taking up of Arms. By JER: BURROUGHES. THere came to my hand a Book of D. Fern, tending to resolve Conscience in the case of the Subjects taking up arms. I find it carried on without giving any ill terms, but in far expressions, suitable to a Treatise that concerns Conscience, and the more likely to prevail with it. Only now and then some bitterness breaks forth; I shall very briefly, yet faithfully give you the strength of it: Where he speaks right, I will acknowledge it; and where he mistakes, I will fairly discuss and show you whence the mistakes arise. I confess he hath great advantage in the subject, because it is for the King: 1. Because it is safer to plead for the King, though a man mistakes; but if there be a mistake in lessening the King's right, a man endangers his utter undoing. 2. Truth about this argument, hath always been tenderly handled; those who have pleaded for the King, have with courage vented themselves to the utmost; but others have been forced to be silent, or else but even to whisper and speak half out, lest they presently meet with (not arguments, but) things of another nature to answer them. In which regard the power of Kings hath been raised to the height, and men have drunk in such opinions of absolute power in them, as they have heard confidently affirmed, practised, and seen in Books, and feeled by many taxations and censures; but whatsoever might inform them hath lain in the dark, not daring to appear: Therefore well might the D. call what now people begin to hear, and inquire after, a new doctrine; it is an old truth, but newly discovering itself. The name of King hath taken such impression in the hearts of people, that for a while they will be prejudiced against whatsoever may but sound of limiting his power, or maintaining our right against it. What there is in the Epistle that may prejudice any man's conscience, will be answered in what follows. Preamble to SECT. I. SO many good people that are come to a sense of Religion and godliness, are miserably carried away by a strange implicit saith, to believe whatsoever is said or done in the name of the Parliament, &c. to be infallibly true and just. It seems those who have not a sense of Religion, do not so easily believe the truth and justice of what is done in the name of the Parliament. Ans. This is most certain, who are hardest to believe what the Parliament says, but Papists, and notorious blasphemers, and profane livers? I condemn not all, but compare the generality of the one side, and of the other; you shall find an apparent difference in the lives of the one, from the lives of the other: Yea, so it is now that if a man as heretofore were not profane, or lose at least, or zealous for ceremonies, he was accounted a Puritan; so now a Round-head, that is, in their ordinary interpretation, one for the Parliament. If it be said, This is because Religion is pretended on the Parliaments side: So it is on the other, with as loud a cry as the Parliaments. In such things where I must have regard to human testimony, to what part I see the most that have the sense of Religion to adhere, that side I will be on, except I see better grounds than yet the D. brings to draw me from it. Prov. 2.20: That thou mayst, walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous. SECT. I. IN this Sect. these special things are considerable: 1. What he grants. 2. what we grant. 3. What he says we grant. He grants we may deny obedience to the King, nor only in things unlawful by the Law of God, but by the established Laws of the Land. It is well this is granted; Heretofore we know this was the general Tenet, whatsoever was commanded by the King, yea by any men in authority, if but by a Prelate, except it were against God's Law, we were bound to obey it; any thing that was not sin, must be yielded to and that for conscience sake. The D. in this is ingenuous; he confesseth that not only God's Law, but man's Law limits King's power: This is a great ease to many men's consciences to know so much. And further, if this be true, that all those Scriptures that urge obedience to Kings and men in authority, must be understood with this limitation, that is, if they command according to the Laws of God, and according to the Laws of the country over which they are. 1. He says, In point of resistance we grant it must be in such a case where there are Omnes ordines regni consentientes, an unanimous consent of the two Houses. Ans. There is no determination that the greater part present of either House agrees upon, but is as truly valid and legal, as if there were an unanimous consent of them both. It is so in all bodies where things are carried by vote. 2. He says, We yield it must be a mere defensive resistance. Ans. If the King should send any to mischief us, to say, we must only defend ourselves, so as not to offend them, is a contradiction; as for the King's person, is it not the profession of the Parl. to defend it? therefore we need not dispute now, about defending ourselves against it. 3. He says, this likewise is granted that the Prince must first be bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, and Laws, and will not discharge his trust, before there must be resistance. Ans. By this he would insinuate that our Arms taken up are unlawful, because the King hath not declared himself thus. What need we be put to meddle with any thing but this in the case in hand? That a Kingdom seeing itself in imminent danger of enemies to infringe the liberties of it, may stand up to defend itself; yea although they come forth against it in the name of the King: This is our case, and if the D. disputes against any thing but this, he fights with his own shadow. If this be case as certainly it is, than a great part of the doctor's book is impertinent to the business of the Parliaments raising forces: For forces may be raised upon other grounds than the Kings being bent to overthrow Religion. SECT. II. THe strength of this Section, and almost all the book, is in that place of Rom. 13. and in this place I believe the D. will see, or if he doth not, others will, that he is utterly mistaken in the sense of that place. The Apostle says expressly, Whosoever resists, shall receive damnation. Ans. But he doth not say expressly, whosoever resists the highest men shall receive damnation, but whosoever shall resist the power: Let every one be subject not to the wills of the highest men, but to the higher power: there is a great deal of difference between these two: The higher power, that is, that authority that God & man hath put upon such a man, it is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that must be subjected to, & not resisted. We profess against resisting power, authority, though abused: If those who have power to make Laws, shall make sinful Laws, and so give authority to any to force obedience; we say here there must either be flying or passive obedience; but if one that is in authority command out of his own will, and not by Law, I resist no power, no authority at all, if I neither actively nor passively obey, no I do not so much as resist abused authority. This may seem strange at the first; but if you think of it, you will believe it. The D. thinks the answer to this place is only from the limitation of the person, or the cause of resisting, as if we held that no particular men upon any cause, but States may resist upon such and such causes; whereas we do not answer so, but we distinguish between the man that hath the power, and the power of that man, and say, although the power must not be resisted according to the letter, and the sense of the Text, yet the illegal will and ways of the man may be resisted, without the least offending against the Text. But we shall meet with this Scripture again and again, and shall follow it with answers accordingly. He comes to examples, as first, the people's rescuing of Jonathan from Saul. He says, 1 Sam. 1 the people were in Arms already, and did but use a loving violence. This example is only brought to prove that Subjects may withstand illegal commands of Kings, and no further, and that it plainly proves; only, he says, Ans. it is a loving violence. Well then, it is a violence; they resolve that the King's command shall not be fulfilled, yea though he adds an oath to it. It was indeed a loving violence to Jonathan; so is all the violence that the Parliament offers, a loving violence to the kingdom, yea and there is true love to the King too in it. The King hath not yet sworn that he will have such things as the Parl. will not suffer, so as to come to our cognisance; but Saul swore that he would have such a thing done, and yet the people would not suffer it to be done, and yet you dare not blame them for this, nay you commend them for it. The second example is, David resisting Saul, the D. says, 1 Sam. 2 It was to save his person from cutthroats. And is not our Army to save Parl. & people from cutthroats? 2. He says, David did no act of hostility, but only defended himself. David had no authority over any that followed Saul, for he was then a private man; Ans. but our Parl. hath authority over Delinquents that follow the King. 2. David was loath indeed to venture upon a pitched battle, or to exasperate Saul or his Subjects, because his strength was weak, 600. to a King, therefore he flies up and down and takes not every advantage, that if it were possible he might gain favour in the eyes of Saul and his Subjects: but if they had fall'n upon him, and his power had been equal to theirs, who knows what he would have done? but we are sure as it is, it is defensive, and that is all it is to prove that Subjects may take up Arms to defend themselves against the injustice of their Kings. For that example of David at Keilah, all the answer to that is, 1 Sam. 2. 12. that it is an uncertain supposition. But examine the place, you shall find it as certain as a supposition can be; Ans. It appears plainly that David had some expectation that the men of Keilah would have stood to him and kept off Saul coming against him, and if they would, it is apparent by the Text, that David would have stood to it though Saul had come against him. In the Text it is as plain, as this: Suppose the King were near Hull going against against Sir J. Hotham, and Sir J. Hotham should seek to make sure of the men of Hul, and inquire whether they would deliver him or not if the King came, and he should come to know that certainly they would, and upon that very ground flies away, is this now an uncertain supposition that Sir John Hotham would willingly have the Town stand to him, and if they would stand to him he would stay there and defend himself against the King's forces? His last answer to David's example is, that his example was extraordinary because he was anointed to be King after Saul. Ans. But yet for the present he was a private man, although God had bestowed something extraordinary upon him more than upon other men; but it follows not therefore that in this case he had an extraordinary power to resist the Prince: Prince Charles hath no more power to resist his Father then the Parliament hath. For the example of Elisha using the King's messenger roughly, that came to take away his head, he says it says little to the question in hand. Ans. Yet he grants as much as it is brought for, that defence is lawful against sudden and illegal assaults of Messengers sent by the King; if against sudden, why not against deliberate and plotted? for, they are worse: This is one end of the raising of the Army, to prevent such assaults: If it be lawful to be done by violence by 2. or 3. when the messenger is but one, than it may be done by 2. or 3000. when the messengers are 1000 Chro. 26 For the example of the Priests thrusting out the leprous King. Ans. That which this is brought to prove, is thus much, That there may be such uncleanness in a King, that may cause Subjects lawfully to resist him, when he would do a wicked act. The Doctor says, First God's hand was upon him. Ans. So when God shall leave a King to some horrible way of evil, certainly God's hand is upon him then. He answers, But he hasted to go out himself. Ans. But the Scripture tells us, the Priests likewise thrust him out; they would not suffer him to be in the Temple. The next thing in the Sect. is, a similitude from the natural body: Though a member may defend itself against outward violence, yet no member must be set against the head, for that tends to the dissolution of the whole. Ans. If the similitude may be followed, we say, that some members are as necessary to the life of the head, as the head is necessary to the life of those members. 2. A kingdom may sometimes have one head, sometimes another, but so cannot a natural body. Further, he grants, personal defence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us, but general resistance by Arms (he saith) doth. Ans. No, it may maintain and regulate order, and there may be as little injustice on the one side as the other. But the case is not as Elisha's, for the King professeth he will use no violence, and we cannot know his heart. Ans. But that example of Elisha is brought to prove the lawfulness of using force against Kings in using violence: and what violence hath been already used, the world knows. Ans. Page 10. He comes to Scriptures, denying resistance: let us see what full Scriptures these are. The first is, Num. 16.1. &c. The conspiracy of Corah and his company▪ against Moses and Aaron. Ans. It is strange that this example must be paralleled with our Parl. taking up Arms: Was it not a most unjust and vile conspiracy, merely out of the pride of malicious spirits? Can the D. or any man think, that in justifying Arms in some case, we justify all villainous conspiracies and outrages? Besides, this place condemns rising up against the Priest, as well as the King. Yea certainly, if they had risen against the meanest officer that God had appointed in Church or commonwealth, as here they did against Moses & Aaron, it would have been a very heinous offence; Yea if Moses himself should have thus risen against any Officer appointed by God, it had been a vile sin in him; therefore this proves no more against subjects resisting Princes, than Princes resisting subjects, or one subject resisting another. Further, we do not rise against His Majesty, as they rose up against Moses & Aaron; we desire not that he should have less power than God & the Laws have given him, but we would preserve this in him, and keep off the stroke of any further power, so that we need not for this thing so much as examine the cause upon which they rose, whether it were supposed or not, for the case is far differing in the end of the rising. But Corah and his company supposed the cause sufficient. Supposed causes for any thing is not enough; Ans now we are not examining the truth of the cause of taking up Arms, but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject against the mind of the King for any cause. Well, our consciences need not be much scrupled from this Scripture: Let us examine the rest he brings. The second is, 1 Sam. 8.11, 18. where the oppression of the King is mentioned, and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord. Is the bare relation of the oppression of a King without mention in that place of any means of help, but crying to God, Ans a sufficient proof that though Kings oppress never so much, yet there is no help? Suppose I bring a place o Scripture, where there is a relation of Subjects rising up in a wicked way against their Prince, & in that place there is no other help mentioned, but only the Prince committed this to God, & God revenged it, can there be drawn from thence an argument, that when Subjects rise against Princes that they have no other help against them, but committing the cause to God? We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind, the very place the D. brought before will do it; Num. 15. when Corah and his company rose against Moses, we there read of no other help that Moses used, but he committed the thing to God, & God revenged it. But you will say, yet there are other places that show that Princes may make use of other help. So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes, many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleared. Ans Further, besides this, we answer, that the power of all Kings is not alike, it is no argument because one King hath such and such power, therefore all must needs have. The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the several Laws of several Countries. Let us see what the third Scripture says, for yet our consciences are not scrupled, it is Numb. 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet. Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them; Doth it follow that this must be so everywhere? Ans you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets, and that the Priests should blow them, as well as the former: The consequence would be full as good. No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests, for it is commanded there, as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets, because it is so ordered there; we know the Law is judicial, and for those judicial Laws the equity binds no further than according to rules of prudence and justice, every country shall see behooveful for their conditions. Besides if this did bind, than it were a sin for an Act to pass to put the Militia for any time into any other hands, for certainly it might not then be done, no, not with Moses and Aaron's consent. The next Scripture is, 1 Sam. 26.9. Who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's Anointed and be guiltless? Why doth the D. speak of stretching forth the hand against the Lord's Anointed? who endeavours it? doth not the Parliament profess the defence of the King's Person? 2. Doctor Willet upon this place gives you this Answer, That indeed it is not lawful for a private man to lay hands, no not upon a tyrant, for it is not lawful for a private man to kill a thief or a murderer, much less a Magistrate, a Prince. But secondly, he tells us of some that have laid hands upon a King, and yet have been guiltless, as Ebud upon Eglon King of Moab: therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a general Proposition drawn, that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King. Yea Doctor Willet answers in the third place, that yet Tyrants and wicked governors may be removed by the whole State. He indeed limits this, and says, it must be understood of such kingdoms as go by election, as in Polonia, and gives this reason, From whom Kings receive their authority, by them may they be constrained in keep within bounds. This it seems was good Divinity in those days. This distinction he used, to deliver the opinion from opposition in England; but if the distinction be examined, there will appear little strength in it: We do not find that D. Willet was ever reproved, or his writings censured for this thing. Concerning that restriction of his to kingdoms by election, we shall, when we come to show from whence all Kings have their power, see, that if it proves true of them, it will prove true of others; for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others, will be found either from election or covenant, which will come to all one. D. Ferne proceeds thus, If the King had come into the battle, his person might have been hurt as well as any. This had been but accidentally; If a father should voluntarily go into the Army of the common enemy, against whom the child is in service, and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father being there, especially he being desired & beseeched by any means not to be there, but to withdraw himself; doth the child contract guilt in such a case? H●s next Argument from Scripture is, That the Prophet reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression, none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance. First, There is much difference between Kings now, and those Kings: The people than did neither give them their power, nor limit their power; They do both now when first they are set up. Secondly, if this be a good argument, that because when Kings oppressed, the prophet did not call upon people for resistance, therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful; then, if when people have resisted, & cast off the Government of their King, & the Prophets have not reproved them for it; than it is lawful for people in some case to resist. He that will hearken to his own reason, must acknowledge there is par ratio. If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance, than there may be no resistance, says the Doctor: Then if when there is resistance, the Prophets rebuke not that resistance, than there may with as good reason be resistance, say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression, and harkening to his young cavaliers about him, rather than to his ancient grave counsel; the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did, but rather seemed to take their parts, 1 Kings 12.24. Return every man to his house, for this thing is from me. Now the D. comes to his great place again, Rom. 13. which he says be will free from all exceptions. Nay, bate me an Ace of that. The truth is, he vever so much as mentions, Ans. nor thinks of the great exception, which duly considered, will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose. First he supposes that the King is the supreme, as Peter calls him, or the higher power, as here. 1. It is true, Peter calls the King supreme, but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man, and therefore to be limited by man. Ans. He may be the chief man in authority, and yet limited in that authority; he is supreme, but not absolute; We grant that the Houses of Parliament, and we all, are his Subjects, but not Subjects to his will, but to that power of his that Law gives him. 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power. Here observe his mistake. Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power, yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power? It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract. Well, The King hath the highest power, and we must be subject to this power of his, and not resist it. Who denies all this? When all this is granted, the D. hath got nothing at all; for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him, we do not resist the higher power, although we do not do nor suffer what he would have us to do or suffer. Then he reasons from the person, whosoever, every soul. There was then says he, the Senate, &c. But what power the Senate had for the present upon agreement, Ans. or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperor by agreement, he shows not; and if he shows not this, he says nothing. Then he tells us of the cause Christians had to resist, because their Emperors were enemies to Religion, and had overthrown Laws and liberties. To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion; Ans. if the Laws of the Land be against it, we must either suffer, or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost parts of the earth, rather than resist. For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties, he must prove that the people & Senate had not given absolute power to them for the present, for the preventing further evils they feared, or else it reacheth not our case, for we know our people and Senate have not given any such absolute power. We must not be put to prove, they had, for it is his argument; therefore if he will make it good, he must prove they had not. And yet suppose they had not, if we should gratify the D. in that thing, yet the Argument would be but weak: for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power, their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: he doth not charge them not to resist their tyranny. Certainly they could have no power but that which was given them by some agreement; if they challenged further, it was no authority at all: such kind of tyranny as they would assume to themselves, the Apostle forbids not the resistance of in that place. As for that he says, that some affirm that prohibition was temporary, let them maintain it that affirm it: I am full of the D. mind in that, this prohibition is a standing rule. As for that distinction which he says, some make that they resist not the power, but the abuse of the power. We answer, it is not resisting abused power, for it is resisting no power at all. Abused power is the ill use of what is given to men; but the ill use of what was never given to them more than to any other, is abuse of their wills, but not abuse of their power. By Power I do not mean Strength, but Authority. Further, he says, These Emperors ruled absolutely, therefore upon that ground men might resist, is for any thing. 1. Although the Emperors might use some force to bring themselves to an absolute power, yet whether the people were not brought to consent to prevent farther danger, that must be disproved, when our case ever falls, so as we shall be brought to consent to an absolute power, although it be out of fear (which God forbid) than this argument will concern us, but not before. 2. What they got and held merely by force, without any consent and agreement, was no power, no authority at all but might be resisted, notwithstanding that prohibition. The last thing in that Sect. is, whereas we say that our Religion is established by Law, theirs was not: He answers 2. things. 1. Shall the prohibition be good against Christians under Emperors persecuting Religion, & not against Subjects enjoying their Religion? If those who have power to make Laws should prove so wicked as to make wicked Laws against Religion, yet I am rather bound to passive obedience in that case, then if men never so good should command according to their own will, and not according to Law; for there is an authority in the one, though abused, but none at all in the other. His second answer is, This prohibition did not concern Christians only, but all people under the Emperor. As before, 1. we know not but these people had given up their right. 2. If they had not, that prohibition doth not reach them in those things wherein they had not. Thus his Scriptures are answered, and I profess I have not answered from a humour of seeking to overcome in a dispute, to put glosses upon the one side, or to seek evasions from the strength of the other, but as in the presence of God to find out truth, and to satisfy Conscience that hath to do with God in a special manner. SECT. III. THe first Sect. is spent about the original of the power of Kings. He first contends that the power is from God, and that he needs not contend for, we grant that the power not only of Kings, but of all lawful authority is God's Ordinance, but that such and such men should have this power, and how much of this power should be put upon this man, and how much upon that, that is from man. Hence it is very observable when the Apostle speaks of the power, Rom. 13. he says, it is of God; but when Peter speaks of the men upon whom that power is put, whether Kings or those sent by him, he says, that is a human ordinance, 1 Pet. 2.13. yea, a human creation, so the words are, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Yea the D. grants this, that though the power be from God, yet the designing the person to bear that power, yea, and the qualification and limitation is from men by the Laws made with consent. The supreme Magistrate is called the Minister of God, Rom. 13. We acknowledge him so, he is also said in the same place, to minister for thy good. I have said, Ye are God's. This is true of inferior Magistrates as well as superior, and yet none will say, but inferiors may be resisted. His conclusion is in this Sect. that though the power be of God, yet the person designed, and the qualification of power in several forms of government, & limitation of this, is by the laws of men: This is as much as we desire. Many go no further than the designation of the person to be from man, but the D. is more fair, he says the qualification is from man also. If so, mark what follows, than no man can have any of this ruling power, but according as he is designed to it, qualified for it, limited in it by men, whatsoever the name be by which you call him, Emperor, King, Prince, Duke, Lord, &c. SECT. IV. THis Sect. is about the power of people to reassume what power they have conferred upon Magistrates, although God's power, yet conferred by them. He argues thus, If the power be God's, than people cannot reassume. If the King gives power to an inferior Magistrate, Ans. the power that this Magistrate hath is likewise from God, for so the Scripture says, Rom. 13. All power is from God: may not this power be reassumed therefore? Let none put this off, with saying, But people are not above Kings, as Kings are above inferior Magistrates, for that is nothing to the argument. The argument that he makes is this, If the power be of God, it cannot be reassumed: Now the answer is, That the power of inferior▪ Magistrates is of God, and yet it may be reassumed, therefore his consequence is not good. Further, a servant by stipulation makes a man his Master, who was not before: Now the power of the Master is God's, may he therefore never be deprived of that power? Servants must serve Christ in serving their Masters, as truly as Subjects must obey God in obeying their Prince. Pastors and Teachers have a ruling and a ministerial power, and this power is God's, may it therefore never be taken away from them? His second Argument is, We cannot recall what is once given, as in things devoted. 1. That can never be proved, that a thing devoted to a religious use, can never lawfully be employed to no other. This is a groundless conceit, because he brings no proofs for it, Eadem facilitate rejicitur, qua asseritur. But this that we speak of is a civil thing. And for Kings, that the power they have may not be taken away, he gives that reason, Because the Lord's hand and his oil is upon them. So the Lord's hand and oil is upon Captains and other Magistrates. Ans. Joshua and Zecrubbabel are called The anointed ones. Prophets, Priests have God's hand and oil upon them, and cannot the power for no cause be taken from these? And yet how confidently doth the man conclude, This will not a true informed conscience dare to do. Certainly notwithstanding all the information in this argument, he may do it. But he proceeds. How can conscience be satisfied, that this their argument grounded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this kingdom, when as the Grown descends by inheritance, and hath often been settled by Conquest. 1. There is nobody here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that Law hath given him. Ans. 2. Howsoever, the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder; For first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, & his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them: therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for Conquest, that only settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to add to, what was former. The right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent. He further argues, It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here, as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance, or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claim by it? 1. Is it but a remote probability that Kings were here first by election? Ans. I demand, what first invested such a Family with regal power, more than another? It must be either God from heaven designing it, as David, or men appointing it, or taken by force: there is no quartum. It was not the first, and to say the third is the right, is an extreme wrong to the King. ● mere force can give right, than whosoever is most forcible hath right; it must therefore be something else: what can that be but the consent of people to such a family? which is in effect all one with election. You may give it what name you will, it is not therefore a remote probability, but a near certainty, that even here Kings were at first either by choice, or by that which in effect is all one. The Doctor says, that Kings of England do not claim their right by election. Ans. It may be they use not that word; but if the Doctor shall presume to dispute their claim for them, and think to get a better and surer claim than the agreement of people, that the regal power shall be in such a family, surely he will have no thanks for his labour. Let him take heed of this. Although he is pleased to call Election a slender plea, yet I believe he cannot bring a stronger. He is at his place in Rom. 13. again, with the absolute Monarchy of Roman Emperors. This hath been answered again and again. The next thing he discusses is the covenant the King enters into, and the oath he takes. And here he tells us our Kings are Kings before they enter into the Covenant, or take this Oath. Ans. Although they be Kings before they personally do covenant or swear, yet their right comes in by their Progenitors, who had their right conferred upon them by some agreement or other: so that they have covenanted in them. But this clause in the covenant or oath is not expressed, that in case he will not discharge his trust, it shall be lawful to resist. We do not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes, as upon the original agreement between people & King, whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family, and for that we say that no more power was conferred then was done by virtue of that agreement; and why there should not be the same reason in the Covenant between a country and a Family in matters of so high a nature, as there is in other Covenants amongst men, let the Doctor show, or any for him. The Doctor confesseth, Page 16. line 21. That laws are for the restraint of the power of Princes. But at length after the discussion of the business, he tells you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his Covenant, is an inconsequent argument. You must believe him, because he says so: If his bare word will not satisfy you, you are like to have nothing else. Yet we would have him and all know, that we do not think that every breach of promise, and not performance of covenant in every thing, makes a forfeiture: this indeed were a dangerous consent. But the question is, Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture? We confess ourselves not willing to dispute this too far. He presently seems to grant that there may be some force in the argument in States elective and pactional, but not in this kingdom. Ans. If the ground of all power that one man hath over another in civil Government, be some kind of election, explicit on implicit, or some kind of agreement at the first, let the Doctor show how this kingdom is freed. But what if the King will not keep to his agreement, may the Subject do nothing? The Dr. Answers, Yes, they may use fair means by Petitions, and they may To what purpose are Subsidies and aids denied, Ans. if the King hath power to take our estates when he pleaseth, and there must be no resistance? Though this he says may seem unreasonable to people, and very impolitic to the statesman, yet plain Scripture and reason forbids it. But this Scripture and reason lies hid from us as yet, we have examined them as they have come, and we have found plain mistakes in the alleging them. SECT. V. THis Section is spent in the argument of means of safety to a kingdom in case the King should tyrannize; if they might not resist, it seems God hath left them destitute of all help, they must needs perish. To this he first answers, That is the same argument that it used for the Popes curbing of, or deposing Princes in case of heresy, otherwise the Church hath no means to preserve itself. The good of a Church is spiritual, Ans and God hath given it spiritual means enough to preserve its spiritual good, although there be no such power of the Pope over Princes, and we know the Church was preserved and flourished in spiritual beauty when there was neither Pope nor Prince to preserve it. But the good of a Kingdom is civil and natural, therefore it must have civil and natural means to preserve itself by in case of danger. Hence than although it be no argument that Popes may by power of arms curb Kings, and because else the good of the Church cannot be preserved, yet it may be a good argument the people may in some case take up Arms to defend themselves against violence, although the King gives not his consent, because otherwise the civil and natural good of men in a kingdom cannot be preserved. The second thing he says is, What means of safety had the Christians in and after the Apostles times? God called them then to suffer; for they were not the State; though many particular men that are not a State, may easily be brought into such a condition as they have no means for safety, but they must needs suffer; and so many States, when the external violence is too strong for them; but when God and nature gives them means of deliverance, there is no necessity they should perish. When the Doctor disproves resistance better, we will either fly or suffer. As for the Christians why they could not resist, the Dr. speaks of a reason that he seems to be satisfied in, because things were so enacted by Law, therefore they could not resist: therefore he leaves their example, as invalid in our case, and so it were well that every one else would leave off urging, that we may never hear of the example of the Christians in the primitive times applied to our case more: For though it seems to be something at first view, yet it is nothing when it is examined. But than he says, The Edicts that concerned others were Arbitrary. To this the Answer hath been already, either the people than gave up their whole right to their Emperors, which we have not done to our Kings, Ans or otherwise they were not bound to their Arbitrary government, but might have resisted for their own preservations. But if Parliaments should degenerate and grow tyrannical, what means of safety could there be for a State? I confess the condition of such a State would be very dangerous and like to come to confusion; particular men could not help themselves, Ans and the whole State ought to suffer much before it should help itself by any ways of resisting: but if you can suppose a Parliament so far to degenerate, as they should all conspire together with the King to destroy the kingdom, and to possess the lands and riches of the kingdom themselves, in this case whether a Law of Nature would not allow of standing up to defend ourselves, yea to reassume the power given to them, to discharge them of that power they had, and set up some other, I leave to the light of nature to judge. You will say, this cannot be, because the higher powers must not be resisted by an●. Ans. This is not properly to resist the power, but to discharge the power, to set the power elsewhere. The servant doth not resist the power of his Master, when he upon just grounds leaves him, and goes to another, if he be such a Master, as is his Master by his own choice, for such and such ends and purposes, and had his power limited by agreement. I know this will be cried out of as of dangerous consequence, wherefore God deliver us (as I hope he will) for ever making use of such a principle. It is hard to conceive it possible that a Parliament can so degenerate, as to make our condition more grievous by unjust acts, than it would be if the power in a Kingdom should return to the law of nature, from whence at first it rose. Divers lines together after the objection from want of safety in case of degenerating of Parliament, be spends in commending the temper of our government in the three Estates, with complaints of some distemper for the present. Ans. In the one I join with him: but for the other, I undertake not to satisfy all his apprehensions of distractions in the Parliament. The man I believe lives at a distance from Parliament, and so looks at it through multitudes of reports which usually (and especially in these times) are exceeding false mediums to look through: Straight things will seem crooked, when the object is seen through water that is too thick a medium: Reports do so gather soil before they come to him, that when they come, they are an exceeding thick medium to see Parliament proceedings by. Whereas it is said, that many see more than one, and there is more safety in the judgement of many than one: He answers, Why should an hundred in the House of Commons see more than three hundred? and twenty in the Lord's House see more than sixty that are of a contrary judgement? Ans. If there were so many of a contrary judgement more than the others, why do they not come and out-vote them in what things are amiss? 2. This adds much validity in common reason to what they determine, that they are always a competent number, allowable by Law to be Houses of Parliament, and they debate and determine things in such an Assembly that is open for so many, which all the countries and Cities in the Kingdom have chosen, to come to debate or contradict as they think fit. Such determinations, although I do not say they should be accounted infallible, yet they carry with them more likely reason, than those who are carried by a few in some secret way. Further, why should such an Objection be made against the Houses of Parliament, that no Court of Justice, no society that carry things by Vote, will admit, if it be once set? that in such Assemblies there shall be so many at the least, there may be three times more, yet so many makes up the Assembly, so as to enable it to such and such purposes. How can this Objection, without wrangling, be admitted? Oh but many were of another mind, or some belonging to the Assembly were not present. After this the Doctor proceeds to the commending of Monarchy above aristocracy, and the Kings Negative voice. Ans. This is nothing to our business. What though Monarchy be the best? and what though the King should have power of a negative voice in the passing all bills? this is granted. Then he comes again to his 13. to the Rom. The argument from this place is worn exceeding bare by this time, Ans. If it were lawful to resist power abused, it would open a way to people to overthrow powers duly administered. 1. We do not say that power abused should be resisted; but Will, Ans. where there is no Power, may be resisted. 2. True, there is danger in the people's abusing their liberties, and danger in Magistrates abusing their power. He says he intends not to lay the least blemish upon the Parliament. Yet in the Page before he says, The Temper of the Parliament is dissolved: Ans. and upon that says, the distractions in the commonwealth, show the distempers, and the danger of dissolution, and what is the cause of it. It would fill much paper to gather together the blemishes that this man casts upon the Parliament, especially in his last page. But that is not my work, I would gladly have consciences resolved. He proceeds to show the difference between the Low-countries and us, which no question is something, but not so as can make what they have done lawful, and yet the doctor's tenets right, nor what we have done unlawful. He farther enlarges himself in discourse about the evils that accompany resisting of power. Still we say power should not be resisted, and where it is resisted sinfully, Ans. yea where men in power are resisted, any way, there are like to follow sad consequences of affliction. But what is all this for the satisfaction to conscience about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of resisting men that have power in any case? Then he comes to the oath of Supremacy and the Protestation. The Answer to this depends upon what hath been said, Ans. we swear only to the legal power, we protest no further than the maintenance of that. He says; conscience will look at that power he hath as the ordinance of God. True, what power he hath, that is, what the Laws give him, Ans. we say is an ordinance of God. But his abuse of power is a judgement of God, that we must cry to God against, and a true informed conscience in that case will rather suffer then resist. He still takes abuse of his power to be the doing whatsoever he please: we deny that to be abuse of his power. We say in that he doth not exercise his authorative power at all, therefore he doth not abuse it. If indeed some unjust Law should give him any power to do wrong, the execution of this would be the abuse of his power, and therein it is granted a true informed conscience would rather suffer then resist. But in the other case, when he doth what Law inables not to do, all the arguments of the Doctor cannot so inform our consciences, as to believe the State must rather suffer then resist. Now the Doctor casts up his reckoning, and thinks he finds it comes to thus much, that he hath found Scripture and reason, speak plainly against resisting. He cries victory to himself, he tells himself what the issue of his own thoughts come to; but he reckons without his Host, his conquest is too hasty, we are not of his mind. I will only observe one thing more in the conclusion of this Section. If any shall be carried away with the name of a Parliament, as Papists are with the name of the Church, &c. If the Church could do as much in matters of Religion, Ans. as the Parliament can do in matters of the State, the Papists were not so much to be blamed for being taken so much with the name of the Church, as as we are not for being taken so much with the name of the Parliament. For 1. The Church cannot make new Articles of Faith, or nullify the old; but the Parliament can make new maxims to be accounted Law, that were not before, and undo what were before. 2. The Church hath not a judicial power of interpreting the Law of God, but the Parliament hath a judicial power of interpreting the Law of the State, so as that is to be accounted Law, which they interpret to be so. I do not say that we are bound to believe, that whatsoever interpretation they make was the scope and intention of that Law when it was first made: But this I say, that their interpretation must be accounted as much binding to us for obedience, as the scope and intention of that Parliament that first made that Law. Thus I have done with his Scriptures, and the rational part of his Book; and I hope others will have done with it too. If men's consciences be satisfied in the lawfulness of the thing itself, Subjects taking up Arms against the will of the King: His other part, every one who understands how things are with us, that is willing to be satisfied, will be soon able to satisfy himself. The substance of all that follows is, suppose that Subjects may take up Arms? yet whether there be sufficient cause for us to do it. Toward the conclusion of the Book the Dr. begins to be hot, and somewhat bitter, but I shall not here follow him in particulars, but in the general thus: What the condition of our Kingdom is, whether in danger or not? What the condition of our Houses of Parliament, whether they be safe or not? whether their privileges be broke or not? Judge you whether Doctor Ferne or all the Remonstrances and Declarations we have had from both Houses be able best to certify us: we have received information enough, and seen and felt enough to make us believe that our Kingdom is in great danger: but it may be the Doctor sits in his study like another Archimedis drawing his lines, and the Swords must be about his ears before he will see or believe any danger towards us. Ans. The Doctor puts the case thus, whether the conscience can be so persuaded, that the King is such and so minded, as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Arms against him; in this he is as miserably mistaken, as in all his other grounds from Scripture, and his reasons, if he thinks this be the controversy. For 1. we take up no Arms against the King. 2. Whatsoever the King's mind be, there is sufficient cause to take up Arms to defend ourselves against others that seek our ruins. We know of the plots of bringing the Armies in the North upon Parliament and city: We know of the great preparations of Arms in foreign parts to send over hither, and time hath discovered their further attempts, although it hath indeed withal discovered they could not bring their attempts to their desired issue. We know of many Delinquents that are fled from the Justice of the Parliament, which cannot be attached without force; and if they may so scape as they do, to what purpose doth a Parliament sit? it will soon be made ridiculous in the eyes of the world. We know what is done in the execution of the Commission of Array, and that by force of Arms, and all these things by those who are under the authority of the Houses of Parliament: wherefore if they cannot prevent these evils imminent, nor rectify these disorders extant, but by power added to their authority, although there be no such horrible things as the Doctor speaks of, namely, the King's intentions to subvert Religion, and our Laws and Liberties, if the King do but deny to assist in the delivering us from those danger, not upon groundless jealousies feared, but upon certain proofs we know we are in, and in the delivering up of such delinquents as justice must not, our safety cannot suffer to escape, there is cause enough to satisfy our consciences in the lawfulness of our taking up Arms. Yea, our protestation and duty, though we had never so protested, binds us to maintain by all our strength the Parliament in this; and in maintaining them, we do not at all prejudice the King in any lawful power of his. This general is enough to satisfy in what is said in the two last Sections: As for particulars mentioned there, many of them are answered already in the former discourse; others being matters of fact, it is more easy for any one to answer that hath a mind to examine what passages have fall'n out. To go through them particularly I shall leave to some who have more time to spare than I, they are far more easy to answer than what was before, but not so profitable, and yet the answer would exasperate more, they are Subjects more suitable for Lawyers and Statists to treat about then for Divines. Wherefore whereas in the conclusion of all, the Doctor desires those who will run the Hazard of this resistance; first to set their consciences before the tribunal of God, and consider whether they will excuse them there when they have shed blood, to say, we supposed our Prince would change Religion, overthrow liberties. No Doctor, We can comfortably, and will freely and really set our conscience before God's tribunal in this case, but we will not make that our plea, but we will stand thus before the Lord. Lord thou who art the searcher of our hearts, and our judge, thou knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King, we desired to live in peace, we according to our solemn vow and Protestation, have only endeavoured to deliver our Kingdom & Parliament from the rage of ungodly, and violent bloody men, to bring forth the wicked unto justice, to preserve what thy majesty, what the law of nature, and the Law of the Land hath made our own. If thou wilt please to call us to suffer for thy Name, we hope we shall be ready; but because thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an infidel, not to provide for his family, therefore we have not submitted ourselves, wives and children to the rage of th●se bloody men: for the substance of what we have done, it hath been in thy Name, that we may be faithful to the King, Kingdom, Parliament, and to posterity. What failings thou hast seen in the managing of it, Lord pardon to us for Christ his sake. Thus we are willing to meet the Doctor at God's tribunal, but he shall not lay our plea for us, we fear he will have enough to do to answer for himself, yea to answer for that Book he hath put forth in such a time as this. For a Conclusion of all. LEt none think that though we thus justify taking up Arms, that therefore we are of those that delight in War; God forbid. Our souls desire after peace, we pray for peace, we would gladly lay down our lives. (if we know our own hearts) for peace. Lately my name was injuriously added to a printed paper, wherein there was a Petition against Accommodations: It says I went along with it, whereas I knew nothing at all of it, until near a week after it was delivered to the House. Thus are we at the mercy of every malignant spirit, if he can get a Printer to assist him, to be rendered to the world as odious as he pleaseth. As great an injury I suffered before, though in another nature, when a few pieces of a Sermon I preached to young men were gathered together, and patched up with a deal of nonsense, and additions of their own as they pleased, and then put out as mine. Although we live amongst men set on fire, yet God forbid but we should follow peace: but it must be the peace of Jerusalem, not the peace of Babylon. And the truth is, had the people known their liberties before, it is very probable these wars would have been prevented. This I am confident hath been the great encouraging, fomenting argument for these wars, If we go in the name of the King, none will dare to stir against us; What will they take up Arms to resist their King? Had they seen the weakness of this their Argument, at it is applied to this business in hand, that blood that hath been shed would have been prevented; And if the people of the Land knew the Liberty that God, and Nature, and Law gives them, there would soon be an end of these wars; but a few such Doctors at this is, may help to prolong them, by dividing the people, and putting them into a maze, coming in so plausible a way to inform Conscience; whereas in truth he gives no bottom for Conscience to rest on, but rather puts it to a stand, or rather into a labyrinth. There is a necessity that in these times people's Consciences should be further satisfied in their liberties in this case then formerly, because the time is (we hope) at hand for the pulling down of Antichrist, and we find by Scripture this work at first will be by the people: Revel. 18.2. The Angel came down from heaven and cried mightily with a strong voice, Babylon the great is fall'n, is fall'n: And vers. 4. I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her my people: ver. 6. Reward you her as she hath rewarded you: and so to the 9 ver. her destruction is threatened. Now ver. 9 the Text says, The Kings of the earth who have committed fornication, and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, saying, Alas, alas. Ver. 11. And the Merchants of those things which were made rich by her, shall stand weeping and wailing, ver. 15. All her Proctors, and Commissaries, and Chancellors that grew rich by her, they shall lament. No marvel then though so many Proctors get together to seek for peace upon any terms. Here you see Babylon must down, and yet the Kings lament her fall: Who then must pull her down but the people? Not that the people can raise a War merely for Religion, but God will so order things, that the Papists shall by their malice be put upon such plots and enterprises, that they shall make themselves liable to the justice of the Law, so that Kings shall have no legal power to rescue them from it, but inferior Magistrates, assisted by the people, shall in a just way fall upon them, even than when the Kings of the earth and their Merchants shall lament them. Hence Revel. 19.6. the Hallelujah that is begun upon the Lord God omnipotents ralgning, is begun by the people, I heard the voice as of many waters, saying, Hallelujah. Now the Scripture frequently sets forth the people by waters, as Revel. 17.15. The waters which thou sawest, were peoples. We read Cant. 5.11. where the glory of Christ is set forth, it begins at the head; but Cant. 7.1 where the glory of the Church is set forth, it begins at the feet, How beautiful are thy feet? Surely the right knowledge of these liberties God hath given people, will much help forward the great things God hath to do in this latter age. This makes me willing to publish what help I can in this thing, although I know full well I run the hazard of suffering much in it. Let Babylon fall, let the Church prosper, it is enough, our lives are not much worth. And now I have shown the Commission of the Lord of Hosts for wars; I shall not yet cease to pray for peace; such a peace as may have as good a Commission from the Prime of Peace as the present wars of the Kingdom have from the Lord of Hosts. That which I have done is but as the taking of my pen to write a Letter to a friend; but a little strength is enough to oppose a little strength. FINIS.