THE RESOLVING OF CONSCIENCE, Upon this Question, Whether upon such a Supposition or Case, as is now usually made (The King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties) Subjects may take Arms and resist? and Whether that Case be now?  
RESOLVED,  

I. That no Conscience upon such a Supposition or Case can find a safe and clear ground for such resistance.  
II. That no Man in Conscience can be truly persuaded, that the resistance now made is such, as they themselves pretend to, that plead for it in such a case.  
III. That no Man in Conscience can be truly persuaded that such a case is now, that is, that the King will not discharge His trust, but is bent to subvert, &c.   
Whence it followeth. That the resistance now made against the higher Power is unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle Damnable, Rem. 13. Also that the shedding of bound in the pursuit of this resistance is Murder.  
By H. FERN, D. D. &c.  woe unto them that call evil good, and gool evil, that put darkness for Light and Light for Darknessae, Isa. 5. 20. O my soul come not thou into their secret, Gen. 49. 6. 
Printed at York by Stephen Bulkley, 1642.   

To all misled People in this Land.  
HE that in these times will speak any thing to the People in behalf of the King, is likely to do it upon disadvantage, and be heard with prejudice: but they that would be profitably informed by what they hear, must lend an equal ear to what is spoken; which I hope you will do, being such, for the most part, as profess to make a conscience of your ways, I desire therefore of you (into whose hands this Treatise shall come) that you would receive it with mind and affection, answerable to that wherewith it is offered to you, free from partiality and private respects; that you would consider Cases of Conscience are written out of Conscience: And were a distressed Prince a fit object for flattery, or this kind of instruction capable of such language, yet is this a time for every man to inform and speak his Conscience; and as many of you as shall read me in this book, will, I hope, conceive, I had no other purpose in the publishing of it, then to give testimony to the truth for the directing of your Consciences and the discharge of mine own. I have therefore written it plainly without affectation of curiosity, having a respect only to your profit; the Learned through the Land are sufficiently persawded, and I may azure you all Ages have asserted this truth, out of which I could have drawn a cloud of witnesses and presented them to your sight, but thought it more expedient for your direction, to show you the clear light of Divine Scripture and rectified Reason, the only rules of Conscience; and if by these you shall be brought to see the crookedness of the New Doctrine of these times, and the uneven dangerous windings of this way of resistance, I have gained the end of my desires, and you have not lost by it.  
One thing I must note as strange, that to discourse upon this argument shouldbe thought (as it is by many) a work altogether beyond the profession of the Divine. Indeed popular statesmen have always held it very impolitic and unreasonable, that Subjects should not in dangers imminent have means to save themselves by a Power of resistance, and accordingly framed their principles and grounds of State as unquestionable. We examine not the power or wisdom of lawmakers, but when we receive their Law, Declaration, or Command, and know it in terminis, understand it in the sense it be its, certainly it belongs to the Divine to consider whether it be against God's Law, and accordingly to instruct his people. If it be agreed upon as a thing known in this State, that the King is the higher Power according to St. Paul, the Supreme according to St. Peter, the Father of the Commonwealth according to the fifth commandment, surely it belong to the Divine to urge obedience, honour, and subjection according to those place, and reprove resistance forbidden there: Which obedience we acknowledge to be limited and circumscribed by the established Laws of the Land, and accordingly to be yielded or denied to the higher Power, if those Laws be not repugnant to the Law of God: And for Resistance, as we have not yet heard of any Law of the Land that commands or warrants it, so we know that were there any Law or Ordinance made to enjoin it, such would not bind, being against the Apostles express prohibition, backed with arguments drawn from the very reason of government, as shall be shown in this following Treatise.  
Be they who they will that present you with imminent dangers, and work upon your fears, that tell you of fundamental laws, and give you rules of policy to captivate your reason; when all that's done, it is the Divine that must settle the Conscience, which will not be quiet, if in yielding obedience to any Law or Ordinance, it comes to a suspicion, that such an Ordinance of man entrencheth upon the word of God.  
Let me tell you (for I suppose you follow this way in the simplicity of your hearts) how you are wrought upon by them that mislead you. You are dealt with according to your general desire of the continuance of true Religion and the Subjects Liberty, not according to the particular grounds of safety, which conscience doth require: You are told, the Gospel and your Liberties, and all you have, are in most imminent danger, and without taking Arms for the defence, irrecoverably lost; and that this is lawful by the Fundamentals of this Kingdom: You must take all this upon trust, without an express and particular warrant, to rule and secure your Conscience against the express words of the Apostle forbidding resistance, Rom. 13.  
You profess yourselves enemies to Popery, and good reason for it, but why should you therefore be enemies to your King that declares against it too. I would you could observe how, under pretence of keeping out Popery, you are led in this way of r●sistance by the like steps that brought Popery in. For examine your hearts and try if the name of Parliament (which is of honourable esteem with all) be not raised to the like excess of credit with you, as the name of the Church is with the Papists; if you have not within you a silent thought of infallibility in that great council, and so with an implicit faith are ready to receive and maintain what ever is concluded there; if you be not drawn to believe your Prince is minded to overthrow Religion, and upon such a supposal or belief (according to the very method of Jesuitical practices) to take up Arms against him.  
If you do not rest satisfied with your general intention of a good end, that is, the defence of Religion, not examining the means, you now use, to compass that end; like those that for the advancing of the Catholic cause, as they call it, attempt any thing however unjust, even to the destruction of Kings, that are set over them; this blindness is Popish, and practice Jesuitical. Lastly, examine your hearts, if you be not confirmed in your way by the number of your professor, like as they are by the Universality of their Church, resting upon the person of men, not trying the Cause itself by the touchstone of divine Scripture and rectified Reason. I know it prevails with many thousands of you, because you see, as you think, and use to say, All good people that have sense of Religion, and Conscience of their ways, do go along with you, and you cannot believe that God would suffer them to be so generally deluded; let me tell you, you do hereby very uncharitably conclude upon all those that run not with you to the like excess, and I may say without breach of charity, they that appear with you in the Cause, would not all be found such, as you conceive them to be, if they were examined by the true marks of Christian profession, that is, by the true doctrine of faith, by their charity, honesty, obedience, meekness of Spirit, and the like; without which your Religion is vain, whatever your exercises, or performances of duties be; the Pharisees righteousness will exceed yours, and his frequency and length of prayer will be as sure a mark as yours; nay the Anabaptist, at this day will outdo you in any of your forms of godliness. I do not speak this against the frequent and sincere performance of holy duties: God forbid I should. Nor do I speak it of you all: I know there are many good and Conscientious men that go your way in the simplicity of their hearts, as those did that followed Absolom; whom the just God suffers hitherto to be deceived, that even by their example this power of Resistance may gather strength to the just punishment of this sinful land, and that they themselves when their eyes shall be opened (which, I hope, will be ere long) may see their own weakness, and be so much more humbled for it.  
In the mean time you are according to the blindness of a Popish way in all the former respects, carried on against all rule of Conscience; for you have neither certain knowledge of your Prince's heart, to resolve for resistance upon a supposal of such intentions in him; nor have you any certain rule to warrant the lawfulness of resisting upon such supposal, and to secure you against the Apostles prohibition, and damnation laid upon it; nor have you any judgement of Charity, in concluding such intentions in your Prince against His deepest Protestations made in such times of His distress, and without that, all is nothing, though you lay down, as you think, your life for Religion. 
1. Cor. 13.  How much safer would it be for you to be guided by the sure Rules of Conscience, and (if it should please God to bring upon you what you fear) to suffer unjustly, then in the unwarrantable prevention of it to do unjustly.  
To this purpose shall you have this Treatise speaking to you for the direction of your Consciences. If you think it strikes too boldly upon any thing concerning the Parliament, I desire yours and their favourable interpretation, fain would I silence every thought and word that may seem to reflect upon that high Court; but what is necessary, I must speak for truth and conscience sake, from which neither King nor Parliament should make us swerve. We are taught that Kings must not be flattered; and the people ought to learn, that parliamen must not be idolised: that has been often charged as a fault upon the Clergy, and This I fear is that sin of the People, which, together with the licentiousness indulged back again to them, has moved God to blow upon that wished for fruit we might have reaped by this so desired a Parliament. For when I see Man is more sensible of every breach of his own rights and privileges, then of those unparalleled breaches so frequently made upon God's public Worship, I cannot but think the Lord will require it of this Land; and when I see right and just subverted, property and liberty exposed to the will and power of every one that is pleased to conceive his Neighbour a Malignant, and able to make him so by commanding his. Goods and Person, I cannot but complain with the Psalmist, The foundations of the Earth are out of course; 
Psal. 82,  and appeal to Heaven, Arise O God, judge thou the Earth. And I trust, that albeit this Spirit of seduction may prevail a while, and this way of resistance prosper, for the great, but just punishment of this sinful Land, the Lord will look down from Heaven, and make Truth and Peace again to flourish out of the Earth, will look upon the Face of His Anointed, and by this Affliction, as by a loving correction make him great. 
Ps. 18. 35.  Great to the maintenance of God's true Religion, and to the restoring of the Peace and prosperity of this Kingdom; And, Let all the People say, Amen.   

The Contents.  

Sect. I. THe explication of the Question, and general Resolution of it.  
Sect. II. The Principle or Ground on which they go for Resistance examined by Scripture. Their chief Examples, (to which should have been added Libnah's revolt, answered now in the last Sect.) Scriptures against them, especially that of the 13. to the Rom. urged and cleared: where showed, The King is that higher Power. That all are forbidden to resist, even the Senate, which by the fundamentals of that State might challenge as much as our great council can. That prohibition concerns all times; and was good, not only in that State, because they were absolute monarchs, but in all States because of the preservation of Order which should be in all, and was good not only against the Christians, because their Religion was enected against by Law, but also against the Senate and People, though they were enslaved.  
Sect. III. Their principle examined by reason. Of fundamentals, their groundwork according to the pleaders for resistance, is the original of Power from the People, and their reassuming it, when the Prince will not discharge his trust. The Power itself, (distinguished from the designing of the Person, and the Qualification of it in several forms of Government) is from God as an ordinance or constitution under that providence whereby God rules the whole World, Creatures reasonable as well as unreasonable.  
Sect. IV. That Power cannot be forfeited to the People or reassumed by them. They cannot prove it by virtue of the first election, or by any capitulations or covenant, or the Oath between Prince and People.  
Sect. V. Nor can it be proved by that necessity of means of safety which should be in every State to provide for itself: but greater dangers and inconveniences would follow by such means of safety as are pretended to by resuming the Power.  
Sect. VI. The Examination of the Resistance now made. Where shown, that it is not so much as they themselves pretend to, who plead for it; either for the general and unanimous consent of the kingdom; for it was not so agreed upon: or for the defensive way of it; because the King is upon the defensive, For He was not first in Arms, and the Contentiom must needs appear to be for something the King hath right to hold, or is bound by oath to maintain. Also because to any man's Conscience it will appear to he an oppugnation, rather than a resistance or mere defence.  
Sect. VII. The case is not in being. No Conscience can conclude the King to be, what they would have him supposed: because the jealousies are groundless. The King hath done sufficient to clear them, by Promises, Protestations, acts of Grace. And Conscience if it hold the rule of Charity, will not against all those conclude contrary intentions in him, upon them to ground resistance; but will, if it will not not be partial, judge the King hath offered such reasonable means of security to this State as ought to have been apprehended, rather than this Kingdom embroiled in a Civil war, and Ireland neglected. Lastly, a Conscience that concludes for resistance, wants the persuasion of faith, and the judgement of charity in an high measure, and cannot appear safely at God's tribunal.    

The Resolving of Conscience, Touching the unlawfulness of the War and Resistance now made against the KING.  
LAmentable are the distractions of this kingdom, and the more, because they gather strength from the name and authority of (that, which as it is of high esteem with all, so should it be a remedy to all these our distempers) a Parliament: and from the pretended defence of those things that are most dear unto us, Religion, Liberties, Laws. Whereupon so many good people, that have come to a sense of Religion and godliness, are miserably carried away by a strange implicit faith to believe, that whatsoever is said or done in the name of a Parliament, and in the pretended defence of Religion, Liberties, Laws, to be infallibly true, and altogether just.  
But he that will consider, men are men, and would seek a surer rule for his Conscience then the Traditions or Ordinances of men taken hand over head, shall upon reasonable examinations find upon what plausible, but groundless principles, upon what fair but deceiving pretences, upon what grievous but causeless imputations laid upon majesty itself, poor people are drawn into Arms against the duty and allegiance they owe to their Prince by the Laws of God and man. For directing the Conscience in such an examination this ensuing Discourse is framed, as briefly and plainly as the matter will permit.  

SECT. I  
COnscience in resolving upon a question, first lays down the Proposition or Principle or Ground, on which it goes; than it assumes or applies to the present case; than it concludes and resolves: as in this question, affirmatively for Resistance, thus, Subjects in such a case may arm and resist: But that case is now come: Therefore now they may and do justly resist.  
Or negatively against Resistance, either by denying the Principle: Subjects may not in such a Case arm and resist, therefore now they do not justly resist. Or by admitting the Principle and denying the Case, Subjects in such a case may arm and resist. But that case is not now. Therefore now they do not justly arm and resist.  
What it is that Conscience is here to admit or deny, and how it ought to conclude and resolve, this ensuing Treatise will discover: which that it may more clearly appear, we will premise.  
First, That in the Proposition or Principle by the word Resistance is meant, not a denying of obedience to the Prince's command, but a rising in arms, a forcible resistance; this though clear enough in the question, yet I thought fit to insinuate, to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this kingdom, and, upon all those that appear for the King in this cause, that they endeavour to defend an absolute power in him, and to raise him to an Arbitrary way of government; This we are as much against on his part, as against Resistance on the subject's part. For we may and aught to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince, as are unlawful by the Law of God, yea, by the established Laws of the Land: For in these we have his will and consent given upon good advice, and to obey him against the Laws were to obey him against himself, his sudden will against his deliberate will; but a far other matter it is to resist by power of arms, as is in the question employed, and as we see at this day to our astonishment, first the power of arms taken from the Prince by setting up the Militia, than that power used against him by an army in the field.  
Secondly, we must consider, that they which plead for Resistance in such a case as is supposed, do grant it must be concluded upon, Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus, that is, with the general and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses, the representative body of the whole kingdom: also they yield it must be only Legitima desensio, a mere defensive resistance; and this also Conscience must take notice of.  
Thirdly, it is considerable, that in the supposition or case it is likewise granted by them, that the Prince must first be so and so disposed, and bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, Laws, and will not discharge his trust for the maintaining of them, before such a Resistance can be pretended to. And although the question is, and must be so put now, as that it seems to straighten the Case, and make it depend upon the supposal of the people; yet it so much the more enlarges the falsehood of the Principle, for it plainly speaks thus; If subjects believe or verily suppose their Prince will change Religion they may rise in arms; whereas all that have pleaded for Resistance in case of Religion, did suppose another Religion enjoined upon the subject first. We will therefore endeavour to clear all for the resolving of Conscience in these three generals.  
I. That no Conscience upon such a case as is supposed can find clear ground to rest upon for such resistance as is pretended to, but according to the rules of Conscience What is not of faith is sin: and, In doubtful things the safer way is to be chosen; Conscience it will find cause to forbear and to suffer, rather than resist; doubtful, I say, not that a Conscience truly informed will not clearly see the unlawfulness of this Resistance, but because no conscience can be truly persuaded of the lawfulness of it, and so that Conscience that resolves for it, must needs run doubtingly or blindly upon the work.  
II. That the resistance now used and made against the Prince is not such as they pretend to, either for that general and unanimous consent that should precede it, or that defensive way that should accompany it, according to their own grants that plead for it, and therefore Conscience cannot admit such a resistance as is made now adays.  
III. If Conscience could be persuaded, that it is lawful in such a case to resist, and that this rising in arms is such a resistance as they say may in such a case be pretended to, yet can it never (if it be willing to know any thing) be truly persuaded that such a case is now come, that i●, That the King refuse to discharge his trust, is bent to overthrow Religion, etc, and therefore Conscience cannot but resolve this opposition and Resistance to be unlawful, unwarrantable, and (according to the Apostle) damnable; and that people, running into arm without sufficient warrant, commit murder if they shed blood in the pursuit of this Resistance, and perish in their own sin, if die in the cause.   

SECT. II.  
FIrst then, that the Principle is untrue upon which they go that resist, and that Conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance: for it hears the Apostle expressly say, Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation, 
Rom. 13. 2.  and it cannot find any limitation in Scripture that will excuse the Resistance of these days.  
The exception or limitation that is made, is taken from the Persons resisting, and the Causes of resistance, thus, They that are Private persons and do resist upon any cause receive damnation, but the States or representative body of the whole people may resist upon such or such causes.  
But how will this satisfy Conscience, when every distinction or limitation made upon any place of Sripture, must have its ground in scripture; this has only some examples in Scripture that come not home to the cause, and some appearances of Reason; which are easily refuted by clearer Scripture and Reason.  
The examples alleged are, I. The people's rescuing of Jonathan out of the hands of Saul. 
1 Sam. 14.  Answ. Here the people drew not into arms of themselves, but being their at Saul's command, did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawful command.  
II. David's resisting of Saul. Answ. 1. David's guard that he had about him was only to secure his person against the cutthroats of Saul, if sent to take away his life. 2. It was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul; therefore he still gave place as Saul pursued, and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power, 1. Sam. 26. But thirdly, because they gather out of the 1. Sam. 23. 12. that David would have defended Keilah against Saul, if the inhabitants would have been faithful to him, We say that's only an uncertain supposition, not fit to ground Conscience in this great point of resistance; also to this and all other David's demeanours, in his standing out against Saul, we say his example was extraordinary; for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul, and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safeguarding his Person.  
These are the chief examples. They make use also of the high priests resisting the King in the temple, 
2. Chron. 26.  and Elisha's shutting the door against the King's Messenger that came to take away his head; and the like; which speak not so much as the two former, having no appearance of such resistance as is employed in the question.  
〈◊〉 we answer. 1. That of the high priest is more pertinently applied to the Pope's power of excommunicating and deposing Kings, then to this power of resisting now used; but truly to neither. For he did no more than what every Minister may and aught to do if a King should attempt the administration of the Sacrament; that is, to reprove him, to keep the Elements from him. Ambrose Bishop of Milan withstood the Emperor at the entrance of God's house, not by Excommunication, much less by force of Arms, but by letting him understand he was not fit for that place, there to be made partaker of the holy things, till he had repented of that outrage and bloodshed at Thessalonica. Upon which the Emperor withdrew.  
The priests here are said to thrust him out of the Temple, but we must note God's hand was first upon him smiting him with leprosy, and by that discharging him of the kingdom also. It is added in the Text, yea himself also hasted to go out. But enough of this  
2. Elisha's example speaks very little. But let us thence take occasion to say, That personal defence is lawful against the sudden and illegal assaults of such Messengers; yea of the Prince himself thus far, towards his blow, to hold his hands, and the like: nor to endanger his person, not to return blows, no; for though it be natural to defend a man's self, yet the whole Commonwealth is concerned in his person, as we see in the Commonwealth of the creatures, one particular nature will defend itself against another, but yield to the universal.  
If this be drawn from personal defence to the public the Argument thus; If the body natural than the body politic may defend itself, if a private person much more the whole State may; and they do but shut the way up against the King that comes to destroy his Parliament, and take away their heads.  
We answ: As the natural body defends itself against an outward force, but strives not by a schism or contention within itself; so may the body politic against an outward power, but not as now by one part of it set against the Head and another part of the same body; for that tends to the dissolution of the whole. Again: personal defence may be without all offence, and does not strike at the order and power that is over us, as general resistance by Arms doth, which cannot be without many unjust violences, and does immediately strike at that order which is the life of a Commonwealth. And this makes a large difference twixt Elisha's shutting the door against this Messenger, and their shutting up the way against the King by armed men; nor can they conclude upon such an intention in the King's heart without the spirit of Elisha. He professeth he intends no violence to his Parliament nor has be taken away the head of any of theirs that have fallen into his power, nor does desire any other punishment inflicted upon any that do oppose him, than what a legal trial shall adjudge them to, which no good Subject aught to decline.  
Now let us see how Scripture excludes this, and all other exceptions, giving no allowance to resistance, in regard of Persons or Causes, or other pretences, and this not only by Examples, but by Precept, Conclusions, Resolutions, which are more safe.  
First, we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, gathering the people against Moses and Aaron, Numb. 16. 3. and perishing in their sin. If it be replied, the Persons indeed were public, but there was no cause for it; Moses and Aaron did not deserve it. I answer, but the other supposed, they did, and that is now enough, it seems, to make people not only say to their Prince, You take too much upon you, but therefore to rise in arms also, which I hope will appear to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise.  
Secondly, see for the cause of Resistance, 1. Sam. 8. 11. there the people are let to understand how they should be oppressed under Kings, yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance, for they have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord, v. 18.  
Thirdly, we have not only Example, but Resolution and Conclusion our of Scripture, The people might not be gathered together either for civil assemblies, or for war, but by his command that had the power of the Trumpet, that is, the supreme as Moses was, Numb. 10.  
Also when David had Saul and his army in his power, he resolves the matter thus, Who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's anointed and be guiltless, 1. Sam. 26, 9 If replied, now they intend not hurt to the King's person; yet might nor they as well have hurt his person in the day of battle, as any of them that were swept away from about him by the fury of the Ordinance, which puts no difference twixt Kings and common soldiers?  
This also I must observe concerning this point of Resistance, out of the Old Testament (for from thence have they all their seeming instances) That it is a marvellous thing, that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for idolatry, cruelty, oppression, none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of Resistance.  
But lastly, that place of the Apostle, Rom. 13. at first mentioned, does above all give us a clear resolution upon the point, which now I shall free from all exceptions.  
First, I may suppose, that the King is the Supreme, as S. Peter calls him; or the higher power, as S. Paul here, though it be by some now put to the question, as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it; but I prove it. S. Peter's distinction comprehends all that are in authority, The King as supreme, and those that are sent by him, 1. Pet. 2. 12, in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament, being sent by him, or sent for by him, and by his Writ sitting there. Also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged, That there is no power above him without or within this Realm; and that he is in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme. Also acknowledged by the Petitions of the two Houses addressed unto his majesty, wherein they style themselves His loyal Subjects. But enough of this.  
Secondly, in the text of the Apostle, All persons under the higher Power are expressly forbidden to resist. For whosoever, in the second verse, must be as large as the every soul in the first, and the resistance forbidden here concerns all, upon whom the subjection is enjoined there, or else we could not m●ke these Universals good against the Papists, exempting the Pope and Clergy from the subjection.  
Thirdly, in those days there was a standing and continual great Senate, which not long before had the supreme power in the Roman State, and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State, than our great counsel (I think) will, or can. But now the Emperor being Supreme, as S. Peter calls him; or the higher power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. This for the persons that should resist, all are forbidden. Now consider the Cause.  
Fourthly, was there ever more cause of resistance then in those days? were not the Kings then not only conceived to be inclined so and so, but even actually were enemies to Religion, had overthrown Laws and Liberties? and therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3, 4, 5, verses, (For rulers are not a terror to good works but evil, and he is the minister of God to thee for good) reply, That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good, but minister for our good, are not to be resisted: the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception, because the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just.  
If it be replied, that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times, as it is said by some. I answer, 1. This is a new exception never heard of (I think) but in these times. 2. It is groundless, and against the Text, for the reasons of the prohibition in the 3, 4, 5, 6, verses, are perpetual, from that order, that good, for which the Powers are ordained of God, which will be of force as long as there is government, and will always be reasons against resistance; because resistance (though it be made against abused Powers as then they were) doth tend to the dissolution of that order, for which the power itself is set up of God By which also that other distinction of theirs is made void, when as they reply, as they think, acutely, That they resist not the power, but the abuse of the power  
It is also answered by some, that the Emperors than were absolute Monarchs, and therefore not to be resisted. I answer: They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily, which should have according to the principles of these days been a stronger motive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs; was it not by force and change of the government, and was not the right of the people and Senate (according to the Principles of these days) good against them with as much or more reason, than the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crown descending by three Conquests? And this I speak not to win an Arbitrary power or such as conquerors use, unto this Crown, but only to show that resistance can be no more made against the Kings of England, than it could against those Emperors. Nay, with less reason against them, than these.  
Lastly, it is replied, That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law; but the Religion contended for is established by Law. I answer: But is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it? Shall the Apostles prohibition be good against Christians in the behalf of actual Tyrants persecuting that Religion, and not against Subjects freely enjoying the Religion established? Or may Protestants upon a jealousy resist a Protestant King professing the same Religion, and promising to conserve it entire to them?  
2. The prohibition does not only concern Christians, but all the people under those Emperors, and not only Religion was persecuted, but Liberties also lost, the people and Senate were enslaved by Edicts, and Laws then enforced upon them, and they (according to the principles of these days) might resist, notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition, and the Laws then forced upon them; or else the State, as they usually say, had not means to provide for its safety. Thus one fancy of theirs thwarts another, because both are groundless. But more anon of those means of safety they suppose to be in every State, by the power of resistance.  
Hitherto of Scripture, which is most powerful against resistance, in the prohibition and the reasons of it, by which Conscience will clearly see, it can have no warrant from Scripture for resistance. Now let us try what Reason can enforce.   

SECT. III.  
For proving this power of resistance, there is much speech used about the fundamentals of this government, which because they lie low and unseen by vulgar eyes, being not written Laws, the people are easily made to believe they are such as they (that have power to build new Laws) upon them) say they are. And indeed none so fit to judge of them as they: Yet this we know, and every one that can use his reason knows, that the fundamentals must needs be such as will bear the settled government of this Land, such as are not contradictory to the written established Laws: but both the government we see used in this Land, and the written Laws which we read, must have a correspondency and anology of reason to these fundamentals, and these to them.  
Well then, they that plead for Power of resistance in the people, lay the first groundwork of their fundamentals thus: Power is originally in and from the people, and if when by election they have entrusted a Prince with the Power, he will not discharge his trust, than it falls to the people; or, as in this kingdom to the two Houses of Parliament (the representative body of the people) to see to it; they may reassume the power.  
This is the bottom of their fundamentals as they are now discovered to the people. But here we may take notice by the way, that however the fundamentals of this Government are much talked of, this is according to them the fundamental in all kingdoms and Governments; for they say power was everywhere from the people at first, and so this will serve no more for the power of resistance in England, then in France, or Turkey: but if this must be a fundamental, it is such an one as upon it this Government cannot be built, but Confusion and Anarchy may readily be raised; as shall appear by the clearing of these two particulars, Whether the Power be so originally and chiefly from the people as they would have it; then Whether they may upon such cause, reassume that power.  
First, of the original of power, which they will have so from the People, that it shall be from God only by a kind of permissive approbation as we may see by the Observator, and all other that plead for this power of resistance. We must here distinguish what the Writers of the other side seem to confound, to wit, the Power itself, (which is a sufficiency of authority for command and coercion in the governing of a People) from the designing of the Person to bear that power, and the qualification o● that power according to the divers ways of executing it in several forms of government and then we grant that the designing of the person is sometimes from the People by choice, and that the power of the Prince receiving qualification by joint consent of himself and the people, is limited by the Laws made with such consent; but the power itself is of God originally and chiefly: which we prove by Scripture and Reason.  
First, by such places of Scripture as plainly show an ordaining and appointing, rather than a permission or approbation.  
1. The Apostle speaks it expressly, The powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the Ordinance of God, vers. 2. S. Peter indeed saith, every ordinance of Man, 1. Epist. 2. but of man there, and of God here is much differing; there it is ‛ anthr●●pine, of Man, subjective, that is, every ordinance or power set up amongst men; but here it is ‛ apo theou, of God, causaliter, that is, from him, his ordinance; and if in that ‛ anthr●●pine there be employed any creation or causality, or invention of man, it respects the qualification of the power according to the forms of several governments and offices in them, which are from the invention of man; it does not make the power itself the creation of man, which is the constitution and ordinance of God; and men are not only naturally bent to society, but also are bound as they are reasonable creatures, to set up and live under government as under an order of that providence by which the World is governed.  
II. He is called the Minister of God, v. 4. but if so from the People and no otherwise from God than they would have him, he should be Minister Populi rather; he is indeed their Minister for their good, which makes the People to be the end of this governing power, not the fountain and original of it: therefore the necessity of subjection urged in the fifth verse, has a double ground, The ordinance of God, whose ministers Rulers are, there's the fountain and original of Power to govern; then the people's good, upon which Rulers ought to attend, that's an end of the Governing Power.  
III. To the same purpose speak those other places, By me Kings reign: and I have said ye are God's, Psal. 82. in relation to which our Saviour saith, Joh. 10. They are called Gods to whom the word of God came, that dixi, that word is the command, the issuing out as it were the commission for the setting up of a governing power among the people.  
These places cannot be satisfied with that poor part, they on the other side leave to God in the setting up of power for the governing of men, that is, to approve it when the People has created or invented it. Indeed if we consider the qualification of this governing power, and the manner of executing it according to the several forms of government, we granted it before to be the invention of man, and when such a qualification or form is orderly agreed upon, we say it has God's permissive approbation  
And therefore the imputation is causeless which the Pleaders on the other side do heedelessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines; as if we cried up Monarchy, and that only government to be jure divino. For although Monarchy has this excellency, that the Government God set up over his people in the person of Moses, the Judges, and the Kings, was monarchical, yet we confess that neither that, nor Aristocracy, or any other form is jure divino; but we say the power itself, or that sufficiency of authority to govern, which is in Monarchy or Aristocracy, abstractly considered from the qualifications of either form, is an efflux or constitution subordinate to that providence, an ordinance of that Dixi, that silent Word by which the world was at first made, and is still governed under God.  
Secondly, as this appears by the former places of Scripture, so it is also suitable to Reason: Because God doth govern all creatures, Reasonable as well as Unreasonable, the inferior or lower world he governs by the heavens or superior bodies, according to those influences and powers he has put into them; and the reasonable creatures, Men, he governs too by others set up in his stead over them; for which they are called Gods, because in his stead over the people: and the powers are said to pe ‛ apo theou tetagmenai Rom. 13. 1. not only ‛ apo theou, from God; but also as orders ranked under him too, subordinate to that providence by which all creatures are governed.  
These his Ministers he sometimes designed immediately by himself, as Moses, the Judges, Saul, David, &c. Now he designs his Vicegerents on earth mediately, as by election of the people, by succession or inheritance, by conquest, &c. To conclude, the Power itself of Government is of God, however the person be designed, or that Power qualified according to the several forms of government by those Laws that are established, or those grants that are procured for the people's security. Thus much of the original of Power.   

SECT. IV.  
NOw we come to the Forfeiture, as I may call it, of this Power. If the Prince, say they, will not discharge his trust, than it falls to the people or the two Houses (the representative body of the people) to see to it, and reassume that Power, and thereby to resist. This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of Power from the people by virtue of election and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people, as also to be necessary in regard of those means of safety, which every State should have within itself. We will examine them in order, and shall find the Arguments inconsequent.  
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, then can there be no reassuming of this Power by the People; that's plain by their own argument.  
Secondly, if the people should give the power so absolutely as 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 with them, are not afterward in our power to recall; especially such in which their redounds to God an interest by the donation, as in things devoted, though afterward they come to be abused. So although it were, as they would have it, that they give the power and God approves; yet because the Lord's hand also & his oil is upon the person elected to the Crown, and then he is the Lord's anointed and the Minister of God, those hands of the people which were used in lifting him up to the Crown, may not again be lifted up against him, either to take the Crown from his head, or the sword out of his hand. This will not a true-informed Conscience date to do.  
Thirdly, How shall the Conscience be satisfied that this their argument, grounded upon election and the derivation of power from the people can have place in this kingdom, when as the Crown not only descends by inheritance, but also has so often been settled by Conquest in the lines of Saxons, Danes, and Normans? In answer to this they look beyond all these, and say, the right is still good to the people by reason of their first election. I answer: So than that first election must be supposed here, and supposed good against all other titles, or else this power of resistance falls to the ground. It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choice here as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance, or think that first election will give it power against Princes that do not claim by it. We tell them the Roman Emperors were not to be resisted, Rom. 13. 2. They reply, as we had it above, that they were absolute Monarchs. But how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarchs? was it any otherwise then by force and arms? the way that the Saxons, Danes, and Normans made themselves Masters of this people, and was not the right of the people as good against them for the power of resistance, by virtue of the first election, as well as of the people of this Land, against their Kings after so many Conquests? This I speak not, as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors: God forbid. But to show this slender plea of the first election can no more take place against the Kings of this Land, than it could against the Roman Monarchs, especially according to their argument, that hold all power originally from the people, and that (as we observed above) to be the fundamental of all government. Therefore whether Kings were in this Land at first by election or no; we acknowledge what belongs to the duty of a Prince in doing justice and equity: what Grants also, Laws, privileges have since those Conquests been procured, or restored to the people: unto all those the King is bound. But yet not bound under forfeiture of his power to the people: which now comes to be examined in that capitulation or covenant he is said to enter with the people.  
In the next place therefore: That Capitulation or Covenant, and the Oath which the Prince takes to confirm what he promiseth, are so alleged, as if the breach or non-performance on the Prince's part were a forfeiture of his power. But we answer, The words capitulation or covenant are now much used to make Men believe the King's admittance to the Crown is altogether conditional, as in the merely elective kingdoms of Polonia, Swedeland, &c. whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation, which is sooner or later at his pleasure, but always to be in due time, in regard of that security His People receive by his taking the oath, and he again mutually from them, in which performance there is something like a covenant, all but the forfeiture. The King there promises and binds himself by oath to performance. Could they in this covenant show us such an agreement between the King and his People, that in case he will not discharge His trust, than it shall be lawful for the States of the kingdom by Arms to resist, and provide for the safety thereof, it were something.  
If it be said, that so much is employed in the first election. We answer: We examined that slender plea of the first election above, as it was thought to be a derivation of power. Now as it is thought to have a covenant in it: we say, That usually in all Empires the higher we arise, the freer we find the Kings, and still downwards the People have gained upon them: for at first when the People chose their Rulers, they did as Justine in the beginning of his History observes, resign themselves to be governed by such, of whose prudence and moderation they had experience; and then, Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant, the will and discretion of the Prince was Law unto the People; but Men were Men though in God's place, and therefore for the restraint of that Power, with consent of the Prince, such Laws have been still procured by the People as might make for their security.  
Now from a promise the King makes for doing Justice (the duty of every Prince) for the continuing those privileges, immunities, that have been granted or restored to the People, and for the observing of those Laws that have been established with the Prince's consent, and from that oath (by which for the greater security of the People he binds himself to the performance of the premises) to infer a great obligation lieth upon him, is right: but to gather thence a forfeiture of his power upon the not performance, is a plain but dangerous inconsequent Argument.  
And though such Argument may seem to have some force in States merely elective and pactional, yet can it never be made to appear to any indifferent understanding, that the like must obtain in this kingdom. And to this purpose Phil. Pareus excuseth what his Father had written more harshly upon the 13. to the Romans, in the point of resistance, that it was to be understood of elective and pactional government, not to the prejudice of England, or such Monarchies. For where the King, as it is said, never dies, where he is King before oath or coronation, where he is not admitted upon any such capitulation as gives any power to the People, or their representative body, as is pretended to: Nay, where that body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince, and is dissoluble at his pleasure; that there, in such a State, such a power should be pretended to, and used against the Prince as at this day, and that according to the fundamentals of such a State, can never appear reasonable to any indifferent judgement, much less satisfy Conscience in the resistance that is now made by such a pretended power.  
What then shall we say? Is the King not bound to perform? Yes, by all means. Or has he not a limited power according to the laws? Yes. What then if he will take to himself more power, or not perform what he is bound to? Suppose that; (though thanks be to God we are not come to that.) Then may the Subjects use all fair means as are fit to use, cries to God, petitions to the Prince, denials of obedience to his unlawful commands, denials of subsidy, aid, &c. But are they left without all means to compel by force and resistance? This however it may at first sight seem unreasonable to the people and very impolitic to the Statesman, yet has Scripture forbidden it, as before was plainly showed, and so doth Reason too, as will appear in the examination of their last proof they make for reassuming this power and resisting, from that necessity of means of safety, which every State is to have within itself: Of which now.   

SECT. V.  
IN the last place it is thus reasoned, Were it not so that the two Houses might take and use this power, the State should not have means to provide for its own safety, when the King shall please to desert His Parliament, deny His consent to their Bills, abuse His power, &c. So they.  
When right and Just will not defend a thing, than Necessity is usually pleaded; as if, because Salus Populi in a good sense is Suprema Lex, every thing must be honest which is Spartae Vtile, imagined to conduce to the proposed end. We answer therefore;  
First, They have many weapons sharpened for this resistance at the Philistines forge, arguments borrowed from the Roman schools, among them this is one, the very reason that is made for the Pope's power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of heresy. For if there be not that power in the Church, say they, then in case the civil Magistrate will not discharge his trust, the Church has not means for the maintenance of the Catholic faith and its own safety. Well, as we reply to them, the Church has means of preserving the faith, such as God has appointed, though not that of one Visible head, which though at first seems plausible, for preserving the Unity of faith, yet has experience shown it to be indeed the means to bring much mischief upon the Church: So to the other we say, The State has means of preservation such as the Law has prescibed, though not such as are here pretended to in this power of resistance; which though seemingly plausible, yet true Reason will conclude them dangerous, and at this day, God knows, we see it. Of this in the fourth answer more particularly.  
Secondly, If every State has such means to provide for its safety, What means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperors in and after the Apostles times? or the people then enslaved, what means had they for their Liberties? had they this of resistance? Tertullian, in his Apol. says, the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand, but they had no warrant; and the Apostle expressly forbids them and all other under the higher power, to resist.  
If it be replied, as it was above touched, That things being so enacted by Law, it was not lawful for them to resist. I answer: But it is known that not only those Edicts which concerned Christian Religion, but also all other that proceeded from those Emperors and enslaved the people, were merely arbitrary and enforced upon the Senate, and that the Senate did not discharge their trust in consenting to them, and therefore according to the former position the people might resist, notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition, or else no means of safety left in that State.  
So would it be in this State, if at any time a King that would rule arbitrarily, as those Emperors did, should by some means or other work out of the two Houses the better affected, and by the Consent of the Major part of them that remain, compass his desires; might the people then resist? The Apostle forbids it to them as well as to the Romans in such a case: if so, where are these means of safety by this power of resistance? Or are these means of safety extinct in the Consent of the Senate or the two Houses? No, the people will tell them they discharge not their trust, they chose them not to betray them, enslave them; but according to the principles now taught them, they might lay hold upon this power of resistance; for their representative body claims it by them.  
Thirdly we answer, We cannot expect absolute means of safety and security in a State, but such as are reasonable; and such are provided, especially in the fundamentals of this Government, by that 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; which as it is for the security of the Commonwealth (for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons, or these and the Lords without the King, might determine, the evils of these days do show) so is this power of denying, for the security of each State against other, of the Commons against the King and Lords, of the Lords against them: and must the King trust only, and not be trusted? Must not he also have his security against the other, which he cannot have but by Power of denying? This is that Temper of the three Estates in Parliament, the due observing whereof, in the moderate use of this power of denying, is the reasonable means of this state's safety: but now not only the name of Parliament, which implies the three Estates, is restrained usually to the two Houses, but also that Temper is dissolved. I need not speak it, the distractions and convulsions of the whole Commonwealth, as the distempers in a natural body, do sufficiently show such a dissolution, and what's the cause of it.  
If it be replied, as it is, for the reasonableness of these means of safety through that Power of resisttence and the final trust reposed in the representative body of the people, That many see more than one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one. Answ. True. But 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction, Why should an hundred in the House of Commons see more than three hundred; or twenty in the Lord's House, more than sixty that are of indiffereent judgement and withdrawn;  
2. Reason doth suppose, That the Prince, though one, sees with the eyes of many, yea with their eyes who are of different judgement from him, for which his. Houses of Parliament are his great council to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them; and albeit he sometimes dissents from the Major or Prevailing part, because he is convinced in his own judgement they seek themselves nor his or the public good, or for other reasons that may persuade him against their Vote, yet have all times thought good to have Kings, and to reduce the judgement of many unto one. The Government which God made choice of to set up among his people was monarchical still; first in Moses, then in the Judges, then in the Kings; yea generally all Authors yield, and experience has taught it, That Monarchy is a better government than Aristocracy, because the Tyranny and Miscarriage of one, sometime happening in a Monarchy is nothing so dangerous as Oligarchy, Faction, and Division usually incident to Aristocracy or the Government by many equals. Again, as all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy, which settles the chief power and final judgement in One; so will there be always sufficient reason to withhold the King from a wilful denial of his Consent to the free and unanimous Vote of his Houses: he cannot but see there will always be some necessary good accrueing to him by his Parliament, that will keep him in all reason from doing so: and no cases can be put or inconveniences feared upon his Power of denying, but greater and more eminent will appear upon his not having it, as has been insinuated, and now do follow.  
Fourthly therefore and lastly we answer. Such power of resistance would be no fit means of safety to a State, but prove a remedy worse than the disease. This is very plain by the drift of the Apostles reason which he gave against resistance, in the 3, 4, 5, 6. v. of the 13. to the Rom. in which we may consider, that, although the Powers than were altogether unjust, tyrannical, subverters of true Religion, nothing answerable to the end for which the Governing Power is ordained, yet doth the Apostle draw his reasons against the resisting of them, from that good, that justice, that order for which God hath set up the higher Powers; to insinuate, that the resisting of the higher Powers, even when they are so, does tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Commonwealth; and this not only because there is still order under tyranny, but chiefly because, if it were good and lawful to resist the power, when abused, it would open a way to the people upon the like pretences to resist and overthrow even Powers duly administered for the executing of wrath upon them that do evil.  
I enter this discourse, not to cast the least blemish upon Parliaments (which are an only remedy for distempers of the kingdom) not to reflect upon the intentions of those that are yet resident in that high Court, (unto God the judge of all, they stand or fall) not to raise jealousies, but to settle Conscience, and in the way of reasoning to show according to the Apostles reasons what dangers and evils may ensue upon this power of resistance.  
For first of all, This power of resistance, if admitted and pursued may proceed to a change of Government, the Principles that now are gone upon, and have carried it so far as we see at this day, may also lead it on to that greatest of evils: And I have heard and seen it defended by the example of the Low-countries; how they excuse it throughly, I examine not, but this I am sure they can say, That their Prince, succeeding in the right of the Duke of Burgundy was admitted upon other conditions than the Kings of England are: also that a contrary religion was enforced upon them by a terrible Inquisition, whereas they that do resist the higher. Powers here, do freely enjoy their religion, and have the Prince's promise and protestation for it.  
Secondly, This Power of resistance when used, and pursued, is accompanied with the evils of Civil war: Former times show it, and how little was gained by it beside the expense of blood; as when all was referred to the rule and disposing of the 12 peers, how long lasted it? what security had the State by it? and at this day we feel and groan under the evils brought upon us through this power of resistance, the Law silenced, the Property and liberty of the subject everywhere invaded; and the Lord knows when or how we shall be restored to them, or better secured in them by this way  
Thirdly, We see the danger, (if as it is now said, for the justifying of this power of resistance, The King will not discharge his trust, and therefore it falls to the representative body of the people to see to it, so) the People being discontented, and having gotten power shall say, The Members of the two Houses do not discharge the trust committed to them, they do not that for which they were chosen and sent for, then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them, take the Power to themselves, it being claimed by them, and say to them as Numb. 16. Ye take too much upon you, or as Cade, and Tylar, boast themselves Reformers of the commonwealth, overthrow King and Parliament, fill all with rapine and confusion, draw all to a Folkmoot, and make every Shire a several Government.  
These are Dangers and Evils not conceived in the fancy, but such as reason tells us may follow, and experience hath often, and this day doth show us, do arise upon this Power of resistance, and for the preventing of which, the Apostle gave his reasons against resisting even of abused powers, as we heard above.  
Lastly therefore, Seeing some must be trusted in every State, 'tis reason the highest and final trust should be in the higher or supreme Power, with whom next to himself God hath entrusted the whole Kingdom, all other that have power and trust, having it under him as sent by him; Good reason I say that the supreme Power (which is worth 10000 of the Subjects) should have the best security on its side, for as much as Order, the life of a Commonwealth, is so best preserved, and not so endangered by Tyranny as by factions, division, tumults, power of resistance on the Subjects part, and this is according to the drift of the Apostles reasons against resistance, as before they were laid down.  
Well, now unto all that hath hitherto been said from Scripture and Reason, let Conscience add the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance, also the late Protestation, and consider what duty lies upon every subject by the former to defend the King's person and Right against what Power soever, and how by the latter he hath protested and undertaken before Almighty God in the first place to defend the same; and then what can Conscience conclude from the Premises? that the Prince hath his Power for the good of his people? true, but that Power cannot be prevalent for the good and protection of his people unless it be preferved to him entire, unless he hath the Power of denial, and the chief command of Arms; or that the Prince hath a limited Power, according to the Laws established? true, but if Conscience be persuaded he does not hold himself within those bounds so fixed, can it be persuaded also that the people may reassume that Power they never had? or take that sword out of his hand that God hath put into it? No, Conscience will look at that Power as the Ordinance of God, and the abuse of that Power as a judgement and scourge of God upon the people, and will use not Arms to resist the Ordinance under pretence of resisting the abuse, but cries and prayers to God, petitions to the Prince, denials of obedience to his unjust commands, denials of subsides, aids, and all fair means that are fit for Subjects to use, and when done all, if not succeed, will rather suffer then resist: so would a truly informed Conscience resolve, were the Prince indeed what he is supposed to be, and did he do indeed as the people are made to fear and believe he will do.  
Hitherto we have been in the examination of the Principle upon which they go that plead for resistance, and we have found both Scripture and Reason speak plainly against the resisting even of abused Powers, professed enemies to Religion, actual subverters of the people's Liberties, how much more against the resisting of a Prince that professeth the same Religion which we freely enjoy, promiseth the maintaining of that and our Liberties, only upon a supposal He will not stand to His word, will overthrow all.  
This however it may seem less reasonable to the Statist in the way of policy, permitting as little as he can to the goodness of the Prince, or the providence of God for the safety of the State; yet ought it to satisfy a Christian in the way of Conscience, which when it comes to a desire of being safe, will not rest till it have a sure ground, which here it hath against resistance laid down by Scripture and Reasons even the Apostles reasons so powerful against resistance.  
The sum of all is this; Conscience hears the Apostle expressly forbid all under the higher Power to resist, finds no other clear Scripture to limit it, finds that the limitations given will not consist with it, for the reasons of them (that are drawn from the election of the People, and the Covenant supposed therein, from the necessity of means of safety in every State to provide for itself) were as strong in the Roman State as any; nay, are supposed by those that urge them, to be the fundamentals of every State; and so resistance is forbidden as well here, as there in the Roman State, which is also cleared by the Apostles reasons, showing the Power of resistance cannot be the mean of safety, but strikes at Order and Power itself, though made against tyrannical and abused Powers, as before often insinuated. Therefore Conscience will not dare to go against the Apostles express prohibition, lest it fall into the judgement denounced by him.  
But if there shall be any Conscience as strongly carried away with the name of a Parliament, as the Papists are with the name of the Church, and thinking Religion may be defended any way, & that upon supposal that their Prince is minded to change it, (which is another humour of Popery) will not be persuaded that the resistance made upon the present supposal is unlawful, against God's Word, and reason; I am sure such a Conscience cannot be truly persuaded it is lawful, but must want that clear ground it ought to have, especially in a matter so expressly against the Apostle, and of such high concernment as damnation; must needs run blindly, and headlong by a strange implicit Faith upon so great a hazard.   

SECT. VI.  
NOw we come to the Application of their principle to the present, where we must inquire according to the second and third generals, whether the resistance now made be such as is pretended to by them in such a case as they supposed, and then whether Conscience can be truly persuaded the King is such and so minded as in the case He is supposed to be.  
The chief considerations of these two generals, are matters of fact; The principle was examined by Scripture and Reason, these admit the Judgement of sense, and are cleared by what we hear and see; which Judgement of sense is not so easily captivated by an implicit Faith as that of Reason is; insomuch as Conscience here cannot be so blinded but it may see, that (were the principal good on which they rest, yet) this resistance which they make, is not such as they pretend to, and that this King, whom they resist; is not such as in the case they supposed him to be, not such as ought to be resisted according to their own grants.  
The second general was, That the resistance now made is not such as is pretended to by them that plead for it, and therefore Conscience cannot be truly persuaded it may lawfully bear part in it, or assist them that in the pursuit of it pretend one thing and do another.  
It was premised at the beginning that such a resistance should be omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus; agreed upon and undertaken by the general and unanimous consent of the whole State, and that it should be only Legitima defensio, a mere defensive resistance; and these laid down, not that I admit resistance however conditioned (for all that I have said before doth altogether condemn it) but according to their own grants that plead for it: To this purpose it is that they say the King is Vniversis minor, less than the whole State, and everybody naturally defends itself. Therefore if a contention be between the Plead and the Body, it must in all reason be the whole Body that is set against it; and if there be such an appearing against the supreme Power, as tends to resistance, the consent and judgement of the whole Kingdom must be against him, or else every prevailing faction might endanger the State by causing such changes and evils as now it's threatened with: This is the reason of this unreasonable power of resistance in the people.  
Well then how shall Conscience he persuaded that this resistance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States assembled in the two Houses, such as in this case may be called the judgement of the whole kingdom?  
He that knows how the Militia (in which this resistance chiefly began) was brought in, with what opposition, especially in the Lord's house, and by what number there at length was voted; also how the like proceedings of resistance, that have been voted since, are declared against; by a greater number of each House then do remain in either, such as have been cast out or withdrawn themselves upon dislike of these proceedings: can he, I say, that knows this (and who knows it not, that hath eyes and ears?) be in Conscience persuaded, that this is such an unanimous, free, and general consent, the judgement of the whole kingdom?  
For though a Vote passed by a few upon the place has the power and condition of a Vote for the formality of Law, yet, if the question be, Was this passed in full assemblies; Was it freely and generally carried; Did they all unanimously as one man consent unto it? Conscience cannot be convinced there is such efficacy in the place, as to make a few, the whole; or their agreement to be that judgement: of the whole kingdom, that unanimous consent, which must be in the case of resistance, by their acknowledgement that plead for it. For were it in this case to be held for the judgement of the whole, which is passed by a few, then would the State be unreasonably exposed to that danger (above mentioned) which every prevailing faction might bring upon it under the pretence of the judgement of the whole kingdom.  
Again, is Conscience cannot be truly persuaded that this resistance is agreed upon with such a general and unanimous consent, as they themselves pretend to, which plead for this resistance, so can it not be truly persuaded that this resistance is such for the mere defensive way of it, as it ought to be according to their grants and pretences that appear for it.  
Conscience here will see how to resolve, upon the trial of these two particulars, Whether the King or they be upon the defensive part? then, Whether the managing of this war or resistance on their parts, be so void of hostile acts, as the defensive way, which they pretend to, aught to be?  
Conscience will discern whether part is upon the defensive, by inquiring, First, Who were first in Arms? He that can number the succession of weeks and months in his almanac may decide this. He shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull, the King's Arms seized against his will, the Militia set up, and by that the King's Subjects drawn into Arms before the King had any thing to oppose but Proclamations: that subscriptions for Plate, Money, Horse; that listing of soldiers for the field, and appointing of Officer of the Army were begun upon their part, before His Majesty did the like. Now resistance doth in the word itself and in their pretence presuppose a power and force first made against them, where as it is plain, they were still upon the preventing and forehand with the Kin●, still showed him example for what he has done since in the way of war: yet must the people believe he raises the war, and they are upon defence; But Conscience will not be so forced.  
Secondly, by inquiring what is the c●●se of these Arms? What do they contend for? And though it be clear, that if Subjects be first in A●●s they cannot be upon the defensive, yet the consideration of the cause will more apparently convince it, when Conscience shall see it is not for what is pretended, but for something the King has right to deny, that this resistance is made. The preservation of Religion and Liberties is pretended, but can it be for either? The King denies them not: Their religion they freely enjoy; and was it ever known that Subjects should rise in Arms against their Prince for a Religion which he promiseth to maintain? Or does Religion stand in need of a defence, which itself condemns, a defence which would be a perpetual scandal to it? If therefore Religion be the pretence, but no cause of war, than is the war raised on their part, the King is upon the defensive. Or can it be for ancient Rights and undoubted privileges that they contend? The King denies them not, promiseth all security so he may enjoy his own, and God forbid that either He or they should suffer in their just Rights. But would any man ever have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes, if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their Liberties? What shall we then think of this genial Revolt from Allegiance that has possessed well-near ten Tribes of twelve? They suppose he will not make good his promises, and therefore they will make all sure, seize his Arms and Forts, strip him of all, and if begin to stir for his own Right and Dignity, than the people must be made to believe he makes war against his Parliament, intends to destroy their Liberties. But can any man in Conscience think his Majesty since the beginning of this breach was ever in such a Condition of strength as might threaten the liberty of the Subject, or destroy Parliaments, when as it was long ere he could with much ado attain to any reasonable means of subsistence, or to such a strength whereby he might seem to be able to defend himself?  
To speak the truth, Religion and Liberties can be no other than the pretences of this war, the King has fortified them so with many Acts of Grace passed this Parliament, that they cannot be in that danger which is pretended for the raising of this war. It must be something that his Majesty does indeed deny for which the contention is raised: That we shall find to be His Power of Arms, and ordering the Militia of the kingdom, His Power of denying in Parliament, His disposing of the offices of State, and such like; Also the Government of the Church and the Revenue of it. In the three former he challenges his right, as his predecessors had; the other he is bound by Oath to maintain as by Law they are established. Well, if these be attempted, and his Majesty will not be forced from them, cannot yield them up, but it comes to Arms, than will Conscience easily be convinced the King is upon the defensive, for the maintaining of what he justly holds his right, or is bound by Oath to defend.  
And if we harken to the people's voice, for that commonly speaks the mind of their leaders, we shall hear them usually call this war as they did that with the Scots, The Bishop's war. His Majesty has indeed always declared against the altering of the Government of the Church by Bishops, being such as it always had since the first receiving of the Christian Faith in this land, and of all other Governments simply the best, if reformed from abuses and corruptions that have grown upon it, to the purging out of which His Majesty is always ready to agree. But be it the Bishop's war (though the abolishing of that Government be but one of the many inconveniences which this Power of resistance doth threaten this Land with, and which the King has reason by Power of Arms to divert) whether is it so just in Subjects by Arms to force a change of Government which was always in the Church, and by Law established, as it is in the King to defend the same as he is bound by Oath? it is clear which of the two are upon the defensive.  
The second particular by which the defensive way of this resistance is to be examined, was the managing of this war on their parts, whether so void of acts of Hostility as that defensive way should be which they pretend to. David's resistance made against. Saul is frequently alleged by them, which example, though it will not countenance their cause (as was showed before) yet might it tell them their demeanour should be answerable. He offered no act of violence to Saul, but still gave place and withdrew from him: the Spear indeed and the Cruse David took away from the King's head, but it was only to show Abner's neglect, who had the Command of Saul's Militia, and to testify his own integrity, therefore he restored them before they were demanded, 1 Sam 26.  
But now the King's Spear and his Cruse, his Ammunition, and His necessary Provisions are taken away, intercepted, not restored, though often demanded, used against Him with all advantage; nay he is stripped of the very Power and Command of Arms, His Officers and Ministers thrust out, and other substituted, and by them His People drawn into Arms against Him.  
Also by these that are in resistance against the King, His loyal and Peaceable Subjects are assaulted, despoiled of their Arms, Goods, Estates; their Persons Imprisoned, because they would according to their Allegiance assist Him in this extremity, or would not, contrary to their Conscience, join with them against Him. What Conscience that will not follow this way with a stupid implicit faith can be persuaded that this war is the defence of the Subjects Liberties, and not rather an oppugnation of them? or that it is a mere resistance or withstanding of a force first made against them, and not rather a violent illation or bringing in of force upon those that were disposed to Peace. Therefore no Conscience that has a sense of Religion, or of that which is just and right between Man and Man, can bear a part in this resistance, for fear of that sentence of damnation which the Apostle has laid upon it.   

SECT. VII.  
BUt in the last place, if Conscience could be persuaded, that it is lawful upon such a case, as they make, to take Arms and resist, and that this rising in Arms is such a defensive resistance, as in such a case they seem to pretend to, yet how will it be persuaded that the Case is now, that is, That the King is such as the people must be made to believe he is, unless it will as desperately offend against the rule of charity, in so concluding upon the King, as it does against the rule of Faith and persuasion, in admitting so vugrounded a principle as is now rested on for resistance: so that such a Conscience shall have in its persuasion neither certainty of Rule; for the principle it goes on is false; nor certainty of the Case, for it knows not the heart of the King, to conclude for resistance upon supposals of his intentions, and in its judgement it will be altogether void of charity.  
Indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hateful notions of Tyrant, Subverter of Religion, and Laws, a Person not to be trusted, or at least as one seduced to such evil designs, by wicked Counsel. But what? Hath this King forbid the exercise of the Religion established or left off to profess it himself? hath he disclaimed his trust, or not upon all occasions promised justice and liberty to his Subjects?  
Yea! but they have cause to fear Popery will prevail, and that he will not stand to his promises. It seems thy are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion, they are so ready to fly to Arms to secure themselves; But shall subjects rise in Arms against their Prince upon such remote fears and jealousies as these will appear to be? When can such be wanting in turbulent minds? When shall the Prince be assured of safety? This was the way that David himself was shaken out of his Throne, and driven from Jerusalem by Absolom: This cunning rebel steals away their hearts by raising jealousies in them, and an evil opinion of David's government, 2. Sam. 15. 3. Some ground it seems, he had for his treacherous plea, through the negligence of those that were under David; but it was his villainy to make use of it to the alienating of the People from their King. Accordingly let us now consider what slender grounds our People have for their fears and jealousies, then what security they have and mightt have against them, that it may appear how causeless those jealousies are in themselves, how unjust causes of this resistance.  
If we examine the fears and jealousies that have possessed the People, we shall find them to be raised upon these or the like grounds. Reports of foreign Power to be brought in, The Queen's Religion, The resort of Papists to His Majesty, His intercepting of means sent for the relief of Ireland, from whence the People by their good teachers are made to believe, that He means to enslave this People, re-establish Popery, and does comply with the Rebels.  
In answer to all, which I needed not to say more than what Michael the archangel to the devil that arch-accuser; The Lord rebuke thee, Jude 9 but in particular; For such reports of invasion from abroad, as were, before the setting up of the Militia, given out to keep the people amused, the easier to draw them into a Posture of Defence as was pretended, all such are discovered by time to have been vain; if there be now any foreign aid, towards the King (as all Christian Kings cannot but think themselves concerned in the cause) it will be as just for him to use them against subjects now in Arms, as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their natural King. 
K. John.   
For the Queen's Majesty; Her Religion is no new cause, if it be a sufficient cause of jealousy to them, they have had it from her first entrance; I would to God it were otherwise with her, that it would please the Lord to open her eyes that she may see the truth and light of the Protestant Religion: only this I must say, this is not the way to draw her to it, if she look at it in the doctrines and practices of these times she is not like to fall in love with it.  
For the resort of Papists, and the Kings entertaining them; He hath often declared what caution he desired to use therein, till necessity hath driven him to admit of some few into his Army, which also he answered lately. Let me add this concerning the justness of it, If he hath entertained any into this service, he may justly make use of them. We see what manner of men were gathered to David in his distress, 1. Sam. 22. 2. and how false Ziba bringing provision to the King when he fled from Absolom, was entertained and rewarded, insomuch that the King (when afterward he knew how Ziba had abused him to gain his own ends) would not reverse the sentence pronounced in his favour; If therefore in this distress after much forbearance our King hath admitted the help of some Recusants, it cannot be alleged as a cause of the resistance now made against him, but that resistance was a cause of it; and if the Papist will show himself a good subject, it is just and reasonable that the King when he is put to it, may admit of his help, and the more shame it is for them that profess the Protestant Religion to force him to it; a scandal that would not easily be wiped off from our Religion, were it to stand or fall, by the doctrines of this giddy Age.  
Lastly, His majesty hath written enough for the clearing himself from those false and odious imputations laid upon him in relation to the Irish business. I have only thus much to say, concerning any thing intended for the relief of Ireland; It was great pity they should want it there, but it is more pitiful, the King should be forced to make use of it here.  
It is not long since our neighbour Nation brought an Army into the Northern parts of this kingdom to the great detriment of the inhabitants there, and it was excused by invincible necessity, which drove them hither. The necessity his majesty was driven to is sufficiently known, and might excuse him, in taking his own where he meets with it, and drawing it from his service abroad to that which more nearly concerned him at home. And when his Arms, Moneys, and Provisions are seized on wherever they be found intended for him, and employed against him in a war, the Lord knows how unnecessary; shall it not be lawful for him to take some part of them where he finds it for his necessary defence?  
Indeed the distress of Ireland by the help of wicked Pamphlets hath been used as a great engine to weaken the King's reputation with his people; but upon whose account the heavy reckoning of that neglected Cause will be laid, together with the disturbance of this kingdom, any man in Conscience may easily discern, that sees what sufficient and reasonable means might have been had for the security of Religion and Liberties, and for the redress of all just greivances before this time. Which is the next thing considerable: What his Majesty hath done and proffered to exempt these scruples of fears and jealousies out of his people's minds  
For Religion, if it be a new Frame they contend for, I must acknowledge he declares against all such; but if they desire the continuance of that true Protestant Religion, which hath been professed without interruption from the beginning of the Queen's days, and established by the Laws of this Land, that he undertakes to maintain, that he hath protested in the head of his Army to defend. For matter of Church-government and discipline he hath offered any just reformation, even with a respect to tender consciences in point of Ceremony, hath often called his two Houses to the work in drawing up the grievances to some head. For privileges of Parliaments and liberty of Subjects he hath given them the like promises with the deepest Protestations; and by an excellent moderation, amidst the pressures and necessities of war, hath shown what respect he hath to the property and liberty of the Subject. Lastly, For his choice of Officers of State, he hath promised to admit any just exception, and thereupon to relinquish the person; and as an assurance of all this, hath so far condescended as to take away star-chamber, High-commission, Bishops votes, &c. and to grant the Continuance of this Parliament, and the constant return of a Trieniall; And now after all these promises and protestations, and so many real expressions of Grace, can any man in conscience think there was yet place left for Propositions of such necessary concernment, that except they be granted this kingdom must be embroiled in a civil war, and the relief of Ireland neglected? I speak not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdom of the great council, or upon their desires and endeavours to gain a greater security to the public: but I would to God, the King were once thought worthy to be trusted a little, and that the Consciences of his Subjects were more respected, which cannot so easily be commanded into a resistance, being very tender in the points of damnation, and taught out of God's Word not to raise so much as an evil thought against the King, much less to lift up an armed hand. 
Eccles. 10.   
Every man's Conscience now is solicited to adhere either to the King in this great cause, or to join with Subjects in making resistance: To draw it from Allegiance, tongues are set on fire of hell, which blast his majesty's Actions and Declarations; and books written by hellish spirits, enemies to peace and quietness, are suffered to issue forth into every corner of the land to possess the people, That his promises are but words, his acts of Grace were forced, he will not stand to them: It seems than he must by force of Arms be compelled to be willing. But let us see whether a Conscience that desires to be safe can be so persuaded in judging the actions and intentions of him (to whom it owes the highest duty under God) as first to conclude He intends not as He promises, and thereupon to resolve for resistance? No, it will direct itself by the rule of Charity, which is, not rashly to conclude upon the Heart which it knoweth not, or to think any evil; and if the difference be betwixt two, as in this cause, it will hold the rule of indifferency, impartially to consider the actions of both.  
Conscience therefore that it may be informed of His majesty's intentions, will it look upon him at such a distance as London, and read him only in those horrid relations that issue thence, and conceive of Him as they report Him to the People? or will it consider some failings that necessity has enforced, or other accidental occurrences have occasioned, and from these conclude intentions in Him, contrary to all His Promises and Protestations? This would be too partial, too uncharitable: Conscience ought always to be tender in judging upon other men's intentions, especially those of the Prince, and those to be concluded as evil, and to be made a ground for resistance, which runs the hazard of Damnation.  
In the 2. Chron. c. 21. 10. Libnah is said to revolt from the King of Judah because he had forsaken the Lord; a Text that is objected to us, and should have been answered in the first part: but it is impertinent as all the rest are, for it neither proves the principle, That it is lawful for the People to revolt when the King forsakes Religion, but shows that such revolt is a punishment from God upon such a King, though a sin in the people: Nor doth it come home to the Case: for there the King had forsaken: here is only supposal that he will, and that groundless and unconscionable too.  
For as there was enough in David to clear those jealousies upon which that rebellion of the People following Absolom was grounded, so is there on the King's part, to direct Conscience against this desperate uncharitable judgement, if it look at those many Acts of Grace as new additions to that security, by which this State has so long stood, and from them conclude, He would not in a fair way deny any thing reasonable: If it consider those many promises strengthened with the deepest Protestations, enforced with desires of success from God according to His just intentions; and all these, as proceeding from a King, under such affliction, in such danger, after such success and experience of God's protection, approving thereby the reality and sincerity of his heart: What Conscience can here conclude contrary intentions in him, and not think it blasphemeth God and the King?  
Furthermore, as Conscience will not be uncharitable when it judgeth upon the intentions of another man's heart, so neither will it be partial when it judgeth between two, unto which of them it should incline: and therefore he that is abused to believe amiss of his King, and solicited to enter this way of resistance, is highly concerned first to consider, Whether they also that are the main directors of it, and to whom he would adhere, to discharge their trust they are called to, I say such an one, unless he will resign up his faith to men, and receive their, dictates as the immediate rule of his Conscience, must consider whether all be just and honest that is done in that way? Whether to divest the King of the Power of Arms and to use them against him, be to defend his Person, Rights, and Dignity? Whether the forcing of the Subjects property, to the advancing of this resistance, and the imprisoning of their persons for denial, be the maintaining of the Right and Liberty of the Subject? Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines with such liberty, and to commit unsufferable outrages upon the public worship of God, with such licentiousness, be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church? All these duties every Subject respectively is bound to discharge, and the neglect of them his Majesty has chiefly charged upon those that he conceives the chief Directors and actors in this resistance made against him, and every man in Conscience ought seriously to consider it  
The necessity of the Commonwealth is pretended to defend the not-defending of the premises; when as no necessity may excuse any failings on the King's part, as if his promises, by which he stands obliged to his Subjects, did not suppose they for their parts also should perform: I know not how some particular men may be engaged and contract a necessity of resisting, or seeking safety by Arms; but I am persuaded, no man in Conscience can think it a necessity of the Commonwealth to have all confounded, or of a Christian to run the hazard of damnation by resisting. My Conscience tells me, and Qwill theirs one day tell them, how much they have to answer for not improving that grace and willingness, they had experience of in His Majesty, and might still have found in him, to the speedy and happy Reformation of this Church and State▪ I pray God to give them Consciences truly enlightened, and bowels truly compassionate, that they may speedily and feelingly be sensible of the miseries this Land groans under, and faithfully examine how far they are answerable for them, by rejecting such reasonable means of security, as they might have 〈◊〉 for the safety of this State. Amen.  
And now if there be any one that will run the hazard of this resistance, I desire he would first set his Conscience before the tribunal of God, where it must appear, and consider whether it will excuse him there, when he has shed the blood of others, and expended his own, to say, I verily supposed and believed my Prince would change Religion, overthrow our Liberties. I must tell him it will not be safe for him to present such a Conscience at that bar, a Conscience that wanted the rule of Faith to warrant and persuade the lawfulness of resistance upon such a supposal, a Conscience that wanted the certainty of persuasion that the Prince's Heart (which God only knows) was so inclined, a Conscience that wanted the Judgement of Charity, in concluding such intentions in the King, notwithstanding all His Promises and deepest Protestations made in the time of His trouble, without which Charity all is nothing though he lays down (as he thinks) his Life for Religion. Such a Conscience I must needs conclude sinful, and liable to that which the Apostle threatens unto resistance, Damnation.   
FINIS.