SCRIPTURE AND REASON PLEADED FOR DEFENSIVE ARMS: OR The whole Controversy about Subject's taking up ARMS. WHEREIN Besides other Pamphlets, an Answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes Book, entitled, Resolving of Conscience, etc. The Scriptures alleged are fully satisfied. The rational Discourses are weighed in the balance of right reason. Matters of fact concerning the present differences, are examined.  
Published by divers Reverend and Learned Divines.  

IT is this fourteenth day of April, 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of COMMONS in Parliament concerning Printing, That this Book, entitled, Scripture and Reason pleaded for Defensive Arms, be Printed by john Bellamy and Ralph Smith.  
JOHN WHITE.   
LONDON, Printed for john Bellamy and Ralph Smith at the Sign of the three Golden Lions near the Royal-exchange, M.DC.XLIII.   

To the READER.  
'tIs a bitter Controversy that our poor sinful Nation is fallen upon, wherein not only Arms are engaged against Arms, but Books written against Books, and Conscience pretended against Conscience. In this perplexed condition, What shall the people do? What shall they resolve? They expect to receive Council from Divines, who (though it be a mixed Argument) are most likely to settle them. And they have great reason to do it; for the truth is, The world takes sufficient notice that the Cause, as it now stands, hath many Divines strongly engaged unto it on either side, and that their Resolutions have had a great Influence upon it, and upon the people.  
We know upon whom Doctor Ferne lays the burden, when he saith, 
His Epist.  Many in the simplicity of their hearts have been wrought upon by such as misled them. But we plead in the words of the great Apostle, 
2 Cor. 1.12.  That our rejoicing is this, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation to the world, and more abundantly towards our Congregations: To whom we appeal, and to our Sermons preached among them, whether we have taught any thing, but humble and holy obedience to all just and lawful authority, sincere love and constant maintenance of the Truth. What is it that We may be suspected of? What Designs may we be thought to carry on? What Interesses? What ends? What is it that We hold dear unto us, but the Gospel of our Lord, but the souls of our people? Did we make a gain of them? 
2 Cor. ●● 17, 18, 19  Did Titus make a gain of you? Think you that we excuse ourselves? We speak before God in Christ.  
'Tis not a new thing to be challenged as Seditious, as Tertullus accused Paul; 
Act. 24.5.  To be hurtful unto Kings a●d Provinces; 
Ez●. 4.15. Act. 17.  as Rehum and others wrote against the Jews: To be setters forth of new Doctrines; as the Epicureans blasphemed that chosen vessel. But our witness is with God, and in our consciences, and before the people in our preaching, and in our conversation, That we are not the troublers of Israel, That we pray for the Peace of our King, and that we seek the welfare of our Nation; and that we teach no new, no other Doctrine, than what the Scriptures confirm, as this Treatise will fully show; The● what our King himself hath allowed, in his clearing our Brethren of Scotland by Proclamation, 

Luther, B●genhagius, Ius●●s, jonas, Am●sdo●sias, Sp●lati●●●●nct hon, C●●t●●g●●, and 〈◊〉 Lawyers and Statesmen, published a writing, Anno 15●1 to justify defensive Arms, etc. K james Speech in Pa●●. An. 1609.  
See Remonstr. Dec 15. 1641. Votes, May 20 Remonst. May 26 1641. Declar. 

july 13  
Aug 3.  
Aug 15.  
Aug. 20.  
Octob. 22.   Petitions of Parl March 26 May 20. jun. 27. jul. 15. Petitions of London, and several Counties for the King's return. With the L. Generals Petit. which would not be received, etc.   when they had Covenanted and taken up Arms; than what our State hath formerly favoured in yielding aid to Rochel; Then what other Churches, Scotland, the French Protestants, the united Provinces, and great Divines have given suffrage unto. And as for the State of this Kingdom in the very Constitution of it: The Case is yet clearer, King James himself blamed a Bishop for a right-Court-Sermon that he preached before Him, and the House of Peers, That he had not distinguished well between a King at large, and the King of England. And in a manner, even all the points of the present difference might be answered against the King, by the King Himself, in His Majesty's Answer to the nineteen Propositions, pag. 17, 18, 19, 20. Which we desire the Readers seriously again to peruse, as out of which a political Catechism might be drawn to instruct the people, just so as we have instructed them.  
To conclude, After the Kingdom hath duly considered the many provocations it hath had, which will appear by the Remonstrances, Declarations and Votes of Parliament; The No●successe of other Remedies, as namely frequent Petitions and Treaties; and hath read this following Discourse with a mind not prejudiced; We hope that this present Action of Parliament will stand justified, and our Judgement and Consciences clear: Especially after this our Protestation, That we seek nothing but the Truth, and to the Truth, if others can convince us, we are resolved to yield.   
SCRIPTURE AND REASON PLEADED For Defensive Arms.  

SECT. I. The Question rightly stated.  
THe Question which the Doctor hath propounded, as necessary to be scanned is thus expressed [Whether if any King will not discharge his Trust, but is bend or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, Subjects may take up Arms and Resist?] He maintains the negative, and his principal place of strength is, Rom. 13.2. Whosoever resists shall receive to themselves damnation. This he interprets of resisting the higher power, mentioned ver. 1. by which he understands the King or Supreme; and the resisting, a resisting by Arms. But it seems to me, however he make a show of distinct handling his matter, that he either carelessly, or sophistically confounds things, which ought to have been more distinctly expressed by one that truly desired to have resolved consciences in so weighty a cause, as forbearing to defend Religion, Laws and Liberties, when they are all in danger of subversion. To which purpose, I shall make bold to propound divers considerations towards a better clearing of the true state of the question; and the strength of his proofs for it.  
1. It cannot be imagined that a King, who is bend, or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, means to do this by a mere personal strength; (For which no Sampson-like strength would suffice) but by the assistance of others, whether men in office, and trusted with the civil Sword under him, if he can draw them into his design, or by the soldiery ordinary or extraordinary; and that not in one part of the Kingdom, but in several parts, as fast as he can get instruments for his turn.  
2. Here then will come divers questions belonging to the case. 1. Whether the resisting by Arms, the illegal attempts of an under Officer of Justice; suppose a Major or Sheriff, though armed with Commission under the King's hand or seal, be a resisting of the higher power and damnable. 2. Whether the resisting a Captain of the Soldiery, coming to act any illegal commands with his bands of armed men, though he also have a like Commission from the King; be a resisting of the King, and so forbidden? Both these where the King is not present, but in another part of the Kingdom.  
3. It will be further questioned (in case he should grant resistance lawful thus far) whether it be lawful to resist the officers or soldiers of the King, he being besides them, and animating them with his commands to do violence? I will suppose for the present the King's person is and shall be safe, notwithstanding the resistance, or that else the resistance must be forborn. I only ask, whether his followers commanded by him, standing by to do murders and rapes may be resisted with arms or not.  
4. If he will say that in all these cases resistance may be made; so the King's Person may be safe. 1. The King may thank him for the care of his Person, but his Power and Authority is as much impugned by this, as by many that plead for the defence now actually under-taken. 2. The Cavaliers and Followers of the King will thank him never a whit; For they may all be knocked on the head or starved, and yet the King's Person be safe. And they would soon desert the cause, if this were believed, or would be rooted-out, if this were generally practised; and that is all the Defendants desire, who honour the King's Person and authority, as much as the Doctor or any of his fellows, not to say more; how ever they resist his Cavaliers.  
5. If he will deny resistance where the King is present, because there his commands are certainly known to be his, which may be doubted of in remote Countries. Then, 1. So should it have been expressed for clear understanding, and not couched in uncertainty. 2. Then all these Cavaliers are justly resisted where the King is not present, which again if it were believed and practised would soon end the business; For even in the next Parish to the King, they might be resisted, though not where he appears and speaks. 3. What if it be doubted whether the King be not forced by threatenings and fear of his life to command so and so. King's have been prisoners, and have commanded so, and by wise and good Subjects, Castles and Towns have been kept by force of Arms against such as they bade to assault it, if not yielded. Our Law supposes, The King can do no wrong, yet supposes wrong may be done in his name by his followers; If he then command a notoriously wicked thing: The Law will suppose him forced or the like; And then resistance shall be as well lawful, as if he were absent. Or even necessary to rescue him out of such wicked hands. 4. What if it be doubted, whether a King be bewitched by sorceries? There have been such things of old, and the Devil's power doth not seem to be lessened now? 5. What if it be doubted, whether the King be distracted? A thing that hath befallen Kings as well as mean men? Are subjects bound from resisting the commands of a bewitched or distracted Person to the ruin of Religion, Laws, and liberties? still preserving his person safe. 6. Suppose it be certain he is not forced, nor bewitched, nor distracted: Yet doing as bad as any forced, bewitched or distracted person can possibly do, by commanding such tyrannical Acts, what reason can be imagined, why such a command should tie subjects hands from resisting his followers, offering to act his tyranny, more than if he were forced, bewitched or distracted? Is the liberty of his body and mind from those violences, an enslaving of his people to his lawless lusts of cruelty and mischief?  
6. If he say further, that even his officers or soldiers, if they have his Seal or warrant may not be resisted in the remotest Country. Then besides the former inconveniences, these are to be added. 1. Any that come among ignorant common people may abuse them at their pleasure, if they will but pretend the King's Seal or Warrant. It hath been counterfeited for Briefs: How ordinary would it be, if it might not be resisted? How would malicious men murder with it? Robbers spoil with it, and who could remedy it? 2. By this means any that had a design to depose the King and usurp the Kingdom, might by a counterfeit Seal and Warrant, kill all the King's faithfullest Subjects, and strengthen so himself and his party, as the King should after have no power to save himself. Laws observed will secure sufficiently from this. And liberty to resist illegal violences will appear to be necessary to the King's safety, as well as the Subjects. King's have seldom or never been murdered or deposed, where Laws have been preserved in their vigour: But often where illegal violences have had place. Let this also not be forgotten.  
7. Well but thus the case I suppose is understood (if not by the Doctor, yet) by the general of those that take the King's part against the Parliament, that neither the King in Person, nor any of his officers or soldiers, that have commission from him may be resisted, because that were to resist the King, which say they all, the Apostle forbids and threatens, Rom. 13.2. But here again I blame the Doctor's negligent handling of that place upon divers considerations further.  
1. Without doubt the first verse is to be regarded, as being the foundation of the second, as appears by the word [Therefore] Yet that he hath greatly neglected. Perhaps for fear the scanning of it would do him an ill turn, as I shall by and by endeavour to show, by comparing the subjection commanded with the resistance forbidden.  
2. In the first verse he doth very ill to read always (except once by chance, as I think) higher pour for higher powers, and so never to tell us whether the other powers (who are higher in relation to the common-people, though inferior in relation to the supreme) S. Peter's governor's may be resisted or not? even with Arms. Perhaps this fraudulently also.  
3. In the second verse, he is very careless to tell us, whether resistance (which is three times in English, but there are two Greek words, the first being different from the second and third) signify all kind of opposition, though without Arms, to the higher and supreme power at least, but then much more with Arms? Or whether it only signify resisting with Arms, and no other there forbidden, and made damnable. Yet this a needful Question, for a conscience to be resolved in, and more ordinarily then about resisting. And so would well have become the Doctor's learning and pretended care of Conscience, and even regard of Authority to have discoursed upon. But since he hath not vouchsafed to do any of these, I shall take the pains to do it for him, and for the conscientious Readers, as well as I can.  
1. The first verse begins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers. Here are two questions. 1. What is meant by being subject. 2. What by higher Powers. By being subject is meant yielding obedience, either active or at least passive, that is doing or forbearing according to command, or submitting to suffering when one does otherwise. It cannot be denied but both these are parts of subjection, and that so much is commanded by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least in some cases. But the second Question, What is meant by higher Powers, will clear in what cases either of these is required? By the higher powers than is meant all civil legal Authority, which in St. Peter's phrase is of the King as Supreme, or governor (for these are higher than the people, though lower than the King) but it is to be observed that the word is in the abstract powers, which notes the authority, wherewith the person in authority is legally invested, and not the person in the concrete, lest that might be understood of his personal commands without or beyond, or even against his Authority. Which conceit the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using the word Power, which he doth also all the while he treats of this matter, except only that once he names Rulers, v. 3.  
2. It is to be observed that the things about which the authority, and so the subjection in this place is conversant are civil matters, belonging to the second Table between man and man. Not that I deny Magistrates to have Authority to command things belonging to the first Table, and that subjection is due to them in such commands concerning Religion, so that it be according to the will of God. But I say, that this is to be fetched from other Texts rather than this. My reason is, because the Roman Magistrates, of whom properly the Apostle speaks, were so far now from commanding things for Religion, that they commanded things against Religion, and the first Table▪ and therefore certainly the active subjection at least here required is limited to civil matters.  
3. And now that so much as I have said is required, active Obedience to legal, civil Authority to all Magistrates in their legal commands in civil matters; or at least passive yielding to the penalty of the Laws, in case of not obeying actively; and neither further then to legal commands of legal Authority, appears by the Apostles reason in this 1. verse. For there is no power but of God; which he redoubles in a second phrase, The powers that be are ordained of God, or under God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Every soul must be under their order, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they all are ordered by God under him, his deputies and vicegerents in their order and degree, higher and highest. This is true of all powers, and therefore to all must subjection be performed. And to none hath God ordered or ordained any Authority but legal. Which as none will deny (no not the Doctor himself) of other Governors besides the supreme: So can none with reason affirm, that any hath more authority than the Laws, whether special or general, written or unwritten, have allotted them. Which Laws God ratifies (being not against his) and so the Authority according to them. And this our Doctor also confesses (in sense) in more places than one of his Book, for active Obedience, that no more is due, but according to the Laws of God, and the established laws of the Land. Only he argues for passive obedience beyond this, every where. 1. Because he argues against resistance even of Tyranny. But in a word to refute this from the Apostles reason in the first verse. If I be bound to be subject to tyranny, (or to suffer violence of a tyrant) by virtue of the commandment here. Then tyranny is the Ordinance of God, or Magistrates have power ordained of God to use tyrannous violence (for thus the Apostle argues for subjection from Gods ordaining the power) But this is false. Ergo, so is that, that I should be bound to suffer tyrannous violence.  
And now if this be the true and whole meaning of the precept in the first verse, It will not be hard to clear the meaning of the prohibition and threatening in the second verse, which runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whosoever therefore resists (or carries himself disorderly against the power, or opposes) the power, resists or sets himself against the Ordinance (or order appointed) of God, and they that resist (or so set themselves against man and God both) shall receive to themselves Damnation. Now here we are to resolve two Questions. 1. What resistance is? 2. Who (or what) may not be resisted? 1. Resistance is contrary to subjection, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this also the word [Therefore] notes. For it shows that the sin of Resistance is a transgression of the duty of subjection. It is then twofold, either in not obeying commands, or in not suffering penalties. He that is wilfully, and obstinately disobedient to some commands, is (by the Apostles scope, and by the consent of all interpreters that handle it fully) a Resister, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though he never offer to take up Arms, but yields to suffer any penalty. A man that refuses to answer at the Law, he shall be outlawed; he that refuses to yield possession shall have a Writ of Rebellion out against him; he that refuses to put himself upon a legal trial at his arraignment, shall be pressed to death, as a most obstinate resister of authority, and so in many other cases. Or secondly, Resisting is in not suffering penalties, resisting by force, and even by Arms. This is one kind of resisting, and the worst kind against a lawful power: but what it is, our second Question is to determine; which again breaks itself into two. What is the power that may not be resisted? and who? In both, the former verse may, and must guide us, as the word power repeated, and the conjunction, therefore, and the mention of God's Ordinance the third time assures us. 1. Then what is the power that may not be resisted? The legal authority of the Magistrate, or the Magistrate legally commanding according to his authority. For as the subjection reaches to this, and no further. So the sinful resistance extends to this, and is by it limited: because God's Ordinance hath confirmed all this, and no more. Only upon the change of the phrase, and not saying he that is not subject, but he that resists, the Spirit of God seems to favour in some cases a simple not obeying, and will not charge that with resisting Gods Ordinance; Namely in such Laws as being of an inferior nature, may be generally good to be made and kept. Yet to some persons in some cases so extremely inconvenient as the penalty according to man is much rather to be ch●sen, than the practice of that Law in that case. Now in such a case (as our Divines generally use to say, that obedience may be forborn to many civil Laws, Extra casum sc●ndali) the Holy Ghost seems to favour (I say) the not obeying, and only charges guilt upon a not submitting to the penalty which is undeniable resisting: But I say again, that by all the foregoing context, and the reason from God's Ordinance in the second verse: The prohibition of blaming of resistance, goes no further, then, of legal commands of legal authority. The Doctor will not (doth not) say that the most peremptory, or obstinate refusing to obey actively tyrannous and illegal commands is resistance. By what authority then of the Text or context will he stretch the prohibition to refusing to suffer tyrannous violence? Or how does any resist unlawfully (though by Arms) when unlawful violence is offered him? which God no where gave authority to use to him, nor ever commanded him to yield unto? In a word, till God's Ordinance can be proved allowing tyranny (which can never be) or undeniably ordaining a man to suffer it, which is no where in his word (I mean the extremity of tyranny depriving of life, or so) though often it is so in his providence, when he affords no means of resistance: This Text of the Apostle will no way condemn the resisting by Arms tyrannous and illegal outrageous violences. Besides all that, the context following refuses this sense of the Doctor, as I have already showed.  
But let me not forget my second Question, or branch about resistance. Who may not be resisted? The Text saith, The power, any Magistrate acting with lawful authority legally. The Dr. would restrain it to the supreme, because he thinks it was hard to assert all Governors irresistible though tyrannous. But I say, interpreting resistance ●right, as before; and so the Governor or Magistrate may be no more resisted, than a Monarch. And the King is resisted in resisting the meanest Officer. Even high Treason may be committed in taking up Arms with some circumstances against a Magistrate, who is not Supreme. The Laws cannot be obeyed, but by obeying other Governors in the King's absence (who cannot be every where) and so obstinate disobedience, which is resistance; may be, when only a petty Officer, or Magistrate is present; but commands according to Law. Contrarily in the Doctor's interpretation, resistance is not forbidden, neither with reference to the lesser Magistrate, nor to the Supreme as hath been showed. And if it were forbidden to resist with Arms a tyrannous King; of necessity (as hath been showed) this would extend to forbid resistance of any that he employs ●n his tyranny. Or else all the dispate about it would soon be at an end, as was also noted. But if the Doctor say that he includes under the Supreme all that A●t his Will, and only denies that subordinate Magistrates are within the security of this prohibition of resistance by Arms, if they be tyrannous without any command from the Supreme. I would have him show me a ground of this distinction upon a Text of Scripture, (which speaking before of all powers, names, the power indefinitely) a ground I say out of Scripture, which himself requires in the beginning of his second Section, or religious reason, or else what conscience ought to regard what he saith? If both Governors and Supreme be to be acknowledged God's Ordinance, and both to be subjected to for that cause, as S. Paul here, for the Lords sake (as S. Peter, Ephes. 2.12.) then either both may be resisted by Arms if tyrannous; or neither? Let him now take his choice, and say what he will, If he saith only the Inferior may be, than he loses this Text, which matches them both equally. If he say neither may be; Then besides all that hath been said on the Text and context, I only add this: That then every meanest Officer (if wicked) may ruin the whole neighbourhood, because he may not be resisted by Arms, who yet will bring Arms to act his villainies. And so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turn to the greatest curse to Mankind (the best and most conscientious of them) that can be imagined, in regard of outward sufferings, and general confusion. It remains therefore that as the Apostle in the following verses, banishes tyranny out of the context, describing every where a righteous Magistrate, and not a tyrant: So tyranny is to be banished out of the interpretation of this Text, which allows him that is a tyrant, no security, that he shall be endured, and not resisted even with Arms. Though it doth (and that most justly and necessarily) secure a just ruling Prince or Magistrate from all resistance, even when he punishes most severely according to Law and justice, upon the heaviest guilt of being found resisters against God (that resist such a rule) and the heaviest penalty of damnation.   

SECT. II. Having clearly stated the Question, I proceed with the Doctor to his second Section, To examine how he maintains his Negative, That a Magistrate may in no case be resisted; or as he expresseth himself, That Conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance.  
HIs principal place of strength whereon he trusts, is Rom. 13.2. Whosoever resists shall receive to themselves damnation. To which he doth every where refer.  
Though (which I wonder at in a Scholar of his acuteness) without ever offering to Analyse the Verse, or those before and after; which would have afforded strength and clearness to his cause, if there be any to be found for it there.  
Therefore my first work must be to do that, namely to expound Analytically (but as briefly as may be) so much of the Chapter as concerns subjection to Magistrates; and then Conscience shall judge, whether he hath urged it rightly to the Apostles scope.  
The scope of the Apostle (I make bold to say) is properly and merely in this place to urge Christians to be obedient to the Civil Laws of the Roman Empire and so of other States, between man and man, and to the Magistrates that had authority and ruled according to those Laws of what degree soever their authority was.  
To this end, 1. He delivers the precept generally in the former part of the 1. Verse, in which are three things.  
1. The duty, Subjection, which is either Active obedience, or Passive submission in case of not obeying.  
2. The Subject, Every soul, All Christians of what Rank, Sex, Age, Condition, etc.  
3. The Object, in the Abstract, which notes the Legal authority, the higher powers, in the plural number, which our Doctor is pleased to take no notice at all of, but only and every where reads it, the higher power, as if it only pointed to the Roman Emperor, and so now to our King.  
2. He produces a reason for the precept, from God's authorising Magistrates and their Laws, and this is delivered in a double expression.  
1. By way of Negation, that any Magistrate can be Named which is not of Gods authorising, There is no power but of God, which undeniably confirms my exposition of the Plural number, powers, to note all sorts and degrees of Magistrates, as doth also, that he repeats it.  
2. By way of Affirmation, the powers that be are ordained of God, or under God; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as the Dr. notes) which as it speaks of all sorts of Powers, so it adds both a further Amplification and urging Reason, and a tacit limitation of the subjection. The Reason is, they are Gods vicegerents, and Deputies; by him, ordered to govern under him, and therefore to be submitted unto by virtue of his Sovereign authority, who is absolutely and undeniably the highest power, and Lord over all.  
The Limitation is, that it must be only in those things wherein those powers oppose not him, under whom they are and from whom they have their authority, and it is certain he gives them none to oppose him.  
Ver. 2. Thirdly, He urges the precept, by an Applicatory inference, from the Reason premised, denoting the sin of denying subjection; Whosoever therefore resists the power resists the Ordinance of God.]  
Wherein note, the Apostle hath altered his first word; and instead of a Negative, which one might have expected, puts now in an Affirmitive (Not whosoever is not subject, but whosoever resists) wherein he seems to favour (at least in some cases) the Exposition noted before of subjection, and the distinction of Active and Passive Obedience to humane Laws; and so will not always charge disobedience upon the conscience or soul of a Christian, for the omission, or doing contrary to a humane Law; But only in case of resistance, (that he will neither do nor suffer) for then he is guilty of resistance of the Ordinance of the authority of God, by and under which these Laws were made and are urged.  
Fourthly, He urges it again by a threatening of God's displeasure against such, inferred from the sin of their resistance. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  
The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies Judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is properly Damnation.  
But if the resistance be obstinate, and a wilful persisting in it, I doubt not, but the full sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damnation, belongs to such resisting, and resisters of Laws even humane (which are not opposite to Gods) and resisters of Magistrates urging obedience according to those Laws.  
Ver. 3. Fiftly, By the present and continued benefit of such authority and Magistracy and Laws. Which is delivered again both negatively and affirmitively. For Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil.] wherein he both prevents an Objection, and asserts an advantage.  
He prevents the Objection (that this authority was a wrong to our liberty) which he denies, so long as our liberty is only used to do well, and practise good works.  
And on the other side, there was an advantage to those that did well; because evil works were terrified by Rulers.  
Where also note, that he hath changed the Abstract, Powers, into the Concrete, Rulers, to imply, that subjection is due and resistance forbidden, no farther to Rulers (or no longer for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than they exercise their lawful power, and are not a terror to good works but to evil; For their power makes them not (nor allows them) to be a terror to good works.  
Sixtly, He urges it by a second Application of the benefit, and securing from fear of danger if men will obey.— Will't not thou then be afraid of the power? Do well and thou shalt have praise, etc.]  
Where again he repeats the word Power (as preventing an Objection, That Rulers might abuse their power.) Noting, that he still means of the power rightly used, according to the nature of it; whence will come praise to them that do well, according to the Laws.  
Ver. 4. Seventhly, By a Confirmation of the Application: From God's end in authorising Laws and Magistrates, He is the Minister of God to thee for good.]  
It is for thy benefit, that God hath deputed Magistrates; where his authority is the fourth time mentioned, and thou art both against God and thy own good, if thou yield not obedience Active, or at least Passive.  
Eightly, By a third Application of threatening against disobedience, either Negative, or especially Positive, which is resisting. He bears not the Sword in vain, etc.] Where is intimated, that he may punish even capitally some disobediences and resistance. And again the fifth time Gods authorising him is asserted and applied, to this power of punishment. That he executes God's wrath temporally; God is angry with disobedience, and requires his Vicegerents to punish them, even by the Sword, if the offences merit it according to the Laws, and so with other punishment.  
Ver. 4, 5. Ninethly, By a reinforcement of the Precept, under the term of Necessity of Conscience, which is but an Explication of the not resisting the Ordinance of God. Where also the Apostle prevents an Objection, as if he only had before advised them to obey or not resist, to save themselves from the Magistrate's wrath; For it is God's wrath also upon the Conscience, and so the Conscience is bound, though you could find a way to escape temporal wrath.  
V. 6. Tenthly, It is urged by a Parallel of respect usually paid to Magistrates, Tributes, the due whereof is also urged, because Magistrates devote themselves to the public good, and so must be maintained upon the public stock, and if maintained, then much more obeyed and subjection yielded to them.  
Ver. 7.11. Finally by an universal requiring, to yield to all their deuce, where he asserts, that he requires no other subjection, and so forbids no other resistance, than what the Law requires as due, or forbids as undue: because obedience Active or Passive was due by the Laws.  
This is in sum the Apostles scope and Argumentation.  
And now let us more particularly consider whither the clause, threatening resistance with damnation (or aught else in the whole context) do fight against such resistance as the Doctor oppugnes? or rather of the two may seem to fight against him, and justify such resistance if not otherwise vitiated.  
To which purpose let us proceed by these Considerations.  
First, That whatsoever resistance is here forbidden and threatened, relates to inferior Magistrates as far as their authority reaches according to laws, as well as supreme Magistrates.  
I may no more resist a Constable commanding me, or arresting me, or distraining my goods according to Law, than I may do the King commanding me, etc.  
Yet the Doctor takes no notice of this at all. But as if it were, not only the higher power, in the singular number, but the Highest in the Superlative degree; He restrains all to the King, which is a dangerous fallacy, not only in the present Question, but against all government.  
To which I add, to refuse to be subject to the Parliament according to Laws, and to resist is much more (by this Scripture) undeniably a resisting the ordinance of God, and brings damnation.  
And what then will he say to those that have done so too, and against the Parliament, and those sent by their authority unquestionable.  
2. Secondly, That Prohibition of Resistance cannot be meant here, which is wholly contrary to the Apostles reasons following, which persuade to Subjection and not Resistance. Or that Assertion, or Interpretation, is not according to the Apostles scope, which is formally opposite to his Arguments afterward.  
But such is the Doctor's Interpretation and Assertion, Ergo, His Assertion and Interpretation is, that Subjects may not resist a Prince, who is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties.  
The Apostles Reasons against Resisters are.  
1. For Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.  
Now is this a reason why I may not resist such a Tyrant?  
Who can be more a terror to good works, and not to evil than he that is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties? Ergo of such a Resistance of a tyrant the Apostle speaks not. But of Resistance of that Ruler, who goes altogether according to Laws and Liberties, which is justly punishable with Damnation without Gainsaying.  
2. A second Reason or enforcement of the Apostles argument against Resistance is, Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same. Now doth this argue a Tyrant is not to be resisted? Is there no cause of fear of him (while a man does that which is good) that is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties? Or shall a man have praise in doing good, of such a Tyrant.  
Therefore is not a Tyrant that power which may not be resisted. But he that stands to the Laws, and Rules according to them, Damnation is just against those that resist him without question.  
3. Thirdly, The Apostle proceeds, vers. 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good (and so not to be resisted without resisting the Ordinance of God, and so incurring damnation) But is this true of a Tyrant bend to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties? Is he the Minister of God to thee for good? Or the Minister of his own lusts rather, for evil? Resistance of such an one then, is not the Resistance the Apostle forbids, but of one who is the conservatour of Religion, for he, and he only is the Minister of God to thee for good, and worthy is he of Damnation that resists such an one.  
4. The Apostle adds, If thou do that which is evil fear, for he beareth not the Sword in vain: For he is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.  
Is this man a Tyrant, bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, or most directly opposite to Tyranny.  
A Tyrant secures those that do evil (so they will join with him and serve him in his Tyranny) from fear. And he bears the Sword, not only in vain, in reference to any good end intended by God's ordinance, but altogether contrary to it; and is so far from being the Minister of God, that he is (as before) a Minister of his own lusts, to shelter those that do evil, and to pursue with all wrath, and revenge him that doth good, and will not be a slave to his lawless designs and desires. Still then of such a Tyrant S. Paul argues, not that he may not be resisted: but him that he describes, which is a just Governor, and so upon no terms to be resisted.  
5. Upon all this the Apostle resumes: Wherefore you must of necessity be subject, not only for wrath, but also for Conscience sake.  
What rules of conscience (before laid, inferred now by the word, wherefore) urge such an Asinine or stupid subject, as to be subject even passively, and not to resist one that is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, when all that went before speak expressly of another power and Rulers of another temper?  
A man then for fear of wrath, not being able to make good his Resistance, may yield such passive subjection, but sure conscience (at least not in this place) urges him not to it.  
6. Yet the Apostle goes-on: For this cause also pay you Tribute, for they are Gods Ministers continually attending on this very thing.  
For what cause? Because they may attempt to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties? Do we pay Tribute for this cause, that they plunder and change Laws, etc. Or that they may defend them? Also upon what thing are they thus Gods Ministers to attend continually? Is it to subvert Laws, etc. Or to preserve them? The Apostle than speaks not of a Tyrant, but a just ruling Prince, and pity but he should be damned that resists him.  
7. Finally, he concludes this matter with saying, Render to all their due. By what Law of God or man may a Tyrant subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, or even be let alone in so doing.  
I am sure the Apostle hath not expressed any such thing hitherto. It is Ergo, but the Doctors mistake, though I confess it hath been many wise and good men's before him, that the Apostle forbids resisting such a Tyrant, which as I said above, all his Reasons go rather quite contrary unto, as describing the Power and Ruler that is to be subjected to, and not resisted, altogether cross to Tyranny, and his Interpretation and Assertion is altogether cross to the Apostles.  
Having set the understanding of the main Text right, I come now to those examples that are alleged to prove, That it is lawful to resist in some cases.  
1. The example of the people's resisting Saul's illegal and tyrannical attempt to have put Jonathan to death without cause.  
If this were lawful in them in a particular man's case (against whom also there was some seemig cause) How much more to resist one that is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, and so to take away the life of many at his own pleasure.  
To this is answered, not, that it was unlawful in the people to make this resistance (which yet if he deny not, he plainly yields his cause in his first Proposition, and Rom. 13.2. forbids not all Resistance) but only that the people drew not into Arms themselves, but being there at Saul's command did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawful command.  
To this I reply.  
1. If it were lawful now; what hinders but they might have come together to prevent such a mischief as Jonathans' unjust Death? Sure Saul called them not together to resist himself in any thing. Neither did his calling them together to fight against the Philistines authorise them to fight against him, if it were not lawful of itself.  
Our King called the Parliament together, yet he allows not them to resist upon that pretence, though they are undeniably, not the great Council only, but the great Court of Judicature in the Kingdom.  
This piece then of his Answer is nothing but words and pretence.  
2. As for his loving violence and importunity wherewith he would blanche their Resistance.  
Grant they showed a love to Saul, because Jonathan was Saul's son. But had Saul counted him his Enemy, (as he did David afterward) It would have sounded harsh violence, and outrageous enough, and it was plainly a great deal beyond a loving violence. For Saul swore his death, and they swore his life, that not a hair of him should, etc.  
This was Resistance then with an Oath, as it were, to make Saul forsworn.  
After this Example than our people may swear an Association, that not one of the Parliament shall be put to death (unless proved guilty according to Law) notwithstanding any Proclamation of them to be Traitors, or condemning them to death illegally.  
3. And thirdly, as it cannot be thought, but if Saul had further attempted by himself, or any of his followers to assault Jonathan, the people would have actively resisted him and them even with arms in Jonathans' defence.  
The second Example is David's resisting of Saul, sc. by gathering a band of 600. men, and offering to have kept Keilah against Saul, but that God told him the Keilites would have betrayed him.  
That he sinned not in it appears.  
1. By his own pleading his innocence even to God in his Prayers and Psalms, as far as concerned the business between him and Saul.  
2. Himself after this pleads it to Saul, 1 Sam. 24 & 26. and calls God to witness that he had not transgressed at all against him.  
3. God himself discharged David from all notorious sin, excepting the matter of Vrijah, 1 Kin. 1.5.  
Now had not his Resistance been lawful, it had been most notorious Rebellion and Treason.  
4. Fourthly, even our Doctor condemns it not, and therefore, all resistance is not unlawful, much less damnable, as he often thunders.  
But this Example sticks with him, and therefore he makes a fourfold answer.  
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.  
Reply. But this could not have been done without killing divers of them, if they had assaulted him, which had then been no murder, but a just defence and execution of Justice. So far himself grants lawful.  
2. But he says it was a mere defence without any 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.  
Reply. He was not strong enough to encounter Saul in the field, who had divers thousands (3000 mentioned 1 Sam. ●1.) against his 600. Wisdom bids him fly as long as he could, rather than fight.  
2. Conscience forbids him to kill Saul: so I grant it doth any Subject, though having the King at any such advantage. But that he hurt none of his followers, 1 Sam. 26. was again an act of wisdom, and we need not go to conscience for a reason of it. He had only one man with him, Abishai, and had he offered to kill any of the Army, how soon might this in all likelihood have wakened the rest, and so he had endangered his own life to little purpose. For he could not in probability have killed many, and what had that done to his cause and defence afterward.  
Yet also, I hold not that in cold blood, one or many that are upon the defensive, may lawfully kill sleeping enemies, or such waking farther then appears, at least in some sort necessary, or much advantageous to the defence, and prejudicial to the opposites. But if killing, as many as David could have killed that night, himself and Abishai would have given hopes of ending Saul's pursuit of him, and have made peace; I doubt not, but he would and might have done it, as well as keep Keilah against him.  
But this intent of david's is denied; For,  
3. The Doctor saith, It is only an uncertain supposition, not fit to ground conscience in this great point of resistance.  
Repl: The Text declares it as certainly as may be, unless it had said so in undeniable terms.  
For, 1. David contents not himself to ask God whether Saul would come down, but what the Keilites would do.  
To what end that, but that he meant to stay, if they would stand to him.  
2. When God answers him only about Saul's coming, he asks the second time, which shows clearly his mind ran upon staying there.  
3. When God told him they would betray him, the Text than saith, he and his men went whether they could go, which shows they were now disappointed of their purposes and hopes of staying there, and must now shift for themselves where they could.  
When none of this will elude this example of David's resistance, the Dr. adds a fourth Answer which will strike it dead.  
4. To this and all other demeanours of David in his standing out against Saul. We say his example was extraordinary; for he was designed and anointed by the Lord to succeed Saul: therefore he might use an extraordinary way for safeguarding his person.  
Repl: But in these few words there seem to be many errors and inconvenient expressions.  
Doth he not▪ imitate those that to illude David's reason, why he durst not kill Saul, Say Saul was extraordinarily anointed and designed King by God, and so upon him violent hands might not be laid, but this holds not for other King's elective or successive by humane Laws.  
I do not for my part think their shift sufficient, but believe it utterly unlawful, even because this is asserted by David (in reference to the office of Saul, as I believe) being written for our learning, to teach us how to carry our selus towards all sovereign Princes.  
But I say if he will elude David's act of resistance, he encourages them including his forbearance. Let him consider it.  
2. Is not what he speaks of a successor dangerous to his own Position? for if David's right of succession authorised him at all to resist, may not a successor plead the like authority, if in danger, which yet he will not grant, unless he mean to overthrow his own assertion.  
3. It seems to me a strange way of answering Scripture examples (unless upon stronger necessity than any thing the Doctor hath alleged, as will appear by the scanning of all his Arguments and Texts against resistance) that such a thing was extraordinary, when no such thing can be gathered out of the Text.  
I know many men have this faculty of interpreting, who yet will not suffer it against their own assertions; but with me (except in undoubted failings or duties) The ancient Rule holds good, Praxi● sanctorum est interpres Praeceptorum. David did thus against Saul's violence, therefore this is not contrary to▪ but an Interpretation of the honour due by the 5 t. Commandment.  
4. It is so far from being good which the Doctor saith, that contrarily David's Unction, ought rather to have strengthened his faith; not to have used a way of defence; which in another had been (by the Doctors saying) rebellious and damnable.  
What a disparagement is this to Faith, and even to God's Honour, that his anointed shall be safeguarded for so long together only by a way, which in all others is abominable? Credat Judaeus non ego. David's Faith then and God's Honour in his preservation, proves the means both lawful and ordinary.  
And if so, then much more is it lawful for many persons, and most of all for a State-Representative in this manner to defend themselves and resist.  
A third Example alleged by the Doctor, is the Priests resisting the King's attempt upon their office and God's worship, 2 Chron. 26. And after thrusting him out of the Temple, when God had smitten him with Leprosy for it.  
I for my part put no great weight on the former. But their thrusting him out of the Temple is somewhat towards a hindrance even by force, of a Prince if he persist to violate Gods undoubted ordinances, as it had been to have stayed in the Temple being leprous, added to the sin of his going in at all, and presumption to offer Incense. But such a case is hardly supposable among us.  
Only I add, that I wonder the Doctor offers to say; God by smiting him with Leprosy, discharged him of his Kingdom.  
The Story implies no such thing, but only that he dwelled in a several house, and Jotham his son judged the people of the Land. The Law allowed not any to come near to such or touch them, and what they touched, without being unclean, therefore he could not sit in public Judicature, but his son did it for him, yet for all that he remained King till his death, and probably did give out divers Orders, which might be done by means of those that must needs minister to him.  
But if the Doctor say right, may not an untoward Inference be made, that if a King should attempt to violate God's ordinance and worship in any thing, and God should visibly strike him with some loathsome Judgement, this should discharge him of his Kingdom, which is more than ever the Parliament said, or so much as thought, as they call God to witness.  
A fourth Example is Elisha's shutting the door against the King's Messenger that came to take away his head. This example the Doctor saith speaks little.  
Reply. But as little as it speaks it forces him to speak that, which if he will stand to, I do not much doubt, but I shall make any unpartial man (perhaps even the Doctor himself) to say his cause is lost in reference to his first Proposition.  
Hear his own words,  
Let us thence take occasion to say, that personal defence is lawful against the sudden and illegal attempts of such, even of the King himself, thus far to ward his blows, to hold his hands, and the like.  
I Reply 1. Then is not all resistance unlawful and damnable, if against sudden, he may much more against deliberate intended illegal violence.  
And his distinction of personal defence, etc. will not satisfy conscience by his own words in the beginning of this Section. If Ro. 13.2. be to be interpreted his way, because every distinction and limit of any place in Scripture must have its ground in Scripture. What ground hath this in Scripture in his way, either here or elsewhere, specially when he will not allow the Parliament to believe any intention to take away any of their heads, notwithstanding all words and preparations against them without the spirit of Elisha.  
But hear him further,  
" Not to endanger his Person this, nor return blows; this is not lawful he saith.  
Reply. I am not willing to oppose him in these Assertions, though the case may be so hard, as a man must lose his life, if he will merely defend himself, and in no sort offend.  
But specially a woman must lose her chastity (in which case, and principally the latter) let the Doctor answer what is to be done, and whether no blows may be returned.  
But that the Prince's person may not be willingly assaulted, the speech of David forenoted is that which concludes me, and not at all the D●●argument. He saith the whole commonwealth is concerned in his person, and that a particular nature will yield to the universal.  
Rep. But he argues fallaciously, the whole is concerned somewhat in the Prince's person, but not so as that it perishes, if he die or be killed. Which is often, and no harm, no visible change, but that he is missing. Whereas the yielding of a particular nature to the universal, is to keep that from dissolution & perishing, as the Naturalists say, & no otherwise.  
But that which follows is yet better. Thus he objects for us against himself [if this be drawn from personal Defence to the public resistance now used, as they usually make 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 up the way against the King, that comes to destroy his Parliament, and take away their heads] then he answers two things.  
1. 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.  
Rep: But by his leave he abuses the similitude between a natural and a politic body; and perverts the state both of the Question and the example in hand, and withal runs into more absurdities than one in his own way, as I shall now show him.  
1. The natural body can do nothing but by the guidance of the head, that is of the soul residing in the head, and employing the senses and faculties placed in the head to that purpose. But a body politic, is a company of reasonable men, whose actions may be divided from their politic head, and yet be rational and regular, and when the particular politic head is distracted, or while an Infant, it can and doth order itself within him, and so it doth and must do, when the politic head is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, because the subversion of these, (and not the opposition or resisting of those that would subvert them) would be the dissolution of the whole. But so would not be the very death of the politic head, (though, as I said before, it is unlawful to attempt it) Whereas the death of the natural head, is certainly the dissolution of the whole natural body.  
2. As the natural body may defend itself against outward force, so against the malignity of any disease, or pain in any member of the body, even resient in the very head, and so the hand may pull out a tooth, even for the painfulness of it, though seated in the head, and perhaps one eye for some disease, thereby to save the other; and lance and cut the flesh, and even cut-off a limb, leg and arm, to stop a Gangrene; yet is this no making of a schism, or unnatural contention within itself.  
3. He hath granted it to single persons; but denies it to the whole body, or a considerable part together.  
Reply: Then belike if six or twenty or a hundred single persons be assaulted illegally, by a like number of single persons (suppose in their several houses in the same Town) they may shut the doors and defend themselves, and even any of them hold the very King's hand and ward his blows. But if they happen to be all in a body together in the market place, and be assaulted by such a number, or a quarter so many, they must not offer to resist, but let them cut all their throats, because forsooth in the body politic, one part must not be set against the head, and another part of the Whole.  
4. He grants the body politic may defend itself against an outward force, but not (as now) one part, etc.  
Reply: Then belike if the King employ Danes or Irish against the Parliament and Kingdom, they may resist them (and is not the case so now, at least in part) but not if he employ only English-Cavaleers. Surely the mighty wits of the Earl of Strafford, who was condemned mainly for counselling to bring in nine thousand Irish to reduce this Kingdom, wanted our Doctor to have advised him to forbear that design, and only Arm English, and then the people's hands and consciences should have been tied from resisting by the Doctors and his fellow-Chaplaines Divinity, and must have yielded Religion, Laws and Liberties, and necks too, for fear of dissolving the whole politic body, by defence.  
5. When the state of the Question by himself set, is, when a Prince is bend to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties. What dissolution of the Whole can be feared by defence and resistance against such intentions, worse than that or so bad? While therefore he talks of such defence, tending to the dissolution of the Whole, he perverts the Question, or else forgets, that the subverting of Religion, Laws, and Liberties, cannot be accounted less than a dissolution of the whole politic body.  
6. I say therefore by an Argument à f●rti●ri (retorting his words upon himself) If a private person may defend himself a 'gainst illegal Assaults of the King's Messenger (or even of himself, as before) then much more the representative Body of a State, and even any considerable part of the Body (with them, or) even without them, to save Religion, Laws and Liberties against an intent to subvert them. And if against outward foreign Force, then much more against homebred, unnatural Members, who exceed (rather than come short of) any outward Force in rage and c●uel●y, tending to the subversion of the Whole, and all such unnatural and gangrened members are justly and necessarily cut-off for the safety of the whole, though their cutting o● cannot be without a maim and lameness, at least for the present. I say for the present, for new members will grow up in the politic body in time, though never in the body natural.  
2. He hath yet another Answer for us in these words, [Personal Defence may be without all offence, doth 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 doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the 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.]  
Repl: 1. If some personal defence may be without all offence, yet not all. And he at least seems to have yielded all personal defence lawful, so the King's person may not be violated.  
2. Whose fault it is originally, that general resistance by Arms, cannot be without offence? Are the Plunderers not in fault; but the defenders must be counted guilty? And whose hand is it that strikes immediately at the order, which is the life (as he saith) of the Commonwealth? The defendants of Religion, Laws, and Liberties? Or theirs who intent and attempt to subvert them all?  
3. How doth personal Defence, if offensive to the Messengers assaulting, strike less at the power over us, then general or common defence doth? Or rather neither doth, since the power over us (as intended and ordained both by God and man) is for the preserving and defending, not subverting Religion, Laws and Liberties; and so defends the true power, strikes not at it.  
4. If general Defence cannot be without many unjust violences, no more is any war at all, in a foreign Country (de facto.) But as the impossibility to restrain these wholly, does not make all wars unlawful, so much less doth it a necessary defence, in case of such danger to Religion, Laws and Liberties.  
5. Whose fault is it, that these unjust violences cannot be avoided, the Assailants or the defendants? Let God (and conscience) be Judge. To Him we fear not to appeal; and while the conscientious Defendants labour as much as morally they can to prevent and rectify all such unjust violences, whether the danger of some acting them, who must be employed in the defence; altogether forbids the general defence, to the utter subversion of Religion, Laws and Liberties.  
6. And this indeed makes a large difference between Elisha's case and ours. He defended but one against a sudden passionate command. He pleads against malicious deliberate intents for defence of many, the general, of all faithful Prophets, Magistrates, Princes and all, with Laws and Liberties for all posterity. Let Heaven and Earth judge, who is the wrongdoer, and whether the defendants may not as Innocents' call for justice, as well as David against Saul, 1 Sam. 24. & 26. (vide locum.)  
As for the Parliaments power to conclude of the King's intentions without the Spirit (Prophetic) of Elisha (I wonder we had not here also, that Elisha defended himself by an extraordinary way, being an extraordinary person, as well as David before) that belongs to the third Proposition, handled in his third Section, thither I refer it. Only saying that since the printing of the Doctor's book some blood hath been shed by the King's Counsel of war at Reading in a pretended legality: So at Oxford some others have lately been condemned with pretence of Law, and what shall become of them, who knows whether they will put them to death, in terrorem to others? Or reserve them for fear some of their party should be served with the same sauce?  
Finally, whereas he saith, the King desires not any punishment should be inflicted on any that oppose him, than what a legal trial shall adjudge them to, which no good Subject aught to decline.  
Reply. This were credible, if we were assured what is meant by a legal trial, and that it did signify, not a trial by such Judges and Juries, as are apparently partial: or if we could forget that the six Members accused of High-Treason in January last, offered themselves to be tried, and the Parliament offered to try them in Parliament, according to their Privileges, being Members of their Houses, and from thence forth the Accusation was laid a sleep (till of late) notwithstanding the reiterated importunities of both Houses of Parliament, who also in one of their Declarations or Petitions to the King, urged a Statutes, how such accusations ought to be managed and conclude to this effect, that by Law and Justice this ought not to be denied.  
And thus I have vindicated the Examples of Scripture by the Doctor alleged for us, and from thence, and from his own words partly, the Question in hand between us, as far as concerns the first Proposition. I am now to proceed to his own allegations against us: In which he is so confident, as he promises, [That Scripture excludes this and all other exceptions, giving no allowance to resistance, in regard of persons or causes, or other pretences (how true this is, let what hath been said already be judge) and this not only by Examples, but by Precepts, Conclusions, Resolutions, which are more safe. These we are now to examine.  
First, his Allegation of the 250 Princes, gathering the people against Moses and Aaron; Himself satisfies, that there was no cause for it, Moses and Aaron did not deserve it. [I add, they had done nothing, but what appeared to be the formal will of God, whose cloud and pillar was by day and night over their heads, and whose many miracles had continually ratified the authority of Moses and Aaron, Moses his very face by a continued miracle was sufficient to have dazzled them, if he had pulled off his veil.] But to this he answers, The Princes supposed they did deserve it, and that is now enough it seems, to make people, not only say to their Princes, Ye 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.  
Repl. 1. I have showed there was not the least ground for them to suppose ill of Moses, but all contrary.  
2. Because a false supposal allows not a man to do such or such a thing, shall this forbid that action, where the supposal is true and certain? By this all war should be unlawful, for upon a false supposal it is. Also all Justice should be injustice and unlawful: for upon a false supposal it is so. We never said nor thought, That uncertain supposals suffice to arm against a Prince; but at least such as rules of reason and prudence allow in all cases of importance. And whether there be now any such; As he refers, so do I to the end of the Treatise.  
Secondly, he urges, 1 Sam. 8.11. Namely, that God by Samuel tells Israel, that if they would needs have a King, he should take away their goods, and make their children servants, and then they should cry to God, because of their King, but he would not hear them, which implies they should be left without all remedy against his oppression, but only crying to the Lord.  
To this divers Answers may and must be given. Answ. 1. Though this be further urged by some to authorise Kings to take their Subjects goods at their pleasure, yet less the Kings of Israel never took it so; For Ahab and Jezabel were not so unskilful in the right of Kings, that they would have had Naboth put to death by false witnesses for blasphemy, that so his vineyard might come to the King by confiscation; if by a plain Law of God at the founding of the Monarchy, he might have taken the vineyard at his will, as the Text 1 Sam. 8.13. mentions his taking of vineyards even to give to his servants, and much more for his own use. But Ahab and Jezabel both, though they wanted neither wit nor stomach to advance that Prerogative, were it seems novices in both to our Modern Advocates for Monarchy; or rather it is certain Samuel tells them what their King would do, and not what he should do by right. His words are Prophecies not Laws.  
2. Neither are the latter words of their crying to God, and his not hearing them, in form of a Law and Prohibition (or at the most but a Prohibition of attempting or thinking to have the government altered again from Kings to Judges) but a prediction by way of punishment, what should befall them for their sinfully impetucus affecting and ask a King, that they should feel him oppressing them, and that God would never remove the burden, as long as that King (whom they should first have) should live, Nor yet alter the government again from Kings to Judges, though they should be never so weary of the one or other; and pray never so much to him for either or both. And indeed the event verifies this interpretation, in both respects. For Saul proved tyrant enough; and particularly in taking their sons from them, as it is threatened, 1 Sam. 8.11, 12. etc. so recorded Cap. 14.51. But specially his tyranny was most prodigious in the Massacre of the Priest's forementioned: And so did many of his successors; after they had a King once, they never were under any other government altogether. For though they had no Kings of their own from the Babylonish Captivity, till the Maccabees time, yet were they under strange Kings (which was worse) the Babylonians and Persians (of which after their return from captivity, see their heavy complaint, Neh. 9) and after them the Grecians and the Kings of Syria and Egypt, and then a while the Maccabees race possessed the Kingdom till the Romans subdued them, and set up Harod and his race under the Emperor, who was indeed their King from thence forth (the high Priest calls Caesar their King, Joh. 19.15. and so doth the Prophet. Zach. 11.6.) till Vespasian and Titus destroyed their Commonwealth.  
3. This Prediction then of such punishment to them by their Kings oppressing of them, cannot be a Law or punishment intended to other Nations being under a King, who have not provoked God in seeking a King as Israel had▪ God threatened and imposed on the Jews and other Nations in Nebuchadnezars time their putting their neck under his yoke, 
jer. 27.3. etc.  though he was not their hereditary Prince, but an invading enemy. From whence no man will gather (I hope) that any Nation are bound to yield to a foreign Enemy invading them. Also God threatened that the Jews should be carried captives into other Countries, and there they should serve other gods, wood and stone, etc. where he would not show them any favour; I am sure no man will argue from hence, that this is a law for other captives to submit to (or was any excuse to them, much less a law) but a mere punishment to them, 
jer. 16. 1●  and warning ●o other, least in them also sin be punished with sin, which is the forest punishment of all.  
4. This place then being such a prediction of punishment doth not prove so much, as that to them it was unlawful to defend their very goods against their King's tyranny, but that (at the most) it should be vain to them; because if God would not hear their cry, their defence would be to little purpose, and what they might save at one time would begotten from them at another, when their King should list to attempt it.  
5. After all, this Text (let the utmost be made of it that can be) reaches not to the first and main Proposition of defending life. Or the second of chastity: but still the defence of those remain lawful and warrantable, though also so doth the defence of goods (as may appear by what hath been said) whereas the King is not an absolute Monarch. The absoluteness whereof is indeed (as hath been forenoted) in power over goods, but not at all over the chastity of any, nor so much as over their lives, further than they offend known Laws.  
Thirdly, He says, we have not only example, but resolution and conclusion out of Scripture, That 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, Num. 10.  
Rep. The Text puts in no such restraint, no restraint at all, but only that the Trumpet should blow for such and such occasions, and where it did blow, they should assemble. I grant, while the supreme (and those under him) do their duties, there may be no Assemblies, but by their Authority, Laws and commands; but when they neglect it, and will not discharge their trust; much more when they abuse it, to destroy those, by and for whom they are trusted; This Text hath neither word nor intimation, forbidding the people to assemble, even for war. Himself granted not long since, That the body politic might defend itself against an outward force. Suppose a Fleet of Spaniards, or Danes or Irish, invaded our Coast: The Prince and all his Officers, are ignorant or neglectful, or even consenting. Shall the people not assemble for defence, because the Prince blows not the Trumpet? Or a band of high-way-robbers set upon a village, and the Constable and Officers are secretly confederate with them: May not the village without their officers, and the neighbour villages also run together, as to quench a common fire? We use to say, Necessity hath no Law, or knows no Law. The meaning is good, That ordinary laws for settled times, give way to present pressing necessities, not only before men, but God too, who in saying, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice; directs to prefer necessities of mercy and safety, before all ordinary Formalities, either of Religion, or of civil Justice. How else might a private man kill one that assaults him? And if one may defend himself, I say again (as before) much more many; and to that end Assemble even for war, and make Trumpets of their own, when they that have the ordinary Trumpets, will not use them at all, or against the common good. And Num. 10. hath not the least shadow to the contrary. Also without the Trumpet may not the Church assemble?  
Fourthly, For David's carriage towards Saul and his Army, 1 Sam. 26. it is partly answered before. But he urges, That though it be said, they intent not hurt to the King's Person, yet might they not 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 Ordnance, which put no difference 'twixt King and common Soldiers.  
Rep. Indeed this is the hardest case can be put against defence by Arms. But supposing (as hath been partly proved already, and will be more, the further we proceed) that against his messengers and instruments, arms may be taken, & battles fought to prevent the subversion of Religion, Laws and Liberties, upon which they are bend: I only ask 2 or 3 Questions.  
1. By what rule of conscience or God, is a State bound to sacrifice Religion, Laws and Liberties (the conservation of which is the end of all governments, and so of all Prince's Authorities) rather than endure that the Prince's life should come into any possibilities of hazard, by defending them against those, that in his name are bend to subvert them.  
2. If he will needs thrust himself upon the hazard, when he needs not, whose fault is that? Is it theirs that desire not to have him hurt in the least, and resolve not to hurt him wittingly or willingly, but merely to defend themselves upon necessity; and offend others that are his seducers, or instruments, or both? And to this purpose, let it be remembered that I have proved, that David would have kept Keilah against Saul, and then if Saul would have been obstinate to assault it in his own person; how could David have helped it, if an arrow or a stone from the wall had hit him and killed him? And then withal, whether there be not somewhat this way, in that of David; Either the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come that he must die, or he shall go into the battle and perish. If he might fight with Saul's Army, as in Keilah he would, and Saul would go down into the battle, his blood would have been upon his own head. As if a King disguised should offer any private violence, a watchman that would not (or even might not) hurt him being known, were without blame, if he knocked him down, or even killed him, as he might in like case a disorderly private person. Now in battle, to many or most (and especially to the Gunners that give fire to great Ordnance) he is altogether disguised, and so they are blameless, in reference to his personal hurt. The fault is wholly his own and those wicked Councillors that have thrust him upon the fury of the battle.  
3. For also, why should not all that truly wish well to the King, of all other times keep him out of the battle, when it is against Rebels? I am sure David's men would not let him hazard himself, 2 Sam. 18. (though he offered it) and said he was worth 10000 of them. They than that put him upon such desperate dangers, against supposed Rebels show they love their own rapine (for which they fight, and to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties) above his person and life. And then let God be Judge who stretcheth out the hand against him unlawfully? They, or others?  
Fifthly, He observes two things more concerning the point of resistance.  
1. That all the seeming instances for it, are out of the old Testament.  
Rep. 1. Why should he insinuate this to be insufficient? Is not the old Testament God's word, and a direction for our lives, as well as the new? Was not, Honour thy Father and Mother (under which himself comprises obedience to Princes) a law of the old Testament? And if it were lawful (as the instances have been justified against all that he hath said) to resist then; how comes it to be unlawful now? Did Christ come to make Tyrants secure from resistance, who were not before.  
2. I would entreat him, if he be at leisure to rejoin to this reply, to tell us the intent of Christ in the new Testament; bidding his Disciples, rather sell their garments, then want a Sword. I am persuaded for my part, that he thereby directs them to a just and necessary defence, against any outrageous attempts of violence illegal. Though he afterwards blames Peter for using the Sword without warrant. The new Testament than hath somewhat also toward Resistance.  
But 2. He saith, It is a marvellous thing, That among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for their Idolatry, cruelty and oppression, none should call upon the Elders of the people, for this duty of resistance.  
Rep. To this marvel, there may be a ready satisfaction, if we remember, That even in the reign of the best Kings, not only the people's hearts were usually unprepared, and in their greatest seem hypocritical and treacherous, as appears by the Story and the Prophets. But also the Princes, Elders and Nobles were exceedingly corrupt. In Joash his time, as soon as Jehojada was dead, the Princes came and corrupted the King; and in the beginning of Esay's Prophecy in Vzziah's time (who was among the better Kings) he calls them Princes of Sodom, and so even in Hezekiah's time, how doth Micah complain of them. (Ch, 3. & Jer. 26.) and Jeremy in Josiahs' time after the Reformation begun. Now if they were so bad in good times, who can marvel, if they were stark nought, where the King was wrought, and helpers forward of his Idolatries, cruelties and oppressions. And why should it then be expected, that the Prophets should call upon them to resist, the King being on their side, and they on his.  
Sixthly, At last the Doctor comes to his main strength of all, namely, Roman. 13.2.  
In the improvement of which Text to his purpose, he lays down four Positions, and then makes a fivefold Objection, and shapes Answers to them; all which must come under examination.  
1. He says [St. Peter St. Paul here, though it be by some now put to the Question, as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it.]  
Rep. But by his leave he runs away too fast with his supposition in a double respect.  
1. That St. Paul here, Rom. 13.2. speaks only of resisting the supreme power, the King, or Emperor or Monarch, whereas the word in this second verse is indefinite, the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which extends to all in authority in either rank or degree, as well as the supreme, as was noted before. If he (or any for him) say that the power, v. 2. must signify no more than the higher power, v. 1. which he interprets only of the supreme.  
Repl. Here again I must tell him, he abuses his Readers (carelessly at least, I will not say wittingly, let his conscience look to that) for he always reads higher power in the singular, whereas it is Powers in the plural, and the next words, There is no Power but of God, the Powers that be are ordained of God, shows the Apostle speaks of all sorts and ranks of Powers. Therefore he must take in the other, Pours, as well as the supreme in both verses, and that will be nothing for his benefit, as will appear by this brief reason. If the Powers that are under the Supreme may not be resisted by this, Rom. 13.2. Then either the resistance forbidden extends not to resisting (though with Arms) outrageous and tyrannical assaults of illegal violence offered by those officers, as suppose a Major, Justice, or even a Constable, or else even one of those officers, even a petty Constable is as absolutely over those that are under his office as any Monarch, and they slaves to his lusts, as well as to an Emperors, because the one ought not to tyrannize (by the Doctor's Confession § 1.) no more than the other, and the one ought not to be resisted no more than the other by this argument and Text.  
Now which part of distinction will the Doctor choose, if the former, he deserts his cause plainly. If the latter, then besides the apparent absurdity of it; I urge, that all men will grant, That a Constable and such like officers (between the people and the supreme) are liable to be themselves punished by Laws, if they offer any outrageous and illegal violence, which cannot possibly be, unless they may be resisted even with Arms in case any arm themselves to practise violence, Also else a few of them, as the Major or Aldermen of a Town, joining together, might go through all the City and rob, and kill as many as they would by force of Arms, and no man might offer to resist them by taking Arms against them. It remains therefore that all Magistrates (except the supreme to begin with) may be resisted even with Arms, if offering violence and tyranny; And yet St. Paul forbids to resist the Powers without distinction of supreme or other. Therefore St. Paul m●anes not to forbid resisting Tyranny with Arms: But resisting legal and lawful commands, even other ways, as well as with Arms, though this be the worst kind of resistance, where obedience is due.  
But secondly, It must not be granted him (for all his big words of Absurdity, imputed to those that deny it) That the King of England is in all considerations the supreme (or the highest Power (if St. Paul's words were in the superlative.) This belongs to Politics, and the Doctor's Divinity will not reach it, himself cannot deny it, That the King is not supreme in the legislative power. Though he have a negative voice in Laws, so have either of the Houses distinct. He can then neither make new Laws alone, nor abrogate old ones: Nor violate (without injustice) the goods, much less the lives or chastities of any of his meanest Subjects, and least of all authorise any of his followers by his warrant or presence to do so. His Supremacy then is bounded by Laws, and is given him (be it more or less) ad salutem non ad destructionem. Which yet were not, if no Tyranny of his might be resisted. But of that more anon.  
But the Doctor will prove the King supreme 3 ways.  
1. St. Peter's distinction comprehends all that are in authority. The King as supreme, and those that are sent by him: 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.  
Repl. 1. Why did the Doctor leave out the word Governors? Is he afraid to grant the Houses of Parliament any power of Government?  
2. What if sent by him, refers not to the King, but to the Lord, for whose sake, all both King and Governors are to be obeyed, and by whom both are sent? (but of this also more anon.)  
3. But grant him his way, I ask how it shall appear, that the name of King extends as far every where as S. Peter's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Spartans' had two Kings, and yet neither of them so supreme, but under the control of the Ephori, There are also monarchs as supreme as any that have the Title of King. The Great Duke of Florence, The Great Duke of Muscovy, and others. Also the Romans in S. Peter's time called not their Emperor's King Rex, Which yet is the ordinary Latin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In a word, he only is supreme, whom the Law calls supreme, and no further than the Law makes him.  
2. He saith 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.  
Repl. But some Lawyers will tell him, That the Oath of Supremacy is either only against foreign powers (and namely the Pope) having to do here; or against all particular persons having authority above the King within the Realm. But that with all Law-books intimate a superiority, in curia Comitum Baronum, etc. which is the two Houses of Parliament.  
And secondly, That he is supreme not to judge all persons and causes at his pleasure, but as assisted according to Laws with his Counsel and Judges, and specially his great Council, and chief Judicature (during their sitting) the two Houses of Parliament. His Supremacy then, still appears limited by, and according to Law.  
3 But he adds, This is also acknowledgedged by the Petition of the two Houses addressed unto his Majesty, wherein they style themselves, his Loyal Subjects.  
Repl. True and right; but still this is to be understood, to be Subject according to Laws, and for the good of King and Kingdom, neither of which is promoted or preserved by a restraint of a defensive Resistance of tyranny, which restraint, the Doctor so contends for. Add here, what must elsewhere be further urged, That the King himself in his answer to the 19 Propositions, acknowledges that the two Houses have legal power, more than sufficient to prevent or restrain Tyranny. Which I would fain have any man show me, how it can be done, but by taking up Arms, and then I will yield him the cause, That all Arms taken up are unlawful. But till then the King hath granted the cause, legal and just against the Doctor's first main Proposition, and all his Arguments.  
His next ground is, That 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 every soul in the first verse, and the resistance forbidden here concrnes all upon whom the subjection is enjoined there, or else we could not make these universals good against the Papists, exempting the Pope and Clergy from subjection.  
Repl. 1. He still runs on in his error to limit the higher power to the supreme.  
But secondly, I grant him that all other powers under the supreme are forbidden to resist in the Apostles sense. A Constable, Justice, Major, Sheriff, Judge of Assize, nor the very Houses of Parliament may not resist the authority of the King commanding according to Laws. But yet it remains to be proved, that they may not resist his violence, when he is bend to subvert Laws and Liberties, and Religion and all: Or the violence of his followers, even though doing it by his warrant or in his presence. Also, because he doth so much insist upon the phrase of higher power, let me put him a case. A wicked Robber that hath committed twenty most bloody murders one after another, in cold blood is led away after legal condemnation by the Sheriff to be put to death: Suppose a King would come with armed soldiers, and offer to take him violently and by force out of the hand of Justice. Who resists damnably now that power which is the Ordinance of God, and to whom the Sword is committed? The Sheriff and his men that resist the violence, or the King's followers (or even himself) that resist the due Execution of Justice? Let him study on it and give an Answer at his leisure.  
3. He proceeds, 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 Council (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. Thus for the persons that should resist, all are forbidden. Now consider the cause.  
Rep. 1. Doubtless Saint Paul wrote not to the Roman Senate, nor Saint Peter neither. And if the Doctor will prove it unlawful for them to resist, he must prove it from the Law of nature, or at least from some ancient Law of the old Testament, given to the Ancestors of the Roman Senate. Or else show how this could concern them, who never heard any thing of it. For any thing than ●e saith, it was lawful for the Roman Senate and the Heathen Subjects to resist, though not for Christians.  
2. If he or any for him shall say that it suffices for his cause that it was forbidden to Christians and accordingly is now.  
Rep. 2. If you reply that supposing it not forbidden to Heathens; No more was it to Christians, before S. Paul (and S. Peter) wrote. And if so, then belike (as was formerly touched) the Apostles laid a yoke upon the necks of Christians, worse than all the Jewish ceremonies, which the Gentiles were ever freed from: For whereas before the Romans might resist their tyrannous Emperors, now by becoming Christians their hands must be tied to have all their throats cut, (even though the whole Senate were Christians) at one Nero's pleasure. He that wished that all Rome had but one neck that he might strike it off at a blow, had done wisely to have endeavoured to have made them all Christians, and then he and his Guard with him, or his Army might by this Doctrine have struck off all their heads, or run them all through one after another as fast as they could deal blows, and so he should have his will in their destruction, though there must have been a little more pains taken about it. Surely Christ who came to purchase liberty to his people never meant to enslave them to tyrants above all others of Mankind. The Doctor must go prove resistance unlawful from some other grounds of nature's law or the ancient laws of Scripture, or else this Text of S. Paul will appear to have another interpretation, even that which hath been given before in the explication of the Text, and inference from it.  
Thirdly, I will not therefore trouble myself to compare the Authority of the Roman Senate with our Parliament, much less argue for that power which they had lost about a 100 Years before S. Paul writ; It suffices he hath not disproved at all their present power of resisting tyranny, when S. Paul wrote, and that by the same argument I have disproved, that S. Paul forbids Christians to take any such power to themselves.  
4. But he adds [was there ever more cause of resistance then in those days? Were not the Kings than not only conceived to be inclined so and so, but even actually were enemies to Religion, had overthrown Laws and liberties?] Rep. If it had been before demonstratively proved that resisting the power (or higher power) did properly signify, taking Arms against the Supreme, when he plays the tyrant: This fourth step were a just illustration, and confirmation of it. But now he only begs the Question (whether deceitfully or being himself deceived by his own strength of fancy against resistance) and builds without a foundation. For will it prove that S. Paul forbids resisting by Arms a tyrant; Because Nero was then a tyrant. Unless there were nothing else that could be cold resisting the higher power, but resisting by Arms? He that should have wilfully and obstinately refused the just Laws of the Roman State, had resisted the higher powers in S. Paul's meaning (as the whole context, and all interpreters show) What is this then to infer a prohibition of resisting tyranny by Arms? It infers indeed, or includes principally resistance of lawful commands by Arms. But how comes tyranny in? because forsooth Nero was a tyrant. Rep. But his authority according to the Laws of which alone the Apostle speaks was not tyrannous. The Argument therefore is wholly inconsequent, and fallacious from legal commands to tyrannous violence. And that the Apostles context proves abundantly, notwithstanding his pretended answers of Objections. But hear him.  
1. Therefore, If any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3, 4, and 5, verses, For Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to 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 than which the Apostle forbids to resist, were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good, just etc.  
REPLY. This still labours of the fallacy, that Rulers and Powers signify the personal commands of the supreme; only once here ere he is aware he names powers in the plural, which the Apostle forbids to resist. But I say as often, It only signifies the legal commands of Authority, whether supreme or subordinate. Secondly, though Nero was a Tyrant, yet were not all his Magistrates and Officers so; nor he himself in all matters (perhaps not at all when S. Paul writ this he had his Quinquiennius, and it may possibly fall within the Quare) unto those which were legal, which were the greater part that concerned Christians, It was forbidden to make resistance, and the Dr. hath said no word to prove yet, that the prohibition extends further.  
2. He makes a Second Objection that some say, that prohibition was temporay and fit for those times. To which he makes 2 Answers. 1. That this is a new exception never heard of I think but these times.  
REPLY. I have not in my Reading observed any to make such an exception, and do readily yield to him that so to put of the Apostles prohibition is a senseless, and presumptuous shift. But I must encounter his second Answer. Which is▪  
That the Reasons of the Prohibition (in his sense of resisting Tyranny by arms) are perpetual, verse 3.4 5.6.  
REPLY. I have formerly showed the contrary, and that all the reasons fight against his sense. But he will prove it.  
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 be always, 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 by God; by which also the other distinction of theirs is made void when as they reply they think acutely, That they resist not the power, but the abuse of the power.  
REPL It is granted by him that the state of the Quest. is, when a Prince is bend to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties. I would then fain know what order or good will then be in force, when these are subverted? And whether this Tyrant that attempts to subvert these, intends not to dissolve that Order, for which his power and himself were set up of God? And how then the Apostles reasons can possibly reach to forbid resistance to such attempts or practices; I will instance in four Commandments of the second Table which the Roman Laws in those times were conservators of as much as any Nations in the world (except God's people of Israel) the 5, 6, 7, 8. Come Suppose Nero gathers together a Company of dissolute young men▪ and with this guard or band enters into several houses, encourages those children that were willing to be so wicked▪ to abuse Father and mother: from thence they go to the Marketplace, and kill any they meet, and have quarrel with; then they catch men's Wives and ravish them before their Husband's faces▪ and after that rob the rich men's houses at their pleasure: I demand now, what greater (or equal) dissolution of that Order, for which the power is set up of God can be imagined? Or how the not resisting such a Tyrant can with common sense be inferred from those sentences, Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil, and he is the minister of God to thee for good? What is this, but to call good evil, and evil good? Which the woe against which our Doctor would scare men from resisting tyranny in his title Page: resistance of such an one than is so far from dissolving of order, as there is no means under heaven to keep order from being dissolved in such case, but resistance.  
Secondly, whereby it will appear also how void his confidence is, that by his former words he hath made void the distinction between the power and the abuse of the power himself hath granted (and cannot in conscience deny) that though the Prince is to be actively obeyed when he commands lawful things; yet not when he commands against the Laws of GOD, or even the established Laws of the Land: he than distinguishes acutely he thinks, between the power and the abuse of the power. Why is it not as lawful for us in the second verse so to distinguish upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as for him in the first verse upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Or if it be not, he must give us a better reason than he hath yet. And till then I again make bold to tell him that all the Apostles Argument, v. 3, 4▪ 5, 6, 7. justifies our distinction, and refuse his interpretation.  
Another Objection he makes against himself, is, That some say the Emperors than were absolute Monarches and therefore not to be resisted; he answers. They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily, which should have according to the principles of those days been a stronger motive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarches, was it not by force and change of Government? And was not the right of the Senate and people 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?  
REPL. 1. This Objection is needless, and so shall be none of mine. Also it is a nicety to aver, and very hard to prove that the Emperors were (or any other Princes are) absolute Monarches, under whom there is a government by written Laws, as among the Romans were the 12. Tables, and many other Laws. But I add, that no Prince can be an absolute Monarch to have power over men's lives at his pleasure (or over the chastity of any at all) He can have no power but according to the Ordinance of God. Now it is certain God never ordains any such Arbitrary, or injurious power. Therefore no Monarch hath any such de jure. As for that, any hath de facto, as he speaks of the Emperor's ruling absolutely or arbitrarily. If they did so (as they oft did) for evil, I have formerly showed, and he hath not refelled it, that they might have been resisted 2. What he speaks of their becomeing Monarches touches not our case at all. For however he insinuates, Who ever hath soberly written for defence and resistance against Tyranny doth not plead any right in the people of this Land against the succession of this Crown: But though the King and his rightful succcessions ought still to hold the Crown; This forbids not a necessary defence against their unjust violences when ever they shall use them. 3. Yet withal I add, that though so long as there was any in the Roman State who had not by Oath or the like expressed their consent to the usurpation of the Roman Emperors, they were free to have thrust them out again, or rather bound to have done it, and restore the Senate to their lost authority: yet when any have with the generality yielded to the change of an Aristocracy (wherein no man hath personal right of succession) into a Monarchy; they▪ and specially the posterity of those that have so yielded, are from thenceforth for ever bound to that government, according to just and equal Laws already in being or to be made hereafter, even by the Monarch alone, if they have trusted him with it alone; But never can they lose their right (no, not by their own consent) of just defence of Chastities, or of their lives, until they forfeit them by their misbehaviour against some just Laws or other. 4. As therefore the Doctor disclaims the pleading for an arbitrary power) (such as Conquerors use) in this crown, so if he can plead no better against resisting our Kings then he hath in the case of the Roman Emperors he will merit but small reward for his pains. But for that, viderit ipse.  
5. I come to his last objection, That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law; but the Religion contended, is established by Law. He answers two things.  
First, Is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it? etc.  
REPL. This with the rest belongs to matter of fact in the third Proposition, and seventh Proposition. Thither, I refer it that I may not say over needlessly the same things, or say but a little here or that which he will needs make necessary to say a great deal more than I desire.  
Secondly, the prohibition (saith he) not only concerns 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  
REPL. 1. Whether the Christian Religion being condemned by law then, did deny them resistance in its self, I shall perhaps give him account in another place. Mean time he cannot deny but the difference is very great between a Right to defend that which the Law defends, and that which the Law punishes.  
Secondly, I have proved that the prohibition of resisting Tyranny by arms, did not concern the Heathen Romans (and therefore not the Christians neither.)  
Thirdly, what ever liberties were lost, and new Laws enforced, yet so long and so far as the Emperors ruled by the Laws, the people and Senate were in no such slavery, that they needed resist to save the State. But when they used lawless violences according to their lusts, neither the Laws nor the Apostle prohibited a defensive resistance. So that although Christians might not defend their Religion against Law, yet he hath brought nothing to show, they may not defend it, when the Law hath established it.  
But of the means of safety in state, he will speak more anon, and so will I. And now I shall oppose his conclusion wi●h a little change of his words. Hitherto of Scripture, which how strong so ever it seems against resisting tyranny by Arms, yet saith nothing at all to prohibit it, rather the Reasons forbidding resistance of just power legally administered, favour this resistance of Tyranny as hath been showed. By which conscience will clearly see, that according to the examples of David, and Elisha, and the rest that have been justified; it hath clear warrant for such resistance of Tyranny, notwithstanding all the Dr. hath alleged to the contrary. Now let us see what Reason can enforce.   

SECT. III.  
I Have been so large in refuting his strength from Scripture, that I need not spend a like proportion upon the rest; and so shall I forbear such a Syllabicall REPLY, as I have made to his former SECTION. I shall here only touch Material Passages, the rather, because of other pains upon the following SECTIONS. Our Dr. examines the Fundamentals of this Government as he saith, though he after urge that the Fundamentals talked of are asserted common to all Governments, which is true of that which this ●ECTION maintains, Power being Originally from the people at the first. Upon this he descants, and meddles not with any particular fundamentals of our State (which indeed is a more proper business for Lawyers and Statists then Divines) except the people's right is now in the two Houses of Parliament, the representative body of the People. I will therefore keep only to what he saith, and not meddle much with our State in Special. For if the power of Resistance belong to all States, in time of need, by the common Fundamentals of all States it will be reason enough to prove it so in ours. And whereas he saith (that the Fundamentals must have a correspondency with the established Laws,) I grant it in a right Sense, that is, that the Laws must flow from those Principles, which are transcendents to all particular Laws, but not if he mean that they must be ever limited by particular Laws. In Nature the safety of the Universe is the Fundamental of the Harmony of the Elements, and the power and inclination of each Creature towards its preservation. Y●t this Fundamental is not limited by the particular inclinations of Creatures, which as himself told us above, give way to the safety of the Universe. To apply this in a word, the safety of the whole is the undoubted general Fundamental of all States; and so of the particular Laws toward this, and among them of the Kings being entrusted with the Militia. But it is not limited by this particular L●w: which in case of necessity, when the Prince cannot, or will not discharge ●is T●ust for the safety of the whole, must in Reason needs give way to the Fundamental, the safety of the Whole; and so (quo ad hoc for so much and so long, till this necessity ceases) falls into other hand, those that are next entrusted: or rather than fail to the whole community itself.  
But to c●me to the fundamental by him instanced in, power originally in and from the People, and this to be reassumed, when the King entrusted will not discharge his Trust. Concerning which let it be remembered, that there seems to lie a calumniating Fallacy in two of these phrases. First in tha● of not discharging the Trust, which here sounds, as if it might be but some ordinary Omission of C●re; whereas the State of the Q●est● by himself laid, is such a not discharging the Trust, as proceeds from his being bend (of himself) or seduced (by others, which is all one for the danger, and so necessity of using what power may be for resistance) to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties. In this case only, Power of resistance is here pleaded for, not in others.  
And indeed the very phrase, of Power of Resistance observed, can bear no other Construction. For it Imports a violence offered, a danger presented, which needs to be resisted, not a sleight or ordinary failing to discharge a Trust.  
But his phrase of reassuming the power, seems more to sound a taking away all Power henceforth from the Prince; which the Parliament (nor those that have rationally pleaded their Cause) never mention, but with Protestation to detest the thought. And I for my part, wholly disclaim the pleading for any such reassuming of Power by the People or Parliament. I only maintain a Right to use so much of it and so long, as is of necessity of the safety of the whole. Of which now let us argue, whether this Government of ours, cannot (as the Doctor says) be built upon this fundamental, but confusion and Anarchy be raised?  
He makes his discourse upon two particulars, as it must be, first of the Original of power. Secondly, of the Power of reassuming it. In the first I will not tie myself to the phrases of the Observatour, or any else; but examine the Dr●. Assertion and proofs, by what Scripture and religious Reason declares above it.  
To clear which I will propound a brief Schema of the main things considerarable in Government, which in the prosecution of the discourse, I shall make use of more than once. I say that, in Government four things are considerable.  

1. The Nature, Authority of 

Commanding to 

do  
forbear   by making Laws, calling for obedience to them.  
Constraint to obedience by punishment, 

Verbal.  
Real.      
2. The end 

Chief 

GOD'S Glory,  
Good of the Whole Society.    
Secondary, special Comfort of the Governors,    
3. The Efficient. 

Supreme, GOD.  
Subordinate Man. 

1. By Nature, Parents  
2. By Accident in which is considerable. 

1. The moving Cause, the will or consent of the Parties be Governed which is either 

Altogether free, and by Ch●ise partly,  
forced, by Occasion o● Violence.    
2. The persons Governing. 

1. In a Family, 

Husband,  
Mr. Mrs.    
2. In a State, 

one Monarch  
Many in 

Aristocracy of Chief Men.  
Democracy of people.  
Sovereignty,  
Subordinately, Officers              
4. The Extent 

Absolute,  
Limited,   For 

Commands,  
Constraints,   the 

Kind  
Degree     
He that hath not all these in his Eye, (I mean not in this Form or Phrase, but in sense, shall never discern clearly, nor discourse rationally of this subject of government, our Dr. though he once occasionally mention the People's good, as an End upon which Rulers ought to attend, Yet he speaks so little o● it, as it had need be a little more rememembred than it is, and God's glory also which is the chiefest End of all. But indeed the thought and mention of those Ends much, would be too cross to his purpose: and therefore he is wise in his Generation (as I may say, if without offence) to forbear it. Therefore on the other side. I must make bold to tell him, that though the physical end of things may be silenced or slighted in a Discourse or Definition, Ye● in moral things (such as Government) the End, at least the chief End, is a necessary ingredient of both, Definition and discourse, and an Essential part of it; if a man will consider it, as he ought practically. Let me therefore add i● to his Definition o● Description of Power or Government, and then it will r●● t●●s. It is a sufficiency of authority for Command and Coercion in the Governing of a People, for God's glory, and the good of the Society. And all the lawful Power hath this Effect in part, even Heathen, Authority redounds to God's Glory as the conservatour o● Mankind; and effects also, the Civil good of the Commonwealth.  
Now the Dr. saith, this power itself (not naming the end) is to be distinguished from the designing of the person to bear that Power, and the qualification of that power; this I grant him, and accepting his grant of the two latter being from men, and after their consent, ratified by God's permissive Approbation: I defi●● a little to examine, how far that may be granted him which he earnestly contends for, that the Power itself is from God; and what may be inferred from thence for him or us.  
His meaning is, that All Men are (as he saith) bound to set up and live under Government. This being the Ordinance and Appointment of God unto men as they are Reasonable Creatures. If he mean this of parental Government, That is set up to their hands, by God in Nature, as long as the Parents and Children live together; and bind the Children to live with their Parents and under them, till either necessity drive them away, or their Parents dismiss them. But ●f he mean this, of Political Government, of a People, of many Families, as it is p●a●●e he doth (and must if he will speak ad rem) than I cannot absolutely grant it him, neither will his text or Reasons prove it.  
My Reasons of Denial are first, that all Mankind, whose Parents are dead, and were not by them while they lived, Subjected to a Government are naturally free; & so not bound to part with that free some (as even a Monarch doth part with much freedom when he takes the Rule) unl●sse they see a necessity, or at least a great advantage, for God's Honour, and their own and others Good: which is not always to be found in setting up a politic Government.  
2. Wherein I am confirmed, by the consideration of the three great patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, who while they lived in Canaan, were not within any government, but only Domestical, and neither did rule, nor were ruled by the Inhabitants of Canaan, nor joined with them in a Common government. Though Abraham's Family was very numerous for a Family, yet it would be hard to call him a Monarch, much less Isaac; and jacob less, who when he went down into Egypt, doth not seem to have had any Servants, but only Sons, and his and their Wives and Children.  
3. And to this may be added, that by all Authors, it seems to be late, before any settled government, (beyond parental;) any of divers Families in continuation, came to be in the World.  
4. When the World was more empty as in Abraham's time, a godly man, as he, having a Competent Family, might subsist without others, joining in a government with him; and he could not do them any remarkable good, or gain glory to GOD by it, they being Pagans. So that it is not (I say) absolutely true, that men are bound universally, as by an Ordinance from GOD, to set up, live under government in the Drs. sense. Marriage is GOD'S Institution and Ordinance, and more originally than the Government political, and necessary for increase, yet are not all of mankind bound to marry, but for their own good and comfort, and so of others, and advancing God's Glory in both. So it is with Power, or Government. Political, though new when the world is peopled; As there is less Necessity of Marriage, then when the World was thinner, (though still a Necessity to many, even to most.) So is there more Necessity of being within Government to secure one's self and others from wrong, and do oneself and others good and glorify GOD in all. And so far I grant it God's ordinance to all.  
But one thing more I must remember him, and the readers of. Namely that this Power, will not be proved absolutely to extend, to the making of any Humane Laws, but only to see to the Observation of the Laws of Nature, and of God by His word and special Revelation both of the first, and second Table; and to no other power of coercion, than what the Light of Nature will Argue Necessary, for the Observation of those Laws of Nature. And that all further power, belongs to the third particular, which he calls the qualification of the Power, & depends upon man's Consent (so it be not against God's Law and Word,) which I call the extent of the Power. Which if it be true, it shall be seen anon, what Consequence may be drawn from it to the disadvantage of the Doctors purpose.  
And now let us view the Doctor's proofs, that Power itself is an Ordinance of God, binding all Mankind, to set up and live under government. Rom. 13.1. The Powers are of God, and the Ordinance of God, v. 2.  
REPL. The Doctor seems to have an excellent faculty, to take so much only of a Text, as seems to serve his turn, and leave out the rest, which at least might seem to be against him: the words v. 1. are, There is no Powers but of GOD, The powers that be, are ordained of God. This may be true, when Powers are, and not that there must be powers every where, as in the similitude before, there is no Marriage but of GOD, the Marriages that be are ordained of GOD. As for Saint Peter's Ordinance of Man, or it is in the Original, Humane Creation, which is more Emphatical, granting as the Dr. doth, that the qualification, and Person is from Man's Creation, I will not urge more from ●he Text against him.  
2. He urges ver. 4 He is the Minister of God, this yet proves not a necessity in all of setting up Government. But only when it is set up to acknowledge the Governor God's Vicegerent. So (as before) the Husband is GOD'S Vicegerent: Yet a Woman not absolutely bound to be under a Husband. The truth is, Government and Power is from GOD originally in these respects, no further. First he hath laid a general charge upon Mankind, to advance his Glory, their own and others good (whom thus are bound to love as themselves) by all means not by him forbidden. Secondly, in the parental Authors, (or proparentall, if the Parents die in their children's Infancy) he hath showed them how much Government may conduce to this. Thirdly he declares by instinct in Nature, that as parental Authority is deputed by him, so that he affords a deputation to other Governments when once set up. Fourthly, showing all men (now a days and long since) in fully inhabited places of the world, not only a profit, but even a necessity of being within Government (at least for his glory, in the Civil good of societies) Upon these grounds we may say he ordains and commands all to be within one Government or other; but not absolutely, nor without relation to this end.  
But thirdly, he alleadges. By me King's reign, and I have said ye are Gods, and the word of God came to them, Joh. 10. That word, saith he, is the issuing out of the Commission for the setting up a Government over and among the People.  
REPL. But none of all this will amount to his Conclusion; 1. King's reign by God, that is they are his Deputies. Men could not give them any Authority over themselves unless God owned it and by his instinct had prompted them to it. Secondly, he saith, Ye are Gods; but this an owning the designation of the Person, as well as the Power. This place either proves more than the Doctor urges it for, or less. Thirdly, as for his Dixi, the Doctor mistakes most of all For it relates plainly to his owning the Persons, (whom yet he tells. They shall are like Men: but the Power dies not) and is rather a granting a particular Patent or Commission to the Person chosen or succeeding, than a Commission (or Original Writ) to set up a Government.  
His Reason is no more Universally True, than his Texts pertinent. God (he saith) Governs all Creatures, Reasonable, as well as Unreasonable; the lower world by the Heaven, and the Reasonable Creatures Men, by others too set up in his stead, etc.  
Repl. But what if the Edge of this Reason be Turned against himself? For by whom according to the Dr. are Kings and Monarches Governed? In an Aristocracy, each of the Governors is Governed by all the rest of his fellows, and so in a Democracy, but in a Monarchy, one Governs all, and he himself is Governed by none. Either then all mankind are not bound to be under Government (and then all his Texts and this Reason are alleged in vain) or else Kings and Monarches are also under some Government, at least of the Representative Body of they people (according to what was before alleged from our Lawyers, Rex non habet Superiorem praeter Legem & Curiam Comitum & Baro●um, etc.) Let him take his choice. Nor can he evade this with saying the Text Speaks of Monarches, and they are called GOD'S, and so none above them But 1. I appeal to all Interpreters, whether the Psalmist intent it not (and so Christ after him) of all sorts of Judges, and so Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not Curse the GOD'S, nor speak evil of the Ruler of the People. Yet this S. Paul acknowledges extended even to the High Priest the Ecclesiastical Goververnour. 2. Is not the Text at least meant, of all the Governors in a Democracy, and in Aristocracy, that they are called GOD'S, yet each hath the rest above him 3. However still his Reason is void, for all Reasonable Creatures are not governed by others in GOD'S stead; for by his saying, Monarches are not; and yet they oft times need to be governed so far as not to be suffered to undo all by their Governing or else this Question had never been in the world, which our hearts bleed to be forced to dispute, concerning the power of resisting Monarches.  
If now the Dr. will say that we afford GOD a poor part in setting up of power for the governing of Men, he had need seek better proof or else he will hardly persuade any more to a considerate Reader. But perhaps he will say I have yielded him enough, (and more than others have done) that will be seen by the use he can make of his assertion. But in the mean time, I have 2 or 3 Considerations to propound, from his Texts and Reason, and my own grants and assertions.  
1. Each one of his Texts speaks of more than the Supreme Powers, Rom. 13.9. Plainly Plural, more than once, and takes in all Ranks, as hath been proved. Saint Peter names Governors to be submitted to for the LORDS sake, aswell as the Supreme and I should think, Sent by him, is by the LORD rather than by the Supreme, as I shall show by the Reason by and by; and St. Paul hath said the powers that he (even the Governors) are ordained of GOD. And Prov. 8. after the words, By me Kings Reign, follows, And Princes Decree justice, By me Prince's Rule, and Nobles even all the judges of the Earth. This is plain, aswell for other Governors as Supreme, being the Ordinance of God. And as for Psal. 82. and joh. 10. I have spoken before. I wonder then that the Dr. in a Treatise of Conscience, and having that word so often in his Discourse makes no conscience of confining these places (as in effect he doth continually) merely to Supreme power; It was for his turn indeed, as will appear more anon But that will hardly satisfy a Conscience, let him think on it.  
But I must not forget his reason now serving me once more against him. God governs all men by others in his stead; now that is done by subordinate Governors, as well as supreme (and so the inferior and unreasonable creatures by divers subordinations) and the subordinate do sometimes, even ten more than than the supreme, let him be never so good; if they be bad. the government and order will be disturbed and perverted, in a large Dominion, because his eye and hand can not be but in one place at once, and all may be and will be naught, if those under Governors be naught, whiles he his absent.  
But if they be good, they keep things for the general tolerably well, how bad soever he is. For his badness then, (as his goodness before) will not reach to all places, and scarcely (though badness in a corrupted world will reach further than goodness) much further than where he is present. Kingdom's then are governed under God, by other Powers as well as by the preame▪ and they no less sent by him then the supreme; I shall make an inference or two from this afterward.  
Secondly▪ mean time I add my second consideration. That in all the forementioned Texts the spirit of God with the mention of Governors authorized and ordained by him, inculcates their duty to him, and their obligation to Justice, etc. and that not only when he speaks to them, Psal. 82. and of them at large, Prov. 8. But even when he speaks to inferiors to be subject to them, and especially when he forbids resistance, Rom. 13. And for this cause they are all to be prayed for, 1. Tim. 2, 2. That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. Which words, if they may not be taken, as intending why God hath set any in Authority; yet the thing is undoubtedly true, he never by way of ordinance gave any Authority for any other End.  
Those Governors then whether supreme or other, that under pretence of their Authority from God's Ordinance, disturb the quiet and peaceable life▪ which the inferiors should lead in all godliness and honesty (as to be sure they do, that are bend or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties) are far from being God's Ordinance in so doing; and therefore however their power itself, a sufficiency of Authority for command and coercion in governing the People, be from God; yet their Tyranny is not at all from him▪ by way of Ordinance or Approbation, and so they that resist it even with Arms; Resist not the Ordinance of God, but resist the violation of his Ordinance, and so do nothing unlawful, though it be a resisting of the supreme person.  
Thirdly, let it be remembered that St. Peter in the place forementioned, speaking of Governors, suppose if meant as the Doctor would▪ sent by the supreme, adds (for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well.) If then the supreme send Governors to erect or practise a Tyranny (to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties (whether under the name of justices of Oye● and Terminer, Sheriffs, Commissioners of Array, or the like) which is to the Punishment rather of those that do well, and the praise of Evil doers; St. Peter saith not a word, to bid be subject to them, either actively, or so much as passively. Nor any where else in Scripture, I dare be bold to say it, doth the Spirit of God bid be subject to Princes or politic Governors, though tyrannous, or perverters of Religion, and Justice. I mean not when it speaks of them as such.  
And till then though they have power from God, which is not to be rejected; yet their Tyranny being not from him, but against him, may, and the Doctor hath not been able (nor will never be) to prove to the contrary.   

SECT. IV.  
IN this Section the Doctor undertakes to treat of the Forfeiture of the Power▪ and so of the Reassuming of it by the Parliament or People, for the Kings not discharging his trust. And denies this Forfeiture, and this power of Reassuming that Power. But this (he saith) they that plead for it offer to prove by two or three things laid together. First, that the power is derived from the People by way of Election. Secondly, that there is a Covenant between the King and the People. Thirdly, that it is necessary for a State have a means within itself to preserve itself. Against all those the Dr. argues and I follow him. Only remembering him that by Forfeiture is not understood Forfeiture of all Kingly Authority; nor by Reassuming (as I said before) a taking of the whole power from him to themselves, but only for the particular Case in hazard, and for the present necessity.  
And now to begin with what he first mentions the Derivation of power; I must tell him that he forges what he before complained of in others; that they confounded the power itself with the person and the Qualification▪ I am sure he doth so here, if ever man did. He before granted the Person and Qualification from men and then they approved of God; and more than that, no man pleads to be derived nor more to be forfeited, plead not for so much, nor he Pa●liament neither. But only the Qualification for he particular Case of danger, and till that danger may be sufficiently secured.  
Yet here now at first, to oppose the Forfeiture (but of this particular which is only in question now before us) he denies the power to be from the People, and appeals to what he hath cleared, which is only (by his own saying▪ but not altogether as hath been showed) that the Power itself is from God. But for all that, if no more can be said against the persons forfeiting his reigning Power, and specially in the Qualifications of it, even for ever, it may undoubtedly be forfeited and so re-assumed all of it: which is more than I say.  
Secondly, but he will prove, that though the People have this Power absolutely (which himself hath more than once granted, of the Designation of the Person and Qualification) yet could they not have right to take it away.  
REPL. The King will have no cause to thank him for his undertaking, as well because he doth it not with any great strength; as also because he hath hereby provoked men to dispute even this Case; which no way needed, since the Parliament never pretended to this Right in general, but rather disclaimed it.  
First, he saith▪ [Many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them, are not afterward in our power to recall.]  
REPL. True; but some things are, and that both, if conditions be not observed, and even at our own pleasure.  
A King makes some Officers for term of life; others, quamdin se bene gesserint; others, a●● ante bene placite. To the latter he may send a Writ of Ease at his pleasure; and every day it's in his power to recall their Authority. To the second their offices are sure without power of recalling till they are legally convicted of misbehaviour. To the third, as long as they live, their Authority is firm, and no power of recalling it wholly. Yet even such may be hindered from some Administrations, by Accusations by and apparency of Crimes, making it unfit for them to be trusted in the particular.  
We imagine not the People to have power to recall that Regal Authority at their pleasure: we argue not that they have power to recall it wholly, upon any Case of Maladministration. All that we plead for is power to administer a part of it upon necessity, which he will not administer for good, but rather for evil. And there are not many things that were altogether ours, and in our disposing before we part with them▪ but are still so far ours, as to use them again in our necessity for that turn at least, though there are some.  
Secondly But he will prove this to be one of those that are not after in our power to recall [especially, saith he, such; in which there redounds to God an interest by the Donation, as in things devoted, though after they come to be abused.]  
REPL. 1. Grant this true, in reference to the Power of recalling them wholly, (which yet is not universally true as will appear strait) yet may there be power enough to administer so much as is of necessity.  
A Wife is tied to her Husband by the Covenant of God. (so called Prov. 2.) by the Ordinance of God, more ancient, and no less strong than that of Politic Government. She cannot recall wholly her Husband's Authority over her, though she was once altogether at her disposing▪ to choose or another or none to be her head. All the goods of the Family are his in Law, and not here but by his leave and order: Yet for her necessity, she may by the Law of God and conscience administer so much of the goods as is fit, and secure her Person from his violence by absence (though that ordinarily be against the Law of Marriage, and the end of it,) or any other means of nccessary defence.  
But secondly, it is not altogether true, that there is no power or recalling any thing devoted to God. Hezekiah took off the gold from the Doors of the Temple and the Pillars which he had overlaid, and all the silver in the house of the Lord, to pay the King of Assyria his demanded Ransom, 2. Kings 18.14, 15, 16.  
If the Doctor will not own this Act of Hezekiah; I am sure he will that of David, taking the hallowed Bread, which was not for any, by God's Law to eat, but only the Priests. This was devoted to God, (and not so much as abused) and by him assigned to a special use: yet from that diverted, and lawfully without question.  
And now I appeal to all Consciences, Whether the necessity of saving a Kingdom from the subversion of Religion, Laws and Liberties, be not greater than David's necessity was? And if [I will have mercy and not sacrifice] did justify David's act, will it not theirs, who in a necessity use or administer the power of the Militia or Arms, which ordinarily is only to be admieistred by the King? Neither will Abimelech the Priests consenting to David alter the Case: for it was devoted to God, and but in necessity he might not have consented, nor David accepted. Necessity then recalled that particular Bread, through devoted. So necessity may recall this parcel of power in question.  
Thus the Doctor's ground fails him for our Case; yet 3. see what he adds, [so although it were as they would have it that they give the power, and God approves (himself oft hath said, and cannot deny, but they give the Person his power and if they take it from his person, yet they may leave it to his Heir but we argue not for so much) yet because the Lord's hand and his oil also is upon the Person elected to the Crown, and then he is the Lords Anointed, and the Minister of God, those hands of the People which were used in lifting him up to the Crown, may not again be lift up against him, either to take the Crown from his head, or the Sword out of his hand; this true informed Conscience will not dare to do.  
REPL. 1. Is not God's hand upon a Judge? Is not he the Minister of God? Is not a King bound to God and to his People to appoint Judges, who may less be spared in their Power, than the Monarch himself (for what is his Power when an Infant? Is not the Kingdom than administered Aristocratically? But there must always be Judges and inferior officers in a large Dominion, or all government is lost.)  
Will the Doctor say that the hands that have lift up the Judge or Officer to his seat (that is the King's hands) may not be lift up against him to pull him down and pull off his Robes, or take the Sword out of his hand? The interest that God hath in him, shall it preserve him in his Office, in case especially of Maladministration? But shall it (or hath it done) even so long as no offence is proved against him? The Parliament hath indeed desired it for Judges and great Officers; but hath it been granted? Or what means the putting out of so many old Justices of Peace lately, without any Crime alleged against them at all; of which more Countries than one have at the Assizes complained as a great grievance?  
What will the Doctor say to this? Yet they were God's Ministers and had the Sword committed to them. If he say the King was their Superior, and so might take their Authority away, but the people is not Superior to the King.  
REPLY. This satisfies not, because notwithstanding, here is a Person, in whom GOD hath an interest, and who is his Minister, deprived of his Authority: not only when he abuses it, but merely at pleasure. The Drs. Reason then hath no strength in it thus faare, or this done to inferior Magistrates is not lawful.  
2. But secondly, what strength is in his Argument, lies in the Kings being GOD'S anointed, and therefore the Crown may not be taken from his Head by Men, this I have granted him before, and am so far from recalling or disputing against, that I will add this word of confirmation to it. Supposing we speak of such a Prince or Monarch, (call him King or Emperor, or Duke, or what you will) that is not deposeable by the express Laws of that Commonwealth, as the Duke of Brabant was, and the Duke of Venice is, (for such as those Dukes were not properly supreme, nor GOD'S immediate Vicegerents, as Saul, and David, and the like) I say then, that though in case of Maladministration, an inferior Magistrate may be Lawful and most justly, and necessarily deposed by the King's Authority; I will not say the like so long as they carry themselves well, and are not merely Annual Officers, who also are glad usually when their year is out, because their Office is a burden and charge) yet a Supreme may not by the people, because he is GOD'S immediate Vicegerent, and so specially owned by Him, and have none upon Earth, unto whom GOD by any expression in his Word, hath given Authority over them, to take their Crowns from their Heads. I say again, as a Wife cannot take away her Husband's Authority, because she is in no sense above him. So unless the Law of that State, name a Superior to him that is in Tittle, the Prince to take his Crown from him, in such a case he cannot be deposed by the Law of GOD, which appoints no persons to do such a thing, to illustrate which, Let me add that in those times, when GOD allowed by the Judicial Law, a Man to put away his Wife, It did not allow a Woman to put away, or forsake her Husband, though I know about our Saviour's Time josephus relates of Women having gotten that, among the jews, at least some of them, as he instances in Salome sister to Herod the Great, who put away her Husband. But GOD allowed it not. And so that may be lawful for a Prince who is Superior to do to an Inferior Magistrate, which is not lawful for the people to do to the Prince who is Supreme, no not in a like case of Maladministration. I could instance in sundry other Prerogatives, in GOD'S Word to Superiors, which hold not (no not in like cases) to Inferiors, but it needs not with the Parliament, as hath been oft said.  
2. But whereas the Dr. adds [Nor to take the Sword out of his hand] This is inconsequent divers ways. First, himself in the former SECTION, in the case of Elisha, granted a private man, might resist the King's Messenger, and even hold the Kings own hands, sure he may (he doth that while equivalently) take the Sword out of his hand. Secondly, the people took it out of Saul's hand when he would have put jonathan illegally to death. Thirdly. If he would kill himself, it may be taken out of his hand. 4. Since out of all question GOD never put it into his hands, to kill the Innocent, nor much less to subvert Religion Laws, and Liberties, he being GOD'S anointed and GOD'S Minister for good, etc. hinders not the taking the Sword so long out of his hand, till it hath been sufficiently employed, to punish those Malefactors and delinquents which he should, but will not strike with it, or rather will defend and employ, S. Yet I say further, to do that which the Parliament hath done (supposing the necessity, of which hereafter,) is not to take the Sword out of his hand himself grants (as was noted before in his Answer to the 19 Propositions) that the two Houses have a legal power to punish, even such as do violence being his followers or Favourites, though countenanced with some surr●ptiously gotten Command from the King: and moreover, that they have power more than sufficient to prevent and restrain Tyranny. Their settling the Militia in safe hands, and the Navy▪ and securing Hull is by them declared to be for no other end, nor their raising an Army since. If then those that they would punish bee Delinquents, and if in them whom the King trusts there be (though not at all in the King) an intention to bring in a Tyranny, even with Arms, and to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties (which is the state of the present Question) then by the Kings own grants, as aforesaid, they may Legally and Lawfully take the Sword into their hands; and do not take it out of Kings, but his wicked Followers. 6. But because the Dr. closes his Assertion, with, saying This will not a a true informed Conscience dare to do.  
REPLY. I will be bold to try, whether Conscience many not say, It dares do no other than than this latter; (so far to take the Sword into their hands,) whether even his Tower of Battery. Rom. 13.21. not by what hath been said formerly, and even now so won from him, as it is become ours to beat down his Principle in this first Question, to the very dust.  
Secondly, I say the Parliament is a Power ordained of God, it is the Minister of God, It is to be a Terror to evil Works, It is to be a Revenger to execute Wrath on them that do evil, It is to watch continually (as GOD'S Minister) in th●s very thing, and so fo● the praise of them that do well (and so the securing of Religion, Laws, and Liberties) it is not to bear the Sword in vain. And a sword it hath, by the Kings own sentence to the purposes aforesaid And this Parliament (what ever o●her might be) is not deposeable (dissoluble) but by themselves. The Sword cannot be Legally taken from them till they give it up. It remains then that they are bound in Conscience to GOD, and to the People, and King too, that have entrusted them with this Power to use it to these ends, to punish Delinquents and tempters (though under Colour of surreptiously gotten Commands from the King) to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties; and to prevent Tyranny, and preserve themselves, and Religion, Laws and Liberties. They may not only Lawfully do this, upon these Premises and suppositions, but they are by all Obligations to GOD and Man necessitated to do so, and even to take away the wicked from before the King, that so his Throne may be established in Righteousness. This is clearly the● the Parliaments not only Power, but duty. I● they mistake in the present case (of which anon) yet the general case stands good, they may and aught to do so, to take Arms when such a case comes.  
The Dr. hath somewhat more to say against the People's power, applicable to our Kingdom. Let us hear it also. [How shall Conscience be satisfied, concerning the People's power, derived from their Election, when our Kings are such by Inheritance, and claim not by Election, and the Crown hath been oft settled by Conquest.]  
REPLY. Neither is Conquest any thing of itself to power, or Lawful Authority, of which only we argue; but only as it obtains consent by agreement, which is all one in Sense, and Effect with Election. Only Election sounds more Freedom of will, Conquest Imports a Force occasioning that will. But it is evident in Reason, that he that is free (as all men are by Nature, (as was said before) except their bond to Parents) becomes not subject, de jure, till his Consent, Agreement, or Election makes him so, and to no more than his Consent reaches, explicitly or implicitly: and so for many men, they can no other way be subject to one, to a Prince or Monarch, but by their Agreement, whether for fear of his Force, or hopes of his virtue, he is not their King or Lord, till he be made so by their Consent, I mean at first, and Originally. But what need I stand to prov● this largely, when our Dr. hath confessed it (in sense) before, in saying the designing the person and Qualification of the Power is from Men, Man's invitation what is this? put man's choice Agreement, Consent together. And if there be 100 Conquests, the Conqueror hath not the qualification of his power one whit enlarged, by Right, until the People have consented and yielded up their former Rights, and when they have, than his Right is settled accordingly, and to his successors, if so consented to, else not; and to h●s ●e●res, if consented to, else not; and to Heirs male only, as in France, or Female also as in England according to the consent. Or if the Conqueror to obtain the People's 〈…〉 his posterity, will offer to have le●t power than his Predecessor bed, ●e● upon such cons●●t, the qualification of his power is lessened for ever after to h●m and his. Conquest th●n first or last, one or many, are no more to right o● power, than an occasion or Motive to consent; consent Choice Agreement are all in all. Secondly, as for Inheritance, it is nothing but a succession of consent. Indeed posterity are bound to the consent of their Parents for the Person, Family, qualification, but to no more. In all other Cases and respects they are as free, as their Parents at first were. A Prince then only inherits, what was given the first of the Nation, or others since by consent of the people; and by written Law or custom, he must claim any power he will exercise; or else he cannot plead any right title to it. And his qualification of power admits of increase or decrease, as he and the People agree and consent. His power is altogether derived by Election and consent, first and last whence I will infer no more, but as before, that therefore in case of necessity, the people may use so much of it as may suffice to save themselves from Ruin; and that may be inferred from it, by what went before. As for his Repetition of Rom. 13. and the Roman Emperors being Monarches absolute, I need say nothing to now, I have said enough before.  
After this he comes to the Covenant, and Oath, which the Prince takes to confirm what he promised, which he denies to make the King's Admitttance to the Kingdom altogether conditional, as is the merely Elective Kingdoms of Polonia, Swethland etc. and that it is nothing to allow resistance, unless in the Covenant could be showed, that in case he will not discharge the trust, it shall be Lawful for the States to resist,  
REPLY. The Oath is only urged, to show that the King's Conscience is bound more firmly than what he is sworn to, and as a Testification of the Covenant: The matter sworn to, is the main; nor that urged for an absolute forfeiture, but for the case of necessity.  
Secondly, in more Elective Kingdoms, the conditions of the Covenant are more largely perhaps and more solemnly explicit then in successive, and the Power is mor● Restrained then in some successive: yet consent b●ing the foundation of succession, as was said before, a King that enters upon the succession, doth by that virtually, before his Oath o● Coronation consent to the first Conditions or Covenant, those that have been made consequently, and in that sense his Admittance is altogether conditional: not that the people may refuse him at their will, without new Conditions, but that he may not refuse the former Covenant, and Conditions by offering to take more power than those gave him (or his Ancestors which is all one) And if he do, the people are not bound to obey those Commands (the Dr, confesses before) and I add as before, they may resist his illegal Violences.  
3. For now the case is all one, as if the choice or agreement, Covenant, o● consent were originally made but yesterday. And then consider it. We are a multitude of Freemen, and whereas we might have agreed on an Aristocracy, We agreed on a King on such and such Covenants or Conditions, without mention that we will resist if he break them. But simply promise Obedience on those Conditions, and he on those accepts the Crown. But next day breaks all, and shows he is bend to subvert all Religion, Laws, and Liberties. How now in Reason (for of Scripture we spoke enough before) can it be supposed, that such a choice or agreement, hath turned us into such Slaves, as we must only suffer, and not at all resist, (or rather is not all reason plain, that I have given away no more of my natural freedom (which is to resist all violence and wrong) than I meant and expressed to give away. I say then, that unless a Nation have covenanted not to resist in such and such cases, they have power to resist, because it is a natural right each hath against all (except Parents) so far is it from my being bound not to resist, unless I have expressly covenanted that I may. Though withal I do not say, that I may covenant at all to resist in no case, as I shall have occasion to show anon.  
Fourthly, in the mean time, if the Doctor grant that in case the agreement be, that if the Prince discharge not his trust, the states may take Arms and resist, as in effect he seems to do, when he saith, That were something, (for if he do no such agreement;) Then is not all Resistance damnable, nor Rome 13.2. Rightly interpreted by him. For this and more the Brabancons had in their Agreement with their Duke, even to choose another, as the Doctor himself tells us afterward. So ever now and then he must contradict his main Proposition by the force of truth.  
But he saith after, that [The slender Plea● Election, is thought to have a Covenant in it, but usually the higher we rise in all Empires the freer Kings were, and still downward the People gained on them.] And by this he would imply that specially in successive Kingdoms (as this) what ever may be said of merely elective States, there can be no forfeiture of power by breach of Covenant made in after Ages by succeeding Princes.  
REPLY. In the first times, there was a great simplicity in all covenants, in sale of Lands, and letting of Lands, and the like; yet no man ever sold, or gave away, or lent more than he meant; though the force and fraud of ill men, forced after Ages to more express Covenants. In like sort Ex malis moribus bon● Leges, (as well between Prince and people, as between common men) the tyranny of Princes forced People to require them to sundry necessary express Laws▪ Yet these Laws now for Phrase or expression, will not in reason, be thought more than was intended in the first simple Covenant, how brief soever it were; for certainly free people, and in their right wits, never meant to enslave themselves to the wills and lusts of those they chose their Princes. But to be subject to them for their general good; which when they found by experience to be violated, or in danger to be so for want of express Laws (specifications of the General Law of Nature, the general good of the society) they were forced by necessity to require them to make such Laws, for their general safety, and particularly also to prevent inferior officers from tyranny under the name of the superior: and so to prevent all necessity of Arms within themselves. And some good Princes for their people's comfort have even been forward of themselves to make such Laws, which yet without our making, they were bound for the most part to have done accordingly for the welfare of their Dominions. The People then have gained nothing for the great part of Laws for their Liberties, but ability to claim them as undoubted more than before; nor have Princes lost any thing almost, but a power of impovershing & ruining their Subjects so much as before they seemed to have for the satisfying of their own Prodigality's and Lust's. Still than it remains that the People had a right to all fitting Liberties, even after they submitted to a King: unless they expressly gave them away; as unto some Conquerors, the conquered Party were sometimes forced to do. But yet (N. B.) even than the Conquerors followers, who were part of his subjects at that time, and by who●e hands he conquered the rest, (whether more or fewer) did consent and agree to the People's, and so their own Posterities, having but such and such Liberties, and yielding to the new Conqueror and his Posterity such and such Power and Authority. So still consent gave whatsoever a Prince could or can challenge. I say then once more unless in the first foundation of a State, Kingdom or Empire (and this Kingdom particularly) the People did make their King so absolute, as to give away all power of resistance from themselves in any case; (which the Doctor I believe will never be able to prove of this, or any other Civil State) though they made no express conditions or Covenant, much less any mention of reserving a power of resistance; yet the Law of Nature allowed them still some Liberties; (what they were we shall have occasion to scan in the next Section:) and amongst them this for one, to resist any violence against themselves, in any thing that the Law of Nature did undoubtedly make them still Masters of, and was not subjected to their Prince's power.  
But the Doctor concludes his reasoning against such power of resistance to be in our Parliament with that which indeed hath least show of strength of any thing he hath said yet.  
Thus he writes, [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 the representative Body as is pretended to; nay, where the Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince, and is dissoluble at his pleasure, that therein such a State, such a Pow●r 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.]  
REPL. This is the most plausible Plea he hath or any can bring, specially the latter part of it, about the calling and dissolving the Parliament at the Kings will and pleasure. But to this also as well as all the rest sufficient satisfaction I doubt not may be given before indifferent judgements and unpartial Consciences, in the manner following. First, as the King never dies; so he never grows, he never hath more authority (unless by a new grant from the people) than his first Predecessor had; unless it can be proved, that the people than gave away their liberty of defence from outrageous violence, which all are naturally invested with; it is free for them now as well as it was the second day or hour after they chose or consented to their first King as was employed before.  
Secondly, as he is King before Oath or Coronation. So he gives away none of his Rights in his Oath, nor do the People when they crown him. But he there professes himself bound by his Kingly Office to rule so and so, for the common good, and they yield no more to him, than they did to his first Predecessor, as before.  
Thirdly, as he is not admitted upon any such capitulation in express terms, as mention this power of resistance in the people, or representative body, in case of Tyranny. So nor do the people at his admittance express a yielding to him such absolute power, as they may not, or will not in any case resist, I say again and again, it can never be rationally conceived the people have given away such a natural liberty, such a necessary power for their common safety: Unless it can be proved that they have done so. The proof then before the Bar of indifferency of judgement, and unpartial conscience will lie on the Doctors part not ours.  
Fourthly, But he saith, the representative Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince, and is dissoluble at his pleasure.  
REPL. 2. It hath been so de facto multo, but whether it be altogether so de jure, may justly be questioned upon these grounds. First, for their meeting, when the Prince is an Infant, or if a prisoner in enemies hands, and so cannot give out a legal Warrant for their meeting; or if distracted, hath not the State power to meet in Parliament for their common safety, and the Princes too? They have met in the infancy or minority of Kings, and made Laws, as in Edw. the 6. time, and not by the mere power of the Protector, for the Nobility after put him out (his head was cut off afterward by a Law made while he was Protector.) It was then, (and could be nothing else but) the inherent power of State, to meet so, in cases of necessity. Yet I believe there is no written Law for this; but the general Maxim of Salus Populi suprema lex. And this will extend to the case of Tyranny, as fully as any of the former, if not more. Withal, did not the Lords in Richard the 2 nds. time, call a Parliament without the King, wherein they had their grievances redressed; and this afterward was confirmed in the first of Hen. the 4 th'.  
Secondly, then for their dissolving; It hath indeed been very much practised by our two last Kings.  
But our Histories (so far as I remember) quare whether Hen. 3. did not dissolve some Parliaments in discontent? mention not any such thing as a Parliament dissolved in displeasure, or against the desire of the Houses. But as they meet very frequently, ofttimes every year, sometimes oftener; (so that in the space of a hundred years there are counted above a 100 Parliaments) So they sat till they had ended the Princes and their own businesses, which went much together; and so it never came to a matter of examination or discontent, the delay of calling them to meet, or the too timely dissolution of Parliaments. Parliaments were not wont to be so odious or dreadful to Princes as within these forty years they have been. By whose default they have been so since, let the encroachments upon Magna Charta and the Subject's liberties direct any to judge.  
2. But further, for both these. First, the Parliament avers that there are Laws that there should be a Parliament every year, and so they have abated of their Right, rather than gained upon the King by the Act of the Triennial Parliament.  
2. And for the dissolution I have heard some wisemen affirm, that by Law it cannot be dissolved, while there are any Petitions of grievances, or such matters of importance, depending and unfinished. Whereunto may be added most justly, that in ordinary times Country Gentlemen and Noblemen, and in a manner the whole body of the Parliament, would be as sick of a long Parliament and continual attendance as the King could wish, and would petition (rather than be tied so by the leg) for a dissolution, or at least a Prorogation. And it's well enough known, that even this Parliament after the Act of Continuation past, were as weary of sitting, as need to be desired, till the Rebellion in Ireland, seconded by the growing evils at home, put new spirits into them, and forced them to that diligence of attendance and unwearied labours (so many as have taken the common good to heart) as no Age or Story can parallel here, or in any other Kingdom or Nation.  
Thirdly, beyond all this I appeal again to the Kings Answer to the 19 Prepositions formerly mentioned; and ask whether if the King have absolute power to forbear calling them, at his will; and to dissolve them at his pleasure; it be not a mere nothing that he saith the House of Commons have power to impeach his own Followers and Favourites, who have broken the Laws, even by surreptitiously gotten commands from the King: and that the Lords have power to judge and punish, and are an excellent screen between the King and the people, to assist each against any encroachings of the other, and by just judgements to preserve the Law, which ought to be the rule of every one of the three: and that the Power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny.  
What serves all this for, when his Favourites will keep him from calling a Parliament, perhaps all his days, unless unlooked for necessity force him to it? We haoe ●eene ourselves about 13. years without one; and had there not been conceived hopes that there would have been Money given against the Scots, it had not been then called as it was.  
Again, what serves the calling them, when the same Favourites being questioned, shall counsel a dissolution? We have known that too, even three times in this King's Reign, and no other dissolution but on these grounds. And the last was within three weeks because they would not in all haste (and contrary to all former Precedents and Privileges) give money against the Scots, and embroil the two Kingdoms in a perpetual War, not having had one grievance redressed. And in the case of a Prince, bend or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties (which is the Doctors Case propounded.) It is undoubted, he will if he can dissolve them, as soon as they offer but to punish any of his Favourites▪ and so to cross the design (unless he dare not, of which anon) because therefore I believe the King in that Answer, hath not ascribed more than right to the Parliament. It will follow, that in right (specially in such case) they ought not to be dissolved. And that if by force they should be, (or should not have been called at all) the People have right to meet together, when and where they can, in a Parliamentary manner or otherwise: to such end as to defend themselves and one another from tyranny and the designed subversion of Religion, Laws and Liberties, as hath been often said.  
Fourthly, but for the present condition of our Kingdom and Parliament, I must profess, that as I admire the providence of God, in the Act passed for the continuation of this Parliament; so I do for the forementioned expressions of the King in that answer. Which laid together, may to any understanding men, wholly decide this first Question between the Doctor and us in point of Legality in our Kingdom (if there were nothing else said or to be said) that supposing such a design to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties. This Parliament hath (if no other had or could have, being dissoluble at pleasure) complete power and Authority to do all they do, that so they may prevent and restrain the designed tyranny.  
Fiftly, Yet I have one thing more to allege, supposing the power of calling and dissolving wholly in the King ordinarily; yet there may be such power in them so long as they do sit to command Arms to be raised for the suppressing of any Delinquents, maintaining themselves with Arms, even under the colour of the King's Authority, which I thus make good. (If there be any such kind of Power in the very Judges in their Courts at Westminster, for the whole Kingdom; and in their several Circuits for the Shires they sit in; although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will merely, and put out ordinarily at his pleasure, and they can neither keep Assizes at any time, nor keep any Term any where, but when and so long as the King pleases to give Commission: if (I say) there be such a power in the Judges, and even in one of them; then much more in the whole Parliament, which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest Judicature in the Kingdom, and hath most power during their sitting. Now that such a kind of power is in the Judges, I appeal to experience, in the case following  
A private man hath a suit with the King about Land or House and the like. The King hath possession and some Officer or Tenant of his holds it for the King. The Judges having heard the Cause▪ give Sentence for the Subject, adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the King's Tenant or Officer; he refuses and arms himself to keep possession still Upon this, after due summons and process of law, a Writ of Rebellion shall go out against the Officer of the Kings, (even though he should pretend to keep possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriff shall be commanded to raise Arms even the whole posse Comitatus, if need be, to expel this Officer of the Kings, and bring him to condign punishment from resisting the King's authority in his Laws.  
Here now is raising Arms by the King's legal Authority against the King's Title and the King's Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the King's personal command; and that Officer ha●h a Writ of Rebellion sent against him, and shall be punished by Law▪ for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence. (A●ke the Lawyers whether in sense ●his be not the Law, and ordinarily practised▪ save that the King doth not command the contrary; but whether that would hinder Law or not?) The Parliament then may in the case of necessity raise Arms against the King's personal Command, for the general safety, and keeping possession (which is more necessary than the hope of regaining) of the Houses, Lands, Goods, Liberties, Lives, Religion and all.  
And this by the King's legal Authority, and the resisters of this are the Rebels in the Law's account, and not the Instruments so employed Legally, though with Arms by the Parliament.  
If the Doctor now (or any for him) will retort upon me, as he thinks, what I said before, that if this be granted, a King intending Tyranny, will not call a Parliament; or if he have called it, he will strait dissolve it, as soon as they attempt any thing against his mind.  
REPL. I reply, he will do so indeed▪ if he can persuade the people, by the Doctor's Divinity or Law, to endure him and his followers to take away their Goods, and do what else he list; and they for want of a Parliament called or sitting, dare not defend themselves at all. But if he find, that they believe no such Doctrine; but without dispute of Law or Consciences resolve rustically not to be robbed of their goods at pleasure, or used like mere slaves; but that they will defend themselves and somewhat they begin to do, and beat away or kill some that come to take their goods away in such illegal manner; he may then be glad to call a Parliament to quiet the People, who perhaps also may begin to mutiny by troops; and be willing to sacrifice perhaps some of his Followers unto them (as ●mp●o● and Dudley were in the beginning of H. the 8. though they proceeded with colour of the penal Laws) and even to provide for his own Maintenance, as 〈◊〉. ●. In such a case some against his will called a Parliament, Anno of his Reign. And that it may be, he will, not he dares not hearken to those that would persuade him to dissolve it, because than he should bring all confusion (besides want) upon himself again, which was Hen. the Thirds Case, Anno.  
Therefore I conclude, that the Parliament (as I said before) may have this power and upon advantage of the King's necessities, and Peoples not enduring oppression, be able to exercise it, even though they meet not but at the Kings will, and are dissoluble at his pleasure.  
And so I have said enough of this Section, except only that I must note, that in the close of it, he either thinks those he hath to do with (Parliament and all) gross fools, or else he shows himself extremely simple in reckoning up the remedies of Tyranny (though he love not to use so harsh a word; but we must when he hath stated the Case for us of a Prince bend or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties;) The denying of subsidies and aid, etc. If he mean in Parliament, such a Prince never means to call any. If out of Parliament, this is the grievance, that he takes it against Law, by Ship-monies and Monopolies, and Imposts and any way: and if they deny it, themselves are fetched up by the Pursuivants, and put in prison: and for not executing such illegal commands; Fined at pleasure half, or all their Estates; and perhaps starved in prison, or little better: Kept so close, that they fall sick and die Nay if the Prince proceed to command his Soldiers or Officers to kill without delay any ●hat shall deny Subsidy or Aid, though never so illegal.  
Hath not then the Doctor propounded a goodly remedy of Tyranny, to deny him Subsidy and Aid? As if to quench a house a fire, he should send for a pair of bellows to blow a cool breath.  
Let him now consider whether he uttered those words in scorn or in policy? and with what science or skill in common Reason (not to say in Politics) and so with how truly an informed conscience he deals justly between the King and the People. We have yet some further strength of his reason to examine in the next Section. Of which now.   

SECT. V.  
IN this Section he propounds this Reason as alleged for the people's Power, that else [the State should not have means for its own safety, when etc.]  
REPLY. This Reason we acknowledge ours, and considering what a State is, a Body composed of many thousands, who by themselves (or their Ancecestors) set up a King over them, for their safety and good, this Reason is as much Reason, as any thing can be between Man and Man: Nor shall the Dr. be ever able to speak Reason in Opposition to it; himself grants strait way, that salus Populi in a good Sense, is suprema Lex. And when a People, neither seeks nor desires any thing of hurt to their Prince, but only safety to themselves, It is good in no sense, if not in this; to allow (I say more command) a State that hath any considerable strength to do it, to defend itself, and so procure its own safety, even by resisting if need be, by force of Arms. And though he jeer at the Plea of necessity, when as he saith Right and just will not defend a thing, Yet if himself were assaulted on the high way by one that offered to kill him and in his house in the Night by Robbers, would he say that either out of the case of Necessity, he a private m●n, or any S●rvants of his, might in right or justice kill another man, or that Necessity would not be a sufficient Plea, if in that Case any did kill such a Thief or Robber, not only before men but God also. The Law among us allows the Plea of se defendendo in such Cases, And God's Law expressly, Against one that breaks a house in the night, though not in the day, as not admitting them a necessity to kill the thief, as the Text there plainly implies. As for his saying, [Every thing must be honest which is Spar●ae utile, imagined to conduce to the proposed End;)  
REPLY. This is but a second calumny, of which his Treatise is full every where, neither profit nor Imagination is admitted or urged in this case, but necessity apparent, or judged imminent by Rules of prudence, which commands endeavour of prevention of extreme evils (such as the ruin of a State's safety) even by care and Power before hand, as well as when it lies gasping under the pressure. Counsel in prevention is indeed better then help out of trouble: For by that less trouble is suffered, and less offence acted in the defence.  
But these are but the Drs flourishes, for he will now stab this reason to the heart with divers contrary Reasons, against all the plea of Necessity of safety. The first is that, this among others is one of the many Weapons sharpened for Resistance at the Philistims Forge, the Romish Schools.  
Reply. First himself will not allow this to be reproach to him, or his fellows in any of their positions, nor think it sufficient to make an Argument be rejected, because the Romonists have either used it or abused it.  
Secondly, but he is deceived in paralleling the Cases. They plead for the Pope's Power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresy, because else the Church hath not means for the maintenance o● the Catholic Faith, and its own safety.  
Reply. The Argument is not good, his Church is not a Civil State, but the good of it is mainly spiritual, and to be preserved by such spiritual means, as GOD hath appointed, who both instituted and constituted it himself, and left not to it, the ordering of its own safety or good. But our case is of a Civil State, whose good is Civil and natural, and is to be preserved by civil and natural means, and so by Arms in case of danger, even from its own Prince, bend or seduced to ruin it. The Dr. himself straightways grants, the State hath means of preservation such as the Law hath prescribed. If he can show us any true means, in the case stated by him, but this power of resistance, I yield him the cause. If not he doth but abuse his Readers Consciences, to blind them with words, which are of no validity. But I have showed him before, and must again remember him, that in our Parliament State (by the Kings own acknowledgement) hath such Power by Law to punish even the King's followers and Favourites, as is more than sufficient to prevent, or restrain Tyranny. We ask no more for our safety. But when they will resist the Parliament by Arms, It hath no way to punish them, or defend the State but by Arms Which therefore it may lawfully take up.  
Secondly, the Dr. adds (If every state hath such Means to provide for its safety, what means of safety had the Christian Religion in, and after the Apostles Times? Or the People then enslaved, what means had they for their Liberties? Tertullian in his Apology saith, the Christians had number and Force sufficient to withstand, but they had no Warrant. And the Apostle forbids them, and all other under the higher Power to resist.  
Reply. This example of the Christians not resisting is counted a Capital Argument, we shall see what strength it hath. First it is brought in this place, for the Christians were neither a civil State, (of which the present Reason proceeds) nor near to the greater number in the The State. They had the Laws (which is in some Sense the State) against them, and so they ever had been, and the greater▪ part of the body of the Estate by far, were opposite, even in Tertullias Time. Though therefore the Church being properly only a spiritual State, have not of necessity, civil means to provide for the outward safety of Christians: yet a Civil State, (whether of Heathens or Christians) may have and hath, which is by taking Arms, in case of necessity as before. But the Dr. saith the Apostle forbids them and all, under the Higher power to resist.  
Reply. I suppose what I have formerly said on this place, Rom. 13.2. may and will satisfy most Readers for that place. But the Drs. importunity forces me to repeat part of it here, and apply it to the case of Christians, even then, and much more now: And so I make bold to tell the Dr. that he doth most miserably wrest the Apostles words in this case of all others, which to demonstrate (I say to demonstrate) I appeal to the context after and before, and let all Christians, and Consciences, or even reasonable Men, judge whether the Drs. Interpretation be not most absurd. Thus the Dr. interprets v. 2. [Whosoever shall take up Arms to resist Nero, persecuting the Christian Religion, resists the Ordinance of GOD; Rebels against GOD in resisting the higher Power ordained by GOD, and if he kill any man in such resistance, he commits murder, & incurs damnation for so doing.] This is the Drs. Sense plainly, and his words here and there, are fully so much. Now mark St. Paul's Reason, v. 3. and make Sense of it, or Religion much less of it, if you can to this purpose. First, for Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Nero is the Ruler here meant, persecuting Nero: Let the Dr. now tell me (or any for him) Is not persecution a Terror to the Works that are persecuted? and than is Christianity a good work or not? Nero persecutes that, and is a Terror to that, but so he is not to good Works. Then belike Christianity is not a good Work●? Will St. Paul speak thus? or doth he know what he saith, when he saith, Rulers are not a terror to good Works, therefore they must not be resisted? Christianity is a good work, and Nero is a terror to it (though by GOD'S Ordinance he should not be) therefore he must not be resisted. What can be more unreasonable, then to bring a Reason, which is quite against the thing it is brought for? to interpret then, as the D●. doth v. 2. is to make St. Paul argue against himself, if you Reader (are not) should not be; and ●f you Keep the literal s●nce (are not) then either he speaks that which is fal●e of Nero, and h●s Officers, and under Rulers, for they were a terror to good Works, if Christianity be a good work, or Christianity is no good Worke. Let the Dr. take his choice of the three. I have a fourth too take to formerly said down, which is that he speaks of Civil Legal Authority in civil Laws as then in the Roman State and such like, and to Rulers according to them were not terrors to good Works; as the Apostle saith.  
Secondly, but see the Apostles next words, wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, that is thou needst not resist, but only look to do well, and h●e will commend thee. But is this true of persecuting Nero? Might the Christians count this a safe course, of which they need not be afraid to practice Christianity? safe that i●, for which the Power would not do any thing against them: bu● rather praise them? did Nero so? Or could the Apostle think he would? O ●d he deceive Christians in sa●ing so? or condemn Christianity as not good? 〈◊〉 a Reason against himselve? Some of these things must be said, or else the D●. Sense must be renounced, it must be said that he meddles with no matter of Christian Religion here, but of civil Subjection to Civil Laws, which Rulers according ●o their Power, would praise them for; and they need not fear such powers doing well.  
Thirdly, add further what the Apostle doth, v. 4. [For he is the Minister of GOD to thee for gooD,] Is this true of persecuting Nero, in the case of his persecuting? Whereby the Apostle proves he will praise thee, doing that which is good? Surely in an overruling Work of GOD'S Grace, the very Devil is GOD'S instrument for GOOD, as to job, (and we may say Minister too.) And Nero not a whit more in the Act of persecuting. Bu● this far from St. Paul's meaning: For he means a civil good, praising, and rewarding, and protecting. Nero did (St. Paul knew) quite contrary to this: He cannot then mean him as a Persecuter; and so never intends here to forbid resisting his Persecution.  
Fourthly, go on one step further with the Apostle, which will yet make it more plain if more can be; [But if you do that which is evil than fear, for he bears not the Sword in vain, for he is the Minister of GOD, a Revenger to execute wrath on them that do evils) Evil contrary to Christianity is Idolatry, (for one thing,) ●nd to make Christians Idolaters, did Nero and others persecute them, if they would cast in a grain of Incense into the Fire, by way of sacrifice to their Idols, they were freed. Now is it St. Paul's meaning, If you turn Idolater then fear, for Nero bears not the Sword in vain, for he is GOD'S Minister, a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that commit Idolatry? Or is Christianity the evil they were to fear, as that which he used the Sword against, and that with great wrath and revenge? There is then nothing like the Drs Interpretation, In all these Arguments of the Apostle: but the clean contrary, besides what follows, v. 5, 6, 7. Of which see the exposition before.  
But some will say, was it then lawful for the Christians, then to have resisted the persecuting Emperors? Tertullian and the Fathers thought otherwise.  
I answer, first, whether it were or no, (of which by and by) most certain, it was not forbidden in this, Rom. 13.2, 3, 4. Yet this is the Capital place. If any other can be found forbidding it, which the Dr. offers not to urge, further than what we have examined already, that is nothing to this Text. For no Logic or Rhetoric can extract that sense from hence; who ever they be, that have so interpreted it heretofore.  
Secondly, but because of the great Outcry made of the Christians not resisting then, I will once more look upon the Text, Rom. 13.2. and compare it also with that before so: v. 1. and see whether by a right view, it will not plainly pronounce Christians even then, free from passive subjection in case of persecution (supposing they had Force to resist, by their hands not tied by God's Ordinance from resist●nce, or at least wise, only upon a special Reason appliable to that State of the Church: and Roman Empire, (of which yet there is not the least intimation in that place, but must ●e gathered elsewhere, as we shall see) and which is no impediment at all to Christians resisting the persecution now of Popish Tyranny.  
I say then, Subjection to the Higher power is commanded, and resisting it forbidden there, upon this ground, because they are of GOD ordained under GOD, GOD'S Ordinance, Note how all the words accord in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whosoever resists, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained under GOD, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of GOD, all from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order) that i● GOD hath given to men Power and authority, to urge the execution of his Laws, and to make some Laws under him and his, and to punish according to the merit of the Offences, the transgressions of the one or the other. And so far as this, they are to be subjected unto by every soul, either actively or at least passively, and not to be resisted, by wilful froward disobedience, and much less by taking up Arms against such Laws, or them that exercise authority to them. But this is all the Authority GOD gives to any, and not to make Laws against his, nor yet to punish those tha● obey his Laws: And if any such Laws be made, or any such punishment offered to be inflicted (even by reason of such Laws made) they are not the Ordinance of GOD, He hath afforded them no such Authority, no such Power. Nay such Laws and Rulers according to them are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the opposers and Resiste●s of GOD'S Ordinance, of the Law of Nature, or Scripture, or both. The Laws therefore are Null and the Authority Null; quoad hoc) as will be plain by this instance. A King grants a Charter to a Major of a Town to govern that Town (with others, or alone, that is all one) according to his Laws, and punish all Malefactors, and moreover to make some particular Laws or Orders in the Town, for the better keeping all in due Subjection and Order. This Major makes Laws directly against the Kings, against the King himself, offers to swear the people to another King. Are not those Laws than Null? and his Authority Nu●l▪ so far forth? or can it be thought, that because the King commands subjection to the Mayor, and forbids to resist him, as long as he rules by the King's Laws, or by such as his Charter enables him to make, being not against the Kings; that therefore they may not resist him, if he would massacre them, (or under colour of his new made Laws) condemn them because they will not be Traitors to their King, and submit to an usurper? will the Dr. say it? or any else? and is not this the very case if men will think of it, if a King should make (or hath made) Laws, that men should worship the Sun, worship an Idol, an Image? Are not these traitorous Laws against the King, the GOD of Heaven? can any then, King, they or the Authority commanding them, i● quo ad hoc, GOD'S Authority, GOD'S Ordinance or deny them to be resisters of him? The Laws that are in themselves Null: the Authority Null: so far forth: no kind of Subjection than is due to them in this from this Text. Nor is any Ordinance of GOD at all resisted in resisting them. Rather is it not a Duty [But the Christians did not resist, though Tertullian say they had number and Force sufficient.]  
REPLY. Mr. Goodwin, in his Anticavalierisme hath very rationally showed, first that in all probability Tertullian was mistaken in his Computation, if he mean it throughout the Empire. They might have some considerable number and so force in one place or City, and not enough in general. Secondly, that if they had so, yet generally it was not known to Christians, and that is all one in such a case, he that knows not his strength dares not resist, no more than he that hath no strength. Thirdly, that if they knew their strength, yet they did not know it lawful to resist generally. Some might know it, yet not preach it for fear; and if it were not generally believed, they would not resist. Fourthly, that there were special Reasons, why GOD might conceal this from them, this Liberty of resistance. Of all this there are many considerable things in that treatise (Vide:) I will only add this One, that if Resistance seem so unfitting now, it would have seemed much more then. The Christian Religion came in upon the Roman Empire as a Novelty, and neither they not their Ancestors for many Generations had any Principles (but the remote ones of the Law of Nature) to persuade them to give it Entertainment. So that to have resisted by Arms, would have seemed a great obstinacy and perverseness, specially in Reference to the Doctrine of Christ a crucified GOD, (a Man risen from the dead and gone into Heaven) which the Pagans counted foolishness, as well as it was a stumbling block to the Jews. Also Ch●ist himself founding his Church by his own sufferings, would have them specially like him, in sufferings at the spreading of it in the World; Whereby he also got far more Glory in that not only his Church was preserved (like the bourn in the midst of the Fire) in the midst of sufferings without resistance; But also i● propagated mainly, and conquered by suffering merely. This I say was then greater glory, then to have allowed them straightway to defend themselves, and resist with Arms: which also till a long time would have been in vain, and to their hurt, besides Reproach without miracle. But now the case is much otherwise in regard of Protestants persecuted by Popish Princes, specially recalling Laws of toleration, or changing Laws establishing the Religion. For the Protestant Religion, to show itself no novelty appeals to that which the Pap●sts cannot deny the holy Scriptures, and rejects nothing, (if even an unpartial Heathen were Judge, and umpire between them) which the Scripture calls to believe or practise. Also ●t pro●esses nothing, which the Scriptures reject. Therefore their resistance may much more be justified to their Adversaries Consciences, Who though they dare not deny the Scriptures plainly, yet dare not trust to them alone to confute the Protestants by them, but put them to death, for things not only besides the Scriptures, but even against it, as making and worshipping Images, Crosses, Crucifixes and the like. Here the same King and Laws being generally acknowledged, yet will the Inferior Governors, make Laws against the Kings, and even Force the King's Subjects, to do Homage and even swear Allegiance to another besides Him. Therefore they are not (in this) to be accounted GOD● Lieutenant's or Deputies, or their Laws of any Validity, but they may be resisted, as Rebels against the King of Heaven, while they pretend to be his Servants. The Roman Emperors then, as mere strangers, in point of Knowledge or Profession, were rather but at lest for the time) to be convinced by suffering then by resistance. But pretended Christian Princes (specially after a toleration, and most of all after a Legal Establishment) turning Persecuters of that truth whichas in the Bible, he ●selves profess to hold; may be resisted in a Defensive way. And there is nothing in the Bible to gainsay it▪ And whether now the Christians might also have resisted as soon as they had any strength, (● ever they had any before Constantine's Time,) I leave it to others to judge. For upon the Grounds fore noted, it hurts not our Cause at all; if they mightst.  
The D●. proceed●▪ so do I (●f it be replied that things being so enacted by Law, it was not lawful to resist. I answer (saith he) all that proceeded from those Emperors, were merely arbitrary, and enforced upon the Senate, who did not discharge their truth, etc.  
Reply. First, what is tyrannously done against humane Law may be resisted as we have s●id; and so may, (by what we have lately proved) tyrannous Laws directly and clearly against GOD, and his true Religion; and therefore if ever we should be so unhappy (which I hope will never be unless the people believing this Drs. Position, betray this Parliament,) that a Parliament should join with a King to cast out the true Religion, and bring in Popery; and so make Laws against us, which are now all for us (yet might we resist; and not suffer ourselves to be massacred or condemned for not consenting to be Traitors to the King of Heaven (LORD Jesus Christ) whom yet they would pretend to rule by, and for him. If any man can show me, that it is God's Ordinance we should submit and suffer in such a case, I shall not refuse to yield; but I confess I cannot see it▪ though I know even those that defend the resistance now used Lawful; affirm it were not lawful, if the Law were against us, as it is for us. But how humane Laws made without against GOD'S Authority, can hinder me from the Liberty granted me by the Law of Nature, to defend myself from outrageous Violence, being altogether an Innocent, I cannot see, specially in a case concerning GOD'S immediate Honour as well as my safety.  
2. If Laws cannot tie my hands in all Cases (in the forenamed) from resistance, much less an Arbitrary Power. (but of that, it will be convenient to discourse a little further; and apply it also to Civil Matters, as well as to Religion, wherein we shall also see whether all Civil Laws do so tie us, as none of them neither may be resisted, and if any, which? and which not?  
I say then an Absolute Arbitrary Power, or absolute Monarchy (as some call it) is not at all the Ordinance of GOD; and so no lawful Power secured from resistance by Rom.. 13.2. First GOD allows no man to rule as he list, to make what Laws he list, to punish how and whom he list. But his Word speaks the Contrary every where. Secondly GOD not allowing, Men cannot give it, to a Conqueror, or any other. They can give but what GOD allows, for they have no more their own, in that sense. Now no man can give any thing but what is his own. Thirdly, particularly, no man is allowed by GOD, or can be made by Man, an absolute Monarch, a mere Arbitrary Prince in point or Religion. I am far from denying Authority about circumstantials in Religion. But I mean, he hath no Authority to bid what GOD forbids, or to forbid what GOD bids; or punish them that obey GOD rather than him. GOD never gave this Power, nor can men give it. Fourthly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD, or can have from men, to violate the Chastity of any. A Law of Plato's Community, is null, because against GOD'S express 7th. Commandment, and may and aught to be resisted▪ (yet now we are among civil matters.) Fiftly, no Monarch hath any Power from GOD, or can have from men, to take away the life of his Subjects, any one at his mere pleasure, or without a Law broken, (whether Civil or Martial.) and known to the Transgressor, or which he ought to have known, and might (which jonathan could not, he had no means to know of his Father's Oath being then made, and in his absence) Lycurgus his Law to destroy all Children that were deformed, or weaklings, and Pharaohs Arbitrary Command to destroy all the Israelitish Males, were both alike tyrannous and null: and might have been resisted. In all these cases there is, I say, no absolute Monarchy, no mere arbitrary Power, Lawful, none that is GOD'S Ordinance. And whosoever challenges such Power, is (in that) not GOD'S Deputy, but an Usurper, whether King or Caesar, Roman or Turkish Emperor or any other. Sixtly, but the only Cases wherein a Monarch may be absolute in Matter of Liberty of men's persons, of Goods, an● manner of Judaciall proceedings, and making or taking away Officers and Honours and such like, in those I grant, that as GOD denies not, but a Monarch may have absolute Authority (only he must use it to Good) so men may give away their Liberty (by Fear or otherwise) and become much enslaved to their Princes Will, in comparison of what others are. And if any be so (which I believe not of the Roman State, though much was done arbitrarily by the Emperors) I yield they may not resist though they be sorely pinched. They may thank themselves who bound their own if therefore our Parliament in after Ages (or this by being forsaken by the People, seduced by the Dr.) should so enslave us, we must bear it and not resist, because it is our own Act, who choose them and put all such things into their hands, but in other things we should not, could not be bound, as I said before.  
The Doctor hath a third Reason [We cannot expect absolute means of safety and security in a State but, such as are reasonable]  
REPL. If by absolute means of safety and security he mean such as God cannot defeat; we grant what he saith, or such as God hath forbidden. But if he take it of rational means; he saith nothing at all that allotts any means which are not absolutely sufficient (according to humane proceedings) to procure s●ch a safety as a State shall n●ed. A State is a most considerable body, and may challenge all possible means which God hath not denied them; and so even a private man may, being altogether innocent▪ except where a greater good than his Particular life, calls him to venture it, or yield it up. But there is no greater good on earth (in civil respects) than the safety of a state. Therefore all means not forbidden from Heaven are reasonable, and to be expected and used, though not expressly provided for (that is mentioned) in the Fundamentals of this Government, which the Doctor would require. Then he falls a commending the excellent temper of the three Estates, King, Lords, Commons, having each a power of denying.  
REPL. They have so; in making particular Laws. But the Quest. now is of exercising the general and main fundamental Law of all States, to save the whole from ruin and subversion. Here though all three agreeing (and none denying) makes the safety more secure, and more comfortable and honourable. Yet no reason, but in a coordinate Power (as here it is plainly so; see the Fuller Answer to the Doctor's Book) any two or of three or even any one of them, rather than all should fail and be dissolved, should have Power to endeavour the common safety which the others neglect or intent to subvert or betray.  
And I verily believe the Doctor himself or any other of his party (if he forbear not to say so much lest it should be retorted on himself) will confess that the King and the Lords may save the Kingdom from ruin, without or against the House of Commons; and the King and the House of Commons, without or against the Lords: and which is yet more, the King alone without or against both Lords and Commons. For indeed, this is the very thing now pretended by the King for his taking Arms to save the Protestant Religion and the Laws, and his own Rights, etc. which he saith, the Lords and Commons' (whom he terms the Major part of both Houses present) intent and go about to subvert. And if they did so; certainly all true Subjects and Pa●riots ought not only not to join with them in their Arms, but to join with the King in his against them.  
And if it could be possible that all the three Estates should agree to ruin Religion and the State; even the Body of the People, should (by virtue of the power which each State hath for its necessary safety) have Authority sufficient to defend themselves, and resist all outrageous Attempts of mischief (as hath been proved before) though then for want of many conveniences and perhaps of wisdom to manage it, the defence and resistance must needs be much more hazardous and dfficult. The power therefore of denying▪ and so all other power in each of the 3. Estates and in any two of them, or all the 3. together is given, and is to be used ad Edificationem, ad Salutem, non ad destructionem) for the common good and safety, not ruin. For in that it is Null and void in all reason and equity. But the Doctor saith, Must the King only trust and not be trusted? Must he not always have his security against the other, which cannot be but by power of denying?  
RE●L. 1. But he forgets that the Question by himself stated is, when the Prince will not discharge his trust; and more than so● is bend or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties. Then it is senseless to trust him, till 〈◊〉 shew●s another a better mind; and it is most ridiculous to allow him in this case a pour of denying safety; for that is to allow him a power of subverting all. 2. But when the ●u. is (as now it ●s made in Hypothesi,) whether the Prince or the two Houses do mean w●ll or ill? and who doth or doth not discharge their trust, and who doth or doth not intend the subversion of Religion Laws and Liberties: who can be Judge between them? or who can amongst men decide the difference but the Body of the People? Exercising their understanding and consciences to judge who is in the right, (by all that hath been said and done on both sides formerly, and of late) and so their power and strength too to defend the right side, and resist the wrong-doers? And these whether the Doctor (or any under Heaven) will or no, must have, and will have the Power of denying or granting means for their own and others safety and security.  
The Doctor's reproaches against the Parliament I pass. Only where he says [Conscience might demand for its satisfaction. Why should 100 in the House of Commons see more than 300? or 20. in the House of Lords more than 60. that are of a different judgement and withdrawn?]  
REPL. Satisfaction may well be given: First, by saying it is evident the major part of the House of Commons, when they were most full were all that way, that 100 are now (though that be a slander for but a while since there were 300. there) The King a year ago in ●anu. last commanded all that were in the Country to come up, which certainly most of them did. Yet no Votes but this way they go now, only things were not then at the height they now are. 2. If yet the Major part were of another judgement they would certainly come and vote and end the business. The House hath often called the absent, and punished some for it; certainly they knew then there were not enough against them of their Members to over-vote them 3. They that are wilfully absent, are offenders against the Law and the common good; and so are not to be trusted; or thought to have wisdom, to see things right how many soever they may pretend to be. For also 40 being the legal number for the House of Commons to vote any thing: It is against all Rules of Politic Bodies, that the absence of others, (there being th● Legal Number present) should hinder or discredit any Vote or Act of the Legal Body. One judge of Assize, two Commissioners or Arbitrators, and the like, suffice for any Business: and though still the greater number, the more honour and comfort; yet a legal number must and will ever suffice. 5 As for the Lords, who pretend their absence forced by reason of Tumults. First, this by an Almanac, (as the Doctor speaks elsewhere) may be confuted, the greatest part of those that came, and after withdrew; stayed a considerable time after the Tumults, till the King was gotten to York, and begun to call them away. And if his calling them away, or their withdrawing themselves shall have power to make the votes or judgement of a part that are yet resident there (as the D●. hath learned to call them) Null, or not to be regarded: then have the King▪ or such a number of Lords, and Commons, even out of the Parliament-House, power to disannul a Law (even the Law for the not dissolving of this Parliament, without an Act for it, which must pass all the 3. Estates, both Houses and the King and in which each have their power of Denying.) And this alone (what ever might be pretended against other Parliaments) makes the legal Votes of the two Houses the full judgement and Authority of the whole representative Body of the Kingdom, how few soever be present, or how many so ever be absent, and upon what pretence soever. 2. But withal, if I were Confessor or Chaplain to any of those Lords that have withdrawn themselves and upon pretetence of the Tumult, deny to return: I would make bold to ask them this Qu. in their ears (for their consciences satisfactoin, as well as mine own) which City and Country rung of them, and which produced such and so many Petitions, for the settling of the Militia, and helping Ireland, and outing the Bishops and Popish Lords out of the House of Peers; whether their refusing to concur in the relief of Ireland, and in securing the Kingdom, even in petitioning the King for the settling of the Militia (which yet the King after, acknowledged necessary to be settled▪) were not the true and only cause of those tumults that were? And if so, where was their judgement to see the means of safety, or their conscience to provide for it? And then whether their own guilt did not more send or drive them away, than any violence of the Tumults? Which tumults yet I approve not, nor ever did. But if God so punished those that would not discharge the trust, it is easier to answer that question, why so many remaining should see more, that is better; then thrice so many (if so many) dissenting and withdrawn.  
As for the Doctors preferring Monarchy before Aristocracy, he shall not have me for his Adversary; who thank God, I am borne and live (and hope to die) under a Monarchy; though not absolute, as the Doctor's Position would make him (when he listed) though the Doctor wisely disclaims any such intention. But for his reasons, why a King should se●e better than the Major part of both the Houses,; because he sees even with their eyes, though dissenting from them; and hath other Council besides, and that he hath many reasons to persuade him to consent to their free and unanimous Votes: All this is most unreasonable as the Question is now stated, of a Prince bend to subvert Religion Laws, and Liberties, (for we are still upon that general supposition in this Section) for whatever they see, he will be sure (as far as he sees his own strength) to consent to nothing that shall hinder his design. And therefore to plead his power of denying, or his wisdom in this case, is to yield him all power to be a Tyrant. Which after all, the Dr. will yet prove he hath so far as he may not be resisted in it, by the inconveniences that will follow if he have it not. Hear his saying. [Such power of resistance would be no fit means of safety to a State, but prove a remedy, worse than the disease.]  
Reply. If he can show this, the doth wonders. What? worse than subversion of Religion, Laws and Liberties? For that is the disease. Surely all these are of little worth with the Dr., if he will maintain any thing in a State, to be worse than these. Sin indeed in the practisers is worse, than the suffering of the worst Tyranny▪ But that is not properly in question in this Section, but the Civil Inconveniences of resistance though I grant they may prove sins too, as things may be managed? but otherwise it is evident, no Civil Inconvenience to remedy such a Tyranny, as is in dispute, can be so bad as the disease.  
The Dr. once more urges, Rom. 13. and by ver, 3 4 5 6. would feign prove, that the Apostle shows the evil and inconvenience of resisting Tyranny.  
Reply. But I have showed more than once▪ that the Apostles Reasons are quite against him▪ and he saith nothing to prove that he abuses not the Apostle, (not vouchsafing, I doubt, not daring to quote the words as they lie, lest every eye should see how he perverts them▪ much less offering to Analize them: or show the strength of the Reasons, which I have done against him:] Only he repeats what he hath before told us, in general that although the powers were then altogether unjust, etc. Nothing answerable to the end for which governing power is ordained▪ Yet doth the Apostle draw his Reasons against resisting them from that good Justice, Order for which God hath set up the higher Powers.  
Reply. This is as good a Reason, as to say, God hath ordained Ministers, Pastors, to preach and administer his word and Sacrament, and pray, that his people may be saved: Therefore though the Ministers, Pastors, be careless, and neither afford the People any Word or Sacraments, or prayers; or false Teachers, and pervert Word, and Prayer, and Sacraments: Yet the People may not seek their Souls safety, from some other, that will be more faithful, even though not attempting to put those evil Ministers, Pastors, quite out of office; but leaving them in their places, still to see if GOD will give them better minds. Only not trusting them so long, as they show themselves notoriously unfaithful, If to deny the people this be reasonable, because God ordained them ministers, Pastors, for their good, though they that are such by Office do nothing toward it; then the Dr, may pretend he discourses with some reason. Which yet will not satisfy the Apostles phrases, as I have abundantly showed before.  
But he saith [the Apostle would insinuate that the resisting of the Higher Powers even when they are Tyrannical tends to the overthrow of the Order which is the life of a Common wealth, 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 to resist and overthrow Powers duly administered for the executing of wrath on them that do evil.  
Reply, All this is altogether contrary, for 1. The Apostles words, will bear no such Insinuations as I have proved. 2. If Religion Laws and Liberties be subverted, what Order is left under such Tyranny? Sure whether Civil order be or not, no Religious order is, which yet is more worth than the life of a Commonwealth. God hath often overthrown Commonwealths for subverting this Religion; But never in his Word preferred the ordinary Order of a Commonwealth (or the Commonwealth itself) before 〈◊〉 Religion, so as to bid his servants suffer that to be subverted; even wh●n 〈◊〉 by the laws of a Commonwealth rather than the order of the Commonwealth should be endangered by it. 3. It is a Sign the Tyranny was deeply and desperately resolved, if it cannot be resisted by a mere defence, but that must tend to the overthrow of the life of the Commonwealth 4. The tyranny breaks the Order, stabs at the life of the Commonwealth; and yet the Dr. is so zealous an advocate for it (however he deny it) that (he cries whore first) he cries out of the danger to Order. 5. To tend to the overthrow of that Order which is the life of the Commonwealth, may be a fallacious phrase. Doth it tend so necessarily, or in the intention of the Resisters? Or rather contrary? Or doth it so tend to overthrow it, as the Tyranny to (be resisted) doth? All remedies of violent and desperate diseases, do in some Sort tend to the overthrow of the Life of the Body: Yet none says the remedy is worse than the disease, which that is known to be mortal, the other may prevent death. 6. This opens no such gap to the people to resist and overthrow power duly administered▪ as the Doctors doth open a gap to Tyranny. If a man, a Prince fear not GOD▪ and know his people principled not to resist him in any case, what can hinder him from all Kind of Tyranny.  
And I would it were not evident that the presumption of this had made way for what we feel. I am sure the Jesuit Contzen, (whose principles have been followed step by step among us, see Mr. Newcomens Sermon ●n Neh. 4. Preached last Nou. 5. to the Parliament) encourages a Prince to attempt the subverting the Protestant Religion, though established by Law, because the Protestants will not Rebel for the cause, nor ever did. The Dr. seconds him well. But now a people, if void of conscience, yet will find it hard (and think it so, if they have any wit) for them to hope to overthrow powers duly administered. It is not so easy a thing▪ multitudes will stand (as their duty and their comfort experienced commands them) for such powers. And the Order that is settled▪ will much help to repress such unruly disorders. And though there be examples in Stories of people that have prevailed against Tyrants: Yet I remember not one▪ that ruling according to Laws, was overthrown by the people; namely in settled times; for the soldier's mutinies, against the Roman Emperors, Pertinax and others, will not reach this case. Finally We are far from saying, that pretences suffice, or even that every act of Tyranny allows of a national resistance; But such as (in the case by the Dr. stated) shows, (or gives just grounds to believe) a design to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties, or any of them.  
But the Dr. will illustrate or prove his inconveniences 3. ways.  
[1. This power of resistance if admitted and pursued may proceed to a change of Government. The principles that are gone upon, and have carried it on so far as we see at this day may also lead it on to the greatest of evils.]  
Repl. Is not the King much beholden to the Dr. that will needs urge the Parliament to those consequences they have professed to have no thought of, and in their late Declaration in maintaining that of May. 26. do profess to be unlawful  
2. If he mean deposition of the King, or which is more, change of the Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy I deny that this may proceed necessarily or Rationally from a necessary defence, unless the Dr. will undertake to prove that the state by no resistance or defence can be safe without deposing their King or taking away Monarches, which he neither will nor can, as I durst undertake against him▪ if that were now the Qu: in hand, which I hope shall never be. Though sure, there is no such temptation to it, as to see Tyranny acted, and all sober necessary defence, cried out upon as Rebellion, all bloodshed in such defence murder, and the end of it damnation. And when Religion (if ever it should be) is only laid waist by the countenance of such doctrines, improved as the Jesuit Advised, then if a people should be greatly oppressed in their Civil liberty, there might be some danger, they would deny the Drs. grounds, and all their allegiance and respect to Monarchy together. And I dare be bold to say it, Monarchy never received such a blow since States were; as the Counsellors of Princes and Court-Chaplaines have provoked men to give it. Because Kings must be absolute, and People mere slaves, formerly in doing▪ and now in suffering.  
2 He says [This power of resistance▪ when used and pursued, is accompanied with the evils of a Civil War etc.]  
Reply. 1. Whose fault is that? Suppose the people, that is, a great many Papists would rebel, unless the King and Parliament would subvert Religion, and bring in popery; and take away all the Laws that displeased them: must they do this to avoid the evils of a Civil War? and if not, than neither must the Parliament or People sacrifice Religion, Laws and Liberty, to the fear or danger of a Civil War. No war so bad as the Parisian massacre, or that of Ireland. The King of France commanded the one, the Irish people the Rebels acted the other. In a Civil war we may save something; and after recover all: Under a Tyranny not to be resisted we have nothing, have lost Religion, Laws and Liberties, and have neither goods nor Lives, Wives nor Children that we are sure of a day to an end. He that rationally prefers such a Tyranny before a civil War, surely hopes (upon some special grounds, that Tyranny, will be none to him, who pleads so well for its indemnity; but rather an advancement to him, much good may it do him.  
3 He saith the people may be discontented even with the Parliament and so it will come to ●ade and Tyler, and overthrow all government.  
Reply. 1. I have satisfied this Objection for the main of it already. 1. That it is lawful for the people to resist even the Tyranny of a Parliament, when altogether outrageous, (as in our Question) not else. 2. That the principles of defence cannot be drawn to a necessary change of the Government. Of which I add 2. Reasons. One that the defence will suffice without it, if wisely managed to secure the safety of the State and Religion; so: morally. For still men, some or other, must be trusted; and those that discredit themselves a while may merit a trust again afterward: Enough for their honour and comfort and not too much for the Commonwealth, and they need not be trusted (as before) till they do merit a trust again. And yet no opposition much less change of government. 3. The next government (suppose each shire (as the Dr. talks▪ a Commonwealth▪ and all governed by a Folkmoot) is still liable in all reason, to mischiefs, as bad, or worse than were in that government rejected. And this they among the people that are not grown barbarous and brutish (by suffering Tyranny and loss of Religion and Liberties, by the Drs principles) may be made so sensible of; that they will never offer to attempt such a madness. 3. Make a people Religious (as much as man can make them) and let them enjoy the comfort of doing that which is good as St Paul speaks of Rulers praising such. And then the Rulers need not fear the multitude of them (though some will ever be wicked) that they will Rebel and change the Government. The People indeed by Absaloms' flattery Rebelled against David a righteous and just Ruler. But there was more than ordinary in that GOD threatened it to him for his adultery and murder. They did not so, to the great Reformers Asa, jehosaphat, Hezekiah, josiah specially yet questionless they 2. offended very many; for the Princes and People (as I noted before on a special occasion) were very bad even in their times. Some Papists as did rebel against King Edward the 6. and some against Queen Elizabeth. But both soon and easily subdued. GOD will not suffer, a just Prince or State to be trodden under foot (David was humbred not overthrown) and men will still be found to take thei● parts. As then St. ●aul bids Christians, doing that which is good▪ not fear the powers he exhorts to submit to and not to resist, that is legally ruling by Civil laws under God.  
So I may say to Rulers (Kings and Parliaments) doing well, Ruling according to GOD'S Ordinances they need not fear the power of Resisting Tyranny in the people's hands, which I say again, [Though people have often used it, and prevailed against Tyrannous Governors, yet never did they prevail against Just Rulers, to Depose them, or much less alter the Government. Tyranny then (helped forward now by the Doctor's Principles,) will be only that that in a despair will drive People to Cantoning and Folkmoots (if any thing will) and not at all our Position of a sober necessary Defence.  
The Reasons that the Dr. hath brought againh Resistance, are so far from being the Apostles Insinuations, that they are wholly unsufficient to discredit it with Reasonable and unpartial Men, to whom (next under GOD) we Appeal. His conclusion Ergo repeating that because some must be trusted, therefore Ergo the K is still (I must tell him) most unreasonable, when his case supposes he will not discharge his trust, but is bend to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties. (So perpeatually the Dr. doth or will, forget the State of the Qu.) The King ought ordinarily to be trusted, and a just King (a David) is worth 10000 nay 100000. of us his Subjects; but the will and Lust of such a Tyrant as the Qu. speaks of, is not to be satisfied upon one (jonathan or Naboth) the meanest of those thousands; yet it must be, if he must still be trusted when he is bend upon extreme Tyranny.  
What the Dr alleadges further of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the late Protestation, prejudices not defensive Resistance, no more than Scripture and Reason hath done. The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are only to the King's Legal power and Authority, which no man disputes against. The Protestation is to defend as far as lawfully I may, according to the duty of my Allegiance, His Majesty's Royal Person, Honour and Estate▪ and a defensive Resistance, intends no hurt, but defence and maintenance of him in all these respects; and so was never protested against. It is therefore vain that he adds, [The Kings power cannot be prevalent for the good of his people unless it be preserved to him entire, unless he hath a power of denial and of chief Command of Arms.]  
Repl. But we Argue not against a King intending the good of his people; but bend to subvert all Good, and this indeed he cannot do, unless their hands be tied▪ by some such Positions as the Dr. would make them believe, that they must not deny him his power of denial of their safety▪ when he himself (or others under him) means to subvert all Religion, Laws and Liberty.  
And now after all these discourses, the Dr. spends above a Page (in the 1. Edition) to sum up his strength, and boasts of his Victory enough and enough. But how justly the Consciences of his Readers and mine must and shall Judge now, and God above all. To whom I very willingly appeal as well as he, or any other; who for mine own part, have even in this discourse, showed I am no Idolizer of the Parliaments, nor carried away with it (as he charges) as the Papists with the name of the Church, nor yet do I think Religion may be defended any way. For it may not be with lying nor with doing any thing that God hath undoubtedly forbidden. But he hath forbidden such defensive resistance as I have Argued for, my Conscience finds not, notwithstanding the Drs. big words, continually misapplying the indeed terrible sentences of the Apostle, against unlawful Resisters of the Lawful Power.  
And so I have done with the main of the Drs. Book, which concerns a Divine. The 2. last Sections, are matters of fact; wherein it is more easily to satisfy a man's own Conscience, than discourse of it publicly: because it brings persons much on the Stage: and some of it cannot but reflect on the King. Of whose honour I am so tender, that I would not willingly have an unworthy thought of him. Neither will I yield to the Dr. or any other living Man, in my zeal to His Royal Person Honour and Estate according to my protestation. Yet somewhat must be said, and the Drs calling for it, will deserve little thanks, nor yet his plead for all the actions done, if they be well examined. To that therefore though unwillingly, I come.   

SECT. V.  
IN this Section he propounds the sum of his second and third general, which are much matters of fact. Yet in this above the major part of Votes, he again slides into matter of right and most illegally and unjustly argues against the major part of Votes as against a prevailing Faction. But if conscience may refuse (or suspend) to consent to such Votes under that pretence, in vain do all numerous Bodies meet; For this principle of his dissolves, and blows up not only all Parliaments, but all other meetings, Civil or Ecclesiastical. For how seldom are any matters of great importance, once controverted, & concluded by an unanimous Vote of all as one man? And in remote places, who can be assured in conscience it was so, though said so? And what a new doctrine of Polity is this, to make every one, in a great Assembly to have a mere Negative, as this upon the matter doth. The King hath it not, in this case, much less any other single Man. But he will not say so, if the Major part should Vote any thing that pleases his Doctorship. If they would Vote the Re-establishment of Bishop's Votes and Authority, this were Good with him no doubt, but if it be against his Positions, then it's but the prevailing of a faction. So unjust and partial are Men that dispute and Argue for their own Interests, though with pretence of Conscience.  
But he first repeats what he had told us in his first Section, that it is agreed, 1. That this Resistance must be, Omnibus Ordinibus Regni Consentientibus. 2. That it must be▪ Legitima Defensi● a mere Defensive Resistance.  
Repl. For the first of these if some agree to it, yet all do not: I cannot for the Reasons oft insinuated and inserted in what went before; meaning it as he doth here of an Unanimous consent in Parliament, for not only a legal number Voting, suffices to any Parliamentary Act, being the Major part present. But if no Parliament were called or could meet through the strength of a Tyranny already prevailing. Nor the Nobility and Gentry and Commons so much as send one to another, t● know one another's minds, through the several Shires of a Kingdom, yet might any one Shire▪ or part of a Shire, begin to take up Arms to defend themselves by resisting Outrageous Attempts of Tyranny against their Religion Laws, and Liberties, and that from the Natural Liberty, that all have to be no further Subject than God hath commanded, or themselves consented with God's consent; and this originally belongs (as an inseparable privilege of a Reasonable Creature,) to each person single, and from thence is derived to Parliamentary and Representative Bodies, and so in Case of such necessity, is not bound to wait, their Assembling, or Votes, nor to be concluded by them, if Assembled they should Vote the contrary by a Conspiracy with the Tyranny: But each may defend himself, and each by the Law of charity may (and should) also defend his Neighbour, but especially when the danger is common; as all may without any Votes or Commands, run together to quench a common fire, stop a breach made by the Sea, resist a Foreign Invading Enemy: Without I say, and even against any Votes or Commands (if any should be) to the contrary. Though still I grant, Omnibus Ordinibus Regni Consentientibus, out of Parliament, and much more in Parliament, (or the Major part consenting, and much more, few or none dissenting;) makes the defence more Honourable, more Easy, more Successful; Only I cannot yield it as absolutely Necessary to the lawfulness of the defence.  
But the Dr. proceeds, and would insinu●e, that the resistance begun (in the point of the Militia) not only found opposition, specially in the Lord's house, but also that the Votes were not free. And that their proceedings are declared against by a greater number than do remain in either House, such as have been cast out, or have withdrawn themselves in dislike of their proceedings.  
Reply. Now we are come to matter of Fact, and here in many things which the Dr. hath in these two Sections, never any people (that desired to satisfy their Consciences) had such advantage, by all sorts of Declarations, diurnals, and Writings, summing up, and repeating actions, and proceedings, both since the business of the Militia specially, and even sufficiently before, that he that will go by an implicit Faith, as the Drs. phrase is, or believe only one side, is inexcusable if he be misled. All then that that needs be done, to understanding and vigilant Consciences is, but to awaken their memories, and send them to their Almanacs (as the Dr. speaks) or their Memorials, and apply them a little to their hands and hearts. To that then the Dr. saith, may be replied, first, that there was need of settling the Militia. When once both Houses petitioned it, the King himself acknowledged it. Yet it was opposed a while by some in both Houses, (but the Petition was not consented to at the first by the House of Lords.) No marvel; there were Popish, and Popishly affected Lords, whose design, at least to keep Popery among us still, and in some of them no doubt to advance it, by the ruin of this Parliament,) would have been hindered or spoiled by the settling it. No marvel then such opposed it; who also as was noted before, opposed the succours of Ireland, till all the Kingdom almost cried out upon them and it, with whom joined (to their great Honour) at lest the most, if not all, the Bishops present usually. Only once (as I remember) for Ireland's business there were two or three Bishops consenting. But when once those were outed, and the Popish and popishly affected withdrawn, (even before some of them withdrew) all Votes passed for the Militia▪ as now it is. Let consciences now judge, whether ought to be stuck to, those that were for it, or those against it? Secondly, it is altogether false that a greater number of the House of Commons have declared against the proceedings; then have been there, and voted their continuance. About 6●. (and not many more) have been cast out for their notorious malignancy, and many of them for Actual War against the Parliament. But there was ever the Major part for the Militia, and so for the consequent proceedings. Else (as I said before) why came not the Mayor part, to out vote them, and set all Right? Let Conscience judge.  
The next thing the D●. would prove, is that the Parliament is not upon the Defensive; and than that they keep within the Defensive.  
In the first, he puts two questions who was fi●st in Arms? and what is the cause of the Arms? In answering the former, because he speaks of an Almanac. I must remember him, and he seems only to think of 1642. But 1641. must not be forgotten, nor thrown aside as out of date. There we find first a memorandum of the Northern Army intended to be brought up against the Parliament. By the good then, the chief Actors and proiectours of it, fled beyond Sea in all haste, after once the Portugal Ambassador had disclaimed to Mr. Wadsworth that he knew Sir john Suckling (or had any Commission to desire Forces from the King for his Mrs. Service (who yet listed and paid divers Officers and others, and gave ou● that he was to go into Portugal with three or 400. Secondly, there we find a Memorandum of a great Lord that said, when the Scots were once gone, they would teach the House of Commons better manners, who now did what the list, or to this effect. Thirdly, there we fiend a Memorandum, that about one and the same time, there was first a strange business (GOD will in due time clear it,) in Scotland,; and Secondly, the Popish Rebellion broke forth in Ireland: and thirdly, the Parliament was many ways threatened in England, by Libels of several kinds, Quaeres, whether any Acts passed while two Armies were in the Kingdom were valid; Relations of Plots against prime Members; many intelligence of warning from foreign parts. Fourthly, there we find a Memorandum of the Irish Rebels, boastings of their Party here, threatening to invade the Kingdom. 5. There we find a Memorandum, that the King brought Winter with him out of Scotland (as he went thither in a kind of storm, against the earnest advise of both Houses, and after a severe speech made by the Lord keeper in his name and presence) all clouds and never a Sun shine day all the year after. The privileges of Parliament infringed in two or three things, are, the two Houses declared to him by a Petition of Decem 1.14. The Parliament guards dismissed, and a new one denied, though they desired to trust the then Lord Chamberlain of the King's House: but another was offered to be put upon them, under the Command of the Lord Chamberlain of the Queen's House. All these Memorandums, the Almanak of 1641. affords, which all put together, make some what toward ●he necessity of a preparation for Defence, at least by petitioning for the Militia to be settled (Etsi non placent singula, juncta juvant.)  
But now no sooner doth our Almanac of 1642. appear, but first it presently presents us with the accusation of the 6. Members; and secondly, strait after with the Kings coming to the House of Commons, to demand the five Members of the House. The carriage of which business, by the King's Attendants, if any one will be ignorant of, let him be so; Res ipsa loquitur, the thing itself was so in the sight of the Sun, as was uncapable of a mistake; yet did an Answer (to a Petition of the Maj●r, and Aldermen of the City, upon the occasion of a few days after,) say that the King had no other Attendants, but only Gentlemen armed with their Swords. Thirdly, about a week aft●r, the King withdraws to Hampton-Court, and never returned to the Parliament since, (nor ever passed any Bill save that against Bishop's Votes, and two or three about Ireland;) of which what the Lord Digby said to the Cavaliers, that came to the House of Commons, and how he behaved himself at Kingston upon Thames, the Parliament hath sufficiently declared, and in their Defence of their Remonstrance of May 26. have showed, that it is evident he did so carry himself, though it have been denied. Fourthly his Letter (after he was fled) to the Queen, and another to Sir Lewes Dives counselling the King to retire to some strong place, on which the Attempt on Hull, hath made an unhappy Comment, (and another since that surprised, written to the Queen, signifying what Counsel he gave the King in a Letter, about that time which hath been ever since followed.) Fiftly, the Militia denied for Cities and Corporations, (upon pretence of a Petition from the City of London, contrived by Binion, and some few others) which was of the greatest consequence for the Parliaments safety, and to keep out foreign Forces; and this when the Houses thought the King had granted it; (the mean while the Queen goes for Holland, in a strange season of the year, and on a small occasion, (the Parliament having the year before, given Reasons against her offering to go beyond Sea, upon another pretence,) and how she hath done since her going over, is too well known. Finally the Earl of Newcastle in a disguised habit and Name, and Captain Legge, (two persons that were named in the business of bringing up the Northern Arms) came to Hull, and one of them, I remember now not which, but the Papers will tell,) showed the King's hand for to have had Hull, and the Magazine delivered up to him. And all this before the settling of the Militia by an Ordinance, or Sir john hotham's taking in Forces to keep Hull safe. Let Conscience now judge, whether all this gave not just occasion, for a preparation for Defence▪ and of a long time after this, nothing more was done, the Militia settled in very ●ew Countries, till the King's proceedings hath further warned them ●o stand upon their guard, in other places besides London.  
It is true the King for a time had nothing but Proclamations and Declarations to oppose them. But after he was once gone Northward (and the Qu. beyond Sea▪) what did he ever do or say, but in opposition to them? and while his Declarations renounced all thoughts of War, notes were sent over into Holland for Arms, and a beginning of an Army raised at York, under the name of a Guard. When first the Houses having petitioned the Removing the Magazine at Hull to London. (Upon a counter-Petition of a very few Gentlemen of Yorkshire, pretending the name of the whole County that it might be kept clear still) the King goes instantly to Hull, and demands entrance, intending as he declares to the Parliament after▪ that he meant so to do) to take possession of the Town and Magazine, and dispose of it: and being denied, proclaims Sir john Hotham Traitor, without any process of Law, or sending first to the House to know if they would own it; and after demands justice so peremptorily, as to deny before hand all other businesses, but that of Ireland, (and how well that was done, we must remember anon) and then was the Army raised under Colour of a Guard the Yorkshire men, not coming in readily enough to make it appear a great Army.) And all this before ever it was declared by the Houses that the King seduced by wicked Council, intended to make war against his Parliament, and so before ever they set out the Propositions for Money, Plate Horses, and therefore certainly before any one man was listed. In all which the event hath showed, that they were rather in wisdom too slow, then in conscience too quick in their Preparations for defence. Remembering also, that as soon as the Ship (Providence) was come to them (a proudence indeed to discover what was before intended) the Siege was strait ●aid to Hu●, and the Declarations than spoke another Language then common men understood them to speak before. For after all the Lords present with the King had subscribed (about june 16.) that they saw in the pretended Guard, etc. no intention of War against the Parliament: within few days, the King tells them, that if to seek to recover Hull and the Magazine (than at London) and suppress the Militia) in all which the Parliament was engaged as much as could be) were to make War against the Parliament, he ever meant to do these things, and had ever declared so; though I believe none that believed him did or could so understand: Let Conscience now judge who began first.  
As touching the cause of these Arms, the Doctor would persuade us, that it is for something which the King hath right to Deny. To evince which, he first affirms, that it cannot be for Religion or Privileges and ancient Rights and Liberties, for these the King doth not deny.  
REPL. But now sufficient verbal promises, with such actions done (as were noted even now) are to secure Religion or the State, Conscience must judge, and it may a little the better, when we come to consider them again in the proper place for them (for here they outrun their season like Abortives) in the next Section. Secondly, he saith it must then be for denying the Militia, the disposing offices of State, and such like; also the government of the Church, and the revenue of it; and for not denying his power of denying in Parliament.  
REPL. 1. For the Militia, I refer to what hath been said, how just reason the Parliament had to petition the securing it, and after to settle it (as in case of necessity) by Ordinance. Of which their Declarations have given more full account. 2. For disposing Offices of State, it was never desired, till the difference was very far advanced, and Hull attempted; and Sir john Hotham proclaimed Traitor, and the Army raised at York, called a Guard. And so only desired as a Security after such a breach; and no way a cause of the breach; Thirdly, For the King's power of denying, it was never in question between him and them, till the Militia was absolutely and peremptorily denied. And in all their Declarations they never take it away; but contrarily in the defence of that May, 26. they grant, that though the King be bound by Oath and care of his people, not to deny any Bill for general safety and good (for in ordinary matters they yield he may deny) Yet if he do deny, it is no Law without him. Only in case of the common safety, they say the two Houses may do what is necessary, and it binds the Subjects for that necessity, though he do deny. The denial then of the Militia only, in the case of necessity (with other things noted before) forced them to do what they did toward Arms; and not any difference about a power of denial in general. 4. For the government and Revenue of the Church. I believe indeed it was a part of the cause of taking Arms; but not on the Parliaments part: the major part of whom in either House, never (till very lately) declared, nor showed any purpose of taking either away quite, but only reforming (which the Doctor saith his Majesty is always ready to agree,) as may appear even by the great agitations for so long in the House of Commons of the Bill against Episcopacy root and branch; and at last it was wholly laid aside; which shows the major part never owned it as their delight. Else they would first have absolutely concluded the destructive part; and then consulted what to have in the room. B●t to consult first for Successors; was Pacuvius his Policy to preserve the Senators of Capua, though he made show to condemn them all. And had the Commons past the Bill against them; yet did the Lords never show any such intendment, who were not easily won to take away their Votes, till their Protestation against both Houses in their absence helped to persuade them to it. It can then no way appear to Conscience that ever the Parliament had thoughts of Arms, to obtain their taking away. But, I am verily persuaded, by all I could ever hear from the Episcopal Party; that their fear of this made them (who had still enough of the King's ear and heart,) urge the King to many Actions, which have helped the War forward. Among the rest, I cannot but note one▪ not a week passed between the 12. Bishops for their Protestation before the King first accused of high Treason, the L. Kimbol●on, and the other five, and then came in that manner to the House of Commons to demand those five. And whereas the Doctor saith the King is bound by Oath to maintain the Government and Revenue, as by Law they are established.  
REPL. 1. He discovers a secret to us which we understood not before. All men stood amazed at the late Oath to this effect for the government; and among other Arguments against it not a few considerable men of the Ministry and Gentry before the Parliament looked at it as an injury to the King, and opposite to our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy (and so the Parliament did in effect vote it) because it urged men to swear never to consent to alter the Government, which yet the King and State might possibly judge fit to be altered. But we never thought that the King was supposed bound by his Oath to it already; and much less that all Kings in succession would be bound (as now the Doctor teaches us) by their Oaths to maintain it as it is by Law established. This it seems they presumed upon, and so thought to have made all sure, by swearing all the Ministry and Universities, and Masters of Arts, and Schoolmasters, and Physicians▪ who would have had influence enough into the whole Kingdom within awhile. But God laughed at this Project, turned it upon the Head of the Projectors and all the Party, as appears this Day. And so I am persuaded He will do, all their Present endeavours of War to recover themselves. 2. But in good earnest doth the Doctor (or any else) think the King bound by Oath to maintain Bishops still in England (though he hath consented to take them away in Scotland, to prevent War) even though he hazard the ruin of the Kingdom by a Civil War? and notwithstanding any inconveniences represented to him by the complaints of his People, and the wisdom of his Parliament, and his own too? Or doth his Oath bind him to any more than to maintain them so long as they are established by Law as he swears to maintain all his other Subjects in their Rights; and yet an Act of Parliament may alter many things in men's Rights. Are not all Rights of Church and State (which are not properly jure divino) compromitted to the Parliament the three Estates, King, Lords, Commons, every time they meet? And may they not alter and change this or that, so far as it is humane and established but by the Laws of the Land? The King's Oath than binds not him and his Parliament from taking away Bishops, if they judge them (not jure divino) and their continuance to be prejudicial to the State and Church; (and so of Revenues the same may be said.) 3. And if the Dr. will not admit this Answer, but still contend, the King did swear to maintain them (at his Coronation) as they were then by Law established. Is not the King beholding to him for charging him with Perjury (as in effect he doth) since it is evident that by taking away the high Commission Court, and their power in their Courts of imposing Oaths and Penalties, and after that their Votes in Parl. he hath not maintained them as they were by Law established, when he took the Oath.  
How the Doctor will answer this I know not: sure I am, if any Minister having taken the Oath (never to consent to alter the Government as it now stands established,) had offered to petition such a taking away of their governing power; he should quickly have been accursed as a perjured person, and accordingly so dealt with. It remains then that the King only swore to maintain them according to Law; while they should stand by Law, and not to bind himself from any Law-making, though to take them away, in case it should appear to be for the good of Church and State. And if this be not made good that their taking away will be so; let us all fight for them. But if it be, woe to those men that hazard the King and two of his Kingdoms (England and Ireland) once more▪ (as before they would two years one after another, have hazarded England and Scotland) to maintain Episcopal greatness and Authority. 4. What degree of Reformation (or any thing like to the Primitive Bishops) did they ever offer to be reduced unto? which might have contented Parliament and People both, if ever propounded in earnest, to have asked no more. Or what cure for any effectual Reformation have any of them (or their Party) ever showed since the Parliament met, to have rendered it any way hopeful that they would be good instruments hereafter? 5. If therefore after all warnings, they will needs put the King still on (as it appears even by the Doctor's words) to fight for their maintenance: Let them remember Mr. Brightmen Prophetical Interpretation of the spewing out of the Laodicean Angel. And though a vomiting sometimes makes a man's heart sick, and ready to die; yet where he hath strength of Nature it comes up at last, and proves happy cure. Which in this case (if it be Christ's act▪ as it much seems to be) will not fail to be fulfilled to our comfort at last, how weak soever it bring us first. I conclude this then, that as Physic is upon the defensive▪ so much more the endeavour to cast up the humour which unprovoked or but a little stirred, endangers the Body's health by Inflammations & the like. So the late voting down the B●s▪ was merely defensive; and the War, so much as it is to maintain them, themselves are and ever were upon the offensive, and offenders, in and the Parliament not at all.  
Now for the managing of the resistance, the Doctor offers to examine whether it hath been so void of Hostility as that defensive way, they pretend to, should be. Let us examine it with him. Here he contends 1. that the Defendant should be of answerable demeanour to David defending himself against Saul. REP. But he may be pleased to consider, that as all that handle the difference between an offensive War and a defensive, do rationally maintain, that he that is outrageously injuried (as David in his Ambassadors, 2 Sam. ●0.) Or dangerously threatened, is but on the defensive; though he be actually ●n Arms first, through diligence and some advantages perhaps: so a man▪ keeps himself within the bounds of a defence, though he actually offend him that does, or that would assault him, and even though he begin first. So David did in the former case, invading the Ammonites Country, and yet he was properly defensive. So a man on the high way, if a Robber should assault him; if he could prevent his blow and strike first, it were but in his own defence: but much more to strike again and kill (if he cannot otherwise defend himself) which yet is the highest degree of offence between party and party. Ob. But David still withdrew and having taken the King's spear and cruse, he restored them without demand. Rep. True, but I have formerly given the reason why he ever withdrew, Pag. I need not repeat it. And as for the cruse and spear, he took them not away for fear of being hurt by them (as now Ammunitions and other provisions) but as the Dr. well says, to show Abners neglect and his own integrity; and therefore when they had done him that service, he restored them without demand. But the Parl. cannot fly from place to place like David; they must keep at Westminster, or dissolve themselves; and they have offered to restore that which they took to prevent their own and the Kingdoms being mischefed by it; so that security might have been obtained for time to come; witness the Petition sent by the E. of Holland and others to Beverley, while Hull was besieged. In a word there hath been nothing done in this kind, of all that the Dr. reckons up, which mere necessity hath not forced; and most of those things must have been done by David, if he had kept Keilah against Saul as he desired and meant to have done. 2, And whereas the Dr. further urges [that the King's 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] Rep. This concerns two sorts of persons; and for both▪ though somewhat differently, the satisfaction to this allegation depends upon the justice of the defence itself. For 1. if the Parl. do justly take up Arms, then without all doubt (however the Dr. talks of an implicit faith) they may seize upon the arms goods estates▪ persons of those that actually under what pretence soever) assist against them. Though if their defence be not just, than all this is confessedly a multiplication of injustice: but if they may fight with the Army that opposes them, they may disarm, etc. those that strengthen the army with moneys etc. 2. as for those that only would not, contrary to their conscience join with them against him, I have 2. things to say. 1. If any of these have in former times any way promoted illegal commands and practices it is much to be doubted they can bring but slender proof of their forbearing to join with the Parl. out of conscience. There is nothing more easy then to pretend conscience in all controverted points. But he deserves not to be believed in his pretence, that hath been but even now (and much more if he be still) a violatour of rules of conscience in other respects. It is well known how tender they have been of other men's consciences in needless Ceremonies, in illegal Innovations, in profane violations of the Lords Sabbath and the 4th. Com. who now cry conscience to save their money, or to weaken the Parl. 2. If any be really conscientious in the point; ye● upon the necessity of a just def●nce the Parl. may as well secure their persons, and specially their Arms▪ and levy some moneys upon them as in a common danger of a foreign enemy trenches may be digged on a man's Land or Forts built ev●n against his will▪ and in a fire breaking violently out the next house may be p●l'd down to save a town or many more houses. Though it is also true, that such aught to have recompense afterward when all the danger is over, and so I doubt not, but all truly conscientious shall have in due time. When it shall appear they only forbear out of conscience, and did no acts of malignancy withal; nor spoke malignantly against the Parliament and their just proceedings.  
The Modesty of some (of many) that have suffered a great deal worse within these few years, than the Parliament makes their most Malignant Prisoner, suffer may sufficiently show, what a Conscientious refusal signifies, if it be no more but so. And if the Parliam. have nothing more to Answer for then rigour against such, the Dr. will hardly prove, they have transgressed the bounds of a lawful defence. His reproaches therefore in the close of this Sect. I let pass and come at last to his 7. & last Sect. whereunto▪ if as good a reply can be made as to the former, I shall not much doubt the Sentence of Conscience (of any one who is unengaged or unpartial) in the whole Question between us.   

SECT. 7.  
WE are now come to the Tenderest Piece of all the Rest; and how confidently so ever the Dr. charges the Parliament and all that cleave to them with Rendering the King odious, etc. and saith it concerns them so to do; yet it shall appear by what I have to reply to him in this Section, how little delight I have to make the King Odious, and that the Parliament also hath and doth as much as lay in them to put off all Imputations from the King and charge them (as the Law doth) upon his Councillors, Judges, Followers and Favourites. Here 1. let me remember him; that whereas in other Kingdoms, some Favourites, when they have seen their Prince endangered have rather taken his actions upon themselves, than cast theirs on him, and been content to Sacrifice themselves rather for his safety, then expose him to shield themselves. It hath been the continual practice of the plotters against our Religion, and Liberties to Entitle the King to all their Illegallities and Oppressions; There can scarce that Grievance be named (if we except the Ship-money which was devolved upon the Judges, and yet it is well known how they were tampered with in the King's Name) which they have not Fraudulently gotten the King to own as his Act; and this is their constant practice to this day, who then hath laboured to make the King Odious? or whom did it concern but they? that so far as the people would find fault with any thing▪ they should be forced in a sort to find fault with the King; and this also helped to Charm all Tongues▪ and tie down all hands till they provoked the Scots beyond all degrees of sufferance, to come in with an Army and demand security in and by an English Parl. aswell as one in Scotland.  
2. Next whereas the Dr. upbraids the Parliament and People, [That it seems they are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion, they are so ready to fly to Arms to secure themselves]  
Repl. 1. It ill becomes a pretender to, and Disputer for Conscience to speak this Language that hath lived to see how many sufferings (though not resisting to blood▪ striving against sin) many even of the Parliament, but specially of the Ministry and people have yielded to within 16. or 18. years, and never thought of flying to Arms, but rather of flying out of their Native Country, as thousands have done: Unless the Dr. will undertake to justify, all that was Imposed upon men's Consciences all this while; And if he will do so he shall save many Consciences a labour to judge with what a Conscience he Writes. 2. Doth he think, that they could be so simple as not to foresee that their very flying to Arms was and would be a great suffering, and might prove (if God should defeat them) the means of extreme suffering. A people so taught, so enured to Passive obedience, and no way enured to War, could not be supposed willing or forward to engage themselves, their purses, or much less their Persons, against the Name of their King: and each day since the first Necessity hath continually sounded this out, so that they had no reason to be forward to fly to Arms. 3. By what I said on the former Section, and added with the Petition by the E. of Holland (even now mentioned) It appears they did not fly to Arms but fly from it, as far as they could and durst. 3. Whereas the Dr. often in this Section, in the beginning, middle and end insists mainly, upon the breach of Charity, in suspecting the King upon Remote fear, and mere Jealousies, causeless Jealousies etc.  
Repl. This may sufficiently be satisfied both in the behalf of the Parliament, and then of the People that adhere to them jointly and singly. For the Parliament and people both jointly; This may justly be said, 1. The Dr. mistakes, it is not simply a Jealousy of the King, but rather of the King's Councillors and Followers, who find so much favour with him (as they and others did before the Parliament against the Scots and us both, and Ireland too, witness all their heavy complaints against the Great Favourite Strafford) that they are able to put him from time to time, upon these Actions which his goodness of itself, rightly informed and counselled, would abhor; and hath so often declared against, and yet Actions again have discredited those declarations, as the Memory of those that have been awake cannot forget, both Referring to Religion and Liberties and the Parliament Remonstrances do amply set out, besides other Books. If therefore Security be once obtained against such persons; I am persuaded the King will be no more suspected; and in the mean time, it must be a strange Charity that can choose but suspect them. 2. Where the danger is of much importance, both for Greatness of Mischief and inevitableness according to Man, if not timely prevented; Charity to ourselves (and others) will not only allow, but commend, and even command to suspect and accordingly prevent, such dangers by suspecting Persons and Actions which in lesser matters they would and might and should venture to trust. Fire near straw or Gunpowder, is to be suspected more than near hard wood. Hedge-breakers and breakers of Houses are not equally to be suspected. Religion▪ Laws and Liberties are precious things and may be sooner lost then recovered. And his Charity hath drunk of the water of Lethe, that forgets these were lately attempted and endangered. (The Kings own Declarations acknowledge Laws and Liberties have been broken.) And how since the E. of Straffo●ds death, all the old Projectors are become Converts, is too hard a morsel for Charity to swallow, when it must hazard such dear things to many of the same Persons again. Specially seeing still, what they have done since the first sitting of the Parliam. toward their old Projects, as hath been partly noted already and somewhat more must be said by and by.  
Next for the Parliament alone. They are the great Council of the Kingdom the public Watchmen, the Highest Court of Judicature, it concerns them therefore to exercise their Charity, for the safety of those that have trusted them. Charity towards Attempters against a City, is none of the Virtues of a Watchman, nor toward Attempters of dangerous Treasons against a King and Kingdom, the Virtue of a Judge. Were they only to lose their own Liberties or Lives, their Charity might venture much further, then now it may, when they must Answer for Religion, Laws, and Liberties (and so Lives and Consciences) of a whole Kingdom, of 2 Kingdoms, England and Ireland, as formerly of England and Scotland, if not rather then and still, of all 3. in a degree. Who would not Curse their Charity, detest their Folly, if by their Credulity, all this should be betrayed and ruined. If Rhetoric needed in this cause, no Subject could deserve it better, then to cry down such a pernicious Charity, as this would prove, if they should be deceived with credulity.  
And then for the People alone, have they not a charity to exercise toward the Parliament, as well as toward the King's Followers; whom have they trusted to be public Watchmen, the one or the other? Whom hath the law trusted to be the great Council and chief Judges, the one or the other? Who hath pleaded for their Liberties the one or the other? 12. Subsidies were demanded (with intent thereby to engage us in a bloody War against Scotland) in the Parliament of April, 1640. Only for taking away of Ship-money. But this Parliament hath proved it so illegal and other things more, that it was taken away without any cost at all, by way of Exchange, and many other happy Laws hath the parliament passed, and obtained for us. But what one thing did the King's former Counsellors move him to offer to his people, by way of prevention, for State or Religion, in a whole year together? To whom then must the People exercise their charity? Must they condemn their watchmen, as scaring them needlessely with Old Enemies, discredit the law that saith. [No dishonourable thing ought to be thought of such a great Council, such a high Judicature.] And that when they, more than ever any Parliament before give account to all men, of all their Actions and the grounds of them? Well, shall that People deserve a ruin, that believe Old Wolves, rather than their faithful Dogs, than their Council of Shepherds: That shall think themselves bound to be charitable, to those that have attempted their ruin, and uncharitable to those that under God have hitherto saved them. In a word, let those that love Religion, and Laws, and Liberties compare the best actions on the one side, with the best on the other, and the worst on the one side, with the worst on the other: and then let charity judge (if it dare, or can) the Parliament Fools or Traitors, to GOD and the KING, and the STATE; and the King's followers, the only wise men, that have discovered their cunning Treachery, and the only faithful men to Religion, his Majesty and Kingdom. Take in then▪ the Declarations and Protestations; on the one side▪ and on the other, and remember is is not a single charity, whether I shall suspect the King; but first mixed▪ whether I shall or may suspect the King's followers who can do any thing with him so far, as that they may do contrary to what he saith and then a distinguishing charity▪ whether I shall suspect them, who were once (most of them apparently) Delinquents, against Religion and the Laws, Or the Public Watchmen, and the great Council an Judicature of the Kingdom: who have done so much and with such diligence to save and restore both and then let Conscience exercise charity as it will answer to GOD, to itself to all its Fellow English men and Christians, and even to the whole World. Thus in general, now we must examine some particulars.  
The Dr. names 4, grounds of fears and jealousy, with which the people have been possessed. All which he first rejects with a gentle comparing of the Parliamont (who hath set them forth) to the Devil the Arch-accuser. This is his charity. In stead of rataliating, I will only say the Lord forgive thee▪  
His first ground is [Reports of Foreign Power to be brought in. This, he saith, was given out before the setting up of the MILITIA, to keep the People amused, the easier to draw them into such a posture of defence as was pretended; and they are all discovered by time to have been vain.]  
REPL. 1. why will he perpetually forget that the King himself granted the Militia necessary to be settled. 2 It was not merely Foreign Forces to be brought in; but Papists and Delinquents rising at home, that was insinuated a cause of the desire to have the Kingdom put in a posture of defence. 3. Who knows not of the billeting of many thousands of Irish upon us even during the fitting of a former Parliament? The Project of German Horse in the Duke's time is it quite forgotten? The Earl of Staffords Council, not only to bring in his Irish Army consisting most of Papists, wherewith to reduce this Kingdom, was it not proved by the Oath of a Privy Counsellor present, and confirmed by his own Notes taken at the time, and did not the rest of the advise then given by that Politician, (that the King being now deserted by his Parliament, might do any act of power (Quaere the words in his charge) amount to Counselling the bringing in of any forces from any place? And why must all intelligences after these prevented, be counted vain 4. For is all suspicion vain, because the thing suspected comes not to pass, when mean are used to prevent it? Is all preventing Physic Vain? Is all fear of Pirates in a Sea voyage vain, if none assault a well man'd and provided Ship? Was not such a Navy being secured in safe hands, as would under God have made great Foreign Forces repent their coming against the Kingdomee; competent reason why those that did mean to come (if they might have had no resistance on the Sea) now thought it too hot a service? 5. But besides the Navy, they had no Landing place, Hull being contrary to the Court-expectation (and attempt as was Noted before) secured by the Parliament, and so might well be the more discouraged. 6. Which is the more considerable, because no sooner had they got a Port-Town, namely Newcastle; but though no Foreign Forces came, who could not be so soon ready; yet Foreign Ammunition came, not a little; and Forces of our Countrymen, who served in Foreign Countries, and money too, from Foreign Princes or People. And what more is coming, if our unhappiness continue till the Spring who can be secure!  
But for this if it prove so, the Dr. hath a defence ready. [All Christian Kings (he saith) cannot but think themselves concerned in the cause, and it will be as just for the King to use them▪ against subjects now in arms as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their natural King▪  
REPL. 1. The Dr. bestirs himself to make the King strong; (to maintain the Prelacy among other things as himself hath told us) before, in the former Section, he said that they that assist him, do it according to their Allegiance. So that he intends that all his Subjects are bound by their Allegiance to assist him and fight against the Parliament (even though their Consciences judge them to intend the conservation of Religion, Laws and liberties, and his followers to intend their subversion.) And here he calls all Christian King's i●, as themselves concerned in the Cause 2. When the Rochellers took Arms according to their Privileges and Edicts of the Kingdom to defend themselves. And our Protestant or Popish Councillors got 8. Ships to be sent to assist the King of France against them, and in the Low-Country they did the like too, what will the Dr. say, were all the Christian Princes concerned to assist against the Rochellers? If, he do, the very soldiers and mariners that went into Ships, shall rise up in judgement against him, who when they knew what they went for, utterly refused to fight against their Religion; and so the greatest part of them were set a Shore again, and the rest went on their voyage, and did the mischief to help beat the Rochel Fleet, and give the King possession of the Haven, so as he afterward with the help of the King of Spain (so still Princes are concerned against the Protestant▪) made a Barricado so strong as when a Fleet from hence after re-Voyage attempted to relieve Rochel by Sea, (being then actually besieged by Land) it could not be done. 3. What will the Dr. say to that Voyage to Rey and that to relieve Rochel, when it proved too late? Why was not the King still concerned to help the King of France? or was he? 4▪ Will it be Just for the King to use Foreign Forces, when to the understanding of Common Readers he hath utterly disclaimed it in more than one Declaration? 5, What Counsel, would an Enemy to the King and Kingdom (that hath read Stories, and ours in special as the Dr. seems to have done) give, but the using of Foreign Forces? was not the Kingdom Conquered by this very means, by the Saxons, when King Vorteger was in debate with his Lords and People, called them in to assist him? Did not the Turks so come into Europe? and oft the like hath happened. 6. He counts it damnable, to resist for defence merely, much more then, as the Barons in K. john's time, to call in a Stranger to make him King: if then to call in other Kings to assist against the Parliament be as just as that was unjust, it is a high virtue though to the utter endangering of the whole Kingdom, whose Counsellor surely it were pity the Dr. should ever be, who hath no more judgement, or more Conscience or charity toward the public good, then to advise and commend such a practice. 2. Next he propounds the Queen's Religion, as a matter which is urged to cause fears and jealousies. Of which he saith, It is no new cause.  
REPL. 1. It is true, to the great grief of all that truly love Religion, or wish well to her Majesty, but had others wished it otherwise (as the Dr. speaks for himself) who have had access unto her, She had not been told by a great man in the Church, (in the worst season that could be, when it is said she had some Pangs about Her Religion and asked of it) that She might well be saved in her Religion. Or if any give no credit to this passage, yet it is notorious enough that her illumination hath been so far from the endeavours of those who might have been heard by the King and the Queen both, that Ministers have been checked for praying for Her conversion. 2. But no man hath said, this alone is a sufficient Cause, nor was the Chief cause at the first. It is well known tha● at the first, and for divers yreos She carried herself so, as those that loved the true Religion pitied her rather then severely blamed her, and hoped good of her, if any means were used for Her good. But when after some years, a Nuncio from the Pope, was brought over and settled here, those about her have been more active: and yet more since the Q●: Mother came first over, things have ripened apace, and how far Her Religion hath been a Cause of the dangers of Scotland, England, and Jreland, by the countenance of the Popish Party generally, and multitudes of Jesuits and Priests, in Court, City, and Country, any common understanding may judge, that remember specially, what even a Solomon did for Outlandish Idolairous wives, which Nehemiah set so home ●. 13.  
3. The little business of her journey into Holland, and the great business that hath been acted by means of that, is but an unhappy comment or explication, of the justness of fears and Jealousies from her Religion.  
4. As for the Doctrines and practices of these Times which the Doctor saith, are not the way to make her fall in love with our Religion and draw her to it. She hath little reason to be offended with them, if she be pleased with the Doctrines and practices of her own Popish Religion; Witness the Parisian Massacre, the powder Treason; and the present too lamentable rebellion of Ireland. Let but that be compared with the worst can be imagined of our Doctrines and practices, and then let her love, which is fairest and meekest?  
3. Then he comes to the resort of Papists and his Majesty's entertaining them, and David's example (1 Sam. 22.2.) toward Ziba is alleged to justify it.  
Rep. 1. But the Dr. forgets that the time before the Parliament, the Papists and popish party had undeniably made an inroad upon our Doctrine, public Worship, Laws and Liberties; and against them in special was the Militia desired to be settled by people and Parliament. And after all this, upon a difference about the Militia, to employ them against the Parliament sooner or later, is an example beyond example; and beyond the power of words to take off the exception. Suppose a Woman suspected of incontinence: (And Popery is spiritual whoredom) should take to herself the parties with whom she were suspected to be her servants the better to defend her honour, were this a way to clear herself? Or a Captain to take in Forces to defend himself, having been challenged that they had a design to ruin his Army or Castle? 2. What charity can stretch itself to believe, they intent to assist the King in maintaining the Protestant Religion, and the Laws against themselves, which yet his Protestations proclaim? Surely some about him, must needs give them other assurance, or they would not be so mad, as to fight for their own suppression, and their Adversaries promotion. 3. But if they be so good subjects (as the D●maintaines) and help the King in such an extremity, must they not be counted to deserve a great reward, and what can that be, but Ziba-like, to divide the Land? A Toleration at least they must needs expect, if not indent for, or be promised. 4. Or, if they be strong enough to overthrow the Parliament, will a division content them? Will they not be able to command King and All henceforward? (N. B.) If Protestants charity can be so sottish, by this Doctor's delusions, as to trust to their fair dealing with Religion and Laws, when the Parliament is by their force ruined, they deserve no other pity then a bewitched or distracted Man, who is not afraid of Fire nor Water, but let Straw or Gunpowder lie near the one, and pulls up floodgates to give the other passage. 5. David's followers 1 Sam. 22.2. were far from Popish qualities. The Text describes them thus, [Every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, bitter of soul:] Here is not a word of all this, that signifies them to be wicked. A faithful Man may be in distress several ways; he may be in debt, through God's hand upon him, not his mispending; and not able to pay, but willing if he were able, and resolved when he should be able: and may be bitter of soul, through oppression, etc. So that though in likelihood among so many there were some vicious; Yet here is nothing to affirm, that they came as vicious, but as afflicted. 6. Had any of them been Idolaters (as Papists are) had they been of confederacy with the professed enemies of Gods true Religion and people, and so known, than David had been too blame to have entertained them; (and Saul would have been sure to have laid it to his charge:) Neither could he ever have purged himself so long as he had made them his Guard, that he meant to be faithful to God and Israel: And specially if Saul had before excepted against such Men as treacherous. This is the Case now, The enmity of Papists, by their very Religion, against ours, our Parliament, and Protestant people, is known to all the world, that understands any thing. The Parliament hath often and often declared their fear of them these two Years, and in reference to the settling of the Militia, that so their design on the Kingdom might be defeated. The King protests, not to own them nor their help. Yet things all along since the first discontents, are still acted as they could wish, and did and do applaud. And now after all this, to take them into the Armies, and employ them against the Parliament, is as far from David's fact in entertaining his Troops, as their designs against the Parliament are far from his against Saul▪ 7. It is true indeed, that professed Papists were not actually entertained at the first; It had been too gross for them to have appeared at the first, specially in any number; and would have raised all the Kingdom against them. The Ice therefore must be broke by others first; and by Court-converts; Of whose Religion the Priest that had lately written on the subject, (on which Dr. Featly had animadverted,) hath given a fair warning, sufficient to startle any man almost. To which purpose, let me add a word of a Book I have seen, called Jesuitica Negotiatio, printed near 20 Years since by Order of the States of Frizeland; which contains Instructions (surprised) of the Jesuits, toward the Conversion of the united Provinces: Among which this was one, [That whosoever they could convert to the Romish Religion, should be still allowed to profess the Protestant Religion, and keep any Office or place he was possessed of; and give sentence against any Papist, or Priest, or Jesuit, according to his place, even sentence of death, if he could not avoids it: Only with two cautions. 1. That he should be as favourable as was possible. 2. That he should give timely Intelligence of any severe sentence.] Let now charity judge, what circumspection almost can suffice against such a generation of Men? Or what jealousy can be too much of them that still profess this treacherous Religion? And yet all this notwithstanding, at last to have even professed Papists taken in against the Parliament: Can this be without a design in them that have counselled the King to it? Was it not in a prudent foresight, that they should be called and admitted to help, that the Papists have no where been plundered by the King's Army, though others have, who held not with the Parliament? 8. As for Ziba, David knew not his treachery at the first, and his lies had so blasted honest-hearted Mephibosheth, that it appears, David did scarcely believe his apology for himself: Otherwise (what ever may now be said of his credulous charity to Ziba, to the prejudice of one that was not present to answer for himself) it was none of David's good deeds (to be imitated,) to recompense a flattering Sycophant (that had brought him a present, in a hard time indeed,) with so large, a share in Mephibosheths' estate, When by the Law of God, he was to die for his false accusation of Treason, as Mephibosheth had deserved death had it been true. But now our Papists are known to be Enemies to the Parliament (as was said before,) and some of their Party in the Country stick not to say, that the Parliaments Intentions of rigour against them, already showed by the executing of so many Priests and Jesuits, Men of tender consciences; is one part of the Court-quarrell against them. They are more like Doeg then Ziba, who first accused the Priests, and then readily undertook the execution of a most cruel sentence, and executed it with all cruelty. But Psal. 52. Reads their doom. And Psal. 54.4. Suits the Ziphims too, those of David's own Tribe, that came and discovered him to Saul, 1▪ Sa. 23.26▪ once and again, and so incensed him afresh against him; Though Saul blesses them, (1 Sa. 23.21.) as his special good subjects that had compassion of him. Conscience must now judge, whether the Papists being favoured▪ were any cause of the resistance now made; or only the resistance now ●●de was the cause, that they were admitted to help the King in his distress. 9 But for the D ●. to honour them with the Title of good subjects, preferring them before the Parliament and so great a part of the Kingdom as visibly adhere to them, is one of the highest reproaches that ever was belched out against them; enough for a Jesuit or a Pope to have said. But the Dr. (how ever he pretend modesty ofttimes, and respect to the Parliament,) stabs them as desperately, as any enemy could do now and then: While he seems also resolved to justify all that hath been done against them, else he would have been silent in this piece, and the next that follows about Ireland. 10. In the mean time, because he upbraids, with a scandal that this resistance brings on our Religion, which (saith he) would not be easily wiped of, were it to stand or fall by the doctrines of this giddy age. I must needs make bold to tell him, that he forgets himself strangely, and the Doctrines and practices of our Religion, when he can scarce name that Country, where there are any Protestants, that have not taken Arms to defend Laws and Liberties, and with them Religion, (even though not before allowed by Laws.) Sweden, Germany, France, The low Countries, Bohemiah, Scotland. And did not Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory, assist them in France, Holland and Scotland? and K. James, Holland, and at least owned the cause of the French, though he only sent Ambassadors? and K. Charles did send to aid Rochel (as I noted before) and owns the Prince of Orange sufficiently, who yet is Rebel General against the K. of Spain, if our Parliaments resistance be Rebellion. Indeed, we in England are the last; and above all other Nations have been by the Court Doctors within this 40 Years, much prepared to suffer any thing rather than resist, (Yet Bishop Bilson in the Queen's time, was suffered to aver that the States of a Kingdom might resist, vide) But it now above all other times, grieves; that we offer to do what all others have done before us (upon a great deal less Authority; considering our Parliament continued by Act, and its power granted by the King, as I have noted before, against all delinquents:) For if they could have subdued and swallowed us up, the other Protestants in other Countries would much more easily have been devoured.  
4. The last Allegation, is concerning the businesses of Ireland. Of which because the Dr. saith the King hath written enough, he had done wisely to have written nothing but that word. Though I have not yet been so happy (who would be glad to see it) to meet with any Answer to the last Piece of the House of Commons, which reckons so many particulars of wrong done to that poor Kingdoms. (Therefore till I meet with that, I must needs tell the Dr. he saith not enough to clear the business, nor the King's Counsellors in that business. For whereas his whole defence is ●in a word,) that the King's necessity, made it lawful to make use of any thing intended for their relief, which he parallels by the Necessity that excused the Scots coming in hither. To this divers things may and must be replied. 1. The Scots are no parallel for this carriage toward Ireland. Their coming (what ever the Dr. affirms) brought no such great detriment to the Inhabitants there, if you except their professed enemies, Papists and Prelates, as the poor Soldiers and other Protestants of Ireland have suffered by the actions done concerning them. 2. The King and Parliament have justified by Act of Parliament, their coming, as necessitated; Yet they were proclaimed Traitors again and again, and it was counted necessary to make War against them one year, and a second, as now against the Parliament. The necessity then that is now pretended by the King's party, wants a great deal of the justification that the Scots have had before all the world, specially remembering all that was noted before, of the doings of the King's followers, before ever the Parliament did any thing but Petition. 3. Which necessity by them pretended, if it appear a necessity, by themselves made, will it not make their actions concerning Ireland more horrid, and proclaim the design to be more rooted. 4. But it must by no means be forgotten, what hath been pretended for Ireland, to which these actions are most contrary. 1. When the King road Northward, and the Parliament more than once represented that it would greatly prejudice Ireland, The King protested still it should not; but he would be as ready to do all things for Ireland, as if he had stayed at London. 2. When he had been at Hull, and demanded of the Parliament justice upon Sr. John Hotham, he declared, he would do no business till he had satisfaction in that, except only the business of Ireland. 3. A few days after that, he would in all haste go over in Person to subdue the bloody Rebels, and venture his Royal Person to recover that poor Kingdom. Who now almost can believe his Ears or Eyes, that any thing should be done to the prejudice of Ireland. 4. If the dates be observed of some of those things mentioned in that Answer of the House of Commons, they will be found done, before the Parliament had done any thing more toward their own defence, then when that profession was made after the Kings being at Hull, & when the King would have ventured himself to go into Ireland. 5. It is strange that the punishing of Sr. John Hotham, and the suppressing the Militia, the recovery of Hull and the Magazene, which at last (after many other Declarations persuading of no intention at all of a War against the Parliament) the King declares he would lose his life, but he would obtain, and this (I think, Quaere) before there was any one man listed for the Parliaments defence; should be thought a necessity allowing any retarding, much less disappointing the crying necessities of Ireland, after such Protestations of care for it. 6. If the Parliament be not only, not so good subjects, as the now entertained Recusants, but unless they be worse than those horrid Rebels, (of whom some of the King's Declarations speak with detestation enough;) while the Parliament protests before God and the Kingdom, and the world; that they have no Thoughts nor Intentions but loyal to the King, and faithful to the Religion and Kingdom, and the Popish bloody Rebels, who one while avouch they have the King's authority for what they have done, another while seem to renounce him and to intend a new King; But always profess to intend the extirpation of the British Nation, and Protestant Religion in that Kingdom, and then to come over into England to fight against the Parliament and Puritans and Protestants here: If I say the Parliament be not worse than the Irish Traitors, it is a prodigy, that any necessity can be thought sufficient to do such and so many acts as that Declaration of the House of Commons mentions, or almost any one of them; to the woeful prejudice of that bleeding Kingdom, and great encouragement of the bloody Rebels. It would be too long to insist on every particular, which if a man would Rhetorically (and but justly) amplify, he might astonish all men, how the former Protestations and those actions could agree, and what necessity could be pretended for some of them, as entertaining Irish Rebels, etc. (vide) 7. Unto all which, add but this as a corrollary, that the whole is a most unhappy verification of that which at the first breaking out of the Rebellion was related as spoken from the Rebels, that they had a considerable Party in England, in the very Parliament, and the Court; and that they doubted not but to find us so much work at home, as we should have no leisure to send succours to the Protestants there (Nor can I forget, what I heard a few days before the Irish Rebellion broke out, that a Steward of a Popish great Lord, dissuading a Churchwarden from obeying the Order of the House of Commons, about taking away Idolatrous Pictures, etc. Bids him not be too hasty, for before a Month were at an end, he should see great alteration, and so it appeared, though blessed be God, not yet to the full of their hopes.)  
Lay now all these things together (which the Dr. hath instanced in, and forced this descant upon) with those in the former Section, and then let all consciences exercise their most unpartial judgement, and most ample charity, and then suspect in whom the design hath been and is, which hath necessitated the other party to take Arms, to defend themselves; and then let them say Amen, to an Application of two Stories of Scriptures, one of Jotham to the men of Shechem, If you have done faithfully, etc. then rejoice, and ●et your party rejoice; but if not, than fire come forth and devour, etc. The other of Solomon, concerning Abner and Amasa's blood, let it rest on the head of Joab, etc. but upon David, and upon his house, and upon his Throne, let there be peace from the Lord for ever; and let I say, all that love God, and the King, and Justice, and Truth say, Amen.  
But the Doctor will have us consider what the King hath done to exempt these scruples of fears and jealousies from the people's minds. Which in sum are the passing of Bills this Parliament; and protestations for Religion, Privileges of Parliament, Laws and Liberties. For the first of these, what are they worth, in ill times; and under ill Judges (if once the Militia and the Navy be surrendered, and this Parliament dissolved) what did magna Charta, the Petition of Right, Articles of Religion, serve to prevent all the illegalities and innovations upon Church and State before this Parliament; or what did all the Laws and Privileges of Scotland serve them for? If suspected Counsellors and followers be still about the King and favoured by him, where shall be a security to take away these fears. Also for the other, What have Protestations prevailed to prevent former danger. That unparallelled danger to the House of COMMONS, and the whole Kingdom, by his coming into the House, with such Followers waiting at the doors, so weaponed, so behaving themselves and speaking then and since, was it not the very day after his Message, denying them the Guard they desired, and protesting toward the close [We do engage unto you solemnly the word of a King, that the security of all and every one of you from violence, is and shall ever be as much Our care, as the preservation of Us and Our Children.] And how did all men judge (that believed the Protestations set out at York a while) that no war was intended against the Parliament, till some strength gotten, as was noted before, under the name of a Guard out of Yorkshire, and more endeavoured by Agents in several parts of the Kingdom, and hoped for from beyond Sea, altered the language and the face of things, till it came to the present extremities. Also whatever the Doctor's Informations were at the time he was penning his clause of applauding the King's excellent moderation amidst the pressures and extremities of war, showing what respect he hath to the Property and Liberty of the Subject; whosoever remembers what all (but wilfully ignorant, or altogether careless) know of taking away arms from the Countries along to Chester and back afterward, the plundering of Banbury (notwithstanding the King's promise to the contrary) and Abington, Reading (but most specially Brainford) and Kingston, though helping them in, and having promise of all favour, and then at Marlborow, and great cruelties to those that were led away Prisoners, and this since the King's Proclamation against plundering; and since that Newbury, and many other Towns formerly, and of late in Bark shire, Oxford shire, Surrey, Buckingham shire, will have little cause to believe the Doctor's intelligences; or assurances, that all protestations that come in the King's name may be trusted. And whereas he urges, that we may not raise an evil thought against the King, Eccl. 10. What shall we say to those men, unless that of David concerning Saul's Counsellors, 1 Sam. 24. That at least they deserve to be accursed, that force men either to distrust or to suffer ruin, because they have power and will to break that which we would trust the King in, most gladly and desiredly, if he had no such men about him. I have no desire nor will to prosecute particulars further: But the Doctor abuses his Readers to cast an oblique aspersion, as if the Parliament had any thoughts of contending for a new frame of Religion, which deserves no answer, so gross a slander it is. And then 2dly to insinuate plainly that the 19 Propositions were urged, as so necessary, as unless they were granted, the Kingdom must be embroiled in a civil war, and the relief of Ireland neglected. The forenamed Petition by the Earl of Holland clears that sufficiently, and the Petition too, that the Earl of Essex should have presented or sent, but the King would receive none from him.  
The rest of the Doctor's book is but recapitulations Rhetorical of what he hath said before (and an Answer to the instance of Libna's revolt, which I will be no justifier of, because so little is said of it in Scripture.) To which I have only these things to add.  
1. Though Absalon (which he mentioned before, and I slipped) did falsely calumniate David (what ever petty neglect might be in some officers) as appears by 2 Sam. 8. & 1 Ch. & so being a comely person which takes much with the multitude, & a strange flatterer of all that came for Justice, what ever their cause were, 2 Sa. 15. and the heir apparent of the Crown, might invegle the people into a Rebellion: Yet neither is this any thing like to the causes of complaint or suspicions, that we have had and have still; nor yet is there any probability, that a people justly governed should by Parliamentary Declarations be armed against their King: As besides all other Arguments appears, by the small assistance of armed men, any Country hath yielded to the Parliament, even where they think them in the right in the cause, and themselves too in danger to be plundered.  
2. If the Parliaments actions in all things about their defence cannot be excused or justified (specially by those that see not the whole of their actions, and much less the reasons of them) yet their consciences, that see the justness of the action for the main, of defence; and grounds to believe their Protestations of their intentions in the defence, are not bound to be Neuters, much less to assist the King against them, because they are not or cannot be satisfied in this or that particular. For then scarce any war might lawfully be joined in.  
3. In special, for the sufferance of so many Sects to vent their doctrines with such liberty, and to commit unsufferable outrages upon the worship of God. 1; Hath not the Parliament declared against Brownists, Anabaptists in the first Remonstrance. 2. Have not some Sectaries been punished? as he that made the new Creed, was he not imprisoned? 3. How many scandalous and innovating Ministers have been complained of, and yet few of them questioned and those not fully censured (scarce one by both Houses) the Doctor will not lay to their charge the suffering of such: which yet he may with more reason, as being offenders of longer continuance and more danger. 4. The truth is, partly the multitude of offenders at first complained of, and partly for near a year and an half of late, their own extreme danger by the Malignant parties getting strength, since the Irish rebellion broke out, and so multitude of businesses over-whelming them, have hindered that Justice, which else those Sects and outrages (the Doctor mentions) would have found, and may yet in due time, if legally proved. 5. And if he will say. some special men favoured them in the very Houses, he cannot say more than may be made good of others favouring Superstitions, Arminianism, Socianisme, and even Popery itself, Yet this were most unjustly charged upon the Body of either House, and much less on both. And when it shall please God, that the Consultation of Divines shall meet (for which they have more than once passed the Bill for his Majesty to confirm) it will I doubt not appear to all the world, that they never meant to suffer any such opinions or practices, as are truly dishonourable to the true Reformed Protestant Religion: as even in the mean time, the Orthodoxism and Moderation of the Members of that Assembly (generally) known to all that know the persons, may be a sufficient pledge; among them all, there being very few, that are liable to any pretence of exception for Sects; and perhaps none at all, for countenancing any such outrage, as the Doctor cries out upon. 6. In fine, the worst of the Parliament (charged upon them with any shadow) in matter of Religion is but omissions or delays, which are but Moats to the beams which the Doctor overlooks in their Adversaries, of old and still. Who have made stables of Churches, but they? Who have burned and trodden under foot Bibles, but their Partisans of Ireland? Not to insist on their horrid blasphemies (which if God's word be true, as they will one day find it) makes our Land groan and mourn under them. If a conscience comes to weigh these in the balance with the Parliament; let it, if it dare, be charitable to the Cavaliers and their Army, so as to believe, Religion is like to be defended by them, when the Parliament intends to ruin it. I will say no more to the Doctor but this one thing, that a sober conscience that peruses his whole Treatise, will wonder what kind of conscience his is, that Rhetorizes so for charity on the one side, and wholly neglects it on the other; telling us more than once, that though we lay down our lives for our Religion, it is nothing, if we have not the charity he calls, While himself with all confidence, charges the Parliament with many grievous faults against Religion, Allegiance, Laws and Liberties, and Liberties, and discredits all their Protestations and Declarations to the contrary, as if he thought, that as his great Text, Rom. 13. speaks only in his conceit of Monarches; so 1 Cor 13. related also to them only. No resisting that higher power, but all charity to him, what ever he do or say. But as for the Parliament, their power is of no regard, They may be resisted at pleasure, and their words and actions deserving no charity, or challenging none. Consciences will judge (and may without breach of charity) how charitable or true these interpretations and imputations be. And so I have done with him.  
If any other now ask me, why it is not as fitting easy to put off all imputations from the Parliament, and lay it upon a Faction there (as the Declarations in the Kings Name use to do) as it is for the Parliament to put off all from the King to his Counsellors and Followers. I answer in a word, the Law commands the one, and Reason gives a fair ground for it. The King is but one; and so if those about him, fill his head with strange Doctrines in Religion, and Maxims or interpretations of law, and with strange relations in matters of Fact, and answerable suggestions, unless he were a Prophet or an Angel, he can hardly avoid false opinions and errors in government. Himself tells us in the forecited answer to the 19 Propositions, of surreptiously-gotten commands from a King, by followers and favourites against the Law, which he is bound to protect when he knows it. Therefore according to our Law, The King may be misinformed, but he cannot be mistaken, and the King can do no wrong, because it supposes he doth nothing but by Advise of his Counsellors in matters of State, and Judges in matters of law. Therefore he grants the Commons may impeach such Favourites and Followers of his, and then the Lords are to judge and punish them. Would this have been suffered, or would it yet, the Parliament and he would soon accord. But they get him to let them lay all upon him, which themselves say and do; and this hazards our undoing. We would not charge or distrust the King: We dare not, must not (unless we mean to be ruined) trust or discharge his Counsellors. But we hope and pray that God will bless him so at last, as that those being taken away from before him (or rather being yielded up by him) as dross from the silver, his Throne shall be established in righteousness, Majesty and Honour. Mean time we proclaim, they injury him, and us, and the law, that interpret what is said or done against the multitude of his Followers and Army, or any of them, though sheltered by his Name and Presence, as done against him. On the contrary side, the Parliament is a numerous Body, where each one Votes single, and it must be a Mayor part that carries any thing; and there is no other sense of a Parliament in Law and Reason, than the mayor part at least: Therefore the Votes, and Orders, and Declarations that come (as all do) from the maior part, cannot be less than the Votes of the Parliament, themselves 〈◊〉 the Counsellors & Judges, and have none on whom to discharge any imputation. So th● unless a Parliament can be a Faction (which in our Law is a mere contradiction) It i● impossible, that a Faction can carry things there; or what is there done can be so put● off, and the Parliament discharged. I conclude then, a King may be charitably believe to mean well, as he protests, only to be misinformed and abused by wicked Counsellors. But the Parliament cannot be (is not) well thought of by charity itself in its highest perfection, if the mayor part vote and act evil things. The Parliament is then the offendor before God and man.  
For conclusion of all. Let me add 5 or 6 Qualifications or Cautions upon the whole matter. 1. All Governors, Supreme specially, have somewhat of Prerogative, beyond written or express Laws. But this to be used for the Subjects good not hurt. 2. A Christian, though able and innocent, is not to resist all injuries, done to him in his Estate or person, no not by private persons, much less if done by the command of Governors, specially of the Supreme. Christian meekness requires the one, and Christian subjection the other. 3. An open and public resistance by arms, is the last Refuge under Heaven, of an oppressed, and endangered Nation. Many injuries are to be let pa● while appearing but personal, not political, or designed as precedents. Jealousies are not to be suddenly taken up, nor too deeply taken in: And all possible means of redress and satisfaction is to be endeavoured before this course be taken. 4. If Laws do injury, they must not be resisted, unless they command undeniably against God, and not only so, but threaten extreme extremity. 5. Whatsoever injury happens to be done to innocent persons, is to be recompensed as speedily and fully as may be. 6. A Peace is to be embraced, desired, pursued with all faithfulness; so it may be but rationally safe▪ and not betray to the misery, which war was undertaken to prevent or remedy. 7. The Nation (and Parliament) that is put to this necessity of a war must acknowledge God● just and heavy displeasure, which so threatens them, so endangers them; and therefore must before all, and in all, and with all, humble themselves most unfeignedly to God, and seek to make their peace with him, and thus may hope He will bless their Arms and desires of peace, with sufficient victory and a peaceful and happy Conclusion in due time. Which the Lord of Hosts and God of Peace, may do for us (as He will for all His.) I shut up all with that Prayer and Prophecy, Psal. 125.4, 5. Do good O Lord to those that be good: and to them that are upright in their hearts. As for such as turn aside to their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel. Amen, Amen.   
FINIS.