THE THOUGHTS OF A Private Person; About the JUSTICE OF THE gentlemen's Undertaking AT YORK. Nou. 1688.  
Wherein is showed, That it is neither against Scripture, nor Moral honesty, to defend their Just and Legal Rights, against the Illegal Invaders of them.  
Occasioned then by some Private Debates, and now submitted to better Judgements.  
Printed in the Year 1689.   

The present Undertaking of the Gentlemen at YORK, Nou. 88 taken into Consideration; wherein is showed, That it is neither against Scripture, nor moral Honesty, to defend their Just and Legal Rights against the Illegal and Unjust Invaders of them, by way of Objection and Answer.  

FIrst, That it is not against Scripture is showed, Obj. 1, 2, 3.  
2. That it is not inconsistent with the Frame of the Government in General, Obj. 4.  
3. Not against the Law, but the Law-breakers, Obj. 5.  
4. Not Rebellion, Obj. 6.  
5. No Usurpation of the Power of the Sword, Obj. 7.  
6. No unlawful Act in a moral Sense, Obj. 8.  
7. Not against true Allegiance, Obj. 9  
8. Not against the Declaration in a Legal Sense, Obj. 10.  
9 Not against Political Power, but Force without Political Power, Obj. 11.  
10. Not against any Royal Prerogative in general, Obj. 12.  
11. Not against the Supremacy, Obj. 13.  
12. Not Criminal Disobedience, Obj. 14.  
13. Not incommodious or unsafe for the Public in respect of the present and approaching Evils in removes, Obj. 15, 16.  
14. No disparagement to the Frame of the Government that cannot otherwise decide at obstinate difference between King and People, Obj. 17.  
Lastly, The Conclusion, showing, That Nonresistance of illegal Force, does in effect make all Monarches Arbitrary, and the People Slaves.    

The Thoughts of a Private Person, etc.  
MEN have three Rules to walk by, which we may call Laws, that is, Nature, Reason, and Religion; and and answerable to these three a Christian hath three Principles, that is, Sensitive, Rational, and Spiritual, which I take to be the distinction that St. Paul makes, 1 Thes. 5.23. I pray God your whole Spirit, Soul and Body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Nature considers all Men as single Persons, and directs them to Self-interest and Self-preservation, as the chief end. Reason considers Men as sociable Creatures, and directs them to unite the Government for the public Good (inclusive of their own Safety) as the chief End. And the Spirit considers Men as Candidates for Heaven, and directs them to live according to the Word of God, that they may attain Eternal Happiness, the chief End of Man. All these have the divine Warrant, and are of force where the Lower is not superseded by the Higher. A single Person is not to expose himself to ruin, unless it be for the Public good; and the Public are not to expose themselves to Beggary and Slavery, unless it be for the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Now though these Rules may be considered separate, and apart, yet they all ought to be in a Christian Government. Laws for the public Good do not destroy the Law of Nature, but supersede it for a greater Good; and the Laws of God do not destroy the Law of Reason, but supersede it for a higher end, and so makes it still more Reasonable to do so. Nothing therefore can justify a Private Injury but the Public Good, and nothing can hinder the Public Good for being carried on but Sin. For these Laws are not destructive but supportive of one another, and all supportive of Man. When a Man cannot defend himself, by the Method and Measures of the Public, (as in case of sudden Assaults) he may by the Law of Nature, break the Peace and smite his Adversary to save his own life, because humane. Laws can reward no Person's obedience with so good a thing as life, and therefore, the public good excepted, his life is to be preferred before all forms of Law. But it is not so with the Laws of God; for if I be urged to deny my Faith, or die, I must die rather than break God's Law, because God will give me a better Life, and an infinite Reward. Necessity can suspend a positive Law of Man, that is merely such, but it cannot supersede what is established by God or Nature; an Act therefore that is civilly Unlawful, may notwithstanding be Lawful, because it is not Lawless, but under a more extensive Law. If it be according to the Laws of God, or sound Reason, the Conscience is safe, and the Act commendable before God and good Men, though it be against the form of Political Law: For though it be against the Form, it is not against the Reason of that Law; and the Form not being extensive enough of Man's safety, it must give place to necessity, and absolve him of his duty, when his duty would destroy him.  
The Safety of Man shows us both the Necessity and End of humane Government; for when private Persons found they could not be Safe, they were willing to enter into Compacts and Associations, and reposite their private Safety in the public Interest: And therefore if after this Association some of their Fellows will break the Covenants, and go about to destroy the Rest, it is lawful, both by the Laws of God and Man, for the injured to defend themselves; and by the Laws and Compacts by them made, and consented to, on both sides, for the public Good. Otherwise it would be unlawful to resist Injustice, and consequently a Thief or a Robber.  
Objets. 1. But you will say in all Governments there are Superiors and Inferiors, and God has made Obedience a part of Religion, and consequently conducive to a higher end than the Public Good, and therefore if the Governors break the Laws, and introduce a Public Evil for a Private Interest, they must not be resisted upon pain of Damnation.  
Answ. This were a good Plea, if it were true, but God is not the Patron of Injustice; and therefore he gives no Prince or Potentate more Authority over the People than the Tables of the Government express, and of these there are divers degrees. Those that are Governed by the Will of their Prince, whose Word is a Law, if he command their Persons for Slaves, or their Estates to serve his Ambition, they must obey, and God requires it of them, because it is the Prince's Right. Arbitrary Princes have a Political Power to treat a Subject cruelly and inhumanely; their Immortality is an offence against God, not in justice to the Subject who had given himself up to be used at their discretion. But those that are to rule by Laws made for the Public Good, and such as render the Subjects Freemen, not Slaves; such as secures their Religion, Liberty and Property; if these Prince's contrary to Law imprison their Persons, or seize their Estates, they do it unjustly, without God's Warrant, or any Political Authority, and may be resisted; or else we might not resist the Devil, should he creep into the Court in a Jesuits habit, and Haman-like, get a Commission to cut all our Throats.  
If I be called to suffer for my Religion, or the Faith of Christ, I am bound to suffer upon a mighty reasonable account: For 

first, It is the best way to overcome, my Faith can Triumph so by no other Victory as by Death, for that is a Victory never to be lost again▪  
2. Though I die, the Tyrant hath not his end, but is by that means utterly defeated of it. And  
3. I shall be an infinite gainer by it, for I shall have an infinite Reward for what I suffer, and what I lose.   But there is a vast difference between suffering for the Faith of Christ, and for the frame of a Political Government; for if I may not resist I am overcome. 

2. If I am overcome, the Tyrant gets his End; namely, an Arbitrary Power. And  
3. He has promised no Reward for such Voluntary entering into Bondage, or owning an usurped Authority.   The Church and the frame of the State stand upon Two several Bottoms, God has promised to support the Church, and there needs no Arm of flesh to defend it under the worst of Governments: But the frame of every Government is a Humane Structure; and though God does empower and authorise every Government, yet he has left the Choice of the several kinds to the Parties, and has promised to bless them in the just Administration of their several Choices; but no where has he promised to support the particular frame they chose, that as their Prudence raised it, so their Prudence must defend it, or it must fall at every King's pleasure, and when they have chosen out the Frame, God that approves it, grants neither the King nor the People greater Privileges than the Frame itself expresses, which in divers Nations is different, some submitting to be governed by the will of him they Voluntarily chose. Others to one that will Govern by Laws of their own making, and his approving. Others to one of their preceding Kings Race or Line. Others to a multitude. Others to a few of the best and presumptively wisest Persons, and every People's choice must be the measure of their Obedience, if they have made an ill Bargain they must stand to it, and if they have made a good one they may stand for it. If therefore any Governor challenge more of the Subject than is in the Submission, That Subjects may by the Laws of God and Man deny to yield it. And if the Prince deny to give the Subject as much as in the Grant, the Subject may challenge his Right, and if by Force or Fraud, contrary to the Frame of the Government, the Governor will force the Governed from his Right, the Obligation of subjection ceases so far, and he may defend himself from the oppression and injustice as well as he can.  
Obj. 2. But he must defend himself in God's way, his defence must be without Sin. And that is either by Prayers to God, or Entreaties to the Prince, or by Suffering; for the Scripture says, all Power are of God, and they that resist the Power, resist the Ordinance of God. Rom. 13.2. And St. Peter gives Christians in Charge, that they submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake.  
Answ. All Powers indeed are of God, that is, every Government has God's Warrant to proceed according to the Frame of the Government, to the End of the Government, which is the public Good. The Power is of God, but the Restraint of the Power is in the Frame of the Government, and the Frame is an humane Ordinance or Structure, as the Apostle, elegantly Expresses it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he therefore that resisteth the Government, proceedeth according to the Frame of the Government, resisteth the Ordinance of God. But if the Governor proceed neither according to the Frame of the Government, nor to the End, but against it, such Process cannot be the Ordinance of God, unless God have two contradictory Ordinances of Force, at one time in the same Government, and then the command may be true and false, and the Subjects duty good and evil, and men would be perpetually distracted with serving two Masters. This would make the Government God's and the Devil's, and as no less than to put a Blasphemous Juggle upon the Ordinance of God: which is always simple, and at one with itself. These Scriptures therefore cannot tie us to obey the Governor contrary to the Government, because they tie us to obey the Government; and that this is all they tie us from resisting, is evident by the Reason, St. Paul gives, which is, because the Resisters resist the Ordinance of God; and therefore it is warily expressed, if it were but as warily read, for it is not whosoever resisteth the person or the will of the Governor, but whosoever resisteth the Power (and that Power is neither more nor less than the Frame of the Government expresses) resisteth the Ordinance of God, and to this Resistance the Penalty is annexed.  
But it does not follow, because I may not resist the Ordinance of God, that I may not resist the powerless and inauthoritative, unjust, Attempts of Superiors upon me, for then a Soldier might not resist his Captain that would rob him, nor a Married Manservant his Master that would force his Wife.  
This I think evidences, That to resist a Superior and his evil Instruments and Accomplices, while they Act contrary to the Frame of the Government, is not to resist the Power of God, or the Ordinance of God, but to keep off those who usurp upon the Power of God, and the Frame of the Government, and the just Rights of others. For I would fain know of the Doctors of Nonresistance, whether the Act that contains the Test, have the stamp of God's Authority upon it or no; if it have not, the Power of the King and Parliament is no Power of God; if it have, then to resist, that is to resist the Ordinance of God: And those Commissions that are contrary to it, have no Power from God: If the affirmative be true the negative is of no force. And therefore to resist such Commissions, is not to resist the Ordinance of God, unless God's Ordinances be contradictory, and that would render God guilty of double dealing, as well as the Jesuits. Which being utterly impossible, it must be concluded, That the resisting such Commissions, and the Instruments acting by them, is not to resist Lawful Authority, but to remove Unlawful; not to do evil, but to hinder it; not to sin, but to prevent Sinners for doing mischief; and it would be very hard measure for a Man to be damned for doing such a good Office. Bishop Bilson, therefore speaking of this Text, says, It is not resisting the King's Will against Law, but according to Law that is forbidden. And both Barclay, and Grotius affirm, That the People may in divers Cases resist Kings that are tied to govern by Law, which they could not do, did they think these Scriptures forbade all resistance.  
Much indeed is said from the Practice of the Jews, and the Primitive Christians, and the Subjection of Servants, but nothing to the purpose; for their Case is not ours, more than their frame of Government is ours; their Servants were Slaves, and their Kings and Emperor's Wills were their Laws; their People had no Magna Chartaes' to show, nor Fundamental Compacts, and so could plead no injustice in any command, the frame of the Government. Warranted all those commands that had the Royal pleasure: Their Political Power was more extensive than their Moral Power. The People were wholly at the Mercy of the Prince: All their Laws were Acts of Grace, not fundamental Reserves and inherent Rights, and therefore in Spirituals they had no Cause to resist, and in Temporals they might not, as was observed above. If they had been under limited Governments as we are, we might have heard of Blows as well as Words, St. Paul was never so virulent with his Tongue, as when he was smitten contrary to Law.  
Obj. 3. But the Person of the King is Sacred, and must not be touched.  
Answ. I say so too; but it is his just Power that makes him so. And therefore in dangerous times, he is to be counselled and persuaded to secure himself, by keeping within the Sanctuary of the Laws, and holding them forth for the Public Good, by gaining the Affections of the People, and being content with that measure of Power that is proper to the Government. For if he do not, Right may and aught to be defended, and resistance (for the Public Good) of Illegal Commissioned Forces, is not resisting the King's Person, but his Forces; not his Power, but his Force without Power. If none would execute the King's contradictory Commands, none would resist; and if he will against all Justice, Prudence and Persuasions, joys with wicked Men, and wilfully expose himself to the mercy of blind Bullets, charge is to be given to all, that none kill him wittingly or wilfully; the hand that lifted him up may not pull him down: God forbidden that any should think of killing him de industriâ, or despair of his repentance before God does, nothing past can prejudice a Penitent before God, and I hope not before Men; thus the King's Person and Power will be safe in the midst of a Civil War, not so safe as in peaceable times, but as safe as can consist with the Subjects Right, when their Religion and Laws, Liberty and Property, are Violently invaded. And therefore if any thing befall his Person by their hands, it is but a chance and accidental thing, which may happen also in peaceable times.  
This shows that Resisting the King's illegal commissioned Forces, in defence of their own Rights, is not Resisting the Ordinance of God, and consequently no Sin; and then the Conscience is not tied otherwise than the Laws of the Land, and the particular Frame of the Government ties it.  
Obj. 4. But to resist the King, or his Commissioners, is against the Frame of the Government, it being a Monarchy, and against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm.  
Answ. If it be so, it is a great Sin; but as it is certain this is a Monarchy, so it is certain that it is limited in the Foundation, otherwise the King would have all the Legislative Power, and the Parliament no Authority or Right but derived from him, and then he must be Arbitrary, and we Slaves, and all our Laws must be Acts of Grace, not Fundamental Rights: Not from any inherent Power refereed at the Institution to ourselves, and never submitted to the Prince, but from the Gracious condescension of an Absolute Monarch, which is contrary to the Story of all times, which shows that the People ever claimed Liberty and Property, according to their Ancient Laws and Customs, not as a Gift, but as a Right inherent in themselves, and never Transferred, Aliened, or Conveyed to any King, but Declared, Recognized and Confirmed to them by many.  
I shall therefore suppose (what I thick none can upon sufficient grounds deny) that the King is bound by all the sacred Ties of God and Man, to Govern by the Laws, and not otherwise, neither by a Foreign Law, nor by one of his own framing, nor by any Word or Will contrary to Law, seeing nothing can have the force of Law here, but what has the joint Consent of King and Parliament, and that in a Parliamentary way, and this shows us in Terms of Submission that are sworn to on both sides. The King and the People by a joint consent makes Laws, and make them the common Rule betwixt them, the King swears to observe the Laws, and the People swear to obey the King, and to leave the Execution of the Laws to the King to be managed for the public good.  
Therefore as long as he Governs by Law, he and all his Ministers are safe enough from Resistance, the Resister being liable to be punished both by God and Man; and the sole administration being left to the King, Subjects all but himself to Criminal Process, and even himself to Civil, but his Person and Power are safe in both, he may be severe in the Execution of the Laws many times, but not unjust; As, if he will not suspend a Burdensome Law, or Revive an Antiquated one, when the Public good requires it, This may render him uncharitable or imprudent, but he is safe yet; For though he be bound to proceed according to Law, yet he is not tied to proceed always according to the best Methods, when there are divers. But if he stop the Courts of Justice, erect new ones, or proceed contrary to Law, he Acts without Authority and against his own Authority, and puts on a kind of a Vizard, that his Subjects can neither know him nor their Duty; for it is the Laws that direct them to the Person of the King, and their own Duty, without which they could know neither: And if the End be not the Public Good it is downright Injustice, as well as politically Powerless. Necessity indeed may justify a Political, unlawful Act for the Public Good. As in case of an Invasion to burn a Garrison rather than it should be a refuge for the Enemy, or to open Sluices and to drown a part of the Country, for though these things have not the form of Law, they have the reason, and that is Public Good: And therefore it is not Law but Necessity, not the King's Command but Public Good, that warrants these Acts. And when Peace returns, the Injured are to have satisfaction made by the Public, not as of Charity, but as of Justice, which shows that the Law looks upon it as a Trespass, justified only by Necessity and the Public Good. And the particular Persons here, have reason to be quiet and make no resistance, because they shall reap double benefit by it, one in the Public Good, and another from the Public Treasure. But it does not follow, that if the King in an angry mood, should command his Guards to fire Newmarket, because he had lost an Horse-race there, or had a mind to have a Bonfire, because he had won one, that the Inhabitants might not resist them.  
Obj. 5. By what Law? Not by the Law of the Land?  
Answ. Yes, By the Law of the Land a Petty Constable's Word would justify Resistance, better than the King's Commission could justify the illegal Attempt. But suppose there were no Person that had the least Authority, and that the resistance could not be within the prescribed Form of Government; yet because the force is an unauthoritative force, and because there is greater necessity of the End of the Government than of the Form; Men may by the Law of Nature and the Law of Reason proceed to the End, not without all Form, but without the Political Form, for those proceed that are according to Reason, are not simply under no Law, but under a more extensive Law; and that Law justifies resistance, even of Superiors, when there is no other way of defence left the People. If the Case will admit of Entreaties, or sober Counsels, or legal Appeals, they are to be used; but if there be no rooms for these, or if they take no place, but illegal force be used, that force may, nay must be resisted, or evil is consented to. For he that will not serve the Public by that means when there is no other, does actually consent to the ruin of it. He that has his House on fire, and will not stir to quench the flames though he be able, is willing sure it should be burnt. The Rules of Prudence indeed are to be observed, for if there be no probability that resistance will prevent the Evil, the attempt is Folly, and if resistance will do more harm than good it is inserviceable; and if there be any other means effectual it is unreasonable, for it ought to be the last refuge, and then if the Cause be Good, Necessity justifies proceeding to the End: Not by illegal Means, but by suspending the Political Form, and appealing to the Reason of Mankind, and introducing the Law of Nature: And this is no more than when Judgement at Common-Law is reversed in Chancery, the Form of the Law gives place to Equity and sound Reason.  
Obj. 6. But is it Rebellion?  
Answ. I Answer, Rebellion is resisting the just Power of the Government, and if so, than it is no Rebellion to resist the unjust and usurped Power, for than it would be Rebellion to resist Rebellion, and there could be no such thing as a just defence against the exorbitant Power of Princes; and then the King might Commission a Captain, or a Colonel, to role up and down in the Country and Plunder, and it would be Rebellion in the Posse Com. (at least in any Private Family) to resist them. And a private Commission to cut our Throats would tie our Hands till the business were done. But the resisting such Force, as has neither Moral nor Political Power, is no more Rebellion than to fight against a Wild Beast, that came with Strength, but no Authority to devour them. The Papists indeed have taken up Arms, without and against the just Power of this Land, not only against the Form of Law, but to the overthrow of the Laws, and Fundamental Rights of this Government, directly against the Letter, the Power, and the End of the Law, which is as enslaving to the Subjects as an usurping Conquest; and it is no more Rebellion to resist them, than Wat Tyler or Jack Cade: They are Rebels who Arm against the Government, not they that defend it by Arms.  
Obj. 7. But this is to usurp the Power of the Sword, which by the Frame of the Government is wholly in the King's Hand.  
Answ. The Political Power of the Sword indeed is in the King, but that does not divest the Subject of all defence by Arms, but only of such defence as is against or inconsistent with the Political Power. If force be offered that wants Political Power, whoever does it, does it but in the Nature of a private Person, and private Persons may resist such. The Right of Self defence is a precedent Right to all Policy; and every Man has so much of it still, as is not given up unto the Political Power he lives under. They therefore that have given themselves up to be governed by Law only, have Right to defend themselves, not only against the private Assailant, which is allowed in all Governments, but also against illegal Force. And this Resistance is no Usurpation upon the Magistrate's Power, because it is not an Act of Civil Authority, but of Natural Right: And if thousands join in the Attempt, they are all Volunteers; a Multitude, but no body Corporate; and such as challenge no Authority over those they resist, but deny Subjection to such unauthoritative Force: For such Force wanting Political Power, has no Power but Strength, and Strength authorises none to injure, but Natural Right authorises every one to defend himself; so that in this case, the Resister has a moral Power or Warrant, but the illegal Invader none at all.  
Obj. 8. But the Resisters ought not to do an unlawful Act to suppress such illegal Force.  
Answ. I Answer, That Act is not simply Unlawful that wants Political Power; the Law is made for the public Good as the End, and therefore if the prescribed means be not sufficient for the End, the Law permits that other reasonable means be used, otherwise People might dwell upon the Shadow till 've lost the Substance. The Posse Com. ought not by the prescribed form of Law to go into another County; but if the other County at that time had no Sheriff, whereby the power of that County could not be raised to defend itself; or if there were Ships in the Borders of the next County, to which the Plunderers might escape if they were not hotly pursued, I question not but the Posse Com. might do a commendable Act to pursue them, and take them in the next County. The Law was made for the public Good, and not the Public Good for the Law; and therefore when the Law cannot answer its own End, or prescribes ineffectual Means, any just and honest Means may be used; and this is not destructive of the Law, but suppletory; not a violating the Form prescribed, but an improving it: And though a Man may be called to account for doing a Good Act in such a manner, I suppose it is but to know the Truth of the Matter, and to preserve the Reverence of the Laws; for he is already cleared in his own Conscience, and in the Breasts of all Good Men; and a Pardon in that case does but declare it is so, and aught of Right (not of Grace) to be granted. For it is not necessary in respect of any Crime, but in respect of some defect in the Law, which had not made sufficient provision for the Public Good.  
Obj. 9 But it is against true Allegiance, and an Oath must be kept though it be to our own hurt.  
Answ. True Allegiance must be proportioned to the Frame of the Government, and the end of that Frame. Therefore if the Frame be to restrain Arbitrary Power, the Subject cannot owe Arbitrary Allegiance. Allegiance is more in some places, and less in others; but no Man can owe so much Duty to his Prince, as not to have a Salvo for God and his Life, and here we can owe none that is against our Laws and the Public Good, for that would destroy the Government. Our Allegiance therefore must be bounded by our Laws, and not by the King's Word, or Will: No Man can swear to obey the King's Word or Will simply, but according to Law. It would be Sin to tie ourselves to think, or speak, or do, what he would have us at large. Our Allegiance therefore must be such as will consist with the Frame of our Government, and that must be such as is couched in the Body of our Laws. Other Allegiance there can be none, but what is wrapped up in Courtesies and Formalities. For it seems the King, as well as the People, is under the Law in some Sense, under the direction of it, though not under the constraint; and therefore at his Coronation, he does a kind of Fealty to the Laws and Government, and swears Allegiance to them, as to a Supreme Lord. The Oath is not only, Will you grant the Laws, but will you grant and keep the Laws and Customs of England; and the Answer is, I grant and promise to keep them. It is certain therefore, no Allegiance to the King can be against Law, to which he himself owes Allegiance.  
The Case being thus far clear, That the Allegiance sworn to, is no other but our Legal Duty; it does not hinder but that we may resist Illegal Force. When the King of the Scots swore Allegiance to our King, it did not deprive him of a just defence of his just Right, by taking up Arms if he were oppressed. And the King of England when he swore Allegiance to the King of France, made no scruple to take up Arms against his Liege Lord, in defence of his just Rights: And the Old Lawyers tells us, That the very Villain might in case of Rape and Murder Arm against his Lord; and if the Law Arm a Villain against his Lord, Subjects are worse than Villains, if they may not Arm against their Sovereign Lord's Illegal Forces, in defence of their Laws, Lives, Estates, and the Public Good; but what makes it most evident is the Clause in King Henry's Charter, which says, If the King invade those Rights, it is Lawful for the Kingdom to rise against him, and do him what injury they can, as though they owed him no Allegiance; The Words are these (if my Author fail me not) Licet omnibus de Regno nostro, contra nos insurgere, & omnia agere quae gravamen noster respiciant, ac si nobis in nullo tenerentur. Much to the same purpose is in King John's Charter, which I find thus quoted. Et Illi Barones, cum communa totius terrae, distringent & gravabunt Nos. Modis omnibus quibus poterunt; scilicet per captionem Castrorum, terrarum, possessionum, etalis modis quibus potuerint, donet fuerint emendatum, secundum Arbitrium eorum, salva personâ nostra & Reginae nostrae & Liberorum nostrorum. Much may be said of this Nature about the Old Allegiance, which was all couched in Homage and Fealty; but this enough to show that true Allegiance does not tie us from resisting Illegal Force, and Intolerable Encroachments upon our just Rights.  
Obj. 10. But such Resistance would be against the Declaration, which says, It is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King, etc.  
Answ. The Latitude of the Word Lawful causes the Scruple, which at first View seems to tell us, That it is sinful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up Arms against the King, etc. But it is no good consequence to say, That it is sinful because it is unlawful, unless the Discourse be restrained to the Laws of God. I must confess it is Politically unlawful for Subjects in any Case, or for any Cause whatever, to take up Arms against the King, and those Commissioned by him; because such a taking up Arms here can have no Political Authority: But it is Morally lawful in all limited Governments to resist that Force that wants Political Power. The Regal Power is  in all Persons, from the King to the Petty Constable; but it does not hinder but that all these Persons may be resisted, when they do what they have no Political Power to. They that have a limited Power, and a prescribed Duty, may either Act against, or beyond their Commission; and when they so do, they may be resisted: For such Acts have no Political Power in them, though the Persons have to other Purposes. If a Commission should be granted to a Company of Ruffians to Plunder and Massacre, they might have something more of the King's Affections, but no more of his Authority than private Robbers had; and consequently might be resisted with equal Honesty. None therefore can make this Declaration in its full Latitude, but upon this presumption, That the King and his Ministers keep perpetually within the Bounds of the Law; otherwise they declare the King has an Arbitrary Power, which is against the Fundamental Laws of this Land, and a kind of Treason against the State: For if he may not be resisted in any Case, he may be under some Moral restraint, but under no Political restraint; and consequently the Political Frame of the Government must be Arbitrary. The meaning therefore of this Declaration can be no other, but that a Man can have no Civil Power or Authority in any Case to take up Arms against the King, etc. But this does not debar any Man of the Natural Right of Self-defence, by Private Arms against Inauthoritative Force.  
Obj. 11. To this some reply, that seeing God hath placed the Governing (though limited) Power in the King's Hand, no Man may, by any Natural Right or Private Defence, resist his illegal Force; God's Power must not be resisted, though abused.  
Answ. There is a great difference between the abuse of Power, and the want of Power; and therefore this Argument either supposes the Power greater than it is, or concludes ill. The King and Parliament have indeed an Arbitrary Power (I do not say Infinite, but as Extensive as the Frame of the Government will bear) and therefore if they make a very grievous Law (though they ought not, for they are under a Moral restraint though no Political) neither the King nor any of his Ministers may be resisted in the due Execution of it. But the King has no Power to burden us beyond or against Law; and we may thank our own Weakness if ever we have Strength to do it. This shows us there is a great difference betwixt the abuse of Political Power and the want of it. Abused Power must not be resisted, but Force without Power may. The Political Power of Arbitrary Princes, is more extensive than their Moral Power: And this ties the Subject to Nonresistance, when he is Immorally or Unchristianly used. They that subject themselves to another's Discretion, divest themselves of all defence. But they that reserve Property and Liberty to themselves, may justly defend them, when they are unjustly invaded. Had the King an Arbitrary Power, which he did abuse to vex the Protestants, I for my part should think myself obliged to suffer and not resist, as I believe did all the Primitive Christians; but seeing he has no Political Power to use me as he lists, and the most Absolute Monarch has no Moral Power to do an unjust Act to his Subject: I should be a senseless Fool, it without any Obligation either from God or Man, I should stand Blows rather than withstand them. The Truth is, Nonresistance stretched thus far, under this Government, would make us like the Two Fools that went to the Field to fight with one Staff, with which Vice Versa, he that had it, cudgelled the other, who stood all the while with his Hands in his Pocket Valiantly bearing all the Blows his Brother Fool thought good to lay on.  
2. Others conclude otherwise against this Doctrine, and say, The King having the Sacred Power Lodged in him, may not be resisted, though he Act without, or against that Power, for reverence of that Just Power of God that is in him.  
This looks like a piece of Courtship to God, and smells more of Superstition than Divinity: God requires no Honour to the prejudice of Justice, or the Advancement of Injustice; but this too Devout kind of Reverence would enable a bad Prince to injure the Innocent, and would leave Justice defenceless on Earth. Just Power is a Sanctuary indeed, but the Sanctuary is of no larger extent than the Power. This is evident by the Tenor of all Commissions, the Granter must have a competent Power of what he Grants, and that Warrants the Executor to proceed to the and of the Grant; but the having Power to one Purpose, cannot protect a Man from Resistance, if he proceed to another. The Chimneyman that is  in his Office, is Resistable if he gather the Corn in the Town-fields: And the King that Receives his Commission from the King of Heaven to execute the Law, and is therefore  in the Execution of it, is yet Resistable, if he shut up all the Courts of Justice, and abuse his Subjects contrary to Law: In this case he Acts not by the Power of God, but his Own; by an Arm of Flesh, or the Strength of Wicked Men (not by any Political Power, or Moral Power) but by the Savage Power of a Beast, or the Malicious Power of Hell. And how any Honour should accrue to God by a Voluntary submitting to such a Power, is beyond my comprehension; they are most likely to Honour God, that stand up most for his Power, and will submit to no other.  
I have brought in these Two Objections here, because the Declaration is the most specious and obvious Plea for Nonresistance, and is usually backed with one of these Conceits; that either want of Political Power, is but abuse of Political Power; or that a limited Political Power is a Sanctuary for unlimited Actions in whomsoever it rests.  
Obj. 12. But to resist such Forces as are Commissioned by the King, is against the Royal Prerogative of the Crown.  
Answ. The King has no Prerogatives (except such as are wrapped up in honorary Formalities) but what the Law gives him, we must not therefore presume a Prerogative, and then conclude it Law; but first find the Law, and by it prove the Prerogative; and when we have found the Prerogative, it must be measured by what the Public Good will bear, and not by what the Absoluteness of the Prerogative will admit: For no Prerogative can be used that is against the Frame of the Government, or the Public Good. Interpretations of Law therefore ought rather to favour Liberty and Property than Prerogative; because the benefiting of the Subject comes nearer to the End of the Government, than the excessive Honouring the Prince. Honorary Prerogatives are in their Degree necessary, and not superfluous; there must be something to maintain the Reverence of Magistrates, but they ought to give way to Public Interest; and the rest are nothing but Powers placed in the King to do Good with, and not Good or Ill as he pleases. A Prerogative therefore cannot destroy a Law, but it may supply its Defects, pardoning a Condemned Innocent, or a hopeful Penitent, or dispensing with a Law, to one, that by particular Accident, the Law in its Rigour would undo: But no Prerogative can Empower the King to destroy the People's Liberty or Property. That dispensing Power, that like a State Opium, casts all the Laws asleep, and is an Engine of Public Mischief, is no Prerogative belonging to the Crown of England, but a Vice that does not belong to it. For it brings Gild upon the King, and Damage upon the Subject, and is a real diminution of the Dignities of the Crown: For it, and such like, serve only to Empower the King to do Mischief with securely; that is, they give an Immunity from Punishment, but not from Gild. As suppose the King by such a claimed Prerogative, should shut up all the Courts of Justice, so that none should be had; he might be free from Punishment, but not from Gild; he is clear by Necessity only, not by Right; the Case Transcends the Frame of the Government, none can Judge him that has neither Equals nor Superiors, and so he escapes; because he cannot be Punished, not because he deserves it not. Thus the pretended Prerogative bespatters him, and so leaves him.  
Obj. 13. But it is against the Supremacy; for the Supreme aught to have the Supreme credit, both in judging what is Law, and what is for the Public Good.  
Answ. As the King is Supreme in the Executive part, so the Parliament have a share in the Legislative, which I take to be the very Apex of Supremacy, and therefore they ought to have their share in interpreting Laws as well as the King, or his Judges; because none knows the meaning so well as the Makers, if they be alive; and if they be dead, none knows the public Necessities so well; none so unlikely to deceive, or be deceived, being so numerous; none likely to be so faithful, and so unlikely to be corrupted, having so great an interest in the public Good; none like to be so effectual in working a compliance in the People's hearts, seeing it is in effect their own Determination: But yet they cannot do it without the King, for that would place his Parliament above himself.  
The King indeed is Supreme in the Legislative part as well as in the Executive part, but he has not the whole Supremacy in the Legislative part as he has in the Executive: He is the Head of that Body in which it rests, but the Power (like the Soul of Man) is in the whole Body, though most eminently in the Head. The Parliament have their Existence, but not their Essence from him. When they are called together, they Act by a proper and inherent Right of their own, and not by the King's Commission and Direction. It may be good Manners to fall upon what he directs them to first, but if any thing of greater Moment require dispatch, they must wave a Compliment to do a real Kindness to the public Interest; which they could not do, were they his Commissioners, and received their power to Act by from him: It is unnatural for the Stream to stop the Fountain head. But seeing they Act by their own inherent Power, when met, they can restrain in the King that he cannot make a Law without them, or give such an interpation of any, either by himself or his Judges, as shall bind the Subjects to follow, or is not Reversible in Parliament; for such Interpretation is part of the Legislative Power, and that rests in the King and Subjects Conjunctim. Had the King Authority to bind his Interpretations for Law upon the Subject, he might at Pleasure elude any Law, and Law would be but a Sconce for Arbitrary Power. The Opinion indeed of the Judges is reverend, but not irreversible. None can finally bind an Interpretation on the Subject but those that can make Law: Therefore if the King and Parliament differ about the sense of a Law, it is not legally decided till both agree in one sense. But that sense that is really for the Public Good has the Right of a Law, though not the Form, and they that justify such an Interpretation, are justifiable by the Law of Nature; for though it transcend the Process of Courts, and cannot have the force of a political Law, yet Reason (Mankind's prime Law) justifies Men to prefer a public Good before a private Interest; and what is for the Public Good, they that feel are best able to Judge.  
Obj. 14. But it is Disobedience.  
Answ. Disobedience to a Lawful Command is a Grievous Crime, and a great Sin; but it may be a great duty to disobey an unlawful Command. Obedience is due as far as the Law requires, and something farther; a particular Person must suffer rather than the Honour and Majesty of the Prince should be brought into Contempt; for though the Law does not bind to this, yet Conscience and Reason do, the public Interest must be promoted, Scandal prevented, and the Government secured from Contempt, though it prejudice some particular Person; for such Contempt may arise from a just refusal of Obedience in some small and single Instances, and may be of worse consequence to the Public than a private Injury, but if the thing commanded tend to destroy the Government, or introduce a general Calamity, Disobedience becomes a Duty, and such commands (in this Government) are Morally, Politically, and Divinely Powerless; and the Disobedient, in such a Case, does the King as good Service, as he that discovers Treason; for he gives him Notice that his Foot is entering into a Snare, and that his Preservation stands in desisting, and repenting if he would but heed it: And if the Disobedience be once Good, the higher it goes the better it is, continuing still Good; it is absurd to go from Good to Worse extensively. Disobedience that is Good, is still better as it is more likely to prevent the Evil: And then Disobedience Defensive, is doubtless better than Passive; for that would introduce the Evil Voluntarily, that is, they that were not willing to do it themselves, were yet willing to let others do it; and how far that can clear them I see not. For though it is not a downright consenting to subvert the Government, yet it is a consenting that it shall be done, rather than they will run the hazard to defend it, or prevent it; which is but Pilate-like, to wash the Hands of what their Hearts tell them they are Accessary to.  
Obj. 15. But War is hurtful to the State.  
Answ. The Arm that is broke cannot set itself, nor can he that sets it, set it by any Natural Power derived from the Spirit: but by a Violent disturbing them again, the Bonesetter is often forced to pull them further asunder ere he can join them well; and so it is when Wicked Men have disjointed and broken the Bones of State, the languishing Law cannot restore itself, nor can those that seek to restore it, restore it without doing Violence to its broken part; but it is better to do that Violence than to let them grow Crooked or Gangreen. He that has taken Poison must suffer the Violence of a Vomit; and they that are Sick must be made Sicker oft before they can be made Well. The prejudice therefore the Government receives, by those that go about to restore it, does no more denominate them Enemies to the State than the little griping of Physic can denominate Physicians Enemies to Nature. The Evil proceeds from the Disease, not the Remedy, and the Gild is upon them that gave the Wound, not those that dressed it; all the Anguish and Smart that follows the Skilful Surgeons Hand, is not to be attributed to the Chirurgeon, but to the Wicked Assasline; and therefore though this Restoration have the Evil of a Civil War, yet the Gild of all that Evil lies upon the Causers. Men are not bound to lose their Right for fear of harming Wicked Men, nor to save a less Good, by losing a greater; a short Evil is to be chosen rather than a perpetual one: Men had better drudge to preserve their own Freedom, than to enter into Bondage to drudge for others; and the Patriots of our Country do well to bear the Burden of a War, rather than to become Slaves themselves, and leave Popery, Beggary, and Slavery to their Posterity.  
Obj. 16. But it is an unsafe and dangerous Medicine, it opens a gap to the People to rebel at Pleasure, and may endanger the change of the Government.  
Answ. A desperate Disease must have a desperate Cure, but doing right can no way open to do wrong; resisting illegal Forces, is hedging up a Gap, not making one. Raising of Men to take a Felon, will not excite the same Men to rise and seize an honest Man: We must not therefore forbear to take up Arms in a just Cause, lest it should encourage others to take up Arms in a bad Cause; for then some that were breaking the Peace, and would not be quieted with Words might not be resisted, lest it should teach the People to break the Peace; but Blows bestowed on such Malefactors is no breach of Peace, and therefore can teach the People no such thing; if they do ill by that Example it is not long of the Copy, but of those that do not heed to write by it.  
2. I know Men in Passion, and heightened with Success, and backed with Strength, are apt to soar with high, and fall in love with new Inventions. But this hazard must be run, rather than a certain change admitted. Resisting Illegalities, and Misgovernment, is the way to preserve Government; and as long as the King is safe, and his just Power and Prerogatives, the Government is in no danger; and there is not the least Colour imaginable that those that have surrendered their Offices and Honours, the Court and the King's Favour, for preserving the Government, and are now ready to hazard their Lives in defence of it, will ever alter it: No, their design is to preserve it; a greater Evidence of which they could not give at present than to petition for a Free Parliament.  
Obj. 17. But this casts dirt upon the Frame of the Government, leaving room for perpetual quarrelling.  
Answ. Neither this, nor any other Government that I know of, affords absolute means of Peace and Preservation: The Government is effectual enough so far as it reaches, but it is not extensive enough. If the Monarch were Arbitrary, than no Cause could introduce Resistance; the Nation might be at Peace, but the Subjects is could not be safe, and Liberty and Property would be lost: Therefore if Safety, Liberty and Property be worth the preserving, they must be defended when Wicked Men would wrest them from us. The Constitution of this Government is such, That if the King and Parliament, or the King and the Subjects differ about Fundamental Rights, they have no way to reconcile the difference but by their own Consent. If the King without the Parliament could determine the difference, he would be Arbitrary; and if the People of the Parliament could determine it without him; they would be Supreme, and then it could be no Monarchy; and if the Judges had the determining Power, they would get the Supremacy from both; and if a Foreigner were to decide the Matter, he would seek his own Advantage; so that they must either condescend for Peace sake to one another's Proposals, so as not to destroy the Government, or they must suffer the Grievance, and let the Quarrel fall for a time, till the injurious can be worn to a compliance, or they must fight it out; for that is their going to Law, the Soldiers are their Jurymen, and Victory is their Verdict. For the Question is not about breach of Government, but whether that be the Government, or no; and seeing this Cause transcends the Executive part of the Government, it cannot be decided by Legal Process, but by Lawmakers, and if they cannot agree, Men are at liberty to join with that side they judge in the right: Reason and Conscience must be their Guide, the Law cannot, and they that proceed on this ground are their own Warrants on either side, for neither have a Legal Power to determine the other: Therefore the Power of Judging is neither Authoritative nor Civil, and so argues no Superiority in those that Judge, but only a Power residing in reasonable Creatures, or judging of their own Act, of which they never were devested by any Lawful Authority, and therefore may lawfully use upon such Occasions; and though the Government does not warrant a Civil War, in such a case, yet the End and Reason of this Government does. For it being framed to prevent the exorbitant Power of the Prince, for the public Good; he that fights for the public Good, againg an Usurped Power, or an Arbitrary Invader of the Governments Rights, is justified by the design and intendment of the Frame, and consequently by the equity of the Government, though not by any Prescribed Form. For seeing many things are morally Honest and Profitable, that are not reduced into positive Laws, Men cannot proceed to those things (if at any time they become necessary) by prescribed Forms of Law, because they have none; and so, in this case, the question being not about Breach of Law, but what is Law. And the Law not able to satisfy both King and People, each claiming contrary Rights from the same Laws, the Decision of this Case, though it be very Good and Profitable for this Nation, yet has no prescribed form of Law to direct us to; and therefore both King and People are to proceed according to moral Honesty, to the end of the Government, that is, the public Good.  
The conclusion of all which is, That seeing resisting of Illegal and Arbitrary Forces, in defence of the Laws and Public Interest of the Land, is not against the Scriptures, and consequently no Sin; nor against moral Honesty, and consequently no Crime (not against Law but Law-breakers, not against true Allegiance or any Prerogative of the Crown, no Rebellion, no Usurpation of the Sword, nor Criminal Disobedience, and not incommodious or unsafe for the Public, in respect of the impendant Injuries and Hazards it remove) nor inconsistent with the Frame of Government, which cannot otherwise decide and Obstinate difference betwixt King and People. I cannot but conclude it is a very Worthy and Virtuous Act to be in Arms for defence of the Laws, the King's just Rights and the public Good; and consequently that those Gentlemen, who are in Arms for defence of our Laws, Liberties, and Lives, against Illegal Forces, Arbitrary Commands, and Usurped Powers, are in a Virtuous Post. For if the Subject's Rights might not be defended by this means, it would be all lost; it being all one, in these days, to have no Right, and to have no sufficient means to defend it. The Doctrine of Nonresistance plainly puts all we have into an ill King's Lands, and the good Ones will scarce part with what they are apt to love so dearly, and we parted with so freely; should we therefore Preach this Doctrine to our Princes, and tell them that they might take what we have without danger or opposition, we should teach them to try our Patience, if all must be referred to their Consciences, they will soon (without the help of a Jesuit) find case enough and cause enough to secure that, and leave the examination of them to the latter Day; hatred of our Persons, love of our Estates, disgust at our Words, or Actions, or dislike of our Religion, will soon judge us unworthy of our Liberty and Property, as well as i● has already done of our Offices, Honours, and Preferments: Passion and Scorn, Pride and Ambition, Covetousness and Prodigality, would all prey upon what we had, with a quiet (though not with a good) Conscience; but especially if the King were Poor and Necessitous, either by wilful Profuseness or Negligence; for Nature would even tell him in such a Case, That we had all better want than he, and then farewell Property; the worst you could do him was but to pet and cry a bit, and perhaps that might become a Pleasure to him too; and than you had nothing to; rest on, but that God would give you the Kingdom of Heaven, for beggering yourselves, impovershing the Church, and giving what you had to the Devil's Service▪ an ill ground for such costly hopes to stand upon.  
2. This Doctrine renders Government prejudicial to the greatest part of Mankind, depriving them of all just defence: For the Illegal Force bars them of Legal Defence; and the Doctrine of Nonresistance bars them of Corporal, and so Man (under one of the best Governments in the World) is left Naked in the midst of Savage Beasts, (for homo lupus) and must not, though be able, make any defence for himself. Thus all the Rights of Society and Nature, are sacraficed to the lust and age of a Wicked King, and his Evil Instruments; and the Body Politic is really in a worse condition than an unlimited Multitude, for they may defend themselves (if they will) against any Enemy; but these have an Enemy, and may not defend themselves, though in never so just a Cause; and what is worst of all, must hold their own Hands whilst others cut their Throats.  
Lastly. This Doctrine would make all Monarches Arbitrary Monarches, and a like in effect; for if the Subjects may not (nor aught if they were able) resist the Prince any further than by refusing to join with him, than he were Arbitrary, and might do what he pleased without opposition, he had but a Moral restrant, and the most absolute Monarch had that upon him; and all limitations in the Fundamentals of Government would be idle and superfluous, because they contained only such Rights as others might take faom us at Pleasure, and we might not defend or oppose. But the end of limited Monarchies is, not that the Monarch might not Lawfully or Rightfully oppress; for an Arbitrary Monarch is bound to all that. But the end of all limitations in Government is, that the Prince may want Means as well as Right to oppress, that he may not be able to injure the Subject at all, either Lawfully or Unlawfully; they are limited to govern by Laws, that they may want Means as well as Right to include the Subjects Property. But the Doctrine of Nonresistance gives them Means for a Temptation, and is indeed but a fair Bait to draw them into a Snare.  
FINIS.