The Wounded CONSCIENCE cured, the weak one strengthened, and the doubting satisfied. By way of Answer to Doctor Fearne. Where the main point is rightly stated, and Objections throughly answered for the good of those who are willing not to be deceived. By WILLIAM BRIDGE, Preacher of God's Word.  1 TIM. 1. 19 Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away; and concerning faith, have made shipwreck. Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods. 
IT is Ordered this 30 day of January, 1642. by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament, concerning Printing, that this Answer to Dr. Fearnes Book be printed.  
John White.  
The second Edition, corrected and amended. Whereunto are added three Sermons of the same Author; 1. Of Courage, preached to the Volunteers. 2. Of stoppage in God's mercies to England, with their remedies. 3. A preparation for suffering in these plundering times.  
London, Printed for BENJAMIN ALLEN, and are to be sold at his shop in Popes-head Alley. 1642.   

THis Treatise was once before travelling abroad into the world, till it came unto the Author, who could not look upon it without much indignation, to see how that, and in it himself also was so much wronged and abused; being so perverted and misplaced (besides other Errata) in the printing, that it was nothing like the Book that was intended; so falsely, and so contrary to his meaning, that the Author may truly say as Martial to one:  

Quem recitas meus est, O Fidentine libellus,  
Sed male dum recitas incipit esse tuus.   

O Fidentine, a Book of mine  
Thou printed'st with my will:  
And yet not mine, but it is thine,  
Because it's printed ill.   
Much wrong and damage accrued to many by it; but such be the times, that all suffer in one thing or other, and so this may be the more easily born. It's now corrected, and much amended, by the care and industry of a friend, who desires to commend the Book unto thy view, and serious thoughts upon it.   

To the Reader.  
IT is Gods wont to warn before he smite a people, thereby walking himself after his own rule, Deut. 20. 10, 13. who would have no City to be destroyed till peace hath first been offered to it; the sword of the Lord is ever drawn, his bow bend, his arrows prepared, his instruments of death made ready, his cup mingled, yet he doth not use to pour down his plagues, until he have reigned a shower of mercy before them, he doth not surprise men at unawares, God never discharges his murdering pieces, till he have first discharged his warning one's, pax domini Luke 10. peace to this house was sounded at every door where the Apostles came. All Ages and Nations will bear witness to this truth, the old world, Sodom, Pharaoh, etc. but no Nation or Age can better subscribe to God's goodness, and fair dealing in this then we, who have been warned sometimes by prodigious signs, as by the appearance of that wonderful Comet An. 1618. as importing some strange changes which we have seen and heard since, and as if its last influence might seem to end in this Island; when it blazed over England, it was seen no more, And Herlicius Stargardensis (a noted ginger) held, that its influence was like to continue between twenty and thirty years: sometimes by his Ministers, by his administration of Justice, and dealing with other Nations; how long hath the sword walked circuit in Cermany, and in Ireland? sometimes by lesser and lighter judgements; how long hath the plague continued in this City without intermission? sometime by taking many godly out of the world, and the removing many others out of the Kingdom, who were wont to stand in the gap; sometime by a general withdrawing himself, pulling down his hang, not assisting his ordinances, etc. And unless we will wilfully shut our eyes, how hath the goodness, patience, bounty, merciful, and powerful deal of God towards us, and for us of late, been as an hand put forth to lead us home unto him? to cause us to meet him, and take warning that we might prevent these wasting calamities that are gathered together in a black cloud, as though they meant to empty themselves in a shower of blood upon our heads? But we are so far from taking warning, that we study to hasten our own ruin, almost every one instead of bringing his bucket of water to quench the fire that is already flaming about our ears, bring their bellows in their hands to blow up these coals of dissension in all places, so that now not only is there a Kingdom divided, but the head and the members divided, and the members among themselves, Cities and Towns divided, yea families divided, Parents against children, brother against brether, and familiar friends become bitter enemies one to another, the most sure symptom and presage of a fearful desolation to fall upon all, unless some speedy remedy be applied to this desperate disease, and the great God himself become our Physician and heal our distempers. I shall desire to commend these two Sermons to thy serious consideration; in the one thou shalt see there is a stoppage made of God's mercies (who was coming to heal us but we would not be healed) the causes are discovered, and the remedies prescribed, that could we so go to work to open these stops, and bring God again into the way of his mercies; could we see our sins removed, and God returned, I might then truly say that there would be yet hope for England. The other Sermon is a preparative to bear that cross that so many have already on their backs, viz. of being turned out of all our earthly comforts; a sad calamity indeed, but now too usual, and when so many of our neighbour's houses are on fire, why should we think to escape , that are as deep in sin as they? being therefore forewarned, let us be forearmed, and get into God and his favour, as that one necessary thing for us all to look after, as the only means to keep us from sinking unedr the waves that flow in upon all, especially on God's people; experience showing, that if we will live in the power of godliness, and not walk in the same excess of riot with the world, we shall make ourselves a prey, and had need to have our helmets on to latch the blows that fall upon us, and resolve to sit lose from the world, that we may suffer the spoiling of our goods with joy, and bo able to say with that noble Spartan; who being told of the death of his children, Answered; I know well they were all begot mortal. 2. That his goods were confiscate, I knew what was but for mine use, was not mine. 3. That his honour was gone, I knew no glory could be everlasting on this miserable earth. 4. That his sentence was to die, that is nothing, Nature hath given the like sentence both of my condemners and of me; Now should we get a stock of faith and learn how to use it, to live by it when our lands, our stocks, our trades, our friends, our wit, our shifts (as the ordinary means of our livelihood) shall fail us. That we may live not only above our fears, and troubles, and doubts, but above the world, above ourselves, in God and in Christ, in whom we may see supply to all our wants, satisfaction to all our desires, and have recompense for all our losses, and every thing that may make for our good and welfare; light in our darkness, life in our death, strength in our weakness, riches in our poverty, and comfort ourselves, that we serve a Master that will one day right all our wrongs, reckoning the injuries that be done to his, as done to himself; so that we should not think much to part with our Country, our Children, our Possessions, our life if the world will take them from us, for Christ and his Gospel's sake. All these, and much better than these shall be restored to us one day, and we may say thus to ourselves; yet I am not miserable so long as my Redeemer is happy, he lives, and I shall live with him, men may take from me my goods, but they cannot rob me of my grace, they may banish me from my Country, but not from Heaven, take from me my life; but not my happiness; no, my faith, my heaven, my soul, my happiness is in his keeping, that will safely preserve them for me, and me for them. But I fear I have held thee too long in the porch, I shall now open thee the door and let thee in, praying God to make those lessons as profitable to thee, as the Author's desire was they might both in his preaching them, and his willingness to have them published for public good.  
I. A.   


AN INTRODUCTION Unto the Treatise necessary for all good Subjects to understand, etc.  
I Have perused Doctor Fearne his book entitled, The resolving of Conscience, wherein I find that he hath exceedingly mistaken the question; the question in truth is, whether the Parliament now hath justly taken up arms; we affirm it, he denies it, and withal slips into another question, whether it be lawful for the Subjects to take ● arms against their King: But if he will so propound the question, ●en I must preface these two or three distinctions, and one caution, First, at the subject is considered two ways, either 

unitiuè, conjunctively, OR  
divisiuè divisively.    
The Subject considered ●●visively hath always applied himself to prayers and tears, using no her remedy; and of this we speak not: but conjunctively considered ●ate-wise, so he now doth, and 'tis lawful for him thus to take up arms. ●condly, the Subject may be said to take up arms either as an act of ●f preservation, or as an act of jurisdiction exercised towards his Prince. ●e first way we say it is lawful; the second way we contend not for. eirdly, the Subject is said to take up arms against the King either as arnst the King's person, and of this we do not speak: or as against the ings' commandment for their own preservation, so we affirm it, and then ●r position is,  
That it is lawful for the Subjects conjunctively considered to take up 
The position.  ●nes for selfe-preservation against the King's commandment, where ●o things are to be cleared: First, that this is the case of the Parliament. ●condly, that this is lawful for them to do: first, this is their case; for as any reasonable by-stander may observe there are 3 grounds of this the proceeding, the one is to fetch in Delinquents, and such persons as a● accused before them to be legally tried in that highest Court of the Kingdom; the second is to defend the State from foreign invasion, who se● more into the danger than we do; the third is to preserve themselves a● the Country from the insurrection and rebellion of Papists: and that th● is lawful we prove by divers reasons, some drawn from nature, som● from Scripture, some from the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom some from the being of Parliaments, and some from the common tru● reposed on Princes.  
First, from nature; It is the most natural work in the world for ever● thing to preserve itself. Natural for a man to preserve himself, natural for a Community; and therefore when a Commonweal shall chu● a Prince or a State-officer, though they trust him with their welfare, the that act of their trust is but by positive law, and therefore cannot destroy 
jacob; Almain de auth: ecclesia apud Gerlon.  the natural law, which is selfe-preservation, Cum humana potest is supra j● naturae non ●●istit, seeing that no humane power is above the law of nature.  
Secondly, from Scripture: the Word of God saith expressly in 1 Chr● 12. 19 That David went out against Saul to battle: yet he was Sau● subject at that time, for the Lord of the Philistims sent him away, saying he will fall to his Master Saul: which Text I bring not to prove that Subject may take up arms against the King person; but that the Subject may take up arms against those that are malignant about the King's person, notwithstanding the King's command to the contrary, which because this of David is said to be against Saul, and that David's heart smote hi● for cutting off the lap of saul's garment: the meaning therefore must nee● be that he went out in battle against those that attended upon Sau● strengthened by saul's authority, notwithstanding saul's command to th● contrary. And in the new Testament, Rom. 13. 1 We are commanded to subject to the higher Powers, now the Parliament being the highest Cou● of Justice in this Kingdom (as King James saith in his Basilicon Doron must needs be the higher powers of England, though the King be supreme, yet they have the high power of declaring the law (as this Doct Fearne confesseth) being most fit to judge what is law. They therefore declaring this to be the fundamental Law of the Kingdom for the subjects to defend themselves by forcible resistance, notwithstanding t● Kings command to the contrary, it is the duty of all the subjects to be obedient to these higher powers.  
Thirdly, from the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom: It is according to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom (yea written and not unseen Laws) That the Parliament are trusted by the Commonweal with the welfare and security thereof; whence I do reason thus: If it be the duty of the King to look to the safety of the Kingdom, and that because he is trusted therewith by the Commonweal; then if the Parliament be immediately trusted by the Commonweal with the safety thereof as well as the King, though not so much, then are they to look to it, and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the King: But so it is that the Prince is bound to look to the safety and welfare of the Kingdom as is agreed by all; and secondly, therefore he is bound to it because he receiveth this power original (I speak not in opposition ●o God) but I say originally from the people themselves, as appears by the government of the Judges and Kings of Israel, which government, this Doctor saith, was Monarchical, the best platform for England: For Judges 8. 22. The men of Israel come unto Gideon to make him their King, and Judges the 9 6. They gathered together and made Abimeleck their King, and Judges 11. 8, 9, 10, 11. The people covenanted with Jephtha and made him their King: and as for Saul, (though he was designed by God to the Kingdom) yet the people themselves chose the kind of their government first, when they said, Give us a King to rule over us after the manner of the Nations: After that God had anointed Saul, it is said, 1 Sam. 11. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall, and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gigall: and as for David, though he was anointed King by Samuel, yet we find that he continued a Subject unto Saul after that; and the 2. of Sam. 2. He came unto Hebron, and there the men of Judah were, and there they anointed David King over the house of Judah, v. 4. After that he was thus anointed by Judah to be King over them, yet he did not rule over Israel, till the other tribes also went out and made him King over them, 1 Cron. 12. 38. It is said that all these men of war came with a perfect heart to Hebron to make David King over all Israel, & as for Solomon (though he was designed by God to the Kingdom, yet) it is said of him also, 1 Chro. 29. 22. that all the Corgregation did eat and drink before the Lord, and they made Solomon the son of David King the second time, and anointed him unto ●he Lord to be the chief Governor. Solomon being dead, the second of the Chron. 10. 1. It is said of Rehoboam, that he went to Shechem, where all Israel came to make him King; and in the second of Sam. 16. 18. it is said thus: And Hushai said unto Absalon, God save the King, God save the King: and Absalon said unto Hushai, Is this thy kindness unto thy friend, why goest thou not with thy friend? And Hushai said unto Absolom again, nay, but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide: ● that we see that these Monarches both of the Judges and Kings ● Israel were chosen and entrusted▪ by the people, and had their powe● of governing from them. 3. The Parliament also is immediately trusted b● the people, and Common-weal with the safety thereof as well as the King though not to be King, for they are the officers of the Kingdom, and therefore chosen immediately by the people, and not designed by the King: an● this kind of officers was in David's time also; there were some Officers than that were the King's Officers, his Cooks, his Bakers, the steward o● his house, and the like. Others were the officers of the Kingdom called the Elders and heads of the Tribes, which though they were under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom, whom therefore he did consult with in the great affairs of the State, 1 Chron. 13. 1● wherefore seeing the King is to look to the safety of the Kingdom, and that because he is trusted therewith by the people, and the Parliament ar● as well trusted by the people with the safety of the land, it is their duty i● case of danger to look to it, which they are not able to do●, and mak● good their trust, unless they have power to take up Arms against an enemy, when the Prince is misled or defective.  
4. From the being of a Parliament. As it is a Parliament it is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdom, therefore hath power to ●●nd for by force those that are accused before them that they may come to thei● trial; which power (if I mistake not) inferior Courts have, much more the highest. 'Tis out of doubt agreed on by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Sergeant at Arms to bring up such an one as is accused before them; and if they have a power to send one Sergeant at Arms▪ then 20. if 20. be accused, than a 100 if there be a 100 accused▪ then a thousand, if there be a thousand accused, than ten thousand▪ if there be ten thousand accused, and so more or less as occasion serves▪ for there is the same reason for two as for one, and for 4. as for 2. and for a 100 as for 20. and for a 1000 as for a 100 and take away this power from the Parliament, and 'tis no longer a Parliament▪ but the King● and his forefathers have by law settled these libertie● of Parliament, and therefore according to Laws, they have a power to send for by force those that are accused to be tried before them, which they cannot do unless they raise an army, when the accused are kept from them by an army.  
5. From the common trust reposed on Princes and the end thereof, which is to feed their people, Psal. 78. 70. He chose David his servant an● took him from the Sheep-fold to feed his people, Jacob and his inheritance in Israel. The end why the people have trusted the Prince is the safety and security of the Kingdom, the safety and welfare of the State, not that the King might be great, and the Subject's slaves. Now if a people should have no power to take up arms for their own defence because they had trusted the Prince therewithal, then by that trust they intended to make themselves slaves. For suppose the King will let in a common enemy upon them, or take his own subjects and make the● slaves in Galleys, if they may not take up arms for their own defence because they had trusted their Prince therewithal, what can this be but by their trust to make themselves slaves unto him?  
2. The caution that is to be premised is this; notwithstanding all that I have said yet, I do not say that the subjects have power to depose their Prince, neither doth our assertion or practice enforce such an inference.  
Object. But if the power of the Prince be derived from the people, than they may take away that power again. Resp. It follows not, neither shall the people need to think of such an inference. Indeed if the power were derived from the people to the Prince firstly, and that the people should be so straitlaced that they should have no power left to defend themselves in case of danger when the Prince is misled, or unfaithful, than the people might be occasioned to think of deposing their Prince: but though the power of the Prince be originally from them, yet if they have so much power left as in times of danger, to look to their own preservation, what need they think of any such matter?  
Object. Why but if the people give the power, then if abused, they may take it away also. Res. No that needs not; seeing they never gave away that power of self preservation; so that this position of ours is the only way to keep people from such assaults, whereby the power of the Prince is more fully established: whereas if people were kept from power of selfe-preservation which is natural to them, it were the only way to break all in pieces; for Nullum violentum contranaturale est perpetuum, no violent thing against nature is perpetual. Thus have I clearly opened our opinion, and proved our sentence, give me leave now to speak with the Doctor.   

Section I.  
THe Doctor saith, That in the proposition or principle, by the word resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Prince's command, but a rising in arms a forcible resistance: this though clear in the question, yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdom, and upon all those that appear for the King in this cause. 
Gubernat●res ergo in ●is rebus quae cum decalog● & justis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent p●ae caeteris hominibus privatis; & perpretrantes id quod malum est, Coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium prestante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordi●asse & instituisse potestatem illam gladio defendendi bonum▪ & puniendi malum, & praecipit ut omnis anima (& sic ipsi guber n●ores▪ tali Dei ordinationi fit subjecta, hoc est obligat ad sacien●●m bonum si velit defendi ist a. Dei ordinatione & non ob sua facino●a impia puniri. Magdeburgensis cent. 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod a●tem ad nos proprie pertiner possum enumerare duodecim aut etiam amplius reges qui ob scelera & flagitia aut in perpetuum carcetem sunt damnati, aut exilio vel morte voluntaria justas scelerum poenas fugerant nos autemid contendimus populum a quo reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vindicant regibus ess● potentiorem: jusque idem in eos habere multitudinem quod illi in singulos a multitudine habent, B●● de Gub: Regni apud Sco●os.   
Here the Dr. would insinuate in the very entrance of his book (that so he might the better captare benevolentiam, curry favour for the matter of his discourse following.) That the Divines of England are of his judgement. But if they be so, surely their judgement is lately changed: But indeed what Divines are of his judgement? not the Divines of Germany, not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches, not the Divines of Geneva, not of Scotland, not of Holland, not of England.  
Not the Divines of Germany, who say thus: Governors therefore in such things that are repugnant to the Law of God, have no power or immunity above other private men, & they themselves commanding that which is evil, have no power or immunity above other private men, and they themselves commanding that which is evil, are as much bound to fear the ordinance of God, bearing the sword for the punishment of vice as other private men. For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. saith, that God did institute and ordain a power both of defending that which is good, and punishing that which is evil, and he commands that every soul (and so the Governors themselves) would be subject to this ordinance of God that is bound to do good, if they would be defended by this ordinance of God, and not by their wicked deeds, make themselves liable to punishment.  
Not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches; witness their taking up of arms for the defence of themselves at Rochel.  
Not the Divines of Geneva: For as Calvin in the 4. book of his institutions chap. 10. saith thus: For though the correcting of unbridled government be revengement of the Lord, let us not by and by think that it is committed to us, to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and suffer; I speak always of private men, for if there be at this time any Magistrates in the behalf of the people (such as in old time were the Ephori that were set against the Kings of Lacedemonia, or the tribuner of the people against the Roman Consuls, or the Demarchy against the Senate at Athens, and the same power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal assemblies) I do so not forbidden them according to their office to withstand the outraging licentiousness of Kings, that I affirm, if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty, their dissembling is not without wicked breach of faith, because they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themselves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God.  
Not the Divines of Holland, for we know what their practice is towards the King of Spain.  
Not the Divines of Scotland: for Buca●an saith: for I can number twelve, ●r more Kings among ourselves, who for their sin and wickedness were either cast into prison during their life, or else eschewed the punishment by banishment. But this is that which we contend for, that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater than the Kings, and the whole multitude have the same power over them, as they have over particular men out of the multitude, witness also their late taking up arms when they came into England, which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebellion.  
Not our English Divines, whose judgement Dr. Willet was acquainted with as well as our present Dr. who saith thus: Touching the point of resistance certain differences are to be observed: for when there is an extraordinary calling (as in the time of the Judges) or when the Kingdom is usurped without any right, as by Athalia, or when the land is invaded by foreign enemies, as▪ in the time of Maccabees, or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany, in all these cases than is least question of resistance to be made by the general Council of the States, yet where none of these concur, God forbidden that the Church and Commonwealth should be left without remedy, the former conditions (viz. those alleged by Pareus) observed, when havoc is made of the Commonwealth, or the Church and Religion. Thus also Doctor Bilson (whose book was allowed by public authority and printed at Oxford) speaks: If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a foreign Realm, or change the form of the Commonweal from Empery to Tyranny, or neglect the laws established by common consent of Pr. and people to execute his own pleasure in these and other cases which might be named: if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and acoustomed liberties, regiments and laws, they may not well be accounted rebels. And the title of that page is, the Law sometimes permits resistance; and the margin is, in some cases the Nobles and Commons may stand for their public regiment and laws of their Kingdom.  
All which judgements of several Divines▪ I do not bring forth as if I were of their minds for deposing or punishing of Princes by the people, which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes, but to show how the Doctor's 
Dr. Willet. Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17.  judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Protestant Countries, notwithstanding he would insinuate that our Divines of England are of his judgement: and that our judgement is no 
bilson's true difference between Christ●an subjection▪ and unchristian rebellion, p. 5. 251.  new upstart opinion, you see what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counsel of Basil, where one of them saith thus: That in every well ordered Kingdom it ought specially to be desired that the whole Realm ought to be of more authority than the King, which if it happened contrary, it is not to be called a Kingdom, but tyranny, so likewise doth he think of the Church, etc.  
And presently another▪ of the Divines of the s●me Co●●●●ll saith thus: For the Pope is in the Church, as the King▪ is in his Kingdom, and for a King▪ to be of more authority than his Kingdom this were too absurd, ergo neither aught the Pope to be above the Church; for like as oftentimes Kings which do wickedly rule the Commonweal, and exercise cruelty are deprived of their Kingdoms, even so it is not to he doubted but that the Bishops of Rome may be deposed by the Church, that is to say, by the general Council; neither do I herein allow them which attribute so large and ample authority unto Kings, that they will not have them bound under any Laws, for such as do so say are but flatterers, who do talk otherwise then they think. For albeit that they do say that the moderation of the law is always in the Princes pours, that do I thus understand; that when as reason shall persuade, he ought to digress from the rigour of the law: for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Commonweal, taketh pleasure in the profit and commodity of the subjects, and in all his do hath respect to the commodity of those over whom he ruleth, which if he do not, he is not to be accounted a King's, but a Tyrant, whose property it is only to suck his own profit. For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant, that the one seeketh the commodity & profit of them whom he ruleth, the other only his own: The which to make more manifest, the cause is also to be alleged wherefore Kings were ordained. At the beginning▪ (as Cicero▪ in his Offices saith) It is certain that there was a certain time when the people lived without Kings: but afterward when ●and and possessions began to▪ be divided according to the custom of every Nation, than were Kings ordained for no other cause but only to execute Justice. For when as at the beginning the common people were oppressed by rich and mighty men, they ran by and by to some▪ good and virtuous man who should defend the poor from injury, and ordain Laws, whereby the rich and poor should dwell together. But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poor were oft oppressed, laws were ordained and instituted, the which should judge neither for hatred nor favour, and give like care unto the poor, as unto the rich, whereby we do understand not only the people but the King to be subject unto the Laws. Then the Doctor tells us, that he is against the Arbitrary way of government. For (saith he) we may and aught to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawful by the Law of God, yea by the established Laws of the Kingdom.  
Ans. This reason doth no way destroy Arbitrary government but rather erect it. For government is not said to be Arbitrary, because the subjects may deny in word, and so left to suffer: For then the Turkish government is not arbitrary. For when the great Turk commands his subjects to do any thing, if they will deny and suffer for their denial they may, and do sometimes deny their obedience. If there be laws whereby a King is to rule which he shall command his subjects to break, and his subjects are neither bound to obey him nor suffer by him, than his government is not arbitrary; but if there be laws made, and he may enforce his subjects either to keep them or break them, and punish them at his pleasure that shall refuse, and the whole kingdom bound in conscience to suffer whatsoever he shall inflict for not breaking those Laws, then is his government arbitrary: for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio; which he doth, when either there is no law to rule by but his own will, or when he hath a power to break those laws at his will, and to punish the subject at his pleasure for not breaking them; and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government than the former, as it shows more liberty in the will, that it hath a power to act when reason persuades to the contrary, then if there were no reason dissuading, and else there should be no arbitrary government in the world. For no State but hath some laws whereby they rule and are ruled even the very Indians; only here lies the arbitrariness of a government, that notwithstanding the law, the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his subjects according to his own pleasure. Then the Doctor saith,  
We must consider that they which plead for resistance in such a case as is supposed, do grant that it must be concluded upon, Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus, that is, with the general and unanimous consent of the two houses.  
Ans. 1. First these words are ill translated; for omnes ordines regni may consentire, and yet there may not be an unanimous and general consent of the Members of the two houses as of one man.  
2. If so that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence, why then doth he object against us, that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up arms for the defence of themselves against the Emperors, seeing they had not the consent of all the orders of the Empire, and therefore their case is nothing to ours, as he pretends afterward. But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them, the representative body of the Empire, than their case had been more like unto ours; and then no question but they would have taken up arms for the defence of themselves.  
Then the Doctor saith, We suppose that the Prince must be so and so disposed, bend to overthrow Religion, Liberties, Laws, etc.  
Ans. Here he takes that for granted which was never given, but we say not that we suppose, but seeing and finding experimentally that a Prince is misled by those about him that would overthrow religion, liberties, laws; that then it is lawful to take up arms to deliver the King from them, and to bring them to condign punishment. Then he proceeds to propound three Generals, which he endeavoureth to prove in his following Discourse, which I shall speak to in order.   

Sect. II.  
THe Doctor saith, that the principle is untrue upon which they go that resist, and the conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance: for it hears the Apostle expressly say, Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 
Poenam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic malo quam condemnationem, p●to enim hoc intelligendum de poe●â. quam insert magistratus, sicut verba frequentis declarant, &▪ sic verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acc●p●tur pro puni●e 1▪ Cor. 6. 11. Piscat. Rom. 13. 1▪ Sam. 14.   
Ans. In this his resolving of Conscience he endeavours to scare those that are tender with the word of damnation, and forbids this resistance upon pain of damnation; but the word in the Greek is rather to be● translated judgement and punishment, and as Piscator observes thereby i● not meant eternal damnation, but the punishment of the Magistrate in this life; as appears by the following words which are given by the Apostle as a reason of the former, thus: They that resist shall receive to themselves judgement, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.  
Then he proceeds to some examples of Scripture, which are brought by us to strengthen our Doctrine; wherein he takes what he pleaseth and leaves out what he lists. The first example alleged is that of the people's rescuing jonathan out of the hands of Saul, to which he answers the people drew not into arms of themselves, but being there by Saul's command did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular passionate, and unlawful command.  
Ans. First, here the Doctor grants that the people used a violence which is that that we would prove; but he doth not make it out by tha● Scripture that it was a loving violence, which is the thing he shoul● prove: Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love, for it is said that the people rescued him; and wha● is the rescue by men in arms but a violence? 2. According to the Doctor's position they should not have rescued him, but only have defende● themselves by prayers and tears, and left jonathan to suffer; and therefore though he grants but a rescue by loving violence, he gives away h● cause in the threshold of his work.  
The second example alleged (saith the Doctor) is David's resisting ● Saul, to which he answers, that David's guard which he had about him was only to secure his person against the cruelty of Saul, who sent to take away his life.  
Ans. Therefore according to his own grounds a Parliament may tak● up a guard to secure their persons against the cutthroats that are abo●● a King, and this is more than prayers or tears or mere sufferings whic● the Doctor only allows in the following part of his discourse.  
2. Herein also he gives his cause, for if David's guard was to secure his person against the cutthroats of Saul if sent to take away his life (as he says) they could not secure David but by fight against those messengers of the King: and if he grants that messengers sent by the king may be resisted by arms, he grants all that his adversaries contend for.  
2. The Doctor saith, this practice of Davids was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul.  
Ans. But what think you then of David's words which he used to Achisb in 1 Sam. 29. 8. And David said unto Achish, what have I done, and what hast thou sound in thy servant so long as I have been with thee to this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my Lord the King? amongst which enemies was Saul and his cutthroats (as the Doctor calls them) but  
2. His adversaries desire no more from this instance of David but an hostile defence: for where there is an hostile defence, though there be no blows given, yet the defender would strike if there were cause, else why is he in arms?  
3. David also was but one subject; and if it were lawful for one subject to defend himself by way of hostility, much more for the representative body of the whole Kingdom.  
4. According to the Doctor's principles David ought to have done no more then to have sought God with tears and prayers, and given up himself in a suffering way to the fury of Saul, and therefore though it were merely an hostile defence, yet it is more than his doctrine teacheth, and so in granting of this, he is contrary to what he says afterwards.  
For the matter of Keilah, the Doctor answers our supposition (as he calls it) with his own saying: but whether David would have defended Keilah against Saul, I leave to the conscience of the Reader, considering that this only is made the reason of his removing from Keilah, because the men of Keilah would not be faithful unto him, for he did not inquire of the Lord whether it were lawful for him to abide in Keilah, but having enquired whether Saul would come down against him, and whether Keilah would deliver him up into saul's hand; he removed from Keilah because the Lord answered him that they would deliver him up, not because it was unlawful for him to keep the City, but because the City would be false to him.  
And whereas the Doctor saith that in all this the example of David was extraordinary, for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul.  
Ans. I answer, though David was Gods Anointed, yet he was saul's subject, and though God did extraordinarily protect David, yet his extraordinary protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawful but doth rather argue it to be more lawful and commendable: for Go● will not give extraordinary protections to unlawful actions, and if David's demeanour herein was extraordinary, than he had an extraordinary command for what he did. For it is not lawful for a man to step fro● God's ordinary way, but by some special commandment from God, and if he had such a command then how is that true which the Doctor saith afterward, that there is no command in Scripture for such a practice o● kind of resistance as this.  
3. In the words immediately before, the Doctor saith, this practice ●● David was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and if so, ho● was his demeanour in standing out against Saul a work extraordinary 〈◊〉 if it were a work extraordinary, than it was not a mere defence without all violence, for that is an ordinary work of the subjects toward thei● King.  
Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries, whereby the● contend (as he says for resistance, as that of the High Priest resisting the King in the Temple, and Elisha shutting the door against the King's Messenger tha● came to take away his life; to the first he says that the High Priest did no mor● then what every Minister may and aught to do if the King should attempt t● administer the Sacrament, that is reprove him, and keep the elements from him.  
Ans. But if that were all, the Priests should not have been commended for their valour, but their faithfulness: and ver. 17. it is said that Azariah 
● Chron. ●●, 17  the Priest went after him, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men. In that they were commended here for valiant, it shows that their work was not only reproof but resistance.  
And whereas he saith, that they thrust him out of the Temple because God ●and was first upon him, smiting him with Leprosy, and by that discharging him of the Kingdom also.  
Ans. I answer, how does that appear out of Scripture that the King being smitten with the leprosy was an actual discharge from his crown●●  
Then the Doctor saith, Elisha's example speaks very little, but let u● thence (saith he) take occasion to say that personal defence is lawful against th● sudden and illegal assaults of such Messenger's, yea of the Prince himself thu● far, to ward his blows, to hold his hand, and the like, etc.  
Ans. 1. If you may ward his blows, and hold his hands, this is mor● then praying and crying and suffering.  
2. Suppose the King hath an army with him, how can you hold an armies hands without an army? and therefore according to his own word● it is lawful for the subjects considered State-wise to raise an army to de●end themselves.  
3. But this instance of Elisha tells us that Messengers sent by the King to take away a man's life may be taken prisoners, is not that a resistance? for Elisha said, see you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? look when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door, 2 Kings 6. 32.  
Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body natural and politic, whereby it is argued that as the body natural, so the body politic may defend itself: to which the Doctor answers, as the natural body defends itself against an outward force, but strives not by 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.  
Answ. Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawful for the natural body to defend itself against an outward force, and what is the Militia for especially, but against foreigners?  
Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personal defence and a general resistance by arms. He saith, a personal defence may be without all offence, and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us, as generall-resistance by arms doth, which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Commonweal, which saith he makes a large difference betwixt Elisha's shutting of the door against the King's messenger, and their resisting the King by armed men.  
Answ. But why was Elisha's defence personal? because he was but one person that was defended? then if one man defend himself against 1000 in arms that is a personal defence, or was it personal because only the person of the Prophet made defence and had none to assist him? not so because he spoke to the Elders to shut the door and hold him fast, and if this act of Elisha was contrary to the King's command, why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him, as our resistance doth now? indeed if the subjects as private men strengthened with no authority should gather together in a rude multitude to oppose laws and governor's, than that work should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a State, but that the State should send out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tried at the highest Court of the Kingdom, that justice and judgement may run down like water which hath been staunched up, is rather to confirm and strengthen the order and power of authority, and so it is in our case.  
Then the Doctor proceeds to some Scriptures, wherewithal he thinks to strengthen his opinion, let us follow him: First (saith he) we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16. 3. and perishing in thei● sin.  
Ans. I answer that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust, and our question is in the general laying aside all respect to our Sovereign whether a Prince neglecting his trust, and doing that through his ba● Council which may tend to the ruin of a State, may not by the whol● State be resisted therein? Now see how extremely wide this instance 〈◊〉 from this question.  
First of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol● people, nor the representative Body, nor any employed by the whol● people.  
2. Moses and Aaron had not offended but were innocent.  
The Dr. answers, The other supposed they had been guilty, and that is enough it seems.  
Ans. It seems so indeed by him, that supposals are enough to charge the Parliament, but with us supposals are not enough to charge ou● Prince.  
2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. saying, there the people are let t● understand how they would be oppressed under Kings, yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance, for they hav● no remedy left but crying to the Lord, vers. 18.  
Ans. In this Scripture Samuel shown them what their King would do not what he should do; and when he saith at the 18. verse, You shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lor● will not hear you in that day, he telleth them not what should be their duty, but what should be their punishment, for he doth not say, then shall you cry unto the Lord and he shall hear you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoineth a duty to annex a promise of acceptance. But he saith you shall cry in that day because of your King, and the Lord will not hear you in that day, setting forth the punishment of that thei● choice.  
3. The Dr. saith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civil assemblies or for War but by his command; wh●●ad the power of the Trumpet, that is the supreme, as Moses was, Num. 10.  
Answ. The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for War but what the supreme power hath given commandment for. For the● Doctor saith Section 1. page 2. That in the established Laws of the Lan● we have the Princes will and consent given upon good advice, and to obey hi● against the Laws, were to obey him against himself, his sudden will against his deliberate will, so that if there be any established Laws whereby the King hath given his former deliberate consent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now sounds, than this objection is but a false alarm.  
Now though I be no Lawyer, and must refer you much to what the Parliament hath said who are the Judges of the Law, yet thus much I can tell you as consonant to right reason: That unless the Parliament have a power to send for delinquents and accused persons to be tried in that highest Court of Justice, I say unless they have such a power they are no Parliament. The King hath often protested to maintain the liberties and privileges of Parliament: Now suppose a man be complained of to the Parliament for some notorious crime, it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Sergeant at Arms for him, and if he refuse to come, that Sergeant at Arms hath a power to call in more help; and if the Delinquent shall raise twenty or thirty, or a hundred men to rescue himself, than the Parliament hath power to send down more messengers by force to bring up the Delinquent, and if they may raise a hundred; why may they not upon the like occasion raise a thousand, and so ten thousand? And if the King shall protect these Delinquents, that is but his sudden will, the Doctor saith, his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his sudden will; now this is the known Law of the Kingdom, and the constant practice of all Parliaments that they have a power to send for their Delinquents, and indeed else how can they be a Court of Justice, if they cannot force the accused to appear before them? And therefore according to the Doctors own principles the King's deliberate will being in his Law, he himself hath sounded this Trumpet, though by his sudden will (as he calls it) he is pleased to sound a retreat. For though the Doctor saith that the Parliament takes up Arms against the King, yet herein he doth but abuse them, mistake the question deceive many.  
The truth is, they do but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earl of Essex send for those Delinquents that have been obnoxious to the State: and to deny them such a power as this, is to deny them the very being of a Parliament: For by the same reason that they may send one Sergeant at Arms for one, they may send one thousand for one thousand.  
Then the Doctor tells us, That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel for Idolatry, cruelty, and oppression, none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance.  
Ans. I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marveling: For what ca● be more plain than that Text, 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sat in his house an● the Elders sat with him, and the King sent a man from before him, etc. bu● when the messenger came to him, he said to the Elders, see how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head, look when the messenger cometh shut th● door, and hold him fast at the door. The Dr. wonders if resistance wer● lawful, why no Prophet should call upon the Elders of the people fo● this duty of resistance, here is the Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the King's messenger.  
Then lastly, the Dr. saith that Scripture, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; and ver. 2. Whosoever resists the power, resists the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, doth above all give us a clear manifestation upon the point.  
Ans. Now therefore let us here join issue, and if this place which th● Dr. makes the very hinge which all his discourse moves upon, be no● clearly and fully against him, then let the consciences of men be satisfie● in all that he says, but if it be against him, then let them reject all that h● affirms.  
He would prove from hence that it is not lawful for any man to resi● with a forcible resistance the command of a King though he command what is unlawful, because (says he) that this commandment was given un● the Christians to be obedient unto Roman Emperors whose commands were merely destructive to the Christian Religion, and those powers nothing but subverters of that which was good and just.  
Ans. That there is no such thing commanded in this Scripture I pro● by these reasons.  
1. Because the power that every soul is here commanded to be subject to, and not to resist is that power which is not a terror to go● works but to evil. The 3. verse being made a reason of the 2. the 2. ver● saith, Whosoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God, and they that res● shall receive to themselves judgement; then the reason is given: for Rule● are not a terror to good works, but to evil, ver. 3. and therefore the subjection commanded, and resistance forbidden, is not in things that are u● lawful, and contrary to the Law of God. 2. The power that we a● commanded to be subject to, and not to resist is the ordinance of God; a● the Minister thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good, ver. 4. ● says the Apostle, speaking of the Ruler that we are to obey, he is the Minister of God to us for good: but when he commands a thing unlawful, a● contrary to the law of God, he is not the Minister of God to us for go● therefore in this Scripture there is no such thing commanded us to subject to, and not to resist the ungodly command of Princes.  
Ob. And if it be said that though his commands are unlawful, yet he may be a penal ordinance of God for our good.  
I answer, that in this Scripture we are not commanded to submit unto a penal ordinance, because the submission enjoined here by the Apostle reaches to all times and places: and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penal ordinance.  
3. Therein the Apostle commands us in this Scripture to be subject, and not to resist, wherein the Magistrates are Gods Ministers, but in unlawful commands they are not properly and actively Gods Ministers though God may make use of them: though in regard of their place they may be God's Minister, yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not; when they command things that are evil and contrary to Law. Now so we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action God's Ministers.  
Verse 6. For this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing.  
4. It appears by all the first verses of this 13. Chapter that the subjection and obedience here commanded by the Apostle is not passive obedience or subjection, but active; for the Apostle having said, ver. 1. and 2. Let every soul be subject to the higher power, and not resist, he saith at the third verse, Why wilt thou not then be afraid of the power, do that which is good, and at the sixth verse, For this cause pay you tribute also. But if the King command any thing that is unlawful and sinful (the Doctor saith) we are to be subject only passively: therefore the subjection commanded, and resistance forbidden in the Scripture, not such as relates the unlawful command of Princes (as he affirms when the Roman Emperor commanded things destructive to the Christian Religion) accordingly Hierom upon the place, Oftendit Apostolus in his quae recta sunt judicibus obediendum, non in illi quae religioni contraria sunt. And besides, the Doctor himself confesseth, page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary, but perpetual: therefore to reach unto those times, when the Prince should command that which was good, therefore the subjection here commanded was active subjection, and not merely passive.  
But the Doctor saith, he will free this place from all exceptions, and therefore he saith first, I may suppose the King supreme, as St. Peter calls him, or the higher power as St. Paul here, though it be by some now put to the question.  
Answ. And is it but now put to the question? What shall we say then of that speech of Doctor Bilson? By superior powers ordained of God, we understand not only Princes, but all public States and Regiments, some where the people, somewhere the Nobles having the same intrust to the sword that Princes have in this Kingdom: and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to those that are in authority. Suppose we be in some country where there is no King, but States, doth not this Scripture command us subjection there also? How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant only the King? The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdom; and the highest Court of Justice must needs fall within the compass of these words, the higher Powers; unto which, by virtue of this commandment of the Apostle, we are to be obedient. How then is this true which the Doctor saith, that by the higher Power is meant the King only or supreme, in opposition to the Parliament.  
But I prove it (saith he.) For S. Peter's distinction comprehends all that are in authority, the King as supreme, and all that are sent by him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament, being sent by him, or sent for by him, and by his Writ sitting there.  
Ans. Calvin (and other Interpreters) herein is contrary unto the Doctor, 
Nam qui pronomen (e●m) ad Regem refe●unt multum falluntur. Estigitur huc communi ratio●● commendandam omnium magistratu● authoritatem quod mancato Dei praesunt & ab eo mit●unt●r: unde sequitur (quemadmodum & Paulus do●●●) Deo resistere q●i ab eo ordi nata non se obedienter submittunt. Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13.  who saith thus; Those that refer the pronoun (him) to the King, are much deceived: for this is that common reason, whereby the authority of all Magistrates is commanded; because they do rule by the commandment of God, and are sent by him: (By him) being referred to God by other Interpreters, and to the King with the Doctor.  
Then the Doctor saith secondly: In this Text of the Apostle it is said, All persons under the higher powers, are expressly forbidden to resist: for whosoever in the second verse, must be as large as the every soul in the first.  
Ans. That which the Doctor aims at in these words, is to make the whole Parliament subject unto the King. And who denies them to be the King's subjects? and that as men, and Englishmen, they should not be subject unto the King? But if he means, that as a Parliament, they should be subject to enact and do what ever he commandeth, then how is that true which he saith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is such an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them: for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons, or these and the Lords without the King, might determine, etc. Or if he mean, that as a Parliament jointly considered, they are to submit passively unto the unlawful commands of the King, and that passive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is so to straiten the Text, as never any yet hath straitened it: neither indeed can any conscience think, that when the Apostle commands us to be subject unto the higher powers, his meaning is only by way of suffering in his unlawful commands, and not by way of obedience in his lawful commands.  
Thirdly, the Doctor saith, That the Roman State might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State, than our great Council (he thinks) will or can.  
Ans. But what then? Is it not therefore lawful for the subjects now to resist the higher power commanding things unlawful, because the Apostle commanded there that we should not resist the higher powers in things that are lawful? Herein lies the Doctors continued mistake: He thinks this command of the Apostle was given to the Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawful commands; whereas the Apostles command in this place, reaches to all times, and is made to all that are Christians: Although they did live under Nero, yet it does not follow, that the Apostle commanded them to be subject to him in unlawfulls. If indeed Nero's commandments were only unlawful, and this direction of the Apostle was made only to the Christians in those times, and that the subjection commanded were only suffering subjection, than this Scripture might make much for his purpose. But though Nero was an enemy to the Christians, yet some of his commandments were lawful; and this direction of the Apostle was not made only to the Christians in those times, but as a general rule for all good men: and the obedience and subjection here commanded, was not only to be passive, but active (which I have proved already, wherein I also appeal to the Doctors own conscience, whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and subjection to the Prince) and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide, and his argument null.  
Then the Doctor saith, If it be replied, that that prohibition was temporary, and fit for those times, as it is said by some whom he answers.  
Ans. I answer, that the Doctor here makes his own adversary, and fights with him. Many other answers he refutes also, it being not in my purpose to make good every pamphlet, but to satisfy men's consciences: only I cannot but here take notice, that the Doctor professes against arbitrary power, or such as conquerors use, as he did Sect. 1. profess, that he was much against arbitrary government. But I wish the Doctor would be pleased to consider his own principles, as he delivers them in these papers: for he says: that the Roman Emperors were absolute Monarches, and did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily, and that they did make themselves such absolute Monarches by conquest. Then he says, this Crown of England is descended by three conquests. And therefore if one conquest is a reason for the arbitrary government of the Emperor, he cannot but think (though he conceal his mind) that his government also aught to be much more arbitrary.  
What else remains in this Section, I have either spoken to it already, or shall more aptly in the following Discourse.   

Sect. III.  
THe Doctor saith, That for the proving this power of resistance there is much speech used about the Fundamentals of this power; which because they lie low and unseen by vulgar eyes, being not written laws, the people are made to believe that they are such as they that have the power to put new laws upon them, say they are.  
Ans. Herein he turns the Metaphor of Fundamentals too far, as if because the fundamentals of a house cannot be seen, therefore the fundamental laws cannot be seen; which are not therefore called Fundamental, because they lie under ground, but because they are the most essential upon which all the rest are built, as fundamental points of Religion are most seen, and yet fundamental.  
Secondly, he says, these fundamentals are not written laws. The Parliament say they are, and produce several written laws for what they do. The Doctor, and those that are of his sense, say they are not: who should the people be ruled by in this case, but by the Parliament, seeing the Doctor himself saith, none are so fit to judge of the laws as they?  
Then the Doctor saith, Those that plead for this power of resistance, lay the first ground work of their Fundamentals thus; The power is originally in and from the people; and if when by election they have entrusted a Prince with a power, he will not discharge his trust, than it falls to the people: or, as in this kingdom, to the two Houses of Parliament, the representative body of this Kingdom, to see to it: they may reassume the power. This is the bottom of their fundamentals, as they are now discovered to the people.  
Ans. We distinguish, as he doth, the power abstractively considered from the qualifications of that power, and the designation of a person to that power. The power abstractively considered, is from God, not from the people: but the qualifications of that power, according to the divers ways of executing in several forms of government, and the designation of the person that is to work under this power, is of man: And therefore the power itself we never offer to take out of God's hand, but leave it where we found it. But if the person entrusted with that power, shall not discharge his trust, then indeed it falls to the people, or the representative body of them to see to it; which they do as an act of selfe-preservation, not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince. It is one thing for them to see to it, so as to preserve themselves for the present, and another thing so to reassume the power, as to put the Prince from his office. As for example: Suppose there be a ship full of passengers at the sea in the time of a storm, which is in great danger to be cast away through the negligence and fault of the Steersman; the passengers may for their own present safety (that they may not be all cast away) desire the Steersman to stand by, and cause another to stand at the Stern for the present, though they do not put the Steersman out of his office. And this is our case: we do not say that the Prince not discharging his trust, the people and Parliament are so to reassume the power, as if the Prince were to be put from his Office; which the (Doctor not distinguishing thus) would obtrude upon us, but only that the Prince being abused by those that are about him, whereby the charge is neglected, the people, or representative Body may so look to it for the present, setting some at the stern till the storm be over, lest the whole suffer ship wrack. And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us, disputing against us, as if we went about to depose our King, which we contend not for, nor from these principles can be collected.  
Then the Doctor saith, That however the fundamentals of this government are much talked of, this is according to th●n the fundamental in all Kingdoms and governments; for they say power was every where from the people at first, and so this would serve no more for the power of resistance in England, then in France or Turkey.  
Ans. If it be the fundamental in all Kingdoms, and Governments, than it seems it does not lie so low, and unseen (as the Doctor said before) because all the world sees it.  
Secondly, whereas he saith, this will serve no more for power of resistance in England, then in France or Turkey: he seems to insinuate that France and Turkey have no such power of resistance: but who doth not know that the Protestants in France are of this judgement with us and practise? witness that business of Rochel.  
Then the Doctor saith, we will clear up these two particulars, whether the power be so originally, & chief from the people as they would have it; Then whether they may upon just causes reassume that power: and saith, first of the original of power which they would have to be so from the people, as that it shall be from God only by a permissive approbation.  
Ans. If the Doctor takes Power for Magistracy itself, and sufficiency of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abstractively considered, as distinguished from the qualification of that power, according to the divers ways of executing it in several forms of government, and the designation thereof unto some person, than I do not believe there is any man in the Parliament (whom the Doctor especially disputes against) or of those who writ for them, that hold that the power is from the people, and by permission and approbation only of God; neither can they: for in that they contend so much for the Parliament, it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abstract is from God himself: and for the designation of a person, or qualification of the power according to several forms of government; the Dr. himself grants it in this Section to be the invention of man, and by God's permissive approbation.  
Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments, That power as distinguished from the qualification thereof, and designation, is of divine institution.  
Ans. Wherein he might have saved his labour in those three arguments, for none doth deny it: yet we will examine what he saith in the arguments: 1. he saith, that the Apostle speaks expressly, that the powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God, vers. 2. by which power he understands the power itself of Magistracy as distinguished from the qualifications thereof, or designation of any person thereto.  
1. And if so, how is that true which he saith before, Section 2. where he saith, that the higher power in Paul, Rom 13. is all one with the King as supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confesseth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power? so doth the Apostle himself, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an humane constitution.  
2. If by power here, Rom. 13. be understood Magistracy, and authority itself in the abstract, then when we are commanded to submit thereunto, the meaning cannot be that the Christians in those times, must submit to the unlawful commands of the Emperor, (as the Doctor would have it before) seeing the way of governing by an Emperor or Prince, is but the qualification of the power; surely if by power we are now to understand Magistracy and Authority itself in the abstract, than all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to submit thereunto, is to acknowledge a Magistracy, & then all the Doctor's arguments, and his strength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible resistance to unlawful commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground.  
Then the Doctor tells us in the same argument, this power is called an ordinance of man subjective, wherein he la●es this distinction, That power is considered two ways, either as it is subjective amongst men, and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or else as it is considered causaliter, and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of God.  
Ans. But this is too straight, for it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only because it is amongst men, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane constitution in four respects, 1. because it is so causaliter, the form of several governments being an invention of man. 2. Subjective, because it is amongst men. 3. Objective, because it is busied about men. 4. Finaliter, because it is ordained for man, and the Commonweal, yet power itself is the constitution and ordinance of God.  
Then the Doctor proves, That the power is of God, because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God, Rom. 13. vers. 4.  
Ans. But here he slips from the power itself, to the person designed to the power: for the power itself is not called the Minister of God, which was the thing he undertook for to prove.  
And so in this third argument where he saith to the same purpose, speak those other places, By me King's reign, I have said ye are Gods, yet he confesseth, that the forms of government by Kings and Emperors, is an invention of man in the first argument.  
But now suppose the Doctor had proved that the power abstractively considered, is of God's institution, and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in several forms of government, and the designation of the person thereto be of man, what hath he gotten from, or gained upon his imagined adversary? For suppose that his adversary should say that they may depose their Prince, if he neglect his trust (which is not our case) because that his power is originally from them, how doth that which the Dr. hath said, weaken this argument? For though he hath proved that the power of itself is from God, yet having granted that the forms of that government, and the designation of a person thereto, is from the people, they may as well urge and say therefore we may alter the government, and may depose the person because he was of our designing, as well as they might have argued so, if the power itself had been from themselves.  
Then the Doctor saith; The imputation is causeless which the pleaders on the other side do heedlessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines, as if we cried up Monarchy, and that only government to be Jure Divino.  
Ans. To let pass reproaches, how can we think otherwise, if we should believe all that the Doctor saith? For he proves that the power mentioned, Rom. 13. is Jure Divino, and yet he saith, Sect. 2. That the ●igher power there, is all one with the Supreme, or King in Peter: but this with ●he nature of Monarchical government, we shall come to consider more aptly in that which follows.  
The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it ●elfe is of God, that the qualification and designation was firstly of man, which we all grant.   

Sect. IU.  
NOw we come to the forfeiture (saith the Doctor) of this power, if the Prince, say they, will not discharge his trust, than it falls to the people or the two Houses (the representative body of the people) to see to it, and to reassume that power, and thereby to resist. This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of power from the people by virtue of election, and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people, as also to be necessary in regard of th●se means of safety which every state should have within itself. We will examine them in order.  
Ans. Herein he doth charge us with this opinion, that we hold it lawful for the people to reassume their power, in case the Prince dischargeth not his trust, making the world believe that we contend for deposing of Kings; or that the Parliament goes about such a work as that is▪ for what else is it for the people or Parliament to reassume their power from the Prince? whereas we desire all the world should know, that we now take up arms as an act of selfe-preservation, not endeavouring o● intending to thrust the King from his Office, though for the present the State sets some under the King at the Ster●e, till the waters be calmed, as we said before.  
Then the Doctor saith, concerning the derivation of power, we answer, first▪ if it be not from the people, as they will have it, and as before it was cleared, the● can there be no reassuming of this power by the people.  
Ans. How doth this follow? for all that the Doctor had cleared before, was this; that power abstractively considered was from God, no● from the people; now let us see whether the clearing of that will brin● in such a consequence as this, that there can be no reassuming of this power by the people: if it will enforce such a consequence, than the syllogism is this; ●f power and magistracy and authority itself be of God and the forms of government and designation of persons be of man, the● there can be no reassuming of this power by the people. But the powe● itself and magistracy is of God, the forms of government and designation of persons is of man (saith the Doctor Sect. 3.) Therefore there ca● be no reassuming this power by the people, saith the Doctor, Sect. 4.  
Ans. Will not his imagined adversaries easily deny the sequel? indeed if he had proved that neither the power nor the qualification, nor the designation were of man but of God, and cleared that first, than he had t●ken that argument from his adversaries: but seeing he hath granted th● the ways of government and designation of persons to be of m● (though he hath proved the power itself of God) sure he hath no w●● stopped the course of their arguments, or practice against whom he d●●putes.  
The●● he comes to show the inconsequence, and saith. If the people should gi●● the power ●●absolutely ●●they would have it, leaving nothing to God in it but approbation, yet could they not therefore have right to take that power away, for many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part ●ith the● are not afterward i● our power to recall them.  
Ans. He supposeth we go to take the power away from the Prince, (which we do not, as hath been said.)  
2. There is a difference between disposing of things by way of donation or sale, and disposing things by way of trust: true; those things which we dispose of by way of donation or sale are not afterward in our power to recall, as they were before the donation or sale; as if a man give his child land, or sell land to his neighbour, it is not in the power of the father or neighbour to recall or dispose of the land, as before the donation or sale: But if a thing be disposed of by way of trust, then if the fiduciary or trusted shall not discharge his trust, it is in the power (at least of the trusting) to look to the matter himself; as in case that a Steward be ●usted with a man's house; and thus when any government is set up in a land by a people, they trust the governor, they do not give away their liberties or rights, but trust them in the hand of the governor, who if abused that he do not perform his Stewardly trust as he should, the people or representative body as an act of self preservation (I do not say, as an act of jurisdiction) are to looketo it. Neither herein do they so reassume their power as to take away any thing which they gave to the King, but so as to actuate that power which they always had left in themselves, (as the power of selfe-preservation.)  
Then the Dr. saith, Although it were as they would have it, that they give the power, and God approves, yet because the Lord's hand also and his oil 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 lifted up against him, either to take the Crown from his head, or the sword out of his hand.  
Ans. ●f this be true, than Princes that are merely elective and not hereditary, and whose coming to the Crown is merely pactional, cannot be deposed by the people, for they are the Lords Anointed, and the Ministers of God; but this is contrary to the Doctor himself, who in this same Section saith thus, Although such arguments (speaking of the forfeiture of the Prince's power in the next line before) may seem to have some force in States merely elective, and pactional, yet can it never be made to appear by any indifferent understanding, that the like must obtain in this Kingdom. And to this purpose saith the Dr. Phil. Paraeus ex●useth what his father had written on Romans 13. in the point of resistance: that it was to be understood of elective and pactional government, and when the government is elective and pactional, are not the Princes the Ministers, and the Lords Anointed?  
Then the Doctor saith, How shall the Conscience be satisfied that this their argument grounded upon election, and the derivation of power from the people; can have place in this Kingdom, when as the Crown not only descends by inheritance, but also hath so often been settled by conquest, in the lines of Saxons, Danes and Normans.  
Answ. First, how can the Conscience be satisfied in that which the Dr. writes in this his book, where he acknowledgeth in this Section that it is probable indeed that Kings at the first were by choice here as else where? And in Section 5. saith, that the forms of several governments (whereof Princedom is one) are from the invention of man, and so by derivation from man.  
2. The Drs. great design I perceive by his frequent touching this matter is to make our King a King by conquest; for in Sect. 3. He saith Gods Vice-gerents here on earth came into their Office either by immediate designation, the election of the people, succession and inheritance, or by conquest; now he cannot say that our King came in by immediate designation, & he doth not say that our Princes lay claim to the Crown by virtue of their election, & if by inheritance, then by the right of an election or by conquest; for by mere inheritance a man hath no more, than what those first had whom he doth succeed; Inheritance being but the continuation of the first right upon the children, the right of election he doth disclaim, and of derivation of power from the people, therefore the right that he makes our Prince to have to the Crown is only the right of a Conquest; then if any man's sword be longer or stronger than his, he may quickly have as much right to the Crown as the King; which opinion of the Drs. for my own part I must abhor from, what danger will it not expose our dread Sovereign to? Did not Athaliah reign as a Conqueress six years? And who knows not that she was lawfully thrust from the Throne again by a stronger hand than her own? Mere conquest being nothing else but an unjust usurpation: and if the Conqueror rule the whole Kingdom, and keep them under by conquest only, why may not the subject rise and take up arms to deiiver themselves from that slavery? Thus doth the Doctor open the door to greater resistance than those that he disputes against.  
3. Though a Prince should hold his right by conquest as the next right, yet if he hold it also by derivation from the people as the remote right, and the last be the more natural and just way, than arguments grounded on that remote right may be more valid, than those that are grounded on the next right, but thus it is with our Prince who although he doth succeed the conqueror, yet doth also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Commonweal unto his Crown, which a mere conqueror doth not, but rules without the consent and against the good liking of the people.  
Then the Dr. saith, We tell them the Roman Emperors were not to be resisted; they reply that they were absolute Monarches, was it any other way then by force and arms, the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themselves masters of this people. Ans. Now in these words we see the Drs. mind plainly that he contends for an arbitrary government; for he saith page 11. that the Emperors did rule absolutely and arbitrarily, and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarches, was it any other ways then by force and arms the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themselves masters of this people, in whose right and lines he saith before, the Crown descended upon our King. What can be more plain than this for an arbitrary government? It seems the Dr. was conscious to himself that herein he had discovered himself, and therefore he says this, I speak not as if the Kings of this land might rule as conquerors, but that will not heal it.  
Then the Doctor comes to the matter of capitulation or covenant, or oath which the Prince taketh to confirm what he promised, which, saith he, are so alleged as if the breach or non-performance of the Prince's part were, a forfeiture of his power. But we answer, saith he, the words capitulation or covenant are now much used, to make men believe the King's admittance to the Crown is altogether conditional: whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation.  
Ans. Herein the Doctor mistakes us: for though we acknowledge a covenant, yet we cannot be so weak as to think that any breach of the covenant is a forfeiture of the King's power, for then the best man could not be King long; but we first affirm a Covenant, for though the Kings of Israel were Monarches, and immediately designed by God himself to their office, and so one would think there should be no need of their coming to the Crown by a covenant, yet to show the necessity of this oath and covenant when they came to their Crowns, they also took an oath, and entered into covenant with the people to protect their rights and persons, 1 Chro. 11. 3. 2. We say that this mutual covenant betwixt the King and the people, binds the King to the people, as well as the people to the King, and that therefore it is as well unlawful for a King by force to oppress his subjects, and to take up arms against them, as for the subjects to take up arms against him.  
Thirdly, that hence it follows that the King's power is limited.  
4. From this covenant and capitulation we say, thereby it appeare● that the people do commit a trust to the King: which,  
5. If he doth neglect, as he doth not always forfeit his power, so neither are they to forfeit their right of looking to themselves for the present And therefore all that the Doctor says, that we urge the covenant a●● capitulation so much as if our King were a conditional King, and that which he brings to prove that he is a King before Coronation is needlessly urged against us: for we say and speak plainly, that though the righ● that our King hath to the Crown is firstly by derivation of power from the people, yet he hath his right by inheritance, and is not such an elective King as is chosen for a time, and his life if he rule well: and so his right to end in himself, but to continue upon his posterity: for the people do derive their power two ways, either so as to choose a ma● into office for his life only in case he rule well, and so our King's Predecessors were not brought to the Crown; or so as to commit the trus● of the State unto him, to descend upon his posterity, which when his posterity comes to, hath both a right of election and inheritance; it being the right of inheritance as it is left by their forefathers, and the right o● election in regard of its principle from whence it flowed: and thus w● do estate our King in his Throne, hereby establishing him more sur● therein, and then the opposite opinion of conquest doth.  
Then the Doctor tells us, That though the King do break his covenant or not make performance thereof, yet a forfeiture of his power doth not follow from thence: for saith he, could they in this covenant show us such an agreement between the King and his people, that in case he will not discharge his trust, thus it shall be lawful for the States of the Kingdom by arms to resist, and provide for the safety thereof it were something.  
To which I answer, we do not press the forfeiture of the King's power upon non-performance of covenant, but we say this; that the end o● his trust being to look to the Kingdom, though there be no such word expressed in the covenant or agreement betwixt the King and his people that in case he shall not discharge his trust, than it shall be lawful fo● the State of the Kingdom by arms to resist, and to look to their own● safety: their safety being the end of this trust, & ratio legis being lex in reason that must be implied, there is a covenant stricken between man & a woman at Marriage; when they marry one another it is not verbally expressed in their agreement, that if one commit adultery, th● party shall be divorced; and yet we know that that covenant of marriage carries the force of such condition. What followed in this Section i● either's repetition of what was before, or what in substance we have answered already.  
Only at the last the Doctor moveth this question: What then if the Prince take to himself more power, or not perform what he is bound to? and answers, then may the subjects use all fair means as are fit to use, cries to God, petitions to the Prince, denial of obedience to his lawful commands, denial of Subsidies, etc. but are left without all means to compel by force or resistance.  
Ans. The subjects are considered two ways:  

Socially  
Severally   
Severally as private men, and so it hath been taken for granted, that in ●ase of oppression the subjects have used no arms but tears and prayers. Before this Parliament, how many oppressions were there upon the people, both in their estates and in God's worship, by those who had un●uly gotten authority from the King; and yet we saw no forcible resistance made, but every man quietly subjecting himself under that suffering condition.  
Socially and jointly, and so there is other remedy for the subjects then only prayers and tears, and that the subjects are considered in this posture wherein now we are, professing that we take not up arms as we are private men barely, but as subjects united and joined in the representative body of the Kingdom, which never yet was counted unlawful by any Divines, as I have showed before.   

Sect. V.  
THe Doctor comes unto that which he calls our last reason, the safety of the Kingdom, where he saith first, that we have many weapons sharp●●d for this resistance at the Philistims forge, our arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schools, as he saith.  
Ans. But there is much difference between us and the Papists in this particular; for, 1. The Papists contend for the lawfulness of deposing Kings, which we do not. 2. The Papists plead for a power to depose a Prince in case that he turn Heretic, which we do not; for we hold that though a Prince may leave and change his religion, the subjects are not thereby excused from their allegiance. 3 The Papists do not only hold ●● lawful to depose and thus to depose their Prince, but to kill him also: 〈◊〉, that a private man invested with the Pope's authority may do thus: all which we abhor from: why therefore should the Doctor charge us thus, and make the world believe that we favour the Popish doctrine in this particular? But as the Parliaments Army is scandalised by the adversaries, saying, there are many Papists in their army to help on their designs; so is our doctrine scandalised by our adversaries, saying that we make use of Popish arguments to strengthen our opinion; but the truth of this we leave to all the world to judge of.  
But to prove this, the Doctor saith further, that by this reason the Pope assumes a power of curbing or deposing Kings; for that if there be not a power in the Church, in case the civil Magistrate will not discharge his trust, the Church hath not means for the maintenance of the Catholic faith, and its own safety.  
Ans. But what likeness is there between that of the Papists, and this of ours? The Papists saying, the Church hath a power of preserving its own safety, and therefore the Pope may depose: we say the Kingdom hath a power to preserve itself, and therefore if the King neglect the trust, the State for the present is to look unto it: And as for the matter of the Church, we turn the Doctor's argument upon himself thus;  
If the Church cannot be preserved where the Officer is an heretic, unless the Church have a power to reject him after once or twice admonition, then cannot a Kingdom have a power to preserve itself, when the officer is unfaithful; unless the Kingdom have a power either to depose him, or to look to their own matters till things be better settled: But the Church hath excommunication granted to it by Christ himself for its own preservation; neither can we conceive how a Church can preserve itself from evils and errors, unless it have a power to cast out the wicked officers; as in the body natural it cannot preserve itself, unless nature had given it a power to deliver itself from its own burdens, therefore the Commonweal also by the like reason cannot have a power to preserve itself, unless it have a power to deliver itself from its burden; but in case that an Officer be unfaithful, we do not say that it i● lawful for the Kingdom to depose him, therefore it may be lawful for themselves socially considered Statewise, in time of danger to help themselves. Neither herein as the Doctor would, do we appropinquate to the Romish doctrine, for the Papists from this power of the Church do infer a power unto the Pope, and not unto the Church or community.  
Secondly, the Doctor asks us this question by way of his second answer, If every State hath such means to provide for its safety, what means o● safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperors, in or after the Apostles times, or the people then enslaved, what means had they for their liberty had they this of resistance? Tertullian in his Apology, says thus, the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand, but they had no warrant.  
Ans. 1. The question is wrong stated, it should have been made thus, If any State hath such means to provide for its safety; what means of safety had the Roman State under the Roman Emperors, when as he doth say, what means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperors? Christian Religion, and the State are two different things.  
Secondly, in the primitive times the Christians indeed had none of this power of resistance, nor warrant for it (as Tertullian speaks) because the Roman State was not with them: but suppose that the Roman Senate or Parliament had stood up for them, and with them, the representative body of the whole Empire (and this is our case, not as the Doctor ●ayes it) then would not the Christians have made resistance for their own defence? No question but they would, and would have known that they had warrant therein; who may not see that hath but half an eye, the vast difference between the condition of the Christians in the primitive times, and ours? they not having the State to join with them, they not being the representative body of the Empire, as it is now with us; yet this objection maketh a great outcry, and there is some thread of it runs through the Doctor's book, but how easily it may be cut, let the world judge; there being no more likeness between our condition & the condition of the primitive Christians, then between the condition of private men whom the whole State doth move against, and the condition of people whom the State is with.  
The Doctor replies; that though the Senate of Rome were against the Christians of those times; yet if the people have the first right, and all power be from the people, that people must rise up and resist, because the Senate did not discharge the trust▪ and so it will be in this State, if at any time a King that would ●ule arbitrarily, should by some means or other, work out of the two Houses ●he better affected, and by consent of the major part of them that remain, compass his desires, the people may tell them they discharged not their trust, they ●hose them not to betray them, or enslave them; and so might lay hold on this power of resistance for the representative body claims it by them.  
Ans. Concerning the Senate of Rome, and the people of the Roman Empire, we say that though the Emperor and the Senate had been for the destruction of the Christians, yet if the whole body of the Empire had jointly risen for the Christians, I make no question but that many of those that ●ied, would so far have resisted that they would have saved their own ●ves; but the Emperors and Senate being against them, and the body of the Empire jointly considered, not rising for them▪ it is true indeed, they had no warrant to make resistanc●▪ but to suffer as they did. This i● none of our case.  
Secondly, whereas the Doctor saith, both here and afterward in this Section; that if upon our grounds the King will not discharge his tru●● that therefore it falls to the representative body of the people to see to i● then the people having this power may also say, if the Members of the tw●● Houses do not discharge their trust committed to them, they do not that which they were chosen and sent for, and then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them, take the power to themselves.  
First, I answer, that there is not the same reason why the people should be so ready to think that the Parliament do neglect their trust, being they are very many chosen out of the whole Kingdom for their faithfulness, approved every way for their goodness and wisdom; whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown, and so by virtue of his inheritance may rule, though he be known to be vicious; as also because it is received by all the Kingdom that we ought to be governed by Laws, and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is; as also because the people do actually elect and trust the Parliament men with the present affairs of the Kingdom. Now though the Prince indeed be trusted by the Commonwealth with their affairs in our forefathers, whereunto the people do now consent, yet there is not that actual election or designation of him unto the present affairs of the Kingdom, as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses; as for example, suppose that a people do choose their Minister, trusting him with all the great affairs of their souls, and there doth rise a controversy between neighbours, wherein they choose an arbitrator to umpire the businesses, though these two Parishioners ●hat have fallen out, have formerly trusted their Minister with all the affairs of conscience, yet they do not so readily stand to his verdict, by reason of the general trust, as to the verdict of those arbitrators whom they have now actually chosen for this business; neither can they in law o● reason so easily revoke or renounce the sentence of Arbitrator, who● they have chosen to this business, as the sentence of their Minister wh●● they have trusted in the general: so in this case of ours, though the Kin● be entrusted by our forefathers and us with the general affairs of th● Kingdom, yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and designe● by the people for the present affairs of the Kingdom; and therefore th● people take themselves bound to stand to their arbitrement: neither c●● they think, that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and sentence, as they are for the denial of their Prince's commandment.  
Secondly, I say, there is not the same reason that the people should recall their power from the Parliament, in case the Parliament should be unfaithful, as there is they should see to things in case the Prince be misled: I say there is not the same reason, (though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people) because that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince, is not made the sole reason by those that the Dr. disputes against for this their resistance: but the authority that they are clothed with, whereas if a people upon surmises that the Parliament do not perform their trust, should call in their trust and their power, than they should have left themselves naked of all authority, and should be private men; but now that they look to themselves in this time of danger, and in that sense do reassume their power which they have derived to their Prince, they are still led on by authority.  
Thirdly, the Doctor answers, that we cannot expect any absolute means of safety and security in a State.  
Ans. Neither do we expect it, though this be granted which we desire, or that granted which he contends for.  
Then he saith, that there is an excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them, and no power of enacting in one or two of them, without the third: for what might follow, if the King and Lords without the Commons, or those and the Lords without the King might determine, the evils of these days do show: so is this power of denying, for the security of each State against other.  
Ans. This both the Doctor and I must leave to the judgement of those that know the Laws and the Liberties, and the Privileges of all three Estates.  
Further, he saith, that now not only the name of Parliament which implies the three▪ Estates, is restrained usually to the two Houses, but also that temper is dissolved.  
Ans. First, it was always so, that the Parliament was made distinct from the King, in ordinary speech saying, The King and his Parliament: when the Parliament is mentioned alone, it may include the King; but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together, the speech can intent no more than the two Houses. As when the body is mentioned alone, it includes the head and the members; but when the head and the body are mentioned together, than the body doth not include the head.  
Secondly, that the Doctor saith, this trust of the three States is dissolved, I conceive it is a scandalous charge, and so I leave that t● others.  
Then the Doctor saith, If it be replied, as it is, for the reasonableness of this means of safety through that power of resistance, and that many s●● more than one, and more safety in the judgement of many then of one, I answer (saith the Doctor) true: but 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction, why should one hundred in the House of Commons see more than thr●● hundred, or twenty in the Lord's House more than sixty that are of different judgement, and withdrawn?  
Ans. I answer, if there be three hundred of the House of Common withdrawn, and but an hundred left; and sixty of the Lords Hous● withdrawn unto twenty, if indeed there be so many gone away, wh● did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote, and th● controversy had been now at an end? Then could it never have bee● said to the people, that the Parliament are against the King, the● might the three States have all joined together, and there had been n● further question.  
Secondly, the Doctor answers, that the Prince, though one, sees wi●● the eyes of many, for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Counsel to present to his eyes the differences of things, with the reasons of them.  
Ans. This needs no other answer than that which follows in th● Doctors own words, where he saith, that the King sometime descent from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament, so that he ma● see with their eyes, and see other things than they do, and be of different judgement from them. And if he may see with other men's ey● that are of different judgement from him, because they do present t● his eyes the difference of things, with the reasons of them, than m● the Houses of Parliament also see more than he does, because the difference of things, with the reasons of them, are presented to them al●●▪  
Then the Doctor descends to prove, that Monarchical government is t● best, and that God made choice to set up that still, first in Moses, then in t●● Judges, then in the Kings.  
Ans. But how come we to this discourse, to compare Monarc● and Aristocracy? and to say that Monarchy is better government th● Aristocracy? Doth it follow from the word True, which the Dr. ha● said to that proposition, many see more than one, and more safety 〈◊〉 the judgement of many then of one. But seeing he is pleased to say, ●he government which God made choice of to set up among his people, was Monarchical still, first in Moses, then in the Judges, then in the Kings, let us now diligently observe, that Monarchical government which God made choice of. If Moses, the Judges, and Kings, were are all Monarches, and Monarchy the best government, Then  
1. The best government is such, where the people have the free choice of their Governor: for so they had in the time of the Judges, Chap. 11. 5. And it was so, when the children of Ammon ma●e war against Israel, the Elders of Israel went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob, and ●hey said unto Jephtha, Come and be our Captain, that we may fight with the children of Ammon. And Jephtha said unto the Elders of Gilead, If ●● bring me home again to fight with the children of Ammon, and the Lord ●eliver them before me, shall I be your head? And the Elders of Gilead said into Jephtha, The Lord be witness betwixt us, if we do not so according ●o thy word. Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead, and the people ●ad● him Head and Captain over them, v. 11. Thus we see that that government which the Doctor calls the best, and set up by God, is such, when the people have the choice of their King, and the derivation of ●is power is from them; as I have proved at large in the Preface, to ●ave been in the Judges and Kings of Israel.  
Secondly, than the best government is that, where the King and people strike a covenant at his Coronation: which covenant the King is bound to observe, neither doth his covenanting with the people, make him no Monarch: for David was a Monarch, yet David ●ade a covenant with the Elders of Israel, and so they anointed him King ●ver Israel, 1 Chron. 11. 3.  
Thirdly, than the best government is such also, where the Prince ●oth advise with his people and Elders, doing no great matter in State ●● Religion without their consent, and with their consent doing. So David, 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David consulted with the Captains of thou●ands, and hundreds, and every Leader; and David said unto all the Congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you▪ let us bring again the Ark ●● the Lord our God unto us: and all the Congregation said, that they would ●● so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation. So that ●●e people having an agency in the great affairs of the Kingdom, is ●o way repugnant, but consistent with Monarchical government or ●●e government appointed by God himself.  
Fourthly, than also is the best government appointed by God, such ●● doth carry along with i● a lawfulness for the subjects to take up arms, and make forcible resistance for their own security, and safety of the Common weal against their Monarches, when cause requireth: for did not the people sometime in Israel take up arms against some of the Judges? And did not David though yet a subject to Saul) take up arms, and make forcible resistance? It is said expressly, 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19 Then David received them, and made them Captains of the Band, and there fell some of Manasses to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle. The Doctor said before in his Treatise, that David took up arms only in his own defence. But do these words note no more? Only I press them thus far, as may show a lawfulness for the people to take up arms in a way of forcible resistance against the King's commandment, when the danger is eminent: which we find agreeable to the best government set up by God himself, as the Doctor acknowledgeth.  
In the fourth place the Doctor answers, that such power of resistance will be no means of safety to a State, but rather a remedy worse than the disease; which he proveth from Rom. 13. (which I have answered already) and from some reasons, as 1. This power of resistance, if admitted and preserved, may proceed to a change of government.  
Ans. To which I answer, that if several forms of government be of humane constitution (as the Doctor speaks) why should we think that they are utterly unalterable, as the laws of the Medes & Persians.  
But secondly, this principle of ours cannot boil up to that height: for we only say, that when the Prince shall neglect his trust, the people are to see to it, and silenced not for deposing.  
2. He saith, This power of resistance is accompanied with the evils of ● civil war.  
Ans. No, but therefore we are afflicted with civil war, because some people are misled from their own natures, to take up arms against their own Country: Civil war is from the cause thereof, now the Parliament calls for arms only to defend the Country: these make the civil war that are against the Country's defence.  
Thirdly, he saith, There is danger in this power of resistance: for the if the people be discontented, and have gotten power, they may say, the Members of the two Houses do not discharge their trust, and so by this rule, tak● up the power to themselves, and so all rapine and confusion brought into th● Kingdom.  
Ans. There can be no such inference made from this principle o● ours: for the people do all acknowledge, that we are to be governed by Laws, and that (as the Doctor saith) the Parliament is th● Judge what is Law: the people do acknowledge, according to truth, that the Parliament hath the declarative power, or the supreme power of declaring the Law, the King doth not profess this, but rather the contrary, that he is no Lawyer, nor skilled in the Laws. The Parliament do profess it, and the people acknowledge them to be so; and therefore there is not the same reason, that they should take their power to themselves, in case that the Parliament should neglect their trust: for why should the people take that power unto themselves, should it be according to Law? The Parliament will then tell them, that they have done that which is according to law, wherein they confess, that the two Houses have the power of declaring. But now if the Prince shall neglect his trust, and the people take a power to look to themselves in times of danger, by way of forcible resistance, the Prince cannot say, when the Parliament is against him, the supreme power of declaring law, doth agree my course to be lawful: so that you see there is not the same reason of both.  
And whereas the Doctor saith, That upon the like reason, if the Parliament shall neglect their trust, the people may call in their power. How can the people think that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land, when the Parliament are the Judges thereof, and the people confess so: and therefore the Doctor may be out of fear for this matter.  
Lastly, the Doctor saith, That seeing some must be trusted in every Estate, it is reason that the highest and final trust should be in the higher and supreme power, and that he should have the best security, which is worth ten thousand of his subjects.  
Ans. I answer, therefore the people do trust the King and his Parliament, who are the highest power and Court in the Kingdom: and if the greatest and best security should be about the King, because he is worth 10000 subjects, then surely the Kingdom itself should have the best security, because the King is ordained for his Kingdom.  
In Fine, the Doctor presses the oath of Supremacy, Allegiance, and the last Protestation upon the conscience, and wishes men here to consider their power of resistance, and taking up of arms is contrary thereto; in which he saith, We swear and protest to defend the King's person.  
Ans. And thus we do by taking up of Arms: for what man is there that considers things rightly, may not easily perceive, that if the Popish party should prevail (which are either about the King, or of his Armies,) I say, who may not easily think, if they should prevail, that either our King must be a rank Papist, of a dead man? Who knows not, that if the Papists get the upper hand, though now they cry out for Supremacy, Supremacy, that either they will force the King to another Supremacy, or else quickly make a hand of him? Is it not their opinion? What better service therefore can a true subject perform to his Majesty's person, then by force of Arms to deliver him out of the hands of those spoilers that lie in wait for his precious soul? In the oath of Supremacy we swear him our Sovereign to be Supreme in opposition to the Pope, or any other particular person. How does our doctrine or practice infringe this? In the oath of Allegiance we swear to be his liege Subjects according to Law, and that which we do is so: And in our Protestation we protest to maintain the King's Person, the Parliaments privileges, the Subject's rights, and our Religion: if we do not take up arms in this time of Popish insurrection, how can we with good conscience say, that either we defend the King's Person from the violence of Papists, which (according to their own Doctrine) we know shall be made upon our King, or the privileges of Parliament, whose power is to send for delinquents, and those that are accused before them, even by force to bring them into their trial; or the liberty of subjects, who have this given by nature to defend themselves, or the truth of our religion, which notwithstanding all flourishes, we have seen such invasions made upon, and now in our conscience under more hazard; because those that are opposite unto it, do profess to defend it: whereupon I presume that every good man that maketh conscience of his ways (considering these things) will not be backward to advance this public design. And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others, charging men from this resistance upon pain or damnation; yet a settled conscience will be no more scared with the Doctor's damnation, then with the Cavaliers God damn us.   

Sect. VI.  
NOw the Doctor comes to the application of all in these two fast Sections, in which I intent not to trace him into all that he says. The application of all being left unto what men see and know experimentally; yet something I must say unto these Sections. In this sixth he tells us that we do not walk up unto our own● principles, which are as (he saith) that our resistance must be omnibus ordin but regni consentientibus: that is (as he translates it) agreed upon and undertaken by the general and unanimous consent of the whole States.  
Ans. But is this a good and true translation of the words? The Doctor may know that when the matter comes to a scrutiny in the Regent house the matter is to pass with the consent of the Regent's, non-Regents, and heads of the University; and though all do not manimously as one Man consent, yet it may be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus.  
But he saith, How shall conscience be persuaded that this resistance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States; for saith he, he that knows how the Militia (in which this resistance chief began) was brought in, with what opposition especially in the Lord's House, and by what number that at length was voted; also how the like proceed was voted since, how that a vote passed by a few upon the place, though it have the power and condition of a vote, for the formality of law was not passed in full assemblies, cannot be persuaded in conscience that this is such an unanimous, free & general consent as makes the judgement of the whole Kingdom.  
Ans. To the which I answer, that by the like reasoning, there is no act of Parliament or Law, shall be of any force; and he may as well question any law that is made; for when was there ever any law made, which all did unanimously as one man consent to? By the constant law of the Kingdom though there be not so many in either House which have been present at these late affairs of the Kingdom, it is to be acknowledged for an act of Parliament, and so the judgement of the whole Kingdom.  
Then secondly, he tells us, That we do not walk up to our second principle, viz. that our resistance must be merely defensive, for, saith he, those that are first in arms cannot be upon the defensive part, page 22. and then page 21. saith he, who were first in arms? He that can number the succession of months and weeks in his Almanac, may decide this, he shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull, the Militia set up, etc.  
Ans. To which I answer, If those that are first in arms cannot be on the defensive part, then surely David's act was not mere defence, as the Doctor saith before: for we find in Scripture, that David, and his men were gotten into arms before that Saul followed him: surely the Doctor's Almanac hath not all the months in it, for he gins his account only at the business at Hull, whereas before that, the King came in hostile manner unto the Parliament, gathered forces about Windsor, but this must be left unto men's eyes, and experienced knowledge, it being matter of fact.  
Then the Dr. (I know not how) comes to inquire into the cause of these arms, wherein after some flourishes, he saith, Would an● man have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes, if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their liberties? Saying further, what shall we then generally think of this revolt from allegiance, which hath possessed well near tenn● Tribes of the twelve, and yet in page 21. he tells us of a vote passed by ● few upon the place, that this work of resistance is not carried on with a general and unanimous consent, and yet here he saith, ten tribes of twelv● are for it.  
In examining the causes of this war and resistance, the Dr. saith▪ To speak truth, Religion and liberties can be no other than the pretences of this war, the King having fortified them with so many acts of his grace passed this Parliament, that they cannot be in that danger that is pretende● for the raising of this war: It must be something that his Majesty indeed doth deny, for which the contention is raised; which we shall find to be his power of arms, his power of denying in Parliament the government of the Church, and the revenue of it, which he is bound by oath to maintain, as by law they are established.  
Ans. This is a very bold assertion and scandalous to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with hypocrisy: but how doth this agree to the Drs. own principles, who doth declaim against me● for their uncharitableness, in not believing the King's Protestations? Is this then no uncharitableness in him, charging the Houses with pretending one thing, and intending another? Is not conscience a● well bound to be charitable, and to believe the Protestations of th● Parliament, as those papers that come out in the name of the King? and hath the Parliament and Houses carried themselves so unworthily and basely, that under pretence of Religion, we should thinks they gape after the revenues of the Church? O where is this man● charity? And if the King be bound by oath (as the Dr. saith) to maintain the government of the Church as by Law established, yet h● is no more bound by virtue of that oath to maintain that government than any other Law of the Kingdom; and as for other Laws, i● the King and Parliament think fit to repeal them, they may, ye● without breach of the King's oath: so in this also.  
Then the Doctor comes in the 25. page to open himself some what more freely concerning the government of the Church b● Bishops: where he saith, That it is such a government which t●● Church always had since the first receiving of the Christian faith in th● land, and of all other governments simply the best, the abolishing wher● of, the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert.  
To which I answer, First, that if the Doctor look into the story of Queen Mary's time, he shall find, that suffering Protestant Churches, (which by reason of persecution, were feign to lie hid in London) were governed by Elders and Deacons: That is simply the best government of the Church which is chalked and ruled out by the Scripture, as the Doctor will confess: and if this government be so, I wonder that those that are so much for it, should be of that judgement, that there is no particular form of Church-government laid down in the word: which judgement they must needs be of, unless they will hold, that the government of other Churches is sinful, and contrary unto the word, which they are loath for to do. And truly if this government be simply the best, the best hath the worst success: for there is no government in all the Churches of Christendom, that hath had so many Sects and Schisms, or occasioned so much separation from the Churches of Christ, as this hath done. There are many Sects and divisions in the low Countries, but none of them departing from the Protestant Church there, by reason of the Church-government or discipline, but by reason of doctrine.  
Let any man but seriously consider the Protestant Churches in Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany, Scotland, and he shall easily observe, that there is no such separation or division made from the Churches by reason of the Church-government established in them, as hath been here in England, by reason of this Diocesan government. And if any man shall say, this bad success here is rather to be imputed to the wickedness of the Governors, than the corruption of government: Why should he think that the Governors in England are more wicked then in other Protestant Churches, if the government itself did not give scope to their wickedness? And if the government of Diocesan Bishops, be of all governments the best, we wonder that Christ and his Apostles should not appoint it: surely they appointed some government in the Church; and what they appointed was ●ure Divino, and so best; whereas this was never counted jure Divino till of late. But if this government be simply the best, it will abide trial in its due time and place: but that it should be so good, as that the abolishing thereof, the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert, this is strange. Now the Doctor shows himself, that he had rather the Kingdom should be imbrued in a bloody war, than Episcopacy should be put down; and that will stir up the King to an unnatural civil war for the upholding of that order: Judge ye, O all Englishmen, whether it be better for you to have this order taken away, then for the whole Kingdom to lie embrued in their own gore?  
In the conclusion of this Section the Doctor complains, That the King's Spear and Cruse, and necessary Ammunition, and provisions, are taken away, not restored though often demanded, contrary, saith he, to the example of David, who having taken the Spear and the Cruse from Saul his King, restored them again before they were demanded, 1 Sam. 26.  
Ans. But though saul's Spear was restored before it was demanded, yet not before Saul had humbled himself to David, saying, I have sinned; return, my son David, for I will no more do thee harm; because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: Behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly, verse. 21. Whereupon David arose, and said, vers. 22. Behold the King's Spear, let one of the young men come over and fetch it. Neither is mention here made of restoring the Cruse. Some other things the Doctor hath in this Section, wherein he doth rather charge then prove, but men's knowledge may sufficiently answer to those things.   

SECT. VII.  
IN this last Section the Doctor tells us, That though Conscience could be persuaded that it is lawful to make a defensive resistance, yet it can never be persuaded that the King is such as the people must be made to believe he is: for indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught, to render their Prince odious to his people, under the hateful notions of Tyrant, subverter of Religion and Laws, a person not to be trusted, or at least as one seduced to such evil designs, by wicked counsels, that he will bring in Popery, that he will not stand to his promises.  
Ans. These are sad charges, but how groundless God and the world knows; who may not see how tender the Parliament hath been of the King's honour? Therefore they have not been willing to believe that those Declarations that came out in his name, are his own: Therefore they charge all that is done on his counsellors, not on himself; herein being fully like unto David, who though Saul came out against him, yet did he not impute that unnatural war unto Saul himself, so much as unto those that were about him, saying unto Saul, If the Lord hath stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering; but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the Lord: for they have driven me out▪ this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, 1 Sam. 26. 19 Therefore also when the Parliament hath written any thing that might in the least measure reflect upon his Majesty, I have observed that they never did write so, but to vindicate and to clear themselves from some aspersions first cast upon them; and when they did write so, like Shem and Japhet, they took a garment and went backward; desiring rather to cover then to behold any nakedness in our dread Sovereign: And woe be unto them from the Lord, (but I will not curse them with the curse of Cham) who put his Majesty upon such actions, whereby any nakedness should be discovered.  
Then the Doctor comes to the examination of those fears and jealousies which have possessed the people, which he saith are raised on these grounds, report of foreign powers to be brought in, the Queen's religion, the resort of Papists to his Majesty, his intercepting of means sent for the relief of Ireland: To which he answers, first, That the report of foreign invasions given out to keep the people in a muse, the easier to draw them into a posture of defence are discovered in time to have been vain: But saith he, If there be now any foreign aid coming towards the King (as all Christian Kings cannot but think themselves concerned in this cause) it will be just for him to use them against subjects now in arms.  
Answ. To which I answer, That it doth not appear that our fears were vain, because foreign invasion hath been prevented; for we may rather think that therefore we have not been invaded by foreigners, because the Parliament hath been vigilant both by sea and land to prevent them. But who doth not see that so far as lies in the Doctor, he doth invite foreign forces into the land, and so stir up other Princes for to send them, and our King for to use them? Whether this be agreeable to an English Divine, or an English Subject, I leave to be judged.  
Then he saith, The Queen's religion is no new cause.  
Answ. To this I say nothing but leave it (being matter of fact) to the judgement of eyes that have seen actions, whether there be no more cause of jealousy now then at her first entrance.  
And thirdly, for the resort of Papists, and the Kings entertaining them, the Doctor strengthens the intrust of it with that example of David, we may see saith he, what manner of men were gathered to David in his distress, and how Ziba was rewarded.  
Answ. To which I say this only, how can the Doctor make it appear, that those that were gathered to David were men of another Religion from David, and of such a Religion that by the State was counted rebellion, who also by the State was to be disarmed? Which if the Doctor does not make good, this instance is nothing to our case.  
And 4: for the matter of Ireland, I leave that wholly to the Parliaments Declarations, who without doubt know the proceed of those better than this Doctor, and what conscience enlightened will not rather rest for satisfaction upon Parliamentary Declarations, then upon this Doctor's assertion in this matter.  
The other things in this Section are mostly matter of fact, and therefore I must refer them to men's sense, only I cannot but observe how in all things the Doctor clears the King, and casts dirt upon the Parliament, but still with this cunning; when he hath laid the greatest aspersion upon them, he retracts in these words: I speak not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdom of the great Council, like as before, when he had said what he could, (or happily dared) for the Kings ruling by conquest, he comes oft with this kind of speech, This I speak not as if the Kings of the land might rule as Conquerors; and this is an ordinary sleight when men have preached against purity and holiness with as much bitterness as they can, than they think to come off in this or the like manner, God forbidden that I should speak against purity and holiness: But let him in God's name, clear the King in what he may, (as we are all bound to do as fare as we can) but can he not clear his Majesty without such foul aspersions cast on the Parliament? of whom he saith thus page 30. Men are higly concerned to consider whether they also that are the main directors of this resistance do discharge this trust they are called to, whether to divest the King of the power of Arms, and to use them, be to defend his Person, Right and Dignity? Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this resistance, and the imprisoning of their persons for denial, be the maintaining of the right and privilege of the subjects? Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines, and to commit such unsufferable outrages upon the worship of God with such licentiousness, be a defending of Religion, and the established worship of this Church?  
Answ. These are foul charges upon the Parliament: How can the Doctor say, I enter not this discourse to cast the least blemish upon the Parliament? Well, blessed is the man that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth: The Doctor confesseth, That man to be subject to higher powers and that we are to submit to them, he confesseth also, That the Parliament is the highest Court in the Kingdom, and it ought to judge what is the Law; they having therefore judged this resistance to be lawful, if the Doctor shall resist this their declarative power, saying it is not law, and cast such dirt and reproaches upon them, doth he not condemn himself in the thing which he alloweth?  
But in this last clause of his book, he summons conscience to answer upon pain of damnation, and I make no question, but when men shall have seriously considered his book, the verdict that conscience will bring in, will this be:  
As in the sight of God, I have perused this Treatise of his, and I find it injurious to the King, to the Parliament, to the Divines of this Kingdom, to the other Subjects, & to the Treatiser himself.  
To the King, for hereby he is put on, and exasperated against his Parliament and Subjects, further engaged in this war, and encouraged to take the assistance of Papists, who if he conquer by their means, what Protestant good subject doth not bleed to think what will become of him?  
To the Parliament, being charged with the blood that is spilt in these wars, with the miseries of Ireland, with the Schisms and Sects of this Kingdom, with open hypocrisy, pretending one thing, and intending another.  
To Divines, all whom he makes to be of his judgement.  
To the Subjects, denying to them the liberty given them by God, and Nature, and the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and calling in foreigners upon them.  
To the Treatiser himself, who hath needlessely embarked himself in a bad cause.  
And lastly, to the Scripture and God, and his great Officer on Earth, Conscience; the Scripture being wrested, God dishonoured, and the conscience deceived.  
Now the Lord grant that whilst we speak of Conscience, we may in all things make conscience of our ways, for multi conscientiam habuit adjudicium, non ad remedium. As concerning the King, Give the King thy judgements, O God, and thy righteousness unto the King's Son: And as concerning the two Houses of Parliament, Let the mountains bring grace unto the people, and the little hills thy righteousness. Let the King and Queen, and people praise thee, O God, yea let all our England praise thee.   
FINIS.