THE RESOLVER, OR, A SHORT WORD, TO THE LARGE QUESTION OF THE TIMES. CONCERNING The Parliament: And confirming the Proceed about the KING. BEING, A Letter written to a dear Friend, tending to satisfy him. At least, to show the Author rational, in approving the proceed of the Army.  Debita sanguineo, mors sanguinolenta tyranno. 
He that sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.  Gen. 9.6. 
Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people.  Esay 14.20. 
Indignus enim est quem terra sinu suo excepiat ac contegat, is, qui eam vastarit, & innocentium sanguine corrupit:  Marlorat in locum. 

Imprimatur  
GILBERT MABBOT.   
London, Printed by I. C. and are to be sold at the Crown in Popes-head-Alley 1648.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
THis Letter should have been Printed upon the third of this instant january, But something hindered them: Since that the Armies seizing of the Members, hath been fully vindicated, both by themselves, and others. Yet they being here more brifely touched upon. And the question of the proceed about the King, not as yet spoke too (at least) so directly as here. I hope this will not be unpleasing to the Reader to peruse, nor to the Author to see it in Print.  
Jan. 17. 1648. Imprimatur, GILBERT MABBOT.   

THE RESOLVER, OR, A short word to the large question of the times, concerning the Armies seizing the Members of the Parliament, and confirming the proceed about the King, etc.  
Dear Friend,  
THe transactions of affairs on foot are weighty, and in our conclusions concerning them, we had need be wary. He that is to pass over the amazing Sea of politics, had need have a stout Ship, and a skilful Pilot. It's cowardice not to own a good cause, when it so appears. But its madness to account every cause good, that is so called; rashness in any thing (especially of weighty) is irrational. I have a long time been a serious, and silent spectator of the late Tragedies which have been overacted upon the English Stage: And if I should say, I have beheld them with my eyes, my heart would at once witness against me, and condemn me. Misery hath a power upon men (much more upon Christians) to cause mourning. A safe, and a speedy period of these sad, and shaking affairs is, that which is desired by all, and endeavoured by some: But alas! Who is sufficient for these things. I confess, I long and look for a full, just, and grounded peace, because the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath promised it; But the question is, whether the things now in agitation, have a tendancy thereunto. Now, that justice (rightly administered) is the path to peace; I think none that is but morally-wise will deny. And that punishment of offenders, is a prime piece of justice, was ever maintained by those, who were any thing versed in politics. The doubt than is not for, much about the matter, as about the manner of the things now transacted.  
Two things you scruple, in order to the removal, of which this is,  
First, you question: Whether the Armies seizing, and secluding the Members of the Parliament be not rather a violation of justice, than an expedient for peace. For suppose them (say you) guilty, yet to seize and secure them, was not regular: and confident you are, that it was the breach of their privileges, and so not only above the power, but against the Protestation of the Army. And secondly, you say, you are in the dark about the people's power over Princes, and the quaere, whether the trial of the King, either by Army, or Parliament, may be lawful.  
In Answer to both these, I return briefly thus.  
First, as touching the Army's seizure of the Members, and therein of their breach of privilege, I return thus.  
1. I am as yet ignorant of those Arcana Imperii, i.e. what the privileges of Parliament are in their just latitude, Only I am apt to think, that as all was not prerogative. (just) which the King and his faction so named; so neither are all those just privileges (which alone were protested to maintain) which certain Parliamentary Grandees are pleased so to declare: Certain, the King did deceive, while he said, every thing (or most) which the Parliament did against him, was an invation of his prerogative; And why the Parliamentees may not delude also, when they cry out breach of privileges, I know not. But I hope that ere long, we shall know the just bounds of Parliamentary Privileges, and then, we shall see who transgress.  
2. As yet it's not declared by those, whose innocency continues then in the house, that what was so done by the Army, was a breach of Parliamentary Privileges: Nay, while they desire to know the reasons thereof, do they not tacitly include, that it was not. It were as easy for them to say, you have broke the Privileges, as to entreat an account of that action. The Justice, who only asks the Constable, why he secured such a person upon suspicion of felony, and doth in it silently hint, that the very securing was unjust.  
3. What ever be their Privilege in Parliament, I am persuaded to think that it is not (at least) a just Privilege to be free altogether from Arrests, (for then what would the City Creditors do, etc.) And I am easily convinced, that it may be as just to Arrest (and above an Arrest, the Army hath not acted) for suspicion of Treason, as for any debt whatsoever.  
4. The Commission of the Army was to take, and secure (at least) all such as either more publicly, or more privately, were enemies to the Kingdom: And why, a Parliament-man being such, should be exempted, I know not: sure there was no such proviso, in the Commission: that in case they were Parliament-men, that acted against the Kingdom, they should not be taken hold of. It had been well for some rotten and Revolted Members, such a clause had been in: but than it were ill for the Kingdom.  
Lastly, Admit the action exentrick, and not avoiding to the formalities of Law, (which have him at best, a hindrance to justice) yet the case is extraordinary, necessity is the Law royal. And how many Acts, which in their fieri, or doing, have not been so legal; have yet in their fact or Act, been declared (even by the Parliament,) necessary, and therefore warrantable, is known to all: That there was a necessity to compel, (and for to authorise) the other is clear. Suppose that some Pilots, to whose care the safety, & steerage of some ship were committed, should upon their being a shore, and in company with some Pirates, conclude to go aboard, and to conspire there against the owners, and ventures in the Ship: either to betray it to the Pirates, or to detain it themselves. Now suppose some of the Seamen, who were to man it, as to War, and to fight for the safety, and security of the Ship, should upon the hearing, or knowledge of their design, stop the perfidious Pilots, and not permit them to go abroad that morning when they intended to do as they designed, and detain them safely, till they had given an account hereof to the Merchants and owners: would, or could any man say? the men of War, or Seamen did more, then upon this necessity, they were bound to do. I know you are quick, and can apply. The allegory of a Ship is platonic. And what the Members were about to vote that morning when they were seized, is not Apocryphal.  
This to the first of the scruples. As touching the other that consernes the quondam King. Reserving my large thoughts, till a fit opportunity, at present, I shall only offer briefly, as follows.  
First. No King is ex Lex, i.e. either, without, or above the Law: Indeed some have said, the King could not sin, I am sure 'tis false Divinity, and feigned Law, why Kings should have a Prerogative to do evil, without control, or trial, is above my thoughts to conceive, and against reason to conclude, 'Twas Court Divinity, that the King was responcible to God only, but this Divinity of the Court, is not currant.  
Secondly. The Army's Charge is no more, than what this very Parliament, and some of the Apostate Members, long since have taught them, and the Kingdom to make.  
Thirdly. Kings, when faulty, may be dealt withal; some have thought (and that rationally) that the Kingdom of Judah, was carried captive for their King's cruelty: and the reason they give, is, because the people, did not resist their King. Certain, if it were a fault in them not to resist, it can not be injustice in us to question a King. I shall at this time only acquaint you with what I find in Alstedius (a great and sedulous Reader, and a man impartial and ) He in his Enciclopedia, in the 23. book, pag. 1427. lays down this conclusion. All and every Subject may resist a Tyrant.  
Upon this, he comments thus. Concerning this conclusion, it hath been anxiously disputed, both by Divines, and Politicians. For things (he saith) have in this business been inquired after, which he thus sets down. 

1. Who is a Tyrant.  
2. Who may resist him.  
3. Why, and wherefore.  
4. How long.    
As to the first and second, he saith thus. A Tyrant is one who either wants, or hath a title. He is a Tyrant without a title, who usurps, or invades, either openly, or clandestinely, a Commonwealth which is not his, by the just title either of election, or succession. And concerning this, there is no doubt, but its lawful for any one (even a private person) to put him to death, etc.  
But a tyrant with a title (who also is called freeborn) is one who by public authority, either of election, or succession, hath obtained Imperial power, but doth abuse it. The notes, signs, and Characters of such a one are. Partly general, as to violate the fundamental Laws of a Commonwealth, to be an injury to his Subjects, to abuse the rights of Majesty, to do (what in him lies) to overthrow the state of the Commonwealth: More special marks are, to convert the treasury of the Commonwealth, either to his own private use, or to the detriment of the public: to waste, diminish, or alienate, the goods of the Kingdom, to take away the Estate of the Subject, and exhaust them, either by force, or fraud, to wage war to the undoing of the Subject, etc. And so he goes on reckoning up the signs of a Tyrant, and amongst others, (I forbear all, being in haste) he reckons up the prohibition or hindrance of (much more certainly the warring against) Parliaments or conjunctions of state. Now concerning such a one (saith he) we do judge thus. That if he have been often admonished, and do not repent (alas! we know of admonition, but who knows of repentance?) if he rhene the Commonwealth; if he make a prey of all, (i.e. if he persist to attempt it) if he break his Oath (as certainly, the man you wots of, hath) if he hastily oppose godliness, He is to be dethroned by the Ephori (i.e. which is the Parl.) who gave, or committed the regal power unto him. But if this cannot conveniently be done, he is to be suppressed by Arms, as an enemy to the Country or Kingdom. Now the most weighty of those reasons, which are urged to maintain this opinion, are these, as he thus recites there.  
1. Subjects are obliged to Princes but conditionally, viz. whiles they govern justly. For a Prince is constitued by the people, through their Heads, (or Presentatives) to be a Father, Preserver, Protector, Defender, and Shepherd of the Subjects. By the same he is, or may be exauthorized, (or Dethroned) and suppressed by force, when he is a Destroyer, Oppressor, and wicked Ruler. And so is a Lion, a Bear, a Wolf, or Vulture. He is an evil Pilot, who doth make a hole in the Ship (i.e. the Common wealth in which he lives) and as much as in him lies, destroys, and overthrows the universal Society over which he is, in that he overthowes the fundamental Rights, and Laws, as well of Ecclesiastical, as of Civil Power. The Subjects therefore are obliged to the Prince, so fare as he governs the Commonwealth aright. Now the obligation ceaseth, when the condition thereof faileth.  
2. Princes do constitute aright or power, of resisting themselves: because either tacitly, or expressly, they give consent to that condition: that the States or Peers of the Kingdom, should rise up against them, if they do otherwise then right, or as they ought.  
3. A Prince acting against the agreements, and fundamentals of a Kingdom, and thereby losing that (otherwise) inviolable Majesty? Becomes upon this a private person, to resist whom, is generally allowed of by all.  
4. The constitution of a King doth not take away that lawful defence against force, and injury, which the Law of Nature doth grant to any: especially to a people, who would punish a Prince that is a notorious Tyrant.  
5. The Civil Laws (which, my friend, were Imperial, and are still in great force in foreign parts) do confirm this opinion; while they declare thus: We are not to obey a Prince ruling either above the limits of the power entrusted him; or beyond their power committed to him: For the Commonweal by constituting a King, doth not rob, or deprive itself of the power of its own preservation, and give it to him.  
Examples of such as have resisted the chief Magistrate, occur, 1 King. 1.2. Where the 10 Tribes revolt from Rehoboam. 2 Chron. 26. Where the high Priest resisteth King Vssiah. 2 King. 11. Where the high Priest Jehojada gave command, for the putting of Queen Athalia to death, etc. But he adds, fare be it from us to say, that it is lawful for every, or any private person, to put a Tyrant to death. So the windows, yea the gates would be wide open to the Manslaughter, and Murder of all Kings, etc.— But forasmuch as a Tyrant is therefore resisted, that the public safety may remain secure, it follows therefore, that the Peers and Powers of State, who are, as it were, the compendium (saith he) of the Commonweal, (as indeed our Parliament is) that they give judgement by public authority, conserning the King's government, and that they ought to remove that Tyrant; yet so, as that they accommodate the assistance of the people. I might add to these reasons of his, but I forbear.  
Now as to the third thing: viz. For what end, or why a Tyrant is, or may thus be resisted. This he gives shortly thus. That so the Commonweal may be secured, and the Tyrant himself (if it may be by any means) may be brought to be fruitful, (i.e. by repentance.)  
To the last particular: How long this is to last, or continue. He saith, Till he (that is the Tyrant) amend. But if no hope thereof appear, so long as the safety of the Kingdom will permit.  
Object. But if the Peers, or Powers of State (saith the same Author) further him (i.e. the Tyrant-King) and nourish his Tyranny. What may, or shall the people do?  
Answ. For a good time, or a long time, they must forbear, or be quiet. Till patience itself, often, and long abused, turn into impatiency. Thus that light of Germany, Transilvania, yea of Europe (as a fire, and no flattering Pen styles) Alstedius.  
Quest. But (you will say) in all this, here is no mention of putting Kings to death.  
Answ. True: None directly. But I presume, you are so rational, as not to deny it consequentially. Certainly the same grounds urged for deposing, etc. of Kings, will also hold their putting them to death, where justice and necessity call for it. The security of a Kingdom is to be prized, above the security of a King. And when it cannot be otherwise, better one man die, by the Sword of Justice, than many (yea a Kingdom) bleed by the Sword of Tyranny.  
But what Instances can be given (will you say.) It's good acting by a Precedent.  
I Reply. 'tis lawful without. Suppose some Instances could not be given, must therefore the thing be unlawful? Surely, non sequitur. If some Kings formerly were so good, as not to deserve it: or some People so weak, as not to inflict it. Shall not others be so wise as to punish, when their Kings shall be so wicked as to deserve it.  
But we need not run to this short (yet sure) refuge: I could give Instances enough to clear this. That If Kings deserve, States may inflict death upon them. Thryninius (the proud) was dethroned, his goods confiscated, and certainly (saith Livy) had he been taken (for he fled) should have been otherwise punished. If you say, his crimes were above Charles Stuarts, I think when you have read Livy, you will say, they were less. For he saith, He was guilty, of not harkening to the advice of the Senate, That he made War of his own head (as the King did against the Scots, and that against the consent and counsel of the Parliament) That he violated the Laws, etc.  
The Histories of the Athenian and Lacedaemonian Commonweals, are plentiful in this kind.  
Q. But they are Heathen.  
A. What then? Had not they Justice: And shall not Christians, rather go before, than not follow them therein. But our English Histories tell you of Edward the 2d. John, and others, that were dethroned by Parliament. I am in haste, therefore I shall only refer you to Buchanan: and if have not time to read him. Any of the Scots (and you know some) will tell you, of Kings enough, which their Kingdom hath tried, and proceeded against.  
Q. But here's no Scripture-Justice you will say.  
A. True: It needs not. The The Law of Nature, and Nations in these cases will suffice. Jus politicum is enough in Politcks. Why should any (especially who content themselves with, yea and contend, that jus humanum, may suffice in Church-affaires) why (I say) should these require jus divinum in civils; yet is not the Scripture altogether silent. For there we read of Amaziah king of Judah, put to death by his Subjects, with a general consent, (the Spirit of the Lord not mentioning (as he doth in other things) the least disallowance thereof) 2 Chron. 25.27. I confess, I find not the cause fully expressed; But in the Hebrew notes of Rabbi Solomon Jarchi I find this: That the heart of every man was grieved for his sons, for his brethren, and kinsmen, which were slain by his means, in war against Josias king of Israel. Note, this was but for a rash war waged against another King, to the slaughter of his Subjects; what then shall be done to him, that hath waged a long, bloody war against his Subject? Sed manam de tabulam.  
I have almost done, you know he was no Independent (so nicknamed) who said, Fiat justitia, & ruat Mundus. Better certainly, expose the Kingdom, to an other shaking by War, (through the execution of justice) then expose it, to a three years' famine; (precedent whereof we have, 2 Sam. 21.) for not punishing a bloody house. Surely the blood of the English is as dear to God, as the blood of the Gibeonites, and the house of Stewards, as bloody as the house of Saul.  
I have thus hastily scribbled this paper, if not to your satisfaction, yet at least, to my own: And I hope by this you will see, that I am more rational, then cast in that approbation which I gave to the Army's Remonstrance. For a close, I protest, that I am persuaded, that the things now agitated are of the Lord: Therefore it is that I approve them: And humbly advise you, not to oppose them; lest you be found Tiomachan. To fight against him ignorantly, whom, I hope you love sincerely, viz. the God of love, and also of Justice, It's easy to do that in an hour, which we cannot undo in a year: Afterwit indeed is bought, and accounted best, but you know it costs dear. I believe some reputes of the last Summer's rashness, and will do whiles they live. But this not in Kent; for since old and good Sir Anthony is dead, the Committee hath lost its life. And some of them act, as if they made little account of their Souls: Godfrey of Boulogne is not amongst them. There is one indeed of that name: But alas! he read The Army's Remonstrance, wondered at it, Cried it up, And then sat down again, and is now, etc. a Jacobine Proselyte.—  
As touching your fear of an inundation of Errors, and a devastation of the Ministry, and Learning. You know, that I hate Errors as much as you; and I confess, though I fear them (for they are evil) yet I hope the Weapon of our Warfare being Spivituall, will also be mighty. And as to Learning, and the Ministry, you know, I have cause to love them: And, I must confess, I am so far, from fearing any evil to befall them. That I expect, (I have reason to hope) their advancement.  
But to end. It's a fitting season: Rotten leaves, (and branches too) fall apace. Be not you high minded, but fear: The day is surely dawned, in which the loftiness of man, shall be bowed down; and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in this day. It's my advice to you, and endeared for myself, to provide a ransom from Divine Justice hereafter, rather than to hinder, or speak against, the executing of humane justice here. At the great day, Christ will not distinguish between Kings and Clowns. Princes at his bar, will be proceeded against, according to their deserts.  
Indeed 'tis true, the World counts them, and the Word calls them Gods: But it saith also, that they must die (at best) as men: And for my part, if they deserve it, I think it all reason, they should die as malefactors. When Kings fall from their goodness, they lose their Deity: And when they fight against their Subjects, and break their oaths, they forfeit their Kingship. If Charles Steward have done evil, and deserve it, in God's name, and the Kingdom's Peace, let him die: I shall pray that free grace may save his soul, when Justice shall destroy his body.  
I am Sir, Your friend and servant, N. T. Jan. 1. 1648.  
FINIS.