A VULGAR OR POPULAR DISCOURSE SHOWING That the War raised by the two Houses, fomented chief by the Londoners, abetted for the mo●… 〈…〉 and others notoriously disaffected to monarchial Government. Is not (as Boroughs pretends) in defence of the Protestant Religion, His Majesty's Person, the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom, and Privileges of Parliament, but rather destructive to them all. Written Dialogue, wise, By Irenaeus, A Lover of Peace against Eristes' A Lover of Contention.  Prov. 24.21.22. 
My Son, fear God and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change, for their calamity shall rise suddenly.  Tertul. Apol●… c●…●…. 
In Majes●…tis 〈…〉  
When Majesty is wronged every 〈…〉 to maintain the Right and 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of His Sovereign.  
Printed at York by Stephen Bulkley, 1643.   

To His Excellence, WILLIAM Earl of NEWCASTLE, Viscount Mansfield, Lord Ogle, Baron of Bolsover, Bothall, and Hepple, Governor of the Town and County of Newcastle, General of all His Majesty's Forces in the North Parts of this Kingdom, and in the Counties of Nottingham, Lincoln, Rutland, Derby, Stafford, Leicester, Warwick, Northampton, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Hertford, One of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council.  
Right Honourable,  
I Make bold in all humbleness to present this Treatise to your Honour's acceptance; the candid construction which your excellence hath often been pleased to give of my Sermons delivered to the Ear, hath encouraged me, by a bold tender, to offer this to your judicious Eye: If it obtain your Lordship's approbation, it will not repent me that I have exposed it to the critical View of this censorious age, by so open a Publication; your Countenance it begs, that your Greatness may protect it; And deign Noble Lord, to vouchsafe it your Honourable Patronage, for it justifies that cause with the Pen, which your Excellence maintains with the Sword; it pleads for Loialty, and to whom can a Treatise of Loialty in these Parts more fitly make its address for shelter, then unto his Excellence William Earl of Newcastle; who as one of our Davids most excellent Worthies, hath approved himself a most Renowned, Heroick, Magnanimous protector of Loialty in these Northern Counties, to the perpetual Honour of his Name, and Noble Family. Go on still (most Noble Lord) with Heroic Magnanimity, and prosper; till all the King's Enemies that have risen up against Him, be clothed with shame, and my Lord the King return home to His Palace at White-Hall in Peace; Which is the Loyal, the earnest Prayer of  
Your Excellencies in all humble Observance, Service, and Duty, Y. A.   

A Vulgar or Popular Discourse, Written Dialogue-wise, By Irenaeus A Lover of Peace, against Eristes' A Lover of Contention.  IRenaeus, 
Why do you fill the Church with Schism, and the State with Faction, can you tell Eristes? what is it you contend for? or what warrant have you to lift up your hands against your Lawful Sovereign, the Lords Anointed?  Eristes. 
Are you a Stranger Irenaeus, in this our Israel, and know not these things? the m●tters for which we contend, are m●tter● of importance: for we take up Arms in defence of the true Protestant Religion, His Majesty's Person, the Liberties of the Kingdom, the Privileges of Parliament, and that by Warrant and Commission from the two Houses of Parliament.  Irenaeus. 
Surely Eristes you mean to put a gull upon me, as you have done upon many others, and by these fait plausible Pretences would seduce me to take part with you in a wretched Quarrel, and to hazard my Life in this World, and my Soul in the next, by bearing Arms against my Sovereign.  Eristes. 
What do you hold it an unlawful and damnable act, to take up Arms against your Sovereign, in Defence of the true Protestant Religion, His Majesty's Sacred Person, the Laws of the Land, the Libertyes of the Subject, and the undoubted Privileges of Parliament?  Irenaeus. 
First, you take for granted that which will be denied, and go about to render your Prince odious to His People, under the hateful notion of a Tyrant, as if he meant to subvert the true Protestant Religion, the Laws of the Land, etc. which are sad charges, but how groundless God and the World knows.  
Secondly, were your Pretences as true as they are specious, yet it is contrary to the Law of God, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the perpetual Pa●ience of Christ's Church, that Princes may be resisted by their own Subjects; this is a Conclusion drawn no● from Divinity, but Conspiracy, and whosoever te●ch Resistance of the highest Power, or Supreme Magistrate; their doctrine is wicked, and their proofs must need● be weak, let us hear then orderly and distinctly, what you can allege to Justify your forcible Resistance of Sovereignty?  Eristes. 
You mistake Irenaeus, we who side with the two Houses of Parliament, do not arm ourselves to fight against the King, but for the King.  Irenaeus. 
There are no Rebels but pretend somewhat to justify their unlawful Acts of Rebellion: do you not take up Arms against the King, when you oppose him by Force of Arm, and in an Hostile manner seize upon his Force, Ammunition, Ships, Revenues, when you make a General of your own, and give him Power to Kill and Murder the Persons, to burn and plunder the Houses of His Liege People? when you discharge your Ordnance against Him and his Army, to the endangering of his Sacred Person? this is a strange defence, to shoot at the King in his own defence: I believe (if this be to defend his Person) you would not be a King, to be so defended. Consider it well, and if this be not to take up Arms, against the King, I seriously confess, I know not what is, nor know I what any Rebels can do more.  Eristes. 
But we do it to make him a glorious King, to defend, preserve, and maintain his true Regal Power, Honour, and Dignity, to rescue him out of the hands of the Malignant Party, who are his greatest Enemies.  Irenaeus. 
You tell us that you will make him a great and glorious King whilst you use all possible skill, to reduce him to extreme want and indigency, and that you will make him to be honoured at home, and feared abroad, whilst you endeavour by an unusual way of Remonstrancing to make him Person contemptible to Foreign Princes, and his Government odious to his good Subjects. You set a work seditious Sectaries and Schismatics, like so many Catalin●s, the Firebrands of their Country, to persuade the People that what you do is to defend, preserve, and maintain his Honour, when, as appears by the nineteen Propositions, you intent nothing less; for to instance in some of them. Is it for his honour to have all his Counselors and great Officers displaced for no other fault, but because they have approved themselves most loyal and faithful to him? Is it for his Honour, that he shall never choose any Officer of State, but accept such as the two Houses of Parliament shall be pleased to nominate and appoint? You would think it hard if you might not be permitted to entertain what Servant you would, but should have them appointed and thrust upon you by another man. Is it for his Honour to have the power of disposing the Militia taken from him, which all other Kings his Predecessors ever had, and enjoyed as the chiefest Prerogative and Flower of their Crowns, and which if once he be divested of, he can neither defend himself nor his Prerogatives Royal, nor the Laws of the L●nd in their true vigour, nor his Loyal Subject in their Rights, Properties, and Libertyes, all which he is entrusted with; nor over-awe and suppress any of his Subjects if they should rebel, nor be able to protect his Kingdoms against a Foreign Prince or Potentate, in case they should invade his Dominions, Is this for his Honour? Judge as you would be judged, and do as you would be done unto.  
Lastly, whereas you pretend that you take up Arms, to rescue his Majesty out of the hands of the Malignant Party his greatest Enemies, we know no Malignant Party within this Kingdom, in all probability able to do mischief besides the Separatists, Men notoriously disaffected to all Government, Disturbers of the Church's Peace, and experimentally known to be fatal to Monarchy; these and such as these His Majesties truly defines to be the Malignant Party, who are Persons disaffected to the Peace and Government of the Kingdom (such as neglecting and despising the Law of the Land) give themselves other Rules to walk by, dispencing with their obedience to Authority, and these His Majesty heedfully avoids as Malignants destructive to the Church and Commonwealth.  
But you would have them removed from the King, as wicked Malignants, w●om in his greatest afflictions he hath found most faithful and trusty, and of whose tried Loyalty, he hath had good proof and experience, and it is your usual manner, to empty the very sink of Language upon the reverend Fathers of this our Israel, and our most eminently learned Clergy, and to Martyr their names with those opprobrious obloquys of Malignant Party, Men disaffected to Peace, Adherents to Popery, Superstition, Idolatry, Scandalous Ministers, whereas I doubt not but many of them will (if need require) be free of their dearest blood in refutation of such malicious calumnies.  Eristes. 
Well, to wave this point, admit that we fight not for, but against the King, yet we do it in a good cause for the defence of the true Protestant Religion, which is our chief inheritance.  Irenaeus. 
You may not do evil that good may come of it, Rom. 3.4 And God is never more dishonoured, then when Religion is made a Cloak to palliate public Rebellion, consider it well, Religion teacheth thee to be subject ●o the King, Rom. 13.1. and wilt thou for Religion in a forcible way oppose the King?  Eristes. 
Why may I not, when the King is inclined to Popery, and would subvert the true Protestant Religion?  Irenaeus. 
Thou art a man of a very light belief (if thou canst be induced to harbour in thine heart any such conceit of so gracious and Religious a Prince:) believe me, be that tell● thee so, is none of the King's friend, but one of the Malignant p●rty, who would rob the King of the Loyal subjection and affections of his People, which is his royal due; And to the end thou mayst know how much he is wronged in the report, I refer thee to His own Declarations, wherein he often attest● God with fearful Imprecation, That He will inviolably conserve, and constantly maintain the true Protestant Religion, as in His Majesty's Speech the ninth of March, 1641. God so deal with me and mine, as all my thoughts and intentions are upright, for the maintenance of the true Protestant Religion: And in His Declaration to both Houses, in answer to that presented to Him at Newmarket, M●rch 9 1641. We do (out of the innocency of Our Souls) wish that the judgements of Heaven might be manifested upon those who have, or had any such design of altering Religion in the Kingdom. And in His Majesty's Answer to the Petition which accompanied the Declaration presented to Him at Hampton Court, December 1. 1641. We are persuaded in Our Conscience, that no Church can be found upon the Earth that professeth the true Religion with more purity of Doctrine, than the Church of England doth, which we will maintain with constancy (while we live) in its purity and glory. And in His Declaration, May 19 Where He desires His Actions may no longer prosper, or have a blessing from God upon them or Him, than they shall be directed to the glory of God, in the maintenance of the true Protestant Religion.  Eristes. 
Sed quid opus est verbis cum facta videam?  
But what are words without deeds, or attested Protestations unless they be seconded with answerable and suitable practices?  Irenaeus. 
If by the true Protestant Religion, you mean the Religion or public Form of God's worship, established by Law in the Church of England, and sealed by the blood of many Martyrs; you cannot be ignorant, that His Majesty conforms to it in constant practice, even beyond the strictness of most of His Subjects, and what other way can he testify his sincere affection to the true Protestant Religion, but only by his profession and practice.  
He than that tells thee the King is inclined to Popery in his heart, either speaks what he knows, & then he is a searcher and knower of the heart, which is a Prerogative belonging to God alone, not communicable to any Man, or Angel, or else he speaks what he knows not, and then he raiseth a causeless slander upon the King, contrary to his frequent Protestations and practise which is an high crime of a dangerous consequence, that deserves the utmost soverity of punishment.  
Thou mayst nor bear false witness against thy neighbour of the meanest rank, and wilt thou bear false witness against thy Prince? thou may'st nor think ill of the King, no not in thy heart, much less shouldest thou dare to speak ill of him with thy tongue.  
After thy Prince hath often protested his zeal to Religion, and in a solemn manner called God to witness those Protestations, and desired God to bless him according to his true meaning therein, and his people to defend, and serve him no longer, than he shall con● u● const●● in such resolutions; wilt thou still think 〈◊〉 ●●y that h●●o●h but dissemble; good God, what is become of charity? which binds us to believe the best of every man, 〈◊〉 we have evident proofs to the contrary.  Eristes. 
But the King calls in the popish party to 〈◊〉 and assist him, ●nd is not thatan evident convincing proof that he is popishly affected?  Irenaeus. 
No, for first His M ●esty was very concolour, and tender in this point, and d●d not ad●…t them of the popish party to aid and assist him in his just c use (〈◊〉 which never Prince had juster,) till the opposite party had admitted Papists, Brownists, men of all professions to aid and assist them in the most causeless and unjust war that ever Subjects maintained against so good a King, the mirror of Princes for piety, justice, and clemency.  
Secondly, it cannot be denied but the Papists are His Majesty's Subjects, and therefore stand as deeply obliged to venture their lives and fortunes in his just defence, when they shall be required, as any of his Protestant Subjects; otherwise their case in point of subjection were not only different, but much better than the case of Pro estants.  
Lastly, we read that David did nor refu●e the assistance of an Amalakite, because he was an Amalakite, nor did the wounded man refuse the Samaritans wi●e and oil because he was a Samaritane, nor did Henry the fourth the l●te French King, while he was yet a Pro●estan●, refuse the assistance of those many French Papist, who spent their blood in ass●rting ●i● Crown; ●or do the united Provinces reject ●he uxiliary help of Popish Regiments, so long as they ●re secured of their fidelity. A Christi●n if he hap to fall into a deep●pit, will not (I suppose,) refuse the aid of a Turk to help● him out, le●st p●rchance●● p●rish before a Christian come by that way; a sick p●tient will not refuse to take Physic of a Jew or Papist, because he is a Jew or Papist, and I know no re●son either in Law or just Policy, why if His Majesty should be deserted of the Puritans, He should refuse the aid of the Papists to defend His just righ●; it is the action that justifies or condemns the person, it is not the person that justifies or condemns the action, and if the Papists do what befits their duty to their Sovereign, they shall rise up in judgement against those that undutifully oppose their Sovereign. Yet I am very confident had not the adverse party led the way, by admitting a number of P●pists, both English, French, and of other Nations to assist them, His Majesty would never have admitted of their assistance, unless extreme necessity should have urged him thereto. And I am as verily persuaded that His Majesty's constant intention, and the aims of all, by much the greatest p●● of all the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and others ●bout t●e K●●g, that show themselves in thi● c●u●e for h●m, is not to ●lte● the Protestant Religion established in this Church 〈◊〉 to preserve it inviolable from the innovations of ●ll ●●●●●●aticall and factious Spirits, and to maintains u● 〈◊〉 blessed primitive uniformity of Doctrine, Discipl●in●, and Liturgy, which so long has been the glory of ou●● and Envy of other Churches.  Eristes. 
But the two Houses of Parliament h●●●eclared our Wars to be Lawful, and whatsoever they by their Declarative Votes do declare and determine to be lawful, that we must account Law, else of necessity we shall run to confusion?  Irenaeu●. 
If whatsoever they declare, is to be admitted as a Law, then either because they find it so in the Common, or Statute Law, or else merely because they declare it, not the latter, for  
First, they being but men of fallible judgements, it is possible they may be deceived in their Declarations, and Declare that to be ri●●t which is wrong, that to be Law which is lawless, except they will suffer their declarative Votes to be regulated and warranted by some certain known Law formerly ●●tant and approved.  
Secondly, if their declarative Votes be Law, merely because they declare them to be so, and we are bound to be governed by them, than the government depending upon such Votes, must need● be arbitrary, for wh●t can be more arbitrary then to sit whilst they list, and to vote for Law what they list, can there be a more absolute power and government according to bare will, then to determine right or wrong, as they shall please to call it? should we the freeborn Subjects of England, submit to this new devised way of government by Votes, and Ordinances which no body ever he●rd of, or could know before they were voted? we should be in worse condition than Turkish slaves, whilst they are at the mercy of one, we at the pleasure and comm●nd of hundreds, to dispose of our Lives, Liberties, Estates, and whatsoever else we may call ours, according to their humours, or free Votes bounded by no Law, but that of Sic volumus.  
Yea we should have no foundation of any Laws but their will, before which, all Statutes, Records, Judgements, Customs, Laws whatsoever, must vanish away, if they say that it is for the ho●our of the King, by all possible means to make him odious to his people, then that's the Law: if they say that the taking away of his Ships, Forts, Magazines, Money, Ammunition, is for his defence? then that's the Law: if they say that all who are ready to venture their lives and fortunes for the King, be Traytors, t●en that's the Law: if they say it is for the Liberty of the Subject, to imprison him without law, for his immunity and propriety, to lay violent hands upon his person, and to plunder hi● Goods, then that's the Law: if they say it is a privilege of Parliament to deny all but themselves freedom of Voting, then that's the Law: if they vote that there are no Tumults, when a multitude of people gather themselves together before the King's Court in a tumultuous way, then that's the Law: if they say they have no by-ends of their own, when they would advance themselves into all places of Honour or profit in Court, City, Country, then that's the Law; and so all Laws, all Privileges whatsoever, must be resolved into this Supreme Law, their Wills. And can there be any Government imagined more arbitrary than this.  
If it were a sin in one t● labour to introduce such a form and manner of Government amo●●st us; 
E. S.  how it can be tolerable in many ●o practice it, I do ●o● yet understand, when the doing of a th●ng i● mor● then the labouring or attempting to do it. The Apostle ●●th a cutting question, and I wish some whom it nearly concerns would apply it. Thou that conde●● another and dost the same thing, thinkest thou this, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God. Rom. 2.3. Thou th●t condemnest one for attempting to bring in an Arbitrary Governme●, and dost thyself actually introduce it, how c●●st thou look to escape the like judgement, which thy own tongue hath pronounced to be just?  
Secondly, if such an unerring and boundless power, do lawfully and of right belong unto both Houses of Parliament, that their myere Declaration can make that to be a binding Law without appeal, which they declare to be Law; I wonder they were so unwise, as not to challenge it before, or that they found it out no sooner, it would (as one wittily observes) have spared the trouble of getting the King's assent to many Bills. Why was not Strafford killed with an Ordinance? the Bishop discharged out of the Lord● House with an Ordinance? this Parliament made everlasting by an Ordinance? What du●l unlearned men (as he goes on) were Sir Edward Cook, Phillips, eliot, Digges, etc. that could never find or devise this knack of forging new Laws in former Parliaments?  
Fourthly, were it Law whatsoever the two Houses declared, then could they enact new Laws without the King, and so the well tempered, and admirably balanced Government of this Kingdom, wherein all the three Estates are sh●rers after a sort, and in the r●ine order, might at the pleasure only of two of them be dissolved. But it is not equal that two of the Estates, should judge by no Rule s●ve their own Votes, or that they should be allowed, to be the sole arbitrary Judges both of Justice and Policy without the third: this must of necessity make the third to stand for a Cypher. That the two Houses are distinct parts of the Parliament is acknowledged; but that they have the power of the whole in right (though it hath been executed upon us in fact) must be denied, unless we will grant that they can make an Act of Parliament without the King.  
In former Ages, and ever since Parliaments were in use (if I be not misinformed, for I am no studied Lawyer) the Jus Statutorium or Statutory Laws, were constituta, settled and established by the King and both Houses of Parliament, in which the reasons of making those Laws, were most in the deb●ting and voting of both House●, and the Royal Assent to them was left to the King, with a Le Roy veult, or his dissenting from them, not peremp ory, but with a modest answer Le Roy s'avisera, which modest descent was of sufficient authority to make a Bill of both Houses invalid. And how the King hath lost that right, and what new Laws are found out destructive to that Prerogative, I never yet re●d, nor ever shall, unless some new Ordinance or bare Vote, can pretend to such an unwarrantable po●er.  
Fiftly, if their b●re Votes, be more binding, and of greater Authority than the King Proclam●tions, then are their words above the Kings, and their power and authority above His, and not His above theirs, and then Saint Peter was mistaken in telling u● that the King is Supreme, 1. Pet. 2.13. And we are all forsworn in taking the oath of Supremacy to the King, and no● unto them, and so are they, for it w●s enacted, Anno 5, Eliz. That every Knight, Citizen, and Bur●esse● in Parliament should take the same oath, and unless th●y took it, they should not be admitted Parliament men, or have any voice there.  
Either then the House of Commons hath taken it, or not (if they have not taken it) they are not Parliament men, nor have any voice (if t●ey have taken it) unless they will forswear themselves and deny God, they must continu● subjects sitting in the Parliament Hous●, and be under the King as supreme, and consequently, either their word●, nor au●●●rity c●n be ●bove Hi●, nor can they Enact any Law wi●●●●u● H●●●ssent.  
But s●condly, If they pretend the former, Th●t they have an Express Law to warrant all t●●ir Declarations, Votes, and O d●●●nce● to be ●egall, th●y do● v●●y ●ll t●●t they do not shew ●● u●to the King, who pro●●ss●th, t●●t the very show o●●●, should sati●fi●● him anywhat he ●●nnot be s●ti●fi●● till t●ey she●●y; will t●●y (rather than show such a L●w) disp●●●se t●● King, hazard their Religion, the Peace of the Kingdom, and the Lives and Soule● of many in a bloody Water?  
Briefly, Either th●r●i● such a Law, and they will endanger King, Kingdom, Lives, Goo●, Religion, b● a B●oody, Civil, Destructive, unnatural War, r●ther t●en show it, which would argue them extremely uncharit●bl●; or else indeed there is no such Law for them t● declare, and then their Declarations are not Legal, and by consequence we are not bound to obey them.  
I will conclude this point with some Observable passages out of His Majesty's Answers to the Declarations and Remonstrance of the two Houses of Parliament, 〈◊〉 fi●st out of that Answer of His to the Declaration of both Houses touching the Militia, wherein they pretend th●t they were necessitated, to m●ke such an Ordinance for settling the Militia, warranted thereunto by the Fundamental Laws of the Land.  
They may do well (saith His Majesty) to tell Our good Subjects what those Fundamental Laws of the Land are, and where to be found, and to mention one Ordinance from the first beginning of Parliaments to this present Parliament, which endeavoured to impose an● thing upon the Subject without the King's Consent, for of su●h all the inquiry that We can make could never produce Us one instance, and if there be such a secret of the Law which hath lain hidden from the beginning of the World to this time, and now is discovered to take away the just legal Power of the King, We wish that there be not some other secret (to be discovered when they please) for the Ruin and destruction of the Liberty of the Subject: for no doubt if the Votes of both Houses have any such authority to make a new Law, it hath the same authority to repeal the old. Then what will become of the long established Rights and Liberties of the King and Subject, and particularly o● Magna Charta, will be easily discerned by the most ordinary understanding.  
Secondly, out of His Majesty's Answer to the Declaration of both Houses concerning Hull, M●y 4. 1642. The power of Parliaments is great and unlimited, but it is on●y in that se●se, as we are a part of the Parliament, wit●o●t V●, or against Our Consent, the Votes of either, or both H●●●es together must not, cannot, shall not (if We can help it for Our Subject's sake as well as Our Own) forbidden any thing that is enjoined by the Law, or enjoin any thing that is forbidden by the Law  
In what a miserable insecurity and confusion must we necessary and inevitably be, if the Sovereign Legal Authority may be despised by Votes, or Orders of either, or both Houses.  
Thirdly, Out of His Majesty's Answer to a Book Entitled, The Remem●rance of the Lords and Commons, May 19 1642.  
There cannot be imagined a greater Violation of our Privileges, the L●w of the Land the Liberty of the Subject, and the Right of Parliament, than the Votes passed in the House, March 15.16. One of which Votes w●s (and there need no other to destroy both King and People) That when the Lords and Commons shall declare that the Law of the Land is, the same must be assented u● to ●nd obeyed; that is the Sense in f●w words, Where is every Man's Property? E●ery Man's Liberty? If the major part of bothh Houses declare, that the Law is, the younger Brother shall inherit, what is become of all the Families and Estates in the Kingdom? 〈◊〉 they Declare, that by the Fundamental Law of the Land, such a ra●… a 〈…〉 unadvised Wo●d, aught to be punished by perpetuaal 〈…〉, is no● the Liberty of the Subje●…, dur●nte bene 〈…〉 dilesse?  
1. They Vote the Kingdom is in di●…e th●… 〈◊〉 Vote that by the Fundamental Law of the Land the ordering of the Militia must be left to their disposal.  
2. They Vote, That the King intends to levy War againt His Parliament, and then they Declare, That whosoever shall assist Him, is guilty of high Treason.  
We admonish both Houses of Parliament to take heed of inclining under the specious she●…s o● necessity and danger, to the exercise of such an Arbitrary power they before complained of, the advice will do no harm, and We shall be glad to see it followed.  Eristes. 
But Our Libertyes and Estates are entrenched upon, and We must not be so basely degenerous, a● to suffer them to be betrayed, but we are bound to defend our lawful L●ber●ies and Estates even against the King himself, which we inherit, as truly from our Ancestors, as the King inherits any thing he hath.  Irenaeus. 
What hath the King denied which concerns our Liberties, and are the undoubted securityes of our safety, freedom, and happiness under the Regiment of a just and unquestionable Monarchy?  
Are not our Rights and Propertyes already established this Parliament, by such Acts of Grace as could never find Precedents from his Ancestors? are not Monopolies upon what pretences soever, Projects, all illegal Taxes, t●ose arbitrary Courts of Justice, High Commission, Star-Chamber, Marshalseyes, & ●. ●●erly ●●m●'d and extirpated; and doth not His Majesty in His Message to both Houses March 1. 1643. move them, That they would with all speed fall into a serious consideration of those particulars; which they should hold necessary for the present and future establishment of their Privileges, the free and quiet enjoying of their Estates and fortunes, and the Liberties of their Persons. And in His Majesty's Answer to the People of the Commons, Jan. 18. 1641. doth he not call God to witness, That the preservation of the Law and Liberty of the Subject, is, and shall always be as much His Majesty's care and Industry, as his Life and the lives of His dearest Children. And in His Majesty's Speech to the Committee, March the ninth 1641. doth he not thus passionately exp●●st●●●te with them. What would you have? ●●ve I de●●ed to pass any Bill for the ease and Security of 〈◊〉 Subjects; there is a judgement from Heaven upon this Kingdom, if these Distractions continue. God so deal with me and mine, as all my thoughts & intentions are upright, for the preservation of the Laws of the Land.  
And are not these pledges sufficient to dissolve all jealousies, if ever we mean● to be sa●ti●fied, and to assure us that we may live safe and fr●e unde● the Government of so just, gracious and Religious a Prince's if working he●ds (quibus quieta movere magna est merc●s) ●●o love to sish in troubled waters, and think the disturbance of the public Peace a sufficient hire to set them on work.) did not purposely for their own advantage, and by-ends, labour to cast the mist of causeless fears and jealousies, before the People merely to startle them into a posture of war, As that printed relation of the Tailors in Moorefield, of the Stable of horses under ground, of the Danish Fleet, th●t was discomfited by Van Trump long since; besides ot●er strange horrid treasonable discoveries, and Letters which came God knows from whence? that were purposely feigned and devised, to hinder a right understanding between the King and his People, and to embroil the Kingdom in a Civil War.  
Whereas we feel to our just grief, and hope we may truly affirm, without danger of being branded with the black Stigmatical name of Malignants, that there was nothing formerly suffered by us, the free borne Subjects of this Land; which hath not upon the same pretences, but with less colour been since acted and exceeded by those who were called together to ease us of the like sufferings, for our Estates have been taken away without our consent, in defence of our Property; our Persons have been imprisoned without just cause, in defence of our Libertyes; and our condition (as one observes at this present, is so fare from being bettered, that 'tis grown extremely worse, as if all the evils of former times, had been Epitomised into the volume of two ye●res last passed; and the Quintessence of ours and the former Ages grievances had been extracted, and given us at one draught. See the Complaint to the House of Commons  Eristes. 
But may not the two Houses of Parliament who are the representative body of the Kingdom, summon and authorise all the able freeborn Subjects of the Land, to take up Arms against the King in maintenance of them and their Privileges when they are deserted, and their Priledges infringed by the King, which is just the case of the two Houses of Parliament at this present.  Irenaeus. 
First the King hath not deserted His Parliament, but was forced to leave His Palace at White Hall, and to take shelter elsewhere, because His sacred Person could not there be safe, from the danger-threatning uproars, and tumults of a heady misguided, masterless multitude, and it was not fit to m●ke Majesty so cheap, and despicable, as to expose it to the base and barbarous affronts of a sedit ou● huddle.  
Secon●ly, so fare is His Majesty from infringing any just or undoubted Privilege of Parliament, that in his answer to a Book entitled a Remonstran e of the Lords and Commons May 19 1642. He desires his actions may no longer prosper, than they shall be directed, to the maintenance of all the Rights, and freedom of Parliament, in the allowance and protection of all their just Privileges.  
And let the two Houses of Parliament exhibit a list of the Privileges, not only belonging to the being and efficacy of Parliaments, but to the honour also and compliment of them, and clearly declare them to be true, just and undoubted Privileges, and I am confident they shall have His Majesty's allowance and approbation; ●ea I d●re be bold to say, they shall have observance al●o, from those that are nicknamed Malignants; but till ●●ey be declared by them, how can they b● observe●●●y u● reason ought to be sati fied, before obedience m●y be expected, especially in point● of such high ●o●ce●●ment, wherein our Laws, Liberties, Estates, yea even our very souls are interessed, and though we be falsely Christened the Popish Army, for discharging our Loyalty and duty to our Sovereign; yet thu● fare at least we are Protestant's, that we will not resign up our understandings to their infallibility; and in a Popish way yield blind obedience to all their Votes, before we know them to be just and legal, which we have more reason now to suspect then ever.  
First because the two Houses of Parliament now sitting have disclaimed the legal way of proceeding in former Parliaments, according to the warranted rule of the Law, beside that which is recorded in their own breasts.  
2. Because we see that a number the fare greater number of approved able men, whose Ability, Wisdom, Moderation, Judgement, and Sufficiency, were the only inducement of their Country's Elections, have withdrawn themselves, as unuseful Members of that Body, out of a dislike of such disorderly unwarrantable proceed, and for that they were debarred of those two grand Privileges, which conduce to the very being of Parliaments, viz. Liberty of Speech, and Liberty of Access, th●t they could neither freely come, nor freely Vote, being from without menaced, affronted, assaulted by the Rabble, and within censured, fined imprisoned, or banished for discharging their duty to God, their King, & Country, by such of their own fellow-Members, who make wit, and the King's favour, heinous crimes; Loyalty, Treason; and Conformity, Popery.  Eristes. 
But they are the representative body of the Kingdom, and we whom they represent are bound to be in a readiness upon their summons, to secure their actions from neglect and contempt.  Irenae●●. 
Suppose one whom we Elect a Burgess of Parliament, or a Knight of the Shire speak, or endeavour to enact Treason, doth our Election bind us to secure him? or will future Parliaments blame us hereafter for giving up so great a Delinquent too t●e Justice of the Law? I presume they will not.  
The Commons do not represent the People in any thing which the Law hath not trusted to them; but neither the Law of God, nor the Law of Nature, nor the Law of the Land have trusted the Subject with the Sword, or with a power of making War against their Sovereign, in whose name, and by whose authority only the Sword is to be drawn; therefore if the representative body attempt any such law less, and unlawful Act, we may not second or abet them in it, but must mainly oppose them to the utmost of our power.  


Non tribuamus dandi regni atque imperii potestatem nisi Deo vero, qui dat regnum caelorum solis p●is regnum vero terre●um & pei● & impiis sicut ei placet, cui nihil injuste placet. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 5. cap. 21.  
Et paulo post qui Mario, ipse Caio Ca●●ari qui Augu● o ●●se &. Neroni etc. regnum dedit,   First the Law of God, that teacheth us to fear God and the King, and nor to fight against Him, Prov. 24.21.30.31. And it tells us, That all who live under a Monarchical Regiment, aught to submit unto the King as Supreme, 1 Pet. 2.13. And ●t puts no difference between good and bad Princes in point of subjection, for, God (saith Saint Augustine) that gave the Empire to Augustus, a mild and gracious Prince, gave it to Nero, a very monster of men, He that gave it ●o Constantine, a most worthy Christian Emperou●, gave it to Julian a most damnable Apostata; And be the Magistrate Jew or Gentile, Christian or Heathen, good or bad, he hath his authority of Government from God, the supreme Moderator and Governor of the whole World. In respect whereof we are bound for Conscience sake towards God to be subject unto him.  
Must Masters be submitted unto notwithstanding their curstinesse? 1 Pet. 2.18. And may Princes be oppugned it too sharp?) Israel risen not against David in the cause of Vriah, nor against Solomon in a worse c●use, Idolatry; nor against Saul, though a Murdering and Massacring King. All the Kings of Israel were open Idolaters, Jehu not excepted, and the greater p●t of the Kings of Judah, fourt●en of them were likewise pl ●n Idolaters, yet no Priest or Prophet taught the People to resist one of them.  
God hath expressly comm●n●ed all Inferiors to be subject to the Superior Magistrate. Now subordinate Magistrate, th●ng● they be Superior to ot●ers; yet in a Monarchy the● are ●ll inferior to the King; for as in Logic, that Ge●u● which is c●lled s●●alte●num, though it be Genu● in respect of those S●e ●●s t●●t ●r● 〈◊〉 ●er it, ●et in regard of the Genu● ●bove, i● is but a Species. Ev●n so Subordinate Magistrates w●at p●●ce soever ●●ey ●o●d in relation to their inf●ri●u, in respect to their Sover●igne they are but mere Subjects, and own subjection to Him a● far ●s any other, and no Ear●●ly Court can l●cense inferiors of what rank or quality soever, to violate or frusta●e that Heavenly precept which commands them to be subject to their Superior. Rom. 13.1. and not to resist Him, ve●s. 4.  
Be the Cause never so just (if the Person be not authorized by God to dr●w the sword) they be no just and lawful Wars, but barbarous and rebellious uproars. For say when Malefactors are put to death, may private men put them to death without the Magistrate? certainly they may not, and if they do, be they not Murderers) though the crime which they revenge be worthy of death) doubtless they be, then if in private punishments men may not presume without his authority that beareth the Sword, much less may they venture upon open Wars, except they be directly warranted from him that hath the sword from God, to take vengeance on the wicked; lest of all may they bear Arms against their Sovereign. Princes they bear the sword o●er others, not others over them, Subjects may be punished by them, they by none but God whose place they supply.  
And as the Law of God doth not trust Subjects with the sword against their Sovereign, no more doth the law of Nature: for though the law of Nature teacheth us to defend ourselves from violence and wrong, (as Boroughs objects) though it be the most natural thing in the world, for every thing to preserve itself; natural for a man to preserve himself, natural for a community (as Bridges alleges to justify the lawfulness of that War which the two Houses of Parliament sitting, have raised and levied against the King:) yet by the dictate● of nature, neither Man not Communities of men are taught to defend and preserve themselves in a disorderly, and unnatural way; now it is against Order, and a Monster in nature and policy, for a Child to chastise his Father, for a S●rv●nt to punish his Master, for a Soldier to fight against his General, Colonel, or Captain, no less disorderly and unnatural is it for a Subject to fight against his Sovereign, who is Parens ●atriae the Father of the Commonwealth: he that faith the Law of Nature gives power to Inferiors over or against their Superiors, though for self preservation is fit to be purged from Frenzy, then answered by Divinity.  
If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the Child, or the Child the Father, no man, I suppose, in his right wits, but would think it becometh the Child, who hath his being from his Father, rather to suffer, then to destroy the Fountain whence he originally sprang; and yet Parents have not so great power over their Children, as Kings over their Subjects. King's have power of Life and Death, which Parents have not; and the Master's power over his servants, is less than the power of Parents over their Children.  
Lastly, Neither doth the Law of the Land entrust Subjects with the Sword against their Sovereign, for by the Law of the Land, all we that be Subjects, above the age of eighteen years, are bound to swear Allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King. There was an O th' enacted, Anno 3, Jacobi, wherein ●e that t ke● it swearer, That he will bear Faith and true Allegiance to His M jesty. H●● Herres and Successors, etc. And Him ●nd them will de●en● to the utmost of hi● power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, whi●h shall be made against H●● or t●●r Persons, their cro●n & dignity, etc. A●d it was fur●●●r enacted by Parliament, 7, Jacobi, That al● and ●very P●rson and P●●so●s, as well Ecclesiastical ●s C●vill, of wh●t Sta●e, Dignity, Quality, or Degree ●o●ver ●e o● they b●, above the age of eighteen years, in that Act mentioned, shall take the said Oath.  
And if all the Subjects in the Land above eighteen ye●res old, have (as by Law they are bound) taken the s●id O●th, unless they will wittingly and willingly forswear themselves, they must with all their power defend the King's Person and Dignity, and by consequence, they may not oppose either, or do such things, as may endanger His Person, and lessen His Authority and Dignity.  
Neither may they be Newters and sit still suffering others to wrong him; but they must stand up to maintain his right, and to vindicate his wrong. And they must defend him by purse, bodily service, or what way soever they can, else they are forsworn.  Eristes. 
But may we not sometimes lawfully deny obedience to the King's verbal or Personal Commands.  Irenaeus. 
Yes in some cases it is not only lawful, but necessary to disobey the command of the King, as when God commands one thing, and the King in a menacing and threatening way commands another: then that Speech is seasonable. Da veniam Imperator, tu carcerem, ille Gehennam minatur, Give leave O Emperor, thou threatnest my body with imprisonment, but God can cast both my Soul and Body into Hell, the worst and most darksome Prison of all others. In such a case we may and must neglect our duty to our Prince, rather than forget our duty to God. Nam Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Jovis. For Kings though they be Superiors in regard of their Subjects, yet are they inferior unto God. Omne sub regno graviore regnum est. Every Kingdom on Earth is under a greater in Heaven. And the Apostolical Canon, Rom. 13.1. which wills us to be subject to the higher powers before the lower amongst men, doth by Analogy instruct us to be principally subject to that highest power, by whom the Powers on Earth are ordained, and set in Order one above another.  
When Pharaoh King of Egypt commanded the Hebrew Midwives to strangle the Hebrew Male Children in the birth, they feared God and did not the command of the King, Exod. 1.17. When Nebuchadnezz●r having erected a Golden Image, commanded all people to fall down and worship it, under penalty of being cast into the hot fiery ●●rna ●, ●hadracke, M●sech and Abednego refused to d●● the command of the King, because the Law of God forbade them to do it, Dan. 3.18. When Darius had signed a Decree, That none should make any Petition to God, save only to him for certain days; Daniel, notwithstanding the Decree, went into his House, and his Chamber Windows ●eing opened towards J●rusalem, kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed to his God, contrary to the signed Decree, and express command of the King, Dan. 6.10. The seven Brethren, though Antiochus Epiphanes, or rather Epimanes, threatened to torment them with scourges and whips, yet they would not, by all the threaten and exquisite torment● that ●e could use, be compelled to taste of Swine flesh, because it was against the Law of their God, 1 Ma●ab. 7.1. And julian's Christian Soldiers though they readily sought his Battles, and obeyed him when he commanded things lawful; yet, Quando veniebatur ad causam Christi, 
Aug in Psa. 124.  non ag● os●ebant nisi illum qui in Caelo erat, quando volebat, ut Idola colerent, aut thurificarent, praeponebant illi Deum; When they came to the cause of Christ, they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in Heaven, when he commanded them to worship Idols, ●o sacrifice and burn Incense to his Idol gods, they preferred God before their Prince. And th● case was clearly resolved long since by the Apostles, That when the King's command c●osseth the command of God, than it is absolutely better for us to obey God than man, Acts 5.29. Yet here we must take heed, first that we be not led by fancies, and groundless imaginations, but be sure that what the King commands, is against Gods Law.  
Secondly, That denying obedience, we do it in all humility, without scandal and contempt.  
Thirdly, That yet we be content to obey passively, without resisting the higher power.  
For, even then, when we cannot with a safe Conscience obey the command of the King, because we have received a counter-command from God, we must be subject to him notwithstanding, and not dare to rise up against him, Nam qui i●s●rgit in Ch●istum Domini, 
Psal. 2.1.  insurgit in Dominum Christi, For he that riseth up against the Lord● Anointed, riseth up against the Lord by whom he was Anointed. The least Injury, 
Numb. 16.11 1 Sam. 8.7.  Indignity, Affront of Disgrace that is done to the King, whom God hath appointed his immediate Deputy and Vicegerent on Earth, to Rule and Govern in his place, doth in the reflex, extend and redound ●o God himself, the Author of all Rule and Government, and by consequence, it must needs be an heinous and hateful sin in the sight of God, for Subjects to rise up against their Sovereign, though a Nero, a bloody persecuter of the Faith, much more against a Charles, a gracious Defender of the Faith.  

Amb. lib 3. epist. 33.  S●int Am●rose highly commended the people of Mill●in, w●en there was hot persecution in the City, for the Voice they then used, Rogamus Auguste, non pugnamus, We om●●nt, O Emperor, we sight not, perhaps you will say, t●ey durst not; yes, Non ti●emus, & tamen rogamus; We se●● not the Emperor's Forces, yet we entreat. The like Spe●ch S●int Bernard useth in an Epistle of his to Lewis the French King, Stabimus, & pugnahimus usque ad mortem (si ita o●o●tuerit) pro matre nostra Ecclesia, 
Bern. Epist. 221.  sed Armis quibu● licet, non scutis & gladiis, sed precibus, fletibusque ad Deu●, We will stand and sight for our Mother the Church (if need be unto death) with such Arms and Weapon's as lawfully we may, not with Sword and Tar●et, but with Prayers and Tears unto God. 
Tertul. Apol. cap. 37.  And Ter● 〈◊〉 in his Apologetic tells u●, That the Ancient Church's 〈◊〉 time, when they had Heathen and Presaging Emp●●●rs to rule over them, yet they choose rather to suffer, then to ●●ke ●●s●stance by force of Arms, though they lacked ●either 〈◊〉 strength to withstand the Emperor's Forces.  
And that the doctrine of resisting Pri●●● 〈…〉 taught by the ancient Father, you shall he 〈◊〉 ●onsi●●●ly averred by some Learned Divin●: of our C●u●ch who were best seen and versed in their Writings; No O●tho●o● Father did by Word or Writing 〈◊〉 resist 〈◊〉 fo● the space of a thousand years after Christ, ●e●l●●● 〈◊〉 cap. 19 Sect. 19 The worthy Fathers and Bishop● of the Church, persuaded themselves that they owed all duty ●o Kings, though Infidels and Heretics, Feild, lib. 5. cap. 45. The Doctrine which teacheth resistance of Prince's is wicked, having neither Scripture, Council, nor Father which avowed it for a thousand years. bilson's true diff●ren●● between Christian Subjection, and Unchristian Rebellion part 3. in whom we often meet with these or the like passages. Whether Princes be with God or against God; either we must obey their Commandment, or abide the ●●nishment (if we will be Subjects.)  
Prince's must be obeyed, or endured; Either obedien●● to their Wills, or submission to the Sword is due by Go● Law.  
God is not served with resisting the Sword, but with dutiful obedience to Magistrate●, when their commands agr●● with his, and in case their Wills be dissonant from his, th●● is he served with meekness and readiness to bear 〈◊〉 abide that which earthly powers shall inflict, this was the cause why the Church of Christ always rejoiced in the Blood of their Martyrs, patiently suffering the cruel rage, both of Pagans and Arrians, and never favoured any tumults of Rebels assembling themselves to withstand authority.  
That conceit then of Bridges is fond, foolish, and unwarrantable, who thinks that many Christian Martyrs in the Primitive Church, would so fare have resisted the Roman Emperors, that they would have saved their own Lives, if the Senate of Rome, or the People of the Roman Empire would have joined with them. Tertullian disclaimed this fancy with an absit? God forbidden that we Christians should defend ourselves against our Emperors by humane force. There can be no War made against us; but we are fit and sufficient for it (if we would seek revenge of our persecutors) but our Christian discipline and profession is rather to be slain, then to slay, Tertul, Apologet, cap. 37. Saint Cyprian expresseth the same Christian profession, 
Cyprian ad Demetriad.  nos laesos divina ultio desendet, inde est quod nemo nostrum, se adversus injustam violentiam, quamvis nimius & copiosus, sit noster populus ulciscatur; We leave vengeance to God, and hence it is that none of us do seek to revenge ourselves against unjust violence, although our number be exceeding great, more than the number of our persecutors.  Erisles. 
But what if the Kingdom see itself in imminent danger, most likely to be ruinated by the King and His Cavaliers, may it not stand up to defend itself by force of Arms? Is not Salus Populi Suprema Lex? The safety of the People the Supreme Law? The preservation of the Kingdom and of the Religion, Laws and Liberties thereof, to be preferred before subjection to the King?  Irenaeus. 
First, God be thanked, that is not our case, for as that Gentleman of quality who wrote the Review of the Observations upon some of His Majesty's late Answers and Expresses, well Observes; No King of this Realm hath granted more for the good, ease, benefit, and behoof of His Subjects, than His Majesty hath done, had we thankful hearts to acknowledge it, witness His damning of Ship-Money, Monopolies, etc. And His yielding to the regulation of whatsoever further grievance should be found in the Commonwealth.  
What more gracious motion could be made by a Prince to His People, then that which His Majesty made in His Message to both Houses of Parliament, jan. 20. 1641. Wherein He moved them with all speed to fall into a serious considerations of these 〈◊〉, whi●h they should hold necessary for the present and future establishment of their Privi●e●…es, the free and quiet enjoying of their Estates and fortunes, the Liberties of their 〈◊〉 the security of the true Religion now professed in the Church of England, and the settling 〈◊〉 Ceremonies, in such a d●s enter a●… c●…ly manner, as might take away all just o●… offence. Is this the gracious motion of a King, that intends the ruin and subversion of His Kingdom? God be Judge between Him and them, that would fasten so false an● foul an aspersion upon a Prince unparalelled for clemency and piety.  
Secondly, Though the King should in a Violent, and Tyrannical way go about to oppress His People, though really and truly there were such dangers threatened both to the Church and State (as is pretended;) yet unlawful means (such as is resisting the Supreme Magistrate in a free Monarchy) to defend ourselves from unjust violence and oppression ought not to be used. Suffering is commanded and commended unto us in the Scripture, resisting is forbidden, Rom. 13.2. Our Saviour foreshowing his Disciples that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers, and be cruelly entreated, saith not, and he that first Rebels, but he that endureth to the end shall be saved, Mat. 10. And again, not with violence resist them, but in patience possess your Soul, Luke 21. This is the way for all Christian Subjects to conquer Tyrants, not to resist the Supreme Power though Tyrannically abused, lest we be damned, but rather to suffer that we may be Crowned. When either we cannot escape by flight, or abate & stop the fury of Tyrants, by our Tears and Prayers to God. The Ancient Fathers allowed no other Weapons to Christian Subjects against persecuting Tyrants; but only these four, 
Preces, & Lachrymas, patientiam, & sugam.  
Prayers, and Tears, Patience, and Flight.   
And it is observed by the Learned, that the Churches never more flourished then in the Primitive times, when they used these defensive Weapons only, 
Vide Field l. ●0. c. 45.  reserving vengeance unto God, to whom only it belongs to take order with wicked Kings, since he alone is above them, and therefore he alone hath power to punish them. The royal dignity of Kings is so inseparably annexed to their sacred Persons, that although they do offend in Person, yet no vindictive power can be exercised against their persons, without violation of their Royal Dignity, which although it be not transcendent to all Laws of Justice to be done, yet it is transcendent to all Laws of Justice in respect of punishment by man when Justice is not done. And in that respect David a King truly said to God, against thee only have I sinned. Psal. ●1. 4. he had sinned against others, yet so as none might take vengeance of him for his sin but only God. This I am sure was the Divinity of Saint Ambrose, chrysostom, and others of the Ancient Fathers, Reges nullis ad paenam vo●antur legibus, tuti imperii potestate. King's are safely guarded by their Imperial power, from the penalty of human Law. Ambrose Enar●at, in Psal. 51. Rex etsi Leges in ●otesta●●, b●●et ut impune delinquat, Deo tamen subditus est, & su●●icit illi in ●aenam, quod De●m expectet ultorem. A King 〈…〉 the Laws so fare in His power, th●t He is not punish 〈◊〉 by them, but may br●●ke them without 〈…〉, yet he is subject to God, and it m●y ●uffi●● 〈◊〉 He hath Go● to take vengeance of him, to whos● w●●t●● by t●e abuse of His power, He m●kes himsel●● 〈…〉 ●●●●s●●●●m in Psal. 118. O 〈◊〉 17. Nemo lege● 〈…〉 Reges i● qui●●● preva●i●tio●● i● 〈…〉 enim dect●um est impium● 〈…〉 ag●●. None may break the Laws o● Kin●●●● 〈…〉 punishment, but Kings themselves, w●om 〈◊〉 charged with the transgression of their own Law 〈◊〉 it w●s wi●ely s●i●, that he is an ungodly man that say 〈…〉 King. Thou ●od wickedly. Cyrill. 
Eccles. 8.4.  This w then t●ugh●●or goo●. Divinity by the Ancient Fathers, an● yet they were n● Cour● Parasites.  
●astly, be it so that Salus P●●u●i s●●rema Lex, the safety of the People, is t●e Sup●●m● L●w, yet experience tells us that it is safer for a p●op●● not to resist, then to resist their Prince by force of Ann, for what mischief is not Civil War accompanied with? it never comes alone, but is accompanied with Rapine, Spoil, Robbery, Plundering, and all imaginary evil, whereas due subjection to the Prince, is the caus● of tranquillity, peace, order, prosperity, and happiness in the State, and the only way to preserve the Commonwealth in safety.  
Theopompus King of Sparta speaking to one of hi● Domestic servants, who told him that the Spartan affairs did prosper well, because they had Kings who knew how to govern well; nay rather, saith he, because the People know well how to obey; imputing the long continuance and flourishing of the Spartan Sat, not so much to the skilful Government of their Kings, as to the ready subjection and willing obedience of the People. And so long as we demeaned ourselves as Loyal Subjects, God blessed us with abundance of Peace, and temporal felicity, even to the envy of all other Nations round about us. But since (some out of an humour and desire to be Subjects without subjection, have turned disloyal to their Sovereign, and risen up in arms against Him) our tre●sures have been exhatisted, our Lands mightily impoverished by the expensive oppression of War, and this once flourishing Kingdom and Nation is in danger to be brought unto utter ruin and desolation, (if God do not timely cease these seditious Tumults and Commotions, by instilling Loyal and Peaceable affections into the hearts of those who have occasioned or abetted those Tumults.  Eristes. 
But did not the people of Israel resist Saul their King by force of arms when they rescued Jonathan out of his hand, 1 Sam. 14.45. Did not David take up defensive arms, when h● gathered six hundred Soldiers together to defend himself against the violence and fury of Saul, his Liege Lord and Sovereign? and when, as may be supposed, he would have kept Saul out of Keilah by forcible resistance if the Keilites would have stood to him, 1. Sam. 23.12. Nay doth not the Scripture s●y expressly that he came with the Philistines against Sau● to Battle, 1. Sam. 12.19. Did not Elisha the Prophet bid the Elders of Israel use the King's M●ssenger roughly, and hold him fast at the door 2. Kings 6.32. Did 〈◊〉 Azariah the High Priest, and four●score Priest's o● t●e Lord that were valiant men, violently thrust King V●●●●h out of the Temple of ere he became Leprous? 2 Cron. 26.17.20. who in that they are commended for without Men (saith Bridges) it shows that their work was not only reproof, but resistance.  
Lastly, have we nor warrantable Exampl●● and accidents from the reformed Churches to justify at 〈◊〉 up Arms in our own defence to be lawful.  Irenaeus. 
To all these alleged Example's I may answer in general, that we Christian's o●ght to follow no man's, ●o Church's example further than they follow Christ. 1 Cor. 11.1. But Christ 〈◊〉 ●●●ght us either by practice or precept to resist the higher power; he both by Ex●mple and Precept taught the contrary; for he left us an example of patiented suffering from Authority, not of resisting Authority, 1. Pet. 2.21.23. and when Authority caused him unjustly to be apprehended, and after condemned, he would ●o● suffer Peter to defend ●im against the present Authority ●ith the sword: bu● bade him put up the sword which formity he h●d 〈◊〉 ●wn in his defence, telling him, that he that takes 〈◊〉 sword without deputation from Authority, or against authority, though unjustly abused, shall p●rish by the Sword, Mat. 26.52. admit then that your Testimonies and Example's out of the old Testament did prove it in some case to be lawful under the Law to take up defensive arms, against Persons in●ested with Soureaigne Power, can you show it to be lawful u●der the Gospel? where suffering is commande● and commended, rensting forbidden and condemned, and where Christ's meek Spirit, not Eliahs' revengeful spirit, is to guide us if we would not be misguided, Luke 9.55.  
But to answer your allegations more punctually, as you have no proof out of the new, so you have none out of the old Testament to legitimate and warrant your offensive, defensive Weapons. To begin with your first example.  
Though the People were then in arms by saul's own appointment, when they rescued Jonathan out of his hands, yet they did not rescue him out of saul's hand by force of arms.  Eristes. 
How then did they rescue him?  Iren●eus. 
Not with offensive weapons but with persuasive words, Shall Jon●than die (say they) who hath wrought so great salvation in Israel? as the Lord liveth, there shall ●●t an hair of his head fall to the ground. Or as Junius and Tremelius two famous Interpreters translate the words by way of interrogation, more agreeable to the original, An tadere debet ullus e capillis ejus? aught their to fall any hair of his head to the ground. They appeal to Saul himself (say these learned Interpreters) whether in Conscience he ought it just and reasonable that Jonathan should die by whose means they were all then alive, charging his Conscience before God that he should rather have respect to Equity then his rash o●th. Thus than they rescued Jonathan not by arms but by arguments, (as A●●gal did Nabal her Hu●band, and the rest of her Household out of the hand of David, who had in like manner sworn to cut them all off, 1 Sam. 25.) or if the People here pressed violently upon Saul in making a mutiny, they cannot be excused, saith Peter Martyr in locum, and so the example is either impertinently alleged, or else b●ing in itself inexcusable, it cannot excuse, much less justify your do●●g●.  
Your next example o● testimony is as 〈◊〉 to the purpose as the former, for D●vid did not ●●st●r o● gather fix hundred Soldiers together, they resorted a●● c●●● to him of their own accord, 1 Sam. 22.1. Neither d●● 〈◊〉 m●ke us● of their help to defend himself against t●e Violence a●● Fury of Saul; but his way of defen●e wa● by flying, and hiding himself from Saul, not by resist●●●, 〈◊〉 opposing him. And produce, if you ●●n, one syll●●●●e 〈…〉 Sacred Story, to show that ever David m●de offer to r●●st Saul, when he c●me ●o in●●de him.  Eri●tes. 
It i● more than probable t●at he would have resisted Saul, if the men of Keilah would have stood to him otherwise b●ing in Keilah, why did he inquire whether Saul would come there to seek him? and he●ring that Saul would not fail to come down, why did he further inquire whether the Keilites would deliver him into the hand of Saul? D●e not these Q●a●●es more then probably argue, That David had a mind to r●main in Ke●●a●, ●nd t● defend the City against Saul (as Sir Jo●n Hot●a● did H●● against His Majesty) would the men of K●ilah have stu●k close to him.  Irenaeus. 
No finely, the r●●son in all likelihood and appearance, why D●vid w●s thu● solicitous to know the purpose of Saul, and the Keilites, was, b●cause ●e suspected treacherous deceit in the men of Keil●●, Th●t if ●e st●y● till t●e King came, they would shut th● G●●●, and keep him in, till the King should come an● apprehended him, and not suffe● him to escape by s●●●●, 〈◊〉 hi● usual m●nn●r was. For he inquires of God, ●ill the ●●n of Ke●●● deliver 〈◊〉? Or as it is in the Marginal reading of the Bible, agreeable to the Original, Will they shut me up? Will they take advantage of the Gates and Bars of this walled City, ●nd closely shut me up that I cannot have liberty to fly from Saul when he cometh? His purpose was to fly out of Keilah, and not to defend it if Saul came; this made him careful to inquire whether the men of Keilah would shut the Gates upon him, and so hinder him that he could not fly from Saul, according to his wont Custom; There is not then here the least shadow of a proof for defensive Arms, unless we will by an improbable conjecture make David's purpose in this pl●ce to thwart his constant practice and profession in all other places of the sacred Story, where his dutiful submissive behaviour, ●umble carriage, and speeches full of Loyal respect towards Saul are Recorded.  E●istes. 
Bu● doth not the Scriptu●e in plain terms say that David went with the Philistines against Saul to Battle? 1 Chron. 12.19.  Ire●ae●●. 
It doth; yet he that will peruse the 1 Sam. 29 may there read, that David went not to B●ttell against Saul, he only went a little way with the Philistines that we●t to battle against ●im, and the Princes of t●e Philisti●es had so little confidence's of david's good affection to that c●use; that they were earnest with A●hish their King to ●●d him back as a m●n ●or to be confided in, s●yi●g verse 4. Make this fellow return, and let him not g●e down with●● to Battle, lest in the Battle he prove an Adversary to Us, for wherewith should he reconcile himself to his Master Saul, should i● not be with the heads of these men? and howsoever he seemed unwilling to be sent back, yet therein (saith Oziander) he did but dissemble and spoke otherwise then he thought, he was glad of the opportunity given to return, saith Peter Martyr, though he flatteringly glozed with the King by pretending the contrary, and to think that David had any cogitation or purpose to serve a Foreign King in a Battle against his own King, People, and Nation, is to make him an apparent transgressor of the Law saith Willet, which forbade all kind of Confederacy, with uncircumcised Nations: by this time than I hope you see that David's Ex●mple is impertinently produced to show the lawfulness o● making an hostile defensive war against your Sovereign.  Eristes. 
Wh●t s●y y●u to the third Example of Elisha the Proph●t, who h●d t●e Elders of Israel to shut the door against t●● King's M●ssenger that came to take away his head, and t●●●●ld him f●st?  Irenaeu●. 
I s y t●●t it is no more to the purpose then the former, for what c●n you infer from thence more than this? th●t it is lawful to hold the door fast shut against a Messenger, who shall in a violent illegal way come to assault 〈◊〉 in our houses, though he come from the King? thi● no doubt m y be done cum moderamine inculpate t●t●l●. But what if the King should come in Person to assault you, will you do more than shut the door? will you t●ke p●●●s of Ordnance, Gu●s, P●kes and Pistols, an● bid him be ●o●, or else you will set him away with a p●w●er? should the King in a viol●nt illegal way off●r to smite you on the head, you m●y hold up your hand, and award the blow: But if you strike him again, there is no Law (I think) either of God or man, that would not condemn you for a Traitor in so doing, though you should do it in your own defence, and how can you be sure, when you come with Muskets and Cannons into the open Field against the King, that you shall not do more than smite him, horreseo referens (even that which I tremble to speak) mortally wound his sacred Person, unless you can command your Muskets, and Cannons that they should not hurt him, as well as any other. Do not then palliate your opposition with the name of a mere defensive resistance which may prove so heinously offensive, and contract that guilt of blood upon your Souls, and the whole land, as would draw down God's vengeance both upon them and it; and will you wrest the command of so great a Prophet (as Elisha was) to countenance such a defence, as might in event prove so horridly offensive? Quod Omen avertat Deus.  Eristes. 
What say you to the last example of Azariah the high Priest thrusting Vzziah the King (after he became Leprous) out of the Temple; being assisted with 80 of his Brethren, who are commended for their valour in so doing, 2 Chron. 26.17.20.  Irenaeus. 
I say that I am sorry, to see you go down to the forge of the Papists, there to sharpen your Weapons of defence, for your hostile defensive War. The Papists say that the high Priests thrust the King out of the Temple when he usurped the Priest's Office, Ergo the Pope is above Kings. The reason of their inference is, because no Inferior hath power to lay hands on a Superior, and by co-active power, to compel or repel him. You say the same in effect, with a little change of the persons. The high Priest thrust the King out of the Temple, therefore it is lawful for the People to resist Kings? And you can give no reason of this inference, except you acknowledge the People's Superiority above the Prince, and then you must dispense with the oath of Supremacy, and wipe out that Text of Saint Peter, Where he wills you to submit to the King as Supreme, 1 Pet. 2.17. Azariah the Priest, and the rest of the Brethren did not assail King Vzziah's Person, presuming to burn Incense on the Altar of God, neither did they thrust him out of the Temple by force; they withstood him with Words, rebuking him for the breach of Gods Law. It appertains not to thee Vzziah to burn Incense, Not with Weapons as your Martial Term's import, and when the King would not be admonished, but indignabundus, in a chafe, contemning the Priest's admonition, took a Censer in his hand to offer Incense, the Lord then took him in hand, and caused the L●●prosie to rise up in his forehead before the Priest, than there was no need to bid him departed, the Text saith, He hastened to go out because the Lord had smitten him. God then thrust him out, and the Priests thrust him out, a●●●e ●●●●ed to go ou●, God thrust him our by infl●cting the visible punishment of Leprosy upon him, 
Visa lepr● Sace●●●tes Regem leprosum d●s stine egged eudum ●ament. Jose h. du●iq. Ju●●c. lib. 9 cap. ●1.  the Priest thrust him out by sharply rebuking him, pronouncing ●im unclean, or by admonishing him that the Leprosy was risen up in his forehead, and then being told that the spot of Leprosy was upon him he f himself hasted to go out.  Eristes. 
But in that the Priests are commended for valian men it shows that their work wa● not only reproof but resistance (●s Bridges observes.)  Irenaeus. 
And is it no argument of ●alour, think you, to reprove a King openly to his face; surely, albeit some dreaming Prophet's who fear not to despise Government, and speak evil of dignities, have of late by their open railing against Princes, gone about to make their Persons contemptible, yet in former times they were had in such awful regard, That it was held a matter of courage, and valour to reprove them: because such reproofs (if they were not well taken, might cost those that reproved them their lives, as it did John Baptist, and many of the Prophets. And therefore God when he sent his Prophets to reprove Kings, he often bade them not to be afraid, and that God permitted to his Prophets or Priests under the Law any further attempts against Princes, then in words to reprove them, or to declare his will and precepts unto them, I will not believe till I have better authority for it then Bridges his observations.  Eristes. 
But we have warrantable examples and Precedents from the Reformed Churches of Germany, France, Genevah, Scotland, Holland, to justify our taking up arms in our own defence to be lawful, ●hough against the King.  Irenae●●. 
Your Examples from Foreign Churches, without they have warrant from the word of God for what they did, will be but weak proofs to justify you in your do, though you could prove your conformity with them to be full and exact in all particular Circumstances. But more distinctly,  
First, I answer that none of the forenamed Protestant Churches have inserted this amongst the Articles of their Confessions to be believed, as a positive truth, that it is lawful for Subjects to take up defensive arms against their lawful Sovereign, and if they had, for my part I would not believe it, unless they could show better authority for it out of the word of God, than Buchanan, Knox, Boroughs, Bridges, or any of that anti-monarchical Faction have done.  
Secondly, this briefly I may say, of any, or of all the Reformed Churches, that if they had not Law for what they did, (as you for aught I know have none for your defensive Arms against the King) than their do were not justifiable by the Laws of their Country in foro soli much less by the Law of God in foro poli, and the reason why I dare not be peremptory in passing my judgement upon the facts of other Churches, is because the circumstances must be fully known before a fact can be rightly discerned, or judged to be lawful or unlawful, & I have not so busied myself in other Commonwealths, as that I dare definitively pronounce sentence of their do, being perhaps not throughly acquainted with the ground of them.  
Thirdly, to impure to a whole Church, that which is taught or done by some in the Church, or a facto ad jus, from a thing done by some in an Orthodox Reformed Church to argue the lawfulness of doing it, were ridiculous, for many things are taught and done in a Church, which are not taught and done by the Church, and that which is done by a prevailing party in a Church, is often done without the allowance and approbation of the best Divines in that Church, as now: Should the decisions of the pact convention of Divines in this Church, or the Votes of the factious Party take place, (who would, might they have their wills, lead both Church and State in Triumph, and set their feet upon the neck of Sovereignty) there is no doubt but the flower of the Nobility and Gentry in this Kingdom, both the Universityes, the greatest and ablest part of Divines, many thousands of the Kings most religious loyal Subjects of inferior rank, together with very many of the ablest and most judicious of the House of Commons, that (according to the rules of Religion, Loyalty, and Laws,) have afforded their utmost assistance to His Majesty; should all be censured as Delinquents, and many of them suffer under the name of Malignants: & tie no ne (I presume) in his right wits could believe such a sentence to be the definitive sentence of the Church and State essentially considered; though had it not been timely withstood, it might and would have been the sentence of a prevailing faction, in the Church and State; But the Lord of Hosts, I trust, will take the cause of his Anointed into his own hands, and fight his battles, and not suffer His Majesty, this Church and Nation to be so triumphed over, and trampled upon, without a speedy revenge of such high and heinous indignities.  
Lastly, Sum up the account, and then tell me whether as the Primitive Church did, so you of this Church and Kingdom may not gain more by humble supplicating, and peaceable submitting to Authority, than ever you are likely to gain by a violent resisting of it. I will close up this point with a remarkable passage out of Calvin.  

Si a saevo principe crudeliter torquemur, si ab avaro aut luxurioso rapaciter expilamur, si ab ignavo negligimur, si ab impio denique, & Sacrilego vexamur ob pietatem: subeat primum delictorum nostrorum, recordatio quae talibus haud dubio Domini flagellis castigantur, Ind humilitas impatientiam nostram fraenabit: succurrat deinde, & haec cogitatio, non nostrum esse hujusmodi malis mederi, hoc tantum esse reliqunum, ut Domini opem imploremus, cujus in manu sunt Regum Corda, & Regnorum Inclinationes. Calvin Institut. lib. 4. cap. 20. Sect. 29.   

If we be cruelly oppressed by a cruel Prince, if we be polled, and pillaged by a covetous or luxurious Prince, if we be negligently governed by a careless Prince, if for godliness we be (as God be thanked we are not) persocuted by an Impious and sacrilegious Prince, let us in the first place remember our sins, which, no doubt, are corrected by God with such scourges; this will be a means to bridle our impatience with humility, then let this thought come into our minds, that it is not in our power (without God's help) to mend or remedy such evils, and therefore in the last place, it remains that we should implore the help of God in whose hands are the hearts of Kings, and inclinations of Kingdoms.   
Have you any other colourable pretences which may in some sort seemingly excuse, though in no sort justify your taking up Arms to resist the King, who is the highest power in this Kingdom next under God, and therefore cannot be resisted without peril of damnation, Rom. 13.2  Eristes. 
You mistake Irenaeus, we do not resist the King or his legal power, but only his verbal personal illegal command, which we may do without danger of incurring the penalty threatened by the Apostle to such as resist the higher power, Rom. 13.2.  Irenaeus. 
The Apostle in that Chapter commands all who live under authority to be subject to the higher power, and proves by five persuasive convincing reasons, that they ought to be subject.  
First, ab Authore, from the Author of all power qui● non est potestas nisi a Deo, because there is no power but of God.  
Secondly, he proveth that all must be subject to the higher power, a bono ordinis, from the good of order, quia potestates quae sunt a Deo, ordinatae sunt, because the pours that be, are ordained and set in order by God one above another, and we should be Authors of confusion, and perverters of that comely order which God, who is the God of order, and not of confusion, hath ordained, if we should refuse to live in subjection unto him, whom he hath appointed to rule over us.  
Thirdly, that we are to be subject to the higher power, he proves a malo culpae, because it is a sin to resist the Supreme Magistrate, or the higher power, for he that resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. vers. 2. Beware then how thou resist thy Prince upon any pretence or take p●rt with such as do resist him by force of Arms, for his Person is sacred, his ordination divine, and cannot without sin be resisted.  
Fourthly, that we must be subject to the higher power the Apostles proves a malo panae, f●om the evil of punishment, b●●●use they that resist, and will not be subject, shall unavoidably and deservedly receive to themselves crim●, judgement, if not temporal in this world, yet most certainly eternal in the world to come, unless they repent.  
Lastly, be proves that we must be subject to the higher powers a bono se●ie●atis, from the good of Society, because we that live in a civil Society, receive and reap much good by their government, they are the Ministers of God for our good. Were there no King appointed to rule over u●, we should soon see a general Ar●xy, Disorder and Confusion in all estates; in the Church such abuses, as would m●ke us to abhor the Sanctuary of the Lord: in the Commonwealth such heinous enormities and impieties, a● would vex our Souls to see and behold them. In the 17. 18. 19 Chapters of the Book of Judges, there ●●e may read of disorder upon disorder, and still in the close this is alleged as the chief cause of all those disorders, That there was no King in Israel, to curb and restrain the insolent unruly passions of men, but every one was permitted to do what seemed good in his own eyes, and no wonder that all things in the Church and State were then out of order, when there was no King, or no authority in the Supreme Magistrate to keep men in due order, by all which it evidently appears that Praestat sub malo Principe esse, quam sub nullo, It is better to live under the government of an evil or Tyrannical Prince, then to have none at all to govern u●.  
Wherefore, because all power is of God; because the powers that be, are tetagmenai ordained and set in order by God; because it is a sin to resist the higher powers; because judgement both temporal and eternal is the punishment of that sin: lastly, because they are the Ministers of God for our good, therefore as the Apostle infers, we must of necessity be subject unto them, not only for fear of the temporal sword, or in●u●ring their wrath and displeasure (who cannot but be angry and much displeased wit●●hose that resist them) but al●o for Conscience sake tow●rd● God, who hath ●id a ●ye upon the Conscience of all inferiors o p●rsor●● t●e D●●y of Subjection to their Superiors, y●● t●oug● t●ey be such a● t●● higher powe●●●en wer●, Tyrant to their own Su●●●● and Perse●me● of Christian Professor, and prosect Enemies of the Christian faith.  
He that wa● Emperor when Saint Paul wro●e that Epistle to the Romans, was Nero, a Tyrant, a v●le an● violent opposer of Christ●●n Religion. Nero (saith le●●ed Moulin) was a Monster in nature, the shame of humane ●●●d, al●● first Emperor that began to persecute the Church, nevertheless the Apostle Rom. 13. speaking of that power which was then in being, saith that it was ordained by God, and that whosoever resisted the same, resisted the ordinance of God, and by their resistance did deservedly pull upon themselves damnation: and if in the Apostles judgement it was a sin deserving damnation to resist Nero, a bloody Tyrant, and cruel persecuter of Christians; what a heinous sin are they guilty of, and what a judgement do they deserve that resist His sacred Majesty, our Sovereign Lord King Charles, who is the most gracious and religious King in Christendom.  Eristes. 
I tell you we neither resist the King, nor His Legal power, but only His illegal will and command.  Irenaeus. 
First, are you sure that all, or any of the King's commands which you withstand, are illegal, if they be not, than Boroughs your chief Advocate freely grants, That there is no help left you, but either to fly, or passively to obey them, though he command you to obey such Laws as be sinful. If they be every way illegal, neither agreeable to the Law of God, nor the Laws of the Land, than you may do well to inform us, how you may with a safe and satisfied Conscience resist them, and neither resist the King, nor His Legal power; that you may resist them by a bare denial of obedience unto them (if such a denial may be termed a resistance) is formerly granted; but may you resist them with armed violence, will you cut his illegal commands in pieces with your Swords, or beat them back with your Cannons; do not alter the state of the question, and the point is clear, That the resistance which you make, is not only against the verbal commands of the King, but against the King himself who gave those commands, and by consequence against that Legal Kingly power, or Royal Authority, which can never be divorced from His sacred Person while He remains a King; for though his authority may by Delegation or Commission be in His Courts, where His Person is not ever present, yet that His person can be any where, or at any time without His Royal authority is such a sublime point, such an hidden mystery of State, such a new piece of Divinity, that my faith is not strong enough to believe it; nor yours, or any other man's wit sufficiently able to prove it. Surely the Primitive Christians were dull and stupid, who, poor, simple, ignorant Souls, out of mere simplicity suffered so much, because they were not capable of this subtle, nice distinction, which were it once admitted for currant and Canonical; Subjects might resist the Prince, and lay violent hands up in His Person, and yet be neither Traitors nor Rebels, but canonised Saints; And what can the poor Kingdom expect, where the Person of the Prince is not held inviolable and sacred? but combustion and confusion.  
The Jews have a proverbial saying, Migrandum est ex illo loco uhi Rex non timetur, That men should haste out of that place, Country, or Kingdom where the King is not feared, thereby intimating that doubtless some great and fearful judgement doth hang over it.  
Oh then let me exhort you who have taken up Arms against your Sovereign, no● to turn Religion into Rebellion, patience into violence, fidelity into perjury, subject 〈◊〉 into sedition, and you London Lecturers that have been t e chief Trumpeters to this desperate, unnatural, bloody, irreligious War, turn not your spiritual Militiae, into that which is carnal, do not exhort men in the fear of God to fight against the King, for that fear of God which doth not strengthen, but abate the fear of the King, and shrink 〈…〉 obedience; it is 〈…〉 a 〈…〉 ●ented, devised, ●o●●●●●ted by m●●, and taught or approved by God; the true Religion & fear● of God ●●●heth 〈◊〉 fear and honour the King, to be subject 〈◊〉 him, and not to resist Him. I will conclude with a Prayer.  
THen that art the God of Peace, settle the Peace of this dis●…ed Kingdom, by casting faction out of the State, and Schism●● of the Church, and by undeceiving the minds 〈◊〉 that have been seduced into open rebellion, under a pre●●●●● of Piety and Religion, that so we may come once more to live a quiet peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, under the Religious Government of our gracious Sovereign, ●hom do thou O Lord long preserve to reign over us an happy King of many blessings.   

Errata.  
Pa●… 〈◊〉 ●ine to after the second word the add La●o● and. p. 9 l. 2. after 〈◊〉 ●. or p. 11. l. 15. for secondly r. thirdly. p. 28. l. 3. for there r. her. p ●4. l. 22. for unlawfulness r. lawfulness l. 24. for ordinances 〈◊〉 ordnances other literal fruits I leave to the correction of the inte●…igent Reader.  
FINIS.