The Glorious Name of God the Lord of Hosts Opened in Two Sermons, Postscript

The Glorious Name of God the Lord of Hosts Opened in Two Sermons · Postscript

p. 1A briefe Anſwer to Doctor Fernes Booke, tending to reſolve Conſcience, about the Subjects taking up of Arms.

By JER. BURROUGHES.

THere came to my hand a Book of D. Fern, tending to reſolve Conſcience in the caſe of the Subjects taking up Armes. I find it carryed on without giving any ill termes, but in ſaw expreſſions, ſutable to a Treatiſe that concernes Conſcience, and the more likely to prevail with it. OnelyOnly now and then ſome bitternes breakes forth; I ſhall very briefly, yet faithfully give you the ſtrength of it: Where he ſpeakes right, I will acknowledge it; and where he miſtakes, I will fairly diſcuſſe and ſhew you whence the miſtakes ariſe. I confeſſe he hath great advantage in the ſubject, becauſe it is for the King: 1. Becauſe it is ſafer to plead for the King, though a man miſtakes; but if there be a miſtake in leſſening the Kings right, a man endangers his utter undoing. 2. Truth about this argument, hath alwayes been tenderly handled; thoſe who have pleaded for the King, have with courage vented themſelves to the utmoſt; but others have been forced to be ſilent, or elſe but even to whisper and ſpeak halfe out, leſt they preſently meet with (not arguments, but) things of another nature to anſwer them. In which regard the power of Kings hath been raiſed to the height, and men have drunk in ſuch opinions of abſolute power in them, as they have heard confidently affirmed, practiſed, and ſeen in Books, and feeled by many taxations and cenſures; but whatſoever might informe them hath layne in the darke, not daring to appeare: Therefore well might the D. call what now people begin to heare, and enquire after, a new doctrine; it is an old truth, but newly diſcovering it ſelf. The name of King hath taken ſuch impreſſion in the hearts of people, that for a while they will be prejudiced againſt whatſoever may but ſound of limiting his power, or maintaining our right againſt it.

What there is in the Epiſtle that may prejudice any mans conſcience, will be anſwered in what follows.

Preamble to SECT. I.

SO many good people that are come to a ſenſe of Religion and godlineſſe, are miſerably carryed away by a ſtrange implicite ſaith, to beleeve whatſoever is ſaid or done in the name of the Parliament, &c. to be infallibly true and juſt.

It ſeems thoſe who have not a ſenſe of Religion, do not ſo eaſily beleeve the truth and juſtice of what is done in the name of the Parliament. This is moſt Anſ.certaine, who are hardeſt to beleeve what the Parliament ſayes, but Papiſts, and notorious blaſphemers, and prophane livers? I condemne not all, but compare the generality of the one ſide, and of the other; you ſhall finde an apparent difference in the lives of the one, from the lives of the other: Yea, ſo it is now that if a man as heretofore were not prophane, or looſe at leaſt, or zealous for ceremonies, he was accounted a Puritan; ſo now a Round-head, that is, in their ordinary interpretation, one for the Parliament.

If it be ſaid, This is becauſe Religion is pretended on the Parliaments ſide: So it is on the other, with as loud a cry as the Parliaments. In ſuch things where I muſt have regard to humane teſtimony, to what part I ſee the moſt that have the ſenſe of Religion to adhere, that ſide I will be on, except I ſee better grounds p. 2then yet the D. brings to draw me from it. Prov. 2. 20. That thou mayſt walk in the way of good men, and keepe the paths of the righteous.

SECT. 1.

IN this Sect. theſe ſpecial things are conſiderable: 1. What he grants 2. what we grant. 3. What he ſayes we grant. He grants we may deny obedience to the King, not onelyonly in things unlawfull by the Law of God, but by the eſtabliſhed Laws of the Land. It is well this is granted; Heretofore we know this was the generall Tenet, whatſoever was commanded by the King, yea by any men in authority, if but by a Prelate, except it were againſt Gods Law, we were bound to obey it; any thing that was not ſinne, muſt be yeelded to and that for conſcience ſake. The D. in this is ingenuous; he confeſſeth that not onelyonly Gods Law, but mans Law limits Kings power: This is a great caſe to many mens conſciences to know ſo much.

And further, if this be true, that all thoſe Scriptures that urge obedience to Kings and men in authority, muſt be underſtood with this limitation, that is, if they command according to the Laws of God, and according to the Laws of the countrey over which they are.

1. He ſayes, In point of reſiſtance we grant it muſt be in ſuch a caſe where there are Omnes ordines regni conſentientes, an unanimous conſent of the two Houſes.

There is no determination that the greater part preſent of either Houſe agrees upon, but is as truly valid and legal, as if there were an unanimous conſent Anſ.of them both. It is ſo in all bodies where things are carried by vote.

2. He ſayes, We yeeld it muſt be a meere defenſive reſiſtance.

If the King ſhould ſend any to miſchiefe us, to ſay, we muſt onelyonly defend ourſelves, ſo as not to offend them, is a contradiction; as for the Kings perſon, is it Anſ.not the profeſſion of the Parl. to defend it? therefore we neede not diſpute now, about defending our ſelves againſt it.

3. He ſayes, this likewiſe is granted that the Prince muſt firſt be bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, and Laws, and will not diſcharge his truſt, before there muſt be reſiſtance.

By this he would inſinuate that our Arms taken up are unlawfull, becauſe the King hath not declared himſelfe thus.Anſ.

What need we be put to meddle with any thing but this in the caſe in hand? That a Kingdom ſeeing it ſelf in imminent danger of enemies to infringe the liberties of it, may ſtand-up to defend it ſelfe; yea although they come forth againſt it in the name of the King: This is our caſe, and if the D. diſputes againſt any thing but this, he ſights with his own ſhadow.

If this be caſe as certainly it is, then a great part of the Doctors book is impertinent to the buſineſſe of the Parliaments raiſing forces: For forces may bee raiſed upon other grounds then the Kings being bent to overthrow Religion.

SECT. II.

THe ſtrength of this Section, and almoſt all the book, is in that place of Rom. 13. and in this place I beleeve the D. will ſee, or if he doth not, others will, that he is utterly miſtaken in the ſenſe of that place.

The Apoſtle ſayes expreſly, Whoſoever reſiſts, ſhall receive damnation.

But he doth not ſay expreſly, whoſoever reſiſts the higheſt men ſhall receive damnation, but whoſoever ſhall reſiſt the power: Let every one be ſubject not Anſ.to the wills of the higheſt men, but to the higher power: there is a great deale p. 3of difference betweene theſe two: The higher power, that is, that authority that God, & man hath put upon ſuch a man, it is foreign, not foreign, that muſt be ſubjected to, & not reſiſted. We profeſſe againſt reſiſting power, authority, though abuſed: If thoſe who have power to make Laws, ſhall make ſinfull Laws, and ſo give authority to any to force obedience; we ſay here there muſt either be flying or paſſive obedience; but if one that is in authority command out of his own will, and not by Law, I reſiſt no power, no authority at all, if I neither actively nor paſſively obey, no I do not ſo much as reſiſt abuſed authority. This may ſeeme ſtrange at the firſt; but if you thinke of it, you will beleeve it. The D. thinkes the anſwer to this place is onelyonly from the limitation of the perſon, or the cauſe of reſiſting, as if we held that no particular men upon any cauſe, but States may reſiſt upon ſuch and ſuch cauſes; whereas we doe not anſwer ſo, but we diſtinguiſh betweene the man that hath the power, and the power of that man, and ſay, although the power muſt not be reſiſted according to the letter, and the ſenſe of the Text, yet the illegall will and wayes of the man may be reſiſted, without the leaſt offending againſt the Text. But we ſhall meete with this Scripture again and again, and ſhall fellow it with anſwers accordingly.

He comes to examples, as firſt, the peoples reſcuing of Jonathan from Saul. He ſayes, 1 Sam. 14.1 Sam 14the people were in Arms already, and did but uſe a loving violence.

This example is onelyonly brought to prove that Subjects may withſtand illegal commands of Kings, and no further, and that it plainly proves; onelyonly, he ſayes, it is a loving Anſ.violence. Well then, it is a violence; they reſolve that the Kings command ſhall not be fulfilled, yea though hee adds an oath to it. It was indeede a loving violence to Jonathan; ſo is all the violence that the Parliament offers, a loving violence to the Kingdome, yea and there is true love to the King too in it. The King hath not yet ſworn that he will have ſuch things as the Parl. will not ſuffer, ſo as to come to our cogniſince; but Saul ſwore that he would have ſuch a thing done, and yet the people would not ſuffer it to be done, and yet you dare not blame them for this, nay you commend them for it.

The ſecond example is, David reſiſting Saul, the D. ſayes, It was to ſave his perſon from Cut-throats.1 Sam. 26.1 Sam 26

And is not our Army to ſave Parl & people from Cut-throats?

2. He ſayes, David did no act of hoſtility, but only defended himſelfe.

David had no authority over any that followed Saul, for he was then a private man; but our Parl. hath authority over Delinquents that follow the King.Anſ.

2. David was loath indeede to venture upon a pitcht battail, or to exaſperate Saul or his Subjects, becauſe his ſtrength was weake, 600. to a King, therefore he flies up and downe and takes not every advantage, that if it were poſſible he might gaine fa…our in the eyes of Saul and his Subjects: but if they had falne upon him, and his power had beene equall to theirs, who knowes what he would have done? but we are ſure as it is, it is defenſive, and that is all it is to prove that Subjects may take up Arms …o defend themſelves againſt the injuſtice of their Kings.

For that example of David at Keilah, all the anſwer to that is, that it is an uncertain 1 Sam. 23. 12.1 Sam 23:12ſuppoſition.

But examine the place, you ſhall finde it as certain as a ſuppoſition can be; It appeares plainly that David had ſome expectation that the men of Keilah would have Anſ.ſtood to him and kept oft Saul comming againſt him, and if they would, it is apparent by the Text, that David would have ſtood to it though Saul had come againſt him. In the Text it is as plain, as this: Suppoſe the King were neere Hull going aagainſt p. 4Sir J. Hotham, and Sir J. Hotham ſhould ſeek to make ſure of the men of Hul, and enquire whether they would deliver him or not if the King came, and he ſhould come to know that certainly they would, and upon that very ground ſlies away, is this now an uncertaine ſuppoſition that Sir John Hotham would willingly have the Town ſtand to him, and if they would ſtand to him he would ſtay there and defend himſelfe againſt the Kings forces?

Hi, laſt anſwer to Davids example is, that his example was extraordinary becauſe he was anointed to be King after Saul.

But yet for the preſent he was a private man, although God had beſtowed ſomthing Anſ.extraordinary upon him more then upon other men; but it follows not therefore that in this caſe he had an extraordinary power to reſiſt the Prince: Prince Charls hath no more power to reſiſt his Father then the Parliament hath.

For the example of Eliſha uſing the Kings meſſenger rough'y, that came to take away his head, he ſayes it ſayes little to the queſtion in hand.

Yet he grants as much as it is brought for, that defence is lawful againſt ſudden and Anſ.illegall aſſaults of Meſſengers ſent by the King; if againſt ſudden, why not againſt deliberate and plotted? for, they are worſe: This is one end of the raiſing of the Army, to prevent ſuch aſſaults: If it be lawful to be done by violence by 2. or 3. when the meſſenger is but one, then it may be done by 2. or 3000. when the meſſengers are 1000.

For the example of the Prieſts thruſting out the leprous King.

1 Chro. 261 Chr 26That which this is brought to prove, is thus much, That there may be ſuch uncleanneſſe Anſ.in a King, that may cauſe Subjects lawfully to reſiſt him, when he would doe a wicked act.

The Doctor ſayes, Firſt Gods hand was upon him.

So when God ſhall leave a King to ſome horrible way of evil, certainly Gods hand is upon him then.

Anſ.He anſwers, But he haſted to goe out himſelfe.

But the Scripture tels us, the Prieſts likewiſe thruſt him out; they would not ſuffer Anſ.him to be in the Temple.

The next thing in the Sect. is, a ſimilitude from the naturall body: Though a member may defend it ſelfe againſt outward violence, yet no member muſt be ſet againſt the head, for that tends to the diſſolution of the whole.

If the ſimilitude may be followed, we ſay, that ſome members are as neceſſary to the life of the head, as the head is neceſſary to the life of thoſe members.

2. Anſ.A Kingdome may ſometimes have one head, ſometimes another, but ſo cannot a naturall body.

Further, he grants, Perſonall defence doth not ſtrike at the order and power that is over us, but generall reſiſtance by Arms (he ſaith) doth.

No, it may maintain and regulate order, and there may be as little injuſtice on the one ſide as the other.

Anſ.But the caſe is not as Eliſhaes, for the King profeſſeth he will uſe no violence, and we cannot know his heart.

But that example of Eliſha is brought to prove the lawfulnes of uſing force againſt Kings in uſing violence: and what violence hath been already uſed, the world knows.

Anſ.Page 10. He comes to Scriptures, denying reſiſtance: let us ſee what full Scriptures theſe are.

Anſ.The firſt is, Num. 16. 1. &c. The conſpiracie of Corah and his company againſt Moſes and Aaron.

It is ſtrange that this example muſt be paralleld with our Parl. taking up Arms: Was p. 5Anſ.it not a moſt unjuſt and vile conſpiracie, meerly out of the pride of malicious ſpirits? Can the D. or any man think, that in juſtifying Arms in ſome caſe, we juſtifie all villanous conſpiracies and out-rages?

Beſides, this place condemns riſing up againſt the Prieſt, as well as the King. Yea certainly, if they had riſen againſt the meaneſt officer that God had appointed in Church or Common-wealth, as here they did againſt Moſes & Aaron, it would have bin a very hainous offence; Yea if Moſes himſelf ſhould have thus riſen againſt any Officer appointed by God, it had bin a vile ſin in him; therefore this proves no more againſt ſubjects reſiſting Princes, then Princes reſiſting ſubjects, or one ſubject reſiſting another.

Further, we do not riſe againſt His Majeſty, as they roſe up againſt Moſes & Aaron; we deſire not that he ſhould have leſſe power then God & the Laws have given him, but we would preſerve this in him, and keep off the ſtroke of any further power, ſo that we need not for this thing ſo much as examine the cauſe upon which they roſe, whether it were ſuppoſed or not, for the caſe is far differing in the end of the riſing.

But Corah and his company ſuppoſed the cauſe ſufficient.

Suppoſed cauſes for any thing is not enough; now we are not examining the truth of the cauſe of taking up Arms, but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject Anſ.againſt the mind of the King for any cauſe.

Wel, our conſciences need not be much ſcrupled from this Scripture: Let us examine the reſt he brings.

The ſecond is, 1 Sam. 8. 11, 18. where the oppreſſion of the King is mentioned, and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord.

Is the bare relation of the oppreſſion of a King without mention in that place of any means of help, but crying to God, a ſufficient proof that though Kings oppreſſe never Anſ.ſo much, yet there is no help? Suppoſe I bring a place of Scripture, where there is a relation of Subjects riſing up in a wicked way againſt their Prince, & in that place there is no other help mentioned, but only the Prince committed this to God, & God revenged it, can there be drawn from thence an argument, that when Subjects riſe againſt Princes that they have no other help againſt them, but committing the cauſe to God? We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind, the very place the D. brought before wil do it; Num. 15. when Corah and his company roſe againſt Moſes, we there read of no other help that Moſes uſed, but he committed the thing to God, & God revenged it.

But you wil ſay, yet there are other places that ſhew that Princes may make uſe of other help.

So there is for Subjects to make uſe of other helps againſt the oppreſſion of their Princes, many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered.Anſ.

Further, beſides this, we anſwer, that the power of all Kings is not alike, it is no argument becauſe one King hath ſuch and ſuch power, therefore all muſt needs have. The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the ſeverall Laws of ſeverall Countries.

Let us ſee what the third Scripture ſayes, for yet our conſciences are not ſcrupled, it is Numb. 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet.

Becauſe there was a poſitive order there that Moſes muſt make trumpets and thus uſe them; Doth it follow that this muſt be ſo every where? you may by as true a conſequence Anſ.urge the neceſſity of ſilver trumpets, and that the Prieſts ſhould blow them, as well as the former: The conſequence would be full as good. No King can uſe Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Prieſts, for it is commanded there, as that no people can go to war till the Magiſtrates uſe the Trumpets, becauſe it is ſo ordered there; we know the Law is judiciall, and for thoſe judiciall Laws the equity binds no p. 6further then according to rules of prudence and juſtice, every countrey ſhall ſee behoofefull for their conditions. Beſides if this did binde, then it were a ſinne for an Act to paſſe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands, for certainly it might not then be done, no, not with Moſes and Aarons conſent.

The next Scripture is, 1 Sam. 26. 9. who can ſtretch out his hand againſt the Lords Anointed and be guiltleſſe?

Why doth the D. ſpeake of ſtretching forth the hand againſt the Lords Anointed? Anſ.who endeavours it? doth not the Parliament profeſſe the defence of the Kings Perſons 2. Doctor willet upon this place gives you this Anſwer, That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands, no not upon a tyrant; for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe of a murderer, much leſſe a Magiſtrate, a Prince. But ſecondly, he tels us of ſome that have laid hands upon a King, and yet have been guiltleſſe, as Ehud upon Eglon King of Moab: therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Propoſition drawn, that no man in any caſe may ſtretch forth his hand againſt a King. Yea Doctor willet anſwers in the third place, that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State. He indeed limits this, and ſayes, it muſt be underſtood of ſuch Kingdomes as goe by election, as in Polonia, and gives this reaſon, From whom Kings receive their authority, by them may they be conſtrained to keep within bounds. This it ſeems was good Divinity in thoſe dayes. This diſtinction he uſed, to deliver the opinion from oppoſition in England; but if the diſtinction be examined, there will appeare little ſtrength in it: We doe not find that D. willet was ever reproved, or his writings cenſured for this thing.

Concerning that reſtriction of his to Kingdomes by election, we ſhall, when wee come to ſhew from whence all Kings have their power, ſee, that if it proves true of them, it will prove true of others; for the foundation of all power that ſuch and ſuch men have over others, will be found either from election or covenant, which will come to all one.

D. Ferne proceeds thus, If the King had come into the battel, his perſon might have been hurt as well as any.

This had been but accidentally; If a father ſhould voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy, againſt whom the childe is in ſervice, and the child in diſcharging Anſ.upon the enemy ſhould ſlay his father being there, eſpecially he being deſired & beſeeched by any meanes not to be there, but to withdraw himſelfe; doth the child contract guilt in ſuch a caſe?

His next Argument from Scripture is, That the Prophet reprechending the Kings of Iſrael and Judah for Idolatry and oppreſſion, none ever called upon the people for this duty of reſiſtance.

Firſt, There is much difference betweene Kings now, and thoſe Kings: The people then did neither give them their power, nor limit their power; They doe both now when Anſ.firſt they are ſet up.

Secondly, if this be a good argument, that becauſe when Kings oppreſſed, the prophet did not cal upon people for reſiſtance, therefore all reſiſtance in any caſe is unlawful; then, if when people have reſiſted, & caſt oft the Government of their King, & the Prophets have not reproved them for it; then it is lawfull for people in ſome caſe to reſiſt. He that will harken to his own reaſon, muſt acknowledge there is par ratio. If the Prophets exhorted not to reſiſtance, then there may be no reſiſtance, ſayes the Doctor? Then if when there is reſiſtance, the Prophets rebuke not that reſiſtance, then there may with as good reaſon be reſiſtance, ſay I.

When the ten Tribes caſt off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppreſſion, and p. 7hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him, rather then to his ancient grave counſel; the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did, but rather ſeemed to take their parts. 1 Kings 12. 24. …eturn every man to his houſe, for this thing is from mee.

Now the D. comes to his great place again, Rom. 13. which he ſayes be will free from all exceptions.

Nay, bare me an Ace of that. The truth is, he vever ſo much as mentions, nor thinks of the great exception, which duly conſidered, will clear the Text to be nothing Anſ.to his purpoſe.

Firſt he ſuppoſes that the King is the ſupream, as Peter calls him, or the higher power, as here.

1. It is true, Peter cals the King Supreame, but in the ſame place he is made an ordinance of man, and therefore to be limited by man. He may be the chiefe man in authority, Anſ.and yet limited in that authority; he is ſupreame, but not abſolute; We grant that the Houſes of Parliament, and we all, are his Subjects, but not Subjects to his will, but to that power of his that Law gives him.

2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power. Here obſerve his miſtake. Let it be granted that the King hath the higheſt power, yet what propriety of ſpeech is it to ſay that he is the higheſt power? It is proper to God to ſay that he is Power in the abſtract.

Well, The King hath the higheſt power, and we muſt be ſubject to this power of his, and not reſiſt it. Who denies all this? When all this is granted, the D. hath got nothing at all; for if we reſiſt not that power which Law hath given him, we do not reſiſt the higher power, although we do not do nor ſuffer what hee would have us to do or ſuffer.

Then he reaſons from the perſon, whoſoever, every ſoule. There was then ſayes he, the Senate, &c.

But what power the Senate had for the preſent upon agreement, or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperour by agreement, he ſhews not; and if he Anſ.ſhews not this, he ſayes nothing.

Then he tels us of the cauſe Chriſtians had to reſiſt, becauſe their Emperours were enemies to Religion, and had over thrown Laws and liberties.

To the firſt we acknowledge we muſt not reſiſt for Religion; if the Laws of the Land be againſt it, we muſt either ſuffer, or ſeek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermoſt Anſ.…arts of the earth, rather then reſiſt.

For the Emperors ſubverting Laws and Liberties, he muſt prove that the people & …enate had not given abſolute power to them for the preſent, for the preventing further wils they feared, or elſe it reacheth not our caſe, for we know our people and Senate …ave not given any ſuch abſolute power. We muſt not be put to prove, they had, for it … his argument; therefore if he wil make it good, he muſt prove they had not. And yet …ppoſe they had not, if we ſhould gratifie the D. in that thing, yet the Argument would …e but weak: for the Apoſtle requires them not to reſiſt their power, their foreign: hee …oth not charge them not to reſiſt their tyrannie. Certainly they could have no power at that which was given them by ſome agreement; if they challenged further, it was no …uthority at all: ſuch kind of tyrannie as they would aſſume to themſelves, the Apoſtle …rbids not the reſiſtance of in that place.

As for that he ſayes, that ſome affirm that prohibition was temporary, let them main…in it that affirm it: I am ful of the D. mind in that, this prohibition is a ſtanding rule.

As for that diſtinction which he ſayes, ſome make that they reſiſt not the power, but …e abuſe of the power.

We anſwer, it is not reſiſting abuſed power, for it is reſiſting no power at all. Abuſed p. 8power is the ill uſe of what is given to men; but the ill uſe of what was never given to them more then to any other, is abuſe of their wils, but not abuſe of their power. By Power I do not mean Strength, but Authority.

Further, he ſayes, Theſe Emperours ruled abſolutely, therefore upon that ground men might reſiſt, if for any thing.

1. Although the Emperors might uſe ſome force to bring themſelves to an abſolute Anſ.power, yet whether the people were not brought to conſent to prevent farther danger, that muſt be diſproved, when our caſe ever fals, ſo as we ſhall be brought to conſent to an abſolute power, although it be out of feare (which God forbid) then this argument will concerne us, but not before.

2. What they got and held meerly by force, without any conſent and agreement, was no power, no authority at all but might be reſiſted, no withſtanding that prohibition.

The laſt thing in that Sect. is, whereas we ſay that our Religion is eſtabliſhed by Law, theirs was not: He anſwers 2. things. 1. Shall the prohibition be good againſt Chriſtians under Emperors perſecuting Religion, & not againſt Subjects enjoying their Religion?

If thoſe who have power to make Laws ſhould prove ſo wicked as to make wicked Anſ.Laws againſt Religion, yet I am rather bound to paſſive obedience in that caſe, then if men never ſo good ſhould command according to their own will, and not according to Law; for there is an authority in the one, though abuſed, but none at all in the other.

His ſecond anſwer is, This prohibition did not concern Chriſtians only, but all people under the Emperour.

As before, 1. we know not but theſe people had given up their right. 2. If they had not that prohibition doth not reach them in thoſe things wherein they had not.

Anſ.Thus his Scriptures are anſwered, and I profeſſe I have not anſwered from a humour of ſeeking to overcome in a diſpute, to put gloſſes upon the one ſide, or to ſeek evaſions from the ſtrength of the other, but as in the preſence of God to find out truth and to ſatisfie Conſcience that hath to doe with God in a ſpeciall manner.

SECT. III.

THe firſt Sect. is ſpent about the original of the power of Kings.

He firſt contends that the power is from God, and that he needs not contend for we grant that the power not only of Kings, but of all lawfull authority is Gods Ordinance, but that ſuch and ſuch men ſhould have this power, and how much of this power ſhould be put upon this man, and how much upon that, that is from man. Hence it is very obſervable when the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the power, Rom. 13. he ſayes, it is of God; bu… when Peter ſpeaks of the men upon whom that power is put, whether Kings or tho… ſent by him, he ſayes, that is a humnne ordinance, 1 Pet. 2. 13. yea, a humane creation, … the words are, foreign. Rea the D. grants this, that though the power be from God, yet the deſigning the perſon to bear that power, yea, and the qualification and l… mitation is from men by the Laws made with conſent.

The ſupreme Magiſtrate is called the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13.

We acknowledg him ſo, he is alſo ſaid in the ſame place, to miniſter for thy good.

I have ſaid, Ye are Gods.

Anſ.This is true of inferiour Magiſtrates as well as ſuperiour, and yet none will ſay, b… inferiors may be reſiſted.

His concluſion is in this Sect. that though the power be of God, yet the perſon d… ſigned, and the qualification of power in ſeveral forms of government, & limitation, this, is by the laws of men: This is as much as we deſire. Many go no further then th… deſignation of the perſon to be from man, but the D. is more fair, he ſayes the qualification is from man alſo. If ſo, mark what follows, then no man can have any of this ruli… power, but according as he is deſigned to it, qualified for it, limited in it by men, whatſover the name be by which you call him, Emperor, King, Prince, Duke, Lord, &c.

p. 7SECT. IV.

THis Sect. is about the power of people to re-aſſume what power they have conferred upon Magiſtrates, although Gods power, yet conferred by them. He argues thus, If the power be Gods, then people cannot re-aſſume.

If the King gives power to an inferior Magiſtrate, the power that this Magiſtrate Anſ.hath is likewiſe from God, for ſo the Scripture ſayes, Rom. 13. All power is from God: may not this power be re-aſſumed therefore? Let none put this off, with ſaying, But people are not above Kings, as Kings are above inferior Magiſtrates, for that is nothing to the argument. The argument that he makes is this, If the power be of God, it cannot be re-aſſumed: Now the anſwer is, That the power of inferiour Magiſtrates is of God, and yet it may be re-aſſumed, therefore his conſequence is not good.

Further, a ſervant by ſtipulation makes a man his Maſter, who was not before: Now the power of the Maſter is Gods, may he therefore never be deprived of that power? Servants muſt ſerve Chriſt in ſerving their Maſters, as truely as Subjects muſt obey God in obeying their Prince. Paſtors and Teachers have a ruling and a miniſteriall power, and this power is Gods, may it therefore never be taken away from them.

His ſecond Argument is, We cannot recall what is once given, as in things devoted.

1. That can never be proved, that a thing devoted to a religious uſe, can never lawfully be imployed to no other. This is a groundleſſe conceit, becauſe he brings no proofs for it, Eadem facilitate rejicitur, qua aſſeritur. But this that we ſpeake of is a civill thing. And for Kings, that the power they have may not be taken away, he gives that reaſon, Becauſe the Lords hand and his oyle is upon them.

So the Lords hand and oyle is upon Captains and other Magiſtrates. Ioſhua and Anſ.Zerubbabel are called The anointed ones. Prophets, Prieſts have Gods hand and oyle upon them, and cannot the power for no cauſe be taken from theſe? And yet how confidently doth the man conclude, This will not a true informed conſcience dare to doe. Certainly notwithſtanding all the information in this argument, he may doe it.

But he proceeds. How can conſcience be ſatisfied, that this their argument grounded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this Kingdome, when as the Crown deſcends by inheritance, and hath often been ſetled by Conqueſt.

1. There is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from Anſ.the King that Law hath given him.

2. Howſoever, the point of inheritance or conqueſt cannot hinder; For firſt, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, & his Progenitors had no more originally then by conſent was given them: therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance, and Kings by election, in this caſe is not much. And for Conqueſt, that onelyonly ſettles former right, or makes way to ſome farther agreement, to adde to, what was former. The right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from ſome agreement, precedent, or conſequent.

He further argues, It is probable indeed that Kings were at firſt by choice here, as elſewhere; but can Conſcience reſt upon ſuch remote probabilities for reſiſtance, or think that firſt election will give power againſt Princes that do not claime by it?

1. Is it but a remote probabilitie that Kings were here firſt by election? I demand, what firſt inveſted ſuch a Family with Regall power, more then another? Anſ.It muſt be either God from heaven deſigning it, as David, or men appointing it, p. 8or taken by force: there is no quartum. It was not the firſt, and to ſay the third is the right, is an extream wrong to the King If meer force can give right, then whoſoever is moſt forcible hath right; it muſt therefore be ſomething elſe: what can that be but the conſent of people to ſuch a family? which is in effect all one with elect on. You may give it what name you will, it is not therefore a remote probalilitie, but a neere certainty, that even here Kings were at firſt either by choice, or by that which in effect is all one.

The Doctor ſayes, that Kings of England doe not claime their right by election.

It may be they uſe not that word; but if the Doctor ſhall preſume to diſpute Anſ.their claime for them, and think to get a better and ſurer claime then the agreement of people, that the Regall power ſhall be in ſuch a family, ſurely he will have no thanks for his labour. Let him take heed of this. Although he is pleaſed to call Election a ſlender plea, yet I beleeve he cannot bring a ſtronger.

He is at his place in Rom. 13. againe, with the abſolute Monarchy of Romane Emperours.

This hath been anſwered againe and againe.

The next thing he diſcuſſes is the covenant the King enters into, and the oath he takes. And here he tels us our Kings are Kings before they enter into the Covenant, or take this Oath.

Although they be Kings before they perſonally do covenant or ſweare, yet their Anſ.right comes in by their Progenitors, who had their right conferred upon them by ſome agreement or other: ſo that they have covenanted in them.

But this clauſe in the covenant or oath is not expreſſed, that in caſe he will not diſcharge his truſt, it ſhall be law full to reſist.

We doe not ſtand ſo much upon the oath that every King takes, as upon the originall agreement between people and King, whereby this power was conferred firſt upon ſuch a family, and for that wee ſay that no more power was conferred then was done by vertue of that agreement; and why there ſhould not be the ſame reaſon in the Covenant between a Countrey and a Family in matters of ſo high a nature, as there is in other Covenants amongſt men, let the Doctor ſhew, or any for him.

The Doctor confeſſeth, Page 16. line 21. That Lawes are for the restraint of the power of Princes.

But at length after the diſcuſſion of the buſineſſe, he tels you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant, is an inconſequent argument. You muſt beleeve him, becauſe he ſayes ſo: If his bare word will not ſatisfie you, you are like to have nothing elſe.

Yet we would have him and all know, that we do not think that every breach of promiſe, and not performance of covenant in every thing, makes a forfeiture: this indeed were a dangerous conſequent. But the queſtion is, Whether no breach of Covenant may poſſibly in any caſe make a forfeiture? We confeſſe our ſelves not willing to diſpute this too farre.

He preſently ſeemes to grant that there may be ſome force in the argument in States elective and pactionall, but not in this Kingdome.

If the ground of all power that one man hath over another in Civill Government, be ſome kinde of election, explicite or implicite, or ſome kind of agreement Anſ.at the firſt, let the Doctor ſhew how this Kingdome is freed.

But what if the King will not keepe to his agreement, may the Subject doe nothing? The Dr. …, Yes, they may uſe faire means by Petitions, and they may …ery him Subſidies and ayds.

To what purpoſe are Subſidies and ayds denyed, if the King hath power to take Anſ.our eſtates when he pleaſeth, and there muſt be no reſiſtance?

Though this he ſayes may ſeeme unreaſonable to people, and very impolitique to the Stateſ-man, yet plain Scripture and reaſon forbids it.

But this Scripture and reaſon lies hid from us as yet, we have examined them as they have come, and we have found plain miſtakes in the alledging them.

SECT. V.

THis Section is ſpent in the argument of meanes of ſafety to a Kingdome in caſe the King ſhould tyrannize; if they might not reſiſt, it ſeemes God hath left them deſtitute of all helpe, they muſt needs periſh.

To this he firſt anſwers, That is the ſame argument that is uſed for the Popes curbing of, or depoſing Princes in caſe of Hereſie, otherwiſe the Church hath no meanes to preſerve it ſelfe.

The good of a Church is ſpirituall, and God hath given it ſpirituall means enough to preſerve its ſpirituall good, although there be no ſuch power of the Pope over Anſ.Princes, and we know the Church was preſerved and flouriſhed in ſpirituall beautie when there was neither Pope nor Prince to preſerve it.

But the good of a Kingdom is civill and naturall, therefore it muſt have civill and naturall meanes to preſerve it ſelfe by in caſe of danger. Hence then although it be no argument that Popes may by power of Armes curb Kings, and becauſe elſe the good of the Church cannot be preſerved, yet it may be a good argument the people may in ſome caſe take up Arms to defend themſelves againſt violence, although the King gives not his conſent, becauſe otherwiſe the civill and naturall good of men in a Kingdome cannot be preſerved.

The ſecond thing he ſayes is, What meanes of ſafety had the Chriſtians in and after the Apoſtles times?

God called them then to ſuffer; for they were not the State; though many particular men that are not a State, may eaſily be brought into ſuch a condition as they have no meanes for ſafety, but they muſt needs ſuffer; and ſo many States, when the externall violence is too ſtrong for them; but when God and nature gives them meanes of deliverance, there is no neceſſitie they ſhould periſh. When the Doctor diſproves reſiſtance better, wee will either fly or ſuffer.

As for the Chriſtians why they could not reſiſt, the Dr. ſpeakes of a reaſon that he ſeemes to be ſatisfied in, becauſe things were ſo enacted by Law, therefore they could not reſiſt: therefore he leaves their example, as invalid in our caſe, and ſo it were well that every one elſe would leave off urging, that we may never heare of the example of the Chriſtians in the primitive times applyed to our caſe more: For though it ſeems to be ſomething at firſt view, yet it is nothing when it is examined.

But then he ſayes, The Edicts that concerned others were Arbitrary.

To this the Anſwer hath been already, either the people then gave up their whole right to their Emperours, which we have not done to our Kings, or otherwiſe they Anſ.were not bound to their Arbitrary government, but might have reſiſted for their own preſervations.

But if Parliaments ſhould degenerate and grow tyrannicall, what meanes of ſafety could there be for a State?

I confeſſe the condition of ſuch a State would be very dangerous and like to come to confuſion; particular men could not help themſelves, and the whole State ought Anſ.to ſuffer much before it ſhould helpe it ſelfe by any wayes of reſiſting: but if you can p. 10ſuppoſe a Parliament ſo far to degenerate, as they ſhould all conſpire together with the King to deſtroy the Kingdome, and to poſſeſſe the lands and riches of the Kingdome themſelves, in this caſe whether a Law of Nature would not allow of ſtanding up to defend our ſelves, yea to re-aſſume the power given to them, to diſcharge them of that power they had, and ſet up ſome other, I leave to the light of nature to judge.

You will ſay, this cannot be, becauſe the higher powers muſt not be reſiſted by any.

This is not properly to reſiſt the power, but to diſcharge the power, to ſet the Anſ.power elſewhere. The ſervant doth not reſiſt the power of his maſter, when he upon juſt grounds leaves him, and goes to another, if he be ſuch a maſter, as is his maſter by his owne choice, for ſuch and ſuch ends and purpoſes, and had his power limited by agreement.

I know this will be cryed out of as of dangerous conſequence, wherefore God deliver us (as I hope he will) for ever making uſe of ſuch a principle.

It is hard to conceive it poſſible that a Parliament can ſo degenerate, as to make our condition more grievous by unjuſt acts, then it would be if the power in a Kingdom ſhould returne to the law of nature, from whence at firſt it roſe.

Divers lines together ofter the objection from want of ſafety in caſe of degenerating of Parliament he ſpends in commending the temper of our government in the three Eſtates, with complaints of ſome distemper for the preſent.

In the one I joyn with him: but for the other, I undertake not to ſatisfie all his Anſ.apprehenſions of diſtractions in the Parliament. The man I beleeve lives at a diſtance from Parliament, and ſo looks at it through multitudes of reports which uſually (and eſpecially in theſe times) are exceeding falſe mediums to looke through: Straight things will ſeeme crooked, when the object is ſeen through water that is too thick a medium: Reports doe ſo gather ſoile before they come to him, that when they come, they are an exceeding thick medium to ſee Parliament proceedings by.

Whereas it is ſaid, that many ſee more then one, and there is more ſafety in the judgement of many then one: He anſwers, Why ſhould an hundred in the Houſe of Commons ſee more then three hundred? and twenty in the Lords Houſe ſee more then ſixty that are of a contrary judgement?

If there were ſo many of a contrarie judgement more then the others, why do they Anſ.not come and out-vote them in what things are amiſſe?

2. This addes much validitie in common reaſon to what they determine, that they are alwaies a competent number, allowable by Law to be Houſes of Parliament, and they debate and determine things in ſuch an Aſſembly that is open for ſo many, which all the Countreys and Cities in the Kingdom have choſen, to come to debate or contradict as they think fit. Such determinations, although I do not ſay they ſhould be accounted infallible, yet they carry with them more likely reaſon, then thoſe who are carried by a few in ſome ſecret way.

Further, why ſhould ſuch an Objection be made againſt the Houſes of Parliament, that no Court of Iuſtice, no Societie that carries things by Vote, will admit, if it be once ſet? that in ſuch Aſſemblies there ſhall be ſo many at the leaſt, there may be three times more, yet ſo many makes up the Aſſembly, ſo as to enable it to ſuch and ſuch purpoſes. How can this Obiection, without wrangling, be admitted? Oh but many were of another mind, or ſome belonging to the Aſſembly were not preſent.

After this the Doctor proceeds to the commending of Monarchy above Ariſtocraſie, and the Kings Negative voice.

This is nothing to our buſineſſe. What though Monarchie be the beſt? and what though the King ſhould have power of a negative voice in the paſſing all Bils? this is Anſ.granted.

p. 11Then he comes again to his 13. to the Rom.

The argument from this place is worn exceeding bare by this time.

If it were lawfull to reſist power abuſed, it would open a way to people to overthrew Anſ.powers duely adminiſtred.

1. We do not ſay that power abuſed ſhould be reſiſted; but Will, where there is no Power, may be reſiſted.Anſ.

2. True, there is danger in the peoples abuſing their liberties, and danger in Magiſtrates abuſing their power.

He ſayes he intends not to lay the leaſt blemiſh upon the Parliament.

Yet in the Page before he ſayes, The Temper of the Parliament is diſſolved: and upon that ſaies, the diſtractions in the Common-wealth, ſhew the diſtempers, and Anſ.the danger of diſſolution, and what is the cauſe of it. It would fill much paper to gather together the blemiſhes that this man caſts upon the Parliament, eſpecially in his laſt page. But that is not my work, I would gladly have conſciences reſolved.

He proceeds to ſhew the difference between the Low-Countreys and us, which no queſtion is ſomething, but not ſo as can make what they have done lawfull, and yet the Doctors tents right, nor what we have done unlawfull.

He farther enlarges himſelf in diſcourſe about the evils that accompany reſiſting of power.

Still we ſay power ſhould not be reſiſted, and where it is reſiſted ſinfully, yea where Anſ.men in power are reſiſted, any way, there are like to follow ſad conſequences of affliction. But what is all this for the ſatisfaction to conſcience about the Lawfulneſſe or unlawfulneſſe of reſiſting men that have power in any caſe?

Then be comes to the oath of Supremacy and the Proteſtation.

The Anſwer to this depends upon what hath been ſaid, we ſwear onelyonly to the Legall power, we proteſt no further then the maintenance of that.Anſ.

He ſaies, conſcience will look at that power he hath as the ordinance of God.

True, what power he hath, that is, what the Laws give him, we ſay is an ordinance of God.Anſ.

But his abuſe of power is a iudgement of God, that we muſt cry to God againſt, and a true informed conſcience in that caſe will rather ſuffer then reſiſt.

He ſtill takes abuſe of his power to be the doing whatſoever he pleaſe: we denie that to be abuſe of his power. We ſay in that he doth not exerciſe his authorative power at all, therefore he doth not abuſe it. If indeed ſome uniuſt Law ſhould give him any power to do wrong, the execution of this would be the abuſe of his power, and therein it is granted a true informed conſcience would rather ſuffer then reſiſt. But in the other caſe, when he doth what Law inables not to do, all the arguments of the Doctor cannot ſo inform our conſciences, as to beleeve the State muſt rather ſuffer then reſiſt.

Now the Doctor caſts up his reckoning, and thinks he finds it comes to thus much, that he hath found Scripture and reaſon, ſpeak plainly againſt reſiſting.

He cries victorie to himſelf, he tels himſelf what the iſſue of his own thoughts come to; but he reckons without his Hoſt, his conqueſt is too haſtie, we are not of his mind.

I will onelyonly obſerve one thing more in the concluſion of his Section.

If any ſhall be carried away with the name of a Parliament, as Papiſts are with the name of the Church, &c.

If the Church could do as much in matters of Religion, as the Parliament can do in matters of the State, the Papiſts were not ſo much to be blamed for being taken Anſ.ſo much with the name of the Church, as we are not for being taken ſo much with the name of the Parliament.

For 1. The Church cannot make new Articles of Faith, or nullifie the old; but the Parliament can make new Maximes to be accounted Law, that were not before, and undo what were before.

2. The Church hath not a iudiciall power of interpreting the Law of God, but the Parliament hath a iudiciall power of interpreting the Law of the State, ſo as that is to be accounted Law, which they interpret to be ſo. I do not ſay that we are bound to beleeve, that whatſoever interpretation they make was the ſcope and intention of that Law when it was firſt made: But this I ſay, that their interpretation muſt be accounted as much binding to us for obedience, as the ſcope and intention of that Parliament that firſt made that Law.

Thus I have done with his Scriptures, and the rationall part of his Book; and I hope others will have done with it too.

If mens conſciences be ſatisfied in the lawfulneſſe of the thing it ſelf, Subiects taking up Arms againſt the will of the King: His other part, every one who underſtands how things are with us, that is willing to be ſatisfied, will be ſoon able to ſatisfie himſelf. The ſubſtance of all that follows is, ſuppoſe that Subiects may take up Arms? yet whether there be ſufficient cauſe for us to do it.

Toward the concluſion of the book the Dr. begins to be hot, and ſomewhat bitter, but I ſhall not here follow him in particulars, but in the generall thus

What the condition of our Kingdom is, whether in danger or not? What the condition of our Houſes of Parliament, whether they be ſafe or not? whether their priviledges be broke or not? Iudge you whether Doctor Ferne or all the Remonſtrances and Declarations we have had from both Houſes be able beſt to certifie us: we have received information enough, and ſeen and felt enough to make us beleeve that our Kingdom is in great danger: but it may be the Doctor ſits in his ſtudy like another Archimedis drawing his lines, and the Swords muſt be about his eares before he will ſee or beleeve any danger to wards us.

The Doctor puts the caſe thus, whether the conſcience can be ſo perſwaded, that the King is ſuch and ſo minded, as that there may be ſufficient cauſe to take up Arms Anſ.againſt him; in this he is as miſerably miſtaken, as in all his other grounds from Scripture, and his reaſons, if he thinks this be the controverſie.

For 1. we take up no Arms againſt the King,

2. Whatſoever the Kings mind be, there is ſufficient cauſe to take up Arms to defend our ſelves againſt others that ſeek our ruins We know of the plots of bringing the Armies in the North upon Parliament and City: We know of the great preparations of Arms in forreign parts to ſend over hither, and time hath diſcovered their further attempts, although it hath indeed withall diſcovered they could not bring their attempts to their deſired iſſue. We know of many Delinquents that are fled from the Iuſtice of the Parliament, which cannot be attached without force; and if they may ſo ſcape as they do, to what purpoſe doth a Parliament ſit? it will ſoon be made ridiculous in the eyes of the world. We know what is done in the execution of the Commiſſion of Array, and that by force of Arms, and all theſe things by thoſe who are under the authority of the Houſes of Parliament: wherefore if they cannot prevent theſe evils imminent, nor rectifie theſe diſorders extant, but by power added to their authoritie, although there be no ſuch horrible things as the Doctor ſpeaks of, namely, the Kings intentions to ſubvert Religion, and our Laws and liberties, if the King do but denie to aſſiſt in the delivering us from thoſe dangers, not upon groundleſſe p. 13jealouſies feared, but upon certain proofs we know we are in, and in the delivering up of ſuch delinquents as juſtice muſt not, our ſafety cannot ſuffer to eſcape, there is cauſe enough to ſatisfie our conſciences in the lawfulneſſe of our taking up Arms. Yea, our proteſtation and duty, though we had never ſo proteſted, binds us to maintain by all our ſtrength the Parliament in this; and in maintaining them, we do not at all prejudice the King in any lawfull power of his.

This generall is enough to ſatisfie in what is ſaid in the two laſt Sections: As for particulars mentioned there, many of them are anſwered alreadie in the former diſcourſe; others being matters of fact, it is more eaſie for any one to anſwer that hath a mind to examine what paſſages have falne out. To go through them particularly I ſhall leave to ſome who have more time to ſpare then I, they are far more eaſie to anſwer then what was before, but not ſo profitable, and yet the anſwer would exaſperate more, they are Subjects more ſuteable for Lawyers and Statiſts to treat about then for Divines.

Wherefore where as in the concluſion of all, the Doctor defires thoſe who will run the Hazard of this reſiſtance; firſt to ſet their conſciences before the tribunall of God, and confider whether they will excuſe them there when they have ſhed blood, to ſay, we ſuppoſed our Prince would change Religion, overthrow liberties.

No Doctor, We can comfortably, and will freely and really ſet our conſcience before Gods tribunall in this caſe, but we will not make that our plea, but we will ſtand thus before the Lord.

Lord thou who art the ſearcher of our hearts, and our Iudge, thou knoweſt we aimed at no hurt to our King, we deſired to live in peace, we according to our ſolemne vow and Proteſtation, have only endeavoured to deliver our Kingdom & Parliament from the rage of ungodly, and violent bloody men, to bring forth the wicked unto juſtice, to preſerve what thy Maieſtie, what the law of nature, and the Law of the Land hath made our own. If thou wilt pleaſe to call us to ſuffer for thy Name, we hope we ſhall be readie; but becauſe thou telleſt us that it is not the part of a Chriſtian but of an Infidell, not to provide for his family, therefore we have not ſubmitted our ſelves, wives and children to the rage of theſe bloody men: for the ſubſtance of what we have done, it hath been in thy Name, that we may be faithfull to the King, Kingdom, Parliament, and to poſteritie. What failings thou haſt ſeen in the managing of it, Lord pardon to us for Chriſt his ſake.

Thus we are willing to meet the Doctor at Gods Tribunall, but he ſhall not lay our plea for us, we fear he will have enough to do to anſwer for himſelf, yea to anſwer for that Book he hath put forth in ſuch a time as this.

For a Concluſion of all.

LEt none think that though we thus iuſtifie taking up Arms, that therfore we are of thoſe that delight in War; God forbid. Our ſouls deſire after peace, we pray for peace, we would gladly lay down our lives (if we know our own hearts) for peace.

Lately my name was injuriouſly added to a printed paper, wherein there was a Petition againſt Accommodations: It ſayes I went along with it, whereas I knew nothing at all of it, untill neere a week after it was delivered to the Houſe: Thus are we at the mercy of every malignant ſpirit, if he can get a Printer to aſſiſt him, to be rendred to the world as odious as he pleaſeth. As great an injury I ſuffered before, though in another nature, when a few pieces of a Sermon I preached to young men were gathered together, and patched up with a deale of non-ſenſe, and additions of their owne as they pleaſed, and then put out as mine. Although we live amongſt men ſet on fire, yet God forbid but we ſhould follow peace: but it muſt be the peace of Jeruſalem, not the peace of Babylon.

p. 14And the truth is, had the people knowne their liberties before, it is very probable theſe warres would have been prevented. This I am confident hath been the great encouraging, fomenting argument for theſe warres, If we goe in the name of the King, none will dare to ſtir against us; What will they take up Arms to reſist their King? Had they ſeen the weakneſſe of this their Argument, as it is applyed to this buſineſſe in hand, that bloud that hath been ſhed would have been prevented; And if the people of the Land knew the Liberty that God, and Nature, and Law gives them, there would ſoone be an end of theſe Warres; but a few ſuch Doctors as this is, may helpe to prolong them, by dividing the people, and putting them into a maze, comming in ſo plauſible a way to informe Conſcience; whereas in truth he gives no bottome for Conſcience to reſt on, but rather puts it to a ſtand, or rather into a labyrinth.

There is a neceſſitie that in theſe times peoples Conſciences ſhould be further ſatisfied in their liberties in this caſe then formerly, becauſe the time is (we hope) at hand for the pulling down of Antichriſt, and we find by Scripture this work at firſt will be by the people: Revel. 18. 2. The Angel came down from heaven and cried mightily with a ſtrong voice, Babylon the great is falne, is falne: And verſ. 4. I heard another voice from heaven, ſaying, Come out of her my people: ver. 6. Reward you her as ſhe hath rewarded you: and ſo to the 9. ver. her deſtruction is threatned. Now ver. 9. the Text ſayes, The Kings of the earth who have committed fornication, and lived deliciouſly with her, ſhall bewaile her, and lament for her, ſaying, Alas, alas. Ver. 11. And the Merchants of thoſe things which were made rich by her, ſhall ſtand weeping and wailing, ver. 15. All her Proctors, and Commiſſaries, and Chancellors that grew rich by her, they ſhall lament. No marvaile then though ſo many Proctors get together to ſeek for peace upon any terms.

Here you ſee Babylon muſt down, and yet the Kings lament her fall: Who then muſt pull her down but the people? Not that the people can raiſe a War meerly for Religion, but God will ſo order things, that the Papiſts ſhall by their malice be put upon ſuch plots and enterpriſes, that they ſhall make themſelves lyable to the juſtice of the Law, ſo that Kings ſhall have no legall power to reſcue them from it, but inferiour Magiſtrates, aſſiſted by the people, ſhall in a juſt way fall upon them, even then when the Kings of the earth and their Merchants ſhall lament them. Hence Revel. 19. 6. the Hallelujah that is begun upon the Lord God omnipotents raigning, is begun by the people, I heard the voice as of many waters, ſaying, Hallelujah. Now the Scripture frequently ſets forth the people by waters, as Revel. 17. 15. The waters which thou ſaweſt, were peoples. We reade Cant. 5. 11. where the glory of Chriſt is ſet forth, it begins at the head; but Cant. 7. 1. where the glory of the Church is ſet forth, it begins at the feet, How beautifull are thy feet? Surely the right knowledge of theſe liberties God hath given people, will much help forward the great things God hath to doe in this latter age.

This makes me willing to publiſh what help I can in this thing, although I know full well I run the hazard of ſuffering much in it. Let Babylon fall, let the Church proſper, it is enough, our lives are not much worth.

And now I have ſhewne the Commiſsion of the Lord of Hoſts for warres; I ſhall not yet ceaſe to pray for peace; ſuch a peace as may have as good a Commiſsion from the Prince of Peace, as the preſent wars of the Kingdom have from the Lord of Hoſts.

That which I have done is but as the taking of my pen to write a Letter to a friend; but a little ſtrength is enough to oppoſe a little ſtrength.

FINIS.

End of the text · Jeremiah Burroughs, The Glorious Name of God the Lord of Hosts Opened in Two Sermons (1643)