Scripture and Reason Pleased for Defensive Arms, Section 5

Scripture and Reason Pleased for Defensive Arms · Section 5

p. 46SECT. V.

IN this Section hee propounds this Reaſon as alleadged for the peoples Power, that elſe [the State ſhould not have meanes for its owne ſafety, when &c.]

REPLY. This Reaſon we acknowledge ours, and conſidering what a State is, a Body compoſed of many thouſands, who by themſelves (or their Anceceſtors) ſet up a King over them, for their ſafety and good, this Reaſon is as much Reaſon, as any thing can be betweene Man and Man: Nor ſhall the Dr. bee ever able to ſpeake Reaſon in Oppoſition to it; himſelfe grants ſtraight way, that ſalus Populi in a good Sence, is ſuprema Lex. And when a People, neither ſeekes nor deſires any thing of hurt to their Prince, but onelyonly ſafety to themſelves, It is good in no ſence, if not in this; to allow (I ſay more command) a State that hath any conſiderable ſtrength to doe it, to defend it ſelfe, and ſo procure its owne ſafety, even by reſiſting if need be, by force of Armes. And though he j…ere at the Plea of neceſſity, when as he ſaith Right and juſt will not defend a thing, Yet if himſelfe were aſſaulted on the high way by one that offered to kill him and in his houſe in the Night by Robbers, would he ſay that either out of the caſe of Neceſſity, he a private m…n, or any S…rvants of his, might in right or juſtice kill another man, or that Neceſſity would not be a ſufficient Plea, if in that Caſe any did kill ſuch a Theef or Robber, not onelyonly before men but God alſo. The Law among us allowes the Plea of ſe defendendo in ſuch Caſes, And Gods Law expreſſely, Againſt one that breaks a houſe in the night, though not in the day, as not admitting them a neceſſitie to kill the thiefe, as the Text there plainely implies. As for his ſaying, [Every thing muſt be honeſt which is Spar…ae utile, imagined to conduce to the propoſed End;)

REPLY. This is but a ſecond calumny, of which his Treatiſe is full every where, neither profit nor Imagination is admitted or urged in this caſe, but neceſſity apparent, or judged imminent by Rules of prudence, which commands endeavour of prevention of extreme evills (ſuch as the ruine of a States ſafety) even by care and Power before hand, as well as when it lies gaſping under the preſſure. Counſell in prevention is indeed better then help out of trouble: For by that leſſe trouble is ſuffered, and leſſe offence acted in the defence.

But theſe are but the Drs flouriſhes, for he will now ſtabbe this reaſon to the heart with diverſe contrary Reaſons, againſt all the plea of Neceſſity of ſafety. The firſt is that, this among others is one of the many Weapons ſharpned for Reſiſtance at the Philiſtims Forge, the Romiſh Schooles.

Reply. Firſt himſelfe will not allow this to be reproach to him, or his fellowes in any of their poſitions, nor thinke it ſufficient to make an Argument be rejected, becauſe the Romoniſts have either uſed it or abuſed it.

p. 47Secondly, but he is deceived in paralelling the Caſes. They pleade for the Popes Power of curbing or depoſing Kings in caſe of Hereſie, becauſe elſe the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance o… the Catholicke Faith, and its owne ſafety.

Reply. The Argument is not good, his Church is not a Civill State, but the good of it is mainly ſpirituall, and to be preſerved by ſuch ſpirituall meanes, as GOD hath appointed, who both inſtituted and conſtituted it himſelfe, and left not to it, the ordering of its owne ſafety or good. But our caſe is of a Civill State, whoſe good is Civill and naturall, and is to be preſerved by civill and naturall meanes, and ſo by Armes in caſe of danger, even from its owne Prince, bent or ſeduced to ruine it. The Dr. himſelfe ſtraightwayes grants, the State hath meanes of preſervation ſuch as the Law hath preſcribed. If he can ſhew us any true meanes, in the caſe ſtated by him, but this power of reſiſtance, I yield him the cauſe. If not he doth but abuſe his Readers Conſcienc…s, to blind them with words, which are of no validity. But I have ſhewed him before, and muſt againe remember him, that in our Parliament State (by the Kings owne acknowledgement) hath ſuch Power by Law to puniſh even the Kings followers and Favourites, as is more then ſufficient to prevent, or reſtraine Tyranny. We aske no more for our ſafety. But when they will reſiſt the Parliament by Armes, It hath no way to puniſh them, or defend the State but by Armes Which therefore it may lawfully take up.

Secondly, the Dr. addes (If every ſtate hath ſuch Meanes to provide for its ſafety, what meanes of ſafety had the Chriſtian Religion in, and after the Apoſtles Times? Or the People then enſlaved, what meanes had they for their Liberties? Tertullian in his Apologie ſaith, the Chriſtians had number and Force ſufficient to withſtand, but they had no Warrant. And the Apoſtle forbids them, and all other under the higher Power to reſiſt.

Reply. This example of the Chriſtians not reſiſting is counted a Capitall Argument, we ſhall ſee what ſtrength it hath. Firſt it is brought in this place, for the Chriſtians were neither a civill State, (of which the preſent Reaſon proceeds) nor neere to the greater number in the The State. They had the Lawes (which is in ſome Sence the State) againſt them, and ſo they ever had beene, and the greater▪ part of the body of the Eſtate by farre, were oppoſite, even in Tertullians Time. Though therefore the Church being properly onelyonly a ſpirituall State, have not of neceſſity, civill meanes to provide for the outward ſafety of Chriſtians: yet a Civill State, (whether of Heathens or Chriſtians) may have and hath, which is by taking Armes, in caſe of neceſſity as before. But the Dr. ſaith the Apoſtle forbids them and all, under the Higher power to reſiſt.

Reply. I ſuppoſe what I have formerly ſaid on this place, Rom. 13.2. may and will ſatisfie moſt Readers for that place. But the Drs. importunity forces me to repeate part of it here, and apply it to the caſe of Chriſtians, even then, and much more now: And ſo I make bold to tell the Dr. that he doth moſt miſerably wreſt the Apoſtles words in this caſe of all others, which to demonſtrate (I ſay to demonſtrate) I appeale to the context after and before, and let all Chriſtians, and Conſciences, or even reaſonable Men, Iudge whether the Drs. Interpretation be not moſt abſurd. Thus the Dr. interprets v. 2. [Whoſoever ſhall take up Armes to reſiſt Nero, perſecuting the Chriſtian Religion, reſiſts the Ordinance of GOD; Rebells againſt GOD in reſiſting the higher Power ordained by GOD, and if hee kill any man in ſuch reſiſtance, he commits murther, & incurres damnation for ſo doing.] This is the Drs. Sence plainely, and his words here and there, are fully ſo p. 48much. Now marke St. Pauls Reaſon, v. 3. and make Sence of it, or Religion much leſſe of it, if you can to this purpoſe. Firſt, for Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill. Nero is the Ruler here meant, perſecuting Nero: Let the Dr. now tell me (or any for him) Is not perſecution a Terrour to the Workes that are perſecuted? and then is Chriſtianity a good worke or not? Nero perſecutes that, and is a Terrour to that, but ſo he is not to good Workes. Then belike Chriſtianity is not a good Work…? Will St. Paul ſpeak thus? or doth hee know what he ſaith, when he ſaith, Rulers are not a terrour to good Workes, therefore they muſt not be reſiſted? Chriſtianity is a good worke, and Nero is a terrour to it (though by GODS Ordinance he ſhould not be) therefore he muſt not be reſiſted. What can be more unreaſonable, then to bring a Reaſon, which is quite againſt the thing it is brought for? to interpret then, as the D…. doth v. 2. is to make St. Paul argue againſt himſelfe, if you Reader (are not) ſhould not be; and …f you Keepe the literall ſ…nce (are not) then either he ſpeakes that which is fal…e of Nero, and h…s Officers, and under Rulers, for they were a terrour to good Workes, if Chriſtianity be a good worke, or Chriſtianity is no good Worke. Let the Dr. take his choyce of the three. I have a fourth too take to formerly ſayde downe, which is that he ſpeakes of Civill Legall Authoritie in civill Lawes as then in the Romane State and ſuch like, and to Rulers according to them were not terrours to good Workes; as the Apoſtle ſaith.

Secondly, but ſee the Apoſtles next words, wilt thou then not be affraid of the Power, doe that which is good, and thou ſhalt have praiſe of the ſame, that is thou needſt not reſiſt, but onelyonly looke to doe well, and h…e will commend thee. But is this true of perſecuting Nero? Might the Chriſtians count this a ſafe courſe, of which they need not be afraid to practice Chriſtianity? ſafe that i…, for which the Power would not doe any thing againſt them: bu… rather prayſe them? did Nero ſo? Or could the Ap…ſtle thinke he would? O …d he deceive Chriſtians in ſa…ing ſo? or condemne Chriſtianitie as not good? … a Reaſon againſt himſ…l…e? Some of theſe things muſt bee ſaid, or elſe the D…. Sence muſt bee renounced, it muſt be ſaid that he meddles with no matter of Chriſtian Religion here, but of civill Subjection to Civill Lawes, which Rulers according …o their Power, would praiſe them for; and they need not feare ſuch powers doing well.

Thirdly, adde further what the Apoſtle doth, v. 4. [For hee is the Miniſter of GOD to thee for gooD,] Is this true of perſecuting Nero, in the caſe of his perſecuting? Whereby the Apoſtle proves he will prayſe thee, doing that which is good? Surely in an over-ruling Worke of GODS Grace, the very Divell is GODS inſtrument for GOOD, as to Iob, (and we may ſay M…niſter too.) And Nero not a whit more in the Act of perſecuting. Bu… this farre from St. Pauls meaning: For hee meanes a civill good, praiſing, and rewarding, and protecting. Nero did (St. Paul knew) quite contrary to this: He cannot then meane him as a Perſecuter; and ſo never intends here to forbid reſiſting his Perſecution.

Fourthly, goe on one ſtep further with the Apoſtle, which will yet make it more plaine if more can be; [But if you doe that which is evill then feare, for he beares not the Sword in vaine, for hee is the Miniſter of GOD, a Revenger to ex…cute wrath on them that doe evil…) Evill contrary to Chriſtianity is Idolatrie, (for one thing,) …nd to make Chri…tians Idolaters, did Nero and others perſecute them, if they would caſt in a graine of I…cenſe into the Fire, by way of ſacrifice to their Idolls, they were freed. Now is it St. Pauls meaning, If you turne Idolater then p. 49feare, for Nero beares not the Sword in vaine, for he is GODS Miniſter, a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that commit Idolatrie? Or is Chriſtianitie the evill they were to feare, as that which he uſed the Sword againſt, and that with great wrath and revenge? There is then nothing like the Drs Interpretation, In all theſe Arguments of the Apoſtle: but the cleane contrary, beſides what followes, v. 5, 6, 7. Of which ſee the expoſition before.

But ſome will ſay, was it then lawfull for the Chriſtians, then to have reſiſted the perſecuting Emperours? Tertullian and the Fathers thought otherwiſe.

I anſwer, firſt, whether it were or no, (of which by and by) moſt certaine, it was not forbidden in this, Rom. 13.2, 3, 4. Yet this is the Capitall place. If any other can be found forbidding it, which the Dr. offers not to urge, further then what we have examined already, that is nothing to this Text. For no Logick or Rhetorick can extract that ſence from hence; who ever they be, that have ſo interpreted it heretofore.

Secondly, but becauſe of the great Outcry made of the Chriſtians not reſiſting then, I will once more looke upon the Text, Rom. 13.2. and compare it alſo with that before ſo: v. 1. and ſee whether by a right view, it will not plainly pronounce Chriſtians even then, free from paſſive ſubjection in caſe of perſecution (ſuppoſing they had Force to reſiſt, by their hands not tyed by Gods Ordinance from reſiſt…nce, or at leaſt wiſe, onelyonly upon a ſpeciall Reaſon applyable to that State of the Church: and Roman Empire, (of which yet there is not the leaſt intimation in that place, but muſt …e gathered elſewhere, as we ſhall ſee) and which is no impediment at all to Chriſtians reſiſting the perſecution now of Popiſh Tyranny.

I ſay then, Subjection to the Higher power is commanded, and reſiſting it forbidden there, upon this ground, becauſe they are of GOD ordained under GOD, GODS Ordinance, Note how all the words accord in the Originall, foreign be ſubject foreign whoſoever reſiſts, foreign ordained under GOD, foreign the Ordinance of GOD, all from the word foreign to ſet in order) that i… GOD hath given to men Power and au…ho…ity, to urge the execution of his Lawes, and to make ſome Lawes under him and his, and to puniſh according to the merit of the Offences, the tranſgreſſions of the one or the other. And ſo farre as this, they are to be ſubjected unto by every ſoule, either actively or at leaſt paſſively, and not to be reſiſted, by wilfull froward diſobedience, and much leſſe by taking up Armes againſt ſuch Lawes, or them that exerciſe authoritie to them. But this is all the Authority GOD gives to any, and not to make Lawes againſt his, nor yet to puniſh thoſe tha… obey his Lawes: And if any ſuch Lawes be made, or any ſuch puniſhment offered to be inflict…d (even by reaſon of ſuch Lawes made) they are not the Ordinance of GOD, He hath afforded them no ſuch Authoritie, no ſuch Power. Nay ſuch Lawes and Rulers according to them are the foreign, the oppoſers and Reſiſte…s of GODS Ordinance, of the Law of Nature, or Scripture, or both. The Lawes therefore are Null and the Authority Null; quoad hoc) as will be plaine by this inſtance. A King grants a Charter to a Major of a Towne to governe that Towne (with others, or alone, that is all one) according to his Lawes, and puniſh all Malefactors, and moreover to make ſome particular Lawes or Orders in the Towne, for the better keeping all in due Subj…ction and Order. This Major makes Lawes directly againſt the Kings, againſt the King himſelfe, offers to ſweare the people to another King. Are not thoſe Lawes then Null? and his Authority Nu…l▪ ſo farre forth? or can it be thought, that becauſe the King commands ſubjection p. 50to the Maior, and forbids to reſiſt him, as long as he rules by the Kings Lawes, or by ſuch as his Charter enables him to make, being not againſt the Kings; that therefore they may not reſiſt him, if he would maſſacre them, (or under colour of his new made Lawes) condemne them becauſe they will not be Traitors to their King, and ſubmit to an uſurper? will the Dr. ſay it? or any elſe? and is not this the very caſe if men will thinke of it, if a King ſhould make (or hath made) Lawes, that men ſhould worſhip the Sun, worſhip an Idoll, an Image? Are not theſe traiterous Lawes againſt the King, the GOD of Heaven? can any then, King, they or the Authority commanding them, i… quo ad hoc, GODS Authority, GODS Ordinance or deny them to be reſiſters of him? The Lawes that are in themſelves Null: the Authoritie Null: ſo farre forth: no kind of Subjection then is due to them in this from this Text. Nor is any Ordinance of GOD at all reſiſted in reſiſting them. Rather is it not a Duty [But the Chriſtians did not reſiſt, though Tertullian ſay they had number and Force ſufficient.]

REPLY. Mr. Goodwin, in his Anticavalieriſme hath very rationally ſhewed, firſt that in all probability Tertullian was miſtaken in his Computation, if he mean it throughout the Empire. They might have ſome conſiderable number and ſo force in one place or City, and not enough in generall. Secondly, that if they had ſo, yet generally it was not knowne to Chriſtians, and that is all one in ſuch a caſe, he that knowes not his ſtrength dares not reſiſt, no more then hee that hath no ſtrength. Thirdly, that if they knew their ſtrength, yet they did not know it lawfull to reſiſt generally. Some might know it, yet not preach it for feare; and if it were not generally beleeved, they would not reſiſt. Fourthly, that there were ſpeciall Reaſons, why GOD might conceale this from them, this Liberty of reſiſtance. Of all this there are many conſiderable things in that treatiſe (Vide:) I will only adde this One, that if Reſiſtance ſeeme ſo unfitting now, it would have ſeemed much more then. The Chriſtian Religion came in upon the Roman Empire as a Novelty, and neither they not their Anceſtours for many Generations had any Principles (but the remote ones of the Law of Natur…) to perſwade them to give it Entertainment. So that to have reſiſted by Armes, would have ſeemed a great obſtinacy and perverſeneſſ…, ſpecially in Reference to the Doctrine of Chriſt a crucified GOD, (a Man riſen from the dead and gone into Heaven) which the Pagans counted fooliſhnes, as well as it was a ſtumbling block to the Jewes. Alſo Ch…iſt himſelfe founding his Church by his owne ſuffe…ings, would have them ſpecially like him, in ſufferings at the ſpreading of it in the World; Whereby he alſo got farre more Glory in that not onelyonly his Church was preſerved (like the burn in the midſt of the Fire) in the midſt of ſufferings without reſiſtance; But alſo i… propagated mainly, and conquered by ſuffering meerly. This I ſay was then greater glory, then to have allowed them ſtraightway to defend themſelves, and reſiſt with Armes: which alſo till a long time would have been in vaine, and to their hurt, beſides Reproach without miracle. But now the caſe is much otherwiſe in regard of Proteſtants perſecuted by Popiſh Princes, ſpecially recalling Lawes of toleration, or changing Lawes eſtabliſhing the Religion. For the Proteſtant Religion, to ſhew it ſelfe no noveltie appeales to that which the Pap…ſts cannot denie the holy Scriptures, and rejects nothing, (if even an unpartial Heathen were Judge, and umpi…e between them) which the Scripture calls to beleeve or practiſe. Alſo …t pro…eſſes nothing, which the Scriptures rej…ct. Therefore their reſiſtance may much more be juſtified to their Adverſaries Conſciences, Who though they dare not deny the Scriptures p. 51plainely, yet dare not truſt to them alone to confute the Proteſtants by them, but put them to death, for things not onelyonly beſides the Scriptures, but even againſt it, as making and worſhipping Images, Croſſes, Crucifixes and the like. Here the ſame King and Lawes being generally acknowledged, yet will the Inferiour Governours, make Lawes againſt the Kings, and even Force the Kings Subiects, to doe Homage and even ſweare Allegeance to another beſides Him. Therfore they are not (in this) to be accounted GOD… L…eutenants or Deputies, or their Lawes of any Validitie, but they may be reſi…ted, as Rebells againſt the King of Heaven, while they pretend to be his Servants. The Roman Emperours then, as meere ſtrangers, in point of Knowledge or Profeſſion, were rather but at leſt for the time) to be convinced by ſuffering then by reſiſtance. But pretended Chriſtian Princes (ſpecially after a toleration, and moſt of all after a Legall Eſtabliſhment) turning Perſecuters of that truth whichas in the Bible, he …ſelves profeſſe to hold; may be reſiſted in a Defenſive way. And there is nothing in the Bible to gaineſay it▪ And whether now the Chriſtians might alſo have reſiſted as ſoone as they had any ſtrength, (… ever they had any before Conſtantines Time,) I leave it to others to iudge. For upon the Grounds fore noted, it hurts not our Cauſe at all; if they mig…t…t.

The D…. proceed… ▪ ſo doe I (…f it bee replyed that things being ſo enacted by Law, it was not lawfull to reſiſt. I anſwer (ſaith he) all that proceeded from thoſe Emperours, were meerely …rbitrary, and enforced upon the Senate, who did not diſcharge their truth, &c.

Reply. Firſt, what is tyrannouſly done againſt humane Law may be reſiſted as we have ſ…id; and ſo may, (by what we have lately proved) tyrannous Lawes directly and clearely againſt GOD, and his true Religion; and therefore if ever wee ſhould be ſo unhappy (which I hope will never be unleſſe the people beleiving this Drs. Poſition, betray this Parliament,) that a Parliament ſhould joyne with a King to caſt out the true Religion, and bring in Popery; and ſo make Lawes againſt us, which are now all for us (yet might we reſiſt; and not ſuffer our ſelves to be maſſacred or condemned for not conſenting to be Traitours to the King of Heaven (LORD Jeſus Chriſt) whom yet they would pretend to rule by, and for him. If any man can ſhew me, that it is Gods Ordinance wee ſhould ſubmit and ſuffer in ſuch a caſe, I ſhall not refuſe to yield; but I confeſſe I cannot ſee it▪ though I know even thoſe that defend the reſiſtance now uſed Lawfull; affirme it were not lawfull, if the Law were againſt us, as it is for us. But how humane Lawes made without againſt GODS Authority, can hinder me from the Liberty granted me by the Law of Nature, to defend my ſelf from outragious Violence, being altogether an Innocent, I cannot ſee, ſpecially in a caſe concerning GODS immediate Honour as well as my ſafety.

2. If Lawes cannot tie my hands in all Caſes (in the forenamed) from reſiſtance, much leſſe an Arbitrary Power. (but of that, it will be convenient to diſcourſe a little further; and apply it alſo to Civill Matters, as well as to Religion, wherein we ſhall alſo ſee whether all Civill Lawes doe ſo tie us, as none of them neither may be reſiſted, and if any, which? and which not?

I ſay then an Abſolute Arbitrary Power, or abſolute Monarchy (as ſome call it) is not at all the Ordinance of GOD; and ſo no lawfull Power ſecured from reſiſtance by Rom.. 13.2. Firſt GOD allowes no man to rule as hee liſt, to make what Lawes he liſt, to puniſh how and whom hee liſt. But his p. 52Word ſpeaks the Contrary every where. Secondly GOD not allowing, Men cannot give it, to a Conquerour, or any other. They can give but what GOD allowes, for they have no more their owne, in that ſence. Now no man can give any thing but what is his owne. Thirdly, particularly, no man is allowed by GOD, or can be made by Man, an abſolute Monarch, a meere Arbitrary Prince in point or Relig…on. I am farre from denying Authority about Circumſtantialls in Religion. But I meane, he hath no Authority to bid what GOD forbids, or to forbid what GOD bids; or puniſh them that obey GOD rather than him. GOD never gave this Power, nor can men give it. Fourthly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD, or can have from men, to violate the Chaſtity of any. A Law of Platoes Community, is null, becauſe againſt GODS expreſſe 7th. Commandement, and may and ought to be reſiſted▪ (yet now we are among civill matters.) Fiftly, no Monarch hath any Power from GOD, or can have from men, to take away the life of his Subjects, any one at his meere pleaſure, or without a Law broken, (whether Civill or Martiall.) and knowne to the Tranſgreſſour, or which he ought to have knowne, and might (which Ionathan could not, hee had no meanes to know of his Fathers Oath being then made, and in his abſence) Lycurgus his Law to deſtroy all Children that were deformed, or weakelings, and Pharaohs Arbitrary Command to deſtroy all the Iſraelitiſh Males, were both alike tyrannous and null: and might have been reſiſted. In all theſe caſes there is, I ſay, no abſolute Monarchy, no meere arbitrary Power, Lawfull, none that is GODS Ordinance. And whoſoever challenges ſuch Power, is (in that) not GODS Deputy, but an Vſurper, whether King or Caeſar, Roman or Turkiſh Emperour or any other. Sixtly, but the only Caſes wherein a Monarch may be abſolute in Matter of Liberty of mens perſons, of Goods, an… manner of Judaciall proceedings, and making or taking away Officers and Honours and ſuch like, in thoſe I grant, that as GOD denies not, but a Monarch may have abſolute Authority (onelyonly he muſt uſe it to Good) ſo men may give away their Liberty (by Feare or otherwiſe) and become much enſlaved to their Princes Will, in compariſon of what others are. And if any bee ſo (which I beleeve not of the Roman State, though much was done arbitrarily by the Emperours) I yield they may not reſiſt though they be ſorely pincht. They may thanke themſelves who bound their owne if therefore our Parliament in after Ages (or this by being forſaken by the People, ſeduced by the Dr.) ſhould ſo enſlave us, we muſt beare it and not reſiſt, becauſe it is our owne Act, who chooſe them and put all ſuch things into their hands, but in other things we ſhould not, could not be bound, as I ſaid before.

The Doctor hath a third Reaſon [We cannot expect abſolute meanes of ſafety and ſecurity in a State but, ſuch as are reaſonable]

REPL. If by abſolute meanes of ſafety and ſecurity hee meane ſuch as God cannot defeat; we grant what he ſaith, or ſuch as God hath forbidden. But if he take it of rationall means; he ſaith nothing at all that allotts any means which are not abſolutely ſufficient (according to humane proceedings) to procure ſ…ch a ſafety as a State ſhall n…ed. A State is a moſt conſiderable body, and may challenge all posſible meanes which God hath not denyed them; and ſo even a private man may, being altogether innocent▪ except where a greater good then his Particular life, calls him to venture it, or yeeld it up. But p. 53there is no greater good on earth (in civill reſpects) then the ſafety of a ſtate. Therefore all meanes not forbidden from Heaven are reaſonable, and to bee expected and uſed, though not expresſly provided for (that is mentioned) in the Fundamentalls of this Government, which the Doctor would require. Then he falls a commending the excellent temper of the three Eſtates, King, Lords, Commons, having each a power of denying.

REPL. They have ſo; in making particular Lawes. But the Queſt. now is of exerciſing the generall and maine fundamentall Law of all States, to ſave the whole from ruine and ſubverſion. Here though all three agreeing (and none denying) makes the ſafety more ſecure, and more comfortable and honourable. Yet no reaſon, but in a Co-ordinate Power (as here it is plainly ſo; ſee the Fuller Anſwer to the Doctors Booke) any two or of three or even any one of them, rather then all ſhould faile and be diſſolved, ſhould have Power to endeavour the common ſafety which the others neglect or intend to ſubvert or betray.

And I verily beleeve the Doctor himſelfe or any other of his partie (if hee forbeare not to ſay ſo much leaſt it ſhould be retorted on himſelfe) will confeſſe that the King and the Lords may ſave the Kingdome from ruine, without or againſt the Houſe of Commons; and the King and the Houſe of Commons, without or againſt the Lords: and which is yet more, the King alone without or againſt both Lords and Commons. For indeed, this is the very thing now pretended by the King for his taking Armes to ſave the Proteſtant Religion and the Lawes, and his owne Rights, &c. which he ſaith, the Lords and Com…ons (whom he termes the Major part of both Houſes preſent) intend and goe about to ſubvert. And if they did ſo; certainely all true Subjects and Pa…riots ought not onelyonly not to joyne with them in their Armes, but to joyne with the King in his againſt them.

And if it could be posſible that all the three Eſtates ſhould agree to ruine Religion and the State; even the Body of the People, ſhould (by vertue of the power which each State hath for its neceſſary ſafety) have Authority ſufficient to defend themſelves, and reſiſt all outragious Attempts of miſchiefe (as hath been proved before) though then for want of many conveniences and perhaps of wiſedome to manage it, the defence and reſiſtance muſt needs be much more hazardous and dfficult. The power therefore of denying▪ and ſo all other power in each of the 3. Eſtates and in any two of them, or all the 3. together is given, and is to be uſed ad Edificationem, ad Salutem, non ad deſtructionem) for the common good and ſafety, not ruine. For in that it is Null and voyd in all reaſon and equity. But the Doctor ſaith, Muſt the King only truſt and not be truſted? Muſt he not alwayes have his ſecurity againſt the other, which cannot be but by power of denying?

RE…L. 1. But he forgets that the Queſtion by himſelfe ſtated is, when the Prince will not diſcharge his truſt; and more then ſo… is bent or ſeduced to ſubvert Religion Lawes and Liberties. Then it is ſenceleſſe to truſt him, till … ſhew…s another a better mind; and it is moſt ridiculous to allow him in this caſe a p…wer of denying ſafety; for that is to allow him a power of ſubverting all. 2. But when the …u. is (as now it …s made in Hypotheſi,) whether the Prince or the two Houſes do mean w…ll or ill? and who doth or doth not diſcharge their truſt, and who doth or doth not intend the ſubverſion of Religion p. 54Lawes and Liberties: who can be Judge betweene them? or who can amongſt men decide the difference but the Body of the People? Exerciſing their underſtanding and conſciences to judge who is in the right, (by all that hath been ſaid and done on both ſides formerly, and of late) and ſo their power and ſtrength too to defend the right ſide, and reſiſt the wrong-doers? And theſe whether the Doctor (or any under Heaven) will or no, muſt have, and will have the Power of denying or granting meanes for their owne and others ſafety and ſecuri…y.

The Doctors reproaches againſt the Parliament I paſſe. Only where he ſayes [Conſcience might demand for its ſatisfaction. Why ſhould 100. in the Houſe of Commons ſee more then 300? or 20. in the Houſe of Lords more then 60. that are of a different judgement and withdrawne?]

REPL. Satisfaction may well be given: Firſt, by ſaying it is evident the major part of the Houſe of Commons, when they were moſt full were all that way, that 100. are now (though that be a ſlander for but a while ſince there were 300. there) The King a yeare agoe in …anu. laſt commanded all that were in the Countrey to come up, which certainly moſt of them did. Yet no Votes but this way they goe now, onelyonly things were not then at the …eighth they now are. 2. If yet the Major part were of another judgement they would certainly come and vote and end the buſineſſe. The Houſe hath often called the abſent, and puniſht ſome for it; certainly they knew then there were not enough againſt them of their Members to over-vote them 3. They that are wilfully abſent, are offenders againſt the Law and the common good; and ſo are not to be truſted; or thought to have wiſedome, to ſee things right how many ſoever they may pretend to be. For alſo 40 being the legall number for the Houſe of Commons to vote any thing: It is againſt all Rules of Politick Bodies, that the abſence of others, (there being th… Legall Number preſent) ſhould hinder or diſcredit any Vote or Act of the Legall Body. One judge of Asſize, two Commisſioners or Arbitrators, and the like, ſuffice for any Buſineſſe: and though ſtill the greater number, the more honour and comfort; yet a legall number muſt and will ever ſuffice. 5 As for the Lords, who pretend their abſence forced by reaſon of Tumults. Firſt, this by an Almanack, (as the Doctor ſpeaks elſewhere) may be confuted, the greateſt part of thoſe that came, and after withdrew; ſtayed a conſiderable time after the Tumults, till the King was gotten to Yorke, and begun to call them away. And if his calling them away, or their withdrawing themſelves ſhall have power to make the votes or judgement of a part that are yet reſident there (as the D…. hath learned to call them) Null, or not to be regarded: then have the King▪ or ſuch a number of Lords, and Commons, even out of the Parliament-Houſe, power to diſanull a Law (even the Law for the not diſſolving of this Parliament, without an Act for it, which muſt paſſe all the 3. Eſtates, both Houſes and the King and in which each have their power of Denying.) And this alone (what ever might be pretended againſt other Parliaments) makes the legall Votes of the two Houſes the full judgement and Authority of the whole repreſentative Body of the Kingdome, how few ſoever be preſent, or how many ſo ever be abſent, and upon what pretence ſoever. 2. But withall, if I were Confeſſour or Chaplaine to any of thoſe Lords that have withdrawne themſelves and upon pretetence of the Tumult, deny to returne: I would make bold p. 55to aske them this Qu. in their eares (for their conſciences ſatisfactoin, as well as mine owne) which City and Countrey rung of them, and which produced ſuch and ſo many Petitions, for the ſetling of the Militia, and helping Ireland, and outing the Biſhops and Popiſh Lords out of the Houſe of Peeres; whether their refuſing to concurre in the reliefe of Ireland, and in ſecuring the Kingdome, even in petitioning the King for the ſettling of the Militia (which yet the King after, acknowledged neceſſary to be ſetled▪) were not the true and only cauſe of thoſe tumults that were? And if ſo, where was their judgement to ſee the means of ſafety, or their conſcience to provide for it? And then whether their owne guilt did not more ſend or drive them away, then any violence of the Tumults? Which tumults yet I approve not, nor ever did. But if God ſo puniſhed thoſe that would not diſcharge the truſt, it is eaſier to anſwer that queſtion, why ſo many remaining ſhould ſee more, that is better; then thrice ſo many (if ſo many) diſſenting and withdrawne.

As for the Doctors preferring Monarchy before Ariſtocracy, hee ſhall not have me for his Adverſary; who thank God, I am borne and live (and hope to dye) under a Monarchy; though not abſolute, as the Doctors Poſition would make him (when he liſted) though the Doctor wiſely diſclaimes any ſuch intention. But for his reaſons, why a King ſhould ſe…e better then the Major part of both the Houſes,; becauſe he ſees even with their eyes, though diſſenting from them; and hath other Councel beſides, and that he hath many reaſons to perſwade him to conſent to their free and unanimous Votes: All this is moſt unreaſonable as the Queſtion is now ſtated, of a Prince bent to ſubvert Religion Laws, and Liberties, (for we are ſtill upon that generall ſuppoſition in this Section) for whatever they ſee, he will be ſure (as farre as he ſees his owne ſtrength) to conſent to nothing that ſhall hinder his deſigne. And therefore to plead his power of denying, or his wiſdome in this caſe, is to yeeld him all power to bee a Tyrant. Which after all, the Dr. will yet prove he hath ſo farre as he may not be reſiſted in it, by the inconveniences that will follow if he have it not. Heare his ſaying. [Such power of reſiſtance would be no fit meanes of ſafety to a State, but prove a remedy, worſe then the diſeaſe.]

Reply. If he can ſhew this, de doth wonders. What? worſe then ſubverſion of Religion, Lawes and Liberties? For that is the diſeaſe. Surely all theſe are of little worth with the Dr., if he will maintaine any thing in a State, to be worſe then theſe. Sinne indeed in the practicers is worſe, then the ſuffering of the worſt Tyranny▪ But that is not properly in queſtion in this Section, but the Civill Inconveniences of reſiſtance though I grant they may prove ſinnes too, as things may be managed? but otherwiſe it is evident, no Civill Inconvenience to remedy ſuch a Tyranny, as is in diſpute, can be ſo bad as the diſeaſe.

The Dr. once more urges, Rom. 13. and by ver, 3 4 5 6. would faine prove, that the Apoſtle ſhewes the evill and inconvenience of reſiſting Tyranny.

Reply. But I have ſhewed more then once▪ that the Apoſtles Reaſons are quite againſt him▪ and he ſaith nothing to prove that hee abuſes not the Apoſtle, (not vouchſafing, I doubt, not daring to quote the words as they lie, leſt every eye ſhould ſee how hee perverts them▪ much leſſe offering to Analize them: or ſhew the ſtrength of the Reaſons, which I have done againſt him:] OnelyOnly he repeats what hee hath before told us, in generall that although the p. 56powers were then altogether unjuſt, &c. Nothing anſwerable to the end for which governing power is ordained▪ Yet doth the Apoſtle draw his Reaſons againſt reſiſting them from that good Juſtice, Order for which God hath ſet up the higher Powers.

Reply. This is as good a Reaſon, as to ſay, God hath ordained Miniſters, Paſtours, to preach and adminiſter his word and Sacrament, and pray, that his people may be ſaved: Therefore though the Miniſters, Paſtours, be careleſſe, and neither afford the People any Word or Sacraments, or prayers; or falſe Teachers, and pervert Word, and Prayer, and Sacraments: Yet the People may not ſeeke their Soules ſafety, from ſome other, that will bee more faithfull, even though not attempting to put thoſe evill Miniſters, Paſtours, quite out of office; but leaving them in their places, ſtill to ſee if GOD will give them better minds. Only not truſting them ſo long, as they ſhew themſelves notoriouſly unfaithfull, If to deny the people this bee reaſonable, becauſe God ordained them miniſters, Paſtours, for their good, though they that are ſuch by Office doe nothing toward it; then the Dr, may pretend hee diſcourſes with ſome reaſon. Which yet will not ſatisfie the Apoſtles phraſes, as I have abundantly ſhewed before.

But he ſaith [the Apoſtle would inſinuate that the reſiſting of the Higher Powers even when they are Tyrannicall tends to the overthrow of the Order which is the life of a Common wealth, not onelyonly becauſe there is ſtill Order under Tyranny: but chiefly becauſe if it were good and lawfull to reſiſt the power when abuſed it would open a way to the people to reſiſt and overthrow Powers duly adminiſtred for the executing of wrath on them that doe evill.

Reply, All this is altogether contrary, for 1. The Apoſtles words, will bear no ſuch Inſinuations as I have proved. 2. If Religion Laws and Liberties be ſubverted, what Order is left under ſuch Tyranny? Sure whether Civill order be or not, no Religious order is, which yet is more worth then the life of a Common-wealth. God hath often overthrown Common-wealths for ſubverting this Religion; But never in his Word preferred the ordinary Order of a Common-wealth (or the Common-wealth it ſelfe) before … Religion, ſo as to bid his ſervants ſuffer that to bee ſubverted; even wh…n … by the laws of a Common-wealth rather then the order of the Common-wealth ſhould be endangered by it. 3. It is a Signe the Tyranny was deepely and deſperately reſolved, if it cannot be reſiſted by a meer defence, but that muſt tend to the overthrow of the life of the Common-wealth 4. The tyranny breaks the Order, ſtabs at the life of the Common-wealth; and yet the Dr. is ſo zealous an advocate for it (however he deny it) that (he cryes whore firſt) he cries out of the danger to Order. 5. To tend to the overthrow of that Order which is the life of the Common-wealth, may be a fallacious phraſe. Doth it tend ſo neceſſarily, or in the intention of the Reſiſters? Or rather contrary? Or doth it ſo tend to overthrow it, as the Tyranny to (be reſiſted) doth? All remedies of violent and deſperate diſeaſes, doe in ſome Sort tend to the overthrow of the Life of the Body: Yet none ſaies the remedy is worſe then the diſeaſe, which that is knowne to bee mortall, the other may prevent death. 6. This opens no ſuch gap to the people to reſiſt and overthrow power duly adminiſtred▪ as the Doctors doth open a gappe to Tyranny. If a man, a Prince feare not GOD▪ and know his people principl'd not to reſiſt him in p. 64any caſe, what can hinder him from all Kind of Tyranny.

And I would it were not evident that the preſumption of this had made way for what we feele. I am ſure the Jeſuite Contzen, (whoſe principles have been followed ſtep by ſtep among us, ſee Mr. Newcomens Sermon …n Neh. 4. Preached laſt Nov. 5. to the Parliament) encourages a Prince to attempt the ſubverting the Proteſtant Religion, though eſtabliſh't by Law, becauſe the Proteſtants will not Rebell for the cauſe, nor ever did. The Dr. ſeconds him well. But now a people, if voyd of conſcience, yet will find it hard (and thinke it ſo, if they have any wit) for them to hope to overthrow powers duly adminſtred. It is not ſo eaſie a thing▪ multitudes will ſtand (as their duty and their comfort experienced commands them) for ſuch powers. And the Order that is ſetled▪ will much help to repreſſe ſuch unruly diſorders. And though there be examples in Storyes of people that have prevayled againſt Tyrants: Yet I remember not one▪ that ruling according to Laws, was overthrown by the people; namely in ſetled times; for the ſouldiers mutynies, againſt the Roman Emperours, Pertinax and others, will not reach this caſe. Finally Wee are farre from ſaying, that pretences ſuffice, or even that every act of Tyranny allowes of a Nationall reſiſtance; But ſuch as (in the caſe by the Dr. ſtated) ſhews, (or gives juſt grounds to believe) a deſigne to ſubvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties, or any of them.

But the Dr. will illuſtrate or prove his inconveniences 3. wayes.

[1. This power of reſiſtance if admitted and purſued may proceed to a change of Government. The principles that are gone upon, and have carried it on ſo farre as we ſee at this day may alſo lead it on to the greateſt of evills.]

Repl. Is not the King much beholden to the Dr. that will needs urge the Parliament to thoſe conſequences they have profeſſed to have no thought of, and in their late Declaration in maintaining that of May. 26. do profeſſe to be unlawfull

2. If hee meane depoſition of the King, or which is more, change of the Monarchy into Ariſtocracy or Democracy I deny that this may proceed neceſſarily or Rationally from a neceſſary defence, unleſſe the Dr. will undertake to prove that the ſtate by no reſiſtance or defence can bee ſafe without depoſing their King or taking away Monarchs, which hee neither will nor can, as I durſt undertake againſt him▪ if that were now the Qu: in hand, which I hope ſhall never be. Though ſure, there is no ſuch temptation to it, as to ſee Tyranny acted, and all ſober neceſſary defence, cryed out upon as Rebellion, all bloodſhed in ſuch defence murther, and the end of it damnation. And when Religion (if ever it ſhould bee) is onelyonly laid waſt by the countenance of ſuch doctrines, improved as the Jeſuite Adviſed, then if a people ſhould be greatly oppreſſed in their Civill liberty, there might be ſome danger, they would deny the Drs. grounds, and all their allegiance and reſpect to Monarchy together. And I dare be bold to ſay it, Monarchy never received ſuch a blow ſince States were; as the Counſellors of Princes and Court-Chaplaines have provoked men to give it. Becauſe Kings muſt be abſolute, and People meer ſlaves, formerly in doing▪ and now in ſuffering.

2 He ſaies [This power of reſiſtance▪ when uſed and purſued, is accompanied with the evills of a Civill Warr &c.]

Reply. 1. Whoſe fault is that? Suppoſe the people, that is, a great many p. 50Papiſts would rebell, unleſſe the King and Parliament would ſubvert Religion, and bring in popery; and take away all the Lawes that diſpleaſed them: muſt they doe this to avoid the evills of a Civill Warre? and if not, then neither muſt the Parliament or People ſacrifice Religion, Lawes and Libertie, to the feare or danger of a Civill Warre. No war ſo bad as the Pariſian maſſacre, or that of Ireland. The King of France commanded the one, the Iriſh people the Rebells acted the other. In a Civill warre wee may ſave ſomething; and after recover all: Under a Tyrannie not to be reſiſted we have nothing, have loſt Religion, Laws and Liberties, and have neither goods nor Lives, Wives nor Children that we are ſure of a day to an end. He that rationally preferres ſuch a Tyranny before a civill War, ſurely hopes (upon ſome ſpeciall grounds, that Tyranny, will be none to him, who pleads ſo well for it's indempnity; but rather an advancement to him, much good may it doe him.

3 He ſaith the people may be diſcontented even with the Parliament and ſo it will come to …ade and Tyler, and overthrow all government.

Reply. 1. I have ſatisfied this Objection for the maine of it already. 1. That it is lawfull for the people to reſiſt even the Tyranny of a Parliament, when altogether outrageous, (as in our Queſt…on) not elſe. 2. That the principles of defence cannot be drawne to a neceſſary change of the Government. Of which I adde 2. Reaſons. One that the defence will ſuffice without it, if wiſely managed to ſecure the ſafety of the State and Religion; ſo: morally. For ſtill men, ſome or other, muſt be truſted; and thoſe that diſcredit themſelves a while may merit a truſt againe afterward: Enough for their honour and comfort and not too much for the Common-wealth, and they need not be truſted (as before) till they do merit a truſt againe. And yet no oppoſition much leſſe change of government. 3. The next government (ſuppoſe each ſhire (as the Dr. talkes▪ a Common-wealth▪ and all governed by a Folkmoot) is ſtill liable in all reaſon, to miſchiefes, as bad, or worſe then were in that goverment rejected. And this they among the people that are not growne barbarous and bruitiſh (by ſuffering Tyranny and loſſe of Religion and Liberties, by the Drs principles) may be made ſo ſenſible of; that they will never offer to attempt ſuch a madneſſe. 3. Make a people Religious (as much as man can make them) and let them enjoy the comfort of doing that which is good as S^t Paul ſpeakes of Rulers praiſing ſuch. And then the Rulers need not feare the multitude of them (though ſome will ever be wicked) that they will Rebell and change the Government. The People indeed by Abſaloms flattery Rebelled againſt David a righteous and juſt Ruler. But there was more then ordinary in that GOD threatened it to him for his adultery and murther. They did not ſo, to the great Reformers Aſa, Iehoſaphat, Hezekiah, Ioſiah ſpecially yet queſtionleſſe they 2. offended very many; for the Princes and People (as I noted before on a ſpeciall occaſion) were very bad even in their times. Some Papiſts as did rebell againſt King Edward the 6. and ſome againſt Queen Elizabeth. But both ſoon and eaſily ſubdued. GOD will not ſuffer, a juſt Prince or State to be troden under foot (David was humbred not overthrown) and men will ſtill be found to take thei… parts. As then St. …aul bids Chriſtians, doing that which is good▪ not feare the powers he exhorts to ſubmit to and not to reſiſt, that is legally ruling by Civill laws under God.

So I may ſay to Rulers (Kings and Parliaments) doing well, Ruling according p. 51to GODS Ordinances they need not feare the power of Reſiſting Tyranny in the peoples hands, which I ſay againe, [Though people have often uſed it, and prevailed againſt Tyrannous Governors, yet never did they prevaile againſt Juſt Rulers, to Depoſe them, or much leſſe alter the Government. Tyranny then (helped forward now by the Doctors Principles,) will be onelyonly that that in a deſpaire will drive People to Cantoning and Folkmoots (if any thing will) and not at all our Poſition of a ſober neceſſary Defence.

The Reaſons that the Dr. hath brought againh Reſiſtance, are ſo far from being the Apoſtles Inſinuations, that they are wholly unſufficient to diſcredit it with Reaſonable and unpartiall Men, to whom (next under GOD) we Appeale. His concluſion Ergo repeating that becauſe ſome muſt be truſted, therfore Ergo the K is ſtill (I muſt tell him) moſt unreaſonable, when his caſe ſuppoſes he will not diſcharge his truſt, but is bent to ſubvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties. (So perpeatually the Dr. doth or will, forget the State of the Qu.) The King ought ordinarily to be truſted, and a juſt King (a David) is worth 10000. nay 100000. of us his Subjects; but the will and Luſt of ſuch a Tyrant as the Qu. ſpeakes of, is not to be ſatisfied upon one (Ionathan or Naboth) the meaneſt of thoſe thouſands; yet it muſt be, if he muſt ſtill be truſted when he is bent upon extreame Tyranny.

What the Dr alleadges further of the Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy and the late Proteſtation, prejudices not defenſive Reſiſtance, no more then Scripture and Reaſon hath done. The Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy are onelyonly to the Kings Legall power and Authority, which no man diſputes againſt. The Proteſtation is to defend as far as lawfully I may, according to the duty of my Allegiance, His Majeſties Royall Perſon, Honour and Eſtate▪ and a defenſive Reſiſtance, intends no hurt, but defence and maintenance of him in all theſe reſpects; and ſo was never proteſted againſt. It is therfore vaine that he addes, [The Kings power cannot be prevalent for the good of his people unleſſe it be preſerved to him intire, unleſſe he hath a power of denyall and of chiefe Command of Armes.]

Repl. But we Argue not againſt a King intending the good of his people; but bent to ſubvert all Good, and this indeed hee cannot doe, unleſſe their hands be tyed▪ by ſome ſuch Poſitions as the Dr. would make them believe, that they muſt not deny him his power of denyall of their ſafety▪ when hee himſelfe (or others under him) meanes to ſubvert all Religion, Laws and Libertie.

And now after all theſe diſcourſes, the Dr. ſpends above a Page (in the 1. Edition) to ſumme up his ſtrength, and boaſts of his Victory enough and enough. But how juſtly the Conſciences of his Readers and mine muſt and ſhall Judge now, and God above all. To whom I very willingly appeale as well as he, or any other; who for mine own part, have even in this diſcourſe, ſhewed I am no Idolizer of the Parliaments, nor carryed away with it (as hee charges) as the Papiſts with the name of the Church, nor yet do I thinke Religion may be defended any way. For it may not be with lying nor with doing any thing that God hath undoubtedly forbidden. But he hath forbidden ſuch defenſive reſiſtance as I have Argued for, my Conſcience finds not, notwithſtanding the Drs. bigge words, continually miſapplying the indeed p. 60terrible ſentences of the Apoſtle, againſt unlawfull Reſiſters of the Lawfull Power.

And ſo I have done with the maine of the Drs. Booke, which concernes a Divine. The 2. laſt Sections, are matters of fact; wherein it is more eaſily to ſatisfie a mans owne Conſcience, then diſcourſe of it publiquely: becauſe it brings perſons much on the Stage: and ſome of it cannot but reflect on the King. Of whoſe honour I am ſo tender, that I would not willingly have an unworthy thought of him. Neither will I yeeld to the Dr. or any other living Man, in my zeale to His Royall Perſon Honour and Eſtate according to my proteſtation. Yet ſomwhat muſt be ſaid, and the Drs calling for it, will deſerve little thankes, nor yet his pleadings for all the actions done, if they be well examined. To that therefore though unwillingly, I come.