The Wounded Conscience Cured, Section 5
Sect. V.
THe Doctor comes unto that which he calls our laſt reaſon, the ſafety of the Kingdome, where he ſaith firſt, that we have many weapons ſharp…d for this reſiſtance at the Philiſtims forge, our arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schooles, as he ſaith.
Anſ. But there is much difference betweene us and the Papiſts in this particular; for, 1. The Papiſts contend for the lawfulneſſe of depoſing Kings, which we doe not. 2. The Papiſts plead for a power to depoſe a Prince in caſe that he turn Heretick, which we doe not; for we hold that though a Prince may leave and change his religion, the ſubjects are not thereby excuſed from their allegiance. 3 The Papiſts doe not onelyonly hold … lawfull to depoſe and thus to depoſe their Prince, but to kill him alſo: …, that a private man inveſted with the Popes authority may doe thus: all which we abhor from: why therefore ſhould the Doctor charge us thus, and make the world beleeve that we favour the Popiſh doctrine in this particular? But as the Parliaments Army is ſcandalized by the adverſaries, ſaying, there are many Papiſts in their army to helpe on their deſignes; ſo is our doctrine ſcandalized by our adverſaries, ſaying that we make uſe of Popiſh arguments to ſtrengthen our opinion; but the truth of this we leave to all the world to judge of.
But to prove this, the Doctor ſaith further, that by this reaſon the Pope aſſumes a power of curbing or depoſing Kings; for that if there be not a power in the Church, in caſe the civill Magiſtrate will not diſcharge his truſt, the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance of the Catholick faith, and its owne ſafety.
Anſ. But what likeneſſe is there between that of the Papiſts, and this of ours? The Papiſts ſaying, the Church hath a power of preſerving its own ſafety, and therefore the Pope may depoſe: we ſay the Kingdome hath a power to preſerve it ſelfe, and therefore if the King neglect the truſt, the State for the preſent is to look unto it: And as for the matter of the Church, we turne the Doctors argument upon himſelfe thus;
If the Church cannot be preſerved where the Officer is an hereticke, unleſſe the Church have a power to reject him after once or twice admonition, then cannot a Kingdome have a power to preſerve it ſelfe, when the officer is unfaithfull; unleſſe the Kingdome have a power either to depoſe him, or to looke to their own matters till things be better ſetled: But the Church hath excommunication granted to it by Chriſt himſelfe for its owne preſervation; neither can we conceive how a Church can preſerve it ſelfe from evils and errors, unleſſe it have a power to caſt out the wicked officers; as in the body naturall it cannot preſerve it ſelfe, unleſſe nature had given it a power to deliver it ſelfe from its own burdens, therefore the Commonweale alſo by the like reaſon cannot have a power to preſerve it ſelfe, unleſſe it have a power to deliver it ſelfe from its burden; but in caſe that an Officer be unfaithfull, we doe not ſay that it i… lawfull for the Kingdome to depoſe him, therefore it may be lawfull for themſelves ſocially conſidered Statewiſe, in time of danger to help themſelves. Neither herein as the Doctor would, doe we appropinquate to the Romiſh doctrine, for the Papiſts from this power of the Church doe infer a power unto the Pope, and not unto the Church or community.
Secondly, the Doctor askes us this queſtion by way of his ſecond anſwer, If every State hath ſuch meanes to provide for its ſafety, what meanes o… ſafety had the Chriſtian Religion under the Roman Emperors, in or after the Apoſtles times, or the people then inſlaved, what meanes had they for their liberty had they this of reſiſtance? Tertullian in his Apology, ſayes thus, the Chriſtians had number and force ſufficient to withſtand, but they had no warrant.
Anſ. 1. The queſtion is wrong ſtated, it ſhould have been made thus, If any State hath ſuch meanes to provide for its ſafety; what meanes of ſafety had the Roman State under the Roman Emperours, when as he doth ſay, what meanes of ſafety had the Chriſtian Religion under the Roman Emperours? Chriſtian Religion, and the State are two different things.
Secondly, in the primitive times the Chriſtians indeed had none of this power of reſiſtance, nor warrant for it (as Tertullian ſpeaks) becauſe the Roman State was not with them: but ſuppoſe that the Roman Senate or Parliament had ſtood up for them, and with them, the repreſentative body of the whole Empire (and this is our caſe, not as the Doctor …ayes it) then would not the Chriſtians have made reſiſtance for their owne defence? No queſtion but they would, and would have knowne that they had warrant therein; who may not ſee that hath but halfe an eye, the vaſt difference betweene the condition of the Chriſtians in the primitive times, and ours? they not having the State to joyne with them, they not being the repreſentative body of the Empire, as it is now with us; yet this objection maketh a great outcry, and there is ſome threed of it runnes through the Doctors booke, but how eaſily it may be cut, let the world judge; there being no more likeneſſe betweene our condition & the condition of the primitive Chriſtians, then between the condition of private men whom the whole State doth move againſt, and the condition of people whom the State is with.
The Doctor replyes; that though the Senate of Rome were againſt the Chriſtians of thoſe times; yet if the people have the firſt right, and all power bee from the people, that people muſt riſe up and reſiſt, becauſe the Senate did not diſ…harge the truſt▪ and ſo it will be in this State, if at any time a King that would …ule arbitrarily, ſhould by ſome meanes or other, worke out of the two Houſes …he better affected, and by conſent of the major part of them that remaine, com…aſſe his deſires, the people may tell them they diſcharged not their truſt, they …hoſe them not to betray them, or inſlave them; and ſo might lay hold on this power of reſiſtance for the repreſentative body claimes it by them.
Anſ. Concerning the Senate of Rome, and the people of the Romane Empire, we ſay that though the Emperor and the Senate had been for the …eſtructiō of the Chriſtians, yet if the whole body of the Empire had joint…y riſen for the Chriſtians, I make no queſtion but that many of thoſe that …ied, would ſo far have reſiſted that they would have ſaved their owne …ves; but the Emperours and Senate being againſt them, and the body of the Empire jointly conſidered, not riſing for them▪ it is true indeed, they had no warrant to make reſiſtanc… ▪ but to ſuffer as they did. This i… none of our caſe.
Secondly, whereas the Doctor ſaith, both here and afterward in this Section; that if upon our grounds the King will not diſcharge his tru… that therefore it falls to the repreſentative body of the people to ſee to i… then the people having this power may alſo ſay, if the Members of the tw… Houſes doe not diſcharge their truſt committed to them, they doe not that which they were choſen and ſent for, and then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them, take the power to themſelves.
Firſt, I anſwer, that there is not the ſame reaſon why the people ſhould be ſo ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their truſt, being they are very many choſen out of the whole Kingdome for their faithfulneſſe, approved every way for their goodneſſe and wiſedome; whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown, and ſo by vertue of his inheritance may rule, though he be knowne to be vitious; as alſo becauſe it is received by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes, and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is; as alſo becauſe the people doe actually elect and truſt the Parliament men with the preſent affaires of the Kingdome. Now though the Prince indeed be truſted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers, whereunto the people doe now conſent, yet there is not that actuall election or deſignation of him unto the preſent affairs of the Kingdom, as there is of the Parliament men choſen for theſe particular buſineſſes; as for example, ſuppoſe that a people doe chuſe their Miniſter, truſting him with all the great affaires of their ſoules, and there doth riſe a controverſie betweene neighbours, wherein they chuſe an arbitrator to umpire the buſineſſes, though theſe two Pariſhioners …hat have fallen out, have formerly truſted their Miniſter with all the affaires of conſcience, yet they doe not ſo readily ſtand to his verdict, by reaſon of the generall truſt, as to the verdict of thoſe arbitrators whom they have now actually choſen for this buſineſſe; neither can they in law o… reaſon ſo eaſily revoke or renounce the ſentence of Arbitrator, who… they have choſen to this buſineſſe, as the ſentence of their Miniſter wh… they have truſted in the generall: ſo in this caſe of ours, though the Kin… be entruſted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of th… Kingdome, yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and deſigne… by the people for the preſent affairs of the Kingdome; and therefore th… people take themſelves bound to ſtand to their arbitrement: neither c… they thinke, that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and ſentence, as they are for the deniall of their Princes commandement.
Secondly, I ſay, there is not the ſame reaſon that the people ſhould recall their power from the Parliament, in caſe the Parliament ſhould be unfaithfull, as there is they ſhould ſee to things in caſe the Prince be miſ-led: I ſay there is not the ſame reaſon, (though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people) becauſe that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince, is not made the ſole reaſon by thoſe that the Dr. diſputes againſt for this their reſiſtance: but the authority that they are clothed with, whereas if a people upon ſurmiſes that the Parliament doe not performe their truſt, ſhould call in their truſt and their power, then they ſhould have left themſelves naked of all authority, and ſhould be private men; but now that they looke to themſelves in this time of danger, and in that ſenſe doe re-aſſume their power which they have derived to their Prince, they are ſtill led on by authority.
Thirdly, the Doctor anſwers, that we cannot expect any abſolute means of ſafety and ſecurity in a State.
Anſ. Neither doe we expect it, though this be granted which we deſire, or that granted which he contends for.
Then he ſaith, that there is an excellent temper of the three Eſtates in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them, and no power of enacting in one or two of them, without the third: for what might follow, if the King and Lords without the Commons, or thoſe and the Lords without the King might determine, the evills of theſe dayes doe ſhew: ſo is this power of denying, for the ſecurity of each State againſt other.
Anſ. This both the Doctor and I muſt leave to the judgement of thoſe that know the Lawes and the Liberties, and the Priviledges of all three Eſtates.
Further, he ſaith, that now not onelyonly the name of Parliament which implyes the three▪ Eſtates, is reſtrained uſually to the two Houſes, but alſo that temper is diſſolved.
Anſ. Firſt, it was alwayes ſo, that the Parliament was made diſtinct from the King, in ordinary ſpeech ſaying, The King and his Parliament: when the Parliament is mentioned alone, it may include the King; but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together, the ſpeech can intend no more then the two Houſes. As when the body is mentioned alone, it includes the head and the members; but when the head and the body are mentioned together, then the body doth not include the head.
Secondly, that the Doctor ſaith, this truſt of the three States is di… ſolved, I conceive it is a ſcandalous charge, and ſo I leave that t… others.
Then the Doctor ſaith, If it be replyed, as it is, for the reaſonableneſſ… of this meanes of ſafety through that power of reſiſtance, and that many ſ… more then one, and more ſafety in the judgement of many then of one, I anſwe… (ſaith the Doctor) true: but 1. Conſcience might here demand for its ſatiſfaction, why ſhould one hundred in the Houſe of Commons ſee more then thr… hundred, or twenty in the Lords Houſe more then ſixty that are of differen… judgement, and withdrawne?
Anſ. I anſwer, if there be three hundred of the Houſe of Common withdrawne, and but an hundred left; and ſixty of the Lords Houſ… withdrawne unto twenty, if indeed there be ſo many gone away, wh… did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote, and th… controverſie had beene now at an end? Then could it never have bee… ſaid to the people, that the Parliament are againſt the King, the… might the three States have all joyned together, and there had been n… further queſtion.
Secondly, the Doctor anſwers, that the Prince, though one, ſees wi… the eyes of many, for which his Houſes of Parliament are his great Counſell to preſent to his eyes the differences of things, with the reaſons of them.
Anſ. This needs no other anſwer then that which followes in th… Doctors owne words, where he ſaith, that the King ſometime diſſen… from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament, ſo that he ma… ſee with their eyes, and ſee other things then they doe, and be of different judgement from them. And if he may ſee with other mens ey… that are of different judgement from him, becauſe they doe preſent t… his eyes the difference of things, with the reaſons of them, then m… the Houſes of Parliament alſo ſee more then he does, becauſe the di… ference of things, with the reaſons of them, are preſented to them al… ▪
Then the Doctor deſcends to prove, that Monarchicall government is t… beſt, and that God made choice to ſet up that ſtill, firſt in Moſes, then in t… Judges, then in the Kings.
Anſ. But how come we to this diſcourſe, to compare Monarc… and Ariſtocracy? and to ſay that Monarchy is better government th… Ariſtocracy? Doth it follow from the word True, which the Dr. ha… ſaid to that propoſition, many ſee more then one, and more ſafety … the judgement of many then of one. But ſeeing he is pleaſed to ſay, …he government which God made choice of to ſet up among his people, was Monarchicall ſtill, firſt in Moſes, then in the Judges, then in the Kings, let us now diligently obſerve, that Monarchicall government which God made choice of. If Moſes, the Judges, and Kings, were are all Monarchs, and Monarchy the beſt government, Then
1. The beſt government is ſuch, where the people have the free choice of their Governour: for ſo they had in the time of the Judges, Chap. 11. 5. And it was ſo, when the children of Ammon ma…e war againſt Iſrael, the Elders of Iſrael went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob, and …hey ſaid unto Jephtha, Come and be our Captaine, that we may fight with the children of Ammon. And Jephtha ſaid unto the Elders of Gilead, If … bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon, and the Lord …eliver them before me, ſhall I be your head? And the Elders of Gilead ſaid into Jephtha, The Lord be witneſſe betwixt us, if we doe not ſo according …o thy word. Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead, and the people …ad… him Head and Captaine over them, v. 11. Thus wee ſee that that government which the Doctor cals the beſt, and ſet up by God, is ſuch, when the people have the choice of their King, and the derivation of …is power is from them; as I have proved at large in the Preface, to …ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Iſrael.
Secondly, then the beſt government is that, where the King and …eople ſtrike a covenant at his Coronation: which covenant the King is bound to obſerve, neither doth his covenanting with the peo…le, make him no Monarch: for David was a Monarch, yet David …ade a covenant with the Elders of Iſrael, and ſo they anointed him King …ver Iſrael, 1 Chron. 11. 3.
Thirdly, then the beſt government is ſuch alſo, where the Prince …oth adviſe with his people and Elders, doing no great matter in State … Religion without their conſent, and with their conſent doing. So David, 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David conſulted with the Captaines of thou…ands, and hundreds, and every Leader; and David ſaid unto all the Con…egation of Iſrael, If it ſeeme good unto you▪ let us bring againe the Arke … the Lord our God unto us: and all the Congregation ſaid, that they would … ſo: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation. So that …e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome, is …o way repugnant, but conſiſtent with Monarchicall government or …e government appointed by God himſelfe.
Fourthly, then alſo is the beſt government appointed by God, ſuch … doth carry along with i… a lawfulneſſe for the ſubjects to take up armes, and make forcible reſiſtance for their own ſecurity, and ſafety of the Common weale againſt their Monarchs, when cauſe requireth: for did not the people ſometime in Iſrael take up armes againſt ſome of the Judges? And did not David though yet a ſubject to Saul) take up armes, and make forcible reſiſtance? It is ſaid expreſly, 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19. Then David received them, and made them Captaines of the Band, and there fell ſome of Manaſſes to David, when he came with the Philiſtines againſt Saul to battell. The Doctor ſaid before in his Treatiſe, that David tooke up armes onelyonly in his owne defence. But doe theſe words note no more? Only I preſſe them thus far, as may ſhew a lawfulnes for the people to take up armes in a way of forcible reſiſtance againſt the Kings commandement, when the danger is eminent: which we finde agreeable to the beſt government ſet up by God himſelfe, as the Doctor acknowledgeth.
In the fourth place the Doctor anſwers, that ſuch power of reſiſtance will be no meanes of ſafety to a State, but rather a remedy worſe then the diſeaſe; which he proveth from Rom. 13. (which I have anſwered already) and from ſome reaſons, as 1. This power of reſiſtance, if admitted and preſerved, may proceed to a change of government.
Anſ. To which I anſwer, that if ſeverall formes of government be of humane conſtitu…ion (as the Doctor ſpeaks) why ſhould we think that they are utterly unalterable, as the laws of the Medes & Perſians.
But ſecondly, this principle of ours cannot boyle up to that height: for we only ſay, that when the Prince ſhall neglect his truſt, the people are to ſee to it, and ſilenc'd not for depoſing.
2. He ſaith, This power of reſiſtance is accompanied with the evils of … civill war.
Anſ. No, but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre, becauſ… ſome people are miſ-led from their own natures, to take up armes againſt their own Country: Civill war is from the cauſe thereof, now the Parliament calls for armes only to defend the Country: theſ… make the civill war that are againſt the Countries defence.
Thirdly, he ſaith, There is danger in this power of reſiſtance: for the if the people be diſcontented, and have gotten power, they may ſay, the Members of the two Houſes doe not diſcharge their truſt, and ſo by this rule, tak… up the power to themſelves, and ſo all rapine and confuſion brought into th… Kingdome.
Anſ. There can bee no ſuch inference made from this principle o… ours: for the people do all acknowledge, that we are to bee governed by Lawes, and that (as the Doctor ſaith) the Parliament is th… Judge what is Law: the people doe acknowledge, according to truth, that the Parliament hath the declarative power, or the ſupreme power of declaring the Law, the King doth not profeſſe this, but rather the contrary, that he is no Lawyer, nor skilled in the Lawes. The Parliament doe profeſſe it, and the people acknowledge them to be ſo; and therefore there is not the ſame reaſon, that they ſhould take their power to themſelves, in caſe that the Parliament ſhould neglect their truſt: for why ſhould the people take that power unto themſelves, ſhould it be according to Law? The Parliament will then tell them, that they have done that which is according to law, wherein they confeſſe, that the two Houſes have the power of declaring. But now if the Prince ſhall neglect his truſt, and the people take a power to looke to themſelves in times of danger, by way of forcible reſiſtance, the Prince cannot ſay, when the Parliament is againſt him, the ſupreme power of declaring law, doth agree my courſe to be lawfull: ſo that you ſee there is not the ſame reaſon of both.
And whereas the Doctor ſaith, That upon the like reaſon, if the Parliament ſhall neglect their truſt, the people may call in their power. How can the people thinke that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land, when the Parliament are the Judges thereof, and the people confeſſe ſo: and therefore the Doctor may be out of feare for this matter.
Laſtly, the Doctor ſaith, That ſeeing ſome muſt be truſted in every Eſtate, it is reaſon that the higheſt and finall truſt ſhould be in the higher and ſupreme power, and that he ſhould have the beſt ſecurity, which is worth ten thouſand of his ſubjects.
Anſ. I anſwer, therefore the people do truſt the King and his Parliament, who are the higheſt power and Court in the Kingdome: and if the greateſt and beſt ſecurity ſhould be about the King, becauſe he is worth 10000. ſubjects, then ſurely the Kingdome it ſelfe ſhould have the beſt ſecurity, becauſe the King is ordained for his Kingdom.
In Fine, the Doctor preſſes the oath of Supremacie, Allegeance, and the laſt Proteſtation upon the conſcience, and wiſhes men here to conſider their power of reſiſtance, and taking up of armes is contrary thereto; in which he ſaith, We ſweare and proteſt to defend the Kings perſon.
Anſ. And thus we do by taking up of Arms: for what man is there that conſiders things rightly, may not eaſily perceive, that if the Popiſh party ſhould prevaile (which are either about the King, or of his Armies,) I ſay, who may not eaſily thinke, if they ſhould prevail, that either our King muſt be a ranke Papiſt, of a dead man? Who knows not, that if the Papiſts get the upper hand, though now they cry out for Supremacy, Supremacy, that either they wil force the King to another Supremacie, or elſe quickly make a hand of him? Is it not their opinion? What better ſervice therefore can a true ſubject performe to his Majeſties perſon, then by force of Armes to deliver him out of the hands of thoſe ſpoylers that lye in waite for his pretious ſoule? In the oath of Supremacie we ſweare him our Soveraigne to be Supreme in oppoſition to the Pope, or any other particular perſon. How does our doctrine or practiſe infringe this? In the oath of Allegeance we ſwear to be his liege Subjects according to Law, and that which we doe is ſo: And in our Proteſtation we proteſt to maintaine the Kings Perſon, the Parliaments priviledges, the Subjects rights, and our Religion: if we doe not take up arms in this time of Popiſh inſurrection, how can we with good conſcience ſay, that either we defend the Kings Perſon from the violence of Papiſts, which (according to their owne Doctrine) we know ſhall be made upon our King, or the priviledges of Parliament, whoſe power is to ſend for delinquents, and thoſe that are accuſed before them, even by force to bring them into their triall; or the liberty of ſubjects, who have this given by nature to defend themſelves, or the truth of our religion, which notwithſtanding all flouriſhes, we have ſeen ſuch invaſions made upon, and now in our conſcience under more hazard; becauſe thoſe that are oppoſite unto it, doe profeſſe to defend it: whereupon I preſume that every good man that maketh conſcience of his waies (conſidering theſe things) will not be backward to advance this publicke deſigne. And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others, charging men from this reſiſtance upon paine or damnation; yet a ſetled conſcience will be no more ſcared with the Doctors damnation, then with the Cavalliers God damne us.