Why do you fill the Church with Schisme, and the State with Faction, can you tell Eristes? what is it you contend for? or what warrant have you to lift up your hands against your Lawfull So­veraigne, the Lords Anoynted?

Are you a Stra [...]ger Irenaeus, in this our Israel, and know not these things? the m [...]tters for which we con­tend, are m [...]tter [...] of importance: for we take up Arms in defence of the true Protestant Religion, His Majesties Person, the Liberties of the Kingdom, the Priviledges of Parliament, and that by Warrant and Commission from the two Houses of Parliament.

Surely Eristes you meane to put a gull upon me, as you have done upon many others, and by these fait plausible Pretences would seduce me to take part with you in a wretched Quarrell, and to hazard my Life in this World, and my Soul in the next, by bearing Arms against my Soveraigne.

What doe you hold it an unlawfull and damna­ble [Page 2] act, to take up Arms against your Soveraigne, in De­fence of the true Protestant Religion, His Majesties Sa­cred Person, the Lawes of the Land, the Libertyes of the Subject, and the undoubted Priviledges of Parliament?

First, you take for granted that which will be denyed, and go about to render your Prince odious to His People, under the hatefull notion of a Tyrant, as if he meant to subvert the true Protestant Religion, the Laws of the Land, &c. which are sad charges, but how ground­lesse God and the World knowes.

Secondly, were your Pretences as true as they are spe­cious, yet it is contrary to the Law of God, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the perpetuall Pa [...]ience of Christs Church, that Princes may be resisted by their own Sub­jects; this is a Conclusion drawn no [...] from Divinity, but Conspiracy, and whosoever te [...]ch Resistance of the high­est Power, or Supreme M [...]gistrate; their doctrine is wicked, and their proofes must need [...] be weak, let us heare then orderly and distinctly, what you can alledge to Justi­fie your forcible Resistance of Soveraignty?

You mistake Irenaeus, we who side with the two Houses of Parliament, do not arme our selves to fight against the King, but for the King.

There are no Rebells but pretend somewhat to justifie their unlawfull Acts of Rebellion: do you not take up Arms against the King, when you oppose him by Force of Arm, and in an Hostile manner seize upon his Force, Ammunition, Ships, Revenues, when you make a General of your own, and give him Power to Kill and Murder the Persons, to burne and plunder the Houses of His Leige People? when you discharge your Ordnance against Him and his Army, to the endangering of his Sa­cred [Page 3] Person? this is a strange defence, to shoot at the King in his own defence: I believe (if this be to defend his Per­son) you would not be a King, to be so defended. Consi­der it well, and if this be not to take up Arms, against the King, I seriously confesse, I know not what is, nor know I what any Rebells can do more.

But we doe it to make him a glorious King, to defend, preserve, and maintaine his true Regall Power, Honour, and Dignity, to rescue him out of the hands of the Malignant Party, who are his greatest Enemies.

You tell us that you will make him a great and glorious King whilst you use all possible [...]kill, to re­duce him to extream want and indigency, and that you will make him to be honoured at home, and feared a­broa [...], whilest you indeavour by an unusuall way of Re­monstrancing to make him Person contemptible to For­raigne Princes, and his Government odious to his good Subjects. You set a worke seditious Sectaries and Schis­maticks, like so many Catalin [...]s, the Firebrands of their Country, to perswade the People that what you do is to defend, preserve, and maintaine his Honour, when, as ap­pears by the nineteen Propositions, you intend nothing lesse; for to instance in some of them. Is it for his honour to have all his Counsellours and great Officers displaced for no other fault, but because they have approved them­selves most loyall and faithfull to him? Is it for his Ho­nour, that he shall never choose any Officer of State, but accept such as the two Houses of Parliament shall be plea­sed to nominate and appoint? You would thinke it hard if you might not be permitted to enterteine what Servant you would, but should have them appointed and thrust upon you by another man. Is it for his Honour to have [Page 4] the power of disposing the Militia taken from him, which all other Kings his Predecessors ever had, and enjoyed as the chiefest Prerogative and Flower of their Crowns, and which if once he be divested of, he can neither defend him­selfe nor his Prerogatives Royall, nor the Lawes of the L [...]nd in their true vigour, nor his Loyall Subj [...]ct in their Rights, Properties, and Libertyes, all which he is entru­sted with; nor over-awe and suppresse any of his Subjects if they should rebell, nor be able to protect his Kingdoms against a Forraigne Prince or Potentate, in case they should invade his Dominions, Is this for his Honour? Judge as you would be judged, and doe as you would be done unto.

Lastly, whereas you pretend that you take up Arms, to rescue his Majesty out of the hands of the Malignant Party his greatest Enemies, we know no Malign [...]nt Party within this Kingdome, in all probability able to doe mis­chief besides the Separatists, Men notoriously disaffected to all Government, Disturbers of the Churches Peace, and experimentally known to be fatall to Monarchy; these and such as these His Majesties truely defines to be the Malignant Party, who are Persons disaffected to the Peace and Government of the Kingdom (such as neglecting and despising the Law of the Land) give themselves other Rules to walke by, dispencing with their obedience to Authority, and these His Majesty heedfully avoids as Malignants destructive to the Church and Common­wealth.

But you would have them removed from the King, as wicked Malignants, w [...]om in his greatest afflictions he hath found most faithfull and trusty, and of whose tryed Loyalty, he hath had good proofe and experience, and it is [Page 5] your usuall manner, to empty the very sinck of Language upon the reverend Fathers of this our Israel, and our most eminently learned Clergy, and to Martyr their names with those opprobrious obloquies of Malignant Party, Men dis­affected to Peace, Adherents to Popery, Superstition, Idolatry, Scandalous Ministers, whereas I doubt not but many of them will (if need require) be free of their dearest blood in re­futation of such malitious calumnyes.

Well, to wave this point, admit that we fight not for, but against the King, yet we doe it in a good cause for the defence of the true Protestant Religion, which is our chief inheritance.

You may not doe evill that good may come of it, Rom. 3.4 And God is never more dishonoured, then when Religion is made a Cloake to palliate publique Rebellion, consider it well, Religion teacheth thee to be subject [...]o the King, Rom. 13.1. and wilt thou for Religion in a forcible way oppose the King?

Why may I not, when the King is enclined to Popery, and would subvert the true Pro [...]estant Religion?

Thou art a man of a very light beleefe (if thou canst be induced to harbour in thine heart any such conceit of so gracious and Religious a Prince:) beleeve me, be that tell [...] thee so, is none of the Kings friend, but one of the Ma­lignant p [...]rty, who would rob the King of the Loyall sub­jection and affections of his People, which is his royall due; And to the end thou mayst know how much he is wronged in the report, I referre thee to His own Declarations, where­in he often attest [...] God with fearfull Imprecation, That He will inviolably conserve, and constantly maintain the true Protestant Religion, as in His M [...]jesties Speech the ninth of March, 1641. God so deale with me and mine, as [Page 6] all my thoughts and intentions are upright, for the mainte­nance of the true Protestant Religion: And in His Declara­tion to both Houses, in answer to that presented to Him at Newmarket, M [...]rch 9. 1641. We doe (out of the innocency of Our Soules) wish that the judgements of Heaven might be manifested upon those who have, or had any such designe of alte­ring Religion in the Kingdom. And in His Majesties An­swer to the Petition which accompanied the Declaration presented to Him at Hampton Court, December 1. 1641. We are perswaded in Our Conscience, that no Church can be found upon the Earth that professeth the true Religion with more purity of Doctrine, then the Church of England doth, which we will maintain with constancy (while we live) in its purity and glory. And in His Declaration, May 19. Where He desires His Actions may no longer prosper, or have a bles­sing from God upon them or Him, then they shall be directed to the glory of God, in the maintenance of the true Protestant Religion.

Sed quid opus est verbis cum facta videam?

But what are words without deeds, or attested Protestati­ons unlesse they be seconded with answerable and suitable practises?

If by the true Protestant Religion, you meane the Religion or publique Forme of Gods worship, establi­shed by Law in the Church of England, and sealed by the blood of many Martyrs; you cannot be ignorant, that His Majesty conformes to it in constant practise, even beyond the strictnesse of most of His Subjects, and what other way can he testifie his sincere affection to the true Protestant Religion, but only by his profession and practise.

He then that tells thee the King is inclined to Popery in his heart, either speakes what he knowes, & then he is a sear­cher [Page 7] and knower of the heart, which is a Prerogative be­longing to God alone, not communicable to any Man, or Angell, or else he speakes what he knowes not, and then he raiseth a causelesse slander upon the King, contrary to his frequent Protestations and practise which is an high crime of a dangerous consequence, that deserves the utmost so­verity of punishment.

Thou mayst nor beare false witnesse against thy neigh­bour of the meanest rank, and wilt thou beare false witnesse against thy Prince? thou may'st nor think ill of the King, no not in thy heart, much lesse shouldest thou dare to speak ill of him with thy tongue.

After thy Prince hath often protested his zeale to Reli­gion, and in a solemne manner called God to witnesse those Protestations, and desired God to blesse him according to his true meaning therein, and his people to defend, and serve him no longer, then he shall con [...] u [...] const [...] in such resolutions; wilt thou still think [...] [...]y that h [...] [...]o [...]h but dissemble; good God, what is become of charity? which bindes us to beleeve the best of every man, [...] we have evident proofes to the contrary.

But the King calls in the popish party to [...] and assist him, [...]nd is not thatan evident convincing proofe that he is popishly affected?

No, for first His M [...]esty was very c [...]n [...]lou [...], and tender in this point, and d [...]d not ad [...]t them of the popish party to ayde and assist him in his just c use ( [...] which never Prince had juster,) till the opposite party had admitted Papists, Brownists, men of all professions to aide and assist them in the most causelesse and unjust warre that ever Subjects maintained against so good a King, the mirrour of Princes for piety, justice, and clemency.

Secondly, it cannot be denyed but the Papists are His Majesties Subjects, and therefore stand as deepely obliged to venture their lives and fortunes in his just defence, when they shall be required, as any of his Protestant Subjects; otherwise their case in point of subjection were not onely different, but much better then the case of Pro estants.

Lastly, we reade that David did nor refu [...]e the assistance of an Amalakite, because he was an Amalakite, nor did the wounded man refuse the Samaritans wi [...]e and oyle because he was a Samaritane, nor did Henry the fourth the l [...]te French King, while he was yet a Pro [...]estan [...], refuse the assist [...]nce of those many French Papist, w [...]o spent their blood in ass [...]rting [...]i [...] Crown; [...]or doe the united Pro­vi [...]ces reject [...]he uxiliary help of Popish Regim [...]nts, so long as they [...]re secured of their fide [...]y. A Christi [...]n if he hap to fall into a deep [...]pit, will not (I suppose,) refuse the aide of a Turk to help [...] him out, le [...]st p [...]rchance [...] p [...]rish before a Christian come by that way; a sick p [...]tient will not refuse to take Physick of a Jew or Papist, bec [...]use he is a Jew or Papist, and I know no re [...]son either in Law or just Policy, why if His Majesty should be deserted of the Puritans, He should refuse the ayde of the Papists to defend His just righ [...]; it is the action that justifies or con­demnes the person, it is not the person that justifies or con­demnes the action, and if the Papists do what befits their duty to their Soveraigne, they shall rise up in judgement against those that undutifully oppose their Soveraigne. Yet I am very confident had not the adverse party led the way, by admitting a number of P [...]pists, both English, French, and of other Nations to assist them, His Majesty would never have admitted of their assistance, unlesse extreame necessity should have urged him thereto. And I am as [Page 9] verily perswaded that His M [...]jesties constant intention, and the aimes of all, by much the gr [...]a [...]test p [...] of all the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and others [...]bout t [...]e K [...]g, that shew themselves in thi [...] c [...]u [...]e for h [...]m, is not to [...]lte [...] the Protestant Religion established in this Churc [...] [...] to pre­serve it inviol [...]ble from the innov [...]tions of [...]ll [...]ati­call and factious Spirits, and to main [...]in [...] u [...] [...] bles­sed primitive uniformity of Doctrine, Discipl [...]in [...], and Li­turgy, which so long has been the glory of ou [...] and Envy of other Churches.

But the two Houses of Parli [...]men [...] h [...] [...]ecla­red our Warres to be Lawfull, and whatso [...]ver they by their Declarative Votes doe declare and determine to be lawfull, that we must account Law, else of necessity we shall runne to confusion?

If whatsoever they declare, is to be admitted as a Law, then either because they find it so in the Com­mon, or Statute Law, or else meerely because they declare it, not the latter, for

First, they being but men of fallible judgements, it is pos­sible they may be deceived in their Declarations, and De­clare that to be ri [...]t which is wrong, that to be Law which is lawlesse, exc [...]pt they will suffer their declarative Votes to be regulated and warranted by some certain known Law formerly [...]tant and approved.

Secondly, if their declarative Votes be Law, meerely because they declare them to be so, and we are bound to be governed by them, then the government depending upon such Votes, must need [...] be arbitrary, for wh [...]t can be more arbitrary then to sit whilst they list, and to vote for Law what they list, can there be a more absolu [...]e power and go­vernment according to bare will, then to determine right [Page 10] or wrong, as they shall please to call it? should we the free-borne Subj [...]cts of England, submit to this new devised way of government by Votes, and Ordinances which no bo­dy ever he [...]rd of, or could k [...]ow before they were voted? we should be in worse condition then Turkish slaves, whilst they are at the mercy of one, we at the pleasure and com­m [...]nd of hundreds, to dispose of our Lives, Liberties, E­st [...]tes, and whatsoever else we may call ours, according to their humours, or free Votes bounded by no Law, but that of Sic volumus.

Yea we should have no foundation of any Laws but their will, before which, all Statute [...], Records, Judgements, Cu­stomes, Lawes whatsoever, must vanish away, if they say that it is for the ho [...]our of the King, by all possible meanes to make him odious to his people, then that's the Law: if they say that the taking away of his Ships, Forts, M [...]g [...]zines, Money, Ammunition, is for his defence? then that's the Law: if they say that all who are ready to venture their lives and fortunes for the King, are Tr y­tors, t [...]en thats the Law: if they say it is for the Liberty of the Subject, to imprison him without law, for his immuni­ty and propriety, to lay violent hands upon his person, and to plu [...]der hi [...] Goods, then thats the Law: if they say it is a priviledge of Parliament to deny all but themselves freedome of Voting, then that's the Law: if they vote that there are no Tumults, when a multitud [...] of p [...]ople gather themselves tog [...]ther before the King [...] Court in a tumultu­ous way, then that's the Law: if they say they have no by-ends of their owne, when they would advance themselves into all places of Honour or profit in Court, City, Coun­t [...]y, then that's the Law; and so all Lawes, all Priviledges whatsoever, must be resolved into this Supreame Law, their [Page 11] Wills. And can there be any Government imagined more arbitrary then this.

If it were a sinne in one t [...] l [...]bour to i [...]troduce such a forme and manner of Government amo [...]st us; E. S. how it can be tolerable in many [...]o pr [...]ctise it, I doe [...]o [...] yet under­stand, when the doing of a th [...]ng i [...] mor [...] then the labour­ing or attempting to doe it. The Apostle [...]th a cutting question, and I wish some whom it neerely concernes would apply it. Thou that conde [...] another and dost the same thing, thinkest thou this, that thou shalt escape the judge­ment of God. Rom. 2.3. Thou th [...]t condemnest one for a [...] ­tempting to bring in an Arbitrary Governme [...], and dost thy selfe actually introduce it, how c [...]st thou looke to escape the like judgement, which thy own tongue hath pro­nounced to be just?

Secondly, if such an unerring and boundlesse power, doe lawfully and of right belong unto both Houses of Parli­ament, that their m [...]ere Declaration can make that to be a binding Law without appeale, which they declare to be Law; I wonder they were so unwise, as not to challenge it before, or that they found it out no sooner, it would (as one wittily observes) have spared the trouble of getting the Kings assent to many Bills. Why was not Strafford kill'd with an Ordinance? the Bishop discharged out of the Lord [...] House with an Ordinance? this Parliament made everlasting by an Ordinance? What du [...]l unle [...]rned men (as he goes on) were Sir Edward Cooke, Phillips, Elliot, Digges, &c. that could never find or devise this knack of forging new Laws in former Parli [...]ments?

Fourthly, were it Law whatso [...]ver the two Houses de­clared, then could they enact new Laws without the King, and so the well tempered, and admirably ballanced Govern­ment [Page 12] of this Kingdome, wherein all the three Estates are sh [...]rers after a sort, and in the r [...]ine order, might at the pleasure only of two of them be dissolved. But it is not equall that two of the Estates, should judge by no Rule s [...]ve their own Votes, or that they should be allowed, to be the sole arbitrary Judges both of Justice and Policy with­out the third: this must of necessity make the third to stand for a Cyp [...]er. That the two Houses are distinct parts of the Parli [...]ment is acknowledged; but that they have the power of the whole in right (though it hath been executed upon us in fact) must be denyed, unlesse we will grant that they can make an Act of Parliament without the King.

In former Ages, and ever since Parliaments were in use (if I be not misinformed, for I am no studied Lawyer) the Jus Statutorium or Statutory Lawes, were constituta, setled and established by the King and both Houses of Par­liament, in which the reasons of making those Laws, were most in the deb [...]ting and voting of both House [...], and the Roy [...]ll Assent to them was left to the King, with a Le Roy veult, or his dissenting from them, not peremp ory, but with a modest answer Le Roy s'avisera, which modest diss [...]nt was of sufficient authority to make a Bill of both Houses invalid. And how the King hath lost that right, and what new Lawes are found out destructive to that Prerogative, I never yet re [...]d, nor ever shall, unlesse some new Ordi­nance or bare Vote, can pretend to such an unwarrantable po [...]er.

Fiftly, if their b [...]re Votes, be more binding, and of grea­ter Authority then the King Proclam [...]tions, then are their words above the Kings, and their power and authority a­bove His, and not His above theirs, and then Saint Peter [Page 13] was mistaken in telling u [...] that the King is Supreame, 1. Pet. 2.13. And we are all forsworne in taking the oath of Su­premacy to the King, and no [...] unto them, and so are they, for it w [...]s enacted, Anno 5, Eliz. That every Knight, Citizen, and Bur [...]esse [...] in Parliament should take the same oath, and unlesse th [...]y took it, they should not be admitted Parlia­ment men, or have any voyce there.

Either then the House of Commons hath taken it, or not (if they have not taken it) they are not Parliament men, nor have any voyce (if t [...]ey have taken it) unlesse they will forswe [...]re themselves and deny God, they must continu [...] sub­jects sitting in the Parliament Hous [...], and be und [...]r the King as supr [...]me, and [...]onsequently, either their word [...], nor au [...]rity c [...]n be [...]bove Hi [...], nor can they Enact any Law wi [...] [...]u [...] H [...] [...]ssent.

But s [...]condly, If they pretend the form [...]r, Th [...]t they have an Exp [...]sse Law to w [...]rr [...]nt all t [...]ir D [...]cl [...]ations, Votes, and O d [...]nce [...] to be [...]egall, th [...]y do [...] v [...]y [...]ll t [...]t they doe not sh w [...] u [...]to the King, w [...]o pro [...]ss [...]th, t [...]t the very sh [...]wi [...] o [...], should sati [...]fi [...] him an [...] [...]at he [...]n­not be s [...]ti [...]fi [...] till t [...]ey she [...] [...]y; will t [...]y (rather then shew such a L [...]w) disp [...]se t [...] King, hazard t [...]eir R [...]ligion, the Peace of the Kingdom, and the Lives and Soule [...] of many in a bloody Watre?

Briefly, Either th [...]r [...]i [...] such a Law, and they will end [...]n­ger King, Kingdom, Lives, Goo [...], Religion, b [...] a B [...]oody, Ci­vill, Destructive, unnatur [...]ll Warre, r [...]ther t [...]en shew it, which would argue them extreamely uncharit [...]bl [...]; or else indeed there is no such Law for them t [...] declare, and then their D [...]cl [...]r [...]tions are not Legall, and by consequence we are not bound to obey them.

I will conclude this point with some Observable [Page 14] passages out of His Majesties Answers to the Declarations and Remonstrance of the two Houses of Parliament, [...] fi [...]st out of that Answer of His to the Declara [...]ion of both Hou­ses touching the Militia, wherein they pretend th [...]t they were necessitated, to m [...]ke such an Or [...]inance for setling the Militia, warranted thereunto by the Fundamentall Lawes of the Land.

They may doe well (saith His Majestie) to tell Our good Su [...]jects what those Fundamentall Lawes of the Land are, and where to be found, and to mention one Ordinance from the first beginning of Parliaments to this present Parliament, which endeavoured to impose an [...] thing upon the Subject with­out the Kings Consent, for of su [...]h all the inquiry that We can make could never produce Ʋs one instance, and if there be such a secret of the Law which hath lyen hidden from the be­ginning of the World to this time, and now is discovered to take away the just legall Power of the King, We wish that there be not some other secret (to be discovered when they please) for the Ruine and destruction of the Liberty of the Subject: for no doubt if the Votes of both Houses have any such autho­rity to make a new Law, it hath the same autho [...]ity to repeale the old. Then what will become of the long established Rights and Liberties of the King and Subject, and particula [...]ly o [...] Magna Charta, will be easily discerned by the most ordinary understanding.

Secondly, out of His Majesties Answer to the Declarati­on of both Houses concerning Hull, M [...]y 4. 1642. The po­wer of Parliaments is great and unlimited, but it is on [...]y in that se [...]se, as we are a part of the Parliament, wit [...]o [...]t Ʋ [...], or against Our Consent, the Votes of either, or both H [...]es toge­ther must not, cannot, shall not (if We can helpe it for Our Subjects sake as well as Our Own) forbid any thing that is en­joyned [Page 15] by the Law, or enjoyne any thing that is forbidden by the Law

In what a miserable insecurity and confusion must we necessa­ry and inevitably be, if the Soveraigne Legall Authority may be despised by Votes, or Orders of either, or both Houses.

Thirdly, Out of His Majesties Answer to a Book Enti­tuled, The Remem [...]rance of the Lords and Commons, May 19. 1642.

There cannot be imagined a greater Violation of our Pri­viledges, the L [...]w of the Land the Liberty of the Subject, and the Right of Parliament, then the Votes past in the House, March 15.16. One of which Votes w [...]s (and there need no other to destroy both King and People) That when the Lords and Commons shall declare that the Law of the Land is, the same must be assented u [...] to [...]nd obeyed; that is the Sence in f [...]w words, Where is every Mans Property? E [...]ery Mans Liberty? If the major part of bothh Houses declare, that the Law is, the younger Brother shall inherit, what is become of all the Families and Estates in the Kingdom? [...] they Declare, that by the Fun­damentall Law of the Land, such a ra [...] a [...] unad­vised Wo [...]d, ought to be punished by perpetuaal [...], is no [...] the Liberty of the Subje [...], dur [...]nte bene [...] dilesse?

1. They Vote the Kingdom is in di [...]e th [...] [...] Vote that by the Fundamentall Law of the Land the ordering of the Militia must be left to their disposall.

2. They Vote, That the King intends to levy Warre againt His Parliament, and then they Declare, That whosoever shall assist Him, is guilty of high Treason.

We admonish both Houses of Parliament to take heed of enclining under the specious she [...]s o [...] necessity and danger, to the exercise of such an Arbitrary power they before com­plained of, the advise will do no harme, and We shall be glad to see it followed.

But Our Libertyes and Estates are entrenched upon, and We must not be so basely degenerous, a [...] to suffer them to be betrayed, but we are bound to defend our lawfull L [...]ber [...]ies and Estates even against the King himselfe, which we inherit, as truly from our Ancestours, as the King inherits any thing he hath.

What hath the King denyed which concernes our Liberties, and are the undoubted securityes of our safe­ty, freedome, and happinesse under the Regiment of a just and unquestionable Monarchy?

Are not our Rights and Propertyes already established this Parliament, by such Acts of Grace as could never find Presidents from his Ancestour [...]? are not Monopolies upon what pretences soever, Proj [...]ts, all illegall Taxes, t [...]ose arbitrary Courts of Justice, High Commission, Star-Chamber, Marshalseyes, & [...]. [...]erly [...]m [...]'d and ex [...]irpated; and doth not His Majesty in His Message to both Hou­ses March 1. 1643. move them, ‘That they would with all speed fall into a serious consideration of those particulars; which they should hold necessary for the present and future establishment of their Priviledges, the free and qui­et enjoying of their Estates and fortunes, and the Liberties of their Persons. And in His Majesties Answer to the Pe­rso [...] of the Commons, Jan. 18. 1641. doth he not call God to witnesse, That the preservation of the Law and Li­berty of the Subject, is, and shall alwayes be as much His Majesties care and Industry, as his Life and the lives of His dearest Children.’ And in His Majestyes Speech to the Committee, March the ninth 1641. doth he not thus pas­s [...]n [...]ely exp [...]st [...]te with them. What would you have? [...]ve I de [...]ed to passe any Bill for the ease and Security of [...] Subje [...]s; there is a judgement from Heaven upon this [Page 17] Kingdom, if these Distractions continue. God so deale with me and mine, as all my thoughts & intentions are upright, for the preservation of the Lawes of the Land.

And are not these pledges sufficient to dissolve all jea­lousies, if ever we mean [...] to be sa [...]ti [...]fied, and to [...]ssure us that we may live safe and fr [...]e unde [...] the Gov [...]rnment of so just, gracious and Religious a Prince [...] if working he [...]ds (quibus quieta movere magna est merc [...]s) [...]o love to sish in troubled waters, and think the dist [...]b [...]nce of the publique Peace a sufficient hire to set them on work.) did not pur­posely for their owne advantage, and by-ends, labour to cast the mist of causelesse feares and jealousies, before the Peo­ple meerely to startle them into a posture of warre, As that printed relation of the Taylors in Moorefield, of the Stable of horses under ground, of the D [...]nish Fleete, th [...]t was discomfited by Van Trump long since; besides ot [...]er strange horrid treasonable discoveryes, and Letters which came God knowes from whence? that were purposely feigned and devised, to hinder a right understanding between the King and his People, and to embroyle the Kindome in a Civill Warre.

Whereas we feele to our just griefe, and hope we may truly affirme, withour danger of being branded with the blacke Stigmaticall name of Malignants, that there was nothing formerly suff [...]red by us, the free borne Subjects of this Land; which hath not upon the same pretences, but with lesse colour been since acted and exceeded by those who were called together to ease us of the like sufferings, for our Estates have been taken away without our consent, in defence of our Property; our Persons have been impri­soned without just cause, in defence of our Libertyes; and our condition (as one observes at this present, is so farre [Page 18] from being bettered, that 'tis grown extreamely worse, as if all the evills of former times, had been Epitomized into the volume of two ye [...]res last past; and the Quintissence of ours and the former Ages grievances had been extracted, and given us at one draught. See the Complaint to the House of Commons

But may not the two Houses of Parliament who are the representative body of the Kingdom, summon and authorize all the able freeborn Subjects of the Land, to take up Arms against the King in maintenance of them and their Priviledges when they are deserted, and their Pri­ledges infringed by the King, which is just the case of the two Houses of Parliament at this present.

First the King hath not deserted His Parlia­ment, but was forced to leave His Pallace at White Hall, and to take shelter elsewhere, because His sacred Person could not there be safe, from the danger-threatning up­roares, and [...]umults of a heady misguided, masterlesse mul­titude, and it was not fit to m [...]ke Majesty so cheape, and despicable, as to expose it to the base and barbarous affronts of a sedit ou [...] huddle.

Secon [...]ly, so farre is His Majesty from infringing any just or undoubted Priviledge of Parliament, that in his an­swer to a Booke intituled a Remonstran e of the Lords and Commons May 19. 1642. He desires his actions may no lon­ger prosper, then they shall be directed, to the maintenance of all the Rights, and freedome of Parliament, in the allowance and protection of all their just Priviledges.

And let the two Houses of Parliament exhibit a list of the Priviledges, not only belong [...]ng to the being and efficacy of P [...]rliaments, but to the honour also and complement of them, and clearely declare them to be true, just and un­doubted [Page 19] Priviledges, and I am confident they shall have His Majesties allowance and approbation; [...]ea I d [...]re be bold to say, they shall have observ [...]nce al [...]o, from those that are nick-named Malignants; but till [...]ey be decla­red by them, how can they b [...] observe [...] [...]y u [...] reason ought to be sati fied, before obe [...]ience m [...]y be expected, espe­cially in point [...] of such high [...]o [...]ce [...]ment, wherein our Laws, Liberties, Estates, yea even our very soules are in­teressed, and though we be falsely Christened the Popish Army, for discharging our Loyalty and duty to our Sove­raigne; yet thu [...] farre at least we are Pro [...]stants, that we will not resigne up our underst [...]ndings to t [...]eir infallibi­lity; and in a Popish way yeeld blind obedience to all their Votes, bef [...]re we know them to be just and legall, which we have more reason now to suspect then ever.

First because the two Houses of Parliament now sitting have disclaimed the legall way of proceeding in former Parliaments, according to the wa ranted rule of the Law, beside that which is recorded in their owne breasts.

2. Because we see that a number the farre greater num­ber of approved able men, whose Ability, Wisdom, Mode­ration, Judgement, and Sufficiency, were the only induce­ment of their Countries Elections, have withdrawn them­selves, as unusefull Members of that Body, out of a dislike of such disorderly unwarrantable proceedings, and for that they were debarred of those two grand Priviledges, which conduce to the very being of Parliaments, viz. Liberty of Speech, and Liberty of Accesse, th [...]t they could neither freely come, nor freely Vote, being from without menaced, affronted, assaulted by the Rabble, and within censured, fined imprisoned, or banished for discharging their duty to God, their King, & Country, by such of their own fellow-Mem­bers, [Page 20] who make wit, and the Kings favour, hainous crimes; Loyalty, Treason; and Conformity, Popery.

But they are the representative body of the Kingdom, and we whom they represent are bound to be in a readinesse upon their summons, to secure their actions from neglect and contempt.

Suppose one whom we Elect a Burgesse of Par­liament, or a Knight of the Shire speak, or endeavour to enact Treason, doth our Election bind us to secure him? or will future Parliaments blam [...] us hereafter for giving up so great a Delinquent to t [...]e Justice of the Law? I presume they will not.

The Commons doe not represent the People in any thing which the Law hath not trusted to them; but neither the Law of God, nor the Law of Nature, nor the Law of the Land have trusted the Subject with the Sword, or with a power of making Warre against their Soveraigne, in whose name, and by whose authority onely the Sword is to be drawn; therefore if the representative body attempt any such law lesse, and unlawfull Act, we may not second or abet them in it, but must mainely oppose them to the utmost of our power.

Non tribua­mus dandi regni atque imperii pote­statem nisi Deo vero, qui dat reg­num caelo­rum solis p [...] ­is regnum vero terre­ [...]um & pei [...] & impiis si­cut ei placet, cui nihil in­juste placet. Aug. de Ci­vit. Dei, lib. 5. cap. 21. Et paulo post qui Ma­rio, ipse Caio Ca [...]ari qui Augu [...] o [...] ­se &. Neroni &c. regnum dedit,First the Law of God, that teacheth us to feare God and the King, and nor to fight against Him, Prov. 24.21.30.31. And it tells us, That all who live under a Monarchi­call Regiment, ought to submit unto the King as Supreame, 1 Pet. 2.13. And [...]t puts no difference between good and bad Princes in point of subjection, for, God (saith Saint Augustine) that gave the Empire to Augustus, a milde and gracious Prince, gave it to Nero, a very monster of men, He that gave it [...]o Constantine, a most worthy Christian Empe­rou [...], gave it to Julian a most damnable Apostata; And be [Page 21] the Magistrate Jew or Gentile, Christian or Heathen, good or bad, he hath his authority of Government from God, the supreame Moderator and Governour of the whole World. In respect whereof we are bound for Conscience sake towards God to be subject unto him.

Must Masters be submitted unto notwithstanding their curstinesse? 1 Pet. 2.18. And may Princes be oppugned it too sharpe?) Israel rose not against David in the cause of Ʋriah, nor against Solomon in a worse c [...]use, Idolatry; nor against Saul, though a Murdering and Massacring King. All the Kings of Israel were open Idolaters, Jehu not ex­cepted, and the greater p [...]t of the Kings of Judah, fourt [...]en of them were likewis [...] pl [...]n Idolaters, yet no Priest or Prophet taught the People to r [...]sist one of them.

God hath expresse [...]y comm [...]n [...]ed all Inferiours to be subject to the Sup [...]ri [...]ur M [...]gistr [...]te. Now subordinate M [...]gistrate, th [...]ng [...] they be Sup [...]riour to ot [...]ers; yet in a Monarchy the [...] are [...]ll inferiour to the King; for as in Lo­gick, that Ge [...]u [...] which is c [...]lled s [...]alte [...]num, though it be Genu [...] in resp [...]ct of those S [...]e [...]s t [...]t [...]r [...] [...] [...]er it, [...]et in regard of the Genu [...] [...]bove, i [...] is but a Species. Ev [...]n so Subor­dinate M [...]gistrates w [...]at p [...]ce soever [...]ey [...]o [...]d in rel [...]tion to their inf [...]ri [...]u, in respect to their Sover [...]igne they are but meere Subjects, and owe subj [...]ction to Him a [...] far [...]s any other, and no Ear [...]ly Court can l [...]cense inferiours of what rank or quality soever, to violate or frusta [...]e that Hea­venly precept which commands them to be subject to their Superiour. Rom. 13.1. and not to resist Him, ve [...]s. 4.

Be the Cause never so just (if the Person be not autho­rized by God to dr [...]w the sword) they be no just and law­full Warres, but barb [...]rous and rebellious upro [...]res. For say when Malefactors are put to death, may private men [Page 22] put them to death without the Magistrate? certainly they may not, and if they doe, be they not Murderers) though the crime which they revenge be worthy of death) doubt­lesse they be, then if in private punishments men may not presume without his aut [...]ority that beareth the Sword, much lesse may they venture upon open Warres, except they be directly warranted from him that hath the sword from God, to take vengeance on the wicked; least of all may they beare Armes against their Soveraigne. Princes they beare the sword o [...]er others, not others over them, Subjects may be punished by them, they by none but God whose place they supply.

And as the Law of God doth not trust Subjects with the sword against their Soveraigne, no more doth the law of Nature: for though the law of Nature teacheth us to defend our selves from violence and wrong, (as Borough [...] objects) though it be the most naturall thing in the world, for every thing to preserve it selfe; naturall for a man to preserve himselfe, naturall for a community (as Bridges alledges to justifie the Lawfullnesse of that Warre which the two Houses of Parliament sitting, have raised and levy­ed against the King:) yet by the dictate [...] of nature, neither Man not Communities of men are taught to defend and pres [...]rve themselves in a disorderly, and unnaturall way; now it is against Order, and a Monster in nature and policy, for a Child to chastize his Father, for a S [...]rv [...]nt to punish his Master, for a Souldier to fight against his Generall, Co­lonell, or Captaine, no lesse disorderly and unnaturall is it for a Subject to fight against his Soveraigne, who is Parens [...]atriae the Father of the Common-wealth: he that faith the Law of Nature gives power to Inferiours over or against their Superiours, though for selfe preservation is fitter [Page 23] to be purged from Frenzy, then answered by Divinity.

If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the Childe, or the Childe the Father, no man, I suppose, in his right wits, but would think it becommeth the Childe, who hath his being from his Father, rather to suffer, then to de­stroy the Fountain whence he originally sprang; and yet Parents have not so great power over their Children, as Kings over their Subjects. Kings have power of Life and Death, which Parents have not; and the M [...]sters power over his servants, is lesse then the power of Parents over their Children.

Lastly, Neither doth the Law of the Land entrust Sub­jects with the Sword against their Soveraigne, for by the Law of the Land, all we that be Subjects, above the age of eighteen yeares, are bound to sweare Allegiance to our So­veraigne Lord the Ki [...]g. There was an O th enacted, Anno 3, Jacobi, wherein [...]e that t ke [...] it swe [...]re [...], That he will bear Faith and true Allegi [...]nce to His M j [...]sty. H [...] He [...]res and Successors, &c. And Him [...]nd them will de [...]en [...] to the ut­most of hi [...] power against all Con [...]p [...]icies and A [...]mpts whatsoever, whi [...]h shall be made agai [...]st H [...] or t [...]r Per­sons, their cro [...]n & dignity, &c. A [...]d it was fur [...]r enacted by Parliament, 7, Jacobi, That al [...] and [...]very P [...]rson and P [...]so [...]s, as well Ecclesi [...]sticall [...]s C [...]vill, of wh [...]t Sta [...]e, Dignity, Qu [...]lity, or D [...]gree [...]o [...]ver [...]e o [...] they b [...], above the age of eighteen yeares, in that Act mentioned, shall take the said Oath.

And if all the Sub [...]ects in the Land above eighteen ye [...]res old, have (as by Law they are bound) taken the s [...]id O [...]th, unlesse they will wittingly and willingly forsweare themselves, they must with all their power defend the Kings Person and Dignity, and by consequence, they may not op­pose [Page 24] either, or doe such things, as may endanger His Person, and lessen His Authority and Dignity.

Neither may they be Newters and sit still suffering others to wrong him; but they must stand up to main­taine his right, and to vindicate his wrong. And they must defend him by purse, bodily service, or what way soe­ver they can, else they are forsworne.

But may we not sometimes lawfully deny obe­dience to the Kings verball or Personall Commands.

Yes in some cases it is not only lawfull, but ne­cessary to disobey the command of the King, as when God commands one thing, and the King in a menacing and threat­ning way commands another: then that Speech is season­able. Da veniam Imperator, tu carcerem, ille Gehennam mi­natur, Give leave O Emperour, thou threatnest my body with imprisonment, but God can cast both my Soule and Body in­to Hell, the worst and most darkesome Prison of all others. In such a case we may and must neglect our duty to our Prince, rather then forget our duety to God. Nam Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Jovis. For Kings though they be Superiours in regard of their Subjects, yet are they inferiour unto God. Omne sub regno graviore regnum est. Every Kingdom on Earth is under a greater in Heaven. And the Apostolicall Ca­non, Rom. 13.1. which wills us to be subject to the high­er powers before the lower amongst men, doth by Analogy instruct us to be principally subject to that highest power, by whom the Powers on Earth are ordained, and set in Or­der one above another.

When Pharaoh King of Egypt commanded the Hebrew Midwives to strangle the Hebrew Male Children in the birth, they feared God and did not the command of the [Page 25] King, Exod. 1.17. When Nebuchadnezz [...]r having erected a Golden Image, commanded all people to fall down and worship it, under penalty of being cast into the hot fiery [...]rna [...], [...]ha­dracke, M [...]sech and Abednego refused to d [...] the command of the King, because the Law of God forbad them to doe it, Dan. 3.18. When Darius had signed a Decree, That none should make any Petition to God, save only to him for certaine dayes; Daniel, notwithstanding the Decree, went into his House, and his Chamber Windowes [...]eing opened towards J [...]rusalem, kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed to his God, contrary to the signed Decree, and exp [...]esse command of the King, Dan. 6.10. The seven Brethren, though An­tiochus Epiphanes, or rather Epimanes, threatned to torment them with scourges and whippes, yet they would not, by all the threatnings and exquisite torment [...] that [...]e could use, be compelled to taste of Swine flesh, because it was a­gainst the Law of their God, 1 Ma [...]ab. 7.1. And Julians Christian Souldiers though they readily sought his B [...]t­tells, and obeyed him when he commanded thing [...] lawfull; yet, Quando veniebatur ad causam Christi, Aug in Psa. 124. non ag [...] os [...]ebant nisi illum qui in Caelo erat, quando volebat, ut Idola colerent, aut thurificarent, praeponebant illi Deum; When they came to the cause of Christ, they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in Heaven, when he commanded them to worship Idolls, [...]o sacrifice and burne I [...]cense to his Idoll gods, they preferred God before their Prince. And th [...] case was clearly resolved long since by the Apostles, That when the Kings command c [...]osseth the command of God, then it is absolutely better for us to obey God than man, Acts 5.29. Yet here we must take heed, first that we be not led by fancies, and groundlesse imaginations, but be sure that what the King commands, is against Gods Law.

Secondly, That denying obedience, we doe it in all hu­mility, without scandall and contempt.

Thirdly, That yet we be content to obey passively, with­out resisting the higher power.

For, even then, when we cannot with a safe Conscience obey the command of the King, because we have received a cou [...]ter-command from God, we must be subject to him notwithstanding, and not dare to rise up against him, Nam qui i [...]s [...]rgit in Ch [...]istum Domini, Psal. 2.1. insurgit in Dominum Christi, For he that riseth up against the Lord [...] Anoin­ted, riseth up against the Lord by whom he was Anoynted. The least Injury, Numb. 16.11 1 Sam. 8.7. Indignity, Affront of Disgrace that is done to the King, whom God hath appointed his immediate Deputy and Vicegerent on Earth, to Rule and Governe in his place, doth in the reflex, extend and redound [...]o God himselfe, the Author of all Rule and Government, and by consequence, it must needs be an hainous and hatefull sinne in the sight of God, for Subjects to rise up against their Soveraigne, though a Nero, a bloody persecuter of the Faith, much more against a Charles, a gracious Defender of the Faith.

Amb. lib 3. epist. 33.S [...]int Am [...]rose highly commended the people of Mil­l [...]in, w [...]en there was hot persecution in the City, for the V [...]yce they then used, Rogamus Auguste, non pugnamus, We om [...]nt, O Emperour, we sight not, perhaps you will say, t [...]ey durst not; yes, Non ti [...]emus, & tamen rogamus; We se [...] not the Emperours Forces, yet we entreat. The like Spe [...]ch S [...]int Bernard useth in an Epistle of his to Lewis the French King, Stabimus, & pugnahimus usque ad mortem (si ita o [...]o [...]tuerit) pro matre nostra Ecclesia, Bern. Epist. 221. sed Armis qui­bu [...] licet, non scutis & gladiis, sed precibus, fletibusque ad Deu [...], We will stand and sight for our Mother the Church [Page 27] (if need be unto death) with such Armes and Weapon [...] as lawfully we may, not with Sword and Tar [...]et, but with Prayers and Teares unto God. Tertul. Apol. cap. 37. And Ter [...] [...] in his Apo­logetick tells u [...], That the Ancient Chur [...]hes [...] time, when they had Heathen and Pers [...]ng Emp [...]rs to rule over them, yet they choose rather to suffer, then to [...]ke [...]s [...]stance by force of Armes, though they lacked [...]either [...] strength to withstand the Emperours Forces.

And that the doctrine of resisting Pri [...] [...] taught by the ancient Father, you shall he [...] [...]onsi [...] ly averred by some Learned Divin [...]: of our C [...]u [...]ch who were best seen and verst in their Writings; No O [...]tho [...]o [...] Father did by Word or Writing [...] resis [...] [...] fo [...] the space of a thousand yeares after Christ, [...]e [...]l [...] [...] cap. 19. Sect. 19. The worthy Fathers and Bishop [...] of the Church, perswaded themselves that they owed all duty [...]o Kings, though Infidels and Heretickes, Feild, lib. 5. cap. 45. The Doctrine which teacheth resistance of Prince [...] is wic­ked, having neither Scripture, Councell, nor Father which avowed it for a thousand yeares. Bilsons true diff [...]ren [...] between Christian Subjection, and Unchristian R [...]bellion part 3. in whom we often meet with these or the like pa [...] ­sages. Whether Princes be with God or against God; either we must obey their Commandement, or abide the [...] nishment (if we will be Subjects.)

Princes must be obeyed, or endured; Either obedien [...] to their Wills, or submission to the Sword is due by Go [...] Law.

God is not served with resisting the Sword, but with du­tifull obedience to Magistrate [...], when their commands agr [...] with his, and in case their Wills be dissonant from his, th [...] is he served with meeknesse and readinesse to beare [...] [Page 28] abide that which earthly powers shall inflict, this was the cause why the Church of Christ alwayes rejoyced in the Blood of their Martyrs, patiently suffering the cruell rage, both of Pagans and Arrians, and never favoured any tumults of Rebells assembling themselves to withstand authority.

That conceit then of Bridges is fond, foolish, and unwar­rantable, who thinks that many Christian Martyrs in the Primitive Church, would so farre have resisted the Roman Emperours, that they would have saved their own Lives, if the Senate of Rome, or the People of the Roman Empire would have joyned with them. Tertullian disclaimed this fancy with an absit? God forbid that we Christians should defend our selves against our Emperours by humane force. There can be no Warre made against us; but we are fit and sufficient for it (if we would seek revenge of our persecu­tors) but our Christian discipline and profession is rather to be slain, then to slay, Tertul, Apologet, cap. 37. Saint Cy­prian expresseth the same Christian profession, Cyprian ad Demetriad. nos laesos di­vina ultio desendet, inde est quod nemo nostrum, se adversus injustam violentiam, quamvis nimius & copiosus, sit noster populus ulciscatur; We leave vengeance to God, and hence it is that none of us doe seek to revenge our selves against unjust violence, although our number be exceeding great, more then the number of our persecutors.

But what if the Kingdom see it selfe in immi­nent danger, most likely to be ruinated by the King and His Cavaliers, may it not stand up to defend it selfe by force of Armes? Is not Salus Populi Suprema Lex? The safety of the People the Supreme Law? The preservation of the Kingdom and of the Religion, Laws and Liberties thereof, to be preferred before subjection to the King?

First, God be thanked, that is not our case, for [Page 29] as that Gentleman of quality who wrote the Review of the Observations upon some of His Majesties late Answers and Expresses, well Observes; No King of this Realme hath granted more for the good, ease, benefit, and behoofe of His Subjects, then His Majesty hath done, had we thankfull hearts to acknowledge it, witnesse His damming of Ship-Money, Monopolies, &c. And His yeelding to the regula­tion of whatsoever further grievance should be found in the Commonwealth.

What more gracious motion could be made by a Prince to His People, then that which His Majesty made in His Message to both Houses of Parliament, Ian. 20. 1641. Wher­in He moved them with all speed to fall into a serious consi­derations of these [...], whi [...]h they should hold necessary for the present and future establishment of their Privi [...]e [...]es, the free and quiet enjoying of their Estates and fortunes, the Liberties of their [...] the security of the true Religion now professed in the Church of England, and the setling [...] Ce­remonies, in such a d [...]s ent a [...] c [...]ly manner, as might take away all just o [...] offence. Is this the gr [...]tious motion of a King, that intends the ruine and subversion of His Kingdom? God be Judge between Him and them, that would fasten so false an [...] foule an aspersion upon a Prince unparalelled for clemency and piety.

Secondly, Though the King should in a Violent, and Ty­rannicall way goe about to oppresse His People, though re­ally and truely there were such dangers threatned both to the Church and State (as is pretended;) yet unlawfull means (such as is resisting the Supreme Magistrate in a free Monarchy) to defend our selves from unjust violence and oppression ought not to be used. Suffering is commanded and commended unto us in the Scripture, resisting is for­bidden, [Page 30] Rom. 13.2. Our Saviour foreshewing his Disciples that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers, and be cruelly entreated, saith not, and he that first Rebells, but he that endureth to the end shall be saved, Mat. 10. And again, not with violence resist them, but in patience possesse your Soule, Luke 21. This is the way for all Christian Subjects to conquer Tyrants, not to resist the Supreme Power though Tyrannically abused, least we be damned, but ra­ther to suffer that we may be Crowned. When either we cannot escape by flight, or abate & stop the fury of Tyrants, by our Teares and Prayers to God. The Ancient Fathers allowed no other Weapons to Christian Subjects against persecuting Tyrants; but only these foure,

And it is observed by the Learned, that the Churches never more flourished then in the Primitive times, when they used these defensive Weapons only, Vide Field l. [...]0. c. 45. reserving venge­ance unto God, to whom only it belongs to take order with wicked Kings, since he alone is above them, and therefore he alone hath power to punish them. The royall dignity of Kings is so inseparably annexed to their sacred Persons, that although they doe offend in Person, yet no vindictive power can be exercised against their persons, without viola­tion of their Royall Dignity, which although it be not tran­scendent to all Laws of Justice to be done, yet it is transcen­dent to all Lawes of Justice in respect of punishment by man when Justice is not done. And in that respect David a King truely said to God, against thee only have I sinned. Psal. [...]1.4. he had sinned against others, yet so [Page 31] as none might take vengeance of him for his sinne but only God. This I am sure was the Divinity of Saint Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others of the Ancient Fathers, Reges nullis ad paenam vo [...]antur legibus, tuti imperii potestate. Kings are safely gu [...]rded by their Imperi [...]ll power, from the penalty of hum [...]ne Law. Ambrose Enar [...]at, in Psal. 51. Rex etsi Leges in [...]otesta [...], b [...]et ut impune delinquat, Deo tamen sub­ditus est, & su [...]icit illi in [...]aenam, quod De [...]m expectet ulto­rem. A King [...] the Laws so farre in His power, th [...]t He is not puni [...]h [...] by them, but may br [...]ke them wit [...]out [...], yet he is subject to God, and it m [...]y [...]uffi [...] [...] He hath Go [...] to take venge [...]ce of him, to whos [...] w [...]t [...] by t [...]e [...]buse of His power, He m [...]kes himsel [...] [...] [...]s [...]m in Psal. 118. O [...] 17. Nemo lege [...] [...] Reges i [...] qui [...] pre­va [...]i [...]tio [...] i [...] [...] enim dect [...]um est impium [...] [...] ag [...]. None may break the Laws o [...] Kin [...] [...] punishm [...]nt, but Kings them­selves, w [...]om [...] [...]arged with the tra [...]sgression of their own Law [...] it w [...]s wi [...]ely s [...]i [...], that he is an u [...]godly man that say [...] King. Thou [...]od wickedly. Cyrill. Eccles. 8.4. This w then t [...]ugh [...] [...]or goo [...]. Di [...]inity by the A [...]cient Fathers, an [...] yet they were n [...] Cour [...] Para [...]ite [...].

[...]astly, be it so that Salus P [...]u [...]i s [...]rema Lex, the safe­ty of the People, is t [...]e Sup [...]m [...] L [...]w, yet experience tells us that it is safer for a p [...]op [...] not to resist, then to resist their Prince by force of Ann, for what mischiefe is not Civill Warre accompanied with? it never comes a­lone, but is accompanyed with Rapine, Spoyle, Robbery, Plundring, and all im [...]ginary evill, whereas due subjecti­on to the Prince, is the caus [...] of tranquility, peace, or­der, prosperity, and happinesse in the State, and the [Page 32] onely way to preserve the Common-wealth in safety.

Theopompus King of Sparta speaking to one of hi [...] Do­mestick servants, who told him that the Spartan affaires did prosper well, because they had Kings who knew how to governe well; nay rather, saith he, because the People know well how to obey; imputing the long continuance and flou­rishing of the Spartan Sate, not so much to the skilfull Go­vernment of their Kings, as to the ready subjection and wil­ling obedience of the People. And so long as we demea­ned our selves as Loyall Subjects, God blessed us with abun­dance of Peace, and temporall felicity, even to the envie of all other Nations round about us. But since (some out of an humour and desire to be Subjects without subjection, have turned disloyall to their Soveraigne, and risen up in armes against Him) our tre [...]sures have been exhatisted, our Lands mightily impoverished by the expensive oppression of Warre, and this once flourishing Kingdom and Nation is in danger to be brought unto utter ruine and desolation, (if God doe not timely cease these seditious Tumults and Commotions, by instilling Loyall and Peaceable affecti­ons into the hearts of those who have occasioned or abetted those Tumults.

But did not the people of Israel resist Saul their King by force of arms when they rescued Jonathan out of his hand, 1 Sam. 14.45. Did not David take up defen­sive armes, when h [...] gathered six hundred Souldiers together to defend himselfe against the violence and fury of Saul, his Liege Lord and Soveraigne? and when, as may be sup­posed, he would have kept Saul out of Keilah by forcible resistance if the Keilites would have stood to him, 1. Sam. 23.12. Nay doth not the Scripture s [...]y expresly that he came with the Philistins against Sau [...] to Battaile, 1. [Page 33] Sam. 12.19. Did not Elisha the Prophet bid the El­ders of Israel use the Kings M [...]ssenger roughly, and hold him fast at the doore 2. Kings 6.32. Did [...] Azariah the High Priest, and four [...]score Priest [...] o [...] t [...]e Lord that were valian [...] men, violently thrust King Ʋ [...]h out of the Temple af er he became Leprou [...]? 2 Cron. 26.17.20. who in that they are commended for [...]ithout Men (saith Bridges) it shewes that their worke was not only reproofe, but resistance.

Lastly, have we nor warrantable Exampl [...] and [...] ­dents from the reformed Churches to justifie at [...] up Arms in our own defence to be lawfull.

To all these alledged Ex [...]mples I may an­swer in generall, that we Christians o [...]ght to follo [...] no mans, [...]o Churches example further then they follow Christ. 1 Cor. 11.1. But Christ [...] [...]ght us ei­ther by pr [...]ctise or precept to resist the higher power; he both by Ex [...]mple and Precept taught the contrary; for he left us an example of patient suffering from Aut [...]ority, not of resisting Authority, 1. Pet. 2.21.23. and when Au­thority caused him uniustly to be apprehended, and after condemned, he would [...]o [...] suffer Peter to defend [...]im against the present Aut [...]ority [...]ith the sword: bu [...] bad him put up the sword which form [...]y he h [...]d [...] [...]wn in his defence, telling him, that he that takes [...] sword without depu­tation from Authority, or against authority, though unju­stly abused, shall p [...]rish by the Sword, Mat. 26.52. ad­mit then that your Testim [...]nies and Ex [...]mples out of the old Testament did prove it in some case to be lawfull un­der the Law to take up defensive arms, agai [...]st Persons in­ [...]ested with Sovreaigne Power, can you shew it to be lawfull u [...]der the Gospell? where suffering is com­mande [...] [Page 34] and commended, rensting forbidden and condem­ned, and where Christ's meeke Spirit, not Eliahs revenge­full spirit, is to guide us if we would not be misguided, Luke 9.55.

But to answer your allegations more punctually, as you have no proofe out of the new, so you have none out of the old Testament to legitimate and warrant your offen­sive, defensive Weapons. To begin with your first ex­ample.

Though the People were then in arms by Sauls owne appointment, when they rescued Jonathan out of his hands, yet they did not rescue him out of Sauls hand by force of arms.

How then did they rescue him?

Not with offensive weapons but with perswa­siue words, Shall Jon [...]than dye (say they) who hath wrought so great salvation in Israell? as the Lord liveth, there shall [...]t an haire of his head fall to the ground. Or as Junius and Tremelius two famous Interpreters translate the words by way of interrogation, more agreable to the originall, An tadere debet ullus e capillis ejus? ought their to fall any haire of his head to the ground. They appeale to Saul himselfe (say these learned Interpreter [...]) whether in Con­science he ought it just and reasonable that Jonathan should dye by whose meanes they were all then alive, charging his Conscience before God that he should rather have resp [...]ct to Equity then his rash o [...]th. Thus then they rescued Jo­nathan not by arms but by arguments, (as A [...]gal did Nabal her Hu [...]band, and the rest of her Houshold out of the hand of David, who had in like manner sworne to cut them all off, 1 Sam. 25.) or if the People here pressed violently up­on Saul in making a mutiny, they cannot be excused, saith [Page 35] Peter Martir in locum, and so the example is either imp [...]r­tinently alledged, or else b [...]ing in it selfe in [...]x [...]us [...]ble, it cannot excuse, much lesse just [...]fie your do [...]g [...].

Your next example o [...] test [...]mony is as [...] to the pur­pose as the former, for D [...]vid did not [...]st [...]r o [...] gather fix hundred Souldiers together, they resort [...]d a [...] c [...] to him of their own accord, 1 Sam. 22.1. Neit [...]r d [...] [...] m [...]ke us [...] of their help to defend himselfe ag [...]inst t [...]e V [...]o [...]ence a [...] Fury of Saul; but his way of defen [...]e wa [...] by fly [...]g, and h [...] ­ding himselfe from Saul, not by resist [...], [...] opposing him. And produce, if you [...]n, one syll [...]e [...] Sa­cred Story, to shew that ever David m [...]de offer to r [...]st Saul, when he c [...]me [...]o in [...]de him.

It i [...] more then probable t [...]at he would have resisted Saul, if the men of Keilah would have stood to him otherwise b [...]ing in Keilah, why did he enquire whether Saul would come there to seek him? and he [...]ring that Saul would not faile to come down, why did he further enquire whether the Keilites would deliver him into the hand of Saul? D [...]e not these Q [...]a [...]es more then prob [...]bly argue, That David had a minde to r [...]main in Ke [...]a [...], [...]nd t [...] de­fend the City ag [...]inst Saul (as Sir Jo [...]n Hot [...]a [...] did H [...] against His M [...]j [...]sty) would the men of K [...]ilah have stu [...]k close to him.

No finely, the r [...]son in all lik [...]li [...]ood and [...]ppearance, why D [...]vid w [...]s thu [...] solicitous to know the purpos [...] of Saul, and the Keilites, was, b [...]cause [...]e susp [...]cted treacherous deceit in the men of Keil [...], Th [...]t if [...]e st [...]y [...] till t [...]e King came, they would shut th [...] G [...], and keep him in, till the King should come an [...] appr [...]end him, and not suffe [...] him to escape by s [...], [...] hi [...] usu [...]ll m [...]nn [...]r was. For he enquires of God, [...]ill the [...]n of Ke [...] deliv [...] [...]? Or [Page 36] as it is in the Marginall reading of the Bible, agreeable to the Originall, Will they shut me up? Will they take advan­tage of the G [...]tes and Barres of this walled Ci [...]y, [...]nd close­ly shut me up that I cannot have liberty to fly from Saul when he commeth? His purpose was to fly out of Keilah, and not to defend it if Saul came; this made him carefull to enquire whether the men of Keilah would shut the Gates upon him, and so hinder him that he could not fly from Saul, according to his wonted Custome; There is not then here the least shadow of a proofe for defensive Armes, unlesse we will by an improbable conjecture make Davids purp [...]se in this pl [...]ce to thwart his constan [...] prac­tise and prof [...]ssion in all other places of the sacred Story, where his dutifull submissi [...]e b [...]haviour, [...]umble carriage, and speeches full of Loy [...]ll respect towards Saul are Re­corded.

Bu [...] doth not the Scriptu [...]e in plain termes say that David went with the Philistines against Saul to Battell? 1 Chron. 12.19.

It doth; yet he that will peruse the 1 Sam. 29 may there reade, that David went not to B [...]ttell against Saul, he only went a little way with the Philistines that we [...]t to battell ag [...]inst [...]im, and the Princes of t [...]e Phi­listi [...]es had so little co [...]fidence of Davids good aff [...]ction to that c [...]use; that they were earnest with A [...]hish their Ki [...]g to [...]d him back as a m [...]n [...]or to be confided in, s [...]yi [...]g verse 4. Make this fellow returne, and let him not g [...]e down with [...] to Battell, least in the Battell he prove an Adversa­ry to Ʋs, for wherewith should he reconcile himselfe to his Master Saul, should i [...] not be with the heads of these men? and howsoever he seemed unwilling to be sent back, yet therein (saith Oziander) he did but dissemble and spake [Page 37] otherwise then he thought, he was glad of the opportuni­ty given to returne, sayth Peter Martyr, though he flatter­ingly glozed with the King by pretending the contrary, and to think that David had any cogitation or purpose to serve a Forraign King in a Battell against his own King, People, and Nation, is to make him an appar [...]nt transgressor of the Law sayth Willet, which forbad all kind of Confederacy, with uncircum [...]is [...]d Nations: by this time then I hope you see that Davids Ex [...]mple is impertinently produced to shew the lawfulnesse o [...] making an hostile defensive war against your Soveraigne.

Wh [...]t s [...]y y [...]u to the third Example of Eli­sha the Proph [...]t, who h [...]d t [...]e Elders of Israel to shut the doore ag [...]inst t [...] Kings M [...]ssenger that came to take away his head, and t [...] [...]ld him f [...]st?

I s y t [...]t it is no more to the purpose then the former, for what c [...]n you inferre from thence more then this? th [...]t it is l [...]wfull to hold the doore fast shut a­gainst a Messenger, who shall in a violent illegall way come to assaul [...] [...] in our houses, though he come from the King? thi [...] no doubt m y be done cum moderamine in [...]ulpate t [...]t [...]l [...]. But what if the King should come in Person to ass [...]ult you, will you doe m [...]re then shut the doore? will you t [...]ke p [...]s of Or [...]n [...]ce, Gu [...]s, P [...]kes and Pistols, an [...] bid him be [...]o [...], or else you will set him away with a p [...]w [...]er? should the Ki [...]g in a viol [...]nt illegall way off [...]r to smite you on the head, you m [...]y hold up your hand, and awa [...]d the blow: But if you strike him again, there is no Law (I think) either of God or man, that would not condemne you for a Traytor in so doing, though you should doe it in your own defence, and how can you be sure, when you come with Mu kets and Cannons into the [Page 38] open Field against the King, that you shall not doe more then smite him, horreseo referens (even that which I tremble to speak) mortally wound his sacred Person, unlesse you can command your Musquets, and Cannons that they should not hurt him, as well as any other. Doe not then palliate your opposition with the name of a meere defen­sive resistance which may prove so hainously offensive, and contract that guilt of blood upon your Soules, and the whole land, as would draw down Gods vengeance both upon them and it; and will you wrest the command of so great a Prophet (as Elisha was) to countenance such a defence, as might in event prove so horridly offensive? Quod Omen avertat Deus.

What say you to the last example of Azariah the high Priest thrusting Ʋzziah the King (after he be­came Leprous) out of the Temple; being assisted with 80 of his Brethren, who are commended for their valour in so doing, 2 Chron. 26.17.20.

I say that I am sorry, to see you go down to the forge of the Papists, there to sharpen your Weapons of defence, for your hostile defensive Warre. The Papists say that the high Priests thrust the King out of the Temple when he usurped the Priests Office, Ergo the Pope is above Kings. The reason of their inference is, because no Inferi­our hath power to lay hands on a Superiour, and by co-active power, to compell or repell him. You say the same in effect, with a little change of the persons. The high Priest thrust the King out of the Temple, therefore it is lawfull for the People to resist Kings? And you can give no reason of this inference, except you acknowledge the Peoples Su­periority above the Prince, and then you must dispence with the oath of Supremacy, and wipe out that Text of [Page 39] Saint Peter, Where he wills you to submit to the King as Su­preme, 1 Pet. 2.17. Azariah the Priest, and the rest of the Brethren did not assaile King Ʋzziah's Person, presuming to burne Incense on the Altar of God, neither did they thrust him out of the Temple by force; they withstood him with Words, rebuking him for the breach of Gods Law. It appertains not to thee Ʋzziah to burne Incense, Not with Weapons as your Martiall Termes import, and when the King would not be a [...]monished, but indignabundus, in a chafe, contemning the Priests admonition, took a Censer in his hand to offer Incense, the Lord then tooke him in hand, and caused the L [...]prosie to rise up in his forehead before the Priest, then there was no need to bid him de­part, the Text saith, He hastened to goe out because the Lord had smitten him. God then thrust him out, and the Priests thrust him out, a [...] [...]e [...]ed to goe ou [...], God thrust him our by infl [...]cting the visible punishment of Leaprosie upon him, Visa lepr [...] Sace [...]tes Regem lepro­sum d [...]s sti­ne eg [...]d eu­dum [...]ament. Jose h. du­ [...]iq. Ju [...]c. lib. 9. cap. [...]1. the Priest thrust him out by sharpely rebu­king him, p [...]o [...]uncing [...]im uncleane, or by admonishing him that the L [...]prousie was risen up in his forehead, and then being told that the spot of Leaprosie was upon him he f himselfe hasted to goe out.

But in that the Priests are commended for va­lian men it sh [...]wes that their worke wa [...] not only reproofe but resistance ( [...]s Bridges observes.)

And is it no argument of [...]alour, think you, to reprove a King [...]penly to his face; surely, albeit some dreaming Pr [...]phets who feare not to despise Go­vernment, and speak evill of digniti [...]s, have of late by their open rayling against Princes, gone about to make their Per­sons contemptible, yet in former times they were had in such awfull regard, That it was held a matter of courage, [Page 40] and valour to reprove them: because such reproofes (if they were not well taken, might cost those that reproved them their lives, as it did John Baptist, and many of the Prophets. And therefore God when he sent his Prophets to reprove Kings, he often bad them not to be affraid, and that God permitted to his Prophets or Priests under the Law any further attempts against Princes, then in words to reprove them, or to declare his will and precepts unto them, I will not believe till I have better authority for it then Bridges his observations.

But we have warrantable examples and Presi­dents from the Reformed Churches of Germany, France, Genevah, Scotland, Holland, to justifie our taking up arms in our own defence to be lawfull, [...]hough against the King.

Your Examples from Forraigne Churches, without they have warrant from the word of God for what they did, will be but weake proofes to justifie you in your doings, though you could prove your conformity with them to be full and exact in all p [...]rticular Circumstances. But more distinctly,

First, I answer that none of the forenamed Protestant Churches have inserted this amongst the Articles of their Confessions to be believed, as a positive truth, that it is lawfull for Subjects to take up defensive arms against their lawfull Soveraigne, and if they had, for my part I would not believe it, unlesse they could shew better authority for it out of the word of God, then Buchanan, Knoxe, Bo­roughs, Bridges, or any of that Anti-monarchicall Faction have done.

Secondly, this briefely I may say, of any, or of all the Reformed Churches, that if they had not Law for what they did, (as you for ought I know have none for your de­fensive [Page 41] Arms against the King) then their doings were not justifiable by the Lawes of their Country in foro soli much lesse by the Law of God in foro poli, and the reason why I dare not be peremptory in passing my judgement upon the facts of other Churches, is because the circumstances must be fully knowne before a fact can be rightly discerned, or judged to be lawfull or unlawfull, & I have not so busied my selfe in other Common-wealths, as that I dare definitively pronounce sentence of their do­ings, being perhaps not throughly acquainted with the ground of them.

Thirdly, to impure to a whole Church, that which is taught or done by some in the Church, or a facto ad jus, from a thing done by some in an Orthodox Reformed Church to argue the lawfulnesse of doing it, were ridicu­lous, for many things are taught and done in a Church, which are not taught and done by the Church, and that which is done by a prevailing party in a Church, is often done without the allowance and approbation of the best Divines in that Church, as now: Should the decisions of the pact convention of Divines in this Church, or the Votes of the factious Party take place, (who would, might they have their wills, lead both Church and State in Triumph, and set their feet upon the necke of Soveraignty) there is no doubt but the flower of the Nobility and Gentry in this Kingdom, both the Universityes, the greatest and ablest part of Divines, many thousands of the Kings most religious loyall Subjects of inferiour rank, together with very many of the ablest and most judicious of the House of Commons, that (according to the rules of Religion, Loyalty, and Lawes,) have afforded their utmost assistance to His Majesty; should all be censured as Delinquents, [Page 42] and many of them suffer under the name of Malignants: & ty no ne (I presume) in his right wits could beleeve such a sentence to be the definitive sentence of the Church and State essentially considered; though had it not been time­ly withstood, it might and would have been the sentence of a prevailing faction, in the Church and State; But the Lord of Hosts, I trust, will take the cause of his Anointed into his own hands, and fight his battells, and not suffer His Majesty, this Church and Nation to be so triumphed over, and trampled upon, without a speedy revenge of such high and hainous indignities.

Lastly, Summe up the account, and then tell me whether as the Primitive Church did, so you of this Church and Kingdome may not gain more by humble supplicating, and peaceable submitting to Authority, then ever you are likely to gaine by a violent resisting of it. I will close up this point with a remarkeable passage out of Calvin.

Have you any other coulourable pret [...]nces which may in some sort seemingly excuse, though in no sort justifie your taking up Arms to resist the King, who is the highest power in this Kingdom next under God, and therefore can­not be resisted without perill of damnation, Rom. 13.2

You mistake Irenaeus, we doe not resist the King or his legall power, but only his verball personall illegall command, which we may doe without danger of in­curring the penalty threatned by the Apostle to such as resist the higher power, Rom. 13.2.

The Apostle in that Chapter commands all who live under authority to be subject to the higher power, and proves by five perswasive convincing reasons, that they ought to be subject.

First, ab Authore, from the Author of all power qui [...] non est potestas nisi a Deo, because there is no power but of God.

Secondly, he proveth that all must be subject to the higher power, a bono ordinis, from the good of order, quia potestates quae sunt a Deo, ordinatae sunt, be [...]use the power [...] [Page 44] that be, are ordeined and set in order by God one above another, and we should be Authors of confusion, and per­verters of that comely order which God, who is the God of order, and not of confusion, hath ordeined, if we should refuse to live in subjection unto him, whom he hath ap­pointed to rule over us.

Thirdly, that we are to be subject to the higher power, he proves a malo culpae, because it is a sin to resist the Su­preame Magistrate, or the higher power, for he that resi­steth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. vers. 2. Beware then how thou resist thy Prince upon any pretence or take p [...]rt with such as doe resist him by force of Arms, for his Person is sacred, his ordination divine, and cannot without sin be resisted.

Fourthly, that we must be subject to the higher power the Apostles proves a malo panae, f [...]om the evill of punish­ment, b [...]use they that resist, and will not be subject, shall unavoidably and deserv [...]ly receive to themselves crim [...], ju [...]gement, if not tempor [...]ll in this world, yet most cer­tainly eternall in the world to come, unlesse they repent.

Lastly, be proves that we must be subject to the higher po­wers a bono se [...]ie [...]atis, from the good of Society, because we that live in a civill Society, receive and reape much good by their government, they are the Ministers of God for our good. Were there no King appointed to rule o­ver u [...], we should soon see a generall Ar [...]xy, Disorder and Confusion in all est [...]tes; in the Church such abuses, as would m [...]ke us to abhorre the Sanctuary of the Lord: in the Common-wealth such hai [...]ous enormities and impie­ties, a [...] would vex our Soules to see and behold them. In the 17. 18. 19. Chapters of the Booke of Judges, there [...]e may read of disorder upon disorder, and still in the [Page 45] close this is alledged as the chiefe cause of all those dis­orders, That there was no King in Israel, to curb and re­straine the insolent unruly passions of men, but every one was permitted to doe what seemed good in his own eyes, and no wonder that all things in the Church and State were then out of order, when there was no King, or no au­thority in the Supreame Magistrate to keep men in due order, by all which it evidently appeares that Praestat sub malo Principe esse, quam sub nullo, It is better to live under the government of an evill or Tyrannicall Prince, then to have none at all to govern u [...].

Wherefore, because all power is of God; because the powers that be, are tetagmenai ordained and set in order by God; because it is a sin to resist the higher powers; be­cause judgement both temporall and eternall is the punish­men [...] of that sin: lastly, because they are the Ministers of God for our good, therefore as the Apostle infers, we must of necessity be subject unto them, not only for feare of the temporall sword, or in [...]u [...]ring their wrath and dis­ple [...]su [...]e (who cannot but be angry and much displeased wit [...] [...]hose that resist them) but al [...]o for Conscie [...]ce sake tow [...]rd [...] God, who hath [...]id a [...]ye upon the Co [...]science of all [...]nferiou [...] o p [...]rsor [...] t [...]e D [...]y of Subjection to their Sup [...]ours, y [...] t [...]oug [...] t [...]ey be such a [...] t [...] hig [...]er powe [...] [...]en wer [...], Tyr [...]t to their own Su [...] and Perse [...]me [...] of Christian Pro-fessour, and prose [...] Enemies of the C [...]ristian faith.

He that wa [...] Empe [...]our when Saint Paul wro [...]e that Epistle to the Romans, was Nero, a Tyrant, a v [...]le an [...] vio­lent opposer of Christ [...]n Re [...]gion. Nero (saith le [...]ed Moulin) was a Monster in nature, the shame of humane [...]d, al [...] first Emperour that began to persecute the Church, never­thelesse [Page 46] the Apostle Rom. 13. speaking of that power which was then in being, saith that it was ordeined by God, and that whosoever resisted the same, resisted the ordinance of God, and by their resistance did deservedly pull upon themselves damnation: and if in the Apostles judgement it was a sin deserving damnation to resist Nero, a bloody Tyrant, and cruell persecuter of Christians; what a haynous sin are they guilty of, and what a judgement doe they deserve that resist His sacred Majesty, our Soveraigne Lord King Charles, who is the most gracious and religious King in Christendom.

I tell you we neither resist the King, nor His Legall power, but only His illegall will and command.

First, are you sure that all, or any of the Kings commands which you withstand, are illegall, if they be not, then Boroughs your chiefe Advocate freely grants, That there is no help left you, but either to fly, or passively to obey them, though he command you to obey such Laws as be sinfull. If they be every way illegall, neither agreeable to the Law of God, nor the Laws of the Land, then you may doe well to enforme us, how you may with a safe and satisfied Con­science resist them, and neither resist the King, nor His Le­gall power; that you may resist them by a bare deniall of obedience unto them (if such a deniall may be termed a resistance) is formerly granted; but may you resist them with armed violence, will you cut his illegall commands in peeces with your Swords, or beat them back with your Cannons; doe not alter the state of the question, and the point is cleare, That the resistance which you make, is not only against the verball commands of the King, but against the King himselfe who gave those commands, and by conse­quence against that Legall Kingly power, or Royall Autho­rity, [Page 47] which can never be divorced from His sacred Person while He remains a King; for though his authority may by Delegation or Commission be in His Courts, where His Person is not ever present, yet that His person can be any where, or at any time without His Royall authority is such a sublime point, such an hidden mistery of State, such a new peece of Divinity, that my faith is not strong enough to be­leeve it; nor yours, or any other mans wit sufficiently able to prove it. Surely the Primitive Christians were dull and stupid, who, poore, simple, ignorant Soules, out of meer simplicity suffered so much, because they were not capable of this subtle, nice distinction, which were it once admitted for currant and Canonicall; Subjects might resist the Prince, and lay violent hands up in His Person, and yet be neither Traytors nor Rebells, but canonized Saints; And what can the poore Kingdom expect, where the Person of the Prince is not held inviolable and sacred? but combusti­on and confusion.

The Jews have a proverbiall saying, Migrandum est ex illo loco uhi Rex non timetur, That men should haste out of that place, Country, or Kingdom where the King is not feared, thereby intimating that doubtlesse some great and fearfull judgement doth hang over it.

Oh then let me exhort you who have taken up Armes against your Soveraigne, no [...] to turn Religion into Reb [...]ll [...] ­on, patience into violence, fidelity into perjury, subject [...] into sedition, and you London Lecturers that have been t e chiefe Trumpetters to this desperate, unnaturall, bloody, ir­religious Warre, turn not your spirituall Militiae, into that which is carnall, doe not exhort men in the fear of God to fight against the King, for that feare of God which doth not strengthen, but abate the feare of the King, and shrinke [Page 48] [...] obedience; it is [...] a [...] [...]ented, devised, [...]o [...] [...]ted by m [...], and taught or approved by God; the true Religion & fear [...] of God [...]heth [...] feare and honour the King, to be sub­ject [...] him, and not to resist Him. I will conclude with a Prayer.

THen that art the God of Peace, settle the Peace of this dis [...]ed Kingdom, by casting faction out of the State, and Schism [...] of the Church, and by undeceiving the minds [...] that have been seduced into open rebellion, under a pre­ [...] of Piety and Religion, that so we may come once more to live a quiet pe [...]ceable life in all godlinesse and honesty, un­der the Religiou [...] Governme [...] of our gracious Soveraigne, [...]hom doe thou O Lord long preserve to raigne over us an hap­py King of many blessings.