Answer t o Doctor Fearne

An answer to Doctor FEARNS Book.

YOur Preamble and Section are upon grounds which you have laid, to which we hasten, the first proof of the Romans I will refer to the last place, for I meet with it there too.

In the second place, whilst you seem to lessen the resistance, you grant a resistance which is a full one, and not the less by being his own soldiers; for Saul had made a vow, For as the Lord liveth, thou shalt surely die, verse 44. Thou shalt surely die Jonathan, but the people rescued him in the verse following: you know Jephthah made such a vow, and paid it. Well then you infer that it was love was the cause of that resistance; I doubt not, nor you in your conscience believe, it is hatred to the King, which is the cause of this resistance; for David's resistance you will not deny against Saul, but the manner of it you say was not against his person, and it was for his defense: Well then I see if we can prove that we are in a defensive war, it is enough; yet I must tell you it is very probable, that he would have kept Keilah against Saul, for it was a strong City, and he did desire of God to let him know whether he should be delivered by them or no, which if they would have stuck to him, you have no reason to think but he would have accepted of them as well as others, that were in distress, in debt, discontented, for he afterwards fled to Achish, Saul's enemy with six hundred men, if his war were merely defensive, what did those hosts of men flock to him for? yea it is most probable that resistance would have been made against Saul himself, if he had come down into the battle, which you may learn by the 11. verse, for I cannot believe that David's companion Abisha would have spared him in the battle, who would have killed him asleep: besides David was but a private man, and was loath to give that example, for private men to kill tyrants, he himself being to be a King; besides it is not lawful for any private man to kill a murderer, though he take him in the act: Lyra upon the 11. verse, Or else he shall descend into the battle and perish. That he would not have killed Saul unless it had been in his own defense, so that there is more then we do warrant, for our arms is not taken in the defense of any one private man, but of the Kingdom. So that I persuade myself, the people's conscience may be grounded upon things very probable, when as you have not shown in Scripture, that a tyrant is not to be resisted, but more of this in the 13. of the Romans.

For that of the high Priest, to me seems plain, That he did intend a violent resistance: And Azariah the high Priest went in after him, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men: doth neither the number, I pray you, nor the quality denote nothing more, if need should have required, and they went after this manner before the Lord commanded any such thing which you pretend, let the world judge.

That of Elisha was more then a bare shutting of the door against the Kings messenger, for Elisha commanded that the door should be shut, and the messenger should be held fast.

For that story of Saint Ambrose Bishop of Milan which you have lessened, there is something more in it, you deny the excommunication which I affirm, I pray you what was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or bar which kept him from coming to the Church, and the Emperor desired so much to be released of: my Author tells you, Ambrose met him, and took hold of his purple garment, and hindered him in the midst of the people from going into the Temple, so that the King for that time departed home, yet afterwards after much sorrow (for his bloody fact committed upon his subjects, innocent with the nocent at Thessalonica without form of Law, which was upon a foul rebellion against him) he sent Ruffinus to him to desire admittance into the Church, but Ambrose answered Ruffinus, that if the Emperor would turn tyrant, he would willingly lose his life, for thus much he told him plainly, he would hinder him, though it cost him his life, that he should not come to the threshold.

For the seventh page, that will be answered when we shall make it appear that we are upon the defense.

For the instance of the two hundred and fifty Princes against Moses and Aaron, of one singular, which being against lawful power, you cannot sure induce, that all resistance must be unlawful against persons that abuse that power, and as that was unjust, so this is just, which I hope will appear at the end of this Treatise.

That there was no other means left for Saul's subjects, but crying to the Lord, you prove nothing by that, for the reasons are assignd, and he will appoint him Captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his grounds, and keep his harvest; that of the eighteenth verse doth not declare that they had no other remedy left them which you express, but only thus much, And ye shall cry out in that day, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

That of Numbers 10. that the people were not to be gathered together without the supreme power; I need no other answer but this, I pray you is not the Parliament called by his Majesty.

Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed: I pray you Sir, acquaint yourself with the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: were not they the Lord's anointed? besides the Lord's anointed was applied to no Kings that ever I read of, saving these, Saul, David, Solomon, John, Hazael, those men were of God's immediate choice, but our Kings are merely in the people a human ordinance, and will it not suffice, that there is no intent to hurt the Kings person; no you reply he might have suffered in the battle at Edge hill; I pray you what security can you gather that Saul had of his person, would not David have defended himself against what power soever? yes, against Saul himself, you may gather by David's speech, he shall either die his death, or the Lord shall visit him, or he shall descend into the battle and perish.

I will not weary my Reader to answer the same matter as oft as you object it: you tell us that they are called God's, look the Psalm, and you shall find the Judges so called: You wonder that none of the Prophets did call upon the Elders for this manner of resistance against the Kings of Israel: I desire you for your better satisfaction, turn over these places of Scripture, Hezechia, and he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not.

You may suppose that being foreign Princes it is not of that validity, but I answer, that domestic tyrants are the worse, and therefore the more to be repressed, because they are perjured and more cruel. Ahikam kept Jeremiah from death that would have been pronounced against him; Was not Athaliah slain? Did not the Maccabees defend themselves, and their Common-wealth against the Macedonian tyrants? Thus you see how plain in the Old Testament it is apparent that this resistance was practiced against tyrants, was not Nebuchadonezar deposed?

I will hasten to bring up the rear, that I may overcome the principle of the 13. of the Romans, which you have grounded upon, and in the proving, you tell us you do not intend to settle an arbitrary government in the Prince, whatsoever you intend I know not, but I am sure by your exposition of that place, you will make us capable of the greatest slavery when the Prince will, for you do utterly disarm and outlaw nature, that it may not defend it self, but I hope we shall prove you have mistaken the place.

First of all, you say, but you do not prove that the King is that higher power, you bring a place of Saint Peter, 2.12. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, whether to the King as supreme, or unto governors as sent by him: You cannot prove this, That other Cities or Countries, who were not under Kings at the same time should be disobedient, for sure there were some places not governed by Kings at the same time; Saint Peter writ to those that were dispersed in some Countries, as you will see.

But before I give you an exposition of this Chapter, I thought good to let you know the time when this Chapter was written of Saint Paul to the Romans, it was written in the infancy of the Church, in which time it was not enough to be without just cause of scandal, but also to be without appearance unto them, who sought unjust causes to accuse them, neither doth he preach a new, but the common obedience, that Citizens should obey their Magistrates, and wives their husbands, and that he might omit nothing whereby he might gain the good will of men, and the glory of God might be more acceptable by the Christians among the Gentiles, and that the glory of his Gospel might be further propagated, for the performance of which work, there was need of public peace, of which Princes and ill Magistrates were the keepers; besides he writ this Chapter that he might correct the rashness of some, who affirmed that Christians had no need of government, for Magistrates were only ordained against evil men, so that we might all live equal, they did contend that there was no use of the civil Magistrate amongst men that were free from all contagion of vices, and that they maight be a law to themselves: Therefore St. Paul doth not speak here of the person that bears the office, but of the office it self; nor of one or other kind of Magistrate, but of all kinds of Magistrates: neither is his contention with them that think evil Magistrates to be restrained, but with men refusing all kind of Magistracy, who absurdly interpreting Christian liberty, affirming that it was most unfitting that those who were made, free of the Son of God, and were governed by his Spirit, should be under the power of any man.

Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13. St. Paul doth not mean Kings alone, but includes other Magistrates. You have all Divines for it. Besides, they write upon this place, that it is not to be understood of the persons, but of the office: for in the persons there are ofttimes vices, and causes of disobedience. S Chrysostom, for this cause he did not say, That there was no Ruler but from God, but he spake of the office, saying, There is no power unless of God; all powers are ordained of God. All other civil officers are included here: for he calls them not higher powers as in relation amongst the powers themselves, but as in the relation to the subject. I would that they who dream so much power is given unto Kings alone, that they would show out of the same Paul, that Kings alone are meant by this word, Power. It is true, he commands us, that we should be subject to the higher powers; but it is in the word Powers that he comprehends other Magistrates; unless (peradventure) we shall think Paul thought there was no powers but an Anarchy in those Cities which were not subject to a King at that time. But by that which follows in the same verse, There is no power but of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is a Species, or part, being in the singular number, when the preceding powers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is of the plural number, that comprehendeth this power: for the former word powers is taken cōjunctim; for all kinds of powers: for there is a power over ones wife, another over his children, and another over his family: for that speech, There is no power but from God, is equipollent, or the same with this, That every power is from God: So that by reading of St. Peter, you will know that this power which St. • aul speaks of, is not meant only (as you affirm) of Kings: for supreme powers are from God, who is the God of order and government: But this form or that form of government, is an human ordinance. Be you subject unto every human ordinance, whether Kings. So that it is most plain, that the power is one thing, and the man that executes that power, is another thing: for they have several causes, the one divine, the other human. So that now we will proceed to the next, having cleared this same by St. Paul's own words, that he did not mean one kind of power, as you would have him in the 10. and 11. page, but all kind of power, as in relation to every subject.

Whosever resisteth this power, resisteth the ordinance of God: So that to fly the judgment of this verse, you must know, that those who make resistance against such as abuse the power of God, are not guilty of this censure. Buchan notes, that St. Chrysost. observes, that Paul writ not this concerning the resistance of a tyrant, but of a true and lawful magistrate, not of this or that Prince St. Paul speaks of▪ but of the office it self.

Now the character whereby we shall know whether he be a lawful Magistrate or no, the 3. & 4. verses do make a difference: For Rulers are not a terror to good works, but of evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is a Minister — whose chief care is his subjects good. The Magistrate that the Apostle speaks of, est ultor adiram Dei; a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. So that an inferior Magistrate ought to resist the oppression of a superior Magistrate, or else he bears the sword in vain: for inferior Magistrates are added as well to curb the superior as to ease him. St. Chrysostom gives him this note, He punisheth the bad, encourages and rewards the good, and doing the will of God; and for this cause calls him his Minister. And for this cause from the beginning, by consent of all, Princes are maintained by u • , because our affairs are their care, and they neglect their own, and employ all their time for the safety of our affairs. And this is the cause why we pay tribute, else we should not have paid tribute, as the same Father speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. St. Chrysostom comments thus upon this place. What is it that he saith, Not only for wrath? Not only, he saith, because thou resistest God in thy disobedience, nor because thou art the author to thyself of great affliction both from God and Man; but because the King is thy great benefactor, whereby thou enjoyest peace and a good government- By these Rules you may discern that power which is of God. And that the text may be more illustrated, I will describe unto you him that abuses this power, he is not for the moral good which is meant by the text, as it contrary denotes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , evil works or vices: They bear not the sword for you, but against you: yet you will say, they are the Ministers of God. It is true, they are so, ut morbi ut pestes, as plagues and diseases, sed non & ministri & Dei potestates appellantur, but they are not called as Ministers and powers of God, which by no means must be attributed to the scourges of God: for God sends evil Rulers to evil men. The good is sent to the good, the bad to the bad (according to the proverb) one peg drives out another. But no man dare say, that God is the author of tyranny: for tyranny is from the Devil only, God permitting and conniving. Satan is said to have dominion over kingdoms, princely power is given to Satan, God conniving. There were Princes that God did not acknowledge. They have set up Kings, but not by me, they have made princes, and I knew them not. Hosea 8.4.

Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, Gen. 10.9. he was the first Monarch, and he was a great oppressor and tyrant: for Hunters are for the most part taken in an ill sense, and are called tyrants, Jerem. 16.16. Lament. 4.18. Mich. 7.2. Ezek. 3.18.20. To make that text more plain, he is said to be a Hunter before God, is taken ofttimes for in despite of God, Gen. 6.11. The Septuagint reads it, against the Lord. So that we may make this argument (St. Paul. was a Logician) if good Princes be to be obeyd and assisted in all manner of ways, the bad ones must be disobeyed and resisted in all manner of ways: for contraries will have contrary consequences. I do not go about to prove by this argument, that private men may resist: no, the Magistrates and established Courts of the kingdom, are to enforce & command resistance upon occasion, as well as obedience, else the inconvenience will be great, if the dignity of Princes should be obnoxious to every private man's opinion, it must not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that resisteth in the singular number. Perhaps you will ask me, where ever I read, that a King was punished in the Scripture by his subjects. What if I could not produce an example, it will not forthwith be concluded, that what fact soever we should deny to be expressed in the Scripture, that that should be esteemed wicked and abominable: for if nothing should be done but by example drawn from Scripture, how small a part of the Civil or of our laws would remain: for the greatest part of them were not composed upon old examples, but upon new deceits and cousenages, that were not discovered before; and though I should grant you the Jewish Kings were not punished by their subjects, the urging of them is nothing to the purpose: for they were not made from the beginning by their subjects, but in an extraordinary way they were given them by God: and therefore he had the best right who was the author of their honors, to be an exacter of their punishments: So that here you are answered, when you confess that the Jewish Kings were punished, you say it was by extraordinary means from God, so it was fitting they being bestowed upon them by an extraordinary means, should by the same means be punished. But we contend, saith Buchanan, that the people of the kingdom from whence our Kings hold what right they have, should be the Kings superiors; and that the Kingdom should have the same privileges upon the Kings, that the Kings have upon all single persons. I would therefore (as the fame author tells you) that those who dream of so much power unto Kings out of these words of St. Paul, that they would show me out of the same Paul, that Kings alone should be exempted from punishment. But when we name powers, other Magistrates are understood, who are ordained by the same author, God, for the same use; I would have them show me that, where the other Magistrates are exempted from Laws and fear of punishment, or this, where that immunity is granted only unto Kings, and denied to the other powers or magistrates, for Bishops, inquit Buch. they are not exempted, who in a manner have a Monarchical government over the inward man, as the Kings have over the outward man. And Saint Chrysostom will tell you that they are not exempted, though the Papists will have it so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , neither Minister, Preacher, or Prophet, but all must be subject: besides as Buchanan tells you, Animadvertendum diligenter quantum Paulus tribuerit Episcopis, quorum functionem miris laudibus & veris laudibus afficit, ut qui quodammodo Regibus compositi ex adverso respondent quatenus, &c. We must carefully observe how much Paul attributes to Bishops, and with what great and wonderful praises he extols their function or office, which is a kind of government which may answer that of the Kings, for as the one are Physicians to the inward man, so the King is to the outward man, neither would he have one free from the other, but even as Bishops are subject to the King in civil government, so ought Kings to be obedient unto the spiritual admonitions of the Bishops: and although the dignity of these Bishops be so great and large, yet neither divine nor human Law exempts them from punishment, but for all in general he commands should be observed with public and heinous offenders: and if this should be observed amongst Christians, all such kind of wicked men, unless they repented, might perish either with hunger, cold, or nakedness. All Ecclesiastical Writers agree thus unanimously. Saint Ambrose excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius. So that I affirm thus much, since that it is expressly commanded, that wickedness and wicked men should be destroyed without either of exception of degree, or order, notwithstanding in no place in the holy Scripture is there more respect unto tyrants then to private men: the command is general in Deut. 17.16. you may see what duties Kings were tied unto, That they should not multiply riches, their hearts should not be lifted up above their brethren, nor that he turn aside to the left nor to the right, to the end that he may prolong his days in the kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. There are places in the Scripture as general sure as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that resisteth, Rom. 13. who so sheddeth man's blood, Gen. 9.6. Rev. 13.10. blasphemeth, Levite. 24.16. if thy brother the son, Deut. 13.6. and surely the King is contained within some of these relations. This caution I would give you, that tells the King he is not answerable to any but to God for breach of promise, such tenets as these may make some of them believe, that the whole world is made for the good of Kings, when it is clear contrary: that Kings only are for the good of their kingdoms: take heed I say you make them not more then their Creator, when you make them more then the kingdom: for look whatsoever the kingdom promises, those must be performed, and whatsoever God promises you will tie him to his promises, and you will say unto him, Quid agis? What dost thou? if he do but defer his promises: but the King who ought most of all to be bound to his Laws, by reason of that great trust, you do absolve him from those Laws: I could number up abundance of inconveniences would happen, for this of Aristotle's is well known, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , One absurd thing being granted, a thousand will follow.

Now Sir to grapple with you, and to let the world see how you have built Castles in the air, for first of all, you assume that the King is that supreme power, in your page ten and eleven, which is proved against you in the comment upon the verse, and then you will suppose that the Parliament holds the power to be in the people, and for this you quote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one man's opinion, the Observator whether he holds so or no I know not, but the Parliament holds the power from God only, it may be the Parliament holds the presenting of a man unto that power in themselves, for God doth not now as he used to do in the Old Testament to present himself, so that accordingly who may appoint may—doth not the King appoint Judges, who are called God's, and give them a Writ of ease when they misbehave themselves.

In the tenth page you tell us, They by petitioning, and these words loyal subjects is an acknowledgement that there is no power above him; I must tell you in former times that the complement of our Predecessors with the Court, have lost many privileges, for the Lord's did use to sit covered when the King was present in the higher House; but to come to the business, better men when they come into inferior Courts do I think petition, I hope it hath happened many a time, that a Lord hath had occasion to petition a Bishop, though the Bishops place is below him: but I will give you another example, I hope there seem • s a greater disproportion betwixt a Jury and a Judge, then betwixt the King and the Parliament, yet the Jury will petition the Judge to receive the verdict when it is refused, though notwithstanding the Juries verdict must stand if they please, and the Judge must judge accordingly, so that indeed though it be otherways apparent to the vulgar, the Jury are the Judges, and the Judge bound to receive their verdict, for that of loyal subjects must needs follow a royal King.

In the eleventh and twelfth page I only find one objection, and your answer which you do not think it sufficient that that Chapter of the 13. of Romans, was only to such kind of men, the preamble to my exposition of the 13. of the Romans will satisfy you further, to which you may have recourse too; besides this Text doth not forbid resistance, and I believe if it had been altogether unlawful to have resisted tyrants, I persuade myself, Saint Paul being in Rome would not have omitted an express commandment, to have been obedient unto Emperors of what condition soever, I do believe Nero would not have thought so ill of them, as he did when he suborned men to accuse the Christians for setting Rome on fire, when he fired the City himself; but I persuade myself, no primitive Divine will interpret that that higher power is meant the Emperor, as Doctor Ferne assumes in these pages, the Romans themselves were weary of this tyranny, as Tacitus and • uetonius will impart, but it had cost many a man his life in the resisting of them, for the Emperor had continually legionary soldiers in pay, yet for all their power, they could not stop all men's mouths, for when Tiberius at the first came into the Senate, he begun in the Senate an oration dissemblingly, how that the charge was great which his Predecessor Augustus had left him, and how that half those dominions would be enough for him, whilst he was expecting more for his feigned modesty; there starts up a Senator, and asked him what half he would have, and bid him choose which: Tiberius, never thanked him for, but Sir, for all your instancing of Caligula and Nero, they died as they lived like tyrants, for they were slain by men who never were questioned for it, so odious they were unto all the world, that they rejoiced at their deaths.

So that we have run over this great Section, wherein you promise much in the contents of it, and prove nothing; so that I conclude, it is lawful for an inferior Magistrate to resist a superior Magistrate that abuses that power, or else he bears the sword in vain.

Your third Section tells in the 15. page, That we would have the power originally in the people, and you bring us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Observator, I have told you before in answer to this objection, that it is denied that that power which is from God, which is obedience, or order, be in the people, but the faculty or power (as I may use your own word) of presenting a King unto that power is in the people, for I do not think that you remember that God gave Kings unto any Nation, but to the Jews, who were importunate with him for a King.

For the rest of your Section, let any man compare with the contents, and indeed all the rest, he shall find them not to be the contents of your Sections, for you promise proofs, but where are they? and for the reassuming of power it is plain, when we have the power of presenting; for God when he appointed Kings it was but conditional, if David would do thus and thus, he and his children should continue upon the Throne, for by him Kings did reign; and I hope you will say he was the God of order and powers, before he gave them Kings, there was Supreme powers. So now the people presenting such a family, or such persons to be Kings for such an end▪ and if that end they will not seek nor tend too, they cannot truly be said to be the medii or means to that end, and so no King: for in all offices there is a forfeiture, Judges are not exempted who are called God's, and show me where Kings are exempted. So that I conclude, it is most reasonable that that power which God hath ordained should be put into the hand of him that will execute that power, and since there must be a Judge of the person, who can be better then the highest Court, the representative body of the Kingdom, for the Kingdom is a thing distinct from the King, for there may be Laesae majestatis, or treason committed against it as well as against the King, for Lex Julia majestatis, doth show its power and vigor against those that commit anything against the Emperor or Common-wealth: Ulpian defines a traitor Who is animated with an hostile mind against the Common-wealth and Prince. Likewise in the Saxon Laws, titulo tertio, who shall devise anything against the Kingdom or King of France shall be executed. Who shall consult with wizards concerning the health of the Prince, or the Common-wealths affairs, both the wizard that answers him, and also he that consults with him shall lose their lives. Cicero in Epi. ad brutum: You always knew it was my desire that our Common-wealth should not only be freed from a King, but a Kingdom. And the same author tells you, If I had been present I would not only have freed the Common-wealth of a King, but a Kingdom. There is nothing shows more plain that there is a difference betwixt King and Kingdom, then the officers that belongs to them, for those officers that belongs to the King do die with him, as the Lord Steward of his household, the Master of his horse, the Chamberlain and Treasurer of his household, but those that belong to the Kingdom do continue, and have the name of the Kingdom added unto them, as the Lord Keeper of England, the Lord Chamberleyn of England, the Lord Marshall of England, the Lord Treasurer of England, the Lord Admiral of England: now the reason why these Officers are not changed with the King, because anciently these offices were bestowed by the Kingdom, and not by the King. This reason a learned French Lawyer gives concerning the Officers of their Kingdom, & it is well known how their Kingdom and ours have agreed in form of government: about a hundred years since, they had freer Parliaments then they have now, and as we have imitated them continually, so our Parliaments were in a way to be like theirs, but I hope God hath prevented it, for I must tell you plainly, we had better have no Parliaments at all then such as would have been put upon us within these twenty years, for continually they have been broken up: the distaste that was taken at those Parliaments was not their tampering with Religion, unless you can persuade us that the standing upon our just liberties is against Religion, show me where I pray you, that Christian Religion wrongs any Subject of his rights or liberties. You must give unto Caesar that which is one, but you will not give the Parliament that which is due, for one of your Rethoricall arguments is, a question that you put unto the people to dissuade them from giving credit to them, you ask them, is the Parliament infallible as in your Preface, now we confess it is not infallible, to answer the three and thirteth page, but yet I never knew that the Parliament willingly deceived the people, as we can prove the Kings Council have done both wittingly and willingly, but I pray you Sir, if we should not believe the Parliament, who would you have us believe, him that pens the Kings Declarations? I would willingly know what authority you have to bind our beliefes besides the Authors cunning Rethoricke, Aristotle is against you, who comparing a King, and the Council of the Kingdom together, tells you, One may be overcome by anger or any other passion, and then it is necessary that his judgment be corrupted; but for a great Council to be angry, and to err all at once is not so common; but perhaps you will answer, that seven or eight have corrupted and infected them with their opinions, this is a poor shift, yet something you must say; to this I answer, the Kings Council may be more easily corrupted, for I am sure they are fewer, for I do not think that his Maj • sty hath eight score House of Commons men, or had ever together about him since this division; so that here is the greater number, and I think if any man should be persuaded that seven members of Parliament should infect so many wise and rich men in both Houses, I could wish he were sent to Anticyra, to receive the cure of Hellebore, and so return. Aristotle will tell you, if you please to read him, when he compares a greater number with a less, unto a great quantity of water in which some few drops of foul water are dropt into it; yet they cannot corrupt the whole water.

Your fourth Section you begin with the old Crambe which I have answered twice, that we hold the power is in us of the 13. to the Romans, as any man may see by this Page, 18. and your 14. Page, but we will not swallow your gross bait, for I am sure it would kill us if we should, but wheresoere we meet with it again we shall pass it by.

In your 19. page you tell us, that gifts when given must not be recalled again, for many things which are all together in our disposing before we part with them, are not afterwards in our power to recall, especially in such in which there redounds to God an interest by donation. These are your words. For that gifts cannot be taken away, especially where God hath an interest; this, if it please you, you might more fitly have urged it when that the kingdom and powers of obedience should have been sought to be ruinated: but I hope though I do endow a Church with Lands and other utensils, the person may by Law (if he be deboist) be thrust out of his Living, and yet I take nothing from the Church, unless it be some drunken and swearing Minister, which some corrupt Patron it is most likely hath given to God; but God will not accept of such gifts, neither can a kingdom be properly called a gift, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a gift and no gift, if you examine it • right: there is a gift I confess which cannot be recalled again, that is, when anything is given to the use of the receiver; but so is not a Kingdom, for it is but received for the use of the giver, or rather the entruster, for he is indeed but a Steward, the wonder of Nature, Aristotle will tell you what he should be, That he ought not to be a Tyrant, but a Steward, and a King; and Stewards I hope are but ad placitum, and render an accompt, and not to convert it to their own use, for he speaks thus much in the same place, that he ought to appear to his subjects to be a steward, and no alienator to his own use, but to be content with a moderation of living, and not excess; for indeed a King cannot give away a City, much less a Kingdom. So the Civil Lawyers Baldus and Hosti • nsis, and Guide Papius, Praetor Parliamenti Daulphini; we have had examples of that at home, for I pray you who will buy any Land that is holden of the Crown?

That I may be more profitable to my Reader I will put my grounds into a method and order, which will contradict yours, and so by our grounds let them judge by Reason, to which you appeal too, page 13. for I will bring Reason it self, Aristotle, and some examples for his Rules, so that I make no doubt but I shall persuade some though they will not be persuaded, so that your reiterated objections may be referred unto the exposition of the 13. of the Romans, or else to this place, for if I should answer them so oft as I find them in the book inculcated, I should give my Auditors ears a furfeit.

First of all I will set down what Kings have been, and what they should be, according to Aristotle, which authority I hope so long as Dr. Fearne lives in the University, I hope he will admit of, unless he can make it appear that it contradicts Scripture, which I believe he cannot do.

Secondly, that they ought to be subject to accompt, that is, when they become Tyrants.

Thirdly, that his Oath is conditional.

Fourthly, that no greater prerogative belong to successive kingdoms, then to elective.

Fifthly, that the person of a Tyrant ought to be inferior to the Law, which represents both King and Kingdom.

First of all Aristotle tells you that powers or magistracy is the work of good men, this is drawn out of the definition of all politick government. For what governments do respect the public good, those are just, but those that favors the good of their Rulers are unjust. Archbishop Eustathius tells us upon Homers Iliads 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he must not be one that must poll them, but a Shepherd which should feed them: can he be said to be a Father of his country, that uses his subjects as his servants▪ or a shepherd; that feeds not his slocke, but pulls them? or a governor, who would make a loss of his people's goods? no, but since they are called gods, they ought to imitate those heavenly bodies of the Planets, which bestow upon us gratis their light and quickening heat, and upon all things useful for us: for Aristotle tells us, How from the benefit they received from them they set up Kings: for at first it was the unjustnesse of one man against another, that was the first founder of Kings, that he might be the days-man or umpeere betwixt party and party to decide their controversies; and afterwards upon the injustice of Kings towards men, were Laws founded: for Aristotle's essential difference or form o • a King, is one man that governs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the Law; and if you ask me what a King is, I will answer you thus, that the King is the Law speaking, and the Law is the silent King: and to speak the truth Buch: tells you, Dux Venetorum est verus Rex, the Duke of Venice is the true King, for that State is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ the best Kingdom, for so Aristotle speaks of Sparta, to which that of Venice doth most resemble, saving that Sparta was by succession. Such a King as I have described would the Poet Claudian have.

You see Claudians rule for a King; but there are some Kings that would be only borne for themselves; would rather throw this Crown in the dirt (before they would govern by this rule approved of by all Authors) from whence no knowing man would be too hasty to take it up; for that King spoke not unfitly, That a Crown of gold upon a Kings head was amiable, but withal so full of cares, that those that knew thus much would scarce take it up lying in dirt. To such men as these I leave the Crown, and now we will examine what kind of men those are, who are unworthy of this Crown.

In a word, they are tyrants, who striving to command their Parents, the Law, that begot them into this Kingdom, but how came this tyranny in, will you hear Buchan. speak? Flattery is the nurse of tyranny, and Aristotle tells you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 poli. lib. 5. They take pleasure therein, and therefore tyrants are lovers of bad men.

But how shall we know a tyrant from a King, Aristotle the greatest Counselor to the greatest Monarch the world ever had, can best tell us, he gives them both these characters, They diff • r very much, for the tyrant seeks his own profit, the King his subjects, for he is no King that is not content and aboundeth with all goodness and virtue.

Well, I will see whether reason will give me justice against a tyrant which the Doctor denies, suppose such a one as Gaius Caligula, who wished that all the Romans had but one neck, and threatened the Lawyers that he would with one proclamation take away all their knowledge; but those Romans shown that Emperor that he had but one neck, and they had many hands, surely the Lawyers would plead hard against him without a double fee, me thinks I hear the Lawyer draw his breath with a sigh, and begin with that golden sentence of Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that obeys the Law, obeys both God and the Law, but who obeys a King, obeys both man and beast, for ambition and passion blinds the Princes and best men, but the Law is without all passion, lib. 3. pol. which if you assist not, this Giant or this son of earth (a most ungodly god) will rob us of that heavenly blessing which governs both heaven and earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gods themselves are not governed without Law, according to the Poet Pindar, nor can they alter the adamantine book. O happy, and thrice happy were the times that Trajane lived in, who highly honored such Counselors as durst resolve this question, Who shall govern the King? he answers, the Law, but says he, There are many who think (but they are deceived) it their first and chiefest good is to be above government, &c. then he falls upon commendation of Trajanes words to the Captain of the guard, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dion in Trajan, When he gave him (that was to be the Captain of the guard) his sword of honor which the Captain was to wear by his side, he first drew it, and brandished it, and said, Take this sword, and if I govern well use it for me, if ill, against me, so from opposing this most virtuous Prince unto the most vicious, the Lawyer tells them of Theodosius and Valentinian, who confess themselves bound unto the Laws, upon this he urges how unworthy a thing it is, That these most just Princes should be subject to the Laws, and most unjust tyrants should be sacrosancti, and free, when thats done, he tells them, that furious men who cannot rule the sword, nor themselves, ought to have it taken from them, and how Thrasiboulus thrust out the thirty tyrants out of Athens, and how the old Romans did with a general consent expel their vicious Kings: then he pleads, à minori, that if the Law will give him satisfaction in the less, much more for a greater injury (and especially for the public good) he tells them that justice was done him when he sued the King for a Farm, and recovered it, and though possession was kept against him perforce by the tenant for the King, yet he had a posse comitatus, upon which he raised the County, and so got possession: therefore if a King cannot injure a private man in his estate, much less can he murder him, or subvert the Laws unpunished, especially when the injury will redound to the public, if in lesser crimes such severity is used against Kings in such heinous crimes; so great license nor impunity it is scarce credible would be granted, so that it is true which hath been said of old, The Laws are like Spiders • i •• which can detain the poor little fly, but let the Camel pass through. Then he urges for the Law that made him King, that he might not ungratefully be the executioner of it.

After he hath breathed himself a little, then he unbethinks him of a condition that he made with his Kingdom when he received it, and that by oath which he took at his Coronation, which was conditional of his part that he should be thus and thus, and you may gather by Aristotle that those Kingdoms are more conditional, which are received with an oath: an oath is a covenant, and when the covenant is broken, they that covenanted with the covenant breaker, are as free as they were before the covenant, he hath broke this oath, because he doth work as much as in him lieth in destroying the Laws, & so human society would be destroyed, and so he is a tyrant, and a tyrant hath no right over any people, but is an enemy to his people, and war with an enemy is most just. To confirm all which, a president or two is requisite, two of them domestic and one foreign: Rich. 2. by unwilling willingness renouncit his Kingdom, and Henry the 4. was elected by Parliament his successor, the Archbishop of Canterbury placing him in his Throne, with a nunc vir dominabitur nobis, but the Parliament because they would give satisfaction unto all the world, there was two and thirty articles drawn up, and proved against him, which the whole Parliament did absolutely conclude to be a violation on the royal Oath, and all of them being asked jointly and singly did unanimously consent, that there was crime enough against him to take his Kingdom from him. Grafton, fol. 643. tells us, that there were certain articles agreed upon concerning Hen. 6. and the Duke of York, and the Parliament agreed upon this, that if Henry the 6. would not observe those Articles, then he should forfeit his Kingdom: now the foreign example. The Lawyer urges having begun a minori, that he may conclude with an Argument a majori, from the greater to the less.

The Pope is above most Kings, but he is subject to censure: Did not the Synod at Basil ordain and establish, That the Pope should be subject to a Senate or Consistory of Priests? and to omit the rest, the Pope which is counted, the Bishop of Bishops, and is mounted above the pitch of highest Kings, with his Triple Crown, is not exempted from punishment, not by his own Canonists, a sort of men who are most addicted to him: now when they thought it absurd that God, for so they do not doubt to call him, should be obnoxious to the censure of men; and likewise when they thought it unjust, that such wickedness and heinous offenses of any one should be unpunished, now whereby such wickedness might be expiated, and yet the Pope be sacrosanctus and inviolable, they did conceive the Pope to be distinct from the person that bears the office, and they do conceive that the Pope (whom they deny can err) is not obnoxious to the examination of the Law, but the man that is the Pope, they do confess to be subject both to the vices and the punishment thereof; but it would be long for me to tell you what Popes or what men (that I may speak with them after their manner) that have borne the office of Pope, have been compelled to forswear their office, and some that have been dead have been digged out of their sepulchers, and thrown into Tiber; & lest this distinction of person from the Pope should seem something hard unto you, it is no other then Philosophy doth allow of, and ancient interpreters approve of, neither the illiterate common people that are ignorant in all disputations, are ignorant of this distinction; for the mechanicke Tradesmen do think it a reproach to their profession, if either a Brewer or a Baker, or one of the family that preaches in the Tub, should be hanged for some villainy or other, though it be a disgrace unto them, yet they would rejoice to have their society purged of such kind of men. Suppose the King himself should sit in judgment, and condemn his brother or kinsman, doth he not put on the person of a Judge? besides at any time when a felony is executed, he is not executed because he is John an Oaks, or John of Stiles. This I thought good to urge overplus, that I might prevent all demurs, so that now I conceive this great Council will restore us the Law, by punishing the offender; one of the Judges conceiving the case to be plain, yet fearing that force might overcome right, and that the Tyrants friends who now had the offices of power in their hands, would not want pretences to defend this Tyrant, before they would suffer themselves to be displaced and called to an accompt, so that he moved me that I would clear two points unto the people; the first, that hereditary Kings had no prerogative above elective, and since these crimes ought to be punished, who must be the Judge? for it was conceived by some he was above all; therefore to have no Judge. Upon these new raised points, which were merely but pretences, I had time till the afternoon to consider of them, though I was confident that these were cavils, and the wiser sort could discern them, yet considering the common people are led by example more then reason, I applied myself to these two points.

And first of all I sought for some that were skillful in Records, but could not meet with any, and for History from approved Authors, as they call them, I looked for no assistance, because Tacitus tells me, that they are drawn away either with fear or envy, metu vel invidia trahuntur. And besides, if they affect truth about the Kings prerogative, they may chance follow truth so near at her heels, that she may strike out their teeth. I pray you what was Cremutius Corbulo, was not his history burnt in Tiberius time, and he himself forced to die by famine? only because he called Brutus and Cassius (libertatis Romanae vindices) ultimi Romanorum, the last of the Romans. I pray you inquire what Buchanan was banished for, was not he an Historian too? But to return again from whence I left: in the mean time I met with a young Scholar, a Sir politique would be, and he told me that I had a hard task in hand, for to bring authority to prove my positions, for reasons I could bring none, because Aristotle that was men's ipsa, was against my latter tenets, for he told me that the King was more then singulis major, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, singulis & pluribus major, I was somewhat astonished at this, because I knew Aristotle was not to be refused; I asked the young Scholar if he remembered the consequent words, or the precedent, but his memory seemed to fail therein, but he did believe I could get nothing for the public, (and he gave me a very probable reason) for he was Counselor to the greatest Monarch in the world, and if I did he would burn his book; for all that I sought the place, where I found his sophistry, and such satisfaction for myself, that I would inquire no further for reason, because I knew I should stop the mouths of all ingenuous men, yet for that I thought there should be no rule without an example, I furnished myself with some examples; so returning to the Counsel, the question was put, what I could say to take away his hereditary kingdom from him: I did deny his kingdom to be hereditary, for no kingdom is hereditary, but only successive: for the taking of his kingdom from him, I told them my controversy was not with him for his kingdom, but only that he might be punished for the violation of the Laws, and his kingdom still remain in its luster: and since his progenitors were first elected, let him show how by what right, he hath gotten more then the first elected, for everyone of them since hath taken a strict oath, to preserve the customs and privileges of the kingdom. I do not remember anything in the oath for the preserving of his prerogative, nor can Aristotle tell you what his prerogative is, unless it be this merely, to respect the common good, and neglect his own profit, but if he will plead his prerogative, he must show his proofs: for sure no man holds an estate so sure, though hereditary, but he may forfeit either for his own life, or forever; for the King cannot dispose of any part of his kingdom, for so the Civil Lawyers do conclude, that the King of France could not give away one town of his kingdom without consent of his Parliament: all the difference that I can show betwixt succession and election, is this, that the one is by an old law, and the other by a new one; for when the son claims his right to the kingdom, by what I pray you? even by an old Law established, and upon this claim he is admitted, the old Law is approved of, and not a new one made, but for those that are to be elected a new law is made, the King made, both approved of, and he receives his kingdom all at once. For successive kingdoms were given unto one Family, only that wars and tumults might be eschewed in the Commonwealth, which we see oftentimes to happen in elective kingdoms; as in Hungary, Polonia, Bohemia, and the Empire of Germany, but now that Empire is successive, by reason of the inconvenience of election, by reason of potent competitors: therefore me thinks it seems uncredible, that for so great an honor bestowed upon one Family, that the heirs thereof should deal so ungratefully with us, as to assume more power to themselves, though for the most part less deserving, then their Ancestors, for whose virtues and the causes above rehearsed, they reign over us; Aristotle knew this, and tells you truly the difference, where he prefers the elective before the successive King, he numbering up a great many causes and accidents whereby a King is subject to lose his Crown, he makes not this the least, because they are of one Family, and by that means not so accomplished as the rest that are chosen for their virtues; but you shall hear him speak in his own words: Jn those kingdoms that are successive, this may be added to the rest above numbered for one cause of their deposing, that Kings that come by succession many of them are subject to contempt, though they do not usurp a tyrannical government, yet they (not having desert in them) are a reproach unto the Royal Throne; so that his government is easily dissolved, for the good will of his subjects makes it a kingdom, but it is a tyranny when it is against their will. So Xenophon, and so Polybius will tell you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lib. 6. Polyb. But if at any time they shall be displeased at the posterity of their Kings, then they presently go to electing of Kings again. And indeed to speak the truth, Aristotle prefers an elective kingdom before a successive, for he prefers Carthage before that of Sparta, though their Kings were descended from Hercules. For it is better that Kings be not by succession, but that they be choice men both for their virtues and gravity, for if unworthy men should have great command, they would do great hurt, and that Sparta hath had experience of. But that I may come nearer home, and show you that both ours and our neighbor kingdoms themselves have followed Polybius, when they thought it convenient, for Populi salus suprema lex esto. It is well known that Arthur Gaufrides son, by all Historians had better right then King John unto the Crown, yet the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that was then, made an Oration in preferring John before young Arthur for the kingdoms cause, though Speed pretend that Richard bequeathed his brother the kingdom, but from whence Speed had that I cannot devise; but of this and King John more hereafter. But suppose a King should die, and bequeath his kingdom to his eldest son, the son comes not in upon that title, sed ex lege & consuetudine, for Vitichindus Sax. lib. 2. tells us that when Henry the Emperor had designed that his son Oddo should succeed him in his kingdom of France, and when the kingdom had made him King, Episcopus Magontinus made an Oration unto the people, En, inquit, vobis adduco à domino Henrico olim designatum nunc vero à cunctis principibus Regem factum; for that opinion Rex nunquam moritur, I pray you doth there not happen many times an interregnum? may not the kingdom be without a King, but a King cannot be without a kingdom. Isocrates de pace tells you that a King is mortal, but a kingdom immortal. Sir John Froissard tells you that there was a law made in France, that when they came to 14. years then they should be crowned, and allegiance paid them: I hope then the interim was an interregnum, if allegiance were but to be paid them then. Many examples I could give you whereby the French have put by their natural Successor, and when they did it they would have told you they might do it; then Populi salus suprema lex esto, was of force.

Now I am come to my proof of my last clause, that a kingdom is above a Tyrant or a King when he breaks the laws: I must here wonder with Buchanan, That Law which concerns the Kings themselves, what is it, and by whom enacted, neither can the Lawyers themselves resolve, the Roman Kings never had that power, for from them there was an appeal to the people. We will examine what the French Story can afford us, since that government is so much affected; I conceive it is Lex talionis to be judged by their examples, which hath been but of late times within this 100. 200. or 300. years, for since these times I am persuaded their Parliaments are so far short of their ancient authority, that they are not equal with those liberties they have had (by reason of the encroachment of their Kings) for by the French Story it will easily appear that they are inferior unto their Parliaments; Did not the Nobility rise against Lewis the 11. of France for the public good, that they might demonstrate perforce unto the King the miserable estate of the Commonwealth. The sum of their request was, that the three Estates might meet, and when they did meet, there was chosen 12. out of every State by the Parliament, so that there was 36. chosen in all to reform the grievances of that kingdom, and the King promised his faith that he would ratify whatsoever those 36. should present to him, but Lewis the 11. broke his faith, which was the cause of the war that continued 13. years afterwards, and so the perjury of the King, with his own infamy and the destruction of the people was expiated. I must tell you this King was neither weak in body nor mind, for he was but about some forty, and for his natural parts surpassed all the Kings of France. To make the controversy appear more plain, There was a difference between this Lewis and Charles his brother 1468. upon which the Parliament did decree that the King should give some Duchy which did not belong to the Crown, besides they did decree that the King should pay him yearly out of his own treasure a great sum of money.

Gas • o de Beirna 1275. was besieged by Edward King of England, Gasco appeals to the Parliament, and Edward would not detract it, but did commit it to his officers, lest he should (if he had detracted it) made the French King (to whom he had lately done homage for some land he held there) a party against him, but that which makes this case most perspicuous, is that of Edward 3. and Philip of France 1328. the contention arising betwixt them two for the Kingdom of France, they both of them submitted themselves unto the censure of the Parliament of that Kingdom, the Parliament judged the Kingdom to Philip, neither did King Edward detract that judgment, he paying of him homage for Aquitane a few years after.

But of all the institutions of Countries, there is none so memorable as that of the Spaniards, who when they create their Kings in the public Council of Aragon, and that it may be the better remembered, they present a man, upon whom they place this inscription, jus Arragonicum, whom they do publicly decree to be greater, and more powerful then the King: when that is done, they speak to their King (being created upon certain laws and conditions) in these words which we will produce, because they will show a notable and singular stoutness of that Nation in curbing their Kings, NOS QUE VALEMOS TANTO COME VOS Y PODEMOS MAS QVE VOS, ELEGIMOS 〈◊〉 , CON EST AS Y EST AS CONDITIONES, INTRA VOS Y NOS VN QVEMANDA MAS QVE VOS, We that are as great, as you are, and are of more power than you, have chosen you our King upon these and these conditions, betwixt you and us, there is one that is of more power than you. The examples are infinite that the French have made of their Kings, and their Kings children, so that I will instance no more then I have done, for these testimonies are the more to be noted and observed, because they do clearly demonstrate that the chief right and arbiterment hath been in the people, not only of choosing Kings, but also of refusing, and repulsing the sons of their dead Kings, and choosing others in their rooms.

The Lawyers now expecting the day, there starts up one, and puts into the Court, a quare impedit, for which his reason was, that though these things have been thus and thus, yet the fact doth not prove the consequence that they ought to be done: the Lawyer presently replide that this caveat of his might not be approved of, being most ridiculous, which conceives that a whole Kingdom should not judge better of that which they have made so often trial of, then this man or that man; if the reason of many might be brought into question by this man or that man's opinion, I would put this question to him to prove by reason (being no more indemonstrable then the other question) that man is reasonable if he would give me an answer, I think he could have no other proof that this is, or that is to be reason, then the general consent and approvement of this and that society; but since the beginning of the world there hath nothing been so absurd, but it hath found one patron. I do wonder what government this objector would have in the world, if that most voices might not prevail: doth not the Divine think his controversy the strongest when he hath most Fathers with them, or the civil Lawyer when he pleads, doth not he carry it when he quotes the most Authors? All that can be said by them is, the King will not admit of it for reason, and perhaps they will say the Kingdom is a party as well as the King, and therefore a bystander may see more; if a bystander may see more, I will bring him in, and he shall be no other then a King, (mistake me not, I mean a King of reason) it is Aristotle, who was greatest with the greatest Monarch. The King must neither kill nor banish, no not for a time, nor in any one particular must he domineer. [For it is not fit the part should be above the whole.] Neither hath wise Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Who dipt his pen in reason, left the King without a commanding strength over his disobedient subjects, nor the Kingdom unfortified from encroaching Kings, he writes thus, There remains one question concerning his strength, whether a King ought to have any whereby he may compel his disobedient subjects to obey him, ruling according to the Law, or after what manner he shall execute his office, although he be a just Prince, and doth not prefer his will above the Law, yet it is necessary that he have power by which he may protect the Laws, it is quickly resolved of, and not difficult to determine what power such a King should have, his power ought to be more then any one private man's or more, yet less then the Kingdoms. So that if Aristotle speak truth, upon whom all human knowledge is built on, you cannot deny this conclusion, that the King out of his Courts hath a Superior which is the Law the King in the Court, so that I wonder more and more, that these kind of men can maintain there can belong any government so long as this tenent is maintained that a King is not answerable for his misgovernment, and that we must wait God's justice and providence, and we must in the mean time stand like the man in Esop; who when his cart stuck fast in the dirt, he did nothing but pray to Jupiter, that he would pull his cart out of the dirt for him, but he had answer made, Jupiter would not help him without he would help himself, and after he put too his helping hand, then he had his prayer granted. O that men would seriously consider, that a more pernicious tenent to the Kings themselves cannot be hatched, for the subject will continually be suspicious of their Princes, and so will never love them truly, so long as Kings nourish their Basilisks, for what more hopes can we have of Kings then of Popes, without God would by his extraordinary means enlighten them? we have read into what exorbitances Popes (though grave and learned men) have run unto, by reason they bolstered up themselves by this tenent of being unanswerable to none but God, till at last they were reduced to censure by the counsel of Basil, all that can be pretended in reason why we should not resist evil Princes is because that civil wars will follow, and so there will be greater bloodshed; I answer them thus, we do usually remember evils better then benefits, for the one is written in marble, the other in sand. It happens so sometimes, but sure I am, that after their removals the next three or four successors will be more cautelous, and so will their friends be that shall take their parts: Caligula and Nero died without revenge, and in good time, or else I think they would not have left a Roman Senator: observe but the Princes that succeeded Nero, until you come to Domitian, and you shall find the Romans were not weary of them, and likewise after Domitian again; but here my pen shall stop, and we will leave the Lawyer in good hopes to get the cause against the tyrant, for if the Council will not judge, yet the tyrant will judge himself, for when he is judged by the Law, he is judged by his own word, for by his word and will it was made when he was King, but if this will not serve, his Law books the Lawyer will burn, and he will never study more unless in the Court.

At the length we are come to the fifth Section, for what passes betwixt the 19. page in the last Sect • on, and the 24. page of this, runs upon the old score of your new grounds you give us, but in this page you seem to produce some antiquity, and he being all the Authors that I have observed you have quoted, excepting Scripture; surely you urge him for Scripture, and if it should be so, you will gain nothing by him: But Sir, the respect I have to the Church, I will not tell the rude multitude what Tertullian was, but Pamelius shall tell you, Ob errores in quos inciderit, inter Apocrypha numeratur—excommunicatum fuisse per papam: —Contra ecclesiam scripsisse, St. Hieronimus testator, —ad Montani haeretici partes defecit fortasse quoniam repulsam passus est in obtinendo Episcopatu Carthaginensi. After this preamble, we will come to the question, your words are these, Tertul. in his Apol. says, the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand, but they have no warrant. I wonder much where you find this sense, I will not affirm a negative, because I have not read over the Apology, but in my glancing to look for that quotation, I persuade myself I found the place which you have given a larger interpretation, then those words will bear, for he says in the page 182. that if they would resist, the Christians dispersi orbis in all the wide world were as many as the Tauri, or the Turcomanni, now I conceive by this place that the Christians were not able to resist the Tauri or Turcomanni, for what head could dispersed Christians throughout the world make against an united force, but he tells you, That the wrongs done to a divine society should not be expiated with the sword, —or they should not grieve to suffer in miseries wherein they are approved, and saith he, Si inimicos jubemur diligere quem habemus odisse, if we be bound to love our enemies, whom have we to hate, and then he concludes, Sed apud istam disciplinam magis occidi licet, quam occidere, but saith he, it is more lawful for our Religion to be killed, then to kill; I profess I neither understand Latin nor English, if that you can gather by these words of Tertullian, that it is unlawful for to resist in point of Religion, and though it were not, yet Tertullian doth not speak home to us, for our war is in defense of our just liberties; and as I have told you oft, Christian Religion takes away no man's right, and commands no more than a due unto Caesar: But to return again unto Tertullian, for by those words I mean to prove that it is not unlawful to kill in defense of Religion, for sure Tertullian knew his degrees of comparison, and that when he says if it be more lawful to be killed, surely then it is lawful for to kill, without for your own advantage you will say Tertullian spoke improperly here, who uses so much Rethoricke in all other places; in our English tongue when we say we may do this thing more lawfully, then that, we do not express the other to be unlawful, and that you may the better conceive that Tertullian spoke Rhetorically, you must know what task he had in hand in that place, it was that he might clear the Christians from most fowl aspersions, (87) [For being seditious in the Commonwealth. [ For seeking to kill the Emperor.] In his Apology for them, he told them that the Christians were no affecters of that which they affected, which was money and delights they took pleasure in, so that they might not shun the Christian society, since they would not rob them of those things they took pleasure in, but that his Rhetoric may be the more seen, you must remember what I told you before, That Religion should not think much to suffer in misery, in which they were approved and thereby increased, for when he writes to Scapula, who was Proconsul of Africa, and President of Carthage, he exhorts him to dissemble with the Emperor, and not to execute his commands, being the execution of the Christians, and he gives him the examples of four or five that did equivocate in executing those kind of commands, he bids him not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to fight against God in obeying those commands, at the length he closes his Epistle thus, We have no Master but God alone, he it is that cannot be hid, yet you cannot reach him, but those whom you think to be your Masters, they are men, and they must die at one time or other. But I will conclude with another man's censure of Tertullian, Neither am J of that mind that Tertullian the African was on, who though a man of much wit, and most skillful in divine and human Law, notwithstanding he was too fierce against the Bishop of Rome, and when he speaks of Pilate, he speaks with too much liberty and bitternasse against Princes in general.

After all this I must tell you plainly, I do not believe that the primitive Divines held such Tenants as is started up in these few years in England concerning Kings; surely if they had spoken for your purpose, I am persuaded the Parliament should have heard of them before this, but Sir I do believe that if the Fathers and primitive Divines were well observed (as they ought to be) by those Divines that are for the King and Parliament, I make no doubt but they would find in them and the Ecclesiastical Story such satisfaction as all your modest men would blush at; and since I have said thus much, I am bound to instance: What think you of Plotinus and Theodoret? who quotes these words of Plot • nus, who lived about the time, as I take it, of Tertullian, Anno Christi, 239. in his Treatise entitled, Of the Providence of God: Evil men reign by reason of the cowardliness of their subjects, we ought not to think so of the providence as that we should think ourselves nothing. In the year of our Lord 300. Dioclesian and Maximilian being Emperors, Nicephorus Callistius tells us of a Nobleman that was in high authority, who when he saw an ungodly Proclamation of the Emperors proclaimed by reading in the City of Nicomedia, he being strengthened with a godly zeal, and his heart inflamed, he took down that ungodly and wicked Proclamation, being set up in the midst of the City, which he cut and tore into small pieces, and this was done when the Kings were both in the City. The same Author tells you another story, being 17. years after this, 317. how the Emperor Licinius did intend suddenly to besiege those Christians that were his own subjects, supposing that Constantine would be grieved that the Christian Religion should suffer, for Licinius knew that they prayed for him in their Churches, and that they sought to be governed by Constantine. Afterwards he tells you the end of Licinius, how he was put to the sword by Constantine. The Author adding this, how he suffered as other Tyrants did before him.

In the same Author you shall read how that the Christians suffering unsufferablie under the King of Persia, they sled to Rome for succor, and how Atticus then Bishop of Rome did obtain of Theodosius being then in the East, about Constantinople, aide for them, so that when the King of Persia did require by his Ambassadors his fugitive Christian subjects, he had this answer returned, That they did not only protect them because they were suppliants, but they were ready to defend them, and no ways to see them suffer for their Religion, it being the same with theirs.

Till I come to the 26. page you weave still in the old loomes which I have proved to be rotten, but here is a new complaint, Must the King trust and not be trusted? It seems you do not care for what is past, that looks only at the present times; I pray you hath he not been trusted? I will produce you some witnesses. At the beginning of his reign Master Walter Long, Master Valentine, and another or two more shall be my witnesses, who were soundly fined in the Starchamber, and committed, what taxes came upon the subject since that time? that I am persuaded there would have been shortly (Vespasians) bonu odor lucri ex re qualibet. Now for the Parliament that preceeded this, some three years since master Belleasses and Sir John Hotham were imprisoned only because that they said, the Country that they served for would not only have Shipmoney taken from them, but other impositions, as Conduct money, &c. They were sent for to know what witness they had, that the Country gave them such instructions, to say so much in their name, and because they could not produce their witnesses, they were committed for faultring. My Lord Say, my Lord Brooks, and master Hambden will witness how much the privilege of Parliaments was encroached on. After all this men were committed for denying of Conduct money, and I do not think but the Petition of Right is against the raising of monies as they have been raised. Did not old Monopolies come up under new names? I wonder what Laws can secure us (without the old Counsel be made examplar) o • protec • the seven members of Parliament, and the rest of the members that have not deserted their Country in forsaking them. Well, if the King should conquer us, perhaps there would not be wanting a Cremutius Corbulo who shall style them in our History, Vltimi Anglorum, The last of the English; but Si • if the King should be trusted, unless the Parliament can provide for themselves with conditions, shall these Parliament men have any credit in their Countries? no, they shall not be so much as a Justice of the Peace: shall they have anything unless the Kings frown? No, but you will tell m • that they shall have and enjoy a pardon. My Lord Say, and Master Pim, and the rest will be well requited with it, that might have had better offices then they have, but they were not so greedy to swallow the bait, I am persuaded if they had, they would have gone near to have cast it up before this time. I know you answer presently, These men belike then look for rewards and countenance. Though they do deserve them, I do not think they express thus much. Truly I am persuaded that some of the Parliament men (that many scandal how that they make not this stir for nothing) would forgo the offices they have, and which their deserts may justly expect, upon this condition like Julius Vindex, that those that have made this combustion may lose their offices and their expectations. I must acknowledge that Virtus est virtutis premium, yet I doubt that that alone will encourage men hereafter to do what master Hambden did in the case of Shipmoney, or others to speak boldly against the corrupt officers of all the Courts; who presently foreseeing the storm runs to the King, importuning and persuading the good and virtuous King with long stories, that they seek to depose him, and fain a grief for his cause when it is their own. At length they overcome him to make this Civil War (which is most barbarous.) Oh we had been happy, and thrice happy, if he had answered them as K. Cleomenes did the Ambassadors of Samos, who desiring him in a long and tedious Oration to assist them in a Civil War, he answers thus, The beginning of your Oration J forgot, so that I understand not the middle of it, but your conclusion for war J utterly dislike. But now since these unnatural Arms are taken up, and if the Country should abandon the Parliament, by desiring an untimely, unequal, and unkind peace, the Judges will find Law (out of the same Chapter of their Book, being the next to the last) to hang the seven Members, and perhaps the number will be doubled, for the Kings Council will plead then, sure how that these men have corrupted the representative body of the Kingdom, and so the Kingdom was brought into danger, for they did go about to subvert the Laws, by punishing the offenders against them, and took away the property of every man's estate by taking away Monopolies; and brought the kingdom into war by settling the Militia, which was the only way to have prevented it, and preserved our Laws, if it had been duly observed: the Country was forewarned, and might have been forearmed in time, but both their purses and lives must pay for it, for ought I see, unless they will unanimously agree to be directed by the Parliament, for that is the only way to procure peace in truth, for the other peace which is now promoted, (because they see the Parliament able to defend themselves) it is either by men that do not love the Parliament, or else by such who are sensual, only look at the present, but care not what may ensue hereafter. For surely if peace should be admitted on, but upon very good terms, our second state would be worse then our first; for this must be supposed whensoever Arms are laid down, (though upon an Act of Oblivion) the King will have power to discountenance those men that he doth not affect; and sure his Counsel & his Soldiers (to whom he cannot but lend a gracious ear by reason of these engagements) will be always working with him to put that power into act; and we have had experience how easily man is tempted to things that seem pleasant, (Revenge is sweet) now since his Majesty cannot acquit himself of those men that are about him, the readiest way to procure firm peace, and less dishonorable, rebus sic stantibus, both for King and Parliament, for to force those Vipers which the King cannot if he would, shake off his royal hand, or else from their contempt other men hereafter will learn to undervalue Parliaments.

In the same page, being the 26. you answer to an objection that many may see more then one: True, first conscience should have demanded satisfaction, why should a hundred in the house of Commons see more then three hundred? or twenty in the Lord's House more then sixty that are of different judgment, and withdrawn? Well Sir, I see you have read some Rhetoric, To make great things little, and little things great: I pray you Sir when was there but a hundred in the House of Commons, and three hundred withdrawn of different judgment? if you would but name them, the Country sure would never choose them again. Besides all those men that are of different judgments, and withdrawn, as you term them, of the house of Commons, I do not think that you can number fifty of them that concur and are active for the King: for the number of the Lord's which you say are sixty withdrawn of different judgments, how do you know that? for there was not above forty subscribed at York, and all of them not Higher House men: but you may know of a greater number from the Kings Declaration to his subjects of Scotland, for that will confess of eight score in the House of Commons; and I do not think that you can name ten of them that was of your three hundred withdrawn: but I believe if you will allow of eight score in the House, you must needs allow of a great many to be employed by them, what in the Army, and what in the Country. But Sir to end this discourse, belike you have read that of Cato, To make great things little, and when they are little then to make nothing of them.

In your 28. page, you enter not this discourse to cast the least blemish upon Parliaments. To this Sir I will give an answer that you shall not complain on: I hope there is none so stupid that will judge by my proving it is lawful to resist unlawful actions by the great Council of the kingdom, vim vi repellere, whether they be commanded by the King or any other power, and that it is lawful for the kingdom to depose a Tyrant: I hope there is none will apply the latter part, that of a Tyrant, unto our King, if they do so, liberabo animam meam, I do not, nor I hope I shall ever think so, though I shall prove him in the offensive part, to which the Parliament makes a lawful resistance: for my Law Case I have put it in so high a nature, that it cannot be resembled to him; for God forbid that any should make a parallel of our King with such a one as Caligula was: but my law Case was only to conclude contradictorily to the Doctors Tenants in his book, or whosoever they are that hold such monstrous Tenants, that a monster of men, a Tyrant, shall not be answerable unto those he hath wronged: yet for all that, all Doctors are not of one opinion; I believe it will not be denied but there is another doctrine preached here; and when you shall ask them for God's immediate warrant, as the old Prophets had, to declare so against Kings, they may answer you, Where are Kings made now immediately from God, as they were then, when such immediate Warrants were given?

But I will close this discourse with my wishes that the King and Parliament would turn all these jars into a concord, which would make a true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that his Majesty's wealth and happiness hereafter may blot out all these afflictions and sorrows.

In your 29. page, When all was referred to the rule and disposing of the 12. Peers, how long lasted it? and what security had the State by it? Sir, I must answer you, that the Parliament at that time trusted the Kings royal word, for the accepting of the advice of those 12. Peers, and certain other conditions, and so disbanded their forces: but Sir there was a malignant Council then, which would never let Richard the second alone, till they had undone him. You must know that Richard the second beset the Parliament with 4000. Archers, and you must know this of Aristotle That for the most part tyrannical government is but of short continuance, In the same place you will tell us how this resistance is accompanied with the evils of Civil War: for that, let them look to it that fight in a wrong cause.

In the same place you tell us, The Law is silenced, the property and liberty of the Subject everywhere invaded. Aristotle tells us, The truth cannot be known without the cause. I pray you who complains against the Parliament, but those that are a party? and who were the abettors of the first plundering? I pray you was it not begun in Yorkshire? Alderman Hoyly and another Yorkshire Gentleman will tell you, they were first plundered: the Parliament did declare upon it to the kingdom. Well, I see your side would plunder, and not be plundered; and I pray you who stopped the first legal proceedings? how chance the delinquents would not appear when they were arrested according to the old form, but the Messenger was beaten after a new fashion, and committed at York? and when this was, the Parliament had not struck one stroke yet, but their ordinary Summons were contemned, as if they had been no Parliament, which will be in despite of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let us examine a little further, and we shall find that the first arms that were taken from any private men, the King took them from Yorkshire men that were with him at Hull; for when some would serve no longer▪ they were forced to leave their Arms behind them. Since these passages, the Parliament hath disarmed such as they conceive to be their enemies, which is good in the law of Arms, for this law was first set up by the Kings party. I pray you what Towns have they left destitute of a piece of bread? as that at Brainford; or used their prisoners so barbarously. I am sure the Parliament forces are less terrible into what country soever they come. I pray you what did the University suffer? what Scholars Study did they offer to search when they were there? Well, to be brief with you, since the delinquents have contemned the sword in the sheath, they are grievous angry that it should be drawn; and when they have altered the ordinary and peaceable form of proceeding, you exclaim against them for using of an unusual form, for to preserve the old form hereafter. Dion the Historian tells us, that business must wait to be transacted according to the opportunity of the times, for opportunities do not wait upon business. And whosoever shall complain of this, he doth deny them equity: for no man need doubt but what wrong the Parliament hath done any man in these manner of proceedings, but when the times shall be settled, they will make satisfaction, no doubt but the monies will be restored which they have taken from some suspicious persons, when it shall appear that it was not provided for to foment this war. Jason tells you that a little unjustice ought to be done, so that it may be the means to obtain a great deal of justice. And what in the mean time some peculiar men do suffer by these proceedings, yet the public will gain by it.

In your 30. page, you put us in mind of the oath of Supremacy, Allegigiance, the Protestation: all which is that I should confess the King to be supreme in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil; so I do, you may see now by this, that the King and the Law are one and the same thing, for in all Courts the Law is supreme; so that you must not have two supremes, nay the Judge who represents the Kings person, cannot command the Jury, nay the case may happen, that the supreme Judge, or Lord chief Justice may be censured by the other Judges assistants in his own Court: But to come a little nearer to our matter, we must suppose the King to be in his Court of Parliament, Camden calls the Parliament the presence of the King, for the King I conceive is there, for hath he not made an act, by the continuance whereof, business might be transacted, and can his private word undo what he hath done? I would put this case to you, if you should have a judgment under seal of a Court, & the Judge afterward in his chamber retracts what he hath done, you would presently tell him, that you have the Judge under seal, & let him speak his pleasure, you would not give ear to him as a Judge, for sure when that oath was imposed first, it did always conceive that what the King did in causes it should be Law, but in case it should happen otherways; still you may appeal whither? to the King in his Courts and in no place else, for there the Supremacy is expressed, and the highest Court you can go too is the Parliament, the King doth assure you that by an act; I would have him show me where the Kings supremacy is at this time in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, if not in his Parliament, for all other Courts are subject to it by appeal whatsoever the cause be: for the oath of Allegiance, I conceive it requires no other answer, for they do look more especially at Papists, so that I must make this conclusion, I do acknowledge the King supreme when I acknowledge or obey the law that is made by him, unless you can persuade me that a man may cancel his bond when he pleases to speak the word: For the Protestation, I conceive every man is bound to yield his assistance as he conceives, whether the Kingdom will be in more danger by this means or that means.

In your 6. Section you come to matter of fact, you say your principles were examined by Scripture and reason, I have followed your method, for in the first place I urged Scripture, and after that human story for to prove my reason, it is your own method, for in your 13. page you say, now let us try what reason can enforce; in this last Section, as I have said before, you come to matters of fact, and as you say page 33. These admit the judgment of sense, and are cleared by what we hear and see, which judgment of sense is not so easily captivated by an implicit faith, as that of reason is, it is true, Aristotle warrants it, it is a weakness to seek reasons, and fly sense, yet both your sense and mine may be captivated, if this be not our proper object.

In page 34. you tell us, it was premised at the beginning that such a resistance should be omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus, you might have premised thus, if you would in the beginning of this Parliament, unless you conceive an act of Parliament to be void in Law, that excluded them the House before the vote passed for this resistance, yet if you will believe a modern Writer in Print, who presents unto us an old monument concerning Parliaments, though the Bishops should be wanting, yet the Parliament is a Parliament still: The King is the head, the beginning and the end of the Parliament, and so hath no Peer in his degree, and so of the King alone is the first degree. The second degree is of Archbishops, and Bishops. The third degree is of Lord Abbats, and Lord Priors. The fourth degree is of Earls. The fifth of Knights of the Shire. The sixth of Burgesses of Cities and Towns, and so the Parliament is of six degrees, but thus much is to be known, that although any of these five degrees (after the Kings degree) should be absent, and having been fairly summoned, yet notwithstanding for all that, the Parliament is to be esteemed a full Parliament. The same Author believes that the Parliament hath been of a longer continuance then we commonly imagine, for he speaks of it before William the Conquerers time.

In the 35. page, you ask, did they all unanimously as one man consent unto it? Conscience cannot be so convinced, that there is such an efficacy in the place, as to make a few the whole, or their agreement to be the judgment of the whole Kingdom, &c. that unanimous consent which must be in the case of resistance. This is a mere cavil, what if some things passed by a few upon the place, those are as firm in point of Law, as if there had been a negative voice; are not some things many a time offered in your Regent house, which would not pass before, and though it pass but there by a voice, is no more questioned, otherwise you would proceed in infinitum? suppose that some things have been passed by a few upon the place, yet that, that there was war intended, and raised against the Parliament, to which resistance was necessary, I am persuaded you will find but few upon the place dissented: for the Bill of the Militia, it was voted before this time twelvemonth, and if that was carried but by a few, yet it was the major part, and I hope you will not argue therefore the Commission of Aray must be obeyed; no but perhaps you will say they may be indifferent, I must tell you, then they deserved to suffer ill on both sides, that cannot be touched with the calamities of neither, Misericordia in malos, est injuria in bonos, for that indifferency is cruel, when we suffer those to be murdered whom we conceive to have the better cause, and especially when ourselves are concerned in it, for there is no man but in his conscience is inclined more to one side than to another.

But if the law and custom of the place must not always prevail with you in every place, we will try what reason can enforce by Aristotle, Whatsoever seems good to the most in all governments, whether in Oligarchie, Aristocracy, Democracy, whatsoever seems good to the major part of those that are entrusted with the government, that is ratifide.

In the 36. page, Who were in arms first? He that can number the succession of weeks and months in his Almanac may decide this, he shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull, the Kings Army seized against his will, the Militia set up, and by that the Kings subjects drawn into Arms before the King, for the proof of all this you produce no witness, I know the reason.

I confess, if I do not persuade the contrary, I have done very little to our present case; you have touched an old sore the business of Hull, which I will search to the bottom, & will show the prochatartike cause (with the leave of the Physicians.) Did you never hear of Mr. Percy, Mr. faithless Gowring, Sir John Suckling, and Mr. Henry Germin, how they did intend to bring up a Northern army, and Mr. Gowring, if you will believe him whom your side still reposeth trust in, tells you, whom they made acquainted with it, hinc lachrimae: I wonder what you complained of the Parliament then, before that project, it was then no doubt the fear of the Court, that we should recover our old Laws again by punishing the delinquents.) Well, what did the Parliament do, or the City either, after they escaped this scouring? Did they take up arms which they might justly have done, no, they did not, they proceeded in their old form, and presented unto his Majesty humbly the condition the Kingdom was in, and therefore necessary to have the Kingdom put into a Militia, and that the Irish Army might be disbanded, which was 8000. whereof 7000. were Papists, but these had no success at Court, which if it had, they had prevented I believe all these mischiefs in both Kingdoms, for both these things were made above half a year that the Irish broke out into rebellion, or the Militia made an ordinance; but when the malignants and evil counselors saw that the Parliament did desire the Militia, and disarming of the Papists, or else they could have no security, which they had cause to doubt of, by reason of many discourtesies that were put upon them; so that there was no way but a plain refusal of their desires, but before it should come to that, they advise very cunningly, that his Majesty should fortify the Town of Hull, where a great Magazine of Arms lay, the King sent forthwith to Hull, to take possession of the Town, the Town refused to give possession, the Parliament after this offers to get possession of the Town, that they might prevent any army that might come from the north again, the Town had it in their choice, which they would accept of, at length upon deliberation, they admit of Sir John Hotham for to keep the Town for the safety of the Kingdom, and it was then declared by them against Papists and foreign forces, and now I am persuaded that the Papists which are now in Yorkshire would willingly keep Hull if they could get it: for the King? if you please so to answer me, but I am sure it would not be for the good of the Kingdom; now Sir, if your Almanac be not calculated for the Meridian only where you live, but for Hull, it will quickly certify you thus much, I will put this case unto you concerning Hull it self, (and we will make a mental abstraction of the true cause of this provision, which was the bringing up of the Northern Army, and still the frowns of the King upon them, and other men's practices.)

If you sue first for a house, and when I see you have begun your suit, then I contend for it, I get quiet possession, and that by order of the highest Court, you would thrust me out perforce illegally, for not the lowest Court did warrant that appearance against Hull only the door is shut against you, who is the defendant now, or where is the liberty of the subject? if they may not admit of men into their houses, Sir John and his company, when it was warranted by the highest Court, neither is this act of anymore hostility, being merely to put a garrison into this Town; surely then it is at Portsmouth or Plimmoth, who have had garrisons in them this long time, and contains themselves within their Towns, for the Militia set up, and in your 38. page you say, we shall find to be his power of arms, and ordering the Militia of the Kingdom: I will answer both these two places at once, that is, the Parliament did set forth a book the last Summer, wherein if my memory fail me not much, they shown that it was once disposed of by act of Parliament, and I pray you, if it were once disposed of by act, how comes it to be solely in the King without another act? because the King hath been trusted the performance of many things which are not contrary to the Law, therefore must he lay a claim to them; for sure it is without reason, that any man whatsoever, and his posterity should be trusted both with all the Laws and Arms too, for God knows, his Successors may prove, it is not impossible, but may be worse then any foreign enemy: A Tyrant let him be called a King of war, but a King a Prince of peace. Aristotle writes another matter, that the Militia must be in the people, but suppose there should be a Statute for the Commission of Aray, to put it in execution, the authority I conceive should issue out of some Court or other; now all acts and processes coming out of any inferior Court must for the time cease and give place to the Parliament. Thus much King Henry the eight, told the Parliament that his learned Counsel informed him Fox Martyr Fo 956 Lin. 40. Now let us come to the matter of fact, the Militia was made an ordinance, but when, even then, when the King had divided himself from his Parliament, for it was declared, when he had many times refused it, and he was in his journey Northwards, by which it was apparent what would ensue: well when they saw how the Kingdom was in imminent danger, no pretended one, they foresaw the Papists would rise, and so made it an ordinance, but the execution of it was deferred till a long while after, which leads me to the last clause of your 36. page. That subscription for Plate, Money, Horse, that listing of Soldiers for the field, and appointing of Officers of the Army were begun upon their part before his Majesty did the like, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Pind. There are witnesses abundance to decide this controversy betwixt us; whether do you think there was not an intention and preparation for War, when the Queen conveid all the Jewels of the Crown with her, and as report goes offered them for pledge, & are panned; you see now the sinews of War was provided, that a ship that was driven a shore at Hull, loaden with ammunition, was that provided on a sudden? Let us now come to the listing of soldiers for the field, had not the King above a thousand horse and foot, before the Parliament listed one man, or subscrib'd for monies? For the truth of these things, I put myself upon my trial of God, and the Country of Yorkshire; but you may give me an equivocate answer if you please, and tell me that he had most of them only as a guard for his person; this was but a mere pretence, as it as it appears now, yet since people will say, it was no pretence. thence I will tell them that of Agusicles, who being asked how a man might rule safely without a guard for his person? He answers them, very easily, if he ruled them as fathers ruled their children, now let all the world judge whether this war be offensive of the Parliament or no, no, it is not so much as defensive against his person, for I am persuaded there is not one man in England thinks in his conscience, but his Majesty may come to London with his Royal Traine, but I will leave this point to the Reader, to be better satisfied in the Kings, and in the Parliaments Declarations, you may know what you will gain by asserting such Tenants as these, even this, That when you speak Truth, you will not be believed.

Page 38. To speak the Truth, Religion and Liberties, can be no other then pretences of this war, the King has fortified them so with many acts of grace passed this Parliament, that they cannot be in that danger, which is pretended for the raising of this war, it must be something that his Majesty does indeed deny, for which the contention is raised, his power of ordering the Militia, his power of denying in Parliament, his disposing of the offices of State, & such like, Also the Government of the Church, and the Revenue of it, in the three former, he challenges his Right as his Predecessors had; the other he is bound by Oath to maintain, as by Law they are established.

Sir you know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those many acts of grace hath been passed for the most part with A Le Roy Auisera; and I am persuaded though those Acts be good for the Subjects, yet I persuade myself, the King will not willingly honor their care and industry, that was most busy about them, but I pray you what fortification can these Laws be more, than the others was unto the Subject, unless the offenders against the old Laws be punished? Thucydides tells us, Tbat no Law can k • ep men from offending, neither privately nor publicly. Aristotle, that Touchstone for Reason, Lib. 5. c. 8. That no good doth redownd to us by having good Laws Enacted, and not obeyed, but that we must think, the only use of the Law is, That the Laws enacted should be obeyed. So that I fear (without the King out of his commiseration towards good men, (that they suffer not hereafter) give up the delinquents to be punished) they will not be such strong Forts, but the Courtiers may batter them; For his power in denying in Parliament, I conceive that hath been sufficiently cleared by the Declarations on both sides, about quas vulgus Eligerit, for the construction of which, They brought good Authority: and if they could have produced none, yet very Reason would collect so much out of the Oath, for there is care taken in the Oath without all exception for things that are past; and forsooth, they would not take care for the electing of new Laws, which would concern them as much as these that were already enacted; for nothing is more subject to mutation than Laws, upon many circumstances that happen; So that questionless, the rest of the clauses being so strict, that this clause, Quas vulgus eligerit, must needs have relation to the future.

The Government of the Church, and the Revenues of it, which he is bound by Oath to maintain. That is, against the injuries of private men; I do not conceive him more bound, to defend them by his Oath, than the rest of the Laws enacted, any of which, when the Kingdoms desires should be abrogated, I hope is done without perjury, have not we seen many indulgences taken from the Church, as paying of Subsidies, and the like? Yet perjury is not imputed to the King, unless you will impute it to the Kingdom too, for they must be accessory, but Sir, to deal plainly with you, it may be when he argues so much for the Church, it most concerns his Prerogative, as you call it, Aristotle will tell you something, that there are some men that look one way to the Church, and another way to themselves, for I must tell you, so long as the Bishops have been in the House since Hen. 8. time, Some of them have studied through ambition the Kings Prerogative, which the Rest must not refuse, but consent unto without the term of ungratefulnesse, because they were the Kings Creatures, Sed non fuit sic ab initio. For in former times, They were the best Common-wealths men the Kingdom had, when they were not so much obliged unto the King; I have only one wish to wish, next to the just uniting of the King and Parliament, that Bishops might be elected by their Clergy, as the Primitive Bishops were, nor their means not one jot impaired, but rather increased, for how shall they be hospitable upon Welsh Bishoprics, and a great many English ones? Therefore in this respect, I could wish that none but single men might be chosen into them, being of years, so that in all probability they would not marry then, and the greatest occasion of covetousness would be taken away thereby, and single life, according to Saint Paul, would be more honorable, if his Majesty and the Parliament would be pleased to consent to this, The Clergies election of their Bishops: The King would not be suspected for his love towards the Clergy, nor the Parliament hear ill of all Scholars, which are deserving men. For if the Bishoprics should be taken away, because some of the present Bishops have been instruments to enslave us, by this Argument all Parsonages should be taken away, because some of them are delinquents: and so our Posterity may suffer, but quid meruere Troes, yet if there be no other remedy to secure our just Liberties, which I must confess I cannot foresee by an Enthusiasticke Spirit, or Histories that are past, (I must prefer the good of the whole Kingdom before them,) I would here speak with the Poet,

And in the mean time, the Heirs may petition the King and Parliament, that for their forefathers pious affections towards the Church, they may not suffer, since their peculiar intention for the good of the Church, is otherways construed in these times, that then according to the common intention both of their dead Parents, and all Law and right; that the Church Lands may descend unto them; Here Doctor, I do conceive I shake hands with you, and all Sententious Divines, for those I except that love Repetitions in all places but Paul's, who by reason of their ignorance in the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Story, would forbid others to learn them, Scientia nullum habet inimicum praeter ignorantem.

Page 39. Was the managing of this war on their parts, whether so void of Acts of Hostility, as that defensive way should be which they pretend too of David's? — He offered no act of violence to Saul, but still withdrew from him. The Spear indeed and the Cruse David took away from the King, to show Abner's neglect. You say in your 9. Page, If replied, Now they intend not hurt to the Kings person; Yet might not they as well have hurt his Person in the day of Battle as the rest? I have answered this place before, where I found it urged in the beginning of your Book; So that I will only add two things; They shown Abner's neglect, by many petitions unto his Majesty, whereby they desired him not to put confidence in those kind of Servants for a war; Besides, if Saul had descended into the Battle, he might have perished: and I pray you who can help it, if his Majesty will put himself into danger, when there is no place of the Kingdom else but his Royal person may be safe in? for the Spear and the Cruse, no doubt but they will restore them, when they can conceive by doing so, the King will be reconciled with them likewise, for upon these conditions they have proffered often, what they have taken away; but if these conditions should not be kept, David's example forbids them not, to fly to his enemies.

It seems they are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion, they are so ready to fly to Arms, Page 41. There are a great many before the Parliament began have suffered (who will tell you) for their Religion, let us give every man their due. But I conceive these Arms are not only taken up by the Parliament for Religion, as for the vindicating of the Laws, and for their security in way of defense.

Page 42. You tell us That our fears and jealousies are raised upon reports of Foreign Force to be brought in, of resorts of Papists to his Majesty, his intercepting of means sent for the relief of Ireland, from whence the good people, by their good Teachers are made to believe, that he means to enslave his people. All which you Answer, as Michael the Arch-angel did the Devil, The Lord rebuke thee. What you term fears and jealousies, five for one will call provident cares, for you write page 37. Well near ten Tribes of twelve of us have revolted, I am very glad they were scandalled in this point, which displeaseth you, or else I am afraid, you would have laughed at them by this, if they should have feared nothing, but what you would allowed on for just, but howsoever jealousies are not absurd, which were grounded probably; There hath been foreign Arms and Horses intercepted, and Letters which tell us of three Regiments may be expected out of France, upon occasion: For the resort of Papists to his Majesty, what think you now? is there not a pretty sum of them in Yorkshire up in Arms? I desire you tell me whether any could grant a Commission for them to take Arms, being against the Kings and the Kingdoms consent in an Act? but you have got men will blow away this Act with Gunpowder, and whilst we are pleading of it, you will answer us as Caesar did Metellus, who told Caesar that he could not take the Treasury, but against Law, his reply was, That when the wars were done, he might plead then the Law and Accuse him. In the mean time you tell us he may justly make use of them, and you instance in David's entertaining false Ziba, page 43. Your similitude doth not quadrare, I believe, that entertainment was against no Act of his own formerly passed. No, He would not reverse the sentence formerly pronounced against him, as you acknowledge, page 43. This was a Royal word, whose only property, is constancy. To deal plainly with you, It had not been so dangerous to England, if so many Danes were here in Arms; So that now we have all fears, but no jealousy left us; but yet by the providence of God, it may be we have not shut the door altogether so late as you would have had us, for sure if anywhere then in a Kingdom, Nimia cautela non nocet.

His intercepting of means from Ireland. I believe the Papists in Ireland will tell you they fight not against the King, but against his Parliament. You do confess that the King hath been an hindrance to the Irish proceedings in your 44. Page, The necessity his Majesty was driven to is sufficiently known, and might excuse him in taking his own where be meets with it, and drawing it from his occasions abroad, to that which more nearly concerned him at home. We should not perhaps have believed this, unless you had spoken it, I should do you wrong, if I should not give your reasons for it. When his Arms, Monies, and (necessary page 40.) provisions are seised on, where ever they be found. All this we deny, for what is stopped, is only stopped from that Army which hath too much, for so the poor people will tell you; if the Kingdom should suffer provisions to go under the name of his Necessary provisions, all provisions would go under that name; for in no Country of England, as yet, where the King hath been, but he hath found necessary provision for his Royal Traine. Nay, I must tell you of his Royal Train, if that the expenses grow too great, I believe the Parliament will tell you that their Predecessors have displac'd superfluous Officers, and lessened the Kings expense; the Kingdom of France uses this power over their French King. But it is time for me to turn over a new leaf, I will only answer that of The Lord Rebuke thee, privately with this of Pindar:

Page 43. If there be any foreign aide towards the King, it will be as just for him to use them against Subjects now in Arms, as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their natural King. I hope I may have a writ of error to reverse your judgment: For King John was not their natural King, all Historians will tell you, that Arthur the Son of his elder brother, was Dominus Naturalis, and how he got the Kingdom by deceit and way of preoccupation. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury knew this very well, who commended him, which afterwards he repented of. I know what Speed tells you, That Richard left him this Kingdom by Legacy, which cannot be so disposed of; Besides, it may be doubted from whence Speed knew so much, for Matthew Westm. tells us how he was condemned, and sentence pronounced against him by Hugh Putsey Bishop of Duresme, (for seeking the Kingdom in his Brother King Richards time, and from him) and so he was uncapable of the Crown; besides, when after he was made King, Matthew Westminst. tells you, Regnum suum forisfecit, for he had been in the Popes Court for murthering Arthur, his eldest Brothers Son; Now King John being of this disposition, he would not keep his faith with his Subjects which he promised them, but so he might win the Pope on his side, and to take off the Excommunication he was in, he gave the Kingdom to the Pope, to hold it of him: for the Pope before had exhorted the King of France to aide the Subjects against his oppressions, but now he was entertained on the other side; and absolved King John from keeping of his Covenants with his Subjects then King John got an Army in Yorkshire, he tortures men for their money, exposes Noble men's Wives to shame, cuts down their Woods, and gives away their Lands: but I have not spoken all, till I tell you this, how he sent to the King of Morocco to hold his Kingdom of him, and change his Christian Religion, which he held but vain, so be it the King would but assist him, but his message was rejected with disdain, after he understood that he was an oppressor of his Subjects.

Now whether such a King as this was, might not be resisted by the Barons, who at the first they called in no foreign Force, until he had broken his trust, after they had committed themselves solely unto him unarmed, I leave this to every man to judge of: and I do not think though you think it unjustice, yet you are pleased that it was done; for if public resistance should not be lawful in such a case, the tyranny of Kings would grow infinite, by which all civil society would be destroyed, for the wicked part would cut off the better: without doubt God never established tyranny so, that human society should be destroyed; therefore God doth not forbid us to resist, excepting tyrants who shall command any man's life at pleasure. Now Sir let all the world judge whether they be Bolts or Arrows that you shot against our Barons: A tyrant King John was, I prove him (by our lydius lapis of reason:) Whosoever reigns perforce or fraud, he is a tyrant, and the Scripture gives us example of freeing ourselves from them: but if you should not allow of this, Doctor, there is a necessity you must approve of those wickednesses which you would not have punished. Valerius Asiaticus is much applauded, for his wish, that he had been one that had killed Caligula: But here is too much of King John. Now I come to the dangerous consequence, wherein you say it is as just for the King, as it was unjust in them. Surely Doctor, this is a weak Argument, to prove that it is just in the one, because it is unjust in the other; none but Tyrants will bring in Forraine force A Kings guard is of his Subjects, but a Tyrants is of strangers: and in another place, their guard is of the Citizens, but the Tyrants guard is against his Citizens: and to speak the truth, he is truly guarded who is guarded with the affection of his Subjects.

In the same pa. 43. I join with you in your wishes, that the Lord would open the Queens eyes; but I except against your addition, this is not the way to draw her to it, if she look in the doctrines and practices of these times, she is not like to fall in love with it. What Religion then is it likely she may love in your conceit, surely this can be no hindrance to withdraw her to ours, unless it produceth rarer examples against Kings then her own, which hath deposed many Kings themselves, only we profess to depose the Soldiers and Monopolizers from reigning over us, and when all of your side shall out-face the Country that I have not answered one clause of yours, perhaps they will blush at this.

If her Majesty will be pleased but to remember or acquaint her self with the Roman story, she will find there more than a resistance; did not Gregory 1. in the privilege of the Monastery of Sancti Medardi threaten the deposing of all Kings that should violate that privilege? Gregory the second excommunicated the Emperor Leo, and deprived him of his Tribute; Pope Zach. did depose Childericke King of France, and in his stead did cause Pipin should succeed, who was the father of Charles the great, Leo the third translated the Grecian Empire to the Romans; Gregory the fifth caused that the Emperor of Germany should be elected by the seven Electors of Germany, which continues till this day. Gregory the seventh did depose Henry the fourth, Emperor. Innocent the third did in like manner depose Otho the fourth, Emperor: Innocent the fourth in a Council at Leyden Parisi. deposed Frederick the second, Emperor. Clemens the sixth first of all excommunicated Lew is the fourth, and afterwards made him lose his Empire; here are examples enough though I have not numbered all: So that I will only present one story of Theopompus his wife, Upbraiding her husband (when he had admitted the Ephorito govern with him) that he would leave the kingdom less unto his Children, than he received it of his father: (he answered his wife) I leave it so much the more durable and firmer: in the same place the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Ipse dixit tells you, that those Kingdoms whose governments are more moderate are of longer continuance; he instances in the Kingdom of the Molossi and of Sparta, which Aristotle calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But nearer and more homebred examples may be presented to their Majesty's, that of their kingdom of Scotland and of Denmark, which by reason of the moderation of government are the ancientest of all the Kingdoms in Europe. The kingdom of Scotland as Buchan. writes hath continued above 2000. years in one Family, whereas England, Spain, and France have often gone from one Family unto another; so that I hope when her sacred Majesty shall consider of these things thus, she will not repine (since it is well known of his Majesty's conjugal affection towards her) if he shall bless us with his love as his children, for so indeed we ought to be, I doubt not but God will bless such a blessing with a better Kingdom.

Now at the Length I am come to a ne plus ultra, without I should traverse the same grounds I have run over; for your three last sheets are spun Spider-like from your own bowels, and the three principles in your first Section, which will never make a Demonstration, because they are not true; but Sir that I may go roundly to work with you, and end where we begun, in your Frontispeece I find these words, Also that the shedding of blood in the pursuit of this resistance is murder; I have looked from your second Section where you begun the proofs, unto the end, & I do not find that you make any such conclusion; no, you do not so much as name this word: For I must tell you, I have groped for it like a Needle in a bottle of hay but it will not prick my fingers, nor let no man look for it, for though the hay will make a great smoke, yet it will not burn clear; and indeed whosoever shall look for the great contents in your little book, will look for more then they will find; so that I will tell you a story of Diogenes, Who when he saw the great gates and the little City of Minda, he bid the Citizens shut the gates lest the City should go out of them.

Phillip de Commins Lib. 5. part of Chap. 18. It belongs to the margin, Pag. 23.

IS there any King or Prince that hath power to levy one penny upon his Subjects besides his demaines, without leave or consent of those that must pay it, unless it be by tyranny and violence? A man will say that sometime a Prince cannot tarry to assemble his estates, because it would require too long time. Whereunto I answer, that if he move a war offensive, there needeth no such hast, for he may have leisure enough at his own pleasure to make preparation; and further he shall be much stronger and much more feared of his enemies, when he moveth war with the consent of his Subjects than otherwise. Now as touching a war defensive, that cloud is seen long before the tempest fall, especially when it is a foreign war, and in this case good Subjects ought not to complain, nor to refuse anything that is laid upon them. Notwithstanding such invasion cannot happen so suddenly, but the Prince may have leisure at the least to call together certain wise personages, to whom he may open the causes of the war, using no collusion therein, neither seeking to maintain a trifling war upon no necessity, thereby to have some color to levy money. Money is also necessary in time of peace to fortify the Frontiers for defense of those that dwell upon them, least they be taken unprovided, for this must be done measurably. In all these matters the wisdom of a sage King sufficeth; for if he be a just Prince, he knoweth what he may do and not do, both by God's Laws and man's. To be short, in mine opinion of all the Seniories in the world that I know, the realm of England is the country where the Commonwealth is best governed; the people least oppressed and the Fewest buildings and houses destroyed in Civil War, and always the lot of misfortune falleth upon them that be Authors of this War: Our King is the Prince in the whole world, that hath least cause to allege that he hath privileges to levy what him listeth upon his Subjects; considering that neither he nor any other Prince hath power so to do: and those that say he hath, do him no honor, neither make him to be esteemed any whit the mightier Prince thereby; but cause to be hated and feared of his neighbors, who for nothing would live under such a government; but if our King or those that seek to magnify and extol him should say, I have so faithful and obedient Subjects, that they deny me nothing I demand, and I am more feared, better obeyed, and better served of my Subjects than any other Prince living, they endure patiently whatsoever I lay upon them, and soonest forget all charges past: This me thinks (yea I am sure) were greater honor to the King than to say, I levy what me listeth, and have privilege so to do, which I will stoutly maintain. King Charles the fifth used no such terms, neither did I ever hear such language proceed from any King, but from divers of their servants, who thought they did their Master great service in uttering such speeches: but in mine opinion they misbehaved themselves towards their Prince, & used such language partly because they would seem to be good servants, and partly because they knew what they said: but for a manifest proof of the French men's loyalty and obedience to their Prince, we need allege none other example than that we have seen ourselves of late by experience, when the three estates were assembled at Tours, after the death of our master King Lewis the eleventh, which was in the year of our Lord 1483. A man might have thought this good Assembly to be dangerous for the Kings estate; yea and divers there were of mean calling, and less honesty, that said then, and often said since, that it is treason to make mention of assembling the estates, and a thing tending to the diminishing of the Kings authority; but themselves are those that work treason against God, the King, and the Commonwealth; neither do any use these speeches, but either such as are in authority without desert and unworthy thereof, or such as are common tale-carriers, and accustomed to talk of trifling matters; or such as fear great Assemblies, lest their doings should there be ripped up and reprehended, &c.