The
Resolving
of
Conscience
,
Touching
the
unlawfulnesse
of
the
War
and
Resistance
now
made
against
the
KING
.
LAmentable
are
the
distractions
of
this
Kingdome
,
and
the
more
,
because
they
gather
strength
from
the
name
and
authority
of
(
that
,
which
as
it
is
of
high
esteeme
with
all
,
so
should
it
be
a
remedy
to
all
these
our
distempers
)
a
Parliament
:
and
from
the
pretended
defence
of
those
things
that
are
most
dear
unto
us
,
Religion
,
Liberties
,
Laws
.
Whereupon
so
many
good
people
,
that
have
come
to
a
sense
of
Religion
and
godlinesse
,
are
miserably
carried
away
by
a
strange
implicit
faith
to
beleive
,
that
whatsoever
is
said
or
done
in
the
name
of
a
Parliament
,
and
in
the
pretended
defence
of
Religion
,
Liberties
,
Laws
,
to
be
infallibly
true
,
and
altogether
just
.
But
he
that
will
consider
,
men
are
men
,
and
would
seek
a
surer
rule
for
his
Conscience
then
the
Traditions
or
Ordinances
of
men
taken
hand
over
head
,
shall
upon
reasonable
examinations
find
upon
what
plausible
,
but
groundlesse
principles
,
upon
what
fair
but
deceiving
pretences
,
upon
what
greivous
but
causelesse
imputations
laid
upon
Majestie
it self
,
poore
people
are
drawn
into
Arms
against
the
duty
and
allegiance
they
owe
to
their
Prince
by
the
Laws
of
God
and
man
.
For
directing
the
Conscience
in
such
an
examination
this
ensuing
Discourse
is
framed
,
as
briefly
and
plainely
as
the
matter
will
permit
.
SECT.
I
COnscience
in
resolving
upon
a
question
,
first
layes
down
the
Proposition
or
Principle
or
Ground
,
on
which
it
goes
;
then
it
assumes
or
applyes
to
the
present
case
;
then
it
concludes
and
resolves
:
as
in
this
question
,
affirmatively
for
Resistance
,
thus
,
Subjects
in
such
a
case
may
arm
and
resist
:
But
that
case
is
now
come
:
Therefore
now
they
may
and
doe
justly
resist
.
Or
negatively
against
Resistance
,
either
by
denying
the
Principle
:
Subjects
may
not
in
such
a
Case
arm
and
resist
,
therfore
now
they
do
not
justly
resist
.
Or
by
admitting
the
Principle
and
denying
the
Case
,
Subjects
in
such
a
case
may
arm
and
resist
.
But
that
case
is
not
now
.
Therefore
now
they
do
not
justly
arm
and
resist
.
What
it
is
that
Conscience
is
here
to
admit
or
deny
,
and
how
it
ought
to
conclude
and
resolve
,
this
ensuing
Treatise
will
discover
:
which
that
it
may
more
clearly
appeare
,
we
will
premise
.
First
,
That
in
the
Proposition
or
Principle
by
the
word
Resistance
is
meant
,
not
a
denying
of
obedience
to
the
Princes
command
,
but
a
rising
in
arms
,
a
forcible
resistance
;
this
though
clear
enough
in
the
question
,
yet
I
thought
fit
to
insinuate
,
to
take
off
that
false
imputation
laid
upon
the
Divines
of
this
Kingdome
,
and
,
upon
all
those
that
appeare
for
the
King
in
this
cause
,
that
they
endeavor
to
defend
an
absolute
power
in
him
,
and
to
raise
him
to
an
Arbitrary
way
of
government
;
This
we
are
as
much
against
on
his
part
,
as
against
Resistance
on
the
subjects
part
.
For
we
may
and
ought
to
deny
obedience
to
such
commands
of
the
Prince
,
as
are
unlawfull
by
the
Law
of
God
,
yea
,
by
the
established
Laws
of
the
Land
:
For
in
these
we
have
his
will
and
consent
given
upon
good
advice
,
and
to
obey
him
against
the
Laws
were
to
obey
him
against
himselfe
,
his
sudden
will
against
his
deliberate
will
;
but
a
far
other
matter
it
is
to
resist
by
power
of
arms
,
as
is
in
the
question
implyed
,
and
as
we
see
at
this
day
to
our
astonishment
,
first
the
power
of
arms
taken
from
the
Prince
by
setting
up
the
Militia
,
then
that
power
used
against
him
by
an
army
in
the
field
.
Secondly
,
we
must
consider
,
that
they
which
pleade
for
Resistance
in
such
a
case
as
is
supposed
,
do
grant
it
must
be
concluded
upon
,
Omnibus
ordinibus
regni
consentientibus
,
that
is
,
with
the
generall
and
unanimous
consent
of
the
Members
of
the
two
Houses
,
the
representative
body
of
the
whole
Kingdome
:
also
they
yeild
it
must
be
onely
Legitima
desensio
,
a
meer
defensive
resistance
;
and
this
also
Conscience
must
take
notice
of
.
Thirdly
,
it
is
considerable
,
that
in
the
supposition
or
case
it
is
likewise
granted
by
them
,
that
the
Prince
must
first
be
so
and
so
disposed
,
and
bent
to
overthrow
Religion
,
Liberties
,
Laws
,
and
will
not
discharge
his
trust
for
the
maintaining
of
them
,
before
such
a
Resistance
can
be
pretented
to
.
And
although
the
question
is
,
and
must
be
so
put
now
,
as
that
it
seems
to
straiten
the
Case
,
and
make
it
depend
upon
the
supposall
of
the
people
;
yet
it
so
much
the
more
enlarges
the
falshod
of
the
Principle
,
for
it
plainly
speaks
thus
;
If
subjects
beleive
or
verily
suppose
their
Prince
will
change
Religion
they
may
rise
in
arms
;
whereas
all
that
have
pleaded
for
Resistance
in
case
of
Religion
,
did
suppose
another
Religion
enjoyned
upon
the
subject
first
.
We
will
therefore
endeavour
to
cleare
all
for
the
resolving
of
Conscience
in
these
three
generalls
.
I.
That
no
Conscience
upon
such
a
case
as
is
supposed
can
find
clear
ground
to
rest
upon
for
such
resistance
as
is
pretended
to
,
but
according
to
the
rules
of
Conscience
What
is
not
of
faith
is
sinne
:
and
,
In
doubtfull
things
the
safer
way
is
to
be
chosen
;
Conscience
it
will
find
cause
to
forbeare
and
to
suffer
,
rather
then
resist
;
doubtfull
,
I
say
,
not
that
a
Conscience
truly
informed
will
not
clearly
see
the
unlawfulnesse
of
this
Resistance
,
but
because
no
conscience
can
be
truly
perswaded
of
the
lawfulnesse
of
it
,
and
so
that
Conscience
that
resolves
for
it
,
must
needs
run
doubtingly
or
blindly
upon
the
work
.
II.
That
the
resistance
now
used
and
made
against
the
Prince
is
not
such
as
they
pretend
to
,
either
for
that
generall
and
unanimous
consent
that
should
precede
it
,
or
that
defensive
way
that
should
accompany
it
,
according
to
their
own
grants
that
plead
for
it
,
and
therefore
Conscience
cannot
admit
such
a
resistance
as
is
made
now
adayes
.
III.
If
Conscience
could
be
perswaded
,
that
it
is
lawfull
in
such
a
case
to
resist
,
and
that
this
rising
in
arms
is
such
a
resistance
as
they
say
may
in
such
a
case
be
pretended
to
,
yet
can
it
never
(
if
it
be
willing
to
know
any
thing
)
be
truly
perswaded
that
such
a
case
is
now
come
,
that
i●
,
That
the
King
refuse
to
discharge
his
trust
,
is
bent
to
overthrow
Religion
,
&c
,
and
therefore
Conscience
cannot
but
resolve
this
opposition
and
Resistance
to
be
unlawful
,
unwarrantable
,
and
(
according
to
the
Apostle
)
damnable
;
and
that
people
,
running
into
arm
without
sufficient
warrant
,
commit
murder
if
they
shed
blood
in
the
pursuit
of
this
Resistance
,
and
perish
in
their
own
sinne
,
if
die
in
the
cause
.
SECT.
II.
FIrst
then
,
that
the
Principle
is
untrue
upon
which
they
go
that
resist
,
and
that
Conscience
cannot
find
clear
ground
to
rest
upon
for
making
resistance
:
for
it
heares
the
Apostle
expressely
say
,
Whosoever
resist
shall
receive
to
themselves
damnation
,
The
exception
or
limitation
that
is
made
,
is
taken
from
the
Persons
resisting
,
and
the
Causes
of
resistance
,
thus
,
They
that
are
Private
persons
and
do
resist
upon
any
cause
receive
damnation
,
but
the
States
or
representative
body
of
the
whole
people
may
resist
upon
such
or
such
causes
.
But
how
will
this
satisfie
Conscience
,
when
every
distinction
or
limitation
made
upon
any
place
of
Sripture
,
must
have
its
ground
in
Scrpture
;
this
has
onely
some
examples
in
Scripture
that
come
not
home
to
the
cause
,
and
some
appearances
of
Reason
;
which
are
easily
refuted
by
clearer
Scripture
and
Reason
.
The
examples
alledged
are
,
I.
The
peoples
rescuing
of
Jonathan
out
of
the
hands
of
Saul
.
II.
Davids
resisting
of
Saul
.
Answ
.
1.
Davids
guard
that
he
had
about
him
was
onely
to
secure
his
person
against
the
cut-throats
of
Saul
,
if
sent
to
take
away
his
life
.
2.
It
was
a
meere
defence
without
all
violence
offered
to
Saul
;
therefore
he
still
gave
place
as
Saul
pursued
,
and
did
no
act
of
hostility
to
him
or
any
of
his
Army
when
they
were
in
his
power
,
1.
Sam.
26.
But
thirdly
,
because
they
gather
out
of
the
1.
Sam.
23.
12.
that
David
would
have
defended
Keilah
against
Saul
,
if
the
inhabitants
would
have
been
faithfull
to
him
,
We
say
that
's
onely
an
uncertain
supposition
,
not
fit
to
ground
Conscience
in
this
great
point
of
resistance
;
also
to
this
and
all
other
Davids
demeanours
,
in
his
standing
out
against
Saul
,
we
say
his
example
was
extraordinary
;
for
he
was
anointed
and
designed
by
the
Lord
to
succeed
Saul
,
and
therefore
he
might
use
an
extraordinary
way
of
safeguarding
his
Person
.
These
are
the
cheif
examples
.
They
make
use
also
of
the
high
Preists
resisting
the
King
in
the
temple
,
〈◊〉
we
answer
.
1.
That
of
the
high
Preist
is
more
pertinently
applyed
to
the
Popes
power
of
excommunicating
and
deposing
Kings
,
then
to
this
power
of
resisting
now
used
;
but
truly
to
neither
.
For
he
did
no
more
then
what
every
Minister
may
and
ought
to
do
if
a
King
should
attempt
the
administration
of
the
Sacrament
;
that
is
,
to
reprove
him
,
to
keepe
the
Elements
from
him
.
Ambrose
Bishop
of
Milan
withstood
the
Emperour
at
the
entrance
of
Gods
house
,
not
by
Excommunication
,
much
lesse
by
force
of
Arms
,
but
by
letting
him
understand
he
was
not
fit
for
that
place
,
there
to
be
made
partaker
of
the
holy
things
,
till
he
had
repented
of
that
outrage
and
bloudshed
at
Thessalonica
.
Upon
which
the
Emperour
withdrew
.
The
Preists
here
are
said
to
thrust
him
out
of
the
Temple
,
but
we
must
note
Gods
hand
was
first
upon
him
smiting
him
with
leprosie
,
and
by
that
discharging
him
of
the
Kingdome
also
.
It
is
added
in
the
Text
,
yea
himselfe
also
hasted
to
go
out
.
But
enough
of
this
2.
Elisha's
example
speakes
very
little
.
But
let
us
thence
take
occasion
to
say
,
That
Personall
defence
is
lawfull
against
the
sudden
and
illegall
assaults
of
such
Messengers
;
yea
of
the
Prince
himselfe
thus
far
,
towards
his
blow
,
to
hold
his
hands
,
and
the
like
:
nor
to
endanger
his
person
,
not
to
return
blows
,
no
;
for
though
it
be
naturall
to
defend
a
mans
selfe
,
yet
the
whole
Commonwealth
is
concerned
in
his
person
,
as
wee
see
in
the
Commonwealth
of
the
creatures
,
one
particular
nature
will
defend
it selfe
against
another
,
but
yeild
to
the
universall
.
If
this
be
drawn
from
Personall
defence
to
the
Publick
the
Argument
thus
;
If
the
body
naturall
then
the
body
politick
may
defend
it selfe
,
if
a
private
person
much
more
the
whole
State
may
;
and
they
do
but
shut
the
way
up
against
the
King
that
comes
to
destroy
his
Parliament
,
and
take
away
their
heads
.
We
answ
:
As
the
naturall
body
defends
it self
against
an
outward
force
,
but
strives
not
by
a
schisme
or
contention
within
it selfe
;
so
may
the
body
politick
against
an
outward
power
,
but
not
as
now
by
one
part
of
it
set
against
the
Head
and
another
part
of
the
same
body
;
for
that
tends
to
the
dissolution
of
the
whole
.
Again
:
Personall
defence
may
be
without
all
offence
,
and
does
not
strike
at
the
order
and
power
that
is
over
us
,
as
generall
resistance
by
Arms
doth
,
which
cannot
be
without
many
unjust
violences
,
and
does
immediately
strike
at
that
order
which
is
the
life
of
a
Commonwealth
.
And
this
makes
a
large
difference
twixt
Elisha's
shutting
the
doore
against
this
Messenger
,
and
their
shutting
up
the
way
against
the
King
by
armed
men
;
nor
can
they
conclude
upon
such
an
intention
in
the
Kings
heart
without
the
spirit
of
Elisha
.
He
professeth
he
intends
no
violence
to
his
Parliament
nor
has
be
taken
away
the
head
of
any
of
theirs
that
have
fallen
into
his
power
,
nor
does
desire
any
other
punishment
inflicted
upon
any
that
do
oppose
him
,
then
what
a
Legall
triall
shall
adjudge
them
to
,
which
no
good
Subject
ought
to
decline
.
Now
let
us
see
how
Scripture
excludes
this
,
and
all
other
exceptions
,
giving
no
allowance
to
resistance
,
in
regard
of
Persons
or
Causes
,
or
other
pretenses
,
and
this
not
onely
by
Examples
,
but
by
Precept
,
Conclusions
,
Resolutions
,
which
are
more
safe
.
First
,
we
have
the
two
hundred
and
fifty
Princes
of
the
Congregation
,
gathering
the
people
against
Moses
and
Aaron
,
Numb.
16.
3.
and
perishing
in
their
sinne
.
If
it
be
replyed
,
the
Persons
indeed
were
publicke
,
but
there
was
no
cause
for
it
;
Moses
and
Aaron
did
not
deserve
it
.
I
answer
,
but
the
other
supposed
,
they
did
,
and
that
is
now
enough
,
it
seems
,
to
make
people
not
onely
say
to
their
Prince
,
You
take
too
much
upon
you
,
but
therfore
to
rise
in
arms
also
,
which
I
hope
will
appeare
to
be
without
cause
too
in
the
end
of
this
Treatise
.
Secondly
,
see
for
the
cause
of
Resistance
,
1.
Sam.
8.
11.
there
the
people
are
let
to
understand
how
they
should
be
oppressed
under
Kings
,
yet
all
that
violence
and
injustice
that
should
be
done
unto
them
is
no
just
cause
of
resistance
,
for
they
have
no
remedy
left
them
but
crying
to
the
Lord
,
v.
18.
Thirdly
,
we
have
not
onely
Example
,
but
Resolution
and
Conclusion
our
of
Scripture
,
The
people
might
not
be
gathered
together
either
for
Civill
assemblies
,
or
for
war
,
but
by
his
command
that
had
the
power
of
the
Trumpet
,
that
is
,
the
supreme
as
Moses
was
,
Numb.
10.
Also
when
David
had
Saul
and
his
army
in
his
power
,
he
resolves
the
matter
thus
,
Who
can
stretch
out
his
hand
against
the
Lords
annointed
and
be
guiltlesse
,
1.
Sam.
26
,
9.
If
replyed
,
now
they
intend
not
hurt
to
the
Kings
person
;
yet
might
nor
they
as
well
have
hurt
his
person
in
the
day
of
battell
,
as
any
of
them
that
were
swept
away
from
about
him
by
the
furie
of
the
Ordinance
,
which
puts
no
difference
'twixt
Kings
and
common
souldiers
?
This
also
I
must
observe
concerning
this
point
of
Resistance
,
out
of
the
Old
Testament
(
for
from
thence
have
they
all
their
seeming
instances
)
That
it
is
a
marvellous
thing
,
that
among
so
many
Prophets
reprehending
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Judah
for
Idolatrie
,
cruelty
,
oppression
,
none
should
call
upon
the
Elders
of
the
people
for
this
duty
of
Resistance
.
But
lastly
,
that
place
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
13.
at
first
mentioned
,
does
above
all
give
us
a
cleare
resolution
upon
the
point
,
which
now
I
shall
free
from
all
exceptions
.
First
,
I
may
suppose
,
that
the
King
is
the
Supreme
,
as
S.
Peter
calls
him
;
or
the
higher
power
,
as
S.
Paul
here
,
though
it
be
by
some
now
put
to
the
question
,
as
one
absurdity
commonly
begets
another
to
defend
it
;
but
I
prove
it
.
S.
Peters
distinction
comprehends
all
that
are
in
authoritie
,
The
King
as
supreme
,
and
those
that
are
sent
by
him
,
1.
Pet.
2.
12
,
in
which
latter
rank
are
the
two
Houses
of
Parliament
,
being
sent
by
him
,
or
sent
for
by
him
,
and
by
his
Writ
sitting
there
.
Also
by
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
it
is
acknowledged
,
That
there
is
no
power
above
him
without
or
within
this
Realm
;
and
that
he
is
in
all
Causes
and
over
all
Persons
Supreme
.
Also
acknowledged
by
the
Petitions
of
the
two
Houses
addressed
unto
his
Majestie
,
wherein
they
stile
themselves
His
loyall
Subjects
.
But
enough
of
this
.
Secondly
,
in
the
text
of
the
Apostle
,
All
persons
under
the
higher
Power
are
expressely
forbidden
to
resist
.
For
whosoever
,
in
the
second
verse
,
must
be
as
large
as
the
every
soul
in
the
first
,
and
the
resistance
forbidden
here
concerns
all
,
upon
whom
the
subjection
is
injoyned
there
,
or
else
we
could
not
m●ke
these
Universals
good
against
the
Papists
,
exempting
the
Pope
and
Clergy
from
the
subjection
.
Thirdly
,
in
those
dayes
there
was
a
standing
and
continuall
great
Senate
,
which
not
long
before
had
the
supreme
power
in
the
Romane
State
,
and
might
challenge
more
by
the
Fundamentalls
of
that
State
,
then
our
great
Counsell
(
I
think
)
will
,
or
can
.
But
now
the
Emperour
being
Supreme
,
as
S.
Peter
calls
him
;
or
the
higher
power
,
as
S.
Paul
here
,
there
is
no
power
of
resistance
left
to
any
that
are
under
him
,
by
the
Apostle
.
This
for
the
persons
that
should
resist
,
all
are
forbidden
.
Now
consider
the
Cause
.
Fourthly
,
was
there
ever
more
cause
of
resistence
then
in
those
dayes
?
were
not
the
Kings
then
not
onely
conceived
to
be
inclined
so
and
so
,
but
even
actually
were
enemies
to
Religion
,
had
overthrown
Laws
and
Liberties
?
and
therefore
if
any
should
from
the
Apostles
reasons
that
he
gives
against
Resistence
in
the
3
,
4
,
5
,
verses
,
(
For
rulers
are
not
a
terrour
to
good
works
but
evil
,
and
he
is
the
minister
of
God
to
thee
for
good
)
reply
,
That
Rulers
so
long
as
they
are
not
a
terrour
to
the
good
,
but
minister
for
our
good
,
are
not
to
be
resisted
:
the
consideration
of
those
times
leaves
no
place
for
such
exception
,
because
the
Powers
then
(
which
the
Apostle
forbids
to
resist
)
were
nothing
so
,
but
subverters
of
that
which
was
good
and
just
.
If
it
be
replyed
,
that
prohibition
was
temporary
and
fit
for
those
times
,
as
it
is
said
by
some
.
I
answer
,
1.
This
is
a
new
exception
never
heard
of
(
I
think
)
but
in
these
times
.
2.
It
is
groundlesse
,
and
against
the
Text
,
for
the
reasons
of
the
prohibition
in
the
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
verses
,
are
perpetuall
,
from
that
order
,
that
good
,
for
which
the
Powers
are
ordained
of
God
,
which
will
be
of
force
as
long
as
there
is
government
,
and
will
alwayes
be
reasons
against
resistence
;
because
resistence
(
though
it
be
made
against
abused
Powers
as
then
they
were
)
doth
tend
to
the
dissolution
of
that
order
,
for
which
the
power
it selfe
is
set
up
of
God
By
which
also
that
other
distinction
of
theirs
is
made
void
,
when
as
they
reply
,
as
they
think
,
acutely
,
That
they
resist
not
the
power
,
but
the
abuse
of
the
power
It
is
also
answered
by
some
,
that
the
Emperours
then
were
absolute
Monarchs
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
resisted
.
I
answer
:
They
did
indeed
rule
absolutely
and
arbitrarily
,
which
should
have
according
to
the
principles
of
these
dayes
been
a
stronger
motive
to
resist
.
But
how
did
they
make
themselves
of
Subjects
such
absolute
Monarchs
;
was
it
not
by
force
and
change
of
the
government
,
and
was
not
the
right
of
the
people
and
Senate
(
according
to
the
Principles
of
these
dayes
)
good
against
them
with
as
much
or
more
reason
,
then
the
right
of
the
people
of
this
Land
is
against
the
succession
of
this
Crown
descending
by
three
Conquests
?
And
this
I
speak
not
to
win
an
Arbitrary
power
or
such
as
Conquerours
use
,
unto
this
Crown
,
but
onely
to
shew
that
resistence
can
be
no
more
made
against
the
Kings
of
England
,
then
it
could
against
those
Emperours
.
Nay
,
with
lesse
reason
against
them
,
then
these
.
Lastly
,
it
is
replyed
,
That
Christian
Religion
was
then
enacted
against
by
Law
;
but
the
Religion
contended
for
is
established
by
Law
.
I
answer
:
But
is
the
Religion
established
denied
to
any
that
now
fight
for
it
?
Shall
the
Apostles
prohibition
be
good
against
Christians
in
the
behalfe
of
actuall
Tyrants
persecuting
that
Religion
,
and
not
against
Subjects
freely
enjoying
the
Religion
established
?
Or
may
Protestants
upon
a
jealousie
resist
a
Protestant
King
professing
the
same
Religion
,
and
promising
to
conserve
it
entire
to
them
?
2.
The
prohibition
does
not
onely
concern
Christians
,
but
all
the
people
under
those
Emperours
,
and
not
onely
Religion
was
persecuted
,
but
Liberties
also
lost
,
the
people
and
Senate
were
enslaved
by
Edicts
,
and
Laws
then
inforced
upon
them
,
and
they
(
according
to
the
principles
of
these
dayes
)
might
resist
,
notwithstanding
the
Apostles
prohibition
,
and
the
Laws
then
forced
upon
them
;
or
else
the
State
,
as
they
usually
say
,
had
not
meanes
to
provide
for
its
safetie
.
Thus
one
phansie
of
theirs
thwarts
another
,
because
both
are
groundlesse
.
But
more
anon
of
those
meanes
of
safety
they
suppose
to
be
in
every
State
,
by
the
power
of
Resistence
.
Hitherto
of
Scripture
,
which
is
most
powerfull
against
Resistence
,
in
the
prohibition
and
the
reasons
of
it
,
by
which
Conscience
will
clearly
see
,
it
can
have
no
warrant
from
Scripture
for
Resistence
.
Now
let
us
try
what
Reason
can
enforce
.
SECT.
III.
For
proving
this
power
of
resistence
,
there
is
much
speech
used
about
the
Fundamentalls
of
this
government
,
which
because
they
lie
low
and
unseen
by
vulgar
eyes
,
being
not
written
Laws
,
the
people
are
easily
made
to
beleeve
they
are
such
as
they
(
that
have
power
to
build
new
Laws
)
upon
them
)
say
they
are
.
And
indeed
none
so
fit
to
judge
of
them
as
they
:
Yet
this
we
know
,
and
every
one
that
can
use
his
reason
knows
,
that
the
Fundamentalls
must
needs
be
such
as
will
bear
the
setled
government
of
this
Land
,
such
as
are
not
contradictory
to
the
written
established
Laws
:
but
both
the
government
we
see
used
in
this
Land
,
and
the
written
Laws
which
we
reade
,
must
have
a
correspondency
and
anology
of
reason
to
these
Fundamentalls
,
and
these
to
them
.
Well
then
,
they
that
plead
for
Power
of
resistance
in
the
people
,
lay
the
first
ground-work
of
their
Fundamentalls
thus
:
Power
is
originally
in
and
from
the
people
,
and
if
when
by
election
they
have
intrusted
a
Prince
with
the
Power
,
he
will
not
discharge
his
trust
,
then
it
falls
to
the
people
;
or
,
as
in
this
Kingdome
to
the
two
Houses
of
Parliament
(
the
representative
body
of
the
people
)
to
see
to
it
;
they
may
reassume
the
power
.
This
is
the
bottom
of
their
Fundamentalls
as
they
are
now
discovered
to
the
people
.
But
here
we
may
take
notice
by
the
way
,
that
however
the
Fundamentalls
of
this
Government
are
much
talked
of
,
this
is
according
to
them
the
Fundamentall
in
all
Kingdomes
and
Governments
;
for
they
say
power
was
every where
from
the
people
at
first
,
and
so
this
will
serve
no
more
for
the
power
of
resistance
in
England
,
then
in
France
,
or
Turkey
:
but
if
this
must
be
a
Fundamentall
,
it
is
such
an
one
as
upon
it
this
Government
cannot
be
built
,
but
Confusion
and
Anarchy
may
readily
be
raised
;
as
shall
appeare
by
the
clearing
of
these
two
particulars
,
Whether
the
Power
be
so
originally
and
chiefly
from
the
people
as
they
would
have
it
;
then
Whether
they
may
upon
such
cause
,
reassume
that
power
.
First
,
of
the
originall
of
power
,
which
they
will
have
so
from
the
People
,
that
it
shall
be
from
God
onely
by
a
kind
of
permissive
approbation
as
we
may
see
by
the
Observator
,
and
all
other
that
plead
for
this
power
of
resistance
.
We
must
here
distinguish
what
the
Writers
of
the
other
side
seem
to
confound
,
to
wit
,
the
Power
it selfe
,
(
which
is
a
sufficiency
of
authority
for
command
and
coercion
in
the
governing
of
a
People
)
from
the
designing
of
the
Person
to
bear
that
power
,
and
the
qualification
o●
that
power
according
to
the
divers
wayes
of
executing
it
in
severall
forms
of
government
and
then
we
grant
that
the
designing
of
the
person
is
sometimes
from
the
People
by
choyce
,
and
that
the
power
of
the
Prince
receiving
qualification
by
joynt
consent
of
himself
and
the
people
,
is
limited
by
the
Laws
made
with
such
consent
;
but
the
power
it self
is
of
God
originally
and
chiefly
:
which
we
prove
by
Scripture
and
Reason
.
First
,
by
such
places
of
Scripture
as
plainly
shew
an
ordaining
and
appointing
,
rather
then
a
permission
or
approbation
.
1.
The
Apostle
speaks
it
expressely
,
The
powers
are
of
God
,
Rom.
13.
1.
and
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
vers.
2.
S.
Peter
indeed
saith
,
every
ordinance
of
Man
,
1.
Epist.
2.
but
of
man
there
,
and
of
God
here
is
much
differing
;
there
it
is
'
anthr●●pine
,
of
Man
,
subjective
,
that
is
,
every
ordinance
or
power
set
up
amongst
men
;
but
here
it
is
'
apo
theou
,
of
God
,
causaliter
,
that
is
,
from
him
,
his
ordinance
;
and
if
in
that
'
anthr●●pine
there
be
implyed
any
creation
or
causality
,
or
invention
of
man
,
it
respects
the
qualification
of
the
power
according
to
the
forms
of
severall
governments
and
offices
in
them
,
which
are
from
the
invention
of
man
;
it
does
not
make
the
power
it self
the
creation
of
man
,
which
is
the
constitution
and
ordinance
of
God
;
and
men
are
not
onely
naturally
bent
to
society
,
but
also
are
bound
as
they
are
reasonable
creatures
,
to
set
up
and
live
under
government
as
under
an
order
of
that
providence
by
which
the
World
is
governed
.
II.
He
is
called
the
Minister
of
God
,
v.
4.
but
if
so
from
the
People
and
no
otherwise
from
God
then
they
would
have
him
,
he
should
be
Minister
Populi
rather
;
he
is
indeed
their
Minister
for
their
good
,
which
makes
the
People
to
be
the
end
of
this
governing
power
,
not
the
fountain
and
originall
of
it
:
therfore
the
necessity
of
subjection
urged
in
the
fifth
verse
,
ha's
a
double
ground
,
The
ordinance
of
God
,
whose
ministers
Rulers
are
,
ther
's
the
fountain
and
originall
of
Power
to
govern
;
then
the
Peoples
good
,
upon
which
Rulers
ought
to
attend
,
that
's
an
end
of
the
Governing
Power
.
III.
To
the
same
purpose
speak
those
other
places
,
By
me
Kings
reigne
:
and
I
have
said
ye
are
Gods
,
Psal.
82.
in
relation
to
which
our
Saviour
saith
,
Joh.
10.
They
are
called
Gods
to
whom
the
word
of
God
came
,
that
dixi
,
that
word
is
the
command
,
the
issuing
out
as
it
were
the
commission
for
the
setting
up
of
a
governing
power
among
the
people
.
These
places
cannot
be
satisfied
with
that
poore
part
,
they
on
the
other
side
leave
to
God
in
the
setting
up
of
power
for
the
governing
of
men
,
that
is
,
to
approve
it
when
the
People
ha's
created
or
invented
it
.
Indeed
if
we
consider
the
qualification
of
this
governing
power
,
and
the
manner
of
executing
it
according
to
the
severall
forms
of
government
,
we
granted
it
before
to
be
the
invention
of
man
,
and
when
such
a
qualification
or
form
is
orderly
agreed
upon
,
we
say
it
ha's
Gods
permissive
approbation
And
therefore
the
imputation
is
causelesse
which
the
Pleaders
on
the
other
side
do
heedelessely
and
ignorantly
lay
upon
us
Divines
;
as
if
we
cryed
up
Monarchy
,
and
that
onely
government
to
be
jure
divino
.
For
although
Monarchy
ha's
this
excellencie
,
that
the
Government
God
set
up
over
his
people
in
the
person
of
Moses
,
the
Judges
,
and
the
Kings
,
was
Monarchicall
,
yet
we
confesse
that
neither
that
,
nor
Aristocracy
,
or
any
other
form
is
jure
divino
;
but
we
say
the
power
it self
,
or
that
sufficiency
of
Authoritie
to
govern
,
which
is
in
Monarchy
or
Aristocracy
,
abstractly
considered
from
the
qualifications
of
either
form
,
is
an
efflux
or
constitution
subordinate
to
that
providence
,
an
ordinance
of
that
Dixi
,
that
silent
Word
by
which
the
world
was
at
first
made
,
and
is
still
governed
under
God
.
Secondly
,
as
this
appeares
by
the
former
places
of
Scripture
,
so
it
is
also
suitable
to
Reason
:
Because
God
doth
govern
all
creatures
,
Reasonable
as
well
as
Unreasonable
,
the
inferiour
or
lower
world
he
governs
by
the
heavens
or
superiour
bodies
,
according
to
those
influences
and
powers
he
ha's
put
into
them
;
and
the
reasonable
creatures
,
Men
,
he
governs
too
by
others
set
up
in
his
stead
over
them
;
for
which
they
are
called
Gods
,
because
in
his
stead
over
the
people
:
and
the
powers
are
said
to
pe
'
apo
theou
tetagmenai
Rom.
13.
1.
not
only
'
apo
theou
,
from
God
;
but
also
as
orders
ranked
under
him
too
,
subordinate
to
that
providence
by
which
all
creatures
are
governed
.
These
his
Ministers
he
sometimes
designed
immediately
by
himselfe
,
as
Moses
,
the
Judges
,
Saul
,
David
,
&c.
Now
he
designes
his
Vicegerents
on
earth
mediately
,
as
by
election
of
the
people
,
by
succession
or
inheritance
,
by
conquest
,
&c.
To
conclude
,
the
Power
it selfe
of
Government
is
of
God
,
however
the
person
be
designed
,
or
that
Power
qualified
according
to
the
severall
forms
of
government
by
those
Laws
that
are
established
,
or
those
grants
that
are
procured
for
the
peoples
securitie
.
Thus
much
of
the
originall
of
Power
.
SECT.
IV.
NOw
we
come
to
the
Forfeiture
,
as
I
may
call
it
,
of
this
Power
.
If
the
Prince
,
say
they
,
will
not
discharge
his
trust
,
then
it
falls
to
the
people
or
the
two
Houses
(
the
representative
body
of
the
people
)
to
see
to
it
,
and
reassume
that
Power
,
and
thereby
to
resist
.
This
they
conceive
to
follow
upon
the
derivation
of
Power
from
the
people
by
vertue
of
election
and
upon
the
stipulation
or
covenant
of
the
Prince
with
the
people
,
as
also
to
be
necessary
in
regard
of
those
meanes
of
safety
,
which
every
State
should
have
within
it selfe
.
We
will
examine
them
in
order
,
and
shall
find
the
Arguments
inconsequent
.
Concerning
the
derivation
of
Power
we
answer
?
First
,
if
it
be
not
from
the
people
,
as
they
will
have
it
,
and
as
before
it
was
cleared
,
then
can
there
be
no
reassuming
of
this
Power
by
the
People
;
that
's
plain
by
their
own
argument
.
Secondly
,
if
the
people
should
give
the
power
so
absolutely
as
they
would
have
it
,
leaving
nothing
to
God
in
it
but
approbation
,
yet
could
they
not
therefore
have
right
to
take
that
power
away
.
For
many
things
which
are
altogether
in
our
disposing
before
we
part
with
them
,
are
not
afterward
in
our
power
to
recall
;
especially
such
in
which
their
redounds
to
God
an
interest
by
the
donation
,
as
in
things
devoted
,
though
afterward
they
come
to
be
abused
.
So
although
it
were
,
as
they
would
have
it
,
that
they
give
the
power
and
God
approves
;
yet
because
the
Lords
hand
also
&
his
oyl
is
upon
the
person
elected
to
the
Crown
,
and
then
he
is
the
Lords
anointed
and
the
Minister
of
God
,
those
hands
of
the
people
which
were
used
in
lifting
him
up
to
the
Crown
,
may
not
again
be
lifted
up
against
him
,
either
to
take
the
Crown
from
his
head
,
or
the
sword
out
of
his
hand
.
This
will
not
a
true-informed
Conscience
date
to
doe
.
Thirdly
,
How
shall
the
Conscience
be
satisfied
that
this
their
argument
,
grounded
upon
election
and
the
derivation
of
power
from
the
people
can
have
place
in
this
Kingdome
,
when
as
the
Crown
not
onely
descends
by
inheritance
,
but
also
ha's
so
often
been
setled
by
Conquest
in
the
lines
of
Saxons
,
Danes
,
and
Normans
?
In
answer
to
this
they
looke
beyond
all
these
,
and
say
,
the
right
is
still
good
to
the
people
by
reason
of
their
first
election
.
I
answer
:
So
then
that
first
election
must
be
supposed
here
,
and
supposed
good
against
all
other
titles
,
or
else
this
power
of
resistence
falls
to
the
ground
.
It
is
probable
indeed
that
Kings
at
first
were
by
choyce
here
as
elsewhere
;
but
can
Conscience
rest
upon
such
remote
probabilities
for
resistence
,
or
think
that
first
election
will
give
it
power
against
Princes
that
do
not
claime
by
it
.
We
tell
them
the
Romane
Emperours
were
not
to
be
resisted
,
Rom.
13.
2.
They
reply
,
as
we
had
it
above
,
that
they
were
absolute
Monarchs
.
But
how
came
they
of
Subjects
to
be
absolute
Monarchs
?
was
it
any
otherwise
then
by
force
and
arms
?
the
way
that
the
Saxons
,
Danes
,
and
Normans
made
themselves
Masters
of
this
people
,
and
was
not
the
right
of
the
people
as
good
against
them
for
the
power
of
resistence
,
by
vertue
of
the
first
election
,
as
well
as
of
the
people
of
this
Land
,
against
their
Kings
after
so
many
Conquests
?
This
I
speak
not
,
as
if
the
Kings
of
this
Land
might
rule
as
Conquerors
:
God
forbid
.
But
to
shew
this
slender
plea
of
the
first
election
can
no
more
take
place
against
the
Kings
of
this
Land
,
then
it
could
against
the
Romane
Monarchs
,
especially
according
to
their
argument
,
that
hold
all
power
originally
from
the
people
,
and
that
(
as
we
observed
above
)
to
be
the
Fundamentall
of
all
government
.
Therefore
whether
Kings
were
in
this
Land
at
first
by
election
or
no
;
we
acknowledge
what
belongs
to
the
duty
of
a
Prince
in
doing
justice
and
equitie
:
what
Grants
also
,
Laws
,
Priviledges
have
since
those
Conquests
been
procured
,
or
restored
to
the
people
:
unto
all
those
the
King
is
bound
.
But
yet
not
bound
under
forfeiture
of
his
power
to
the
people
:
which
now
comes
to
be
examined
in
that
capitulation
or
covenant
he
is
said
to
enter
with
the
people
.
In
the
next
place
therefore
:
That
Capitulation
or
Covenant
,
and
the
Oath
which
the
Prince
takes
to
confirme
what
he
promiseth
,
are
so
alledged
,
as
if
the
breach
or
non-performance
on
the
Princes
part
were
a
forfeiture
of
his
power
.
But
we
answer
,
The
words
capitulation
or
covenant
are
now
much
used
to
make
Men
believe
the
Kings
admittance
to
the
Crown
is
altogether
conditionall
,
as
in
the
meerly
elective
Kingdomes
of
Polonia
,
Swedeland
,
&c.
whereas
our
King
is
King
before
he
comes
to
the
Coronation
,
which
is
sooner
or
later
at
his
pleasure
,
but
alwaies
to
be
in
due
time
,
in
regard
of
that
security
His
People
receive
by
his
taking
the
oath
,
and
he
again
mutually
from
them
,
in
which
performance
there
is
something
like
a
covenant
,
all
but
the
forfeiture
.
The
King
there
promises
and
binds
himself
by
oath
to
performance
.
Could
they
in
this
covenant
shew
us
such
an
agreement
between
the
King
and
his
People
,
that
in
case
he
will
not
discharge
His
trust
,
then
it
shall
be
lawfull
for
the
States
of
the
Kingdome
by
Arms
to
resist
,
and
provide
for
the
safety
thereof
,
it
were
something
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
so
much
is
imployed
in
the
first
election
.
We
answer
:
We
examined
that
slender
plea
of
the
first
election
above
,
as
it
was
thought
to
be
a
derivation
of
power
.
Now
as
it
is
thought
to
have
a
covenant
in
it
:
we
say
,
That
usually
in
all
Empires
the
higher
we
arise
,
the
freer
we
find
the
Kings
,
and
still
downwards
the
People
have
gained
upon
them
:
for
at
first
when
the
People
chose
their
Rulers
,
they
did
as
Justine
in
the
beginning
of
his
History
observes
,
resigne
themselves
to
be
governed
by
such
,
of
whose
prudence
and
moderation
they
had
experience
;
and
then
,
Arbitria
Principum
pro
legibus
erant
,
the
will
and
discretion
of
the
Prince
was
Law
unto
the
People
;
but
Men
were
Men
though
in
Gods
place
,
and
therefore
for
the
restraint
of
that
Power
,
with
consent
of
the
Prince
,
such
Laws
have
been
still
procured
by
the
People
as
might
make
for
their
security
.
Now
from
a
promise
the
King
makes
for
doing
Justice
(
the
duty
of
every
Prince
)
for
the
continuing
those
Priviledges
,
immunities
,
that
have
been
granted
or
restored
to
the
People
,
and
for
the
observing
of
those
Laws
that
have
been
established
with
the
Princes
consent
,
and
from
that
oath
(
by
which
for
the
greater
security
of
the
People
he
binds
himself
to
the
performance
of
the
premises
)
to
infer
a
great
obligation
lyeth
upon
him
,
is
right
:
but
to
gather
thence
a
forfeiture
of
his
power
upon
the
not
performance
,
is
a
plain
but
dangerous
inconsequent
Argument
.
And
though
such
Argument
may
seem
to
have
some
force
in
States
meerly
elective
and
pactionall
,
yet
can
it
never
be
made
to
appear
to
any
indifferent
understanding
,
that
the
like
must
obtain
in
this
Kingdome
.
And
to
this
purpose
Phil.
Pareus
excuseth
what
his
Father
had
written
more
harshly
upon
the
13.
to
the
Romans
,
in
the
point
of
Resistence
,
that
it
was
to
be
understood
of
elective
and
pactionall
government
,
not
to
the
prejudice
of
England
,
or
such
Monarchies
.
For
where
the
King
,
as
it
is
said
,
never
dyes
,
where
he
is
King
before
oath
or
coronation
,
where
he
is
not
admitted
upon
any
such
capitulation
as
gives
any
power
to
the
People
,
or
their
representative
body
,
as
is
pretended
to
:
Nay
,
where
that
body
cannot
meet
but
by
the
will
of
the
Prince
,
and
is
dissoluble
at
his
pleasure
;
that
there
,
in
such
a
State
,
such
a
power
should
be
pretended
to
,
and
used
against
the
Prince
as
at
this
day
,
and
that
according
to
the
fundamentalls
of
such
a
State
,
can
never
appear
reasonable
to
any
indifferent
judgement
,
much
lesse
satisfie
Conscience
in
the
resistence
that
is
now
made
by
such
a
pretended
power
.
What
then
shall
we
say
?
Is
the
King
not
bound
to
perform
?
Yes
,
by
all
means
.
Or
ha's
he
not
a
limited
power
according
to
the
Lawes
?
Yes
.
What
then
if
he
will
take
to
himself
more
power
,
or
not
perform
what
he
is
bound
to
?
Suppose
that
;
(
though
thanks
be
to
God
we
are
not
come
to
that
.
)
Then
may
the
Subjects
use
all
fair
means
as
are
fit
to
use
,
cryes
to
God
,
petitions
to
the
Prince
,
denials
of
obedience
to
his
unlawfull
commands
,
denials
of
subsidie
,
ayd
,
&c.
But
are
they
left
without
all
means
to
compell
by
force
and
resistence
?
This
however
it
may
at
first
sight
seem
unreasonable
to
the
people
and
very
impolitick
to
the
Statesman
,
yet
ha's
Scripture
forbidden
it
,
as
before
was
plainly
shewed
,
and
so
doth
Reason
too
,
as
will
apeare
in
the
examination
of
their
last
proofe
they
make
for
re-assuming
this
power
and
resisting
,
from
that
necessity
of
means
of
safety
,
which
every
State
is
to
have
within
it self
:
Of
which
now
.
SECT.
V.
IN
the
last
place
it
is
thus
reasoned
,
Were
it
not
so
that
the
two
Houses
might
take
and
use
this
power
,
the
State
should
not
have
means
to
provide
for
its
own
safety
,
when
the
King
shall
please
to
desert
His
Parliament
,
deny
His
consent
to
their
Bills
,
abuse
His
power
,
&c.
So
they
.
When
right
and
Just
will
not
defend
a
thing
,
then
Necessity
is
usually
pleaded
;
as
if
,
because
Salus
Populi
in
a
good
sense
is
Suprema
Lex
,
every
thing
must
be
honest
which
is
Spartae
Vtile
,
imagined
to
conduce
to
the
proposed
end
.
We
answer
therefore
;
First
,
They
have
many
weapons
sharpened
for
this
resistence
at
the
Philistins
forge
,
arguments
borrowed
from
the
Romane
schools
,
among
them
this
is
one
,
the
very
reason
that
is
made
for
the
Popes
power
of
curbing
or
deposing
Kings
in
case
of
Heresie
.
For
if
there
be
not
that
power
in
the
Church
,
say
they
,
then
in
case
the
Civill
Magistrate
will
not
discharge
his
trust
,
the
Church
ha's
not
means
for
the
maintenance
of
the
Catholick
faith
and
its
own
safety
.
Well
,
as
we
reply
to
them
,
the
Church
has
means
of
preserving
the
faith
,
such
as
God
ha's
appointed
,
though
not
that
of
one
Visible
head
,
which
though
at
first
seems
plausible
,
for
preserving
the
Unity
of
faith
,
yet
ha's
experience
shown
it
to
be
indeed
the
meanes
to
bring
much
mischief
upon
the
Church
:
So
to
the
other
we
say
,
The
State
ha's
meanes
of
preservation
such
as
the
Law
ha's
prescibed
,
though
not
such
as
are
here
pretented
to
in
this
power
of
resistence
;
which
though
seemingly
plausible
,
yet
true
Reason
will
conclude
them
dangerous
,
and
at
this
day
,
God
knows
,
we
see
it
.
Of
this
in
the
fourth
answer
more
particularly
.
Secondly
,
If
every
State
ha's
such
means
to
provide
for
its
safety
,
What
means
of
safety
had
the
Christian
Religion
under
the
Romane
Emperours
in
and
after
the
Apostles
times
?
or
the
people
then
enslaved
,
what
means
had
they
for
their
Liberties
?
had
they
this
of
resistence
?
Tertullian
,
in
his
Apol.
sayes
,
the
Christians
had
number
and
force
sufficient
to
withstand
,
but
they
had
no
warrant
;
and
the
Apostle
expressely
forbids
them
and
all
other
under
the
higher
power
,
to
resist
.
If
it
be
replyed
,
as
it
was
above
touched
,
That
things
being
so
enacted
by
Law
,
it
was
not
lawfull
for
them
to
resist
.
I
answer
:
But
it
is
known
that
not
onely
those
Edicts
which
concerned
Christian
Religion
,
but
also
all
other
that
proceeded
from
those
Emperours
and
enslaved
the
people
,
were
meerly
arbitrary
and
enforced
upon
the
Senate
,
and
that
the
Senate
did
not
discharge
their
trust
in
consenting
to
them
,
and
therefore
according
to
the
former
position
the
people
might
resist
,
notwithstanding
the
Apostles
prohibition
,
or
else
no
means
of
safety
left
in
that
State
.
So
would
it
be
in
this
State
,
if
at
any
time
a
King
that
would
rule
arbitrarily
,
as
those
Emperours
did
,
should
by
some
meanes
or
other
work
out
of
the
two
Houses
the
better
affected
,
and
by
the
Consent
of
the
Major
part
of
them
that
remaine
,
compasse
his
desires
;
might
the
people
then
resist
?
The
Apostle
forbids
it
to
them
as
well
as
to
the
Romans
in
such
a
case
:
if
so
,
where
are
these
means
of
safety
by
this
power
of
resistance
?
Or
are
these
means
of
safety
extinct
in
the
Consent
of
the
Senate
or
the
two
Houses
?
No
,
the
people
will
tell
them
they
discharge
not
their
trust
,
they
chose
them
not
to
betray
them
,
enslave
them
;
but
according
to
the
principles
now
taught
them
,
they
might
lay
hold
upon
this
power
of
resistence
;
for
their
representative
body
claims
it
by
them
.
Thirdly
we
answer
,
We
cannot
expect
absolute
means
of
safety
and
securitie
in
a
State
,
but
such
as
are
reasonable
;
and
such
are
provided
,
especially
in
the
fundamentalls
of
this
Government
,
by
that
excellent
temper
of
the
three
estates
in
Parliament
there
being
a
power
of
denying
in
each
of
them
,
and
no
power
of
enacting
in
one
or
two
of
them
without
the
third
;
which
as
it
is
for
the
securitie
of
the
Commonwealth
(
for
what
might
follow
if
the
King
and
Lords
without
the
Commons
,
or
these
and
the
Lords
without
the
King
,
might
determine
,
the
evills
of
these
dayes
do
shew
)
so
is
this
power
of
denying
,
for
the
security
of
each
State
against
other
,
of
the
Commons
against
the
King
and
Lords
,
of
the
Lords
against
them
:
and
must
the
King
trust
onely
,
and
not
be
trusted
?
Must
not
he
also
have
his
securitie
against
the
other
,
which
he
cannot
have
but
by
Power
of
denying
?
This
is
that
Temper
of
the
three
Estates
in
Parliament
,
the
due
observing
whereof
,
in
the
moderate
use
of
this
power
of
denying
,
is
the
reasonable
means
of
this
States
safety
:
but
now
not
onely
the
name
of
Parliament
,
which
implyes
the
three
Estates
,
is
restrained
usually
to
the
two
Houses
,
but
also
that
Temper
is
dissolved
.
I
need
not
speak
it
,
the
distractions
and
convulsions
of
the
whole
Commonwealth
,
as
the
distempers
in
a
naturall
body
,
do
sufficiently
shew
such
a
dissolution
,
and
what
's
the
cause
of
it
.
If
it
be
replyed
,
as
it
is
,
for
the
reasonablenesse
of
these
meanes
of
safety
through
that
Power
of
resisttence
and
the
final
trust
reposed
in
the
representative
body
of
the
people
,
That
many
see
more
then
one
and
more
safety
in
the
judgement
of
many
then
of
one
.
2.
Reason
doth
suppose
,
That
the
Prince
,
though
one
,
sees
with
the
eyes
of
many
,
yea
with
their
eyes
who
are
of
different
judgement
from
him
,
for
which
his
.
Houses
of
Parliament
are
his
great
Councell
to
present
to
his
eyes
the
differences
of
things
with
the
reasons
of
them
;
and
albeit
he
sometimes
dissents
from
the
Major
or
Prevailing
part
,
because
he
is
convinced
in
his
own
judgement
they
seek
themselves
nor
his
or
the
Publike
good
,
or
for
other
reasons
that
may
perswade
him
against
their
Vote
,
yet
have
all
times
thought
good
to
have
Kings
,
and
to
reduce
the
judgement
of
many
unto
one
.
The
Government
which
God
made
choice
of
to
set
up
among
his
people
was
Monarchicall
still
;
first
in
Moses
,
then
in
the
Judges
,
then
in
the
Kings
;
yea
generally
all
Authors
yeild
,
and
experience
ha's
taught
it
,
That
Monarchy
is
a
better
government
then
Aristocracy
,
because
the
Tyranny
and
Miscarriage
of
one
,
sometime
happening
in
a
Monarchy
is
nothing
so
dangerous
as
Oligarchy
,
Faction
,
and
Division
usually
incident
to
Aristocracy
or
the
Government
by
many
equalls
.
Again
,
as
all
times
have
thought
it
reasonable
to
have
Monarchy
,
which
settles
the
chief
power
and
finall
judgement
in
One
;
so
will
there
be
alwayes
sufficient
reason
to
withhold
the
King
from
a
wilfull
deniall
of
his
Consent
to
the
free
and
unanimous
Vote
of
his
Houses
:
he
cannot
but
see
there
will
alwayes
be
some
necessary
good
accrewing
to
him
by
his
Parliament
,
that
will
keep
him
in
all
reason
from
doing
so
:
and
no
cases
can
be
put
or
inconveniences
feared
upon
his
Power
of
denying
,
but
greater
and
more
eminent
will
appeare
upon
his
not
having
it
,
as
ha's
been
insinuated
,
and
now
do
follow
.
Fourthly
therefore
and
lastly
we
answer
.
Such
power
of
resistence
would
be
no
fit
means
of
safety
to
a
State
,
but
prove
a
remedy
worse
then
the
disease
.
This
is
very
plain
by
the
drift
of
the
Apostles
reason
which
he
gave
against
resistence
,
in
the
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
v.
of
the
13.
to
the
Rom.
in
which
we
may
consider
,
that
,
although
the
Powers
then
were
altogether
unjust
,
tyrannicall
,
subverters
of
true
Religion
,
nothing
answerable
to
the
end
for
which
the
Governing
Power
is
ordained
,
yet
doth
the
Apostle
draw
his
reasons
against
the
resisting
of
them
,
from
that
good
,
that
justice
,
that
order
for
which
God
hath
set
up
the
higher
Powers
;
to
insinuate
,
that
the
resisting
of
the
higher
Powers
,
even
when
they
are
so
,
does
tend
to
the
overthrow
of
that
order
which
is
the
life
of
a
Commonwealth
;
and
this
not
onely
because
there
is
still
order
under
tyranny
,
but
chiefly
because
,
if
it
were
good
and
lawfull
to
resist
the
power
,
when
abused
,
it
would
open
a
way
to
the
people
upon
the
like
pretences
to
resist
and
overthrow
even
Powers
duely
administred
for
the
executing
of
wrath
upon
them
that
do
evill
.
I
enter
this
dicourse
,
not
to
cast
the
least
blemish
upon
Parliaments
(
which
are
an
onely
remedy
for
distempers
of
the
Kingdome
)
not
to
reflect
upon
the
intentions
of
those
that
are
yet
resident
in
that
high
Court
,
(
unto
God
the
judge
of
all
,
they
stand
or
fall
)
not
to
raise
jealousies
,
but
to
settle
Conscience
,
and
in
the
way
of
reasoning
to
shew
according
to
the
Apostles
reasons
what
dangers
and
evills
may
ensue
upon
this
power
of
resistence
.
For
first
of
all
,
This
power
of
resistence
,
if
admitted
and
pursued
may
proceed
to
a
change
of
Government
,
the
Principles
that
now
are
gone
upon
,
and
have
carried
it
so
farre
as
we
see
at
this
day
,
may
also
lead
it
on
to
that
greatest
of
evils
:
And
I
have
heard
and
seen
it
defended
by
the
example
of
the
Low-countreys
;
how
they
excuse
it
throughly
,
I
examine
not
,
but
this
I
am
sure
they
can
say
,
That
their
Prince
,
succeeding
in
the
right
of
the
Duke
of
Burgundie
was
admitted
upon
other
conditions
then
the
Kings
of
England
are
:
also
that
a
contrary
religion
was
enforced
upon
them
by
a
terrible
Inquisition
,
whereas
they
that
do
resist
the
higher
.
Powers
here
,
do
freely
enjoy
their
religion
,
and
have
the
Princes
promise
and
protestation
for
it
.
Secondly
,
This
Power
of
resistence
when
used
,
and
pursued
,
is
accompanied
with
the
evils
of
Civil
warre
:
Former
times
shew
it
,
and
how
little
was
gained
by
it
beside
the
expence
of
bloud
;
as
when
all
was
referred
to
the
rule
and
disposing
of
the
12
Peeres
,
how
long
lasted
it
?
what
security
had
the
State
by
it
?
and
at
this
day
we
feel
and
groan
under
the
evils
brought
upon
us
through
this
power
of
resistence
,
the
Law
silenced
,
the
Property
and
Libertie
of
the
subject
every where
invaded
;
and
the
Lord
knows
when
or
how
we
shall
be
restored
to
them
,
or
better
secured
in
them
by
this
way
Thirdly
,
We
see
the
danger
,
(
if
as
it
is
now
said
,
for
the
justifying
of
this
power
of
resistence
,
The
King
will
not
discharge
his
trust
,
and
therefore
it
fals
to
the
representative
body
of
the
people
to
see
to
it
,
so
)
the
People
being
discontented
,
and
having
gotten
power
shall
say
,
The
Members
of
the
two
Houses
do
not
discharge
the
trust
committed
to
them
,
they
do
not
that
for
which
they
were
chosen
and
sent
for
,
then
may
the
multitude
by
this
rule
and
principle
now
taught
them
,
take
the
Power
to
themselves
,
it
being
claimed
by
them
,
and
say
to
them
as
Numb.
16.
Ye
take
too
much
upon
you
,
or
as
Cade
,
and
Tylar
,
boast
themselves
Reformers
of
the
Common-wealth
,
overthrow
King
and
Parliament
,
fill
all
with
rapine
and
confusion
,
draw
all
to
a
Folkmoot
,
and
make
every
Shire
a
severall
Government
.
These
are
Dangers
and
Evils
not
conceived
in
the
phansie
,
but
such
as
reason
tells
us
may
follow
,
and
experience
hath
often
,
and
this
day
doth
shew
us
,
do
arise
upon
this
Power
of
resistence
,
and
for
the
preventing
of
which
,
the
Apostle
gave
his
reasons
against
resisting
even
of
abused
powers
,
as
we
heard
above
.
Lastly
therefore
,
Seeing
some
must
be
trusted
in
every
State
,
't
is
reason
the
highest
and
finall
trust
should
be
in
the
higher
or
supreme
Power
,
with
whom
next
to
himself
God
hath
intrusted
the
whole
Kingdom
,
all
other
that
have
power
and
trust
,
having
it
under
him
as
sent
by
him
;
Good
reason
I
say
that
the
supreme
Power
(
which
is
worth
10000
of
the
Subjects
)
should
have
the
best
security
on
its
side
,
for
as
much
as
Order
,
the
life
of
a
Commonwealth
,
is
so
best
preserved
,
and
not
so
endangered
by
Tyranny
as
by
factions
,
division
,
tumults
,
power
of
resistence
on
the
Subjects
part
,
and
this
is
according
to
the
drift
of
the
Apostles
reasons
against
resistence
,
as
before
they
were
laid
down
.
Well
,
now
unto
all
that
hath
hitherto
been
said
from
Scripture
and
Reason
,
let
Conscience
adde
the
oath
of
Supremacy
and
Allegiance
,
also
the
late
Protestation
,
and
consider
what
duty
lyes
upon
every
subject
by
the
former
to
defend
the
Kings
person
and
Right
against
what
Power
soever
,
and
how
by
the
latter
he
hath
protested
and
undertaken
before
Almighty
God
in
the
first
place
to
defend
the
same
;
and
then
what
can
Conscience
conclude
from
the
Premises
?
that
the
Prince
hath
his
Power
for
the
good
of
his
people
?
true
,
but
that
Power
cannot
be
prevalent
for
the
good
and
protection
of
his
people
unlesse
it
be
preferved
to
him
intire
,
unlesse
he
hath
the
Power
of
Deniall
,
and
the
chief
command
of
Arms
;
or
that
the
Prince
hath
a
limited
Power
,
according
to
the
Laws
established
?
true
,
but
if
Conscience
be
perswaded
he
does
not
hold
himselfe
within
those
bounds
so
fixed
,
can
it
be
perswaded
also
that
the
people
may
reassume
that
Power
they
never
had
?
or
take
that
sword
out
of
his
hand
that
God
hath
put
into
it
?
No
,
Conscience
will
look
at
that
Power
as
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
the
abuse
of
that
Power
as
a
judgement
and
scourge
of
God
upon
the
people
,
and
will
use
not
Arms
to
resist
the
Ordinance
under
pretence
of
resisting
the
abuse
,
but
cryes
and
prayers
to
God
,
petitions
to
the
Prince
,
denialls
of
obedience
to
his
unjust
commands
,
denialls
of
subsides
,
aids
,
and
all
faire
means
that
are
fit
for
Subjects
to
use
,
and
when
done
all
,
if
not
succeed
,
will
rather
suffer
then
resist
:
so
would
a
truly
informed
Conscience
resolve
,
were
the
Prince
indeed
what
he
is
supposed
to
be
,
and
did
he
do
indeed
as
the
people
are
made
to
fear
and
believe
he
will
do
.
Hitherto
we
have
been
in
the
examination
of
the
Principle
upon
which
they
go
that
plead
for
resistence
,
and
we
have
found
both
Scripture
and
Reason
speak
plainly
against
the
resisting
even
of
abused
Powers
,
professed
enemies
to
Religion
,
actuall
subverters
of
the
Peoples
Liberties
,
how
much
more
against
the
resisting
of
a
Prince
that
professeth
the
same
Religion
which
we
freely
enjoy
,
promiseth
the
maintaining
of
that
and
our
Liberties
,
onely
upon
a
supposall
He
will
not
stand
to
His
word
,
will
overthrow
all
.
This
however
it
may
seem
lesse
reasonable
to
the
Statist
in
the
way
of
Policie
,
permitting
as
little
as
he
can
to
the
goodnesse
of
the
Prince
,
or
the
providence
of
God
for
the
safety
of
the
State
;
yet
ought
it
to
satisfie
a
Christian
in
the
way
of
Conscience
,
which
when
it
comes
to
a
desire
of
being
safe
,
will
not
rest
till
it
have
a
sure
ground
,
which
here
it
hath
against
resistence
laid
downe
by
Scripture
and
Reasons
even
the
Apostles
reasons
so
powerfull
against
resistence
.
The
summe
of
all
is
this
;
Conscience
hears
the
Apostle
expressely
forbid
all
under
the
higher
Power
to
resist
,
finds
no
other
clear
Scripture
to
limit
it
,
finds
that
the
limitations
given
will
not
consist
with
it
,
for
the
reasons
of
them
(
that
are
drawn
from
the
election
of
the
People
,
and
the
Covenant
supposed
therein
,
from
the
necessity
of
means
of
safety
in
every
State
to
provide
for
it self
)
were
as
strong
in
the
Romane
State
as
any
;
nay
,
are
supposed
by
those
that
urge
them
,
to
be
the
fundamentals
of
every
State
;
and
so
resistence
is
forbidden
as
well
here
,
as
there
in
the
Romane
State
,
which
is
also
cleared
by
the
Apostles
reasons
,
shewing
the
Power
of
resistence
cannot
be
the
meane
of
safety
,
but
strikes
at
Order
and
Power
it self
,
though
made
against
tyrannicall
and
abused
Powers
,
as
before
often
insinuated
.
Therefore
Conscience
will
not
dare
to
go
against
the
Apostles
expresse
prohibition
,
lest
it
fall
into
the
judgement
denounced
by
him
.
But
if
there
shall
be
any
Conscience
as
strongly
carried
away
with
the
name
of
a
Parliament
,
as
the
Papists
are
with
the
name
of
the
Church
,
and
thinking
Religion
may
be
defended
any
way
,
&
that
upon
supposall
that
their
Prince
is
minded
to
change
it
,
(
which
is
another
humour
of
Popery
)
will
not
be
perswaded
that
the
resistence
made
upon
the
present
supposall
is
unlawfull
,
against
Gods
Word
,
and
reason
;
I
am
sure
such
a
Conscience
cannot
be
truly
perswaded
it
is
lawfull
,
but
must
want
that
clear
ground
it
ought
to
have
,
especially
in
a
matter
so
expresly
against
the
Apostle
,
and
of
such
high
concernment
as
damnation
;
must
needs
runne
blindly
,
and
headlong
by
a
strange
implicit
Faith
upon
so
great
a
hazard
.
SECT.
VI
.
NOw
we
come
to
the
Application
of
their
principle
to
the
present
,
where
we
must
enquire
according
to
the
second
and
third
Generalls
,
whether
the
resistence
now
made
be
such
as
is
pretended
to
by
them
in
such
a
case
as
they
supposed
,
and
then
whether
Conscience
can
be
truely
perswaded
the
King
is
such
and
so
minded
as
in
the
case
He
is
supposed
to
be
.
The
chief
considerations
of
these
two
Generalls
,
are
matters
of
fact
;
The
principle
was
examined
by
Scripture
and
Reason
,
these
admit
the
Judgement
of
sense
,
and
are
cleared
by
what
we
heare
and
see
;
which
Judgement
of
sense
is
not
so
easily
captivated
by
an
implicit
Faith
as
that
of
Reason
is
;
insomuch
as
Conscience
here
cannot
be
so
blinded
but
it
may
see
,
that
(
were
the
principall
good
on
which
they
rest
,
yet
)
this
resistence
which
they
make
,
is
not
such
as
they
pretend
to
,
and
that
this
King
,
whom
they
resist
;
is
not
such
as
in
the
case
they
supposed
him
to
be
,
not
such
as
ought
to
be
resisted
according
to
their
own
grants
.
The
second
generall
was
,
That
the
Resistence
now
made
is
not
such
as
is
pretended
to
by
them
that
plead
for
it
,
and
therefore
Conscience
cannot
be
truly
perswaded
it
may
lawfully
bear
part
in
it
,
or
assist
them
that
in
the
pursuit
of
it
pretend
one
thing
and
do
another
.
It
was
premised
at
the
beginning
that
such
a
resistence
should
be
omnibus
ordinibus
regni
consentientibus
;
agreed
upon
and
undertaken
by
the
generall
and
unanimous
consent
of
the
whole
State
,
and
that
it
should
be
onely
Legitima
defensio
,
a
meer
defensive
resistence
;
and
these
laid
down
,
not
that
I
admit
resistence
however
conditioned
(
for
all
that
I
have
said
before
doth
altogether
condemn
it
)
but
according
to
their
own
grants
that
plead
for
it
:
To
this
purpose
it
is
that
they
say
the
King
is
Vniversis
minor
,
lesse
then
the
whole
State
,
and
every body
naturally
defends
it self
.
Therefore
if
a
contention
be
between
the
Plead
and
the
Body
,
it
must
in
all
reason
be
the
whole
Body
that
is
set
against
it
;
and
if
there
be
such
an
appearing
against
the
supreme
Power
,
as
tends
to
resistence
,
the
consent
and
judgement
of
the
whole
Kingdom
must
be
against
him
,
or
else
every
prevailing
faction
might
indanger
the
State
by
causing
such
changes
and
evils
as
now
it
's
threatned
with
:
This
is
the
reason
of
this
unreasonable
power
of
resistence
in
the
people
.
Well
then
how
shall
Conscience
he
perswaded
that
this
resistence
was
agreed
upon
by
an
unanimous
and
free
consent
of
the
States
assembled
in
the
two
Houses
,
such
as
in
this
case
may
be
called
the
judgement
of
the
whole
kingdome
?
He
that
knows
how
the
Militia
(
in
which
this
resistence
chiefly
began
)
was
brought
in
,
with
what
opposition
,
especially
in
the
Lords
house
,
and
by
what
number
there
at
length
was
voted
;
also
how
the
like
proceedings
of
resistence
,
that
have
been
voted
since
,
are
declared
against
;
by
a
greater
number
of
each
House
then
do
remain
in
either
,
such
as
have
been
cast
out
or
withdrawn
themselves
upon
dislike
of
these
proceedings
:
can
he
,
I
say
,
that
knows
this
(
and
who
knows
it
not
,
that
hath
eyes
and
eares
?
)
be
in
Conscience
perswaded
,
that
this
is
such
an
unanimous
,
free
,
and
generall
consent
,
the
judgement
of
the
whole
kingdome
?
For
though
a
Vote
passed
by
a
few
upon
the
place
ha's
the
power
and
condition
of
a
Vote
for
the
formality
of
Law
,
yet
,
if
the
question
be
,
Was
this
passed
in
full
assemblies
;
Was
it
freely
and
generally
carried
;
Did
they
all
unanimously
as
one
man
consent
unto
it
?
Conscience
cannot
be
convinced
there
is
such
efficacy
in
the
place
,
as
to
make
a
few
,
the
whole
;
or
their
agreement
to
be
that
judgement
:
of
the
whole
kingdome
,
that
unanimous
consent
,
which
must
be
in
the
case
of
resistence
,
by
their
acknowledgement
that
plead
for
it
.
For
were
it
in
this
case
to
be
held
for
the
judgement
of
the
whole
,
which
is
passed
by
a
few
,
then
would
the
State
be
unreasonably
exposed
to
that
danger
(
above
mentioned
)
which
every
prevailing
faction
might
bring
upon
it
under
the
pretence
of
the
judgement
of
the
whole
kingdome
.
Again
,
is
Conscience
cannot
be
truely
perswaded
that
this
resistence
is
agreed
upon
with
such
a
generall
and
unanimous
consent
,
as
they
themselves
pretend
to
,
which
pleade
for
this
resistence
,
so
can
it
not
be
truely
perswaded
that
this
resistence
is
such
for
the
meer
defensive
way
of
it
,
as
it
ought
to
be
according
to
their
grants
and
pretences
that
appear
for
it
.
Conscience
here
will
see
how
to
resolve
,
upon
the
triall
of
these
two
particulars
,
Whether
the
King
or
they
be
upon
the
defensive
part
?
then
,
Whether
the
managing
of
this
warre
or
resistence
on
their
parts
,
be
so
void
of
hostile
acts
,
as
the
defensive
way
,
which
they
pretend
to
,
ought
to
be
?
Conscience
will
discern
whether
part
is
upon
the
defensive
,
by
inquiring
,
First
,
Who
were
first
in
Arms
?
He
that
can
number
the
succession
of
weeks
and
moneths
in
his
Almanack
may
decide
this
.
He
shall
find
that
armed
men
were
thrust
into
Hull
,
the
Kings
Arms
seized
against
his
will
,
the
Militia
set
up
,
and
by
that
the
Kings
Subjects
drawn
into
Arms
before
the
King
had
any
thing
to
oppose
but
Proclamations
:
that
subscriptions
for
Plate
,
Money
,
Horse
;
that
listing
of
souldiers
for
the
field
,
and
appointing
of
Officer
of
the
Army
were
begun
upon
their
part
,
before
His
Majesty
did
the
like
.
Now
resistence
doth
in
the
word
it self
and
in
their
pretence
presuppose
a
power
and
force
first
made
against
them
,
where
as
it
is
plain
,
they
were
still
upon
the
preventing
and
forehand
with
the
Kin●
,
still
shewed
him
example
for
what
he
has
done
since
in
the
way
of
Warre
:
yet
must
the
people
believe
he
raises
the
Warre
,
and
they
are
upon
defence
;
But
Conscience
will
not
be
so
forced
.
Secondly
,
by
inquiring
what
is
the
c●●se
of
these
Arms
?
What
do
they
contend
for
?
And
though
it
be
clear
,
that
if
Subjects
be
first
in
A●●s
they
cannot
be
upon
the
defensive
,
yet
the
consideration
of
the
cause
will
more
apparantly
convince
it
,
when
Conscience
shall
see
it
is
not
for
what
is
pretended
,
but
for
something
the
King
ha's
right
to
deny
,
that
this
resistence
is
made
.
The
preservation
of
Religion
and
Liberties
is
pretended
,
but
can
it
be
for
either
?
The
King
denyes
them
not
:
Their
Religon
they
freely
enjoy
;
and
was
it
ever
known
that
Subjects
should
rise
in
Arms
against
their
Prince
for
a
Religion
which
he
promiseth
to
maintain
?
Or
does
Religion
stand
in
need
of
a
defense
,
which
it self
condemnes
,
a
defence
which
would
be
a
perpetuall
scandall
to
it
?
If
therefore
Religion
be
the
pretence
,
but
no
cause
of
Warre
,
then
is
the
Warre
raised
on
their
part
,
the
King
is
upon
the
defensive
.
Or
can
it
be
for
antient
Rights
and
undoubted
Priviledges
that
they
contend
?
The
King
denyes
them
not
,
promiseth
all
security
so
he
may
enjoy
his
own
,
and
God
forbid
that
either
He
or
they
should
suffer
in
their
just
Rights
.
But
would
any
man
ever
have
defended
the
revolt
of
the
ten
Tribes
,
if
Rehoboam
had
promised
to
conserve
their
Liberties
?
What
shall
we
then
think
of
this
geneall
Revolt
from
Allegiance
that
ha's
possessed
well-near
ten
Tribes
of
twelve
?
They
suppose
he
will
not
make
good
his
promises
,
and
therefore
they
will
make
all
sure
,
seize
his
Arms
and
Forts
,
strip
him
of
all
,
and
if
begin
to
stirre
for
his
own
Right
and
Dignity
,
then
the
people
must
be
made
to
believe
he
makes
warre
against
his
Parliament
,
intends
to
destroy
their
Liberties
.
But
can
any
man
in
Conscience
think
his
Majesty
since
the
beginning
of
this
breach
was
ever
in
such
a
Condition
of
strength
as
might
threaten
the
Libertie
of
the
Subject
,
or
destroy
Parliaments
,
when
as
it
was
long
ere
he
could
with
much
ado
attain
to
any
reasonable
means
of
subsistence
,
or
to
such
a
strength
whereby
he
might
seem
to
be
able
to
defend
himself
?
To
speak
the
truth
,
Religion
and
Liberties
can
be
no
other
then
the
pretences
of
this
Warre
,
the
King
ha's
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
Warr
.
It
must
be
something
that
his
Majesty
does
indeed
deny
for
which
the
contention
is
raised
:
That
we
shall
find
to
be
His
Power
of
Arms
,
and
ordering
the
Militia
of
the
Kingdome
,
His
Power
of
denying
in
Parliament
,
His
disposing
of
the
offices
of
State
,
and
such
like
;
Also
the
Government
of
the
Church
and
the
Revenue
of
it
.
In
the
three
former
he
challenges
his
right
,
as
his
Predecessours
had
;
the
other
he
is
bound
by
Oath
to
maintaine
as
by
Law
they
are
established
.
Well
,
if
these
be
attempted
,
and
his
Majesty
will
not
be
forced
from
them
,
cannot
yeild
them
up
,
but
it
comes
to
Arms
,
then
will
Conscience
easily
be
convinced
the
King
is
upon
the
defensive
,
for
the
maintaining
of
what
he
justly
holds
his
right
,
or
is
bound
by
Oath
to
defend
.
And
if
we
hearken
to
the
peoples
voice
,
for
that
commonly
speaks
the
mind
of
their
leaders
,
we
shall
hear
them
usually
call
this
Warre
as
they
did
that
with
the
Scots
,
The
Bishops
Warre
.
His
Majesty
has
indeed
alwayes
declared
against
the
altering
of
the
Government
of
the
Church
by
Bishops
,
being
such
as
it
alwayes
had
since
the
first
receiving
of
the
Christian
Faith
in
this
land
,
and
of
all
other
Governments
simply
the
best
,
if
reformed
from
abuses
and
corruptions
that
have
grown
upon
it
,
to
the
purging
out
of
which
His
Majesty
is
alwayes
ready
to
agree
.
But
be
it
the
Bishops
Warre
(
though
the
abolishing
of
that
Government
be
but
one
of
the
many
inconveniences
which
this
Power
of
resistence
doth
threaten
this
Land
with
,
and
which
the
King
has
reason
by
Power
of
Arms
to
divert
)
whether
is
it
so
just
in
Subjects
by
Arms
to
force
a
change
of
Government
which
was
alwayes
in
the
Church
,
and
by
Law
established
,
as
it
is
in
the
King
to
defend
the
same
as
he
is
bound
by
Oath
?
it
is
clear
which
of
the
two
are
upon
the
defensive
.
The
second
particular
by
which
the
defensive
way
of
this
resistance
is
to
be
examined
,
was
the
managing
of
this
Warre
on
their
parts
,
whether
so
void
of
acts
of
Hostility
as
that
defensive
way
should
be
which
they
pretend
to
.
Davids
resistence
made
against
.
Saul
is
frequently
alledged
by
them
,
which
example
,
though
it
will
not
countenance
their
cause
(
as
was
shewed
before
)
yet
might
it
tell
them
their
demeanor
should
be
answerable
.
He
offered
no
act
of
violence
to
Saul
,
but
still
gave
place
and
withdrew
from
him
:
the
Spear
indeed
and
the
Cruse
David
tooke
away
from
the
Kings
head
,
but
it
was
onely
to
shew
Abners
neglect
,
who
had
the
Command
of
Sauls
Militia
,
and
to
testifie
his
own
integrity
,
therefore
he
restored
them
before
they
were
demanded
,
1
Sam
26.
But
now
the
Kings
Spear
and
his
Cruse
,
his
Ammunition
,
and
His
necessary
Provisions
are
taken
away
,
intercepted
,
not
restored
,
though
often
demanded
,
used
against
Him
with
all
advantage
;
nay
he
is
stript
of
the
very
Power
and
Command
of
Arms
,
His
Officers
and
Ministers
thrust
out
,
and
other
substituted
,
and
by
them
His
People
drawn
into
Arms
against
Him
.
Also
by
these
that
are
in
resistence
against
the
King
,
His
Loyall
and
Peaceable
Subjects
are
assaulted
,
despoiled
of
their
Arms
,
Goods
,
Estates
;
their
Persons
Imprisoned
,
because
they
would
according
to
their
Allegiance
assist
Him
in
this
extremity
,
or
would
not
,
contrary
to
their
Conscience
,
joyn
with
them
against
Him
.
What
Conscience
that
will
not
follow
this
way
with
a
stupid
implicit
faith
can
be
perswaded
that
this
Warre
is
the
defence
of
the
Subjects
Liberties
,
and
not
rather
an
oppugnation
of
them
?
or
that
it
is
a
meer
resistence
or
withstanding
of
a
force
first
made
against
them
,
and
not
rather
a
violent
illation
or
bringing
in
of
force
upon
those
that
were
disposed
to
Peace
.
Therefore
no
Conscience
that
ha's
a
sense
of
Religion
,
or
of
that
which
is
just
and
right
between
Man
and
Man
,
can
beare
a
part
in
this
resistence
,
for
fear
of
that
sentence
of
damnation
which
the
Apostle
ha's
laid
upon
it
.
SECT.
VII
.
BUt
in
the
last
place
,
if
Conscience
could
be
perswaded
,
that
it
is
lawfull
upon
such
a
case
,
as
they
make
,
to
take
Arms
and
resist
,
and
that
this
rising
in
Arms
is
such
a
defensive
resistence
,
as
in
such
a
case
they
seem
to
pretend
to
,
yet
how
will
it
be
perswaded
that
the
Case
is
now
,
that
is
,
That
the
King
is
such
as
the
people
must
be
made
to
believe
he
is
,
unles
it
will
as
desperately
offend
against
the
rule
of
Charitie
,
in
so
concluding
upon
the
King
,
as
it
does
against
the
rule
of
Faith
and
Perswasion
,
in
admitting
so
uugrounded
a
principle
as
is
now
rested
on
for
resistence
:
so
that
such
a
Conscience
shall
have
in
its
perswasion
neither
certainty
of
Rule
;
for
the
principle
it
goes
on
is
false
;
nor
certainty
of
the
Case
,
for
it
knows
not
the
heart
of
the
King
,
to
conclude
for
resistence
upon
supposals
of
his
intentions
,
and
in
its
judgement
it
will
be
altogether
void
of
Charitie
.
Indeed
it
concerns
all
such
as
will
resist
upon
the
principles
now
taught
to
render
their
Prince
odious
to
his
people
under
the
hatefull
notions
of
Tyrant
,
Subverter
of
Religion
,
and
Laws
,
a
Person
not
to
be
trusted
,
or
at
least
as
one
seduced
to
such
evil
designes
,
by
wicked
Counsel
.
But
what
?
Hath
this
King
forbid
the
exercise
of
the
Religion
established
or
left
off
to
professe
it
himselfe
?
hath
he
disclaimed
his
trust
,
or
not
upon
all
occasions
promised
justice
and
libertie
to
his
Subjects
?
Yea
!
but
they
have
cause
to
fear
Popery
will
prevail
,
and
that
he
will
not
stand
to
his
promises
.
It
seems
thy
are
men
that
would
be
loath
to
suffer
for
their
Religion
,
they
are
so
ready
to
fly
to
Arms
to
secure
themselves
;
But
shall
subjects
rise
in
Arms
against
their
Prince
upon
such
remote
fears
and
jealousies
as
these
will
appear
to
be
?
When
can
such
be
wanting
in
turbulent
minds
?
When
shall
the
Prince
be
assured
of
safety
?
This
was
the
way
that
David
himself
was
shaken
out
of
his
Throne
,
and
driven
from
Jerusalem
by
Absolom
:
This
cunning
Rebell
steals
away
their
hearts
by
raysing
jealousies
in
them
,
and
an
evill
opinion
of
Davids
government
,
2.
Sam.
15.
3.
Some
ground
it
seems
,
he
had
for
his
treacherous
plea
,
through
the
negligence
of
those
that
were
under
David
;
but
it
was
his
villanie
to
make
use
of
it
to
the
alienating
of
the
People
from
their
King
.
Accordingly
let
us
now
consider
what
slender
grounds
our
People
have
for
their
fears
and
jealousies
,
then
what
security
they
have
and
mightt
have
against
them
,
that
it
may
appear
how
causelesse
those
jealousies
are
in
themselves
,
how
unjust
causes
of
this
resistence
.
If
we
examine
the
fears
and
jealousies
that
have
possessed
the
People
,
we
shall
find
them
to
be
raised
upon
these
or
the
like
grounds
.
Reports
of
Forraign
Power
to
be
brought
in
,
The
Queens
Religion
,
The
resort
of
Papists
to
His
Majesty
,
His
intercepting
of
means
sent
for
the
reliefe
of
Ireland
,
from
whence
the
People
by
their
good
teachers
are
made
to
believe
,
that
He
means
to
enslave
this
People
,
re-establish
Popery
,
and
does
comply
with
the
Rebels
.
In
answer
to
all
,
which
I
needed
not
to
say
more
then
what
Michael
the
Arch-Angell
to
the
Devill
that
arch-accuser
;
The
Lord
rebuke
thee
,
Jude
9.
but
in
particular
;
For
such
reports
of
invasion
from
abroad
,
as
were
,
before
the
setting
up
of
the
Militia
,
given
out
to
keep
the
people
amused
,
the
easier
to
draw
them
into
a
Posture
of
Defence
as
was
pretended
,
all
such
are
discovered
by
time
to
have
been
vain
;
if
there
be
now
any
forraign
ayd
,
towards
the
King
(
as
all
Christian
Kings
cannot
but
think
themselves
concerned
in
the
cause
)
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
naturall
King
.
For
the
Queens
Majesty
;
Her
Religion
is
no
new
cause
,
if
it
be
a
sufficient
cause
of
Jealousie
to
them
,
they
have
had
it
from
her
first
entrance
;
I
would
to
God
it
were
otherwise
with
her
,
that
it
would
please
the
Lord
to
open
her
eyes
that
she
may
see
the
truth
and
light
of
the
Protestant
Religion
:
onely
this
I
must
say
,
this
is
not
the
way
to
draw
her
to
it
,
if
she
look
at
it
in
the
doctrines
and
practises
of
these
times
she
is
not
like
to
fall
in
love
with
it
.
For
the
resort
of
Papists
,
and
the
Kings
entertaining
them
;
He
hath
often
declared
what
caution
he
desired
to
use
therein
,
till
necessitie
hath
driven
him
to
admit
of
some
few
into
his
Army
,
which
also
he
answered
lately
.
Let
me
adde
this
concerning
the
justnesse
of
it
,
If
he
hath
entertained
any
into
this
service
,
he
may
justly
make
use
of
them
.
We
see
what
manner
of
men
were
gathered
to
David
in
his
distresse
,
1.
Sam.
22.
2.
and
how
false
Ziba
bringing
provision
to
the
King
when
he
fled
from
Absolom
,
was
entertained
and
rewarded
,
insomuch
that
the
King
(
when
afterward
he
knew
how
Ziba
had
abused
him
to
gain
his
own
ends
)
would
not
reverse
the
sentence
pronounced
in
his
favour
;
If
therefore
in
this
distresse
after
much
forbearance
our
King
hath
admitted
the
help
of
some
Recusants
,
it
cannot
be
alledged
as
a
cause
of
the
resistence
now
made
against
him
,
but
that
resistence
was
a
cause
of
it
;
and
if
the
Papist
will
shew
himself
a
good
subject
,
it
is
just
and
reasonable
that
the
King
when
he
is
put
to
it
,
may
admit
of
his
help
,
and
the
more
shame
it
is
for
them
that
professe
the
Protestant
Religion
to
force
him
to
it
;
a
scandall
that
would
not
easily
be
wiped
off
from
our
Religion
,
were
it
to
stand
or
fall
,
by
the
doctrines
of
this
giddie
Age
.
Lastly
,
His
Majestie
hath
written
enough
for
the
clearing
himselfe
from
those
false
and
odious
imputations
laid
upon
him
in
relation
to
the
Irish
businesse
.
I
have
onely
thus
much
to
say
,
concerning
any
thing
intended
for
the
relief
of
Ireland
;
It
was
great
pittie
they
should
want
it
there
,
but
it
is
more
pittifull
,
the
King
should
be
forced
to
make
use
of
it
here
.
It
is
not
long
since
our
neighbour
Nation
brought
an
Army
into
the
Northern
parts
of
this
kingdome
to
the
great
detriment
of
the
inhabitants
there
,
and
it
was
excused
by
invincible
necessitie
,
which
drove
them
hither
.
The
necessitie
his
Majestie
was
driven
to
is
sufficiently
known
,
and
might
excuse
him
,
in
taking
his
own
where
he
meets
with
it
,
and
drawing
it
from
his
service
abroad
to
that
which
more
nearly
concerned
him
at
home
.
And
when
his
Arms
,
Moneys
,
and
Provisions
are
seised
on
wherever
they
be
found
intended
for
him
,
and
imployed
against
him
in
a
Warre
,
the
Lord
knows
how
unnecessary
;
shall
it
not
be
lawfull
for
him
to
take
some
part
of
them
where
he
finds
it
for
his
necessary
defence
?
Indeed
the
distresse
of
Ireland
by
the
help
of
wicked
Pamphlets
hath
been
used
as
a
great
engine
to
weaken
the
Kings
reputation
with
his
people
;
but
upon
whose
account
the
heavie
reckoning
of
that
neglected
Cause
will
be
laid
,
together
with
the
disturbance
of
this
kingdome
,
any
man
in
Conscience
may
easily
discern
,
that
sees
what
sufficient
and
reasonable
means
might
have
been
had
for
the
security
of
Religion
and
Liberties
,
and
for
the
redresse
of
all
just
greivances
before
this
time
.
Which
is
the
next
thing
considerable
:
What
his
Majesty
hath
done
and
profered
to
exempt
these
scruples
of
fears
and
jealousies
out
of
his
peoples
minds
For
Religion
,
if
it
be
a
new
Frame
they
contend
for
,
I
must
acknowledge
he
declares
against
all
such
;
but
if
they
desire
the
continuance
of
that
true
Protestant
Religion
,
which
hath
been
professed
without
interruption
from
the
beginning
of
the
Queens
dayes
,
and
established
by
the
Laws
of
this
Land
,
that
he
undertakes
to
maintain
,
that
he
hath
protested
in
the
head
of
his
Army
to
defend
.
For
matter
of
Church-government
and
discipline
he
hath
offered
any
just
reformation
,
even
with
a
respect
to
tender
consciences
in
point
of
Ceremony
,
hath
often
called
his
two
Houses
to
the
work
in
drawing
up
the
grievances
to
some
head
.
For
priviledges
of
Parliaments
and
libertie
of
Subjects
he
hath
given
them
the
like
promises
with
the
deepest
Protestations
;
and
by
an
excellent
moderation
,
amidst
the
pressures
and
necessities
of
Warre
,
hath
shown
what
respect
he
hath
to
the
property
and
libertie
of
the
Subject
.
Lastly
,
For
his
choyse
of
Officers
of
State
,
he
hath
promised
to
admit
any
just
exception
,
and
thereupon
to
relinquish
the
person
;
and
as
an
assurance
of
all
this
,
hath
so
farre
condescended
as
to
take
away
Starre-chamber
,
High-commission
,
Bishops
votes
,
&c.
and
to
grant
the
Continuance
of
this
Parliament
,
and
the
constant
return
of
a
Trieniall
;
And
now
after
all
these
promises
and
protestations
,
and
so
many
reall
expressions
of
Grace
,
can
any
man
in
conscience
think
there
was
yet
place
left
for
Propositions
of
such
necessary
concernment
,
that
except
they
be
granted
this
Kingdome
must
be
imbroyled
in
a
Civill
warre
,
and
the
releif
of
Ireland
neglected
?
I
speak
not
this
to
cast
any
blemish
upon
the
wisdome
of
the
great
Councel
,
or
upon
their
desires
and
endeavors
to
gain
a
greater
security
to
the
Publick
:
but
I
would
to
God
,
the
King
were
once
thought
worthy
to
be
trusted
a
little
,
and
that
the
Consciences
of
his
Subjects
were
more
respected
,
which
cannot
so
easily
be
commanded
into
a
resistence
,
being
very
tender
in
the
points
of
damnation
,
and
taught
out
of
Gods
Word
not
to
raise
so
much
as
an
evil
thought
against
the
King
,
much
lesse
to
lift
up
an
armed
hand
.
Every
mans
Conscience
now
is
solicited
to
adhere
either
to
the
King
in
this
great
cause
,
or
to
joyn
with
Subjects
in
making
resistence
:
To
draw
it
from
Allegiance
,
tongues
are
set
on
fire
of
hell
,
which
blast
his
Majesties
Actions
and
Declarations
;
and
books
written
by
hellish
spirits
,
enemies
to
peace
and
quietnesse
,
are
suffered
to
issue
forth
into
every
corner
of
the
land
to
possesse
the
people
,
That
his
promises
are
but
words
,
his
acts
of
Grace
were
forced
,
he
will
not
stand
to
them
:
It
seems
then
he
must
by
force
of
Arms
be
compelled
to
be
willing
.
But
let
us
see
whether
a
Conscience
that
destres
to
be
safe
can
be
so
perswaded
in
judging
the
actions
and
intentions
of
him
(
to
whom
it
owes
the
highest
duty
under
God
)
as
first
to
conclude
He
intends
not
as
He
promises
,
and
thereupon
to
resolve
for
resistence
?
No
,
it
will
direct
it self
by
the
rule
of
Charity
,
which
is
,
not
rashly
to
conclude
upon
the
Heart
which
it
knoweth
not
,
or
to
think
any
evill
;
and
if
the
difference
be
betwixt
two
,
as
in
this
cause
,
it
will
hold
the
rule
of
indifferency
,
impartially
to
consider
the
actions
of
both
.
Conscience
therefore
that
it
may
be
informed
of
His
Majesties
intentions
,
will
it
look
upon
him
at
such
a
distance
as
London
,
and
reade
him
onely
in
those
horrid
relations
that
issue
thence
,
and
conceive
of
Him
as
they
report
Him
to
the
People
?
or
will
it
consider
some
failings
that
necessity
ha's
inforced
,
or
other
accidentall
occurrences
have
occasioned
,
and
from
these
conclude
intentions
in
Him
,
contrary
to
all
His
Promises
and
Protestations
?
This
would
be
too
partiall
,
too
uncharitable
:
Conscience
ought
alwayes
to
be
tender
in
judging
upon
other
Mens
intentions
,
especially
those
of
the
Prince
,
and
those
to
be
concluded
as
evill
,
and
to
be
made
a
ground
for
resistence
,
which
runs
the
hazard
of
Damnation
.
In
the
2.
Chron.
c.
21.
10.
Libnah
is
said
to
revolt
from
the
King
of
Judah
because
he
had
forsaken
the
Lord
;
a
Text
that
is
objected
to
us
,
and
should
have
been
answered
in
the
first
part
:
but
it
is
impertinent
as
all
the
rest
are
,
for
it
neither
proves
the
principle
,
That
it
is
lawfull
for
the
People
to
revolt
when
the
King
forsakes
Religion
,
but
shews
that
such
revolt
is
a
punishment
from
God
upon
such
a
King
,
though
a
sinne
in
the
people
:
Nor
doth
it
come
home
to
the
Case
:
for
there
the
King
had
forsaken
:
here
is
onely
supposall
that
he
will
,
and
that
groundlesse
and
unconscionable
too
.
For
as
there
was
enough
in
David
to
clear
those
jealousies
upon
which
that
rebellion
of
the
People
following
Absolom
was
grounded
,
so
is
there
on
the
Kings
part
,
to
direct
Conscience
against
this
desperate
uncharitable
judgement
,
if
it
look
at
those
many
Acts
of
Grace
as
new
additions
to
that
security
,
by
which
this
State
ha's
so
long
stood
,
and
from
them
conclude
,
He
would
not
in
a
faire
way
deny
any
thing
reasonable
:
If
it
consider
those
many
promises
strengthened
with
the
deepest
Protestations
,
enforced
with
desires
of
successe
from
God
according
to
His
just
intentions
;
and
all
these
,
as
proceeding
from
a
King
,
under
such
affliction
,
in
such
danger
,
after
such
successe
and
experience
of
Gods
protection
,
approving
thereby
the
reality
and
sincerity
of
his
heart
:
What
Conscience
can
here
conclude
contrary
intentions
in
him
,
and
not
think
it
blasphemeth
God
and
the
King
?
Furthermore
,
as
Conscience
will
not
be
uncharitable
when
it
judgeth
upon
the
intentions
of
another
mans
heart
,
so
neither
will
it
be
partiall
when
it
judgeth
between
two
,
unto
which
of
them
it
should
incline
:
and
therefore
he
that
is
abused
to
believe
amisse
of
his
King
,
and
solicited
to
enter
this
way
of
resistence
,
is
highly
concerned
first
to
consider
,
Whether
they
also
that
are
the
main
directors
of
it
,
and
to
whom
he
would
adhere
,
to
discharge
their
trust
they
are
called
to
,
I
say
such
an
one
,
unlesse
he
will
resigne
up
his
faith
to
men
,
and
receive
their
,
dictates
as
the
immediate
rule
of
his
Conscience
,
must
consider
whether
all
be
just
and
honest
that
is
done
in
that
way
?
Whether
to
divest
the
King
of
the
Power
of
Arms
and
to
use
them
against
him
,
be
to
defend
his
Person
,
Rights
,
and
Dignity
?
Whether
the
forcing
of
the
Subjects
property
,
to
the
advancing
of
this
resistence
,
and
the
imprisoning
of
their
persons
for
deniall
,
be
the
maintaining
of
the
Right
and
Liberty
of
the
Subject
?
Whether
the
suffering
of
so
many
Sects
to
vent
their
Doctrines
with
such
liberty
,
and
to
commit
unsufferable
outrages
upon
the
publike
worship
of
God
,
with
such
licentiousnesse
,
be
a
defending
of
Religion
and
the
established
worship
of
this
Church
?
All
these
duties
every
Subject
respectively
is
bound
to
discharge
,
and
the
neglect
of
them
his
Majesty
has
chiefly
charged
upon
those
that
he
conceives
the
chief
Directors
and
Actours
in
this
resistance
made
against
him
,
and
every
man
in
Conscience
ought
seriously
to
consider
it
The
necessity
of
the
Commonwealth
is
pretended
to
defend
the
not-defending
of
the
premises
;
when
as
no
necessity
may
excuse
any
failings
on
the
Kings
part
,
as
if
his
promises
,
by
which
he
stands
obliged
to
his
Subjects
,
did
not
suppose
they
for
their
parts
also
should
perform
:
I
know
not
how
some
particular
men
may
be
engaged
and
contract
a
necessity
of
resisting
,
or
seeking
safety
by
Arms
;
but
I
am
perswaded
,
no
man
in
Conscience
can
think
it
a
necessity
of
the
Commonwealth
to
have
all
confounded
,
or
of
a
Christian
to
run
the
hazard
of
damnation
by
resisting
.
My
Conscience
tells
me
,
and
Qwill
theirs
one
day
tell
them
,
how
much
they
have
to
answer
for
not
improving
that
grace
and
willingnesse
,
they
had
experience
of
in
His
Majesty
,
and
might
still
have
found
in
him
,
to
the
speedy
and
happy
Reformation
of
this
Church
and
State
▪
I
pray
God
to
give
them
Consciences
truly
inlightned
,
and
bowels
truely
compassionate
,
that
they
may
speedily
and
feelingly
be
sensible
of
the
miseries
this
Land
groanes
under
,
and
faithfully
examine
how
far
they
are
answerable
for
them
,
by
rejecting
such
reasonable
means
of
security
,
as
they
might
have
〈◊〉
for
the
safety
of
this
State
.
Amen
.
And
now
if
there
be
any
one
that
will
run
the
hazard
of
this
resistence
,
I
desire
he
would
first
set
his
Conscience
before
the
Tribunall
of
God
,
where
it
must
appear
,
and
consider
whether
it
will
excuse
him
there
,
when
he
ha's
shed
the
blood
of
others
,
and
expended
his
own
,
to
say
,
I
verily
supposed
and
believed
my
Prince
would
change
Religion
,
overthrow
our
Liberties
.
I
must
tell
him
it
will
not
be
safe
for
him
to
present
such
a
Conscience
at
that
Barre
,
a
Conscience
that
wanted
the
rule
of
Faith
to
warrant
and
perswade
the
lawfulnesse
of
resistence
upon
such
a
supposall
,
a
Conscience
that
wanted
the
certainty
of
perswasion
that
the
Princes
Heart
(
which
God
onely
knows
)
was
so
inclined
,
a
Conscience
that
wanted
the
Judgement
of
Charity
,
in
concluding
such
intentions
in
the
King
,
notwithstanding
all
His
Promises
and
deepest
Protestations
made
in
the
time
of
His
trouble
,
without
which
Charity
all
is
nothing
though
he
layes
down
(
as
he
thinks
)
his
Life
for
Religion
.
Such
a
Conscience
I
must
needs
conclude
sinfull
,
and
liable
to
that
which
the
Apostle
threatens
vnto
Resistence
,
Damnation
.
FINIS
.