defend the state from foreign invasion, who see more into the danger than we do; the third is, to preserve themselves and the country from the insurrection and rebellion of papists : and that this is lawful we prove by divers reasons, some drawn from nature, some from Scripture, some from the fundamental laws of the kingdom, some from the being of parliaments, and some from the common trust reposed on princes.

First, From nature. It is the most natural work in the world for every thing to preserve itself. Natural for a man to preserve himself, natural for a community; and therefore when a commonweale shall choose a prince, or a state-officer, though they trust him with their welfare, then that act of their trust is but by positive law, and therefore cannot destroy the natural law, which is self-preservation, cum humana potestas supra jus natura non existit,* seeing that no human power is above the law of nature.

Secondly, From Scripture. The word of God saith expressly, in 1 Chron. xii. 19, that David went out against Saul to battle; yet he was Saul's subject at that time, for the lord of the Philistines sent him away, saying, He will fall to his master Saul: which text I bring not to prove that a subject may take up arms against the king's person, but that the subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the king's person, notwithstanding the king's command to the contrary, which because this of David is said to be against Saul, and that David's heart smote him for cutting off the lap of Saul's garment: the meaning, therefore, must needs be, that he went out in battle against those that attended upon Saul, strengthened by Saul's authority, notwithstanding Saul's command to the contrary. And in the New Testament, Rom. xiii. 1, we are commanded to be subject to the higher powers; now the parliament being the highest court of justice in this kingdom, as king James saith in his Basilicon Doron, must needs be the higher powers of England; though the king be supreme, yet they have the high power of declaring the law, as this Dr. Fearne confesseth, being most fit to judge what is law. They, therefore, declaring this to be the fundamental law of the kingdom, for the subjects to defend themselves by forcible resistance, notwithstanding the king's command to * Jacob Almain de auth. ecclesiæ apud Gerson.

the contrary, it is the duty of all the subjects to be obedient to these higher powers.

Thirdly, From the fundamental laws of the kingdom. It is according to the fundamental laws of the kingdom, yea written and not unseen laws, that the parliament is trusted by the commonweale with the welfare and security thereof; whence I do reason thus: If it be the duty of the king to look to the safety of the kingdom, and that because he is trusted therewith by the commonweale; then if the parliament be immediately trusted by the commonweale with the safety thereof as well as the king, though not so much, then are they to look to it, and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the king; but so it is that the prince is bound to look to the safety and welfare of the kingdom, as is agreed by all; and, therefore, he is bound to it, because he receiveth this power original, I speak not in opposition to God, but, I say, originally from the people themselves, as appears by the government of the judges and kings of Israel, which government, this Doctor saith, was monarchial, the best platform for England: for Judges viii. 22, "The men of Israel came unto Gibeon to make him their king;" and Judges ix. 6, "They gathered together and made Abimeleck their king;" and Judges xi. 8-11, "The people covenanted with Jephthah, and made him their king;" and as for Saul, though he was designed by God to the kingdom, yet the people themselves chose the kind of their government first, when they said, "Give us a king to rule over us, after the manner of the nations." After that God had anointed Saul, it is said, 1 Sam. xi. 15, “ And all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal." And as for David, though he was anointed king by Samuel, yet we find that he continued a subject unto Saul after that; and 2 Sam. ii. " He came unto Hebron, and there the men of Judah were, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah," verse 4. After that he was thus anointed by Judah to be king over them, yet he did not rule over Israel till the other tribes, also, went out and made him king over them, 1 Chron. xii. 38. It is said that all these men of war came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel. And as for Solomon, though he was designed by God to the kingdom, yet it is said of him,

also, 1 Chron. xxix. 22, that "all the congregation did eat and drink before the Lord, and they made Solomon, the son of David, king the second time, and anointed him unto the Lord to be the chief governor." Solomon being dead, 2 Chron. x. 1, it is said of Rehoboam, that " he went to Shechem, where all Israel came to make him king." And in 2 Sam. xvi. 18, it is said thus: "And Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king. And Absalom said unto Hushai, Is this thy kindness unto thy friend, why wentest thou not with thy friend? And Hushai said unto Absalom again, Nay, but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide." So that we see that these monarchs, both of the judges and kings of Israel, were chosen and entrusted by the people, and had their power of governing from them. The parliament, also, is immediately trusted by the people and commonweale with the safety thereof as well as the king, though not to be king, for they are the officers of the kingdom, and therefore chosen immediately by the people, and not designed by the king: and this kind of officers was in David's time also; there were some officers then that were the king's officers, his cooks, his bakers, the steward of his house and the like. Others were the officers of the kingdom, called the elders, and heads of the tribes, which though they were under him, yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the kingdom, whom therefore he did consult with in the great affairs of the state, 1 Chron. xiii. 1. Wherefore seeing the king is to look to the safety of the kingdom, and that because he is trusted therewith by the people, and the parliament are as well trusted by the people with the safety of the land, it is their duty in case of danger to look to it, which they are not able to do, and make good their trust, unless they have power to take up arms against an enemy when the prince is misled or defective.

Fourthly, From the being of a parliament. As it is a parliament it is the highest court of justice in the kingdom, therefore hath power to send for by force those that are accused before them, that they may come to their trial; which power, if I mistake not, inferior courts have, much more the highest. It is out of doubt agreed on by all, that the parliament hath a power to send a serjeant-at-arms to bring up such an one as is accused before them; and if they have a power

to send one serjeant-at-arms, then twenty, if twenty be accused; then a hundred, if there be a hundred accused; then a thousand, if there be a thousand accused; then ten thousand, if there be ten thousand accused; and so more or less as occasion serves: for there is the same reason for two as for one, and for four as for two, and for a hundred as for twenty, and for a thousand as for a hundred; and take away this power from the parliament and it is no longer a parliament: but the king and his forefathers have by law settled these liberties of parliament, and therefore, according to laws, they have a power to send for by force those that are accused to be tried before them, which they cannot do unless they raise an army, when the accused are kept from them by an army.

Fifthly, From the common trust reposed on princes, and the end thereof, which is to feed their people. Psalm lxxviii. 70, "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-fold to feed his people, Jacob, and his inheritance in Israel." The end why the people have trusted the prince, is the safety and security of the kingdom, the safety and welfare of the state; not that the king might be great and the subjects slaves. Now if a people should have no power to take up arms for their own defence because they had trusted the prince therewithal, then by that trust they intended to make themselves slaves. For suppose the king will let in a common enemy upon them, or take his own subjects and make them slaves in gallies, if they may not take up arms for their own defence. because they had trusted their prince therewithal; what can this be but by their trust to make themselves slaves unto him?

The caution that is to be premised is this: notwithstanding all that I have said yet, I do not say that the subjects have power to depose their prince, neither doth our assertion or practice enforce such an inference.

But if the power of the prince be derived from the people, then they may take away that power again. I answer, it follows not, neither shall the people need to think of such an inference. Indeed if the power were derived from the people to the prince firstly, and that the people should be so strait-laced that they should have no power left to defend themselves in case of danger when the prince is misled, or unfaithful, then the people might be occasioned to think of

deposing their prince: but though the power of the prince be originally from them, yet if they have so much power left as in times of danger, to look to their own preservation, what need they think of any such matter.

Why but if the people give the power, then if abused, they may take it away also. I answer, no, that needs not, seeing they never gave away that power of self-preservation; so that this position of ours is the only way to keep people from such assaults, whereby the power of the prince is more fully established: whereas if people were kept from power of self-preservation which is natural to them, it were the only way to break all in pieces; for Nullum violentum contra naturale est perpetuum, no violent thing against nature is perpetual. Thus have I clearly opened our opinion, and proved our sentence, give me leave now to speak with the Doctor.

SECTION I.

THE Doctor saith, That in the proposition or principle, by the word resistance is meant, not a denying of obedience to the prince's command, but a rising in arms, a forcible resistance: this though clear in the question, yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the divines of this kingdom, and upon all those that appear for the king in this cause.

Here the Doctor would insinuate in the very entrance of his book, that so he might the better captare benevolentiam, curry favour for the matter of his discourse following. That the divines of England are of his judgment. But if they be so, surely their judgment is lately changed: but indeed what divines are of his judgment? not the divines of Germany, not the divines of the French Protestant Churches, not the divines of Geneva, not of Scotland, not of Holland, not of England.

Not the divines of Germany, who say thus:* Governors

* Gubernato res ergo in iis rebus quæ cum decalogo et justis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent præ cæteris hominibus privatis ; et perpretrantes id quod malum est coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium prestante