You are on page 1of 2

“Truly, I think, if the King had had money, he might have had soldiers enough in

England. For there were very few of the common people that cared much for either of
the causes, but would have taken any side for payor plunder. But the King's treasury
was very low, and his enemies, that pretended the people's ease from taxes, and other
specious things, had the command of the purses of the city of London, and of most
cities and corporate towns in England, and of many particular persons
besides” (p. 167)

“This power of absolving subjects of their obedience, as also that other of being judge
of manners and doctrine, is as absolute a sovereignty as is possible to be; and
consequently there must be two kingdoms in one and the same nation, and no man be
able to know which of his masters he must obey” (p. 173)

“The rules of just and unjust sufficiently demcmstrated, and from principles evident to
the meanest capacity, have not been wanting; and notwithstanding the obscurity of their
author, have shined, not only in this, but also in foreign countries, to men of good
education. But they are few, in respect of the rest of the men, whereof many cannot
read; many, though they can, have no leisure; and of them that have leisure, the greatest
part have their minds wholly employed and taken up by their private businesses or
pleasures. So that it is impossible that the multitude should ever learn their duty, but
from the pulpit and upon holidays; but then, and from thence, it is, that they learned
their disobedience. And, therefore, the light of that doctrine has been hitherto covered
and kept under here by a cloud of adversaries, which no private man's reputation can
break through, without the authority of the Universities. But out of the Universities,
came all those preachers that taught the contrary. The Universities have been to this
nation, as the wooden horse was to the Trojans” (p.213)

“For men, grown weary at last of the insolence of the priests, and examining the truth of
these doctrines that were put upon them, began to search the sense of the Scriptures, as
they are in the learned languages; and consequently studying Greek and Latin, became
acquainted with the democratical principles of Aristotle and Cicero, and from the love
of their eloquence fell in Jove with their politics, and that more and more, till it grew
into the rebellion we now talk of, without any other advantage to the Roman Church but
that it was a weakening to us, whom, since we broke out of their net in the time of
Henry VIII, they have continually endeavoured to recover” (p. 218)

“B. What is there in this, to give colour to the late rebellion?


A. They will say they did it iu obedience to God, inasmuch as they did believe it was
according to the Scripture; out of which they will bring examples, perhaps of David and
his adherents, that resisted King Saul, and of the prophets afterward, that vehemently
from time to time preached against the idolatrous Kings of Israel and Judah. Saul was
their lawful King, and yet they paid him neither active nor passive obedience; for they
did put themselves into a posture of defence against him, though David himself spared
his person. And so did the Presbyterians put into their commissions to their general, that
they should spare the King's person. Besides, you cannot doubt but that they, who in the
pulpit did animate the people to take arms in the defence of the then Parliament, alleged
Scripture, that is, the word of God for it. If it be lawful then for subjects to resist the
King, when he commands anything that is against the Scripture, that is, contrary to the
command of God, and to be judge of the meaning of the Scripture, it is impossiblethat
the life of any King, or the peace of any Christian kingdom, can be long secure. It is this
doctrine that divides a kingdom vdthin itself, whatsoever the men be, loyal or rebels,
that write or preach it publicly. And thus you see that if those seditious ministers be
tried by this doctrine, they will come off well enough” (p. 226)