supreme Magistrate in a State and all particulars cease and the Royall line be spent and justice to be executed it returnes to the whole body to see to it As when Josua and divers Judges had ruled in Israel yet we read that after them Judg. 19 1. There was no King in Israel and then was the great sinne committed by the men of Gibeah with the Levites Concubine whereupon all Israel did take the sword of justice and they said Judg. 20. 13. to the men of Gibea Deliver us the men the children of Belial which are in Gibea that we may put them to death which Gibea refusing they did all as one man goe up in Armes against them God himselfe approving their act And what had all Israel to doe to execute justice if the power of the Sword did not returne to the people vacante magistratu supremo Neither can it be objected that though Israell had no King and supreme Magistrate amongst them yet they had severall heads of the Tribes by whose power they did come together for the execution of justice as it might seeme to be Judges 20. 2. For sometimes the chiefe of the Tribes doth in Scripture phrase signifie those that are chiefe in age wisedome and riches not such as were chiefe in authority Besides this action is imputed to all the people there being foure hundred thousand men that came together upon this designe vers. 2 unto whom the Levite made his complaint vers 7. Yee are all children of Israel give here your advice and counsell And all the people arose as one man vers 8 saying vers 9. Now this shall be the thing we will doe to Gibea and vers 11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against Gibea And least that any should thinke that this worke was done by the power of some remaines of regall authority amongst them it is not onely said before this work begun that there was no King in Israel in those dayes Judg. 19 1. But after all was done i is said further chap. 21. 25. In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every man did that which was right in his owne eyes so that Jus gladii the right of the sword in case of defection returneth to them again so far as to see that justice be duly executed And therefore if both the Fluxus and Refluxus of authority be from and to the people then must they needs be under God the first seat subject and receptacle of civill power Object But the Scripture tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13 1. And it ordained of God then not of man nor by any Fluxus or appointment from or of man Ans. Not to speake of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies rather ordered then ordained Government is of God two wayes either by immediate donation as that of Moses or by mediate derivation as that of Iudges and the Kings of Israel The government of Princes now is not by immediate donation or designation but by mediate derivation and so it is both of God and man too as Fortescue speakes Quicquid facit causa secunda facit causa prima But the Doctor tells us that Kings at first were not by choice of the people but that election was a defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way of descent of governing Kingly power by a paternall right pag. 9. of his Reply That Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of man as Democracie and Aristocracie are but that it is rather ductunaturae though not jure naturae we being led there unto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule pag. 8. as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers For we see saith he that the earth was divided amongst Noah and his three sonnes and still as they increased new Colonies were sent out who had the government both Regall and Sacerdotall by primogeniture whence it appeares saith he that Monarchy was the first government it being late ere any popular rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world And that Monarchy how ever we cannot say that it was jure divino yet it was exemplo divino the government which God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses Judges and the Kings of Israel pag. 8. Ans. First whereas the Dr saith that the first Kings were not by the choice of the people at the first p. 8. And that popular election was a kinde of defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way c. I refer Doctor Fern unto Doctor Fern who saith both in his first and second book pag. 67. of his Reply It is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elswhere This I have spoke to already and shall speak to yet afterwards neither doe we take it unkindly that the Doctor cannot agree with us seeing he cannot agree with himselfe Secondly whereas he saith Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of Man as Aristocracie and Democracie are I refer him to what he saith himselfe For in his first booke pag. 13. 14. he saith We must distinguish power it selfe and the qualification of that power in severall formes of government If we consider the qualification of this governing power and the manner of executing it according to the severall formes of government we granted it before to be the invention of man And when such a qualification or forme is orderly agreed upon wee say it hath Gods permissive approbation Yet in his Reply he makes this forme of Monarchicall government rather an appointment of God both ducta natura and exemplo divino and not a meere invention of man as other formes of government are Here I must leave him to agree with himselfe Thirdly whereas he saith That the first Fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the earth divided amongst Noahs three sonnes c. I referre him for information to the 1 Chron. 1 10. where it is said expressely of Nimrod that hee began to be mighty upon the earth whereas if Noah and his sonnes were Kings their dominions being greater before the dâ—vision of the earth into after Colonies they should have been more mighty then he And what his might was is declared to us Gen. 10. 10. And the beginning of his kingdome was Babel c. Here is the first time as Mendoza well observes that we read of a kingdome after the flood and that is marked with a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rebellavit For Nimrod comes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to rebell as if in erecting his Kingdome he had rebelled against the way of government which before wasused if not appointed And it should seem strange if God had appointed that way of government by making the sonnes of Noah Kings that Cham from whom came Nimrod who was that
after the people have chosen their magistrate they have resigned up their power to him An. But the people never created or received their Kings but upon certain Conditions which being manifestly broken and not kept those have power to abdicate who have power to create and this has alwaâ—es been in use amongst all the most famous Nations in the World the Israeltes Lacedemonians Romanes Danes Swedes Scotch Polonians and English Ob But if a Magistrate doe degenerate into a Tyrant as wee are not to be obedient to him so neither are we to resist him Answ That is onely understood of private men Object But David spared Saul though it were in his power to â—nth moff An. That is no way contrary to the doctrine delivered for David had many armed men about him whose help if need had required he would without doubt have used against all yet thus hee did having respect rather to his owne defence then his enemies offence This testimony tells us what hath beene the practise of all Nations the testimony of the Scots in their answer to Lisimacâ—us Nicaâ—our saith expresly that our doctrine is according to the judgment of all the Reformea Churches And if these testimonies will not yet prevaile with the Dr. I must leave him to his resolves hee tells us that our homilies are against us but let him produce any place out of the homilies where it is said that the two Houses may not take up Armes to bring armed delinquents to their Tryall Indeed the Homilies speake against Subjects taking up of Armes against their King so doe not the Parliament but to defend themselves and to bring Delinquents to tirall And therefore when the Dr. or other bring forth testimonies of Divines ancient or late to prove that Subjects may not take up Armes against their Prince they had as good say nothing that is not to our case but let them prove by testimonies that it is not lawful for the Parliament to take up arms to secure the Kingdome to bring accused Persons to tryall and to deliver the Prince out of the hands of Malignants and then they say something to us else it is but clamor not Reason At last the Doctor speakes somewhat of arbitrary government p. 46. which is no way any answer to the reasons that were given by me proving that his opinion raised the King to an arbitrary government onely he sets down his further sentence about arbitrarines eadem facilitate rejicitur qua affirmatur The Rest of that Section is either spent in naked Assertions or jearing expressions or seeming Answers to his other Answerers CHAP. 4. THe Dr. having spent some time upon his other Answerres at the 49. pag. he is pleased to returne to me where hee would prove that the people of Israel did not by any forceable resistance rescue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul which worke saies he was but set off with a souldier like boldnes Let the Doctor call this work what he please Saul the King had sworn that Jonathan should dre and the people sweare be should not dye and they being in Arms did rescue Ionathan saith the Text This rescue the Doctor calls in his first Booke a living violence and in his reply a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes I hope the Doctor will give us leave to use the like termes if a Prince swear the death of some Parliamentary men who deserve not to die but to be preferr'd and the people rise up in Arms and rescue their Ionathans saying as we live they shall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us this is no resistance it is but a loving violence and a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes why may not we call this so aswell as the Dr. That But I appeale to all reason whether a rescue by men in Arms from those that have swornea mans death be not forceable resistance But say wee this is more then Prayers and teares which is th' only remedie allowed by the Doctor to which he replieth The Dr. had no where said though Mr. Bridge makes him often say so that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects but besides their cries to God he allowes them intercessions reproofes denyall of subsidies and aides I will not search into the Doctors Booke for every word take what he granteth here yet this souldierly boldnes of rescuing is more then Prayers teares reproofes or denialls of subsidies and aids which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confesseth now Yet the Doctor is so full of this sentence still that in the 51. pag. of this book he saith that the Children of Israel being under the oppression of their Kings had no remedie they had was by crying to the Lord And againe in the same page saith all the remedie they had was by crying to the Lord so also in his first booke pag. 10. the people are let to understand I Sam. 8. II. how they should be oppressed under Kings and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord Thus doe men forget themselves and what they have said whilest they contend against truth Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul the Dr. replies now as before that Davids example was extraordinary Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done what if wee should say that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary he tells us pag. 31. of his Reply that Conquest one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought tha people â—rder 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases Would not the Doctor take it for a poore shifting Answer from us When we say any practice is extraordinary we must also prove by circumstance that there was an extraordinaries in the fact or else acquies in it for our example But be it so that Davids example was extraordinary is not our case now extraordinary Is Englands case ordinary hath it bin thus ordinarily that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes has this bin for many yeares see how the Doctor helps himselfe by this extraordinary Answer He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul and is not this ordinarily lawfull for subjects to doe so much the Doctor grants it himselfe p. 9. of his first Book That personall defence is lawfull against suddaine and illegall assaults of the Prince himselfe thus farre toward his
cursed and wicked posterity of Noah should keep that government alive which was set up by God and that Shem who was the godly posterity of Noah from whom came Abram should not for we read not that Abraham was a King or that his government was Monarchical but rather the contrary as 1 Chro. 1. 43. Now these are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any King reigned over the children of Israel To this purpose Mendoza Å¿ writeth who saith Before the descent into Egypt the Jewes did not constitute a Common-wealth but a family for as Aristotle a Common-wealth doth not arise but from a conjunction of many families but theâ— Abrahams family was one to which Isaac's succeeded and to that the house of Jacob And although in Jacobs time after severall marriages there spâ—ang up divers families the government of all which could not be Occonomâ—â—alâ— or Domesticall yet were there not so many families as could constitute any politicall Common-wealth but a middle kinde of Community which is called Vitalis or Collectanea Yea in Sect. 6. he proves out of Austine Anton. Isidore that Kingly government fell in the fourth age of the world and therefore Rupertus compares the fourth Age of the world to the fourth day of the creation t Because as that did shine with starres so this with Kings And whereas the Doctor tells us that this Regall Monarchicall government is naturall though not jure yet ductu naturae we being led thereunto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first Fathers of mankinde were Kings and so Regall government to descend upon the first borne by primogeniture as their families increased and spread further c. pag. 8. I referre him to what Molina and Pineda say u Molina will tell him that power is of two sorts some that hath its rise ex solo jure naturali and therefore called naturall as the power of the Father over his children and those that descend from him Other power there is which hath its origination from the will of Men they being willing to subject themselves to the supreame and is therefore called a civill power So that paternall and civill power are not the same but have two originals And if Monarchicall government should bee by paternall right then is it not onely ductu sed jure naturae ductus naturae is that whereby wee are led to any thing by the principles of Nature and that which wee are led to by the principles of Nature is jure naturae For naturale est sayes the Philosopher quod fluit ex principiis naturae And so the Membra dividentia should interfeere whereas they ought to be fully opposite Besides if paternall government doe lead us to Regall and Monarchicall then Kings should and ought to rule as arbitrarily in their Kindomes as Fathers doe in their Families And if subjects doe deny this Arbitrary power to them they sinne because they are led thereunto by Nature and so all the Kingdomes of the world should he in this sinne for in what Kingdome of the world doth a King rule as arbitrarily as a Father in his family Again this contrivance of government by the Doctor supposes that the eldest Man or Father after the Flood though he were never so silly and weake should be King and that this Regall government must necessarily descend upon the first borne by vertue of primogeniture For this I referre him to Pineda where at large in his Booke de rebus Salomonis he may read Pineda proving that among the Israelites the Crown did not descend upon the first born but was alwayes disposed of according to the will of the parent appointing it to this or that childe where he brings in Abulensis retracting his opinion and professing that though he did formerly thinke that the Crowne did descend upon the first borne by vertue of primogeniture yet at the last he was of another sentence because it is said 1 Chron. 5. 1. 2. Ruben the first borne of Israel because he defiled his Fathers bed his birthright was given to the sonnes of Joseph yet verse 2. Juda prevailed above his brethren and of him came the chiefe Rulers Now as they argue if the Crowne belonged to the first borne as part of the Birthright that should have been given unto the sonnes of Joseph unto whom it is here said expressely the Birthright was given but the rule and Crowne was given unto another Tribe arguing that it was no part of the birthright or any necessary annexum to the primogeniture in those dayes This doctrine Pineda proves by examining the series of all the Kings instancing especially in Solomon who was appointed King by David notwithstanding he was not Davids eldest sonne and Abiah who was appointed by Rehoboam though Rehoboam had many elder children as he clears from 2 Chron. 11 18 19 20 21 22. Fifthly whereas the Doctor saith This Monarchicall government was the first government that God set up In Moses Judges and Kings of Israel and so though not jure divino yet exemplo divino I consesse I cannot but wonder at the conceit seeing the difference between the government of Judges and Kings is so abundantly made out by Car. Sigonius Feverdentius Ranervus Abulensis and many others a Sigonius saith expresly the first government among the Hebrews was by the chiefe of the people and after by Kings that by the Greeks being called Aristocracie and this Monarchie Aristocracie saith he was under the Judges Joshua and others Monarchie under Kings which Aristocraticall government of theirs is signified to us by these words in Deut. 12. 1. 8. These are the statutes and judgements which ye shall observe to do in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee Verse 1. then verse 8. Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes And indeed if the Israelites were under Monarchicall government in the times of the Judges and Monarchie was then on foot why should they desire it as another kind of government which yet they had not 1. Sam. 8. saying to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations verse 5. By which it appeares that the government which they had before under the Judges was not Monarchicall as that which they had afterwards Let no man therefore swallow this principle so often inculcated by the Doctor that the government of Israel under Judges was Monarchicall For though some of the Judges were called Kings yet as Drusius and others observe the word King was taken either more strictly for Monarchs or more largely for such Captains and Governours as did rule over them Surely God at the first by all we can read in the Scripture was pleased to appoint Magistracie it selfe and left the children of men free to set up that way and forme of government
the reason for he that resisteth c. So that resisting and not subjecting or obeying is all one It is no sinne not to obey unlawfull Commandements but the Apostle makes it a sinne here to resist and therefore the resistance forbidden doth not relate unlawfull Commandements but if lawfull But then the Doctor tells us that if these words should be understood onely of active obedience to Lawfull Commands and not of passive to unlawfull Commands the Apostle had given the Romans but a lame instruction page 60. and his reason for that speech followes at a distance page 61. because then the Romans should not have been sufficiently instructed how to answere the unlawfull Commandements of Princes as also there would have been a gap open to Rebellion for saith he how easie would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully Answ. This is a strange worke to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case that a passive obeidience should not bee here commanded God doth not command every thing in every Scripture yet those Scriptures wherein hee commandeth something and not all are not lame instructions The first Commandement commands the substance of Worship the second the right meanes the third the manner and the fourth the due time of Worship yet the first is not lame because it doth not command what the second nor the second lame because it doth not command what the third nor the third lame because it doth not command what the fourth so here though God should command onely active not passive Obedience in this Text this instruction would not be lame but why should it be a lame instruction the Doctor tells us the because the Romans should not be susffciently directed how to answer the unlawfull Commandements of Princes yes surely if God did here command them obedience to Lawfulls He should at once forbid them disobedience to unlawfulls but saith the Dr. then there will be a gap for Rebllion for how easily would men inferre therefore we may resist in things unlawfull I answer the Doctor takes this for granted which is to be proved that all forceable resistance is Rebellion 2. Suppose that true which himselfe granteth page 1. the first Booke that it 's lawfull to resist unlawfull Commands though not with forceable resistance And if so then why might not the Romans as well say this instruction you give us is lame for you forbid resistance and yet in some kinde resistance is lawfull a suffering resistance lawfull and a forceable resistance unlawfull And yet you have not in this 13. Chap. given us any such distinction so are we left in the darke and your instruction lame But good Doctor let us take off our owne halvings whilst we goe about to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case he come not just up to our opinions But to put an end to this matter concerning this Text I appeale to the Doctor whether he doth not thinke that these words Higher Powers v. 1. Did not include the Romane Senate I say when the Apostle commands Let every Soule be subject to the higher powers Did hee not command the Christian Romanes to bee subject to the Romane Senate We know that after this Epistle was written to the Romanes as Eusebius reports the Romane Senate was not onely in being but so potent and powerfull that when that was propounded to the Senate whether Christ should be acknowledged as Good that was in the Senates Power to grant or refuse and they refused So Estius also saith that the Governours of Provinces were appointed by the Senate as well as by Caesar when â—eter wrote his Epistle So that still notwithstanding aesar the Romane Senate was a high Power and the higher Powers unto the People And if th y were the higher Powers who were to bee obeyed by this Commandement of the Apostles then why doth the Doctor bring this Scripture to urge our higher Powers and Senate to obey especially when the Doctor himselfe confesses page 62 that the two Houses as distinct from the King fall under the words Higher Powers At last in the 62. page the Doctor comes to that place of Peter 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your elves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him where after the Dr. had a little strok'd himself on the head and laboured to spit some filth on our faces he comes to that Testimony of Calvin for that which hee sayes concerning Dr. Bilson is not much materiall who proves that the Pronoune Him relates to God and not the King for the reason which I alleadged in my first Booke now the Dr. replies true all are sent by God but it is as true that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or the Romane Emperour Aâ— The Reader may observe how the Dr. doth deale by the Scripture againe for he sets downe the words thus To the King as supreme or the Governours as those that are sent by him and thus indeed the word Him must needs relate to the King but conceales that part of the v. wherein the word God is exprest thus submit your selfe to every Ordinance of God for the Doctor knew that if hee had set downe that part of the ver the Reader would have perceived that the Pronoune him should have related to God and not to the King Secondly observe what he answers he tells us that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or Emperour that 's not the question now but whom the Pronoune him doth relate whether God or the King And for this he gives no reason not answeres Calvins and therefore I need adde no more yet Estius his reasons are very full proving that the Pronoune him must relate God and not the King for sayes he the Apostle Peter would move the people to obey the King and Governours which Argument is full because they were sent by God whereas if the pronoune him should relate to the King here were no motive 2. Because the Apostle Peter saith that they are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers and the prayse of them that doe well for which cause the wicked Heathenish Governours did not send the Governours it being known that they sent them for the punishment of those that were good and for the prayse of those that were evill and therefore the pronoune Him is to be carryed on God and to have relation to God not to the King in this place And therefore what the Doctour brings from this place to set the Parliament at a greater under then God would have is nothing worth The rest of the Chapter is spent with his other Adversaries I having thus delivered the Scripture from his Objections shall be the more briefe in Answere to the after part of his discourse because the onely ground of conscience is Gods word CHAP. 5. IN the tenth Sect.
the King by his paternall right Sect. 3. and so indeed there is roome for an implicite Faith for that children have most of all an implicit Faith in that which their Fathers say Finally Master B. endeavours to shew saith Dr. Ferne how they can answere the Oath of Supremacy anâ— the Protestation by taking of Armes but who knowes not saith the Doctoâ— if that party of Brownists and Anabaptists which are now so prevalent in the Armes taken up against the King should get the upper hand what would become of the Kings Supremacy and Government An. Here is a loud cry against Brownists and Anabaptists but who are Brownists not all those that are against Prelates and not for the English Common Prayer Book for then all the Reformed Churches are Brownists And as for Anabaptists I wish it may bee considered whether they doe not take some footing for their opinion from the Common Prayer Booke They deny Baptisme to Infants upon this ground because actuall Faith and Repentance is pre-required to Baptisme and doth not the Common Prayer Book seeme to acknowledge as much when as before Baptisme the witnesses in name of the Infant must answer to these Questions dost thou beleeve dost thou renounce the divell and all his workes I must nakedly professe my judgement against that opinion yet were it not good that the very Common prayer booke should come under consideration upon this and other Reasons Secondly if men were so much for Protestant Religion and against Papists as is here pretended they would never be more afraid of Brownists and Anabaptists then of Papists seeing they are of the Protestant Religion and differ not from us in fundamentalls as the Papists doe Thirdly suppose that that Army should prevaile wherein there are Brownists Anabaptists as you say yet is there not so much danger that they should prevaile to mislead the Parliament who are three or foure hundred as that Papists should prevaile to mislead one Fourthly though there should be Anabaptists and Brownists in the Army yet they doe not sight against the Kings Supremacy and his Government as the Papists do against the Protestant Religion and being of Parliaments whose Powder Treason is famous or rather Infamous to all Generations At last the Dr. tells us concerning Supremacy that the King is Supreme not so much in opposition to particular persons as in relation to the whole body Politique of which he is head We say the King is Supreme and head of Kingdome severally and joyntly considered Dr. Ferne indeed tels us that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Co-ordinate with his Majestie to some act or exercise of the Supreme power that is to making laws by yeelding their consent And if they bee Co-ordinate in that act of Supremacy Paraeus and others will tell him that the Nomothetick part of Supremacy is the highest We acknowledge the King our Supreme to defend us But not to defend our selves where cause requires gives a supra-Supremacy unto him What else remaines in this Sectionis either matter of words and bare denyall to what hath been said or answered to his other Answerers In the next Section page 89 the Dr. saith Mr. B. enters upon a loose Discourse against Episcopall Government I reserve him for his better instruction to a Booke entituled Episcopacy asserted Ans. No other loose Discourse then what his loose Treatise lead mee into and for the Drs better instruction I refer him to Mr. Baynes his Diocesan Mr. Parkers Ecclesiasticall politieor Altare Damascenum And whereas I said now the Dr. shewes himself he had rather the Kingdom should be imbrued in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should down because he had said in his Treatise page 25. that the King has Reason by power of Armes to divert the abolishing of Episcopall Government The Dr. Answers Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in arms show your selves what Spirit you are of who will have this Land imbroyl'd in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy shall not down Not so Doctor there is not the same Reason why you should retort these words upon us for I had no where said the Parliament hath Reason by power of Arms to divert the evill of that Government yea I am so farre from it that I professe freely that if the King and Parliament would establish that Government still to be continued that the people is not bound to rise up in arms to root it out though I judge it evill Yea if any Man be of that opinion I think he is to be suffered to live enjoying himselfe and his estate here Then pag. 56. the Dr. saith to that of Sauls speare restored Mr. Bridge Replies though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned c. We know saies he what you looke for his Majestie hath not bin ashamed to doe it with great condiscention An 'T is possible a King may faile for not humbling himselfe before his Subjects Chron. 2. 36. 13. And Zedekiah did that which was evill in the sight of the Lord his God and humbled not himselfe before Jeremiah the Prophet And though His Majestie had yeelded and humbled himselfe yet lower he would be no loser thereby we know what the old Counsellors said 2 Chron. 10. 7. If thou be kind to this people and please them and speake good Words to them they will be thy servants for ever Finally whereas I had shewed that Ziba and those that resorted to David in his distresse were not of another Religion and by Law to bee disarmed as the Papists now are who have entertainment in His Majesties Army The Doctor answers though by law Papists are not to have Arms at their dispose yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects They owe no more duty to King but according to Law and by Law they are to bee all disarmed Wherefore good Dr. maintaine this illegall way no longer give glory to God and say you are convinced of this truth which indeed you cannot but be if you doe not shut your owne eyes for you told us in your former Treatise that Subjects may lawfully for their owne defence hold the Kings hands and how so if he raise an Army but by an Army Neither can you be so weake as to thinke that the great Senate of the Kingdome that all the Commons Gentlemen and Nobles should be so at the mercy of every meane person invested with the Kings Authority that if a petty Constable or other inferiour Officer doe offer violence unto them that it shall not bee in their power to make a forcible resistance because they are clothed with the Kings Authority Good Sir in the feare of God make your humble addresses to His Majestie and Petition him to return to those that are faithfull to him The worst that he can lose you know if you pretend rightly is but a piece of prerogative or some exercise thereof for the present why should