in the concluding for resistance if the condition of it by there grants be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus and their reason for it be Rex est universis minor and resistance it selfe be an opposing of the body against the head there must be in all equity an universality in the consent and an unanimous inclination of the whole body and not a part of the body against the head and another part of the same body Secondly Mr. Bridge replies If this be our sentence why doth the Dr. object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up Armes against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the Orders of the Empire Pag. 13. The Doctor never intended that objecting of the Christians for an argument by it selfe and therefore to the Christians persecuted did usually subjoyn the Senate and people enslaved shewing they might not resist being all under that higher power or Supream as St. Peter cals the Emperor and contained within that universall whosoever resists SECT IX A Confutation of what was replyed upon the second Section of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alleadged against Resistance THe Fuller Answerer speakes confidently The instances of Resistance of the peoples in behalfe of Jonathan of Davids of Elishah's we make no use of we need them not and therefore need not Answer the refutation of them Pag. 21. But all your fellowes make use of them who having not so fine a wit to contrive a power of resistance reserved by the people when they made the first King did conceive they stood in need of Examples to defend the peoples assuming of such a power Well however this Answerer pretends he needs them not yet does he sticke upon the example of David and tels us Pag. 21. what use of His Army but to fight against nay a reach above all his fellows that David though against the King is said to fight the Lords battels 1 Sam. 25. The words are Abigails and the Comment is his more then once given us in this booke he had before spent two pages the fixth and seventh in repeating what notes he had taken at Court-Sermons now he gives us a taste of what is preached at St. Margarets and up and down the City That to fight against the King now is to fight the Lords battels or as Mr. Burrows in his Sermon that the Armies now against the King are the Hosts of the Lord and in his Epistle he cals the Earle of Essex the Lord of their Hosts so usually doe they interesse the Lord in their quarrell and are bold againe with his Titles We know that to fight the battels of the Lord was against the Enemies of his people Philistins Ammonites c. and that David was designed to it that he had done it already under Saul against the Philistins and was to doe it more fully after Sauls death against the enemies of Israel round about and accordingly the words of Abigail have this meaning though it be known that my Lord is appointed to fight the Lords battels and to deliver his people from their enemies round about yet is there risen up a man to pursue after c. Certainly if to fight against Saul had been to fight the Lords batrels David had not fought them well that declined all battel with him made use of no advantages when he had Saul twice in his power David knew the battels of the Lord which he was to fight were against the Lords enemies abroad not against the Lords annointed at home But this Answerer said what use of an Army unlesse to sight against we see David did not put it did not intend it for that use yea but he would have put it to that use at Keilah if the Inhabitants would have been faithfull to him So they conclude upon Davids intention for defending of what was actually done at Hull I call'd that an uncertain supposition not fit to ground Conscience on Mr. Burrows tels us the case is as plaine for Davids intention as if Sir John Hotham upon comming of the Kings Forces against Hull should inquire of the Townes-men whether they would deliver him up or no and upon knowledge that they would should flie away were this an uncertaine supposition that Sir John would have defended himselfe there In Sir John Hotham it would be a very probable supposition because we know the inclination of his mind and the intent for which he came thither but in David it is not onely uncertaine but improbable for we know his resolution and custome was still to flie as the King pursued and to that end he enquires what they intended against him and in case they were minded to deliver him up he might more timely provide for his flight and prevent their shutting of him up in that City which as the text notes had gates and barres M. Bridge upon the Answers in the former Treatise made to their instances of resistance replies that in saying it was a loving violence by which the people rescued Ionathan and Davids Armes were meerely for defence without all offence the Doctor gives away the Cause and allows Subjects more then prayers and teares Pag. 14.5 The Doctor had no where though M. Bridge makes him often say so prayers and teares as the onely remedy left to Subjects but beside their Cries to God he allowed them Petitions to their Prince intercessions reproofes denyall of Subsidies and Aydes and the peoples rescuing of Ionathan was by intercession set off with a Souldierly boldnesse such as the people used to David 2 Sam. 18.3 and Ioab to David 2 Sam. 19.5 Nor is it the giving away of the cause to acknowledge Davids Armes were for such defence for the severall answers returned to Davids example were given to shew they that have now taken Armes may not doe so much as David did for his example was extraordinary and also that they have done more then David did for he used those armed men meerely for his guard without all offence to Saul or them that were about him and so Davids example can no waies be pretended to those that have now taken Armes and use them as they have done If his example be extraordinary then he had an extraordinary command for what he did if so how doth the Doctor say there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of Resistance Pag. 16. As if all extraordinary warrants and instincts given to speciall persons should be written in Scripture Ehud sure had one to goe and slay the Tyrant Eglon Iudg. 3. yet not expressed Or as if extraordinary Commands though expressed were warrants for all to doe so as that which the Israelites had for spoyling the Aegyptians were now good warrant for the pretended Parliamentary forces to spoile all those they call Malignants and esteem little better then Aegyptians But a meere defence how then a worke extraordinary in David ibid if his were
come shall see it yea and Mr. Bridge too if his heart be right to their amazement Nor does Charity bind the Conscience to contradictions or to judge against sense or from condemning one part when it must Iudge between two as at this time between the King and Subjects in Armes against Him which rules of Charity were laid down and applyed towards the end of the former Treatise Whosees not how tender the Parliament hath beene of the Kings Honour therefore they charge all upon His Counsellors as David â—id upon those about Saul 1 Sam. c. 26. v. 19. If the Lord hath stirred theâ— up against me let him accept an assering but if they be the Children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven me out this day And who sees not how tender His Majesty hath been of the reputation of Parliament charging the fault upon them that give the Counsell and are the contrivers of all that is done against Him Or who seeâ— not how Davids words agree more properly to the King that ha's been driven out and hunted up and downe then to His adversaries that have had their abode at pleasure and Raigned without Him but if they will needs speake the word let them learn this lesson from them If such as have unlawfully engaged a King cannot otherwise be brought to Justice then by Subjects taking Armes and fighting against their King it must not be done that way but by referring the matter to God as David did here The King is no more bound by vertue of His Oath to maintaine the Government of the Church as by Law established then any other Law of the Kingdome which if the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale They may without breach of the Kings Oath Suppose they should think fit to doe it is it no more to take away a Government which had the consent of the Catholike Church and has been received and continued in this Land ever since the planting of the Christian Faith here then to repeal any Law made but yesterday in comparison and in materia particulari of no such concernment A fundamentall of the Government of the State may not be stirred nor may the priviledges of some men be touched and may the government of the Church be so easily torn up by the root and foundation the Estates and Immunities of so many free Subjects taken away But the King doth not think fit to do it shall he then by Armes be forced from that which He is both by Oath and Judgement bound to maintain Upon those words of the former Treatise the Government of the Church by Bishops is simply the best the abolishing whereof is one of those many inconveniences which this Land is now threatned with and which the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert Mr. Bridge enters upon a loose discourse against Episcopall Government I refor him for his better instruction to a book intituled Episcopacy asserted lately published and learnedly written Then he breaks out Now the Dr. shewes himselfe be had rather the Kingdome be embrewed in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should downe Iudge yee O all Englishmen whether it bee better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lye embrewed in their owne gore Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in Armes shew your selves hereby what spirit yee are of who will have this Land embroiled in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy and some other things by Law justly established shall not down for that is the case and so proposed in the former Treatise and then judge all yee English men whether it be better for you to embrew this Kingdome in its own Gore then to hold the ancient and primitive Government of the Church and hear O Heavens and judge upon whom the guilt will lye upon the King that will continue that Government according to Law and oath or upon them that by Armes would force Him from it To that of Sauls speare restored Master Bridge replies Though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned J will no more doe thee harm because my soule was precious in thy sight this day We know what you looke for If you blush not yet to have expected it His Majesty has not been ashamed to doe it with a great condescention He has even supplicated for Peace He has redressed former miscarriages of Government with new additionalls of Grace He has promised and protested for the future Oh that He could say My Soule has been precious in your eyes this day this whole yeere or that He could finde answerable humility in the hearts of Subjects whose Ambition has caused His troubles and our miseries The Doctor defends the Kings entertainment of Papists by Davids example but he must prove that Ziba or those that resorted to David in his distresse were of another Religion and by Law to be disarmed What needs that for the Doctor intended onely by those examples to shew that a Prince in His necessary defence may entertaine such men as otherwise He would not make use of and may give some countenance to such as have relieved Him in distresse though otherwise as ill deserving His Grace as a dissembling Ziba And though by Law Papists are not to have Armes at their disposing yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects they may by just authority beare Armes to use them according to the direction of that authority and if a List of the Army against his Majesty were examined there would be found if not a confiderable number of Papists yet of such as they that imploy them would have cause to be ashamed of such as by Law are to abjure the Land as men not to be held in with any government Upon the former particulars the Fuller Answerer is more bitter and malicious interpreting every thing that had sharpnesse in it as spoken of the Parliament It was said That in such a case the State would be unreasonably exposed to the danger that every prevailing Faction might bring upon it This is according to this mans interpretation to call the Parliament a prevailing Faction It was said That the people are made to believe by their good teachers that the King was so and so affected to whom no more need be said then the Archangell did to he Arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee also that their preachings were the doctrines of this giddy age and that many wicked Pamphlets and bookes written by Enemies to Peace were suffered to issue forth into every corner of this Land This is according to this mans apprehension to call the Parliament Declarations wiâ—ked Pamphlets and scandalous imputations of this giddy agâ— and to liken them to the Devill the Arch-accuser I had need say again to this man the Lord rebuke thee Lastly it was said If the Papist will shew himselfe a good Subject it is just and reasonable that
the people at the first constitution of this government pag. 24.25 and that this constitution was made by consent of King and People in the first Coalition of Government pag. 4. by the Consent of the People thâ—t first made the King pag. 13. Contrived by the people in the first constitution â—f Govâ—ernment pag. 8. These Particulars we find in this his discourse confusedly spoken of if we give his conceptions their due order they stand thus First he supposes all the Power of government to be derived from the people and that the Constitution of this Government was their contrivment when first they made a King then that by this first Constitution such a Coordination of the two Houses with the King was contrived by which they have power reserved not only to consent in making Lawes but to supply the refusalls of the King as they shall think good for the safety of the State and for this the finall result of the States judgement is in them to declare what is Law without him and unto their finall resolution and commands thereupon though arbitrary as this answerer acknowledgeth Pag. 17 the people ought to obey Thus has he fansied the reason and constitution of this Government but I suppose the honourable houses of Parliament will not thanke him for raising them to that height of Supremacy he has placed them in I am sure we Subjects have not cause to thank him for that arbitrary power he has placed in them If any man expect from this his discourse satisfaction for conscience he shall find nothing but uncertainties and improbabilities not fit grounds for it to restupon and if conviction of Reason be look't for here I suppose there is no man that upon serious consideration of what this Answerer brings us to will not think it more reasonable to be under the arbitrary Government of one then of many nay under the Government of one that challenges not obedience as due bat according to Law then of many whose commands are Law unto us as this Answerer makes them And here we doe not undertake to set down the extent of the power and Priviledges of Parliament no more then of the Kings Power and prerogative They are both of them beyond our skill and we may not take the boldnesse to meddle with either of them farther then the necessary information of Conscience doth inforce to which purpose as we may by use of Reason certainly conclude the King has not this or that Power as to make Lawes by himselfe to rule arbitrarily so of the two Houses without offence we may as certainly conclude That they have not such a power by the first Constitution of this Government as this Answerer every where beggs for them but no where proves it It is granted that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Coordinate with His MAIESTY ad aliquid to some act or exeacising of the supream power that is to the making of Lawes by yeelding their consent and that they have this by a fundamentall Constitution But that they have such a fellow ship with His MAIESTY in the Supremacy it selfe as this man imagines or such a Power of resistance reserved at first to supply His MAIESTIES refusa's or such a finall and arbitrary Power and câ—mmand as he attributes to them Conscience can never be truly convinced off SECT III. Of the Originall of Governing power and of the beginnings of Government in this Land WE will begin with his ground-work Which lies scattered through all his discourse That first Coalition or Consititution of Government in this Land which he supposes to be framed by the agreement or Contrivement of the people when they made the first King wherein they intrusted him with such Power as was thought fit and reserved to themselves what power they held necessary for their owne safety upon extraordinary times and occasion of danger So then Conscience if it will obey the power of Armes now usurped by Subjects must be clearly convinced which is impossible of these particulars That the Governning Power is from the people that Monarchy was here raised upon such a contrivement wherein such a power of supply and of resistance was reserved to the People and that all Kings since do consent to such conditions and are admitted under them All the proofe that I can any where find this Answer ha's brought for all this is from the words of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam this Power the King ha's derived from the People and from the mutuall Oath of King and People pag. 5. Let the Reader give me leave to speak a little of the Governing power simply then of the beginning of Government in this Land that Conscience may see what little satisfaction this or any man els can give it to perswade either that the governing power is derived from the people or that the Government of this Land began in such a Contrivement or constitution as this man phansies It was said in my other Treatise that the Governing power was from God not only as an ordinance of the precept that commands Government but also as an Efflux or issue of that providence which sets up pulls down which translates Kingdomes and governs the whole world Creatures Reasonable and unreasonable and this not obscurely in the Apostle Rom. 13. where the powers are said to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as orders ranked by him and under him Well then this Governing power was not a populo effluxa as he above said but flowed from that providence at first through the veines of nature in a paternal or Fatherly rule and by that as by a pattern in a Kingly Rule or Government upon the encrease of people and Nations for when the Reins of Paternall Government could not reach them for their extent or hold them in for their unrulines injustice it in larged it selfe into a Kingly power which bore and used the sword for that is given them to use streight after the Flood Gen. 9.6 This is plain by the booke of God that the first Fathers of Mankind were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the Earth divided among Noah's three Sons and upon the Encrease of their Children many Colonies were sent into Countries farre distant and thereupon many independant Governments raised which must be by the direction and order of Noah that first sent them out and assigned them those parts of the Earth And still as they encreased they spread farther upon the face of the Earth new Colonies being excluded and thrust forth like swarmes of Bees under their Rulers who were the cheife Fathers of those new Progenies and had the Government both Regall and Sacerdotall by Primogeniture unles the chiefe Patriarch from whom they all issued saw cause to order it otherwise Therefore of all the Sons of Noah the Nations sprung from them it is said Gen. 10. these are the Sons of
not Answ It is true that many times such Arguments faile yet may they be within their own compasse very convincing as in this case It was said the Apostles prohibition against resistance was very expresse and that Conscience could finde no warrant or exceptions against it from other places of Scripture how should this be cleared but by answering such seeming instances as they brought and by bringing such places as were most likely to have given allowance to this remedy which is placed in the power of resistance for if Conscience cannot finde allowance for it in Scripture how should it adventure upon it against the expresse prohibition of the Apostle delivered without any exception or limitation One of his Instances I must touch as seeming to concerne the businesse more neerly when the ten Tribes cast off Rehoboams Government for his oppression no Prophet rebuked them Pag. 122. They were not at that instant rebuked for the thing was from the Lord and to take effect yet as it was from their licentious will of revolting it is called Rebelling against the house of David 2 Chro. c. 10. v. 19. and reproved by Hosea c. 8. v. 4. which is enough to tell Conscience what to think of it Now we come to the Fuller Answerer To the Instances brought against Resistance in the former Treatise he replyes They are all in simple and absolute Monarchies those of the Iewes and Romanes nothing to our case Pag. 21. This is short worke yet doth M. Bridge Pag. 40. tell us by the example of the Jewish Monarchy what government pleaseth him best That wherein the people have choice of their King and make a Covenant with him at his Coronation and have power to take up Armes against the Monarch when cause requireth all this he endeavours to exemplifie in the Jewish Monarchy very impe tinently I must needs say yet enough to shew his disagreement with this Full Answerer Let us then see what satisfaction Conscinece can receive from this Answer either in the generall that Resistance is lawfull in limited not absolute Monarchies or in particular that those of the Jewes and Romanes were such An absolute Monarch is he that may impose Laws without consent of people a limited or not absolute one is he that hath bound himselfe to require their consent and to rule according to Law so made Now Conscience findes in Scripture Manasses and such wicked Kings subverting Gods worship Justice and all good government and no resistance allowed the Prophets never calling upon the Elders of the people for it also among the Roman Emperours It finders the like Tyrants and still hears the Apostle forbidding resistance Well It is under a Christian King one not wicked but commended by many vertues yet one that has invaded some liberties granted to the Subject upon agreement How shall it thinke it has warrant to resist this King because he is limited by such an agreement and the other not to be resisted for it sees that safety of the State in order to which this power of resistance is challenged is the end of government as well in the absolute as limited Monarchy It sees also that the absolute Monarch is bound by the Lawes of God and nature and by that duty of a Prince which is upon him in order to that end the safety of His people and it cannot be satisfied how the breach of something due by a civill agreement or Nationall positive Law should more expose the so limited Monarch to this power or resistance then those outrages against the Lawes of God and Nature against the very end of Government do the absolute Monarch It will not think if it may not resist this for such heinous provocations that it hath power to take Arms against the other for the breach of some liberties due to the people by a civill compact If it bee replyed that the King is limited by such a Condition as leaves power of resistance in the people reserved to them in the first constitution we answer It has been cleared that such a Condition is a meer fiction and most unreasonable a seminary of Tumults and Sedition The King is limited yet not so but as above declared by reason he cannot impose Laws by himselfe upon his people Now in particular of your Jewish Monarchy How appeares it to be absolute we know those Kings could not make any Laws either with or without the consent of people but were limited by the positive Laws which God gave them for that policy or Government and me thinks that this man should have conceived it would make too much for the approving of absolute Government in Kings to say God set up an absolute Monarchy over his people and if it was the wisedom of God to entrust his people with absolute and unlimited Kings why should not Christian Kings be trusted a little more then Subjects would now have them But something he sayes by way of proofe that it was absolute The Jewes desired to be governed after the manner of the Nations which was arbitrarily as the Doctor observes out of Justine and thereupon it is that God by Samuel tells them what such a King would doe to them not what he might doe as the Doctor seems to infer out of that place pag. 21. To say the Doctor seems to infer so is a grosse mistake not to have been admitted by him if he would have me or himself speak any sense if I had inferred the Kings of the Iewes might doe so my argument thence had been none but I concluded it plainly to be unjust violence and oppression and thence shewed such usage of a people was not just cause of resistance to them As for his Argument it concerned him to infer they might do so or else how does he shew they had absolute and arbitrary rule But his other inference from the Text is as good That the people in desiring to have Kings after the manner of the Nations desired to be governed arbitrarily and that arbitrary government was set out in what Samuel declares their King would doe As if the people here desired to have a King to oppresse and spoile them the thing they complained of in Samuels sonnes vers 5. The truth is the people desired to have a King to judge them we know in what meaning that phrase to judge them is used in the booke of Judges and explicated Hos 13. v. 10. viz. to goe in and but before them to save them from their Enemies and how that God had raised up hitherto Judges among them to that purpose Now they desire not to have Judges extraordinarily sent them as before for they saw they lay long under oppression many times ere such came but to have a King among them as other Nations had by an ordinary succession so they thought they should not be to seeke upon all occasions for one to goe out before them against their Enemies this is the summe of their desire not to have a