but not to the deniall of His Supremacy for He is still by Law acknowledged the onely supream Governour and the supream Head which being urged in my former Treatise this Answerer should have shewn us how the King can be so and yet this co-ordination of his stand good to all purposes as he would have it If he restrain that only supream Governour and supream Head to supremacy of power in Execution or Administration it would be plain that none can use power in this government but derivatively from His Majesty which were enough for the purpose I urged Supremacy in the former Treatise viz. to shew His Majesty cannot be resisted for resistance is a taking of the sword or power without him and from him and also a using of it against that power of administration which is setled in him and therefore against him as he is the only supream Governour This would be enough to checke any mans conscience that will dare to resist yet must not the supremacy be so restrained for albeit for the greater security of the people Kings have bound themselves from imposing Laws upon them without their consent yet may wee also see the beams of His Supremacy shining in the power of enacting exercised with their consent For he has the power of calling them to that purpose and the constitution that has given them power of consenting has left in him power of dissolving them Also anciently as I have heard knowing men say the Law enacted began thus Rex statuit the King ordains and before the Laws and Statutes in each Kings Raign we find the title or introduction thus usually expressed The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c. And still for the procuring of his assent we see them Petitioning under the stile of Loyall Subjects and while they sit in that co-ordination there is still that other relation of Head Body between them and accordingly He was declared in Parliament to be Supream Head of the body politique He being instituted and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole entire power preheminency authority praerogative and Iurisdiction to render and yeeld Iustice and finall determination to all manner of Subiects within this Realm in all causes Also that sundry Laws and Ordinances had been made in former Parliaments for sure and entire conserving the Prerogative and preheminency of this Crown 24. H. 8. c. 12. From all this so plainly declared in Law confessed can we conclude with this man that the two Houses are Co-ordinate with his Majesty in the very Supremacy or that the highest Supream head is a mixt one No! but that the Legislative power is Supreamly in the King only this power is excited by the instance and request of the Commons representing to him the grievances of his people abroad and cannot be exercised or come to the act of Ordaining but with consent of them the House of Lords This may easily be conceived if we consider that Kings at first ruled arbitrarily and then the Legislative power was solely in them afterward the people obtained such limitations and qualifications of that power as might make for their security as for example That they should not have Laws imposed on them without their consent this does not make them co-ordinate with their King in the very Supremacy of power it self as this man has conceived it but still leaves the power of Ordaining supreamly in him as in the fountain though the efflux or exercise of that power be not solely in his will but expects the consent of the People Now let us gather up his scattered proofes as we can find them Such a co-ordination there must be or els saith he the Monarchy is not mixt pag. 3. 4. It doth not follow if there be a mixture in it therefore such an one of equall ingredients or if it be mixt secundùm quid in some respect therefore simply or as he would have it though we say not the Monarchy is mixt as he yet we grant the Government is mixt not as he by placing such power in the co-ordinate parts but mixt that is not absolute or arbitrary in his Majesty yet not without Subordination on their part and predominancy on his And to say the Monarchy it selfe is compounded of three Estates as hee doth is absurd But the Treatiser himselfe calls it that excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament confessing them to be the fundamentalls of this Government and if Fundamentalls what subordination can there be in them they admit not of higher lower all foundations are alike pag. 3. The Treatiser acknowledged it a Fundamentall of Government that provided this temper of the three estates in Parliament as the reasonable means of our safety therefore saith the Answerer the three estates are Fundamentalls a good argument A genere adgenus from the constitution that places this power in the two Houses to the persons that bear the power for when we speak of Fundamentalls we speak of Laws and constitutions which may provide such a temper and yet do it with subordination that it be not temperamentum ad pondus but ad justitiam not with Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion not with exact equality of all but with a predominancy of one otherwise it would sometime fall out that this body of the Commonwealth could not act or move any way like as the naturall body could not if all the elements were equally tempered in it And to shew he is for an Arithmeticall proportion in this temper of the three Estates he wonders we cannot see that the King is Universis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse than two pag. 3. Very good we shall have enough of such arguments as these for the present we will make a note of this in the Margin and shall have occasion anon to call him to his reckoning upon it Then he keeps a trifling to shew how the two Houses are subjects divisim taken singly and not subjects conjunctim in the co-ordination pag. 4. In one word their consent is not subject to the Kings command yet they are subjects even collectively taken for so they represent subjects that chose them they are subject to his command still to remove or rise when He Prorogues or dissolves and so they acknowledge themselves Subjects in all their addresses to His Majestie which they make as a body collective He is the Head of them not taken severally for then He should be Head of many bodies but as joyntly making one body And left he should seeme to forget they are his Councell which would take off from that fellowship in the supremacie where he has placed them he grants they are his Councell but by the first constitution not to be elected by him but assigned to him not assumed as Moses his under Officers were
the King when He is put to it admit his helpe and the more shame for them that professe the Protestant religion to force him to it This is according to this mans sense to call the Papists good Subjects better then the Parliament how will Romering of this The Papists have no cause to applaud themselves for any thing spoken by me but this I can say and say it upon experience that they take occasion to be confirmed and hardened in their way by the principles and practice of the adverse party for how will Rome ring of this That Protestants should take Armes against their King professing the same religion that a concealed Tradition of a reserved power of resistance should so farre prevaile and the people be so finely led on by an â—mplicit faith to build upon it that by vertue thereof the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance should be so easily dispenfed with that the Jesuites themselves should be cleane out done in the cunning of Lies and Forgeries to uphold a cause that pretends religion This Answerer after a fit of railing concludes with Prayer I shall onely â—dde this short prayer and with my very soule I speake it God blesse the King and send us peace and if it must not be till one side have prevailed I pray God it may be that side that loves the King best Truth would not let me bitherto accord with this Answerer but Charity now bids me joyne with him and to adde unto his prayer That it would please God to forgive that fide which under pretence of love to the King has so deeply wounded him in his Person and Kingly power also that our peace may be restored not through an absolute prevailing of either side by Armes but through a loyall submission of that side which has done the wrong to His Majesty and His People by this Lawlesse resistance Amen We have done with this man Let us see how Mr. Burrows concludes the businesse pag. 140. to the two last Sections which concerned matter of fact he briefly thus answers The Doctor puts the case thus Whether Conscience can be perswaded that the King is such and so minded as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Armes against Him In this he is as miserably mistaken as in all his other grounds from Scripture and Reâ—son for we take up no Armes against the King and whatsoever the Kings minde be there is sufficient cause to take Armes to defend our selves against others that seek our ruine Is it so that the Law is in your hand and it concerns you not What ever the Kings minde be He is bound by Oath to protect you against those that seek your ruine and accordingly has the power of the sword and the defending of Armes will you not then know whether it be his minde to defend you but take the sword into your own hand surely herein you are miserably mistaken if you thinke this is not to take Armes against the King and against that power which God and the Law entrusts him with for your protection Or have you not read how Armes taken up by some in the latter end of the Queens time to remove evill Counsellors such as they pretended sought their ruine were adjudged a leavying of warre against the Queen it will not helpe you to say Your Arms are taken up by authority of Parliament those were not for that 's not the point you may see by this your Armes are against the King and his power and authority if without it under what pretence soever you may take them up If the King doe but deny to assist in delivering us from such dangers and in delivering up Delinquents there is cause enough to satisfie our Consciences in taking of Armes It seems now it concernes you to know what the Kings minde is though not cause sufficient here to satiâ—â—ie your Consciences for you cannot say he denied this till you put your selves out of His protection and were your own protectors in Armes Nay after you appeared in this posture what was denied you from Nottingham that might give you cause to proceed in Armes till you brought them to give the King battell you take away His Armes and power against His will you use them in battell to the imminent endangering of His Person and yet you take not Armes against him and you can satisfie your Conscience of the lawfulnesse of it See now whether you can set such a Conscience before Gods tribunall and there lay the plea as you doe pag. 142. Lord thou who art the searcher of hearts knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in Peace to deliver our Kingdome and Parliament from the rage of ungodly men to preserve what thy Majesty what the Law of Nature and of this Land hath made our own Dare you justifie your selves thus at his Tribunall you may blush to speak it before man that knows not your hearts but sees how you have actually invaded the Kings Right and Power and imminently endangered His Person if the mercy of the Lord had not preserved Him how you break through the Lawes of God and Nature not to preserve what is your own but to gain the Lord knows what Thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidel not to provide for his family Dare you thus entitle Him to your blood-shed and rapines whereby you provide for your selves has he taught you to provide for the family of the Common-wealth by binding the master of the family and smiting your fellow-servants as those did Mat. 24.49 For the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy name that we may be faithfull to our King Kingdome and Parliament Pardon we beseech thee the failings Let your ends which you pretend be never so specious if the means you use be not Lawfull and Warrantable as they are not for the very substance of them either by the Law of God or Man your plea will not hold but your account will be heavy for all the blood shed and miseries this Land has groaned under which might have been prevented if Reason would have satisfied you Now the Lord that is at hand grant you moderation and then we doubt not but with his blessing we shall have Peace in good time to the restoring of his truth the Kings Honour and Rights the due Priviledges of Parliament and the Subjects Liberty ERRATA Pag. 2. med your for their p. 9. l. 13. your for their p. 49. l. 11. for 5. r. 15. p. 69. l. 9. natuall r. mutuall The Contents of the severall SECTIONS Sect. I. The Case and the Question upon it stated Sect. II. The frame of this Government as it is phansyed in the Fuller Answer Sect. III. Of the Originall of Governing power of Monarchy and of the beginnings of Government in this Land Sect. IV. Of the Coordination of three Estates in Parliament and of the Supremacy of Power Sect. V. Of the Supply which is phansyed upon the former Coordination Sect. VI. Of the finall resolution of this States Indgement and of the power of declaring Law Sect. VII The finall resolution is not arbitrary in the two Houses but only in the three Estates Sect. VIII A confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Section of the former Treatise Sect. IX A Confutation of what was replied upon the second Sect. of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alledged against resistance Sect. X. A Confutation of what was replied upon the third Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XI A Confutation of what was replied upon the fourth Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the fift Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XIII An Answer to what was replied upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise FINIS
Him I suppose he meanes those Voted ones of which we spake above if any of them be entertained lately for one of them there 's above a thousand of His good Subjects whose Noblenesse and honesty hath still engaged them honourably though to the weaker side before in behalfe of the Subject groaning under former grievances now in service to His Majesty opposed by popular fury Subjects that out of Conscience of their allegiance cleave unto him as they did to Sâ—ul whose hearts the Lord had touched 1. Sam. 10. On the contrary it is well known how the guilt and danger of some desperate persons have engaged the poor people and opposed them as a buckler betwixt themselves and the stroke of Iustice And how ever this man thinks His Majesty is carried away We are sure he hath spoken so much reason in His Expresses and Declarations that it plainly appeares He is not perswaded by Enemies to Himselfe or the Kingdom but hath been forced to this just and necessary defence of Himselfe and hath cause to think He may be safer every way by his own Army then by that which pretends to preserve him in his Politique but gave him Battle to the most imminent danger of His Person and Naturall Capacity SECT VI. Of the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement and power of declaring Law THe Answerer goes on to his second Proposition placing the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement in the two Houses unto which all must yeeld obedience Pag. 13. How proves he this In this mixture of Supream power and trust of Government the two Houses make a part what 's their share to consult nay but to consent with the King in making Lawes Be it so that share we grant them but if you will place the finall resolution in them you must not speak of a share but challenge the whole The King is but a Cypher Then he tells us againe of the first Constitution of Government when the people made the first King but nothing at all to the proving of such a Constitution or clearing of such a finall resolution setled in the two Houses And as if there were no way to overthrow the first Constitution of this Government as he hath contrived it but onely by Conquest he leapes from this Finall resolution of which he should give us some proof to speake of the Title by Conquest Conquest I confesse may give such a Right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can master Pag. 13. I had not mentioned Conquest but to take away the exception made to the Apostles prohibition of Resistance from the absolutenesse of the Roman Emperors and to shew they made themselves so absolute by force of Armes but seeing this Answerer will make a businesse of it he must take notice that Conquest is one of the meanes by which God translates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought that people under and had a right over them by Conquest 2. Sam. 12. that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Iudah from which they revolted 2 Chro. 21.8 The Romans also had a right over Iudou by Conquest our Saviour acknowledges it in Caesar give to Caesar c. and in his substitute Pilate that he had power given him from above If this Answerer should looke through all Christendome he would scarce find a Kingdom that descends by inheritance but it had a beginning in Armes and yet I thinke he will not say the Titles of these Kings are no better then of Plunderers for though it may be unjust at first in him that invades and Conquers yet in the succession which is from him that providence which translates Kingdomes manifests it selfe and the will of God and there are momenta temporum for the justnesse of such Titles though we cannot fixe them If he say they begin to be just when the consent of the people is yeelded were it so and not so till then yet is that in all likelyhood an overawed consent as he grants the consent of the people of Rome was to their Emperors Pag. 21. and little to the advantage of the people however let their consent be free what the people gaine upon that consent is by an after agreement and grant of the Prince not by precontrivement at their making of the first King as he dreames it to be in this Kingdom We need not looke farre for instance we see Mag Char begins each clause with a Concessimus to the antient liberties of the Subject By which we see how vainly he breakes into passion in the words following How undoctor all how unchristian inhumane Barbarisme it is to talke of a right by Conquest in a Civill a Christian State Pag. 13. and a little after how many wayes doth this Resolver abuse His Majesty herein I had indeed abused Him had I talked of His Right as fondly as this man hath done I said he King claimes from the Conqueror and that of uncertain plea of supposed first Election could not give Subjects such power against him as is now pretended to I shewed the Emperors of Rome made themselves such by force of Armes so did the Saxons here so did the Normans after them master this people this Answerer speakes nothing to these beginnings of this Government in the Saxon and Norman Lines but still tells us of a first Election and 't is un-Christian to talke of Conquest that is to speake the truth David as it was said above being provoked by the King of Ammon tooke away his Crown made that people to serve as slâ—â—es The Conqueror had a Title from the Saxon Kings being denyed he pursu's it and in the pursuit of it by Armes subdues this Land can we thinke he was bound to such a first Constitution as this man conceives We see it otherwise and what has been consented to by succeeding Kings My Collection then was shall the pretended right of the people by such an Election be good against a King that claimes not by it but receives the Crown by succession descending through severall Conquests and yet the right of the Roman people not good against their Tyrannicall Emperours that made themselves of Subjects Lords over them by force of Armes I know not how this should be injurious to Christianity unlesse it be un-Christian to restraine the resistance and rebelling of Christians against a Christian Prince when as the Apostle did forbid Christians and all the people of Rome to resist their Emperour though Heathen and Tyrannicall Let us see whether it be injurious to His Majesty How do's he abuse His Majesty herein A Title he yeelds Him by Conquest and yet He must not rule by it a King as Conquerour and yet He must not rule as a Conqueror How injurious does he make the King to His posterity in that he subscribes and sweares to a limited title and has a free one the while to hold by pag. 13. it was no injury to his Majesty
look upon them as the supposed causes of their Armes And first I cannot but wonder why among these particulars here 's no mention of Religion when as the people are made to beleeve that 's it they fight for happily he included it in the c. as indeed in the consultations of these unhappy daies the care of it though timely moved by worthy Members of both Houses has been cast off to the fagge end of other more necessary occasions that I may not say Designes a likely way to make all prosper When the people are dealt with by such men as these Answerers then Religion is the main Engine to draw them into Armes and indeed were they not abused with that plausible pretence they could never have been so farre engaged against their Soveraigne but when these men enter the lists with an Adversary about the cause of this warre Religion is not insisted on not once touched in this expresly declined in the other Answers but Nature is rather sought unto by them for a ground of selfe preservation for upon strict examination these men know it will appear what actuall invasions have been made upon Religion against the known Lawes of this land and who are to answer for them they know also what offence it would give to severall Sects which are and will be alwaies serviceable to new designes should Religion be either countenanced as it is by Law established or any one way declared for But secondly I would fain know whether they can in Conscience be perswaded that some actuall invasions of Lawes and Liberties can be a sufficient cause for Subjects to Arme and Resist when it evidently appeares their Soveraigne is not bent to continue in that destructive way will it not suffice if he restore those Liberties and withdraw the encroachments made upon them If he promise security and passe severall Acts of Grace for further assurance of them If he be content that All Armes laid aside the Law shall judge who are Delinquents and accordingly censure them They that have formerly written for Resistance in some Cases have thought it unreasonable that Subjects should pretend to Armes till they find their Prince in such a Condition as was insinuated in the case proposed viz. Bent or seduced to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion or to make havock of the Common-wealth or Church as D. Willet ha's it in Rom. 13. q. 17 and as we see by the limitations testimonies examples in Paraeus upon Rom. 13. and in Phil. Par. his answer to Mr Owen But our Pleaders for Resistance at this day because they cannot find His Majesty in such a condition or hope to make men that know any thing of His Personall Vertucs or His Acts of Grace passed this Parliament believe he is so bent doe now pretend they have cause enough for taking Armes what ever the Kings mind be and although there be no such horrible things intended by him as the Doctor speakes of so Mr Buâ—r pag. 140.141 and to the same puâ—pose this Fuller Answer insists upon actuall invasions of Liborvies Lawes as the cause of their Armes Yet that they may seem to have better pretence of Reason for what they doe and more win upon the people that least know the gratious disposition of their Soveraigne towards them they doe endeavour to charge His Majesty with the like destructive intentions as were to be supposed in the case To this purpose we find this Answerer every where rendring the reason of their taking Arms to be bâ—â—â—use the King refuses to performe His trust and in the first page because His Majesty has drawn in Delinquents to be a party in Armes thereby to dissolve or remove the arliament where he puts the Cause upon His Majesties intention And we well remember upon His Majesties first Guard at Yorke it was I will not say voted above given out among the people He intended to make Warre against His Parliament and still we have it urged as a Cause of these Arms that His Majesty is seduced by wicked Councell and the like Therefore the Case being so laid upon his supposed intentions to continue in a subversive way of Lawes Liberties the question upon it was put to the full for the rationall part whether such a case being supposed or granted it were Lawfull for Subjects to take Armes and resist Then for the other part of the question which concerned matter of Fact Whether that case were now i.e. whether it were true of His Majesty which they supposed and took for granted and endevoured to make the people believe of Him it was of a second consideration and examined after by it selfe Every mean understanding might easily conceave this to be the sense of the Question the briefe of the Cause and of my Treatise But this Answerer it seems had a discourse of the power of Parliamâ—nâ—s lying by him for no man will think it occasioned by my book but applyed to it and therefore thought fit to quarrell at the Question as proposed by mee and in stead of my three Resolves to give the Reader three Propositions of his own he should have made them moe but for observing number And then he boasts How many weekes soever the Doctor has been about the Treatise it is well known to many the Answer cost not many houres the doing pag. 3. he means the applying of what was done before but any one may perceive by his confused jumbling of things and his frequent mistakes when ever he repeats and answers what I had written that he was ambitious of doing the businesse hastily rather then surely Wee 'l follow him as we may first examining how he makes good his Propositions or grounds he goes on then how he applyes them to what I had written where we shall tak in the other Answers as occasion requires SECT II. The frame of this Government as it is fancied in the Fuller Answer HIs whole resolution of the Cause is laid down in his first Proposition which is this The Parliament may with good Conscience in defence of the King Lawes and Government established when imminently endangered take up Armes without or against the Kings Personall commands if He refuse His other two Propositions are subservient to this tending to the proofe of it That the finall result of this States judgment what those Lawes Dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament Prop. 2. That in this finall resolution the People are to rest and in obedience thereto may with good Conscience bear and use Armes Prop. 3. To make this good he first endeavours to shew this Monarchy is mixt by a Coordination of the two Houses with the King in the very supremacy of power it selfe so he pag. 3. Whereupon if the King refuse to provide for the safety of the Kingdome according to their advice then His coordinates the two Houses must according to their trusts supply so he tells us p. 3.8.10 And that this power was reserved by
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
of foregoing Ages what he ha's from the mutuall oath of King and people pag. 5. may be good upon after agreement between them as will appear and his hanc potestatem a populo effluxam out of Fortescue although it supposes derivation of power from the people the usuall mistaken principle of Government which later times have given cause to examine and find unsound yet doth it not imply the people ha's reserved any power much lesse such a paramount power as he imagines Conscience has this certain by the continuall practice of this Government that there is such a constitution as gives power of consenting to the two Houses in making and declaring Law when ever the beginning of it was it cannot see that it began by a contrivement of the people at the supposed choice of the first King but rather that it was subsequent to Monarchy and procured by the people for their greater security not precontrived by them If objected The constitution is fundamentall therefore preceding the first King we answer it followes not for it may be a fundamentall yet not of Monarchy simply but of government as now it stands a fundamentall not of the Regall power but the peoples security For Government may receive a change qualification by consent of King and people from more absolute to mixt such a constitution is a fundamentall because all after-lawes are built upon it but not a fundamentall to the Regall power for it gives no power to him as it doth to the two Houses but rather lessens his power by limiting it upon agreement that he will not impose any laws upon his people without their consent But as for that reserved power of declaring law without the king and of commanding all when they shall judge it expedient for the safety of the kingdom upon the Kings refusall Conscience has no assurance from this Answerer that such a power was reserved which is enough to leave it without excuse if it obey such a power but on the contrary has strong presumptions and reasons against For first it cannot see how such a reservation of power can consist with the beginnings of government in this land whether we consider the Norman or the Saxons entrance Secondly it cannot see how it can consist with the known established Government for by such a power the Supremacy would be plainly setled in the two Houses they may when they judge it necessary use this reserved power which transcends all ordinary power in the King Thirdly should the Kings of this Land be admitted upon such agreement for this reserved power Conscience cannot but think it an unreasonable condition and neither for the Kings nor peoples security but a very seminary of jealousies and sedition as if in Matrimony for the King is also sponsus Regni and wedded to the kingdom by a Ring at his Coronation the parties should agree upon such and such neglect of duties to part a sunder or children for the king is also a Father of the kingdom and the body politique owes to him naturall obedience 24. H. 8. c. 12. should condition with their Parents upon such or such usage to be acquitted of their duty and obedience what our Saviour said of their light unlawfull occasions of Divorse non fuit sic ob initio it was not so from the beginning when God at first joyned man and woman may be said of such a reserved power of resistance it was not so from the beginning when at first Rulers and Kings were Fathers and so are stil called in the fift Commandement not to be resisted or abdicated by their children their subjects Lastly this contrivement seems plainly to contradict it selfe for it places this reserved power in the Comites and Barons which cannot be before the first King for Bracton tells us as he is cited by Sir Edw. Coke in mag Cart. Reges associant sibi Comites Barones ordinances eos in magno Honore Earls and Barons are made by the King and assumed for Councell therefore invested with a long Robe and for defence therefore girt with a sword which shews the power they have is not by a contrivement or reservation at the supposed making of the first King but from the King by grant and of grace much lesse is it such a transcendent and paramount power as this Answerer imagineth to be reserved in them and the House of Commons at the first constitution of government in this Land We have hitherto searched into the ground-worke of this frame of Government as he had layd it in a supposed contrivement and reservation of the people when they made their first King and have found it to be groundlesse so that Conscience cannot rest upon it to make resistance in obedience to such a reserved power which this man tells Us is in the two Houses but gives no proofe for it at all nor indeed can So that this which has been sayd against it were enough to overthrow the Co-ordination supply Finall resolution and Arbitrary Commands that he has built upon this fiction but we will particularly examine his discourse upon them which is but an opening and enlarging of his phancies upon the new Principles of these dayes set off with plausible shew of reason to deceive the unwary SECT IV. Of the Co-ordination of the three Estates and of the Supremacy of Power HIs Co-ordination he has thus expressed This mixture or Co-ordination is in the very Supremacy of power it selfe and the Monarchy or highest power it selfe is compounded of three Co-ordinate estates pag. 3. There is but one Highest but that one is a mixt one pag. 4. It was granted there is a Co-ordination to some purposes but not such as he urges it for in the matter of Supremacie and Supply which that we may the better discern we must according to our skill and that shall be no farther than the common use of reason and the Grammaticall construction of what the knowne Law does plainly declare may lead every mans apprehension unfold wherein Supremacy of power doth consist There is a power of Enacting and of Executing or administration accordingly the Supreame power shews it selfe in making new Laws and abrogating old in calling assemblies to that and other purposes in Treaties with forreign Princes sending Embassies appointing Officers of State Judges of Courts and other Ministers of justice through the Kingdome Now if the Co-ordination of the King and two Houses of Parliament were such as he doth expresse would seem to inferre by the supply they are to make upon the Kings refusall they should be Coordinati ad omnia simply co-ordinate and equall in those powers acts of Supremacy wheras in plain speech he cannot say they are co-ordinate with His Majesty but only in consenting to the making of Laws pag. 4. in all the rest the King is solely supream and all power of administration derived from Him So then their consent is required to one act or exercise of supream power
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