Noah after their Families in their Countries and Nations vers 5 20 31. and we find many of those first Princes and rulers to leave their names to the people that came of them and to the Countries they were seated in as may be seen Gen. 10. Hence it appeares First that Monarchy was the first Government it being late ere any Popular Rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world Secondly that the first Kings were not by choice of the People but that Monarchy however we cannot say it is jure divino by divine precept commanding all Nations to be so governed or jure naturae by natures law enforcing it is plainly ductu naturae by nature leading men from Paternall to Regall Government and exemplo divino as I may say by divine example and insinuation the Government that God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses the Iudges the Kings whereas Aristocracy and Democracy that I'may not call them Defections and Revolts from the Naturall way of government are meer inventions of man In severall Monarchies indeed we see divers limitations qualifications of power and severall offices wayes of executing that power these are meer inventions of man And this I note for explication of what was in the other Treatise said of Monarchy in relation to Ius divinum which by this Answerer is often interpreted as if I granted Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy to be equally of humane invention Thirdly it appears that the power of Kings was as of Fathers and that the people had no power of coertion over them more than children over Fathers Fourthly that albeit within few ages after the flood people began to chuse themselves Rulers as likely they did that departed from the building of Babel in severall companies according to your severall languages yet was such popular election to be accounted a kind of defection from and a disturbance of that naturall way of the descent of governing kingly power by a Paternall right and this irregular way began in the progeny of Cham. Lastly that albeit when a people are free as upon the utter failing of the royall Line they may chuse a Governour there being then no other way to set up one but by choice yet then do they no more give the power than if they received a King by naturall descent or by Gods designment and still the King so chosen is a Father as in the fifth Commandement and the people as children in the same relation for obedience and coertion as at first in the generations of Noah Accordingly kings at first among the Nations though chosen ruled as Fathers arbitrarily their discretion being law unto the people as was observed out of Iustin in the former Treatise and as we may really see in the fiction of the Golden Age. Now for the beginning of Government in this Island how shall conscience find any certainty that it was so set up contrived as this Answerer supposeth If he will begin simply at the very first coalition of Government as he phrases it he must suppose a multitude of people meeting together to contrive a Government and these either to spring on a suddain out of the earth as Cadmus his race but then in all likelyhood they would not so well agree or to live dispersedly in caves woods and so to be brought together by some Orpheus his pipe but then we cannot imagine such rude men to be so politique and cautious as to make such a contrivement for he tells us the reason which we see in this State is that same reason that first contrived the Government when they made the first King Or lastly he must suppose this land was peopled by a colony from France or Germany and then as likely they had the constitution of the Government from the King which sent them or that the government which the first Kings used here was arbitrary as it was every where else at first But let us come down to times of more certainty and as the Declaration of Parliament 24. H. 8. c. 12. directs us looke in Histories and Chronicles which tell us this Realm of England has been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream head unto whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of people of the spiritualty and Temporalty are bounden to bear next to God a naturall obedience so in that Statute Now this first constitutionof government in this Land as this Answerer ha's phansied it can neither consist with the substance of this Parliamentary Declaration as we shall see anon nor can it have any footing in Histories and chronicles to which that Declaration refers us For those chronicles and Caesar in his commentaries tells us there were in this land then divers Princes independent in which of them shall we look for this constitution or shall we seek it among the Brittish kings whom the Saxons drove into Wales if we could find it there it would not concern us for we are not now upon the Brittish but English government which followed the Saxons If the Answerer will begin his constitution and first king at this period or revolurion of the Monarchy for higher he cannot lower at the conquest I trust he will not why did not he tell us so that he might have givē conscience some direction to find out his first constitution and first King He knew well enough there was little help for him here For we find this English Saxishgovernment at the beginning branching it self into an Heptarchy rising in arms it is likely those Captains took upon them as kings by the consent and acclamation of the souldiers as when in the state of Rome the pretorian guard or some army abroad saluted an Emperor and thrust him upon the people But what then will become of his first constitution by the contrivement of the people when they made their first king should any of these seven Monarchs come in by such a popular contrivement wch cannot be imagined must our government needs be the same Or can we think that Egbert who made himselfe sole Monarch was bound up by such a constitution reservation as he says was contrived at their making of the first King from that Egbert to King CHARLES our Authentique Histories and Chronicles to which the Declaration of Parliament above mentioned refers us do shew a glorious succession of Monarchs not one made by election but Harold who yet ha's not obtained the stile of Rex Haroldus and his title if any dyed with him We see upon what uncertainties and improbabilities conscience is left for this first election and precontrivement this Answerer ha's not directed it any wayes how it should be assured of it much lesse of that reservation of power which he imagineth to be made by the people at that first election of a King He gives us no record to witnes it turnes us to no authentique History or chronicle shews us no constant practice or judgement
CONSCIENCE SATISFIED That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by SUBjECTS BY WAY OF REPLY unto severall Answers made to a Treatise formerly published for the Resolving of Conscience upon the CASE ESPECIALLY Unto that which is entituled A fuller Answer By H. FERNE D. D. c. Speake unto the Elders of Iudah saying what are yee the last to bring the King back to His House seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the King 2 Sam. 19.11 Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4.5 OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the Vniversity 1643. To the Conscientious Readers among the People TO you especially this is intended who professing to make a Conscience of your wayes have hitherto been led on in the dangerous and perverse way of Resistance and disloyaltie to give you some check and call you at least to a thought of the violent Course you were in pursuit of there was a Treatise formerly directed to you for your better help in the examination of your Way and the Resolving of your Consciences for it was marvailous to behold how men pretending Religion and Conscience should be so securely carryed on without all warrant so hood winckt with an implicite faith against the cleere light of the Law of God and this Land meeting them in the face which faith as by reason of its blindnesse it is most contrary to a Conscience desirous to be informed so the blinder it is the stronger it is and leaves a man miserably deceived with the conceipt of a Conscience well fatisfied To hold you on in this blinde devotion Foure Answerers have appeared for you against the aforesaid Treatise that you may at least say you have foure for one but if you take them all and bray them in a Mortar together you shall not beate out of them any true and reall Causes of these your Armes but Pretences onely nor any warrant from the Law of God or of this Land to justifie your taking Armes upon such Causes were they never so true and reall That you may more easily discern what is in them thereby the truth I have takē them in peices for you and by this Reply shewen you what is adulterate It is chiefly directed against M. Bridge his book and the Fuller Answer against that because it appeares under the Licence and Authority of Them he pleads for and is framed more to the capacity of the Vulgar against This because it is cryed up among the more Intelligent of the Party and carries an appearing depth of Reason though indeed no otherwise then stained waters doe which seem deep through the darknesse of their Colour What is materiall in M. Burrowes you shall finde repeated in Theirs or his own words and receiving answer With that other Answer which appeares without name but with a Margin full of Greek and Latin I dare trust you so that you will beware of one thing that dangerous discourse he has for the suppressing and taking away of Tyrants and will promise me another thing that you will not proceed in this unjustifiable way without direct and positive warrant for Conscience to rest on Yet shall you have something in particular to this Answerer in the 12. Section Before that Fuller Answer came to my hands I was told by one that had reason to know I should receive answer from a grave Divine but having perused it I found little of the Divine lesse of his Gravity but a phansy both ridiculous and dangerous He has set before his book a Premonition wherein he has painted out the Resolver under the severall shapes of birds and beasts as his flitting phansy led him a very peice of Pictured Tapestry fitter to hang before the entrance of a Stage then of a Treatise concerning Conscience but which is worst of all concern's not me onely but every good Subject in his book he has phansied such a frame of Government here in this Land that he has marr'd it in the Making for by an unheard of Coordination he has contrived it into a plain Popular State I held my selfe many wayes though this Age has had books enough to teach it duty engaged to answer for my own for yours for Truths sake I found my selfe much abused by mistakes and odious imputations especially of the Full Answerer but you worse by deceiving pretences Truth worst of all by false Principles and Doctrines given out under its name I desire you would understand what was spoken by me in the former Treatise by way of Assertion Conclusion or generall Rule concerning the two Houses was but a sacrificing to Truth from a Conscience not simply devoted to man what was related as matter of Fact did either not concern them or not touch them with any such foule aspersion as the Fuller Answerer would make you beleeve My Conscience is clear and my paper was not stained with such blots For disaffection to Parliaments wherewith I am charged I will not say how far my heart went along with This in the way of approbation but thus much I will say I alwayes had and still have to Parliaments affection enough though not to make me a Rebell to the light of Reason and Rules of Conscience or disloyall to His Majesty yet enough to ground any due obedience upon My heart would faile me as hers did upon the departure of glory from Israel 1 Sam. 4. to think how the Name of Religion and Authority of Parliament would suffer in after Times could they justly be entitled to the enquiry of these But I take it to be the desire of all good men and Loyall Subjects yea of the King himselfe That Parliaments should flourish in their due power and freedom knowing that neither he nor they can suffer by such I presume that many of the Thousands which follow his Majesty have engaged themselves in the Cause not only out of meer duty of Allegiance but also out of a sense of that very desire they are Confident is in Him to the continuance of Parliaments being such for the most part as have no other hope of advantage by the service then peaceably to enjoy what by the Law of the Land they may call their own such whose hearts God hath touched as he did theirs that went with Saul when some children of Belial despised him saying how shall this man save us 1 Sam. 10. Should I bring in the Kingdome as Ioab did the suborned Widdow of Tekoah like a woman in mourning apparell to speak the truth you would hear her Complaining Her Sonns have striven together in the field and smitten and slaine one another but for the iniquity let the King and his Throne be guiltlesse 2 Sam. 14. and farther adding Let the name of Religion be sacred and the Authority of Parliament blamelesse but there are certain Men upon whom the iniquity will lye heavy as the grave-stone and upon whose tombs if this Land give them
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
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
Delinquents should be brought to a Legall tryall and the State defended is just and necessary yet to be done in an orderly and Legall way not by an Army raised by Subjects taking the Militia and power of the Kingdome out of chose hands in which the Law has inâ—â—â—sted it And if Conscience were to speake the Truth it could not say that any Delinquents were denied or with-held till the Militia was seized and a great Delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to tryall at His Majesties instance of which see more above Sect. 5. Neither can Conscience say that Subjects have had cause upon feares and pretences of forrain invasion or insurrection of Papists to Arme and resist Whether this be done by an Act of jurisdiction we may discerne by the plea of the fuller Answerer for he would have us believe they are inabled to this by Law and the Constitution of this Government and that they doe it by an act of judgement the States judgement residing in their finall resolution and that this power of theirs is transcendent to any power ordinarily in the King for it declares Law without Him it does arbitrarily command the power of the Kingdome and the obedience of the people without and against the commands of the King so we found it in the examination of his discourse and what is more required to an act of Jurisdiction I know not let Him and Mr. Bridge agree it Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of preservation First from the Law of Nature selfe preservation is naturall for a Man for a Community and therefore when a Community shall trust a Prince with their welfare that act of trust is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall Law which is selfe-preservation pag. 2. But the Fuller Answer will tell him there must be a Constitution to enable them to this selfe-preservation And were this Argument good then might private men or the people without the Parliament take Armes and resist for selfe-preservation is naturall to them and no positive Law which according to the Fuller Answer restraines their resistance upon their trust given to the Houses of Parliament can according to Mr. Bridge his reason destroy that naturall Law Also absolute Princes with whom the people have intrusted their welfare without any resevation might be resisted which the Fuller Answer againe denies for that act of trust is but by positive Law and according to Mr. Bridge it must not restraine them for it cannot destroy the Naturall Law of self-preservation But he should have observed that as the naturall body is to preserve it selfe according to its Law and no otherwise so a Community or politique body must doe it according to its Law which prescribeth the order and way and means of preservation and for want of holding to that way we see people often under pretence of this selfe-preservation drawne by seditious Leaders into Armes to their owne destruction Secondly he proves it from the Law of God by places of Scripture but so wildely that I am ashamed to repeat them yet the judicious Reader must give me leave for the peoples sake that are abused by these mens abusing of Scripture 1 Chron. 12.19 It is expresly said that David went out against Saul to battail but he was Sauls subject at that time pag. 2. A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for Subjects to go out to Battaile against their King but he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that He helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Achish See below Sect. 9. where this place is touched again Rom. 13. Be subject to the higher powers But the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pag. 3. this is well assumed but we grant the Conclusion there is a subjection due to them and if he means by the Parliament the three Estates concurring then all manner of subjection and obedience is due to them But he takes them as divided for it follows Though the King be supreame yet they have the high power of declaring Law pag. 3. this is a good explication of the Supremacy Yea this Doctor confesseth they are most fit to judge what is Law Take in all my words which were these none so fit to judge what those fundamentalls are as They that have power to build new Laws upon them and then make what you can of them or look what is spoken above of Supremacy Sect. 4. of the power of Declaring Law Sect. 6. Then he undertakes to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and has the ill hap to light on Saul David and Solomon for examples because it is said They made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11. and so of David and Solomon which was the peoples not giving of power but receiving and acknowledging him for King whom the Lord had designed Lastly he has found an example and proofe for the trust of Parliament in Davids time 1 Chron. 13.1 2. David consults with the Captains and Leaders and with all the Congregation about the fetching of the Ark what then These were Officers not of the King but Kingdom and though under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom pag. 5. Excellent Collections The Fuller Answer will tell him presently that the Kings of the Iewes were absolute Monarches though I say not so yet this I say those were Officers of the King and Kingdom meerly designed by him not the people and called by him to that trust what he infers that the Parliament is entrusted by the people though not deduceible from that place I grant yet so as that they have a trust from the King upon them too as was above shewn Sect. 4. But that in case they think the King misled it belongs to their trust to take the Armes of the Kingdom as M. Bridge would inferre can neither be drawn out of that place of Scripture nor any Law of this Land that ever could yet be seen The like rambling discourse he has upon the 5. Sect. touching the Monarchicall Government which God set up over his people wherein as he is for the conclusion altogether contrary to the Full Answerer who held the Jewish Monarchy absolute so for his proofes and places of Scripture alleaged altogether impertinent At length he will seem to give us Law for it Inferiour Courts have power to send for by force if need be those that are accused much more the Parliament the highest Court pag. 6. And therefore also inferiour Courts have power to raise Armies to force in the Accused if they refuse to come in upon Summons that would make good work But the Law has provided a force if need be a Posse Comitatûs and the Kings Officer or Minister for that is the Sheriffe but this new way turnes both the King out
of His power and His Ministers out of their Office sending Voluntiers and listed Souldiers into every County to force in Delinquents But he tells us they may send a Sergeant at Armes for a Delinquent therefore twenty if twenty be accused and therefore an hundred and so goes on till he has made an Army of 10000. Sergeants at at Armes pag. 6. I did not know before that the Souldiers pretended to be sent from the Parliament were all Sergeants at Armes what need so many certainly before this Army of Sergeants was raised very few would have served to have warned in Delinquents it has made many a sorrowfull Father in the Countrey to see his sonne called to such an imployment whom he had bound Apprentise in London to another trade Nay the whole Kingdom has rued the sending of such and so many Sergeants at Armes who do not onely arrest mens persons as they please but also plunder their Estates and does earnestly desire that as it is pretended Delinquents must be brought to triall by Law so they may be fetched or forced in by the way and meanes the Law as was said has provided He concludes with an Answer to an Objection If the power of the Prince be derimed from the people then they may take it away when abused and depose their Prince Answ No we doe not say so the people need not think of such an inference because they never gave away the power of selfe preservation pag. 7. These are but cold denials though you say they need not go so farre yet you have opened and paved the way for them to be led on so far upon these principles and what shall withhold them because they have the power of selfe preservation by taking Armes whereas if they had not that power it were the way to breake all in pieces pag. 7. So it seemes the way to keepe people in obedience is to give them liberty of Rebelling but what securitie has the Prince that they will trust him with the power againe if a few seditious Preachers tell them their Prince will not use the power well if they trust him again with it they gave it him at first and now they may conferre it upon another who will manage it better in order to their safety Or if they doe lay downe their Arms and trust Him with power again it shall be to his prejudice he shall be forced first to consent to what they please and what this is called by our Law every one that understands any thing knows Then in Answer to what was said in the first Section of the former Treatise that our Divines by denying resistance unto Subjects doe not endeavour to raise the King to an arbitrary power for they allow the denying of Obedience to all commands unlawfull by the Law of God or the established Lawes of the Land M. Bridge first would seem to returne me to a Catalogue of Protestant Divines allowing resistance in some Cases and then tells me if we may not resist we yeeld the King an arbitrary power For His forreigne Divines the testimony of the Centurists speaks not to his purpose Of the French and Low-Countrey Divines he brings no testimonies but for proofe tells us we know their practice so I for Answer may returne him his owne words we know what has beene the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit to give in witnesse but this I will say for them they can justifie the cause of their Armes better then M. Bridge can doe his Now for our English Divines its plaine they speake of such Government such States such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom or this time yet doe some of them allow of resistance in some cases true for since the revolt of the Low-Countries and the first motions of the Protestants in France I finde in many of our Divines a willingnesse to excuse as much as may be But if we looke beyond those times into our Homilies we shall finde the Doctrine of our Church expresly against Subjects taking of Armes Then he tells us though we may deny Obedience to the Kings unjust Commands yet if we may not resist but suffer when He pleases to punish for not obeying we raise him to an arbitrary power Pag. 12. Answer To say He may command any thing not repugnant to Gods Law and punish lawfully for not obeying is to raise him to an Arbitrary power but to say He may not command any thing against the Law of the Land and if He punish for not obeying such His command it is unjust and against the Law yet unlawfull also for us to take Arms against Him for it is not to raise him to an arbitrary power For Arbitrary and limited power is distinguished by the Restraint which the Law or Constitution of Government casts upon the governing power not by the abuse of that power which sometimes in the most limited Governments may break out into a licentious arbitrarynes If force and not Law must tell us what Arbitrary power is and releeve us against it in the Prince I fear we should too often feel it from the hand of Subjects The Fuller Answerer would make me contradict my selfe in denying the King an arbitrary Government Sect. 1. and yeelding him the finall Iudgement Sect. 5. Now the Reader will discern this is not my failing but his usuall mistaking of what I say the place he aimes at is Sect. 5. Pag. 26. where in answering the objection many see more then one and more safety in the Iudgement of many then of one it was said The King sees with the eyes of those many and all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy which settles the chief power and finall Iudgement in one That was for the generall which I suppose is the reason and frame of Monarchy how it was good in our King by His power of denying appears in that place for the finall Judgement was no otherwise challenged for him Now if such a Judgement of the Kings be called a finall Iudgement because it is the last and after the Judgement of many it matters not it will not infer an arbitrary power as the finall Resolution which this man placeth in the two Houses doth for if it be dissenting from the Judgement of those many it is onely Negative it is not Conclusive any other way Such I say is the Kings finall Trust or Judgement by consenting to those many or denying not by concluding or commanding any other way as he pleases The last exception of these Answerers to the first Section is against my interpretation of Omnes ordines consentientes to imply a generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses in this point of resistance First they say it is enough if the major part agree or else many Acts of Parliament would be voyd Answer however it is enough to other votes and Acts if the major part agree upon it yet
does not use it so as they conceive they therefore dispose of it taking the Sword into their own hands what is this but a reassuming or which is worse and more unreasonable an using of an higher power reserved and inherent in themselves which is to place the very Supremacie in the people as ha's been often shewen above M. Bridge bestowes more labour upon this Section But first He complaines The Dr charges us that we hold the people may reassume the power entrusted to the Prince making the World beleive we contend for the deposing of Kings pag. 24. What some of you have contended for all this while the Lord knowes that knowes your Hearts yet this we know the same principles will carry you so farre But there is a difference between deposing the Prince and reassuming the power for though you have not deposed the King yet have you seized the Militia and Armes of the Kingdome have commanded obedience from all His people have left Him nothing ye could take from Him and what is this but as much as in youlyeth to reassume the power if there be any impropriety in the speech it is in calling that a reassuming which indeed is rather a taking away or dispoyling Him of that you never gave Him But if you doe not reassume the power what meanes the difference you make of things disposed by trust from things disposed by donation because they may be recalled these may not so you say Pag. 25. and in applying it you tell us the King ha's His Power by trust from the people and should have proceeded to confesse they may recall i. e. reassume it you must hold it if you hold to your principles But let me tell you that God entrusts the Prince with the power and with the people and therefore the people cannot reassume it And when they elect one to bear that power they doe commit themselves to his trust not giving so much as receiving a benefit and such elected Kings as was said in the former Treatise are the Lords Annointed and his Ministers Then cannot Princes whose coming to the Crowne is meerly Pactionall be deposed for they are also the Lords Annointed and his Ministers but the Doctor granted that the argument speaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power has force in Governmente meerly Elective and Pactionall Pag. 26. The Doctor by way of supposition passed it over in these words although such argument may seeme to have some force in states meerly Pactionall to the undenyable clearing of this State from the danger of such forfeiture But if M. Bridge will have me deliver my opinion absolutely the reasons above mentioned will not suffer me to thinke the people may depose any King they have chosen upon what conditions soever they admitted him and if they should chuse admit one upon such condition of forfeiture it were turpis Conditio most unreasonable the very Seminary of Jealousy and sedition neither profitable for King nor people a plain encroachment of the peorle upon the governing power which was at first derived from God not through their hands and should alwayes be left in the Governour sufficient to rule them The Doctor also confesseth it is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elsewhere yet will he not have the King claime by it pag. 27. It is like they were so as generally among the Heathen they began by election what then must our King now claime by the first Kings in this Land and Conscience be put to drive into the obscure fabulous times before Caesar or Brute his entrance for that firstelection We are upon the English government which followed the Saxons or rather upon the Norman which followed the Conquest and as I said in that place how can Conscience be satisfied that the argument drawn from the supposed first Election to prove the peoples assuming this power can have any force in this government which began not so but as we see by the entrance of the Saxons and Normans Thus it is with our Prince although he succeeded the Conqueror yet doth he also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Commonwealth unto His Crowne pag. 28. That was not the Consent of the first supposed election but an after Consent following the Conquest as the Prince and the People could agree which agreement was not likely to leave them a power of resistance Now we see the Doctors mind plainly that he contends for an Arbitrary government for he saith pag. 11. the Emperors ruied absolutely and arbitrarily and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Manarchs but by force of Armes the way that the Saxons and Normans made themselves Masters of this people The Doctor did not contend for an arbitrary government but did often because he knew he should meet with those that would made bad construction of his words expresly declare the contrary His intent was to answer the Reply there made that those Emperors might not be resisted because they were absolute by shewing they made themselves so by Armes and if the people could not upon any former right refist in that Empire no more can they doe in this upon pretence of right by a first election for here also the Government began in Armes None of my Adversaries have bitten at the edge and strength of this answer but only catched at the shadow of those two words Conquest and Arbitrary More was spoken above of Conquest Sect. 6. and this I may adde We see in the titles of many of our Kings before the Acts of Parliament made in their times a reference to the Conquest as Edward the third after the Conquest which does relate not only to the Edward before the Conquest but also to the Conquest it selfe as to a beginning of claime and government or else the number should have none on and our Edward the third should have been numbred the fourth So Henry the seaventh and Henry the eight after the Conquest quest which relates to no such name before but only to the Conquest as a beginning of Claime and Government Then the Doctor comes to the matter of Covenant to which we say Every breach of Covenant makes not a forfeiture but we esteem a necessity of a Covenant which we see in Kings designed by God 1 Chron. 11.3 and that this bindes as well the King to the People as the People to the King pag. 29. That Covenant was not there a Condition on which those Kings were admitted to the Crown no more is it in this Kingdom but a confirmation and strengthning of their naturall duties by promises and Oaths That every breach the Prince makes in that Covenant should forfeit his power you cannot say indeed for shame but you canenlarge the breach as you please til you have made it wide enough for Armies of seduced people to enter in upon Him And we cannot but observe how you prepare for it in those words the King as well
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 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