Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	king_n	parliament_n	14,544	5	6.6609	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77374	The vvounded conscience cured, the weak one strengthned, [sic] and the doubting satisfied By way of answer to Doctor Fearne. Where the main point is rightly stated, and objections throughly answered for the good of those who are willing not to be deceived. By William Bridge, preacher of Gods Word. It is ordered this 30. day of January, 1642. by the committee of the House of Commons in Parliament, concerning printing, that this answer to Dr. Fearnes book be printed. John White. The second edition, correced and amended. Whereunto are added three sermons of the same author; 1. Of courage, preached to the voluntiers. 2. Of stoppage in Gods mercies to England, with their [sic] remedies. 3. A preparation for suffering in these plundering times.	Bridge, William, 1600?-1670.	1643 (1643)	Wing B4476A; ESTC R223954	47,440	52

thei● King Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries whereby the● contend as he sayes for resistance as that of the High Priest resisting the King in the Temple and Elisha shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger tha● came to take away his life to the first he sayes that the High Priest did no mor● then what every Minister may and ought to doe if the King should attempt t● administer the Sacrament that is reprove him and keepe the elements from him Ans But if that were all the Priests should not have beene commended for their valour but their faithfulnesse and ver 17. it is said that Azariah ● Chron. ●● 17 the Priest went after him and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men In that they were commended here for valiant it shewes that their worke was not onely reproofe but resistance And whereas he saith that they thrust him out of the Temple because God ●and was first upon him smiting him with Leprosie and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also Ans I answer how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being smitten with the leprosie was an actuall discharge from his crown●● Then the Doctor saith Elisha's example speakes very little but let u● thence saith he take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against th● sudden and illegall assaults of such Messeng●rs yea of the Prince himselfe thu● far to ward his blowes to hold his hand and the like c. Ans 1. If you may ward his blowes and hold his hands this is mor● then praying and crying and suffering 2. Suppose the King hath an army with him how can you hold an armies hands without an army and therefore according to his owne word● it is lawfull for the subjects considered State-wise to raise an army to de●end themselves 3. But this instance of Elisha tells us that Messengers sent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken prisoners is not that a resistance for Elisha said see you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut the doore and hold him fast at the doore 2 Kings 6. 32. Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body naturall and politicke whereby it is argued that as the body naturall so the body politicke may defend it selfe to which the Doctor answers as the naturall body defends it selfe against an outward force but strives not by schisme or contention within it selfe so may the body politicke against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the head and another part of the same body Answ Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it selfe against an outward force and what is the Militia for especially but against forrainers Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personall defence and a generall resistance by armes He saith a personall defence may be without all offence and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall-resistance by armes doth which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale which saith he makes a large difference betwixt Elisha's shutting of the doore against the Kings messenger and their resisting the King by armed men Answ But why was Elisha's defence personall because he was but one person that was defended then if one man defend himselfe against 1000. in armes that is a personall defence or was it personall because onely the person of the Prophet made defence and had none to assist him not so because he spake to the Elders to shut the doore and hold him fast and if this act of Elisha was contrary to the Kings command why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him as our resistance doth now indeed if the subjects as private men strengthned with no authority should gather together in a rude multitude to oppose lawes and governours then that worke should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a State but that the State should send out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the highest Court of the Kingdome that justice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene stanched up is rather to confirme and strengthen the order and power of authority and so it is in our case Then the Doctor proceeds to some Scriptures wherewithall hee thinkes to strengthen his opinion let us follow him First saith hee we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Numbers 16. 3. and perishing in thei● sinne Ans I answer that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust and our question is in the generall laying aside all respect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his trust and doing that through his ba● Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State may not by the whol● State be resisted therein Now see how extreamly wide this instance 〈◊〉 from this question First of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol● people nor the representative Body nor any imploied by the whol● people 2. Moses and Aaron had not offended but were innocent The Dr. answers The other supposed they had bin guilty and that is enoug● it seems Ans It seems so indeed by him that supposalls are enough to charg● the Parliament but with us supposalls are not enough to charge ou● Prince 2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. saying there the people are let t● understand how they would be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they hav● no remedy left but crying to the Lord vers 18. Ans In this Scripture Samuel shewed them what their King would do not what he should doe and when he saith at the 18. verse You shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lor● will not heare you in that day he telleth them not what should be their duty but what should be their punishment for he doth not say then shall you cry unto the Lord and he shall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promise of acceptance But he saith you shall cry in that day because of your King and the Lord will not heare you in that day setting forth the punishment of that thei● choise 3. The Dr. saith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civill assemblies or for War but by his command wh●●ad the power of the Trumpet that is the supream as Moses was Num. 10. Answ The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the supreme power hath given commandement for For the● Doctor saith Section 1. page 2.

13. Chapter that the subjection and obedience here commanded by the Apostle is not passive obedience or subjection but active for the Apostle having said ver 1. and 2. Let every soule be subject to the higher power and not resist he saith at the third verse Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power doe that which is good and at the sixth verse For this cause pay you tribute also But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and sinfull the Doctor saith we are to be subject only passively therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden in the Scripture not such as relates the unlawfull command of Princes as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things destructive to the Christian Religion accordingly Hierom upon the place Oftendit Apostolus in his quae recta sunt judicibus obediendum non in illi quae religioni contraria sunt And besides the Doctor himselfe confesseth page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary but perpetuall therefore to reach unto those times when the Prince should command that which was good therefore the subjection here commanded was active subjection and not meerly passive But the Doctor saith he will free this place from all exceptions and therefore he saith first I may suppose the King supreme as St. Peter calls him or the higher power as St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question Answ And is it but now put to the question What shall we say then of that speech of Doctor Bilson By superiour powers ordained of God we understand not onely Princes but all publicke States and Regiments some where the people somewhere the Nobles having the same intrust to the sword that Princes have in this Kingdome and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to those that are in authority Suppose we be in some country where there is no King but States doth not this Scripture command us subjection there also How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onely the King The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome and the highest Court of Justice must needs fall within the compasse of these words the higher Powers unto which by vertue of this commandement of the Apostle we are to be obedient How then is this true which the Doctor saith that by the higher Power is meant the King onely or supreme in opposition to the Parliament But I prove it saith he For S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority the King as supreme and all that are sent by him 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter ranke are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Ans Calvin and other Interpreters herein is contrary unto the Doctor Nam qui pronomen e●m ad Regem refe●unt multum falluntur Estigitur huc communi ratio●● commendandam omnium magistratu● authoritatē quod mancato Dei praesunt ab eo mit●unt●r unde sequitur quemadmodum Paulus do●●● Deo resistere q●i ab eo ordi nata non se obedienter submittunt Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who saith thus Those that referre the pronoune him to the King are much deceived for this is that common reason whereby the authority of all Magistrates is commanded because they doe rule by the commandement of God and are sent by him By him being referred to God by other Interpreters and to the King with the Doctor Then the Doctor saith secondly In this Text of the Apostle it is said All persons under the higher powers are expresly forbidden to resist for whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soule in the first Ans That which the Doctor aimes at in these words is to make the whole Parliament subject unto the King And who denyes them to bee the Kings subjects and that as men and Englishmen they should not be subject unto the King But if he meanes that as a Parliament they should be subject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth then how is that true which he saith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is such an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine c. Or if he meane that as a Parliament jointly considered they are to submit passively unto the unlawfull commands of the King and that passive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is so to straiten the Text as never any yet hath straitned it neither indeed can any conscience thinke that when the Apostle commands us to be subject unto the higher powers his meaning is only by way of suffering in his unlawfull commands and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands Thirdly the Doctor saith That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell he thinks wil or can Ans But what then Is it not therefore lawfull for the subjects now to resist the higher power commanding things unlawfull because the Apostle commanded there that we should not resist the higher powers in things that are lawfull Herein lyes the Doctors continued mistake He thinkes this command of the Apostle was given to the Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands whereas the Apostles command in this place reaches to all times and is made to all that are Christians Although they did live under Nero yet it does not follow that the Apostle commanded them to be subject to him in unlawfulls If indeed Nero's commandements were onely unlawfull and this direction of the Apostle was made onely to the Christians in those times and that the subjection commanded were onely suffering subjection then this Scripture might make much for his purpose But though Nero was an enemy to the Christians yet some of his commandements were lawfull and this direction of the Apostle was not made onely to the Christians in those times but as a generall rule for all good men and the obedience and subjection here commanded was not onely to be passive but active which I have proved already wherein I also appeale to the Doctors own conscience whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and subjection to the Prince and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide and his argument null Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed that that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some whom he answers Ans I answer that the Doctor here makes his owne adversary and fights with him Many other answers he refutes also it being not in my purpose to make good every pamphlet but to satisfie mens consciences onely I cannot but here take notice that the Doctor professes against arbitrary

who may not see how tender the Parliament hath been of the Kings honour Therefore they have not beene willing to beleeve that those Declarations that came out in his name are his owne Therefore they charge all that is done on his counsellors not on himselfe herein being fully like unto David who though Saul came out against him yet did he not impute that unnaturall warre unto Saul himselfe so much as unto those that were about him saying unto Saul If the Lord hath stirred thee up against me let him accept an offering but if they be the children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven mee out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord 1 Sam. 26. 19. Therefore also when the Parliament hath written any thing that might in the least measure reflect upon his Majesty I have observed that they never did write so but to vindicate and to cleare themselves from some aspersions first cast upon them and when they did write so like Shem and Japhet they took a garment and went backward desiring rather to cover then to behold any nakednesse in our dread Soveraigne And woe be unto them from the Lord but I will not curse them with the curse of Cham who put his Majesty upon such actions whereby any nakednesse should bee discovered Then the Doctor comes to the examination of those fears and jealousies which have possessed the people which hee saith are raised on these grounds report of forraine powers to be brought in the Queens religion the resort of Papists to his Majesty his intercepting of meanes sent for the reliefe of Ireland To which he answers first That the report of forraine invasions given out to keepe the people in a muse the easier to draw them into a posture of defence are discovered in time to have been vain But saith he If there be now any foraigne aid comming towards the King as all Christian Kings cannot but thinke themselves concerned in this cause it will be just for him to use them against subjects now in armes Answ To which I answer That it doth not appeare that our fears were vaine because forraigne invasion hath been prevented for we may rather thinke that therefore we have not been invaded by forraigners because the Parliament hath beene vigilant both by sea and land to prevent them But who doth not see that so far as lies in the Doctor he doth invite forraigne forces into the land and so stir up other Princes for to send them and our King for to use them Whether this be agreeable to an English Divine or an English Subject I leave to be judged Then he saith The Queens religion is no new cause Answ To this I say nothing but leave it being matter of fact to the judgement of eyes that have seene actions whether there be no more cause of jealousie now then at her first entrance And thirdly for the resort of Papists and the Kings entertaining them the Doctor strengthens the intrust of it with that example of David we may see saith he what manner of men were gathered to David in his distresse and how Ziba was rewarded Answ To which I say this only how can the Doctor make it appeare that those that were gathered to David were men of another Religion from David and of such a Religion that by the State was counted rebellion who also by the State was to bee disarmed Which if the Doctor does not make good this instance is nothing to our case And 4 for the matter of Ireland I leave that wholy to the Parliaments Declarations who without doubt know the proceedings of those better then this Doctor and what conscience enlightened will not rather rest for satisfaction upon Parliamentary Declarations then upon this Doctors assertion in this matter The other things in this Section are mostly matter of fact and therefore I must referre them to mens sense onely I cannot but observe how in all things the Doctor cleares the King and casts dirt upon the Parliament but still with this cunning when he hath laid the greatest aspertion upon them he retracts in these words I speake not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdom of the great Councell like as before when he had said what he could or happily dar'd for the Kings ruling by conquest he comes oft with this kinde of speech This I speak not as if the Kings of the land might rule as Conquerours and this is an ordinary sleight when men have preached against purity and holinesse with as much bitternesse as they can then they thinke to come off in this or the like manner God forbid that I should speak against purity and holinesse But let him in Gods name cleare the King in what he may as wee are all bound to doe as farre as we can but can he not cleare his Majesty without such foule aspertions cast on the Parliament of whom he saith thus page 30. Men are higly concerned to consider whether they also that are the maine directors of this resistance doe discharge this trust they are called to whether to divest the King of the power of Armes and to use them be to defend his Person Right and Dignity Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this resistance and the imprisoning of their persons for deniall be the maintaining of the right and priviledge of the subjects Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines and to commit such unsufferable outrages upon the worship of God with such licentiousnesse be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church Answ These are foule charges upon the Parliament How can the Doctor say I enter not this discourse to cast the least blemish upon the Parliament Well blessed is the man that condemneth not himselfe in that thing which he alloweth The Doctor confesseth That man to bee subject to higher powers and that we are to submit to them he confesseth also That the Parliament is the highest Court in the Kingdome and it ought to judge what is the Law they having therefore judged this resistance to be lawful if the Doctor shall resist this their declarative power saying it is not law and cast such dirt and reproaches upon them doth he not condemne himself in the thing which he alloweth But in this last clause of his booke he summons conscience to answer upon paine of damnation and I make no question but when men shall have seriously considered his booke the verdict that conscience will bring in will this be As in the sight of God I have perused this Treatise of his and I finde it injurious to the King to the Parliament to the Divines of this Kingdom to the other Subjects to the Treatiser himself To the King for hereby he is put on and exasperated against his Parliament and Subjects further engaged in this war and encouraged to take the assistance of Papists who if he conquer by their meanes what Protestant good subject doth not bleed to thinke what will become of him To the Parliament being charged with the blood that is spilt in these warres with the miseries of Ireland with the Schismes and Sects of this Kingdome with open hypocrisie pretending one thing and intending another To Divines all whom he makes to be of his judgement To the Subjects denying to them the liberty given them by God and Nature and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and calling in forraigners upon them To the Treatiser himselfe who hath needlessely imbarked himselfe in a bad cause And lastly to the Scripture and God and his great Officer on Earth Conscience the Scripture being wrested God dishonoured and the conscience deceived Now the Lord grant that whilst we speake of Conscience we may in all things make conscience of our waies for multi conscientiam habuit adjudicium non ad remedium As concerning the King Give the King thy judgements O God and thy righteousnesse unto the Kings Son And as concerning the two Houses of Parliament Let the mountaines bring grace unto the people and the little hills thy righteousnesse Let the King and Queen and people praise thee O God yea let all our England praise thee FINIS

for granted which was never given but wee say not that we suppose but seeing and finding experimentally that a Prince is misled by those about him that would overthrow religion liberties lawes that then it is lawfull to take up armes to deliver the King from them and to bring them to condigne punishment Then hee proceeds to propound three Generalls which he endeavoureth to prove in his following Discourse which I shall speake to in order Sect. II. THe Doctor saith that the principle is untrue upon which they goe that resist and the conscience cannot finde cleare ground to rest upon for making resistance for it heares the Apostle expresly say Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation Poenam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic malo quam condemnationem p●to enim hoc intelligendū de poe●â quam insert magistratus sicut verba frequentis declarant sic verbū 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acc●p●tur pro puni●e 1 Cor. 6. 11. Piscat Rom. 13. 1 Sam. 14. Ans In this his resolving of Conscience he endeavours to scare those that are tender with the word of damnation and forbids this resistance upon paine of damnation but the word in the Greeke is rather to be● translated judgement and punishment and as Piscator observes thereby i● not meant eternall damnation but the punishment of the Magistrate in this life as appeares by the following words which are given by the Apostle as a reason of the former thus They that resist shall receive to themselves judgement for rulers are not a terror to good workes but to evill Then he proceeds to some examples of Scripture which are brough● by us to strengthen our Doctrine wherein he takes what hee pleaseth and leaves out what he lists The first example alledged is that of the peoples rescuing Ionathan out of the hands of Saul to which he answers the people drew not into armes of themselves but being there by Saul's comman● did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular passionate and unlawfull command Ans First here the Doctor grants that the people used a violence which is that that we would prove but hee doth not make it out by tha● Scripture that it was a loving violence which is the thing hee shoul● prove Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love for it is said that the people rescued him and wha● is the rescue by men in armes but a violence 2. According to the Doctors position they should not have rescued him but onely have defende● themselves by prayers and teares and left Ionathan to suffer and therefore though he grants but a rescue by loving violence he gives away h● cause in the threshold of his worke The second example alledged saith the Doctor is Davids resisting ● Saul to which he answers that Davids guard which he had about him was on●ly to secure his person against the cruelty of Saul who sent to take away his life Ans Therefore according to his owne grounds a Parliament may tak● up a guard to secure their persons against the cut-throats that are abo●● a King and this is more then prayers or teares or meere sufferings whic● the Doctor onely allowes in the following part of his discourse 2. Herein also he gives his cause for if Davids guard was to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life as he sayes they could not secure David but by fighting against those messengers of the King and if he grants that messengers sent by the king may be resisted by armes he grants all that his adversaries contend for 2. The Doctor saith this practice of Davids was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul Ans But what think you then of Davids words which he used to Achisb in 1 Sam. 29. 8. And David said unto Achish what have I done and what hast thou sound in thy servant so long as I have beene with thee to this day that I may not goe fight against the enemies of my Lord the King amongst which enemies was Saul and his cut-throats as the Doctor calls them but 2. His adversaries desire no more from this instance of David but an hostile defence for where there is an hostile defence though there bee no blowes given yet the defender would strike if there were cause else why is he in armes 3. David also was but one subject and if it were lawfull for one subject to defend himselfe by way of hostility much more for the representative body of the whole Kingdome 4. According to the Doctors principles David ought to have done no more then to have sought God with teares and prayers and given up himselfe in a suffering way to the fury of Saul and therefore though it were meerly an hostile defence yet it is more then his doctrine teacheth and so in granting of this he is contrary to what he sayes afterwards For the matter of Keilah the Doctor answers our supposition as he cals it with his own saying but whether David would have defended Keilah against Saul I leave to the conscience of the Reader considering that this only is made the reason of his removing from Keilah because the men of Keilah would not be faithfull unto him for he did not enquire of the Lord whether it were lawfull for him to abide in Keilah but having enquired whether Saul would come downe against him and whether Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand he removed from Keilah because the Lord answered him that they would deliver him up not because it was unlawfull for him to keepe the City but because the City would be false to him And whereas the Doctor saith that in all this the example of David was extraordinary for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul Ans I answer though David was Gods Anointed yet he was Sauls subject and though God did extraordinarily protect David yet his extraordinary protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawfull but doth rather argue it to be more lawfull and commendable for Go● will not give extraordinary protections to unlawfull actions and if Davids demeanour herein was extraordinary then he had an extraordinary command for what he did For it is not lawfull for a man to step fro● Gods ordinary way but by some speciall commandement from God and if he had such a command then how is that true which the Doctor saith afterward that there is no command in Scripture for such a practice o● kinde of resistance as this 3. In the words immediately before the Doctor saith this practice ●● David was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul and if so ho● was his demeanour in standing out against Saul a worke extraordinary 〈◊〉 if it were a worke extraordinary then it was not a meere defence without all violence for that is an ordinary worke of the subjects toward

and principle now taught them take the power to themselves First I answer that there is not the same reason why the people should be so ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their trust being they are very many chosen out of the whole Kingdome for their faithfulnesse approved every way for their goodnesse and wisedome whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown and so by vertue of his inheritance may rule though he be knowne to be vitious as also because it is received by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is as also because the people doe actually elect and trust the Parliament men with the present affaires of the Kingdome Now though the Prince indeed be trusted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers whereunto the people doe now consent yet there is not that actuall election or designation of him unto the present affairs of the Kingdom as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses as for example suppose that a people doe chuse their Minister trusting him with all the great affaires of their soules and there doth rise a controversie betweene neighbours wherein they chuse an arbitrator to umpire the businesses though these two Parishioners ●hat have fallen out have formerly trusted their Minister with all the affaires of conscience yet they doe not so readily stand to his verdict by reason of the generall trust as to the verdict of those arbitrators whom they have now actually chosen for this businesse neither can they in law o● reason so easily revoke or renounce the sentence of Arbitrator who● they have chosen to this businesse as the sentence of their Minister wh●● they have trusted in the generall so in this case of ours though the Kin● be entrusted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of th● Kingdome yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and designe● by the people for the present affairs of the Kingdome and therefore th● people take themselves bound to stand to their arbitrement neither c●● they thinke that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and sentence as they are for the deniall of their Princes commandement Secondly I say there is not the same reason that the people should recall their power from the Parliament in case the Parliament should be unfaithfull as there is they should see to things in case the Prince be mis-led I say there is not the same reason though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people because that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince is not made the sole reason by those that the Dr. disputes against for this their resistance but the authority that they are clothed with whereas if a people upon surmises that the Parliament doe not performe their trust should call in their trust and their power then they should have left themselves naked of all authority and should be private men but now that they looke to themselves in this time of danger and in that sense doe re-assume their power which they have derived to their Prince they are still led on by authority Thirdly the Doctor answers that we cannot expect any absolute means of safety and security in a State Ans Neither doe we expect it though this be granted which we desire or that granted which he contends for Then he saith that there is an excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or two of them without the third for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or those and the Lords without the King might determine the evills of these dayes doe shew so is this power of denying for the security of each State against other Ans This both the Doctor and I must leave to the judgement of those that know the Lawes and the Liberties and the Priviledges of all three Estates Further he saith that now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three Estates is restrained usually to the two Houses but also that temper is dissolved Ans First it was alwayes so that the Parliament was made distinct from the King in ordinary speech saying The King and his Parliament when the Parliament is mentioned alone it may include the King but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together the speech can intend no more then the two Houses As when the body is mentioned alone it includes the head and the members but when the head and the body are mentioned together then the body doth not include the head Secondly that the Doctor saith this trust of the three States is di●solved I conceive it is a scandalous charge and so I leave that t● others Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed as it is for the reasonableness● of this meanes of safety through that power of resistance and that many s●● more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one I answe● saith the Doctor true but 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction why should one hundred in the House of Commons see more then thr●● hundred or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of differen● judgement and withdrawne Ans I answer if there be three hundred of the House of Common withdrawne and but an hundred left and sixty of the Lords Hous● withdrawne unto twenty if indeed there be so many gone away wh● did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote and th● controversie had beene now at an end Then could it never have bee● said to the people that the Parliament are against the King the● might the three States have all joyned together and there had been n● further question Secondly the Doctor answers that the Prince though one sees wi●● the eyes of many for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Counsell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them Ans This needs no other answer then that which followes in th● Doctors owne words where he saith that the King sometime dissen● from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament so that he ma● see with their eyes and see other things then they doe and be of different judgement from them And if he may see with other mens ey● that are of different judgement from him because they doe present t● his eyes the difference of things with the reasons of them then m● the Houses of Parliament also see more then he does because the di●ference of things with the reasons of them are presented to them al●● Then the Doctor descends to prove that Monarchicall government is t● best and that God made choice to set up that still first in Moses then in