Concretely as in the subject or the Magistrate that bears it therefore presently it follows in the Apostles reasons against resistance for he is the Minister he beares the sword so St. Peter tells us what he meanes by the Ordinance the King as supream or they that are sent by him for though the will and command be illegall yet because he that bears the power lawfully uses that power though illegally to compasse that will and execute that command the power it self is resisted in resisting him that so uses it as Saul had lawfully the power and command of Arms but that power he uses unlawfuly in pursuing his unjust wil against David And I aske when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure was that a pwoer ordained by God no but an illegall will a Tyranny therefore according to M. Burrows they might have been resisted in doing so No for that power and soveraignty they imployed to compasse those illegal commands was a power ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegal will yet our Saviour acknowledges in it Pilates power that was given him from above Again this answerer of theirs makes void that distinction of private men and of publick states in the point of resistance it voids also their other distinction of absolute Monarchs limited For according to this answerer it shal be lawfull for private men to resist their Princes though absolute if they command illegally and to say as M. Burrows teaches them We resist no power no authority at all but the illegall will and pleasure of man and so might the Christians have resisted and so replyed if then answer be good The truth is the lawfull power is resisted when armes are taken against Princes abusing that power to the compassing of unlawfull commands which also I insinuated often in the other treatise that from the Apostles reasons in this place against resistance drawn from that order that good for which the power is ordain'd though then the execution of the power in those Emperours was nothing answerable to that end That which the fuller Answerer presently adds pag. 22 There are two kinds of tyranny Regiminis and Usurpationis that of Government must be endured though never so heavy Not only to the good but to the froward also 1. Pet. 2.18 That other of Vsurpation hath no right at all I know not what it means if it be not a plain confirmation of what I have sayd against resistance and a direct confutation of what himselfe and Mr Burrows has answered for it M. Burrowes also tels us pag. 113. VVe professe against resisting power and authority though abused A man would think he came home to us and so he must if he will speak reason but his device is If those who have power to make lawes shall make wicked lawes and force obedience to them there is nothing left us but flying or passive obedience In this hole he often lurks to defend himselfe against the prohibition of resistance by making us believe the abused power that must not be resisted is only seen when sinfull lawes are made and imposed but I ask have they power to make such Laws No for it is not of God they have power from Him to make Laws but such Laws and Commands are their illegall wills then may they that resist say in M. Burrowes words we resist no power no authority but the illegall wills of men Pilate had power from above to judge the accused brought before him not to condemne the innocent that was the abuse of the Legislative power and the power it selfe is resisted by resisting the abuse of the one as of the other Now all this has bin said against resistance in case His Majesties Commands in the use of that power which is in Him were unlawfull but Conscience that knows He ha's by Law a power to command assistance for the defence of Himselfe and protection of His Subjects will easily conclude it a Legall power and command not only not to be resisted but also to be actively obeyed as all Legall ordained powers ought to be Notwithstanding these Scriptures so plain against Resistance or Arms taken up by Subjects M. Burrowes professeth his Conscience is not one whit scrupled I hope he will better consider it ere he come to dye and give an account of those poor souls he ha's seduced Finally we must subjoyn M. Bridge his replyes upon this 13 to the Romans he as if his conscience were as little scrupled with the Apostles prohibiting as M. Burrowes his was thus begins The Dr. indeavours to sear the tender Conscience with the word Damnation but it is rather to be translated judgement by it is meant the punishment of the Magistrate in this life pag. 14. M. Bridge might have had respect to our translation which renders it damnation with good reason for resistance is a breach of the 5 Commandement it is a resisting of the ordinance of God as in this chapter and M. Bridge knows it is no vain scaring of Conscience to tell it the breach of Gods Commandement ordinance makes it guilty of damnation And if we consider the condition of the Christians in those times what great matter had the Apostle told them in assuring them they should be punished by those Emperors if they resisted when as they were sure of that whether they resisted or resisted not but he gives them to understand however those Emperors were enemies to christianity the resisting of them was an offence against the ordinance of God or if we consider the principles of these daies which teach people to take the sword out of the Princes hand seize the Arms of the Kingdom in order to their own preservation what great matter would the Apostle threaten to such in telling them they should be punished by the Mag strate when as they have provided for their indemnity by taking the sword from their Prince or causing Him to bear it in vain therefore there is the stroke of a higher hand also to be expected and those that have been lately taken in actuall resistance and through His Majesties mercy escaped the deserved punishment of this life must if they continue not in obedience look for a greater condemnation Again M. Bridge answers That only active obedience to lawfull Commands is there enjoyned not passive under unlawfull Commands pag. 23. Both say we as appears by the injunction of subjection prohibition of resistance for if the Apostle had enjoyned onely obedience to just commands he had given the Romans that lived under such unjust Emperors but a lame instruction the refore in ease they had unjust commands imposed on them he tels them how to behave themselves that is not to resist what then remains but passive obedience But he would prove it thus The power they were to be subject to and not resist is the ordinance of God and the minister of God for good but
it down right and it is for the advantage of the other that they do so The Doctor said not there was infallibility in the great Councell but wished the misled people to examine whether they have not such a thought to worke them into an implicite faith of beleeving and receiving without Examination what ever is concluded there He leaves us a private dissent of judgement from their determinations but we are bound by them from gainsaying or resistance and so it is to us inevitable Such a power of binding has a generall Councell to its decisions and why should a Civill Generall Councell of England have lesse power in it So he pag. 18. We Answer the great Councell of England has such power of binding inevitably if you adde the assent of the King as all Ecclesiasticall Councels expect the Confirmation of the supream Civill power for the binding of those that are under them to their Canons and decisions But if we keepe our selves from gainsaying or resistance will it satisfie no their Resolution or Ordinance cals us all to active obedience to Arme kill and slay and this we must believe after so many ages to be a fundamentall Law when as we heare the known Law which is inevitable to us not onely binding us from being active against His Majesty to the endangering of His Person or diminution of His Crowne and Dignity but also not suffering us to be silent or sit still when the defence of His Rights or Person requires our aid We have now done with his propositions and his discourse upon them whereby he hath wound himselfe up to the pitch of Bractons speech which he brought and rejected as too high to be attempted pag. 4. the King hath above him besides God and the Law His Court of Earles and Barons But this Answerer has placed both them and the House of Commons in that height by this finall Resolution and arbitrary inevitable Command and this reserved by them in their first choice of a King which according to the rules of Policy makes the King to have but imperium communicatum leaves the supream commanding power in them From the Premises he concludes his resolution for Conscience pag. 19. This great Centurion of the Kingdome the Parliament saies to one of this now necessary listed Army Goe and he goes to another come and he comes what other authority hath a Sheriffe to put a Malefactor to death We have had enough of the Centurion already too much God knowes of the Military Commands we should have liked it better if he had likened the Parliament to that wise and peaceable woman which gave advice to throw the Rebels heads over the walls and so the matter was ended 2 Sam. 20.18 But hath the Sheriffe no other Authority but such as a Centurion gives to Kill and Slay He ha's it derived from the only Supream Governour the King and so should every one that takes the Sword Conscience also ha's Gods warrant too first of Charity by the sixth Commandement which not onely forbids Murder but commands preservation of ours and our Neighbours life Secondly of Justice Render to all what is due to the great Councell what is due to it upon the Kings refusall lastly of obedience Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man Hence every Souldier in this Army hath warrant enough for his Conscience if he apply it I am sure his three warrants here from Gods Law are misapplyed and will not secure their Souldiers Consciences First that warrant of selfe defence and preservation tels us we must not doe it by murthering of others which may happen when our selfe preservation uses meanes not allowed by the Law it is to be regulated by if it be the defence of the body Naturall then must it be according to the Law of God and Nature if of the body Politique then according to its Law which this man has not any waies proved to prescribe this way of preservation by Subjects taking Armes we see by the Law the King is the onely supream Governor and so the Sword is put into His hand for preservation of order and executing of wrath from whom the Authority of the Sheriffe and all other Ministers of power is derived But he that takes the Sword by his owne authority and not by Commission from or under Him commits murder and shall perish by the Sword The Law is yet to make that may derive the warrant of killing and slaying from any other fountaine of power Secondly â—ender to all what is due is a good rule of Justice and tels us what is due to the King by the fift Commandement Honour and Feare and Tribute as the Apostle goes on in that place Rom. 13. but it 's misapplied by the Answerer to urge the rendring of Obedience to the Arbitrary commands of the two Houses for unto such it is not due as has been shewn though this man phancy it never so strongly Lastly The submission to every Ordinance of Man is also misapplied by him for there was never any such Ordinance or Contrivement which reserved such a power at the first Constitution of this Government as he supposes but never could prove Therefore I may conclude according to my first resolve in my former Treatise Conscience cannot finde any warrant or safe ground to goe upon for making this resistance For according to the principles of the now pleaders for this resistance It finds nothing but a pretended Constitution at a supposed Capitulating Election contriving and reserving for the people such a power finds this un reasonable in it selfe inconsistent with the usuall and established government of this Land and so cannot thinke it safe to rest on or fit to give it warrant against the known Law which places the power of Armes in the King which acknowledges him Only supreme Governour which challenges by Our Allegiance ayd and assistance from us for the defence not onely of His Person but also of His Rights His Crown and Dignity which are most injuriously wronged by this Contrivement or frame of Government and exceedingly invaded by this resistance and power of Armes raised and used against Him at this day SECT VIII A Confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Sect. of the former Treatise NOw we come to the application of what hath been hitherto said to see how it meets with what was written in the former Treatise where we shall take in the other Answerers also And first we must cast an eye over Mr. Bridge his grounds which he layes for this resistance before he enters upon the first Section He tels us there are three grounds of their proceeding by Armes 1. To fetch in Delinquents to be tryed in the highest Court. 2. To defend the State from forraine invasion 3. To preserve themselves and their Country from the insurrection of Papists And that all this is done as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of Iurisdiction over their Prince Pag. 2. That
when a Prince Commands a thing unlawfull He is not so pag. 23. Answ A lawfull Prince though commanding unlawfully is still the minister of God for our good i.e. appointed for that end and the power he is invested with though abused to the execution of such a command is the ordinance of God And that is it which forbids our resistance according to the Apostles reasons here which are taken not from the actuall ministration of any prince as if we ought to obey when he commands justly and might resist when unjustly but from the end for which God has ordain'd him to minister for our good from which end though princes sometime swerve as these Emperors did usually yet are they not to be resisted for that strikes at the power and Ordinance it selfe Yea M. Bridge a little after acknowledgeth that inregard of their place they are Gods ministers but in regard of the unlawfull thing commanded they are not Therefore when princes command unlawfully we must look upon them with a double regard the one to the thing commanded the other to their place to the unlawfull command we must return a deniall of obedience but in regard of their place use no resistance Deniall of obedience can sever the illegall command from the place and power they bear but resistance cannot for it cannot oppose the unlawfull command but by usurping the power and invading the place God hath appointed them in But M. Bridge concludes It is the Doctors continuall mistake to thinke the Apostle forbids the resisting of the higher powers in their unlawfull commands when as he forbids the resisting of them in things lawfull We must beare with the importunity of these men who wil not conceive the force of the Apostles reasons though laid opâ—n to their eyes which was so often done in the former Treatise that they tell me I had worn the place thred bare and yet they will not see the web and texture of it Once more therefore if the Aoostle forbid resistance only in things lawfull it would not have bin a sufficient instruction whether we respect the duty of subjection which by this would not have bin directed how to answer the unlawfull commands of Princes or whether we consider those higher powers which then were tyrannicall usualy commanding things unlawfull also this would have bin the way to leave the gap open to Rebellion for how easy would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully These Answerers it seems are still willing to keep the gap open or else they might have seen how the Apostle brings reason enough to stop up the way against all resisting of power though abus'd for he takes it not from the use of the power but from the end for which God ordained it the higher powers then being nothing answerable to that end not ministring for good but rather subverting of that which was good and just We come now to the other scripture 1. Pet. 2.13 To the King as supream or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him Out of which was proved that the higher power in St. Paul not to be resisted by any was the King in that state and that in this Kingdome All who have power fall under that distinction of St. Peter Now see how acutely M. Bridge replyes for these men have simplicity enough to abuse the people Dr. Bilson saith he tels us by higher powers must be understood not onely Princes but all publique States where the People or Nobles have the same intrust to the sword as princes have in this Kingdome How then will the Dr. have the King only meant by these higher powers As if the D. meant to prove that a King was the supream or higher power in the republicke of Vinice or the Low-countries But the Dr. acknowledges the Parliament is the highest Court of justice therefore they fall under these words the higher powers It is the highest Court but you must not then exclude the king in whom is the fountain of power we farther grant the two Houses by themselves doe also fall under the words higher powers in regard of the people but not under the word supream so were those that were sent by the Emperor higher powers yet subjects and inferior to him that is here called supream Yea but as Calvin and other Interpreters tell us the prononn him is referred to God by whom all in authority are sent ibid 'T is true all are sent by God which might serve to check the bad construction and use these men make of the foregoing words every Ordinance of man But it is as true that the Governours of the provinces where these scattered Christians lived unto whom St. Peter writes were sent by the King or Roman Emperor and that he is here called supream which being a word including a relation might have told M. Bridge that al who had authority beside in the Roman Empire were inferiour to him and immediatly sent by him though originally their power was also from God or from above as our Saviour acknowledgeth in Pilate the Governor of Judea under that Emperor The Fuller Answerer replyes The D. takes advantage in the words Supream and Sent but the two Houses are called not sent a difference at least as great as between to and from Pag. 23. Very good It seemes he will have the people suppream that sends them from the Country to the King so are the Clerks of the Convocation also sent from them that chuse them We speak not of Terms of place but Reasons of Authority if they be called by him the authority is his they come not of themselves but at his call therefore sent by him But he addes They are a Coordinate part with him in the supream power otherwise they could not hinder him from making Laws nor finally declare Law without him the two highest acts of supream power Declare Law without him then are they supreame without Him and he is sent by them He must go and do as they declare Can we think that he sends for them with such an intention or that they which are called to advise and consent come to such a purpose to do the businesse without him But enough of this feigned Coordination and of the Supremacy above Sect. 4. SECT X. A Confutation of what is replyed upon the third Section of the former Treatise AT the beginning of that third Section it was said The ground-work of their Fundamentalls is this Power is originally in from the people therefore if the Prince intrusted with the power wil not discharge his trust it falls to the people to see to it they may reassume the power and resist M. Bridge replyes Then indeed it falleth to the people to look to it which they do as an act of selfe preservation not of jurisdiction over their Prince and this is not to reassume the power or turn the Prince out of Office as if we went about to depose our King Pag.
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
King to Rule arbitrarily to use them as he pleased or as Samuel told them he would nothing here to prove the Kings of the Jews were absolute Monarches The Monarchy of the Romans he tels us was absolute too by the consent of the people so doth M. Burrows also And this is one of their Answers to the 13. to the Rom. They might not be resisted for they were absolute Monarchs It concerned them to bring proofe for I had spoken to this in my other Treatise here again this Fuller Answer saith barely they were absolute Monarch's and M. Burrowes saith it rested upon me to prove they had not absolute power and so puts it off Indeed in strictnesse of dispute it is enough for the Answerer simply to affirm or deny but in giving an exception to a place of Scripture by writing and that for the satisfaction of Conscience it had beseemed them to prove what they say their 's being the affirmative mine the Negative I will therefore give my reasons against it that there was not such a formall consent on the peoples part and such a totall resignation of themselves to be governed by those Emperours as is required to make them lawfull absolute Monarchs First because it s altogether improbable that a people so addicted to liberty should so consent to such a subjection and againe set up that Regiam potestatem that absolute Kingly power they so much hated Therefore we see how Brutus and Cassius were honoured for restoring their invaded liberty and how againe they were sensible of that recovered liberty when Nero was taken away but they held it not the Souldiers still putting Emperours upon them one after the other Secondly because unto all the Lawes and Edicts of those Emperors there was required the consent of the Senate and people of Rome they could indeed force that consent upon all occasions yet for forme of Law still Senatus Populusque Romanus was added Thirdly we find in Suetonius how Caligula intended to assume the Diadem which was the Signe of that Regia potestas that is to professe he would Raigne absolutely but He was disswaded by his friends This therefore being certaine that by force of Armes they made themselves masters of that people my inference is as it was in the other Treatise If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the Supreame Government might not resist the then Emperors that of Subjects had made themselves Lords over that people much lesse can the people of this Land have power of resistance against the succession of this Crown descending from the Conqueror who by like force of Armes but with more Justice gained this Kingdome But the Answerer excepts concerning our King His Title of Succession waies excludes consent for it began in the election and consent of the people Tag 21. The Roman Emperours by consent of the people were absolute saith this man and not to be resisted our Kings by consent of the people are so limited that the people have reserved a power of resistance one as true as the other If we begin the title of succession from the Conquest where is that election that consent and reservation if higher we run Conscience upon uncertainties it cannot see how such an Election should give beginning to this Crown but finds the beginnings still in Armes as the enterance of those Emperors was which beginnings might over-aw the consent of the people as he saith of the consent of the Senate given to those Emperors that it might be an over-awed consent or else draw it but cannot be imagined to arise from such a capitulating Election such a pre-contriving arbitrary consent of the people as this man feignes M. Burrowes is very angry that I call'd Election a slender plea and saith I cannot get a better and surer claime for the Kings of England Pag. 129. But he might have considered I call'd it a slender plea not fot succession of a Crown whensoever it is made by a people that are free as upon the failing of the Royall line but for resistance against it it being all the plea that is made for these Arms or power of resistance and a slender one because it appears not how election gave beginning to this succession but that such an election contrivement of the people reserving the power of resistance should do it is altogether improbable and unreasonable For the beginning of this succession at the Conquest the kings of England claiming from thence against which M. Burrows here inveighs see above Sect. 6. and below Sect. 11. The Fuller Answerer goes on with his replyes to the 13. to the Rom. If not written particularly to the Romans who were under an Absolute Monarchy and then not concerning us yet suppose it referre to all Government in generall pag. 21. I would this Answerer would leave his uncertainties now he deals with conscience the reasons the Apostle gives us in the 3.4 5 6. vers plainly shew it concerns all times and Government so long as in all government there is order to be preserved there is a minister of God to execute Wrath there is one that bears not the sword in vain reasons essentiall to government and perpetuall against resistance as was shewn in the former treatise if this man would have pleased to take notice of them Well now that it refers to all Government what then It makes saith he altogether for us it requires obedience to ordained powers that is legall commands not wilfull pleasures of Governours True but we would know not what is required but what is forbidden we spake not of obedience but resistance we grāt active obedience is to be yielded to ordain'd powers and denied to the illegall commands but we may resist their power if they imploy it tomake good those illegall commands We must supply his Answer out of Mr. Burrows pag. 113. If one that is in authority command out of His own wil I resist no power no authority at all if I neither actively nor passvely obey Also we distinguish between the man that hath the power and the power of the man the power must not be resisted the illegall will of the man may and p. 124. the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not charge them not to resist their Tyrannie Between the power and the person that bears it as also between the power the illegall will or the abuse of the power we may distinguish in conceit abstracting the one from the other and by our active and passive obedience we may distinguish them yielding this to the power person that bears it denying that to his illegall will but in resistance wee cannot sever them for the resisting of him that bears the power though unlawfully commanding is a resisting of the power also it is plain by the Apostle who speaks not here of power abstractly taken for so it cannot be the objectof our obedience or resistance but
52.53 For your act of selfe preservation and Jurisdiction we examined them above Sect. 8. if we consider what power of Law and Arms is now challenged usurped by subjects I think it cannot but appear to be a resuming of the power entrusted with the King for it leaves him none and a turning him out of office for the time though you intend not to depose him but to trust him again when and how you please And according to M. Bridge his similitude so much used amongst them if the carelesse steersman during the storm be made to stand by and another set at the stern by the passengers then is that steers-man out of office or put from the execution of his office for the time but now for the application of this his similitude The Prince is not as the steerseman for he executes by his Ministers but as he that stands above and commands to the Star-bord or Lar-bord if the Prince command amisse that is contrary to the Law His Ministers under him for execution may deny actively to obey and may give within the bounds of their place and office direction according to the law and their oaths this does not put him out of office Then to that which was said in the same Sect That the governing power as it is a sufficiency of authority for command coercion running through every form of governmēt is from God though the limitations and qualifications of it for the severall wayes of executiō it be of man by consent proved Ro. 13.1 The powers that are c. M. Bridge replies None denieth it only he will make it inconsistent with what was said before But if none deny it why then upon this principle of derivation of power from the people do you ground your resistance for in doing so what power or sufficiency of authority for command or coercion do you leave your Prince the thing he has received as you deny not from God alone But let us see how its inconsistent By those words The powers are of God Rom. 13.1.1 the D. must understand the power it selfe of Magistracy distinguished from the qualifications thereof and the person designed thereto how then did he say Sect. 2. that the higher power in Paul is the same with the King as supream in Peter Ans The power of Magistracy abstractively taken may be these words be proved to be of God though the higher powers here be understood concretely with connotation of the persons that bear the power for they are here proposed as objects of our obedience which cannot be directed but upon power in some person and here it 's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the powers that are now power cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent but in some person Yet do these words prove the power it selfe to be of God for why else should these Magistrates or Princes chosen by the people be said to be powers ordained of God but because the power and authority they bore was from God In like manner the Dr. proves the power is of God because the Magistrate is called the minister of God slipping from the power it self to the Person designed to the power for the power it selfe is not called the minister of God Good stuffe I must come home to M Bridge to make him understand the force of my inference The Major of Norwich is the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King will M. Brigde reply no for the power it self is not the Major or call'd the Minister of the King Then the Answerers come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St Peter the Ordinance of man which in the former Treatise was said to be taken subjectively in regard of the power it selfe which is from God causally and placed in man as the Subject and if there be in that phrase any causality or Creation or invention of man implyed it is to be understood of the qualifications and severall wayes of executing that power in severall formes of Government Hereupon the Fuller Answer and M. Bridge every where takes it for granted by me that Monarchy Aristocracry and Democracy are equally the inventions of man which followes not as was explained above Sect. 3. concerning the originall of the governing power and the first beginning of Monarchy Lastly M. Bridge concludes that my proving of the governing power to be of God but the qualifications of it the designation of the person to be of man gaineth nothing against resistance or deposing of a Prince that doth not discharge his trust for stil the peoplemay say we may alter the government and depose the Person because he was of our designing Pag. 55. Nothing so for if they resist they usurp a power that God ha's not given them and invade the power that God ha's given Him if they depose Him they quite take away that power which God and not they placed in Him for although they elected and desgned the Person yet is He the Minister of God from God he ha's His Power and Commission as if Citizens should take upon them to turn the Major that ha's his power and Commission from the King out of office because they chose him For altering the government unlesse they be altogether free as upon the utter failing of the Royall Line they cannot doe it no nor alter any Lawes or qualifications of the governing power for they were not made by them alone but also and cheifly by the consent and authority of the Prince Vpon that place Psal 82. I have said yee are Gods alleadged in the former Treatise the Fuller Answerer replyes all Rulers are Gods alike that word of God comes to them All alike to Pilate as well as Caesar pag. 24. This text was brought to prove the governing power was derived from God because Rulers were so called as His Vicegerents as having their Commission from Him and in his stead over the people this was urged to take off the derivation of that power from the people He Answers Inferiour Magistrates are Gods too that 's nothing to the purpose but Gods alike that 's plainly false for that word and power comes first to the Supream and from Him to them that are sent by Him from Caesar to Pilate Inferiour Magistrates are as Gods to the people under them but the Supream as a God to those Gods Aaron was so to the people but Moses was as God to Aaron Exod. 4.16 SECT XI A Confutation of what is replyed upon the fourth Section in the former Treatise HIs fourth Section saith the Fuller Answerer is spent against the Peoples reassuming the power be trusted to the King which no man maintaines what need they reassume that which in the first constitution of Government they reserved pag. 24. This man ha's often told us the power of Arms is ordinarily intrusted to the King that by the people in the first Constitution of government to use it for the safety of the State VVell He
bound to the people that is they stand equally accomptable to each other for you immediately inferre Therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse His Subjects to take up Arms against them as for Subjects to take up Arms against him Both are unlawfull and unjust but not equally for doe not the mutuall duties of the fifth Commandement run betwixt superior and inferior and is it as heinous for the father to strike the sonne as the son to lift up his hand against the Father If a King oppresse His Subjects it is an abusing of that power which is in him if people take Armes it 's an usurping of power that belongs not to them which is of more dangerous consequence if the people doe what is unlawfull the Magistrate bears not the sword in vain God has appointed him to punish them if the Supream Magistrate doe unlawfully he is not to be punished by the people for that were to overthrow the order God has set but is reserved for a Divine judgement In the Covenant twixt King and People though it be not expressed that the state of the Kingdome may take Armes and provide for its safety in ease the King will not discharge yet must it in all reason be implyed that safety being the end of that trust and ratio Legis is Lex as in Marriage it is not verbally expressed that the party committing Adultery shall he divorced yet that Covenant carries the force of such a Condition pag. 31. That the King ought to discharge is Law and the end or reason of it is the safety of the state but that in case he does not or not according to the opinion of the people they by Armes should resist provide for it is neit her Law nor Reason of any Law but an unreasonable condition were any King admitted under it and no rea onable means of safety but the way of confusion and destruction as experience has alwayes shewn That Adultery is the breach of the Mariage Covenant and cause of Divorce both in the institution of Marriage They two shall be one flesh doth in reason imply and the Law of God doth expresly declare and the like implication of reason and declaration of Law must appear before we can see any warrant for Subjects to resist and provide for their own safety for as of the parties married so of a Prince and the people entrusted to him by God it may be said whom God hath enjoyned let no man put asunder and let not the woman usurp authority over the man nor Subjects over their Prince SECT XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the 5th Sect of the former Treatise VPon that which was said They sharpenmany weapons for this resistance at the Philistins forge borrow arguments from the Papists M. Bridge replyes There is much difference betweene them and us in this particular I. The Papists contend for the Lawfulnesse of deposing Kings wee not Difference there must needs be betweene you in this particular for they Challenge such a power for the Pope you for the people But you doe not contend for the power of deposing or as you told us above the people from their power of resistance need not make that inference here is great security for the Prince We see your party making use of those Examples which the Papists bring for the deposing of Kings as that of Saul Vzziah Athalia and one of your fellow Answerers has endeavoured to prove such a power of deposing with whom we shall meet at the end of this Section and we know your principles wil carry the people so far if they wil follow them if as you teach them they have justly taken Armes in order to their own safety so they shall thinke in order to thâ—â—â—fety they cannot lay them downe or any longer trust their safety with the former Prince II. The Papists plead for power of deposing a Prince in case he turn Heretick we hold a Prince may change his Religion and yet the Subjects thereby not excused from their Allegiance You will give him leave to change Religion himselfe so will the Papists if all His Subjects may have free liberty of their Religion but in case he also endeavour to force that contrary Religion upon his Subjects for that must be supposed how then will your Allegiance hold When you challenge the power of Armes in order to your own and the States safety will you think that the preservation onely of your goods Estates and out ward liberty is concerned in it and not of your Religion too How have you wrought the people into Armes against their Soveraigne but by this name Religion and that not because He is turn'd Heretique and changed his Religion or has imposed a Contrary Religion upon his Subjects that you could not tell them but only by making them beleive He favours Popery and there is feare He will change Religion which is as weak and low pretence as any Iesuit can descend to for drawing People into Armes against their Soveraigne III. The Papists hold it lawfull to kill a Prince and that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do it We abhore it That is their new forge under ground set up of late by Iesuits I did not mean you sharpned your weapons there but at the old forge where the Popes power of acquitting people of their Allegiance and commanding them into Armes has been beaten out some hundreds of years And however you say you abhor this Doctrine of killing Kings that is of Butchering them by privat hands yet I feare and tremble to think if your Soveraigne had falne in Battell by the edge of your sword or shot of your Artillery yee would have acquitted your selves and found him guilty of his own death in that he would not being desired forbeare to go down himselfe into Battel against his Enemyes Some of your Fellowes M. Bridge are much wronged if they did not after the businesse of Brainceford play the Popes in absolving the Souldiers there taken from the Oath whereby they had again bound themselves from bearing Armes against his Majesty and I can witnesse how the best of your party in Yorkshire had plited their faith for conserving of the Peaâ—e of the Country and how they were dispensed with and commanded into Armes Let us proceed The Fuller Answerer also complaines The fift Section is a plain begging of three Questions the Resolver would have us maintain Pag. 25. To pardon your abuse of speech we know what you mean and must tell you we need not put upon you more then you undertake to maintain which is more then you can prove more then former Ages have been Conscious of enough to make your Religion if you have any heare ill in after times But let us see what you say in vindication of your selves We say not that every State hath these meancs of safety by resistance unlesse reserved by them Answer Yet
is the safety of every State as deare and heare to it selfe as This and for any thing you have shewn for it any State may pretend such a Reservation as well as This for you have not proved such a Reservation and the generall argument your Party useth is from selfe preservation which is common to all Then to the Argument of the Churches safety under pretence of which the Pope challenges a power upon the failing of the Civill Magistate as the people now upon the refusall of their Prince you say The Church is not a State by it selfe so also M. Burrowes and M. Bridge It is not indeed the whole State comprehending the Civill State too yet is the good Estate thereof of as great consequence as any Concernment of the body Politique But the Church is not of its own Constitution but of Christs What then therefore it must be preserved by the laws instituted by Christ true so must the Civill State by its established lawes we desire no more yet will you not give Him leave to be as carefull for the good Estate of His Church in providing meanes of preservation for it in case the Civill Magistrate faile in his trust as you are to provide or reserve this power of resistance upon the Kings refusall But he did not provide such forceable meanes as are challenged by the Bishop of Rome under that pretence and these meanes of a reserved power for resistance are as unreasonable on your part if both of you should be put to prove your Traditions He for his Excommunicating or deposing of Kings in order to the Churches safety and you for your reserved power of resistance in order to the States preservation Conscience would find as little satisfaction in the one as in the other As for the matter of the Church we turn saith M. Bridge pag. 33. the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the officer is an Heretick unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the Officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power either to depose Him or to looke to it selfe It was not my argument I did but shew how the Papists use the like argument for the Churches safety as you doe for the States and if you back again wil gather strength for your assertion from their reasons be as like as you will one to the other I cannot helpe it but I am forry for you at least for the Religion you professe that you are put to such shiâ—ts But the Church hath Excommunication granted to it by Christ for its own preservation from Evills and Errors and the Body Naturall hath power to deliver it selfe from its burden therefore the Common wealth also cannot preserve it self unlesse it have power to deliver it selfe from its burden ibid. Then has this Church a Power of Excommunication still so it should be indeed and the power cannot be taken away by any mortal authority but since the Act which tooke away the High Commission and as the party you plead for would have it interpreted all Ecclesiasticall Censure too where doth the Exercise of that power rest upon whom now is the Argument turned The Body Naturall has power to disburden it self so has the Common-wealth too but wil you have the naturall body disburden it self of the Head or worke without it and say I have no neede of thee Or will you use letting of blood for the disburdning of the Natural body when sweating or gentle purges may doe it So in the Body Politick when a calme Reformation may purge out noxious humors will you put the sword into the rough hand of the people which in stead of opening a veine will cut the Arteries and Sinewes of the Common-wealth Ye are too desperate Physitians and that is plainly seene by the Consumption and languishing Estate of this Kingdom It was urged in the former Treatise as a reason against these meanes of safety by this power of resistance If the representative body of the people upon the Kings sailing in His trust may take this power then may the multitude by the like rule upon the failing of their representatives in the discharge of the trust they were chosen for take the power to themselves for it is claimed by them the Fuller Answerer replies They cannot doe it for the people have not resorved any power to themselves from themselves in Parliament pag. 25. But it will be as hard for him to make them believe they have power no otherwise as to make it appeare to us there was any such power reserved at all for when the people come to be spoiled in their Estates and Liberties they will think it most unreasonable that they should entrust themselves and all they have to such Arbitrary disposing of their own Representatives especially having been taught by this rule so easily to disclaime the Trust of their Soveraigne He that wrote the book called Plain English saith expresly that if the Representative body cannot or will not discharge their trust to the satisfaction of reason in the people they may resume if ever yet they parted with a power to their manifest undoing and use their power so far as conduceth to their owne safety and M. Bridge though here he brings reasons against the peoples recalling their Trust given to their representative body yet by his argument of selfe preservation at the beginning of his book has taught them to say It is naturall for them to provide for themselves and the act of Trust given to their Representative body is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall But forgetting what he said of the Naturall Law of selfe preservation he gives us reasons why the people should not take the power in such a case 1. Because they cannot be so ready to think the Parliament that is the two Houses neglect their trust pag. 36. not think so but if by Ordinances thence issuing they be spoiled of their property and liberty which is supposed in the Case they will quickly feele it is so 2. Because there is not that actuall designing and election af the Prince to the present affairs of the Commonweal as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses This is bold and sets aside both King and house of Lords putting all upon the Sentence of those that are chosen by the people for the present affaires of the Kingdom those are his words and unto their sentence the people bind themselves to stand as parties disagreeing to doe the sentence of an Vmpire or Arbitrator that is his similitude What can be said more to the dissolving of the temper of three Estates in Parliament and to the overthrow of this Government 3. Because if the people upon such surmises should call in their trust and their power they would leave themselves naked of all authority and be private
men pag. 37. Naked of all authority to doe what to take up Arms that must be your meaning but what authority had they before the King cals them together were they any other then private men or does he by calling them give them authority to take Arms against him And if the people should recall their trust why should they think themselves in that condition more private men then they were when at first as you suppose they elected a King did they then being private men give as you maintain all power of Government and will they conceive they cannot now use any will they not as easily conclude they may free themselves from their Trust given to those Parliament men chosen by them as renounce according to your lessons their Trust given to their Prince in all reason they will hold their Representatives more accountable to them then their Prince can be who is entrusted for them immediately by God and themselves To this we may adde what he replies to the same purpose pag. 42. The people doe all acknowledge that we are to be governed by Lawes And they feel the want of it and doe earnestly desire they may once again see this Kingdome so happy Now the Parliament as the Doctor saith is the Iudge what is Law He never said so unlesse you mean the three Estates of Parliament How then can the People think the Parliament doth any thing contrary to Low when they are the Iudges of it This is to make them Arbitrary and all their commands Lawes and to lead the people after them by an implicit faith But enough of the power of declaring Law and of these Arbitrary commands Sect. 6. 7. Finally Mr Bridge endeavours to shew how they can answer the Oath of Supremacie and the Protestation by taking of Arms. If the Popish party should prevail who knowes not that they will force the King to another Supremacie or quickly make an hand of Him Pag. 44. But who knowes not that the King by Gods blessing may prevail in the maintenance of His Crowne and Right for which he is now forced to fight without any prevailing of the Popish party And who knowes not if that party of Brownists and Anabaptists which are now so prevalent in the Arms taken up against the King should get the upper hand what would become of the Kings Supremacy and this Government In the Oath of Supremacie we Sweare Him our Soveraigne to be Supream in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How doth our Doctrine or Practice infringe this ibid. Is this all you can say for your Soveraignes supremacie the Declaration of Parliament as was shewn Sect. 4. teaches you another Doctrine that He is Supream not so much in oppositioÌ„ to particular Persons as in relation to the whole Body Politick of which he is the Head and accordingly you should regulate your practice and obedience In our Protestation we protest to defend the Kings Person and hom can we say with a good Conscience we do it if we do not take up Arms in this time of Popish insurrection ibid. you protest also to defend his Honour and Rights which your Armes invade And if the comming in of some Papists in the duty of Allegiance to His aid against your violences may be called a popish insurrection as you have the Art to make all things seem odious on the Kings part it was caused by your â—alâ—ing up Arms first which the next Age will truly call an Insurrection Or can we if we take not Arms in Conscience say we defend the Priviledge of Parliament in bringing in Delinquents to their Tryall or the liberty of the Subject or the truth of Religion I presume every good man that makes conscience of his wayes will not be backward to advance this publique designe You cannot in conscience say but you have had the security of all those particulars offered and promised might have had them better assured without your taking Armes if you had not some farther reach in your Publick design However you can overrule your own and your Peoples conscience yet all good men that seriously consider your wayes cannot but conceive the priviledges of Paraliment Liberty of the Subject and truth of Religion have suffered most by this your pretended defence of them And now it is high time I say something there need not much to the Answerer that would not be known by his name but would be noted by his Margin painted with Greek and Latin He begins with Scripture but staies not long upon it speaking indeed lesse from that then any of the other Answerers to whom I have already replyed He insists chiefly upon the grounds of Reason borrowed from Anistotle out of whom he would prove severall conclusions those which concern us are touching elective Kingdoms touching a power in the State to bring Kings to an account and to depose a Tyrant We reply to what he has brought out of Aristotle touching those particulars The Philosophers reasons may be good and usefull in the founding of a Government but must they therefore obtain in this that is founded If Aristotle like of Kingdoms that goe by choice and approve the power which the Ephori had over their Kings in Sparta would this man have it so here Let him speak his Treason plainly in his own not Aristotles words and say He would have a new Government and Kings here made by choyce and some Ephori set over them surely he thought as many moe did of a new erection and had fitted himselfe to give advice for it out of Aristotle But however that Philisopher gives us many fine hints of Politicall prudence if this man were put to it to draw up that frame of that Government which Aristotle seemes to approve and by piece-meal to deliver he would find the task very difficult and we the Government very strange such as I believe never was nor will be deserving almost as well to goe into the Proverb as his master Plato's did as for example He would have Government goe by choyce and that choyce to follow excellency now seeing excellency as he notes in 3. Pol. is in Riches or Power or Nobility or Virtue we cannot see now he provides for the contenting of those which excell in Riches Power or Nobility that factions may be prevented and yet they that excell in virtue to carry the Government and be willingly obeyed of all as he would have it in that book but where and when will it be so unlesse in Plato's common-wealth Well Aristotle's reason may be good and yet my reasons in the 5. Sect. of the former Treatise against this power of resistance now assumed stand firm too why because if that power be used to bring this Government into such a Mould as this man phansies out of Aristole can we expect any thing but a succession of Givill war for will it not alwaies be more just for the Prince to endeavour the recovery of
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