the King by his paternall right Sect. 3. and so indeed there is roome for an implicite Faith for that children have most of all an implicit Faith in that which their Fathers say Finally Master B. endeavours to shew saith Dr. Ferne how they can answere the Oath of Supremacy anâ— the Protestation by taking of Armes but who knowes not saith the Doctoâ— if that party of Brownists and Anabaptists which are now so prevalent in the Armes taken up against the King should get the upper hand what would become of the Kings Supremacy and Government An. Here is a loud cry against Brownists and Anabaptists but who are Brownists not all those that are against Prelates and not for the English Common Prayer Book for then all the Reformed Churches are Brownists And as for Anabaptists I wish it may bee considered whether they doe not take some footing for their opinion from the Common Prayer Booke They deny Baptisme to Infants upon this ground because actuall Faith and Repentance is pre-required to Baptisme and doth not the Common Prayer Book seeme to acknowledge as much when as before Baptisme the witnesses in name of the Infant must answer to these Questions dost thou beleeve dost thou renounce the divell and all his workes I must nakedly professe my judgement against that opinion yet were it not good that the very Common prayer booke should come under consideration upon this and other Reasons Secondly if men were so much for Protestant Religion and against Papists as is here pretended they would never be more afraid of Brownists and Anabaptists then of Papists seeing they are of the Protestant Religion and differ not from us in fundamentalls as the Papists doe Thirdly suppose that that Army should prevaile wherein there are Brownists Anabaptists as you say yet is there not so much danger that they should prevaile to mislead the Parliament who are three or foure hundred as that Papists should prevaile to mislead one Fourthly though there should be Anabaptists and Brownists in the Army yet they doe not sight against the Kings Supremacy and his Government as the Papists do against the Protestant Religion and being of Parliaments whose Powder Treason is famous or rather Infamous to all Generations At last the Dr. tells us concerning Supremacy that the King is Supreme not so much in opposition to particular persons as in relation to the whole body Politique of which he is head We say the King is Supreme and head of Kingdome severally and joyntly considered Dr. Ferne indeed tels us that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Co-ordinate with his Majestie to some act or exercise of the Supreme power that is to making laws by yeelding their consent And if they bee Co-ordinate in that act of Supremacy Paraeus and others will tell him that the Nomothetick part of Supremacy is the highest We acknowledge the King our Supreme to defend us But not to defend our selves where cause requires gives a supra-Supremacy unto him What else remaines in this Sectionis either matter of words and bare denyall to what hath been said or answered to his other Answerers In the next Section page 89 the Dr. saith Mr. B. enters upon a loose Discourse against Episcopall Government I reserve him for his better instruction to a Booke entituled Episcopacy asserted Ans. No other loose Discourse then what his loose Treatise lead mee into and for the Drs better instruction I refer him to Mr. Baynes his Diocesan Mr. Parkers Ecclesiasticall politieor Altare Damascenum And whereas I said now the Dr. shewes himself he had rather the Kingdom should be imbrued in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should down because he had said in his Treatise page 25. that the King has Reason by power of Armes to divert the abolishing of Episcopall Government The Dr. Answers Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in arms show your selves what Spirit you are of who will have this Land imbroyl'd in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy shall not down Not so Doctor there is not the same Reason why you should retort these words upon us for I had no where said the Parliament hath Reason by power of Arms to divert the evill of that Government yea I am so farre from it that I professe freely that if the King and Parliament would establish that Government still to be continued that the people is not bound to rise up in arms to root it out though I judge it evill Yea if any Man be of that opinion I think he is to be suffered to live enjoying himselfe and his estate here Then pag. 56. the Dr. saith to that of Sauls speare restored Mr. Bridge Replies though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned c. We know saies he what you looke for his Majestie hath not bin ashamed to doe it with great condiscention An 'T is possible a King may faile for not humbling himselfe before his Subjects Chron. 2. 36. 13. And Zedekiah did that which was evill in the sight of the Lord his God and humbled not himselfe before Jeremiah the Prophet And though His Majestie had yeelded and humbled himselfe yet lower he would be no loser thereby we know what the old Counsellors said 2 Chron. 10. 7. If thou be kind to this people and please them and speake good Words to them they will be thy servants for ever Finally whereas I had shewed that Ziba and those that resorted to David in his distresse were not of another Religion and by Law to bee disarmed as the Papists now are who have entertainment in His Majesties Army The Doctor answers though by law Papists are not to have Arms at their dispose yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects They owe no more duty to King but according to Law and by Law they are to bee all disarmed Wherefore good Dr. maintaine this illegall way no longer give glory to God and say you are convinced of this truth which indeed you cannot but be if you doe not shut your owne eyes for you told us in your former Treatise that Subjects may lawfully for their owne defence hold the Kings hands and how so if he raise an Army but by an Army Neither can you be so weake as to thinke that the great Senate of the Kingdome that all the Commons Gentlemen and Nobles should be so at the mercy of every meane person invested with the Kings Authority that if a petty Constable or other inferiour Officer doe offer violence unto them that it shall not bee in their power to make a forcible resistance because they are clothed with the Kings Authority Good Sir in the feare of God make your humble addresses to His Majestie and Petition him to return to those that are faithfull to him The worst that he can lose you know if you pretend rightly is but a piece of prerogative or some exercise thereof for the present why should
which in prudence might best correspond with their condition still making people the first subject and receptacle of civill power In proofe whereof I have stayed the longer it being the foundation of all this controversie And now passe on to the fourth Proposition which is 4th Proposition SEeing that the people are under God the first subject of civill power therefore the Prince oâ— supreme Magistrate hath no more power then what is communicated to him from the communitie because the affect doth not exceed the vertue of its cause 5th Proposition ANd as the Prince hath no more power then what is communicated from the communitie so the people or communitie cannot give away from themselves the power of selfe-preservation Because the same Commandement that faith Thou shalt not kill doth also say Thou shalt preserve Precepts that forbid evill do command the contrary good Now the morall naturall Law of God forbids a man to kill himselfe and therefore commands him to preserve himselfe and as by a positive act men cannot make a Law to kill themselves no more can they not to preserve themselves the one being as strongly commanded by the morall Law and as deeply seated in Nature as the other Secondly because if the communitie should give away the power of self-preservation the state should not be in a better but in a worser condition then before The King and Prince is taken into Office for the good of the people therefore called Pater patriae Pastor gregis not because he may arbitrarily rule in the Common wealth as a Father doth in his familie but because of his tender care that he is to have over his people and that the people might live more secure and peaceably in all godlinesse and honestie But if the communitie should give such a trust to any one that they might not at all defend themselves beyond his actuall appointment they should be infinitely in a worser condition then before because before such trust they should be freemen but after the trust they should be slaves unlesse it pleases the King through his own gratious condiscention to let them be free still for what is a slave but such a one who is so absolutely at the power of anothers command that he may be spoiled or sold or put under the Gallies and there beaten daily having no power to make any resistance or selfe-defence Thirdly it is agreeable to the Law of Nations and Reason that no inferiour Court can undo what a superiour Court hath done As where an estate is setled upon children by Act of Parliament no inferiour Court of Justice can cut off the intayle Now selfe-preservation is enacted in the Court of Nature as he that hath read but Magirus unbound I meane common naturall principles will grant and therefore no act of a communitie can cut off this intayle from their posteritie or make such a deed of Conveyance whereby themselves and their children should be spoyled of self-preservation Ob. But though by nature a man is bound to preserve himself yet he may destroy or put himself upon that which will be his destruction for the publick good doth not natura particularis go crosse to its own disposition ne detur vacuum Respons True I have read indeed that Natura particularis gives way to natura universalis but never heard before that natura universalis gives way to natura particularis or that natura universalis doth seek its own destruction or loose the power of self-preservation for the good or betternesse of some particular nature Wherefore if the seat of power be in the community and therefore no more power in the supreme then was and is derived from the communitie and the people cannot give away the power of self preservation Then in case the Prince doth neglect his trust so as not to preserve them but to oppose them to violence it is no usurpation for them to look to themselves which yet may be no act of jurisdiction over their Prince or taking away of any power from him which they gave him but is in truth a stirring up acting and exercising of that power which alwayes was left in themselves CHAP. II. HAving now spoken of power in generall I shall say somewhat of the governing and ruling power of England yet because that concerns the Parliament to declare which they have done and Lawyers for to clear which they do I shall but touch upon it and no more then comes within the compasse and verge I do not say of a divine but subject I find therefore in learned Fortescue Lord Chief-Justice and after Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixth time that he doth distinguish of governed or ruling power into two sorts the one meerly royall and the other politick When Kingdoms are ruled by royall government saith he then men in a times past excelling in power and greedie of dignity and glory did many times by plain force subdue unto themselves their neighbours the Nations adjoyning and compelled them to do them service and to obey their commands which commands they decreed afterwards to be unto the people very Laws Cap. 12. The forme of institution of a politick Kingdom is that where a King is mad and ordained for the defence of the Law of his Subjects and of their bodies and goods whereunto he receiveth power of his people for that he cannot govern his people by any other power Cap. 13. Now saith he the King of England cannot alter or change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure for he governeth his people by power not onely Royall but also politick And accordingly Wil. the Conquerour to go no higher in whose entrance to the Crown Dr. F. makes the first contrivement of his English government for conscience to rest upon seemes to me to have possest himself of this Kingdom who though he did conquer the same yet the first claime or title that he laid to this Crown was gift which Edward the Consessor had made to him Herauld the former King having promised the Crown also to him In this right he first set foot on the English shore not in the right of a conquest but in the right of a gift and promise as Speed Cambden and others affirm And afterwards when he had obtained the Crown he swore to use and practise the same good laws of Edward for the common laws of this realme notwithstanding saith Mr Fox Amongst the said lawes I find in ancient Records this was part that the King because he is Vicar of the highest King is appointed to rule the kingdome and the Lords people to defend the holy Church which unlesse he do the name of a King agrees not to him but he loseth the name of a King c. 2ly As the King and Conqueror came into the Kingdome by this claim so we finde that in those times the consent and choice of the people was in use for the establishing of Kings amongst them For
in all things else especially here where he knowes there is so much correspondency between his own opinion and the Jesuites who for the most part of them hold that as all Fcclesiasticall power is given to Peter and so to the Pope and Bishops not to the Church so that all Civill Power is given immediately to the King and not to the Common-wealth but only as derived from him And therefore well may the Doctor excuse us from whetting our Swords at the new forge of the Jesuites that being a forge which he reserves to whet his owne weapons at 2. Neither doe we whet our weapons at the old forge for I suppose the Doctor will say that Aquinas his forge is of the oldest frame and he speaketh directly contrary to us thus as soon as ever any is denounced excommunicate for Apostacie from the faith his Subjects are ipso facto absolved from his dominion and the Oath of Allegeance whereby they were bound to him 3. We say if a shot of our Artillery had fallen on the King whereas you say we would have found him guilty of his own death we say we would have found you and such as you are guilty thereof that put him on such designes As if a man make a fire to preserve himselfe and his family and another comes and thrusts a third man into it we will not fault him that made the fire to preserve his family but him that thrust the man into it but in this matter Doctor you have answered your selfe for you told us in your former Treatise That it is lawfull for Subjects to ward their Princes blowes to hold his hands and the like pag. 9. Now if the Prince raise an Army against his Subjects how can his blowes be warded but by an Army and if his Army discharge their Ordnance and Musquets upon his Subjects how can his Subjects ward them blowes but by discharging likewise And then answer your selfe what if a shot of Artillery should fall upon your Prince But saith the Doctor if you back againe will gather strength for your assertions from the Papists Reasons be as like as you will to one another c. An. Who are most like to the Papists you or wee I referre you to all that knowes us See the Canterburian self-Conviction And if we may not gather strength of reason from Popish Authors to dispute against them why do either you or we reade them Reason is good where ever we finde it neither would Abraham refuse the use of the Well because Ahimilechs men had used it no more will we refuse good reason because the Papists have used it they using it rather from us and not we from them and yet in this matter as I have shewed we doe differ much from them But you prove a Power in the Body politick saith the Doctor to disburthen it selfe at the Church hath of evill Members as Papists doe An. But not as the Papists for we onely presse a necessity of Power in the body to defend and save it selfe from the injury of Princes they plead for a power in the Church who that Church is you know to depose Princes but then saith the Drs. hath this Church a power of excoÌ„munication still so it should be indeed 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 page 73. An. Surely upon your selfe for there is no Church of Christ but whil'st it remaines a Church hath a power left in it though the exercise may be long suspended to see to it selfe and its owne preservation I say a power from Christ to excommunicate though it should bee denied from men and it seemes a strange thing to mee that the Churches of England have no power left because the High Commission is downe as if that Court were set up by Christ himselfe The body naturall hath power to disburthen it selfe saith the Doctor so hath the Common-wealth too but will you have the naturall body disburthen it selfe of the head or worke without it An. Neither doe we goe about to cut off our head but say in the generall if the Head should bee distempered through ill vapours that arise from inferiour parts so that it cannot discharge its Office it 's lawfull for those that are in place to give Physick to the body that even the very head it selfe may be the more healthfull And whereas I had shewne that there is not the same reason that the People should re-assume their trust in case the Parliament be negligent as there is that in case a Prince neglect his trust the Parliament and People should see to it the Doctor replies but if by Ordinances thence issuing they bee spoyled of their property and Liberty which is supposed in the case they will quickly feele it so An. This is but an infinuation of a grosse scandall no reason onely the Doctor argues p 75. will not the people as easily conclude they may free themselves from the 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 An. This is a scandalous charge to say that we lessen men to renounce their trust given to their Prince whereas wee onely say the people have a Power to defend themselves and when cause requires to excite and actuacte that Power which was alwayes residing in them and never given from them Secondly how can the people as easily renounce their trust given to the Parliament when the People themselves conclude and say that what is done by the Parliament is Law which they doe not say as concerning the Prince but rather know that for Law he is directed by them but saith the Doctor this is to make them arbitrary and to lead the people after them by animplicite Faith An. The Doctor is much against the implicite Faith of the People both in this and his former Booke It were well that men of his strayne had been so much against implicite Faith in the matters of the Church where it is more dangerous where they were not witnesse the c. as now they are against the implicit Faith in the Common-Wealth where it is of lesse danger Againe why will this make the Parliament arbitrary or cast the people into an implicite Faith it 's granted by all that the King and both Houses may enact Lawes whereby the people are to be ruled beleeving that those Lawes are best for the Common-wealth doth this make the Government of King and Parliament arbitrary or rayse the people to an implicite Faith no more doth it here An arbitrary government is where a King may rule pro aâ—bitrio as a Father in his Family which power the Doctor doth give unto
they thought For the soule of man perceiving that the Word preached is compounded with their Art and covered over with humane dung that is poluted with humane affection and passion it doth therefore nauseat the thing delivered and is rather provoked then converted Yet because I have been earnestly desired by friends to open more fully the nature of government and civill government of England I am not unwilling to set pen to paper againe For your better satisfaction therefore give me leave to lead you on by some steps or propositions which I shall lay down in the first and second chapters and then shall come more neerly to answer the Doctor CHAP. I NOw because the Basis of our Question is concerning the nature of Government Rule and Authority or ruling and governing power in which principle our Doctor is so much mistaken I must though at last shew what that is Power in it selfe therefore or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the word used Rom. 13. properly signifies a liberty or authority to c worke or act towards others translated licentia from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as licentia à licet Sometimes the word is used in the abstract as Luke 4. 6. Luke 19. 17. Sometimes in the concreate as Matth. 8. 9. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Where saith Gerard d not without great advice the Apostle Paul doth use an abstractive manner of speech to shew that subiects ought not so much to respect the persons commanding as the office it selfe in their commandements Take the word in the abstract so it is all one with jurisdiction which is ordinarily described to be Jus dicendi in invitum Now this governing power is either Ecclesiasticall or Civill civill Concerning which our question is according to the Apostle Paul as Gerard e Bucanan and others have it is that ordinance of God which is armed with the sword for the terror of those that are evill and encouragement of those that do well Rom. 13 1 2. 3. This dominion of jurisdiction is distinguished from dominion of propriety for dominion of propriety as Medina observes f is a power of disposing of any thing that is a mans owne to his own profit The power of Jurisdiction or government is not so which while some have mistaken they have attributed so much power to the Prince in regard of Townes Castles and Forts as if he had therein dominion of propriety which breeds much confusion in mens apprehensions and doth bias their thoughts into state errors According to Alman Secular or Civill power g is that power which regularly is given to one or more by the people for the ordering and preservation of the Common-Wealth according to the civill Lawes thereof I shall go no further then the Scripture will lead us plainly in this particular As Ecclesiasticall power or jurisdiction is ministeriall and therefore called Jus clavium the power of the Keyes so Civill power is Lordly and therefore called Jus gladii the power of the Sword whereby some are authorized to exercise jurisdiction in Common-wealths over others for the reward of those that are good and the punishment of those that are evill that is governing or ruling power 2d Proposition IF we take governing or ruling power as abstractively considered so it is an ordinance appointed by God himselfe By me Kings reigne saith God And our Saviour when Pilate said Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. said Thou hadst it not unlesse it were given thee from above And againe Give unto Caesar the things that are Caejars shewing that as God hath his dues in the world so the magistrate hath his Besides we are comanded to obey and submit unto the higher powers Rom. 13. And why should there be any obedience if the power it selfe were not commanded of God yea the Israelites are faulted for contemning of God himselfe in casting off the government of Samuel which there should not have been had not government been appointed by God {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} said the Heathen Luther calls Magistracie Necessarium naturae corruptaremedium the necessarie remedy of corrupt nature And Tertullian saith well Inde Imperator unde homo antequam Imperator The voice of nature is the voice of God now nature it selfe teacheth that in a commmunity or body politicke there must be justice administred otherwise the community can never be preserved but justice cannot be administred nnlesse authority power or jurisdiction be first appointed for what hath a private man to do to put another to death Thou shalt not kill is made to all men Object But the Apostle calls it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an humane constitution or creature how therefore is it true that ruling power is an ordinance appointed of God himselfe Answ. The Apostle dorh no where say that power it selfe or Magistracie in the abstract is an ordinance of man but the forme or qualification of it as Monarchy Aristocracie Democracie which are the chanels in which this power runs is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And therefore the Apostle having said Be subject to every ordidinance of man he addeth whether to the King as supreame or to the Governours c. h Durandus here distinguishes between institution of power and acquisition of it Secular power saith he considered according to its institution is of God but according to its acquisition and way of use so not Our Doctor doth ordinarily confound these in his reasonings yea though he distinguishes them when he sets downe his owne naked judgement yet when he comes to reason against us he will take no notice of his owne distinction neither can we perswade him to it but the thing being as visible as the Sunne I passe to the third and chiefe step of my discourse which is this following 3◠Propos. THough power abstractively considered be originally from God himselfe yet he hath communicated that power to the people so as the first subject seat and receptacle of ruling civill power under himselfe is the whole people or body politicke To this purpose Doctor Ruherfords words are very plaine Afree Common-wealth saith he containes ordines regni the States that have Nomotheticke power and they not onely by the law of Nature may use justa tutela a necessary defence of their lives from a tyrants fury but also by the law of Nations may authoritatively represse and limit as is proved by Junius Brutus Bucherius Althasius Haenomus Therefore Heming Amiceus doe well distinguish between Plebem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} populum for indeed the multitude excluding the States or base of the people can hardly have another law against i tyrant then the law of Nature But the Common-wealth including the States of a free Kingdome hath an authoritative So Isodore Origen Atistotle Plato Titus Livius Plutarch and that of the Councell of Basil Plus valet Regnum quam
Rex The Kingdome is more worth then the King approved by all Thus farre Doctor Rutherford professor of Divinity in Scotland The reasons of my position are these First when God gave the power of the Sword to men Gen. 9 6. he gave it indiscriminatim without difference to all the world Noah and his sonnes being all the men that were then alive in the world and he gave not the Sword onely to Noah but to all his sonnes that then were upon the face of the earth not that every one might ordinarily use it but that they might as they thought fit appoint one or more who might exercise that power that was given to all as the first seat of it Secondly because the power of ruling and governing is naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to the particular person or part as the power of seeing and hearing as k Facultas Parisiensis observes to this purpose is firstly in the man and from the man in the eye or eare or particular member Thirdly because the Fluxus and Refluxus of civill authoritie is from and to the people If the authority of ruling in a Commonwealth be given by the people to him that ruleth I speake what is Jure Regulariter and returneth to them againe to see justice done in case that there is no particular supreme Magistrate left to rule then the first subject seat and receptable of ruling power must needs be in the people Now so it is that both these are true which I shall prove one after another As first The Fluxus of civill authority is from the people civill government or authority is derived from the people to the Prince or him that ruleth they ordinarily and regularly doe and are to communicate that governing power where with such or such a person is so invested therefore saith the Lord Dâ—ut. 17. 14. 15. When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt possesse it and shalt dwell therein and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the nations that are about me thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse thou shalt not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother Where we shall see that the whole power of appointing and setting a King over them was given unto that people as other Nations had it by God himselfe For first God directing them herein doth not say thus When thou dwellest in the land which I shall give thee Take heed that thou do not set a King over thee which thing belongs not to thee but as a matter belonging to the people he saith when thou shalt say I will set a King over me be sure that he be a good one and such as is pleasing to me Secondly In that he doth take away the power from them of making a stranger he granteth them a power to make a brother as l Mendoza well observes Now saith God to them thou mayest not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother Thirdly what can be more plaine then the words themselves In the 15. verse the words are reduplicated Ponendo pones according to the Hebrew in placing thou shalt place And that there might bee no mistake in the matter God is pleased to explaine the former word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which we translate set or place by an afterward in the â—5 verse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies to give Thus thou maiâ—st not give a stranger over thee so that setting and giving in these two verses are all one shewing that is firstly in the people to set or give a power unto others to rule over them Secondly the Apostle Peter calis this civill power {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Now it is not therefore called so onely because it concerns men or because it is conversant about men or appointed for the good of men for then the government m of the Church also should be so called but because the way of governing is raised appointed established by man himselfe as is observed out of Oecumenius n Thirdly this derivation of authority from the people will appeare also if men do seriously consider the state of Jewish government There was no people nnder heaven whom God did so immediatly reigne over as their King yet if we observe those Kings that were the most immediatly appointed by God himselfe we shall finde the intervening choice of the people insomuch as it is said of Saul expresly that the people did chuse him 1 Sam. 12. 13. Behold your King whom you have chosen and desired upon which words Mendoza observes that by the word chosen cannot be meant desired because that word was added too as different from the former yet it is said 1 Sam. 11. 15. That all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King Whereupon sayes o Mendoza What is more plain Neither could they make him King otherwise then by conferring Kingly power upon him I doe not say that God did not make a designation of his person to the Crowne there is much difference between the designation of person and collation of power When the Israelites were under the government of the Judges they desired chose a new way of government saying to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations 1. Sam. 8 5. And when God had yeelded to them and had designed Saul over them the people also came in with their election and sufftages Neither are these two Gods designation and mans election repugnant but may stand together For as Zepperus observes on those words Deut. 17. p Thou shalt set over thee a man whom God shall choose the election may be of God the constitution susception and comprobation of the people by their suffrages And Car. Scribanius q who purposely writes of the forme and manner of the Jewes government and Common-wealth speaks abundantly and plainly thus But for that which concernes the creation of the King of Israel he was first saith he created by the suffrages of the whole people And if God would have it so then among the children of Israel whom he intended in speciall manner to reigne over himselfe much more may we thinke that God would have the first constitution of Kingdomes to be so ordered now and amongst other people Wherefore I conclude this That the Prince doth and ought at first to receive his government and authoritie from the people and that the people themselves do give it to him And if so then the first seat and subject of civill government is the people r For that nothing can give that to another which it hath not it selfe first either formally or virtually And now secondly for the reflux of authority so it is that in case there have been a
supreme Magistrate in a State and all particulars cease and the Royall line be spent and justice to be executed it returnes to the whole body to see to it As when Josua and divers Judges had ruled in Israel yet we read that after them Judg. 19 1. There was no King in Israel and then was the great sinne committed by the men of Gibeah with the Levites Concubine whereupon all Israel did take the sword of justice and they said Judg. 20. 13. to the men of Gibea Deliver us the men the children of Belial which are in Gibea that we may put them to death which Gibea refusing they did all as one man goe up in Armes against them God himselfe approving their act And what had all Israel to doe to execute justice if the power of the Sword did not returne to the people vacante magistratu supremo Neither can it be objected that though Israell had no King and supreme Magistrate amongst them yet they had severall heads of the Tribes by whose power they did come together for the execution of justice as it might seeme to be Judges 20. 2. For sometimes the chiefe of the Tribes doth in Scripture phrase signifie those that are chiefe in age wisedome and riches not such as were chiefe in authority Besides this action is imputed to all the people there being foure hundred thousand men that came together upon this designe vers. 2 unto whom the Levite made his complaint vers 7. Yee are all children of Israel give here your advice and counsell And all the people arose as one man vers 8 saying vers 9. Now this shall be the thing we will doe to Gibea and vers 11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against Gibea And least that any should thinke that this worke was done by the power of some remaines of regall authority amongst them it is not onely said before this work begun that there was no King in Israel in those dayes Judg. 19 1. But after all was done i is said further chap. 21. 25. In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every man did that which was right in his owne eyes so that Jus gladii the right of the sword in case of defection returneth to them again so far as to see that justice be duly executed And therefore if both the Fluxus and Refluxus of authority be from and to the people then must they needs be under God the first seat subject and receptacle of civill power Object But the Scripture tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13 1. And it ordained of God then not of man nor by any Fluxus or appointment from or of man Ans. Not to speake of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies rather ordered then ordained Government is of God two wayes either by immediate donation as that of Moses or by mediate derivation as that of Iudges and the Kings of Israel The government of Princes now is not by immediate donation or designation but by mediate derivation and so it is both of God and man too as Fortescue speakes Quicquid facit causa secunda facit causa prima But the Doctor tells us that Kings at first were not by choice of the people but that election was a defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way of descent of governing Kingly power by a paternall right pag. 9. of his Reply That Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of man as Democracie and Aristocracie are but that it is rather ductunaturae though not jure naturae we being led there unto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule pag. 8. as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers For we see saith he that the earth was divided amongst Noah and his three sonnes and still as they increased new Colonies were sent out who had the government both Regall and Sacerdotall by primogeniture whence it appeares saith he that Monarchy was the first government it being late ere any popular rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world And that Monarchy how ever we cannot say that it was jure divino yet it was exemplo divino the government which God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses Judges and the Kings of Israel pag. 8. Ans. First whereas the Dr saith that the first Kings were not by the choice of the people at the first p. 8. And that popular election was a kinde of defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way c. I refer Doctor Fern unto Doctor Fern who saith both in his first and second book pag. 67. of his Reply It is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elswhere This I have spoke to already and shall speak to yet afterwards neither doe we take it unkindly that the Doctor cannot agree with us seeing he cannot agree with himselfe Secondly whereas he saith Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of Man as Aristocracie and Democracie are I refer him to what he saith himselfe For in his first booke pag. 13. 14. he saith We must distinguish power it selfe and the qualification of that power in severall formes of government If we consider the qualification of this governing power and the manner of executing it according to the severall formes of government we granted it before to be the invention of man And when such a qualification or forme is orderly agreed upon wee say it hath Gods permissive approbation Yet in his Reply he makes this forme of Monarchicall government rather an appointment of God both ducta natura and exemplo divino and not a meere invention of man as other formes of government are Here I must leave him to agree with himselfe Thirdly whereas he saith That the first Fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the earth divided amongst Noahs three sonnes c. I referre him for information to the 1 Chron. 1 10. where it is said expressely of Nimrod that hee began to be mighty upon the earth whereas if Noah and his sonnes were Kings their dominions being greater before the dâ—vision of the earth into after Colonies they should have been more mighty then he And what his might was is declared to us Gen. 10. 10. And the beginning of his kingdome was Babel c. Here is the first time as Mendoza well observes that we read of a kingdome after the flood and that is marked with a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rebellavit For Nimrod comes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to rebell as if in erecting his Kingdome he had rebelled against the way of government which before wasused if not appointed And it should seem strange if God had appointed that way of government by making the sonnes of Noah Kings that Cham from whom came Nimrod who was that
cursed and wicked posterity of Noah should keep that government alive which was set up by God and that Shem who was the godly posterity of Noah from whom came Abram should not for we read not that Abraham was a King or that his government was Monarchical but rather the contrary as 1 Chro. 1. 43. Now these are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any King reigned over the children of Israel To this purpose Mendoza Å¿ writeth who saith Before the descent into Egypt the Jewes did not constitute a Common-wealth but a family for as Aristotle a Common-wealth doth not arise but from a conjunction of many families but theâ— Abrahams family was one to which Isaac's succeeded and to that the house of Jacob And although in Jacobs time after severall marriages there spâ—ang up divers families the government of all which could not be Occonomâ—â—alâ— or Domesticall yet were there not so many families as could constitute any politicall Common-wealth but a middle kinde of Community which is called Vitalis or Collectanea Yea in Sect. 6. he proves out of Austine Anton. Isidore that Kingly government fell in the fourth age of the world and therefore Rupertus compares the fourth Age of the world to the fourth day of the creation t Because as that did shine with starres so this with Kings And whereas the Doctor tells us that this Regall Monarchicall government is naturall though not jure yet ductu naturae we being led thereunto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first Fathers of mankinde were Kings and so Regall government to descend upon the first borne by primogeniture as their families increased and spread further c. pag. 8. I referre him to what Molina and Pineda say u Molina will tell him that power is of two sorts some that hath its rise ex solo jure naturali and therefore called naturall as the power of the Father over his children and those that descend from him Other power there is which hath its origination from the will of Men they being willing to subject themselves to the supreame and is therefore called a civill power So that paternall and civill power are not the same but have two originals And if Monarchicall government should bee by paternall right then is it not onely ductu sed jure naturae ductus naturae is that whereby wee are led to any thing by the principles of Nature and that which wee are led to by the principles of Nature is jure naturae For naturale est sayes the Philosopher quod fluit ex principiis naturae And so the Membra dividentia should interfeere whereas they ought to be fully opposite Besides if paternall government doe lead us to Regall and Monarchicall then Kings should and ought to rule as arbitrarily in their Kindomes as Fathers doe in their Families And if subjects doe deny this Arbitrary power to them they sinne because they are led thereunto by Nature and so all the Kingdomes of the world should he in this sinne for in what Kingdome of the world doth a King rule as arbitrarily as a Father in his family Again this contrivance of government by the Doctor supposes that the eldest Man or Father after the Flood though he were never so silly and weake should be King and that this Regall government must necessarily descend upon the first borne by vertue of primogeniture For this I referre him to Pineda where at large in his Booke de rebus Salomonis he may read Pineda proving that among the Israelites the Crown did not descend upon the first born but was alwayes disposed of according to the will of the parent appointing it to this or that childe where he brings in Abulensis retracting his opinion and professing that though he did formerly thinke that the Crowne did descend upon the first borne by vertue of primogeniture yet at the last he was of another sentence because it is said 1 Chron. 5. 1. 2. Ruben the first borne of Israel because he defiled his Fathers bed his birthright was given to the sonnes of Joseph yet verse 2. Juda prevailed above his brethren and of him came the chiefe Rulers Now as they argue if the Crowne belonged to the first borne as part of the Birthright that should have been given unto the sonnes of Joseph unto whom it is here said expressely the Birthright was given but the rule and Crowne was given unto another Tribe arguing that it was no part of the birthright or any necessary annexum to the primogeniture in those dayes This doctrine Pineda proves by examining the series of all the Kings instancing especially in Solomon who was appointed King by David notwithstanding he was not Davids eldest sonne and Abiah who was appointed by Rehoboam though Rehoboam had many elder children as he clears from 2 Chron. 11 18 19 20 21 22. Fifthly whereas the Doctor saith This Monarchicall government was the first government that God set up In Moses Judges and Kings of Israel and so though not jure divino yet exemplo divino I consesse I cannot but wonder at the conceit seeing the difference between the government of Judges and Kings is so abundantly made out by Car. Sigonius Feverdentius Ranervus Abulensis and many others a Sigonius saith expresly the first government among the Hebrews was by the chiefe of the people and after by Kings that by the Greeks being called Aristocracie and this Monarchie Aristocracie saith he was under the Judges Joshua and others Monarchie under Kings which Aristocraticall government of theirs is signified to us by these words in Deut. 12. 1. 8. These are the statutes and judgements which ye shall observe to do in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee Verse 1. then verse 8. Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes And indeed if the Israelites were under Monarchicall government in the times of the Judges and Monarchie was then on foot why should they desire it as another kind of government which yet they had not 1. Sam. 8. saying to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations verse 5. By which it appeares that the government which they had before under the Judges was not Monarchicall as that which they had afterwards Let no man therefore swallow this principle so often inculcated by the Doctor that the government of Israel under Judges was Monarchicall For though some of the Judges were called Kings yet as Drusius and others observe the word King was taken either more strictly for Monarchs or more largely for such Captains and Governours as did rule over them Surely God at the first by all we can read in the Scripture was pleased to appoint Magistracie it selfe and left the children of men free to set up that way and forme of government
when William the first sent to Herald to make good his promise Herald answered that he was rightfull King as being so by the consent and choyce of the people as is reported in Cambden in his Britannia thus As concerning the promise of King Edw. William is to understand that the Realme of England could not be given by promise neither ought I to be tied to the said promise seeing the Kingdome is fallen to me by election and not inheritance And as for his own stipulation he said it was extorted from him by force neither he if he could nor might if he would make it good seeing it was done without the consent of the people Yea Histories tell us that when William the first had beaten Herald in the field the people still were in doubt whom they should chuse and setup for their King For sayes Culiel Malmsburiens Edwin and Morcard came to London and solicited the Citie that they would preferre one of them to the Kingdome and the rest of the Nobles would have chosen Edgar if the Bishops would have stuck to them But the English who then might have healed the ruines of the Kingdome whilest they would none of their owne brought in a stranger So that though William the first had gotten the field yet was not he brought to the Crown but with the consent and choyce though much over-pow'red and over-awed of the people So sayes Speed expressely Consent thus gotten all voices given for William he was crowned King at Westminster 3ly As the Crown in those dayes was obtained by the consent choice of the people so I say that even William the Conquerour did not come to the Crown without all conditions for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon cōdition which they proposed thus Most noble Duke behold here the Commons of Kent are come forth to meet and receive you as their Soveraigne requiring your peace their own free condition or estate and their ancient lawes formerly used If these bee denied they are here presently to abide the verdict of battell fully resolved rather to die then to depart with their lawes or to live servile in bondage which name and nature is and ever shall be strange unto us and not to be exdured The Conquerour driven to these streights and loath to hazard all on so nice a point more wisely then willingly granted their desires and pledges on both parts given for performance So saith Speed in his Chronicles so that it is plain that even William the first came not to the full Crown of England without all conditions and therefore our Kings and Princes pleading their right from him cannot be Kings and Princes without all conditions I know Dr. F. tells us that the Kings oath imports no condition but is taken for confirmation and strengthning of mutuall duties whether that be true let any judge who reads but these things And indeed if the Kings of England were such absolute Monarchs as that no resistance might be made to their commandments for the taking up of Arms for the defence of the country when enjoyned by Parliament then the subjects and people of England must lose this power of selfe-defence for they once had it all men by nature having a power to defend themselves either by conquest as being by force spoyled thereof or else they gave it away by some indenture at the election of the Prince for inheritance is but succession of election inheritance or immediate donation from God or else God hath forbidden this forcible resistance by Scripture If it bee said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest and are as a people meetly conquered then any other sword that is longer then the Princes may fetch back that power again If it be said that this people gave away this power by Indenture at the first election of their Prince then let men shew us such Indenture If it be said that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. 13. 1 2 3. or the like Scriptures then it must be affirmed that the Parliament are not the higher powers which Dr Ferne granteth for if the Parliament come within the compasse of those words higher Powers then that Scripture Rom. 13. doth not reach them but rather requires others to be obedient to them yea if by the higher powers is understood onely the King then the two Houses may not make any forcible resistance against any petty Constable that comes in the K◠authority to do violence to the two Houses Surely therefore this and the like Scriptures are much abused the meaning being only to command obedience to authority in all things that tend to the encouragement of good and punishment of evill and therefore there is such a power in the subjects both by the law of nature and constitution of the kingdome to take up Arms when the State or two Houses expresse it not withstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary CHAP. III. HAving shewed the nature of power in generall in the first chapter the way manner of Englands government in some measure in the second Chapter I now come to the vindication of the truth as opposed by Dr Fern in his last Book called Conscience satisfied wherein he spends the 7 former chapters mostly in answer to a book called a Fuller answer In his 8. Sect. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of Arms as now they do That I may not weary the Reader in turning from book to book I shall somtimes briefly set down what I had written then his Reply then give my answer unto it Mr. Bridge tels us saith the Doctor that there are three grounds of their proceeding by armes to fetch in Delinquents to their triall to secure the State from forrain invasion to preserve themselves from Popish rebellon Dr. Ferne replyeth Yet this must be done in an orderly and legall way and if conscience would speake the truth it could not say that any delinquents were denied or withheld till the Militia was seized and a great delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to triall at his Majesties instance Ans. How true this is that the Doctor writes the world knows I need not say the Parliament to this day never denied to try any that were accused by the King so that they might be tried legally by himself and the two Houses which is the known priviledge of every Parliament man according to Law Dr. F. But Mr. Bridge tels us all this is done as an act of self-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince and the Fuller Answer would have us beleeve they are inabled to it by Law and constitution of this government and that they do it by an act of judgement let him and Mr. Bridge agree it Ans. There needs no great skill to untie this knot not mediator to make us friends the
Parliament hath raised this Army by an act of judgement and jurisdiction not over their Prince but in regard of Delinquents so the same act may be a work of jurisdiction in regard of others and yet an act of preservation in regard of our selves The execution of any malefactor in an ordinary way of Law is both preservation to the State and a work of jurisdiction in regard of the offender so here yet I do not say it is a work of jurisdiction over our Prince but in regard of delinquents that are about him Dr. F. Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of self-preservation from the Law of Nature it being naturall to a man and so to a communitie to defend it self And were this argument good then might private men and the people without the Parliament take up armes and resist for self-preservation is naturall to them Ans. It follows not because though I say every thing may defend it self by nature yet I say also it must do it modo suo naturae suae convenienti we say that all creatures do defend themselves and it is naturall so to do yet we do not therefore say that a beast defends himself in the same manner as a man doth or a man as a beast but in a way sutable to every nature Now if a private person be in danger to be oppressed by a Prince flying is more fit defence for him and therefore saith our Saviour If they persecute thee in one City flie to another but if the State be wronged and oppressed which is a publick grievance then the State and those that represent them are more fit to take up Armes for its preservation For Nature in generall teacheth self-preservation Nature specificated teacheth this or that preservation now the nature of a communitie and of a particular person are distinct and therefore though I say a community is to defend it self because sui tutela is naturall to every thing yet I do not say that a particular private person may ordinarily defend himself in that way which is most sutable to the communitie as the taking up of Armes is yet I suppose no moderate man will denie this that the Subjects though not invested with authoritie have a power to keep out an enemie from landing incase of forrain invasion yea though the Kings Officers should be negligent therein or so malitious and treacherous as to forbid them to defend themselves and their Countrey Secondly saith the Doctor He proves it by Scriptures 1 Chron. 12. 19. where the Word of God saith expresly that David went out against Saul to battell but he was Sauls subject at that time A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for subjects to go out to battell against their King But he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that he helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Acisâ— Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to which were these which Scripture I bring not to prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him Then the Doctor brings in another peece of my argument not the whole reason or the sense of it thus Be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pa. 3. To which he replies modo suo well assumed and so it is for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power We grant faith the Doctor there is a subjection due to them and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due unter them It 's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Parliament without the third estate And if any subjection then they have some authority but none they can have if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them And if they have power to bring in 20 by force then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which cannot be done without raising an Army Then he undertakes sayes the Doctor to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon for examples Ans. The Doctor hath the ill hap alwayes to misse the argument which lay thus If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common wealth then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-wealth with the safety thereof as well as the King though not so much then are they to looke to it and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the King But so it is that the King is bound to look to the safety thereof and that because he is intrusted therwith as was Saul David and Salomon who came to their government by the consent and choice of the people Whereupon the Doctor replies He hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon But it seems the Doctor had not the good hap to meet with these severall Authors which affirme that even these Kings Saul David and Salomon were chosen by the people If he had read or minded them he would not have imputed this as an ill hap unto me for to light on these examples I will give him but the testimony of Mendoza who though not of our judgement in this matter yet ingeniously confesses that with great probability Authors do reason for a popular choise of Saul David and Salomon Whereas saith Mendoza it is objected that Samuel by anointing Saul without any consent of the people saying the Lord hath anointed thee King over his heritage did thereby clearly shew that the regall power was conferr'd upon Saul not from the people but from God that is easily answered that that Vnction was not a signe of power already conferr'd but to be conferr'd as may be proved by the anointing of David whom Samuel anointed 1 King 16. 13. Dureing Sauls Raigne yea while he had many yeares to raâ—gnt Wherby it appeares that David did not receive regall power by that unction but by that which he had afterward by all the Tribes Elders when coming to Hebron they anointed David King over Israel Therfore that first unction was not the conferring the regal power but only a signification of this latter unction by which this Kingly power was to be derived or conveyed so also that first anointing of Saul before the consent of
the people did not signifie the Kingly power already conferred but to be conferred upon him to wit when all being gathered together by Samuel to Mispah gave their consent and cryed out Let the King live He hath fouâ—d an example and proofe for thetrust of Parliement in Davids time 1 Cro. 13. 1 2. Because David consults with the Captaines and Leaders which were Officers â—ot of the King but Kingdome but those were Officers of the King and Kingdome meerly designed by him not the People and called by h m to that trust pag 43 44 True I have found an example indeed in Davids time for what I alledged Namely that there were then certaine Officers of the Kingdome not of the King onely and though under him yet were they with him trusted with the affaires of the Kingdome This also was the judgement of the Protestant Divines in France whose Testimonie I shall relate afterwards of lumus Josephus Brutus Zepperus Sigonius and many others Zepperus saith thus That in Saul David and Salomons time so before the Captivity the Kingdom of Israel was mixed with Aristocracie for it had a Senate of 70. or great Synedrim which sate at Jerusalem whose Iudges were called Princes who sitting by the King did dispatch the great affaires of the Kingdome unto whom was referred the choice of the King and High Priest and matters of War and other things greatly concerning the people Of this Synedrion Josephus saith Nihilagat Rex sine Senatorum sententia Yea these Senators were in such place with the King that they were called his friends brethren 1 Chron. 2. 2. And though the Dr. saies Those Officers in Davids time were designed by the King not the people Yet if we look to the originall in the first of Deut. 13. We â—inde that the people did first give them to Moses before he did make them Rulers for v. 13. Moses relating the first constitution of that Government saith I said unto you give mee wise men and understanding and known men among your Tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The English Translation readeth Take yâ—e wise men the Hebrew is give yee us as Montanus hath it when they had given them to Moses he saith v. 15. So I received them so is the Hebrew he would not make any rulers over them but such as he had first e c eived from them and they had given unto him and so though at the first it pleased God to appoint those Rulers or Councell of State called the Sanedrym or Synedrion whereupon Mendosa saith that they were equal to Moses being appointed by God as Moses was Numbers 11. 14 15 16. Yet that was by and with the consent and choice of the people not meerly by appointment of the King as our Doctor would Car. Sigoâ—ius will tell him out of the Tolmodists and other Divines that he had search'd into that this Sinedrion or Colledge of Elders did represent the Scepter that the Scepter it selfe did depend on it that none did judge the Tribe and the Scepter but this house of Judgement To this purpose Gerrara shewes that this Synedrion was chosen of the chiefe men of Israel in whom was power of judging controversies exercising of publique justice yea of choosing and deposing Kings And therefore of the Talmodist this Councell was called the house of Judgement or the house of the Scepter and publique Authoritie And Zepperus with Doctor Biljon saith this Synedrion continued with that people of God unto the time of Herod Iosepâ—us being witnes I presse not so much as these Authors speake of But whether there were not in those times of David Officiariâ— Regns wich were not meerly designed by the King and what inference I do make from thence let Conscience judge Againe whereas I argue from the being and nature of Parliament that if it hath not power to send for by force those that are accused to be tryed before them that should not be a Court of Justice seeing that even inferiour Courts have a power to force those before them that are to be tryed And if the Parliament may send one Sergeant at Armes then 20. then 100. then 1000 c. The Doctor Replies Therfore Inferiour Courts have a power to raise Armes Answer this followes not For though I say every Court hath power to force in the accused yet it must be in a way suitable Now this raising of Armes is not suitable unto an Inferiour Court but to the Parliament being a more Nationall and publike Court then any other is The Dr. tells us indeed that other Courts have their posse comitatus So the Parliament have their Orders to fetch and force in the accused which are established by law aswell as his posse Comitatus is But saith the Dr. I did not know before that all the Parliament Souldiers were Sergeants at Armes Answer how doth hee catch at the word and let the sence goe the sence scope and drift of the Argument was to shew that as they might send forth one who by force should fetch in the accused by the same reason they might send forth ten and by the same Reason that they may send forth 10 they may send forth 20 so 100 so 1000 so 10000 The Dr. puts off the Argument with a Jeere because hee hath no list to meddle with the Reason In the 45 Page hee would enervate the Testimonies of Divines which I brought to shew that all Protestant Divines were of our minde Let us see therefore what hee saith to them And first he begins with the Testimony of the Germane Divines and for that saith he The Testimony of the Centuriste speakes nothing to this purpose A short answer soon and â—â—sily given but why nothing to our purpose nay stay there the Dr. will keepe his Reason to himselfe I set downe therefore the Testimony againe and let men judge whether it bee to the purpose Governours say they in such things as are repugnant to the law of God have no power or 〈…〉 above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunitie above others Yea they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the Ordinance of God bearing the word for the punishment of vice for St. Paul Rom. 13. saith that God dia instance and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and hee commands that every soule and so the governours themselves should bee subject â—o this Ordinance of God if they would be defended by it and not by their wicked deeds makes themselves liable to punishment Of the French and Low Country Divines he brings no testimony saith the Dr. but for proose tels us ne know their practice so I for answer may returne him his owne words we know what hath been the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit
to give in witnesse An. Very well if they be parties interessed and so not fit to give in witnes then they are of our judgment observe Reader here he granteth that the Protestant Churches and the Divines of France and the Low-Countries are parties interessed so of our judgement What Protestant Churches or Divines then will he alledge for his sentence Will hee have the Diviner of Switzerland I brought a Testimony of the Divines of the Councell of Basil and that hee doth not contradict Are the Divines of Geneva of his mind I brought the Testimony of Calvin that hee saith nothing to but it passeth with him as granted by him Are the Divines of Scotland I brought him the Testimony of Mr. Bucanan that Testimony also he doth not deny It may be that was but one and so he would not take notice of it Read therefore what Mr. Knox saith Because this occasion is layed against Gods true Ministers Wee cannot but witnesse what Trade and Order of Doctrine they have kept and keepe in that point they affirme that if wicked persons abusing the authority established by God command things manifestly wicked that such as may and doe bridle this inordinate appetite of Princes cannot bee accused as resistaries of Authority which is Gods good Ordinance to bridle the fury and rage of Princes in free Kingdomes and Realmes They affirme it appertaineth to Nobility sworne and borne Counsells of the same and also to the Barons and People whose Wills and Consents are to bee required in all great matters of the Common wealth Which if they doenst they declare themselves criminall with their Princes and subject to the same vengeance of God This was the doctrine and judgement of the Divines in Scotland in the beginning of Reformation as related by Mr. Knox And what the judgement of the Scots Divines is for the present seeing he will not take practise for Testimony of Judgement he may Read in their Answer to Lysimachus Nicanour thus As for the lawfullnesse of resistance hee may understand that that hath been the tenet of our Church since the Reformation it hath beene the right and practise of our Kingdomes since the first foundation A number of instances thereof are approved in our standing acts of Parliament unrepealed to this day It hath beene the practise of all Reformed Churches abroad wherein by Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles they have been all allowed And the most of them allowed by powerfull assistance both with Men and Money To this purpose Dr. Rutherford also as I have shewed already Chap. 1. ropos 3. But it may be the Dr. will tell us that the Scottish Divines are also Parties and interessed in the Cause Very good Wee shall shortly have a great Party in the Protestant Churches for us and with us What Divines then are against us in the Doctors opinion Are the Divines of England He tels us also page 45. yet doe some of them allow of Resistance in some cases Good still By and by it will arise to somewhat here is yet more of our Party as the Dr. calls them by his owne confession As for the Testimonies that I brought of Dr. Bilson and Dr. Willet he saith that 's plaine they speake of such Government such States such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom at this time But why not the Dr. will not tell us If I tell him that Peter Martyr also Professor of divinity in England was of our Judgement as he may read plainely â—udg 1. hee will tell me it may be that Peter Martyr speakes not of this time or of this case or of this State If I referre him to Polanus Dan. 11. who writes largely in this matter with us it may bee hee will tell us also that Polanus speakes not to our case to our time or to our State But if I referre him to Barkley and Hugo Grocius who well knew the judgment of the low Countrey divines I suppose the Dr. will not say those are Parties Barcleus saith Hugo Grocius the most strong defender of Regall Empire yet descends thus farre to yeeld unto the people and the chiefe part of them a power to defend themselves against immane cruelty when yet notwithstanding hee confesses that the people are subject unto the King and as for â—ne saith Hugo Grocius I dare not indiscriminatim condemne those or that part of the people which doe use this defence having respect unto the publike good For David had many armed men about him that hee might repell violence offered unto him And at that time David was commended by a prudent Woman that hee sought the Lords Battell which words many doe ill referre to Davids former Battels where as Abigails Speech is rather a correction of what Naball sayd Many Subjects are now fallen from their King which words that Abigail might correct Shee saith the Warres of David were Godly as being undertaken not out of defection from his Prince but for tuition and preservation of his owne life But because the Doctor seemes to want some testimonies of the French Protestant divines I will give him one for all and surely hee will not say the words are not spoken of such Government such States such cases or such times as ours are This question being on foot in Charles 9 time What is to be done by the Subject when he is violenced by the Magistrate or if the chiefe magistrate degenerate into a Tyrant may the Subjects resist by force of Arms That was Answered by one Learned Man for and in the defence of the Protestants in those times thus Subjects are of three sorts either meâ—re private men bearing no publike Office or else they are such as are in some inferiour and subordinate place of Magistracie or else they are such as are so inferiour to the chiefe Magistrate that by the laws of the Land are appointed to bridle the chiefe as for private men saith the Author it is evill for them to resist with force of Armes either they must sly or suffer As for the second sort they not being the Kings houshold Servants but rather to bee called Officers of the Crowne depending not so much on the King as Kingdome the King abusing his power to the overthrow of Lawes these inferiour Magistrates ought to oppose for the conservation of those who are committed unto their trust and if need bee to take up Armes tilthings bee otherwise provided for by the Estates of the Kingdome As for the third sort saith hee though they in some respect are under the chiefe Magistrate yet in some respect they are keepers of the Supreme dignity that the chiefe Magistrate may bee kept in his Office These may if need require represse and chastise him for the people is not made for the Magistrate but the magistrate for the people his power taking its rise from them Ob. But though this were the first rise of magistracie yet
after the people have chosen their magistrate they have resigned up their power to him An. But the people never created or received their Kings but upon certain Conditions which being manifestly broken and not kept those have power to abdicate who have power to create and this has alwaâ—es been in use amongst all the most famous Nations in the World the Israeltes Lacedemonians Romanes Danes Swedes Scotch Polonians and English Ob But if a Magistrate doe degenerate into a Tyrant as wee are not to be obedient to him so neither are we to resist him Answ That is onely understood of private men Object But David spared Saul though it were in his power to â—nth moff An. That is no way contrary to the doctrine delivered for David had many armed men about him whose help if need had required he would without doubt have used against all yet thus hee did having respect rather to his owne defence then his enemies offence This testimony tells us what hath beene the practise of all Nations the testimony of the Scots in their answer to Lisimacâ—us Nicaâ—our saith expresly that our doctrine is according to the judgment of all the Reformea Churches And if these testimonies will not yet prevaile with the Dr. I must leave him to his resolves hee tells us that our homilies are against us but let him produce any place out of the homilies where it is said that the two Houses may not take up Armes to bring armed delinquents to their Tryall Indeed the Homilies speake against Subjects taking up of Armes against their King so doe not the Parliament but to defend themselves and to bring Delinquents to tirall And therefore when the Dr. or other bring forth testimonies of Divines ancient or late to prove that Subjects may not take up Armes against their Prince they had as good say nothing that is not to our case but let them prove by testimonies that it is not lawful for the Parliament to take up arms to secure the Kingdome to bring accused Persons to tryall and to deliver the Prince out of the hands of Malignants and then they say something to us else it is but clamor not Reason At last the Doctor speakes somewhat of arbitrary government p. 46. which is no way any answer to the reasons that were given by me proving that his opinion raised the King to an arbitrary government onely he sets down his further sentence about arbitrarines eadem facilitate rejicitur qua affirmatur The Rest of that Section is either spent in naked Assertions or jearing expressions or seeming Answers to his other Answerers CHAP. 4. THe Dr. having spent some time upon his other Answerres at the 49. pag. he is pleased to returne to me where hee would prove that the people of Israel did not by any forceable resistance rescue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul which worke saies he was but set off with a souldier like boldnes Let the Doctor call this work what he please Saul the King had sworn that Jonathan should dre and the people sweare be should not dye and they being in Arms did rescue Ionathan saith the Text This rescue the Doctor calls in his first Booke a living violence and in his reply a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes I hope the Doctor will give us leave to use the like termes if a Prince swear the death of some Parliamentary men who deserve not to die but to be preferr'd and the people rise up in Arms and rescue their Ionathans saying as we live they shall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us this is no resistance it is but a loving violence and a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes why may not we call this so aswell as the Dr. That But I appeale to all reason whether a rescue by men in Arms from those that have swornea mans death be not forceable resistance But say wee this is more then Prayers and teares which is th' only remedie allowed by the Doctor to which he replieth The Dr. had no where said though Mr. Bridge makes him often say so that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects but besides their cries to God he allowes them intercessions reproofes denyall of subsidies and aides I will not search into the Doctors Booke for every word take what he granteth here yet this souldierly boldnes of rescuing is more then Prayers teares reproofes or denialls of subsidies and aids which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confesseth now Yet the Doctor is so full of this sentence still that in the 51. pag. of this book he saith that the Children of Israel being under the oppression of their Kings had no remedie they had was by crying to the Lord And againe in the same page saith all the remedie they had was by crying to the Lord so also in his first booke pag. 10. the people are let to understand I Sam. 8. II. how they should be oppressed under Kings and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord Thus doe men forget themselves and what they have said whilest they contend against truth Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul the Dr. replies now as before that Davids example was extraordinary Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done what if wee should say that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary he tells us pag. 31. of his Reply that Conquest one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought tha people â—rder 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases Would not the Doctor take it for a poore shifting Answer from us When we say any practice is extraordinary we must also prove by circumstance that there was an extraordinaries in the fact or else acquies in it for our example But be it so that Davids example was extraordinary is not our case now extraordinary Is Englands case ordinary hath it bin thus ordinarily that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes has this bin for many yeares see how the Doctor helps himselfe by this extraordinary Answer He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul and is not this ordinarily lawfull for subjects to doe so much the Doctor grants it himselfe p. 9. of his first Book That personall defence is lawfull against suddaine and illegall assaults of the Prince himselfe thus farre toward his
the reason for he that resisteth c. So that resisting and not subjecting or obeying is all one It is no sinne not to obey unlawfull Commandements but the Apostle makes it a sinne here to resist and therefore the resistance forbidden doth not relate unlawfull Commandements but if lawfull But then the Doctor tells us that if these words should be understood onely of active obedience to Lawfull Commands and not of passive to unlawfull Commands the Apostle had given the Romans but a lame instruction page 60. and his reason for that speech followes at a distance page 61. because then the Romans should not have been sufficiently instructed how to answere the unlawfull Commandements of Princes as also there would have been a gap open to Rebellion for saith he how easie would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully Answ. This is a strange worke to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case that a passive obeidience should not bee here commanded God doth not command every thing in every Scripture yet those Scriptures wherein hee commandeth something and not all are not lame instructions The first Commandement commands the substance of Worship the second the right meanes the third the manner and the fourth the due time of Worship yet the first is not lame because it doth not command what the second nor the second lame because it doth not command what the third nor the third lame because it doth not command what the fourth so here though God should command onely active not passive Obedience in this Text this instruction would not be lame but why should it be a lame instruction the Doctor tells us the because the Romans should not be susffciently directed how to answer the unlawfull Commandements of Princes yes surely if God did here command them obedience to Lawfulls He should at once forbid them disobedience to unlawfulls but saith the Dr. then there will be a gap for Rebllion for how easily would men inferre therefore we may resist in things unlawfull I answer the Doctor takes this for granted which is to be proved that all forceable resistance is Rebellion 2. Suppose that true which himselfe granteth page 1. the first Booke that it 's lawfull to resist unlawfull Commands though not with forceable resistance And if so then why might not the Romans as well say this instruction you give us is lame for you forbid resistance and yet in some kinde resistance is lawfull a suffering resistance lawfull and a forceable resistance unlawfull And yet you have not in this 13. Chap. given us any such distinction so are we left in the darke and your instruction lame But good Doctor let us take off our owne halvings whilst we goe about to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case he come not just up to our opinions But to put an end to this matter concerning this Text I appeale to the Doctor whether he doth not thinke that these words Higher Powers v. 1. Did not include the Romane Senate I say when the Apostle commands Let every Soule be subject to the higher powers Did hee not command the Christian Romanes to bee subject to the Romane Senate We know that after this Epistle was written to the Romanes as Eusebius reports the Romane Senate was not onely in being but so potent and powerfull that when that was propounded to the Senate whether Christ should be acknowledged as Good that was in the Senates Power to grant or refuse and they refused So Estius also saith that the Governours of Provinces were appointed by the Senate as well as by Caesar when â—eter wrote his Epistle So that still notwithstanding aesar the Romane Senate was a high Power and the higher Powers unto the People And if th y were the higher Powers who were to bee obeyed by this Commandement of the Apostles then why doth the Doctor bring this Scripture to urge our higher Powers and Senate to obey especially when the Doctor himselfe confesses page 62 that the two Houses as distinct from the King fall under the words Higher Powers At last in the 62. page the Doctor comes to that place of Peter 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your elves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him where after the Dr. had a little strok'd himself on the head and laboured to spit some filth on our faces he comes to that Testimony of Calvin for that which hee sayes concerning Dr. Bilson is not much materiall who proves that the Pronoune Him relates to God and not the King for the reason which I alleadged in my first Booke now the Dr. replies true all are sent by God but it is as true that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or the Romane Emperour Aâ— The Reader may observe how the Dr. doth deale by the Scripture againe for he sets downe the words thus To the King as supreme or the Governours as those that are sent by him and thus indeed the word Him must needs relate to the King but conceales that part of the v. wherein the word God is exprest thus submit your selfe to every Ordinance of God for the Doctor knew that if hee had set downe that part of the ver the Reader would have perceived that the Pronoune him should have related to God and not to the King Secondly observe what he answers he tells us that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or Emperour that 's not the question now but whom the Pronoune him doth relate whether God or the King And for this he gives no reason not answeres Calvins and therefore I need adde no more yet Estius his reasons are very full proving that the Pronoune him must relate God and not the King for sayes he the Apostle Peter would move the people to obey the King and Governours which Argument is full because they were sent by God whereas if the pronoune him should relate to the King here were no motive 2. Because the Apostle Peter saith that they are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers and the prayse of them that doe well for which cause the wicked Heathenish Governours did not send the Governours it being known that they sent them for the punishment of those that were good and for the prayse of those that were evill and therefore the pronoune Him is to be carryed on God and to have relation to God not to the King in this place And therefore what the Doctour brings from this place to set the Parliament at a greater under then God would have is nothing worth The rest of the Chapter is spent with his other Adversaries I having thus delivered the Scripture from his Objections shall be the more briefe in Answere to the after part of his discourse because the onely ground of conscience is Gods word CHAP. 5. IN the tenth Sect.
of the Doctors Reply I find little to hold us long I had told him in my former Book that the Parliamentary proceedings were an Act of self-preservation and used the Similitude of a steeres man shewing that in case hee do not his duty even the very passengers in time of a storme for their owne preservation may looke to the matter which doth not implye the unofficing of a Steersman so in State where the chiefe Magistrate neglecteth his dutie c. The Dr. replies pag. 64. That the Prince is not as the Steersman but as he that stands above and commands to the Starbord or Larbord This is to hang upon the word and let goe the sence for the reason holds to him that stands above and commands as well as the Steers-man neither will common reason say that he is unofficed because the passengers for the present desire or cause him to stand by that they may looke unto their own safetie in the time of a storme Then he comes to prove that Authoritie and Magistracie abstractively considered from the qualification or severall formes of Government is of divine institution Wherein we do all agree onely I excepted against some of his Media that he used to prove it thus By those words the powers that are ordained of God the Doctor understands the power it selfe of Magistracie distinguish'd from the qualification thereof and the designation of persons thereto how then did he say Sect. 2. The higher power in Paul is the same with the King at Supream in Peter the Dr. replies the power of Magistracie abstractively taken may by these words be proved to be of God though the higher powers here be understood concretively with Connotation of the persons that beare 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 is said a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} existent c. But how doth this prove either what the Doctor would or answer me t is true the words higher powers note both as I have shewed already both the authority and persons in the authority But then the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I say signifies ordered and so to be translated not ordained for otherwise if the words higher powers note both the abstract and concreat and this word be translated ordained then this Scripture shall aswell prove the qualification and designation to be of God as authority it self Which thing the Doctor denies and first brought this Scripture to prove that Magistracie is of God in opposition to qualifications and designations Some metaphisical notions about esse and existere the Dr. would find out in the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but I passe them as never intended by the Apostle At last the Doctor promiseth or rather threatens to give me a visit for so he saith pag. 65. I must come home to Master Bridge to make him understand the force of my Inserence I had said thus In like manner the Doctor proves that power it selfe is of God because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God Slipping from the power it selfe to the person designed for the power it self is not called the Minister of God Whereupon the Doctor saith I must come home to Master Bridges the Major of Nâ—â—s the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King will Master Bridge reply no for the power it selfe is not the Major or called the Minister of the King Thus whilst he comes home to mee he comes from his owne home and reason forgetting what he had said before pag. 60 61. A lawfull Prince though commanding unlawfully is still still the Minister of God So then it seems one may be the Minister of God in that which is evill and 't is true a penall Minister one may be a man may sin in afflicting another and yet he may be the Minister of God to him that is afflicted how therefore doth this argue that because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God that his authority is lawfull And therefore whereas the Doctor saith the Major of N. is the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King Will Master Bridge say no Answ. Hee will say there is not the same reason in regard of God and the King for a man cannot be the Kings Minister in a bad action but he must receive power from him but he may be Gods Minister I mean penally in an unlawfull action which God never gave him right or power to doe In the after lines of this page the Doctor saies that both the Fuller Answer and Master Bridges every where takes it for granted by me that Monarchy Aristocracie and Democracie are equally the inventions of men Answ. I doe indeed and the truth of it may appeare from your owne words p. 13 14. of your first Book as I have shewed already Lastly saith the Doctor Master Bridges concludes that my proving of the governing power to be of God but the qualification of it and designation of the person to be of man gaineth nothing against resistance or deposing a Prince that doth not discharge his trust for still the people may say we may alter the Government and depose the person because hew as of our designing Doctor Ferne nothing so for of they resist they usurpe Authority and invade the power that God hath given him if they depose him they quite take away that p wer which God and not they placed in him because he is still the Minister of God This seems to prove that people cannot depose their Prince or alter the Government that is set up amongst them But what is this to the reason that he pretends an Answer to to which was thus If the Doctor grant that the qualification of the power is from man and the designation of the person then though the power it selfe be confessed of God by the Doctor yet his adversaries that are for the deposing of Princes if any such be may aswell plead a power to depose the Person or alter the Government aswell I say as if the power it selfe was appointed or set up by men Now the qualification and power of designation is granted by him to be of man And therefore he helps himselfe nothing by proving that Authority or Magistracie in the abstract is of God To take away this he proves that the people cannot depose their Prince or alter the Government I will not say a wild but surely a wide Answer as ever came from a Dr. D. The other part of this Section is against others who are sufficiently able to plead their own cause against this Dr. In his 11. Sect. p. 64 the Doctor complaines that we have left the King nothing wee could take from him and this kind of speech is ordinary amongst some who are so bold as to affirme that because we doe not make our selves slaves we make our Soveraigne no