the people at the first constitution of this government pag. 24.25 and that this constitution was made by consent of King and People in the first Coalition of Government pag. 4. by the Consent of the People thâ—t first made the King pag. 13. Contrived by the people in the first constitution â—f Govâ—ernment pag. 8. These Particulars we find in this his discourse confusedly spoken of if we give his conceptions their due order they stand thus First he supposes all the Power of government to be derived from the people and that the Constitution of this Government was their contrivment when first they made a King then that by this first Constitution such a Coordination of the two Houses with the King was contrived by which they have power reserved not only to consent in making Lawes but to supply the refusalls of the King as they shall think good for the safety of the State and for this the finall result of the States judgement is in them to declare what is Law without him and unto their finall resolution and commands thereupon though arbitrary as this answerer acknowledgeth Pag. 17 the people ought to obey Thus has he fansied the reason and constitution of this Government but I suppose the honourable houses of Parliament will not thanke him for raising them to that height of Supremacy he has placed them in I am sure we Subjects have not cause to thank him for that arbitrary power he has placed in them If any man expect from this his discourse satisfaction for conscience he shall find nothing but uncertainties and improbabilities not fit grounds for it to restupon and if conviction of Reason be look't for here I suppose there is no man that upon serious consideration of what this Answerer brings us to will not think it more reasonable to be under the arbitrary Government of one then of many nay under the Government of one that challenges not obedience as due bat according to Law then of many whose commands are Law unto us as this Answerer makes them And here we doe not undertake to set down the extent of the power and Priviledges of Parliament no more then of the Kings Power and prerogative They are both of them beyond our skill and we may not take the boldnesse to meddle with either of them farther then the necessary information of Conscience doth inforce to which purpose as we may by use of Reason certainly conclude the King has not this or that Power as to make Lawes by himselfe to rule arbitrarily so of the two Houses without offence we may as certainly conclude That they have not such a power by the first Constitution of this Government as this Answerer every where beggs for them but no where proves it It is granted that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Coordinate with His MAIESTY ad aliquid to some act or exeacising of the supream power that is to the making of Lawes by yeelding their consent and that they have this by a fundamentall Constitution But that they have such a fellow ship with His MAIESTY in the Supremacy it selfe as this man imagines or such a Power of resistance reserved at first to supply His MAIESTIES refusa's or such a finall and arbitrary Power and câ—mmand as he attributes to them Conscience can never be truly convinced off SECT III. Of the Originall of Governing power and of the beginnings of Government in this Land WE will begin with his ground-work Which lies scattered through all his discourse That first Coalition or Consititution of Government in this Land which he supposes to be framed by the agreement or Contrivement of the people when they made the first King wherein they intrusted him with such Power as was thought fit and reserved to themselves what power they held necessary for their owne safety upon extraordinary times and occasion of danger So then Conscience if it will obey the power of Armes now usurped by Subjects must be clearly convinced which is impossible of these particulars That the Governning Power is from the people that Monarchy was here raised upon such a contrivement wherein such a power of supply and of resistance was reserved to the People and that all Kings since do consent to such conditions and are admitted under them All the proofe that I can any where find this Answer ha's brought for all this is from the words of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam this Power the King ha's derived from the People and from the mutuall Oath of King and People pag. 5. Let the Reader give me leave to speak a little of the Governing power simply then of the beginning of Government in this Land that Conscience may see what little satisfaction this or any man els can give it to perswade either that the governing power is derived from the people or that the Government of this Land began in such a Contrivement or constitution as this man phansies It was said in my other Treatise that the Governing power was from God not only as an ordinance of the precept that commands Government but also as an Efflux or issue of that providence which sets up pulls down which translates Kingdomes and governs the whole world Creatures Reasonable and unreasonable and this not obscurely in the Apostle Rom. 13. where the powers are said to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as orders ranked by him and under him Well then this Governing power was not a populo effluxa as he above said but flowed from that providence at first through the veines of nature in a paternal or Fatherly rule and by that as by a pattern in a Kingly Rule or Government upon the encrease of people and Nations for when the Reins of Paternall Government could not reach them for their extent or hold them in for their unrulines injustice it in larged it selfe into a Kingly power which bore and used the sword for that is given them to use streight after the Flood Gen. 9.6 This is plain by the booke of God that the first Fathers of Mankind were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the Earth divided among Noah's three Sons and upon the Encrease of their Children many Colonies were sent into Countries farre distant and thereupon many independant Governments raised which must be by the direction and order of Noah that first sent them out and assigned them those parts of the Earth And still as they encreased they spread farther upon the face of the Earth new Colonies being excluded and thrust forth like swarmes of Bees under their Rulers who were the cheife Fathers of those new Progenies and had the Government both Regall and Sacerdotall by Primogeniture unles the chiefe Patriarch from whom they all issued saw cause to order it otherwise Therefore of all the Sons of Noah the Nations sprung from them it is said Gen. 10. these are the Sons of
of foregoing Ages what he ha's from the mutuall oath of King and people pag. 5. may be good upon after agreement between them as will appear and his hanc potestatem a populo effluxam out of Fortescue although it supposes derivation of power from the people the usuall mistaken principle of Government which later times have given cause to examine and find unsound yet doth it not imply the people ha's reserved any power much lesse such a paramount power as he imagines Conscience has this certain by the continuall practice of this Government that there is such a constitution as gives power of consenting to the two Houses in making and declaring Law when ever the beginning of it was it cannot see that it began by a contrivement of the people at the supposed choice of the first King but rather that it was subsequent to Monarchy and procured by the people for their greater security not precontrived by them If objected The constitution is fundamentall therefore preceding the first King we answer it followes not for it may be a fundamentall yet not of Monarchy simply but of government as now it stands a fundamentall not of the Regall power but the peoples security For Government may receive a change qualification by consent of King and people from more absolute to mixt such a constitution is a fundamentall because all after-lawes are built upon it but not a fundamentall to the Regall power for it gives no power to him as it doth to the two Houses but rather lessens his power by limiting it upon agreement that he will not impose any laws upon his people without their consent But as for that reserved power of declaring law without the king and of commanding all when they shall judge it expedient for the safety of the kingdom upon the Kings refusall Conscience has no assurance from this Answerer that such a power was reserved which is enough to leave it without excuse if it obey such a power but on the contrary has strong presumptions and reasons against For first it cannot see how such a reservation of power can consist with the beginnings of government in this land whether we consider the Norman or the Saxons entrance Secondly it cannot see how it can consist with the known established Government for by such a power the Supremacy would be plainly setled in the two Houses they may when they judge it necessary use this reserved power which transcends all ordinary power in the King Thirdly should the Kings of this Land be admitted upon such agreement for this reserved power Conscience cannot but think it an unreasonable condition and neither for the Kings nor peoples security but a very seminary of jealousies and sedition as if in Matrimony for the King is also sponsus Regni and wedded to the kingdom by a Ring at his Coronation the parties should agree upon such and such neglect of duties to part a sunder or children for the king is also a Father of the kingdom and the body politique owes to him naturall obedience 24. H. 8. c. 12. should condition with their Parents upon such or such usage to be acquitted of their duty and obedience what our Saviour said of their light unlawfull occasions of Divorse non fuit sic ob initio it was not so from the beginning when God at first joyned man and woman may be said of such a reserved power of resistance it was not so from the beginning when at first Rulers and Kings were Fathers and so are stil called in the fift Commandement not to be resisted or abdicated by their children their subjects Lastly this contrivement seems plainly to contradict it selfe for it places this reserved power in the Comites and Barons which cannot be before the first King for Bracton tells us as he is cited by Sir Edw. Coke in mag Cart. Reges associant sibi Comites Barones ordinances eos in magno Honore Earls and Barons are made by the King and assumed for Councell therefore invested with a long Robe and for defence therefore girt with a sword which shews the power they have is not by a contrivement or reservation at the supposed making of the first King but from the King by grant and of grace much lesse is it such a transcendent and paramount power as this Answerer imagineth to be reserved in them and the House of Commons at the first constitution of government in this Land We have hitherto searched into the ground-worke of this frame of Government as he had layd it in a supposed contrivement and reservation of the people when they made their first King and have found it to be groundlesse so that Conscience cannot rest upon it to make resistance in obedience to such a reserved power which this man tells Us is in the two Houses but gives no proofe for it at all nor indeed can So that this which has been sayd against it were enough to overthrow the Co-ordination supply Finall resolution and Arbitrary Commands that he has built upon this fiction but we will particularly examine his discourse upon them which is but an opening and enlarging of his phancies upon the new Principles of these dayes set off with plausible shew of reason to deceive the unwary SECT IV. Of the Co-ordination of the three Estates and of the Supremacy of Power HIs Co-ordination he has thus expressed This mixture or Co-ordination is in the very Supremacy of power it selfe and the Monarchy or highest power it selfe is compounded of three Co-ordinate estates pag. 3. There is but one Highest but that one is a mixt one pag. 4. It was granted there is a Co-ordination to some purposes but not such as he urges it for in the matter of Supremacie and Supply which that we may the better discern we must according to our skill and that shall be no farther than the common use of reason and the Grammaticall construction of what the knowne Law does plainly declare may lead every mans apprehension unfold wherein Supremacy of power doth consist There is a power of Enacting and of Executing or administration accordingly the Supreame power shews it selfe in making new Laws and abrogating old in calling assemblies to that and other purposes in Treaties with forreign Princes sending Embassies appointing Officers of State Judges of Courts and other Ministers of justice through the Kingdome Now if the Co-ordination of the King and two Houses of Parliament were such as he doth expresse would seem to inferre by the supply they are to make upon the Kings refusall they should be Coordinati ad omnia simply co-ordinate and equall in those powers acts of Supremacy wheras in plain speech he cannot say they are co-ordinate with His Majesty but only in consenting to the making of Laws pag. 4. in all the rest the King is solely supream and all power of administration derived from Him So then their consent is required to one act or exercise of supream power
but not to the deniall of His Supremacy for He is still by Law acknowledged the onely supream Governour and the supream Head which being urged in my former Treatise this Answerer should have shewn us how the King can be so and yet this co-ordination of his stand good to all purposes as he would have it If he restrain that only supream Governour and supream Head to supremacy of power in Execution or Administration it would be plain that none can use power in this government but derivatively from His Majesty which were enough for the purpose I urged Supremacy in the former Treatise viz. to shew His Majesty cannot be resisted for resistance is a taking of the sword or power without him and from him and also a using of it against that power of administration which is setled in him and therefore against him as he is the only supream Governour This would be enough to checke any mans conscience that will dare to resist yet must not the supremacy be so restrained for albeit for the greater security of the people Kings have bound themselves from imposing Laws upon them without their consent yet may wee also see the beams of His Supremacy shining in the power of enacting exercised with their consent For he has the power of calling them to that purpose and the constitution that has given them power of consenting has left in him power of dissolving them Also anciently as I have heard knowing men say the Law enacted began thus Rex statuit the King ordains and before the Laws and Statutes in each Kings Raign we find the title or introduction thus usually expressed The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c. And still for the procuring of his assent we see them Petitioning under the stile of Loyall Subjects and while they sit in that co-ordination there is still that other relation of Head Body between them and accordingly He was declared in Parliament to be Supream Head of the body politique He being instituted and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole entire power preheminency authority praerogative and Iurisdiction to render and yeeld Iustice and finall determination to all manner of Subiects within this Realm in all causes Also that sundry Laws and Ordinances had been made in former Parliaments for sure and entire conserving the Prerogative and preheminency of this Crown 24. H. 8. c. 12. From all this so plainly declared in Law confessed can we conclude with this man that the two Houses are Co-ordinate with his Majesty in the very Supremacy or that the highest Supream head is a mixt one No! but that the Legislative power is Supreamly in the King only this power is excited by the instance and request of the Commons representing to him the grievances of his people abroad and cannot be exercised or come to the act of Ordaining but with consent of them the House of Lords This may easily be conceived if we consider that Kings at first ruled arbitrarily and then the Legislative power was solely in them afterward the people obtained such limitations and qualifications of that power as might make for their security as for example That they should not have Laws imposed on them without their consent this does not make them co-ordinate with their King in the very Supremacy of power it self as this man has conceived it but still leaves the power of Ordaining supreamly in him as in the fountain though the efflux or exercise of that power be not solely in his will but expects the consent of the People Now let us gather up his scattered proofes as we can find them Such a co-ordination there must be or els saith he the Monarchy is not mixt pag. 3. 4. It doth not follow if there be a mixture in it therefore such an one of equall ingredients or if it be mixt secundùm quid in some respect therefore simply or as he would have it though we say not the Monarchy is mixt as he yet we grant the Government is mixt not as he by placing such power in the co-ordinate parts but mixt that is not absolute or arbitrary in his Majesty yet not without Subordination on their part and predominancy on his And to say the Monarchy it selfe is compounded of three Estates as hee doth is absurd But the Treatiser himselfe calls it that excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament confessing them to be the fundamentalls of this Government and if Fundamentalls what subordination can there be in them they admit not of higher lower all foundations are alike pag. 3. The Treatiser acknowledged it a Fundamentall of Government that provided this temper of the three estates in Parliament as the reasonable means of our safety therefore saith the Answerer the three estates are Fundamentalls a good argument A genere adgenus from the constitution that places this power in the two Houses to the persons that bear the power for when we speak of Fundamentalls we speak of Laws and constitutions which may provide such a temper and yet do it with subordination that it be not temperamentum ad pondus but ad justitiam not with Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion not with exact equality of all but with a predominancy of one otherwise it would sometime fall out that this body of the Commonwealth could not act or move any way like as the naturall body could not if all the elements were equally tempered in it And to shew he is for an Arithmeticall proportion in this temper of the three Estates he wonders we cannot see that the King is Universis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse than two pag. 3. Very good we shall have enough of such arguments as these for the present we will make a note of this in the Margin and shall have occasion anon to call him to his reckoning upon it Then he keeps a trifling to shew how the two Houses are subjects divisim taken singly and not subjects conjunctim in the co-ordination pag. 4. In one word their consent is not subject to the Kings command yet they are subjects even collectively taken for so they represent subjects that chose them they are subject to his command still to remove or rise when He Prorogues or dissolves and so they acknowledge themselves Subjects in all their addresses to His Majestie which they make as a body collective He is the Head of them not taken severally for then He should be Head of many bodies but as joyntly making one body And left he should seeme to forget they are his Councell which would take off from that fellowship in the supremacie where he has placed them he grants they are his Councell but by the first constitution not to be elected by him but assigned to him not assumed as Moses his under Officers were
Rules not only by that i.e. by a power meere Regiased politico principatu by a politicall power also in as much as in the making of Laws the advice and consent of many is required and his power regulated by such Law But this Principate of many as it is ill rendered out of the Latine so is it ill meant to the excluding of His Regalis potestas so to make this government Democraticall or Aristocraticall rather then Monarchicall Now there cannot be such a blend or mixture of the Forms of government but that one must be predominant and Supream because else the body Politique could not move or act any thing as it was said above when we spoke of the Temper of the three Estates This Answerer to free this body Politique when the three Estates lock and binde one the other by their Negative voyce as upon the Kings refusall and to make it active without him to all ends and purposes places the Finall resolution in the two Houses to which all must obey and so indeed places the Supremacie there but why then should this be a Monarchy rather then a popular government were it not for Supremacy in the King or why should that first Constitution which he saith placed this finall resolution in the two Houses leave such a power in the King to dissolve them which power say we looses the Body Politique when through the aforesaid binding it cannot move a new way by a new Law and gives it motion by the former Laws which will appear anon to be with lesse inconvenience then if in such a case it should be moved by such a finall resolution Having thus far spoken of his Coordination before he comes to the Supply the two Houses are thereupon to make he spends two Pages the 6th and 7th in repeating his Notes he ha's taken at Court-Sermons where he saith the Divinity of Monarchy and the absolutenes of this in the Kings sole person ha's been usually cryed up as if there were no medium between such an absolute Monarchy and such a co-ordinative one as he ha's phansied Let them bear their burden that speak not their conscience at Court I would they would now do it sincerely at S. Margarets Westminster for I could tell him what stuffe is preached there too what omnipotency is ascribed to some in the world I would also this man would have used a conscience in repeating and interpreting my words for he often makes me speak contradictions through his own inadvertency and in this place he absolves me in the beginning of his relation and charges me thus at the end This and much more was preached and all upon this errour that the Dr. resolves on that the sole Supremacie of power was in the Kings Person and that His Judgment was the sole Supream rule of Power He should have done well to have cited the place where I resolve so for they are not my words nor do they render my sense any where expressed to that purpose For when I say as I did and proved in my other Treatise that the King is Supream or the higher power I do not mean he is sole and absolute in making or imposing Laws the contrary was often expressely acknowledged by me but that He is still notwithstanding the consent of the two Houses required to that act or exercise of supream Power the only supream Governour according to the oath of supremacie which was enough for the purpose I urged it viz. not for his absoluteness but against our resisting of him It is well known the consent of the Senate and people of Roms was required to the Laws their Emperour would have enacted and yet He was Supream so acknowledged 1 Pet. 2.13 And it is well known The King was in Parliament acknowledged the Supream Head of the Body Politique And now what can conscience conclude hence First that the two Houses of Parliament are in some sort coordinate with the King by reason of that consent necessarily required in the making and declaring Law and that 's enough for our security against an absolute or arbitrary government Also that the King notwithstanding such their coordination and consent is and has been so declared in Parliament the Supream Head of the Body Ecclesiasticall and Civil also the onely Supream Governour and that is enough to deter conscience from resistance SECT V. Of the Supply which is phansied upon the former Coordination NOw lest it should appear unreasonable as needs it must that the two Houses of Parliament should have power to make Laws and Ordinances without the King which He acknowledges He cannot do without them and to seize the Militia or power of Arms with which His Majesty is entrusted as this Answerer confesseth the device to make this good is by a rule misapplyed Coordinata invicem supplent which Rule he gave us Pag. 3. and now comes to misapply it Pag. 8. If the King fail in His trust His coordinates in the mixture of this Supream power must according to their trusts supply But before we shew how weakly this coordination inferres the supply let us first see wherein this supply stands and when the time is for them to make use of it this Supply he tells us is in applying the means of safety to its end that is in setling the Militia as may be most safe for the kingdom and the time when it is necessary to apply them is in imminencie of Danger to this purpose Pag. 8 9 10. The King acknowledges imminencie of Danger in His Writ of Summons Consideratis periculis imminentibus Pag. 9. There may be imminent dangers sufficient to move his Majesty to call a Parliament and require their advice though not sufficient to cause them to use this Supply by taking the Militia into their hands Where by the way saith he we may take notice that His Majesty is by Law to call a Parliament when there shall be any imminent danger ib and by the way we may take notice that the King is the sole Judge of those imminent dangers when he calls a Parliament and also which is not the way to make him hasty in calling a Parliament that according to this mans contrivement so oft as his Majesty calls a Parliament they may use this supply and seize the Militia because of those imminent dangers in the Writ of Summons This imminency of danger ha's a competent Judge the two Houses wherein the Law makes the Reason of the Kingdom to reside who have by Vote concluded it Pag. 9. so it was by Vote concluded that his Majâ—sty upon the raising of a Guard at Yorke for the safety of his person intended to make Warre upon the Parliament are they competent Judges of his intentions too indeed those horrible imminent dangers that were pretended have been for the most part as invisible as Intentions are But the King refused to passe the Bill for the Militia according to the advice of the two Houses which is saith the
to say He cannot rule as Conquerour for he is not a Conquerour but claimes from him that was nor is it injurious to His Majesties posterity that he sweares to a limited power that limited title as this man has it is a phancy for he has not a free one as a Conquerour had yet not limitted by such a first election and contrivement as this Answerer dreames of but by priviledges and immunities granted or restored to the people since the Conquest unto which His predecessors bound themselves by oath and so doth he It is not for me to settle His Majesties Right but should I doe it as this man hath presumed I had been injurious to Him and His posterity for as he sayes here of right by Conquest though falsely it may give ius in re not ius ad rem so I of the right by such an Election as he ha's contrived however it might give His Majestie ius adrem it seemes to lend him but a slender ius in re a weak assurance of holding it making Him like a Tenant at will to be outed of Possession so oft and so long as they that have the finall resolution shall judge expedient So has he conceived it Now let us goe on and examine how he makes good this finall resolution The power of declaring Law saith he Pag. 14. must rest some where true In those say we that have the power of making Lawes i.e. in the King and both Houses Here the Answerer puts two Cases First what if they be divided as at this time does it rest in the King or the two Houses In neither say we fully and to the like purpose as it doth in the three Estates which power is suspended while one part suspends He endeavours to shew Pag. 15 16. this finall resolution should rest in the two Houses rather then in the King from their ability and skill their fidelity their ends and interests which do not interferre so with those of the Subiect Property Priviledge c. as those of the Kings do absolutenesse of Rule Monopolies Patents c. the comparison is odious though we are to hope the best of the Members of the two Houses yet we know they are men subiect to like passions as others are and we are assured the King is intrusted with us as well as they and has beside Rights and Priviledges of His owne to looke to But seeing this is Comparative onely rather in them then the King not absolute that it ought to rest in the two Houses we may let it goe His second Case is Pag. 17. What if either of the Houses be divided into equall parts it is easily resolved The Speakers voyce casts it True But he should have put two cases more First what if an opportunity be watched and one of these equall parts do not exceed the fifteenth part of the whole number by reason of the absence of the rest we are in an ill condition when that must be the finall resolution of this States judgement nay of that number that prevailes may be scarce any Lawyer of known abilities which was one of his prejudices he layed against the King in his Comparative between Him and the Houses for declaring what is Law The other case is what if the two Houses be divided in judgement the one from the other where then resides this finall resolution It may be it will be replied they ought to sit together and vote together so indeed some would have it but it is confest that the Parliament consists of three Estates and that the Lords and Commons are two several Estates Well then if the King concurre in judgement with the Lords why should not the finall resolution be in them for we must here call him againe to his reckoning and tell him as he did us Pag. 3. it is easie to reckon the one is lesse then two And the more strange this will seem if we consider what it is that is now to be declared no case mis-judged in inferiour Courts no late written Law whose sense is doubtfull but the very constitution of Parliament that has continued so many Ages whether in that Consticution there be such a Law as gives this power of Supply by seizing and commanding the Militia We understand the literall sense of the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance and have it confessed by this Answerer that the Trust of the Militia is ordinarily in His Majesty Pag 10. and we suppose no man can think that when the Kings of England sweare to observe the Lawes and Customes of c. they ever took the Oath in such a sense as to binde them to take for Law what ere the two Houses shall without them declare to be so or that when we bound our selves by Protestation to maintaine the power and priviledges of Parliament we meant what ever they declare to be such for this were too much to resigne up our faith to man Well then if there be a disagreement upon such a declaring it is better we follow what the known Law commands us to and that there be a suspension of such a declaring till all that are entrusted for us can agree then that such a power of declaring be assumed by any two of the three Estates for in the same 17. Pag. it is acknowledged Arbitrary SECT VII The finall Resolution is not Arbitrary in the two Houses but onely in the three Estates IT appears then that this power is as arbitrary in the two Houses as it would be in the King I answer it cannot be denied nor avoided c. It would not be so in the King so long as the two Houses have what He denies them not the power of dissenting But to tell us plainly The Power is arbitrary in the two Houses is very ingenuous this Answerer is seldome so but here beyond all reason for it follows as an admirable proof of what he hath confest As the Government in the forme of it was at first an act of the will and so Arbitrary so it still remaining the same it must remain some where arbitrary still else our fore-fathers should not convey that same government to us which they began they cannot binde us in that wherein they were themselves free Pag. 17. when were they free it must be before they set up the Government i. e. when they were without government We cannot see when the people were so free or that the frame of this Government was an arbitrary act of their will enough has been said before against such conceits The like we have in those words the Government still remaining the same the same with what it must be with that arbitrary act of their will which is supposed to frame that government or else no force of argument in the Consequence to prove our Government is still arbitrary some where and if so then no sense in the Antecedent that our government should be said to remain the same with the arbitrary act of will
Delinquents should be brought to a Legall tryall and the State defended is just and necessary yet to be done in an orderly and Legall way not by an Army raised by Subjects taking the Militia and power of the Kingdome out of chose hands in which the Law has inâ—â—â—sted it And if Conscience were to speake the Truth it could not say that any Delinquents were denied or with-held till the Militia was seized and a great Delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to tryall at His Majesties instance of which see more above Sect. 5. Neither can Conscience say that Subjects have had cause upon feares and pretences of forrain invasion or insurrection of Papists to Arme and resist Whether this be done by an Act of jurisdiction we may discerne by the plea of the fuller Answerer for he would have us believe they are inabled to this by Law and the Constitution of this Government and that they doe it by an act of judgement the States judgement residing in their finall resolution and that this power of theirs is transcendent to any power ordinarily in the King for it declares Law without Him it does arbitrarily command the power of the Kingdome and the obedience of the people without and against the commands of the King so we found it in the examination of his discourse and what is more required to an act of Jurisdiction I know not let Him and Mr. Bridge agree it Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of preservation First from the Law of Nature selfe preservation is naturall for a Man for a Community and therefore when a Community shall trust a Prince with their welfare that act of trust is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall Law which is selfe-preservation pag. 2. But the Fuller Answer will tell him there must be a Constitution to enable them to this selfe-preservation And were this Argument good then might private men or the people without the Parliament take Armes and resist for selfe-preservation is naturall to them and no positive Law which according to the Fuller Answer restraines their resistance upon their trust given to the Houses of Parliament can according to Mr. Bridge his reason destroy that naturall Law Also absolute Princes with whom the people have intrusted their welfare without any resevation might be resisted which the Fuller Answer againe denies for that act of trust is but by positive Law and according to Mr. Bridge it must not restraine them for it cannot destroy the Naturall Law of self-preservation But he should have observed that as the naturall body is to preserve it selfe according to its Law and no otherwise so a Community or politique body must doe it according to its Law which prescribeth the order and way and means of preservation and for want of holding to that way we see people often under pretence of this selfe-preservation drawne by seditious Leaders into Armes to their owne destruction Secondly he proves it from the Law of God by places of Scripture but so wildely that I am ashamed to repeat them yet the judicious Reader must give me leave for the peoples sake that are abused by these mens abusing of Scripture 1 Chron. 12.19 It is expresly said that David went out against Saul to battail but he was Sauls subject at that time pag. 2. A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for Subjects to go out to Battaile against their King but he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that He helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Achish See below Sect. 9. where this place is touched again Rom. 13. Be subject to the higher powers But the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pag. 3. this is well assumed but we grant the Conclusion there is a subjection due to them and if he means by the Parliament the three Estates concurring then all manner of subjection and obedience is due to them But he takes them as divided for it follows Though the King be supreame yet they have the high power of declaring Law pag. 3. this is a good explication of the Supremacy Yea this Doctor confesseth they are most fit to judge what is Law Take in all my words which were these none so fit to judge what those fundamentalls are as They that have power to build new Laws upon them and then make what you can of them or look what is spoken above of Supremacy Sect. 4. of the power of Declaring Law Sect. 6. Then he undertakes to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and has the ill hap to light on Saul David and Solomon for examples because it is said They made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11. and so of David and Solomon which was the peoples not giving of power but receiving and acknowledging him for King whom the Lord had designed Lastly he has found an example and proofe for the trust of Parliament in Davids time 1 Chron. 13.1 2. David consults with the Captains and Leaders and with all the Congregation about the fetching of the Ark what then These were Officers not of the King but Kingdom and though under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom pag. 5. Excellent Collections The Fuller Answer will tell him presently that the Kings of the Iewes were absolute Monarches though I say not so yet this I say those were Officers of the King and Kingdom meerly designed by him not the people and called by him to that trust what he infers that the Parliament is entrusted by the people though not deduceible from that place I grant yet so as that they have a trust from the King upon them too as was above shewn Sect. 4. But that in case they think the King misled it belongs to their trust to take the Armes of the Kingdom as M. Bridge would inferre can neither be drawn out of that place of Scripture nor any Law of this Land that ever could yet be seen The like rambling discourse he has upon the 5. Sect. touching the Monarchicall Government which God set up over his people wherein as he is for the conclusion altogether contrary to the Full Answerer who held the Jewish Monarchy absolute so for his proofes and places of Scripture alleaged altogether impertinent At length he will seem to give us Law for it Inferiour Courts have power to send for by force if need be those that are accused much more the Parliament the highest Court pag. 6. And therefore also inferiour Courts have power to raise Armies to force in the Accused if they refuse to come in upon Summons that would make good work But the Law has provided a force if need be a Posse Comitatûs and the Kings Officer or Minister for that is the Sheriffe but this new way turnes both the King out
men pag. 37. Naked of all authority to doe what to take up Arms that must be your meaning but what authority had they before the King cals them together were they any other then private men or does he by calling them give them authority to take Arms against him And if the people should recall their trust why should they think themselves in that condition more private men then they were when at first as you suppose they elected a King did they then being private men give as you maintain all power of Government and will they conceive they cannot now use any will they not as easily conclude they may free themselves from their Trust given to those Parliament men chosen by them as renounce according to your lessons their Trust given to their Prince in all reason they will hold their Representatives more accountable to them then their Prince can be who is entrusted for them immediately by God and themselves To this we may adde what he replies to the same purpose pag. 42. The people doe all acknowledge that we are to be governed by Lawes And they feel the want of it and doe earnestly desire they may once again see this Kingdome so happy Now the Parliament as the Doctor saith is the Iudge what is Law He never said so unlesse you mean the three Estates of Parliament How then can the People think the Parliament doth any thing contrary to Low when they are the Iudges of it This is to make them Arbitrary and all their commands Lawes and to lead the people after them by an implicit faith But enough of the power of declaring Law and of these Arbitrary commands Sect. 6. 7. Finally Mr Bridge endeavours to shew how they can answer the Oath of Supremacie and the Protestation by taking of Arms. If the Popish party should prevail who knowes not that they will force the King to another Supremacie or quickly make an hand of Him Pag. 44. But who knowes not that the King by Gods blessing may prevail in the maintenance of His Crowne and Right for which he is now forced to fight without any prevailing of the Popish party And who knowes not if that party of Brownists and Anabaptists which are now so prevalent in the Arms taken up against the King should get the upper hand what would become of the Kings Supremacy and this Government In the Oath of Supremacie we Sweare Him our Soveraigne to be Supream in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How doth our Doctrine or Practice infringe this ibid. Is this all you can say for your Soveraignes supremacie the Declaration of Parliament as was shewn Sect. 4. teaches you another Doctrine that He is Supream not so much in oppositioÌ„ to particular Persons as in relation to the whole Body Politick of which he is the Head and accordingly you should regulate your practice and obedience In our Protestation we protest to defend the Kings Person and hom can we say with a good Conscience we do it if we do not take up Arms in this time of Popish insurrection ibid. you protest also to defend his Honour and Rights which your Armes invade And if the comming in of some Papists in the duty of Allegiance to His aid against your violences may be called a popish insurrection as you have the Art to make all things seem odious on the Kings part it was caused by your â—alâ—ing up Arms first which the next Age will truly call an Insurrection Or can we if we take not Arms in Conscience say we defend the Priviledge of Parliament in bringing in Delinquents to their Tryall or the liberty of the Subject or the truth of Religion I presume every good man that makes conscience of his wayes will not be backward to advance this publique designe You cannot in conscience say but you have had the security of all those particulars offered and promised might have had them better assured without your taking Armes if you had not some farther reach in your Publick design However you can overrule your own and your Peoples conscience yet all good men that seriously consider your wayes cannot but conceive the priviledges of Paraliment Liberty of the Subject and truth of Religion have suffered most by this your pretended defence of them And now it is high time I say something there need not much to the Answerer that would not be known by his name but would be noted by his Margin painted with Greek and Latin He begins with Scripture but staies not long upon it speaking indeed lesse from that then any of the other Answerers to whom I have already replyed He insists chiefly upon the grounds of Reason borrowed from Anistotle out of whom he would prove severall conclusions those which concern us are touching elective Kingdoms touching a power in the State to bring Kings to an account and to depose a Tyrant We reply to what he has brought out of Aristotle touching those particulars The Philosophers reasons may be good and usefull in the founding of a Government but must they therefore obtain in this that is founded If Aristotle like of Kingdoms that goe by choice and approve the power which the Ephori had over their Kings in Sparta would this man have it so here Let him speak his Treason plainly in his own not Aristotles words and say He would have a new Government and Kings here made by choyce and some Ephori set over them surely he thought as many moe did of a new erection and had fitted himselfe to give advice for it out of Aristotle But however that Philisopher gives us many fine hints of Politicall prudence if this man were put to it to draw up that frame of that Government which Aristotle seemes to approve and by piece-meal to deliver he would find the task very difficult and we the Government very strange such as I believe never was nor will be deserving almost as well to goe into the Proverb as his master Plato's did as for example He would have Government goe by choyce and that choyce to follow excellency now seeing excellency as he notes in 3. Pol. is in Riches or Power or Nobility or Virtue we cannot see now he provides for the contenting of those which excell in Riches Power or Nobility that factions may be prevented and yet they that excell in virtue to carry the Government and be willingly obeyed of all as he would have it in that book but where and when will it be so unlesse in Plato's common-wealth Well Aristotle's reason may be good and yet my reasons in the 5. Sect. of the former Treatise against this power of resistance now assumed stand firm too why because if that power be used to bring this Government into such a Mould as this man phansies out of Aristole can we expect any thing but a succession of Givill war for will it not alwaies be more just for the Prince to endeavour the recovery of
the King when He is put to it admit his helpe and the more shame for them that professe the Protestant religion to force him to it This is according to this mans sense to call the Papists good Subjects better then the Parliament how will Romering of this The Papists have no cause to applaud themselves for any thing spoken by me but this I can say and say it upon experience that they take occasion to be confirmed and hardened in their way by the principles and practice of the adverse party for how will Rome ring of this That Protestants should take Armes against their King professing the same religion that a concealed Tradition of a reserved power of resistance should so farre prevaile and the people be so finely led on by an â—mplicit faith to build upon it that by vertue thereof the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance should be so easily dispenfed with that the Jesuites themselves should be cleane out done in the cunning of Lies and Forgeries to uphold a cause that pretends religion This Answerer after a fit of railing concludes with Prayer I shall onely â—dde this short prayer and with my very soule I speake it God blesse the King and send us peace and if it must not be till one side have prevailed I pray God it may be that side that loves the King best Truth would not let me bitherto accord with this Answerer but Charity now bids me joyne with him and to adde unto his prayer That it would please God to forgive that fide which under pretence of love to the King has so deeply wounded him in his Person and Kingly power also that our peace may be restored not through an absolute prevailing of either side by Armes but through a loyall submission of that side which has done the wrong to His Majesty and His People by this Lawlesse resistance Amen We have done with this man Let us see how Mr. Burrows concludes the businesse pag. 140. to the two last Sections which concerned matter of fact he briefly thus answers The Doctor puts the case thus Whether Conscience can be perswaded that the King is such and so minded as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Armes against Him In this he is as miserably mistaken as in all his other grounds from Scripture and Reâ—son for we take up no Armes against the King and whatsoever the Kings minde be there is sufficient cause to take Armes to defend our selves against others that seek our ruine Is it so that the Law is in your hand and it concerns you not What ever the Kings minde be He is bound by Oath to protect you against those that seek your ruine and accordingly has the power of the sword and the defending of Armes will you not then know whether it be his minde to defend you but take the sword into your own hand surely herein you are miserably mistaken if you thinke this is not to take Armes against the King and against that power which God and the Law entrusts him with for your protection Or have you not read how Armes taken up by some in the latter end of the Queens time to remove evill Counsellors such as they pretended sought their ruine were adjudged a leavying of warre against the Queen it will not helpe you to say Your Arms are taken up by authority of Parliament those were not for that 's not the point you may see by this your Armes are against the King and his power and authority if without it under what pretence soever you may take them up If the King doe but deny to assist in delivering us from such dangers and in delivering up Delinquents there is cause enough to satisfie our Consciences in taking of Armes It seems now it concernes you to know what the Kings minde is though not cause sufficient here to satiâ—â—ie your Consciences for you cannot say he denied this till you put your selves out of His protection and were your own protectors in Armes Nay after you appeared in this posture what was denied you from Nottingham that might give you cause to proceed in Armes till you brought them to give the King battell you take away His Armes and power against His will you use them in battell to the imminent endangering of His Person and yet you take not Armes against him and you can satisfie your Conscience of the lawfulnesse of it See now whether you can set such a Conscience before Gods tribunall and there lay the plea as you doe pag. 142. Lord thou who art the searcher of hearts knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in Peace to deliver our Kingdome and Parliament from the rage of ungodly men to preserve what thy Majesty what the Law of Nature and of this Land hath made our own Dare you justifie your selves thus at his Tribunall you may blush to speak it before man that knows not your hearts but sees how you have actually invaded the Kings Right and Power and imminently endangered His Person if the mercy of the Lord had not preserved Him how you break through the Lawes of God and Nature not to preserve what is your own but to gain the Lord knows what Thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidel not to provide for his family Dare you thus entitle Him to your blood-shed and rapines whereby you provide for your selves has he taught you to provide for the family of the Common-wealth by binding the master of the family and smiting your fellow-servants as those did Mat. 24.49 For the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy name that we may be faithfull to our King Kingdome and Parliament Pardon we beseech thee the failings Let your ends which you pretend be never so specious if the means you use be not Lawfull and Warrantable as they are not for the very substance of them either by the Law of God or Man your plea will not hold but your account will be heavy for all the blood shed and miseries this Land has groaned under which might have been prevented if Reason would have satisfied you Now the Lord that is at hand grant you moderation and then we doubt not but with his blessing we shall have Peace in good time to the restoring of his truth the Kings Honour and Rights the due Priviledges of Parliament and the Subjects Liberty ERRATA Pag. 2. med your for their p. 9. l. 13. your for their p. 49. l. 11. for 5. r. 15. p. 69. l. 9. natuall r. mutuall The Contents of the severall SECTIONS Sect. I. The Case and the Question upon it stated Sect. II. The frame of this Government as it is phansyed in the Fuller Answer Sect. III. Of the Originall of Governing power of Monarchy and of the beginnings of Government in this Land Sect. IV. Of the Coordination of three Estates in Parliament and of the Supremacy of Power Sect. V. Of the Supply which is phansyed upon the former Coordination Sect. VI. Of the finall resolution of this States Indgement and of the power of declaring Law Sect. VII The finall resolution is not arbitrary in the two Houses but only in the three Estates Sect. VIII A confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Section of the former Treatise Sect. IX A Confutation of what was replied upon the second Sect. of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alledged against resistance Sect. X. A Confutation of what was replied upon the third Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XI A Confutation of what was replied upon the fourth Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the fift Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XIII An Answer to what was replied upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise FINIS
upon Jethero's advice pag. 4. How this of fes is pertinent though often hinted in this book I see not for Moses did not assume them as Counsellors about making of Lawes for neither he nor they nor both together could make any but as Officers to ease him in the execution or judging of the people according to those Laws they received from God As for the Commons in Parliament they being a representative body could not be chosen but by them they represent yet are they sent upon his command and have a trust upon them not onely from those that elected them but also from the King that sends for them to represent unto him the grievances of his people and faithfully to consult about the remedies accordingly it is in relation to his Majesty that they take the oaths of sup remacy allegiance at their admittance into the House and although they have there the power not onely of consulting but of consenting also and denying for the security of the people whom they represent yet who sees not by all this in what relation they stand to his Majesty For the Lords they are assumed by the King Bracton said above Reges associant sibi Comites Barones and we see the King calls by his Writ whom he pleases to that House nor doth it helpe that hee saith pag. 5. the Lords are Consiliarii nati born Counsellors to the State for though Nobility in some be Native yet was it at first Dative as they speake by the grace of the King We may adde here what he saith in the same place The very stile of Comites and Peers implies a Co-ordinate society with his Majesty in the Government they are in Parliament his Comites his Peers Yet Bracton tells us Rex non habet parem has no Peer gives us another reason of the stile Comites as he is cited by sir Edw Coke in Mag Charta quia sunt in Comitatu without relation to Parliament because they are either in the Traine of the King or because set in each county adregendum populum and so assumed by the King to the like end that Moses did his under Officers in ruling his people So that other place of Bracton cited by this Answerer pag. 4. Rex habet Superiorem Curiam suam viz Comites Barones is not meant of the Court of Parliament for ther 's no mention of the Commons but it follows in that place debent Regi fraenum imponere it is likely hee spoke this in favour of the Militia raised against Hen. 3. for then he wrote and might call that assembly of Earls and Barons then combined against the King curiam the higher Court or Councell But when he speaks like a Lawyer he saith plainly Rex in Regne parem habere non debet cùm par in parem non habeat poteflatem multo fortius non habeat superiorem which how it agrees with that above let this man or the skilfull in the Law judge Let us examine what reason will conclude by his argument from the style Comites it would follow thence That the Commons must be his Comites and Peers too for they are co-ordinate with his Majesty as well as the other and so this Answerer must set up three thrones one for the King another for the Lords and a third for the House of Commons I should not think any thing too honorable for the Houses of Parliament but only Majesty Now it is a rule in policy Majestas cum supremà potestate conjuncta est Majesty goes along with the supream power as in the popular State of Rome it was usually and properly said Maiestas populi Romani and so might it be said here too were this mans contrivement good but I know the honorable Houses of Parliament look not for it But we return to the beginning of pag. 5. In reading the first line of it I was in hope he would have blest us with some demonstration of this constitution to be such as he has borne us in hand it is how doth it appear that the constitution of this government is such I answer by the mutuall oath that the King people take to maintain the laws that have so constituted it Altogether inconsequent The King takes oath to maintain the Laws-therefore they are such as this man fansieth them it shews indeed an obligation on his Majesty to perform it does not shew such a co-ordination supply reserved power c. surely never any King swore to it in that sense or had reason to understand it so for he findes he is expresly bound by that oath to preserve the immuimmunities liberties of c. to protect c. which he should not be well able to do if his power might be taken from him at the pleasure of others So when he answers to that which I have said the King is King before he take the oath True but he is King but upon the same trust which his Predecessors swore to and the Oath which the Law provides for the King to take virtually bindes him before he takes it He Answers nothing unlesse he could shew that the trust which this Oath implies to be in the King was such a trust upon which the people in their first contrivement as he phansieth conditionally admitted the first King and that the Law which provided this oath was that first constitution or contrivement which would be absurd for the oath speaks the Language of later times and would not fit the Mouth of the first King in the first Coalition of Government for it binds Him to preserve the immunities of Holy Church which if it should be of an after addition to the Oath yet surely Leges and Consuetudines Angliae were in it from the beginning now those are customes of Government and customes must have some continuance of time past to make them so therefore the first King in the first Coalition of Government swore not this Oath what he shews indeed by this argument we admit that the King is bound to take the Oath is bound to perform the duty of it but this is nothing to prove such a first Constitution as he dreams of He brings a proof out of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam habet c. Principatu namque nedum Regali sed politico suo populo dominatur now the word Politico implies the Principat of many especially when opposed to Regali pa. 5. This place tells us what manner of power the King ha's does not tell us the two Houses of Parliament have such power as this man pretends We examined that Effluxam a populo above whether the power of the King was derived from the people by agreement in the first coalition of Government Here we grant the King ha's a limited power but not so limited as this Answerer would have it which he might have read in the words cited for he sees there the King ha's His Regalis potestas but
Treatise It is a known and written Law that declares the King Supreame head of the body Politike also that declares him the only supreame Governour in this Realme can the fundamentals as this man layes them beare this superstructure or rather consist with this fundamentall thus openly declared and laid in Law So it is a knowne Fundamentall Constitution that the making of Laws is in three Estates secured against each other by a power of denying and that it is in the Kings power to dissolve the Court can this consist with the fundamentalls of this mans laying Also the contrivement of the people at the supposed election of their first King was proved above altogether uncertain improbable and unreasonable What is sworn to by the Mutuall oathes of King and People wee granted above to binde them but not to prove such a Constitution What that Lex notissima is he should have done well to have expressed it for we know he is apt to deceive us with generals and to conceive where ever he meets with Fundamental Law or constitution of Government it is his Law and constitution as he hath framed it The Coordination of the three Estates we grant is fundamental Lex notissima but this power of Supply would not be so strange and new a Doctrine now if it had been then Lex Notissima Nay the Rule of Coordination is against it which when three are expresly entrusted gives not power to two unlesse it be so expressely provided in the Orinall constitution and this coordination is such that it gives us an argument against it too that the originall constitution of this Government meant there should not be a supply by two Estates because it hath setled the provision of the Kingdome in three secured against each other by a Negative voice and hath left the power of dissolving in the King which would make such a power of Supply vain Secondly we Answer to the Rule Coordinates supply only in that whereunto they are coordinate Now the two Houses are Coordinate with His Majesty only ad Consentiendum for the making new provisions of safety by new Lawes we doe not finde them Coordinate with him in command of the Militia or appointing officers for it or designing Ministers of Justice through the Kingdome therefore the Supply cannot hold in these for if one part of the body can supply the defect of another yet cannot they supply the office of the head But the Answerer may reply though the King alone is ordinarily entrusted with the Militia the designing of officers c. yet may these fall under their ordinance of Supply as the substratamateria the matter about which that ordinance may be conversant as about the meanes of preventing imminent dangers We Answer that Ordinance cannot extend it selfe farther then Law will give it leave it may not over-rule knowne Laws if it be Law and the Constitution of the Kingdome that when the preventing of imminent dangers require new provisions those provisions or new Laws be made by three Estates entrusted and strengthened with power of denying then it 's plain such supply or provision cannot be made by an ordinance and better run the hazard of inconvenience by the refusall of one then to leave the whole power in the other two Otherwise an Ordinance shall prevail to divest the King of all the power setled in Him by Law what then will become of the property of the Subject No marvaile this proceeds on to an arbitrary power as we shall have this Answerer confessing anon But he told us above Pag. 3. that the three Estates are fundamentalls If therefore the King be one of the Fundamentals according to his phrase then according to his argument Pag. 8. the King is not to be stirred out of his Place so long as the government stands for there he tels us foundations are not to be stirred so long as the building stands shall He then be like a loose stone in the Foundation to be taken out and laid aside when they shall judge He is not fit to beare his burden the Trust the Law hath put upon Him howsoever some stone in the side wall may be so used the chiefe corner stone cannot If he reply as he doth Pag. 9. This Vote or Ordinance of the two Houses takes not away the Kings negative voice in making Laws 't is not an Act of Parliament 't is but an occasional supply of this Coordination least the whole should ruine Yet will you tell us presently The Houses in case of the other parts absence and refusall are virtually the whole and have the Parliamentary power if so why then can they not make an act of Parliament as well as such an Ordinance but call it what you will Act or Ordinance whereby either King or Subject are despoiled of what is theirs by Law it matters not greatly seeing that Ordinance is of force so long as they please to judge necessary who according to this Answerer have the finall and arbitrary resolution what will it satisfie the King to tell him this is but an occasionall supply if He see it is in their powers to take or make the occasion or to let Him know that ordinarily he hath the power and is entrusted with it but upon extraordinary times and dangers it is theirs He refusing their direction if He knows it is in their power to make that distinction when they please and to apply it Or when will some think themselves safe enough to part with this power again seeing greater feares are now likely to prevaile with them for the holding it then did at first for the seizing it But he supposes Pag. 11. That the two Houses upon the absence and refusall of the other part are virtually the whole and then askes whether there be not a Parliament actually in England if so why have they not then a Parliamentary power This tearm virtually doth often stand him instead for under that he can enlarge the power of the Houses to the extent of his fancie but let us know in this great point wherein Conscience expects cleare ground to rest on whether the Law hath actually invested the Houses with such power A Parliament we grant and a Parliamentary power in it and if any deny the two Houses to bee the Parliament it is because in proper speech and in truth the name and power of Parliament which belongs to three Estates should not be restrained to two The two Houses have stil the power belonging to them and what ever is now by them presented to the King and by Him passed it is done with full power of Parliament what is done without his consent is not it is no more now then if the King were present in the House and should deny to passe a Bill for presence or absence is nothing His power of denying is all For put the case the King and the Lords should agree and the Commons stand out there were a Parliament still but where is
the Parliamentary power I doubt hee will not say the King and Lords have then the full power of Parliament but where then is this Supply will he say in the House of Commons we must call him now to his reckoning Pag. 3. where he tels us Of three Estates one is lesse then two and also to his rule he gives us Pag. 4. Coordinates supply each others failings and Pag. 11. The refusall of one part exempts not the other from their duty So that if this man hold to his own conceit hee must grant the King and Lords may Supply if the Commons refuse But if in that case he will not stand to his own reckoning and his owne Rule then must he quit his vain conceit of Supply by the two Houses in case the King refuse After this he seekes a reason of this Supply in the necessity of providing for the safety of the whole which else would be frustrated of its safety However this Resolver sleight the Observators Argument drawn from the highest end of Government the peoples safety he cannot deny but the Rule holds always finis quò ultimatior eò in fluxu potentier to that end all other subordinate stand but in the office of meanes and this is evinced by the text the higher power is a Minister for thy good Pag. 11. The Observators argument deserved to bee sleighted by the Resolver as inconsequent but it was confuted at large by shewing such meanes make not for that end the safety of the State but are remedies worse then the disease Nor hath this full Answerer strengthned the consequence one whit We grant the safety of the Common-wealth is the highest end and unto that end all other are as meanes and that the higher power ought to minister unto that end But doth it follow therefore such a Supply by divesting the Kingof His power by turning the highest Minister out of His office is the means to that end The joynt agreement of the three Estates is the meanes for new provision for that end but in case they agree not about that provision which may happen by the refusall of the Lords or the Commons or the King then that the two agreeing parts what ere they be should supply the defect of the third had beene far more reasonable then that the supply should be made onely by the two Houses i.e. by the body only without the Head For this is not only to the notorious prejudice of the Supream Head with whom the Kingdome is immediately and chiefly entrusted but also it is alame provision and argues the first Contrivement as this man fancies it very inconsiderate in not providing in case the King and Lords or the King and Commons should joyne Now as the not providing in such Cases and the power of dissolving which resides in the King doe plainly shew that such a Supply is not the Contrivement of the first Constitution but a phansie of late popular Statesmen from whom this Answerer hath borrowed it so in very deed this way of Supply would not be a meanes of safety but of more inconveniency as at this day experience teacheth us and at large was shewed in the former Treatise Therefore if the three Estates cannot joyntly agree which is the reasonable meanes of making new provision for safety There is in the King by the same Constitution power to dissolve and protect His Subjects in their Religion and properties and Liberties according to the former Lawes established And although His Majesty hath bound Himself from dissolving them without their consent for this time of which this Answerer does vainly endeavour to make advantage in many places yet have not they thereby any more power then what they should have had without that Grant and so they have acknowledged themselves To conclude Conscience cannot be truly perswaded this power of Supply is in the two Houses by the Constitution of this Government But must needs see it is inconsistent with it and with that power the known established Law declares to be in the King and therfore Conscience cannot yeeld obedience to that power in making resistance against the King The Answerer immediately after the text above cited by him The higher power is a minister for thy good hath these words Pag. 12. Yes a fine way you 'l say of preserving the King by fighting against Him So starting from the safety of the people which was there spoken of as the highest end to the Consideration of the Kings safety as if he had been struck on a suddain with the terrour of that Battle that was made against the King or else because Truth it selfe upon the mention of the higher Power wrung from him a thought and acknowledgment of His Majesty in it Well let us see how he will have the King preserved by their fighting against Him No such matter saith he the King hath a double Capacity Politique and Naturall in fighting for the preservation of the Kingdom they fight for Him in His Politique Capacity as King in that He cannot be divided from His Kingdom or Parliament They fight to disingage His Person from that unsafe and unworthy imployment those Enemies to Him and His Kingdome put it to however he be perswaded by them it is His cause that hath ingaged them it is their own guilt and danger Pag. 12. So we are usually answered when we tell them of their Hands so many times lifted up in Battle against the Lords Annointed and of Davids resolution upon it who can lift up and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26. They reply it is but against the Cavaleir's and that unworthy Company that is about Him and have thus engaged Him and in so doing they fight for the Kingdome and for the King too in His Politique Capacity A shift that will no more save them from the Guilt then it will doe Him from their violence If He had been taken away in His naturall Capacity at Keinton Battle had there been any such thing as a King at Westminster had it not divided Him in His Politique Capacity from the Parliament there take away the Body and the shadow too destroy Him in His Person or Naturall Capacity and you destroy Him in His Politique and the Parliament too which ceases upon it Nor is that distinction of His double Capacity altogether vain but only in this point of Armes and resistance by force As just sentences of Iudges against His Personall Commands are for Him in His Politique Capacity so all denyalls of active obedience to unjust personall commands why here 's all this while no power taken from Him or usurped against Him No danger to His Person to His Naturall Capacity but in resistance by force of Armes especially in a Battle against Him which not onely takes the sword out of His Hand and usurpes the power but may also take Him away in His Naturall Capacity the distinction is most vaine For the Enemies that are said here to enthrall His Person and perswade
it down right and it is for the advantage of the other that they do so The Doctor said not there was infallibility in the great Councell but wished the misled people to examine whether they have not such a thought to worke them into an implicite faith of beleeving and receiving without Examination what ever is concluded there He leaves us a private dissent of judgement from their determinations but we are bound by them from gainsaying or resistance and so it is to us inevitable Such a power of binding has a generall Councell to its decisions and why should a Civill Generall Councell of England have lesse power in it So he pag. 18. We Answer the great Councell of England has such power of binding inevitably if you adde the assent of the King as all Ecclesiasticall Councels expect the Confirmation of the supream Civill power for the binding of those that are under them to their Canons and decisions But if we keepe our selves from gainsaying or resistance will it satisfie no their Resolution or Ordinance cals us all to active obedience to Arme kill and slay and this we must believe after so many ages to be a fundamentall Law when as we heare the known Law which is inevitable to us not onely binding us from being active against His Majesty to the endangering of His Person or diminution of His Crowne and Dignity but also not suffering us to be silent or sit still when the defence of His Rights or Person requires our aid We have now done with his propositions and his discourse upon them whereby he hath wound himselfe up to the pitch of Bractons speech which he brought and rejected as too high to be attempted pag. 4. the King hath above him besides God and the Law His Court of Earles and Barons But this Answerer has placed both them and the House of Commons in that height by this finall Resolution and arbitrary inevitable Command and this reserved by them in their first choice of a King which according to the rules of Policy makes the King to have but imperium communicatum leaves the supream commanding power in them From the Premises he concludes his resolution for Conscience pag. 19. This great Centurion of the Kingdome the Parliament saies to one of this now necessary listed Army Goe and he goes to another come and he comes what other authority hath a Sheriffe to put a Malefactor to death We have had enough of the Centurion already too much God knowes of the Military Commands we should have liked it better if he had likened the Parliament to that wise and peaceable woman which gave advice to throw the Rebels heads over the walls and so the matter was ended 2 Sam. 20.18 But hath the Sheriffe no other Authority but such as a Centurion gives to Kill and Slay He ha's it derived from the only Supream Governour the King and so should every one that takes the Sword Conscience also ha's Gods warrant too first of Charity by the sixth Commandement which not onely forbids Murder but commands preservation of ours and our Neighbours life Secondly of Justice Render to all what is due to the great Councell what is due to it upon the Kings refusall lastly of obedience Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man Hence every Souldier in this Army hath warrant enough for his Conscience if he apply it I am sure his three warrants here from Gods Law are misapplyed and will not secure their Souldiers Consciences First that warrant of selfe defence and preservation tels us we must not doe it by murthering of others which may happen when our selfe preservation uses meanes not allowed by the Law it is to be regulated by if it be the defence of the body Naturall then must it be according to the Law of God and Nature if of the body Politique then according to its Law which this man has not any waies proved to prescribe this way of preservation by Subjects taking Armes we see by the Law the King is the onely supream Governor and so the Sword is put into His hand for preservation of order and executing of wrath from whom the Authority of the Sheriffe and all other Ministers of power is derived But he that takes the Sword by his owne authority and not by Commission from or under Him commits murder and shall perish by the Sword The Law is yet to make that may derive the warrant of killing and slaying from any other fountaine of power Secondly â—ender to all what is due is a good rule of Justice and tels us what is due to the King by the fift Commandement Honour and Feare and Tribute as the Apostle goes on in that place Rom. 13. but it 's misapplied by the Answerer to urge the rendring of Obedience to the Arbitrary commands of the two Houses for unto such it is not due as has been shewn though this man phancy it never so strongly Lastly The submission to every Ordinance of Man is also misapplied by him for there was never any such Ordinance or Contrivement which reserved such a power at the first Constitution of this Government as he supposes but never could prove Therefore I may conclude according to my first resolve in my former Treatise Conscience cannot finde any warrant or safe ground to goe upon for making this resistance For according to the principles of the now pleaders for this resistance It finds nothing but a pretended Constitution at a supposed Capitulating Election contriving and reserving for the people such a power finds this un reasonable in it selfe inconsistent with the usuall and established government of this Land and so cannot thinke it safe to rest on or fit to give it warrant against the known Law which places the power of Armes in the King which acknowledges him Only supreme Governour which challenges by Our Allegiance ayd and assistance from us for the defence not onely of His Person but also of His Rights His Crown and Dignity which are most injuriously wronged by this Contrivement or frame of Government and exceedingly invaded by this resistance and power of Armes raised and used against Him at this day SECT VIII A Confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Sect. of the former Treatise NOw we come to the application of what hath been hitherto said to see how it meets with what was written in the former Treatise where we shall take in the other Answerers also And first we must cast an eye over Mr. Bridge his grounds which he layes for this resistance before he enters upon the first Section He tels us there are three grounds of their proceeding by Armes 1. To fetch in Delinquents to be tryed in the highest Court. 2. To defend the State from forraine invasion 3. To preserve themselves and their Country from the insurrection of Papists And that all this is done as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of Iurisdiction over their Prince Pag. 2. That
of His power and His Ministers out of their Office sending Voluntiers and listed Souldiers into every County to force in Delinquents But he tells us they may send a Sergeant at Armes for a Delinquent therefore twenty if twenty be accused and therefore an hundred and so goes on till he has made an Army of 10000. Sergeants at at Armes pag. 6. I did not know before that the Souldiers pretended to be sent from the Parliament were all Sergeants at Armes what need so many certainly before this Army of Sergeants was raised very few would have served to have warned in Delinquents it has made many a sorrowfull Father in the Countrey to see his sonne called to such an imployment whom he had bound Apprentise in London to another trade Nay the whole Kingdom has rued the sending of such and so many Sergeants at Armes who do not onely arrest mens persons as they please but also plunder their Estates and does earnestly desire that as it is pretended Delinquents must be brought to triall by Law so they may be fetched or forced in by the way and meanes the Law as was said has provided He concludes with an Answer to an Objection If the power of the Prince be derimed from the people then they may take it away when abused and depose their Prince Answ No we doe not say so the people need not think of such an inference because they never gave away the power of selfe preservation pag. 7. These are but cold denials though you say they need not go so farre yet you have opened and paved the way for them to be led on so far upon these principles and what shall withhold them because they have the power of selfe preservation by taking Armes whereas if they had not that power it were the way to breake all in pieces pag. 7. So it seemes the way to keepe people in obedience is to give them liberty of Rebelling but what securitie has the Prince that they will trust him with the power againe if a few seditious Preachers tell them their Prince will not use the power well if they trust him again with it they gave it him at first and now they may conferre it upon another who will manage it better in order to their safety Or if they doe lay downe their Arms and trust Him with power again it shall be to his prejudice he shall be forced first to consent to what they please and what this is called by our Law every one that understands any thing knows Then in Answer to what was said in the first Section of the former Treatise that our Divines by denying resistance unto Subjects doe not endeavour to raise the King to an arbitrary power for they allow the denying of Obedience to all commands unlawfull by the Law of God or the established Lawes of the Land M. Bridge first would seem to returne me to a Catalogue of Protestant Divines allowing resistance in some Cases and then tells me if we may not resist we yeeld the King an arbitrary power For His forreigne Divines the testimony of the Centurists speaks not to his purpose Of the French and Low-Countrey Divines he brings no testimonies but for proofe tells us we know their practice so I for Answer may returne him his owne words we know what has beene the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit to give in witnesse but this I will say for them they can justifie the cause of their Armes better then M. Bridge can doe his Now for our English Divines its plaine they speake of such Government such States such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom or this time yet doe some of them allow of resistance in some cases true for since the revolt of the Low-Countries and the first motions of the Protestants in France I finde in many of our Divines a willingnesse to excuse as much as may be But if we looke beyond those times into our Homilies we shall finde the Doctrine of our Church expresly against Subjects taking of Armes Then he tells us though we may deny Obedience to the Kings unjust Commands yet if we may not resist but suffer when He pleases to punish for not obeying we raise him to an arbitrary power Pag. 12. Answer To say He may command any thing not repugnant to Gods Law and punish lawfully for not obeying is to raise him to an Arbitrary power but to say He may not command any thing against the Law of the Land and if He punish for not obeying such His command it is unjust and against the Law yet unlawfull also for us to take Arms against Him for it is not to raise him to an arbitrary power For Arbitrary and limited power is distinguished by the Restraint which the Law or Constitution of Government casts upon the governing power not by the abuse of that power which sometimes in the most limited Governments may break out into a licentious arbitrarynes If force and not Law must tell us what Arbitrary power is and releeve us against it in the Prince I fear we should too often feel it from the hand of Subjects The Fuller Answerer would make me contradict my selfe in denying the King an arbitrary Government Sect. 1. and yeelding him the finall Iudgement Sect. 5. Now the Reader will discern this is not my failing but his usuall mistaking of what I say the place he aimes at is Sect. 5. Pag. 26. where in answering the objection many see more then one and more safety in the Iudgement of many then of one it was said The King sees with the eyes of those many and all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy which settles the chief power and finall Iudgement in one That was for the generall which I suppose is the reason and frame of Monarchy how it was good in our King by His power of denying appears in that place for the finall Judgement was no otherwise challenged for him Now if such a Judgement of the Kings be called a finall Iudgement because it is the last and after the Judgement of many it matters not it will not infer an arbitrary power as the finall Resolution which this man placeth in the two Houses doth for if it be dissenting from the Judgement of those many it is onely Negative it is not Conclusive any other way Such I say is the Kings finall Trust or Judgement by consenting to those many or denying not by concluding or commanding any other way as he pleases The last exception of these Answerers to the first Section is against my interpretation of Omnes ordines consentientes to imply a generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses in this point of resistance First they say it is enough if the major part agree or else many Acts of Parliament would be voyd Answer however it is enough to other votes and Acts if the major part agree upon it yet
not an extraordinary example then may private and single men doe so too But t is nor for Subjects private or publique of themselves to draw armed men together The Houses when they conceived it fit to have a guard could not raise armed men for that purpose but by desiring it of the King Now we see Armies of Subjects raised by Subjects flie up and down all Countries giving the King himselfe and His men battell where they can fall upon them with advantage and yet Davids example is pretended And Mr. Bridge will yet give us one more instance from it not much unlike what the Fuller Answer had above concerning Davids fighting the Lords battels against Saul it is this David would have gone with the Philistins into battell against Saul 1 Chron. 12.19 and said to Achish what have I done that I may not goe fight against the Enemies of my Lord the King 1 Sam. 29.8 Now among those Enemies was Saul Pag. 15. Desperate shifts that these men are put to when pretences and simulations must be made Scripture grounds for Conscience to secure it in battell against the King David a little before had made shew of madnesse before King Achish 1 Sam. 21. had pretended to Achish he had made an inrode upon the South of Judah 1 Sam. â—7 now might Mr. Bridge as well inferre therefore he was mad therefore he did fight against the Subjects of Saul and its lawfull for Subjects to fight against Subjects of their King but enough of this In the example of the Priests and King Vzziah out of 2 Chro. 26. he cannot see why they should be commended for Valiant men if not for resistance nor how it appeares by Scripture that Gods smiting him with leprosie should discharge him of the Kingdom Pag. 17. Surely they deserve the Commendation of Valiant men that when a King doth or commandeth unlawfully dare withstand either by a home reproofe or by withdrawing from him the holy things he is not to meddle with For the other matter he might have remembred that by the Law the Lepet was to be put out of the Congregation and dwell apart which is not consistent with Government therefore it is said of this King He was a Laper and dwelt in a severall house and Jotham his sonne reigned in his stead 2 King 15.5 What is replyed by Mr. Bridge or Mr. Burrowes upon the Answer to the example of Elisha may be answered by what is said above Sect. 8. concerning the preservation of the body Naturall and body Politique and concerning the sending for Delinquents Now for the instances that were brought in the former Treatise against Resistance or Armes taken up by Subjects To that of the power of the Trumpet placed in the Supreame Magistrate Numb 10. M. Bridge replyes The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the Supreame Power hath given Commandment for For it is an established Law that the Parliament should have power to send for Delinquents and such Law is to be obeyed because as the Doctor saith Sect. 1. it has the Kings deliberate consent however he is pleased now to sound a retreat by his suddain will pag. 20 21. The King has given His consent to that Law that gives power to the Houses to send for and censure Delinquents and is still willing that accordingly all Armies laid aside Delinquents should be brought to a legall triall but He never gave consent to a Law that should inable them to raise Armes under that pretence for there is no Law prescribes them that way or means to bring in their Delinquents M. Burrowes replies That of the Trumpet was a Iudiciall Law and binds onely in the equity of it Else it would be a sinne to put the Militia into any other hands for any time for it might not then be done no not with Moses his consent True it was a Judiciall Law and that might have told M. Burrowes his many exceptions from the circumstances and specialties of that Law were needlesse But an equity he grants and so there is in all Judiciall Lawes and we require no more in this then the equity of it which tells us and we see it in all Governments the power of the Trumpet or calling assemblies for War is still placed in the supream Magistrate and cannot be put into other hands without His consent To that place of 1 Sam. 8.18 The people had no remedy against the oppression of their unjust Kings but crying to the Lord M. Bridge replyes Samuel tells them not what should be their duty but what their punishment The Lord will not heare you pag. 20. It seems their duty was to take Armes and bring their Kings into order but he tells them not of their duty he tells them of their punishment It was indeed their punishment because all the remedy they had which was by crying to the Lord should not helpe them which had not been such a punishment if they had meanes to help themselves by power of Armes the power of selfe preservation as these men call it To that which was said of the Prophets It is a marvellous thing that none of them should call upon the Elders of Judah and Israel for this duty of resistance against their cruell and Idolatrous Kings Master Bridge replies see here is a Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings messenger Pag. 22. How happy are these men in their application of Scripture But what Elders were these of the Citie without doubt where Elisha was And I feare that some of the Elders of our chief City have been animated by Preachers that never were brought up in the Schooles of the Prophets upon such abused examples to lay hold on the Kings Messengers comming with not such an illegall commission as this did but lawfull and necessary Commands and Proclamations Againe what did Elisha call upon these Elders for to imprison the messenger that 's more then the text will bear unlesse to shut the doore against a man be to imprison him for this performance there needed not the authority of the Elders had any else been with the Prophet they might have done it without command had they known the Messengers errand as the Prophet did It is no more then any Debter may doe shut the door of his house against a Sergeant though comming legally to arrest him Had our City Elders that now have Forces at their command to secure themselves against all Ministers of Justice that have entred the Kings House and Castles keeping the gates shut against Him done no more but contained themselves within their owne houses keeping the door fast against the Sergeant the King would not have had cause to complain of them To that place 1 Sam. 8.18 and to that observation that none of the Prophets called upon the Elders for this duty of resistance the summe of M. Burrowes answer is Pag. 118. and 122. the Argument is Negative and he brings severall Instances negative which hold
when a Prince Commands a thing unlawfull He is not so pag. 23. Answ A lawfull Prince though commanding unlawfully is still the minister of God for our good i.e. appointed for that end and the power he is invested with though abused to the execution of such a command is the ordinance of God And that is it which forbids our resistance according to the Apostles reasons here which are taken not from the actuall ministration of any prince as if we ought to obey when he commands justly and might resist when unjustly but from the end for which God has ordain'd him to minister for our good from which end though princes sometime swerve as these Emperors did usually yet are they not to be resisted for that strikes at the power and Ordinance it selfe Yea M. Bridge a little after acknowledgeth that inregard of their place they are Gods ministers but in regard of the unlawfull thing commanded they are not Therefore when princes command unlawfully we must look upon them with a double regard the one to the thing commanded the other to their place to the unlawfull command we must return a deniall of obedience but in regard of their place use no resistance Deniall of obedience can sever the illegall command from the place and power they bear but resistance cannot for it cannot oppose the unlawfull command but by usurping the power and invading the place God hath appointed them in But M. Bridge concludes It is the Doctors continuall mistake to thinke the Apostle forbids the resisting of the higher powers in their unlawfull commands when as he forbids the resisting of them in things lawfull We must beare with the importunity of these men who wil not conceive the force of the Apostles reasons though laid opâ—n to their eyes which was so often done in the former Treatise that they tell me I had worn the place thred bare and yet they will not see the web and texture of it Once more therefore if the Aoostle forbid resistance only in things lawfull it would not have bin a sufficient instruction whether we respect the duty of subjection which by this would not have bin directed how to answer the unlawfull commands of Princes or whether we consider those higher powers which then were tyrannicall usualy commanding things unlawfull also this would have bin the way to leave the gap open to Rebellion for how easy would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully These Answerers it seems are still willing to keep the gap open or else they might have seen how the Apostle brings reason enough to stop up the way against all resisting of power though abus'd for he takes it not from the use of the power but from the end for which God ordained it the higher powers then being nothing answerable to that end not ministring for good but rather subverting of that which was good and just We come now to the other scripture 1. Pet. 2.13 To the King as supream or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him Out of which was proved that the higher power in St. Paul not to be resisted by any was the King in that state and that in this Kingdome All who have power fall under that distinction of St. Peter Now see how acutely M. Bridge replyes for these men have simplicity enough to abuse the people Dr. Bilson saith he tels us by higher powers must be understood not onely Princes but all publique States where the People or Nobles have the same intrust to the sword as princes have in this Kingdome How then will the Dr. have the King only meant by these higher powers As if the D. meant to prove that a King was the supream or higher power in the republicke of Vinice or the Low-countries But the Dr. acknowledges the Parliament is the highest Court of justice therefore they fall under these words the higher powers It is the highest Court but you must not then exclude the king in whom is the fountain of power we farther grant the two Houses by themselves doe also fall under the words higher powers in regard of the people but not under the word supream so were those that were sent by the Emperor higher powers yet subjects and inferior to him that is here called supream Yea but as Calvin and other Interpreters tell us the prononn him is referred to God by whom all in authority are sent ibid 'T is true all are sent by God which might serve to check the bad construction and use these men make of the foregoing words every Ordinance of man But it is as true that the Governours of the provinces where these scattered Christians lived unto whom St. Peter writes were sent by the King or Roman Emperor and that he is here called supream which being a word including a relation might have told M. Bridge that al who had authority beside in the Roman Empire were inferiour to him and immediatly sent by him though originally their power was also from God or from above as our Saviour acknowledgeth in Pilate the Governor of Judea under that Emperor The Fuller Answerer replyes The D. takes advantage in the words Supream and Sent but the two Houses are called not sent a difference at least as great as between to and from Pag. 23. Very good It seemes he will have the people suppream that sends them from the Country to the King so are the Clerks of the Convocation also sent from them that chuse them We speak not of Terms of place but Reasons of Authority if they be called by him the authority is his they come not of themselves but at his call therefore sent by him But he addes They are a Coordinate part with him in the supream power otherwise they could not hinder him from making Laws nor finally declare Law without him the two highest acts of supream power Declare Law without him then are they supreame without Him and he is sent by them He must go and do as they declare Can we think that he sends for them with such an intention or that they which are called to advise and consent come to such a purpose to do the businesse without him But enough of this feigned Coordination and of the Supremacy above Sect. 4. SECT X. A Confutation of what is replyed upon the third Section of the former Treatise AT the beginning of that third Section it was said The ground-work of their Fundamentalls is this Power is originally in from the people therefore if the Prince intrusted with the power wil not discharge his trust it falls to the people to see to it they may reassume the power and resist M. Bridge replyes Then indeed it falleth to the people to look to it which they do as an act of selfe preservation not of jurisdiction over their Prince and this is not to reassume the power or turn the Prince out of Office as if we went about to depose our King Pag.
52.53 For your act of selfe preservation and Jurisdiction we examined them above Sect. 8. if we consider what power of Law and Arms is now challenged usurped by subjects I think it cannot but appear to be a resuming of the power entrusted with the King for it leaves him none and a turning him out of office for the time though you intend not to depose him but to trust him again when and how you please And according to M. Bridge his similitude so much used amongst them if the carelesse steersman during the storm be made to stand by and another set at the stern by the passengers then is that steers-man out of office or put from the execution of his office for the time but now for the application of this his similitude The Prince is not as the steerseman for he executes by his Ministers but as he that stands above and commands to the Star-bord or Lar-bord if the Prince command amisse that is contrary to the Law His Ministers under him for execution may deny actively to obey and may give within the bounds of their place and office direction according to the law and their oaths this does not put him out of office Then to that which was said in the same Sect That the governing power as it is a sufficiency of authority for command coercion running through every form of governmēt is from God though the limitations and qualifications of it for the severall wayes of executiō it be of man by consent proved Ro. 13.1 The powers that are c. M. Bridge replies None denieth it only he will make it inconsistent with what was said before But if none deny it why then upon this principle of derivation of power from the people do you ground your resistance for in doing so what power or sufficiency of authority for command or coercion do you leave your Prince the thing he has received as you deny not from God alone But let us see how its inconsistent By those words The powers are of God Rom. 13.1.1 the D. must understand the power it selfe of Magistracy distinguished from the qualifications thereof and the person designed thereto how then did he say Sect. 2. that the higher power in Paul is the same with the King as supream in Peter Ans The power of Magistracy abstractively taken may be these words be proved to be of God though the higher powers here be understood concretely with connotation of the persons that bear the power for they are here proposed as objects of our obedience which cannot be directed but upon power in some person and here it 's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the powers that are now power cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent but in some person Yet do these words prove the power it selfe to be of God for why else should these Magistrates or Princes chosen by the people be said to be powers ordained of God but because the power and authority they bore was from God In like manner the Dr. proves the power is of God because the Magistrate is called the minister of God slipping from the power it self to the Person designed to the power for the power it selfe is not called the minister of God Good stuffe I must come home to M Bridge to make him understand the force of my inference The Major of Norwich is the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King will M. Brigde reply no for the power it self is not the Major or call'd the Minister of the King Then the Answerers come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St Peter the Ordinance of man which in the former Treatise was said to be taken subjectively in regard of the power it selfe which is from God causally and placed in man as the Subject and if there be in that phrase any causality or Creation or invention of man implyed it is to be understood of the qualifications and severall wayes of executing that power in severall formes of Government Hereupon the Fuller Answer and M. Bridge every where takes it for granted by me that Monarchy Aristocracry and Democracy are equally the inventions of man which followes not as was explained above Sect. 3. concerning the originall of the governing power and the first beginning of Monarchy Lastly M. Bridge concludes that my proving of the governing power to be of God but the qualifications of it the designation of the person to be of man gaineth nothing against resistance or deposing of a Prince that doth not discharge his trust for stil the peoplemay say we may alter the government and depose the Person because he was of our designing Pag. 55. Nothing so for if they resist they usurp a power that God ha's not given them and invade the power that God ha's given Him if they depose Him they quite take away that power which God and not they placed in Him for although they elected and desgned the Person yet is He the Minister of God from God he ha's His Power and Commission as if Citizens should take upon them to turn the Major that ha's his power and Commission from the King out of office because they chose him For altering the government unlesse they be altogether free as upon the utter failing of the Royall Line they cannot doe it no nor alter any Lawes or qualifications of the governing power for they were not made by them alone but also and cheifly by the consent and authority of the Prince Vpon that place Psal 82. I have said yee are Gods alleadged in the former Treatise the Fuller Answerer replyes all Rulers are Gods alike that word of God comes to them All alike to Pilate as well as Caesar pag. 24. This text was brought to prove the governing power was derived from God because Rulers were so called as His Vicegerents as having their Commission from Him and in his stead over the people this was urged to take off the derivation of that power from the people He Answers Inferiour Magistrates are Gods too that 's nothing to the purpose but Gods alike that 's plainly false for that word and power comes first to the Supream and from Him to them that are sent by Him from Caesar to Pilate Inferiour Magistrates are as Gods to the people under them but the Supream as a God to those Gods Aaron was so to the people but Moses was as God to Aaron Exod. 4.16 SECT XI A Confutation of what is replyed upon the fourth Section in the former Treatise HIs fourth Section saith the Fuller Answerer is spent against the Peoples reassuming the power be trusted to the King which no man maintaines what need they reassume that which in the first constitution of Government they reserved pag. 24. This man ha's often told us the power of Arms is ordinarily intrusted to the King that by the people in the first Constitution of government to use it for the safety of the State VVell He
does not use it so as they conceive they therefore dispose of it taking the Sword into their own hands what is this but a reassuming or which is worse and more unreasonable an using of an higher power reserved and inherent in themselves which is to place the very Supremacie in the people as ha's been often shewen above M. Bridge bestowes more labour upon this Section But first He complaines The Dr charges us that we hold the people may reassume the power entrusted to the Prince making the World beleive we contend for the deposing of Kings pag. 24. What some of you have contended for all this while the Lord knowes that knowes your Hearts yet this we know the same principles will carry you so farre But there is a difference between deposing the Prince and reassuming the power for though you have not deposed the King yet have you seized the Militia and Armes of the Kingdome have commanded obedience from all His people have left Him nothing ye could take from Him and what is this but as much as in youlyeth to reassume the power if there be any impropriety in the speech it is in calling that a reassuming which indeed is rather a taking away or dispoyling Him of that you never gave Him But if you doe not reassume the power what meanes the difference you make of things disposed by trust from things disposed by donation because they may be recalled these may not so you say Pag. 25. and in applying it you tell us the King ha's His Power by trust from the people and should have proceeded to confesse they may recall i. e. reassume it you must hold it if you hold to your principles But let me tell you that God entrusts the Prince with the power and with the people and therefore the people cannot reassume it And when they elect one to bear that power they doe commit themselves to his trust not giving so much as receiving a benefit and such elected Kings as was said in the former Treatise are the Lords Annointed and his Ministers Then cannot Princes whose coming to the Crowne is meerly Pactionall be deposed for they are also the Lords Annointed and his Ministers but the Doctor granted that the argument speaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power has force in Governmente meerly Elective and Pactionall Pag. 26. The Doctor by way of supposition passed it over in these words although such argument may seeme to have some force in states meerly Pactionall to the undenyable clearing of this State from the danger of such forfeiture But if M. Bridge will have me deliver my opinion absolutely the reasons above mentioned will not suffer me to thinke the people may depose any King they have chosen upon what conditions soever they admitted him and if they should chuse admit one upon such condition of forfeiture it were turpis Conditio most unreasonable the very Seminary of Jealousy and sedition neither profitable for King nor people a plain encroachment of the peorle upon the governing power which was at first derived from God not through their hands and should alwayes be left in the Governour sufficient to rule them The Doctor also confesseth it is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elsewhere yet will he not have the King claime by it pag. 27. It is like they were so as generally among the Heathen they began by election what then must our King now claime by the first Kings in this Land and Conscience be put to drive into the obscure fabulous times before Caesar or Brute his entrance for that firstelection We are upon the English government which followed the Saxons or rather upon the Norman which followed the Conquest and as I said in that place how can Conscience be satisfied that the argument drawn from the supposed first Election to prove the peoples assuming this power can have any force in this government which began not so but as we see by the entrance of the Saxons and Normans Thus it is with our Prince although he succeeded the Conqueror yet doth he also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Commonwealth unto His Crowne pag. 28. That was not the Consent of the first supposed election but an after Consent following the Conquest as the Prince and the People could agree which agreement was not likely to leave them a power of resistance Now we see the Doctors mind plainly that he contends for an Arbitrary government for he saith pag. 11. the Emperors ruied absolutely and arbitrarily and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Manarchs but by force of Armes the way that the Saxons and Normans made themselves Masters of this people The Doctor did not contend for an arbitrary government but did often because he knew he should meet with those that would made bad construction of his words expresly declare the contrary His intent was to answer the Reply there made that those Emperors might not be resisted because they were absolute by shewing they made themselves so by Armes and if the people could not upon any former right refist in that Empire no more can they doe in this upon pretence of right by a first election for here also the Government began in Armes None of my Adversaries have bitten at the edge and strength of this answer but only catched at the shadow of those two words Conquest and Arbitrary More was spoken above of Conquest Sect. 6. and this I may adde We see in the titles of many of our Kings before the Acts of Parliament made in their times a reference to the Conquest as Edward the third after the Conquest which does relate not only to the Edward before the Conquest but also to the Conquest it selfe as to a beginning of claime and government or else the number should have none on and our Edward the third should have been numbred the fourth So Henry the seaventh and Henry the eight after the Conquest quest which relates to no such name before but only to the Conquest as a beginning of Claime and Government Then the Doctor comes to the matter of Covenant to which we say Every breach of Covenant makes not a forfeiture but we esteem a necessity of a Covenant which we see in Kings designed by God 1 Chron. 11.3 and that this bindes as well the King to the People as the People to the King pag. 29. That Covenant was not there a Condition on which those Kings were admitted to the Crown no more is it in this Kingdom but a confirmation and strengthning of their naturall duties by promises and Oaths That every breach the Prince makes in that Covenant should forfeit his power you cannot say indeed for shame but you canenlarge the breach as you please til you have made it wide enough for Armies of seduced people to enter in upon Him And we cannot but observe how you prepare for it in those words the King as well
his Rights and power where with he is invested by law then it was for Subjects to force him from them and this is not against Aristotle who speaking of Kings in Barbarous Nations that have a power very neare to Tyranny those Kingdomes saith he have their security because the Government is established by law and the Custom of the Nation l. 3. pol. c. 14. Will this man then have Aristotl's reasons belonging to such Governments as he described take place here against the Regall power established by law and the Custom of the Nation which establishment might give us Security too but for such unquiet spirits as this man pleads for One step farther this Answerer has also a long plea against Tyrants for the forceable bringing them to account and taking them away upon which after he has spent many pages he layes the conclusion thus It is lawfull for the Kingdom to depose a Tyrant Pag. 25. but many of his proofes seem to allow it may be don by assassination I will not say it is his opinion but he tells us of the praise of Cassius and Brutus that they were Romanorum Vltimi and accordingly styles some in resistance now against the King Anglorum Vltimos he speakes of the taking away of Caligua Nero Domitian of the sentence of Plotinus Evil Kings rule by the Cowardlines of their Subjects of which more below so that the people had need to use more discretion in refusing such instances then this man did in alledging them but if it must be done by deposing his fellow Answerers are against it and for the two Parliaments which he cites the Observatour tells us No King was ever deposed by a free Parliament let this man make the application He tells me he cannot find what I spoke out of Tertullian his Apol. yet cites me words within two lines of it It runs thus in the Author Si hostes non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum Copiarum Vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas Castella Castra Cui bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis si secundum istam disciplinam non magis occidiliceret quà m occidere Let the Answerer Consture these words and he shall easily perceive they will render the sense that I gave of them The Christians had number and force sufficient to resist but they had not warrant And if he had looked a little before these words he might have seen Tertullian affirming the Christians had none such as Cassius among them Then out of his great reading but small judgement for he seems to turn his books by their Indices onely he tells us He believes the primitive Divines held not such Tenets as are of late started up concerning Kings for if they did surely the Parliament should have heard of it Pag. 22. I beleive they did not indeed hold such as are newly started up by those that the Houses have been willing to heare for my part it was not my purpose though the performance had not been difficult to tell the Parliament what the primitive Divines held but only to let the people know what Scripture and reason taught them to hold and rest upon But you give us some instāces out of antiquity 1. Theoderet cites Plotinus his saying Evil men raign by reason of the Cowardlines of their subjects we must not so think of providence as to think our selves nothing Ans If Plotinus had spoken to your sense for the Deposing of Tyrants the Authority had rested barely on Plotinus for Theoderet cites him not to any purpose concerning Kings but only to shew that Plotinus acknowledged Providence Nor is your sense the meaning of Plotinus for his drift is to shew that Providence expects our endeavours not to the deposing or killing of Tyrantrs as you desperatly insinuate and therefore translate the word Cowardlines which here signifies slothfulnesse effeminacy luxury but to the attaining of an happy and quiet life unto which purpose he there shewes how some men do bear the punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their sloath and luxury how others though evill yet being laborious do reap more fruit of their tillage and accordingly how evill men rule through the negligence and sloathfulnesse of others that is they being sedulous doe gain the Dominion or being in it they turne evill for the punishment of the sloath and vitiousnesse of their Subjects for it followes immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have left out this is just just how that they should be so punished and no reason their happinesse should be procured by providence or good Governours when they will doe nothing towards it themselves this is the full and only meaning of Plotinus Ennead 3. l. 2. cir med Secondly Nicephorus you say tells us of the Godly zeale of a Nobleman who took down Dioclesians Proclamation and tore it in pieces I could also tell you out of Scripture of Peters zeale who did strike with the sword in defence of his Master but was rebuked for it for the zeale may be good and commendable when the action is not so but an excesse and not to be drawn into a Rule or example Thirdly That Nicephorus tells us The Christians under the King of Persia fled to Rome for succor and how Atticus then Bishop of Rome obtained aid for them and they were denyed to the Persian King demanding his fugitive Subjects we acknowledge such a story in Nicephorus though no such matter when Atticus was Bishop of Rome unlesse you should mean new Rome that is Constantinople it seems Nicephorus his manner of Calling those of that Eastern Empire by the name of Romans deceived you but what does the true part of your story prove that Subjects may fly from their persecuting King or that one Prince may protect the Subjects of another Prince when they are come into his Dominions for releife be it so neither of them will help your cause But enough of these impertinences SECT XIII An Answer to what was replyed upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise IT was there said The defence of Religion and the Subjects Liberty can be no other then pretences of this War and It concern's them that will resist upon the Principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people To these and the like sayings Mr. Bridge Replyes These are sad charges bold and scandalous assertions to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with Hypocrisie He declamed against uncharitablenesse in others where is now the Charity of this man These were not Charges upon a Parliament but upon the chiefe Contrivers of and Actors in this Resistance as Mr Bridge might have observed in the former Treatise upon these indeed they will lye sad and heavy when he that knowes the heart shall discover the Hypocrisie and all those generous and honest and noble spirits to whose eares the true information of things abroad is not suffered to
CONSCIENCE SATISFIED That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by SUBjECTS BY WAY OF REPLY unto severall Answers made to a Treatise formerly published for the Resolving of Conscience upon the CASE ESPECIALLY Unto that which is entituled A fuller Answer By H. FERNE D. D. c. Speake unto the Elders of Iudah saying what are yee the last to bring the King back to His House seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the King 2 Sam. 19.11 Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4.5 OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the Vniversity 1643. To the Conscientious Readers among the People TO you especially this is intended who professing to make a Conscience of your wayes have hitherto been led on in the dangerous and perverse way of Resistance and disloyaltie to give you some check and call you at least to a thought of the violent Course you were in pursuit of there was a Treatise formerly directed to you for your better help in the examination of your Way and the Resolving of your Consciences for it was marvailous to behold how men pretending Religion and Conscience should be so securely carryed on without all warrant so hood winckt with an implicite faith against the cleere light of the Law of God and this Land meeting them in the face which faith as by reason of its blindnesse it is most contrary to a Conscience desirous to be informed so the blinder it is the stronger it is and leaves a man miserably deceived with the conceipt of a Conscience well fatisfied To hold you on in this blinde devotion Foure Answerers have appeared for you against the aforesaid Treatise that you may at least say you have foure for one but if you take them all and bray them in a Mortar together you shall not beate out of them any true and reall Causes of these your Armes but Pretences onely nor any warrant from the Law of God or of this Land to justifie your taking Armes upon such Causes were they never so true and reall That you may more easily discern what is in them thereby the truth I have takē them in peices for you and by this Reply shewen you what is adulterate It is chiefly directed against M. Bridge his book and the Fuller Answer against that because it appeares under the Licence and Authority of Them he pleads for and is framed more to the capacity of the Vulgar against This because it is cryed up among the more Intelligent of the Party and carries an appearing depth of Reason though indeed no otherwise then stained waters doe which seem deep through the darknesse of their Colour What is materiall in M. Burrowes you shall finde repeated in Theirs or his own words and receiving answer With that other Answer which appeares without name but with a Margin full of Greek and Latin I dare trust you so that you will beware of one thing that dangerous discourse he has for the suppressing and taking away of Tyrants and will promise me another thing that you will not proceed in this unjustifiable way without direct and positive warrant for Conscience to rest on Yet shall you have something in particular to this Answerer in the 12. Section Before that Fuller Answer came to my hands I was told by one that had reason to know I should receive answer from a grave Divine but having perused it I found little of the Divine lesse of his Gravity but a phansy both ridiculous and dangerous He has set before his book a Premonition wherein he has painted out the Resolver under the severall shapes of birds and beasts as his flitting phansy led him a very peice of Pictured Tapestry fitter to hang before the entrance of a Stage then of a Treatise concerning Conscience but which is worst of all concern's not me onely but every good Subject in his book he has phansied such a frame of Government here in this Land that he has marr'd it in the Making for by an unheard of Coordination he has contrived it into a plain Popular State I held my selfe many wayes though this Age has had books enough to teach it duty engaged to answer for my own for yours for Truths sake I found my selfe much abused by mistakes and odious imputations especially of the Full Answerer but you worse by deceiving pretences Truth worst of all by false Principles and Doctrines given out under its name I desire you would understand what was spoken by me in the former Treatise by way of Assertion Conclusion or generall Rule concerning the two Houses was but a sacrificing to Truth from a Conscience not simply devoted to man what was related as matter of Fact did either not concern them or not touch them with any such foule aspersion as the Fuller Answerer would make you beleeve My Conscience is clear and my paper was not stained with such blots For disaffection to Parliaments wherewith I am charged I will not say how far my heart went along with This in the way of approbation but thus much I will say I alwayes had and still have to Parliaments affection enough though not to make me a Rebell to the light of Reason and Rules of Conscience or disloyall to His Majesty yet enough to ground any due obedience upon My heart would faile me as hers did upon the departure of glory from Israel 1 Sam. 4. to think how the Name of Religion and Authority of Parliament would suffer in after Times could they justly be entitled to the enquiry of these But I take it to be the desire of all good men and Loyall Subjects yea of the King himselfe That Parliaments should flourish in their due power and freedom knowing that neither he nor they can suffer by such I presume that many of the Thousands which follow his Majesty have engaged themselves in the Cause not only out of meer duty of Allegiance but also out of a sense of that very desire they are Confident is in Him to the continuance of Parliaments being such for the most part as have no other hope of advantage by the service then peaceably to enjoy what by the Law of the Land they may call their own such whose hearts God hath touched as he did theirs that went with Saul when some children of Belial despised him saying how shall this man save us 1 Sam. 10. Should I bring in the Kingdome as Ioab did the suborned Widdow of Tekoah like a woman in mourning apparell to speak the truth you would hear her Complaining Her Sonns have striven together in the field and smitten and slaine one another but for the iniquity let the King and his Throne be guiltlesse 2 Sam. 14. and farther adding Let the name of Religion be sacred and the Authority of Parliament blamelesse but there are certain Men upon whom the iniquity will lye heavy as the grave-stone and upon whose tombs if this Land give them
look upon them as the supposed causes of their Armes And first I cannot but wonder why among these particulars here 's no mention of Religion when as the people are made to beleeve that 's it they fight for happily he included it in the c. as indeed in the consultations of these unhappy daies the care of it though timely moved by worthy Members of both Houses has been cast off to the fagge end of other more necessary occasions that I may not say Designes a likely way to make all prosper When the people are dealt with by such men as these Answerers then Religion is the main Engine to draw them into Armes and indeed were they not abused with that plausible pretence they could never have been so farre engaged against their Soveraigne but when these men enter the lists with an Adversary about the cause of this warre Religion is not insisted on not once touched in this expresly declined in the other Answers but Nature is rather sought unto by them for a ground of selfe preservation for upon strict examination these men know it will appear what actuall invasions have been made upon Religion against the known Lawes of this land and who are to answer for them they know also what offence it would give to severall Sects which are and will be alwaies serviceable to new designes should Religion be either countenanced as it is by Law established or any one way declared for But secondly I would fain know whether they can in Conscience be perswaded that some actuall invasions of Lawes and Liberties can be a sufficient cause for Subjects to Arme and Resist when it evidently appeares their Soveraigne is not bent to continue in that destructive way will it not suffice if he restore those Liberties and withdraw the encroachments made upon them If he promise security and passe severall Acts of Grace for further assurance of them If he be content that All Armes laid aside the Law shall judge who are Delinquents and accordingly censure them They that have formerly written for Resistance in some Cases have thought it unreasonable that Subjects should pretend to Armes till they find their Prince in such a Condition as was insinuated in the case proposed viz. Bent or seduced to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion or to make havock of the Common-wealth or Church as D. Willet ha's it in Rom. 13. q. 17 and as we see by the limitations testimonies examples in Paraeus upon Rom. 13. and in Phil. Par. his answer to Mr Owen But our Pleaders for Resistance at this day because they cannot find His Majesty in such a condition or hope to make men that know any thing of His Personall Vertucs or His Acts of Grace passed this Parliament believe he is so bent doe now pretend they have cause enough for taking Armes what ever the Kings mind be and although there be no such horrible things intended by him as the Doctor speakes of so Mr Buâ—r pag. 140.141 and to the same puâ—pose this Fuller Answer insists upon actuall invasions of Liborvies Lawes as the cause of their Armes Yet that they may seem to have better pretence of Reason for what they doe and more win upon the people that least know the gratious disposition of their Soveraigne towards them they doe endeavour to charge His Majesty with the like destructive intentions as were to be supposed in the case To this purpose we find this Answerer every where rendring the reason of their taking Arms to be bâ—â—â—use the King refuses to performe His trust and in the first page because His Majesty has drawn in Delinquents to be a party in Armes thereby to dissolve or remove the arliament where he puts the Cause upon His Majesties intention And we well remember upon His Majesties first Guard at Yorke it was I will not say voted above given out among the people He intended to make Warre against His Parliament and still we have it urged as a Cause of these Arms that His Majesty is seduced by wicked Councell and the like Therefore the Case being so laid upon his supposed intentions to continue in a subversive way of Lawes Liberties the question upon it was put to the full for the rationall part whether such a case being supposed or granted it were Lawfull for Subjects to take Armes and resist Then for the other part of the question which concerned matter of Fact Whether that case were now i.e. whether it were true of His Majesty which they supposed and took for granted and endevoured to make the people believe of Him it was of a second consideration and examined after by it selfe Every mean understanding might easily conceave this to be the sense of the Question the briefe of the Cause and of my Treatise But this Answerer it seems had a discourse of the power of Parliamâ—nâ—s lying by him for no man will think it occasioned by my book but applyed to it and therefore thought fit to quarrell at the Question as proposed by mee and in stead of my three Resolves to give the Reader three Propositions of his own he should have made them moe but for observing number And then he boasts How many weekes soever the Doctor has been about the Treatise it is well known to many the Answer cost not many houres the doing pag. 3. he means the applying of what was done before but any one may perceive by his confused jumbling of things and his frequent mistakes when ever he repeats and answers what I had written that he was ambitious of doing the businesse hastily rather then surely Wee 'l follow him as we may first examining how he makes good his Propositions or grounds he goes on then how he applyes them to what I had written where we shall tak in the other Answers as occasion requires SECT II. The frame of this Government as it is fancied in the Fuller Answer HIs whole resolution of the Cause is laid down in his first Proposition which is this The Parliament may with good Conscience in defence of the King Lawes and Government established when imminently endangered take up Armes without or against the Kings Personall commands if He refuse His other two Propositions are subservient to this tending to the proofe of it That the finall result of this States judgment what those Lawes Dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament Prop. 2. That in this finall resolution the People are to rest and in obedience thereto may with good Conscience bear and use Armes Prop. 3. To make this good he first endeavours to shew this Monarchy is mixt by a Coordination of the two Houses with the King in the very supremacy of power it selfe so he pag. 3. Whereupon if the King refuse to provide for the safety of the Kingdome according to their advice then His coordinates the two Houses must according to their trusts supply so he tells us p. 3.8.10 And that this power was reserved by
Noah after their Families in their Countries and Nations vers 5 20 31. and we find many of those first Princes and rulers to leave their names to the people that came of them and to the Countries they were seated in as may be seen Gen. 10. Hence it appeares First that Monarchy was the first Government it being late ere any Popular Rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world Secondly that the first Kings were not by choice of the People but that Monarchy however we cannot say it is jure divino by divine precept commanding all Nations to be so governed or jure naturae by natures law enforcing it is plainly ductu naturae by nature leading men from Paternall to Regall Government and exemplo divino as I may say by divine example and insinuation the Government that God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses the Iudges the Kings whereas Aristocracy and Democracy that I'may not call them Defections and Revolts from the Naturall way of government are meer inventions of man In severall Monarchies indeed we see divers limitations qualifications of power and severall offices wayes of executing that power these are meer inventions of man And this I note for explication of what was in the other Treatise said of Monarchy in relation to Ius divinum which by this Answerer is often interpreted as if I granted Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy to be equally of humane invention Thirdly it appears that the power of Kings was as of Fathers and that the people had no power of coertion over them more than children over Fathers Fourthly that albeit within few ages after the flood people began to chuse themselves Rulers as likely they did that departed from the building of Babel in severall companies according to your severall languages yet was such popular election to be accounted a kind of defection from and a disturbance of that naturall way of the descent of governing kingly power by a Paternall right and this irregular way began in the progeny of Cham. Lastly that albeit when a people are free as upon the utter failing of the royall Line they may chuse a Governour there being then no other way to set up one but by choice yet then do they no more give the power than if they received a King by naturall descent or by Gods designment and still the King so chosen is a Father as in the fifth Commandement and the people as children in the same relation for obedience and coertion as at first in the generations of Noah Accordingly kings at first among the Nations though chosen ruled as Fathers arbitrarily their discretion being law unto the people as was observed out of Iustin in the former Treatise and as we may really see in the fiction of the Golden Age. Now for the beginning of Government in this Island how shall conscience find any certainty that it was so set up contrived as this Answerer supposeth If he will begin simply at the very first coalition of Government as he phrases it he must suppose a multitude of people meeting together to contrive a Government and these either to spring on a suddain out of the earth as Cadmus his race but then in all likelyhood they would not so well agree or to live dispersedly in caves woods and so to be brought together by some Orpheus his pipe but then we cannot imagine such rude men to be so politique and cautious as to make such a contrivement for he tells us the reason which we see in this State is that same reason that first contrived the Government when they made the first King Or lastly he must suppose this land was peopled by a colony from France or Germany and then as likely they had the constitution of the Government from the King which sent them or that the government which the first Kings used here was arbitrary as it was every where else at first But let us come down to times of more certainty and as the Declaration of Parliament 24. H. 8. c. 12. directs us looke in Histories and Chronicles which tell us this Realm of England has been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream head unto whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of people of the spiritualty and Temporalty are bounden to bear next to God a naturall obedience so in that Statute Now this first constitutionof government in this Land as this Answerer ha's phansied it can neither consist with the substance of this Parliamentary Declaration as we shall see anon nor can it have any footing in Histories and chronicles to which that Declaration refers us For those chronicles and Caesar in his commentaries tells us there were in this land then divers Princes independent in which of them shall we look for this constitution or shall we seek it among the Brittish kings whom the Saxons drove into Wales if we could find it there it would not concern us for we are not now upon the Brittish but English government which followed the Saxons If the Answerer will begin his constitution and first king at this period or revolurion of the Monarchy for higher he cannot lower at the conquest I trust he will not why did not he tell us so that he might have givē conscience some direction to find out his first constitution and first King He knew well enough there was little help for him here For we find this English Saxishgovernment at the beginning branching it self into an Heptarchy rising in arms it is likely those Captains took upon them as kings by the consent and acclamation of the souldiers as when in the state of Rome the pretorian guard or some army abroad saluted an Emperor and thrust him upon the people But what then will become of his first constitution by the contrivement of the people when they made their first king should any of these seven Monarchs come in by such a popular contrivement wch cannot be imagined must our government needs be the same Or can we think that Egbert who made himselfe sole Monarch was bound up by such a constitution reservation as he says was contrived at their making of the first King from that Egbert to King CHARLES our Authentique Histories and Chronicles to which the Declaration of Parliament above mentioned refers us do shew a glorious succession of Monarchs not one made by election but Harold who yet ha's not obtained the stile of Rex Haroldus and his title if any dyed with him We see upon what uncertainties and improbabilities conscience is left for this first election and precontrivement this Answerer ha's not directed it any wayes how it should be assured of it much lesse of that reservation of power which he imagineth to be made by the people at that first election of a King He gives us no record to witnes it turnes us to no authentique History or chronicle shews us no constant practice or judgement
Law the same ever living Reason of the State that first advised the Government and must still advise the way of applying it pag. 9. His Majesty did not barely refuse but gave his Reasons for it and if they had their dangers and fears moving them to gain the Militia so had he his to withhold it as he had amply testified to the world But here 's a Reason of State to which his Majesties Reason must give way and that surely is Law Certainly the Militia is to be applyed by the Reason of State but we must not make the King no part of the State as he does and as he saith the Law does but we would fain see that Law we are sure it is declared 25 H. 8.21 Your Royall Majesty and Your Lords and Commons represent the whole Realm This restraining of the whole Reason of State to the two Houses is but the same device with that which made the first constitutiō of this government to be the contrivement of the people when they made the first King and was above confuted So this necessity that is here laid upon the King alwaies to follow the advice of the two Houses is but a strain of that device which places a finall and Arbitrary resolution in them and shall be handled anon His Majesty will apply the Militia but by the advice of them against whom it is to be secured whom the Parliament has Voted enemies to the State against whom especially it was called pag. 10. This is shooting at Rovers if he should tell who those voted ones were and who those enemies against whom this Parliament was called I do not think he would find any of them about his Majesty when he refused to passe the Bill for the Militia but he tells us a little after pag. 10. The King gathers these voted enemies into an Army against the Parliament that had voted them such and a little after What shall the two other States do but use that power of Arms which the government in such case of the Kings refusall has entrusted them with to its own preservation that 's alwayes supposed never proved especially when 't is but for the apprehending of such enemies to it as beside that voted delinquencie are sufficiently convinced by their own flight Now we know who those voted delinquents are against whom the Militia was by bill to be secured some five or six that fled beyond sea But these though beyond sea are gathered together into an Army here by the King to passe by this let us see what is more materiall The Kings Army is raised against the Parliament Their army against those delinquents to bring them to justice But can any man in conscience bee perswaded that was the Kings design was that a time to provoke them that were so powerfull with the people or was the King in a condition then fit to enterprize against them that were so furnished with all the Arms of the Kingdom he not knowing where to have sufficient for a small guard Nay let his offers sent them from Nottingham many moneths after speak to Posterity by whose refusall it was that we are not now in safety when as it pleased God within a few weeks after to raise him such an assistance that he was able to appear against those forces that pretended they were sent from the Parliament And now that it comes to blows why should it be interpreted that the King intends to overthrow the Parliament because he fights against those pretended Parliamentary forces more than that the Parliament intends to overthrow the Kingly power because their force fight against those that assist him certainly as they desire the continuance of his Kingly power so does he the continuance of free Parliaments knowing he cannot suffer by such And for the apprehension of those Delinquents which fled being here pretended as the cause of their seizing the Militia and taking Arms Can we think them so considerable or that they would have been with-held when as those that were greater and neerer to His Majesty had been delivered up to the justice of the Parliament certainly this would not have made the Breach if first a great Delinquent on that side had not been denied to be delivered up to tryall if the Militia had not been seized and some further design thereby threatned according to His Majesties apprehension Having done with these pretences we come to his argument for this supply Co-ordinata invicem supplent if the King refuse His Coordinates the two Houses must supply We answer Co-ordinates doe supply each others failings not alwayes and to all purposes but then and so far forth as is appointed by that constitution that makes them so there are two parts of this Answer First they do then supply when it is expressed so in the constitution that has co-ordinated them and not els he gave us as an instance of this co-ordination the example of a father and son entrusted with lands to certain uses pag. 5. Now put case the father refuses to expend any thing upon such uses as his son presents to him because he apprehends them not such as were intended may then his sonne supply and do it himselfe unlesse it be so expressed in the deed of Enfeoffment which is improbable it should for then the whole power would be placed in the son So if this power of supplying may bee challenged by the two co-ordinate parts upon the refusall of the third it must be as expresse in the constitution of the Kingdome as the co-ordination and power of the three is We see such reservations expresse in meerly conventionall Kingdoms where the Prince is chosen and admitted on such conditions He tells us indeed it is fundamentall and of the first constitution but proves it not we see it not expressed in the Enfeoffment as I may say wherein we find three Estates entrusted If any would know what are those fundamentall Laws so much jeered at in this and other Pamphlets It is that originall frame of this Co-ordinate Government contrived by the people in its first constitution and since in every severall Raign confirmed by mutuall oaths between King and people and in the Parliament summons of Ed. 1. this Law is called Lex stabilitata notissima pag. 8. If any man would know what jeering is he may read the premonition before this fuller Answer and the first leafe of the answer but if he would know what these Fundamentals be indeed he must not expect to know them truly by this Answerer that layes the foundations of this Government in the airy conceptions of his own phancie such are a contrivement of the people when they made the first King A reservation of power to upply upon the Kings refusall and the like such fundamentals as these were reasoned against which is not jeering from the analogie and proportion that must be betweene the foundation and the building the fundamental constitutions and the Written Laws in my former
Him I suppose he meanes those Voted ones of which we spake above if any of them be entertained lately for one of them there 's above a thousand of His good Subjects whose Noblenesse and honesty hath still engaged them honourably though to the weaker side before in behalfe of the Subject groaning under former grievances now in service to His Majesty opposed by popular fury Subjects that out of Conscience of their allegiance cleave unto him as they did to Sâ—ul whose hearts the Lord had touched 1. Sam. 10. On the contrary it is well known how the guilt and danger of some desperate persons have engaged the poor people and opposed them as a buckler betwixt themselves and the stroke of Iustice And how ever this man thinks His Majesty is carried away We are sure he hath spoken so much reason in His Expresses and Declarations that it plainly appeares He is not perswaded by Enemies to Himselfe or the Kingdom but hath been forced to this just and necessary defence of Himselfe and hath cause to think He may be safer every way by his own Army then by that which pretends to preserve him in his Politique but gave him Battle to the most imminent danger of His Person and Naturall Capacity SECT VI. Of the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement and power of declaring Law THe Answerer goes on to his second Proposition placing the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement in the two Houses unto which all must yeeld obedience Pag. 13. How proves he this In this mixture of Supream power and trust of Government the two Houses make a part what 's their share to consult nay but to consent with the King in making Lawes Be it so that share we grant them but if you will place the finall resolution in them you must not speak of a share but challenge the whole The King is but a Cypher Then he tells us againe of the first Constitution of Government when the people made the first King but nothing at all to the proving of such a Constitution or clearing of such a finall resolution setled in the two Houses And as if there were no way to overthrow the first Constitution of this Government as he hath contrived it but onely by Conquest he leapes from this Finall resolution of which he should give us some proof to speake of the Title by Conquest Conquest I confesse may give such a Right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can master Pag. 13. I had not mentioned Conquest but to take away the exception made to the Apostles prohibition of Resistance from the absolutenesse of the Roman Emperors and to shew they made themselves so absolute by force of Armes but seeing this Answerer will make a businesse of it he must take notice that Conquest is one of the meanes by which God translates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought that people under and had a right over them by Conquest 2. Sam. 12. that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Iudah from which they revolted 2 Chro. 21.8 The Romans also had a right over Iudou by Conquest our Saviour acknowledges it in Caesar give to Caesar c. and in his substitute Pilate that he had power given him from above If this Answerer should looke through all Christendome he would scarce find a Kingdom that descends by inheritance but it had a beginning in Armes and yet I thinke he will not say the Titles of these Kings are no better then of Plunderers for though it may be unjust at first in him that invades and Conquers yet in the succession which is from him that providence which translates Kingdomes manifests it selfe and the will of God and there are momenta temporum for the justnesse of such Titles though we cannot fixe them If he say they begin to be just when the consent of the people is yeelded were it so and not so till then yet is that in all likelyhood an overawed consent as he grants the consent of the people of Rome was to their Emperors Pag. 21. and little to the advantage of the people however let their consent be free what the people gaine upon that consent is by an after agreement and grant of the Prince not by precontrivement at their making of the first King as he dreames it to be in this Kingdom We need not looke farre for instance we see Mag Char begins each clause with a Concessimus to the antient liberties of the Subject By which we see how vainly he breakes into passion in the words following How undoctor all how unchristian inhumane Barbarisme it is to talke of a right by Conquest in a Civill a Christian State Pag. 13. and a little after how many wayes doth this Resolver abuse His Majesty herein I had indeed abused Him had I talked of His Right as fondly as this man hath done I said he King claimes from the Conqueror and that of uncertain plea of supposed first Election could not give Subjects such power against him as is now pretended to I shewed the Emperors of Rome made themselves such by force of Armes so did the Saxons here so did the Normans after them master this people this Answerer speakes nothing to these beginnings of this Government in the Saxon and Norman Lines but still tells us of a first Election and 't is un-Christian to talke of Conquest that is to speake the truth David as it was said above being provoked by the King of Ammon tooke away his Crown made that people to serve as slâ—â—es The Conqueror had a Title from the Saxon Kings being denyed he pursu's it and in the pursuit of it by Armes subdues this Land can we thinke he was bound to such a first Constitution as this man conceives We see it otherwise and what has been consented to by succeeding Kings My Collection then was shall the pretended right of the people by such an Election be good against a King that claimes not by it but receives the Crown by succession descending through severall Conquests and yet the right of the Roman people not good against their Tyrannicall Emperours that made themselves of Subjects Lords over them by force of Armes I know not how this should be injurious to Christianity unlesse it be un-Christian to restraine the resistance and rebelling of Christians against a Christian Prince when as the Apostle did forbid Christians and all the people of Rome to resist their Emperour though Heathen and Tyrannicall Let us see whether it be injurious to His Majesty How do's he abuse His Majesty herein A Title he yeelds Him by Conquest and yet He must not rule by it a King as Conquerour and yet He must not rule as a Conqueror How injurious does he make the King to His posterity in that he subscribes and sweares to a limited title and has a free one the while to hold by pag. 13. it was no injury to his Majesty
which at first framed it But to pardon his antecedents let us see what follows They were free when they began or set up this Government therefore we are not bound now it is set up that frame of Government was an act of their will and arbitrary therefore the Government is still arbitrary in them when people set up an absolute Monarchy over themselves as he sayes the people of Rome did when they consented to their Emperors that form of Government was an act of their will and arbitrary when they began it therefore still it is arbitrary in them These are good proofs such indeed as this Answerer uses to bring framed only to deceive the unwary But sometimes he expresses that first Constitution as made by consent of King and people sure then that Consent of the King at first was an act of His Will and Arbitrary and so it follows that the Goverment for making of Laws and Constitutions is Arbitrary in the King and people i. e. in the three estates consenting and agreeing together and that is the very truth Onely this depends not upon an arbitrary Act of the peoples will preceding all Government when they were free as he said for that is not imaginable in this Government but must needs proceed from an after consent or grant of the King admitting them to this arbitriment or freedom of will in the making of Laws which is enough to binde Him and secure us Nor is this Arbitrarines best secured from doing hurt in the Votes of Parliament that is of the two Houses by reason of their number trust and selfe interest as he tells us Pag. 17. But it is better secured in the three Estates that is in all that are entrusted for us for Arbitratines is likely to doe least hurt where it depends upon those that have severall wills and severall private Interests as the three Estates have but whose publike Interest is the same so that if the King pursue His private interest it is crossed by the private interest of the Subject if they theirs then will his private interest hinder the compassing of it if he may have what for that purpose is left in him by the Constitution of this Government the power of denying that so being crossed in their private wayes they may meet in their publique interests the good and welfare of the whole State which is best for them both But he tell us in the body Naturall the will followes the last dictate or resolution of the understanding that being in this body Politique the wisdom of its Great Councell pag. 17. That I may not trouble him in his Philosophy by telling him The will has an influence back again upon the understanding I know what he means by the application of it That the King must always follow the final resolution of the two Houses which if so what would he be better then a Duke of Venice or this State other then Popular And to this end have we so many discourses tending to the praise of Aristocraticall Government and he that put out the third Answer against my Book prefers the State of Venice before all for the surest Government Give me leave to note this by the way Although it be well known what inconveniences that State lyes under by reason of the severall sactions and sidings of their great Families yet this means of security they have Their resolutions of high concernments are not carried but by such a number of the whole Senate though many be absent And let me take the boldnesse to say We should conceive our selves in a suret condition if such businesser which nearly concern the Kingdom and the very Constitution of Government were not carried by the major part of those that are present but by a more unanimous consent that is by the better halfe at least of the whole number that belong to each house such businesses if need were had better stay till the triall could be made by such a number then to run the hazard of a watched opportunity when sew are present and such resolutions would better sway with his Majestie and better satisfie the whole Kingdome Now to this Argument of the last dictate The debates and resolutions of the two Houses are indeed great helps to inform His Majesties understanding but not as the last dictate immediately to determine his will for they are extrinsecall to him as the resolution of one House is to another They being three severall Estates His will must needs follow the dictate of his own understanding having received information from them And whereas I said concerning the Kings Judgement upon such an advantage He sees with the eyes of Others even of those that are of different Judgement from him this Answerer makes me say as he would have it that the King is to see with the eyes of others as if should they present him with black for white He were bound to think it so Then for the binding of the Subject to obedience by this finall resolution of the two Houses he tells us pag. 18. As their interests with us tye them more to doe aright so our elections of them tie us more to suffer what they doe if not aright It would trouble this Answerer to give the Clergy any assurance from these mutuall interests for they have none to represent them they have no voice in the election of them that vote there again this reason from representation and Election concerns onely one of the Houses and how men of publike trust may and have pursued their private interests under pretence of the publique good Experience has heretofore shewn it and time will discover it ere long to eyes that yet cannot see it For their tye upon us we grant it but not to all purposes without His Majesties consent who is intrusted for us as well as they nay in whom the Supream trust of the Kingdom is It is not a tie to bind us to obey their arbitrary commands M. Burrowes will tell us in his Answer to the fifth Section should a Parliament so far degenerate as to enslave us he thinkes the light of nature would shew us a way to provide for our selves by re-assuming the power given to them There is nothing more usuall in these mens mouthes then the Law is our inheritance we are born unto it It is true and it concernes us to look to it but shall our freedom and inheritance our Petition of Right our liberties and Priviledges be only good against the King and the resolution of the Houses inevitable to us for all our interests all we have So this Answerer would make us beleeve In the pursuit of his third proposition he tells us pag. 18. They are not in themselves infallible but to us inevitable here is no Parliament Papacy as the Doctor pleases to descant Certainly the Pope himself does not beleeve himself to be infallible nor do his learned flatterers that would maintain it but the deceived people beleeve
in the concluding for resistance if the condition of it by there grants be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus and their reason for it be Rex est universis minor and resistance it selfe be an opposing of the body against the head there must be in all equity an universality in the consent and an unanimous inclination of the whole body and not a part of the body against the head and another part of the same body Secondly Mr. Bridge replies If this be our sentence why doth the Dr. object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up Armes against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the Orders of the Empire Pag. 13. The Doctor never intended that objecting of the Christians for an argument by it selfe and therefore to the Christians persecuted did usually subjoyn the Senate and people enslaved shewing they might not resist being all under that higher power or Supream as St. Peter cals the Emperor and contained within that universall whosoever resists SECT IX A Confutation of what was replyed upon the second Section of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alleadged against Resistance THe Fuller Answerer speakes confidently The instances of Resistance of the peoples in behalfe of Jonathan of Davids of Elishah's we make no use of we need them not and therefore need not Answer the refutation of them Pag. 21. But all your fellowes make use of them who having not so fine a wit to contrive a power of resistance reserved by the people when they made the first King did conceive they stood in need of Examples to defend the peoples assuming of such a power Well however this Answerer pretends he needs them not yet does he sticke upon the example of David and tels us Pag. 21. what use of His Army but to fight against nay a reach above all his fellows that David though against the King is said to fight the Lords battels 1 Sam. 25. The words are Abigails and the Comment is his more then once given us in this booke he had before spent two pages the fixth and seventh in repeating what notes he had taken at Court-Sermons now he gives us a taste of what is preached at St. Margarets and up and down the City That to fight against the King now is to fight the Lords battels or as Mr. Burrows in his Sermon that the Armies now against the King are the Hosts of the Lord and in his Epistle he cals the Earle of Essex the Lord of their Hosts so usually doe they interesse the Lord in their quarrell and are bold againe with his Titles We know that to fight the battels of the Lord was against the Enemies of his people Philistins Ammonites c. and that David was designed to it that he had done it already under Saul against the Philistins and was to doe it more fully after Sauls death against the enemies of Israel round about and accordingly the words of Abigail have this meaning though it be known that my Lord is appointed to fight the Lords battels and to deliver his people from their enemies round about yet is there risen up a man to pursue after c. Certainly if to fight against Saul had been to fight the Lords batrels David had not fought them well that declined all battel with him made use of no advantages when he had Saul twice in his power David knew the battels of the Lord which he was to fight were against the Lords enemies abroad not against the Lords annointed at home But this Answerer said what use of an Army unlesse to sight against we see David did not put it did not intend it for that use yea but he would have put it to that use at Keilah if the Inhabitants would have been faithfull to him So they conclude upon Davids intention for defending of what was actually done at Hull I call'd that an uncertain supposition not fit to ground Conscience on Mr. Burrows tels us the case is as plaine for Davids intention as if Sir John Hotham upon comming of the Kings Forces against Hull should inquire of the Townes-men whether they would deliver him up or no and upon knowledge that they would should flie away were this an uncertaine supposition that Sir John would have defended himselfe there In Sir John Hotham it would be a very probable supposition because we know the inclination of his mind and the intent for which he came thither but in David it is not onely uncertaine but improbable for we know his resolution and custome was still to flie as the King pursued and to that end he enquires what they intended against him and in case they were minded to deliver him up he might more timely provide for his flight and prevent their shutting of him up in that City which as the text notes had gates and barres M. Bridge upon the Answers in the former Treatise made to their instances of resistance replies that in saying it was a loving violence by which the people rescued Ionathan and Davids Armes were meerely for defence without all offence the Doctor gives away the Cause and allows Subjects more then prayers and teares Pag. 14.5 The Doctor had no where though M. Bridge makes him often say so prayers and teares as the onely remedy left to Subjects but beside their Cries to God he allowed them Petitions to their Prince intercessions reproofes denyall of Subsidies and Aydes and the peoples rescuing of Ionathan was by intercession set off with a Souldierly boldnesse such as the people used to David 2 Sam. 18.3 and Ioab to David 2 Sam. 19.5 Nor is it the giving away of the cause to acknowledge Davids Armes were for such defence for the severall answers returned to Davids example were given to shew they that have now taken Armes may not doe so much as David did for his example was extraordinary and also that they have done more then David did for he used those armed men meerely for his guard without all offence to Saul or them that were about him and so Davids example can no waies be pretended to those that have now taken Armes and use them as they have done If his example be extraordinary then he had an extraordinary command for what he did if so how doth the Doctor say there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of Resistance Pag. 16. As if all extraordinary warrants and instincts given to speciall persons should be written in Scripture Ehud sure had one to goe and slay the Tyrant Eglon Iudg. 3. yet not expressed Or as if extraordinary Commands though expressed were warrants for all to doe so as that which the Israelites had for spoyling the Aegyptians were now good warrant for the pretended Parliamentary forces to spoile all those they call Malignants and esteem little better then Aegyptians But a meere defence how then a worke extraordinary in David ibid if his were
not Answ It is true that many times such Arguments faile yet may they be within their own compasse very convincing as in this case It was said the Apostles prohibition against resistance was very expresse and that Conscience could finde no warrant or exceptions against it from other places of Scripture how should this be cleared but by answering such seeming instances as they brought and by bringing such places as were most likely to have given allowance to this remedy which is placed in the power of resistance for if Conscience cannot finde allowance for it in Scripture how should it adventure upon it against the expresse prohibition of the Apostle delivered without any exception or limitation One of his Instances I must touch as seeming to concerne the businesse more neerly when the ten Tribes cast off Rehoboams Government for his oppression no Prophet rebuked them Pag. 122. They were not at that instant rebuked for the thing was from the Lord and to take effect yet as it was from their licentious will of revolting it is called Rebelling against the house of David 2 Chro. c. 10. v. 19. and reproved by Hosea c. 8. v. 4. which is enough to tell Conscience what to think of it Now we come to the Fuller Answerer To the Instances brought against Resistance in the former Treatise he replyes They are all in simple and absolute Monarchies those of the Iewes and Romanes nothing to our case Pag. 21. This is short worke yet doth M. Bridge Pag. 40. tell us by the example of the Jewish Monarchy what government pleaseth him best That wherein the people have choice of their King and make a Covenant with him at his Coronation and have power to take up Armes against the Monarch when cause requireth all this he endeavours to exemplifie in the Jewish Monarchy very impe tinently I must needs say yet enough to shew his disagreement with this Full Answerer Let us then see what satisfaction Conscinece can receive from this Answer either in the generall that Resistance is lawfull in limited not absolute Monarchies or in particular that those of the Jewes and Romanes were such An absolute Monarch is he that may impose Laws without consent of people a limited or not absolute one is he that hath bound himselfe to require their consent and to rule according to Law so made Now Conscience findes in Scripture Manasses and such wicked Kings subverting Gods worship Justice and all good government and no resistance allowed the Prophets never calling upon the Elders of the people for it also among the Roman Emperours It finders the like Tyrants and still hears the Apostle forbidding resistance Well It is under a Christian King one not wicked but commended by many vertues yet one that has invaded some liberties granted to the Subject upon agreement How shall it thinke it has warrant to resist this King because he is limited by such an agreement and the other not to be resisted for it sees that safety of the State in order to which this power of resistance is challenged is the end of government as well in the absolute as limited Monarchy It sees also that the absolute Monarch is bound by the Lawes of God and nature and by that duty of a Prince which is upon him in order to that end the safety of His people and it cannot be satisfied how the breach of something due by a civill agreement or Nationall positive Law should more expose the so limited Monarch to this power or resistance then those outrages against the Lawes of God and Nature against the very end of Government do the absolute Monarch It will not think if it may not resist this for such heinous provocations that it hath power to take Arms against the other for the breach of some liberties due to the people by a civill compact If it bee replyed that the King is limited by such a Condition as leaves power of resistance in the people reserved to them in the first constitution we answer It has been cleared that such a Condition is a meer fiction and most unreasonable a seminary of Tumults and Sedition The King is limited yet not so but as above declared by reason he cannot impose Laws by himselfe upon his people Now in particular of your Jewish Monarchy How appeares it to be absolute we know those Kings could not make any Laws either with or without the consent of people but were limited by the positive Laws which God gave them for that policy or Government and me thinks that this man should have conceived it would make too much for the approving of absolute Government in Kings to say God set up an absolute Monarchy over his people and if it was the wisedom of God to entrust his people with absolute and unlimited Kings why should not Christian Kings be trusted a little more then Subjects would now have them But something he sayes by way of proofe that it was absolute The Jewes desired to be governed after the manner of the Nations which was arbitrarily as the Doctor observes out of Justine and thereupon it is that God by Samuel tells them what such a King would doe to them not what he might doe as the Doctor seems to infer out of that place pag. 21. To say the Doctor seems to infer so is a grosse mistake not to have been admitted by him if he would have me or himself speak any sense if I had inferred the Kings of the Iewes might doe so my argument thence had been none but I concluded it plainly to be unjust violence and oppression and thence shewed such usage of a people was not just cause of resistance to them As for his Argument it concerned him to infer they might do so or else how does he shew they had absolute and arbitrary rule But his other inference from the Text is as good That the people in desiring to have Kings after the manner of the Nations desired to be governed arbitrarily and that arbitrary government was set out in what Samuel declares their King would doe As if the people here desired to have a King to oppresse and spoile them the thing they complained of in Samuels sonnes vers 5. The truth is the people desired to have a King to judge them we know in what meaning that phrase to judge them is used in the booke of Judges and explicated Hos 13. v. 10. viz. to goe in and but before them to save them from their Enemies and how that God had raised up hitherto Judges among them to that purpose Now they desire not to have Judges extraordinarily sent them as before for they saw they lay long under oppression many times ere such came but to have a King among them as other Nations had by an ordinary succession so they thought they should not be to seeke upon all occasions for one to goe out before them against their Enemies this is the summe of their desire not to have a
King to Rule arbitrarily to use them as he pleased or as Samuel told them he would nothing here to prove the Kings of the Jews were absolute Monarches The Monarchy of the Romans he tels us was absolute too by the consent of the people so doth M. Burrows also And this is one of their Answers to the 13. to the Rom. They might not be resisted for they were absolute Monarchs It concerned them to bring proofe for I had spoken to this in my other Treatise here again this Fuller Answer saith barely they were absolute Monarch's and M. Burrowes saith it rested upon me to prove they had not absolute power and so puts it off Indeed in strictnesse of dispute it is enough for the Answerer simply to affirm or deny but in giving an exception to a place of Scripture by writing and that for the satisfaction of Conscience it had beseemed them to prove what they say their 's being the affirmative mine the Negative I will therefore give my reasons against it that there was not such a formall consent on the peoples part and such a totall resignation of themselves to be governed by those Emperours as is required to make them lawfull absolute Monarchs First because it s altogether improbable that a people so addicted to liberty should so consent to such a subjection and againe set up that Regiam potestatem that absolute Kingly power they so much hated Therefore we see how Brutus and Cassius were honoured for restoring their invaded liberty and how againe they were sensible of that recovered liberty when Nero was taken away but they held it not the Souldiers still putting Emperours upon them one after the other Secondly because unto all the Lawes and Edicts of those Emperors there was required the consent of the Senate and people of Rome they could indeed force that consent upon all occasions yet for forme of Law still Senatus Populusque Romanus was added Thirdly we find in Suetonius how Caligula intended to assume the Diadem which was the Signe of that Regia potestas that is to professe he would Raigne absolutely but He was disswaded by his friends This therefore being certaine that by force of Armes they made themselves masters of that people my inference is as it was in the other Treatise If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the Supreame Government might not resist the then Emperors that of Subjects had made themselves Lords over that people much lesse can the people of this Land have power of resistance against the succession of this Crown descending from the Conqueror who by like force of Armes but with more Justice gained this Kingdome But the Answerer excepts concerning our King His Title of Succession waies excludes consent for it began in the election and consent of the people Tag 21. The Roman Emperours by consent of the people were absolute saith this man and not to be resisted our Kings by consent of the people are so limited that the people have reserved a power of resistance one as true as the other If we begin the title of succession from the Conquest where is that election that consent and reservation if higher we run Conscience upon uncertainties it cannot see how such an Election should give beginning to this Crown but finds the beginnings still in Armes as the enterance of those Emperors was which beginnings might over-aw the consent of the people as he saith of the consent of the Senate given to those Emperors that it might be an over-awed consent or else draw it but cannot be imagined to arise from such a capitulating Election such a pre-contriving arbitrary consent of the people as this man feignes M. Burrowes is very angry that I call'd Election a slender plea and saith I cannot get a better and surer claime for the Kings of England Pag. 129. But he might have considered I call'd it a slender plea not fot succession of a Crown whensoever it is made by a people that are free as upon the failing of the Royall line but for resistance against it it being all the plea that is made for these Arms or power of resistance and a slender one because it appears not how election gave beginning to this succession but that such an election contrivement of the people reserving the power of resistance should do it is altogether improbable and unreasonable For the beginning of this succession at the Conquest the kings of England claiming from thence against which M. Burrows here inveighs see above Sect. 6. and below Sect. 11. The Fuller Answerer goes on with his replyes to the 13. to the Rom. If not written particularly to the Romans who were under an Absolute Monarchy and then not concerning us yet suppose it referre to all Government in generall pag. 21. I would this Answerer would leave his uncertainties now he deals with conscience the reasons the Apostle gives us in the 3.4 5 6. vers plainly shew it concerns all times and Government so long as in all government there is order to be preserved there is a minister of God to execute Wrath there is one that bears not the sword in vain reasons essentiall to government and perpetuall against resistance as was shewn in the former treatise if this man would have pleased to take notice of them Well now that it refers to all Government what then It makes saith he altogether for us it requires obedience to ordained powers that is legall commands not wilfull pleasures of Governours True but we would know not what is required but what is forbidden we spake not of obedience but resistance we grāt active obedience is to be yielded to ordain'd powers and denied to the illegall commands but we may resist their power if they imploy it tomake good those illegall commands We must supply his Answer out of Mr. Burrows pag. 113. If one that is in authority command out of His own wil I resist no power no authority at all if I neither actively nor passvely obey Also we distinguish between the man that hath the power and the power of the man the power must not be resisted the illegall will of the man may and p. 124. the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not charge them not to resist their Tyrannie Between the power and the person that bears it as also between the power the illegall will or the abuse of the power we may distinguish in conceit abstracting the one from the other and by our active and passive obedience we may distinguish them yielding this to the power person that bears it denying that to his illegall will but in resistance wee cannot sever them for the resisting of him that bears the power though unlawfully commanding is a resisting of the power also it is plain by the Apostle who speaks not here of power abstractly taken for so it cannot be the objectof our obedience or resistance but
Concretely as in the subject or the Magistrate that bears it therefore presently it follows in the Apostles reasons against resistance for he is the Minister he beares the sword so St. Peter tells us what he meanes by the Ordinance the King as supream or they that are sent by him for though the will and command be illegall yet because he that bears the power lawfully uses that power though illegally to compasse that will and execute that command the power it self is resisted in resisting him that so uses it as Saul had lawfully the power and command of Arms but that power he uses unlawfuly in pursuing his unjust wil against David And I aske when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure was that a pwoer ordained by God no but an illegall will a Tyranny therefore according to M. Burrows they might have been resisted in doing so No for that power and soveraignty they imployed to compasse those illegal commands was a power ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegal will yet our Saviour acknowledges in it Pilates power that was given him from above Again this answerer of theirs makes void that distinction of private men and of publick states in the point of resistance it voids also their other distinction of absolute Monarchs limited For according to this answerer it shal be lawfull for private men to resist their Princes though absolute if they command illegally and to say as M. Burrows teaches them We resist no power no authority at all but the illegall will and pleasure of man and so might the Christians have resisted and so replyed if then answer be good The truth is the lawfull power is resisted when armes are taken against Princes abusing that power to the compassing of unlawfull commands which also I insinuated often in the other treatise that from the Apostles reasons in this place against resistance drawn from that order that good for which the power is ordain'd though then the execution of the power in those Emperours was nothing answerable to that end That which the fuller Answerer presently adds pag. 22 There are two kinds of tyranny Regiminis and Usurpationis that of Government must be endured though never so heavy Not only to the good but to the froward also 1. Pet. 2.18 That other of Vsurpation hath no right at all I know not what it means if it be not a plain confirmation of what I have sayd against resistance and a direct confutation of what himselfe and Mr Burrows has answered for it M. Burrowes also tels us pag. 113. VVe professe against resisting power and authority though abused A man would think he came home to us and so he must if he will speak reason but his device is If those who have power to make lawes shall make wicked lawes and force obedience to them there is nothing left us but flying or passive obedience In this hole he often lurks to defend himselfe against the prohibition of resistance by making us believe the abused power that must not be resisted is only seen when sinfull lawes are made and imposed but I ask have they power to make such Laws No for it is not of God they have power from Him to make Laws but such Laws and Commands are their illegall wills then may they that resist say in M. Burrowes words we resist no power no authority but the illegall wills of men Pilate had power from above to judge the accused brought before him not to condemne the innocent that was the abuse of the Legislative power and the power it selfe is resisted by resisting the abuse of the one as of the other Now all this has bin said against resistance in case His Majesties Commands in the use of that power which is in Him were unlawfull but Conscience that knows He ha's by Law a power to command assistance for the defence of Himselfe and protection of His Subjects will easily conclude it a Legall power and command not only not to be resisted but also to be actively obeyed as all Legall ordained powers ought to be Notwithstanding these Scriptures so plain against Resistance or Arms taken up by Subjects M. Burrowes professeth his Conscience is not one whit scrupled I hope he will better consider it ere he come to dye and give an account of those poor souls he ha's seduced Finally we must subjoyn M. Bridge his replyes upon this 13 to the Romans he as if his conscience were as little scrupled with the Apostles prohibiting as M. Burrowes his was thus begins The Dr. indeavours to sear the tender Conscience with the word Damnation but it is rather to be translated judgement by it is meant the punishment of the Magistrate in this life pag. 14. M. Bridge might have had respect to our translation which renders it damnation with good reason for resistance is a breach of the 5 Commandement it is a resisting of the ordinance of God as in this chapter and M. Bridge knows it is no vain scaring of Conscience to tell it the breach of Gods Commandement ordinance makes it guilty of damnation And if we consider the condition of the Christians in those times what great matter had the Apostle told them in assuring them they should be punished by those Emperors if they resisted when as they were sure of that whether they resisted or resisted not but he gives them to understand however those Emperors were enemies to christianity the resisting of them was an offence against the ordinance of God or if we consider the principles of these daies which teach people to take the sword out of the Princes hand seize the Arms of the Kingdom in order to their own preservation what great matter would the Apostle threaten to such in telling them they should be punished by the Mag strate when as they have provided for their indemnity by taking the sword from their Prince or causing Him to bear it in vain therefore there is the stroke of a higher hand also to be expected and those that have been lately taken in actuall resistance and through His Majesties mercy escaped the deserved punishment of this life must if they continue not in obedience look for a greater condemnation Again M. Bridge answers That only active obedience to lawfull Commands is there enjoyned not passive under unlawfull Commands pag. 23. Both say we as appears by the injunction of subjection prohibition of resistance for if the Apostle had enjoyned onely obedience to just commands he had given the Romans that lived under such unjust Emperors but a lame instruction the refore in ease they had unjust commands imposed on them he tels them how to behave themselves that is not to resist what then remains but passive obedience But he would prove it thus The power they were to be subject to and not resist is the ordinance of God and the minister of God for good but
bound to the people that is they stand equally accomptable to each other for you immediately inferre Therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse His Subjects to take up Arms against them as for Subjects to take up Arms against him Both are unlawfull and unjust but not equally for doe not the mutuall duties of the fifth Commandement run betwixt superior and inferior and is it as heinous for the father to strike the sonne as the son to lift up his hand against the Father If a King oppresse His Subjects it is an abusing of that power which is in him if people take Armes it 's an usurping of power that belongs not to them which is of more dangerous consequence if the people doe what is unlawfull the Magistrate bears not the sword in vain God has appointed him to punish them if the Supream Magistrate doe unlawfully he is not to be punished by the people for that were to overthrow the order God has set but is reserved for a Divine judgement In the Covenant twixt King and People though it be not expressed that the state of the Kingdome may take Armes and provide for its safety in ease the King will not discharge yet must it in all reason be implyed that safety being the end of that trust and ratio Legis is Lex as in Marriage it is not verbally expressed that the party committing Adultery shall he divorced yet that Covenant carries the force of such a Condition pag. 31. That the King ought to discharge is Law and the end or reason of it is the safety of the state but that in case he does not or not according to the opinion of the people they by Armes should resist provide for it is neit her Law nor Reason of any Law but an unreasonable condition were any King admitted under it and no rea onable means of safety but the way of confusion and destruction as experience has alwayes shewn That Adultery is the breach of the Mariage Covenant and cause of Divorce both in the institution of Marriage They two shall be one flesh doth in reason imply and the Law of God doth expresly declare and the like implication of reason and declaration of Law must appear before we can see any warrant for Subjects to resist and provide for their own safety for as of the parties married so of a Prince and the people entrusted to him by God it may be said whom God hath enjoyned let no man put asunder and let not the woman usurp authority over the man nor Subjects over their Prince SECT XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the 5th Sect of the former Treatise VPon that which was said They sharpenmany weapons for this resistance at the Philistins forge borrow arguments from the Papists M. Bridge replyes There is much difference betweene them and us in this particular I. The Papists contend for the Lawfulnesse of deposing Kings wee not Difference there must needs be betweene you in this particular for they Challenge such a power for the Pope you for the people But you doe not contend for the power of deposing or as you told us above the people from their power of resistance need not make that inference here is great security for the Prince We see your party making use of those Examples which the Papists bring for the deposing of Kings as that of Saul Vzziah Athalia and one of your fellow Answerers has endeavoured to prove such a power of deposing with whom we shall meet at the end of this Section and we know your principles wil carry the people so far if they wil follow them if as you teach them they have justly taken Armes in order to their own safety so they shall thinke in order to thâ—â—â—fety they cannot lay them downe or any longer trust their safety with the former Prince II. The Papists plead for power of deposing a Prince in case he turn Heretick we hold a Prince may change his Religion and yet the Subjects thereby not excused from their Allegiance You will give him leave to change Religion himselfe so will the Papists if all His Subjects may have free liberty of their Religion but in case he also endeavour to force that contrary Religion upon his Subjects for that must be supposed how then will your Allegiance hold When you challenge the power of Armes in order to your own and the States safety will you think that the preservation onely of your goods Estates and out ward liberty is concerned in it and not of your Religion too How have you wrought the people into Armes against their Soveraigne but by this name Religion and that not because He is turn'd Heretique and changed his Religion or has imposed a Contrary Religion upon his Subjects that you could not tell them but only by making them beleive He favours Popery and there is feare He will change Religion which is as weak and low pretence as any Iesuit can descend to for drawing People into Armes against their Soveraigne III. The Papists hold it lawfull to kill a Prince and that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do it We abhore it That is their new forge under ground set up of late by Iesuits I did not mean you sharpned your weapons there but at the old forge where the Popes power of acquitting people of their Allegiance and commanding them into Armes has been beaten out some hundreds of years And however you say you abhor this Doctrine of killing Kings that is of Butchering them by privat hands yet I feare and tremble to think if your Soveraigne had falne in Battell by the edge of your sword or shot of your Artillery yee would have acquitted your selves and found him guilty of his own death in that he would not being desired forbeare to go down himselfe into Battel against his Enemyes Some of your Fellowes M. Bridge are much wronged if they did not after the businesse of Brainceford play the Popes in absolving the Souldiers there taken from the Oath whereby they had again bound themselves from bearing Armes against his Majesty and I can witnesse how the best of your party in Yorkshire had plited their faith for conserving of the Peaâ—e of the Country and how they were dispensed with and commanded into Armes Let us proceed The Fuller Answerer also complaines The fift Section is a plain begging of three Questions the Resolver would have us maintain Pag. 25. To pardon your abuse of speech we know what you mean and must tell you we need not put upon you more then you undertake to maintain which is more then you can prove more then former Ages have been Conscious of enough to make your Religion if you have any heare ill in after times But let us see what you say in vindication of your selves We say not that every State hath these meancs of safety by resistance unlesse reserved by them Answer Yet
is the safety of every State as deare and heare to it selfe as This and for any thing you have shewn for it any State may pretend such a Reservation as well as This for you have not proved such a Reservation and the generall argument your Party useth is from selfe preservation which is common to all Then to the Argument of the Churches safety under pretence of which the Pope challenges a power upon the failing of the Civill Magistate as the people now upon the refusall of their Prince you say The Church is not a State by it selfe so also M. Burrowes and M. Bridge It is not indeed the whole State comprehending the Civill State too yet is the good Estate thereof of as great consequence as any Concernment of the body Politique But the Church is not of its own Constitution but of Christs What then therefore it must be preserved by the laws instituted by Christ true so must the Civill State by its established lawes we desire no more yet will you not give Him leave to be as carefull for the good Estate of His Church in providing meanes of preservation for it in case the Civill Magistrate faile in his trust as you are to provide or reserve this power of resistance upon the Kings refusall But he did not provide such forceable meanes as are challenged by the Bishop of Rome under that pretence and these meanes of a reserved power for resistance are as unreasonable on your part if both of you should be put to prove your Traditions He for his Excommunicating or deposing of Kings in order to the Churches safety and you for your reserved power of resistance in order to the States preservation Conscience would find as little satisfaction in the one as in the other As for the matter of the Church we turn saith M. Bridge pag. 33. the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the officer is an Heretick unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the Officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power either to depose Him or to looke to it selfe It was not my argument I did but shew how the Papists use the like argument for the Churches safety as you doe for the States and if you back again wil gather strength for your assertion from their reasons be as like as you will one to the other I cannot helpe it but I am forry for you at least for the Religion you professe that you are put to such shiâ—ts But the Church hath Excommunication granted to it by Christ for its own preservation from Evills and Errors and the Body Naturall hath power to deliver it selfe from its burden therefore the Common wealth also cannot preserve it self unlesse it have power to deliver it selfe from its burden ibid. Then has this Church a Power of Excommunication still so it should be indeed and the power cannot be taken away by any mortal authority but since the Act which tooke away the High Commission and as the party you plead for would have it interpreted all Ecclesiasticall Censure too where doth the Exercise of that power rest upon whom now is the Argument turned The Body Naturall has power to disburden it self so has the Common-wealth too but wil you have the naturall body disburden it self of the Head or worke without it and say I have no neede of thee Or will you use letting of blood for the disburdning of the Natural body when sweating or gentle purges may doe it So in the Body Politick when a calme Reformation may purge out noxious humors will you put the sword into the rough hand of the people which in stead of opening a veine will cut the Arteries and Sinewes of the Common-wealth Ye are too desperate Physitians and that is plainly seene by the Consumption and languishing Estate of this Kingdom It was urged in the former Treatise as a reason against these meanes of safety by this power of resistance If the representative body of the people upon the Kings sailing in His trust may take this power then may the multitude by the like rule upon the failing of their representatives in the discharge of the trust they were chosen for take the power to themselves for it is claimed by them the Fuller Answerer replies They cannot doe it for the people have not resorved any power to themselves from themselves in Parliament pag. 25. But it will be as hard for him to make them believe they have power no otherwise as to make it appeare to us there was any such power reserved at all for when the people come to be spoiled in their Estates and Liberties they will think it most unreasonable that they should entrust themselves and all they have to such Arbitrary disposing of their own Representatives especially having been taught by this rule so easily to disclaime the Trust of their Soveraigne He that wrote the book called Plain English saith expresly that if the Representative body cannot or will not discharge their trust to the satisfaction of reason in the people they may resume if ever yet they parted with a power to their manifest undoing and use their power so far as conduceth to their owne safety and M. Bridge though here he brings reasons against the peoples recalling their Trust given to their representative body yet by his argument of selfe preservation at the beginning of his book has taught them to say It is naturall for them to provide for themselves and the act of Trust given to their Representative body is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall But forgetting what he said of the Naturall Law of selfe preservation he gives us reasons why the people should not take the power in such a case 1. Because they cannot be so ready to think the Parliament that is the two Houses neglect their trust pag. 36. not think so but if by Ordinances thence issuing they be spoiled of their property and liberty which is supposed in the Case they will quickly feele it is so 2. Because there is not that actuall designing and election af the Prince to the present affairs of the Commonweal as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses This is bold and sets aside both King and house of Lords putting all upon the Sentence of those that are chosen by the people for the present affaires of the Kingdom those are his words and unto their sentence the people bind themselves to stand as parties disagreeing to doe the sentence of an Vmpire or Arbitrator that is his similitude What can be said more to the dissolving of the temper of three Estates in Parliament and to the overthrow of this Government 3. Because if the people upon such surmises should call in their trust and their power they would leave themselves naked of all authority and be private
come shall see it yea and Mr. Bridge too if his heart be right to their amazement Nor does Charity bind the Conscience to contradictions or to judge against sense or from condemning one part when it must Iudge between two as at this time between the King and Subjects in Armes against Him which rules of Charity were laid down and applyed towards the end of the former Treatise Whosees not how tender the Parliament hath beene of the Kings Honour therefore they charge all upon His Counsellors as David â—id upon those about Saul 1 Sam. c. 26. v. 19. If the Lord hath stirred theâ— up against me let him accept an assering but if they be the Children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven me out this day And who sees not how tender His Majesty hath been of the reputation of Parliament charging the fault upon them that give the Counsell and are the contrivers of all that is done against Him Or who seeâ— not how Davids words agree more properly to the King that ha's been driven out and hunted up and downe then to His adversaries that have had their abode at pleasure and Raigned without Him but if they will needs speake the word let them learn this lesson from them If such as have unlawfully engaged a King cannot otherwise be brought to Justice then by Subjects taking Armes and fighting against their King it must not be done that way but by referring the matter to God as David did here The King is no more bound by vertue of His Oath to maintaine the Government of the Church as by Law established then any other Law of the Kingdome which if the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale They may without breach of the Kings Oath Suppose they should think fit to doe it is it no more to take away a Government which had the consent of the Catholike Church and has been received and continued in this Land ever since the planting of the Christian Faith here then to repeal any Law made but yesterday in comparison and in materia particulari of no such concernment A fundamentall of the Government of the State may not be stirred nor may the priviledges of some men be touched and may the government of the Church be so easily torn up by the root and foundation the Estates and Immunities of so many free Subjects taken away But the King doth not think fit to do it shall he then by Armes be forced from that which He is both by Oath and Judgement bound to maintain Upon those words of the former Treatise the Government of the Church by Bishops is simply the best the abolishing whereof is one of those many inconveniences which this Land is now threatned with and which the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert Mr. Bridge enters upon a loose discourse against Episcopall Government I refor him for his better instruction to a book intituled Episcopacy asserted lately published and learnedly written Then he breaks out Now the Dr. shewes himselfe be had rather the Kingdome be embrewed in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should downe Iudge yee O all Englishmen whether it bee better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lye embrewed in their owne gore Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in Armes shew your selves hereby what spirit yee are of who will have this Land embroiled in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy and some other things by Law justly established shall not down for that is the case and so proposed in the former Treatise and then judge all yee English men whether it be better for you to embrew this Kingdome in its own Gore then to hold the ancient and primitive Government of the Church and hear O Heavens and judge upon whom the guilt will lye upon the King that will continue that Government according to Law and oath or upon them that by Armes would force Him from it To that of Sauls speare restored Master Bridge replies Though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned J will no more doe thee harm because my soule was precious in thy sight this day We know what you looke for If you blush not yet to have expected it His Majesty has not been ashamed to doe it with a great condescention He has even supplicated for Peace He has redressed former miscarriages of Government with new additionalls of Grace He has promised and protested for the future Oh that He could say My Soule has been precious in your eyes this day this whole yeere or that He could finde answerable humility in the hearts of Subjects whose Ambition has caused His troubles and our miseries The Doctor defends the Kings entertainment of Papists by Davids example but he must prove that Ziba or those that resorted to David in his distresse were of another Religion and by Law to be disarmed What needs that for the Doctor intended onely by those examples to shew that a Prince in His necessary defence may entertaine such men as otherwise He would not make use of and may give some countenance to such as have relieved Him in distresse though otherwise as ill deserving His Grace as a dissembling Ziba And though by Law Papists are not to have Armes at their disposing yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects they may by just authority beare Armes to use them according to the direction of that authority and if a List of the Army against his Majesty were examined there would be found if not a confiderable number of Papists yet of such as they that imploy them would have cause to be ashamed of such as by Law are to abjure the Land as men not to be held in with any government Upon the former particulars the Fuller Answerer is more bitter and malicious interpreting every thing that had sharpnesse in it as spoken of the Parliament It was said That in such a case the State would be unreasonably exposed to the danger that every prevailing Faction might bring upon it This is according to this mans interpretation to call the Parliament a prevailing Faction It was said That the people are made to believe by their good teachers that the King was so and so affected to whom no more need be said then the Archangell did to he Arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee also that their preachings were the doctrines of this giddy age and that many wicked Pamphlets and bookes written by Enemies to Peace were suffered to issue forth into every corner of this Land This is according to this mans apprehension to call the Parliament Declarations wiâ—ked Pamphlets and scandalous imputations of this giddy agâ— and to liken them to the Devill the Arch-accuser I had need say again to this man the Lord rebuke thee Lastly it was said If the Papist will shew himselfe a good Subject it is just and reasonable that