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
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
Him I suppose he meanes those Voted ones of which we spake above if any of them be entertained lately for one of them there 's above a thousand of His good Subjects whose Noblenesse and honesty hath still engaged them honourably though to the weaker side before in behalfe of the Subject groaning under former grievances now in service to His Majesty opposed by popular fury Subjects that out of Conscience of their allegiance cleave unto him as they did to Sâ—ul whose hearts the Lord had touched 1. Sam. 10. On the contrary it is well known how the guilt and danger of some desperate persons have engaged the poor people and opposed them as a buckler betwixt themselves and the stroke of Iustice And how ever this man thinks His Majesty is carried away We are sure he hath spoken so much reason in His Expresses and Declarations that it plainly appeares He is not perswaded by Enemies to Himselfe or the Kingdom but hath been forced to this just and necessary defence of Himselfe and hath cause to think He may be safer every way by his own Army then by that which pretends to preserve him in his Politique but gave him Battle to the most imminent danger of His Person and Naturall Capacity SECT VI. Of the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement and power of declaring Law THe Answerer goes on to his second Proposition placing the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement in the two Houses unto which all must yeeld obedience Pag. 13. How proves he this In this mixture of Supream power and trust of Government the two Houses make a part what 's their share to consult nay but to consent with the King in making Lawes Be it so that share we grant them but if you will place the finall resolution in them you must not speak of a share but challenge the whole The King is but a Cypher Then he tells us againe of the first Constitution of Government when the people made the first King but nothing at all to the proving of such a Constitution or clearing of such a finall resolution setled in the two Houses And as if there were no way to overthrow the first Constitution of this Government as he hath contrived it but onely by Conquest he leapes from this Finall resolution of which he should give us some proof to speake of the Title by Conquest Conquest I confesse may give such a Right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can master Pag. 13. I had not mentioned Conquest but to take away the exception made to the Apostles prohibition of Resistance from the absolutenesse of the Roman Emperors and to shew they made themselves so absolute by force of Armes but seeing this Answerer will make a businesse of it he must take notice that Conquest is one of the meanes by which God translates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought that people under and had a right over them by Conquest 2. Sam. 12. that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Iudah from which they revolted 2 Chro. 21.8 The Romans also had a right over Iudou by Conquest our Saviour acknowledges it in Caesar give to Caesar c. and in his substitute Pilate that he had power given him from above If this Answerer should looke through all Christendome he would scarce find a Kingdom that descends by inheritance but it had a beginning in Armes and yet I thinke he will not say the Titles of these Kings are no better then of Plunderers for though it may be unjust at first in him that invades and Conquers yet in the succession which is from him that providence which translates Kingdomes manifests it selfe and the will of God and there are momenta temporum for the justnesse of such Titles though we cannot fixe them If he say they begin to be just when the consent of the people is yeelded were it so and not so till then yet is that in all likelyhood an overawed consent as he grants the consent of the people of Rome was to their Emperors Pag. 21. and little to the advantage of the people however let their consent be free what the people gaine upon that consent is by an after agreement and grant of the Prince not by precontrivement at their making of the first King as he dreames it to be in this Kingdom We need not looke farre for instance we see Mag Char begins each clause with a Concessimus to the antient liberties of the Subject By which we see how vainly he breakes into passion in the words following How undoctor all how unchristian inhumane Barbarisme it is to talke of a right by Conquest in a Civill a Christian State Pag. 13. and a little after how many wayes doth this Resolver abuse His Majesty herein I had indeed abused Him had I talked of His Right as fondly as this man hath done I said he King claimes from the Conqueror and that of uncertain plea of supposed first Election could not give Subjects such power against him as is now pretended to I shewed the Emperors of Rome made themselves such by force of Armes so did the Saxons here so did the Normans after them master this people this Answerer speakes nothing to these beginnings of this Government in the Saxon and Norman Lines but still tells us of a first Election and 't is un-Christian to talke of Conquest that is to speake the truth David as it was said above being provoked by the King of Ammon tooke away his Crown made that people to serve as slâ—â—es The Conqueror had a Title from the Saxon Kings being denyed he pursu's it and in the pursuit of it by Armes subdues this Land can we thinke he was bound to such a first Constitution as this man conceives We see it otherwise and what has been consented to by succeeding Kings My Collection then was shall the pretended right of the people by such an Election be good against a King that claimes not by it but receives the Crown by succession descending through severall Conquests and yet the right of the Roman people not good against their Tyrannicall Emperours that made themselves of Subjects Lords over them by force of Armes I know not how this should be injurious to Christianity unlesse it be un-Christian to restraine the resistance and rebelling of Christians against a Christian Prince when as the Apostle did forbid Christians and all the people of Rome to resist their Emperour though Heathen and Tyrannicall Let us see whether it be injurious to His Majesty How do's he abuse His Majesty herein A Title he yeelds Him by Conquest and yet He must not rule by it a King as Conquerour and yet He must not rule as a Conqueror How injurious does he make the King to His posterity in that he subscribes and sweares to a limited title and has a free one the while to hold by pag. 13. it was no injury to his Majesty
Delinquents should be brought to a Legall tryall and the State defended is just and necessary yet to be done in an orderly and Legall way not by an Army raised by Subjects taking the Militia and power of the Kingdome out of chose hands in which the Law has inâ—â—â—sted it And if Conscience were to speake the Truth it could not say that any Delinquents were denied or with-held till the Militia was seized and a great Delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to tryall at His Majesties instance of which see more above Sect. 5. Neither can Conscience say that Subjects have had cause upon feares and pretences of forrain invasion or insurrection of Papists to Arme and resist Whether this be done by an Act of jurisdiction we may discerne by the plea of the fuller Answerer for he would have us believe they are inabled to this by Law and the Constitution of this Government and that they doe it by an act of judgement the States judgement residing in their finall resolution and that this power of theirs is transcendent to any power ordinarily in the King for it declares Law without Him it does arbitrarily command the power of the Kingdome and the obedience of the people without and against the commands of the King so we found it in the examination of his discourse and what is more required to an act of Jurisdiction I know not let Him and Mr. Bridge agree it Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of preservation First from the Law of Nature selfe preservation is naturall for a Man for a Community and therefore when a Community shall trust a Prince with their welfare that act of trust is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall Law which is selfe-preservation pag. 2. But the Fuller Answer will tell him there must be a Constitution to enable them to this selfe-preservation And were this Argument good then might private men or the people without the Parliament take Armes and resist for selfe-preservation is naturall to them and no positive Law which according to the Fuller Answer restraines their resistance upon their trust given to the Houses of Parliament can according to Mr. Bridge his reason destroy that naturall Law Also absolute Princes with whom the people have intrusted their welfare without any resevation might be resisted which the Fuller Answer againe denies for that act of trust is but by positive Law and according to Mr. Bridge it must not restraine them for it cannot destroy the Naturall Law of self-preservation But he should have observed that as the naturall body is to preserve it selfe according to its Law and no otherwise so a Community or politique body must doe it according to its Law which prescribeth the order and way and means of preservation and for want of holding to that way we see people often under pretence of this selfe-preservation drawne by seditious Leaders into Armes to their owne destruction Secondly he proves it from the Law of God by places of Scripture but so wildely that I am ashamed to repeat them yet the judicious Reader must give me leave for the peoples sake that are abused by these mens abusing of Scripture 1 Chron. 12.19 It is expresly said that David went out against Saul to battail but he was Sauls subject at that time pag. 2. A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for Subjects to go out to Battaile against their King but he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that He helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Achish See below Sect. 9. where this place is touched again Rom. 13. Be subject to the higher powers But the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pag. 3. this is well assumed but we grant the Conclusion there is a subjection due to them and if he means by the Parliament the three Estates concurring then all manner of subjection and obedience is due to them But he takes them as divided for it follows Though the King be supreame yet they have the high power of declaring Law pag. 3. this is a good explication of the Supremacy Yea this Doctor confesseth they are most fit to judge what is Law Take in all my words which were these none so fit to judge what those fundamentalls are as They that have power to build new Laws upon them and then make what you can of them or look what is spoken above of Supremacy Sect. 4. of the power of Declaring Law Sect. 6. Then he undertakes to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and has the ill hap to light on Saul David and Solomon for examples because it is said They made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11. and so of David and Solomon which was the peoples not giving of power but receiving and acknowledging him for King whom the Lord had designed Lastly he has found an example and proofe for the trust of Parliament in Davids time 1 Chron. 13.1 2. David consults with the Captains and Leaders and with all the Congregation about the fetching of the Ark what then These were Officers not of the King but Kingdom and though under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom pag. 5. Excellent Collections The Fuller Answer will tell him presently that the Kings of the Iewes were absolute Monarches though I say not so yet this I say those were Officers of the King and Kingdom meerly designed by him not the people and called by him to that trust what he infers that the Parliament is entrusted by the people though not deduceible from that place I grant yet so as that they have a trust from the King upon them too as was above shewn Sect. 4. But that in case they think the King misled it belongs to their trust to take the Armes of the Kingdom as M. Bridge would inferre can neither be drawn out of that place of Scripture nor any Law of this Land that ever could yet be seen The like rambling discourse he has upon the 5. Sect. touching the Monarchicall Government which God set up over his people wherein as he is for the conclusion altogether contrary to the Full Answerer who held the Jewish Monarchy absolute so for his proofes and places of Scripture alleaged altogether impertinent At length he will seem to give us Law for it Inferiour Courts have power to send for by force if need be those that are accused much more the Parliament the highest Court pag. 6. And therefore also inferiour Courts have power to raise Armies to force in the Accused if they refuse to come in upon Summons that would make good work But the Law has provided a force if need be a Posse Comitatûs and the Kings Officer or Minister for that is the Sheriffe but this new way turnes both the King out
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