CHAP. I,

NOw because the Basis of our Question is, concerning the nature of Government, Rule and Authority, or ru­ling and governing power (in which principle our Do­ctor is so much mistaken) I must (though at last) shew what that is. Power in it selfe therefore, or [...], the word u­sed Rom. 13. properly signifies a liberty or authority toPotest as in genere est fa­cultas quae dam propinqua ad exercendum a­liquam opera­tionem in ali­quo supposito, ut domificator babet potesta­tem domifican­di, id est facul­tatem qua in propinquo po­test exire in talem operati­onem. Alman. depotest Eccl. & Laic q. 1. apud Gerson. worke or act towards others, translated licentia from [...], as licentia à licet: Sometimes the word is used in the abstract, as Luke 4. 6. Luke 19. 17. Sometimes in the concreate, as Matth. 8. 9. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Where, saith Gerard, Vbi non sine gravi [...]onfilio Apostolus abstracti­valocutione uti voluit, ut ostenderet subditos non debere ad personas imperantium respicere, sed adipsorum officium quo divinitus sunt instructi. Ger. de mag. polit. cap. 1. not without great advice the Apostle Paul doth use an abstractive manner of speech to shew that subiects ought not so much to respect the persons commanding, as the office it selfe in their com­mandements. Take the word in the abstract, so it is all one with jurisdiction, which is ordinarily described to be Jus dicendi in in­vitum. [Page 3] Now this governing power is either Ecclesiasticall or Ci­vill: civill Concerning which our question is according to the Apostle Paul, as Gerard, In Epist. ad Rom. Re­gem ettam de­finit prope ad dialecticā sub­tilitatem esse enim ait mi­nistrum cui gladius tradi­tus est ut ma­los puntat, ac bonos foveat & sublevet. Buchan de Ju­re Regni apud Scotos. Magistratus in abstracto ex loco Apostoli­co, Rom 13. sic dosmire po­test, Est pote­st as à Deo or­dinata, gla [...]io armata ut sit custos divinae legis & alia­rum honest arum constitutionum ad conservand. pacem in genere hnmano, & re [...]pub. salutem obtinendam, Ger. de pol. mag conclus gen. Bucanan, and others have it, is that or­dinance of God which is armed with the sword for the terror of those that are evill, and encouragement of those that do well, Rom. 13 1 2. 3. This dominion of jurisdiction is distinguished from dominion of pro­priety: for dominion of propriety, as Medina observes,Dominium jurisdictionis est potest as guber­nandi subdiios suos cujus actus sunt p aecipere vetare, judicare, punire, pr [...]miare. Dominum oro­prie [...]atis jus disponendi de r [...] aliqua in suum com [...]dum. Medina de jure & justitia. is a power of disposing of any thing that is a mans owne to his own profit. The power of Jurisdiction or government is not so; which while some have mistaken, they have attributed so much power to the Prince, in regard of Townes, Castles and Forts, as if he had there­in dominion of propriety, which breeds much confusion in mens apprehensions, and doth bias their thoughts into state errors. Ac­cording to Alman, Secular or Civill power,Pote­st as Secularis vel Laica, est potest as à populo vel successione haere atarea, vel ex electione alt [...]ui, vel alicubus traaita regulanter ad aedificationem comm [...]nitatis quantum adres civiles, secundum leges civiles pro constitutione habitationis pacifi [...]ae. Alman. ibid. is that power which re­gularly is given to one, or more, by the people, for the ordering and pre­servation of the Common-Wealth, according to the civill Lawes thereof. I shall go no further then the Scripture will lead us plainly in this particular: As Ecclesiasticall power or jurisdiction is ministeri­all, and therefore called, Jus clavium, the power of the Keyes; so Civill power is Lordly, and therefore called, Jus gladii, the power of the Sword, whereby some are authorized to exercise jurisdi­ction in Common-wealths over others, for the reward of those that are good, and the punishment of those that are evill: that is, governing or ruling power.

CHAP. II.

HAving now spoken of power in generall, I shall say somewhat of the governing and ruling power of England; yet because that concerns the Parliament to declare (which they have done) and Lawyers for to clear which they do, I shall but touch upon it, and no more then comes within the compasse and verge (I do not say) of a di­vine but subject. I find therefore in learned Fortescue, Lord Chief-Justice, and after Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixth time, that he doth distinguish of governed or ruling power into two sorts, the one meerly royall, and the other politick. When Kingdoms are ruled by royall government, saith he, then men in Homines quondam po­tentia per pol­lentes, avidi dignitatis & gloria vicinas s [...]pe gentes si­bt v [...]ibus sub­jugarunt ac ipsis servire obtemperare quo (que) jussioni­bus suis com­pulerunt quas jussiones ex tunc leges ho­minibus illis esse ipsi sancti­erunt. Fortes. de lau­dibus legum Angl. ca. 12. Ad tutelam nam (que) legis subditarum & corum corpus & bonorum Rex homini erectus est, & ad hanc potestatem a populo eslux­am ipse haec, quo einon li [...]et potestatë alia suo populo do­minari. c. 13. Princtpatum nam (que) nedum regali sed & politica, ipse suo populo do­minatur. c. 9. times past excelling in power, and greedie of dig­nity and glory, did many times by plain force subdue unto them­selves their neighbours the Nations adjoyning, and compelled them to do them service, and to obey their commands, which commands, they decreed afterwards to be unto the people, very Laws. Cap. 12. The forme of institution of a politick Kingdom is that where a King is mad, and ordained for the defence of the Law of his Sub­jects, and of their bodies and goods, whereunto he receiveth power of his people, for that he cannot govern his people by any other [Page 16] power. Cap. 13. Now, saith he, the King of England cannot alter or change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure, for he gover­neth his people by power, not onely Royall, but also politick. And accordingly Wil. the Conquerour (to go no higher, in whose entrance to the Crown Dr. F. makes the first contrivement of his English government for conscience to rest upon) seemes to me to have possest himself of this Kingdom, who though he did conquer the same, yet the first claime or title that he laid to this Crown was gift, which Edward the Con­sessorFox Act. Mo­num. of Will. Conqueror. had made to him; Herauld the former King having promised the Crown also to him. In this right he first set foot on the English shore, not in the right of a conquest, but in the right of a gift and promise, as Speed, Cambden and others affirm.Ex lib. Regum Antiquorum in Pretorio Lon­dinensi. Mr. Fox Act. Mo­xum. ibid. And afterwards when he had obtained the Crown, he swore to use and practise the same good laws of Edward for the com­mon laws of this realme; notwithstanding saith M^r Fox, Amongst the said lawes I find in ancient Records, this was part, that the King because he is Vicar of the highest King, is appointed to rule the king­dome, Nam prece­dentibus die­bus Edwinus & Morcardus apud London audito interri­tus Haroldi nuntio urbanos solicitaverunt ut alterutrum in regnum sub­l [...]varent, caete­riproceres Ed­g irum elige­rent si Episco­pos hererent, sed Angliqui in unam coeun­ies sententiam pot [...]issent pa­trie reso mare ruinam dum nullum ex [...]suis volebant [...] d [...] ­xerunt alienū. Gui Malms. [...]e Wil primo, lib. 3 pag 102. and the Lords people, to defend the holy Church; which unlesse he do the name of a King agrees not to him, but he loseth the name of a King, &c.

2^ly, As the King and Conqueror came into the Kingdome by this claim, so we finde, that in those times the consent and choice of the people was in use for the establishing of Kings amongst them: For when William the first sent to Herald to make good his promise, Herald answered, that he was right­full King, as being so by the consent and choyce of the peo­ple, as is reported in Cambden in his Britannia, thus: As con­cerning the promise of King Edw. William is to understand, that the Realme of England could not be given by promise, neither ought I to be tied to the said promise, seeing the Kingdome is fallen to me by election, and not inheritance. And as for his own stipulation, he said, it was extorted from him by force; neither he if he could, nor might if he would, make it good, seeing it was done without the con­sent of the people. Yea, Histories tell us, that when William the first had beaten Herald in the field, the people still were in doubt whom they should chuse and setup for their King: For sayes Culiel. Malmsburiens Edwin and Morcard came to London and solicited the Citie that they would preferre one of them to the Kingdome; and the rest of the Nobles would have chosen Edgar, if the Bishops would have stuck to them: But the English, who then might have healed the ruines of the Kingdome, whilest they would [Page 17] none of their owne, brought in a stranger. So that though William the first had gotten the field, yet was not he brought to the Crown, but with the consent and choyce (though much over-pow'red and o­ver-awed) of the people. So sayes Speed expressely, Consent thus got­ten, & all voices given for William, he was crowned King at Westminster.

3^ly, As the Crown in those dayes was obtained by the consent & choice of the people, so I say, that even William the Conquerour did not come to the Crown without all conditions: for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon cōdition, which they proposed thus, Most noble Duke, behold here the Commons of Kent are come forth Speed Chron. of Will. the Conquerour. to meet and receive you as their Soveraigne, requiring your peace, their own free condition or estate, and their ancient lawes formerly used. If these bee denied, they are here presently to abide the verdict of battell, fully resolved rather to die then to depart with their lawes, or to live servile in bondage, which name and nature is, and ever shall be strange unto us, and not to be exdured. The Conquerour driven to these streights, and loath to hazard all on so nice a point, more wisely then willingly granted their desires, and pledges on both parts given for performance. So saith Speed in his Chro­nicles, so that it is plain, that even William the first came not to the full Crown of England, without all conditions, and therefore our Kings and Princes pleading their right from him, cannot be Kings and Princes without all conditions. I know D^r. F. tells us, that the Kings oath imports no condition, but is taken for confirma­tion and strengthning of mutuall duties: whether that be true, let any judge who reads but these things. And indeed, if the Kings of England were such absolute Monarchs, as that no resistance might be made to their commandments for the taking up of Arms for the defence of the country, when enjoyned by Parliament, then the sub­jects and people of England must lose this power of selfe-defence: (for they once had it all men by nature having a power to defend themselves) either by conquest, as being by force spoyled thereof, or else they gave it away by some indenture at the election of the Prince (for inheritance is but succession of election inheritance or immediate donation from God, or else God hath forbidden this forcible resistance by Scripture. If it bee said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest, and are as a people meetly conquered, then any other sword that is longer then the Princes, may fetch back that power again. If it be said that this people gave away this power by Indenture at the first election of their Prince, then let men shew us such Indenture. If it be said, that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3. or the like Scriptures, then it must be affirmed that the Parliament are not the higher po­wers, [Page 18] which D^r Ferne granteth: for if the Parliament come with­in the compasse of those words (higher Powers) then that Scripture Rom. 13. doth not reach them, but rather requires others to be o­bedient to them; yea, if by the higher powers is understood onely the King, then the two Houses may not▪ make any forcible resi­stance against any petty Constable that comes in the K^• authority to do violence to the two Houses. Surely therefore this and the like Scriptures are much abused, the meaning being only to command obedience to authority in all things that tend to the encourage­ment of good, and puishment of evill; and therefore there is such a power in the subjects, both by the law of nature, and constitution of the kingdome, to take up Arms when the State or two Houses ex­presse it; not withstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary.

CHAP. III.

HAving shewed the nature of power in generall, in the first chapter, & the way & manner of Englands government in some measure in the second Chapter, I now come to the vindication of the truth, as opposed by D^r Fern in his last Book called Conscience satisfied, wherein he spends the 7 former chapters mostly in answer to a book called a Fuller answer. In his 8. Sect. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the law­fulnesse of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of Arms as now they do. That I may not weary the Reader in turning from book to book, I shall somtimes briefly set down what I had written, then his Reply, then give my answer unto it.

Mr.Bridge tels us, saith the Doctor, that there are three grounds of their proceeding by armes: to fetch in Delinquents to their tri­all, to secure the State from forrain invasion, to preserve them­selves from Popish rebellon. Dr.Ferne replyeth,Yet this must be done in an orderly and legall way; and if conscience would speake the truth, it could not say that any delinquents were denied, or withheld, till the Mi­litia was seized, and a great delinquent, in the matter of Hull, was denied to be brought to triall at his Majesties instance.

Ans. How true this is that the Doctor writes the world knows I need not say: the Parliament to this day never denied to try any that were accused by the King, so that they might be tried legally by himself and the two Houses, which is the known priviledge of every Parliament man according to Law.

Dr.F. But Mr.Bridge tels us,all this is done as an act of self-pre­servation, not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince; and the Fuller Answer would have us beleeve they are inabled to it by Law▪ and constitu­tion [Page 19] of this government, and that they do it by an act of judgement: let him and Mr. Bridgeagree it.

Ans. There needs no great skill to untie this knot, not mediator to make us friends, the Parliament hath raised this Army by an act of judgement and jurisdiction, not over their Prince, but in regard of Delinquents: so the same act may be a work of jurisdiction in regard of others, and yet an act of preservation in regard of our selves. The execution of any malefactor in an ordinary way of Law is both preservation to the State, and a work of jurisdiction in regard of the offender, so here; yet I do not say it is a work of jurisdiction over our Prince, but in regard of delinquents that are about him.

Dr.F. Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of self-preservation from the Law of Nature, it being naturall to a man, and so to a commu­nitie to defend it self. And were this argument good, then might private men and the people without the Parliament take up armes and resist, for self-preservation is naturall to them.

Ans. It follows not, because, though I say every thing may de­fend it self by nature, yet I say also it must do it modo suo & naturae suae convenienti; we say that all creatures do defend themselves, and it is naturall so to do; yet we do not therefore say that a beast de­fends himself in the same manner as a man doth, or a man as a beast, but in a way sutable to every nature. Now if a private per­son be in danger to be oppressed by a Prince, flying is more fit de­fence for him, and therefore saith our Saviour, If they persecute thee in one City, flie to another: but if the State be wronged and oppressed, which is a publick grievance, then the State, and those that repre­sent them are more fit to take up Armes for its preservation. For Nature in generall teacheth self-preservation; Nature specificated teacheth this or that preservation: now the nature of a communi­tie, and of a particular person are distinct, and therefore though I say a community is to defend it self because sui tutela is naturall to every thing; yet I do not say, that a particular private person may ordinarily defend himself in that way which is most sutable to the communitie as the taking up of Armes is, yet I suppose no mode­rate man will denie this that the Subjects (though) not invested with authoritie have a power to keep out an enemie from landing incase of forrain invasion, yea though the Kings Officers should be negligent therein; or so malitious and treacherous as to forbid them to defend themselves and their Countrey.

Secondly, saith the Doctor,He proves it by Scriptures, 1 Chron. 12. 19.where the Word of God saith expresly, that Davidwent out against [Page 20] Saulto battell, but he was Saulssubject at that time; A desperate under­taking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for subjects to go out to battell against their King. But he should have added what is ex­pressed there, it was with the Philistines that he went out, and that he helped them not▪ for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Acis [...].

Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to (which were these) which Scripture I bring not to▪ prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King, but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are ma­lignant about the Kings person, notwithstanding the Kings com­mand to the contrary. For seeing that Davids heart smote him for­merly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment, and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul, its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him.

Then the Doctor brings in another peece of my argument, not the whole reason or the sense of it, thus, Be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice. pa. 3. To which he replies (modo suo) well assumed, and so it is, for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power; We grant (faith the Doctor) there is a subjection due to them, and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due unter them. It's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Par­liament without the third estate. And if any subjection then they have some authority; but none they can have, if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them. And if they have power to bring in 20 by force, then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which can­not be done without raising an Army.

Then he undertakes, sayes the Doctor, to shew out of Scripture, that Kings receive their power from the people, and hath the ill hap to light on Saul, David and Salomon for examples.

Ans. The Doctor hath the ill hap alwayes to misse the argument which lay thus: If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome, and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common wealth; then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-wealth with the safety thereof as well as the King, though not so much, then are they to looke to it, and to use all means for the preservation thereof, as well as the King. But so it is, that the King is bound to look to the safety thereof, and that be­cause he is intrusted therwith, as was Saul, David and Salomon, who came to their government by the consent and choice of the people. Whereupon the Doctor replies, He hath the ill hap to light on Saul, David and Salomon.

[Page 25] Answ.But it seems the Doctor had not the good hap to meet with these severall Authors which affirme that even these Kings,Saul, David andSalomon, were chosen by the people▪ If he had read or minded them, he would not have imputed this as an illQuod si objici­as Samuilem un­gendo, Sa le a absque ullo po­puli consensu▪ acdicendo ecce unxit te Domi­nus super heare­ditatem suam i [...] principem, 1 Reg, 10. n 1, manifeste indi­casse Regiam po­testatem Sauli collatam, non á populo, sed á Deo immediate pro­fecta [...] esse; Facile responder i potest, illam unctionem non fuisse signum potestatis collatae sed confe [...]endae, ut probari potest ex unctione Davidis [...] [...] Samuel unxit, 1 Reg 16. n. 13. [...]guante adhue Saule, im [...]multis post annis regna­tu [...]o. Vnde per eam vnctionem non accepi Da­vid regiam pote­statem, led per [...]m qu [...] postea sacta est ab universis Tribabus, et [...]enio [...]ib [...]s, quando venientes in Hebron un [...]e [...]unt David in regem super Israel Reg. 2. 5. 3. Q [...]a [...]e illa prior unctio non fuit colla io regiae potestatis, sed tanti [...]m significatio qu edam hujus posteriotis unct [...]oni [...] per qua [...] confe [...]end [...] erat illa regia potesta [...] sic ig [...]tur et prima illa Saulis unctio ante populi consensum, non significav [...]t regiam potestatem collatam, sed confercudam, quando [...] quin s populus a Samue [...]e congregatus in M [...]pah, [...] praebuit consensum, & [...]lamavit vivat [...] Ita possunt p [...]o hac pa [...]te [...]jus auctores non pa [...]um prob [...]biliter argumenta [...], Mendoza in 1 Reg. cap. 8, num. 5 pag. 5 [...]2. hap unto me for to light on these examples, I will give him but the testimony ofMendoza who though not of our judge­ment in this matter, yet ingeniously confesses, that with great probability Authors do reason for a popular choise ofSaul, David, andSalomon. Whereas saithMendoza, it is objected,that Samuelby anointing Saulwithout any consent of the people, saying,the Lord hath anointed thee King over his heritage, did thereby clearly shew, that the regall power was conferr'd upon Saulnot from the people, but from God, that is easily answered, that that Vnction was not a signe of power already conferr'd, but to be conferr'd as may be proved by the anointing of David,whom Samuelanointed, 1 King. 16. 13.Dureing SaulsRaigne, yea while he had many yeares to ra [...]gnt. Wherby it appeares thatDaviddid not receive regall power by that unction, but by that which he had afterward by all the Tribes & Elders; when coming to Hebronthey anointed DavidKing over Israel;Therfore that first unction was not the conferring the regal power, but only a signification of this latter unction, by which this Kingly power was to be derived or conveyed: so also that first anointing of Saulbefore the consent of the people, did not signifie the Kingly power alrea­dy conferred, but to be conferred upon him, to wit, when all being ga­thered together bySamuelto Mispahgave their consent, and cryed out, Let the King live.

He hath fou [...]d an example and proofe for thetrust of Parliement in Davids time,1 Cro. 13. 1, 2.Because Davidconsults w th the Cap­taines and Leaders which were Officers [...]ot of the King, but Kingdome, but those were Officers of the King and Kingdome, meerly designed by him not the People, and called by h m to that trust,pag 43 44▪

Answ. True I have found an example indeed in Davids time for what I alledged: Namely, that there were then certaine Of­ficers of the Kingdome, not of the King onely, and though under him, yet were they with him trusted with the affaires [Page 26] Hujus autem temporis respub. Monarchica fuit, Aristocratia ta­men perm xta, et accellit ali quid etiam Democra­ticum, habuit enim Senatum Septuagint, cujus Judices pat [...]ien et principes vocan­tur; Regi assideg­tes summum reg­ni, judicium con­ficiebant, ad quod di [...]iciliores [...]au­sae▪ regis & ponti­fiers elect [...]o, beili gerendi consulta­tio, al [...]a que totum populi corp s concer­nentia refer. [...]ban. tur. De hoe Sy­nedrio Josephus nihil agat ex sine Senatorum Sententia fue runt [...]ue hi eo apnd reges loco, ut fiatres eos suos dicerent Zepperus Mosaie. fo [...]en. Expla. l. [...]. cap. 6. of the Kingdome. This also was the judgement of the Pro­testant Divines in France (whose Testimonie I shall relate af­terwards) of lumus, Josephus, Brutus, Zepperus, Sigonius, and many others. Zepperus saith thus, That in Saul, David and Salomons time, & so before the Captivity, the Kingdom of Israel was mixed with Aristocracie, for it had a Senate of 70. or great Synedrim, which sate at Jerusalem, whose Iudges were called Princes, who sitting by the King did dispatch the great affaires of the Kingdome, unto whom was referred the choice of the King and High Priest, and matters of War and other things greatly concerning the people. Of this Synedrion Josephus saith, Nihilagat Rex sine Senatorum sententia, Yea, these Senators were in such place with the King, that they were called his friends & brethren, 1 Chron. 2. 2. And though the Dr. saies, Those Officers in Davids time were designed by the King, not the people, Yet if we look to the originall in the first of Deut. 13. We [...]inde that the people did first give them to Moses before he did make them Rulers, for v. 13. Moses relating the first consti­tution of that Government saith, I said unto you, give mee wise men, and understanding and known men among your Tribes, and I will make them Rulers over you: The English Translation readeth, Take y [...]e wise men, the Hebrew is give yee us, as Montanus hath it, & when they had given them to Mo­ses, he saith, v. 15. So I received them (so is the Hebrew) he would not make any rulers over them, but such as he had first e c eived from them and they had given unto him and so though at the first it pleased God to appoint those Rulers orDedit illis Deus seniores. q [...]i per omma ill▪ equales forent, ut patet Numb. 11. 14. Councell of State called the Sanedrym or Synedrion (where­upon Mendosa saith, that they were equal to Moses being appointed by God as Moses was, Numbers 11. 14, 15, 16.) Yet that was byEtin ipsis s [...]ep­trum ipsum pen▪ debat, nemo au­tem dijudicat tri­bum Sceptrum, &c nisi domus Judi­cii, Ca [...]. S [...]r [...]t. [...]iv. 6. cap. 7. and with the consent and choice of the people, not meerly by appointment of the King as our Doctor would. Car. Sigo­ [...]ius will tell him out of the Tolmodists and other Divines, that he had search'd into, that this Sinedrion or Colledge of El­ders, did represent the Scepter, that the Scepter it selfe did depend on it, that none did judge the Tribe and the Scepter,Penes quos erat summa potestas judicandi con­troversa, & exer­ [...]ndi judicia publici, quin & reges elegendi, et deponendi, unde a Talmodistis vocatur domus judicii magna, vel collegium Sceptri & publici po [...]estatis, Gerardde Eccles-pol. but this house of Judgement. To this purpose Gerrara shewes that this Synedrion was chosen of the chiefe men of Israel, in whom was power of judging controversies, exercising of publique justice, yea of choosing and deposing Kings; And [Page 27] therefore of the Talmodist, this Councell was called the houseHoe Seniorum Synedrian perpe­tuum suit in po­pulo Dei, usque ad Herodem teste Josepho Zepper lib. 3. cap. 5. Sc Dr. Bilson of Subject. & Rebel­lion, p. 338. of Judgement, or the house of the Scepter and publique Authoritie. And Zepperus with Doctor Biljon saith, this Sy­nedrion continued with that people of God unto the time of Herod, Iosep [...]us being witnes. I presse not so much as these Authors speake of; But whether there were not in those times of David Officiari [...] Regns, wich were not meerly design­ed by the King: and what inference I do make from thence let Conscience judge.

Againe, whereas I argue from the being and nature of Par­liament, that if it hath not power to send for by force, those that are accused to be tryed before them, that should not be a Court of Justice; seeing that even inferiour Courts have a power to force those before them that are to be tryed: And if the Parliament may send one Sergeant at Armes, then 20. then 100. then 1000, &c. The Doctor Replies: Therfore In­feriour Courts have a power to raise Armes. (Answer) this fol­lowes not? For though I say every Court hath power to force in the accused; yet it must be in a way suitable: Now this raising of Armes is not suitable unto an Inferiour Court, but to the Parliament being a more Nationall and publike Court then any other is. The Dr. tells us indeed that other Courts have their posse comitatus. So the Parliament have their Orders▪ to fetch and force in the accused, which are esta­blished by law, aswell as his posse Comitatus is: But saith the Dr. I did not know before that all the Parliament Souldiers were Ser­geants at Armes. Answer, how doth hee catch at the word, and let the sence goe; the sence, scope and drift of the Argu­ment, was to shew that as they might send forth one who by force should fetch in the accused; by the same reason they might send forth ten, and by the same Reason that they may send forth, 10; they may send forth 20, so 100, so 1000, so 10000: The Dr. puts off the Argument with a Jeere, because hee hath no list to meddle with the Reason.

In the 45 Page▪ hee would enervate the Testimonies of Di­vines, which I brought to shew that all Protestant Divines were of our minde. Let us see therefore what hee saith to them. And first he begins with the Testimony of the Ger­mane Divines▪ and for that saith he: The Testimony of the Cen­turiste, speakes nothing to this purpose; A short answer, soon and [...]sily given, but why nothing to our purpose, nay stay there, [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28] the Dr. will keepe his Reason to himselfe; I set downe there­fore the Testimony againe, and let men judge whether it bee Gubernato [...]es e [...]go in iis reb [...] quae cum de alo­go et j stis legi­bus puguant, nihil juris aut immu­nitati, h [...]bent prae ex [...]e [...]is hu­min [...]b [...] privatis, et perpet [...]antes id quod malum est, coguntu [...] tam metuere o [...]din [...]ti ouem De [...] ▪ glad [...]. umpraestantem ad vindict im n [...]cc [...] ­tium, quam a [...]i hene▪ pri [...] i nam Paulus Rom. 13. docet. Deum ordinasse et insti­ [...]isse potestatem illa [...] gladio de­fendendi bonum, et puniendi ma­lum▪ et praecipit, utomn [...] anima (et fie gubernatores) tali Dei ordinati­oni sit subjecta; hoc est obligat ad faciendum bo­num, si velit de­fendi istâ Dei ordinatione, et non ob sua faci­nora impia pu­niri. Magdebur gensis cens. lib. 20. to the purpose. Governours say they in such things as are repugnant to the law of God, have no power or [...] above other private men, and they themselves commanding that which is evill, have no power or immunitie above others; Yea, they themselves commanding that which is evill, are as much bound to feare the Ordinance of God, bea­ring the▪ word for the punishment of vice: for St. Paul, Rom. 13. saith that God dia instance and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good, and punishing that which is evill; and hee com­mands that every soule, and so the governours themselves should bee subject [...]o this Ordinance of God if they would be defended by it, and not by their wicked deeds, makes themselves liable to punishment.

Of the Frenchand Low CountryDivines, he brings no testimony (saith the Dr.) but (for proose▪ tels us ne know their practice; so I for answer may returne him his owne words; we know what hath been the practice of thoseProtestants,and so they are parties interessed not so fit to give in witnesse.

An. Very well if they be parties interessed, and so not fit to give in witnes, then they are of our judgment: observe Reader here he granteth that the Protestant Churches, and the Di­vines of France and the Low-Countries, are parties interessed, & so of our judgement; What Protestant Churches or Divines then will he alledge for his sentence. Will hee have the Di­viner of Switzerland? I brought a Testimony of the Divines of the Councell of Basil, and that hee doth not contradict: Are the Divines of Geneva of his mind? I brought the Testi­mony of Calvin, that hee saith nothing to, but it passeth with him as granted by him. Are the Divines of Scotland? I brought him the Testimony of Mr. Bucanan, that Testimony also he doth not deny; It may be that was but one, and so he would not take notice of it; Read therefore what Mr. Knox saith: Because this occasion is layed against Gods true Ministers; Wee cannot but witnesse what Trade and Order of Doctrine they have kept and keepe in that point; they affirme that if wicked persons abu­sing the authority established by God, command things manifestly wick­ed, that such as may, and doe, bridle this inordinate appetite of Prin­ces, cannot bee accused as resistaries of Authority, which is Gods good Ordinance, to bridle the fury and rage of Princes in free Kingdomes, and Realmes. They affirme it appertaineth to Nobility sworne and borne Counsells of the same, and also to the Barons and People, whose [Page 29] Wills and Consents are to bee required in all great matters of the Com­mon wealth: Which if they doenst, they declare themselves criminall with their Princes, and subject to the same vengeance of God. This was the doctrine and judgement of the Divines in Scotland, inMr. Knox History of the Church of Scotl. p, 343. the beginning of Reformation, as related by Mr. Knox; And what the judgement of the Scots Divines is for the present, seeing he will not take practise for Testimony of Judgement, he may Read in their Answer to Lysimachus Nicanour thus: As for the lawfullnesse of resistance hee may understand that that hath been the tenet of our Church since the Reformation, it hath beene the right and practise of our Kingdomes, since the first foundation. A number of instances thereof are approved in our standing acts of Par­liament, unrepealed to this day; It hath beene the practise of all Re­formed Answ. to Lysima chus Nicanor. pag. 8. Churches abroad, wherein by Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles, they have been all allowed: And the most of them allowed by powerfull assistance, both with Men and Money: To this purpose Dr. Rutherford also as I have shewed already, Chap. 1. ropos, 3. But it may be the Dr. will tell us that the Scottish Divines are also Parties, and interessed in the Cause. Very good, Wee shall shortly have a great Party in the Protestant Churches for us and with us; What Divines then are against us in the Doctors opinion? Are the Divines of England? He tels us also, page 45. yet doe some of them allow of Resistance in some cases: Good still; By and by it will arise to somewhat, here is yet more of our Party (as the Dr. calls them) by his owne confession. As for the Testimonies that I brought of Dr. Bilson and Dr. Willet, he saith that's plaine they speake of such Go­vernment, such States, such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom at this time. But why not, the Dr. will not tell us. If I tell him that Peter Martyr also Professor of divinity in England, was of our Judgement, as he may read plainely, [...]udg. 1. hee will tellPeter Mart▪ in Iudg. cap. 1. me, it may be, that Peter Martyr speakes not of this time, or of this case, or of this State: If I referre him to Polanus, Dan. Polanus in Dan. 11. 11. who writes largely in this matter with us, it may bee hee will tell us also that Polanus speakes not to our case, to our time, or to our State: But if I referre him to Barkley and Hugo Grocius who well knew the judgment of the low Coun­trey divines. I suppose the Dr. will not say those are Parties: Barcleus saith Hugo Grocius the most strong defender of Regall Em­pire, Barcleus regn im­perii assertor forti [...]imus, hue tamen descendit, ut populo, et insigni ejus parti jus concedat se tuendi▪ adversum immanem s [...] ­vitiam▪ Cum tamen ipse fate [...]tur totum populum regi s [...]bditum esse; Ego indiscriminatim [...] aut singulos, aut partem populi minorem, quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio, sic utatur ut interim et Communis bo [...]i respec [...]m non deserat. [...]ix ausim nam David a matos circum se aliquanto habuit; quo nisi ad vim arcendam, si inferetu [...]. Et hos ipso tempore David i prudente f [...]emina dieitur Bella Dei, i. e. pia gere [...]e; quod male multi ad s [...]la belia p [...]io [...]a trahunt, quum potiu, emendatio fit ejus quod Nabal dixe [...]at, multos Subditos a rege [...]uo de­fic [...]re, quod at corrigat Abigal bella Davidis pia esse dic [...]t, utpo [...]e non defectionis, sed solo vitae tu [...]ndae confi­ [...]io suscepta Hugo, Grocius de jure belli & pac [...]s lib. 1. cap. 4. [Page 30] yet descends thus farre to yeeld unto the people, and the chiefe part of them a power to defend themselves against immane cruelty, when yet notwithstanding hee confesses that the people are subject unto the King: and as for [...]ne saith Hugo Grocius, I dare not indiscriminatim condemne those or that part of the people which doe use this defence ha­ving respect unto the publike good: For David had many armed men about him▪ that hee might repell violence offered unto him; And at that time David was commended by a prudent Woman, that hee sought the Lords Battell, which words many doe ill referre to Davids former Battels, where as Abigails Speech is rather a correction of what Na­ball sayd. Many Subjects are now fallen from their King, which words that Abigail might correct, Shee saith the Warres of David were Godly, as being undertaken not out of defection from his Prince, but for tuition and preservation of his owne life. But because the Doctor seemes to want some testimonies of the French Pro­testant divines; I will give him one for all, and surely hee will not say the words are not spoken of such Government, such States, such cases, or such times as ours are. This questionQuid agendum est Subjecto cum á Magistratu vi­olatur; vel si sum­mi Magistratus in ty [...]nn▪s degenerarent, e [...]quid Subject is faciendum▪ necessartone illis obtemperandum an illis repugnandum. [...]s quidem armorum vi adhibita. being on foot in Charles 9 time: What is to be done by the Sub­ject when he is violenced by the Magistrate; or if the chiefe magistrate degenerate into a Tyrant, may the Subjects resist by force of Arms.

That was Answered by one Learned Man, for, and in the defence of the Protestants in those times, thus,Respondeo. Varia esse Subjectorum discrimina, alii mere sunt privati homines, nullum publi [...]um munits gerentes; alii in­fe▪ iorem, et quasi subalternum Ma­gist, atum gerant; alii ita sunt sum­ [...]o Magistrat [...] inferiores; it ta­men ex patriae [...] legi [...] Subjects are of three sorts, either me [...]re private men, bearing no publike Office, or else they are such as are in some inferiour and subordinate place of Magistracie; or else they are such as are so inferiour to the chiefe Ma­gistrate that by the laws of the Land are appointed to bridle the chiefe: as for private men (saith the Author) it is evill for them to resist with force of Armes, either they must sly, or suffer: As for the second sort they not being the Kings houshold Servants, but rather to bee called Officers of the Crowne, depending not so much on the King as King­dome, the King abusing his power to the overthrow of Lawes; these [Page 31] inferiour Magistrates ought to oppose, for the conservation of those who are committed unto their trust; and if need bee to take up Armes tilthings bee otherwise provided for by the Estates of the Kingdome. As for the third sort saith hee, though they in some respect are under the chiefe Magistrate, yet in some respect they are keepers of the Su­preme dignity, that the chiefe Magistrate may bee kept in his Office; These may if need require represse and chastise him, for the people is not made for the Magistrate, but the magistrate for the people; his power taking its rise from them. bus summi Magi­stratus, moderan­dicausa tan quam fraena quedam constituantur, quod ad primum attinet certum est, nefas else privato cailibet privata authoritate vim tyranni vi oppo­nere, sed vel tyranni vis sub­cunda, et tolle. randa est aut cedendum, et alio migrandum. Quod ad Secundum subjectorum genus attinet eorum qui s [...]b [...]lternos Magi­stratus gerunt; non regis quidem familiae Domestici, sed regni potius ministri; quos officiarios Coronae vulgo nuncupant; i [...]a statuendum est, illos non tam a nege quam a regno pendere. illi regi manifeste [...]yranno, et ad lege. evertendas sua potentia abutenti opone [...] se, debent ex jure jurando p estito; obligati ad [...]o um s [...]l [...]tem, et conservationem qui suae fide [...] commissa sunt; armi [...] si opus est etiam adhibi [...]is, done▪ a regni o din [...]b is aliter provisum sit. De tertio autem Subjectorum genere, illud constituendum est quamtus illi revera; et certa quadam [...]atione summum magistratus imperio submittuntur; alia tamen ratione dum u [...]git necessitas sup [...]e [...]i illius pigni [...]atis vindices, et custode; constituuntur, u [...] supremum Magistratum in suo ollicio contineant; imo ut et illum cum necesse sue▪ it reprimant, atque castigent.

Si quis excipiat ut prima illa fue­rit Magistratuum, origo ve um tamen [...]sse popu­l [...] omnem [...]am libertatem in sol dum its resig. nasse quos [...]ummos Magi­stratus sibi p e [...]t. c rent caedo vero tesig [...]atiom. illius ullam probatio­nem, qum sta [...]uo pop [...]l [...]s qnantum quidem valuit jus et e [...]nitas, nec creasse, nec recipisse reges nisi ce [...]tis conditionibus, qnibus á magistratu ma ifel [...]e vi [...]latis consequ [...]tur cum jus illo [...]um abdicandorum h. b. e, qui habnerat [...]reandorum. [...]d de [...]t populum summos Magi­stratus legiti o [...]imperio abutentes; abdi are imperio posse. Et id quidem apud omnes nationes celebrio [...]s usa [...]patum fuisse perspicuum est, Romano; Athenienses Israelitos, Danos, Swedo [...], Scotos & Anglos. Secundo excipitur Regibus si in tyrannos degene a [...]ent; non esse seele um quidem p [...]aebendum ministerium, illis tamen vim minime opponendam; de privatis conced [...]; de inferio tb [...]s ve [...]o Magistrat bus minime. Ad superio [...]es ve o regum quasi Ephoros de tyrannis coercendt, curam maxime eorum per [...]i [...]. e [...]e contendo. Ob.But though this were the first rise of magistracie▪ yet after the people have chosen their magistrate, they have resigned up their power to him.

An.But the people never created or received their Kings, but upon certain Conditions, which being manifestly broken and not kept, those have power to abdicate, who have power to create; and this has al­wa [...]es been in use amongst all the most famous Nations in the World; theIsraeltes, Lacedemonians, Romanes, Danes, Swedes, Scotch, Polonians,and English.

Ob:But if a Magistrate doe degenerate into a Tyrant, as wee are not to be obedient to him, so neither are we to resist him.

Answ.That is onely understood of private men.

Object.But Davidspared Saulthough it were in his power to [...]nth moff.

3. Deinde affertur exemplum Davi­dis q [...]i Sauli [...]y [...] rāno tam studi [...]e pepercit, quamvis illius interficiendi facultatem haberet illud exemplum superio [...]i doctrinae minime repugnare ai [...]; David enim m litarem hominum turmam coegerat, quorum opera si ita postulasset necessi [...]a [...], ha [...]d dub [...]e adversus Sa [...]em. usus fuisse. Ita tamen egit def ensionis potius quam offensionis causa. Commentari [...]rum▪ partis de statu Relig. et reipub, in Regni Gallis, sub Carol. neno Reg. ib. 10. pag. 120, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. in [...]ctav [...]. An. That is no way contrary to the doctrine delivered for David had many armed men about him whose help (if need had required) he would without doubt have used against all, yet thus hee did, having respect [Page 17] rather to his owne defence, then his enemies offence. This testimo­ny tells us what hath beene the practise of all Nations: the testimony of the Scots in their answer to Lisimac [...]us Nica [...]our, saith expresly that our doctrine is according to the judgment of all the Reformea Churches: And if these testimonies will not yet pre­vaile with the Dr. I must leave him to his resolves, hee tells us that our homilies are against us, but let him produce any place out of the homilies where it is said that the two Houses may not take up Armes to bring armed delinquents to their Tryall. Indeed the Homilies speake against Subjects taking up of Armes against their King, so doe not the Parliament, but to defend themselves▪ and to bring Delinquents to tirall; And therefore when the Dr. or other bring forth testimonies of Divines ancient, or late, to prove that Subjects may not take up Armes against their Prince, they had as good say no­thing, that is not to our case but let them prove by testimo­nies that it is not lawful for the Parliament to take up arms to secure the Kingdome, to bring accused Persons to tryall, and to deliver the Prince out of the hands of Malignants, and then they say something to us, else it is but clamor, not Reason.

At last the Doctor speakes somewhat of arbitrary govern­ment, p. 46. which is no way any answer to the reasons that were given by me, proving that his opinion raised the King to an arbitrary government, onely he sets down his further sentence about arbitrarines, eadem facilitate rejicitur qua affir­matur; The Rest of that Section is either spent in naked As­sertions, or jearing expressions, or seeming Answers to his other Answerers.

CHAP. 4.

THe Dr. having spent some time upon his other Answerres at the 49. pag. he is pleased to returne to me, where hee would prove that the people of Israel did not by any forceable resistance rescue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, which worke saies he, was but set off with a souldier like boldnes: Let the Doctor call this work what he please, Saul the King had sworn that Jonathan should dre, and the people sweare be should not dye and they being in Arms did rescue Ionathan saith the Text. This [Page 33] rescue the Doctor calls in his first Booke, a living violence, and in his reply, a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes (I hope the Doctor will give us leave to use the like termes, if a Prince swear the death of some Parliamentary men, who deserve not to die but to be preferr'd, and the people rise up in Arms and rescue their Ionathans, saying, as we live they shall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us, this is no resistance, it is but a loving violence, and a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes, why may not we call this so, aswell as the Dr. That. But I appeale to all reason whether a rescue by men in Arms, from those that have swornea mans death, be not forceable resistance.

But say wee this is more then Prayers and teares, which is th'only remedie allowed by the Doctor, to which he replieth,The Dr. had no where said, though Mr. Bridge makes him often say so, that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects, but be­sides their cries to God, he allowes them intercessions, reproofes, deny­all of subsidies and aides.

Answ. I will not search into the Doctors Booke for every word, take what he granteth here, yet this souldierly boldnes of res­cuing is more then Prayers, teares, reproofes, or denialls of subsidies and aids, which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confesseth now: Yet the Doctor is so full of this sen­tence still, that in the 51. pag. of this book, he saith, that the Children of Israel being under the oppression of their Kings, had no remedie they had, was by crying to the Lord; And againe in the same page saith, all the remedie they had, was by crying to the Lord; so also in his first booke pag. 10. the people are let to understand, I Sam. 8. II. how they should be oppressed under Kings, and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord. Thus doe men forget themselves, and what they have said whilest they contend against truth.

Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David: And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul, the Dr. replies now as before, that Davids example was extraordinary. Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul, did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done; what if wee should say, that Act of Davids was extra­ordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary: he tells us, pag. 31. of his Reply, that Conquest, one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes, and that Da­vid [Page 34] being provoked by the King of Ammon, brought tha people [...]r­der, 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah: What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases. Would not the Doctor take it for a poore shifting Answer from us; When we say any pra­ctice is extraordinary, we must also prove by circumstance, that there was an extraordinaries in the fact, or else acquies in it for our example: But be it so, that Davids example was extraordinary, is not our case now extraordinary? Is Englands case ordinary: hath it bin thus ordinarily, that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament, and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes? has this bin for many yeares? see how the Doctor helps himselfe by this extraordi­nary Answer. He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul; and is not this ordinarily lawfull for subjects to doe so much; the Doctor grants it himselfe, p. 9. of his first Book, That personall defence is lawfull against suddaine and illegall assaults of the Prince himselfe, thus farre, toward his blowes, to hold his bands, &c. and the like; But the Doctor in his Reply has thought of a new reason to prove Davids example extraordi­nary, because else may private and singlemen do so too.

Answ: not so, David was not as every private man, hee was anointed of the Lord one that fought the Lords Battells the great States-man in the Kingdome; with whom were joy­ned Ionathan, and many other chief of the Tribes therefore it followes not from David to every private man, but to the Parlaiment rather, who though not anointed as King and as Saul, yet with some anointment from the Lord into the place of Magistracy, especially being as the Dr. confesseth, Co-ordinate with the King in Supremacy, so farre as con­cernes Nomotheticks.

I said before, if Davids example were extraordinary, then hee had an extraordinary command for what he did; If so, how doth the Dr. say, there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of resistance.

To which the Dr. replieth,as if all extraordinary warrants, and instincts given to special persons, should be written in Scripture.

Answ. So then this works of Davids, which before was cal­led by the Dr. a meere defence is now come to be a matter of special instinct though acts done by speciall instinct, had not [Page 35] alwaies warrant from written Scripture before they were done, yet being done and recorded in Scripture, there is ground and written warrant for the lawfulnes of our actions, upon the like occasions. I did not say, why then doth the Dr, say, there was no warrant in Scripture for David, but why then doth the Dr. say there is no warrant, or ground out of Scripture now for us to doe what we doe? though it might be instinct then, and without written Scripture yet it may be written warrant now.

Then whereas that Scripture is urged (though not to take up Armes against our King as the Doctor suggests) 1 Chron. 1219. Where it is said expresly, that David went out to Bat­tell against Saul, the Dr. Replies Desperate shifesthat thesemen are put to, when pretences and simulations, must bee Scripture ground for Co science. It's said before that David made shew [...]f madnesse be­fore King Achish. Mr. Bridge might as well inferre▪ therefore he was mad.

Answ. Will any else besides this Dr. make such an inference? The Scripture faith, totidem verbis that he went out to Battell against Saul that this was but a simulation is not said in Scrip­ture, but the Scripture doth not say that David was mad, but that he fained himselfe so; is there then the same reason of the one and the other?

The example ofVzziah is next to be cleered: We find that the Priests are commended for valiant men, because they thrust out K.Vzziah from before the Lord, 2Chron. 26. To which instance the Dr. saith,that Uzziahthe King was stricken with Leprosie, and by the Law the Leper was to be put out of the Con­gregation, and awell apart, which is not consistent with Government, therefore it is said of the King; he was a Leper, and dwel [...] in a severall house, andJothamhis Sonne Reigned in his stead, 2 Kin. 15 5.

I shall ever give the Dr. the full weight of his Reason; it seemes by this Answer, that hee would have Conscience be­leeve that the King was discharged from his Crowne▪ by his Leprosie, and [...]p o [...]acto thereby dethroned. Now see what Dr. Bilson saith directly contrary unto this Doctor Vzz ah, saith,Dr. Bilson differ, between [...] and Rebel [...]ion page 326, he dwell a part in a house from others, because of his Leprosie, but you d [...]e not find that he was deprived of his Kingdome, Jotham his sonne Governed his House, and judged the people of the Land, because the King might not be conversant amongst men▪ by reason of his sicknesse, but the Cronne still continued in the father though a Leper, and Jo­tham [Page 36] 2 Kin. 15. 5. 7. began not his Reigne till his Father was dead. Whom the Scripture calleth the King of Juda, in the twenty yeere of his Reigne, and last yeere of his life. Thus Dr. Bilson; And though our Doctor can (with what conscience I know not) joine these2 Chron, 26. words together thus, Hee was a Leper, and dwell in a severall, house, and Jotham his sonne, Reigned in his stead, 2 King. 15. 5. as if all these words were one, and did touch one another in holy writ, yet in truth they are part of two severall Verses, and two other Verses comming betweene them, as in the 5. Verse 'tis said, the King dwelt in a severalt house, and Jotham the Kings son, was over the Kings house, judging the people of the land, not Reigning in his stead as the Dr, reads it then at the 6 and 7 Vertes, the Scripture having spoken further of the King his deeds and death at the end of the seventh it is added, and Jo­tham his son Reigned in his stead, these words being annexed to his death as a consequent thereof; and the Dr. takes them and annexes them to the 5 Verse at the mentioning of his Lepro­sie, as if upon his Leprosie his Sonne Reigned, whereas 'tis plaine he only governed and not Reigned, untill his Father died; Here I cannot but wonder, that the Doctor should so boldly venture to lay violent hands upon Scripture, that hee may lead mens Consciences into his owne sentence: But I hope the Consciences of those that feare God, will take no­tice of such dealing as this, and abhorre that sentence, that must be borne up with such practices; He would perswade us also, that the Priests here are said to bee valiant men, be­cause of their home reproofe which they gave to the King or because of their withdrawing from him the holy things which hee was not to meddle with, but let him shew us any one place of Scripture, where valour being joyned with an expression of force (as here it is, it being said that they thrust him out) doth only note faithfullnes in ones place, by giving reproofe or the like.

At last the Dr. comes to his owne Arguments, and labours to recrute them; and first he tels us that none might blow the Trumpet for warre amongst the People of Israel, but the supreme Ma­gistrate, and therefore the Parliament may not take up arms or blow the Trumpet for warre, as now they doe; To this Argument di­verse Answers unanswered have been given, yet hee is not sa­tisfied but still replieth, and I wonder that he should, conside­ring there is no such matter that I can find as hee alleadgeth [Page 37] in the 10. Chap of Numbers. Tis true the Lord speakes there unto Moses, saying, Verse 5, when yee sound an Alarm; and ver. 6. when you blow an Alarm the second time, and Verse. 7. when the Congregation is to be gathered together, yee shall blow. and verse 9 If yee goe to warre in your Land, yee shall blow an Alarm with your Trumpets, but these words in the Hebrew are all in the plurall number, shewing that the blowing of the Trumper belong­ed aswell to the State and Princes, of whom he spake Ver. 4. It is not sayd that Moses should use those Trumpets exclu­sively hee and not they; but rather hee joyned with them.

Secondly, he comes for his defence to that place ofSamuel; I Sam. 8. 18. where saith he,it appeares that the people had no re­medy against their unjust Kings, but their crying to the Lord. Mr.Bridgeanswers saith he, Samuel,tels them not what should be their duty, but what their punishment, the Lord will not heare you, &c. It was indeed saith the Doctor,their punishment, because all the re­medy they had, which was by crying to theLordshould not help them, which had not been such a punishment, if they had had means to help themselves by power of Armes.

Here the Dr. saith, that all the remedy this people had was by crying to the Lord, which Scripture he brings against our resistance to prove what is our duty and how farre it extends: yet Page 49. of his Reply, he will not owne such a Speech as this, saying, the Dr. had no where said, that prayers and teares, are all the Subjects remedy.

Secondly it appeares plainely that this Scripture I Sam. 8. is not spoken of the Kings right, what he might doe; but of his fact what he would doe, for the King had no such right o­ver his Subjects as to take their Childrens fields, and vineyards from them, for which Ahab was so severly punishment, yet saith this Text of Sam. hee shali take your Daughters fields, and Vineyards, &c. Neither can it be objected, that the word used in the Hebrew is [...], which signifies Judicium, Judgment, or, right seeing; it also signifies Consuetudo, order or manner, as it is well translated in the English, verse 9.

Thirdly, though it be said, ver. 18. then shall yee cry out in that day because of your King which yee shall have chosen, and the Lord will not heare you on that day. Yet it doth not follow that they had no other remedy but crying to the Lord, that's said in Scripture that the People being oppressed with Forraigne E­nemies [Page 38] should cry unto the Lord in their distrcsse and because of their sinnes the Lord threatens not to heare them, but bids them goe to their Idols, and let them helpe them if they can; doth it therefore follow that they might not detend themselves against forraigne Enemies, no such matter: 4. Whereas the Doctor saith in this Reply, It was no such Judgement to cry and not be heard, if yet they had a power to defend themselves by taking up Arme; This answere is very strange from one that calls himselfe a Divine: for suppose that God should say to his people, that had a power to take up Armes against their forraigne [...]nemies, that they should notwith­standing their power cry unto him, and hee would not heare them, nor deliver them from their oppressors; was this no such judgement, because they might take up Arms alas what will all our taking up of Armes doc, either way if God will not heare our cryes and prayers.

The Doctor for his owne defence, and the Defence of his Cause sayd in his first Booke,that if such a Deferce as we now use were Lawfull, it is a marveilous thing that so many prophetsre­prehending the Kings of Israel and Iudah for Idolatry, cruely, and oppression, none should call upon the Elders of the People for this resi­stance, page 10.

To this I answered, see the Propher Elisha expressely calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings Messenger, 2 King [...]6. 32. The Doctor after he comes to himselfe out of a rayling and jeering fit replyes, What [...] Elisha call upon those [...]laers for, to impreson the Messenger? that's more then the Text will beare, unlesse to shut the doore against a man be to imprison him.

Ans. But the Prophet Elisha, not onely call'd upon them2 Kings 632. to shut the doore, but to hold them fast. Shutting the doore indeed doth not note imprnonment, but shut the doore and hold him fast doth: for what is imprisonment, but arcta & violent a custodia, and these are the words of that Text, shut to the doore and hold him fast at the doore. But it's the Doctors manner to take part of the Text, and leave th'other part which makes against him; so he dealeth by our Answeares; so hee dealeth by Scriptures. At length the Doctor having left me to visit my fellow Answerers. as hee calls us for the space of three or foure leaves, he is pleased to returne againe to mee about 13. Rom. and page 60. Hee takes it unkindly that I will not stand to the English Translation of the word [Page 39] [...], damnation, but rather translate it so, They that resist shall recoive to themselves judgement.

To which I say, that I doe not deny but grant that the Word may bee translated Damnation: but seeing the word firstly signifies Judgement, as Piscator observes; I would not have the Dr. so peremptory, scaring people with the word damnation, when as more naturally the word may be rende­red othervvise, I told him before what Piscators reason is, forAmbiguum est autem quod de judicio insert, an de eo quo Divi­nirus olim punt­entur inobedien­tes loquatur, vel de co quod ex­pectandom est à Magistratibus; in posteriori senten­tiae videntur se­quentia savere, pri [...]ri vero prae­cedentia. Verum nihil re­sert ut [...]om intel­liganus, nec quie un n prohibit quo mi­nus de utroque exponamas, cum utrum ne sit ti­mendun immo­rigeris. Masculus in Kem. 13. Ita [...]ue qui resistit non [...] &c. de ills po­testatibas dicit quae prosecuto­res fuerint Fidzi, ibi en [...]m dicen­dum est, Deo o­portet obremye [...]ate magis qham hominibus. Sed de istis commu­nitat b [...]s dicit quae non sunt ter­ro [...]ib [...]m ope [...]is, sed mah, qui [...]i s utique qui resi­stit, &c. Orig [...]n in Rom. 13. Negare vero o­bedientiam est resistere Para, in Rom. 13. the translating of it Judgement, he may read what Mus­culus also sayd, and in him what many other Divines, who speakes thus. It is doubtfull what Iudgement the Apostle speakes of here, whether the Iudgement where with all the disobedient are pu­nished by God himselfe, or that which is to be expected from the Ma­gistrates: the latter way those things that follow doe favour the former way those things that a [...]e precedent: but it matters not which way we understand it, neither doth any thing hinder but that we may expound it to both: When as both judgements both of God and Magistrate are to be feared by those that are un [...]uly; But the Doctor gives as hee thinkes a good reason why it must needs be translated damnation, and so meant, because resistance there forbidden is a breach of the fifth Cemmandement, which deser­veth Damnation.

Ans. What then we read Rev. 2. that the Church of Thiatyra had broken the second Commandement in her Idolatry and Superstition, yet she is threatned with an outward punish­ment, Wisd. 22. 23. behold saith Chr [...]t, I will cast her into great tribulation, and kill [...]er Ch l [...]ren with death, yea the fift Comman dement is strengthned with an outward promise, H [...]nour thy Father and thy Mother that thy daies may belong in the Land, and therefore well may the breach thereof be threatned with an outward Judgement.

Againe, saith the Dector Mr. Bridge answeres that only active obedience to Lawfull Commands is there enjoyed, but passive under unlawfull Commands: To which the Doctor answereth, both say we, but not so Origen: not so Ierome, not so Chryso­st [...]me and divers others: and Paraeus his reason is good, who observes, that according to the Apostle, the denying of obe­dience is all one with resistance forbidden in this 13 Rom, for in one verse the Apostle saith submit or he subject unto the high­er Powers; in th next v hegives the reason, for he that resist­eth, &c. So that resisting and not subjecting, or obeying is all [Page 40] one. It is no sinne not to obey unlawfull Commandements, but the Apostle makes it a sinne here to resist, and therefore the resistance forbidden doth not relate unlawfull Com­mandements but if lawfull. But then the Doctor tells us that if these words should be understood onely of active obedience to Lawfull Commands, and not of passive to unlawfull Commands; the Apostle had given the Romans but a lame instruction, page 60. and his reason for that speech followes at a distance, page 61. because then the Romans should not have been sufficiently instructed how to an­swere the unlawfull Commandements of Princes, as also, there would have been a gap open to Rebellion, for saith he, how easie would be the inference, therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully.

Answ. This is a strange worke to charge the Apostle with lame instructions, in case that a passive obeidience should not bee here commanded, God doth not command every thing in every Scripture, yet those Scriptures wherein hee commandeth something and not all, are not lame instructi­ons; The first Commandement commands the substance of Worship; the second the right meanes, the third the man­ner; and the fourth the due time of Worship; yet the first is not lame because it doth not command▪ what the second; nor the second lame, because it doth not command, what the third; nor the third lame because it doth not command what the fourth; so here though God should command onely active, not passive Obedience in this Text, this instruction would not be lame; but why should it be a lame instruction, the Doctor tells us, the because the Romans should not be susffci­ently directed how to answer the unlawfull Commandements of Princes; yes surely, if God did here command them obedi­ence to Lawfulls, He should at once forbid them disobedi­ence to unlawfulls: but saith the Dr. then there will be a gap for Rebllion, for how easily would men inferre, therefore we may resist in things unlawfull: I answer, the Doctor takes this for granted, which is to be proved, that all forceable resistance is Rebelli­on. 2. Suppose that true which himselfe granteth, page 1. the first Booke, that it's lawfull to resist unlawfull Com­mands, though not with forceable resistance. And if so, then why might not the Romans as well say, this instruction you give us is lame, for you forbid resistance, and yet in some kinde resistance is lawfull a suffering resistance lawfull, and a forceable resistance unlawfull: And yet you have not in this [Page 41] 13. Chap. given us any such distinction, so are we left in the darke, and your instruction lame. But good Doctor let us take off our owne halvings, whilst we goe about to charge the A­postle with lame instructions, in case he come not just up to our opinions. But to put an end to this matter concern­ing this Text. I appeale to the Doctor, whether he doth not thinke that these words (Higher Powers) v. 1. Did not in­clude the Romane Senate: I say when the Apostle com­mands, Let every Soule be subject to the higher powers. Did hee not command the Christian Romanes to bee subject to the Romane Senate? We know that after this Epistle was writ­ten to the Romanes, as Eusebius reports, the Romane Senate was not onely in being, but so potent and powerfull▪ that when that was propounded to the Senate, whether Christ should be acknowledged as Good, that was in the Senates Pow­er to grant or refuse, and they refused. So Estius also saith, that the Governours of Provinces were appointed by the Se­nate, as well as by Caesar, when [...]eter wrote his Epistle: SoPraesides provin's ciis praeficicban­tur non tam au­thoritate Casaris quam Senatus. Estius Ep. Pet. X. 2. that still notwithstanding aesar, the Romane Senate was a high Power, and the higher Powers unto the People; And if th y were the higher Powers, who were to bee obeyed by this Commandement of the Apostles: then why doth the Doctor bring this Scripture to urge our higher Powers, and Senate to obey, especially when the Doctor himselfe confes­ses. page 62 that the two Houses as distinct from the King, fall under the words, Higher Powers. At last in the 62. page the Doctor comes to that place of Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your elves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether to the King as Supreme, or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him; where after the Dr. had a little strok'd himself on the head, and laboured to spit some filth on our faces, he comes to that Testimony of Calvin (for that which hee sayes concerning Dr. Bilson is not much materiall) who proves that the Pro­noune Him relates to God and not the King: for the reason which I alleadged in my first Booke; now the Dr. replies▪ true, all are sent by God, but it is as true that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King, or the Romane Emperour.

A [...]. The Reader may observe how the Dr. doth deale by the Scripture againe, for he sets downe the words thus; To the King as supreme, or the Governours as those that are sent by him; and thus indeed the word Him; must needs relate to the King, [Page 42] but conceales that part of the v. wherein the word God is exprest thus, submit your selfe to every Ordinance of God: for the Doctor knew, that if hee had set downe that part of the ver▪ the Reader would have perceived that the Pronoune him should have related to God, and not to the King; Second­ly, observe what he answers; he tells us that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or Emperour; that's not the que­stion now, but whom the Pronoune him, doth relate, whe­therIn e [...] quod ad­ditu [...] tan quam ab e [...] mi [...]is, [...] Rege [...] refe [...]unt nonnul­l [...] quod non pla­c [...] [...] Apo [...]to­lu▪ vul [...] hoc in presi [...]h us istis confide [...]ar▪ quod De [...]s e [...]s miser it, i [...] [...]od ad obe­diendum movere debet, ac [...]t ta­ceam quod praesi­des p [...]oviuciis praeficiebant non tam authoritate Caesaris [...]uam Senatus, illi alters relationi non quadra [...] quod sequitur ad vin­dictam ma [...]efa­ctorem, &c. quem scop [...]m mali [...]e­ges non [...]sq [...]e qua jue hab [...]bant propositum, [...]e­ctius igitur ad Deum refe [...]tur, qui hunc finem omnibus Magistratibus praescribit, unde & Paulus de potestate Rom. 13. Dei enim Minister est tibi in bonum &c. ex quo apparet missos a Deo hic intelligi debere non solum Duces sed Regem ipsum. Estius in Epist, P [...] 1, 2. God or the King. And for this he gives no reason, not answeres Calvins, and therefore I need adde no more: yet Esti­us his reasons are very full, proving that the Pronoune him, must relate God and not the King for sayes he, the Apostle Peter would move the people to obey the King and Governours, which Argu­ment is full, because they were sent by God; whereas if the pronoune him, should relate to the King, here were no motive. 2. Because the Apostle Peter saith that they are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers, and the prayse of them that doe well, for which cause the wicked Hea­thenish Governours did not send the Governours, it being known that they sent them for the punishment of those that were good, and for the prayse of those that were evill. and therefore the pronoune Him, is to be carryed on God, and to have relation to God, not to the King in this place; And therefore what the Doctour brings from this place, to set the Parliament at a greater under then God would have, is nothing worth. The rest of the Chapter is spent with his other Adversaries; I having thus delivered the Scripture; from his Objections, shall be the more briefe in Answere to the after part of his discourse be­cause the onely ground of conscience is Gods word.

CHAP. 5.

IN the tenth Sect. of the Doctors Reply. I find little to hold us long; I had told him in my former Book that the Parli­amentary proceedings were an Act of self-preservation, and used the Similitude of a steeres man shewing that in case hee do not his duty, even the very passengers in time of a storme, [Page 43] for their owne preservation may looke to the matter, which doth not implye the unofficing of a Steersman; so in State, where the chiefe Magistrate neglecteth his dutie, &c. The Dr. replies pag. 64. That the Prince is not as the Steersman, but as he that stands above, and commands, to the Starbord or Larbord.

This is to hang upon the word, and let goe the sence, forAnsw. the reason holds to him that stands above, and commands as well as the Steers-man, neither will common reason say; that he is unofficed, because the passengers for the present desire or cause him to stand by, that they may looke unto their own safetie in the time of a storme.

Then he comes to prove that Authoritie and Magistracie, abstractively considered from the qualification or severall formes of Government, is of divine institution. Wherein we do all agree, onely I excepted against some of hisMedia, that he used to prove it thus,By those words the powers that are ordained of God; the Doctor understands,the power it selfe of Magistracie distinguish'd from the qualification thereof, and the de­signation of persons thereto,how then did he say,Sect. 2.The high­er power inPaulis the same with the King, at Supream in Peter; the Dr. replies,the power of Magistracie abstractively taken, may by these words be proved to be of God, though the higher powers here be understood concretively with Connotation of the persons that beare the power, for they are here proposed as objects of our obedience which can­not be directed but upon power in some person,And here it is said, a [...] existent &c.

Answ.But how doth this prove either what the Doctor would; or answer me? tis true, the words higher powers, note both as I have shewed already, both the authority, and persons in the authority. But then the word [...] I say, signifies ordered, and so to be translated, not ordained, for otherwise if the words higher powers note both the abstract and concreat, and this word be translated, ordained, then this Scripture shall as­well prove the qualification and designation to be of God, as authority it self: Which thing the Doctor denies, and first brought this Scripture to prove that Magistracie is of God in opposition to qualifications and designations. Some metaphisical notions about esse and existere, the Dr. would find out in the word [...] but I passe them as never intended by the Apostle.

At last the Doctor promiseth, or rather threatens to give [Page 44] me a visit: for so he saith, pag. 65. I must come home to Master Bridge, to make him understand the force of my Inserence. I had said thus; In like manner the Doctor proves, that power it selfe is of God, because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God: Slipping from the power it selfe, to the person de­signed, for the power it self is not called the Minister of God; Whereupon the Doctor saith, I must come home to Master Bridges, the Major of N [...]s the Kings Minister, therefore his power is from the King; will Master Bridge reply no? for the pow­er it selfe is not the Major, or called the Minister of the King.

Ans. Thus whilst he comes home to mee he comes from his owne home and reason; forgetting what he had said before, pag. 60 61. A lawfull Prince, though commanding unlawfully, is still still the Minister of God. So then it seems one may be the Mi­nister of God in that which is evill; and 'tis true a penall Minister one may be a man may sin in afflicting another and yet he may be the Minister of God to him that is afflicted, how therefore doth this argue, that because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God, that his authority is lawfull: And therefore whereas the Doctor saith the Major of N. is the Kings Minister, therefore his power is from the King; Will Master Bridge say no? Answ. Hee will say there is not the same reason in regard of God and the King, for a man cannot be the Kings Minister in a bad action but he must re­ceive power from him but he may be Gods Minister, I mean penally in an unlawfull action, which God never gave him right or power to doe.

In the after lines of this page the Doctor saies, that both the Fuller Answer, and Master Bridges, every where takes it for granted by me, that Monarchy, Aristocracie and Democra­cie are equally the inventions of men? Answ. I doe indeed, and the truth of it may appeare from your owne words, p. 13, 14. of your first Book as I have shewed already.

Lastly, saith the Doctor, Master Bridges concludes that my proving of the governing power to be of God, but the quali­fication of it, and designation of the person to be of man, gaineth nothing against resistance, or deposing a Prince that doth not discharge his trust: for still the people may say, we may alter the Government, and depose the person, because hew as of our designing. Doctor Ferne, nothing so for of they resist, they usurpe Authority, and invade the power that God hath gi­ven [Page 45] him, if they depose him, they quite take away that p wer which God, and not they placed in him, because he is still the Minister of God.

Answ.This seems to prove that people cannot depose their Prince or alter the Government that is set up amongst them; But what is this to the reason that he pretends an Answer to? to which was thus: If the Doctor grant that the qualification of the power is from man, and the designation of the person, then though the power it selfe be confessed of God by the Doctor, yet his adversaries that are for the depo­sing of Princes, (if any such be) may aswell plead a power to depose the Person, or alter the Government, aswell I say, as if the power it selfe was appointed, or set up by men. Now the qualification and power of designation is granted by him to be of man: And therefore he helps himselfe nothing by proving that Authority or Magistracie in the abstract is of God. To take away this, he proves that the people cannot depose their Prince, or alter the Government; I will not say a wild but surely a wide Answer as ever came from a Dr. D. The other part of this Section is against others, who are suf­ficiently able to plead their own cause against this Dr.

In his 11. Sect.p.64. the Doctor complaines that we have left the King nothing wee could take from him; and this kind of speech is ordinary amongst some, who are so bold as to affirme▪ that because we doe not make our selves slaves, we make our Soveraigne no King. Let him and them read whatAlmaine saith, Non ideo dici­tur politia aliqua regalis, quia vai­ens ei praesit qui sit tota commnni­tate in jurisdicti­one major, nec ei quovis modo sub­jectus, sed solum propter hanc cau­sam, quia unicus p [...]cest qui in quemlibet alte­rum de communi­tate jurisdictio­nem habet, et est eo superior. Nec conveniens feret aliq em unam talem tali­ter communitate pre [...]i [...]i, piesset ea totai▪ o m cam supe [...]or, insi talis fo [...]et indeviabi­l [...]s, [...]uema [...]mo­di [...] de Curisto confi etur, qui communiratem erige e potest sua voluntate, se­cundum legem, tuncista politia esset pe [...]fecta re­galis, Sen Al­main de pet staz­larca ad Gerson. cap. 1. Miserum est non facete [...]un na ju [...] velis m scri s vero velle quod licet miserrs. mu n posse facere quod ita velis, lun. i. [...]. A pol tic, saith heis not there o [...]e said to be regall because there is one above all tl at is greater then all the Com­munitie, but because there is one above the rest who hath [...]urisdictiono­ver every particular man in that Com [...]unitie; neither were it fir, that there should [...]e one such who were so superiour, unles he were inde­viable as Christ who is able to rule the Communitie according to his own will, [...]hen the Poli ie shoul [...] be perfectly reg [...]l.AndFortescut saith,Poss [...] male [...]g repotestarem potius m [...]ni it quam augment itWe doe not say that God is lesse powerfull because h cannot sin; no­thing is more truly regall then to keep ones will within the bounds of good Lawes.It is some miseric not to ave all which you would. It is more miserie to will what you may not; It is most miserie to have a power to doe what you see will. Butif you d [...]not.saith the Doctorre-assume power from the Prince, what means the d fference you make of things disposed of by trust, from things disposed of by do­nation, [Page 46] because they may be recalled, these may not, so you say, pag. 25.

I said not so, but that there is a difference between things disposed by way of donation or sale and things disposed of by way of trust: Things disposed of by way of sale or donation are not in our power to recall, things disposed of by way of trust are in our power to look to when the trust is neglected: I would this Doctor would but doe us the favour as to alledge our words rightly.

The 67. and 68. of his Book, are spent in proving asserti­ons of the same things that he had sayd before onely pag. 67. he confesseth it is likely that Kings were at first by election, which acknowledgement we receive: but how doth this agree with what he had said before Sect. 3. pag. 8, 9 where he had said, that election was a defection from that government that God set up at the first; In the 69. pag. he commeth to the matter of the Kings Covenant and Oath, which (saith the Doctor) is no conditi­on on which the Kings of this Land are admitted to the Crown, but a confirmation and strengthening of their mutuall duties by Oaths and promises, as it was with the Kings of Israel.

The nature of this Oath we must leave unto the Parlia­ment and Lawyers, who better know then we how it is taken, and on what termes, only thus much I read in Speeds Croni­cle, that the Kencish men would not admit William the Conqueror to the Crowne, but upon condition as I have shewed before; And if the taking of the Oath were only for Confirmation carrying no condition with it, why should it be taken at the first com­ming unto the Crowne, and not rather afterwards.

What else remaines in that Section is so easie, that the dim­mest eye that hath conscience in it, may see thorough, for who knows not, that it is a greater evill for a Comittee to be wron­ged by a particular person, then for a particular person to be wronged by a Comittee. Bonum quo communius eo melius, malum quo Communius eo pejus. And why doth not nature teach, that a Prince who is married unto his people, is to be faithfull to them as well as that the husband is to be faithfull unto his wife, and therefore that conditions are implyed, though not exprest between the King and his Subject, aswell as between a man and his wife; And so I passe from that Section to the Doctors two last.

CHAP. 6.

WHereas the Dr. had said,we sharpen many of our Wea­pons at thePhilistimsforge, and I had shewed the differ­ence between us and Papists in this cause.He replieth,difference there must needs be between you and Papists in this particular, for they chal­lenge such a power from the Pope; you from the People.

Ans▪Very well and is not here a vast difference, the Papists say the Pope may despose Princes, we say in case that Prince doth not performe his trust, the People may look to their owne safetie.

Dr.Fern, But we see your party making use of those examples which the Papists being for deposing of Kings, as of Saul, Uzziah,and A­thaliah.

Answ.The Papists bring these examples of Vzziah, Atholiah, &c. to shew that the High [...]riests did, and so the Pope now may depose Princes, proving that the Pope is above Princes. Wee say with Chrisostome and others, that every soul, even Priests as they and you call them, are to be subject to higher Powers, That that lyes in the powre of no Priest to despose Princes.

2. Is this to whet our Sythe at the Philistims Forge, to use the same Scripture for one purpose, which the Philistims doe for another: The Papists use that Scripture, Tibi dabo claves. Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will buila my Church, to prove the Popes Supremacie; The Reformed Churches use the same Scripture to prove that the power of the Keyes is penes Eccle­siam, given to the whole Church, and not unto a Peter onely: do all the Reformed Churches therefore whet their weapons at the Philistims forge, or are they therefore Popish because they use the same Scripture to other purposes: So here.

Put you will give the Prince leave, saith the Doctorto change his Religion, so will the Papists,if al [...] his Subjects may have free liberty for their Religion.

Answ.Not so but he turning Heretick, as the Papists phrase it, is to be excommunicated and so deposed. Dr.Fern, But in case he endeavour to force the contrary Religion upon his subjects, for that must be supposed how then will your Allegeance bold?

Answ.Very well and yet not whet our [...]ythes at the Philistims forge for they say that a Prince apostatising, is to be excom­municated [Page 48] and so deposed, as you shall presently see: We say that Princes are not to be deposed for altering their Religion, yea though they should be excommunicated, for the Crown is not intailed upon Religion.

2. They deprive Princes, we only defend our selves.

3. They deprive by the Popes authoritie we defend our selves by the highest civill authority of the Land.

Againe, whereas I said the Papists hold it lawfull to kill a Prince and that a private man invested with the Popes autho­rity may doe it, we abhorre it; The Doctor replieth,that is their new forge under ground, set up of late by Jesuites,I did not meane you sharpened your weapons there, but at the old forge, and how­ever you say you abhorre this Doctrine of killing Kings, yet I feare and tremble, to thinke, if your Soveraigne had fallen in battell by the edge of your swo [...]d, or sh [...]t of your artillery, you would have found him guil­ty of his owne death, in that he would not(being desired)forbeare to goe downe himselfe into battell.

Answ. 1. 'Tis well the Dr. will excuse us from Jesuitisme in this particular, and well he may in all things else, especially here where he knowes there is so much correspondency between his own opinion and the Jesuites who (for the most part of them) hold, that as all Fcclesiasticall power is given to Peter, and so to the Pope and Bishops, not to the Church so that all Civill Power is given immediately to the King, and not to the Common-wealth, but only as derived from him; And therefore well may the Doctor excuse us from whetting our Swords at the new forge of the Jesuites, that being a forge which he reserves to whet his owne weapons at.

2. Neither doe we whet our weapons at the old forge, for I suppose the Doctor will say, that Aquinas his forge, is of the oldest frame, and he speaketh directly contrary to us, thus, as soon as ever any is denounced excommunicate for Apostacie from the It ideo quam rito aliquis per sententiam de­nimciatur e [...]com­municatus prop­ter aposta [...]ram a side, ipso facto e­jus Subditi abso­luti sunt a dom­nio ejus et jura­mento fidelitaris quo eitenebantur Tho. Aq. 2. 2. [...]. 12. a [...]s. 2. faith, his Subjects are ipso facto, absolved from his dominion, and the Oath of Allegeance, whereby they were bound to him.

3. We say, if a shot of our Artillery had fallen on the King (whereas you say we would have found him guilty of his own death,) we say, we would have found you▪ and such as you are guilty thereof, that put him on such designes; As if a man make a fire to preserve himselfe and his family, and another comes and thrusts a third man into it, we will not fault him that made the fire to preserve his family, but him that thrust [Page 49] the man into it; but in this matter Doctor you have answe­red your selfe, for you told us in your former Treatise, That it is lawfull for Subjects to ward their Princes blowes, to hold his hands, and the like pag. 9. Now if the Prince raise an Army a­gainst his Subjects, how can his blowes be warded, but by an Army, and if his Army discharge their Ordnance and Mus­quets upon his Subjects, how can his Subjects ward them blowes, but by discharging likewise. And then answer your selfe: what if a shot of Artillery should fall upon your Prince: But saith the Doctor, if you back againe will gather strength for your assertions from the Papists Reasons, be as like as you will to one another, &c.

An. Who are most like to the Papists you, or wee, I re­ferre you to all that knowes us. See the Canterburian self-Conviction. And if we may not gather strength of reason from Popish Authors to dispute against them; why do either you or we reade them. Reason is good where ever we finde it; neither would Abraham refuse the use of the Well because Ahimilechs men had used it, no more will we refuse good reason, because the Papists have used it; they using it rather from us, and not we from them, and yet in this matter (as I have shewed) we doe differ much from them.

But you prove a Power in the Body politick, saith the Doctor,to disburthen it selfe (at the Church hath) of evill Members, as Pa­pists doe.

An. But not as the Papists: for we onely presse a necessi­ty of Power in the body, to defend and save it selfe from the injury of Princes; they plead for a power in the Church, (& who that Church is you know) to depose Princes; but then saith the Drs. hath this Church a power of excōmunication still; so it should be indeed, but since the Act which tooke away the High Com­mission; and (as the party you plead for would have it interpreted) all Ecclesiasticall Censure too, where doth the exercise of that power rest, upon, whom now is the Argument turned? page73.

An. Surely upon your selfe, for there is no Church of Christ, but whil'st it remaines a Church hath a power left in it (though the exercise may be long suspended) to see to it selfe, and its owne preservation, I say a power from Christ to excommunicate, though it should bee denied from men; and it seemes a strange thing to mee, that the Churches of England have no power left, because the High Commission [Page 50] is downe, as if that Court were set up by Christ himselfe. The body naturall hath power to disburthen it selfe saith the Doctor, so hath the Common-wealth too; but will you have the naturall body disburthen it selfe of the head, or worke without it.

An. Neither doe we goe about to cut off our head, but say in the generall; if the Head should bee distempered through ill vapours that arise from inferiour parts, so that it cannot discharge its Office, it's lawfull for those that are in place, to give Physick to the body, that even the very head it selfe may be the more healthfull.

And whereas I had shewne, that there is not the same rea­son, that the People should re-assume their trust in case the Parliament be negligent; as there is, that in case a Prince neglect his trust, the Parliament and People should see to it, the Doctor replies, but if by Ordinances thence issuing, they bee spoyled of their property and Liberty, which is supposed in the case they will quickly feele it so.

An. This is but an infinuation of a grosse scandall, no rea­son: onely the Doctor arguesp 75.will not the people as ea­sily conclude, they may free themselves from the trust given to those Parliament men, chosen by them, as renounce (according to your Les­sons) their trust given to their Prince: in all reason they will hold their representatives more accountable to them then their Prince can be.

An. This is a scandalous charge to say that we lessen men to renounce their trust given to their Prince, whereas wee onely say; the people have a Power to defend themselves, and when cause requires to excite, and actuacte that Power which was alwayes residing in them, and never given from them. Secondly, how can the people as easily renounce their trust gi­ven to the Parliament, when the People themselves conclude and say, that what is done by the Parliament is Law; which they doe not say, as concerning the Prince, but rather know that for Law he is directed by them; but saith the Doctor this is to make them arbitrary, and to lead the people after them by anim­plicite Faith.

An. The Doctor is much against the implicite Faith of the People, both in this▪ and his former Booke: It were well that men of his strayne had been so much against implicite Faith in the matters of the Church, where it is more dan­gerous, where they were not, witnesse the &c. as now they are against the implicit Faith in the Common-Wealth, where [Page 51] it is of lesse danger. Againe, why will this make the Parlia­ment arbitrary, or cast the people into an implicite Faith? it's granted by all that the King and both Houses may enact Lawes, whereby the people are to be ruled, beleeving that those Lawes are best for the Common-wealth; doth this make the Government of King and Parliament arbitrary, or rayse the people to an implicite Faith? no more doth it here. An arbitrary government is where a King may rule pro a [...]bi­trio, as a Father in his Family, which power the Doctor doth give unto the King by his paternall right, Sect. 3. and so in­deed there is roome for an implicite Faith, for that children have most of all an implicit Faith in that which their Fathers say. Finally Master B. endeavours to shew (saith Dr. Ferne) how they can answere the Oath of Supremacy, an [...] the Protestation, by taking of Armes; but who knowes not (saith the Docto [...]) if that par­ty of Brownists, and Anabaptists, which are now so prevalent in the Armes taken up against the King, should get the upper hand, what would become of the Kings Supremacy and Government?

An. Here is a loud cry against Brownists and Anabaptists, but who are Brownists? not all those that are against Pre­lates, and not for the English Common Prayer Book; for then all the Reformed Churches are Brownists. And as for Anabaptists, I wish it may bee considered, whether they doe not take some footing for their opinion from the Common Prayer Booke: They deny Baptisme to Infants, upon this ground, because actuall Faith and Repentance is pre-required to Baptisme; and doth not the Common Prayer Book seeme to acknowledge as much, when as before Baptisme, the wit­nesses in name of the Infant must answer to these Questions, dost thou beleeve? dost thou renounce the divell and all his workes? I must nakedly professe my judgement against that o­pinion, yet were it not good, that the very Common prayer booke should come under consideration upon this and other Reasons.

Secondly, if men were so much for Protestant Religion, and against Papists, as is here pretended, they would never be more afraid of Brownists, and Anabaptists, then of Papists; seeing they are of the Protestant Religion, and differ not from us in fundamentalls, as the Papists doe.

Thirdly, suppose that that Army should prevaile, wherein there are Brownists, & Anabaptists, as you say, yet is there not [Page 52] so much danger that they should prevaile to mislead the Par­liament, who are three or foure hundred; as that Papists, should prevaile to mislead one.

Fourthly, though there should be Anabaptists, and Brow­nists in the Army, yet they doe not sight against the Kings Supremacy and his Government as the Papists do against the Protestant Religion, and being of Parliaments, whose Powder Treason is famous▪ or rather Infamous to all Generations.

At last theDr. tells usconcerning Supremacy, that the King is Supreme, not so much in opposition to particular persons, as in relation to the whole body Politique, of which he is head.

We say the King is Supreme and head of Kingdome seve­rally and joyntly considered, Dr. Ferne indeed tels us, that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Co-ordinate with his Majes­tie, to some act or exercise of the Supreme power, that is to making laws, by yeelding their consent. And if they bee Co-ordinate in that act of Supremacy, Paraeus and others will tell him that the Nomothetick part of Supremacy is the highest. We acknow­ledge the King our Supreme to defend us; But not to defend our selves where cause requires, gives a supra-Supremacy unto him.Dr. Ferne Reply page 6. Potestas politica seu civilis dupliciter consideratur; vel ut Architecto nica, quae occupat in legibus [...]ferendis ad quodvis bonum Reipub. pro novendum; et vocatur [...] ut Architectonicae s [...]bordinata, quae Remp­se [...]undum leges ill [...]s deliberando, judicando, et exequendo, administrat, & vocatur simpliciter [...] seu Civilis, lib. 6. Ethic. Cap. 6. Perse vero patet quod Architectonica [...] sit superior civili simpli­citer d [...]cta, et omnibus aliis potestatibus subordinatis quod que sit potestas Suprema. Par [...]us in Ro. 13.

What else remaines in this Sectionis either matter of words and bare denyall to what hath been said or answered to his other Answerers.

In the next Section▪ page 89▪ theDr. saith, Mr.B. enters upon a loose Discourse against Episcopall Government, I reserve him for his better instruction to a Booke entituled Episcopacy asserted.

Ans. No other loose Discourse then what his loose Treatise lead mee into; and for the Drs better instruction I refer him to Mr. Baynes his Diocesan, Mr. Parkers Ecclesiasticall poli­tieor Altare Damascenum. And whereas I said, now the Dr. shewes himself, he had rather the Kingdom should be imbru­ed in a bloody Warre, then Episcopacy should down, because he had said in his Treatise page 25. that the King has Reason by power of Armes, to divert the abolishing of Episcopall Government.

The Dr. AnswersNay, Mr. Bridge,you and your party in arms show your selves what Spirit you are of, who will have this Land im­broyl'd [Page 53] in a bloody Warre, rather then Episcopacy shall not down.

Not so Doctor, there is not the same Reason, why you should retort these words upon us, for I had no where said, the Parliament hath Reason by power of Arms, to divert the evill of that Government; yea I am so farre from it, that I pro­fesse freely that if the King and Parliament would establish that Government still to be continued, that the people is not bound to rise up in arms, to root it out, though I judge it evill: Yea if any Man be of that opinion I think he is to be suf­fered to live, enjoying himselfe and his estate here.

Then pag. 56. the Dr. saith to that ofSauls speare restored; Mr.Bridge Replies,though restored before demanded, yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe toDavid saying, I have sinned,&c. We know, saies he,what you looke for, his Majestie hath not bin ashamed to doe it with great condiscention.

An: 'Tis possible a King may faile for not humbling him­selfe before his Subjects, Chron. 2. 36. 13. And Zedekiah did that which was evill in the sight of the Lord his God, and humbled not himselfe before Jeremiah the Prophet.

And though His Majestie had yeelded and humbled him­selfe yet lower, he would be no loser thereby, we know what the old Counsellors said, 2 Chron. 10. 7. If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speake good Words to them, they will be thy servants for ever.

Finally▪ whereas I had shewed that Ziba, and those that re­sorted to David in his distresse, were not of another Religion, and by Law to bee disarmed, as the Papists now are; who have entertainment in His Majesties Army: The Doctor answers, though by law Papists are not to have Arms at their dispose, yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects.

They owe no more duty to King but according to Law, and by Law they are to bee all disarmed; Wherefore good Dr. maintaine this illegall way no longer, give glory to God, and say you are convinced of this truth; which indeed you cannot but be; if you doe not shut your owne eyes: for you told us in your former Treatise, that Subjects may lawfully for their owne defence, hold the Kings hands, and how so, (if he raise an Army) but by an Army. Neither can you be so weake as to thinke that the great Senate of the Kingdome, that all the Commons, Gentlemen, and Nobles, should be so at the mercy of every meane person, invested with the Kings [Page 54] Authority, that if a petty Constable, or other inferiour Offi­cer doe offer violence unto them, that it shall not bee in their power to make a forcible resistance, because they are clothed with the Kings Authority: Good Sir, in the feare of God, make your humble addresses to His Majestie, and Petition him to return to those that are faithfull to him: The worst that he can lose, you know (if you pretend rightly) is but a piece of prerogative, or some exercise thereof for the present; why should so good a Land as this be imbrued in blood for such a cause warre, being the worst of all evills, and therefore not to be undertaken but to prevent gravissimum malum. And is the losse of some part of the Prerogative or exercise thereof for the present such; I beleeve you cannot say so: Where­fore labour, labour you to take off those exasperations that are amongst men with you; and doe not still put your unguem in ulcere ut recrudesoat dolor. Tell the People amongst whom you are of that sinfull way wherein they now are so shall you liberare animam tuam. But if you will not it may bee those words which you read in Ezech. 3. 12. will lie hard on your Conscience another day. Now the God of all Peace▪ give us peace, but truth with Peace, in Christ Jesus. Amen.