when a Prince Commands a thing unlawfull He is not so pag. 23. Answ A lawfull Prince though commanding unlawfully is still the minister of God for our good i.e. appointed for that end and the power he is invested with though abused to the execution of such a command is the ordinance of God And that is it which forbids our resistance according to the Apostles reasons here which are taken not from the actuall ministration of any prince as if we ought to obey when he commands justly and might resist when unjustly but from the end for which God has ordain'd him to minister for our good from which end though princes sometime swerve as these Emperors did usually yet are they not to be resisted for that strikes at the power and Ordinance it selfe Yea M. Bridge a little after acknowledgeth that inregard of their place they are Gods ministers but in regard of the unlawfull thing commanded they are not Therefore when princes command unlawfully we must look upon them with a double regard the one to the thing commanded the other to their place to the unlawfull command we must return a deniall of obedience but in regard of their place use no resistance Deniall of obedience can sever the illegall command from the place and power they bear but resistance cannot for it cannot oppose the unlawfull command but by usurping the power and invading the place God hath appointed them in But M. Bridge concludes It is the Doctors continuall mistake to thinke the Apostle forbids the resisting of the higher powers in their unlawfull commands when as he forbids the resisting of them in things lawfull We must beare with the importunity of these men who wil not conceive the force of the Apostles reasons though laid opâ—n to their eyes which was so often done in the former Treatise that they tell me I had worn the place thred bare and yet they will not see the web and texture of it Once more therefore if the Aoostle forbid resistance only in things lawfull it would not have bin a sufficient instruction whether we respect the duty of subjection which by this would not have bin directed how to answer the unlawfull commands of Princes or whether we consider those higher powers which then were tyrannicall usualy commanding things unlawfull also this would have bin the way to leave the gap open to Rebellion for how easy would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully These Answerers it seems are still willing to keep the gap open or else they might have seen how the Apostle brings reason enough to stop up the way against all resisting of power though abus'd for he takes it not from the use of the power but from the end for which God ordained it the higher powers then being nothing answerable to that end not ministring for good but rather subverting of that which was good and just We come now to the other scripture 1. Pet. 2.13 To the King as supream or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him Out of which was proved that the higher power in St. Paul not to be resisted by any was the King in that state and that in this Kingdome All who have power fall under that distinction of St. Peter Now see how acutely M. Bridge replyes for these men have simplicity enough to abuse the people Dr. Bilson saith he tels us by higher powers must be understood not onely Princes but all publique States where the People or Nobles have the same intrust to the sword as princes have in this Kingdome How then will the Dr. have the King only meant by these higher powers As if the D. meant to prove that a King was the supream or higher power in the republicke of Vinice or the Low-countries But the Dr. acknowledges the Parliament is the highest Court of justice therefore they fall under these words the higher powers It is the highest Court but you must not then exclude the king in whom is the fountain of power we farther grant the two Houses by themselves doe also fall under the words higher powers in regard of the people but not under the word supream so were those that were sent by the Emperor higher powers yet subjects and inferior to him that is here called supream Yea but as Calvin and other Interpreters tell us the prononn him is referred to God by whom all in authority are sent ibid 'T is true all are sent by God which might serve to check the bad construction and use these men make of the foregoing words every Ordinance of man But it is as true that the Governours of the provinces where these scattered Christians lived unto whom St. Peter writes were sent by the King or Roman Emperor and that he is here called supream which being a word including a relation might have told M. Bridge that al who had authority beside in the Roman Empire were inferiour to him and immediatly sent by him though originally their power was also from God or from above as our Saviour acknowledgeth in Pilate the Governor of Judea under that Emperor The Fuller Answerer replyes The D. takes advantage in the words Supream and Sent but the two Houses are called not sent a difference at least as great as between to and from Pag. 23. Very good It seemes he will have the people suppream that sends them from the Country to the King so are the Clerks of the Convocation also sent from them that chuse them We speak not of Terms of place but Reasons of Authority if they be called by him the authority is his they come not of themselves but at his call therefore sent by him But he addes They are a Coordinate part with him in the supream power otherwise they could not hinder him from making Laws nor finally declare Law without him the two highest acts of supream power Declare Law without him then are they supreame without Him and he is sent by them He must go and do as they declare Can we think that he sends for them with such an intention or that they which are called to advise and consent come to such a purpose to do the businesse without him But enough of this feigned Coordination and of the Supremacy above Sect. 4. SECT X. A Confutation of what is replyed upon the third Section of the former Treatise AT the beginning of that third Section it was said The ground-work of their Fundamentalls is this Power is originally in from the people therefore if the Prince intrusted with the power wil not discharge his trust it falls to the people to see to it they may reassume the power and resist M. Bridge replyes Then indeed it falleth to the people to look to it which they do as an act of selfe preservation not of jurisdiction over their Prince and this is not to reassume the power or turn the Prince out of Office as if we went about to depose our King Pag.
men pag. 37. Naked of all authority to doe what to take up Arms that must be your meaning but what authority had they before the King cals them together were they any other then private men or does he by calling them give them authority to take Arms against him And if the people should recall their trust why should they think themselves in that condition more private men then they were when at first as you suppose they elected a King did they then being private men give as you maintain all power of Government and will they conceive they cannot now use any will they not as easily conclude they may free themselves from their Trust given to those Parliament men chosen by them as renounce according to your lessons their Trust given to their Prince in all reason they will hold their Representatives more accountable to them then their Prince can be who is entrusted for them immediately by God and themselves To this we may adde what he replies to the same purpose pag. 42. The people doe all acknowledge that we are to be governed by Lawes And they feel the want of it and doe earnestly desire they may once again see this Kingdome so happy Now the Parliament as the Doctor saith is the Iudge what is Law He never said so unlesse you mean the three Estates of Parliament How then can the People think the Parliament doth any thing contrary to Low when they are the Iudges of it This is to make them Arbitrary and all their commands Lawes and to lead the people after them by an implicit faith But enough of the power of declaring Law and of these Arbitrary commands Sect. 6. 7. Finally Mr Bridge endeavours to shew how they can answer the Oath of Supremacie and the Protestation by taking of Arms. If the Popish party should prevail who knowes not that they will force the King to another Supremacie or quickly make an hand of Him Pag. 44. But who knowes not that the King by Gods blessing may prevail in the maintenance of His Crowne and Right for which he is now forced to fight without any prevailing of the Popish party And who knowes not if that party of Brownists and Anabaptists which are now so prevalent in the Arms taken up against the King should get the upper hand what would become of the Kings Supremacy and this Government In the Oath of Supremacie we Sweare Him our Soveraigne to be Supream in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How doth our Doctrine or Practice infringe this ibid. Is this all you can say for your Soveraignes supremacie the Declaration of Parliament as was shewn Sect. 4. teaches you another Doctrine that He is Supream not so much in oppositioÌ„ to particular Persons as in relation to the whole Body Politick of which he is the Head and accordingly you should regulate your practice and obedience In our Protestation we protest to defend the Kings Person and hom can we say with a good Conscience we do it if we do not take up Arms in this time of Popish insurrection ibid. you protest also to defend his Honour and Rights which your Armes invade And if the comming in of some Papists in the duty of Allegiance to His aid against your violences may be called a popish insurrection as you have the Art to make all things seem odious on the Kings part it was caused by your â—alâ—ing up Arms first which the next Age will truly call an Insurrection Or can we if we take not Arms in Conscience say we defend the Priviledge of Parliament in bringing in Delinquents to their Tryall or the liberty of the Subject or the truth of Religion I presume every good man that makes conscience of his wayes will not be backward to advance this publique designe You cannot in conscience say but you have had the security of all those particulars offered and promised might have had them better assured without your taking Armes if you had not some farther reach in your Publick design However you can overrule your own and your Peoples conscience yet all good men that seriously consider your wayes cannot but conceive the priviledges of Paraliment Liberty of the Subject and truth of Religion have suffered most by this your pretended defence of them And now it is high time I say something there need not much to the Answerer that would not be known by his name but would be noted by his Margin painted with Greek and Latin He begins with Scripture but staies not long upon it speaking indeed lesse from that then any of the other Answerers to whom I have already replyed He insists chiefly upon the grounds of Reason borrowed from Anistotle out of whom he would prove severall conclusions those which concern us are touching elective Kingdoms touching a power in the State to bring Kings to an account and to depose a Tyrant We reply to what he has brought out of Aristotle touching those particulars The Philosophers reasons may be good and usefull in the founding of a Government but must they therefore obtain in this that is founded If Aristotle like of Kingdoms that goe by choice and approve the power which the Ephori had over their Kings in Sparta would this man have it so here Let him speak his Treason plainly in his own not Aristotles words and say He would have a new Government and Kings here made by choyce and some Ephori set over them surely he thought as many moe did of a new erection and had fitted himselfe to give advice for it out of Aristotle But however that Philisopher gives us many fine hints of Politicall prudence if this man were put to it to draw up that frame of that Government which Aristotle seemes to approve and by piece-meal to deliver he would find the task very difficult and we the Government very strange such as I believe never was nor will be deserving almost as well to goe into the Proverb as his master Plato's did as for example He would have Government goe by choyce and that choyce to follow excellency now seeing excellency as he notes in 3. Pol. is in Riches or Power or Nobility or Virtue we cannot see now he provides for the contenting of those which excell in Riches Power or Nobility that factions may be prevented and yet they that excell in virtue to carry the Government and be willingly obeyed of all as he would have it in that book but where and when will it be so unlesse in Plato's common-wealth Well Aristotle's reason may be good and yet my reasons in the 5. Sect. of the former Treatise against this power of resistance now assumed stand firm too why because if that power be used to bring this Government into such a Mould as this man phansies out of Aristole can we expect any thing but a succession of Givill war for will it not alwaies be more just for the Prince to endeavour the recovery of
it down right and it is for the advantage of the other that they do so The Doctor said not there was infallibility in the great Councell but wished the misled people to examine whether they have not such a thought to worke them into an implicite faith of beleeving and receiving without Examination what ever is concluded there He leaves us a private dissent of judgement from their determinations but we are bound by them from gainsaying or resistance and so it is to us inevitable Such a power of binding has a generall Councell to its decisions and why should a Civill Generall Councell of England have lesse power in it So he pag. 18. We Answer the great Councell of England has such power of binding inevitably if you adde the assent of the King as all Ecclesiasticall Councels expect the Confirmation of the supream Civill power for the binding of those that are under them to their Canons and decisions But if we keepe our selves from gainsaying or resistance will it satisfie no their Resolution or Ordinance cals us all to active obedience to Arme kill and slay and this we must believe after so many ages to be a fundamentall Law when as we heare the known Law which is inevitable to us not onely binding us from being active against His Majesty to the endangering of His Person or diminution of His Crowne and Dignity but also not suffering us to be silent or sit still when the defence of His Rights or Person requires our aid We have now done with his propositions and his discourse upon them whereby he hath wound himselfe up to the pitch of Bractons speech which he brought and rejected as too high to be attempted pag. 4. the King hath above him besides God and the Law His Court of Earles and Barons But this Answerer has placed both them and the House of Commons in that height by this finall Resolution and arbitrary inevitable Command and this reserved by them in their first choice of a King which according to the rules of Policy makes the King to have but imperium communicatum leaves the supream commanding power in them From the Premises he concludes his resolution for Conscience pag. 19. This great Centurion of the Kingdome the Parliament saies to one of this now necessary listed Army Goe and he goes to another come and he comes what other authority hath a Sheriffe to put a Malefactor to death We have had enough of the Centurion already too much God knowes of the Military Commands we should have liked it better if he had likened the Parliament to that wise and peaceable woman which gave advice to throw the Rebels heads over the walls and so the matter was ended 2 Sam. 20.18 But hath the Sheriffe no other Authority but such as a Centurion gives to Kill and Slay He ha's it derived from the only Supream Governour the King and so should every one that takes the Sword Conscience also ha's Gods warrant too first of Charity by the sixth Commandement which not onely forbids Murder but commands preservation of ours and our Neighbours life Secondly of Justice Render to all what is due to the great Councell what is due to it upon the Kings refusall lastly of obedience Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man Hence every Souldier in this Army hath warrant enough for his Conscience if he apply it I am sure his three warrants here from Gods Law are misapplyed and will not secure their Souldiers Consciences First that warrant of selfe defence and preservation tels us we must not doe it by murthering of others which may happen when our selfe preservation uses meanes not allowed by the Law it is to be regulated by if it be the defence of the body Naturall then must it be according to the Law of God and Nature if of the body Politique then according to its Law which this man has not any waies proved to prescribe this way of preservation by Subjects taking Armes we see by the Law the King is the onely supream Governor and so the Sword is put into His hand for preservation of order and executing of wrath from whom the Authority of the Sheriffe and all other Ministers of power is derived But he that takes the Sword by his owne authority and not by Commission from or under Him commits murder and shall perish by the Sword The Law is yet to make that may derive the warrant of killing and slaying from any other fountaine of power Secondly â—ender to all what is due is a good rule of Justice and tels us what is due to the King by the fift Commandement Honour and Feare and Tribute as the Apostle goes on in that place Rom. 13. but it 's misapplied by the Answerer to urge the rendring of Obedience to the Arbitrary commands of the two Houses for unto such it is not due as has been shewn though this man phancy it never so strongly Lastly The submission to every Ordinance of Man is also misapplied by him for there was never any such Ordinance or Contrivement which reserved such a power at the first Constitution of this Government as he supposes but never could prove Therefore I may conclude according to my first resolve in my former Treatise Conscience cannot finde any warrant or safe ground to goe upon for making this resistance For according to the principles of the now pleaders for this resistance It finds nothing but a pretended Constitution at a supposed Capitulating Election contriving and reserving for the people such a power finds this un reasonable in it selfe inconsistent with the usuall and established government of this Land and so cannot thinke it safe to rest on or fit to give it warrant against the known Law which places the power of Armes in the King which acknowledges him Only supreme Governour which challenges by Our Allegiance ayd and assistance from us for the defence not onely of His Person but also of His Rights His Crown and Dignity which are most injuriously wronged by this Contrivement or frame of Government and exceedingly invaded by this resistance and power of Armes raised and used against Him at this day SECT VIII A Confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Sect. of the former Treatise NOw we come to the application of what hath been hitherto said to see how it meets with what was written in the former Treatise where we shall take in the other Answerers also And first we must cast an eye over Mr. Bridge his grounds which he layes for this resistance before he enters upon the first Section He tels us there are three grounds of their proceeding by Armes 1. To fetch in Delinquents to be tryed in the highest Court. 2. To defend the State from forraine invasion 3. To preserve themselves and their Country from the insurrection of Papists And that all this is done as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of Iurisdiction over their Prince Pag. 2. That
bound to the people that is they stand equally accomptable to each other for you immediately inferre Therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse His Subjects to take up Arms against them as for Subjects to take up Arms against him Both are unlawfull and unjust but not equally for doe not the mutuall duties of the fifth Commandement run betwixt superior and inferior and is it as heinous for the father to strike the sonne as the son to lift up his hand against the Father If a King oppresse His Subjects it is an abusing of that power which is in him if people take Armes it 's an usurping of power that belongs not to them which is of more dangerous consequence if the people doe what is unlawfull the Magistrate bears not the sword in vain God has appointed him to punish them if the Supream Magistrate doe unlawfully he is not to be punished by the people for that were to overthrow the order God has set but is reserved for a Divine judgement In the Covenant twixt King and People though it be not expressed that the state of the Kingdome may take Armes and provide for its safety in ease the King will not discharge yet must it in all reason be implyed that safety being the end of that trust and ratio Legis is Lex as in Marriage it is not verbally expressed that the party committing Adultery shall he divorced yet that Covenant carries the force of such a Condition pag. 31. That the King ought to discharge is Law and the end or reason of it is the safety of the state but that in case he does not or not according to the opinion of the people they by Armes should resist provide for it is neit her Law nor Reason of any Law but an unreasonable condition were any King admitted under it and no rea onable means of safety but the way of confusion and destruction as experience has alwayes shewn That Adultery is the breach of the Mariage Covenant and cause of Divorce both in the institution of Marriage They two shall be one flesh doth in reason imply and the Law of God doth expresly declare and the like implication of reason and declaration of Law must appear before we can see any warrant for Subjects to resist and provide for their own safety for as of the parties married so of a Prince and the people entrusted to him by God it may be said whom God hath enjoyned let no man put asunder and let not the woman usurp authority over the man nor Subjects over their Prince SECT XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the 5th Sect of the former Treatise VPon that which was said They sharpenmany weapons for this resistance at the Philistins forge borrow arguments from the Papists M. Bridge replyes There is much difference betweene them and us in this particular I. The Papists contend for the Lawfulnesse of deposing Kings wee not Difference there must needs be betweene you in this particular for they Challenge such a power for the Pope you for the people But you doe not contend for the power of deposing or as you told us above the people from their power of resistance need not make that inference here is great security for the Prince We see your party making use of those Examples which the Papists bring for the deposing of Kings as that of Saul Vzziah Athalia and one of your fellow Answerers has endeavoured to prove such a power of deposing with whom we shall meet at the end of this Section and we know your principles wil carry the people so far if they wil follow them if as you teach them they have justly taken Armes in order to their own safety so they shall thinke in order to thâ—â—â—fety they cannot lay them downe or any longer trust their safety with the former Prince II. The Papists plead for power of deposing a Prince in case he turn Heretick we hold a Prince may change his Religion and yet the Subjects thereby not excused from their Allegiance You will give him leave to change Religion himselfe so will the Papists if all His Subjects may have free liberty of their Religion but in case he also endeavour to force that contrary Religion upon his Subjects for that must be supposed how then will your Allegiance hold When you challenge the power of Armes in order to your own and the States safety will you think that the preservation onely of your goods Estates and out ward liberty is concerned in it and not of your Religion too How have you wrought the people into Armes against their Soveraigne but by this name Religion and that not because He is turn'd Heretique and changed his Religion or has imposed a Contrary Religion upon his Subjects that you could not tell them but only by making them beleive He favours Popery and there is feare He will change Religion which is as weak and low pretence as any Iesuit can descend to for drawing People into Armes against their Soveraigne III. The Papists hold it lawfull to kill a Prince and that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do it We abhore it That is their new forge under ground set up of late by Iesuits I did not mean you sharpned your weapons there but at the old forge where the Popes power of acquitting people of their Allegiance and commanding them into Armes has been beaten out some hundreds of years And however you say you abhor this Doctrine of killing Kings that is of Butchering them by privat hands yet I feare and tremble to think if your Soveraigne had falne in Battell by the edge of your sword or shot of your Artillery yee would have acquitted your selves and found him guilty of his own death in that he would not being desired forbeare to go down himselfe into Battel against his Enemyes Some of your Fellowes M. Bridge are much wronged if they did not after the businesse of Brainceford play the Popes in absolving the Souldiers there taken from the Oath whereby they had again bound themselves from bearing Armes against his Majesty and I can witnesse how the best of your party in Yorkshire had plited their faith for conserving of the Peaâ—e of the Country and how they were dispensed with and commanded into Armes Let us proceed The Fuller Answerer also complaines The fift Section is a plain begging of three Questions the Resolver would have us maintain Pag. 25. To pardon your abuse of speech we know what you mean and must tell you we need not put upon you more then you undertake to maintain which is more then you can prove more then former Ages have been Conscious of enough to make your Religion if you have any heare ill in after times But let us see what you say in vindication of your selves We say not that every State hath these meancs of safety by resistance unlesse reserved by them Answer Yet