which in prudence might best correspond with their condition still making people the first subject and receptacle of civill power In proofe whereof I have stayed the longer it being the foundation of all this controversie And now passe on to the fourth Proposition which is 4th Proposition SEeing that the people are under God the first subject of civill power therefore the Prince oâ— supreme Magistrate hath no more power then what is communicated to him from the communitie because the affect doth not exceed the vertue of its cause 5th Proposition ANd as the Prince hath no more power then what is communicated from the communitie so the people or communitie cannot give away from themselves the power of selfe-preservation Because the same Commandement that faith Thou shalt not kill doth also say Thou shalt preserve Precepts that forbid evill do command the contrary good Now the morall naturall Law of God forbids a man to kill himselfe and therefore commands him to preserve himselfe and as by a positive act men cannot make a Law to kill themselves no more can they not to preserve themselves the one being as strongly commanded by the morall Law and as deeply seated in Nature as the other Secondly because if the communitie should give away the power of self-preservation the state should not be in a better but in a worser condition then before The King and Prince is taken into Office for the good of the people therefore called Pater patriae Pastor gregis not because he may arbitrarily rule in the Common wealth as a Father doth in his familie but because of his tender care that he is to have over his people and that the people might live more secure and peaceably in all godlinesse and honestie But if the communitie should give such a trust to any one that they might not at all defend themselves beyond his actuall appointment they should be infinitely in a worser condition then before because before such trust they should be freemen but after the trust they should be slaves unlesse it pleases the King through his own gratious condiscention to let them be free still for what is a slave but such a one who is so absolutely at the power of anothers command that he may be spoiled or sold or put under the Gallies and there beaten daily having no power to make any resistance or selfe-defence Thirdly it is agreeable to the Law of Nations and Reason that no inferiour Court can undo what a superiour Court hath done As where an estate is setled upon children by Act of Parliament no inferiour Court of Justice can cut off the intayle Now selfe-preservation is enacted in the Court of Nature as he that hath read but Magirus unbound I meane common naturall principles will grant and therefore no act of a communitie can cut off this intayle from their posteritie or make such a deed of Conveyance whereby themselves and their children should be spoyled of self-preservation Ob. But though by nature a man is bound to preserve himself yet he may destroy or put himself upon that which will be his destruction for the publick good doth not natura particularis go crosse to its own disposition ne detur vacuum Respons True I have read indeed that Natura particularis gives way to natura universalis but never heard before that natura universalis gives way to natura particularis or that natura universalis doth seek its own destruction or loose the power of self-preservation for the good or betternesse of some particular nature Wherefore if the seat of power be in the community and therefore no more power in the supreme then was and is derived from the communitie and the people cannot give away the power of self preservation Then in case the Prince doth neglect his trust so as not to preserve them but to oppose them to violence it is no usurpation for them to look to themselves which yet may be no act of jurisdiction over their Prince or taking away of any power from him which they gave him but is in truth a stirring up acting and exercising of that power which alwayes was left in themselves CHAP. II. HAving now spoken of power in generall I shall say somewhat of the governing and ruling power of England yet because that concerns the Parliament to declare which they have done and Lawyers for to clear which they do I shall but touch upon it and no more then comes within the compasse and verge I do not say of a divine but subject I find therefore in learned Fortescue Lord Chief-Justice and after Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixth time that he doth distinguish of governed or ruling power into two sorts the one meerly royall and the other politick When Kingdoms are ruled by royall government saith he then men in a times past excelling in power and greedie of dignity and glory did many times by plain force subdue unto themselves their neighbours the Nations adjoyning and compelled them to do them service and to obey their commands which commands they decreed afterwards to be unto the people very Laws Cap. 12. The forme of institution of a politick Kingdom is that where a King is mad and ordained for the defence of the Law of his Subjects and of their bodies and goods whereunto he receiveth power of his people for that he cannot govern his people by any other power Cap. 13. Now saith he the King of England cannot alter or change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure for he governeth his people by power not onely Royall but also politick And accordingly Wil. the Conquerour to go no higher in whose entrance to the Crown Dr. F. makes the first contrivement of his English government for conscience to rest upon seemes to me to have possest himself of this Kingdom who though he did conquer the same yet the first claime or title that he laid to this Crown was gift which Edward the Consessor had made to him Herauld the former King having promised the Crown also to him In this right he first set foot on the English shore not in the right of a conquest but in the right of a gift and promise as Speed Cambden and others affirm And afterwards when he had obtained the Crown he swore to use and practise the same good laws of Edward for the common laws of this realme notwithstanding saith Mr Fox Amongst the said lawes I find in ancient Records this was part that the King because he is Vicar of the highest King is appointed to rule the kingdome and the Lords people to defend the holy Church which unlesse he do the name of a King agrees not to him but he loseth the name of a King c. 2ly As the King and Conqueror came into the Kingdome by this claim so we finde that in those times the consent and choice of the people was in use for the establishing of Kings amongst them For
the people did not signifie the Kingly power already conferred but to be conferred upon him to wit when all being gathered together by Samuel to Mispah gave their consent and cryed out Let the King live He hath fouâ—d an example and proofe for thetrust of Parliement in Davids time 1 Cro. 13. 1 2. Because David consults with the Captaines and Leaders which were Officers â—ot of the King but Kingdome but those were Officers of the King and Kingdome meerly designed by him not the People and called by h m to that trust pag 43 44 True I have found an example indeed in Davids time for what I alledged Namely that there were then certaine Officers of the Kingdome not of the King onely and though under him yet were they with him trusted with the affaires of the Kingdome This also was the judgement of the Protestant Divines in France whose Testimonie I shall relate afterwards of lumus Josephus Brutus Zepperus Sigonius and many others Zepperus saith thus That in Saul David and Salomons time so before the Captivity the Kingdom of Israel was mixed with Aristocracie for it had a Senate of 70. or great Synedrim which sate at Jerusalem whose Iudges were called Princes who sitting by the King did dispatch the great affaires of the Kingdome unto whom was referred the choice of the King and High Priest and matters of War and other things greatly concerning the people Of this Synedrion Josephus saith Nihilagat Rex sine Senatorum sententia Yea these Senators were in such place with the King that they were called his friends brethren 1 Chron. 2. 2. And though the Dr. saies Those Officers in Davids time were designed by the King not the people Yet if we look to the originall in the first of Deut. 13. We â—inde that the people did first give them to Moses before he did make them Rulers for v. 13. Moses relating the first constitution of that Government saith I said unto you give mee wise men and understanding and known men among your Tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The English Translation readeth Take yâ—e wise men the Hebrew is give yee us as Montanus hath it when they had given them to Moses he saith v. 15. So I received them so is the Hebrew he would not make any rulers over them but such as he had first e c eived from them and they had given unto him and so though at the first it pleased God to appoint those Rulers or Councell of State called the Sanedrym or Synedrion whereupon Mendosa saith that they were equal to Moses being appointed by God as Moses was Numbers 11. 14 15 16. Yet that was by and with the consent and choice of the people not meerly by appointment of the King as our Doctor would Car. Sigoâ—ius will tell him out of the Tolmodists and other Divines that he had search'd into that this Sinedrion or Colledge of Elders did represent the Scepter that the Scepter it selfe did depend on it that none did judge the Tribe and the Scepter but this house of Judgement To this purpose Gerrara shewes that this Synedrion was chosen of the chiefe men of Israel in whom was power of judging controversies exercising of publique justice yea of choosing and deposing Kings And therefore of the Talmodist this Councell was called the house of Judgement or the house of the Scepter and publique Authoritie And Zepperus with Doctor Biljon saith this Synedrion continued with that people of God unto the time of Herod Iosepâ—us being witnes I presse not so much as these Authors speake of But whether there were not in those times of David Officiariâ— Regns wich were not meerly designed by the King and what inference I do make from thence let Conscience judge Againe whereas I argue from the being and nature of Parliament that if it hath not power to send for by force those that are accused to be tryed before them that should not be a Court of Justice seeing that even inferiour Courts have a power to force those before them that are to be tryed And if the Parliament may send one Sergeant at Armes then 20. then 100. then 1000 c. The Doctor Replies Therfore Inferiour Courts have a power to raise Armes Answer this followes not For though I say every Court hath power to force in the accused yet it must be in a way suitable Now this raising of Armes is not suitable unto an Inferiour Court but to the Parliament being a more Nationall and publike Court then any other is The Dr. tells us indeed that other Courts have their posse comitatus So the Parliament have their Orders to fetch and force in the accused which are established by law aswell as his posse Comitatus is But saith the Dr. I did not know before that all the Parliament Souldiers were Sergeants at Armes Answer how doth hee catch at the word and let the sence goe the sence scope and drift of the Argument was to shew that as they might send forth one who by force should fetch in the accused by the same reason they might send forth ten and by the same Reason that they may send forth 10 they may send forth 20 so 100 so 1000 so 10000 The Dr. puts off the Argument with a Jeere because hee hath no list to meddle with the Reason In the 45 Page hee would enervate the Testimonies of Divines which I brought to shew that all Protestant Divines were of our minde Let us see therefore what hee saith to them And first he begins with the Testimony of the Germane Divines and for that saith he The Testimony of the Centuriste speakes nothing to this purpose A short answer soon and â—â—sily given but why nothing to our purpose nay stay there the Dr. will keepe his Reason to himselfe I set downe therefore the Testimony againe and let men judge whether it bee to the purpose Governours say they in such things as are repugnant to the law of God have no power or 〈…〉 above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunitie above others Yea they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the Ordinance of God bearing the word for the punishment of vice for St. Paul Rom. 13. saith that God dia instance and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and hee commands that every soule and so the governours themselves should bee subject â—o this Ordinance of God if they would be defended by it and not by their wicked deeds makes themselves liable to punishment Of the French and Low Country Divines he brings no testimony saith the Dr. but for proose tels us ne know their practice so I for answer may returne him his owne words we know what hath been the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit
to give in witnesse An. Very well if they be parties interessed and so not fit to give in witnes then they are of our judgment observe Reader here he granteth that the Protestant Churches and the Divines of France and the Low-Countries are parties interessed so of our judgement What Protestant Churches or Divines then will he alledge for his sentence Will hee have the Diviner of Switzerland I brought a Testimony of the Divines of the Councell of Basil and that hee doth not contradict Are the Divines of Geneva of his mind I brought the Testimony of Calvin that hee saith nothing to but it passeth with him as granted by him Are the Divines of Scotland I brought him the Testimony of Mr. Bucanan that Testimony also he doth not deny It may be that was but one and so he would not take notice of it Read therefore what Mr. Knox saith Because this occasion is layed against Gods true Ministers Wee cannot but witnesse what Trade and Order of Doctrine they have kept and keepe in that point they affirme that if wicked persons abusing the authority established by God command things manifestly wicked that such as may and doe bridle this inordinate appetite of Princes cannot bee accused as resistaries of Authority which is Gods good Ordinance to bridle the fury and rage of Princes in free Kingdomes and Realmes They affirme it appertaineth to Nobility sworne and borne Counsells of the same and also to the Barons and People whose Wills and Consents are to bee required in all great matters of the Common wealth Which if they doenst they declare themselves criminall with their Princes and subject to the same vengeance of God This was the doctrine and judgement of the Divines in Scotland in the beginning of Reformation as related by Mr. Knox And what the judgement of the Scots Divines is for the present seeing he will not take practise for Testimony of Judgement he may Read in their Answer to Lysimachus Nicanour thus As for the lawfullnesse of resistance hee may understand that that hath been the tenet of our Church since the Reformation it hath beene the right and practise of our Kingdomes since the first foundation A number of instances thereof are approved in our standing acts of Parliament unrepealed to this day It hath beene the practise of all Reformed Churches abroad wherein by Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles they have been all allowed And the most of them allowed by powerfull assistance both with Men and Money To this purpose Dr. Rutherford also as I have shewed already Chap. 1. ropos 3. But it may be the Dr. will tell us that the Scottish Divines are also Parties and interessed in the Cause Very good Wee shall shortly have a great Party in the Protestant Churches for us and with us What Divines then are against us in the Doctors opinion Are the Divines of England He tels us also page 45. yet doe some of them allow of Resistance in some cases Good still By and by it will arise to somewhat here is yet more of our Party as the Dr. calls them by his owne confession As for the Testimonies that I brought of Dr. Bilson and Dr. Willet he saith that 's plaine they speake of such Government such States such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom at this time But why not the Dr. will not tell us If I tell him that Peter Martyr also Professor of divinity in England was of our Judgement as he may read plainely â—udg 1. hee will tell me it may be that Peter Martyr speakes not of this time or of this case or of this State If I referre him to Polanus Dan. 11. who writes largely in this matter with us it may bee hee will tell us also that Polanus speakes not to our case to our time or to our State But if I referre him to Barkley and Hugo Grocius who well knew the judgment of the low Countrey divines I suppose the Dr. will not say those are Parties Barcleus saith Hugo Grocius the most strong defender of Regall Empire yet descends thus farre to yeeld unto the people and the chiefe part of them a power to defend themselves against immane cruelty when yet notwithstanding hee confesses that the people are subject unto the King and as for â—ne saith Hugo Grocius I dare not indiscriminatim condemne those or that part of the people which doe use this defence having respect unto the publike good For David had many armed men about him that hee might repell violence offered unto him And at that time David was commended by a prudent Woman that hee sought the Lords Battell which words many doe ill referre to Davids former Battels where as Abigails Speech is rather a correction of what Naball sayd Many Subjects are now fallen from their King which words that Abigail might correct Shee saith the Warres of David were Godly as being undertaken not out of defection from his Prince but for tuition and preservation of his owne life But because the Doctor seemes to want some testimonies of the French Protestant divines I will give him one for all and surely hee will not say the words are not spoken of such Government such States such cases or such times as ours are This question being on foot in Charles 9 time What is to be done by the Subject when he is violenced by the Magistrate or if the chiefe magistrate degenerate into a Tyrant may the Subjects resist by force of Arms That was Answered by one Learned Man for and in the defence of the Protestants in those times thus Subjects are of three sorts either meâ—re private men bearing no publike Office or else they are such as are in some inferiour and subordinate place of Magistracie or else they are such as are so inferiour to the chiefe Magistrate that by the laws of the Land are appointed to bridle the chiefe as for private men saith the Author it is evill for them to resist with force of Armes either they must sly or suffer As for the second sort they not being the Kings houshold Servants but rather to bee called Officers of the Crowne depending not so much on the King as Kingdome the King abusing his power to the overthrow of Lawes these inferiour Magistrates ought to oppose for the conservation of those who are committed unto their trust and if need bee to take up Armes tilthings bee otherwise provided for by the Estates of the Kingdome As for the third sort saith hee though they in some respect are under the chiefe Magistrate yet in some respect they are keepers of the Supreme dignity that the chiefe Magistrate may bee kept in his Office These may if need require represse and chastise him for the people is not made for the Magistrate but the magistrate for the people his power taking its rise from them Ob. But though this were the first rise of magistracie yet
THE TRUTH OF THE TIMES VINDICATED WHEREBY The lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking up of Arms is justified Doctor Fernes Reply answered and the Case in question more fully resolved By WILLIAM BRIDGE Preacher of Gods word at great Yarmoth PSAL. 127. 1. Except the Lord keep the Citie the Watchman waketh but in vain Quaeso lector ut memor tribunalis Domini de judicio tuo te intelligens judicandum nec mihi nec adversario meo foveas neve personas loquentium sed causam consideres Hierom. Printed according to Order LONDON Printed by T. P. and M. S. for Ben Allen and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head Alley 1643. Errata IN the Frontispice for soveas read faveas In the Epistle for being asked read having asked P. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. for Truths of the time r. Truth of the times p 4 for there r. they p 5. for Althaâ—ius r. Althaâ—ius for Henomus c. r. Henonius Henning and Amisaus p 7. for yet r. yea p. 8. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p 10. for duct a naturar dâ—cta naturae p. 13. for Rainervus r. Rainerius p. 13. for affect r. effect p. 14. for under r. into p 15. for oppose r. expose p. 15. for governed r. governing p. 26. for Junius Josephus Brutus read Junius Brutus Josephus p. 29. for ropos r. propos. p. 35 36. for dwell r. dwelt p. 37. for thats read its p 39. for Wisd. 22. r. Rev. 2. p. 39. for but passive r. not passive p 40. for if lawfull r. lawfull p. 41. for take of r. take heed of pag. 45. for to which r. which p. 45. for see will read so will p. 46. for Committe r. community p. 47. for that Prince r. the Prince p. 47. for being read bring for that that r. that it There are many faults escaped in the marginall Latine yet because the Latine is turned into English and the Authors cited I do not note those Errata TO THE RIGHT VVORSHIPFVLL The Knights and Gentlemen Deputie-Lieutenants of the County of NORFOLK Honoured Sirs GIve me leave to joyn you together in one Epistle whom God and your Countrey hath joyned together in one service It is not in my purpose to blazen your worth before the world your own actions speak you in the gate and wise men had rather do worthily then heare of it onely observing your unwearied labour of love for God and your Countrey I count it my duty to come forth and meet you with this pen-service in testimonie of my thankfull respects to you You read Numb. 25. when the wrath of God brake out against Israel that Phineas stood up and executed judgement and the wrath was not onely diverted but himself blessed yea the blessing was a blessing of peace though wrought out by the sword your like action in this time of wrath will carrie the like blessing on your selves and houses yet your work is rather to bring men to justice then to execute it Many blessed comforts wâ—it on your service First we read in Scripture but of one man so potent in heaven that he could command the Sun to stand still and he was a Souldier Joshua but of one man of whom it was said that he had an heart after Gods own heart and he was a great Souldier David but of one man of whom Christ gave that great testimonie I have not found so great faith no not in Israel And he was a Souldier too the Centurion thus haâ—h God honoured your calling Secondly your work is good for you are the Ministers of Reformation I read of a King of Meth sometimes in Ireland that being asked how certain noysome birds that came flying into that countrey and bred there might be destroyed Was answered thus Nidos eorum ubique destruendos The way to be rid of them was to destroy their nests Now for a long season many noysome birds have been flying over into this Kingdom and have bred here the work of these times is to destroy those nests of Jesuites and Jesuited persons and it is that work which now you are upon Though it cost some paines its worth your labour happie is that necessitie which leads to better things Thirdly your cause is just also agreeable to the Law of Nature for Conservatio sui ipsius est opus naturalissimum to the Law of God for David though not the representative body yâ—t lawfully took up armes for his own defence to the Law of the Kingdom for what more legall then that the Houses of Parliament should bring in Delinquents to triall and how can that be without Armes when the Delinquents betake themselves to their Armes The Schoolmen say three things concurre to a just warre First Jurisdictio indicentis and for that you have the Authoritie of Parliament which as one writes if you respect Antiquitie is of all Courts the most ancient if dignitie is of all Courts the most hononorable if authoritie and jurisdiction is of all Courts the most copious Secondly Offensio patientis and for that you have matter too much and your enemies too little the great cause of their armes is but some peece of prerogative if they pretend truly a cause infinitely beneath so unkind bloodie a war as this is Thirdly Intentïo boni convenientis and for that I dare say you are bellando pacifici your war being to prevent warre and your present bleeding to prevent some great sicknesse which this State would sink under Fourthly your Forces live and march under as many prayers as ever English Armies did you have preces armaâ—as and though Joshua fought valiantly Exod. 17. yet the prayers of Moses who was not in the fight got the field Fifthly If you do overcome you shall not make your selves slaves by your own victories we may truly say of some Dum vincunt victi sunt when they have overcome others they are slaves themselves your Religion Laws and Liberties stand all readie to reward your prowes And sixthly If you be overcome and die you die for God and your Countrey who can bring his life into a better market blessed are those that dye for the Lord so that word â— is rather to be read Rev. 14. 13. Wherefore as heretofore so now much more labour to hold forth the vertues of him that hath called you to this great imployment As Souldiers are more honoured then others so they should be more vertuous he had need carry much grace in his heart that doth daily carrie his life in his hand and your Souldiers should as well overcome the Countreys with their good examples as the Enemies with their swords When Joshua went out to battell against the Amalakites his men were all chosen or choice men Exod. 17. 9. And saith the Lord Deut. 23. 9 when the hoste goeth forth against thine enemie then keep thee from every wicked thing It is ordinarily observed that when the jews marched out
supreme Magistrate in a State and all particulars cease and the Royall line be spent and justice to be executed it returnes to the whole body to see to it As when Josua and divers Judges had ruled in Israel yet we read that after them Judg. 19 1. There was no King in Israel and then was the great sinne committed by the men of Gibeah with the Levites Concubine whereupon all Israel did take the sword of justice and they said Judg. 20. 13. to the men of Gibea Deliver us the men the children of Belial which are in Gibea that we may put them to death which Gibea refusing they did all as one man goe up in Armes against them God himselfe approving their act And what had all Israel to doe to execute justice if the power of the Sword did not returne to the people vacante magistratu supremo Neither can it be objected that though Israell had no King and supreme Magistrate amongst them yet they had severall heads of the Tribes by whose power they did come together for the execution of justice as it might seeme to be Judges 20. 2. For sometimes the chiefe of the Tribes doth in Scripture phrase signifie those that are chiefe in age wisedome and riches not such as were chiefe in authority Besides this action is imputed to all the people there being foure hundred thousand men that came together upon this designe vers. 2 unto whom the Levite made his complaint vers 7. Yee are all children of Israel give here your advice and counsell And all the people arose as one man vers 8 saying vers 9. Now this shall be the thing we will doe to Gibea and vers 11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against Gibea And least that any should thinke that this worke was done by the power of some remaines of regall authority amongst them it is not onely said before this work begun that there was no King in Israel in those dayes Judg. 19 1. But after all was done i is said further chap. 21. 25. In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every man did that which was right in his owne eyes so that Jus gladii the right of the sword in case of defection returneth to them again so far as to see that justice be duly executed And therefore if both the Fluxus and Refluxus of authority be from and to the people then must they needs be under God the first seat subject and receptacle of civill power Object But the Scripture tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13 1. And it ordained of God then not of man nor by any Fluxus or appointment from or of man Ans. Not to speake of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies rather ordered then ordained Government is of God two wayes either by immediate donation as that of Moses or by mediate derivation as that of Iudges and the Kings of Israel The government of Princes now is not by immediate donation or designation but by mediate derivation and so it is both of God and man too as Fortescue speakes Quicquid facit causa secunda facit causa prima But the Doctor tells us that Kings at first were not by choice of the people but that election was a defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way of descent of governing Kingly power by a paternall right pag. 9. of his Reply That Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of man as Democracie and Aristocracie are but that it is rather ductunaturae though not jure naturae we being led there unto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule pag. 8. as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers For we see saith he that the earth was divided amongst Noah and his three sonnes and still as they increased new Colonies were sent out who had the government both Regall and Sacerdotall by primogeniture whence it appeares saith he that Monarchy was the first government it being late ere any popular rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world And that Monarchy how ever we cannot say that it was jure divino yet it was exemplo divino the government which God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses Judges and the Kings of Israel pag. 8. Ans. First whereas the Dr saith that the first Kings were not by the choice of the people at the first p. 8. And that popular election was a kinde of defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way c. I refer Doctor Fern unto Doctor Fern who saith both in his first and second book pag. 67. of his Reply It is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elswhere This I have spoke to already and shall speak to yet afterwards neither doe we take it unkindly that the Doctor cannot agree with us seeing he cannot agree with himselfe Secondly whereas he saith Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of Man as Aristocracie and Democracie are I refer him to what he saith himselfe For in his first booke pag. 13. 14. he saith We must distinguish power it selfe and the qualification of that power in severall formes of government If we consider the qualification of this governing power and the manner of executing it according to the severall formes of government we granted it before to be the invention of man And when such a qualification or forme is orderly agreed upon wee say it hath Gods permissive approbation Yet in his Reply he makes this forme of Monarchicall government rather an appointment of God both ducta natura and exemplo divino and not a meere invention of man as other formes of government are Here I must leave him to agree with himselfe Thirdly whereas he saith That the first Fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the earth divided amongst Noahs three sonnes c. I referre him for information to the 1 Chron. 1 10. where it is said expressely of Nimrod that hee began to be mighty upon the earth whereas if Noah and his sonnes were Kings their dominions being greater before the dâ—vision of the earth into after Colonies they should have been more mighty then he And what his might was is declared to us Gen. 10. 10. And the beginning of his kingdome was Babel c. Here is the first time as Mendoza well observes that we read of a kingdome after the flood and that is marked with a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rebellavit For Nimrod comes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to rebell as if in erecting his Kingdome he had rebelled against the way of government which before wasused if not appointed And it should seem strange if God had appointed that way of government by making the sonnes of Noah Kings that Cham from whom came Nimrod who was that
when William the first sent to Herald to make good his promise Herald answered that he was rightfull King as being so by the consent and choyce of the people as is reported in Cambden in his Britannia thus As concerning the promise of King Edw. William is to understand that the Realme of England could not be given by promise neither ought I to be tied to the said promise seeing the Kingdome is fallen to me by election and not inheritance And as for his own stipulation he said it was extorted from him by force neither he if he could nor might if he would make it good seeing it was done without the consent of the people Yea Histories tell us that when William the first had beaten Herald in the field the people still were in doubt whom they should chuse and setup for their King For sayes Culiel Malmsburiens Edwin and Morcard came to London and solicited the Citie that they would preferre one of them to the Kingdome and the rest of the Nobles would have chosen Edgar if the Bishops would have stuck to them But the English who then might have healed the ruines of the Kingdome whilest they would none of their owne brought in a stranger So that though William the first had gotten the field yet was not he brought to the Crown but with the consent and choyce though much over-pow'red and over-awed of the people So sayes Speed expressely Consent thus gotten all voices given for William he was crowned King at Westminster 3ly As the Crown in those dayes was obtained by the consent choice of the people so I say that even William the Conquerour did not come to the Crown without all conditions for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon cōdition which they proposed thus Most noble Duke behold here the Commons of Kent are come forth to meet and receive you as their Soveraigne requiring your peace their own free condition or estate and their ancient lawes formerly used If these bee denied they are here presently to abide the verdict of battell fully resolved rather to die then to depart with their lawes or to live servile in bondage which name and nature is and ever shall be strange unto us and not to be exdured The Conquerour driven to these streights and loath to hazard all on so nice a point more wisely then willingly granted their desires and pledges on both parts given for performance So saith Speed in his Chronicles so that it is plain that even William the first came not to the full Crown of England without all conditions and therefore our Kings and Princes pleading their right from him cannot be Kings and Princes without all conditions I know Dr. F. tells us that the Kings oath imports no condition but is taken for confirmation and strengthning of mutuall duties whether that be true let any judge who reads but these things And indeed if the Kings of England were such absolute Monarchs as that no resistance might be made to their commandments for the taking up of Arms for the defence of the country when enjoyned by Parliament then the subjects and people of England must lose this power of selfe-defence for they once had it all men by nature having a power to defend themselves either by conquest as being by force spoyled thereof or else they gave it away by some indenture at the election of the Prince for inheritance is but succession of election inheritance or immediate donation from God or else God hath forbidden this forcible resistance by Scripture If it bee said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest and are as a people meetly conquered then any other sword that is longer then the Princes may fetch back that power again If it be said that this people gave away this power by Indenture at the first election of their Prince then let men shew us such Indenture If it be said that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. 13. 1 2 3. or the like Scriptures then it must be affirmed that the Parliament are not the higher powers which Dr Ferne granteth for if the Parliament come within the compasse of those words higher Powers then that Scripture Rom. 13. doth not reach them but rather requires others to be obedient to them yea if by the higher powers is understood onely the King then the two Houses may not make any forcible resistance against any petty Constable that comes in the K◠authority to do violence to the two Houses Surely therefore this and the like Scriptures are much abused the meaning being only to command obedience to authority in all things that tend to the encouragement of good and punishment of evill and therefore there is such a power in the subjects both by the law of nature and constitution of the kingdome to take up Arms when the State or two Houses expresse it not withstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary CHAP. III. HAving shewed the nature of power in generall in the first chapter the way manner of Englands government in some measure in the second Chapter I now come to the vindication of the truth as opposed by Dr Fern in his last Book called Conscience satisfied wherein he spends the 7 former chapters mostly in answer to a book called a Fuller answer In his 8. Sect. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of Arms as now they do That I may not weary the Reader in turning from book to book I shall somtimes briefly set down what I had written then his Reply then give my answer unto it Mr. Bridge tels us saith the Doctor that there are three grounds of their proceeding by armes to fetch in Delinquents to their triall to secure the State from forrain invasion to preserve themselves from Popish rebellon Dr. Ferne replyeth Yet this must be done in an orderly and legall way and if conscience would speake the truth it could not say that any delinquents were denied or withheld till the Militia was seized and a great delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to triall at his Majesties instance Ans. How true this is that the Doctor writes the world knows I need not say the Parliament to this day never denied to try any that were accused by the King so that they might be tried legally by himself and the two Houses which is the known priviledge of every Parliament man according to Law Dr. F. But Mr. Bridge tels us all this is done as an act of self-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince and the Fuller Answer would have us beleeve they are inabled to it by Law and constitution of this government and that they do it by an act of judgement let him and Mr. Bridge agree it Ans. There needs no great skill to untie this knot not mediator to make us friends the
after the people have chosen their magistrate they have resigned up their power to him An. But the people never created or received their Kings but upon certain Conditions which being manifestly broken and not kept those have power to abdicate who have power to create and this has alwaâ—es been in use amongst all the most famous Nations in the World the Israeltes Lacedemonians Romanes Danes Swedes Scotch Polonians and English Ob But if a Magistrate doe degenerate into a Tyrant as wee are not to be obedient to him so neither are we to resist him Answ That is onely understood of private men Object But David spared Saul though it were in his power to â—nth moff An. That is no way contrary to the doctrine delivered for David had many armed men about him whose help if need had required he would without doubt have used against all yet thus hee did having respect rather to his owne defence then his enemies offence This testimony tells us what hath beene the practise of all Nations the testimony of the Scots in their answer to Lisimacâ—us Nicaâ—our saith expresly that our doctrine is according to the judgment of all the Reformea Churches And if these testimonies will not yet prevaile with the Dr. I must leave him to his resolves hee tells us that our homilies are against us but let him produce any place out of the homilies where it is said that the two Houses may not take up Armes to bring armed delinquents to their Tryall Indeed the Homilies speake against Subjects taking up of Armes against their King so doe not the Parliament but to defend themselves and to bring Delinquents to tirall And therefore when the Dr. or other bring forth testimonies of Divines ancient or late to prove that Subjects may not take up Armes against their Prince they had as good say nothing that is not to our case but let them prove by testimonies that it is not lawful for the Parliament to take up arms to secure the Kingdome to bring accused Persons to tryall and to deliver the Prince out of the hands of Malignants and then they say something to us else it is but clamor not Reason At last the Doctor speakes somewhat of arbitrary government p. 46. which is no way any answer to the reasons that were given by me proving that his opinion raised the King to an arbitrary government onely he sets down his further sentence about arbitrarines eadem facilitate rejicitur qua affirmatur The Rest of that Section is either spent in naked Assertions or jearing expressions or seeming Answers to his other Answerers CHAP. 4. THe Dr. having spent some time upon his other Answerres at the 49. pag. he is pleased to returne to me where hee would prove that the people of Israel did not by any forceable resistance rescue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul which worke saies he was but set off with a souldier like boldnes Let the Doctor call this work what he please Saul the King had sworn that Jonathan should dre and the people sweare be should not dye and they being in Arms did rescue Ionathan saith the Text This rescue the Doctor calls in his first Booke a living violence and in his reply a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes I hope the Doctor will give us leave to use the like termes if a Prince swear the death of some Parliamentary men who deserve not to die but to be preferr'd and the people rise up in Arms and rescue their Ionathans saying as we live they shall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us this is no resistance it is but a loving violence and a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes why may not we call this so aswell as the Dr. That But I appeale to all reason whether a rescue by men in Arms from those that have swornea mans death be not forceable resistance But say wee this is more then Prayers and teares which is th' only remedie allowed by the Doctor to which he replieth The Dr. had no where said though Mr. Bridge makes him often say so that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects but besides their cries to God he allowes them intercessions reproofes denyall of subsidies and aides I will not search into the Doctors Booke for every word take what he granteth here yet this souldierly boldnes of rescuing is more then Prayers teares reproofes or denialls of subsidies and aids which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confesseth now Yet the Doctor is so full of this sentence still that in the 51. pag. of this book he saith that the Children of Israel being under the oppression of their Kings had no remedie they had was by crying to the Lord And againe in the same page saith all the remedie they had was by crying to the Lord so also in his first booke pag. 10. the people are let to understand I Sam. 8. II. how they should be oppressed under Kings and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord Thus doe men forget themselves and what they have said whilest they contend against truth Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul the Dr. replies now as before that Davids example was extraordinary Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done what if wee should say that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary he tells us pag. 31. of his Reply that Conquest one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought tha people â—rder 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases Would not the Doctor take it for a poore shifting Answer from us When we say any practice is extraordinary we must also prove by circumstance that there was an extraordinaries in the fact or else acquies in it for our example But be it so that Davids example was extraordinary is not our case now extraordinary Is Englands case ordinary hath it bin thus ordinarily that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes has this bin for many yeares see how the Doctor helps himselfe by this extraordinary Answer He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul and is not this ordinarily lawfull for subjects to doe so much the Doctor grants it himselfe p. 9. of his first Book That personall defence is lawfull against suddaine and illegall assaults of the Prince himselfe thus farre toward his