of foregoing Ages what he ha's from the mutuall oath of King and people pag. 5. may be good upon after agreement between them as will appear and his hanc potestatem a populo effluxam out of Fortescue although it supposes derivation of power from the people the usuall mistaken principle of Government which later times have given cause to examine and find unsound yet doth it not imply the people ha's reserved any power much lesse such a paramount power as he imagines Conscience has this certain by the continuall practice of this Government that there is such a constitution as gives power of consenting to the two Houses in making and declaring Law when ever the beginning of it was it cannot see that it began by a contrivement of the people at the supposed choice of the first King but rather that it was subsequent to Monarchy and procured by the people for their greater security not precontrived by them If objected The constitution is fundamentall therefore preceding the first King we answer it followes not for it may be a fundamentall yet not of Monarchy simply but of government as now it stands a fundamentall not of the Regall power but the peoples security For Government may receive a change qualification by consent of King and people from more absolute to mixt such a constitution is a fundamentall because all after-lawes are built upon it but not a fundamentall to the Regall power for it gives no power to him as it doth to the two Houses but rather lessens his power by limiting it upon agreement that he will not impose any laws upon his people without their consent But as for that reserved power of declaring law without the king and of commanding all when they shall judge it expedient for the safety of the kingdom upon the Kings refusall Conscience has no assurance from this Answerer that such a power was reserved which is enough to leave it without excuse if it obey such a power but on the contrary has strong presumptions and reasons against For first it cannot see how such a reservation of power can consist with the beginnings of government in this land whether we consider the Norman or the Saxons entrance Secondly it cannot see how it can consist with the known established Government for by such a power the Supremacy would be plainly setled in the two Houses they may when they judge it necessary use this reserved power which transcends all ordinary power in the King Thirdly should the Kings of this Land be admitted upon such agreement for this reserved power Conscience cannot but think it an unreasonable condition and neither for the Kings nor peoples security but a very seminary of jealousies and sedition as if in Matrimony for the King is also sponsus Regni and wedded to the kingdom by a Ring at his Coronation the parties should agree upon such and such neglect of duties to part a sunder or children for the king is also a Father of the kingdom and the body politique owes to him naturall obedience 24. H. 8. c. 12. should condition with their Parents upon such or such usage to be acquitted of their duty and obedience what our Saviour said of their light unlawfull occasions of Divorse non fuit sic ob initio it was not so from the beginning when God at first joyned man and woman may be said of such a reserved power of resistance it was not so from the beginning when at first Rulers and Kings were Fathers and so are stil called in the fift Commandement not to be resisted or abdicated by their children their subjects Lastly this contrivement seems plainly to contradict it selfe for it places this reserved power in the Comites and Barons which cannot be before the first King for Bracton tells us as he is cited by Sir Edw. Coke in mag Cart. Reges associant sibi Comites Barones ordinances eos in magno Honore Earls and Barons are made by the King and assumed for Councell therefore invested with a long Robe and for defence therefore girt with a sword which shews the power they have is not by a contrivement or reservation at the supposed making of the first King but from the King by grant and of grace much lesse is it such a transcendent and paramount power as this Answerer imagineth to be reserved in them and the House of Commons at the first constitution of government in this Land We have hitherto searched into the ground-worke of this frame of Government as he had layd it in a supposed contrivement and reservation of the people when they made their first King and have found it to be groundlesse so that Conscience cannot rest upon it to make resistance in obedience to such a reserved power which this man tells Us is in the two Houses but gives no proofe for it at all nor indeed can So that this which has been sayd against it were enough to overthrow the Co-ordination supply Finall resolution and Arbitrary Commands that he has built upon this fiction but we will particularly examine his discourse upon them which is but an opening and enlarging of his phancies upon the new Principles of these dayes set off with plausible shew of reason to deceive the unwary SECT IV. Of the Co-ordination of the three Estates and of the Supremacy of Power HIs Co-ordination he has thus expressed This mixture or Co-ordination is in the very Supremacy of power it selfe and the Monarchy or highest power it selfe is compounded of three Co-ordinate estates pag. 3. There is but one Highest but that one is a mixt one pag. 4. It was granted there is a Co-ordination to some purposes but not such as he urges it for in the matter of Supremacie and Supply which that we may the better discern we must according to our skill and that shall be no farther than the common use of reason and the Grammaticall construction of what the knowne Law does plainly declare may lead every mans apprehension unfold wherein Supremacy of power doth consist There is a power of Enacting and of Executing or administration accordingly the Supreame power shews it selfe in making new Laws and abrogating old in calling assemblies to that and other purposes in Treaties with forreign Princes sending Embassies appointing Officers of State Judges of Courts and other Ministers of justice through the Kingdome Now if the Co-ordination of the King and two Houses of Parliament were such as he doth expresse would seem to inferre by the supply they are to make upon the Kings refusall they should be Coordinati ad omnia simply co-ordinate and equall in those powers acts of Supremacy wheras in plain speech he cannot say they are co-ordinate with His Majesty but only in consenting to the making of Laws pag. 4. in all the rest the King is solely supream and all power of administration derived from Him So then their consent is required to one act or exercise of supream power
Delinquents should be brought to a Legall tryall and the State defended is just and necessary yet to be done in an orderly and Legall way not by an Army raised by Subjects taking the Militia and power of the Kingdome out of chose hands in which the Law has inâ—â—â—sted it And if Conscience were to speake the Truth it could not say that any Delinquents were denied or with-held till the Militia was seized and a great Delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to tryall at His Majesties instance of which see more above Sect. 5. Neither can Conscience say that Subjects have had cause upon feares and pretences of forrain invasion or insurrection of Papists to Arme and resist Whether this be done by an Act of jurisdiction we may discerne by the plea of the fuller Answerer for he would have us believe they are inabled to this by Law and the Constitution of this Government and that they doe it by an act of judgement the States judgement residing in their finall resolution and that this power of theirs is transcendent to any power ordinarily in the King for it declares Law without Him it does arbitrarily command the power of the Kingdome and the obedience of the people without and against the commands of the King so we found it in the examination of his discourse and what is more required to an act of Jurisdiction I know not let Him and Mr. Bridge agree it Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of preservation First from the Law of Nature selfe preservation is naturall for a Man for a Community and therefore when a Community shall trust a Prince with their welfare that act of trust is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall Law which is selfe-preservation pag. 2. But the Fuller Answer will tell him there must be a Constitution to enable them to this selfe-preservation And were this Argument good then might private men or the people without the Parliament take Armes and resist for selfe-preservation is naturall to them and no positive Law which according to the Fuller Answer restraines their resistance upon their trust given to the Houses of Parliament can according to Mr. Bridge his reason destroy that naturall Law Also absolute Princes with whom the people have intrusted their welfare without any resevation might be resisted which the Fuller Answer againe denies for that act of trust is but by positive Law and according to Mr. Bridge it must not restraine them for it cannot destroy the Naturall Law of self-preservation But he should have observed that as the naturall body is to preserve it selfe according to its Law and no otherwise so a Community or politique body must doe it according to its Law which prescribeth the order and way and means of preservation and for want of holding to that way we see people often under pretence of this selfe-preservation drawne by seditious Leaders into Armes to their owne destruction Secondly he proves it from the Law of God by places of Scripture but so wildely that I am ashamed to repeat them yet the judicious Reader must give me leave for the peoples sake that are abused by these mens abusing of Scripture 1 Chron. 12.19 It is expresly said that David went out against Saul to battail but he was Sauls subject at that time pag. 2. A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for Subjects to go out to Battaile against their King but he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that He helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Achish See below Sect. 9. where this place is touched again Rom. 13. Be subject to the higher powers But the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pag. 3. this is well assumed but we grant the Conclusion there is a subjection due to them and if he means by the Parliament the three Estates concurring then all manner of subjection and obedience is due to them But he takes them as divided for it follows Though the King be supreame yet they have the high power of declaring Law pag. 3. this is a good explication of the Supremacy Yea this Doctor confesseth they are most fit to judge what is Law Take in all my words which were these none so fit to judge what those fundamentalls are as They that have power to build new Laws upon them and then make what you can of them or look what is spoken above of Supremacy Sect. 4. of the power of Declaring Law Sect. 6. Then he undertakes to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and has the ill hap to light on Saul David and Solomon for examples because it is said They made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11. and so of David and Solomon which was the peoples not giving of power but receiving and acknowledging him for King whom the Lord had designed Lastly he has found an example and proofe for the trust of Parliament in Davids time 1 Chron. 13.1 2. David consults with the Captains and Leaders and with all the Congregation about the fetching of the Ark what then These were Officers not of the King but Kingdom and though under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom pag. 5. Excellent Collections The Fuller Answer will tell him presently that the Kings of the Iewes were absolute Monarches though I say not so yet this I say those were Officers of the King and Kingdom meerly designed by him not the people and called by him to that trust what he infers that the Parliament is entrusted by the people though not deduceible from that place I grant yet so as that they have a trust from the King upon them too as was above shewn Sect. 4. But that in case they think the King misled it belongs to their trust to take the Armes of the Kingdom as M. Bridge would inferre can neither be drawn out of that place of Scripture nor any Law of this Land that ever could yet be seen The like rambling discourse he has upon the 5. Sect. touching the Monarchicall Government which God set up over his people wherein as he is for the conclusion altogether contrary to the Full Answerer who held the Jewish Monarchy absolute so for his proofes and places of Scripture alleaged altogether impertinent At length he will seem to give us Law for it Inferiour Courts have power to send for by force if need be those that are accused much more the Parliament the highest Court pag. 6. And therefore also inferiour Courts have power to raise Armies to force in the Accused if they refuse to come in upon Summons that would make good work But the Law has provided a force if need be a Posse Comitatûs and the Kings Officer or Minister for that is the Sheriffe but this new way turnes both the King out
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.
Him I suppose he meanes those Voted ones of which we spake above if any of them be entertained lately for one of them there 's above a thousand of His good Subjects whose Noblenesse and honesty hath still engaged them honourably though to the weaker side before in behalfe of the Subject groaning under former grievances now in service to His Majesty opposed by popular fury Subjects that out of Conscience of their allegiance cleave unto him as they did to Sâ—ul whose hearts the Lord had touched 1. Sam. 10. On the contrary it is well known how the guilt and danger of some desperate persons have engaged the poor people and opposed them as a buckler betwixt themselves and the stroke of Iustice And how ever this man thinks His Majesty is carried away We are sure he hath spoken so much reason in His Expresses and Declarations that it plainly appeares He is not perswaded by Enemies to Himselfe or the Kingdom but hath been forced to this just and necessary defence of Himselfe and hath cause to think He may be safer every way by his own Army then by that which pretends to preserve him in his Politique but gave him Battle to the most imminent danger of His Person and Naturall Capacity SECT VI. Of the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement and power of declaring Law THe Answerer goes on to his second Proposition placing the finall Resolution of this States Iudgement in the two Houses unto which all must yeeld obedience Pag. 13. How proves he this In this mixture of Supream power and trust of Government the two Houses make a part what 's their share to consult nay but to consent with the King in making Lawes Be it so that share we grant them but if you will place the finall resolution in them you must not speak of a share but challenge the whole The King is but a Cypher Then he tells us againe of the first Constitution of Government when the people made the first King but nothing at all to the proving of such a Constitution or clearing of such a finall resolution setled in the two Houses And as if there were no way to overthrow the first Constitution of this Government as he hath contrived it but onely by Conquest he leapes from this Finall resolution of which he should give us some proof to speake of the Title by Conquest Conquest I confesse may give such a Right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can master Pag. 13. I had not mentioned Conquest but to take away the exception made to the Apostles prohibition of Resistance from the absolutenesse of the Roman Emperors and to shew they made themselves so absolute by force of Armes but seeing this Answerer will make a businesse of it he must take notice that Conquest is one of the meanes by which God translates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought that people under and had a right over them by Conquest 2. Sam. 12. that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Iudah from which they revolted 2 Chro. 21.8 The Romans also had a right over Iudou by Conquest our Saviour acknowledges it in Caesar give to Caesar c. and in his substitute Pilate that he had power given him from above If this Answerer should looke through all Christendome he would scarce find a Kingdom that descends by inheritance but it had a beginning in Armes and yet I thinke he will not say the Titles of these Kings are no better then of Plunderers for though it may be unjust at first in him that invades and Conquers yet in the succession which is from him that providence which translates Kingdomes manifests it selfe and the will of God and there are momenta temporum for the justnesse of such Titles though we cannot fixe them If he say they begin to be just when the consent of the people is yeelded were it so and not so till then yet is that in all likelyhood an overawed consent as he grants the consent of the people of Rome was to their Emperors Pag. 21. and little to the advantage of the people however let their consent be free what the people gaine upon that consent is by an after agreement and grant of the Prince not by precontrivement at their making of the first King as he dreames it to be in this Kingdom We need not looke farre for instance we see Mag Char begins each clause with a Concessimus to the antient liberties of the Subject By which we see how vainly he breakes into passion in the words following How undoctor all how unchristian inhumane Barbarisme it is to talke of a right by Conquest in a Civill a Christian State Pag. 13. and a little after how many wayes doth this Resolver abuse His Majesty herein I had indeed abused Him had I talked of His Right as fondly as this man hath done I said he King claimes from the Conqueror and that of uncertain plea of supposed first Election could not give Subjects such power against him as is now pretended to I shewed the Emperors of Rome made themselves such by force of Armes so did the Saxons here so did the Normans after them master this people this Answerer speakes nothing to these beginnings of this Government in the Saxon and Norman Lines but still tells us of a first Election and 't is un-Christian to talke of Conquest that is to speake the truth David as it was said above being provoked by the King of Ammon tooke away his Crown made that people to serve as slâ—â—es The Conqueror had a Title from the Saxon Kings being denyed he pursu's it and in the pursuit of it by Armes subdues this Land can we thinke he was bound to such a first Constitution as this man conceives We see it otherwise and what has been consented to by succeeding Kings My Collection then was shall the pretended right of the people by such an Election be good against a King that claimes not by it but receives the Crown by succession descending through severall Conquests and yet the right of the Roman people not good against their Tyrannicall Emperours that made themselves of Subjects Lords over them by force of Armes I know not how this should be injurious to Christianity unlesse it be un-Christian to restraine the resistance and rebelling of Christians against a Christian Prince when as the Apostle did forbid Christians and all the people of Rome to resist their Emperour though Heathen and Tyrannicall Let us see whether it be injurious to His Majesty How do's he abuse His Majesty herein A Title he yeelds Him by Conquest and yet He must not rule by it a King as Conquerour and yet He must not rule as a Conqueror How injurious does he make the King to His posterity in that he subscribes and sweares to a limited title and has a free one the while to hold by pag. 13. it was no injury to his Majesty
Concretely as in the subject or the Magistrate that bears it therefore presently it follows in the Apostles reasons against resistance for he is the Minister he beares the sword so St. Peter tells us what he meanes by the Ordinance the King as supream or they that are sent by him for though the will and command be illegall yet because he that bears the power lawfully uses that power though illegally to compasse that will and execute that command the power it self is resisted in resisting him that so uses it as Saul had lawfully the power and command of Arms but that power he uses unlawfuly in pursuing his unjust wil against David And I aske when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure was that a pwoer ordained by God no but an illegall will a Tyranny therefore according to M. Burrows they might have been resisted in doing so No for that power and soveraignty they imployed to compasse those illegal commands was a power ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegal will yet our Saviour acknowledges in it Pilates power that was given him from above Again this answerer of theirs makes void that distinction of private men and of publick states in the point of resistance it voids also their other distinction of absolute Monarchs limited For according to this answerer it shal be lawfull for private men to resist their Princes though absolute if they command illegally and to say as M. Burrows teaches them We resist no power no authority at all but the illegall will and pleasure of man and so might the Christians have resisted and so replyed if then answer be good The truth is the lawfull power is resisted when armes are taken against Princes abusing that power to the compassing of unlawfull commands which also I insinuated often in the other treatise that from the Apostles reasons in this place against resistance drawn from that order that good for which the power is ordain'd though then the execution of the power in those Emperours was nothing answerable to that end That which the fuller Answerer presently adds pag. 22 There are two kinds of tyranny Regiminis and Usurpationis that of Government must be endured though never so heavy Not only to the good but to the froward also 1. Pet. 2.18 That other of Vsurpation hath no right at all I know not what it means if it be not a plain confirmation of what I have sayd against resistance and a direct confutation of what himselfe and Mr Burrows has answered for it M. Burrowes also tels us pag. 113. VVe professe against resisting power and authority though abused A man would think he came home to us and so he must if he will speak reason but his device is If those who have power to make lawes shall make wicked lawes and force obedience to them there is nothing left us but flying or passive obedience In this hole he often lurks to defend himselfe against the prohibition of resistance by making us believe the abused power that must not be resisted is only seen when sinfull lawes are made and imposed but I ask have they power to make such Laws No for it is not of God they have power from Him to make Laws but such Laws and Commands are their illegall wills then may they that resist say in M. Burrowes words we resist no power no authority but the illegall wills of men Pilate had power from above to judge the accused brought before him not to condemne the innocent that was the abuse of the Legislative power and the power it selfe is resisted by resisting the abuse of the one as of the other Now all this has bin said against resistance in case His Majesties Commands in the use of that power which is in Him were unlawfull but Conscience that knows He ha's by Law a power to command assistance for the defence of Himselfe and protection of His Subjects will easily conclude it a Legall power and command not only not to be resisted but also to be actively obeyed as all Legall ordained powers ought to be Notwithstanding these Scriptures so plain against Resistance or Arms taken up by Subjects M. Burrowes professeth his Conscience is not one whit scrupled I hope he will better consider it ere he come to dye and give an account of those poor souls he ha's seduced Finally we must subjoyn M. Bridge his replyes upon this 13 to the Romans he as if his conscience were as little scrupled with the Apostles prohibiting as M. Burrowes his was thus begins The Dr. indeavours to sear the tender Conscience with the word Damnation but it is rather to be translated judgement by it is meant the punishment of the Magistrate in this life pag. 14. M. Bridge might have had respect to our translation which renders it damnation with good reason for resistance is a breach of the 5 Commandement it is a resisting of the ordinance of God as in this chapter and M. Bridge knows it is no vain scaring of Conscience to tell it the breach of Gods Commandement ordinance makes it guilty of damnation And if we consider the condition of the Christians in those times what great matter had the Apostle told them in assuring them they should be punished by those Emperors if they resisted when as they were sure of that whether they resisted or resisted not but he gives them to understand however those Emperors were enemies to christianity the resisting of them was an offence against the ordinance of God or if we consider the principles of these daies which teach people to take the sword out of the Princes hand seize the Arms of the Kingdom in order to their own preservation what great matter would the Apostle threaten to such in telling them they should be punished by the Mag strate when as they have provided for their indemnity by taking the sword from their Prince or causing Him to bear it in vain therefore there is the stroke of a higher hand also to be expected and those that have been lately taken in actuall resistance and through His Majesties mercy escaped the deserved punishment of this life must if they continue not in obedience look for a greater condemnation Again M. Bridge answers That only active obedience to lawfull Commands is there enjoyned not passive under unlawfull Commands pag. 23. Both say we as appears by the injunction of subjection prohibition of resistance for if the Apostle had enjoyned onely obedience to just commands he had given the Romans that lived under such unjust Emperors but a lame instruction the refore in ease they had unjust commands imposed on them he tels them how to behave themselves that is not to resist what then remains but passive obedience But he would prove it thus The power they were to be subject to and not resist is the ordinance of God and the minister of God for good but
does not use it so as they conceive they therefore dispose of it taking the Sword into their own hands what is this but a reassuming or which is worse and more unreasonable an using of an higher power reserved and inherent in themselves which is to place the very Supremacie in the people as ha's been often shewen above M. Bridge bestowes more labour upon this Section But first He complaines The Dr charges us that we hold the people may reassume the power entrusted to the Prince making the World beleive we contend for the deposing of Kings pag. 24. What some of you have contended for all this while the Lord knowes that knowes your Hearts yet this we know the same principles will carry you so farre But there is a difference between deposing the Prince and reassuming the power for though you have not deposed the King yet have you seized the Militia and Armes of the Kingdome have commanded obedience from all His people have left Him nothing ye could take from Him and what is this but as much as in youlyeth to reassume the power if there be any impropriety in the speech it is in calling that a reassuming which indeed is rather a taking away or dispoyling Him of that you never gave Him But if you doe not reassume the power what meanes the difference you make of things disposed by trust from things disposed by donation because they may be recalled these may not so you say Pag. 25. and in applying it you tell us the King ha's His Power by trust from the people and should have proceeded to confesse they may recall i. e. reassume it you must hold it if you hold to your principles But let me tell you that God entrusts the Prince with the power and with the people and therefore the people cannot reassume it And when they elect one to bear that power they doe commit themselves to his trust not giving so much as receiving a benefit and such elected Kings as was said in the former Treatise are the Lords Annointed and his Ministers Then cannot Princes whose coming to the Crowne is meerly Pactionall be deposed for they are also the Lords Annointed and his Ministers but the Doctor granted that the argument speaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power has force in Governmente meerly Elective and Pactionall Pag. 26. The Doctor by way of supposition passed it over in these words although such argument may seeme to have some force in states meerly Pactionall to the undenyable clearing of this State from the danger of such forfeiture But if M. Bridge will have me deliver my opinion absolutely the reasons above mentioned will not suffer me to thinke the people may depose any King they have chosen upon what conditions soever they admitted him and if they should chuse admit one upon such condition of forfeiture it were turpis Conditio most unreasonable the very Seminary of Jealousy and sedition neither profitable for King nor people a plain encroachment of the peorle upon the governing power which was at first derived from God not through their hands and should alwayes be left in the Governour sufficient to rule them The Doctor also confesseth it is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elsewhere yet will he not have the King claime by it pag. 27. It is like they were so as generally among the Heathen they began by election what then must our King now claime by the first Kings in this Land and Conscience be put to drive into the obscure fabulous times before Caesar or Brute his entrance for that firstelection We are upon the English government which followed the Saxons or rather upon the Norman which followed the Conquest and as I said in that place how can Conscience be satisfied that the argument drawn from the supposed first Election to prove the peoples assuming this power can have any force in this government which began not so but as we see by the entrance of the Saxons and Normans Thus it is with our Prince although he succeeded the Conqueror yet doth he also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Commonwealth unto His Crowne pag. 28. That was not the Consent of the first supposed election but an after Consent following the Conquest as the Prince and the People could agree which agreement was not likely to leave them a power of resistance Now we see the Doctors mind plainly that he contends for an Arbitrary government for he saith pag. 11. the Emperors ruied absolutely and arbitrarily and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Manarchs but by force of Armes the way that the Saxons and Normans made themselves Masters of this people The Doctor did not contend for an arbitrary government but did often because he knew he should meet with those that would made bad construction of his words expresly declare the contrary His intent was to answer the Reply there made that those Emperors might not be resisted because they were absolute by shewing they made themselves so by Armes and if the people could not upon any former right refist in that Empire no more can they doe in this upon pretence of right by a first election for here also the Government began in Armes None of my Adversaries have bitten at the edge and strength of this answer but only catched at the shadow of those two words Conquest and Arbitrary More was spoken above of Conquest Sect. 6. and this I may adde We see in the titles of many of our Kings before the Acts of Parliament made in their times a reference to the Conquest as Edward the third after the Conquest which does relate not only to the Edward before the Conquest but also to the Conquest it selfe as to a beginning of claime and government or else the number should have none on and our Edward the third should have been numbred the fourth So Henry the seaventh and Henry the eight after the Conquest quest which relates to no such name before but only to the Conquest as a beginning of Claime and Government Then the Doctor comes to the matter of Covenant to which we say Every breach of Covenant makes not a forfeiture but we esteem a necessity of a Covenant which we see in Kings designed by God 1 Chron. 11.3 and that this bindes as well the King to the People as the People to the King pag. 29. That Covenant was not there a Condition on which those Kings were admitted to the Crown no more is it in this Kingdom but a confirmation and strengthning of their naturall duties by promises and Oaths That every breach the Prince makes in that Covenant should forfeit his power you cannot say indeed for shame but you canenlarge the breach as you please til you have made it wide enough for Armies of seduced people to enter in upon Him And we cannot but observe how you prepare for it in those words the King as well
is the safety of every State as deare and heare to it selfe as This and for any thing you have shewn for it any State may pretend such a Reservation as well as This for you have not proved such a Reservation and the generall argument your Party useth is from selfe preservation which is common to all Then to the Argument of the Churches safety under pretence of which the Pope challenges a power upon the failing of the Civill Magistate as the people now upon the refusall of their Prince you say The Church is not a State by it selfe so also M. Burrowes and M. Bridge It is not indeed the whole State comprehending the Civill State too yet is the good Estate thereof of as great consequence as any Concernment of the body Politique But the Church is not of its own Constitution but of Christs What then therefore it must be preserved by the laws instituted by Christ true so must the Civill State by its established lawes we desire no more yet will you not give Him leave to be as carefull for the good Estate of His Church in providing meanes of preservation for it in case the Civill Magistrate faile in his trust as you are to provide or reserve this power of resistance upon the Kings refusall But he did not provide such forceable meanes as are challenged by the Bishop of Rome under that pretence and these meanes of a reserved power for resistance are as unreasonable on your part if both of you should be put to prove your Traditions He for his Excommunicating or deposing of Kings in order to the Churches safety and you for your reserved power of resistance in order to the States preservation Conscience would find as little satisfaction in the one as in the other As for the matter of the Church we turn saith M. Bridge pag. 33. the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the officer is an Heretick unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the Officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power either to depose Him or to looke to it selfe It was not my argument I did but shew how the Papists use the like argument for the Churches safety as you doe for the States and if you back again wil gather strength for your assertion from their reasons be as like as you will one to the other I cannot helpe it but I am forry for you at least for the Religion you professe that you are put to such shiâ—ts But the Church hath Excommunication granted to it by Christ for its own preservation from Evills and Errors and the Body Naturall hath power to deliver it selfe from its burden therefore the Common wealth also cannot preserve it self unlesse it have power to deliver it selfe from its burden ibid. Then has this Church a Power of Excommunication still so it should be indeed and the power cannot be taken away by any mortal authority but since the Act which tooke away the High Commission and as the party you plead for would have it interpreted all Ecclesiasticall Censure too where doth the Exercise of that power rest upon whom now is the Argument turned The Body Naturall has power to disburden it self so has the Common-wealth too but wil you have the naturall body disburden it self of the Head or worke without it and say I have no neede of thee Or will you use letting of blood for the disburdning of the Natural body when sweating or gentle purges may doe it So in the Body Politick when a calme Reformation may purge out noxious humors will you put the sword into the rough hand of the people which in stead of opening a veine will cut the Arteries and Sinewes of the Common-wealth Ye are too desperate Physitians and that is plainly seene by the Consumption and languishing Estate of this Kingdom It was urged in the former Treatise as a reason against these meanes of safety by this power of resistance If the representative body of the people upon the Kings sailing in His trust may take this power then may the multitude by the like rule upon the failing of their representatives in the discharge of the trust they were chosen for take the power to themselves for it is claimed by them the Fuller Answerer replies They cannot doe it for the people have not resorved any power to themselves from themselves in Parliament pag. 25. But it will be as hard for him to make them believe they have power no otherwise as to make it appeare to us there was any such power reserved at all for when the people come to be spoiled in their Estates and Liberties they will think it most unreasonable that they should entrust themselves and all they have to such Arbitrary disposing of their own Representatives especially having been taught by this rule so easily to disclaime the Trust of their Soveraigne He that wrote the book called Plain English saith expresly that if the Representative body cannot or will not discharge their trust to the satisfaction of reason in the people they may resume if ever yet they parted with a power to their manifest undoing and use their power so far as conduceth to their owne safety and M. Bridge though here he brings reasons against the peoples recalling their Trust given to their representative body yet by his argument of selfe preservation at the beginning of his book has taught them to say It is naturall for them to provide for themselves and the act of Trust given to their Representative body is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall But forgetting what he said of the Naturall Law of selfe preservation he gives us reasons why the people should not take the power in such a case 1. Because they cannot be so ready to think the Parliament that is the two Houses neglect their trust pag. 36. not think so but if by Ordinances thence issuing they be spoiled of their property and liberty which is supposed in the Case they will quickly feele it is so 2. Because there is not that actuall designing and election af the Prince to the present affairs of the Commonweal as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses This is bold and sets aside both King and house of Lords putting all upon the Sentence of those that are chosen by the people for the present affaires of the Kingdom those are his words and unto their sentence the people bind themselves to stand as parties disagreeing to doe the sentence of an Vmpire or Arbitrator that is his similitude What can be said more to the dissolving of the temper of three Estates in Parliament and to the overthrow of this Government 3. Because if the people upon such surmises should call in their trust and their power they would leave themselves naked of all authority and be private
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
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
his Rights and power where with he is invested by law then it was for Subjects to force him from them and this is not against Aristotle who speaking of Kings in Barbarous Nations that have a power very neare to Tyranny those Kingdomes saith he have their security because the Government is established by law and the Custom of the Nation l. 3. pol. c. 14. Will this man then have Aristotl's reasons belonging to such Governments as he described take place here against the Regall power established by law and the Custom of the Nation which establishment might give us Security too but for such unquiet spirits as this man pleads for One step farther this Answerer has also a long plea against Tyrants for the forceable bringing them to account and taking them away upon which after he has spent many pages he layes the conclusion thus It is lawfull for the Kingdom to depose a Tyrant Pag. 25. but many of his proofes seem to allow it may be don by assassination I will not say it is his opinion but he tells us of the praise of Cassius and Brutus that they were Romanorum Vltimi and accordingly styles some in resistance now against the King Anglorum Vltimos he speakes of the taking away of Caligua Nero Domitian of the sentence of Plotinus Evil Kings rule by the Cowardlines of their Subjects of which more below so that the people had need to use more discretion in refusing such instances then this man did in alledging them but if it must be done by deposing his fellow Answerers are against it and for the two Parliaments which he cites the Observatour tells us No King was ever deposed by a free Parliament let this man make the application He tells me he cannot find what I spoke out of Tertullian his Apol. yet cites me words within two lines of it It runs thus in the Author Si hostes non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum Copiarum Vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas Castella Castra Cui bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis si secundum istam disciplinam non magis occidiliceret quà m occidere Let the Answerer Consture these words and he shall easily perceive they will render the sense that I gave of them The Christians had number and force sufficient to resist but they had not warrant And if he had looked a little before these words he might have seen Tertullian affirming the Christians had none such as Cassius among them Then out of his great reading but small judgement for he seems to turn his books by their Indices onely he tells us He believes the primitive Divines held not such Tenets as are of late started up concerning Kings for if they did surely the Parliament should have heard of it Pag. 22. I beleive they did not indeed hold such as are newly started up by those that the Houses have been willing to heare for my part it was not my purpose though the performance had not been difficult to tell the Parliament what the primitive Divines held but only to let the people know what Scripture and reason taught them to hold and rest upon But you give us some instāces out of antiquity 1. Theoderet cites Plotinus his saying Evil men raign by reason of the Cowardlines of their subjects we must not so think of providence as to think our selves nothing Ans If Plotinus had spoken to your sense for the Deposing of Tyrants the Authority had rested barely on Plotinus for Theoderet cites him not to any purpose concerning Kings but only to shew that Plotinus acknowledged Providence Nor is your sense the meaning of Plotinus for his drift is to shew that Providence expects our endeavours not to the deposing or killing of Tyrantrs as you desperatly insinuate and therefore translate the word Cowardlines which here signifies slothfulnesse effeminacy luxury but to the attaining of an happy and quiet life unto which purpose he there shewes how some men do bear the punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their sloath and luxury how others though evill yet being laborious do reap more fruit of their tillage and accordingly how evill men rule through the negligence and sloathfulnesse of others that is they being sedulous doe gain the Dominion or being in it they turne evill for the punishment of the sloath and vitiousnesse of their Subjects for it followes immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have left out this is just just how that they should be so punished and no reason their happinesse should be procured by providence or good Governours when they will doe nothing towards it themselves this is the full and only meaning of Plotinus Ennead 3. l. 2. cir med Secondly Nicephorus you say tells us of the Godly zeale of a Nobleman who took down Dioclesians Proclamation and tore it in pieces I could also tell you out of Scripture of Peters zeale who did strike with the sword in defence of his Master but was rebuked for it for the zeale may be good and commendable when the action is not so but an excesse and not to be drawn into a Rule or example Thirdly That Nicephorus tells us The Christians under the King of Persia fled to Rome for succor and how Atticus then Bishop of Rome obtained aid for them and they were denyed to the Persian King demanding his fugitive Subjects we acknowledge such a story in Nicephorus though no such matter when Atticus was Bishop of Rome unlesse you should mean new Rome that is Constantinople it seems Nicephorus his manner of Calling those of that Eastern Empire by the name of Romans deceived you but what does the true part of your story prove that Subjects may fly from their persecuting King or that one Prince may protect the Subjects of another Prince when they are come into his Dominions for releife be it so neither of them will help your cause But enough of these impertinences SECT XIII An Answer to what was replyed upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise IT was there said The defence of Religion and the Subjects Liberty can be no other then pretences of this War and It concern's them that will resist upon the Principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people To these and the like sayings Mr. Bridge Replyes These are sad charges bold and scandalous assertions to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with Hypocrisie He declamed against uncharitablenesse in others where is now the Charity of this man These were not Charges upon a Parliament but upon the chiefe Contrivers of and Actors in this Resistance as Mr Bridge might have observed in the former Treatise upon these indeed they will lye sad and heavy when he that knowes the heart shall discover the Hypocrisie and all those generous and honest and noble spirits to whose eares the true information of things abroad is not suffered to