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
upon Jethero's advice pag. 4. How this of fes is pertinent though often hinted in this book I see not for Moses did not assume them as Counsellors about making of Lawes for neither he nor they nor both together could make any but as Officers to ease him in the execution or judging of the people according to those Laws they received from God As for the Commons in Parliament they being a representative body could not be chosen but by them they represent yet are they sent upon his command and have a trust upon them not onely from those that elected them but also from the King that sends for them to represent unto him the grievances of his people and faithfully to consult about the remedies accordingly it is in relation to his Majesty that they take the oaths of sup remacy allegiance at their admittance into the House and although they have there the power not onely of consulting but of consenting also and denying for the security of the people whom they represent yet who sees not by all this in what relation they stand to his Majesty For the Lords they are assumed by the King Bracton said above Reges associant sibi Comites Barones and we see the King calls by his Writ whom he pleases to that House nor doth it helpe that hee saith pag. 5. the Lords are Consiliarii nati born Counsellors to the State for though Nobility in some be Native yet was it at first Dative as they speake by the grace of the King We may adde here what he saith in the same place The very stile of Comites and Peers implies a Co-ordinate society with his Majesty in the Government they are in Parliament his Comites his Peers Yet Bracton tells us Rex non habet parem has no Peer gives us another reason of the stile Comites as he is cited by sir Edw Coke in Mag Charta quia sunt in Comitatu without relation to Parliament because they are either in the Traine of the King or because set in each county adregendum populum and so assumed by the King to the like end that Moses did his under Officers in ruling his people So that other place of Bracton cited by this Answerer pag. 4. Rex habet Superiorem Curiam suam viz Comites Barones is not meant of the Court of Parliament for ther 's no mention of the Commons but it follows in that place debent Regi fraenum imponere it is likely hee spoke this in favour of the Militia raised against Hen. 3. for then he wrote and might call that assembly of Earls and Barons then combined against the King curiam the higher Court or Councell But when he speaks like a Lawyer he saith plainly Rex in Regne parem habere non debet cùm par in parem non habeat poteflatem multo fortius non habeat superiorem which how it agrees with that above let this man or the skilfull in the Law judge Let us examine what reason will conclude by his argument from the style Comites it would follow thence That the Commons must be his Comites and Peers too for they are co-ordinate with his Majesty as well as the other and so this Answerer must set up three thrones one for the King another for the Lords and a third for the House of Commons I should not think any thing too honorable for the Houses of Parliament but only Majesty Now it is a rule in policy Majestas cum supremà potestate conjuncta est Majesty goes along with the supream power as in the popular State of Rome it was usually and properly said Maiestas populi Romani and so might it be said here too were this mans contrivement good but I know the honorable Houses of Parliament look not for it But we return to the beginning of pag. 5. In reading the first line of it I was in hope he would have blest us with some demonstration of this constitution to be such as he has borne us in hand it is how doth it appear that the constitution of this government is such I answer by the mutuall oath that the King people take to maintain the laws that have so constituted it Altogether inconsequent The King takes oath to maintain the Laws-therefore they are such as this man fansieth them it shews indeed an obligation on his Majesty to perform it does not shew such a co-ordination supply reserved power c. surely never any King swore to it in that sense or had reason to understand it so for he findes he is expresly bound by that oath to preserve the immuimmunities liberties of c. to protect c. which he should not be well able to do if his power might be taken from him at the pleasure of others So when he answers to that which I have said the King is King before he take the oath True but he is King but upon the same trust which his Predecessors swore to and the Oath which the Law provides for the King to take virtually bindes him before he takes it He Answers nothing unlesse he could shew that the trust which this Oath implies to be in the King was such a trust upon which the people in their first contrivement as he phansieth conditionally admitted the first King and that the Law which provided this oath was that first constitution or contrivement which would be absurd for the oath speaks the Language of later times and would not fit the Mouth of the first King in the first Coalition of Government for it binds Him to preserve the immunities of Holy Church which if it should be of an after addition to the Oath yet surely Leges and Consuetudines Angliae were in it from the beginning now those are customes of Government and customes must have some continuance of time past to make them so therefore the first King in the first Coalition of Government swore not this Oath what he shews indeed by this argument we admit that the King is bound to take the Oath is bound to perform the duty of it but this is nothing to prove such a first Constitution as he dreams of He brings a proof out of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam habet c. Principatu namque nedum Regali sed politico suo populo dominatur now the word Politico implies the Principat of many especially when opposed to Regali pa. 5. This place tells us what manner of power the King ha's does not tell us the two Houses of Parliament have such power as this man pretends We examined that Effluxam a populo above whether the power of the King was derived from the people by agreement in the first coalition of Government Here we grant the King ha's a limited power but not so limited as this Answerer would have it which he might have read in the words cited for he sees there the King ha's His Regalis potestas but
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
look upon them as the supposed causes of their Armes And first I cannot but wonder why among these particulars here 's no mention of Religion when as the people are made to beleeve that 's it they fight for happily he included it in the c. as indeed in the consultations of these unhappy daies the care of it though timely moved by worthy Members of both Houses has been cast off to the fagge end of other more necessary occasions that I may not say Designes a likely way to make all prosper When the people are dealt with by such men as these Answerers then Religion is the main Engine to draw them into Armes and indeed were they not abused with that plausible pretence they could never have been so farre engaged against their Soveraigne but when these men enter the lists with an Adversary about the cause of this warre Religion is not insisted on not once touched in this expresly declined in the other Answers but Nature is rather sought unto by them for a ground of selfe preservation for upon strict examination these men know it will appear what actuall invasions have been made upon Religion against the known Lawes of this land and who are to answer for them they know also what offence it would give to severall Sects which are and will be alwaies serviceable to new designes should Religion be either countenanced as it is by Law established or any one way declared for But secondly I would fain know whether they can in Conscience be perswaded that some actuall invasions of Lawes and Liberties can be a sufficient cause for Subjects to Arme and Resist when it evidently appeares their Soveraigne is not bent to continue in that destructive way will it not suffice if he restore those Liberties and withdraw the encroachments made upon them If he promise security and passe severall Acts of Grace for further assurance of them If he be content that All Armes laid aside the Law shall judge who are Delinquents and accordingly censure them They that have formerly written for Resistance in some Cases have thought it unreasonable that Subjects should pretend to Armes till they find their Prince in such a Condition as was insinuated in the case proposed viz. Bent or seduced to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion or to make havock of the Common-wealth or Church as D. Willet ha's it in Rom. 13. q. 17 and as we see by the limitations testimonies examples in Paraeus upon Rom. 13. and in Phil. Par. his answer to Mr Owen But our Pleaders for Resistance at this day because they cannot find His Majesty in such a condition or hope to make men that know any thing of His Personall Vertucs or His Acts of Grace passed this Parliament believe he is so bent doe now pretend they have cause enough for taking Armes what ever the Kings mind be and although there be no such horrible things intended by him as the Doctor speakes of so Mr Buâ—r pag. 140.141 and to the same puâ—pose this Fuller Answer insists upon actuall invasions of Liborvies Lawes as the cause of their Armes Yet that they may seem to have better pretence of Reason for what they doe and more win upon the people that least know the gratious disposition of their Soveraigne towards them they doe endeavour to charge His Majesty with the like destructive intentions as were to be supposed in the case To this purpose we find this Answerer every where rendring the reason of their taking Arms to be bâ—â—â—use the King refuses to performe His trust and in the first page because His Majesty has drawn in Delinquents to be a party in Armes thereby to dissolve or remove the arliament where he puts the Cause upon His Majesties intention And we well remember upon His Majesties first Guard at Yorke it was I will not say voted above given out among the people He intended to make Warre against His Parliament and still we have it urged as a Cause of these Arms that His Majesty is seduced by wicked Councell and the like Therefore the Case being so laid upon his supposed intentions to continue in a subversive way of Lawes Liberties the question upon it was put to the full for the rationall part whether such a case being supposed or granted it were Lawfull for Subjects to take Armes and resist Then for the other part of the question which concerned matter of Fact Whether that case were now i.e. whether it were true of His Majesty which they supposed and took for granted and endevoured to make the people believe of Him it was of a second consideration and examined after by it selfe Every mean understanding might easily conceave this to be the sense of the Question the briefe of the Cause and of my Treatise But this Answerer it seems had a discourse of the power of Parliamâ—nâ—s lying by him for no man will think it occasioned by my book but applyed to it and therefore thought fit to quarrell at the Question as proposed by mee and in stead of my three Resolves to give the Reader three Propositions of his own he should have made them moe but for observing number And then he boasts How many weekes soever the Doctor has been about the Treatise it is well known to many the Answer cost not many houres the doing pag. 3. he means the applying of what was done before but any one may perceive by his confused jumbling of things and his frequent mistakes when ever he repeats and answers what I had written that he was ambitious of doing the businesse hastily rather then surely Wee 'l follow him as we may first examining how he makes good his Propositions or grounds he goes on then how he applyes them to what I had written where we shall tak in the other Answers as occasion requires SECT II. The frame of this Government as it is fancied in the Fuller Answer HIs whole resolution of the Cause is laid down in his first Proposition which is this The Parliament may with good Conscience in defence of the King Lawes and Government established when imminently endangered take up Armes without or against the Kings Personall commands if He refuse His other two Propositions are subservient to this tending to the proofe of it That the finall result of this States judgment what those Lawes Dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament Prop. 2. That in this finall resolution the People are to rest and in obedience thereto may with good Conscience bear and use Armes Prop. 3. To make this good he first endeavours to shew this Monarchy is mixt by a Coordination of the two Houses with the King in the very supremacy of power it selfe so he pag. 3. Whereupon if the King refuse to provide for the safety of the Kingdome according to their advice then His coordinates the two Houses must according to their trusts supply so he tells us p. 3.8.10 And that this power was reserved by
Rules not only by that i.e. by a power meere Regiased politico principatu by a politicall power also in as much as in the making of Laws the advice and consent of many is required and his power regulated by such Law But this Principate of many as it is ill rendered out of the Latine so is it ill meant to the excluding of His Regalis potestas so to make this government Democraticall or Aristocraticall rather then Monarchicall Now there cannot be such a blend or mixture of the Forms of government but that one must be predominant and Supream because else the body Politique could not move or act any thing as it was said above when we spoke of the Temper of the three Estates This Answerer to free this body Politique when the three Estates lock and binde one the other by their Negative voyce as upon the Kings refusall and to make it active without him to all ends and purposes places the Finall resolution in the two Houses to which all must obey and so indeed places the Supremacie there but why then should this be a Monarchy rather then a popular government were it not for Supremacy in the King or why should that first Constitution which he saith placed this finall resolution in the two Houses leave such a power in the King to dissolve them which power say we looses the Body Politique when through the aforesaid binding it cannot move a new way by a new Law and gives it motion by the former Laws which will appear anon to be with lesse inconvenience then if in such a case it should be moved by such a finall resolution Having thus far spoken of his Coordination before he comes to the Supply the two Houses are thereupon to make he spends two Pages the 6th and 7th in repeating his Notes he ha's taken at Court-Sermons where he saith the Divinity of Monarchy and the absolutenes of this in the Kings sole person ha's been usually cryed up as if there were no medium between such an absolute Monarchy and such a co-ordinative one as he ha's phansied Let them bear their burden that speak not their conscience at Court I would they would now do it sincerely at S. Margarets Westminster for I could tell him what stuffe is preached there too what omnipotency is ascribed to some in the world I would also this man would have used a conscience in repeating and interpreting my words for he often makes me speak contradictions through his own inadvertency and in this place he absolves me in the beginning of his relation and charges me thus at the end This and much more was preached and all upon this errour that the Dr. resolves on that the sole Supremacie of power was in the Kings Person and that His Judgment was the sole Supream rule of Power He should have done well to have cited the place where I resolve so for they are not my words nor do they render my sense any where expressed to that purpose For when I say as I did and proved in my other Treatise that the King is Supream or the higher power I do not mean he is sole and absolute in making or imposing Laws the contrary was often expressely acknowledged by me but that He is still notwithstanding the consent of the two Houses required to that act or exercise of supream Power the only supream Governour according to the oath of supremacie which was enough for the purpose I urged it viz. not for his absoluteness but against our resisting of him It is well known the consent of the Senate and people of Roms was required to the Laws their Emperour would have enacted and yet He was Supream so acknowledged 1 Pet. 2.13 And it is well known The King was in Parliament acknowledged the Supream Head of the Body Politique And now what can conscience conclude hence First that the two Houses of Parliament are in some sort coordinate with the King by reason of that consent necessarily required in the making and declaring Law and that 's enough for our security against an absolute or arbitrary government Also that the King notwithstanding such their coordination and consent is and has been so declared in Parliament the Supream Head of the Body Ecclesiasticall and Civil also the onely Supream Governour and that is enough to deter conscience from resistance SECT V. Of the Supply which is phansied upon the former Coordination NOw lest it should appear unreasonable as needs it must that the two Houses of Parliament should have power to make Laws and Ordinances without the King which He acknowledges He cannot do without them and to seize the Militia or power of Arms with which His Majesty is entrusted as this Answerer confesseth the device to make this good is by a rule misapplyed Coordinata invicem supplent which Rule he gave us Pag. 3. and now comes to misapply it Pag. 8. If the King fail in His trust His coordinates in the mixture of this Supream power must according to their trusts supply But before we shew how weakly this coordination inferres the supply let us first see wherein this supply stands and when the time is for them to make use of it this Supply he tells us is in applying the means of safety to its end that is in setling the Militia as may be most safe for the kingdom and the time when it is necessary to apply them is in imminencie of Danger to this purpose Pag. 8 9 10. The King acknowledges imminencie of Danger in His Writ of Summons Consideratis periculis imminentibus Pag. 9. There may be imminent dangers sufficient to move his Majesty to call a Parliament and require their advice though not sufficient to cause them to use this Supply by taking the Militia into their hands Where by the way saith he we may take notice that His Majesty is by Law to call a Parliament when there shall be any imminent danger ib and by the way we may take notice that the King is the sole Judge of those imminent dangers when he calls a Parliament and also which is not the way to make him hasty in calling a Parliament that according to this mans contrivement so oft as his Majesty calls a Parliament they may use this supply and seize the Militia because of those imminent dangers in the Writ of Summons This imminency of danger ha's a competent Judge the two Houses wherein the Law makes the Reason of the Kingdom to reside who have by Vote concluded it Pag. 9. so it was by Vote concluded that his Majâ—sty upon the raising of a Guard at Yorke for the safety of his person intended to make Warre upon the Parliament are they competent Judges of his intentions too indeed those horrible imminent dangers that were pretended have been for the most part as invisible as Intentions are But the King refused to passe the Bill for the Militia according to the advice of the two Houses which is saith the
Law the same ever living Reason of the State that first advised the Government and must still advise the way of applying it pag. 9. His Majesty did not barely refuse but gave his Reasons for it and if they had their dangers and fears moving them to gain the Militia so had he his to withhold it as he had amply testified to the world But here 's a Reason of State to which his Majesties Reason must give way and that surely is Law Certainly the Militia is to be applyed by the Reason of State but we must not make the King no part of the State as he does and as he saith the Law does but we would fain see that Law we are sure it is declared 25 H. 8.21 Your Royall Majesty and Your Lords and Commons represent the whole Realm This restraining of the whole Reason of State to the two Houses is but the same device with that which made the first constitutiō of this government to be the contrivement of the people when they made the first King and was above confuted So this necessity that is here laid upon the King alwaies to follow the advice of the two Houses is but a strain of that device which places a finall and Arbitrary resolution in them and shall be handled anon His Majesty will apply the Militia but by the advice of them against whom it is to be secured whom the Parliament has Voted enemies to the State against whom especially it was called pag. 10. This is shooting at Rovers if he should tell who those voted ones were and who those enemies against whom this Parliament was called I do not think he would find any of them about his Majesty when he refused to passe the Bill for the Militia but he tells us a little after pag. 10. The King gathers these voted enemies into an Army against the Parliament that had voted them such and a little after What shall the two other States do but use that power of Arms which the government in such case of the Kings refusall has entrusted them with to its own preservation that 's alwayes supposed never proved especially when 't is but for the apprehending of such enemies to it as beside that voted delinquencie are sufficiently convinced by their own flight Now we know who those voted delinquents are against whom the Militia was by bill to be secured some five or six that fled beyond sea But these though beyond sea are gathered together into an Army here by the King to passe by this let us see what is more materiall The Kings Army is raised against the Parliament Their army against those delinquents to bring them to justice But can any man in conscience bee perswaded that was the Kings design was that a time to provoke them that were so powerfull with the people or was the King in a condition then fit to enterprize against them that were so furnished with all the Arms of the Kingdom he not knowing where to have sufficient for a small guard Nay let his offers sent them from Nottingham many moneths after speak to Posterity by whose refusall it was that we are not now in safety when as it pleased God within a few weeks after to raise him such an assistance that he was able to appear against those forces that pretended they were sent from the Parliament And now that it comes to blows why should it be interpreted that the King intends to overthrow the Parliament because he fights against those pretended Parliamentary forces more than that the Parliament intends to overthrow the Kingly power because their force fight against those that assist him certainly as they desire the continuance of his Kingly power so does he the continuance of free Parliaments knowing he cannot suffer by such And for the apprehension of those Delinquents which fled being here pretended as the cause of their seizing the Militia and taking Arms Can we think them so considerable or that they would have been with-held when as those that were greater and neerer to His Majesty had been delivered up to the justice of the Parliament certainly this would not have made the Breach if first a great Delinquent on that side had not been denied to be delivered up to tryall if the Militia had not been seized and some further design thereby threatned according to His Majesties apprehension Having done with these pretences we come to his argument for this supply Co-ordinata invicem supplent if the King refuse His Coordinates the two Houses must supply We answer Co-ordinates doe supply each others failings not alwayes and to all purposes but then and so far forth as is appointed by that constitution that makes them so there are two parts of this Answer First they do then supply when it is expressed so in the constitution that has co-ordinated them and not els he gave us as an instance of this co-ordination the example of a father and son entrusted with lands to certain uses pag. 5. Now put case the father refuses to expend any thing upon such uses as his son presents to him because he apprehends them not such as were intended may then his sonne supply and do it himselfe unlesse it be so expressed in the deed of Enfeoffment which is improbable it should for then the whole power would be placed in the son So if this power of supplying may bee challenged by the two co-ordinate parts upon the refusall of the third it must be as expresse in the constitution of the Kingdome as the co-ordination and power of the three is We see such reservations expresse in meerly conventionall Kingdoms where the Prince is chosen and admitted on such conditions He tells us indeed it is fundamentall and of the first constitution but proves it not we see it not expressed in the Enfeoffment as I may say wherein we find three Estates entrusted If any would know what are those fundamentall Laws so much jeered at in this and other Pamphlets It is that originall frame of this Co-ordinate Government contrived by the people in its first constitution and since in every severall Raign confirmed by mutuall oaths between King and people and in the Parliament summons of Ed. 1. this Law is called Lex stabilitata notissima pag. 8. If any man would know what jeering is he may read the premonition before this fuller Answer and the first leafe of the answer but if he would know what these Fundamentals be indeed he must not expect to know them truly by this Answerer that layes the foundations of this Government in the airy conceptions of his own phancie such are a contrivement of the people when they made the first King A reservation of power to upply upon the Kings refusall and the like such fundamentals as these were reasoned against which is not jeering from the analogie and proportion that must be betweene the foundation and the building the fundamental constitutions and the Written Laws in my former
Treatise It is a known and written Law that declares the King Supreame head of the body Politike also that declares him the only supreame Governour in this Realme can the fundamentals as this man layes them beare this superstructure or rather consist with this fundamentall thus openly declared and laid in Law So it is a knowne Fundamentall Constitution that the making of Laws is in three Estates secured against each other by a power of denying and that it is in the Kings power to dissolve the Court can this consist with the fundamentalls of this mans laying Also the contrivement of the people at the supposed election of their first King was proved above altogether uncertain improbable and unreasonable What is sworn to by the Mutuall oathes of King and People wee granted above to binde them but not to prove such a Constitution What that Lex notissima is he should have done well to have expressed it for we know he is apt to deceive us with generals and to conceive where ever he meets with Fundamental Law or constitution of Government it is his Law and constitution as he hath framed it The Coordination of the three Estates we grant is fundamental Lex notissima but this power of Supply would not be so strange and new a Doctrine now if it had been then Lex Notissima Nay the Rule of Coordination is against it which when three are expresly entrusted gives not power to two unlesse it be so expressely provided in the Orinall constitution and this coordination is such that it gives us an argument against it too that the originall constitution of this Government meant there should not be a supply by two Estates because it hath setled the provision of the Kingdome in three secured against each other by a Negative voice and hath left the power of dissolving in the King which would make such a power of Supply vain Secondly we Answer to the Rule Coordinates supply only in that whereunto they are coordinate Now the two Houses are Coordinate with His Majesty only ad Consentiendum for the making new provisions of safety by new Lawes we doe not finde them Coordinate with him in command of the Militia or appointing officers for it or designing Ministers of Justice through the Kingdome therefore the Supply cannot hold in these for if one part of the body can supply the defect of another yet cannot they supply the office of the head But the Answerer may reply though the King alone is ordinarily entrusted with the Militia the designing of officers c. yet may these fall under their ordinance of Supply as the substratamateria the matter about which that ordinance may be conversant as about the meanes of preventing imminent dangers We Answer that Ordinance cannot extend it selfe farther then Law will give it leave it may not over-rule knowne Laws if it be Law and the Constitution of the Kingdome that when the preventing of imminent dangers require new provisions those provisions or new Laws be made by three Estates entrusted and strengthened with power of denying then it 's plain such supply or provision cannot be made by an ordinance and better run the hazard of inconvenience by the refusall of one then to leave the whole power in the other two Otherwise an Ordinance shall prevail to divest the King of all the power setled in Him by Law what then will become of the property of the Subject No marvaile this proceeds on to an arbitrary power as we shall have this Answerer confessing anon But he told us above Pag. 3. that the three Estates are fundamentalls If therefore the King be one of the Fundamentals according to his phrase then according to his argument Pag. 8. the King is not to be stirred out of his Place so long as the government stands for there he tels us foundations are not to be stirred so long as the building stands shall He then be like a loose stone in the Foundation to be taken out and laid aside when they shall judge He is not fit to beare his burden the Trust the Law hath put upon Him howsoever some stone in the side wall may be so used the chiefe corner stone cannot If he reply as he doth Pag. 9. This Vote or Ordinance of the two Houses takes not away the Kings negative voice in making Laws 't is not an Act of Parliament 't is but an occasional supply of this Coordination least the whole should ruine Yet will you tell us presently The Houses in case of the other parts absence and refusall are virtually the whole and have the Parliamentary power if so why then can they not make an act of Parliament as well as such an Ordinance but call it what you will Act or Ordinance whereby either King or Subject are despoiled of what is theirs by Law it matters not greatly seeing that Ordinance is of force so long as they please to judge necessary who according to this Answerer have the finall and arbitrary resolution what will it satisfie the King to tell him this is but an occasionall supply if He see it is in their powers to take or make the occasion or to let Him know that ordinarily he hath the power and is entrusted with it but upon extraordinary times and dangers it is theirs He refusing their direction if He knows it is in their power to make that distinction when they please and to apply it Or when will some think themselves safe enough to part with this power again seeing greater feares are now likely to prevaile with them for the holding it then did at first for the seizing it But he supposes Pag. 11. That the two Houses upon the absence and refusall of the other part are virtually the whole and then askes whether there be not a Parliament actually in England if so why have they not then a Parliamentary power This tearm virtually doth often stand him instead for under that he can enlarge the power of the Houses to the extent of his fancie but let us know in this great point wherein Conscience expects cleare ground to rest on whether the Law hath actually invested the Houses with such power A Parliament we grant and a Parliamentary power in it and if any deny the two Houses to bee the Parliament it is because in proper speech and in truth the name and power of Parliament which belongs to three Estates should not be restrained to two The two Houses have stil the power belonging to them and what ever is now by them presented to the King and by Him passed it is done with full power of Parliament what is done without his consent is not it is no more now then if the King were present in the House and should deny to passe a Bill for presence or absence is nothing His power of denying is all For put the case the King and the Lords should agree and the Commons stand out there were a Parliament still but where is
which at first framed it But to pardon his antecedents let us see what follows They were free when they began or set up this Government therefore we are not bound now it is set up that frame of Government was an act of their will and arbitrary therefore the Government is still arbitrary in them when people set up an absolute Monarchy over themselves as he sayes the people of Rome did when they consented to their Emperors that form of Government was an act of their will and arbitrary when they began it therefore still it is arbitrary in them These are good proofs such indeed as this Answerer uses to bring framed only to deceive the unwary But sometimes he expresses that first Constitution as made by consent of King and people sure then that Consent of the King at first was an act of His Will and Arbitrary and so it follows that the Goverment for making of Laws and Constitutions is Arbitrary in the King and people i. e. in the three estates consenting and agreeing together and that is the very truth Onely this depends not upon an arbitrary Act of the peoples will preceding all Government when they were free as he said for that is not imaginable in this Government but must needs proceed from an after consent or grant of the King admitting them to this arbitriment or freedom of will in the making of Laws which is enough to binde Him and secure us Nor is this Arbitrarines best secured from doing hurt in the Votes of Parliament that is of the two Houses by reason of their number trust and selfe interest as he tells us Pag. 17. But it is better secured in the three Estates that is in all that are entrusted for us for Arbitratines is likely to doe least hurt where it depends upon those that have severall wills and severall private Interests as the three Estates have but whose publike Interest is the same so that if the King pursue His private interest it is crossed by the private interest of the Subject if they theirs then will his private interest hinder the compassing of it if he may have what for that purpose is left in him by the Constitution of this Government the power of denying that so being crossed in their private wayes they may meet in their publique interests the good and welfare of the whole State which is best for them both But he tell us in the body Naturall the will followes the last dictate or resolution of the understanding that being in this body Politique the wisdom of its Great Councell pag. 17. That I may not trouble him in his Philosophy by telling him The will has an influence back again upon the understanding I know what he means by the application of it That the King must always follow the final resolution of the two Houses which if so what would he be better then a Duke of Venice or this State other then Popular And to this end have we so many discourses tending to the praise of Aristocraticall Government and he that put out the third Answer against my Book prefers the State of Venice before all for the surest Government Give me leave to note this by the way Although it be well known what inconveniences that State lyes under by reason of the severall sactions and sidings of their great Families yet this means of security they have Their resolutions of high concernments are not carried but by such a number of the whole Senate though many be absent And let me take the boldnesse to say We should conceive our selves in a suret condition if such businesser which nearly concern the Kingdom and the very Constitution of Government were not carried by the major part of those that are present but by a more unanimous consent that is by the better halfe at least of the whole number that belong to each house such businesses if need were had better stay till the triall could be made by such a number then to run the hazard of a watched opportunity when sew are present and such resolutions would better sway with his Majestie and better satisfie the whole Kingdome Now to this Argument of the last dictate The debates and resolutions of the two Houses are indeed great helps to inform His Majesties understanding but not as the last dictate immediately to determine his will for they are extrinsecall to him as the resolution of one House is to another They being three severall Estates His will must needs follow the dictate of his own understanding having received information from them And whereas I said concerning the Kings Judgement upon such an advantage He sees with the eyes of Others even of those that are of different Judgement from him this Answerer makes me say as he would have it that the King is to see with the eyes of others as if should they present him with black for white He were bound to think it so Then for the binding of the Subject to obedience by this finall resolution of the two Houses he tells us pag. 18. As their interests with us tye them more to doe aright so our elections of them tie us more to suffer what they doe if not aright It would trouble this Answerer to give the Clergy any assurance from these mutuall interests for they have none to represent them they have no voice in the election of them that vote there again this reason from representation and Election concerns onely one of the Houses and how men of publike trust may and have pursued their private interests under pretence of the publique good Experience has heretofore shewn it and time will discover it ere long to eyes that yet cannot see it For their tye upon us we grant it but not to all purposes without His Majesties consent who is intrusted for us as well as they nay in whom the Supream trust of the Kingdom is It is not a tie to bind us to obey their arbitrary commands M. Burrowes will tell us in his Answer to the fifth Section should a Parliament so far degenerate as to enslave us he thinkes the light of nature would shew us a way to provide for our selves by re-assuming the power given to them There is nothing more usuall in these mens mouthes then the Law is our inheritance we are born unto it It is true and it concernes us to look to it but shall our freedom and inheritance our Petition of Right our liberties and Priviledges be only good against the King and the resolution of the Houses inevitable to us for all our interests all we have So this Answerer would make us beleeve In the pursuit of his third proposition he tells us pag. 18. They are not in themselves infallible but to us inevitable here is no Parliament Papacy as the Doctor pleases to descant Certainly the Pope himself does not beleeve himself to be infallible nor do his learned flatterers that would maintain it but the deceived people beleeve
buriall posterity will write Better these Men had never been born If therefore the Ambition Envy or Avarice of any particular men have engaged you under the specious pretences of Religion and Liberty look upon your selves at length and how you are used but as their sword and buckler to make way for their ends and to defend them from the stroke of justice And should they by your aid attain those ends which God for bid will they for your conspiring with them give every one of you fields and vineyards and make you Captaines of thousands and Captaines of hundreds hath not His Majestie offered enough for the restoring of your peace and happinesse if they would let you understand it can you see to the end of these troubles but by returning to your forsaken Loyaltie shall you not be divided again and cal'd to Faction and siding upon the disposing of the offices and revenues of the Kingdom amongst your Leaders Or if that businesse could be setled and the world provided for shall you not be divided again when you come to think of a form of Religion or shall you every man be recompensed with a freedom of his own way for lending his help to unsettle that One Religion which the Laws have established However your vain hopes doe at length succeed or your Conscience in the mean time be satisfied I am sure God cannot be well pleased and will not though he hath hitherto suffered it for the just punishment of this sinfull Land be long mocked after this fashion for do but hearken to the Cry of Blood to the Cry of the Fatherlesse and Widdowes of this Land of Ireland to the complaints of the poore every where for want of that reliefe which they had from thousands of families now dissolved by the causlesse imprisonment of the Masters if your Eares be not open to them His are or if you think you are not chargeable with this heavy account look to the wayes your Leaders drive you through how they lye through blood and oppression through the breach of your Faith your Allegiance your Protestation of which it is strange to consider what advantage has bin made to the seeming performance of one clause in it the Priviledge of Parliaments by the breach of all the rest which concerne the Kings Rights the Religion established the Subjects Liberty and Property and in all this consider how your way is forced through the breach of many of Gods Commandements I need not tell you them your very children if ever you instructed them in their Catechisme can say your practice agrees not with what you taught them but this I must tel you if this be Conscience it is a Conscience that is condemned of it selfe and grown desperate if this be Religion it is a Religion that saith there is no God If therefore there be yet any sense left of Conscience and Religion any fear of God retâ—â—â— from these perverse wayes or else heare what he threatens to such wilfulnesse Lev. 26.23 If you will walk contrary to me then will I also walk contrary to you Esa 30.12 Because you despise this word and trust in oppression and perversnesse and stay thereon therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall swelling out in a high wall whose breaking commeth suddainly at an instant A great forbearance of God hath it been that Houses have not broken down where the Consultations have been so oft held for the direction of these wayes or that Churches have not faln where so many blasphemous Prayers and Preachings have been made in order to the advancement of them I suppose you are not prime Leaders in this way yet the longer your Directors spin out the time you hold on to countenance the Action ye doe but increase the Cryes of the distressed throughout this Kingdome against you and cause that judgement on high to break down the sooner Do not dally any longer with Him that can doe it suddenly in an instant but look what hangs over our heads and read what is written and the Lord give you understanding CONSCIENCE SATISFIED That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by the Subjects By way of Reply to severall Answers made to a former Treatise especially to that which is called the FVLLER ANSVVER SECT 1. The case and the Question upon it stated IT is necessary I begin with the Author of that Fuller Answer for he begins with a discourse of his owne and the better to set it off will needs doe mee the favour to rectify the Case and state the Question for mee Blowing aside sayes he the Pindust of the stile which guilds but intercepts the letter of his Treatise I finde the Substance of it to be a groundlesse supposition of the Parliaments taking Armes upon a bare supposition of the Kings meere intention to subvert Lawes and Liberties for who ever maintained they might take Armes upon such a bare supposition Pag. 1. also I am inforced to answer what he would have said for he resolves upon a Question that never came in question pag. 2. First I must deprecate what here and every where this Answerer imputes unto mee as if I charged the Parliament i.e. the two Houses with this Warre it was no where said they did take up these Armes but often insinuated and proved that if that were the Case they might not doe it the more forceably to convince them that have now done it under the name and pretence of Parliament Then I must tell him it is an easie but commonly deceitfull way of Answering to say the Question is mistaken and make the Reader beleeve all that was written is nothing to the purpose when as the mistake is in him that complaines of it For if this Answerer in blowing aside the Pindust of the Letter as he speakes had not received much of it into his eyes he might have seen the Consciencious Reader will that the Question for the Rationall part of it was put to the gâ—eâ—â—est advantage of them that plead for Resistance not as he renders it whether they may take Armes upon a bare supposition of a meer intention in the King to subvert Lawes and Liberties as if he knew not what the word subpose meant in putting of a Case but to this sense suppose or grant the King will not discharge the trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Lawes and Liberties whether then may Subjects take Armes this implies in the case as much or more then he himselfe pretends here to bee the cause of your Armes viz. The actuall invasion of Liberties the invitation and detention of Delinquents from tryall by Law to be a party in Armes against the Parliament to dissolve or remove it the importation of forraigne Armes and Souldiers illegall Commissions to imploy them c. so he pag 1. To take no notice for the present of the falshood of these imputations wherewith His Majesty is here charged we must
the people at the first constitution of this government pag. 24.25 and that this constitution was made by consent of King and People in the first Coalition of Government pag. 4. by the Consent of the People thâ—t first made the King pag. 13. Contrived by the people in the first constitution â—f Govâ—ernment pag. 8. These Particulars we find in this his discourse confusedly spoken of if we give his conceptions their due order they stand thus First he supposes all the Power of government to be derived from the people and that the Constitution of this Government was their contrivment when first they made a King then that by this first Constitution such a Coordination of the two Houses with the King was contrived by which they have power reserved not only to consent in making Lawes but to supply the refusalls of the King as they shall think good for the safety of the State and for this the finall result of the States judgement is in them to declare what is Law without him and unto their finall resolution and commands thereupon though arbitrary as this answerer acknowledgeth Pag. 17 the people ought to obey Thus has he fansied the reason and constitution of this Government but I suppose the honourable houses of Parliament will not thanke him for raising them to that height of Supremacy he has placed them in I am sure we Subjects have not cause to thank him for that arbitrary power he has placed in them If any man expect from this his discourse satisfaction for conscience he shall find nothing but uncertainties and improbabilities not fit grounds for it to restupon and if conviction of Reason be look't for here I suppose there is no man that upon serious consideration of what this Answerer brings us to will not think it more reasonable to be under the arbitrary Government of one then of many nay under the Government of one that challenges not obedience as due bat according to Law then of many whose commands are Law unto us as this Answerer makes them And here we doe not undertake to set down the extent of the power and Priviledges of Parliament no more then of the Kings Power and prerogative They are both of them beyond our skill and we may not take the boldnesse to meddle with either of them farther then the necessary information of Conscience doth inforce to which purpose as we may by use of Reason certainly conclude the King has not this or that Power as to make Lawes by himselfe to rule arbitrarily so of the two Houses without offence we may as certainly conclude That they have not such a power by the first Constitution of this Government as this Answerer every where beggs for them but no where proves it It is granted that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Coordinate with His MAIESTY ad aliquid to some act or exeacising of the supream power that is to the making of Lawes by yeelding their consent and that they have this by a fundamentall Constitution But that they have such a fellow ship with His MAIESTY in the Supremacy it selfe as this man imagines or such a Power of resistance reserved at first to supply His MAIESTIES refusa's or such a finall and arbitrary Power and câ—mmand as he attributes to them Conscience can never be truly convinced off SECT III. Of the Originall of Governing power and of the beginnings of Government in this Land WE will begin with his ground-work Which lies scattered through all his discourse That first Coalition or Consititution of Government in this Land which he supposes to be framed by the agreement or Contrivement of the people when they made the first King wherein they intrusted him with such Power as was thought fit and reserved to themselves what power they held necessary for their owne safety upon extraordinary times and occasion of danger So then Conscience if it will obey the power of Armes now usurped by Subjects must be clearly convinced which is impossible of these particulars That the Governning Power is from the people that Monarchy was here raised upon such a contrivement wherein such a power of supply and of resistance was reserved to the People and that all Kings since do consent to such conditions and are admitted under them All the proofe that I can any where find this Answer ha's brought for all this is from the words of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam this Power the King ha's derived from the People and from the mutuall Oath of King and People pag. 5. Let the Reader give me leave to speak a little of the Governing power simply then of the beginning of Government in this Land that Conscience may see what little satisfaction this or any man els can give it to perswade either that the governing power is derived from the people or that the Government of this Land began in such a Contrivement or constitution as this man phansies It was said in my other Treatise that the Governing power was from God not only as an ordinance of the precept that commands Government but also as an Efflux or issue of that providence which sets up pulls down which translates Kingdomes and governs the whole world Creatures Reasonable and unreasonable and this not obscurely in the Apostle Rom. 13. where the powers are said to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as orders ranked by him and under him Well then this Governing power was not a populo effluxa as he above said but flowed from that providence at first through the veines of nature in a paternal or Fatherly rule and by that as by a pattern in a Kingly Rule or Government upon the encrease of people and Nations for when the Reins of Paternall Government could not reach them for their extent or hold them in for their unrulines injustice it in larged it selfe into a Kingly power which bore and used the sword for that is given them to use streight after the Flood Gen. 9.6 This is plain by the booke of God that the first Fathers of Mankind were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the Earth divided among Noah's three Sons and upon the Encrease of their Children many Colonies were sent into Countries farre distant and thereupon many independant Governments raised which must be by the direction and order of Noah that first sent them out and assigned them those parts of the Earth And still as they encreased they spread farther upon the face of the Earth new Colonies being excluded and thrust forth like swarmes of Bees under their Rulers who were the cheife Fathers of those new Progenies and had the Government both Regall and Sacerdotall by Primogeniture unles the chiefe Patriarch from whom they all issued saw cause to order it otherwise Therefore of all the Sons of Noah the Nations sprung from them it is said Gen. 10. these are the Sons of
to say He cannot rule as Conquerour for he is not a Conquerour but claimes from him that was nor is it injurious to His Majesties posterity that he sweares to a limited power that limited title as this man has it is a phancy for he has not a free one as a Conquerour had yet not limitted by such a first election and contrivement as this Answerer dreames of but by priviledges and immunities granted or restored to the people since the Conquest unto which His predecessors bound themselves by oath and so doth he It is not for me to settle His Majesties Right but should I doe it as this man hath presumed I had been injurious to Him and His posterity for as he sayes here of right by Conquest though falsely it may give ius in re not ius ad rem so I of the right by such an Election as he ha's contrived however it might give His Majestie ius adrem it seemes to lend him but a slender ius in re a weak assurance of holding it making Him like a Tenant at will to be outed of Possession so oft and so long as they that have the finall resolution shall judge expedient So has he conceived it Now let us goe on and examine how he makes good this finall resolution The power of declaring Law saith he Pag. 14. must rest some where true In those say we that have the power of making Lawes i.e. in the King and both Houses Here the Answerer puts two Cases First what if they be divided as at this time does it rest in the King or the two Houses In neither say we fully and to the like purpose as it doth in the three Estates which power is suspended while one part suspends He endeavours to shew Pag. 15 16. this finall resolution should rest in the two Houses rather then in the King from their ability and skill their fidelity their ends and interests which do not interferre so with those of the Subiect Property Priviledge c. as those of the Kings do absolutenesse of Rule Monopolies Patents c. the comparison is odious though we are to hope the best of the Members of the two Houses yet we know they are men subiect to like passions as others are and we are assured the King is intrusted with us as well as they and has beside Rights and Priviledges of His owne to looke to But seeing this is Comparative onely rather in them then the King not absolute that it ought to rest in the two Houses we may let it goe His second Case is Pag. 17. What if either of the Houses be divided into equall parts it is easily resolved The Speakers voyce casts it True But he should have put two cases more First what if an opportunity be watched and one of these equall parts do not exceed the fifteenth part of the whole number by reason of the absence of the rest we are in an ill condition when that must be the finall resolution of this States judgement nay of that number that prevailes may be scarce any Lawyer of known abilities which was one of his prejudices he layed against the King in his Comparative between Him and the Houses for declaring what is Law The other case is what if the two Houses be divided in judgement the one from the other where then resides this finall resolution It may be it will be replied they ought to sit together and vote together so indeed some would have it but it is confest that the Parliament consists of three Estates and that the Lords and Commons are two several Estates Well then if the King concurre in judgement with the Lords why should not the finall resolution be in them for we must here call him againe to his reckoning and tell him as he did us Pag. 3. it is easie to reckon the one is lesse then two And the more strange this will seem if we consider what it is that is now to be declared no case mis-judged in inferiour Courts no late written Law whose sense is doubtfull but the very constitution of Parliament that has continued so many Ages whether in that Consticution there be such a Law as gives this power of Supply by seizing and commanding the Militia We understand the literall sense of the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance and have it confessed by this Answerer that the Trust of the Militia is ordinarily in His Majesty Pag 10. and we suppose no man can think that when the Kings of England sweare to observe the Lawes and Customes of c. they ever took the Oath in such a sense as to binde them to take for Law what ere the two Houses shall without them declare to be so or that when we bound our selves by Protestation to maintaine the power and priviledges of Parliament we meant what ever they declare to be such for this were too much to resigne up our faith to man Well then if there be a disagreement upon such a declaring it is better we follow what the known Law commands us to and that there be a suspension of such a declaring till all that are entrusted for us can agree then that such a power of declaring be assumed by any two of the three Estates for in the same 17. Pag. it is acknowledged Arbitrary SECT VII The finall Resolution is not Arbitrary in the two Houses but onely in the three Estates IT appears then that this power is as arbitrary in the two Houses as it would be in the King I answer it cannot be denied nor avoided c. It would not be so in the King so long as the two Houses have what He denies them not the power of dissenting But to tell us plainly The Power is arbitrary in the two Houses is very ingenuous this Answerer is seldome so but here beyond all reason for it follows as an admirable proof of what he hath confest As the Government in the forme of it was at first an act of the will and so Arbitrary so it still remaining the same it must remain some where arbitrary still else our fore-fathers should not convey that same government to us which they began they cannot binde us in that wherein they were themselves free Pag. 17. when were they free it must be before they set up the Government i. e. when they were without government We cannot see when the people were so free or that the frame of this Government was an arbitrary act of their will enough has been said before against such conceits The like we have in those words the Government still remaining the same the same with what it must be with that arbitrary act of their will which is supposed to frame that government or else no force of argument in the Consequence to prove our Government is still arbitrary some where and if so then no sense in the Antecedent that our government should be said to remain the same with the arbitrary act of will
of His power and His Ministers out of their Office sending Voluntiers and listed Souldiers into every County to force in Delinquents But he tells us they may send a Sergeant at Armes for a Delinquent therefore twenty if twenty be accused and therefore an hundred and so goes on till he has made an Army of 10000. Sergeants at at Armes pag. 6. I did not know before that the Souldiers pretended to be sent from the Parliament were all Sergeants at Armes what need so many certainly before this Army of Sergeants was raised very few would have served to have warned in Delinquents it has made many a sorrowfull Father in the Countrey to see his sonne called to such an imployment whom he had bound Apprentise in London to another trade Nay the whole Kingdom has rued the sending of such and so many Sergeants at Armes who do not onely arrest mens persons as they please but also plunder their Estates and does earnestly desire that as it is pretended Delinquents must be brought to triall by Law so they may be fetched or forced in by the way and meanes the Law as was said has provided He concludes with an Answer to an Objection If the power of the Prince be derimed from the people then they may take it away when abused and depose their Prince Answ No we doe not say so the people need not think of such an inference because they never gave away the power of selfe preservation pag. 7. These are but cold denials though you say they need not go so farre yet you have opened and paved the way for them to be led on so far upon these principles and what shall withhold them because they have the power of selfe preservation by taking Armes whereas if they had not that power it were the way to breake all in pieces pag. 7. So it seemes the way to keepe people in obedience is to give them liberty of Rebelling but what securitie has the Prince that they will trust him with the power againe if a few seditious Preachers tell them their Prince will not use the power well if they trust him again with it they gave it him at first and now they may conferre it upon another who will manage it better in order to their safety Or if they doe lay downe their Arms and trust Him with power again it shall be to his prejudice he shall be forced first to consent to what they please and what this is called by our Law every one that understands any thing knows Then in Answer to what was said in the first Section of the former Treatise that our Divines by denying resistance unto Subjects doe not endeavour to raise the King to an arbitrary power for they allow the denying of Obedience to all commands unlawfull by the Law of God or the established Lawes of the Land M. Bridge first would seem to returne me to a Catalogue of Protestant Divines allowing resistance in some Cases and then tells me if we may not resist we yeeld the King an arbitrary power For His forreigne Divines the testimony of the Centurists speaks not to his purpose Of the French and Low-Countrey Divines he brings no testimonies but for proofe tells us we know their practice so I for Answer may returne him his owne words we know what has beene the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit to give in witnesse but this I will say for them they can justifie the cause of their Armes better then M. Bridge can doe his Now for our English Divines its plaine they speake of such Government such States such cases as will not agree to this Kingdom or this time yet doe some of them allow of resistance in some cases true for since the revolt of the Low-Countries and the first motions of the Protestants in France I finde in many of our Divines a willingnesse to excuse as much as may be But if we looke beyond those times into our Homilies we shall finde the Doctrine of our Church expresly against Subjects taking of Armes Then he tells us though we may deny Obedience to the Kings unjust Commands yet if we may not resist but suffer when He pleases to punish for not obeying we raise him to an arbitrary power Pag. 12. Answer To say He may command any thing not repugnant to Gods Law and punish lawfully for not obeying is to raise him to an Arbitrary power but to say He may not command any thing against the Law of the Land and if He punish for not obeying such His command it is unjust and against the Law yet unlawfull also for us to take Arms against Him for it is not to raise him to an arbitrary power For Arbitrary and limited power is distinguished by the Restraint which the Law or Constitution of Government casts upon the governing power not by the abuse of that power which sometimes in the most limited Governments may break out into a licentious arbitrarynes If force and not Law must tell us what Arbitrary power is and releeve us against it in the Prince I fear we should too often feel it from the hand of Subjects The Fuller Answerer would make me contradict my selfe in denying the King an arbitrary Government Sect. 1. and yeelding him the finall Iudgement Sect. 5. Now the Reader will discern this is not my failing but his usuall mistaking of what I say the place he aimes at is Sect. 5. Pag. 26. where in answering the objection many see more then one and more safety in the Iudgement of many then of one it was said The King sees with the eyes of those many and all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy which settles the chief power and finall Iudgement in one That was for the generall which I suppose is the reason and frame of Monarchy how it was good in our King by His power of denying appears in that place for the finall Judgement was no otherwise challenged for him Now if such a Judgement of the Kings be called a finall Iudgement because it is the last and after the Judgement of many it matters not it will not infer an arbitrary power as the finall Resolution which this man placeth in the two Houses doth for if it be dissenting from the Judgement of those many it is onely Negative it is not Conclusive any other way Such I say is the Kings finall Trust or Judgement by consenting to those many or denying not by concluding or commanding any other way as he pleases The last exception of these Answerers to the first Section is against my interpretation of Omnes ordines consentientes to imply a generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses in this point of resistance First they say it is enough if the major part agree or else many Acts of Parliament would be voyd Answer however it is enough to other votes and Acts if the major part agree upon it yet
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
the Parliamentary power I doubt hee will not say the King and Lords have then the full power of Parliament but where then is this Supply will he say in the House of Commons we must call him now to his reckoning Pag. 3. where he tels us Of three Estates one is lesse then two and also to his rule he gives us Pag. 4. Coordinates supply each others failings and Pag. 11. The refusall of one part exempts not the other from their duty So that if this man hold to his own conceit hee must grant the King and Lords may Supply if the Commons refuse But if in that case he will not stand to his own reckoning and his owne Rule then must he quit his vain conceit of Supply by the two Houses in case the King refuse After this he seekes a reason of this Supply in the necessity of providing for the safety of the whole which else would be frustrated of its safety However this Resolver sleight the Observators Argument drawn from the highest end of Government the peoples safety he cannot deny but the Rule holds always finis quò ultimatior eò in fluxu potentier to that end all other subordinate stand but in the office of meanes and this is evinced by the text the higher power is a Minister for thy good Pag. 11. The Observators argument deserved to bee sleighted by the Resolver as inconsequent but it was confuted at large by shewing such meanes make not for that end the safety of the State but are remedies worse then the disease Nor hath this full Answerer strengthned the consequence one whit We grant the safety of the Common-wealth is the highest end and unto that end all other are as meanes and that the higher power ought to minister unto that end But doth it follow therefore such a Supply by divesting the Kingof His power by turning the highest Minister out of His office is the means to that end The joynt agreement of the three Estates is the meanes for new provision for that end but in case they agree not about that provision which may happen by the refusall of the Lords or the Commons or the King then that the two agreeing parts what ere they be should supply the defect of the third had beene far more reasonable then that the supply should be made onely by the two Houses i.e. by the body only without the Head For this is not only to the notorious prejudice of the Supream Head with whom the Kingdome is immediately and chiefly entrusted but also it is alame provision and argues the first Contrivement as this man fancies it very inconsiderate in not providing in case the King and Lords or the King and Commons should joyne Now as the not providing in such Cases and the power of dissolving which resides in the King doe plainly shew that such a Supply is not the Contrivement of the first Constitution but a phansie of late popular Statesmen from whom this Answerer hath borrowed it so in very deed this way of Supply would not be a meanes of safety but of more inconveniency as at this day experience teacheth us and at large was shewed in the former Treatise Therefore if the three Estates cannot joyntly agree which is the reasonable meanes of making new provision for safety There is in the King by the same Constitution power to dissolve and protect His Subjects in their Religion and properties and Liberties according to the former Lawes established And although His Majesty hath bound Himself from dissolving them without their consent for this time of which this Answerer does vainly endeavour to make advantage in many places yet have not they thereby any more power then what they should have had without that Grant and so they have acknowledged themselves To conclude Conscience cannot be truly perswaded this power of Supply is in the two Houses by the Constitution of this Government But must needs see it is inconsistent with it and with that power the known established Law declares to be in the King and therfore Conscience cannot yeeld obedience to that power in making resistance against the King The Answerer immediately after the text above cited by him The higher power is a minister for thy good hath these words Pag. 12. Yes a fine way you 'l say of preserving the King by fighting against Him So starting from the safety of the people which was there spoken of as the highest end to the Consideration of the Kings safety as if he had been struck on a suddain with the terrour of that Battle that was made against the King or else because Truth it selfe upon the mention of the higher Power wrung from him a thought and acknowledgment of His Majesty in it Well let us see how he will have the King preserved by their fighting against Him No such matter saith he the King hath a double Capacity Politique and Naturall in fighting for the preservation of the Kingdom they fight for Him in His Politique Capacity as King in that He cannot be divided from His Kingdom or Parliament They fight to disingage His Person from that unsafe and unworthy imployment those Enemies to Him and His Kingdome put it to however he be perswaded by them it is His cause that hath ingaged them it is their own guilt and danger Pag. 12. So we are usually answered when we tell them of their Hands so many times lifted up in Battle against the Lords Annointed and of Davids resolution upon it who can lift up and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26. They reply it is but against the Cavaleir's and that unworthy Company that is about Him and have thus engaged Him and in so doing they fight for the Kingdome and for the King too in His Politique Capacity A shift that will no more save them from the Guilt then it will doe Him from their violence If He had been taken away in His naturall Capacity at Keinton Battle had there been any such thing as a King at Westminster had it not divided Him in His Politique Capacity from the Parliament there take away the Body and the shadow too destroy Him in His Person or Naturall Capacity and you destroy Him in His Politique and the Parliament too which ceases upon it Nor is that distinction of His double Capacity altogether vain but only in this point of Armes and resistance by force As just sentences of Iudges against His Personall Commands are for Him in His Politique Capacity so all denyalls of active obedience to unjust personall commands why here 's all this while no power taken from Him or usurped against Him No danger to His Person to His Naturall Capacity but in resistance by force of Armes especially in a Battle against Him which not onely takes the sword out of His Hand and usurpes the power but may also take Him away in His Naturall Capacity the distinction is most vaine For the Enemies that are said here to enthrall His Person and perswade