blowes to hold his bands c. and the like But the Doctor in his Reply has thought of a new reason to prove Davids example extraordinary because else may private and singlemen do so too Answ not so David was not as every private man hee was anointed of the Lord one that fought the Lords Battells the great States-man in the Kingdome with whom were joyned Ionathan and many other chief of the Tribes therefore it followes not from David to every private man but to the Parlaiment rather who though not anointed as King and as Saul yet with some anointment from the Lord into the place of Magistracy especially being as the Dr. confesseth Co-ordinate with the King in Supremacy so farre as concernes Nomotheticks I said before if Davids example were extraordinary then hee had an extraordinary command for what he did If so how doth the Dr. say there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of resistance To which the Dr. replieth as if all extraordinary warrants and instincts given to special persons should be written in Scripture Answ. So then this works of Davids which before was called by the Dr. a meere defence is now come to be a matter of special instinct though acts done by speciall instinct had not alwaies warrant from written Scripture before they were done yet being done and recorded in Scripture there is ground and written warrant for the lawfulnes of our actions upon the like occasions I did not say why then doth the Dr say there was no warrant in Scripture for David but why then doth the Dr. say there is no warrant or ground out of Scripture now for us to doe what we doe though it might be instinct then and without written Scripture yet it may be written warrant now Then whereas that Scripture is urged though not to take up Armes against our King as the Doctor suggests 1 Chron. 1219. Where it is said expresly that David went out to Battell against Saul the Dr. Replies Desperate shifesthat thesemen are put to when pretences and simulations must bee Scripture ground for Conscience It 's said before that David made shew â—f madnesse before King Achish Mr. Bridge might as well inferre therefore he was mad Answ. Will any else besides this Dr. make such an inference The Scripture faith totidem verbis that he went out to Battell against Saul that this was but a simulation is not said in Scripture but the Scripture doth not say that David was mad but that he fained himselfe so is there then the same reason of the one and the other The example of Vzziah is next to be cleered We find that the Priests are commended for valiant men because they thrust out K. Vzziah from before the Lord 2 Chron. 26. To which instance the Dr. saith that Uzziah the King was stricken with Leprosie and by the Law the Leper was to be put out of the Congregation and awell apart which is not consistent with Government therefore it is said of the King he was a Leper and dwelâ— in a severall house and Jotham his Sonne Reigned in his stead 2 Kin. 15 5. I shall ever give the Dr. the full weight of his Reason it seemes by this Answer that hee would have Conscience beleeve that the King was discharged from his Crowne by his Leprosie and â—p oâ—acto thereby dethroned Now see what Dr. Bilson saith directly contrary unto this Doctor Vzz ah saith he dwell a part in a house from others because of his Leprosie but you dâ—e not find that he was deprived of his Kingdome Jotham his sonne Governed his House and judged the people of the Land because the King might not be conversant amongst men by reason of his sicknesse but the Cronne still continued in the father though a Leper and Jotham began not his Reigne till his Father was dead Whom the Scripture calleth the King of Juda in the twenty yeere of his Reigne and last yeere of his life Thus Dr. Bilson And though our Doctor can with what conscience I know not joine these words together thus Hee was a Leper and dwell in a severall house and Jotham his sonne Reigned in his stead 2 King 15. 5. as if all these words were one and did touch one another in holy writ yet in truth they are part of two severall Verses and two other Verses comming betweene them as in the 5. Verse 't is said the King dwelt in a severalt house and Jotham the Kings son was over the Kings house judging the people of the land not Reigning in his stead as the Dr reads it then at the 6 and 7 Vertes the Scripture having spoken further of the King his deeds and death at the end of the seventh it is added and Jotham his son Reigned in his stead these words being annexed to his death as a consequent thereof and the Dr. takes them and annexes them to the 5 Verse at the mentioning of his Leprosie as if upon his Leprosie his Sonne Reigned whereas 't is plaine he only governed and not Reigned untill his Father died Here I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should so boldly venture to lay violent hands upon Scripture that hee may lead mens Consciences into his owne sentence But I hope the Consciences of those that feare God will take notice of such dealing as this and abhorre that sentence that must be borne up with such practices He would perswade us also that the Priests here are said to bee valiant men because of their home reproofe which they gave to the King or because of their withdrawing from him the holy things which hee was not to meddle with but let him shew us any one place of Scripture where valour being joyned with an expression of force as here it is it being said that they thrust him out doth only note faithfullnes in ones place by giving reproofe or the like At last the Dr. comes to his owne Arguments and labours to recrute them and first he tels us that none might blow the Trumpet for warre amongst the People of Israel but the supreme Magistrate and therefore the Parliament may not take up arms or blow the Trumpet for warre as now they doe To this Argument diverse Answers unanswered have been given yet hee is not satisfied but still replieth and I wonder that he should considering there is no such matter that I can find as hee alleadgeth in the 10. Chap of Numbers T is true the Lord speakes there unto Moses saying Verse 5 when yee sound an Alarm and ver. 6. when you blow an Alarm the second time and Verse 7. when the Congregation is to be gathered together yee shall blow and verse 9 If yee goe to warre in your Land yee shall blow an Alarm with your Trumpets but these words in the Hebrew are all in the plurall number shewing that the blowing of the Trumper belonged aswell to the State and Princes of whom he spake Ver. 4.
supreme Magistrate in a State and all particulars cease and the Royall line be spent and justice to be executed it returnes to the whole body to see to it As when Josua and divers Judges had ruled in Israel yet we read that after them Judg. 19 1. There was no King in Israel and then was the great sinne committed by the men of Gibeah with the Levites Concubine whereupon all Israel did take the sword of justice and they said Judg. 20. 13. to the men of Gibea Deliver us the men the children of Belial which are in Gibea that we may put them to death which Gibea refusing they did all as one man goe up in Armes against them God himselfe approving their act And what had all Israel to doe to execute justice if the power of the Sword did not returne to the people vacante magistratu supremo Neither can it be objected that though Israell had no King and supreme Magistrate amongst them yet they had severall heads of the Tribes by whose power they did come together for the execution of justice as it might seeme to be Judges 20. 2. For sometimes the chiefe of the Tribes doth in Scripture phrase signifie those that are chiefe in age wisedome and riches not such as were chiefe in authority Besides this action is imputed to all the people there being foure hundred thousand men that came together upon this designe vers. 2 unto whom the Levite made his complaint vers 7. Yee are all children of Israel give here your advice and counsell And all the people arose as one man vers 8 saying vers 9. Now this shall be the thing we will doe to Gibea and vers 11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against Gibea And least that any should thinke that this worke was done by the power of some remaines of regall authority amongst them it is not onely said before this work begun that there was no King in Israel in those dayes Judg. 19 1. But after all was done i is said further chap. 21. 25. In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every man did that which was right in his owne eyes so that Jus gladii the right of the sword in case of defection returneth to them again so far as to see that justice be duly executed And therefore if both the Fluxus and Refluxus of authority be from and to the people then must they needs be under God the first seat subject and receptacle of civill power Object But the Scripture tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13 1. And it ordained of God then not of man nor by any Fluxus or appointment from or of man Ans. Not to speake of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies rather ordered then ordained Government is of God two wayes either by immediate donation as that of Moses or by mediate derivation as that of Iudges and the Kings of Israel The government of Princes now is not by immediate donation or designation but by mediate derivation and so it is both of God and man too as Fortescue speakes Quicquid facit causa secunda facit causa prima But the Doctor tells us that Kings at first were not by choice of the people but that election was a defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way of descent of governing Kingly power by a paternall right pag. 9. of his Reply That Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of man as Democracie and Aristocracie are but that it is rather ductunaturae though not jure naturae we being led there unto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule pag. 8. as is plaine by the Booke of God that the first fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers For we see saith he that the earth was divided amongst Noah and his three sonnes and still as they increased new Colonies were sent out who had the government both Regall and Sacerdotall by primogeniture whence it appeares saith he that Monarchy was the first government it being late ere any popular rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world And that Monarchy how ever we cannot say that it was jure divino yet it was exemplo divino the government which God set up over his people being Monarchicall still in Moses Judges and the Kings of Israel pag. 8. Ans. First whereas the Dr saith that the first Kings were not by the choice of the people at the first p. 8. And that popular election was a kinde of defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way c. I refer Doctor Fern unto Doctor Fern who saith both in his first and second book pag. 67. of his Reply It is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elswhere This I have spoke to already and shall speak to yet afterwards neither doe we take it unkindly that the Doctor cannot agree with us seeing he cannot agree with himselfe Secondly whereas he saith Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of Man as Aristocracie and Democracie are I refer him to what he saith himselfe For in his first booke pag. 13. 14. he saith We must distinguish power it selfe and the qualification of that power in severall formes of government If we consider the qualification of this governing power and the manner of executing it according to the severall formes of government we granted it before to be the invention of man And when such a qualification or forme is orderly agreed upon wee say it hath Gods permissive approbation Yet in his Reply he makes this forme of Monarchicall government rather an appointment of God both ducta natura and exemplo divino and not a meere invention of man as other formes of government are Here I must leave him to agree with himselfe Thirdly whereas he saith That the first Fathers of mankinde were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the earth divided amongst Noahs three sonnes c. I referre him for information to the 1 Chron. 1 10. where it is said expressely of Nimrod that hee began to be mighty upon the earth whereas if Noah and his sonnes were Kings their dominions being greater before the dâ—vision of the earth into after Colonies they should have been more mighty then he And what his might was is declared to us Gen. 10. 10. And the beginning of his kingdome was Babel c. Here is the first time as Mendoza well observes that we read of a kingdome after the flood and that is marked with a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rebellavit For Nimrod comes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to rebell as if in erecting his Kingdome he had rebelled against the way of government which before wasused if not appointed And it should seem strange if God had appointed that way of government by making the sonnes of Noah Kings that Cham from whom came Nimrod who was that
when William the first sent to Herald to make good his promise Herald answered that he was rightfull King as being so by the consent and choyce of the people as is reported in Cambden in his Britannia thus As concerning the promise of King Edw. William is to understand that the Realme of England could not be given by promise neither ought I to be tied to the said promise seeing the Kingdome is fallen to me by election and not inheritance And as for his own stipulation he said it was extorted from him by force neither he if he could nor might if he would make it good seeing it was done without the consent of the people Yea Histories tell us that when William the first had beaten Herald in the field the people still were in doubt whom they should chuse and setup for their King For sayes Culiel Malmsburiens Edwin and Morcard came to London and solicited the Citie that they would preferre one of them to the Kingdome and the rest of the Nobles would have chosen Edgar if the Bishops would have stuck to them But the English who then might have healed the ruines of the Kingdome whilest they would none of their owne brought in a stranger So that though William the first had gotten the field yet was not he brought to the Crown but with the consent and choyce though much over-pow'red and over-awed of the people So sayes Speed expressely Consent thus gotten all voices given for William he was crowned King at Westminster 3ly As the Crown in those dayes was obtained by the consent choice of the people so I say that even William the Conquerour did not come to the Crown without all conditions for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon cōdition which they proposed thus Most noble Duke behold here the Commons of Kent are come forth to meet and receive you as their Soveraigne requiring your peace their own free condition or estate and their ancient lawes formerly used If these bee denied they are here presently to abide the verdict of battell fully resolved rather to die then to depart with their lawes or to live servile in bondage which name and nature is and ever shall be strange unto us and not to be exdured The Conquerour driven to these streights and loath to hazard all on so nice a point more wisely then willingly granted their desires and pledges on both parts given for performance So saith Speed in his Chronicles so that it is plain that even William the first came not to the full Crown of England without all conditions and therefore our Kings and Princes pleading their right from him cannot be Kings and Princes without all conditions I know Dr. F. tells us that the Kings oath imports no condition but is taken for confirmation and strengthning of mutuall duties whether that be true let any judge who reads but these things And indeed if the Kings of England were such absolute Monarchs as that no resistance might be made to their commandments for the taking up of Arms for the defence of the country when enjoyned by Parliament then the subjects and people of England must lose this power of selfe-defence for they once had it all men by nature having a power to defend themselves either by conquest as being by force spoyled thereof or else they gave it away by some indenture at the election of the Prince for inheritance is but succession of election inheritance or immediate donation from God or else God hath forbidden this forcible resistance by Scripture If it bee said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest and are as a people meetly conquered then any other sword that is longer then the Princes may fetch back that power again If it be said that this people gave away this power by Indenture at the first election of their Prince then let men shew us such Indenture If it be said that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. 13. 1 2 3. or the like Scriptures then it must be affirmed that the Parliament are not the higher powers which Dr Ferne granteth for if the Parliament come within the compasse of those words higher Powers then that Scripture Rom. 13. doth not reach them but rather requires others to be obedient to them yea if by the higher powers is understood onely the King then the two Houses may not make any forcible resistance against any petty Constable that comes in the K◠authority to do violence to the two Houses Surely therefore this and the like Scriptures are much abused the meaning being only to command obedience to authority in all things that tend to the encouragement of good and punishment of evill and therefore there is such a power in the subjects both by the law of nature and constitution of the kingdome to take up Arms when the State or two Houses expresse it not withstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary CHAP. III. HAving shewed the nature of power in generall in the first chapter the way manner of Englands government in some measure in the second Chapter I now come to the vindication of the truth as opposed by Dr Fern in his last Book called Conscience satisfied wherein he spends the 7 former chapters mostly in answer to a book called a Fuller answer In his 8. Sect. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of Arms as now they do That I may not weary the Reader in turning from book to book I shall somtimes briefly set down what I had written then his Reply then give my answer unto it Mr. Bridge tels us saith the Doctor that there are three grounds of their proceeding by armes to fetch in Delinquents to their triall to secure the State from forrain invasion to preserve themselves from Popish rebellon Dr. Ferne replyeth Yet this must be done in an orderly and legall way and if conscience would speake the truth it could not say that any delinquents were denied or withheld till the Militia was seized and a great delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to triall at his Majesties instance Ans. How true this is that the Doctor writes the world knows I need not say the Parliament to this day never denied to try any that were accused by the King so that they might be tried legally by himself and the two Houses which is the known priviledge of every Parliament man according to Law Dr. F. But Mr. Bridge tels us all this is done as an act of self-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince and the Fuller Answer would have us beleeve they are inabled to it by Law and constitution of this government and that they do it by an act of judgement let him and Mr. Bridge agree it Ans. There needs no great skill to untie this knot not mediator to make us friends the
Parliament hath raised this Army by an act of judgement and jurisdiction not over their Prince but in regard of Delinquents so the same act may be a work of jurisdiction in regard of others and yet an act of preservation in regard of our selves The execution of any malefactor in an ordinary way of Law is both preservation to the State and a work of jurisdiction in regard of the offender so here yet I do not say it is a work of jurisdiction over our Prince but in regard of delinquents that are about him Dr. F. Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of self-preservation from the Law of Nature it being naturall to a man and so to a communitie to defend it self And were this argument good then might private men and the people without the Parliament take up armes and resist for self-preservation is naturall to them Ans. It follows not because though I say every thing may defend it self by nature yet I say also it must do it modo suo naturae suae convenienti we say that all creatures do defend themselves and it is naturall so to do yet we do not therefore say that a beast defends himself in the same manner as a man doth or a man as a beast but in a way sutable to every nature Now if a private person be in danger to be oppressed by a Prince flying is more fit defence for him and therefore saith our Saviour If they persecute thee in one City flie to another but if the State be wronged and oppressed which is a publick grievance then the State and those that represent them are more fit to take up Armes for its preservation For Nature in generall teacheth self-preservation Nature specificated teacheth this or that preservation now the nature of a communitie and of a particular person are distinct and therefore though I say a community is to defend it self because sui tutela is naturall to every thing yet I do not say that a particular private person may ordinarily defend himself in that way which is most sutable to the communitie as the taking up of Armes is yet I suppose no moderate man will denie this that the Subjects though not invested with authoritie have a power to keep out an enemie from landing incase of forrain invasion yea though the Kings Officers should be negligent therein or so malitious and treacherous as to forbid them to defend themselves and their Countrey Secondly saith the Doctor He proves it by Scriptures 1 Chron. 12. 19. where the Word of God saith expresly that David went out against Saul to battell but he was Sauls subject at that time A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for subjects to go out to battell against their King But he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that he helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Acisâ— Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to which were these which Scripture I bring not to prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him Then the Doctor brings in another peece of my argument not the whole reason or the sense of it thus Be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pa. 3. To which he replies modo suo well assumed and so it is for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power We grant faith the Doctor there is a subjection due to them and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due unter them It 's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Parliament without the third estate And if any subjection then they have some authority but none they can have if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them And if they have power to bring in 20 by force then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which cannot be done without raising an Army Then he undertakes sayes the Doctor to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon for examples Ans. The Doctor hath the ill hap alwayes to misse the argument which lay thus If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common wealth then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-wealth with the safety thereof as well as the King though not so much then are they to looke to it and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the King But so it is that the King is bound to look to the safety thereof and that because he is intrusted therwith as was Saul David and Salomon who came to their government by the consent and choice of the people Whereupon the Doctor replies He hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon But it seems the Doctor had not the good hap to meet with these severall Authors which affirme that even these Kings Saul David and Salomon were chosen by the people If he had read or minded them he would not have imputed this as an ill hap unto me for to light on these examples I will give him but the testimony of Mendoza who though not of our judgement in this matter yet ingeniously confesses that with great probability Authors do reason for a popular choise of Saul David and Salomon Whereas saith Mendoza it is objected that Samuel by anointing Saul without any consent of the people saying the Lord hath anointed thee King over his heritage did thereby clearly shew that the regall power was conferr'd upon Saul not from the people but from God that is easily answered that that Vnction was not a signe of power already conferr'd but to be conferr'd as may be proved by the anointing of David whom Samuel anointed 1 King 16. 13. Dureing Sauls Raigne yea while he had many yeares to raâ—gnt Wherby it appeares that David did not receive regall power by that unction but by that which he had afterward by all the Tribes Elders when coming to Hebron they anointed David King over Israel Therfore that first unction was not the conferring the regal power but only a signification of this latter unction by which this Kingly power was to be derived or conveyed so also that first anointing of Saul before the consent of
the reason for he that resisteth c. So that resisting and not subjecting or obeying is all one It is no sinne not to obey unlawfull Commandements but the Apostle makes it a sinne here to resist and therefore the resistance forbidden doth not relate unlawfull Commandements but if lawfull But then the Doctor tells us that if these words should be understood onely of active obedience to Lawfull Commands and not of passive to unlawfull Commands the Apostle had given the Romans but a lame instruction page 60. and his reason for that speech followes at a distance page 61. because then the Romans should not have been sufficiently instructed how to answere the unlawfull Commandements of Princes as also there would have been a gap open to Rebellion for saith he how easie would be the inference therefore we may resist when they command unlawfully Answ. This is a strange worke to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case that a passive obeidience should not bee here commanded God doth not command every thing in every Scripture yet those Scriptures wherein hee commandeth something and not all are not lame instructions The first Commandement commands the substance of Worship the second the right meanes the third the manner and the fourth the due time of Worship yet the first is not lame because it doth not command what the second nor the second lame because it doth not command what the third nor the third lame because it doth not command what the fourth so here though God should command onely active not passive Obedience in this Text this instruction would not be lame but why should it be a lame instruction the Doctor tells us the because the Romans should not be susffciently directed how to answer the unlawfull Commandements of Princes yes surely if God did here command them obedience to Lawfulls He should at once forbid them disobedience to unlawfulls but saith the Dr. then there will be a gap for Rebllion for how easily would men inferre therefore we may resist in things unlawfull I answer the Doctor takes this for granted which is to be proved that all forceable resistance is Rebellion 2. Suppose that true which himselfe granteth page 1. the first Booke that it 's lawfull to resist unlawfull Commands though not with forceable resistance And if so then why might not the Romans as well say this instruction you give us is lame for you forbid resistance and yet in some kinde resistance is lawfull a suffering resistance lawfull and a forceable resistance unlawfull And yet you have not in this 13. Chap. given us any such distinction so are we left in the darke and your instruction lame But good Doctor let us take off our owne halvings whilst we goe about to charge the Apostle with lame instructions in case he come not just up to our opinions But to put an end to this matter concerning this Text I appeale to the Doctor whether he doth not thinke that these words Higher Powers v. 1. Did not include the Romane Senate I say when the Apostle commands Let every Soule be subject to the higher powers Did hee not command the Christian Romanes to bee subject to the Romane Senate We know that after this Epistle was written to the Romanes as Eusebius reports the Romane Senate was not onely in being but so potent and powerfull that when that was propounded to the Senate whether Christ should be acknowledged as Good that was in the Senates Power to grant or refuse and they refused So Estius also saith that the Governours of Provinces were appointed by the Senate as well as by Caesar when â—eter wrote his Epistle So that still notwithstanding aesar the Romane Senate was a high Power and the higher Powers unto the People And if th y were the higher Powers who were to bee obeyed by this Commandement of the Apostles then why doth the Doctor bring this Scripture to urge our higher Powers and Senate to obey especially when the Doctor himselfe confesses page 62 that the two Houses as distinct from the King fall under the words Higher Powers At last in the 62. page the Doctor comes to that place of Peter 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your elves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as those that are sent by Him where after the Dr. had a little strok'd himself on the head and laboured to spit some filth on our faces he comes to that Testimony of Calvin for that which hee sayes concerning Dr. Bilson is not much materiall who proves that the Pronoune Him relates to God and not the King for the reason which I alleadged in my first Booke now the Dr. replies true all are sent by God but it is as true that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or the Romane Emperour Aâ— The Reader may observe how the Dr. doth deale by the Scripture againe for he sets downe the words thus To the King as supreme or the Governours as those that are sent by him and thus indeed the word Him must needs relate to the King but conceales that part of the v. wherein the word God is exprest thus submit your selfe to every Ordinance of God for the Doctor knew that if hee had set downe that part of the ver the Reader would have perceived that the Pronoune him should have related to God and not to the King Secondly observe what he answers he tells us that the Governours of the Provinces were sent by the King or Emperour that 's not the question now but whom the Pronoune him doth relate whether God or the King And for this he gives no reason not answeres Calvins and therefore I need adde no more yet Estius his reasons are very full proving that the Pronoune him must relate God and not the King for sayes he the Apostle Peter would move the people to obey the King and Governours which Argument is full because they were sent by God whereas if the pronoune him should relate to the King here were no motive 2. Because the Apostle Peter saith that they are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers and the prayse of them that doe well for which cause the wicked Heathenish Governours did not send the Governours it being known that they sent them for the punishment of those that were good and for the prayse of those that were evill and therefore the pronoune Him is to be carryed on God and to have relation to God not to the King in this place And therefore what the Doctour brings from this place to set the Parliament at a greater under then God would have is nothing worth The rest of the Chapter is spent with his other Adversaries I having thus delivered the Scripture from his Objections shall be the more briefe in Answere to the after part of his discourse because the onely ground of conscience is Gods word CHAP. 5. IN the tenth Sect.
of the Doctors Reply I find little to hold us long I had told him in my former Book that the Parliamentary proceedings were an Act of self-preservation and used the Similitude of a steeres man shewing that in case hee do not his duty even the very passengers in time of a storme for their owne preservation may looke to the matter which doth not implye the unofficing of a Steersman so in State where the chiefe Magistrate neglecteth his dutie c. The Dr. replies pag. 64. That the Prince is not as the Steersman but as he that stands above and commands to the Starbord or Larbord This is to hang upon the word and let goe the sence for the reason holds to him that stands above and commands as well as the Steers-man neither will common reason say that he is unofficed because the passengers for the present desire or cause him to stand by that they may looke unto their own safetie in the time of a storme Then he comes to prove that Authoritie and Magistracie abstractively considered from the qualification or severall formes of Government is of divine institution Wherein we do all agree onely I excepted against some of his Media that he used to prove it thus By those words the powers that are ordained of God the Doctor understands the power it selfe of Magistracie distinguish'd from the qualification thereof and the designation of persons thereto how then did he say Sect. 2. The higher power in Paul is the same with the King at Supream in Peter the Dr. replies the power of Magistracie abstractively taken may by these words be proved to be of God though the higher powers here be understood concretively with Connotation of the persons that beare the power for they are here proposed as objects of our obedience which cannot be directed but upon power in some person And here it is said a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} existent c. But how doth this prove either what the Doctor would or answer me t is true the words higher powers note both as I have shewed already both the authority and persons in the authority But then the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I say signifies ordered and so to be translated not ordained for otherwise if the words higher powers note both the abstract and concreat and this word be translated ordained then this Scripture shall aswell prove the qualification and designation to be of God as authority it self Which thing the Doctor denies and first brought this Scripture to prove that Magistracie is of God in opposition to qualifications and designations Some metaphisical notions about esse and existere the Dr. would find out in the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but I passe them as never intended by the Apostle At last the Doctor promiseth or rather threatens to give me a visit for so he saith pag. 65. I must come home to Master Bridge to make him understand the force of my Inserence I had said thus In like manner the Doctor proves that power it selfe is of God because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God Slipping from the power it selfe to the person designed for the power it self is not called the Minister of God Whereupon the Doctor saith I must come home to Master Bridges the Major of Nâ—â—s the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King will Master Bridge reply no for the power it selfe is not the Major or called the Minister of the King Thus whilst he comes home to mee he comes from his owne home and reason forgetting what he had said before pag. 60 61. A lawfull Prince though commanding unlawfully is still still the Minister of God So then it seems one may be the Minister of God in that which is evill and 't is true a penall Minister one may be a man may sin in afflicting another and yet he may be the Minister of God to him that is afflicted how therefore doth this argue that because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God that his authority is lawfull And therefore whereas the Doctor saith the Major of N. is the Kings Minister therefore his power is from the King Will Master Bridge say no Answ. Hee will say there is not the same reason in regard of God and the King for a man cannot be the Kings Minister in a bad action but he must receive power from him but he may be Gods Minister I mean penally in an unlawfull action which God never gave him right or power to doe In the after lines of this page the Doctor saies that both the Fuller Answer and Master Bridges every where takes it for granted by me that Monarchy Aristocracie and Democracie are equally the inventions of men Answ. I doe indeed and the truth of it may appeare from your owne words p. 13 14. of your first Book as I have shewed already Lastly saith the Doctor Master Bridges concludes that my proving of the governing power to be of God but the qualification of it and designation of the person to be of man gaineth nothing against resistance or deposing a Prince that doth not discharge his trust for still the people may say we may alter the Government and depose the person because hew as of our designing Doctor Ferne nothing so for of they resist they usurpe Authority and invade the power that God hath given him if they depose him they quite take away that p wer which God and not they placed in him because he is still the Minister of God This seems to prove that people cannot depose their Prince or alter the Government that is set up amongst them But what is this to the reason that he pretends an Answer to to which was thus If the Doctor grant that the qualification of the power is from man and the designation of the person then though the power it selfe be confessed of God by the Doctor yet his adversaries that are for the deposing of Princes if any such be may aswell plead a power to depose the Person or alter the Government aswell I say as if the power it selfe was appointed or set up by men Now the qualification and power of designation is granted by him to be of man And therefore he helps himselfe nothing by proving that Authority or Magistracie in the abstract is of God To take away this he proves that the people cannot depose their Prince or alter the Government I will not say a wild but surely a wide Answer as ever came from a Dr. D. The other part of this Section is against others who are sufficiently able to plead their own cause against this Dr. In his 11. Sect. p. 64 the Doctor complaines that we have left the King nothing wee could take from him and this kind of speech is ordinary amongst some who are so bold as to affirme that because we doe not make our selves slaves we make our Soveraigne no