The Truth of the Times Vindicated, Chapter 4
CHAP. 4.
THe Dr. having ſpent ſome time upon his other Anſwerres at the 49. pag. he is pleaſed to returne to me, where hee would prove that the people of Iſrael did not by any forceable reſiſtance reſcue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, which worke ſaies he, was but ſet off with a ſouldier like boldnes: Let the Doctor call this work what he pleaſe, Saul the King had ſworn that Jonathan ſhould dre, and the people ſweare be ſhould not dye and they being in Arms did reſcue Ionathan ſaith the Text. This reſcue the Doctor calls in his firſt Booke, a living violence, and in his reply, a ſetting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes (I hope the Doctor will give us leave to uſe the like termes, if a Prince ſwear the death of ſome Parliamentary men, who deſerve not to die but to be preferr'd, and the people riſe up in Arms and reſcue their Ionathans, ſaying, as we live they ſhall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us, this is no reſiſtance, it is but a loving violence, and a ſetting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes, why may not we call this ſo, aſwell as the Dr. That. But I appeale to all reaſon whether a reſcue by men in Arms, from thoſe that have ſwornea mans death, be not forceable reſiſtance.
But ſay wee this is more then Prayers and teares, which is th'only remedie allowed by the Doctor, to which he replieth, The Dr. had no where ſaid, though Mr. Bridge makes him often ſay ſo, that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects, but beſides their cries to God, he allowes them interceſsions, reproofes, denyall of ſubſidies and aides.
Anſw.I will not ſearch into the Doctors Booke for every word, take what he granteth here, yet this ſouldierly boldnes of reſcuing is more then Prayers, teares, reproofes, or denialls of ſubſidies and aids, which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confeſſeth now: Yet the Doctor is ſo full of this ſentence ſtill, that in the 51. pag. of this book, he ſaith, that the Children of Iſrael being under the oppreſsion of their Kings, had no remedie they had, was by crying to the Lord; And againe in the ſame page ſaith, all the remedie they had, was by crying to the Lord; ſo alſo in his firſt booke pag. 10. the people are let to underſtand, I Sam. 8. II. how they ſhould be oppreſſed under Kings, and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord. Thus doe men forget themſelves, and what they have ſaid whileſt they contend againſt truth.
Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David: And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himſelfe from the violence of his Prince Saul, the Dr. replies now as before, that Davids example was extraordinary. Well but when it is ſaid that David having advantage of Saul, did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done; what if wee ſhould ſay, that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Anſwer was but ordinary: he tells us, pag. 31. of his Reply, that Conqueſt, one of the meanesiby whch Godiranſtates Kingdomes, and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon, brought tha people …rder, 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were ſo brought under the Dominion of Judah: What if we ſhould give this Anſwer that theſe were extraordinary caſes. Would not the Doctor take it for a poore ſhifting Anſwer from us; When we ſay any practice is extraordinary, we muſt alſo prove by circumſtance, that there was an extraordinaries in the fact, or elſe acquies in it for our example: But be it ſo, that Davids example was extraordinary, is not our caſe now extraordinary? Is Englands caſe ordinary: hath it bin thus ordinarily, that Arms have bin taken up againſt the Parliament, and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes? has this bin for many yeares? ſee how the Doctor helps himſelfe by this extraordinary Anſwer. He tells us in his firſt Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul; and is not this ordinarily lawfull for ſubjects to doe ſo much; the Doctor grants it himſelfe, p. 9. of his firſt Book, That perſonall defence is lawfull againſt ſuddaine and illegall aſſaults of the Prince himſelfe, thus farre, toward his 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 Co ſcience. It's ſaid before that David made ſhew …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 dwel… 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 …p o…acto thereby dethroned. Now ſee what Dr. Bilſon ſaith directly contrary unto this Doctor Vzz ah, ſaith,Dr. Bilſon differ, between … and Rebel…ion page 326, he dwell a part in a houſe from others, becauſe of his Leproſie, but you d…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 2 Kin. 15. 5. 7.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 theſe2 Chron, 26. 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 'tis 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 'tis 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. Tis 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. It is not ſayd that Moſes ſhould uſe thoſe Trumpets excluſively hee and not they; but rather hee joyned with them.
Secondly, he comes for his defence to that place of Samuel; I Sam. 8. 18. where ſaith he, it appeares that the people had no remedy againſt their unjuſt Kings, but their crying to the Lord. Mr. Bridge anſwers ſaith he, Samuel, tels them not what ſhould be their duty, but what their puniſhment, the Lord will not heare you, &c. It was indeed ſaith the Doctor, their puniſhment, becauſe all the remedy they had, which was by crying to the Lord ſhould not help them, which had not been ſuch a puniſhment, if they had had means to help themſelves by power of Armes.
Here the Dr. ſaith, that all the remedy this people had was by crying to the Lord, which Scripture he brings againſt our reſiſtance to prove what is our duty and how farre it extends: yet Page 49. of his Reply, he will not owne ſuch a Speech as this, ſaying, the Dr. had no where ſaid, that prayers and teares, are all the Subjects remedy.
Secondly it appeares plainely that this Scripture I Sam. 8. is not ſpoken of the Kings right, what he might doe; but of his fact what he would doe, for the King had no ſuch right over his Subjects as to take their Childrens fields, and vineyards from them, for which Ahab was ſo ſeverly puniſhment, yet ſaith this Text of Sam. hee ſhali take your Daughters fields, and Vineyards, &c. Neither can it be objected, that the word uſed in the Hebrew is foreign, which ſignifies Judicium, Judgment, or, right ſeeing; it alſo ſignifies Conſuetudo, order or manner, as it is well tranſlated in the Engliſh, verſe 9.
Thirdly, though it be ſaid, ver. 18. then ſhall yee cry out in that day becauſe of your King which yee ſhall have choſen, and the Lord will not heare you on that day. Yet it doth not follow that they had no other remedy but crying to the Lord, that's ſaid in Scripture that the People being oppreſſed with Forraigne Enemies ſhould cry unto the Lord in their diſtrcſſe and becauſe of their ſinnes the Lord threatens not to heare them, but bids them goe to their Idols, and let them helpe them if they can; doth it therefore follow that they might not detend themſelves againſt forraigne Enemies, no ſuch matter: 4. Whereas the Doctor ſaith in this Reply, It was no ſuch Judgement to cry and not be heard, if yet they had a power to defend themſelves by taking up Arme; This anſwere is very ſtrange from one that calls himſelfe a Divine: for ſuppoſe that God ſhould ſay to his people, that had a power to take up Armes againſt their forraigne …nemies, that they ſhould notwithſtanding their power cry unto him, and hee would not heare them, nor deliver them from their oppreſſors; was this no ſuch judgement, becauſe they might take up Arms alas what will all our taking up of Armes doc, either way if God will not heare our cryes and prayers.
The Doctor for his owne defence, and the Defence of his Cauſe ſayd in his firſt Booke, that if ſuch a Deferce as we now uſe were Lawfull, it is a marveilous thing that ſo many prophetsreprehending the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah for Idolatry, cruely, and oppresſion, none ſhould call upon the Elders of the People for this reſiſtance, page 10.
To this I anſwered, ſee the Propher Eliſha expreſſely calling on the Elders to impriſon the Kings Meſſenger, 2 King …6. 32. The Doctor after he comes to himſelfe out of a rayling and jeering fit replyes, What … Eliſha call upon thoſe …laers for, to impreſon the Meſſenger? that's more then the Text will beare, unleſſe to ſhut the doore againſt a man be to impriſon him.
Anſ. But the Prophet Eliſha, not onelyonly call'd upon them2 Kings 632. to ſhut the doore, but to hold them faſt. Shutting the doore indeed doth not note imprnonment, but ſhut the doore and hold him faſt doth: for what is impriſonment, but arcta & violent a cuſtodia, and theſe are the words of that Text, ſhut to the doore and hold him faſt at the doore. But it's the Doctors manner to take part of the Text, and leave th'other part which makes againſt him; ſo he dealeth by our Anſweares; ſo hee dealeth by Scriptures. At length the Doctor having left me to viſit my fellow Anſwerers. as hee calls us for the ſpace of three or foure leaves, he is pleaſed to returne againe to mee about 13. Rom. and page 60. Hee takes it unkindly that I will not ſtand to the Engliſh Tranſlation of the word foreign, damnation, but rather tranſlate it ſo, They that reſiſt ſhall recoive to themſelves judgement.
To which I ſay, that I doe not deny but grant that the Word may bee tranſlated Damnation: but ſeeing the word firſtly ſignifies Judgement, as Piſcator obſerves; I would not have the Dr. ſo peremptory, ſcaring people with the word damnation, when as more naturally the word may be rendered othervviſe, I told him before what Piſcators reaſon is, forAmbiguum eſt autem quod de judicio inſert, an de eo quo Divinirus olim puntentur inobedientes loquatur, vel de co quod expectandom eſt à Magiſtratibus; in poſteriori ſententiae videntur ſequentia ſavere, pri…ri vero praecedentia. Verum nihil reſert ut…om intelliganus, nec quie un n prohibit quo minus de utroque exponamas, cum utrum ne ſit timendun immorigeris. Maſculus in Kem. 13. Ita…ue qui reſiſtit non … &c. de ills poteſtatibas dicit quae proſecutores fuerint Fidzi, ibi en…m dicendum eſt, Deo oportet obremye …ate magis qham hominibus. Sed de iſtis communitat b…s dicit quae non sunt terro…ib…m ope…is, ſed mah, qui…i s utique qui reſiſtit, &c. Orig…n in Rom. 13. Negare vero obedientiam eſt reſiſtere Para, in Rom. 13. the tranſlating of it Judgement, he may read what Muſculus alſo ſayd, and in him what many other Divines, who ſpeakes thus. It is doubtfull what Iudgement the Apoſtle ſpeakes of here, whether the Iudgement where with all the diſobedient are puniſhed by God himſelfe, or that which is to be expected from the Magiſtrates: the latter way thoſe things that follow doe favour the former way thoſe things that a…e precedent: but it matters not which way we underſtand it, neither doth any thing hinder but that we may expound it to both: When as both judgements both of God and Magiſtrate are to be feared by thoſe that are un…uly; But the Doctor gives as hee thinkes a good reaſon why it muſt needs be tranſlated damnation, and ſo meant, becauſe reſiſtance there forbidden is a breach of the fifth Cemmandement, which deſerveth Damnation.
Anſ. What then we read Rev. 2. that the Church of Thiatyra had broken the ſecond Commandement in her Idolatry and Superſtition, yet ſhe is threatned with an outward puniſhment, Wiſd. 22. 23. behold ſaith Chr…t, I will caſt her into great tribulation, and kill …er Ch l…ren with death, yea the fift Comman dement is ſtrengthned with an outward promiſe, H…nour thy Father and thy Mother that thy daies may belong in the Land, and therefore well may the breach thereof be threatned with an outward Judgement.
Againe, ſaith the Dector Mr. Bridge anſweres that only active obedience to Lawfull Commands is there enjoyed, but paſſive under unlawfull Commands: To which the Doctor anſwereth, both ſay we, but not ſo Origen: not ſo Ierome, not ſo Chryſoſt…me and divers others: and Paraeus his reaſon is good, who obſerves, that according to the Apoſtle, the denying of obedience is all one with reſiſtance forbidden in this 13 Rom, for in one verſe the Apoſtle ſaith ſubmit or he ſubject unto the higher Powers; in th next v hegives 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 …eter wrote his Epiſtle: SoPraeſides provin's ciis praeficicbantur non tam authoritate Caſaris quam Senatus. Eſtius Ep. Pet. X. 2. 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.
A…. 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, whetherIn e… quod additu… tan quam ab e… mi…is, … Rege… refe…unt nonnull… quod non plac… … Apo…tolu▪ vul… hoc in preſi…h us iſtis confide…ar▪ quod De…s e…s miſer it, i… …od ad obediendum movere debet, ac …t taceam quod praeſides p…oviuciis praeficiebant non tam authoritate Caeſaris …uam Senatus, illi alters relationi non quadra… quod ſequitur ad vindictam ma…efactorem, &c. quem ſcop…m mali…eges non …ſq…e qua jue hab…bant propoſitum, …ectius igitur ad Deum refe…tur, qui hunc finem omnibus Magiſtratibus praeſcribit, unde & Paulus de poteſtate Rom. 13. Dei enim Miniſter eſt tibi in bonum &c. ex quo apparet miſſos a Deo hic intelligi debere non ſolum Duces ſed Regem ipſum. Eſtius in Epiſt, P… 1, 2. 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 onelyonly ground of conſcience is Gods word.