The Truth of the Times Vindicated, Chapter 5
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, forAnſw. 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, onelyonly 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 foreign exiſtent &c.
Anſw.But how doth this prove either what the Doctor would; or anſwer me? tis true, the words higher powers, note both as I have ſhewed already, both the authority, and perſons in the authority. But then the word foreign 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 foreign 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 N…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.
Anſ.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 'tis 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.
Anſw.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 King. Let him and them read what Almaine ſaith, *Non ideo dicitur politia aliqua regalis, quia vaiens ei praeſit qui ſit tota commnnitate in jurisdictione major, nec ei quovis modo ſubjectus, ſed ſolum propter hanc cauſam, quia unicus p…ceſt qui in quemlibet alterum de communitate juriſdictionem habet, et eſt eo ſuperior. Nec conveniens feret aliq em unam talem taliter communitate pre…i…i, pieſſet ea totai▪ o m cam ſupe …or, inſi talis fo…et indeviabil…s, …uema …modi… de Curiſto confi etur, qui communiratem erige e poteſt ſua voluntate, ſecundum legem, tunciſta politia eſſet pe…fecta regalis, Sen Almain de pet ſtazlarca ad Gerſon. cap. 1. Miſerum eſt non facete …un na ju… velis m ſcri s vero velle quod licet miſerrs. mu n poſſe facere quod ita velis, lun. i. ….A pol tic, ſaith he is not there o…e ſaid to be regall becauſe there is one above all tl at is greater then all the Communitie, but becauſe there is one above the reſt who hath …urisdictionover every particular man in that Com…unitie; neither were it fir, that there ſhould …e one ſuch who were ſo ſuperiour, unles he were indeviable as Chriſt who is able to rule the Communitie according to his own will, …hen the Poli ie ſhoul… be perfectly reg…l. And Forteſcut ſaith, Poſſ… male …g repoteſtarem potius m…ni it quam augment it We doe not ſay that God is leſſe powerfull becauſe h cannot ſin; nothing is more truly regall then to keep ones will within the bounds of good Lawes. It is ſome miſeric not to ave all which you would. It is more miſerie to will what you may not; It is moſt miſerie to have a power to doe what you ſee will. But if you d…not. ſaith the Doctor re-aſſume power from the Prince, what means the d fference you make of things diſpoſed of by truſt, from things diſpoſed of by donation, becauſe they may be recalled, theſe may not, ſo you ſay, pag. 25.
I ſaid not ſo, but that there is a difference between things diſpoſed by way of donation or ſale and things diſpoſed of by way of truſt: Things diſpoſed of by way of ſale or donation are not in our power to recall, things diſpoſed of by way of truſt are in our power to look to when the truſt is neglected: I would this Doctor would but doe us the favour as to alledge our words rightly.
The 67. and 68. of his Book, are ſpent in proving aſſertions of the ſame things that he had ſayd before onelyonly pag. 67. he confeſſeth it is likely that Kings were at firſt by election, which acknowledgement we receive: but how doth this agree with what he had ſaid before Sect. 3. pag. 8, 9 where he had ſaid, that election was a defection from that government that God ſet up at the firſt; In the 69. pag. he commeth to the matter of the Kings Covenant and Oath, which (ſaith the Doctor) is no condition on which the Kings of this Land are admitted to the Crown, but a confirmation and ſtrengthening of their mutuall duties by Oaths and promiſes, as it was with the Kings of Iſrael.
The nature of this Oath we muſt leave unto the Parliament and Lawyers, who better know then we how it is taken, and on what termes, only thus much I read in Speeds Cronicle, that the Kenciſh men would not admit William the Conqueror to the Crowne, but upon condition as I have ſhewed before; And if the taking of the Oath were only for Confirmation carrying no condition with it, why ſhould it be taken at the firſt comming unto the Crowne, and not rather afterwards.
What elſe remaines in that Section is ſo eaſie, that the dimmeſt eye that hath conſcience in it, may ſee thorough, for who knows not, that it is a greater evill for a Comittee to be wronged by a particular perſon, then for a particular perſon to be wronged by a Comittee. Bonum quo communius eo melius, malum quo Communius eo pejus. And why doth not nature teach, that a Prince who is married unto his people, is to be faithfull to them as well as that the husband is to be faithfull unto his wife, and therefore that conditions are implyed, though not expreſt between the King and his Subject, aſwell as between a man and his wife; And ſo I paſſe from that Section to the Doctors two laſt.