The Wounded Conscience Cured, Section 2
Sect. II.
THe Doctor ſaith, that the principle is untrue upon which they goe that reſiſt, and the conſcience cannot finde cleare ground to reſt upon for making reſiſtance: for it heares the Apoſtle expreſly ſay, Whoſoever reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation.Poenam foreign ſic malo quam condemnationem, p…to enim hoc intelligendū de poe…â. quam inſert magiſtratus, ſicut verba frequentis declarant, &▪ ſic verbū foreign acc…p…tur pro puni…e 1▪ Cor. 6. 11. Piſcat. Rom. 13. 1▪ Sam. 14.
Anſ. In this his reſolving of Conſcience he endeavours to ſcare thoſe that are tender with the word of damnation, and forbids this reſiſtance upon paine of damnation; but the word in the Greeke is rather to be… tranſlated judgement and puniſhment, and as Piſcator obſerves thereby i… not meant eternall damnation, but the puniſhment of the Magiſtrate in this life; as appeares by the following words which are given by the Apoſtle as a reaſon of the former, thus: They that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves judgement, for rulers are not a terror to good workes, but to evill.
Then he proceeds to ſome examples of Scripture, which are brough… by us to ſtrengthen our Doctrine; wherein he takes what hee pleaſeth and leaves out what he liſts. The firſt example alledged is that of the peoples reſcuing Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, to which he anſwers the people drew not into armes of themſelves, but being there by Saul's comman… did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular paſſionate, and unlawfull command.
Anſ. Firſt, here the Doctor grants that the people uſed a violence which is that that we would prove; but hee doth not make it out by tha… Scripture that it was a loving violence, which is the thing hee ſhoul… prove: Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love, for it is ſaid that the people reſcued him; and wha… is the reſcue by men in armes but a violence? 2. According to the Doctors poſition they ſhould not have reſcued him, but onelyonly have defende… themſelves by prayers and teares, and left Ionathan to ſuffer; and therefore though he grants but a reſcue by loving violence, he gives away h… cauſe in the threſhold of his worke.
The ſecond example alledged (ſaith the Doctor) is Davids reſiſting … Saul, to which he anſwers, that Davids guard which he had about him was on… ly to ſecure his perſon againſt the cruelty of Saul, who ſent to take away his life.
Anſ. Therefore according to his owne grounds a Parliament may tak… up a guard to ſecure their perſons againſt the cut-throats that are abo… a King, and this is more then prayers or teares or meere ſufferings whic… the Doctor onelyonly allowes in the following part of his diſcourſe.
2. Herein alſo he gives his cauſe, for if Davids guard was to ſecure his perſon againſt the cut-throats of Saul if ſent to take away his life (as he ſayes) they could not ſecure David but by fighting againſt thoſe meſſengers of the King: and if he grants that meſſengers ſent by the king may be reſiſted by armes, he grants all that his adverſaries contend for.
2. The Doctor ſaith, this practice of Davids was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul.
Anſ. But what think you then of Davids words which he uſed to Achiſb in 1 Sam. 29. 8. And David ſaid unto Achiſh, what have I done, and what haſt thou ſound in thy ſervant ſo long as I have beene with thee to this day, that I may not goe fight againſt the enemies of my Lord the King? amongst which enemies was Saul and his cut-throats (as the Doctor calls them) but
2. His adverſaries deſire no more from this inſtance of David but an hoſtile defence: for where there is an hoſtile defence, though there bee no blowes given, yet the defender would ſtrike if there were cauſe, elſe why is he in armes?
3. David alſo was but one ſubject; and if it were lawfull for one ſubject to defend himſelfe by way of hoſtility, much more for the repreſentative body of the whole Kingdome.
4. According to the Doctors principles David ought to have done no more then to have ſought God with teares and prayers, and given up himſelfe in a ſuffering way to the fury of Saul, and therefore though it were meerly an hoſtile defence, yet it is more then his doctrine teacheth, and ſo in granting of this, he is contrary to what he ſayes afterwards.
For the matter of Keilah, the Doctor anſwers our ſuppoſition (as he cals it) with his own ſaying: but whether David would have defended Keilah againſt Saul, I leave to the conſcience of the Reader, conſidering that this only is made the reaſon of his removing from Keilah, becauſe the men of Keilah would not be faithfull unto him, for he did not enquire of the Lord whether it were lawfull for him to abide in Keilah, but having enquired whether Saul would come downe againſt him, and whether Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand; he removed from Keilah becauſe the Lord anſwered him that they would deliver him up, not becauſe it was unlawfull for him to keepe the City, but becauſe the City would be falſe to him.
And whereas the Doctor ſaith that in all this the example of David was extraordinary, for he was anointed and deſigned by the Lord to ſucceed Saul.
Anſ. I anſwer, though David was Gods Anointed, yet he was Sauls ſubject, and though God did extraordinarily protect David, yet his extraordinary protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawfull but doth rather argue it to be more lawfull and commendable: for Go… will not give extraordinary protections to unlawfull actions, and if Davids demeanour herein was extraordinary, then he had an extraordinary command for what he did. For it is not lawfull for a man to ſtep fro… Gods ordinary way, but by ſome ſpeciall commandement from God, and if he had ſuch a command then how is that true which the Doctor ſaith afterward, that there is no command in Scripture for ſuch a practice o… kinde of reſiſtance as this.
3. In the words immediately before, the Doctor ſaith, this practice … David was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and if ſo, ho… was his demeanour in ſtanding out againſt Saul a worke extraordinary … if it were a worke extraordinary, then it was not a meere defence without all violence, for that is an ordinary worke of the ſubjects toward thei… King.
Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adverſaries, whereby the… contend (as he ſayes for reſiſtance, as that of the High Prieſt reſiſting the King in the Temple, and Eliſha ſhutting the doore againſt the Kings Meſſenger tha… came to take away his life; to the firſt he ſayes that the High Prieſt did no mor… then what every Miniſter may and ought to doe if the King ſhould attempt t… adminiſter the Sacrament, that is reprove him, and keepe the elements from him.
Anſ. But if that were all, the Prieſts ſhould not have beene commended for their valour, but their faithfulneſſe: and ver. 17. it is ſaid that Azariah … Chron. …, 17the Prieſt went after him, and with him foureſcore Prieſts of the Lord that were valiant men. In that they were commended here for valiant, it ſhewes that their worke was not onelyonly reproofe but reſiſtance.
And whereas he ſaith, that they thruſt him out of the Temple becauſe God …and was firſt upon him, ſmiting him with Leproſie, and by that diſcharging him of the Kingdome alſo.
Anſ. I anſwer, how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being ſmitten with the leproſie was an actuall diſcharge from his crown…
Then the Doctor ſaith, Eliſha's example ſpeakes very little, but let u… thence (ſaith he) take occaſion to ſay that perſonall defence is lawfull againſt th… ſudden and illegall aſſaults of ſuch Meſſeng…rs, yea of the Prince himſelfe thu… far, to ward his blowes, to hold his hand, and the like, &c.
Anſ. 1. If you may ward his blowes, and hold his hands, this is mor… then praying and crying and ſuffering.
2. Suppoſe the King hath an army with him, how can you hold an armies hands without an army? and therefore according to his owne word… it is lawfull for the ſubjects conſidered State-wiſe to raiſe an army to de…end themſelves.
3. But this inſtance of Eliſha tells us that Meſſengers ſent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken priſoners, is not that a reſiſtance? for Eliſha ſaid, ſee you how this ſon of a murderer hath ſent to take away my head? looke when the meſſenger commeth, ſhut the doore, and hold him faſt at the doore, 2 Kings 6. 32.
Then the Doctor comes to anſwer a ſimilitude of the body naturall and politicke, whereby it is argued that as the body naturall, ſo the body politicke may defend it ſelfe: to which the Doctor anſwers, as the naturall body defends it ſelfe againſt an outward force, but ſtrives not by ſchiſme or contention within it ſelfe, ſo may the body politicke againſt an outward power, but not as now by one part of it ſet againſt the head, and another part of the ſame body.
Anſw. Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it ſelfe againſt an outward force, and what is the Militia for eſpecially, but againſt forrainers?
Then the Doctor diſtinguiſheth betwixt a perſonall defence and a generall reſiſtance by armes. He ſaith, a perſonall defence may be without all offence, and doth not ſtrike at the order and power that is over us, as generall-reſiſtance by armes doth, which doth immediately ſtrike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale, which ſaith he makes a large difference betwixt Eliſha's ſhutting of the doore againſt the Kings meſſenger, and their reſiſting the King by armed men.
Anſw. But why was Eliſha's defence perſonall? becauſe he was but one perſon that was defended? then if one man defend himſelfe againſt 1000. in armes that is a perſonall defence, or was it perſonall becauſe onelyonly the perſon of the Prophet made defence and had none to aſſiſt him? not ſo becauſe he ſpake to the Elders to ſhut the doore and hold him faſt, and if this act of Eliſha was contrary to the Kings command, why did it not as immediately ſtrike at the order and power that was over him, as our reſiſtance doth now? indeed if the ſubjects as private men ſtrengthned with no authority ſhould gather together in a rude multitude to oppoſe lawes and governours, then that worke ſhould ſtrike immediately at the order and power and life of a State, but that the State ſhould ſend out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the higheſt Court of the Kingdome, that juſtice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene ſtanched up, is rather to confirme and ſtrengthen the order and power of authority, and ſo it is in our caſe.
Then the Doctor proceeds to ſome Scriptures, wherewithall hee thinkes to ſtrengthen his opinion, let us follow him: Firſt (ſaith hee) we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people againſt Moſes and Aaron, Numbers 16. 3. and periſhing in thei… ſinne.
Anſ. I anſwer that Moſes and Aaron had not neglected their truſt, and our queſtion is in the generall laying aſide all reſpect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his truſt, and doing that through his ba… Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State, may not by the whol… State be reſiſted therein? Now ſee how extreamly wide this inſtance … from this queſtion.
Firſt of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol… people, nor the repreſentative Body, nor any imploied by the whol… people.
2. Moſes and Aaron had not offended but were innocent.
The Dr. anſwers, The other ſuppoſed they had bin guilty, and that is enoug… it ſeems.
Anſ. It ſeems ſo indeed by him, that ſuppoſalls are enough to charg… the Parliament, but with us ſuppoſalls are not enough to charge ou… Prince.
2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. ſaying, there the people are let t… underſtand how they would be oppreſſed under Kings, yet all that violence and injuſtice that ſhould be done unto them is no juſt cauſe of reſiſtance, for they hav… no remedy left but crying to the Lord, verſ. 18.
Anſ. In this Scripture Samuel ſhewed them what their King would do not what he ſhould doe; and when he ſaith at the 18. verſe, You ſhall cry out in that day becauſe of your King which ye ſhall have choſen you, and the Lor… will not heare you in that day, he telleth them not what ſhould be their duty, but what ſhould be their puniſhment, for he doth not ſay, then ſhall you cry unto the Lord and he ſhall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promiſe of acceptance. But he ſaith you ſhall cry in that day becauſe of your King, and the Lord will not heare you in that day, ſetting forth the puniſhment of that thei… choiſe.
3. The Dr. ſaith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civill aſſemblies or for War but by his command; wh… …ad the power of the Trumpet, that is the ſupream, as Moſes was, Num. 10.
Anſw. The Parliament hath ſounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the ſupreme power hath given commandement for. For the… Doctor ſaith Section 1. page 2. That in the eſtabliſhed Lawes of the Lan… we have the Princes will and conſent given upon good advice, and to obey hi… againſt the Lawes, were to obey him againſt himſelfe, his ſuddaine will againſt his deliberate will, ſo that if there be any eſtabliſhed Lawes whereby the King hath given his former deliberate conſent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now ſounds, then this objection is but a falſe allarum.
Now though I be no Lawyer, and muſt refer you much to what the Parliament hath ſaid who are the Judges of the Law, yet thus much I can tell you as conſonant to right reaſon: That unleſſe the Parliament have a power to ſend for delinquents and accuſed perſons to be tried in that higheſt Court of Juſtice, I ſay unleſſe they have ſuch a power they are no Parliament. The King hath often proteſted to maintaine the liberties and priviledges of Parliament: Now ſuppoſe a man be complained of to the Parliament for ſome notorious crime, it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to ſend a Serjeant at Armes for him, and if he refuſe to come, that Serjeant at Armes hath a power to call in more helpe; and if the Delinquent ſhall raiſe twenty or thirty, or a hundred men to reſcue himſelfe, then the Parliament hath power to ſend downe more meſſengers by force to bring up the Delinquent, and if they may raiſe a hundred; why may they not upon the like occaſion raiſe a thouſand, and ſo tenne thouſand? And if the King ſhall protect theſe Delinquents, that is but his ſudden will, the Doctor ſaith, his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his ſudden will; now this is the knowne Law of the Kingdome, and the conſtant practiſe of all Parliaments that they have a power to ſend for their Delinquents, and indeed elſe how can they be a Court of Juſtice, if they cannot force the accuſed to appeare before them? And therefore according to the Doctors owne principles the Kings deliberate will being in his Law, he himſelfe hath ſounded this Trumpet, though by his ſudden will (as he calls it) hee is pleaſed to ſound a retreat. For though the Doctor ſaith that the Parliament takes up Armes againſt the King, yet herein he doth but abuſe them, miſtake the queſtion deceive many.
The truth is, they doe but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earle of Eſſex ſend for thoſe Delinquents that have beene obnoxious to the State: and to deny them ſuch a power as this, is to deny them the very being of a Parliament: For by the ſame reaſon that they may ſend one Serjeant at Armes for one, they may ſend one thouſand for one thouſand.
Then the Doctor tells us, That it is a marvellous thing that among ſo many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Iſrael for Idolatry, cruelty, and oppreſſion, none ſhould call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of reſiſtance.
Anſ. I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marvelling: For what ca… be more plaine then that Text, 2 Kings 6. 32. But Eliſha ſate in his houſe an… the Elders ſate with him, and the King ſent a man from before him, &c. bu… when the meſſenger came to him, hee ſaid to the Elders, ſee how this ſon of a murderer hath ſent to take away my head, looke when the meſſenger commeth ſhut th… doore, and hold him faſt at the doore. The Dr. wonders if reſiſtance wer… lawfull, why no Prophet ſhould call upon the Elders of the people fo… this duty of reſiſtance, here is the Prophet Eliſha calling on the Elders to impriſon the Kings meſſenger.
Then laſtly, the Dr. ſaith that Scripture, Rom. 13. Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher powers; and ver. 2. Whoſoever reſiſts the power, reſiſts the Ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation, doth above all give us a cleare manifeſtation upon the point.
Anſ. Now therefore let us here joyne iſſue, and if this place which th… Dr. makes the very hinge which all his diſcourſe moves upon, be no… clearly and fully againſt him, then let the conſciences of men be ſatisfie… in all that he ſaies, but if it be againſt him, then let them reject all that h… affirmes.
He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to reſi… with a forcible reſiſtance the command of a King though he comman… what is unlawfull, becauſe (ſayes he) that this commandement was given un… the Chriſtians to be obedient unto Roman Emperours whoſe commands were meerly deſtructive to the Chriſtian Religion, and thoſe powers nothing but ſubverters of that which was good and juſt.
Anſ. That there is no ſuch thing commanded in this Scripture I pro… by theſe reaſons.
1. Becauſe the power that every ſoule is here commanded to be ſubject to, and not to reſiſt is that power which is not a terrour to go… works but to evil. The 3. verſe being made a reaſon of the 2. the 2. ver… ſaith, Whoſoever reſiſts the power reſiſts the ordinance of God, and they that reſ… ſhall receive to themſelves judgement; then the reaſon is given: for Rule… are not a terrour to good workes, but to evill, ver. 3. and therefore the ſubjection commanded, and reſiſtance forbidden, is not in things that are u… lawfull, and contrary to the Law of God. 2. The power that we a… commanded to be ſubject to, and not to reſiſt is the ordinance of God; a… the Miniſter thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good, ver. 4. … ſaies the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of the Ruler that we are to obey, he is the Miniſter of God to us for good: but when he commands a thing unlawfull, a… contrary to the law of God, he is not the Miniſter of God to us for go… therefore in this Scripture there is no ſuch thing commanded us to ſubject to, and not to reſiſt the ungodly command of Princes.
Ob. And if it be ſaid that though his commands are unlawfull, yet he may be a penall ordinance of God for our good.
I anſwer, that in this Scripture we are not commanded to ſubmit unto a penall ordinance, becauſe the ſubmiſſion injoyned here by the Apoſtle reaches to all times and places: and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penall ordinance.
3. Therein the Apoſtle commands us in this Scripture to be ſubject, and not to reſiſt, wherein the Magiſtrates are Gods Miniſters, but in unlawfull commands they are not properly and actively Gods Miniſters though God may make uſe of them: though in regard of their place they may be Gods Miniſter, yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not; when they command things that are evill and contrary to Law. Now ſo we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action Gods Miniſters.
Verſe 6. For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo for they are Gods Miniſters attending continually upon this very thing.
4. It appeares by all the firſt verſes of this 13. Chapter that the ſubjection and obedience here commanded by the Apoſtle is not paſſive obedience or ſubjection, but active; for the Apoſtle having ſaid, ver. 1. and 2. Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher power, and not reſiſt, he ſaith at the third verſe, Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power, doe that which is good, and at the ſixth verſe, For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo. But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and ſinfull (the Doctor ſaith) we are to be ſubject only paſſively: therefore the ſubjection commanded, and reſiſtance forbidden in the Scripture, not ſuch as relates the unlawfull command of Princes (as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things deſtructive to the Chriſtian Religion) accordingly Hierom upon the place, Oftendit Apoſtolus in his quae recta ſunt judicibus obediendum, non in illi quae religioni contraria ſunt. And beſides, the Doctor himſelfe confeſſeth, page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary, but perpetuall: therefore to reach unto thoſe times, when the Prince ſhould command that which was good, therefore the ſubjection here commanded was active ſubjection, and not meerly paſſive.
But the Doctor ſaith, he will free this place from all exceptions, and therefore he ſaith firſt, I may ſuppoſe the King ſupreme, as St. Peter calls him, or the higher power as St. Paul here, though it be by ſome now put to the queſtion.
Anſw. And is it but now put to the queſtion? What ſhall we ſay then of that ſpeech of Doctor Bilſon? By ſuperiour powers ordained of God, we underſtand not onelyonly Princes, but all publicke States and Regiments, ſome where the people, ſomewhere the Nobles having the ſame intruſt to the ſword that Princes have in this Kingdome: and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to thoſe that are in authority. Suppoſe we be in ſome country where there is no King, but States, doth not this Scripture command us ſubjection there alſo? How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onelyonly the King? The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the higheſt Court of Juſtice in the Kingdome; and the higheſt Court of Juſtice muſt needs fall within the compaſſe of theſe words, the higher Powers; unto which, by vertue of this commandement of the Apoſtle, we are to be obedient. How then is this true which the Doctor ſaith, that by the higher Power is meant the King onelyonly or ſupreme, in oppoſition to the Parliament.
But I prove it (ſaith he.) For S. Peters diſtinction comprehends all that are in authority, the King as ſupreme, and all that are ſent by him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter ranke are the two Houſes of Parliament, being ſent by him, or ſent for by him, and by his Writ ſitting there.
Anſ. Calvin (and other Interpreters) herein is contrary unto the Doctor,Nam qui pronomen (e…m) ad Regem refe…unt multum falluntur. Eſtigitur huc communi ratio… commendandam omnium magiſtratu… authoritatē quod mancato Dei praeſunt & ab eo mit…unt…r: unde ſequitur (quemadmodum & Paulus do…) Deo reſiſtere q…i ab eo ordi nata non ſe obedienter ſubmittunt. Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who ſaith thus; Thoſe that referre the pronoune (him) to the King, are much deceived: for this is that common reaſon, whereby the authority of all Magiſtrates is commanded; becauſe they doe rule by the commandement of God, and are ſent by him: (By him) being referred to God by other Interpreters, and to the King with the Doctor.
Then the Doctor ſaith ſecondly: In this Text of the Apoſtle it is ſaid, All perſons under the higher powers, are expreſly forbidden to reſiſt: for whoſoever in the ſecond verſe, muſt be as large as the every ſoule in the firſt.
Anſ. That which the Doctor aimes at in theſe words, is to make the whole Parliament ſubject unto the King. And who denyes them to bee the Kings ſubjects? and that as men, and Engliſhmen, they ſhould not be ſubject unto the King? But if he meanes, that as a Parliament, they ſhould be ſubject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth, then how is that true which he ſaith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is ſuch an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them: for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons, or theſe and the Lords without the King, might determine, &c. Or if he meane, that as a Parliament jointly conſidered, they are to ſubmit paſſively unto the unlawfull commands of the King, and that paſſive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is ſo to ſtraiten the Text, as never any yet hath ſtraitned it: neither indeed can any conſcience thinke, that when the Apoſtle commands us to be ſubject unto the higher powers, his meaning is only by way of ſuffering in his unlawfull commands, and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands.
Thirdly, the Doctor ſaith, That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State, then our great Councell (he thinks) wil or can.
Anſ. But what then? Is it not therefore lawfull for the ſubjects now to reſiſt the higher power commanding things unlawfull, becauſe the Apoſtle commanded there that we ſhould not reſiſt the higher powers in things that are lawfull? Herein lyes the Doctors continued miſtake: He thinkes this command of the Apoſtle was given to the Chriſtians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands; whereas the Apoſtles command in this place, reaches to all times, and is made to all that are Chriſtians: Although they did live under Nero, yet it does not follow, that the Apoſtle commanded them to be ſubject to him in unlawfulls. If indeed Nero's commandements were onelyonly unlawfull, and this direction of the Apoſtle was made onelyonly to the Chriſtians in thoſe times, and that the ſubjection commanded were onelyonly ſuffering ſubjection, then this Scripture might make much for his purpoſe. But though Nero was an enemy to the Chriſtians, yet ſome of his commandements were lawfull; and this direction of the Apoſtle was not made onelyonly to the Chriſtians in thoſe times, but as a generall rule for all good men: and the obedience and ſubjection here commanded, was not onelyonly to be paſſive, but active (which I have proved already, wherein I alſo appeale to the Doctors own conſcience, whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and ſubjection to the Prince) and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide, and his argument null.
Then the Doctor ſaith, If it be replyed, that that prohibition was temporary, and fit for thoſe times, as it is ſaid by ſome whom he anſwers.
Anſ. I anſwer, that the Doctor here makes his owne adverſary, and fights with him. Many other anſwers he refutes alſo, it being not in my purpoſe to make good every pamphlet, but to ſatisfie mens conſciences: onelyonly I cannot but here take notice, that the Doctor profeſſes againſt arbitrary power, or ſuch as conquerours uſe, as he did Sect. 1. profeſſe, that he was much againſt arbitrary government. But I wiſh the Doctor would be pleaſed to conſider his own principles, as he delivers them in theſe papers: for he ſayes: that the Roman Emperours were abſolute Monarchs, and did indeed rule abſolutely and arbitrarily, and that they did make themſelves ſuch abſolute Monarchs by conqueſt. Then he ſayes, this Crowne of England is deſcended by three conqueſts. And therefore if one conqueſt is a reaſon for the arbitrary government of the Emperour, he cannot but thinke (though he conceale his minde) that his government alſo ought to be much more arbitrary.
What elſe remaines in this Section, I have either ſpoken to it already, or ſhall more aptly in the following Diſcourſe.