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 itself be confessed of God by the Doctor, yet his adversaries that are for the deposing of princes, if any such be, may as well plead a power to depose the person or alter the government, as well I say, as if the power itself 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 himself nothing by proving that authority, or magistracy 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 D. D. The other part of this section is against others, who are sufficiently able to plead their own cause against this Doctor.

In Sect. ii. page 64, the Doctor complains that we have left the king nothing we could take from him; and this kind of speech is ordinary amongst some, who are so bold as to affirm, that because we do not make ourselves slaves, we make our sovereign no king. Let him and them read what Almain saith.* A polity, saith he, is not therefore said to be regal because there is one above all that is greater than all the commuuity, but because there is one above the rest, who hath jurisdiction over every particular man in that community; neither were it fit that there should be one such who were so superior, unless he were indeviable as Christ who is able to rule the community according to his own will, then the polity should be perfectly regal. And Fortescue saith, Posse male agire potestatem potius minirit quam augmentat: we do not say that God is less powerful because he cannot sin; nothing is more regal than to keep one's will within the bounds of good laws. It is some misery not to do all which you would, it is more misery to will what you may not; it is

* Non ideo dicitur politia aliqua regalis, quia unicus ei præsit qui sit tota communitate in jurisdictione major, nec ei quovis modo subjectus, sed solum propter hanc causam, quia unicus pre est qui in quemblibet alterum de communitate jurisdictionem habet et est eo superior. Nec conveniens foret aliquem unum talem taliter communitati prefiti, qui esset ea tota in omni casu superior, nisi talis foret indeviabilis, quem admodum de Christo confiretur, qui communitatem erige e potest sua voluntate, non secundum legem tunc ista politia esset perfecta regalis. -Sen. Almain de pot. stat. laica ad Gerson. cap. 1.

most misery to have a power to do what you see will.* But if you do not, saith the Doctor, re-assume power from the prince, what means the difference 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, page

25.

I said not so, but that there is a difference between things disposed of 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 recal, 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 do us the favour as to allege our words rightly.

Pages 67, 68, of his book, are spent in proving assertions of the same things that he had said before, only page 67, he confesseth it is likely that kings were at first by election, which acknowledgment we receive: but how doth this agree with what he had said before, Sect. iii. page 8, 9, where he had said, that election was a defection from that government that God set up at the first; in page 69, he cometh to the matter of the king's 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 mutual 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 than we how it is taken, and on what terms, only thus much I read in Speed's Chronicle, That the Kentish men would not admit William the Conqueror to the crown, 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 coming unto the crown, and not rather afterwards?

What else remains in that section is so easy, that the dimmest eye that hath conscience in it, may see through, for who knows not, that it is a greater evil, for a committee to be wronged by a particular person, than for a particular person to be wronged by a committee. Bonum quo communius eo melius, malum quo communius eo perjus. And why doth not nature

* Miserum est non facere omnia quæ velis miseries vero velle quod non licet miserrimum posse facere quod ita velis.-Jun. Brut.

teach, that a prince who is married unto his people, is to be faithful to them, as well as that the husband is to be faithful unto his wife, and therefore that conditions are implied, though not expressed between the king and his subject, as well as between a man and his wife; and so I pass from that section to the Doctor's two last.

CHAPTER VI.

WHEREAS the Doctor had said, We sharpen many of our weapons at the Philistines' forge; and I had shewed the difference between us and papists in this cause: he replieth, Difference there must needs be between you and papists in this particular, for they challenge such a power from the pope, you from the people.

Very well, and is not here a vast difference? The papists say, the pope may depose princes; we say, in case that the prince doth not perform his trust, the people may look to their own safety.

Dr. Fearne says: But we see your party making use of those examples, which the papists bring for deposing of kings, as of Saul, Uzziah, and Athaliah.

The papists bring these examples of Uzziah, Athaliah, &c. to shew that the high priests did, and so the pope now may, depose princes, proving that the pope is above princes. We say with Chrysostom and others, that every soul, even priests, as they and you call them, are to be subject to higher powers that that lies in the power of no priest to depose princes.

Is this to whet our scythe at the Philistines' forge, to use the same scripture for one purpose, which the Philistines do for another? The papists use that scripture, Tibi dabo claves, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," to prove the pope's supremacy; the reformed churches use the same scripture, to prove that the power of the keys is penes ecclesiam, given to the whole church, and not unto a Peter only do all the reformed churches, therefore, whet their weapons at the Philistines' forge, or are they therefore

popish, because they use the same scripture to other purposes? so here.

But you will give the prince leave, saith the Doctor, to change his religion, so will the papists, if all his subjects may have free liberty for their religion.

Not so, but he turning heretic, as the papists phrase it, is to be excommunicated, and so deposed. Dr. Fearne says: But in case he endeavour to force the contrary religion upon his subjects, for that must be supposed, how then will your allegiance hold?

Very well, and yet not whet our scythes at the Philistines' forge, for they say, that a prince apostatizing is to be excommunicated, and so deposed, as you shall presently see: we say that princes are not to be deposed for altering their religion; yea, though they should be excommunicated, for the crown is not entailed upon religion.

They deprive princes, we only defend ourselves.

They deprive by the pope's authority, we defend ourselves by the highest civil authority of the land.

Again, whereas I said the papists hold it lawful to kill a prince, and that a private man invested with the pope's authority may do it; we abhor it. The Doctor replieth: That is their new forge under ground, set up of late by jesuits: I did not mean you sharpened your weapons there, but at the old forge; and however you say you abhor this doctrine of killing kings, yet I fear and tremble, to think if your sovereign had fallen in battle by the edge of your sword, or shot of your artillery, you would have found him guilty of his own death, in that he would not, being desired, forbear to go down himself into battle.

It is well the Doctor will excuse us from jesuitism in this particular, and well he may in all things else, especially here, where he knows there is so much correspondency between his own opinion and the jesuits, who, for the most part of them, hold, that as all ecclesiastical power is given to Peter, and so to the pope and bishops, not to the church; so, that all civil power is given immediately to the king, and not to the commonwealth, but only as derived from him and therefore well may the Doctor excuse us from whetting our swords at the new forge of the jesuits, that being a forge which he reserves to whet his own weapons at.

Neither do we whet our weapons at the old forge, for I suppose the Doctor will say, that Aquinas' forge is of the oldest frame, and he speaketh directly contrary to us, thus:* As soon as ever any is denounced excommunicate for apostacy from the faith, his subjects are ipso facto absolved from his dominion, and the oath of allegiance, whereby they were bound to him.

We say, if a shot of our artillery had fallen on the king, whereas you say we would have found him guilty of his own death; we say, we would have found you, and such as you are, guilty thereof, that put him on such designs. As if a man make a fire to preserve himself and his family, and another comes and thrusts a third man into it, we will not fault him that made the fire to preserve his family, but him that thrust the man into it. But in this matter, Doctor, you have answered yourself, for you told us in your former treatise, that it is lawful for subjects to ward their prince's blows, to hold his hands, and the like, page 9. Now if the prince raise an army against his subjects, how can his blows be warded, but by an army? and if his army discharge their ordnance and muskets upon his subjects, how can his subjects ward them blows, but by discharging likewise? And then answer yourself, What if a shot of artillery should fall upon your prince? But, saith the Doctor, if you back again will gather strength for your assertions from the papists' reasons, be as like as you will to one another, &c.

I answer, Who are most like to the papists, you or we? I refer you to all that knows us. See the Canterburian selfconviction. And if we may not gather strength of reason from popish authors to dispute against them, why do either you or we read them? Reason is good, wherever we find it. Neither would Abraham refuse the use of the well, because Abimelech's men had used it; no more will we refuse good reason, because the papists have used it: they using it rather from us, and not we from them. And yet in this matter, as I have shewed, we do differ much from them.

But you prove a power in the body politic, saith the Doc

* Et ideo quam rito aliquis per sententiam denunciatur excommunicatus propter apostaciam a fide, ipso facto ejus subditi absoluti sunt a domnio ejus et juramento fidelitaris qua ei tencbantur.-Thomas Aquinas, 2, 2, § 12, art. 2.