I answer, True, I have read indeed that natura particularis gives way to natura universalis, but never heard before that natura universalis gives way to natura particularis, or that natura universalis doth seek its own destruction, or lose the power of self preservation for the good or betterness of some

particular nature. Wherefore if the seat of power be in the community, and therefore no more power in the supreme than was and is derived from the community, and the people cannot give away the power of self-preservation: then in case the prince doth neglect his trust, so as not to preserve them, but to oppose them to violence, it is no usurpation for them to look to themselves, which yet may be no act of jurisdiction over their prince, or taking away of any power from him which they gave him, but is in truth a stirring up, acting and exercising of that power which always was left in themselves.

CHAPTER II.

HAVING now spoken of power in general, I shall say somewhat of the governing and ruling power of England; yet because that concerns the parliament to declare, which they have done, and lawyers for to clear, which they do; I shall but touch upon it, and no more than comes within the compass and verge, I do not say of a divine, but subject. I find therefore in learned Fortescue, lord chief justice, and after lord chancellor in the time of king Henry VI., that he doth distinguish of governed or ruling power into two sorts, the one merely royal, and the other politic: When kingdoms are ruled by royal government, saith he,* then men in times past, excelling in power and greedy of dignity and glory, did many times by plain force subdue unto themselves their neighbours the nations adjoining, and compelled them to do them service and to obey their commands, which commands they decreed afterwards to be unto the people very laws, cap. xii. The form of institution of a politic kingdom is, that were a king is made and ordained for the defence of the law of his subjects, and of their bodies and goods, whereunto he receiveth power of his people, for that he cannot govern his people by any other power, cap. xiii. Now, saith he, the king of England cannot alter or change the laws of his realm at his pleasure, for he governeth his people by power, not only royal but also politic. And accordingly William the Conqueror, to go no higher, in whose entrance to the crown Dr. Fearne makes the first contrivement of his English government for conscience to rest upon, seems to me to have possessed himself of this kingdom, who though he did conquer the same, yet the first claim or title that he laid to this crown was gift, which Edward the Confessor had made to him; Harold the former king having promised the crown also to him.* In this right, he first set foot on the English shore, not in the right of a conquest, but in the right of a gift and promise, as Speed, Camden, and others affirm. And afterwards, when he had obtained the crown, he swore to use and practise the same good laws of Edward for the common laws of this realm; notwithstanding, saith Mr. Fox, amongst the said laws I find in ancient records this was part, That the king, because he is vicar of the highest King. is appointed to rule the kingdom, and the Lord's people, to defend the holy church; which unless he do, the name of a king agrees not to him, but he loseth the name of a king, &c.*

Again, As the king and conqueror came into the kingdom by this claim, so we find, that in those times the consent and choice of the people was in use for the establishing of kings amongst them: for when William I. sent to Harold to make good his promise, Harold answered that he was rightful king, as being so by the consent and choice of the people, as is reported by Camden in his Britannia, thus: As concerning the promise of king Edward, William is to understand, that the realm of England could not be given by promise, neither ought I to be tied to the said promise, seeing the kingdom 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 I. had beaten Harold in the field, the people still were in doubt whom they should choose and set up for their king: For, says Guliel. Malmsburiens,* Edwin and Morcard came to London, and solicited the city that they would prefer one of them to the kingdom; 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 ruins of the kingdom, whilst they would none of their own, brought in a stranger. So that though William I. had gotten the field, yet was not he brought to the crown, but with the consent and choice, though much overpowered and over-awed, of the people. So says Speed expressly: Consent thus gotten, and all voices given for William, he was crowned king at Westminster.

Further, As the crown in those days was obtained by the consent and choice of the people, so, I say, that even William the Conqueror did not come to the crown without all conditions: for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon condition, which they proposed thus: Most noble duke, behold here the commons of Kent are come forth to meet and receive you as their sovereign, requiring your peace, their own free condition or estate, and their ancient laws formerly used. If these be denied, they are here presently to abide the verdict of battle, fully resolved rather to die than to depart with their laws, or to live servile in bondage, which name and nature is, and ever shall be strange unto us, and not to be endured. The conqueror driven to these straits, and loth to hazard all on so nice a point, more wisely than 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 I. 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. Fearne tells us, that the king's oath imports no condition, but is taken for confirmation and strengthening of mutual duties; whether that be true, let any judge that 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 enjoined by parliament, then the subjects and people of England must lose this power of self-defence, for they once had it; all men by nature having a power to defend themselves; either by conquest, as being by force spoiled thereof, or else they give 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 be said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest, and are as a people merely conquered; then any other sword that is longer than the prince's, may fetch back that power again. If it be said that this people give away this power by indenture at the first election of their prince, then let men shew us that indenture. If it be said that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. xiii. 1-3, or the like scriptures; then it must be affirmed that the parliament are not the higher powers, which Dr. Fearne granteth: for if the parliament come within the compass of those words, "higher powers," then that scripture, Rom. xiii., doth not reach them, but rather requires others to be obedient to them: yea, if by "the higher powers," is understood only the king, then the two houses may not make any forcible resistance against any petty constable that comes in the king's 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 evil; and therefore there is such a power in the subjects, both by the law of nature and constitution of the kingdom, to take up arms when the state, or two houses express it, notwithstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary.

CHAPTER III.

HAVING shewed the nature of power in general, in Chapter I., and the way and manner of England's government in some measure in Chapter II., I now come to the vindication of the truth, as opposed by Dr. Fearne in his last book, called, Conscience Satisfied, wherein he spends the seven former chapters mostly in answer to a book called, A Fuller Answer. In Sect. VIII. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the lawfulness of parliamentary proceedings in taking up arms as now they do. That I may not weary the reader in turning from book to book, I shall sometimes briefly set down what I had written, then his reply, then give my answer unto it.

Mr. Bridge tells us, saith the Doctor, that there are three grounds of their proceeding by arms: to fetch in delinquents to their trial, to secure the state from foreign invasion, to preserve themselves from popish rebellion. Dr. Fearne replieth: Yet this must be done in an orderly and legal way; and if conscience would speak 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 trial at his majesty's instance.

I answer, 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 privilege of every parliament-man according to law.

But, says Dr. Fearne, Mr. Bridge tells 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 believe they are enabled to it by law, and constitution of this government, and that they do it by an act of judgment: let him and Mr. Bridge agree it.

There needs no great skill to untie this knot, nor mediator to make us friends; the parliament hath raised this army by an act of judgment 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 preser