The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter…

Ans. Did they that declared it contrary to Law, declare that men may resist it by Arms?

§ 4. 3. You say, [The Judges at Westminster unanimously agree upon this sense and exposition of the Law, and their common practice no less.]

§ 4. 3. You say, [The Iudges at Westminster unanimously agree upon this sense and exposition of the Law, and their common practice no less.]

Ans. I will give you a Lawyer's Fee if you will prove it. When, and how did they ever declare any such Agreement? What practice is it that you mean? Do they commonly resist unlawfully Commissioned Soldiers by Arms? Or ⟨p. 94⟩declare for it. 2. But if this were true (which I believe not, whatever their secret judgment may be) it followeth not the Parliament which made this Law was of that mind. 3. Your assertion is raw (That the Judges are made the public Expositors of Laws, made by King and Parliament.) There are two sorts of Exposition of Laws: One is but limited to a particular Case and Person, in order to the applicatory Sentence for or against that Man: And so the Judges are Expositors. The other is Universal, so as to oblige all the Subjects as the Law it self doth, so that they must understand the Law, antecedently to their Obedience. And this is proper to the Law-giver: For the sense of the Law is its Essence: And Judges are not the Law-makers. Common Politics might have taught you this.

Ans. I will give you a Lawyer's Fee if you will prove it. When, and how did they ever declare any such Agreement? What practice is it that you mean? Do they commonly resist unlawfully Commissioned Souldiers by Arms? Or ⟨p. 94⟩