A29375:83
The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulness of Parliamentary proceedings in taking…The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking…
The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulness of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of arms, is justified, Doctor Ferns reply answered, and the case in question more fully resolved / by William Bridge ...The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking up of arms, is justified, Doctor Fernes reply answered, and the case in question more fully resolved / by William Bridge ...
London: printed by T.P. and M.S. for Ben. Allen, 1643
Title page typeset from the transcription.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE READER. › Chapter 3AN INTRODVCTION TO THE READER. › Chapter 3
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replies to (which were these) which Scripture I bring not to▪ prove that a Subject may take up arms against the King, but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person, notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary. For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment, and yet it is said in express words in this text that he went out against Saul, its likely that his intentions were against those that were evil and wicked about him.
Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to (which were these) which Scripture I bring not to▪ prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King, but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person, notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary. For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment, and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul, its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him.
Then the Doctor brings in another piece of my argument, not the whole reason or the sense of it, thus, Be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice. pa. 3. To which he replies (modo suo) well assumed, and so it is, for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power; We grant (faith the Doctor) there is a subjection due to them, and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due under them. It's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Parliament without the third estate. And if any subjection then they have some authority; but none they can have, if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them. And if they have power to bring in 20 by force, then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which cannot be done without raising an Army.