have potestatem supremam merum imperium so he in his Britan. which as it excludes all Subjects from haveing share in the Soveraign power for in that respect it is Merum imperium not mixtum so doth it not exclude such limitations and mixtures as have been by after condescent for the bounding of that Soveraign power in the exercise and use of it But now this Author will endeavor against the credit of History and Antiquiry to reason us into a beliefe of such a frame as he has moulded this Monarchy in First he would prove That the Soveraignty of the King is radycally and fundamentally Limited not only in the use and exercise of it but in the power it selfe pag 31 then That the Authority of this Land is Mixed in the very root and constitution of it pag. 39. This were an argument fit for a skilfull Lawyer to Labour in yet soe much in consequence I can at first sight perceive in his prooses that I dare pronounce them insufficient to cleare what he undertakes His prooâ—es are either his owne reasons or drawne from the Kings owne grants in his late expresses His reasons for the Limited condition of our Kings are from the denomination of Leige and Legall Soveraigne and from Proscription which evinceth that in all ages beyond record the Lawes Customes of this Kingdome have been the rule of Government pag. 32 Answ This proves that our Kings are limited in the use or exercise of their power and noe more for neither that Denomination nor any prescription can make us beleive that the Limitations of their power had any other begining then from their voluntary and pious condescent to such or such moderations and allayes which by constant usage and custome or eise by expresse Lawes were made ever after inevitable and irrevocable by the Monarchs themselves the Oath also of succeeding Monarchs binding them to the observing of such Lawes and Customes His reasons Iikewise for the mixed constitution of this Government doe prove a mixture but not such as he would have nor from the begining or first constitution of the Monarchy they are these 1 Because it is a Monarchy mixed with an Aâ—istocracy in the Lords and Democracy in the Commons but theâ—e is no Mixture which is not in the root and supremacy of power pag. 40. 2. Because it is a Monarchy where the Legisâ—â—tive power is in all three and therfore mixed in the very root and essence of it ibid. 3 Because it is a Monarchy in which three Estates are constituted to the end that the power of one should moderate and restraine from excesse the power of the other and therefore mixed in the root and essence of it ibid the same reasons he uses Pag. 43. to prove the Authority of both Houses to be no derived authority but equally originall and fundamentall with that of the King and saith he cannot devise what can reasonably be said in opposition to these Grounds proving a fundamentall mixture Answ And I must say I cannot devise what sh uld move a man of reason as this Author seemes to be so often to prosfesse as he doth that he is convinced of such a fundamentall constitution of this Monarchy for I cannot be convinced but his grounds are false supposalls For first it is not necessary the mixture should be in the root or Supremacy of power but it is sufficient if there be a concuâ—rence of Persons whose consent is required to the exercise of that Supreame power as was explained above Sect. 3. when we spoke of mixture Nay if it must be in the Supremacy of power as he will have it how can he make the King the only Supream and that one Head to which the whole Body politique is bound and united as he grants pag. 42.43 He cannot salve it with his Apex potestatis which he there gives to the King uniesle the King must be the Crowne or top of the head only for they also must be our Head and our Soveraignes if they be mixed or joyned with him in the Supremacy of power as this Author would have it Secondly the phrase of Legislative power ascribed to the two Houses is satisfied and explained by that concurrence and consent of theirs in and to the exercise of the Supream power as above but I cannot be convinced that it argues the power it selfe which gives life to a Law to be in them but their assent to be requisite and necessary so that without it no Law can be made which is enough if men could be content So when it is said Be it enacted by the Authority of this Parliament None denies but to have such Vote or power of affenting is a great Authority but not such as makes them sharers in the Supremacy of power for then should they also be our Head and our Soveraignes as was said above before that phrase was used we find it râ—n thus The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c which tells us plainly where the fountaine of the ordaining or Legislative power is how that power is excited or stirred up to Act by the instance and request of the Commons representing to the King the grievances of his People and that the efflux of that fountaine or the exercise of that power is not soly in his Will that is comes not to the Act of ordaining without the consent of Lords and Commons Thirdly to his third Reason I answer The end of this mixture or concurrence is to restraine from excesse but the restraint is morall and legall not forcible by power of Armes Parliamentary by way of assent or dissent to the ordaining power not military by Armies in the Field as will more clearly appeare by the next Section concerning resistance in mixed Monarchyes Now such a morall restraint doth not argue the Monarchy mixed in the Root and first constitution for the Houses may be vested with such a power afterward but the Restraint that this Author intends is a forcible restraint by Armes a meer phansy for if the fundamentall Constitution had intended them such a power it would not have left a power in the Monarch to call them or dissolve them which would make this pretended power of theirs altogether in effectuall but would have left them continually existing and in being His proofes from the Kings owne Grants for the Radicall Limitation of this Monarchy are these Pag. 31. His Majesty who best knowes by his Counsell the nature of his owne power saith That the Law is the measure of his power and in his Answer concerning the Militia sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted them then by Law is in the Crown c. whereby it is granted The King has no more power then by Law is in him so he Also for such a mixed Condition of this Monarchy as these men would have they usually urge what
a King be distracted or bewitched or forced by such as have him Prisoner or otherwise a command upon him are Subjects bound from resisting His illegall commands pag. 2. Answ If it be cleare that a King is so I suppose it is cleare in Law what course is to be taken but being doubted onely as the case is put and that perhaps upon as little ground as some have endeavoured to make the People believe their King is now held Prisoner by his Cavaleires and forced to doe what he doth then the Safer way is to be taken which is to doe no more by way of resistance then is Lawfull to doe when it is cleare He is not Forced or distracted and that will better appeare by the Case following suppose it be certain a King is not forced or distracted yet doing as bad as any distracted person can doe by commanding Tyrannicall Acts why should His Subjects hands be bound frō resisting his followers offering to act His Tyranny more then if he were forced or distracted Pag. 2. Answ This is needlesse and odious and cannot concerne the Case in Question but by reflecting upon His Majesty but put this case of any King so doing I Answer 1. There is much difference twixt habituate distraction and actuall extravagances or Tyrannicall attempts for by that a Prince is not master of his Will and is made unfit to bear the Power i. the administration of it but by these he is not so 2. Because this falls in with the Case as it is propounded in better termes by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy whether the forceable resistance of inferiour Persons misimployed to serve the illegall destructive Commands of the Prince be unlawfull pa. 51. I answer if by those misimployed persons be understood the Commanders and Souldiers of the Kings Armyes I cannot see nor any man else I think but the resisting of them by a contrary Militia or Armes raised by Subjects is a resisting of the King and unlawfull and unto this Resistance the Case as I propounded it did relate and accordingly the first Resolution was That were the King what they supposed him to be there was no warrant for such resistance But if by those misimployed persons be understood other instruments of oppression in times of Peace before it come to Armes such as the pleaders for defensive Armes doe suppose in their last Case pag. 2. to have counterfeited the Kings Seal or Warrant and by it to Spoyle and Murther all the Kings faithfull Subjects if they be not resisted or such as the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth in his instances pag. 57. suppose indeed to have the Kings Seale or Warrant wherewith they might range through the Kingdome wasting and spoyling taxing and distraining yea might destroy the Members of Parliament as they sit in their Houses if they might not be resisted Ans For that of the counterfeited Seale it is not to the purpose if there be cause to doubt or suspect such a Seale there are undoubted Ministers of Power and justice to makestay of it till it be made known above as we see those dealt with that bring counterfeit Briefes and as some years agoe he that counterfeited a Commission for taking up Children for Virginia was staid by authority and brought to Iustice But suppose such instruments of oppression have indeed the Kings Seale and Warrant to Taxe Distreine c May not private men resist such in their murthering assaults and the Ministers of Power and Authority suppresse them in each County by Force I answer This is an enlarging of the Case which concernes the present resistance as now it is undertaken by Subjects with Armyes in the field Yet for farther satisfaction and without prejudice to that which clearly convinceth the present resistance as unlawfull I conceive it reasonable to say First if private men be suddainly assaulted in their Persons by such instruments without any foregoing pretence or reason as of Taxing Distraining Arresting so that their life is imminently indangered and no meanes of avoiding by slight then is personall defence Lawfull for such sudden assault carries no pretence of authority with it but if such misimployed instruments come first to Taxe Distraine Arrest as it is supposed private men ought not to resist and so draw on the endangering of life but to seek redresse above from Authority and if it may not be had yet not to resist Secondly If the Ministers of Power in each County doe at first stay restrain and commit such mis-imployed instruments and so represent the matter again to the King if the two Houses of Parliament also deale in like manner with those that by virtue of any such Warrant should notoriously trespasse upon them this is not to resist for here is only a desire of informing the King aright not a will of contending with him if he will not be of another mind Now as the pleaders for defensive Armes say pag. 2. The Law supposing the King can doe no wrong supposeth wrong may be done in His name and therefore teacheth the Ministers of Power and Iustice under him to presume such illegall Warrants and surreptitiously or by fraud procured and so at first to make stay of such mis-imployed instruments and to bring the matter again to the knowledge of the King Secondly Should a King be so obstinate as to perfist in the maintenance of those illegall courses and to that end imployed the Militia or power of Armes wherewith he is invested it is neither Legall nor Reasonable that the Ministers of power under him should pursue the opposition to the setting up of a Militia or contrary power to the introducing of a Civill Warre For though such Ministers of Power ought to use all faire and Lawfull means for the restraining of such mis-imployed instruments and it is not for me to set bounds how farre they may proceed in preserying the Kings Peace by using that Power against mis-imployed Persons yet surely they cannot proceed so farre as to a contestation of Power with Him whose Ministers they are much lesse to a Levying of Warre as at this day and an apposing of Armies against Armies This is the Resistance supposed in the Case and in this Case to resist the Kings Forces is to resist Him SECT III. Severall kinds of Monarchy IN the next place we are called to a consideration of the severall kinds of Monarchicall government that it may appeare whether in any of them this Resistance by force of Armes may find allowance or otherwise The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy observing there was but little pretence from Scripture either by precept or Example for Resistance confesseth that the Kings under which the People of God were in the Old and New Testament might not be resisted and therefore layes all the defence of Resistance upon reason drawn from the severall condition of an Absolute and of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy For which purpose he spends the first part of his
that by the Admirable wisdome of the Architects of this Government the Nobles and Commons have their power and Authority not depending on the Monarch but radically their own by fundamentall Mixture so pag. 41. and elsewhere but in the six suppositions wherein he would lay this platforme open to the view he brings up the Houses to this power they have by steps of time and comming to make those suppositions he speaks doubtingly of the Originall contriving of this government whether saith he done at once or by degrees found out and perfected pag. 44. but this contriving must be made at once and at first when they chose the first King or else they cannot have this power and Authority radically their own And we cannot imagine but Bede and other Historians would have observed such convention of Nobles and Commons as this Author supposed for the contriving of this Government in which they demeaned themselves with such admirable wisdome or if they could not tell us of such a convention of them at first for the contriveing and beginning of the Government they could not but observe some meetings of them after for the use of this power in the managing of the Government Assemblies doubtlesse there were for representing of grievances to the Monarch and for giving advise in the redresse and among the Orders of which those Assemblies did anciently consist there were Procuratores cleri the representatives of the Cleargy as I have heard good Lawyers affirme and one of my former Answers had it in his Margin though little to his advantage but here we are call'd by this Authour to believe or rather suppose an assembly consisting of Nobles and Commons vested with part of the Soveraign power by orginall constitution when as neither he nor any other Author could bring any one Record for it above the Norman Conquest and those Histories or Chronicles which mention the beginning of Parliaments as now they stand in Authority doe not rise so high as those times Now seeing the Parliament it selfe 24 H. 8. c 12. doth declare that this Realme of England has beene ever accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head c. and tells us that Histories and Chronicles shew as much why should these Chronicles be so many ages silent in the originall Constitution by which this Anthor gives the two Houses their power from the beginning of this Monarchy if either such a constitution ever was or indeed could consist with this Empire and this one supream head This Author tells us pag. 36. that the Tryall by twelve men and other fundamentalls of Government wherein the English freedom consists were left untouched by the Conquerour But why could not he tell us as well that this power which he asscribes to the two Houses was left untouched he would if he could have made it appeare to have been before the Conquest Mr. Cambden names the King before the Conquest that first ordained the tryall by twelve Men but what Chronicle can doe as much for the other the like originall to that of the tryall by twelve men had other Liberties of the Subject to wit by after condescent of the Prince and yet this Author calls that Tryall a fundamentall and so it is not of the Monarchy but of the Subjects liberty or as he said of the English freedome We need not after all this which has been spoken of the beginning of the English Saxon Government into which this Author saith Duke William succeeded and in the same right of those Saxon Kings seek advantage from the entrance of that Norman Conquerour Yet this we can say and it appeareâ— out of severall Authors cited by Mr. Cambdâ—n in his Britan. Norman that the Conquerour invictoriae quasi Trophaeum as a Trophy and memoriall of his Conquest disposed of the Lands of the Conquered changed their tenure abrogated what English Lawes and Customes he pleased and gave them what Lawes he thought good and unto this the People were content to yeeld which is more then can evidently be said by this Author for the stating of the Roman Emperours in a condition irresistable as we shall see below upon the 13. to the Rom. as we can say this to the overthrow of their ground of resistance that fundamentall mixture or joyning the Houses with the Monarch as sharers in the Soveraign power so do we say that what Limitations Lawes Priviledges Customes have been after procured by or restored to the People all those the King as He is sworn so is He bound to observe because of the Cath of God So that this Author speakes but his own Phansyes when he concludes thus upon William the Conquerour By granting the former Lawes and Government he did equivalently put himselfe and his successours into the state of Legall Monarchs and in that Tenure have all the kings of this Land held the Grown unto this day when these men would rake up and put a Title of Conquest upon them which was never made use of by him who is the root of their succession pag. 37. How farre Duke William made use of his Title by Conquest how he granted the former Lawes and Government appeares by that which was spoken even now out of M. Cambden that is he made use of it so farre forth as he pleased and graunted what Lawes he pleased of the former Government and what new ones he pleased those he imposed on the people and unto this they agreed willingly or unwillingly it matters not as is sometimes graunted by this Author But by this he did equivalentlie put himselfe saith he and successors into the state of Legall Monarchs He did so in a good sence but not as this Author meanes it for we know by that which was observed above Sect. 3 concerning a Monarch originally unlimited but falling off into a more moderate and limited condition that his meaning is that Duke William by graunting such Lawes did put himselfe in such a Condition as if at first he had been limited so by the people they reserving to themselves power of resisting his exorbitancies which should be destructive of those Limitations and Lawes this is a Legall Monarch in his sense but we say he became a Legall Monarch that is bound himselfe to rule according to such Lawes as he had graunted Nor doe we rake up a Title of Conquest for his Successors or would have them any other then Legall Monarchs but by that which has been shewen and cannot be denied it appears that the Root of Succession whether English or Norman sprang up by conquest and that the Priviledges and Powers wherewith we see the Subject invested were of an after spring that is of after agrement or by condescent of the Monarch which Powers Priviledges grants Liberties though not originall yet are they irrevocable the Prince is bound as was saide to observe them because of the Oath of God I will but adde M. Cambdens expression of the Monarchicall power The Kings of this Land
pleases him hâ— could have preserved David from Sauls fury as he did Eliah from Abâ—bs which was after a more private way but he thought more fit to let David be strengthned by the accession of much people as a praeludium to their falling off from the house of Saul into him Lastly if this way of preservation by bends of armed men were ordinary as these men will make it then may one single Subject as David was draw armed men together be Captaine over them and lead them up and down for his owne their preservation that do adhere unto him which if they will not a low then must there be in Davids example something more then ordinary And here I must challenge not onely the Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy who cals it a shuffling Answer to say Davids example was extraordinary pag 5.7 but also his Ingenuity who confesses that the people under the Israelitish Monarchy might not resist and had no other meâ—nes to helpe themselves but cryes to God pag. 58. and yet urges the example of Ionathans rescue of Davids raysing Forces of his intent to defend Keilab for the defending of armes taken up and used by Subjects in making resistance He deales with us herein as the Popish writers doe in the point of Invocation of Saints they acknowledge the Fathers of the Old Testament were not then in a condition to be invocated yet doe they alleadge Testimonies out of the old Testament for the proofe of that point to deceive the unwary Elishaâ—s example was altogether impertinent yet from thence occasion was taken to speak of Personall defence upon which these Pleaders maâ—e a long and tedâ—ous Reply page 14 15 16. The substance of which is delivered in the Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy makes for resistanceâ— and therefore because this Reply of theirs is no way strengthened by Elisha's example but is altogother rationall we will deferre the examination of what is materiall in it to the last Section To conclude It was a generall collection but yet a very forcible Argument against resistance that among so many Prophets bitterly reproving wicked Kings for subversion of Religion justice there was not one that celld upon the Eiders of the peâ—ple for this duty of making Resistance The Pleaders reply scarce like Reverend and learned Divines That in the times of good Kings we find the Princes Elders and Nobles very Corrupt who then can marvail if they were starke naught where the King was maught or why should it be expected that the Proâ—hets should call upon them to resist the King being on his side and beâ—on theirsâ— pag 20. Answ If it were the Duty of those Elders and Princes as these pleaders doe conceive it was with force to oppose the exorbitances of those Kings then was it the duty of those Prophets to admonish them of it and the more cause had the Prophets to recall them to it the further they were from it the desperate condition of such Princes and Elâ—ers might take away hope of prevailing could not excuse the Propheâ—s silence and neglect We conclude therefore that the Scriptures of the Old Testament doe not give any Warrant by precept or example for the Armes Resistance of Subjects now against their Soveraigne SECT VIII Of Resistance sorbidden in the 13. to the Romanes IN the new Testament that of the 13. to the Rom. is most considerable the ful examination of which wil also 〈◊〉 other places which may seeme to concerne the point in hand lest Servants and Subjects upon the doctrine of Christion Liberty should conclude themselves free from Masters and Goveâ—nors who then were cruell for the most part and Tyrannous the Apostle doth often call servants to a continuance of their obedience and here Subjects to the duty of subjection without Resistance as likewise S. Peter doth 1 Ep. cap. 2. The place is confiderable first in it selfe as it teaches the Institution and the End of Government by that the Power and Authority by this the duties of Governors are seen from both the duty of Subjects in yeelding Subjection and forbearing Resistance is inferred Secondly 〈◊〉 is considerable in relation to those times as it is applyable to the then governing powers and to the Christian Subjects to whom S Paul then wrote and thence we must conclude if we will think S Paul wrote pertinently and meant that those he wrote to should receive direction by what he commended to them that however the Governours then were not answerable to the End of government and were farre from the duties there specified yet had they the Power and Authority and those duties which are there enjoyned for the yeelding of Subjection and forbearing of resistance were to be performed by their Subjects then living under them The Reverend Divines have written such for the explication of this place to bring it to their puâ—pose and have in severall places of their book eâ—forced the same things upon the Reader to perswade or weary him What they have maâ—â—riall I shall examine First They observe that it is Higher Powers in the plurall not Higher Power as the Doctor say they usually had it and in this they suspect a great fraud Page 3. take it to be a dangerous fallacy in the present question as if the King only were not to be resisted page 9. when as we may not resist the meanest Officer not a Constable arresting us or distraining our goods ibid Answ A dang â—â—ous businesse I promise you and such an one as it concerned these Learned Divines to give the Reader so often warning of as they do but to answer theâ— once for all The Higher power in the Singular was commonly used not in alleadging the Text as if it were so in the Apostle but in the applying of it to the present case which laying the Hypothesis or Question between the powers themselves in this poynt of Resistance or Armer might very well allow the King to be deciphered by the Higher power or the Supream in relation or opposition to other Governours under Him although they also be Higher powers in respect of the people under them and not to be resisted by their inferiours It is but what themselves have expressed in the same page 3. By Higher powers are meant All in Civill legall Authority which in Saint Peters phrase is of the King as supream or Governours for these are higher then the People though lower then the King the very same thing intended and spoken by me But these men when they have gotten a seeming advantage and thinke the People cannot see the vanity of it never know when to have done with it Secondly They obseive that it is Power in the abstract which notes the Authority wherewich the Person is invested and not the person in the Concrete lest that might be understood of his personal commands beyond or against his authority which the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using
to suffer Tyrannous Violence Or how doth any resist unlawfully though by Armes when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave Authority to use against him nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto Answ 1. Seeing your Argument from those word words the Ordinance God would if it were good allow private mento resist I pray you by what authority of Text or Context doe your Patrons forbid Resistance to be made by private men but allow it to Magistrates or the infetior powers is it from the consideration of those to whom the Apostle wrote who had not then any Magistrates of their own profession among them though that be no good ground to raise that distinction of private men and publique in the point of resistance for the Apostles reasons against resisting of Higher powers doe concerne all times yet will the consideration of those persons to whom and of those times in which the Apostle wrote give us authority to stretch the prohibition to the refusing to suffer Tyrannous violence for we must conceive that he gave them instruction which did neerely concerne them which might in some reasonable manner direct them which was agreeable to Saint Peters advice 1 Ep. 2. cap. which was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and all other Christians of those and the following primitive times but the instruction that the Apostle here gives them cannot be such unlesse it forbid the refusing to suffer under the Tyrannous violence of those times 2. Answ If he that resists by Armes doth not resist unlawfully as you say when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave authority to use against him where hath God I pray you given authority to Parents or Masters to use unjust violence to their Children or Servants yet is not their resistance unlawfull for though God has not given those authority to doe it yet has commanded these to suffer it if done The like may be said of Kings and Subjects for has not God put Kings Fathers Masters all in one Commandement enjoyned this duty and reverence to them under one word Honour and S. Peter next to the feare of God has placed Honâ—ur the King and advises Christians to suffer though wrongfully under the then Tyrannous Governours and froward Masters Did not God put his People under this Subjection when he put them under a King 1 Sam. 8. where this immunity of their Kings from their resistance forceable Coerâ—ion is called Ius Regis not because God gave them power and right to use unjust and oppressing violence but because if they did so they were by the Law and Ordinance of God secured from the violence of the People and reserved for the judgement and vengeance of God that ordained them and set them over his people as appeared above in the former Section But they goe on and seeme to conceive that by the powers not to be resisted the Doctor meanes onely the Supream and those that Act his will but denies the like security to subordinate Magistrates if they be Tyrannous without any command from the Supream pag. 6. Answ The Doctor by maintaining the Supream power might not be resisted by the Subordinate powers under Him did not thereby imply that these might be resisted but still the higher spower is not to be resisted by those that are under it But if he say that neither Supream nor Subordinate may be resisted then may every meane Officer ruine the whole neighbourhood and so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turne to the greatest Curse to mankind so they pag. 6 Answ There are superiour powers that can protect so that if the subordinate power doe wrong the complaiâ—t lies still to the higher power if the Supream or highest be engaged in the Violence the redresse is to be sought by petition suite if not succeed the complaint lyes to heaven resistance is not the remedy They conclude Therefore as the Apostle in the following verses doth banish Tyranny out of the context describing every where a righteous Magistrate so is Tyranny banished out of the interpretation of this Text which allowes him that is a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured and not resisted even with Armet though it doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance under the heavyest penalty of Damnation pag. 6. Answ It is true that the Apostle banishes Tyranny out of the duty of a Magistrate by the following verses but it is also true that he banishesresistance out of the duty of Subjects by the former verses He describes a rightcous Magistrate but could he then exemplity were the Governours then such If not such as they were not then would this Text according to the interpretation of these Divines give but a lame direction to the Christians how they should carry themselves towards the then unjust Governors nor would this text which forbids resistance at al secure those Governors from their resistance nay I would faine see what any Jesuite can say or desire more from this text then that it gives a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured Lastly if the penalty of Damnation laid upon the people will secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance as they tel us why should not damnation laid upon every unjust oppressing Prince secure the people from Tyranny one would thinke it most equall that the Highest Power should have the greatest security and so God in his wisdome thought fit when he put his people under Kings without power of Resistance as was she wen in the former Section and will be a forceable reason against resistance in the next Section Now let us consider this Text with application to those Times and to the Powers then ruling upon that consideration it was inferred that Tyrannous oppressing Princes are not to be resisted by Arms that the Apostles reasons taught us that for the good which is generally received by Ruling powers we must beare with them though abusing their Authority as the Emperours then did which also took away their distinction of resisting not the power but the abuse of the power These Divines in Answer to it spend many pages from page 22. to 28. and againe from 47. to 51. where after some thing said of small moment concerning the Kings Supremacy and the Roman Senate page 22.23 of which I have had and shall have presently occasion to speake upon more weighty consideration brought by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy They tell us First The Doctors vaine Confidence will appeare in thinking he has made voyd the distinction of Refisting not the power but the abuse of it for when he grants that active obedience is to be denyed to the illegall Commands of the Prince he distinguishes himselfe hetweene the Power and the abuse of it and why may not wee distinguish upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second verse as well as he does upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in
the word Power So they page 3. which is the ground-work of their distiâ—ction between Resisting the Personall Commands and resisting the power of the Governour but we shall see the Apostle gives no ground for it I suppose they have taken the hiâ—t of this their Cavil from Thâ—ophylact or rather from Chrysostom's words upon this place who 〈◊〉 the Apostles speech is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of particular Princes but of the thing it selfe i.e. of the Office which words are nothing to the meaning of these men for Chrysâ—stome observing that the Prince then governing were not such 〈◊〉 the Apostle describes v. 3.4.6 did therefore say the Apostle speaks of the Office not of them that bore it i.e. not of those individuall Persons then in power who were farre from the performance of those duties out if we look to the duty there required of Subjects in regard of Obedâ—ence and resistance it was never iâ— Saint Chrysostomes mind to think that the Apostle did not speake of that as due to the Persons then Göverning Well to let the Commentator goe let us looke into the Text where it plainly appears that it is the Apostles intent to shew the duty of Subjects and for that purpose he speaks of the power it selfe and of the Person that beares it that is from the power which he shews to be of God he enforces obedience to the Persons that are in power yea with respect to the Persons then governing For first Those words the powers that are doe plainly include the Persons because Power in the Abstract cannot bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent so as the Apostle speaks of it here making it the object of obedience Againe those that he calls Powers in the first verse he calls Rulers in the third and the Ministers of God in the fourth v. And thou shalt have praise of the power v. 3. What can Power in the Abstract give Praise or is tribute paid to the Power in the Abstract In a word The Power or Authority is the Reason why we yeeld Subjection and Obedience to any person but the Person that bears the Power is the Object of our Subjection and obedience and because he bears the Power and is set over us we must not resist him though he abuse the Power Their third observation or Conceit upon which their mâ—it Answer to this place depends and for which the Fuller Ausuerer has applauded them is the restraint of Subjection enjoyned here to Legall commands in Civill matters only their words are The things about which the Authority and so the subjection in this place is conversant are Civill matters belonging to the Second Table betweene Man and Man for then the Magistrates commanded not for but against Religion and the first table and therefore the Active subjection at least here required is limited to Civill Matters or at least passive yeelding to the pet nalty of the Lawes in case of not obeying actively and neither active nor passive subjection farther then to Legall Commands so pag. 4. Ans 1. How farre they extend those Civill matters to which they will have this Subjection here confined they have not distinctly skewen whether to things onely of indifferency determined by the Roman Lawes and belonging to the Second Table in regard of the generall end of it forasmuch as they were so determined for the more convenient proceeding of Justice and the better conserving of order and Peacâ—tor to thing also in themselves good or bad for it is certain the Roman Lawes also concerned these There are indeed that say by good workes in the 3. v. are not meant workes Mâ—rally but Civilly good which is very answerable to these mens reâ—traint whom it concerned to make the way they will goe in for Obedience as narrow as they can for that will leave the way for Resistance so much the Wider only I must returne the blame of carlesnesse which they would often cast upon mee upon themselves that making such a restraint they would not more distinctly fix the bounds of it 2. It is true that the Apostle enjoynes them Subjection here to all Legall Commands in Civill matters but it is not to be so restrained for put the case If they that were in Authority should command contrary to their owne Lawes in Morall things or contrary to Religion the first Table were Christians bound to obey for active obedience the poynt is cleare they were not bound but were they bound then to suffer for not obeying actively These Divines tell us the Subjection here enjoyned by the Apostle concernes onely Civill Matters a thing of which there was lesse doubt and so Christians are left altogether without direction in regard of the other Matteâ—s which more concerned them unlesse they will take the desperate Resolution these men give as we had it above Neither active or passive Subjection is here required farther then to Legall commands So then Christians according to these Divines were free and might resist when they had such commands imposed on them but can we think the Apostle should give them so lame an instruction as to teach them Subjection only in Civill Matters and leave them either without direction what to doe in the other cases or permit them to make the inference for resistance as these men doe contrary to the very practice of Saint Paul himselfe and all the Apostles and all the Christians of those primitive Times who did yeeld passive obedience under the illegall commands of the then governing Powers But they endeavour to prove it pag. 4. 5. from the context by the inference Whosoever therefore resists c. which is made say they from Gods ordaining the power and if I be bound to be subject to Tyranny or to suffer violence of a Tyrant by vertue of the commandement here then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God and Magistrates have power ordained of God to use Tyrannous violence pag. 4. Answ It followes of Active Subjection not Passive If I be bound actively to obey such commands of Tyranny then would it be truly inferred that Tyranny it selfe were the Ordinance of God but if I be bound only to suffer patiently under the illegall commands of Tyranny then doth it not follow that Tyranny is theordinance of God but that those Tyrants do beare the power ordained of God though abufing it sometimes for the just punishment of those they are set over by God I would also defire these Divines to consider how finely they teach private men to resist by arguing as they doe here If I be bound to be subject to Tyranny c. The like instances repeated over and over they have in the beginning of pag. 5. which are satisfied by the like Answer but they enquire a little after in the same pag. Seeing the Doctor will not say that the most pereusptory refusing to obey actively Tyrannous Commands is resistance by what authority of Text or Context will he stretch the prohibition to the refusing