set new bounds to the Soveraigne Power yet may it stand to keep in a legall way those bounds which the soveraigne Power hath set to it selfe Observe He dares not to say They may keep but only stand to keep nor stand neither but by advice that is morally If he will exceed those bounds the Act is valid and hath all its Authority without them Only he sins if he doe so because he hath promised he would not doe it without them Here 's excellent Limitation and Confinement from exorbitancies A bare promise without such adoe in constituting States and Mixtures would be altogether as good a bounds but of this we shall have more occasion to speake afterward In the close of this Section he turnes back to the p. 21. of my book Sect. 6 and hath somewhat to say to my Assertions about Monarchy by conquest There first I say If the invasion be made upon pretence of Title and the pretender doth prevaile it is not Conquest properly but a Vindication of a Title and then the Government is such as the Title is by which he claimed He tells us He sees no injustice in it if such a one having prevailed should use such a people as a Conquerour p. 19. The Lord keep us from this mans justice What No injustice If the Pretenders Title allowed by a great part of the people he by their aide subdues the rest shall he for their labour crush them into servitude and use the power of a Conquerour without injustice 2. Suppose the people not convinced of the right of his Title make at first some opposition but yet the pretence of his Title and apprehension that he seekes no more power then his Title imports work a yeilding disposition in them so that they withstand not so universally nor so long as they might have done but at length submit to him on his pretended termes were it not high injustice to take advantage on such a people and having them under hatches to desert those termes on which they yeilded and use the full right of a Conquerour This was Englands case with Duke William But the maine thing which sticks by him is something I have delivered p. 23. It is an uncontrolable truth in policie that the consent of the people either by themselves or their Ancestours is the only meane in ordinary providence by which soveraignty is conferred upon any person or family Against this he is very angry and opposeth it in many words but to my Argument from the Morall bond of subjection he sayes nothing at all He termes it good policie but bad divinity p. 20. And sets up an Antiposition that when the invading Prince has perfectly subdued a people there being no heyre to whom they are bound and hath setled and constituted a frame of Government then providence doth sufficiently discover it selfe and such a people ought to submit and take this Prince as set over them by the hand of providence As if these two were contrary I say They are not bound untill they consent He sayes in such a case they are bound to consent because then providence discovers it selfe And he brings Calvin at large to prove that which none denies I grant a people not preobliged fully overcome should much sin against Gods providence by obstinacie if on a meere will they consent not to reasonable termes of subjection But this I say There is no morall obligation to Authority before that consent bind them Conquest may be an Antecedent cause but the immediate and formall cause is only the consent of the people which he cannot say against for that must be morall and not meerely violent The call of providence challengeth a contented submission if there be no reason hindring it but if a precedent Oath or some other sound reason intervene then it is no call requiring submission Neither can the fullest conquest make a people debtors but they remaine free from any morall bond for the providence of God being of it selfe externall can induce no morall state but that providence which on one discovery calls to a submission on a like discovery may free them againe if nothing else come between to render them morally bound A Travellour by the providence of God shut up into the hands of a Robber hath his life and protection promised him in his journey if he will promise to pay him so much money I say this Travailor should sin against his own life and the providence of God offering him those termes if obstinately he refuse submission Yet no man will say he owes the robber so much money because he hath him at his mercy untill he by promise make himselfe a debtor Thus have I made good that maxime of mine to be an uncontrouleable Truth good Policie and good Divinity too maugre all the Doctor hath or can say against it CHAP. IV. Wherein the vanity and falshood of the supposals whereon the Doctor hath built all his discourses is made appeare Sect. 1 AFter a scattered gleaning of passages in the former Sections the Doctor undertakes the two great Questions 1. Of the Constitution of this Monarchy in his Sect. 4. 2. Of Resistence in the remainder of his book Which two we should now immediately pursue but that another work more conducent to the ending of this contention will for a while divert me Errour in the search of controverted truths doth more often arise from the judgement then from the reason Men doe more offend in laying false grounds then in deducing false inferences from true grounds This I have observed in the Doctors bookes He truly argues but from false principles and then the superstructure must needs be answerable so that overthrow his foundations and then all his building will of it selfe ruine into apparent falshood I confesse he every where sayes the same of my Grounds on which I have built that Treatise He cals them false and groundlesse supposals and fancies and what else he pleaseth I will therefore make him a fayre offer Let us make a short work of it let us joyne issue upon our supposals on which both our discourses are built This Doctors supposals which he scarce ever makes shew to prove and on which he hath built his Resolves and Discourses I doubt not to call unsound and false and doe professe the contrary to be my grounds whose truth I will maintaine His may be reduced to foure heads 1. Concerning the Ordinance of God in Soveraignty 2. Concerning the Nature and Quality of Limitation 3. The Meanes and causes of Limitation 4. The Constitution of this Monarchy And according to this order we will take them into examination First Of the Ordinance of God in Magistracy Of Gods ordinance in supremacie He proceeds on two false principles 1. That the Governing power is one and the same which God gives and settles upon the person that is supreme p. 13. that is it is absolute and unlimited in the power it selfe and may be limited only in
what as appeares in the Debate in the end of my Treatise may soone be answered out of the Declarations of the Houses and the fresh memory of past occurrents And in this reply he hath not so much as touched upon that Chapt. of my book But that which in his first Tract he mainely and in this Reply he solely labours to make good is the first Assertion which is a universall one and worthy to be examined in all Ages and Governments whatsoever becomes of this present contention in this Kingdome Now concerning that Thesis in my Treatise of Monarchy I have affirmed and confirmed two things 1. That if he could make it good yet it were nothing to the businesse he hath undertook which is to satisfie the conscience concerning the Unlawfulnesse of Resisting Instruments not the King of which hee hath spoken very little or nothing at all 2. That if he could prove that in some Kingdomes where the will of the King is the peoples Law Resistance of Instruments were unlawfull if actuated by the Soveraignes will Yet in Legall and Limited Governments it doth not follow to be true yet this he must make good if in our present case he satisfie mens consciences as he undertakes These two are the summe of my Answer to the Doctor in that Treatise and if in this Reply he doth any thing he must speake to these points Something he hath here spoken concerning the Ordinance of God in Supremacy Of Cases of Resistance of Kinds of Monarchy of the Constitution of this Monarchy but how truly and satisfactorily it is my part to examine and let the world judge But as if he had already cleared the matter he proceeds to give sentence before the cause be heard And doubts not to call the contrary Resolution a Blaspheming of God and the King p 4. I answer If there be any which will defend the lawfulnesse of taking Armes against the King and in any case to resist the Powers They crosse the evident truth of Scripture and I condemne them Yet me thinks the Doctor deales somewhat severely with them to call them Blasphemers of God for every errour about the word is not Blasphemie but a wilfull and obstinate speaking evill of the things of God Likewise concerning a King if it be true that he be seduced then it is no blasphemie which alwayes is a falshood If it be false yet it is inhumane to call it a blaspheming when it imputes nothing to him but to be seduced which the best and most innocent Prince may be sure if it be a blaspheming it is of the Counsellours and seducers for to them the evill is imputed Then p. 6. He comes to speake of what he intends in this present booke sc that he will cleare this point That the Doctrine teaching that subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties when in danger of subversion is destitute of Scripture and true reason As I said still he drives at a vaine scope to prove that which none denies Let him prove that in our Kingdome Resistance of subversive instruments is a taking Armes against their Soveraigne and he does the work else he proves in vaine But let us see how in the processe of this booke that will be cleared which none doth deny First upon examination of places of Scripture it will appeare that Gods people were continually under Kings which they might not resist c. What then must it needs follow that all other people must too But whether the word containes any thing against Resistance and how far we shall enquire in the processe of this dispute Secondly Vpon the examination of Reason it will appeare how inconsistent such a Power of Resistance in subjects is with Government c. Indeed he will make appeare a great matter would he would speake something to the Question and not proceed so indistinctly I hope in the processe of his book he will come neerer to the businesse then here he promiseth or else all our labour will be to little purpose After he hath told us what great matters we are to expect in his Sect. 3 booke he complaines how much his expectation hath been deceived by his Adversaries He confesses They have great appearance of Reason raised on Aristotles grounds or principles so that at first sight it seemed unreasonable that subjects should be left without this remedy If he speake all this of Resistance of their soveraigne sure it seemes not at all unreasonable but agreeable to all reason that subjects should be without this remedy It is directly against the word and all sound reason that a people lifting up a Person above themselves and by sacred Covenant giving him a Power above themselves should afterward on any pretence assume a power of Resisting that Person and power and violate their own Covenant and Oath of due subjection But if that Person be invested with a limited Power and he proceed to acts of meere arbitrarinesse without the limits of that Power conferred on him Then it is all the reason in the world that the Limiting States should exercise an effectuall restraining Power by resisting instruments of such arbitrary and subversive acts and we have not a sillable of Scripture contradicting it But if it seemed so unreasonable to the Doctor that subjects should be without this remedy why doth he contradict Reason in a businesse within its compasse He tells you He found Reason presently checked with that saying of our Saviour Mat. 10.25 It is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Master And was this all the check your Reason had It is a very weake Reason which would yeeld to such a check What is every Christian bound for his outward state to be in no better case then Christ was If he were pleased to be borne under an absolute Government to be of low and poore condition doth this impose a necessity on all to be no freer no richer then he was A man would think his Reason were not only checked but broken which should so argue Let it be proved that by the providence of God we are brought forth under such a Governement as our Master was then will we hold our selves bound by his example to abide quietly in that condition we are borne to but if God as he hath dispensed to many a richer estate then Christ was pleased to have so hath to us a freer Government then the Apostle adviseth us to use it rather and not to be trifled out of it by a shew of our Masters example in a case in which it binds no man But in what hath his Adversaries so much deceived his expectation He expected expresse Scripture but he finds them altogether fayling only their faith aad perswasion is resolved into an appearance of reason raised upon Aristotles grounds and principles p. 6. Mr Hooker might have taught him that the intent of the Scripture is to deliver us credenda but in matters within
on what weighty reason the Doctor builds this fatall Resolution This were a contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are a levying of warre an opposing of Armies against Armies Sure this man doth much abhorre a Civill Warre I cannot blame him but yet we may buy an immunity too deare at the prize of a subversion of Religion Laws and Government which is the case in dispute This were to choose to be killed rather then to sight To have a State subverted rather then disturbed by a warre to prevent it I grant There must be no contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are But this is the point to be proved that in this case it is so I utterly denie the Royall Power in our State can be communicated to subverting Instruments And I doe in vaine expect while the Doctor prooves that which every where he supposeth For he builds all on this foundation sc That Gods Ordinance is an Absolute unlimited Power investing the whole will of the Supreame and cannot be determined in the exercise but onely morally the vanitie of which conceit will appeare hereafter yet note here in the close that while he pretends a detestation of Civill Warre he could doe nothing more to foment it then by defending such Positions of intolerable servitude Did not such rigid Counsellours of the King of Israel cause the greatest Rent and Civill Warre that ever was made in any Kingdome CHAP. III. An Answer to the third Section which concerns severall kinds of Monarchy IN my opinion it had been fitter to have treated first of severall kinds Sect. 1 of Monarchy and then of Cases of Resistance for the subject in which should precede the Question whereof in all methodicall proceeding Here againe in the first place this Replier would make his Reader believe that penury of Scripture-proofe put me upon distinguishing of severall kinds of Monarchy That so I might lay all the defence of Resistance upon Reason drawne from the severall condition of Monarchies p. 11. I have sufficiently before discovered my intention in that Treatise The Resistence which I defend hath as much proofe from Scripture as a matter of that nature need to have Then he abuses me as finding fault with Divines that pleading for absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Kingdome bring proofes from places of Scripture p. 12. I complaine not of all Divines but some such as this Resolver is Some and that but of late yeares and that but in this kingdome where such doctrines are the rode to preferments nor doe I blame them for bringing proofes for subjection and against Resistance from places of Scripture as he calumniates me but I blame their grosse perverting of Scripture bringing prohibitions of Resistance of Powers against them who condemne it as much as themselves And of violating the Lords annointed against them who hold them as sacred and inviolate yea on more solid grounds then themselves doe And their fraudulent reasoning from one kind of government to another as if all Politicall provisions of States for their Liberties did make no variation in the case but that still they were in the same State as the people subject to the most absolute vassallage Sect. 2 But because he boasts so much of setling mens Consciences on warrant from Scripture that he expects command or allowance of Resistance from Scripture p. 6. That his Adversaries resolve all their faith and perswasion on an appearance of Reason drawne from Aristotles grounds ib. and here that I observe there is but little pretence from Scripture for Resistance and thus would perswade men as if he had all Scripture for him we nothing but a few huskes of reason for us Let him not thinke to carry it thus away with vaunts and big words I will professe here once for all He hath not a sillable of Scripture or right reason to satisfie the conscience with in this controversie If it please this Doctor let us joyne issue upon it and put the whole case on this point The Question betweene us is Whether in a limited Monarchie Resistance of subversive Instruments be unlawfull He affirmes I denie He undertakes to satisfie mens consciences that it is unlawfull bringing not one Text of Scripture which speakes to the point Something he brings to proove it unlawfull to resist the Ordinance of God that the Magistrate which is supreame under God is above all Resistance p. 84. He doth great matters who doubts of these things Then p. 84. he accumulates nine Arguments but all so non concluding that ninescore of them will not make one sound proving Reason of the point in question as it will appeare when we come to consider them On the other side we have both to settle mens consciences on 1. Examples of Scripture sc The peoples rescue of Jonathan Davids armie against the cut-throats of Saul that is subversive Instruments These being particular men and in an absolute Monarchie proove the point the more strongly so strongly that the Doctor is faine to flie to that ordinary evasion of an extraordinarie priviledge Besides all those places which prove it lawfull to resist private men seeking to subvert Lawes and Religion and the publike good sith in a limited State they are but private men though backed with a Commission from the Kings will and pleasure 2. Then for Reason I have set downe five p. 53. all unanswerably concluding the point in Question as I doubt not the considerate Reader will acknowledge He professes p. 12. That it was never his intent to plead for absolutenesse of Power in the King if by absolutenesse of Power be meant a Power of Arbitrary Command What his intent is I know not but he hath fully done the thing or I have no understanding to see when a thing is done In the precedent Section he resolves all cases into the Arbitrium Regis the meere pleasure of the King allowing the Houses of Parliament only a power of staying the hands of destroyers till it be expressely knowne whether it be the Kings pleasure they shall be destroyed And I am confident the meanest apprehension will discerne that they who make the Monarchs sole Will the last judge of all controversies and simply deny in the last case of subversion all Power of Resistance of Instruments even to the supreame Courts of Law and justice doe without any controversie resolve all government into an Arbitrarie Absolutenesse He adds We allow a distinction of Monarchies and admit the Government of Kingdomes to be of divers kinds and acknowledge a legall restraint upon the Power of the Monarch in this Kingdome Verba datis rem negatis you allow indeed a kind of distinction of Monarchies but all within the compasse of Absolute A legall restraint you seeme to acknowledge but such an one as resolves into the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch as I have made it appeare in my former Treatise and you will never be able to wipe off by this or any other Reply Then
he promises that in this Booke certaine points will appeare to be truth agreeable to Scripture and Reason sc That Government is not the invention of man but the institution of God That Governours have their Power not from the people but from God That Governing Power is one and the same in all supreames and can only be limited in the exercise And that where a Prince stands supreme and next to God above all the people there the Subiects may not take armes and make forceable resistance for any exorbitances These severall Propositions how farre they contain Truth and how far not I shall in the sequell make appear After these great promises he proceeds p. 13. to speake somewhat of the Originall of Governing Power and accuseth me as if I seemed to Sect. 3 affirme it to be from God but in the processe of my booke he finds me deriving it indeed from the people I perceiving two contrary opinions concerning the Originall of Government did in that Treatise endeavour to reconcile them and to shew in what sence both are true To that end as there is manifest p 4. I distinguished 3 things 1 It 's constitution 2 It 's Limitation to one kind 3 It 's determination to one individuall Person and Family The first of these I did affirme to be from God The two latter from Men and then concluded In these things we have Doctour Fernes consent Let us see what exceptions he can take at this peaceable assay of Reconcilement In the processe of my Discourse he findes me deriving it from the people What then Doe I denie it thereby to be from God as if Subordinates did exclude one another God hath ordained that Powers should be People by vertue of that Ordinance give them existence in this or that kind and subiect The Doctor acknowledges all this but not in my sence p. 14. He grants the Designation of the Person and the Limitation of the Power to severall kinds to be from the consent of the People I say no more why doe we not then agree The plaine truth is The Doctor will not have Limitation of Power to be at all from the people what ever he pretends How then the Limitation of the Power to severall kinds is from the people as the Doctor yeelds I cannot tell Is not Limitation of it into kinds Limitation of the Power it selfe But he is possessed that my sound sence is another sence from his what other he doth not shew but it is another which he likes not Why Because sometimes I say the people reserve a Power to oppose or displace the Magistrate Sometime they divest themselves of all superiority 'T is true I say so but withall I say that when they reserve such a Power they constitute no Monarchy Is it not so in the highest Ministers of Power in Aristocracies and Democracies What can he say against so apparent a Truth 2. I call them p. 63. Architectonicall Powers This he derides and saies This is the riddle of this Governing Power originally in the people They are Architectonicall Powers but build upon foundations laid in the aire p. 14 Then he gives his reason For before Government established they have not any politique Power whereby a Command may be laid upon others but only a naturall power of private resistance This is false that they have onely a naturall power of private Resistance They have indeed no formall politique power for we speake of a people free from all government but they have a virtuall radicall power by publike consent and contract to constitute this or that forme of Government and resigne up themselves to a condition of subjection on Termes and after a form of their owne constitution so the Athenians Lacedemonians and Romans of old having expelled their Kings and the Vnited Provinces with others of latter times have done This is that which I called Architectonicall Power and the Replier vainly carpes at the name when he cannot denie the thing But I know what he aimes at in all this sc That Gods Ordinance is an absolute boundlesse Power in all Supremes uncapable of any limitation but in the exercise Of which fully afterwards Sect. 4 At length He takes a nearer view of the Formes of Monarchie spoken of by me and makes a few observations upon such particulars at him pleaseth p. 14. Let us follow his steps First for Absolute Monarchie whereas I say it is when Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limitation under God but the Monarches owne will He approoves my description but threatens to remember it below p. 15. Let him doe so and make his best advantage of it only here he cannot forbeare one note that then it is not the deniall of resistance which makes a Monarch absolute but the deniall of a law to bound his Will I doe grant it but with all I say that it is necessariò consequutivum though it be not constitutivum for sith a Monarch which is obsolute hath no Law to bound his Will but his very Will is the Subjects Law then every act of his Will is Gods Ordinance and so by consequence it is unresistible Also p. 15. He allowes it when I say A limited Monarch is he who hath a Law besides his owne Will for the measure of his power But yet he dislikes that I say He must be limited in the Power it selfe and not only in the exercise and I added a reason for an Absolute Monarch may stint himselfe in the exercise of his Power and yet remaine absolute What saies he to this True if such a Monarch limit himself and reserve a Power to vary but if he fix a Law with promise not to varie then in those cases he is limited Note the fraud of this Replier he alters his terms and puts things as opposite which are not so He should say if be limit himselfe and reserve a power to varie then he is absolute but if he limit himselfe and reserve no Power to varie for then the opposition is direct then he is limited But in stead of saying and reserve no power to varie he saies but if he promise not to vary I say that promise not to vary if it be a simple promise of not varying it doth not make him limited in his Power any more then morally and so every Absolute Monarch is limited I affirme still it is Limitation of the Power it selfe not barely of the exercise which constitutes a Limited Monarch for Monarchy is a state of Power and therefore it 's specificative distinction must be from something which distinguisheth Powers and not the exercise of Powers but this is enough proved in the 5 t page of that Treatise Secondly he blames me for that I suppose a Limited Monarch must be radically that is originally invested with such a measure of limited Power and that limited ab externo and not from the free determination of his owne Will Here he adds originally of his owne that so
facto it is so in this Government every one may discerne the necessary truth of these inferences 1. That in this Government the exceeding Acts of the Princes will being out of the compasse of his Authority can not authorize their Instruments 2. That hereon Resistance of them is no other then of private men not of Authority or Gods Ordinance But because the Doctors chiefe confidence is in this part of his discourse and he is large in it I will therefore goe on in my work and will briefly make appeare that his Reasons are infirme and his Authorities impertinent and his Answers very insufficient for having been so large in making good my supposals and overthrowing his I may the more contract my selfe in this remaining businesse In this Section he proposeth two things 1. To consider how I state the point of Resistance in the kinds of Governments 2. To prove that Limitation and Mixture in government doe not imply a forceable constraining Power in subjects p. 39. I will follow him in both My stating the Question vindicated He begins with a charitable censure of my stating the Question and sayes he finds it to be in a way that lies very open to Rebellion p. 33. Let the Reader judge I am sure his Resolves and Determinations are not in a way to destroy all liberty and make all Governments Arbitrary but directly doe it Then for my maintaining the Person of the Monarch in all Formes to be above the reach of Force he approves it yet sayes I allow subjects to raise Armies to give battle to those that are about him as his guard He wrongs me I say not his guard but subversive seducers and instruments Those which he called cut-throates in his first booke now he repents he gave that hard name to his clients whom he pleades so hard to save harmelesse and makes them amends with the stile of a Guard A guard which bring him into greater danger then all his enemies who bring him into battell to save themselves where Ordnance and Musket can put no difference No They use him as their guard If harme befall him which God avert the guilt and punishment will fall on them who are so prodigall of hazarding his sacred Person not on those who could desire nothing more then his security by absence from a multitude who by undertaking the subversion of Religion and Lawes for that is the Doctors supposition bring themselves in danger of condigne destruction Then he proceeds to Resistance in an Absolute State Where I affirme If such a Monarch should seeke the destruction of the whole Community his instruments of such inhumanity may be resisted He dares not deny it but would know what I doe meane by the whole community I meane the whole simely or the whole interpretatively that is the greater part and therefore his exception of the Jewes in the Kingdome of Ahasuerus or the Templers in the Westerne Kingdomes is not to the purpose but the instance which I bring of the Law-Countries comes home for they were the whole community but the Replier corrupts it when he saith the Spanish King intended the extirpation of the Protestants only p. 34. For he intended not only theirs but of all Papists and else which would not admit the introduction of an Arbitrary Government and the subversion of their liberties as the histories thereof make plaine Here in this 34. page the Doctor shewes a bad mind Taking occasion to excuse the Rebels in Ireland as if they might justifie themselves on these grounds and intimating a falshood as if the Parliament did intend their extirpation hereby declaring how ill he likes any effectuall course for the rooting out of Popery out of the Kingdomes Indeed he sayes he pleads not for them but yet he doth it He finds out arguments for them and shews them a way both how to excuse themselves and accuse the Parliament and to call a resolution of cleansing that Iland from Popery an extirpation of their Nation He sayes the example of David proves not this being but a particular Man I say it proves it the more strongly as shall appeare Then if a particular mans life be invaded without any plea of reason I suppose it hard to deny him the liberty of positive resistance of agents and prove it by the instance of the peoples rescue of Jonathan and Davids of himselfe where the peoples Oath and Davids Army with his enquiry at Keilah doe prove a serious and reall purpose of Resistance let the Doctor say what he please to the contrary so that these examples come home to justifie resistance in such case even in an Absolute Monarchy for here are particular men in an absolute Monarchy assaulted without plea of reason for that Jonathan who had wrought such a deliverance should die for tasting in his ignorance a little honey there was no colour of reason the Kings rash oath was none And that David should be put to death whom Saul himselfe oft with his own mouth professed innocent and absolved was as much without plea of reason so that here I need not flie to the Doctors shift of an extraordinary case as he tells me I must p. 35. I acknowledge no extraordinary case in these examples Take them in their due extent and they justifie no more then I have asserted and so much they doe In my 5. Assertion p. 11. Of submitting States Liberties and Persons to the will of an Absolute Monarch carrying any plea of reason He faults my Order and tells me it should have been first It seems this mans eye can spie small faults but why first he doth not say I think in stating of the question of resistance I may as well begin with the Affirmative and shew first when it may be used and then when it ought not as on the contrary but he will make a fault where he finds none But what sayes he to the Assertion He grants it but dislikes the limitation so it carry plea or shew of reason and sayes here the way is open enough to rebellion p. 36. No opener then himselfe makes it p. 10. This is usuall with him when he dislikes a thing He can speak no lesse words then Rebellion But why sayes he so Every man will be ready to think there is no reason nor equity in the will of the Monarch when he is oppressed by him He may well enough if hee be oppressed but yet there may be a plea and colour of equity even for an Act of Oppression and in an Absolute Monarchy it will little availe a man though he think there is no reason for it for he must not be his own judge nor hath he any outward judge to appeale to but the Reasonable will of the Monarch himselfe if he submit to its determination there is no feare of Rebellion if not I have done with him in such a Government Of Saules censure of Jonathan and David I have spoken already and made it appeare it had no
will Whereas we have prooved that in limited Governments it is not so but to the Princes Will measured and regulated by a Law and therefore they have that power still in respect of all instruments of acts of Will not so regulated But it is observable that p 95. the Doctour is beaten off from his owne grounds and yeelds up in the Close of his booke a full Victory to Truth Which will appeare if we looke backe to his first booke and Sect. 1. where he proposeth the Question in his own termes whither if a King be bent or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Subjects may take up armes and resist He undertakes to maintaine the Negative and here was the beginning of the controversie Now see in this Replie how he is sunck and stollen off from that which he undertooke to defend and upon the matter grants us the Cause For 1. By bent or seduced to subvert he tels us he means not a purpose of the mind but doing many Acts arbitrarily tending to subuersion as if he would yeeld that supposing him bent that is purposing and intending it in his mind and course he might be resisted 2. Nay by bent to subvert he does not meane so much as Acts subversive but onely Acts tending to subversion of themselves for the frame of government and Lawes cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses So that now the Question is rather Whither subversion be possible by such instruments then whether their Resistance be lawfull Sure it were pitty to disturbe them by Resistance in an impossible worke Let them run on rather till they see their owne vanity and folly but suppose they should bring it to passe then it would be too late to come to this Doctor and tell him he was deceived and did deceive Certainly those great Polititians who have had this designe in managing so many yeares are not of his mind Yea suppose it cannot be done without the consent of the Houses yet the Doctour can tell us in another case that where there is an unresistible power Consent cannot long be wanting What then will he yeeld us a power of Resistance if we can proove such a designe possible Here also because the Doctor sayes this liberty which I allow a State for its preservation tends rather to its subversion p. 94. and every where calumniates me as an inducer of confusion and Anarchie and my Assertions as opening a way to Rebellion It concernes me effectually to vindicate my selfe and the truth which I maintaine from these aspersions and make it appeare that the power of Resistance I defend is not a remedy worse then the disease of subversion Which I can doe no better way then by a positive setting downe the naked truth which I averre in this and the former Treatise and shew how it shuts up every way to these evills which he layes uncharitably to my charge 1. I assert no forceable Resistance in any case but subversive and extreme 2. Subversive and extreme cases respect either particular men or the whole state and Government For particular men even in extreme cases of state or life I allow no publike Resistance but appeale if it may be had or if not yet no publike Resistance for whether the wrong be done him by inferiour or superiour Magistrates either it is 1. Under forme and course of Law and power committed them and then to resist is to resist the power 2. Or without all forme and course of Law and power committed to them and then a man values his state and life too high to make publike resistance and bring on the state a generall disturbance for his private good and sins though not against Gods ordinance of Power in this case yet against the publike peace and weale For the whole state or government and the last cases of its subversion of which the Doctor puts the Question 1. I condemne all force used against the Person of the supreme or his Power and Authority in any inferiour Ministers thereof 2. I averre not publike forceable resistance of Ministers of acts of will which are only actuall invasions or excesses of limitation and not such as plainly argue a bent of subversion and apparent danger thereof if prevention be not used so that the Doctor goes from the Question and comes home to me when he sayes here that he speakes only of the former sort 3. I affirme not force in this utmost case to be assumed by private men against destructive instruments of the Princes will as if any man were warranted on his own imagination of publike danger to raise forces for prevention But the Courts of Justice and especially the supreme Court to whom the conservation of Government and Law is committed and a Power not only to resist but also censure and punish its violaters much more its subverters without regard of number or warrant The Law supposing no warrant can be in such case This is the power of Resistance which I have asserted and it this be inducing of civill warre or a way to subversion and Rebellion It is a warre raised by defenders of Law against subverters of Law A Rebellion raised by Magistrates having Authority against instruments of arbitrarinesse having no authority A resistance tending to subversion but of none but subverters 'T is good reason then it seemes if destroyers grow to the number and strength of an Army for Magistrates to let them alone and not raise armes to suppresse them lest they open a way to confusion and bring on the miseries of a civill Warre This is the Doctors preservative Doctrine and my contrary is destructive 4. I argued from the end of the institution of the Houses and their interest in making Laws and preserving the frame He sayes this is grounded on my false supposall of their being joyned with the King in the very soveraigne power p. 96. Answer I have justified that supposall and manifested his strange boldnesse in denying it against the Kings and so many Parliaments direct affirmations and desire the reader to take notice that this is Calvins argument for Resistance in the place above recited how ever the Doctor doth make so light of it 5. From the power of inferiour Courts to punish violaters of Law though pretending a warrant of the Kings will for it He sayes this Argument is inconsequent to prove power of raysing Armies to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne He hastens to a conclusion and weighs not much what he answers I say it concludes inevitably for if the Kings warrant to violate Law will not priviledge one from force of justice then not a hundred not an Army of violaters Their multitude makes the danger greater and the Kingdome more unhappy not Malefactors more priviledged The forces of the Soveraigne in truth are the Forces raised to defend his Government not those which are raised to subvert it They are his which have his Authoritative will not those which have only his arbitrary If ever Reasons did demonstrate a truth I am confident these five have made good The power of the estates in Parliament to resist subversive instruments be they more or fewer Thus have I traced this Authour through his Reply and whether Sect. 3 I have not sufficiently vindicated my Treatise from it I referre my selfe to the conscience of every one who hath the understanding of a judicious man and the impartiality of a just man In my cap. 8. is a moderate debate of the present contention and divers Petitions tending to pacification if it had been possible but he toucheth not on that chapt His discourse shewes him to have nothing to doe with Moderation nor doth desire Peace but on the termes of a full dedition into the hands of subversive instruments I have done with him He resolved I Answered He hath replyed I have returned on it I am even with him and in truth above him I am sure Now I desire to spin out this contention no longer Yet if he or any else please to rejoyne I wish he would save himselfe and me a labour to let alone the booke and deale only with the 4th and 5th Chapters concerning the Doctors supposals if he can make good them and invalidate mine as much as in me lieth I will yeild him the cause but I judge it impossible if I know what is impossible The God of spirits allay the spirits of men from this extreme opposition And give such a issue to these wofull warrs that the scepter of Christ the Gospell of Peace may be fully submitted to and maintained by a King enjoying inviolate his due soveraignty and a People their due and lawfull liberties Amen PHIL. 4.5 Let your moderation be known unto all men The Lord is at hand FINIS