in his first Treatise that he wonalted we cannot see the King is Vniversis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse then all three Upon this I call'd him again to his reckoning telling him that if the King and Lords concurre and the Commons refuse it is easy to reckon that of three one is lesse then two repeating his words so not for any advantage but meerly to make him speake sense he because he cannot answer the retortion complaines of wilfull and grosse mistake of his words which were saith he that of three one is lesse then all three i. e. a part then the whole But is that your meaning of Rex est Vniversis minor i. e. the King alone is lesse then the King Lords and Commons together who cannot see that the Comparison is between the King and the other two and that in your rule of three Coordinates if one refuse there remaines but two to make the supply and that thereupon you should have said if you would speake sence that of three one is lesse then two I have heard Children when their disorderly Babies have beene taken from them and presently returned them again in frame and order complaining because they received them not as they parted with them so doth this Answerer of the putting his words into sense Let us now see how in the same Section he answers for the Kings danger at Keinton Battell Aâ— in the making of Lawes saith he the King presence or absence alters not the case so in the executing of the Lawes against Delinquents the Kings presence can no more hinder then his command Answ His presence or absence does not indeed in the making Lawes but his Consent is all which he may give either present or absent but will you for the Executing of the Lawes take armes without his consent and use them too against him personally present or wil you say that your giving him battell at Keinton was an executing of the Lawes against Delinquents produce your Law that enables you to such a proceeding against your pretended delinquents Nor were the hands of the Parliaments Army lifted up against the King more then Davids whom the Doctor cites who resisted his and the kings enemies though about the kings person ibid. Ans It doth not appeare where David did make that resistance but it is the unhappinesse of these men to ground all their resistance upon false suppositions first they suppose David would have done it then they positively set downe that he did it thence they conclude they may doe it and acccordingly have done it and much more The rest of this Section he thought good neglecting what was rationall in mine to spend in naming Delinquents in Yorkeshire for whose apprehension and the bringing of them to Justice the Parliament tooke Armes Answ All those examples of Delinquents followed their putting of armed men into Hull their seizing the Magazine there their denying the King enterance their denying eo bring Sir Iohn Hotham to Justice and in these if any Delinquents were detained and protected from their justice as he complaines he may read the carse of it But these are matters of Fact we are now upon the point of Reason In his sixt Section he altogether neglects the cases which were put him upon his placing the finall resolution of this States judgement in the two Houses and onely fastens upon that which was spoken occasionally concerning Conquest First for his Answer touching the Ammonites subdued by David That Abrahams posterity was entituled to their Land by God Gen. 13.14 I would desire him to looke into Deut. 34.4 where the Lord gives Moses a sight of that promised Land saying This is the Land which I sware to Abraham c and to examine whether he can find the Land of the Ammonites in that prospect And surely if the Ammonites had been of the Inhabitants of that Land David would not have held league and frienship with them as we see he does 2 Sam. 10. Next for Davids subduing of Edom he answers The Doctor himselfe confesseth they revolted from Judah What then had they been before under Iudah and upon their Revolt subdued by David then indeed it had been not a Conquest but a Reduction but the Doctor confesses they revolted from Iehoram Ring of Judah 2 Chro. 21. therefore they were justly subdued or reduced that must be his inference by David 1 Chron. 18. doth he know what he saith But God had given Israel saith he a speciall promise for it too over Edom will I cast my shooe Psal 60.8 Answ This Psalme was made upon that very expedition in which Edom was subdued as appeares by the title of it and were those words spoken by the Spirit of Prophecy yet doe they not make a grant but only speak the successe of that enterprise which then was undertaken Nor had the Romans any right over Iudaea by Conquest saith he but by consent of the People Conquered without which consent all his Momenta temporum he speaks of to make a right or title are like those Moments of the Papists Antiquitie to make a Truth Ans We finde the Iewes confederate with the Romans 1. Mac. 8. and not long after their Subjects brought under by Pompey we cannot think they changed their condition willingly but that their consent was forced by the Conquerour Conquest then wil easily command that which will give it Title in these mens opinion And though no antiquity can make falshood Truth yet are there Momenta temporum when providence which translates Kingdomes and can give Title to the Conquerour doth discover it selfe and then the Conquered People ought to consent to and receive the Government which the Conquerour settles among them â—â—e above at the end of the third Sect. where the Title of Conquest is examined There is nothing in his seventh Sect. worthy of the Readers patience in hearing it refuted onely hee makes shew of some Statutes which truly I could not find nor was there cause why I should bestow much time in seeking them for a litle Logick will serve to discerne that the words he cites out of them will not inferre any conclusions prejudiciall to his adversary His last and eight Section concernes Scripture he mutters some thing in it concerning Davids fighting against Saul and the absolutenesse of the Iewish Kings which shall be distinctly and largely considered in my next Section And for the new Testament he turnes his Reader over to the interpretation which the Reverend and learned Divines having given on the 13th to the Romans and which he so farre magnifies that he beelieves the Doctor will not reply in haste so he concluds his booke and he shall see he had cause so to believe when we come to the consideration of that place SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament NOw wee come to the examination of what is alleadged out of Scripture in this cause whereby it will appeare that
A REPLY UNTO SEVERALL TREATISES PLEADING FOR THE Armes now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of RELIGION AND LIBERTY By name unto The Reverend and Learned Divines which pleaded Scripture and Reason for defensive Arms. The Author of the Treaâ—ise of Monarchy The Author of the Fuller Answer his Reply By H. Fern D. D. c. OXFORD Printed by Leonard Lichfield Printer to the â—niversity 1643. The Contents of the severall SECTIONS SECT I. The Preface In which the contradictory Assertions of the Adversaries pag. 2 3. The Generall Resolution of the Cause pag. 4. Doctrine of Sedition pag. 5. 6. SECT II. Cases of Resistance in regard of times of peace or War and in regard of Persons Private or publique pag. 7. c. SECT III. A defence of Subjects Armes in vaine sought by the distinction of Monarchy pag. 11. 12. The Governing Power is so derived from God upon Him who is Supream that the People cannot lessen or limit it but onely in the exercise pag. 13 14. Of an Absolute and Limited Monarch pag. 15. Limitation and Mixture may be by after condescent of the Monarch and onely reach the Exercise of the power pag. 15. 16 17. Mixture differs from Derivation of Power to substitute Officers pag. 17. 18. Of Monarchy by Conquest pag. 18. Providence may so farre discover it selfe by Conquest that the People Conquered shall be bound to consent and yeeld obedience to the Conqueror as to a Prince set over them by God pag. 19. 20 SECT IIII. The Constitution of this Monarchy The Entrance of the Saxon and Norman Conquerours urged not to prove our Kings absolute but to disprove such an Originall Limitation and Mixture as the Adversary phansyeth in this Monarchy pag. 21. to 28. Reasons for such Originall Limitation and Mixture answered pag. 28. 29. Proofes for it from His Majesties Grants answered pag. 30. 31. 32. SECT V. Of Resistance in relation to an Absolute Monarchy pag. 33. 34. 35. in relation to a Limited Monarchy pa. 36. 37. 38. Limitation and Mixture in Monarchy doth not infer a power of Resistance in Subjects pag. 39. 40. c. SECT VI. A Refutation of the most considerable passages of His Reply that first styled himselfe Author of the Fuller Answer pag. 43. to 56. SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament The Institution of the Israelitish Kingdome in which the Jus Regis implyed a security from Resistance pag. 56 57 58 59. The Rescue of Jonathan pag. 60. Davids demeanour towards Saul infers not a power of resistance in Subjects pag. 61 62. His enquiry about the intent of the Kâ—ilites pag. 63. Something extraordinary in the example of David pag. 64 65. The Prophets never called upon the Elders of the People for this pretended duty of Resistance pag. 66. SECT VIII Of Resistance forbidden in the 13. to the Romans The place is considerable as it speakes of Government in Gener all and as it relates to those Times and Governours pag. 67 That it is Powers in the plurall and in the Abstract vainly observed and applyed by the Reverend Divines pag. 67 68 69. That Subjection is not here restrained to Legall Commands in Civill matters only as they would have it pag 69. to 77. That Christians might not resist because Religion then was not established by Law and because the Emperours then were Absolute as the Author of the Treat of Monarchy would have it is not the reason of the Apostles prohibition pag. 77. 78. Of the absolutenesse of those Emperours before Vespasians time and of the Power of the Senate and of the Lex Regia pag. 79 c. SECT IX Nine Reasons against Power of Resistance in Subjects drawn from the Consideration of the wisdome of God who put his people under Kings without power of Resisting them in the Old and New Testament pag. 84. Of the Ordinance of God that places the Power of the Sword in Him that is supreme which cannot be eluded by saying they resist not the Monarch but misimployed fellow Subjects about Him pag. 85. 86. 87. Of the mischiefes and inconveniences that would follow upon such a power of Resistance in Subjects c. pag. 90. 91. Their reasons to the contrary answered pag. 93. c. A brief consideration of the Case That they are far from what they pret nd the defence of Religion Laws and Liberties by these Armes and the Resistance now made pag. 96. 97. A REPLY TO SEVERALL TREAtises pleading for the Arms now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of Religion and and Liberties SECT I. THE PREFACE IF it be enquired why any Reply at all or why so late I may say I had determined not to be any more troublesome and that there was no just cause why I should be were it well weighed what was said on both sides but I must once again beg leave to say something the Importunity of Adversaries or the expectation of Friends enforcing it by way of Answer to some Books not long since issued forth There are two especially which have drawn the eyes of many upon them the one bears this title Scripture and Reason pleaded for defensive Armes by Divers Reverend and Learned Divines Who by laying their heads together have not found out any more forceable Arguments or satisfying Answers then they which went before them but only some newcases of Resistance to amuse the Reader and new instances to inforce former Reasons and some popular amplifications to set off the old Answers thereby making the book swell to that bignesse it appears in The other book bears this Title A Treatise of Monarchie by whom I know not but surely the Author however he looks not with a single eye upon what I had written misconstruing it many times doth with much ingenuity disclaime and with no lesse reason confute severall Assertions of those Learned Divines and other Writers of the Party assertions that have very much help't forward this Rebellion such as these That the King is Universis minor That the People which make the King are above Him by the Rule Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale That the finall judgement of this State is in the two Houses That the Christians in the Primitive times might have resisted had they had force These and the like he ingenuously disclaimes but being engaged he sets up his Rest upon a groundlesse fancy of such a mixture and constitution of this Monarchie as mustinable the Houses to restrain the exorbitancies of the Monarch by the Arms of the Kingdom and to induce a beliefe of this he has prefixed a discourse of Absolute Limited and Mixed Monarchies so framed as is most applyable to his purpose He that wrote the Fuller Answer to my first Treatise had this conceit of Mixture whereby he placed the Houses in the very Supremacy of power and did thence as one falshood being granted doth necessarily inferre another conclude that the Members of the Houses were the Kings Subjects divisâ—m
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
book in clearing the poynt according to his own principles and then comming to apply what he had said touching Limited and Mixed Monarchyes to the Government of this Land he complaines of us Divines that we plead for Absolutenesle of Monarchicall power in this Kingdome never making any difference of Powers but bringing proofes for Subjection and against Resistance from places of Scripture a sore fault and examples which concerne the manner of the government of Iudah Israell and the Romans as if that which holds in our government did alwaies hold in another so he pag. 33. And then he endeavours to prove this Monarchy to be so mixed as that the Houses of Parliament be originally joyned with the Monarch in the Soveraign Power Whence he thinks he has both an answer to places and examples taken out of Scripture that they belonged to absolute Monarchies are not appliable to ours and also a demonstration of his conclusion for Resistance viz. that by the Mixed condition of this Monarchy as he phansyeth it the two Houses are vested with power to restraine with force of Armes the Exorbitances of the Monarch Ans It was never my intent nor was I suppose of other Divines to plead for absolutenesse of Power in the King if by absolutenesse of power be meant as it should be a power of Arbitrary command but if by Absolutenesse of Power this Author means as he doth sometimes a Power not to be resisted or constrained by force of Armes raised by Subjects such a power we plead for and do say That as those places and examples out of Scripture did forbid resistance then and shew no warrant for it can be had either by precept or example out of Gods word so doe they condemne resistance in this Government though Limited as shall be shewen 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 but when this Author has made all the advantage he can of his Limited and mixed formes of Monarchy it will not availe him for the Countenancing of Armes taken up by Subjects for this will appeare to be truth agreeable to Scripture and Reason That â—overnment is not the invention of man but the institution of God whereby he rules men by men set over them in his stead and though hee doth not now immediatly designe those his Vicegerents but by other meanes bee it by the choice of the People yet have they their power not from the People to whom it belongs to bee governed and doe by choosing a Governour seeke a benefit safely but from â—od by vertue of his institution of Government Also that the Governing Power is one and the same which God gives and settles upon the Person that is Supreme and stands immediatly next to God betweene Him and the People onely that Power may bee Limited in the exercise of it as the People by agreement at first or by Petition after can procure Also that where the Prince stands Supreme and next to â—od above all the People there Subjects may not take Armes and make forceable Resistance notwithstanding he be exorbitant in the exercise and use of that Power to the invasion of such Rights and Priviledges as they enjoy by first compact or after procurement The pleaders for resistance on the other side do wilfully embrace and rest upon the Opinion of Heathen writers touching the beginning of Government and the derivation of the Governing Power from the People as if they had not Scripture which the Heathen wanted to give them better direction herein The Authour of the Treatise of Monarchy seemes to referre the beginning of Government to Gods ordinance and to affirme the power to be from God Pag. 2. but in the processe of his booke wee shall finde him deriving it indeed from the People and Pag. 4. he concludes thus for both They which say that Soveraignes have their Power from God speake in some sense truth as also they Which say that originallie power is in the People may in a sound sense be understood and in these things we have D. Fernes consent in his discourse upon this Subject Sect. 3. Answ you had not his consent in your sense for in that Sect. it was his intent to shew that the Governing Power i such an Authority or sufficiency for command and coertion was from God though the designation of the Person be by choice of the People and the limitations of that power in severall kinds of Monarchy be by their consent and agreement Now if to designe the Person or procure limitation of the power in the exercise of it bee in your sound sense to give the power there 's no great harme to us or advantage to you you must have the power originally from the people in another sense or else you can make no pretence by it for your grounds of Resistance and so you doe when you tell us Pag. 16. they sometime reserve a power to oppose or displace the Magistrate sometime they make the Monarch Supreme and then they divest themselves of all Superiority and have no power left to oppose him in Person and Pag. 63. you call them Architectonicall powers committing the power of Government and Armes c. This is the riddle of this governing power originally in the people they are Architect powers but build upon foundations laid in the aire they are invested with Superioritie but none can tell over whom besides themselves they reserve a power but such as they never had for before Government established they have not any power of a community or politique power whereby a command may be laid upon others but onely a naturall power of private Resistance wherewith every one of them is in particular endued which power they cannot use against the publique Magistrate when once they have designed him Now let us take a neerer view of the formes of Monarchy spoken of by this Author and make a few observations upon such particulars as wil be of more necessary consideration when we come to the examination of Scripture of Reason and of the Constitution of this Monarchy First he tels us Absolute Monarchy is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but the Monarchs owne will so it is when a People are absolutely resigned up or doe resigne up themselves to be governed by one man pag. 6. We allow this description but must remember it below when this Author will tell us the Israelitish Kings were absolute Monarchs which will not appeare by this description also when he tels us that to make a Monarch irresistible is to make him absolute for we see by this description it is not the denyall of resistance that makes a Monarch absolute but the denyall of a Law to bound his will In the next place he tels us He is a limited Monarch who hath a Law besides