against misimployed agents and from the taking of those armes to make this resistance they conceive they are not debarred by His being Supreaeme Head and Governour but are enabled to it by a supposed reservation of the people and by the necessity of the States preservation requiring such a power of resistance in Subjects upon which grounds their Reasons for resistance doe mainly proceed I shall therefore so frame this tryall of Reason to which we are now come as it may best meet with the force of their Reasons and Exceptions I. It was the wisdome of God to put his people still under Kings without power of resistance as we found it in the two former Sections and that wisdome of God should be to us in stead of the most forcible Reason and silence all gainsaying pretences II. If this power of Resistance in Subjects were so necessary for the preserving of Religion and Justice as is pretended certainly the word of God would have given direction for it but as in the Old Testament we no where finde the Prophets calling upon the Elders of the people sin thâ—â— supposed dâ—â—y of resistance so in the New Testament we every where finde patience in suffering for well doing no mended to 〈◊〉 This Author of the Treat of Monarchy doth often admire the wisedome of the Architects of this Government that so provided for the safety of it by placing such power of Armes and resistance in the two Houses but we doe not find such a provision within that wisdome and care which it pleased God to shew in the Government he put his people under nor would we indeed finde such a power of forcible resistance provided in the constitution of this monarchy when we examined it above III. From the Institution and Ordinance of God which gives the power according to the Apostles argument who drawes his reason against resistance not from any Compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God which cannot be Eâ—uded by any reservation of the people the pretended ground of resistance but shewes the power given by it must be borne with though abused as then it was when the Apostle gave his reasons against resistance IIII. To be Supream and next to God over the people or to have the power of the sword implyes a security from resistance It is the Ius Regis which Calvin and most Authors acknowledge upon 1 Sam. 8.11 and is expressed Prov. 30.31 A King against whom there is no rising up It is generally acknowledged that Princes which be supreame are free from the Coactive power of the Law It is apparent that resistance cannot be made by Subjects but by taking the power of the Sword which belongs to him that is supream Lastly it is evident in reason that if the two Houses be enabled to resist and constraine the Prince by force to his duty then have they the power of the Lacedaemonian Ephori which as this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy acknowledges does overthrow the Soveraignity of the Monarch The generall exception which the Adversaries make to these two last Reasons is that they resist not the Soveraigne power but only misimployed instruments and fellow Subjects executing his illegall commands Answ As if the Soveraignes could by himselfe execute his Commands without under Ministers of power so that the resisting of them acting by the power which he has committed to them is a resisting of him And such a resistance as is supposed in the Question necessarily proceeds to an opposing of Him personally in giving of Him Battell and forcing of Him from His Right and Power to new grants of Security In particular This Author of the Treat of Monarchie thus reasons from the Ordinance of God To Resist such misimployed Instruments is no resisting of the Ordinance of God for it neither resists the Person of the Soveraigne for we spake of resisting his Agents nor His Power for the measure of that in our Government is the Law therefore He cannot confer Authoritie to any beyond the Law page 52. Answ I would desire this Author to looke againe upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which he rejects page 63. They run thus Those Govern urs whether Supream or others who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet peaceable life in Godlinesse and honesty are far from being Gods Ordinance in so doing also This Tyranny not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with Armes resist not the Ordinance of GOD and then to consider whether those Dâ—vines might not in desence of those Assertions answer as he has done here that to resist the misimployed Agents of Tyrants commanding against Law is not to resist the Ordinance of God for they cannot confer Authoritie to any against the Law for my part I cannot conceive how he can retaine his own Assertion and reject theirs But to Answer him more particularly He that beares the Sword i. e has the supreame power gives power and Commission to under Ministers for executing of Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If those therefore though abusing the Power be resisted by them who are under them it is a resisting of the Power and if these in time of Warre and insurrection being drawn together by the Soveraigne and acting His Commands under Him be opposed by contrary force and armes of Subjects it is a resisting of the power lawfully placed in such persons though illegally used and imployed it is a taking and using of the sword to the shedding of blood with u Warrant The defence which this Author makes pag. 62 of their taking the sword without the Soveraignâ— and against his Commanâ— is grounded upon that former groundlesse supposâ—ll of their being joyned with the King in the Soveraign power it selfe of which aâ—undantly in the 4th and 5th Sections above V. Because Obedience Honour and Suâ—jâ—ction â—ue to a Ponce are enjoyned and th Contrary forbiddâ—n without any â—â—stinctiâ—n oâ— a Good or Bad Pâ—ince Sâ— Paul shewes that hâ—ill must nâ—t he spoken of the worst Rulers Act. 23. What is â—aesars â—uâ— Saviour bids give unto Caesar when he was as bad as mâ—ght be and for this Cause pay you Tribute and Honour saith S. Paul when the higher powers were extremeâ—y evnd This cannot consist with taking Armes against a Prince for they that doe so must speake evill of Hâ—m make Him appeare O 〈◊〉 to His people and will not cannot let Caesar have what is His His Revenues Customes Tribute Armes but wâ—ll tell Him they are not His but the King fomes to use as the State shall thinke sit when he abuseth them And as the Scripture doth not so not her doth our Law make any dâ—stinction of good â—â—d bad Princes in this poynt It enjoynes Honour Subjection Allegiance Customes without any such distinction and determinâ—s Insurrection and Levying of Warre to be Treason not onely against a good King but indefinitely against any VI. It is good reason that
endangered Religion and Liberties and now they thinke much it should be called in question or be made a Controversie It had beene happy for them if they could have carried the matter so clearly without being put to a Reply or if now being put to Answer they could make others the Incâ—ndiaries for the kindling of that fire which they have begun and fomented with seditious doctrines blowne over all the Kingdome Surely if the Divines and Lawyers that are of contrary judgement to them throughout the Kingdome had in good time declared themselves herein it would have given a seasonable and happy check to these seditious principles and to the unhappy Rebellion that has been raised thereon I for my part thought it concerned mee to examine a doctrine so much Preached and published and could not think it possible that Conscience should be truly satisfied in the Conclusion without being secured of the truth of both the Promises of which this seditious doctrine is the first That Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties when in danger of subversion for which as then I could see no warrant that Conscience might rest on no more can I now but doe finde it a Doctrine destitute of Scripture and true Reason as will be cleared in the processe of this book For First Upon the examination of places of Scripture it wil appeare that Gods People were continually under such Kings against whom they might not resist and that Gods word as it affords us no precept so nor any just example for resistance but much every way against it Secondly Upon the Examination of Reason it will appeare how inconsistent such a power of resistance in Subjects is with Government and that which seemes to be the reason of the Wisdome of God putting his people under Kings without any power of Resistance moe inconveniences and mischiefes would follow upon such a power placed in the People then if they were left without it I must needs say it doth at first sight seeme unreasonable that Subjects should be left without this Remedy and I confesse my owne thoughts according to that naturall inclination wee all have to Liberty have been heretofore ready to suggest as much till seeking warrant for conscience from Gods word I could meet with none but 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 It is enough for us now if by the denial of Resistance and Armes we can be in no worse condition then our Saviour was and the Christians of the Primitive times and Gods people were ever in Likewise when I expect the Adversaries should bring expresse Scripture without which they professe not to attempt any thing of such moment for commanding or allowing this supposed Duty of Resistance I find them altogether failing and in their Answers to places of Scripture much disagreeing among themselves So that indeed all their faith and perswasion here is resolved into an appearance of Reason raised upon Aristotles grounds or Principles laid for the framing of a government and the meanes of restraining Tyranny Upon those grounds and Principles Buchanan and Iunius Brutus goe so farre as to the Deposing and taking away of an Exorbitant or Tyrannous Monarch The writers of these dayes though they will not seem to harbour such an intention and the Author of the Treatise of Monarchie doth expresly pronounce it unlawfull yet do they all agree to use what force they can against such a Monarch for the suppressing of his Tyrannie to give him battell in the field and make him accessary to his own death if he fall by their hand To cleare the way in the entrance of this Cause I am called by the Learned Divines and the Author of the treatise of Monarchie in the first place to consider the severall Cases of Resistance and the severall kinds of Governments and Monarchies SECT II. Cases of Resistance THe Reverend and Learned Divines who plead for Defensive Armes to shew what great paines they have taken for the satisfying or rather troubling of the Consciences of the people doe every where blame the Resolver as indiligent and carelesse First in the explication of the Question propounded that he undertaking to resolve Conscience about Resistance did not set down all possible Cases which they by laying their heads together have found out Then in the clearing of the 13. to the Rom. that he mainly insisting upon that place did not Analyse the Chapter as they have done by breaking it into so many pieces as if they had meant to draw out so many points to preach upon rather then arguments to dispute by My Answer is I did not intend that Treatise as a just Tractate of Resistance but as a Resolution of a particular Case and therefore did not undertake or endeavour to satisfie all doubts which every working braine that ha's strained it selfe to the disturbance of this State and people might raise concerning Resistance in generall but to resolve the Consciences of misled People in relation to the resistance now made Now because they must have things delivered in grosse to them if we meane they should apprehend them I did therefore think it sufficient first in the Explication of the Question to direct their thoughts upon the notorious Resistance then used viz. by setting up a Militia raising Armies every where and using them in Battell against His Majesty for unto that Resistance the Case propounded did relate as was intimated SECT I. and then in the clearing of the 13 to the Rom. it seemed sufficient to let the people understand That the King was the Higher or Supream power in this Kingdom that All under the higher power were forbidden to resist that Tyranny and persecution were not sufficient causes of Resistance which appeared upon the consideration of those times lastly that the prohibition of Resistance concerned all times because the Apostle's Reasons against it being drawn from the institution of the Power and the end or benefit of it are perpetuall and concerne all Governments These few necessary particulars deduced out of the Apostle I thought more fit to let the People understand then to puzzle them with many needlesse termes of analyse and division And now let us consider the Cases propounded by the Pleaders amonst them all that onely is pertinent which enquires whether the resisting of a Captain of the Souldiery having his commission from the King and comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men be a resisting of the King and so forbidden pag. 1. Ans They might easily have answered themselves who I know are perswaded that the resisting of Captains having Commission from the Houses and comming to plunder or take away the Estates of Malignants is a resisting of the Parliament but more to this case presently Onely let us consider their leading Cases first What if it be doubted say they whether
Land to actuate and apply it Answer Nothing can be truer then that the government was such from the time that it beganne to be such but he bore us in hand before that it was such from the very first beginning of the Monarchy so he ought to prove it to be for else it must become such by the consent of the King in being condescending from unlimited condition to a more moderate way of Government by severall fixed laws as was shewed above when we spoke of Limitations and Mixtures Sect. 3. but can we think that while there was a King in being the Councell of the Land had power to contrive and dispose of the frame of this Government and that in a way soprejudiciall to the King as this Answerer would make it But he goes on The truth is the Doctor deales with us herein at Papists usually doe with Protestants if they cannot name the particular Raigne and yeere when such a Doctrine tooke it's first rise however palpable it now be we must believe there was no change at all so if it be not assigned when such or such a part of the Governments Constitution began however euident it be that it must have a beginning because a being we must confesse it to have no beginning at all No Sir the Doctor deales with you as Protestants doe with Papists upon that point for as they shew the Doctrine of the Romish Church was not from the beginning and because the yeere and age when every error crept in cannot be named do thereupon conclude certainly That those errours came not in at once but by degrees so we require not the particular Raign and yeer when each constitution came in but doe shew that the Government was not such from the beginning and because the time cannot be shewn when the Limitations and Constitutions came in that made it such we thereupon conclude the Government did not become such at once but by degrees and by the after Condescent of Pious Princes To that which was alledged out of the Preamble of a Sâ—atute 24 H. 8. c. 12. His poore shifts are 1. That it is a piece of a preamble not part of the Statute Answer What then it speakes never a whit the lesse truth nor ha's it the lesse authority but which is more speakes an anciently supposed truth alwaies Confessed and evident in Chronicles and Histories that this is an Empire Governed by one Supreame Head c. II. That the Title speakes it an Act against appeales to Rome Answer It matters not what the occasion was we 〈◊〉 what it positively speakes touching the Kings Supremacy and Headship So they miserably shift off the obligation which the Oath of Supremacy ha's cast upon them as if the Kings Supremacy were asserted in it in opposition to the Bishop of Rome not in relation to the whole body politique that if they deny the Popes Supremacy they thinke they satisfie the Oath what Subjects soever they joyne with His Majesty in the very Supremacy it selfe So in the third place he saith that those words in the Statute To whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of peoplâ— of the Spiritualty and Temporalty are bounden c. cannot properly be meant of the Parliament but of the Kingdome at large Answer If of the Kingdome at large then is it true also of their Representatives if of the Kingdome in it's defusive body then of it's Collective But I turne him over to the Authour of the Treatise of Monarchy who sufficiently Confutes this idle assertion and doth shew the Lords and Commons in their houses conjunctim are subjects and the King their Head And this is enough for his third Section In his fourth Section he endeavours to prove the Houses are Coordinate with His Majesty in all other Acts of Supreme power as the Calling of Assemblies holding Treaties sending Embassies appointing Judges c. His proofe is first by reason because they are Coordinate with him in the Supream power of making lawes which is the principall and higher Cause to the Calling of Assemblies Treaties c. Answer This he takes for granted that they are Coordinate with His Majesty in the Supream power of Ordaining or making laws which doth proceed as I noted above upon his second Section from his mistake or ignorance in not distinguishing the Exercise of the power and the Power it selfe for they may concur to that and yet not have share in this Secondly He would prove it by Records from pag. 22. to 27. Answ 1. In these we must trust his honesty which we finde not very faithfull in repeating the words of the booke he undertakes to confute 2. Were they truely alledged they yeeld but an Argument a facto ad Ius Parliaments have done this or that therefore they have right to doe so it will be a bad argument in the next age to conclude any thing right and just because it was so ordained by the Houses of this last Parliament III. Though some particulars cited by Him might of right belong to them yet how doth it prove it was so originally and fundamentally and not by after condescent of the Prince as we find many immunities rights and liberties of the Subject to be But for these Records he is beholden to Mr Pryn's collections who is said to be the Author of that booke which beares this title The Soveraigne power of Parliaments or the treachery and disloyalty of Papists to their Soveraigne To their Soveraigne that is to the two Houses by the former part of the title let him take heed he proves them not good Subjects But what shall we make of it 't is certaine he fetches his testimonies from times of Popery shewing what power Parliaments then have assumed and used against the Soveraigne if he will give us leave to style the King so but how he should thereby shew the disloyalty of Papists and yet prove the Soveraignâ— power of Popish Parliaments I cannot see nor is it greatly materiall for let all his instances be true and his Records faithfully alleadged yet will the argument be inconsequent that from them shall conclude the Soveraigne power of Parliaments After his Records this Answerer enters a discourse of his owne touching the Mixture of this Government That which concernes me in it is pag. 28. The Dr in his former Treatise speakes of the excellent temper of the three Estates and in his Reply acknowledges them as Fundamentals of Government and if fundamentalls how not all alike principall and supream he has not shewed in his Reply though provoked thereto so he Answ 2. The Dr did not any where call them Fundamentals of Government but acknowledged the constitution was fundamentall that provided that Temper and placed in the Houses that power which they have this his mistake I told him of in my Reply pag. 16. and shewed him the absurdity it leades him into by Concluding thence that the Houses are alike Principall or Supreme with
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
taken severally not conjunctim as they are gathered together in their Houses for indeed how could they be His Subjects and He their supreame Head if they be fundamentally mixed or joyned with Him in the supremacie of power The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see that this was repugnant to Law and Reason and therefore doth acknowledge them to be subjects conjunctim under the King as their Supreame Head yet being engaged he holds the ground upon which that absurd assertion is raised affirming and endeavouring to prove that the Mixture is in the supremacie of power pag. 40. How then will he make the King supream and they His Subjects for this he gives the King Apicem potestatis the top or Excellency of Power that is the King is the Crown or top of the head but the two Houses must be our head too and our Soveraignes if they be joyned with the King in the very Supremacy of power and so the matter will be well mended Again The Full Answer did from the same false supposed mixture inferre that the finall Resolution of this States judgement resided in the two Houses when the King refuseth to discharge His trust for the safety of the Kingdom the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see and confesse that it plainly overthrowes the Monarchy to place such judgement in the Houses Yet being ingaged He gives them power to take the Armes of the Kingdom but least they should seem Authoritatively to Iudge or command in that case they must declare and make the appeale to the Community as if there were no government and as men are in Conscience convinced they are bound to give aid and assistance so he pag. 8. 29. and elsewhere A ready way to confusion but of these and such like contradictory conceits of the Assertors of Resistance more below Of this Mixture there was not a little spoken in my Reply to the Full Answer but this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy and Reverend Divin's take notice only of my first Treatise Having therefore made some short Animadversions upon their Bookes as they came to my hand I still wayted to meet with something directly against the Reply but as yet have seen nothing besides two trifling Answers the one a wild discourse by whom written I know not but by such a flirting phansy I am sure that he who reads one part will not cast away his time upon the rest the other by him that stiled himselfe Author of the Fuller answer still like himselfe if he can be but witty or fasten a seeming contradiction upon his Adversary it is enough what he has materiall about the Mixture of Government which is the whole businesse of his book is more accurately delivered and urged by this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet because he is extreamly confident I shall bestow a Section upon him below and that is more then he deserves Therefore what the Reverend Divines or the Author of this Tract of Monarchy have drawn from Scripture or Reason to justify their grounds of Resistance I shall briefly examine after that I have declared my intent at first and my purpose now of proceeding in this Argument It was the intent of that first Treatise of mine to resolve the Consciences of misled People Touching the unlawfulnesse of Armes now taken up against the King and because Conscience if it resolve for them must conclude upon these premises Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for defence of Religion and Liberties apparently in danger of Subversion But such is the case now and must be certain of the truth of both of them for if either of the premises be false or doubtfull Conscience is misguided in the conclusion therefore the whole Resolution of the case was to this purpose as here it lyes ope to the sight in these two assertions First Were the case so as they suppose that is Were the King as they would have people believe seduced to proceed in a way tending to the subversion of Religion and Liberties it were not safe to bear part in the Resistance of Armes now used against him there being no warrant for taking Armes upon such a case but evidence against it both from Scripture and Reason So that at the best the case can be even to them that plead for resistance no better indeed then doubtfull and then Conscience according to its two Rules what is not of Faith is Sin and in doubtfull cases the SAFER WAY is to be chosen will tell them they should forbeare and suffer rather then resist for they may be sure that is a SAFE WAY were the King indeed what they suppose him to be Secondly Seeing the case is not so as they suppose nor is it so with the King as they would have the People believe but most apparent that He is constrained to take Armes for the defence of His just Rights and the Protection of His Subjects Every man may be clearly perswaded in Conscience that the Resistance now made is unlawfull and damnable and that he is bound not only to forbear from resisting but also to assist His Majesty in so just a cause The contrary Resolution which concludes That it is Lawfull upon such a case supposed to take Armes that the Case is now I doubt not to call a Blaspheaming of God and the King Of God in charging such an imputation upon his Word as if it taught Subjects to take Armes for the defence of Religion and Liberties against their naturall Soveraigne Of the King in casting such aspersions upon His Majesty as if He were seduced to the subversion of Religion and Liberties Now although His Majesties Cause be justified not so much by the falshood of this their Principle and ground of Resistance it is lawfull in such a Case to take Armes as by the clearnesse of His innocency He being farre from what they suppose or proclaime of him to be Yet because the very seeds of Rebellion are sowne upon that ground and there cannot want either made pretences to bring them forth or Fears and Jealousies to cherish and ripen them it is needfull to shew that as Rebellion is not a plant of Gods sowing so neither is that ground a Truth of His Laying The Author of the Fuller Answer in his late Reply Pag 27. 28. imputes the beginning of this controversie whether Subjects upon such a Case may take Armes to my first unhappy and unchallenged Treatise as he calls it which has exposed the other party to a necessity of a Reply and caused so much to be said especially by Divines in this sad and unwelcome subject So he These men are loath to bee called to account for what they say or doe as if they were the very rule of Justice and Truth They have Preached and Printed this seditious doctrine over and over welneere a twelve month before that unhappy Treatise was published thereby perswading the People into Armes under pretence of defending their
His Majesty has graciously said in His Answer to the 19 Propositions That there is a power Legally placed in the two Houses more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny To this purpose it is also that some make advantage of the Kings speaking of Himselfe as of one of the Three Estates Answer 1. It is well known when the king was first forced to make his defence by writing how few he had about Him being driveÌ„ from his learned Counsell or they one way or other kept from Him Yet trusting to the justnesse of his Cause integrity of his own intentioÌ„s He returned such Answers as did for the present much sattisfie all reasonable people and will one day what ever advantage is now pickt out of them be witnesses against those Troublers of our peace that put him to his defence II. It is very unjust that the gratious Expressions which his Majesty has had of his Intentions and desires to rule and Command no otherwise then according to law should be set upon the Rack and drawn out to his disadvantage for the gaining of such a power to the Houses as the law speakes not to be in them If Trajan fully purposing to rule Iustly doth out of such Confidence give a Prefect his Commission and power delivering him a Sword with these words Hoc prome vtere sirecte impero si male cotra me If I Command aright use this sword for me if not against me Shall it be concluded that Officer might acordingly use his Sword against the Emperours ' And if the King speake of himselfe as of One of the three Estates shall any Subject diligently watch what fal's from Him and return him his words again to his own disadvantage as Ben. hadads Messengers did 1. Kings 20.33 Thy Brother Benhadad your fellow States Sr III. That which can fairely be gathered out of these expressions as intended by his Majesty doth not come up to these mens conclusions the first and second speeches do shew how tender he is of doing any thing he may not do by law acknowledging his power is bounded and limited by Law but it doth not follow that his power or Soveraignty wherein it is not limited by law is not absolute and full for so it is clearly wheresoever a Monarchy at first unlimited doth afterward receive Limits and Mixtures of which Condition this Monarchy appeares to be by that which has been spoken in this Section So in his Answer to the 19. Prop. His Majesty acknowledges a power Legally in the Houses to restraine which can not be extended beyond a Morrall Parliamentary restraint otherwise let them produce any law that inables the Houses to restrain Tyranny by the Armes of the Kingdom for as for their deductions from supposed Fundamentalls we can deny them as fast as they bring them either as failing in thire Antecedents and false suppositions or as altogether inconsequent Also when this author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth in regard of that power which is placed in the two Houses to restraine the exâ—â—bitancies of the Monarch so much admire the frame of this Government as composed by more then Humane wisedom pag. 44. Doe's he fall into this admiration for the placing of a power of restraint by forceable resistance nothing admirable in that were that the frame of this Government That which is commendable indeed and admirable in the Limitations and mixtures of this Government is that Way of Legall Morrall or Parliamentary prevention and Restraint which is established by law foâ— our security Lastly when his Majesty hath spoken of himselfe as of one of the three Estates he has but spoken to them in their owne phrase for they first stiled him so and that usually in the point of his Negative Voyce for every Bill comes to him in the third or last place the Lords spirituall and Temporall who indeed are two of the three Estates making a Concurrence in one Vote or Voice But his Majesty did never use that phrase with any intent of diminution to his Supremacy or Headship for properly the Prelates Lords and Commons are the three Estates of this Kingdome under his Majesty as their head Thus if we will trust our owne Eyes for what we read in History and Chronicle or stand to Reason for the cleare Inferences which may be drawne from the knowne lawes of this Land or use any ingenuity in the interpretation of His Majeslies Gratious Expressions We can never be perswaded that the begining of this Monarchy was such as these men suppose that is so Limited and mixed radically and fundamentally as these Authors and others have described it SECT V. Of Resistance in relation to the severall kindes of MONARCHY VVE are now to consider how this Author states the poynt of forceable Resistance in these severall kinds of Government Which we shall find to be in away that lies very open to Rebellion First He grants the person of the Monarch in all those severall kinds of Monarchy to be above the reach of all force or positive Resistance This is true but if this Author will allow as he doth Subjects to rayse Armes and with them to give battle to those that are about the Person of the Monarch as his Guard how shall His Person be secured from the Force and violence of the meanest hand Nay the joyning of Battell with Him as it is necessary consequence of Refistance by Armes which must come to that if it be pursued so is it a direct Force intended and offered against His Person Secondly Concerning an Absuolte Monarch he resolves it thus If such a Monarch should so farre degenerate as apparently to seeke the destruction of the whole Community subject to him then might such a community constreined by the last necessity resist by force of Armes against any instruments imployed to effect the same pag 9. for such an intention cannot be the Act of a reasonable will pag. 10. But first if he meanes by the whole Community the whole body over which the power is placed as he speakes pag. 10 I grant it the Act of a most unreasonable will but cannot conceive how such an intention should fall into the mind of the worst Tyrant as to leave himselfe no people to reigne over Secondly if he meanes by that community a certaine sort of people as were the Iewes in the Kingdomes of Ahasnerus and the Templars in these Westerne Kingdomes the destruction of such a people may be the Act of a reasonable will Haman makes a faire pretence and reason for the extirpation of the Iewes Est 3.8 and Ahasuerus his decree was the act of a reasonable though misguided will but that such a Community upon the knowledge of such an intention may take Armes is not proved by this Author for to prove it as he doth by Davias example who was but a particular man is to shew that a Community may doe it because David in his owne particular might do it and