Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	1,861	5	9.7674	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86918	A vindication of the Treatise of monarchy, containing an answer to Dr Fernes reply; also, a more full discovery of three maine points; 1. The ordinance of God in supremacie. 2. The nature and kinds of limitation. 3. The causes and meanes of limitation in governments. Done by the authour of the former treatise.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1644 (1644)	Wing H3784; Thomason E39_12; ESTC R21631	66,271	81

to use force against one he grants the cause by it of all for a warrant from an act of the Kings will is as valid to secure a few Emissaries as a whole Army and Gods Ordinance in one man is no more resistible then in a multitude Then for Davids intent to keep Keylah against Saul it is so evident by the history that I will say no more about it but doe refer him to that which the Pleaders for defensive Armes say about it The Doctor seeks divers evasions to get out of the reach of this example but doth not satisfie himselfe much lesse others and therefore adds the fourth on which he must rest when all is said That Davids example was extraordinary Hereon he brings some things in him which were extraordinary We grant it in many things but we deny it in this If the Doctor will prove him to have a speciall priviledge to resist Gods ordinance in his Soveraign more then other men he must bring the grant and warrant for it otherwise David must come under the common condition for this matter He himselfe acknowledges he had none for violating the person of his Prince and sure then he had none for violating the Authority of his Prince conferred on private Emissaries if they had any But in his p. 65. He layes hard at me and challengeth not only my Reason for calling this a shufling Answer but also my ingenuity who confesse the people in that Government might not resist and yet doe urge these examples for Resistance Answer 1. For my Reason I have made it appeare I have reason to call it so is it not a meere evasion to affirme in him an extraordinary priviledge and can bring no word nor warrant for it 2. For my ingenuity it is without cause challenged by him for from the lawfullnesse of Resistance of unreasonable Acts of will in an absolute Monarchy where Reason is the Princes law I may a fortiori conclude the lawfulnesse of resisting of instruments of illegall Acts in a limited Monarchy where the Law of the Land is the Princes Law and bounds CHAP. VIII The 8. Section concerning Resistance forbidden Rom. 13. answered NOw we are come to his principall strength against Resistance out Sect. 1 of Rom. 13. From whence nothing can be collected against any Resistance but that which is of the Powers of the Ordinance but that which I defend is of neither of them therefore I have no cause to feare his inferences from that Text. Now supposing the truth which I have made good that in a limited State the limitation is of the Power it selfe and not only of the exercise it followes evidently that in such a State resistance of destructive instruments is neither of Power nor Gods Ordinance I might therefore well omit that which at large here he speakes of Resistance of the Powers The first part of the Section is spent in replying to the Exceptions of the Reverend Divines The first thing I find which concernes me is p. 77. I will therefore begin with him there Where he accuseth me that in my 59 64 and 66. page of that Treatise I grant they might not resist in that Monarchy but affirme that subjects may in this and he brings me in giving two Reasons for it 1. Because Religion was then no part of the Lawes but here it is 2. Because that was an Absolute Monarchy this a Limited and mixed p. 77. But may I not here challenge both the ingenuity and conscience of this Replyer Did I ever grant that Gods Ordinance of Power might be resisted here or give any Reasons for so unreasonable an Assertion It would be tedious to repeate here what I have said there Let the Reader see if he please I will recite the summe 1. The Doctor affirmed that in the Apostles time the Senate of Rome might challenge more then our Parliaments can now I denied it and gave my reason sc That State was then devolved into a Monarchy by Conquest c. of this the Doctor speakes not a word perhaps he is now ashamed of that comparison 2. He said there was greater cause of Resistance then than now I answered There was then no cause at all Not for Religion being then no part of the Law Not Liberties because then that was past the Government changed and an Oath taken of absolute subjection Have I by these things granted a liberty of Resistance of Gods Ordinance to this people and deny it to those No Neither They nor We not that enslaved Senate nor our free Parliaments no cause no priviledge can justifie this Yea I ascribe more to Gods Ordinance of Power then He He sayes that in a limited state we owe only passive subjection to exceeding commands of a Prince by promise limiting himselfe in the use of his power I say though he sin in exceeding such promise yet we owe him also Active obedience in such commands which Gods Law forbids us not to be Active in Neither doe I bring Doctor Bilsons testimony to prove that Religion was then no part of the Law as he affirmes I doe p. 77. but sure he neither heeded what I had written nor what himselfe wrote I laid down an Assertion that Gods Ordinance of which St Paul speakes is the Power and the Person of him which is supremely invested with that Power and for this did I bring Dr Bilson who explaining the Power there forbidden to be resisted sayes it is the Princes will not against his Lawes but agreeing to his Lawes Here he serves Dr Bilson and other Divines as before the King and the Parliaments teaches them a meaning contrary to their words They meane such states as may by the knowne Laws use forceable restraint No such meaning of his words He makes no distinction of states but expounds the Text in question speaking of Gods Ordinance in generall in all Rulers He knowes it well enough and therefore addes They were willing to excuse as much as might be those motions of the Protestants in France and the Low-Countries but had they lived now they would have spoken more cautelously That is They spake rashly wronged the truth and reached their consciences to excuse the commotions and rebellions of those dayes This is like a Doctor But he likes the Homilie better then them all that speakes home he sayes but what he speakes not nor doe I answer But he will try the force of this exception because I professe with Mr Burrowes against Resisting of Authority though abused And with Dr Bilson admit of resisting the Princes will against the Lawes This is fast and loose sayes he How so In limited Monarchies where the Prince hath no Authority beyond the Law there an act beyond the Law is unauthoritative and meerely private so that it is no abusing of Authority but an exceeding of Authority Authority abused to undue acting of matters within its compasse Mr Burrowes speakes of and that must not be resisted But the Princes will acting against

Irresistiblenesse a Consequent of Absolutenesse Limited Monarchie is in the very Power Sect. 4. Mixture must be in the very Power The Doctors strange and sencelesse conceit of Mixture Sect. 5. Conquest gives no morall title before consent Sect. 6. Chap. 4. The Doctors vaine and false supposals about Gods Ordinance in Soveraignty It doth not exclude Limitation of Power Sect. 1. His false supposals about the Nature and Quality of Limitation Sect. 2. His false supposals about the Causes and Meanes of Limitation Sect. 3. Chap. 5. The Soveraignty of this Kingdome Limited in the very Power and from its first Originall The vanity of the Doctors three Titles by Conquest Sect. 1. Arguments for Limitation and Mixture vindicated Sect. 2. Seven Queries concerning this Government Sect. 3. Chap. 6. The stating of the Question of Resistance asserted The Appeale ad conscientiam generis humani in the utmost contention vindicated Sect. 1. His arguments against Reservation of Power of Resistance are answered Sect. 2. Chap. 7. The vanity of his conceit about jus Regis His deceitfull citing of Calvin The Government of the Kingdome of Israel proved absolute Sect. 1. Instances for Resistance out of the Old Testament justified Sect. 2. Chap. 8. The Text Rom. 13. nothing concernes this Resistance His unjust charging of me in this Question His slighting of Doctor Bilson and other Divines Resistance of exceeding Acts no Resistance of the Power Sect. 1. Emperours of Rome in S. Pauls time proved absolute Sect. 2. Chap. 9. His nine Reasons against Resistance answered Sect. 1. The five reasons for Resistance made good Sect. 2. The Doctor recedes from his first Assertions And yeilds us the Question No evils follow this Resistance but many its deniall Sect. 2. The Conclusion of the whole Sect. 3. A VINDICATION OF THE Treatise of Monarchie OR An Answer to Dr FERNES Reply CHAP. I. An Answer to the first Section of his Reply THE first Section containes his Preface where p. 2. He Sect. 1 taxes me that I looke not with a single eye on what he hath written misconstruing it many times but whether I have so done or no it will be manifest in the sequell Then more then once he censures me for being engaged What engagements I have appeares before in my Preface But I set up my rest upon a groundlesse fancie of such a mixture and constitution of this Monarchy c. Whose supposals are groundlesse fancies his or mine I doubt not will fully appeare in this ensuing discourse Neither had I any other purpose to which I have fitted that Treatise then the simple finding out of truth God knowes how ever the Doctor pleaseth to censure the purposes of my heart Viewing this Resolvers discourse for the satisfaction of my conscience I found it confused and not approaching the Case which now troubles the world Men enquire about the Lawfulnesse of Resistance of Instruments He answers concerning Resistance of the King Men demand Whether Resistance of subversive Instruments be the Resistance of Gods Ordidinance forbidden Rom. 13. He supposeth that which is the Question and makes that the ground of his Resolve which is the sole thing at which the conscience scruples This put me on a Discourse of Monarchy that so by a distinct considering of the grounds of true Policie I might both satisfie my selfe and others and not suffer mens consciences seriously desiring found information to be either puzled or misled by so confuse and indirect a Resolution Yet something there is which he likes in me that is as much as serves his own turne I doe with much ingenuity disclaime and with no lesse reason confute severall Assertions of other writers c. in p. 2. Would he could as well have seen my confutation of his as of other errours What I have said against him as it proceeds from the same impartiall spirit so it containes the same truth as I doubt not the judicious Reader will discerne But yet I hold the ground on which their Absurd assertions are raised sc that the Mixture is in the Supremacie of Power only I give the King apicem potestatis the top or excellency of Power that is the King is the crown or top of the head c. Thus is he pleased to jeere me but how justly it will hereafter appeare And wheras I place the Authority of determining the last controversies in a mixt Government not in the two Houses this he commends in me but that I doe not ascribe it to the King This he exclaimes against as a ready way to confusion but why and how it is so he tells us not only promiseth to speake of it more below but where that below is I cannot find Sect. 2 After he hath thus touched upon those things which he is pleased to tax in my Treatise He proceeds p. 4. to shew us what his intent was of first undertaking and now proceeding in this Argument Well let us heare what it was The intent of his first Treatise was to resolve the Consciences of misled people touching the unlawfulnesse of Armes now taken up against the King He erres in his proposing of the very Case I believe he knowes no conscience misled touching this matter The Case which he should have resolved if he had done any thing was touching the unlawfulnesse of Armes now taken up against subverting instruments of the Government of the Kingdome and that the resisting of these is a Resisting of the King No wonder if he who shootes at a wrong marke looseth all his arrowes This wrong proposing and prosecuting of so weighty a case which I doubt was purposely done set me first on work in this businesse Heare then the case more simply proposed and I refer me to the consciences of men whether I come not neerer the truth of it then this proponent hath done The Houses declare Religion and established Government to be in apparent danger by meanes of some subversive Counsellours and Instruments about the King This being supposed they proceed according to Vote to the Ordinance and execution of the Militia so to resist and apprehend those Counsellours and Instruments from whom they had declared the danger to spring This put on the Doctor to his first booke to resolve the consciences of men that it was unlawfull Now see what course he tels us he took to resolve men in this case He undertakes to make good two Assertions 1. Were the King so seduced it were not safe to beare part in the resistance of Armes now used against him 2. That the case is not so as they suppose but rather apparently contrary In the proofe of these two he spends his whole book Concerning the latter I intend no controversie with the Doctor Would he could make it cleare to the satisfaction of the consciences of all men that were the way indeed not only to satisfie mens consciences but to calme the Kingdome into a blessed peace But the Doctor is but slight in that part and sayes nothing but

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