Monarchy otherwise then this Author or others before him have sansyed it will not be hard to say so much as may which was heretofore endeavoured in â—â—y Reply let Conscience see it can have no plea for Resistance from the supposed grounds upon which these men lay the platforme of this Monarchy I had twice occasion in my first Treatise to speak of the beginning of this Government in the Armes of the Saxons and Normans which was not as this Author feignes pag. 33. 34. to prove our Kings Absolute herein I challenge his ingenuity if either I proposed this as a Conclusion to be proved That our Kings are Absolute or urged the entrance of the Saxons and Normans as an argument to prove it by but onely all adged it twice by way of Answer to what was spoken by them touching a right in the People by virtue of such a capitulating election at first as they suppose to have given beginning to this Monarchy in both which places I expressely intimated those Conquests were not mentioned to win an Arbitrary power to the King but onely to exclude Resistance and such a supposed election The beginning of this English Monarchy and the root of succession of the Monarchs we must fetch from the Saxons and this Author bids us look so far back when to cut off the advantages that may be made against him from the Normans entrance he tels us pag. 35. that Duke William came upon the old limited Title whereby the English Saxon Kings his Predecessors held this Kingdome How the Saxons entred upon the Kingdome is well known they made themselves masters of this Kingdome by Armes which although it doth not inferre our Kings are now Absolute an inference as farre from my intention as his yet doth it plainly overthrow such an originall Mixture in the soveraign power as this Author has phansyed and herein because I have spoken to this point as occasion required in the third Sect. of my Reply to the Full Answerer who had the like conceit of such an Originall Mixture though not so refined as this Author has given it us I shall be the briefer in my Answer to this First This Author saith It was not a Conquest that the Saxons made but an expulsion pag. 35. Ans This is neither true nor greatly materiall Not true for it cannot be imagined but a great part of the Brittaines remained under the Saxon yoake so M. Cambden tells us they were the fewer that fled towards Wales and defended themselves against the Saxons in the West his words are Victi omnes in gentem leges nomen linguamque vincentium praeter paucos quos locorum asperitas in occidentali tractu tutata est concesserunt Camb Britan. Saxon. Nor is it greatly materiall for if we could imagine that the Brittaines were not brought under the yoke but expelled yet can we not imagine that the Government of those Saxon Kings being made such by the acclamation of their Souldiers as when the Praetorian guard or some Army abroad saluted a Roman Emperour was at first any other then is the government or command of Generalls over their Souldiers that is unlimited much lesse so Limited and Mixed as this Author phansyeth it who looking upon the Modell or Platforme of this Monarchy pag. 44. 45. doth admire their Wisdome as more then humane that had the contriving of it but can any one suppose such a Platforme laid that considers the beginning of the Saxon Monarchy or imagine such admirable Wisdome more than humane in those rude and violent beginnings But he tells us in the second place the Saxons planting themselves here under their Commanders no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany and so changed their soyle not their government pag. 35 but what proof to put this out of doubt a conjecture out of Tacitus that wrote of the Germans some hundreds of years before this entrance of the Saxons Among the Germans saith he Nec Regibus aut infinita aut libera potestas True but we may see by those Authors that M. Cambden alleadges for the Originall of these Saxons that in probability these Suxons were not then among those people of Germany that Tacitus speakes of but did afterward break out of the Cimbrica chersonesus into that part of Germany where now we find the Saxons and into this Land But why should we rest upon such dreames and uncertainties as these men would put us upon this is certain that the Saxons being entred and having vanquished the Brittaines did by degrees as they could winne upon the Brittaines raise seven Kingdomes or Monarchyes independant yet so as that still one of them the most powerfull was Monarch of All or King of all England as Mr Cambden and others shew out of Bede till at length the King of the West Saxons Egbert vanquished the rest and setled the Succession of the sole Monarchy in his Line and those that should come after him Now would I fain know how this Author or any other of their best phansies can conceive that such a Mixture as joynes Nobles and Commons in the Soveraign power with the Monarch for so they would have it can possibly consist with such a beginning of Government was it in them all seven or could it consist with that solenesse or height of Monarchy which was still in one of them and transferred from Kingdom to Kingdome not by any fundamentall constitution but by power and the personall Prowesse of the Monarch Or did Edgbert that setled that condition of sole and chief Monarch upon his own successors by the subversion of the other Kingdomes know any Subjects of His to be sharers with him in the Soveraigne power This Author indeed tryes what his phansy can doe pag. 44. Where by six suppositions he endeavours to bring the Reader to an apprehension of the platforme of this Monarchy When you have made these suppositions saith he in your mind you have the very Modell and Platforme of this Monarchy Pag. 45. So the Reader must rest upon his suppositions against the Credit of all Histories and Chronicles and those his suppositions begin thus pag. 44. Suppose a People 1. Nobles and Commons set over themselves by publique compact one Soveraign resign up themselves to Him and His heires to be governed by such and such fundamentall Lawes then suppose them Covenanting with their Soveraign that if cause be to constitute any other Lawes he shall not doe it by His sole power but they erserve at first or afterwards it is granted them which is all one a hand of concurrence therein that they will be bound by no Lawes but what they joyne with him in the making of and so he goes on with six suppositions but first he must have a strong phansy that can conceive as I said this consistent with the beginnings of the Saxon Government as if it could be laid in such a platforme Secondly in giving us the briefe of this Platforme he still tells us
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
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
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
have potestatem supremam merum imperium so he in his Britan. which as it excludes all Subjects from haveing share in the Soveraign power for in that respect it is Merum imperium not mixtum so doth it not exclude such limitations and mixtures as have been by after condescent for the bounding of that Soveraign power in the exercise and use of it But now this Author will endeavor against the credit of History and Antiquiry to reason us into a beliefe of such a frame as he has moulded this Monarchy in First he would prove That the Soveraignty of the King is radycally and fundamentally Limited not only in the use and exercise of it but in the power it selfe pag 31 then That the Authority of this Land is Mixed in the very root and constitution of it pag. 39. This were an argument fit for a skilfull Lawyer to Labour in yet soe much in consequence I can at first sight perceive in his prooses that I dare pronounce them insufficient to cleare what he undertakes His prooâ—es are either his owne reasons or drawne from the Kings owne grants in his late expresses His reasons for the Limited condition of our Kings are from the denomination of Leige and Legall Soveraigne and from Proscription which evinceth that in all ages beyond record the Lawes Customes of this Kingdome have been the rule of Government pag. 32 Answ This proves that our Kings are limited in the use or exercise of their power and noe more for neither that Denomination nor any prescription can make us beleive that the Limitations of their power had any other begining then from their voluntary and pious condescent to such or such moderations and allayes which by constant usage and custome or eise by expresse Lawes were made ever after inevitable and irrevocable by the Monarchs themselves the Oath also of succeeding Monarchs binding them to the observing of such Lawes and Customes His reasons Iikewise for the mixed constitution of this Government doe prove a mixture but not such as he would have nor from the begining or first constitution of the Monarchy they are these 1 Because it is a Monarchy mixed with an Aâ—istocracy in the Lords and Democracy in the Commons but theâ—e is no Mixture which is not in the root and supremacy of power pag. 40. 2. Because it is a Monarchy where the Legisâ—â—tive power is in all three and therfore mixed in the very root and essence of it ibid. 3 Because it is a Monarchy in which three Estates are constituted to the end that the power of one should moderate and restraine from excesse the power of the other and therefore mixed in the root and essence of it ibid the same reasons he uses Pag. 43. to prove the Authority of both Houses to be no derived authority but equally originall and fundamentall with that of the King and saith he cannot devise what can reasonably be said in opposition to these Grounds proving a fundamentall mixture Answ And I must say I cannot devise what sh uld move a man of reason as this Author seemes to be so often to prosfesse as he doth that he is convinced of such a fundamentall constitution of this Monarchy for I cannot be convinced but his grounds are false supposalls For first it is not necessary the mixture should be in the root or Supremacy of power but it is sufficient if there be a concuâ—rence of Persons whose consent is required to the exercise of that Supreame power as was explained above Sect. 3. when we spoke of mixture Nay if it must be in the Supremacy of power as he will have it how can he make the King the only Supream and that one Head to which the whole Body politique is bound and united as he grants pag. 42.43 He cannot salve it with his Apex potestatis which he there gives to the King uniesle the King must be the Crowne or top of the head only for they also must be our Head and our Soveraignes if they be mixed or joyned with him in the Supremacy of power as this Author would have it Secondly the phrase of Legislative power ascribed to the two Houses is satisfied and explained by that concurrence and consent of theirs in and to the exercise of the Supream power as above but I cannot be convinced that it argues the power it selfe which gives life to a Law to be in them but their assent to be requisite and necessary so that without it no Law can be made which is enough if men could be content So when it is said Be it enacted by the Authority of this Parliament None denies but to have such Vote or power of affenting is a great Authority but not such as makes them sharers in the Supremacy of power for then should they also be our Head and our Soveraignes as was said above before that phrase was used we find it râ—n thus The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c which tells us plainly where the fountaine of the ordaining or Legislative power is how that power is excited or stirred up to Act by the instance and request of the Commons representing to the King the grievances of his People and that the efflux of that fountaine or the exercise of that power is not soly in his Will that is comes not to the Act of ordaining without the consent of Lords and Commons Thirdly to his third Reason I answer The end of this mixture or concurrence is to restraine from excesse but the restraint is morall and legall not forcible by power of Armes Parliamentary by way of assent or dissent to the ordaining power not military by Armies in the Field as will more clearly appeare by the next Section concerning resistance in mixed Monarchyes Now such a morall restraint doth not argue the Monarchy mixed in the Root and first constitution for the Houses may be vested with such a power afterward but the Restraint that this Author intends is a forcible restraint by Armes a meer phansy for if the fundamentall Constitution had intended them such a power it would not have left a power in the Monarch to call them or dissolve them which would make this pretended power of theirs altogether in effectuall but would have left them continually existing and in being His proofes from the Kings owne Grants for the Radicall Limitation of this Monarchy are these Pag. 31. His Majesty who best knowes by his Counsell the nature of his owne power saith That the Law is the measure of his power and in his Answer concerning the Militia sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted them then by Law is in the Crown c. whereby it is granted The King has no more power then by Law is in him so he Also for such a mixed Condition of this Monarchy as these men would have they usually urge what
His Majesty an excellent argument to provoke an Adversary upon but this Answerer seemes to have made his Reply to one Section before he had read the next and when he was come to that to forget what he had read or writ before In like manner he tells us presently after that he had proved that the Finall Declaration and Resolution must remaine beyond all further debate in the Councell of the Kingdome which by its number trust interest is onely fit to manage it to all which the Dr hath not vouchsafed to say any thing but that it wholly places the Supremacy in the two Houses so he pag. 31. Answ If nothing else had been said it had been enough and so the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth sufficiently shew that to place such a finall Resolution and declarative Judgement in the two Houses doth make them supreame and this no Monarchy but there was more said even the better part of three Sections was spent against that finall declarative judgement and Supply which he places in the two Houses against his perswasions from their Interests Number Trust shewing how possible it is for them to lessen their number to neglect their trust to make the private Interest devoure the publique I need say no more these times speake sufficiently But it seemes this Answerer as I said above wrote downe this before he had throughly read those Sections and when he came to them either had forgot that he had said the Dr. vouchsafed to say nothing to his particulars or else purposed to make it seeme so by answering nothing himselfe to that which the Dr. had said touching that finall declarative Judgement and supply which he places in the Houses But for this mixture of three Estates in the Supremacy of power he has found a new Argument in the Kings Answer to the 19. Propositions wherein His Majesty grants That the Lords being trusted with a Iudicatory Power are an Excellent Skreene betwixt Prince and people and that the power legally placed in the two Houses is more then enough to restraine Tyranny Upon this he makes a long descant and propounds sixe Quere's I will for brevity's sake without any wrong to Him that proposes them reduce them to these two 1. for the Iudicatory power How can such be in the Houses and yet not the declarative power of Law For this as before I must turne him over to the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy who will aske him how can such a finall declarative power be in the Houses and yet this be a Monarchy and the King Supream and I must farther aske him why doth he not place the finall Judgement onely in the Lords house seeing that Judicatory power is only in that not in the House of Commons 2. For the power of Armes If the Houses have not such a power how have they a power more then sufficient to restraine Tyranny let the Dr. fairely resolve the Answerer in these plaine inferences out of His Majesties words erit mihi magnus Apollo so he Answ I must first tell him Apollo was more honoured for his Art then for his bow for his Rules of healing then force of wounding so the morall restraints of Rules limiting Laws and the obligation of an Oath are more reasonable and powerfull for keeping the will of the Monarch within bounds then the forcible constraint of Subjects Armes But this Answerer thinks there can be no sufficient security for the people against the Tyranny of their Prince unlesse they have him fast bound is the tye of established Law nothing the band of a Sacred oath nothing to restraine him unlesse his Subjects have the mastering power God himselfe thought lesse means of restraint sufficient for such security as he was content his people should have under the Iraelitish and Roman Government why should not greater be held sufficient for people under a Christian Monarch Againe when it was proved that the Members of the Houses were Subjects conjunctim from their owne addresses to His Majesty wherein they style themselves his Loyall Subjects this Answerer replyes unto it pag. 39. How weake is an argument from formes of addresses in words against a reall Right what Right to the Supremacy how reall that is appears by all that has been said but we may here returne him his owne Answer to his inference from His Majesties words how weake is the argument from formes of words against a reall right against His knowne Supremacy and Headship Nay how unequall is it to take such large and gracious Expressions issuing from the conscience of his owne intentions and desires altogether averse from tyranny and stretch them on the rack of finister Construction to make them speake to his disadvantage for indeed no other power is granted to be in the Houses to restraine Tyranny then a Legall Morall Parliamentary power not forceable and military See above towards the end of the fourth Section where these and other Expressions of His Majesty were objected and vindicated Now to his fifth Section It was his Rule Coordinates doe supply one the others failings and thereupon he inferred If the King refuse the Lords and Commons may supply This was retorted upon him in my Reply If the Commons stand out and refuse then may the King and Lords by his rule of Coordination supply and command all He answers No quâ—stion they may supply as farre as their representation and trust reaches that is for themselves not for the Commons of England whom they doe not represent Answ Doth this man know or heed what he saith doth not he make the safety of the Kingdome the Cause and end of such supply when one of the Coordinates stand out and now he tells us the King and Lords may supply for themselves i. e. they may save themselves if they can but they have nothing to doe with the Commons whom they doe not represent but can the safety of the Kingdome be provided for by this supply unlesse they also be commanded by the Coordinate parts which are to make the supply and will he upon better thought 's deny that in order to that end the safety of the Kingdome the King and Lords also are entrusted for the whole people of England Againe this supply cannot be effectuall without a Iudicatory power but that power we find onely in the Lords not Commons house as he himselfe cited it above out of the Kings words well then must they exercise this Judicatory power upon themselves only and not upon those that the Commons represent or can the Commons by themselves supply that 's against his own rule of Coordination but if he will forget that us he does yet will he not thinke they can make the supply without a Judicatory power I will adde to this what he has at the very end of this Sect. where we finde him as considerate as before In order to his former rule Coordinates supply one anothers failings he had said
first booke de Iure belli pacis c. 3. places the Israelitish kingdome in a Middle condition between a meer absolute Monarchy and that which is altogether limited and conditionate that is those Hebrew Kings were in some things absolute in some things Limited which may be said of every Limited Monarchy at this day that was at first unlimited and is true of the Monarchy of this Land where I cannot but conceive the Monarch is free and if you please absolute in all such things in which he is not expresly limited III. Instances drawn from that Monarchy against Resistance are forceable in this Monarchy if we either consider what was now spoken against the meere absolutenesse of that Monarchy or look back to the Reasons which were given in the end of the fist Section to prove that Monarchies are not therefore exposed to resistance because they are limited IV. Calvin upon this place 1. Sam. 8. doth apply it to other Nations even to all that are under Kings who have not Ephori or Magistrates over them to whom they are accountable as the Lacedaemonian Kings had but our Kings have not his words are these Ex quibus apparet subditos Regibus nec posse nec debere adversus ipsos quicquam movere licet Tyrannidem exerceant c. and in his Instit l. 4 c. 20. nu 27. Hee expresly takes away the Objection That this which is imposed upon the Jewes 1. Sam. 8. and Ier. 27. was peculiar to that Nation shewing plainly it was not peculiare mandatum but tells us thus much in Generall cuicunque delatum est Regnum ei serviendum which being inferred from those places doth imply we must serve the King as the People seâ—ved Nebuchadnezar or their own Kings of Israel viz. without resistance for for that purpose Calvin alleadges those examples So that although this example doth not bind us to yeeld to a forraine enemy invading us as the Pleaders needlesly replyed yet doth it in Calviâ—s judgement bind us to yeeld obedience without resistance to that King whom it appeares God has set over us In the next place let us consider the Rescue of Ionathan urged by the Pleaders for Defensive Armes pag. 11. It has been answered that for this Rescue they did not of themselves draw into Armes but being present at Sauls command did rescue Ionathan from Sauls intended violence not by force of Armes but of a loving importunate violence by way of intercession set off with a Souldierly boldnesse The pleaders teply The violence was outragious enough for Saul swore his death they his life what then this was still but a Souldierly boldnesse of speech But they make two collections thence 1. That the people may sweare an Association that not one of the Parliament shall be put to death unlesse found guilty notwithstanding any Proclamation A good inference as if the Commanders of an Army doe agree among themselves to intercede for a fellow Souldier one not so innocent as Jonathan but justly sentenced to death and in that intercession be more importunately bold then they ought through that importunity draw their King off from his resolution of executing that sentence may I with any reason conclude thence that the severall Counties of his kingdome may enter an Association against him for the rescuing of any unjustly sentenced to death 2. They collect from thence That if Saul by himselfe or others had attempted Jonathans death they would have actually resisted them even with Armes Imagine they would have done so you have but an uncertaine supposition to secure your resistance and the heat of a Souldierly boldnesse to defend the furious disposition of your spirit how farre these Souldiers would have proceeded I know not but we shall see below that the Christian Souldiers in Iulians Army would not proceed so farre in the like case and I dare say with Peter Martyr si ist a seditâ—â—se fecâ—riâ—t quasi Jonathanum Regiper vim trepturi nullo modo possunt excusari if they had proceeded to force they could not have been excused How impertinently and inconsiderately the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy made use of this Rescue of Ionathan was shewen above Sect. 5. concerning resistance in absolute Monarchyes Now wee come to examine Davids demeanour towards Saul in which his taking of Armes and the use he made of them is considerable The Answers that were made to this objected example of David did in generall insinuate thus much That they which now pretend it for the defence of their Armes have done farre more then David did or intended to doe and that they have not warrant to doe so much i that there is nothing alike in Davids Armes and Theirs The particulars were these First that Davids purpose in having armed men about him was meerely to secure his person against the cut-Throâ—tes of Saul that is against his private Emissaries such as were sent to take away Davids life 1 Sam. 19.15 or against the surprize of ill minded people among whom he should abide such as the Ziphites who else might have carried David himselfe to Saul as well as the newes of his being among them The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy page 51. and the Divines that plead for defensive Armes pag 12. reply that this is enough for the resistance they plead for But who sees not a large difference betweene securing a mans selfe from suddaine surprizes of private Emissaries or close Enemies and appearing in the Field with Armes against the Armies of the Prince if a private Gentleman doe endeavour the former by more then ordinary retinue no man will speake him guilty of the second for the one is used but in order to an escape by flight but the other is in order to a forceable constraint and finall contestation with the Prince if he will not change his mind which is the Cause of these Times and the thing supposed in the Question as we explained above Sect. 2. Secondly we see that David did accordingly give place fly as Saul pursued using no violence against Saul or his followers when in his power 1. Sam. 26. The pleaders for defensive Armes reply It was not wisdome in David to encounter Saul for he was not strong enough to doe it page 12. Answ so shall we see these Pleaders below finding the like wisdome in the primitive Christians as if they forbore to resist because they had not force enough which wisdome do's foolishly charge the doctrine of the Gospell even in the judgement of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy But might not David with his 600 men have encountred 3000 sleeping he kenw that a sleep was upon them from the Lord and if he with Abishai alone durst goe downe among them what might hee not have done with 600 men The Pleaders answer out of much compassion That they which are upon the Defensive ought not in cold blood to kill sleeping Enemies or such waking farther then appeares much advantagious
signe of that Regia potestas and had been a profession that he would raigne absolutely nec multum abfuit quin speciem principatus in Regni formam converteret but he was disswaded from it by his friends faith that Historian During these Times the Apostles lived and wrote for I go not so low as Vespasian unto whom that Lex Regia seems to be solemnly granted by a formall consent and yet after that we find Pliny in his panegyricke tell the Emperour Trajan sedem Principis tenes ne sit Domixo locus which shews they had not resigned themselves up to the Emperour as sworne vassals to an Absolute Lord but had set a Prince over them for the readier dispatch of the affairs of the Common-wealth which often suffered and in those times more then ever by the crossings and Divisions of the People and Senate The forme of the Government was thereupon I acknowledge changed and the Supremacy setled upon the Prince yet may it I conceive from the former allegations be as well concluded that the Senate had their share in the Supremacy with the Prince till Vespasians time as that the two Houses are Originally Mixed or joyned with the King in the supreame or Soveraigne power which this Author undertakes to prove 2. It is to be considered that the Apostle in his reasons against resistance has no respect to the Absolute or Limited condition of those Roman Emperours nor to any consent or compact of the people by which they should be made such for then he might have told them If they resist they resist their owne Ordinances but draws his reasons from the Ordinance of God who sets up rulers and from the End and Benefits of Government which are Reasons common to all Government not to be eluded by saying Ours are limited Monarchs and therefore may be resisted for those reasons tell us that resistance against Him that beares the Sword i.e. against the Supreame power for that is signified by those words as Musculus and Bucer shew out of Vlpian is unlawfull in all governments 3. As the Apostle had no respect to the Absolutenesse of Power in those Emperours nor to the consent of the people by which they are said to have such power so neither indeed doth the limited condition of a Monarch inferre he may betesisted for his Exorbitancies more then an Absolute may for his whether we consider the Exorbitancies of an Absolute Mâ—narchy which may be destructive of the publique or look to the compact of the people by which he is left Absolute who did not thereby intend he should oppresse and destroy them or command and judge them beyond Reason and Equity as this Authour acknowledgeth pag. 11. But it was proved more largely above at the end of the 5. Sect. That limitednesse of power in the Soveraigne doth not inferre a power of Resistance in Subjects So that absolutenesse of power in those first Roman Emperours is causelesly alleaged by this Author as the reason why they might not be resisted This Authour concludes All that can be justly inferred out of the Text we grant but can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistance may be made to Fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall Acts of the Princes Will in a Legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the power and the person invested with the power but here force is offered to neither pag. 59. Answ The Question is not put of making no resistance to fellow Subjects but of such resistance as is made against them under the command of their Soveraigne by a contrary Army of Subjects a resistance that undertakes a finall contestation with the Soveraign to constrain him to be of another mind as it was explained above Sect. 2. Now if he meanes this Resistance cannot be collected out of the Text because it is made in a Legall Monarchy then is it the same exception which even now he made from the Absolutenesse of those Roman Monarchs but if he means it cannnot be collected because it is no resistance of Gods Ordinance from whence the Apostle drawes his reason against resisting then I say 1. That when Subjects are drawn into Armes by the Soveraign who has the power of the Sword and doe act and move under his command to make opposition by a contrary army of Subjects is a resisting of the power and a taking of the Sword without the Soveraigne against the Ordinance of God and a shedding of blood without warrant 2. This exception seemes to be the same which was made by the pleaders above where they objected If I be bound by the Ordinance of God to suffer violence of a Tyrant then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God This was answered above and is rejected by that Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet doth he in effect argue to the same purpose as we shall meet with him presently among the reasons of the next Section And thus much of the 13. to the Romaxs in the asserting of which it has been shewn against the Rev. Divines who pleaded for defensive Armes That forcible Resistance against the illegall and Tyrannous commands of the then ruling Emperours was here forbidden and That Christians had they had force sufficient might not resist Also against the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy That his exceptions from the Lawes being then against Religion and from the Absolutenesse of those Emperours were not sufficient to satisfie or make us believe that therefore the Apostle forbad them to be resisted for we find him to draw his reasons against Resistance from that which is common to all Times and Governments the Ordinance of God the end and benefit of Government There are many more places of Scripture usually brought which may very aptly and powerfully perswade patience under evill Governours but I have chosen to insist onely upon such as are more pregnant and fiâ— to beare argument against the power of Resistance in Subjects SECT IX Reason against the Power of Resistance in Subjects IT is cleare that as it has been often insinuated above if a Prince stands supreame and next under God above all the People His Subjects may not proceed to such Resistance by armed Forces as is supposed in the Question and at this day practised to the utmost It is also most manifest that our King is so being expresly acknowledged the onely Supreame Head and Governour and this might be sufficient Reason without more adoe to conclude against Resistance The adversaries not well knowing how to divide Supremacie and irresistibility have vainly endeavoured to joyne the Houses as sharers in the supream or Soveraigne power for which we had so much concerning Mixture above and doe think to satisfie that Supremacy they leave in the King by yeelding his person to be above the violence of Resistance but as for the Forces about his person the armes of the Kingdome may be imployed against them as
a remedy worse then the disease It may for a time disturbe as Physick doth the Naturall body while it is in working if the pâ—ccant humours make strong opposition but as this tends to health so dath Resistance of disorder to Order pag. 6. Answ It is not so strange for there is Order under the greatest Tyranny as was shewen in the former Reason and in the exorbitances of Pâ—inces which in themselves tend to the subversion of the established Order there is more Order Law and Justice then in the use and effects of this Remedy by resistance Such lewd Remedies as it is in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion are farre worse then any other Maladies and dâ—sorders that can be in the body of the Common wealth Now to his similiâ—ude In the applying of Physick we look to the Medicine or remedy it selfe and do not use the Sword to those parts of the body which will onely admit of Fomentations and Lenitives and patience for the cure of them nor doe we commit the applying of the physick to every hand and judgement but the â—and and judgement by which this phâ—sick of forcible Râ—siâ—ance iâ—â—tance is that of the people for this Author tels us in such a case the Appeale must be to the Community and they must aid and assist as they are in Conscience conviced But how shall they be perswaded to use a mean who wil be still applying and keeping this Physick working when perchance the Houses that cal'd them to the Câ—â—e would have it ceaâ—â— doe we not see what Humours this physick hath sâ—irred in the body Politick where there is any possiâ—iâ—ity it is better to let Nature worke it cut though we give it a longer time to â—oe it in then to thinke to helpe it by a poysonous purge But if any shall thinke the Art and wisedome of the Houses can correct the malignity of the Remedy or the rashnesse of the people that are used in the application of it I appeale from his judgement to these Times when could better and more 〈◊〉 successe of this Remedy be expected by whom could it better be applyed and managed then by the Members of this late Parliament so much extolled for their Religion Prudence and Equity yet let the issue speâ—k what little good there is to be hoped for by the use of such mischicvous remedies The fourth part of the Homily above cited speaks thus Peaceable King Sâ—lomon was judged of God more meet to build his Temple whereby the Ordering of Religion is meant then His Father David who had shed much blood in his warrs though against the Lords Enemies what Religion is it then that such men by such meanes would restore Even as good a Religion as they are good Subiects or as Rebellionis a good mean of redresse and reformation being it selfe the grearest deformation that possible may be But as the Truth of the Gospell being quietly and soberly taught though it cost them their lives that doe teach it is able to maintaine the true Religion so hath a franticke Religion need of such furious mainteinance as is Rebellion IX Lastly therefore wee are taught to referre the Remedy to God who has told us that the hearts of Kings are in his hand and he turnes them whithersoever he will Pro. 21.1 to make us apply unto him for the turning of them Hee shewes that he is the judge of the King by that Conditionate covenant he makes with him 2 Chron. c. 6. v. 16. Where the promises made to David for the continuance of his Kingdome are repeated with this condition Yet so that thy Children walk in my Law So also 2 Chro. 7.17 But the Covenant 'twixt King and People 2 Sam. 5. is not Conditionate to render him obnoxious to their judgement and force To this purpose Nation in his first Orat. against Iulian shewing how that wicked Emperour was repressed through the Mercy of God doth blame those who being too much intent upon the present cannot depend upon providence expect the execution of the Counfell of God in his punishing of wicked Princes P. Martyr in his Comment on the 13 to the Rom. shewing out of Dan. 4. that God translates and disposeth of Kingdoms observeth this way of providence that evill Princes are raised for the punishment of the wickednesse of a People sed postquam sic castiâ— gatt homines ad Deum redierint ille mitiores Principes justiores provides and accordingly saith hee wee find in History of Kings that God did Tyrannis semper miscere bonos aliquos justos Principes Calvin likewise upon the 13 to the Romanes tels us piously and judiciously That an evill Prince is the scourge of God upon the Peoples sin and therefore as we must acknowledge it is through our fault that the great blessing of Magistracy is turned to our punishment so must we neverthelesse reverence the Ordinance of Power which wee shall easily doe si nobis ipsis quiequid mali in ipsa erit impatemus if we impute the abuse of the power or the evil that we suffer by it to our selves I will conclude with the like advice given us in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion The heart of the Prince is in the hand of God wherefore let us turne from our sinnes to the Lord and he will turne the heart of the Prince to our Wealth Else for Subjects when they have deserved through their sins to have an evill Prince then to Rebell against Him were a double evill by provoking God to plague them more The Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy has brought for the power of Resistance iâ— Subjects are such as follow First Because to resist misimployed instruments acting or assisting to the performance of the destructive commands of the Prince is no resisting of the Ordinance of power because power cannot be conferred to any beyond the Law So he pag. 52. How far this concernes the question was shewen above under my third and fourth Reasons where it was propounded and answered His second Reason Because without such power of Resistance in the hands of Subjects all Limitation of Government is vaine all formes resolve into Absolute and Arbitrary pag. 53. Answ Your Argument is inconsequent by your owne descriptions of Absolute and Limited Monarchy which you drew from the consideration not of force or resistance but of Law to set bounds to the Monarchs Will as was observed above Sect. 3. So that the restraint of a limited Monarch is Legall and Morall not forcible and military Nor is there by the Limitation of the Monarchs power a power of Armes acquired to the people but onely a Morall security sought after by the restraint or bands of Lawes and Oath cast upon the Monarch which makes not a vaine limitation of Government but binds the conscience of the Monarch and by his Conscience his hands are bound more powerfully then by a contrary power or force in the
people see above towards the end of the fifth Section that Limitation of the Monarchs power inferres not a power of Resistance in Subjects He addes to the same Reason If a Prince be taught that hee may take what he pleaseath from His Subjects without being resisted cases and reasons will soone be brought to perswade him c. pag. 53. Answ He is not taught he may Lawfully doe so but if Subjects be taught that they may lawfully take Armes upon such or such cases and take from their fellow Subjects what they please to maintaine those Armes pretences and cases will not be wanting as at this day In a word some must bee finally trusted when all is done and who may better challenge it then the Supreame Governour that stands next to God above the People as was said above in the fourth Reaâ—on and it were fit we should for the redresse of Evills in Government trust God and depend upon his providence more then these men would have us Hâ—s third Reason Eccause such power is due to a publicke State for its preservation as is due to a particular person pag. 55. Answ The Proposition is not universally true but is thus farre granted such power is due to a State for its preservation as is allowed by the just Lawes thereof for as the body Naturall defends it selfe from outward force by its Law so the body Politique by its Law Now though a particular person by the Law of nature has power of selfe preservaâ—ion against the force of another private person yet is this power yeelded up in regard of the Civill power by the benefit of which particular persons have protection from the injuries of all other and not to be used against persons indued with such power against such persons illegally and suddainly assuiting a man where tâ—e danger is imminent and unavoydable by flight there was no more allowed in my first Treatise then a meere personall dâ—fence by warding of blowes without returning any yet doth this Author complaine The Doctor is so heavie a friend to the State that he thinkes it not sit to allow it that Liberty he gives every private man pag. 55. As the Liberty which this Author allowes a State for its preservation tends rather to its suoversion so are there many differences between it and the Liberty or power allowed to private men For first That power of preservation which is allowed to a private man against a private man is against an our ward force but this which is challenged for the State is by a Civill contention of the body against the Head or of other part of thâ— body against the Head and another part of the body 2. That defence which was allowed against Ministers of Power in their unavoydable assaults was without all offâ—nee but this defence by Armies which is challenged for the State cannot be so 3. That power of defence is such as nature hath endued every particular man with and the law of the Society hath not forbidden so farre forth as was said to be used but this is such a power as no Law enables Subjects to a taking and using of the Sword without warrant as hath bin often shewn 4. Such neere personall defence is not destructive of Order but this by the civill contention of the Head and body is as at this day The Pleaders for Defensive Armes make a long reply to that which in my first Treaâ— was spoken concerning this personall defence the substance of it is First though the body naturall can doe nothing against or without the guidance of the Head yet the Body Politique can being a company of Reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their Head Pag. 14.15 Answ They are Reasonable men but as they make up the body politique the Law is their Reason and they cannot move or act further then it directs them nor can they divide themselves from the Head to which the Law joynes them nor of themselves performe the supreame Acts of Power belonging to the Head 2. It is granted the body Politique may defend it selfe against an outward force then suppose the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Kingdome may we resist Pag. 15. Answ I determine nothing of their supposition which I hope will never come to passe but they should have considered when the Doctor said the Body politicke defends it selfe against an outward force liâ—â—e as the body naturall doth hee did not take the body politick divided from the Head as it is in the civill Contention 3. The Doctor supposeth the Prince bent to subvert Religion Liberties Lowes what greater destruction of Order can be feared by such antention or resistance Pag. 15.16 Answ What was meant by that supposition hath bin often explained the Prince bent or seduced to subvert i. e. doing many acts arbitrarily which of themselves tend to subversion but indeed the Frame of Government Laws cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses It may happen that actuall invasions may be made upon them and it is plain that such had better be borne with and other lawfull and reasonable remedies sought then to endeavour a forcible redresse by a Civill Contention for under such actuall invasions of the Subjects Rights nay under the greatest Tyranny there is more Order Law and Justice then under such civill discords and Warres as was fully evinced above by the 7. and 8. Reasons The fourth Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy is grounded upon that false supposall of the two Houses being joyned with the King in the very Soveraigne Power pag. 55. which was at large examined above His last reason is from the Power of inferiour Courts where the Judge it to proceed to the Censure and punishment of the Malefactor notwithstanding the Kings Warrant to the contrary much rather may the assaults of pâ—tvate men be resisted by the Parliament pag. 56. Answ The Aâ—gument from the processe of inferiour Courts to sentence and punishment or from the Parliaments power to resist and commit such private men assaulting them is altogether inconsequent to prove their power to raise Armies and by them to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne which is the resistance supposed in the Question and condemned as unwarrantable by al that hath hitherto bin spoken from the Constitution of this Governement from Scripture and from Reason And all this that hath bin spoken hitherto belongs to the Resolution of the first Question That it is not lawfull for Subjects upon the supposed Caâ—e of the Princes subvâ—rsive Exorbitances to take Armes and resist as at this day The other should follow that the Case supposed is not now or That they have no those Causes for their Armes which they pretend But of this there hath bin so much said in so many Declarations and Bookes written to informe the world aright that I need not be any longer troublesome onely I would desire the Reader upon their pretending the defence of the established Religion and Lawes by these Armes to consider First that they cannot say another Religion is commanded or enforced upon them only they will say they fear a change I would to God that all offences which the liberty of these unsetled times has produced were taken out of the way but was there ever any before these Times so desperare as to maintaine Subjects might fight against their Soveraigne for a Religion they freely enjoy only because they fear a prevailing of the Contrary And if the Reader doe consider that this Army which pretends the defence of the Established Religion besides some Trâ—â—â—es of Forreiners and Papists and some Bands of unwilling Prest-men has its chiefe strength from the prevalency of such Sects as are condemned by Lawes of this Land he may well cry out in the words of the Homily above cited What Religion is it that such men would by such meanes maintaine A franticke Religion needes such furious Maintenances as is Rebellion II. They cannot but say that the continuance of the established Religion and of the Governement of Church and State together with a just Reformation of all abuses has bin offered promised protested for by their Soveraigne â— but this will not content them unlesse the established Liturgy may be abolished the Governement of the Church by Bishops which has alwayes bin may be no more and the Power which by Law is his Majesties put into their hands And because these are not granted their Armes are continued and for the mainteining of them the Liberty and Property of their fellow Subjects is invaded So that if the Question bee put who are those misimployed fellovv Subjects that these men pretend to fight against It is plaine they are such as defend their Soveraignes Povver and Rights the Established Religion and Governement of this Church and State their ovvne property and Liberty in a vvord such as vvill not change their Soveraigne or the Established Frame of Government The God of povver and Wisedome cast out all Councels and defeat all designes that are against the restoring of our peace and the continuance of the true Reformed Religion Amen FINIS
His owne will for the measure of His power pag. 12. This also is true But he supposeth first that this Monarch must be limited in the very power it selfe not onely in the exercise of the power for an absolute Monarch may stint himselfe in the exercise of his power and yet remaine absolute Answ True if such a Monarch limit himselfe to such a Rule in such a case reserving power to vary from it when hee shall see good cause but if he that is Originally absolute and unlimited doe in some particular cases fixe a Law with promise not to vary from it he is so farre forth and onely so farre as concernes those cases limited and not absolute Secondly hee supposes such a Monarch must bee Radically i. Originally invested with such a measure of limited power and that hee must have his bounds or limitâ— of power ab externo not from the free determination of his own wil. pag. 12. yet at the beginning of the next page hee tels us that soeveraignty comes thus to bee desined to a rule i to bee limited either by Originall constitution or by after condescent when a Monarch originally absolute descends from His absolutenesse to a more moderate power That which he has to salve it is that this limiting by after condescent is equivalent to that which is by Originall constitution for there is in it a change of title and a resolution in the Monarch to be Subject to in no other way then according to such a Law pag. 13. Answ Where here is such a change of title as this man supposeth it is done at once and by expresse and notorious resignation of the Monarchs former title and power But it is not necessary that an Absolute Monarch should come to a limited condition after that manner for a Monarch that was unlimited at first by degrees may limit and bind up his power and give oath for greater security that he will rule accordingly and requires not to be subject to but according to such limitations or Lawes and so it will appeare that the pious Princes of this Land have anciently done Only when it is said they require not to be subject to but according c. it must be understood in regard of Active subjection which they cannot expect if they shall command against those Lawes nor in regard of Passive subjection as if they allowed their Subject to resist upon such commands for it can scarce be imagined that any Prince should condescend to a limited use of his power and blinde himselfe by Oath not to transgresse the limits hee should also have the bands of force and constraint cast upon him for the keeping of Him within those limits The other distinction which most concernes the businesse in hand is of Monarchy into simple without any Mixture of Aristocracy or Democracy and Mixed that has an allay from one or both of those In the explication of which that hee may lay convenient grounds for such a Mixture as he would make in this Monarchy he tels us if the composition bee of three then must the soveraigne power be in all three Originally and not one holding his power from the other but all equally from the fundamentall constitution His Reasons are 1. Because else it would be no Mixture but a Derivation of Power to others which is seene in the most simple Monarchy 2. Because the end of Mixture which â—s to keepe each state from exorbitancy could not be obtained by a derivate power for such a power cannot turne back and set bounds to its beginning so he pag. 25. Answ We see by thiâ— where he will place the two Houses in a Society of the Soveraigne Power and that by Originall constitution which will appeare but a phansy when wee come to examine it below but for the grounding of it hee supposes that Mixture must be in the very soveraigne power and that originally or from the beginning of the government neither of which is necessary for I conceive that as Limitation in government is in regard of a Law or Rule which bounds the will of the Monarch for those particulars that Law concernes and such limitation may be onely of the exercise of the power not of the power it selfe so Mixtures is in regard of Persons joyned to the Monarch for certaine Acts and purposes but that such Persons should have a share with the Monarch in the Soveraigne Power is so farre from being necessary to that mixture which Monarchy will admit of that indeed it cannot consist with that Supremacy which is supped to be in the Monarch for it would make severall independent powers in the same State or Kingdome which is most absurd If therefore the concurrence and consent of such persons be required as necessary to the exercise onely of the Soveraigne power in such or such Acts it is sufficient to make a Mixture in the Government In like manner as it was said above of Limited Monarchyes that it is not necessary they should bee so Originally but may become such by after condescent so may it be said of Mixed Monarchies And it is cleare that in most Monarchies of Europe which have beene parts or branches of the Roman Empire and by force of Armes broken off from it the Monarch at first had absolute power like as the Roman Emperours had over their conquered Provinces but by degrees have received Limitations to governe according to such and such Lawes and have admitted Mixtures by a concurrence of such and such persons whose consent should be requisite and necessary to some exercises of their soveraigne power Now to his Reasons I answer Derivation of power is either upon substitute Officers and Ministers which supply the absence of the Monarch in the execution of Power and Justice for him upon his People and such derivation of Power is in the most simple Monarchy or else it is upon such Persons or such an order of men whose concurrence and consent is required to certaine Acts of Monarchicall Power and this makes a Mixture though they have no share in the very power but concurre to the exercise of it only and have not that neither Originally but upon condescent of the Prince yet have it certainly and irrevocably by Law setled upon them Now if this Author will not call this a Mixture because it is not Originally in the power it selfe we cannot help it we are sure it makes a large and reall difference in Government and may obtain its end the keeping of each State from exorbitancy in that way it 's intended to doe it in which will give answer to his other Reason For though a Derivative power can 〈…〉 bounds to the Soveraigne power yet may it stand to 〈…〉 way those bounds which the soveraigâ— power has set to it selfe and made the Derivate power the keeper of The Kings of the Mâ—des and Persians were in most things absolute yet in this had they bound themselves not to alter a Decree made by
the advice of the Septemviri or the Princes and chiefe Counsellors of the Kingdome as we see Dan. 6.14 and Est 1.19 So may it be easily conceived in any other State the Prince though unlimited at first may bind up his Power from such or such Acts unlesse he has the consent of such Counsellors unto them which consent and concurrence does not give them a share in the Soveraign power but makes them as Bounders in the Exercise of it nor does it imply in those Persons a power of forceable constraint but only of Legall and Morall restraint as will appear in the fifth Section I will conclude this Section with a brief consideration of what he delivers concerning Monarchy by Conquest First If the Invasion saith he 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 pag. 21. I will not dispute whether a people so standing out doe forfeit those Priviledges and Liberties they formerly enjoyed or whether a Prince so forced to vindicate His Title â—y subduing the People be not free from the former Limitations to which Princes peaceably entring bound themselves and whether He may not use such a People as a Conqueror I should commend the Clemency and Piety of that Prince that would not but I doe not see the injustice if he should so use them Secondly He blames the Censure which the Fuller Answer gave of Conquest that the title of it was such as Plunderers have c. and tells us the Right of Conquest is such as the precedent Warre is if that he Lawfull so is the Conquest yet is it not the Conquest that makes them Morally bound but their own Consent in accepting of the Government pag. 22. Well but a forced consent will suffice and such will scarce be wanting to a Conquest and they that plead title of Conquest doe not divide it from such a forced consent of People but from a free limiting election Thirdly He grants that while their naturall Soveraigne is in being the People cannot by consent devolve a Right to the Conquerour But suppose they have not that tye upon them may they perpetually stand out against the Conqueror or rather are they not bound to consent and yeeld to His yoake after they see they are wholly subdued and he has setled a frame of Government among them Hee tells us Conquest may give title and power to dispose of the Country goods and lives of the Conquered but still it is in the Peoples choyce to come to a Morall condition of Subjection if they will suffer the utmost of Violence from the Conquerour rather then consent to any termes of Subjection as Numantia in Spain they dye or remain a free people nor doe they resist Gods Ordinance if at any time of advantage they use force to free themselves from so violent a possession so he pag. 22. It is an uncontrouleable truth in Policy that the consent of the People either by themselves or their Ancestors is the only Mean in ordinary Providence by which Soveraignty is conferred upon any Person or Family so he concludes pag. 23. Answ That consent of People is the only meane in your sense may be an uncontrouleable truth in the Policy lately framed but it is certain that God has power to dispose of us in ordinary providence without expecting our consents and choice it is plain by Scripture that Conquest is a Mean of translating Kingdoms and disposing of People in the way of ordinary providence it was so when God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as an hire for his service done upon Iudah so when the Ammonites and Edomites were subdued by David of which see below Sect. 6. against the Fuller Answer Had these no right over those conquered Nations but by expecting their consent Yea will he say a Right to dispose of their Lands and Goods and lives but not to challenge their Morall Subjection Well we doubt not but such Conquerors could force their consent but I aske were they not bound to yeeld it is there no way for that providence which translates Kingdoms to discover it selfe but by the consent of the Conquered People that if they please to be obstinate his providence shall give no Right his setting up a King by Conquest over such a people shall be no institution oâ— Ordinance this is good Policy but bad Divinity I conceive it all 〈◊〉 controuleable truth that when the invading Prince has perfectly subdued a People there being no present Soveraigne or apparent Heire of the Crown to whom they are bound as has setled disposed all things and constituted a frame of Government then I say providence doth sufficiently discover it selfe and such a people ought to submit and consent and take their Prince as set over them by the hand of Providence so that if they will persist finally to resist as this Author saith they may they resist the Ordinance of God If he will not beleeve me let him heare Calvin who in his Instit l. 4. c. 20. nu 26 27. doth inforce obedience to that Prince which is over us by a reason drawn from that Providence of God which disposeth Kingdomes and sets up over us what Kings he pleases and from the example of Nebuchadnezzar Ier. 27.8 doth inferre Cuicunqve ergo delatum fuisse regnum conslabit ei serviendum esse ne dubitemus But how shall we discover his providence and will herein the next words tell us Atque simul ac in Regium fastigium quempiam evebit Dominus testatam nobis facit suam voluntatem quòd regnare illum velit So in his Comment upon 1 Sam. 26. Licet multi avaritiâ ambitione crudelitate invascrit regna imperia tamen Dei voluntatem pluris esse quam omnia illa faciendam sciamus ac proinde nos illis ultro submittamus quos Deus Reges nobis praefecit This is very home against this Authors assertion wherein he denyes Conquest to confer a Soveraignty and will not suffer God in the ordinary way of Providence to dispose of a people without their own consents But enough of this We come now to make Application of what hath been said to the Particular Monarchy of this Land SECT IV. Of the Constitution of this Monarchy BEfore we come to examine how this Author has stated â—he poynt of Resistance in relation to the severall kinds of Monarchy it will not be amisse to consider unto what kinde this Monarchy belongs whether it be such a Limited Mixed Monarchy as this man would have it Originally and Fundamentally by the placing of Nobles and Commons as sharers with the Monarch in the Soveraign power It would be seeme the skilfull in the Law to speak to this point if they could be induced to deliver what they know but seeing there is enough in History and Reason which speaks the Frame and beginning of this
there can be no warrant derived thence for resistance but that the Kings we read of there were such as might not be resisted and that Gods people were alwayes under such We begin with the Old Testament and will be very briefe propounding only what is Materiall This has beene heretofore clearly proved by these two Arguments especially 1. Because the Institution of the Israelitish kingdome was such as doth plainly exclude resistance 2. Because so many Prophets bitterly reproving those wicked Kings for subâ—cision of Religion and Justice did never call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance I shall open the first and enforce it alittle more and then answer what is brought against either In the first of Sam. c. 8 we have the institution of the Kingdome where Samuel is commanded to tell the people Ius Regis the manner of the King v. 11. He will take your sonnes your daughters your field c. And yee shall cry out in that day c. As if he should have said you desire a King and doe not consider what power you put your selves under such an one as if he command you â—â—d yours at pleasure you must patiently endure this is the meaning of Ius Regis which implyet not a Right of doing such unjust Acts but a Security from resistance and force if he â—oes them Moses did shew the right and Manner of the King what he should justly doe Deut. 17. Samuel the right of the King not in doing but in being secure from the peoples force if he did unjustly Moses admonisheth the King of his duty shewing what a good king ought to doe Samuel endeavouring to disswade the People shewes what they must patiently suffer from evill kings Many Authors might be alleadged if need were for this meaning of Ius Regis I will name one without exception Calvin in his Comment upon the place and in his Institutions He speaks to this purpose Samuel when he would shew the People what great things they should suffer under Kings tells them this shall be Ius Regis the manner of the King He shall take your Sonnes c. not that their Kings could doe so Iure justly for the Law did teach them all moderation and justice sedjus in populum vocabatur cui parere ipsi necesse esset nec obsistere liceret so he Instit l. 4. c. 20. nu 26. And in his Comment upon the place he doth sufficiently set out those as Tyrannicall Acts but sheweth that for all that Subjects ought not to resist nec quicquam adversus Reges movere licèt Tyrannidem exerceaxt rapinis sint graves subditis nullamque nec Dei nec aequi rectique rationem habeant what more full which also appeares by the 18. v. Ye shall crie out in that daie c. That they were left without this remedy of resistance Calv. in his Instit the place above cited thus Eo so proripiet licentiae Regum libido quam cohibere vestrum non erit quibus hoc restabit unum lussa excipere ac dicto audientes esse and a little after non westrum esse his malis mederi hoc tantum esse reliquum Domini opem implorare there can be nothing spoken more plainly against the power of resistance in Subjects then this We have Adversaries confessing the same the Author of the Fuller Answer acknowledged those Kings of Jsrael might noâ— be resisted and this Author of the Treatise of Monarchie confesseth that the People there had no other means to help themselves by but cryes unto the Lord so he pag. 58. By this appeares what little weight there is in the exception which the Pleaders for defensive Armes make to this place This was say they a prediction of punishment that should befall them for their impetuous asking of a King not a prohibition of resistance pag. 18. And in the same page This prediction of punishment doth not prove it was unlawfull for them to defend their goods against their Kings Tyranny but that it should be vaine to them because if God would not heare their Cry their defence would be to little purpose Answ The punishment foretold is that they should be thus and thus evill intreated by their Kings and that without remedy but that in all this there is nothing to prove it was unlawfull for them to resist such Kings is a bare assertion against former proofes which shew there was on the Kings part a Jus or right of security against such Violence But to acknowledge as they doe that this prediction of punishment doth prove their defence would be vaine iâ— God did not heare their Cry is to confesse that when God suffers Kings to exercise Tyranny and Oppression upon the People over whom he has set them it is a scourge and punishment from him upon that people for their sinne and that it is vain for them to seek remedy by resistance which is a most true and pious argument against resistance as we shall shew when we come to reasons against it A second exception is that the Israelitish Monarchy was Absolute and therefore excluded the resistance of Subjects so this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy The pleaders for Defensive Armes although they are against absolute Monarchy as unlawfull and therfore doe not say this Monarchy set up over Gods people was such yet doe they say what was here foretold or enjoyned to that people cannot be a Law or punishment intended to other Nations under oppressing Kings no more then that which the Lord imposed on the Iewes and other Nations in Nebuhcadnezars Time their putting their neck under his yoake Jer. 27. can prove that any Nation is bound to yeeld to a forraigne enemy invading them so they pag. 18. Ans I. Although this Monarchy of Israell were granted to be Absolute and the instances brought should be peculiar to that people not intended as Lawes and Rules to other Nations yet do they sufficiently prove what I intended in that part of my first Treatise which was to shew that there was no Warrant for resistance from Scripture which still gives us examples of Kings set over Gods people who might not be resisted II How the Author of the Treat of Monarchy can say the Israelites Kings were absolute Monarchs according to that description of Absolutenesse which he gave above I cannot see for he told us that Absolute Monarchy is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but the Monarchs own will It is true they were not so limited as some Kings are now but we know there was a fixed judiciall Law which in many particulars secured the propriety and liberty of that people there were speciall limitations for their Kings Deut. 17. There was also a standing great Councell the Sanedâ—im whose sentence in many things the King could not at his owne will and pleasure reverse if we believe them that are skilfull in the Iewish Antiquities Grotius in his