he might seeme to finde a contradiction when I afterward say that it may be done by originall constitution or by after condescent but yet he confesseth I have a salve when I make it such a condescent as is equivalent to an Originall Constitution because amounting to a change of Title and a resolution in the Monarch to be subjected to no other way I make no salve nor doe I need any he who weighes the Uniformity of Truth in that Treatise will see it needs no salves Onely I distinguish those things which are in their natures distinct which if the Doctour had done this Contention either had not been begun or would soon have an end Who sees not that a Promise whereby a Monarch may bind himselfe may either be with a limitation of the bond of subjection or without And that this makes a reall difference for in this the Government remaines the same because the Dutie of subjection received no variation but in that there is for so much a Transitus into a limited condition But these things cannot be more fully and clearly expressed then they are in the page 13. of that Treatise But he answers Where there is such a change of Title it is done at once and by expresse and notorious resignation of former Power but it is not necessary that an absolute Monarch should come to a limited Condition after that manner I say if he will passe into a limited condition it is necessary there be a limitation of his Power else he is not truly limited But that all such limitation be done at once and by notorious resignation it is not necessary as will appeare afterward where this matter of Limitation is more distinctly handled Sect. 5 His next complaint is against something I have in the page 25. sc That in a mixed Government if it be of three the Soveraign Power must be in all three originally and from fundamentall constitution He judges this not necessary p. 17. and he gives a wonderfull Reason For as Limitation may be only of the exercise of the Power and not of the Power it selfe so mixture is in regard of Persons ioyned to the Monarch for certain acts and purposes but that they should have any share in the Soveraign power the nature of Monarchy will not admit 1. Just so for as a Monarchy is not limited unlesse there be a limitation of Power for Monarchy is a Power so a Monarchy cannot be mixed unlesse there be a mixture of Powers for Monarchy is a Power and to say a mixt Monarchy and yet the Power not mixt is to speake contradictories 2. If the mixture be not of divers concurrent Powers wherof is it He tells us of the Monarch and certaine other Persons joyned with him for certaine acts and purposes These joyned Persons have they any concurring Power to doe those acts for which they are joyned If not then the adjoyning is futulous and vaine and the Power of Monarchy is mixed of a Person having Power and of others having no Power to doe that for which they are joyned You will say They have Power but not distinct from that of the Monarch that is they have none for in mixture if it be not distinct it is none at all Againe if they have any it must be distinct for subordinate it cannot be if the Acts to which they concurre be supreme Acts unlesse we should be so absurd as to say They may concurre to supreme Acts by a subordinate Power But let us see what a maine Reason he hath for averring a conceit subject to such absurdities Such a mixture would make severall independent powers in the same State or Kingdome which is most absurd I grant it is absurd if he speake of severall complete independent powers but to affirme severall incomplete independent powers concurring to make up one integrall mixt power it is no absurdity at all for so it is in all Aristocracies and Democracies and must be acknowledged in all mixed States where the supremacie is not wholy in the hands of one person Yet here we doe not so make them independent but that we give a large predominancie to One as in nature in all mixed bodies there is as I have at large explained my selfe in the next Section if the Doctor had been at leasure to have taken notice of it I yeild to that which he sayes p. 17. that it is not necessary the Mixture should be so Originall but that it may also come afterwards by condescent It matters not so it be originall that is radicall of Powers and not of meere Acts And indeed there cannot be a mixture of Acts unlesse it be also of Powers for Acts are from Powers and where Powers are subordinate there can be no mixture in their Acts the Acts of causes subordinate are also subordinate and not coordinate and mixed But I there brought two Arguments to prove that in a Mixed Government the Concurrents must have independent and distinct Powers Let us see how he answers them 1. Because else it would be no mixture but a derivation of Power which is seen in the most simple Monarchy He answers that derivation of Power is either upon substitute Officers supplying the absence of the Monarch in the execution of Power and this is in the most simple Monarchy Or else upon Persons whose concurrence and consent is required to certaine Acts of Monarchicall Power and this makes a mixture though they have no share in the Power it selfe p. 17. I answer 1. Absence or presence of the Monarch whether they Act for him or with him varies not the case If the Power they work by be derived from him then it is his Power and so constitutes no Mixture 2. As if in the most simple Monarchy the Soveraigne doth mannage the ardua imperij the weightiest matters of State alone and not by consent of his Counsell without whom he is morally bound that is on the sinne of rashnesse not to transact them and that is all which the Doctor yeilds to the Houses of Parliament sc that the King is morally bound to their concurrence and consent in certaine Acts. This is nothing but the shadow of a Mixture If the Power of Acting be so in one that if he please he may doe those Acts without the concurrence of those adjunct Persons though he ought not it is no Mixture because the Power is simple and One and mixed Acts cannot flow from one simple Power This the Doctor sees and therefore sayes If this Authour will not call this a Mixture we cannot help it p. 18. We doe not enquire of Names but of things nor whether it make a difference in Government or no We treat of a Mixt Governement and I think no man of common sense will affirme that a Government can be really mixed and yet the Power be simple 2. Because the End of Mixture which is Effectuall Limitation cannot be had by a derivate Power He answers Though a Derivate Power cannot
in justice be held originall and ab initio Those two denominations of Leige Soveraigne And Liege people doe prove the very Soveraignty and Subiection Legall but that is not so which hath only a morall Limitation the denominations argue the bond 'twixt them to be Legall And when Subjects have such a Libertie by custome and Law that they owe no farther subjection then when or how ever they came by it yet the very power of the Monarch is limited as we heard in the former Chapter unlesse any will put a vaine power in the Prince to which no Subjection is due but of this enough there Then he passeth to my Reasons proving mixture which are three p. 40. of my Treatise The first is That it is confessedly mixed of a Monarchie Aristocracie and Democracie therefore radically and in the very Power He answers It is not necessarie the mixture should be in the Power but it is sufficient if there be a concurrence of Persons whose consent is required to the exercise of Power p. 39. Thus he answers to the conclusion but sayes nothing to the Antecedent 1. And indeed if it be mixed of these three his answer is against common-sense that a mixture of Monarchie Aristocracie and Democracie should be satisfied by annexion of persons to the Monarch having meere consent for these are names of Power of Government for Aristocracie and Democracie are Powers not Persons as well as Monarchie therefore a composition of these three must be all of Powers 2. And indeed this chimera of a mixture in the exercise of Power is plaine non-sense For a mixture in the Acts or Exercise supposeth a mixture in the principles of Action that is in the very Powers A mixt Act proceeding from a simple Power is such stuffe that I never heard before Now if a mixture in Acts argues a mixture in Powers These Powers must be co-ordinate and supreme for subordinates make no mixture also Powers concurrent to supreme Acts such as Legislation is confessed to be cannot be but supreme Powers Neither can any man living cleare that passage which he speaks of p. 45. from pure non-sense sc This coordination is but to some Act or Exercise of the Supreme Power not in the power it selfe For Concurse to an Act imâ—lies a Power of Concurrence and Concurse to a supreme Act argues a supreme Power for an inferiour Power cannot afford a coordinate concurrence to a supreme Act. So that his Over-seers were not mistaken when they checked him for that passage and said He granted a coordination of Subjects with his Majestie in the supreme Power But here he brings a ponderous Reason so often before urged If the mixture be in the Supremacie of Power how can the King be the Only supreme and Head He cannot salve it with his Apex potestatis unlesse the King must be the Crowne or Top of the Head onely for they also must be our Head and our Soveraignes if they be mixed in the Supremacie of Power p. 29. Here I answer once for all to this so frequent an injection 1. That the Titles of Head and Supreme are fully satisfied by this that he is the sole Principle and fountaine from whence the execution of all Law and Justice flowes to his people by inferiour Officers and Courts all whose Authoritie is derivatively from him as its head 2. That these Titles in proper construction import only Vtmost chiefty nor doe they agree to any kind of right in the fundamentall and radicall Powers of a Kingdome but to the principall and transcendent Interest Another may have a right in the supreme Power yet not be supreme nor Head because not having a supremacie in that Power So it is in the Colledges the Fellowes have a fundamentall interest in the power of Government yet that hinders not but that the Title of Head and Chiefe is given to him who is Governour will the Doctour jest at it and say they be Heads and Supremes too and the Warden or Master is but the crowne or top of the head Also in the naturall bodie from whence the Metaphor of Head is borrowed are three Fundamentall and radicall powers scituate in the three Principall parts yet none will say the Heart and Liver are Heads too because they partake the supreme Powers of nature Let not the Doctour therefore straine a Metaphor so farre as to make himselfe merry with it Let him really answer my Arguments by which I prove a radicall Limitation and mixture Let him answer is not the Legislative Power the supreame Have not the Houses an Authoritative concurrence and Influx into that businesse If he avoyd a punctuall answer hereto by carping at words he will prove himselfe a ridiculous Argumentatour while he seekes to make others seeme so My second Argument for radicall mixture is from the Legislative Power being in all three He answers That Phrase is satisfied and explained by that concurrence and consent in the exercise of supreame Power It seemes that invention of his must serve all turnes Is a Legislative Power satisfied by a bare powerlesse consent I demand is that Consent causall and Authoritative or meerly Consiliarie and unauthoritative And whereas I prove that they have an enacting Authority by that received and set clause in the beginning of Acts Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majestie and the Authoritie of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament He tels us a Vote and Power of assenting is a great Authority p. 29. I enquire not how great it is I aske whether that be all whether that clause which as expressely as words can ascribes an enacting Authority to them be satisfied by such a Power of Assenting He sees it doth not and therefore tels us of a former phrase which ran thus The King by the advise and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonaltie hath ordained c. Suppose anciently some statutes runne under that forme that advise and instance must be understood of an Authoritative and enacting advice and instance as the latter formes explaine it for it is equall that the latter expound the former and not the contrary as the Doctor would perversly have it especially considering the Doctors Exposition cannot stand with the latter but mine agrees very well with the former But how bold is this man when during so many yeares and Parliaments both Kings and States by this received Forme have acknowledged and established a concurrent enacting Authoritie in all three yet he dares argue and oppose so expresse and confessed a truth But in this answer he discovers a great deale of superficialnes in granting the Houses a Power of consenting to the establishment of laws and yet denie them a Legislative enacting Power for such a Power of consenting if it be necessary is indeed a Power of enacting for though in transeunt Acts one may stand by and consent to the doing and yet not be Efficient yet in immanent Acts
which are done per immediatam volitionem by a meere expression of the Will A concurrence in consenting and a concurrence in doing is one and the same thing Now Legislation is an imminent Act consisting in a meer expression of an Authoritative Will My third Argument for Mixture was from it's end which was Restraint from excesse 1. He grants such a Restraint but morall and legall not forceable p. 30. I answer He deceitfully confounds morall and legall as I shewed before 2. The End of Mixture in a State is that there may be a power of restreyning more then sufficient as his Majestie expresses it but the Doctors meere morall power is very insufficient It limits not the Power at all nor the Exercise properly no more then an Oath or Promise without it would doe that is makes it sinne to exceed But of this before But here which is very rare He doth not onely denie but give a reason of it If the fundamentall Constitution had intended them such a Power it would not have left a power in the Monarch to call or dissolve them which would make this power of theirs altogether ineffectuall p. 30. This Reason seemes to have some weight in it I will therefore the more seriously consider it 1. Whatever strength it hath had in it now it hath none because that power of dissolving is now by Law suspended for this Parliament and after it a necessity by Law imposed of reducing that Power of Calling Parliaments into Act every Three yeares 2. Neither was it true before these Acts that such a Power was left in the Monarch at pleasure to use or not for it was by ancient Law determined how often they should be convocated 3. But being granted that this Power is simply and fully in the Monarch yet I denie that hence it followes that it would make that Power of the Houses altogether ineffectuall because that de facto though it hath been in the Monarch so long yet it never hath made it voyd but they have exercised a limiting Power as Histories relate enough yea and sometimes too much over the Monarch notwithstanding his Power of calling and dissolving them Thus in the Colledges the Fellowes have an effectuall and more then morall limiting Power though the Governour hath the Power of calling and dissolving their meetings And anciently the prime Patriarch had the power of Calling and dissolving generall Councels yet they had a Power of limiting yea of Censuring him for exorbitances for all that The Reason is because many things fall out oft in a Government inducing such necessities on the Monarch that he for their supply will choose to reduce such power into act of Calling and suspend such power of dissolving although he know those States will use their Limiting Power in reducing such exorbitances and punishing those dearest instruments which have been used in them This the Constitutors of this Frame preconsidering might put in the Monarch this Power and yet intend to the other States a Legall and effectuall power of restraining his exorbitancies by using Force not against him but it's procurers and Instruments Thus we see there is no need of entring on that dispute Whether this Power of calling and dissolving the Houses be placed in the Monarch as all his other are not absolutely but with limitation of necessary reducing it into act on the last exigencies of the Kingdome After this he returns to my other Arguments for limitation One of which drawne from radicall Mixture he fully omits but now having shewed the invalidity of his exceptions against my arguments for it I have given force to this argument for Limitation drawne therefrom That which he sets on last is my first for Limitation in the very Power sc the Kings owne expresse confession That the Law is the measure of his power That the Powers which he hath are vested in him by Law p. 31. of my Tract And as if this were not more then he could answer the Doctor addes a third for us in which he ascribes to the Houses a power more then sufficient to restraine his Excesses p. 30. Here are Authorities as punctuall and expresse as can be imagined Yet the Doctor resolving not to be reasoned into a beliefe of these things out faces all this evidence and to that end frames three Answers such as they are 1. He sayes His Majestie had few of his learned Counsell about him 2. His gracious expressions ought not to be drawne out to his disadvantage 3. All that can be gathered from them doth not come up to these Conclusions p. 31. In the two first he openly enough taxeth his Majestie of unadvised expressions excusing it from absence of his learned Counsellours you may soone imagine whom he meanes Thus disparaging the Kings judgement and all then about him and tels us we must not be unjust to set those sayings on the racke that is we must not take them in their plaine meaning but on this mans wrested and sencelesse interpretation What doe not these men dare doe and say Before we heard him correcting the expressions of all Moderne Parliaments teaching us to reforme them by the old Here the King and his Counsell setting out in such a time Declarations to all his Subjects to informe them about the nature and extent of his Royall Power He compares those serious expresses to Trajans sudden and excessive speech He will correct Kings Counsels Parliaments and all but he will have his way To him they must come to learne how to speake and what powers they have But let us heare his Doctorall Exposition of his Majesties expresses Hee sayes The Law is the measure of his Power Wee must understand his meaning to be that his power is bounded by Law but it doth not follow that his power wherein it is not limited by Law is not absolute and full p. 31. Here is profound interpreting If his Power be limited by Law is there any part of it not limited by Law If the Law be the measure of it sure it is even with it for the measure is equall in extent with the thing measured Thus he papally interprets against the direct meaning of the Text But he doth not show us how that can be understood when he saith His powers are vested in him by Law if the Law be a limitation only of exercise Nor how their Restraining power is more then sufficient if it be only morall which how unsufficient a restraint for exorbitance it is every ones experience can enough testifie I admire a man who pretends to conscience and judgement should take such liberty of interpreting Certaine if those Reasons and Testimonies doe not clearly proove a radically limited and mixed Constitution of this Monarchy I shall despair of ever proving any thing by way of Argument any more I had an intent to have subnexed other Arguments to make good Sect. 3 those Assertions but I see it is to no purpose 7 Queries concerning this
Governement for he is resolved not to be reasoned into them He can denie all as failing either in the Antecedent or Consequent p. 32. The Power of this Kingdome he must have unlimited He will give no Reason for it nor heare no Reason against it Yet sith he professeth himselfe a Resolver of Conscience Let me therfore be so bold as to propose certaine Cases to him 1. Why in the late Oath proposed to be taken by all his Majesties Subjects the Power of enacting Statutes is sworne to be joyntly in the Kings Maiestie Lords and Commons in Parliament Certes the Doctor writ this Reply before that Oath was printed in Oxford or else he did not consider of it He cannot say I hope there were but few of his counsell about him when that was framed if the Doctor hath taken it He hath forsworne this passage of his Reply and sworne them a joynt enacting power 2. Why we are enjoyned to sweare that we doe beleeve that the Subiects of England are not obliged by any Act made either by the Kings Maiestie solely or the Houses solely c. Sure the Doctor hath abjured his other Assertion of the unlimited Power of the King if he hath taken this Oath for if Power be solely his then an Act made by him solely is obliging If they be not obligatorie they are not Authoritative and so the mixture and limitation is in the Authority it self Here is no place left for his distinction of Active and Passion subiection For 1. Will any thinke that the intent is to sweare men to be bound not to doe but to suffer 2. The Beliefe of a non-Obligation proceeds indifferently and as fully concerning the sole Acts of the King us the Houses but I beleeve the Doctour will not say we are obliged to passive subiection to the sole Acts of the Houses 3. I would know if the States doe limit onely morally what they doe which is not done without them A Promise and Oath do limit morally without them He will say they may admonish him and denie their consent and so iudge his Acts invalid He meanes still morally invalid and so would they be without them 4. Suppose the Monarch minded to establish a Law which he judges needfull and the States being averse he enacts it without them Is it not a Law It hath all the Legislative authoritie in it He will say it is not duly made 1. I grant it but yet it is a Law for it hath all the Power of a Law 2. But is it not duly made Why the power of last decision is in the King alone Suppose he define that the Intent of his Predecessours in granting this consenting power to the Houses had no intent to hinder but further themselves in establishing good lawes and therefore now they not concurring by assent to this needfull Act He ought not to be hindred but may lawfully doe it without them He is the last Judge in this case and it must be held ever lawfully enacted So that in the result here is left to these States by the Doctors grounds neither Civill nor Morall Limitation but at pleasure 5. If Limitation in our Government exempt Subjects from a necessity of active Subjection but not from passive How is it that our Lawes doe not only determine what the Monarch shall command but also what he shall inflict what shall be accounted Rebellion what Felonie c. and what not also what he shall inflict for this crime and that crime and what not Sith the Lawes limiting what he shall command doe limit our necessity of active Subiection it will follow that the Lawes limiting what he shall inflict doe limit our necessity of passive Subiection Here 's no evasion by saying the Laws do limit him morally what he shall inflict and if he inflict beyond Law he sinnes in it but we must suffer for the Doctor acknowledges that the Lawes defining what he shall command doe so limit our active subjection that we have a simple exemption from any necessity of Doing and therefore also the Laws defining what he shall inflict doe so limit our passive subjection that we have a simple exemption from any necessity of suffering beyond those Limitations for also if they did not free us from passive subjection it were unlawfull not only to resist but also to avoid suffering even by flight 6. When the liberties of magna Charta and other grants have been gotten and preserved and recovered at the rate of so much trouble sute expence and bloud whither by all that adoe was intended only a morall liberty definement in the Monarch and not also of the power it selfe only that he might not lawfully exorbitate from established Lawes and not also that he might have no Authority or Power to exorbitate at all Sure this was their aime for the former he could not doe before 7. The Law granting a writ of Rebellion against him who refuseth to obey the sentence of the Judge though he have an expresse Act of the Kings will to warrant him doth it not suppose those exceeding and extrajudiciall Acts of the Kings will to be unauthoritative and unable to priviledge a man from Resistance If the Doctor by his faculty can resolve these Cases He will doe much in way of satisfaction of my conscience but if he cannot they will prove so many convincing arguments that the Power of the Monarch in this Frame is not unlimited Now having made good my Assertions I expected another worke sc an Examination of his Reasons for unlimitednesse and simplicity of Monarchicall Power but he is not guilty of my fault he doth not goe so much as to reason us into a beliefe of it He doth in vaine expresse a desire hee hath that some skilfull Lawyers or Divines would helpe him at this dead lift yet he is like to goe alone in this wild untroden path of defending an unresistiblenesse on such supposals shall we think any Divine will second him in justifying his unwritten fancie about Gods Ordinance necessarily investing all the acts of his will who is supreme Or any sound Lawyer will overthrow the grounds of his Profession that the Royall Right Authority and Government of this Realme is both founded on and measured by the Laws thereof Yea it is very remarkeable that his Majestie in all the Declarations and Expresses which I have seen doth not once touch upon this way sc a challenge of such a latitude of Authority as can preserve destructive instruments from force but condemnes the now Resistance by solemne protestations of innocency and intention of governing by the known Laws CHAP. VI. An Answer to his 5. Sect. of Resistance in Relation to severall kinds of Monarchy THE residue of his Book is spent about the Question of Resistance Sect. 1 I might well spare the labour of any farther Answer for now having so apparently made good these two Assertions 1. That soveraignty may be limited in the very power 2. That de
discovered And p. 51. of my Treatise in a full dispute have I proved the Parliaments power in resisting destructive instruments which I doubt not will appeare cleare notwithstanding any thing said in this Reply But that is very strange which he affirmes p. 39. That if they use a Legall restraining power the Monarch cannot alter the established frame Sure by cannot he understands fallaciously as he useth to doe a morall cannot that is not without sin which is a poor small cannot now adays if he mean indeed cannot that is is not able it is against reason by his grounds for what is not he able to doe whose lowest most desperate instrument of pleasure is unresistible Let him remember where he said p. 19. A forcible consent cannot be wanting to a Conquerour and a Conquerours power is no more then unresistible Nay I am senselesse on the Doctors grounds if he cannot lawfully for suppose he be pleased to make it a Question whether he were not better governe by the Civill-Law as more conducent to Gods glory and the end of Government He is by Law the last judge of this Question if he determine it best then he may lawfully doe it Now we are come to the second part of this Section in which he Sect. 2 undertakes the proofe of this Assertion His Arguments against power of resistance reserved answered that Limitations and Mixtures in Monarchy doe not imply a forcible constraining power in subjects for the preventing of dissolution but only a Legall p. 39. Answ He failes in the very proposall of his Assertion in three points 1. He proposeth it of Limitation in generall whereas I grant it of that which is only in exercise affirming it only of that which is of the power it selfe 2. He sayes Forcible constraining power in subjects when he should have specified against subversive instruments for I grant it of the Monarch himselfe 3. He opposeth forcible to Legall when it should be opposed only to meere Morall not to Legall as before Now let us weigh his Arguments First Such a power must be in them by reservation and then it must be expresse in the constitution of the Government and Covenant or else by implication I will answer distinctly concerning this Reservation of power of forcible Resistance 1. There is a Reservation of liberty or power of not being subject neither actively nor passively to the exceeding Acts of the Monarchs will This is by implication for what they did not resigne up they did reserve 2. A power of Authoritative judging and resisting the Monarch thus exceeding This neither expressely nor implicitly is reserved not because it is unlawfull as the Doctor imagins but contradictory to the very institution of a Monarchy and so under that intention impossible 3. A power of forcible resistance of subversive instruments This by the Authority of the Law is not reserved but expressely commited not only to the Houses of Parliament but all inferiour Courts for the Law whose execution the King committeth unto them commands them not only to resist but punish its violaters much more its subverters without exceptions of Persons or respect of their number or ground and reason why they doe it whether with or against the Kings private and absolute will or Warrant supposing such men to be without warrant And this power of judging all violators and subverters of Laws being committed to them includes a power of imploying the force or Armes of the County or whole Kingdome if need be to make good the sentence of the Law against them This power being a necessary attendant to the former And they who have the power of judging by Commission have the power of force by implication To his five Arguments therefore by which he proves this power not reserved by implication I briefly Answer 1. Limitation cannot infer it c. Answer Limitation in exercise only doth not but in the power it selfe doth infer it as I have often shewed 2. The inconveniencies of exorbitancie cannot infer it Answer They doe not infer it of themselves for they are the same in absolute Rule but supposing a people mind in their Frame effectually to prevent those inconveniencies that doth infer it 3. The consent and intention of the people choosing a Monarch cannot infer it because it is not the measure of the power it selfe Answer I have before proved the contrary and made the Doctors supposall appeare a groundlesse falshood concerning unlimited power by Gods ordinance 4. The intention of the people in procuring Limitations of power cannot infer it Answer If the peoples intention in it be a greater security from oppression then in an absolute Government they can have or a meere morall limitation can give them then it doth inferre it 5. If the Architects did intend such a forceable power to these States they would not have best it in his power to dissolve them p. 42. This hath had its full satisfaction before These are poore infirme arguments as the reader cannot but see yet he ends in a triumph Therefore I conclude here as I promised in the second Section where the Prince stands supreme c. there Subjects may not by force of armes resist though he be exorbitant c. p. 43. 'T is true he concludes as he promised but he hath not proved as he promised nor as we expected for here is nothing but that which fals to the ground with his supposals on which they are built and which I have demolished in the 4th Chapter CHAP. VII An Answer to the 7th Section of his Replie of places of Scripture out of the old Testament HIs sixt Section doth wholly concerne the Authour of the fuller Sect. 1 Answer which I passe over because I am chargeable for no more then is my owne And come to his seventh which containes an Examination of places alledged in this Question out of the old Testament Where he begins confidently that there is no warrant for Resistance p. 56. and he yeelds two Reasons why 1. Because the Institution of that Kingdom was such as doth plainly exclude Resistance 2. Because the Prophets never call for it Ans I grant it doth exclude it as farre as in an absolute Monarchie it may be excluded and therefore there is no need of answering his Arguments But yet let us consider them sith he is so large in them To shew us the Institution of that Kingdome he brings 1 Sam. 8.11 Where he sayes we have it For Samuel is commanded v. 9. To tell the people Jus Regis Now this jus Regis he makes a great matter of and tels us it implies not a Right of doing such unjust Acts but a securitie from Resistance and force if he does them p. 56. Ans 1. It is no prejudice to the cause I defend if I should grant all he would worke out of this Text for it prooves no farther then of that particular Kingdome inducing no necessitie that all others must have the same Institution Also
will Whereas we have prooved that in limited Governments it is not so but to the Princes Will measured and regulated by a Law and therefore they have that power still in respect of all instruments of acts of Will not so regulated But it is observable that p 95. the Doctour is beaten off from his owne grounds and yeelds up in the Close of his booke a full Victory to Truth Which will appeare if we looke backe to his first booke and Sect. 1. where he proposeth the Question in his own termes whither if a King be bent or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Subjects may take up armes and resist He undertakes to maintaine the Negative and here was the beginning of the controversie Now see in this Replie how he is sunck and stollen off from that which he undertooke to defend and upon the matter grants us the Cause For 1. By bent or seduced to subvert he tels us he means not a purpose of the mind but doing many Acts arbitrarily tending to subuersion as if he would yeeld that supposing him bent that is purposing and intending it in his mind and course he might be resisted 2. Nay by bent to subvert he does not meane so much as Acts subversive but onely Acts tending to subversion of themselves for the frame of government and Lawes cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses So that now the Question is rather Whither subversion be possible by such instruments then whether their Resistance be lawfull Sure it were pitty to disturbe them by Resistance in an impossible worke Let them run on rather till they see their owne vanity and folly but suppose they should bring it to passe then it would be too late to come to this Doctor and tell him he was deceived and did deceive Certainly those great Polititians who have had this designe in managing so many yeares are not of his mind Yea suppose it cannot be done without the consent of the Houses yet the Doctour can tell us in another case that where there is an unresistible power Consent cannot long be wanting What then will he yeeld us a power of Resistance if we can proove such a designe possible Here also because the Doctor sayes this liberty which I allow a State for its preservation tends rather to its subversion p. 94. and every where calumniates me as an inducer of confusion and Anarchie and my Assertions as opening a way to Rebellion It concernes me effectually to vindicate my selfe and the truth which I maintaine from these aspersions and make it appeare that the power of Resistance I defend is not a remedy worse then the disease of subversion Which I can doe no better way then by a positive setting downe the naked truth which I averre in this and the former Treatise and shew how it shuts up every way to these evills which he layes uncharitably to my charge 1. I assert no forceable Resistance in any case but subversive and extreme 2. Subversive and extreme cases respect either particular men or the whole state and Government For particular men even in extreme cases of state or life I allow no publike Resistance but appeale if it may be had or if not yet no publike Resistance for whether the wrong be done him by inferiour or superiour Magistrates either it is 1. Under forme and course of Law and power committed them and then to resist is to resist the power 2. Or without all forme and course of Law and power committed to them and then a man values his state and life too high to make publike resistance and bring on the state a generall disturbance for his private good and sins though not against Gods ordinance of Power in this case yet against the publike peace and weale For the whole state or government and the last cases of its subversion of which the Doctor puts the Question 1. I condemne all force used against the Person of the supreme or his Power and Authority in any inferiour Ministers thereof 2. I averre not publike forceable resistance of Ministers of acts of will which are only actuall invasions or excesses of limitation and not such as plainly argue a bent of subversion and apparent danger thereof if prevention be not used so that the Doctor goes from the Question and comes home to me when he sayes here that he speakes only of the former sort 3. I affirme not force in this utmost case to be assumed by private men against destructive instruments of the Princes will as if any man were warranted on his own imagination of publike danger to raise forces for prevention But the Courts of Justice and especially the supreme Court to whom the conservation of Government and Law is committed and a Power not only to resist but also censure and punish its violaters much more its subverters without regard of number or warrant The Law supposing no warrant can be in such case This is the power of Resistance which I have asserted and it this be inducing of civill warre or a way to subversion and Rebellion It is a warre raised by defenders of Law against subverters of Law A Rebellion raised by Magistrates having Authority against instruments of arbitrarinesse having no authority A resistance tending to subversion but of none but subverters 'T is good reason then it seemes if destroyers grow to the number and strength of an Army for Magistrates to let them alone and not raise armes to suppresse them lest they open a way to confusion and bring on the miseries of a civill Warre This is the Doctors preservative Doctrine and my contrary is destructive 4. I argued from the end of the institution of the Houses and their interest in making Laws and preserving the frame He sayes this is grounded on my false supposall of their being joyned with the King in the very soveraigne power p. 96. Answer I have justified that supposall and manifested his strange boldnesse in denying it against the Kings and so many Parliaments direct affirmations and desire the reader to take notice that this is Calvins argument for Resistance in the place above recited how ever the Doctor doth make so light of it 5. From the power of inferiour Courts to punish violaters of Law though pretending a warrant of the Kings will for it He sayes this Argument is inconsequent to prove power of raysing Armies to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne He hastens to a conclusion and weighs not much what he answers I say it concludes inevitably for if the Kings warrant to violate Law will not priviledge one from force of justice then not a hundred not an Army of violaters Their multitude makes the danger greater and the Kingdome more unhappy not Malefactors more priviledged The forces of the Soveraigne in truth are the Forces raised to defend his Government not those which are raised to subvert it They are his which have his Authoritative will not those which have only his arbitrary If ever Reasons did demonstrate a truth I am confident these five have made good The power of the estates in Parliament to resist subversive instruments be they more or fewer Thus have I traced this Authour through his Reply and whether Sect. 3 I have not sufficiently vindicated my Treatise from it I referre my selfe to the conscience of every one who hath the understanding of a judicious man and the impartiality of a just man In my cap. 8. is a moderate debate of the present contention and divers Petitions tending to pacification if it had been possible but he toucheth not on that chapt His discourse shewes him to have nothing to doe with Moderation nor doth desire Peace but on the termes of a full dedition into the hands of subversive instruments I have done with him He resolved I Answered He hath replyed I have returned on it I am even with him and in truth above him I am sure Now I desire to spin out this contention no longer Yet if he or any else please to rejoyne I wish he would save himselfe and me a labour to let alone the booke and deale only with the 4th and 5th Chapters concerning the Doctors supposals if he can make good them and invalidate mine as much as in me lieth I will yeild him the cause but I judge it impossible if I know what is impossible The God of spirits allay the spirits of men from this extreme opposition And give such a issue to these wofull warrs that the scepter of Christ the Gospell of Peace may be fully submitted to and maintained by a King enjoying inviolate his due soveraignty and a People their due and lawfull liberties Amen PHIL. 4.5 Let your moderation be known unto all men The Lord is at hand FINIS
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
what as appeares in the Debate in the end of my Treatise may soone be answered out of the Declarations of the Houses and the fresh memory of past occurrents And in this reply he hath not so much as touched upon that Chapt. of my book But that which in his first Tract he mainely and in this Reply he solely labours to make good is the first Assertion which is a universall one and worthy to be examined in all Ages and Governments whatsoever becomes of this present contention in this Kingdome Now concerning that Thesis in my Treatise of Monarchy I have affirmed and confirmed two things 1. That if he could make it good yet it were nothing to the businesse he hath undertook which is to satisfie the conscience concerning the Unlawfulnesse of Resisting Instruments not the King of which hee hath spoken very little or nothing at all 2. That if he could prove that in some Kingdomes where the will of the King is the peoples Law Resistance of Instruments were unlawfull if actuated by the Soveraignes will Yet in Legall and Limited Governments it doth not follow to be true yet this he must make good if in our present case he satisfie mens consciences as he undertakes These two are the summe of my Answer to the Doctor in that Treatise and if in this Reply he doth any thing he must speake to these points Something he hath here spoken concerning the Ordinance of God in Supremacy Of Cases of Resistance of Kinds of Monarchy of the Constitution of this Monarchy but how truly and satisfactorily it is my part to examine and let the world judge But as if he had already cleared the matter he proceeds to give sentence before the cause be heard And doubts not to call the contrary Resolution a Blaspheming of God and the King p 4. I answer If there be any which will defend the lawfulnesse of taking Armes against the King and in any case to resist the Powers They crosse the evident truth of Scripture and I condemne them Yet me thinks the Doctor deales somewhat severely with them to call them Blasphemers of God for every errour about the word is not Blasphemie but a wilfull and obstinate speaking evill of the things of God Likewise concerning a King if it be true that he be seduced then it is no blasphemie which alwayes is a falshood If it be false yet it is inhumane to call it a blaspheming when it imputes nothing to him but to be seduced which the best and most innocent Prince may be sure if it be a blaspheming it is of the Counsellours and seducers for to them the evill is imputed Then p. 6. He comes to speake of what he intends in this present booke sc that he will cleare this point That the Doctrine teaching that subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties when in danger of subversion is destitute of Scripture and true reason As I said still he drives at a vaine scope to prove that which none denies Let him prove that in our Kingdome Resistance of subversive instruments is a taking Armes against their Soveraigne and he does the work else he proves in vaine But let us see how in the processe of this booke that will be cleared which none doth deny First upon examination of places of Scripture it will appeare that Gods people were continually under Kings which they might not resist c. What then must it needs follow that all other people must too But whether the word containes any thing against Resistance and how far we shall enquire in the processe of this dispute Secondly Vpon the examination of Reason it will appeare how inconsistent such a Power of Resistance in subjects is with Government c. Indeed he will make appeare a great matter would he would speake something to the Question and not proceed so indistinctly I hope in the processe of his book he will come neerer to the businesse then here he promiseth or else all our labour will be to little purpose After he hath told us what great matters we are to expect in his Sect. 3 booke he complaines how much his expectation hath been deceived by his Adversaries He confesses They have great appearance of Reason raised on Aristotles grounds or principles so that at first sight it seemed unreasonable that subjects should be left without this remedy If he speake all this of Resistance of their soveraigne sure it seemes not at all unreasonable but agreeable to all reason that subjects should be without this remedy It is directly against the word and all sound reason that a people lifting up a Person above themselves and by sacred Covenant giving him a Power above themselves should afterward on any pretence assume a power of Resisting that Person and power and violate their own Covenant and Oath of due subjection But if that Person be invested with a limited Power and he proceed to acts of meere arbitrarinesse without the limits of that Power conferred on him Then it is all the reason in the world that the Limiting States should exercise an effectuall restraining Power by resisting instruments of such arbitrary and subversive acts and we have not a sillable of Scripture contradicting it But if it seemed so unreasonable to the Doctor that subjects should be without this remedy why doth he contradict Reason in a businesse within its compasse He tells you He found Reason presently checked with that saying of our Saviour Mat. 10.25 It is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Master And was this all the check your Reason had It is a very weake Reason which would yeeld to such a check What is every Christian bound for his outward state to be in no better case then Christ was If he were pleased to be borne under an absolute Government to be of low and poore condition doth this impose a necessity on all to be no freer no richer then he was A man would think his Reason were not only checked but broken which should so argue Let it be proved that by the providence of God we are brought forth under such a Governement as our Master was then will we hold our selves bound by his example to abide quietly in that condition we are borne to but if God as he hath dispensed to many a richer estate then Christ was pleased to have so hath to us a freer Government then the Apostle adviseth us to use it rather and not to be trifled out of it by a shew of our Masters example in a case in which it binds no man But in what hath his Adversaries so much deceived his expectation He expected expresse Scripture but he finds them altogether fayling only their faith aad perswasion is resolved into an appearance of reason raised upon Aristotles grounds and principles p. 6. Mr Hooker might have taught him that the intent of the Scripture is to deliver us credenda but in matters within
the compasse of Reason it is enough if we have evident reason for it Scriptura non contradicente and I am confident the Scripture hath not a tittle against such a Resistence as I doe maintaine and we have reason enough for it The Scripture was not given to prescribe frames of Policie which are various according to the disposition of people Generall Rules there are for Government which being observed Particulars which fall under no setled Rule are left to reason and the positive Lawes of Nations to determine Yet we are not wholy destitute of warrant from Scripture as the Doctor affirmes but are better furnished then he as it will appeare in the sequell If Buchanan and Junius Brutus or any else have raised any doctrines on Aristotles grounds which will not consist with Gods Ordinance set downe in Scripture concerning Authority I am not bound to make good other mens excesses This Replier knowes that as I repudiate his Assertions tending to the ruine of all Liberties of States So I hold it unlawfull to use any force against the person or Authority of the Supreame even in the most Legall and limited Monarchy Therefore he doth me exceeding wrong in the close of his first Section to say that I agree with the rest to use what force they can against such a Monarch for suppressing of his tyranny c. All I say is that Force may be used but neither against the Person nor Authority of the Monarch which in all Governments of that nature are to be held sacred and inviolate CHAP. II. An answer to the second Section concerning Cases of Resistence I Could have wished that if it had pleased this Doctor to reply any thing he would have followed the steps of my Treatise but sith he intends no full returne but doth only catch at here and there a passage without observing any order I will frame my Answer to the course of his Reply and cleare the parcels of my book as I find them assaulted in my reading of his The Title of this Section being Cases of Resistence the first part of it is spent about such Cases as are put by the Divines who plead for Defensive armes At length p. 9 10. He comes to the alone Case in which I defend Resistence in the p. 51. of my Tract where I put the Question of Persons misimployed to serve the illegall destructive commands of the Prince And I affirm in such case and of such Persons Forceable Resistance to be lawfull by the two Estates of Parliament This I prove by five Arguments which here the Doctor doth not touch but referres them to the p. 93. of this Reply Only here he gives us a Magisteriall determination without any proofe at all But let us heare his Resolution upon the case He dares not openly to pronounce it unlawfull but distinguishes of Persons and Times as if he would yeeld it lawfull in some but not in others Certes if for any then for the two Estates if any then Instruments of subversion if simply none why doth he with so great cautele distinguish Well audiamus distinguentem If by those misimployed persons be understood the Commanders and Souldiers of the Kings Armies I cannot see nor any man els I think but that the resisting of them by a contrary Militia is a resisting of the King and unlawfull p. 9. I answer I cannot see nor any man else I think why Commanders and Souldiers should have a priviledge of subverting States and Governments more then other men Can the Royall Power extend to give them an irresistibility and not to others Certes if others may be resisted much rather Commanders and Souldiers because there is greater danger of subversion from them then from others Their being Commanders and Souldiers makes them more dangerous but not more priviledged But he nor none else can see how such can be resisted but it must be a resisting of the King and unlawfull Perhaps he is mistaken in others they may have clearer eyes then he hath In the p. 52. of my Treatise I have made it luce clarius that in a Legall Monarchy it is not a Resisting of the King Then he proceedeth to another sort of men which I hope may be resisted But if by those misimployed persons be understood other instruments of oppression in times of peace before it come to Armes What of these may such be resisted Here he resolves very cautelously and timorously after many words p. 10. without prejudice to other assertions of his of other resistance He conceives it not unreasonable to say First if private men be sodainely assaulted and life imminently endangered and no meanes of avoiding by flight then is personall defence lawfull for such sodaine assault carries no pretence of authority with it What is this to the matter we enquire not of resisting assailants carrying no pretence of authority with them but of subverters of Government warranted by the Kings will and carrying pretence of Authority though they have none Secondly If they come with pretence of Authority there may be seeking redressement above from Authority but if that may not be had yet no resistance And who then minding to kill or rob may not make a pretence of Authority that so he may effect his mischiefe without repugnance But yet the Doctor will give us a little more The Ministers of Power in each County and the Houses of Parliament also for with him they be equall may at first stay restraine and commit such misimployed instruments and so represent the matter againe to the King But is not this to resist them No he tells us this is not to resist No if misimployed instruments may be staid restrained and imprisoned sure they may be resisted Else what if they should choose and will not be committed The Parliament must not lay hands on them to compell them for so there may chance to be fight and slaughter in the apprehension and then the Doctor would call it Resistance I think But suppose the Houses of Parliament doe commit such persons and represent the matter to the King and a King should be so obstinate as to persist in the maintenance of those illegall courses and to that end imploy the Militia it is neither Legall nor Reasonable they should pursue the opposition to the setting up of a contrary Militia or Power p. 11. Here we see the upshot of the English freedome and priviledge of Parliament This is that which I said Those men overturne all liberties The result of their doctrine destroyes all policies reducing them all to that which is arbitrary If the King should set Souldiers to destroy Lawes and Parliaments They may if they be able stay their hands till they goe to the King and know whether it be indeed his will and pleasure to have them destroyed or no If he say Yea then they must returne and submit to the vilest instruments of subversion and not lift up a hand to resist them But let us see
on what weighty reason the Doctor builds this fatall Resolution This were a contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are a levying of warre an opposing of Armies against Armies Sure this man doth much abhorre a Civill Warre I cannot blame him but yet we may buy an immunity too deare at the prize of a subversion of Religion Laws and Government which is the case in dispute This were to choose to be killed rather then to sight To have a State subverted rather then disturbed by a warre to prevent it I grant There must be no contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are But this is the point to be proved that in this case it is so I utterly denie the Royall Power in our State can be communicated to subverting Instruments And I doe in vaine expect while the Doctor prooves that which every where he supposeth For he builds all on this foundation sc That Gods Ordinance is an Absolute unlimited Power investing the whole will of the Supreame and cannot be determined in the exercise but onely morally the vanitie of which conceit will appeare hereafter yet note here in the close that while he pretends a detestation of Civill Warre he could doe nothing more to foment it then by defending such Positions of intolerable servitude Did not such rigid Counsellours of the King of Israel cause the greatest Rent and Civill Warre that ever was made in any Kingdome CHAP. III. An Answer to the third Section which concerns severall kinds of Monarchy IN my opinion it had been fitter to have treated first of severall kinds Sect. 1 of Monarchy and then of Cases of Resistance for the subject in which should precede the Question whereof in all methodicall proceeding Here againe in the first place this Replier would make his Reader believe that penury of Scripture-proofe put me upon distinguishing of severall kinds of Monarchy That so I might lay all the defence of Resistance upon Reason drawne from the severall condition of Monarchies p. 11. I have sufficiently before discovered my intention in that Treatise The Resistence which I defend hath as much proofe from Scripture as a matter of that nature need to have Then he abuses me as finding fault with Divines that pleading for absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Kingdome bring proofes from places of Scripture p. 12. I complaine not of all Divines but some such as this Resolver is Some and that but of late yeares and that but in this kingdome where such doctrines are the rode to preferments nor doe I blame them for bringing proofes for subjection and against Resistance from places of Scripture as he calumniates me but I blame their grosse perverting of Scripture bringing prohibitions of Resistance of Powers against them who condemne it as much as themselves And of violating the Lords annointed against them who hold them as sacred and inviolate yea on more solid grounds then themselves doe And their fraudulent reasoning from one kind of government to another as if all Politicall provisions of States for their Liberties did make no variation in the case but that still they were in the same State as the people subject to the most absolute vassallage Sect. 2 But because he boasts so much of setling mens Consciences on warrant from Scripture that he expects command or allowance of Resistance from Scripture p. 6. That his Adversaries resolve all their faith and perswasion on an appearance of Reason drawne from Aristotles grounds ib. and here that I observe there is but little pretence from Scripture for Resistance and thus would perswade men as if he had all Scripture for him we nothing but a few huskes of reason for us Let him not thinke to carry it thus away with vaunts and big words I will professe here once for all He hath not a sillable of Scripture or right reason to satisfie the conscience with in this controversie If it please this Doctor let us joyne issue upon it and put the whole case on this point The Question betweene us is Whether in a limited Monarchie Resistance of subversive Instruments be unlawfull He affirmes I denie He undertakes to satisfie mens consciences that it is unlawfull bringing not one Text of Scripture which speakes to the point Something he brings to proove it unlawfull to resist the Ordinance of God that the Magistrate which is supreame under God is above all Resistance p. 84. He doth great matters who doubts of these things Then p. 84. he accumulates nine Arguments but all so non concluding that ninescore of them will not make one sound proving Reason of the point in question as it will appeare when we come to consider them On the other side we have both to settle mens consciences on 1. Examples of Scripture sc The peoples rescue of Jonathan Davids armie against the cut-throats of Saul that is subversive Instruments These being particular men and in an absolute Monarchie proove the point the more strongly so strongly that the Doctor is faine to flie to that ordinary evasion of an extraordinarie priviledge Besides all those places which prove it lawfull to resist private men seeking to subvert Lawes and Religion and the publike good sith in a limited State they are but private men though backed with a Commission from the Kings will and pleasure 2. Then for Reason I have set downe five p. 53. all unanswerably concluding the point in Question as I doubt not the considerate Reader will acknowledge He professes p. 12. That it was never his intent to plead for absolutenesse of Power in the King if by absolutenesse of Power be meant a Power of Arbitrary Command What his intent is I know not but he hath fully done the thing or I have no understanding to see when a thing is done In the precedent Section he resolves all cases into the Arbitrium Regis the meere pleasure of the King allowing the Houses of Parliament only a power of staying the hands of destroyers till it be expressely knowne whether it be the Kings pleasure they shall be destroyed And I am confident the meanest apprehension will discerne that they who make the Monarchs sole Will the last judge of all controversies and simply deny in the last case of subversion all Power of Resistance of Instruments even to the supreame Courts of Law and justice doe without any controversie resolve all government into an Arbitrarie Absolutenesse He adds We allow a distinction of Monarchies and admit the Government of Kingdomes to be of divers kinds and acknowledge a legall restraint upon the Power of the Monarch in this Kingdome Verba datis rem negatis you allow indeed a kind of distinction of Monarchies but all within the compasse of Absolute A legall restraint you seeme to acknowledge but such an one as resolves into the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch as I have made it appeare in my former Treatise and you will never be able to wipe off by this or any other Reply Then
he promises that in this Booke certaine points will appeare to be truth agreeable to Scripture and Reason sc That Government is not the invention of man but the institution of God That Governours have their Power not from the people but from God That Governing Power is one and the same in all supreames and can only be limited in the exercise And that where a Prince stands supreme and next to God above all the people there the Subiects may not take armes and make forceable resistance for any exorbitances These severall Propositions how farre they contain Truth and how far not I shall in the sequell make appear After these great promises he proceeds p. 13. to speake somewhat of the Originall of Governing Power and accuseth me as if I seemed to Sect. 3 affirme it to be from God but in the processe of my booke he finds me deriving it indeed from the people I perceiving two contrary opinions concerning the Originall of Government did in that Treatise endeavour to reconcile them and to shew in what sence both are true To that end as there is manifest p 4. I distinguished 3 things 1 It 's constitution 2 It 's Limitation to one kind 3 It 's determination to one individuall Person and Family The first of these I did affirme to be from God The two latter from Men and then concluded In these things we have Doctour Fernes consent Let us see what exceptions he can take at this peaceable assay of Reconcilement In the processe of my Discourse he findes me deriving it from the people What then Doe I denie it thereby to be from God as if Subordinates did exclude one another God hath ordained that Powers should be People by vertue of that Ordinance give them existence in this or that kind and subiect The Doctor acknowledges all this but not in my sence p. 14. He grants the Designation of the Person and the Limitation of the Power to severall kinds to be from the consent of the People I say no more why doe we not then agree The plaine truth is The Doctor will not have Limitation of Power to be at all from the people what ever he pretends How then the Limitation of the Power to severall kinds is from the people as the Doctor yeelds I cannot tell Is not Limitation of it into kinds Limitation of the Power it selfe But he is possessed that my sound sence is another sence from his what other he doth not shew but it is another which he likes not Why Because sometimes I say the people reserve a Power to oppose or displace the Magistrate Sometime they divest themselves of all superiority 'T is true I say so but withall I say that when they reserve such a Power they constitute no Monarchy Is it not so in the highest Ministers of Power in Aristocracies and Democracies What can he say against so apparent a Truth 2. I call them p. 63. Architectonicall Powers This he derides and saies This is the riddle of this Governing Power originally in the people They are Architectonicall Powers but build upon foundations laid in the aire p. 14 Then he gives his reason For before Government established they have not any politique Power whereby a Command may be laid upon others but only a naturall power of private resistance This is false that they have onely a naturall power of private Resistance They have indeed no formall politique power for we speake of a people free from all government but they have a virtuall radicall power by publike consent and contract to constitute this or that forme of Government and resigne up themselves to a condition of subjection on Termes and after a form of their owne constitution so the Athenians Lacedemonians and Romans of old having expelled their Kings and the Vnited Provinces with others of latter times have done This is that which I called Architectonicall Power and the Replier vainly carpes at the name when he cannot denie the thing But I know what he aimes at in all this sc That Gods Ordinance is an absolute boundlesse Power in all Supremes uncapable of any limitation but in the exercise Of which fully afterwards Sect. 4 At length He takes a nearer view of the Formes of Monarchie spoken of by me and makes a few observations upon such particulars at him pleaseth p. 14. Let us follow his steps First for Absolute Monarchie whereas I say it is when Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limitation under God but the Monarches owne will He approoves my description but threatens to remember it below p. 15. Let him doe so and make his best advantage of it only here he cannot forbeare one note that then it is not the deniall of resistance which makes a Monarch absolute but the deniall of a law to bound his Will I doe grant it but with all I say that it is necessariò consequutivum though it be not constitutivum for sith a Monarch which is obsolute hath no Law to bound his Will but his very Will is the Subjects Law then every act of his Will is Gods Ordinance and so by consequence it is unresistible Also p. 15. He allowes it when I say A limited Monarch is he who hath a Law besides his owne Will for the measure of his power But yet he dislikes that I say He must be limited in the Power it selfe and not only in the exercise and I added a reason for an Absolute Monarch may stint himselfe in the exercise of his Power and yet remaine absolute What saies he to this True if such a Monarch limit himself and reserve a Power to vary but if he fix a Law with promise not to varie then in those cases he is limited Note the fraud of this Replier he alters his terms and puts things as opposite which are not so He should say if be limit himselfe and reserve a power to varie then he is absolute but if he limit himselfe and reserve no Power to varie for then the opposition is direct then he is limited But in stead of saying and reserve no power to varie he saies but if he promise not to vary I say that promise not to vary if it be a simple promise of not varying it doth not make him limited in his Power any more then morally and so every Absolute Monarch is limited I affirme still it is Limitation of the Power it selfe not barely of the exercise which constitutes a Limited Monarch for Monarchy is a state of Power and therefore it 's specificative distinction must be from something which distinguisheth Powers and not the exercise of Powers but this is enough proved in the 5 t page of that Treatise Secondly he blames me for that I suppose a Limited Monarch must be radically that is originally invested with such a measure of limited Power and that limited ab externo and not from the free determination of his owne Will Here he adds originally of his owne that so
subjection Reas 3 is due 3. If Power in the supreme be such that it cannot be limited then either because it is Gods Ordinance or else because it is supreme but it s being Gods Ordinance hinders not for we see Rom. 13. All Powers as well supreme as subordinate are Gods Ordinance yet subordinate Powers may be limited not only in the Rule of Acting but in the kind of Acts as none can denie Neither its being supreme doth hinder its limitablenesse indeed as before it hinders it from being capable of confinement in the kind of Acts but in the measure or rule of working it doth not hinder in as much as a Soveraigne Power may as well attaine its end by being confined to another Law from without as by the Law of its own Reason if not much better also we no where finde Gods Word making any difference or giving power to confine subordinate Powers but forbidding it of Soveraignes Reas 4 4. That is to be granted which denied makes all Soveraignes arbitrary and of equall Power but to affirme that Power is one unlimited and investing all the Acts of the Soveraignes Will doth so for then is soveraignty arbitrary not when it hath no morall bounds for then none were or could be arbitrary but when Power is so fully in Reas 5 one that every Act of his Arbitrium or Will is Potestative and soveraigne 5. I have the judgement of all the Reformed Churches and Divines in Germany France Belgia Scotland on my part who have both allowed and actually used forceable Resistance against subversive Instruments of their Soveraignes Will yea our owne famous Princes Elizabeth James and our present Soveraigne both by edicts and Assistance have justified the same which they would not have done had they been perswaded of such an unlimited Ordinance of God investing all the Acts of the Will of him who is supreme So that by all this it appears that the Doctors conceit of such an unlimited Ordinance of God which he brings not a tittle of Gods word to prove is a meere chimera and groundlesse conceit Object Now the onely difficulty which I can thinke on is this Gods Ordinance in soveraignty as before is not onely Power to such an end but sufficiencie of Power to the assecution of that end now a limited Power seemeth not to be sufficient for the end of Government because there are two Powers necessary to the end of Government sc Power of making and authentique Interpreting of Laws which are not consistent with a Limitation of Power I answer It is true of Limitation in respect of Acts Sol. and therefore I averre that such a Limitation cannot be where Power is supreme but for Limitation to a Rule and defined way of Working I cannot see how it with-stands the end of Government So that supposing Power of making and Interpreting Laws be necessary to the end of Government yet that they be Absolutely resident in him who is supreme sc To make Lawes and Interprete Lawes authoritatively without being bound to follow any Light or Rule therin but his owne Reason is not necessary to the end of Government In these Acts a regulated Power is enough in the most simple State sc a Power to make new Lawes if any be needfull and Interpreting the old if ambiguous according to the Rule of the former established Laws and by the advise of his learned Counsell and Judges of his supreme Courts of Justice We see in matters spirituall there is no Legislative Power resident to ordain or give authentique sence in matters de fide yet the Church stands well enough one standing Rule of Scripture being sufficient with a ministeriall Interpretation So it is probable a State might by a complete standing Rule of Law and a Ministeriall Power of Interpretation were there no Legislative Power resident in any Supreme Magistrate thereof But the matter is farre more cleare in a mixed Government so that Assert 2 were it necessary in a simple Government that the Supreme should be unlimited in his Power yet in a Mixed which is enough for us in this Kingdome evidently it is not so And to make this appeare I will lay downe three grounds 1. Such a Government may be established that the supreme Power may be placed in many persons either of the same or divers condition that is in a mixed Subject else all formes were unlawfull except simple Monarchie 2. If this supreame Power be inequally placed in these Persons or States of men so that a reall sublimity and Principality be given to one then the denomination may be taken from that Principall and so it is a Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy mixed in the Power it selfe however it pleaseth this Replier to deride it with the top or Crowne of the head of which more hereafter 3. Where the Supremacy of power is thus in many although all taken together have an unlimited Power as in ours yet neither of them severall by himselfe hath or can have for it is a contradiction that it be resident in many and yet unlimitedly in One. Now to those two shewes of Argument which in the beginning I produced out of this Reply I say before Government be established it is true the people have no formall Politique Power of Life and Death yet they have a seminall that is every one for himselfe his family and posterity hath a power of resigning up their naturall liberty to be governed by One or many after this or that forme as they shall judge fittest God ordaining that Powers should be to such an end hath thereby legitimated and ratified any Consent or Contract which people may make of parting with their liberty and giving Magistrates a common Power over them to that end And Gods not prescribing any Rule or Measure of Power by his Ordinance of Authority hath left it in the peoples liberty to resigne up themselves according to such Rule and Termes as they judge fittest so it be such as the end of his Ordinance may be attained thereby Thus although by it selfe and excluding Gods Ordinance they have no immediate Power to lay a command on others nor Power of life and death yet in vertue of Gods Ordinance their common consent and contract is sufficient to set up such a Power which is endowed with a sufficiency of Command for Government and the end of Government over those which have each man for himselfe and his set it up So although second Causes have no Power by themselves to produce their effects yet working in vertue of the first Cause they have Power to produce effects sometimes farre beyond their own Measure Therefore I desire this Doctour either to bring some Ordinance of God expressely forbidding to set any bounds or Rule of Power upon the Will of the Magistrate or else let him suffer Man-kind to use their Right in resigning up that liberty which God and nature hath given them upon such termes and conditions as they apprehend best
people resigning up themselves to a state of subjection doe it not absolutely but impose only a limited bond on themselves for if they impose no more duty the Governour can assume no more power Now this may be done not only by positive expresse and notorious act as the Doctor speakes but also by a negative a meere not imposing of an absolute bond of duty on themselves is enough so that if it cannot be proved either by records of the first institution or present obligation that a people have put themselves into a state of absolute subjection then it is to be held but limited For whatsoever is ours by the law of nature cannot be taken from us but by some positive act done by our selves or Ancestors Thus in private men Liberty which is mine by nature none can take from me unlesse he can bring a title or right whereby it became his and I his servant Nor am I any farther his servant then he can bring proofe of his right The same is true of a society of men In this case it belongs to the challenger and not to the defendent to bring his positive notorious act for proofe of his title and measure of his title So that the Doctors demand is unreasonable who standing for a full right in our Government puts on the peoples part to bring evidence that they have not Rather it is just that he should bring some positive and notorious act wherein it appeares that this people have fully resigned up their liberty to an absolute Government or make it appeare that it is Gods ordinance that where ever a people doe constitute a soveraigne power they must make an absolute resignation of their liberty 2. By after-condescent for this may be a meane of civill limitation unlesse any will imagine that a people once putting themselves into absolute subjection are irrevocably so And thus a Monarch becomes limited when the promise or Oath he limits himselfe by is not simple but amounts either expressely or equivalently to a relaxation of the bond of subjection whether it proceed from meere grace or conscience of equity or by Petition or importunity of the people it matters not what was the ground of it if it carry with it a relaxation of the dutie of subjection it is a meane of civill limitation in the very root of power for power can be no larger in the Prince then duty of subjection is in the people for these two have a necessary dependence and relation of equality either to other Thus if a Monarch taking advantage of force of armes impose a new Oath of full subjection on his people who before were but legally bound and prevaile so farre that the whole or major part of his people doe take it for themselves and theirs here is a chang of Government from Legall into Absolute an enlargement of power so on the contrary And for this matter we need looke no farther then the Nationall Oath or Established Lawes for if they bind the people to an absolute subjection such is the power and though it have morall yet it hath no legall limitation And so on the contrary if they bind only to a subjection according to the Law the Government is limited in the very power of it Hence it appeares to be false which the Doctor hath p. 16. that a Monarch may so tye himselfe as to require not to be subjected to but according to such Lawes and yet not be civilly limited in his very power for if he so far require not to be subjected to that he untye the bond of subjection beyond those Lawes then is his Authority limited and can proceed no farther neither are the instruments of his will exceeding those lawes authorized but private persons and resistible And also false which he sayes p. 28. That limitation by condescent cannot be radicall Now if enquiry be made concerning the simplicity of antient formes of assuming into soveraignty as when the people are said to make one King to endue him indefinitely with Kingly power not confining his Government by any expresse limitations Ans I conceive in such case to know how far a people are bound by such an indefinite contract these things are to be looked into 1. If the intent of the people can be discovered in such a constitution for if it can doubtlesse the contract binds so far and no farther Thus Lyra concludes concerning the request of the people of Israel for a King that it is to be understood of an Absolute King by that clause in the petition 1 Sam. 8.5 a King to judge us like all the Nations for all those Easterne Nations having Absolute Monarchs they desiring to be governed like them must be conceived to intend such a government 2. If there be no expression of their intention then a light concerning it must be borrowed for circumstances sc the kind of government whereunto they have been formerly accustomed or that of the Nation from which they proceeded And thus the Saxons giving Kingly state to their Captaines in this Land cannot in reason be interpreted to intend any other then that whereunto they were accustomed and which was the forme of the Nation whence they came This Rule is ever to be kept as well in publike as in private contracts of that simple indefinite forme that they are to be construed as far as may be in fovour of the granter CHAP. V. An Answer to the Sect. 4. concerning the Constitution of this Monarchy Sect. 1 A Fourth sort of the Doctors supposals are concerning the Constitution of this Monarchy which in words he granteth to be limited and mixed but comming to explaine himselfe he makes such a limitation of it and such a mixture as is indeed none at all being to be found in the most Absolute and simple governments in the world for he every where supposeth it limited only morally in the exercise not in the power And so mixed that there is but one simple power a mixture made of one simple principle such a one as never was heard of in the world before And this he delivers on his bare word never bringing any proofe of it thinking it enough if he can except against that which I have set downe concerning these things in my Treatise Among other Assertions which I have there about the state of this Government there are two which this Replyer doth oppose One is p. 31. That the soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited which I have made good by five Arguments and added a solution to the two chiefe which may be made against it The other is p. 39. That the Authority of this Land is of a compounded and mixed nature in the very root and constitution of it This I have confirmed by three Reasons and have answered three Objections which may be made against it Now I desire the Reader impartially to weigh what I have there said and to compare it with this Doctors Reply and then judge
whether those truths stand not firme against all that is brought to infringe them But let us see what he opposeth He proceedes not in any orderly course to set downe his Antitheses and prove them and to give Answer to what I have brought on the contrary but first spends some time in considering what this Government was in its Originall as if it must needs remaine still such as it was at first and could not receive any alterations and graduall accomplishment in processe of time And then he sets on my Arguments but how feebly we shall easily discover Here the first thing I did tax in the Doctors booke was that he affirmed things contradictory for he tells us he is against Absolute power in our Kings and arbitrary Government And yet he also affirmes that our Kings hold by right of conquest yea of three conquests And that the Houses of Parliament are more subject to our Kings then the Senate of Rome was to their Emperours Also that the finall judgement is in One. Now how these so openly contradictorie Assertions can stand together he doth not shew us Only he challengeth my ingenuity if either he proposed this as a conclusion to be proved that our Kings are absolute p. 21. Neither doe I affirme that he did Only I say he holds things contradictory that he holds such grounds which make all Kings absolute sc that no supreme is or can be more then morally limited Indeed he speakes much of limitation morall of limitation in the exercise of power this makes a great noise of limitation but indeed are but meere vailes to cover over Absolutenesse and make it the more passable which he is ashamed to propose to the world in expresse termes Suppose he did not mention those conquests to win an arbitrary power to the King Yet sure in affirming more then once that he hath such a right he doth as much as if he said he may use an arbitrary power if he will for if he hath a right of Conquest he hath an Arbitrary right by the Doctors own confession p. 22. and if he hath a right of Arbitrarinesse it is his lenity he doth not use it In the Answer to the first Argument which I brought for the Absolutenesse of our Kings which was that They hold by conquest and therefore are Absolute I do not say the Doctor drawes such a conclusion No but he layes down the Antecedent and then any body else may draw out the conclusion I fetch not the root of succession so farre backe as the Saxons Originall of this Monarchy as this Replier traduces to cut off advantages which may be made from the Normans entrance p. 22. But because himselfe began there to make up a Trinity of Conquests This drew me on that discourse of the Originall of this Monarchy nor that the cause had any need of it for it is his work to prove the Government absolute if he will have it so also suppose it were as absolute as the Norman Conquest by him improved can make it yet that hinders not but that it may become really and radically limited afterward by condescent as appeares in the former chapter Concerning the Saxon entrance I said it was not a conquest sc properly and simply but an expulsion He answers This is neither true nor greatly materiall p. 22. I say it is both true and materiall It is true for all the Britaines which retained their name and Nation were they many or few were expelled into Wales All the rest in gentem leges nomen linquamque vincentium concesserunt as himselfe cites for me out of Mr Cambden And it is very materiall for if they which only remained here in gentem leges vincentium concesserunt Then the Conquerers as I said kept their old forme of Government the Saxons came not into the condition of the conquered Brittaines but they into the old liberty of the Saxons Hereupon grew there a necessity of inquiry into the Government of the Nation before they came hither that so we might know what a one they established here and brought the remaining Brittaines into And a record of more unquestionable authority then Tacitus I could not imagine nor a more expresse testimony for a limited forme in the very potestas of it of which sort he affirmes the Governement of all the Germane Nations was How ever the Doctor is pleased to call it a conjecture a dreame and uncertainty No the expresse testimony of such an Authour is not so Rather that probability of these Saxons not being then a people of Germany but did afterward breake out of the Cimbrica chersonesus is so which himselfe dares call no more then a probability I say 1. It is a greater probability that they were a people of Germany before they came in hither for the Angli which accompanied them in that invasion were questionles Germanes and reckoned by Tacitus among that people doubtlesse they were neighbours in habitation which were joyned in that voyage and conquest 2. Suppose the matter were not cleare of the Saxons yet is it of the Angli which gave denomination to the Land and people who no doubt retained their Laws and Government sayes Cambden which was limited in the very royall power saith Tacitus But this Doctor would make men believe as if I endeavoured to deduce the very Modell of our present Government from that Saxon ingresse Whereas all that I ayme at is to make it appeare that in semine in the rude beginnings it is so ancient and shall affirme the limited power of the English Kings and liberty of the subjects to have been from thence continued till now unlesse he can bring some better proofes of its interruption and induction of an unlimited power then as yet he hath Also to shew that the Doctors Tenure by Conquest is vaine in the first of the Three for the Saxons gave none such to their Princes but kept their Lawes and came not under the Title of a conquered people Next the Doctor censures my delineation of the present platforme of our Government p. 44. for it is nothing with him for advantage to skip over 9. or 10. Pages that so he might make a shew as if I set down that modell as derived from the Saxons out of Germany and so spends neere two pages in this unreasonable way of traducing me Whereas he cannot be ignorant that in many places yea at present is forced to confesse p. 24. that I acknowledge our Government came up to this exactnesse and full height by degrees and in continuance of time but indeed he had nothing else to say against that Description of this platforme or any one of those 6. Supposals of which it consists and therefore when he had fained as if I had derived it from the beginning of the Saxon Government in this Land he calls it a phansie against the credit of all Histories and Chronicles p. 24. and so lets it goe Let the Reader judge whether
plea of reason was not the act of a reasonable will and therefore I may hold their examples ordinary without impeachment of this Assertion Then he proceeds to Resistance in limited and mixed Rules p. 36. Concerning which I said p. 17. If the exorbitances be of lesse moment they ought to be borne and p. 18. If mortall and destructive neither can be otherwise redressed then prevention by Resistance may be used Here first he challengeth my ingenuity for words spoken in my 49. page He said Sect. 1. of his first booke We may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established lawes of the Land I censured this speech that it is more then should be said sure a hainous fault in me I say more he hath said more then should be said by all these three bookes in which he sayes that which dissolves all frames of Government into arbitrary overthrowes all effectuall limitation of Power and sure that is more then should be said And for that particular clause Is it not more He speakes without restriction Doth joyne things unlawfull by the law of God and things unlawfull by the lawes of the Land And puts the same may and ought to both if the affirmation must be understood universally of one how can it be understood otherwise of the other It cannot be excused from the censure of a confused and unwary speech He passeth p. 37. to the Question Who shall be the ultime judge of subversive exorbitancies He would know who I have told him my opinion hereof at large in that Tract Here I would faine know his but he would rather carp at mine then give his own When I say there can be no Authoritative judge to determine it He commends my ingenuity p. 37. but I doe not only say it but at large doe prove it there p. 67. as well against him as against those others why doth he not undertake that Question against me if he hath any mind to it He much dislikes when I say p. 18. The fundament all Lawes must judge in every mans conscience This is sayes he a ready way to anarchy and confusion p. 37. I referre not this case to the consciences of men as to an Authoritative Judge but a morall principle of discerning Right And who can deny unto man such a liberty to conceive of right according to the light he hath from the fundamentals of a State Let the judicious reade what I have said here-about p. 67. of that Tract and let him then tell how that Question can be otherwise determined unlesse he overthrow Monarchy by giving a finall judgement to the States or all Liberty if he give it to the Monarch and supposing the Ayme at subversion be evident to mens consciences can we deny them a naturall power of judging according to that evidence or liberty of assisting the wronged So when I say the wronged side must make it evident to every mans conscience also the appeale must be to the Community as if there were no Government and as every man is convinced in conscience he is bound to give assistance p. 29. of my Tract He calls this good stuffe p. 37. Why because I say the people are at liberty as if there were no Government and this appeale is disadvantagious to the Monarch for they will be more ready to believe their representative This would in the consequence be dangerous the high way to confusion p. 38. Answ 1. I say not simply that people are at liberty as if there were no Government but in this particular Question bound still as before in all besides 2. He takes me as if by Community I meant only the Commons when I expresse it by genus humanum especially of that Kingdome 3. He censures the Reason of Man-kind of partiality towards their Representatives Not so for in so great a Question Wise men cannot be blinded Honest men will goe according to their conscience and Reasonoble men according to evidence and will see it concernes them as well to avoid Anarchy by aiding a wronged Monarch as Tyranny by aiding an oppressed State But sith this Replicant is so bitter an enveigher against an Appeale ad conscientiom generis humani in this last case so uncapeable of an Authoritative decision 1. Let him consider on what foundation God hath built Monarchy and all other powers but on the consciences of men Rom. 13. 2. Let him weigh whether when he hath said all he can say such an appeale be avoidable For 1. If a controversie arise between the King and a particular person or place the King shall Judge it in his Courts by his Judges and the sentence shall be executed by the force and armes of his other subjects 2. If it be between Him and the Representatives of his whole Kingdome and supreme Court of Judicature in which the Acts and Persons of all other Courts and Judges are to be judged The King cannot judge this in his other Courts and by his Judges nor yet by himselfe for a King out of his Courts cannot judge in a Legall Government especially the acts of his supreme Court But be it so suppose the Doctor and I should agree in this that the King by himselfe is the ultime Judge of Controversies Yet it is very like those States with whom the Contention is will not yeild him so to judge against them in his own cause But suppose they doe not submit to his determination He will say then they sin and rebell against him Well let it be granted yet submit they doe not I demand in this case what course the King hath to make effectuall his sentence It must be by force of armes by the sword but of whom Either the peoples whose representatives they are or other mens but what shall bind them to afford their Force to make good his sentence It must be their conscience of his right Thus when all is done and said To the consciences of Men must his appeall be and to them must he make evident his right in this extreme contention Yea this man in a controversie of the like nature is compelled to acknowledge as much For the Pleaders put the case If a King be distracted I may adde if his Title be dubious c. The Doctors answer is if it be cleare that a King is so c. p. 8. but who shall determine this If must not self-evidence in the consciences of Men This is all the judiciall power the Doctour can referre us to in these cases Lastly He would know what power there is in a Community to make resistance and answers himselfe A Parliamentary and Legall not Military and Forcible p. 38. Thus he speakes of these as contradistinct when they are subordinate Forcible being subservient to Legall to make it valid and effectuall which else were meerely morall and ineffectuall but this is one of his supposals whose vanity I have before
that which he concludes is but a securitie for the Person of the Prince from force if he doe such unjust Acts which we grant him not only in that but all Monarchies even the most limited 2. If he have any further reach and would conclude out of it a generall binding Ordinance of security from Resistance entending even to subversive Instruments of Will The world will wonder at him for such an audacious conclusion from such premises And we will look a little nearer to what he sayes All is grounded on his Interpretation of Jus Regis Which he seeks to confirme by Calvins Authority First for his Interpretation I say the Originall words in this place are not to be translated jus Regis the Right of the King Because 1. There is another more fit signification of them the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being applied to unjust Acts as here it is ought not to be rendred jus but mos not Right but manner as appeares by another place answerable to this 1 Sam. 27.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Davids roving This will be his manner 't were ridiculous to render it this will be his right or priviledge This out last Interpreters knowing did willingly depart from the Vulgar Latine whose Authour either ignorantly or inconsiderately did render it jus Regis which this Doctour for his advantage doth here make so much of 2. That rendring of it cannot be justified by any other Text of Scripture for whersoever it is rendred Jus it imports a morall Right not a priviledge or securitie in ill doing I challenge any skilfull in that tongue to bring one place where it is or can be so rendred Then for Calvins Authority I answer 1. What if Calvin or any other deceived by the vulgar Latine or ignorance of the extent of the Originall word have rendred it ill must that be a prescription to others who know a better 2. Neither doth Calvin though he follow the Latine and render it jus meane such a jus as the Doctour doth sc An absolute immunity or security from Resistance but onely from private men For after he hath in all those passages which the Doctour cites exempted Kings from violence truly and piously urging patience in Subjects under the injuries of their Princes at length Instit l. 4. c. 10. the same out of the which the Doctor brings his proofes num 31. He explaines himselfe De privatis hominibus semper loquor that all is to be taken of private men not of the States of a Kingdome in their publike meetings never discerning of such a universall immunitie as the Doctour would put upon him to maintaine And here I challenge not the Ingenuity but the Conscience of this Replier who cites Calvin at large in the former place as agreeing with him in this case of Resistance when he cannot be ignorant of the contrary and therefore conceales his following words in the 31. num Where he expressely teaches the same Truth which I have asserted in my Treatise Heare him speaking his judgement De privatis hominibus semper loquor Nam si qui nunc sunt populares magistratus ad moderandum Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedemonijs regibus oppositi erant Ephori aut Romanis Consulibus Tribuni plebis aut Atheniensium Senatui Demarchi qua etiam forte potestate ut nunc res habent funguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines cum primarios conventus peragunt adeo illos fenocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefaria perfidia non carere affirmem quia populi libertatem cui se Dei ordinatione Tutores positos norunt fraudulenter produnt He is cleare that the Estates in Parliament not only may but are Gods ordinance for it and are bound to resist and not suffer the destruction of liberties by exorbitating Princes so that I may justly retort the Doctors words p. 57. There can be nothing spoken more plainly for the power of resistance in the Houses of Parliament then this Then for his other reason from the 18. verse Ye shall cry out in that day and the Lord will not heare you As in my Treatise I called it inconsequent so also now He is a good Logician which can draw his conclusion out of those premises But he blames me p. 58. for saying it was an absolute Monarchy and cannot see how it can be so according to my description of absolutenesse Why not In Absolute Monarchy there are no limits but the Monarchs own will but these had a fixed judiciall Law p. 59. I answer That judiciall Law was no limits of their power but of the exercise only for the non observance of it by the King did not amount to an untying of the bond of subjection in the people The Judiciall Laws being from God not from any contract of the people were in the same nature to that people and for the time with the Morall Laws and in the same manner did limit their Kings and no otherwise But for the Absolutenesse of that Monarchy here Lyra more faithfully cited Lyra in 1 Sam. 8. then he did Calvin above Constitutio Regis juxta potestatem sibi concessum est duplex 1. Plena legibus absoluta prout legiste de Imperatore dicere solent 2. Cum potestate limitata Now sayes he the people sinned not simply in asking a King but in asking a King of the first sort to judge them as the Nations that is absolutely He is expresse 1. That limitation of power makes a limited Monarch 2. That Israel desiring such a Government as the adjacent Nations desired an absolute Monarch And indeed as the definement of the morall Law doth not disparage the Absolutenesse of the Monarch because it is from God not the people so did not their judiciall for the same reason Sect 2 Next he comes to the peoples rescue of Jonathan p. 60. He may give their resolute Oath what names pleaseth him a loving importunate violence a souldierly boldnesse or the like it was a peremptory expression of no lesse then an intent of resistance in case there had been need Then for Davids purpose in having armed men about him He says it was only to secure his person against the cut-throates of Saul that is against his private Emissaries But who sees not a large difference betweene securing a mans selfe from private Emissaries and appearing in the field with Armies against the Armies of the Prince p. 61. Answer 1. It is against reason that he should retaine an Army of 600. valiant Souldiers yea a great Army like the Host of God 1 Chron. 12.22 to secure himselfe meerely against private Emissaries 2. Let us grant him that there is a difference between securing against private Emissaries and the open Army yet if he grant it lawfull
will in the supreme to flow from Gods Ordinance He labours in vain from that text or any else to conclude against Resistance of subversive Instruments in a mixed Government CHAP. IX His ninth Section Answered the Reasons against Resistance satisfied and those for Resistance vindicated WE are now come to his last Section In examination of which Sect. 1 it will appeare that he hath as little Reason as Scripture a-against that Resistance which I have asserted in my Treatise Herein he doth two things 1. Brings his Reasons against Resistance 2. Endeavours to answer those which I brought for it But for more evident proceeding about both we must distinctly call to mind the Question of what it is 1. It is of Resistance in this state that is a state which I have proved to be limited and mixed in the very power it selfe 2. It is only of Resistance of destructive Instruments Therefore if his Reasons doe not reach to such a Resistance they are not to the purpose Now against Resistance the Doctour brings no fewer then nine Reasons In his first booke he had only five here he hath made up in number what they wanted in weight I will in few words answer them distinctly for many need not 1. His first is from the wisdom of God putting his people under Kings without power of Resistance this should be to us instead of a most forceable Reason p. 84. Answ Well it may be instead of one but it is not one For 1. It was their desire to be under an Absolute Government as their neighbour Countries were and they offended God in it as Lyra observes therefore he giving them such a King as they desired did not in his wisdome intend a binding forme for all people I thinke the Doctour will not affirme he did 2. If he meane Resistance of their Prince his Authority and person I grant they were so put under and so are we and all that are put under Monarches but if he mean the Acts of the Princes will which were not Authoritative I do denie it and the former alledged instances prove they were not and that is all I affirme in other Monarchies 2. The word of God gives no direction for it The Prophets call not on the Elders for it The new Testament commends patience in suffering for well-doing Answ 1. In Civill matters negative reasonings from Scripture are not proving 2. The word gives proving and imitable examples for it as before and indeed the Scripture doth every way justifie resistance of cut-throats and private destructive Assaulters of Laws and Liberties who have no Authority derived to them and I defend no other 3. The Apostle forbids Resistance of the Powers not from any compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God 'T is true for no compact of people could establish an unresistible Power without the Ordinance of God I acknowledge the Apostles ground for it and therefore allow no resistance where there is Gods Ordinance to secure them not for any abuse 4. To be supreme and next to God implies a security from Resistance p. 85. I grant all His Person his Power is hereby secured I condemn all rising up against the King but instruments of subversion have nothing of the King in them not his person nor Authoritie is risen up against in them For his conceits about jus Regis I have said enough above Neither doe I give to the Houses the power of the Lacedemonian Ephori They had an Authority over the very person of the King which the Houses claime not I give them no more then Calvin doth to the three Estates in their generall meetings The Doctor well knowes what I will answer him which he seeks to evade 1. By affirming that the Resisting of Instruments acting by his Power which he hath committed to them is a resisting of him p. 86. 'T is true it is so but we speake of instruments which act not by his power that is his Authoritie but by his will in a course exceeding the Limitation of his Authority Could he prove that a limited Prince could commit Power to doe acts without the bounds of his Power the Question were answered els he beggs it but answers it not 2. He would desire me to look again upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which I reject He cannot conceive how I can retaine my owne Assertion and reject theirs The Doctour hath a great mind to pick some contradiction in me but still failes in his endeavour In good earnest doth he speake really when he sayes he cannot conceive c. Well let us looke againe on the two Assertions which I reject in them 1. Governours who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturbe the quiet and godly life are farre from being Gods Ordinance in so doing 2. This tyrannie not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with armes resist not the Ordinance of God Doe I defend any Assertions equivalent to these Rather I assert in that Treatise and here also the contrary 1. Governours whither in absolute or limited States keeping within the measure of their power may disturbe the quiet and godly life and yet be Gods Ordinance in that act though crossing the end of Gods Ordinance in it 2. Powers though abused yet being Gods Ordinance they which resist even in abusive acts of it resist the Ordinance of God Is here no difference Cannot I retaine this Assertion that exceeding Acts in limited Monarchie are not Gods Ordinance and may in instruments be resisted And yet reject theirs who maintain resistance of Governours themselves in all acts of abused power He makes no difference between Acts exceeding bounds of power and Acts of abused power but of this more then enough before 3. But he will answer more particularly so he had need What is it He that beares the sword that is has the supreme Power gives Commission to under-Ministers for Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If therefore the Resistance of those though abusing their Power be a resistance of the Power so it is also of these Answ I grant all for it proceeds only of Ministers abusing Power committed to them not of Excesses of Power I will retort it Like as if when the supreme gives Commission of Justice to a Judge and he exceeding unto Acts without the compasse of his Commission is but a private man in those Acts and may be resisted so if Commission of Armes be given to a Generall c. 5. Subjection is due to a Prince and the contrary forbidden without distinction of a good and bad Prince I grant it and give the reason because they are Gods Ordinance but the Question is of instruments of exceeding Acts in which they are not Gods Ordinance 6. Good reason that he which hath the supreme Trust should have the greatest securitie p. 87. Answ It is so and so we grant him for he hath a full security from all violence for both Person and