will against the Lawes but abusing of Authority It may be hee would salve at as M. Burrowes seemed to doe by telling us that he means by Authority abused the Authority imployed in Making sinfull Lawes for such Authority though abused this Author acknowledges to be the Ordinance of God and not to be resisted and disputes it against the Reverend Divines pag. 64. 65. I agree with him but further would have him shew why Authority abused in the Execution of Law that is in pursuing the Princes illegall will should not be also the Ordinance of God and secured from resistance Indeed there is a great difference betweene Resistance made against a Prince commanding according to Law and that which is against a Prince commanding contrary to Law but it doth not make the businesse as cleare as the day nay it doth not at all satisfie him that will enquire First concerning that government under which the Apostle lived might Subjects then resist If the Higher Powers commanded contrary to Law as they did often we find that the Christian Orthodox Religion was part of the Lawes in Constantines and the suceeding times and that Christians did not resist when Iulian persecuted them for it nor did the Orthodox Christians resist when the Arrian Emperours endeavoured to subvert the faith If he reply they were Absolute Emperours and that their Edicts made a change of the Law by which such Religion was established why then doth he speaking of these absolute Emperours distinguish the will of the Prince from the Law and think to satifie us by telling us Religion then was no part of the Law when with one breath they could make any thing Law and by another reverse it according to this Authors acknowledgement of their absoutenesse Secondly Nor will this exception satisie him that shall enquire concerning this Government 1. Whether the first Parliament in Q. Elizabeths Raigne might have resisted her endeavouring to change the then established Popish Religion Had those Popish Lords and Commons which Q. Mary left beene pleased to hold to that Religion which was then part of our Nationall Law they might have taken the Armes of the Kingdome and have used them in the defence of it by the Rule of this Authour and the pretences of the Armes now taken up I would very faine see how they will make this as cleare as the day 2. How can they be justified that did at first take Armes and doe still continue them as themselves sticke not to professe for the pulling downe of Episcopall Government that I may not say of the Church Liturgy and publique service too which is and alwaies hath been a part of the Law of this Nation So little can this Authour satisfie us in this first exception by saying Religion was then no part of the Law and therefore Christians might not resist but now it is part of our Nationall Law and therefore allowes the Resistance of these daies His other exception is they were Absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted He who reads Tacitus saith he cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince They were become the sworne vassals of an absolute Lord we the Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince pag. 59. Answ This is the Sword to cut the knot when it cannot be untied but the edge is easily taken off from it by enquiring whether those first Roman Emperours had de jure such absolute power and by considering whether the Apostle had any respect to such absolutenesse of their power in his reasons against resistance and lastly whether limitation of Power in the Soveraigne doth inferre power of resistance in the Subject 1. It cannot be cleared that those first Roman Emperours were so absolute de lure Legally by such consent and surrender of the People and Senate as is required to the estating them in such an absolute condition There seemes to be two Reasons inducing this opinion of their absolutenesse 1. Because they tooke upon them as absolute Lords That cannot be denyed indeed but it makes no right nay they crept into the power by degrees which argues they had it not by such consent as is pretended but got it by practice 2. Because of the Lex Regia which this man doth not mention but it is much spoken of to this purpose for thereby it is conceived that they were estated in such Absolute soveraignty thus it runs as Vlpian gives it us A Law quâ populus ei Principi in eum omne suum imporium potestatem contulit Tit. de Constitut-Principis That there was such a Lex Regia cannot be denied but the Question is when it was made and what or how much is granted by iâ— This has caused severall opinions among the Civilians some thinking the people onely gave away their power making the Prince their perpetuall Tribune Some that the Senate also parted with their power Some that neither of them parted wholly with their power but communicated it so farre forth to the Prince in the administration of the Commonwealth that they still kept the Summum imperium in themselves This variety of opinion is unfit to make a certaine ground for Conscience or to give interpretation to the Apostle as if then be forbad Resistance because those Emperours were Absolute I conceive it to be cleare that the draught of that Lex Regia appeares no where before Vespasians time that the people had before parted with their power but the Senate not wholly therefore Augustus to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principate was granted for life as Srabo saiâ—h towards the end of his last booke tooke upon him as Tribune of the people and had it from ten yeeres to ten yeeres as Alâ—iate shewes in a little Tract de Magistratib Civilibus That the succeeding Emperours encroached by degrees upon the liberty and power of the Senate making their way by seare and flattery but had not that power which by fits they assumed from such a Covenant and Consent of the State as is required to make that Legem Regiam as Connanus shewes out of Dion Suetonius and Tacitus Also that the Emperours though they were for the more ready execution and ministration of the affaires of the Commonwealth solâ—ti Legibus which was first granted to Augustus yet did they perquamdiu magnam potestatis partem cum Senatu communicare as Hotoman shewes de Constitutionib Princip and cut of that power which the Senate did still conceive to be in them they declared Nero an Enemy to the State Adde to this that though we read not of Plebiscita after the beginning of these Emperours yet we meet with Senatus Consulta and of the power of the Senare in passing their Decrees â—acitus saith They did it sometime inscio absente Principe but never indeed invito against his will Suetonius also tells us that Caligula intended to assume the Diadeâ— which was a
signe of that Regia potestas and had been a profession that he would raigne absolutely nec multum abfuit quin speciem principatus in Regni formam converteret but he was disswaded from it by his friends faith that Historian During these Times the Apostles lived and wrote for I go not so low as Vespasian unto whom that Lex Regia seems to be solemnly granted by a formall consent and yet after that we find Pliny in his panegyricke tell the Emperour Trajan sedem Principis tenes ne sit Domixo locus which shews they had not resigned themselves up to the Emperour as sworne vassals to an Absolute Lord but had set a Prince over them for the readier dispatch of the affairs of the Common-wealth which often suffered and in those times more then ever by the crossings and Divisions of the People and Senate The forme of the Government was thereupon I acknowledge changed and the Supremacy setled upon the Prince yet may it I conceive from the former allegations be as well concluded that the Senate had their share in the Supremacy with the Prince till Vespasians time as that the two Houses are Originally Mixed or joyned with the King in the supreame or Soveraigne power which this Author undertakes to prove 2. It is to be considered that the Apostle in his reasons against resistance has no respect to the Absolute or Limited condition of those Roman Emperours nor to any consent or compact of the people by which they should be made such for then he might have told them If they resist they resist their owne Ordinances but draws his reasons from the Ordinance of God who sets up rulers and from the End and Benefits of Government which are Reasons common to all Government not to be eluded by saying Ours are limited Monarchs and therefore may be resisted for those reasons tell us that resistance against Him that beares the Sword i.e. against the Supreame power for that is signified by those words as Musculus and Bucer shew out of Vlpian is unlawfull in all governments 3. As the Apostle had no respect to the Absolutenesse of Power in those Emperours nor to the consent of the people by which they are said to have such power so neither indeed doth the limited condition of a Monarch inferre he may betesisted for his Exorbitancies more then an Absolute may for his whether we consider the Exorbitancies of an Absolute Mâ—narchy which may be destructive of the publique or look to the compact of the people by which he is left Absolute who did not thereby intend he should oppresse and destroy them or command and judge them beyond Reason and Equity as this Authour acknowledgeth pag. 11. But it was proved more largely above at the end of the 5. Sect. That limitednesse of power in the Soveraigne doth not inferre a power of Resistance in Subjects So that absolutenesse of power in those first Roman Emperours is causelesly alleaged by this Author as the reason why they might not be resisted This Authour concludes All that can be justly inferred out of the Text we grant but can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistance may be made to Fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall Acts of the Princes Will in a Legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the power and the person invested with the power but here force is offered to neither pag. 59. Answ The Question is not put of making no resistance to fellow Subjects but of such resistance as is made against them under the command of their Soveraigne by a contrary Army of Subjects a resistance that undertakes a finall contestation with the Soveraign to constrain him to be of another mind as it was explained above Sect. 2. Now if he meanes this Resistance cannot be collected out of the Text because it is made in a Legall Monarchy then is it the same exception which even now he made from the Absolutenesse of those Roman Monarchs but if he means it cannnot be collected because it is no resistance of Gods Ordinance from whence the Apostle drawes his reason against resisting then I say 1. That when Subjects are drawn into Armes by the Soveraign who has the power of the Sword and doe act and move under his command to make opposition by a contrary army of Subjects is a resisting of the power and a taking of the Sword without the Soveraigne against the Ordinance of God and a shedding of blood without warrant 2. This exception seemes to be the same which was made by the pleaders above where they objected If I be bound by the Ordinance of God to suffer violence of a Tyrant then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God This was answered above and is rejected by that Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet doth he in effect argue to the same purpose as we shall meet with him presently among the reasons of the next Section And thus much of the 13. to the Romaxs in the asserting of which it has been shewn against the Rev. Divines who pleaded for defensive Armes That forcible Resistance against the illegall and Tyrannous commands of the then ruling Emperours was here forbidden and That Christians had they had force sufficient might not resist Also against the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy That his exceptions from the Lawes being then against Religion and from the Absolutenesse of those Emperours were not sufficient to satisfie or make us believe that therefore the Apostle forbad them to be resisted for we find him to draw his reasons against Resistance from that which is common to all Times and Governments the Ordinance of God the end and benefit of Government There are many more places of Scripture usually brought which may very aptly and powerfully perswade patience under evill Governours but I have chosen to insist onely upon such as are more pregnant and fiâ— to beare argument against the power of Resistance in Subjects SECT IX Reason against the Power of Resistance in Subjects IT is cleare that as it has been often insinuated above if a Prince stands supreame and next under God above all the People His Subjects may not proceed to such Resistance by armed Forces as is supposed in the Question and at this day practised to the utmost It is also most manifest that our King is so being expresly acknowledged the onely Supreame Head and Governour and this might be sufficient Reason without more adoe to conclude against Resistance The adversaries not well knowing how to divide Supremacie and irresistibility have vainly endeavoured to joyne the Houses as sharers in the supream or Soveraigne power for which we had so much concerning Mixture above and doe think to satisfie that Supremacy they leave in the King by yeelding his person to be above the violence of Resistance but as for the Forces about his person the armes of the Kingdome may be imployed against them as
a remedy worse then the disease It may for a time disturbe as Physick doth the Naturall body while it is in working if the pâ—ccant humours make strong opposition but as this tends to health so dath Resistance of disorder to Order pag. 6. Answ It is not so strange for there is Order under the greatest Tyranny as was shewen in the former Reason and in the exorbitances of Pâ—inces which in themselves tend to the subversion of the established Order there is more Order Law and Justice then in the use and effects of this Remedy by resistance Such lewd Remedies as it is in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion are farre worse then any other Maladies and dâ—sorders that can be in the body of the Common wealth Now to his similiâ—ude In the applying of Physick we look to the Medicine or remedy it selfe and do not use the Sword to those parts of the body which will onely admit of Fomentations and Lenitives and patience for the cure of them nor doe we commit the applying of the physick to every hand and judgement but the â—and and judgement by which this phâ—sick of forcible Râ—siâ—ance iâ—â—tance is that of the people for this Author tels us in such a case the Appeale must be to the Community and they must aid and assist as they are in Conscience conviced But how shall they be perswaded to use a mean who wil be still applying and keeping this Physick working when perchance the Houses that cal'd them to the Câ—â—e would have it ceaâ—â— doe we not see what Humours this physick hath sâ—irred in the body Politick where there is any possiâ—iâ—ity it is better to let Nature worke it cut though we give it a longer time to â—oe it in then to thinke to helpe it by a poysonous purge But if any shall thinke the Art and wisedome of the Houses can correct the malignity of the Remedy or the rashnesse of the people that are used in the application of it I appeale from his judgement to these Times when could better and more 〈◊〉 successe of this Remedy be expected by whom could it better be applyed and managed then by the Members of this late Parliament so much extolled for their Religion Prudence and Equity yet let the issue speâ—k what little good there is to be hoped for by the use of such mischicvous remedies The fourth part of the Homily above cited speaks thus Peaceable King Sâ—lomon was judged of God more meet to build his Temple whereby the Ordering of Religion is meant then His Father David who had shed much blood in his warrs though against the Lords Enemies what Religion is it then that such men by such meanes would restore Even as good a Religion as they are good Subiects or as Rebellionis a good mean of redresse and reformation being it selfe the grearest deformation that possible may be But as the Truth of the Gospell being quietly and soberly taught though it cost them their lives that doe teach it is able to maintaine the true Religion so hath a franticke Religion need of such furious mainteinance as is Rebellion IX Lastly therefore wee are taught to referre the Remedy to God who has told us that the hearts of Kings are in his hand and he turnes them whithersoever he will Pro. 21.1 to make us apply unto him for the turning of them Hee shewes that he is the judge of the King by that Conditionate covenant he makes with him 2 Chron. c. 6. v. 16. Where the promises made to David for the continuance of his Kingdome are repeated with this condition Yet so that thy Children walk in my Law So also 2 Chro. 7.17 But the Covenant 'twixt King and People 2 Sam. 5. is not Conditionate to render him obnoxious to their judgement and force To this purpose Nation in his first Orat. against Iulian shewing how that wicked Emperour was repressed through the Mercy of God doth blame those who being too much intent upon the present cannot depend upon providence expect the execution of the Counfell of God in his punishing of wicked Princes P. Martyr in his Comment on the 13 to the Rom. shewing out of Dan. 4. that God translates and disposeth of Kingdoms observeth this way of providence that evill Princes are raised for the punishment of the wickednesse of a People sed postquam sic castiâ— gatt homines ad Deum redierint ille mitiores Principes justiores provides and accordingly saith hee wee find in History of Kings that God did Tyrannis semper miscere bonos aliquos justos Principes Calvin likewise upon the 13 to the Romanes tels us piously and judiciously That an evill Prince is the scourge of God upon the Peoples sin and therefore as we must acknowledge it is through our fault that the great blessing of Magistracy is turned to our punishment so must we neverthelesse reverence the Ordinance of Power which wee shall easily doe si nobis ipsis quiequid mali in ipsa erit impatemus if we impute the abuse of the power or the evil that we suffer by it to our selves I will conclude with the like advice given us in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion The heart of the Prince is in the hand of God wherefore let us turne from our sinnes to the Lord and he will turne the heart of the Prince to our Wealth Else for Subjects when they have deserved through their sins to have an evill Prince then to Rebell against Him were a double evill by provoking God to plague them more The Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy has brought for the power of Resistance iâ— Subjects are such as follow First Because to resist misimployed instruments acting or assisting to the performance of the destructive commands of the Prince is no resisting of the Ordinance of power because power cannot be conferred to any beyond the Law So he pag. 52. How far this concernes the question was shewen above under my third and fourth Reasons where it was propounded and answered His second Reason Because without such power of Resistance in the hands of Subjects all Limitation of Government is vaine all formes resolve into Absolute and Arbitrary pag. 53. Answ Your Argument is inconsequent by your owne descriptions of Absolute and Limited Monarchy which you drew from the consideration not of force or resistance but of Law to set bounds to the Monarchs Will as was observed above Sect. 3. So that the restraint of a limited Monarch is Legall and Morall not forcible and military Nor is there by the Limitation of the Monarchs power a power of Armes acquired to the people but onely a Morall security sought after by the restraint or bands of Lawes and Oath cast upon the Monarch which makes not a vaine limitation of Government but binds the conscience of the Monarch and by his Conscience his hands are bound more powerfully then by a contrary power or force in the
the advice of the Septemviri or the Princes and chiefe Counsellors of the Kingdome as we see Dan. 6.14 and Est 1.19 So may it be easily conceived in any other State the Prince though unlimited at first may bind up his Power from such or such Acts unlesse he has the consent of such Counsellors unto them which consent and concurrence does not give them a share in the Soveraign power but makes them as Bounders in the Exercise of it nor does it imply in those Persons a power of forceable constraint but only of Legall and Morall restraint as will appear in the fifth Section I will conclude this Section with a brief consideration of what he delivers concerning Monarchy by Conquest First If the Invasion saith he be made upon pretence of Title and the Pretender doth prevaile it is not conquest properly but a vindication of a Title and then the government is such as the Title is by which he claimed pag. 21. I will not dispute whether a people so standing out doe forfeit those Priviledges and Liberties they formerly enjoyed or whether a Prince so forced to vindicate His Title â—y subduing the People be not free from the former Limitations to which Princes peaceably entring bound themselves and whether He may not use such a People as a Conqueror I should commend the Clemency and Piety of that Prince that would not but I doe not see the injustice if he should so use them Secondly He blames the Censure which the Fuller Answer gave of Conquest that the title of it was such as Plunderers have c. and tells us the Right of Conquest is such as the precedent Warre is if that he Lawfull so is the Conquest yet is it not the Conquest that makes them Morally bound but their own Consent in accepting of the Government pag. 22. Well but a forced consent will suffice and such will scarce be wanting to a Conquest and they that plead title of Conquest doe not divide it from such a forced consent of People but from a free limiting election Thirdly He grants that while their naturall Soveraigne is in being the People cannot by consent devolve a Right to the Conquerour But suppose they have not that tye upon them may they perpetually stand out against the Conqueror or rather are they not bound to consent and yeeld to His yoake after they see they are wholly subdued and he has setled a frame of Government among them Hee tells us Conquest may give title and power to dispose of the Country goods and lives of the Conquered but still it is in the Peoples choyce to come to a Morall condition of Subjection if they will suffer the utmost of Violence from the Conquerour rather then consent to any termes of Subjection as Numantia in Spain they dye or remain a free people nor doe they resist Gods Ordinance if at any time of advantage they use force to free themselves from so violent a possession so he pag. 22. It is an uncontrouleable truth in Policy that the consent of the People either by themselves or their Ancestors is the only Mean in ordinary Providence by which Soveraignty is conferred upon any Person or Family so he concludes pag. 23. Answ That consent of People is the only meane in your sense may be an uncontrouleable truth in the Policy lately framed but it is certain that God has power to dispose of us in ordinary providence without expecting our consents and choice it is plain by Scripture that Conquest is a Mean of translating Kingdoms and disposing of People in the way of ordinary providence it was so when God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as an hire for his service done upon Iudah so when the Ammonites and Edomites were subdued by David of which see below Sect. 6. against the Fuller Answer Had these no right over those conquered Nations but by expecting their consent Yea will he say a Right to dispose of their Lands and Goods and lives but not to challenge their Morall Subjection Well we doubt not but such Conquerors could force their consent but I aske were they not bound to yeeld it is there no way for that providence which translates Kingdoms to discover it selfe but by the consent of the Conquered People that if they please to be obstinate his providence shall give no Right his setting up a King by Conquest over such a people shall be no institution oâ— Ordinance this is good Policy but bad Divinity I conceive it all 〈◊〉 controuleable truth that when the invading Prince has perfectly subdued a People there being no present Soveraigne or apparent Heire of the Crown to whom they are bound as has setled disposed all things and constituted a frame of Government then I say providence doth sufficiently discover it selfe and such a people ought to submit and consent and take their Prince as set over them by the hand of Providence so that if they will persist finally to resist as this Author saith they may they resist the Ordinance of God If he will not beleeve me let him heare Calvin who in his Instit l. 4. c. 20. nu 26 27. doth inforce obedience to that Prince which is over us by a reason drawn from that Providence of God which disposeth Kingdomes and sets up over us what Kings he pleases and from the example of Nebuchadnezzar Ier. 27.8 doth inferre Cuicunqve ergo delatum fuisse regnum conslabit ei serviendum esse ne dubitemus But how shall we discover his providence and will herein the next words tell us Atque simul ac in Regium fastigium quempiam evebit Dominus testatam nobis facit suam voluntatem quòd regnare illum velit So in his Comment upon 1 Sam. 26. Licet multi avaritiâ ambitione crudelitate invascrit regna imperia tamen Dei voluntatem pluris esse quam omnia illa faciendam sciamus ac proinde nos illis ultro submittamus quos Deus Reges nobis praefecit This is very home against this Authors assertion wherein he denyes Conquest to confer a Soveraignty and will not suffer God in the ordinary way of Providence to dispose of a people without their own consents But enough of this We come now to make Application of what hath been said to the Particular Monarchy of this Land SECT IV. Of the Constitution of this Monarchy BEfore we come to examine how this Author has stated â—he poynt of Resistance in relation to the severall kinds of Monarchy it will not be amisse to consider unto what kinde this Monarchy belongs whether it be such a Limited Mixed Monarchy as this man would have it Originally and Fundamentally by the placing of Nobles and Commons as sharers with the Monarch in the Soveraign power It would be seeme the skilfull in the Law to speak to this point if they could be induced to deliver what they know but seeing there is enough in History and Reason which speaks the Frame and beginning of this
implyed it must follow either from the Nature of Limitation or from the danger and inconveniencies of exorbitancy of the Limited Monarch oâ— from the consent and intention of the People choosing the Monâ—arch But first Limitation cannot inferre it for an absolute Monarch is limited also not by civill compact indeed but by the Law of God of Nature and Nations which he cannot justly transgresse if therefore an absolute Monarch being exorbitant beyond his bounds which the highest Lawes have set him may not be resisted how shall we think a limited Monarch may for transgressing the bounds set him by civâ—ll agreement Secondly the inconveniencies of exorbitancy in Limited and mixed Monarchie cannot inferr a power of resistance by Armes because the inconveniencies and evills which are pretended as causes of resistance in such Monarchies are the same in Absolute for Limitations and Mixtures are but â—arres and sâ—â—â—itie against injustice cruelty and oppressâ—â—n which are exorbitances also in absolute Monarchies and evills that bring as much detriment and suffering to the Subject as they doe in Limited Monarchyes as for example The impâ—sing of Taxes if it be done when necessity requires not or 〈◊〉 very unâ—qually in regard of Persons and estates it is an injury and grievance even in an Absolute Monarchy only when necessity calls for such Lâ—vies of Money the Monarch that is of a Limited and Mixed condition is bound to take in the consent of others to which the Absolute Monarch is nor bound So in Tryalls for Life and Estate an unjust sentence is an oppression in Absolute as well as Limited Monarchy only the limited or Mixed Monarch is bond to passe sentence upon the verdict of twelve men or the like the Absolute is not Suppose then a Prince in such a Limited or Mixed Monarchy should when necessity doth truly require impose taxes lay them equally expend them faithfully and in tryalls for Life or Estate should give right judgement without the verdictof twelve men and in other poynts should rule most justly though not according to forme unto which he is limited by positive Law here would be the main Rule of Government observed justice and the end of Government for which those limits and Civill bounds were set him obtained peace and well-fare of the People Will you then have such a Prince resisted by Armes and the Kigndome embroyled in Civil Warre because he observed not the forme when he gives you the substance Yea but this would be an ill procedent and very dangerous true there is danger but no present evill and what are the dangers or evillâ— feared Cruelty Oppression which other Princes might use should they have such liberty true but these evills when they are are evills in Absolute Monarchies and for them resiâ—ance is not to be used there Thirdly the consent and intention of the people choosing the Monarch cannot inferre that a Limited Monarch may be resisted by Armes This consent and intention of the People is made by these men not only the Ordinary meane of conâ—erring the Power but the very Measure of the Power it â—elfe and the Barre or inlet of resistance for by that consent is supposed the people give what power they please and reserve what they will To which I say 1. That the consent of the people may be the mean of designing the person and of yeâ—lding subjection to him who else could not challenge it more then another man also a mean of limiting that power in the exercise of it according to agreement or procurement but it is not the measure of the power it selfe which in such a measure is given of God to all Soveraignes and is not according to the peoples will resistible or irresistible but according to the will of God above resistance forseeing that people have not of themselves out of government the main power the power of life and death how can they give it either for government or reserve it for resistance Secondly That the intention of the People in procuring Limitations of the Monarch's power is that they may be under a moderate use of the power and what 's their security for that those limitations which the Monarch agrees upon Oath to observe now this cannot infere resistance here more then in absolute Monarchies for when a people leaves a Monarch Absolute trusting to his prudence and moderation they doe not intend he should oppresse them yet is it granted such intention cannot enable them to resist in case he doe oppresse them Now in agreeing for Limitations and set rules of Government they gain a farther security of such moderate use of the power according to those limitations for the observing of which they have a tye upon their Monarch not from a power of forceable resistance in themselves to constrain him by Armes if he exorbitate but from His Oath or Covenant and Gods vengeance thereupon if he falsify it Thirdly If the Architects as this Author speaks of a limited or mixed Monarchy that is the people setting up such a Monarch over them did intend that the states joyned with the Monarch should assume the Armes of the Kingdome to restrain his Exorbitancies surely they would not have left it in his power to dissolve them and so make all such power ineffectuall It appeares therefore that by such mixtures and limitations no more can be inferred then a Legall or morall restraint upon the power of the Monarch And all this that hath been spoken against the power of Resistance or assuming the Armes of the Kingdome inferred from the Limited condition of the Monarch as it is good and conclusive in Monarchies originally limited so is it much more in Monarchies that have afterward received those Limitations and Mixtures upon which this power of resistance and assuming the Armes of the Kingdome is inferred as it appeares this Monarchy has done And therefore I conclude here as I did premise in the second Section Where the Prince stands supream und next to God above all the People there Subjects may not by force of armes resist notwithstanding he be exorbitant in the exercise and use of his Power to the invasion of such Rights and Priviledges as they enjoy by first compact or after procurement And this being cleared already from those shadowes of reasons which could be pretended against it from the severall kinds of Monarchy will farther appeare by that which shall be said out of Scripture and Reason SECT VI. A Refutation of His Answer that first styled himselfe the Author of the Fuller Answer ALthough the substance of his discourse is already answered by that which hath been said concerning Mixture and Supremacy against the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet because he is extremely confident and many times unfaithfull in his Reply's I will briefly touch upon such passages as may seem most materiall or any way availeable to abuse the unwary Reader It is his manner to gaine seeming advantages upon his Adversary by his own willfull mistakings
to suffer Tyrannous Violence Or how doth any resist unlawfully though by Armes when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave Authority to use against him nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto Answ 1. Seeing your Argument from those word words the Ordinance God would if it were good allow private mento resist I pray you by what authority of Text or Context doe your Patrons forbid Resistance to be made by private men but allow it to Magistrates or the infetior powers is it from the consideration of those to whom the Apostle wrote who had not then any Magistrates of their own profession among them though that be no good ground to raise that distinction of private men and publique in the point of resistance for the Apostles reasons against resisting of Higher powers doe concerne all times yet will the consideration of those persons to whom and of those times in which the Apostle wrote give us authority to stretch the prohibition to the refusing to suffer Tyrannous violence for we must conceive that he gave them instruction which did neerely concerne them which might in some reasonable manner direct them which was agreeable to Saint Peters advice 1 Ep. 2. cap. which was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and all other Christians of those and the following primitive times but the instruction that the Apostle here gives them cannot be such unlesse it forbid the refusing to suffer under the Tyrannous violence of those times 2. Answ If he that resists by Armes doth not resist unlawfully as you say when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave authority to use against him where hath God I pray you given authority to Parents or Masters to use unjust violence to their Children or Servants yet is not their resistance unlawfull for though God has not given those authority to doe it yet has commanded these to suffer it if done The like may be said of Kings and Subjects for has not God put Kings Fathers Masters all in one Commandement enjoyned this duty and reverence to them under one word Honour and S. Peter next to the feare of God has placed Honâ—ur the King and advises Christians to suffer though wrongfully under the then Tyrannous Governours and froward Masters Did not God put his People under this Subjection when he put them under a King 1 Sam. 8. where this immunity of their Kings from their resistance forceable Coerâ—ion is called Ius Regis not because God gave them power and right to use unjust and oppressing violence but because if they did so they were by the Law and Ordinance of God secured from the violence of the People and reserved for the judgement and vengeance of God that ordained them and set them over his people as appeared above in the former Section But they goe on and seeme to conceive that by the powers not to be resisted the Doctor meanes onely the Supream and those that Act his will but denies the like security to subordinate Magistrates if they be Tyrannous without any command from the Supream pag. 6. Answ The Doctor by maintaining the Supream power might not be resisted by the Subordinate powers under Him did not thereby imply that these might be resisted but still the higher spower is not to be resisted by those that are under it But if he say that neither Supream nor Subordinate may be resisted then may every meane Officer ruine the whole neighbourhood and so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turne to the greatest Curse to mankind so they pag. 6 Answ There are superiour powers that can protect so that if the subordinate power doe wrong the complaiâ—t lies still to the higher power if the Supream or highest be engaged in the Violence the redresse is to be sought by petition suite if not succeed the complaint lyes to heaven resistance is not the remedy They conclude Therefore as the Apostle in the following verses doth banish Tyranny out of the context describing every where a righteous Magistrate so is Tyranny banished out of the interpretation of this Text which allowes him that is a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured and not resisted even with Armet though it doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance under the heavyest penalty of Damnation pag. 6. Answ It is true that the Apostle banishes Tyranny out of the duty of a Magistrate by the following verses but it is also true that he banishesresistance out of the duty of Subjects by the former verses He describes a rightcous Magistrate but could he then exemplity were the Governours then such If not such as they were not then would this Text according to the interpretation of these Divines give but a lame direction to the Christians how they should carry themselves towards the then unjust Governors nor would this text which forbids resistance at al secure those Governors from their resistance nay I would faine see what any Jesuite can say or desire more from this text then that it gives a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured Lastly if the penalty of Damnation laid upon the people will secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance as they tel us why should not damnation laid upon every unjust oppressing Prince secure the people from Tyranny one would thinke it most equall that the Highest Power should have the greatest security and so God in his wisdome thought fit when he put his people under Kings without power of Resistance as was she wen in the former Section and will be a forceable reason against resistance in the next Section Now let us consider this Text with application to those Times and to the Powers then ruling upon that consideration it was inferred that Tyrannous oppressing Princes are not to be resisted by Arms that the Apostles reasons taught us that for the good which is generally received by Ruling powers we must beare with them though abusing their Authority as the Emperours then did which also took away their distinction of resisting not the power but the abuse of the power These Divines in Answer to it spend many pages from page 22. to 28. and againe from 47. to 51. where after some thing said of small moment concerning the Kings Supremacy and the Roman Senate page 22.23 of which I have had and shall have presently occasion to speake upon more weighty consideration brought by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy They tell us First The Doctors vaine Confidence will appeare in thinking he has made voyd the distinction of Refisting not the power but the abuse of it for when he grants that active obedience is to be denyed to the illegall Commands of the Prince he distinguishes himselfe hetweene the Power and the abuse of it and why may not wee distinguish upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second verse as well as he does upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in
the first so pag. 26. Answ You cannot so well make the distinction in in regard of resistance as it may in regard of subjection or Obedience for I can sever the power from the abuse of it by denying my active obedience to the abuse or illegall command by yeelding my passive obedience under such a command but by making resistance you cannot sever them for you cannot resist the abuse but by resisting of the power in him that beares it Secondly they tell us that the Apostles reasons forbid only resistance to Legall Commands and still they aske doth the Apostle else know what he saith when in his reasons â—e tells us Rulers are not a terrour to good workes and he is the minister of God to thee for good can this be said of the Emperors then therefore the Drs sense must be renounced and it must be said the Apostle medles onely with Civill matters here so pag. 47.48 Answ That is the Apostle medles with that which did little concerne them and gives them no instruction in that which did most prâ—sse them the Tyrannous Commands and violences of the then Emperors can we think he was well advised if he had made them a discourse of Government which they could make no use of for the then urgent necessities when therefore he saith Rulers are not a terrour and they they are Ministers of God for good c. it was true of the then Rulers in regard of some Civill good which they did in some measure procure for S. Paul did often find reliefe in that Government and was often rescued from the violence and cruelty of his Enemies as we read in the Acts of the Apostles though it was true also that their Government was full of Tyranny and injustice what shall we say then to these reasons of the Apostle but that he forbids resistance under those Tyrannous Governours and urges it from the end of government which was for good and which their Subjects did in regard of Civill matters in some sort enjoy under them but we cannot thinke that he medles with Civill matters only or forbids refistance to Legall commands only unlesse we should also think that the Apoâ—â—le left the Christians to infer from these reasons as these Divines doe that if Ruleâ—s doe not accordingly minister for good but are a terrour to good workes they may and ought to be resisted and that the Christians had they had force might have resisted so they affirme pag. 49. We see then the conclusion they are necessitated to by their interpretation of this place in restraining the prohibition of resistance only to Legall-commands which conclusion being so scandalous to Christian Religion so opposite to the practice of the Apostles and the expresse doctrine of those after times doth shew that these Divines did not know what they said when they inferred from the Apostles reasons that Resistance only to Legall Commands is forbidden and that Christians might have resisted Let them heare what Bucer saith upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject the word saith he signifieth to be plenè sub imperio in potestate fully under the power of Rulers and that the Apostle by that word gives us to understand opertere nostraomnia ponere in mans â—orum qui publicam potestatem gerunt sed propter Dominum idèo quae Domino debemus ea semper ante omnia praestandâ— sunt interim tamen si magistratsu ob id nobis non res odoÌ„ sed ipsam etiam vitam conetur eripere ferendum est neque potestati obluctandum this is full and forbids resistance under illegall commands and sufferings for obeying of God Then upon the Apostles Reasons He is the Minister of God to thee for good c. the same Bucer shewes They are drawne from the good benefit for which governmeÌ„t was ordained which good is obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part and in some measure the like saith Calvin upon the place who perswading submission under Tyrannous Rulers concludes thus Nulla ergò Tyrannis esse potest qua non aliquâ ex parte subsidio sit ad tuendam hominum societatem the like doth Peter Martyr upon the place Let them also read how the Author of the Treatise of Mâ—narchy censures these Divines for their inferences from the Apostles reasons that the Apostle according to such a meaning should have taught them a Doctrine of resistance rather then subjection and that the received Doctrine of the Saints in ancient and moderne times could never find in that place of the Apostle such a licence for Christians to use Armes in their defence against the Tyranny of their Emperours pag. 64. with severall reasons which shew the scandall of such Doctrine pag. 66. What then will this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy that pleades also for Resistance answer to the Apostles prohibition of it he grants they might not resist in that Monarchy but affirme that Subjects may in this why Because Religion then was no part of the Lawes but here it is Also because that was an Absolute Monarchy Soveraignty this a limited and Mixed So we have two exceptions of his as he dilivers them pag. 59. 64. and 66. His first exception is Religion then was no part of the Lawes and so its violation no subversion of Established government Herein we have Doctor Bilson consenting who saith That the superior power forbidden here to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing to his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare pag. 64. and 57. I doe concurre with Mr. Burrowes professing against resisting of Authority though abused That if those who have power to make Lawes make sinfull Lawes and so give authority to any to force obedience there must be either flying or passive Obedience and pag. 66. In the case of the Armes now taken up there is no need of those offensive Grounds which the Reverend Divines runne upon Religion being now a part of our Nationall Law So he Answ What Dr. Bilson and other of our Divines have written in favour of Resistance they mâ—ane it of such States as may by the known Lawes use forceable restraint against the exorbitances of the Monarch and as they were willing after those motions of the Protestants in France and the Low-Countries to excuse as much as might be so had they lived to have seen the Commotions and Rebellion of these daies I make no doubt but they would have spoken more cautelously I am sure the Homily against Rebellion speaks home will not admit such distinctions that make way to the Resisting or Rebelling against evill Princes which command against the Lawes and Religion for of such it speakes But let us try the force of this exception he professes with Mr. Burrowes against resisting of Authority though abused with Doctor Bilson admits of Resisting the Princes will against the Lawes this is fast and loose for what is the Princes
against misimployed agents and from the taking of those armes to make this resistance they conceive they are not debarred by His being Supreaeme Head and Governour but are enabled to it by a supposed reservation of the people and by the necessity of the States preservation requiring such a power of resistance in Subjects upon which grounds their Reasons for resistance doe mainly proceed I shall therefore so frame this tryall of Reason to which we are now come as it may best meet with the force of their Reasons and Exceptions I. It was the wisdome of God to put his people still under Kings without power of resistance as we found it in the two former Sections and that wisdome of God should be to us in stead of the most forcible Reason and silence all gainsaying pretences II. If this power of Resistance in Subjects were so necessary for the preserving of Religion and Justice as is pretended certainly the word of God would have given direction for it but as in the Old Testament we no where finde the Prophets calling upon the Elders of the people sin thâ—â— supposed dâ—â—y of resistance so in the New Testament we every where finde patience in suffering for well doing no mended to 〈◊〉 This Author of the Treat of Monarchy doth often admire the wisedome of the Architects of this Government that so provided for the safety of it by placing such power of Armes and resistance in the two Houses but we doe not find such a provision within that wisdome and care which it pleased God to shew in the Government he put his people under nor would we indeed finde such a power of forcible resistance provided in the constitution of this monarchy when we examined it above III. From the Institution and Ordinance of God which gives the power according to the Apostles argument who drawes his reason against resistance not from any Compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God which cannot be Eâ—uded by any reservation of the people the pretended ground of resistance but shewes the power given by it must be borne with though abused as then it was when the Apostle gave his reasons against resistance IIII. To be Supream and next to God over the people or to have the power of the sword implyes a security from resistance It is the Ius Regis which Calvin and most Authors acknowledge upon 1 Sam. 8.11 and is expressed Prov. 30.31 A King against whom there is no rising up It is generally acknowledged that Princes which be supreame are free from the Coactive power of the Law It is apparent that resistance cannot be made by Subjects but by taking the power of the Sword which belongs to him that is supream Lastly it is evident in reason that if the two Houses be enabled to resist and constraine the Prince by force to his duty then have they the power of the Lacedaemonian Ephori which as this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy acknowledges does overthrow the Soveraignity of the Monarch The generall exception which the Adversaries make to these two last Reasons is that they resist not the Soveraigne power but only misimployed instruments and fellow Subjects executing his illegall commands Answ As if the Soveraignes could by himselfe execute his Commands without under Ministers of power so that the resisting of them acting by the power which he has committed to them is a resisting of him And such a resistance as is supposed in the Question necessarily proceeds to an opposing of Him personally in giving of Him Battell and forcing of Him from His Right and Power to new grants of Security In particular This Author of the Treat of Monarchie thus reasons from the Ordinance of God To Resist such misimployed Instruments is no resisting of the Ordinance of God for it neither resists the Person of the Soveraigne for we spake of resisting his Agents nor His Power for the measure of that in our Government is the Law therefore He cannot confer Authoritie to any beyond the Law page 52. Answ I would desire this Author to looke againe upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which he rejects page 63. They run thus Those Govern urs whether Supream or others who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet peaceable life in Godlinesse and honesty are far from being Gods Ordinance in so doing also This Tyranny not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with Armes resist not the Ordinance of GOD and then to consider whether those Dâ—vines might not in desence of those Assertions answer as he has done here that to resist the misimployed Agents of Tyrants commanding against Law is not to resist the Ordinance of God for they cannot confer Authoritie to any against the Law for my part I cannot conceive how he can retaine his own Assertion and reject theirs But to Answer him more particularly He that beares the Sword i. e has the supreame power gives power and Commission to under Ministers for executing of Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If those therefore though abusing the Power be resisted by them who are under them it is a resisting of the Power and if these in time of Warre and insurrection being drawn together by the Soveraigne and acting His Commands under Him be opposed by contrary force and armes of Subjects it is a resisting of the power lawfully placed in such persons though illegally used and imployed it is a taking and using of the sword to the shedding of blood with u Warrant The defence which this Author makes pag. 62 of their taking the sword without the Soveraignâ— and against his Commanâ— is grounded upon that former groundlesse supposâ—ll of their being joyned with the King in the Soveraign power it selfe of which aâ—undantly in the 4th and 5th Sections above V. Because Obedience Honour and Suâ—jâ—ction â—ue to a Ponce are enjoyned and th Contrary forbiddâ—n without any â—â—stinctiâ—n oâ— a Good or Bad Pâ—ince Sâ— Paul shewes that hâ—ill must nâ—t he spoken of the worst Rulers Act. 23. What is â—aesars â—uâ— Saviour bids give unto Caesar when he was as bad as mâ—ght be and for this Cause pay you Tribute and Honour saith S. Paul when the higher powers were extremeâ—y evnd This cannot consist with taking Armes against a Prince for they that doe so must speake evill of Hâ—m make Him appeare O 〈◊〉 to His people and will not cannot let Caesar have what is His His Revenues Customes Tribute Armes but wâ—ll tell Him they are not His but the King fomes to use as the State shall thinke sit when he abuseth them And as the Scripture doth not so not her doth our Law make any dâ—stinction of good â—â—d bad Princes in this poynt It enjoynes Honour Subjection Allegiance Customes without any such distinction and determinâ—s Insurrection and Levying of Warre to be Treason not onely against a good King but indefinitely against any VI. It is good reason that
pleases him hâ— could have preserved David from Sauls fury as he did Eliah from Abâ—bs which was after a more private way but he thought more fit to let David be strengthned by the accession of much people as a praeludium to their falling off from the house of Saul into him Lastly if this way of preservation by bends of armed men were ordinary as these men will make it then may one single Subject as David was draw armed men together be Captaine over them and lead them up and down for his owne their preservation that do adhere unto him which if they will not a low then must there be in Davids example something more then ordinary And here I must challenge not onely the Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy who cals it a shuffling Answer to say Davids example was extraordinary pag 5.7 but also his Ingenuity who confesses that the people under the Israelitish Monarchy might not resist and had no other meâ—nes to helpe themselves but cryes to God pag. 58. and yet urges the example of Ionathans rescue of Davids raysing Forces of his intent to defend Keilab for the defending of armes taken up and used by Subjects in making resistance He deales with us herein as the Popish writers doe in the point of Invocation of Saints they acknowledge the Fathers of the Old Testament were not then in a condition to be invocated yet doe they alleadge Testimonies out of the old Testament for the proofe of that point to deceive the unwary Elishaâ—s example was altogether impertinent yet from thence occasion was taken to speak of Personall defence upon which these Pleaders maâ—e a long and tedâ—ous Reply page 14 15 16. The substance of which is delivered in the Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy makes for resistanceâ— and therefore because this Reply of theirs is no way strengthened by Elisha's example but is altogother rationall we will deferre the examination of what is materiall in it to the last Section To conclude It was a generall collection but yet a very forcible Argument against resistance that among so many Prophets bitterly reproving wicked Kings for subversion of Religion justice there was not one that celld upon the Eiders of the peâ—ple for this duty of making Resistance The Pleaders reply scarce like Reverend and learned Divines That in the times of good Kings we find the Princes Elders and Nobles very Corrupt who then can marvail if they were starke naught where the King was maught or why should it be expected that the Proâ—hets should call upon them to resist the King being on his side and beâ—on theirsâ— pag 20. Answ If it were the Duty of those Elders and Princes as these pleaders doe conceive it was with force to oppose the exorbitances of those Kings then was it the duty of those Prophets to admonish them of it and the more cause had the Prophets to recall them to it the further they were from it the desperate condition of such Princes and Elâ—ers might take away hope of prevailing could not excuse the Propheâ—s silence and neglect We conclude therefore that the Scriptures of the Old Testament doe not give any Warrant by precept or example for the Armes Resistance of Subjects now against their Soveraigne SECT VIII Of Resistance sorbidden in the 13. to the Romanes IN the new Testament that of the 13. to the Rom. is most considerable the ful examination of which wil also 〈◊〉 other places which may seeme to concerne the point in hand lest Servants and Subjects upon the doctrine of Christion Liberty should conclude themselves free from Masters and Goveâ—nors who then were cruell for the most part and Tyrannous the Apostle doth often call servants to a continuance of their obedience and here Subjects to the duty of subjection without Resistance as likewise S. Peter doth 1 Ep. cap. 2. The place is confiderable first in it selfe as it teaches the Institution and the End of Government by that the Power and Authority by this the duties of Governors are seen from both the duty of Subjects in yeelding Subjection and forbearing Resistance is inferred Secondly 〈◊〉 is considerable in relation to those times as it is applyable to the then governing powers and to the Christian Subjects to whom S Paul then wrote and thence we must conclude if we will think S Paul wrote pertinently and meant that those he wrote to should receive direction by what he commended to them that however the Governours then were not answerable to the End of government and were farre from the duties there specified yet had they the Power and Authority and those duties which are there enjoyned for the yeelding of Subjection and forbearing of resistance were to be performed by their Subjects then living under them The Reverend Divines have written such for the explication of this place to bring it to their puâ—pose and have in severall places of their book eâ—forced the same things upon the Reader to perswade or weary him What they have maâ—â—riall I shall examine First They observe that it is Higher Powers in the plurall not Higher Power as the Doctor say they usually had it and in this they suspect a great fraud Page 3. take it to be a dangerous fallacy in the present question as if the King only were not to be resisted page 9. when as we may not resist the meanest Officer not a Constable arresting us or distraining our goods ibid Answ A dang â—â—ous businesse I promise you and such an one as it concerned these Learned Divines to give the Reader so often warning of as they do but to answer theâ— once for all The Higher power in the Singular was commonly used not in alleadging the Text as if it were so in the Apostle but in the applying of it to the present case which laying the Hypothesis or Question between the powers themselves in this poynt of Resistance or Armer might very well allow the King to be deciphered by the Higher power or the Supream in relation or opposition to other Governours under Him although they also be Higher powers in respect of the people under them and not to be resisted by their inferiours It is but what themselves have expressed in the same page 3. By Higher powers are meant All in Civill legall Authority which in Saint Peters phrase is of the King as supream or Governours for these are higher then the People though lower then the King the very same thing intended and spoken by me But these men when they have gotten a seeming advantage and thinke the People cannot see the vanity of it never know when to have done with it Secondly They obseive that it is Power in the abstract which notes the Authority wherewich the Person is invested and not the person in the Concrete lest that might be understood of his personal commands beyond or against his authority which the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using
people see above towards the end of the fifth Section that Limitation of the Monarchs power inferres not a power of Resistance in Subjects He addes to the same Reason If a Prince be taught that hee may take what he pleaseath from His Subjects without being resisted cases and reasons will soone be brought to perswade him c. pag. 53. Answ He is not taught he may Lawfully doe so but if Subjects be taught that they may lawfully take Armes upon such or such cases and take from their fellow Subjects what they please to maintaine those Armes pretences and cases will not be wanting as at this day In a word some must bee finally trusted when all is done and who may better challenge it then the Supreame Governour that stands next to God above the People as was said above in the fourth Reaâ—on and it were fit we should for the redresse of Evills in Government trust God and depend upon his providence more then these men would have us Hâ—s third Reason Eccause such power is due to a publicke State for its preservation as is due to a particular person pag. 55. Answ The Proposition is not universally true but is thus farre granted such power is due to a State for its preservation as is allowed by the just Lawes thereof for as the body Naturall defends it selfe from outward force by its Law so the body Politique by its Law Now though a particular person by the Law of nature has power of selfe preservaâ—ion against the force of another private person yet is this power yeelded up in regard of the Civill power by the benefit of which particular persons have protection from the injuries of all other and not to be used against persons indued with such power against such persons illegally and suddainly assuiting a man where tâ—e danger is imminent and unavoydable by flight there was no more allowed in my first Treatise then a meere personall dâ—fence by warding of blowes without returning any yet doth this Author complaine The Doctor is so heavie a friend to the State that he thinkes it not sit to allow it that Liberty he gives every private man pag. 55. As the Liberty which this Author allowes a State for its preservation tends rather to its suoversion so are there many differences between it and the Liberty or power allowed to private men For first That power of preservation which is allowed to a private man against a private man is against an our ward force but this which is challenged for the State is by a Civill contention of the body against the Head or of other part of thâ— body against the Head and another part of the body 2. That defence which was allowed against Ministers of Power in their unavoydable assaults was without all offâ—nee but this defence by Armies which is challenged for the State cannot be so 3. That power of defence is such as nature hath endued every particular man with and the law of the Society hath not forbidden so farre forth as was said to be used but this is such a power as no Law enables Subjects to a taking and using of the Sword without warrant as hath bin often shewn 4. Such neere personall defence is not destructive of Order but this by the civill contention of the Head and body is as at this day The Pleaders for Defensive Armes make a long reply to that which in my first Treaâ— was spoken concerning this personall defence the substance of it is First though the body naturall can doe nothing against or without the guidance of the Head yet the Body Politique can being a company of Reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their Head Pag. 14.15 Answ They are Reasonable men but as they make up the body politique the Law is their Reason and they cannot move or act further then it directs them nor can they divide themselves from the Head to which the Law joynes them nor of themselves performe the supreame Acts of Power belonging to the Head 2. It is granted the body Politique may defend it selfe against an outward force then suppose the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Kingdome may we resist Pag. 15. Answ I determine nothing of their supposition which I hope will never come to passe but they should have considered when the Doctor said the Body politicke defends it selfe against an outward force liâ—â—e as the body naturall doth hee did not take the body politick divided from the Head as it is in the civill Contention 3. The Doctor supposeth the Prince bent to subvert Religion Liberties Lowes what greater destruction of Order can be feared by such antention or resistance Pag. 15.16 Answ What was meant by that supposition hath bin often explained the Prince bent or seduced to subvert i. e. doing many acts arbitrarily which of themselves tend to subversion but indeed the Frame of Government Laws cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses It may happen that actuall invasions may be made upon them and it is plain that such had better be borne with and other lawfull and reasonable remedies sought then to endeavour a forcible redresse by a Civill Contention for under such actuall invasions of the Subjects Rights nay under the greatest Tyranny there is more Order Law and Justice then under such civill discords and Warres as was fully evinced above by the 7. and 8. Reasons The fourth Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy is grounded upon that false supposall of the two Houses being joyned with the King in the very Soveraigne Power pag. 55. which was at large examined above His last reason is from the Power of inferiour Courts where the Judge it to proceed to the Censure and punishment of the Malefactor notwithstanding the Kings Warrant to the contrary much rather may the assaults of pâ—tvate men be resisted by the Parliament pag. 56. Answ The Aâ—gument from the processe of inferiour Courts to sentence and punishment or from the Parliaments power to resist and commit such private men assaulting them is altogether inconsequent to prove their power to raise Armies and by them to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne which is the resistance supposed in the Question and condemned as unwarrantable by al that hath hitherto bin spoken from the Constitution of this Governement from Scripture and from Reason And all this that hath bin spoken hitherto belongs to the Resolution of the first Question That it is not lawfull for Subjects upon the supposed Caâ—e of the Princes subvâ—rsive Exorbitances to take Armes and resist as at this day The other should follow that the Case supposed is not now or That they have no those Causes for their Armes which they pretend But of this there hath bin so much said in so many Declarations and Bookes written to informe the world aright that I need not be any longer troublesome onely I would desire the Reader upon their pretending the defence of the established Religion and Lawes by these Armes to consider First that they cannot say another Religion is commanded or enforced upon them only they will say they fear a change I would to God that all offences which the liberty of these unsetled times has produced were taken out of the way but was there ever any before these Times so desperare as to maintaine Subjects might fight against their Soveraigne for a Religion they freely enjoy only because they fear a prevailing of the Contrary And if the Reader doe consider that this Army which pretends the defence of the Established Religion besides some Trâ—â—â—es of Forreiners and Papists and some Bands of unwilling Prest-men has its chiefe strength from the prevalency of such Sects as are condemned by Lawes of this Land he may well cry out in the words of the Homily above cited What Religion is it that such men would by such meanes maintaine A franticke Religion needes such furious Maintenances as is Rebellion II. They cannot but say that the continuance of the established Religion and of the Governement of Church and State together with a just Reformation of all abuses has bin offered promised protested for by their Soveraigne â— but this will not content them unlesse the established Liturgy may be abolished the Governement of the Church by Bishops which has alwayes bin may be no more and the Power which by Law is his Majesties put into their hands And because these are not granted their Armes are continued and for the mainteining of them the Liberty and Property of their fellow Subjects is invaded So that if the Question bee put who are those misimployed fellovv Subjects that these men pretend to fight against It is plaine they are such as defend their Soveraignes Povver and Rights the Established Religion and Governement of this Church and State their ovvne property and Liberty in a vvord such as vvill not change their Soveraigne or the Established Frame of Government The God of povver and Wisedome cast out all Councels and defeat all designes that are against the restoring of our peace and the continuance of the true Reformed Religion Amen FINIS
so to prove it by afferting a greater absurdity viz. that a particular or private man may take Armes against an absolute Monarch His other example he would prove it by is the Revolt of the Vnited Provinces from the King of Spaine who resolved to extirpate the whole people pag. 10. But it is evident the Spanish King intended the extirpation of the Protestants only and as this Authorâ—â—s told us here his opinion of the Revolt thereupon in the Vnited Provinces so I would desire him to deliver his opinion of the Revolt and Rebellion of the Papists in Ireland upon their certaine knowledge that their extirpation was contrived here this Author knowes by whom I plead not for them but could wish that the assertions and practice of These times did not give them too much advantage I could tell him the opinion and Resolution of the Iewes under Ahasuerus that they would not take Armes for their defence till it was permitted them by the King â—st 8.11 and the opinion of the Primitive Christans that they alowed not resistance although the destruction of their whole Community was evidently attempted This may be objected against his Resolution of the point to make it doubtfull I must needs say this Case of generall destruction and Extirpation which some call extreme Necessity is a very hard case and whether â—t will excuse a people that in such necessity shall take Armes I dispute not nor is it needfull I should for it neither concernes the Casâ— as now it stands betweene our King and his Subjects He inviting them by all faire offers to return from their obstinate disloyalty promising assuring them the Preservation of Religion Lawes Liberties and what not Nor doth it concerne the Question now in hand which supposes not Extirpation of a People as cause of their Armes but only Exorbitancies of the Prince tending to a subversion of Religion and Liberties which Exorbitancies if they should be patiently born for the time that they shall cortinue do not take away the being and subsistence of a people as Extirpation doth but only put them for that time under the inconveniences of arbitrary government under which the people of God in the old Testament and the Christians in the New were left without remedy by forceable Resistance Againe if any particular mans life be invaded without any plea or Reason for it he thinkes that such a one may use forceable Resistance against any Agents in such assault of murder and that it is justified by the fact of David and rescue of Ionathan from the Causelesse cruell intent of Saul pag. 10. The Rule here seemes to speak no more then a Personall defence against a Murthering assault which was allowed above Sect. 2 provided that it be suddaine without any foregoing reason or pretence of Authority and also inevitable but in the Examples he would inferre more then he speakes in the Rule for he supposes the people would have rescued lonathan by force iâ— Saul had persisted in his intent and upon that false supposall insinuates thus much that if particular mens lives be sought after others may interpose with Armes for their defence and the Learned Divines doe expresly inferre from it that Countries may aslociate and bind themselves by oath not to suffer any of the impeached Members to be cut off good doctrines these from Scripture as we shall see when we come to that place So in Davids Example he would insinuate that if particular mens lives be sought after they may raise and entertame Forces for their defence as David did but â—f this seeme most absurd dangerous aâ— indeed it is and if the Jsraelitish Kings were absolute as this Author often grants then must be acknowledge what he accounts but one of my shifts pag. 57. that Davids example is not herein appliable but in this way of defence extraordinary Of which more particularly below when we come to places of Scripture that concerne Davids behaviour towards Saul Lastly he tells us which he should have done in the first place that Subjects of an absolute Monarch must without resistance submit their estates liberties and persons to his will so it carry any plea or shew of reason and equity pag. 11. Ans Here the way is open enough to Rebellion for every man will be ready to thinke there is no reason or equity in the will of the Monarch when he is oppressed by him and if the plea or shew of reason and equity must be the barre to Resistance it will little availe him to answer below that the Roman Emperors might not be resisted because they were absolute for never was there lesse plea of Reason and Equity in the will of any Tyrants then in theirs But he will close up the way by telling us absolute Monarchy resolves all judgement into the will of the Monarch so that if his will judicially censuâ—e it just it must be yeelded to as just so he pag. 11. But did not Saul censure David is one affecting the Kingdome and therefore worthy to dye which was the act of a Reasonable will though following a 〈◊〉 ormed understanding and did he not use a 〈…〉 â—â—dicary processe in the Cause of Ionathâ—n senâ—eâ—cing him upon the tryall of Lots why then were these examples brought thâ— Author in the former page for Resistance if such a will oâ— thâ— Monarch must be yeelded to and why is there such a condition added in the Rule so it carry any plea of reason and 〈…〉 this is fast and loose he that would have â—rection for resistance is here left upon uncertaintie Let us proceed to Limited and mixed Monarchies In such he tells us if the Exorbitancies of the Monarch be of lesse moment and not striking at the very being of the Government they ought to be borne by publique patience rather then to endanger the being of the State by a Contention betweene the head and the body pag. 17. but if they be such as being suffered doe dissolve the frame of Government and cannot be redressed by petition then is prevention to be sought by resistance pag. 18. and 29. Here I must first challenge the Ingeinuity of this Author who citing my words pag. 49. taken out of my first Sect 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 could give this censure upon them here he sayes more then we say yea more then should be said it is not universally true that we ought considering that the case was there put concerning exorbitancies not of lesse moment â—ut tending to the subversion of Religion Lawes Liberties â—nd the question upon it was whether upon such a case might we resist and the explication of the word Resist was into a denying of Active obedience and an using of forceable resistance Now my saying was that to such commands of the Prince we ought to deny obedience but not use forceable resistance
they say as he doth here we ought also forceably to resist and yet I say more then they say Secondly we would know who shall be Judge of the subversive Exorbâ—tances of the Monarch He grants there can be no Authoritative Judge to determine it for that would overthrow the Monarchy pag. 17. This is ingenuous and doth indeed sufficiently overthrow the conceit of the Full Ansâ—erer placing the finall Resolution and Judgement of this State in the two Houses But what then must be done In a limited Monarchy he tells us the Fundamentall Lawes must judge pronounce sentence in every mans Conscience for in such a case as transcends the provision of the government people are unbound and in state as if they had no government and the superiour Law of Reason and Conscience must be Judge so he pag. 18. This is a ready way to Anarchy and confusion The people by this have liberty enough to conceive of their fundamentall Rights as they please and of the Exorbitancies of their Prince as may be most for their advantage especially being upon such a case which themselves may make unbound and at liberty as if they had no government But these are fitting grounds for Resistance Likewise in mixed Monarchyes he tells us the accusing and wronged side must make it evident to every mans Conscience also the appeal must be to the Community as if there were no government and then as every man is convinced in Conscience he is bound to give assistance so pag. 29. Here is good stuffe not altogether so bad indeed as we see in the practice of these times for here is no forcing of men to a Covenant no forceable taking of their estates away but a leaving of them to their Consciences yet is this bad enough for he supposes it as a thing possible that two Estates may make a consederacy against the third pag. 28. therefore so oft as they shall combine and declare against the Monarch the people are at liberty as if there were no government and then it seemes they have all the power againe in themselves which they had at first according to these mens principles Also in this controversy saith he the appeale is to be made to the Community i. the people which though we have seen practised at this day in many Remonstrances yet I thinke it was never given as a Rule before it being in it selfe most unreasonable and disadvantagious to the Monarch for the people will be more ready to beleeve their Representatives and in the consequence most dangerous the high way to confusion as will more sully appeare when we come to Reasons against this Resistance Lastly we would know what power there is in the community to make resistance He tells us if the Monarch invade the power of the other Estates or run a course tending to the dissolution of the constituted frame of Government they ought to imploy their power to preserve the State from ruine for that is the end why they have the power of restraint and of providing for the publique safety so pag. 28. but what power ought they to employ any other then they are expresly invested with by Law which is a Parliamentary not Military power a Legall restraining power not a forceable constraint by Armes Yea buâ— saith he it is not only Lawfull for the other Estates to deny obedience to illegall proceedings of the Monarch as private men may but it is their duty and they are bound to prvent dissolution of the established frame pag. 28. He doth not say to prevent it by Armes but he meanes so by opposing their duty of prevention to the duty of private men in denâ—all of obedience But we must consider that the duty of priâ—â—e men is concerned when the Lawes come to execution the ducy of the publique States is seen when the making or abolishing of Lawes is taâ—en in hand also we must consider that it is not the abuse of power in the execution of Law that dissolves the established frame but the abolishing of old and making of new Lawes whereupon we say that the persons that make up those states taken out of their Assembly or Parliament are but private men and then have no more power to withstand the illegall proceedings of the Monarch then as private men by deniall of active obedience in their Assembly or Parliament they have power of restraint by deniall or consenting to prevent dissolution of the frame of Government indeed if they use that Legall restraining power as they are bound in duty to doe the Monarch cannot alter the established frame he may perchance make some actuall invasions upon their Rights and Liberties as they may often upon his Right and Prerogative and runne a course in it selfe tending to subversion but alter the frame or change the Lawes without their consent he cannot and whether it be not better that such arbitrary illegall Acts of a Monarch which are transient and sixe no new frame of Government should not for some time be borne with then to seek remedy against them by a Civill warre or contention of the body against the head will appeare more fully when we come to Reasons against such Resistance I will conclude the examination of this part of his discourse with the proof of this assertion that Limitations and mixtures in Monarchy doe not imply a forceable constraining power in Subjects as he supposeth for the preventing of the dissolution of the established Government but only a Legall restraining power as was even now insinuated First such a power must be in them by reservation and then it must be expresse in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant twixt the Monarch and the People But then I must say I cannot believe but such a condition is unlawfull and unreasonable against the order of Government which will have the soveraign power secured unprofitable for King and People a seminary of Iealousies and Seditions we need not spend time about this for it is confessed that in the constitution of this our government to which all the contention relates there is no Reservation or Law expresly enableing Subjects with such power of Armes This Author acknowledges pag. 63. that when the Houses by an Ordinance assume the Armes wherewith the King is entrusted and doe performe the Kings trust such Ordinance is not formally Legall â— there is no expresse constitution for it yet is it Eminently Legall justified by the intent of the Architects of this Government when for these uses they committed the Armes to the King so he Secondly therefore let us see whether it followes by implication upon the Limiting and Mixing of Monarchy It is agâ—eed that an Absolute Monarch is free from all forceable constraint by Armes and so farre forth as he is absolute from all â—egall restraint of positive constiâ—utions now in Limitations and mixture there is only sought a Legall restraint upon the power of the Monarch if any more were sought or