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
A VINDICATION OF THE Treatise of Monarchy CONTAINING An Answer to Dr Fernes Reply ALSO A more full Discovery of Three maine Points 1. The Ordinance of God in Supremacie 2. The Nature and Kinds of Limitation 3. The Causes and Meanes of Limitation in Governments Done by the Authour of the former Treatise LONDON Printed by G. M. for Iohn Bellamy and are to be sould at his Shop at the Signe of the three Golden-Lyons in Cornehill neare the Royall-Exchange M.DC.XLIV A VINDICATION OF THE Treatise of Monarchie The Preface PErusing with a sad heart and conscience desirous of Information the Papers made publike by the Defenders of both sides in this wofull division I found divers of them running out into irreconcileable extreames among which this Resolver the Authour of the fuller Answer and the Divines pleading for Defensive Armes were the chief In which I conceived there were passages contrary to all true policie and the particular Frame of this State Hereon a desire of allaying mens spirits and reducing them to a moderate compliance in one Truth induced me to a composing of that Treatise In which how farre I have attained my ayme I leave it to the world to judge But it fals out with me as it did with Moses endeavouring to set at one his contentious Brethren I have hard words and censures laid on me for my labour This Doctour tels me I have sowne seeds of sedition opened a way to Rebellion and termes me an engaged man But to whom I am engaged unlesse to Truth I know not Engaged indeed I am to defend the Kings Supremacie against one part by my Oath of Allegiance and engaged to defend the Priviledges of Parliament and lawfull Liberties of the Subject against the other part by my Protestation beyond these I know none and perhaps if this censurer knew my condition he would acknowledge as much No those men are rather engaged whom ayming at Miters and a dominion over their fellow-Presbyters it much concernes to prove the Power of Kings unlimited that so they may be able to satisfie their unlimited desires and uphold them in a boundlesse jurisdiction over the consciences of men but for this Doctor I know him not I judge him not Then for Sedition and Rebellion The searcher of all hearts knowes how farre they were from being the scope of that discourse rather it was an utmost assay of appeasment by shewing the way to a discreet moderation These Masters of controversie take a right course to subvert the Kingdom by disputing men into a degree of Opposition beyond all Attonement for as I am perswaded the high spirit of Kings will rather incurre the worst hazzard then submit to such termes as to be Vniversis minores that is subject to their Subjects common servants and Officers of their Kingdomes tyed up to an absolute necessity of assenting to the Determinations and Votes of the States So I am as confident that these two British Nations yea very many now being in his Majesties Armies will spend their last bloud rather then come downe to this Doctors termes sc a meere passive non resistence of subversive instruments of Arbitrarie commands a simple morall liberty which the basest slaves in the Turks gallies enjoy because it cannot be taken from them For my part I doe not reckon my life and liberty worth so much pleading for but the libertie of my Country is deare to me The established Government is deare to me because in it is bound up Religion the publicke Good yea the very Title of the King to this Crowne These I plead for against a man who by his unconscionable resolves of Conscience hath done what by a pen can be done to dissolve them who in three whole books hath undertaken the Patronage of Subverters of Religion Laws and Government and thinks it worth his pains if he can procure them an irresistibilitie I thought I had weighed out Truth to both sorts with so even a ballance in that Treatise that none had any cause to complaine But I see this man must have all goe his owne way He hath a high designe no lesse then a full conquest of all States To bind the Consciences and hands of Nations and deliver them up to the Executioner to inflict on them the capitall doom of subversion if at any time the supreme Magistrate please to give the word To this purpose having made some animadversions on scattered passages of my Book He is pleased to publish them under the stile of a Reply I may well call it a negative Reply He denies what I have asserted and layes downe his owne contradictorie Notions and that is all no Scripture nor Reason but what is fully answered in my former It is so hollow a discourse that an ordinary eye may see through it without the light of any further Answer yet because he gives me occasion of fuller illustration and justifying my supposals and discovering the vanity of his I have made him this Return in which I have to my knowledge left unanswered no passage of moment which concernes me in his Reply other parts of it have I left untouched for them to whom they belong And now with prostrate humility I beseech that sacred Authoritie which here againe is made the matter of this dispute not to impute iniquity unto me presuming for Truth and Conscience sake to make inquiries into it The Sun-beames strike not dead the poor Mathematician who standing on this mole-hill assaies by his instruments to take the dimensions of that glorious bodie Yea the great God of Power permits men without the guilt of sin to search into his Perfections and to set not positive yet negative bounds to Omnipotence it selfe Let not then his Vicegerent be incensed to disdain if we search into the limits of his Power I envie not it's extent let it be as large as Truth and Law can stretch it And my dutie binds me to beleeve that he would not have it larger Princes require a reasonable subjection and that is best performed where the nature and measure of Power is best knowne which to find out is all the drift of my former and this Treatise unto which now we will passe over The Contents of the severall Chapters and Sections CHAP. I. THE Case mis-proposed by the Doctor in his Resolution Sect. 1. His uncharitable rash Censures His Intents in this Reply come not home to the Case in question Sect. 2. How far Scripture proofe is to be expected in these Cases Sect. 3. Chap. 2. In the Question of Resistance the Doctors Distinction of Times and Persons is vaine How farre Resistance is asserted by me in this and the former Treatise Chap. 3. The Doctor and other of his sort abuse Scripture in this Question Sect. 1. Scripture warranting this resistance but having not a word against it The Doctor in words professing against Absolutenesse but indeed pleading for it Sect. 2. Government not only from God but subordinately from the people Sect. 3.
set new bounds to the Soveraigne Power yet may it stand to keep in a legall way those bounds which the soveraigne Power hath set to it selfe Observe He dares not to say They may keep but only stand to keep nor stand neither but by advice that is morally If he will exceed those bounds the Act is valid and hath all its Authority without them Only he sins if he doe so because he hath promised he would not doe it without them Here 's excellent Limitation and Confinement from exorbitancies A bare promise without such adoe in constituting States and Mixtures would be altogether as good a bounds but of this we shall have more occasion to speake afterward In the close of this Section he turnes back to the p. 21. of my book Sect. 6 and hath somewhat to say to my Assertions about Monarchy by conquest There first I say If the invasion 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 He tells us He sees no injustice in it if such a one having prevailed should use such a people as a Conquerour p. 19. The Lord keep us from this mans justice What No injustice If the Pretenders Title allowed by a great part of the people he by their aide subdues the rest shall he for their labour crush them into servitude and use the power of a Conquerour without injustice 2. Suppose the people not convinced of the right of his Title make at first some opposition but yet the pretence of his Title and apprehension that he seekes no more power then his Title imports work a yeilding disposition in them so that they withstand not so universally nor so long as they might have done but at length submit to him on his pretended termes were it not high injustice to take advantage on such a people and having them under hatches to desert those termes on which they yeilded and use the full right of a Conquerour This was Englands case with Duke William But the maine thing which sticks by him is something I have delivered p. 23. It is an uncontrolable truth in policie that the consent of the people either by themselves or their Ancestours is the only meane in ordinary providence by which soveraignty is conferred upon any person or family Against this he is very angry and opposeth it in many words but to my Argument from the Morall bond of subjection he sayes nothing at all He termes it good policie but bad divinity p. 20. And sets up an Antiposition that when the invading Prince has perfectly subdued a people there being no heyre to whom they are bound and hath setled and constituted a frame of Government then providence doth sufficiently discover it selfe and such a people ought to submit and take this Prince as set over them by the hand of providence As if these two were contrary I say They are not bound untill they consent He sayes in such a case they are bound to consent because then providence discovers it selfe And he brings Calvin at large to prove that which none denies I grant a people not preobliged fully overcome should much sin against Gods providence by obstinacie if on a meere will they consent not to reasonable termes of subjection But this I say There is no morall obligation to Authority before that consent bind them Conquest may be an Antecedent cause but the immediate and formall cause is only the consent of the people which he cannot say against for that must be morall and not meerely violent The call of providence challengeth a contented submission if there be no reason hindring it but if a precedent Oath or some other sound reason intervene then it is no call requiring submission Neither can the fullest conquest make a people debtors but they remaine free from any morall bond for the providence of God being of it selfe externall can induce no morall state but that providence which on one discovery calls to a submission on a like discovery may free them againe if nothing else come between to render them morally bound A Travellour by the providence of God shut up into the hands of a Robber hath his life and protection promised him in his journey if he will promise to pay him so much money I say this Travailor should sin against his own life and the providence of God offering him those termes if obstinately he refuse submission Yet no man will say he owes the robber so much money because he hath him at his mercy untill he by promise make himselfe a debtor Thus have I made good that maxime of mine to be an uncontrouleable Truth good Policie and good Divinity too maugre all the Doctor hath or can say against it CHAP. IV. Wherein the vanity and falshood of the supposals whereon the Doctor hath built all his discourses is made appeare Sect. 1 AFter a scattered gleaning of passages in the former Sections the Doctor undertakes the two great Questions 1. Of the Constitution of this Monarchy in his Sect. 4. 2. Of Resistence in the remainder of his book Which two we should now immediately pursue but that another work more conducent to the ending of this contention will for a while divert me Errour in the search of controverted truths doth more often arise from the judgement then from the reason Men doe more offend in laying false grounds then in deducing false inferences from true grounds This I have observed in the Doctors bookes He truly argues but from false principles and then the superstructure must needs be answerable so that overthrow his foundations and then all his building will of it selfe ruine into apparent falshood I confesse he every where sayes the same of my Grounds on which I have built that Treatise He cals them false and groundlesse supposals and fancies and what else he pleaseth I will therefore make him a fayre offer Let us make a short work of it let us joyne issue upon our supposals on which both our discourses are built This Doctors supposals which he scarce ever makes shew to prove and on which he hath built his Resolves and Discourses I doubt not to call unsound and false and doe professe the contrary to be my grounds whose truth I will maintaine His may be reduced to foure heads 1. Concerning the Ordinance of God in Soveraignty 2. Concerning the Nature and Quality of Limitation 3. The Meanes and causes of Limitation 4. The Constitution of this Monarchy And according to this order we will take them into examination First Of the Ordinance of God in Magistracy Of Gods ordinance in supremacie He proceeds on two false principles 1. That the Governing power is one and the same which God gives and settles upon the person that is supreme p. 13. that is it is absolute and unlimited in the power it selfe and may be limited only in
to use force against one he grants the cause by it of all for a warrant from an act of the Kings will is as valid to secure a few Emissaries as a whole Army and Gods Ordinance in one man is no more resistible then in a multitude Then for Davids intent to keep Keylah against Saul it is so evident by the history that I will say no more about it but doe refer him to that which the Pleaders for defensive Armes say about it The Doctor seeks divers evasions to get out of the reach of this example but doth not satisfie himselfe much lesse others and therefore adds the fourth on which he must rest when all is said That Davids example was extraordinary Hereon he brings some things in him which were extraordinary We grant it in many things but we deny it in this If the Doctor will prove him to have a speciall priviledge to resist Gods ordinance in his Soveraign more then other men he must bring the grant and warrant for it otherwise David must come under the common condition for this matter He himselfe acknowledges he had none for violating the person of his Prince and sure then he had none for violating the Authority of his Prince conferred on private Emissaries if they had any But in his p. 65. He layes hard at me and challengeth not only my Reason for calling this a shufling Answer but also my ingenuity who confesse the people in that Government might not resist and yet doe urge these examples for Resistance Answer 1. For my Reason I have made it appeare I have reason to call it so is it not a meere evasion to affirme in him an extraordinary priviledge and can bring no word nor warrant for it 2. For my ingenuity it is without cause challenged by him for from the lawfullnesse of Resistance of unreasonable Acts of will in an absolute Monarchy where Reason is the Princes law I may a fortiori conclude the lawfulnesse of resisting of instruments of illegall Acts in a limited Monarchy where the Law of the Land is the Princes Law and bounds CHAP. VIII The 8. Section concerning Resistance forbidden Rom. 13. answered NOw we are come to his principall strength against Resistance out Sect. 1 of Rom. 13. From whence nothing can be collected against any Resistance but that which is of the Powers of the Ordinance but that which I defend is of neither of them therefore I have no cause to feare his inferences from that Text. Now supposing the truth which I have made good that in a limited State the limitation is of the Power it selfe and not only of the exercise it followes evidently that in such a State resistance of destructive instruments is neither of Power nor Gods Ordinance I might therefore well omit that which at large here he speakes of Resistance of the Powers The first part of the Section is spent in replying to the Exceptions of the Reverend Divines The first thing I find which concernes me is p. 77. I will therefore begin with him there Where he accuseth me that in my 59 64 and 66. page of that Treatise I grant they might not resist in that Monarchy but affirme that subjects may in this and he brings me in giving two Reasons for it 1. Because Religion was then no part of the Lawes but here it is 2. Because that was an Absolute Monarchy this a Limited and mixed p. 77. But may I not here challenge both the ingenuity and conscience of this Replyer Did I ever grant that Gods Ordinance of Power might be resisted here or give any Reasons for so unreasonable an Assertion It would be tedious to repeate here what I have said there Let the Reader see if he please I will recite the summe 1. The Doctor affirmed that in the Apostles time the Senate of Rome might challenge more then our Parliaments can now I denied it and gave my reason sc That State was then devolved into a Monarchy by Conquest c. of this the Doctor speakes not a word perhaps he is now ashamed of that comparison 2. He said there was greater cause of Resistance then than now I answered There was then no cause at all Not for Religion being then no part of the Law Not Liberties because then that was past the Government changed and an Oath taken of absolute subjection Have I by these things granted a liberty of Resistance of Gods Ordinance to this people and deny it to those No Neither They nor We not that enslaved Senate nor our free Parliaments no cause no priviledge can justifie this Yea I ascribe more to Gods Ordinance of Power then He He sayes that in a limited state we owe only passive subjection to exceeding commands of a Prince by promise limiting himselfe in the use of his power I say though he sin in exceeding such promise yet we owe him also Active obedience in such commands which Gods Law forbids us not to be Active in Neither doe I bring Doctor Bilsons testimony to prove that Religion was then no part of the Law as he affirmes I doe p. 77. but sure he neither heeded what I had written nor what himselfe wrote I laid down an Assertion that Gods Ordinance of which St Paul speakes is the Power and the Person of him which is supremely invested with that Power and for this did I bring Dr Bilson who explaining the Power there forbidden to be resisted sayes it is the Princes will not against his Lawes but agreeing to his Lawes Here he serves Dr Bilson and other Divines as before the King and the Parliaments teaches them a meaning contrary to their words They meane such states as may by the knowne Laws use forceable restraint No such meaning of his words He makes no distinction of states but expounds the Text in question speaking of Gods Ordinance in generall in all Rulers He knowes it well enough and therefore addes They were willing to excuse as much as might be those motions of the Protestants in France and the Low-Countries but had they lived now they would have spoken more cautelously That is They spake rashly wronged the truth and reached their consciences to excuse the commotions and rebellions of those dayes This is like a Doctor But he likes the Homilie better then them all that speakes home he sayes but what he speakes not nor doe I answer But he will try the force of this exception because I professe with Mr Burrowes against Resisting of Authority though abused And with Dr Bilson admit of resisting the Princes will against the Lawes This is fast and loose sayes he How so In limited Monarchies where the Prince hath no Authority beyond the Law there an act beyond the Law is unauthoritative and meerely private so that it is no abusing of Authority but an exceeding of Authority Authority abused to undue acting of matters within its compasse Mr Burrowes speakes of and that must not be resisted But the Princes will acting against
Authoritie what ever exorbitance he breakes out unto The people have not so Every Subject being under the penalty of the Law for it's transgressions But the Doctor forgets his Clients He is not arguing for securitie of Soveraignes but Subiects if they may be so called which endeavour to subvert lawes and governments But may we not also say as it is good reason the supreme should have the greatest securitie so the people also should have some securitie and not be exposed like bruit beasts to the savage lusts of every instrument of cruelty having only this to comfort them that they sin in so doing and so they doe which with cruelty destroy even the bruit creatures 7. From the end and benefits of Government for the enioying of which it is good reason we should beare with the exorbitances Still he speakes good reason but nothing to the purpose for we dispute not of exorbitances of them who have the power but of them who have no power for what they doe In exorbitances of lesser nature their will may secure instruments but it is against reason that the benefits we have by their Government should cause us to beare with them who would destroy their laws and government for of such is the Question I wonder here againe he brings Calvin when he cannot but know that he is expressely for power of Resistance in the Houses and no doubt P. Martyr and the rest follow Calvin in this 8. Power of Resistance in Subiects would be a remedie worse then the disease and more subversive of a State then if it wore left without it p. 90. Why would it be so It would be a continuall Seminary of jealousies twixt Prince and people and confusion through the continuance of the mischiefes of Warre Concerning this Argument of his see p. 60. of my Treatise where it is fully satisfied 1. Who will believe the power of Resisting destructive instruments should be more destructive then to let them alone without Resistance 2. Suppose by abuse of this power those evils should happen for it so fals out to the best physicke where the nocumentous humours are prevailing yet this is but by accident such Power per se and of its owne nature tends to the preventing of subversion On the contrary by woefull experience this Doctrine of the unresistiblenesse of such men hath nursed up a brood of audacious projectours and where it is taught a state will never be without them Whereas if the Truth were knowne it would refraine the spirits of wicked men from paracide and State subversion Neither can any thing be more mischievous then to teach an impunitie for projectours and Agents of mischiefe and he hath not the reason of a man who argues otherwise 3. Neither can this doctrine as the Replier traduces it extend to the deposing of Princes or the deminishing of their Authority for it concernes only their Instruments not their Persons their Absolute extra-legall Will not their Authority And for iealousies they will be more bred by that Doctrine which gives the Prince a Power to undoe the State then by that which terminates both and gives neither a power to subvert the other Danger is the nurse of jealousie that which takes away power of hurting takes away Danger and so removes iealousies but indeed such which have a plot of breaking up the hedge of Government and bringing lawlesse powers into a State care not for having such a Power in those Houses whom it would cause them to feare and looke on with continuall jealousies The Homily of Rebellion is in vaine cited against that which is no rebellion 9. The last and weakest of all is that of the hearts of Kings being in Gods hands Prov 21.1 and that of Gods Covenant with David and his seed 2 Chron. 6.16 7.17 How the Doctor can draw hence a conclusion against Resistance of subversive instruments I cannot imagine Sure if these Texts had any proving force in them they had not been brought so late Rather then place had been in the former Section where in the close he saies He chose onely to insist on those Texts which are fit to beare argument but here he hath broke his word yet he is excusable for he had no better Sect. 2 At length he comes to my Arguments brought for Resistance If they be not more concluding then his would they had never seen the light nor come to the eye of any judicious man Let us see what he hath to say to them 1. That Resistance is lawfull which is no Resistance of the Ordinance of God but this of subversive instruments is not being neither of the Person nor Authority of the Prince He sayes He hath proposed and answered this above under his third and fourth Reasons And there I doubt not but the invaliditie of his Answer doth plainly appeare 2. Without this Power of Resistance all limitation of Government is vaine and all formes resolve into that which is arbitrary He tels me My Argument is inconsequent by my owne description of Absolute Monarchie so that the restraint of a limited Monarch is Legall and Morall not forceable and Military p. 93. I answer I describe limited and Absolute Monarchie not by Force but the having or not having a bounds of Will but how absurd it is when the distinctive conceit in the definition of a limited Monarch is a Law terminating his will to take it of a morall terminating which is common to all not only Monarches but men Especially sith I explaine my selfe so fully afterwards as I doe there p. 7. in the three degrees of absolutenesse But I have above enough discovered the fraud and falshood of his confounding of Legall and morall Limitation and have prooved that to give a Limited Monarch only a morall Limitation is to resolve all into Absolute and Arbitrary for the most absolute under heaven hath morall limitation 3. Such Power is due to a publique State for its preservation which is allowed to a particular person He answers this is not universally true Why not a State is more worthy and comprehends a multitude of particular men doth number detract from their priviledge He would seeme to have reason for his deniall A private man hath by the law of nature power of selfe-preservation against the force of another private man yet is this power yeelded up in regard of Civill Power and not to be used against persons indued with such power p. 94. 1. He still speakes Truth but not to the Question which is not of persons indued with civill power but such as we have proved to have no power grant them endued with power neither a particular man or a whole Community must resist them but having none it is much more allowable in a publique state then a particular person 2. He speakes of a power yeelded up as if in all governments the people doe simply yeeld up all power of Resistance into a full subjection unto all Acts of the Princes