on what weighty reason the Doctor builds this fatall Resolution This were a contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are a levying of warre an opposing of Armies against Armies Sure this man doth much abhorre a Civill Warre I cannot blame him but yet we may buy an immunity too deare at the prize of a subversion of Religion Laws and Government which is the case in dispute This were to choose to be killed rather then to sight To have a State subverted rather then disturbed by a warre to prevent it I grant There must be no contestation of Power with him whose Ministers they are But this is the point to be proved that in this case it is so I utterly denie the Royall Power in our State can be communicated to subverting Instruments And I doe in vaine expect while the Doctor prooves that which every where he supposeth For he builds all on this foundation sc That Gods Ordinance is an Absolute unlimited Power investing the whole will of the Supreame and cannot be determined in the exercise but onely morally the vanitie of which conceit will appeare hereafter yet note here in the close that while he pretends a detestation of Civill Warre he could doe nothing more to foment it then by defending such Positions of intolerable servitude Did not such rigid Counsellours of the King of Israel cause the greatest Rent and Civill Warre that ever was made in any Kingdome CHAP. III. An Answer to the third Section which concerns severall kinds of Monarchy IN my opinion it had been fitter to have treated first of severall kinds Sect. 1 of Monarchy and then of Cases of Resistance for the subject in which should precede the Question whereof in all methodicall proceeding Here againe in the first place this Replier would make his Reader believe that penury of Scripture-proofe put me upon distinguishing of severall kinds of Monarchy That so I might lay all the defence of Resistance upon Reason drawne from the severall condition of Monarchies p. 11. I have sufficiently before discovered my intention in that Treatise The Resistence which I defend hath as much proofe from Scripture as a matter of that nature need to have Then he abuses me as finding fault with Divines that pleading for absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Kingdome bring proofes from places of Scripture p. 12. I complaine not of all Divines but some such as this Resolver is Some and that but of late yeares and that but in this kingdome where such doctrines are the rode to preferments nor doe I blame them for bringing proofes for subjection and against Resistance from places of Scripture as he calumniates me but I blame their grosse perverting of Scripture bringing prohibitions of Resistance of Powers against them who condemne it as much as themselves And of violating the Lords annointed against them who hold them as sacred and inviolate yea on more solid grounds then themselves doe And their fraudulent reasoning from one kind of government to another as if all Politicall provisions of States for their Liberties did make no variation in the case but that still they were in the same State as the people subject to the most absolute vassallage Sect. 2 But because he boasts so much of setling mens Consciences on warrant from Scripture that he expects command or allowance of Resistance from Scripture p. 6. That his Adversaries resolve all their faith and perswasion on an appearance of Reason drawne from Aristotles grounds ib. and here that I observe there is but little pretence from Scripture for Resistance and thus would perswade men as if he had all Scripture for him we nothing but a few huskes of reason for us Let him not thinke to carry it thus away with vaunts and big words I will professe here once for all He hath not a sillable of Scripture or right reason to satisfie the conscience with in this controversie If it please this Doctor let us joyne issue upon it and put the whole case on this point The Question betweene us is Whether in a limited Monarchie Resistance of subversive Instruments be unlawfull He affirmes I denie He undertakes to satisfie mens consciences that it is unlawfull bringing not one Text of Scripture which speakes to the point Something he brings to proove it unlawfull to resist the Ordinance of God that the Magistrate which is supreame under God is above all Resistance p. 84. He doth great matters who doubts of these things Then p. 84. he accumulates nine Arguments but all so non concluding that ninescore of them will not make one sound proving Reason of the point in question as it will appeare when we come to consider them On the other side we have both to settle mens consciences on 1. Examples of Scripture sc The peoples rescue of Jonathan Davids armie against the cut-throats of Saul that is subversive Instruments These being particular men and in an absolute Monarchie proove the point the more strongly so strongly that the Doctor is faine to flie to that ordinary evasion of an extraordinarie priviledge Besides all those places which prove it lawfull to resist private men seeking to subvert Lawes and Religion and the publike good sith in a limited State they are but private men though backed with a Commission from the Kings will and pleasure 2. Then for Reason I have set downe five p. 53. all unanswerably concluding the point in Question as I doubt not the considerate Reader will acknowledge He professes p. 12. That it was never his intent to plead for absolutenesse of Power in the King if by absolutenesse of Power be meant a Power of Arbitrary Command What his intent is I know not but he hath fully done the thing or I have no understanding to see when a thing is done In the precedent Section he resolves all cases into the Arbitrium Regis the meere pleasure of the King allowing the Houses of Parliament only a power of staying the hands of destroyers till it be expressely knowne whether it be the Kings pleasure they shall be destroyed And I am confident the meanest apprehension will discerne that they who make the Monarchs sole Will the last judge of all controversies and simply deny in the last case of subversion all Power of Resistance of Instruments even to the supreame Courts of Law and justice doe without any controversie resolve all government into an Arbitrarie Absolutenesse He adds We allow a distinction of Monarchies and admit the Government of Kingdomes to be of divers kinds and acknowledge a legall restraint upon the Power of the Monarch in this Kingdome Verba datis rem negatis you allow indeed a kind of distinction of Monarchies but all within the compasse of Absolute A legall restraint you seeme to acknowledge but such an one as resolves into the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch as I have made it appeare in my former Treatise and you will never be able to wipe off by this or any other Reply Then
subjection Reas 3 is due 3. If Power in the supreme be such that it cannot be limited then either because it is Gods Ordinance or else because it is supreme but it s being Gods Ordinance hinders not for we see Rom. 13. All Powers as well supreme as subordinate are Gods Ordinance yet subordinate Powers may be limited not only in the Rule of Acting but in the kind of Acts as none can denie Neither its being supreme doth hinder its limitablenesse indeed as before it hinders it from being capable of confinement in the kind of Acts but in the measure or rule of working it doth not hinder in as much as a Soveraigne Power may as well attaine its end by being confined to another Law from without as by the Law of its own Reason if not much better also we no where finde Gods Word making any difference or giving power to confine subordinate Powers but forbidding it of Soveraignes Reas 4 4. That is to be granted which denied makes all Soveraignes arbitrary and of equall Power but to affirme that Power is one unlimited and investing all the Acts of the Soveraignes Will doth so for then is soveraignty arbitrary not when it hath no morall bounds for then none were or could be arbitrary but when Power is so fully in Reas 5 one that every Act of his Arbitrium or Will is Potestative and soveraigne 5. I have the judgement of all the Reformed Churches and Divines in Germany France Belgia Scotland on my part who have both allowed and actually used forceable Resistance against subversive Instruments of their Soveraignes Will yea our owne famous Princes Elizabeth James and our present Soveraigne both by edicts and Assistance have justified the same which they would not have done had they been perswaded of such an unlimited Ordinance of God investing all the Acts of the Will of him who is supreme So that by all this it appears that the Doctors conceit of such an unlimited Ordinance of God which he brings not a tittle of Gods word to prove is a meere chimera and groundlesse conceit Object Now the onely difficulty which I can thinke on is this Gods Ordinance in soveraignty as before is not onely Power to such an end but sufficiencie of Power to the assecution of that end now a limited Power seemeth not to be sufficient for the end of Government because there are two Powers necessary to the end of Government sc Power of making and authentique Interpreting of Laws which are not consistent with a Limitation of Power I answer It is true of Limitation in respect of Acts Sol. and therefore I averre that such a Limitation cannot be where Power is supreme but for Limitation to a Rule and defined way of Working I cannot see how it with-stands the end of Government So that supposing Power of making and Interpreting Laws be necessary to the end of Government yet that they be Absolutely resident in him who is supreme sc To make Lawes and Interprete Lawes authoritatively without being bound to follow any Light or Rule therin but his owne Reason is not necessary to the end of Government In these Acts a regulated Power is enough in the most simple State sc a Power to make new Lawes if any be needfull and Interpreting the old if ambiguous according to the Rule of the former established Laws and by the advise of his learned Counsell and Judges of his supreme Courts of Justice We see in matters spirituall there is no Legislative Power resident to ordain or give authentique sence in matters de fide yet the Church stands well enough one standing Rule of Scripture being sufficient with a ministeriall Interpretation So it is probable a State might by a complete standing Rule of Law and a Ministeriall Power of Interpretation were there no Legislative Power resident in any Supreme Magistrate thereof But the matter is farre more cleare in a mixed Government so that Assert 2 were it necessary in a simple Government that the Supreme should be unlimited in his Power yet in a Mixed which is enough for us in this Kingdome evidently it is not so And to make this appeare I will lay downe three grounds 1. Such a Government may be established that the supreme Power may be placed in many persons either of the same or divers condition that is in a mixed Subject else all formes were unlawfull except simple Monarchie 2. If this supreame Power be inequally placed in these Persons or States of men so that a reall sublimity and Principality be given to one then the denomination may be taken from that Principall and so it is a Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy mixed in the Power it selfe however it pleaseth this Replier to deride it with the top or Crowne of the head of which more hereafter 3. Where the Supremacy of power is thus in many although all taken together have an unlimited Power as in ours yet neither of them severall by himselfe hath or can have for it is a contradiction that it be resident in many and yet unlimitedly in One. Now to those two shewes of Argument which in the beginning I produced out of this Reply I say before Government be established it is true the people have no formall Politique Power of Life and Death yet they have a seminall that is every one for himselfe his family and posterity hath a power of resigning up their naturall liberty to be governed by One or many after this or that forme as they shall judge fittest God ordaining that Powers should be to such an end hath thereby legitimated and ratified any Consent or Contract which people may make of parting with their liberty and giving Magistrates a common Power over them to that end And Gods not prescribing any Rule or Measure of Power by his Ordinance of Authority hath left it in the peoples liberty to resigne up themselves according to such Rule and Termes as they judge fittest so it be such as the end of his Ordinance may be attained thereby Thus although by it selfe and excluding Gods Ordinance they have no immediate Power to lay a command on others nor Power of life and death yet in vertue of Gods Ordinance their common consent and contract is sufficient to set up such a Power which is endowed with a sufficiency of Command for Government and the end of Government over those which have each man for himselfe and his set it up So although second Causes have no Power by themselves to produce their effects yet working in vertue of the first Cause they have Power to produce effects sometimes farre beyond their own Measure Therefore I desire this Doctour either to bring some Ordinance of God expressely forbidding to set any bounds or Rule of Power upon the Will of the Magistrate or else let him suffer Man-kind to use their Right in resigning up that liberty which God and nature hath given them upon such termes and conditions as they apprehend best
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
in justice be held originall and ab initio Those two denominations of Leige Soveraigne And Liege people doe prove the very Soveraignty and Subiection Legall but that is not so which hath only a morall Limitation the denominations argue the bond 'twixt them to be Legall And when Subjects have such a Libertie by custome and Law that they owe no farther subjection then when or how ever they came by it yet the very power of the Monarch is limited as we heard in the former Chapter unlesse any will put a vaine power in the Prince to which no Subjection is due but of this enough there Then he passeth to my Reasons proving mixture which are three p. 40. of my Treatise The first is That it is confessedly mixed of a Monarchie Aristocracie and Democracie therefore radically and in the very Power He answers It is not necessarie the mixture should be in the Power but it is sufficient if there be a concurrence of Persons whose consent is required to the exercise of Power p. 39. Thus he answers to the conclusion but sayes nothing to the Antecedent 1. And indeed if it be mixed of these three his answer is against common-sense that a mixture of Monarchie Aristocracie and Democracie should be satisfied by annexion of persons to the Monarch having meere consent for these are names of Power of Government for Aristocracie and Democracie are Powers not Persons as well as Monarchie therefore a composition of these three must be all of Powers 2. And indeed this chimera of a mixture in the exercise of Power is plaine non-sense For a mixture in the Acts or Exercise supposeth a mixture in the principles of Action that is in the very Powers A mixt Act proceeding from a simple Power is such stuffe that I never heard before Now if a mixture in Acts argues a mixture in Powers These Powers must be co-ordinate and supreme for subordinates make no mixture also Powers concurrent to supreme Acts such as Legislation is confessed to be cannot be but supreme Powers Neither can any man living cleare that passage which he speaks of p. 45. from pure non-sense sc This coordination is but to some Act or Exercise of the Supreme Power not in the power it selfe For Concurse to an Act imâ—lies a Power of Concurrence and Concurse to a supreme Act argues a supreme Power for an inferiour Power cannot afford a coordinate concurrence to a supreme Act. So that his Over-seers were not mistaken when they checked him for that passage and said He granted a coordination of Subjects with his Majestie in the supreme Power But here he brings a ponderous Reason so often before urged If the mixture be in the Supremacie of Power how can the King be the Only supreme and Head He cannot salve it with his Apex potestatis unlesse the King must be the Crowne or Top of the Head onely for they also must be our Head and our Soveraignes if they be mixed in the Supremacie of Power p. 29. Here I answer once for all to this so frequent an injection 1. That the Titles of Head and Supreme are fully satisfied by this that he is the sole Principle and fountaine from whence the execution of all Law and Justice flowes to his people by inferiour Officers and Courts all whose Authoritie is derivatively from him as its head 2. That these Titles in proper construction import only Vtmost chiefty nor doe they agree to any kind of right in the fundamentall and radicall Powers of a Kingdome but to the principall and transcendent Interest Another may have a right in the supreme Power yet not be supreme nor Head because not having a supremacie in that Power So it is in the Colledges the Fellowes have a fundamentall interest in the power of Government yet that hinders not but that the Title of Head and Chiefe is given to him who is Governour will the Doctour jest at it and say they be Heads and Supremes too and the Warden or Master is but the crowne or top of the head Also in the naturall bodie from whence the Metaphor of Head is borrowed are three Fundamentall and radicall powers scituate in the three Principall parts yet none will say the Heart and Liver are Heads too because they partake the supreme Powers of nature Let not the Doctour therefore straine a Metaphor so farre as to make himselfe merry with it Let him really answer my Arguments by which I prove a radicall Limitation and mixture Let him answer is not the Legislative Power the supreame Have not the Houses an Authoritative concurrence and Influx into that businesse If he avoyd a punctuall answer hereto by carping at words he will prove himselfe a ridiculous Argumentatour while he seekes to make others seeme so My second Argument for radicall mixture is from the Legislative Power being in all three He answers That Phrase is satisfied and explained by that concurrence and consent in the exercise of supreame Power It seemes that invention of his must serve all turnes Is a Legislative Power satisfied by a bare powerlesse consent I demand is that Consent causall and Authoritative or meerly Consiliarie and unauthoritative And whereas I prove that they have an enacting Authority by that received and set clause in the beginning of Acts Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majestie and the Authoritie of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament He tels us a Vote and Power of assenting is a great Authority p. 29. I enquire not how great it is I aske whether that be all whether that clause which as expressely as words can ascribes an enacting Authority to them be satisfied by such a Power of Assenting He sees it doth not and therefore tels us of a former phrase which ran thus The King by the advise and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonaltie hath ordained c. Suppose anciently some statutes runne under that forme that advise and instance must be understood of an Authoritative and enacting advice and instance as the latter formes explaine it for it is equall that the latter expound the former and not the contrary as the Doctor would perversly have it especially considering the Doctors Exposition cannot stand with the latter but mine agrees very well with the former But how bold is this man when during so many yeares and Parliaments both Kings and States by this received Forme have acknowledged and established a concurrent enacting Authoritie in all three yet he dares argue and oppose so expresse and confessed a truth But in this answer he discovers a great deale of superficialnes in granting the Houses a Power of consenting to the establishment of laws and yet denie them a Legislative enacting Power for such a Power of consenting if it be necessary is indeed a Power of enacting for though in transeunt Acts one may stand by and consent to the doing and yet not be Efficient yet in immanent Acts
will in the supreme to flow from Gods Ordinance He labours in vain from that text or any else to conclude against Resistance of subversive Instruments in a mixed Government CHAP. IX His ninth Section Answered the Reasons against Resistance satisfied and those for Resistance vindicated WE are now come to his last Section In examination of which Sect. 1 it will appeare that he hath as little Reason as Scripture a-against that Resistance which I have asserted in my Treatise Herein he doth two things 1. Brings his Reasons against Resistance 2. Endeavours to answer those which I brought for it But for more evident proceeding about both we must distinctly call to mind the Question of what it is 1. It is of Resistance in this state that is a state which I have proved to be limited and mixed in the very power it selfe 2. It is only of Resistance of destructive Instruments Therefore if his Reasons doe not reach to such a Resistance they are not to the purpose Now against Resistance the Doctour brings no fewer then nine Reasons In his first booke he had only five here he hath made up in number what they wanted in weight I will in few words answer them distinctly for many need not 1. His first is from the wisdom of God putting his people under Kings without power of Resistance this should be to us instead of a most forceable Reason p. 84. Answ Well it may be instead of one but it is not one For 1. It was their desire to be under an Absolute Government as their neighbour Countries were and they offended God in it as Lyra observes therefore he giving them such a King as they desired did not in his wisdome intend a binding forme for all people I thinke the Doctour will not affirme he did 2. If he meane Resistance of their Prince his Authority and person I grant they were so put under and so are we and all that are put under Monarches but if he mean the Acts of the Princes will which were not Authoritative I do denie it and the former alledged instances prove they were not and that is all I affirme in other Monarchies 2. The word of God gives no direction for it The Prophets call not on the Elders for it The new Testament commends patience in suffering for well-doing Answ 1. In Civill matters negative reasonings from Scripture are not proving 2. The word gives proving and imitable examples for it as before and indeed the Scripture doth every way justifie resistance of cut-throats and private destructive Assaulters of Laws and Liberties who have no Authority derived to them and I defend no other 3. The Apostle forbids Resistance of the Powers not from any compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God 'T is true for no compact of people could establish an unresistible Power without the Ordinance of God I acknowledge the Apostles ground for it and therefore allow no resistance where there is Gods Ordinance to secure them not for any abuse 4. To be supreme and next to God implies a security from Resistance p. 85. I grant all His Person his Power is hereby secured I condemn all rising up against the King but instruments of subversion have nothing of the King in them not his person nor Authoritie is risen up against in them For his conceits about jus Regis I have said enough above Neither doe I give to the Houses the power of the Lacedemonian Ephori They had an Authority over the very person of the King which the Houses claime not I give them no more then Calvin doth to the three Estates in their generall meetings The Doctor well knowes what I will answer him which he seeks to evade 1. By affirming that the Resisting of Instruments acting by his Power which he hath committed to them is a resisting of him p. 86. 'T is true it is so but we speake of instruments which act not by his power that is his Authoritie but by his will in a course exceeding the Limitation of his Authority Could he prove that a limited Prince could commit Power to doe acts without the bounds of his Power the Question were answered els he beggs it but answers it not 2. He would desire me to look again upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which I reject He cannot conceive how I can retaine my owne Assertion and reject theirs The Doctour hath a great mind to pick some contradiction in me but still failes in his endeavour In good earnest doth he speake really when he sayes he cannot conceive c. Well let us looke againe on the two Assertions which I reject in them 1. Governours who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturbe the quiet and godly life are farre from being Gods Ordinance in so doing 2. This tyrannie not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with armes resist not the Ordinance of God Doe I defend any Assertions equivalent to these Rather I assert in that Treatise and here also the contrary 1. Governours whither in absolute or limited States keeping within the measure of their power may disturbe the quiet and godly life and yet be Gods Ordinance in that act though crossing the end of Gods Ordinance in it 2. Powers though abused yet being Gods Ordinance they which resist even in abusive acts of it resist the Ordinance of God Is here no difference Cannot I retaine this Assertion that exceeding Acts in limited Monarchie are not Gods Ordinance and may in instruments be resisted And yet reject theirs who maintain resistance of Governours themselves in all acts of abused power He makes no difference between Acts exceeding bounds of power and Acts of abused power but of this more then enough before 3. But he will answer more particularly so he had need What is it He that beares the sword that is has the supreme Power gives Commission to under-Ministers for Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If therefore the Resistance of those though abusing their Power be a resistance of the Power so it is also of these Answ I grant all for it proceeds only of Ministers abusing Power committed to them not of Excesses of Power I will retort it Like as if when the supreme gives Commission of Justice to a Judge and he exceeding unto Acts without the compasse of his Commission is but a private man in those Acts and may be resisted so if Commission of Armes be given to a Generall c. 5. Subjection is due to a Prince and the contrary forbidden without distinction of a good and bad Prince I grant it and give the reason because they are Gods Ordinance but the Question is of instruments of exceeding Acts in which they are not Gods Ordinance 6. Good reason that he which hath the supreme Trust should have the greatest securitie p. 87. Answ It is so and so we grant him for he hath a full security from all violence for both Person and
will Whereas we have prooved that in limited Governments it is not so but to the Princes Will measured and regulated by a Law and therefore they have that power still in respect of all instruments of acts of Will not so regulated But it is observable that p 95. the Doctour is beaten off from his owne grounds and yeelds up in the Close of his booke a full Victory to Truth Which will appeare if we looke backe to his first booke and Sect. 1. where he proposeth the Question in his own termes whither if a King be bent or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Subjects may take up armes and resist He undertakes to maintaine the Negative and here was the beginning of the controversie Now see in this Replie how he is sunck and stollen off from that which he undertooke to defend and upon the matter grants us the Cause For 1. By bent or seduced to subvert he tels us he means not a purpose of the mind but doing many Acts arbitrarily tending to subuersion as if he would yeeld that supposing him bent that is purposing and intending it in his mind and course he might be resisted 2. Nay by bent to subvert he does not meane so much as Acts subversive but onely Acts tending to subversion of themselves for the frame of government and Lawes cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses So that now the Question is rather Whither subversion be possible by such instruments then whether their Resistance be lawfull Sure it were pitty to disturbe them by Resistance in an impossible worke Let them run on rather till they see their owne vanity and folly but suppose they should bring it to passe then it would be too late to come to this Doctor and tell him he was deceived and did deceive Certainly those great Polititians who have had this designe in managing so many yeares are not of his mind Yea suppose it cannot be done without the consent of the Houses yet the Doctour can tell us in another case that where there is an unresistible power Consent cannot long be wanting What then will he yeeld us a power of Resistance if we can proove such a designe possible Here also because the Doctor sayes this liberty which I allow a State for its preservation tends rather to its subversion p. 94. and every where calumniates me as an inducer of confusion and Anarchie and my Assertions as opening a way to Rebellion It concernes me effectually to vindicate my selfe and the truth which I maintaine from these aspersions and make it appeare that the power of Resistance I defend is not a remedy worse then the disease of subversion Which I can doe no better way then by a positive setting downe the naked truth which I averre in this and the former Treatise and shew how it shuts up every way to these evills which he layes uncharitably to my charge 1. I assert no forceable Resistance in any case but subversive and extreme 2. Subversive and extreme cases respect either particular men or the whole state and Government For particular men even in extreme cases of state or life I allow no publike Resistance but appeale if it may be had or if not yet no publike Resistance for whether the wrong be done him by inferiour or superiour Magistrates either it is 1. Under forme and course of Law and power committed them and then to resist is to resist the power 2. Or without all forme and course of Law and power committed to them and then a man values his state and life too high to make publike resistance and bring on the state a generall disturbance for his private good and sins though not against Gods ordinance of Power in this case yet against the publike peace and weale For the whole state or government and the last cases of its subversion of which the Doctor puts the Question 1. I condemne all force used against the Person of the supreme or his Power and Authority in any inferiour Ministers thereof 2. I averre not publike forceable resistance of Ministers of acts of will which are only actuall invasions or excesses of limitation and not such as plainly argue a bent of subversion and apparent danger thereof if prevention be not used so that the Doctor goes from the Question and comes home to me when he sayes here that he speakes only of the former sort 3. I affirme not force in this utmost case to be assumed by private men against destructive instruments of the Princes will as if any man were warranted on his own imagination of publike danger to raise forces for prevention But the Courts of Justice and especially the supreme Court to whom the conservation of Government and Law is committed and a Power not only to resist but also censure and punish its violaters much more its subverters without regard of number or warrant The Law supposing no warrant can be in such case This is the power of Resistance which I have asserted and it this be inducing of civill warre or a way to subversion and Rebellion It is a warre raised by defenders of Law against subverters of Law A Rebellion raised by Magistrates having Authority against instruments of arbitrarinesse having no authority A resistance tending to subversion but of none but subverters 'T is good reason then it seemes if destroyers grow to the number and strength of an Army for Magistrates to let them alone and not raise armes to suppresse them lest they open a way to confusion and bring on the miseries of a civill Warre This is the Doctors preservative Doctrine and my contrary is destructive 4. I argued from the end of the institution of the Houses and their interest in making Laws and preserving the frame He sayes this is grounded on my false supposall of their being joyned with the King in the very soveraigne power p. 96. Answer I have justified that supposall and manifested his strange boldnesse in denying it against the Kings and so many Parliaments direct affirmations and desire the reader to take notice that this is Calvins argument for Resistance in the place above recited how ever the Doctor doth make so light of it 5. From the power of inferiour Courts to punish violaters of Law though pretending a warrant of the Kings will for it He sayes this Argument is inconsequent to prove power of raysing Armies to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne He hastens to a conclusion and weighs not much what he answers I say it concludes inevitably for if the Kings warrant to violate Law will not priviledge one from force of justice then not a hundred not an Army of violaters Their multitude makes the danger greater and the Kingdome more unhappy not Malefactors more priviledged The forces of the Soveraigne in truth are the Forces raised to defend his Government not those which are raised to subvert it They are his which have his Authoritative will not those which have only his arbitrary If ever Reasons did demonstrate a truth I am confident these five have made good The power of the estates in Parliament to resist subversive instruments be they more or fewer Thus have I traced this Authour through his Reply and whether Sect. 3 I have not sufficiently vindicated my Treatise from it I referre my selfe to the conscience of every one who hath the understanding of a judicious man and the impartiality of a just man In my cap. 8. is a moderate debate of the present contention and divers Petitions tending to pacification if it had been possible but he toucheth not on that chapt His discourse shewes him to have nothing to doe with Moderation nor doth desire Peace but on the termes of a full dedition into the hands of subversive instruments I have done with him He resolved I Answered He hath replyed I have returned on it I am even with him and in truth above him I am sure Now I desire to spin out this contention no longer Yet if he or any else please to rejoyne I wish he would save himselfe and me a labour to let alone the booke and deale only with the 4th and 5th Chapters concerning the Doctors supposals if he can make good them and invalidate mine as much as in me lieth I will yeild him the cause but I judge it impossible if I know what is impossible The God of spirits allay the spirits of men from this extreme opposition And give such a issue to these wofull warrs that the scepter of Christ the Gospell of Peace may be fully submitted to and maintained by a King enjoying inviolate his due soveraignty and a People their due and lawfull liberties Amen PHIL. 4.5 Let your moderation be known unto all men The Lord is at hand FINIS