though not on the contrary for the necessary connexion of other power to it is one of the greatest limitations A subordination of Causes doth not ever prove the supreme Cause of limited virtue a co-ordination doth alwayes Reas 3 Thirdly I prove it from the ancient ordinary and received denominations for the Kings Majesty is called out Liege that is Legall Soveraigne and we his Liege that is his Legall Subjects what doe these names argue but that his Soveraignty and our subjection is legall that is restrained by Law Reas 4 Fourthly had we no other proofe yet that of Prescription were sufficient In all ages beyond record the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome have been the Rule of Government Liberties have been stood upon and Grants thereof with limitations of Royall power made and acknowledged by Magna Charta and other publike and solemne acts and no Obedience acknowledged to be due but that which is according to Law nor claimed but under some pretext and title of Law Reas 5 Fifthly the very Being of our Common and Statute Lawes and our Kings acknowledging themselves bound to governe by them doth prove and prescribe them Limited for those Lawes are not of their sole composing nor were they established by their sole Authority but by the concurrence of the other two Estates so that to be confined to that which is not meerly their owne is to be in a limited condition Pleaders for defensive armes Sect. 2. 4. Some there be which have lately written on this subject who take another way to prove our Government limited by Law viz. by denying all absolute Government to be lawfull affirming that Absolute Monarchy is not at all Gods Ordinance and so no lawfull power secured from resistance What is their ground for this God allowes no man to rule as he list nor puts mens lives in the pleasure of the Monarch It is a power arbitrary and injurious But I desire those Authors to consider that in absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any Will or list but to the reasonable Will of the Monarch which having the Law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts But see for defence of this Government Part 1. cap. 2. Having set downe those Reasons on which my Judgement Sect. 3 is setled on this side I will consider the maine Reasons wherby some have endeavoured to prove this Government to be of an absolute nature and will shew their invalidity Many Divines perhaps inconsiderately perhaps wittingly for self ends have beene of late yeares strong Pleaders for Absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Land and pressed Obedience on the Consciences of People in the utmost extremity which can be due in the most absolute Monarchy in the world but I seldome or never heard or read them make any difference of Powers but usually bring their proofes from those Scriptures where subjection is commanded to the higher Powers and all resistence of them forbidden and from Examples taken out of the manner of the government of Israel and Judah as if any were so impious to contradict those truths and they were not as well obeyed in Limited Government as in Absolute or as if Examples taken out of one Government do alwayes hold in another unlesse their aime were to deny all distinction of Governments and to hold all absolute who have any where the supreme power conveyed to them Among these I wonder most at that late discourse of Dr. Ferne who in my Judgement avoucheth things inconsistent and evidently contradictory one to the other For in his Preface he acknowledges our Obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the Lawes of the Land and accordingly to be yeelded or denied to the higher Power and that he is as much against an absolute Power in the King and to raise him to an arbitrary way of Government as against resistence on the Subjests part also that his power is limited by Law Sect. 5. Yet on the other side he affirmes That the King holds his Crown by conquest that it is descended to him by three Conquests Sect. 2. that we even our Senate of Parliament hath not so much plea for resistence as the ancient Romane Senate had under the Romane Emperours whose power we know was absolute Sect 2. that in Monarchy the judgement of many is reduced ro one that Monarchy settles the chief power and finall Judgment in one Sect. 5 what is this but to confesse him limited and yet to maintain him absolute Arguments on the contrary dissolved But let us come to the Arguments First say they our Kings came to their right by Conquest yea saies the Dr. by three Conquests He meanes the Saxons Danes and Normans as appears afterwards Therefore their right is absolute Here that they may advance themselves they care not though it be on the ruine of publique liberty by bringing a whole Nation into the condition of conquered slaves But to the Argument 1. Suppose the Antecedent true the Consequution is not alwaies true for as is evident before in the first Part. All Conquest doth not put the Conqueror into an absolute right He may come to a right by Conquest but not sole Conquest but a partiall occasioning a Right by finall Agreement and then the right is specificated by that fundamentall agreement Also he may by sword prosecute a claime of another nature and in his war intend only an acquiring of that claimed right and after conquest rest in that Yea farther he may win a Kingdome meerly by the Sword and enter on it by right of Conquest yet considering that right of conquest hath too much of force in it to be safe and permanent he may thinke conquest the best meane of getting a Kingdome but not of holding and in wisdome for himselfe and posterity gaine the affections of the people by deserting that Title and taking a new by Politique agreement or descend from that right by fundamentall grants of liberties to the people and limitations to his own power but these things I said in effect before in the first part only here I have recalled them to shew what a non sequitur there is in the Argument But that which I chiefly intend is to shew the infirmity or falsehood of the Antecedent it is an Assertion most untrue in it selfe and pernitious to the State Our Princes professe no other way of comming to the Crown but by right of succession to rule free subjects in a legall Monarchy All the little shew of proofe these Assertors have is from the root of succession So William commonly called the Conquerour For that of the Saxons was an expulsion not a Conquest for as our Histories record They comming into the Kingdome drove out the Britaines and by degrees planted themselves under their Commanders and no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany unles we should thinke that by conquering they lost their own Liberties to the Kings for whom they conquered and
Judges in the case of Ship-money had given it to the King sure when they denied it to him they did not intend it to themselves 1. Hee tells us In them resides the reason of the State And that the same reason and Judgement of the State which first gave this government its being and constitution therefore all the people are to be led by it and submit to it as their publique reason and Judgement I answer If by state he meane the whole Kingdome I say the reason of the two Houses divided from the King is not the reason of the Kingdome for it is not the Kings reason who is the head and chiefe in the Kingdome If by state be meant the people then it must be granted that as farre forth as they represent them their reason is to be accounted the reason of the Kingdome and doth binde so farre forth as the publique reason of the Kingdome can binde after they have restrained their reason and will to a condition of subjection so that put case it be the reason of the state yet not the same which first gave this Government its being for then it was the reason of a State yet free and to use their reason and Judgement in ordaining a Government but now the reason of a State bound by Oath to a Government and not at liberty to resolve againe Or to assume a supreme power of judging distructive to the frame of Government they have established and restrained themselves unto Their reason is ours so farre as they are an ordained representative body But I have before demonstrated that in this frame the Houses could not be ordained a legall Tribunall to passe Judgement in this last case for then the Architects by giving them that Judicature had subordinated the King to them and so had constituted no Monarchie 2. He argues the Parliament being the Court of supreme Judicature and the Kings great and highest Councell therefore that is not to be denied to it which inferiour Courts ordinarily have power to do viz To judge matters of right betweene the King and Subject Yea in the highest case of all The Kings power to tax the subject in case of danger and his being sole Judge of that danger was brought to cognizance and passed by the Judges in the Exchequor I answer 1. There is not the same reason betwixt the Parliament other courts In these â—he King is Judge the Judges being deputed by him and judging by his authority so that if any of his Rights be tried before them it is his owne Judgement and he judges himselfe and therefore it is fit he should be bound by his owne sentence But in Parliament the King and People are Judges and that not by an authority derived from him but originally invested in themselves So that when the two Estates judge without him in any case not prejudged by him it cannot be called his Judgement as that of the other Courts being done by his authority and if he be bound by any Judgment of the two Estates without him he is bound by an externall power which is not his owne that is he is subordinated to another power in the State where he is supreme which is contradictory Secondly in other Courts if any case of right be judged 'twixt him and the subject they are cases of particular Rights which diminish not Royalty if determined against him Or if they passe cases of generall right as they did in that of Ship-money it is but declaratively to shew what is by Law due to one and the other yet their Judgement is revocable and liable to a repeale by a superiour Court as that was by Parliament But if the Kings Prerogatives should be subjected to the Judgement of the two Estates the King dissenting then he should be subject to a sentence in the highest Court and so irremediable a Judicatory should be set up to determine of his highest Rights without him from which he could have no remedy Thus maine causes may bee alledged why though other Courts doe judge his Rights yet the two Estates in Parliament without him cannot and it is from no defect in their power but rather from the eminency of it that they cannot If one deputed by common consent of three doth by the power they have given them determine controversies betweene those three it is not for either of them to challenge right to judge those cases because one who is inferiour to them doth it Indeed if the power of the two Houses were a deputed power as the power of other Courts is this Argument were of good strength but they being concurrents in a supreme Court by a power originally their owne I conceive it hard to put the power of finall Judgement in all controversies 'twixt Him and them exclusively or solely into their hands If it be demanded then how this cause can be decided Sect. 3 and which way must the People turne in such a contention What be done in such a Contention I answere If the non-decision be tolerable it must remaine undecided whiles the Principle of legall decision is thus divided and by that division each suspends the others power If it be such as is destructive and necessitates a determination this must be made evident and then every Person must aide that Part which in his best Reason and Judgement stands for publike good against the destructive And the Lawes and Government which he stands for and is sworne to justifies and beares him out in it yea bindes him to it If any wonder I should justifie a power in the two Houses to resist and command aide against any Agents of destructive commands of the King and yet not allow them power of judging when those Agents or commands are destructive I answere I doe not simply deny them power of judging and declaring this but I deny them to be a legall Court ordained to judge of this case authoritatively so as to bind all People to receive and rest in their judgement for conscience of its authority and because they have Voted it 'T is the evidence not the power of their Votes must bind our Reason and Practice in this case We ought to conceive their Votes the Discoveries made by the best eyes of the Kingdome and which in likelihood should see most But when they Vote a thing against the proceedings of the Third and supreme Estate our Consciences must have evidence of Truth to guide them and not the sole authority of Votes and that for the Reason so oft alledged CHAP. VIII The contention now in being is debated and the readiest meanes of Reconcilement proposed THus have I for my owne satisfaction and the Conscience Sect. 1 of every moderate and impartiall man who will peruse the same set downe what I verily conceive to be the truth concerning those high matters first of Monarchy in generall and then of this of England and have given my determination concerning all the weighty Questions which
arise considerable in the course of handling both Now nothing remaines but to resolve the Conscience by this precedent light what to â—udge of the unhappy contention which now is broken out into open warre betweene the King and the two Houses But this depending on matter of fact is more fitly referred to every mans owne memory and Judgement and nothing is to be done but to acquaint himselfe with the certaine truth of those matters of fact and then to judge therof according to the former Rules To this issue the whole controversie is brought That the two Houses may lawfully resist by force of Armes all counsells and attempts of what men soever tending to the subversion of the established Frame of Government or themselves and their Fundamentall Priviledges which is equivalent to the other yea though they are warranted by the commands and personall presence of the King himselfe And that clearly this is no resistence of the higher power in our Government so no force be intended or used against the Kings owne Person nor doth it come within the censure of Saint Paul Rom. 13. nor any other Scripture nor right Reason grounded thereon so that the Conscience assured hereof hath nothing else to doe but to enquire whether the truth of Factlyes either in the Affirmative of the two Houses That the Kingdome was in imminent danger the King refusing to joyne with them for prevention of it when they assumed the Militia for defence Or else in the Kings Negative Much hath beene said on both sides to draw the Consciences of men to adherence and many no doubt have judged according to their pre ingaged affections Many Papers have I seene running out on both sides to unjustifiable extremes and have much holpen on the contention by making the breach wider yea I have read more said for them then I am perswaded notwithstanding the heat of the contention either will say for Sect. 2 themselves or can without the subversion of the other A debate upon the contention Now for a man to resolve his Conscience about the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of this Warre the course is not to cry it downe indefinitely as a Resistence of Gods ordinance nor of the higher Power Nor to justifie it because the cause stood for is Religion and expurgation of in-crept corruptions in Church and State For all standing for Religion and Reformation is not a justifiable cause to take up Armes we having proved it before that in this Kingdome nothing can warrant it but apparent danger from destructive Counsellours and Instruments Neither is it enough to demand as Doctor Ferne doth Sect 6. Who were first in Armes for the other part will by their Almanack finde Armes and Forces gathered and employed before those in Hull Declar. of the Lords and Commons of Apr 3. 1642. but that is not the resolving enquiry it may fall out the defensive part may be first in Armes to prevent the ruine of counsells and Plots which are apparently contrived but not executed The resolving enquiry I thinke must be Whether at the Parliaments taking up of Armes the Common-wealth Frame of established Government or which is all one the Being and radicall Powers of Parliament were in apparent danger of subversion For if so then the Armes and Force used against the Counsellours or Agents thereof is proved lawfull by all the precedent discourse Now it will be alledged and is in part acknowledged His Majesties Answ to the Petit. of the houses March 26. 1642. that there was a grand intention and plot of altering the Government of this Kingdome and reducing it to an arbitrary way They will not say his Majestie was conscious of it but it was aimed at by many about him and in power with him whom it concerned to have him absolute By these men he was told that such things were Law which if they had bin so then he had bin absolute by law They will instance in the long and purposed disuse of Parliaments The arbitrary Taxes and Impositions on most of the Commodities of the Kingdome The encroachnent of the Arbitrary Courts upon the Legall The Imposition of Ship-money And the Judges opinion that the King had power to tax the subject in times of danger and that he is the sole Judge of that danger The raising an Army and forcing the subject to furnish the same with Coat and Conduct-money The intention of bringing up the Army to subvert or at best to awe and confine the Parliament to bounds of proceeding of their owne setting All this before or upon the beginning of the Parliament Then the evidences and proofes against the Earle of Strafford His Majesties comming with the terror of such an attendance into the House of Commons to demand such a number of Members Here is a succession of designes all before the least shew of resistence for his Majesties comming to the House was Iannuary 4. 1641. And the first Petition to his Majestie about the Militia was not till the 26. of the same And their resolution to settle it by themselves His Majesties refusing was not till March 1. And among all these there is not one but tends to destroy the frame of Government Not that every one who had a hand in them did aime at such a destruction but looking on the designe it selfe and we must judge of mens intentions by the nature of their Counsells and enterprizes every one of them strikes at the foundation of this legall frame and tends to the introduction of Absolutenesse and Arbitrarinesse in the Soveraigne I acknowledge that since that time there is a Plea on both sides of danger of subversion The King withdrew from London and oft affirmes that He was driven thence and could no longer remaine in safety And the two Houses on the former designes plead a danger of subversion from evill Counsellours Both sides now complaine of danger and have taken up Armes to repell that danger but these complaints of danger and taking up of Armes by both sides was all since the succession of those fore-recited plots I know what hath been intended or done since the taking of Armes may be all affirmed to be for defense against danger the withdrawment of so many Members of both Houses the acts of hostility on both sides the taxing spoyling and undoing of thousands of innocent people all must be excused by necessity of Warre and self-defense But what can be said for all those Plots and Essaies which were the Parliaments first grounds of Feares and Forces Were they removed before they tooke up Armes and so their assuming them made causlesse and inexcusable You will say Those were the Plots of men in grace and authority about His Majesty and that the illegality of those proceedings being made knowne to him He disclaimes them professing solemnly he hath no intent but to governe by Law and acknowledges that the Law is the measure of his power But they doe tell you That they object nothing
All these are very distinguishable cases and will be of use either in this or the ensuing disputes Assert 1 To the question I say First Positive obedience is absolutely due to the will and pleasure of an absolute Monarch in all lawfull and indifferent things because in such a State the will of the Prince is the supreme Law so that it binds to obedience in every thing not prohibited by a superiour that is Divine Law for it is in such case the higher power and is Gods ordinance Assert 2 Secondly When the will of an absolute Monarch commands a thing forbidden to be done by Gods Law then it bindes not to active obedience then is the Apostles rule undoubtedly true It is better to obey God then men For the Law of the inferiour gives place to the superiour In things defined by God it should be all one with us for the Magistrate to command us to transgresse that as to command us an impossibility and impossibilities fall under no Law But on this ground no man must quarrell with Authoritie or reject its commands as unlawfull unlesse there be an open unlawfulnesse in the face of the act commanded For if the unlawfulnesse be hidden in the ground or reason of the action inferiours must not be curious to enquire into the grounds or reasons of the commands of superiours for such licence of enquiry would often frustrate great undertakings which much depend on speed and secrecy of execution I speak all this of absolute government where the will and reason of the Monarch is made the higher power and its expression the supreme Law of a State Thirdly suppose an absolute Monarch should so degenerate Assert 3 into Monstrous unnaturall Tyranny as apparently to seeke the destruction of the whole community subject to him in the lowest degree of vassallage then such a community may negatively resist such subversion yea and if constrained to it by the last necessity positively resist and defend themselves by force against any instruments whatsoever imployed for the effecting thereof 1. David did so in his particular case when pursued by Saul he made negative resistence by flight and doubtlesse he intended positive resistence against any instrument if the negative would not have served the turne else why did he so strengthen himselfe by Forces sure not to make positive resistance and lay violent hands upon the Person of the Lords Anointed as it appeared yet for some reason he did it doubtlesse which could be none other but by that force of Armes to defend himselfe against the violence of any mis-imployed inferiour hands If then he might doe it for his particular safety much rather may it be done for the publike 2. Such an act is without the compasse of any the most absolute Potentate and therefore to resist in it can be to resist no power nor the violation of any due of subjection For first the most submisse subjection ever intended by any community when they put themselves under anothers power was the command of a reasonable will and power but to will and command the destruction of the whole body over which a power is placed were an act of will most unreasonable and self-destructive and so not the act of such a will to which subjection was intended by any reasonable creatures Secondly the publike good and being is armed at in the utmost bond of subjection for in the constitution of such unlimited soveraignty though every particular mans good and being is subjected to the will of One supreme yet certainly the conservation of the whole Publike was intended by it which being invaded the intent of the constitution is overthrowne and an act is done which can be supposed to be within the compasse of no politicall power So that did Nero as it was reported of him in his immanity thirst for the destruction of whole Rome and if he were truly what the Senate pronounced him to be Humani generis hostis then it might justifie a negative resistance of his person and a positive of any Agent should be set on so inhumane a service And the united Provinces are allowed in resisting Philip 2d. though he had bin their absolute Monarch if he resolved the extirpation of the whole people and the planting the countrey with Spaniards as it is reported he did And that assertion of some that All resistance is against the Apostles prohibition Resistance by power of Armes is utterly unlawfull cannot be justified in such a latitude But of this more will be spoken in the current of this discourse Assert 4 Fourthly suppose by such a power any particular person or persons life be invaded without any plea of reason or cause for it I suppose it hard to deny him liberty of negative resistance of power yea and positive of any Agents in such assault of murther for though the case be not so cleare as the former yet it seemes to me justified by the fact of David and the rescuing of Jonathan from the causlesse cruell intent of his Fathers putting him to death As also such an act of will carrying no colour of reason with it cannot be esteemed the act of a rationall will and so no will intended to be the Law of Soveraignty Not that I thinke a Monarch of such absolutenesse is bound to yeeld a reason why he commands any man to be put to death before his command be obeyed but I conceive the person so commanded to death may bee justified before God and men for protecting himselfe by escape or otherwise unlesse some reason or cause bee made knowne to him of such command Fifthly Persons subject to an unlimited dominion must Assert 5 without resistance subject their Estates Liberties Persons to the will and pleasure of their Lord so it carry any plea or shew of reason and equity First it seemes to me evident 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of the power for ill doing and we be punished for it yet the Magistrate going according to his misguided reason it is the command of a reasonable will and so to be submitted to because such a one suffers by Law in a State where the Lords will is the Law Secondly In commands of the power where is the plea of reason and equity on the part of the commander whether it be such indeed some power must judge but the constitution of absolute Monarchy resolves all judgement into the will of the Monarch as the supreme Law so that if his will judicially censure it just it must be yeelded to as if it were just without repeale or redressement by any created power And let none complaine of this as a hard condition when they or their Ancestors have subjected themselves to such a power by oath or politicall contract If it be Gods ordinance to such it must be subjected to and its exorbitances born as he sayes in Tacâ—tuâ—… as men beare famine pestilence and other effects of Gods displeasure
it is lawfull to resist the exorbitant Illegal Commands of such a Monarch 1. As before in lighter cases in which it may be done for the reasons alledged Pos 1 and for the sake of publique peace we ought to submit and make no resistance at all but de jure recedere Pos 2 2. In cases of higher nature Passive resistance viz. By appeale to Law by Concealment by Flight is lawfull to be made because such a Command is politically powerles it proceeds not from Gods Ordinance in him and so we sin not against Gods Ordinance in such Non-submission or Negative resistance 3. For Instruments or Agents in such commands if the Pos 3 streight be such and a man be surprized that no place is left for an appeale nor evasion by Negative resistance I conceive against such Positive resistence may be made because authority failing or this Act in the Supreame Power the Agent or Instrument can have none derived to him and so is but in the nature of a private person and his Act as an offer of private violence and so comes under the same rules for opposition 4. For the person of the Soveraigne I conceive it aswell Pos 4 above any Positive Resistence as the Person of an absolute Monarch Yea though by the whole Community except there be an expresse reservation of Power in the body of the State or any deputed Persons or Court to use in case of intolerable exorbitance Positive Resistence which if there be then such a Governour is no Monarch for that Fundamentall Reservation destroyes it's being a Monarchy in asmuch as the Supreame Power is not in one For where ever there is a Soveraigne Politique Power constituted the person or persons who are invested with it are Sacred and out of the reach of Positive Resistance or Violence which as I said if just must be from no inferior or subordinate hand But it will be objected that sith every Monarch hath his power from the consent of the whole body that consent of the whole Body hath a Power above the Power of the Monarch and so the resistance which is done by it is not by an inferior power and to this purpose is brought that Axiome Quicquia efficit tale est magis tale I answer That rule even in naturall causes is lyable to abundance of restrictions And in the particular in hand it holds not Where the cause doth bereave himselfe of that perfection by which it works in the very act of causing and convey it to that effect It doth not remain more such then the effect but much lesse and below it as if I convey an estate of Land to another it doth not hold that after such conveyance I have a better Estate remayning in me then that other but rather the contrary because what was in one is passed to the other The Servant who at the year of Iubile would not go out free but have his eare boared and given his Master a full Lordship over him can we argue that he had afterward more power over himselfe then his Master because he gave his Master that power over him by that act of Oeconomicall Contract Thus the Community whose consent establishes a Power over them cannot be said universally to have an eminencie of Power above that which they constitute sometimes they have sometimes they have not and to judge when they have when not respect must be had to the Origiginall Contract and Fundamentall Constitution of that State if they have constituted a Monarchy that is invested one man with the Soveraignty of Power and subjected all the rest to him Then it were unreasonable to say they yet have it in themselves Or have a power of recalling that Supremacie which by Oath and Contract they themselves transferred on another Unles we make this Oath and Contract lesse binding then private ones dissoluble at pleasure and so all Monarchs Tenants at will from their people But if they in such Constitution reserve a power in the body to oppose and displace the Magistrate for exorbitancies and reserve to themselves a Tribunall to trie him in that man is not a Monarch but the Officer and Substitute of him or them to whom such Power over him is reserved or conferred The Issue is this If he be a Monarch he hath the Apex or Culmen Potestatis and all his Subjects divisim and conjunction are below him They have devested themselves of all superiority and no Power left for a Positive Opposition of the Person of him whom they have invested Sect. 7 Thirdly Who shall be the Iudge of the Excesses of the Soveraigne Lord in Monarchies of this composure Who shall be the Iudge of the excesses of the Monarch I answer A frame of Government cannot be imagined of that perfection but that some inconveniencies there will be possible for which there can be provided no remedie Many miseries to which a people under an absolute Monarchie are lyable are prevented by this Legall Allay and definement of Power But this is exposed to one defect from which that is free that is an impossibility of constituting a Judge to determine this last controversie viz. the Soveraignes transgressing his fundamentall limits This Judge must be either some Forraigner and then â—…e lose the freedome of the State by subjecting it to an externall power in the greatest case or else within the body If so then 1. either the Monarch himselfe and then you destroy the frame of the State and make it absolute for to define a Power to a Law and then to make him Judge of his Deviations from that Law is to absolve him from all Law Or else 2. the Community and their Deputies must have this power and then as before you put the apex Potestatis the prime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the whole body or a part of it and destroy the being of Monarchy The Ruler not being Gods immediate Minister but of that Power be it where it will to which he is accomptable for his actions So that I conceive in a limited legall Monarchy there can be no stated internall Judge of the Monarchs actions if there grow a fundamentall Variance betwixt him and the Community But you will say It is all one way to absolutenesse to assigne him no Judge as to make him his own Judge Answ I say not simplie in this case there is no Judge But that there can be no Judg legall and constituted within that frame of Government but it is a transcendent case beyond the provision of that Government and must have an extraordinary Judge and way of devision In this great and difficult case I will deliver my apprehensions freely and clearly submitting them to the censure of better Iudgements Suppose the controversie to happen in a Government fundamentally legall and the people no further subjected then to Government by such a Law 1. If the act in which the exorbitance and transgression Pos 1 is supposed to be be of lesser moment
expelled the British into Wales Rather I conceive the Originall of the subjects libertie was by those our fore-fathers brought out of Germany Where as Tacitus reports Tacit. de Morib German Sect. 3. 5. nec Regibus infinita aut libera potestas Their Kings had no absolute but limited power and all weighty matters were dispatched by generall meetings of all the Estates Who sees not here the antiquity of our Liberties and frame of Government so they were governed in Germany and so here to this day for by transplanting themselves they changed their soyl not their manners and Government Then that of the Danes was indeed a violent Conquest and as all violent rules it lasted not long when the English expelled them they recovered their Countrey and Liberties together Thus it is clear the English Libertie remained to them till the Norman Invasion notwithstanding that Danish interruption Now for Duke William I know nothing they have in him but the bare stile of Conqueror which seems to make for them The very truth is and everie intelligent reader of the Historie of those times will attest it that Duke William pretended the grant and gift of King Edward who died without children and he came with forces into this Kingdome not to Conquer but make good his Title against his enemies his end of entring the Land was not to gaine a new absolute Title but to vindicate the old limited one whereby the English Saxon Kings his Predecessors held this Kingdome Though his Title was not so good as it should be Cambâ—â—n Britan. Normaâ— yet it was better then Harolds who was onely the Sonne of Goodwyn Steward of King Edwards house Whereas William was Cousen to Emma mother to the said King Edward by whom he was adopted and by solemne promise of King Edward was to succeed him Of which promise Harold himselfe became surety and bound by oath to see it performed Here was a faire Title especially Edgar Atheling the right Heire being of tender age and dis-affected by the people Neither did he proceed to a full Conquest but after Harola who usurped the Crown was slain in battle and none to succeed him the Throne being void the people chose rather to submit to William and his Title then endure the hazzard of ruining war by opposing him to set up a new King It is not to be imagined that such a Realme as England could be conquered by so few in such a space if the peoples voluntary acceptance of him and his claime had not facilitated and shortned his undertaking Thus we have it related in Mr. Cambdâ—n that before Harold usurped the Crown most men thought it the wisest Policie to set the Crown on Williams head that by performing the Oath and promise a Warre might be prevented And that Harold by assuming the Crown provoked the whole Clergy and Ecclesiasticall State against him and we know how potent in those daies the Clergy were in State affaires Also that after one battle fought wherein Harold was slain he went to London was received by the Londoners and solemnly inaugurated King as unto whom by his own saying the Kingdome was by Gods Providence appointed and by vertue of a gift from his Lord and Cousen King Edward the glorious granted so that after that battell the remainder of the war was dispatched by English forces and Leaders But suppose he did come in a Conqueror yet he did not establish the Kingdome on those termes but on the old Lawes which he reteyned and authorized for himselfe and his Successors to governe by Indeed after his settlement in the Kingdome some Norman Customes he brought in and to gratify his souldiers dispossessed many English of their estates dealing in it too much like a Conqueror but the triall by twelve men and other fundamentalls of Government wherein the English freedome consists he left untouched which have remained till this day On the same Title he claimed and was inaugurated was he King which was a title of rightfull succession to Edward therfore he was indeed King not as Conqueror but as Edwards Successor and on the same right as he and his Predecessors held the Crowne As also by the grant of the former Lawes and forme of Government he did equivalently put himselfe and successors into the State of legall Monarchs and in that Tenure have all the Kings of this Land held the Crown till this day when these men would rake up and put a Title of Conquest upon them which never was claimed or made use of by him who is the first root of their succession Another reason which they produce is the successive nature Sect. 4 of this Monarchy for with them to be elective and limited and to be successive and absolute are equipollent They conceive it impossible that a Government should be Hereditary and not absolute But I have enough made it appear Part 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. That succession doth not prove a Monarchie absolute from limitation though it proves it absolution from interruption and discontinuance during the being of that succession to which it is defined And that which they object that our Kings are actually so before they take the Oath of governing by Law and so they would be did they never take that Oath wherefore it is no Limitation of their royall power is there also answered in the next Sect. and that so fully that no more need be said The same Law which gives the King his Crown immediatly upon the decease of his Predecessor conveyes it to him with the same Determinations and Prerogatives annexed with which his Progeintors enjoyed it so that he entring on that Originall Right his subjects are bound to yeild obedience before they take any Oath And he is bound to the Lawes of the Monarchy before he actually renewes the bond by any Personall Oath There is yet another argument usually brought to this purpose taken from the Oath of Allegiance but of that I shall have occasion to speake hereafter CHAP. II. Supposing it be in the Platforme limited Quest 2. Wherein and how far forth it is limited and defined Pos 1 I Conceive it fundamentally limited in five particulars First in the whole latitude of the Nomotheticall power so that their power extends not to establish any Act which hath the Being and state of a Law of the Land nor give an authenticke sense to any Law of doubtfull and controverted meaning solely and by themselves but together with the concurrent Authority of the two other Estates in Parliament Pos 2 Secondly in the Governing Power there is a confinement to the Fundamentall Common Lawes and to the superstructive Statute Lawes by the former concurrence of Powers enacted as to the Rule of all their Acts and Executions Pos 3 Thirdly in the power of constituting Officers and meanes of governing not in the choice of Persons for that is intrusted to his Judgement for ought I know but in the constitution of Courts of Judicature For as
hee cannot Judge by himselfe or Officers but in Courts of Justice so those Cours of Justice must have a constitution by a concurrence of the three Estates They must have the same power to constitute them as the Lawes which are dispensed in them Pos 4 Fourthly in the very succession for though succession hath been brought as a Medium to prove the Absolutenesse of this Government yet if it be more throughly considered it is rather a proofe of the contrary and every one who is a successive Monarch is so far limited in his power that he cannot leave it to whom he pleases but to whom the Fundamentall Law concerning that Succession hath designed it And herein though our Monarchy be not so far limited as that of France is said to be where the King cannot leave it to his Daughter but to his Heire male yet restrained it is so that should he affect another more or judge another fitter to succeed yet he cannot please himselfe in this but is limited to the next Heire borne not adopted or denominated which was the case 'twixt Queene Mary and the Lady Jane Lastly in point of Revenue wherein their Power extendeth Pos 5 not to their Subjects Estates by Taxes and Impositions to make their owne what they please as hath been acknowledged by Magna Charta and lately by the Petition of Right the case of Ship-money Conduct-money c. Nor as I conceive to make an Alienation of any Lands or other Revenues annexed by Law to the Crowne I meddle not with personall limitations whereby Kings as well as private men may limit themselves by Promise and Covenant which being particular bind onely themselves but of those which are radicall and have continued during the whole current of succession from unknowne times Other limitations it is likely may be produced by those who are skilfull in the Lawes but I beleeve they will be such as are reducible to some of these which I take to be the principall and most apparent limitations of this Monarchy and are a most convincing induction to prove my Assertion in the former Chapter That this Monarchy in the very Mold and Frame of it is of limited constitution CHAP. III. Whether it be of a Simple or Mixed Constitution Quest 3. WHen the Government is simple when mixed also Sect. 1 where the mixture must be which denominates a mixed Government is explained Part 1. Cap. 3. Now I conceive it a cleare and undoubted Truth that the Authority of this Land is of a compounded and mixed nature in the very root and constitution thereof And my judgment is established on these grounds Reas 1 First It is acknowledged to be a Monarchy mixed with Aristocracy in the house of Peeres Answer to the 19. Proposit and Democracy in the house of Commons Now as before was made appeare in the first Part it is no mixture which is not in the Root and Supremacy of Power for though it have a subordination of inferiour Officers and though the Powers inferiour be seated in a mixed subject yet that makes it not a mixed Government for it is compatible to the simplest in the world to have subordinate mixtures Reas 2 Secondly that Monarchy where the legislative power is in all three is in the very Root and Essence of it compounded and mixed of those three for that is the height of power to which the other parts are subsequent and subservient so that where this resideth in a mixed subject that is in three distinct concurrent Estates the consent and concourse of all most free and none depending on the will of the other that Monarchy is in the most proper sense and in the very modell of it of a mixed constitution but such is the state of this Monarchy as appeares in the former question and is self-apparent Reas 3 Thirdly that Monarchy in which three Estates are constituted to the end that the power of one should moderate and restrain from excesse the power of the other is mixed in the root and essence of it but such is this as is confessed in the answere to the said Propositions The truth of the major will appeare if we consider how many wayes provision may be made in a Politicall Frame to remedy and restraine the excesses of Monarchy I can imagine but three wayes First by constituting a legall power above it that it may be regulated thereby as by an over-ruling power Thus wee must not conceive of our two houses of Parliament as if they could remedy the exorbitances of the Prince by an Authority superiour to his for this were to subordinate him to the two Houses to set a superiour above the Soveraigne that is to destroy the being of his Monarchicall power Secondly by an originall conveyance to him of a limited and legall power so that beyond it he can doe no potestative act yet constituting no formall legall power to refraine or redresse his possible exorbitances here is limitation without mixture of another constituted power As the former of these overthrowes the power of the Soveraigne so this makes no provision for the iudemnity of the people Thirdly now the never enough to be admired wisedome of the Architects and Contrivers of the frame of Government in this Realme who ever they were have found a third way by which they have conserved the Soveraignty of the Prince and also made an excellent provision for the Peoples freedome by constituting two Estates of men who are for their condition Subjects and yet have that interest in the Government that they can both moderate and redresse the excesses and illegalities of the Royall power which I say cannot be done but by a mixture that is by putting into their hands a power to meddle in acts of the highest function of Government a power not depending on his will but radically their owne and so sufficient to moderate the Soveraignes power Now what can reasonably be said in opposition to these Sect. 2 grounds proving a fundamentall mixture I cannot devise Neither indeed is a mixture in the Government denied by the greatest Patrons of irresistibility onely such a mixture they would faine make it which might have no power of positive resistence I will therefore set down what they probably may or do object to this purpose and will shew the invalidity thereof First this mixture seems not to be of distinct powers but of Object 1 a Power a Councell authority in the Prince to give power to Acts and counsell in the two Houses to advise and propose wholesom Acts as if the royall power alone did give life to the Law onely he is defined in this power that he cannot animate any Act to the being of a Law but such as is proposed unto him by this great and Legislative Councell of Parliament Sol This were probable supposing the Parliament were onely in the nature of a Counsell but we know it is also a Court the High Court of Parliament Now it is
of Cut-throats even though Saul himselfe were in presence This the Doctor sees plainly and therefore shuffles it off by saying His example is extraordinary as if he were not a present Subject because he was designed by Gods revealed counsell to be a future King And he confesses Elisha's example of shutting the doore against the Kings messenger proves personall defense against sudden illegall assaults of messengers which is the thing in Question Sect 4 Let us now view the strength of what is said against resistence whether any thing comes home against this Assertion Arguments on the contrary dissolved The Doctors proofes from the old Testament come not to the matter Moses and afterwards the Kings were of Gods particular designation setting them absolutely over the people on no condition or limitation so that did they prove any thing yet they concerne not us respecting a Government of another nature But particularly that of Corah and the Princes rebelling against Moses is not to the matter it was a resistence of Moses owne Person and Office and doubtlesse penury of other proofes caused this and the rest here to be alledged For that 1 Sam. 8 18. how inconsequent is it to say the people should cry unto the Lord therefore they had no other meanes to helpe them but cries to God though I confesse in that Monarchy they had not That speech 1 Sam. 26 9. was most true there and is as true here but not to the purpose being spoken of the Kings owne Person But the maine authority brought against resistence is that Rom. 13. and on that Doctor Ferne builds his whole discourse Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that Text. First he supposes the King to be the Supreme in Saint Peter and the Higher power in Saint Paul Secondly hee collects All persons every soule is forbidden to resist Thirdly that then was a standing Senate which not long before had the supreme Power in the Romane State It is confessed but that they could challenge more at that time when Saint Paul writ then our great Councell will or can I deny For that State devolving into Monarchy by Conquest they were brought under an Absolute Monarchy the Senate it selfe swearing full subjection to the Prince his Edicts and Acts of Will were Lawes and the Senates consent onely pro forma and at pleasure required He who reads Tacitus cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince I wonder then the Doctor should make such a parallel Indeed the Senate had been far more then ever our Parliaments were or ought to be but now that was far lesse then our Parliament hath been or I hope ever will be They were become the sworne Vassals of an absolute Emperour ours the sworne Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince Fourthly he sayes then was more cause of Resistence when Kings were Enemies to Religion and had overthrown Lawes and Liberties I answere There were no causes for Resistence Not their enmity to Religion had they but a legall power because Religion then was no part of the Laws and so its violation no subversion of established government And for the overthrow of Lawes and Liberties that was past and done and the government new the Senate and all the rest actually sworne to absolute Principality Now an Ordinance of absolute Monarchy was constituted the sacred bond of an Oath had made it inviolate But what would he inferre hence all being granted him Sure this he doth intend That every soule among us severall and conjoyned in a Senate must be subject for conscience must not resist under paine of Damnation All this and what ever besides he can justly infer out of that Text we readily grant But can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistence 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 that power but here force is offered to neither as before I have made it appeare And herein we have B. Bilsoâ— consenting where he sayes Biâ—sâ—n of subjeâ—â— p 94 280. that the superiour power here forbidden to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing with his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare then this satisfaction to all that can bee concluded out of that Text so the foundation of all that discourse is taken from it if his intent were thence to prove unlawfulnesse of Resistence of Instruments of Arbitrarinesse in this Kingdome Let us also consider the force of his Reasons whether they impugne this point in hand He sayes such power of resistence would be no fit meanes of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the diseases His Reasons first because it doth tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Common-wealth it would open a way to People upon the like pretences to resist and even overthrow power duly administred 2 It may proceed to a change of government 3. It is accompanied with the evills of Civill-Warre 4. On the same ground the two Houses proceed against the King may the people proceed to resistence against them accusing them not to discharge their trust Lastly seeing some must be trusted in every State It is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the highest power These are his main reasons on which he builds his conclusion against resistence To his first I say it were strange if resistence of distructive disorder should tend to the overthrow of Order It may for the time disturbe as Physick while it is in working disturbes the naturall bodie if the peccant humors make strong opposition but lure it tends to health and so doth this resistence of disorder to Order Neither would it open a way for the people to violate the Powers for doing right can open no way to the doing of wrong If any wicked seditious spirits should make use of the Vail of Justice to cover unnaturall Rebellion Shall a peoples right and liberty be taken from them to prevent such possible abuse Rather let the foulnesse of such pretences discover it selfe so God and good men will abhorre them such Cloakes of Rebellion have in former ages been taken off and the Authors brought to just confusion without the expence of the liberties of this Kingdome To the second must not Instruments be resisted which actually intend and seeked a chang of Government because such resistence may proceed to a chang of Government Is not an unlikely possibility of change to be hazarded rather then a certaine one suffered But I say It cannot proceed to a chang of Government unles it exceed the measure of lawfull resistence yea it is impossible that resistence of Instruments should ever proceed to
a change of Government for that includeth the greatest resistence and violation of the person and power of the Monarch the lawfullnesse of which I utterly disclaime Thirdly it is not ever accompanied with the evills of Civill Warre But when the Princes Will findes enough Instruments of their Countreys ruine to raise it And then the mischife of that war must light on those which raise it But suppose it may ensue yet a temporary evill of war is to be chosen rather then a perpetuall losse of liberty and subversion of the established frame of a Government In the fourth I deny the parity of reason for the two Houses are bodies constituted and endowed with legislative authority and trust of preservation of the frame by the Fundamentalls of the Kingdome which the people out of those Houses are not Againe the Government being composed of a threefold consenting power one to restraine the exorbitance of another All three together are absolute and equivalent to the power of the most absolute Monarch The concurrent Will of all three makes a Law and so it is the Kingdomes Law To the last I answer In every State some must be trusted and the highest trust is in him who hath the Supreame power These two the Supreame Trust and the Supreame Power are inseperable And such as the power is such is the trust An absolute power supposes an absolute trust A Power allayed with the annexion of another power as here it is supposeth a trust of the same nature A joynt trust yet saving the supremacie of the Monarch so far forth as it may be saved How farre forth the sword is in the hand of the Monarch and not be absolute and the others authority nullified It may be further argued that it being the Prerogative Royall to have the managing of the sword that is legall force in the Kingdome none can on any pretence whatever use lawfull force either against him or any but by his Will for it is committed to him by law and to none but whom he assignes it to so that the Lawes of the Kingdome putting all power of force and Armes into his trust have placed him and all those who serve him in a state of irresistiblenes in respect of any lawfull force This is a point much stood on and on this ground the Parliament now assuming the disposing of the Militia by an Ordinance it is complained on as a usurping of what the Law hath committed to the King as his Prerogative The opposing of which Ordinance by a Commission of Array was the beginning of this miserable Civill-Warre I will distinctly lay down my Answer hereto submitting it to every impartiall judgement Pos 1 1. The power of the Sword being for defence of the Lawes by punishing violators and protecting subjects it is subservient to Government and must needs belong to him who is entrusted with the Government as a necessarie requisite without which he cannot performe his trust Pos 2 2. As it is an appendix to the power of Government and goes along with it so it goes under the same termes belonging to the Prince as the other doth sc absolutely to use at will where the Monarchie is absolute or with limitation to use according to Law where the Monarchy is limited so that in this Government the Armes and sword of the Kingdome is the Kings to a defined use committed to him viz For defence of the Lawes and Frame of Government established and not for arbitrary purposes or to enable Ministers to execute commands of meer Will Pos 3 3. The two Houses in virtue of the Legislative authority in part residing in them are interested in the preservation of Lawes and Government as well as the King And in case the King should misimploy that power of Arms to strengthen subverting Instruments Or in case the Lawes and government be in apparent danger the King refusing to use the sword to that end of preservation for which it was committed to him I say in this case the two Estates may by extraordinary and temporary Ordinance assume those Armes wherewith the King is entrusted and performe the Kings trust And though such Ordinance of theirs is not formally legall yet it is eminently legall justified by the very intent of the Architects of the Government when for these uses they committed the Armes to the King And no doubt they may command the strength of the Kingdome to save the being of the Kingdome for none can reasonably imagine the Architectonicall Powers when they committed the power of government and Armes to one to preserve the Frame they had composed did thereby intend to disable any much lesse the two Estates from preserving it in case the King should faile to doe it in this last need And thus doing the Kings Worke it ought to be interpreted as done by his Will because as the Law is his Will so that the Law should be preserved is his Will which he expressed when he undertooke the government 'T is his deliberate Will and ought to be done though at any time he oppose by an after-Will for that is his sudden Will as Doctor Ferne himselfe Sect. 1. doth teach us to distinguish CHAP. VI. In what cases the other Estates may without or against Quest 6 the Kings Personall consent assume the Armes of the Kingdome WHo ever were the Authors of that Booke lately Sect. 1 published stiled Whether it be lawfull to take up armes against the Magistrate perverting his power to a wrong end Scripture and Reason pleaded for defensive Armes have laid new and over-large grounds for resistence Two Assertions they endevour to maintaine First those Governours whether supreme or others who under pretence of authority from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet and peaceable life in Godlinesse and Honesty are farre from being Gods Ordinance in so doing Sect. 3. Secondly This Tyranny not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with Armes resist not the Ordinance of God Hereon Sect. 4. they free Christians even in the Apostles time and so under the Romane Emperours or any other Government from necessity of passive subjection in case of persecution affirming that the Christians in those first Persecutions had they been strong enough might have used Armes for defence against the Tyranny of their Emperours Their ground is from the Reasons used by the Apostle Rom. 13. where he commands subjection forbids resistence to the higher power because they are Gods ordinance his Ministers for praise to well-doers for terrour to evill doers But I must professe my self to dissent from them in this opinion conceiving that the Apostle in urging those Reasons drawne from the due ends of Power doth intend to presse them to subjection by shewing them what benefit comes to men by authority in its due use and not to shew them how far they are bound to be subject and in what cases they may resist For had he such a meaning at that time when the Governours
either of them or the diminishing of their Fundamentall Rights carries with it the dissolution of the Government And therefore those grounds which justifie force to preserve its Being allowes this case which is a direct innovation of its Being and Frame CHAP. VII Where the Legall Power of Finall judging in these cases doth reside Quest 7. in case the three Estates differ about the same IN this Question for our more distinct proceeding some Sect. 1 things are necessarily to be observed First The Question stated that we meddle not here with the judicature of Questions of inferiour nature viz. such as are 'twixt subject and subject or the King and a subject in matter of particular right which may be decided other way without detriment of the publike Frame or diminution of the priviledges of either of the three Estates Secondly difference is to be made even in the Questions of utmost danger First for it may be alledged to be either from without by invasion of forrain Enemies or by a confederacy of intestine subverters in which neither of the three Estates are alledged to be interessed and so the case may be judged without relation to either of them or detriment to their priviledges Here I conceive a greater latitude of power may be given to some to judge without the other for it inferres not a subordinating of any of the three to the other Secondly or else it may be alledged by one or two of the Estates against the other that not contenting it selfe with the Powers allowed to it by the Lawes of the Government it seekes to swallow up or entrench on the priviledges of the other either by immediate endevours or else by protecting and interessing it selfe in the subversive plots of other men Thirdly in this case wee must also distinguish betwixt first authority of raising Forces for defense against such subversion being knowne and evident secondly and authority of judging and finall determining that the accused Estate is guilty of such designe and endevour of subversion when it is denied and protested against This last is the particular in this Question to be considered not whether the People are bound to obey the authority of two or one of the Legislative Estates in resisting the subversive assaies of the other being apparent and self-evident which I take in this Treatise to be cleare But when such plea of subversion is more obscure and questionable which of the three Estates hath the power of ultime and supreme judicature by Vote or sentence to determine it against the other so that the People are bound to rest in that determination and accordingly to give their assistance eo nomine because it is by such Power so noted and declared Determination of the Question For my part in so great a cause if my earnest desire of publique good and peace may justifie me to deliver my minde I will prescribe to the uery Question for it includes a solecisme in government of a mixt temperature To demand which Estate may challenge this power of finall determination of Fundamentall controversies arising betwixt them is to demand which of them shall be absolute For I conceive that in the first part hereof I have made it good that this finall utmost controversie arising betwixt the three Legislative Estates can have no legall constituted Judge in a mixed government for in such difference he who affirmes that the people are bound to follow the Judgement of the King against that of the Parliament destroyes the mixture into absolutenesse And he who affirmes that they are bound to cleave to the Judgement of the two Houses against that of the King resolves the Monarchie into an Aristocracie or Democracie according as he places this finall Judgement Whereas I take it to be an evident truth that in a mixed government no power is to be attributed to either Estate which directly or by necessary consequence destroyes the liberty of the other Yet it is strange to see how in this Epidemicall division of Sect. 2 the Kingdome the Abettors of both parts claime this unconcessible Judgement But let us leave both sides pleading for that which we can grant neither and weigh the strength of their Arguments First Dr. Ferne layes downe two reasons Dissolution of Arguments placing it in the King why this finall Judgement should belong to the Kingâ— 1. Monarchie saies he Sect. 5. settles the chiefe power and finall Judgement in one This Position of his can be absolutely true no where but in absolute Monarchies and in effect his book knowes no other then absolute government 2. Seeing some one must be trusted in every State It is reason saies he Sect 5. the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and Supreame power I presume by finall trust he meanes the trust of determining these Supreame and finall disagreements and accordingly I answer It is not necessary that any one be trusted with a binding power of Judicature in these cases for by the foundations of this government none is yea none can be trusted with it for to intend a mixed government and yet to settle the last resolution of all judgement in one is to contradict their very intention Neither in a constituted government must we dispose of powers according to the guesse of our reason for mens apprehensions are various The Dr. thinkes this power fittest for the King His answerers judge it fittest for the two Houses and give their reasons for it too Powers must there reside where they are de facto by the Architects of a government placed he who can bring a fundamentall Act stating this power in any saies something to the matter but to give our conjectures where it should be is but to provide fuell for contention Dissolution of the â—rguments placing it in the two Houses On the contrary The Author of that which is called A Fuller Answer to that Dr. hath two maine Assertions placing this Judgement in the two Houses 1. The finall and casting result of this States Judgement concerning what these Lawes dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament saies he p. 10. 2. In this finall resolution of the States Judgement the people are to rest ibidem pag. 14. Good Lord What extream opposition is between these two sorts of men If the maintenance of these extremes be the ground of this warre then our Kingdome is miserable and our Government lost which side soever overcome for I have more then once made it good that these Assertions are destructive on both sides But I am rather perswaded that these Officious Propugners overdoe their worke and give more to them whose cause they plead then they ever intended to assume Nay rather give to every one their due give no power to one of these three to crush and undoe the other at pleasure But why doth this Answer give all that to the two Houses which ere while they would not suffer when the
against his Majesty they impute nothing to Him nor use force against Him but those destructive Counsellours and their Abbettors which are about Him because their danger is not from His intentions but from theirs It is answered that His Majesty offers to secure them the Lawes Liberties and Religion by any Acts they shall devise to that purpose Parliam Remonstrance May 19. 1642 They will tell you Their danger is not from want of Laws to secure them for they are secured by Law already their danger is from Men and their Plots and Designes to overthrow Law and a danger of subversion of Law cannot bee secured by Law succeeding Lawes can be no better nor stronger then former Lawes so that where those men and their counsels are in power whose aime hath been the subversion of Parliaments Liberties and Lawes and those Doctrines remaine affirmed and maintained by the Clergie of that side which subvert all limitations of Monarchy make all Lawes Acts of grace and revocable Immunities granted to Subjects condemning for Rebellion all force used even by the Parliament it selfe against the meanest Instruments of violence employed by the Princes Will making the Princes Will and Gods Ordinance one and the same thing of the same latitude so that resistence of one is resistence of the other such Counsellours and such Doctrines are they say the ground of publike danger from which no Lawes but Justice can secure us Publike Liberty and Power of forcible resistence of Instruments of servitude are so conjoyned that if you make it unlawfull simply to use such power of resistence you make it unlawfull for a People to be free What course then can be sufficient to answere their Demands Sect. 3 of safety if Lawes cannot doe it Meanes of reconcilement proposed Though I incurre the censure of high Presumption yet I will be so bold to afford my opinion herein submitting it to the censure of every Judicious Reader wishing it were worthy to be scanned by those in whose hands it is to heale our divisions What honest heart doth not bleed to see the ruine of this late flourishing Kingdome goe on so fast Who can doe other then speake his minde who conceives hee thinkes of any thing which may conduce to Peace and the re-uniting of this divided Body Suffer mee therefore to disclose my heart in a case in which every good man hath a deep interest Thus then I could heartily desire Petit. 1 First that the Parliament would desire and seeke in this unusuall way of Force no more then what makes necessarily for their and the publike security for none can justifie force in them any further then for security of their Priviledges Lawes and frame of Government Petit. 2 Answ to the Petition of Commons Ian. 28. 1641. Secondly that His Majesty would be pleased according to his gracious Resolution viz. To deny onely those things the granting whereof would alter the Fundamentall Lawes and endanger the foundation on which publike happinesse is built to condescend to all Acts of safety both by establishing of Lawes tending to it and removall of Persons of destructive counsells and Judgements because the danger alledged is from such Petit. 3 Thirdly that because their maine feare hath been that while his Majesty is swayed by such Persons whose Judgement and endevours have been for Absolutenesse the Militia of the Kingdome may be by them making use of his Majesties Authority employed in bringing to passe their long fomented and not yet deserted designe His Majesty would be pleased for this present to authorize such over the Militia whom the Houses shall approve of not thereby disparaging his power over the Militia which by Law is invested in him but satisfying by a condescent of grace their Feares from apprehensions of present danger Petit. 4 Fourthly that the two Houses in their wisedom would put a difference between those Persons who were the ancient Dâ—linquents Contrivers and principall Agents in the former designes of Arbitrarinesse and those Members of both Houses who since the Kings with-drawment and their assuming the Militia have gone from the Houses to serve and adhere to his Majesty For since the time that both parts have declared themselves to be in danger many good subjects and Patriots have followed the parts from conscience and perswasion of the truth of Allegations on either side as their care and opinion of either Part hath lead them not that I can acquit them who on any mis-leading assist the destructive party from guilt as Accessaries and Instruments of so unnaturall a designe but that I cannot see how the authority and freedome of either of the three Estates can choose but undergoe a shew of disparagement if its adherents and propugners when it cries out of danger of subversion from the other and calls and requires their assistance should be proceeded against and punished as Delinquents when they professe their aime hath beene no more then to preserve the just rights of any of the fundamentall Estates of the Kingdom without impairment of the other Fifthly that if possible all those might be re-admitted into Petit. 5 their severall Houses which are not guilty of the former designes for Absolutenesse and have nothing alledged against them but their adherence to the King in this division and might fit and act securely there according to the due freedome of their Houses Sixthly that his Majesty for the sake of Peace and present Petit. 6 necessity of composing this distemperature would be pleased to put himselfe upon the Judgment and Affection of the two Estates so assembled in their full Bodies and suspend the use of his Negative voice resolving to give his royall assent to what shall passe by the major part of both Houses freely voting concerning all matters of grievance and difference now depending in the two Houses I am confident if ever this War be transacted without the ruine of one side which will endanger if not undoe the whole it must be by some such way of remission of rigour on both sides as I have now described Which the God of Peace in whose hands are the hearts and counsels of men speedily and graciously effect for his Name sake FINIS