have potestatem supremam merum imperium so he in his Britan. which as it excludes all Subjects from haveing share in the Soveraign power for in that respect it is Merum imperium not mixtum so doth it not exclude such limitations and mixtures as have been by after condescent for the bounding of that Soveraign power in the exercise and use of it But now this Author will endeavor against the credit of History and Antiquiry to reason us into a beliefe of such a frame as he has moulded this Monarchy in First he would prove That the Soveraignty of the King is radycally and fundamentally Limited not only in the use and exercise of it but in the power it selfe pag 31 then That the Authority of this Land is Mixed in the very root and constitution of it pag. 39. This were an argument fit for a skilfull Lawyer to Labour in yet soe much in consequence I can at first sight perceive in his prooses that I dare pronounce them insufficient to cleare what he undertakes His prooâ—es are either his owne reasons or drawne from the Kings owne grants in his late expresses His reasons for the Limited condition of our Kings are from the denomination of Leige and Legall Soveraigne and from Proscription which evinceth that in all ages beyond record the Lawes Customes of this Kingdome have been the rule of Government pag. 32 Answ This proves that our Kings are limited in the use or exercise of their power and noe more for neither that Denomination nor any prescription can make us beleive that the Limitations of their power had any other begining then from their voluntary and pious condescent to such or such moderations and allayes which by constant usage and custome or eise by expresse Lawes were made ever after inevitable and irrevocable by the Monarchs themselves the Oath also of succeeding Monarchs binding them to the observing of such Lawes and Customes His reasons Iikewise for the mixed constitution of this Government doe prove a mixture but not such as he would have nor from the begining or first constitution of the Monarchy they are these 1 Because it is a Monarchy mixed with an Aâ—istocracy in the Lords and Democracy in the Commons but theâ—e is no Mixture which is not in the root and supremacy of power pag. 40. 2. Because it is a Monarchy where the Legisâ—â—tive power is in all three and therfore mixed in the very root and essence of it ibid. 3 Because it is a Monarchy in which three Estates are constituted to the end that the power of one should moderate and restraine from excesse the power of the other and therefore mixed in the root and essence of it ibid the same reasons he uses Pag. 43. to prove the Authority of both Houses to be no derived authority but equally originall and fundamentall with that of the King and saith he cannot devise what can reasonably be said in opposition to these Grounds proving a fundamentall mixture Answ And I must say I cannot devise what sh uld move a man of reason as this Author seemes to be so often to prosfesse as he doth that he is convinced of such a fundamentall constitution of this Monarchy for I cannot be convinced but his grounds are false supposalls For first it is not necessary the mixture should be in the root or Supremacy of power but it is sufficient if there be a concuâ—rence of Persons whose consent is required to the exercise of that Supreame power as was explained above Sect. 3. when we spoke of mixture Nay if it must be in the Supremacy of power as he will have it how can he make the King the only Supream and that one Head to which the whole Body politique is bound and united as he grants pag. 42.43 He cannot salve it with his Apex potestatis which he there gives to the King uniesle the King must be the Crowne or top of the head only for they also must be our Head and our Soveraignes if they be mixed or joyned with him in the Supremacy of power as this Author would have it Secondly the phrase of Legislative power ascribed to the two Houses is satisfied and explained by that concurrence and consent of theirs in and to the exercise of the Supream power as above but I cannot be convinced that it argues the power it selfe which gives life to a Law to be in them but their assent to be requisite and necessary so that without it no Law can be made which is enough if men could be content So when it is said Be it enacted by the Authority of this Parliament None denies but to have such Vote or power of affenting is a great Authority but not such as makes them sharers in the Supremacy of power for then should they also be our Head and our Soveraignes as was said above before that phrase was used we find it râ—n thus The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c which tells us plainly where the fountaine of the ordaining or Legislative power is how that power is excited or stirred up to Act by the instance and request of the Commons representing to the King the grievances of his People and that the efflux of that fountaine or the exercise of that power is not soly in his Will that is comes not to the Act of ordaining without the consent of Lords and Commons Thirdly to his third Reason I answer The end of this mixture or concurrence is to restraine from excesse but the restraint is morall and legall not forcible by power of Armes Parliamentary by way of assent or dissent to the ordaining power not military by Armies in the Field as will more clearly appeare by the next Section concerning resistance in mixed Monarchyes Now such a morall restraint doth not argue the Monarchy mixed in the Root and first constitution for the Houses may be vested with such a power afterward but the Restraint that this Author intends is a forcible restraint by Armes a meer phansy for if the fundamentall Constitution had intended them such a power it would not have left a power in the Monarch to call them or dissolve them which would make this pretended power of theirs altogether in effectuall but would have left them continually existing and in being His proofes from the Kings owne Grants for the Radicall Limitation of this Monarchy are these Pag. 31. His Majesty who best knowes by his Counsell the nature of his owne power saith That the Law is the measure of his power and in his Answer concerning the Militia sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted them then by Law is in the Crown c. whereby it is granted The King has no more power then by Law is in him so he Also for such a mixed Condition of this Monarchy as these men would have they usually urge what
His Majesty has graciously said in His Answer to the 19 Propositions That there is a power Legally placed in the two Houses more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny To this purpose it is also that some make advantage of the Kings speaking of Himselfe as of one of the Three Estates Answer 1. It is well known when the king was first forced to make his defence by writing how few he had about Him being driveÌ„ from his learned Counsell or they one way or other kept from Him Yet trusting to the justnesse of his Cause integrity of his own intentioÌ„s He returned such Answers as did for the present much sattisfie all reasonable people and will one day what ever advantage is now pickt out of them be witnesses against those Troublers of our peace that put him to his defence II. It is very unjust that the gratious Expressions which his Majesty has had of his Intentions and desires to rule and Command no otherwise then according to law should be set upon the Rack and drawn out to his disadvantage for the gaining of such a power to the Houses as the law speakes not to be in them If Trajan fully purposing to rule Iustly doth out of such Confidence give a Prefect his Commission and power delivering him a Sword with these words Hoc prome vtere sirecte impero si male cotra me If I Command aright use this sword for me if not against me Shall it be concluded that Officer might acordingly use his Sword against the Emperours ' And if the King speake of himselfe as of One of the three Estates shall any Subject diligently watch what fal's from Him and return him his words again to his own disadvantage as Ben. hadads Messengers did 1. Kings 20.33 Thy Brother Benhadad your fellow States Sr III. That which can fairely be gathered out of these expressions as intended by his Majesty doth not come up to these mens conclusions the first and second speeches do shew how tender he is of doing any thing he may not do by law acknowledging his power is bounded and limited by Law but it doth not follow that his power or Soveraignty wherein it is not limited by law is not absolute and full for so it is clearly wheresoever a Monarchy at first unlimited doth afterward receive Limits and Mixtures of which Condition this Monarchy appeares to be by that which has been spoken in this Section So in his Answer to the 19. Prop. His Majesty acknowledges a power Legally in the Houses to restraine which can not be extended beyond a Morrall Parliamentary restraint otherwise let them produce any law that inables the Houses to restrain Tyranny by the Armes of the Kingdom for as for their deductions from supposed Fundamentalls we can deny them as fast as they bring them either as failing in thire Antecedents and false suppositions or as altogether inconsequent Also when this author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth in regard of that power which is placed in the two Houses to restraine the exâ—â—bitancies of the Monarch so much admire the frame of this Government as composed by more then Humane wisedom pag. 44. Doe's he fall into this admiration for the placing of a power of restraint by forceable resistance nothing admirable in that were that the frame of this Government That which is commendable indeed and admirable in the Limitations and mixtures of this Government is that Way of Legall Morrall or Parliamentary prevention and Restraint which is established by law foâ— our security Lastly when his Majesty hath spoken of himselfe as of one of the three Estates he has but spoken to them in their owne phrase for they first stiled him so and that usually in the point of his Negative Voyce for every Bill comes to him in the third or last place the Lords spirituall and Temporall who indeed are two of the three Estates making a Concurrence in one Vote or Voice But his Majesty did never use that phrase with any intent of diminution to his Supremacy or Headship for properly the Prelates Lords and Commons are the three Estates of this Kingdome under his Majesty as their head Thus if we will trust our owne Eyes for what we read in History and Chronicle or stand to Reason for the cleare Inferences which may be drawne from the knowne lawes of this Land or use any ingenuity in the interpretation of His Majeslies Gratious Expressions We can never be perswaded that the begining of this Monarchy was such as these men suppose that is so Limited and mixed radically and fundamentally as these Authors and others have described it SECT V. Of Resistance in relation to the severall kindes of MONARCHY VVE are now to consider how this Author states the poynt of forceable Resistance in these severall kinds of Government Which we shall find to be in away that lies very open to Rebellion First He grants the person of the Monarch in all those severall kinds of Monarchy to be above the reach of all force or positive Resistance This is true but if this Author will allow as he doth Subjects to rayse Armes and with them to give battle to those that are about the Person of the Monarch as his Guard how shall His Person be secured from the Force and violence of the meanest hand Nay the joyning of Battell with Him as it is necessary consequence of Refistance by Armes which must come to that if it be pursued so is it a direct Force intended and offered against His Person Secondly Concerning an Absuolte Monarch he resolves it thus If such a Monarch should so farre degenerate as apparently to seeke the destruction of the whole Community subject to him then might such a community constreined by the last necessity resist by force of Armes against any instruments imployed to effect the same pag 9. for such an intention cannot be the Act of a reasonable will pag. 10. But first if he meanes by the whole Community the whole body over which the power is placed as he speakes pag. 10 I grant it the Act of a most unreasonable will but cannot conceive how such an intention should fall into the mind of the worst Tyrant as to leave himselfe no people to reigne over Secondly if he meanes by that community a certaine sort of people as were the Iewes in the Kingdomes of Ahasnerus and the Templars in these Westerne Kingdomes the destruction of such a people may be the Act of a reasonable will Haman makes a faire pretence and reason for the extirpation of the Iewes Est 3.8 and Ahasuerus his decree was the act of a reasonable though misguided will but that such a Community upon the knowledge of such an intention may take Armes is not proved by this Author for to prove it as he doth by Davias example who was but a particular man is to shew that a Community may doe it because David in his owne particular might do it and
a King be distracted or bewitched or forced by such as have him Prisoner or otherwise a command upon him are Subjects bound from resisting His illegall commands pag. 2. Answ If it be cleare that a King is so I suppose it is cleare in Law what course is to be taken but being doubted onely as the case is put and that perhaps upon as little ground as some have endeavoured to make the People believe their King is now held Prisoner by his Cavaleires and forced to doe what he doth then the Safer way is to be taken which is to doe no more by way of resistance then is Lawfull to doe when it is cleare He is not Forced or distracted and that will better appeare by the Case following suppose it be certain a King is not forced or distracted yet doing as bad as any distracted person can doe by commanding Tyrannicall Acts why should His Subjects hands be bound frō resisting his followers offering to act His Tyranny more then if he were forced or distracted Pag. 2. Answ This is needlesse and odious and cannot concerne the Case in Question but by reflecting upon His Majesty but put this case of any King so doing I Answer 1. There is much difference twixt habituate distraction and actuall extravagances or Tyrannicall attempts for by that a Prince is not master of his Will and is made unfit to bear the Power i. the administration of it but by these he is not so 2. Because this falls in with the Case as it is propounded in better termes by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy whether the forceable resistance of inferiour Persons misimployed to serve the illegall destructive Commands of the Prince be unlawfull pa. 51. I answer if by those misimployed persons be understood the Commanders and Souldiers of the Kings Armyes I cannot see nor any man else I think but the resisting of them by a contrary Militia or Armes raised by Subjects is a resisting of the King and unlawfull and unto this Resistance the Case as I propounded it did relate and accordingly the first Resolution was That were the King what they supposed him to be there was no warrant for such resistance But if by those misimployed persons be understood other instruments of oppression in times of Peace before it come to Armes such as the pleaders for defensive Armes doe suppose in their last Case pag. 2. to have counterfeited the Kings Seal or Warrant and by it to Spoyle and Murther all the Kings faithfull Subjects if they be not resisted or such as the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth in his instances pag. 57. suppose indeed to have the Kings Seale or Warrant wherewith they might range through the Kingdome wasting and spoyling taxing and distraining yea might destroy the Members of Parliament as they sit in their Houses if they might not be resisted Ans For that of the counterfeited Seale it is not to the purpose if there be cause to doubt or suspect such a Seale there are undoubted Ministers of Power and justice to makestay of it till it be made known above as we see those dealt with that bring counterfeit Briefes and as some years agoe he that counterfeited a Commission for taking up Children for Virginia was staid by authority and brought to Iustice But suppose such instruments of oppression have indeed the Kings Seale and Warrant to Taxe Distreine c May not private men resist such in their murthering assaults and the Ministers of Power and Authority suppresse them in each County by Force I answer This is an enlarging of the Case which concernes the present resistance as now it is undertaken by Subjects with Armyes in the field Yet for farther satisfaction and without prejudice to that which clearly convinceth the present resistance as unlawfull I conceive it reasonable to say First if private men be suddainly assaulted in their Persons by such instruments without any foregoing pretence or reason as of Taxing Distraining Arresting so that their life is imminently indangered and no meanes of avoiding by slight then is personall defence Lawfull for such sudden assault carries no pretence of authority with it but if such misimployed instruments come first to Taxe Distraine Arrest as it is supposed private men ought not to resist and so draw on the endangering of life but to seek redresse above from Authority and if it may not be had yet not to resist Secondly If the Ministers of Power in each County doe at first stay restrain and commit such mis-imployed instruments and so represent the matter again to the King if the two Houses of Parliament also deale in like manner with those that by virtue of any such Warrant should notoriously trespasse upon them this is not to resist for here is only a desire of informing the King aright not a will of contending with him if he will not be of another mind Now as the pleaders for defensive Armes say pag. 2. The Law supposing the King can doe no wrong supposeth wrong may be done in His name and therefore teacheth the Ministers of Power and Iustice under him to presume such illegall Warrants and surreptitiously or by fraud procured and so at first to make stay of such mis-imployed instruments and to bring the matter again to the knowledge of the King Secondly Should a King be so obstinate as to perfist in the maintenance of those illegall courses and to that end imployed the Militia or power of Armes wherewith he is invested it is neither Legall nor Reasonable that the Ministers of power under him should pursue the opposition to the setting up of a Militia or contrary power to the introducing of a Civill Warre For though such Ministers of Power ought to use all faire and Lawfull means for the restraining of such mis-imployed instruments and it is not for me to set bounds how farre they may proceed in preserying the Kings Peace by using that Power against mis-imployed Persons yet surely they cannot proceed so farre as to a contestation of Power with Him whose Ministers they are much lesse to a Levying of Warre as at this day and an apposing of Armies against Armies This is the Resistance supposed in the Case and in this Case to resist the Kings Forces is to resist Him SECT III. Severall kinds of Monarchy IN the next place we are called to a consideration of the severall kinds of Monarchicall government that it may appeare whether in any of them this Resistance by force of Armes may find allowance or otherwise The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy observing there was but little pretence from Scripture either by precept or Example for Resistance confesseth that the Kings under which the People of God were in the Old and New Testament might not be resisted and therefore layes all the defence of Resistance upon reason drawn from the severall condition of an Absolute and of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy For which purpose he spends the first part of his
that by the Admirable wisdome of the Architects of this Government the Nobles and Commons have their power and Authority not depending on the Monarch but radically their own by fundamentall Mixture so pag. 41. and elsewhere but in the six suppositions wherein he would lay this platforme open to the view he brings up the Houses to this power they have by steps of time and comming to make those suppositions he speaks doubtingly of the Originall contriving of this government whether saith he done at once or by degrees found out and perfected pag. 44. but this contriving must be made at once and at first when they chose the first King or else they cannot have this power and Authority radically their own And we cannot imagine but Bede and other Historians would have observed such convention of Nobles and Commons as this Author supposed for the contriving of this Government in which they demeaned themselves with such admirable wisdome or if they could not tell us of such a convention of them at first for the contriveing and beginning of the Government they could not but observe some meetings of them after for the use of this power in the managing of the Government Assemblies doubtlesse there were for representing of grievances to the Monarch and for giving advise in the redresse and among the Orders of which those Assemblies did anciently consist there were Procuratores cleri the representatives of the Cleargy as I have heard good Lawyers affirme and one of my former Answers had it in his Margin though little to his advantage but here we are call'd by this Authour to believe or rather suppose an assembly consisting of Nobles and Commons vested with part of the Soveraign power by orginall constitution when as neither he nor any other Author could bring any one Record for it above the Norman Conquest and those Histories or Chronicles which mention the beginning of Parliaments as now they stand in Authority doe not rise so high as those times Now seeing the Parliament it selfe 24 H. 8. c 12. doth declare that this Realme of England has beene ever accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head c. and tells us that Histories and Chronicles shew as much why should these Chronicles be so many ages silent in the originall Constitution by which this Anthor gives the two Houses their power from the beginning of this Monarchy if either such a constitution ever was or indeed could consist with this Empire and this one supream head This Author tells us pag. 36. that the Tryall by twelve men and other fundamentalls of Government wherein the English freedom consists were left untouched by the Conquerour But why could not he tell us as well that this power which he asscribes to the two Houses was left untouched he would if he could have made it appeare to have been before the Conquest Mr. Cambden names the King before the Conquest that first ordained the tryall by twelve Men but what Chronicle can doe as much for the other the like originall to that of the tryall by twelve men had other Liberties of the Subject to wit by after condescent of the Prince and yet this Author calls that Tryall a fundamentall and so it is not of the Monarchy but of the Subjects liberty or as he said of the English freedome We need not after all this which has been spoken of the beginning of the English Saxon Government into which this Author saith Duke William succeeded and in the same right of those Saxon Kings seek advantage from the entrance of that Norman Conquerour Yet this we can say and it appeareâ— out of severall Authors cited by Mr. Cambdâ—n in his Britan. Norman that the Conquerour invictoriae quasi Trophaeum as a Trophy and memoriall of his Conquest disposed of the Lands of the Conquered changed their tenure abrogated what English Lawes and Customes he pleased and gave them what Lawes he thought good and unto this the People were content to yeeld which is more then can evidently be said by this Author for the stating of the Roman Emperours in a condition irresistable as we shall see below upon the 13. to the Rom. as we can say this to the overthrow of their ground of resistance that fundamentall mixture or joyning the Houses with the Monarch as sharers in the Soveraign power so do we say that what Limitations Lawes Priviledges Customes have been after procured by or restored to the People all those the King as He is sworn so is He bound to observe because of the Cath of God So that this Author speakes but his own Phansyes when he concludes thus upon William the Conquerour By granting the former Lawes and Government he did equivalently put himselfe and his successours into the state of Legall Monarchs and in that Tenure have all the kings of this Land held the Grown unto this day when these men would rake up and put a Title of Conquest upon them which was never made use of by him who is the root of their succession pag. 37. How farre Duke William made use of his Title by Conquest how he granted the former Lawes and Government appeares by that which was spoken even now out of M. Cambden that is he made use of it so farre forth as he pleased and graunted what Lawes he pleased of the former Government and what new ones he pleased those he imposed on the people and unto this they agreed willingly or unwillingly it matters not as is sometimes graunted by this Author But by this he did equivalentlie put himselfe saith he and successors into the state of Legall Monarchs He did so in a good sence but not as this Author meanes it for we know by that which was observed above Sect. 3 concerning a Monarch originally unlimited but falling off into a more moderate and limited condition that his meaning is that Duke William by graunting such Lawes did put himselfe in such a Condition as if at first he had been limited so by the people they reserving to themselves power of resisting his exorbitancies which should be destructive of those Limitations and Lawes this is a Legall Monarch in his sense but we say he became a Legall Monarch that is bound himselfe to rule according to such Lawes as he had graunted Nor doe we rake up a Title of Conquest for his Successors or would have them any other then Legall Monarchs but by that which has been shewen and cannot be denied it appears that the Root of Succession whether English or Norman sprang up by conquest and that the Priviledges and Powers wherewith we see the Subject invested were of an after spring that is of after agrement or by condescent of the Monarch which Powers Priviledges grants Liberties though not originall yet are they irrevocable the Prince is bound as was saide to observe them because of the Oath of God I will but adde M. Cambdens expression of the Monarchicall power The Kings of this Land
they say as he doth here we ought also forceably to resist and yet I say more then they say Secondly we would know who shall be Judge of the subversive Exorbâ—tances of the Monarch He grants there can be no Authoritative Judge to determine it for that would overthrow the Monarchy pag. 17. This is ingenuous and doth indeed sufficiently overthrow the conceit of the Full Ansâ—erer placing the finall Resolution and Judgement of this State in the two Houses But what then must be done In a limited Monarchy he tells us the Fundamentall Lawes must judge pronounce sentence in every mans Conscience for in such a case as transcends the provision of the government people are unbound and in state as if they had no government and the superiour Law of Reason and Conscience must be Judge so he pag. 18. This is a ready way to Anarchy and confusion The people by this have liberty enough to conceive of their fundamentall Rights as they please and of the Exorbitancies of their Prince as may be most for their advantage especially being upon such a case which themselves may make unbound and at liberty as if they had no government But these are fitting grounds for Resistance Likewise in mixed Monarchyes he tells us the accusing and wronged side must make it evident to every mans Conscience also the appeal must be to the Community as if there were no government and then as every man is convinced in Conscience he is bound to give assistance so pag. 29. Here is good stuffe not altogether so bad indeed as we see in the practice of these times for here is no forcing of men to a Covenant no forceable taking of their estates away but a leaving of them to their Consciences yet is this bad enough for he supposes it as a thing possible that two Estates may make a consederacy against the third pag. 28. therefore so oft as they shall combine and declare against the Monarch the people are at liberty as if there were no government and then it seemes they have all the power againe in themselves which they had at first according to these mens principles Also in this controversy saith he the appeale is to be made to the Community i. the people which though we have seen practised at this day in many Remonstrances yet I thinke it was never given as a Rule before it being in it selfe most unreasonable and disadvantagious to the Monarch for the people will be more ready to beleeve their Representatives and in the consequence most dangerous the high way to confusion as will more sully appeare when we come to Reasons against this Resistance Lastly we would know what power there is in the community to make resistance He tells us if the Monarch invade the power of the other Estates or run a course tending to the dissolution of the constituted frame of Government they ought to imploy their power to preserve the State from ruine for that is the end why they have the power of restraint and of providing for the publique safety so pag. 28. but what power ought they to employ any other then they are expresly invested with by Law which is a Parliamentary not Military power a Legall restraining power not a forceable constraint by Armes Yea buâ— saith he it is not only Lawfull for the other Estates to deny obedience to illegall proceedings of the Monarch as private men may but it is their duty and they are bound to prvent dissolution of the established frame pag. 28. He doth not say to prevent it by Armes but he meanes so by opposing their duty of prevention to the duty of private men in denâ—all of obedience But we must consider that the duty of priâ—â—e men is concerned when the Lawes come to execution the ducy of the publique States is seen when the making or abolishing of Lawes is taâ—en in hand also we must consider that it is not the abuse of power in the execution of Law that dissolves the established frame but the abolishing of old and making of new Lawes whereupon we say that the persons that make up those states taken out of their Assembly or Parliament are but private men and then have no more power to withstand the illegall proceedings of the Monarch then as private men by deniall of active obedience in their Assembly or Parliament they have power of restraint by deniall or consenting to prevent dissolution of the frame of Government indeed if they use that Legall restraining power as they are bound in duty to doe the Monarch cannot alter the established frame he may perchance make some actuall invasions upon their Rights and Liberties as they may often upon his Right and Prerogative and runne a course in it selfe tending to subversion but alter the frame or change the Lawes without their consent he cannot and whether it be not better that such arbitrary illegall Acts of a Monarch which are transient and sixe no new frame of Government should not for some time be borne with then to seek remedy against them by a Civill warre or contention of the body against the head will appeare more fully when we come to Reasons against such Resistance I will conclude the examination of this part of his discourse with the proof of this assertion that Limitations and mixtures in Monarchy doe not imply a forceable constraining power in Subjects as he supposeth for the preventing of the dissolution of the established Government but only a Legall restraining power as was even now insinuated First such a power must be in them by reservation and then it must be expresse in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant twixt the Monarch and the People But then I must say I cannot believe but such a condition is unlawfull and unreasonable against the order of Government which will have the soveraign power secured unprofitable for King and People a seminary of Iealousies and Seditions we need not spend time about this for it is confessed that in the constitution of this our government to which all the contention relates there is no Reservation or Law expresly enableing Subjects with such power of Armes This Author acknowledges pag. 63. that when the Houses by an Ordinance assume the Armes wherewith the King is entrusted and doe performe the Kings trust such Ordinance is not formally Legall â— there is no expresse constitution for it yet is it Eminently Legall justified by the intent of the Architects of this Government when for these uses they committed the Armes to the King so he Secondly therefore let us see whether it followes by implication upon the Limiting and Mixing of Monarchy It is agâ—eed that an Absolute Monarch is free from all forceable constraint by Armes and so farre forth as he is absolute from all â—egall restraint of positive constiâ—utions now in Limitations and mixture there is only sought a Legall restraint upon the power of the Monarch if any more were sought or
as in his Answer to the Preface that which was spoken of some particular Members the Conâ—aivers of this Revolt and Rebellion is by him taken and given out againe to the Reader as spoken of all the Members of the Houses that have by the cunning of those Few been drawne to Vote any thing in order to this Rebellion Also what was spoken of private houses where those few Contrivers held their close meetings that it was Gods great forbearance those houses did not breake downe where the Consultations have been oft held for the direction of these wayes he renders as spoken of the Houses where the Parliament sits Consults But let them all that have been Leaders or followers in these perverse wayes looke to it and consider how much they are concerned in that place of Esay to which the allusion there was made for every one that lookes neerly upon it Esa 30. vers 10 11 12 13. will easily see what ever application this Author makes of it who they are that have silenced their Orthodoxe and not long agoe admired Teachers suffering none to speake right things but smooth such new unheard off doctrines as please them who they are that doe trust in oppression and perversenes and doe stay thereon having no other way to uphold this Rebellion but by perverse obstinacy and horrible injustice exercised upon such as have not yet cast off all Conscience of just and right or caused the feare of the Holy one of Israel to cease from before them I would advise this Answereâ— to looke upon two places more of Esay cap. â—4 v. 4. where they that have been oppressed shall say of Babylon how hath the Golden City ceased and v. 10. art thou become weake as we art thou heâ—â—â—â— like unto us and cap. 23. v. 8. where he may find 〈◊〉 threatned against Tyre the Crowning City whose Merchants are Princes and then I would desire him to consider whether he 〈◊〉 not cause to reflect upon that Golden Crowning City wherein he lives In his second Section also he would seeme to gaine advantages upon his Adversary by fastning upon him severall Contradictions or peices of non-sence as he calls them but they are indeed so many wilfull or grosse mistakes of his owne The first he thus delivers as in my word It 's better to be under the Arbitrary Government of One that challenges not obedience but according to Law so he repeates them and then descants Arbitrary government and yet according to Law But the words run thus in my Reply Every man will thinke it more reasonable to be under the Arbitrary government of One then of many nay under the government of One that challenges not obedience as due but according to Law then of Many whose commands are Law unto us as this Answerer makes them In which the Comparison as any man may see is double first between the Arbitrary government of One and of many then a fortiori betweene the Legall government of One and arbitrary Commands of Many The second Contradiction he thus expresses The Dr undertakes to satisfy Conscience that the Parliament hath not this power and yet saith he does not undertake to set down what power the Parliament hath 'T is true the Dr did undertake the first and might doe it without undertaking to set downe the extent of the power and priviledges of the Houses tho e were the words and where is the Contradiction This Answerer may undertake to shew the King has not such or such a power as to make Lawes himselfe or the like yet will not I hope undertake to set downe the extent of the Kings power and Prerogative it was the very Instance there used and the Reddition of it was so may we without offence conclude of the two Houses that they have not such a power by the first constitation of this Government c. A particular Negative may be cleared by him that cannot shew the extent of the Vniversall Affirmative A third Contradiction or Nonsence he has found in these words This Coordination is but to some Act or exercise of the supream Power not in the power it selfe I acknowledge the words and doe thanke him that he tooke notice of them for their sakes who have mistaken that part of my Reply as if I granted a Coordination of Subjects with His Majesty in the supream power but then I must blame his ignorance that cannot recontile this as he speakes to any truce of Sence for they that have written of Government and Policy could have told him that the concurrence and consent of such or such persons required to some Acts of the supreame power doth not alwayes argue a communication of the Power and the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth every where teach him to make a wide difference betweene the Power and the Exercise of it Out of this mistake and ignorance of distinguishing betweene the Power it selfe and the Exercise of the Power he runs away with it as a thing granted that the Houses are coordinate with His Majesty in the very Supremacy of Power so farre as the Legislative and ordaining goes which is the principall and that it remaines for him only to prove they are coordâ—â— with His Majesty in the other Act of power as 〈◊〉 Emâ—assyes appointing Officers Iuâ—ges c. which hâ— undertakes in his fourth Section where we shall mâ—â— wiâ—â— him It was the worke of my third Section to speake of the beginnings of Government in this Land and to shew they were inconsistent with his Conceit of the making of the first King and the first Coalition of Government as he call'd it To which after some trifeling he replyes in his third Section pag. 17. If the Dr thinkes the uncertainties of the British or Saxon Constitutions not fit to satisfy Conscience as he speakes how being uncertaine can he satisfy Conscience which is the title of his Boooke that those Constitutions were not such so he Answ 1. If those Constitutions be uncertaine it satisfyes Conscience that it can have no warrant from them which was the task of that book 2 The uncertainties which I said he runne Conscience upon were in seeking the first King before the Saxons for if we go no higher for the beginning of this English government as indeed we should not we have certainly enough to satisfy Conscience that this Government was not such in the first constitution as this Answerer would make us believe But see him comming a pegge lower in the very next words 'T is enough that the Constitution of our present Government was such at least from the beginning of it's being such that by the same consent of the people whereby the first such King was made His Majesty that now is becomes such a King that the same reason of state which first contrived the Government however sooner or leter such as now it is remaines still specifically the same in that which the law places it in the Councell of the
Land to actuate and apply it Answer Nothing can be truer then that the government was such from the time that it beganne to be such but he bore us in hand before that it was such from the very first beginning of the Monarchy so he ought to prove it to be for else it must become such by the consent of the King in being condescending from unlimited condition to a more moderate way of Government by severall fixed laws as was shewed above when we spoke of Limitations and Mixtures Sect. 3. but can we think that while there was a King in being the Councell of the Land had power to contrive and dispose of the frame of this Government and that in a way soprejudiciall to the King as this Answerer would make it But he goes on The truth is the Doctor deales with us herein at Papists usually doe with Protestants if they cannot name the particular Raigne and yeere when such a Doctrine tooke it's first rise however palpable it now be we must believe there was no change at all so if it be not assigned when such or such a part of the Governments Constitution began however euident it be that it must have a beginning because a being we must confesse it to have no beginning at all No Sir the Doctor deales with you as Protestants doe with Papists upon that point for as they shew the Doctrine of the Romish Church was not from the beginning and because the yeere and age when every error crept in cannot be named do thereupon conclude certainly That those errours came not in at once but by degrees so we require not the particular Raign and yeer when each constitution came in but doe shew that the Government was not such from the beginning and because the time cannot be shewn when the Limitations and Constitutions came in that made it such we thereupon conclude the Government did not become such at once but by degrees and by the after Condescent of Pious Princes To that which was alledged out of the Preamble of a Sâ—atute 24 H. 8. c. 12. His poore shifts are 1. That it is a piece of a preamble not part of the Statute Answer What then it speakes never a whit the lesse truth nor ha's it the lesse authority but which is more speakes an anciently supposed truth alwaies Confessed and evident in Chronicles and Histories that this is an Empire Governed by one Supreame Head c. II. That the Title speakes it an Act against appeales to Rome Answer It matters not what the occasion was we 〈◊〉 what it positively speakes touching the Kings Supremacy and Headship So they miserably shift off the obligation which the Oath of Supremacy ha's cast upon them as if the Kings Supremacy were asserted in it in opposition to the Bishop of Rome not in relation to the whole body politique that if they deny the Popes Supremacy they thinke they satisfie the Oath what Subjects soever they joyne with His Majesty in the very Supremacy it selfe So in the third place he saith that those words in the Statute To whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of peoplâ— of the Spiritualty and Temporalty are bounden c. cannot properly be meant of the Parliament but of the Kingdome at large Answer If of the Kingdome at large then is it true also of their Representatives if of the Kingdome in it's defusive body then of it's Collective But I turne him over to the Authour of the Treatise of Monarchy who sufficiently Confutes this idle assertion and doth shew the Lords and Commons in their houses conjunctim are subjects and the King their Head And this is enough for his third Section In his fourth Section he endeavours to prove the Houses are Coordinate with His Majesty in all other Acts of Supreme power as the Calling of Assemblies holding Treaties sending Embassies appointing Judges c. His proofe is first by reason because they are Coordinate with him in the Supream power of making lawes which is the principall and higher Cause to the Calling of Assemblies Treaties c. Answer This he takes for granted that they are Coordinate with His Majesty in the Supream power of Ordaining or making laws which doth proceed as I noted above upon his second Section from his mistake or ignorance in not distinguishing the Exercise of the power and the Power it selfe for they may concur to that and yet not have share in this Secondly He would prove it by Records from pag. 22. to 27. Answ 1. In these we must trust his honesty which we finde not very faithfull in repeating the words of the booke he undertakes to confute 2. Were they truely alledged they yeeld but an Argument a facto ad Ius Parliaments have done this or that therefore they have right to doe so it will be a bad argument in the next age to conclude any thing right and just because it was so ordained by the Houses of this last Parliament III. Though some particulars cited by Him might of right belong to them yet how doth it prove it was so originally and fundamentally and not by after condescent of the Prince as we find many immunities rights and liberties of the Subject to be But for these Records he is beholden to Mr Pryn's collections who is said to be the Author of that booke which beares this title The Soveraigne power of Parliaments or the treachery and disloyalty of Papists to their Soveraigne To their Soveraigne that is to the two Houses by the former part of the title let him take heed he proves them not good Subjects But what shall we make of it 't is certaine he fetches his testimonies from times of Popery shewing what power Parliaments then have assumed and used against the Soveraigne if he will give us leave to style the King so but how he should thereby shew the disloyalty of Papists and yet prove the Soveraignâ— power of Popish Parliaments I cannot see nor is it greatly materiall for let all his instances be true and his Records faithfully alleadged yet will the argument be inconsequent that from them shall conclude the Soveraigne power of Parliaments After his Records this Answerer enters a discourse of his owne touching the Mixture of this Government That which concernes me in it is pag. 28. The Dr in his former Treatise speakes of the excellent temper of the three Estates and in his Reply acknowledges them as Fundamentals of Government and if fundamentalls how not all alike principall and supream he has not shewed in his Reply though provoked thereto so he Answ 2. The Dr did not any where call them Fundamentals of Government but acknowledged the constitution was fundamentall that provided that Temper and placed in the Houses that power which they have this his mistake I told him of in my Reply pag. 16. and shewed him the absurdity it leades him into by Concluding thence that the Houses are alike Principall or Supreme with
there can be no warrant derived thence for resistance but that the Kings we read of there were such as might not be resisted and that Gods people were alwayes under such We begin with the Old Testament and will be very briefe propounding only what is Materiall This has beene heretofore clearly proved by these two Arguments especially 1. Because the Institution of the Israelitish kingdome was such as doth plainly exclude resistance 2. Because so many Prophets bitterly reproving those wicked Kings for subâ—cision of Religion and Justice did never call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance I shall open the first and enforce it alittle more and then answer what is brought against either In the first of Sam. c. 8 we have the institution of the Kingdome where Samuel is commanded to tell the people Ius Regis the manner of the King v. 11. He will take your sonnes your daughters your field c. And yee shall cry out in that day c. As if he should have said you desire a King and doe not consider what power you put your selves under such an one as if he command you â—â—d yours at pleasure you must patiently endure this is the meaning of Ius Regis which implyet not a Right of doing such unjust Acts but a Security from resistance and force if he â—oes them Moses did shew the right and Manner of the King what he should justly doe Deut. 17. Samuel the right of the King not in doing but in being secure from the peoples force if he did unjustly Moses admonisheth the King of his duty shewing what a good king ought to doe Samuel endeavouring to disswade the People shewes what they must patiently suffer from evill kings Many Authors might be alleadged if need were for this meaning of Ius Regis I will name one without exception Calvin in his Comment upon the place and in his Institutions He speaks to this purpose Samuel when he would shew the People what great things they should suffer under Kings tells them this shall be Ius Regis the manner of the King He shall take your Sonnes c. not that their Kings could doe so Iure justly for the Law did teach them all moderation and justice sedjus in populum vocabatur cui parere ipsi necesse esset nec obsistere liceret so he Instit l. 4. c. 20. nu 26. And in his Comment upon the place he doth sufficiently set out those as Tyrannicall Acts but sheweth that for all that Subjects ought not to resist nec quicquam adversus Reges movere licèt Tyrannidem exerceaxt rapinis sint graves subditis nullamque nec Dei nec aequi rectique rationem habeant what more full which also appeares by the 18. v. Ye shall crie out in that daie c. That they were left without this remedy of resistance Calv. in his Instit the place above cited thus Eo so proripiet licentiae Regum libido quam cohibere vestrum non erit quibus hoc restabit unum lussa excipere ac dicto audientes esse and a little after non westrum esse his malis mederi hoc tantum esse reliquum Domini opem implorare there can be nothing spoken more plainly against the power of resistance in Subjects then this We have Adversaries confessing the same the Author of the Fuller Answer acknowledged those Kings of Jsrael might noâ— be resisted and this Author of the Treatise of Monarchie confesseth that the People there had no other means to help themselves by but cryes unto the Lord so he pag. 58. By this appeares what little weight there is in the exception which the Pleaders for defensive Armes make to this place This was say they a prediction of punishment that should befall them for their impetuous asking of a King not a prohibition of resistance pag. 18. And in the same page This prediction of punishment doth not prove it was unlawfull for them to defend their goods against their Kings Tyranny but that it should be vaine to them because if God would not heare their Cry their defence would be to little purpose Answ The punishment foretold is that they should be thus and thus evill intreated by their Kings and that without remedy but that in all this there is nothing to prove it was unlawfull for them to resist such Kings is a bare assertion against former proofes which shew there was on the Kings part a Jus or right of security against such Violence But to acknowledge as they doe that this prediction of punishment doth prove their defence would be vaine iâ— God did not heare their Cry is to confesse that when God suffers Kings to exercise Tyranny and Oppression upon the People over whom he has set them it is a scourge and punishment from him upon that people for their sinne and that it is vain for them to seek remedy by resistance which is a most true and pious argument against resistance as we shall shew when we come to reasons against it A second exception is that the Israelitish Monarchy was Absolute and therefore excluded the resistance of Subjects so this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy The pleaders for Defensive Armes although they are against absolute Monarchy as unlawfull and therfore doe not say this Monarchy set up over Gods people was such yet doe they say what was here foretold or enjoyned to that people cannot be a Law or punishment intended to other Nations under oppressing Kings no more then that which the Lord imposed on the Iewes and other Nations in Nebuhcadnezars Time their putting their neck under his yoake Jer. 27. can prove that any Nation is bound to yeeld to a forraigne enemy invading them so they pag. 18. Ans I. Although this Monarchy of Israell were granted to be Absolute and the instances brought should be peculiar to that people not intended as Lawes and Rules to other Nations yet do they sufficiently prove what I intended in that part of my first Treatise which was to shew that there was no Warrant for resistance from Scripture which still gives us examples of Kings set over Gods people who might not be resisted II How the Author of the Treat of Monarchy can say the Israelites Kings were absolute Monarchs according to that description of Absolutenesse which he gave above I cannot see for he told us that Absolute Monarchy is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but the Monarchs own will It is true they were not so limited as some Kings are now but we know there was a fixed judiciall Law which in many particulars secured the propriety and liberty of that people there were speciall limitations for their Kings Deut. 17. There was also a standing great Councell the Sanedâ—im whose sentence in many things the King could not at his owne will and pleasure reverse if we believe them that are skilfull in the Iewish Antiquities Grotius in his
to suffer Tyrannous Violence Or how doth any resist unlawfully though by Armes when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave Authority to use against him nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto Answ 1. Seeing your Argument from those word words the Ordinance God would if it were good allow private mento resist I pray you by what authority of Text or Context doe your Patrons forbid Resistance to be made by private men but allow it to Magistrates or the infetior powers is it from the consideration of those to whom the Apostle wrote who had not then any Magistrates of their own profession among them though that be no good ground to raise that distinction of private men and publique in the point of resistance for the Apostles reasons against resisting of Higher powers doe concerne all times yet will the consideration of those persons to whom and of those times in which the Apostle wrote give us authority to stretch the prohibition to the refusing to suffer Tyrannous violence for we must conceive that he gave them instruction which did neerely concerne them which might in some reasonable manner direct them which was agreeable to Saint Peters advice 1 Ep. 2. cap. which was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and all other Christians of those and the following primitive times but the instruction that the Apostle here gives them cannot be such unlesse it forbid the refusing to suffer under the Tyrannous violence of those times 2. Answ If he that resists by Armes doth not resist unlawfully as you say when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave authority to use against him where hath God I pray you given authority to Parents or Masters to use unjust violence to their Children or Servants yet is not their resistance unlawfull for though God has not given those authority to doe it yet has commanded these to suffer it if done The like may be said of Kings and Subjects for has not God put Kings Fathers Masters all in one Commandement enjoyned this duty and reverence to them under one word Honour and S. Peter next to the feare of God has placed Honâ—ur the King and advises Christians to suffer though wrongfully under the then Tyrannous Governours and froward Masters Did not God put his People under this Subjection when he put them under a King 1 Sam. 8. where this immunity of their Kings from their resistance forceable Coerâ—ion is called Ius Regis not because God gave them power and right to use unjust and oppressing violence but because if they did so they were by the Law and Ordinance of God secured from the violence of the People and reserved for the judgement and vengeance of God that ordained them and set them over his people as appeared above in the former Section But they goe on and seeme to conceive that by the powers not to be resisted the Doctor meanes onely the Supream and those that Act his will but denies the like security to subordinate Magistrates if they be Tyrannous without any command from the Supream pag. 6. Answ The Doctor by maintaining the Supream power might not be resisted by the Subordinate powers under Him did not thereby imply that these might be resisted but still the higher spower is not to be resisted by those that are under it But if he say that neither Supream nor Subordinate may be resisted then may every meane Officer ruine the whole neighbourhood and so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turne to the greatest Curse to mankind so they pag. 6 Answ There are superiour powers that can protect so that if the subordinate power doe wrong the complaiâ—t lies still to the higher power if the Supream or highest be engaged in the Violence the redresse is to be sought by petition suite if not succeed the complaint lyes to heaven resistance is not the remedy They conclude Therefore as the Apostle in the following verses doth banish Tyranny out of the context describing every where a righteous Magistrate so is Tyranny banished out of the interpretation of this Text which allowes him that is a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured and not resisted even with Armet though it doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance under the heavyest penalty of Damnation pag. 6. Answ It is true that the Apostle banishes Tyranny out of the duty of a Magistrate by the following verses but it is also true that he banishesresistance out of the duty of Subjects by the former verses He describes a rightcous Magistrate but could he then exemplity were the Governours then such If not such as they were not then would this Text according to the interpretation of these Divines give but a lame direction to the Christians how they should carry themselves towards the then unjust Governors nor would this text which forbids resistance at al secure those Governors from their resistance nay I would faine see what any Jesuite can say or desire more from this text then that it gives a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured Lastly if the penalty of Damnation laid upon the people will secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance as they tel us why should not damnation laid upon every unjust oppressing Prince secure the people from Tyranny one would thinke it most equall that the Highest Power should have the greatest security and so God in his wisdome thought fit when he put his people under Kings without power of Resistance as was she wen in the former Section and will be a forceable reason against resistance in the next Section Now let us consider this Text with application to those Times and to the Powers then ruling upon that consideration it was inferred that Tyrannous oppressing Princes are not to be resisted by Arms that the Apostles reasons taught us that for the good which is generally received by Ruling powers we must beare with them though abusing their Authority as the Emperours then did which also took away their distinction of resisting not the power but the abuse of the power These Divines in Answer to it spend many pages from page 22. to 28. and againe from 47. to 51. where after some thing said of small moment concerning the Kings Supremacy and the Roman Senate page 22.23 of which I have had and shall have presently occasion to speake upon more weighty consideration brought by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy They tell us First The Doctors vaine Confidence will appeare in thinking he has made voyd the distinction of Refisting not the power but the abuse of it for when he grants that active obedience is to be denyed to the illegall Commands of the Prince he distinguishes himselfe hetweene the Power and the abuse of it and why may not wee distinguish upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second verse as well as he does upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in
against misimployed agents and from the taking of those armes to make this resistance they conceive they are not debarred by His being Supreaeme Head and Governour but are enabled to it by a supposed reservation of the people and by the necessity of the States preservation requiring such a power of resistance in Subjects upon which grounds their Reasons for resistance doe mainly proceed I shall therefore so frame this tryall of Reason to which we are now come as it may best meet with the force of their Reasons and Exceptions I. It was the wisdome of God to put his people still under Kings without power of resistance as we found it in the two former Sections and that wisdome of God should be to us in stead of the most forcible Reason and silence all gainsaying pretences II. If this power of Resistance in Subjects were so necessary for the preserving of Religion and Justice as is pretended certainly the word of God would have given direction for it but as in the Old Testament we no where finde the Prophets calling upon the Elders of the people sin thâ—â— supposed dâ—â—y of resistance so in the New Testament we every where finde patience in suffering for well doing no mended to 〈◊〉 This Author of the Treat of Monarchy doth often admire the wisedome of the Architects of this Government that so provided for the safety of it by placing such power of Armes and resistance in the two Houses but we doe not find such a provision within that wisdome and care which it pleased God to shew in the Government he put his people under nor would we indeed finde such a power of forcible resistance provided in the constitution of this monarchy when we examined it above III. From the Institution and Ordinance of God which gives the power according to the Apostles argument who drawes his reason against resistance not from any Compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God which cannot be Eâ—uded by any reservation of the people the pretended ground of resistance but shewes the power given by it must be borne with though abused as then it was when the Apostle gave his reasons against resistance IIII. To be Supream and next to God over the people or to have the power of the sword implyes a security from resistance It is the Ius Regis which Calvin and most Authors acknowledge upon 1 Sam. 8.11 and is expressed Prov. 30.31 A King against whom there is no rising up It is generally acknowledged that Princes which be supreame are free from the Coactive power of the Law It is apparent that resistance cannot be made by Subjects but by taking the power of the Sword which belongs to him that is supream Lastly it is evident in reason that if the two Houses be enabled to resist and constraine the Prince by force to his duty then have they the power of the Lacedaemonian Ephori which as this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy acknowledges does overthrow the Soveraignity of the Monarch The generall exception which the Adversaries make to these two last Reasons is that they resist not the Soveraigne power but only misimployed instruments and fellow Subjects executing his illegall commands Answ As if the Soveraignes could by himselfe execute his Commands without under Ministers of power so that the resisting of them acting by the power which he has committed to them is a resisting of him And such a resistance as is supposed in the Question necessarily proceeds to an opposing of Him personally in giving of Him Battell and forcing of Him from His Right and Power to new grants of Security In particular This Author of the Treat of Monarchie thus reasons from the Ordinance of God To Resist such misimployed Instruments is no resisting of the Ordinance of God for it neither resists the Person of the Soveraigne for we spake of resisting his Agents nor His Power for the measure of that in our Government is the Law therefore He cannot confer Authoritie to any beyond the Law page 52. Answ I would desire this Author to looke againe upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which he rejects page 63. They run thus Those Govern urs whether Supream or others who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet peaceable life in Godlinesse and honesty are far from being Gods Ordinance in so doing also This Tyranny not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with Armes resist not the Ordinance of GOD and then to consider whether those Dâ—vines might not in desence of those Assertions answer as he has done here that to resist the misimployed Agents of Tyrants commanding against Law is not to resist the Ordinance of God for they cannot confer Authoritie to any against the Law for my part I cannot conceive how he can retaine his own Assertion and reject theirs But to Answer him more particularly He that beares the Sword i. e has the supreame power gives power and Commission to under Ministers for executing of Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If those therefore though abusing the Power be resisted by them who are under them it is a resisting of the Power and if these in time of Warre and insurrection being drawn together by the Soveraigne and acting His Commands under Him be opposed by contrary force and armes of Subjects it is a resisting of the power lawfully placed in such persons though illegally used and imployed it is a taking and using of the sword to the shedding of blood with u Warrant The defence which this Author makes pag. 62 of their taking the sword without the Soveraignâ— and against his Commanâ— is grounded upon that former groundlesse supposâ—ll of their being joyned with the King in the Soveraign power it selfe of which aâ—undantly in the 4th and 5th Sections above V. Because Obedience Honour and Suâ—jâ—ction â—ue to a Ponce are enjoyned and th Contrary forbiddâ—n without any â—â—stinctiâ—n oâ— a Good or Bad Pâ—ince Sâ— Paul shewes that hâ—ill must nâ—t he spoken of the worst Rulers Act. 23. What is â—aesars â—uâ— Saviour bids give unto Caesar when he was as bad as mâ—ght be and for this Cause pay you Tribute and Honour saith S. Paul when the higher powers were extremeâ—y evnd This cannot consist with taking Armes against a Prince for they that doe so must speake evill of Hâ—m make Him appeare O 〈◊〉 to His people and will not cannot let Caesar have what is His His Revenues Customes Tribute Armes but wâ—ll tell Him they are not His but the King fomes to use as the State shall thinke sit when he abuseth them And as the Scripture doth not so not her doth our Law make any dâ—stinction of good â—â—d bad Princes in this poynt It enjoynes Honour Subjection Allegiance Customes without any such distinction and determinâ—s Insurrection and Levying of Warre to be Treason not onely against a good King but indefinitely against any VI. It is good reason that
a remedy worse then the disease It may for a time disturbe as Physick doth the Naturall body while it is in working if the pâ—ccant humours make strong opposition but as this tends to health so dath Resistance of disorder to Order pag. 6. Answ It is not so strange for there is Order under the greatest Tyranny as was shewen in the former Reason and in the exorbitances of Pâ—inces which in themselves tend to the subversion of the established Order there is more Order Law and Justice then in the use and effects of this Remedy by resistance Such lewd Remedies as it is in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion are farre worse then any other Maladies and dâ—sorders that can be in the body of the Common wealth Now to his similiâ—ude In the applying of Physick we look to the Medicine or remedy it selfe and do not use the Sword to those parts of the body which will onely admit of Fomentations and Lenitives and patience for the cure of them nor doe we commit the applying of the physick to every hand and judgement but the â—and and judgement by which this phâ—sick of forcible Râ—siâ—ance iâ—â—tance is that of the people for this Author tels us in such a case the Appeale must be to the Community and they must aid and assist as they are in Conscience conviced But how shall they be perswaded to use a mean who wil be still applying and keeping this Physick working when perchance the Houses that cal'd them to the Câ—â—e would have it ceaâ—â— doe we not see what Humours this physick hath sâ—irred in the body Politick where there is any possiâ—iâ—ity it is better to let Nature worke it cut though we give it a longer time to â—oe it in then to thinke to helpe it by a poysonous purge But if any shall thinke the Art and wisedome of the Houses can correct the malignity of the Remedy or the rashnesse of the people that are used in the application of it I appeale from his judgement to these Times when could better and more 〈◊〉 successe of this Remedy be expected by whom could it better be applyed and managed then by the Members of this late Parliament so much extolled for their Religion Prudence and Equity yet let the issue speâ—k what little good there is to be hoped for by the use of such mischicvous remedies The fourth part of the Homily above cited speaks thus Peaceable King Sâ—lomon was judged of God more meet to build his Temple whereby the Ordering of Religion is meant then His Father David who had shed much blood in his warrs though against the Lords Enemies what Religion is it then that such men by such meanes would restore Even as good a Religion as they are good Subiects or as Rebellionis a good mean of redresse and reformation being it selfe the grearest deformation that possible may be But as the Truth of the Gospell being quietly and soberly taught though it cost them their lives that doe teach it is able to maintaine the true Religion so hath a franticke Religion need of such furious mainteinance as is Rebellion IX Lastly therefore wee are taught to referre the Remedy to God who has told us that the hearts of Kings are in his hand and he turnes them whithersoever he will Pro. 21.1 to make us apply unto him for the turning of them Hee shewes that he is the judge of the King by that Conditionate covenant he makes with him 2 Chron. c. 6. v. 16. Where the promises made to David for the continuance of his Kingdome are repeated with this condition Yet so that thy Children walk in my Law So also 2 Chro. 7.17 But the Covenant 'twixt King and People 2 Sam. 5. is not Conditionate to render him obnoxious to their judgement and force To this purpose Nation in his first Orat. against Iulian shewing how that wicked Emperour was repressed through the Mercy of God doth blame those who being too much intent upon the present cannot depend upon providence expect the execution of the Counfell of God in his punishing of wicked Princes P. Martyr in his Comment on the 13 to the Rom. shewing out of Dan. 4. that God translates and disposeth of Kingdoms observeth this way of providence that evill Princes are raised for the punishment of the wickednesse of a People sed postquam sic castiâ— gatt homines ad Deum redierint ille mitiores Principes justiores provides and accordingly saith hee wee find in History of Kings that God did Tyrannis semper miscere bonos aliquos justos Principes Calvin likewise upon the 13 to the Romanes tels us piously and judiciously That an evill Prince is the scourge of God upon the Peoples sin and therefore as we must acknowledge it is through our fault that the great blessing of Magistracy is turned to our punishment so must we neverthelesse reverence the Ordinance of Power which wee shall easily doe si nobis ipsis quiequid mali in ipsa erit impatemus if we impute the abuse of the power or the evil that we suffer by it to our selves I will conclude with the like advice given us in the first part of the Homily against Rebellion The heart of the Prince is in the hand of God wherefore let us turne from our sinnes to the Lord and he will turne the heart of the Prince to our Wealth Else for Subjects when they have deserved through their sins to have an evill Prince then to Rebell against Him were a double evill by provoking God to plague them more The Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy has brought for the power of Resistance iâ— Subjects are such as follow First Because to resist misimployed instruments acting or assisting to the performance of the destructive commands of the Prince is no resisting of the Ordinance of power because power cannot be conferred to any beyond the Law So he pag. 52. How far this concernes the question was shewen above under my third and fourth Reasons where it was propounded and answered His second Reason Because without such power of Resistance in the hands of Subjects all Limitation of Government is vaine all formes resolve into Absolute and Arbitrary pag. 53. Answ Your Argument is inconsequent by your owne descriptions of Absolute and Limited Monarchy which you drew from the consideration not of force or resistance but of Law to set bounds to the Monarchs Will as was observed above Sect. 3. So that the restraint of a limited Monarch is Legall and Morall not forcible and military Nor is there by the Limitation of the Monarchs power a power of Armes acquired to the people but onely a Morall security sought after by the restraint or bands of Lawes and Oath cast upon the Monarch which makes not a vaine limitation of Government but binds the conscience of the Monarch and by his Conscience his hands are bound more powerfully then by a contrary power or force in the
A REPLY UNTO SEVERALL TREATISES PLEADING FOR THE Armes now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of RELIGION AND LIBERTY By name unto The Reverend and Learned Divines which pleaded Scripture and Reason for defensive Arms. The Author of the Treaâ—ise of Monarchy The Author of the Fuller Answer his Reply By H. Fern D. D. c. OXFORD Printed by Leonard Lichfield Printer to the â—niversity 1643. The Contents of the severall SECTIONS SECT I. The Preface In which the contradictory Assertions of the Adversaries pag. 2 3. The Generall Resolution of the Cause pag. 4. Doctrine of Sedition pag. 5. 6. SECT II. Cases of Resistance in regard of times of peace or War and in regard of Persons Private or publique pag. 7. c. SECT III. A defence of Subjects Armes in vaine sought by the distinction of Monarchy pag. 11. 12. The Governing Power is so derived from God upon Him who is Supream that the People cannot lessen or limit it but onely in the exercise pag. 13 14. Of an Absolute and Limited Monarch pag. 15. Limitation and Mixture may be by after condescent of the Monarch and onely reach the Exercise of the power pag. 15. 16 17. Mixture differs from Derivation of Power to substitute Officers pag. 17. 18. Of Monarchy by Conquest pag. 18. Providence may so farre discover it selfe by Conquest that the People Conquered shall be bound to consent and yeeld obedience to the Conqueror as to a Prince set over them by God pag. 19. 20 SECT IIII. The Constitution of this Monarchy The Entrance of the Saxon and Norman Conquerours urged not to prove our Kings absolute but to disprove such an Originall Limitation and Mixture as the Adversary phansyeth in this Monarchy pag. 21. to 28. Reasons for such Originall Limitation and Mixture answered pag. 28. 29. Proofes for it from His Majesties Grants answered pag. 30. 31. 32. SECT V. Of Resistance in relation to an Absolute Monarchy pag. 33. 34. 35. in relation to a Limited Monarchy pa. 36. 37. 38. Limitation and Mixture in Monarchy doth not infer a power of Resistance in Subjects pag. 39. 40. c. SECT VI. A Refutation of the most considerable passages of His Reply that first styled himselfe Author of the Fuller Answer pag. 43. to 56. SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament The Institution of the Israelitish Kingdome in which the Jus Regis implyed a security from Resistance pag. 56 57 58 59. The Rescue of Jonathan pag. 60. Davids demeanour towards Saul infers not a power of resistance in Subjects pag. 61 62. His enquiry about the intent of the Kâ—ilites pag. 63. Something extraordinary in the example of David pag. 64 65. The Prophets never called upon the Elders of the People for this pretended duty of Resistance pag. 66. SECT VIII Of Resistance forbidden in the 13. to the Romans The place is considerable as it speakes of Government in Gener all and as it relates to those Times and Governours pag. 67 That it is Powers in the plurall and in the Abstract vainly observed and applyed by the Reverend Divines pag. 67 68 69. That Subjection is not here restrained to Legall Commands in Civill matters only as they would have it pag 69. to 77. That Christians might not resist because Religion then was not established by Law and because the Emperours then were Absolute as the Author of the Treat of Monarchy would have it is not the reason of the Apostles prohibition pag. 77. 78. Of the absolutenesse of those Emperours before Vespasians time and of the Power of the Senate and of the Lex Regia pag. 79 c. SECT IX Nine Reasons against Power of Resistance in Subjects drawn from the Consideration of the wisdome of God who put his people under Kings without power of Resisting them in the Old and New Testament pag. 84. Of the Ordinance of God that places the Power of the Sword in Him that is supreme which cannot be eluded by saying they resist not the Monarch but misimployed fellow Subjects about Him pag. 85. 86. 87. Of the mischiefes and inconveniences that would follow upon such a power of Resistance in Subjects c. pag. 90. 91. Their reasons to the contrary answered pag. 93. c. A brief consideration of the Case That they are far from what they pret nd the defence of Religion Laws and Liberties by these Armes and the Resistance now made pag. 96. 97. A REPLY TO SEVERALL TREAtises pleading for the Arms now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of Religion and and Liberties SECT I. THE PREFACE IF it be enquired why any Reply at all or why so late I may say I had determined not to be any more troublesome and that there was no just cause why I should be were it well weighed what was said on both sides but I must once again beg leave to say something the Importunity of Adversaries or the expectation of Friends enforcing it by way of Answer to some Books not long since issued forth There are two especially which have drawn the eyes of many upon them the one bears this title Scripture and Reason pleaded for defensive Armes by Divers Reverend and Learned Divines Who by laying their heads together have not found out any more forceable Arguments or satisfying Answers then they which went before them but only some newcases of Resistance to amuse the Reader and new instances to inforce former Reasons and some popular amplifications to set off the old Answers thereby making the book swell to that bignesse it appears in The other book bears this Title A Treatise of Monarchie by whom I know not but surely the Author however he looks not with a single eye upon what I had written misconstruing it many times doth with much ingenuity disclaime and with no lesse reason confute severall Assertions of those Learned Divines and other Writers of the Party assertions that have very much help't forward this Rebellion such as these That the King is Universis minor That the People which make the King are above Him by the Rule Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale That the finall judgement of this State is in the two Houses That the Christians in the Primitive times might have resisted had they had force These and the like he ingenuously disclaimes but being engaged he sets up his Rest upon a groundlesse fancy of such a mixture and constitution of this Monarchie as mustinable the Houses to restrain the exorbitancies of the Monarch by the Arms of the Kingdom and to induce a beliefe of this he has prefixed a discourse of Absolute Limited and Mixed Monarchies so framed as is most applyable to his purpose He that wrote the Fuller Answer to my first Treatise had this conceit of Mixture whereby he placed the Houses in the very Supremacy of power and did thence as one falshood being granted doth necessarily inferre another conclude that the Members of the Houses were the Kings Subjects divisâ—m
taken severally not conjunctim as they are gathered together in their Houses for indeed how could they be His Subjects and He their supreame Head if they be fundamentally mixed or joyned with Him in the supremacie of power The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see that this was repugnant to Law and Reason and therefore doth acknowledge them to be subjects conjunctim under the King as their Supreame Head yet being engaged he holds the ground upon which that absurd assertion is raised affirming and endeavouring to prove that the Mixture is in the supremacie of power pag. 40. How then will he make the King supream and they His Subjects for this he gives the King Apicem potestatis the top or Excellency of Power that is the King is the Crown or top of the head but the two Houses must be our head too and our Soveraignes if they be joyned with the King in the very Supremacy of power and so the matter will be well mended Again The Full Answer did from the same false supposed mixture inferre that the finall Resolution of this States judgement resided in the two Houses when the King refuseth to discharge His trust for the safety of the Kingdom the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see and confesse that it plainly overthrowes the Monarchy to place such judgement in the Houses Yet being ingaged He gives them power to take the Armes of the Kingdom but least they should seem Authoritatively to Iudge or command in that case they must declare and make the appeale to the Community as if there were no government and as men are in Conscience convinced they are bound to give aid and assistance so he pag. 8. 29. and elsewhere A ready way to confusion but of these and such like contradictory conceits of the Assertors of Resistance more below Of this Mixture there was not a little spoken in my Reply to the Full Answer but this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy and Reverend Divin's take notice only of my first Treatise Having therefore made some short Animadversions upon their Bookes as they came to my hand I still wayted to meet with something directly against the Reply but as yet have seen nothing besides two trifling Answers the one a wild discourse by whom written I know not but by such a flirting phansy I am sure that he who reads one part will not cast away his time upon the rest the other by him that stiled himselfe Author of the Fuller answer still like himselfe if he can be but witty or fasten a seeming contradiction upon his Adversary it is enough what he has materiall about the Mixture of Government which is the whole businesse of his book is more accurately delivered and urged by this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet because he is extreamly confident I shall bestow a Section upon him below and that is more then he deserves Therefore what the Reverend Divines or the Author of this Tract of Monarchy have drawn from Scripture or Reason to justify their grounds of Resistance I shall briefly examine after that I have declared my intent at first and my purpose now of proceeding in this Argument It was the intent of that first Treatise of mine to resolve the Consciences of misled People Touching the unlawfulnesse of Armes now taken up against the King and because Conscience if it resolve for them must conclude upon these premises Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for defence of Religion and Liberties apparently in danger of Subversion But such is the case now and must be certain of the truth of both of them for if either of the premises be false or doubtfull Conscience is misguided in the conclusion therefore the whole Resolution of the case was to this purpose as here it lyes ope to the sight in these two assertions First Were the case so as they suppose that is Were the King as they would have people believe seduced to proceed in a way tending to the subversion of Religion and Liberties it were not safe to bear part in the Resistance of Armes now used against him there being no warrant for taking Armes upon such a case but evidence against it both from Scripture and Reason So that at the best the case can be even to them that plead for resistance no better indeed then doubtfull and then Conscience according to its two Rules what is not of Faith is Sin and in doubtfull cases the SAFER WAY is to be chosen will tell them they should forbeare and suffer rather then resist for they may be sure that is a SAFE WAY were the King indeed what they suppose him to be Secondly Seeing the case is not so as they suppose nor is it so with the King as they would have the People believe but most apparent that He is constrained to take Armes for the defence of His just Rights and the Protection of His Subjects Every man may be clearly perswaded in Conscience that the Resistance now made is unlawfull and damnable and that he is bound not only to forbear from resisting but also to assist His Majesty in so just a cause The contrary Resolution which concludes That it is Lawfull upon such a case supposed to take Armes that the Case is now I doubt not to call a Blaspheaming of God and the King Of God in charging such an imputation upon his Word as if it taught Subjects to take Armes for the defence of Religion and Liberties against their naturall Soveraigne Of the King in casting such aspersions upon His Majesty as if He were seduced to the subversion of Religion and Liberties Now although His Majesties Cause be justified not so much by the falshood of this their Principle and ground of Resistance it is lawfull in such a Case to take Armes as by the clearnesse of His innocency He being farre from what they suppose or proclaime of him to be Yet because the very seeds of Rebellion are sowne upon that ground and there cannot want either made pretences to bring them forth or Fears and Jealousies to cherish and ripen them it is needfull to shew that as Rebellion is not a plant of Gods sowing so neither is that ground a Truth of His Laying The Author of the Fuller Answer in his late Reply Pag 27. 28. imputes the beginning of this controversie whether Subjects upon such a Case may take Armes to my first unhappy and unchallenged Treatise as he calls it which has exposed the other party to a necessity of a Reply and caused so much to be said especially by Divines in this sad and unwelcome subject So he These men are loath to bee called to account for what they say or doe as if they were the very rule of Justice and Truth They have Preached and Printed this seditious doctrine over and over welneere a twelve month before that unhappy Treatise was published thereby perswading the People into Armes under pretence of defending their
book in clearing the poynt according to his own principles and then comming to apply what he had said touching Limited and Mixed Monarchyes to the Government of this Land he complaines of us Divines that we plead for Absolutenesle of Monarchicall power in this Kingdome never making any difference of Powers but bringing proofes for Subjection and against Resistance from places of Scripture a sore fault and examples which concerne the manner of the government of Iudah Israell and the Romans as if that which holds in our government did alwaies hold in another so he pag. 33. And then he endeavours to prove this Monarchy to be so mixed as that the Houses of Parliament be originally joyned with the Monarch in the Soveraign Power Whence he thinks he has both an answer to places and examples taken out of Scripture that they belonged to absolute Monarchies are not appliable to ours and also a demonstration of his conclusion for Resistance viz. that by the Mixed condition of this Monarchy as he phansyeth it the two Houses are vested with power to restraine with force of Armes the Exorbitances of the Monarch Ans It was never my intent nor was I suppose of other Divines to plead for absolutenesse of Power in the King if by absolutenesse of power be meant as it should be a power of Arbitrary command but if by Absolutenesse of Power this Author means as he doth sometimes a Power not to be resisted or constrained by force of Armes raised by Subjects such a power we plead for and do say That as those places and examples out of Scripture did forbid resistance then and shew no warrant for it can be had either by precept or example out of Gods word so doe they condemne resistance in this Government though Limited as shall be shewen 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 but when this Author has made all the advantage he can of his Limited and mixed formes of Monarchy it will not availe him for the Countenancing of Armes taken up by Subjects for this will appeare to be truth agreeable to Scripture and Reason That â—overnment is not the invention of man but the institution of God whereby he rules men by men set over them in his stead and though hee doth not now immediatly designe those his Vicegerents but by other meanes bee it by the choice of the People yet have they their power not from the People to whom it belongs to bee governed and doe by choosing a Governour seeke a benefit safely but from â—od by vertue of his institution of Government Also that the Governing Power is one and the same which God gives and settles upon the Person that is Supreme and stands immediatly next to God betweene Him and the People onely that Power may bee Limited in the exercise of it as the People by agreement at first or by Petition after can procure Also that where the Prince stands Supreme and next to â—od above all the People there Subjects may not take Armes and make forceable Resistance notwithstanding he be exorbitant in the exercise and use of that Power to the invasion of such Rights and Priviledges as they enjoy by first compact or after procurement The pleaders for resistance on the other side do wilfully embrace and rest upon the Opinion of Heathen writers touching the beginning of Government and the derivation of the Governing Power from the People as if they had not Scripture which the Heathen wanted to give them better direction herein The Authour of the Treatise of Monarchy seemes to referre the beginning of Government to Gods ordinance and to affirme the power to be from God Pag. 2. but in the processe of his booke wee shall finde him deriving it indeed from the People and Pag. 4. he concludes thus for both They which say that Soveraignes have their Power from God speake in some sense truth as also they Which say that originallie power is in the People may in a sound sense be understood and in these things we have D. Fernes consent in his discourse upon this Subject Sect. 3. Answ you had not his consent in your sense for in that Sect. it was his intent to shew that the Governing Power i such an Authority or sufficiency for command and coertion was from God though the designation of the Person be by choice of the People and the limitations of that power in severall kinds of Monarchy be by their consent and agreement Now if to designe the Person or procure limitation of the power in the exercise of it bee in your sound sense to give the power there 's no great harme to us or advantage to you you must have the power originally from the people in another sense or else you can make no pretence by it for your grounds of Resistance and so you doe when you tell us Pag. 16. they sometime reserve a power to oppose or displace the Magistrate sometime they make the Monarch Supreme and then they divest themselves of all Superiority and have no power left to oppose him in Person and Pag. 63. you call them Architectonicall powers committing the power of Government and Armes c. This is the riddle of this governing power originally in the people they are Architect powers but build upon foundations laid in the aire they are invested with Superioritie but none can tell over whom besides themselves they reserve a power but such as they never had for before Government established they have not any power of a community or politique power whereby a command may be laid upon others but onely a naturall power of private Resistance wherewith every one of them is in particular endued which power they cannot use against the publique Magistrate when once they have designed him Now let us take a neerer view of the formes of Monarchy spoken of by this Author and make a few observations upon such particulars as wil be of more necessary consideration when we come to the examination of Scripture of Reason and of the Constitution of this Monarchy First he tels us Absolute Monarchy is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but the Monarchs owne will so it is when a People are absolutely resigned up or doe resigne up themselves to be governed by one man pag. 6. We allow this description but must remember it below when this Author will tell us the Israelitish Kings were absolute Monarchs which will not appeare by this description also when he tels us that to make a Monarch irresistible is to make him absolute for we see by this description it is not the denyall of resistance that makes a Monarch absolute but the denyall of a Law to bound his will In the next place he tels us He is a limited Monarch who hath a Law besides
His owne will for the measure of His power pag. 12. This also is true But he supposeth first that this Monarch must be limited in the very power it selfe not onely in the exercise of the power for an absolute Monarch may stint himselfe in the exercise of his power and yet remaine absolute Answ True if such a Monarch limit himselfe to such a Rule in such a case reserving power to vary from it when hee shall see good cause but if he that is Originally absolute and unlimited doe in some particular cases fixe a Law with promise not to vary from it he is so farre forth and onely so farre as concernes those cases limited and not absolute Secondly hee supposes such a Monarch must bee Radically i. Originally invested with such a measure of limited power and that hee must have his bounds or limitâ— of power ab externo not from the free determination of his own wil. pag. 12. yet at the beginning of the next page hee tels us that soeveraignty comes thus to bee desined to a rule i to bee limited either by Originall constitution or by after condescent when a Monarch originally absolute descends from His absolutenesse to a more moderate power That which he has to salve it is that this limiting by after condescent is equivalent to that which is by Originall constitution for there is in it a change of title and a resolution in the Monarch to be Subject to in no other way then according to such a Law pag. 13. Answ Where here is such a change of title as this man supposeth it is done at once and by expresse and notorious resignation of the Monarchs former title and power But it is not necessary that an Absolute Monarch should come to a limited condition after that manner for a Monarch that was unlimited at first by degrees may limit and bind up his power and give oath for greater security that he will rule accordingly and requires not to be subject to but according to such limitations or Lawes and so it will appeare that the pious Princes of this Land have anciently done Only when it is said they require not to be subject to but according c. it must be understood in regard of Active subjection which they cannot expect if they shall command against those Lawes nor in regard of Passive subjection as if they allowed their Subject to resist upon such commands for it can scarce be imagined that any Prince should condescend to a limited use of his power and blinde himselfe by Oath not to transgresse the limits hee should also have the bands of force and constraint cast upon him for the keeping of Him within those limits The other distinction which most concernes the businesse in hand is of Monarchy into simple without any Mixture of Aristocracy or Democracy and Mixed that has an allay from one or both of those In the explication of which that hee may lay convenient grounds for such a Mixture as he would make in this Monarchy he tels us if the composition bee of three then must the soveraigne power be in all three Originally and not one holding his power from the other but all equally from the fundamentall constitution His Reasons are 1. Because else it would be no Mixture but a Derivation of Power to others which is seene in the most simple Monarchy 2. Because the end of Mixture which â—s to keepe each state from exorbitancy could not be obtained by a derivate power for such a power cannot turne back and set bounds to its beginning so he pag. 25. Answ We see by thiâ— where he will place the two Houses in a Society of the Soveraigne Power and that by Originall constitution which will appeare but a phansy when wee come to examine it below but for the grounding of it hee supposes that Mixture must be in the very soveraigne power and that originally or from the beginning of the government neither of which is necessary for I conceive that as Limitation in government is in regard of a Law or Rule which bounds the will of the Monarch for those particulars that Law concernes and such limitation may be onely of the exercise of the power not of the power it selfe so Mixtures is in regard of Persons joyned to the Monarch for certaine Acts and purposes but that such Persons should have a share with the Monarch in the Soveraigne Power is so farre from being necessary to that mixture which Monarchy will admit of that indeed it cannot consist with that Supremacy which is supped to be in the Monarch for it would make severall independent powers in the same State or Kingdome which is most absurd If therefore the concurrence and consent of such persons be required as necessary to the exercise onely of the Soveraigne power in such or such Acts it is sufficient to make a Mixture in the Government In like manner as it was said above of Limited Monarchyes that it is not necessary they should bee so Originally but may become such by after condescent so may it be said of Mixed Monarchies And it is cleare that in most Monarchies of Europe which have beene parts or branches of the Roman Empire and by force of Armes broken off from it the Monarch at first had absolute power like as the Roman Emperours had over their conquered Provinces but by degrees have received Limitations to governe according to such and such Lawes and have admitted Mixtures by a concurrence of such and such persons whose consent should be requisite and necessary to some exercises of their soveraigne power Now to his Reasons I answer Derivation of power is either upon substitute Officers and Ministers which supply the absence of the Monarch in the execution of Power and Justice for him upon his People and such derivation of Power is in the most simple Monarchy or else it is upon such Persons or such an order of men whose concurrence and consent is required to certaine Acts of Monarchicall Power and this makes a Mixture though they have no share in the very power but concurre to the exercise of it only and have not that neither Originally but upon condescent of the Prince yet have it certainly and irrevocably by Law setled upon them Now if this Author will not call this a Mixture because it is not Originally in the power it selfe we cannot help it we are sure it makes a large and reall difference in Government and may obtain its end the keeping of each State from exorbitancy in that way it 's intended to doe it in which will give answer to his other Reason For though a Derivative power can 〈…〉 bounds to the Soveraigne power yet may it stand to 〈…〉 way those bounds which the soveraigâ— power has set to it selfe and made the Derivate power the keeper of The Kings of the Mâ—des and Persians were in most things absolute yet in this had they bound themselves not to alter a Decree made by
Monarchy otherwise then this Author or others before him have sansyed it will not be hard to say so much as may which was heretofore endeavoured in â—â—y Reply let Conscience see it can have no plea for Resistance from the supposed grounds upon which these men lay the platforme of this Monarchy I had twice occasion in my first Treatise to speak of the beginning of this Government in the Armes of the Saxons and Normans which was not as this Author feignes pag. 33. 34. to prove our Kings Absolute herein I challenge his ingenuity if either I proposed this as a Conclusion to be proved That our Kings are Absolute or urged the entrance of the Saxons and Normans as an argument to prove it by but onely all adged it twice by way of Answer to what was spoken by them touching a right in the People by virtue of such a capitulating election at first as they suppose to have given beginning to this Monarchy in both which places I expressely intimated those Conquests were not mentioned to win an Arbitrary power to the King but onely to exclude Resistance and such a supposed election The beginning of this English Monarchy and the root of succession of the Monarchs we must fetch from the Saxons and this Author bids us look so far back when to cut off the advantages that may be made against him from the Normans entrance he tels us pag. 35. that Duke William came upon the old limited Title whereby the English Saxon Kings his Predecessors held this Kingdome How the Saxons entred upon the Kingdome is well known they made themselves masters of this Kingdome by Armes which although it doth not inferre our Kings are now Absolute an inference as farre from my intention as his yet doth it plainly overthrow such an originall Mixture in the soveraign power as this Author has phansyed and herein because I have spoken to this point as occasion required in the third Sect. of my Reply to the Full Answerer who had the like conceit of such an Originall Mixture though not so refined as this Author has given it us I shall be the briefer in my Answer to this First This Author saith It was not a Conquest that the Saxons made but an expulsion pag. 35. Ans This is neither true nor greatly materiall Not true for it cannot be imagined but a great part of the Brittaines remained under the Saxon yoake so M. Cambden tells us they were the fewer that fled towards Wales and defended themselves against the Saxons in the West his words are Victi omnes in gentem leges nomen linguamque vincentium praeter paucos quos locorum asperitas in occidentali tractu tutata est concesserunt Camb Britan. Saxon. Nor is it greatly materiall for if we could imagine that the Brittaines were not brought under the yoke but expelled yet can we not imagine that the Government of those Saxon Kings being made such by the acclamation of their Souldiers as when the Praetorian guard or some Army abroad saluted a Roman Emperour was at first any other then is the government or command of Generalls over their Souldiers that is unlimited much lesse so Limited and Mixed as this Author phansyeth it who looking upon the Modell or Platforme of this Monarchy pag. 44. 45. doth admire their Wisdome as more then humane that had the contriving of it but can any one suppose such a Platforme laid that considers the beginning of the Saxon Monarchy or imagine such admirable Wisdome more than humane in those rude and violent beginnings But he tells us in the second place the Saxons planting themselves here under their Commanders no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany and so changed their soyle not their government pag. 35 but what proof to put this out of doubt a conjecture out of Tacitus that wrote of the Germans some hundreds of years before this entrance of the Saxons Among the Germans saith he Nec Regibus aut infinita aut libera potestas True but we may see by those Authors that M. Cambden alleadges for the Originall of these Saxons that in probability these Suxons were not then among those people of Germany that Tacitus speakes of but did afterward break out of the Cimbrica chersonesus into that part of Germany where now we find the Saxons and into this Land But why should we rest upon such dreames and uncertainties as these men would put us upon this is certain that the Saxons being entred and having vanquished the Brittaines did by degrees as they could winne upon the Brittaines raise seven Kingdomes or Monarchyes independant yet so as that still one of them the most powerfull was Monarch of All or King of all England as Mr Cambden and others shew out of Bede till at length the King of the West Saxons Egbert vanquished the rest and setled the Succession of the sole Monarchy in his Line and those that should come after him Now would I fain know how this Author or any other of their best phansies can conceive that such a Mixture as joynes Nobles and Commons in the Soveraign power with the Monarch for so they would have it can possibly consist with such a beginning of Government was it in them all seven or could it consist with that solenesse or height of Monarchy which was still in one of them and transferred from Kingdom to Kingdome not by any fundamentall constitution but by power and the personall Prowesse of the Monarch Or did Edgbert that setled that condition of sole and chief Monarch upon his own successors by the subversion of the other Kingdomes know any Subjects of His to be sharers with him in the Soveraigne power This Author indeed tryes what his phansy can doe pag. 44. Where by six suppositions he endeavours to bring the Reader to an apprehension of the platforme of this Monarchy When you have made these suppositions saith he in your mind you have the very Modell and Platforme of this Monarchy Pag. 45. So the Reader must rest upon his suppositions against the Credit of all Histories and Chronicles and those his suppositions begin thus pag. 44. Suppose a People 1. Nobles and Commons set over themselves by publique compact one Soveraign resign up themselves to Him and His heires to be governed by such and such fundamentall Lawes then suppose them Covenanting with their Soveraign that if cause be to constitute any other Lawes he shall not doe it by His sole power but they erserve at first or afterwards it is granted them which is all one a hand of concurrence therein that they will be bound by no Lawes but what they joyne with him in the making of and so he goes on with six suppositions but first he must have a strong phansy that can conceive as I said this consistent with the beginnings of the Saxon Government as if it could be laid in such a platforme Secondly in giving us the briefe of this Platforme he still tells us
so to prove it by afferting a greater absurdity viz. that a particular or private man may take Armes against an absolute Monarch His other example he would prove it by is the Revolt of the Vnited Provinces from the King of Spaine who resolved to extirpate the whole people pag. 10. But it is evident the Spanish King intended the extirpation of the Protestants only and as this Authorâ—â—s told us here his opinion of the Revolt thereupon in the Vnited Provinces so I would desire him to deliver his opinion of the Revolt and Rebellion of the Papists in Ireland upon their certaine knowledge that their extirpation was contrived here this Author knowes by whom I plead not for them but could wish that the assertions and practice of These times did not give them too much advantage I could tell him the opinion and Resolution of the Iewes under Ahasuerus that they would not take Armes for their defence till it was permitted them by the King â—st 8.11 and the opinion of the Primitive Christans that they alowed not resistance although the destruction of their whole Community was evidently attempted This may be objected against his Resolution of the point to make it doubtfull I must needs say this Case of generall destruction and Extirpation which some call extreme Necessity is a very hard case and whether â—t will excuse a people that in such necessity shall take Armes I dispute not nor is it needfull I should for it neither concernes the Casâ— as now it stands betweene our King and his Subjects He inviting them by all faire offers to return from their obstinate disloyalty promising assuring them the Preservation of Religion Lawes Liberties and what not Nor doth it concerne the Question now in hand which supposes not Extirpation of a People as cause of their Armes but only Exorbitancies of the Prince tending to a subversion of Religion and Liberties which Exorbitancies if they should be patiently born for the time that they shall cortinue do not take away the being and subsistence of a people as Extirpation doth but only put them for that time under the inconveniences of arbitrary government under which the people of God in the old Testament and the Christians in the New were left without remedy by forceable Resistance Againe if any particular mans life be invaded without any plea or Reason for it he thinkes that such a one may use forceable Resistance against any Agents in such assault of murder and that it is justified by the fact of David and rescue of Ionathan from the Causelesse cruell intent of Saul pag. 10. The Rule here seemes to speak no more then a Personall defence against a Murthering assault which was allowed above Sect. 2 provided that it be suddaine without any foregoing reason or pretence of Authority and also inevitable but in the Examples he would inferre more then he speakes in the Rule for he supposes the people would have rescued lonathan by force iâ— Saul had persisted in his intent and upon that false supposall insinuates thus much that if particular mens lives be sought after others may interpose with Armes for their defence and the Learned Divines doe expresly inferre from it that Countries may aslociate and bind themselves by oath not to suffer any of the impeached Members to be cut off good doctrines these from Scripture as we shall see when we come to that place So in Davids Example he would insinuate that if particular mens lives be sought after they may raise and entertame Forces for their defence as David did but â—f this seeme most absurd dangerous aâ— indeed it is and if the Jsraelitish Kings were absolute as this Author often grants then must be acknowledge what he accounts but one of my shifts pag. 57. that Davids example is not herein appliable but in this way of defence extraordinary Of which more particularly below when we come to places of Scripture that concerne Davids behaviour towards Saul Lastly he tells us which he should have done in the first place that Subjects of an absolute Monarch must without resistance submit their estates liberties and persons to his will so it carry any plea or shew of reason and equity pag. 11. Ans Here the way is open enough to Rebellion for every man will be ready to thinke there is no reason or equity in the will of the Monarch when he is oppressed by him and if the plea or shew of reason and equity must be the barre to Resistance it will little availe him to answer below that the Roman Emperors might not be resisted because they were absolute for never was there lesse plea of Reason and Equity in the will of any Tyrants then in theirs But he will close up the way by telling us absolute Monarchy resolves all judgement into the will of the Monarch so that if his will judicially censuâ—e it just it must be yeelded to as just so he pag. 11. But did not Saul censure David is one affecting the Kingdome and therefore worthy to dye which was the act of a Reasonable will though following a 〈◊〉 ormed understanding and did he not use a 〈…〉 â—â—dicary processe in the Cause of Ionathâ—n senâ—eâ—cing him upon the tryall of Lots why then were these examples brought thâ— Author in the former page for Resistance if such a will oâ— thâ— Monarch must be yeelded to and why is there such a condition added in the Rule so it carry any plea of reason and 〈…〉 this is fast and loose he that would have â—rection for resistance is here left upon uncertaintie Let us proceed to Limited and mixed Monarchies In such he tells us if the Exorbitancies of the Monarch be of lesse moment and not striking at the very being of the Government they ought to be borne by publique patience rather then to endanger the being of the State by a Contention betweene the head and the body pag. 17. but if they be such as being suffered doe dissolve the frame of Government and cannot be redressed by petition then is prevention to be sought by resistance pag. 18. and 29. Here I must first challenge the Ingeinuity of this Author who citing my words pag. 49. taken out of my first Sect We may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Lawes of the Land could give this censure upon them here he sayes more then we say yea more then should be said it is not universally true that we ought considering that the case was there put concerning exorbitancies not of lesse moment â—ut tending to the subversion of Religion Lawes Liberties â—nd the question upon it was whether upon such a case might we resist and the explication of the word Resist was into a denying of Active obedience and an using of forceable resistance Now my saying was that to such commands of the Prince we ought to deny obedience but not use forceable resistance
implyed it must follow either from the Nature of Limitation or from the danger and inconveniencies of exorbitancy of the Limited Monarch oâ— from the consent and intention of the People choosing the Monâ—arch But first Limitation cannot inferre it for an absolute Monarch is limited also not by civill compact indeed but by the Law of God of Nature and Nations which he cannot justly transgresse if therefore an absolute Monarch being exorbitant beyond his bounds which the highest Lawes have set him may not be resisted how shall we think a limited Monarch may for transgressing the bounds set him by civâ—ll agreement Secondly the inconveniencies of exorbitancy in Limited and mixed Monarchie cannot inferr a power of resistance by Armes because the inconveniencies and evills which are pretended as causes of resistance in such Monarchies are the same in Absolute for Limitations and Mixtures are but â—arres and sâ—â—â—itie against injustice cruelty and oppressâ—â—n which are exorbitances also in absolute Monarchies and evills that bring as much detriment and suffering to the Subject as they doe in Limited Monarchyes as for example The impâ—sing of Taxes if it be done when necessity requires not or 〈◊〉 very unâ—qually in regard of Persons and estates it is an injury and grievance even in an Absolute Monarchy only when necessity calls for such Lâ—vies of Money the Monarch that is of a Limited and Mixed condition is bound to take in the consent of others to which the Absolute Monarch is nor bound So in Tryalls for Life and Estate an unjust sentence is an oppression in Absolute as well as Limited Monarchy only the limited or Mixed Monarch is bond to passe sentence upon the verdict of twelve men or the like the Absolute is not Suppose then a Prince in such a Limited or Mixed Monarchy should when necessity doth truly require impose taxes lay them equally expend them faithfully and in tryalls for Life or Estate should give right judgement without the verdictof twelve men and in other poynts should rule most justly though not according to forme unto which he is limited by positive Law here would be the main Rule of Government observed justice and the end of Government for which those limits and Civill bounds were set him obtained peace and well-fare of the People Will you then have such a Prince resisted by Armes and the Kigndome embroyled in Civil Warre because he observed not the forme when he gives you the substance Yea but this would be an ill procedent and very dangerous true there is danger but no present evill and what are the dangers or evillâ— feared Cruelty Oppression which other Princes might use should they have such liberty true but these evills when they are are evills in Absolute Monarchies and for them resiâ—ance is not to be used there Thirdly the consent and intention of the people choosing the Monarch cannot inferre that a Limited Monarch may be resisted by Armes This consent and intention of the People is made by these men not only the Ordinary meane of conâ—erring the Power but the very Measure of the Power it â—elfe and the Barre or inlet of resistance for by that consent is supposed the people give what power they please and reserve what they will To which I say 1. That the consent of the people may be the mean of designing the person and of yeâ—lding subjection to him who else could not challenge it more then another man also a mean of limiting that power in the exercise of it according to agreement or procurement but it is not the measure of the power it selfe which in such a measure is given of God to all Soveraignes and is not according to the peoples will resistible or irresistible but according to the will of God above resistance forseeing that people have not of themselves out of government the main power the power of life and death how can they give it either for government or reserve it for resistance Secondly That the intention of the People in procuring Limitations of the Monarch's power is that they may be under a moderate use of the power and what 's their security for that those limitations which the Monarch agrees upon Oath to observe now this cannot infere resistance here more then in absolute Monarchies for when a people leaves a Monarch Absolute trusting to his prudence and moderation they doe not intend he should oppresse them yet is it granted such intention cannot enable them to resist in case he doe oppresse them Now in agreeing for Limitations and set rules of Government they gain a farther security of such moderate use of the power according to those limitations for the observing of which they have a tye upon their Monarch not from a power of forceable resistance in themselves to constrain him by Armes if he exorbitate but from His Oath or Covenant and Gods vengeance thereupon if he falsify it Thirdly If the Architects as this Author speaks of a limited or mixed Monarchy that is the people setting up such a Monarch over them did intend that the states joyned with the Monarch should assume the Armes of the Kingdome to restrain his Exorbitancies surely they would not have left it in his power to dissolve them and so make all such power ineffectuall It appeares therefore that by such mixtures and limitations no more can be inferred then a Legall or morall restraint upon the power of the Monarch And all this that hath been spoken against the power of Resistance or assuming the Armes of the Kingdome inferred from the Limited condition of the Monarch as it is good and conclusive in Monarchies originally limited so is it much more in Monarchies that have afterward received those Limitations and Mixtures upon which this power of resistance and assuming the Armes of the Kingdome is inferred as it appeares this Monarchy has done And therefore I conclude here as I did premise in the second Section Where the Prince stands supream und next to God above all the People there Subjects may not by force of armes resist notwithstanding he be exorbitant in the exercise and use of his Power to the invasion of such Rights and Priviledges as they enjoy by first compact or after procurement And this being cleared already from those shadowes of reasons which could be pretended against it from the severall kinds of Monarchy will farther appeare by that which shall be said out of Scripture and Reason SECT VI. A Refutation of His Answer that first styled himselfe the Author of the Fuller Answer ALthough the substance of his discourse is already answered by that which hath been said concerning Mixture and Supremacy against the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet because he is extremely confident and many times unfaithfull in his Reply's I will briefly touch upon such passages as may seem most materiall or any way availeable to abuse the unwary Reader It is his manner to gaine seeming advantages upon his Adversary by his own willfull mistakings
His Majesty an excellent argument to provoke an Adversary upon but this Answerer seemes to have made his Reply to one Section before he had read the next and when he was come to that to forget what he had read or writ before In like manner he tells us presently after that he had proved that the Finall Declaration and Resolution must remaine beyond all further debate in the Councell of the Kingdome which by its number trust interest is onely fit to manage it to all which the Dr hath not vouchsafed to say any thing but that it wholly places the Supremacy in the two Houses so he pag. 31. Answ If nothing else had been said it had been enough and so the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth sufficiently shew that to place such a finall Resolution and declarative Judgement in the two Houses doth make them supreame and this no Monarchy but there was more said even the better part of three Sections was spent against that finall declarative judgement and Supply which he places in the two Houses against his perswasions from their Interests Number Trust shewing how possible it is for them to lessen their number to neglect their trust to make the private Interest devoure the publique I need say no more these times speake sufficiently But it seemes this Answerer as I said above wrote downe this before he had throughly read those Sections and when he came to them either had forgot that he had said the Dr. vouchsafed to say nothing to his particulars or else purposed to make it seeme so by answering nothing himselfe to that which the Dr. had said touching that finall declarative Judgement and supply which he places in the Houses But for this mixture of three Estates in the Supremacy of power he has found a new Argument in the Kings Answer to the 19. Propositions wherein His Majesty grants That the Lords being trusted with a Iudicatory Power are an Excellent Skreene betwixt Prince and people and that the power legally placed in the two Houses is more then enough to restraine Tyranny Upon this he makes a long descant and propounds sixe Quere's I will for brevity's sake without any wrong to Him that proposes them reduce them to these two 1. for the Iudicatory power How can such be in the Houses and yet not the declarative power of Law For this as before I must turne him over to the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy who will aske him how can such a finall declarative power be in the Houses and yet this be a Monarchy and the King Supream and I must farther aske him why doth he not place the finall Judgement onely in the Lords house seeing that Judicatory power is only in that not in the House of Commons 2. For the power of Armes If the Houses have not such a power how have they a power more then sufficient to restraine Tyranny let the Dr. fairely resolve the Answerer in these plaine inferences out of His Majesties words erit mihi magnus Apollo so he Answ I must first tell him Apollo was more honoured for his Art then for his bow for his Rules of healing then force of wounding so the morall restraints of Rules limiting Laws and the obligation of an Oath are more reasonable and powerfull for keeping the will of the Monarch within bounds then the forcible constraint of Subjects Armes But this Answerer thinks there can be no sufficient security for the people against the Tyranny of their Prince unlesse they have him fast bound is the tye of established Law nothing the band of a Sacred oath nothing to restraine him unlesse his Subjects have the mastering power God himselfe thought lesse means of restraint sufficient for such security as he was content his people should have under the Iraelitish and Roman Government why should not greater be held sufficient for people under a Christian Monarch Againe when it was proved that the Members of the Houses were Subjects conjunctim from their owne addresses to His Majesty wherein they style themselves his Loyall Subjects this Answerer replyes unto it pag. 39. How weake is an argument from formes of addresses in words against a reall Right what Right to the Supremacy how reall that is appears by all that has been said but we may here returne him his owne Answer to his inference from His Majesties words how weake is the argument from formes of words against a reall right against His knowne Supremacy and Headship Nay how unequall is it to take such large and gracious Expressions issuing from the conscience of his owne intentions and desires altogether averse from tyranny and stretch them on the rack of finister Construction to make them speake to his disadvantage for indeed no other power is granted to be in the Houses to restraine Tyranny then a Legall Morall Parliamentary power not forceable and military See above towards the end of the fourth Section where these and other Expressions of His Majesty were objected and vindicated Now to his fifth Section It was his Rule Coordinates doe supply one the others failings and thereupon he inferred If the King refuse the Lords and Commons may supply This was retorted upon him in my Reply If the Commons stand out and refuse then may the King and Lords by his rule of Coordination supply and command all He answers No quâ—stion they may supply as farre as their representation and trust reaches that is for themselves not for the Commons of England whom they doe not represent Answ Doth this man know or heed what he saith doth not he make the safety of the Kingdome the Cause and end of such supply when one of the Coordinates stand out and now he tells us the King and Lords may supply for themselves i. e. they may save themselves if they can but they have nothing to doe with the Commons whom they doe not represent but can the safety of the Kingdome be provided for by this supply unlesse they also be commanded by the Coordinate parts which are to make the supply and will he upon better thought 's deny that in order to that end the safety of the Kingdome the King and Lords also are entrusted for the whole people of England Againe this supply cannot be effectuall without a Iudicatory power but that power we find onely in the Lords not Commons house as he himselfe cited it above out of the Kings words well then must they exercise this Judicatory power upon themselves only and not upon those that the Commons represent or can the Commons by themselves supply that 's against his own rule of Coordination but if he will forget that us he does yet will he not thinke they can make the supply without a Judicatory power I will adde to this what he has at the very end of this Sect. where we finde him as considerate as before In order to his former rule Coordinates supply one anothers failings he had said
in his first Treatise that he wonalted we cannot see the King is Vniversis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse then all three Upon this I call'd him again to his reckoning telling him that if the King and Lords concurre and the Commons refuse it is easy to reckon that of three one is lesse then two repeating his words so not for any advantage but meerly to make him speake sense he because he cannot answer the retortion complaines of wilfull and grosse mistake of his words which were saith he that of three one is lesse then all three i. e. a part then the whole But is that your meaning of Rex est Vniversis minor i. e. the King alone is lesse then the King Lords and Commons together who cannot see that the Comparison is between the King and the other two and that in your rule of three Coordinates if one refuse there remaines but two to make the supply and that thereupon you should have said if you would speake sence that of three one is lesse then two I have heard Children when their disorderly Babies have beene taken from them and presently returned them again in frame and order complaining because they received them not as they parted with them so doth this Answerer of the putting his words into sense Let us now see how in the same Section he answers for the Kings danger at Keinton Battell Aâ— in the making of Lawes saith he the King presence or absence alters not the case so in the executing of the Lawes against Delinquents the Kings presence can no more hinder then his command Answ His presence or absence does not indeed in the making Lawes but his Consent is all which he may give either present or absent but will you for the Executing of the Lawes take armes without his consent and use them too against him personally present or wil you say that your giving him battell at Keinton was an executing of the Lawes against Delinquents produce your Law that enables you to such a proceeding against your pretended delinquents Nor were the hands of the Parliaments Army lifted up against the King more then Davids whom the Doctor cites who resisted his and the kings enemies though about the kings person ibid. Ans It doth not appeare where David did make that resistance but it is the unhappinesse of these men to ground all their resistance upon false suppositions first they suppose David would have done it then they positively set downe that he did it thence they conclude they may doe it and acccordingly have done it and much more The rest of this Section he thought good neglecting what was rationall in mine to spend in naming Delinquents in Yorkeshire for whose apprehension and the bringing of them to Justice the Parliament tooke Armes Answ All those examples of Delinquents followed their putting of armed men into Hull their seizing the Magazine there their denying the King enterance their denying eo bring Sir Iohn Hotham to Justice and in these if any Delinquents were detained and protected from their justice as he complaines he may read the carse of it But these are matters of Fact we are now upon the point of Reason In his sixt Section he altogether neglects the cases which were put him upon his placing the finall resolution of this States judgement in the two Houses and onely fastens upon that which was spoken occasionally concerning Conquest First for his Answer touching the Ammonites subdued by David That Abrahams posterity was entituled to their Land by God Gen. 13.14 I would desire him to looke into Deut. 34.4 where the Lord gives Moses a sight of that promised Land saying This is the Land which I sware to Abraham c and to examine whether he can find the Land of the Ammonites in that prospect And surely if the Ammonites had been of the Inhabitants of that Land David would not have held league and frienship with them as we see he does 2 Sam. 10. Next for Davids subduing of Edom he answers The Doctor himselfe confesseth they revolted from Judah What then had they been before under Iudah and upon their Revolt subdued by David then indeed it had been not a Conquest but a Reduction but the Doctor confesses they revolted from Iehoram Ring of Judah 2 Chro. 21. therefore they were justly subdued or reduced that must be his inference by David 1 Chron. 18. doth he know what he saith But God had given Israel saith he a speciall promise for it too over Edom will I cast my shooe Psal 60.8 Answ This Psalme was made upon that very expedition in which Edom was subdued as appeares by the title of it and were those words spoken by the Spirit of Prophecy yet doe they not make a grant but only speak the successe of that enterprise which then was undertaken Nor had the Romans any right over Iudaea by Conquest saith he but by consent of the People Conquered without which consent all his Momenta temporum he speaks of to make a right or title are like those Moments of the Papists Antiquitie to make a Truth Ans We finde the Iewes confederate with the Romans 1. Mac. 8. and not long after their Subjects brought under by Pompey we cannot think they changed their condition willingly but that their consent was forced by the Conquerour Conquest then wil easily command that which will give it Title in these mens opinion And though no antiquity can make falshood Truth yet are there Momenta temporum when providence which translates Kingdomes and can give Title to the Conquerour doth discover it selfe and then the Conquered People ought to consent to and receive the Government which the Conquerour settles among them â—â—e above at the end of the third Sect. where the Title of Conquest is examined There is nothing in his seventh Sect. worthy of the Readers patience in hearing it refuted onely hee makes shew of some Statutes which truly I could not find nor was there cause why I should bestow much time in seeking them for a litle Logick will serve to discerne that the words he cites out of them will not inferre any conclusions prejudiciall to his adversary His last and eight Section concernes Scripture he mutters some thing in it concerning Davids fighting against Saul and the absolutenesse of the Iewish Kings which shall be distinctly and largely considered in my next Section And for the new Testament he turnes his Reader over to the interpretation which the Reverend and learned Divines having given on the 13th to the Romans and which he so farre magnifies that he beelieves the Doctor will not reply in haste so he concluds his booke and he shall see he had cause so to believe when we come to the consideration of that place SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament NOw wee come to the examination of what is alleadged out of Scripture in this cause whereby it will appeare that
the first so pag. 26. Answ You cannot so well make the distinction in in regard of resistance as it may in regard of subjection or Obedience for I can sever the power from the abuse of it by denying my active obedience to the abuse or illegall command by yeelding my passive obedience under such a command but by making resistance you cannot sever them for you cannot resist the abuse but by resisting of the power in him that beares it Secondly they tell us that the Apostles reasons forbid only resistance to Legall Commands and still they aske doth the Apostle else know what he saith when in his reasons â—e tells us Rulers are not a terrour to good workes and he is the minister of God to thee for good can this be said of the Emperors then therefore the Drs sense must be renounced and it must be said the Apostle medles onely with Civill matters here so pag. 47.48 Answ That is the Apostle medles with that which did little concerne them and gives them no instruction in that which did most prâ—sse them the Tyrannous Commands and violences of the then Emperors can we think he was well advised if he had made them a discourse of Government which they could make no use of for the then urgent necessities when therefore he saith Rulers are not a terrour and they they are Ministers of God for good c. it was true of the then Rulers in regard of some Civill good which they did in some measure procure for S. Paul did often find reliefe in that Government and was often rescued from the violence and cruelty of his Enemies as we read in the Acts of the Apostles though it was true also that their Government was full of Tyranny and injustice what shall we say then to these reasons of the Apostle but that he forbids resistance under those Tyrannous Governours and urges it from the end of government which was for good and which their Subjects did in regard of Civill matters in some sort enjoy under them but we cannot thinke that he medles with Civill matters only or forbids refistance to Legall commands only unlesse we should also think that the Apoâ—â—le left the Christians to infer from these reasons as these Divines doe that if Ruleâ—s doe not accordingly minister for good but are a terrour to good workes they may and ought to be resisted and that the Christians had they had force might have resisted so they affirme pag. 49. We see then the conclusion they are necessitated to by their interpretation of this place in restraining the prohibition of resistance only to Legall-commands which conclusion being so scandalous to Christian Religion so opposite to the practice of the Apostles and the expresse doctrine of those after times doth shew that these Divines did not know what they said when they inferred from the Apostles reasons that Resistance only to Legall Commands is forbidden and that Christians might have resisted Let them heare what Bucer saith upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject the word saith he signifieth to be plenè sub imperio in potestate fully under the power of Rulers and that the Apostle by that word gives us to understand opertere nostraomnia ponere in mans â—orum qui publicam potestatem gerunt sed propter Dominum idèo quae Domino debemus ea semper ante omnia praestandâ— sunt interim tamen si magistratsu ob id nobis non res odoÌ„ sed ipsam etiam vitam conetur eripere ferendum est neque potestati obluctandum this is full and forbids resistance under illegall commands and sufferings for obeying of God Then upon the Apostles Reasons He is the Minister of God to thee for good c. the same Bucer shewes They are drawne from the good benefit for which governmeÌ„t was ordained which good is obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part and in some measure the like saith Calvin upon the place who perswading submission under Tyrannous Rulers concludes thus Nulla ergò Tyrannis esse potest qua non aliquâ ex parte subsidio sit ad tuendam hominum societatem the like doth Peter Martyr upon the place Let them also read how the Author of the Treatise of Mâ—narchy censures these Divines for their inferences from the Apostles reasons that the Apostle according to such a meaning should have taught them a Doctrine of resistance rather then subjection and that the received Doctrine of the Saints in ancient and moderne times could never find in that place of the Apostle such a licence for Christians to use Armes in their defence against the Tyranny of their Emperours pag. 64. with severall reasons which shew the scandall of such Doctrine pag. 66. What then will this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy that pleades also for Resistance answer to the Apostles prohibition of it he grants they might not resist in that Monarchy but affirme that Subjects may in this why Because Religion then was no part of the Lawes but here it is Also because that was an Absolute Monarchy Soveraignty this a limited and Mixed So we have two exceptions of his as he dilivers them pag. 59. 64. and 66. His first exception is Religion then was no part of the Lawes and so its violation no subversion of Established government Herein we have Doctor Bilson consenting who saith That the superior power forbidden here to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing to his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare pag. 64. and 57. I doe concurre with Mr. Burrowes professing against resisting of Authority though abused That if those who have power to make Lawes make sinfull Lawes and so give authority to any to force obedience there must be either flying or passive Obedience and pag. 66. In the case of the Armes now taken up there is no need of those offensive Grounds which the Reverend Divines runne upon Religion being now a part of our Nationall Law So he Answ What Dr. Bilson and other of our Divines have written in favour of Resistance they mâ—ane it of such States as may by the known Lawes use forceable restraint against the exorbitances of the Monarch and as they were willing after those motions of the Protestants in France and the Low-Countries to excuse as much as might be so had they lived to have seen the Commotions and Rebellion of these daies I make no doubt but they would have spoken more cautelously I am sure the Homily against Rebellion speaks home will not admit such distinctions that make way to the Resisting or Rebelling against evill Princes which command against the Lawes and Religion for of such it speakes But let us try the force of this exception he professes with Mr. Burrowes against resisting of Authority though abused with Doctor Bilson admits of Resisting the Princes will against the Lawes this is fast and loose for what is the Princes
will against the Lawes but abusing of Authority It may be hee would salve at as M. Burrowes seemed to doe by telling us that he means by Authority abused the Authority imployed in Making sinfull Lawes for such Authority though abused this Author acknowledges to be the Ordinance of God and not to be resisted and disputes it against the Reverend Divines pag. 64. 65. I agree with him but further would have him shew why Authority abused in the Execution of Law that is in pursuing the Princes illegall will should not be also the Ordinance of God and secured from resistance Indeed there is a great difference betweene Resistance made against a Prince commanding according to Law and that which is against a Prince commanding contrary to Law but it doth not make the businesse as cleare as the day nay it doth not at all satisfie him that will enquire First concerning that government under which the Apostle lived might Subjects then resist If the Higher Powers commanded contrary to Law as they did often we find that the Christian Orthodox Religion was part of the Lawes in Constantines and the suceeding times and that Christians did not resist when Iulian persecuted them for it nor did the Orthodox Christians resist when the Arrian Emperours endeavoured to subvert the faith If he reply they were Absolute Emperours and that their Edicts made a change of the Law by which such Religion was established why then doth he speaking of these absolute Emperours distinguish the will of the Prince from the Law and think to satifie us by telling us Religion then was no part of the Law when with one breath they could make any thing Law and by another reverse it according to this Authors acknowledgement of their absoutenesse Secondly Nor will this exception satisie him that shall enquire concerning this Government 1. Whether the first Parliament in Q. Elizabeths Raigne might have resisted her endeavouring to change the then established Popish Religion Had those Popish Lords and Commons which Q. Mary left beene pleased to hold to that Religion which was then part of our Nationall Law they might have taken the Armes of the Kingdome and have used them in the defence of it by the Rule of this Authour and the pretences of the Armes now taken up I would very faine see how they will make this as cleare as the day 2. How can they be justified that did at first take Armes and doe still continue them as themselves sticke not to professe for the pulling downe of Episcopall Government that I may not say of the Church Liturgy and publique service too which is and alwaies hath been a part of the Law of this Nation So little can this Authour satisfie us in this first exception by saying Religion was then no part of the Law and therefore Christians might not resist but now it is part of our Nationall Law and therefore allowes the Resistance of these daies His other exception is they were Absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted He who reads Tacitus saith he cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince They were become the sworne vassals of an absolute Lord we the Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince pag. 59. Answ This is the Sword to cut the knot when it cannot be untied but the edge is easily taken off from it by enquiring whether those first Roman Emperours had de jure such absolute power and by considering whether the Apostle had any respect to such absolutenesse of their power in his reasons against resistance and lastly whether limitation of Power in the Soveraigne doth inferre power of resistance in the Subject 1. It cannot be cleared that those first Roman Emperours were so absolute de lure Legally by such consent and surrender of the People and Senate as is required to the estating them in such an absolute condition There seemes to be two Reasons inducing this opinion of their absolutenesse 1. Because they tooke upon them as absolute Lords That cannot be denyed indeed but it makes no right nay they crept into the power by degrees which argues they had it not by such consent as is pretended but got it by practice 2. Because of the Lex Regia which this man doth not mention but it is much spoken of to this purpose for thereby it is conceived that they were estated in such Absolute soveraignty thus it runs as Vlpian gives it us A Law quâ populus ei Principi in eum omne suum imporium potestatem contulit Tit. de Constitut-Principis That there was such a Lex Regia cannot be denied but the Question is when it was made and what or how much is granted by iâ— This has caused severall opinions among the Civilians some thinking the people onely gave away their power making the Prince their perpetuall Tribune Some that the Senate also parted with their power Some that neither of them parted wholly with their power but communicated it so farre forth to the Prince in the administration of the Commonwealth that they still kept the Summum imperium in themselves This variety of opinion is unfit to make a certaine ground for Conscience or to give interpretation to the Apostle as if then be forbad Resistance because those Emperours were Absolute I conceive it to be cleare that the draught of that Lex Regia appeares no where before Vespasians time that the people had before parted with their power but the Senate not wholly therefore Augustus to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principate was granted for life as Srabo saiâ—h towards the end of his last booke tooke upon him as Tribune of the people and had it from ten yeeres to ten yeeres as Alâ—iate shewes in a little Tract de Magistratib Civilibus That the succeeding Emperours encroached by degrees upon the liberty and power of the Senate making their way by seare and flattery but had not that power which by fits they assumed from such a Covenant and Consent of the State as is required to make that Legem Regiam as Connanus shewes out of Dion Suetonius and Tacitus Also that the Emperours though they were for the more ready execution and ministration of the affaires of the Commonwealth solâ—ti Legibus which was first granted to Augustus yet did they perquamdiu magnam potestatis partem cum Senatu communicare as Hotoman shewes de Constitutionib Princip and cut of that power which the Senate did still conceive to be in them they declared Nero an Enemy to the State Adde to this that though we read not of Plebiscita after the beginning of these Emperours yet we meet with Senatus Consulta and of the power of the Senare in passing their Decrees â—acitus saith They did it sometime inscio absente Principe but never indeed invito against his will Suetonius also tells us that Caligula intended to assume the Diadeâ— which was a
people see above towards the end of the fifth Section that Limitation of the Monarchs power inferres not a power of Resistance in Subjects He addes to the same Reason If a Prince be taught that hee may take what he pleaseath from His Subjects without being resisted cases and reasons will soone be brought to perswade him c. pag. 53. Answ He is not taught he may Lawfully doe so but if Subjects be taught that they may lawfully take Armes upon such or such cases and take from their fellow Subjects what they please to maintaine those Armes pretences and cases will not be wanting as at this day In a word some must bee finally trusted when all is done and who may better challenge it then the Supreame Governour that stands next to God above the People as was said above in the fourth Reaâ—on and it were fit we should for the redresse of Evills in Government trust God and depend upon his providence more then these men would have us Hâ—s third Reason Eccause such power is due to a publicke State for its preservation as is due to a particular person pag. 55. Answ The Proposition is not universally true but is thus farre granted such power is due to a State for its preservation as is allowed by the just Lawes thereof for as the body Naturall defends it selfe from outward force by its Law so the body Politique by its Law Now though a particular person by the Law of nature has power of selfe preservaâ—ion against the force of another private person yet is this power yeelded up in regard of the Civill power by the benefit of which particular persons have protection from the injuries of all other and not to be used against persons indued with such power against such persons illegally and suddainly assuiting a man where tâ—e danger is imminent and unavoydable by flight there was no more allowed in my first Treatise then a meere personall dâ—fence by warding of blowes without returning any yet doth this Author complaine The Doctor is so heavie a friend to the State that he thinkes it not sit to allow it that Liberty he gives every private man pag. 55. As the Liberty which this Author allowes a State for its preservation tends rather to its suoversion so are there many differences between it and the Liberty or power allowed to private men For first That power of preservation which is allowed to a private man against a private man is against an our ward force but this which is challenged for the State is by a Civill contention of the body against the Head or of other part of thâ— body against the Head and another part of the body 2. That defence which was allowed against Ministers of Power in their unavoydable assaults was without all offâ—nee but this defence by Armies which is challenged for the State cannot be so 3. That power of defence is such as nature hath endued every particular man with and the law of the Society hath not forbidden so farre forth as was said to be used but this is such a power as no Law enables Subjects to a taking and using of the Sword without warrant as hath bin often shewn 4. Such neere personall defence is not destructive of Order but this by the civill contention of the Head and body is as at this day The Pleaders for Defensive Armes make a long reply to that which in my first Treaâ— was spoken concerning this personall defence the substance of it is First though the body naturall can doe nothing against or without the guidance of the Head yet the Body Politique can being a company of Reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their Head Pag. 14.15 Answ They are Reasonable men but as they make up the body politique the Law is their Reason and they cannot move or act further then it directs them nor can they divide themselves from the Head to which the Law joynes them nor of themselves performe the supreame Acts of Power belonging to the Head 2. It is granted the body Politique may defend it selfe against an outward force then suppose the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Kingdome may we resist Pag. 15. Answ I determine nothing of their supposition which I hope will never come to passe but they should have considered when the Doctor said the Body politicke defends it selfe against an outward force liâ—â—e as the body naturall doth hee did not take the body politick divided from the Head as it is in the civill Contention 3. The Doctor supposeth the Prince bent to subvert Religion Liberties Lowes what greater destruction of Order can be feared by such antention or resistance Pag. 15.16 Answ What was meant by that supposition hath bin often explained the Prince bent or seduced to subvert i. e. doing many acts arbitrarily which of themselves tend to subversion but indeed the Frame of Government Laws cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses It may happen that actuall invasions may be made upon them and it is plain that such had better be borne with and other lawfull and reasonable remedies sought then to endeavour a forcible redresse by a Civill Contention for under such actuall invasions of the Subjects Rights nay under the greatest Tyranny there is more Order Law and Justice then under such civill discords and Warres as was fully evinced above by the 7. and 8. Reasons The fourth Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy is grounded upon that false supposall of the two Houses being joyned with the King in the very Soveraigne Power pag. 55. which was at large examined above His last reason is from the Power of inferiour Courts where the Judge it to proceed to the Censure and punishment of the Malefactor notwithstanding the Kings Warrant to the contrary much rather may the assaults of pâ—tvate men be resisted by the Parliament pag. 56. Answ The Aâ—gument from the processe of inferiour Courts to sentence and punishment or from the Parliaments power to resist and commit such private men assaulting them is altogether inconsequent to prove their power to raise Armies and by them to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne which is the resistance supposed in the Question and condemned as unwarrantable by al that hath hitherto bin spoken from the Constitution of this Governement from Scripture and from Reason And all this that hath bin spoken hitherto belongs to the Resolution of the first Question That it is not lawfull for Subjects upon the supposed Caâ—e of the Princes subvâ—rsive Exorbitances to take Armes and resist as at this day The other should follow that the Case supposed is not now or That they have no those Causes for their Armes which they pretend But of this there hath bin so much said in so many Declarations and Bookes written to informe the world aright that I need not be any longer troublesome onely I would desire the Reader upon their pretending the defence of the established Religion and Lawes by these Armes to consider First that they cannot say another Religion is commanded or enforced upon them only they will say they fear a change I would to God that all offences which the liberty of these unsetled times has produced were taken out of the way but was there ever any before these Times so desperare as to maintaine Subjects might fight against their Soveraigne for a Religion they freely enjoy only because they fear a prevailing of the Contrary And if the Reader doe consider that this Army which pretends the defence of the Established Religion besides some Trâ—â—â—es of Forreiners and Papists and some Bands of unwilling Prest-men has its chiefe strength from the prevalency of such Sects as are condemned by Lawes of this Land he may well cry out in the words of the Homily above cited What Religion is it that such men would by such meanes maintaine A franticke Religion needes such furious Maintenances as is Rebellion II. They cannot but say that the continuance of the established Religion and of the Governement of Church and State together with a just Reformation of all abuses has bin offered promised protested for by their Soveraigne â— but this will not content them unlesse the established Liturgy may be abolished the Governement of the Church by Bishops which has alwayes bin may be no more and the Power which by Law is his Majesties put into their hands And because these are not granted their Armes are continued and for the mainteining of them the Liberty and Property of their fellow Subjects is invaded So that if the Question bee put who are those misimployed fellovv Subjects that these men pretend to fight against It is plaine they are such as defend their Soveraignes Povver and Rights the Established Religion and Governement of this Church and State their ovvne property and Liberty in a vvord such as vvill not change their Soveraigne or the Established Frame of Government The God of povver and Wisedome cast out all Councels and defeat all designes that are against the restoring of our peace and the continuance of the true Reformed Religion Amen FINIS