the word Power So they page 3. which is the ground-work of their distiâ—ction between Resisting the Personall Commands and resisting the power of the Governour but we shall see the Apostle gives no ground for it I suppose they have taken the hiâ—t of this their Cavil from Thâ—ophylact or rather from Chrysostom's words upon this place who 〈◊〉 the Apostles speech is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of particular Princes but of the thing it selfe i.e. of the Office which words are nothing to the meaning of these men for Chrysâ—stome observing that the Prince then governing were not such 〈◊〉 the Apostle describes v. 3.4.6 did therefore say the Apostle speaks of the Office not of them that bore it i.e. not of those individuall Persons then in power who were farre from the performance of those duties out if we look to the duty there required of Subjects in regard of Obedâ—ence and resistance it was never iâ— Saint Chrysostomes mind to think that the Apostle did not speake of that as due to the Persons then Göverning Well to let the Commentator goe let us looke into the Text where it plainly appears that it is the Apostles intent to shew the duty of Subjects and for that purpose he speaks of the power it selfe and of the Person that beares it that is from the power which he shews to be of God he enforces obedience to the Persons that are in power yea with respect to the Persons then governing For first Those words the powers that are doe plainly include the Persons because Power in the Abstract cannot bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent so as the Apostle speaks of it here making it the object of obedience Againe those that he calls Powers in the first verse he calls Rulers in the third and the Ministers of God in the fourth v. And thou shalt have praise of the power v. 3. What can Power in the Abstract give Praise or is tribute paid to the Power in the Abstract In a word The Power or Authority is the Reason why we yeeld Subjection and Obedience to any person but the Person that bears the Power is the Object of our Subjection and obedience and because he bears the Power and is set over us we must not resist him though he abuse the Power Their third observation or Conceit upon which their mâ—it Answer to this place depends and for which the Fuller Ausuerer has applauded them is the restraint of Subjection enjoyned here to Legall commands in Civill matters only their words are The things about which the Authority and so the subjection in this place is conversant are Civill matters belonging to the Second Table betweene Man and Man for then the Magistrates commanded not for but against Religion and the first table and therefore the Active subjection at least here required is limited to Civill Matters or at least passive yeelding to the pet nalty of the Lawes in case of not obeying actively and neither active nor passive subjection farther then to Legall Commands so pag. 4. Ans 1. How farre they extend those Civill matters to which they will have this Subjection here confined they have not distinctly skewen whether to things onely of indifferency determined by the Roman Lawes and belonging to the Second Table in regard of the generall end of it forasmuch as they were so determined for the more convenient proceeding of Justice and the better conserving of order and Peacâ—tor to thing also in themselves good or bad for it is certain the Roman Lawes also concerned these There are indeed that say by good workes in the 3. v. are not meant workes Mâ—rally but Civilly good which is very answerable to these mens reâ—traint whom it concerned to make the way they will goe in for Obedience as narrow as they can for that will leave the way for Resistance so much the Wider only I must returne the blame of carlesnesse which they would often cast upon mee upon themselves that making such a restraint they would not more distinctly fix the bounds of it 2. It is true that the Apostle enjoynes them Subjection here to all Legall Commands in Civill matters but it is not to be so restrained for put the case If they that were in Authority should command contrary to their owne Lawes in Morall things or contrary to Religion the first Table were Christians bound to obey for active obedience the poynt is cleare they were not bound but were they bound then to suffer for not obeying actively These Divines tell us the Subjection here enjoyned by the Apostle concernes onely Civill Matters a thing of which there was lesse doubt and so Christians are left altogether without direction in regard of the other Matteâ—s which more concerned them unlesse they will take the desperate Resolution these men give as we had it above Neither active or passive Subjection is here required farther then to Legall commands So then Christians according to these Divines were free and might resist when they had such commands imposed on them but can we think the Apostle should give them so lame an instruction as to teach them Subjection only in Civill Matters and leave them either without direction what to doe in the other cases or permit them to make the inference for resistance as these men doe contrary to the very practice of Saint Paul himselfe and all the Apostles and all the Christians of those primitive Times who did yeeld passive obedience under the illegall commands of the then governing Powers But they endeavour to prove it pag. 4. 5. from the context by the inference Whosoever therefore resists c. which is made say they from Gods ordaining the power and if I be bound to be subject to Tyranny or to suffer violence of a Tyrant by vertue of the commandement here then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God and Magistrates have power ordained of God to use Tyrannous violence pag. 4. Answ It followes of Active Subjection not Passive If I be bound actively to obey such commands of Tyranny then would it be truly inferred that Tyranny it selfe were the Ordinance of God but if I be bound only to suffer patiently under the illegall commands of Tyranny then doth it not follow that Tyranny is theordinance of God but that those Tyrants do beare the power ordained of God though abufing it sometimes for the just punishment of those they are set over by God I would also defire these Divines to consider how finely they teach private men to resist by arguing as they doe here If I be bound to be subject to Tyranny c. The like instances repeated over and over they have in the beginning of pag. 5. which are satisfied by the like Answer but they enquire a little after in the same pag. Seeing the Doctor will not say that the most pereusptory refusing to obey actively Tyrannous Commands is resistance by what authority of Text or Context will he stretch the prohibition to the refusing
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
endangered Religion and Liberties and now they thinke much it should be called in question or be made a Controversie It had beene happy for them if they could have carried the matter so clearly without being put to a Reply or if now being put to Answer they could make others the Incâ—ndiaries for the kindling of that fire which they have begun and fomented with seditious doctrines blowne over all the Kingdome Surely if the Divines and Lawyers that are of contrary judgement to them throughout the Kingdome had in good time declared themselves herein it would have given a seasonable and happy check to these seditious principles and to the unhappy Rebellion that has been raised thereon I for my part thought it concerned mee to examine a doctrine so much Preached and published and could not think it possible that Conscience should be truly satisfied in the Conclusion without being secured of the truth of both the Promises of which this seditious doctrine is the first That Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties when in danger of subversion for which as then I could see no warrant that Conscience might rest on no more can I now but doe finde it a Doctrine destitute of Scripture and true Reason as will be cleared in the processe of this book For First Upon the examination of places of Scripture it wil appeare that Gods People were continually under such Kings against whom they might not resist and that Gods word as it affords us no precept so nor any just example for resistance but much every way against it Secondly Upon the Examination of Reason it will appeare how inconsistent such a power of resistance in Subjects is with Government and that which seemes to be the reason of the Wisdome of God putting his people under Kings without any power of Resistance moe inconveniences and mischiefes would follow upon such a power placed in the People then if they were left without it I must needs say it doth at first sight seeme unreasonable that Subjects should be left without this Remedy and I confesse my owne thoughts according to that naturall inclination wee all have to Liberty have been heretofore ready to suggest as much till seeking warrant for conscience from Gods word I could meet with none but found Reason presently checked with that saying of our Saviour Mat. 10.25 It is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Master It is enough for us now if by the denial of Resistance and Armes we can be in no worse condition then our Saviour was and the Christians of the Primitive times and Gods people were ever in Likewise when I expect the Adversaries should bring expresse Scripture without which they professe not to attempt any thing of such moment for commanding or allowing this supposed Duty of Resistance I find them altogether failing and in their Answers to places of Scripture much disagreeing among themselves So that indeed all their faith and perswasion here is resolved into an appearance of Reason raised upon Aristotles grounds or Principles laid for the framing of a government and the meanes of restraining Tyranny Upon those grounds and Principles Buchanan and Iunius Brutus goe so farre as to the Deposing and taking away of an Exorbitant or Tyrannous Monarch The writers of these dayes though they will not seem to harbour such an intention and the Author of the Treatise of Monarchie doth expresly pronounce it unlawfull yet do they all agree to use what force they can against such a Monarch for the suppressing of his Tyrannie to give him battell in the field and make him accessary to his own death if he fall by their hand To cleare the way in the entrance of this Cause I am called by the Learned Divines and the Author of the treatise of Monarchie in the first place to consider the severall Cases of Resistance and the severall kinds of Governments and Monarchies SECT II. Cases of Resistance THe Reverend and Learned Divines who plead for Defensive Armes to shew what great paines they have taken for the satisfying or rather troubling of the Consciences of the people doe every where blame the Resolver as indiligent and carelesse First in the explication of the Question propounded that he undertaking to resolve Conscience about Resistance did not set down all possible Cases which they by laying their heads together have found out Then in the clearing of the 13. to the Rom. that he mainly insisting upon that place did not Analyse the Chapter as they have done by breaking it into so many pieces as if they had meant to draw out so many points to preach upon rather then arguments to dispute by My Answer is I did not intend that Treatise as a just Tractate of Resistance but as a Resolution of a particular Case and therefore did not undertake or endeavour to satisfie all doubts which every working braine that ha's strained it selfe to the disturbance of this State and people might raise concerning Resistance in generall but to resolve the Consciences of misled People in relation to the resistance now made Now because they must have things delivered in grosse to them if we meane they should apprehend them I did therefore think it sufficient first in the Explication of the Question to direct their thoughts upon the notorious Resistance then used viz. by setting up a Militia raising Armies every where and using them in Battell against His Majesty for unto that Resistance the Case propounded did relate as was intimated SECT I. and then in the clearing of the 13 to the Rom. it seemed sufficient to let the people understand That the King was the Higher or Supream power in this Kingdom that All under the higher power were forbidden to resist that Tyranny and persecution were not sufficient causes of Resistance which appeared upon the consideration of those times lastly that the prohibition of Resistance concerned all times because the Apostle's Reasons against it being drawn from the institution of the Power and the end or benefit of it are perpetuall and concerne all Governments These few necessary particulars deduced out of the Apostle I thought more fit to let the People understand then to puzzle them with many needlesse termes of analyse and division And now let us consider the Cases propounded by the Pleaders amonst them all that onely is pertinent which enquires whether the resisting of a Captain of the Souldiery having his commission from the King and comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men be a resisting of the King and so forbidden pag. 1. Ans They might easily have answered themselves who I know are perswaded that the resisting of Captains having Commission from the Houses and comming to plunder or take away the Estates of Malignants is a resisting of the Parliament but more to this case presently Onely let us consider their leading Cases first What if it be doubted say they whether
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