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
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
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
pleases him hâ— could have preserved David from Sauls fury as he did Eliah from Abâ—bs which was after a more private way but he thought more fit to let David be strengthned by the accession of much people as a praeludium to their falling off from the house of Saul into him Lastly if this way of preservation by bends of armed men were ordinary as these men will make it then may one single Subject as David was draw armed men together be Captaine over them and lead them up and down for his owne their preservation that do adhere unto him which if they will not a low then must there be in Davids example something more then ordinary And here I must challenge not onely the Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy who cals it a shuffling Answer to say Davids example was extraordinary pag 5.7 but also his Ingenuity who confesses that the people under the Israelitish Monarchy might not resist and had no other meâ—nes to helpe themselves but cryes to God pag. 58. and yet urges the example of Ionathans rescue of Davids raysing Forces of his intent to defend Keilab for the defending of armes taken up and used by Subjects in making resistance He deales with us herein as the Popish writers doe in the point of Invocation of Saints they acknowledge the Fathers of the Old Testament were not then in a condition to be invocated yet doe they alleadge Testimonies out of the old Testament for the proofe of that point to deceive the unwary Elishaâ—s example was altogether impertinent yet from thence occasion was taken to speak of Personall defence upon which these Pleaders maâ—e a long and tedâ—ous Reply page 14 15 16. The substance of which is delivered in the Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy makes for resistanceâ— and therefore because this Reply of theirs is no way strengthened by Elisha's example but is altogother rationall we will deferre the examination of what is materiall in it to the last Section To conclude It was a generall collection but yet a very forcible Argument against resistance that among so many Prophets bitterly reproving wicked Kings for subversion of Religion justice there was not one that celld upon the Eiders of the peâ—ple for this duty of making Resistance The Pleaders reply scarce like Reverend and learned Divines That in the times of good Kings we find the Princes Elders and Nobles very Corrupt who then can marvail if they were starke naught where the King was maught or why should it be expected that the Proâ—hets should call upon them to resist the King being on his side and beâ—on theirsâ— pag 20. Answ If it were the Duty of those Elders and Princes as these pleaders doe conceive it was with force to oppose the exorbitances of those Kings then was it the duty of those Prophets to admonish them of it and the more cause had the Prophets to recall them to it the further they were from it the desperate condition of such Princes and Elâ—ers might take away hope of prevailing could not excuse the Propheâ—s silence and neglect We conclude therefore that the Scriptures of the Old Testament doe not give any Warrant by precept or example for the Armes Resistance of Subjects now against their Soveraigne SECT VIII Of Resistance sorbidden in the 13. to the Romanes IN the new Testament that of the 13. to the Rom. is most considerable the ful examination of which wil also 〈◊〉 other places which may seeme to concerne the point in hand lest Servants and Subjects upon the doctrine of Christion Liberty should conclude themselves free from Masters and Goveâ—nors who then were cruell for the most part and Tyrannous the Apostle doth often call servants to a continuance of their obedience and here Subjects to the duty of subjection without Resistance as likewise S. Peter doth 1 Ep. cap. 2. The place is confiderable first in it selfe as it teaches the Institution and the End of Government by that the Power and Authority by this the duties of Governors are seen from both the duty of Subjects in yeelding Subjection and forbearing Resistance is inferred Secondly 〈◊〉 is considerable in relation to those times as it is applyable to the then governing powers and to the Christian Subjects to whom S Paul then wrote and thence we must conclude if we will think S Paul wrote pertinently and meant that those he wrote to should receive direction by what he commended to them that however the Governours then were not answerable to the End of government and were farre from the duties there specified yet had they the Power and Authority and those duties which are there enjoyned for the yeelding of Subjection and forbearing of resistance were to be performed by their Subjects then living under them The Reverend Divines have written such for the explication of this place to bring it to their puâ—pose and have in severall places of their book eâ—forced the same things upon the Reader to perswade or weary him What they have maâ—â—riall I shall examine First They observe that it is Higher Powers in the plurall not Higher Power as the Doctor say they usually had it and in this they suspect a great fraud Page 3. take it to be a dangerous fallacy in the present question as if the King only were not to be resisted page 9. when as we may not resist the meanest Officer not a Constable arresting us or distraining our goods ibid Answ A dang â—â—ous businesse I promise you and such an one as it concerned these Learned Divines to give the Reader so often warning of as they do but to answer theâ— once for all The Higher power in the Singular was commonly used not in alleadging the Text as if it were so in the Apostle but in the applying of it to the present case which laying the Hypothesis or Question between the powers themselves in this poynt of Resistance or Armer might very well allow the King to be deciphered by the Higher power or the Supream in relation or opposition to other Governours under Him although they also be Higher powers in respect of the people under them and not to be resisted by their inferiours It is but what themselves have expressed in the same page 3. By Higher powers are meant All in Civill legall Authority which in Saint Peters phrase is of the King as supream or Governours for these are higher then the People though lower then the King the very same thing intended and spoken by me But these men when they have gotten a seeming advantage and thinke the People cannot see the vanity of it never know when to have done with it Secondly They obseive that it is Power in the abstract which notes the Authority wherewich the Person is invested and not the person in the Concrete lest that might be understood of his personal commands beyond or against his authority which the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using
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
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