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
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
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
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
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
signe of that Regia potestas and had been a profession that he would raigne absolutely nec multum abfuit quin speciem principatus in Regni formam converteret but he was disswaded from it by his friends faith that Historian During these Times the Apostles lived and wrote for I go not so low as Vespasian unto whom that Lex Regia seems to be solemnly granted by a formall consent and yet after that we find Pliny in his panegyricke tell the Emperour Trajan sedem Principis tenes ne sit Domixo locus which shews they had not resigned themselves up to the Emperour as sworne vassals to an Absolute Lord but had set a Prince over them for the readier dispatch of the affairs of the Common-wealth which often suffered and in those times more then ever by the crossings and Divisions of the People and Senate The forme of the Government was thereupon I acknowledge changed and the Supremacy setled upon the Prince yet may it I conceive from the former allegations be as well concluded that the Senate had their share in the Supremacy with the Prince till Vespasians time as that the two Houses are Originally Mixed or joyned with the King in the supreame or Soveraigne power which this Author undertakes to prove 2. It is to be considered that the Apostle in his reasons against resistance has no respect to the Absolute or Limited condition of those Roman Emperours nor to any consent or compact of the people by which they should be made such for then he might have told them If they resist they resist their owne Ordinances but draws his reasons from the Ordinance of God who sets up rulers and from the End and Benefits of Government which are Reasons common to all Government not to be eluded by saying Ours are limited Monarchs and therefore may be resisted for those reasons tell us that resistance against Him that beares the Sword i.e. against the Supreame power for that is signified by those words as Musculus and Bucer shew out of Vlpian is unlawfull in all governments 3. As the Apostle had no respect to the Absolutenesse of Power in those Emperours nor to the consent of the people by which they are said to have such power so neither indeed doth the limited condition of a Monarch inferre he may betesisted for his Exorbitancies more then an Absolute may for his whether we consider the Exorbitancies of an Absolute Mâ—narchy which may be destructive of the publique or look to the compact of the people by which he is left Absolute who did not thereby intend he should oppresse and destroy them or command and judge them beyond Reason and Equity as this Authour acknowledgeth pag. 11. But it was proved more largely above at the end of the 5. Sect. That limitednesse of power in the Soveraigne doth not inferre a power of Resistance in Subjects So that absolutenesse of power in those first Roman Emperours is causelesly alleaged by this Author as the reason why they might not be resisted This Authour concludes All that can be justly inferred out of the Text we grant but can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistance may be made to Fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall Acts of the Princes Will in a Legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the power and the person invested with the power but here force is offered to neither pag. 59. Answ The Question is not put of making no resistance to fellow Subjects but of such resistance as is made against them under the command of their Soveraigne by a contrary Army of Subjects a resistance that undertakes a finall contestation with the Soveraign to constrain him to be of another mind as it was explained above Sect. 2. Now if he meanes this Resistance cannot be collected out of the Text because it is made in a Legall Monarchy then is it the same exception which even now he made from the Absolutenesse of those Roman Monarchs but if he means it cannnot be collected because it is no resistance of Gods Ordinance from whence the Apostle drawes his reason against resisting then I say 1. That when Subjects are drawn into Armes by the Soveraign who has the power of the Sword and doe act and move under his command to make opposition by a contrary army of Subjects is a resisting of the power and a taking of the Sword without the Soveraigne against the Ordinance of God and a shedding of blood without warrant 2. This exception seemes to be the same which was made by the pleaders above where they objected If I be bound by the Ordinance of God to suffer violence of a Tyrant then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God This was answered above and is rejected by that Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet doth he in effect argue to the same purpose as we shall meet with him presently among the reasons of the next Section And thus much of the 13. to the Romaxs in the asserting of which it has been shewn against the Rev. Divines who pleaded for defensive Armes That forcible Resistance against the illegall and Tyrannous commands of the then ruling Emperours was here forbidden and That Christians had they had force sufficient might not resist Also against the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy That his exceptions from the Lawes being then against Religion and from the Absolutenesse of those Emperours were not sufficient to satisfie or make us believe that therefore the Apostle forbad them to be resisted for we find him to draw his reasons against Resistance from that which is common to all Times and Governments the Ordinance of God the end and benefit of Government There are many more places of Scripture usually brought which may very aptly and powerfully perswade patience under evill Governours but I have chosen to insist onely upon such as are more pregnant and fiâ— to beare argument against the power of Resistance in Subjects SECT IX Reason against the Power of Resistance in Subjects IT is cleare that as it has been often insinuated above if a Prince stands supreame and next under God above all the People His Subjects may not proceed to such Resistance by armed Forces as is supposed in the Question and at this day practised to the utmost It is also most manifest that our King is so being expresly acknowledged the onely Supreame Head and Governour and this might be sufficient Reason without more adoe to conclude against Resistance The adversaries not well knowing how to divide Supremacie and irresistibility have vainly endeavoured to joyne the Houses as sharers in the supream or Soveraigne power for which we had so much concerning Mixture above and doe think to satisfie that Supremacy they leave in the King by yeelding his person to be above the violence of Resistance but as for the Forces about his person the armes of the Kingdome may be imployed against them as