The Wounded Conscience Cured, Section 3
Sect. III.
THe Doctor ſaith, That for the proving this power of reſiſtance there is much ſpeech uſed about the Fundamentals of this power; which becauſe they lye low and unſeen by vulgar eyes, being not written laws, the people are made to beleeve that they are ſuch as they that have the power to put new laws upon them, ſay they are.
Anſ. Herein he turnes the Metaphor of Fundamentalls too far, as if becauſe the fundamentals of a houſe cannot be ſeen, therefore the fundamentall laws cannot be ſeen; which are not therefore called Fundamentall, becauſe they ly under ground, but becauſe they are the moſt eſſentiall upon which all the reſt are built, as fundamentall points of Religion are moſt ſeen, and yet fundamentall.
Secondly, he ſayes, theſe fundamentals are not written lawes. The Parliament ſay they are, and produce ſeverall written lawes for what they do. The Doctor, and thoſe that are of his ſenſe, ſay they are not: who ſhould the people be ruled by in this caſe, but by the Parliament, ſeeing the Doctor himſelfe ſaith, none are ſo fit to judge of the lawes as they?
Then the Doctor ſaith, Thoſe that plead for this power of reſiſtance, lay the firſt ground worke of their Fundamentals thus; The power is originally in and from the people; and if when by election they have intruſted a Prince with a power, he will not diſcharge his truſt, then it falls to the people: or, as in this kingdome, to the two Houſes of Parliament, the repreſentative body of this Kingdome, to ſee to it: they may re-aſſume the power. This is the bottome of their fundamentals, as they are now diſcovered to the people.
Anſ. We diſtinguiſh, as he doth, the power abſtractively conſidered from the qualifications of that power, and the deſignation of a perſon to that power. The power abſtractively conſidered, is from God, not from the people: but the qualifications of that power, according to the divers waies of executing in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation of the perſon that is to worke under this power, is of man: And therefore the power it ſelfe we never offer to take out of Gods hand, but leave it where we found it. But if the perſon intruſted with that power, ſhall not diſcharge his truſt, then indeed it falls to the people, or the repreſentative body of them to ſee to it; which they doe as an act of ſelfe-preſervation, not as an act of juriſdiction over their Prince. It is one thing for them to ſee to it, ſo as to preſerve themſelves for the preſent, and another thing ſo to re-aſſume the power, as to put the Prince from his office. As for example: Suppoſe there be a ſhip full of paſſengers at the ſea in the time of a ſtorme, which is in great danger to be caſt away through the negligence and fault of the Steerſ-man; the paſſengers may for their own preſent ſafety (that they may not be all caſt away) deſire the Steerſ-man to ſtand by, and cauſe another to ſtand at the Sterne for the preſent, though they doe not put the Steerſ-man out of his office. And this is our caſe: we doe not ſay that the Prince not diſcharging his truſt, the people and Parliament are ſo to re-aſſume the power, as if the Prince were to be put from his Office; which the (Doctor not diſtinguiſhing thus) would obtrude upon us, but only that the Prince being abuſed by thoſe that are about him, whereby the charge is neglected, the people, or repreſentative Body may ſo looke to it for the preſent, ſetting ſome at the ſterne till the ſtorme be over, leſt the whole ſuffer ſhip wracke. And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us, diſputing againſt us, as if we went about to depoſe our King, which we contend not for, nor from theſe principles can be collected.
Then the Doctor ſaith, That however the fundamentalls of this government are much talked of, this is according to th…n the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and governments; for they ſay power was every where from the people at firſt, and ſo this would ſerve no more for the power of reſiſtance in England, then in France or Turkey.
Anſ. If it be the fundamentall in all Kingdomes, and Governments, then it ſeemes it does not lye ſo low, and unſeen (as the Doctor ſaid before) becauſe all the world ſees it.
Secondly, whereas he ſaith, this will ſerve no more for power of reſiſtance in England, then in France or Turkey: he ſeemes to inſinuate that France and Turkey have no ſuch power of reſiſtance: but who doth not know that the Proteſtants in France are of this judgement with us and practiſe? witneſſe that buſineſſe of Rochell.
Then the Doctor ſaith, we will cleare up theſe two particulars, whether the power be ſo originally, & chiefly from the people as they would have it; Then whether they may upon juſt cauſes re-aſſume that power: and ſaith, firſt of the originall of power which they would have to be ſo from the people, as that it ſhall bee from God only by a permiſſive approbation.
Anſ. If the Doctor takes Power for Magiſtracie it ſelf, and ſufficiencie of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abſtractively conſidered, as diſtinguiſhed from the qualification of that power, according to the divers waies of executing it in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation thereof unto ſome perſon, then I do not beleeve there is any man in the Parliament (whom the Doctor eſpecially diſputes againſt) or of thoſe who write for them, that hold that the power is from the people, and by permiſſion and approbation onelyonly of God; neither can they: for in that they contend ſo much for the Parliament, it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abſtract is from God himſelfe: and for the deſignation of a perſon, or qualification of the power according to ſeverall forms of government; the Dr. himſelf grants it in this Section to be the invention of man, and by Gods permiſſive approbation.
Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments, That power as diſtinguiſhed from the qualification thereof, and deſignation, is of divine inſtitution.
Anſ. Wherein he might have ſaved his labour in thoſe three arguments, for none doth deny it: yet we will examine what he ſaith in the arguments: 1. he ſaith, that the Apoſtle ſpeakes expreſly, that the powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God, verſ. 2. by which power he underſtands the power it ſelfe of Magiſtracy as diſtinguiſhed from the qualifications thereof, or deſignation of any perſon thereto.
1. And if ſo, how is that true which he ſaith before, Section 2. where he ſaith, that the higher power in Paul, Rom 13. is all one with the King as ſupreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confeſſeth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power? ſo doth the Apoſtle himſelfe, calling it foreign, an humane conſtitution.
2. If by power here, Rom. 13. be underſtood Magiſtracie, and authority it ſelfe in the abſtract, then when we are commanded to ſubmit thereunto, the meaning cannot be that the Chriſtians in thoſe times, muſt ſubmit to the unlawfull commands of the Emperour, (as the Doctor would have it before) ſeeing the way of governing by an Emperour or Prince, is but the qualification of the power; ſurely if by power we are now to underſtand Magiſtracie and Authority it ſelfe in the abſtract, then all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to ſubmit thereunto, is to acknowledge a Magiſtracie, & then all the Doctors arguments, and his ſtrength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible reſiſtance to unlawfull commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground.
Then the Doctor tells us in the ſame argument, this power is called an ordinance of man ſubjective, wherein he la…es this diſtinction, That power is conſidered two waies, either as it is ſubjective amongſt men, and ſo it is foreign, or elſe as it is conſidered cauſaliter, and ſo it is foreign, of God.
Anſ. But this is too ſtrait, for it is called foreign, not only becauſe it is amongſt men, but it is foreign an humane conſtitution in foure reſpects, 1. becauſe it is ſo cauſaliter, the forme of ſeverall governments being an invention of man. 2. Subjective, becauſe it is amongſt men. 3. Objective, becauſe it is buſied about men. 4. Finaliter, becauſe it is ordained for man, and the Common-weale, yet power it ſelfe is the conſtitution and ordinance of God.
Then the Doctor proves, That the power is of God, becauſe the Magiſtrate is called the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13. verſ. 4.
Anſ. But here he ſlips from the power it ſelfe, to the perſon deſigned to the power: for the power it ſelfe is not called the Miniſter of God, which was the thing he undertooke for to prove.
And ſo in this third argument where he ſaith to the ſame purpoſe, ſpeak thoſe other places, By me Kings reigne, I have ſaid ye are Gods, yet he confeſſeth, that the formes of government by Kings and Emperours, is an invention of man in the firſt argument.
But now ſuppoſe the Doctor had proved that the power abſtractively conſidered, is of Gods inſtitution, and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation of the perſon thereto be of man, what hath he gotten from, or gain'd upon his imagin'd adverſary? For ſuppoſe that his adverſary ſhould ſay that they may depoſe their Prince, if he neglect his truſt (which is not our caſe) becauſe that his power is originally from them, how doth that which the Dr. hath ſaid, weaken this argument? For though he hath proved that the power of it ſelfe is from God, yet having granted that the formes of that government, and the deſignation of a perſon thereto, is from the people, they may as well urge and ſay therefore we may alter the government, and may depoſe the perſon becauſe he was of our deſigning, as well as they might have argued ſo, if the power it ſelf had been from themſelves.
Then the Doctor ſaith; The imputation is cauſleſſe which the pleaders on the other ſide doe heedleſſely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines, as if we cried up Monarchy, and that only government to be Jure Divino.
Anſ. To let paſſe reproaches, how can we thinke otherwiſe, if wee ſhould beleeve all that the Doctor ſaith? For he proves that the power mentioned, Rom. 13. is Jure Divino, and yet he ſaith, Sect. 2. That the …igher power there, is all one with the Supreme, or King in Peter: but this with …he nature of Monarchicall government, we ſhall come to conſider more …ptly in that which followes.
The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it …elfe is of God, that the qualification and deſignation was firſtly of man, which we all grant.