Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. An Anſwer to the firſt Section of his Reply.
THE firſt Section containes his Preface, where p. 2. He Sect. 1 taxes me, that I looke not with a ſingle eye on what he hath written, miſconſtruing it many times: but whether I have ſo done or no, it will be manifeſt in the ſequell. Then more then once, he cenſures me for being engaged. What engagements I have, appeares before in my Preface: But, I ſet up my rest upon a groundleſſe fancie of ſuch a mixture and conſtitution of this Monarchy, &c. Whoſe ſuppoſals are groundleſſe fancies, his or mine, I doubt not will fully appeare in this enſuing diſcourſe. Neither had I any other purpoſe to which I have fitted that Treatiſe then the ſimple finding out of truth, God knowes how ever the Doctor pleaſeth to cenſure the purpoſes of my heart, Viewing this Reſolvers diſcourſe, for the ſatisfaction of my conſcience, I found it confuſed, and not approaching the Caſe which now troubles the world: Men enquire about the Lawfulneſſe of Reſiſtance of Inſtruments: He anſwers concerning Reſiſtance of the King: Men demand, Whether Reſiſtance of ſubverſive Inſtruments be the Reſiſtance of Gods Ordidinance forbidden, Rom. 13. He ſuppoſeth that which is the Queſtion; and makes that the ground of his Reſolve which is the ſole thing at which the conſcience ſcruples. This put me on a Diſcourſe of Monarchy, that ſo by a diſtinct conſidering of the grounds of true Policie, I might both ſatisfie my ſelfe and others: and not ſuffer mens conſciences, ſeriouſly deſiring found information to be either puzled or miſled by ſo confuſe and indirect a Reſolution. Yet ſomething there is which he likes in me, that is, as much as ſerves his own turne. I doe with much ingenuity diſclaime, and with no leſſe reaſon confute ſeverall Aſſertions of other writers, &c. in p. 2. Would he could as well have ſeen my confutation of his, as of other errours: What I have ſaid againſt him, as it proceeds from the ſame impartiall ſpirit, ſo it containes the ſame truth; as, I doubt not, the judicious Reader will diſcerne. But yet I hold the ground on which their Abſurd aſſertions are raiſed, ſc. that the Mixture is in the Supremacie of Power, only I give the King, apicem poteſtatis, the top or excellency of Power, that is, the King is the crown or top of the head, &c. Thus is he pleaſed to jeere me, but how juſtly, it will hereafter appeare. And wheras I place the Authority of determining the laſt controverſies in a mixt Government, not in the two Houſes, this he commends in me: but that I doe not aſcribe it to the King; This he exclaimes againſt, as a ready way to confuſion, but why, and how it is ſo, he tells us not; only promiſeth to ſpeake of it more below, but where that below is, I cannot find.
Sect. 2 After he hath thus touched upon thoſe things which he is pleaſed to tax in my Treatiſe. He proceeds, p. 4. to ſhew us what his intent was of firſt undertaking and now proceeding in this Argument. Well: let us heare what it was. The intent of his firſt Treatiſe was to reſolve the Conſciences of miſled people, touching the unlawfulneſſe of Armes now taken up againſt the King. He erres in his propoſing of the very Caſe. I believe he knowes no conſcience miſled touching this matter: The Caſe which he ſhould have reſolved, if he had done any thing, was touching the unlawfulneſſe of Armes now taken up againſt ſubverting inſtruments of the Government of the Kingdome; and that the reſiſting of theſe is a Reſiſting of the King; No wonder if he who ſhootes at a wrong marke looſeth all his arrowes. This wrong propoſing and proſecuting of ſo weighty a caſe (which I doubt was purpoſely done) ſet me firſt on work in this buſineſſe. Heare then the caſe more ſimply propoſed: and I refer me to the conſciences of men, whether I come not neerer the truth of it, then this proponent hath done. The Houſes declare Religion and eſtabliſhed Government to be in apparent danger, by meanes of ſome ſubverſive Counſellours and Inſtruments about the King. This being ſuppoſed, they proceed according to Vote to the Ordinance and execution of the Militia, ſo to reſiſt and apprehend thoſe Counſellours and Inſtruments from whom they had declared the danger to ſpring. This put on the Doctor to his firſt booke, to reſolve the conſciences of men, that it was unlawfull: Now ſee what courſe he tels us he took to reſolve men in this caſe. He undertakes to make good two Aſſertions. 1. Were the King ſo ſeduced, it were not ſafe to beare part in the reſiſtance of Armes now uſed againſt him. 2. That the caſe is not ſo, as they ſuppoſe, but rather apparently contrary. In the proofe of theſe two, he ſpends his whole book. Concerning the latter I intend no controverſie with the Doctor: Would he could make it cleare to the ſatisfaction of the conſciences of all men; that were the way indeed not only to ſatisfie mens conſciences, but to calme the Kingdome into a bleſſed peace. But the Doctor is but ſlight in that part; and ſayes nothing, but what, as appeares in the Debate in the end of my Treatiſe, may ſoone be anſwered out of the Declarations of the Houſes, and the freſh memory of paſt occurrents: And in this reply he hath not ſo much as touched upon that Chapt. of my book: But that which in his firſt Tract he mainely, and in this Reply he ſolely labours to make good is the firſt Aſſertion, which is a univerſall one, and worthy to be examined in all Ages and Governments, whatſoever becomes of this preſent contention in this Kingdome. Now concerning that Theſis, in my Treatiſe of Monarchy I have affirmed and confirmed two things. 1. That if he could make it good, yet it were nothing to the buſineſſe he hath undertook; which is to ſatisfie the conſcience concerning the Unlawfulneſſe of Reſiſting Inſtruments, not the King, of which hee hath ſpoken very little or nothing at all. 2. That if he could prove that in ſome Kingdomes where the will of the King is the peoples Law, Reſiſtance of Inſtruments were unlawfull, if actuated by the Soveraignes will: Yet in Legall and Limited Governments, it doth not follow to be true: yet this he muſt make good, if in our preſent caſe he ſatisfie mens conſciences as he undertakes. Theſe two are the ſumme of my Anſwer to the Doctor in that Treatiſe, and if in this Reply he doth any thing, he muſt ſpeake to theſe points. Something he hath here ſpoken concerning the Ordinance of God in Supremacy, Of Caſes of Reſiſtance; of Kinds of Monarchy, of the Conſtitution of this Monarchy; but how truly and ſatisfactorily, it is my part to examine, and let the world judge.
But as if he had already cleared the matter, he proceeds to give ſentence before the cauſe be heard: And doubts not to call the contrary Reſolution a Blaſpheming of God and the King, p 4. I anſwer, If there be any which will defend the lawfulneſſe of taking Armes againſt the King, and in any caſe to reſiſt the Powers, They croſſe the evident truth of Scripture, and I condemne them: Yet me thinks the Doctor deales ſomewhat ſeverely with them, to call them Blaſphemers of God, for every errour about the word is not Blaſphemie; but a wilfull and obſtinate ſpeaking evill of the things of God. Likewiſe concerning a King, if it be true that he be ſeduced; then it is no blasphemie, which alwayes is a falſhood. If it be falſe, yet it is inhumane to call it a blaſpheming, when it imputes nothing to him, but to be ſeduced, which the beſt and moſt innocent Prince may be; ſure, if it be a blaſpheming, it is of the Counſellours and ſeducers, for to them the evill is imputed.
Then p. 6. He comes to ſpeake of what he intends in this preſent booke: ſc. that he will cleare this point, That the Doctrine teaching that ſubjects may take Armes againſt their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties, when in danger of ſubverſion, is destitute of Scripture and true reaſon. As I ſaid, ſtill he drives at a vaine ſcope; to prove that which none denies: Let him prove, that in our Kingdome, Reſiſtance of ſubverſive inſtruments is a taking Armes againſt their Soveraigne, and he does the work; elſe he proves in vaine. But let us ſee how in the proceſſe of this booke, that will be cleared which none doth deny. Firſt upon examination of places of Scripture it will appeare, that Gods people were continually under Kings which they might not reſiſt, &c. What then? muſt it needs follow, that all other people muſt too? But whether the word containes any thing againſt Reſiſtance, and how far, we ſhall enquire in the proceſſe of this diſpute. Secondly, Ʋpon the examination of Reaſon, it will appeare how inconſiſtent ſuch a Power of Reſiſtance in ſubjects is with Government, &c. Indeed he will make appeare a great matter; would he would ſpeake ſomething to the Queſtion, and not proceed ſo indiſtinctly; I hope in the proceſſe of his book he will come neerer to the buſineſſe then here he promiſeth, or elſe all our labour will be to little purpoſe.
After he hath told us what great matters we are to expect in his Sect. 3 booke; he complaines how much his expectation hath been deceived by his Adverſaries. He confeſſes, They have great appearance of Reaſon raiſed on Ariſtotles grounds or principles; ſo that at first ſight it ſeemed unreaſonable that ſubjects ſhould be left without this remedy. If he ſpeake all this of Reſiſtance of their ſoveraigne, ſure it ſeemes not at all unreaſonable, but agreeable to all reaſon that ſubjects ſhould be without this remedy: It is directly againſt the word and all ſound reaſon, that a people lifting up a Perſon above themſelves, and by ſacred Covenant giving him a Power above themſelves, ſhould afterward on any pretence aſſume a power of Reſiſting that Perſon and power, and violate their own Covenant and Oath of due ſubjection. But if that Perſon be inveſted with a limited Power: and he proceed to acts of meere arbitrarineſſe without the limits of that Power conferred on him: Then it is all the reaſon in the world, that the Limiting States ſhould exerciſe an effectuall reſtraining Power by reſiſting inſtruments of ſuch arbitrary and ſubverſive acts, and we have not a ſillable of Scripture contradicting it. But if it ſeemed ſo unreaſonable to the Doctor, that ſubjects ſhould be without this remedy; why doth he contradict Reaſon in a buſineſſe within its compaſſe? He tells you, He found Reaſon preſently checked with that ſaying of our Saviour, Mat. 10.25. It is enough for the Diſciple that he be as his Maſter. And was this all the check. your Reaſon had? It is a very weake Reaſon which would yeeld to ſuch a check. What? is every Chriſtian bound for his outward ſtate to be in no better caſe then Chriſt was? If he were pleaſed to be borne under an abſolute Government, to be of low and poore condition, doth this impoſe a neceſſity on all to be no freer, no richer then he was? A man would think his Reaſon were not only checked, but broken, which ſhould ſo argue. Let it be proved that by the providence of God we are brought forth under ſuch a Governement as our Maſter was, then will we hold our ſelves bound by his example, to abide quietly in that condition we are borne to; but if God, as he hath diſpenſed to many a richer eſtate then Chriſt was pleaſed to have, ſo hath to us a freer Government; then the Apoſtle adviſeth us to uſe it rather, and not to be trifled out of it, by a ſhew of our Maſters example, in a caſe in which it binds no man.
But in what hath his Adverſaries ſo much deceived his expectation? He expected expreſſe Scripture, but he finds them altogether fayling; only their faith aad perſwaſion is reſolved into an appearance of reaſon raiſed upon Ariſtotles grounds and principles, p. 6. Mr Hooker might have taught him that the intent of the Scripture is to deliver us credenda; but in matters within the compaſſe of Reaſon, it is enough if we have evident reaſon for it, Scriptura non contradicente: and I am confident the Scripture hath not a tittle againſt ſuch a Reſiſtence as I doe maintaine; and we have reaſon enough for it. The Scripture was not given to preſcribe frames of Policie, which are various according to the diſpoſition of people; Generall Rules there are for Government, which being obſerved, Particulars, which fall under no ſetled Rule, are left to reaſon and the poſitive Lawes of Nations to determine. Yet we are not wholy deſtitute of warrant from Scripture, as the Doctor affirmes, but are better furniſhed then he, as it will appeare in the ſequell. If Buchanan, and Junius Brutus, or any elſe have raiſed any doctrines on Ariſtotles grounds which will not conſiſt with Gods Ordinance ſet downe in Scripture concerning Authority, I am not bound to make good other mens exceſſes: This Replier knowes, that as I repudiate his Aſſertions tending to the ruine of all Liberties of States: So I hold it unlawfull to uſe any force againſt the perſon, or Authority of the Supreame, even in the moſt Legall and limited Monarchy. Therefore he doth me exceeding wrong in the cloſe of his firſt Section, to ſay, that, I agree with the rest to uſe what force they can againſt ſuch a Monarch for ſuppreſſing of his tyranny, &c. All I ſay is, that Force may be uſed; but neither againſt the Perſon nor Authority of the Monarch, which in all Governments of that nature are to be held ſacred and inviolate.