Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. An anſwer to the ſecond Section concerning Caſes of Reſiſtence.
I Could have wiſhed, that if it had pleaſed this Doctor to reply any thing, he would have followed the ſteps of my Treatiſe; but ſith he intends no full returne, but doth only catch at here and there a paſſage, without obſerving any order, I will frame my Anſwer to the courſe of his Reply; and cleare the parcels of my book as I find them aſſaulted in my reading of his. The Title of this Section being Caſes of Reſiſtence, the firſt part of it is ſpent about ſuch Caſes as are put by the Divines who plead for Defenſive armes. At length, p. 9, 10. He comes to the alone Caſe in which I defend Reſiſtence, in the p. 51. of my Tract, where I put the Queſtion of Perſons miſimployed to ſerve the illegall deſtructive commands of the Prince. And I affirm in ſuch caſe, and of ſuch Perſons Forceable Reſiſtance to be lawfull by the two Eſtates of Parliament. This I prove by five Arguments, which here the Doctor doth not touch, but referres them to the p. 93. of this Reply. Only here he gives us a Magiſteriall determination without any proofe at all. But let us heare his Reſolution upon the caſe. He dares not openly to pronounce it unlawfull: but diſtinguiſhes of Perſons and Times, as if he would yeeld it lawfull in ſome, but not in others; Certes, if for any, then for the two Estates; if any, then Inſtruments of ſubverſion: if ſimply none, why doth he with ſo great cautele diſtinguiſh. Well, audiamus diſtinguentem: If by thoſe miſimployed perſons be underſtood the Commanders and Souldiers of the Kings Armies, I cannot ſee (nor any man els, I think) but that the reſiſting of them by a contrary Militia, is a reſiſting of the King, and unlawfull, p. 9. I anſwer, I cannot ſee, nor any man elſe, I think, why Commanders and Souldiers ſhould have a priviledge of ſubverting States and Governments more then other men: Can the Royall Power extend to give them an irreſiſtibility, and not to others? Certes, if others may be reſiſted, much rather Commanders and Souldiers, becauſe there is greater danger of ſubverſion from them then from others: Their being Commanders and Souldiers makes them more dangerous, but not more priviledged: But, he nor none elſe can ſee, how ſuch can be reſiſted, but it muſt be a reſisting of the King, and unlawfull. Perhaps he is miſtaken in others, they may have clearer eyes then he hath: In the p. 52. of my Treatiſe, I have made it luce clarius, that in a Legall Monarchy it is not a Reſiſting of the King. Then he proceedeth to another ſort of men which I hope may be reſiſted. But if by thoſe miſimployed perſons be underſtood other inſtruments of oppreſſion in times of peace, before it come to Armes. What of theſe, may ſuch be reſiſted? Here he reſolves very cautelouſly and timorouſly, after many words, p. 10. without prejudice to other aſſertions of his of other reſiſtance, He conceives it not unreaſonable to ſay, Firſt, if private men be ſodainely aſſaulted, and life imminently endangered, and no meanes of avoiding by flight, then is perſonall defence lawfull, for ſuch ſodaine aſſault carries no pretence of authority with it. What is this to the matter? we enquire not of reſiſting aſſailants carrying no pretence of authority with them; but of ſubverters of Government warranted by the Kings will; and carrying pretence of Authority, though they have none. Secondly, If they come with pretence of Authority, there may be ſeeking redreſſement above from Authority, but if that may not be had, yet no reſiſtance. And who then minding to kill or rob, may not make a pretence of Authority, that ſo he may effect his miſchiefe without repugnance? But yet the Doctor will give us a little more, The Ministers of Power in each County, and the Houſes of Parliament alſo (for with him they be equall) may at firſt ſtay, reſtraine, and commit ſuch miſimployed inſtruments, and ſo repreſent the matter againe to the King. But is not this to reſiſt them? No; he tells us, this is not to reſist. No? if miſimployed inſtruments may be staid, reſtrained, and impriſoned, ſure they may be reſiſted: Elſe what if they ſhould chooſe, and will not be committed; The Parliament muſt not lay hands on them to compell them; for ſo there may chance to be fight, and ſlaughter in the apprehenſion; and then the Doctor would call it Reſiſtance I think. But ſuppoſe the Houſes of Parliament doe commit ſuch perſons and repreſent the matter to the King, and a King ſhould be ſo obſtinate as to perſiſt in the maintenance of thoſe illegall courſes, and to that end imploy the Militia, it is neither Legall nor Reaſonable, they ſhould purſue the oppoſition to the ſetting up of a contrary Militia or Power, p. 11. Here we ſee the upſhot of the Engliſh freedome, and priviledge of Parliament. This is that which I ſaid; Thoſe men overturne all liberties, The reſult of their doctrine deſtroyes all policies, reducing them all to that which is arbitrary: If the King ſhould ſet Souldiers to deſtroy Lawes and Parliaments, They may (if they be able) ſtay their hands till they goe to the King, and know whether it be indeed his will and pleaſure to have them deſtroyed or no; If he ſay, Yea; then they muſt returne and ſubmit to the vileſt inſtruments of ſubverſion, and not lift up a hand to reſiſt them. But let us ſee, on what weighty reaſon the Doctor builds this fatall Reſolution. This were a conteſtation of Power with him whoſe Miniſters they are, a levying of warre, an oppoſing of Armies against Armies. Sure this man doth much abhorre a Civill Warre: I cannot blame him: but yet we may buy an immunity too deare, at the prize of a ſubverſion of Religion, Laws and Government, which is the caſe in diſpute. This were to chooſe to be killed, rather then to ſight: To have a State ſubverted, rather then diſturbed by a warre to prevent it. I grant, There muſt be no conteſtation of Power with him whoſe Miniſters they are: But this is the point to be proved, that in this caſe, it is ſo: I utterly denie the Royall Power in our State can be communicated to ſubverting Inſtruments: And I doe in vaine expect, while the Doctor prooves that, which every where he ſuppoſeth: For he builds all on this foundation, ſc. That Gods Ordinance is an Abſolute unlimited Power, investing the whole will of the Supreame, and cannot be determined in the exerciſe, but onelyonly morally; the vanitie of which conceit will appeare hereafter, yet note here in the cloſe, that while he pretends a deteſtation of Civill Warre, he could doe nothing more to foment it, then by defending ſuch Poſitions of intolerable ſervitude: Did not ſuch rigid Counſellours of the King of Iſrael cauſe the greateſt Rent and Civill Warre that ever was made in any Kingdome?