Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. The 8. Section concerning Reſiſtance forbidden, Rom. 13. anſwered.
NOw we are come to his principall ſtrength againſt Reſiſtance out Sect. 1 of Rom. 13. From whence nothing can be collected againſt any Reſiſtance, but that which is of the Powers, of the Ordinance: but that which I defend is of neither of them, therefore I have no cauſe to feare his inferences from that Text. Now ſuppoſing the truth which I have made good, that in a limited State the limitation is of the Power it ſelfe, and not only of the exerciſe; it followes evidently that in ſuch a State reſiſtance of deſtructive inſtruments, is neither of Power nor Gods Ordinance. I might therefore well omit that which at large here he ſpeakes of Reſiſtance of the Powers. The firſt part of the Section is ſpent in replying to the Exceptions of the Reverend Divines. The firſt thing I find which concernes me is, p. 77. I will therefore begin with him there. Where he accuſeth me that in my 59, 64, and 66. page of that Treatiſe, I grant they might not reſiſt in that Monarchy; but affirme that ſubjects may in this; and he brings me in giving two Reaſons for it. 1. Becauſe Religion was then no part of the Lawes, but here it is. 2. Becauſe that was an Abſolute Monarchy, this a Limited and mixed, p. 77. But may I not here challenge both the ingenuity and conſcience of this Replyer. Did I ever grant that Gods Ordinance of Power might be reſiſted here; or give any Reaſons for ſo unreaſonable an Aſſertion? It would be tedious to repeate here, what I have ſaid there. Let the Reader ſee; if he pleaſe. I will recite the ſumme. 1. The Doctor affirmed, that in the Apoſtles time the Senate of Rome might challenge more then our Parliaments can now, I denied it, and gave my reaſon, ſc. That State was then devolved into a Monarchy by Conqueſt, &c. of this the Doctor ſpeakes not a word, perhaps he is now aſhamed of that compariſon. 2. He ſaid, there was greater cauſe of Reſiſtance then, than now. I anſwered. There was then no cauſe at all: Not for Religion, being then, no part of the Law: Not Liberties; becauſe then that was paſt, the Government changed; and an Oath taken of abſolute ſubjection. Have I by theſe things granted a liberty of Reſiſtance of Gods Ordinance to this people; and deny it to thoſe? No; Neither They, nor We; not that enſlaved Senate; nor our free Parliaments, no cauſe, no priviledge can juſtifie this. Yea I aſcribe more to Gods Ordinance of Power, then He: He ſayes that in a limited ſtate we owe only paſſive ſubjection to exceeding commands of a Prince by promiſe limiting himſelfe in the uſe of his power. I ſay; though he ſin in exceeding ſuch promiſe; yet we owe him alſo Active obedience in ſuch commands which Gods Law forbids us not to be Active in. Neither doe I bring Doctor Bilſons teſtimony to prove that Religion was then no part of the Law, as he affirmes I doe, p. 77. but ſure he neither heeded what I had written, nor what himſelfe wrote. I laid down an Aſſertion that Gods Ordinance of which St Paul ſpeakes, is the Power and the Perſon of him which is ſupremely inveſted with that Power; and for this did I bring Dr Bilſon; who, explaining the Power there forbidden to be reſiſted, ſayes it is the Princes will not againſt his Lawes; but agreeing to his Lawes. Here he ſerves Dr Bilſon and other Divines, as before the King, and the Parliaments, teaches them a meaning contrary to their words: They meane ſuch ſtates as may by the knowne Laws uſe forceable reſtraint: No ſuch meaning of his words: He makes no diſtinction of ſtates; but expounds the Text in queſtion, ſpeaking of Gods Ordinance in generall, in all Rulers: He knowes it well enough; and therefore addes, They were willing to excuſe as much as might be thoſe motions of the Proteſtants in France and the Low-Countries; but had they lived now, they would have spoken more cautelouſly. That is, They ſpake raſhly, wronged the truth, and reached their conſciences to excuſe the commotions and rebellions of thoſe dayes. This is like a Doctor. But he likes the Homilie better then them all, that ſpeakes home, he ſayes; but what, he ſpeakes not, nor doe I anſwer. But he will try the force of this exception, becauſe I profeſſe, with Mr Burrowes, againſt Reſiſting of Authority though abuſed: And with Dr Bilſon, admit of reſiſting the Princes will againſt the Lawes: This is faſt and looſe, ſayes he. How ſo? In limited Monarchies, where the Prince hath no Authority beyond the Law: there an act beyond the Law is unauthoritative and meerely private; ſo that it is no abuſing of Authority; but an exceeding of Authority. Authority abuſed to undue acting of matters within its compaſſe, Mr Burrowes ſpeakes of, and that muſt not be reſiſted. But the Princes will acting againſt his Law, that is matters without the compaſſe of Authority is not Gods ordinance, ſayes Dr Bilſon, and ſo may be reſted in its inſtruments. I ſtill ſay, let him prove ſuch acts to proceed from Authority, I will diſclaime Reſiſtance of their inſtruments, either the meaneſt Constable in the Land, or Souldier in the army. But how cloudes he this truth which is cleare as the day? 1. In that Government under which the Apoſtle lived, men might not reſiſt, though the Powers commanded contrary to Law, as oft they did: Not under the Arrian Emperours, though religion was then a part of the law, p. 78. Anſwer, 1. Dr Abbot that learned Biſhop of Sarum was of another judgement; Demonſtrat. Antichrist, c. 7. In that Government he doth diſtinguiſh the Chriſtians carriage according to the diſtinction of times. At firſt before Religion was eſtabliſhed by Law, caedebantur, non caedebant, but after Conſtantines time when it was eſtabliſhed by Law. Caedebant, non caedebantur. 2. We may grant it in that Government, becauſe it was abſolute, and the Laws were to the Prince but morall limitations of exerciſe: And, as I have often acknowledged, Acts of the Princes will, exceeding ſuch limitation, are poteſtative, and muſt not be reſiſted: but it will not follow that therefore they are ſo, in governments where the Laws are limitations of the power it ſelfe, and exceeding acts are not poteſtative. Sure in thoſe times, as patient as the Chriſtians were, under their perſecutours, if their Religion and perſons had been aſſaulted without Authority, they would have made Reſiſtance: And this is all we affirme. 2. He makes two inquiries, 1. Whether the firſt Parliament in Qu. Elizabeths reigne might have reſiſted her endeavours to change the eſtabliſhed Religion? Anſwer, They had ſinned in withſtanding the introduction of truth, and the Abolition of Falſhood; yet civilly and legally they might have done it: and abrogate a Law without the States ſhe could not. But, bleſſed be God there was no ſuch oppoſition; but a joynt conſent of all three Legiſlative Powers. 2. How can the putting down of Epiſcopall Government, be now juſtified which ſtands by Law? Anſwer; It cannot, unleſſe there be a confluence of the conſent of all three; nor doe I believe it is intended without the Kings conſent, Unleſſe their conſtant doctrine and practiſe to overthrow the liberties and Government of this Kingdome into Arbitrarines doe prove them in all their ſort ſubverſive, and inconſiſtent with its ſafe being: Let therefore the Doctour and the reſt of them looke how they continue to maintain ſuch deſtructive Doctrins: for they will ſooner remove themſelves out of this Church, then the Subjects out of their ancient and juſt Liberties.
Sect 2 At length let us ſee what he ſayes againſt the abſolute condition of the Romane Emperours. His other exception is, they were abſolute Monarches, and therefore not to be reſisted, p. 79. Anſ. He doth me manifeſt injury: See my Treatiſe, I no where ſo argue; nor have I any need; for I equally affirm it of limited, as of abſolute power, that they ought not to be reſiſted; for they are equally Gods Ordinance, wch extends to the powers that are: Neither have I any need of that diſtinction to ſatisfie the Apoſtles Text: I aſſerted not the abſoluteneſſe of the Imperiall authoritie for any ſuch reaſon: but againſt his falſe affirmation, That that Senate in St Pauls time, might challenge more then our great Councell can now. Here is apparent il dealing. But what can he oppoſe to what I ſaid about the abſolutenes of thoſe Roman Emperours? 1. It cannot be cleared that they were de jure abſolute. An. Yes, it can; according to the Doctors own grounds; for, 1. There was a full Conqueſt made by Julius Caeſar in that fatall battell againſt Pompey not only of him;Seneca. cō ſol ad Marciam. but in and with him, of the whole Senate, for in eo prima acies ſenatus fuit, ſays Seneca. And the ſtrugling remainders of the free Senate were again vanquiſhed in that battle of Octavius againſt Caſſius and Brutus. From that time all being proſtrate to his Will. 2. There was a ſubmiſſion to an Abſolute yoake. Romae ruere in ſervitium Conſules, Annal. l. 1. ſ ….Patres, Eques, ſays Tacitus: yea the Senate was ſo forward to it, that Tiberius was wont to ſay, as oft as he went out of the Court,Ib. l. 3 ſ 11 O homines ad ſervitutem natos! 3. There was alſo an eſtabliſhment of this ſubjection by an Oath: for the Senate and Armies were brought under the ſame bond; and all this before St Pauls converſion. That which he brings out of latter Authours, p. 80. of the Lex regia, quâ populus principi omne ſuum imperium & potestatem contulit: and his conjectures of it's not being before Veſpaſians time, is not worth a looking into: It was a formall complement of flattery to give that to him in words, which he had in power and Ʋſe ſo many yeares before. Alſo that of their forbearing the Diadem and Title of King, being contented only with that of Prince, was but the putting on a ſilken vaile upon a rough government. VnderUnder that ſmooth Title the people and Senate were held as much under, as the grand ſeigneur or Perſian now hold their Vaſſals. But they did perquam aiu magnam poteſtatis partem cum ſenatu communicare, p. 80. They did ſo; 'Twas their indulgence, or rather policie to impart it. It is affirmed, not by uncertaine Collections of late Authours; but by Tacitus, who is inſtar omneum in this buſineſſe;Annal. l. 1. ſ. 1. l. 3. ſ. 10. of Auguſtus the firſt and beſt of them all, Poſito Triumviri nomine, conſulem ſe ferens, inſurgere paulatim, munia Magiſtratuum, ſenatus, Legum inſe trahere; and of Tiberius, that imaginem antiquitatis ſenatui praebebat. They conveyed their will through the old channell of the Senate, that it might reliſh the better with the people; yet at pleaſure did what they liſted, by them, and againſt them. 2. He ſayes, The Apoſtle in his reaſon againſt Reſistance hath no respect to the abſolute or limited condition of thoſe Roman Emperours. Nor doe I ſay, he hath: the Reaſon he urgeth is the Ordinance of God, which is true without diſtinction of the whole latitude of Power. 3. A limited condition doth no more inferre a lawfullneſſe of reſistance for exorbitances, then an Abſolute, p. 82. I ſay not, that it doth; no condition can inferre a lawfulneſſe of Reſiſtance of the Power, though abuſed; but here is the priviledge of a people under a limited Monarch, his exceeding Acts are not abuſes of Power; but ſimply non poteſtative; and therefore their Agents may be reſiſted, without reſiſting the power; which is not ſo in an abſolute Rule; if there were no priviledge, why did men trouble themſelves in conſtituting Limitations, and Mixtures in a State: In a word, unleſſe he can prove Power in all Limited States, to be illimited: and all the Acts of will in the ſupreme to flow from Gods Ordinance: He labours in vain from that text, or any elſe to conclude againſt Reſiſtance of ſubverſive Inſtruments in a mixed Government.