Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. His ninth Section Anſwered: the Reaſons againſt Reſiſtance ſatisfied: and thoſe for Reſiſtance vindicated.
WE are now come to his laſt Section: In examination of which Sect. 1 it will appeare that he hath as little Reaſon as Scripture aagainſt that Reſistance which I have aſſerted in my Treatiſe. Herein he doth two things. 1. Brings his Reaſons againſt Reſiſtance. 2. Endeavours to anſwer thoſe which I brought for it. But for more evident proceeding about both, we muſt diſtinctly call to mind the Queſtion, of what it is. 1. It is of Reſiſtance in this ſtate; that is, a ſtate which I have proved to be limited and mixed in the very power it ſelfe. 2. It is only of Reſiſtance of deſtructive Inſtruments: Therefore if his Reaſons doe not reach to ſuch a Reſiſtance, they are not to the purpoſe.
Now againſt Reſiſtance the Doctour brings no fewer then nine Reaſons; In his firſt booke he had only five, here he hath made up in number, what they wanted in weight. I will in few words anſwer them diſtinctly, for many need not. 1. His firſt is from the wiſdom of God putting his people under Kings, without power of Reſiſtance; this ſhould be to us inſtead of a moſt forceable Reaſon, p. 84. Anſw. Well it may be inſtead of one; but it is not one. For 1. It was their deſire to be under an Abſolute Government, as their neighbour Countries were; and they offended God in it, as Lyra obſerves; therefore he giving them ſuch a King as they deſired; did not in his wiſdome intend a binding forme for all people: I thinke the Doctour will not affirme he did. 2. If he meane Reſiſtance of their Prince his Authority and perſon, I grant they were ſo put under; and ſo are we, and all that are put under Monarches; but if he mean the Acts of the Princes will which were not Authoritative; I do denie it, and the former alledged inſtances prove they were not: and that is all I affirme in other Monarchies.
2. The word of God gives no direction for it. The Prophets call not on the Elders for it: The new Teſtament commends patience in ſuffering for well-doing, Anſw. 1. In Civill matters negative reaſonings from Scripture are not proving. 2. The word gives proving and imitable examples for it, as before: and indeed the Scripture doth every way juſtifie reſiſtance of cut-throats and private deſtructive Aſſaulters of Laws and Liberties, who have no Authority derived to them; and I defend no other.
3. The Apoſtle forbids Reſiſtance of the Powers, not from any compact of the people, but from the Ordinance of God. 'Tis true: for no compact of people could eſtabliſh an unreſiſtible Power without the Ordinance of God. I acknowledge the Apoſtles ground for it: and therefore allow no reſiſtance where there is Gods Ordinance to ſecure them, not for any abuſe.
4. To be ſupreme and next to God implies a ſecurity from Reſiſtance, p. 85. I grant all; His Perſon, his Power is hereby ſecured: I condemn all riſing up againſt the King: but inſtruments of ſubverſion, have nothing of the King in them: not his perſon nor Authoritie is riſen up againſt in them. For his conceits about jus Regis I have ſaid enough above. Neither doe I give to the Houſes the power of the Lacedemonian Ephori. They had an Authority over the very perſon of the King: which the Houſes claime not. I give them no more then Calvin doth to the three Eſtates in their generall meetings. The Doctor well knowes what I will anſwer him; which he ſeeks to evade, 1. By affirming that the Reſiſting of Inſtruments acting by his Power, which he hath committed to them, is a reſisting of him, p. 86. 'Tis true, it is ſo; but we ſpeake of inſtruments, which act not by his power, that is, his Authoritie; but by his will in a courſe exceeding the Limitation of his Authority. Could he prove that a limited Prince could commit Power to doe acts without the bounds of his Power, the Queſtion were anſwered, els he beggs it, but anſwers it not. 2. He would deſire me to look again upon the two Aſſertions of the Reverend Divines which I reject: He cannot conceive, how I can retaine my owne Aſſertion, and reject theirs. The Doctour hath a great mind to pick ſome contradiction in me; but ſtill failes in his endeavour. In good earneſt, doth he ſpeake really, when he ſayes, he cannot conceive, &c. Well, let us looke againe on the two Aſſertions which I reject in them. 1. Governours who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance diſturbe the quiet and godly life, are farre from being Gods Ordinance in ſo doing. 2. This tyrannie not being Gods Ordinance, they which reſiſt it even with armes, reſist not the Ordinance of God. Doe I defend any Aſſertions equivalent to theſe. Rather I aſſert in that Treatiſe, and here alſo the contrary. 1. Governours whither in abſolute or limited States, keeping within the meaſure of their power, may diſturbe the quiet and godly life, and yet be Gods Ordinance in that act, though croſſing the end of Gods Ordinance in it. 2. Powers though abuſed, yet being Gods Ordinance, they which reſiſt even in abuſive acts of it, reſiſt the Ordinance of God. Is here no difference? Cannot I retaine this Aſſertion, that exceeding Acts in limited Monarchie are not Gods Ordinance, and may in inſtruments be reſiſted: And yet reject theirs, who maintain reſiſtance of Governours themſelves, in all acts of abuſed power? He makes no difference between Acts exceeding bounds of power: and Acts of abuſed power: but of this more then enough before. 3. But he will anſwer more particularly, ſo he had need. What is it? He that beares the ſword, that is, has the ſupreme Power, gives Commiſſion to under-Miniſters for Juſtice; and to other Officers for the Militia: If therefore the Reſiſtance of thoſe though abuſing their Power, be a reſistance of the Power; ſo it is alſo of theſe. Anſw. I grant all: for it proceeds only of Miniſters abuſing Power committed to them: not of Exceſſes of Power. I will retort it. Like as if when the ſupreme gives Commiſſion of Juſtice to a Judge; and he exceeding unto Acts without the compaſſe of his Commiſſion is but a private man in thoſe Acts and may be reſiſted: ſo if Commiſſion of Armes be given to a Generall, &c.
5. Subjection is due to a Prince, and the contrary forbidden without diſtinction of a good and bad Prince. I grant it, and give the reaſon, becauſe they are Gods Ordinance: but the Queſtion is of inſtruments of exceeding Acts, in which they are not Gods Ordinance.
6. Good reaſon that he which hath the ſupreme Truſt, ſhould have the greateſt ſecuritie, p. 87. Anſw. It is ſo; and ſo we grant him: for he hath a full ſecurity from all violence for both Perſon and Authoritie, what ever exorbitance he breakes out unto. The people have not ſo: Every Subject being under the penalty of the Law for it's tranſgreſſions. But the Doctor forgets his Clients, He is not arguing for ſecuritie of Soveraignes; but Subiects, if they may be ſo called, which endeavour to ſubvert lawes and governments. But may we not alſo ſay, as it is good reaſon the ſupreme ſhould have the greateſt ſecuritie; ſo the people alſo ſhould have ſome ſecuritie; and not be expoſed like bruit beaſts to the ſavage luſts of every inſtrument of cruelty: having only this to comfort them, that they ſin in ſo doing? and ſo they doe, which with cruelty deſtroy even the bruit creatures.
7. From the end and benefits of Government, for the enioying of which, it is good reaſon we ſhould beare with the exorbitances. Still he ſpeakes good reaſon; but nothing to the purpoſe; for we diſpute not of exorbitances of them who have the power; but of them who have no power for what they doe. In exorbitances of leſſer nature, their will may ſecure inſtruments; but it is againſt reaſon that the benefits we have by their Government ſhould cauſe us to beare with them who would deſtroy their laws and government, for of ſuch is the Queſtion. I wonder here againe he brings Calvin, when he cannot but know that he is expreſſely for power of Reſiſtance in the Houſes: and no doubt P. Martyr, and the reſt follow Calvin in this.
8. Power of Reſiſtance in Subiects would be a remedie worſe then the diſeaſe, and more ſubverſive of a State, then if it wore left without it, p. 90. Why would it be ſo? It would be a continuall Seminary of jealouſies twixt Prince and people, and confuſion through the continuance of the miſchiefes of Warre. Concerning this Argument of his, ſee p. 60. of my Treatiſe, where it is fully ſatisfied. 1. Who will believe the power of Reſiſting deſtructive inſtruments, ſhould be more deſtructive, then to let them alone without Reſiſtance? 2. Suppoſe by abuſe of this power thoſe evils ſhould happen (for it ſo fals out to the beſt phyſicke, where the nocumentous humours are prevailing) yet this is but by accident: ſuch Power per ſe and of its owne nature tends to the preventing of ſubverſion. On the contrary by woefull experience, this Doctrine of the unreſiſtibleneſſe of ſuch men, hath nurſed up a brood of audacious projectours, and where it is taught, a ſtate will never be without them. Whereas, if the Truth were knowne it would refraine the ſpirits of wicked men from paracide and State ſubverſion. Neither can any thing be more miſchievous, then to teach an impunitie for projectours, and Agents of miſchiefe: and he hath not the reaſon of a man who argues otherwiſe. 3. Neither can this doctrine, as the Replier traduces it, extend to the depoſing of Princes, or the deminiſhing of their Authority, for it concernes only their Inſtruments, not their Perſons; their Abſolute, extra-legall Will; not their Authority. And for iealouſies, they will be more bred by that Doctrine which gives the Prince a Power to undoe the State, then by that which terminates both; and gives neither a power to ſubvert the other; Danger is the nurſe of jealouſie: that which takes away power of hurting takes away Danger; and ſo removes iealouſies: but indeed ſuch which have a plot of breaking up the hedge of Government, and bringing lawleſſe powers into a State, care not for having ſuch a Power in thoſe Houſes whom it would cauſe them to feare, and looke on with continuall jealouſies. The Homily of Rebellion is in vaine cited againſt that which is no rebellion.
9. The laſt and weakeſt of all is that of the hearts of Kings being in Gods hands, Prov 21.1. and that of Gods Covenant with David and his ſeed, 2 Chron. 6.16. & 7.17. How the Doctor can draw hence a concluſion againſt Reſiſtance of ſubverſive inſtruments, I cannot imagine. Sure if theſe Texts had any proving force in them, they had not been brought ſo late: Rather then place had been in the former Section, where in the cloſe he ſaies, He choſe onelyonly to inſiſt on thoſe Texts which are fit to beare argument but here he hath broke his word, yet he is excuſable, for he had no better.
Sect. 2 At length he comes to my Arguments brought for Reſiſtance. If they be not more concluding then his, would they had never ſeen the light, nor come to the eye of any judicious man. Let us ſee what he hath to ſay to them.
1. That Reſiſtance is lawfull which is no Reſiſtance of the Ordinance of God; but this of ſubverſive inſtruments is not, being neither of the Perſon nor Authority of the Prince. He ſayes, He hath propoſed and anſwered this above under his third and fourth Reaſons. And there I doubt not but the invaliditie of his Anſwer doth plainly appeare.
2. Without this Power of Reſiſtance all limitation of Government is vaine; and all formes reſolve into that which is arbitrary. He tels me, My Argument is inconſequent by my owne deſcription of Abſolute Monarchie: ſo that the reſtraint of a limited Monarch is Legall and Morall, not forceable and Military, p. 93. I anſwer, I deſcribe limited and Abſolute Monarchie not by Force; but the having or not having a bounds of Will; but how abſurd it is when the diſtinctive conceit in the definition of a limited Monarch, is a Law terminating his will to take it of a morall terminating, which is common to all, not only Monarches but men? Eſpecially ſith I explaine my ſelfe ſo fully afterwards, as I doe, there p. 7. in the three degrees of abſoluteneſſe. But I have above enough diſcovered the fraud and falſhood of his confounding of Legall and morall Limitation; and have prooved that to give a Limited Monarch only a morall Limitation, is to reſolve all into Abſolute and Arbitrary, for the moſt abſolute under heaven hath morall limitation.
3. Such Power is due to a publique State for its preſervation which is allowed to a particular perſon. He anſwers, this is not univerſally true. Why not? a State is more worthy, and comprehends a multitude of particular men: doth number detract from their priviledge? He would ſeeme to have reaſon for his deniall: A private man hath by the law of nature power of ſelfe-preſervation againſt the force of another private man; yet is this power yeelded up in regard of Civill Power, and not to be uſed againſt perſons indued with ſuch power, p. 94. 1. He ſtill ſpeakes Truth; but not to the Queſtion: which is not of perſons indued with civill power; but ſuch as we have proved to have no power; grant them endued with power, neither a particular man: or a whole Community muſt reſiſt them: but having none, it is much more allowable in a publique ſtate, then a particular perſon. 2. He ſpeakes of a power yeelded up, as if in all governments the people doe ſimply yeeld up all power of Reſiſtance into a full ſubjection unto all Acts of the Princes will: Whereas we have prooved, that in limited Governments it is not ſo: but to the Princes Will meaſured and regulated by a Law; and therefore they have that power ſtill, in reſpect of all inſtruments of acts of Will not ſo regulated.
But it is obſervable, that p 95. the Doctour is beaten off from his owne grounds, and yeelds up in the Cloſe of his booke a full Victory to Truth. Which will appeare if we looke backe to his firſt booke, and Sect. 1. where he propoſeth the Queſtion in his own termes, whither if a King be bent or ſeduced to ſubvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, Subjects may take up armes and reſiſt. He undertakes to maintaine the Negative; and here was the beginning of the controverſie. Now ſee in this Replie how he is ſunck and ſtollen off from that which he undertooke to defend; and upon the matter grants us the Cauſe. For, 1. By bent or ſeduced to ſubvert, he tels us, he means not a purpoſe of the mind, but doing many Acts arbitrarily tending to ſubuerſion; as if he would yeeld, that (ſuppoſing him bent, that is purpoſing and intending it in his mind and courſe) he might be reſiſted. 2. Nay, by [bent to ſubvert] he does not meane ſo much as Acts ſubverſive; but onelyonly Acts tending to ſubverſion of themſelves; for the frame of government and Lawes cannot be ſubverted without the conſent of the two Houſes. So that now the Queſtion is rather, Whither ſubverſion be poſſible by ſuch inſtruments; then whether their Reſiſtance be lawfull: Sure it were pitty to diſturbe them by Reſiſtance in an impoſſible worke: Let them run on rather till they ſee their owne vanity and folly: but ſuppoſe they ſhould bring it to paſſe; then it would be too late to come to this Doctor and tell him, he was deceived, and did deceive. Certainly thoſe great Polititians who have had this deſigne in managing ſo many yeares, are not of his mind. Yea, ſuppoſe it cannot be done without the conſent of the Houſes; yet the Doctour can tell us in another caſe, that where there is an unreſiſtible power, Conſent cannot long be wanting. What then; will he yeeld us a power of Reſiſtance, if we can proove ſuch a deſigne poſſible?
Here alſo becauſe the Doctor ſayes this liberty which I allow a State for its preſervation, tends rather to its ſubverſion, p. 94. and every where calumniates me as an inducer of confuſion, and Anarchie, and my Aſſertions as opening a way to Rebellion. It concernes me effectually to vindicate my ſelfe, and the truth which I maintaine from theſe aſperſions; and make it appeare that the power of Reſiſtance I defend is not a remedy worſe then the diſeaſe of ſubverſion. Which I can doe no better way, then by a poſitive ſetting downe the naked truth which I averre in this and the former Treatiſe; and ſhew how it ſhuts up every way to theſe evills which he layes uncharitably to my charge. 1. I aſſert no forceable Reſiſtance in any caſe but ſubverſive and extreme. 2. Subverſive and extreme caſes reſpect either particular men; or the whole ſtate and Government. For particular men even in extreme caſes of ſtate or life, I allow no publike Reſiſtance: but appeale if it may be had; or if not, yet no publike Reſiſtance: for whether the wrong be done him by inferiour or ſuperiour Magiſtrates, either it is, 1. Under forme and courſe of Law, and power committed them; and then to reſiſt, is to reſiſt the power. 2. Or without all forme and courſe of Law and power committed to them: and then a man values his ſtate and life too high, to make publike reſiſtance, and bring on the ſtate a generall diſturbance for his private good, and ſins, though not againſt Gods ordinance of Power, in this caſe, yet againſt the publike peace and weale. For the whole ſtate or government, and the laſt caſes of its ſubverſion, of which the Doctor puts the Queſtion. 1. I condemne all force uſed againſt the Perſon of the ſupreme, or his Power and Authority in any inferiour Miniſters thereof. 2. I averre not publike forceable reſiſtance of Miniſters of acts of will which are only actuall invaſions, or exceſſes of limitation; and not ſuch as plainly argue a bent of ſubverſion, and apparent danger thereof, if prevention be not uſed: ſo that the Doctor goes from the Queſtion, and comes home to me, when he ſayes here that he ſpeakes only of the former ſort. 3. I affirme not force in this utmoſt caſe to be aſſumed by private men againſt deſtructive inſtruments of the Princes will: as if any man were warranted on his own imagination of publike danger to raiſe forces for prevention. But the Courts of Juſtice, and eſpecially the ſupreme Court, to whom the conſervation of Government and Law is committed, and a Power not only to reſiſt, but alſo cenſure and puniſh its violaters, much more its ſubverters without regard of number or warrant, (The Law ſuppoſing no warrant can be in ſuch caſe) This is the power of Reſiſtance which I have aſſerted: and it this be inducing of civill warre, or a way to ſubverſion and Rebellion: It is a warre raiſed by defenders of Law, againſt ſubverters of Law: A Rebellion raiſed by Magiſtrates having Authority, againſt inſtruments of arbitrarineſſe having no authority: A reſiſtance tending to ſubverſion, but of none but ſubverters. 'Tis good reaſon then, it ſeemes, if deſtroyers grow to the number and ſtrength of an Army, for Magiſtrates to let them alone, and not raiſe armes to ſuppreſſe them, leſt they open a way to confuſion and bring on the miſeries of a civill Warre. This is the Doctors preſervative Doctrine, and my contrary is destructive. 4. I argued from the end of the inſtitution of the Houſes, and their intereſt in making Laws, and preſerving the frame. He ſayes this is grounded on my falſe ſuppoſall of their being joyned with the King in the very ſoveraigne power, p. 96. Anſwer, I have juſtified that ſuppoſall; and manifeſted his ſtrange boldneſſe in denying it againſt the Kings, and ſo many Parliaments direct affirmations; and deſire the reader to take notice, that this is Calvins argument for Reſiſtance, in the place above recited, how ever the Doctor doth make ſo light of it.
5. From the power of inferiour Courts to puniſh violaters of Law, though pretending a warrant of the Kings will for it. He ſayes this Argument is inconſequent to prove power of rayſing Armies to oppoſe the Forces of their Soveraigne. He haſtens to a concluſion, and weighs not much what he anſwers. I ſay it concludes inevitably: for if the Kings warrant to violate Law, will not priviledge one from force of juſtice, then not a hundred, not an Army of violaters. Their multitude makes the danger greater, and the Kingdome more unhappy; not Malefactors more priviledged. The forces of the Soveraigne in truth, are the Forces raiſed to defend his Government; not thoſe which are raiſed to ſubvert it. They are his, which have his Authoritative will; not thoſe which have only his arbitrary. If ever Reaſons did demonſtrate a truth, I am confident theſe five have made good, The power of the estates in Parliament to reſiſt ſubverſive inſtruments, be they more or fewer.
Thus have I traced this Authour through his Reply; and whether Sect. 3 I have not ſufficiently vindicated my Treatiſe from it, I referre my ſelfe to the conſcience of every one who hath the underſtanding of a judicious man; and the impartiality of a juſt man. In my cap. 8. is a moderate debate of the preſent contention; and divers Petitions tending to pacification if it had been poſſible: but he toucheth not on that chapt. His diſcourſe ſhewes him to have nothing to doe with Moderation; nor doth deſire Peace, but on the termes of a full dedition into the hands of ſubverſive inſtruments. I have done with him: He reſolved, I Anſwered. He hath replyed. I have returned on it. I am even with him; and in truth above him, I am ſure. Now I deſire to ſpin out this contention no longer. Yet if he, or any elſe pleaſe to rejoyne, I wiſh he would ſave himſelfe, and me a labour: to let alone the booke; and deale only with the 4th; and 5th Chapters concerning the Doctors ſuppoſals; if he can make good them; and invalidate mine, as much as in me lieth, I will yeild him the cauſe: but I judge it impoſſible, if I know what is impoſſible. The God of ſpirits allay the spirits of men from this extreme oppoſition: And give ſuch a iſſue to theſe wofull warrs, that the ſcepter of Chriſt, the Gospell of Peace may be fully ſubmitted to and maintained by a King enjoying inviolate his due ſoveraignty; and a People their due and lawfull liberties, Amen.
PHIL. 4.5.
Let your moderation be known unto all men: The Lord is at hand.
FINIS.
End of the text · Philip Hunton, Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy (1644)