opposed to the Kings oath a publick oath swore that they would not suffer that any evil should be done unto him The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kinde of oath in use among the Hebrevvs But sayes he It is a vvonder to see understanding men argue from this place for violence and forcible resistence to Kings especially vvhen acting according to lavves consented to by private persones Ans This place proveth clearly that princes may be resisted and resisted vvhen they use violence and oppression and that by private persones even vvhen the oppression or iniquity is acted according to a pretended lavv or something equivalent to a lavv Let us see vvhere the difference lyeth Here sayes he the King is not acting according to law but prosecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath Answ 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emissaries act according to lavv but were prosecuting the execution of a develish and rash resolution to root out and destroy a vvhole Countrey side 2. If Royalists speak truth Sauls vvord let be his oath vvas as good as a lavv and Sanctius sayeth it vvas Decretum decreed And vvhatever it vvas formally it vvas materially a law unto which they had all tacitely assented v. 24. which they durst not transgresse v. 26. Here sayes he the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession earnest reasoning that he ought to regaird what was right more then his rash oath Answ No reasoning vve heare but a peremptour telling of the King to his face that he should not get his vvill not one haire of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground if he should attempt any thing against Ionathan it should be over their bellyes Their vvords look like club-agruments Here sayes he their opposition was acceptable and welcome acquiesced in and yeelded to Answ It is like it vvas condescention by force and constraint for vvhether he vvould or not he savv he could not get his vvill and therefore passed from vvhat he intended 2. His acquiescence sayes the resistence vvas more forcible then meer intercession vvould be for he vvas another sort of bloody Tyrant then to yeeld to petitions vvhen he thought his honour stood upon it Here sayes he the opposition is made by the Princes of the land Captains of Thousands c. Answ The text sayes The people rescued Ionathan Who ever they vvere vvhatever they vvere they acted not here as the Supreame Sanhedrin nor as a court of judicatour haveing povver of government but as private persones according to their povver and capacities And so all this makes much for a party of private persones for here vvas not all the land their resisting of the King 's bloody emissaries executing cruelty not so much as according to an iniquous lavv but contrare to all lavv right and reason Let sayes he Peter martyr be looked upon this place and he speaks not ably well his owne words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p 349. Answ Lex Rex dealt ingenuously with his reader concerning him telling him in the margine that with adoubt he said si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt And that he said they might Suffragiis vvith their suffrages free him Why did not the Surveyer set dovvn his vvords did Lex Rex falsify also Chrysostome homil 14. ad Pop. Antioch Iunius Corn a lapide Sanctius Lyra Hugo Cardin. Iosephus L. 6. antiq c. 7. and Althus Polit. c. 38. n. 109. 3. They must condemne David for his resisting of King Saul with armed men which yet the spirit of God doth not condemne but rather approve in commending such as helped him I Chron. 12 1. 2. 8. c. and inspireing Amazia who was chief of the captaines to say Thine are we David and on thy side peace peace be unto thee and peace be unto thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee So did he intend to keep out the city Keila against the King and consulted God thereanent and had his answere that the city would betray him Now if it had been unlavvful for him to have defended himself by such forcible resistence vve cannot think that he vvould have goten such ansvvers as he gote Grotius himself approveth this deed of David's All vvhich this Surveyer sayeth against this Pag. 67. is That Davids unction did so distinguish him from private persons as that it made it lawful for him to resist violence with violence But the law of nature restricteth not this lawful self-defence to anoynted persons 2. If his anoynting made him no private person what did it make him it could not make Him King othervvise he might not only have resisted Saul but have taken his life as a traitour or else vve must say there were two Kings at once in Israel 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his resistence nor is there any hint of this in the text 4. They must condemne the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which resisted Ioab Davids General and his forces when they besieged it till the matter came to a capitulation Ioab should have offered tearmes unto the city before he had threatned to destroy it and should have communed with the Magistrates concerning the delivering up of the Taitour before he had resolved to destroy the whole city for one Traitours cause and therefore justly did they defend themselves against his unjust invasion notwithstanding he was armed with a commission from the King and remarkable it is that after the capitulation they were never challenged for traitours in resisting with closed gates and fensed walls the King's General and army So that here is a private city standing out for a time against the King's souldiours unjustly seeking to destroy them because of one Traitour among them 5. They must condemne the Prophet Elias for resisting Ahaziah's bloody Emissaries sent by him in an angry moode to apprehend him and to compell him in a spite full manner and to take him prisoner as say the Dutch Annot. on the place For speaking such things as he did unto the messengers of the King who were sent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron to enquire if he should recover of his desease and to bring him to the King by violence if he would not come willingly as Iosephus sayeth antiq Lib. 9. C. 2. 2 King 1. Now he resisted such as were sent and killed two Captanes their fifties with fire from heaven which instance doth sufficiently declare that it is lavvful for private subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the King's Emissaries though armed with his commission It is true the manner of his resistence and of killing these vvas extraordinary by way of a miracle yet the resistence it self was not extraordinare as we have seen by other instances and shall see cleared by moe 6. They must condemne the prophet Elisha who resisted both the King and his Emissaries in his ovvne defence 2 Kings 6 32. saying to the Elders
Wife is loosed from Subjection to her Husband adultery and wilful desertion will give ground for a divorce and that sayes that the Wives subjection is not absolute but conditional though we say not that every breach of some of the conditions looseth the obligation Neither will Calvin say ' That in no case the Soveraigne may be opposed or resisted or that in no case the obligation can be loosed for ibid. § 31. He granteth liberty to the Estates of a Land whom yet our Surveyer putteth in one category with private Subjects to stand for the libertyes of the People against the rage and Tyranny of Princes Yea he sayeth they are bound to do so as they would not presidiously betray their trust The 3. thing is that the fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People overthrows the distinction that all sound protestant Divines and Politicians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis And then he citeth Rivet in Psal 68. Gerhard de Magistratu Pag. 13 11. mihi or 935. And therein he sayes they agree with Calvin in the place cited Answ That there are absolute Princes de facto who come to the Soveraignity by false and corrupt meanes or by conquest we deny not but we are speaking of Princes de Iure and of Princes set up by the People which is only to our purpose It is true Rivet a very short sum of all the sound Protestant Divines though he joyne Gerhard with him too who is but Lutherian Protestant and for his Politicians we see none make use of such a distinction but assert not positively that such an absolute Prince is lawful Calvin maketh use of no such distinction and if they agree with him they say no more then he sayeth and what he sayd we have heard But sayes our Surveyer it is False to say that an absolute Prince is contrary to the Word of God for as our Lawes allowes our Kings to be ahsolute in expresse tearmes Jam. 1. he should say Jam. 6. Parl. 18. Anno 1606. Answ Our Lawes and especially of that Parliament and the like are evil proofs of what is Iure Divino or not contrary thereunto But of that Supermacy granted to the King by that act and others the Apology hath spoken enough Furder he addeth So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Lawes and we understand him But how is that May he Rule as he lifts No for He is subordinate sayes he unto God and his Lawes and he ought also to walke according to the particular good Lawes he hath made with consent of his People This is more then other Royalists would grant to us for he acknowledgeth him not only not above the Law of God but also not above the municipal Lawes and consequently not above the fundamental conditions of the constitution And we are sure in this This King hath fowlely broken whatever he doubt of But how is he absolute He is absolute sayes he that if he deviate he is not under coactive power of Subjects that they should have Law-claime against him and in their courts of nature and necessity pronounce judgement upon him to destroy him far lesse that by vertue of this supposed tacite Convenant any minor private party of the People may pull King and all Magistrats out of their seate punish them and possesse themselves in their roomes as Naphtaly sayes Answ What he layeth to Naphtali's charge shall be considered afterward 2. To say that Subjects have no law claime against a King who breaketh the maine and principal condition or all the conditions of the Covenant made betwixt Him and the People is to destroy the nature of the mutual compact made between Him and the People as we have shewed 3. By this it seemeth all the absolutenesse that he sayes is due to the King is that he is from under the co-active power of Subjects but though this were granted to him which yet we cannot because of what we have said already we should suffer no losse as to our intendment for if this be all his absolutenesse then he may be withstood and resisted though not brought to the barr even by private subjects when he contraveeneth his principal conditions and breaketh Covenant unto his people and this is all we contend for The summe of what he sayes in the 4 place is this Where there is freedome of Election as in Germany and Poland where there is but personated and painted Kings there may possibly be expresse limiteing conditions allowing some to coerce deviating soveraignity But in all proper Monarchies there is neither tacite nor expresse Covenants impowering any to be judges over the King Some Kingdomes are attained by a conquest in a just warre which is a sufficient title this power being hereditarily transmitted the successours receive power from the Parents and not from the People nor is there any shaddow of tacite or expresse Covenant in this matter Answ 1. If he be not well pleased with what Lex Rex hath said concerning conquest giving a sufficient title to crownes he should have considered and answered the arguments there made use of and not jejunely have told us he is of another judgment for they are either fooles or mad who will beleeve his bare word better then the worthy author of Lex Rex his assertions baked confirmed with many solid unanswereable arguments 2. This though true speaks nothing to our purpose for we supposed always that our Kingdome was not founded upon a conquest and we never heard any say it was till this unnatural abject arose to speak non sense of which more presently We never heard a King challenge it upon that account nay nor say that our Kingdome was ever conquered by any of their predecessours except King Iames who in his basilicon doron allaiged that Fergus the first was a conquerour contrare to the testimony of all approven historio-graphers what meaneth the large long roll of the King's predecessours that is read over at the coronation doth any of our lawes speak such a thing or do they found his absolute power upon such a dreame It would seem the cause is desperate and gone when he can get no other bottome to his absolutenesse but a fiction of his distempered braine which may deservedly make him odious to all true scottish men and may and possibly will make his cause odious also to all who are acquanted with the true genuine and ancient constitution of the Kingdome 3. This ravv Statist exscreats his raw notions as he pleaseth but they must be rude and unskilful in this matter that will think to digest them He tell 's us that the Emperour of Germany and the King of Poland are but painted Kings and Monarchs and to confirme this tels us that there are no Monarches or proper princes but such as are absolute What will then become of the Distinction of all sound protestant
and therefore afterward when he came to be crovvned and formally installed he did also formally and expresly take on the obligation And vvhether he did ever shrink from the observance of that godly oath let this perfidious man avovv vvhat he vvill many vvill assert it as certane in some poynts and too too probable in other 9. But though he should doubt vvhether any King before King Charles the second did svveare any oath or Covenant vvith the People yet he cannot doubt of vvhat this King Charles the second did It being being beyond all denyall and contradiction That he swore both that Oath which was injoyned in King Iames the siâ—t his dayes and also the National Covenant and the Solemne League and Covenant and that according to these the Subjects did sweare obedience unto Him Here was then a mutual conditional Covenant explicitly and in plaine tearmes with all the solemnities imaginable entered into and what needs more to cleare all which we have said and to ground all which we would inferre to justify the late action For as for his vaine inferences they concerne not us and more shall be spoken of them afterward 10. Though this Surveyer be ready to avow that this King hath never swerved from the observation of that oath enjoyed Anno 1567. yet all the World seeth that he hath not as he ought to have done maintained the true Religion nor right preaching and administration of Sacraments Neither hath he according to his power abolished and withstood all false Religions contrary to the same as appeares by the great indulgence and toleration if not countenance granted to Popery and Papists Neither hath he ruled us according to the will of God but rather persecuted us for adhereing to the Word of God nor hath he ruled us by the laudable Lawes and constitutions of the realme but hath with a packt Parliament principled to his minde overturned our lawes libertyes hath framed established iniquity by a law 11. But what sayes he to the Nat. Cov. League Cov. Dar he avow that he hath not broken these If he had not we had not been troubled this day with a Popish Prelatical and Malignant faction nor had we seen these abjured and foresworne Prelates nor had we seen the work of reformation of religion in worship Doctrine Discipline and Government so overthrowne overturned and trode upon as it is this day 12. So then seing he cannot deny but the King took and solemnely swore these Covenants and that now he hath openly and avowedly broken them it is undenyable that he hath broken the conditions on which he was made King yea seing these were the maine conditions and the only conditions considerable and were become the fundamental law of our constitution he hath violated the principal and only conditions covenanted and what we shall hence inferre we shall now show Having thus vindicated and cleared the premises we shall draw out our arguments and conclusions thence and 1. If People propose conditions and tearmes unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in and submitted unto and upon which they are to accept their Crowne and Scepter Then if the Prince of King violate these conditions which he once accepted and contrare of his promise and engagement destroy what he promised to build up The People may very lawfully defend themselves and these good ends which they endeavoured to have secured by proposeing these conditions unto the Prince when he is seeking to destroy all even by force vvhen there is no other remedy But such is our case The King vvas formally and expresly engaged by Compacts and Covenants to secure the Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government to secure all these vvho owned the same and adhered to the Covenants and to ratify and approve all lavves made for these Covenants and for the security of such as entered into these Covenants and novv notvvithstanding of these conditions agreed unto by him the Covenant and vvork and all is overturned People persecuted meerly upon the account of their adhereing to these Covenants all conditions are violated all Covenants Vowes Compacts Engagements and vvhat could be devised for security of the reformation and of the ovvners thereof are broken Who then can condemne even privat persons if they stand to their defence in this case See Althusius polit cap. 38. n. 30. 2. If People may lavvfully and laudably defend the fundamental lavves of the Kingdom on vvhich the constitution of the Kingdome standeth and on vvhich the security of vvhat is dear to them as men and as Christians relveth Then the late act cannot be condemned because in defending themselves they stood for that vvhich vvas the maine and principal tearme of our constitution But the former is true because the Prince violating these destroyeth the constitution and because He cannot do this as a Prince having already engaged as a Prince to maintaine the constitution he must do it as a private person or an enemy to the constitution and whole body of the land Therefore he may wel be resisted even by private persones see this fully made out by Althus Pol. cap. 38. n. 37. both out of Lawyers and Divines 3. If a People even by resistence may defend their personal libertyes and rights secured unto them by Compacts with the Prince or by the fundamental lawes of the land which the Prince as Prince is bound to maintaine Then the late act cannot be condemned because by it they were but defending that which the King had secured unto them by his compact and which was secured unto them by the fundamental law of the land But the former is true because a privat person is allowed by law to maintaine his Lands and Rights even though some in the Kings name should come under whatsoever pretext to robe and dispossesse him and shut him to the door Therefore this late act though of private persones cannot be condemned 4. If a Prince violating all or he maine conditions upon which he was made Prince becometh stricto jure no Prince but falleth from his benefice not having done the offices in consideration of which he gote that benefice conferred upon him non enim sayeth Althus ubi supra commodum debet sentire ex contractu quem vel omittendo vel committendo quis impugnat Then lawfully enough such an one may be resisted even by Private persones as is cleare But the former is made clear above and such is our case now for the King hath broken palpably and avowedly the maine and principal conditions on which he was made King having overturned the work of reformation which if he had not promised vowed and covenanted to maintaine he had never been crowned or admitted to the exercise of that Government Who then can blaime a People standing to their owne defence when oppressed and tyrannized over by his emissaries who hath thus violated the principal and only conditions of the compact and is forceing them to the
the law of the XII tables so it was in force whatever forme of government was exerced But syes he Prael 9. § 19. Hence it will not follow That People may when they perceive or cry out that they perceive their libertyes hurt in some things take armes without the Princes leave and violate all lawes and dutyes and so raise tumults and seditions Ans Neither do we say so nor resolve to draw any such conclusions therefrom but this is cleare that when the covenanted work of reformation is overturned laudable lawes establishing the same contrary to oath and solemne Engagement rescinded libertyes palpably violated People in humanely persecuted for adhereing to their Covenants c. and unjustly oppressed by the Kings emissaries people may then take armes in their own defence though the King should refuse to consent or should countenance the oppressours carry on that inslaving course Againe he sayes let any read and read over againe that sentence of Cicero and search every pairt of it where vvill he finde any vvarrand for Subjects to rise up against princes to injure them or dethrone them Ans We do not intend to search the sentence for that end it vvill suffice us if hence vve finde ground to conclude the lavvfulnesse of Peoples defending themselves against tyrannizeing Princes in cases of necessity and let him or any for him read and better read that vvhole period and narrovvly consider and examine every sentence and vvord in it and see if he can finde this condemned Ere I come to speak to the other particular I shall from this draw some few things useful for our purpose and 1. It is irrational and meer flattery to cry up and exalt the Soveraignes prerogative in prejudice and to the destruction of that for which both He and His Prerogatives are and were appoynted as subservient meanes the saifty of the People That being de jure his maine end and it being for this cause end that he is endued with such power and hath such privileges and prerogatives conferred upon him and allowed unto him He and his Prerogatives both should vaile unto this Supreame Law the saifty of the People so that when they come in competition The Peoples saifty of right is to have the preheminence 2. Since all other lawes municipal made and established in a free Realme must be subordinate unto this Principal and Cardinal law and have tendency to promove corroborate and establish it Then when any of these Lawes in their letter strick directly at the root of the saifty of the People and thoward and crosse that maine and highest law That law is Eaienus null and really no law So that it is but childish scrupulosity to start at the letter of a law when the Commonwealth is in hazard and it is but brutish ignorance to object the letter of a low against such as are endeavouring the saifty of the people which is the maine businesse and to preserve the Commonwealth from ruine and destruction against which no law is or can be of any force or value but null and of no effect for here it holdeth true that summum jus is summa injuria 3. Since Lawes themselves when in their letter they crosse this maine law must be accounted as no lowes really and de jure and may saifly be neglected and passed over when the Peoples saifty is in no small hazard by the strick adhereing to the letter thereof Then much more may punctilioes and law formalities be laid aside when the Commonwealth is in danger When there is a fire in a City all the formalities of order are not strickly to observed 4. Since The privileges and lawful prerogatives of the Soveraigne must vaile in cases of necessity unto this High and Supreame Law the saifty of the People Then no lesse must the privileges of a Parliament yield unto this for whatever privilege they enjoy it is in order to this end and the meanes must alwayes have a subserviency unto the end and when they tend to the destruction of the end they are then as no meanes unto that end nor to be made use of for that end 5. Though King and Parliament both should conspire together against the good of the Land yet di jure they have no power or authority to destroy that End and whatever they enact or doe tending to the ruine of this maine and principal good which they should have before their eyes as their end is ipso facto null 6. When acts and actings of King and Parliament tend directly and are made and done of purpose to destroy and overthrow the work of reformation in doctrine worshipe discipline and government which was owned and established by lawes with all formalities of law and was avowed by solemne vowes Covenants attestations protestations declarations and engagements of all ranks of People from the highest to the lowest and courses are laid doune to force and constraine People to renunce their Covenant with God to turne perjured apostates and when by acts and actings the fundamental tearmes conditions of our reformed constitution confirmed by unrepelable lawes by the King 's accepting of his Crowne and Scepter and all other Magistrates accepting their places upon these tearmes are overturned and when by an arbitrary and illegal tyranny no man hath security for his life his lands his libertyes nor his religion is not the saifty of the People in danger No man needs to say who shall be judge The Magistrates or the people For all who have eyes to see may judge whether the Sun be shineing or not and all who have common sense may judge in this case When these things are done and avowed they cannot be denyed and no man of reason or religion will deny the inference Hence then it is cleare that no man in reason can condemne the late act of defence which was the only meane left for preserving of that which all government and Governours should level at viz. The saifty of the People both in soull and body their Religion Lives Liberties Privileges Possessions Goods and what was deare to them as men and as Christians howbeit it vvanted the formality of the authority of Soveraine Parliament or Councel No man vvho vvill not deny this axiome can condemne them as Traitors seing they vvere noble Patriots and loyall to that Supreame lavv The saifty of the People As to the other particular concerning the absolute power of the Soveragne We say 1. That the Soveraigne is under obligations to his People and bound limited by conditions we have shewed above which conditions he is bound to observe see Hoen Disp Pol. 9. 2. That the Soveraigne is not exempted from the lawes of God none but profane gracelesse vvreatches vvill deny since he is a creature of God's and a subject to him and his servant Rom. 13. and therefore must not transgresse his lawes under the paine of high treason and laese Majesty It was but a base saying of an impudent whore Iulia
15. Iam. 6. c. 2. Parl. 23. Iam. 6. Act. 1. Parl. 1. Char. 1. and act 14. 15. of the same parl act 13. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. and this is reckoned by the forementioned politicians among the prerogatives Volgm pag. 57. Hoen pag. 129. Bodin pag. 244. Timpl. ubi supra 4. Nor doth it belong to him alone to appoynt the value of money as is cleare by our acts act 67. parl 8. Iam. 3. act 93. 97. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 33. parl 8. Iam. 2. act 59. parl 13. Iam. 2. act 2. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 40. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. act 20. of the same parl act 249. parl 15. Iam. 6. c. 9. parl 16. Iam. 6. yet the forecited authors reckon this also among jura Majestatis 5. He must not rule us by his meer will but by the lawes of the land act 79. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 130. 131. parl 8. Iam. 6. and not by any special grant or privat privileges act 48. parl 3. Iam. 1. 6. He is not the proper judge of all causes in the first instance act 45. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 62. parl 8. Iam. 3. 7. Some causes are fully exempted from his judgment and determination act 105. parl 14. Iam. 3. 8. The Lords of the Session may finally decide causes according to the act 65. parl 3. Iam. 1. without any liberty granted to the party to appeal to the King act 63. parl 14. Iam. 2. and this privilege of the Session in ratified act 93. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 1. parl 2. Mar. act 170. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 183. of the same parl act 211. parl 14. Iam. 6. act 23. parl 1. Carol. 1. act 23. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. Yea the judges are allowed to discerne according to equity notwithstanding of any write of the King 's to the contrary act 92. parl 6. Iam. 6. act 47. parl 11. Iam. 6. act 79. of the same parl 9. He is limited in granting remissons sic act 46. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 51. parl 3. Iam. 1 act 75. parl 14. Iam. 2. act 42. parl 6. Iam. 3. act 94. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 62. 63. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 174. parl 13. Iam. 6. 10. He is limited in alienating of lands possessions or moveable goods act 2. parl 1. Iam. 2. act 41. parl 11. Iam. 2. act 70. and 71. parl 9. Iam. 3. act 112. parl 14. Iam. 3. act 5. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 10. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 22. ejusd parl act 50. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 90. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 84. parl 6. Iam. 5. act 115. and. 116. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 6. parl 9. Iam. 6. act 176. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 159. ejusdem parl act 203. and 204. parl 14. Iam. 6 act 236. parl 15. Iam. 6. act 242. and 243. ejusdem parl act 1. parl 16. Iam. 6. cap. 4. parl 23. Iam. 6. act 10. parl 1. Carol. 1. 11 So is he limited in erecting Royal brughs act 43. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He is limited in appoynting publick offices for admininistration of justice act 44. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He may not passe gifts signatures or remissions but with the consent of the privy Council act 12. parl 2. Iam. 4. 14. He hath been aftentimes admonished of his duty by the Parliament see act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 5. and. 6. parl 3. Iam. 2. act 14. parl 6. Iam. 2. act 92. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 8. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 29. parl 3. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. If this Surveyer hath a minde to defend the King 's civil prerogative royal or his absolute power Let him take all these particulars to his consideration but we goe on to our purpose From what hath been said concerning this limited power of the Kings we draw these particulars for our purpose 1. If the King be a limited Prince Then he may in some cases be lawfully resisted Gerhard himself de Magistrat Pol. § 484. pag. 1303. in answering of that quaestion what shall Subjects do if a Magistrate who is an infidel or an haeretick doth force them unto a false religion sayeth That such a Magistrate who hath absolute and unlimited power and is under no compacts may not be resisted by such as are meer Subjects So that he would grant in this case That it is lawful for meer private Subjects to resist a limited Prince who is bound by compacts and contracts It is true when he cometh afterward to speak of resisting a Tyrant and proponeth the quaestion § 486. whether such who have absolute power and turne Tyrants may be resisted after he hath cited some sayings of Papists he tells us § 487. That all the arguments of iunius Brutus Rossaeus Buckerius are solidly answered by Barclaius Albericus Gentilis Cunerus and Arnisaeus and this passage our Surveyer bringeth in Pag. 89. But who seeth not that it cometh not at all home to our purpose seing our King is not a King of absolute power though he hath his Kingdom by succession but is limited by conditions and stipulations And further every one may see the weaknesse of Gerhard's reasons and how inconsistent he is with himself For. 1. Sayeth he such is only under Gods jurisdicton But alas 1. May not I resist a person vvho is not under my jurisdiction 2. Royalists will say the same of all Princes even Barclaus and Arnisaeus Againe he sayes The People have translated their whole power unto such a Prince cannot recall it But 1. They have never translated over unto him a power to inslave themselves for that was not in their power to do Nor 2. Could they ever give away the power of self defence which is their birth right 3. Sayes he Subjects in this case want God's command and a Superiour power But 1. They have God's command in nature no lesse then these who are under limited Princes 2. They have a superior virtual power in cases of necessity 4. Sayes he He is a Father of the Republict and not a Tutor only and therefore as Children have no power over their Parents no more have Subjects over their Princes But 1. Are not even limited Princes as well Fathers to the Commonwealth So that by this argument it shall be as unlawfull to resist these which he will not say 2. Yea such absolute Princes Look rather to be Tygers and stated enemies unto the Common-wealth then Fathers 3. They have no proper Parental power as we shewed but Metaphorical 4. Even natural parents may be resisted Ergo much more they 5. We are not speaking of giving judgment against Tyrants but of resisting of them and if he grant this vve have our desire And his question vvas touching resistence § 485. Quest. 4. 2. A Limited and pactional Prince may be legally resisted Ergo also with force when a legal resistence cannot be had The antecedent is true
insnared in the vvork of his owne hands 4. If the King have not absolute power but be limited both by the lawes of God and by the lawes of Man Then when he transgresseth the bounds prescribed to him he may be resisted The reason is because He who is no Magistrate many be resisted But the King going beyond his bounds is no Magistrate Therefore he may be resisted The proposition cannot be denyed for he vvho is not a Magistrate is not that ordinance of God which we are forbiden to resist The assumption is granted by Arniseus de auth princi c. 2. n. 10. saying Dum contra officium facit Magistratus non est Magistratus quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat while the Magistrate doth against his office he is no Magistrate because a Magistrate should do no wrong but right l. miminerint 6 c. unde vi c. quod quis 24. 5. If the King's power be not absolute and if he cannot do whatsoever he pleaseth Then when he makes his lust a law and followeth the dictate of his tyrannical corrupted will he may be resisted because what power he never gote from the People to exerce if he exerce it he may be by them resisted But the People never gave him a power to rule as he listeth and to do what his missed understanding and enraged will did prompt him to do Ergo they may resist him when he exerceth no power given him but a power assumed to himself through the corruption of his heart and wicked will 6. If the King's power be not absolute then the People are not denuded of the power of self defence Royalists and such as trade their steps think that an absolute prince or a prince integrae Majestatis as they call him hath gotten all Power from the People even that power of self defence which yet is false but though this were granted it will not follow that a limited Prince hath gote away that power of self defence from the People and left them naked to his tyrannical will to be disposed of as he thinketh good 7. The King's power being limited and not absolute sayes that by the constitution and limitation more regaird was had to the security of the People then to the King 's meer will and pleasure and that the Kings meer will and pleasure should not be followed but resisted when thereby the good of the People and their saifty vvas in hazard all men are bound to look more to the end then to the meanes and to hinder such things as are destructive of the end 8. If the King's povver be no absolute then the Parliament's povver is not absolute And if the King may be resisted in cases of necessity because his povver is not absolute Then the Parliament also may be resisted upon the same ground vvhen they do violence and oppresse the innocent And if the Parliament may be resisted by Subjects then it cannot be unlavvful for Subjects in the cases of necessity to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their limited Prince albeit they vvant the concurrence countenance and conduct of a Parliament or Publick Representatives 9. If King and Parliament both be limited they cannot make what lawes they wil. Nay themselves declare that they cannot make any particular act or ratification in prejudice of the lavvful rights of a third party and therefore in the end of their Parliaments or Sessions of Parliaments they usually passe an act salvo jure cujuslibet And if their particular acts are no force in so far as they prejudge the rights of a third person nor to be submitted unto nor obeyed Then their other acts made in prejudice of the glory of God of the good of his Church and of the interest of Christ in the land are of no force nor to be obeyed and submitted unto and if in the former case particular persons are allovved to defend their rights notvvithstanding of these acts Then much more may private Persones be allovved to defend Christ's rights and their ovvne rights as to their soull consciences notvvithstanding of any act or lavv general or particular made to the contrary the best vvay they can vvhen all formal legal vvayes are taken from them 10. If the King be not absolute He cannot execute the Lawes made according to his owne lust and pleasure nor may any inferiour judictory do so For that is a piece of tyranny and when he or they following their owne tyrannical wills transgresse the Lawes and Bounds prescribed and take an arbitrary way of executeing their cruelty They may in that case be resisted Because that power is no proper magistratical power but tyranny and an arbitrary ebullition of rage no power ordained of God but the lawlesse will of corrupt creatures 11. Since He hath not absolute power to execute the Lawes after an arbitrary manner according to his owne lust pleasure if when he is doing so he may be resisted then much lesse can be Impower his Emissaries with an arbitrary tyrannical lawlese cruelty under pretence of executing the Lawes or if he do the resisting of such in that case can be no resistance of the Ordinance of God Neither God nor Man ever gave him power to conferre on others a Lawlesse license to oppresse rob spoile plunder tyrannize over innocents And therefore the resisting of such bloody executioners without any lawful power tyrannyzing over the subjects can be no sin or rebellion condemned by God or his Law 12. Since the King may not by an absolute power command what he will His Subjects are not bound to an absolute obedience but alwayes in the Lord It being better to obey God then Man and when his Subjects are not bound to obey he cannot Lawfully inflict punishment on such as contraveeing his Lawes obey the Lawes of God Because just punishments are for transgressions of just Laws And when he inflicts punishment where God alloweth a reward he goeth directly against his commission which is to be a terrour to evil works and not to good Rom. 13 ver 3. And when a Servant or publick Messenger goeth contrare to his commission it is no disloyalty to the King to refuse subjection unto such So nor is it distloyalty to the King of Kings to refuse Subjection unto his Minister when he runeth crosse to his ovvne expresse commission And therefore the Late Act of defence being the defence of innocents in the case of extreame and inevitable necessity against illegal commissions contrary to the Lavv of God cannot be branded vvith rebellion but accounted an Act of lavvful self-defence CAP. IX Of the Peoples Power in the works of Reformation Our Argument hence THe Author of Naphtaly Pag. 18. 19. had these words As we have already cleared that in case either the People or any part of them be violented to a complyance or be wickedly persecuted for adhereing to God in the profession and practice of the contrary dutyes they may lawfully
of their accounts should imbrace professe and practise the truth of God and the true Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government Though King Parliament and Council should reject and condemne the same and countenance or command and authorize the practice of idolatry superstition or any false way in the vvorshipe of God or in the doctrine and discipline For no lavv of man can vvarrand iniquity no act or constitution of any Magistrat under Heaven can rescinde or invalidate the mandats of the King of Kings or exempt People from obedience due thereunto No true Christian whatever court flatterers atheists may do can deny this 7. Nor can it be denyed That in Kingdomes or Commonvvealths vvhere once the True Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government hath been received publickly imbraced approved and countenanced by authority ratified by lavves statutes acts declarations proclamations oathes vovves and engagements Though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should turne Apostates from that Reformed and received Religion and by their lavves condemne the same and establish corruptions and enforce corrupt practices by penaltyes yet it vvere the duty of all Subjects vvho had any regaird to the matters of their ovvne salvation to adhere to the truth once received and established and vvorshipe and Serve God after the right manner and refuse to obey these iniquous lavves Will any deny such a truth as this except such as have sold soull consciences and all unto the lust of Men or think there is no Religion but vvhat King and Parliament vvill have and consequently if they should enjoyne the imbraceing of Mahomet's Religion or the vvorshiping of Sun Moon and Starrs or of Satan himself obedience must be yeelded 8. If in the forementioned case The Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should combine together and conspire against Christ and his interest and should not only by their acts and statutes banish him and his glorious interests out of the Kingdome but also by their cruel executions labour to force constraine and compel all their subjects or a part of them to the renunceing of the formerly received and avowed truthes and to the imbraceing of the introduced corruptions and so to run with themselves unto the same excesse of iniquity perjury and abhomination Then it is lawful for these Subjects so oppressed persecuted and abused for their constancy in adhereing to the truths once received contrare to all engagements vowes and Covenants to defend themselves against that unjust tyranny and rage and maintaine the reformed truth which is unjustly violently taken from them by force when there is no other probable meane left for them to essay nay when liberty to supplicate or petition is inhumanely and severely under the very paine of Treason discharged The reasons are 1. because we have shewed above that it is most lawful for Subjects to maintaine their lives persons and Estates against the unjust violence and tyrannical oppression of their enraged Magistrates And if that be lawful this must also be much more lawful for as the soul is much more precious then the body so matters that concerne the soul should be preferred to such things as concerne the body And therefore Religion which is necessary for the life of the soull should be with no lesse Zeale care and industry maintained and preserved pure and uncorrupted then what concerneth the lives of our bodyes 2. It is lawful for Subjects to maintaine their natural and civil libertyes by force when no other way can be used lest they and their posterity after them should be redacted unto a state of perfect slavery and bondage worse then that of the Israilites in Egypt And shall it be unlawfull to fight for the defence of Religion wherein is comprised all true and desireable liberty and to save posterity from tyranny and bondage in their souls and consciences much more dreadfull and terrible then the most insupportable and bitter bondage of the body imaginable Shall men be allowed to fight to preserve their owne bodyes and the bodyes of their posterity from the slavery of men and shall they not be allowed to fight that they may preserve their owne soulls and the souls of their posterity from the tyranny of Satan Who but such as either think they have no soulls more then beasts or know not the worth of their souls will deny this consequence 3. It is lawful for Subjects to defend their lives and libertyes in order to the defence of the true Religion and the interests of Jesus Christs when their losseing of these should certanely tend to the losse of Religion Ergo It cannot be unlawful to defend Religion which is the maine and principal thing 4. If it be lawful to maintaine the interests of a King against an usurper whether a stranger or an inferiour Magistrate who is under the King and is seeking to eject him and his interest contrare to his faith and trust Then much more must it be lawful to defend Christ Iesus and his interest when King and Parliament contrare to their sworne allaigance unto him have rebelled and are seeking to dethrone him by their wicked Lawes and Ordinances and to banish him and his interests out of the Kingdome by their tyrannical cruelty inhumane and mercilesse executions Will any deny this but ingrained Atheistical Malignants whose chief character hitherto hath been to preferre man's interest unto Christs Or such as have renounced all faith and loyalty unto the King of Kings and have set up a creature as their only God whom they minde to Worshipe and adore and for whom they minde to fight against all breathing and against the God of heaven also But their weapons shall fall out of their hands when They shall feel the lighting downe of his arme with the indignation of his anger and with the flame of a devouring fire and with scattering and tempests and hailstones and when he shall cause his glorious voyce to be heard If any should Object That because Christ's Kingdome is not of this World therefore his Servants should not fight for him It is easily answered That as hence it will follow that Religion cannot be forced by the sword upon any So it will not follow that Religion should not be defended for then Magistrates should not defend Religion nor Christians should not defend their Religion against the Turks Which is false And hence 5. If it be lawful for People to defend their Religion against an army of infidells Mahometans or Papists invadeing the Land of purpose to spoile us of our Religion and to force us to imbrace heathenisme Turcisme or Popery Then it must be lawfull to defend the same true Religion against King and Parliament when they seek to rob the People thereof and force corruptious upon them because King and Parliament have no more authority from God to oppresse the consciences of their Subjects to corrupt Religion and force corruptions upon them then the Turk or the Pope hath and
the oppressed truth and cause of God and valiently seek and plead for the truth and with their Mother the Church when all is corrupted left a bill of divorce be given her And this is something more then our Surveyer will allow And vvhat way this shall help us vve shall see aftervvard Novv vve must examine What the Surveyer sayeth He Pag. 46. after some rambling after his wonted manner misrepresenting of the thing wich vvas said in Naphtaly as any judicious reader will perceive so that we need not trouble ourselves to discover the same unfaire dealing so oft as vve meet with it lest vve should waiste paper and paines as he hath done in repeating the same things over and over againe He tells us That It is not to be doubted that Religion is the chief interest that men and Christians should look after and where it becomes a legall right and the Magistrate who beares the sword leads the way no doubt privat persones may follow in the violent defence of it against all opposeing the Magistrate the law and themselves in owneing of it Answer This cold laodicean will give Religion the best word but no more He granteth that it is the chief interest that men and Christians should look after and yet so cautious is he in showing the manner how they should look after it that in effect he doth postpone it unto many other lower concernments For 1. it must become a legal right ere they defend it 2. And when it is become a legal right they cannot defend it unlesse the Magistrate lead the way But what if a virgine hath not a legal right unto her chastity by such a law as that leacherous King Ewen the 3. made shall she not be allowed to defend the same And if she shall shall not men be allowed to maintaine their Religion though some iniquous act of Parliament take the legal right of it away Yes doubtlesse if it be the chief interest Againe what if an unjust act take away a man's right to his heritage shall he not be in case to defend it against robbers 2. By his second caution it would appear that if an army of Turks or Tartars were landing in Scotland to robus of our Religion we might not resist unlesse the Magistrate did lead the way But might we not in that case defend our lives and lands If he should deny it I know few that will be of his opinion and if he grant it he must not account Religion the chief interest Againe what if the Magistrate shall permit Subjects to defend their Lives and Libertyes against invaders though he should not lead the way Will he allow it in that case Then he must preferre these unto Religion for Religion he sayes must must not be defended but when the Magistrate leads the way Neither sayes he can it enter into a Christian heart that it is to be surrendred unto the arbitrement or pleasure of any power in the world nor of any Magistrate over us as this man wickedly suggests is done Answ The Surveyer is this wicked person who not only suggests but upon the matter affirmes it and avowes it for what is it else then to surrender our Religion to the arbitrement of Magistrates to say that we may not stand to the defence thereof unlesse they will both authorize it with their law and also lead the way when any oppose it That which we will not maintaine without the approbation and conduct of another we wholly give up to the disposeing and pleasure of that other What he sayes concerning our present case shall be considered in end once for all Then Pag. 47. Whatever may be said concerning private mens resisting the powers that urge them to idolatry or false Worshipe or invading their lives if they will not so do comes not home to the present case Answ He would do well to speak plaine and not look with a double face Either he thinks it lawful in this case to resist or he thinks it unlawful if he think it unlawful to what purpose doth he make mention of it as a different case from what is presently under debate And will not any see that if he deny this to be lawful our Religion is wholly given upto the arbitrement of the Magistrate If he think it lawful he must then grant that Religion may be defended even when the Magistrate who bears the sword doth not lead the way and why then it should not come home to our present case I do not see for he doth not lay the stresse of his answers on the inconsiderablenesse of the ground of the resistence though here and there He hint at that but upon the unlawfulnesse of resisting the Magistrate who beares the sword Now this ground faileth him here But he ads Yet Lactantius word Lib. 5. c. 20. is to be well remembered by all private persones Defendenda est Religio a privatis omnibus non occidendo sed moriendo Answ Then according to Lactantius it must be unlawful to defend Religion even when the Magistrat urgeth to idolatry invading lives if they will not do it yea if this be generally received as a truth The People of Scotland might not defend their Religion against an army of Pagans Turks or Tartars if the Soveraigne should not concurre Which I know not who would assent unto But he will come off with a few notes Pag. 47. c. That whereas Naphtali said That to be violented in Religion which cannot be without an unjust force either on mens persons or on their goods is the most wicked and insupportable of all injuries He thinks such a word should have been better guarded lest all coactive power of the magistrate in matters of Religion might seem to be disowned which would favoure such as are for absolute toleration But what needed this Could he think that the author of Naphtaly did imagine That to be violented in any Religion whether true or false was such an insupportable injury Or that it was his minde to plead for an universal toleration What ground had he for so thinking Sure that had been prejudical to his hypothesis which this Surveyer himself will not call a false Religion will it not suffice to say he meaned a violenting in the true Religion No sayes he for what Sectary will not pretend that he is violented for the true Religion which he will avow is so according to his conscience and it is this man's principle that every man in his discretive judgment is judge of the justice or in justice of his owne sufferings and accordingly must determine a nent his resistence to the violence Answ 1. Then it seemeth his guairding of it in his owne words saying It is true to use violence upon any in their persons or goods to bring them to an external false Religion or to drive them from the true otherwise Religion cannot be violented is the greatest of injuries Is not sufficient to salve the Magistrates
it is of no force when it cometh in competition with the authority of God and is stated against that Religion which by divine authority they are bound to maintaine with hazard and losse of their lives goods and fortunes And therefore the late act of defence being according to their sworne alleagiance to God a necessary defence of Religion cannot be condemned of Treason or Rebellion though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordinat powers As postponing the authority of inferiour Magistrates in act of obedience and duty of alleagiance unto the Superiour can be no proper disloyalty or rebellion so nor can the postponing of the authority of Superiour and inferiour Magistrates in poynt of obedience and performing alleagiance unto the most Supreame be really treasonable seditious or rebellious 2. If we be sworne to maintaine the King's person and authority in the defence of the liberties of the subject Then who ever preferre the Liberties of the Subject unto his person and authority are not Traitours or Rebels And so the late act of defence being for the liberties of the subject when they were basely betrayed sold and given away by a company conjured into a conspiracy against the same and were trode upon and violently plucked away cannot in conscience or in the law of God or according to any just law of man be accounted or condemned as an act of Treason or Rebellion CAP. XII Some moe Arguments Briefly proposed and Prosecuted WE have in the preceeding Chapters proponed and considered such arguments as gave us occasion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged We shall here ere we come to consider his objections briefly summe up other arguments The worthy author of Lex Rex Quest 28. and 31. hath some which we shall here set downe partly because that book is not in every mans hand and partly because this windy man pretends to have answered much of that book though he hath not so much as offered to make a reply unto the six hundereth part thereof 1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistence when the power is abused to the destruction of lawes religion and the subjects But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13 ver 4. Deut. 17 ver 18. 19. 23. 2 Chron. 19 ver 6. Psal 132. ver 11. 12. and 89. ver 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7 ver 12. Jer. 17 ver 24 25 And hath been may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3 Because they are not a terrour to good works but to evil 4. Because they are God's ministers for our good But abused powers are not of God but of men are not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good works not to evil they are not God's ministers for our good 2. ibid That power which is contrary to law and is evil and tyrannical can tye none to subjection but is a meer tyrannical power and unlawful and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of a King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to law evil and tyrannical and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to suffer of wicked men falleth under no commandement of God except in our Saviour A Passion as such is not formally commanded I meane a physical passion such as is to be killed God hath not said to me in any moral law be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. Ibid There is not a stricker obligation moral betwixt King and People then betwixt parents and Children Master and Servant Patron and Clyant Husband and Wife The Lord and the Vassal between the pilote of a shop and the passengers the Phisitian and the Sick the doctor and the Schollar But law granteth 1. minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If those betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted If the Father turne distracted and arise to kill his Sones his Sones may violently apprehend him bind his hands spoile him of his weapons for in that he is not a father Vasq lib. 1. illustr quaest Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vasallum posset ex toto eximere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis parliam grat decis 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The Servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him So may the wife do to the Husband If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to destroy himself and his passengers they might violently thrust him from the helme Every Tyrants is a furious Man and is morally distracted as althus sayeth polit cap. 28. n. 30. seqq 4. Pag. 262. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a scrine betwixt the Peoples Liberty and their bondage cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the People But the Power of a King is given as a blessing favour of God to defend the poor needy to preserve both tables of the law and to keep the People in their libertyes from oppressing and treading on upon another But so it is that if such a power be given of God to a King by which actu primo he is invested of God to do acts of Tyranny and so to do them that to resist him in the most innocent way which is self defence must be resisting of God and rebellion against the King his deputy Then hath God given a royal power as incontrollable by mortal men by any violence as if God himself were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to waste and destroy irresistably and so in it self a plague and curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formal effect and intrinsecal operation of the power to preserve the tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subject and lawes and also to destroy the same But it is taught by Royalists That this power is for Tyranny as wel as for peacable government because to resist this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or just government is to resist the ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13 1 2 3. We know to resist God's Ordinance and Gods deputy formaliter as his deputy is to resist God himself 2 Sam. 8. ver
goe and reflect upon the magazine as he speaketh to Lex Rex who Quaest. 26. proveth by unanswerable arguments that the King is not above the Law but this Surveyer for all his big words dar not meddle with that debate but quarrelleth with a word Pag. 241. where that worthy Author is answering the objection of that Apostate Prelate Maxwel the Author of Sacrosancta Regum Majestas stollen from Arnisaeus which was this Why might not the People of Israël Peers or Sanhedrin have conveened before them judged or punished David for his Adultery and Murther Unto which he answered thus He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanhedrin and States of Israël to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery and Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truely though I will not presume to goe before others in this God's Law Gen. 9 ver 6. compared with Numb 35 ver 30 31. seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that God's Law or his Deputy the judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great Deut. 1 ver 17. 2 Chron 19 ver 6 7. aud we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaketh to under judges Levit. 19 ver 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not God's meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it followeth not that if we speak of the demerite of blood that the Law of God accepteth any judge great or small And if the Estates be above the King as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth yet if we make it a matter of conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say à facto adjus non sequitur Thus that worthy Author and could he have uttered his judgment more spareingly and soberly in a matter that was not of great Moment to the question in hand so that though he had forborne to have spoken any thing to this at all his cause had not been in the least weakened and though we should grant that the Sanhedrin could not have judged David for these facts which yet we can cannot do what losse shall we have Seing we may easily grant and Lex Rex with us Pag. 243. that Tyranny only must unking a Prince and these acts were not acts of Tyranny and what shall this vaine Surveyer gaine then Why would he not examine other things which that worthy Author sayd more apposite to the cause Will not wise men laugh at this dealing and account him a fool in the first magnitude in handleing such a cause which so nearly concerneth his Majesties life after such a manner that a very school-boy may smile at Then he addeth So Pag. 348 and 428 and 238. and often elsewhere he that is Lex Rex will have the Estates executing the moral Law as he calls it on the King and punishing him and why because he sayes most thrasonically Pag. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdome is superior to the King and the People may be their owne judge in the tribunal of necessity Answ Lex Rex in two at least of these pages cited speaketh no such thing and if this Surveyer were not more windy and vaine then ever Thraso was he would not speak so of that Author till first he had discovered the answereablenesse of these arguments which neither he nor any of his complices shall ever be able to do But this Epicompothrasibombomachides will force a beliefe upon the world that with this very adverb thrasonical diffavit omnes in Castris Gurgustodianis and cry to his enchanted fraternity to sing Jo pan at his invention But what sayes he to all this 1 sayes he what should he meane to make it conduceable to the peace of the commâ—nwealth that the King be free of the coaction of Law and yet not so if it be made a matter of conscience is the preservation of the peace of the commonwealth no matter of conscience to him Or is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law for that end warrantable Ans Doth not this ignoramus know that a question of this nature may be considered and answered politically and theologically And that many things may be tolerated or forborne in poynt of policy upon politick grounds and ends which if considered stricto Iure according to conscience should not be forborne nor tolerated David in point of policy did forbear to execute the Law upon the Murtherer Joab whom yet in poynt of conscience he accounted a man of death and therefore recommended the execution of the Law of God unto his Son Solomon and this toleration or forbearance may be lawfull or unlawful according to the weight of the matter tolerated or forborne and the nature and weight of the grounds in policy upon which this forbearance is determined So that though we should suppone it lawful for a Commonwealth to enact and determine in Law that their King should not be questioned for one single act of Murther or Adultery as other persones are Yet in poynt of conscience if the question be stated in thesi whether a King may be questioned for one single act of Murther and Adultery as another private person it may be answered affirmatively because the Law of God makes no exception of persones 2. It may be made a matter of conscience to make the King free of the coaction of Law in some small and inconsiderable particulars because of the probable hazard into which the Commonwealth may be brought by coërcing of him which all the value of the particular anent which the coaction is exerced will not countervaile But it will never be allowed in poynt of conscience to make him free of all coaction of Law so as he may without control murther millions destroy and waste Religion For that were not conduceable to the peace of the Common-wealth but a ready way to destroy all So that a constitution freeing the King from all coaction of Law how ever pretended for the preservation of the peace of the Common-wealth can never be warrandable For that were to make him actu primo and in actu signato a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the Commonvvealth if his good Nature should incline him to good peaceable things yet no thanks to the constitution Whereas he would make his reader beleeve that the Kings of the jewes were under no coërtion let him consider what Zuinglius sayeth explan art 42. Tom. 1. oper where he expresly sayeth That the Kings of the jewes and others
teaching should be so far transported as to take the circumstantials of Religion for the greater and weighty matters of Law and Gospel without which known and beleeved none can come to God Can we think or can any but this wretch who feareth not God think that the observing of sacred Covenants made about the life and substantials of Religion as well as more external things is no great and weighty matter of the Law No humble understanding seeker of God but though he knoweth there is a difference betwixt the circumstantialls of Religion and the weightier matters of Law and Gospel yet as He will not account every thing circumstantial which this circumstantially substantial Prelat vvil call so so He vvill have a tender regard to every thing vvhich Christ hath appoynted in his house But I pray vvho can take his Man for one of these meek people vvho hath the promise of God's teaching vvho to obtaine a bishoprick a circumstantial in his account but really to him and his collegues a substantiall sappy thing to sensual carnal Epicures and bellygods and to such as care for no other portion but one in this life hath sold and given away the most weighty matters of Law and Gospel both And how he shall then come to God unlesse he repent I see not It may be the needle headed casuist hath found out a new way and if not sure and saife yet to his experience easy and honourable viz. by ascending from a Presbyter to a Prelate But whither next Exitus acta probat either backward or headlong downe the precipice Againe Who can think sayes he that an intelligent people should account that the concernes of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation do lye with so much stresse upon this poynt that the weakest and most ignorant Minister shall have a potestative parity with the Man of greatest gifts learning and knowledge that the minister weakest in his prudentialls should have equal authority in the managing of the matters of God's house with the wisest and one of the most noted prudence that the youngest rawest and most unexperienced Minister should have as much power in ruleing the house of God as the Man fullest of years whose judgment is consolidated and ripened for government and who hath for a long time given such documents of good and wise behaviour that makes him fitter to rule the younger sort then to be ruled by them Answ No doubt but ye are the people and wisdome shall die with you yee are the Men of greatest gifts learning and knowledge viz. to devoure cups loose the knots of Govenants and to lead people the broad way to hell you are the wisest and most noted for prudence in that carnal wisdome which is enmity to God and in that worldly way of selling soul and conscience to purchase greetings in the high wayes high places honours revenues Court stations Court rewards and Court complements c. You are the Men fullest of years whose judgment is consolidated ripened for government giving for along time documents of good and wise behaviour having not only your judgments stupidly blinded but consciences seared and ripened for a dreadful plague and of this have you for a long time given sufficient documents by shewing how chamelion-like you can change all colours and how wittily you can turne with all tydes and have a behaviour suteable for all companyes but the company of God's people O ye Seraphical Divines or or rather Dunces O ye sufficiently qualified for a bacchus barrel O ye sublime Doctors of the blake art of perjury O ye learned Clerks in the mysteries of the Kingdome of Darknesse O ye whose prudence is to saile with all windes O ye Men of judgment consolidated into a stone having no conscience and far lesse piety Doubtlesse you are the Men the only Men fit for the sole possessing of that potestative power and authority to manage the matters of God's house and to rule the young stirplings But every tree is known by its frute and whether your singular Antichristian supereminency or the Apostolick parity hath best mannaged the matters of Christ's house the present overflowing and abounding of Idolatry Superstition Sodomy Adultery Uncleanesse Drunkenesse Atheisme Ignorance Profanity malignancy hatred of piety persecution of godlinesse and such like abhominations and the villannies of these debauched creatures the Curates will to all serious and soberâ— onlookers determine And by the present face of affaires together with all that which what is already come doth presage compared with what was seen while Presbyterian government was in any vigour and integrity will make all that feare the Lord see that more of the concerns of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation lyeth upon that very poynt of the discipline of Christ's house then by many hath been thought and will be a sufficient confirmation that this parity and not their domineering superiority was the only forme of government established by Christ and his Apostles Moreover he sayes Or who can see the prejudice to Christ's Kingdome and precious souls if such a worthy person as is described be intrusted with inspection over other Brethren and Churches in a reasonable bounds not with a dominative or lordly power but paternal and fatherly not to do after his owne arbitrement and as one unchallengeable in his actions but to be regulated by acts of the Church and Land and to be responsible to his Super tours in case of maleversation not to rule solely but with the consent and Counsel of Presbysers Answ By this Tyranny in the Church all may see what prejudice doth dayly come to Christ's Kingdome and to precious souls who will but open their eyes By what authority should any clame that power of inspection over others and that in a most unreasonable bounds Is the power of the present Lordly Lord Prelates paternal Sure they must be step Fathers then and that of the cruelest kinde Have not the present Lordly Prelats as much dominative and Lordly power as ever they had in Scotland And do they not rule and domineer in the Church after their owne arbitrement Who is to controle them unlesse the good King but a gentle curb in some or their jawes to make way for greater rage and Tyranny What acts of the Church are these which regulate them Be-like the lawes acts which their owne lusts make within their owne breasts for they are the Church the holy Clergy and who but they Who are over them as Superiours Sure none but the King in their account and to him must they be responsible and if they forget not the Court-art but laboure to keep some chief courtiers on their side they know all will be well and they will hear no rebukes but well done good and faithful Servant but no Church judicatory is over them But Zion's King is above them and their Superiour also and he will call them to an account for their usurpation and Tyranny He tells us they rule
allovv vvhy shall it be unlavvfull for a considerable part of the land to defend their Lives and Estates their Libertyes and Religion by forcible resistence made unto the Magistrat's Emissaries cruel bloody souldiers vvhen that moral resistence by petition vvhich yet no rational man can account resistence it being rather an act of subjection is contrare to all lavv and equity denyed and also the legal resistance by plea in court is not admitted Doth the municipal lavv of the land permit the one resistence aud vvill not the lavv of nature and nations vvhich no municipal lavv can infringe be a sufficient vvarandice for the other in case of extream necessity If it be said The Soveraigne hath law and right upon his side in this case which he hath not in the other till the law discusse it Ans The Law and Right which he hath on his fide in this case is but meerly pretended as in the other case and is lis sub judice Neither is he to be both judge and party in this case more then in the other againe if it be said that in this case He acteth as a Soveraigne executeing the lawes but in the other case he acteth only as a private person It is answered 1. That even in the other case He may pretend to be acting as a Soveraigne following executeing the lawes as well as in this 2. The Soveraigne as Soveraigne cannot oppresse nor do wrong therefore even in this case when he doth manifest injury unto the subjects contrare to his place vow and promise he acteth but as a private person and not as Soveraigne 2. If it be lawful for private person to warde off and defensively put back personal injurious assaults to the manifest and immediat peril of life without any colour of deserving of reason of law or judicial proceeding Why shal it not also be lawful for private persons to ward-off and defensively put back the injurious assaults of Emissaries to the manifest peril of Life Libertyes States Lively-hoods Consciences and Religion without any rational or real colour of deserving of reason of law of God or nations or judicial proceeding Shal it be lawful for one private person in the defence of his owne life to warde off such illegal extrajudicial and irrational assaults of the Soveraigne himself and shall it be unlawful for a body of a land or a considerable part thereof in the defence of their lively-hoods and so of their owne lives and of the lives of their posterity of their Consciences of their Libertyes and Religion all secured unto them by all bonds vowes Covenants Statutes and Actes imaginable to warde off the irrational furious illegal extrajudicial and mad assaults of the Soveraign's bloody Emissaries Sure rational men vvill see that vvhatever reason vvil evince the lavv fulnesse of the resistence in the former case the same vvill more strongly and plausibly conclude the lavvfulnesse of resistence in this case 3. If it be lavvfull for a private vvoman to defend her chastity dearer to her then life by violent resisting the Soveraignes attempts lest by non-resistance she should be guilty and oh if all the vvomen of the nation vvere of this temper Shall it not also be lavvful for private persons to defend their Lives Liberties Consciences and Religion dearer to them then their Lives yea and defend their chastity too by violent resisting of the furious attempts of the Soveraignes bloody Emissaries sent of purpose to constraine and compel them to perjury vvhen their non-resistence according to their povver and opportunity could not but be interpreted a voluntary and base quiteing of the cause and truth vvhich they vvere bound before God to maintaine vvith their lives and fortunes 4. If it be lavvfull to resist habited notour and compleat tyranny against all appearance of lavv manifestly tending to the destruction of a body of a people or a greater part thereof by hostile furious actions Shall it be utterly unlavvsul to resist notour tyranny yea compleat and habited though not as to re-iterated acts yet as to the ground laid dovvne of a most compleat and habited tyranny against all appearance of divine lavv or just and right humane lavves vvhich should be consonant thereunto tending to the destruction of the Covenanted-libertyes privileges and Religion of the vvhole body of the people and also unto the actual destruction of the libertyes states lives and lively hoods of a great part thereof by hostile furious actions 5. If resistence be lavvful in the case of violent attempts or destruction of all known legall libertyes and the beeing of religion according to lavv Shall resistence in our case be unlavvsul vvhen all the true libertyes of the subjects once established by lavves re inforced by vovves Covennants solemne engadgments and all bonds imaginable and the very being of our Religion as reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government ratified approved established and confirmed by lavves oathes Covenants vovves and promises vvhich lavves so re inforced vvith oathes protestations attestations declarations solemne vovves and Covenants are by all right divine and humane irrepelable being not only in themselves good and necessary but also becoming hereby sacred vovves to God vvhich must be payed being also fundamentall tearmes of the constitution of the reformed Republick 6. If in the case of Vendition Alienation of and giving the Kingdome to strangers violent resistence be allovved shall it not also be allovved in our case vvhen a land that vvas solemnely devoted consecrated and given avvay to God by solemne vovves and Covenants and the same ovvned approved ratified and confirmed by publick acts edicts proclamations declarations lavves and statutes of plenary and even as to all formalities compleat Parliaments made up of all the Estates of the Realme and the King also is novv treacheroussly and iniquosly forced to depart from their former principles to abjure their former vovves and Covenants to change their God to condemne his vvork and by most abhominable and ever to be-abhorred acts and statutes sold and alienated unto a popish prelatical and malignant faction and designe under vvhich the faithful and true seekers of God's face have and can expect lesse liberty for their consciences then if the whole Kingdome vvere delivered up into the hands of the great Turk Thus vvee see these concessions help our cause vveaken the adversaryes not alittle let us novv proceed to speak to another particular vvhich vvill help us also 2. The authors of Lex Rax and of the Apologetical Relation have sufficiently proved that the late vvarre carryed on by the Parliament of Scotland against the King vvas lavvful both in poynt of lavv and conscience And if that vvas lavvfull as it vvas and shall be found to be vvhen he and all his complices have done their utmost vvith all their lying cavills false calumnies reproaches and vvhat not that Hell can hatch to disprove condemne the same a vvarre raised by the subjects in their owne sin-lesse self
done by the encouragement and assistance of the Spirit of God And if any should reject this instance as impertinent because they suppose Antiochus was not their lawful Supream Magistrate but only a Tyrant without title let them heare what Grotius de jure belli pacis lib. 1. c. 4. n. 7. sayeth to this Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Maccabees for whereas some think to defend these armes upon this gronnd that Antiochus was not King but an invader it seemeth foolish to me seing in all the history of the Maccabees and of such as took their part they never name Antiochus any thing else but their King and that not without ground for long before this the Iewes had acknowledged the authority of the Macedonians unto whose power and place Antiochus did succeed as to that that the law forbiddeth that any stranger should be set over them that is to be understood of a voluntary election and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do And whereas others say that the Maccabees used only the right of the people cui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deberetur Neither is that solide for the jewes being at first overcome by Nebuchadnezar and subjected to him by the law of warre by the same law they did obey the Medes and Persians who succeeded unto the Caldeans and all this Impire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians hence it is that Tacitus reckoneth the jewes amongst basest of such as served these Assyrians Medes and Persians Nor did they require any thing by stipulation from Alexander and his successours but without any condition gave themselves up unto their power as formerly they had been under the command of Darius And if at any time the jewes were permitted to use their owne rites and lawes that was but a begged right which they had through the indulgence of the Kings but not through any imperial law So that there is nothing that can defend the Maccabees but most imminent and certane danger thus he 2. The constant practice of the Waldensian protestants in Piedmont doth shew that this late practice is not so strange uncouth as adversaryes would give it out to be for they never had a Representative to be a screen betwixt them and the tyranny of their princes and yet how oftintimes have they valiently with stood such as came to oppresse them in goods and lives though cloathed with commission from the princes In the yeer 1580. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity and their popish Soveraignes they assembled solemnely together to consult how to prevent the imminent dangers and after prayer and calling upon God for his grace and spirit of counsel and direction they resolved to enter into a solemne mutual Covenant and to joyn in a League together for defence of Themselves and their Religion and so accordingly did assist one another in their defence which they did with good successe And that alwayes since whenever they were assaulted by the bloody Emissaries of the Duk of Savoy as any may see fully in their history So that whosoever will condemne the late defence must also condemne these poor oppressed protestants who have no other meane to keen them from utter extirpation but this innocent meane of felf defence and of repelling unjust violence with violence for Bonds Promises Covenants binde their Prince as such obligations use to binde some others viz. no longer then they see it for their advantage Neither have they any Representative Prince or Noble man among them to head their matters but meer necessity puts them to use the best expendient they can and forcibly to resist their oppressing Superiours when they send to spoile them of their goods lives and libertyes 3. Some particular cityes in Germany did defend themselves against the Emperour unjustly invadeing their libertyes and assaulting them as may be seen in the history of Germany particularly the Cities of Madenburgh and Breme 4 So in France the Cities of Montobane and Rochel and the Isle of Ree with stood the King when he was seeking to oppresse them And no man will condemne these for acts of rebellion and sedition unlesse they will also condemne our Kings who at least undertook and offered to help and assist them 5. It was this opposition and resistence of privat persons when tyrannized over by Superiours that hath brought the Cantons of Helvetia unto that state of freedome and liberty which they have enjoyed for many yeers and do enjoy this day being now a free Republick as Simlerus showeth in his history of that Republick 6. But that we may come home we finde some remarkeable instances of this nature which no man in reason who shall condemne this late defence shall be able to defend and to beginne with what may be most recent in our memories In the year 1648. There are two signal Instances The one was that violent resistence used against the Parliaments forces at Mauchlin moor Here was not only a resistence in defence of the truth and cause of God then sought to be borne downe and oppressed by a prevalent Malignant faction in Parliament without the concurrence of conduct of the Representatives of the land but directly against them Here was a defence used by way of resistence by meer privat persons without the company or concurrence of one Noble man And yet a resistence that never was condemned by any to this day expect ingrained Malignants but was approved and commended highly by the Parliament anno 1649. the best Parliaments Scotland did see for many yeers Againe thereafter in that same yeer 1648 The forces of the west Countrey arose in defence of the Cause and Covenant of God and that not only without the conduct of a Parliament but against their resolutions It is true there were some Nobles Parliament-men among them and countenancers of them but these acted not nor could act by vertue of any Parliamentary power but only as privat subjects having by reason of their greater interest in the land a greater obligation to lay out themselves and to improve their authority and influence in the countrey for the good thereof and for the cause of God They had it is true by their places and stations greater influence upon the Countrey and a greater backing and so being leading men were in a greater capacity to defend the oppressed truth but all this gave them no publick Magistratical power nor put them in the capacity of a real and formal Representative and yet all this was afterward approved ratified and confirmed by Parliament as good and necessary service to the countrey and to the cause of God A third notable instance is that Anno 1639. There was then no publicke civil judicatory carrying on that defence but Nobles and others each in their capacity and according to their power concurred for the promoveing of that necessary work of defence They did not acte under the notion of any such judicature nor
upon this account any tumult should arise no crime might be imputed unto them but unto such as refused their just Demands And when they wrote that letter May 22. 1559. Wherein they said That except the cruelty were stayed they would be compelled to take the sword of just defence against all that should pursue them for the matter of Religion and that the cruel unjust and most tyrannical murther intended against Towns and Multitudes was and is the only cause of their râ—vâ—le from their accustomed obedience And when they wrote that other unto the Nobility where in they said By your fainting and extracting of your support the Enemies are encouraged thinking that they shall finde no resistence in which poynt God willing they shall be deceived for if they were Ten thousand and we but One thousand they shall not Murther the least of our brethren From all which and from the whole story of these times it is undenyably apparent that they acted for the defence of the truth and of their oppressed brethren and for the carrying on of the work of reformation for some considerable time without the concurrence and conduct of a Parliamentary Representative From all which Instances of our predecessours I would have these thing observed 1. It is remarkeable That when God was to beginne any word of reformation in our Land whether from Popery or Prelacy the powers then in being were standing in a stated opposition thereunto This is notoure both in the dayes of Mr Knox in the yeer 1639. King or Queen and Counciles were stated against it and opposeing the same what they could 2. The only wise God who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working thought fit not to beginne with the Spirits of the Powers in being to cause them first appeare for the work but thought it more to his honour and glory to make use of foolish things to confound the wise and of weak things to confound the things that are mighty and base things and things which are despised and things which are not to bring to nought things which are It seemed good in his eyes who doth all things after the counsel of his owne will to imploy the least of the flock in that businesse according to that word Ier. 49. 20. and 50. 45. and to raise up meane and contemptible instruments that the work might more conspicuously appeare to be his and the glory thereof redound to himself alone 3. As they would have been glade had it so seemed good in the Lords eyes if the standing Representatives would have not only concurred and countenanced that work but would have according to their places led on the vaune and shewed themselves powers appoynted for God and his glory by exerceing the power which God had put into their hands for God and his interest So the want of their encouragement and conduct did not in the least brangle their confidence of the lawfulnesse of their interprize of so discourage them as to give over their work as desperate and hoplesse 4. Nor did they ever assume to themselves any authoritative and Magistratical power to legitimate their actions as if they had thought that without that formality their resolutions and motions had been condemned as unlawful in the Court of God and Nature but walked upon the ground of that fundamental right granted to all both higher and lower to maintaine the Truth of God upon all hazards and to stand to the defence thereof and of themselves when unjustly persecuted because of their adherence thereunto according to their power and as God in his providence called them thereunto 5. Nor did their adversaries objecting that their actions were treasonable and seditious as being contrare to authority and established lawes scar them from their purposes in the least having the testimony of a good conscience with in them that they had not the least purpose or project to cast off lawful authority or to diminish it's just right and power and knowing that the Powers out of whatever principle and upon whatsoever motives relinquishing their duty and opposeing that truth and way which by their places and callings they were obliged before God to maintaine preserve and promove did not loose their obligation and exeem them form that duty which God and nature had laid upon them but rather did presse them to prosecute their businesse more vigurously as seeing the necessity much more urgent and the difficulty so much the greater And knowing that whatever lawes are made in a Christian Common wealth should be for the glory of God and the good of the souls of the subjects mainly and for their external welbeing only in subordination unto these great Ends and when the observation of the strick letter of the law did crosse the maine good which principally de jure they aimed at they were eo ipso in so far null and voyd before God because it alwayes holdeth good that it is better to obey God then Man and mens commands or lawes unto which obedience cannot be yeelded without contempt of and treason committed against the Highest of all who is King of Kings are as no commands before God and disobedience unto these is no disobedience unto the lawful authority but faithful allaigance unto the most Supream 6. These poor weak beginnings how base and contemptible so ever they appeared yet God was pleased when the time to favour Zion was come so to owne countenance and prospere that the same work at length came to be owned by Publick Representatives and Parliaments yea and the Kings themselves were brought to a publick owneing and approving of the same And who knoweth but if God had thought good to blesse this late act with successe it might have been followed with the like consequent But his time was not come 7. It is also observable That whatever disaster or disappoyntment they did meet with in prosecution of the Reformation and in the preservation and defence of themselves in the owneing of the truth of God though it put them to mourne for their iniquities before God and to acknowledge among other sinnes their too much relying upon the arme of flesh and not resting with a pure faith on his power and protection yet it never made them question their call or suspect the lawfulnesse of their work and businesse as to its substance and end for they knew well that the work was the Lord's and that their call was divine though for his owne holy ends that they might be more humbled and taught do depend with a single heart on his word and promise and to purge out such evills as provoked the eyes of God's jealousy he suffered them to fall 8. When the work came at length to be owned by Parliaments and Higher Powers what was formerly done by persons not in that capacity was not condemned either as unlawful or illegal nor did the valient actors stand in need of any indempnity as if they had been transgressours but all was
with them upon tearmes This he cannot get well denyed but sayeth All the Covenant that can be supposed here is upon the peoples part an engagement to humble subjection and homage upon the Kings part a Covenant of indempnity for former oppositions to him wherein they had need to be comfortably secured Ans If it was such a Covenant then it secured all the People of Israel and their Elders with them and David was bound to have keeped it and did keep it He did not then execute thereafter some of them upon scafsolds and set up their heads upon poles as Traitours 2. We finde nothing in the Text of their acknowledging a crime done so as they needed an act of indempnity it is like David in a piece of holy policy meet for that time to gather together the scattered people of God to use the Surveyer's words Pag. 94. Would have been content to have passed an act of oblivion as lesse irritateing then an act of indempnity 3. If they were now coming to be his Subjects who were not so before but were under another King as he sayes himself Pag. 94. what necessity was there either for an act of indempnity or yet an act of oblivion Ay but it was fit sayes he ibid to give them security touching his good minde toward them they having so long stood it out in armes against him Ans But was there no more requisite to secure them touching his good minde towards them and his willingnesse to accept of them as subjects who before were enemies except this act of indempnity Since they were in open hostility one against another and if upon this ground the Covenant on David's part was of indempnity why should it not be also a Covenant of indempnity on their part seing as he confessed they were not his subjects before but under another King But now when they come to bee subjects who were not so before and engage to humble subjection and homage must not David in this Covenant engadge to something corresponding to this we shall not repugne sayeth he if it be called a Covenant both of protection right ruleing them Answ That is all I am seeking to have David here obliged by Covenant unto his Subjects to such and such tearmes as to Protect and Rule them a right Ay but he adds Yet so as not subjecting himself to their censures or co-action or that they should be his subjects only upon that condition being otherwise free to fall upon him Answ This is not to our present businesse But yet how can he prove this Is it enough to say so Will his adversary take that for an answere Is there not here a mutual Convenant wherein each party is bound to other Are not the tearmes condescended upon And is it not granted by all that in mutual Covenants the observer hath a jus against the breakers But sayes he a Covenant may be to mutual dutyes yet on neither side conditional but absolute eath party obligeing themselves to their owne duty absolutely but not on condition that the other party do their duty Ans Then it seemes Israel was bound to David whether he would be a King to them or not Yea even though he would sell them to morrow to the Philistines for slaves and bond men for ever and David was bound to Protect and Rule them a right whether they would be Subjects or not 2. How can he prove that this was such a Covenant 3. Yea how can he prove that there is any such Covenant among men or how can he explaine such a Covenant As if sayes he a man bind himself by oath to give me one hundereth pounds I bind my self againe by oath to him to give him one hundereth pounds without conditional provision that he pay me the money he promised me albeit he should fail in his oath not pay me yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him because my oath is separate from his independent upon it and hath a separate obligation absolute which no faileing of the other party to me can loose Answ It is true manus manum fricat and if this Surveyer give to one a hundereth pounds He will know it is for an hundereth pounds againe or something better and I wish he should think himself as wel bound by his oath to pay the thing he promised to God absolutely as he thinks he is bound to pay to man what he had promised absolutely But to our businesse what sort of mutual Covenants can those be which he here speaketh of We hear to Pactions or Covenants where there are promises without a stipulation but of a Covenant or Paction betwixt two concerning mutual duties to be performed by each to other wherein there is no stipulation or which is no conditional Covenant I have not yet heard 2. Where heare we that such a transaction if it can have that name wherein one person promiseth absolutely to another to give him such or such a summe of money and that other person againe promiseth absolutely to give to the first another summe is called a Covenant 3. Lawyers tell us that even Promissiones promises if compleat and not mere Policitations wil give a jus a right unto the person to whom they are made to call for the performance and sue the promiser at Law And if this be granted as it cannot be denyed he will lose his cause For when the question cometh betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects it is the same case as when the question cometh betwixt two distinct Nations For as there is not a Superiour Judge over both Nations to determine the controversy so nor is there a Superiour ordinary Judge to decide the question that falleth out betwixt King and Subjects And therefore as the sword must determine it in the one case so in the other 4. But how shall he evince that the Covenant betwixt King People is not a reciprocal contract of things to be done by each to other upon conditions It is true he tells us that subjection is not promised to Kings conditionally but absolutely but in so saying he doth onely beg the question A better Polititian then he Althusius Polit. c. 19. num 6 7. calleth it a mutual compact betwixt Prince and People upon certaine conditions and calleth it Contractum mandati and he tells us that in this contract the Prince is a Mandataruis and his obligation preceedeth as the obligation of the Mandatarius and promiser useth to do and then followeth the obligation of the People secundum naturam mandati whereby they promise obedience and fidelity to him governing the Commonwealth according to the conditions prescribed Another Scripture instance is 2 King 11 v. 17. 2 Chron. 23 v. 3. 16. where Iehojadah made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People which as the English Annotators and the Dutch also on the place say was a civil Covenant betwixt them viz. That the King should governe then well They should
obey him in the Lord. Peter Martyr also sayeth that not only King and People covenanted with God but the King also with the People and the People with the King and thereafter that the King was bound to rule the People according to the Lawes equity Secundum Iura Leges and the People promised to obey him Zanches more fully tells us there was a Covenant betwixt the King and the People as uses to be betwixt the Prince and Common-wealths The Prince undertaketh to defend the Kingdome Lawes Equity and to be a keeper and defender of the Countrey and of Religion And upon the other hand People promise obedience and fidelity and such expenses as are necessary for keeping up the Majesty of the Prince c. Now what sayes our Surveyer to this He tells us Pag. 96. That it was also made upon an extraordinary occasion extraordinaryes cannot sound ordinary rules Answ How doth he prove that it was meerly upon the extraordinarynesse of the occasion that this Covenant was made he might as well say that the crowning of him giving him the testimony making him King and making a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King were extraordinary and so could not found ordinary rules yea and that it was extraordinary for the People to sweare allegiance unto him But he hath two things remarkable to his purpose as 1. That he is crowned made King before the Covenant is made which crosseth the antimonarchists who assert the King cannot be made King until he make the Covenant with the People that he gets the crowne and royal authority covenant wise and conditionally Answ Antimonarchists properly so called are against all Monarchs limited or absolute or doth he account them all antimonarchists who say that the King is a limited Magistrate then we know what to think of the Monarchists and Royalists of him and his party 2. He knoweth himself that the series or order of the relation of a complex businesse is not alwayes just according to the series of the things done but be it so this maketh for us in the former instance of David's Covenanting with Israel Which is mentioned before their making of him King 3. But suppose the King had refused to enter into Covenant with the Lord or with the People for mention is made of both Covenants after his Coronation might they not for all their solemnities in crowning of him have refused to have ownned him as King 4. But to put the matter beyond all debate we finde compareing the two places together That beside the Covenant betwixt Iehojadah and the Rulers of Hundereds c. mentioned 2. King 11. 4 and 2 Chron. 23. 1. which was rather a Covenant betwixt themselves to depose Athalia and to set up joash to put down Idolatry and to set up the true worshipe of God as the English annotations the Dutch say then a Covenant of fidelity or allegiance to the King as he would have it we finde 2 Chron. 23. 3. a Covenant made betwixt the Congregation and the King and this was before he was crowned or made King which Covenant as the English annotators say was a mutual stipulation betwixt the King and Them That the King should maintaine the true worshipe of God the peace of the Kingdome and privilege of the subjects and that the People should maintaine the King and yeeld unto him his due The next thing he sayeth is That it is not told us what the tenor of this covenant is Diodaâ— seems to say that Iehojadah made them sweare allegiance and fidelity to the King but how shall it be cleared that it was conditional with a reserve of coactive punitive power over him Answ Of this coactive power over Kings we are not now speaking and he but playeth the fool to start such questions without ground 2. That it was a conditional Covenant the scope of the place cleareth for if they had not expected thaâ— their condition had been better under his reigne then under Athaliah be like they had never resolved to have ventured their lives and estates for him and if the Covenant had not been conditional they could have had no rational expectation of the bettering of their condition from the young King Againe if it was not a conditional Covenant The King could with no more certainty have expected their dutyful obedience then They his faithful government 3. It is true the matter and tenor of the Covenant is not expressed but the nature of the act doth abundantly cleare what it was and that it was such as the English annotators have expressed 4. If Diodat say it was nothing else but the Peoples swearing allegiance he speaketh without ground for it was a mutual Covenant a Covenant betwixt King and People But sayes he suppose all the Kings of Judah made such covenants with the People yet will any judicious man force the Particular customes of that Nation on all Nations that might be best for that Nation that was not simply best their customes without a law of God bearing a standing reason cannot be obligatory on others lest we judaize too much Answ 1. We are not now pressing their practice as our only warrand but by their practice we prove the lawfulnesse of the King 's being brought under conditions and obligations to the people which Politicians Lawyers and Divines use to do 2. He must show why such a practice was best to them not also to other nations 3. We Judaize not more in this then in crowning and making of Kings though I grant they do who use the ceremony of anoynting with oile 4. We have the Law of Nature which is the law of God bearing a standing reason of this as was shewed above 5. Yea that lavv of God mentioned Deut. 17. 15. c. Limiting the Prince shovveth that it was the Peoples duty unto whom that is spoken when they were to set a King over themselves to provide for these conditions so that as they might not de jure set a stranger over them neither might they set any over them who vvould not engage to keep the conditions vvhich they were to required of him v. 16. 17. 18. 19. and these Conditions of the King being held forth unto them sayes that they were impowered to stipulate such of the King whom they were to create and that poynts forth a Covenant to be made betwixt them and their King power also in them to restraine the King from transgessing these conditions as Iosephus tels Ant. Lib. 4. cap. 14. Si autem fuerit alias c. â— e. But if otherwise a desire of a King shall adhere unto you let him be of your stock let him make much of Justice and other vertues and let him know that there is most wisdome in the lawes and in God let him do nothing without the advice of the High priest Elders neither let him assume to himself many vvives nor seek after abundance of riches nor
the Magistrate abuse his power not in some particulars only but in many and in many maine particulars if not in all Having thus cleared and vindicated the 6. thing The 7. And last is this which followeth also from the former viz. That when the Prince doth violate his compact as to all its conditions or as to it 's cheef maine and most necessary condition the Subjects are de Iure free from subjection to him and at liberty to make choise of another The very nature of a compact doth clear this For it is absurd to say that in a mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to performe his conditions though the other performeth none of his conditions or performeth not the maine and principal one It is absurd to say that when one hath given a benefite upon a certaine condition that he is still bound to bestow that benefite though the condition on which he promised it be no way performed Were it the rational act of rational creatures to set up Soveraignes upon these tearmes or to say wee choose thee to be our Soveraigne upon condition thou rule us according to justice and equity and not tyrannize over us and yet we shall always hold thee for our Prince and lawful Soveraigne Though thou should transgresse all lawes of equity humanity and reason and deal with us as so many sheep kill whom thou will for thy sport and lust c. will any body think that rational men would do so The law tells us L. si fund c. de pactis c. That cessante causâ propter quam res est data pignus debet reddi Before we come to draw our arguments from what is said we shall first roll out of our way what this Surveyer speaks further against these Covenants Pag. 88 89 90 91 92 93. He hath five particulars which he toucheth on The first is this It is easily conceded sayes he that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrats and Subjects to mutual dutyes which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politike body but his obligation ariseth not from any tacite or expresse Covenant betwixt them but from the ordinance and will of God enjoyning them these dutyes in these relations in that society wherein they are combined Answ 1. Subordinata non pugnant This mutual obligation may arise both from the Law of God and from the Covenant without any repugnancy 2. If this obligation arise only from the Law of God neither partyes shall be formally obliged unto other but both obliged only unto God and yet we heard himself say Pag. 100. that Where a Covenant is made betwixt a King and a People that the Covenant on the King's part binds him not only unto God in relation to the People as the object of the duty but doth bind him to the People formally Now whence ariseth this formal obligation if not from the Covenant 3. By this meanes the obligations of fidelity in the subjects unto their Princes have no rise from their oath of allegiance which he elsewhere calleth Foedus unilaterum 4. To what purpose then are Covenants and compacts made If by vertue of these each party be not formally obliged unto other For if David's Covenant with the People of Israel laid no obligation upon him he could not be said to have made a Covenant with them more then with the Phalistimes and yet the Scripture tells us he made a Covenant with Israel And King Ioash made a Covenant with the People 5. I do not well understand how an obligation to future dutyes can be called essential to a constitution which neither floweth from the constitution nor giveth a being to the constitution 6. Againe if there be no obligation unto these mutual dutyes until there be a constitution by compact and if then the obligation be essential how is it imaginable that the obligation shall have no subordinat rise from the constitution or compact whereupon the constitution is founded The 2. thing he sayeth is That though this obligation be mutual yet is it not conditional and how proves he this There is sayes he a mutual obligation to mutual dutyes betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional that if Parents be undutiful Children shall be loosed from their duty or on the contrary So is it sayes he betwixt King and People and the citeth Calvin Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 20. § 29. But it is easily answered That there is a vast disparity betwixt the rise of that relation which is betwixt King and People and that which is betwixt Father and Son And this being once discovered the parity disappeareth And 1. Subjects come not out of the loyns of their King as Children do out of the loines of their Fathers 2. The Son createth not the Father as the Subjects create the King 3. Yea Children do not so much as give their consent that such an one shall be their Father before the relation have being yet Royalists will grant this much unto the People in relation to their King 4. The relation betwixt Father and Son hath no dependence less or more upon any act of will in the Son or upon any Covenants Agriements or Compact expresse or tacite betwixt the Father the Son it is not so as to the relation betwixt King and People for before this mutual relation arise there must be a constitution and this constitution includeth at least some act of the will in subjects some previous consent 5. This relation can never cease so long as both are in life but the other may by a Subject's chooseing to live under another Soveraigne 6. Let the Father do what he wil the relation betwixt him and his Son shall never be loosed or weakened But the greatest Royalists will grant that in some cases the King may be made no King and his relation either wholly taken away or much diminished So then the consequence is null that because Children are not bound to their Parents conditionally therefore Subjects are bound conditionally to there Prince For Children have no hand in making up that relation betwixt Parents and them their consent is not so much as required but in making up the relation betwixt King and Subjects there is a previous compact required in which compact the People have their great share Children give not paternity unto their Parents but Subjects give the Kingship at least instrumentally under God and they set up Kings when they might set up Nobles and set up his Man when they might have set up Another can Children do so How then shall the case be alike And the one be no more conditional then the other Next as for Calvin we willingly with him grant that Subjects are to obey evill Magistrates and to do their duty to them though the Magistrates should come short of theirs as Wives Children are bound to love and be Subject unto undutiful Husbands and Fathers But Calvin will not say that in no case a
think that these Representatives having no expresse commission to renunce Charles Stewart and his interest from the land did break their allaigance why did not the King execute the law against them as traitours as he did against some under that pretext but really for their faithfulnesse to the Covenant as is made out by the Apologist why did he seem to approve what they did by Countenanceing them so much as he hath done since his returne 3. Doth not himself say that the Nobles and Body of the Land were well enough affected to the King and cordially loved him when they were overpowered and could do nothing Sure then the land did not break vvhatsoever some men did Ay but sayes he in lavv this vvould be reckoned their deed Very hardly since they gave no commission for such a deed If he say that they virtually gave such a commission in that they sent their commissioners unto the commonvvealths Parliament It may be answered that not only that was a constrained and extorted act but that as matters then stood no lavvyer no politician nor divine vvould condemne such a deed as sinful or unlavvful or as prejudicial to the Kings interest to send commissioners to a meeting at command of the Conquerour to labour for a mitigation of their bondage and for proposeing some things for the good of the land vvhen their ovvne King vvas banished from them vvithout all hope of a returne and they for his sake vvithout any treachery or perfidy in them reduced to a state of bondage 3. But since the King at his returne laide claime to no nevv right but stood upon the old ground and upon this account vvas crovvned in England vvhere he had not been crovvned before and vvas not crovvned in Scotland because he had been crovvned there formerly all these quircks are to no prupose for the King returning upon the old claime acknowledged the former constitution and re-assumed his auncient Kingdome upon the same tearmes he did before which is also furder confirmed by the act of indempnity which he passed and other acts and deeds which weer needlesse now to mention 4. We shall easily grant that when a sworne People desert and disclaime their King by their Representatives The King also may take the benefite of the conditional Covenant and leave them and so might King Charles have done and never owned us more and if he had done so and gone to some other part of the world to have spent his dayes as some would not have been grieved so I think both lawyers and divines would have thought him loosed from his obligation to the people though not wholly from his obligation to God But now since he did not so but took the first occasion that was feisible and returned to his old station and relation all the old bonds and engagements which he took in these relations recurred with their former force and vigour and he became no lesse bound then ever yea before the Lord rather more because the goodnesse of God in restoreing him without blood should have engaged his heart so much the more unto God to his former vowes and Covenants 5. What way he laboured our vindication into liberty I know not and if it be his Majesties graciousnesse and wisdome as well as his conscience of duty that would not let him walk after the counsel of these men as he sayeth many think that we are yet to see these commendable dispositions for the effect mentioned is not visible for after the counsell of whomsoever he hath walked sure we are he hath broken the Bonds and Engagements which he took on him both before and on the day of his coronation He hath rejected the Covenant which he made with God upon his knees with his hands lifted up unto the Most High and overturned that which was the Chief of our fundamental lawes or tearmes of our constitution as we see this day and this is knowne that of these who are most injured by him now and presecuted there were fewest that failed to him in that day and therefore his graciousnesse and wisdome and conscience of duty should have caused him remember these who could not out of conscience of their obligation to him by vertue of their Covenant take that Tender which others to save themselves from a little suffering swallovved dovvne vvithout much difficulty and not have made them the objects of his ire and indignation as he hath done and is doing to this day 6. He tells us that He may assert that the People of Scotland do rather ovve their liberty to him then he his authority to them But vvhat this bold assertor sayeth is not much to be valued vvho these People of Scotland are vvho ovve their liberty to him I knovv not unlesse he meane the abjured Prelates and their base naughty scandalous Underlings the scumme of the earth the shame of the Church and the disgrace of the Ministry who novv have freedome from Church-Discipline and civil censures and license to corrupt the vvord of God to destroy soulls to tyrannize over consciences to oppresse the People to inslave the subjects and to lead back the People into Egypt And the dyvour Lords and others vvho because of their licentious luxurious sensual and brutish lives vvhich they lead like so many Epicures having devoured their ovvne Estates and are novv so drouned in debt that if the poor could have but liberty to seek their ovvne and if justice vvere running like a streame durst not be seen must novv have acts made in their favours liberating them from the sentence of the lavv and allovving them to presse upon their creditours the most barren frutelesse and uselesse of their lands and that at tvventy years purchase after they have by manifest iniquity vvithheld aught yeers annualrent vvhich is near the equal half of the principal summe and such others acts of that nature Is this the liberty he talkes of That a fevv shall have liberty to drink avvay and vvith debauchery destroy the substance of the land and vvaste it upon vvhores and cups If these ovve that liberty unto him I am sure he vvill have little reason ere all be done to ovve his standing unto them When the anger of God shall beginner to kindle and his vvrath shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodlinesse and unrighteousnesse of men But lastly vvhat if vve should grant him vvhat he dar not in plaine tearmes require viz. That the King ruleth over us novv jure conquestus Sure he must then be Tyrannus sine titulo a Tyrant vvithout a title for his old title being gone and expired he had no nevv title vvhereupon to ground the lavvfulnesse of his conquest and therefore by his scope and drift here he proclaimeth a liberty to all the People of Scotland to carry tovvards him as an usurper to seek to dethrone him and to cut him off for Polititians vvill grant that a Tyrant vvithout a title may be so dealt with And thus
Egypt had not his propriety Gen. 45. 9. No man might then defend his owne right by law against the Soveraigne but he might take what he pleased from whom he pleased and give to whom he pleased 10. Then the King could not properly buy or sell with his Subjects 11. Nor could Subjects make any barganes amongst themselves without his consent 12. Nor could they exerce any acts of charity because charity must be of Mens owne Esa 58 7. Ecc. 11 1. 13. Yea Subjects could neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of goods if all were his 14. Subjects could not be enjoyned to pay tribute unto the Prince contrare to Rom. 13 6. 15. It is contrare both to the Law of God and nature see Timpl. ubi supra 6. Hence Soveraignes are not proper proprietors of their Kingdomes Because 1. there are other qualifications required of them then is required of ordinary proprietors 2. The People then could never change their Soveraignes 3. The Soveraigne might sell and dispone his Kingdomes as he pleased which Royalists themselves wil not grant 4. Kingdomes then should come in amongst bona fortuna 5. His place should not be properly a function or office but a proper possession 6. Several Kings both in Scotland elsewhere have been hindered from dilapidating the revenues of the crovvne or by gifts and other contracts deteriorating the Kingdome and punished for so doing 7. Would rational men give themselves up for a prey to one that they might be saife from becoming a prey to others 8. How should then a Soveraigne be chosen for the good of the Kingdom if he might do with it what he pleased sell it or dispone it to the Turk or such like 9. Paul by commanding that tribute custome be given to him supponeth some other thing see Althus poli cap. 24. n. 35 37. 7. Nor so much as usufructuaryes For 1. they may not lay their Kingdomes in pledge as an usufructuary may do 2. Nor can they give them freely away Nor 3. may they do with them what they please as usufructuaryes may do with what they have by that right See Iun. Brut. vind cont Tyr. q. 3. p. mihi 205. 8. The Soveraigne's power is properly a fiduciary power such as the power of a Tutor of Patron for to this end purpose was He created of the People that he might defend them from injuries and oppressions He is appoynted over them by God for their good and is to seek that mainly 2. though he hath his power by way of compact yet it is not a compact ex condigno such as betwixt buyer and seller upon valuable prices and considerations 3. His power is limited restricted and he is bound to conditions as we shewed 4. He may not as was said dispose of his Subjects and of their lives as he pleaseth 5 if he sell his Kingdomes Royalists grant he may be dethroned therefore he hath no other power then of a Tutor Publick Servant or Watchman 6. His power is over his Subjects as it is over the law of God and religion but over those he hath no other power but a ministerial Tutorypower He is to take care for them ex officio as a special pawne committed to his trust to see that they be not wronged or violated see Althus polit cap. 24. n. 43 44 45. Adrian the Imperour used to say Ita se Remp. gesturum ut sciret Populi esse non suam Hence we draw these arguments for resistence of Soveraignes by meer private Subjects in cases of necessity 1. If it be lawful for Children to resist their Father when enraged against them and seeking in his fury to destroy and cut them off whithout any violation of the Law of God enjoyning Children to obey and be subject to their Parents in the Lord Then it is lawful for Subjects though private persons to resist the fury of their enraged Soveraigne when he is seeking in his cruelty and rage contrary to compact oathes and vowes to destroy Them and their Religion But the former is true Therefore c. The Assumption cannot be denyed by any rational person It being most just and rational that when the Father is taken with a distemper in his braine and in his madnesse seeketh to destroy or cut the throates of his Children They may joyne together binde his hands pull the weapon out of his hand and defend themselves the best way they can The connexion of the proposition is certane for the most the adversaries can make of the Soveraignes power is that it is paternal and that he is parens patriae the Father of the Commonwealth yet seing natural Fathers may be resisted by their natural Children in case of necessity without the help or conduct of Magistrates Why may not also private Subjects without the conduct of a Parliament defend of themselves in case of necessity against the fury and rage of their civil father when he by his bloody emistaries is seeking to undoe them But next we may draw the argument from the lesse to the more If it be lawful for Children in cases of necessity to defend themselves against and to resist the unjust violence of their enraged Father Then much more is it lawful for private subjects in cases of necessity without the conduct of Parliament to defend themselves against and to repel the unjust violence of their Soveraigne For there is not such a connection betwixt the Soveraigne and his Subjects as betwixt Parents and their Children as we have abundantly cleared And againe if some of the Children may resist the unjust violence of their Parent and of others of their Brethren joyning with their enraged Father to cut them off that they alone may enjoy the whole inheritance or for some such ends Then far more may a part of the Common-wealth resist the Prince's unjust Tyranny though he hath the other parts of the Commonwealth concurring with him to their destruction For the argument followeth as I said à minori ad majus from the lesse to the more And the union tye relation betwixt Brethren Sones of the same Father is as great yea greater then the tye union and relation betwixt one part of the Commonwealth another this relation being but political and in itself no wayes indissoluble but the other natural and indissoluble 2 If Wives may lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and unjust violence of unnatural and enraged Husbands and repel in case of necessity violence with violence without the conduct or concurrence of other Magistrates Then it is no lesse yea much more lawful for meere Private Subjects in cases of necessity to resist without the help and conduct of a Parliament the furious and unjust assaults of their enraged Soveraigne But the former is true as all will grant Therefore c. The proposition is cleare from this That there is not so great a tye betwixt Prince and Subjects as betwixt Husband and
therefore no lesse lawfully may they be resisted 6. If privat persons may resist and withstand the Prince and Parliaments when they sell them and their land and heritages unto a forraigner to the Turk or such an adversary Then much more may they withstand them and defend their Religion when they are selling it by their apostatical acts and thereby selling them and their Souls unto Satan the God of this World 9. When Religion by the constitution of the Kingdome is become a fundamental law and a maine article and cardinal condition of the established Politie and upon which all the Magistrates Supreme and Inferiour are installed in their offices Then may that Religion be defended by private subjects when their Magistrates have conspired together to destroy the same to enforce the corruptions of their owne braine The reasons are 1. because it is lawful to defend the just and laudable constitution of the Realme in so far as Religion which is a principal fundation-stone of this constitution is subverted the constitution is wronged and the fundations thereof are shaken 2. In so far the Magistrates are no Magistrates And therefore they may be resisted Magistrates I say in so far as they overturne the constitution are not Magistrates for that is a maine pairt of their work to maintaine it For upon the constitution hang all the libertyes and all the good and necessary Ends which People have set before their eyes in the setting up of governement and His owne being as such the subversion of that subverts all and declareth the subverter to be an enemy to the Commonwealth and an overturner of the polity and this is inconsistent with being a Magistrate 3. In so far as they overturne or shake the fundations they cannot be seeking the good of the Community but their owne with the destruction of the Common good and this is the mark and true character of a Tyrant And when they seek not the good of the Community they cannot be looked upon as Magistrates doing their duty but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Commonwealth Therefore in so far they may be resisted 4. In so farr The compact the ground of the constitution is violated and as Magistrates in this case in so far fall from their right in so farr also are People liberated from their obligation so that if They become no Magistrates the Subjects become no Subjects for the relation is Mutual and so is the obligation as was shewed above Therefore in this case Subjects may lawfully resist and defend their Religion which is become the principal condition of their constitution and of the compact betwixt King and Subjects 10. Where Religion is universally received publickly owned and countenanced by persones in authority ratified approved and established by the lawes and authority of the land There every person is bound and obliged before God to maintaine and defend that Religion according to their power with the hazard of their lives and fortunes against all who under whatsoever colour and pretence seek to subvert and overturne the same and to hinder any corruption that King or Parliament at home or adversaries abroad would whether by subtilty or power and force bring in and lay hold on the first opportunity offered to endeavour the establishment of Truth and the overturning of these corrupt courses which tend to the perverting thereof And the reasons are because 1. When the True Religion is once embraced and publickly received That land or Commonwealth is really dedicated and devouted unto God and so in a happy condition which happy condition all loyal subjects and true Christians should maintaine and promove recover when nearby or altogether lost And therefore should do what they can to hinder any course that may tend to recal this dedication to deteriorate the happy condition of the Realme and to give up the land as an offering unto Satan 2. By this meanes they endeavour to avert the wrath and anger of God which must certanely be expected to goe out against the land if defection be not prevented and remedyed For if but a few should depairt wrath might come upon the whole much more if the Leaders turne patrones of this defection But of this more in the next chapter 11. Much more must this be allowed in a Land where Reformation of Religion in doctrine worshipe discipline and governement is not only universally owned publickly received and imbraced nor yet only approved authorized ratified and confirmed by publick authority and the lawes of the Land But also corroborated by solemne vows and Covenants made and sworne unto God by all ranks and conditions of People from the King to the meanest of the subjects in a most solemne manner and that several times re-iterated in which Covenants all sweare to Maintaine and defend this Riligion with their lives and fortunes and to labour by all meanes lawfull to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel and to continow in the profession and obedience of the foresaid Religion defend the same and resist all contrary errours and corruptions according to their vocation and to the uttermost of that power that God puts in their hands all the dayes of their life as also mutually to defend and assist one another in the same cause of maintaining the true Religion with their best Counsel bodyes meanes and whole power against all sorts of persons whatsoever And Sincerely really and constantly endeavour in their several places and callings the preservation of thereformed Religion in doctrine worshipe discipline and government The extirpation of Popery Prelacy Superstition Heresy Schisme Prophannesse and whatsoever shall be found to be contray to sound doctrine and the power of godlinesse And to assist and defend all those that enter into the same bond in the maintaining pursueing thereof And shall not suffer themselves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination persuasion or terrour to make defection to the contrary party or to give themselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdomes and the honour of the King but shall all the Dayes of their lives Zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to their power against all lets and impediments whatsoever Now I say in such a case as this when after all these engadgments and covenants a courte of defection is carryed on by a strong and violente hand by King and Parliaments and there is no meane left unto Private Persones when violented and constrained to a complyance by acts and tyrannical and arbitrary executions of either preventing their owne destruction in soull and body or preserving the reformation sworn unto or recovering the same when corrupted and of purging the land of that dreadful sin of perjury and defection They may lawfully take the sword of just and necessary defence for the maintainance of themselves and of their Religion This
interest of Christ and conspired against his truth and cause can any blame these worthies who endeavoured according to their power to have these crying abhominations remedyed that the wrath of God should not consume us root and branch and burne so as it should not be quenched What can be replyed to these reasons is sufficiently answered already and I would further propose this to be seriously considered by all let us put the case That King and Princes should conspire together to poyson all the fountains of water in the Land and lay downe a course how they should be keeped so and people should be forced to drink of these poysoned waters would not any rational man think that when no meanes else could prevaile People might lawfully with force see to their owne lives and to the lives of their little ones And shall we be allowed to use violent resistence for the lives of our bodyes and not also for the lives of our souls shall people be allowed to run together with force when they can no otherwayes keep the springs of water cleare for their owne lives or healths and of their posterity also and shall they be condemned for runing together to keep their Religion as it was reformed pure and uncorrupted Who but Atheists will say this Againe put the case That the Magistrates of some Brugh or City were about to do or had already done some publick prohibited bited action which would so irritate the Soveraigne or Prince that he would come with an hudge army and cut off the city man wife and childe would any in this case condemne the private inhabitants of that Brough or City if when no other mean could be essayed effectually to hinder the same they should with force either hinder them from doing that irritating action or if done should endeavour to remedy the matter the best way they could for the good of the City to prevent its ruine and overthrow and for their owne saifty and for the saifty of their posterity And why then shall any condemne the late defenders who when the Magistrate by their many sinful and publick actions had provoked the King of Kings to anger and jealousy against the whole land so that in justice they could expect nothing but the vvrath and vengence of God to root them out and their posterity laboured what they could to have the wrath of the King of Kings pacified and the wicked deeds provoking him remedied Would the Soveraigne in the former case account these privat persons traitours to their Magistrates and not rather more loyal Subjects to him then the Magistrates themselves And shall we think that the King of Kings shall account the late act disloyalty to the King and Magistrates and not rather commendable loyalty to him and faithful service There is another argument much of the Nature with the preceeding taken from the grounds of Christian love and affection whereby each is bound to preserve the life and welfare of another as he would do his owne and as each would have another helping him in the day when he is unjustly wronged and oppressed so he should be willing to helpe others when it is in the power of his hand to doe it according to that royal law of Christ's Mat. 7 ver 12. Luk. 6 ver 31. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so them for this is the law and the prophets It is unnaturall and unchristian both to say am I my brother's keeper Sure he who helps not his brother against a murderer when he may do it is before God guilty of the man's blood Meroz and the inhabitants thereof were to be cursed bitterly because they came not out to the help of the Lord and his People against the mighty Iudg. 5. Was not David helped thus against the Tyranny and wickednesse of King Saul And honest Ionathan rescued from the hands of his bloody Father Prov. 24 ver 11 and 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawne unto death and these that are ready to be slame If thou sayest behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart considerit And he that keepeth thy soull doih not he know it And shall not herender to every man according to his work Now the text maketh no difference whether they be drawne to death unjustly by private persons or by Magistrates They are if they can do it with force to rescue such for so the word imports as I Sam. 30 18. 2 King 18 34. 1 Sam. 17 35. Hos 5 14. And this did famous Mr. Knox avow unto Lithingtoun in his discourse with him registrated in the history of reformation Hence it is that Ieremiah Cap. 22 23. cryeth to the People as well as to the King execute judgment and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour and though it be true as Calvin on the place sayeth that this did chiefly belong to the judges and Magistrates Yet when their proceeding in this course of oppressing of the stranger the fatherlesse and the widow and of shedding innocent blood would provoke God to execute what he threateneth with an oath ver 5. And make that house a desolation and prepare destroyers against it and the whole city ver 7 8. and when all this is spoken in the eares of the people it would seem to import that even they should have stood in the way of such oppression and delivered the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressour not have suffered innocent blood to have been shed especially when inferiour as well as Superiour Magistrates were oppressing and tyrannizing and were the only oppressours and wolves as we see Esa 1 21. and. 3 12 14 15. Micha 3 9 10. Ezech. 22 27. And many of the people conjoyned with them in the like as encouraged by their practice ver 29. see furder for this Isa 1 ver 10 17. Ier. 5 ver 2 5 6. But sayes our Surveyer Pag. 53. That such prophetical preachings uttered to the body of Rulers and People are to be understood as reproveing what was amisse in every one in their respective calling and as injoying such duties as might be done by every one salvâ justitiâ salvo ordine modulo vocationis but to say that they minded to condemne in People the grand sin of non-resistence to the oppressing Magistrates or to incite private persones to pull the sword out of the Magistrat's hand relieve the oppressed execute judgment on the oppressours even Magistrats as Lex Rex doth say Pag. 367 is not only a most fearful perverting of the most holy scripture but a doctrine that tends directly to horrid confusion utter subversion of humane societies Ans We shall easily grant that in those sermons every one was reproved for what was amisse in his respective calling and all were enjoyned to do what might be done by them according to their places and callings and
7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo◠here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self
majesty for his paines or paine is not afrayed to rub by what he sayes here upon his sacred Majesty and his Royal Councel for if persons withdrawne and out of the Kingdom cease to be subjects to the King How could the King and council summon home the Scottish officers who served under the States of the Netherlands and were servants to them and under their pay and had been in their bounds all most all their dayes yea some of them were borne under the States and yet for not comeing to the Kings dominions upon his call and charge they were denunced rebels fore faulted and stand under that sentence to this day for any thing I know which though I account the most unjust inhumane barbarous irrational act that can be so that it may well be reckoned among the Surveyer's monsters of stöical paradoxes yet I think tendernesse to his Majesties honour and credite should have made him spare to have set downe this parenthesis But some men it seemes have liberty to say what they can or will if it may help the desperate cause though it should reflect upon King and Council both Let a friend goe with a foe 13. It was not to Parliaments or inferiour Magistrates that Christ said alittle before he was to be apprehended Luk. 22 36 38. But now-he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one and they say Lord here are two swords and he said unto them it is enough Here is enough to evince the lawfulnesse of resisting with force unjust oppressours for if Christ had thought it simply unlawful why would he have desired his naked private disciples to buy swords which are weapons for forcible resistence and defence and that at such a time It is true he would not suffer them to make use of them as they would not because it was simply unlawful for them to rescue him out of the hands of that band of robbers for he useth no such argument to dissuade them but because he was commanded of the father to yeeld and to lay downe his life of his owne accord and therefore was it also that he would not use the help of angells as he might have done in his owne defence therefore said he Ioh. 18 ver 10 11. put up thy sword into the sheath the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink Mathew addeth Cap. 26 52 53. thinkest thow that I cannot pray to my father and he shall presently give me more then twelue legions of angells God had revealed his will that Christ behoved to suffer Mat. 16 ver 21 22 23. Ioh. 20 24. and that was sufficient to restraine this act of self preservation hic nunc which was otherwise lawful as well as it did restraine from flight a mean which Christ at other times used for his preservation Neither did his word to Peter import that this self defence was unlawful but the reasones of it were as River sayes in decal 6. praec 1. Because it had a kinde of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not Christ's answere 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrâ—re to God's will revealed to Peter 14. That doctrine cannot be of God which to the eye of sound reason to all rational persones doth remedylesly unavoydably tend to overthrow and destroy polities all order and all humane society and open a gap and wide door to all confusion disorder tyranny oppression cruelty and injustice Our Surveyer cannot deny this proposition seing he maketh use if it or of one very like unto it Pag. 43. But to say that a poor oppressed people may not defend themselves in extreame necessity against the oppression and tyranny of Magistrates and resist unjust violence with violence is to all rational persones a remedylesse and unavoydable course laid downe for utter overturning of all Society is an opening of a door to all confusion disorder tyranny oppression Murthers cruelty injustice c. for when Magistrates turne Tyrants oppressours set themselves to seek the ruine and destruction of their Kingdomes and of all their Subjects in bodyes goods and Consciences and sell themselves to do such villany and wickednesse there is no remedy by this doctrine the Commonwealth is utterly gone oppression and Murthers are increased all is overthrowne and overturned and there is no help Thus God shall have given a power to one man to kill and massacre millions of Christians to destroy whole Commonwealthes and to root them out and all their memorial that no more mention should be made of them But who can beleeve this Yea if this were received as a truth what incouragement were it to tyranny and oppression And what mischief would not wicked hearts contrive and execute if they did not feare opposition and resistence This Surveyer tels us Pag. 103. That it is enough to keep Kings right to tell them they must answer to God But we see that for all this there are moe evil and wicked Kings then good and it is more then probable that that alone vvould no more suppresse their tyranny and keep them from wickednesse then the fear of the gallowes would keep theeves from stealing and robbing if they knew that no body would resist them or oppose them with force when they came to steal and rob 15. By this doctrine People should be in the most miserable condition imaginable when under governours for not only should they be lyable to all the oppressions of Magistrates tyrannizing over them and have their hands bound up so that they could not helpe themselves but also unto the opression and tyranny of every one who could but say he had a commission from his Majesty to kill and murther all whom he pleased For they might not resist whether he had a real commission or not lest they should resist the ordinance of God in resisting a servant sent of the King to execute his lust and cruelty with expresse warrand and commission thus there would be as many irresistible tyrants armed with absolute and irresistible power as one Tyrant will and the people might no more use violent resistence against them then against him A doctrine I am sure poynt blanck contrary to all reason and equity 16. If forraigne princes may lawfully help a poor people oppressed by their owne Soveraigne Then people may lawfully if they be able hold in the paines of these forraigne princes and defend themselves But the former is granted by casuists and politicians Therefore c. The consequence cannot be denyed for forraigners have no more power or authority over another soveraigne then the people have themselves and what justice or equity of the cause could warrand them to come to their reliefe and succoure the same will warrand the persones injured to help themselves if they be able 17. As the law of Nature will allow this self defence even to
Magistrate from violence and opposition when he keepeth within his sphaere and doth his duty 4. If the matter passe from resistence to revenge we approve it not if the pride and haughtinesse of the spirit of Princes be the cause of this let them see to it and labour to prevent it by condescending to the just equitable demands of their oppressed and grieved subjects 5. We do not deny but God may stir up an Absolome and other conspirators against a Gracious David for his owne holy ends But in ordinary providence it is to be seen that good Princes while alive and when dead have had more respect of their Subjects then others who have been most flagitious and wicked The books of the Kings Chronicles demonstrate this That good Kings have been much honoured and reverenced while living and much lamented when dead and upon the contrare vvicked King 's have either been cut off or when dead have not been desired nor burned with the burnings of their fathers nor buryed in the sepulchre of their fathers whatever forced submission outward respect they might have had while living 6. As for the difference that God in his providence hath put betwixt Heathenish and Christian Kinges see what Evagrius sayeth Eccles histor cap. 41. speaking against Zosimus he hath these words worth the marking Let us see if thow will how the Emperours which were Hethnickes and Panimes maintainers of Idolatry and paganisme and how on the contrary such as cleaved unto the Christian faith ended their reigne was not Cajus Julius Caesar the first Emperous slaine by a conspiracy did not certane souldiers with naked swords dispatch Cajus the nephew of Tiberius was not Nero murdered by one of his familiar and dear friends Had not Galba the like end Otho Vitellus who all three reigned only Sixteen moneths what shall I speak of Titus whom Domitianus poisoned although he was his owne brother what sayest thow of Commodus what shall I say of Marcinus did not the souldiers use him like a captive about Byzantium and cruelly put him to death what shall I say of Maximinus whom his owne army dispatched were not Gallus and Volusianus murdered by their owne army had not Aemilianus the like miserable end But since Constantine began to reigne-was there any one Emperour in that city Julian a man of thine own Religion-only excepted that was murthered by his owne subjects It were an endlesse work to run thorow histories and show how for the most part contrare to what he sayes these Kings who have been resisted by their Subjects whether in the time of Heathenisme or since Christianity was professed have been most flagitious and wicked Sure if we should goe no further but to our owne history we shall finde this put beyond all question the Surveyer himself being witnesse who sayes Pag. 78. that the instances of opposition made unto the Scotish Kings adduced by the Apolog. were but the insurrection of Nobles against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous And thus he contradicteth what he just now said But to what purpose is all this stir He sayes but can he prove that we assert That any party of the people when strong enough may get up against the King and all Magistrates when they judge that they deal wrongously and injuriously with them Sure the thing which we affirme is far contrary to this as hath been often times shewed We know that the evil wit of a seditious party can soon paint the Best King as a black and ugly Tyrant and vve know also that the evil wit of a hired court-parasite and bese flatterer can paint out the blackest Nero or Caligula or a Heliogabalus as a brave and virtuous prince And this is nothing to our case when the acts of Tyranny and oppression are as legible as if written with the sun-beames It behoved to be strange virmilion that would serve to make the apostasy perjury oppression and tyranny of the novv Prince and Rulers appear vvhit and comely and he needs no great vvit vvho vvould painte out these grosse acts under the forme of ugly Tyranny Yet vvith all vve shall vvillingly grant to him that All the fearers of God should rather indure some acts of real tyranny then by doctrine or practices of resistence open a door to the destruction of good Kings by a party not of their spirit but lurking under their pretences and to the continual dissolution concussion and desolation of humane societies for this is not the thing vve are against Some acts of Tyranny vve are vvilling to endure provideing he vvill grant us liberty both to teach practise resistence vvhen the acts of tyranny are not one or two but many nor acts of Tyranny in smaller and lesse considerable matters but such as tend to the destruction of the true Libertyes of the Subject to the overturning of a Covenanted vvork of Reformation svvorne-to by all rankes and degrees of people hovvbeit men of corrupt principles and of another spirit should lurk under these pretences Is it not reasonable that vve also demand of this Surveyer vvhile he is in a good mood That he vvould evidence so much fear of God as not to condemne resistence unto real tyranny so as to open a gap to all the ingrained bloody Nerâ—es and such prodigious Canibales to vvaste destroy at pleasure the best of Subjects What follovveth concerning obedience active and Subjection passive hath been spoken to formerly and it is needlesse fill up pages vvith repetitions as he doth only vvhereas he citeth Apolog. Pag. 376 377. granting that subjection is necessary and supposeth that this is repugnant to vvhat Naphtali sayeth He vvould knovv that he is in a great mistake for the question there is concerning obedience in things indifferent or of submitting to the penalty and that by a few privat persones and though in this case a single person who will not obey the Magistrate in these matters must yeeld the penalty and so acknowledge his subjection it will not follow that a multitude or a Community forced under intolerable penaltyes to acts of impiety and hainous transgression and who can defend their rights and just privileges palpably and iniquously violated may not repel such unjust force with force resist intolerable tyranny abusing the ordinance of God to all acts of wickednesse and to the overturning destroying the very ends of government And to this Naphtaly speaketh Pag. 28. So that he but gives vent to his profane Spirit to cry out as he doth Pag. 46. and say Good God! to what times are we reserved to see so certane truths that may be reckoned among the immoveables of Religion and the ancient land marks removed by an upstart furious Crue who by their new principles as false as new seek to confound both Church and State The lawfulnesse of privat men's counter acting and violent resistence to a whole Church a whole
shew them the manner of the King and what else was this for but to bring them off their purpose and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder But it is said ver 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place and other Commentators and he will finde it so 3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num 58. thus Impunity sayes he in committing wickednese can make no right Princes have no power to do evil but only to help comforte and to promove the good and profite of the people Vasq Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num 2 3. contr Illustr To do evil is no act of power but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil Vasq D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves and Incendiaries which can do many things which they ought not should be said to do these things by a kingly right and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission which de facto cannot be hindered That is common to others as well as to Kings for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment either because the fact cannot be proved or because they cannot be gotten punished or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted for Tyrants are Adulterers Ravishers Murtherers and such as are guilty of other capital crimes whom Scripture stiles Lyons Beares Dragons Wolves Prov. 28 ver 14. Ezech. 22 27. Dan. 2 c. and the like Pfal 58. Esa 13 ver 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1. Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this Disp select part 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity is not Ius doth found no Ius Or right neither is founded on the law of God of Nature of Nations nor on the civil law And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth that it is a Ius because it shewes what people were to endure willingly and might not resist He answereth Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius and not the King and so it could not be called the manner of the King but the manner of the People Againe he sayes evil losse vexation passion and not to hinder evil in Scripture phrase is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius then Ius or right viz. a privation of it 4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives it is not of the same nature with the former evils sayeth Althusius in the place above cited And the Author of Lex Rex pag. 137. said well If so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the People of God must â—e a lawful power given of God for a lawful power it must be if it cometh from God whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command and be either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the Servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it into the hands of the Woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by law to one man to command Twenty Thousand cut throats to destroy and kill all the children of God that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman married by free Election of a humorous and inconstant Man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven like the law of divorce for the hardnesse of heart not of the jewes only but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch That one Emperour may be such a Law of God as the law of divorce kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name men women and sucking infants 5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. When there was no pleace for repentance no remedy no use of terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far This recorded was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law Answ 1. Though the King was set over them he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book and keeped to posterity no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty is but a begging of vvhat is in question And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant seing he vvas to teach both King and People The good and right way 1 Sam. 12 ver 23 24 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote vvas Not as it is commonly practised Chap. 8. ver 9 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome teaching what dutyes the King ought to performe in the government of his people and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King according to that description of a King set downe by Moses Deut. 17 ver 14 c. Ezech. 45 ver 9 10. Cap. 46 ver 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2 v. 2. The Dutch Annot. say This is not of the way manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted concerning the goverment of Kings see Deut. 17 ver 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects and of the Subjects tovvard their King and these vvere the fundamental lavves
impious and opposite to the solemne Covenants under which the Land standeth bound and obliged before the Lord conspire with them in this Apostasy against the interest of God in the Land From all which we think these things will clearly follow 1. That it may be much doubted if this last convention can be accounted by any law either of God or Man a lawful Parliament having so palpably betrayed their trust in ruleing not for God and his interest but against him end enacting things to his dishonour in selling and giving away the old and undoubted Privileges of Parliament and in betraying dilapidating disponeing and giving away the native and unquestionable Rights and Privileges of the People and in overturning the fundamental lawes of the Land and annulling the fundamental article of the compact betwixt King and People Seing Politicians will grant that such are to be accounted but private persones though we should make no mention of other informalities which usually weaken or annul the constitution of a judicature of that nature in poynt of formality as liberty denyed to some shires to choose such members as they thought good prelimitation used to all the admission of some as members not capable of an election according to our ancient and received custome the denying of free liberty of debateing reasoning dissenting and protesting which is allowed in all free Judicatories and the carrying on of matters in a head-strong violent and tyrannical manner without such previous deliberation or serious consideration and pondering the weight and moment of matters as would have become a judicature by its constitution and nature so sage and honorable 2. The native ancient and undoubted Privileges of the People are de Iure intire and inviolated notwithstanding of any thing done by this late meeting which had no power to do what they did And therefore could not wronge the rights and Privileges of the People 3. That there is no hope or humaine probability now left that ever the People of Scotland shall have a Parliament by the course laid downe or inferiour Judges to resent the injuries oppression and Tyranny done to and exercised upon them but that still their bands shall be made stronger and the yoke of oppression and Tyranny wreathed closser about their neckes So that there was not neither is there any hope so long as this course of defection standeth and is not overturned that Parliaments now or the Primores Regni or inferiour Judges shall concurre for the suppressing of Tyranny bearing downe of oppression defection and apostasy according as they ought 4. That while matters are so the People of Scotland are as if they had no Parliaments nor inferiour Judges for that end and cannot be supposed or imagined to be in a worse condition then if they never had had my such to protect them from the tyrannical and arbitrary lust and domination of Princes And therefore must be allowed to use the privilege and liberty which nature hath granted unto them to defend themselves from unjust tyranny and oppression of Princes Parliaments and inferiour Judicatories when their Representatives palpably betray them into the hands of their adversaries yea and conspire with their adversaries against them and their Privileges and instead of Patrons and defenders of their rights and privileges turne enemies thereunto and take courses utterly to destroy all By this I suppose the first Objection is sufficiently answered yet I shall adde this word more and would desire that all who are of a contrary judgement would answere this quaeree Whether or not vvould they think it unlavvful for private persons vvithout a Parliament privy Council or other inferiour Magistrates to resist a Prince or his Emissaries if he vvith the consent of these should transferre unto him self the proper and immediat right unto all the Lands Rentes Tenements possessions Heretages and goods within the vvhole Land vvith full povver to sell dispone and give avvay the same unto whom he pleased and presently upon the passing of that act cause eject dispossesse and remove all the present heretours and possessours or put them to buy it of nevv of him or take tackes thereof as taksmen fermers or tennents If they think that in this case they might lawfully resist such horrid tyranny Then why not in our case when the People contrary to all law oathes and vowes are put out of the possession of their Covenanted Religion reformed in doctrine worshipe discipline government that by meer violence and tyranny Sure such matters as touch Soul and consciences ought to be as deare to People as what concerneth their bodyes and estates Or if we should put the case That the King were about to sell the whole Land unto the Turk or unto Irish bloody Papists by bribes or promises should procure the consent of a Parliament the concurrence of Council and other judicatories as really upon the matter walking according to the acts they have made he may Might it be unlawfull for People in this case without the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates who had now sold them and basely betrayed their trust to stand to their owne defence and to the defence of their posterity and their lives rights liberties and privileges And if this cannot be asserted by any man who hath not made a perfect surrender of his owne reason unto the will and lust of another why can resistence in our case be condemned Seing soul matters are of infinite more worth then these outward things And it were lesse bitter to know and see our posterity redacted into a state of perfect slavery unto forraigners as to their outward privileges them to see them shut up into a closse prison of soul slavery and bondage destitute of the pure and lively ordinances of salvation and frustrated of the glorious and excellent liberties and effects of a purely preached gospell and so shut up in a dungeon of ignorance superstition and all Prophanity that they should never know what true liberty meaneth As for the next objection taken from this that they were not the Whole Body of the land but only a part thereof which cannot be so well justified It may easily be answered That it being lawful for a single persone in some cases to defend himself from unjust violence It will be much more lawful for a considerable part of a Kingdome to defend themselves though they get not help of others Though all be bound to help a ravished maide yet though none should help she may resist and defend herself But to leave this because we have adduced many arguments that concludes the case lawful even for a part of the Kingdome we shall speak to the complex case not only as it was a defence but also a probable meane to put a stop unto the course of defection Which was and is carryed on and to redeem the land from spiritual bondage and slavery as well as bodily And to this we say That when the case is a publick case
murdering or deposing of Princes by Subjects who are not his judges And what his word approves not his providence doth not approve To say that God animates his People to such actions is blasphemy albeit he extraordinarly may stir up the spirits of some to actions not according to the ordinary rule as in the times of the judges but they were sure of their warrand from him the like whereof none have ground to waite for now Answer Certainely God's Word declareth that the persons of Kings how sacred soever he account them are not inviolable when it threateneth destruction unto them whether by their owne Subjects or by strangers and when these same judgements are executed his providence declares that they are not uncontrollable or inviolable 2. His adversaryes vvill tell him that the deposeing of Tyrants or the executing of justice on them is no sinful Murther nor sinful deposeing of Princes 3. If he had once proved that such actions as these vvere horrid and sinful then he might say that it vvere blasphemy to say that God animates People unto them 4. How did God animate Iehâ—jada and these vvith him to depose and kill Athaliah To say she vvas an usurpers vvill not help the cause for he vvill not have usurpers killed by the Subjects novv seing vve have no ground to expect such an expresse vvarrand to rise against them as the judges had and yet certanely these against vvhom the judges vvere animated vvere Tyrants vvithout title And thus we see this Surveyer out stripeth all the Royalists that ever wrote before him and not only will have the persons of lawful princes though flagitious and tyrannous sacred and inviolable but also the persones of the most manifest usurpers for he sayes that it was not according to any ordinary rule that God stirred up the spirits of some to make head against these Tyrants that oppressed the people of God in the dayes of the judges but extraordinare which motions we have no ground to waite for now And so this advocate cometh at last to plead as much for the exemption of Cromwel as of the King And if this be a faithful advocat let all the world judge and let the author of the pamphlet intituled Killing no Murther rebuke him for his impertinency and ignorance He tels us thereafter how The Apologist labours to produce many instances of the Parliaments of Scotland punishing Princes for their enormities all which he setteth forth as laudable and imitable presidents and examples Answ The author of that Apologetical relation driveth at no such designe there but only cleareth thereby that the Kings of Scotland have not a supremacy above Parliaments but that rather Parliaments are above them for they have punished them He addeth The most that all of them amount to is nothing but the insurrection of Nobles Proceres as Buchanan calleth them against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous-but neither Buchanan Nor this Apolog can produce any one instance of our lawful Parliaments or Peoples taking on them in a judicial way in cold blood aud under formes of processe to punish or destroy their Kings Answ What if his adversaries shall be contented with a shorter processe shall supercede many formes of legality which use to be followed with other notorious Malefactors Is not this a brave Goliah that cometh out to defend the King 's sacred person when all which he at length can do is to defend him from being adjudged in a formal mode to losse his head and his Crowne that he shall not be called publickly as other Malefactors are to the judges barr and there be impannelled as a Tyrant and Traitor to God and the Countrey If this man deserve his wages let wise Men judge seing all know that there is greater difficulty in taking away Tyrants then in taking away other Malefactors And that hardly can such a legal way with all its formalities be followed with them which is followed with others And that sometimes some Malefactors though they were never Princes must be sentenced in a more brief manner and privately also and yet it is all one upon the matter if the man be guilty and really condemned by his judges And so it is all one if a Tyrant be adjudged worthy of death or deposition by a Parliament the Representatives of the People and accordingly cut off from government or out of the land of the living whether it be done by a publick Messenger with sound of Trumpet and by the hand of a publick lictor and executioner on a publick scaffold or by force of armes vvhen the former meanes cannot be saifly used nor so securely And it vvas not the insurrection of nobles as such but as proceres and primores Regni that were instanced and of lawful Parliaments such as were used in these dayes sentenceing and condemning Kings for tyranny and other misdemeanours Let him read the History of these times written by Buchannan and Grafton and he will finde it so particularly let him see and consider how Ferlegus was adjudged worthy of death but for Fergusius his Father's sake was only imprisoned and thereafter with the unanimous consent of all being suspected guilty of the death of Feritharis put from the Crowne see why Therëus when he had filled the land with robberies fled to the Britones Was it not because the Governours had a minde to punish him Was not Even the 3. put in prison Was not Dardan for his wickednesse and blood pursued by nobles and People his head cut off his corps throwne into a jacks Luctatus at length was apprehenped and executed His sone Conarus in face of Parliment accused apprehended and shut up into a hall with some few attendants his ill counsellers executed and a Viceroy chosen till the People should meet to make a new King Were not the Primâ—res Regni about to have deposed Constantine the first for his vices had not Douglasse disswaded them because of their warres with the Britons and Saxons Was not Ferquard the 52 King summoned to compear before the Parliament and because he refused was he not brought to judgment against his will and accused of many crimes and not being able to purge himself was he not cast into prison This looks like an act and execution of justice done in cold blood under forme of processe So did the Primores Regni intend to have punished Ferquard the second had not Bishop Colman disswaded them Was not Eugenius the VIII for his filthy lusts and vices covetousnesse and cruelty slaine by the general consent of his Lords assembled By whom and for what was Donald the 70. King cast into prison Who forced Ethus brother to Constantine the II. and for what to renunce the Kingdome and shut him up in prison Was not Culenus summoned to compeare before a Parliament at Scone Now the Surveyer is in his strength and disdaining to meddle with the libeller as he calleth him he will
the civil Magistrates Sure when he said and elswhere proved that the Estates of the Realme were above the King he fully agreed with these authors touching the meaning of that place so that that Surveyer might have spared his paines in reciteing their words for he sayes nothing against what either Pareus Pet. Martyr Musculus Bezelius Diodate or the Chaldee Paraphrase say Let us hear how he applyeth this to the purpose But sayes he if the persons invested with Supreme power of the sword abuseing their power become guilty of shedding innocent hlood who in that society where of they are heads shall judge or punish them who is superiour over the supreme to punish him It is inexplicable how any in whom the Soveraigne Majesty Magistratical power resides should according to order be punished by subjects Answ This is the knot of all but it is nothing else than what we have heard againe and againe and hath been spoken to already But yet because it is to him inexplicable and a Gordian Knot let us see if we can loose it without Alexander's sword He will grant or if he will not but retract what he hath elswhere granted speaking of a legal resistence all the lawyers in Scotland will grant it that if any in the King's name shall seek to dispossesse a Man of his inheritance the man may defend his right by law and the King by his advocate must pleade his cause before the ordinary judges and these ordinary judges must judge righteous judgment according to law and give out a decreet in favours of the subject against the King and so condemne the King of injury and oppression intended against the subject Now who but the ordinary judges in civil Matters are judge here to the Supreme yet these judges in another respect are but subjects doth he not now see how such as are meer subjects in one respect may judge and punish him who is invested with Soveraigne Majesty and Magistratical power and so in another respect are above him And what if I say that as in civil Matters the ordinary judges may judge the King so the justice general or his deputy constitute ordinare judges in criminals or capitals may iudge him when he committeth a capital crime let him or any Man else shew me a reason why the one should be and the other may not be in poynt of conscience But if we speak of a Parliament the Representatives of the People the case is so cleare that there is no difficulty for that is a judge alwayes above him and so even according to his limitations if the King shed innocent blood by them may his blood be shed Then Pag. 81. he sayes When the Apostle Rom. 13. sayes let every soul be subject to Superiour powers that every soul doth not comprehend the supreme power it self for how can the Man invested with it be subject to a superiour power but it is meant that every soul under the superiour power or supreme should be subject to it Answ Yet againe the same thing which we heard before Is he not able to understand this how one who is supreme in one respect may be inferiour in another respect The father hath a Supreme paternal power over the Son yet the sone being a judge or Prince may be over him as David was over Iesse and Saul over Kish But sayes he Let men as they will indulge themselves in their seditious Notions they must at last sist in some supreame power on Earth which is not judge able or punishable by any Answ Be it so what hath he gained for the King his Master Must either he be the supreme power on earth which is not judgeable or punishable by any or must there be none His adversaries will soon deny the consequence And he let him indulge himself in his Tyrannical Notions as much as he will shall never be able to confirme it How then shall he defend the sacred person and life of the King What sayeth he further If soveraigne Majesty be placed in Parliament or People who may be guilty of shedding innocent blood as well as the King who shall shed their blood when they transgresse Shall this be reserved to the sounder and smaller part of the People as this Man speaks Pag. 240. then there is ground enough laid for Eternal confusion Answ The Surveyer either subtilly or ignorantly confounds things here which should be considered distinctly and leadeth his unwarry reader off the way Wherefore we would have the Reader though all this is nothing to the purpose in hand to prove the King uncontrollable or unpunishable and unjudgeable for any of his acts take notice of these few things which will help to cleare the matter 1. That there is a not-judgeablenesse to speakso and not-punisheablenesse de facto which may be said of some notorious rebels and out-Lawes whom neither Law nor power of authority can cöerce and there is a non-punishablenesse and non-judgeablenesse de â—ure when one is exeemed from Law-judgment and Law-sentence so that he is above all tryal and sentence of Magistrates Cases may fall out wherein such as are punishable judgeable de Iure according to an ordinary way laid downe or allowed by God may notwithstanding be unpunishable and not-judgeable de facto either through corruption prevailing over all or prevalency of power in the punishable person or persons And this though in an ordinary way irremediable yet speaks not against the Ordinance and appoyntment of God and Nature 2. That there is a difference betwixt personal faults of Governours or such as are invested with authority and power as was that act of Murther and Adultery in David and publick miscarriages in poynt of governm in exerceing the power wherewith they are invested of personal faults speaketh Lex Rex in the place now under consideration and upon this have we vindicated that worthy Author from vvhat this perverter of all things hath said But here he mixeth these and confoundeth them that according to his vvay he may pervert the truth 3. There is a difference betvvixt simple acts of male-administration in lesser matters and betvvixt such acts of male-administration as pervert the ends of government 4. There is a difference betwixt palpable cleare and undenyable miscarriages and betvvixt such as are not so cleare nor unquestionable 5. There is a difference to be made betvvixt ordinary standing cases and an extraordinary emergent in an extraordinary case vvhile the disease is desperate a desperat-like and extraordinary remedy may be used without overturning the ordinary way which is to be used in ordinary cases These things will help us to nnravel his confused discourse And so we Answere 1. If Parliament-members or privat persons among the People shed innocent blood it is no difficulty to know who should judge them 2. If a Parliament as the Peoples Representatives Murder the innocent I see not why they may not be called to an account by a posterior Parliament as
when a beanch of judges in civil matters conspire together to oppresse by their unlavvful and unjust decreets palpably such and not our to all vvhen they are deposed and others put in their places the oppressed may get his cause righted and reparation of dammage of them Or vvhen a justice generall manifestly palpably murdereth the innocent he may be made to ansvvere before another put in his place if this may be done as I judge in poynt of conscience it may so may the other be done with Parliaments 3. If Parliaments conspire to overturne Religion Lavves Liberties and thus destroy the Republick I judge vvith L. R. Pag. 240. that the sounder part if they be able may resist and hinder so far as they can that destruction and ruine of the Republick Neither ever shall he prove that this is a ground for Eternal confusion O sayes he Any lesser part when they have or think they have will and sâ—rengh enough to through their businesse will undoubtedly call themselves the sounder part and labour to beare downe the corrupt plurality Answ This remedy to prevent destruction and ruine to the Common-wealth may be of the Lord though it should be abused by sinful men for the best thing may be abused And it is not the meane allowed by God and Nature which layeth a ground for eternal confusion but the abuse of the meane maintained whereof we are not guilty But we have had abundance of such rotten consequences from him who knoweth better what it is to deceive the simple with sophistications then to satisfy the judicious with solid reasons Then he addeth But the Christian Reader may easily see how hard this Author is put to it and for all his saying that according to God's Law Kings must be punished as well as others yet is he forced to acknowledg a Supremacy of power in some not punishable by any but by God Ans This is but what we heard just now and whether true or false it helpeth him nothing Have that Supremacy of power which is not punishable by any but by God who will if the King have it not the King's life is not secured And if he say if any have it the King must have it True if this rotten malignant and parasitical ignoramus can make no bad inferences but he hath already so often discovered vanity in this way of argueing that we cannot account him infallible And therefore let him prove his consequence for we know him better then to take any thing from him upon trust Well what way doth he clear this of Lex Rex For sayes he Pag. 389. when he hath given all power to the Parliament over the King he objecteth to himself who shall punish and coërce the Parliament in case of exorbitance He answeres posterior Parliaments and Pag. 211. he sayeth by the people and conscience of the people are they to be judged let all our Nobles and Parliaments hearken to this Answ In the first place cited Lex Rex is not speaking of Parliaments power over the King as this squint-eyed Surveyer thinketh but is handling that question whether or not Monarcy is the best of governments And is shevving in vvhat respects it is best and in vvhat respects it is vvorste and shevveth hovv a mixt Monarchy is best and then ansvvereth some objections And to that vvhich some might object That Parliaments might exceed their bounds and who should coërce them He ansvvered That posteriour Parliaments might do it and so there vvas a salvo in that mixture of governmemt 2. In the other place he is shevving vvhat relation the King hath to the Lavv and that he is not the sole Lavv maker nor sole supreme judge And ansvvereth that objection That the three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends not to Law and the publick good are not fundamentalls are to be judged by the King viz. That they are to be judged by the people and the conscience of the people Why calleth â—e the Nobles and Parliaments to hearken to this What absâ—â—dity inn reason is here Who ever head of this sayes he that one Parliament posteriour should punish the prior Their acts they may retract indeed but to punish them for their acts is most absurd because the prior Parliament in the capacity of that judicatory had as much povver as the posterior States men vvill vvonder at this doctrine that Members of a Parliament should be punished for their free votes by a succeeding Parliament and far more at the subjecting them to the conscience of the People Answ 1. It is no small punishment and cöercion to a Parliament to have all their designes consultations and conclusions overturned which may be done by posteriour Parliaments 2. If Parliaments by their free votes sell Religion and the Liberties of the land unto the Turk and so destroy the same and betray their Trust I see not vvhy they ought not be punished for their paines If they should enact and put to execution the act vvhen made That all vvho vvill not bovv and burn incense to an idol should be brunt quick I see not vvhy they may not by a posteriour Parliament be questioned and punished for that innocent blood vvhich they have shed 3. His reason to the contrary is not good for they never had povver or commission for overturning the ends of government and destroying the Commonvvealth if the Magistrates of a Brugh betray their trust dilapidate the rents and revenues of the city sell and dispone the rights and privileges thereof may not the succeeding Magistrates call them to an account for that notvvithstanding that in the capacity of that judicatory they had as much povver if any as the posteriour 4. Wonder at it vvho vvil that vvhich is right is right and it is consonant to equity that the consciences of the People be so far judges of vvhat is done by their Representatives as not to suffer them in their name and by any povver borrovved from them to destory the Commonwealth and to overturne the fundations of Religion and Liberty c. But then sayes he another objection he makes posteriour Parliaments and People both may erre He ansvveres All that is true God only must remede that What can he make of this Well then sayes he if Parliaments or People destroy or murther persons innocently God only must remeed that there is no povver on Earth to call them to an account Who sees not that at length the author is driven to acknowledge a power which if it deviate cannot be judged by any on earth Answ Lex Rex is not there speaking of particular acts of injustice Or iniquity but of the whole ends of government And so if Parliaments and People concurre and joyne together to overturne all the world sees that there is no remedy on Earth Neither needed he to say that he was driven to this seing it was so obvious to all who have eyes in their head Though God hath appoynted
despiseing that lawfull inspection but all concurring together in a kindely mutuall assistence and amicable conjuction for carrying on the real interests of Christs Kingdome without imperiousnesse one the oneside and without srowardly disorderlynesse on the other Now he turneth a peace maker and such a notable reconciler is he that would cause fire and water agree But he hath sold his Zeal and Conscience for he knoweth what He hath forgote that there is no communion betwixt light and darknesse nor betwixt Christ and Belial But he must know that we will neither pack nor peel with him nor his accursed fraternity but will come out from among them and be separated from them and touch none of their uncleane things that God may receive us according to his promise 2 cor 6 ver 17. If the Men of that accused Hierarchy were not led away with intolerable passion prejudice and acted by a fury of hell to destroy the gospel they would consolidare this controversy by extirpating themselves For as long as they stand in that accursed order they shall never carry on the real interests of Christs Kingdome but effectually so farr as lyeth in them destroy the same as former and dayly experience proveth what by their imperious antichristian dominion over the Church of God and the Officers thereof which were ordained of Christ and what by their laying out of themselves according to their usurped power and places to destroy banish piety knowledge and the fear of God out of the land and to bring all the true seekers of God under the same guilt of manifest perjury and apostasy with themselves If it were a lawful inspection presbyters would neither despise it nor carry themselves frowardly or disorderly under it but it being an unlawful dominion so destructive to the Kingdome and interests of our Lord Jesus Christ it can neither alone nor in conjunction with any other promove the interest of Christs Kingdome and therefore must be abhorred as an antichristian brate and never submitted unto But whither now doth the matter goe The designe sayes he this libel runs upon is to open a gap to endlesse rebellions under what soever Church government And not only to bring all our Magistrats from the highest to the lowest under disgrace which is the nexâ— step to destruction and to make them a sacrifice to the fury of thâ—â—wicked people But to ruine Kingly Authority and Magistracy the ordainance of God This is but a frequently renewed calumny we have oftentime met with in his first part and have shewed how groundlesse it is and therefore we need say no more here All who have not with this Man willingly shut their eyes may see That the designe is only to prevent intolerable Tyâ—anny the ruine of humane Societyes and Kingdomes and to keep the true Divine Authority which God hath cloathed his owne civil officers with from contempt and disgrace which Magistrates degenerating into Tyrants expose themselves unto by changeing the ordinance of God into the ordinance of Satan and in stead of acting and carrying as Ministers of God for the good of the People walk and act as Ministers of Satan laying out themselves to the utmost for the destruction of the People both in soul and body Who seeth not then that when they thus forget themselves and forget what they are both bound and have promised to be they do expose themselves to disgrace and to the contempt of these who otherwise would most willingly honour them as God's vicegerents But when they carry as avowed Servants of Satan as Tygers and destroy the inheritance of the Lord which they were to nourish and protect can they expect to be looked upon as God's Deputyes while they do so And sure who ever maintaineth that such who have cast behinde their back all Vowes Promises Compacts Subscriptions Oathes and solemne Engadgments and break overall bonds of humanity and Christianity that they may satisfy their owne cruel and base lusts and so carry towards Subjects as if they were so many Slaves or Brutes or Worse may lawfully be resisted is very far from opening a gap to endlesse rebellions under any Church government that he rather layeth downe a course to prevent rebellions For if Kings remembered that their Subjects might lawfully and would oppose them when they turned Tyrants they would walk more soberly and forbeare to vent their tyrannicall cruelty and so give lesse occasion to Subjects to think of opposeing them And However this Pamphleter may look upon himself as one who hath deserved well at the hands of the King Yet the judicious who consider the matter right will finde him really a greater Enemy to the throne then either Lex Rex the Apology or yet Naphtali were or are Seing they must be greater Enemies to the real welbeing of Kings and to the Establishing of thrones who would have them setled upon the alone basis of blood tyranny opprossion or proclaime an impunity unto Tyrants to do what they will which is but to blow at a fire which burneth fast enough of it's own accord then such as would have them setled on equity and righteousnesse and not suffered to goe without their due bounds There is a great noise sayes he it may be it is not causelesse and it were to be wished Rulers looked to it of the increase of Popery Doth he think there is a noise made about this matter and a great noise and that without ground Or can he arrive at no more certanety but of a may be that it is not causeless Sure the Representatives as he calleth them several yeers ago were beyond a may be that it was increased above what ever it had been either in the dayes of King Iames or of King Charles the first And hath their mock-mock-act never executed affrighted it so out of sight that this Man who possibly would be accounted no meane Father and over seer in the Church cannot perceive it at least so clearly as positively to say that there is just ground for that noise But where dwelleth this Man or what way doth he stope his eares Is he one of those who see and perceive not who know and yet carry as if they knew not What is he and his fraternity doing to day What are the men with the Episcopal inspection doing Are they so occupyed in persecuteing the truely godly the faithful Ministers and People of the Land and in stirring up the Council to be more cruel then they are and severely to execute the unjust and most iniquous Lawes made to banish all piety and fear of God out of the Land that they have no Leasure to look about them to marke what Papists Seminary Priests and Jesuits who are swarmning up and downe the Land are doing When did He or They advise the Council to take such an effectual course for suppressing masse meetings as they have done for suppressing of conventicles or meetings of better reformed and founder Protestants then ever he or
to her step sone Antonius Caracalla si libet licet an nescis te imperatorem esse and no lesse impious was that saying of Anaxarchus to Alexander the Great when he had Killed Clitus in a rage Nesus adsessâ—rem jovi justitiam fas esse quo quicquid actum a dominante fuerit id jus fas sit as if for sooth Alexander could do no wrong It was an abhominable saying of these judges to Cambyses That though they could finde no law permitting a brother to marry his sister yet they knew of another law whereby it was lawful to the Kings of Persia to do whatsoever they pleased All Divines will grant this and so do Lawyers and Polititians See Bodine de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hoenon Disp Polit. 9. Thes 7. Paul Voetius Iurispr Sacra Gerhard de Magist Polit. § 119. Althus Polit. cap. 19. n. 9 10 11. Timpl. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 1. Our Surveyer grants this pag. 57 58. and elswhere 3. Neither is he exempted from the Lawes of Nature and Nations for the law of nature is the very Law of God and God hath no where Subjected his Law unto the vvill of Princes 4. Neither is the exempted from all the civil Lavves sayeth Hoenon ubi supra For sayes he many civil Lavves are but declarative of the Lavv of nature and consectaryes thereof and vvhat povver he hath he hath from the People and the People are certanely bound by these Lavves Yea as Boxhornius sayeth Instit Polit. lib. 1. pag. 33. Principi tantummodo licet quantum populus ei voluit licere No more is lawful for him then the People will The Surveyer in the forecited place sayeth It is a Royal thing for a King to live by the same good Lawes which are given by him to the People and it is of efficacious influence upon them to move them to walk in their dutyes orderly Rex tenetur servare Leges si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes But he might know that our King is bound to observe the Lawes even as Lawes and must pay his debt and submit to the decision of Judges as well as others 5. Our Surveyer confesseth Pag. 75. That the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God of reason and nature yea and to take his directions in government from the rational Lawes of the Kingdome which are deductions from or determinations of the Law of God reason and nature to particular circumstances agreed to by the consent and good likeing of his People Hence it followeth 1. That he cannot dispense by his prerogative Royal with a just Law according to his sole pleasure and so pardon such as deserve death 2. He cannot kill and slay whom he will but according to law 3. Nor can he alone make lawes 4. Nor can his will stand for a law 5. Nor is he the sole interpreter of the law 6. Nor in interpreting of the law hath he a dominion over it to expone it as he wil for if these be not granted it cannot be granted that he is bound to rule us by the Law of God of reason and of nature or by the Lawes of the Kingdome but according to his meer will and pleasure 6. It must be a most unreasonable thing to say That the Soveraignes power is absolute which Royalists contend so much for and say that he is above all law of man for then he might do what he pleased without controle But 1. did ever the People set a Soveraigne over themselves upon these tearmes Did ever People set him over themselves to rage at randon to kill murther massacre and do what seemed good in his eyes 2. Their condition should necessarily be worse after the constitution then it was before 3. The saifty of the People should not be the supreame Law 4. He might then break all bonds and oathes and keep no conditions which he had made 5. If so a Prince as a Prince should be a great plague and judgment to a People 6. All his Subjects should be formal Slaves unto him their lives all they have should be at his devotion 7. He should not then be the Servant of God for the good of the People contrare to Rom. 13 4. 8. If this power agree to him as King then it is from God and so God should give him a power to sin and tyrannize which is most false 9. Then there could be no Tyrants 10. Yea a King as a King should be a Tyrant in actu signato and a Tyrant should be nothing but a King in actu exercito 11. Yea if so they might not so much as be rebuked by the messengers of the Lord for their enormities contrare to the many instances in the Old Testament of Prophets rebuking Princes 12 if his power were absolute lawes would become no lawes neither were there need of lawes nor should the making of lawes be a meane to promove the good of the Realme all which are most absurd And as for for our King That he hath no such prerogative Royal as puts him above all limitations is already sufficiently evidenced by Lex Rex and by the Apology though this Surveyer is pleased to say Pag. 11. That his prerogative Royal is disputed downe most weakly and foolishly in the Apology Yet he will not see so much weaknesse and folly there as he imagineth when ever he cometh to handle that disput But I grant it is easier to him to say that all is weak and foolish which pleaseth nor him then to undertake the confutation thereof It is enough to him that he shew his teeth once and then run away But if he will afterward undertake that debate let him consider the particulars there mentioned and also these 24 particulars Mentioned by Lex Rex Quaest 23. pag. 205. 206. Unto which I shall adde that he may make one work of all these particulars which will furder serve to confirme what is there said and prove our poynt 1. As it is not proper and peculiar to the Kings of Scotland to make lavves and to explaine and interpret lavves so nor is it peculiar unto them to appoynt punishments unto transgressours to liberate and free from the stroke of the lavv As the late Parliament declared by their deed in murthering some and in liberating others guilty of Treason more then such as vvere executed and this by politicians is made a part of the Soveraignity See Bondin de repub mihi Edit Gall. pag. 236. Volgm in Synop de jure principum pag. 58. Hoen Disput Polit. pag. 124. Timpl. Polit. Lib. 5. c. 1. q. 2. 2. The last appeal cometh not alwayes to our King and yet this is reckoned among the royal prerogatives by Bodin ubi supra Pag. 321. and Heen Pag. 127. Timpl. Pol. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. quaest 2. 3. It is not proper and peculiar to the King to appoynt new imposts customes and taxes but Parliaments do this Act. 277. Parl.