is as to the persons comming in and sustaining it unjustifiable as it is Hab. 1.12 then it cannot make the Text pregnant to our purpose Answer We neither say that the word makes the Text full and pregnant to our purpose the Scripture indeed we say is so nor doe we deny but our present powers may be ordained for judgement and ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Euseb praepar Evangel li. 8. established for correction Lord saith the Prophet thou hast ordained them the Chaldean powers for judgement this Text therefore confirmes what we have to prove viz. That the Powers in being over any people are Gods Ordinance though they may be as most commonly they are both attained unto as to mans agency and sustained unjustifiably thus they have not dis-favoured our argument at all by this septuagint-allegation After this velitation anent the word Ordained they come to a proposition of ours which they say we formed out of it viz. In what ever series of events God manifests his speciall concurrence or appearing that cause he ownes and authorizeth mans Agency in it This they deny But before wee joyne issue wee must needs gratifie them with some what which they would faine know from us by the way and it is this why we call the powerful working of God unto events flowing from the efficacious decree his speciall concurrence or appearing after wee had thus paraphrased the words the Powers that be are ordained of God as the first and cheife cause of all Beings but all Beings are not by his speciall concurrence Answer All those beings we speak of are viz. All positive futuritions determined by him and well pleasing to him Is it another contradiction to say the cheife cause of all Beings may both generally and specially concur to the production of the same event When we looke back unto the years of the right hand of the most high God and consider what great things he has done in England Ireland and Scotland and by what means we conclude thus Not by might nor by power but by the spirit of the Lord and cry grace grace to them intituling the special out-goings Isa 41.15 and unbareings of his holy arme to these effects wherein he made the worme Jacob a threshing instrument with teeth to beat the mountaines like chaffe every work morally good all the gracious actings of his Saints and Servants are drawne forth and his creatures inabled to them by a twofold divine concourse Twist vindic Gratiae li. digres or assistance the one Phisicall the other supernaturall but that we shall make use of in this debate is onely the speciall exertions of his divine power and the might of his arme unto naturall effects with his generall providence in the support of instruments these signall and observable exercions of his might in weake meanes we call his speciall appearings or efficiency Now to the businesse We must needs tel them they do us wrong in assuming that for the sinews of our argument which neither the argument it selfe nor our judgements any way befriend viz. That Gods efficatious decree and hand in powerfull working is conversant or operative in no humaine affaires or actions but what are in man lawfull or agreeable to the rule of Gods word and therefore this elaborate digression of theirs touching the Metaphisicall derivation of all Actions and Beings with their morall state and qualifications and touching Gods agency in all the affaires and actings of men without the least ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes tincture of sinne might have wel been spared we acknowledge with them that if the present power over us have no more from God then a Metaphisicall existence or a naturall existence or a natural power and production by his concourse or co-operation with second causes it is dis-owned by him with abomination wee plead not Gods ordinary workings but his speciall appearings in favour of our present Authority as by our above mentioned proposition appeares though they would cajole it to speake their sence who make no distinction betwixt Gods ordinary operations and those workings of his which are marvellous in al mens eyes Surely Sirs you may acknowledge some kind of language in Gods lifting up of his arme to a wonder as well as the Psalmist does in all the works of his fingers day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night telleth knowledge there is no speech nor language where their voyce is not heard Saith David and if his wonders upon earth speake any thing it is the might of that God whose workes they are and his favour towards that people on whose behalfe and that cause in which they are wrought Hath God essayed saith Moses to goe and take him a Nation from the middest of a Nation by temptations by signes and by wonders and by war and by a mighty hand according to all that the Lord did for you and what followes because he loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt Moses argues from the great things God did for that people to his owning of them as about seven year agoe these Ministers at least some of them made no bones to do when God shewed us any great salvation or gave us any notable victory over the late Kings forces though now the same presence of God with our Councells and Armys speaks nothing at all yet we confesse this Plea of Gods mighty workings towards a people would be very weak if it went alone but we plead the Law and Testimony for Gods owning our present Authority and their cause as the witnesse beyond exception His workes we mention in the second place as a good comment upon the word only Having thus righted our selves we need say little to their needlesse and exhojudiciall digression only it seemes strange to us that they should insinuate as if our present Powers derived from God only as a Metaphysicall entity when as his giving a Kingdome into any mens hands imports clearly another thing viz. Gods making them Rulers which in so doing he ownes notwithstanding he may dis-owne their interests in grasping of power and the sinfull or indirect courses whereby they may become possest of it It creates us not any carefull thoughts that in taking their leave of our second Medium they call our Paraphrase or glosse on Rom. 13.1 a wide one unlesse they could make it appeare we restraine Gods Ordination of the Powers that are to Divine concourse we have shewed that our Powers are from God by way of Authorization and that his disposall of the Kingdome into their hands conferring thereby his right unto them has made the Authority lawfull in the Subjects wherein it rests let us see now how it fares with our third Medium Their third Medium say
the primitive Saints private Christians towards those impowred over them obedience prayers honours feare tribute c. but not a word about disputing or questioning their titles who were in civill supremacy had Conscience been so much concern'd herein could they not have submitted and that out of faith too without canvasing the titles of the great ones in the world to Authority over them or searching into the Right of their claimes and pretences to power the Apostles no doubt who instructed them fully to every good worke would have left some light that they might not be at a losse in their search after just titles in men to rule and command them especially considering how easily they might be benighted ere they could make up a judgement of faith in such a difficult matter Souldiers ‖ Ab eo tempore status Reipublicae fuit eò redactus ut penes exercitum atque legiones populi Romani esset crean Caesarem hunc ad modum factus est etiam Caesar Vespatianus c. Sleid. De quatuor sum Imper. ita Iustinus c. Evagr. li. 4. using now and then to carve out titles ill-favouredly for their Emperours with the sword and so they might be in danger of blinde obedience but not a word of this that wee see all the help they had for the discerning to whom they owed and were to pay obedience was this they are for the punishment of evill doers and the praise of them that doe well revengers to execute wrath on them that doe evill c. These are their administrations not their titles To the case they put to cleare the businesse we say Conscience is oftner resolv'd in its doubtings from the cause then the titles of persons or parties commanding both at once as we beleeve most private mens Consciences were in the case betwixt King and Parliament 2 Chron. 13. their Cause gain'd them more abettours then a knowledge of their competency to command and doe what they did and this is the way we intend to take for the resolving our owne Consciences under such scruples If the title on one hand be not such as that he who runs may read the justice of it and Here they doe not take a case but make a case for 2 The case they minde us of runs but halfe parallel with that which we shall minde them of in the application and 't is like we both meane the same case viz. our owne at this present there may be granted two Parties claiming a title to rule over us but there are not two actually commanding as they suggest in the Hypothesis if the King of Scots Warrants come amongst them into Lancashire and Cheshire now as sometimes the Kings and Parliaments they say did to the same place formerly 't is more then we know or heare of and so can say little to it we are sure the Parliaments Warrants or Commands doe though they finde not so much as a Potentia obedientiali amongst the Classes there and supposing the said King doth send any of his injunctions or prohibitions thither we are sure likewise that they are such solitary wouldings such Personall commands or scar-crowes from a non-King'd man as would not have been owned by them from the late King in times of War before he was unking'd unlesse they were then Prerogative sticklers the contrary whereto themselves professe we shall only say this more that if a scrupling their title who now solely command notwithstanding their pretence to a title as faire as any others claiming may absolve or exempt the conscience of any man from the tye of obedience we must be forc'd at this time to deny many mens competency to the performing severall such morall duties as they are at no time bound up from exercising themselves in but at all times tyed to be doing so long as the Lord continues them to serve their Generations now to proceed We have said enough before say they to disprove the challenge of Authority upon meere present possession Answ The claime of those Powers over us being not thus bottom'd viz. meerly upon the presentnesse of superiority what-ever they have said against such a challenge hurts us not and that which they have fastned upon our Authority to this purpose gratis has met with an answer in its proper place There is yet a knot remaining which they cannot untye and that is how the act for subscription should binde us to be true and faithfull to the Common-weale as now established c. and yet not put the Conscience upon approvall or dis-approvall of the change We have led them already out of the maze wherein they profest themselves lost touching Gods command for subjection binding the Conscience without putting it upon the approbation or disapprobation of the equity c. of a changed Power and being helpt out of that labyrinth we doubt not but they will loose this knot with much ease In the next place supposing this consequence good say we P. 14. That Subscription drew with it a consent to the change of Government and an approbation of what was done in order to it we conceive that both of these without any injury offered to Conscience may be approved the Parliaments Declaration March 17 1648. renders the former approveable to us and as to the maine things done in order to this change we shall speake our thoughts in particular This Declaration these Ministers tell us is neither in their hands nor allowed to be under their consideration yea they affirme that some in high degree and office amongst us have declared in open Court that there is no change of the Government made Answ Peradventure the King of Scotland has bound up his forward faithfull ones in this Common-wealth under the forfeiture of their Allegiance from looking into any such dangerous Declarations otherwise they might come into Lancashire and Cheshire surely and these unsatisfied ones might have allowance to consider them being published for the whole world to consider of and for what was declared in open Court concerning our Government 's being not changed we suppose these Gentlemen beleeved it not for some of them declared the contrary as openly in their Pulpits we heare to the faces of those high officers which we conceive they here relate to Touching that discourse of theirs unto which we are referred for the disapproveablenesse of this change amongst us c. we must tell them as they doe us it is not allowed to come under ours or any mens consideration we dare only take the boldnesse being particularly concerned to vindicate our own grounds for submission from their confident exceptions under which yet we conceive the substance of their Plea against the lawfulnesse of our present Authority is brought in which how substantiall it is we referre to the judgements of discerning spirits for a sentence Concerning the maine things done in order to this change of Government we speak our thoughts and they speake theirs As 1 Touching
upon the King See what the rationall Scotch-man speaks to this purpose and if he speakes not truth beleeve him not he proves by various arguments that the King is under the La◠as King amongst which arguments one is this Lex Rex pag. 183 c. Else the Lord in making a King to preserve his people should give liberty without all Politick restraint for one man to destory many which is contrary to Gods end in the Fifth Commandement if one man have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands Againe That the King should be under one Law of God to be executed by men viz. the Guardian Law of property and not under another Law Royallists are to shew a difference from Gods Word Deut. 17.20 The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal 22.22 and so the Judges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Judgement Deut. 1.16 17. and the Judge is to give out such a sentence in Judgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity Pag. 235. c. Againe pag. 235. If God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be an habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meanes for its safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part Againe if all the sins and oppressions of the Prince be so above the punishments that men can inflict they are not sins before men by which meanes the King is loofed from all guiltinesse of the sins against the second Table for the Ratio formalis why c. And lastly the Prelate taketh it for confessed saith our Author that it had bin Treason in the Santiedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery Pag. 241. and for his Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truly though I wil not presume to goe before others in this Gods Law Gen. 9.5 compared with Numb 35.30 31. seemeth to say against them nor can I think that Gods Law or his Deputies the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not the Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poore nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the Sword against himselfe but yet it followes not that if we speake of the DEMERIT OF BLOOD that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the Estate be above the King as I conceive they are though it be an humane Politick constitution that the King be free of all co-action of Law because it conduceth for the peace of that Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of Conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur thus far that honest publique Advocate We see all Scotch-men are not of the bloud Royall and when we heare this mans reasons Junius Brutus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. M. senure of King c. and those which other men have brought against exempting the King from the Co-action of the Law answered we shall then thinke men have some cause and ground for their hainous resentment of the proceedings against the late King and for that great stirre they make in the world about them But suppose say they the King notwithstanding his place to be liable to capitall punishment by the Parliament it remaines to be clearly prov'd that they who did it were qualified with that power Ans We must conceive plowing with their owne Heifer that by that power they meane Parliamentary power and this is the power that they who did it were chosen to and enabled to act till they dissolved themselves that they are essentially Judges and so men competent and quallified to doe Justice is solidly asserted and demonstrated by the above-cited strenuous Author Lex Rex and though the House hath been dismembred for that we know these Ministers hint at taking the excluders for Presbyterian when indeed they were royall Martyrs though it be not so full and formall a power as we could wish yet we say againe an injury takes not away a right the remnant of them after the seclusion of some and the defection of others farre exceeding that number which by Law as we are informed makes an house and till they unhouse themselves retaine that authority to which they were elected supposing the proceedings were in some respect extraordinary yet here againe the Scotch-man who ecchoes well in Lancashire will helpe us out Elias causeth to kill the Prophets and Priests of Ball saith he 1 King 18.19 according to Gods expresse Law t is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day when the supreame Magistrate will not execute the Judgement of the Lord those who made him a supreame Magistrate under God who have under God Soveraigne liberty to dispose of Crownes and Kingdomes are to execute the JVDGEMENT OF THE LORD when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect so Samuel Killed Agag whom the Lord commanded expresly to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord 1 Sam. 15.32 But in the last place if this be made to appeare say the Ministers yet by vertue of religious Oathes and Vowes which have been taken we conceive the King ought to have been exempred from that proceeding Ans It was the Kings choyce ‖ See his answer to the Pet. of Right Maxime that he owed account of his actions to none but God and these men swallow it roundly of late but this Prerogative being destructive to the end of Magistracy and rendring it an inconceiveable discommode considering the corruption and temptations of great ones rather then an advantage to any people is absolutely incompatible in its owne nature to any mans person though in supreame trust this being cleare the supervention of Oathes for the preserving his person alters not the case if any such Oath or Vow be lawfull we conceive it must be conditionall since the declared minde and Lawes of God are the boundaries which men may not step beyond In priviledging their Kings if they lift them up by Oath higher then they ought to doe or invest them with impunity whatever their demerits and mis deserts may be even by destroying the Nation habitually the matter of that Oath we doe insist is res illicita and so it falls a peeces
any more in their former capacity ours have the liberty to resume their places if they please as many have repented and done so that the Scotch Authority does not only depend upon a Force but upon a greater Force then ours in England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our in ference from this Force in Scotland so usefull to the Kirk there and so in-offensive as it seems to the Ministers in Lancashire Cheshire that they judge it no force was this Hence we conceive that Parliament priviledges may be sometimes looked at as formalities rather then sacred and indispensible rights viz. when the greater number of Parliament men set themselves in a way of utter ruining rather then of building up and establishing a Nation on the sure foundation of peace and righteousnesse Certainly Sirs if any Priviledges should enable a Parliament to ruine us as good we sate content under the mercies of a Lawlesse-Royall-Prerogative as of a Parliament so priviledged yet this inference of ours the Gentlemen take too much to heart that even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it stirres them out of measure Theecr so that incontinently they fall into a fierce Parexysme This glosse say they calls not so much for an answer as for admiration and execration and aske Is this all the reverence and force which we give to Vowes Protestations and Oathes truly as little as they say we reverence them we yet reverence them as highly as the Kirke of Scotland does which are sometimes we see dispenced with in its respect to Parliament Priviledges we Covenant for them as servants not as Masters to the Publique good though they be not such light formalities but they may be lawfully Covenanted for what is a sacred thing in its place becomes a shadow if mis-plac'd and unduly preferr'd it may be Sacriledge to pursue that which zeale and duty well inform'd let goe as inconfistent with what is most sacred the Scots allow of a subordination in the matters of the most solemne Covenant as we shew'd in our Plea and subordinates we know are in a sense formalities dispensable withall surely if set in ballance with the more sacred and superiour ends encovenanted for so are Parliament Priviledges though in themselves grave and grand realities if they stand in competition or be compared with reformation publique liberty and safety those SANCTA SANCTORUM of the Covenant And now let wise men judge whether this inference or glosse of ours as the Ministers call it be such an execrable heinous one as they would render it and whether it be a dangerlesse and religionlesse excuse of the Armies force 1 Is there danger in preferring publique good before the priviledges of any particular men or any sort of men whatsoever this would implead not only the Armies force but also the Selfe-denying Ordinance Sirs 2 Religion lets us not know to give flattering titles to men Job 32.21 22. much lesse to indulge them with undue Seraphicall inrespective priviledges this is reall and transcendent adulation how comes it to be religionlesse then to give publique weale and safety an higher roome in our Covenant then Parliament Priviledges every publique spirit savours such ir-religion as this Covenants are conservatories of these Priviledges whiles improv'd to publique service otherwise men might ruine a Nation cum privilegio and plead Covenant for their justification but this is prevented by that limitation in our Solemne League and Covenant viz. in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome This we alledge in answer to that question of these Ministers whother there be such a condition as we speake to reserv'd out of the covenanted preservation of Parliament priviledges yea or no The letter of the Covenant notes out this reservation or condition providing for Parliament Priviledges as things subordinate and sub-servant to Religion and Liberty but say they Doe we finde any where in Scripture that subjects are dis-engaged from subjection to and maintaining of the rights or the Authorities lawfully placed over them in case of their maeleadministration Ans There were many such texts of Scripture to be found eight or nine yeares agoe when men cryed out To thy tents O Israel and Ministers cryed Curse ye Meroz c. Subjection was not with drawne from King Charles nor Armes raised against him and he beaten from one place to another without some Scripture warrant but if men vomit up their principles and build again what they destroyed they are to be dealt with upon another score 2 There are some rights or particular priviledges belonging to Magistrates in all constitutions we conceive which may undergo a dominution yea be pessundated Salva authoritate personall rights may at some feasons interfer with common safety and peace which authority never doth therefore in the question propounded there is fallacia compositionis But 3 T is a thorny solemne point and we dare not rush on unheedily in it let the grave and bold Lapinian lead us the way in his Treatise touching peoples withdrawing subjection from their King or otherwise called the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdoms he thus expresseth himself it can hardly seem probable much lesse credible that any * Negari non potest quin populus aliquis necessitate coactus possit se vendere Regi ut omnes sint plâ—ne servi ipsius Gen. 47.23 sed neque hoc unquam praesumi debet quando non est manifestum quia contra mores est contra naturae inclinationem neque licitè honesteve ab ullo principe quaeri potest quia ejus officium est communem utilitatem populi praecipué spectare neque denique civitas aut politia esset quae illum in modum constitueretur sed herile dominium servitium monstrosum Ames cas consc lib. 5. cap. 25. free people whatsoever when they voluntarily at first encorporated themselves into a Kingdom or set up an elective or hereditary King over them would so absolutely resign up their soveraign popular originall authority power and liberty to their Kings c. as to give them an absolute irrevocable uncontrolable supremacy over them superiour to irrestrainable irresistable or unalterable by their own primitive inherent national soveraignty out of which their regall power was derived for this had been to make the creator in ferior to the creature c. a most bruitish sottish inconsiderate rash action not once to be imagined of any people and had our Ancestors or any other nations when they first erected Kings and instituted Kingly government been askt this question whether they meant thereby to transfer all their National Authority Power and Priviledges so far over to their Kings c. as not still to reserve the supremest power and jurisdiction to themselves to direct limit restrain their Princes supremacy and the exorbitant abuses of it when they should see just cause or so as not to be able ever after TO ALTER or diminish this forme of Government upon any occasion
for many Centuries of yeares this attempt we thinke few quiet and undesigning spirits will be forward to ingage themselves in but what besotting interests have wrought men to we see and seeing have cause to bewaile the fruits of their distempers shaking and indangering the publicke bottome that hath gone a nine years voyage for peace and is now within view of harbor our having been wounded is not so much as that our wound should be perpetuall Jer. 15.18 8.15.22 14.19 and still kept open by the sons of peace official healers if here you acquit your selves Sirs t is well Quisquis vel quod potest arguendo corrigit vel quod corrigere non potest salvo pacis vinculo excludit vel quod salvo pacis vinculo excludere non potest equitate improbat firmitate supportat August hic * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexan. strom l. 5. pacificus est Wee have insisted somewhat largely in our rejoynder to that exception commenc'd against our Argument touching the being of the present Authority over us from God both because it is of confessed importance and because it much facilitates our retargation of what followes under this head To proceed therefore To this explanation of our Position viz. That frames of Government are resolved by God into the peoples wills as the immediate cause of their specification They answer pag. 3. 1 That People destitute of a lawfull Magistracie have an elective Power in the constitution of Government but standing in the relation of Subjects they have not a privative or innovative power Wee Answer if at any time people are enabled to chuse what forme they will be governed under Answ then when necessitated they may lawfully innovate the very being or ordination of Magistracy for their good warrants the one as well as the other and though that Mode of Government from which they change be lawfull yet power tyrannically and injustifiably exercised justifies their election of those meanes for their comfort and security which the law of nature owned by the word Grot Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit Juv. dictates to them Necessitas enim summa reducit res ad merum jus naturale Take away a peoples privative power in this case and their elective power serves onely to make them perpetuall slaves before their choyce of such a Governour or Government they were free to provide for their liberties and naturall immunities but after their choyce made they must be content it seemes with what falls out though to the destruction of these for ever this is to enable people to make themselves miserable and there to leave them remedilesse but the Lord has provided more mercifully for them ordaining Magistracy and Order as their accumulative freedome not destroying by his postuate institution what by that generall Statute that unrestrain'd Charter the Law of Nature he had before granted to them yet if a people have no greater cause to desire a change of Government amongst them then Israel had when they cryed ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 8.19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq. li. 8. Act. 26.18 Make us a King we shall never plead their excuse in endeavouring it 2 They say Some kinde of Governments are unlawfull in their owne nature so is that of the beast Rev. 17. and the ten Kings giving their power and strength to the beast these cannot be said to be approved of God Answ 1. The power of those ten Kings or Kingdomes is lawfull in its owne nature the text notes its abuse and suggests thus much to those that alledge it viz. That regall Government is apt above all other modes whatsoever for the service of the beast this is neither only nor also for their purpose 2 That beastiall power they instance in is but an equivocall power that sway of Satan in the hearts of the children of disobedience is called a power too but what hinders this that God may not approve all civil frames of Government upon the Earth how various soever every Ordinance of man which is confest to be only an Application or a Modification of the generall Ordinance of God These are capable of his owning sure notwithstanding this out-leape or essay of theirs touching a power Antichristian in its very essence and of an hellish Parentage our Position reaches to no such power when we say What kinde of Government a people doe will for their owne good the Lord sets his seale upon it Their instances indeed under the next Head and our instance in 1 Sam. 8 9 10 12. Chap. prove that God dis-ownes the sinfulnesse of their wils who are given to change and transgresse without a cause not that hâ— dis-approves the Government they desire It is ordinary for mâ—n to abuse their Liberty and that latitude of choyce which God allowes them in things of this kinde but to conclude that ergo God gives not a People liberty of change and that he resolves not frames of Government into their wils because some men have and others may sinne in erecting new Models and changing their constitutions is like dashing out a mans braines to cure the Megrime or like that practicall Logick of Lycurgus who prohibited the planting of Vines because men used to be drunke with the Grapes 3 We say That in all changes of Government the prevailing not the over-borne Party may lay claime to the signature of Divine approbation this they conceive contradicts our former Position which entitled the Peoples will to the specification of Government and the seale of Gods approvall We all know say they the Peoples wills may goe one way a prevailing Party another contrary to it c. Answ We need not labour much to shake off that contradiction which is pinn'd upon us gratis for though the wills of some people yea of most people may goe one way and the prevailing Party another way yet we all know that the prevailing will goes but one way and which way this will goes that way goes the divine approvall otherwise we had never been commanded to obey EVERY ORDINANCE of man FOR THE LORDS SAKE 1 Pet. 2.13 Though men may sinne in the motions of their wils yet God dis-owns not the power and priviledges he has given them but to hitch on a little These Gentlemen fight notably with their owne shadowes from hence all along till our second Medium as they call it gives them the opportunity of a new encounter proceeding from a supposition which is no grant of ours nor educible from any thing we have yet said viz. that the prevailing Party is owned of God quatenus prevailing hence they frame mountainous absurdities and lay them to our charge as the consequences of our Principles but we know that supposito quo libet sequitur quid libet if any Minister of this combination should deliver such a Doctrine as this The doers of Gods will not the hearers only may lay claime to salvation
the supposition may passe would he thinke himselfe fairely dealt with all if some wilde Antinomian should charge him with teaching that those whom God saves he saves them because they are doers or for their deeds We doubt he would hardly bear such a mis-construction or indulge the liberty of such an interpretation as this so we say the prevailing Party layes claime to Gods approbation in the contests about Government among the Sons of men but will it thence follow that we hold God approves them because they prevaile surely he may doe it upon another account but whatever that be their prevailency may beare witnesse that he does owne them Pro hic nunc whatever the ends be that his holy will makes use of those powers for we make God the great Arbiter in all Quarrels and prevailency in contests of this nature shewes us for whom he Arbitrates 1 Chro. 5.2 Judah prevailed (a) Hence comes Gibbor Nimrods stile that mighty Hunter Gen. 10.8.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was strong above his Brethren and of him came the chiefe Rulers but the birth-right was Iosephs the least that we can give to Iudah's prevailency is this to attest the Lords designement of that Tribe to beare rule and his actuall disposition of authority to it and wil it now follow 1 That we make force the infallible umpire betwixt Parties claiming interest in the constitution of Government or 2 That the same Government and cause without any alteration of its institution and demeanour may lay claime to divine approbation as its strength varieth That Absolons and Zimries authority were good before God during the time of their prevailence Sirs those instances are not of cases Arbitrated but in Arbitration David had then a considerable Army when he fled from his Sonne with which the Lord of Hosts pleaded his cause against that rebellious Absolon in the day of Battell so when Zimries wickednesse was heard of it presently came to umpeirage all Israel made Omri the Captaine of the Host King over Israel THAT DAY in the camp 1 King 16.16 and when upon the death of Zimri the people were divided into two parts 't is said the people that followed Omri PREVAILED against the people that followed Tibui the Sonne of Ginah so Tibui dyed and OMRI REIGNED ver 22. I wonder what witnesse we have of the Divine Authorization of many that were Kings over Israel setting aside theirs and the peoples prevailency that cleaved to them it wil be easily granted that Menahem Pekah and Hosea 〈◊〉 Kings over Israel and reigned till God cut them off for their abominations but how came they to be Kings what Titles had they how neare of kin to the Scepter the text tels us they were Captaines of the Host men of power and we say God disposed of the Kingdome into their hands but how will this be proved why they prevailed upon what score or to what purpose the Lord owned them we are unworthy to know but owne them he did as Kings and his people owned them too upon their prevailency this was the needle that drew after it the thread of Allegiance The like we say touching Jerobohams and Omri's Enthronment these dissenters acknowledge that Jerobohams reigning over the Ten Tribes was from God only they say that the businesse betwixt them and the Two Tribes adhering to Rehoboham was not debated by the Sword and so the two Tribes were not the worsted and over-borne party As if there could be no worsting or prevailency unlesse it be by the sword 1 Kings 12.22 23. True God tooke up that difference by the mouth of his Prophet he is not tyed to manifest his approvall onely one way this takes nothing therefore from our assertion touching prevailency it may be a testimony of Gods good pleasure in every contest about the disposall of power where he interposeth not more immediately notwithstanding this Concerning Omri they tell us that Gods not approving him and the people is but a slender argument that he approved their actions God sometimes will not suffer his Prophets to be reprovers Answ 1. Why then do these men take such paines to bend severall Texts in Hosea and Micah to a reproofe of them such Texts too as will then suit their purpose when the councells of the house of Ahab and the Statutes of Omri are proved to be the powers of Ahab and Omri the submission of Gods Prophets to Ahab and so many of Gods people to Omri would hardly have been gained if this had been to walk in the Statutes of Omri Micah 6.16 and to keep the councells and works of the house of Ahab 2 Those sinnes in the Kings of Israel which were of such a reach and influence upon the people under them as to involve the whole Nation in a miserable guilt never as we know of escaped reproofe the sins of Ahab Ahaz Jeroboham and Manasseth that were of this impliâ—ancy came all under the lash yea the sinnes of Omri too 1 King 16.26 yet he is not reproved for usurpation though by their principles it involves every one in his sinne who submitted to his power 3 T is the abuse of Gods patience and that line upon line he has given them which causeth him to stop his prophets mouthes I will make thy tongue cleave to the roofe of thy mouth that thou shalt be dumb and shall not be to them a man reproving for they are a rebellious house Ezek. 3.26 this sin these Ministers lay not to the charge of the people who chose Omri for their King as we can see In the close of their exceptions against our first medium though they thinke they have us fast enough yet they complaine they know not where to hold us we doe so contradict and thwart our selves here only say they we wish them to consider if the superinduction of a power against the wills of many yea of most men which in our plea we justifie be not a selfe-contradiction in reflexion upon that position of theirs viz. Frames of Government are by God resolved into peoples wills And in answer hereto we wish them to consider that this contradiction vanisheth as easily as the former if the case prove ever such as that the will of the most people happen not to be the prevailing will it will be hardly proved that that halfe of the people which made Omri King were the greater halfe though they were the prevailing halfe thus we see this other contradiction falls into accord without any helpe from Sancta clara or Scotus de duno And now having sufficiently as it should seeme broken the bones of our first argument brought to prove the being of these present powers over us from God they proceed to give their sence on our second taken from Rom. 13.2 and then discant upon it First they tell us if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used for Divine Ordination bee any where used for the Lords Ordination of a power which
towards a conclusion we shall briefly vindicate what we sub-joyned in our Plea for the clearing our Averment touching the alterablenesse of that Declaration 1646. viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be so altered as that in the judgement of wise men those who promised or declared ought cannot be thought to have willed the including such or such an event in the promise Here say they is a little missing the marke Answer Not of the marke we aimed at the frame of that objection to which in our Plea we undertooke a reply forcing us to speake both to the Parliaments interpretation of the Covenant in reference to Kingly power and likewise to their Promise that they would maintain the government of the Nation by King Lords and Commons as to the former of these we affirme that no postnate interpretation that may be suppos'd to have more or lesse in it then the letter of a Covenant can be reasonably imposed upon the conscience neither do we see cause to judge that the Parliament by their above named Declaration intended to elucidate or interpret the letter of the Covenant To the latter we say that although such and such things were declared for yet declarations as they here acknowledge are alterable pro re nata and therefore are of no perpetuall obligation Let us hear what they say to our reason or evidence brought to prove this viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be c. after a distinction premised to very little purpose about * Touching their instance in the case of the Gibeonites Jos 9. see Ames Cas consc l. 4. cap. 22. Quest 9. particular and generall willing the inclusion of an event in any promise they come to this conclusion Such events as may make the performing of the promise a sinne in the Promiser infringe the obligation these in the judgements of wise men are deem'd to be excluded to the Promiser but the event brought in by us as falling out in the Parliaments case viz. The Kings implacability and inexoriblenesse as we grosly enough stile it they say is not to be ranged amongst events of that nature they might have performed their promise without sinne and it seemes they did intend to include the Kings persistency thus they mollifie our expression not excepting against it after severall of those addresses made to him divers of them before the Covenant most of them before the Declaration April 17. 1646. so that the greatest part of his persistency was precedent to the making some of those promises c. Ans 1. If after all their experience had of the Kings presistency in a ruining way and all their hopes of bowing him to a complyance with their just desires extinct the House of Lords by their delayes and Negatives in matters of highest moment making it appeare too that they drew the same way with him if after these sad experiences the Parliament had sacrific'd the peace and welfare of the Nation to the interests of King and Lords we cannot but deeme it had been a very sinfull thing a betraying their trust a ruining the Nation a giving us up to a seven-times worse slavery then at their first convention they found us in and we can see nothing here alledged by these Divines though we looke longly for it to perswade us of the contrary they only say it had not been matter of sinne in the Commons to have made good that Declaration of which we are speaking but for this we want evidence 2 The Kings persistency in his way was that very event which put the Commons out of a capacity or possibility of serving the Publique with his advancement an event to be wondred at by all wise men Declar. of March 17. 1648. and therefore in the judgements of wise men not includible in the promise The Commons themselves tell us that upon their making that Declaration they were confident the King would have conformed himselfe to the desires of his people in Parliament and that the Peers who remained with the Parliament would have been a great cause of his so doing and therefore certainly they intended not to include his presistency or the House of Lords declining the publique cause in their promise Si aliquid incautius aliquem jâ—â—â—sse contigerit quod observatum inpejoreÌ„ vergat exitum illud salubri consilio mutandum noverimus c. Soter Epist ad Episc Ital. Charsum Concil Ann. 163 Concil Toler 8. Can. 2. we conceive they were not bound at that instant expresly to except these events they shewed what their exception was very reasonably when after all their fruitlesse endeavours to win the King they voted no more addresses to him peradventure this vote is interpreted one of the Parliaments swervings from their principles which these Ministers minde us of but we cannot so judge of it that principle which respects the Kings Person and Authority having an expresse condition joyned with it ever since the Covenant was entrâ—d into therefore for ought we know they might have voted no more addresses sooner then they did that famous and safe limitation saving the Covenant harmlesse had they done so and the emergency of an event as if confest a warranting the change of Lawes and Declarations may justifie the Commons in receding from what they had declared about governing the Nation by King Lords and Commons yet these assaylants have not done with us but ere they leave us will get betwixt the joynts of our harnesse by a pretty sleight blow a pure subtilty the Kings inexorablenesse was not any change say they but a going on in the way he was when the promise was made and therefore cannot be urged truly as a change of a person or thing to release the Parliament of their promise in his behalfe truly this is subtile nihil for we must tell them that as to our case in the judgement of wise men there is not any imaginable difference betwixt the failing of an event fully and confidently expected and the failing out of an event utterly unexpected the Kings flexiblenesse was the event confidently presumed and made the ground of what was declared concerning him by the Parliament and his not changing to their minde together with the House of Peers changing from their mindes viz. their sence may be tollerably called a change of Persons subverting the foundation of that promise the one not doing what was expected the other doing what was not expected but the King was not so stiffe as is pretended it seemes for he did not hold out after seaven addresses We suppose say they that Treaty at Newport was one of the seaven no Sirs it was the eighth Declar. March 17. 1648 p. 12. if they keep a true account who declare it so to the whole world neither was he then inexorable but contrarily yeelded to more then had been desired of him in former
addresses to him Did he so well but did he grant enough peradventure those who treated with him had no minde to aske what they should have ask'd so we are told those Members proceeded to make such Propositions to the King at the Isle of Wight for a safe and well-grounded peace Dâ—clar Jan. 15. 1648. as if they had been granted and kept of which there was no probability would have returned the people againe to their former slavery c. yea this Treaty was entertained upon such Propositions as the King himselfe also should make which was formerly held to be so destructive to any well setled peace as neither the Houses of Parliament nor the Commissioners for the Kingdome of Scotland did thinke fitting to admit when he was in his greatest height of power whether now is here seene the Kings bounty to the Treaters or their prodigality to him he never would yeeld to recall Ormonds Commission as we are informed granted in the time of the Treaty nor that Episcopacy should be abolished only suspended Oh! royall bounty nor lastly that any one Delinquent should be capitally punished one only according to the Covenant no doubt being offered unto him namely poore David Jenkins in the meane time the worthy Treaters let him alone with his negative voyce and Booke of Common Prayer c. brave daubing so that the Scottish Consistories had cause to lift up their voyces against acquiessing in the Kings Concessions at Newport as being destructive to Religion and Covenant But the House voted these Concessions a ground to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome Ans We have heard of such a Vote indeed but 't was to us a mysterious Caball we could never get acquainted with the reason of it no more then with their reasons for re-calling those Votes of non-addresses to the King made upon such and so many reasons of great weight unto the least of which there was never any answer given designing Statists use not it seemes to play above board but the reasons of adnulling that Vote for proceeding upon the Kings Concessions are visible Parliament Votes and Parliament reasons doe well together unlesse we should deny the goodnesse of our Cause saith the Parliament which God hath adjudged on our side Declar. Jan. 15 1648. by the gracious blessings of so many signall Victories unlesse we should betray our friends who have engaged with us upon our Votes of Non-addresses to the hazzard of their lives and fortunes unlesse we should value this one man the King above so many Millions of people whom we represent and unlesse we should scorne and contemne any peace which the great God of Heaven and Earth our assured helpe in our greatest distresses hath given us and that we must relye only upon such a peace which the King a Mortall man and our implacable enemy shall allow us unlesse we should give up our selves to the slaughter and suffer our owne Members to undermine the Parliament and Kingdomes Cause unlesse we should stake all to the Kings nothing and Treat with him who hath not any thing to give us c. And lastly unlesse we should value the bloud of so many Innocents and the Army of so many Martyrs who have dyed in this Cause lesse then the bloud of a few guilty persons by what name or title soever stiled we could doe no lesse then repeale those Votes before specified as being highly repugnant to the glory of God greatly dishonourable to the proceedings of Parliament and apparently destructive to the good of this Kingdome And here we should cut off our Web but that for a close we must needs remember what in a margicall note they tell us we forgot viz. That Scripture Job 34.18 and that Morall rule De mortuis nil nisi bonum and why because we call the Kings persistency by no softer a name then inexoriblenesse and implacability plaine dealing is a jewell Sirs the vile person shall be no more called liberall nor the Churle said to be bountifull Isa 32.5 1 Therefore we did not forget that text in Job but these gentle Doctors forgot to take in the 17 vers with the 18. we read them both together and then they expound one another and chide the Classis for putting them asunder Job 34.17 18. Shall even he that hateth right governe and wilt thou condemne him that is most just Is it fit to say to a King thou art wicked and to Princes ye are ungodly If Princes be just God forbid they should be evil spoken of It is not fit to strike Rulers for equity but what if they hate right must no Prophet come within the Princes Chappel must not Kings know their Names Am. 7.13 Thou prophane wicked Prince of Israel saith Ezekiel Thou and thy Fathers house hath troubled Israel saith Elijah Ezek. 21.25 1 King 18.18 2 Chron 16.9 1 Sam. 15. Luk. â—3 32 Herein thou hast done foolishly saith the Seer unto Asa this is plaine dealing Did Samuel spare Saul when he rebelled against the Lord Did our blessed Master the Lord Jesus spare Herod In a word did the generall Assembly of the Kirke of Scotland spare King Charles or might they charge him as a Sabbath-breaker an Idolater a Murtherer and is it a Piaculum or any blasphemy for us poore Mortals to call him an inexorable man the Heathen Lawyer Papinian boldly reproved the Emperour Caracalla for his Parricide and are Kings yet more sacred We are perswaded that sometime within the memory of Man divers Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire though they opened not their mouthes as Papinian did against Caracalla yet have spoken as grosly of King Charles as ever the Northerne Subscribers did Non enim Sacerdotale est quod Sentias non dicere Ambros 2 Neither did we forget that saying De mortuis nil nisi bonum to speake the truth of the dead is to speake what is ‖ Bonum et verum convertuntur good and if we have spoken otherwise let the World beare witnesse of the evill that rule requires Charity but not in dispendium veritatis The names of the wicked shall rot saith the surer Word so did the names of Ahab Omri and Jeroboam though Kings and how unsavoury doth the Spirit of God make the memory of Ahaz by that brand upon his bones that inscription upon his Grave 2 Chron. 28.22 This is that King Ahaz these Ministers we presume are no strangers to Nazianzens invectives where the deceased * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 19. Julian is drawn to the life to flatter the dead is to wrong the living and to strengthen the hands of wicked men in evil wayes the great discommode of funerall Panegyricks were it not better that a Spade were called a Spade then to say King Charles of blessed memory unlesse there was cause for it truly this Princes Fate is observeable for many who made no more of him either in Presse or Pulpit when hee was alive then one would doe of a dead Dogge a Panaeb Regis defuncti corpus terrâ condunt caput abscindunt inaurant in sacris collocanâ— Causs Hierogl l. 5 c 58. now can hardly beare a word spoken against him See Prov. 24.24 Suet. in Otho Quiescat Obba parum Mantu but upon all occasions rise up as his compurgators but there is no new thing Thus Suetonius tells us it was with Otho Magna pars hominum incolumem gravissime detestata mortuum laudibus tulit but we shall provoke these Royalists indignation no further Here let our Pitchar stand farewell Now the Lord of peace himselfe give us peace alwayes by all means 2 Thes 3.16 FINIS
whatsoever or if their Kings should turn professed Tyrants c. patiently to submit themselves to their destructive proceedings without any restraint of them or calling them to account for those grosse irregularities I make no question but they would have joyntly answered that they had never any imagination to erect such an absolute irresistible unlimited Monarchy or plaine Tyranny over them and that they ever intended to receive the absolute originall soveraigne jurisdiction in themselves as their native hereditary Priviledge which they never meant to divest themselves of Well therefore presuming the truth of this doctrine as being true yesterday and comming from the pen of one so Orthodox and which is more a Non-Subscriber a Martyr for the Cause of the Covenant as they call it we shall adde but little the male-administration of Monarchical authority may be such saith Mr. Prynne as that it may dis-ingage duty-bound Subjects from submission and make them resume their owne native originall soveraignty and if this hold true against Kingly power and supremacy it holds true against power in any other forme whatsoever though lawfully plac'd over a people in a word if that soveraignty or Power concredited by a Nation to any person or persons as Trustees be forfeitable as our above-named author will affirme and avow then there may be such a thing as a dis-ingagement from subjection in the people so far as any authority is limited t is resistible This we dare tye our selves to make good and then the case is clear the dissolution of subjection necessarily followes but if our supposition should prove groundlesse and our assertion weake if Power or Authority be an unforfeitable free-hold and absolutely irresistable all our lawes for Publique Safety Advantage and Freedome which any way tye the hands of our Rulers are meer mock-guardians of property and most perfect nullities yea we may then write folly upon the very wisdome of our Progenitors their capitulations and taking security from Princes and Magistrates for their good behaviour by any Parchment devices this would be but ridiculous vanity if the persons empowred or intrusted may not be withstood in their incroachments exorbitances and wretched expilations wherewith they exercise the people under them Yea if they may not be unpowred as the late King was some years before he dyed in case they persist in a ruining way He viz. the Magistrate is the minister of God to thee for good saith the Apostle And if he ministers to our ruine whose vice-gerent is he in that ministration Must we needs be held under the bond of duty notwithstanding he thus ministers yea and that habitually and inflexibly too our paying Custome Honour Tribute is inforced as we have noted before from the Magistrates Ministering to our good and if this argument be taken away his claime to subjection is a poor seeble thing Thus we have re-inforced our Arguments for ingaging with the present Authority over us and past the brow of the hil the heat of the Encounter it remaines only that we see how their Reserves against ingaging will stand the dispute We examined the validity of these in our Plea to that purpose they are urged against us One of them viz. The Oath of Allegiance we found had no life in it and with the other viz. the Covenant after some short debate we parted friends as we met But these men putting life into the one and emnity into the other against us presse them into their service a new and give them the advantage of a full blow at the Engagement leaving it not any shift or guard at all to save it selfe by not any salve invented as they say by us to clude the force of these Oathes Well First Touching the Oath of Allegiance We do still insist that the ground of it is our protection and that it binds us not but to our actuall protectors successively They acknowledge That Protection is a secondary ground of Allegiance and consequently of the Oath But contend that Gods ordination and image imprinted upon the Magistrate as his deputed Vice-gerent is the first and cheif ground Answer What if this be granted their advantage against us will not be much greatned in applying these notions to our present purpose we aske Where is that Magistrate that bears this image spoken of is he in being amongst us or not And how shall we know this Why do we receive due and legall protection and by whose mediation is it conveyed to us Now by satisfying our selves in these last Queries we come to a resolution in the two former We cannot separate Gods Ordination of any person or power from that which is the very office and end of that power nor understand the impression of his image any where without some argument of it Faine would we see some Rules that may instruct and inable us to judge of Gods ordinance or helpe us to find it out when there is no ministery for a peoples good We are utterly to seek how to discern this image they speake of without its shining forth upon us by protective emanations t is to little purpose to tell us of a man in the clouds a deputed vice-gerency if we have no feeling at all of its activity as to our well-being nor see any thing like the beamings forth of Gods image upon us in goodnesse and righteousnesse Metaphysicall Magistracy is a thing we cannot skill of and the case which these Divines put viz. Of Subjects rising up in arms and dis-inabling the Magistrate from protecting them and so freeing themselves from Allegiance helpes us very little in the businesse t is a thing begged of us not following upon our Principles that a people in so doing discharge themselves of the debt of Allegiance if they fall under the Magistrates captivating power in this case they loose the benefit of Subjects we affirme but not that the Magistrate looses his title to their Allegiance because they put from themselves his supposed Protection which if they may have it is all one to conscience as if they had it But now they must shew us how we may come by protection from any other powers then those that are over us or else they say nothing to our case nor convince us that the debt of our Allegiance is due to any other but those to whom we pay it notwithstanding the Oath urged against us it is not any mans pretended power or obligation to protect us that can be satisfaction to us in the condition we now are we say That people is in danger to be very miserable whose well fare is no otherwise secured then by a Kings obligation to protect them In Answer whereto instead of shewing us the compleatnesse of this provision for a peoples safety they shoot at Rovers and tell us that by the Oath of Allegiance the King not the people is secured Truly we never thought that this Oath was provided for the peoples security but being told that the Magistrates