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
162. thinketh othervvayes and proveth that self defence is lavvful to a private person against the Magistrate for the lavv vvhich allovveth to repel violence vvith violence maketh no distinction betvvixt a publick person and a privat person and the law of Nature alloweth it against every one for it knovveth no difference And as to that vvhich some vvould say That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth He answereth That he who resisteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republick and it is not per se but per accidens that he standeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth and if he should suffer himself to be killed he should transgresse against the Law of Nature Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himself would not rather kill in this case as be killed and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteousnesse however now he would disprove this assertion if he could And would let that passe of loving himself more ad finem suum ultimum and suam virtutem Finally what he sayeth against this assertion of Naphtaly is to no purpose for the Author of Naphtaly will readyly grant that in some cases not only a man but a compauy of men may yea ought to preferre the preservation of others unto the preservation of their owne life because of a divine command to defend Religion Libertyes Posterity and Countrey from the unjust invasion and violence offered by wicked Emissaries But he shall never prove That the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof is to hold up their throats to be cut by the Kings cut-throats when he they are seeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation to destroy the Libertyes of the land and to make all perfect slaves both in soul and body CAP. III. A fourth Argument Vindicated taken from Scripture-instances Our fourth argument shall be taken from instances of opposition and resistence made unto the Soveraigne or his bloody Emissaries by private subjects without the conduct or concurrence of their Representatives recorded in scripture and which we finde not condemned by the Spirit of the Lord So that whosoever shall condemne the late vindicators must also condemne these instances As. 1. They must condemne the Iewes standing for their lives against their Enemies armed against them with a commission from King Ahasuerus sealed with his ring which no man might reverse in the dayes of Mordecai Esther But some vvill say That they had the King's commission which did warrand them to take the sword of defence against any that should assault them under pretence of the former decree I Answere If their having of the King's commismission did in poynt of conscience warrand them It had been utterly unlawful for them to have withstood the King's butchers if they had not abtained that commission and warrand But what man of common sense will say this This later decree did in poynt of law warrand them to gather together with saifty and security that they might the more easily not only defend themselves from their Adversaries assaulting them but also to destroy to stay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them both little ones women and to take the spoile of them for a prey Esth 8 11. But didnot could not make their selfdefence against such manifest bloody cruelty lawful in poynt of conscience if otherwise it had been unlawful Though every instance will not in all poynts quadrate for nullum simile est idem yet vve have here in this instance these things for our purpose 1. private subjects without their Ephori or Representatives arming themselves for defence that 2. against bloody Emissaryes of the King 3. bloody Emissaries armed by a formal commission decree and vvarrand from the King 4. A commission formally never reversed but standing in force as the decrees of the Medes and Persians that might not be altered 5. and this defence as lavvful in it self in poynt of conscience for if it had not not been so the King's vvarrand had never made it so so declared lavvful in poynt of lavv by a decree from the King after better thoughts In imitation of vvhich It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council if they had been so farr from condemning these innocent self-defenders since as they thought in poynt of honour and credite they vvould not retract or reverse their decrees and commissions once granted that they vvould have authorized them and absolved them in poynt of lavv since in poynt of conscience no man could condemne them for standing to the defence of their Estates Lands Libertyes Lives and Consciences unjustly oppressed by mercylesse Emissaries 2. They must condemne the people their rescueing of Ionathan from the sentence of death unjustly given out against him by King Saul 1 Sam. 14 44. In ansvvere to this instance our Surveyer sayeth Pag. 65. That the people used no violence against Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jonathan but in the heat of souldiery boldnesse do effectually interpose with Saul and mediate for the life of Jonathan moving Saul to Wave respect to his rash oath and to regaird what was just and right Answ 1. The matter came not the length of violence but had the King pertinaciously adhered to his rash and sinful resolution and by force had offered to draw the innocent Man to death that which they did spoke clearly they would have resisted him for whether the King would or not yea contrare to his oath they sweare in the face of the King that Ionathan should not die 2. It is but gratis dictum that only in the heat of a souldiery boldnesse they did mediate beside that there seemeth to be a material contradiction here for souldiers mediating and interposing especially in the heate of souldiery-boldnesse useth not to be with humble supplications intreaties but with violence or with what will usher in violence 3. We heare of no arguments they use to move bloody Saul to change his purpose but this as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground He sayes Pag. 66. That the people did not oppose an oath to Saul's oath for Junius exposition may passe well that they spoke not by way of swearing but by way of reasoning abhorring the destruction of such a person absit ut vivit Jehovah an cadere debet Ans The word which they use is no other way translated here by Iunius then elsewhere and elsewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath as may be seen Iudg. 8. 19. 1 Sam. 19 16. and 20. 3 21 25 26. and in many other places 2. The People spoke these words as Saul spoke them ver 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people opposed to Saul's oath 3. Iunius himself sayeth that they opposed a just oath to Saul's hypocritical oath Sanctius in locum sayeth the people
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