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
named and chosen by the People And this constituting of him Soveraigne must be by compact and contract betwixt him and them for such mutual relations as are betwixt Prince and People can arise from no other act then a compact unlesse they say it ariseth from a free donation but then they must grant that the whole power cometh from the People and was theirs before and might be given out by them or not as they thought fit for no law can constraine a man to give a gift further if it was from them by free gift the very nature and end of that Donation puts it beyond debate that it was upon some valueable consideration of which when frustrated they might recal their donation and so still it will be a virtual compact But now it being by a real comapct and formal either explicite or implicite that this man and not that man is made Soveraigne There must be some conditions on which this mutual compact standeth for a compact cannot be vvithout conditions 2. We shevv that in this Act of constituting a Government ad Governours the People acted rationally and carryed themselves in this businesse not as irrational brutes but as rational men and if so hovv is it imaginable that they vvould set any over them vvith an illi mited povver vvithout any tearmes and conditions to be condescended unto by him Would rational men acting deliberatly about a matter of such moment and consequence not to themselves alone but to their posterity in after ages set a Soveraigne over them vvithout any limitations conditions or restrictions so as they might rob spoile plunder murther deflore do acts of injustice and oppression and act tyranny as they pleased 3. We shew that in this matter the People had certane real good and necessary Ends before them now can it enter into the heart of any man to think that Rational men acting rationally laying downe wayes for attaineing good aud necessary Ends would set a Prince over themselves without any conditions or restrictions since otherwise they could not rationally expect that the meane which they had condescended upon could ever attaine the End For every one of them might saifly have judged of the Prince by themselves and seing they might have found in themselves an inclination to domineer to oppresse and tyrannize over others they might rationally have concluded that the Prince was and would be but a Man of the same passions and infirmities with themselves and so as ready if not more to deborde and to do wrong therefore unlesse they had made him Soveraigne upon tearmes and conditions they could not have expected that their chooseing of him could have been a meane fitted and accommodated for attaining the Ends proposed A Soveraigne left at liberty to tyrannyze to oppresse and to destroy the Subject is no fit meane to procure their welfare either in soul or body or to set forward the glory of God 4. We shew that their condition after the constitution was not to be worse then it was before the constitution But if they had set up a Soveraigne without any conditions their condition could not but be worse and rational men could not but for see that their condition would of necessity be worse for to set up a Soveraigne without conditions is to set up a Tyrant since if they do not limite him to termes and conditions they give him leave to Rule as he listeth and his will must be to them for a law and what is that but to set up a Tyrant and if a Tyrant be set up over a People shall not their condition in that case be worse then when they were at liberty to manage their owne matters as they could best Moreover this may be cleared from other reasons as 1. In all other relations which arise from mutual consent and compact there are alwayes tearmes conditions on which the contract or compact is concluded as in the contract betwixt Man and Wife Master and Servant Tutor Pupil Master Scholer the like Here alwayes are presupposed tearms conditions on which the compact the only fundation of these relations is founded for no Man marryeth a wife but upon condition she carry as a dutyfull wife and no woman maryeth a Husband but upon the like tearmes So a Master indenteth with his Servant and his Servant bindeth himself to him upon tearmes The Tutor is under obligations to his Pupil and if he break such or such conditions he loseth his benefite and moreover is answerable as law wil. So is the Master obliged to performe such and such conditions unto his Scholer So are there conditions betwixt the Lord and his Vassals and betwixt Pastor and People 2. This will be cleare from the Nature of that power and authority which the Soveraigne hath over the Subjects of which afterward 3. It is against Nature to set up any Tyrant or one who is free from all conditions for that were upon the matter to set up a Waster an Enemy to the Commonwealth a bloody Tyger or Lyon to destroy all see Althus Pol c. 19. n 33. 35. 36. 37. 4. To imagine a King free of conditions unto his Subjects is to put them in among bona fortunae and to say they are as the King's gold his sheep his oxen his lands and revenues unto which he standeth no way obliged 5. If a People should set a Soveraigne over them without conditions they should sin against the Law of God which vvill have such and such dutyes performed by them vvho are Soveraignes and they by setting up Soveraignes vvithout these limitations should say such and such shall be our Soveraignes contrare to the limitations of God's Law 6. This is confirmed by the practice of all Nations where a free People set up Soveraignes It is alwayes upon tearmes and conditions They Persians as Xenophon lib. 8. Cyri Paed. tell us did thus Covenante with Cyrus that he should send aide to them out of his owne Countrey if any should warre against them or violate their lawes and they againe did promise that they should helpe him if any would not obey him defending his Countrey and therefore Xenophon calleth this contract or compact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Spartan King as the same Xenophon tells us de Rep. Laced did every Moneth Renew their oath unto the Ephori promised to governe them according to the lawes of the land the Ephori upon the other hand promised to Establish the Kingdom in their hands We reade of a compact betwixt Romulus and the people of Rome Dionis Halicarn Lib. 1. betwixt the Senate the Caesars Idem Lib. 2. It is notoure enough that the Emperour when he is chosen agrieth unto tearmes and conditions and also the King of Poland and historyes tells us what conditions are made betwixt King and People at the coronation of Kings in England France Boheme Spaine Portugal Sweden Denmark c. 7. The practice of our owne Kingdome
ground sufficient for some actions whereto there is no extraordinary call Answ Though this be sufficiently answered before yet we say 1. That order is already ruined when the Magistrat destroyeth what he should preserve and so crosseth his commission and who teach that in such an extraordinary case when God's order is violated and broken and all in hazard to be overturned such things might be done which needed not to be done if God's order and appoyntment were observed do not take a way to ruine all order but rather to preserve that vvhich order it self is appoynted as a meane to preserve 2. We plead not for such formal imperate acts in matters of Religion as due to privat persones as we have said But for a povver according to the ability God puteth into their hands to hinder him from being dishonoured to defend their ovvne profession and Religion to hinder an universal apostasy and to endeavour in their capacities to have things righted vvhich are out of order And vvhen private persones are carrying themselves thus vve deny that they are runing out of their rank and calling nor can he prove it 3. Will he say that no actions can be sufficiently justified because done in extraordinary necessities and vvithout an extraordinary call Then he shall condemne the Covenants which David made vvith the men of Israel 2 Sam. 5. and vvhich Iehojadah made betwixt the King the People For he told us that both these vvere in extraordinary occasions and he cannot shovv us any extraordinary call He addeth If Magistrates be deficient privat persons are sufficiently discharged if they keep themselves pure and do vvhat possibly they can for advanceing Religion in their privat capacities and by their Elicite acts if a mans eyes be put out his eares or other senses will goe as far to supply that defect as may be yet cannot help the body by elicite acts of seeing So whatever length private persons may goe for the good of the body they must not goe to exercise and exert formally acts magistratical Answ All alongs we heare nothing but dictatings This and this he sayes and there is an end a noble patron of a desperat cause and worthy of a great hire But. 1. The question still abideth undiscussed how far privat persons capacity doth reach for that they must do more then keep themselves pure we have shevved 2. If they may do what possibly they can for advanceing Religion in their capacities they may do more then he will have them doing for then they may defend Religion with the sword and with violence hinder idolatry and superstition and what of that nature provocketh God to wrath All this and more is within their capacity and possibility as he would easily grant if the Magistrate vvould but countenance it yea and though he should oppose say vve But he will say these are not elicite acts And vvill he grant nothing else to privat subjects but elicit acts Then he vvill not grant them liberty to disput for Religion to exhort rebuke and admonish c. for these are not elicite acts more then disputing vvith the svvord and so vvith his Philosophick distinctions he vvould charme us into a perfect acquiescence vvith vvhat Religion the King vvill enjoyne 3. Eares and other senses never set up the eyes and gave them povver to see for their good But the People set up the Magistrates and may do when the Magistrate layeth downe his sword or avowedly betrayeth his trust what they might have done before they made choice of him 4. By this Simile it would follow that the People cannot only not do the Magistrate's Imperat acts but not so much as the Elicite acts which he may do vvhich is false 5. Though they cannot exert or exercise Formally acts Magistratical if they may do it Materially we seek no more In end he tell us That it is a dangerous and destructive tenent to be held forth to be beleeved by People That in all cases whether concerning Religion or Liberty when they account the Magistrate to pervert the government that they are Eatenus in so far even as if they had no King and that the royalty hath recurred to themselves and they may act and exercise it formally as if they had no King at all and this he tels us is the expresse doctrine of Lex Rex Pag. 99. 100. Novv that all may see vvhat a shamelesse and impudent man this is and how little reason any have to give him credite I shall recite the authors very words But because sayeth he the Estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and I dolatrous worshipe upon them Therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the People a false and Idolatrous Religion this is some other thing then when they account the Magistrate to pervert c. in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King eatenus so farre are presumed to have power in themselves as if they had not appoynted any King at all If an incorporation accused of Treason in danger of the sentence of death shall appoynt a lawyer to advocate their cause if he be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legal and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath losed the tongues that nature hath given them so as by natures law they may not plead in their owne just and lawful defence as if they had never appoynted the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King is made by God and the People King for the Church and People of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behove and salvation of all If then he defend not Religion NB in his publick and Royal way It is presumed as undenyable That the People of God who by the law of nature are to care for their owne soull are to defend NB in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse Now let any judge if this be so dangerous and destructive a tenent As he would make his reader beleeve But it is easy for him who hath no shame to pervert sentences which he cannot confute and then call them dangerous and destructive and thus he will make the rabble of the degenerate clergy and other simple ones beleeve that he hath confuted Lex Rex And thus dealeth he with Naphtaly as we have shewed already Having thus considered all which the Surveyer hath here and there spoken against that which we have said let us now come to apply what hath been said unto our present purpose of vindicating the late act of defence which by what we have said we finde cannot be justly condemned as treasonable or rebellious but rather approved and commended as loyall service to God and the Countrey For 1. Thereby they were professing their constancy in adhereing to the reformation of Religion in doctrine worshipe Discipline and Government which was
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
Com. Class 4. Cap. 20. Pag. 680. c. To which we answere 1. The question which he moveth Pag. 680. doth not concerne us For there he sayes that meer privat persones may not depose Kings or Princes or rise against them for this end Vt eos à dignitate seu gradu suo deturbent Now this is not our question which is concerning necessary self-defence in cases of extreame necessity 2. He grants it lawfull to inferiour Magistrates who set limites to the Prince if the Prince violat his compacts and break his Covenant to force him to stand to his conditions eum in ordinem cogere ac vi redigere ut conditiones pacta quae fuerat pollicitus compleat idque vel armis cum aliter fieri non possit Our Surveyer will not assent to this which Martyr sayeth notwithstanding he account him one of the most learned of our Protestants 3. It is true Pag. 682. he would have private persones enduring a Tyrant who commands contrary to equity and good lawes and suffer him patiently as we are to suffer patiently sicknesse But who seeth not that notwithstanding of this patient submission we may use resistence as we may use resistence by all lawful meanes to sicknesse and diseases 4. Though we should yeeld that such a Tyrant as he described should not be resisted viz. such an one as commandeth contra aequum bonum ac leges yet our case is different For not only are there such acts of iniquity commanded but also Subjects are compelled by meer force and cruelty to consent to and approve iniquous courses and our Magistrates are in a singular manner obliged to prosecute the Ends of a sworne Covenant which the Subjects desire to adhere unto and for adherence thereunto are persecuted in a most inhumane and cruel manner So that this is tyranny of a higher nature then what Peter Martyr speaketh of In the next place he citeth Rivet in Decal Pag. 233. and 235. But we answere 1. Rivet granteth it lawful unto all vim vi repellere to repel force with force a proveth it 2. In the place by him cited he is speaking of a private man's resisting the violence of another who if under pretext of exponeing the law of Nature should avenge himself privato appetitu vel contumaciâ or raise seditions against the Magistrates he should but abuse his power and liberty and this we grant But our case is of a Community to which Rivet speaketh nothing Yea 3. in the other place though he will not have a private person kill his Father or a Magistrate in his owne defence yet he granteth it lawful to resist so far as can be to hinder our owne destruction Id sayes he nos absolute sontimus de Parente Principe quibus licet quidem resistere quantum id fieri potest cum invadunt injuste eo fine ut impediamus perniciem nostram Whence it appeareth that Rivet is much for us for he acknowledgeth it lawful for a private single person to defend himself as much as is possible from the unjust assaults of Princes Much more then shall it be lawfull for a community to defend themselves against the King's Emissaries After Rivet he citeth D. Ames cons cas Lib. 5. cap. 20. But Doct. Ames speaketh nothing against us for he is summarily holding forth what is the duty of Superiours towards their inferiours and of inferiours towards their Superiours and among the dutyes of inferiours he reckoneth subjection and obedience but what calleth he this subjection Doth he meane thereby a stupide and absolute submission to all acts of Tyranny and opression No but such an acknowledgement of their power authority as hath with it a care to preserve the same unhurt Now this is consistent with resistence in cases of necessity A community may defend themselves from unjust violence of Magistratees and yet attempt nothing against their just power and authority but labour tenderly to preserve the same 2. It is true that he sayeth all violent insurrection is opposite hereunto and also contempt But that is violent insurrection against the power and authority and not against the person who is abuseing his povver to the ruine and destruction of the Commonvvealth for no body will deny but tyranny and the Tyrant as such may be despised and undervalued vvithout vvrong to the povver and authority if self So may that be resisted vvithout violation of the power 3. It is true he sayeth that subjection may be vvhere there is not obedience but wherein sayeth he doth this subjection consist In submissâ recusatione obedientiae quando illicitum esse constat quod a superiore mandatur in a submissive refuseing to give obedience And this is some other thing then a stupide submission to all acts of Tyranny 4. This same Ames Cap. 25. where he is speaking of Maagistrates and Subjects and shewing the duty of subjcets unto them puts subjection and obedience together § 16. Wherefore as hence it cannot follow because obedience is due unto them when they command things just and agreable to God's Law that therefore obedience is due unto them when they command things unjust and repugnant to the Law of God So nor will it follow that because subjection is due unto them when their power is not abused to the destruction of the Commonwealth therefore subjection is due unto them or non-resistence when they tyrannize over the consciences states and bodyes of their subjects and laboure to overturne all 5. It is true he sayeth Cap. 31. § 10. that the person invading may be such and there may be such other circumstances as that the person invaded may rather choose to die as to Kill But that speakes nothing to our case which is a resisting to the King 's bloody emissaries not by one private person but by a Community And since D. Ames in the same Chapt. § 4. 5. c. thinks it lawful for a private person to defend himself even by killing the aggressor when there is no other remedy he will abundantly justify our practice And likewise he alloweth this defence even in the behalf of others § 9. Rectè etiam extenditur ad defensionem non tantum nostâ—um sed aliorum innocentium Hoc enim postula lex ut proximum diligamus sicut nosipsos And therefore Amesius is much for us As for the two Papists Estius and Tollet whom he citeth they speak not against us who plead for the Liberty of self defence unto a Community against the Magistrate and not to every private single person neither plead we for a power of Killing Kings And if they were against us he could not have much reason to say that we joyned hands with Papists Thus are all his authorities from divines answered let us see what he sayeth further He tells us Pag. 25. 26. That when Lex Rex had in severral places such as Pag. 313. 314. 322. 463. vented that principle in reference to the civil governement That no man
pleased to doe what he alledgeth Naphtaly and his complices had a minde to do The first question which he speakes to Chap. 1. Is touching the dissolving of humane societies which in some cases politicians will yeeld to see Althus pol. c. 38. n. 76. And the thing he driveth at is to fasten on the honest party a resolution and designe to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially setled frame as he loveth to speak Pag. 9. of that Nation and Kingdome which through divine providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Soveraignes for the common benefite of subjects at home and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad yea and to the glory of divine providence which hath through many stormes in several ages preserved us in this comfortable constitution And this he deviseth of his owne wicked heart of purpose to make these cordiall lovers of Religion and of their Countrey hateful to all the world if he could and therefore he would represente them as men of strange principles purposes But wo to such as make lyes their refuge This man thinketh to make the King glade with his lyes but we know that the mouth of such as speak lyes shall be stopped But sure one would think that he behoved to have some clear ground to walk upon in asserting this of us and especially when he is at the paines to spend a whole chapter to confute it And yet vvhen he hath rambled up and downe that book of Naphtali to seek out a ground for this assertion he can not adduce any one sentence that even with half an eye doth look there away except one which yet hath no such designe or import The sentence is this Pag. 150. That through the Manifest and notorious perversion of the great ends of Society and government the bond thereof being dissolved the persons one or moe thus liberated therefrom do relapse into their primeve liberty and privilege and accordingly as the similitude of their case and exigence of their cause doth require may upon the very same principles againe joyne and associate for their better defence and preservation as they did at first enter into Societyes For clearing of which these things would be observed 1. That the author there is only adding a few observations to cleare the innocency of these noble witnesses who died owneing the interest and cause of Christ and to shevv hovv free they were of the crime of rebellion with which they were charged Now all know that as these worthies had no designe of erecting themselves into a distinct common-wealth nor to make such a civil politick separation from the rest of the land so the way which they took did directly tend to have the whole land united unto God and among themselves as one for God and to God in the bond of the solemne league and covenant Had they designed such a separation they behoved also to have chosen more apposite fit meanes then these were which they did use as any of halfe a judgment may perceive 2. That as the maine and only designe of these worthies was to defend themselves and their Covenanted Religion from manifest oppression and tyranny and to have the land recovered from that wofull course of backsliding and departing from the Lord whereof it was guilty and wherein it had lyen for many dayes So This author is only clearing their innocency as to that and therefore in the first observation Pag. 147. He cleareth the native ground of self preservation and in the 2. How the perverting of the ends of government doth not destroy this native right but that then people are as free to defend themselves as ever even against the oppressing Powers who in that case according to King Iames his testimony and practice become Tyrants and are to be resisted and in the 3. How all powers are obliged if not expresly yet tacitely to walk in a due subordination to God and to prosecute these great ends of government and particularly in the 4. How our king is bound by the lawes of the land and by his coronation covenant oath to Rule for God and the good of the People And in the 5. How all even the most Malignantly affected would assent to this as an undoubted truth in their owne particular cases And cometh in the 6. Place to the words cited which must have the same import and tendency to wit to clear the innocency of private persons self-defence and defence of Religion when the powers which should minde and study according to their place power to promove the great ends of society and government viz. the glory of God and the good of the Subjects in soul and body do manifestly and notoriously pervert these ends and preferre themselves and their owne lusts unto the will and glory of God and to the good of the People The same is also cleare from the following observations which do manifestly poynt at the clearing of people being bound in duty to defend themselves and their Religion conforme to their engagements vowes and Covenants which still stand in force notwithstanding of any thing done to the contrary of late in their acts rescissory and condemnatory 3. The very words themselves to any who is not utterly blinded with prejudice can import no more then that when through the notorious and mainfest perversion of the great ends of society and government the bond thereof is dissolved and the persons now relapseing into their Primeve liberty and privilege may no lesse now joyne and associate together to defend Themselves and their Religion then at first they entered into societes For as their entering into societies was for this end and their setting up of Magistrates over themselves was for this end so when the Magistrates crosse their end and rule and thereby annul the relation or make it invalide for the ends they may joyne together now for these ends as they might have done before the formal institution of Government And who can deny this to be a truth Or who can hence inferre but he who is of a perverse spirit and for his perverse ends seeketh to pervert all things that he pleadeth for the lawfulnesse of Peoples crumbling together in lesser fractions and petty commonwealthes 4. Suppose the words should be capable of that glosse ' which the Surveyer putteth upon them yet as they lye connected with what preceedeth and with what followeth they can at most be but a Medium for proving the intended conclusion and so must be considered as founding an argument a Majori ad minus from the more to the lesse to this purpose if when through the manifest and notorious perversion of the great Ends of society and government the bond thereof is dissolved and persons relapse into their primeve liberty so that according as the similitude of their case and exigence of their cause requireth upon the same principles they may againe associate and combine into new and distinct Societies and Commonwealthes
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