shew where this is said and cleared I shall then find by what reasons it is maintained and so give you an Answer thereunto In the mean time that which is here but barely affirmed it is sufficient for me to deny If you could clear this the whole question were decided If he ought to give justice he hath a speciall warrant and calling to it and how Force can give such a calling you have not yet aslayed to clear the contrary I have brought many reasons for Chapter 2. and am therefore before hand with you in this point It will be confest that if a man will take upon him to administer judgement he were better or it is a lesse evill in him to do right then wrong therein but of two evils of sin neither is to be admitted 4ly This Doctrine of not acting is the very doctrine of Levelling For when no man may act every man may take freely from his neighbour c. 1. Levelling may be the consequent of non-acting but it cannot be the consequent of it it is the consequence of theiâ— doings who take away the settled Magistracy 2. Levelling in point of goods you like not it seems but why do you not as well abhor from it in point of Government that 's but levelling the private this is levelling the publick Interest that Levelling can never come in till this Levelling go before and lead the way but who are Levellers this latter and as you see worse way but they that teach or practise the deserting of the lawfuâ—l establisht Magistrate and the competency yea duty of any that have force to play the Magistrate Hence ariseth that which they cal an interpretative consent of the people because it is supposed every rationall man doth consent that there should be order property and right given under a tyrant rather then all to be under confusion c. 1. Every rationall man consents indeed that there should be order property and right and his being under a tyrant by experience of the want confirms his consent to the necessity thereof but that such things should be maintained magistratically by a tyrant in regard of title you see if all that are your Antagonists in this question be not stark Irrationals some rationall men deny And in this they appear rationall in that they would hear some reason for it before they consent to it Which rather then you will strain yourself to give for truly it is hard to do you choose to suppose them that will not consent without it to be out of the number of rationall men 2ly This shift of an interpretative consent of the people that the Usurper shall administer judgement will not serve you For 1. It will be difficult to finde out and agree when such an interpretative consent is given by the people 2ly What thing is it as near as I can conjecture it is possibly 1. Either that these men shall be the Power or Magistrate and then 1. Either the people had power to give this consent and this makes these men no Usurpers but lawfull Magistrates so puts them out of the compasse of this question 2. Or they had no power being pre-ingaged and then this consent is void and null because it prejudicates anothers right 2. Or it is that these men though they have no consent of theirs to be Magistrates but come in and hold against their wils and by their own meer force and against anothers right yet they shall for present execute judgement because it cannot be had otherwayes This consent suppose it really past by the people cannot bottome their acting or others under them For it is in the essence of it an unlawfull act and therefore of no force It is of the same validity as was that of the people which joyned with Korah and his company who gave consent that though Korah and the rest were no Priests yet they should offer incense or as that would be if the people of a Congregation now that can procure no lawfull Minister should take a private man and say this man is no Minister yet he shall in this defect of one preach and administer the Sacraments to us Such consents are contradictions to the establisht ordinance of God appointing that no stranger to those functions shal execute those acts In like sort it is in this point of Magistracy 5ly How could Ezra and Nehemiah justifie their acting under the Persian Monarch who had no right to the Crown of Judah either by blood or just conquest 1. That the Persian Monarch had not that right you say but prove it not but if just conquest give a title Cyrus the first Persian King justly warred against Balshazer the last Chalcedon Monarch as Historians a Crusus fiducia potentiae inferi bellum Cyâ—o gerenti justum bellum adversus Tyrannum Babylonicum Chr. Carion li. 2. pag. 69. Balshasar conspicatus Cyri Medorum potentiam coalescere Craesum ad Infringendas eorum viâ—es incitat Cluveni Hist li 6. pa. 64. say and therefore justly conquered him and his Empire under which the Jews were then subjected and that by speciall warrant from God Jer. 27.12 to 16.29.1 to 8.21.8 9.38.17 to 21. 2ly But Cyrus had both an indubitable title to that Empire and an unquestionable Commission for what he did in reference to the Jews releasement from captivity and restauration of their Temple Keligion and Civill State and that from God himself by immediate designation Hear what he himself saith in his Proclamation unto which he was stirred up in spirit by the Lord. Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia all the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah 2 Chron. 36.22 23. Ezra 1.1 2. And compare this with what the Lord saith not onely of but to this Cyrus Isa 44.28.45.1 2 3 4 5 13. and a clear calling or title to the Empire of the world and to the acting of what he did in reference to Judea will appear to be in him It is conceived that Cyrus had certain knowledge of this Commission recorded and given to him by name in that Prophesie of Isaiah and that by means of Daniel the Prophet b Agnovit hoc ipse Cyrus publico est edicto ad hunc modum testatus Haec dicit Râ—x Persarum c primo Esdra Musculuin Isaiae 45.1 Cyrus lecto vaticinio Isaiae de se nominatim edito Isa 45. proposuit edictum quo Iudae is in Babylonia captivis reditum in partiam facultatem in staurandi templi concessit Chytraei Chronol in 〈◊〉 Herodat p. 147. Arbitror autem tunc cum rexit Persiam Daniel praesos in Susis fuisse ejus auditorum Cyrum adolescentem â—b eo dediciste veram de Deo de Mossia doctrinam praedictiones Isaiae in qua nomen Cyri expresse positum est Chron Carion li. 2. pa. 69. and that which is
proprio quantum vult remittere sed non potest quisquam de alieno iure quicquam demere ipso vel inconsulto vel invito si alterius cuiusquam intersit ex aliquo suo iure obligationem non solvi obligatio non solvitur Ibid. but the Covenant even in that part of it was not meerly or chiefly of a private or personall importance to the King himself but was and is of a publick interest to the Covenanters themselves and the Kingdoms the Kings refusall therefore and opposition to it could be no release from it we say on all hands the King is for the Kingdom as the means is for the end We have ten parts in the King said the men of Israel of David and at another time they said and sware Thou shalt no more go out with us to battell that thou quench not the light of Israel What portion have we in David and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse the ten Tribes said when they made a revolt from and rebelled against Rehoboam The Introduction of the Covenant in laying down the concernments and ends for the making of it expresseth it self thus Having before our eyes the glory of God and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and the true publick liberty safety and peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included And a little afterwards We have for the preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction resolved and determined to enter into a mutuall and solemne League and Covenant c. And Art 6. it styleth its cause This Common cause of Religion liberty and peace of the Kingdoms which cause it saith presently after so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdoms and honour of the King 2. The King never refused to agree to nor did he oppose the matter of this particular clause as touching this there could be no dissent on his part his prescribing and standing upon the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy wherein this clause is contained his avowing the difference and war on his part to be for the defence of his person and authority his putting forth Oaths to them that adhered to him for the preservation of these makes it as clear as noon-day that he refused and opposed not this branch Now upon this confideration the Remonstrancer hath not onely failed in his allegation but overthrown his own argument he saying in the place before cited Although the Kings refusing sets the Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant 〈◊〉 to what concerns his interest and benefit therein yet the Covenant as to other matters concerning the right and benefit of the Covenanters one from another stands still obliging and in force I may by the same reason say the Kings refusing the Covenant upon exception against other clauses not this and his opposing other matters in the Covenant not this could not dis-ingage or release the Covenanters from this about which there was not the least dissent or reluctancy but a concurrence full enough on his part so that the Covenant must stand still obliging and in force as to this part 3. If the Kings said refusall and opposition could have discharged us from this member of the Covenant as to his own person and interest in the Authority yet with all your straining you cannot stretch them to our release from preservation and defence of the Kingly Authority in relation to his posterity who were in proximity to him interested in it and for whose interest therein the Covenant was also made e Having before our eyes the honour Happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and whose refusall of it nor yet a tender of it to them you do not cannot once plead I have done with the wrong glosse of the Remonstrancer endeavouring to impeach the obligation of this clause of the Covenant I finde another a deare friend of his tampering with it also to clude the tye of it and he offers it no lesse violence but in a more unhandsome and grosse manner It is that Polemick or Army-Divine Mr. J.G. in his Defence of the Honourable Sentence c. The man in that book undertaketh and bends his skill to a double unhappie and crosse designe to wit to varnish and guild over that which is very foule and to besmear and obscure that which is very clear In his prosecution of the latter he fals upon this sentence of the Covenant in dealing with which he correspondeth with the Remonstrancer and as this hath challenged to himself a prerogative to enforce men and Magistrates so doth he arrogate to himself to be a bold enforcer of words and Covenants a more strange and presumptuous perverting of plain words I never read nor heard then that which he useth to this clause when he saith page 51. Evident it is that those words in the Covenant in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms import a condition to be performed on the Kings part without the performance whereof the Covenant obligeth no man to the preservation or defence of his Person or Authority And this condition he makes to be page 52 53. That he preserve and defend the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom and of this his paraphrase of the words he saith If this be not the clear meaning and importance of them the Covenant is a Barbarian unto me I understand not the English of it The vast exorbitancy audaciousnesse and impietie of this his wresting and straining of these plain words I leave the Reader to take the measure of I shall onely endeavour to free them from this his distortion 1. Let the words themselves speak they do not say in his preservation and defence c. but in the preservation and defence c. plainly referring to the same preservation and defence of Religion and Liberties which is before promised and sworn in this and the preceding Articles and as evidently referring to the same persons preservation and defence of them here which are to preserve and defend them in the former clauses and which are to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in this viz the Covenanters If the Covenant had intended to pitch the preservation and defence in this clause upon another person or persons as the performers besides those to whom the same actions are referred immediately before it would have pointed them out distinctly but when it expresses no other ordinary construction will attribute them to the parties before nominated and no regular construction can put them upon any other This reading is plain English to him that knows the language and will understand and Mr. G. proves himself a barbarous dealer with the covenant in that he will have it either to admit of his antigramaticall sense or to be a Barbarian
AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING USURPED POWERS WHEREIN The Difference betwixt Civill Authority and Usurpation is stated That the Obedience due to lawfull Magistrates is not owing or payable to USVRPED POWERS is maintained The Obligation of OATHS and other Sanctions to the former notwithstanding the Antipolitie of the latter is Asserted And the Arguments urged on the contrary part in divers late Printed Discourses are Answered Being modestly and inoffensively managed By one studious of Truth and Peace both in Church and State Tyrannus sine titulo ille est qui imperium ad se absque legitimâ ratione rapie huic quisque privatus resistat si possit è medio tollat Vide sacram Theologi per Dudleium Fennetum cap. 13. de polâ—t civili pag. 80. Si Invasor impetitum arripuerit neque pactio uâ—la seqâ—…ta sic aut fides illi data sed sola vi retineatur possessio à quolibet privato jure potest interfici Grotius de jure pacis ac belli p 86. Luke 21.8 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions or seditions be not terrified Printed in the Yeer 1650. â—…sper practise and destroy the mightie and holy people Dan. 8.24 25. This Authors zeal for the obligation of solemne Oaths Vows and Covenants may well be born with if it be a fault there is but little too little of it in England But the good man though he sweareth to his own hurt changeth not Psal 15.4 I will say no more but Tolle lege take up and read understand what thou readest Remember and practise what thou understandest to be the will and minde of God and pray for such whether of the Gentry Ministery or others as long and labour for thy information and reformation if thou wandrest and for thy confirmation and consolation if thou walkest aright The God of truth and peace be with thee Amen CHAP. I. Of Vsurpation what it is a Case propounded wherein it is not hard to determine whether Vsurpation be chargeable or not USurpation is an intrusion into the Seat of Authority a presuming to possesse and manage the place power thereof without a lawfull calling right or title thereunto A lawfull call or title to that rule and Government which is supreme of which I have to speak is derived or comes from God There is no power but of God saith the Apostle the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 It were a sense too large and not to be defended to take these words absolutely and unlimitedly of all power in regard either of title or measure and use An unjust power in regard of Measure or the stretching of Power beyond its due bounds or the abuse of it is generally denyed to be of God by way of warrant and an unjust power in regard of title or an Authority set up and admitted against or without right God himself denyes to be of him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not saith he Hosea 8.4 Which speech is by the current of a Zanchius Iunius Geneva interpret Pareus Diodate Anotations of Divines in Iocum Expositors applyed to Jeroboam and his successors coming in to be Kings of Israel in that manner as they did For although Jeroboam had a prediction yea suppose it a grant that he should be King of ten Tribes 1 King 11.29 yet the people at Solomons death had no command or direction from God to cast off Rehoboams government and make him their King it was therefore sedition and rebellion in them and both a manifest breach of the fifth Commandment Vide Paraeum in Hos 8.4 and of the positive Law of God Deut. 17.14 15. and Jeroboam was faulty in that though he had Gods preconcession of a Kingdom over ten Tribes yet having had no order from him about the time manner or the particular ten which they should be he did not seek and tarry for a further direction and calling from God as David did in the like case b 2 Sam. 2.1 And although the Lord when it was done testified that the thing was from him c 1 King 12.24 yet we must understand it to have been so by his permissive counsell and generall concourse or providence onely as all actions as they are actions and all events that are evils of punishment and as they are such are though the actors among men that bring them be never so sinfull in them but not by his approbation appointment or constitution the event was from God but not the sinfull means by which it was accomplished he ordered the evil carriage of men to that effect but he gave them no order for that evil carriage so that though in a sense it was of him yet in regard of authorizing it was without and against him and in the Apostles sense none of Gods ordinance But of this we shall have occasion to speak again hereafter God giveth a calling or invests with a right to Soveraignty either immediately by making and declaring the choice and designing the person himself or mediately by committing it to the people to elect and constitute both their form of Government and the persons that are to sway it over them which he hath done to all Nations yet with a reservation to himself of power to interpose with his own immediate designation when he pleaseth and when he doth not so the vote of the people is the voice of God ordinarily and they passing their consent when a Magistrate is to be set over them that power so constituted is of God as his ordinance And this may be the reason why that which in one place is called the ordinance of God is in another called the ordinance of man or an humane creature 1 Pet. 2.13 By the former way the Judges and Kings of Israel had or ought to have had their admission to rule d Deut. 17.14 and that was extraordinary and peculiar to that people the latter is the onely ordinary lawfull and warrantable way of creating a right and title to the helme of Magistracy in other Nations And as in the former the call of God was sometimes personall or of one single person as was that of Moses Joshua Samuel Saul and others and again sometimes lineall or of a whole race as was that of David and his seed e 2 Sam 7.12 So it is in the latter f Prin◠〈◊〉 â—in muâ—â— appeâ—unt nec boni ipsi nec boni fine quos repressâ—â— tamen mos sive leâ— Gentium repagulo duplici Elect onis luâ—cessionis c. Iusti Lipsi polit l. 2. c 4. the peoples constitution of their Governors may either be individuall or intransient as in those kingdoms or States which are called in a strict acception Elective or it may be continuated and successive as in those Kingdoms or Principalities which are called hereditary and possessed by descent both wayes Princes are by the peoples Election and Consent and the
latter is preferred by many wise Statists before the former g Minore discrimine sumi principem quâ—m quaeti Tacit. Hist l. 2 I shall not insist on the distinctions that might be observed touching the manner of the peoples passing their consent nor determine which of them is sufficient and which not to make this right or title whether it must be antecedent to possession or may be consequent expresse or tacite collective or representative absolute or conditionated free or enforced revocable or irrevocable The consideration of these is not materiall to the resolution of what is in question it sufficeth that it be yeelded that the peoples consent is besides that which is by commission immediately sent and signed from heaven the onely derivation of a lawfull call or claim to Government h Quirtum verâ— regalis Monarchiae genus est quae iam temporibus Heroicis voluntate civium patriis legibus atque institutis approbata est Aristot politic li 3. num 8â— Luk. 12.13 14 When our Saviour Christ who being such an extraordinary person might have warrant to do what would have been presumption in any other was appealed to in a cause that appertained to the civill Magistrates decision he refused to deal in it with these words Who made me a Judge or a divider over you according to which words of him who was the truth he that may rule must be placed in that office by some body and may not undertake it of himself no man may take this honour to himself or be his own advancer to the Throne but he must be installed by another and what other creature besides the Nation it self can challenge a power to appoint over it its Rulers is not to me imaginable Angels are not of this Oeconomie do not intermeddle in this businesse and for other people or forrein States they are but in an equalitie and have no partnership in this matter they have no more to do to impose Governors over their neighbours then they have reciprocally over them and to whichsoever may attempt it towards the other by the analogy of our Saviours words it may be said Luk. 12.13 14. Who made thee a Judge or Rule maker over me A calling from the people who are to be subject being so necessary and essentiall to a humanely constituted Magistracie it is easie to discern what is Usurpation viz that which is opposite to it or privative thereof which is a snatching hold of the Scepter and wresting it out of the hands of those who are to dispose of it or have it committed to them it is ordinarily termed a tyrannie in regard of title or without title The distinction betwixt lawfull Magistrates and Tyrants is thus given by Aristotle h Reges enim non solum secundum legem sed etiam volentibus Tyranni autem invitis imperant Aristot polit l. 3. num 87. Etenim si nolentibus imperatur regnum protinus esse desinit Tyrannis efficitur quae vi dominatur Verum regnum est imperium voluntate civium delatum at si quis vel fraude vel violentia dominatur manifestâ— Tyrannis est idem li. 5. num 112. Kings do reign not onely according to the Law but over them that consent to them Tyrants rule over men against their wils If any govern against the minde of the governed it ceaseth to be a Kingdom and becometh a Tyrannie which ruleth by force All lawfull power then is founded upon the wils of those over whom it is set Contrariwise Usurpation is built upon the will and power of them that hold the Government it is a self-created or self authorised Power such was that of i Deinde Cinna Carbo sâ—se sine comiâ—iis consules creabant in biennium Chro. Carion li. 2. Cinna and Carbo who made themselves Consuls without any Court-election in the time of the Romane sociall war betwixt Sylla and Marius and that of k Ex Dictatore Consulem se cum P. Servilio ipse facit Cluver Hist li 7. pag. 235. Julius Caesar who made himself Consul together with Publius Servilius such was that of the Chaldeans over the Jews Hab. 1.7 Their judgement and their dignity shall proceed of themselves saith the Prophet that is as Deodate expounds it they received no Law nor assistance from any their right consists in their will and the execution in their power Usurpation being defined we may proceed to distinguish of it according to severall heights or degrees it is capable of as 1. It is either where the Throne is vacant and undisposed of which may happen sundry wayes as when a Common-wealth is new erected or the possessors of the Government resigne or are extinct and none left to lay claim to it or where it is full and possessed de jure and the Rulers are onely violently extruded and kept out 2. Usurpation is either meerly in point of Title and administration of a received and settled Government or by way of innovating in the Government it self over-turning the constitution of it and forming it a new 3. It may come to be acted either from those without viz Forreiners and strangers to the State or by Natives and naturall Subjects of the Kingdome 4. It is done by these either against the single tye and duty of obedience and Allegiance owed to the present lawfull Authority or against Allegiance bound with Oaths and sacred Covenants All the sorts of each of these distinctions are direct and formall usurpations but the latter of each far surpasseth the other respectively and a conspiration of them all makes an Usurpation of a meridian altitude when a party owing obedience and subjection to a long continued and undoubted lawfull power and solemnly sworn to submit too and support that Government shall rise up and presume to thrust out the possessors and invest it self yea and not onely seize on the Power but of its own minde and will or by its force alone abolish the settled and set up a new mould of government this is Usurpation to the culmen or height of it Having thus found out what Usurpation and what the Zenith of it is we may put a case wherein it will be easie to give a Judgement cleerly Suppose a Nation in America whose fundamentall government is and hath been anciently and confessedly constituted and placed in a King an House of Peers and an House of Commons sitting in a collaterall or coordinate rank in regard of supremacy of power the King being the supreme in order unto whom in such an association Oaths of Allegiance and supremacy are generally sworn next to him the Peers as the Upper and the Commons as the Lower House of Parliament Suppose also the King according to his place summoning them and they conformably assembling together in Parliament and he and they personally concurring to act in the highest affairs of government in the processe whereof differences arise betwixt the King and the said two Houses which grow to
that height as that he in person departs from them a war breaks out betwixt them the Kingdom is divided by partieship with them on the one side or the other the two Houses continue acting joyntly no onely in managing their military defence but in the other publick both religious and civill affairs of the Kingdom they petition remonstrate and declare for a necessitie of an association and conjunction of the King and the two Houses as the fundamentall constitution and government of the Kingdome they enter into and prescribe to the people Protestations Vows Oaths and Covenants for the upholding of the Authority and Power of both so constituted they professedly fight for that associated Power they proclaim them Enemies and Traitors they prosecute them with fire and sword sequestration of estates and other punishments that go about to divide them asunder or oppose the aforesaid Authority and all this they do and avow as the indispensably necessary discharge of their trust Suppose after all this the Army raised and imployed by the said two Houses in the aforesaid war confederating in their Leaders as by the immediate sequell manifestly appears with a small party in the Lower House Remonstrates to that House without any addresse to the other many high and strange things they would have done by them and amongst the rest that the King be proceeded against as for treason and other capitall crimes in like manner his two eldest Sons if they render not themselves within a day to be set them that it be declared that the peoples Representatives in the House of Commons shall have the supreme Power and all other shall be subject to them in which demands that House not being so obsequious to them as they expect but standing upon the collegueship of that Government which they with their associates the King and the House of Peers are intrusted with the Army forthwith marcheth up to the doores and by force of Arms seizeth on and shuts up in hold one sort of them and by a strong guard set at their doores shuts out another suffering onely a small number of them and such as please them to sit in the House Suppose lastly this little number left in the House shall approve of and second these proceedings of this Army and by their act or Vote confirm the seclusion of that greater number of the Members of that House and taking upon them to Act in the name of that House shall Enact or declare themselves to be the onely Supreame Authority in the Nation and by that pretended solitarinesse and supremacy of power shall take away and abolish the other House of Parliament destroy the life of the King deny and disanull the Title of his Heirs and Successors to the Crown and Kingdome abolish the office of a King and ordain and govern solitarily over the people as their onely supreame Power and require their obedience and subjection as to such The quaere in this case thus propounded is whether this said party as thus acting and as to this latitude of Authority be usurpers yea or no whether this their removing others from the Seat of Supreame Power and assuming it peculiarly to themselves be or be not Usurpation as Usurpation hath been before prescribed and that to the very apex or highest pinacle of it yea whether they be or be not guilty of a double Usurpation First in usurping the name and Authority of that House It may haply be said for this 1. That possibly they may make a quorum or as many in number as are required to act R But are they not supposed to be under actuall and present force which hath been without contradiction by any adjudged a ground of nullity to Parliamentary proceedings For though all are not required to be present yet the House must be free for all to come to that their acts may be free and authorative 2ly That perhaps they may be most willing voluntary and free in their acts and the force that hath taken away others may be no force but a security to them being of the same principles apprehensions and designes with them R But though they as men may be free yet taking upon them the name of the House are they free as an House the House includeth virtually every Member of it many whereof being violently excluded by those that guard the meeting place how free soever those persons are that sit how can the House be said to be free nay doth not their voluntarinesse and free complyance make the Usurpation compleater Could they be said to be enforc'd to declard and act such things we might by a favourable interpretation onely judge their Acts to be null but when their proceedings flow from their own wils and they so concur to the exclusion of others more then themselves from the exercise of the power they with them are intrusted with and assume to themselves a power never confirmed on them by the people but meerly of their own creation how can this be lesse then Usurpation to the life 2ly In usurping in the name of that House the sole supremacy of Power in the Nation It will be pleaded perhaps that the House of Commons in the supposed case is the onely Representative of the people to whom alone the Nation hath committed the Supreme Power R 1. That House is not a Representative of the whole Nation but onely of the Commons which though the bulk and far more numerous part yet cannot stand for the whole in choosing a Representative but onely for themselves 2. If it could be made good that to that House the whole Nation in the originall constitution of Government had committed the sole Power the quaere would easily be cast in the negative but how will that be proved The case at it is put presupposeth Antiquitie and by past practise and the actings of the present House of Commons untill brought under force to proclaim the quite contrary 3. If nothing ab origine can be shewed for that did the King that summoned this Parliament or the People that chose this House of Commons supposed in the Case passe over any such prerogative to them de novo If either of them did let us hear how 4. It is too grosse an absurdity to be charged upon the supposed present and all former Representatives that being intrustsed by the people with the sole Supremacy they have of themselves associated to them the King and the House of Peers it being beyond the power of the constituted and onely in the Constitutors to make such an alteration in the fundamentall Constitution as Representatives cannot make Representatives or Proxies so can they not take in Associates or advance others not impowered by them that impowered them into a Collegueship with them I leave it therefore to every Reader to determine the Case and passe Judgement Whether the sole supreme Power in the presupposed party be derived to them legitimately or be not a Self-created power and so a meer
as well as reason dictates for where or in what Age did meer force assume the Empire without a lawlesse arbitrarinesse challenged to it self 10ly If you yeeld the Sword such a right where it can be master in the publick or civill State why should it not have the same interest in the private domesticall and personall So that pyrates theeves and robbers may justly claim a right to that which they can lay their hands on and be accountable to none for their spoil and rapine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11ly Whereas the Apostle to the Romans Chap. 13.2 forbiddeth resistance or contraordination to the lawfull power ordained of God and that upon pain of damnation to be received by him that doth it if force give a right to that power his action that resists with victory shall be justifiable and the resister shall gain a Crown instead of receiving damnation and none shall fall under the guilt and penalty of resistance but he that offers to resist and cannot make it good The sense then which this Position puts upon this text is catachresticall and it glosseth the words so as to be an incouragement to resist the power for he that resisteth the power prosperously according to it possesseth justly that ordinance of God and in truth purchaseth to himself not damnation but domination Having thus I hope sufficiently cleered the duty of Allegiance to be not the violent intruders but the oppressed and violently extruded Magistrates I shall proceed to other Reasons against Subjects giving up themselves to the obedience of a usurping party 3. If I should do that I should yeeld assistance to the Usurper in his wrong doing and usurpation and so become a partaker of his sin obedience to one as the supreame Magistrate is a comprehensive thing and includes many duties towards him at a power viz Receiving Commission from him for offices or acts otherwayes not competible to me maintaining and defending him in his power by pay counsell intelligence Arms and prayers all which I am bound to yeeld the Usurper to my power if I resigne mine allegiance up to him and how shall I do these things and not 1. support and have communion with him in his wickednes 2. Combine against betray and resist the right of the injuriously dethroned Magistrate 3. And make my self uncapable of obedience or being a Subject to the lawfull Power hereafter 4. It were a publick wrong to the Nation I am a member of so to bestow mine allegiance were I and the Countrey free from all tye of subjection in the presupposed Case to the expulsed Magistrate yet I could not lawfully make such a private bargain of my allegiance it s the part and duty of a particular person in a Nation that is joyned together as one body politick or Common-wealth not to choose his head or supreame Governor by his single election or vote but when a new Magistracy is to be erected or Magistrate advanced to attend the common and generall vote of the people or body politick he is of solitarily or with a small party to alter the state and posture of my publick allegiance in this case would be sedition and faction the current of the people or community I am of is to be followed at least where they justly dispose of the Soveraignty over them It was in it self a loyall and right resolution had it been in such a case as this and not misapplyed which Hushai exprest Nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and him will I follow It would be to me I confesse a difficult case and harder then I will here undertake to resolve if the body of the Kingdom in the case in hand should either collectively or representatively conspire notwithstanding their oaths vows and Covenants to abrogate the ancient Soveraigne Power and to set up the Usurpers but that 's not the present case here is no generall consent of the Kingdom presupposed or pleaded for in behalf of the Usurper the dispute is about obedience to meer Usurpation And in this state of things to leave every man free to make over his allegiance by himself is to open a doore to more divisions then ever yet were in any Age or Nation and would confound all not an heptarchy but a chiliarchy 1 Sam. 10.27 2 Sam. 19.41.20.1 or myriarchy might follow When Saul had a generall vote of the people to be King they were children of Belial that refused him and at Davids re-investing after Absoloms treason and fall the men of Israel challenged them of Judah for going about to restore the King without them the far greater part of the Kingdom and that man of Belial Sheba the son of Bichri was justly pursued with the sword unto death for blowing a trumpet of defection from David when they both had consented to re-advance him 5. But there is a bar yet behinde of as main a strength as any yet stood on to keep back such a submittance to the Usurper and that is the Oaths Vows Protestations and Covenants presupposed above to be taken by the people for their owning obeying and defending the power or Magistracy displaced and in opposition to whose right the Usurper comes and continues in I have hitherto discussed the question in a case without reflection upon any particular Kingdom or reall Subject and so I shall do still onely I shall borrow leave in the prosecution of this Argument to presuppose in the aforesaid Case the Oaths and Covenant were the same that have been taken in this Kingdom of England The Author of the book called The lawfulnesse of obeying the present Government in his 11. page moveth an inquiry thus It were good to consider whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a fair and common sense forbid obedience to the Commands of the present Government and Authority and proceeding he onely makes enquiry into one clause of the Oath of Allegiance which he strives to bow to his sense and passeth by all besides I shall speak to what he saith on that clause anon and shall here onely interrogate or propound by way of quaere concerning divers clauses in the Oaths Protestations Vows and Covenants First concerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy whereas in the former it is sworn I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majestie his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown or dignity And in the latter I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Kings Highnesse his Heirs and lawfull Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminencies and Authorities granted to the Kings Highnesse his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm First do not these Oaths binde whomsoever hath taken
least not to oppose the Usurpers Finally let them recollect before they enter that doore what they have sworn to his late Majestie his Heirs and lawfull Successors what to the Parliaments Power rights and priviledges and what to the Kingdom Et magnum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veniendumne sit in Consilium tyranni si i◠aliqua de re bona deliberaturus sit Quare si quid ejusmodi evenerit ut accersamur quid censea◠mihi faciendum utque scribito Nihil enim mihi adhuc accidit quod majoris consilii est M. T. Cicero epist ad T. Pomp. Atticum l. 10 ep 1. and Subjects lawfull rights and priviledges and deliberate how they keeping of those things and sitting down with these men will be reconciled I finde that even wise Heathens have scrupled at this without the supposition of such Oaths CHAP. IIII. The obligatorinesse of the Oaths and Covenant urged in the 2d Chap against obedience to Vsurpers made good against divers late Authors BEfore I take in hand to answer Arguments that are brought for the confirmation of those two opinions for obedience to Usurpation and against which I have argued in the preceding Chapters it will be convenient in this place to take notice of such allegations and Exceptions as are made against the obligation of the Oaths and Covenants before urged as binding out from that obedience sundry late Authors having pleaded that the Oaths and Covenant either are not now in force but expired or do not extend too and binde in the case to which they are applyed I begin with the Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons Novemb 20. 1648. which unto the clause in the Solemn League and Covenant Art 3. obliging to endevour to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom alledgeth divers things some of which concern onely the obligation to the preservation of the Kings person those are past consideration other reflect upon it in relation to his Authority as unto which I have urged it to be still in force and therefore shall examine what the Remonstrance saith for the invalidating of it as unto that bringing in onely so much of its argumentation as can be construed to tend to this purpose and of this nature I observe two Allegations 1. The words in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms are a restriction to the engagement for preservation of the Kings person and Authority so as to oblige them to no further nor in any other way then shall be consistent with the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms but if by reason and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to Religion or publick interest then surely by the Covenant itself the preservation of his person or authority is not to be endevoured so far or in such a way or at least the Covenant obligeth not to it but against it page 55 56. 1. It is not necessary nor proper to take the words in the preservation c. as restrictive to the engagement either way that is either for the preservation and defence of the Kings person and Authority on the one hand or of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms on the other It is not necessarie I say for those words in the Article in our severall vocations are an expresse and fully sufficient restriction taking in and binding to all lawfull and just wayes of preserving and defending each of them and excluding all unlawfull Neither is it proper in there being clearly conjunctive and as much as with and equally looking both wayes that is both to the preservation and defence of that which goes before and that which follows unto the preservation and defence of all which though they be not of equall worth or intrest so that one of them must come behinde the other in the order of our endevours of their preservation and defence yet the Covenant binds equally in regard of the firmnesse of the obligation yet if any shall still contend that clause to be restrictive in that manner which the Remonstrance saith I will not strive in a verball contention with him for the taking of it so no more lesseneth our obligation to the preservation of the Kings Authority then if it had not been inserted we being tyed notwithstanding it to all just wayes of preservation therof and no more had been involved if it had been left out 2. But the sinews of this Argument lyeth in the pretended or implyed inconsistency betwixt the preservation and defence of Religion and the Kingdoms liberties unto which I say 1. There is doubtlesse a fair consistencie non-opposition or agreement betwixt the safetie of every one of these the being of each of them may and can stand with the other it is a groundlesse surmise and grosse absurditie to imagine an inconsistency betwixt the just intrests of any of them our taking of them together into the Covenant yeeldeth thus much if there were any incoexistency amongst them we could not have sworn to their joynt preservation or if we did the Oath was of impossibles and so as to this branch both unlawfull and void or non-obliging in the making of it a Regula juris rei impossibilis nulla obligatio 2. An endevour to preserve the one and the other will well enough stand together a lawfull power indeed actually and effectually to preserve them all may happen to be wanting and any one of them may fall under danger and I may want just means to relieve it but an endevour which can onely import a doing what is within power and warrant may be yeelded still to the preservation of every of them 3. Seeing then that an inconsistibility either of the things one with another or of the endevouring their preservation cannot be pleaded as possibly incident or occurrent evident it is that there cannot at any time lye a necessitie of taking a way of any of them and that the obligation of the Covenant to the endevour of preserving every of them continually stands in force during their respective existence and consequently it bindeth out from intending seeking attempting or prosecuting the abolishing or destruction of any of them for that is indeed truly inconsistent with the said endevour and therefore a palpable violation of the Covenant It must here be granted that the lawfull and necessary defence and preservation of one of them sometimes may so imploy me that I cannot at that time by the same means act for the others safety ye◠what I act for one may put the other in hazard and in the issue not onely be accompanied with but though against my will and endevours to the utmost of my lawfull capacity contingently and besides my intention prove the losse and
ruine of the other and this is incident not from any contrariety or inconsistency that is betwixt them but both because they are distinct and separable things and so cannot alwayes and by the same medium be concurrently prosecuted and because some of them are more worthy then the other which must therefore have the preheminency thus far that if they cannot altogether with my best endeavours be secured I am to prefer the security of the most precious and expose any of the other rather to danger then it As for instance it will I suppose be admitted to be agreeable to the Covenant for the Kingdoms rather to omit the safeguarding of their Liberties and put them to the hazard then the true Religion where both cannot be joyntly put out of danger but all this amounts not to a disobligement from the endevour of preserving them all nor to a liberty upon any emergency of active direct and purposed making away or removing of any of them though under pretence of securing the other I have read of one Alcon who finding his son fast on sleep upon the grasse and a Serpent creeping upon his breast he not apprehending how otherwise it was possible to save his son took his Bowe and shot at the Serpent upon the boyes breast which though to the manifest endangering of his life yet the chose rather to take that course then by suffering the Serpent to leave his life to a more certain destruction and either his art or good hap was such as that he prevented and slew the Serpent and preserved his Son b Ars erat esse patremâ—cit â—tura peâ—ic â—m Et parâ—er â—â—venem somnoque mortâ— levavit Manilius li 3. those whom we are bound and most solicitous to preserve we may upon an extreame exigence put in some hazard that we may preserve them but there is a great difference betwixt this and a deliberate purposed declared prosecuting them to destruction 3. But how doth the Remonstrancer prove the Assumption viz The inconsistency pretended betwixt the endevour of the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and the preservation of Religion and liberty thus he saith By reasâ—n and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person and Authority to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to religious or publick Interest If the one could be said to be certainly destructive to the other you would have said it without an if not but it seems you have not confidence to assever so much and yet they cannot be purely inconsistent without such a destructivenesse so that your own extenuation sufficiently discovers the weaknes of your proof all that you affirm is That there is no safetie but a full visible danger in the preservation which you impugne 1. The danger you pretend is in the disposall and use of the things to be preserved not in the nature of the things For instance the Kings Authority is politically and morally good the ordinance of God and if well used may be eminently advantagious if evilly used may be dangerous enough to Religion and liberties the like may also be said or the privileges of the Parliament and of the liberties of the Kingdoms in relation to Religion and to each other will you thence infer an inconsistency of these with Religion or a disobligement from the Covenant for preservation and defence of these 2. As there may be danger that way to the things specified so there may be danger and insecurity to the same things on the other hand viz in the destruction of the Kings person suppose it were undone and Authority and let impartiall Reason and Experience judge whether the preservation or destruction thereof hath more danger in it to Religion and the Kingdoms Liberty 3. But seeing there may be some danger on each side and in the preservation of the Kings Authority there is no more pretended but danger and that but of suffering not of sin it is apparent that as there is no such inconsistency as is intimated so the obligation of the Covenant to the preservation of the Kings Authority stands good and our safest way is to avoid the horrid sin and greater danger of Covenant-breaking by standing upon the said preservation 2ly The other thing which the Remonstrance alledgeth and is to be cleared is this Where severall persons joyning to make a Covenant do make a covenanting clause therein to the good or benefit of another person not present no party to the agreement but whom and whose Interest they would willingly provide for as well as for their own to the end be might joyn with them in the agreement and partake the benefit thereof as well as themselves if this absent party when it is tendered to him for his conjunction shall not accept the Agreement but refuse to joyn in and oppose it and begin prosecute and multiply contests with all the Covenanters about the matters contained in it Surely that person in so doing by his once refusing upon a fair and full tender sets the other Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant as to what concerns his benefit or interest therein Now whether this be not your case c. 1. True indeed a releasement from Covenants and promissory oaths which concern matters betwixt man and man is granted lawfull some wayes But 1. this must be done by the party with whom the Covenant and to whom the Oath is made c Si is cui juratur ratum habuerit iuramentum veliâ— servari non potest ab alia quacunq tertia persona relaxari ratio est quia nemo potest ius alteri acquisitum nisi ipse consenserit adimere D Saunderson de iuram 1. rom oblig praelect 7. Sect. 8. but as the Remonstrancer acknowledgeth this Covenant was made the King being not present nor a party covenanting or covenanted with but a third person the persons covenanting and covenanted with mutually as by the Introductory part is manifest were the Noblemen Barons Knights c. in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland it was it may be desired and hoped that the King and his Issue would afterwards approve and joyn in it but the Covenant was actually plighted and therefore did actually binde in every branch of it they not taking it and the parties with whom we covenanted not releasing us the pretended refusall of the King could be no discharge from it 2. A releasement can be made by the party covenanted with and sworn too onely where the Covenant is for the particular and proper interest of that party or so far onely as concerneth him but not to the prejudice of a third parties concernment without his consent d Dico sexto relaxationem partis valere ad vinculum juramenti solvendum quantum ipsius interest non tamen valere in praeiudicium tertiae personae Ratio est quia potest quilibet per actum suum de iure