he dig up the untruths if such againe when he was not able to bury them dead nor alive Prudence if he were not innocent of it might have taught him silence seing he knew he could answere no better 5. Such as have received these principles finde them more wholesome food then his soure leaven 6. He needs not stirr up the Powers to more cruelty and tyranny then already they exerce neither vvill that be a vvay to extirpate these principles but rather a way to root them more deeply in the heart But now what sayes he to the thing He tells us in the first place That The God of order hath in all humane political Societyes appoynted under himself a supreame power whether subjected in a single person or in a complex company which orders the whole body having nothing before or above it in the nature and order of civil authority and governs all in the society and is governed by none therein to say that a person is chief and yet hath a Superiour or equal is to speak contradictions wise men have said that a multitude of Gods is the nullity of Gods and multitude of infinites so called makes none of them infinite so a multitude of supreame powers in one civil society destroyes divine order Answ 1. It is true God hath appoynted in all humane political societies a supream power But I suppose the Surveyer will grant that this may as well be a Parliament as the King and what hath he then said for security of the King's life by this argument 2. What ever supream power whether in one or moe persons God hath appoynted over politick societies he hath done it by the People and so the People who make and set up under God these supreame povvers are above these supreame powers If he will not take my word for this let him read and consider how it is proved in Lex Rex in many places specially quaes t. XIX And if he will not rest satisfied therewith let him try his hand And answere what is there said if he can 3. Politicians will tell him that the King's supremacy of power is only in respect of the administration and execution of the lawes according to the power committed unto him by the People let him read and consider well Althusius his politicks as to this 4. And so though in respect of this executive administration he be chief and governeth all yet in respect of the royal fountaine-povver of Government the People are above him because they give this out to him and may in cases of necessity recal it and give it to another So that still they reserve a fountaine-power over him to be exerced in cases of necessity and therefore there is no contradiction here because non ad idem the father is above the sone and yet subject to him if he be a judge The Emperour is above the prince palatine and yet in some cases that Princeâ— is his judge as the Tutor hath the supreame executive power and the pupil can not act without him Yet in case of male administration the pupil hath a power to call him to a account But finally what if his adversaries should say that the King is not that Supreame power in Scotland but that a Parliament as the Peoples Representatives are above him He may see much said to prove this in Lex Rex and in the Apologie And how shall he be able to confute that And if Parliaments have povver to depose Princes in Scotland as hath been often practised hovv hath he saved the King's Scepter and Person But he addeth as a short ansvvere to cut all off that is said A chimaera of idle distinctions is whelped by the late Masters of confusion of co-ordinate and collateral Soveraignes in one Kingdome the fountality of Royalty in the People resumable at their pleasure is talked of also Kings and People there being mutual Magistrates to punish one another and courts of necessity and tribunals of nature where People are judges accusers and all are bigly talked of but these are only cloaks of fig leaves to cover horrid rebellion disorder Ans Every thing must goe for a new whelped Chimaera which this blunt head cannot understand Can he confute such of these distinctions as Lex Rex maketh use of Why doth he it not then How doth this master of disorder blow avvay these figleaves yea or discover them to be such Is this the vvay he takes to salve his Master's life By his calling such distinctions Chimaeraes and figleaves he vvill not save a tyrannical Magistrate from deposition or vvorse by that povver vvhich is cleared by these distinctions 2. As for these courts of necessity c. Royalists must grant them vvho grant povver in some cases to People to resist and depose Kings viz. vvhen they turne habitual tyrants sell the Commonvvealth and the like and in such cases vvhen the Prince doth such horrid things vvhich himself Pag. 24. thinks can hardly befal a Prince in his natural and right vvits Hovv shall these things be judged if he allow no courts but the ordinary courts of justice and no court of necessity Ay but he sayes thereafter That it is certaine Supreame power is indivisible and incommunicable to distinct subjects in any one political Society Though the supreame executive power of administration be so either in one called a Monarch or in the plurality of best and chiefest as in Aristocracy c. yet the fountaine power of government which Lex Rex tells him is distinct from the power of governing Pag. 50. abides intire in the People by which they may call the Governours to account depose them and set up others to execute the lawes 2. Grotius will tell him that the King may have one half of the Soveraigne power and the Senate or Parliament the other and if the King assume that part which is not his he may be resisted where is then the indivisibility or incommunicability of this power which he talketh of Thinks he that there is no mixed Monarchy And if part of the Soveraignity belong to the Parliamet as the Peoples Representatives as is certaine in our constitution the King cannot be so Supreame as he would have him Therefore he addeth But why should we doubt that where there is a King one truely so his Soveraignity is matchlesse on earth when the Scripture calls him supreame 1. Pet. 2 ver 13. is there any equal to the Supream in order of civil government by whom he is judgeable or punishable if any he is not not Supreame not the government Royal. Answ This Chimaerical Man gives us a distinction of Kings some truely so and some falsly so And what and who are these It is like the King of Poland and the Emperour of Germany are not Kings truely so as he said because forsooth they are not absolute above all Law and coercion But what if more learned politicians then ever he was say that such are most truely Kings
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
Wife is loosed from Subjection to her Husband adultery and wilful desertion will give ground for a divorce and that sayes that the Wives subjection is not absolute but conditional though we say not that every breach of some of the conditions looseth the obligation Neither will Calvin say ' That in no case the Soveraigne may be opposed or resisted or that in no case the obligation can be loosed for ibid. § 31. He granteth liberty to the Estates of a Land whom yet our Surveyer putteth in one category with private Subjects to stand for the libertyes of the People against the rage and Tyranny of Princes Yea he sayeth they are bound to do so as they would not presidiously betray their trust The 3. thing is that the fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People overthrows the distinction that all sound protestant Divines and Politicians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis And then he citeth Rivet in Psal 68. Gerhard de Magistratu Pag. 13 11. mihi or 935. And therein he sayes they agree with Calvin in the place cited Answ That there are absolute Princes de facto who come to the Soveraignity by false and corrupt meanes or by conquest we deny not but we are speaking of Princes de Iure and of Princes set up by the People which is only to our purpose It is true Rivet a very short sum of all the sound Protestant Divines though he joyne Gerhard with him too who is but Lutherian Protestant and for his Politicians we see none make use of such a distinction but assert not positively that such an absolute Prince is lawful Calvin maketh use of no such distinction and if they agree with him they say no more then he sayeth and what he sayd we have heard But sayes our Surveyer it is False to say that an absolute Prince is contrary to the Word of God for as our Lawes allowes our Kings to be ahsolute in expresse tearmes Jam. 1. he should say Jam. 6. Parl. 18. Anno 1606. Answ Our Lawes and especially of that Parliament and the like are evil proofs of what is Iure Divino or not contrary thereunto But of that Supermacy granted to the King by that act and others the Apology hath spoken enough Furder he addeth So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Lawes and we understand him But how is that May he Rule as he lifts No for He is subordinate sayes he unto God and his Lawes and he ought also to walke according to the particular good Lawes he hath made with consent of his People This is more then other Royalists would grant to us for he acknowledgeth him not only not above the Law of God but also not above the municipal Lawes and consequently not above the fundamental conditions of the constitution And we are sure in this This King hath fowlely broken whatever he doubt of But how is he absolute He is absolute sayes he that if he deviate he is not under coactive power of Subjects that they should have Law-claime against him and in their courts of nature and necessity pronounce judgement upon him to destroy him far lesse that by vertue of this supposed tacite Convenant any minor private party of the People may pull King and all Magistrats out of their seate punish them and possesse themselves in their roomes as Naphtaly sayes Answ What he layeth to Naphtali's charge shall be considered afterward 2. To say that Subjects have no law claime against a King who breaketh the maine and principal condition or all the conditions of the Covenant made betwixt Him and the People is to destroy the nature of the mutual compact made between Him and the People as we have shewed 3. By this it seemeth all the absolutenesse that he sayes is due to the King is that he is from under the co-active power of Subjects but though this were granted to him which yet we cannot because of what we have said already we should suffer no losse as to our intendment for if this be all his absolutenesse then he may be withstood and resisted though not brought to the barr even by private subjects when he contraveeneth his principal conditions and breaketh Covenant unto his people and this is all we contend for The summe of what he sayes in the 4 place is this Where there is freedome of Election as in Germany and Poland where there is but personated and painted Kings there may possibly be expresse limiteing conditions allowing some to coerce deviating soveraignity But in all proper Monarchies there is neither tacite nor expresse Covenants impowering any to be judges over the King Some Kingdomes are attained by a conquest in a just warre which is a sufficient title this power being hereditarily transmitted the successours receive power from the Parents and not from the People nor is there any shaddow of tacite or expresse Covenant in this matter Answ 1. If he be not well pleased with what Lex Rex hath said concerning conquest giving a sufficient title to crownes he should have considered and answered the arguments there made use of and not jejunely have told us he is of another judgment for they are either fooles or mad who will beleeve his bare word better then the worthy author of Lex Rex his assertions baked confirmed with many solid unanswereable arguments 2. This though true speaks nothing to our purpose for we supposed always that our Kingdome was not founded upon a conquest and we never heard any say it was till this unnatural abject arose to speak non sense of which more presently We never heard a King challenge it upon that account nay nor say that our Kingdome was ever conquered by any of their predecessours except King Iames who in his basilicon doron allaiged that Fergus the first was a conquerour contrare to the testimony of all approven historio-graphers what meaneth the large long roll of the King's predecessours that is read over at the coronation doth any of our lawes speak such a thing or do they found his absolute power upon such a dreame It would seem the cause is desperate and gone when he can get no other bottome to his absolutenesse but a fiction of his distempered braine which may deservedly make him odious to all true scottish men and may and possibly will make his cause odious also to all who are acquanted with the true genuine and ancient constitution of the Kingdome 3. This ravv Statist exscreats his raw notions as he pleaseth but they must be rude and unskilful in this matter that will think to digest them He tell 's us that the Emperour of Germany and the King of Poland are but painted Kings and Monarchs and to confirme this tels us that there are no Monarches or proper princes but such as are absolute What will then become of the Distinction of all sound protestant
vve fee that if he loose the old fundations he shakes the throne more then he is a vvarre of And as in many other things through this pamphlet so in this he doth his Master no good service notvvithstanding of the great fee he hath gote for his paines The summe of what followeth Pag. 92 93. is this That none before King James 6. did at their installing enter into Covenant with the People except what one sayeth of Gregory the great who swore to defend the libertyes of the Christian Religion c. which then was Popery and neither did King James himself do it but only Morton and Hume in his name promised somehing like it nay it is doubted if King Charles the first did sweare that oath of if he did he was the first and yet he was aught yeers our King before and it is to be beleeved on good ground that if he had thought his taking of that oath should have subjected him to the coactive and punitive power of the Subjects in every case wherein they or any party of them being meer private persons might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death but it shall be avowed that he did never shrink from the observation of that Godly oath neither hath his Majesty who now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto and we are hopeful God's grace shall preserve him hereafter from any such thing Answ 1. We cannot expect that Buchanan studying much brevity would set downe all the formalityes that were used at the coronation of the Kings he only satisfying himself with a series of the succeeding Kings and with a relation of some of the most remarkable passages And therefore it is no good argument to conclude that no such thing was because he doth not make mention thereof 2. other historians name some other Kings beside that Gregory who tooke an oath at their coronation as Corbred the 21. King who swore se majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the counsel of a Parliament whom he accounted his Superiours So in Macbethus his dayes it vvas ordained by the Estates that the King should sweare to maintaine the community of the Realme 3. Whether they did actually sweare an oath at their coronation or not it is not much to the matter for a virtual and implicite Covenant will ground all which we desire and that there was this much cannot be denyed seing Kings who could not reigne was layd aside others who corrupted government were pursued sentenced punished imprisoned and killed in battle or otherwise made to promise amendment And seing we finde bonds laid upon Kings as that in the dayes of Finnanus the 10. King That Kings thereafter should do nothing of any great concernment without the authority of their publick Councel and should not rule the Kingdome according to the Counsel of his Domesticks That he should manage no publick businesse which belonged to the King without the advice and conduct of the Fathers and should neither make peace or war enter into Leagues or break Leagues by himself without the concurrence and command of the Fathers Heads of tribes This was a fundamental Law of the Kingdome and all who accepted of the crowne thereafter must have accepted it upon these tearmes though they had not been in plaine tearmes expressed So Durstus his Successour did sweare the same and therefore in Mogaldus the 23. King his dayes this is called the ancient custome for he ad consilia Seniorum omnia ex prisco more revocavit did all by a Parliament according to the ancient and received custome And because Conarus the 24. King neglected or refused to follow this received custome he was cast into prisone So that the not observing of these conditions made them obnoxius unto the coactive power of the People So was Romachus censured by the Parliament for the same crime So we read of many others censured for their misdemanurs as Constantine the 43. King Ferchardus the first the 52. King Ferchardus the 2. the 54. King Eugenius the 62. King Donaldus the 70. King all which instances many such like do abundantly cleare that the Kings of old were under bonds and obligations if not explicite yet tacite unto the People 4. Whatever can be said concerning the ancient Kings yet now it is past doubt that all our Kings are bound to sweare an oath at their coronation and so are under conditions and Covenant-tyes and obligations and this is enough for our present purpose 5. It was thought suffificient in point of formality legality that the Earle of Mortoun and Hume should sweare in name of the King at this coronation That he should observe the Lawes and according to his power should preserve the doctrine and rites of Religion which were then taught and publickly received and oppose himself to all which was repugnant thereunto And this was the very summe of that oath which was afterward concluded in Parliament to be received by all Kings at their coronation And the reason why they did not put King Iames to that oath thereafter was because he was but once crowned and the oath was to be sworne at the coronation and when King Iames was crowned It was done by others for him as is said 6. Though this man make a question whether King Charles did swear this oath or not at his coronation yet it is notoure that he did and though he beleevetâ— that if the King had thought that his taking of that oath should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects as that he should have been thought thereby to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power in every case wherein they or any part of them might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death then so to have cast himself away at the pleasure of malcontented partyes amongst the People taking advantage against him by that oath all which we may give him good leave to beleeve for we assert no such thing yet he must suffer us to beleeve also upon as good ground That if King Charles had absolutely or peremptoriely refused to have taken that oath or had said That he would rule as he listed and have no regaird to the established lawes and whould bring in what Religion he pleased though it were Machometanisme or Poperie or that he did not account himself obliged to the Subjects by any oath he could take The Nobles and others would have scrupled to have given him the Crowne and acknowledged him King And their after practices declared that they looked upon him as a King obliged by tearmes and conditions unto them which when he broke they maintained their right against him with their sword when no other meane could prevaile 7. Though it be true that King Charles the first was acknowledged King sometime before he was crowned yet that was with respect to the same conditions unto which he was by his taking the place virtually obliged
and no Scottish man vvill deny it as to our king For if he or any for him should pretend a right to their inheritance and intend an action of lavv against them they may defend themselves by lavv or if he should take possession vvithout a sentence of lavv They might pursue him and his tennants or vvho ever came in his name to take violent possession and procure letters of ejection and the like Yea by force they might vvithstand any that should come to take violent and illegal possession The consequence is hence clear That vvhatever ground a man hath to defend his rights and possession by lavv the same ground he hath to defend his right by force vvhen he cannot use the legal meane for if the King had real right and not he unto vvhat he possesseth it vvere as unlavvful to vvithhold the King from possession of his ovvne by quircks of lavv as by force Againe This legal resistence is no resisting of the Ordinance of God but of the man vvho seeketh no enjure No more is this violent resistance a resisting of the ordinance of God but only of the man vvho abuseth his povver Hence 3. If the King have not absolute power to do and command what he will Then when he crosseth the rules prescribed by God's law and Man's law without any injury offered to the ordinance of God he may be resisted by his Subjects over whom he thinketh to exerce an absolute arbitrary and tyrannical power The reason is because That power which is not the ordinance of God may be resisted without the lest injury done unto the true ordinance of God But this absolute power is no ordinance of God it is not appoynted of him nor allowed of him Therefore c. But say Royalists Though that absolute and Tyrannical power be not simply from God yet it is so from God that no man can lawfully resist it Answ 1 If it be so from God as that it may not be resisted then it is from God and is the ordinance of God for it is the ordinance of God that cannot must not be resisted But sayes the Surveyer Pag. 37. It may be easily seen that subjection to the power opposite to resistence is all alongs enjoyned viz. Rom. 13. whether the power be rightly used or otherwise If it be rightly used subjection without refuseing active obedience is required if it be not rightly used subjection without resistence violent or forcible repelling of the power is required upon this formal reason and ground Because even when the power is abused it remaines a power ordained of God although the abuse of it be not ordained even as a man's eye remaines his eye although sometimes it is not rightly used The formal reason of the subjection and non-resistence pressed is not the right use of the power but because it is a power ordained of God however perverted in the use by man Answ 1. By this mans doctrine The King might not be resisted if he should turne another Nero or Caligula or should deal with us all as the Turk doth with his subjects or the King of Spaine with his slaves in America If he should fill ditches with his living subjects and to satisfy his lust and pleasure should tumble them be thousands downe a precipice into the midst of the sea yea though he should bring in an army of Turks or Tartars to destroy all his subjects young and old Though he should sell and give away the whole land unto the Turk or any forraigne Tyrant and become the most habited not our and compleat Tyrant and should against all appearance of law manifestly seek the destruction of the whole land man wife and childe and of the very being of religion according to law and of all known libertyes and should force and compel with armed heathens all his subjects great and small to offer sacrifice to the Heathen Gods and the like For in all this and the like there is but an abuse of the power and the power is still of God however it be abused and because it is a power ordained of God this abuse must be submitted unto without the least resistence is not this sufficient to make all men abhore this man's principles 2. He must say that it is not possible to resist the abuse of the power but the power it self must be resisted and so such as do resist the most dreadful tyranny imaginable do resist the ordinance of God which is most false and absurd 3. If the abuse of the power be not from God then such as resist this abuse do not resist that which is ordained of God but that which is not ordained of God And therefore resisting of the abuse of the power is no resisting of the ordinance of God 4. Subjection is only required to that which is the ordinance of God because subjection is required when and where and so far as resistence is prohibited Now resistence to the ordinance of God is only prohibited and not resistence to the carnal and bloody lusts of men which is rather the ordinance of the devil then the ordinance of God 5. The vvrong use or abuse of the eye may be resisted hindered and obstructed without any injury done to the eye it self So may the wrong use or abuse of Magistratical power be resisted without any vvrong done unto the povver vvhich is of God 5. It is false to say that all resistence of the abused power is forbidden upon this formal reason and ground because even when the power is abused it remaines a povver ordained of God Because the abused power is not at all ordained of God nor never vvas it is no part of that povver vvhich God ordained a povver to murther the innocent to kill the vvidow and fatherlesse and to oppresse the people of God is not of God God never appoynted that povver of David's to murther Vriah and to commit adultery vvith Bathshebah These vvere no acts of the Magistratical povver ordained of God but acts of lust the vvickednesse 7. If this reason hold good we must never resist by refuseing active obedience let him command what he will for his sinful and unjust commands are but the abuse of that power which is ordained of God and the power even when abused by giving out edicts and mandats according to this man remaineth a power ordained of God as a man's eye remaines his eye though sometimes it is not rightly used Now how will he loose his owne argument what ever answer he give here it will helps us out Sure if a man many refuse obedience to an unjust command of an abused power without doing injury unto the power which is ordained of God it will be no lesse cleare that a man may refuse subjection to and resist abused power without doing hurt unto the power which is ordained of God And I Desire that the Reader vvould seriously notice this and see how all he objecteth is answered by it the wicked
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
therefore no lesse lawfully may they be resisted 6. If privat persons may resist and withstand the Prince and Parliaments when they sell them and their land and heritages unto a forraigner to the Turk or such an adversary Then much more may they withstand them and defend their Religion when they are selling it by their apostatical acts and thereby selling them and their Souls unto Satan the God of this World 9. When Religion by the constitution of the Kingdome is become a fundamental law and a maine article and cardinal condition of the established Politie and upon which all the Magistrates Supreme and Inferiour are installed in their offices Then may that Religion be defended by private subjects when their Magistrates have conspired together to destroy the same to enforce the corruptions of their owne braine The reasons are 1. because it is lawful to defend the just and laudable constitution of the Realme in so far as Religion which is a principal fundation-stone of this constitution is subverted the constitution is wronged and the fundations thereof are shaken 2. In so far the Magistrates are no Magistrates And therefore they may be resisted Magistrates I say in so far as they overturne the constitution are not Magistrates for that is a maine pairt of their work to maintaine it For upon the constitution hang all the libertyes and all the good and necessary Ends which People have set before their eyes in the setting up of governement and His owne being as such the subversion of that subverts all and declareth the subverter to be an enemy to the Commonwealth and an overturner of the polity and this is inconsistent with being a Magistrate 3. In so far as they overturne or shake the fundations they cannot be seeking the good of the Community but their owne with the destruction of the Common good and this is the mark and true character of a Tyrant And when they seek not the good of the Community they cannot be looked upon as Magistrates doing their duty but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Commonwealth Therefore in so far they may be resisted 4. In so farr The compact the ground of the constitution is violated and as Magistrates in this case in so far fall from their right in so farr also are People liberated from their obligation so that if They become no Magistrates the Subjects become no Subjects for the relation is Mutual and so is the obligation as was shewed above Therefore in this case Subjects may lawfully resist and defend their Religion which is become the principal condition of their constitution and of the compact betwixt King and Subjects 10. Where Religion is universally received publickly owned and countenanced by persones in authority ratified approved and established by the lawes and authority of the land There every person is bound and obliged before God to maintaine and defend that Religion according to their power with the hazard of their lives and fortunes against all who under whatsoever colour and pretence seek to subvert and overturne the same and to hinder any corruption that King or Parliament at home or adversaries abroad would whether by subtilty or power and force bring in and lay hold on the first opportunity offered to endeavour the establishment of Truth and the overturning of these corrupt courses which tend to the perverting thereof And the reasons are because 1. When the True Religion is once embraced and publickly received That land or Commonwealth is really dedicated and devouted unto God and so in a happy condition which happy condition all loyal subjects and true Christians should maintaine and promove recover when nearby or altogether lost And therefore should do what they can to hinder any course that may tend to recal this dedication to deteriorate the happy condition of the Realme and to give up the land as an offering unto Satan 2. By this meanes they endeavour to avert the wrath and anger of God which must certanely be expected to goe out against the land if defection be not prevented and remedyed For if but a few should depairt wrath might come upon the whole much more if the Leaders turne patrones of this defection But of this more in the next chapter 11. Much more must this be allowed in a Land where Reformation of Religion in doctrine worshipe discipline and governement is not only universally owned publickly received and imbraced nor yet only approved authorized ratified and confirmed by publick authority and the lawes of the Land But also corroborated by solemne vows and Covenants made and sworne unto God by all ranks and conditions of People from the King to the meanest of the subjects in a most solemne manner and that several times re-iterated in which Covenants all sweare to Maintaine and defend this Riligion with their lives and fortunes and to labour by all meanes lawfull to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel and to continow in the profession and obedience of the foresaid Religion defend the same and resist all contrary errours and corruptions according to their vocation and to the uttermost of that power that God puts in their hands all the dayes of their life as also mutually to defend and assist one another in the same cause of maintaining the true Religion with their best Counsel bodyes meanes and whole power against all sorts of persons whatsoever And Sincerely really and constantly endeavour in their several places and callings the preservation of thereformed Religion in doctrine worshipe discipline and government The extirpation of Popery Prelacy Superstition Heresy Schisme Prophannesse and whatsoever shall be found to be contray to sound doctrine and the power of godlinesse And to assist and defend all those that enter into the same bond in the maintaining pursueing thereof And shall not suffer themselves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination persuasion or terrour to make defection to the contrary party or to give themselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdomes and the honour of the King but shall all the Dayes of their lives Zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to their power against all lets and impediments whatsoever Now I say in such a case as this when after all these engadgments and covenants a courte of defection is carryed on by a strong and violente hand by King and Parliaments and there is no meane left unto Private Persones when violented and constrained to a complyance by acts and tyrannical and arbitrary executions of either preventing their owne destruction in soull and body or preserving the reformation sworn unto or recovering the same when corrupted and of purging the land of that dreadful sin of perjury and defection They may lawfully take the sword of just and necessary defence for the maintainance of themselves and of their Religion This
it is of no force when it cometh in competition with the authority of God and is stated against that Religion which by divine authority they are bound to maintaine with hazard and losse of their lives goods and fortunes And therefore the late act of defence being according to their sworne alleagiance to God a necessary defence of Religion cannot be condemned of Treason or Rebellion though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordinat powers As postponing the authority of inferiour Magistrates in act of obedience and duty of alleagiance unto the Superiour can be no proper disloyalty or rebellion so nor can the postponing of the authority of Superiour and inferiour Magistrates in poynt of obedience and performing alleagiance unto the most Supreame be really treasonable seditious or rebellious 2. If we be sworne to maintaine the King's person and authority in the defence of the liberties of the subject Then who ever preferre the Liberties of the Subject unto his person and authority are not Traitours or Rebels And so the late act of defence being for the liberties of the subject when they were basely betrayed sold and given away by a company conjured into a conspiracy against the same and were trode upon and violently plucked away cannot in conscience or in the law of God or according to any just law of man be accounted or condemned as an act of Treason or Rebellion CAP. XII Some moe Arguments Briefly proposed and Prosecuted WE have in the preceeding Chapters proponed and considered such arguments as gave us occasion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged We shall here ere we come to consider his objections briefly summe up other arguments The worthy author of Lex Rex Quest 28. and 31. hath some which we shall here set downe partly because that book is not in every mans hand and partly because this windy man pretends to have answered much of that book though he hath not so much as offered to make a reply unto the six hundereth part thereof 1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistence when the power is abused to the destruction of lawes religion and the subjects But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13 ver 4. Deut. 17 ver 18. 19. 23. 2 Chron. 19 ver 6. Psal 132. ver 11. 12. and 89. ver 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7 ver 12. Jer. 17 ver 24 25 And hath been may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3 Because they are not a terrour to good works but to evil 4. Because they are God's ministers for our good But abused powers are not of God but of men are not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good works not to evil they are not God's ministers for our good 2. ibid That power which is contrary to law and is evil and tyrannical can tye none to subjection but is a meer tyrannical power and unlawful and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of a King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to law evil and tyrannical and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to suffer of wicked men falleth under no commandement of God except in our Saviour A Passion as such is not formally commanded I meane a physical passion such as is to be killed God hath not said to me in any moral law be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. Ibid There is not a stricker obligation moral betwixt King and People then betwixt parents and Children Master and Servant Patron and Clyant Husband and Wife The Lord and the Vassal between the pilote of a shop and the passengers the Phisitian and the Sick the doctor and the Schollar But law granteth 1. minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If those betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted If the Father turne distracted and arise to kill his Sones his Sones may violently apprehend him bind his hands spoile him of his weapons for in that he is not a father Vasq lib. 1. illustr quaest Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vasallum posset ex toto eximere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis parliam grat decis 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The Servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him So may the wife do to the Husband If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to destroy himself and his passengers they might violently thrust him from the helme Every Tyrants is a furious Man and is morally distracted as althus sayeth polit cap. 28. n. 30. seqq 4. Pag. 262. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a scrine betwixt the Peoples Liberty and their bondage cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the People But the Power of a King is given as a blessing favour of God to defend the poor needy to preserve both tables of the law and to keep the People in their libertyes from oppressing and treading on upon another But so it is that if such a power be given of God to a King by which actu primo he is invested of God to do acts of Tyranny and so to do them that to resist him in the most innocent way which is self defence must be resisting of God and rebellion against the King his deputy Then hath God given a royal power as incontrollable by mortal men by any violence as if God himself were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to waste and destroy irresistably and so in it self a plague and curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formal effect and intrinsecal operation of the power to preserve the tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subject and lawes and also to destroy the same But it is taught by Royalists That this power is for Tyranny as wel as for peacable government because to resist this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or just government is to resist the ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13 1 2 3. We know to resist God's Ordinance and Gods deputy formaliter as his deputy is to resist God himself 2 Sam. 8. ver
7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo◠here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self
not unto Tyrants who are a terrour to good works and a praise to such as do evil and not the ministers of God nor revengers to execute wrath upon such as do evil but rather on such as do good neither do they attend upon this thing whereof the Apostle speaketh and are so far from being the ordinance of God that they are resisters Themselves of Gods ordinance by making lawes contrary to God's lavv and punishing such as observe God's lavv It cannot therefore be more sinful to resist such then to resist a deputy persecuting such as keep the King's lavves and making lavves of his owne directly contrarie to the King's lavves for he is the Rebel and the resister of God's ordinance and not they vvho are faithful to their Soveraigne To this he maketh some reply Pag. 37. and sayes It hath been often granted and still is that no man or Magistrate on earth hath a moral power commission or command from God to do evil or to afflict any unjustly 2. The question is not concerning the Magistrat's duty but anent the Subject's duty in case through the permission of divine providence the Magistrate abuse his place and power in unjust afflicting the innocent whether the private Subject may use violence against or upon the Magistrate or should rather submit to suffering though unjustly not for reverence to the abuse of the power but in reverence to God whose ordinance the power which he abuseth is Answ 1. If Magistrates have no moral power commission or command to do evil The resisting of that evil is no resisting of any moral power from or commission given by God as if they have no power to command evil or sin resisting of that command by non-obedience is no resisting of their power or commission 2. Though the question should not be concerning the Magistrate's duty yet we are to enquire what that power is against which Subjects may use no violence 3. If Subjects be bound not to use violence but rather submit to suffering when the power is abused not for reverence to the abuse of the power but in reverence to God whose power it is Why shall they not also be bound rather to yeeld obedience to then to resist by non-obedience unlavvful commands though not for reverence to the abuse of the power yet in reverence to God whose ordinance the power which is abused is as he sayes Sure the text here maketh no difference and if there be any difference he must prove it from some other text which we have not yet seen nor expect to see in haste 4. We have shewed already that he sayes without ground that the abused power is of God or his ordinance But there after sayes he And although the spirit of God in describing the Magistrate sayes he is the minister of God c. It is not meant that that is the formal reason of subjection to him in the full latitude of subjection nor that the Magistrates then existing and in being to whom the people are commanded to be subject and forbidden to resist were such de facto in all their actings but what the Magistrate is ex officio and what he should be de jure Answ 1. He seemeth to distinguish here betwixt a subjection in it's full latitude and a subjection not in it's full latitude but how doth he explaine this distinction that we may know what to make of it He seemeth also to grant that some subjection though not subjection in its full latitude hath that description of the power for it 's formalis ratio formal reason But what can his meaning be seing the text maketh no difference Is this his meaning that subjection active or active obedience hath that for it 's formal reason so that the subject is to obey no power but that which is for a praise of the good and a terrour to the evil c. But subjection passive or passive obedience goeth upon another ground and must be yeelded to a Magistrate even when he is not a minister of God for good If this be his meaning it is but a shameful begging of the question and if he grant that any subjection is due to the Magistrate only as he is a minister of God we are gainers for he can never prove the other from this text and subjection here is considered pressed in its full latitude and these are laid dovvne as the grounds thereof This vve may saifly averre until he demonstrate the contrare which we despaire to see done especially seing the text fully cleareth the same For as subjection in its full latitude is pressed so all the Apostle's arguments motives speak to it in its full latitude There is no power but from God presseth whole subjection because the whole power is from God not a part of it alone therefore it must speak to all the relative parts of subjection So the other argument v. 3 taken from the end of Magistracy speaketh to the whole of submission in its full latitude also the other argument take from the nature of his office and so the rest So that all the motives or grounds of subjection which are here made use of speak to all the parts of subjection And therefore if they be the formal reason of one part thereof they must be the formal reason of the whole 2. We do not say that all the Magistrates then existing were de facto such as they were bound to be de jure nor can we say that they were all like Nero or Caligula nor dar he say that subjection in its full latitude as comprehending as well active as passive obedience commonly so called was to be given to Nero and his like or was here commanded to be given and what hath he then gained But it is like all alongs he taketh subjection for passive obedience But 1. can that be subjection in its full latitude 2. Was that the maine thing controverted then 3. Doth the motives speak to that alone 4. How will he prove that passive obedience is here spoken to at all since all the particulars mentioned are actions and dutyes of action What sayes he further Pag. 32. The Apostle speaking of the person invested with power calling him the Minister of God for good no terrour to good works but to evil a praiser of good c. shews only what a Magistrate should be ex officio and is de jure but layes not this as the ground of subjection and non-resistence to him but this that he is a superiour power ordained of God if he abuse his place he is to answere to God for it but the abuse of the power in a particular doth not nullify the power or make it no power he abides invested with authority subjection of one sort or another is due to him because he is in officio not because he abuseth his office Answ The Surveyer giveth us here a new Analysis of the text that no commentator hath hither to
And what if his adversaries say and prove also that the King of Britane is not such a King as he accounts truly so His saying that the King of Britane is absolute will note prove that he is so and will be found but a weak defence for his life if he be not able to prove him above all judgement and punishment which we have not yet seen and dispaire to see done 2. These words 1. Pet. 2 ver 13. may be as well rendered The King as supereminent and can import no more but one who had a supreme or supereminent place in the administration of government notwithstanding whereof he might be was accountable to the Senat of Rome for learned politicians and lawyers prove that the supreame power of government was in the Senate even at this time which clearly appeared in their judging and condemning Nero and other impious and tyrannical Emperours So that even hence we see that one may be supreame in order of civil government and yet both judgeable and punishable 3. His adversaries will not much care how he call that government Royal or not and whether he call the government of Britane Royal or not Names in these matters and titles which goe much by fashion or fancy are but weak arguments and he will never be able to stop the mouth of his adversaries who would plead for calling King Charles to account and for judging him and punishing him by saying he is a King and the government is a Royal government they would account these but thinne wals and uselesse cloaks of fig leaves to preserve and defend intolerable tyranny Hath this man no better arguments then thise wherewith to defend his Majestie 's Royal life and person Or hath the King no better advocate to defend his cause But it may be this profound Statist will speak more nervously in the following observations Therefore Let us hear what he sayes in the 2 place It is certane sayes he no man can be judged or punished but by his owne judge who is above him and hath authority over him by lawful commission from God or from men authorized by God to give such commission now who shall be judge to these invested with Soveraigne Majesty seing Every soul under them is commanded to be subject to them Rom. 13 ver 1. and seing the Supreame Power of the sword is committed unto them and not to others but by deputation and in dependence upon them in a true Monarchy there must be an exemption and impunity as to subjects of the person invested with Soveraignity and Majesty God's Law Natures Light and sound reason are all for this that such as are invested with Soveraigne Majesty having the legislative power the jurisdictional power the coërcive and punitive power originally in himself must enjoy exemption and impunity as to subjects actings against them the contrary tenet overthrowes the order of God And Nature and precipitates humane societies in a gulf of endlesse confusions Answ 1. Here is enough to satisfy his adversaries For 1. They will tell him that he hath not yet proved the government of Britane a true Monarchy in his sense and so he but begs the thing in question here 2. They will tell him that the King hath not the sole legislative power nor sole jurisdictional power nor sole cöercive and punitive power far lesse all these solely and originally in himself And it is but to such Soveraignes that he pleads for this exemption impunity Doth not his Advocat deserve a singular reward who pleadeth his Master's cause so dexterously by proving an uncertanty by that which is more uncertane founding all upon his bare word A noble champion forsooth or rather a Monster whose word must be a law an irrefragable reason too Thus it seems what ever power he give to the King there is the Dictators power that the thinks is solely in himself and that originally but for all this he hath one disadvantage that he is of little authority and of as little credite with sober rational persons 2. He will grant that such Monarchies as he accounts only true are not every where no not where there are persons called Kings and Emperours How cometh it then that the order of God and nature is not overthrowne in these Dominions and Republicks and that their Societyes are not precipitated into a gulf of endlesse confusions Shall nothing preserve the order of God and nature but that which is the most ready mean to destroy it viz. an uncontrollable power in one Tyrant to destroy all his Kingdome Man Wife and Childe 3. Politicians will tell him that the Ephori the Parliament are his judges and that the People who by a lawful commission from God made him King and authorized him are above him and have authority over him in case he turne a Tyrant and pervert the ends of government 4. Though it be requisite there be an ordinary standing judge to cognosce of controversies which fall out betwixt one private person and another yet it is not alwayes necessary there be one condescended on to judge betvvixt the Soveraigne and the People vvhen the controversy falleth out betvvixt them more then that there should be a standing ordinary judge to decide controversies falling out betvvixt tvvo distinct and independent Kingdomes 5. What commission from Man authorized by God had the high Priest and such as joyned vvith him vvhen they deposed and killed Athaliah if he say she was an usurper True yet she possessed the place six years peacably without molestation and who was judge whether she was an usurper or not Had the matter been referred to her she would have been as far from calling herselfe an usurper as a Tyrant now will be from judging himself a Tyrant And so as in this case the Tyrant sine titulo had a judge above her though she was invested with Soveraigne Majesty so in the other case The Tyrant exercitio though invested with Soveraigne Majesty hath a judge above him 6. The place Rom. 13. is to be understood as was shewed above of inferiour Magistrates as well as of the supreame And it sayes of all in authority that such as are under them should be subject unto them In so far as they are subjects unto them so in poynt of administration of justice according to equity all are subject to the supreame or supereminent governour but when he becometh a Tyrant he becometh subject unto them who gave him that power and set him up under God 7. He insinuats that inferiour Magistrates are not essential Magistrates but deputation from and in dependence upon the King But Lex Rex Quest 20. hath by many cleare and unanswereable arguments evinced the contrary In the third place he citeth some sentences of Tertullian calling the Emperours second unto God and above all men and only subject unto God Of Optatus saying that none are above them but God And of Ierom speaking of Psal 51. against thee thee only have
Survey of that book entituled Naphtali and of several doctrines in Lex Rex and the Apolog which had been at rest for some considerable time especially Lex Rex after they had been burnt into ashes as being judged no otherwayes answerable but by a fiery faggot till this Man began to rake in the ashes of these dead Martyres and finde some bones of doctrines yet unburnt which he thinketh now to honour with a more solemne burial But with what evidence and demonstration of truth he hath managed the questions handled in this first part thou mayest judge by what is here replyed in vindication of that solemne truth which he endeavoureth according to his poor strength to dethrone and tread under foot Though we have not followed the Surveyers Methode disireing to be as succinct as might be and to cleare that maine question controverted touching the lawfulnesse of privat persons defending themselves and their Covenanted Religion from the manifest violence tyranny and intolerable oppression of the Soveraigne and inferiour Magistrats to the edification of all yet we have not dealt with him as he hath done even with Naphtali the book which mainly he setteth himself against For he is so far from answereing that book of which he offereth a survey that the most part of the grounds and arguments made use of there to prove the thing intended are not so much as touched by him in all this voluminous pamphlet But we have fully examined and answered all which he hath asserted leaving not one material sentence which was to the purpose in his whole book untouched The judicious Reader will finde this true upon search And no man will think we were called to answere the same thing oftener then once though he was pleased to fill up many pages with meer repetitions The methode we have followed all who know what it is to cleare controversies vvill acknowledge to be the most solide satisfying succinct and perspicuous and such against which no man can justly except We suppose also That we have been as plaine and cleare as the nature of this controversy vvould suffer us and some possibly vvill think VVe have been too too plaine but they knovv vvhom to blame for giving us this occasion for vve made it our designe to bring this question vvhich did concerne common people no lesse then the learned seing it was a matter of life and death unto them no less then unto others home so far as was possible to the capacity of the meanest that they might know and be distinct in the knowledge and perswaded of the lawfulnesse of the grounds of their acting in such a vindication of their Religion and libertyes The truth we have confirmed by many arguments reduceing them to their several heads the better to cleare and confirme the matter and to settle the judgments of all in the apprehension of the Truth and all of them we have so framed that every one of the lowest reach may see how they plainely and peremptorily force home the poynt cotroverted with a demonstrative perspicuity and irrefragable strength So that whosoever shall undertake to draw this saw againe must not think to leave any one of all the arguments which are here adduced if he reckon aright he will finde moe then a hundereth which I shall make good if put to it un-examined for if any one hold And I am not afrayed that many of them shall be found feeble the cause vvhich vve contend for is uncontrovertably yeelded seing one reason which is unanswerable is enough to captivate the judgment unto an assent unto the truth one argument deserted of the adversary declareth his cause desperate We have also dealt faithfully and ingenuously touching on every thing vvhich vvas offered to us and vvich vve thought might conduce unto the clearing of this contraversy because we finde some thing belonging unto this question said by the author of the Second part of the Survey vvhich is now come to hand in the last chapter Pag. 263. c We shall a little touch upon that here reserving the examination of the rest of this 2. Part until a fitter opportunity when if the Lord will we shall discover the weaknesse of all his reasonings and vindicate the truths vvhich he setteth himself against vvith as much clearnesse and succinctnesse as may be He cometh in the place now named to consider the defence made by the impanelled unto what was objected or what further defence Naphtali whom after the old manner he stileth the Lybeller makes for them And 1. He tells us They were posed where they had learned that under pretence of Religion it is lawful for Subjests to rise in Rebellion against lawful authority And then addeth That to this Queree this advocate declines to give a direct answere where such a thing is read or could be instructed Answ Who doth not see That this was a Queree utterly unbecomeing such as pretended to occupy the places of lawfull judges in such matters to propose to persones Empanelled upon their life it being nothing but a meer caption like unto that which is called Multiplex interrogation unto which both the impanelled and this Advocat as he calleth him might lawfully have declined to give a direct answere Because it supposed 1. That their riseing was against lawful authority Whereas it was rather a riseing for lawful authority while against persons abuseing their authority and not walking in the right line of subordination unto the Supream Magistrate and Governour of Heaven and Earth but rebelling against him in makeing lawes contrary to his lawes and executing them contrary to his will and command 2. That their riseing was in rebellion while as it was rather in loyalty to God and the Countrey against such as had erected a Standart of rebellion against the High and mighty Prince Jesus Christ our Lord and Supream Governour and were destroying his interests And in loyalty to that Supreme law The saifty of the People defending themselves against manifest and intolerable tyranny 3. That it was in pretence of Religion when as it was really and unquestionably for the re-establishing of our religion reformed in doctrine worshipe discipline government confirmed ratifyed and approved by Solemne Covenants Subscriptions vowes oathes engadgments declarations professions publick actings acts and Statutes of King Nobles persons of all ranks Parliaments and judicatories Higher Lovver Whereas the true Queree was this Where they had learned to rise in their owne defence and in the defence and maintainance of the true reformed Religion against Such in power who were tyrannically oppressing them and destroying the Established Religion contrare to Vowes Covenants Promises Compacts Declarations Protestations Solomne Engagements Subscriptions c. And if the Queree had been thus proposed it might have received a direct answere To wit That they had learned this from the law of God the lavv of Nature the civil lavv the lavv of Nations Sound reason and the practices of Christians both under the
who sate with him see yee how this Sone of a murderer hath sent to take away my head look where the Messenger cometh shut the door and hold him fast at the door is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him Here was unjust violence offered to the innocent Prophet an Emissary sent to kill him without cause and the Prophet resisteth his violence causeth hold him at the door and violently presse him or presse him betvvixt the door and the wall vvich speaketh violent resistence keep him say the Dutch Annot. by force at the door yea Iosephus thinketh that the King follovved quickly after left the Prophet should have killed his servant This clearly sayes that it is lawful for privat persones for the Prophet vvas no other but a private subject to resist unjust violence offered them by the King or his Emissaries and with violente resistence to defend themselves 7. Much more will they condemne other instances of greater opposition made to the rage and tyranny of Princes which we finde recorded in scripture and not condemned As. 1. That opposition made by the Ten tribes to Rehoboam when they revolted from him after they had a rough and tyrannical answere unto their just and lawful demands 1 King 12 1. c. 2 Cbron. 10 11. They desired nothing upon the matter but that He would engadge to Rule over them according to the law of God and He gave a most harsh and tyrannical answere and avowed that he would tyrannize over them and oppresse them more then any of his predecessours and that his little finger should be heavier then their loyns whereupon they fell away from him and erected themselves into a new Commonwealth and choosed a nevv King And vve finde nothing in all the text condemning this for it vvas done of the Lord the cause vvas from the Lord that he might performe his saying vvhich he spoke by Ahijah and vvhen Rehoboam raised an army to reduce them againe under his power and command the vvord of God came unto Shemaiah saying speak unto Rehoboam c. and say thus sayeth the Lord yee shall not goe up nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel returne every man to his house for this thing is from me It vvas done by the vvill of God sayeth Iosephus Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 11. And there is not one word in the text importing that this vvas condemned by the Spirit of the Lord for as for that vvord 1 King 12. 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David It may be as vvel rendered as it is in the margine they fell away and so doth the dutch render it and lunius defecerunt they fell avvay or made defection and the original vvord is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich properly signifieth to rebel yea though the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been here used it vvould not have imported a sinfull rebellion and defection more then 2 King 18. 7. vvhere Hezekiah is said to have rebelled against the King of Assyria and this was a frute and effect of the Lords being with him and prospering him whithersoever he vvent forth The Surveyer Pag. 66. can say nothing but That no sound man will think the suddaine and furious rebellion of the ten Tribes from Davids house upon the furious and rash answer of a young King was justifiable But vvhatever he say or think it doth not weigh much with us had he shewed us out of the Text that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord as sinful upon the matter we should heartily have acquiesced but since we see more hinting at an approbation thereof we must rest there till we see stronger reasons then his naked assertions But sayes he It would be considered that these who made the secession were the major part of the body of the people but what is all this to justifie the insurrections of any lesser party of private people against the Magistrate and all Magistrates supreme subordinate Ans By what right this Major part of the Body did make secession by that same right might the equal half or the lesser part have made secession for the ground of the lawfulnesse of this secession is not founded upon their being the major part but upon the reasonablenesse of their demand and the tyrannicalnesse of the King's reply 2. This sayes much for us for if it be lawful for a part of the people to shake off the King refuse subjection unto him and set up a new King of their owne when he resolveth to play the Tyrant and not to rule them according to the law of the Lord but after his owne tyrannical will then it cannot be unlawful for a part of the people to resist his unjust violence and defend themselves against his illegal tyranny and oppression The consequence cannot be denyed seing they who may lawfully do the more may do the lesse also So that seing this people might lawfully refuse subjection and homage unto Rehoboam and all his subordinat Magistrates They might also lawfully have defended themselves against his tyranny and the tyranny of all under him and if They might lawfully have done so so may we 2. They should far more condemne the revolt of the city of Libnah 2 Chron. 21. 10. This wicked King Iehoram when he was risen up to the Kingdom of his father strengthened himself and slew all his brethren with the sword and diverse also of the Princes of Israel v. 4. and walked in the wayes of the Kings of Israel like as did the house of Ahab for he had the Daughter of Ahab to wife he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord v. 6. and he made him high places in the mountaines of Iudah and caused the inhabitants of Ierusalem to commit fornication and compelled Iudah there to v. 11. 13. and because he had thus forsaken the Lord God of his fathers did the city Libnah revolt from under his hand Commentators cleare this to have been the reason as Cornel. a. lap in loc propter impietatem Regis defecit ab eo Libna Sancitus on 2 King 8. 22. Lobnah recessit ne esset sub manus illius dereliquer at enim dominum patruum suorum Pet. Martyr on 2 King 8. v. 22. Causa in Paralip describitur ob Regis impietatem qui suos nitebatur cogere ad idololatriam quod ipsi Libnen ses pati noluerunt merito principibus enim parendum est verum usque ad aras cum illam terram inhabitandam a deo eo foedere habuissent ubi illum juxta ejus verbum colerent jure ejus idololatriam admittere non debuerunt Thus he approveth of their revolt in this case What sayes our Surveyer to this This sayes he imports not the impulsive cause of the revolt or motive which they had before their eyes for in that same verse period it is said the Edomites also revolted from him
done by the encouragement and assistance of the Spirit of God And if any should reject this instance as impertinent because they suppose Antiochus was not their lawful Supream Magistrate but only a Tyrant without title let them heare what Grotius de jure belli pacis lib. 1. c. 4. n. 7. sayeth to this Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Maccabees for whereas some think to defend these armes upon this gronnd that Antiochus was not King but an invader it seemeth foolish to me seing in all the history of the Maccabees and of such as took their part they never name Antiochus any thing else but their King and that not without ground for long before this the Iewes had acknowledged the authority of the Macedonians unto whose power and place Antiochus did succeed as to that that the law forbiddeth that any stranger should be set over them that is to be understood of a voluntary election and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do And whereas others say that the Maccabees used only the right of the people cui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deberetur Neither is that solide for the jewes being at first overcome by Nebuchadnezar and subjected to him by the law of warre by the same law they did obey the Medes and Persians who succeeded unto the Caldeans and all this Impire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians hence it is that Tacitus reckoneth the jewes amongst basest of such as served these Assyrians Medes and Persians Nor did they require any thing by stipulation from Alexander and his successours but without any condition gave themselves up unto their power as formerly they had been under the command of Darius And if at any time the jewes were permitted to use their owne rites and lawes that was but a begged right which they had through the indulgence of the Kings but not through any imperial law So that there is nothing that can defend the Maccabees but most imminent and certane danger thus he 2. The constant practice of the Waldensian protestants in Piedmont doth shew that this late practice is not so strange uncouth as adversaryes would give it out to be for they never had a Representative to be a screen betwixt them and the tyranny of their princes and yet how oftintimes have they valiently with stood such as came to oppresse them in goods and lives though cloathed with commission from the princes In the yeer 1580. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity and their popish Soveraignes they assembled solemnely together to consult how to prevent the imminent dangers and after prayer and calling upon God for his grace and spirit of counsel and direction they resolved to enter into a solemne mutual Covenant and to joyn in a League together for defence of Themselves and their Religion and so accordingly did assist one another in their defence which they did with good successe And that alwayes since whenever they were assaulted by the bloody Emissaries of the Duk of Savoy as any may see fully in their history So that whosoever will condemne the late defence must also condemne these poor oppressed protestants who have no other meane to keen them from utter extirpation but this innocent meane of felf defence and of repelling unjust violence with violence for Bonds Promises Covenants binde their Prince as such obligations use to binde some others viz. no longer then they see it for their advantage Neither have they any Representative Prince or Noble man among them to head their matters but meer necessity puts them to use the best expendient they can and forcibly to resist their oppressing Superiours when they send to spoile them of their goods lives and libertyes 3. Some particular cityes in Germany did defend themselves against the Emperour unjustly invadeing their libertyes and assaulting them as may be seen in the history of Germany particularly the Cities of Madenburgh and Breme 4 So in France the Cities of Montobane and Rochel and the Isle of Ree with stood the King when he was seeking to oppresse them And no man will condemne these for acts of rebellion and sedition unlesse they will also condemne our Kings who at least undertook and offered to help and assist them 5. It was this opposition and resistence of privat persons when tyrannized over by Superiours that hath brought the Cantons of Helvetia unto that state of freedome and liberty which they have enjoyed for many yeers and do enjoy this day being now a free Republick as Simlerus showeth in his history of that Republick 6. But that we may come home we finde some remarkeable instances of this nature which no man in reason who shall condemne this late defence shall be able to defend and to beginne with what may be most recent in our memories In the year 1648. There are two signal Instances The one was that violent resistence used against the Parliaments forces at Mauchlin moor Here was not only a resistence in defence of the truth and cause of God then sought to be borne downe and oppressed by a prevalent Malignant faction in Parliament without the concurrence of conduct of the Representatives of the land but directly against them Here was a defence used by way of resistence by meer privat persons without the company or concurrence of one Noble man And yet a resistence that never was condemned by any to this day expect ingrained Malignants but was approved and commended highly by the Parliament anno 1649. the best Parliaments Scotland did see for many yeers Againe thereafter in that same yeer 1648 The forces of the west Countrey arose in defence of the Cause and Covenant of God and that not only without the conduct of a Parliament but against their resolutions It is true there were some Nobles Parliament-men among them and countenancers of them but these acted not nor could act by vertue of any Parliamentary power but only as privat subjects having by reason of their greater interest in the land a greater obligation to lay out themselves and to improve their authority and influence in the countrey for the good thereof and for the cause of God They had it is true by their places and stations greater influence upon the Countrey and a greater backing and so being leading men were in a greater capacity to defend the oppressed truth but all this gave them no publick Magistratical power nor put them in the capacity of a real and formal Representative and yet all this was afterward approved ratified and confirmed by Parliament as good and necessary service to the countrey and to the cause of God A third notable instance is that Anno 1639. There was then no publicke civil judicatory carrying on that defence but Nobles and others each in their capacity and according to their power concurred for the promoveing of that necessary work of defence They did not acte under the notion of any such judicature nor
upon this account any tumult should arise no crime might be imputed unto them but unto such as refused their just Demands And when they wrote that letter May 22. 1559. Wherein they said That except the cruelty were stayed they would be compelled to take the sword of just defence against all that should pursue them for the matter of Religion and that the cruel unjust and most tyrannical murther intended against Towns and Multitudes was and is the only cause of their râ—vâ—le from their accustomed obedience And when they wrote that other unto the Nobility where in they said By your fainting and extracting of your support the Enemies are encouraged thinking that they shall finde no resistence in which poynt God willing they shall be deceived for if they were Ten thousand and we but One thousand they shall not Murther the least of our brethren From all which and from the whole story of these times it is undenyably apparent that they acted for the defence of the truth and of their oppressed brethren and for the carrying on of the work of reformation for some considerable time without the concurrence and conduct of a Parliamentary Representative From all which Instances of our predecessours I would have these thing observed 1. It is remarkeable That when God was to beginne any word of reformation in our Land whether from Popery or Prelacy the powers then in being were standing in a stated opposition thereunto This is notoure both in the dayes of Mr Knox in the yeer 1639. King or Queen and Counciles were stated against it and opposeing the same what they could 2. The only wise God who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working thought fit not to beginne with the Spirits of the Powers in being to cause them first appeare for the work but thought it more to his honour and glory to make use of foolish things to confound the wise and of weak things to confound the things that are mighty and base things and things which are despised and things which are not to bring to nought things which are It seemed good in his eyes who doth all things after the counsel of his owne will to imploy the least of the flock in that businesse according to that word Ier. 49. 20. and 50. 45. and to raise up meane and contemptible instruments that the work might more conspicuously appeare to be his and the glory thereof redound to himself alone 3. As they would have been glade had it so seemed good in the Lords eyes if the standing Representatives would have not only concurred and countenanced that work but would have according to their places led on the vaune and shewed themselves powers appoynted for God and his glory by exerceing the power which God had put into their hands for God and his interest So the want of their encouragement and conduct did not in the least brangle their confidence of the lawfulnesse of their interprize of so discourage them as to give over their work as desperate and hoplesse 4. Nor did they ever assume to themselves any authoritative and Magistratical power to legitimate their actions as if they had thought that without that formality their resolutions and motions had been condemned as unlawful in the Court of God and Nature but walked upon the ground of that fundamental right granted to all both higher and lower to maintaine the Truth of God upon all hazards and to stand to the defence thereof and of themselves when unjustly persecuted because of their adherence thereunto according to their power and as God in his providence called them thereunto 5. Nor did their adversaries objecting that their actions were treasonable and seditious as being contrare to authority and established lawes scar them from their purposes in the least having the testimony of a good conscience with in them that they had not the least purpose or project to cast off lawful authority or to diminish it's just right and power and knowing that the Powers out of whatever principle and upon whatsoever motives relinquishing their duty and opposeing that truth and way which by their places and callings they were obliged before God to maintaine preserve and promove did not loose their obligation and exeem them form that duty which God and nature had laid upon them but rather did presse them to prosecute their businesse more vigurously as seeing the necessity much more urgent and the difficulty so much the greater And knowing that whatever lawes are made in a Christian Common wealth should be for the glory of God and the good of the souls of the subjects mainly and for their external welbeing only in subordination unto these great Ends and when the observation of the strick letter of the law did crosse the maine good which principally de jure they aimed at they were eo ipso in so far null and voyd before God because it alwayes holdeth good that it is better to obey God then Man and mens commands or lawes unto which obedience cannot be yeelded without contempt of and treason committed against the Highest of all who is King of Kings are as no commands before God and disobedience unto these is no disobedience unto the lawful authority but faithful allaigance unto the most Supream 6. These poor weak beginnings how base and contemptible so ever they appeared yet God was pleased when the time to favour Zion was come so to owne countenance and prospere that the same work at length came to be owned by Publick Representatives and Parliaments yea and the Kings themselves were brought to a publick owneing and approving of the same And who knoweth but if God had thought good to blesse this late act with successe it might have been followed with the like consequent But his time was not come 7. It is also observable That whatever disaster or disappoyntment they did meet with in prosecution of the Reformation and in the preservation and defence of themselves in the owneing of the truth of God though it put them to mourne for their iniquities before God and to acknowledge among other sinnes their too much relying upon the arme of flesh and not resting with a pure faith on his power and protection yet it never made them question their call or suspect the lawfulnesse of their work and businesse as to its substance and end for they knew well that the work was the Lord's and that their call was divine though for his owne holy ends that they might be more humbled and taught do depend with a single heart on his word and promise and to purge out such evills as provoked the eyes of God's jealousy he suffered them to fall 8. When the work came at length to be owned by Parliaments and Higher Powers what was formerly done by persons not in that capacity was not condemned either as unlawful or illegal nor did the valient actors stand in need of any indempnity as if they had been transgressours but all was
not useful as meanes for attaineing of these ends but prove destructive and stand in contra-opposition there unto and in this case must be supposed to have the same liberty to use such meanes as they were allowed to use in their primeve state that is to joyne together and associate the best way they can for repelling of what destroyeth these noble and important Ends and defend their Religion Lives and Libertyes But it may be the Surveyer or some for him will say That all this is nothing to the purpose because The state of our government and constitution is of a distinct and far different nature Ans As to this reserving what is further to be spoken on that subject unto the next chapter where we shall speak of the obligation of the Soveraigne unto the People these things seeme cleare and undenyable 1. That before Fergus the first was chosen by the People to be their King and Chiftane there were a people living in Scotland manageing their owne matters the best way they could 2. While they were in this condition we heare on none among them however possibly excelling others in wealth power wisdome and such like enduements that took upon them the Soveraignity otherwayes Fergus had not been the first King 3. When they thought of sending for Fergus and of making him King they were not acted as beasts but went rationally to work considering their present hazard from their adversaries and the advantage they would have by setting such over themselves and erecting a stablished policy 4. After the constitution and erection of the Kingdome they remained rational creatures sensible of injuries done unto them whether by their Kings or others as after experience manifested 5. Nor did their Kings after their election become Angels or Creatures above their reach but for male-administration oppression or tyranny were made to know they were Men as subject to erring and doing wrong so to examination tryal and condigne punishment for their injuries done to the Commonwealth 6. When they condescended upon Monarchy though as matters then stood they saw it most for their advantage to have a King yet none vvill say but they might notvvithstanding of that exigent have chosen an Aristocracy for a standing forme of government 7. When they compacted themselves into a distinct body and separated both from the Picts and from the Britones they might had they seen it for their advantage either joyned vvith the Picts or Britones and made one firme Commonvvealth vvith them or have divided themselves into tvvo or moe distinct Bodyes and distinct Republiks as they had seen it convenient No previous necessity save that they savv if for their only advantage to do as they did constraining them to the one more then to the other 8. When they made choise of a King they might if they had seen it good prescribed the time how long that Government should have endured whether until the death of Fergus or hovv long there after 9. When they made choise of Fergus vvho then vvas in Irland and sent for him they might without any injury done to any man have chosen any other they had thought most for their advantage and before they made choise of him He could challenge no power or authority over them nor could He be accounted their King and when they made choise of him and made him their King then and not till then was he their King 10. It was in their power to have named ergus without his successours by line and so have reserved power to themselves to choose of new another after his death and though they did include his successours by line yet their after practise declared that they had liberty to choose the fittest of the family when the nearest in the line was not judged fit for government which custome continued above a Thowsand yeers till the dayes of Kenneth the third 11. And when it afterward came to a lineal constant succession The sone had no right but by the constitution condescended on in the dayes of this Kenneth 12. That in all these resolutions and constitutions they levelled at nothing but their owne good and saifty is body and soul is beyond contradiction And finally their after practices did declare that they looked not upon themselves as rendered incapable by all those forementioned resolutions to defend themselves against manifest and unjust violence even of the King and his followers though this Surveyer Pag. 78. accounts these nothing but the iâ— surrection of Nobles against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous Yet they were cleare instances of the peoples reserving power to themselves notwithstanding of the constitution to defend their libertyes and lives from oppression and tyranny of flagitious and tyrannous Kings abusing their power and subverting the ends of governments and destroying what they were bound to maintaine and defend CAP. VI. Of the Covenant betwixt King and People Our Arguments hence deduced IT is no great wonder to see this Surveyer labouring to free the King from any covenant-obligation unto his Subjects when he and his party have proclaimed him exempted from his Covenant-obligation unto God and since the have put both consciences and wit upon the rack to finde out some plausible grounds of evasion that the King may be free from the Covenant which he swore with hands lifted up to the Most High God oftener then once with which however they may satisfy such as love licentiousnesse and to live above God's Law as well as man's yet God will not be so deceived let men dream what they will it should be no matter of astonishment to us to see them useing shifts whereby to bring the King from under any Covenant tye unto his Subjects But it might seem strange to us if we knew not the Men that when lawyers and polititians tell us that the King is absolutely bound unto his Subjects and the People obliged unto the King condionally see Hoenonius disp polit 2. and Iunius Brutus vindiciae contra Tyrannos quaest 3. and Althus pol. c. 20. n. 3. 21. cap. 38. n. 30. They on the contrary should averre that the people were absolutly bound unto the King the King not only not tyed conditionally but not at all unto the People But from what was said in the preceeding chapter it wil clearly follow That when a people do institute a Governement and do commit the Supreame Managment of affaires unto one or more They do it upon certane tearmes and conditions which conditions polititians ordinarily call fundamentall lawes others think that name not proper enough but whether we call them so or call them tearmes and conditions of the constitution of compact it is all one thing That there are certane tearmes and conditions on which the Soveraigne is chosen is cleare from these grounds 1. The man who is made Soveraigne by the People can pretend no right to the Soveraignity as was shewed before until he be
doth sufficiently confirme this of which more when we consider what this Surveyer sayeth to the contrary 8. Lawyers Polititians Divines tell us that there are such conditions condescended on in all free Republicks Hoenonius Disp Pol. 2. Thes 4. tells us that the Subjects do stipulate from the Magistrates whether they will rule so as they may lead a peacable and quyet life under them and Thes 5. that the Magistrates do absolutely promise and the Subjects upon condition promise what is their duty So Althusius cap. 38. Polit. n. 31. and cap. 19. n. 15. 23. 29. and Timplerus Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Quest. 5. proveth that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects See likewise Gerhard de Magistratu Thes 94. Pag. 726. Where he proveth that it is no new thing That Magistrates and Subjects do Covenante with each other Finally This is cleared from some Scripture instances as first The Covenant which David made with the Tribes of Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. 1 Chron. 11. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anoynted David King over Israel Sanches on the place thinketh He promised to rule them according to the law Deut. 17 15. and that some other things were contained in that Covenant which did relate to the present state of a affaires as concerning the war with their near and insolent enemies concerning an act of oblivion and other things which they could think upon in that troublesome state of affaires and upon the other hand the People promised fidelity and obedience and what else is required in well constituted Commonwealths and that this Covenant was sealed by oath of both parties Cornel a Lap calleth it a mutual promise wherein David Covenanted to governe the Kingdome faithfully according to the law of God Leut. 17. 16. c. Israel on the other hand promised to be obedient and faithful to him The Surveyer tryeth many shifts to make this no mutual Covenant or conditional Covenant Pag. 94. 95. He cannot deny but there was a Covenant here agreed upon betwixt David and these Tribes of Israel But he sayes the Quaestion is what was the nature the matter and import of that Covenant The Scripture sayes not it was such a Covenant as these men would have it I shall rule you rightly if you obey medutifully otherwise not upon the King's part and upon the peoples part we shall obey you and be subject to you if ye rule us rightly otherwise we will not but use our coactive power upon you to dethrone and destroy you and punish you Ans If it be granted that here was a mutual contract wherein the King accepted of conditions and obliged himself thereunto it is enough for our present purpose the Dutch Annotators on 2 Sam. 5. 3. say hereby they were bound on both sides by oath to performe their dutyes to other for we are not yet speaking of the nature and import of such Covenants and what right or power the party keeping hath over the party failing 2. The Text doth not tell us what was the particular matter of this Covenant but from the Text we may clearly see that this was a conditional Covenant a Covenant wherein the King promised such and such things as satisfied them and induced them to accept of him as King and anoynt him so that if the tearmes had not pleased them they would not have accepted of him as King If the King had said I will be an Absolute Prince to account you still mine Enemies and kill such of you as I will and keep a live such of you as I will and so play the Tyrant be like he had gote the answere that Rehoboam gote To your tents â— Israel What portion have we in David 3. How can he prove That they did not minde to offer themselves to David upon such tearmes They sayes he Pag. 95 recognose his right of reigning over them is of the Lord and that he was not subjecte to be removed by them for they say The Lord sayd to thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be Ruler over them and it is added Therefore they came c. Ans 1. All this will not prove that this Covenant was not conditional or that David did not oblige himself to such and such conditions for if these reasons have any force they will as well say that they should not have made a Covenant with him it all but submitted without Covenant and they knew his right by promise to the throne before this and yet for all that they refused to come till now and now when they come David must make a Covenant with them 2. The same Tribes of Israel did recognosce Rehoboam's right to reigne for they came to Shechem to make him King 1 King 12. 1. 2. Chron. 10. v. 1. yet when Rehâ—boam would not agree unto the tearmes proposed They refused to acknowledg him King 3. That 1 Chron. 11. 3. Therefore came is but the same with So came 2 Sam. 5. 3. and it may be as well rendered also or and came for in the Original it is in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is there told that also the Elders of Israel came who were not mentioned before 4. Gods promise to David gave him no power to play the Tyrant nor was it to be fulfilled but such a way God's purposes concerning the End includeth the Meanes with the End and his purpose or promise was not that David should obtaine the throne without the Peoples consent or that the People was obliged to submit unto him notwithstanding he should refuse to Covenant with them or promise to Rule them in righteousnesse and not to play the Tyrant over them and hence it appeareth that it is not false that the People gave the Kingdome to David conditionally as he sayeth Pag. 101. for if He say these promises or purposes of God did lay obligations of the People to accept Such upon any tearmes he cannot condemne the Ten Trybes for accepting of Ieroboam as he doth elswhere 5. As for their coactive superiority over him we speake not of it now it not being our present businesse but sure his reasons will not validely conclude the contrair for if such a promise or purpose of God gave David such a right as that in no case suppose he had turned the greatest Tyrant imaginable had sold the Land of Canaan unto the Uncircumcised or done some such thing the Elders of Israel had had no coercive power to have with-stood him and dethroned him then they might not now have refused to have submitted unto him And by the same reason The elders of Israel might not have refused to have submitted to Ieroâ—oam who also had a promise which I know he will not grant But it is enough to our present purpose if it be granted that David agreed
obey him in the Lord. Peter Martyr also sayeth that not only King and People covenanted with God but the King also with the People and the People with the King and thereafter that the King was bound to rule the People according to the Lawes equity Secundum Iura Leges and the People promised to obey him Zanches more fully tells us there was a Covenant betwixt the King and the People as uses to be betwixt the Prince and Common-wealths The Prince undertaketh to defend the Kingdome Lawes Equity and to be a keeper and defender of the Countrey and of Religion And upon the other hand People promise obedience and fidelity and such expenses as are necessary for keeping up the Majesty of the Prince c. Now what sayes our Surveyer to this He tells us Pag. 96. That it was also made upon an extraordinary occasion extraordinaryes cannot sound ordinary rules Answ How doth he prove that it was meerly upon the extraordinarynesse of the occasion that this Covenant was made he might as well say that the crowning of him giving him the testimony making him King and making a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King were extraordinary and so could not found ordinary rules yea and that it was extraordinary for the People to sweare allegiance unto him But he hath two things remarkable to his purpose as 1. That he is crowned made King before the Covenant is made which crosseth the antimonarchists who assert the King cannot be made King until he make the Covenant with the People that he gets the crowne and royal authority covenant wise and conditionally Answ Antimonarchists properly so called are against all Monarchs limited or absolute or doth he account them all antimonarchists who say that the King is a limited Magistrate then we know what to think of the Monarchists and Royalists of him and his party 2. He knoweth himself that the series or order of the relation of a complex businesse is not alwayes just according to the series of the things done but be it so this maketh for us in the former instance of David's Covenanting with Israel Which is mentioned before their making of him King 3. But suppose the King had refused to enter into Covenant with the Lord or with the People for mention is made of both Covenants after his Coronation might they not for all their solemnities in crowning of him have refused to have ownned him as King 4. But to put the matter beyond all debate we finde compareing the two places together That beside the Covenant betwixt Iehojadah and the Rulers of Hundereds c. mentioned 2. King 11. 4 and 2 Chron. 23. 1. which was rather a Covenant betwixt themselves to depose Athalia and to set up joash to put down Idolatry and to set up the true worshipe of God as the English annotations the Dutch say then a Covenant of fidelity or allegiance to the King as he would have it we finde 2 Chron. 23. 3. a Covenant made betwixt the Congregation and the King and this was before he was crowned or made King which Covenant as the English annotators say was a mutual stipulation betwixt the King and Them That the King should maintaine the true worshipe of God the peace of the Kingdome and privilege of the subjects and that the People should maintaine the King and yeeld unto him his due The next thing he sayeth is That it is not told us what the tenor of this covenant is Diodaâ— seems to say that Iehojadah made them sweare allegiance and fidelity to the King but how shall it be cleared that it was conditional with a reserve of coactive punitive power over him Answ Of this coactive power over Kings we are not now speaking and he but playeth the fool to start such questions without ground 2. That it was a conditional Covenant the scope of the place cleareth for if they had not expected thaâ— their condition had been better under his reigne then under Athaliah be like they had never resolved to have ventured their lives and estates for him and if the Covenant had not been conditional they could have had no rational expectation of the bettering of their condition from the young King Againe if it was not a conditional Covenant The King could with no more certainty have expected their dutyful obedience then They his faithful government 3. It is true the matter and tenor of the Covenant is not expressed but the nature of the act doth abundantly cleare what it was and that it was such as the English annotators have expressed 4. If Diodat say it was nothing else but the Peoples swearing allegiance he speaketh without ground for it was a mutual Covenant a Covenant betwixt King and People But sayes he suppose all the Kings of Judah made such covenants with the People yet will any judicious man force the Particular customes of that Nation on all Nations that might be best for that Nation that was not simply best their customes without a law of God bearing a standing reason cannot be obligatory on others lest we judaize too much Answ 1. We are not now pressing their practice as our only warrand but by their practice we prove the lawfulnesse of the King 's being brought under conditions and obligations to the people which Politicians Lawyers and Divines use to do 2. He must show why such a practice was best to them not also to other nations 3. We Judaize not more in this then in crowning and making of Kings though I grant they do who use the ceremony of anoynting with oile 4. We have the Law of Nature which is the law of God bearing a standing reason of this as was shewed above 5. Yea that lavv of God mentioned Deut. 17. 15. c. Limiting the Prince shovveth that it was the Peoples duty unto whom that is spoken when they were to set a King over themselves to provide for these conditions so that as they might not de jure set a stranger over them neither might they set any over them who vvould not engage to keep the conditions vvhich they were to required of him v. 16. 17. 18. 19. and these Conditions of the King being held forth unto them sayes that they were impowered to stipulate such of the King whom they were to create and that poynts forth a Covenant to be made betwixt them and their King power also in them to restraine the King from transgessing these conditions as Iosephus tels Ant. Lib. 4. cap. 14. Si autem fuerit alias c. â— e. But if otherwise a desire of a King shall adhere unto you let him be of your stock let him make much of Justice and other vertues and let him know that there is most wisdome in the lawes and in God let him do nothing without the advice of the High priest Elders neither let him assume to himself many vvives nor seek after abundance of riches nor
consequence was not necessary no more then when the King of Judah and the King of Israel make a covenant to performe mutual dutyes one to another it is necessary there should be a King and superiour Ruler above both who should compell each one to do a duty to his fellow King and People are each of them above and below others in diverse respects But in cometh this Surveyer Pag. 100. and tells us there is a great difference God having allowed lawful wars allows seeking of reparation or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another by force of the sword when no rational meanes can bring the doers of the wrong to do right and there being no other remedy he himself the Lord of hostes and God of armies sits judge and moderator in that great businesse and in the use of war is appealed to as judge there being no common judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations But God having set and established in one Particular Nation and Political society his owne ordinance of Magistracy to which every soul must be subject and all subject to the Supreme c. Ans This sayes wel when the difference or disput is between two subjects both under one Magistrate but is sayes nothing to our case where the difference is betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects for in the other case there is a judge over both established unto whom both are subjects but in our case there is no judge on earth Common to both or who can sit and judge in such causes for the King must here be no more both judge and party then the People and so the case is irremediable unlesse there be an allowance of repelling force with force for in our case there are no rational meanes which can be used to bring the Prince to do right unto the injured Subjects and therefore it God allow war in the use of which he is appealed to as judge betwixt two Nations he wil allow also a necessary defensive warre in Subjects against their Soveraigne when there is no other remedy or rationall meanes of redresse This Man dictats but what proveth he The Magistrates are by their official power above the whole Nation and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers which God hath set over them as L. R. pag. 460. sayeth thrasonically he hath proved unanswereably as to say that every parish is above the Minister in an ecclesiaslical way though he hath official power over them all or that every Lord in Scotland hath their Tennants and vassals above them a thing which the nobles of Scotland had need to look to for certainely the principles which lead to subject Kings to People lead clearly and by undoubted consequence to Subject them to their vassalls and to all under them yea and all Masters to servants and parents to children and to confound and invert the order of all humane societies Ans 1. The law will tell us That in mutual compacts the party observer is Eatenus in so far superiour unto the party who faileth 2. The author of Lex Rex sayeth truly and not Thrasonically as this Thraso and windy man allaigeth who would make the world beleeve that his one word is enough to confute all which that learned author hath solidly proved with such reasons that he thought with the little wit he hath it was more wisdome to forbeare once to name then to offer to answere that he hath proved unanswereably if not let this windy Thraso try his hand in confuteing his reasons the Peoples power above the King 3. This man's reasons are as weak as water For 1. the Paroche is so above the Minister that in case he teach haeresy there be no ecclesiastick or civil power to put him away they may save their owne soulls thrust him out and choose another more Orthodox 2. All know that the Lord is bound to the Vassalls as well as they are to him and that the Lord may not oppresse them or if he transgresse the bounds and limites prescribed him they will get action of law yea in some cases be free to renunce him as their Supream and choose another Let the nobles take heed they drink not in this Man's doctrine for if they arrogate to themselves a power to oppresse pillage plunder murther Massacre their vassals as this man pleads for such power to the King without control I fear their vassals let them know they are not slaves 3. What a poor Politician is this He speaks this to move them so much the more to owne the King's cause but who seeth not that he is either a false or a foolish advocate for the King in this matter for if the King get no moe on his side but the Superior Lords if all the Vassalls and Tennants be against him he will have the weaker party by farre on his side 4. I would desire Nobles all to take notice of this that he would here seem to give to the king as much power over them and all the lands as Masters have over their Tennants who have their lands only from them upon certaine conditions and may be removed when these conditions are broken 5. What a fool is he to put Tennants and Vassals together doth he not know that Lords have more power over their Proper Tennants then over their Vassals 6. Doth he think that Servants may not in some cases be above their Masters a noble man's son may be an apprentice to a very meane man But thinks he that Servants will get no action of law against their Masters or if there be no law or judge over him and his Master he may not defend himself against his Master's unjust violence 7. As for the subjection of parents to Children it is impertinent in this case as shall be shewed in due time and yet we know that the father hath been a subject and the son a King over him and we know also that in case of necessity the children may defend themselves against their father taken with a mad phrenzy Then he adds This truth we must cleave to that in one and the same civil society where God hath appoynted Rulers and Ruled Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God snatch the sword out of the Magistrates hands to punish him with it though in some partilars he abuse it neither can a war intended for this end by meer private persones be lawfull against their head or heads Answ We may let him cleave to this truth and this truth cleave to him and be no losers for we speak not of Subjects taking the sword of justice to punish the King we speak of no warre raised by the subjects for this end we plead only for a power in private Subjects to defend themselves in cases of necessity against their head or heads and he nor none of his party have the forehead to deny this to be lawful in some cases especially if
disput but what right Kenneth had to the crowne Now sure it is that before this conquest made he was crowned upon the same ground that his predecessours were his future conquest then uncertaine could not alter the ground of his receiving of the crowne when his father Alpin died 2. What ever superiority he might challenge over these Subjects unto whom he gave these new conquest lands it had no influence upon his holding of the crowne and that his very next successour and brother Donald knew who being given to his pleasures lost a noble victory which they had obtained over the Englishes and after he returned from captivity following his old life was cast in prison by his owne Subjects And his Son knew it also for he was put by the crowne conforme to the old law until this Donald died So that notwithstanding of all this new purchase the people knew that the conveyance of the crowne did still run in the old channel and was held of them after the old tenor His 4. Instance is of Robert Bruce whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem call Conquestor Magnus He re-conquered the Kingdom after the Nobility of Scotland had first at Berwick then at S Andrewes in plaine Parliament sworne homage to the King of England who will assert there were pactions betwixt him and the People Answ We know out of History what a miserable condition the Land was brought unto through occasion of that division and sad disput that was in it concerning the nearest in the line and this was the bitter frute that Scotland reaped of the change of that laudable custome established near the beginning of he constitution whereas had not that been changed in the dayes of Kenneth the third the fitest person to governe might have been chosen and that had prevented all this confusion and misery which the Land was brought unto 2. Though Bruce at length recovered the Kingdome yet he received not his crowne upon that account but before he attempted it's recovery out of the hands of the Englishes he was crowned King at Scone in Aprile 1036. and there received the Kingdom from the Scots upon the old account and according to the old tenor 3. Though he be tearmed a great conquerour as having recovered the Land out of the hands of the Englishes as if it had been a conquest when as it was really but a recovering of what he was bound by his place and power to recover yet we never finde that he claimed a right to the Land upon that ground of conquest but stood upon the old basis His fift last instance is of this King It is known sayes he our Nation was totally subdued by the English and continued so for the space of then yeers The Representatives of Shires and Cities and Townes combined into a Commonwealth government and sent their commissioners to the meeting thereof at London where the King's interest was disclaimed yet in a wonderful way God brought him in againe and finding us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation restored us to our freedome from the bondage of forraigners Answ 1. Through too great haste he hath forgotten a maine particular of this Instance Before we were totally subdued by the Englishes the King was crowned at Scone in as solemne a manner as ever any of his Predecessours except that he was not anoynted with holy Oyle nor gote the Pop's benediction and while crowned was solemnely engaged to the People by Covenants vowes and oathes to defend Religion according to the National Covenant and Solemne League and Covenant and to prosecute the ends of these Covenants and upon these conditions took his Crowne and Scepter Were we a conquest then 2. Ay but we were conquered afterward and our Representatives disclaimed the King's interest But how many were there of these Representatives And had these Representatives power commission from the Land to renunce his Interest Or were these all accounted Enemies to the King How is it then that so many of them are now accounted his most loyal Subjects and more loyal then such as suffered much because they would not take that Tender disclaming his interest how comes it that that Arch-knave Sharp sufficiently now knowne by that name and notion both to King Court and Countrey who was the only Minister so far as I know in all Scotland that took that tender is advanced unto in stead of a gallowes an arch-prelacy and primacy But 3 when the King returned did he make a re-conquest of us what meaned then that compact betwixt Monck and the Nobles and others of Scotland whom he sent for unto the borders and to the end he might more closely carry his businesse made them all to abjure Charles Stewart and his interest a sad presage of what would be our Epidemick distemper when our change or turne begane with manifest perjury did he not a acquante them with his designe and had he not their concurrence and if he had wanted this and had thought that Scotland would have been an adversary unto his designe would he or dursl he have attempted it 4. What way did the King restore us seing if he would speak the matter as it was it was Monck that restored him and us both as to any restauration we gote vvere not vve and he restored together What did he for our restauration vvas He not as passive as we were and some what more 5. Hence then it is false that he found us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation He rather left us so as found us so for we were restored to what we gote pari passu vvith himself 6. It is true at his coming though not by him vve vvere freed from the bondage of forraigners but as for the freedome we vvere restored unto vve are yet ignorant of it and see and feel heavier bondage both as to Church and State then vve did under strangers of forraigners But he addeth If any will say That it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage and that there did lye bands upon him as our sworne King to free ws when he should be in capacity to do it It may be answered 1. It is knowne that when the faâ—al stroke that sunk us into bondage was given there was an expresse disowneing of his right by publick judicatories of the land in the quarrel with the English Sectaryes before Dumbar Answ He should first have removed this objection It was upon the Kings account that the English army did invade us had we forborne to have sent commissioners to have called Him home The Englishes would never have invaded us for that was their only quarrel Because we had taken the Head of the Malignant faction Into our besome and so had we for-borne to have owned his quarrel we had neither been invaded nor subdued by them and there had not been so much of our blood shed as there was And is this all the thanks that
and therefore afterward when he came to be crovvned and formally installed he did also formally and expresly take on the obligation And vvhether he did ever shrink from the observance of that godly oath let this perfidious man avovv vvhat he vvill many vvill assert it as certane in some poynts and too too probable in other 9. But though he should doubt vvhether any King before King Charles the second did svveare any oath or Covenant vvith the People yet he cannot doubt of vvhat this King Charles the second did It being being beyond all denyall and contradiction That he swore both that Oath which was injoyned in King Iames the siâ—t his dayes and also the National Covenant and the Solemne League and Covenant and that according to these the Subjects did sweare obedience unto Him Here was then a mutual conditional Covenant explicitly and in plaine tearmes with all the solemnities imaginable entered into and what needs more to cleare all which we have said and to ground all which we would inferre to justify the late action For as for his vaine inferences they concerne not us and more shall be spoken of them afterward 10. Though this Surveyer be ready to avow that this King hath never swerved from the observation of that oath enjoyed Anno 1567. yet all the World seeth that he hath not as he ought to have done maintained the true Religion nor right preaching and administration of Sacraments Neither hath he according to his power abolished and withstood all false Religions contrary to the same as appeares by the great indulgence and toleration if not countenance granted to Popery and Papists Neither hath he ruled us according to the will of God but rather persecuted us for adhereing to the Word of God nor hath he ruled us by the laudable Lawes and constitutions of the realme but hath with a packt Parliament principled to his minde overturned our lawes libertyes hath framed established iniquity by a law 11. But what sayes he to the Nat. Cov. League Cov. Dar he avow that he hath not broken these If he had not we had not been troubled this day with a Popish Prelatical and Malignant faction nor had we seen these abjured and foresworne Prelates nor had we seen the work of reformation of religion in worship Doctrine Discipline and Government so overthrowne overturned and trode upon as it is this day 12. So then seing he cannot deny but the King took and solemnely swore these Covenants and that now he hath openly and avowedly broken them it is undenyable that he hath broken the conditions on which he was made King yea seing these were the maine conditions and the only conditions considerable and were become the fundamental law of our constitution he hath violated the principal and only conditions covenanted and what we shall hence inferre we shall now show Having thus vindicated and cleared the premises we shall draw out our arguments and conclusions thence and 1. If People propose conditions and tearmes unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in and submitted unto and upon which they are to accept their Crowne and Scepter Then if the Prince of King violate these conditions which he once accepted and contrare of his promise and engagement destroy what he promised to build up The People may very lawfully defend themselves and these good ends which they endeavoured to have secured by proposeing these conditions unto the Prince when he is seeking to destroy all even by force vvhen there is no other remedy But such is our case The King vvas formally and expresly engaged by Compacts and Covenants to secure the Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government to secure all these vvho owned the same and adhered to the Covenants and to ratify and approve all lavves made for these Covenants and for the security of such as entered into these Covenants and novv notvvithstanding of these conditions agreed unto by him the Covenant and vvork and all is overturned People persecuted meerly upon the account of their adhereing to these Covenants all conditions are violated all Covenants Vowes Compacts Engagements and vvhat could be devised for security of the reformation and of the ovvners thereof are broken Who then can condemne even privat persons if they stand to their defence in this case See Althusius polit cap. 38. n. 30. 2. If People may lavvfully and laudably defend the fundamental lavves of the Kingdom on vvhich the constitution of the Kingdome standeth and on vvhich the security of vvhat is dear to them as men and as Christians relveth Then the late act cannot be condemned because in defending themselves they stood for that vvhich vvas the maine and principal tearme of our constitution But the former is true because the Prince violating these destroyeth the constitution and because He cannot do this as a Prince having already engaged as a Prince to maintaine the constitution he must do it as a private person or an enemy to the constitution and whole body of the land Therefore he may wel be resisted even by private persones see this fully made out by Althus Pol. cap. 38. n. 37. both out of Lawyers and Divines 3. If a People even by resistence may defend their personal libertyes and rights secured unto them by Compacts with the Prince or by the fundamental lawes of the land which the Prince as Prince is bound to maintaine Then the late act cannot be condemned because by it they were but defending that which the King had secured unto them by his compact and which was secured unto them by the fundamental law of the land But the former is true because a privat person is allowed by law to maintaine his Lands and Rights even though some in the Kings name should come under whatsoever pretext to robe and dispossesse him and shut him to the door Therefore this late act though of private persones cannot be condemned 4. If a Prince violating all or he maine conditions upon which he was made Prince becometh stricto jure no Prince but falleth from his benefice not having done the offices in consideration of which he gote that benefice conferred upon him non enim sayeth Althus ubi supra commodum debet sentire ex contractu quem vel omittendo vel committendo quis impugnat Then lawfully enough such an one may be resisted even by Private persones as is cleare But the former is made clear above and such is our case now for the King hath broken palpably and avowedly the maine and principal conditions on which he was made King having overturned the work of reformation which if he had not promised vowed and covenanted to maintaine he had never been crowned or admitted to the exercise of that Government Who then can blaime a People standing to their owne defence when oppressed and tyrannized over by his emissaries who hath thus violated the principal and only conditions of the compact and is forceing them to the
same excesse of wickednesse and perjury deficiente hâc conditione sayeth Althus Pol. c. 38. n. 40. desinit â—bligatio fidem non servanti fidem ei quoque non servari aquum est Nam qui non facit quod debet nec recipit quod oportet nec pâ—tere potest quod ei ideo ab alio debetur quam naturam esse conventionum in quibus utraque pars contrahens obligatur testatur Tiraq de Legib. Connub. Gloss 1. part 13. n. 42. laâ—è Mascard Concl. 1387. per Alleg. Ibid. Rolland a Val. Consil 69. Vol. 4. Consil 53. Vol. 1. quando ergo una pars promissa non praes tat facit eo ipsout altera liberetur Dynus Alexander Jason in L. cum proponas C. de pactis 5. If when a Prince violateth the maine and principal conditions on which he was installed a People be siricto jure liberated from subjection unto him Then much more may they resist him when he by his emissaries oppresseth and unjustly violenteth them But we have cleared the former to be ture Therefore so is the later The consequence cannot be denyed for if stricto jure a people may disowne a prince then much more may they repell his unjust violence If law admit the more it will admit the lesse also The application of this is cleare from the former 6. If the Covenant or Compact which is betwixt Prince and People give law-clame to the People to pursue the Prince in case of failing in the maine and principal thing covenanted Then sure the People may resist unjust violence for they who pursue for a broken Compact according to their clame may farr more defend their clame when invaded by force contrare to the compact The application of this is also cleare 7. Since by this compact it is clear as Althusius tells us Pol. Cap. 19. n. 12. that the People or Kingdome are the full Lords proprietors of all the power and have free liberty to dispose of it the frute and emolument thereof redounding to themselves having full power no lese then any private person to manage dispose and dispense in their owne matters as they please Then when they finde the person to whom the Government is committed by compacts administrating the same to their hurt and destruction they may see to their owne good and not suffer themselves to be destroyed but resist him who instead of a mandatarius and servant turneth a Tyrant and Enemy 8. Since as the same Althusius sayeth Ibid. n. 13. by this compact it is apparent that the Ius the power or authority which is given to the Supream Magistrate is not his owne is lesse then the Ius of the People inferiour to theirs because it dependeth upon the free will prescription of the People endeth with the death of the prince who is Mandatarius as other contractus Mandati use to do and recurreth to its owne proper Master and Lord. Then it cannot be unlawful for the People the commander here to see to their owne saiftie and provide that their owne free gift destroy them not and so to resist the Prince abuseing that power to their destruction 9. If it be certane as it is to Althus Pol. c. 19. n. 47. that the Prince hath no more power given to him by the People then what is contained in the conditions upon which he undertaketh the government and what more he assumes he usurpeth by tyranny from the People Then when he usurpeth more power then was given to him he may be resisted and the People are allowed to preserve their owne and when he ruleth contrare to the conditions and destroyeth these it is certane He arrogateth to himself a power which was never given to him yea which was virtually prohibited and discharged to him and in that case may lawfully be resisted as is undenyable The antecedent Althusius proveth in the forecited place n 48. saying aequitas hujus rei naturalis demonstrari potest ex natura mandati quod dicitur contractus bonae fidei obligans eum qui alienorum negotiorum administrationem suscepit ne limites fines mandati excedat sed contineat se intraterminos praescriptos a mandante ut latius docent J. CC. quibus addendus Vasq Illustr Quaest L. 1. c. 47. n. 13. CAP. VII Of the Nature of the Kings Power over his Subjects Our Arguments hence FRom what hath been said in the two former chapters vve may saifly gather these conclusions concerning the nature of the povver of a Soveraigne over his Subjects vvhich vvill yeeld us so many arguments confirming the poynt in hand 1. The Soveraigne's povver over his Subjects is not properly a parental povver that is not such a povver as parents have over their children for 1. The Soveraigne's power over the Subjects ariseth from a voluntary compact and consent of the Subjects as was shewed but the Father's power requireth no such previous consent or compact 2. The Soveraigne's power may be restricted to so many degrees by the Subjects so cannot the Father's by the Children 3. The Subjects obedience and subjections to the Soveraigne may be conditional as we have proved and our adversaries will grante it in limited Princes but so cannot the subjection of Children be 4. Whethersoever Children goe they keep always the same relation to the same Parents but Subjects may change their Soveraignes by changing the places of their habitation 5. Children can in no case break that relation which is betwixt their Fathers and them but in many cases Royalists themselves will grant Subjects may shake off the King 6. Children cannot change their Fathers but Subjects may change their Soveraignes for Royalists wil grant that such as are under an Aristocracy may make choise of a Monarch 7 Children hold their natural being of their Parents but Soveraignes are designed only for the political or civil welbeing of the Subjects 8. Subjects may choose what Soveraignes they will whether Monarchical or Aristocratical and what persones in this or that forme Children can not choose what Parents they shall have 9. Subjects can condescend upon the time how long such an one shall be their Soveraigne ad vitam or culpam but Children can not set bounds unto their Parents power 10. Soveraignes have not begotten all their Subjects nor doth their relation or power flow form such an act but Paternal power doth 11. If the Soveraigne's power were paternal only then he should not have power of life and death because parents as such have not that power over their Children 12. The Surveyer himself granteth this Pag. 29. in these words Kings are not fathers of our flesh or by generation nor can they be truely called so political and parental power are different things So then the Soveraigne's power is paternal only in a metaphorical sence because They should have a Fatherly care and inspection over their Kingdomes and should nourish cherish love and governe them tenderly and carefully and as
Parents in some respects love their children better then themselves so should they preferre the good of the commonwealth unto their owne and upon this account are stiled Fathers Gen. 20. 2. Iudg. 5. 7. 1 Sum. 24. 12. Isa 49. 23. as also Pastors are 2. The Soveraigne's power is not properly Marital or such as Husbands have over their Wives for 1. Wives cannot limite their Husband's power as Subjects may limite their Soveraigne's 2. Wives cannot prescribe the time how long such an one shall be their Husband as Subjects may do vvith their Soveraignes 3. Wives cannot change their Husbands as Subjects may change an Aristocracy into a Monarchy 4. Wives are appoynted for an helpe to the Husband but the Soveraigne is rather for the Commonvvealth then the Commonvvealth for him 5. If the Soveraigne's povver vvere such then he could not have povver of life and death for a Husband as such hath not that povver over his Wife 6. Though the Husband and the Wife be in distinct Kingdomes the relation standeth and is not broken upon that account but if a subject goe out of one Kingdome to live into another he changeth his Soveraigne and hath a relation to a nevv Soveraigne 3. So he is but metaphorically and not properly called the Head of the Commonwealth for 1. the head is not made Head by the free choise of the Members but the Soveraigne is chosen by the People 2. The Members have not so much as a consent in setting up the Head but Subjects at least have this much in setting up of Princes 3. the Members can never change the Head but Subjects may change their Soveraignes 4. The Members can make no compact with the Head as Subjects may do with their Princes 5. The Members cannot limite the power of the Head as Subjects can limite the power of their Princes 6. The Members cannot destroy the Head and live themselves but Subjects can destroy the Monarch and choose another 7. The Head communicateth life sense motion to the rest of the members so doth not the Prince unto his Subjects 8. The same individual life is in Head and Members but not in King and Subjects 9. Head and Body die and live together but there is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects So then he is but a metaphorical Head so called because of his supereminency He is over the civil body to rule and guide it aright 4. The Soveraigne hath no Lordly dominative or masterly power over the Bodyes of his Subjects For 1. this government is founded upon the law and light of pure nature but this masterly dominion is a frute of sin 2. Slavery being against nature a bondage which all would willingly shun we cannot suppose that rational people would choose that life if they could help it but they willingly not out of constraint choose government governours 3. The people in setting up a Soveratigne propose their owne good have their owne ends but if the Soveraigne's power were properly a masterly power they should propose rather his good then their owne in setting him up 4. If his power were a masterly power their condition after the government were established should be worse then it was before for their state of liberty was preferable to their state of bondage 5. They had not acted rationally if to be free of oppression of others they had willingly given up themselves unto an oppressour endued with masterly dominion and power 6. Masters might sell their servants for gaine Gen. 9. 25. and 20. 14. and 26. 14. 1 King 2. 32. 2. King 4. 1. Neh. 5. 8. Eccles 2. 7. Iob. 1. 3 15. But the prince cannot sell his Kingdome 7. Soveraignes have not such a povver as this from God but only a povver to feed to rule to defend and to watch over the people for their good 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ps 78. 71. 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron. 11. 2. and 17. 6. Neither have they it from the People for they cannot give such a povver vvhereby to make themselves slaves 8. If it vvere so Princes should not be a blessing unto a People but rather a curse contrare to 1 King 10. 9. Esa 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. Hos 1. 11. 9. It is a blessing to be free of slavery Exod. 21. 2 26 27. Deut. 15. 12. Ier. 34. 9. Ioh. 8. 33. 1 Cor. 9. 19. But it is not a blessing to be free of government but a curse and judgment rather Iudg. 19. 1 2. Esa 3. 1 6 7. Hos 3. 4. 10. Subjects are the King's brethren Deut. 17. 20. and so not his slaves The Surveyer Pag. 30. 31. granteth that there is a great difference betwixt Magistratical power and Masterly and giveth three maine differences 1. That the Master of slaves had his owne profite mainly before his eyes and the profite of the Slaves only secondarily But the Magistrates power is premarily ordinated to the Publick good of the Community it self and only secondarily and consequentially to the good of Himself 2. That Masters had a greater power over the bodyes and goods of these who were their Slaves then a Magistrate can clame over Subjects 3. The Master had the slaves in subjection to him more out of feare and constraint then love or delight But a King hath his Subjects under him in a civil free liberal voluntary and loving subjection Thus we see this point is cleare and undenyable by him though other Royalists will not grant so much but sure if they were his slaves they behoved to be taken in war or bought with money 5. Neither hath he a despotick masterly power over the goâ—ds of his Subjects what ever use may be allowed to make of them in case of necessity when in some respect all things are common for the Common good and good not only of the owners but also of all the Community Yet the Subjects are righteous proprietors of their owne goods For 1. the People make choise of him for this very end to preserve them in their rights to keep their rights inviolated to keep them from oppression and injuries of others so that it cannot be imagined that rational People would make choise of one great robber to preserve them from lesser robbers 2. Their case should be rather worse as better by the erecting of a civil government if the Soveraigne were the only proprietor of all their goods for before the erection they had a just right and title unto their owne goods 3. Soveraignes should not be a blessing unto a People but a curse Which is false 4. Then they could wrong no man take what they would from him contrare to Zeph. 3 3. Esai 3 14 15. and 58 4 6. Mich. 3 3. see Timpl. pol. lib. 5. cap. 1. quaest 3. 5. The law Deut. 17. contradicteth this masterly power over the Subjects goods 6. Ahab was blaimed for taking Naboths Vineyaird 7. This is the very character of a Tyrant 1 Sam. 8. 8. The Kings of
Wife And say that he had an equal power over his Subjects with that which the Husband hath over his Wife which is false yet the connexion will be firme as to a lawfulnesse in this case as wel as in the other 3. If there be not such a connexion betwixt the Soveraigne and his Subjects as is betwixt the natural Head and the Body Then it can no more yea far lesse be an unnatural thing for Subjects to defend themselves against the violence of distempered Princes Who seek directly to destroy the Commonwealth when necessity doth urge Then it is for the members of the Body to defend and fortify themselves against danger paine or sicknesse occasioned by a distemper of the braine yea and with violence seek to cure remove that distemper in the head that is like to destroy the whole body 4. If the Soveraigne hath not a Lordly domination masterly power over his Subjects but they be is Brethren not his Slaves and if the very Law will allow Servants to defend themselves against their Lords and Masters L. Minime 35. de Rel. sumpt funer and no man with us will account it unlawful for servants to defend themselves against the unjust and violent assaults of their Lords and Masters Then farr lesse can it be accounted unlawful for private Subjects to defend themselves when constrained with necessity against the unjust assaults of the Soveraigne or his emislaries But the Antecedent is cleared and confessed Ergo. 5. If the Soveraigne have no despotick or Masterly power over the goods and heritages of his Subjects as we have proved Them very lawfully may they defend their lands goods and heritages from the violent and unjust oppressions of the Prince or his emissaries sent out to plunder rob destroy their corns cattel goods land summes of money c. 6. If the Kingdome be not his proper heritage nor he proprietor thereof as was shewed Then when He or his Emissaries come to destroy a considerable part of the Kingdome and to alienate the profites and emoluments thereof unto others then the proper owners and proprietors unjustly Then may that part of the Kingdome lawfully resist these unjust oppressours and invaders defend their owne 7. If He be not so much as an usufructuary of the Kingdome then when He laboureth by his Emissaries to waste and destroy the Kingdome or any part thereof by unjust violence private Subjects may resist that unjust violence and oppose his oppressing Emissaryes If a Master may hinder his usufructuary tennants who would deteriorate the land which they possesse by compact Then much more may subjects resist the Princes Emissaries when labouring utterly to spoile and lay waste these lands whereof he is not so much as an usufructuary 8. If the King's power be only fiduciary as is shewed Then when that power is manifestly abused and the pawne which he hath gote to keep in imminent and manifest danger lawfully enough may he be resisted When the Lives the Liberties of the People or their Religion is committed unto him as to a publick Tutor Watchman or Servant He what through negligence what through wilful wickednesse laboureth to destroy and undoe and overturne all very lawfully may Subjects in that case of extreame necessity seek to secure the Necessary and desireable things and resist his fury and unjust violence who contrare to his oath and promise seeketh to have all overturned and ruined Althusius pol. cap. 38. n. 39. speaketh well to this saying Octava ratio sumitur a natura contractus mandati quo summa Magistratui administratio est delata à populo ad hoc ut Reip proâ—it non ut noceat Rom. 13. Vasq lib. 1. c. 44. n. 6. c. 1. 2. Illust Contr. quando igitur mandatarius fines mandatiexcedit non illi obligatus est mandator § 15. qui Just de Mand. Luc. 16 1 2 3 c. quando conditio status fortuna mandatarii mutatur in deterius L. si quis cum de procur L. cum quis desolut Aut mandatum a mandante revocatur vel ipse mandans agere tractare negotium incipit ut tradunt J. CC. Vide Vasq Lib. 1. c. 43. n. 5. c. 4 n. 12. Illust Controv. What he addeth is worth the reading CAP. VIII The Peoples saifty is the supreme Law The King is not absolute Hence some Moe Arguments THat salus populi est suprema Lex is asserted by the law of the 12 Tables The worthy author of Lex Rex hath fully confirmed this truth and vindicated it from the exceptions and false glosses of the Royalists Quaest 25. And therefore we need say lesse to it especially seing this Surveyer hath nothing against it that I have observed That it is a truth That the peoples saifty is the cardinal law hence appareth 1. That the attaineing of this end was the maine ground and motive of the peoples condescending upon the constitution 2. They levelled at his end in makeing choyse of such a forme and not of another for had they thought another fitter for their temper and more conduceing for their good they had not pitched on this but on that 3. with an eye to the saife and sure attaineing of this end proposed and designed they made choise of such persones and of none else 4. upon this account did they condescend upon that manner of conveyance of the supream authority which they thought best 5. For no other end was it that the Prince was limited and bound unto conditions 6. The end being alwayes preferable to the meanes as such The Peoples saifty which is the end must be preferred to all such things as are made use of as meanes conduceing to this end 7. By the very Law and institution of God the Magistrate is ordained for the Peoples good Rom. 13. ver 4. and to this end next to the glory of God unto which we alwayes give the preference is he direct all his publick actions as a Magistrate and by this is he to stirre his course in governing the helme of the Republick 8. Hence it is that all the municipal lawes of the Land are made renewed corroborated explained or rescinded and annulled so as they most conduce to this great end which is ever anima ratio Legis 9. Hence also it is that no law in its letter tending to the hurt and detriment of the Realme is or can be of force 10. Hence it is that the Soveraigne in cases of necessity may neglect the strick observation of the letter of the lawes and for the good of the community neglect private mens interests Finally the very law of nature requireth this as Boxhornius Inst Polit lib. 1. Pag. 25. tells us Doctor Sanderson in his book dc obligatiâ—ne conscientiae praelect 9. 10. laboureth to put another glosse upon this axiome But he may be easily answered for we shall readyly grant with him that by saifty here is not meaned dignity or liberty in
the law of the XII tables so it was in force whatever forme of government was exerced But syes he Prael 9. § 19. Hence it will not follow That People may when they perceive or cry out that they perceive their libertyes hurt in some things take armes without the Princes leave and violate all lawes and dutyes and so raise tumults and seditions Ans Neither do we say so nor resolve to draw any such conclusions therefrom but this is cleare that when the covenanted work of reformation is overturned laudable lawes establishing the same contrary to oath and solemne Engagement rescinded libertyes palpably violated People in humanely persecuted for adhereing to their Covenants c. and unjustly oppressed by the Kings emissaries people may then take armes in their own defence though the King should refuse to consent or should countenance the oppressours carry on that inslaving course Againe he sayes let any read and read over againe that sentence of Cicero and search every pairt of it where vvill he finde any vvarrand for Subjects to rise up against princes to injure them or dethrone them Ans We do not intend to search the sentence for that end it vvill suffice us if hence vve finde ground to conclude the lavvfulnesse of Peoples defending themselves against tyrannizeing Princes in cases of necessity and let him or any for him read and better read that vvhole period and narrovvly consider and examine every sentence and vvord in it and see if he can finde this condemned Ere I come to speak to the other particular I shall from this draw some few things useful for our purpose and 1. It is irrational and meer flattery to cry up and exalt the Soveraignes prerogative in prejudice and to the destruction of that for which both He and His Prerogatives are and were appoynted as subservient meanes the saifty of the People That being de jure his maine end and it being for this cause end that he is endued with such power and hath such privileges and prerogatives conferred upon him and allowed unto him He and his Prerogatives both should vaile unto this Supreame Law the saifty of the People so that when they come in competition The Peoples saifty of right is to have the preheminence 2. Since all other lawes municipal made and established in a free Realme must be subordinate unto this Principal and Cardinal law and have tendency to promove corroborate and establish it Then when any of these Lawes in their letter strick directly at the root of the saifty of the People and thoward and crosse that maine and highest law That law is Eaienus null and really no law So that it is but childish scrupulosity to start at the letter of a law when the Commonwealth is in hazard and it is but brutish ignorance to object the letter of a low against such as are endeavouring the saifty of the people which is the maine businesse and to preserve the Commonwealth from ruine and destruction against which no law is or can be of any force or value but null and of no effect for here it holdeth true that summum jus is summa injuria 3. Since Lawes themselves when in their letter they crosse this maine law must be accounted as no lowes really and de jure and may saifly be neglected and passed over when the Peoples saifty is in no small hazard by the strick adhereing to the letter thereof Then much more may punctilioes and law formalities be laid aside when the Commonwealth is in danger When there is a fire in a City all the formalities of order are not strickly to observed 4. Since The privileges and lawful prerogatives of the Soveraigne must vaile in cases of necessity unto this High and Supreame Law the saifty of the People Then no lesse must the privileges of a Parliament yield unto this for whatever privilege they enjoy it is in order to this end and the meanes must alwayes have a subserviency unto the end and when they tend to the destruction of the end they are then as no meanes unto that end nor to be made use of for that end 5. Though King and Parliament both should conspire together against the good of the Land yet di jure they have no power or authority to destroy that End and whatever they enact or doe tending to the ruine of this maine and principal good which they should have before their eyes as their end is ipso facto null 6. When acts and actings of King and Parliament tend directly and are made and done of purpose to destroy and overthrow the work of reformation in doctrine worshipe discipline and government which was owned and established by lawes with all formalities of law and was avowed by solemne vowes Covenants attestations protestations declarations and engagements of all ranks of People from the highest to the lowest and courses are laid doune to force and constraine People to renunce their Covenant with God to turne perjured apostates and when by acts and actings the fundamental tearmes conditions of our reformed constitution confirmed by unrepelable lawes by the King 's accepting of his Crowne and Scepter and all other Magistrates accepting their places upon these tearmes are overturned and when by an arbitrary and illegal tyranny no man hath security for his life his lands his libertyes nor his religion is not the saifty of the People in danger No man needs to say who shall be judge The Magistrates or the people For all who have eyes to see may judge whether the Sun be shineing or not and all who have common sense may judge in this case When these things are done and avowed they cannot be denyed and no man of reason or religion will deny the inference Hence then it is cleare that no man in reason can condemne the late act of defence which was the only meane left for preserving of that which all government and Governours should level at viz. The saifty of the People both in soull and body their Religion Lives Liberties Privileges Possessions Goods and what was deare to them as men and as Christians howbeit it vvanted the formality of the authority of Soveraine Parliament or Councel No man vvho vvill not deny this axiome can condemne them as Traitors seing they vvere noble Patriots and loyall to that Supreame lavv The saifty of the People As to the other particular concerning the absolute power of the Soveragne We say 1. That the Soveraigne is under obligations to his People and bound limited by conditions we have shewed above which conditions he is bound to observe see Hoen Disp Pol. 9. 2. That the Soveraigne is not exempted from the lawes of God none but profane gracelesse vvreatches vvill deny since he is a creature of God's and a subject to him and his servant Rom. 13. and therefore must not transgresse his lawes under the paine of high treason and laese Majesty It was but a base saying of an impudent whore Iulia
to her step sone Antonius Caracalla si libet licet an nescis te imperatorem esse and no lesse impious was that saying of Anaxarchus to Alexander the Great when he had Killed Clitus in a rage Nesus adsessâ—rem jovi justitiam fas esse quo quicquid actum a dominante fuerit id jus fas sit as if for sooth Alexander could do no wrong It was an abhominable saying of these judges to Cambyses That though they could finde no law permitting a brother to marry his sister yet they knew of another law whereby it was lawful to the Kings of Persia to do whatsoever they pleased All Divines will grant this and so do Lawyers and Polititians See Bodine de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hoenon Disp Polit. 9. Thes 7. Paul Voetius Iurispr Sacra Gerhard de Magist Polit. § 119. Althus Polit. cap. 19. n. 9 10 11. Timpl. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 1. Our Surveyer grants this pag. 57 58. and elswhere 3. Neither is he exempted from the Lawes of Nature and Nations for the law of nature is the very Law of God and God hath no where Subjected his Law unto the vvill of Princes 4. Neither is the exempted from all the civil Lavves sayeth Hoenon ubi supra For sayes he many civil Lavves are but declarative of the Lavv of nature and consectaryes thereof and vvhat povver he hath he hath from the People and the People are certanely bound by these Lavves Yea as Boxhornius sayeth Instit Polit. lib. 1. pag. 33. Principi tantummodo licet quantum populus ei voluit licere No more is lawful for him then the People will The Surveyer in the forecited place sayeth It is a Royal thing for a King to live by the same good Lawes which are given by him to the People and it is of efficacious influence upon them to move them to walk in their dutyes orderly Rex tenetur servare Leges si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes But he might know that our King is bound to observe the Lawes even as Lawes and must pay his debt and submit to the decision of Judges as well as others 5. Our Surveyer confesseth Pag. 75. That the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God of reason and nature yea and to take his directions in government from the rational Lawes of the Kingdome which are deductions from or determinations of the Law of God reason and nature to particular circumstances agreed to by the consent and good likeing of his People Hence it followeth 1. That he cannot dispense by his prerogative Royal with a just Law according to his sole pleasure and so pardon such as deserve death 2. He cannot kill and slay whom he will but according to law 3. Nor can he alone make lawes 4. Nor can his will stand for a law 5. Nor is he the sole interpreter of the law 6. Nor in interpreting of the law hath he a dominion over it to expone it as he wil for if these be not granted it cannot be granted that he is bound to rule us by the Law of God of reason and of nature or by the Lawes of the Kingdome but according to his meer will and pleasure 6. It must be a most unreasonable thing to say That the Soveraignes power is absolute which Royalists contend so much for and say that he is above all law of man for then he might do what he pleased without controle But 1. did ever the People set a Soveraigne over themselves upon these tearmes Did ever People set him over themselves to rage at randon to kill murther massacre and do what seemed good in his eyes 2. Their condition should necessarily be worse after the constitution then it was before 3. The saifty of the People should not be the supreame Law 4. He might then break all bonds and oathes and keep no conditions which he had made 5. If so a Prince as a Prince should be a great plague and judgment to a People 6. All his Subjects should be formal Slaves unto him their lives all they have should be at his devotion 7. He should not then be the Servant of God for the good of the People contrare to Rom. 13 4. 8. If this power agree to him as King then it is from God and so God should give him a power to sin and tyrannize which is most false 9. Then there could be no Tyrants 10. Yea a King as a King should be a Tyrant in actu signato and a Tyrant should be nothing but a King in actu exercito 11. Yea if so they might not so much as be rebuked by the messengers of the Lord for their enormities contrare to the many instances in the Old Testament of Prophets rebuking Princes 12 if his power were absolute lawes would become no lawes neither were there need of lawes nor should the making of lawes be a meane to promove the good of the Realme all which are most absurd And as for for our King That he hath no such prerogative Royal as puts him above all limitations is already sufficiently evidenced by Lex Rex and by the Apology though this Surveyer is pleased to say Pag. 11. That his prerogative Royal is disputed downe most weakly and foolishly in the Apology Yet he will not see so much weaknesse and folly there as he imagineth when ever he cometh to handle that disput But I grant it is easier to him to say that all is weak and foolish which pleaseth nor him then to undertake the confutation thereof It is enough to him that he shew his teeth once and then run away But if he will afterward undertake that debate let him consider the particulars there mentioned and also these 24 particulars Mentioned by Lex Rex Quaest 23. pag. 205. 206. Unto which I shall adde that he may make one work of all these particulars which will furder serve to confirme what is there said and prove our poynt 1. As it is not proper and peculiar to the Kings of Scotland to make lavves and to explaine and interpret lavves so nor is it peculiar unto them to appoynt punishments unto transgressours to liberate and free from the stroke of the lavv As the late Parliament declared by their deed in murthering some and in liberating others guilty of Treason more then such as vvere executed and this by politicians is made a part of the Soveraignity See Bondin de repub mihi Edit Gall. pag. 236. Volgm in Synop de jure principum pag. 58. Hoen Disput Polit. pag. 124. Timpl. Polit. Lib. 5. c. 1. q. 2. 2. The last appeal cometh not alwayes to our King and yet this is reckoned among the royal prerogatives by Bodin ubi supra Pag. 321. and Heen Pag. 127. Timpl. Pol. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. quaest 2. 3. It is not proper and peculiar to the King to appoynt new imposts customes and taxes but Parliaments do this Act. 277. Parl.
15. Iam. 6. c. 2. Parl. 23. Iam. 6. Act. 1. Parl. 1. Char. 1. and act 14. 15. of the same parl act 13. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. and this is reckoned by the forementioned politicians among the prerogatives Volgm pag. 57. Hoen pag. 129. Bodin pag. 244. Timpl. ubi supra 4. Nor doth it belong to him alone to appoynt the value of money as is cleare by our acts act 67. parl 8. Iam. 3. act 93. 97. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 33. parl 8. Iam. 2. act 59. parl 13. Iam. 2. act 2. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 40. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. act 20. of the same parl act 249. parl 15. Iam. 6. c. 9. parl 16. Iam. 6. yet the forecited authors reckon this also among jura Majestatis 5. He must not rule us by his meer will but by the lawes of the land act 79. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 130. 131. parl 8. Iam. 6. and not by any special grant or privat privileges act 48. parl 3. Iam. 1. 6. He is not the proper judge of all causes in the first instance act 45. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 62. parl 8. Iam. 3. 7. Some causes are fully exempted from his judgment and determination act 105. parl 14. Iam. 3. 8. The Lords of the Session may finally decide causes according to the act 65. parl 3. Iam. 1. without any liberty granted to the party to appeal to the King act 63. parl 14. Iam. 2. and this privilege of the Session in ratified act 93. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 1. parl 2. Mar. act 170. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 183. of the same parl act 211. parl 14. Iam. 6. act 23. parl 1. Carol. 1. act 23. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. Yea the judges are allowed to discerne according to equity notwithstanding of any write of the King 's to the contrary act 92. parl 6. Iam. 6. act 47. parl 11. Iam. 6. act 79. of the same parl 9. He is limited in granting remissons sic act 46. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 51. parl 3. Iam. 1 act 75. parl 14. Iam. 2. act 42. parl 6. Iam. 3. act 94. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 62. 63. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 174. parl 13. Iam. 6. 10. He is limited in alienating of lands possessions or moveable goods act 2. parl 1. Iam. 2. act 41. parl 11. Iam. 2. act 70. and 71. parl 9. Iam. 3. act 112. parl 14. Iam. 3. act 5. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 10. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 22. ejusd parl act 50. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 90. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 84. parl 6. Iam. 5. act 115. and. 116. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 6. parl 9. Iam. 6. act 176. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 159. ejusdem parl act 203. and 204. parl 14. Iam. 6 act 236. parl 15. Iam. 6. act 242. and 243. ejusdem parl act 1. parl 16. Iam. 6. cap. 4. parl 23. Iam. 6. act 10. parl 1. Carol. 1. 11 So is he limited in erecting Royal brughs act 43. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He is limited in appoynting publick offices for admininistration of justice act 44. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He may not passe gifts signatures or remissions but with the consent of the privy Council act 12. parl 2. Iam. 4. 14. He hath been aftentimes admonished of his duty by the Parliament see act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 5. and. 6. parl 3. Iam. 2. act 14. parl 6. Iam. 2. act 92. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 8. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 29. parl 3. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. If this Surveyer hath a minde to defend the King 's civil prerogative royal or his absolute power Let him take all these particulars to his consideration but we goe on to our purpose From what hath been said concerning this limited power of the Kings we draw these particulars for our purpose 1. If the King be a limited Prince Then he may in some cases be lawfully resisted Gerhard himself de Magistrat Pol. § 484. pag. 1303. in answering of that quaestion what shall Subjects do if a Magistrate who is an infidel or an haeretick doth force them unto a false religion sayeth That such a Magistrate who hath absolute and unlimited power and is under no compacts may not be resisted by such as are meer Subjects So that he would grant in this case That it is lawful for meer private Subjects to resist a limited Prince who is bound by compacts and contracts It is true when he cometh afterward to speak of resisting a Tyrant and proponeth the quaestion § 486. whether such who have absolute power and turne Tyrants may be resisted after he hath cited some sayings of Papists he tells us § 487. That all the arguments of iunius Brutus Rossaeus Buckerius are solidly answered by Barclaius Albericus Gentilis Cunerus and Arnisaeus and this passage our Surveyer bringeth in Pag. 89. But who seeth not that it cometh not at all home to our purpose seing our King is not a King of absolute power though he hath his Kingdom by succession but is limited by conditions and stipulations And further every one may see the weaknesse of Gerhard's reasons and how inconsistent he is with himself For. 1. Sayeth he such is only under Gods jurisdicton But alas 1. May not I resist a person vvho is not under my jurisdiction 2. Royalists will say the same of all Princes even Barclaus and Arnisaeus Againe he sayes The People have translated their whole power unto such a Prince cannot recall it But 1. They have never translated over unto him a power to inslave themselves for that was not in their power to do Nor 2. Could they ever give away the power of self defence which is their birth right 3. Sayes he Subjects in this case want God's command and a Superiour power But 1. They have God's command in nature no lesse then these who are under limited Princes 2. They have a superior virtual power in cases of necessity 4. Sayes he He is a Father of the Republict and not a Tutor only and therefore as Children have no power over their Parents no more have Subjects over their Princes But 1. Are not even limited Princes as well Fathers to the Commonwealth So that by this argument it shall be as unlawfull to resist these which he will not say 2. Yea such absolute Princes Look rather to be Tygers and stated enemies unto the Common-wealth then Fathers 3. They have no proper Parental power as we shewed but Metaphorical 4. Even natural parents may be resisted Ergo much more they 5. We are not speaking of giving judgment against Tyrants but of resisting of them and if he grant this vve have our desire And his question vvas touching resistence § 485. Quest. 4. 2. A Limited and pactional Prince may be legally resisted Ergo also with force when a legal resistence cannot be had The antecedent is true
defend themselves and are mutually bound to assist and deliver one another So it now comes to be considered that seing the maintainance of truth and the true Worshipe of God were and are the principal ends and motives of contracting of Societyes and erecting of Governments whereunto both the People and Rulers are not only separatly every one for himself but joyntly obliged for the publick advancement and establishment thereof And that God doth therefore equally exact and avenge the sin of the Rulers only or of the People only or of any part of the People only upon the whole body of Rulers and People for their simple Tolerance and connivance without their active complyance with the transgressours of necessity both from the principles deduced and from the most visible judgments of God agreeable thereto there must be a supeperior and antecedent obligation to that of submission incumbent upon all both joyntly and separatly for the maintainance vindication and reformation of Religion in order to the promoving of these great ends of the publick profession of truth and true Worshipe which the Lord doth indispensibly require By vvhich any vvho read vvith judgment and attention and consider vvhat preceedeth and vvhat follovveth may see vvhat vvas that Authors scope and intention viz. to shevv in few vvords the lavvfulnesse of Peoples standing to the maintainance and defence of truth and the true Worship of God vvhen violated and enjured by these vvho by their places and callings should endeavour the establishing and perfect security thereof both from adversaries vvithin and vvithout as vvel as to the defence of their persones and libertyes vvhen wickedly persecuted for adhereing to God And that as it vvas not his scope and intention so nor will the words give ground to any vvho is not utterly blinded vvith prejudice and resolved to pervert the fairest and smoothest expressions that can be used to the end they may pervert truth deceive the simple who readily beleeve every thing to think that he pleadeth for any magistratical authority and povver to give out mandats and enjoyn execution upon transgressours in poynt of reformation of Religion unto privat persones Far lesse that he pleadeth for a povver due unto them to rise against and throvv dovvne King and all Magistrates supreame and subordinate and to use the vindicative punishing reforming povver of the sword even in case of defection in matter of Religion If any vvill but look to the end of that Paragraph they shall see this fully confirmed vvhere he is applying vvhat he said to the purpose he vvas upon viz. in vindication of vvhat vvas done by our first Reformers in the dayes of Mr Knox of whom only he is speaking in that part of his book for thus he speaketh and had not our Reformers great reason to feare and tremble least the manifest toleration of proud cruel and flattering Prelates who had perverted the lawful powers into bloody persecutors and of idolatrous Priests whose wickednesse and idolatry had corrupted the whole Land might involve not only themselves but the whole Nation in destroying and overflowing indignation Was there any such thing pretended or assumed by these Reformers but a power to defend and maintaine the true reformed Religion and their reformed Preachers against the malice of powers perverted and enraged against them by the bloody and pestilent counsel of the these idolatrous locusts and to hinder open and avowed idolatry which provoked God against the whole Land Did they ever arrogate to themselves the magistratical vindicative punishing and reforming power of the sword against all Magistrates Supreame and Subordinate Or doth Naphtaly say any such thing And yet this Surveyer because he cannot confute what is there nervously vindicated asserted and demonstrated That he may not be seen to do nothing for his hire he will thraw Naphtaly's words as he thinketh best and falsly and most impudently assert Pag. 83. That Naphtali sayeth Any party of meer private persones may rise against resist throw downe King and all Magistrates Supreame and Subordinate and in their Phinehas-like motions use the vindicative punishing reforming power of the sword especially in case of defection in matter of Religion and that there is a joynt obligation laying upon the people and every party thereof to vindicate and reforme Religion in a publick punitive way even against all Magistrates and Nobles and against the plurality of the people So that if any part of the people do think the Magistrates all of them or the plurality of the people patrons of abhominations any private party that think they have power enough may flee to the vindicative punishing and reforming sword and falt upon all Rulers and other whom they think to be in a defection and will boldly say that in truth they are so Who seeth not what perverting of truth is here When Naphtali only asserts that in case the Magistrate to whom the vindicative and in case of backslideing the reforming power is committed and who should make this his maine work shall turne the principal perverter and chief patron of these abhominations some other thing is required of the people then submission there lyeth upon them some obligation antecedent to that even an obligation to the maintainance vindication and reformation of Religion Which may be and is something distinct from that vindication and reformation which is incumbent on Magistrates even a vindication and reformation by way of maintainance of the received truth and hindering of idolatry and blasphemy or what is dishonorable to God pernicious to the commonwealth opposite to the true reformed Religion which may be done without arrogateing in the least that power which God hath committed to the Magistrates And this is far from useing the sword against the Magistrate and from throwing him down It is incumbent to the Magistrate to defend private subjects from Robbers and if they spoyl and robe a man's house to recover what is by robbery taken away but if he neglect this and rather patronize such Robbers It is a duty on the subject to defend his owne and vindicate and recover his goods the best way he can and who will say that it is an usurping of the Magistrates sword whereby he should punish Robbers defend the innocent and recover the goods of the spoyled or a riseing up aginst the Magistrate to dethrone him There is a private maintaining vindicateing and recovering of goods stollen which yet is active and may be effectual and there is a publick authoritative and magistratical defending vindicating and recovering The other may be incumbent to private persones in some cases when yet they do not usurpe this So in the Matters of Religion there is a private yet active and real maintaining vindicating and reforming of Religion when corrupted and there is a publick authoritative and Magistratical maintaining vindicating and reforming The former may be assumed by private persons in some cases without the least hazzard of incroaching upon this far more without
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
I have said to declare himself an enemy to that which so highly provoketh the wrath of God against the whole People For where Moses sayeth Let the city be burned c. he plainly doth signify that by the defection and idolatry of a few Gods wrath is kindled against the whole which is never quenched till such punishment be taken upon the offenders that whatsoever served them in their idolatry be brought to destruction because that it is execrable and cursed before God and therefore he will not that it be reserved to any use of his People I am not ignorant That this law was not put into execution as God commanded but what did thereof ensue and follow Histories declare viz. plague after plague till Israel and Iudah were led into captivity as the Books of the Kings do witnesse The consideration whereof maketh me more bold To affirme that it is the duty of every man who desireth to escape the plague and punishment of God to declare himself Enemy to idolatry not only in heart hateing the same but also in external gesture declareing that he lamenteth if he can do no more for such abhominations of these premises I suppose it be evident That the punishment of idolatry doth not appertaine to Kings only but also to the whole People yea to every member of the same according to his possibility For that is a thing most assured that no man can mourne lament and bewail for these things which he will not remove to the uttermost of his power And a little thereafterâ— And therefore I feare not to affirme that the Gentiles I meane every City Realme Province or Nation amongst the Gentiles imbraceing Christ Jesus and his true Religion be bound to the same league and Covenant that God made with his People Israel when he promised to root out the Nations before them in these words Exod. 34 12 13 14. to this same law and Covenant are the Gentiles no lesse bound then some time were the jewes vvhensoever God doth illuminate the eyes of any multitude Province People or City and puteth the sword in their ovvn hand to remove such enormities from amongst them as before they knevv to be abhominable Then I say are they no lesse bound to purge their Dominions Cities and Countreyes from idolatry then vvere the Israelites vvhat time they received the possession of the Land of Canaan And moreover I say if any goe about to erect and set up idolatry or to teach defection from God after that the verity hath been received and approved that then not only the Magistrates to vvhom the svvord is committed but also the People are bound by that oath vvhich they have made to God to revenge to the utmost of their povver the injury done against his Majesty So in his admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland Pag. 36. Neither would I that you should esteem the reformation and care of Religion lesse to appertaine to you because yee are not Kings Judges Nobles nor in authority Beloved brethren you are God's Creatures created and formed to his owne image and similitude for whose redemption was shed the most precious blood of the only beloved sone of God to whom he hath commanded his gospel and glade tidings to be preached and for whom he hath prepared the heavenly inheritance so that yee will not obstinately refuse and disdainfully contemne the meanes which he hath appoynted to obtaine the same for albeit God hath put and ordained distinction betwixt King and Subjects yet in the hope of the life to come he hath made all equal and therefore I say that it doth no lesse appertaine to you to be assured that your faith and Religion be grounded and established upon the true and undoubted word of God then to your Princes or Rulers for as your bodyes cannot escape corporal death if with your Princes you eate or drink deadly poison although it be by ignorance or negligence so shall ye not escape the everlasting if with them yee professe a corrupt Religion and this is the cause that so oft I repeate and so constantly I affirme that to you it doth no lesse appertaine then to your King or Princes to provide that Christ Iesus be truely preached among you seing without his true knowledge you cannot attaine to salvation More to this purpose may be read there CAP. X. Arguments taken from the hazard of becoming guilty of the sin of others and of partaking of their Judgments And from the duty of relieving the oppressed c. IT is not necessary for our purpose to dip much into that question concerning Gods imputing of the sin of one unto others and therefore we shal shortly hint at some few particulars from Scripture and after we have considered what this Surveyer sayeth we shall apply them to our purpose That God doth punish some and that most justly for the sinnes of others the Scripture doth abundantly verifie Not to insist on the instances of his punishing of whole families for the sinnes of the Head of the family as the family of Pharaoh Gen. 12 v. 17. of Abimelech Gen. 20 v. 17 18. of Corah and his companions Num. 16 v. 27 32 33. of Achan Ios 7 v. 24 25. of Ieroboam 1 King 14 v. 10 11. Cap. 15 29. of Ahab 1 King 21 v. 21 22 24. 2 King 9 v. 8. of Baasha 1 King 16 3 4. of Iehoram 2 Chron. 21 14. Nor on the instances of his punishing of Servants for the sinnes of their Masters or the Children and Posterity for the sinnes of their Parents as in the 2 Command where he threatneth to visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children unto the 3 and 4 generation So also Levit. 26 ver 38 39. Deut. 28 v. 18 32 45 46. So the Children of such as were drowned in the flood Gen. 6 7. The posterity of Canaan Gen. 9 v. 24 25 26 27. The children of the Egyptians Exod. 11 v. 5 6. of the Israelites Num. 14 v. 33. Psal 106 v. 27. of Dathan and Abiram Num. 16. of the Canaanites Deut. 3 Cap. 20. of the Amalekites 1 Sam. 15. of Saul 1 Sam. 21. of Cehazie 2 King 5 ver 27. of the Babilonians Esai 14 ver 21 22. of Semaia Ier. 24. v. 32. Hence true penitents acknowledge are humbled for not only their owne sinnes but the sinnes of their Fathers Ezra 9. Dan. 9. Job sayes Cap. 21 v. 19. God layeth up his iniquity or the punishment of his iniquity as it is in the margine for his children But to passe these we finde moreover 1. That People have been punished for the sinnes of their Pastors or in hazard to be punished therefore When Nadab and Abihu had provoked the Lord with their strange fire Moses spoke unto Aaron and to his other two Sones and sayd Levit. 10 v. 6. Vncover not your heads neither rend your cloathes lest you die N. B. and left wrath come upon all the People So that their sin would
so for this offence all the land was punished because at least as it oft hapneth the people had not hindered it Then Pag. 52. he cometh to explaine his other assertion It is no lesse certane sayes he to us that if the Magistrate do not connive at the sinnes of Subjects nor neglect to curb and punish them the sins of the people shall no way be imputed to him he not being thereunto accessory in any way nor shall be punished for their sinnes which in his place and calling he is wrestling against Answ Yet we know that for the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof Prov. 8. v. 2. And that for a punishment to people God may even cut the dayes of a good prince and though we should grant that it were no proper punishment unto the good Prince yet materially and in it self it is a stroke But he addeth Also it is alike certane That private persons shall not have the sinnes of Magistrates or of the body of the people imputed unto them nor be punished for the same if so be they honestly endeavour to do all things against these sins which in their privat calling they are bound to do Answ Be this granted The main question will be if people can be said to have honestly endeavoured to do all things against these sinnes which in their privat callings they are bound to do if having power to withstand the committing of these evills or to remove them after they are committed yet they forbeare and suffer these things to be done and labour not to remove them He addeth If they keep themselves without any degree of acting these sins or any way of accession to them if they mourne and sigh for evils that are done if they be earnest in prayer that God may convert others from their evil way if they as they can have opportunity faithfully admonish and study to reclaime those who are out of the way and do such like Christian dutyes God will never enter in judgment vvith them for not doing violence to the authorityes that are above them Answ If the Surveyer would do no more then this he ought neither to be accounted a good Christian nor a loyal subject For if he saw the King about to cut his owne throat with a knife or about to do as Saul did fall upon his owne sword or runing doun a precipice to break his neck would any think he had had done his duty and exonered his conscience if he should not lead his hand unto that mischief nor thrust him doune the principice but should roare and cry God save the King and admonish and study with faire words to reclaime the King from that cruel deed would any think but he might have done more even if he had had strength enough have holden his hands and keeped him back from breaking his neck and yet never have been in any hazard or sinfully touching the Lord's anoynted or doing violence to the authority that God had set over him 2. And if Kings may be-resisted and with violence hindered from putting hands in themselves or from drinking a cup of poyson or doing some such deed which will or may prove destructive to their life and posterity without doing violence to the authority appoynted of God vvhy may they not also be hindered from doing that which will ruine their souls and prove destructive to their Kingdomes and bring on the curse and vengeance of God upon young and old without doing any sinful violence unto the authority And as in the former case a man could not but be guilty of the King's death who knew that it was a cup of poyson which he was to drink and did not having power to do it hinder him from drinking it So in this case they that have power to hinder the Magistrate from drinking poyson or doing what may be deadly to thousands of his innocent subjects and bring downe the curse of God upon him and his posterity and do it not cannot but be guilty of that sin before God and so cannot expect to be free of the punishment which God will inflict because of that sin as not having done even in their private callings what they were bound to do viz. not having used their power for the glory of God the good of the Soveraigne and his posterity nor for the good of the Commonwealth which they were bound to do He tells us moreover concerning that instance of Manasseh Ier. 15 v. 4. That the people were punished because they were shares of the guiltinesse not by not violent resisting which they were never exhorted to but by direct or indirect accession otherwayes Hos 5 ver 11. Ier. 5 v. 31. Ans 1. How could young children be accessory either by consent or any otherwayes to these courses of Manasseh 2. It were hard to say that even all who were come to the use of reason were guilty of accession unto these wickednesses who yet were carryed away captive such as Daniel Hananiah Mishael and Azaria and others 3. That there were many yea the far greatest part of the People who were guilty of hainous sinnes when the final stroke came cannot be denyed but that they were at that same hight of wickednesse which they were at in Manasseh's dayes is doubted 4. We shalll grant with Calvin on the place That Manasseh alone was not in that transgression but had many of the People consenting Yet as Manasseh himself was dead long ere the stroke came so were they and yet for that sin of theirs the posterity suffered Yea even notwitstanding that there interveened a National repentance and mourning for that National sin and National Reformation of these idolatrous courses in the dayes of Iosiah 5. Though it be true that the People after Iosiah's dayes returned to their vomite and had wickednesse enough of their owne for which God might have punished them yet it is very remarkable how that sin of Manasseh is particularly mentioned as if there had not been another to procure that stroke and certanely all who read the places cited before will easily observe that there is something more in them then an occasion taken to remember that dreadful time of Manasseh when the wickednesse began as the Surveyer sayeth in the following words 6. It was their sin I grant that they did consent and that sayeth that they should not have consented but have refused obedience unto the King idolatrous mandats and have hindered in their places an according to their power the setting up of these abhominations and should have adhered to the truth and worship of God as it was practised in the dayes of good Hezekiah his Father 7. He needs not say they were not exhorted to this violent resisting for it was but folly to speak of resistence to these who so willingly walked after the commandement and would not do so much as disobey 8. That place of Hoseah speaking of Ephraim's willingly walking after the commandment proves
and resolved not to returne to their owne houses ver 8. until these Children of Belial in Gibeah had been executed and evil was put away from Israel Cap. 13 v. 2. To say that this speaks not to our case is but to wrangle for sure if we should suppose that Benjamin had been maintaining their integrity and the true worshipe of God against the generality of the People who had turned idolaters and had raised war against them because they would not depart from their profession would he have condemned the minor part for standing to their defence in this case Or if they should have joyned together to have hindered the defection of the major part or removed the corruptious that were prevailing would he have condemned them Sure this is not improve Scripture a right but rather to elude it for there is not the least shaddow that the stresse of the matter is laid on this that they vvere the major part Finally he cometh to Achan's case Jos 7. and tells us That there is nothing in it to justify private persones rising against the Magistrates and plurality of the people to avert the judgments of God for what was done to Achan was done by the Supreame Magistrat Josua Answer But Naphtaly only maketh use of this place to shew that our reformers had great reason to feare and tremble lest the manifest toleration of proud cruel flattering Prelats and idolatrous Priests whose wickednesse and idolatry had corrupted the whole land might involve the whole Nation in destroying indignation since the wrath of God for the hidden and secret sin of one poor Achan suddenly and fearfully overtook the whole People and all the congregation of Israel so that that man perished not alone in his iniquity Now can any body deny this consequence But our Surveyer layeth downe againe his peremptory assertions without further proof and we have spoken to them already and need not repeat things so oft as he gives us occasion so to do otherwise we should follow this fool in his folly and weary the reader as he doth in repeating almost whole pages verbatim let any look and he shall finde the whole 61 page except some groundlesse jibes which do not help his cause nothing almost but repetitions We shall then goe on and draw forth our arguments from what is said to shew that the late act ought rather to be praised then condemned For 1. Thereby they were endeavouring according to their power and places as that exigent required when all doores were closed from essaying any other meane not only to defend themselves against manifest and intolerable injury and oppression but to save themselves their posterity and the whole land so far as lay in their power from the wrath and vengeance of God and the dreadful plagues and judgments that were and are to be expected for the dreadful and unparallelable apostasy and defection of a corrupt ministry Did God threaten that Zion should be plowed as a field and Ierusalem become as a heape That Iacob should be given to the curse and Israel to reproaches for the sinnes of a corrupt ministry and when our eyes did never see a more corrupt company who have partly apostatized from their sworne profession and partly are thrust in over flocks to the ruineing of their souls the corrupting of the truthes of God and to be a standing occasion of dreadful persecution unto them and when for this cause nothing could or can be looked for from the hands of a just and jealous God but wrath without remedy and judgment after judgment till we become as plowed fields and as heaps Can or ought these to be blamed who standing to their sworne profession were labouring in the integrity of their hearts to purge the land of these plagues and locusts that we might become a holy and pure Church unto the Lord and that the Lord might delight to dwell among us and for this end tooke their lives in their hands and essayed that now sole remedy seing there was no other meane left unto them whereby to attaine this noble End 2. When one Apostat city not taken course with according to the command of God would provoke God to anger against the whole assembly of God's People so that till it was destroyed he would not have mercy or compassion upon them was there not much more reason to feare that God's anger should burne against Scotland his covenanted People and that he should have no more mercy on us since there was such a dreadful defection in it whereof not only one city but many cities were in an eminent manner guilty having so foulely departed from their sworne truth and profession and openly and avowedly revolted from God and his wayes and since there was no other way imaginable to prevent this heavy indignation of God Shall any condemne these who our of Zeal to God's Glory and for the good of the poor land whereof they were members took their lives in their hands and did what lay in their power to have that corruption and apostasy removed and God restored to his honour and the land to it s Covenanted integrity 3. Since the backslideing and defection of a few members of a Society joyned together in a Covenant to God as his People brings vvrath upon the vvhole if timeous remedy be not used as the forecited places shevv Shall any condemne these vvho endeavoured according to their povver to prevent the destruction that vvas and is to be feared for the defection not of a fevv not of one poor Achan but of multitudes and that of all ranks and conditions 4. Did the people of Israel goe out as one man to prevent apostasy when they heard some rumore thereof in a part of their number and to take course with and purge the land of a crying evil that was committed in one of their cities who shall condemne these who lately went out with one heart and spirit to do what in them lay to remove the far-carryed-on defection and the dreadful evil of perjury and many other hainous crimes that did yet do abound whereof Many of all rankes were guilty even such as should have been by their publick places and stations eminently appearing on the head of these worthyes for the glory of God and the good of the whole Church and Kingdome 5. Seing the publick transgressions of Kings and Princes do hazard the whole Realme and Commonwealth as the instances formerly adduced do cleare How much reason have People of all rankes qualityes and conditions to be doing what lyeth in their power either to prevent and hinder that these iniquities be not committed which prove destructive unto the Land or labour by all meanes to have them done away when committed before the fierce anger of the Lord break forth And since it is not our and undenyable how our Kings and Nobles and other judges have revolted from a sworne Covenant Truth and Profession and openly and avowedly renunced the
contrary criminal and guilty with your Princes and Rulers in the same crimes because you assist and maintaine your Princes in their blind rage and give no declaration that their tyranny displeaseth you This doctrine I know is strange to the blinde world but the verity thereof hath been declared in all notable punishments from the beginning vvhen the Original vvorld perished by vvater vvhen Sodome and Gomorah vvere punished by fire and finally vvhen Ierusalem vvas horribly destroyed doth any think that all vvere alike vvicked before the vvorld Evident it is that they vvere not if they be judged according to their external facts for some were young and could not be oppressours nor could defile themselves with unnatural and beastly lusts Some were pitiful and gentle of nature and did not thirst for the blood of Christ and his Apostles but did any escape the plagues and vengeance which did apprehend the multitude let the scripture witnesse and the histories be considered which plainly do testify that by the vvaters all flesh onâ—arth at that time did perish Noah and his family reserved That none escaped in Sodome and in the other cities adjacent except Lot and his tvvo daughters And evident it is that in that famous city of Ierusalem in that last and horrible destruction none escaped God's vengeance except so many as before were dispersed And what is the cause of this severity seing that all were not alike offenders let flesh cease to disput with God and let all men by these examples learne betimes to flee and avoyd the society and company of the proud contemners of God if that they list not to be partakers of their plagues The cause is evident if we can be subject without grudging to God's judgments which in themselves are most holy and just for in the original world none was found that either did resist tyranny nor yet that earnestly reprehended the same In Sodome was none found that did gain-stand that furious and beastly multitude that did compasse about and besiege the house of Lot and finally in Ierusalem was found none that studyed to reprepresse the tyranny of the priests vvho vvere conjured against Christ and his Evangel but all fainted I except ever such as gave vvitnesse vvith their blood or flying that such impiety displeased them all keeped silence by the which all approved iniquity and joyned hands with the Tyrants and so were arrayed and set as it were in one battle against the almighty and against his Son Christ Jesus for whosoever gathereth not with Christ in the day of his harvest is judged to scatter and therefore of one vengeance temporal were they all partakers will God in this behalf hold you as innocents be not deceived dear Brethren God hath punished not only the proud tyrants filthy persones and cruel murtherers but also such as with them did draw the yoke of iniquity vvas it by flattering their offences obeying their unjust commands or in winking at their manifest iniquity All such I say God once punished vvith the chief offenders Be ye assured brethren That as he is immutable in nature so will he not pardon you in that which he hath punished in others and now the lesse because he hath plainly admonished you of the dangers come and hath offered you his mercy before he poure forth his wrath and displeasure upon the disobedient So in his Exhortation to England P ag 107. No other assurate will I require that your plagues are at hand and that your destruction approacheth then that I shall understand that yee do justify your selves in this your former iniquity absolve and flatter you who list God the Father His son Christ Jesus his holy Angels the creatures sensible and insensible in heaven and earth shall rise in judgment and shall condemne you if in time you repent not The cause why I wrape you all in idolatry all in murther and all in one and the same iniquity is that none of you hath done his duty none hath remembered his office and charge which was to have resisted to the uttermost of your power that impiety at the beginning but you have all follovved the wicked commandement and all have consented to cruel murther in so far as in your eyes your Brethren have most unjustly suffered and none opened his mouth to complaine of that injury cruelty and Murther I do ever except such as either by their death by abstaining from Idolatry or by avoiding the realme for iniquity in the same committed and give testimony that such an horrible falling from God did inwardly grieve them But all the rest even from the highest to the lowest I feare no more to accuse of idolatry of treason committed against God and of cruel Murthering of their brethren then did Zecharias the son of Iehojadah 2 Chron. 24 ver 20. feare to say to the King Princes and People of Iudah Why have yee transgressed the commandements of the Eternal God it shall not prosperously succeed unto you but even as ye have left the Lord so shall he leave you And againe Pag. 109. But let his holy and blessed ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ to his Kirk be within the bounds so sure and established that if Prince King or Emperour would interprise to change or disannul the same that he be the reputed enemy of God and therefore unworthy to reigne above his people Yea that the same Man or Men that goe about to destroy God's true Religion once established and to erect idolatry which God detasteth be adjudged to death according to God's commandement The negligence of which part hath made you all these only excepted which before I have expressed murtherers of your Brethren denyers of Christ Jesus and manifest traitours to God's Soveraigne Majesty Which horrible crimes if ye will avoyd in time comeing then must yee I meane the Princes Rulers and People of the realme by solemne Covenant renew the oath betwixt God and you in that forme and as Asa King of Iudah did in the like case 2 Chron. 15. This is thy duty this is the only remedy O England to stay God's vengeance which thou hast long deserved and shall not escape if his Religion and Honour be subject to mutation and change as oft as thy Rulers list The-reader may consider also what he sayes to this in his discourse with Litingtoun who was of this Surveyer's judgment History of Reformation Lib. 4. This is consonant likewise unto our confession of faith authorized by King Iames and Parliament Anno 1567. Act. 14. where among good works of the 2 table these are mentioned To honour Father Mother Princes Rulers and Superiour powers To love them to support them yea to obey their charge not repugning to the commandement of God to save the lives of innocents to represse tyranny to defend the oppressed c. the contrary whereof is To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in authority while they passe not over the bounds of their office to
murther or to consent thereunto to bear hatred or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it c. Citeing in the Margine Ezech. 22 1 2 3 4. c. where the bloody City is to be judged because she relieved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6. And to what Ambrose sayeth de office Lib. 1. c. 36. saying qui non repellit a socio injuriam si potest tam est in vitio quam ille qui facit i. e. he who doth not repel an injury from his brother when he may isas guilty as he who doth the injury And this he cleareth by Moses his deed defending the Hebrew against the Egyptian CAP XI Of our qualified alledgiance to the King Our Arguments hence THe author of Naphtaly Pag. 177 said That all powers are subordinate to the Most high and appoynted and limited by his holy will and commandement for his owne glory and the Peoples good and our allegiance was and standeth perpetually and expresly thus qualified viz. in defence of Religion and Liberty according to our first and second Covenants all allegiance obedience to any created power whatsoever though in the construction of charity apparently indefinite yet in its owne nature is indispensably thus restricted By which words any who will duely consider the scope which that author doth drive at will see That his meaning was That as obedience and allaigeance is to be given to Magistrates only in the Lord So the same ought to be promised with this qualification or limitation so far as it is not contrary to Religion and Liberty of the Subject thus we all swore to defend his Majesties person and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Libertyes of the Kingdomes and it is plaine to all who will not shut their eyes that the foresaid author putteth no corrupt glosse upon that necessary clause and qualification for while he is dissuadeing from taking of that bond which was urged upon the People of Edinburgh he useth the words cited furder addeth To renew the same or take any the like oath of allegiance purely and simply purposely omitting the former and due restriction especially when the powers are in most manifest notorious rebellion against the Lord opposition to his cause and Covenant is in effect equivalent to an expresse rejecting and disowning of the same limitation and of the Soveraigne prerogative of the Great God and King over all which is thereby reserved as much as in plaine tearmes to affirme That whatever abused authority shall command or do either as to the overturning of the work of God subverting of Religion destroying of Rights and Libertyes or persecuting of all the faithful to the utmost extremity we shall not only stupidly endure it but activly concurre with and assist in all this tyranny What could have been spoken either more full or plaine both for explicating the genuine import of that restriction or qualification or the authors Orthodox sense thereof Yet behold how this wrangling pamphleter because he can get nothing to say against the truth asserted must wrest words and sense and all that he may have something to say against the straw-adversary of his owne setting up Therefore he tells us Pag. 6. Can this assertion subsist that neither alledgiance or fidelity nor obedience is to be given to any created power but in defence of Religion and Liberty As if Naphtaly had meaned That no alledgiance fidelity or obedience was due or to be given to the created powers but when and in so far as they did actually owne and contribute their utmost for the promoving or establishing of Religion and the Liberties of the People Whileas his meaning is clearly seen to have been this That as all powers are subordinate unto God the great King over all So all alledgiance fidelity or obedience is to be promised and given unto them with a reserve of the allegiance fidelity and obedience due to God the Highest of all and that man's interest is not to be preferred unto God's but alwayes acknowledged in subordination thereunto So that when earthly powers are stated Enemies to Christ and his interest no absolute allegiance fidelity or obedience is to be promised But alwayes with this restriction or limitation Neither are the Subjects bound to concurre or assist them while in such a stated course of opposition to the King of King's and while actively endeavouring to destroy his great interest in the world But what sayes our Surveyer furder That obedience is not to be given unto any creature on earth against Religion or the revealed will of God shall be easily granted we ahhore the very thought of so doing Ans Though he abhore the very thought of so doing yet many will say that he hath not abhorred to do it It is against God's expresse and revealed will to commit perjury and renunce a Covenant sworne with hands lifted up to the most high God and yet he knowes who is guilty of this maketh the will of a creature the Law of the Conscience when the appendix is a full belly Againe sayes he it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to powers against the liberty competent to us as subjects and consistent with Soveraignity yet so that the measure of that liberty must not be made by every man's private will but by the declarature of the Parliament representative of the Subjects which best knowes what thereunto belongs Answ This royal liberal man would seem to yeeld something in favours of the liberty of the People but with his annexed clause and restrictions he takes all back again For 1. sayes he it must be consistent with Soveraignity and how wide a mouth this Soveraignity hath in his and his complices estimation many know and we have seem in part even so wide as that is shall swallow up all the Peoples liberties like one of Pharaohs leane kine that eates up the fat and yet is never the fatter Then 2. it must be determined by the Representatives as if the Representatives were not ex officio bound and obliged to maintaine the Liberties of the People which belong to the People ere the Representatives have a being and as if it were in the power of the Representatives to sell and betray the Libertyes of the People or as if no more were competent to the Subjects de jure then what they will Hath a man no more right to his lands aud heritages then what his advocate who betrayeth his trust for a larger summe of money alloweth him or declareth We know Parliaments can basely betray their trust and sell away the Libertyes of a People contrare to their vow and oath to God and their obligation to the People whose trustees they should be and shall People have no more liberty competent to them then what a perfidious company conspired against the good of the Commonwealth to pleasure a sinful Creature determineth
majesty for his paines or paine is not afrayed to rub by what he sayes here upon his sacred Majesty and his Royal Councel for if persons withdrawne and out of the Kingdom cease to be subjects to the King How could the King and council summon home the Scottish officers who served under the States of the Netherlands and were servants to them and under their pay and had been in their bounds all most all their dayes yea some of them were borne under the States and yet for not comeing to the Kings dominions upon his call and charge they were denunced rebels fore faulted and stand under that sentence to this day for any thing I know which though I account the most unjust inhumane barbarous irrational act that can be so that it may well be reckoned among the Surveyer's monsters of stöical paradoxes yet I think tendernesse to his Majesties honour and credite should have made him spare to have set downe this parenthesis But some men it seemes have liberty to say what they can or will if it may help the desperate cause though it should reflect upon King and Council both Let a friend goe with a foe 13. It was not to Parliaments or inferiour Magistrates that Christ said alittle before he was to be apprehended Luk. 22 36 38. But now-he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one and they say Lord here are two swords and he said unto them it is enough Here is enough to evince the lawfulnesse of resisting with force unjust oppressours for if Christ had thought it simply unlawful why would he have desired his naked private disciples to buy swords which are weapons for forcible resistence and defence and that at such a time It is true he would not suffer them to make use of them as they would not because it was simply unlawful for them to rescue him out of the hands of that band of robbers for he useth no such argument to dissuade them but because he was commanded of the father to yeeld and to lay downe his life of his owne accord and therefore was it also that he would not use the help of angells as he might have done in his owne defence therefore said he Ioh. 18 ver 10 11. put up thy sword into the sheath the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink Mathew addeth Cap. 26 52 53. thinkest thow that I cannot pray to my father and he shall presently give me more then twelue legions of angells God had revealed his will that Christ behoved to suffer Mat. 16 ver 21 22 23. Ioh. 20 24. and that was sufficient to restraine this act of self preservation hic nunc which was otherwise lawful as well as it did restraine from flight a mean which Christ at other times used for his preservation Neither did his word to Peter import that this self defence was unlawful but the reasones of it were as River sayes in decal 6. praec 1. Because it had a kinde of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not Christ's answere 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrâ—re to God's will revealed to Peter 14. That doctrine cannot be of God which to the eye of sound reason to all rational persones doth remedylesly unavoydably tend to overthrow and destroy polities all order and all humane society and open a gap and wide door to all confusion disorder tyranny oppression cruelty and injustice Our Surveyer cannot deny this proposition seing he maketh use if it or of one very like unto it Pag. 43. But to say that a poor oppressed people may not defend themselves in extreame necessity against the oppression and tyranny of Magistrates and resist unjust violence with violence is to all rational persones a remedylesse and unavoydable course laid downe for utter overturning of all Society is an opening of a door to all confusion disorder tyranny oppression Murthers cruelty injustice c. for when Magistrates turne Tyrants oppressours set themselves to seek the ruine and destruction of their Kingdomes and of all their Subjects in bodyes goods and Consciences and sell themselves to do such villany and wickednesse there is no remedy by this doctrine the Commonwealth is utterly gone oppression and Murthers are increased all is overthrowne and overturned and there is no help Thus God shall have given a power to one man to kill and massacre millions of Christians to destroy whole Commonwealthes and to root them out and all their memorial that no more mention should be made of them But who can beleeve this Yea if this were received as a truth what incouragement were it to tyranny and oppression And what mischief would not wicked hearts contrive and execute if they did not feare opposition and resistence This Surveyer tels us Pag. 103. That it is enough to keep Kings right to tell them they must answer to God But we see that for all this there are moe evil and wicked Kings then good and it is more then probable that that alone vvould no more suppresse their tyranny and keep them from wickednesse then the fear of the gallowes would keep theeves from stealing and robbing if they knew that no body would resist them or oppose them with force when they came to steal and rob 15. By this doctrine People should be in the most miserable condition imaginable when under governours for not only should they be lyable to all the oppressions of Magistrates tyrannizing over them and have their hands bound up so that they could not helpe themselves but also unto the opression and tyranny of every one who could but say he had a commission from his Majesty to kill and murther all whom he pleased For they might not resist whether he had a real commission or not lest they should resist the ordinance of God in resisting a servant sent of the King to execute his lust and cruelty with expresse warrand and commission thus there would be as many irresistible tyrants armed with absolute and irresistible power as one Tyrant will and the people might no more use violent resistence against them then against him A doctrine I am sure poynt blanck contrary to all reason and equity 16. If forraigne princes may lawfully help a poor people oppressed by their owne Soveraigne Then people may lawfully if they be able hold in the paines of these forraigne princes and defend themselves But the former is granted by casuists and politicians Therefore c. The consequence cannot be denyed for forraigners have no more power or authority over another soveraigne then the people have themselves and what justice or equity of the cause could warrand them to come to their reliefe and succoure the same will warrand the persones injured to help themselves if they be able 17. As the law of Nature will allow this self defence even to
to them to procure their good and defend them from evil so subjects ought to have such hearts to their King as Children have to their fathers giving them speical reverence subjection and obedience from their very soul and inward affection Answ All this sayes that as Kings are metaphorical Fathers so Subjects are metaphorical Children But as it doth not say that Kings should become Tyrants not carry fatherly affection tovvards their Subjects so it doth not say that Subejcts may not resist their tyrannical rage and fury vvherein they acte not as fathers but as Tygers 2. It is true special reverence subjection obedience is due to Magistrats but alvvayes in the Lord The relation is mutual if they carry not as official fathers seeking the good of the subjects and defending them but as devouring Lyons seeking the destruction of their Subjects both in soul and body they cannot expect according to vvhat he sayeth that hearty subjection and obedience vvhich othervvise they might have 3. Being but official fathers appoynted by the subjects and set over them by their vvill and consent they must have lesse povver to vvronge the Subjects then Parents have to vvronge their Children vvho have not that relation by vertue of any formal compact with or consent of their Children So that when they do injuries Subjects are in a greater capacity to help themselves then Children are vvhen their Parents to injure them He addeth Although some times they are not such as they ought to be yet they ought to account their persons sealed with Gods ordinance and the image of of his Soveraignity sacred and inviolable resolving to suffer any thing of them rather then be guilty of parricide although under the colour of self defence Gods law in the fift command hath injoyned reverence subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calv. Iustit Lib. 4. Cap. 8. c. Answ We are not speaking of doing violence unto the persons of Soveraignes or of committing parricide but only of the matter of resistance and of natural sinlesse selfe defence vvhich is far different from Killing of Kings If he think the one of the same nature vvith the other he vvrongeth the King's life more then he is avvare of Though Children as Children may not Kill their parents yet they may defend themselves from their unjust violence 2. We grant Kings are comprehended in the fift commandement under the title of parents as Calvin doth and not only Kings but all Superiours yet he will not say I suppose that we are not to resist the unjust violence of any superiour but that they are all so sacred and inviolable as that in all things they must be subjected unto without the least resistence and therefore what he addeth is not to the poynt 4. We have shewed above that there is a vaste disparity betvvixt Masters and Kings in reference to their slaves and subjects He himself acknovvledgeth this Pag. 31. Yet sayes he though there be these differences betwixt the dominative or masterly and the Royal or Magistratical power the inferiours subjection in suffering even wrongfully if God permit in his providence the power to be abused is no lesse under the one power then under the other by vertue of Divine Law Subjects serve the Soveraigne though they be not slaves and not only conquered people are called Servants 2 Sam. 8 v. 14. but also ordinary subjects 2 Sam. 11 V. 24. 1 King 12 V. 4. Though he also be in a sense their servant not in relation of an inferiour to a superiour for so the Magistrate is only the Minister of God for the Peoples good and never called their Minister but in relation of the meanes to the end as Angles are ministring spirits for the heires of salvation and Ministers are Servants to the People c. Answ That the subjection is alike in both these relations can with no colour of reason be asserted for it is absurd to say that Subjects who set up the Magistrate who limite his power who binde him by Covenants and designe their owne good in setting him up do it in a voluntary way are the same way subject to their Princes as slaves who are as other goods for the profite of the Master are both in bodyes goods otherwise subject unto their Masters and that in a manner against their will either being sold or redeeming their life in war by giving themselves up as slaves 2. As there are various Kindes of Superiours so the relation varyeth and is more or lesse closse and efficacious and the subjection must accordingly vary I am not alike subjected to every one that is over me as I am subjected to my Soveraigne nor am I so subjected to him as to my natural parents or as a wife is to her husband 3. Though the Subejcts in some sense call themselves servants to the soveraigne which yet is often a tearme of civil respect for Naaman called himself Elisha's servant 2 King 5 15. and Obadiah said the like to Elijah 1 King 18 9. yet if they be not slaves they must have more allowance then slaves have and so have more povver to resist unjust violence then they had 4. If the Magistrate be the peoples servant in relation of the meanes to the end then the relation betvvixt him and his Subejcts is not such a relation as is betvvixt Parents and Children or betwixt Masters and Slaves for the end of these relations is not the good of Children and slaves And next Subejcts must have more power allowed them to see to the end which is their owne good and to see that the means prove not destructive of the end and if the meanes prove no meanes the relation falleth and he is no more a servant seeking their good but a Tyrant seeking his owne 5. It is sooner said then proved that the People who set up the King are not superiour to the King He should have aswered Lex Rex as to this but it is like he thinketh that his saying thus is more firme and irrefragable then Lex Rex reasonings to the contrary But I know not who will think so with him 6. There is a great difference betwixt Angels serving the saints or rather serving God that way and the King serving his People The saints have no hand in setting up angels to protect them as People have in setting up Magistrates 7. If they be servants as ministers are then though in regard of their official power they should not be subject to the People yet they may be resisted as was shevved above and this is all vve presse for 5. There is a great difference betwixt suffering of Buffettings and correction and such like petty private personal injuries at the hands of Parents or Masters and the suffering of losse of Liberties Life Lands Religion and such like which tend to the ruine of the Commonwealth To this our Surveyer replyeth two things Pag. 32. as 1. The grounds that such men
for as Lex Rex sheweth The Church of God was to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord because she had sinned Micah 9 10 11 12. and yet she was not obliged to non-resistence but rather obliged to fight against here Enemies David beare patiently the wrong that this Sone absolome did to him as is clear by 2 Sam. 25 ver 25 26. and Cap. 16 v. 10 11 12. Psal 3 v 1 2 3. Yet did he lawfully resist him and his forces So we are to beare sicknesse paines and torments which the Lord sendeth on us and yet very lawfully may we labour and use all lawful meanes to be freed from them 10. Christ's Rule to us Math. 5 v. 39. is that whosoever shall smile us on the right cheek we should turne the other to him also and what more patient subjection can be required by a Magistrate of his subjects and yet this will not make it altogether unlawful for private persones to defend themselves from unjust violence offered them by their equalls or inferiours No more will it follow from that patient subjection that we owe to Rulers that in no case we may resist their unjust violence and defend ourselves there from 11. I hope notwithstanding of any thing that is spoken in these passages he will allow children when wronged by their Parents and Servants when iniured by their Masters liberty to complaine to Magistrates who are over both and yet this is the useing of a legal resistence and as much opposite if at all opposite to the patience and subjection injoyned as is violent resistence when that legal resistence cannot be had as suppose when Father and Son and Master and Servant are living in no Community where there are Rulers and Judges over them and if this be lawful in this case as it cannot be denyed then must it also be lawfull for subjects to repel the unjust violence of Princes with violence Because there is no political Rulers over both King People But People must make use of that Court and tribunal of necessity which nature hath allowed and by innocent violence repel the unjust violence of Princes seing there is no other remedy His second ground out of Scripture is taken from Mat. 5 ver 10. 1 Pet. 4 ver 14 17. and the like places Where there is a commended suffering for Christ and Righteousnesse sake and consequently a sort of commanded suffering a suffering contradistinct from suffering for evil doing even a cleanly submission to suffer in and for well doing when God in his providence permits Rulers so to abuse their power which passive subjection or submission is not grounded on the Rulers abuse of his power through his corrupt will but upon the peculiar command of God enjoyning submission in such cases Answ 1. These the like speak nothing at all to the poynt For as we may be persecuted for righteousnesse sake by equalls Yea and by inferiours so we are to suffer that persecution when God in his providence calleth us thereunto with patience and humble submission of Spirit But is this a good argument to prove that it is unlawful for us to resist and repel injuries offered to us by equals or inferiours And if it will not prove it unlawful for us to resist our equals or inferiours neither can it hence be inferred that it is unlawful for us to resist Superiours 2. By this same reason the King if a Christian is bound to submit as well to his subjects as they to him at least he is not bound to resist a foraigne King invading him for Religion which I know not who will grant 3. That God alwayes calleth us to submissio nor passive subjection when in his providence he permits Rulers to abuse their power is the thing in question and this argument doth no way prove it 4. We grant that God calleth us to suffer for righteousnesse sake patiently and Christianly whether at the hands of Superiours or at the hands of equals or inferiours when in his providence we are so stated as that we must either suffer or sin by denying a testimony for his truth and cause But that when a door is opened for eshewing suffering and God in his providence seemeth not to call us thereunto as he never doth when he giveth a faire way of preventing it we are called to suffer and bound to choose suffering at the hands of any is denyed and not proved by him But furder he tells us That Lex Rexquaest 30. Leers at passive obedience as a chymaera as a dreame and as involving a contradiction And he thinks sayes he he speaketh acutely in saying God never gave to any a command to suffer for well doing nor at all to suffer suffering depending on the free will of another without us and not on our owne free will and so not falling under any command of God to us but he reasones sayes he very sophistically inferring that because meer suffering which necessarily depends on the action of another is not commanded to us therefore subjection to suffering or passive obedience is not commanded when the Magistrate inflicts suffering Ans The worthy Author of Lex Rex was there answering the objection of Royalists who alledged such places where they supposed we were commanded to suffer and among several assertions which he laid down to solve this he had this assertions That suffering formally as suffering nor non-resisting passive could fall under no formal law of God except in two cases 1. in the poynt of Christ's passive obedience and 2. indirectly and comparatively when it cometh to the election of the witnesse of Iesus whether he will suffer or deny the truth of Christ so that this alternative must be unavoydable otherwayes sayd he no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lavvful possible meane of eshevving suffering doth yet cast himself into suffering needlesly Novv vvhat a meer vvrangler must this be vvho sayeth that that vvorthy Author did reason sophistically in so inferring vvhileas he is only ansvvering the objection and hereby he doth it sufficiently for if it be evinced as he hath unansvverably evinced it that passive obedience or passive subjection is not formally commanded then their arguments proving this passive subjection to be our duty are null and so they cannot hence inferre that non-subjection passive is forbidden And vvhat have they gained then out of these places Can this Surveyer affirme that passion as passion or suffering formally as such cometh under a command of God no he dar not but must vvith Lex Rex say that it is impossible that meer passion as to be whipped to be hanged to be beheaded should be the object of an affirmative or perceptive command of God Why then is he offended vvith Lex Rex Why jeers he at that worthy Author saying he thinks he speaks acutely is this to answere Lex Rex to jeer at what is there sayd aud then be forced or speak
the Reviewer's concessions we are not bound to submit vvhen the higher povvers persecute us for truthes sake deny homage to the Sone of God presse the approving of corruptions in the poynt of government destroy the precious truthes of God and interests of Christ make a general defection and Apostasy And in a vvord turne Enemies to the liberties of the People destroy the Covenanted vvork of God oppresse the Subjects in bodyes States and Consciences and so crosse the very ends for vvhich they vvere appoynted 2. The Reviewer Pag. 109 110. though he vvould have submission in the matter of discipline vvhere the hazard is only personal and a mans suffering is not tanti as to disturb a vvell setled national Church vvhere doctrine and vvorshipe are in their integrity yet he thinks the case is of greater moment vvhen a National Church in her judicatoryes introduceth falfe doctrine and corrupt vvorshipe to be imposed upon a Church And so dar not affirme that submission is in this case due Why vvill not the Surveyer take notice of this grant so much in our case We should readyly grant to him that submission might be yeelded in smaller matters when the hazard was only personal and the suffering of one or of a few was not tanti as therefore to disturb the setled State wherein the maine matters were keeped in their integrity But he cannot in reason demand more of us if the parallel hold or seek submission when Higher powers are overturning the precious Truthes of God and interests of Christ are destoying a glorious work of reformation are pressing all to open and avowed perjury are destroying the fundamental rights libertyes and privileges of the Christian Subjects and tyrannizing over their Estates their Bodyes and their consciences 3. So tender was the Reviewer that Pag. 115. he would not urge submission to sentences of inferiour courts when appeales from one judicatory to another could not be had yet so untender is our Surveyer that he will have absolute and unlimited submission yeelded when he knowes that not only is there no liberty of appeal granted but not so much as liberty to petition and supplicate to get any thing that is amisse righted Thus he would have the whole land submitting to meer and cruel tyranny 4. Pag. 129. the Reviewer said We never asserted a judicatory might be contra-acted in no case as we cleared before far lesse will be affirme that a judicatory may not be contradicted in any case ibid. Hovv cometh it then that our Surveyer doth not follow the Reviewer's footsteps but pleadeth for absolute and illimited submission in all cases vvhatsomever 5. Pag. 131. vvhen he comes to that argument taken from the Tyranny which would hereby be introduced in the Church which would consequently condemne defensive armes used against Tyranny in the State He only sayes That no learned man would ever allow people to rise far lesse a party only against a prince upon the account only of the unjust sufferings of particular persones whole yet the affaires of Church and State were well ordered-while yet they adhered unto overturned none of the righteous things in a nation Sure then it will be allowed by him that people though the lesser part defend themselves against Tyranny when not only particular persones are unjustly suffering but the righteous things once concluded and confirmed by lawes Oathes Vowes Covenants Acknowledgments Declarations Protestations are overturned the work of God razed to the fundation perjury and breach of Covenant established Conrses laid downe for a constant exercise of tyranny and oppression c. againe 6. pag. 134. let once sayes he a judicatory grow so corrupt as to condemne the dutyes of preaching Christ and participation of publick ordinances in the very nature and kinde and as to all sorts of persons universally and in that case we shall without scruple conclude them no true courts of Christ consequently not to be submitted unto yea in case such decrees were published we should hold it a case of confession for ministers to preach and people to frequent ordinances so long as they had liberty or oportunity How then can submission be given to these in povver vvho novv have destroyed the interests of Christ and vvill suffer none to plead or contend for Christ and his oppressed truth or speak against perjury and dreadful defection vvhere of the land is novv guilty But enough of this vve proceed Another particular which we shall here examine is that discourse he hath concerning I Sam. 8 ver 10. Pag. 63 64. The summe of what he sayeth is this It is true sayes he the place I Sam. 8 ver 10. neither contradicts nor repeales that law Deut. 17 ver 14. But it is false that only the tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of meer dissuasive Moses and Samuel agree The one shewes what a King should do ex officio and de Jure The other what a King may do by the power he hath and yet not be â—bâ—oxious to punishment from Subjects or what a people should suffer of an evil King without attempt of violence upon him The one sets out Gods approbative law The other his permissive law as albeit the Lord approve not divorce yet by a permissive law Deut 24 ver I. Husbands had liberty to put away their Wives without being obnoxious to humane punishment The fact it the manner of Tyranny but the permissive power without punishment from subjects is the just right of all lawfull Kings Though Samuel might have here intended to disswade the people yet his maine intention was to shew the people their duty under a Kings oppressâ—on what they were to suffer without resistence for to what purpose should he have written the Manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. But to teach the people their beheaviour to the King So that this was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the Ark. Answ 1. It is well that he granteth that this â—us Regis Or the manner of the King is de facto the manner of tyranny and so that it was no wayes lawful for the King to do these things there mentioned which yet other Royalists do peremptorily deny and averre hence that Kings have full absolute and illimited power over the Subjects persons and goods And thus as to the King's part he must grant that what is here spoken is contrary to what is said Deut. 17. 2. All the circumstances of the text shew that this tyranny of the King is spoken of meerly in way of disswasive for it was a King to judge them like unto the Kings of other Nations which they were seeking and this displeased Samuel ver 6. and the Lord said to Samuel that hereby they had rejected not Samuel but himself that he should not reigne over him ver 7. and the Lord commanded him solemnely to protest against them and then
shew them the manner of the King and what else was this for but to bring them off their purpose and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder But it is said ver 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place and other Commentators and he will finde it so 3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num 58. thus Impunity sayes he in committing wickednese can make no right Princes have no power to do evil but only to help comforte and to promove the good and profite of the people Vasq Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num 2 3. contr Illustr To do evil is no act of power but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil Vasq D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves and Incendiaries which can do many things which they ought not should be said to do these things by a kingly right and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission which de facto cannot be hindered That is common to others as well as to Kings for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment either because the fact cannot be proved or because they cannot be gotten punished or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted for Tyrants are Adulterers Ravishers Murtherers and such as are guilty of other capital crimes whom Scripture stiles Lyons Beares Dragons Wolves Prov. 28 ver 14. Ezech. 22 27. Dan. 2 c. and the like Pfal 58. Esa 13 ver 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1. Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this Disp select part 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity is not Ius doth found no Ius Or right neither is founded on the law of God of Nature of Nations nor on the civil law And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth that it is a Ius because it shewes what people were to endure willingly and might not resist He answereth Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius and not the King and so it could not be called the manner of the King but the manner of the People Againe he sayes evil losse vexation passion and not to hinder evil in Scripture phrase is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius then Ius or right viz. a privation of it 4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives it is not of the same nature with the former evils sayeth Althusius in the place above cited And the Author of Lex Rex pag. 137. said well If so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the People of God must â—e a lawful power given of God for a lawful power it must be if it cometh from God whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command and be either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the Servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it into the hands of the Woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by law to one man to command Twenty Thousand cut throats to destroy and kill all the children of God that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman married by free Election of a humorous and inconstant Man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven like the law of divorce for the hardnesse of heart not of the jewes only but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch That one Emperour may be such a Law of God as the law of divorce kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name men women and sucking infants 5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. When there was no pleace for repentance no remedy no use of terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far This recorded was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law Answ 1. Though the King was set over them he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book and keeped to posterity no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty is but a begging of vvhat is in question And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant seing he vvas to teach both King and People The good and right way 1 Sam. 12 ver 23 24 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote vvas Not as it is commonly practised Chap. 8. ver 9 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome teaching what dutyes the King ought to performe in the government of his people and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King according to that description of a King set downe by Moses Deut. 17 ver 14 c. Ezech. 45 ver 9 10. Cap. 46 ver 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2 v. 2. The Dutch Annot. say This is not of the way manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted concerning the goverment of Kings see Deut. 17 ver 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects and of the Subjects tovvard their King and these vvere the fundamental lavves
84. Where all these are abundantly confirmed Now it is not our to all who consider either what they did or what was enacted by them and stands registrated to all generations how the late Convention which hardly can be accounted a lawful Parliament not only came short of their duty in these particulars but stired a direct contrary course as we shall shew in a few words For 1. So far were they from maintaining that compact and Covenant which was betwixt the King and the People That they declared these Covenants and engagements null declared the very Parliament and committees that called him home and crowned him null condemned the very transactions that were had with the King before he came home 2. So far were they from keeping the Prince within his bounds and limites That they screwed up his prerogatives to the highest peg imaginable and did investe him with such an absolute unlimited and infinite power that he might do what he pleased without controle 3. So far were they from hindering him from transgressing the lawes of God That they concurred with him to enact lawes diametrically opposite to the Law of God to condemne and overturne the work of God To set up an abjured prealcy and force conformity thereunto beside other acts which they made to hinder the course of justice 4. So far were they from hindering him from violating the wholesome well setled and established lawes of the land that they concurred with him to overturne these to the great losse and detriment of the Nation 5. So far were they from preserving the rights of the Kingdome That they made a voluntary and base surrender of these unto the pleasure and arbitrement of the Prince in annexing to the crowne The sole choise and appoyntment of the officers of State and privy Councellers and the nomination of the Lords of Session in dischargeing all meetings Councels conventions or assemblies of the People without the King's command or expresse license In giving away to him as his right the sole power of raiseing the Subjects in armes of commanding ordering disbanding and otherwise disposeing of them And of all strengths forts or garrisons within the Kingdome all which politicians will grant to be the proper native rights of the Kingdome 6. So far were they from hindering the execution of his unjust decrees and mandates that whatsoever he pleased to command was by them imbraced yea and fortified strengthened and corroborated and put into a standing law how dishonourable so ever it was to God how repugnant to equity and reason and how noxious soever it might prove to the Nation 7. So far were they from desending the Libertyes and Privileges of the People that they basely gave them away by denying them to have any power to defend themselves against manifest oppression or power to call Parliaments or other meetings for their advantage in cases of necessity by giving away to the King yeerly fourty Thousand pound Sterline to the impoverishing of the Nation and redacting it to slavery And by Tendering unto him all the lives and fortunes of the subjects to maintaine his interest and offering Twenty Thousand foot men and two Thousand horsemen sufficiently armed and furnished with fourty dayes provision to be in readinesse as they shall be called for by his Majesty to march to any part of his three dominions for any service wherein his Majesties honour authority or greatnesse might be concerned Which how ever it may be coloured with specious pretexts yet al circumstances considered was nothing but a real mancipation of the liberties of the People unto the will and pleasure of a Prince 8. And so far were they from calling the King to any account and from impedeing Tyranny that in effect they declared the King exempted from all such tryal or examination and that he might exerce what tyranny and oppression he pleased without controle For they gave unto him absolute and unlimited power over all persones and in all causes They declared him to have absolute power to call hold prorogue and dissolve Parliaments and Conventions and Meetings of the Estates And That no acts sentences or statutes to be past in any of these meetings can be binding or have the authority and force of lawes without his authority and approbation interponed at the very making thereof 2. It is notour to all who read their acts How they have enacted and concluded things most unlawful and unjust repugnant to the Law of God and right reason Condemning Solemne Covenants sworne by all rankes of People in the land in the most solemne manner introduceing abjured Prelates Establishing tyranny in the Church condemning and razeing to the fundation the Covenanted work of God enjoyning a conformity unto corrupt courses pressing perjury and Apostasy by forceing all in publick places and others to subscribe declarations and oathes contrary to their former sacred and inviolable Covenants and oathes made to God 3. By confirming ratifying and approveing these courses of Apostasy and defection and establishing these into lawes and binding and forceing the People unto obedience by their irrational and insupportable penalties annexed They have laid downe a constant course for tyranny and oppression of the People in Estates bodyes and consciences without all hope of remedy or redresse 4. As Parliaments with us are not constant and fixed courts but ambulatory and occasional so they have laid downe a course that we shall never have a Parliament that shall redresse the wrongs injuries oppressions and tyranny of Princes or heare the just grievances of the Subjects For when the Prince oppresseth the People and turneth a Nero and a Caligula there shall be no remedy because they have given him absolute power to call Parliaments and who can expect he will call a Parliament in that case or if he do call he hath absolute power to raise them and dismisse them when he will and is it probable that he will suffer them to sit when they are doing any thing against him Or if he should suffer them to sit what can they do None of their sentences or acts have power unlesse he will add his authority and will he ratify or approve any thing that is against himself and his tyrannous will Beside that they have denuded themselves of all power of suppressing tyranny by declareing his power so absolute and infinite as that no bounds can be set unto it no power can suppresse his tyranny or call him to an account 5. Not only have they laid downe a course that we shall have no Parliament to interpose for the relief of the People to suppresse Tyranny But also they have laid downe a course that there should be no Magistrats in shires or brughs that should help according to their power and place the oppressed and grieved Subject and concurre for their relief Because all such ere they be admitted to their places must conforme unto this abhominable course of defection and by subscribeing declarations Binding themselves by oaths
concerning all the land no lesse then these who jeoparded their lives for the same no man in reason can condemne these few that undertooke the interprise the profitable effects of which would have redounded to the whole When a city is on fire no man will think the few that hazard their lives to quench the same are to be blamed though the rest doe lye by and will not concurre The men of Ephraim Benjamin and Issacher who followed Deborah and jeoparded their lives upon the high places of the field that they might deliver the whole land from under the Tyrranny of Iabes King of Canaan though Reuben God and Zebulon did not concurre according to their duty were not the more to be blamed but are the more praised and commended and such as came not put to the help of the Lord against the mighty were under a bitter curse The common tye of Christianity and brotherhood and other supervenient obligations did oblige all the Land as was shewed above to concurre as one man to endeavour the deliverance of he Land from dreadful oppression and tyranny and because the greatest part like Issacher in an other case loved to couch under the burden and refused to contribut their help for their owne delivery and proved enemies shall these few who ventured their lives and Estates and all which they had for the liberation of the land be the more upon that account condemned What hight of absurdity were this Had the Men of Ephraim good reason to challenge Iephthah Iudg. 12 ver 1 2. c. because he fought with the Midianites without them when he sayes that he had called them and they would not come out If an Enemy invade the land and such provinces as are furthest from danger shall neglect or refuse to concure with the rest to expell them yea shall strengthen the invadeing enemy shall these be blamed who are next to the danger to take the alarme at the first and do what in them lyeth for their owne saifty and the saifty of the whole land Therefore seing the cause which these few owned was of common concernment and equally respecting the whole land since the rest would not concurre as they were bound to do they are more praise-worthy then blame-worthy that ventured all for the good of the whole land and did what in them lay to redeem the whole land from that oppression and bondage under which it was lying If it had been some small petty particulare of their owne it had been more lyable to the censures of men but the cause being Common which they did owne a Covenant sworne by all ranks of People and a Covenanted work of reformation and liberty from tyranny both in Church and State was a cause not peculiar unto them but common to all the land it is the hight of absurdity illegality yea and inhumanity to accuse them of Treason of sedition or to condemne their interprise upon that account So that though the major part of the land turne so corrupt as to imbrace a corrupt abjured course see their privileges taken from them the vvork of God overthrovvne lavves ratifying and approving Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government and secureing people in their peacable and Christian possession of these novv abolished rescinded and annulled their libertyes as civil scotish men and as Christians sold avvay their fundamental compact and the cardinall clause of that contract betvvixt King and Subject cancelled and shamefully brocken Tyranny and oppression of consciences bodyes and Estates established and no legal remedy or redresse apparent or probable and shall notwithstanding of all this love to sit still not to be stirr themselves according to their places power for secureing Religion lawes libertyes For extirpating abjured prelacy and malignancy and restoreing the Ordinances of Christ to their wonted purity delivering the land from slavery bondage from stupenduous apostasy defection at which the Heavens may stand astonished and all men and angels may wonder Shall their negligence and deficiency in duty binde up the hands of the wel affected and render them utterly incapable in law to minde themselves and the good of the whole land the good whereof they are obliged by many bonds and obligations to seek by all farie meanes possible Neither doth the lawes of Nature the lawes of God nor particularly the bond of Christian love to their Native land to their Mother Church and to their Christian oppressed brethren nor the bond of their Covenants solemne vowes and engadgments so limite this duty and loose them from all endeavour after a performance But by the contrare if God give any probable capacity upon all these considerations they are the more obliged to lay out themselves to the utmost and to account themselves the more indispnesably obliged thereunto that as the hazard is greater the losse is the more certane and irrecoverable Wherefore seing the ground and ends of the riseing of these few was not particular but general and national the good and benefite of the interprise redounding unto all no lesse then to themselves and being that whereunto all no lesse then they were obliged by solemne vowes and moral bonds their case must be otherwise considered then the case of a few malcontented persons who because of some particular injuries done to themselves and for some particular ends proper and peculiar to themselves alone arise in rebellion against the lawful Magistrate The Royalists themselves allow it lawful for any privat person to kill an usurper or a Tyrant sine titulo and why But because the good of this action doth redound not to himself alone But to the whole Land So in some places a reward is promised to all such as shall kill a Bear or any such noysome beast because the good and frute of this action concerneth moe then themselves and therefore though all were bound to do what they did yet they are not blamed but rewarded for what they have done So should these rather have been revvarded then blamed or condemned for vvhat they did interprise for the universal and national good of the vvhole Land As for the third Objection so much hath been spoken of that already whether we mean the particular sufferings and oppressions of the People of Galloway The Naphtaly is full to this purpose or the general calamity by reason of apostasy defection perjury oppression in Religion and libertyes which is so noture that none who hath not renunced common sense together with Religion honesty can deny it or pretend ignorance thereof that we need do no more here but give a short reply to what the Surv. hath said to this matter only we would adde this That if That learned lawyer Althusius in his politikes Cap. 38. n. 5. c. give the right characters of a Tyrant and of Tyranny we may have good ground to say that our land beareth many blae marks of that tyranny for sayeth he there is
one kinde of Tyranny which consisteth in violating changeing or removing of fundamental lawes specially such as concerne Religion such sayes he was Athalia Philip the King of Spaine who contrare to the fundamental Belgick lawes did erect an administration of justice by force of armes and such was Charles the IX of France that thought to overturne the Salicque law and whether our King be not in this guilty in overturning the fundamental lawes concerning our reformed Religion let the world judge Next sayes he when he keepeth not his faith and promise but despiseth his very oath made unto the people and who is more guilty of this then King Charles the 2 â— n. 9. He giveth us this mark when the supreme Magistrate marketh use of an absolute power and so breaketh all bands for the good of humane society and are not the bonds both of piety and justice novv violated n. 11. He tels us a Tyrant doth take away from one or moe member of the Commonwealth free exercise of the orthodox Religion and n. 12. that for corrupting of youth he erecteth stage-playes whore houses and other play-houses and suffers the colleges and other seminaries of learning to be corrupted and n. 15. that living in luxury whoredome greed and idlenesse he neglecteth or is unfit for his office How these sute our times we need not expresse Then n. 16. He sayes he is a Tyrant who doth not desend his Subjects from injuries when he may but suffereth them to be oppressed and what if he oppresse them himself n. 19. who sayes he by immoder at exactions and the like exhausts the subjects Jer. 22 ver 13. 14. Ezech. 34. 1 King 12 19. Psal 14 4. and n. 10 who hindereth the free suffrages of Members of Parliament so that they dare not speak what they would how much of this we finde to be true in needlesse here to expresse Then n. 23 24 c. he tels us he is a Tyrant who takes away from the people all power to resist his tyranny as armes strengthes and chief men whom therefore though innocent he hateth afficteth and persecuteth exhausts their gods and lively-hoods without right or reason all which he confirmeth by several Scriptures And how apposite these are to our present case all know who is not an utter stranger to our matters So that when we have so many things to alledge none can justly blame us for saying that vve are oppressed and borne dovvne vvith insupportable tyranny and now we goe on to consider what he sayes And as to the first he tells us Pag. 68. That their life and blood was not sought upon any tearmes there was no forceing them to idolatry nor false worshipe nor frighting them to any thing of that kinde upon paine of their lives only for contempt of the outward ordinances of God purely administred in an orthodox Church they were put to pay such moderate fines as the publick lawes had appoynted Without any actual invasion of them or their persones They were the first aggressors murthering the Kings Servants and seiseing on his chief officer They had never before that assayed supplicating which was not forbidden them to do if so be they would have done it without tumults and combinations but flew to the sword and marched on to mock authority with armed petitions as they mocked God by sinful prayers to prosper their evil course Answ 1. What intention there was to seek the life and blood of these People God koweth But sure all who knew their case saw that their life was only left them that they might feel their misery So were they oppressed and harassed that death would have been chosen rather then life Were they not beaten wounded and bound as beasts their goods and substance devoured before their eyes were not their lands and tenements laid waste and many redacted to beggary Besides other inhumane barbarityes which they were made to suffer 2. We see he would allow it lawful to resist if the King should force to idolatry and false worship and what will he do then with his arguments which will not allow that exception as they are urged by him He must necessarily grant that they are inconcludent that it holdeth here Argumentum nihâ—l probat quod nimium probat 3. How beit they were not forced to idolatry yet by the same law reason and equity or rather Tyranny and inquity they might have been forced to that as to what they were forced That is by the law of Tyranny and violent oppression They were pressed to owne and countenance perjured prophane wicked and debauched Curates thrust in upon them contrare to their Privileges as lawful and duely called Ministers and thereby to owne and approve of Prelacy which was abjured and cast out of the Church with detestation and so to concurre in their places and stations with and give their testimony unto a most wicked and unparallelable course of defection and Apostacy from God and his holy wayes and works and thereby to condemne the Reformation of Religion in doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government which God had vvonderfully vvrought amongst us and vvhich all ranks of People vvere solemnely svvorne to maintaine and defend 4. He talketh of the outvvard ordinances of God purely administred vvhen all knovv how these profane vvretches made all vvho ever knevv vvhat the service of the true and living God vvas to abhore the offering of the Lord For they despised the Name of the Lord and offered polluted bread upon his altar and made the table of the Lord contemptible they offered the blinde the lame and the sick and torne and thus they vovved sacrificed unto the Lord a corrupt thing Yea their administration of ordinances vvas and is to this day rather like histrionick acts and scenes then the service of the true and living God And vvhat sober serious Christian yea vvhat soul that hath any beleeving apprehensions of the Majesty of God can be vvitnesse let be a concurring actor in and consenter unto such abhomination and idol-like Worshipe 5. He talkes of an orthodox Church vvherein perjury and such like abhominations are approved and countenanced maintained and avovved and vvherein the vvork of Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government is condemned a Covenant abjureing Popery Prelacy Prophanesse Schisme and Heresy and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godlinesse condemned and annulled and wherein Atheisme wickednesse ignorance licentiousnesse and all sort of prophanity yea and blasphemy aboundeth and wherein there is so much Popery and idolatry countenanced and connived at and such abhominations reigneing Our first confession of faith recorded in Parliament Cap. 18. giveth this as one note of a true Church viz. That in it Ecclesiasticall Discipline be uprightly ministred as God's Word prescribeth whereby vice is repressed vertue nourished But now there is a discipline repugnant to Gods Word administred whereby vice is nourished virtue suppressed 6. He sayes that
the fines were moderate But more immoderate fines and exorbitant penaltyes vvere never imposed by Rulers except such whose designe was to Tyrannize over the soules and consciences of poor people and to the payment of these transcendently exorbitant penaltyes they were constrained not in a legal manner as it ought to be in a civil and free republick but in a military compulsive constraineing way whereby their persones and goods were tyrannically and inhumanely invaded plundered destroyed and ruined 7. It is true providence so ordered it that the first that was vvounded was one of the souldiers But Naphtali tels him that the countrey men were necessitated thereto in their ovvne defence for vvhen they but desired the souldiers to loose the poor man vvhom they had bound hand and foot like a beast they vvere assaulted vvith drawne swords and so first and last they vvere invaded and provocked were not the first aggressours beside that was but a meer accidental emergent though they had formally without that occurrent provocation joyned together to have repelled unjust violence none in reason could have called them the first aggressours being so long before that time at two inrodes beside this last so barbarously and inhumanely used by Sr Iames Turner that bloody executioner of illegal tyranny and brutish beastly Doeëg who having renunced all humanity compassion raged like a wilde beare to the laying waste of that countrey side So that here was no violent re-offending used without a previous actual invasion made by companyes of armed men sent to eat up root out and destroy a worthy and precious countrey-side An imminent danger sayes the law is a sufficient ground to take up armes and that is not previous strokes but the terrour of armour or threatning L. sed si ff ad Leg. Aquil. l. 3. quod qui armati ff de vi vi armâta Sure here was enough to warrand a Community to stand to their defence and to prevente their utter ruine and destruction which was certanely expected and this was to them the last and most inexorable case of necessity And so the places which he citeth out of Lex Rex do partly confirme this and partly are not to the purpose being spoken of a single person buffeting his master after he hath been buffeted or having received deaths wounds seeketh to revenge himself on his aggressor 8. He tels us they should have first supplicated these in power But they had supplicated already Sr Iames Turner and their case was made worse and not the better thereby and all joynt petitioning was condemned as treasonable and what could they then have done The most peacable manner of supplicating if it had been in a joynt manner that could have been devised had been interpreted tumultuous And Since it was so what could they do but after the example of our progenitors advance with armes in the one hand and a petition in the other 9. The Prophane man talks of their mocking God by their prayers and of their spoyling loyal persons but as they have the testimony of all among whom they were that they were not to be charged with plundering taking nothing unlesse it were a few horses and such things as were necessary for the defence of their lives and for the welfare of the Countrey wherein many do suppose they were but too too spareing seing the benefite was common to all and they were to venture their lives not for themselves alone but for the whole Countrey So the Lord gave proof that he hath accepted their endeavours though it was not his appoynted time to restore our Kingdome in that he did so signally ovvne and countenance such as vvere honoured vvith martyrdome for the Testimony of Iesus and for his interest and cause But this man speakes like himself vvhen he addeth that both they and others have cause to blesse God that they had no successe which might have been a snare and stumbling block to them and others also For vve knovv indeed that it is no small mercy not to thrive in an evil vvay and therefore vve think that He and his vvicked fraternity on whom the Lord is raineing snares by suffereing them to thrive have great cause to lament the blak day that is coming and to tremble both for the imminent judgments and for the dreadful plague and judgement of hardnesse of heart vvith vvhich they are already visited of the righteous God Yet vve knovv That a vvay may be his vvay vvhich he vvill not prosper for a time till the cup of the Amorites be full and he hath attained his other holy ends vvhich he designeth in casting his Church into a furnance And if he judge of causes alvvayes by the event he shevveth himself a stranger to the Soveraigne vvay of the Lord in all ages As to other thing he speaketh Pag. 10. and sayeth doth not the true protestant Religion as it is held forth inscripture and was publickly confessed by our first reformers which confession is Registred Parl. 1. K. James 6. through God's mercy continue with us without variation from it in the least Doth not the Kings majesty protect and advance this blessed Truth of the Saving Gospel and encourage and invite all according to his power to imbrace it Is he not willing and desirous that the lawes be vigorously executed against papists and all perverters of this sound doctrine are any spoiled of their lawful civil libertyes What one thing hath he done without consent of the Peoples Representatives in Parliament at which any may except as a grievance what burden hath he laid upon their Estates but by law or by their owne consent in a necessary exigence Answ 1. If the protestant Religion continue without variation in the least vvhat meaneth then the bleating of the sheep and lowing of the oxen in every ones eares what meaneth the many Jesuites and Seminary Priests that goe up and downe the land what meaneth the many masses that are used in several parts of that land and in the very heart thereof in and about Edinbrough What church discipline is used against these belike the Prelates have no will to trouble their old brethren the native and faithful children of their catholick Mother the whore of Rome because they minde yet once againe to take a drink of the cup of her fornications and to returne as prodigal Children unto their former dear Mother the bloody harlote the mother of fornications And hovv cometh it that one Mr. Tyry formerly a knovvn papist is admitted to a prefessorshipe in St. Andrewes vvho not only cannot be reconciled to that minister who motioned the giving to him that Head to handle de anticbristo Romano but even in his theses did assert that the Pope was not Antichrist But what is become of the Religion of the Church of Scotland as it was reformed in doctorine worshipe discipline and government What is become of these Covenants vvhich were our strong bulvvarks against propery and vvhat is
word of â— King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou Ans I. Will it hence follow that we must obey all the Kings unjust unlawful and iniquous commands No true Christian can say so Neither will it hence follow that in no case he may be resisted 2. Kings way not de jure do what they please but they have power to execute the Law in way of justice which is the thing that they as Kings should and do please And therefore we should not stand in an evil matter 3. Notwithstanding of this Princes have been rebuked 2 Sam. 12 ver 7. and resisted 2 Chron. 27 ver 17 18 19 20. and so the meaning is no man must question his just actions warranted by his lawfull authority Or it is but folly for a man to strive with such an one as is able to execute his cruelty and to do what he will see the English notes on the place and Mr. Iackson's but as this doth not justify Kings in their oppressing so neither doth it condemne a resisting of their tyranny more then the resisting of the oppressing violence of some mighty robber who hath power to do what mischief he will whom yet lawfully we may resist if we be able Obj. 19. The author of an appeal to conscience adduceth that place Psal 105 ver 15. Touch not mine anoyneted Answ Hence it clearly followeth that Kings and Princes should not enjure the Saints and Servants of God for this was meaned of Abraham Isaac and Iacob and of their Wives and Families who were sojourning as strangers from Nation to Nation as the context cleareth and the words following and do my Prophets no harme And so relateth to vvhat vve heare Gen. 12 v. 10 to 20. 20 1. c. 26 1. c. is not meaned of Kings and Princes as such So that this anoynting is such as is common to Priests and Prophets to all the saints vvho are spiritually anoynted and so become Kings Priests unto God 1. Pet. 2 5. Rev. 1 6. and 5 10. Obj. 20. D. Ferne Resolvig of conscience vvould prove from 1 Sam. 8 ver 18. that subjects may do nothing against Tyrants but cry to the Lord. So Grotius Answ Subordinata non pugnant We may both cry to the Lord and resist as Iudg. 10. Exod. 14. 2 Chron. 32 v. 20. 2 King 19. 2 Chron 14 v. 9. c. and 13 14 15 * 16. 2. The text saith not they should have no other remedy left them but crying or that it should be lavvsul for them to do no other thing We finde that they resisted this King vvhen he vvas about to kill innocent Ionathan 3. The vvords at most but import a prohibition of attempting to have the government changed from King to judges 4 Suppose it vvere so yet it importing only a punishment unto them for their importunat and headstrong affecting of a King vvill not in reason reach other Nations not guilty of this crime Yea 5. This praediction could not bind up their owne hands from a defence but at most import That all their resistence or defence should be in vaine through God's not hearing or helping them in resisting Obj. 21. The author of an appeal to thy conscience proposeth this argument That evil Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God Therefore we should submit patiently and not resist Answ The consequence is nought for so are forraigne enemies the riseing up of inferiours against us sicknesse and paines on our bodyes and the like and yet these may very lawfully be resisted Obj. 22. Equals have no power over equals much lesse have inferiours over Magistrates Alber. Gentil in dispp regalib Answ Superiority is not requisite to lawful defence as is said 2. A Tyrant as such is no Magistrate but a privat person Obj. 23. No punishment for Tyrants but vexation of conscience id ib. Answ All evil doers may expect that punishment as well as Tyrants and yet they may be resisted yea and punished with civil punishments Obj. 24. The removing of a Tyrant occasioneth civil warres which makes the remedy worse then the disease id ib. Answ 1. We speak not of removing Tyrants but of resisting them 2. This is the way to prevent ruine and destruction to the Commonwealth even to resist Tyranny 3. A civil war may be more advantagious for Religion and the libertyes of the subjects and so preferable to a brutish submission to illegal tyranny And every kinde of evil is not to be endured for avoyding a worse in probability 4. Desperat diseases must have desperat cures and it is better to hazard some thing in a warr then lose all We know not what the event may be we are bound to defend Religion and the libertyes of the countrey and commit the event to God 5. It hath been found that the putting away of a Tyrant hath proved very advantagious to the Countrey and to Religion and hereby all their losse by warr was more than abundantly repayed yea and sometimes this hath been obtained without much shedding of blood CAP. XVIII How weakly foolishly The Surveyer maintaineth the Union of his Majestie 's Dominions is cleared HAving thus discussed all which the Surveyer hath in his railing pamphlet said against this truth which we have maintained and having sufficiently as we suppose vindicated the Peoples right to defend themselves and their Covenanted Religion from manifest and intolerable violence and oppression we might without the least injury imaginable to our cause wave the examination of what he Principally aimeth at Cap. 1. 3. 4. as being extrinsick to the present question and because we are not necessitated to maintaine these opinions which he setteth himself against in those chapters our question being distinct from those and easily maintained without touching upon those rockes But yet because this windy man would faine make his Majesty beleeve that he had not gotten his reward for nothing but that he had done some notable piece of service vvorthy of it And had discovered some rare secret the discovery of which is of no small advantage but of great use both for the preservation of the union of his Majestie 's dominions and for the saveing of his life from the stroke of adversaryes vve shall manifest hovv little ground he hath to father any of these assertions on Naphtali and then discover hovv vveakly and foolishly he maintaineth his Majestie 's cause in both these that al the world may see that he hath come short of performing that service to his Maj. which he here undertaketh that he hath been so far from laying the devil after he had raised him that he hath done his Maj. no small piece of disservice in starting questions so dangerous to his Majesty's Kingdomes and life when he had no ground given him and after he had moved the question left it worse then he found it and so did little lesse then invite such as
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
Prophets and of Christ and his Apostles do not condemne it as simply sinful And that by this argument of his it should be utterly unlawful now for Frame and Holland and other adjacent Countreyes to joyne together in one and proclame King Charles their Soveraigne Lord and King because neither Prophets nor Apostles taught any such doctrine that many several societies should joyne together under one head And who is a friend to the Kings greatnesse now If this man be worthy of his wages let all the World judge Moreover they would tell him that in the dayes of some of the Prophets there was a greater dissipation and secession then any that is now desired when the Ten tribes separated themselves from the other two in the dayes of Rehoboam and erected themselves in a distinct Republick under a distinct Supreame Magistrate and we finde not this reproved by any of the prophets yea we finde a Prophet sent to tell Ieroboam that God would give him Ten Tribes 1. King 11 ver 21. c. and when Rehoboam would goe and reduce them under his subjection by the power of the sword we finde another Prophet sent to disswade him in the Name of the Lord 1 King 12 ver 22 c. and saying that that was from the Lord. And sure this positive is as forcible as his negative And furder even in the dayes of the primitive Christians the Roman Empire was divided and how it is now subdivided and re-subdivided into many fractions we all know and can he shew us where any of the godly zealous Christians and servants of God spoke against this as a seditious practice But is may be that he vvill prove this assertion though not dissonant to Religion yet dissonant to sound reason Let us hear hovv he doth it For sayes he Pag. 5. it hath a clear tendency to break in pieces all humane societyes which no wit of man can preserve from dissolution if this principle be drunk in For by this Man's opinion the judgement of the pervesion of the ends of government is put over to the discretion of the sufferers of prejudice and they are accordingly to determine their actions and nothing should hinder them but want of probable capacity to through their work But poor Man as he hath made shipevvrack of faith and of a good conscience so hath he made shipvvrack of his reason also for his adversary vvould novv think the cause vvon For grant once that a secession and separation may be made vvhen the ends of government are manifestly perverted and they vvill seek no more for they vvill readily grant it ought not to be vvhen there is no just cause suppose that a great part should in their discretion judge there were real cause And where is he now Where is the position that is so dissonent to Religion and Reason Will he also owne it Did Naphtaly say that when ever a few of a society thought in their judgement of discretion that the ends of government were perverted they were replased into their primaeve state of liberty and free to make separations from the old society and associate into new combinations And since he did not say so how can this advocate make his position appeare dissonant either to Religion or Reason But the man let him be never so well hired is obliged to reason no better then he can Let him grant and he cannot well deny it that it is lawful for a great society to divide into two or moe lesser when the ends of government are really and manifestly perverted in that greater society so united and his adversaries will soon satisfy him if he be rational or a man fit for society who will be ruled with reason concerning the judgement of that perversion He but exposeth himself to pity when he cryeth out taking also God's name in vaine To what times are we reserved wherein the unmeasureable and aciousnesse of Men dar present such poyson to a Christian People and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhorres For no body hath either seen Religion nor found Reason alleged against that position which he sayeth Naphtaly setteth down But we will see more of this vaine Man's ridiculous ranting in the following words Dar this libeller so speaketh this non-sensical railer say that this is a fundamental constitution of political societies that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons pretending a perversion of the ends of government a pretence that will never be wanting to Malecontents and Malapert wicked ones Even Katherines and highlandish theevs and it is real to them if they themselves be admitted judges they may make secession from the society in which they are imbodied and renunce their obligation to the government thereof Now he soares high in his scurril rhetorik and as ornaments of his discourse he must bring in his Katherines and Highlandish theeves but to what purpose is all this superfluity of vaine empty words Where or when said Naphtaly That that was the fundamental Constitution of politick societies What rational Man ever said so Is this the only thing which he denyeth Sure he is an ill maintainer of the union of his Majesties dominion for his adversaries will grant all this and yet say and be able to maintaine for any thing that he hath said that when the Ends of government are maniâ—estly and notoriously perverted people relapseing into their primaeve liberty and privilege may according as the exigent of their case requireth associate into new societies for their defence and preservation But he addeth pag. 6. Suppose there be a breaking off upon that pretension which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion of perversion of the ends of government the party making secession may haply meet with the same measure they gave for if a minor party arise among them with the same accusations must they not have the same privilege And where shall there be a stand His adversaries would soon reply that whatever be in that absurdity it doth not concerne them for they plead not for a dissolution upon a meer pretension of this perversion And beside they plead not for it even where there is a real and not our perversion as a thing necessary which they must goe about never once consulting whether it be expedient or inexpedient and whether they see a more feazable way of attaineing the ends of government without such perversion after the separation is made them before or not But only as a thing lawful which may be done when they see it most convenient for the ends of government And when they walk by this rule and principle they will soon see where to make a stand For they will finde that the crumbling of Societies into too many and too small bodyes would put them as far from attaineing the ends of governments as they were while associated in a greater body And this is
consider also how the Author of Naphtaly hath been miserably misunderstood by him It is not our purpose nor our present businesse to speak unto this head and shew for what causes or by whom kings are to be questioned deposed or executed Far lesse is it our purpose to defend the taking away of the late King's life though this railing Pamphleter thinks to fasten this upon Naphtaly And therefore we might palse what he sayeth to this purpose Chap. 3. Yet as in the preceeding Chapter we have shewed how ill he hath maintained the union and conjunction of his Majesties Dominions So in this vve shall shovv hovv vveakly he hath guarded his life against such as vvould oppose themselves unto him in this question But first vve vvould take notice vvhether Napthtali hath given him such ground to fasten upon him the justification of the murther of the late King as he allegeth The matter sayes the Surveyer in dealing with Magistrates according to Naphtali's minde rests not in a meer resistence of them by meer private persons but goes on to a retaliating and revenging upon them wrong supposed to be done for his man againe jeers at the Soveraigne Powers Privilege and Impunity of Divine exemption Ans Doth this man know what he writeth Doth Naphtaly say That private persons may revenge wrongs upon the Supream Magistrate because he jeers at such as plead for such a Privilege and impunity unto Soveraigne Powers as will exempt them from all tryal and punishment both of God and Man What meaneth he else by this impunity of divine exemption Then he tells us pag. 71 and 77. That Naphtaly Pag. 29. reflects not obscurely upon the horrid murther of our late Soveraigne Let us hear Naptaly's words then shall we better judge And as these inferiour Princes sayes Naphtaly Pag. 29. Do often forget their subordination to the most High in their unjust commands and would usurpe his throne by an uncontrollable Soveraignity So the Lord by the warrand of his Word and approbation of his providence and also of the People when by them oppressed but by himself animated strengthened hath declared made void this their pretended exemption impunity removed the carcasses of such Kings and broken their scepter amongst which precedents the instance of these times whereof we now speak is worthily recorded and deserveth better to be remembered Now Naphtali is speaking of what fell out betwixt the year 1494. and the year 1560. in that place and makes no mention of what fell out an 1560. and afterward till he come to Pag. 31. c. Sure then the times he is speaking of being before the year 1560. are far from the times wherein King Charles the first was executed But sayes he there was no such thing as murthering of Kings or dethroning of them at that time Answ Yet the Lord at that time declared and made void the pretended exemption and Impunity of Princes and Soveraigne Governours by removing in his providence their carcasses and by the approbation of the people when by them oppressed by himself animated breaking their scepter as vve finde was done to the Q. Kegent anno 1559. when she was by the People the Nobles Barons and Burgesses assembled to deliberate upon the affaires of the commonwealth Octob. 20. deposed from her Regency and upon the ninth of Iâ—n the next yeer God removed her carcasse by death so that the land was no more troubled with her Who may not now see what a poor ground this Railer had to father such a tenet on Naphtali as he doth And what advantage the King's cause hath gotten by this we shall novv see He tels us Pag. 72. That most of the venome this man meaning Naphtali hath against the powers ordained of God he hath sucked out of the breasts of Lex Rex It were not right to dig up all the pestilent untruths of that piece set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings mixt with infinite humane bitternesse against the late King Only as it were to be wished that such errours might be buried in eternal oblivion so it is to be regrated that too too many of the Ministry and others in Scotland have been poysoned with such principles and the same not being very like to be suddenly extirpat the more need have the powers above us to be watchful Ans The author of Lex Rex and of Naphtaly also ascribe as much to the powers ordained of God as God's word will allow and are no way opposed unto them but only unto Tyranny which is no Ordinance of God and this Man rather spitteth venome in the face of the power ordained of God vvhen he goeth about to patronize and defend their illegal and iniquous exorbitances as if these were the ordinance of God which are rather the ordinance of Satan Sure this is not farr from blasphemy to call such courses the Ordinance of God 2. He hath taken a short cut I confesse to answere that unanswerable book Lex Rex To say that it is full of pestilent untruthes set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings Had King Charles the first when he read that book remembered this or thought upon it he would not have said he feared as is reported he did that it should not have been answered But what Man who hath not de nuded himself of all wit and reason will take upon this perjured Apostat's word these Truthes which Lex Rex hath demonstrated which this Man was so unable to answere that I much question if he well understood many of them or if his lumpish braine could discerne betwixt a sophistical reason and a true and real reason to be untruthes and these truthes so wholesome and useful to all Republicks and necessary to be knowne and wel digested by all who consult the welfare of commonwealths to be pestilent untruthes and his unanswerable reasons to be impertinent and sophistical 3. I am sure all the Cavaliers and the Malignant squade would have thought him well worth his gold if he had in a sober rational manner discovered the impertinencies and sophistical reasonings in that book which yet is like to speak after it is burned and under a legal restraint though he should have spent the most part of his dayes upon it it may be the Royal cabal would have thought it Dignum opus and have canonized him for it and advised the King of Remember the issue of such a worthy singular pillar of the tottering throne But the man knew how far his stock would reach and that all the gold in the Kings treasures could not make his head stronger then it was how ever it might superabundantly fortify his purse and therefore seing his short horns could reach no further his Majesty must rest satisfied with this And Lex Rex must be declared as it is to be furder unanswereable 4. Seing he wisheth that such errours might be buryed in oblivion why did not his vvork follovv his vvish Why did
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
meanes ordinary rules to help abuses that are ordinary yet when corruption is universal the ordinary meanes cannot availe God himself must helpe that who knoweth not that extraordinary supposeable cases cannot infringe or invalidate the ordinary rules for ordinary cases Now all this is but vaine idle worke and of no advantage to his cause for he shall never hence prove though he should argue till his eyestrings break that this Soveraigne uncontrolable power which is not censureable nor punishable is only in the King And if he do not this how stops he the Mouth of his adversaries Hovv salves he his Majestie 's life or the King from all hazard of censure But then he adds to as little purpose That It may be seen that his principles lead him to owne a meer democracy which is the worst of governments as the only lawful government he placeth and fixeth the unpunishable soveraignity there Answ This is a grosse mistake For this Man understands not what a democracy is He takes democracy to be where all governe But that is no government where there is none to be governed but all are governours Democracy is where some are chosen out of all the People by turnes without respect had to birth meanes or other privileges to governe the rest And Lex Rex will not say that these governours have an uncontrollable soveveraignity but may be opposed resisted by the body of the People who choose them as well as the King in a Monarchy or the Primores Regni in an Aristocracy because under all speces of governments the fountaine power and Majesty abides in the People and is resumeable in cases of necessity Thus we have seen how poorly and weakly this vaine man hath maintained the King's life and sacred person and how by his foolish sophistications and his weake and impertinent answers and assertions he hath put the King's life in greater hazard then it was for these poor people never had a thought of wronging his Majestie 's person or of spoyling him of his life but now vvhen he hath started the question without any provocation or just ground and occasion given and can say no more then he here hath sayd for that cause hath he not invited people to think of what they might do And I am sure if they have no other restraint to binde up their hands all which he hath said will be but like the new ropes to Sampson That which followeth in his third Chapter touching the Covenants betwixt King and People is impertinent to his present purpose For Naphtaly maketh use of these to prove the lawfulnesse of resistence as may be seen Pag. 19 and 30. and for that end we have vindicated them in our former discourse from all his corrupt glosses and evasions And wise Men will think him so far from deserving a reward for what he hath done that they will think he rather deserveth to be whipped for his mismanageing this question of so great consequence which he undertook to defend and particularly for bringing the arguments which are adduced to evince the lawfulnesse of resistence as if they did with equal force strick against his Majestie 's life and person whereas many will be cleare for resisting that will not be so cleare for punishing or executing the Prince and since by his folly and imprudent impertinency making the same arguments prove both people shall see that by what right they may resist by the same right they may capitally punish the Prince they will be so far from being scarred form resistence which natures light doth so evidentlly demonstrate to be lawful and necessary that they will be more emboldened thereunto perceiving how they may do more which possibly would never else have come into their minde and sure all which Naphtaly hath said could not have suggested such a thing unto them or occasioned their thoughts thereabout as impartial Readers will judge If any aske what he hath left undone for secueing his Majestie 's person and life I am sure to name no moe he hath forgotten one thing and that is the pressing of the Solemne League and Covenant on the People but knowing what he hath both said and done against this he thought he could not fairely retract and condemne his owne tongue and actions yet if he think himself obliged to venture his life for the life of his Majesty he might have also thought it his duty to take shame to himself to repent of what he had done and recant what he had said for the secureing of his Majestie 's life and person Now that the pressing of this Covenant upon the People would be a soveraigne remedy to preserve his Majestie 's life his Majestie 's Royal father knew it when being in the isle of Wight fearing that violence should have been done unto him by these in whose custody he was he sent for Mr. Ieremiah French minister of that place to which Carisbrook castle belonged and desired him to preach the Covenant and presse it upon the People that thereby they might be engaged to rescue him in case any such thing should be attempted by that part of the army See for this the postscript to the Covenanters Plea And sure I am if his Majesty would as I said before faithfully minde this Covenant and cause the People stand to it form the highest to the lowest he would finde that there could not be a more effectual meane imagined for secureing his person then that would be If he would faithfully owne and according to his power lay out himself for setling and secureing the maine things contained in that Covenant and walk in that due subordination unto the Supreame governour of heaven and earth The very conscience of these great and maine things would presse a conscientious respect to and a faithfull care of his Majestie 's person in reference to these great Ends. Which would prove more effectual for this end then volumes of railing sophistications which this perjured Prophane and malignant Prelate and anticovenanter could write and send abroad CAP. XX. The Surveyer's discourse concerning the fact of Phineas examined THE Surveyer being good at weaving Spiders webs whereby he would catch flees but is not able to hold stronger bodyes spends a whole Chapter on a discourse in Naphtaly obiter cast in rather to prevent an objection by shewing what difficultyes such behoved to meet with and roll our of his way who would assert the utter unimitablenesse of the fact of Phineas in executing judgm on the Israelitish Prince and his Midianitish whore to stay the plague and Judgment of God which was broken out on the whole congregation because of their defection to Midianitish whoredome and idolatry then to assert any thing positively thereanent because any who considereth the place seeth how little is there positively asserted how much is set foorth rather problematickly and by way of doubt will easily perceive that the Author's scope was not such as this
interest of Christ and conspired against his truth and cause can any blame these worthies who endeavoured according to their power to have these crying abhominations remedyed that the wrath of God should not consume us root and branch and burne so as it should not be quenched What can be replyed to these reasons is sufficiently answered already and I would further propose this to be seriously considered by all let us put the case That King and Princes should conspire together to poyson all the fountains of water in the Land and lay downe a course how they should be keeped so and people should be forced to drink of these poysoned waters would not any rational man think that when no meanes else could prevaile People might lawfully with force see to their owne lives and to the lives of their little ones And shall we be allowed to use violent resistence for the lives of our bodyes and not also for the lives of our souls shall people be allowed to run together with force when they can no otherwayes keep the springs of water cleare for their owne lives or healths and of their posterity also and shall they be condemned for runing together to keep their Religion as it was reformed pure and uncorrupted Who but Atheists will say this Againe put the case That the Magistrates of some Brugh or City were about to do or had already done some publick prohibited bited action which would so irritate the Soveraigne or Prince that he would come with an hudge army and cut off the city man wife and childe would any in this case condemne the private inhabitants of that Brough or City if when no other mean could be essayed effectually to hinder the same they should with force either hinder them from doing that irritating action or if done should endeavour to remedy the matter the best way they could for the good of the City to prevent its ruine and overthrow and for their owne saifty and for the saifty of their posterity And why then shall any condemne the late defenders who when the Magistrate by their many sinful and publick actions had provoked the King of Kings to anger and jealousy against the whole land so that in justice they could expect nothing but the vvrath and vengence of God to root them out and their posterity laboured what they could to have the wrath of the King of Kings pacified and the wicked deeds provoking him remedied Would the Soveraigne in the former case account these privat persons traitours to their Magistrates and not rather more loyal Subjects to him then the Magistrates themselves And shall we think that the King of Kings shall account the late act disloyalty to the King and Magistrates and not rather commendable loyalty to him and faithful service There is another argument much of the Nature with the preceeding taken from the grounds of Christian love and affection whereby each is bound to preserve the life and welfare of another as he would do his owne and as each would have another helping him in the day when he is unjustly wronged and oppressed so he should be willing to helpe others when it is in the power of his hand to doe it according to that royal law of Christ's Mat. 7 ver 12. Luk. 6 ver 31. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so them for this is the law and the prophets It is unnaturall and unchristian both to say am I my brother's keeper Sure he who helps not his brother against a murderer when he may do it is before God guilty of the man's blood Meroz and the inhabitants thereof were to be cursed bitterly because they came not out to the help of the Lord and his People against the mighty Iudg. 5. Was not David helped thus against the Tyranny and wickednesse of King Saul And honest Ionathan rescued from the hands of his bloody Father Prov. 24 ver 11 and 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawne unto death and these that are ready to be slame If thou sayest behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart considerit And he that keepeth thy soull doih not he know it And shall not herender to every man according to his work Now the text maketh no difference whether they be drawne to death unjustly by private persons or by Magistrates They are if they can do it with force to rescue such for so the word imports as I Sam. 30 18. 2 King 18 34. 1 Sam. 17 35. Hos 5 14. And this did famous Mr. Knox avow unto Lithingtoun in his discourse with him registrated in the history of reformation Hence it is that Ieremiah Cap. 22 23. cryeth to the People as well as to the King execute judgment and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour and though it be true as Calvin on the place sayeth that this did chiefly belong to the judges and Magistrates Yet when their proceeding in this course of oppressing of the stranger the fatherlesse and the widow and of shedding innocent blood would provoke God to execute what he threateneth with an oath ver 5. And make that house a desolation and prepare destroyers against it and the whole city ver 7 8. and when all this is spoken in the eares of the people it would seem to import that even they should have stood in the way of such oppression and delivered the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressour not have suffered innocent blood to have been shed especially when inferiour as well as Superiour Magistrates were oppressing and tyrannizing and were the only oppressours and wolves as we see Esa 1 21. and. 3 12 14 15. Micha 3 9 10. Ezech. 22 27. And many of the people conjoyned with them in the like as encouraged by their practice ver 29. see furder for this Isa 1 ver 10 17. Ier. 5 ver 2 5 6. But sayes our Surveyer Pag. 53. That such prophetical preachings uttered to the body of Rulers and People are to be understood as reproveing what was amisse in every one in their respective calling and as injoying such duties as might be done by every one salvâ justitiâ salvo ordine modulo vocationis but to say that they minded to condemne in People the grand sin of non-resistence to the oppressing Magistrates or to incite private persones to pull the sword out of the Magistrat's hand relieve the oppressed execute judgment on the oppressours even Magistrats as Lex Rex doth say Pag. 367 is not only a most fearful perverting of the most holy scripture but a doctrine that tends directly to horrid confusion utter subversion of humane societies Ans We shall easily grant that in those sermons every one was reproved for what was amisse in his respective calling and all were enjoyned to do what might be done by them according to their places and callings and
and often hath been destroyed and the body of the Republick hath remained intire and in better condition then formerly 2. Opposition may be so made to the Head that it destroyed not the noble parts with defluxions sent downe thence and it must to prevent the destruction of the body be purged so may a Tyrant be resisted for the saifty of the Commonwealth Obj. 6. It is better to have a sick head then no head id ibid. Ans Datur tertium there is a third a sound wholesome head 2. A commonwealth needs not want a head long Obj. 7. There is greater hazard in casting out a Tyrant then in suffering tyranny idem ibid. Ans 1. resistence may be without destroying or casting out of a Tyrant 2. That hazard speaks not to the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the thing but only to the expediency or inexpediency of it which is a different question An interprize may be hazardous and yet lawful 3. It will not alwayes be found to be such a hazardous thing even to cast away Tyrants as to suffer them to tyrannize Obj. 8. A Tyrant can never be destroyed without the ruine of these who have destroyed him for some of his posterity will avenge the quarrel id ibid. Ans 1. We have many instances to the contrary in the Book of God See the Books of the Judges and Kings who of Joram's posterity avenged his death on Jehu or his posterity 2. A Tyrant may be resisted lawfully notwithstanding of such difficultyes Obj. 9. God punished the wicked Kings of the Jewes not by the Jewes but by strangers id ibid. Answ This is contrare to many examples in Scripture Jehu was not stranger 2. We speak not of punishing wicked Kings but of resisting their unjust violence Obj. 10. David spared Saul 1 Sam. 24 and 26. Whom he might lawfully have killed as some think because he had given David's Wife to another had banished him and his Parents out of the countrey and had killed the Priests id ibid. Answ If David was a publick Judge and might lawfully have killed Soul for his injustice murther and oppression and did it not I see not how he can be justified But to me it is a question if David was any other then a private person so long as Saul lived and his resisting of Saul and defending himself with armed men against his fury doth abundantly confirme what we say Object 11. Ieremiah doth not arme the jewes against Nebuchadnezar with a sword but with prayers for him Id. Ibid. Answer 1. We have not Ieremiahs now to reveal God's minde to us extraordinarily 2. If this were a standing precedent The Supreame Magistrate might not defend himself and his subjects against a forraigne Enemy comeing to destroy and conquere the land for Ieremiah commanded the King to submit to Nebuchadnezar Object 12. Christ commandeth tribute and not poyson to be given to Princes Id. Ibid. Answ We plead not for Poysoning of Princes but for resisting their unjust violence against which Christ doth not speak but rather he ought to have remembered these words Let him that hath no sword sell his coat and buy one Obj. 13. Paul Act. 23 ver 5. Will not have an evil Prince so much as cursed Id. Ibid. Answ Then no Magistrate no not an inferiour should be resisted for such may not be cursed doing their duty 2. We may not curse nor revile any of out equalls or inferiours Mat. 5 v. 44. Rom. 12 v. 14. Livit. 19 ver 14. and 20 v. 9. 1 Cor. 6 ver 10. and yet such useing violence against us may be resisted we may not curse the rich Eccles 10 20. and yet they may be resisted when violently and injuriously they assault us Obj. 14. War is not lawfully undertaken without the warrand of the Superiour But Subjects have no superiority of authority over the Magistrate Gerhard de Magist Pol. § 483. Answ 1. A war defensive may be undertaken without the expresse warrand of the Superiour 2. Defence may be used by such as are inferiour to the aggressors as by a Wife a son a Servant as is shewed yea the injurer is ever eatenus inferiour to the injured in Law Obj. 5. Christ sayd Mat. 26 ver 52. that such as took the sword should perish by the sword Id. Ibid. Answ That is true of such as useth the sword further then God hath allowed or contrare to his expresse revealed will but not of such as have a lawful call thereto by the Law of Nature and use it in their sinlesse defence when there is no countermand of God Which place we have abundantly vindicat already where we shewed that his commanding them to sell their coat to buy swords sufficiently warrandeth this self defence And though some do take that speach to be allegorick yet the whole context cleareth that it is meaned of swords of steel for they said Here are two swords and he said it is enough Sure these were swords of outward mettal as the event proved And to answere Mat. 26 ver 52. with Luk. 22 ver 39. is not to set Scriptures by the eares but a solid way of answering an argument brought from abused Scripture as Christ's practice teacheth us answering the devil's argument taken from Psal 91. 11. by produceing another passage Deut. 6. 16. see Mat. 4 6 7. Obj. 16. The example of the saints in the Old and New Testament is against it neither the Prophets nor Apostles gave this Command but rather prescribed unto them patience and prayers That Citizen of Nieomedia was condemned of all who tore in pieces the Emperour's edict against the Christians Id. Ibid. Answ 1. We have seen instances both in the time of the Old Testament and in the dayes of the New Testament making for us 2. We finde not the Prophets nor Apostles forbidding this 3. Their pressing to patience and prayers is not repugnant to this innocent res istence we may pray against forraigne invaders yet may we resist them 4. Tearing of the Emperour's edict is no act of self defence Obj. 17. This would close up the way of persones acquireing the crowne of Martyrdome Id. Ibid. Answ If upon this account private persons might not resist Magistrates neither might inferiour Magistrates resist the supreame which yet he will not condemne Yea. 2. If this ground hold the Supream Magistrate might not resist an army comeing to destroy him and all his Kingdome for Religion but He and all were bound to hold up their throats that they might receive the Crowne of Martyrdome 3. It is good to waite for this Crowne in God's way and not to run to the stake without a cleare call and if People may fairly and with a cleare conscience deliver themselves it is a question if they be called to suffer Obj. 18. Some adduce that place Eccles 8. ver 2 3 4. I counsel thee to keep the Kings command and that in regaird of the oath of God he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the