difference in the cases Unto this I finde no ansvvere in special returned by the Surveyer unlesse Pag. 267. he mean Naphtaly vvhen he sayes But the Apolog. very paradoxically will maintain Pag. 159. That there is more reason to resist our own Magistrates then forraigners because our owne being bound to maintaine our profession his invasion upon the same is aggravate and he is rather to be resisted by violence then others for I finde no such thing in that place of the Apolog. by him cited and that vvhich I just novv mentioned out of Naphtali is indeed in Pag. 159. and though he miscite the vvords and vvrest them after his vvonted manner yet the Reader may see it probable that he intendeth Naphtaly Hovvever let us see vvhat he ansvvereth Thinksâ—e sayes he That it were soundly said that if parents should make disorder in the house that the children and rest of the family should use violence rather against them when they miscarry or waste the goods of the family then against a thief or a robber breaking in into the house Answ To passe by the unsuteablenesse of this Reply unto Naphtali's answer as if Naphtaly had concluded that there was much more reason for resisting our owne Magistrats then Forraigners while as an equality would have satisfied him as his words clearly import We say this to his reply That when he hath demonstrated to us that Children and Servants have as great right unto the goods of the family and as great power and privilege in setting up their Parents the heads of the family and of calling them to account for their mismanagement as we have proved Subjects have in the common good and in setting up of Soveraignes and in calling them to an account then shall his reply be noticed as having some parallel but till then we dismisse it with this answere that the simile as to our poynt is prorsus dissimile and can conclude nothing Yea let us turne is owne weapon against himself and say Seing Children and Servants may lawfully with force with hold the heads of the family when they in a fit of phrensy are labouring to destroy all to burne the house above their heads or to cast all the goods in the house into a fire and resist them no lesse then open enemies and robbers thinks he if soundly said That if Kings in a fit of madnesse Tyranny shal seek to destroy the common wealth wholly overturne all Religion to set up idolatry heathenisme the Subjects may not withstand them prevent their owne ruine and the ruine of Religion with force of armes when no other meanes can availe What will he say to this Will he deny this consequence If not have not we enough But he addeth The Authors error is this that he looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us and not at all to our obligation to him even when he fails abuseing his power Answ He looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us when he mentioneth the aggravation of his guilt of invasion upon that account And whatever be our obligation to the Magistrate which Naphtaly did not forget though he was not called expresly to mentione it then there it will not follow that it is an obligation unto an illimited and stupide Subjection to him in all cases and if the Surveyer prove not this vvhich I suppose he vvill not do he vvill prove nothing against us What more sayes he to this place of Scripture Pag. 267. after he hath given us in his vvay the meaning of these vvords of Christ to vvit That Christ proves his Kingdome not to be of this world by this Medium that if it were so his servants in the quality of his Servants should take up outward armes and fight for him c. Then he concludes that this text will enforce that Christ's Subjects meerly as they are in the capacity of his Subjects are not to use the sword against Magistrates that are over them in his behalfe And then sayes he allowes well of Mr. Hutcheson's note upon the place Christ sayeth he by hindering his servants to fight vvho vvere but private men as to any civil povver hath taught that private men are not vvarranted to dravv the svvord vvere it even in defence of Religion but they ought to maintaine it by suffering when called to that extremity Answ 1. We have showne already how this man's glosse and Mr. Hutchesons do not every way quadrate 2. If this text enforce that Christ's subjects meerly as they are in capacity of his subjects are not to use the sword in Christ's behalfe then He must either say that people even under the conduct of a lawful Magistrate can not defend Religion by armes which yet immediatly thereafter he granteth of say that when they defend Religion so they act not meerly in the capacity of Christ's subjects 3. As for Mr. Hutcheson's note which he opposeth to all our rebellious fancies we say we wish that that worthy author who hath given great proof of his dexterity in deduceing poynts of doctrine from the text had been after his usual manner more acurate here and had guarded his assertion better that it might have had a more clear rise every way answering the ground it was deduced from for sure I am this ground if it be at all against defensive armes in matters of Religion will as much speak against a defence used by Magistrates upon this account as by privat Subjects for the ground is the same to wit that Christ's Kingdome is not of this world and alike concerning Magistrats and people and is no more a temporall Kingdome in regaird of Magistrats then in regaird of private persons And upon the ground that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to fight for him at that time upon the same ground he would not have suffered even Magistrats to fight for him for he behoved to drink the cup that his father gave him And neither Magistrates nor privat persons could have hindered that by force or would have been permitted to do it by him And if it be said that from other passages it is clear that Magistrates who are noursing parents to the Church are allowed to use the sword We answere That we have also proved from scripture and reason that people in some cases may use the sword of defence for Religion Againe it if be said that his Disciples were but private persons as to any civil power and therefore it is only to be understood of these It is answered That it will as well follow That because they were fisher-men therefore it is to be meaned only of these and of none else or that because they vvere Church officers therefore only they must not use the sword and so all others may The last place which Naphtaly mentioned was Math. 5 v. 27. to the end where it is said Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee c. with the parallel places specially Rev.
This is not to solve an argument from scripture 〈◊〉 to set the Scriptures by the eares together Answ Naphtaly did not â—â—ok upon that man as nor yet say that he was distracted and sure his answere being so apposite and pertinent as that it did confound the objecters so as they had not what to reply might have more then sufficiently convinced them of their errour seing thereby they might have perceived that when they little regairded the solid and unanswerable confutations which God suggested to such as they could not but suppose both wise and sober God would prompt one whom they accounted distracted to give such a rational solide and binding ansvvere as all their vvit learning could not frame a reply unto It seemeth if this Surveyer had been rideing on Balaam's asse he vvould have been more furious and mad after the revvard then vvas that vvicked vvretch and vvould have thought himself more brutish then the asse to hearken to vvhat the Lord did put in the mouth of the asse to say by way of rebuke Thinks he that no man of sound judgment vvill think a scripture sufficiently ansvvered by produceing another And that this is but to set the scripture by the eares Then it seemeth vvith him no man of a sound judgment must think that our Lord Jesus did sufficiently ansvvere that passage of Scripture vvhich Satan abused by adduceing another Mat. 4. But that Christ did nothing but set the scriptures by the eares is this far from blasphemy I vvonder vvhere vvas the devils vvit that he had not this reply to make unto Christ's ansvver vvhich this Surveyer here maketh It seemeth our Surveyer can easily out-vvit the devil himself and declare himself better vvorthy of the chaire But enough of this here seing it is obviated Chap XVII Obj. 15. The author of Naphtali did further give these ansvvers 1. That from the place it self all the Euangelists it is most evident that that command was given and these words spoken by our Lord only for to testify his voluntare submission unto the fathers will by laying down of his life for fulfilling the Scripture as is clear From Math. 26. ver 54. and Joh. 18 11. Otherwise the context being considered that notonly in Luke 22 36. cited He forewarning his disciples of hazard to come adviseth them to provide swords and weapons And Mat. 26. asserts his power to have called 12 Legions of angels to his assistance which clearly implyes the lawfulnesse thereof this Scripture objected doth more confirme then impugne the lawfulnesse of defensive armes What sayeth our Surveyer to this He sayes 1. That passage Luke 22 36. is perverted by him Why so Because Beza Diodat and Iansenius acknowledge that speach to be wholly allegorick And then addeth that in very dead it cannot sustaine that Christ should here enjoyn them to buy swords of outward mettal seing it was not Christ's minde that at that time they should use such swords no not in defence of his owne person would he have them sell their cloaths to buy swords and then not use them Answ Though we have obviated this reply in the place cited Chap. XVII and fully vindicated our argument from this passage Chap. XII Arg. 13. beginning Pag. 260. Yet we shall adde this that sure Christ's Disciples tooke him to be speaking of vveapons svvords of outward mettal when they said to him here are two and as sure it is that Christ's reply saying it is enough hinteth at no spiritual armour othervvise vve must say that his Disciples at this time vvere sufficiently fortified against all Spiritual vvars and combats and yet after experience proveth the contrary And no lesse sure is it that if Christ had here meaned Spiritual armour he vvould have been loath to have left his Disciples in such a mistake vvhich vvas of so great concernement for all time comeing novv especially vvhen he vvas shorthly to be taken from them And vvhere do vve finde him rectifying this mistake of the Disciples or saying That he meaned no such svvords his saying it is enough Importeth some other thing as is said Againe if this speech be wholly allegorick what way will they expone these words But now he that hath a purse let him take it and likewise his Scripe But as we see no ground for an allegroy here so we may not expone Scripture by allegories when we please all know how dangerous it is to do so without clear warrand And as for this Surveyer's reason added it is of no weight to force us to accept of such an interpretation for though it was not our Lords minde that they should use those swords further at that time yet he might have taught the lawfulnesse of self defence in other cases where there was no positive command to the contrary by thus saying unto them He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one Since he had not made use of such forcible defence before to have showne them the lawfulnesse thereof as he did of flight which also at this time he would not make use of and that they might see how voluntaryly and of his owne accord he laid downe his life in obedience to the command which he had received of his Father who would not make use even of that meane which he had declared lawful by adviseing them to provide swords Againe the Surveyer replyeth The question is now anent the lawfulnesse of privat mens useing defensive arms against all Magistrats without any shadow of authority And to prove this he alledges that God by his absolute power might send 12. Legions of Angels to help Christ God hath authority above all authorities in the World and he may imploy Angels or Men as â—hse pleaseth and then they have a good warrand and authority But what makes this for any privat Mens useing the sword against the Magistrate without authority either from God or Men It is wonder us reasoning from Gods absolute power the efficacy of Christ's prayer to argue the lawfulnesse of privat Mens resistence of the lawful Magistrate without any warrand from God Answ This is to us no strange way of replying seing we have met with the like so often before No Man sayeth let be undertaketh to prove whether by this or any other argument that it is lawful for privat persons yea or for Kings and all in authority to resist whether lawful Magistrats or others without a warrand from God What a non-sensical contradictory conclusion should this be But this we say That it is not in every case unlawful nor wanteth it a warrand from God even for privat Subjects to defend themselves from the Tyranny of those in power by forcible resistence notwithstanding that Christ would not suffer his followers to make use thereof in his case which was singular And among other things his saying that he could obtaine by prayer of the Father 12 Legions of Angels for his succour doth confirme it For if he might
they being properly exnatur a rei and ex institutione instituentium intentione ordained and appoynted for the greater faifty and good of the people And therefore if the Representatives betray their trust the People in so far are as if they had no Representatives and may no lesse defend themselves in extreame necessity then if the officers of their army whom they had chosen and appoynted to defend them against an invadeing enemy should revolt to the enemy they might lawfully rise up in their owne defence and oppse the adversary 7. The law sayeth that deterior conditio domini per procuratorem fieri non debet L. ignorantis ff de procuratoriburs The procurator or advocat his knavery cannot prejudge the Client or wronge his cause And why then shall the perfidy of the peoples Representatives or their betraying of their trust wronge their cause and prejudge them of their just right 8. All will grant That it is as lawful for an oppressed people to defend themselves from the injuryes of a Parliament as from the injuries of a Soveraigne if not more and if it be lawfull for a people to defende themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament as is more then sufficiently proved by all such arguments as have hitherto by any been made use of to prove it lawful to resist a Soveraigne oppressing and tyrannizing no man of common sense will deny it lawful to a people to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny when they but want the concurrence or countenance of these Parliaments 9. If any should allaige that this is against the law of the constitution of the Kingdom We know no such law beside that though there were any such yet necessity knoweth no law and in cases of necessity such lawes are not to be observed sayeth the law L. ut gradatim § I. de muner honor The lavves of nature are irrevocable and cannot be rescinded by municipal lavves for the lavv tells us that civilis ratio jur◠natur alia corrumpere non pote st L. eas oblig D. de cap. privat Novv the lavv of nature allovving self defence against unjust violence addeth no such restriction viz. that it be done by the conduct and concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments 10. The very concessions of our adversaries fore-mentioned vvill confirme this consequence for in these cases they vvill grant the same liberty to a People vvithout as to a People vvith their Representatives to defend themselves for the vveight and ground is not laid upon the manner or vvay of conduct or managing of the resistence and defence but upon the cause and that is alvvayes the same Yea the necessity as was said is greater though it may be the difficulty is also greater when Representatives desert such as they do represente and instead of helping them with counsel and conduct in their necessity do either deserte them or turne enemies unto them Our 3 argument is taken from the law and light of nature which alloweth to beasts power and ability to defend them selves against violence An argument made use of not only by Lex Rex and the Apology but by Divines Canonists Lawyers and others who write of this subject The civil law it self tells us That his necessary defence of life floweth from the law of nature L. ut vim ff de just jure But here cometh out a green statist and takes on him to cry shame on all who ever wrote on that subject and avovves Pag. 15. That it is too grosse divinity to bring such an argument from beasts We must therefore see vvhether this Man be rational in rejecting such an argument taken from beasts and not rather more irrational then a Brute to deny that to a Rational creature vvhich he cannot but grant to Beasts and Creatures vvithout life as vve see he doth Pag. 14. 15. We shall readily grant vvith'him That God hath given this self defending or preserving povver and propension otherwayes to Men then to inanimate creatures or unto beasts which are under no law but that of meer nature and therefore they are not to defend themselves coeco impetu but rationally and ought to subordinate this natural propension to self defence unto and limite it by the higher lawes of reason and of God Doth he think that such as make use of this argument do suppose That in every case and in every manner of way men are to use and exercise this natural propension to self defence in vvhich and after vvhich Beasts are to use it Sure he is in a great mistake and he vvrongeth the authors of Lex Rex and of the Apolog. c. vvhen he sayeth Pag. 15. That they bring arguments from beasts who being under no law of reason nor grace to limite their propensions may alwayes in all imaginable cases defend themselves with force to perswade men that they may do the like and that their propension for their externall preservation is no more under any restraineing rule to stope the exercise of it then that of Beasts is For they intend no such thing nor are they in the least necessitated to use that argument so They only make use of it to disprove That irrational and more then brutish position and maxime of absolute unlimited and indispensible subjection of subjects to their Soveraigne so that in no case they may or can resist which all the Cabal and royal society of Royalists parasites court flatterers and cavalliers who because they themselves in hopes of some crumbs of allowance have brutishly without regaird had to the Law of God or right reason sold and devouted themselves not only in matters concerning their body but in soul matters unto the meer lust and pleasure of a creature of clay think all others should play the beasts with them do furiously obstinately maintaine And as to this the argument hence deduced is most rational and irrefragable for it is irrational to think That God who taketh much more care of man then of beasts 1 Cor. 9 9. Mat. 6 30. should allow and give unto the inanimate creatures and to the beasts a power and propension to defend themselves against violence and should deny the same to Man so that in no case he should be allowed to exerce that natural propension to defend himfelfe and to resist unjust violence with violence So then we might let his restrictions passe as being no thing to the present purpose for it is but his groundlesse imagination to think that we would equalize Men with Beasts because we will not with him and his party depresse them into a condition belovv beasts yet we shall shortly run over them His first is this when it is seen to be to no purpose by reason of a phisical force But alas doth he think this restriction of the natural propension for felfe preservation is upon men only not upon Beasts also did he not say in the same Page the Major vis and a greater phisical force would hinder
opposed to the Kings oath a publick oath swore that they would not suffer that any evil should be done unto him The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kinde of oath in use among the Hebrevvs But sayes he It is a vvonder to see understanding men argue from this place for violence and forcible resistence to Kings especially vvhen acting according to lavves consented to by private persones Ans This place proveth clearly that princes may be resisted and resisted vvhen they use violence and oppression and that by private persones even vvhen the oppression or iniquity is acted according to a pretended lavv or something equivalent to a lavv Let us see vvhere the difference lyeth Here sayes he the King is not acting according to law but prosecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath Answ 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emissaries act according to lavv but were prosecuting the execution of a develish and rash resolution to root out and destroy a vvhole Countrey side 2. If Royalists speak truth Sauls vvord let be his oath vvas as good as a lavv and Sanctius sayeth it vvas Decretum decreed And vvhatever it vvas formally it vvas materially a law unto which they had all tacitely assented v. 24. which they durst not transgresse v. 26. Here sayes he the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession earnest reasoning that he ought to regaird what was right more then his rash oath Answ No reasoning vve heare but a peremptour telling of the King to his face that he should not get his vvill not one haire of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground if he should attempt any thing against Ionathan it should be over their bellyes Their vvords look like club-agruments Here sayes he their opposition was acceptable and welcome acquiesced in and yeelded to Answ It is like it vvas condescention by force and constraint for vvhether he vvould or not he savv he could not get his vvill and therefore passed from vvhat he intended 2. His acquiescence sayes the resistence vvas more forcible then meer intercession vvould be for he vvas another sort of bloody Tyrant then to yeeld to petitions vvhen he thought his honour stood upon it Here sayes he the opposition is made by the Princes of the land Captains of Thousands c. Answ The text sayes The people rescued Ionathan Who ever they vvere vvhatever they vvere they acted not here as the Supreame Sanhedrin nor as a court of judicatour haveing povver of government but as private persones according to their povver and capacities And so all this makes much for a party of private persones for here vvas not all the land their resisting of the King 's bloody emissaries executing cruelty not so much as according to an iniquous lavv but contrare to all lavv right and reason Let sayes he Peter martyr be looked upon this place and he speaks not ably well his owne words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p 349. Answ Lex Rex dealt ingenuously with his reader concerning him telling him in the margine that with adoubt he said si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt And that he said they might Suffragiis vvith their suffrages free him Why did not the Surveyer set dovvn his vvords did Lex Rex falsify also Chrysostome homil 14. ad Pop. Antioch Iunius Corn a lapide Sanctius Lyra Hugo Cardin. Iosephus L. 6. antiq c. 7. and Althus Polit. c. 38. n. 109. 3. They must condemne David for his resisting of King Saul with armed men which yet the spirit of God doth not condemne but rather approve in commending such as helped him I Chron. 12 1. 2. 8. c. and inspireing Amazia who was chief of the captaines to say Thine are we David and on thy side peace peace be unto thee and peace be unto thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee So did he intend to keep out the city Keila against the King and consulted God thereanent and had his answere that the city would betray him Now if it had been unlavvful for him to have defended himself by such forcible resistence vve cannot think that he vvould have goten such ansvvers as he gote Grotius himself approveth this deed of David's All vvhich this Surveyer sayeth against this Pag. 67. is That Davids unction did so distinguish him from private persons as that it made it lawful for him to resist violence with violence But the law of nature restricteth not this lawful self-defence to anoynted persons 2. If his anoynting made him no private person what did it make him it could not make Him King othervvise he might not only have resisted Saul but have taken his life as a traitour or else vve must say there were two Kings at once in Israel 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his resistence nor is there any hint of this in the text 4. They must condemne the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which resisted Ioab Davids General and his forces when they besieged it till the matter came to a capitulation Ioab should have offered tearmes unto the city before he had threatned to destroy it and should have communed with the Magistrates concerning the delivering up of the Taitour before he had resolved to destroy the whole city for one Traitours cause and therefore justly did they defend themselves against his unjust invasion notwithstanding he was armed with a commission from the King and remarkable it is that after the capitulation they were never challenged for traitours in resisting with closed gates and fensed walls the King's General and army So that here is a private city standing out for a time against the King's souldiours unjustly seeking to destroy them because of one Traitour among them 5. They must condemne the Prophet Elias for resisting Ahaziah's bloody Emissaries sent by him in an angry moode to apprehend him and to compell him in a spite full manner and to take him prisoner as say the Dutch Annot. on the place For speaking such things as he did unto the messengers of the King who were sent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron to enquire if he should recover of his desease and to bring him to the King by violence if he would not come willingly as Iosephus sayeth antiq Lib. 9. C. 2. 2 King 1. Now he resisted such as were sent and killed two Captanes their fifties with fire from heaven which instance doth sufficiently declare that it is lavvful for private subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the King's Emissaries though armed with his commission It is true the manner of his resistence and of killing these vvas extraordinary by way of a miracle yet the resistence it self was not extraordinare as we have seen by other instances and shall see cleared by moe 6. They must condemne the prophet Elisha who resisted both the King and his Emissaries in his ovvne defence 2 Kings 6 32. saying to the Elders
because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and the Edomites loved not the true Religion but the meritorious cause on Jehorams part is poynted at Answ The text it self and Commentators to vvhom vve may add Iackson on 2 King 8. the Dutch Annot Ibid. give this as the impulsive cause and only motive vvhich they had before their eyes 2. Any who read the text vvill see his reason very unsound for v. 8. it is said that in his dayes the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Iudah and made themselves a King and no word of this as the impulsive cause there of v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occasion of Iehorams seeking by force to reduce them under his dominion and then in a new period mention is made of Libnah's revolt with the cause and only motive thereof Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers Then he asks if his adversary thinks that the laying aside of the presbyterian frame is the forsaken of the Lord God of our Fathers and a sufficient cause for any one Towne in the Kingdom to revolt from the King though he do not persecute them nor force them to his way as there is no evidence that Libnah was so used shall a Kings swerving in that one point or if there be greater infidelity be sufficient ground of defection from him Ans I nothing doubt but all such as have imbraced this present course of apostasie are guilty of a grievous revolt having impudently and avowedly departed form a sworne Covenant from a covenanted sworne Religion reformed in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline Government and have in a great part forsaken the God of our Fathers that covenanted God whom our Fathers and we both owned and imbraced as our God and is sufficient cause for any City or Company of men so far to revolt from the King as to refuse to concurre with him in this horrible defection and course of perjury and resist his unjust violence pressing and compelling them to a sinful compliance 2. As it is more then probable that Libnah was no better used then were the people of Iudah by this Tyrannous King and is asserted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21 10. So whatever this lyer suggesteth it is notour that the King hath persecuted and doth persecute and force honest people to follow his way and apostatize with him contrare to their consciences and sworne allegiance unto God and if he add this clause as an exception then seing the truth of the thing is notour he fully accords that there is sufficient cause given for any Town in the Kingdome to revolt which is more then we desire At length he tells us That their revolt was sinfull But when not only thiâ— revolt is recorded as done but such and impulsive cause and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord without the least hint of any expression condemning the same we dar not be so bold as is this Surveyer Nor are we so foolish as to receive his word contraire to the testimony of so many expositors Hence we have a strong argument For if it be lawful for a part of the people to revolt from a tyrannous Prince making defection from the true and received Religion and forceing his subjects to a sinful defection and complyance with him in his apostasy It must also be lawful for a part of the people to defend themselves by force against the Emissaries of a King departing from his faith and foresaking the Religion which He hath sworne to owne and maintaine sent forth by him or any under him to force by cruel oppression and violence them to a compliance with his sinful way And the antecedent is cleare in this place 3. They must much more condemne Azariah and the fourescore Priests who being commended as me of courage valour resisted Vziah the King 2 Chron. 26 17. c. they expelled him with force stood against him the lxx say they resisted him deturbarunt eum ex eo loco sayeth Vatablus they forced him forth and compelled him to goe out they caused him make haste sayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum sayeth Hieron When he went in the temple to burne incense upon the altaar of incense on some solemne day as Iosephus thinketh So that there is more then a resistance of him by words as some Royalists say even resistence by force and violence Hence we argue if private subjects may by force resist withstand and with violence hinder the King from transgressing the Law of God Then may they much more lawfully resist him and his bloody Emissaryes when He seeketh to oppresse unjustly and to draw people off from the wayes of the Lord. If any say with doct Ferne that because of an expresse Law of God being a leper he was put out of the congregation Then we see that the Prince is subject to Church-censure and so Subjects may judge him and punish him we see also that Princes were subject to ceremonial lawes as well as any of the subjects and why not also to the moral Lawes and if because of a ceremonial Law the King was to be ceremonially punished why also for the breach of moral Law may he not be punished morally Hence will it undoubtedly follow That a Prince rageing and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reason may be resisted and his violence repelled with violence even by private subjects Worthy Mr Knox in his debate with Lithengtoun doth form this instance gather That subjects not only may but also ought to withstand and resist their Princes whensoever they do any thing that expresly repugnes to God his Law or holy Ordinance Lithingtoun objected That they were not private subjects but the priests of the Lord and figures of Christ and such have we none this day to withstand Kings if they do any thing wrong He answered that though the High Priest was a figure of Christ yet he was a subject For said he I am assured that he in his Priesthood had no prerogative above these that passed before him now so it is that Aaron was subject to Moses and called him Lord Samuel being both prophet and Priest subjected himself unto Saul after he was inaugurated of the people Sadoc bowed before David c. And whereas you say we have no such Priests this day I might answere that neither have we such Kings this day as then were anoynted by Gods commandement and sate upon the seate of David and were no lesse the figures of Christ Iesus in their just administration then were the Priests in their appointed office and such Kings I am assured we have not now no more then we have such Priests for Christ Iesus being anoynted in our nature of God his Father both King Priest and Prophet hath put an end to all external unction and yet I think you will not say that God hath now diminished his graces from these whom he appoynts
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
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
some small and inconsiderable triffles unto which some small and inconsiderable hurt is opposite nor shall we say that any extraordinary thing is to be attempted in a Commonwealth against the lawes whensoever any leading popular man or bold rhetoricator or a Démagog shall say that Princes and Magistrates have violated the lawes done injuries to the people and neglected their duty yet he must give us leave to say That the saifty of the people is in hazard when it is manifest and notour so as they who run may read it that lawes once established and for the future good and through security of the subject by Oathes and Covenantes corroborated and made irrepelable by any Magistrate higher or lower are annulled condemned and rescinded nay the Covenants whereby the land was devouted to God and their Religion secured to them and the fundamental law or ground of the Constitution and condition on which the Soveraigne was admitted to his throne overturned and trode under foot All forced to condemne their former actions and Covenants Vowes Oathes Prayers Teares Fastings Fightings c. by subscribing contradictory condemnatory and rescissory acts and declarations and forced to run counter their owne oathes and Solemne Engagements otherwise to be exposed to ruine by arbitrary mulcts fineings imprisonements quarterings cruel and inhumane usages plunderings vastations depopulations and the like Is not this equivalent to incursions of forraigne adversaryes Is not this depredation committed by wicked subjects Is there not here impious and horrible acts of tyranny But he will have the word People taken for the Prince distinct from the People or in a collective sense for Prince and People together He must be a strong rhetoricator indeed that will perswade any to beleeve this seing there is no reason in the world for it For though we should grant that among the Romans it vvas sometimes used to designe not only the plebeians but also the equestral crder conjunctly as in that axiome Senatus populusque Romanus The senate and the people of Rome And that sometimes it did designe the Fathers the knights and the Plebeians conjunctly yet it will not follovv that it is so it is so taken in this axiome for if vve should follovv his ovvne rule viz. That collective vvords should be collectively taken unlesse the opposite vvhich is annexed require othervvise And vvith all make use of this ovvne vvords prael 10. § 19. A romana gente c 1. e I have told that this axiome is come to our hands from the Romans and now I adde that in the 3 book of Cicero de legibus that sentence is frist found for any thing I know yet as he testifieth himself taken out of the ancient lawes of that nation and copied out of the very letter of the law Now this Cicero after he hath described and explained in the preceding book the lawes pertaining to Religion and the worshiping of the Gods at length in the third book he comes to rehearse these lawes which concearne the Republick and the Magistrates where these words are to be found Regio Imperio duo sunto iique praeeundo judicando consulendo praetores judices consules appellantor militiae summum jus habento nemini parento ollis i.e. illis salus populi suprema lex esto he sayes to these the chief law should be the peoples saifty Now who are these those viz. Who were endued with King'ly power and had the chief disposall of the militia c. It vvill then be as cleare as can be that the opposite which is added or annexed doth sufficiently show that the vvord People in this axiome is to be taken for the People as contradistinguished from the Magistrates and not for People and Magistrate conjunctly far lesse for the Prince as distinct from the People And doth not this same sentence of Cicero's fully confirme our Glosse and say that Princes and Magistrates as such ought mainly to designe the good of the People over whom they are set to have that for their end in all their publick actings whether in making or in executing lawes How then can he say that this axiome is rather to be understood of the Prince alone then of the People alone But for this he tells us That the ancient Fathers did esteem of them as next unto God ad inferiour to him only and that the People of Israel 2 Sam. 18 3. Did preferre the saifty of the King unto the saifty of all the rest and in the Lament 4 20. He is called the breath of our nostrils To all which it is easily answered 1. That all this will not prove that Princes are bound by reason of their office only to seek their owne good greatnesse and power or to preferre that unto the good of the People and not rather designe as their proper and principal end the promoving of the good and saifty of the People committed to their charge 2. The Fathers might have spoken so of the Emperours as they were then de facto and in regaird of their supereminency but notwithstanding of that they and their supereminency both was subordinate unto the good of the People and was ex natura rei but a meane for that maine and great good 3. It is true in some cases and at such a nick of time as that was 2 Sam. 18. The losse of a good King when he is the maine person hunted for by the adversaries would prove more destructive to the Commonwealth then the losse of ten thousand and this rather confirmeth the axiome then weakeneth it for it was upon the account of the publick good of the Commonwealth that the life of King David was preferable to the lives of many 4. It is not said that His life was better then and preferable to the lives of the whole body of the Commonwealth 5. That metaphorical expression Lament 4. she weth only how useful steadable the King would be unto them even a necessary mean to keep them in a politick life as to a Commonwealth and so it sayeth that his whole designe as a Magistrate should be to procure their good 6. Moses a good Prince did preferre the Peoples life unto his owne and David did the same 1. Chron 12 17. and these do abundantly confirme our sense He replyeth further That it was no wonder that among the Romans from whom we have this axiome the Peoples saifty was the principal law seing in that democratical government the People were the Supreame powres Ans This is but a meer shift for even in a democrat governm the Peoples saifty is distinguished from the Supreame power which is to level all to this maine end the saifty of the People 2. Cicero told us that the Consuls and Praetors were bound to propose this end unto themselves so we finde that the People whose saifty is the Supream law are distinguished from these who whether in a Popular or Aristocratical govern excerced the supreame povver 3. This same is insert in
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
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
a remedy to preserve the commonwealth from ruine more regaird is to be had to this which is the end then to the Prince who as such is but a medium to this end 2. Such as plead for the good of humane Societyes should as much labour to prevent the utter overturning of the same as to prevent seditions Good phisitians will labour more carefully to prevent death then to prevent a little distemper or sicknesse yea and will cause a distemper to prevent destruction but this montebank if he procure with his prescriptions present ease careth not though the patient die the next day But 3. How doth our doctrine open a perpetual gap to seditions Because sayes he by our way every private person is made judge not only his owne actions but of his sufferings and he must suffer no more then he thinks meet But 1. would he have all the Subjects becomeing more senselesse and stupide then beasts Would he have them casting away their soul judgment that they should have no more use of their reason to judge what either is commanded or imposed by penalty If he grant a judgement of discretion in actings how will he salve the Magistrat's credite and honour and prevent rebellion and sedition if there be such a necessary connexion betwixt the exercise of this judgement and the consequent he dreameth of For disobedience is a resistence as well as non-submission to the punishment 2. Though we allow to every one a judgement of discretion yet we allow no man's judgement to be the rule of his walking We say not that an erring judgment is a rule to walk by and therefore we say that a subject is bound to obey the Magistrates lawful commands though he in his private judgement should account them sinful so we say he is bound to submit to punishment which is just and justly inflicted though he judge otherwayes Yea we grant furder he is bound to submit to unjust sentences patiently when he cannot by faire and possible meanes shun them Yea moreover we grant that in matters of smaller moment he may lawfully beare with the losse of a little to redeeme more or save more from hazard But our question is if the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof ought stupidly to submit to the losse of Life Lands Libertyes and Religion when not only they judge these to be in hazard but when all who have eyes in their head see it it is undenyable being written on all the Acts actings of these in power palpably too too sensibly felt by al such as desire to keep a good conscience to be keeped free from the rageing wickednesse aposrasy of this generation 4. Though I know few malefactors who when attached arraigned condemned would not do what they could to deliver themselvs from death though this question had never been started yet our doctrine will not warrand such to do violence to the Magistrate For we judge it not enough that they say they are innocent and deserve on punishment Our case is a case that is manifest and not our and a publick injury avowed and maintained And will he think that because a Malefactor justly condemned to die may not resist the Magistrate executing his office Therefore a Land may not defend themselves against the Kings Emissaries sent out to execute unjust sentences tending to the ruine and destruction of Religion and Liberties His 2. Reason Pag. 44. is in summe this That by this way Magisirates in doing their duty cannot be secured for it is not enough to say let Magistrates rule rightly and not oppresse because that in the holy permissive providence of God oft the best princes are not best used some crossing of the will of a forward and furiâ—â—s party may move them to fancy ther Prince a Tyrant and thereupon account themselves free to offer violence And from resistence they will goe to revenge the fury of evil consciences instigating them in histories it will be found that hardly did ever people resist a prince but in end it came to revenge and of times the best princes have been worst used at least as evil as the naughtiest as may be seen a mong the Roman Emperours and Christian Emperours and Kings and amongst our own Kings c. Answ Lend us this argument and we shall see what to make of it By his doctrine people can never be secured from unjust violence or from continual oppression and slavery for it is in vaine to say let them do that which is right and Magistrates will do their duty for albeit it be true that faithful and honest subjects may in the way of their duty expect from God that he will incline the hearts of Magistrates to respect and encourage them yet in the holy permissive providence of God it comes often to passe that the best people are not best used by their princes And this all histories both ancient and moderne abundantly demonstrate This court divine is all for the secureing of the Prince in all his tyrannies oppressions and speaks nothing for guarding the saifty of the people which is the end for which Magistrates were appoynted And this is to pervert the order of nature so to secure the meane as to destroy the end For that is to make the meane the end and no more the meane 2. We justify not Subjects as are unruly seditious against good Magistrates doing their duty nor do we plead for Subjects riseing up in armes against their Magistrates for every small injury or when they deviate in a little from the right way Let him grant to us That subjects may oppose their Magistrates and resist unjust violence with violence when in stead of being Magistrates they become wolves and Tygers and in stead of being pastors of the people they become lyons seeking to destroy and devoure them and when they overturne the ends for which they were appoynted and destroy the liberties of the Subject overturne the Religion which they were obliged sworne to defend in their place and according to their power and we desire no more 3. If any under pretext of repelling of violence shall unjustly injure the Magistrate we approve not such we justify them not let them answere for that themselves This is nothing to our question if he say that our doctrine openeth a gap to this He is mistaken for such as say that the sinful and unjust commands of Magistrates should not b e obeyed do not open a gap to all disobedience even in the most just commands And since he will grant that unjust commands ought not to be obeyed let him close the door here so that from this there shall be no hazard of mocking the Magistrate when commanding just and necessary dutyes And with the same engyne shall we close the door so that when we say that Magistrates destroying Religion Libertyes and what is dear to Subjects may be resisted we shall secure the
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
high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue though extraordinary actions which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue may not be imitated And he hath not yet proved neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as was that of Abraham and the like We shall grant with him That Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set And that men may have heroick motions actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as Luther had as sometimes though they have an extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions as Peeter when he dissembled But what sayes this to Phine as his fact Phineas sayes he had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions but supposeing him a meer private person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God Answer Doth this man give a distinct sound He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas that he turned himself Protëus -like into many shapes and we finde himself doing little better here He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not but if he was such then the action was extraordinary but what if he was not Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical and thus we are no wiser then we were for we know not what to make of the action nor what to make of the person but we must judge of the person by the action And of the action by the person That is to say if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary and è contra if the action was extraordinary he was a private person and if it was ordinare and imitable Then he was a publick person Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel and yet that action of theirs is imitable But how proves he this extraordinary call It is sayes he fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our wil service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by P sal 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousnesse though judging according to ordinary Rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposeing him for a meer private man yet having God's warrand whose will is the rule of righteousnesse the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ It is true God revvards not nor approves not vvil-service yet he approves and revvards other actions then such as are extraordinary and not imitable 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse sayes clearly he vvas a private person and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory and rather speakes out an encouragement to all to do the like in the like case then any extraordinary call he had vvhich none novv can expect Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings sayes that Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate there is no mids betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories if they be not called by the intervention of men their allowance they must plead an immediat calling from God Ans Beacause I minde not to enter into a Logomachy or debate about words tearmes I would desre him to tell me what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not or do not call People forth unto that work They have not Man's call nor have they an immediate call from heaven and yet they have a lawful call from God Nature and necessity to save the city their houses goods little ones from being burnt into ashes And what ever name he give to this call we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty And when men whether out of secret impulses heroical motions or out of meer sense conscience of duty do this they do not desert their owne calling and state like these spirits lud ver 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office though they do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrates by office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable necessity which knoweth no humane law and to which some divine positive lawes will cede But then he sayes Pag. 115. Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministery without a call from men externally Answ And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men in some cases What if a company of Men be cast out on an island having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places whence they might have some lawfully called Minister and there be one among them qualified for the work might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function And when we grant this we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists Enthusiasts photinians or the like who are against an external call at any time alledging that gifts are sufficient And sayes he how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessity Answ He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist and then he will imbrace the consequent also without our admission In the 8 place he comes to tell us that It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened c. for our question is not of that but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned we have warrand to look for any extraordinary persosones having Gods secret and special Mandates to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in Answ Prophecyes and predictions of future events are not works which any ordinary calling men have by allowance and approbation of Men according to the rules of common reason and the word doth interest them in and doth he think God's
and reproaches He vvhether he had medled with this work or not the rest with their underlings are the true hirelings wolves destroying the flock of God in this work thought there be not otio sum silentium there are otio sa verba and vvorse praetereanihil and an unvaliant impudent affronted pleading for untruth tyranny and vvickednesse vvhich is neither a product of prudence nor magnanimity And vvhen he hath cited Prov. 26 5. and Tit. 1 10 11. he hath adduced his ovvne Doom and accordingly he is ansvvered and his mouth let it be is vvide as it vvill gaged and stopped not with butter which is unfit to stoppe a breathing mouth but vviht more solid stuff so that vve are confident the gangraene of his vvords shall not creep far not infect such as are cleane and as for such as are uncleane they owe their infection to some other not so innocent in vviâ— and parts as he is 11. Novv the dye being cast and he resolved to say something he is as much perplexed anent the way of handling this businesse Yea he sayes There is a greater difficulty in dealing vvith this Man of no forehead or if he have any it is of the hardest metal of little conscience but of infinite loquacity and of a most unbridled tongue vvhich is a treasure of all revileing language Yet he finds him and vvill possibly yet more finde him a man vvhose fore-head is of harder mettal though not in impudency shamelesse audacity then he is able to stand against and a man of more conscience then to contradict himself either in vvords or deeds as this verlumnus a man of a debauched conscience doth a man not of infinite loquacity or of an unbridled tongue vvho repeateth not the same thing over and over againe ad nauseam us que nor one who speaketh non-sense at randome as this poor pamphleter doth but a man of more solid reason and nervous succinct expressions then he vvas able to comprehend And vvho so shall compare the tvvo together shall finde he hath put the saddle on the vvrong horse But where did the difficulty lye The great difficulty vvas sayes he hovv to moderate and temper a stile of vvriting tovvard such an one difficile est satyram non scribere contra satyrum for hardly can a man meet in any book vvith more bitter invectives against all authorities and dignities appoynted and approven of God then are here to be found all that have gone that way before him seem but Children in vvickednesse in comparison of him he deserves to be in the first classe of these Jude v. 8. Who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities Answ Naphtaly it is true is no base sycophant nor slatterer nor is he because of free and faithful holding forth of the wicked and sinful carriage of these in authority and of these who have usurped authority to be accounted a writter of Satyrs or of invectives else the Prophets writings shall not escape that sharpe censure Nor is he upon this account to be reckoned among far lesse to be put into the first classe of these who despise dominions c. unlesse by this ignoramus who knoweth no medium betwixt base flattering of dignities and speaking evil of them Yet in the following part of that Paragraph he sayes he deserveth well because of his plainnesse though it be but his sancy to think that Either King or Nobles are in hazard to be dispossessed by private persons in a Phine as like Spirit yet he is truely and especially afrayed of the ministry and mainly of the Bishops because such strokes approach neare to himself and the burnt Childe feareth the fire And his fear blindeth his eyes so that he cannot see to read Naphtaly a right And I think no heroik person will desire to imbrew their hands in their blood who are far below the wrath of a man far more the indignation of an Heroik person though they shall never be found innocent be pursued when they will He but lyeth when he sayeth in the following words That Naphtaly with his tragical oh's awakeneth the rage of the rudest multitude which becals Zeal of God to execute judgement on them that the fierce angco of God may be turned away Nor doth he tell them if they do not so they are plagued with sâ—upidity and blindnesse It is true which he sayes that All soris of Rulers in the land may see their dittay and their doom drawne in that book But no otehrwise then as the word of God giveth warrand and there they would read it and repent in time lest they sinde it verified He is but like himself a false lyar when he sayes that Naphtaly Discovereth the malicious cruel and bloody designes of his party For they have no malicious cruel nor bloody designes their only designes being to maintaine their integrity and their reformed Religion which Enemies combined against Christ are seeking to destory This man imagineth a snare where there is none but seeth not the snare which Satan and his owne hands are setting for his soul neither will he and the rest take warning though the word of the Lord do clearly discover wrath and vengeance at hand and whether then they be worthy of a faire hood and bells Let any judge but sure I am they shall one day see their folly and madnesse and write Abner's Epitaph over themselves But we wish them rather repentance and to be wise in time not against their will but willingly 12. And furder ibid Pag. 13. he tells us It were irksome and unsuteable to one who desireth to keep the constant compsure of a Christian Spirit to indulge an humour of retaliating And that he is at a great disadvant age because it almost transcends in his apprehension humane patience to treat mildly with such an insolent one O! Who would not pity this man who is put off the constant composure of a Christian Spirit But can he be in the composure of a Christian Spirit who is so easily moved off it by that which should rather settle him in it Can his patience be good which is so stirred by hearing of truth told And who can think that he hath been of any composure of a Christian spirit who hath not indeed indulged an humor of retaliating but of brawleing in a transcendently insolent manner without ground given being transported beyond the bounds of humanity let be humane patience Then Pag. 14. he Sheweth what reason he hath to use a more then ordinary vehemency of a keen stile saying Shall Masters of consusiâ—n as if he were not a Davus Indulging themselves in their proud moro suy â—unworthyly demeane themselves toward the sober defenders of the truth but who are these And will not this be a sufficient Apology for them to put forth some sting But good Sir I fear your sting be gone long since because you are become a drone We have seen your good will to shoot your sting