accompanyed with such consequents could never be the instinct of pure nature nor can we suppose that such a thing can be the ordinance of God appoynted for the good of mankinde Therefore this must stand as a firme truth that the condition of a people modelled into a civil state is not worse then it was before but rather better 5. It will be no lesse readyly yeelded That such one or more as are chosen by the Community to act the part of Magistrates notwithstanding of that change made in their condition abide men of the like passions and infirmities with the rest yea and subject to moe temptations and so in greater hazard to miscarry then formerly This change doth not Transforme them into Angels or put them beyond the reach of injuries as all will grant nor beyond a capacity of doing injury even to these over whom they are set No humane power can set any above God's Law or loose him from the binding power thereof and till this be or They out of a capacity or transgressing God's Law which no humane act can do He Or They are still obnoxious to the sin of injuring their neighbour and transgressing the law of righteousnesse no lesse then others 6. It is Left to the People in this case to condescend upon what forme of government they think most expedient and most suteable to their temper and to the condition providence hath cast them into whether it be Monarchy or Arosticracy or Democracy or a mixed kinde for though God and Nature hath instituted Government yet not having determined any one forme to be the only lawful forme People are it liberty to walke here upon rational grounds and to consult their owne advantage next the glory of God and to make choise of that which all things considered promiseth most probable felicity unto them and of the several formes or Kindes of government all lawful in themselves to pitch upon what Kinde they think most expedient and conduceing to their ends This is assented unto by all Politians and so it followeth That it is meerly from the People that this forme and not another is made choise of 7. As neither God nor Nature hath determined the particular forme of government under which Men must live but hath left it as was said to their free choise so it is not determined how large or how little every politick society should be nor whether a people living at some considerable distance from other or more contiguously should joyne together in one and make up one body politick or whether they should erect moe distinct and independent Commonwealthes though possibly of the same extract and language Nature sayeth not that all in one Iland of one extract or of one language should become one Politick Body under one politick head We have heard of the time when there have been many Kings distinct and independent in one England And how many Kings there was at one and the same time in the land of Canaan no vast territory scripture tells us Nor hath Nature determined that distinct bodyes of people living in distinct and far separated places yea having distinct customes and languages may not when they see it for their advantage associate for setting up one Supreame Soveraigne over all So that this also is left to the free choise and determination of the People 8. When a free People have rationally and deliberatly condescended upon the forme it is in their power to condescend upon the time how long that forme shall endure and either prefix a certaine time at vvhich it shall evanish if they see it not expedient to continue it or reserve to themselves a liberty to alter it when they vvill Each of the sormes being in themselves lavvful People may choose vvhich they think best and though one Kinde of government vvill agree to some People better then another yet Bodyes of people being lyable to causal changes and these requireing formes suteable A people at the beginning guyded with reason may rationally foresee such changes and accordingly determine the first forme condescended on to continue longer or shorter time definite or indefinite It is not to my present purpose to determine vvhat a people may do as to this after their predecessours have once imbraced a forme and engaged themselves by oath never to change it Or vvhether it be lavvful to svveare unto any one forme 9. It is from the People that such persones and no other persones are made choise of to Governe according to that forme which they have condescended upon before this deed of the People no man can pretend to it all being equal and none over another by nature in any political capacity no man coming out of the womb into this world with a crowne on his head and a scepter in his hand and God as we here suppose immediatly and particularly designeing none nor without the least concurrence of the People instaleing any into that place of jurisdiction and therefore the People must do something in order to this and upon their deed it followeth that such as before were no lawful Magistrates nor had any formal political power are now Magistrates and Governours having lawful power and authority to exerce the function of a Magistrate for though the People do not institute the office of Magistracy and though the proper essential Magistratical power be from God and not from the People and though the parts and qualifications wherewith the Magistrate ought to be and the person which the people do pitch upon is actually endued be from God yet till the People do some thing all these do not formally cloath a man with Magistratical power nor make him a lawful Magistrate nor authorize him to assume that place charge for the present condition and temper of a people may call for a Monarchy as most fit and there may be among the Community now associated combined into one body moe persones then one alike well qualifyed for the charge yet no man will say that these because of their qualifications become eo ipso Monarchs nor can one create himselfe for what right and power hath he more than his neighbour as wel qualified as he Therefore it must be granted that the People create the Magistrate and make this man King and not that man Hence vve often read in scriptures of the Peoples making Kings Iudg. 9 6 I Sam. 11 v. 15. 2 King 10 5. 1 Chron. 12 38. Iudg. 11 8 11. 2 King 14 21. 1 Sam. 12 1. 2 Chron. 23 3. The Surveyer seemeth to yeeld this Pag. 102. See Gerhard de Magistratu § 49 89. Pag. 718 719. Althus Politic. Cap. 19. numer 103 c. 10. It is from the People that this way of election and not another is pitched upon There being several wayes how in constituted Republiks or Kingdomes the Supreame Magistrates doe succeed to other Some at the death of the former succeed by way of free election and he is chosen who
and indispersible subjection will far more rationally and plausibly inferre an illimited and absolute obedience Can he with any colour of sense or reason inferre that he maintaineth that passive subjection to unjust lawes and punishments where there is power to make active violent resistence is a greater sin then active obedience to unlawful commands of Magistrats Is this a faire way of disputing to say that one maketh that the state of the question which he draweth from the assertion of his adverry Naphtaly allaigeth that absolute subjection is as repugnant to reason as absolute obedience doth he therefore make this the state of the question or give ground for it That absolute subjection is more sinful then absolute obedience Againe what can he draw out of these words of Naphtaly Pag. 157. Secondly it is answered That riseing up against authority itself the ordinance of God and disobeying the powers therewith vesied standing and acting in their right line of subordination is indeed rebellion and as the sin of witchcraft but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority and rebelling against God the Supreame is rather to adhere to God as our Liege Lord and to vindicate both curselves and his abused ordinance form man's wiâ—kednnesse and tyranny Can he hence inferre that Naphtaly judgeth it no rebellion for privat subjects to disobey Powers acting in a right subordination when they in their judgements of discretion judge that they deviat from that line of subordination Sure he must have some needle head that can sowe these two together These are the particulars whereupon this Surveyer thinketh to bottome his falsely-stated question and by this we may judge ut ex ungue leonâ—m what faith he is worthy of when he sayeth immediatly thereafter Pag. 14. But what needs insisting on his justifying of any number of private persons riseing up and resisting the whole Magistrates Body of the people when ever they think they have cause Seing this is the maine scope of his book and more too even to state them in a punitive power of all who are against them and a power to pull downe all authorities that are in their way Alas poor soul such impudent untruthes will not much strengthen his cause in the judgment of such as are judicious and many will think that such way of dealing declares him to be unworthy of his wages for may not all who read that book see a cleare other scope there intended then what he here fancyeth and know that from no sentence in all that book can such conclusions be drawne as he here sayeth is the maine scope of it O! but he must be audacious and affronted to say that the author of Naphtaly not only makes a proclamation to all meer private persones not having any Nobles and Magistrats amongst them to make insurrections against all Magistrats from the highest to the lowest and against the plurality of the people if they think themselves in probable capacity and not only so but giveth to them a liberty to pull all Magistrates out of their seats to instal themselves and to punish Magistrats who as he sayes have forfauted their right by the abuse thereof as he doth Pag 21. What wil not such shamelesse boldnesse adventure to averre with the greatest confidence but such as are wife will not beleeve every thing that such as have made shipwrak of faith and of a good conscience and have possessed themselves of a debauched conscience have the impudency to affirme without blushing CAP. II. Three Arguments proposed taken I. from the Concessions of Adversaryes 2 The resistence of Parliaments 3. The Light Law of Nature Having thus cleared the true state of the question we shall now fall about the confirming of the affirmative and so take occasion to examine what this Surveyer sayeth as he cometh in our way and though there should not be great necessitie to confirme our hypothesis or the present question under debate unto such as have not prostituted their soull unto a brutish beleef of an absolute and indispensible subjection or submission in all cases whatsomever unto the lusts and rage of men abuseing their power and places and overturning that good order which God only wise estabished in his love and favour for the good mankinde yet because this seemeth to be an age wherein the spirits of many of sunk below that of beasts and men of no consciences or at best debauched consciences have willingly surrendered their privilege as men and assumed the slavish disposition of bond-men that for their owne base ends a little mase of pottage they may gratify such as are nothing lesse then what they ought to be it will be necessary to speak a little more to it Our first argument then shall be taken from the concessions of adversaries and from what this same surveyer seemeth if not expresly and directly to grant yet not to deny or condemne altogether Barclarius contra Monarchom lib. 1. c. 8. granteth to the people liberty to defend themselves from injury and to resist quando immani savitia petuntur and lib. 4. c. 16. he doth fully an plainely acknowledge That the king falleth from the right to this Kingdomes that the people may not only resist him refuse obedience unto him but many also remove him from the throne if without the subjects consent he should subjecte the Kingdome to another or be transported with an hostile minde against the Commonwealth Doct ferne also acknowledgeth That personal defence is lawful against the suddaine and illegal assaults of the King's messengers yea of the Prince himself thus farre to ward his blowes to hold his hands so when the assault is inevitable and else where he grants it lawful to resist the King's cut-throats So Arnisaeus de author princip Cap. 2. n. 10. granteth it lawful to private persons to resist the King when he acteth extrajudicially And Crotius de jur bel pac lib. I. c. 4. n. 7. seemeth to say that the law of non-resistence doth not oblige in certane extreame danger seing some divine lawes though generally proposed have this tacite exception of extreame necessity and giveth this for a ground That the law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them who first combined together into a society and from whom such as did command did derive their power now if it had been asked of such Whether they would choose to die rather then in any case to resist the Superiours with armes I know not sayeth he if they would have yeelded thereunto unlesse with this addition if they could not be resisted but with the greatest perturbation of the Commonwealth and destruction of many innocents And a little thereafter He hath these words Attâ—men indiscriminatim damnare AUT SINGULOS AUT PARTEM MINOREM quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur ut interim communis boni respectum non deserat vix ausim It is true in the end of that Section he
seemeth to say that nothing is now left to christians but flight yet § 10. 11. he assenteth to Barclaius his concessions Let us next see what our Surveyer seemeth to yeeld Pag. 23. 24. Whatever may he said sayeth he of moral of legal felf defence against the souveraigne by way of petition or plea in court for saifty of a mans person or Estate and whatever may be said of warding off and defensively puting back personal injurious assaults to the manifest and immediat peril of life without any colour of deserving of reason of law or judicial proceeding or of a Womans violent resisting attempts against the honour of her chastity dearer to her then life and tending to insnare her also in sin againss God whereof her non-resistence makes her formally guilty and whatever may be done in the case of most habited notoure and compleat tyranny against all appearance of law manifesily tending to the destruction of the body of a people or greater part thereof by hostile furious actions or in the case of violent attempts or destruction of all knowne legal libertyes and the beeing of Reliagion according to law or in the case of vendition alienation of and giving a whole Kingdome to forraigners or strangers or some such like whatever I say in such horried cases which for most part cannot befal a prince in his natural and right wits a case wherein provision may be made that he hurt not himself nor his dominions may be done comes not at all within the compasse of our question although most disingenuously the discontented and seditious do strive on all occasions to aggravate matters so that the case concerning them may seem co-incident with these or the like that so they may justify their violence against the powers But howbeit this Surveyer think that these concessions make little for our advantage yet to understanding persons it will be cleare in general 1. That He and the rest of the Royal society of Court parasites and slatterers speak most inconsequentially unto themselves They cry up in their writtings an absolute and indispensible subjection unto the Supreame Magistrate due by all his subjects and yet when they are sore pinched they must clap their wings closer And drawe in their faire sailes grant that in such such cases not only his E missaries such as have his commission but Himself may be resisted not only by the Ephort Primores Regni but by very private subjects Did we not but just now heare our Surveyer crying out against Naphtaly for saying That what reasons could prove an absolute indispensible subjection will also prove an abosolute unlimited obedience as being unwelling to heare any thing spoken against an absolute vast subjection and yet behold here he is as willing as the rest to clip the wings of this inviolable soveraignity set forth unto us a limited retrenched subjection due to the Supreame Magistrate even by private persons 2. That by these concessions He and the rest cut the sinewes of their owne arguments and cause them to halt ere they assault us and teach us away of rejecting or answereing them For when they produce their arguments vvhether from reason or authorities they cannot but make them conclude universally and then they are necessitated themselves to ansvvere these universal arguments or otherwise retract their concessions and whatever vvay they think to evade vvith their concessions and supposed cases vve vvill finde roome enough to escape vvith our case as for exemple vvhen this Surveyer urgeth that subjection spokento Rom. 13. He must either grant that it must be restricted to such and such cases or else plead for an universal absolute unlimited and indispensible subjection and so retract his concessions and if he take the liberty to use his restrictions and so interpret the place as that it shall not reach his cases excepted he must grant us the same liberty to say that our case is not there meaned or condemned 3. By these concessions vve have this advantage that the distinction vvhich is made in this question of resistence betvvixt the Magistrate as such and the person or man vvho is the Magistrate is not so absurd and ridiculous as the Royalists give it out to be for here vve finde them forced to use the same so that if it be a defileing distinction they cannot be clean more then vve and vve see that resistence may be used against the person of or the man vvho is the Magistrate vvithout the least contempt or vvrong done unto the holy Ordinance of God othervvise they must of necessity say that in all the forementioned cases they very Ordinance of God is resisted and hovv then they shall reconcile that vvith Rom. 13. I see not 4. We see also That the Prerogative Royal vvhich they screvv up unto a transcendent absolutenesse and supremacy above lavv is but a meer chimaera vvhich themselves must abhominate as a loathsome brat 5. We see that salus populs est suprema lex the peoples saifty is such a royal thing that the King himself and all his prerogatives yea and municipal lawes too must vaile the cap unto it themselves being judges 6. We see also that they must grant a court of necessity in which private persones may judge the Supream Magistrat in order to their resisting of him for I hope they will grant that in these cases the people act with judgment and as rational men and if so they must say that the people must first judge and condemne the Supream Magistrate as erring and doing amisse before they can lawfully resist him 7. We have this advantage That the Arguments by which They can prove it lawful to resist the Magistrate in the cases granted by them will not be a little steadable to us in our case and for shame they will not condemne their owne arguments because in our mouthes 8. It will be easily granted by all that our case vvhich vve have truely stated vvill come nearer the cases vvhich adversaries do except then the case vvhich he hath sett dovvne and so Hovvever he think the cases mentioned by him do not come vvithin the compasse of the question vvhich he hath set dovvne yet understanding persones vvil see they are not altogether vvithout the compasse of that vvhich is the true question and true state of the controtroversy and that he hath no just cause to fay that vve hovvever he account us discontented and seditious do most disingenuosly strive on all occasions to aggravate matters so that the case concerning us may seem co-incident with these or the like But next more particularly These concessions are much for our advantage For 1. If it be lawful for a private person to defend his life or estate in a moral or legal vvay by petition or plea in court against the Souveraigne yea and by actual force if the Soveraigne or any in his name shal come to poind or take possession illegally as our lavves vvill
Parents in some respects love their children better then themselves so should they preferre the good of the commonwealth unto their owne and upon this account are stiled Fathers Gen. 20. 2. Iudg. 5. 7. 1 Sum. 24. 12. Isa 49. 23. as also Pastors are 2. The Soveraigne's power is not properly Marital or such as Husbands have over their Wives for 1. Wives cannot limite their Husband's power as Subjects may limite their Soveraigne's 2. Wives cannot prescribe the time how long such an one shall be their Husband as Subjects may do vvith their Soveraignes 3. Wives cannot change their Husbands as Subjects may change an Aristocracy into a Monarchy 4. Wives are appoynted for an helpe to the Husband but the Soveraigne is rather for the Commonvvealth then the Commonvvealth for him 5. If the Soveraigne's povver vvere such then he could not have povver of life and death for a Husband as such hath not that povver over his Wife 6. Though the Husband and the Wife be in distinct Kingdomes the relation standeth and is not broken upon that account but if a subject goe out of one Kingdome to live into another he changeth his Soveraigne and hath a relation to a nevv Soveraigne 3. So he is but metaphorically and not properly called the Head of the Commonwealth for 1. the head is not made Head by the free choise of the Members but the Soveraigne is chosen by the People 2. The Members have not so much as a consent in setting up the Head but Subjects at least have this much in setting up of Princes 3. the Members can never change the Head but Subjects may change their Soveraignes 4. The Members can make no compact with the Head as Subjects may do with their Princes 5. The Members cannot limite the power of the Head as Subjects can limite the power of their Princes 6. The Members cannot destroy the Head and live themselves but Subjects can destroy the Monarch and choose another 7. The Head communicateth life sense motion to the rest of the members so doth not the Prince unto his Subjects 8. The same individual life is in Head and Members but not in King and Subjects 9. Head and Body die and live together but there is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects So then he is but a metaphorical Head so called because of his supereminency He is over the civil body to rule and guide it aright 4. The Soveraigne hath no Lordly dominative or masterly power over the Bodyes of his Subjects For 1. this government is founded upon the law and light of pure nature but this masterly dominion is a frute of sin 2. Slavery being against nature a bondage which all would willingly shun we cannot suppose that rational people would choose that life if they could help it but they willingly not out of constraint choose government governours 3. The people in setting up a Soveratigne propose their owne good have their owne ends but if the Soveraigne's power were properly a masterly power they should propose rather his good then their owne in setting him up 4. If his power were a masterly power their condition after the government were established should be worse then it was before for their state of liberty was preferable to their state of bondage 5. They had not acted rationally if to be free of oppression of others they had willingly given up themselves unto an oppressour endued with masterly dominion and power 6. Masters might sell their servants for gaine Gen. 9. 25. and 20. 14. and 26. 14. 1 King 2. 32. 2. King 4. 1. Neh. 5. 8. Eccles 2. 7. Iob. 1. 3 15. But the prince cannot sell his Kingdome 7. Soveraignes have not such a povver as this from God but only a povver to feed to rule to defend and to watch over the people for their good 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ps 78. 71. 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron. 11. 2. and 17. 6. Neither have they it from the People for they cannot give such a povver vvhereby to make themselves slaves 8. If it vvere so Princes should not be a blessing unto a People but rather a curse contrare to 1 King 10. 9. Esa 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. Hos 1. 11. 9. It is a blessing to be free of slavery Exod. 21. 2 26 27. Deut. 15. 12. Ier. 34. 9. Ioh. 8. 33. 1 Cor. 9. 19. But it is not a blessing to be free of government but a curse and judgment rather Iudg. 19. 1 2. Esa 3. 1 6 7. Hos 3. 4. 10. Subjects are the King's brethren Deut. 17. 20. and so not his slaves The Surveyer Pag. 30. 31. granteth that there is a great difference betwixt Magistratical power and Masterly and giveth three maine differences 1. That the Master of slaves had his owne profite mainly before his eyes and the profite of the Slaves only secondarily But the Magistrates power is premarily ordinated to the Publick good of the Community it self and only secondarily and consequentially to the good of Himself 2. That Masters had a greater power over the bodyes and goods of these who were their Slaves then a Magistrate can clame over Subjects 3. The Master had the slaves in subjection to him more out of feare and constraint then love or delight But a King hath his Subjects under him in a civil free liberal voluntary and loving subjection Thus we see this point is cleare and undenyable by him though other Royalists will not grant so much but sure if they were his slaves they behoved to be taken in war or bought with money 5. Neither hath he a despotick masterly power over the goâ—ds of his Subjects what ever use may be allowed to make of them in case of necessity when in some respect all things are common for the Common good and good not only of the owners but also of all the Community Yet the Subjects are righteous proprietors of their owne goods For 1. the People make choise of him for this very end to preserve them in their rights to keep their rights inviolated to keep them from oppression and injuries of others so that it cannot be imagined that rational People would make choise of one great robber to preserve them from lesser robbers 2. Their case should be rather worse as better by the erecting of a civil government if the Soveraigne were the only proprietor of all their goods for before the erection they had a just right and title unto their owne goods 3. Soveraignes should not be a blessing unto a People but a curse Which is false 4. Then they could wrong no man take what they would from him contrare to Zeph. 3 3. Esai 3 14 15. and 58 4 6. Mich. 3 3. see Timpl. pol. lib. 5. cap. 1. quaest 3. 5. The law Deut. 17. contradicteth this masterly power over the Subjects goods 6. Ahab was blaimed for taking Naboths Vineyaird 7. This is the very character of a Tyrant 1 Sam. 8. 8. The Kings of
not only have brought wrath upon themselves but also upon all the People So the wickednesse of Hophny and Phinehas was part of the cause of that sad discomfiture that the People of Israel did meet with 1 Sam. 2 ver 12. comp with Cap. 3 ver 11. and with Cap. 4 ver 10 11. So Esai 43 ver 27 28. because the Teachers had transgressed against the Lord. Therefore was Iacob given to the curse and Israel to reproaches So Lam. 4 v. 13. among other provocations the sinnes of her Prophets are mentioned and the iniquities of her Priests So Micah 3 v. 11 12. Because the Heads did judge for reward and the Priests did teach for hire and the Prophets did divine for money Therefore Zion was to be plowed as a field and Ierusalem to become heaps and the mountaine of the house as the high places of the forest 2. That the sinnes of a few have procured judgments unto the whole multitude or put them in hazard thereof So Deut. 13 v. 12 17. the Apostate city would kindle the fiercenesse of God's anger against the whole People For it is said The Lord would not turne from the fiercenesse of his anger and shew them mercy and compassion and multiply them until it were destroyed and all that was within it So Num. 25. for the sinne of these who joyned with Baal peor the anger of the Lord was kindled against the whole congregation So when Moses was speaking unto the two Tribes and halfe Num. 32 14 15. he sayeth And behold yee are risen up in your Fathers stead to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel for if yee turne away from after him he will yet againe leave them in the wildernesse and yee shall destroy all this People So Ios 7 ver 5. for one Ahan's sin all Israel was troubled and Ios. 22 v. 17. 18. say the commissioners of the whole congregation unto the two Tribes and half And it will be seing ye-rebel to day against the Lord that to morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel And it was this which moved all the Tribes to goe against Benjamin Iudg. 20 3. That the Subjects have suffered sad and dreadful judgments for the sinnes of their Rulers As Micah 3 9 10 11 12. formerly cited Abimelech's sin Gen. 20. was like to hazard himself and all his Kingdome ver 7 9. For Pharaoh's refusing to let Israel goe not only he and his Princes but his Subjects through all his coasts did smarte Exod. 6 and 7 8 and 9. and 10 Cap. Neh. 9 v. 10. So Saul's sin in seeking to destroy the Gibeonites brought on three yeers famine on the land in the dayes of David 2 Sam. 21 v. 1. So David's sin of numbering the people cost the lives of three score and Ten thousand 2 Sam. 24 v. 1 2 15. 1 Chron. 21 1 2 14. So the Lord threatned by the Prophet 1 King 14 ver 16. that for the sins of Ieroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin he would give up Israel And for Ahab's sin of letting Benhadad goe the Man of God told Ahab 1 King 20 ver 42. Because thou hast let goe out of thy hand a man whom I appoynted to utter destruction therefore thy life shall goe for his life and thy People for his People So for Manasseh's sin Ier. 15 ver 4. The Lord sayes I will cause them to be removed into all King domes of the Earth because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusaelem So it is also spoken 2 King 21 ver 11 12 13. Because Manasseh King of Iudah hath done these abhominations therefore thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel behold I am bringing such evil upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosoever heareth of it both his eares shall tingle c. And notwithstanding of the reformation that was in the dayes of Iosiah Yet this judgement came to be accomplished and the Lord sent the bands of the Caldees and of the Syrians surely so it is said 2 King 24 v. 3 4. at the commandement of the Lord came this upon Iudah to remove them out of his sight for the sinnes of Manasseh according to all that he did and also for the innocent blood that he shed which the Lord would not pardon And 2 King 23 26. Though there was a great work of reformation done in the dayes of that non-such King v. 25 Iosiah yet it is sayd notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fiercenesse of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Iudah because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him with all Yea so did this sin of Manasseh provoke the Lord against the land that how beit Manasseh himself repented and found mercy 2 Chron. 33 v. 12. and questionlesse many of the People turned with him yet these same sinnes of Manasseh are mainly taken notice of as the procureing cause of that final stroke Out of these particulars these few things are very obvious to any 1. That People combined into a society have great cause not only to look to their owne carriage but also unto the carriage of others Since the carriage of others will bring them in hazard of God's judgments and hasten downe vengeance wrath from God on all sure they have need to look about them 2. Especially they have reason to take notice of the publick carriage and deportment of Princes and Pastors seing in a special manner those highten the wrath hasten the judgments of God as hath been shewed 3. If these sinnes in Princes Pastors and others were not committed those plagues and judgments which are threatned and at length executed upon that account would have been prevented 4. If People considering their hazard by reason of these publick transgressions had actively bestirred themselves interposed as that these iniquities had not been committed they had not smarted so for as they did not had they felt the weight of the hand of Gods anger as they were made to do 5. It was not enough for them to have keeped themselves free of these actual transgressions whereof others were really guilty for we finde some punished for that iniquity of others which could not be laid to their charge as actors 6. How ever such as were so punished were not free of inherent transgressions and other sinnes which deserved judgment at the hands of the Lord yet when the Spirit of the Lord is pleased to make no mention of these as the Procureing cause of these plagues but seemeth to lay the whole or maine stresse of the businesse upon that sin committed by others we must thinke that that hath had no small influence but rather a mine causality in the procureing of these plagues and it becometh us to be sober in inquireing after other causes hid from us and rest satisfied with what the Spirit of the Lord is pleased particularly and evidently to poynt
so for this offence all the land was punished because at least as it oft hapneth the people had not hindered it Then Pag. 52. he cometh to explaine his other assertion It is no lesse certane sayes he to us that if the Magistrate do not connive at the sinnes of Subjects nor neglect to curb and punish them the sins of the people shall no way be imputed to him he not being thereunto accessory in any way nor shall be punished for their sinnes which in his place and calling he is wrestling against Answ Yet we know that for the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof Prov. 8. v. 2. And that for a punishment to people God may even cut the dayes of a good prince and though we should grant that it were no proper punishment unto the good Prince yet materially and in it self it is a stroke But he addeth Also it is alike certane That private persons shall not have the sinnes of Magistrates or of the body of the people imputed unto them nor be punished for the same if so be they honestly endeavour to do all things against these sins which in their privat calling they are bound to do Answ Be this granted The main question will be if people can be said to have honestly endeavoured to do all things against these sinnes which in their privat callings they are bound to do if having power to withstand the committing of these evills or to remove them after they are committed yet they forbeare and suffer these things to be done and labour not to remove them He addeth If they keep themselves without any degree of acting these sins or any way of accession to them if they mourne and sigh for evils that are done if they be earnest in prayer that God may convert others from their evil way if they as they can have opportunity faithfully admonish and study to reclaime those who are out of the way and do such like Christian dutyes God will never enter in judgment vvith them for not doing violence to the authorityes that are above them Answ If the Surveyer would do no more then this he ought neither to be accounted a good Christian nor a loyal subject For if he saw the King about to cut his owne throat with a knife or about to do as Saul did fall upon his owne sword or runing doun a precipice to break his neck would any think he had had done his duty and exonered his conscience if he should not lead his hand unto that mischief nor thrust him doune the principice but should roare and cry God save the King and admonish and study with faire words to reclaime the King from that cruel deed would any think but he might have done more even if he had had strength enough have holden his hands and keeped him back from breaking his neck and yet never have been in any hazard or sinfully touching the Lord's anoynted or doing violence to the authority that God had set over him 2. And if Kings may be-resisted and with violence hindered from putting hands in themselves or from drinking a cup of poyson or doing some such deed which will or may prove destructive to their life and posterity without doing violence to the authority appoynted of God vvhy may they not also be hindered from doing that which will ruine their souls and prove destructive to their Kingdomes and bring on the curse and vengeance of God upon young and old without doing any sinful violence unto the authority And as in the former case a man could not but be guilty of the King's death who knew that it was a cup of poyson which he was to drink and did not having power to do it hinder him from drinking it So in this case they that have power to hinder the Magistrate from drinking poyson or doing what may be deadly to thousands of his innocent subjects and bring downe the curse of God upon him and his posterity and do it not cannot but be guilty of that sin before God and so cannot expect to be free of the punishment which God will inflict because of that sin as not having done even in their private callings what they were bound to do viz. not having used their power for the glory of God the good of the Soveraigne and his posterity nor for the good of the Commonwealth which they were bound to do He tells us moreover concerning that instance of Manasseh Ier. 15 v. 4. That the people were punished because they were shares of the guiltinesse not by not violent resisting which they were never exhorted to but by direct or indirect accession otherwayes Hos 5 ver 11. Ier. 5 v. 31. Ans 1. How could young children be accessory either by consent or any otherwayes to these courses of Manasseh 2. It were hard to say that even all who were come to the use of reason were guilty of accession unto these wickednesses who yet were carryed away captive such as Daniel Hananiah Mishael and Azaria and others 3. That there were many yea the far greatest part of the People who were guilty of hainous sinnes when the final stroke came cannot be denyed but that they were at that same hight of wickednesse which they were at in Manasseh's dayes is doubted 4. We shalll grant with Calvin on the place That Manasseh alone was not in that transgression but had many of the People consenting Yet as Manasseh himself was dead long ere the stroke came so were they and yet for that sin of theirs the posterity suffered Yea even notwitstanding that there interveened a National repentance and mourning for that National sin and National Reformation of these idolatrous courses in the dayes of Iosiah 5. Though it be true that the People after Iosiah's dayes returned to their vomite and had wickednesse enough of their owne for which God might have punished them yet it is very remarkable how that sin of Manasseh is particularly mentioned as if there had not been another to procure that stroke and certanely all who read the places cited before will easily observe that there is something more in them then an occasion taken to remember that dreadful time of Manasseh when the wickednesse began as the Surveyer sayeth in the following words 6. It was their sin I grant that they did consent and that sayeth that they should not have consented but have refused obedience unto the King idolatrous mandats and have hindered in their places an according to their power the setting up of these abhominations and should have adhered to the truth and worship of God as it was practised in the dayes of good Hezekiah his Father 7. He needs not say they were not exhorted to this violent resisting for it was but folly to speak of resistence to these who so willingly walked after the commandement and would not do so much as disobey 8. That place of Hoseah speaking of Ephraim's willingly walking after the commandment proves
7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo◠here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self
the united and consocâ—ated body of the People preserve the whole associated body and her rights and are instructed with necessary power and authority which to performe they are obliged by oath 3. Hence really the power of the People is greater then the power of any delegated or constituted by them for the cause is more then the effect and the Parliament doth represent the People but the People do not represente the Parliament Therefore the power of the People must be more His povver who doth constitute another or depute him as a guardian to some businesse or to oversee some of his matters is greater then any povver vvhich that other deputed or constituted Curator hath Parliaments then being but as Tutors and Curators unto the People must have lesse povver then the People have mandans vero sayeth Althusius pol c. 18. n. 92. vel injungens alii rerum suarum procurationem est instar imperantis rogantisve suscipiens vero talem administraetionem instar obtemperantis inservientis officium suum alteri praestantis So that the Parliament is but a servant to the People and the povver of a Master is alvvayes superiour to the povver of a Servant as such 4. It is irrational to think that the People in chooseing the Ephori or Parliament-members and committing the administration of their weighty affaires unto them did denude themselves of all that innate and radical power which they had to manage their owne matters seing no urgent necessity could compel them to it nor any foreseen advantage or profite which thereby could redound unto them move them and perswade them thereunto but on the contrary much hazard and disadvantage might at the very first appeare upon such a surrender as this Much lesse could they denude themselves of that power of self defence which by no law of God or man they might law fully give away 5. Whatever power Parliaments have it is to be exerced and put in practice for the good and advantage of the People Their power is for the profite and not for the hurt of the People and to this scope and end should they level all their labours travails paines endeavours cares thoughts consultations conferences votes deliberations and conclusions L. Imperial C. de nuptijs L. bene a Zenone C. de quadr L. 8. C. de legibus L. praecipimus 34. C. de appell See Althus pol. c. 18. n. 7 17. 6. Hence Their power is not absolute infinite or unlimited but hath its owne bounds and limites over which it cannot lawfully passe They are to rule and do all for God and the good of the Realme whose servants they are They are the Ministers of God for the Peoples good Rom. 13. 4. 7. When they transgresse their true limites which no man will say is impossible by commanding what God hath forbidden or forbidding what God hath commanded in his holy law or when they seek not the publick good of the Land but their ovvne private advantage They are not but cease to be the Ministers of God and of the People and become private persons who ought not in these particulars wherein they goe beyond their bounds to be obeyed As sayeth Althusius ubr supra n. 41. and proveth by many authors And the reason is cleare for no inferiour can disannul God's Law or free us from subjection thereunto They have no power to command sin God never gave them such a power And the People could not give it for they had it not themselves neither had they a power to wronge and destroy themselves and so they could not give this unto them 8. If these Ephori or Trustees betray their trust and feel or basely give away the libertyes and privileges of the people which they were intrusted with the people cannot thereby be brought into a remedilesse condition or lose their privileges vvithout all hope of recovery If a Tutor waste and destroy the Pupil's Estate the law provideth a remedy for the Pupil If a commissioner or deputy betray his trust the master's losse thereby is not irremediable If an advocat betray a client's cause The client will finde some relief The peoples right sayeth althusius ubi supra n 124 suffereth no prejudice nor doth the Prince obtaine any more tyrannical power by the negligence perfidy deceit collusion treachery prevarication and conspiracy of the Ephori or primores regni with the prince for it is unjust absurd to affirme that the Ephori or parliament-men can transferre unto the Tyrant what they never had themselves or can destroy or alienate the rights of the Community in prejudice of the whole Realme and that contrare to the fundamental lawes of the land or such as the prince swore to maintaine and which containe the spirits and life of the Commonwealth From these irrefragable truthes so consonant to right reason and attested by learned politicians it will clearly follow 1. That the Peoples case is not vvorse by Parliaments then it would have been without them 2. That Parliaments cannot tyrannize by any law or right over People 3. That no treachery or perfidy of Parliaments neglecting their duty or betraying their trust can prejudge the people of their due rights and privileges 4. Parliaments not concurring with the People in their necessary defence cannot loose them from the obligation of nature to defend themselves from tyranny and intolerable oppression 5. If Parliaments in stead of acting the part of Trustees Tutors Curators Delegats and Servants shall turne Tyrants wolves Tygers and Enemies to the Commonwealth themselves of conspire joyne or enter into a confederacy with a Tyrant and so seek the destruction of the community The community is allowed to see to the preservation of their owne rights and privileges the best way they can 6. And so in some cases when the hazard is great the losse irreparable private persones may defend themselves against manifest Tyranny and oppression without Parliaments All this seemeth to be cleare and undenyable In thest Let us next see what way this shall sute or what more can be said for our case In hypothest And. 1. It is beyond contradiction that the late Parliament did basely betray its trust for politicians tell us That it belongeth to these Ephori To vindicate and maintaine the compact and Covenant which is betwixt the Prince and the People To keep the prince or the supreame administrator of justice within his bounds and limites that he turne not a tyrant or an oppressour of the People To hinder him from violating the law of God To restraine and coërce him from violating the lawes of the land and the rights of the kingdome To hinder the execution of the unjust and illegal decrees and mandats of the Prince To defend the proper and incommunicable rights and privileges of the People To cognosce whether the Supreame Magistrate hath done his duty or not and to hinder him from committing Tyranny See for these particulars Althusius Pol. c. 18. n. 48 55 63 65 68 83
I sinned saying that David spoke so because he feared none And of Ambrose on the same words saying that he was King and under no Law and therefore he did not sin against man But all this is no purpose For 1. himself will grant that all Kings are not thus exempted and his adversaries will prove the King of Britane one of these limited and restricked Kings that are obnoxious to examination and punishment and these sayings cannot prove that all Kings are so yea or ought to be so 2. Tertullian to vindicate the Christians who would not acknowledge the Emperour to be God and to shew how notwitstanding they respected him according to his place would give him as high titles as he could though not out of flattery and so make him the highest person in the Empire and above the heathen Gods yet he did not set him above all the People in their Representative the Senate or if the did the Senate proved him to be in a mistake by taking course with several of these leud and wicked Tyrants 3. David's single act of adultery and murther were no such acts of Tyranny as are censurable with deposition and so it speaketh not to the case 4. It might be that de facto he did not fear another as Ierome sayes But that will not say that David might have destroyed the inheritance of the Lord without controlle or that other Princes are or should be exempted from restraint and punishment if they turne ingrained and habituated Tyrants 5. Himself will not stand to what Ambrose sayes for he addeth immediatly There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Uriah the occasion of that Psalm and of the scandal he had given to God's People in which sense he might be well said to sin against both 6. The words of the text vvill not beare that vveight viz. That he had no other judge but God or that as Deodate sayeth he was exempted from all punishment of men was obnoxious to no humane tribunals but as other commentators say the words are to be taken in a comparative sense that this was the greatest aggravation of his guilt that it was such a hainous trasgression in his sight who was privy to it however he did conceale it from all others so far as he could see the Dutch Annot. on the palce and therefore to expresse his spiritual sense of the sin commited against God against whom properly sin as sin is commited he useth this rhetorical ingemination And if the words should have imported what the Surveyer would have them to import they had not been apposite to expresse his spiritual grief sense of the hainousnesse of the crime commited Then he tels us what excellent Mr Calvin sayeth Instit Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 27. and 31. and then sayes It is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Calvin should dar to violate the sacrosanct Majesty of Kings if they will but read over that chapter But is it not a wonder how this man who seemeth to have read over that chapter and particularly § 31 should passe by what worthy Calvin sayeth in the end of that section or should have so little respect unto that worthy man whom he himself accounts to be worthy of respect and but deservedly as to plead for an incontrollable power in Kings When yet famous Calvin tels us there that if the Ephori or States of Parliament connive at the King's tyranny and suffer him to oppresse and insult over the poor People they are wickedly perfidious and palpably betraying their trust Then in the 4 place he tels us That it is not denyed that the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God and that it is grosse to say Regi quicquid libet licet This is good but what then What if he deviate We maintaiâ—â— sayes he that as sure truth That impunity as from subjects necessarily attends Soveraignity by the Law of God reason and nature For no man can be judged or punished but by a judge above him and the Supreame hath none such c. Answ But Mr Prelate your adversaries will maintaine the contrare as a sure truth We looked for a fourth proof and not for the thing in question or a repetition of what is said The same thing repeated six times will not make six arguments Mr Bishope give a new proof if you can of this firme truth which you maintaine We maintaine by the Law of God Nature and Reason No man hath an uncontrollable power to destroy millions to cut off the heretage of the Lord to destroy his Interest And we have shewed our grounds for this 2. How was Athaltah judged And what a judge was Iehu 3. It hath been told him that the supreame governour hath a supreame power above him The power of the People that made him Supreame governour is above him and can depose him and put another in his place He may be a Supreame governour dispensator and yet their servant accountable unto them and censurable by them when he deviates and turnes a Tyrant and a Wolfe and a Tyger When one King wrongeth another that other will both judge and punish him if he be able and yet is not properly a judge above him Much more may the Representative of the People who set him up and impowered him both judge him and punish him But the good man thereafter would advise Kings not to abuse this inviolablenesse but so much the more to fear sadder punishments from God and for this cause would have them reading the 6 chapter of Apocryphal Book of Wisdome But was there no texts in all the divine Word of God that he would put into the King's hand to read that he must send him to the Apocrypha It is true Kings would do well to remember that they have a God above them who will not be mocked but will bring them to an account of their doings though they should escape Mens hands and to the end they may be put in remembrance of this they stand in need of other monitors then the Men who have forgote it and send them to Apocrypha to finde it And this should keep them within the boundaries of God's Law But as the fear of punishment from Man will restraine some from stealing whom the fear of God would little overawe So it may be the feare of punishment from Men would have no small influence to make some Kings walk by a rule And Subâ—rdiâ—aâ—a non pugnant He would do well to minde them of both and it is like he would finde that more effectual to suppresse Tyranny then to tell them that their sacred persones are inviolable as to Men but yet they would do well to read the 6 chapter of Wisdome He cometh Pag. 77. to speak particularly to what Naphtaly said and alledgeth that It is most falsly and wickedly said that God's providence or God's Word approves the