so must be a precedent example for judges and Magistrates in all time coming and by this example any member of the Council might lawfully rise up and execute judgment on this wicked wreatch and his cursed fraternity who have brought by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God the wrath and curse of God upon the land 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's sone we know and that he was afterward High priest himself is truth but that he was at this time a publick Magistrate or a member of the great Sanhedrin we see not It is true there were some Princes of the tribes men of renowne Numb 1. ver 16. but he is not mentioned among those neither were these the great Sanhedrin So these princes of the assembly Numb 16 2. were not the Sanhedrin which did consist but of 70 Members Numb 11. Nor was Phineas one of them And that congregation of the children of Israel mentioned Numb 25 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver 7. was not the Sanhedrin which we never finde as I remember so called but the whole body of the People who were then mourning partly for the sin commited and partly for the execution when the heads of the People vvere hanged up and a thousand moe killed by the judges at Moses his command for Paul 1 Cor. 10 ver 8. sayes there died of the plague tvventy three thousand and here vve finde there fell in all tvventy foure thousand Againe it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord yea more then the many who were killed by the judges ver 5. So that it seemes he was no publick Magistrate and that he did it with the approbation of Moses is probable but that Moses did command him we see not only we finde that the Zeal of God moved him and therefore is he highly rewarded though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this for Deodat calleth it an act of extraordinary zeal motion of God's Spirit and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did approve it but what needed this if he had been a Magistrate seing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver 5. and a command is more then an approbation Aquinas and Gerhard call him it is true a judge but we see no proof unlesse they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aarons rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal 106 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling His 2. answere is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a meer private person yet it could prove nothing because he did it with the approbation and good liking of Moses and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence Answ But not only is this not written but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact then any warrand or command of Moses And so his answere in rebus facti a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God which is not spoken of the other judges who ver 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgment yea that word Psal 106 30. then stood up Phineas and executed judgment clearely hinteth at more then his being a meer satelles Magistratus and the ample reward which was given him and the Lord 's counting it to him for righteousnesse speak some other thing then that he had a call of the Magistrate and was his executioner In the 3 place he sayes The cases are different for then was horrible idolatry and villanous whordome committed avowedly and with a high hand in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God but it is not so now Answ Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afrayed if any did intend to follow that example For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy and how ever he mince it as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleannesse when he justified the fact before the Council as he told us Iosephus said yet the apostasy and perjury is open avowed abhominable and villanous committed in the sight of the Sun in despite of God and maintained as right and lawful howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at For such open avovved malapert vvickednesse defection and perjury all things considered vvas never heard of in any generation Hovv our reformation aud confession of faith is maintained vve have heard and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior forme of Church government yet when he is before his judge he shall finde in the cup of this iniquity manifest avowed perjury overturning of the work of God destroying of the interest of Christ blasphemy near unto that unpardonable sin if not the very same in fathering the works of the right hand of the Most high on Satan open and avowed persecution of godlinesse opening of a gap to all licentiousnesse horrid iniquity increase of idolatry villanous and avowed whordome Sodomy atheisme and devilry and more wickednesse then tongue can tell or pen can paint out but is on clear record before the Lord. 4. Sayes he Let it be so that he was a meer private man and had no warrand from the Supreame Magistrate to do what he did his fact cannot warrand Men to attempt the doing of such acts unlesse they can shew as good warr and and approbation from God as he could Answ That he had God's warrand and approbation vve do not doubt but that it was such an approbation as was peculiar to extraordinary un-imitable acts is the thing in question we grant with him That God is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all men's lives can when it pleaseth him crosse ordinary rules and apppoynt some to execute his judgments extraordinariely but the question is whether every thing which the Surv. accounteth extraordinary is so indeed He may sayes he send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud he should say Ehud to kill Eglon Elias to destroy companyes of men with fire from heaven or to kill Baal's Priests He may command Abraham to kill his sone Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duëel Sampson to murther himself Ans Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrand any private person now to kill a tyrant without title But I lay more weight upon Iohn Knox his distinction in this matter in his debate with Lithingtoun hist. of reformation Pag. 390. edit in fol. And as touching sayes Mr.
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
who sate with him see yee how this Sone of a murderer hath sent to take away my head look where the Messenger cometh shut the door and hold him fast at the door is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him Here was unjust violence offered to the innocent Prophet an Emissary sent to kill him without cause and the Prophet resisteth his violence causeth hold him at the door and violently presse him or presse him betvvixt the door and the wall vvich speaketh violent resistence keep him say the Dutch Annot. by force at the door yea Iosephus thinketh that the King follovved quickly after left the Prophet should have killed his servant This clearly sayes that it is lawful for privat persones for the Prophet vvas no other but a private subject to resist unjust violence offered them by the King or his Emissaries and with violente resistence to defend themselves 7. Much more will they condemne other instances of greater opposition made to the rage and tyranny of Princes which we finde recorded in scripture and not condemned As. 1. That opposition made by the Ten tribes to Rehoboam when they revolted from him after they had a rough and tyrannical answere unto their just and lawful demands 1 King 12 1. c. 2 Cbron. 10 11. They desired nothing upon the matter but that He would engadge to Rule over them according to the law of God and He gave a most harsh and tyrannical answere and avowed that he would tyrannize over them and oppresse them more then any of his predecessours and that his little finger should be heavier then their loyns whereupon they fell away from him and erected themselves into a new Commonwealth and choosed a nevv King And vve finde nothing in all the text condemning this for it vvas done of the Lord the cause vvas from the Lord that he might performe his saying vvhich he spoke by Ahijah and vvhen Rehoboam raised an army to reduce them againe under his power and command the vvord of God came unto Shemaiah saying speak unto Rehoboam c. and say thus sayeth the Lord yee shall not goe up nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel returne every man to his house for this thing is from me It vvas done by the vvill of God sayeth Iosephus Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 11. And there is not one word in the text importing that this vvas condemned by the Spirit of the Lord for as for that vvord 1 King 12. 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David It may be as vvel rendered as it is in the margine they fell away and so doth the dutch render it and lunius defecerunt they fell avvay or made defection and the original vvord is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich properly signifieth to rebel yea though the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been here used it vvould not have imported a sinfull rebellion and defection more then 2 King 18. 7. vvhere Hezekiah is said to have rebelled against the King of Assyria and this was a frute and effect of the Lords being with him and prospering him whithersoever he vvent forth The Surveyer Pag. 66. can say nothing but That no sound man will think the suddaine and furious rebellion of the ten Tribes from Davids house upon the furious and rash answer of a young King was justifiable But vvhatever he say or think it doth not weigh much with us had he shewed us out of the Text that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord as sinful upon the matter we should heartily have acquiesced but since we see more hinting at an approbation thereof we must rest there till we see stronger reasons then his naked assertions But sayes he It would be considered that these who made the secession were the major part of the body of the people but what is all this to justifie the insurrections of any lesser party of private people against the Magistrate and all Magistrates supreme subordinate Ans By what right this Major part of the Body did make secession by that same right might the equal half or the lesser part have made secession for the ground of the lawfulnesse of this secession is not founded upon their being the major part but upon the reasonablenesse of their demand and the tyrannicalnesse of the King's reply 2. This sayes much for us for if it be lawful for a part of the people to shake off the King refuse subjection unto him and set up a new King of their owne when he resolveth to play the Tyrant and not to rule them according to the law of the Lord but after his owne tyrannical will then it cannot be unlawful for a part of the people to resist his unjust violence and defend themselves against his illegal tyranny and oppression The consequence cannot be denyed seing they who may lawfully do the more may do the lesse also So that seing this people might lawfully refuse subjection and homage unto Rehoboam and all his subordinat Magistrates They might also lawfully have defended themselves against his tyranny and the tyranny of all under him and if They might lawfully have done so so may we 2. They should far more condemne the revolt of the city of Libnah 2 Chron. 21. 10. This wicked King Iehoram when he was risen up to the Kingdom of his father strengthened himself and slew all his brethren with the sword and diverse also of the Princes of Israel v. 4. and walked in the wayes of the Kings of Israel like as did the house of Ahab for he had the Daughter of Ahab to wife he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord v. 6. and he made him high places in the mountaines of Iudah and caused the inhabitants of Ierusalem to commit fornication and compelled Iudah there to v. 11. 13. and because he had thus forsaken the Lord God of his fathers did the city Libnah revolt from under his hand Commentators cleare this to have been the reason as Cornel. a. lap in loc propter impietatem Regis defecit ab eo Libna Sancitus on 2 King 8. 22. Lobnah recessit ne esset sub manus illius dereliquer at enim dominum patruum suorum Pet. Martyr on 2 King 8. v. 22. Causa in Paralip describitur ob Regis impietatem qui suos nitebatur cogere ad idololatriam quod ipsi Libnen ses pati noluerunt merito principibus enim parendum est verum usque ad aras cum illam terram inhabitandam a deo eo foedere habuissent ubi illum juxta ejus verbum colerent jure ejus idololatriam admittere non debuerunt Thus he approveth of their revolt in this case What sayes our Surveyer to this This sayes he imports not the impulsive cause of the revolt or motive which they had before their eyes for in that same verse period it is said the Edomites also revolted from him
private persons in cases of necessity So will the law of Nations and the Civil law for it maketh no distinction betwixt self defence used by private persons alone and that which is used by private persons having their Representatives concurring And where the law distinguisheth not we should not distinguish As all law permits to repel violence with violence so doth it give this allowance to all persons whatsoever l. Liberam C. quando licet unicuique sine judic 18. To maintaine that in no case it were lawful for Private subjects to resist the unjust violence and to defend themselves from the tyranny of Princes would be a direct condemning of our owne Princes K. Iames and K. Charles who helped the private Subjects of other Princes against them and is it not unreasonable to plead for more absolute subjection then princes themselves will plead for Or to condemne that resistence which even they will approve of countenance and encourage to 16. If it were not lawful for private persons to defend themselves against the manifest tyranny of a Soveraigne without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament or their Representative Then the condition of such as live under such a government where there are Ephori or where there is a Representative constituted should be worse then is the condition of these who want such Representatives But that were absurd Therefore c. The consequence of the Major is hence cleared Because all the arguments which have been adduced by any for proving the lawfulnesse of resistence in cases of necessity will evince that a people who have no formal Representative may resist the tyranny of their Prince But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Representatives their case should certanely be worse Because their hands should be bound up from that necessary defence which otherwise they might have used viz. when Representatives should betray their trust and comply with a tyrannous Prince against the people The Minor is most certane because Parliaments or Representatives have been instituted for the good advantage of the people And therefore should not prove hurtful and destructive otherwise they cease to be a benefite and a blessing A benefite should not prove onerous sayeth the law si filiusf ff ut legator nom caveaetur 20. If it be lawful for private persons to resist the Tyranny of Parliaments and other inferiour Magistrates Then it cannot be unlawful for them to resist the Tyranny of others without their concurrence and conduct But the former is true as all the arguments used by divines and politicians to prove resistence will evince and as several of our adversaries will very readily grant though they will stifly maintaine that no resistence is to be used against the Soveraigne Therefore c. The connexion is hence cleare That to whom the greater is lawful the lesse is also lawful Now it is a greater matter to resist a Parliament then to wave them and miskend them or to resist others vvithout their help as all may see and will easily grant There is not a more expresse command for Subjects to do nothing without the concurrence of a Parliament then not to resist them and oppose them Nor are people more obliged to the one then to the other 21. Privat persons without the concurrence of Parliaments may resist and oppose the Prince yea and binde his hands when in a fit of frenzie of a distempered braine and madnesse he would seek to cut his owne throat or with Saul would run upon his sword Therefore they may also resist oppose him when in madnesse and fury he would not only endanger his owne life in soul and body but vvould destroy the inheritance of the Lord and cut off his faithful and innocent subjects and destroy the land The connexion is cleare Because more respect is to be had unto the life of Thousands then to the life of one Man The antecedent is certane because otherwise they should be guilty before the Lord of his death if they vvould not hinder it when it was in the povver of their hands for he vvho hindereth not a mischief vvhen he may he vvilleth it and so is formally guilty before God 22. Privat persons vvithout the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates may resist the Soveraigne vvhen in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man passing by and with Saul vvhen an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him vvould cast his javelin or deadly instrument at the innocent Davids This no rational person vvill deny vvho knovveth vvhat a hazard it is to partake of other men's sinnes Love to the Prince should presse to this perserving of him from shedding innocent blood and vvho doth not this vvhen he may consenteth to that murther Therefore they may also no lesse yea much more resist him vvhen in his madnesse and distemper he is seeking to destroy millions of the people of God And againe much more may vve resist him vvhen he is seeking to destroy ourselves vve being much more bound to love and defend ourselves then to love and defend others 23. If it be lawful for private subjects without the Commande or allowance of Parliaments or their Representatives to resist a Tyrant or the Tyranny of a Prince with teares and prayers Then also in cases of necessity it shall be lawful for them to resist his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence with violence But the former is true Therefore c. The minor is cleare For Royalists themselves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be opposed to Tyranny Thus did the ancient Christians resist their tyrannical Emperours with earnest cryes and prayers to God especially Iulian the Apostate whom they ordinarily stiled Idolianus Pisaeus Adonaeus Tauricremus alter Hieroboam Achab Pharaoh c. And we are allowed to pray against the Enemies of Christs Kingdome against the Turk the Pope that great Antichrist and all the little Antichrists that make warre against the Lord and his interest Therefore we may also resist a Prince Tyrannically oppressing the People of God destroying the mountaine of the Lord makeing havock of his Church when we are in probable capacity for that work The reason is because the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other 2. The one is no more a sinful resisting of the Ordinance of God then is the other 3. Adversaries themselves will grant that resistence by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual then the other 4. This personal resistence is as consistent with that command let every soul be subject to higher powers as the other is with that 1 Tim. 2 ver 1 2. 1 exhort that supplications prayers and intercessions be made for Kings and for all in authority 5. If the Prince be good the one is as unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the ordinance of God no lesse then the other Therefore when he becometh a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the inheritance of the Lord an Apostate as
Magistrate from violence and opposition when he keepeth within his sphaere and doth his duty 4. If the matter passe from resistence to revenge we approve it not if the pride and haughtinesse of the spirit of Princes be the cause of this let them see to it and labour to prevent it by condescending to the just equitable demands of their oppressed and grieved subjects 5. We do not deny but God may stir up an Absolome and other conspirators against a Gracious David for his owne holy ends But in ordinary providence it is to be seen that good Princes while alive and when dead have had more respect of their Subjects then others who have been most flagitious and wicked The books of the Kings Chronicles demonstrate this That good Kings have been much honoured and reverenced while living and much lamented when dead and upon the contrare vvicked King 's have either been cut off or when dead have not been desired nor burned with the burnings of their fathers nor buryed in the sepulchre of their fathers whatever forced submission outward respect they might have had while living 6. As for the difference that God in his providence hath put betwixt Heathenish and Christian Kinges see what Evagrius sayeth Eccles histor cap. 41. speaking against Zosimus he hath these words worth the marking Let us see if thow will how the Emperours which were Hethnickes and Panimes maintainers of Idolatry and paganisme and how on the contrary such as cleaved unto the Christian faith ended their reigne was not Cajus Julius Caesar the first Emperous slaine by a conspiracy did not certane souldiers with naked swords dispatch Cajus the nephew of Tiberius was not Nero murdered by one of his familiar and dear friends Had not Galba the like end Otho Vitellus who all three reigned only Sixteen moneths what shall I speak of Titus whom Domitianus poisoned although he was his owne brother what sayest thow of Commodus what shall I say of Marcinus did not the souldiers use him like a captive about Byzantium and cruelly put him to death what shall I say of Maximinus whom his owne army dispatched were not Gallus and Volusianus murdered by their owne army had not Aemilianus the like miserable end But since Constantine began to reigne-was there any one Emperour in that city Julian a man of thine own Religion-only excepted that was murthered by his owne subjects It were an endlesse work to run thorow histories and show how for the most part contrare to what he sayes these Kings who have been resisted by their Subjects whether in the time of Heathenisme or since Christianity was professed have been most flagitious and wicked Sure if we should goe no further but to our owne history we shall finde this put beyond all question the Surveyer himself being witnesse who sayes Pag. 78. that the instances of opposition made unto the Scotish Kings adduced by the Apolog. were but the insurrection of Nobles against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous And thus he contradicteth what he just now said But to what purpose is all this stir He sayes but can he prove that we assert That any party of the people when strong enough may get up against the King and all Magistrates when they judge that they deal wrongously and injuriously with them Sure the thing which we affirme is far contrary to this as hath been often times shewed We know that the evil wit of a seditious party can soon paint the Best King as a black and ugly Tyrant and vve know also that the evil wit of a hired court-parasite and bese flatterer can paint out the blackest Nero or Caligula or a Heliogabalus as a brave and virtuous prince And this is nothing to our case when the acts of Tyranny and oppression are as legible as if written with the sun-beames It behoved to be strange virmilion that would serve to make the apostasy perjury oppression and tyranny of the novv Prince and Rulers appear vvhit and comely and he needs no great vvit vvho vvould painte out these grosse acts under the forme of ugly Tyranny Yet vvith all vve shall vvillingly grant to him that All the fearers of God should rather indure some acts of real tyranny then by doctrine or practices of resistence open a door to the destruction of good Kings by a party not of their spirit but lurking under their pretences and to the continual dissolution concussion and desolation of humane societies for this is not the thing vve are against Some acts of Tyranny vve are vvilling to endure provideing he vvill grant us liberty both to teach practise resistence vvhen the acts of tyranny are not one or two but many nor acts of Tyranny in smaller and lesse considerable matters but such as tend to the destruction of the true Libertyes of the Subject to the overturning of a Covenanted vvork of Reformation svvorne-to by all rankes and degrees of people hovvbeit men of corrupt principles and of another spirit should lurk under these pretences Is it not reasonable that vve also demand of this Surveyer vvhile he is in a good mood That he vvould evidence so much fear of God as not to condemne resistence unto real tyranny so as to open a gap to all the ingrained bloody Nerâ—es and such prodigious Canibales to vvaste destroy at pleasure the best of Subjects What follovveth concerning obedience active and Subjection passive hath been spoken to formerly and it is needlesse fill up pages vvith repetitions as he doth only vvhereas he citeth Apolog. Pag. 376 377. granting that subjection is necessary and supposeth that this is repugnant to vvhat Naphtali sayeth He vvould knovv that he is in a great mistake for the question there is concerning obedience in things indifferent or of submitting to the penalty and that by a few privat persones and though in this case a single person who will not obey the Magistrate in these matters must yeeld the penalty and so acknowledge his subjection it will not follow that a multitude or a Community forced under intolerable penaltyes to acts of impiety and hainous transgression and who can defend their rights and just privileges palpably and iniquously violated may not repel such unjust force with force resist intolerable tyranny abusing the ordinance of God to all acts of wickednesse and to the overturning destroying the very ends of government And to this Naphtaly speaketh Pag. 28. So that he but gives vent to his profane Spirit to cry out as he doth Pag. 46. and say Good God! to what times are we reserved to see so certane truths that may be reckoned among the immoveables of Religion and the ancient land marks removed by an upstart furious Crue who by their new principles as false as new seek to confound both Church and State The lawfulnesse of privat men's counter acting and violent resistence to a whole Church a whole