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.
high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue though extraordinary actions which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue may not be imitated And he hath not yet proved neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as was that of Abraham and the like We shall grant with him That Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set And that men may have heroick motions actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as Luther had as sometimes though they have an extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions as Peeter when he dissembled But what sayes this to Phine as his fact Phineas sayes he had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions but supposeing him a meer private person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God Answer Doth this man give a distinct sound He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas that he turned himself Protëus -like into many shapes and we finde himself doing little better here He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not but if he was such then the action was extraordinary but what if he was not Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical and thus we are no wiser then we were for we know not what to make of the action nor what to make of the person but we must judge of the person by the action And of the action by the person That is to say if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary and è contra if the action was extraordinary he was a private person and if it was ordinare and imitable Then he was a publick person Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel and yet that action of theirs is imitable But how proves he this extraordinary call It is sayes he fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our wil service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by P sal 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousnesse though judging according to ordinary Rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposeing him for a meer private man yet having God's warrand whose will is the rule of righteousnesse the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ It is true God revvards not nor approves not vvil-service yet he approves and revvards other actions then such as are extraordinary and not imitable 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse sayes clearly he vvas a private person and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory and rather speakes out an encouragement to all to do the like in the like case then any extraordinary call he had vvhich none novv can expect Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings sayes that Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate there is no mids betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories if they be not called by the intervention of men their allowance they must plead an immediat calling from God Ans Beacause I minde not to enter into a Logomachy or debate about words tearmes I would desre him to tell me what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not or do not call People forth unto that work They have not Man's call nor have they an immediate call from heaven and yet they have a lawful call from God Nature and necessity to save the city their houses goods little ones from being burnt into ashes And what ever name he give to this call we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty And when men whether out of secret impulses heroical motions or out of meer sense conscience of duty do this they do not desert their owne calling and state like these spirits lud ver 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office though they do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrates by office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable necessity which knoweth no humane law and to which some divine positive lawes will cede But then he sayes Pag. 115. Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministery without a call from men externally Answ And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men in some cases What if a company of Men be cast out on an island having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places whence they might have some lawfully called Minister and there be one among them qualified for the work might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function And when we grant this we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists Enthusiasts photinians or the like who are against an external call at any time alledging that gifts are sufficient And sayes he how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessity Answ He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist and then he will imbrace the consequent also without our admission In the 8 place he comes to tell us that It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened c. for our question is not of that but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned we have warrand to look for any extraordinary persosones having Gods secret and special Mandates to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in Answ Prophecyes and predictions of future events are not works which any ordinary calling men have by allowance and approbation of Men according to the rules of common reason and the word doth interest them in and doth he think God's
JUS POPULI VINDICATUM OR The Peoples Right to 〈…〉 and their Covenanted R 〈…〉 Wherein the Act of 〈…〉 and Vindication which was interprised Anno 1666. is particularly justified The lawfulnesse of private Persons defending their Lives Libertyes and Religion against manifest Oppression Tyranny and violence exerced by Magistrats Supream and Inferiour contrare to Solemne Vowes Covenants Promises Declarations Professions Subscriptions and Solemne Engadgments is deâ—â—â—strate by â—any Argumâ—â—ts Being a 〈◊〉 Reply to the first paâ—â— of the Survey of Naph 〈…〉 c By a Friend to true Christian Liberty PSAL. LXXIV Ver. 20 21 22 23 〈…〉 e unto the Covenant For the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty O let not the oppressed returne ashamed Let the poor and needy praise thy name Arise ô God plead thine own cause Remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee dayly Forget not the voice of thine Enemies the tumult of these that rise up against increaseth continually HOS I. ver 7. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judaâ— and will save them by the Lord their God and will not save them by bow nor by sword nor by battel by horses nor by horsmen Printed in the Year MDCLXIX CHRISTIAN READER IT will not I suppose be very necessary to make any full Relation or large Deduction of the occasion and first rise of this debate The same being not only fresh and recent to all both Friends and foes who have been Spectators of the great and wonderful workings of God in our Land but the memory thereof if it could be so soon obliterate is revived a fresh by the constantly renewed acts of Tyranny and oppression which from yeer to yeer The Powers acted by the same Spirit of Enimity to the Cause and Interest of Christ are exerceing upon the account thereof So that the Continual rage and Constant opposition which the ingrained adversaries of the Glory and Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ are dayly acting and making against all who desire to keep a conscience void of offence both towards God and Man and to remember with some sense and feare their solemne vowes and Sacred engadgments unto the Most High will not suffer us to forget how that After our Land was solemnely deâ—â—uted unto God by Solemne Covenants and indissoluble 〈◊〉 and the defence of the Reformed Religion in Do 〈…〉 Worshipe Discipline and Government become 〈◊〉 condition yea the basis of our political constituâ—ion The King not only by his solemne and sacred oath swearing and by his hand writeing subscribing and so fully owneing and approving the same but upon these tearmes and conditions accepting the Royal Crowne and Scepter in the day of his solemne inauguration The People also upon the same tearmes promiseing all subjection and obedience in the Lord And afterward in full Parliament confirming ratifying and approving the same and thereby giving all the security which either Reason Law or Religion could expect or require That all the Ends of these holy Covenants should have been in all time comeing really sincerely and constantly prosecuted by King and Nobles and all ranks of persons within the Land with one heart and minde and consequently That the evils particularly That accursed Hierarchy fully and for ever abjured in these Everlasting Bonds should never be countenanced owned or favoured far lesse re-intro-duced and established and after for our owneing of these necessary things and of the Kings interest in subordination thereunto we were invaded by the English and the Lord who for his his owne holy Ends saw it necessary and doth whatsoever he will in Heaven and in Earth so disposeing overcome and brought into bondage full Ten Years and at length The King who was forced to flee out of all his Dominions returning in such a remarkable and signal way without blood as might have engaged his heart more firmely then ever unto that God who had done such rare and unexpected things for him and made him more then ever fixedly resolve to owne Him and his holy Interests according to his former Vowes Oathes Subscriptions Covenants and Declarations and rationally ascertaned his Subjects that these necessary and good things should not only never be overturned and ranversed but also with greater Zeal and resolution established confirmed and prosecuted then ever formerly how instead of this No sooner did the report of his Majesty's returne come abroad but all the generation of malignants who had ever been heart enemies to the work of God which was carryed on in the Land did lift up theiâ— head insult over the People of God with all their might according to their ordinary insolency spew out their Venome against the work of God and at length obteaning power did raze the same unto the very foundations anull and rescinde all Acts all Covenants all Resolutions and Conclusions which had been made and taken for setling and secureing the Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government condemne all which had been done in carrying on the Work of Reformation as pure and manifest Rebellion and having re-intro-duced and established abjured Prelacy with all it 's concomitant abhominations did enact and enjoyne most tyrannically a full conformity unto all these abhominations and presse in a most horrid and arbitrary manner the faithful Servants and seekers of God to a complyance with these accursed and ever to be abhorred courses and upon their simple refusal did violently and barbarously eject the faithful Servants of Christ banishing some out of all the three Dominions incarcerating others after thev had imbrewed their hands in the blood of the best of our Nobility and Ministry and chaseing by their irrational and brutish acts multitudes of them from their flocks and familiars and then having in an antichristian manner thrust in upon the People a crew of the basest and naughtiest wreatches the Earth did bear by their cruel and tyrannical acts compelled constrained the couscientious seekers of God to accept of countenance owne and constantly hear such as lawful Ministers lawfully called and sent of God and when honest People considering both the way of their entry to be Antichristian their doctrine false and erroneous their conversation scandalous and abhominable their qualifications rather such as sute the publick Ministers of Satan then the called Servants of God their whole deportment a manifest demonstration to all onlookers that they were never called of God unto that work and considering how iniquously their owne faithful Pastors and Fathers had been thrust from them and how by their solemne Oath they stood obliged to the constant keeping of a perfect antipathy unto every part and pendicle of that abjured Hierarchy and unto what was contrary to sound doctrine and to the power of godlinesse and to the work of Reformation and Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government did forbear to yield obedience unto these antichristian and iniquous Lawes did by their arbitrary and barbarous executions what by
this even in Beasts His next restriction is this A man justly condemned to death both according to a just law and by a just process according to law may not use violent self defence against the Magistrate with re-offending him Ans It is granted what then will it therefore follow that this principle of selfe preservation is so restricted as that a whole Land or a considerable part thereof being unjustly condemned both by an unjust law and by an unjust processe according to or without that unjust law may not defend themselves against the Magistrate's Emissaries sent to destroy without respect had either to law or conscience Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too neare to blaspheme God by saying That it were a mighty defect in divine providence that men should not have as large a liberty to defend themselves violently as Beasts have and that men were in a worse condition then beasts if as Beasts have alwayes power to defend themselves violently with their horns heels teeth c. So men should not have as large a liberty in every case to use violence upon Magistrates putting them to vexation or perhaps troubling them in life states c. But where findes he these words in Lex Rex The author of Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 334. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons doves against haukes If a man in the absence of the lawful Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armyes of papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men but this is far from as large a liberty in every case and cometh no way near to blasphemy but is a real truth Suppose Lex Rex had said so which I finde not it had not been apposite to his poynt now while he is speaking of opposeing Magistrates not puting to vexation or perhaps troubling in life state c. but rightly executeing a just law against a malefactor which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned but would have said That the Magistrate was bound to execute Gods Law against men-sworne Apostats such as he and his fraternity are that they were bound to submite to the stroke of justice Thridly he sayes Pag 16. may not the exercise of selfe defence and violent resistence be restrained by the grace of God and the power of his command for submission abiding upon a mans spirit as in Isaac's case who did not resist his aged father going to sacrifice him Ans Whether Isaac made any forceable resistence or not we know not scripture is silent but it tels us his father bound him we acknowledge God is Lord of life but no man is and he may restraine by his will and working on the spirit so as a man who lawfully might flee and save his life shall not have power to do so but abide and glorify him by giving a faithful testimony unto his truth when questioned But thinks he that such instances are binding precedents Sure then he shall contradict his owne doctrine Cap. 4. Or thinks he that a Body of a people or a considerable part thereof shall not exercise lawfully this privilege of self defence violent resistence when neither the Law of God nor such extraordinary force or restraint of God on the Spirit but the vaine pleadings of Court Parasites would have it restrained Fourthly Pag. 17. He sayes May not the defence of our temporal life in some case cease for the preservation of the eternal life of our Neighbour when it comes to that that the defence of the one shall be the certane losse of the other Ans True and therefore He and the rest of the perjured clergy should much more cease from the preservation or ratherusurpation of their places livings and dignities when so long as they domineer there is certane ruine to Religion and to the souls of many thousands And againe if a man may lay downe his natural life for the preservation of of the soul of his Neighbour much more may he with others hazard the same in opposeing unjust violence for the defence of the pure Religion whereby thousands of soulls may be eternally preserved But doth he think that a Nation or a whole countrey-side is to give up their lives to the sword of the Kings mercylesse Emissaries for to preserve the vaine pompe and to fill the bellyes of a few drons whose God is their belly though they should account that their eternal life and all their felicity Fiftly sayes he doth not this obligation cease for the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth Answer What then doth it follow That Men should renunce their priviledge of self defence when their doing of that shall be so far from promoving the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth that upon the contrare their doing so shall tend directly to the ruine of the publick good and destruction of the Commonwealth Sure if this be true that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth It is also true that moe should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth and violently resist violence And doct Ames case mentioned Cas Consc Lib. 5. c.. 31. q. 3. would sute the Prelates well and their adherents so that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland they should give up their necks to the stroke of justice that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land for till these be removed we can not expect any thing but judgement upon judgement from the Lord till we be destroyed Neither doth Naphtaly crosse D. Ames for Naphtaly only speaks of a mans suffering intolerable and inevitable injuries under pretext of the good of the Commonwealth which indeed for a man to do would be for the delusion of an empty name only for the lust of others really to deprive himself of his whole share and interest therein neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share seing it vvere a great question and doubt if in that case he vvere in the vvay of his duty What he addeth Pag. 18. of a souldiers going to a dangerous post at the command of his General is utterly impertinent Natures instinct vvil teach some dog to stand in the gap to keep out the Bare His last restriction is this That it must cease to preserve the King the Head of the Commonwealth when the case is so that the King must either lose his life or the private man his Ans I grant Lex Rex sayeth I think that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him then that he should kill the King because he is not to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publick man But I doubt that it is so agreed among the learned Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag.
162. thinketh othervvayes and proveth that self defence is lavvful to a private person against the Magistrate for the lavv vvhich allovveth to repel violence vvith violence maketh no distinction betvvixt a publick person and a privat person and the law of Nature alloweth it against every one for it knovveth no difference And as to that vvhich some vvould say That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth He answereth That he who resisteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republick and it is not per se but per accidens that he standeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth and if he should suffer himself to be killed he should transgresse against the Law of Nature Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himself would not rather kill in this case as be killed and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteousnesse however now he would disprove this assertion if he could And would let that passe of loving himself more ad finem suum ultimum and suam virtutem Finally what he sayeth against this assertion of Naphtaly is to no purpose for the Author of Naphtaly will readyly grant that in some cases not only a man but a compauy of men may yea ought to preferre the preservation of others unto the preservation of their owne life because of a divine command to defend Religion Libertyes Posterity and Countrey from the unjust invasion and violence offered by wicked Emissaries But he shall never prove That the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof is to hold up their throats to be cut by the Kings cut-throats when he they are seeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation to destroy the Libertyes of the land and to make all perfect slaves both in soul and body CAP. III. A fourth Argument Vindicated taken from Scripture-instances Our fourth argument shall be taken from instances of opposition and resistence made unto the Soveraigne or his bloody Emissaries by private subjects without the conduct or concurrence of their Representatives recorded in scripture and which we finde not condemned by the Spirit of the Lord So that whosoever shall condemne the late vindicators must also condemne these instances As. 1. They must condemne the Iewes standing for their lives against their Enemies armed against them with a commission from King Ahasuerus sealed with his ring which no man might reverse in the dayes of Mordecai Esther But some vvill say That they had the King's commission which did warrand them to take the sword of defence against any that should assault them under pretence of the former decree I Answere If their having of the King's commismission did in poynt of conscience warrand them It had been utterly unlawful for them to have withstood the King's butchers if they had not abtained that commission and warrand But what man of common sense will say this This later decree did in poynt of law warrand them to gather together with saifty and security that they might the more easily not only defend themselves from their Adversaries assaulting them but also to destroy to stay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them both little ones women and to take the spoile of them for a prey Esth 8 11. But didnot could not make their selfdefence against such manifest bloody cruelty lawful in poynt of conscience if otherwise it had been unlawful Though every instance will not in all poynts quadrate for nullum simile est idem yet vve have here in this instance these things for our purpose 1. private subjects without their Ephori or Representatives arming themselves for defence that 2. against bloody Emissaryes of the King 3. bloody Emissaries armed by a formal commission decree and vvarrand from the King 4. A commission formally never reversed but standing in force as the decrees of the Medes and Persians that might not be altered 5. and this defence as lavvful in it self in poynt of conscience for if it had not not been so the King's vvarrand had never made it so so declared lavvful in poynt of lavv by a decree from the King after better thoughts In imitation of vvhich It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council if they had been so farr from condemning these innocent self-defenders since as they thought in poynt of honour and credite they vvould not retract or reverse their decrees and commissions once granted that they vvould have authorized them and absolved them in poynt of lavv since in poynt of conscience no man could condemne them for standing to the defence of their Estates Lands Libertyes Lives and Consciences unjustly oppressed by mercylesse Emissaries 2. They must condemne the people their rescueing of Ionathan from the sentence of death unjustly given out against him by King Saul 1 Sam. 14 44. In ansvvere to this instance our Surveyer sayeth Pag. 65. That the people used no violence against Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jonathan but in the heat of souldiery boldnesse do effectually interpose with Saul and mediate for the life of Jonathan moving Saul to Wave respect to his rash oath and to regaird what was just and right Answ 1. The matter came not the length of violence but had the King pertinaciously adhered to his rash and sinful resolution and by force had offered to draw the innocent Man to death that which they did spoke clearly they would have resisted him for whether the King would or not yea contrare to his oath they sweare in the face of the King that Ionathan should not die 2. It is but gratis dictum that only in the heat of a souldiery boldnesse they did mediate beside that there seemeth to be a material contradiction here for souldiers mediating and interposing especially in the heate of souldiery-boldnesse useth not to be with humble supplications intreaties but with violence or with what will usher in violence 3. We heare of no arguments they use to move bloody Saul to change his purpose but this as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground He sayes Pag. 66. That the people did not oppose an oath to Saul's oath for Junius exposition may passe well that they spoke not by way of swearing but by way of reasoning abhorring the destruction of such a person absit ut vivit Jehovah an cadere debet Ans The word which they use is no other way translated here by Iunius then elsewhere and elsewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath as may be seen Iudg. 8. 19. 1 Sam. 19 16. and 20. 3 21 25 26. and in many other places 2. The People spoke these words as Saul spoke them ver 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people opposed to Saul's oath 3. Iunius himself sayeth that they opposed a just oath to Saul's hypocritical oath Sanctius in locum sayeth the people
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
because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and the Edomites loved not the true Religion but the meritorious cause on Jehorams part is poynted at Answ The text it self and Commentators to vvhom vve may add Iackson on 2 King 8. the Dutch Annot Ibid. give this as the impulsive cause and only motive vvhich they had before their eyes 2. Any who read the text vvill see his reason very unsound for v. 8. it is said that in his dayes the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Iudah and made themselves a King and no word of this as the impulsive cause there of v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occasion of Iehorams seeking by force to reduce them under his dominion and then in a new period mention is made of Libnah's revolt with the cause and only motive thereof Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers Then he asks if his adversary thinks that the laying aside of the presbyterian frame is the forsaken of the Lord God of our Fathers and a sufficient cause for any one Towne in the Kingdom to revolt from the King though he do not persecute them nor force them to his way as there is no evidence that Libnah was so used shall a Kings swerving in that one point or if there be greater infidelity be sufficient ground of defection from him Ans I nothing doubt but all such as have imbraced this present course of apostasie are guilty of a grievous revolt having impudently and avowedly departed form a sworne Covenant from a covenanted sworne Religion reformed in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline Government and have in a great part forsaken the God of our Fathers that covenanted God whom our Fathers and we both owned and imbraced as our God and is sufficient cause for any City or Company of men so far to revolt from the King as to refuse to concurre with him in this horrible defection and course of perjury and resist his unjust violence pressing and compelling them to a sinful compliance 2. As it is more then probable that Libnah was no better used then were the people of Iudah by this Tyrannous King and is asserted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21 10. So whatever this lyer suggesteth it is notour that the King hath persecuted and doth persecute and force honest people to follow his way and apostatize with him contrare to their consciences and sworne allegiance unto God and if he add this clause as an exception then seing the truth of the thing is notour he fully accords that there is sufficient cause given for any Town in the Kingdome to revolt which is more then we desire At length he tells us That their revolt was sinfull But when not only thiâ— revolt is recorded as done but such and impulsive cause and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord without the least hint of any expression condemning the same we dar not be so bold as is this Surveyer Nor are we so foolish as to receive his word contraire to the testimony of so many expositors Hence we have a strong argument For if it be lawful for a part of the people to revolt from a tyrannous Prince making defection from the true and received Religion and forceing his subjects to a sinful defection and complyance with him in his apostasy It must also be lawful for a part of the people to defend themselves by force against the Emissaries of a King departing from his faith and foresaking the Religion which He hath sworne to owne and maintaine sent forth by him or any under him to force by cruel oppression and violence them to a compliance with his sinful way And the antecedent is cleare in this place 3. They must much more condemne Azariah and the fourescore Priests who being commended as me of courage valour resisted Vziah the King 2 Chron. 26 17. c. they expelled him with force stood against him the lxx say they resisted him deturbarunt eum ex eo loco sayeth Vatablus they forced him forth and compelled him to goe out they caused him make haste sayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum sayeth Hieron When he went in the temple to burne incense upon the altaar of incense on some solemne day as Iosephus thinketh So that there is more then a resistance of him by words as some Royalists say even resistence by force and violence Hence we argue if private subjects may by force resist withstand and with violence hinder the King from transgressing the Law of God Then may they much more lawfully resist him and his bloody Emissaryes when He seeketh to oppresse unjustly and to draw people off from the wayes of the Lord. If any say with doct Ferne that because of an expresse Law of God being a leper he was put out of the congregation Then we see that the Prince is subject to Church-censure and so Subjects may judge him and punish him we see also that Princes were subject to ceremonial lawes as well as any of the subjects and why not also to the moral Lawes and if because of a ceremonial Law the King was to be ceremonially punished why also for the breach of moral Law may he not be punished morally Hence will it undoubtedly follow That a Prince rageing and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reason may be resisted and his violence repelled with violence even by private subjects Worthy Mr Knox in his debate with Lithengtoun doth form this instance gather That subjects not only may but also ought to withstand and resist their Princes whensoever they do any thing that expresly repugnes to God his Law or holy Ordinance Lithingtoun objected That they were not private subjects but the priests of the Lord and figures of Christ and such have we none this day to withstand Kings if they do any thing wrong He answered that though the High Priest was a figure of Christ yet he was a subject For said he I am assured that he in his Priesthood had no prerogative above these that passed before him now so it is that Aaron was subject to Moses and called him Lord Samuel being both prophet and Priest subjected himself unto Saul after he was inaugurated of the people Sadoc bowed before David c. And whereas you say we have no such Priests this day I might answere that neither have we such Kings this day as then were anoynted by Gods commandement and sate upon the seate of David and were no lesse the figures of Christ Iesus in their just administration then were the Priests in their appointed office and such Kings I am assured we have not now no more then we have such Priests for Christ Iesus being anoynted in our nature of God his Father both King Priest and Prophet hath put an end to all external unction and yet I think you will not say that God hath now diminished his graces from these whom he appoynts
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
forth unto us and pitch upon as the peccant and procureing cause 7. Though we could not satisfy wrangling wits touching the equity of this which yet the common and ordinary practice of men forfaulting a whole posterity for one mans transgression will not suffer us to account insolent yet we ought to rest satisfyed with what is clearly and undenyably held forth in the word and beleeve that for these causes such and such plagues were inflicted upon distinct and different persones because the spirit of truth sayeth so 8. As all Scripture was given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousnesse that the Man of God may be perfect thorowly furnished unto all good works 2 Tim 3 v. 16 17. So these particular passages so particularly described are written for our learning Rom. 15 ver 4. and are out examples that we should not do as they did 1 Cor. 10 v. 6. and are written for our admonition 1 Cor. 10 ver 11. And therefore we must not look slightly upon them but ponder then narrowly as so many documents given us for our use and instruction and particularly that we may take warning to prevent such evils Now let us hear what the Surveyer sayeth Pag. 51. He layes downe two assertions 1. That no man is involved in divine judgments and punishments for the sinnes of others as the deserving cause of his punishment if he be no way accessory to these sinnes of others 2. That no private Subject is accessory to the sins of Rulers nor involved in the punishments of the same meerly upon the accouut of his tolerating the sinnes or not violent resisting the Magistrate in his sinful courses Answ Not to enlairge on these now because of what he is to say in explication of these we are then to speak I would only at present enquire 1. What accession had the army of Israel which was defate by the Men of Ai a stroke which made Iosua rent his cloaths and fall upon his face to the Earth until the even tyde he and the elders of Israel and put dust upon their heads unto the sin of Achan And why doth the Spirit of the Lord say Ios. 7 v. 1. That the Children of Israel had committed a trespasse in the accursedthing And againe ver 10 11 12. And the Lord said unto Iosua Get thee up wherefore lyest thou thus upon thy face Israel hath sinned and they have also transgressed my Covenant-for they have taken of the accursed thing-and they have put it even amongst their owne stuff Therefore the Children of Israel could not stand because they were accursed neither will I be with you any more except yee destroy the accursed from amongst you Though we can learne of no accession which they had unto this particular fact yet we see the whole body is punished as guilty and must be legally purified and sanctified and purged from that contagion 2. What accession had all these who suffered in these three yeers famine which was in David's dayes unto that bloody act of Saul and his house which was committed many yeers before thousands of these who suffered therefore knew the right hand from the left or were borne possibly 3. What accession had the children unborne to the third and fourth generation unto the sinnes of their forefathers and yet the holy Lord thinks good to visite their iniquities on them 4. What accession had the People unto David's sin of numbering the people doth not David himself say 2. Sam 24 ver 17. But these sheep what have they done But let us heare how he explaineth this A certane thing it is sayes he that God doth not properly punish any man but in reference to his owne personal sins as the deserving cause of the punishment albeit he may and often taketh occasion in his wise providence to punish men for their owne sinnes from the sinnes of others and in that only sense they may be said to be punished for the sins of others But every soul suffers for his owne sin Divine justice finding causes of punishment in every one that is punished either their personal accession to the sinnes of others which is their owne sin or else some other sinnes for which he may in justice inflict the punishment upon them albeit the impulsive cause or occasion rather for punishing in such a manner and time c be from the sinnes of others Ans 1. Though vve desire to be vvise unto sobriety in this matter and not to meddle vvith matters beyond our reach yet vve think it saifer to speak in the language of the Holy Ghost then in the vvords of this Surveyer vvho giveth us no Scripture for vvhat he sayes The expressions of Scripture hold forth some thing more then a meer occasion It semeth strange to say that Ahan's sin should have been only an occasion of that discomfiture when the Spirit of the Lord sayes that Israel had sinned and therefore could not stand before their Enemies because they were accursed and that till this accursed were taken from amongst them he would not be with them any more 2. He vvould do vvell to explaine to us vvhat he meaneth by a proper punishment and vvhat is the opposite tearme thereunto 3. We grant divine justice findeth deserving causes of punishment in all in whom is original sin but vve suppose that vvhen that is not mentioned as the procureing cause of such a stroke but the sin committed by another vve ought to look on that mainly as having a procureing causality in that affliction 4. How ever we see he granteth one may be punished for the sin of another or upon occasion of the sin of another as he loveth to speak to which he hath no personal accession 5. If these sinnes of others were only the occasion of punishing in such a manner or time how cometh it that the very punishment it self is removed upon the taking away of that sin according to God's appoyntment and God is pacified toward the whole as he was vvith Israel vvhen Ahan vvas killed and Seven of Saul's sones hanged up 6. But whether vve take these sinnes of others as impulsive causes or occasions of such punishments This is cleare That if these sinnes had been prevented these punishments had been prevented also so that if Saul had not gotten liberty to have staine the Gibeonites in his bloody rage contrare to oath and Covenant these three yeers famine had not come And if David had been hindered from numbering of the people and had not gotten his vvill these Seventy thousand had not died then as they did And seing no other cause or occasion is rendered of this it vvould clearly warne all in a Community and Society to labour by all meanes according to their power and places to hinder the Committing or removing when committed of these sinnes which bring heavy plagues on the Community The Dutch Aunot on 2 Sam. 21 1. say that
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
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