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
13 v. 10. Unto which he answered That as these places do enjoyn either patience when the clear call and dispensation of God do inevitably call unto suffering without which patience were no patience but rather stupidity of c. So thence to inferre that Men should give way to all violence and sacrilege to the subverting of Religion and righteousnesse is after the manner of Satan to cheat and abuse men by the holy Scriptures The Surveyer replyeth thus I meddle not with his impertinent reflections and scurrile jibes nor vvith his groundlesse inferences vvhich vve have so oft met vvith in the former part The scope is to shew the unlawfulnesse of private revenge for injuries done to us and the place will condemne plainely enough violent retaliating the Magistrate when we think he doth us wrong Answ The scope of the place is obvious and doth no more condemne private persons retaliating the Magistrate then Magistrats retaliating privat Subjects unlesse Magistrates be exempted from this precept and consequently be not to be reckoned among Christ's followers And as from this place it will not follow that one independent King may not make war against another and thereby defend his rights nor that one private person may not defend his rights and just possessions against an invader no more will if follow that Subjects may not defend themselves and their Rights Libertyes and Religion against the violent oppression and Tyranny of Magistrats Next sayes the Surveyer Pag. 269. That every Man in his calling ought to withstand violence and Sacrilege to the subverting of Religion and Righteousnesse is granted Yea privat Men may resist the unjust violence of private Persons and being under the conduct of the Magistrate may resist any that offereth violence in lesser concernments then these are But we still maintaine that this text forbids all revenge or violent retaliation upon the Magistrate though he abuse his power Answ The question is not what he will still maintaine that this text doth forbid but what he can evince that this text will prove against us How will he prove that this text doth more forbid private persons to resist the unjust violence of Magistrats then to resist the unjust violence of privat persons or to resist the unjust violence of any having Magistrats to conduct them Is there any exception in the text Doth not the text speak to all in reference to all To wit that they should resist none out of a Spirit of private revenge Againe though the text forbid all revenge or violent retaliation upon the Magistrate though he abuse his power will it therefore forbid privat Subjects to defend themselves by force in case of necessity from manifest and unjust violence and Tyranny No no more then because the text doth forbid even Magistrats to revenge or retaliate from a Spirit of revenge wicked Malefactors It doth therefore forbid them to execute justice upon them Naphtaly did add that this was grosly to exceed that signal rule mainly in these places intended to wit that we should be perfect even as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect Who though he filleth the Earth with his goodnesse yet doth he love righteousnesse and helpeth and delivereth the oppressed and commandeth the Zeal of his owne glory wherein he himself doth often eminently appeare by the hand of his people to take vengeance on his adversaries To this the Surveyer replyeth What strange argueing is this that because God Almighty executeth vengeance upon his adversaries therefore private persons should follow his perfection in doing the like albeit they have not his warrand or command Answ Naphtaly's Argument ran mainely upon helping and delivering the oppressed Neither doth he conclude what private persons may do without God's warrand or command This he supposed because he had evinced it Then Naphtaly closeth saying Let us therefore in the consideration of what is said Rev 13 v. 10. He that leadeth into captivity shall goe Into captivity He that killeth with the sword c. Both possesse our souls in patience under all the former sufferings and hope and rejoyce in the faith of the succeeding delivery there subjoyned Upon this sayeth the Surveyer he would found the consolation and patience of his party in all former sufferings and his hope and joy in the succeeding delivery Answ And why might he not That word sayes he Rev. 13. toucheth not nor threatens the Magistrate in the executeion of justice but rebels who use the sword without God's warrand against the Magistrate may read their reward in this text Answ We say not that it threatens the Magistrate executing justice But let such see to it who instead of executing justice pervert justice and execute the innocent people of God And after the manner of the Beast there spoken of maketh war with the Saints And so may all rebels against God who use the sword without his warrand But as for privat subjects defending themselves by the sword of innocent self defence against unjust violence and intolerable tyranny and oppression we have proved that they want not God's warrand and therefore they may look for another reward And as for his hope and confidence after expressed we let it passe as not worth the mentioning for when the hope of the Hypocrit perisheth his is like to give up the Ghost Having thus answered all which this surveyer hath said whether in his first part or now in his second against the truth which we have maintained we may saifly say that these valient worthies were basely and unworthyly murthered that there was no just cause to take their lives This man pag. 260. c. Will not have them justified and adduceth for the most part such reasons as make me doubt whether he can be the same man that drew up the first part of this Survey because they are the very same things we heard before in the first part and is it possible the man could have forgotten himself or think that we could so soon have forgotten what we heard in the first part and had answered And if he be a distinct person I wonder what the man meaned to give us the same thing over againe did he ever read these in the first part or had he forgotten that ever he saw them Or thought he that they would have the weight of gold coming from his Mouth while they had not the weight of stuble being uttered by his collegue He beginneth that discourse with palpable untruthes saying That they suffered not upon the account of owneing the covenant Whereas the maine Argument of their indictment was That all convocations and riseing in armes or subjects entering in leagues without or against the King's authority are treasonable Then he tels us That all which they can say for their riseing was that the Magistrate by moderat penaliyes according to law was pressing them to attendance upon the ordinance of God which is an indispensible duty This we heard before and is answered Chap. XVI
done by the encouragement and assistance of the Spirit of God And if any should reject this instance as impertinent because they suppose Antiochus was not their lawful Supream Magistrate but only a Tyrant without title let them heare what Grotius de jure belli pacis lib. 1. c. 4. n. 7. sayeth to this Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Maccabees for whereas some think to defend these armes upon this gronnd that Antiochus was not King but an invader it seemeth foolish to me seing in all the history of the Maccabees and of such as took their part they never name Antiochus any thing else but their King and that not without ground for long before this the Iewes had acknowledged the authority of the Macedonians unto whose power and place Antiochus did succeed as to that that the law forbiddeth that any stranger should be set over them that is to be understood of a voluntary election and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do And whereas others say that the Maccabees used only the right of the people cui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deberetur Neither is that solide for the jewes being at first overcome by Nebuchadnezar and subjected to him by the law of warre by the same law they did obey the Medes and Persians who succeeded unto the Caldeans and all this Impire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians hence it is that Tacitus reckoneth the jewes amongst basest of such as served these Assyrians Medes and Persians Nor did they require any thing by stipulation from Alexander and his successours but without any condition gave themselves up unto their power as formerly they had been under the command of Darius And if at any time the jewes were permitted to use their owne rites and lawes that was but a begged right which they had through the indulgence of the Kings but not through any imperial law So that there is nothing that can defend the Maccabees but most imminent and certane danger thus he 2. The constant practice of the Waldensian protestants in Piedmont doth shew that this late practice is not so strange uncouth as adversaryes would give it out to be for they never had a Representative to be a screen betwixt them and the tyranny of their princes and yet how oftintimes have they valiently with stood such as came to oppresse them in goods and lives though cloathed with commission from the princes In the yeer 1580. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity and their popish Soveraignes they assembled solemnely together to consult how to prevent the imminent dangers and after prayer and calling upon God for his grace and spirit of counsel and direction they resolved to enter into a solemne mutual Covenant and to joyn in a League together for defence of Themselves and their Religion and so accordingly did assist one another in their defence which they did with good successe And that alwayes since whenever they were assaulted by the bloody Emissaries of the Duk of Savoy as any may see fully in their history So that whosoever will condemne the late defence must also condemne these poor oppressed protestants who have no other meane to keen them from utter extirpation but this innocent meane of felf defence and of repelling unjust violence with violence for Bonds Promises Covenants binde their Prince as such obligations use to binde some others viz. no longer then they see it for their advantage Neither have they any Representative Prince or Noble man among them to head their matters but meer necessity puts them to use the best expendient they can and forcibly to resist their oppressing Superiours when they send to spoile them of their goods lives and libertyes 3. Some particular cityes in Germany did defend themselves against the Emperour unjustly invadeing their libertyes and assaulting them as may be seen in the history of Germany particularly the Cities of Madenburgh and Breme 4 So in France the Cities of Montobane and Rochel and the Isle of Ree with stood the King when he was seeking to oppresse them And no man will condemne these for acts of rebellion and sedition unlesse they will also condemne our Kings who at least undertook and offered to help and assist them 5. It was this opposition and resistence of privat persons when tyrannized over by Superiours that hath brought the Cantons of Helvetia unto that state of freedome and liberty which they have enjoyed for many yeers and do enjoy this day being now a free Republick as Simlerus showeth in his history of that Republick 6. But that we may come home we finde some remarkeable instances of this nature which no man in reason who shall condemne this late defence shall be able to defend and to beginne with what may be most recent in our memories In the year 1648. There are two signal Instances The one was that violent resistence used against the Parliaments forces at Mauchlin moor Here was not only a resistence in defence of the truth and cause of God then sought to be borne downe and oppressed by a prevalent Malignant faction in Parliament without the concurrence of conduct of the Representatives of the land but directly against them Here was a defence used by way of resistence by meer privat persons without the company or concurrence of one Noble man And yet a resistence that never was condemned by any to this day expect ingrained Malignants but was approved and commended highly by the Parliament anno 1649. the best Parliaments Scotland did see for many yeers Againe thereafter in that same yeer 1648 The forces of the west Countrey arose in defence of the Cause and Covenant of God and that not only without the conduct of a Parliament but against their resolutions It is true there were some Nobles Parliament-men among them and countenancers of them but these acted not nor could act by vertue of any Parliamentary power but only as privat subjects having by reason of their greater interest in the land a greater obligation to lay out themselves and to improve their authority and influence in the countrey for the good thereof and for the cause of God They had it is true by their places and stations greater influence upon the Countrey and a greater backing and so being leading men were in a greater capacity to defend the oppressed truth but all this gave them no publick Magistratical power nor put them in the capacity of a real and formal Representative and yet all this was afterward approved ratified and confirmed by Parliament as good and necessary service to the countrey and to the cause of God A third notable instance is that Anno 1639. There was then no publicke civil judicatory carrying on that defence but Nobles and others each in their capacity and according to their power concurred for the promoveing of that necessary work of defence They did not acte under the notion of any such judicature nor
to them to procure their good and defend them from evil so subjects ought to have such hearts to their King as Children have to their fathers giving them speical reverence subjection and obedience from their very soul and inward affection Answ All this sayes that as Kings are metaphorical Fathers so Subjects are metaphorical Children But as it doth not say that Kings should become Tyrants not carry fatherly affection tovvards their Subjects so it doth not say that Subejcts may not resist their tyrannical rage and fury vvherein they acte not as fathers but as Tygers 2. It is true special reverence subjection obedience is due to Magistrats but alvvayes in the Lord The relation is mutual if they carry not as official fathers seeking the good of the subjects and defending them but as devouring Lyons seeking the destruction of their Subjects both in soul and body they cannot expect according to vvhat he sayeth that hearty subjection and obedience vvhich othervvise they might have 3. Being but official fathers appoynted by the subjects and set over them by their vvill and consent they must have lesse povver to vvronge the Subjects then Parents have to vvronge their Children vvho have not that relation by vertue of any formal compact with or consent of their Children So that when they do injuries Subjects are in a greater capacity to help themselves then Children are vvhen their Parents to injure them He addeth Although some times they are not such as they ought to be yet they ought to account their persons sealed with Gods ordinance and the image of of his Soveraignity sacred and inviolable resolving to suffer any thing of them rather then be guilty of parricide although under the colour of self defence Gods law in the fift command hath injoyned reverence subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calv. Iustit Lib. 4. Cap. 8. c. Answ We are not speaking of doing violence unto the persons of Soveraignes or of committing parricide but only of the matter of resistance and of natural sinlesse selfe defence vvhich is far different from Killing of Kings If he think the one of the same nature vvith the other he vvrongeth the King's life more then he is avvare of Though Children as Children may not Kill their parents yet they may defend themselves from their unjust violence 2. We grant Kings are comprehended in the fift commandement under the title of parents as Calvin doth and not only Kings but all Superiours yet he will not say I suppose that we are not to resist the unjust violence of any superiour but that they are all so sacred and inviolable as that in all things they must be subjected unto without the least resistence and therefore what he addeth is not to the poynt 4. We have shewed above that there is a vaste disparity betvvixt Masters and Kings in reference to their slaves and subjects He himself acknovvledgeth this Pag. 31. Yet sayes he though there be these differences betwixt the dominative or masterly and the Royal or Magistratical power the inferiours subjection in suffering even wrongfully if God permit in his providence the power to be abused is no lesse under the one power then under the other by vertue of Divine Law Subjects serve the Soveraigne though they be not slaves and not only conquered people are called Servants 2 Sam. 8 v. 14. but also ordinary subjects 2 Sam. 11 V. 24. 1 King 12 V. 4. Though he also be in a sense their servant not in relation of an inferiour to a superiour for so the Magistrate is only the Minister of God for the Peoples good and never called their Minister but in relation of the meanes to the end as Angles are ministring spirits for the heires of salvation and Ministers are Servants to the People c. Answ That the subjection is alike in both these relations can with no colour of reason be asserted for it is absurd to say that Subjects who set up the Magistrate who limite his power who binde him by Covenants and designe their owne good in setting him up do it in a voluntary way are the same way subject to their Princes as slaves who are as other goods for the profite of the Master are both in bodyes goods otherwise subject unto their Masters and that in a manner against their will either being sold or redeeming their life in war by giving themselves up as slaves 2. As there are various Kindes of Superiours so the relation varyeth and is more or lesse closse and efficacious and the subjection must accordingly vary I am not alike subjected to every one that is over me as I am subjected to my Soveraigne nor am I so subjected to him as to my natural parents or as a wife is to her husband 3. Though the Subejcts in some sense call themselves servants to the soveraigne which yet is often a tearme of civil respect for Naaman called himself Elisha's servant 2 King 5 15. and Obadiah said the like to Elijah 1 King 18 9. yet if they be not slaves they must have more allowance then slaves have and so have more povver to resist unjust violence then they had 4. If the Magistrate be the peoples servant in relation of the meanes to the end then the relation betvvixt him and his Subejcts is not such a relation as is betvvixt Parents and Children or betwixt Masters and Slaves for the end of these relations is not the good of Children and slaves And next Subejcts must have more power allowed them to see to the end which is their owne good and to see that the means prove not destructive of the end and if the meanes prove no meanes the relation falleth and he is no more a servant seeking their good but a Tyrant seeking his owne 5. It is sooner said then proved that the People who set up the King are not superiour to the King He should have aswered Lex Rex as to this but it is like he thinketh that his saying thus is more firme and irrefragable then Lex Rex reasonings to the contrary But I know not who will think so with him 6. There is a great difference betwixt Angels serving the saints or rather serving God that way and the King serving his People The saints have no hand in setting up angels to protect them as People have in setting up Magistrates 7. If they be servants as ministers are then though in regard of their official power they should not be subject to the People yet they may be resisted as was shevved above and this is all vve presse for 5. There is a great difference betwixt suffering of Buffettings and correction and such like petty private personal injuries at the hands of Parents or Masters and the suffering of losse of Liberties Life Lands Religion and such like which tend to the ruine of the Commonwealth To this our Surveyer replyeth two things Pag. 32. as 1. The grounds that such men
not unto Tyrants who are a terrour to good works and a praise to such as do evil and not the ministers of God nor revengers to execute wrath upon such as do evil but rather on such as do good neither do they attend upon this thing whereof the Apostle speaketh and are so far from being the ordinance of God that they are resisters Themselves of Gods ordinance by making lawes contrary to God's lavv and punishing such as observe God's lavv It cannot therefore be more sinful to resist such then to resist a deputy persecuting such as keep the King's lavves and making lavves of his owne directly contrarie to the King's lavves for he is the Rebel and the resister of God's ordinance and not they vvho are faithful to their Soveraigne To this he maketh some reply Pag. 37. and sayes It hath been often granted and still is that no man or Magistrate on earth hath a moral power commission or command from God to do evil or to afflict any unjustly 2. The question is not concerning the Magistrat's duty but anent the Subject's duty in case through the permission of divine providence the Magistrate abuse his place and power in unjust afflicting the innocent whether the private Subject may use violence against or upon the Magistrate or should rather submit to suffering though unjustly not for reverence to the abuse of the power but in reverence to God whose ordinance the power which he abuseth is Answ 1. If Magistrates have no moral power commission or command to do evil The resisting of that evil is no resisting of any moral power from or commission given by God as if they have no power to command evil or sin resisting of that command by non-obedience is no resisting of their power or commission 2. Though the question should not be concerning the Magistrate's duty yet we are to enquire what that power is against which Subjects may use no violence 3. If Subjects be bound not to use violence but rather submit to suffering when the power is abused not for reverence to the abuse of the power but in reverence to God whose power it is Why shall they not also be bound rather to yeeld obedience to then to resist by non-obedience unlavvful commands though not for reverence to the abuse of the power yet in reverence to God whose ordinance the power which is abused is as he sayes Sure the text here maketh no difference and if there be any difference he must prove it from some other text which we have not yet seen nor expect to see in haste 4. We have shewed already that he sayes without ground that the abused power is of God or his ordinance But there after sayes he And although the spirit of God in describing the Magistrate sayes he is the minister of God c. It is not meant that that is the formal reason of subjection to him in the full latitude of subjection nor that the Magistrates then existing and in being to whom the people are commanded to be subject and forbidden to resist were such de facto in all their actings but what the Magistrate is ex officio and what he should be de jure Answ 1. He seemeth to distinguish here betwixt a subjection in it's full latitude and a subjection not in it's full latitude but how doth he explaine this distinction that we may know what to make of it He seemeth also to grant that some subjection though not subjection in its full latitude hath that description of the power for it 's formalis ratio formal reason But what can his meaning be seing the text maketh no difference Is this his meaning that subjection active or active obedience hath that for it 's formal reason so that the subject is to obey no power but that which is for a praise of the good and a terrour to the evil c. But subjection passive or passive obedience goeth upon another ground and must be yeelded to a Magistrate even when he is not a minister of God for good If this be his meaning it is but a shameful begging of the question and if he grant that any subjection is due to the Magistrate only as he is a minister of God we are gainers for he can never prove the other from this text and subjection here is considered pressed in its full latitude and these are laid dovvne as the grounds thereof This vve may saifly averre until he demonstrate the contrare which we despaire to see done especially seing the text fully cleareth the same For as subjection in its full latitude is pressed so all the Apostle's arguments motives speak to it in its full latitude There is no power but from God presseth whole subjection because the whole power is from God not a part of it alone therefore it must speak to all the relative parts of subjection So the other argument v. 3 taken from the end of Magistracy speaketh to the whole of submission in its full latitude also the other argument take from the nature of his office and so the rest So that all the motives or grounds of subjection which are here made use of speak to all the parts of subjection And therefore if they be the formal reason of one part thereof they must be the formal reason of the whole 2. We do not say that all the Magistrates then existing were de facto such as they were bound to be de jure nor can we say that they were all like Nero or Caligula nor dar he say that subjection in its full latitude as comprehending as well active as passive obedience commonly so called was to be given to Nero and his like or was here commanded to be given and what hath he then gained But it is like all alongs he taketh subjection for passive obedience But 1. can that be subjection in its full latitude 2. Was that the maine thing controverted then 3. Doth the motives speak to that alone 4. How will he prove that passive obedience is here spoken to at all since all the particulars mentioned are actions and dutyes of action What sayes he further Pag. 32. The Apostle speaking of the person invested with power calling him the Minister of God for good no terrour to good works but to evil a praiser of good c. shews only what a Magistrate should be ex officio and is de jure but layes not this as the ground of subjection and non-resistence to him but this that he is a superiour power ordained of God if he abuse his place he is to answere to God for it but the abuse of the power in a particular doth not nullify the power or make it no power he abides invested with authority subjection of one sort or another is due to him because he is in officio not because he abuseth his office Answ The Surveyer giveth us here a new Analysis of the text that no commentator hath hither to
Knox that ye alledge that the fact was extraordinary is not to be imitated I say That it had the ground of God's ordinary judgement which commandeth the Idolater to die the death and therefore I yet againe affirme that it is to be imitate of all these that preferre the true honour of the true worshipe and glory of God to the affection of flesh and wicked Princes and when Lithingtoun replyed That we are not bound to follow extraordinary examples unlesse we have the like commandment and assurance the same which this Surveyer sayeth He answered I grant if the example repugne to the law as if an avaricious and deceitful man would borrow Silver Rayment or other Necessaryes from his Neighbour and withhold the same alledging that so he might do and not offend God because the Israelites at their departure out of Egypt did so to the Egyptians The example served to no purpose unlesse that they could produce the like cause and the like commandement that the Israelites had And that because their fact repugned to this commandement of God Thou shall not steal But where the example agrees with the law and is as it were the execution of God's judgment expressed within the same I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a commandement for as God in his Nature is constant and immutable so can he not condemne in the ages subsequent that which he hath approved in his servants before us but in his servants before us he in his owne word confounds all such as crave further approbation of Gods will then it already expressed within his scriptures for Abraham said They have Moses and the Prophets c. Even so I say that such as will not be taught what they ought to do by the commandement of God once given and once put in practice will not beleeve nor obey albeit that God should send Angles from heaven to instruct that doctrine Now sure I am this fact of Phineas was according to the law and to the expresse minde of God and why then might it not be imitated in the like case what warrand command nor commisssion had Phineas which none now can expect 1. sayes he He had the Motion and direction of God's Spirit which was loco specialis mandati Answ. We know men must need the Motions and directions of God's spirit to ordinary and allovved dutyes Hovv shall these make this fact altogether un-imitable It is true Calvin sayeth it was singular and extraordinare motion which may not be drawne to a common rule but notwithstanding thereof I see not how it should be altogether un-imitable or uselesse But grant it were so as Calvin sayeth unlesse he say that it is never to be imitated in no case and that no such thing is ever to be expected which I suppose he will not say how will he prevent confusions thorow the abuse of corrupt men who can pretend as wel these singulare and extraordinare Motions as the examples of Phineas As for what he tells us Augustin and Bernard say of Samson's case is not to the poynt Because according to that solid distinction of Mr. Knox that was contrare to an expresse law Thou shall not kill and such also is the example of Abraham 2. He tells us That Phineas had not only a large reward of his fact Numb 25 ver 12 13. but an ample approbation of it Psal 106 sver 31 it was accounted to him for righteousnesse i. e. as a righteous action both as to the intention of it God's honour and as to the ground and warrand of it God's direction God doth not approve or remuner at any action which one way or other he doth not command Ausw This is all granted and as it sayeth that Phineas was no publick person or Magistrate otherwise there had been no doubt anent its being accounted to him for righteousnesse though it had not been expresly mentioned by the Spirit of God for it sayeth that sometimes private persones are allowed of God to do what he requireth in ordinary to be done by Magistrates There are none of these extraordinary actions sayes he mentioned in Scripture but either God's stirring up men to the same or his approbation of the same one way or other is noted See Judg. 3 ver 10. and 5 ver 7. and 10 ver 23. and 3 ver 9 15. and 2 16 18. Answ Will he say that all these instances were extraordinary and not imitable Whence will Royalists then prove that privaate persons may kill a Tyrant without title And if they be not altogether unimitable then the cause is here yeelded for God may be said to raise up and to stir up Mens Spritis even to imitable actions so he hath given us no reason as yet to prove Phineas fact altogether unimitable nor will the real rebukes which he saith God gave the late risers proclame that they had not his approbation unlesse he say that God's approbation of actions must alwayes be interpreted by the event which is not consonant to true Divinity In the 5. place he tells us That if once men come to presse the imitation of this instance they must say first that even when the Magistrate is godly and zealous and willing to execute judgement as Moses was private perssons may do it and without any legal processe 2. goe to mens tents and chambers and stob them and 3. that though such things be done inconsulto pio Magistratu yet the doer must not be challenged Answ. It will be sufficient if it be granted when the case is every way the like or whose It is true Moses was not unwilling but it is like at present in capacitated through the want of assistence of inferiour Magistrates many of whom were guilty and many had been executed and through grief while lying mourning before the Lord. 2. There needed no legall processe for both the law and the sentence was written with characters of blood upon the carcases of thousands this Mans fact was notour and avowed to all the Congregation 3. He had the interpretative consent of that pious Magistrate why then may not the like be done in the like case where the Ius and the factum is as clear and undenyable as here and the Magistrate who should execute the sentence is out of a present capacity and the matter admitteth of no delay as here for till this was done the plague was never stayed much more if he will not and wrath is still poured out from the Lord and the Magistrate by his place is bound to assent approve of the thing If such a fact were done in the like case would any think that the person should be challenged and not rather approved by the Magistrate In the 6. Place he giveth us the distinction betwixt extraordinary and heröical acts telling us that a heroick act doth not deviat from the rule of a common vertue but only proceeds from a more intense disposition to a