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.
law and under the gospel not onely at home but also abroad When Naphtali said That it was a cleare beging of the question to suppose that the late riseing vvas only in pretence of Religion This Surveyer answereth That it is a very poor quirck And why so He should know sayes he that in ordinary language a thing is said to be done under pretence of another whether the pretension be yet dubious or under controversy or whether it be falsely made or trely Answ Such language as this may be ordinary with him it may be and his complices that corrupt fraternity with whom pretences are real and real things are pretences but sure to all such as understand plaine language this queree did praesuppose that the riseing was not really but in pretence for Religion Did ever these in power make it out or offer to make it out that it vvas not really for Religion Naphtali said more over That the Queree it self seemed to imply aud grant That for subjects to rise in armes really for the defence of Religion against the invasion of the powers under the pretence of lawful authority is both lawful and laudable This sayes the Surveyer is as vaine a quirck How so for sayes he let it be so that the objection was meaned only of riseing upon meer pretences of Religion will this inferre that therefore there might be a riseing upon real intentions for Religion against the Magistrate Answ Sure to all of common sense it sayes that the proposers of the objection did yeeld so much having hinted nothing to the contrary Did they say giving but not granting it lawful to Subjects to rise in armes really in defence of Religion c. Why then might it not have been taken for granted that the objecters durst not condemne this especially seing the maine stresse did lye upon that supposed pretence Ay but he tels us That he affirmeth That upon neither of the two insurrection against the Magistrate is lawful and that these people did not rise really for Religion but to maintaine themselves in the course of atheistical contempt of Religion and God's ordinances to pull down all authorities in the â—and as their advocat prâ—fesses and justifies their so dâ—ing and to destroy these in their innocency whom they had appoynted to death Answ His affirmations and assertions are but weak and beggarly proofs though he strengthen them with manifest and notorious lies And whether there be a truth in what he here affirmeth or not we leave the Reader to judge when he hath read and considered what we have said in the following vindication Next Some texts of Scripture vvere objected as 1. that 1 Sam. 15 ver 25. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft To which sayes Naphtali Pag. 156. One of themselves did roundly and clearely answere that the sentence being spoken by the Prophet to the King because of his disobedience and contempt of the command of God and not to Subjects would sooner conclude his accusers then himself to be a rebel This the Surveyer Pag. 264. calleth a very poor answer And yet so pertinent and plump that it stopped the mouth of the accusers filled their faces with shame But why was it such a poor answere For albeit sayes he that high rebellion immediatly againsi God be principally meaned yet the soveraigne Magistrate being the Lord's deputy and bearing the image of his Soveraignity upon Earth whom he commands to reverence and obey and of whom he hath said yee are Gods Psal 82. the despiser of the Soveraigne Magistrate a rebel against him doing his duty is a rebel against God Answ Those words Doing his duty were very well added But sure when such are rebelling against God enacting things diametrically opposite to his law and testimony persecuting the Subjects because of their adherence to the lawes of God to their vowes and Covenants and by force cruelty overturning the covenanted Religion destroying the interests of Christ the true and lawful liberties of the people and the common good they are not doing their duty nor carrying themselves as the deputies of God bearing the image of his Soveraignity but rather as manifest and avowed Rebels to God And therefore what ever can be said from this place to prove it rebellion and as the sin of witchcraft for subjects to despise the Soveraigne Magistrate and to rebel against him doing his duty neither from this place nor any other can it be demonstrate that the late Risers vvere guilty of Rebellion Did not the author of Naphtali tell him 2. That riseing up against authority it self the Ordinance of God and disobeying the powers therewith vested standing and acting in their right line of subordination is indeed rebellion and as the sin of witchcraft but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority and rebelling against God the Supream is rather to adhere to God as our liege Lord to vindicate both our selves his abused ordinance from mans wickednesse and tyranny What meaned he then to say the same thing which Naphtaly had said Is this to answere his adversary And not rather to yeeld the cause Ay but left we should take these words doing his duty as importing any confession He addeth Yea suppose we are never to follow the Magistrate when his commands are contrary to God for that were to leave our lineâ— of subordination to God yet when he swerves and goes out of his line to take the sword against him is but to study to cure his sin by our owne And because the King one way leaveth his line of subordination to God therefore to leape out of our owne line in that subordination in another way Answ This Man speaketh contradictions when he maketh a supposition that we are not to follow the Magistrate when his commands are contrary to God and yet sayeth if we do follow we leave our line of subordination to God We see what the Man's Spirit would have carryed him to if he durst have vented it But how proveth he that this is our sin or a leaping out of our line of subordination to resist tyranny and men abuseing their authority to the subversion of Religion libertyes and the common good of the Subject we have proved the contrary and answered all which he or his collegue the author of the former part hath said and shall be ready to say more when any nevv ground is given The next passage of Scripture which was objected was Mat. 26 52. To which said Naphtaly it was sufficiently answered without any reply by one of these impeached whom they accounted distracted though without the least appearance of impertinency by opponeing Luke 22 36. What now fayeth the Railing pamphleter Certanely sayes he This libeller seemeth not to be far from some measure of distraction while he alloweth the distracted man's answer as sufficient Who of sound judgment will think that a scripture is sufficiently answered by produceing another which seemeth contradictory thereto
for as Lex Rex sheweth The Church of God was to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord because she had sinned Micah 9 10 11 12. and yet she was not obliged to non-resistence but rather obliged to fight against here Enemies David beare patiently the wrong that this Sone absolome did to him as is clear by 2 Sam. 25 ver 25 26. and Cap. 16 v. 10 11 12. Psal 3 v 1 2 3. Yet did he lawfully resist him and his forces So we are to beare sicknesse paines and torments which the Lord sendeth on us and yet very lawfully may we labour and use all lawful meanes to be freed from them 10. Christ's Rule to us Math. 5 v. 39. is that whosoever shall smile us on the right cheek we should turne the other to him also and what more patient subjection can be required by a Magistrate of his subjects and yet this will not make it altogether unlawful for private persones to defend themselves from unjust violence offered them by their equalls or inferiours No more will it follow from that patient subjection that we owe to Rulers that in no case we may resist their unjust violence and defend ourselves there from 11. I hope notwithstanding of any thing that is spoken in these passages he will allow children when wronged by their Parents and Servants when iniured by their Masters liberty to complaine to Magistrates who are over both and yet this is the useing of a legal resistence and as much opposite if at all opposite to the patience and subjection injoyned as is violent resistence when that legal resistence cannot be had as suppose when Father and Son and Master and Servant are living in no Community where there are Rulers and Judges over them and if this be lawful in this case as it cannot be denyed then must it also be lawfull for subjects to repel the unjust violence of Princes with violence Because there is no political Rulers over both King People But People must make use of that Court and tribunal of necessity which nature hath allowed and by innocent violence repel the unjust violence of Princes seing there is no other remedy His second ground out of Scripture is taken from Mat. 5 ver 10. 1 Pet. 4 ver 14 17. and the like places Where there is a commended suffering for Christ and Righteousnesse sake and consequently a sort of commanded suffering a suffering contradistinct from suffering for evil doing even a cleanly submission to suffer in and for well doing when God in his providence permits Rulers so to abuse their power which passive subjection or submission is not grounded on the Rulers abuse of his power through his corrupt will but upon the peculiar command of God enjoyning submission in such cases Answ 1. These the like speak nothing at all to the poynt For as we may be persecuted for righteousnesse sake by equalls Yea and by inferiours so we are to suffer that persecution when God in his providence calleth us thereunto with patience and humble submission of Spirit But is this a good argument to prove that it is unlawful for us to resist and repel injuries offered to us by equals or inferiours And if it will not prove it unlawful for us to resist our equals or inferiours neither can it hence be inferred that it is unlawful for us to resist Superiours 2. By this same reason the King if a Christian is bound to submit as well to his subjects as they to him at least he is not bound to resist a foraigne King invading him for Religion which I know not who will grant 3. That God alwayes calleth us to submissio nor passive subjection when in his providence he permits Rulers to abuse their power is the thing in question and this argument doth no way prove it 4. We grant that God calleth us to suffer for righteousnesse sake patiently and Christianly whether at the hands of Superiours or at the hands of equals or inferiours when in his providence we are so stated as that we must either suffer or sin by denying a testimony for his truth and cause But that when a door is opened for eshewing suffering and God in his providence seemeth not to call us thereunto as he never doth when he giveth a faire way of preventing it we are called to suffer and bound to choose suffering at the hands of any is denyed and not proved by him But furder he tells us That Lex Rexquaest 30. Leers at passive obedience as a chymaera as a dreame and as involving a contradiction And he thinks sayes he he speaketh acutely in saying God never gave to any a command to suffer for well doing nor at all to suffer suffering depending on the free will of another without us and not on our owne free will and so not falling under any command of God to us but he reasones sayes he very sophistically inferring that because meer suffering which necessarily depends on the action of another is not commanded to us therefore subjection to suffering or passive obedience is not commanded when the Magistrate inflicts suffering Ans The worthy Author of Lex Rex was there answering the objection of Royalists who alledged such places where they supposed we were commanded to suffer and among several assertions which he laid down to solve this he had this assertions That suffering formally as suffering nor non-resisting passive could fall under no formal law of God except in two cases 1. in the poynt of Christ's passive obedience and 2. indirectly and comparatively when it cometh to the election of the witnesse of Iesus whether he will suffer or deny the truth of Christ so that this alternative must be unavoydable otherwayes sayd he no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lavvful possible meane of eshevving suffering doth yet cast himself into suffering needlesly Novv vvhat a meer vvrangler must this be vvho sayeth that that vvorthy Author did reason sophistically in so inferring vvhileas he is only ansvvering the objection and hereby he doth it sufficiently for if it be evinced as he hath unansvverably evinced it that passive obedience or passive subjection is not formally commanded then their arguments proving this passive subjection to be our duty are null and so they cannot hence inferre that non-subjection passive is forbidden And vvhat have they gained then out of these places Can this Surveyer affirme that passion as passion or suffering formally as such cometh under a command of God no he dar not but must vvith Lex Rex say that it is impossible that meer passion as to be whipped to be hanged to be beheaded should be the object of an affirmative or perceptive command of God Why then is he offended vvith Lex Rex Why jeers he at that worthy Author saying he thinks he speaks acutely is this to answere Lex Rex to jeer at what is there sayd aud then be forced or speak