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
under no rational feare from the povvers novv in being for his advocating their cause seing he hath been so richly revvarded for the same as is sufficiently knovvne And therefore his Survey deserveth much more to be tearmed Libellus Famosus seing notwithstanding of the warrand Yea reward of the Magistrates he dar not owne it by prefixing his name to it Nor dar the very printer prefix his name Next the nature of Naphtali's discourse is but an historical deduction of the troubles the Church of Scotland in her reformation hath met with at the hands of a popish prelatical and Malignant faction with a necessary vindication of the truth which is allovved to all historians that thereby truth may be the more cleared and the Readers more edifyed by the history And who ever heard such a faire and cleare deduction of Matters of Fact together with a few reasons here and there cast in for the Readers further â—atisfaction called an Infamous lybel till this impudent ignoramus arose And as for his pamphlet do not all see who consider either its scope or its method or the vvhole straine of the discourse that it can be tearmed nothing else then a most impudent insolent and infamous libel being not only larded with bitter invectives against the Cause and People of God and railing speaches more suteable if suteable for any rational creature for open scolds and brawling wives then for a man unlesse he except such a man as hath by perjury and more then feminine levity declared himself by his owne grant to be one of a debauched conscience but also tending most falsly to father on the honest people of God such things as never came into their mindes Whereby this railing Rabshakeh proveth himself to all sober judicious persons to be an impudent lying calumniator and his pamphlet a more then ordinarily insolent base lying and infamous libel 3. He tels us that in his Survey several things falling in debate in these times are considered But by vvhat vve have said vve have seen that such things as he hath in the preceeding chapters considered for the most part are either such things as should be put beyond debate by all who have not renunced Humanity Reason Religion or such things concerning which himself hath needlesly and foolishly as it may be his rewarders will finde moved the debate unlesse he bring some other things above board in the next part or parts then we see in this 4. Moreover he tells us that here some doctrines in Lex Rex Apol. Narration he should have said relation are brought to the touch stone But if in what he hath furder to say he mention not some other doctrines then what we see in 〈…〉 every rational Man vvill see that he hath rather brought some drops then doctrines of these books to any touch stone yea even to the touch stone of his owne unsolid and buttery fancy for his Reason hath no pallat to taste truth aright 5. In this 1. part he tels us that He Represents the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers Ordained of God and detects the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles But more truely the dreadful state of his owne distempered braine both in his judgment misunderstanding what Naphtaly sayes and in his ratiocinative faculty giving us nothing but non-sequitur's for clear consequences And the manifestly dreadful aspect which his owne principles have on all Commonwealthes and on all Rational and Religious persons together with the affected stile of a base ignorant gnatho Time serving parasite Royally rewarded court flatterer who having a latitudinarian's conscience or rather a conscience utterly I wish not irrecoverably debauched maketh no conscience what he sayeth if he can please King and Court And how pernicious such Sycophants have been to Kings in all ages histories sufficiently declare 6. Then he praefixeth Iob 13 ver 7 9 11. will you speak wickedly for God c. A passage which most fitly quadrats with him unlesse he say he intendeth not to plead for God but for a creature yea and upon the matter for the devil who as Job's Friends conspired against Iob and maintained a wrong thesis erred no lesse in the hypothesis or in the application to Iob so he conspireth with other Royalists to defend erroneous and long-since decarded theses and maketh as evil applications to our present case as hath been shewed His discourse sheweth to all that he is an accepter of persons not secretly indeed but openly and so this forger of lies speaks wickedly for the King who is very like all his God But we are confident God shall search him out and reprove him Then he prefixeth Psal 144 ver 10. It is he that giveth Salvation unto Kings who delivereth David his Servant from the hurtful sword A noble truth which all Kings would look to and if they expected any good of this good word would â—ay out themselves for this God and this 〈◊〉 and not stand in opposition against him lest they fince that he who is terrible to the Kings of the Earth Psal 76 ver 12. And Made higher then the Kings of the Earth Psal 89 ver 27. Shall not spare but strick thorow Kings in the day of his wrath Ps 110 5. And finde a way to make good that Psal 149 v. 5 9. For the Lord â—aketh pleasure in his people he will beautify the meek with salvation let the saints be joyful in glory let them sing aloud upon their beds let the high praises of God be in their mouth and a two edged sword in their hand to execute vengeance upon the heathen and punishments upon the people To binde their Kings with chaines and their Nobles with fetters of iron To execute upon them the judgment written This honour have all the saints praise ye the Lord. But it is to be observed that by his bringing forth of this place of scripture he vvorld make the vvould beleeve that the party he opposeth is thirsting for the life of the King which is but this false calumniator's fiction we shall make use of the very next words of that same Psal 144. v. 11. say Rid us and deliver us from the hand of strange Children whose mouth speaketh vanity and their right hand is a right hand of falshood And in the last place prefixeth Proverb cap. 24 ver 21 22. My Son feare thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change c. And doth he account himself and his party fearers of God who have so Apostatized and palpably perjured themselves and doth he think that such as feare not God can ever fear the King aright If he do he is mistaken And who are most given to changes They or we let the World judge What was this impudent man's brazen face doing while he wrote downe this passage What was his debauched conscience doing Was there no blushing Was there
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
with them upon tearmes This he cannot get well denyed but sayeth All the Covenant that can be supposed here is upon the peoples part an engagement to humble subjection and homage upon the Kings part a Covenant of indempnity for former oppositions to him wherein they had need to be comfortably secured Ans If it was such a Covenant then it secured all the People of Israel and their Elders with them and David was bound to have keeped it and did keep it He did not then execute thereafter some of them upon scafsolds and set up their heads upon poles as Traitours 2. We finde nothing in the Text of their acknowledging a crime done so as they needed an act of indempnity it is like David in a piece of holy policy meet for that time to gather together the scattered people of God to use the Surveyer's words Pag. 94. Would have been content to have passed an act of oblivion as lesse irritateing then an act of indempnity 3. If they were now coming to be his Subjects who were not so before but were under another King as he sayes himself Pag. 94. what necessity was there either for an act of indempnity or yet an act of oblivion Ay but it was fit sayes he ibid to give them security touching his good minde toward them they having so long stood it out in armes against him Ans But was there no more requisite to secure them touching his good minde towards them and his willingnesse to accept of them as subjects who before were enemies except this act of indempnity Since they were in open hostility one against another and if upon this ground the Covenant on David's part was of indempnity why should it not be also a Covenant of indempnity on their part seing as he confessed they were not his subjects before but under another King But now when they come to bee subjects who were not so before and engage to humble subjection and homage must not David in this Covenant engadge to something corresponding to this we shall not repugne sayeth he if it be called a Covenant both of protection right ruleing them Answ That is all I am seeking to have David here obliged by Covenant unto his Subjects to such and such tearmes as to Protect and Rule them a right Ay but he adds Yet so as not subjecting himself to their censures or co-action or that they should be his subjects only upon that condition being otherwise free to fall upon him Answ This is not to our present businesse But yet how can he prove this Is it enough to say so Will his adversary take that for an answere Is there not here a mutual Convenant wherein each party is bound to other Are not the tearmes condescended upon And is it not granted by all that in mutual Covenants the observer hath a jus against the breakers But sayes he a Covenant may be to mutual dutyes yet on neither side conditional but absolute eath party obligeing themselves to their owne duty absolutely but not on condition that the other party do their duty Ans Then it seemes Israel was bound to David whether he would be a King to them or not Yea even though he would sell them to morrow to the Philistines for slaves and bond men for ever and David was bound to Protect and Rule them a right whether they would be Subjects or not 2. How can he prove that this was such a Covenant 3. Yea how can he prove that there is any such Covenant among men or how can he explaine such a Covenant As if sayes he a man bind himself by oath to give me one hundereth pounds I bind my self againe by oath to him to give him one hundereth pounds without conditional provision that he pay me the money he promised me albeit he should fail in his oath not pay me yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him because my oath is separate from his independent upon it and hath a separate obligation absolute which no faileing of the other party to me can loose Answ It is true manus manum fricat and if this Surveyer give to one a hundereth pounds He will know it is for an hundereth pounds againe or something better and I wish he should think himself as wel bound by his oath to pay the thing he promised to God absolutely as he thinks he is bound to pay to man what he had promised absolutely But to our businesse what sort of mutual Covenants can those be which he here speaketh of We hear to Pactions or Covenants where there are promises without a stipulation but of a Covenant or Paction betwixt two concerning mutual duties to be performed by each to other wherein there is no stipulation or which is no conditional Covenant I have not yet heard 2. Where heare we that such a transaction if it can have that name wherein one person promiseth absolutely to another to give him such or such a summe of money and that other person againe promiseth absolutely to give to the first another summe is called a Covenant 3. Lawyers tell us that even Promissiones promises if compleat and not mere Policitations wil give a jus a right unto the person to whom they are made to call for the performance and sue the promiser at Law And if this be granted as it cannot be denyed he will lose his cause For when the question cometh betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects it is the same case as when the question cometh betwixt two distinct Nations For as there is not a Superiour Judge over both Nations to determine the controversy so nor is there a Superiour ordinary Judge to decide the question that falleth out betwixt King and Subjects And therefore as the sword must determine it in the one case so in the other 4. But how shall he evince that the Covenant betwixt King People is not a reciprocal contract of things to be done by each to other upon conditions It is true he tells us that subjection is not promised to Kings conditionally but absolutely but in so saying he doth onely beg the question A better Polititian then he Althusius Polit. c. 19. num 6 7. calleth it a mutual compact betwixt Prince and People upon certaine conditions and calleth it Contractum mandati and he tells us that in this contract the Prince is a Mandataruis and his obligation preceedeth as the obligation of the Mandatarius and promiser useth to do and then followeth the obligation of the People secundum naturam mandati whereby they promise obedience and fidelity to him governing the Commonwealth according to the conditions prescribed Another Scripture instance is 2 King 11 v. 17. 2 Chron. 23 v. 3. 16. where Iehojadah made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People which as the English Annotators and the Dutch also on the place say was a civil Covenant betwixt them viz. That the King should governe then well They should
horses with the pleanty of vvhich things he may vvax proud despise the lawes but lest he have an earnest study to be more mighty then is convenient for your profite Prohibeatur sayeth the copy at Paris obstandum est sayeth another ne potentior fiat quam rebus vestris expedit â— e. he is to be incapicat or resisted in case he should do so But then he tells us that the constant practice of the prophets and people of God speaks clearly that they never had such thoughts c. Ans Though as I said it doth not concerne us to vindicate such a liberty in the People as by vertue of this Covenant to fall vvith violence on their Kings our purpose being only to vindicate a liberty in the People to defend themselves against unjust violence yet he doth but vveakly maintaine the King's head by this for he said himself just novv that none vvith Reason could force the particular customes of that Nation on other Nations and vvith more reason it may be said that none can force the Omissions or non-practices of that Nation as binding to others But 2. We knovv the Ten tribes rejected Rehoboam vve finde no Prophets ever condemning them in this they never suggested that their obligation to subjection unto their Supream Magistrate or King vvas absolute had this been such a sin as he allegeth no doubt to use his ovvne vvords God's Prophets vvould plainly and dovvnright have told them of it vvithout circumlocutions but this they never did Either that vvas no sin or the Prophets vvere not faithful in reproving it Novv let him ansvvere his ovvne argument if he can and this he must do or else confesse he is an advocate for the King vvorth no vvages 3. We finde that the Prophets vvere sent of God to stirr up Subjects against their vvicked and tyrannous Kings as a Prophet vvas sent to anoynt Iehu to goe against his Master 2 King 9. When at first sayes he that people sought a King from Samuel they resolved not to take him conditionally si bene regnaverit but vvith all the faults that might follovv him c. Ans It is very like that their importunity made them neglect their duty in making any expresse Covenant or in condescending upon expresse conditions but he shall never prove that they did right in this far lesse shall he make this example binding unto others and least of all shall he hence conclude that there was not a tacite and virtual compact and that Saul was under no tearmes 2. Notwithstanding of what he sayes we finde that the People did actually resist and oppose him in rescueing Ionathan and that David defended himself with armed men against him and his fury and unjust violence and this is enoughe to our purpose As for these words Eccles 8. 2. I Counsel thee to keep the Kings commandement and that in regaird of the oath of God because they are variously rendered and by some otherwayes then by us as by Iunius to which the dutch come near praestitutum Regis observa sed pro ratione juramenti Dei i. e. Obey the Kings command but according as your oath to God will permit Mercerus rendereth them thus It is my pairt to observe the Kings command and to have respect unto the oath of God meum est observare praeceptum Regis rationem habere juramenti Dei We shall not much labour to presse this Covenant out of them But if the Surveyer will hold closse to our translation and fish out from thence the oath of allegaince we must then say that they will also clearly suppose on oath of the King unto the People by which he is bound to them as wel as they are bound to him He granteth that ordinarly among the people there were not oathes of fidelity and obedience given to their Kings and where ever we finde that the people swore an oath or Covenant to the King there we finde that the king swore and Covenanted to them and so the Covenant being mutual he was bound unto conditions as well as they were and They no more then He. And if Their chooseing and setting up of a King did virtually include their engagement to him so did His accepting of the place virtually lay bonds on him to acquiesce unto the necessare conditions make him obliged to performe these necessary and indispensable conditions which is all desire now We see some thing more explicite for this Iudg. 11. ver 2 7 8 11 12 13. Where there passed conditions betwixt Iephthah and the People See Althus Polit. Cap. 19. num 20. Thus we have cleared 1. That lawful Magistrates are admitted to their Thrones conditionally upon such and such tearmes And from what we have said it is also clear 2. That the Prince accepting of the Crowne doth either explicitely or implicitely promise to fulfil these conditions because the People have made choise of him as a fit meane to procure those Ends which they did designe But if he should not be engaged to prosecute so far as lyes in his power those Ends why did they make choise of him Or how could they expect that he should prove a fit meane for these Ends Or how can we think that People acting rationally would be so far dementat as to choise a meane which they had no more rational ground to expect would prove a meane for attaining these necessary Ends then the very bane of these good necessary Ends which they proposed unto themselves The Covenants which we have now spoken of do cleare this also 3. It is cleare likewise from what hath been said That the Soveraigne in these Compacts and Covenants with his People is not only bound unto God to performe what he hath promised but also unto his Subjects For 1. As was said He still remaineth a sociable creature and under the Lawes of God and Nature and therefore is not above what transactions or compacts he maketh with any whether equalls or inferiours 2. If by vertue of these Compacts he were not obliged unto his Subjects neither should they be obliged unto him by these compacts seing in erecting the constitution and condescending upon these tearmes He and They are equal according to that Contractus non â—netur nisi inter aequales 3. The People in setting up a King should not act rationally if the King as King were not bound to stand to his conditions and really obliged unto them Could we imagine that Men in their wits would Covenant with a Man to make him King on such and such tearmes it after he were made King he were no more obliged unto them then if there had been no compact with him 4. How could they think of attaineing those Ends which they proposed if he were not bound unto them to performe these conditions which they though necessary to limite him unto for the better more sure attaineing these Ends 5. This compact or Covenant being mutual concerning conditions to be
no judgment and he saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessour Truth and the cause of God was so at under that a man could not get leave to live if he depairted from evil he was a prey unto the persecuters so general and universal was this defection and at this time he saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessour to interpose none that would stand up and lay out themselves to the utmost to set things in order none that would bestirre himself for truth and the right which was then oppressed see the English Annot. on the place the word is used 2 Sam. 22. 17. where it is said the servants of Saul would not fall upon the Priests of the Lord. So Exod. 5. 3. lest he fall upon us c. So that we see there was some positive thing required of them some effectual mediating and interposeing and hindering of these iniquities some publick owneing and avowing of the truth and by publick testimonies or other wayes of interposeing falling-into impede and stand in the way of that course of wickednesse 4. So Ier. 8 6. I hearkened and heard but they spake not a right no man repented him of his wickedness saying what have I done It is not probable that there was none penitent among them where then was Baruch and Ebedmelech Cap. 38. 7 9. and others that stood for the Prophet Cap. 26 8 16 17 24. But there must be some other thing imported viz. That there was few or none repenting of national evils and labouring to remove these no man was standing up and opposeing these publick land defections labouring by this meanes to raise up the virgin of Israel who was fallen Amos 5. 2. 5. Ierm 9 3. And they bend their tongues like their bowes for lies but they are not valient for the truth upon the earth that is they were ready enough all of them to imploy their power to the utmost for the evil cause to establish errour and a false way but they used no valour for the oppressed cause and truth of God they did not their utmost to have Truth established and the true Religion They did not put out themselves or make use of their strength for the maintainance of truth and equity in the land say the English Annot. and they make it parallel with Esa 59 4. This was their guilt and hereby we see what was the duty even of privat persons for of such this is to be meaned as the context cleareth in such a general day of defection viz. to be valient owners and maintainers of Truth against all opposers 6. Ier. 5 v. 1. Run yee to and fro throw the streets of Ierusalem and see now and know and seek in the broad places thereof if ye can finde a man if there be any that executeth judgment that seeketh the truth and I will pardon it We can hardly think that there were no mourners in secret in all Ierusalem though it is like they were very few but there was none to owne the good cause that was now troden under foot none bestirring themselves to oppose and hinder the carryed on course of defection If that had been the Lord sayes he would have spared the place which shewes how desirable a thing this was and how acceptable it would have been in the Lords eyes that for that cause he would have forborne to have destroyed them or to have cut them off 7. Ezech. 22 30. And I sought for a man among them that should make up the hedge and stand in the gap before me that I should not destroy it but I found none There were some even at this time sighing and mourning in secret for these abhominations who were marked Cap. 9. but there were none to make up the hedge which their provocations had made none to redresse the publick defection and Apostasy and stand for the truth and the suppressing of errour and iniquity So is it laid to the charge of their Prophets Cap. 13 5. that they did not goe up into the gaps neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battel in the day of the Lord Whereby we see that by this standing in the gape and making up the hedge more is meaned then a secret mourning even a faithful and publick owneing of the truth and opposeing of defection and putting a stope unto it as Moses did when he stood in the breach Exod. 32. though with authority as a Magistrate which private persones have not he not only prayed and wrestled with the Lord v. 11 12 13. but in great zeal took the calfe which they had made and brunt it in the fire and ground it to powder and strawed it upon the watter and made them to drink of it v. 20. If there had been any who thus effectually would have stood in the breach the Lord sayes he would have spared them so acceptable would such a work have been to him 8. So that word Ier. 13 18. Say unto the King and to the Queen humble your selves sit downe for your principalities shall come downe even the crowne of your glory Will import something more it being spoken to all indefinitely giveth a warrand to all to deal with King and Queen to prevent the sad dayes which were coming by reason of the defection and abounding sinnes 9. So that word Hos 2 2. Plead with your mother plead for she is not my wife which is spoken to private persones and so is a warrand to them to contend in judgment as the word doth import against the Church which was corrupted and had forsaken the Lord and his wayes and so to stand to the defence of truth and to plead for the cause of God against their very Mother the Church The body of the Nation that not only they might exoner their owne consciences but also get things reformed so far as lay in their power and keep the memory of the cause of God afresh that it should not be buryed These places and the like though we bring them not to prove immediatly our maine Question as it may be the Surveyer who useth to take but half a look of matters will suppose yet when duely considered in their just latitude and extent they will clearely evince That more is required of private persons in a general day of defection then to keep themselves free of the same or to mourne in secret or the like And if we lay them together they will clearly prove it the duty of privat persones in such a day of defection to be publickly declareing their abhorrence of the wicked courses which are carryed on to be actually and effectually interposeing with King and Great ones that a stope may be put unto the course of wickednesse and God's wrath averted that they would plead Zions cause against all opposers and thus stand up in the gape and make up the hedge by publick and avowed owneing of
their tongue or pen. And rather blush when they read or remember this we are hopeful that such and the like perfidious practices well pondered will not only contribute much to re-unite them in hearty affection unto their faithful Brethren now in the same furnace with themselves for the same cause and interest but also cause them reflect upon their former proceedings consider what a native tendency that which gave the rise to all that debate had unto this which is to day our sin our shame and our Sorrow that they may joyne with the Rest of the faithful of the land in mourning for such national sinnes Whereby the wrath of God may be turned away from us and the Church restored to her former beauty and integrity in the Lord 's good time 3. It is Manifest that this Surveyer who ever he be some others with him had some other thoughts in their heads at that time then they durst expresse finding the far greater part of the Ministerie corrupted would have had the rest resolving upon an absolute submission to all their determinations though they had been openly avowedly to introduce prelacy yea popery to have submitted to their summar censures of deposition what else they thought good to inflict without the least resistence or counteracting thus to have patiently submitted to see Christ his royall truthes banished out of the land by ecclesiastical acts Popery Prelacy re-established by horrible iniquity Though we were ever confident such as now through grace abide stedfast had no such thoughts or intentions 4. This Surveyer dealeth with all alike as he misrepresented Lex Rex in the civil debate so doth he now misrepresent the protesters in the Church-debate for when or where did they say That persones were not bound to submit but to counter-act the judicatories of the presbyteriall government whensoever they thought the sentence wrong unlawfull Did they ever assert that a mans owne conscience was the only vvarrand and ground of his submission or non-submission or of his obedience or disobedience 5. So doth he abuse misrepresent Naphtaly as any vvill see who considereth his words in the place cited which are these Now how a discretive judgment in these cases both of unrighteous commands wicked violence specially in the later which is by far the more sensible doth necessarily remaine with the people in what manner the same is to be determined cautioned so as neither to license disobedience against authority nor create seditions in the Commonwealth is already fully cleared This is some other thing then to say that al is to be referred to every man's privat discretive judgement vvithout any caution or limitation added or supponed 6. Because it is not our purpose to revive that debate vvhich vvas betvvixt the Protesters the Publick Resolutioners but as vve vvish it had never been heard of so vve desire it may buryed in perpetual oblivion that hence forth there may be hearty joyning in the cause covenant of God for prosecution of all the ends thereof according to our severall capacities That so we may become one stick in the hand of the Lord renunce this apostacy all courses tending thereunto so goe on as before that un happy difference broke out with zeal unanimity Therefore we shall forbeare to examine what that Reviewer of presbytery no papacy said And though we finde that much of what the Surveyer sayeth here is borrowed from that Reviewer is answered already as to our purpose yet we finde the Reviewer grant severall things which will quite destroy the parallel as to our case shew the Surveyer to have been but a fool in mentioning that pamphlet now For 1. He Pag. 104. sayeth We do not urge submission in this matter betwixt us in matters of doctrine or articles of faith in morshipe government nay nor rules of discipline And so insinuats as much as that if the Dogmatick and Diatactick power of Christ's courts be abused and corrupt doctrine and practices pressed he would not be for submission And therefore upon this ground waves the arguments of the protesters taken from the instance of Athanasius not submitting to the Arians deposeing him for asserting the divinity of the Sone of God and the 11. Arg. making a supposition of enacting the Masse and all the heresies of Rome saying For when Church judicatories deny homage to the Sone of God and returne to Rome We shall not debate the poynt of non-submission only with them but shall run from them as from synagogues of Satan Upon this same ground he waves the argument 13. which did shew that this submission was prelatical And the passage of our confession of faith ratified An. 1567. which is thus art 12. So far as the Council proveth the determination and commandement that it giveth by the plaine word of God so soon do we reverence and imbrace the same but if men under the name of a Council pretend to forge unto us new articles of our faith or to make constitutions repugning to the word of God then utterly we must refuse the same as the doctrine of devils which draweth our souls from the voyce of our only God to follow the doctrines constitutions of Men. So doth he upon this ground lay by what they said Pag. 49. That by this submission there was no remedy but that at one stroke the precious interests of Christ and truthes of God must be borne downe and buryed in oblivion and the Saints and Ministers of the gospel be buryed under the rubbish thereof As also their Arg. 15. which did shew that this unlimited submission did Leave the Church destitute of all Ecclesiastical remedies in the case of a general defection and open a wide door for making the government of the house of God degenerate into Tyranny c. And their 2 Argum shewing how contrary it was to Scripture and how hard it was to say that a man duely qualified being suspended from the Sacrament or from the exercise of his Ministery or excommunicated because of his pressing and holding forth some precious Truth of God which a Church judicatory condemneth for a lie should submit And also their 8. Arg. Pag. 108. which was this What is denyed jure to Oecumenick Councils and so lawfully called Prophets and Ministers of the gospel to Nathan to David to Paul to an Angel from heaven Gal. 1 ver 18. cannot warrantably be given to General Assemblies If they teach or decree not according to the word of the Lord we are to counteract and to contradict Gal. 1 ver 8. Therefore c. Now in all these cases the Reviewer would not plead for submission to Church judicatories Why then doth this Surveyer plead for absolute submission and unlimited to civil powers since he is pleased to draw a parallel betwixt them But we see that evil men and seducers waxe worse and worse So that by
I sinned saying that David spoke so because he feared none And of Ambrose on the same words saying that he was King and under no Law and therefore he did not sin against man But all this is no purpose For 1. himself will grant that all Kings are not thus exempted and his adversaries will prove the King of Britane one of these limited and restricked Kings that are obnoxious to examination and punishment and these sayings cannot prove that all Kings are so yea or ought to be so 2. Tertullian to vindicate the Christians who would not acknowledge the Emperour to be God and to shew how notwitstanding they respected him according to his place would give him as high titles as he could though not out of flattery and so make him the highest person in the Empire and above the heathen Gods yet he did not set him above all the People in their Representative the Senate or if the did the Senate proved him to be in a mistake by taking course with several of these leud and wicked Tyrants 3. David's single act of adultery and murther were no such acts of Tyranny as are censurable with deposition and so it speaketh not to the case 4. It might be that de facto he did not fear another as Ierome sayes But that will not say that David might have destroyed the inheritance of the Lord without controlle or that other Princes are or should be exempted from restraint and punishment if they turne ingrained and habituated Tyrants 5. Himself will not stand to what Ambrose sayes for he addeth immediatly There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Uriah the occasion of that Psalm and of the scandal he had given to God's People in which sense he might be well said to sin against both 6. The words of the text vvill not beare that vveight viz. That he had no other judge but God or that as Deodate sayeth he was exempted from all punishment of men was obnoxious to no humane tribunals but as other commentators say the words are to be taken in a comparative sense that this was the greatest aggravation of his guilt that it was such a hainous trasgression in his sight who was privy to it however he did conceale it from all others so far as he could see the Dutch Annot. on the palce and therefore to expresse his spiritual sense of the sin commited against God against whom properly sin as sin is commited he useth this rhetorical ingemination And if the words should have imported what the Surveyer would have them to import they had not been apposite to expresse his spiritual grief sense of the hainousnesse of the crime commited Then he tels us what excellent Mr Calvin sayeth Instit Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 27. and 31. and then sayes It is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Calvin should dar to violate the sacrosanct Majesty of Kings if they will but read over that chapter But is it not a wonder how this man who seemeth to have read over that chapter and particularly § 31 should passe by what worthy Calvin sayeth in the end of that section or should have so little respect unto that worthy man whom he himself accounts to be worthy of respect and but deservedly as to plead for an incontrollable power in Kings When yet famous Calvin tels us there that if the Ephori or States of Parliament connive at the King's tyranny and suffer him to oppresse and insult over the poor People they are wickedly perfidious and palpably betraying their trust Then in the 4 place he tels us That it is not denyed that the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God and that it is grosse to say Regi quicquid libet licet This is good but what then What if he deviate We maintaiâ—â— sayes he that as sure truth That impunity as from subjects necessarily attends Soveraignity by the Law of God reason and nature For no man can be judged or punished but by a judge above him and the Supreame hath none such c. Answ But Mr Prelate your adversaries will maintaine the contrare as a sure truth We looked for a fourth proof and not for the thing in question or a repetition of what is said The same thing repeated six times will not make six arguments Mr Bishope give a new proof if you can of this firme truth which you maintaine We maintaine by the Law of God Nature and Reason No man hath an uncontrollable power to destroy millions to cut off the heretage of the Lord to destroy his Interest And we have shewed our grounds for this 2. How was Athaltah judged And what a judge was Iehu 3. It hath been told him that the supreame governour hath a supreame power above him The power of the People that made him Supreame governour is above him and can depose him and put another in his place He may be a Supreame governour dispensator and yet their servant accountable unto them and censurable by them when he deviates and turnes a Tyrant and a Wolfe and a Tyger When one King wrongeth another that other will both judge and punish him if he be able and yet is not properly a judge above him Much more may the Representative of the People who set him up and impowered him both judge him and punish him But the good man thereafter would advise Kings not to abuse this inviolablenesse but so much the more to fear sadder punishments from God and for this cause would have them reading the 6 chapter of Apocryphal Book of Wisdome But was there no texts in all the divine Word of God that he would put into the King's hand to read that he must send him to the Apocrypha It is true Kings would do well to remember that they have a God above them who will not be mocked but will bring them to an account of their doings though they should escape Mens hands and to the end they may be put in remembrance of this they stand in need of other monitors then the Men who have forgote it and send them to Apocrypha to finde it And this should keep them within the boundaries of God's Law But as the fear of punishment from Man will restraine some from stealing whom the fear of God would little overawe So it may be the feare of punishment from Men would have no small influence to make some Kings walk by a rule And Subâ—rdiâ—aâ—a non pugnant He would do well to minde them of both and it is like he would finde that more effectual to suppresse Tyranny then to tell them that their sacred persones are inviolable as to Men but yet they would do well to read the 6 chapter of Wisdome He cometh Pag. 77. to speak particularly to what Naphtaly said and alledgeth that It is most falsly and wickedly said that God's providence or God's Word approves the
goe and reflect upon the magazine as he speaketh to Lex Rex who Quaest. 26. proveth by unanswerable arguments that the King is not above the Law but this Surveyer for all his big words dar not meddle with that debate but quarrelleth with a word Pag. 241. where that worthy Author is answering the objection of that Apostate Prelate Maxwel the Author of Sacrosancta Regum Majestas stollen from Arnisaeus which was this Why might not the People of Israël Peers or Sanhedrin have conveened before them judged or punished David for his Adultery and Murther Unto which he answered thus He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanhedrin and States of Israël to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery and Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truely though I will not presume to goe before others in this God's Law Gen. 9 ver 6. compared with Numb 35 ver 30 31. seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that God's Law or his Deputy the judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great Deut. 1 ver 17. 2 Chron 19 ver 6 7. aud we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaketh to under judges Levit. 19 ver 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not God's meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it followeth not that if we speak of the demerite of blood that the Law of God accepteth any judge great or small And if the Estates be above the King as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth yet if we make it a matter of conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say à facto adjus non sequitur Thus that worthy Author and could he have uttered his judgment more spareingly and soberly in a matter that was not of great Moment to the question in hand so that though he had forborne to have spoken any thing to this at all his cause had not been in the least weakened and though we should grant that the Sanhedrin could not have judged David for these facts which yet we can cannot do what losse shall we have Seing we may easily grant and Lex Rex with us Pag. 243. that Tyranny only must unking a Prince and these acts were not acts of Tyranny and what shall this vaine Surveyer gaine then Why would he not examine other things which that worthy Author sayd more apposite to the cause Will not wise men laugh at this dealing and account him a fool in the first magnitude in handleing such a cause which so nearly concerneth his Majesties life after such a manner that a very school-boy may smile at Then he addeth So Pag. 348 and 428 and 238. and often elsewhere he that is Lex Rex will have the Estates executing the moral Law as he calls it on the King and punishing him and why because he sayes most thrasonically Pag. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdome is superior to the King and the People may be their owne judge in the tribunal of necessity Answ Lex Rex in two at least of these pages cited speaketh no such thing and if this Surveyer were not more windy and vaine then ever Thraso was he would not speak so of that Author till first he had discovered the answereablenesse of these arguments which neither he nor any of his complices shall ever be able to do But this Epicompothrasibombomachides will force a beliefe upon the world that with this very adverb thrasonical diffavit omnes in Castris Gurgustodianis and cry to his enchanted fraternity to sing Jo pan at his invention But what sayes he to all this 1 sayes he what should he meane to make it conduceable to the peace of the commâ—nwealth that the King be free of the coaction of Law and yet not so if it be made a matter of conscience is the preservation of the peace of the commonwealth no matter of conscience to him Or is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law for that end warrantable Ans Doth not this ignoramus know that a question of this nature may be considered and answered politically and theologically And that many things may be tolerated or forborne in poynt of policy upon politick grounds and ends which if considered stricto Iure according to conscience should not be forborne nor tolerated David in point of policy did forbear to execute the Law upon the Murtherer Joab whom yet in poynt of conscience he accounted a man of death and therefore recommended the execution of the Law of God unto his Son Solomon and this toleration or forbearance may be lawfull or unlawful according to the weight of the matter tolerated or forborne and the nature and weight of the grounds in policy upon which this forbearance is determined So that though we should suppone it lawful for a Commonwealth to enact and determine in Law that their King should not be questioned for one single act of Murther or Adultery as other persones are Yet in poynt of conscience if the question be stated in thesi whether a King may be questioned for one single act of Murther and Adultery as another private person it may be answered affirmatively because the Law of God makes no exception of persones 2. It may be made a matter of conscience to make the King free of the coaction of Law in some small and inconsiderable particulars because of the probable hazard into which the Commonwealth may be brought by coërcing of him which all the value of the particular anent which the coaction is exerced will not countervaile But it will never be allowed in poynt of conscience to make him free of all coaction of Law so as he may without control murther millions destroy and waste Religion For that were not conduceable to the peace of the Common-wealth but a ready way to destroy all So that a constitution freeing the King from all coaction of Law how ever pretended for the preservation of the peace of the Common-wealth can never be warrandable For that were to make him actu primo and in actu signato a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the Commonvvealth if his good Nature should incline him to good peaceable things yet no thanks to the constitution Whereas he would make his reader beleeve that the Kings of the jewes were under no coërtion let him consider what Zuinglius sayeth explan art 42. Tom. 1. oper where he expresly sayeth That the Kings of the jewes and others
when they dealt perfidiously contrare to the law of God might be lawfully deposed by the people Yea he tells us that whiles wicked princes and Kings were not removed all the people were punished of God which he proveth by Ier. 15 1. to ver 6. and a little thereafter tels us that if the children of Israel had thus deposed Manasseh they had not been so grievously punished with him Yea Schikcardus in his jus regium hebraorum Cap. 2. Theor. 7. tells us Pag. 56. 57. out of the Rabbines that the Kings of the jewes might have been called to an account punished for transgressing of the law by the Sanhedrin especially if they took moe wives and moe horses then vvere allowed and heaped up riches for these causes he proveth Pag. 60. out of Hal. melach c. 3. § 4. Halach Sanhedr cap. 19. Talmud cap. Kohen gadol Siphri pars schoph That they were to be scourged And histories show us How this Sanhedrin even in their weak and declineing times were loth to quite with this power and therefore did question Herod who was set over Galilee by the Romans for some murther committed by him see the history set forth by Iosephus Antiq. lib. 14. c. 17. And if any should object that Casaubon ad annal Eccles exerc 13. n. 5. hath proved the contrary out of the Talmud The forecited learned Shikchardus Pag. 63. 64. sheweth out of the very places cited by Casaubon how he was mistaken and how the Kings of David's line both did judge and were judged 2. Sayes he It is good that this Metaphisical Statist was no Chief Priest or member of the Sanhedrin in Davids time for he would have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law to cut off the King What sots were the Priests Prophets at that time that did not instigate the Sanhedrin This man could have told them that they were above him and they were bound to execute the Law upon him Answ It was good that this superlatively irrational parasite and infraphysical fooll was not breathing in these dayes for he would have told Kings you may Kill murther massacre destroy all the land Man Wife and Childe without the least fear of resistance and have told the People the Sanhedrin and all the Elders of Israel though your Kings turn butchers and destroyers of the People of God worse then ever Nimrod or any that ever breathed since his dayes you have no more to do but hold up your throats or flee to the uncircumcised out of the inheritance of the Lord. But what sayes all this to the thing Doth this pove that David or any King was excepted in the Law of God Where In what chapter or what verse shall we finde this Good Master prelate tell us or where we shall finde it in your book of wisdome 2. We finde not that any of the Priests or Prophets reproved David for spareing Ioab that murtherer who shed the blood of war in peace 2 King 2 ver 5. was it therefore right in David to have spared him Sure they might well have told David that though Ioab was a great man yet he was above him to punish him as well as another Man for his sin and in poynt of conscience and by God's Law he was bound to do it These sinful acts of Ioab were more notoure then what David had done in secret And because we finde not that he vvas reproved upon this account shall vve therefore use this Man's dialect and say What 's sots or coldrife senselesse Men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time who did not instigate David to execute the Moral Law on Ioab that wrath might be turned away from the Land 3. He tels us that the author of Lex Rex Vtterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God Gen. 9 6. as for the other texts they clearly concerne Magistrats only toward such over whom they have power but does neither instigate the inferiour Magistrates against the Superiour nor the People against any of them where it is said he that sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Ans 1. The author of Lex Rex doth not say that these places do instigate the inferiour Magistrats against the superiour nor the people against both but that they poynt forth the Magistrate's duty to judge righteous judgment and to accept no Mans person be he a Prince or be he a poor Man And if they concerne Magistrates toward such over whom they have power The author of Lex Rex seeketh no more for he had proved and this vaine windy man hath not the head though he want not a heart and good will to it to ansvvere his arguments that the Estates and Representative of the People have power over the Prince 2. It is a hard censure to say that he hath utterly mistaken the meaning of Gen. 9 ver 6. Let us hear how Concluding hence sayes he that there is here a precept that the blood of every man though he be in the supreame power should be shed by his inferiours if he shed blood innocently and without cause Answ But this is not the conclusion that Lex Rex draweth from the place He only sayeth That in this place there is no exception made of the Prince though he be the Supreme power And can this Man for all his skill demonstrate the exception Lex Rex said not that his blood should be shed by his inferiours but by the Estates of the land who are his superiours what way then hath he mistaken the meaning of this word What furder Supposeing says he this word not only to be predictional but also diatactick and perceptive there must be meet limitations of the sentence both in the subject and attribute Grants all what limitations will he have in the subject that sheds mans blood It is to be understood says he only of such as have no authority and do it out of private revenge for we must not owne the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemne lawful warres and capital punishments Answ This is good and granted for we say that even the King when murthering unjustly acteth as a private person and is prompted by his revenge did he suppose that Lex Rex was a Photinian or Anabaptist If not why did he trouble himself with this But what sayes he to that which he cals the attribute Certanely sayes he taking the word as a precept It is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood but of the Magistrate who is judge above him All interpreters are agreed that here is if not the institution yet the approbation of the office of the civil magistrate Answ Did the author of Lex Rex say that it was the duty of any man indifferently to punish capitally shedders of innocent blood said he any thing against agreement of interpreters concerning the institution or approbation of the office of
opposed to the Kings oath a publick oath swore that they would not suffer that any evil should be done unto him The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kinde of oath in use among the Hebrevvs But sayes he It is a vvonder to see understanding men argue from this place for violence and forcible resistence to Kings especially vvhen acting according to lavves consented to by private persones Ans This place proveth clearly that princes may be resisted and resisted vvhen they use violence and oppression and that by private persones even vvhen the oppression or iniquity is acted according to a pretended lavv or something equivalent to a lavv Let us see vvhere the difference lyeth Here sayes he the King is not acting according to law but prosecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath Answ 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emissaries act according to lavv but were prosecuting the execution of a develish and rash resolution to root out and destroy a vvhole Countrey side 2. If Royalists speak truth Sauls vvord let be his oath vvas as good as a lavv and Sanctius sayeth it vvas Decretum decreed And vvhatever it vvas formally it vvas materially a law unto which they had all tacitely assented v. 24. which they durst not transgresse v. 26. Here sayes he the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession earnest reasoning that he ought to regaird what was right more then his rash oath Answ No reasoning vve heare but a peremptour telling of the King to his face that he should not get his vvill not one haire of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground if he should attempt any thing against Ionathan it should be over their bellyes Their vvords look like club-agruments Here sayes he their opposition was acceptable and welcome acquiesced in and yeelded to Answ It is like it vvas condescention by force and constraint for vvhether he vvould or not he savv he could not get his vvill and therefore passed from vvhat he intended 2. His acquiescence sayes the resistence vvas more forcible then meer intercession vvould be for he vvas another sort of bloody Tyrant then to yeeld to petitions vvhen he thought his honour stood upon it Here sayes he the opposition is made by the Princes of the land Captains of Thousands c. Answ The text sayes The people rescued Ionathan Who ever they vvere vvhatever they vvere they acted not here as the Supreame Sanhedrin nor as a court of judicatour haveing povver of government but as private persones according to their povver and capacities And so all this makes much for a party of private persones for here vvas not all the land their resisting of the King 's bloody emissaries executing cruelty not so much as according to an iniquous lavv but contrare to all lavv right and reason Let sayes he Peter martyr be looked upon this place and he speaks not ably well his owne words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p 349. Answ Lex Rex dealt ingenuously with his reader concerning him telling him in the margine that with adoubt he said si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt And that he said they might Suffragiis vvith their suffrages free him Why did not the Surveyer set dovvn his vvords did Lex Rex falsify also Chrysostome homil 14. ad Pop. Antioch Iunius Corn a lapide Sanctius Lyra Hugo Cardin. Iosephus L. 6. antiq c. 7. and Althus Polit. c. 38. n. 109. 3. They must condemne David for his resisting of King Saul with armed men which yet the spirit of God doth not condemne but rather approve in commending such as helped him I Chron. 12 1. 2. 8. c. and inspireing Amazia who was chief of the captaines to say Thine are we David and on thy side peace peace be unto thee and peace be unto thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee So did he intend to keep out the city Keila against the King and consulted God thereanent and had his answere that the city would betray him Now if it had been unlavvful for him to have defended himself by such forcible resistence vve cannot think that he vvould have goten such ansvvers as he gote Grotius himself approveth this deed of David's All vvhich this Surveyer sayeth against this Pag. 67. is That Davids unction did so distinguish him from private persons as that it made it lawful for him to resist violence with violence But the law of nature restricteth not this lawful self-defence to anoynted persons 2. If his anoynting made him no private person what did it make him it could not make Him King othervvise he might not only have resisted Saul but have taken his life as a traitour or else vve must say there were two Kings at once in Israel 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his resistence nor is there any hint of this in the text 4. They must condemne the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which resisted Ioab Davids General and his forces when they besieged it till the matter came to a capitulation Ioab should have offered tearmes unto the city before he had threatned to destroy it and should have communed with the Magistrates concerning the delivering up of the Taitour before he had resolved to destroy the whole city for one Traitours cause and therefore justly did they defend themselves against his unjust invasion notwithstanding he was armed with a commission from the King and remarkable it is that after the capitulation they were never challenged for traitours in resisting with closed gates and fensed walls the King's General and army So that here is a private city standing out for a time against the King's souldiours unjustly seeking to destroy them because of one Traitour among them 5. They must condemne the Prophet Elias for resisting Ahaziah's bloody Emissaries sent by him in an angry moode to apprehend him and to compell him in a spite full manner and to take him prisoner as say the Dutch Annot. on the place For speaking such things as he did unto the messengers of the King who were sent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron to enquire if he should recover of his desease and to bring him to the King by violence if he would not come willingly as Iosephus sayeth antiq Lib. 9. C. 2. 2 King 1. Now he resisted such as were sent and killed two Captanes their fifties with fire from heaven which instance doth sufficiently declare that it is lavvful for private subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the King's Emissaries though armed with his commission It is true the manner of his resistence and of killing these vvas extraordinary by way of a miracle yet the resistence it self was not extraordinare as we have seen by other instances and shall see cleared by moe 6. They must condemne the prophet Elisha who resisted both the King and his Emissaries in his ovvne defence 2 Kings 6 32. saying to the Elders