difference in the cases Unto this I finde no ansvvere in special returned by the Surveyer unlesse Pag. 267. he mean Naphtaly vvhen he sayes But the Apolog. very paradoxically will maintain Pag. 159. That there is more reason to resist our own Magistrates then forraigners because our owne being bound to maintaine our profession his invasion upon the same is aggravate and he is rather to be resisted by violence then others for I finde no such thing in that place of the Apolog. by him cited and that vvhich I just novv mentioned out of Naphtali is indeed in Pag. 159. and though he miscite the vvords and vvrest them after his vvonted manner yet the Reader may see it probable that he intendeth Naphtaly Hovvever let us see vvhat he ansvvereth Thinksâ—e sayes he That it were soundly said that if parents should make disorder in the house that the children and rest of the family should use violence rather against them when they miscarry or waste the goods of the family then against a thief or a robber breaking in into the house Answ To passe by the unsuteablenesse of this Reply unto Naphtali's answer as if Naphtaly had concluded that there was much more reason for resisting our owne Magistrats then Forraigners while as an equality would have satisfied him as his words clearly import We say this to his reply That when he hath demonstrated to us that Children and Servants have as great right unto the goods of the family and as great power and privilege in setting up their Parents the heads of the family and of calling them to account for their mismanagement as we have proved Subjects have in the common good and in setting up of Soveraignes and in calling them to an account then shall his reply be noticed as having some parallel but till then we dismisse it with this answere that the simile as to our poynt is prorsus dissimile and can conclude nothing Yea let us turne is owne weapon against himself and say Seing Children and Servants may lawfully with force with hold the heads of the family when they in a fit of phrensy are labouring to destroy all to burne the house above their heads or to cast all the goods in the house into a fire and resist them no lesse then open enemies and robbers thinks he if soundly said That if Kings in a fit of madnesse Tyranny shal seek to destroy the common wealth wholly overturne all Religion to set up idolatry heathenisme the Subjects may not withstand them prevent their owne ruine and the ruine of Religion with force of armes when no other meanes can availe What will he say to this Will he deny this consequence If not have not we enough But he addeth The Authors error is this that he looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us and not at all to our obligation to him even when he fails abuseing his power Answ He looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us when he mentioneth the aggravation of his guilt of invasion upon that account And whatever be our obligation to the Magistrate which Naphtaly did not forget though he was not called expresly to mentione it then there it will not follow that it is an obligation unto an illimited and stupide Subjection to him in all cases and if the Surveyer prove not this vvhich I suppose he vvill not do he vvill prove nothing against us What more sayes he to this place of Scripture Pag. 267. after he hath given us in his vvay the meaning of these vvords of Christ to vvit That Christ proves his Kingdome not to be of this world by this Medium that if it were so his servants in the quality of his Servants should take up outward armes and fight for him c. Then he concludes that this text will enforce that Christ's Subjects meerly as they are in the capacity of his Subjects are not to use the sword against Magistrates that are over them in his behalfe And then sayes he allowes well of Mr. Hutcheson's note upon the place Christ sayeth he by hindering his servants to fight vvho vvere but private men as to any civil povver hath taught that private men are not vvarranted to dravv the svvord vvere it even in defence of Religion but they ought to maintaine it by suffering when called to that extremity Answ 1. We have showne already how this man's glosse and Mr. Hutchesons do not every way quadrate 2. If this text enforce that Christ's subjects meerly as they are in capacity of his subjects are not to use the sword in Christ's behalfe then He must either say that people even under the conduct of a lawful Magistrate can not defend Religion by armes which yet immediatly thereafter he granteth of say that when they defend Religion so they act not meerly in the capacity of Christ's subjects 3. As for Mr. Hutcheson's note which he opposeth to all our rebellious fancies we say we wish that that worthy author who hath given great proof of his dexterity in deduceing poynts of doctrine from the text had been after his usual manner more acurate here and had guarded his assertion better that it might have had a more clear rise every way answering the ground it was deduced from for sure I am this ground if it be at all against defensive armes in matters of Religion will as much speak against a defence used by Magistrates upon this account as by privat Subjects for the ground is the same to wit that Christ's Kingdome is not of this world and alike concerning Magistrats and people and is no more a temporall Kingdome in regaird of Magistrats then in regaird of private persons And upon the ground that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to fight for him at that time upon the same ground he would not have suffered even Magistrats to fight for him for he behoved to drink the cup that his father gave him And neither Magistrates nor privat persons could have hindered that by force or would have been permitted to do it by him And if it be said that from other passages it is clear that Magistrates who are noursing parents to the Church are allowed to use the sword We answere That we have also proved from scripture and reason that people in some cases may use the sword of defence for Religion Againe it if be said that his Disciples were but private persons as to any civil power and therefore it is only to be understood of these It is answered That it will as well follow That because they were fisher-men therefore it is to be meaned only of these and of none else or that because they vvere Church officers therefore only they must not use the sword and so all others may The last place which Naphtaly mentioned was Math. 5 v. 27. to the end where it is said Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee c. with the parallel places specially Rev.
consonant to the word of God and publickly received with all solemnities imaginable notwithstanding of acts and lawes made to the contrary and no true Christian will say That subjects should imbrace any Religion which Magistrates will countenance and prescribe be what it will or upon that account 2. As they were thereby declareing their soul abhorrence of these corruptions which were countenanced and authorized by sinful acts and statutes so they were defending to the utmost of their power the reformed Religion according to their Covenant and vow to God And that such a defence as this is lawful we have shewed 3. They were defending themselves against intolerable and manifestly unjust violence offered because of their adhereing to the cause of God and to the reformed Religion which King Parliament and all rankes of People in the land were solemnely sworne to owne and avow all the dayes of their lives really sincerely and constantly as they should answere to God in the great day no lesse then they 4. They were mindeing their Oath and Covenant made with God with hands lifted up with solemne attestations and protestations the Covenants which they did make and renew in the presence of Almighty God the Searcher of all hearts with a true intention to performe the same 5. They were endeavouring in their places and stations according to the latitude allowed in times of such necessitie and in matters of such weight and moment to have the Church and Kingdome purged of these abhominable and crying corruptions and grievous abhominations which provoke the Lord to wrath against the whole Church and Kingdome 6. They were defending the maine fundamental law and constitution of the Kingdome and that maine article of Agreement and Compact betwixt Soveraigne and Subject which all the members of the Nation were no Lesse bound unto then they 7. They were joyning together as detasteing that detestable indifferency and neutrality abjured to defend and assist one another in the same cause of maintaining their reformed Religion with their best counsel bodyes meanes and whole power against the old inveterate and Common enemie that malignant spirit and rage according to their Covenants 8. They were repenting of their National sin in complying by their sinful silence not giving open faithful and faire testimony when the Truth of God was openly and violently trode under foot with that dreadful course of backslideing which was violently carryed on They were calling for justice and valiently pleading for truth sinfully and tyrannically borne downe and oppressed They were with zeal and courage valiently interposeing labouring to put a stop to the begun and far-carryed-on defection when truth was failing and he who depairted from evil made himself a prey that God might pardon and look in mercy on the land They were endeavouring to stand in the gape and make up the hedge and pleading with their Mother Church or a malignant faction in her shamefully departing from God when there was no other way or meane to be followed or essaved When all these things are duely considered and laid together It will appeare to impartial and unbyassed persones That the late act which is so much condemned and cryed our against is not so hainous and unpardonable a crime as this Surveyer and his wicked party vvould give it out to be but vvas a noble and laudable interprize for the glory of God the good of Religion Church and Kingdome beside that it vvas a most necessary and unavoydable act of self defence Since the Scriptures formerly cited vvill allovv more unto private persons then vvhat this Surveyer restricketh them unto as vve have shevved in a time of defection Then vvhen there vvas no other vvay left to do these dutyes there required and vvhen vvith all several other things did call aloud to a mutual conjunction in armes for defence of one another and repelling of unjust violence and prosecuteing the holy and necessary ends of the Covenants vvhich they svvore no man in reason can suppose that such a vvork is repugnant to Scripture or right reason but rather most consonant to both And though many do and will condemne the same even as to this interprize of Reformation upon what grounds and motives themselves best know yet Our worthy and Noble Reformer famous Mr Knox if he were living this day would be far from speaking after the language of such For he in his appellation Pag. 22. c. hath these words The second is that the punishing of such crimes as are idolatry blasphemy others that touch the Majesty of God doth not Appertaine to the Kings and chief rulers only but also to the whole body of the People and to every member of the same according to the vocation of every man and according to that possibility and occasion which God doth minister to revenge the injury done against his glory when that impiety is manifestly knowne And that doth Moses plainly speak Deut. 13 v. 12 13 14 15 16. in these words if in any of the cities c. plaine it is that Moses speaketh not nor giveth charge to Kings Rulers and judges only but he commandeth the whole body of the People yea and every member of the same according to their possibility And who dar be so impudent as to deny this to be most reasonable and just for seing that God had delivered the whole body from bondage and to the whole multitude had given his law and to the twelve Tribes had he so distributed the inheritance of the land of Canaan that no family could complaine that it was neglected was not the People and every member addebted to acknowledge and confesse the benefites of God Yea had it not been the part of every man to have studyed to have keeped the possession which he had received Which thing God did plainly pronounce they should not do except that in their hearts they did sanctify the Lord God that they embraced and inviolably keeped his Religion established and finally except they did put away iniquity from amongst them declareing themselves earnest Enemies to these abhominations which God declared himself so vehemently to hate that first he commanded the whole inhabitants of that Countrey to be destroyed and all monuments of their idolatry to be broken downe But in such cases Gods will is that all creatures stoup cover their faces and desist from reasoning when commandement is given to execute his judgement Albeit I could adduce diverse causes of such severity yet will I search none other then the holy ghost hath assigned first that all Israel hearing of the judgement should feare to commit the like abhomination and secondly That the Lord might turne from the fury of his anger might be moved towards the People with inward affection be mercyful unto them multiply them according to his oath made unto their Fathers Which reasons as they are sufficient in God's children to correct the murmuring of grudging flesh so ought they to provoke every man as before
private persons in cases of necessity So will the law of Nations and the Civil law for it maketh no distinction betwixt self defence used by private persons alone and that which is used by private persons having their Representatives concurring And where the law distinguisheth not we should not distinguish As all law permits to repel violence with violence so doth it give this allowance to all persons whatsoever l. Liberam C. quando licet unicuique sine judic 18. To maintaine that in no case it were lawful for Private subjects to resist the unjust violence and to defend themselves from the tyranny of Princes would be a direct condemning of our owne Princes K. Iames and K. Charles who helped the private Subjects of other Princes against them and is it not unreasonable to plead for more absolute subjection then princes themselves will plead for Or to condemne that resistence which even they will approve of countenance and encourage to 16. If it were not lawful for private persons to defend themselves against the manifest tyranny of a Soveraigne without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament or their Representative Then the condition of such as live under such a government where there are Ephori or where there is a Representative constituted should be worse then is the condition of these who want such Representatives But that were absurd Therefore c. The consequence of the Major is hence cleared Because all the arguments which have been adduced by any for proving the lawfulnesse of resistence in cases of necessity will evince that a people who have no formal Representative may resist the tyranny of their Prince But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Representatives their case should certanely be worse Because their hands should be bound up from that necessary defence which otherwise they might have used viz. when Representatives should betray their trust and comply with a tyrannous Prince against the people The Minor is most certane because Parliaments or Representatives have been instituted for the good advantage of the people And therefore should not prove hurtful and destructive otherwise they cease to be a benefite and a blessing A benefite should not prove onerous sayeth the law si filiusf ff ut legator nom caveaetur 20. If it be lawful for private persons to resist the Tyranny of Parliaments and other inferiour Magistrates Then it cannot be unlawful for them to resist the Tyranny of others without their concurrence and conduct But the former is true as all the arguments used by divines and politicians to prove resistence will evince and as several of our adversaries will very readily grant though they will stifly maintaine that no resistence is to be used against the Soveraigne Therefore c. The connexion is hence cleare That to whom the greater is lawful the lesse is also lawful Now it is a greater matter to resist a Parliament then to wave them and miskend them or to resist others vvithout their help as all may see and will easily grant There is not a more expresse command for Subjects to do nothing without the concurrence of a Parliament then not to resist them and oppose them Nor are people more obliged to the one then to the other 21. Privat persons without the concurrence of Parliaments may resist and oppose the Prince yea and binde his hands when in a fit of frenzie of a distempered braine and madnesse he would seek to cut his owne throat or with Saul would run upon his sword Therefore they may also resist oppose him when in madnesse and fury he would not only endanger his owne life in soul and body but vvould destroy the inheritance of the Lord and cut off his faithful and innocent subjects and destroy the land The connexion is cleare Because more respect is to be had unto the life of Thousands then to the life of one Man The antecedent is certane because otherwise they should be guilty before the Lord of his death if they vvould not hinder it when it was in the povver of their hands for he vvho hindereth not a mischief vvhen he may he vvilleth it and so is formally guilty before God 22. Privat persons vvithout the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates may resist the Soveraigne vvhen in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man passing by and with Saul vvhen an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him vvould cast his javelin or deadly instrument at the innocent Davids This no rational person vvill deny vvho knovveth vvhat a hazard it is to partake of other men's sinnes Love to the Prince should presse to this perserving of him from shedding innocent blood and vvho doth not this vvhen he may consenteth to that murther Therefore they may also no lesse yea much more resist him vvhen in his madnesse and distemper he is seeking to destroy millions of the people of God And againe much more may vve resist him vvhen he is seeking to destroy ourselves vve being much more bound to love and defend ourselves then to love and defend others 23. If it be lawful for private subjects without the Commande or allowance of Parliaments or their Representatives to resist a Tyrant or the Tyranny of a Prince with teares and prayers Then also in cases of necessity it shall be lawful for them to resist his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence with violence But the former is true Therefore c. The minor is cleare For Royalists themselves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be opposed to Tyranny Thus did the ancient Christians resist their tyrannical Emperours with earnest cryes and prayers to God especially Iulian the Apostate whom they ordinarily stiled Idolianus Pisaeus Adonaeus Tauricremus alter Hieroboam Achab Pharaoh c. And we are allowed to pray against the Enemies of Christs Kingdome against the Turk the Pope that great Antichrist and all the little Antichrists that make warre against the Lord and his interest Therefore we may also resist a Prince Tyrannically oppressing the People of God destroying the mountaine of the Lord makeing havock of his Church when we are in probable capacity for that work The reason is because the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other 2. The one is no more a sinful resisting of the Ordinance of God then is the other 3. Adversaries themselves will grant that resistence by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual then the other 4. This personal resistence is as consistent with that command let every soul be subject to higher powers as the other is with that 1 Tim. 2 ver 1 2. 1 exhort that supplications prayers and intercessions be made for Kings and for all in authority 5. If the Prince be good the one is as unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the ordinance of God no lesse then the other Therefore when he becometh a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the inheritance of the Lord an Apostate as
Pag. 38. c. and this he must usher in with his ordinaire jeers and ground lesse reflections telling us that His opinion hath been the common sense of the generation of God's children before this fiery yron age and that their sober examples are of more weight and imitation then the furious practices of any of late whereunto they have been inflamed by the doctrines of popular parasites and fierce demagoges such as this libeller and his complices But we have found possibly may yet finde further how far he is mistaken in this And in deed in some respect this may be well called a fiery iron age for I beleeve since Christianity was heard of there was never so much obduration of consciences so seared with hote irons and inflammed with rage against piety fidelity truth and uprightnesse of heart as is this day It were well to be wished hat this Surveyer and his complices would take either the example of the Prophets or Apostles or of these sober Christians who lived nearest to the light of the Apostles times and learne after their example to be more sober and constant to his principles sure he will not finde in their practices so much perfidy treachery debauchednesse hatred of piety persecution of truth and of the godly as both he and his complices are notoriously guilty of Will he find among them such court parasites such patrons of Apostafy such authors of rebellion against God such Tyrannogogues and base flatterers as he and his fraternity are Will he finde in all their writings such bitter invectives and reproaches against the vvay of God and his People as may be seen in these fevv sheets Will he find such commendations of tyranny oppression bondage and siavery as if it vvere nothing but the compound of justice and equity But vve come to the purpose The summe of his argument is this That though by the testimony of Tertul. Apolog. cap 1. 33. and 37 and Cyprian ad Demetrianum It is apparent the Christians wanted not might to raise armes against the Emperours yet they never used any resistence either for the defence of themselves or for therescueing of their oppressed brethren Yea even after that in Constantin's dayes Religion had been legally established and the Christians able enough to defend themselves yet they used no violence agaist the Arrian and Apostat Emperours who succeeded Vnder the persecuter Maximinian there was the Theban Legion consisting of 6666. who yet did not resist him and that the greatest part of the army under Julian the Apostate was Christian appears by their general outcry at the reception of Jovinian nos sumus Christiani yet did they never oppose him width force To which we answere 1. Though this Surveyer would appear tobe a man of a very meek and Christian disposition and cryeth out of such as are not of his opinion as men of the fiery iron age yet though we will not take upon us to judge his heart any may see part of his scope and intention in mentioning this argument to be this That we may be reasoned into a perfect stupidity and insensibility and the King encouraged to contrive and prosecute an Eleventh persecutoion on all who professe the Name of Jesus in his three dominions For what end else doth he adduce the example of the primitive Christians who would not resist the Emperours their bloody Emissaries sent out to put into execution their cruel inhumane and barbarous Edicts and to fulfil their lust and desire to extinguish the very Name of Christians but to sing us a sleep so that if the King will the may command his bloody and cruel Emissaries to make amassacre on all that will no abjure Christ and his interest and cut all their throats in a few dayes without the least fear of opposition If this be not his designe let him tell me what he would have Christians doing in case such a thing as this should be Would he have them resisting or only holding up their throats to the bloody executioners If he would not have any resistence made even in this case then we see what his principles drive at and many may judge what a cruel bloody heart he must have If in this case he would allow a resistence where is the force of his argument then To what purpose is their example adduced and what becometh of his insolent exclamations O silly foolish and feminine Christians then and o illuminated masculous and martial Spirits of Christians now 2. He may remember what he tels us when he is speaking to the instances of resistence adduced out of Scripture Pag. 67. That every example recorded in Scripture is not imitable And may not we say here That every example recorded in Church History far more fallible then Scripture and far lesse to be regairded seing what things are recorded in Scripture are writen for our instruction is not imitable So that reduce this argument into forme it will quickly evanish for it must stand upon this medium That what ever the primitive Christians did layeth a binding obligation upon us But this is false as we shall undenyably evince and where is then the force of the argument Though it appear plausible and taking yet when pressed it doth evaporat 3. If their practice be a binding precedent in this matter so must it be in all other things and particularly it must be unlawful for us now to resist in our owne defence a raseal multitude assaulting us with stones in the open streets against all law and equity for Tertullian in the same place tells us that they would not resist the Inimicum vulgus the common people who was malitiously set against them and did invade them with stones and fire suo jure with out any kinde of law or judicial procedoure Yea Tertullian puts no difference betwixt the Emperours and meane persons in poynt of resistence Saying Idem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris malè enim velle malè facere malè dicere malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licèt in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam we may do no more whether in word thought or deed against any whatsomever then against the Emperour But who will say that in this their practice or judgment is to us a binding precedent 2. Several of these Fathers thought it unlawful to kill in their owne defence See A 〈◊〉 bros de Offic. Lib. 3. cap. 4. and Augustin also Epistola ad publicolam 154. and Lib. 1. de Libero Arbitr cap. 5. And yet this cannot now be maintained as a truth See the contrare proved by Rivet in 6. Praec oper Tom. 1. Pag. 1391. 3. Private Christians not only refused to resist violence with violence but they refused also to flee from the fury of persecuters when they might saifly have done it Potuimus sayes Tertull in Apolog. inermes nec rebelles sed tantummodo discordes soltus divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse
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
with the consent and Counsel of Presbyters but when And where And how What Will they walke by the consent and Counsel of the weakest and most ignorant of Presbyters weakest in their prudentialls Youngest rawest and most unexperienced stirplings Sure they being men of greatest gifts learning and knowleldge the wisest and most noted for purdence Men fullest of yeers whose judgment is consolidated and ripened for government will think it below them to rule with the consent and counsel of those And experience doth prove it 5. This noble disputant vvill come in the follovving words Pag. 7. and prove the Ius divinum of prelacy not only against us who hold it to be jure Antichristi but against King Parliament and all the Malignant cabal who hold it only Iure Caroli But the man's judgment is so consolidated and he is so vvell read in his prudentials that he must dravv bridle and speak spareingly and only whisper out what he would faine be at and say Can this way be disrelished by sober Christians being so strongly pleaded by the light of sound reason Nay rather by the light of ambition vanity vaine glory love of money luxury covetousnesse love of this present world more then the love of God and the edification of his Church As all who are not sworne slaves to the perjured prelates will confidently averre sub rosa Making so much sayes he for the comelinesse and order of Chrisi's Church Rather so much for the deformity confusion and destruction of the Church and of all true Church-order as not only all who have eyes in their heads will grant but the present frutes and effects cry out to all the world Being he addeth so suteable and correspondent to the ancient government of the Church of Israel wherein there wee Priests and chief Priests and several rankes of Ministers an order which was neither typical nor temporal but hath a standing reason reaching us O so bravely as this advocat pleads for the Pope hath he gote the promise of a Cardinal's cap for his paines Because there was one high Priest over all the Church must we have also one Pope Good Master Prelate prove your consequence for we see no such standing reason reaching us as to this nor as to what you would conclude the case being the same Being sayes he so conforme to the beginnings of Christ's ordering the New Testament Ministry where there were Apostles above the seventy disciples Nay rather so conforme to Antichrist's ordering of his Church for as the seventy Disciples were to be no standing officers in Christ's house so the Apostles had no superiority of order or jurisdiction over them they were intrusted with no inspection over these Let our Master Bishope with all his gifts learning and knowledge shew this if he can Being sayes he further so agreable to the Apostles constitution of the government of the Churches of the New Testament which was in an imparity of power in Ministers as is luculently exemplified in the power of Timothy and Titus who were not Evangelists nor ever accounted so by the spirit of God It seemeth then Paul was not acted by the spirit of God when he said to Timothy 2 Tim. 4 5. do the work of an Euangelist and since all the proof which he can bring of this is this example of Timothy and Titus let his consolidated and ripened judgment taking to help the greatest of his gifts learning and knowledge answere what Prinne hath said in his Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus and let him not thus stope our mouth with his raw and blunt assertions lest wise men think he hath neither gifts learning knovvledge prudence nor judgment but a rarifyed vvindy braine swelled to a great bulk vvith vanity and conceite as who but he who can confute all books hovv ful soever of unansvverable reasons vvith his bare I say otherwise And finally sayes he our ascended glorious Saviour having honoured persons with that precedency by letters written by his secretary Iohn unto them Revel 2 and 3. Chapt wherein he sheweth the approbation of their office and power reproving their neglects yet honouring them with the stile of Angels to the Churches or his Messengers in speciall manner which cannot without notable perversâ—on of the Scripture be otherwise understood but of single persons presideing over presbyters Can no single person preside over prebyters except my Lord Prelate Or are all presidents or moderators of presbyteries Prelates Nay he will be loath to say so And what can he prove from thence though it were granted to him that this Angel was once single person which cannot be till Holy and profound Mr Durham's arguments be confuted which will be ad câ—lendas Graecas but at most that this Angel was a moderator of the meeting Was he therefore the Lord Prelate No master Bishop your wit and learning both will not prove this And hath your new Order and dignity to which you are advance O Lordly Prelate infused no new gifts into you that you might fasten your chaire with some new nailes or arguments or are you so consolidated into the old temper of your predecessours that you must rest satisfied with what they said as having neither gifts learning knowledge nor wit to invent new things But could your lordly braine think of no reply to the solidanswers which poor weak ignorant and unexperienced presbyters gave long agoe unto these arguments Why then did you chant over the old song againe to make yourselfe but ridiculous Did you think that your word would have more weight then the solid reasons of that solid and Eminent divine Holy Mr Durham in his exposition of that place If so you must have a wonderful high esteem of yourselfe which will make all wise Men to esteem the lesse of you And this order sayes he Christs Church dear spouse having since that time retained in all places where Churches were constitute without exception in all times without interruption until this last age wherein through hatred of corruptions adhereing thereto under Popery and because of the enmity of the Popish Bishops to the reformation some have utterly without any reason rejected the office it self O irrefragable dictator Ex tripode he dictats like another uncontrollable Master What better is this out of your Mouth then it was out of old Bishop Hall'â— the Remonstrator and confuted by Smectymnuus is this man able to answere al which Blondel hath said against this or learned Calderwood in his Altar Damasc or yet to answer what his dearer friend Stilling fleet hath said to this purpose in this Irenicum Why hath he not once noticed that which the author of Apologetical Relation hath said Sect. 1. Where he shewed out of History and by reason that Palladius was the first prelate that ever Scotland saw And this solifidian giveth us non causam pro causâ when he sayes that it was only the corruptions of the Prelates that made some without reason reject them whereas it
standers or that his manifest unchristian dealing may help to open the eyes of such as he labours to delude and bring them to abhorre his way or that the really Religious and righteous dealings of Church and State may more forcibly put him to silence then words or writings can It had been indeed more advantagious to the King's cause and lesse dishonourable to himself to have been silent then thus to have letten out waters to the King 's great prejudice and his owne discredit If he had any expectation that the Man's conscience would have confuted him in most of his assertions why did he hinder that work by confirming him in the truth of his assertions by his weak and foolish replyes Praestat otiari quam nihil agere and why did he not more manfully discover these unchristian dealings the better to undeceive such as he supposeth were deluded What are these manifest unchristian dealings of his Sure the event hath and shall furder we hope declare that his owne dealing hath been much more manifestly unchristian by labouring to blinde the eyes of such as savv before But I suppose he may talke at leasure of his proselyts When the really religious and righteous dealings of Church and State shall forcibly confute what is there said we know not Sure when ever their actions become really Religious and righteous they will condemne his pamphlet to the fire and himself to the correction-house and approve of all which is said in Naphtaly Sometimes sayes he keeping silence is seasonable the Man according to God's owne heart would not suffer Shimei's revileings to be repayed upon the head of that dead dog Hezekiah discharged to answere a word to railing Rabshakeh Ieremiah the Prophet contradicted by the false Prophet Hananiah went his way and said nothing The wise Solomon forbids to take heed to all words that are spoken and to answer a fool according to to his folly The Lord of Kings and Prophets sometimes answered not his accusers a word True sometimes silence is not only seasonable but 〈◊〉 and so would the Kings cause have found it now and by his answering not withstanding of what he here sayes it would seem that Naphtaly is no Shimes Rabshakeh Hananiah nor fool nor an enemy to Christ Or that the King is not like the Man according to God's heart nor like good Hezekiah Nor is this Pamphleter like Ieremiah nor hath follovved either Solomon's advice or Christ's example But I see not why both may not be true Yet furder So it seemed fit to let alone an insolent and forward railer and mocker and not to lavish out precious time which might be better bestowed upon one that gives such visible evidences both of a reasonlesse and unchristian Spirit whose libel may be reckoned amongst the things quae spreta exolescunt and worthy to be answered with nothing but silence contempt Then it seemeth he expecteth a reward also from the Author of Naphtaly for lavishing out so much of his precious time to keep in memory such a book which if he had miskend would have dyed out of minde and which he hath honoured with another answere then silence but all the reward he can expect will be but par pari referre payment without putting any thing in his purse and yet a payment in his owne coine Then to him it is a lavishing of precious time to maintaine the King's cause it seemeth also that he hath lavished out much time upon it and what will not money do The gredy gapeing after which will make a Man not only lavish out precious time needlesly But also put honour and respect on what he accounteth worthy of contempt 10. Let us see what did preponderat and bring this tossed Man to a firme resolution and determine him to bring this brate to light this product of his ill composed heart and not well tempered braine Upon the other hand sayes he it seemed something hard especially in such a distempered time to suffer an insolent person in whose mouth is a rode of pride to cast the truth downe to the ground without control and to tread upon and triumph over a holy and righteous cause and upon honourable persons of all ranks engaged in the maintainance thereof in so abusive despiteful and intolerable a way and not give him any check Not to put some stop to this furious driver who againe and againe assaults this Church with vile lyes and reproaches looked like the betraying and deserting of an honest and honoruable cause or like the hirelings seeing the Wolfe and flying and leaving the flock to be destroyed with delusion fugisti quia tacuisti There is an evil silence that leaves Men in sin as well as an evil speaking that leads Men to sin and we are not only to give an account pro atio so verbo but pro otioso silentio for idle silence when God and the publick necessity of the Church or Society whereof we are members Calleth for a valiant not brutishly violent and forcible way such as this mans pleads for and rational contending for the truth It is sinful pusillanimity and not warrantable prudence to see truth fall in the streets and not lift it up And verily this man seems to be amongst these of Whom Solomon sayes Prov. 26 v. 5. who must be answered lest he seem wise in his owne conceite and to be amongst these Tit. 1 v. 10 11. unruly and vaine talkers and deceivers whose mouths must be stopped that the gangrene of his words may not creep further to the consumption subversion of Church State Faire words ad faciendum populum qui si decipi vult decipiatur But he hath this disadvantage that few that know him will beleeve that these or any of these are the true cause of this undertaking But that rather vvhich he thought good to conceale viz. The Three hundereth pound sterling brought to him by the greater rogue the better rewarded Ia Sharpe deceiver of that ilke for if these things here mentioned had been his end and motive why was he feared that this should have wronged a well composed heart and Should not have been a honouring of God in his station but a needlesse lavishing out of precious time which might be better bestowed Nay there was reason for all this for whether he saw it or not he who together with his complices distempered the times and all things in whose mouth there being a rode of pride did insolently cast the truth downe to the ground as they could and endeavoured to tread upon and triumph over a holy righteous cause and all the maintainers thereof in an abusive despiteful and intolerable way and laboured to lift up an exploded depised and cursed falshood once dethroned with shoutings and great exclamations of joy but we have seen his horns have been but short He is truely as the sober vvill judge the furious driver who againe and againe doth assault the true Church and cause of God with lyes
goe upon for private persones violent resisting the Magistrate viz. the abuse of his power if they hold good will as effectually evince a non-subjection violent resistence to Parents and Masters in abusing their power Answ We say not that the Magistrate's abuse of his power is the only ground of resistance this should have been shewed and not said barely as it is here But when other things give ground of resistence yea and a call thereunto it is enough for us to say that we resist not the power but the abuse of the power 2. Though we walked upon no other ground which is false as is cleare from what is said yet his consequence would be null unlesse he should affirme which yet he dar not That the Magistrate is under no other obligation to his Subjects then Parents are to their Children and Masters to their Slaves But what sayes he 2. as death is not so no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible where lawfully it can be warded off But this is the state of the question if private persones may lawfully violente the Magistrate abuseing his power if in greater evils unjustly inflicted there is alwayes a liberty for inferiours violently to re-offend the powers above them Why not in lesse evils too These gradual differences of inflicted evils cannot make such variation in the poynt of duty seing the grounds hold equally strong if a man may resist the Magistrate for abuse of his power he may do so also against his father or Master on the same grounds and if he may not so deal with them he may not deal so with the Magistrate neither Answ It is true that no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible where lawfully it can be warded off but there may be more said for the lawfulnesse of warding off of death then for warding off a little blow And 2 there may be more said for warding off a blow then for warding it off by violenting the Superiour We speak not of violenting the Superiour but of warding off the blae and bitter blowes and such other iujuries equivalent to death done by his bloody emissaries which may be done without violent re-offending the powers above us 3. When the injuries are great and grievous and not easily reparable God and nature will allow a warding of these off even by violence when they can no otherwise be shuned Though a Childe may willingly Subject himself unto correction though he do not really deserve it yet if his father in stead of taking a whipe to chastise him shall take a sword to hew him in pieces or a knife to cut his throate I suppose in that case the Childe may refuse hearty subjection and either flee away or if he cannot save his life so long as he can either by calling for help or with his owne hands if he be able And here he will grant I suppose that the gradual difference of inflicted evills will make a variation in poynt of this duty of resistence So in smaller injuries subjects may be patient and beare a little for redeeming more and rather suffer the losse of little then hazard all but when it comes to an extremity and Life and Religion and Liberty and all that is dear to them as men as Christians is in eminent and unavoydable hazard then they may lawfully stand to their defence and resist that abused power not meerly nor only nor formally because it is an abused power but because it is so abused as that it destroyeth the ends for which it was appoynted and destroyeth all that is deare unto them and which they are bound to defend upon any hazard if it be in their power because the losse is irreparable Though a gradual difference of evil inflicted do not vary the spece of evil inflicted the least evil inflicted being an evil essentially as well as the greatest to him who doth inflict it yet it may alter the ground of resistence not only of superiours but also of equals and inferiours for I may beare with a smal injury at the hand of mine equal and inferiour and not so much as seek reparation by law when I see that either the matter is not tanti or that I shall expend more in regaining my owne then all my losse was But will he think that upon this ground it will follow that if mine equal or inferiour shall endeavour by fraud or falsehood to take from me my whole estate I may not then sue him at the law and vindicate my owne Sure it were irrational to say so 6. This will speak as much against resisting of the inferiour powers as resisting of the Supreame For they are metaphorical Fathers too and superiours over us as well as the Soveraigne and the comparison will hold in the one as well as in the other Now if he think that the concurrence or command of the Inferiour Magistrate will not warrand Subjects to resist the Supreame He must also say that the concurrence or command of the Superiour will not warrand a resisting of the inferour and so it shall be alike unlawful to resist any if this comparison hold according to his urging of it For it was not lawful for the Childe to resist the Mother but to suffer patiently her chastisment though the Father should have been indulgent and would have pardoned the Childe or extenuated and excused the Childe as not guilty of the fault alledged So was the childe also obliged to be Subject unto his Father's corrections though the indulgent Mother would have taken the Childe's part against the Father 7. The Servant was to bear buffets patiently 1 Pet. 2. after Christ's example was not to buffet againe for Christ being reviled did not revile againe and so the place speaketh not against resistence for self defence but against buffeting againe which is no formal warding off of blowes floweth not from sinlesse nature seeking to defend it self but rather from a spirit of revenge So that for all this the Servant might have warded off blowes and saved his head with his armes when his cruel Master was seeking to break his head 8. It is one thing to speak of what a Childe may do who hath no power to resist his father or what a slave is called to who hath no power or probable way to resist his Master another thing to speak of what a Nation or a Considerable part of a Nation may do against a few whose unjust violence they are able to resist 9. The maine ground of this argument is a mistake for he thinketh that patient suffering is inconsistent with resisting But Lex Rex quaest 30. Pag. 281. hath shewed a consistencie but it is his best according to his usual custome to passe over such things as he cannot answere So that the consequence is a meer nullity for because servants are to suffer unjust buffetings at the hands of their wicked Masters It will not follow That therefore they are obliged in conscience to non-resistence
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