concerning all the land no lesse then these who jeoparded their lives for the same no man in reason can condemne these few that undertooke the interprise the profitable effects of which would have redounded to the whole When a city is on fire no man will think the few that hazard their lives to quench the same are to be blamed though the rest doe lye by and will not concurre The men of Ephraim Benjamin and Issacher who followed Deborah and jeoparded their lives upon the high places of the field that they might deliver the whole land from under the Tyrranny of Iabes King of Canaan though Reuben God and Zebulon did not concurre according to their duty were not the more to be blamed but are the more praised and commended and such as came not put to the help of the Lord against the mighty were under a bitter curse The common tye of Christianity and brotherhood and other supervenient obligations did oblige all the Land as was shewed above to concurre as one man to endeavour the deliverance of he Land from dreadful oppression and tyranny and because the greatest part like Issacher in an other case loved to couch under the burden and refused to contribut their help for their owne delivery and proved enemies shall these few who ventured their lives and Estates and all which they had for the liberation of the land be the more upon that account condemned What hight of absurdity were this Had the Men of Ephraim good reason to challenge Iephthah Iudg. 12 ver 1 2. c. because he fought with the Midianites without them when he sayes that he had called them and they would not come out If an Enemy invade the land and such provinces as are furthest from danger shall neglect or refuse to concure with the rest to expell them yea shall strengthen the invadeing enemy shall these be blamed who are next to the danger to take the alarme at the first and do what in them lyeth for their owne saifty and the saifty of the whole land Therefore seing the cause which these few owned was of common concernment and equally respecting the whole land since the rest would not concurre as they were bound to do they are more praise-worthy then blame-worthy that ventured all for the good of the whole land and did what in them lay to redeem the whole land from that oppression and bondage under which it was lying If it had been some small petty particulare of their owne it had been more lyable to the censures of men but the cause being Common which they did owne a Covenant sworne by all ranks of People and a Covenanted work of reformation and liberty from tyranny both in Church and State was a cause not peculiar unto them but common to all the land it is the hight of absurdity illegality yea and inhumanity to accuse them of Treason of sedition or to condemne their interprise upon that account So that though the major part of the land turne so corrupt as to imbrace a corrupt abjured course see their privileges taken from them the vvork of God overthrovvne lavves ratifying and approving Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government and secureing people in their peacable and Christian possession of these novv abolished rescinded and annulled their libertyes as civil scotish men and as Christians sold avvay their fundamental compact and the cardinall clause of that contract betvvixt King and Subject cancelled and shamefully brocken Tyranny and oppression of consciences bodyes and Estates established and no legal remedy or redresse apparent or probable and shall notwithstanding of all this love to sit still not to be stirr themselves according to their places power for secureing Religion lawes libertyes For extirpating abjured prelacy and malignancy and restoreing the Ordinances of Christ to their wonted purity delivering the land from slavery bondage from stupenduous apostasy defection at which the Heavens may stand astonished and all men and angels may wonder Shall their negligence and deficiency in duty binde up the hands of the wel affected and render them utterly incapable in law to minde themselves and the good of the whole land the good whereof they are obliged by many bonds and obligations to seek by all farie meanes possible Neither doth the lawes of Nature the lawes of God nor particularly the bond of Christian love to their Native land to their Mother Church and to their Christian oppressed brethren nor the bond of their Covenants solemne vowes and engadgments so limite this duty and loose them from all endeavour after a performance But by the contrare if God give any probable capacity upon all these considerations they are the more obliged to lay out themselves to the utmost and to account themselves the more indispnesably obliged thereunto that as the hazard is greater the losse is the more certane and irrecoverable Wherefore seing the ground and ends of the riseing of these few was not particular but general and national the good and benefite of the interprise redounding unto all no lesse then to themselves and being that whereunto all no lesse then they were obliged by solemne vowes and moral bonds their case must be otherwise considered then the case of a few malcontented persons who because of some particular injuries done to themselves and for some particular ends proper and peculiar to themselves alone arise in rebellion against the lawful Magistrate The Royalists themselves allow it lawful for any privat person to kill an usurper or a Tyrant sine titulo and why But because the good of this action doth redound not to himself alone But to the whole Land So in some places a reward is promised to all such as shall kill a Bear or any such noysome beast because the good and frute of this action concerneth moe then themselves and therefore though all were bound to do what they did yet they are not blamed but rewarded for what they have done So should these rather have been revvarded then blamed or condemned for vvhat they did interprise for the universal and national good of the vvhole Land As for the third Objection so much hath been spoken of that already whether we mean the particular sufferings and oppressions of the People of Galloway The Naphtaly is full to this purpose or the general calamity by reason of apostasy defection perjury oppression in Religion and libertyes which is so noture that none who hath not renunced common sense together with Religion honesty can deny it or pretend ignorance thereof that we need do no more here but give a short reply to what the Surv. hath said to this matter only we would adde this That if That learned lawyer Althusius in his politikes Cap. 38. n. 5. c. give the right characters of a Tyrant and of Tyranny we may have good ground to say that our land beareth many blae marks of that tyranny for sayeth he there is
upon this account any tumult should arise no crime might be imputed unto them but unto such as refused their just Demands And when they wrote that letter May 22. 1559. Wherein they said That except the cruelty were stayed they would be compelled to take the sword of just defence against all that should pursue them for the matter of Religion and that the cruel unjust and most tyrannical murther intended against Towns and Multitudes was and is the only cause of their râ—vâ—le from their accustomed obedience And when they wrote that other unto the Nobility where in they said By your fainting and extracting of your support the Enemies are encouraged thinking that they shall finde no resistence in which poynt God willing they shall be deceived for if they were Ten thousand and we but One thousand they shall not Murther the least of our brethren From all which and from the whole story of these times it is undenyably apparent that they acted for the defence of the truth and of their oppressed brethren and for the carrying on of the work of reformation for some considerable time without the concurrence and conduct of a Parliamentary Representative From all which Instances of our predecessours I would have these thing observed 1. It is remarkeable That when God was to beginne any word of reformation in our Land whether from Popery or Prelacy the powers then in being were standing in a stated opposition thereunto This is notoure both in the dayes of Mr Knox in the yeer 1639. King or Queen and Counciles were stated against it and opposeing the same what they could 2. The only wise God who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working thought fit not to beginne with the Spirits of the Powers in being to cause them first appeare for the work but thought it more to his honour and glory to make use of foolish things to confound the wise and of weak things to confound the things that are mighty and base things and things which are despised and things which are not to bring to nought things which are It seemed good in his eyes who doth all things after the counsel of his owne will to imploy the least of the flock in that businesse according to that word Ier. 49. 20. and 50. 45. and to raise up meane and contemptible instruments that the work might more conspicuously appeare to be his and the glory thereof redound to himself alone 3. As they would have been glade had it so seemed good in the Lords eyes if the standing Representatives would have not only concurred and countenanced that work but would have according to their places led on the vaune and shewed themselves powers appoynted for God and his glory by exerceing the power which God had put into their hands for God and his interest So the want of their encouragement and conduct did not in the least brangle their confidence of the lawfulnesse of their interprize of so discourage them as to give over their work as desperate and hoplesse 4. Nor did they ever assume to themselves any authoritative and Magistratical power to legitimate their actions as if they had thought that without that formality their resolutions and motions had been condemned as unlawful in the Court of God and Nature but walked upon the ground of that fundamental right granted to all both higher and lower to maintaine the Truth of God upon all hazards and to stand to the defence thereof and of themselves when unjustly persecuted because of their adherence thereunto according to their power and as God in his providence called them thereunto 5. Nor did their adversaries objecting that their actions were treasonable and seditious as being contrare to authority and established lawes scar them from their purposes in the least having the testimony of a good conscience with in them that they had not the least purpose or project to cast off lawful authority or to diminish it's just right and power and knowing that the Powers out of whatever principle and upon whatsoever motives relinquishing their duty and opposeing that truth and way which by their places and callings they were obliged before God to maintaine preserve and promove did not loose their obligation and exeem them form that duty which God and nature had laid upon them but rather did presse them to prosecute their businesse more vigurously as seeing the necessity much more urgent and the difficulty so much the greater And knowing that whatever lawes are made in a Christian Common wealth should be for the glory of God and the good of the souls of the subjects mainly and for their external welbeing only in subordination unto these great Ends and when the observation of the strick letter of the law did crosse the maine good which principally de jure they aimed at they were eo ipso in so far null and voyd before God because it alwayes holdeth good that it is better to obey God then Man and mens commands or lawes unto which obedience cannot be yeelded without contempt of and treason committed against the Highest of all who is King of Kings are as no commands before God and disobedience unto these is no disobedience unto the lawful authority but faithful allaigance unto the most Supream 6. These poor weak beginnings how base and contemptible so ever they appeared yet God was pleased when the time to favour Zion was come so to owne countenance and prospere that the same work at length came to be owned by Publick Representatives and Parliaments yea and the Kings themselves were brought to a publick owneing and approving of the same And who knoweth but if God had thought good to blesse this late act with successe it might have been followed with the like consequent But his time was not come 7. It is also observable That whatever disaster or disappoyntment they did meet with in prosecution of the Reformation and in the preservation and defence of themselves in the owneing of the truth of God though it put them to mourne for their iniquities before God and to acknowledge among other sinnes their too much relying upon the arme of flesh and not resting with a pure faith on his power and protection yet it never made them question their call or suspect the lawfulnesse of their work and businesse as to its substance and end for they knew well that the work was the Lord's and that their call was divine though for his owne holy ends that they might be more humbled and taught do depend with a single heart on his word and promise and to purge out such evills as provoked the eyes of God's jealousy he suffered them to fall 8. When the work came at length to be owned by Parliaments and Higher Powers what was formerly done by persons not in that capacity was not condemned either as unlawful or illegal nor did the valient actors stand in need of any indempnity as if they had been transgressours but all was
doth sufficiently confirme this of which more when we consider what this Surveyer sayeth to the contrary 8. Lawyers Polititians Divines tell us that there are such conditions condescended on in all free Republicks Hoenonius Disp Pol. 2. Thes 4. tells us that the Subjects do stipulate from the Magistrates whether they will rule so as they may lead a peacable and quyet life under them and Thes 5. that the Magistrates do absolutely promise and the Subjects upon condition promise what is their duty So Althusius cap. 38. Polit. n. 31. and cap. 19. n. 15. 23. 29. and Timplerus Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Quest. 5. proveth that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects See likewise Gerhard de Magistratu Thes 94. Pag. 726. Where he proveth that it is no new thing That Magistrates and Subjects do Covenante with each other Finally This is cleared from some Scripture instances as first The Covenant which David made with the Tribes of Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. 1 Chron. 11. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anoynted David King over Israel Sanches on the place thinketh He promised to rule them according to the law Deut. 17 15. and that some other things were contained in that Covenant which did relate to the present state of a affaires as concerning the war with their near and insolent enemies concerning an act of oblivion and other things which they could think upon in that troublesome state of affaires and upon the other hand the People promised fidelity and obedience and what else is required in well constituted Commonwealths and that this Covenant was sealed by oath of both parties Cornel a Lap calleth it a mutual promise wherein David Covenanted to governe the Kingdome faithfully according to the law of God Leut. 17. 16. c. Israel on the other hand promised to be obedient and faithful to him The Surveyer tryeth many shifts to make this no mutual Covenant or conditional Covenant Pag. 94. 95. He cannot deny but there was a Covenant here agreed upon betwixt David and these Tribes of Israel But he sayes the Quaestion is what was the nature the matter and import of that Covenant The Scripture sayes not it was such a Covenant as these men would have it I shall rule you rightly if you obey medutifully otherwise not upon the King's part and upon the peoples part we shall obey you and be subject to you if ye rule us rightly otherwise we will not but use our coactive power upon you to dethrone and destroy you and punish you Ans If it be granted that here was a mutual contract wherein the King accepted of conditions and obliged himself thereunto it is enough for our present purpose the Dutch Annotators on 2 Sam. 5. 3. say hereby they were bound on both sides by oath to performe their dutyes to other for we are not yet speaking of the nature and import of such Covenants and what right or power the party keeping hath over the party failing 2. The Text doth not tell us what was the particular matter of this Covenant but from the Text we may clearly see that this was a conditional Covenant a Covenant wherein the King promised such and such things as satisfied them and induced them to accept of him as King and anoynt him so that if the tearmes had not pleased them they would not have accepted of him as King If the King had said I will be an Absolute Prince to account you still mine Enemies and kill such of you as I will and keep a live such of you as I will and so play the Tyrant be like he had gote the answere that Rehoboam gote To your tents â— Israel What portion have we in David 3. How can he prove That they did not minde to offer themselves to David upon such tearmes They sayes he Pag. 95 recognose his right of reigning over them is of the Lord and that he was not subjecte to be removed by them for they say The Lord sayd to thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be Ruler over them and it is added Therefore they came c. Ans 1. All this will not prove that this Covenant was not conditional or that David did not oblige himself to such and such conditions for if these reasons have any force they will as well say that they should not have made a Covenant with him it all but submitted without Covenant and they knew his right by promise to the throne before this and yet for all that they refused to come till now and now when they come David must make a Covenant with them 2. The same Tribes of Israel did recognosce Rehoboam's right to reigne for they came to Shechem to make him King 1 King 12. 1. 2. Chron. 10. v. 1. yet when Rehâ—boam would not agree unto the tearmes proposed They refused to acknowledg him King 3. That 1 Chron. 11. 3. Therefore came is but the same with So came 2 Sam. 5. 3. and it may be as well rendered also or and came for in the Original it is in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is there told that also the Elders of Israel came who were not mentioned before 4. Gods promise to David gave him no power to play the Tyrant nor was it to be fulfilled but such a way God's purposes concerning the End includeth the Meanes with the End and his purpose or promise was not that David should obtaine the throne without the Peoples consent or that the People was obliged to submit unto him notwithstanding he should refuse to Covenant with them or promise to Rule them in righteousnesse and not to play the Tyrant over them and hence it appeareth that it is not false that the People gave the Kingdome to David conditionally as he sayeth Pag. 101. for if He say these promises or purposes of God did lay obligations of the People to accept Such upon any tearmes he cannot condemne the Ten Trybes for accepting of Ieroboam as he doth elswhere 5. As for their coactive superiority over him we speake not of it now it not being our present businesse but sure his reasons will not validely conclude the contrair for if such a promise or purpose of God gave David such a right as that in no case suppose he had turned the greatest Tyrant imaginable had sold the Land of Canaan unto the Uncircumcised or done some such thing the Elders of Israel had had no coercive power to have with-stood him and dethroned him then they might not now have refused to have submitted unto him And by the same reason The elders of Israel might not have refused to have submitted to Ieroâ—oam who also had a promise which I know he will not grant But it is enough to our present purpose if it be granted that David agreed
Egypt had not his propriety Gen. 45. 9. No man might then defend his owne right by law against the Soveraigne but he might take what he pleased from whom he pleased and give to whom he pleased 10. Then the King could not properly buy or sell with his Subjects 11. Nor could Subjects make any barganes amongst themselves without his consent 12. Nor could they exerce any acts of charity because charity must be of Mens owne Esa 58 7. Ecc. 11 1. 13. Yea Subjects could neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of goods if all were his 14. Subjects could not be enjoyned to pay tribute unto the Prince contrare to Rom. 13 6. 15. It is contrare both to the Law of God and nature see Timpl. ubi supra 6. Hence Soveraignes are not proper proprietors of their Kingdomes Because 1. there are other qualifications required of them then is required of ordinary proprietors 2. The People then could never change their Soveraignes 3. The Soveraigne might sell and dispone his Kingdomes as he pleased which Royalists themselves wil not grant 4. Kingdomes then should come in amongst bona fortuna 5. His place should not be properly a function or office but a proper possession 6. Several Kings both in Scotland elsewhere have been hindered from dilapidating the revenues of the crovvne or by gifts and other contracts deteriorating the Kingdome and punished for so doing 7. Would rational men give themselves up for a prey to one that they might be saife from becoming a prey to others 8. How should then a Soveraigne be chosen for the good of the Kingdom if he might do with it what he pleased sell it or dispone it to the Turk or such like 9. Paul by commanding that tribute custome be given to him supponeth some other thing see Althus poli cap. 24. n. 35 37. 7. Nor so much as usufructuaryes For 1. they may not lay their Kingdomes in pledge as an usufructuary may do 2. Nor can they give them freely away Nor 3. may they do with them what they please as usufructuaryes may do with what they have by that right See Iun. Brut. vind cont Tyr. q. 3. p. mihi 205. 8. The Soveraigne's power is properly a fiduciary power such as the power of a Tutor of Patron for to this end purpose was He created of the People that he might defend them from injuries and oppressions He is appoynted over them by God for their good and is to seek that mainly 2. though he hath his power by way of compact yet it is not a compact ex condigno such as betwixt buyer and seller upon valuable prices and considerations 3. His power is limited restricted and he is bound to conditions as we shewed 4. He may not as was said dispose of his Subjects and of their lives as he pleaseth 5 if he sell his Kingdomes Royalists grant he may be dethroned therefore he hath no other power then of a Tutor Publick Servant or Watchman 6. His power is over his Subjects as it is over the law of God and religion but over those he hath no other power but a ministerial Tutorypower He is to take care for them ex officio as a special pawne committed to his trust to see that they be not wronged or violated see Althus polit cap. 24. n. 43 44 45. Adrian the Imperour used to say Ita se Remp. gesturum ut sciret Populi esse non suam Hence we draw these arguments for resistence of Soveraignes by meer private Subjects in cases of necessity 1. If it be lawful for Children to resist their Father when enraged against them and seeking in his fury to destroy and cut them off whithout any violation of the Law of God enjoyning Children to obey and be subject to their Parents in the Lord Then it is lawful for Subjects though private persons to resist the fury of their enraged Soveraigne when he is seeking in his cruelty and rage contrary to compact oathes and vowes to destroy Them and their Religion But the former is true Therefore c. The Assumption cannot be denyed by any rational person It being most just and rational that when the Father is taken with a distemper in his braine and in his madnesse seeketh to destroy or cut the throates of his Children They may joyne together binde his hands pull the weapon out of his hand and defend themselves the best way they can The connexion of the proposition is certane for the most the adversaries can make of the Soveraignes power is that it is paternal and that he is parens patriae the Father of the Commonwealth yet seing natural Fathers may be resisted by their natural Children in case of necessity without the help or conduct of Magistrates Why may not also private Subjects without the conduct of a Parliament defend of themselves in case of necessity against the fury and rage of their civil father when he by his bloody emistaries is seeking to undoe them But next we may draw the argument from the lesse to the more If it be lawful for Children in cases of necessity to defend themselves against and to resist the unjust violence of their enraged Father Then much more is it lawful for private subjects in cases of necessity without the conduct of Parliament to defend themselves against and to repel the unjust violence of their Soveraigne For there is not such a connection betwixt the Soveraigne and his Subjects as betwixt Parents and their Children as we have abundantly cleared And againe if some of the Children may resist the unjust violence of their Parent and of others of their Brethren joyning with their enraged Father to cut them off that they alone may enjoy the whole inheritance or for some such ends Then far more may a part of the Common-wealth resist the Prince's unjust Tyranny though he hath the other parts of the Commonwealth concurring with him to their destruction For the argument followeth as I said à minori ad majus from the lesse to the more And the union tye relation betwixt Brethren Sones of the same Father is as great yea greater then the tye union and relation betwixt one part of the Commonwealth another this relation being but political and in itself no wayes indissoluble but the other natural and indissoluble 2 If Wives may lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and unjust violence of unnatural and enraged Husbands and repel in case of necessity violence with violence without the conduct or concurrence of other Magistrates Then it is no lesse yea much more lawful for meere Private Subjects in cases of necessity to resist without the help and conduct of a Parliament the furious and unjust assaults of their enraged Soveraigne But the former is true as all will grant Therefore c. The proposition is cleare from this That there is not so great a tye betwixt Prince and Subjects as betwixt Husband and
the hazard of calling Magistrats to account judging condemning and dethroning them and the like Having thus cleared how little ground he hath to cry out so against Naphtaly and his party as the sanguinary faction as he doth Pag. 83. and to prosecute that dispute as he doth in the following Pages we will not have much difficulty in answering what he hath said but first let us prosecute our owne businesse and shew what real power People have without their Magistrats in the maintaining and reforming of Religion And 1. It is lawful yea necessary for every private person whether the Magistrates Superiour and Inferiour give their countenance concurrence or consent thereunto or not to purge their hearts and reforme thier lives and to walk in all the wayes of God's Commandements Our Surveyer himself granteth this Pag. 84. for sayes he every one is bound to amend one and so all will be more easily amended Very ture And if this were done our work were at an end and himself would be a Hangman to his owne pamphlet unlesse he think himself exeemed from that duty of reformation and that he hath a dispensation to lie slander calumniate and blaspheme the work wayes and People of God 2. It is the duty of all private persones notwithstanding that idolatry superstition or any other corruption in the worshipe of God be established by authority or countenanced and encouraged or conformity there to pressed to keep themselves pure from such courses as provoke the eyes of God who is a jealous God and will not give his glory to another This is undenyable by all who are not professed Atheists and who know another God then a clay creature and who know that it is better to obey God then a Man Our Surveyer granteth in the forecited place that every one of the people ought to reforme themselves from all real corruptions in the worshipe of God But it may be he maketh this real an open door for him and his fraternity to escape by and so conclude that he and they are arived at the hight of perfection because forsooth they are fallen backward and have a minde to goe backward and never to advance and so fall not under the compasse of this duty But corruptions will be real corruptions though they account them perfections 3. It is the duty of private persons to rebuke admonish exhort reprove observe edify and provoke one another to love and good works Lev. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15 16. Rom. 15. 13. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes 5. 11. Heb. 3. 13. and 10. 24. 25. And thus instruct one another in the right wayes of the Lord perswade move and induce them by motives and arguments and all meanes possible to imbrace the truth and to forsake errour or any false way Even though the Magistrates should prohibite and discharge this and by their command and authority should establish errour and corruption and banish truth with their edicts and proclamations Our Surveyer granteth Pag. 84. that no man should say am I am brothers keeper but by faithful instruction warning reproof strive to save others from the evil of the time and places wherein they live And yet he knowes who are persecuted upon this account of meeting together for these and such like ends to strengthen the hands one of another that they faint not in this evil day and to save one another from the evils of these times as keepers of conventicles and seditious disturbers of the peace 4. When there is any corruption in the reformed Religion whether in doctrine worship discipline or government creept in or any corrupt sinful practice come in use and abounding in a land and these corruptions not only connived at by the Magistrates but also countenanced approved and authorized it is the duty of all the faithful Ministers of Christ to be laying out themselves to the utmost in their pastoral functions for the suppressing of these corruptions and enormities notwithstanding of any prohibiton of the Magistrate whose power is not privative in this case to the contrary Though this be abundantly cleared and confirmed by the practice of all the faithful Prophets and Apostles of the Lord both under the Old and under the N. Testament yet we all know how impiously and tyrannically this is denyed to the honest Ministers of Scotland who left they should speak any thing against the rageing evills and abounding corruptions both in matters of opinion and practice which hasten the curse and wrath of God upon the land and make us ripe for destruction are not permitted to preach uncontroverted truthes and the undenyable grounds of Christianity But however this piece of tyranny and persecution be established by law yet the law of God stands unrepealed in full force and vigour by this law all who have a trumpet and a mouth should set the trumpet to their mouth and cry aloud and not spare and both privately and publicky labour thus to reforme the grievous abuses that abound in the land 5. Private persones may let Magistrates command or discharge what they will yea are bound to obey the whole some exhortations and admonitions of Ministers and others who faithfully declare the minde of God and discover abhominable corruptions crying abhominations notwithstanding of any law to the contrary Imbrace and practise the true Religion and reject the corruptions This is certane for it is God's minde and will that his commands be obeyed rather then mans and if Ministers and private persons be bound to exhorte rebuke warne reprove admonish move and perswade it is Peoples duty to hearken to and obey these good and necessary exhortations rebukes warnings reproofs admonitions and persuasions God's minde should be followed hold it forth who will especially when it is declared by his Ambassadours who in a special manner are authorized by him for that effect We know what a dreadful plague and judgment came upon Iudah 2 Chron. 36 16. 17. because they mocked the messengers of God and despised his words and misused his Prophets the wrath of God arose against his People till there was no remedie And it was this which occasioned the Non-churching of the Church of the Jewes Act. 13 46. Sure when Peoples eare is so uncircumcised that they wil not heare and the Word of the Lord is a reproach unto them and they have no delight in it then is there ground to fear the verification of that sad threatning Ier. 6 11 12. that wrath shall be poured out upon the children abroad and upon the assembly of young men together so that even the husband with the wife shall be taken the aged with him that is full of dayes and their houses shall be turned unto others with their fieldes and wives together for I will streach out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land sayeth the Lord. 6. From what is said it is apparent that all who vvould have peace vvith God and peace in their ovvne consciences and joy in the day
this even in Beasts His next restriction is this A man justly condemned to death both according to a just law and by a just process according to law may not use violent self defence against the Magistrate with re-offending him Ans It is granted what then will it therefore follow that this principle of selfe preservation is so restricted as that a whole Land or a considerable part thereof being unjustly condemned both by an unjust law and by an unjust processe according to or without that unjust law may not defend themselves against the Magistrate's Emissaries sent to destroy without respect had either to law or conscience Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too neare to blaspheme God by saying That it were a mighty defect in divine providence that men should not have as large a liberty to defend themselves violently as Beasts have and that men were in a worse condition then beasts if as Beasts have alwayes power to defend themselves violently with their horns heels teeth c. So men should not have as large a liberty in every case to use violence upon Magistrates putting them to vexation or perhaps troubling them in life states c. But where findes he these words in Lex Rex The author of Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 334. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons doves against haukes If a man in the absence of the lawful Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armyes of papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men but this is far from as large a liberty in every case and cometh no way near to blasphemy but is a real truth Suppose Lex Rex had said so which I finde not it had not been apposite to his poynt now while he is speaking of opposeing Magistrates not puting to vexation or perhaps troubling in life state c. but rightly executeing a just law against a malefactor which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned but would have said That the Magistrate was bound to execute Gods Law against men-sworne Apostats such as he and his fraternity are that they were bound to submite to the stroke of justice Thridly he sayes Pag 16. may not the exercise of selfe defence and violent resistence be restrained by the grace of God and the power of his command for submission abiding upon a mans spirit as in Isaac's case who did not resist his aged father going to sacrifice him Ans Whether Isaac made any forceable resistence or not we know not scripture is silent but it tels us his father bound him we acknowledge God is Lord of life but no man is and he may restraine by his will and working on the spirit so as a man who lawfully might flee and save his life shall not have power to do so but abide and glorify him by giving a faithful testimony unto his truth when questioned But thinks he that such instances are binding precedents Sure then he shall contradict his owne doctrine Cap. 4. Or thinks he that a Body of a people or a considerable part thereof shall not exercise lawfully this privilege of self defence violent resistence when neither the Law of God nor such extraordinary force or restraint of God on the Spirit but the vaine pleadings of Court Parasites would have it restrained Fourthly Pag. 17. He sayes May not the defence of our temporal life in some case cease for the preservation of the eternal life of our Neighbour when it comes to that that the defence of the one shall be the certane losse of the other Ans True and therefore He and the rest of the perjured clergy should much more cease from the preservation or ratherusurpation of their places livings and dignities when so long as they domineer there is certane ruine to Religion and to the souls of many thousands And againe if a man may lay downe his natural life for the preservation of of the soul of his Neighbour much more may he with others hazard the same in opposeing unjust violence for the defence of the pure Religion whereby thousands of soulls may be eternally preserved But doth he think that a Nation or a whole countrey-side is to give up their lives to the sword of the Kings mercylesse Emissaries for to preserve the vaine pompe and to fill the bellyes of a few drons whose God is their belly though they should account that their eternal life and all their felicity Fiftly sayes he doth not this obligation cease for the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth Answer What then doth it follow That Men should renunce their priviledge of self defence when their doing of that shall be so far from promoving the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth that upon the contrare their doing so shall tend directly to the ruine of the publick good and destruction of the Commonwealth Sure if this be true that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth It is also true that moe should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth and violently resist violence And doct Ames case mentioned Cas Consc Lib. 5. c.. 31. q. 3. would sute the Prelates well and their adherents so that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland they should give up their necks to the stroke of justice that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land for till these be removed we can not expect any thing but judgement upon judgement from the Lord till we be destroyed Neither doth Naphtaly crosse D. Ames for Naphtaly only speaks of a mans suffering intolerable and inevitable injuries under pretext of the good of the Commonwealth which indeed for a man to do would be for the delusion of an empty name only for the lust of others really to deprive himself of his whole share and interest therein neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share seing it vvere a great question and doubt if in that case he vvere in the vvay of his duty What he addeth Pag. 18. of a souldiers going to a dangerous post at the command of his General is utterly impertinent Natures instinct vvil teach some dog to stand in the gap to keep out the Bare His last restriction is this That it must cease to preserve the King the Head of the Commonwealth when the case is so that the King must either lose his life or the private man his Ans I grant Lex Rex sayeth I think that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him then that he should kill the King because he is not to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publick man But I doubt that it is so agreed among the learned Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag.
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
mutually performed sure each party must be formally obliged to other 6. If this be denyed it must be asserted that a Soveraigne can do no wrong or injurie unto his Subjects can borrow no money from them can not be engaged by Covenant Promise of Bond unto them which were most ridiculous and a doctrine as much tending to the real destruction of Monarchs and Soveraignes as any else for if this hold good Subjects might never think themselves secure And moreover that ordinance could never be an ordinance of God seing thereby People could never expect the least rational ground of security for their lives and what they have But we need not stand on this seing our Surveyer perceiving wel enough what a groundlesse and irrational assertion this of the Royalists is thinketh best to strick in with Lex Rex and grant Pag. 100. That where a Covenant is made between a King and a People the Covenant on the Kings part binds him not only to God in relation to the People as the object of this duty but doth bind him to the People formally 4. It is also cleare and undenyable that in Kingdomes which are commonly called haereditary the Son is obliged to performe the same conditions which his father was obliged to perfome for as the law sayeth Conditionalis obligatio transit ad haeredes L. si quis D. de Verborum obligatione Rational People condescending rationally upon the constitution did certanely pitch upon that way of conveyance of the Soveraignity that might best secure them as to their Ends and if none had been obliged unto the conditions agreed upon but the first in the line they had not rationally secured these Ends. 5. It is no lesse cleare That when the Soveraigne doth not performe the Principal maine and most Necessary Conditions condescended and agreed upon de jure he falleth from his Soveraignity This all will grant as flowing natively from the nature of a compact for qui non praestat officium promissum cadit beneficio hâc lege dato He who doth not preforme the conditions agreed upon hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of performance of these conditions I do not here say that every breach or violation doth degrade him de jure but that a violation of all or of the maine most necessary and principally intended conditions doth 6. Lawyers grant that every conditionall promise giveth a right to the party to whom the promise is made to pursue for the performance and this is the nature of all Mutual compacts And therefore by vertue of this mutual compact the Subjects have jus against the King a Right in law to pursue him for performance The worthy author of Lex Rex told us Pag. 97. That even the Covenant between God and Man is so mutual I will be your God and yee shall be my people that if the people break the Covenant God is loosed from his part of the Covenant Zach. 11. 10. and 2 The Covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of law and jus quoddam to plead with God in regard of his fidelity to stand to that Covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esa 43. 26. 63. 16. Dan 9. 4. 5 and hence inferred That farr more a Covenant giveth ground of a civil action or claime to a People and the free Estates against a King But sayes the Surveyer Pag. 101. It had been better said That upon this ground they might humbly plead with him supplicate and reason with him as God's deputy bearing the impresse of his Soveraignity and Majesty on earth But as God cannot otherwise be pleaded with upon account of his promise wherein he is bound not so much to us as to his owne fidelity to evidence it reddit ille debita nulli debens and cannot be pleaded with by force or violence So his deputyes on earth on whom under himself he hath stamped inviolable Majesty whatever they be are not to be pleaded with by strong hand and force Answ If he had shewed 1. That Migistrates could not miscarry 2. That Subjects had no hand in making these conditions in the Covenant betwixt Them and the King 3. Nor any hand in setting up the King and conferring that benefite upon him on such and such conditions then his inference had had some colour but now hath it none 2. Inferiour Magistrates are God's deputyes as wel as the Superiour and yet vve finde no impresse of Majesty or Soveraignity on them but they may be opposed vvhen doing injury 3. This is a large assertion vvhich I much doubt if any Royalist vvill defend That the Supream Magistrats vvhatever they be can in no case be pleaded vvith by strong hand and force Sure vve heard Cap. 2. some concessions smelling othervvise 4. Himself vvill grant that notvvithstanding of all his Majesty and Soveraignity a forraigne Prince may resist him by force and plead his right vvith a strong hand hovv doth he then save his Majesty inviolable But sayes he Pag 102. who will judge it more reason that these who are plaintifes shall be judges of the party they compleane of more then the party or Prince judge to them Is not this a perversion of all judgment that in one and the same body politick the accuser and judge shall be co incident in the same person or persons Ans This makes as much against the king as against us for by this reason the King hath no jus over the People more then they over him and can no more plead his cause then they can for himself cannot be judge and plaintife both and if this be the perversion of all judgment vve have seen enough of it vvhere the King hath been both judge and party pursuer by his advocate But let him ansvver this himself and he vvill help us to ansvvere also Againe he sayeth in that same Page Though it be true that all Covenants and contracts amongst men embodyed in a society brings each of the contracters under a law claime in case of failing coram judice proprio before his owne and competent judge yet it is not true That any contract betwixt man and man in one and the same society giveth the party keeping contract co-active power over the party breaking Answ He is but a ravv lavvyer that sayes so for if one Man set a piece of land to another for so many yeers for so much yeerly and the other be bound at the expireing of these yeers to remove vvithout processe of lavv The party setter hath by contract a coactive povver and may use Major vis and thrust him out vvith the broad svvord without further action of lavv But sayes he Pag. 103. There is no judge over all Magistrates nor the Supreame Magistrate before whom a complaineing people can plead wrong done to them This complainte lyeth before God only to take order with it Answ When Arnisaeus objected that The worthy and Learned author of Lex Rex answered That the
the Magistrate abuse his power not in some particulars only but in many and in many maine particulars if not in all Having thus cleared and vindicated the 6. thing The 7. And last is this which followeth also from the former viz. That when the Prince doth violate his compact as to all its conditions or as to it 's cheef maine and most necessary condition the Subjects are de Iure free from subjection to him and at liberty to make choise of another The very nature of a compact doth clear this For it is absurd to say that in a mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to performe his conditions though the other performeth none of his conditions or performeth not the maine and principal one It is absurd to say that when one hath given a benefite upon a certaine condition that he is still bound to bestow that benefite though the condition on which he promised it be no way performed Were it the rational act of rational creatures to set up Soveraignes upon these tearmes or to say wee choose thee to be our Soveraigne upon condition thou rule us according to justice and equity and not tyrannize over us and yet we shall always hold thee for our Prince and lawful Soveraigne Though thou should transgresse all lawes of equity humanity and reason and deal with us as so many sheep kill whom thou will for thy sport and lust c. will any body think that rational men would do so The law tells us L. si fund c. de pactis c. That cessante causâ propter quam res est data pignus debet reddi Before we come to draw our arguments from what is said we shall first roll out of our way what this Surveyer speaks further against these Covenants Pag. 88 89 90 91 92 93. He hath five particulars which he toucheth on The first is this It is easily conceded sayes he that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrats and Subjects to mutual dutyes which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politike body but his obligation ariseth not from any tacite or expresse Covenant betwixt them but from the ordinance and will of God enjoyning them these dutyes in these relations in that society wherein they are combined Answ 1. Subordinata non pugnant This mutual obligation may arise both from the Law of God and from the Covenant without any repugnancy 2. If this obligation arise only from the Law of God neither partyes shall be formally obliged unto other but both obliged only unto God and yet we heard himself say Pag. 100. that Where a Covenant is made betwixt a King and a People that the Covenant on the King's part binds him not only unto God in relation to the People as the object of the duty but doth bind him to the People formally Now whence ariseth this formal obligation if not from the Covenant 3. By this meanes the obligations of fidelity in the subjects unto their Princes have no rise from their oath of allegiance which he elsewhere calleth Foedus unilaterum 4. To what purpose then are Covenants and compacts made If by vertue of these each party be not formally obliged unto other For if David's Covenant with the People of Israel laid no obligation upon him he could not be said to have made a Covenant with them more then with the Phalistimes and yet the Scripture tells us he made a Covenant with Israel And King Ioash made a Covenant with the People 5. I do not well understand how an obligation to future dutyes can be called essential to a constitution which neither floweth from the constitution nor giveth a being to the constitution 6. Againe if there be no obligation unto these mutual dutyes until there be a constitution by compact and if then the obligation be essential how is it imaginable that the obligation shall have no subordinat rise from the constitution or compact whereupon the constitution is founded The 2. thing he sayeth is That though this obligation be mutual yet is it not conditional and how proves he this There is sayes he a mutual obligation to mutual dutyes betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional that if Parents be undutiful Children shall be loosed from their duty or on the contrary So is it sayes he betwixt King and People and the citeth Calvin Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 20. § 29. But it is easily answered That there is a vast disparity betwixt the rise of that relation which is betwixt King and People and that which is betwixt Father and Son And this being once discovered the parity disappeareth And 1. Subjects come not out of the loyns of their King as Children do out of the loines of their Fathers 2. The Son createth not the Father as the Subjects create the King 3. Yea Children do not so much as give their consent that such an one shall be their Father before the relation have being yet Royalists will grant this much unto the People in relation to their King 4. The relation betwixt Father and Son hath no dependence less or more upon any act of will in the Son or upon any Covenants Agriements or Compact expresse or tacite betwixt the Father the Son it is not so as to the relation betwixt King and People for before this mutual relation arise there must be a constitution and this constitution includeth at least some act of the will in subjects some previous consent 5. This relation can never cease so long as both are in life but the other may by a Subject's chooseing to live under another Soveraigne 6. Let the Father do what he wil the relation betwixt him and his Son shall never be loosed or weakened But the greatest Royalists will grant that in some cases the King may be made no King and his relation either wholly taken away or much diminished So then the consequence is null that because Children are not bound to their Parents conditionally therefore Subjects are bound conditionally to there Prince For Children have no hand in making up that relation betwixt Parents and them their consent is not so much as required but in making up the relation betwixt King and Subjects there is a previous compact required in which compact the People have their great share Children give not paternity unto their Parents but Subjects give the Kingship at least instrumentally under God and they set up Kings when they might set up Nobles and set up his Man when they might have set up Another can Children do so How then shall the case be alike And the one be no more conditional then the other Next as for Calvin we willingly with him grant that Subjects are to obey evill Magistrates and to do their duty to them though the Magistrates should come short of theirs as Wives Children are bound to love and be Subject unto undutiful Husbands and Fathers But Calvin will not say that in no case a
blood by Magistrates bringeth judgement on the Subjects for Ieremiah sayes that if they should have killed him they should have brought innocent blood not only to themselves who gave out the sentence and did execute it but on the whole city and on the inhabitants thereof To this he hath many words Pag. 55. but little answere The summe is this for it were wearisome to transcribe all his needlesse tautologies and repetitions which if taken away his pamphlet of a 120 pages might be reduced to 20 All who were defiled behoved to be accessory either by doing or not hindering what they were called and capacitated to hinder which was not by violent resistence nor doth the Prophet meane that all the absents should be guilty and properly deserve Gods wrath upon that account but only that the actors and such as were accessory should be guilty and others should upon this occasion fall under wrath though for other sinnes and yet the judgment on the People might be a punishment to the Rulers for that same particular sin for God may punish Princes or Fathers in the punishment of Subjects and Children and yet these same Subjects and Children have no reason to quarrel with God or to say as it is Exech 18. v. 2. Answ We grant God may and doth punish Princes and Parents in their Subjects and Children and That these same Subjects and Children so punished have no just cause to say that their Fathers have eaten sowre grapes and that their teeth are set on edge as if there were no sin in themselves But that God may not visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children who have not formally acted these evills nor consented thereto we dar not peremptorily assert against so many clear scriptures 2. Sure this place seemeth to hint something else then that this sin of shedding Ieremiahs blood should be an occasion of God's visiting the City for their other sinnes For he sayes you shall bring innocent blood upon this city so that by this Murther they should have brought innocent blood as well on the other inhabitants as on themselves who were to be actors the text maketh no difference 3. If the People here had done all which in their calling and station they were capacitated to have done for hindering of this sheding of blood they would have hindered it effectually and further violent resistence was needlesse If a wicked Magistrat should condemne an innocent person and make this his sentence that he should not have the benefite of a lodging within the land The People need do no more to resist the Magistrat's unjust sentence but notvvithstanding thereof receive the innocent into their house and intertaine him friendly And still vve say the People vvere to do all that lay in their povver to hinder innocent blood to be shed that so innocent blood might not be laid to their charge And in so far as they came short in this they made themselves guilty be accession notvvithstanding of any thing he hath said The next place he speaketh to is Deut. 13. vvhich vve have already vindicated and must observe this further That in all his long ansvvere he speaketh nothing to that vvhich novv vve are upon viz. the hazard that People in such a case are into both of sin and of judgment if effectuall course be not taken to suppresse idolatry and apostasy from God and to put that crying evil avvay from amongst them For v. 17. it is clearly held forth that till this city and all which was within it was rooted out the Lord would not turne from the fiercenesse of his anger nor shew them mercy nor have compassion upon them nor multiply them as he swore unto their Fathers So that their not doing their utmost to execute this sentence of God made them lyable to the constant abideing of the fierce anger of God upon them and closed the door of Mercy and compassion so that they could not expect the blessings promised and Covenanted Then Pag. 59. he cometh to speak to Ios 22 ver 17 18 19. and tells us That they were not private persones that transacted that businesse with the Children of Reuben for the body of the People concurred with the Magistrates Supreame and Subordinate What makes all this for the encroachment of meer private persons upon the use of the Magistrates avenging sword Answ It is true the Magistrates and major part of the People were here concurring but why doth he not take notice of the words cited by Naphtaly which clearly hold forth the end of his adduceing that passage If yee rebel to day against the Lord to morrow he will be worth with the whole congregation of Israel which do clearly hold forth that the defection of a part though a minor part will bring wrath upon the whole Nation aud Society And may not any see hence That each are to concurre in their places and stations according to their povver to prevent this defection or to remove it even when the major part is infected with it yea even though Magistrates should be remisse and should rather encourage then discountenance such rebellion against God Seeing the reason holdeth à fortiori for it upon the defection of a minor part wrath will come upon the whole much more will wrath come upon the defection of a major part and of the Magistrates too And therefore if in the former case private persons be bound to concurre with Magistrates for rooting out of that provoking sin of a few then it cannot be unlawful for private persones in this later case to do what they can to stirr up Magistrates to their duty if it be possible and to prevent their owne destruction from that wrath of God kindled against all and to remove the provokeing cause of that anger And as we have said they may take an effectual course for this without encroaching upon the use of the Magistrate's avenging sword or exercing any formall Magistratical power The next place he speaketh to is Iudg. 20. where Israel warreth against Benjamin because of a notorious crime acted there and countenanced and defended by that whole Tribe to the end that such a crying abhomination might be purged out of the land To which he answereth in short to let passe his unchristian jibes thus Though this was when there was no King in Israel yet it is likely they retained somewhat of their Sanhedrin appoynted Deut. 17. which in such a horrid case might draw together in an extraordinary meeting It was the body or the major part of the People that useth the sword against the lesser which maketh nothing for the minor parts using the sword to punish Magistrates the major part of the People also Answ Though I should grant that they retained yet something of the Sanhedrin yet in all this passage there is no mention made thereof but it is said v. 1. That all the Children of Israel went out the Congregation was gathered together as one Man to Mizpeh
by their declarature This is hard if true for then a Parliament might sell them and their posterity for bondmen and bond women to the Turk for ever But we see no more reason for asserting an infallibility or absolutenesse of power in Parliaments then in Princes What furder But to say that all not only obedience but allegiance and fidelity due to any created power is indispensably restricted to this qualification in defence of Religion and liberty viz. of the Subjects is a most false assertion Answ He said not restricted to this qualification but thus qualified and thus restricted This must be either ignorance or worse in this pamphleter thus to wrong the author But vvhat vvas the authors meaning vve have shevved Let us heare The pamphleting Prelate It is knowne sayes he that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictive proposition included c. Answ All this is founded upon his either wilfull or ignorant mistake for the author took not the restriction so as we have seen as to exclude all fidelity or obedience except in things tending immediatly and directly unto the good of Religion and Liberty of the Subject But so as that we might do nothing in prejudice of Religion and Liberty nor yeeld obedience to him in any thing tending to the hurt of either thus is our obedience to be restricted or qualified We deny not obedience even when the act of obedience cannot be properly directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the liberty of the subject So that we crosse not what the ministers said unto the doctors of Aberdeen for we take not that clause as exclusive that is that we shall never defend his person and authority but when he is actually actively defending Religion Libertyes but only as a restriction or qualification thus that we shall defend his person authority so far as may consist with Religion Libertyes And thus we agree also with the general assemblie 1639. for we say it is the Subjects duty to concurre with their friends and followers as they shall be required in every cause that concernes his Majesties honour yet so as that they do nothing to the prejudice of Religion or Libertyes But furder sayes he as to the poynt of allegiance or fidelity that is another matter then obedience Answ True when men will become very critical but the scope of the place showeth in what sense he took it not only as includeing an owneing of him as lawful and rightful King c. but as includeing also a promise of active concurrence in defending of him and his interest and so while this is urged in an absolute illimited unqualified or un restricted way he made it all one with obedience It is true a man may keep allegiance or fidelity to the King when he cannot obey his commands yet the clause of the Covenant respects allegiance as well as obedience in so far as we are not to defend his person and authority absolutely but in defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Subjects Allegiance then is a comprehensive thing not only taking in an owneing of the King as rightful King and fidelity to his person crowne and dignity against conspiracyes and treasons but also an active concurring to promove his honour and dignity and to defend his person and authority And so all who say allegiance must be qualified according to this restriction do not meane every thing in allegiance but that which is expressed in the Covenants So that it is his ignorant inference to say That that which Naphtals sayeth is contrary to the confession of saith Cap. 23. § 4. which sayeth is difference in Religion doth not make voyd the Magistrates just and legal authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him unlesse he think the article of the Covenant interfereth with the confession of faith which he dar not assert but if he do assert it let us hear by his next what he will say to the Apologetical Relation Pag. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. where that clause of the Covenant is vindicated He addeth It is the Lord's way for keeping humane societies from grosse disorders to allow to such as are in supreme power by lawful calling the honour due unto their place although in the maine things they pervert the Ends of government dishonouring him by a false Religion or seduceing others to their evil way Answ Do we say that honour is not due unto Magistrates of another Religion because we say that we must promise allegiance and obedience to them in the Lord and must not concure with them nor contribute our power unto them to the manifest detriment of Religion and Libertyes This is like the rest of this Man 's foolish inferences Or doth he think that we cannot give to Caesar the things vvhich are Caesar's unlesse vve give him also the things which are God's and are the Peoples Then he citeth Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. c 20. § 25. 27. But He speaketh nothing contrare to the businesse we are upon Doth he think that Calvin was of the judgment that People are bound to sweare absolute Subjection allegiance or fidelity and obedience to all wicked princes whatever right they may have to the place That subjects are bound to obey and to sweare allegiance in the Lord unto wicked Kings who denyeth do vve say that vvicked Kings because vvicked are eo ipso no Kings nor to be acknowledged as Kings What then doth this testimony make against thus But 2. will he stand to what Calvin sayeth Then he must condemne vvhat King and Parliament have done in taking the life of the Marquise of Argyle and say that they are guilty of innocent blood for by vvhat Calvin here sayeth vve were as much bound to acknovvledge Cromwel then vvhen he did Reigne as now to acknowledge the King for he speaks of all qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur How will he then free himself from treason For sure in Calvine's judgment Argile did but his duty though he had done more and yet he was condemned as a Traitour can he reconcile this with Calvine's judgment So then our promiseing and swearing alleagiance fidelity and obedience to the King being with a reserve of our alleagiance fidelity and obedience unto the Supreame King of Kings and Lord of Lords and according to that due subordination and thus limited and restricted that we may do nothing against God or in prejudice of his interests no person can with any colour of law or conscience challenge or accuse any of Treason or Rebellion against the King when they preferre the interest of God unto Man's and labour to secure Religion and the interest of Christ unto which they are absolutely and indispensably obliged and from which obligation and alleagiance no authority of man can loose them nothwithstanding that in so doing they postpone the authority of man and their alleagiance thereunto and lay it by seing
non-sense to affirme the same thing that is there asserted But sayes he Pag. 34. Subjection to the passion may fall under a command and this is called passive obedience which implyes more then meer passion or suffering even a disposition and motion of the heart to lye under that lot with an eye to God whose ordinance is used upon the sufferer only it is called passive obedience because as to the precise suffering the punishment there is no external action done enjoyned by the law or command of the Magistrate as there is in active obedience although there be some dispositive or preparatory actions in order to suffering not inferring a direct preparation to a mans owne suffering which he may and ought to do as going to a gallowes on his owne feet or up a ladder or laying down his head on a block that it may be strucken off Answ That subjection to the passion might fall under a command was granted in some cases by Lex Rex as was said but that it falleth under a command when God openeth a faire door to eshew it he is not able to prove 2. Hovv proper it is to call that submission passive obedience is not worth the while to enquire Lex Rex tolde us and he cannot confute it that it was repugnantia in adjecto to call it obedience since obedience properly so called is relative essentially to a law Now there is no moral law enjoyning this for no man is formally a sinner against a moral law because he suffereth not the evil of punishment nor are these in hell formally obedient to a law because they suffer against their will 3. As for that disposition and motion of heart which he speaketh of that is nothing but what Lex Rex said viz. That modus rei the manner of suffering was under a command and indeed obedience to that was and is obedience to a moral law But the Surveyer called it an errour to say that only the modus rei is commanded or forbidden and why because sayes he That same command that forbids resisting the Magistrate in doing his duty enjoyneth submission and passive obedience to him although we were able by force to deliver ourselves out of his hand Answ Then by him there is no medium betwixt this submission to passive obedience and positive resistence And so either he must say that flying is resisting which yet Pag. 41. he calleth a monster of a Stoical paradox or he must say that flying and refuseing to submit to this passive obedience is a submitting to this passive obedience And whether this will not rather look like a monster of a Stöical paradox let all men of common sense judge 2. Is the guilty person bound by any moral law to suffer death or whipping if the Magistrate will not execute the sentence upon him Or is every one in that case bound to deliver up himself to the Magistrate accuse himself and pursue the accusation until the sentence be executed If not how doth this passive submission fall under a moral law If he say when he is apprehended or in hands he is not to resist but submit to the stroke Answer 1. Will not any see that then the res ipsa is not commanded but the modus rei and so Lex Rex said true Pag. 318. That passive obedience to wicked Rulers was enjoyed Rom. 13. only in the manner and upon supposition that we must be subject to them and must suffer against our wills all the evil of punishment that they can inflict Then we must suffer patiently But 2. Though we be bound to submit to the Magistrate doing his duty and inflicting just punishment will it follow that therefore we are bound to submit to the Magistrate doing not his duty but inflicting unjust punishment Or doth the same passive obedience to powers punishing unjustly fall under the moral law How doth he prove either the consequence or the consequent We assert sayes he Pag. 53. That a private person though wrongfully afflicted by the lawful Magistrate proceeding according to law let it be so that it is lex malè posita or an evil law is hound not only to Christian patience in suffering but unto a submission without repelling of violence by violence and that in conscientious respect to the ordinance of God wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested although abuseing it in this particular and with a tender regard to the prevention of seditions and confusions in humane societies Ans 1. This is dictator-like to prove the conclusion by asserting it what a ridiculous fool is he to come with his assertions and yet give us nothing but the very thing controverted Is not this a very hungry empty man to beg when he cannot better do the very thing in quaestion 2. Then it seemeth he will grant that a privat person may resist the lawful Magistrate when proceeding contrary to law where is then the conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested and that tender regaird to prevent sedition c. which he talketh of Sure in the one case the Ordinance is but abused as it is in the other 3. Let me ask if there were a just judge sitting who would execute justice and judgement for God and were summoning him to answere for his perjury apostasy and other villannies which he is conscious to himself of and some others are privie to and could witnesse against him would he compeare or rather would he not run from under the reach of justice and secure himself or if apprehended would he not labour an escape to save his neck from the rope If so as all who know him will veryly belveeve he would where would then this submission be which is due unto the Magistrate And where would his conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God not abused but very rightly used in that particular be 4. If a Magistrate abuseing his power to the destruction of the Subjects should be resisted what inconvenience would follow thereupon Seditions sayes he and confusions would be unavoydable if every one as he thinks himself wronged shall be allowed to use force upon the lawful Magistrate proceeding by law the greatest Malefactors being ready to justify themselves and to violate the justest Megistrates in their just proceedings Ausw This is but the old song chanted over and over againe to us and may therefore be dismissed with a word viz. That as the Magistrat's abuse of his power in a particular will not make the power it self unlawful as he will grant so nor will the abuse of this resistence in a particular make resistence it self unlawful 2. We plead not for resistence by every one who thinketh himself wronged but for resistence when the wrongs are manifest notour undenyable ◠grievous and intolerable and done to a whole land to God's glory to Christ's interest to a Covenant sworne and subscribed by all to the Fundamental lawes of the land to the compact betwixt King and
the Reviewer's concessions we are not bound to submit vvhen the higher povvers persecute us for truthes sake deny homage to the Sone of God presse the approving of corruptions in the poynt of government destroy the precious truthes of God and interests of Christ make a general defection and Apostasy And in a vvord turne Enemies to the liberties of the People destroy the Covenanted vvork of God oppresse the Subjects in bodyes States and Consciences and so crosse the very ends for vvhich they vvere appoynted 2. The Reviewer Pag. 109 110. though he vvould have submission in the matter of discipline vvhere the hazard is only personal and a mans suffering is not tanti as to disturb a vvell setled national Church vvhere doctrine and vvorshipe are in their integrity yet he thinks the case is of greater moment vvhen a National Church in her judicatoryes introduceth falfe doctrine and corrupt vvorshipe to be imposed upon a Church And so dar not affirme that submission is in this case due Why vvill not the Surveyer take notice of this grant so much in our case We should readyly grant to him that submission might be yeelded in smaller matters when the hazard was only personal and the suffering of one or of a few was not tanti as therefore to disturb the setled State wherein the maine matters were keeped in their integrity But he cannot in reason demand more of us if the parallel hold or seek submission when Higher powers are overturning the precious Truthes of God and interests of Christ are destoying a glorious work of reformation are pressing all to open and avowed perjury are destroying the fundamental rights libertyes and privileges of the Christian Subjects and tyrannizing over their Estates their Bodyes and their consciences 3. So tender was the Reviewer that Pag. 115. he would not urge submission to sentences of inferiour courts when appeales from one judicatory to another could not be had yet so untender is our Surveyer that he will have absolute and unlimited submission yeelded when he knowes that not only is there no liberty of appeal granted but not so much as liberty to petition and supplicate to get any thing that is amisse righted Thus he would have the whole land submitting to meer and cruel tyranny 4. Pag. 129. the Reviewer said We never asserted a judicatory might be contra-acted in no case as we cleared before far lesse will be affirme that a judicatory may not be contradicted in any case ibid. Hovv cometh it then that our Surveyer doth not follow the Reviewer's footsteps but pleadeth for absolute and illimited submission in all cases vvhatsomever 5. Pag. 131. vvhen he comes to that argument taken from the Tyranny which would hereby be introduced in the Church which would consequently condemne defensive armes used against Tyranny in the State He only sayes That no learned man would ever allow people to rise far lesse a party only against a prince upon the account only of the unjust sufferings of particular persones whole yet the affaires of Church and State were well ordered-while yet they adhered unto overturned none of the righteous things in a nation Sure then it will be allowed by him that people though the lesser part defend themselves against Tyranny when not only particular persones are unjustly suffering but the righteous things once concluded and confirmed by lawes Oathes Vowes Covenants Acknowledgments Declarations Protestations are overturned the work of God razed to the fundation perjury and breach of Covenant established Conrses laid downe for a constant exercise of tyranny and oppression c. againe 6. pag. 134. let once sayes he a judicatory grow so corrupt as to condemne the dutyes of preaching Christ and participation of publick ordinances in the very nature and kinde and as to all sorts of persons universally and in that case we shall without scruple conclude them no true courts of Christ consequently not to be submitted unto yea in case such decrees were published we should hold it a case of confession for ministers to preach and people to frequent ordinances so long as they had liberty or oportunity How then can submission be given to these in povver vvho novv have destroyed the interests of Christ and vvill suffer none to plead or contend for Christ and his oppressed truth or speak against perjury and dreadful defection vvhere of the land is novv guilty But enough of this vve proceed Another particular which we shall here examine is that discourse he hath concerning I Sam. 8 ver 10. Pag. 63 64. The summe of what he sayeth is this It is true sayes he the place I Sam. 8 ver 10. neither contradicts nor repeales that law Deut. 17 ver 14. But it is false that only the tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of meer dissuasive Moses and Samuel agree The one shewes what a King should do ex officio and de Jure The other what a King may do by the power he hath and yet not be â—bâ—oxious to punishment from Subjects or what a people should suffer of an evil King without attempt of violence upon him The one sets out Gods approbative law The other his permissive law as albeit the Lord approve not divorce yet by a permissive law Deut 24 ver I. Husbands had liberty to put away their Wives without being obnoxious to humane punishment The fact it the manner of Tyranny but the permissive power without punishment from subjects is the just right of all lawfull Kings Though Samuel might have here intended to disswade the people yet his maine intention was to shew the people their duty under a Kings oppressâ—on what they were to suffer without resistence for to what purpose should he have written the Manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. But to teach the people their beheaviour to the King So that this was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the Ark. Answ 1. It is well that he granteth that this â—us Regis Or the manner of the King is de facto the manner of tyranny and so that it was no wayes lawful for the King to do these things there mentioned which yet other Royalists do peremptorily deny and averre hence that Kings have full absolute and illimited power over the Subjects persons and goods And thus as to the King's part he must grant that what is here spoken is contrary to what is said Deut. 17. 2. All the circumstances of the text shew that this tyranny of the King is spoken of meerly in way of disswasive for it was a King to judge them like unto the Kings of other Nations which they were seeking and this displeased Samuel ver 6. and the Lord said to Samuel that hereby they had rejected not Samuel but himself that he should not reigne over him ver 7. and the Lord commanded him solemnely to protest against them and then
the united and consocâ—ated body of the People preserve the whole associated body and her rights and are instructed with necessary power and authority which to performe they are obliged by oath 3. Hence really the power of the People is greater then the power of any delegated or constituted by them for the cause is more then the effect and the Parliament doth represent the People but the People do not represente the Parliament Therefore the power of the People must be more His povver who doth constitute another or depute him as a guardian to some businesse or to oversee some of his matters is greater then any povver vvhich that other deputed or constituted Curator hath Parliaments then being but as Tutors and Curators unto the People must have lesse povver then the People have mandans vero sayeth Althusius pol c. 18. n. 92. vel injungens alii rerum suarum procurationem est instar imperantis rogantisve suscipiens vero talem administraetionem instar obtemperantis inservientis officium suum alteri praestantis So that the Parliament is but a servant to the People and the povver of a Master is alvvayes superiour to the povver of a Servant as such 4. It is irrational to think that the People in chooseing the Ephori or Parliament-members and committing the administration of their weighty affaires unto them did denude themselves of all that innate and radical power which they had to manage their owne matters seing no urgent necessity could compel them to it nor any foreseen advantage or profite which thereby could redound unto them move them and perswade them thereunto but on the contrary much hazard and disadvantage might at the very first appeare upon such a surrender as this Much lesse could they denude themselves of that power of self defence which by no law of God or man they might law fully give away 5. Whatever power Parliaments have it is to be exerced and put in practice for the good and advantage of the People Their power is for the profite and not for the hurt of the People and to this scope and end should they level all their labours travails paines endeavours cares thoughts consultations conferences votes deliberations and conclusions L. Imperial C. de nuptijs L. bene a Zenone C. de quadr L. 8. C. de legibus L. praecipimus 34. C. de appell See Althus pol. c. 18. n. 7 17. 6. Hence Their power is not absolute infinite or unlimited but hath its owne bounds and limites over which it cannot lawfully passe They are to rule and do all for God and the good of the Realme whose servants they are They are the Ministers of God for the Peoples good Rom. 13. 4. 7. When they transgresse their true limites which no man will say is impossible by commanding what God hath forbidden or forbidding what God hath commanded in his holy law or when they seek not the publick good of the Land but their ovvne private advantage They are not but cease to be the Ministers of God and of the People and become private persons who ought not in these particulars wherein they goe beyond their bounds to be obeyed As sayeth Althusius ubr supra n. 41. and proveth by many authors And the reason is cleare for no inferiour can disannul God's Law or free us from subjection thereunto They have no power to command sin God never gave them such a power And the People could not give it for they had it not themselves neither had they a power to wronge and destroy themselves and so they could not give this unto them 8. If these Ephori or Trustees betray their trust and feel or basely give away the libertyes and privileges of the people which they were intrusted with the people cannot thereby be brought into a remedilesse condition or lose their privileges vvithout all hope of recovery If a Tutor waste and destroy the Pupil's Estate the law provideth a remedy for the Pupil If a commissioner or deputy betray his trust the master's losse thereby is not irremediable If an advocat betray a client's cause The client will finde some relief The peoples right sayeth althusius ubi supra n 124 suffereth no prejudice nor doth the Prince obtaine any more tyrannical power by the negligence perfidy deceit collusion treachery prevarication and conspiracy of the Ephori or primores regni with the prince for it is unjust absurd to affirme that the Ephori or parliament-men can transferre unto the Tyrant what they never had themselves or can destroy or alienate the rights of the Community in prejudice of the whole Realme and that contrare to the fundamental lawes of the land or such as the prince swore to maintaine and which containe the spirits and life of the Commonwealth From these irrefragable truthes so consonant to right reason and attested by learned politicians it will clearly follow 1. That the Peoples case is not vvorse by Parliaments then it would have been without them 2. That Parliaments cannot tyrannize by any law or right over People 3. That no treachery or perfidy of Parliaments neglecting their duty or betraying their trust can prejudge the people of their due rights and privileges 4. Parliaments not concurring with the People in their necessary defence cannot loose them from the obligation of nature to defend themselves from tyranny and intolerable oppression 5. If Parliaments in stead of acting the part of Trustees Tutors Curators Delegats and Servants shall turne Tyrants wolves Tygers and Enemies to the Commonwealth themselves of conspire joyne or enter into a confederacy with a Tyrant and so seek the destruction of the community The community is allowed to see to the preservation of their owne rights and privileges the best way they can 6. And so in some cases when the hazard is great the losse irreparable private persones may defend themselves against manifest Tyranny and oppression without Parliaments All this seemeth to be cleare and undenyable In thest Let us next see what way this shall sute or what more can be said for our case In hypothest And. 1. It is beyond contradiction that the late Parliament did basely betray its trust for politicians tell us That it belongeth to these Ephori To vindicate and maintaine the compact and Covenant which is betwixt the Prince and the People To keep the prince or the supreame administrator of justice within his bounds and limites that he turne not a tyrant or an oppressour of the People To hinder him from violating the law of God To restraine and coërce him from violating the lawes of the land and the rights of the kingdome To hinder the execution of the unjust and illegal decrees and mandats of the Prince To defend the proper and incommunicable rights and privileges of the People To cognosce whether the Supreame Magistrate hath done his duty or not and to hinder him from committing Tyranny See for these particulars Althusius Pol. c. 18. n. 48 55 63 65 68 83
pleased to doe what he alledgeth Naphtaly and his complices had a minde to do The first question which he speakes to Chap. 1. Is touching the dissolving of humane societies which in some cases politicians will yeeld to see Althus pol. c. 38. n. 76. And the thing he driveth at is to fasten on the honest party a resolution and designe to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially setled frame as he loveth to speak Pag. 9. of that Nation and Kingdome which through divine providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Soveraignes for the common benefite of subjects at home and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad yea and to the glory of divine providence which hath through many stormes in several ages preserved us in this comfortable constitution And this he deviseth of his owne wicked heart of purpose to make these cordiall lovers of Religion and of their Countrey hateful to all the world if he could and therefore he would represente them as men of strange principles purposes But wo to such as make lyes their refuge This man thinketh to make the King glade with his lyes but we know that the mouth of such as speak lyes shall be stopped But sure one would think that he behoved to have some clear ground to walk upon in asserting this of us and especially when he is at the paines to spend a whole chapter to confute it And yet vvhen he hath rambled up and downe that book of Naphtali to seek out a ground for this assertion he can not adduce any one sentence that even with half an eye doth look there away except one which yet hath no such designe or import The sentence is this Pag. 150. That through the Manifest and notorious perversion of the great ends of Society and government the bond thereof being dissolved the persons one or moe thus liberated therefrom do relapse into their primeve liberty and privilege and accordingly as the similitude of their case and exigence of their cause doth require may upon the very same principles againe joyne and associate for their better defence and preservation as they did at first enter into Societyes For clearing of which these things would be observed 1. That the author there is only adding a few observations to cleare the innocency of these noble witnesses who died owneing the interest and cause of Christ and to shevv hovv free they were of the crime of rebellion with which they were charged Now all know that as these worthies had no designe of erecting themselves into a distinct common-wealth nor to make such a civil politick separation from the rest of the land so the way which they took did directly tend to have the whole land united unto God and among themselves as one for God and to God in the bond of the solemne league and covenant Had they designed such a separation they behoved also to have chosen more apposite fit meanes then these were which they did use as any of halfe a judgment may perceive 2. That as the maine and only designe of these worthies was to defend themselves and their Covenanted Religion from manifest oppression and tyranny and to have the land recovered from that wofull course of backsliding and departing from the Lord whereof it was guilty and wherein it had lyen for many dayes So This author is only clearing their innocency as to that and therefore in the first observation Pag. 147. He cleareth the native ground of self preservation and in the 2. How the perverting of the ends of government doth not destroy this native right but that then people are as free to defend themselves as ever even against the oppressing Powers who in that case according to King Iames his testimony and practice become Tyrants and are to be resisted and in the 3. How all powers are obliged if not expresly yet tacitely to walk in a due subordination to God and to prosecute these great ends of government and particularly in the 4. How our king is bound by the lawes of the land and by his coronation covenant oath to Rule for God and the good of the People And in the 5. How all even the most Malignantly affected would assent to this as an undoubted truth in their owne particular cases And cometh in the 6. Place to the words cited which must have the same import and tendency to wit to clear the innocency of private persons self-defence and defence of Religion when the powers which should minde and study according to their place power to promove the great ends of society and government viz. the glory of God and the good of the Subjects in soul and body do manifestly and notoriously pervert these ends and preferre themselves and their owne lusts unto the will and glory of God and to the good of the People The same is also cleare from the following observations which do manifestly poynt at the clearing of people being bound in duty to defend themselves and their Religion conforme to their engagements vowes and Covenants which still stand in force notwithstanding of any thing done to the contrary of late in their acts rescissory and condemnatory 3. The very words themselves to any who is not utterly blinded with prejudice can import no more then that when through the notorious and mainfest perversion of the great ends of society and government the bond thereof is dissolved and the persons now relapseing into their Primeve liberty and privilege may no lesse now joyne and associate together to defend Themselves and their Religion then at first they entered into societes For as their entering into societies was for this end and their setting up of Magistrates over themselves was for this end so when the Magistrates crosse their end and rule and thereby annul the relation or make it invalide for the ends they may joyne together now for these ends as they might have done before the formal institution of Government And who can deny this to be a truth Or who can hence inferre but he who is of a perverse spirit and for his perverse ends seeketh to pervert all things that he pleadeth for the lawfulnesse of Peoples crumbling together in lesser fractions and petty commonwealthes 4. Suppose the words should be capable of that glosse ' which the Surveyer putteth upon them yet as they lye connected with what preceedeth and with what followeth they can at most be but a Medium for proving the intended conclusion and so must be considered as founding an argument a Majori ad minus from the more to the lesse to this purpose if when through the manifest and notorious perversion of the great Ends of society and government the bond thereof is dissolved and persons relapse into their primeve liberty so that according as the similitude of their case and exigence of their cause requireth upon the same principles they may againe associate and combine into new and distinct Societies and Commonwealthes
high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue though extraordinary actions which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue may not be imitated And he hath not yet proved neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as was that of Abraham and the like We shall grant with him That Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set And that men may have heroick motions actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as Luther had as sometimes though they have an extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions as Peeter when he dissembled But what sayes this to Phine as his fact Phineas sayes he had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions but supposeing him a meer private person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God Answer Doth this man give a distinct sound He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas that he turned himself Protëus -like into many shapes and we finde himself doing little better here He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not but if he was such then the action was extraordinary but what if he was not Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical and thus we are no wiser then we were for we know not what to make of the action nor what to make of the person but we must judge of the person by the action And of the action by the person That is to say if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary and è contra if the action was extraordinary he was a private person and if it was ordinare and imitable Then he was a publick person Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel and yet that action of theirs is imitable But how proves he this extraordinary call It is sayes he fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our wil service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by P sal 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousnesse though judging according to ordinary Rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposeing him for a meer private man yet having God's warrand whose will is the rule of righteousnesse the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ It is true God revvards not nor approves not vvil-service yet he approves and revvards other actions then such as are extraordinary and not imitable 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse sayes clearly he vvas a private person and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory and rather speakes out an encouragement to all to do the like in the like case then any extraordinary call he had vvhich none novv can expect Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings sayes that Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate there is no mids betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories if they be not called by the intervention of men their allowance they must plead an immediat calling from God Ans Beacause I minde not to enter into a Logomachy or debate about words tearmes I would desre him to tell me what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not or do not call People forth unto that work They have not Man's call nor have they an immediate call from heaven and yet they have a lawful call from God Nature and necessity to save the city their houses goods little ones from being burnt into ashes And what ever name he give to this call we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty And when men whether out of secret impulses heroical motions or out of meer sense conscience of duty do this they do not desert their owne calling and state like these spirits lud ver 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office though they do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrates by office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable necessity which knoweth no humane law and to which some divine positive lawes will cede But then he sayes Pag. 115. Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministery without a call from men externally Answ And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men in some cases What if a company of Men be cast out on an island having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places whence they might have some lawfully called Minister and there be one among them qualified for the work might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function And when we grant this we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists Enthusiasts photinians or the like who are against an external call at any time alledging that gifts are sufficient And sayes he how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessity Answ He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist and then he will imbrace the consequent also without our admission In the 8 place he comes to tell us that It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened c. for our question is not of that but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned we have warrand to look for any extraordinary persosones having Gods secret and special Mandates to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in Answ Prophecyes and predictions of future events are not works which any ordinary calling men have by allowance and approbation of Men according to the rules of common reason and the word doth interest them in and doth he think God's