be supposed that by their Commission they were limited to judge only those enemies who were in Arms with the King and his partakers Those Parliament-men whom they have excluded have notoriously discovered themselves to be men of this engagement But was ever any accusation more unjust or senseless Did not they in the Treaty hold the King so hard to it as to justifie them and the Army in the war to the vertual condemning of himself and his And to grant all for which they ingaged against him and his party And can they for this be traduc'd as apparently friends and abettors of that party But he comes on with a third answer Page 4 5. That if the Parliaments call were warrantable to levy Forces against the King and his party then was the Armies call to act in the businesse under Debatâ— warrantable likewise But this consequence is very weak for the Parliament is the supreme Court and Councel in the Kingdom and in your apprehension I beleeve the supreme authority who were indeed called to that Trust by the people but being by their call made members of Parliament they became clothed with authority to consult and provide mâ—ans for the safety of themselves and the Nation according to the Laws and Constitutions of it And so issued out Commissions c. but this as private men they could not do But now the Army was not by any Commission clothed with any authority over the Parliament And therefore they cannot justifie their actings against the Parliament over whom they had no authority by what the Parliament did having so great authority yea in the conceit of our new Lords the greatest authority in the Land But he argues further Page 5 6. That if the Parliament-men by being made Parliament-men had formally and really power to raise an Army then that Army hath power to act whatsoever lies within the verge of their Commission c. This is not doubted But the thing which we doubt and deny is That the tenor of their Commission should be by strong hand to suppress all that by rationall grounds they should judg enemies of the peace of the Kingdom without dependance on Parliamentary judgment for they were as raised so to be regulated by the Parliament in their proceedings The power of judging being reserved in the Parliament The power of executing committed to the Army especially in case of doubt or difference Never would never did any State raise an Army on other terms unles they meant to make them Lords not Servants For who is likely to be more skilful in judging what is conducible to peace and publick weal A Councel of War or a Councel of State Therefore its clear that the Army in assuming power to judg their raisers authoritatively and so using force against them have exceeded the bounds of their Commission falsifyed trust and are injurious usurpers on the Parliament men Sect. 5. But he raiseth an Objection That it is not likely that the Parliament would give Commission to act against themselves He answers pag. 6. 1 That Law-givers when in their righe mindes may give out Laws against mad men which may be put in execution against themselves when they become mad And in case any of the Parliament men from whom the Commission issued had turned Cavaliers c. But this is a wilde answer for the excluded Parliament-men are in the same way and in the same principles in which they first gave out Commissions that is to have the King home separated from his evil Counsellors that his Throne might be establish'd in righteousness Therefore to argue That because their Commission might have been used against them if they had left the Body that gave it and united with the Kings party that Now it may be so used when they continue in Parliament and act on the same principles on which they issued out the Commissions is as poor a come off as could be expected from the weakest Sophister Nor hath his 2 Answer any more strength where he affirms That what one * Traiane Emperor spake expresly to an inferior Officer is said implicitly to al inferior Officers by their superiors to use the power they have for them if they rule well against them if they rule ill pag. 6.7 for they are also for the punishment of evil-doers and that without partiality And S. Peter requires submission not only to the King as supreme but unto governors sent by him for the punishment of evil doers But first if there were nothing peculiar in that saying of Trajane why is it so often mentioned of him as a note of eminency and honor Again though inferior officers should use their power and be respected in the use of it yet they must also remember their limits A Justice of Peace hath power but it is with limits in regard of place which if he exceed though his act be never so just he usurps and is punishable And so is he limited also in regard of persons Subordinate Magistrates are to govern to be obeyed by those under them but they are to be governed by the powers above them and not exercise authority over them for their Commission extends not so far Though we are to be subject to subordinate Magistrates yet in case of opinion of wrong we may appeal from them as Paul to Caesar which shews the supreme Magistrate is to censure their Sentences not they his You might have spared that Scripture which here you too lightly bring in that in this Armies Commission there cannot be pretence for that exception which is in that of Christ 1 Cor. 15.27 But when he saith all things are put under him it is manifest that he is exempted that did put all things under him God the Father being incapable of sin For though the superiour magistrate is not exempt from sin yet is he excepted out of the Commission of the inferiour Magistrate because his superiour in Magistracie and Par in Parem much lesse inferior in superiorem in codem genere non habet potestatem equall hath no authority over his equall much lesse the inferiour over the superiour in the same kind especially where the supreme Magistrate thinkes he doth well for whose judgement shall controll shall the inferiours controll the superiour Neither doth Mr. Prinne or any judicious Divine that I know affirm that any other inferiour Magistrates but the representatives of a Kingdom shall take order with the restraining of Tyrants or if any inferiour Magistrate may do it yet they and the representatives are to proceed by taking order with their ministers which are under the penalties of the law and within the verge of authority And there is no usurpation in this when penalties are inflicted on them that are under jurisdiction But he adds If the Army had not so for mall a call as the Parliament yet had they a call as materiall for the one had it from the persons of the people and the other
Right The PREFACE THe foulest actions alwayes borrow fair pretences If the Devill did not transforme himself into an Angel of light who would be seduced by him Hence those that would overthrow all or usurpe authority themselves have alwayes pretended though seldom or never promoted publike weal or liberty and dub'd those Magistrates Tyrants whom they meant to oppresse to still their own consciences if they be not arrived at past feeling and to blear the eyes of those who bear an awfull respect to that ordinance of God Authority And never were there any pretenders so far out of reason but they had some Lawyers to justifie their proceedings in foro humane and some Divines to plead their warrant from holy writ For amongst multitudes either through want of wit or honesty there have alwayes been found abettours to a prevailing faction Of all the exorbitances that ever were committed against men in authority I know to paralell all circumstances considered to that late one of the Army towards the Members of the House of Commons violently secluded or forcibly restrained by the intrusted power of a few from discharging their trust committed to them by severall whole Shires and Burroughes And yet behold a Divine of note with much confidence pleading their cause to be so equitable as though it were not to be stumbled at by any not profoundly ignorant either of the evill of oppression or the unquestionable means of shaking it off But confidence in a dubious case doth argue either great shallownesse or deep prejudice arising either from doteing affection or unworthy interest What hath dazeled the eyes of this Champion of the Army I know not But in reading I have observed it him what I have often in other controversies in others That men of strong reason in maintaining erours have showed themselves so irrationall that a man would wonder that they that are so acute where they preach or defend truth should discover such weaknesse in the patronage of errour But he that gives the gift may well blast it when he sees it turn'd against himself Now that we may not accuse only as he hath done the Parliament Members but make good the errour objected let us take into consideration what he hath said to the controversie in hand CHAP. I. ANd here first of all the question must be rightly stated or else there can be no accurate reasoning but we shall ever and anon fall into the fallacy ex ignoratione E'lugchi Now the case I conceive may be thus impartially stated This Kingdom having bin long imbroyied in an unnaturall consuming war through a misunderstanding between the King Parliament The King at last fell into the Parliaments power all his strength being broken by them While the King is in this condition after many other overtures uselesse and experience of the discontent of the Nation both for want of settlement and the sad condition of their King There is set on foot a personall Treaty with the King In which the Parliament demand of him concession and confirmation of such priviledges as from the beginning they thought conducible to render this people free and happy and were the summe of all that had been formerly demanded in any of their other treaties or proposals or had been held forth in their Declarations as the scope of their undertakings To this Treaty the far Major part of the House of Commons agreed that willingly yea so far were they from being forct to it as it pretended by petitions that neither the impetuousness of petitions from people nor fear of souldiers pistols could make them relinquish it for they were satisfied in their consciences that it was the fairest justest most probable way to promote and settle the peace weal of a distressed Kingdom so this Treaty is prosecuted till its very neer an happy conclusion The Army raised by and deriving their millitary power from the Houses dislike this Treaty suppose it would indanger them a godly party in the land so they stile their adherents This their judgment they remostrate to the house of Commons The house not convinc'd by their reasons nor dismayd at their power laid aside their Remonstrance hold on the Treaty vote the Kings concessions to contain matter for a well grounded peace hereupon the Army beset the passages to the House of Commons take above forty of the Members of Parliament into safe custody and violently keep or fright a major part out of the House debarring them liberty of sitting and voting there This action of the Army Mr. John Goodwin undertakes to defend under the title of garbling the Parliament And I yet beleeve pag. 2. that it was a most irregular and scandalous usurpation destructive to Parliaments and so to the welbeing of this Kingdom if not to the present ruine of it unlesse it be retracted by the actors And this I here undertake to make good against Mr. John Goodwin by making good those arguments which he would overthrow and enlarging them as occasion is offered Sect. 2. The first argument which he incleavours to answer is pag. 3. From the Armies acting without sufficient authority and so transgressing that law which commands every man to keep order and within the compasse of his calling And this he stiles the first born of our strength And you shall see that it is indeed like Moses a goodly child if you view him in his right and full proportion in mood and figure thus All exercise of jurisdiction where neither by God or man we are clothed with authority is usurpation breach of order injurious and so greatly sinfull The Army in inhibiting the Members entrance into their House of Councell and more grossly in imprisoning their persons did exercise jurisdiction where they were clothed with noe authority from God or man Therefore The Army in that force upon the Houses stand guilty of usurpation breach of order and injurie to the Members so used and so sinned greatly The Major is undeniable if men will grant there are such things as usurpation disorderly walking and injury or that those are sinfull where ever they be For what is usurpation if this be not for men to exercise jurisdiction over them who are not under their authority nay to whose authority they are subject What is breach of ranke and order if this be not for men that are under authority to usurpe authority without a call And what is injury if this be not to be haled to prison by those that are neither authoritative judges of my fact nor have any superiority over my person and that only for acting according to the dictates of my conscience And are not such abuses grosly sinfull that doe as it were make void the fifth Commandment and destroy Government And for the Minor first its clear that the Army did exercise jurisdiction over the Members for suspension from office and commitment are high acts of jurisdiction And if the Army were clothed with any authority
doubt not but it will waigh downe the danger of commodation on such concessions for that the Prince of Wales should come in and submit himselfe to the deposers or destroyers of his Father is not imaginabl What cause and minde to revenge he will have any man that hath a Father to whoâ— he is not onely linkt in nature but associated in cause may easily apprehend And his opportunities are as Evident What potent Prince will not seeke his affinity having a just and cleare title to such three Kingdomes And what a partly is he like to have at home The whole Peerage of England distast rigour against the person of the King and I thinke three parts of foure in the House of Commons are in their minde The Generality of the people of the Land detest it The Ministry that have not beene thought altogether inconsiderable stand amazed at it as most dishonourable to Religion nor are the affections of Scotland dubious in this point nor is all faire weather in Ireland The party that had enough to doe to grapple with the King when United is now divided Peace in Germany will afford plenty of Mercenaries What greater probability was there ever for any Prince either to attempt or atcheive revenge And by the same meanes be in condition to make his owne tearmes with his people And if he should faile in his attempts at first yet how endlessely they will be renewed till the Kingdome be setled on his right basis is as cleare as the Sun in our experience After the deposition of Richard the second and setting up Henry the fourth of the younger House There was no settlement betweene the House of Yorke and Lancaster for above fourscore yeares but ever and anon bloody Wars to the inestimable damage of this poore Kingdome neither was there any hope of setled Peace till their titles were United by the marriage of Henry the seventh of the House of Lancaster with the Heyresse of the House of Yorke And thus I hope I have cleared it that the Army was not oney destitute of any warrantable call but also of all just occasions so to oppresse the Members of Parliament for proceeding to settle the Kingdome by treaty for its evident they therein acted wisely soberly faithfully and suteable to their former professions and sacred ingagements CHAP. 2. Sect. 1. Now Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a second objection from the Armies resisting lawfull authority or the powers set over them and therein the Ordinance of God View the argument in its full proportion and I doubt not but it will be sound Herculean THey that resist lawfull powers who they acknowledge lawfully set overthem and to whom these should be subject for conscience sake They defile themselves and incur damnation The Army in their late forcible act on the Houses did resist lawfull authority lawfully set over them to whom they oâ—ght to be subject for conscience sake Therefore the Army by that act did defile themselves and make themselves ly able to damnation The Major is the Apostles Rom. 13.1.2.34 and now let us see how Mr. Goodwin quits him from the Minor He answers That to resist authoritie imports two things A deniall of obedience to the just command of authority pag. 11. But this is not all there is resistance in opposing authority in legall commands whether just or unjust if they be legall they be obligatory to the subject either in regard of doing or patient suffering or else the advice were of little use to those that lived in heathnish Common-wealths and under Emperours none of the best but many times the worst of men But saith he The House had given out no such Commandment that none of their Members should be seazed though Voting never so palpably against their trust But though they have not Voted things in such au absurd way yet have they declared upon occasion of the Kings demand of five of their Members pag. 11 that the arresting of any Member whatsoever without a legall proceeding against them and without the consent of the House whereof such person is a Member is a breach of priviledge of Parliament and the person that shall arrest any such Member of Parliament is declared a publique enemy of the Common-wealth Die Lunae Janu. 17. 1641. And this I hope Mr. Goodwin and the Officers of the Army did not then thinke unreasonable and so into what condition the Army have put themselves by that Declaration is evident But Mr. Goodwin would have no act binding p. 11 unlesse the justice of it may be sufficiently cleared It this must be in the judgement of their opposites which it must be or else it will not serve his turne sure it is a tenent that destroyes all Government Sect. 3. But Secondly He saith resisting imports an ingagement to take away authority but that they did not they declare their approbation and resolution to maintaine authority Parliamentary c. But what more ridiculous or hypocriticall apology can be made then to say they will maintaine authority when it is onely so much and so farre as it will be ruled by and sute their conceipts which is indeed to subdue not to maintaine authority as they pretend But he objects against himselfe p. 12. That if the Army did not in either of his senses resist Authoritie yet they did what was worse offer violence to persons in Authoritie c. He answers It s lawfull by violence to wrest a Sword out of a mad mans hand c. An easie and readie way to de-throne all Authoritie if saying they be mad will serve the turne when they are neither in drinke passion nor under any other symptome of such unnaturall distemper Besides I have proved that the madnesse that is lyes at the doores of their opposites and sure else they would never runne on so confidently as they doe in irregular wayes and yet pretend to so much conscience Sect. 2. He answers p. 13. secondly That the King had as legall an investiture into the power of the Militia of sitting in Parliament c. as also men had in their Parliamentarie trust yet did the Parliament upon a discoverie c. deprive him of this power First what power the King had in the Militia by Law is not within my element to determine But if that Principle layd down by him be true for ought I know it s likelier to draw the Parliament into a communitie in erring then exempt the Army Beside The King did at first leave the Parliament and their chiefe overture of Warre was to bring him to not keep him out of Parliament And that he hath not beene re-admitted e'r now I think he may chiefly thank some of your Party Sect. 4. He answers thirdly As a Client may cast off an Advocate whom he suspects or a Pupill his Guardian c. But first Can a Pupill cast off his Guardian till he be fourteene yeares of age when he is inabled thereto by Law
that the Army are in then by that way of accommodation that the Parliament men were in and therefore it is but their fancy that the liberties of the nation are in danger nay that particular mischeif is not eligible before this inconvenience of giving the inferiours liberty upon their own private conceits to resist and disturb the supreame Indicature of a Common-Wealth Sect. 3. But he adds thirdly p. 31. If there had been no clause in the oathes for the liberties of the Subjoct yet had the Army more then warrant sufficient to stand up for them with out any breach of Covenant for men stand bound by the Law of nature against all other obligation whatsoever Now there is no Law of nature that speaks more plainely then this that the strong ought to stand by the weake in cases of extremity Formerly you made exceptions in the cases of extremity that a man may not lye forsweare himselfe c. Now all bonds must give way to the Law of necessity nor only word bur oath oportet esse memorem Againe I would know of him if the Sheriffe differ in judgement from the Iudge when a case is argued pag. 21. and the Sheriffe thinks might overcomes right and that if the Iudge proceed he undoes or destroyes a poore man and his family Is the Sheriffe having power bound to pluck the Iudge off the Bench or keep him from the Bench rather then suffer him to passe in his conceit an unjust sentence tending to extremity For what hee adds touching the intention of the Covenant makers and Covenant takers I referre me to his conscience whether though they did not intend the Covenant to binde to things against the Law of nature yet that they intended that they themselves should be ultimate judges what was for the publique weale of the Kingdom and so not against the Law of nature what not and you know the old rule quacunque arte verborum quis jurat c. whatsoever art of words are used in the oath the oath is to be interpreted according to his sense that gives it not his that takes it But next he tels us that this act of the Army in the dissociation of the Parliament doth not give the least colour or shadows to the act of the Kings breaking into their House and demanding which and how many of their Members he pleased to be sacraficed upon the sorâ—â—ice of his will But I answer 1. The act of the King is falsely and uncharitably that I say not maliciously represented by him for the King did not break into the House of Commons as he mouthes it but had admission there which of right he may claime in either House of Parliament upon occasion nor did he demand the Members to be sacrificed to his owne will his words were fayrer to have them legally tryed touching some things which he had to lay to their charge what was in his heart you know not Now compare the act of the Army to this of the King and see whether there be not only some colour but according to our English Proverbe whether they have not made the King a Saint 1. The King demanded but five of the Commons Members they imprisoned above forty and secluded as they say above an hundred Secondly the King took none out nor can any man tell what he would have done had they been there reason might have qualified him They did not onely violently inhibit many but as I am informed by Master Stevens himselfe he and Collonell Birch were puld out of the House Thirdly the King was the supream Magistrate they clothed with no authority Fourthly the King pretended a legall tryall they have no legall objection against them Fifthly The King confesseth Parliaments should be free Collect. â— Declar. p. 37. and one of his objections against the five members of Parliament was that by tumults they hindered the freedome of Parliament and you affirme tumultuous ingagements have as much hindered freedom of Parliament this two years Article â— as the forcible act of the Army Sixthly the King was easily reduc'd from his errour and relinquisht it and assured them of tendernesse of priviledge for future you avow the Armies act and they persist in their soree Now who is the greater transgressour thus far Neither did the King as you say look upon the accused Members as the greatest Patrons of the Kingdoms interest but under the notion of such as fought to alter the well tempered government of it as he erred in his apprehensions so doe you now in your conceits of the Parliament men restrayned Nor was the pretence of the King ' to advance the wil and power of one against the peace and comfort of many but to preserve the government as it stood free from alteration which was in the judgement of any uninteressed farre more for the benefit of this Nation then the new modell of your fancy wittily by Sedgewick termed All breech which if it take will make us a base and in all likelihood ere long a broken Kingdom But if the King under faire pretences did intend as you hint tyranny may it not as well be objected to you that you intend Oligarchy It 's therefore cleer as the light thaâ— as the King did ill the Army did worse and the Declaration of that House against the Kings act doth militate as strongly against the act of the Army which declares the arresting of any Member of Parliament without a legall proceeding and consent of that House whereof he is a Member a breach of previledge Câ—ll of Remonst Decla c. pag. 39. and the preson that shall arrest any such Member is declared an enemye of State CHAP. IV. Sect. 1. Master Goodwin proceeds to a fourth Objection To prove the Armies Act unjustifiable because against the Law of the Land which should rightly be framed thus WHosoever being under law and sworn to maintaine the Law or legall Priviledges of others doe against Law or legall Priviledge imprison the Persons of others are guilty of an act of impious transgression The Army being under Law and sworn to maintaine the legall Priviledges of others yet against Law and legall Priviledges have imprison'd the Persons of others Therefore by that act of theirs they have made themselves guilty of impious transgression That imprisonment of the Members is against Law and legall priviledge is clear for the Law is That no free man shall be imprisoned without due processe in Law And the greater the person the greater is the presumption in the oppression of them Master Goodw. To this First Sums up his Answers alread given to this Objection which have had their Answers in their places He addes Pag. 33. That we may charitably suppose that there is no Law prohibiting any sort of men from being benefactors to the Publike especially from preserving the Publike Liberties when they stand in extremâ tegulâ Ans How false this supposition is in the Armies case to
for this let them produce their patents that we may beleeve them or else the conclusion is in force against them to convict them of usurpation breach of order and injury Sect. 3. But now what saith Mr. Goodwin to this pag. 3. As our Saviour saith The Sabath was not made for man but man for the Sabath So certain it is that callings were made for man and not man for callings Therefore as the law of the Sabath was to give way to the necessities of men so the law of callings c. therefore unles it can be proved that there was no necessity lying on the Army to garble the Parliament Their exceeding their callings will not illegitemate their actions Answ 1. That saying of our Saviour that the Sabath was not made for man c. was not utter'd by him to show that the action of the Desciples in plucking and eating the ears of corne was warranted by necessity against the command of the Sabath but that it was not within the prohibition of workes on the Sabath which ordinarily is restrained to works of a civill or servile nature not to naturall refreshment which is alwayes indulged on the Sabath and so that work of mercy is not under the prohibition for the plucking of the eares of corn when they were n the field was no more then drawing drink out of a vessel and of this opinion is learned Chemnitius Hoc Christus it a defendit ut simul ostendat extra casum contempus publici ministerii et turbationis cultus sabati propter otium externum Sabati hominem ne levi quidē incommodo assiciendum By this Christ doth so defend his Desciples as withall he shews that out of the case of contempt of the publike ministery and disturbance of the worships of the Sabath for the externall rest of the Sabath a man is not to undergo the least dammage So that in his judgement though the other arguments shew what is lawfull in case of necessity so à Majori clears the disciples yet this argument shews this was not in the prohibition of works on the Sabath 2. The rest of the Sabath and keeping within our callings are duties we owe to God by vertue of commands of a far different condition The one by a command positive as that of the Sabath the other by a law naturall as the fifth commandment that commands every one to observe their ranks and duties in them Now commandments that are positive are to give way to duties naturall Sacrifice to mercy The rest of the Sabath not to the life only but to the cheerfulnesse and welbeing of man as the instance of the disciples who were not in danger of death if they had fasted a little longer but of inconvenience But I hope Mr. Goodwin will not judge that danger of inconveniency should make every man or party of power turn controulers of magistracy Not onely Vzziah that wantonly 2 Chron. 26. but Saul who out of fear of inconveniencie 1 Sam. 13.11 12 13 14 yea and Vzzah who as he thought was a case of necessity put his hand without the call to the work of a Priest aswell as the former reproved and smitten 1 Chron. 13.9.20 And if there be any case wherein necessity amounts to a calling it must be where that necessity ingageth to a duty that ought to take place before this Commandment for order amongst men as that for saving life c. And then the danger must be apparent not probable onely to some and disputable for else he shall run against an undoubted rule upon an uncertain exception 2. It must be imminent so that no other means is left or possible in an ordinary way 3. And illegall as when any whether Magistrate or other is about to act mischief to the persons of others without or against law But if a mans life be in danger in a legal way though unjustly A man may not himself nor ought others to resist authority armed with law for that were to take away all honor and opportunity of Martyrdom The servant who hath a froward unjust Master is according to Christ's example to be patient though he suffer unjustly committing his cause to him that judgeth righteously (a) 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20 21 22 2. though many times the servant hath strength enough to bind his exorbitant Master And such should be the carriage of private Christians to hard magistrates executing hard laws But now that there was no danger evident imminent and against the laws of the Nation to urge the Army so to force the Parliament shal be afterwards cleared Sect. 4. But secondly Mr. Goodwin hath found out a new fancy if the former fail him but that is such a feeble one that I question whether he be serious in it for he takes the boldnesse to affirm that the Army did not exceed the bounds of their calling in their force upon the Parliament men and he would seeme to prove it pag. 3. for saith he their calling and commission was to act in the capacity of souldiers for the peace liberty and safety of the Kingdom c. But here first I must minde him that the Army themselves have mand his market for they who know better the purport of their own commission then he and whom he flatteringly tells in his Epistle dedicatory that he doubts not but they were satisfied in the righteousnesse of their actions from heaven before they were in being roundly confesse in their answer to the demands of the remnant of the House touching their Members Jan. 3. 1648. That their restrayning the Members was a course in it self Irregular and UNIUSTIFIABLE but by honest intentions and extraordinany necessity whereby they plainly disclaim any call by the tenour of their Commission But least any in such times as these when men many times are imprisoned first and shew of just occasion is gladly laid hold on afterwards This false plea might be made use of though it were not at first thought of I will examine what he saith he inlargeth himself nor did their Commission I presume limit or conclude their judgments to any kind of enemies c. But I presume their Commission was to bear armes to remove evill Councellers from the King and bring him back to his Parliament and to endeavour the subduing of all them that were in armes against the Parliament or the welfare of the Kingdom and as I am informed they were still to be regulated in their proceedings by the Judgement of both Houses of Parliament which any man may easily beleeve for that the Parliament should give them a Commission inabling them to judge of their Councells and imprison their persons if they answered not their new illuminated fancies for they must be judges what grounds are competent to make men enemies is so far from policy reason or common sence that I wonder any man of judgement should aver it in print But saith he again Page 4. If it shall
perjured but by this necessitie the oath was not binding so breach of the oath was not perjurie For so the Papists say in making it excuse theft in case of necessitie taking what is anothers ceaseth to be theft and yet this Mr. to Goowin I suppose likes not for he saith We may not lye in case of necessitie and not to steale is a command of the same stampe It being therefore clear that the act of the Army was both against their Word and Oath and Mr. Goodwin confesseth that necessity dispenseth not with an Oath or a Ly. I need adde nothing to what he saith concerning humane Lawes Though I must tell him that many humane Lawes are but the backing of Divine Lawes with civill sanction and penalties because carnall men are senseles of sin against God and fearlesse of his threatnings and such lawes are as indispensable as the Laws of God themselves being but the Laws of God put out in a Politicall dresse And such is the Law of man for private men to be subject to the Lawes and Votes of those that are clothed with authority over them thus far as not to resist them or rise up in rebellion against them for this is required by a Law that Commands things morally intrinsecally good and forbids the contrary Honour thy Father and thy Mother and so much for that Objection also But he proceedes to another Objection That at least many of the Parliament men disturbed in their way were religious and conscientious men and voted and acted what they did conscienciously judging the course they steered safest c. And is it not contrary to Reason and Religion That such men upon so faire an account should be used so fowlly But I would rather frame the Objection thus when wise and conscientious men cloathed with authority do act conscientiously and according to their best skill determine a way for publique weale No private persons can have place left for the plea of such a necessity as may authorise them against the rules of order to resist them For that necessity that dispenseth with Lawes must not be probable only and disputable among men of equall parts and integrity But apparant and imminent which the conscientiousnesse of the Members opprest proclames to be otherwayes in the case in hand But now what saith he 1 After an oblique reflection upon their Religion in a parenthesis hee answers though they be religious yet they be men and so have not that Divine prerogative James 1.13 to be untemptable to evill and then addes an uncharitable and to men in authority an arrogant insinuation They that are capable of receiving of gifts or of any inordinacy in their desires after earthly accommodations how wise soever are jubject to have their eyes blinded But doth hee not see how this may be retorted are the army above temptations Above ordinances some may be and that is to be overcome of temptations but above temptations he will not say they are I suppose And do not the Army and their party receive gifts and accommodations who equall to them in this Kingdome many of them from so meane and defective a condition riseu to such a shining condition Besides though the Parliament men be not untemptible their determinations are uncontrouleable by inferiours as subject to temptations and possessing more advantages by distractions then they were like to get at least most of them to themselves in particular by accommodations Secondly saith he when men are religious onely to a mediocrity and withall servile in their judgements to some principles with great confidences obtruded on their consciences for sacred truthes and yet full of enmity to a thorough dependance on God they may become twofold more the children of feare and more capable of dismall impressions from the World By which obscure passage I confesse I know not what he glanceth at But me thinks he hath no great cause to upbrayd them with feare who did with that resolution reject the motion of such an Army and after a Vote so highly crosse to their designe passed through them so in armes to proceed in their discharge of their trust Let Mr. Goodwin please himselfe and his followers with his black insinuations but all uninteressed men will believe that action showes them above feares and that they had not lost but recovered that noble spirit that once moved in Nehemiah shall such a man as I flie I might also oppose to his old saw that feare is a bad counsellour another as authentique Prudens magis metuit quam sperat The prudent counsellour is apt rather to feare then confidence and Aristotle gives it as an effect of feare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feare makes deliberative Rhet. lib. 2. c. 6. But saith he secondly When Religious men sin against the common liberties of a Nation and make one purse with the thrice declared enemies of the Nation here then the law of nature and necessity cannot stand to make inquiry after such a difference c. But first how false this supposition is in reference to the oppressed Members I have formerly shewed proving the goodnesse of the way they were in And againe there cannot be more senseles boldnes then to call such an agreement so much to the advantage of one party and to the burthen of an other making one purse with them And lastly so long as the necessity is so obscure that so many wise and good men apprehend safety not danger There can be no necessity so apparant as to authorise inferiours to rise against their superiours to the violation of that Ordinance of God wherewith the superiours are clothed Hee addes fourthly That the corruption of the best men is worst with such other flourishes in themselves true to dazle the eyes of his unwary Reader wherein he still begs the question that these men were corrupted pag. 26 and waves the force of the argument which is that being the Parliament men were not only by their places more able to judge but by their conscientiousnes like to put forth their abilities to the best advantage The course that such approve cannot be thought so apparantly destructive as to give just cause to pretend such apparant necessity of danger as to break Lawes humane and Divine seen only by men that can pretend to no more of science or conscience then those whom they reject He addes fifthly For any hard measure objected to bee used against the Parliament men he answers Hee knowes not bow the Army could walke toward them with a softer foot How doth affection blind men could not they have used more softnes then leave so many of them in Hell all night without any accommodations for rest And what menaces have bin cast out against the lives of some of them separated from their brethren into a place of straiter custody of greater terrour but all sufferings are light with some that light not on them and theirs For close of this because he hath cast out some
oblique and some more direct glances at the Religion and integrity of the secluded Members I will make him this offer That if the secluded Members be not as free from raysing advantage during the late troubles and have not given as good satisfaction to the World both of their knowledge integrity and affection to Religion as so many chuse them where they can of the same trust that approve of their necessity let them carry the cause among men But if not their pretended necessity is not like to be the genuine issue of a faithfull brain and heart CHAP. 3. Sect. 1. Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a third Objection from the Covenant he might have added the Protestation made May the 5. 1641. which was taken more generally from which I present the argument thus formed EVery act contrary to any one or more solemne ingagements made to God is lawfull and impious the Act of the Army seizing the members of Parliament is contrary to one or more solemne ingagements made to God Therefore that act was unlawfull and impious The Minor is cleare for in the protestation May 1641. This is one clause to defend their power and priviledge of Parliament Now what more unquestionable priviledge of Parliament then this to have free a ccesse to the House and there to vote according to their consciences pag. 27. Mr. Goodwin answer That it is no priviledge of Parliament to act in opposition to the benefit of the Kingdome True but when the qustion is what is for the benefit of the Kingdome it is part of the power of Parliaments which is one thing which you have protested to maintaine to be the finall Judges else broyles and confusion must follow for they shall stand bound together with all of their Judgement to maintaine what they judge so conducible for the Kingdomes wealth and if their Judgements be not determining others may thinke themselves bound by force to oppose them and what can be expected from this but perpetuall broyles But he answers further to a supposed reply That this is a priviledge of Parliament for the Members to be free from question without the consent of the House True saith he when a Parliament is taken in a proper signification noting out a company of men not dead to trust But if these be dead to trust then they are not properly a Parliament As he is not a Jewe that is one outwardly c. But who shall Judge them dead to trust They are not to be Judged authoritatively by private persons none such can pronouce them dead neither have they in what they are accused given evidence to be dead to trust but faithfull as I have shewed Againe He that was onely a Jew outwardly was not to be denied the outward priviledge of a Jew by man Though in Gods account he was no Jew that is not holy to accepted of God therefore not onely is the insinuation against the Parliament men false but if it were true the Army hath no authority to pronounce them so so nor to deale with them as such Is not the Parliament the Supreame Iudicature against which lies no writ of errour or appeale but to God So it stands good that their act was against their Oath But secondly he saith That if such a number of men be a Parliament p. 28 though dead to trust c. he knowes no priviledge of Parliament due to them no more then a dread man hath the priviledges of a man and this he sets off with many flourishes wherein he keepes this old artifice to play upon a plausible string to please his party that agree with him in the supposition that those Parliament men are dead to trust whereas that supposition is apparantly false and scandalous But his flourishes are but Sophisticall neither for a dead thing hath no priviledge as it is dead but if it be dead in one selfe and alive in another it may have priviledge in one selfe 〈…〉 have none in another as the carnall seed of Abraham 〈…〉 â—ewes to men and so had their outward priviledges but not so reputed of God and so had no spirituall priviledges so a degenerate Parliament is dead indeed to God who is above it to judge it it hath no honour with nor shall have any reward from God But it is not dead to men so far as to resist it for they have no authority to judge it or resist it but it is only so far dead to private men that they are not to give life to the dead acts of it If the Army had said the Parliament is dead we will not uphold it in dead wayes the charge being true it had beene noble to have laid downe their Commission and not have supported them but to resist was out of their sphere Let me aske this man what he would have said of Saul when the spirit of the Lord departed from him and an evill spirit seized on him 1 Sam. 16.14 Was he dead to trust or no And yet you see David was as observant and tender of him as though he had beene good aswell as great These distinctions therefore be fig-leaves and truly I thinke such delusions that men otherwais quicksighted use to be left to for their want of integrity to truth Sect. 2. But Master Goodwin adds that though the Army had stood p 29. â—0 31 bound to the priviledges of Parliament yet they stood bound also to maintain the liberties of the Kingdom against all impediments whatsoever and what they are not able themselves to suppresse c. And the liberties of the Kingdom he endeavours to prove to be greater then of the Parliament and in opposition of lawes or priviledges he greater is to take place c. But first here is supposed a Bull that the liberties of a people and a Parliament of the same people may be inconsistent whereas it can be no true priviledge on the one side but pretended if they push oue another Secondly he must remember the limitation in the Covenant that every one is to act in the performance of it according to their callings that is not onely the Souldier as a Souldier the Minister as a Minister but the private man as a private man so that a private man is not to act in a juridicall way by vertue of his Covenant but according to Law or Commission from men in authority and therefore the Covenant bound not them in reference to the Kingdom to act juridically in committing the Parliament men Again though the liberties of the Kingdom be in some sence more then the liberties of the Parliament yet the priviledges of Parliament are first put and the bond of it takes hold there therefore by what is spoken afterwards the true priviledges of Parliament cannot be prejudic'd And indeed there is nothing wherein the priviledges of the Kingdom are more concerned then in the liberties of the Parliament And there is greater probability of the land being watered with blood by the way
once served their turnes to comply with the King against the minds of the Parliament and now to imprison Parliament men and to threaten the destruction of the King and who knowes what designe it may carry on next And is not this course a means to irritate an opposite party and who knowes where God may cast strength and then what a gallant plea is here for them Quâ—dlibet audendi adventuring upon any thing Sect. 4. Lastly he argues 37. that if that action of the Army is not disproveable by any likelihood of evill that it may bring upon this Kingdom hereafter no more then preservation of a man from imminent death is reproveable because by it he is occasionally exposed to dye another time There were something in this if there were any iminency of death over our Nation but this is denied upon better grounds then they can give to the contrary and that by those that are the legall judges of it which the Army was not You adde they who conceive the Army had better have sate still for feare of after disturbance plead as if a man shall counsell a friend dangerously sick not to use a Physician because if he do recover his recovery might prove an occasion of more sicknesse afterwards But this answer hath wit without reason for first it presupposeth that to bee sicknesse of the Common-wealth which indeed was good Physick for her recovery And secondly to make the similitude hit the Physick that is disswaded must be to have an influence by the hazardous cure of one malady to have procured more And truely I should not think him mad but wise that should disswade such Physick nor is the example of Hezekiah any better that he was to be thankefull for his recovery though hee were to dye fifteene yeares after For first it runs upon the former false supposition And secondly that which recovered Hezekiah was not the cause of his death afterwards But here it is objected against the medicine that hee saith revives that it will have an influence to kill afterwards Nay after a pretended cure that medicine which he saith revives is not like to preserve long not fifteene yeares nor fifteene moneths for where there is one in the Kingdom that accounts this act of the Army medicine it 's conceived there be an hundred that count it a cup of poyson and so to be broken And what a Paroxysme this is like to beget shortly in this poor Kingdom let the prudent Reader judge CHAP. VI. Sect. 1. Master Goodwin proceeds to a sixth Objection counted hee saith by some impregnable It is taken from Rom. 13.1.2 Let every soule be subject to the higher powers for the powers that be are ordained of God He therefore that resisteth the powers resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation And this I doubt not will yeild an Argument too hard for Master Goodwin to answer or else sure all Protestant Divines have been much mistaken It may be formed thus VVHosoever resisteth the higher powers resists the Ordinance of God and receive to himself damnation The Army in secluding and imprisoning Parliament men did resist the higher powers therefore thereby they did resist the Ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation For the minor Master Goodwin will not deny but the Parliament are higher powers to which the Army are to be subject This he saith he hath considered in the second objection yet because he would give surplusage in such urguments as pretend to Scripture he will take it in hand againe let us see whether he can acquit himselfe better then he did before And first he presents us with a distanction betweene the power and the abuse of the power the abuse of the power is not of God pag. 38. and so the resistance of that not forbidden nor damnable Now that the Army did only resist the abuse of the power he saith he hath proved in his book And I reply that it hath been as often disproved in my Answer Again this distinction between the powers and abuse of powers is to be taken with caution or else it may deceive Mr Burroughs his distinction in his Lord of Hoasts page 32. contains better divinity which is between the commands of abused anthority and the commands that are from the wills of men in authority That is abused authority when those to whom power of making lawes doth belong shall make evill lawes in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flight untill some way bee taken to rectifie the authority that is abused that is disannulling those evill lawes but when men that are in authority command any thing out of their wils c. So that in his judgement abuse of authority being legall is to be borne with patience not resisted by violence And indeed if we consider that these powers were in St. Pauls times Heathens and how bloudy their lawes were against Christians and how impious they were in many other things one might judge it had been sitter after Master Goodwins light to have taught them his new doctrine of resistance rather then to have prest subjection on them Magistracy is the Ordinance of God the lawes of the land the rule of it while it keepes within that sphere though the lawes be corrupt the Magistrate is no tyrant so he is a power ordained of God and we are to be subject in obeying or suffering but may not resist Sect. He adds pag. 35. it is manifest that they did not resist Parliamentary power because this power remaines quiet and indisturbed but is he in good earnest Is not Parliamentary power a power represence of the whole Nation Doth it remayn undisturbed when so great a part are secluded and so many thereupon think it unlawfull for them to handle the affaires of the Nation without the concurrence of their fellow Trustees that as they say ordinarily searce a sixth part of that number that ought to sit meet in the House Secondly he sayth that they have care to settle Parliamentary power on better tearms Yes by their new Modell What disturbers of present Governance were over found without that pretence but how few if ever any effected it He objects against himself That the Parliamentary pawer is under force now He answers That they are no more under force now then they were before the Army secluded the Members I answer Why is that which hee cals Parliamentary power free from force now but because they act after the Armies misguided fancy but should they crosse them in their Idoll Designe doth Mr Iohn Goodwin think they would be more exempt from * One Parliament man told me that as he was comming from the House the day after the seizing one of the Souldiers cryed roome roome another said knock him down so he never came there since Was not hee forced a way And are not many mâ—â—â— not of their principles kept away in like manner