divines and polititians which he mentioned in the preceeding page Do they think that all the limited and pactional princes are but cyphers or as painted men are men so are they but painted princes Sure none of the divines he named take such princes for no true princes 4. If in proper Monarchies there be such Covenants and compacts tacite or expresse which will gave a law claime unto the Subjects against the King and a Ius against him as a formal transgressour of his Covenant made with them and liberate them from subjection to him we could have enough for our businesse though it should be granted that there is no Covenant impowering others to be his judges Though it should be granted which some politicians Doubt of that in Kingdomes purchased by conquest the power haereditarily transmitted should be received from the parent and not from the people yet in kingdoms founded upon a lawful and free constitution the successour as we shewed above hath his power not from his predecessour but from the constitution or the people condescending upon the constitution But he thinks to obviate all this by what he sayes in the 5. place viz. That our Kingdome is not founded on any such Covenant but rather on a conquest of which he giveth five remarkable instances The first is That Fergus the first was not admitted upon conditions but the Subjects by their oath confirmed the Kingdome to him and his posterity and that the black book of pasley sayes Fergus made himself King Answ 1. What that black book of pasley which neither he nor I ever saw sayeth is not worth the inquiry to search Seing all other historians such as Iohn Fordon Iohn Major Boëthius Hollanshade beside Buchanan say that he was freely chosen by the People And the story tells us that he was then in Irland when the Scots sent for him how could he then make him self King 2. If he had been a conquerour he might have transmitted the Kingdom unto his sone without the consent of the People and yet we see this was not done yea we finde that the People would suffer none of his sones to enjoy the place after him because unfit for government but made choise of a third person and when his eldest son did afterward challenge the Kingdome as his owne he was made to understand himself better 3. It is true Buchanan mentioneth no oath of the King but that will not say that there was no compact betwixt Him and the People There might be conditions communed and condescended upon though the King was not put to sweare them But however that there was an implicite and tacite Covenant at least betwixt them Is cleare from the oath of the People confirming the Kingdome unto him for it sayes that all the right he had unto the Kingdome was from the People and that he could not be secured in it but by them and seing they gave him the Kingdome and did secure him in it Nature and Reason will say that it was upon good tearmes particularly that he and his should not tyrannize over them but should rule them aright and though there be no written contract concerning this extant yet their constant after-practice doth abundantly cleare it for though they confirmed the Kingdome by oath to him and his posterity yet their chooseing of Feritharis his brother passing by both his sones sayes that this condition was tacitely understood viz. provideing that they should be able for government and to discharge the place and accordingly they did then establish it in a standing law for time to come and after this manner and according to these tearmes did choose their Kings until Kennethus the third by force or fraud obtained a change So their taking course with such of their Kings as did tyrannize sayeth that this was an other condition of the compact viz. That they should not tyrannize but governe righteously Thus we see these after practices are cleare standing commentaryes sufficiently explaineing the nature and maine conditions of that compact His 2 instances is of Fergus the second the 40 King Who by his valour under the conduct of divine providence by the help of Danes and others with some small remainder of Scots recovered the Kingdome and was not beholden to the People for it nor had it by paction with them Answ Buchanan tells us that he was called home ad regnum avitum suscipiendum to take upon him the Kingdome which belonged to him according to the ancient constitution as being of the family of Fergus and then giving proof of his provvesse and ability for government and accordingly being then in Scandia or Norway took the offer and came home accompanyed with the banished Scots and some Danes and after he came home after the wonted custome more patrio he was created King by a Parliament for comitiis peractis the Parliament being ended he falleth about his work and at length freeth the Kingdome of its adversaryes Now how can he be accounted a conquerour obtaineing his right to the crowne by conquest who had it by a faire free and full call of the People who might have chosen any other of that race that had been remaineing and qualified for their purpose This is strange doctrine to say that every Prince who cometh to his Kingdome by the free consent of his People in a troublesome time because that through their help and concurrence he freeth the land of Enemies and restoreth peace to the inhabitants is a conquerour and hath no right to the Crowne but by his sword He will not say that every conquest will give a just title but a lawfull conquest now what right had Fergus to conquere these adversaries What title or claime could he lay to that crowne from whence he and his forebears were banished or constrained to flee if not by the ancient grant made by the People unto Fergus the first and to his race So then his right was not obtained by the sword but only the peaceable possession thereof and the practice of the people afterward when his son Constantinus came to reigne and turned vitious declared whether they looked upon this Fergus the second as a Conquerour and upon what tearmes he and his successours had the crowne for because of his vitiousnesse and refuseing to amend his manners when admonished by the Nobles they were almost at waging war against him and of revolting from him had not Dougall of Galloway disswaded them His 3 instance is Kenneth the first the 50 King He should have said Kenneth the 2 the 69 King for Kenneth the first died within a yeer after he was made King Who destroyed the picts and enlairged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs purchaseing more and better lands then he had before which he distributed to his Subjects he held not his purchased Kingdome of them by contract or paction Ans What right a Prince hath unto lands which he purchaseth by conquest or war is not the matter of our
same excesse of wickednesse and perjury deficiente hâc conditione sayeth Althus Pol. c. 38. n. 40. desinit â—bligatio fidem non servanti fidem ei quoque non servari aquum est Nam qui non facit quod debet nec recipit quod oportet nec pâ—tere potest quod ei ideo ab alio debetur quam naturam esse conventionum in quibus utraque pars contrahens obligatur testatur Tiraq de Legib. Connub. Gloss 1. part 13. n. 42. laâ—è Mascard Concl. 1387. per Alleg. Ibid. Rolland a Val. Consil 69. Vol. 4. Consil 53. Vol. 1. quando ergo una pars promissa non praes tat facit eo ipsout altera liberetur Dynus Alexander Jason in L. cum proponas C. de pactis 5. If when a Prince violateth the maine and principal conditions on which he was installed a People be siricto jure liberated from subjection unto him Then much more may they resist him when he by his emissaries oppresseth and unjustly violenteth them But we have cleared the former to be ture Therefore so is the later The consequence cannot be denyed for if stricto jure a people may disowne a prince then much more may they repell his unjust violence If law admit the more it will admit the lesse also The application of this is cleare from the former 6. If the Covenant or Compact which is betwixt Prince and People give law-clame to the People to pursue the Prince in case of failing in the maine and principal thing covenanted Then sure the People may resist unjust violence for they who pursue for a broken Compact according to their clame may farr more defend their clame when invaded by force contrare to the compact The application of this is also cleare 7. Since by this compact it is clear as Althusius tells us Pol. Cap. 19. n. 12. that the People or Kingdome are the full Lords proprietors of all the power and have free liberty to dispose of it the frute and emolument thereof redounding to themselves having full power no lese then any private person to manage dispose and dispense in their owne matters as they please Then when they finde the person to whom the Government is committed by compacts administrating the same to their hurt and destruction they may see to their owne good and not suffer themselves to be destroyed but resist him who instead of a mandatarius and servant turneth a Tyrant and Enemy 8. Since as the same Althusius sayeth Ibid. n. 13. by this compact it is apparent that the Ius the power or authority which is given to the Supream Magistrate is not his owne is lesse then the Ius of the People inferiour to theirs because it dependeth upon the free will prescription of the People endeth with the death of the prince who is Mandatarius as other contractus Mandati use to do and recurreth to its owne proper Master and Lord. Then it cannot be unlawful for the People the commander here to see to their owne saiftie and provide that their owne free gift destroy them not and so to resist the Prince abuseing that power to their destruction 9. If it be certane as it is to Althus Pol. c. 19. n. 47. that the Prince hath no more power given to him by the People then what is contained in the conditions upon which he undertaketh the government and what more he assumes he usurpeth by tyranny from the People Then when he usurpeth more power then was given to him he may be resisted and the People are allowed to preserve their owne and when he ruleth contrare to the conditions and destroyeth these it is certane He arrogateth to himself a power which was never given to him yea which was virtually prohibited and discharged to him and in that case may lawfully be resisted as is undenyable The antecedent Althusius proveth in the forecited place n 48. saying aequitas hujus rei naturalis demonstrari potest ex natura mandati quod dicitur contractus bonae fidei obligans eum qui alienorum negotiorum administrationem suscepit ne limites fines mandati excedat sed contineat se intraterminos praescriptos a mandante ut latius docent J. CC. quibus addendus Vasq Illustr Quaest L. 1. c. 47. n. 13. CAP. VII Of the Nature of the Kings Power over his Subjects Our Arguments hence FRom what hath been said in the two former chapters vve may saifly gather these conclusions concerning the nature of the povver of a Soveraigne over his Subjects vvhich vvill yeeld us so many arguments confirming the poynt in hand 1. The Soveraigne's povver over his Subjects is not properly a parental povver that is not such a povver as parents have over their children for 1. The Soveraigne's power over the Subjects ariseth from a voluntary compact and consent of the Subjects as was shewed but the Father's power requireth no such previous consent or compact 2. The Soveraigne's power may be restricted to so many degrees by the Subjects so cannot the Father's by the Children 3. The Subjects obedience and subjections to the Soveraigne may be conditional as we have proved and our adversaries will grante it in limited Princes but so cannot the subjection of Children be 4. Whethersoever Children goe they keep always the same relation to the same Parents but Subjects may change their Soveraignes by changing the places of their habitation 5. Children can in no case break that relation which is betwixt their Fathers and them but in many cases Royalists themselves will grant Subjects may shake off the King 6. Children cannot change their Fathers but Subjects may change their Soveraignes for Royalists wil grant that such as are under an Aristocracy may make choise of a Monarch 7 Children hold their natural being of their Parents but Soveraignes are designed only for the political or civil welbeing of the Subjects 8. Subjects may choose what Soveraignes they will whether Monarchical or Aristocratical and what persones in this or that forme Children can not choose what Parents they shall have 9. Subjects can condescend upon the time how long such an one shall be their Soveraigne ad vitam or culpam but Children can not set bounds unto their Parents power 10. Soveraignes have not begotten all their Subjects nor doth their relation or power flow form such an act but Paternal power doth 11. If the Soveraigne's power were paternal only then he should not have power of life and death because parents as such have not that power over their Children 12. The Surveyer himself granteth this Pag. 29. in these words Kings are not fathers of our flesh or by generation nor can they be truely called so political and parental power are different things So then the Soveraigne's power is paternal only in a metaphorical sence because They should have a Fatherly care and inspection over their Kingdomes and should nourish cherish love and governe them tenderly and carefully and as
and resolved not to returne to their owne houses ver 8. until these Children of Belial in Gibeah had been executed and evil was put away from Israel Cap. 13 v. 2. To say that this speaks not to our case is but to wrangle for sure if we should suppose that Benjamin had been maintaining their integrity and the true worshipe of God against the generality of the People who had turned idolaters and had raised war against them because they would not depart from their profession would he have condemned the minor part for standing to their defence in this case Or if they should have joyned together to have hindered the defection of the major part or removed the corruptious that were prevailing would he have condemned them Sure this is not improve Scripture a right but rather to elude it for there is not the least shaddow that the stresse of the matter is laid on this that they vvere the major part Finally he cometh to Achan's case Jos 7. and tells us That there is nothing in it to justify private persones rising against the Magistrates and plurality of the people to avert the judgments of God for what was done to Achan was done by the Supreame Magistrat Josua Answer But Naphtaly only maketh use of this place to shew that our reformers had great reason to feare and tremble lest the manifest toleration of proud cruel flattering Prelats and idolatrous Priests whose wickednesse and idolatry had corrupted the whole land might involve the whole Nation in destroying indignation since the wrath of God for the hidden and secret sin of one poor Achan suddenly and fearfully overtook the whole People and all the congregation of Israel so that that man perished not alone in his iniquity Now can any body deny this consequence But our Surveyer layeth downe againe his peremptory assertions without further proof and we have spoken to them already and need not repeat things so oft as he gives us occasion so to do otherwise we should follow this fool in his folly and weary the reader as he doth in repeating almost whole pages verbatim let any look and he shall finde the whole 61 page except some groundlesse jibes which do not help his cause nothing almost but repetitions We shall then goe on and draw forth our arguments from what is said to shew that the late act ought rather to be praised then condemned For 1. Thereby they were endeavouring according to their power and places as that exigent required when all doores were closed from essaying any other meane not only to defend themselves against manifest and intolerable injury and oppression but to save themselves their posterity and the whole land so far as lay in their power from the wrath and vengeance of God and the dreadful plagues and judgments that were and are to be expected for the dreadful and unparallelable apostasy and defection of a corrupt ministry Did God threaten that Zion should be plowed as a field and Ierusalem become as a heape That Iacob should be given to the curse and Israel to reproaches for the sinnes of a corrupt ministry and when our eyes did never see a more corrupt company who have partly apostatized from their sworne profession and partly are thrust in over flocks to the ruineing of their souls the corrupting of the truthes of God and to be a standing occasion of dreadful persecution unto them and when for this cause nothing could or can be looked for from the hands of a just and jealous God but wrath without remedy and judgment after judgment till we become as plowed fields and as heaps Can or ought these to be blamed who standing to their sworne profession were labouring in the integrity of their hearts to purge the land of these plagues and locusts that we might become a holy and pure Church unto the Lord and that the Lord might delight to dwell among us and for this end tooke their lives in their hands and essayed that now sole remedy seing there was no other meane left unto them whereby to attaine this noble End 2. When one Apostat city not taken course with according to the command of God would provoke God to anger against the whole assembly of God's People so that till it was destroyed he would not have mercy or compassion upon them was there not much more reason to feare that God's anger should burne against Scotland his covenanted People and that he should have no more mercy on us since there was such a dreadful defection in it whereof not only one city but many cities were in an eminent manner guilty having so foulely departed from their sworne truth and profession and openly and avowedly revolted from God and his wayes and since there was no other way imaginable to prevent this heavy indignation of God Shall any condemne these who our of Zeal to God's Glory and for the good of the poor land whereof they were members took their lives in their hands and did what lay in their power to have that corruption and apostasy removed and God restored to his honour and the land to it s Covenanted integrity 3. Since the backslideing and defection of a few members of a Society joyned together in a Covenant to God as his People brings vvrath upon the vvhole if timeous remedy be not used as the forecited places shevv Shall any condemne these vvho endeavoured according to their povver to prevent the destruction that vvas and is to be feared for the defection not of a fevv not of one poor Achan but of multitudes and that of all ranks and conditions 4. Did the people of Israel goe out as one man to prevent apostasy when they heard some rumore thereof in a part of their number and to take course with and purge the land of a crying evil that was committed in one of their cities who shall condemne these who lately went out with one heart and spirit to do what in them lay to remove the far-carryed-on defection and the dreadful evil of perjury and many other hainous crimes that did yet do abound whereof Many of all rankes were guilty even such as should have been by their publick places and stations eminently appearing on the head of these worthyes for the glory of God and the good of the whole Church and Kingdome 5. Seing the publick transgressions of Kings and Princes do hazard the whole Realme and Commonwealth as the instances formerly adduced do cleare How much reason have People of all rankes qualityes and conditions to be doing what lyeth in their power either to prevent and hinder that these iniquities be not committed which prove destructive unto the Land or labour by all meanes to have them done away when committed before the fierce anger of the Lord break forth And since it is not our and undenyable how our Kings and Nobles and other judges have revolted from a sworne Covenant Truth and Profession and openly and avowedly renunced the
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
all that can be drawne from the scope of the place to wit that when God hath so plainly declared by his providence that there is not so much as place left for praying that the thing where with we are threatned may be avoided but that we must suffer and that then it is our duety to seek to be strengthened with all might according to his glorious power c. That in this case to take the sword is unlawful this I say we willingly grant but if he would wrest the words further to make them say what he would have them he erreth not knowing the scriptures nor attending to their scope Yea it may be questioned if the Chiefe Priests Scribes and Elders who sent out that band of souldiers vvere lawful civil Magistrats at this time having power and authority from God to use such civil force and coaction and not rather usurpers But we need presse this no further having ground sufficient to maintaine what we assert even yeelding this unto the adversaries After that Naphtali had considered these passages of Scripture which were objected to the impaneled He proposed two other to be examined The first vvas Ioh. 18 36. If my Kingdome vvere of this vvorld then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the jevves Vnto which Naphtaly answered thus As the intent scope of our Lord's ansvver vvas to clear himself of that calumny objected against him by the Iewes that he made himself a King in opposition to Caesar So the meaning of it is plaine and obvious to vvit That our Lord's Kingdome is not of the Nature and for the Ends for vvhich other Kingdoms of this World vvere instituted but vvholly spiritual for declareing the Truth thereby gaining souls unto glory Whence as our Lord vvould there inferred that he came not to conquer to himself disciples by outvvard force and thereby to gaine follovvers to the spoiling of Caesar and other Princes So it is vvithout all shaddovv of connexion thence to conclude that a people having received the blessing of the gospel and Kingdome of Jesus Christ should vvithout resistance suffer themselves to the manifest dishonour of God and the hazard of the eternal damnation of themselves and their posterity to be impiously and sacrilegiously spoiled and deprived thereof vvhen they are in capacity to defend the same This the Surveyer accounteth Pag. 268. an extravagant exposition and why Is not sayes he Christ's plaine meaning to declare the nature of his Kingdome to be spiritual by this that none of his servants vvere engaged merely upon this account and under this formality that they vvere his Servants to fight violently for him This vvas security enough to Caesar all Magistrats for ever that none of his subjects should take up armes in his quarrel against them but should only do so vvhen Religion came to be a Lawright defensible under the Magistrats protection against all forreigners But there is not the least hint of his saying that he came not to conquere disciples to himself by outvvard force his intention being meerly to give assurance that violent resistence to our proper Magistrates even in his behalfe is unsuteable to his Kingdom Ansvv 1. Mr Hutcheson on the palce tels us that Christ's scope here is expresly to ansvvere to the accusation concerning his Kingdome and speaks so much of it negatively as might satisfy Pilate That it might vvell enough consist vvith the saifty of the Roman State Therefore he shevveth that his Kingdome was not a wordly Kingdome and for proof thereof he instanceth how far he was from aspireing to a Kingdome by force of armes in that he would not so much as permit his servants to fight in his defence as they offered to do vvhen the jewes came to take him This in my apprehension is not one and the same with the Surveyer's glosse and lesse discrepant from Naphtali's glosse then is his 2. What though it should be granted that none of Christ's servants vvere engaged meerly upon that account and under this formality to fight violently for him Will it hence follow that Christians in a Kingdome may not stand to the defence of the professed Religion received and sworne to by King and all rankes against manifest tyranny and oppression I see not the consequence seing they may do all this as civil Subjects good countrey men and loyal patriots and this is enough for us 3. Himself dar not deny but even Christians sujects of Christ may take up arms in his quarrel in some cases for he granteth it may be in this case vvhen religion cometh to be a Law right defensible under the Magistrates protection against forraigners But is there any ground for this exception alone in all Christ's answere 2. If there be no ground more for this then for others vvhy may not we put in our exception as well as our adversary putteth in his 3. If it become a Law right why may it not as well be defended by private subjects as other Law rights and civil libertyes are and may be even against Magistrates 4. Shall it not be defended even when it becometh a Law right against forreigners but under the protection of the Magistrates Then if Magistrates will not concurre private persons may not defend their Religion by force of armes against an army of Turks Papists or Heathens comeing to presse all to Mahometanisme Idolatry or Heathenisme What height of absurdity were here 5. Since Christian Magistrats are Servants to Christ as well as Christian subjects Why shall it be more lawful for them to engage in Christ's quarrel under this formality that they are his servants then for meer subjects seing Christ maketh no exception here of one or other nor distinction among his Servants and seeing this seemed to be as little security for Caesar as the other if the scope mentioned by the surveyer be the true scope 4. The particular mentioned by Naphtali is more suteable to the true scope then this vvhich the Surveyer mentioneth For the question vvas not touching resistence to our proper Magistrates in Christ's behalfe But whether Christ was a King or not to vvhich Christ answered That hovvbeit He vvas a King yet his Kingdome vvas consistent vvith Caesars Kingdome And as he come not to conquere Subjects to himself by outvvard force so he minded not to erect a temporal Kingdom by armes Naphtaly did adde further The truth whereof together with the hypocrisy of our adversaries may soon be discovered if the question be but stated in the tearms of one forraigne and independent prince's invading another meerly upon the account of the Christian faith and whatever solution or evasion they shall herein make will as exactly quadrate to the case in hand it being almost ridiculous to conceive that the greatest-aggravations of invasions of this kinde to wit that it is made by a prince upon his owne subjects whose profession he himself is principally bound to maintaine should import any speciality and
now we get for our vast expence of blood oppression and Ten years bondage that we must be declared a conquest and a subdued Nation 2. It is a manifest lye to say that his interest vvas expresly disowned by the publick judicatories of the land before Dumbar fight for that act of the West Kirk to vvhich I knovv he looketh vvas not an expresse disovvning of his interest as may be seen by the act it self which was as followeth Westkirk the 13 day of August 1650. The commission of the Generall Assembly considering that there may be just ground of stumbling from the King's Majesties refuseing to subscribe and emit the declaration offered unto him by the commmitee of Estates and commissioners of the General Assembly concerning his former carriage and resolution for the future in reference to the cause of God Enemies Friends thereof doth therefore declare that this Kirk and Kingdome do not owne nor espouse any Malignant party or quarrel or interest but that they fight meerly upon their former grounds and principles and in defence of the cause of God and of the Kingdome as they have done these twelue yeers past and therefore as they do disclame all the sinne and guilt of the King and of his house so they will not owne Him nor his interest otherwise then with a subordination to God and so far as he ownes and prosecutes the cause of God and disclaimes his and his father's opposition to the work of God and to the Covenant and likewise all the Enemies thereof and that they will with convenient speed take in consideration the papers lately sent unto them from Oliver Cromwel and vindicate themselves from all the falshoods contained therein especially in these things wherein the quarrel betwixt us that party is mis-stated as if we owned the late King's proceeding's and were resolved to prosecute and maintaine his present Majesties interest before and without acknowledgment of the sinnes of his house and former wayes and satisfaction to God's People in both Kingdomes Which when the committee of Estates had seen and considered they did approve the same and heartily concurred therein and what could this honest and most seasonable declaration import but only that if the King would not by a declaration acknowledge his sorrow for his his father's carrying on a course destructive of the work of God and his renunceing of the Malignant interest and all who would owne the same and his purpose to adhere unto the Covenants they would not espouse a Milignant quarrel but fight upon the same grounds and principles that they had done for twelue yeers before aud only owne him with a subordination to God and in so far as he did owne the cause of God and renunce Malignancy and Milignants and that they vvould take into consideration Oliver Cromwel's papers for their ovvne vindication and clearing of the true state of the quarrel Which vvas necessary before they did engage in fight And vvould this Malignant Gnatho have had the Land and the publick judicatories thereof contrare to their Covenants many Purposes Resolutions Vowes Engagements postponing Christ's interests unto man's and hazard Religion Libertyes all for one who would not declare himself a friend to Christ and his interest but would persist in a stated opposition to Christ and his cause 3. But let him make of this what he will sure his interest was owned when he upon second thoughts emited that declaration at Dumfermline upon his refusal of which this act made at the Westkirk passed and this was before Dumbar fight So was his interest sufficiently owned with the subordination requisite when he was crowned which was not very long after that stroke a Dumbar and after vvhich vve gote blowes enew and vvere redacted at length to bondage What sayes he next to this 2. What ever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation yet if these mens principles were to be followed they could have had no force on him to move him to labour our vindication into liberty for do not they teach that in the mutual contract and Covenant betwixt King and People the People are loosed from their duty if the King fail in his frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem and why then in not the King loosed if the people fail on their part It is known that although the Nobles and body of the people were well enough affected to the King and cordially loved him when they were over powered and could do nothing yet by their Representatives he was disowned which in law would be rekoned their owne deed and if a sworne people deserte and disclaime their King by their Representatives may not the King also have the benefite of the conditional Covenant and leave them as he found them in bondage to forraigners But such was his Majesties graciousness and wisdom as well as conscience of duty that although the Nation had failed much to him he would not walk after the counsel of these men And we may all things considered assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him then he doth owe his authority to them or by virtue of any Covenant with them Answ 1. By vvhat he hath been formerly saying and by the instances vvhich he hath brought vve see vvhat is the scope he driveth at viz. To have us novv a formal conquest that so the King may tyrannize over us and deal vvith us as he seeth good jure conquestus as being novv free from all bonds and obligations vvhich ever passed betvvixt Him and the People For the fift particular which he undertooke to cleare by these five instances was that the constitution of this Kingdome neither was not is founded on a Covenant betwixt King and People and yet we see the poor man so straitned that he knoweth not what to say He would saine loose the King from all Bonds and Covenants and former obligations and yet he dar not positively and clearly assert it but only sayes if the King would follow our principles he would account himself loosed from all but unlesse he assert it clearly and positively that the King is really loosed from all his former obligations he speakes nothing to he poynt but must grant that at least as to this King the constitution is founded upon a conditional Covenant and though we should yeeld all therest if he grant this to us we need desire no more for all our Ends. But 2. in good earnest let him tell us Whether the former engagements which were upon the King at his coronation be loosed or not If they be loosed and made null because of what these supposed Representatives did Then 1. we have a new ground of dissolving the sacred obligations of the Oaths and Covenants which the King made with God and with his People which was not thought upon till this needle-headed man did invent it The King himself at his returne gave no such ground 2. If he
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
of the Kingdome and this book vvas carefully laid up before the Lord sayeth he 1. for the sure preservation of it 2. to signify that even these civil lavves vvere the ordinance of God vvhich men vvere bound to obey not only for wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. ver 2 5. 3. To intimate that God vvould take care of these lavves to uphold and maintaine them and to punish these that should vilify and break them Cornel. à Lap. and Lyra say the same upon the matter Deodat tells us that it was the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome inspired by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting God's People equity toward a nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power But this Surv. sayeth that all this is but a guesse without ground But what are his reasons Had there sayes he been any such special fundamental lawes the Ten Tribes had a faire ground of pleading upon the same before their revolt but no such thing is heard of and it is as easy to deny it as it is to affirme that there was any such fundamental law Answ Whether the Ten Tribes did plead this in terminis or not is not it is true asserted or heard of but it is undenyable that they did plead it upon the matter when they required nothing but what was consonant unto the law Deut. 17. and because it was refused they thought themselves free to make choise of another King 2. What more force hath his denyall then ours we bring approved authors for what we say and he satisfyeth himself with his owne word and thinks that that is sufficient to confute all commentators even such as himself a little thereafter citeth and approveth in other things viz Deodat What sayes he more The People claimed no vote in such fundamental lawes and it was their interest to be consulted with in the matter Answ The People were so bent to have a King upon any tearmes that they consulted little their owne welfare and faifty But Samuel was more tender of them and they might have concredited that matter unto him being a Man of approven integrity and known to be one that sought their good and had no good will to set a King over them But sayes he had they thought of any such Covenants or lawes fundamental wherein liberty might be left them to resist their Kings or take order with them how easily could they have shewed the weaknesse of Samuel's disswasion and said if the King be evil we will resist him Answ This was done after the matter was past remedy and a King they vvould have and a King God would give them in his wrath 2. We finde chap. 14. that they did resist him when he was going to shed innocent blood whether according to these fundamental lavves or not is not much matter 6. Though all which he desireth here should be granted to him he would not gaine his poynt unlesse he should prove that this was a standing precedent to all nations in all time coming Which ere he do he must consider and confute what worthy and renowned D. Voetius hath said to the contrary in his book before cited disp de Iure Regio Hebraeorum § 1. What he sayeth Pag. 68. shall be considered in the next chapter and what he sayeth Pag. 69. 70. 71. is already answered for this windy man would seem to be voluminous by filling many pages with the same things repeated over and over againe that if he cannot say much for his hire he may seem to be at some paines to say many words and waste much paper And therefore we proceed to take notice of some other objections CAP. XVI Three Principall Objections Answered THere are three grand objections which the Surveyer here and there throw his pamphlet maketh use of and which seem to militate against some of our forementioned arguments as 1. That there were not in the case now under debate inferiour Magistrates a Parliament or the primores Regni or the Epiori and States of the Realme concurring in that defence and whatever may be said in the defence of a warre carryed on by these against the illegal violences and extreame oppressions of a prince will not warrand the insurrection of meer privat persons 2. That in the case now controvetted it was not the Body of the land or the whole Community that made this opposition to Magistrates Superiour and inferiour But only a small inconsiderable company in respect of the whole land and so though it should be lawful for the whole body of a land to joyne together to defend themselves against the tyranny and oppression of a Prince without the conduct and concurrence of inferiour Magistrates yet it will not hence follow That it is lawful for any part thereof to use such resistence 3. That the party which lately made opposition had no sufficient ground to take armes suppose it had been lawful in its owne nature there being no such provocking cause or occasion given by the Prince And though it should not be thought very necessary to insist on these now seing this last was spoken to in the clearing of the question and the first was touched also formerly cap. 2. And all our arguments conclude for a People without their primores or Parliaments and So do many both of our arguments and instances adduced speake clearly undenyably unto the case of a considerable part though not the whole of the community defending themselves against manifest and unjust violence yet that the matter in hand may be fully cleared we shall speak alittle further to these three objections here As to the first though the surveyer be in malâ fide to make use of it unlesse relinquishing all his brethren the Royalists he grant it lawful for people with a Parliament to resist which neither will he nor dar he do And therefore we shall speak to this objection rather for the satisfaction of others We desire these things may be considered 1. That as necessity did put people at first upon the constitution election of a Parliament to manage their affaires which they could not so conveniently do themselves without confusion discords and other inconveniences which would neccessarily attend a communities meeting together for carrying of these matters So it was the certane expectation of their profite and advantage that did prompt them unto the setling of this frame and constitution 2. Whatsoever power these Commissionated according to that frame and model condescended upon had or have is not in and from themselves but from the People no lesse then the Prince hath his power from the People as was shewed above For no man can imagine any difference as to the subordinate and instrumental rise of the power of the Prince and of the Ephors So that as his power is from the People under God so is the power which they have These publick Ministers of the Kingdome sayeth Althus Pol. c. 18. n. 3. are chosen by
84. Where all these are abundantly confirmed Now it is not our to all who consider either what they did or what was enacted by them and stands registrated to all generations how the late Convention which hardly can be accounted a lawful Parliament not only came short of their duty in these particulars but stired a direct contrary course as we shall shew in a few words For 1. So far were they from maintaining that compact and Covenant which was betwixt the King and the People That they declared these Covenants and engagements null declared the very Parliament and committees that called him home and crowned him null condemned the very transactions that were had with the King before he came home 2. So far were they from keeping the Prince within his bounds and limites That they screwed up his prerogatives to the highest peg imaginable and did investe him with such an absolute unlimited and infinite power that he might do what he pleased without controle 3. So far were they from hindering him from transgressing the lawes of God That they concurred with him to enact lawes diametrically opposite to the Law of God to condemne and overturne the work of God To set up an abjured prealcy and force conformity thereunto beside other acts which they made to hinder the course of justice 4. So far were they from hindering him from violating the wholesome well setled and established lawes of the land that they concurred with him to overturne these to the great losse and detriment of the Nation 5. So far were they from preserving the rights of the Kingdome That they made a voluntary and base surrender of these unto the pleasure and arbitrement of the Prince in annexing to the crowne The sole choise and appoyntment of the officers of State and privy Councellers and the nomination of the Lords of Session in dischargeing all meetings Councels conventions or assemblies of the People without the King's command or expresse license In giving away to him as his right the sole power of raiseing the Subjects in armes of commanding ordering disbanding and otherwise disposeing of them And of all strengths forts or garrisons within the Kingdome all which politicians will grant to be the proper native rights of the Kingdome 6. So far were they from hindering the execution of his unjust decrees and mandates that whatsoever he pleased to command was by them imbraced yea and fortified strengthened and corroborated and put into a standing law how dishonourable so ever it was to God how repugnant to equity and reason and how noxious soever it might prove to the Nation 7. So far were they from desending the Libertyes and Privileges of the People that they basely gave them away by denying them to have any power to defend themselves against manifest oppression or power to call Parliaments or other meetings for their advantage in cases of necessity by giving away to the King yeerly fourty Thousand pound Sterline to the impoverishing of the Nation and redacting it to slavery And by Tendering unto him all the lives and fortunes of the subjects to maintaine his interest and offering Twenty Thousand foot men and two Thousand horsemen sufficiently armed and furnished with fourty dayes provision to be in readinesse as they shall be called for by his Majesty to march to any part of his three dominions for any service wherein his Majesties honour authority or greatnesse might be concerned Which how ever it may be coloured with specious pretexts yet al circumstances considered was nothing but a real mancipation of the liberties of the People unto the will and pleasure of a Prince 8. And so far were they from calling the King to any account and from impedeing Tyranny that in effect they declared the King exempted from all such tryal or examination and that he might exerce what tyranny and oppression he pleased without controle For they gave unto him absolute and unlimited power over all persones and in all causes They declared him to have absolute power to call hold prorogue and dissolve Parliaments and Conventions and Meetings of the Estates And That no acts sentences or statutes to be past in any of these meetings can be binding or have the authority and force of lawes without his authority and approbation interponed at the very making thereof 2. It is notour to all who read their acts How they have enacted and concluded things most unlawful and unjust repugnant to the Law of God and right reason Condemning Solemne Covenants sworne by all rankes of People in the land in the most solemne manner introduceing abjured Prelates Establishing tyranny in the Church condemning and razeing to the fundation the Covenanted work of God enjoyning a conformity unto corrupt courses pressing perjury and Apostasy by forceing all in publick places and others to subscribe declarations and oathes contrary to their former sacred and inviolable Covenants and oathes made to God 3. By confirming ratifying and approveing these courses of Apostasy and defection and establishing these into lawes and binding and forceing the People unto obedience by their irrational and insupportable penalties annexed They have laid downe a constant course for tyranny and oppression of the People in Estates bodyes and consciences without all hope of remedy or redresse 4. As Parliaments with us are not constant and fixed courts but ambulatory and occasional so they have laid downe a course that we shall never have a Parliament that shall redresse the wrongs injuries oppressions and tyranny of Princes or heare the just grievances of the Subjects For when the Prince oppresseth the People and turneth a Nero and a Caligula there shall be no remedy because they have given him absolute power to call Parliaments and who can expect he will call a Parliament in that case or if he do call he hath absolute power to raise them and dismisse them when he will and is it probable that he will suffer them to sit when they are doing any thing against him Or if he should suffer them to sit what can they do None of their sentences or acts have power unlesse he will add his authority and will he ratify or approve any thing that is against himself and his tyrannous will Beside that they have denuded themselves of all power of suppressing tyranny by declareing his power so absolute and infinite as that no bounds can be set unto it no power can suppresse his tyranny or call him to an account 5. Not only have they laid downe a course that we shall have no Parliament to interpose for the relief of the People to suppresse Tyranny But also they have laid downe a course that there should be no Magistrats in shires or brughs that should help according to their power and place the oppressed and grieved Subject and concurre for their relief Because all such ere they be admitted to their places must conforme unto this abhominable course of defection and by subscribeing declarations Binding themselves by oaths
difference in the cases Unto this I finde no ansvvere in special returned by the Surveyer unlesse Pag. 267. he mean Naphtaly vvhen he sayes But the Apolog. very paradoxically will maintain Pag. 159. That there is more reason to resist our own Magistrates then forraigners because our owne being bound to maintaine our profession his invasion upon the same is aggravate and he is rather to be resisted by violence then others for I finde no such thing in that place of the Apolog. by him cited and that vvhich I just novv mentioned out of Naphtali is indeed in Pag. 159. and though he miscite the vvords and vvrest them after his vvonted manner yet the Reader may see it probable that he intendeth Naphtaly Hovvever let us see vvhat he ansvvereth Thinksâ—e sayes he That it were soundly said that if parents should make disorder in the house that the children and rest of the family should use violence rather against them when they miscarry or waste the goods of the family then against a thief or a robber breaking in into the house Answ To passe by the unsuteablenesse of this Reply unto Naphtali's answer as if Naphtaly had concluded that there was much more reason for resisting our owne Magistrats then Forraigners while as an equality would have satisfied him as his words clearly import We say this to his reply That when he hath demonstrated to us that Children and Servants have as great right unto the goods of the family and as great power and privilege in setting up their Parents the heads of the family and of calling them to account for their mismanagement as we have proved Subjects have in the common good and in setting up of Soveraignes and in calling them to an account then shall his reply be noticed as having some parallel but till then we dismisse it with this answere that the simile as to our poynt is prorsus dissimile and can conclude nothing Yea let us turne is owne weapon against himself and say Seing Children and Servants may lawfully with force with hold the heads of the family when they in a fit of phrensy are labouring to destroy all to burne the house above their heads or to cast all the goods in the house into a fire and resist them no lesse then open enemies and robbers thinks he if soundly said That if Kings in a fit of madnesse Tyranny shal seek to destroy the common wealth wholly overturne all Religion to set up idolatry heathenisme the Subjects may not withstand them prevent their owne ruine and the ruine of Religion with force of armes when no other meanes can availe What will he say to this Will he deny this consequence If not have not we enough But he addeth The Authors error is this that he looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us and not at all to our obligation to him even when he fails abuseing his power Answ He looks meerly to the obligation of the Magistrate to us when he mentioneth the aggravation of his guilt of invasion upon that account And whatever be our obligation to the Magistrate which Naphtaly did not forget though he was not called expresly to mentione it then there it will not follow that it is an obligation unto an illimited and stupide Subjection to him in all cases and if the Surveyer prove not this vvhich I suppose he vvill not do he vvill prove nothing against us What more sayes he to this place of Scripture Pag. 267. after he hath given us in his vvay the meaning of these vvords of Christ to vvit That Christ proves his Kingdome not to be of this world by this Medium that if it were so his servants in the quality of his Servants should take up outward armes and fight for him c. Then he concludes that this text will enforce that Christ's Subjects meerly as they are in the capacity of his Subjects are not to use the sword against Magistrates that are over them in his behalfe And then sayes he allowes well of Mr. Hutcheson's note upon the place Christ sayeth he by hindering his servants to fight vvho vvere but private men as to any civil povver hath taught that private men are not vvarranted to dravv the svvord vvere it even in defence of Religion but they ought to maintaine it by suffering when called to that extremity Answ 1. We have showne already how this man's glosse and Mr. Hutchesons do not every way quadrate 2. If this text enforce that Christ's subjects meerly as they are in capacity of his subjects are not to use the sword in Christ's behalfe then He must either say that people even under the conduct of a lawful Magistrate can not defend Religion by armes which yet immediatly thereafter he granteth of say that when they defend Religion so they act not meerly in the capacity of Christ's subjects 3. As for Mr. Hutcheson's note which he opposeth to all our rebellious fancies we say we wish that that worthy author who hath given great proof of his dexterity in deduceing poynts of doctrine from the text had been after his usual manner more acurate here and had guarded his assertion better that it might have had a more clear rise every way answering the ground it was deduced from for sure I am this ground if it be at all against defensive armes in matters of Religion will as much speak against a defence used by Magistrates upon this account as by privat Subjects for the ground is the same to wit that Christ's Kingdome is not of this world and alike concerning Magistrats and people and is no more a temporall Kingdome in regaird of Magistrats then in regaird of private persons And upon the ground that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to fight for him at that time upon the same ground he would not have suffered even Magistrats to fight for him for he behoved to drink the cup that his father gave him And neither Magistrates nor privat persons could have hindered that by force or would have been permitted to do it by him And if it be said that from other passages it is clear that Magistrates who are noursing parents to the Church are allowed to use the sword We answere That we have also proved from scripture and reason that people in some cases may use the sword of defence for Religion Againe it if be said that his Disciples were but private persons as to any civil power and therefore it is only to be understood of these It is answered That it will as well follow That because they were fisher-men therefore it is to be meaned only of these and of none else or that because they vvere Church officers therefore only they must not use the sword and so all others may The last place which Naphtaly mentioned was Math. 5 v. 27. to the end where it is said Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee c. with the parallel places specially Rev.
not avovvedly exercised that cuivis licet supplicare protestari yet the late Parliament concluded contrary to the lavv of nature and nations That petitions vvere seditious and treasonable So that hovv arbitrarily soever King or Parliament yea or Council or any deputed by them did rage or should opprresse injure the Subjects vvhether in conscience body or goods there vvas no remedy nor hope of redresse no petition or supplication how humble soever might be once presented by the grieved subjects yea nor durst they meet together to poure out their complaint unto the God of heaven the hearer of prayers the righteous judge of heaven earth What height of opprression tyranny this is Let all the vvorld judge Twelvethly It is uncertaine yea much doubted if Sr. Iames Turner that singular instrument of barbarous cruelty had any commission form King or Council impovvering him to such illegal exorbitancies whatever he might have had under hand from some Members of Council vvho had most sold themselves to cruelty and to the utter extirpation of all who would not run vvith them to the same excesse of riot sure if any such thing be the records vvill manifest it but since they cashired him and some of his associats and made an offer of causeing him ansvvere for vvhat he had done it is very probable he had no formal commission for vvhat he did and yet since he and others are permitted to live after such crueltyes barbarities and un heard of vvickednesses and no reparation made to the persones injured it is certane he is but too vvell approved in all he did and of vvhat use this shall be vvill appeare afterward Thirteenthly The intent and designe of those poor people who rose in armes was not to dethrone the King to enjure him or to lessen his just and legal authoritie but to resist repel and defend themselves from unjust violence and oppression and to seek reparations of the wrongs done them and the removal of that detestable and abjured Hierarchy the establishing and upholding of which as it was is a great provocation of the anger of God against the land so it was the fountaine and rise of all these horrid oppressions which they suffered and of the making of such grievous statutes and establishing iniquitie into a law and was to be a lasting cause and occasion of violent unjust and illegal oppressions and intolerabel vexations to all the faithful of the land and withal to have security for their lives lands libertyes consciences and Religion conforme to the agreement made with his Majesty and the National Covenant and the Solemne league and covenant which he solemnely swore once and againe and vowed and promised to defend and prosecute in all their ends and that for this end all such lawes made for prelacy and against the work of God and the reformation which through Gods blessing we had attained to might be repealed annulled and rescinded This and nothing else could be the intent and designe of these valient though naked worthyes That they intended no harme to the King or to his just lawful government authority is notoure by the last speaches testimonies of such as were apprehended publickly executed the petition Which they sent in to the Council with William Lauwry Tutor of Blakewood doth aboundantly testify that they would have had the free exerciso of their covenanted Religion freedom from the domeneering tyranny of Prelats their adherents their renewing of the League Covenant doth sufficiently cleare that they intended no insurrection or rebellion against the Kings just and lawful authority for they swore to defend the Kings Majestyes person and authority in the preservation and defence of the True Religion and libertyes of the Kingdoms From these considerations we shall now lay downe the true state of the question thus Whether or not when the whole body of a land Magistrats higher and lower People are engaged by solemne vowes made to the most high God joyntly severally to promove a reformation and to extirpat Prelats the same covenanted work is becom a chief corne stone of the constitution of the Kingdom and one of the mane conditions on which the King is installed on his throne and when these same Magistrats Supreme and inferiour renunce their covenant with God and with the People overturne the work of reformation formerly sworne to make lawes and statutes to fortify this defection to compel all their subjects to run to the same excesse of perjury and wickednesse and execute these lawes upon the faithful stedfastly loyal subjects not in a civil orderly manner but most imperiously and tyrannically with meer force cruelty and the edge of the sword of souldiers leavied of purpose for this very end to crush and oppresse all such as made any conscience of their vowes and engagements unto God and when these barbarous souldiers exceed their commission or oppresse plunder harash spoile rob and pillage the people and lay waste the land without law or expresse order from King or Parliament yea contraire to the expresse letter of the law and when the oppressed have not so much as liberty to supplicate or petition for help or releefe may privat persons without the conduct of a Parliament stand to their owne defence against unjust illegal oppression and tyranny and oppose such as without expresse commission endeavour their utter ruine and destruction though pretending warrant from the superiour Magstrats and allowed of them and seek a redresse of these grievous intolerable injuries and liberty for the free exercise of the covenanted reformed religion with the extirpation of abjured Prelats the spring and fountane of all these miseries already come and to be feared while in the mean time they intend no harme to the supream Magistrat's person or just authority but sweare to mantaine the same in the defence of the true religion and liberties of the Kingdome Or a if you will have it shorter Whether or not when King and Parliament and Council have abjured a covenant overturned a reformation which they solemnely swore to defend in their places capacities and made their subjects do the same and now with illegal force compel the subjects to the like perjury and wickednesse may these privat subjects when there is no hope or possibility otherwise of releefe stand to their owne defence and withstand the mercylesse cruelty of their bloody Emissaries acting without their commission or with their allowance yet contrare to expresse law and seek releef and security for Religion lives lands and liberties having no intention to wronge the King's person or just government That this is the true state of the question is abundantly cleare from the particulars forementioned and I think no Scottish man who knew the then state of affaires and hath not renunced common sense and resolved to beleeve nothing though he should both heare it see it and feele it and it were as
and indispersible subjection will far more rationally and plausibly inferre an illimited and absolute obedience Can he with any colour of sense or reason inferre that he maintaineth that passive subjection to unjust lawes and punishments where there is power to make active violent resistence is a greater sin then active obedience to unlawful commands of Magistrats Is this a faire way of disputing to say that one maketh that the state of the question which he draweth from the assertion of his adverry Naphtaly allaigeth that absolute subjection is as repugnant to reason as absolute obedience doth he therefore make this the state of the question or give ground for it That absolute subjection is more sinful then absolute obedience Againe what can he draw out of these words of Naphtaly Pag. 157. Secondly it is answered That riseing up against authority itself the ordinance of God and disobeying the powers therewith vesied standing and acting in their right line of subordination is indeed rebellion and as the sin of witchcraft but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority and rebelling against God the Supreame is rather to adhere to God as our Liege Lord and to vindicate both curselves and his abused ordinance form man's wiâ—kednnesse and tyranny Can he hence inferre that Naphtaly judgeth it no rebellion for privat subjects to disobey Powers acting in a right subordination when they in their judgements of discretion judge that they deviat from that line of subordination Sure he must have some needle head that can sowe these two together These are the particulars whereupon this Surveyer thinketh to bottome his falsely-stated question and by this we may judge ut ex ungue leonâ—m what faith he is worthy of when he sayeth immediatly thereafter Pag. 14. But what needs insisting on his justifying of any number of private persons riseing up and resisting the whole Magistrates Body of the people when ever they think they have cause Seing this is the maine scope of his book and more too even to state them in a punitive power of all who are against them and a power to pull downe all authorities that are in their way Alas poor soul such impudent untruthes will not much strengthen his cause in the judgment of such as are judicious and many will think that such way of dealing declares him to be unworthy of his wages for may not all who read that book see a cleare other scope there intended then what he here fancyeth and know that from no sentence in all that book can such conclusions be drawne as he here sayeth is the maine scope of it O! but he must be audacious and affronted to say that the author of Naphtaly not only makes a proclamation to all meer private persones not having any Nobles and Magistrats amongst them to make insurrections against all Magistrats from the highest to the lowest and against the plurality of the people if they think themselves in probable capacity and not only so but giveth to them a liberty to pull all Magistrates out of their seats to instal themselves and to punish Magistrats who as he sayes have forfauted their right by the abuse thereof as he doth Pag 21. What wil not such shamelesse boldnesse adventure to averre with the greatest confidence but such as are wife will not beleeve every thing that such as have made shipwrak of faith and of a good conscience and have possessed themselves of a debauched conscience have the impudency to affirme without blushing CAP. II. Three Arguments proposed taken I. from the Concessions of Adversaryes 2 The resistence of Parliaments 3. The Light Law of Nature Having thus cleared the true state of the question we shall now fall about the confirming of the affirmative and so take occasion to examine what this Surveyer sayeth as he cometh in our way and though there should not be great necessitie to confirme our hypothesis or the present question under debate unto such as have not prostituted their soull unto a brutish beleef of an absolute and indispensible subjection or submission in all cases whatsomever unto the lusts and rage of men abuseing their power and places and overturning that good order which God only wise estabished in his love and favour for the good mankinde yet because this seemeth to be an age wherein the spirits of many of sunk below that of beasts and men of no consciences or at best debauched consciences have willingly surrendered their privilege as men and assumed the slavish disposition of bond-men that for their owne base ends a little mase of pottage they may gratify such as are nothing lesse then what they ought to be it will be necessary to speak a little more to it Our first argument then shall be taken from the concessions of adversaries and from what this same surveyer seemeth if not expresly and directly to grant yet not to deny or condemne altogether Barclarius contra Monarchom lib. 1. c. 8. granteth to the people liberty to defend themselves from injury and to resist quando immani savitia petuntur and lib. 4. c. 16. he doth fully an plainely acknowledge That the king falleth from the right to this Kingdomes that the people may not only resist him refuse obedience unto him but many also remove him from the throne if without the subjects consent he should subjecte the Kingdome to another or be transported with an hostile minde against the Commonwealth Doct ferne also acknowledgeth That personal defence is lawful against the suddaine and illegal assaults of the King's messengers yea of the Prince himself thus farre to ward his blowes to hold his hands so when the assault is inevitable and else where he grants it lawful to resist the King's cut-throats So Arnisaeus de author princip Cap. 2. n. 10. granteth it lawful to private persons to resist the King when he acteth extrajudicially And Crotius de jur bel pac lib. I. c. 4. n. 7. seemeth to say that the law of non-resistence doth not oblige in certane extreame danger seing some divine lawes though generally proposed have this tacite exception of extreame necessity and giveth this for a ground That the law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them who first combined together into a society and from whom such as did command did derive their power now if it had been asked of such Whether they would choose to die rather then in any case to resist the Superiours with armes I know not sayeth he if they would have yeelded thereunto unlesse with this addition if they could not be resisted but with the greatest perturbation of the Commonwealth and destruction of many innocents And a little thereafter He hath these words Attâ—men indiscriminatim damnare AUT SINGULOS AUT PARTEM MINOREM quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur ut interim communis boni respectum non deserat vix ausim It is true in the end of that Section he
seemeth to say that nothing is now left to christians but flight yet § 10. 11. he assenteth to Barclaius his concessions Let us next see what our Surveyer seemeth to yeeld Pag. 23. 24. Whatever may he said sayeth he of moral of legal felf defence against the souveraigne by way of petition or plea in court for saifty of a mans person or Estate and whatever may be said of warding off and defensively puting back personal injurious assaults to the manifest and immediat peril of life without any colour of deserving of reason of law or judicial proceeding or of a Womans violent resisting attempts against the honour of her chastity dearer to her then life and tending to insnare her also in sin againss God whereof her non-resistence makes her formally guilty and whatever may be done in the case of most habited notoure and compleat tyranny against all appearance of law manifesily tending to the destruction of the body of a people or greater part thereof by hostile furious actions or in the case of violent attempts or destruction of all knowne legal libertyes and the beeing of Reliagion according to law or in the case of vendition alienation of and giving a whole Kingdome to forraigners or strangers or some such like whatever I say in such horried cases which for most part cannot befal a prince in his natural and right wits a case wherein provision may be made that he hurt not himself nor his dominions may be done comes not at all within the compasse of our question although most disingenuously the discontented and seditious do strive on all occasions to aggravate matters so that the case concerning them may seem co-incident with these or the like that so they may justify their violence against the powers But howbeit this Surveyer think that these concessions make little for our advantage yet to understanding persons it will be cleare in general 1. That He and the rest of the Royal society of Court parasites and slatterers speak most inconsequentially unto themselves They cry up in their writtings an absolute and indispensible subjection unto the Supreame Magistrate due by all his subjects and yet when they are sore pinched they must clap their wings closer And drawe in their faire sailes grant that in such such cases not only his E missaries such as have his commission but Himself may be resisted not only by the Ephort Primores Regni but by very private subjects Did we not but just now heare our Surveyer crying out against Naphtaly for saying That what reasons could prove an absolute indispensible subjection will also prove an abosolute unlimited obedience as being unwelling to heare any thing spoken against an absolute vast subjection and yet behold here he is as willing as the rest to clip the wings of this inviolable soveraignity set forth unto us a limited retrenched subjection due to the Supreame Magistrate even by private persons 2. That by these concessions He and the rest cut the sinewes of their owne arguments and cause them to halt ere they assault us and teach us away of rejecting or answereing them For when they produce their arguments vvhether from reason or authorities they cannot but make them conclude universally and then they are necessitated themselves to ansvvere these universal arguments or otherwise retract their concessions and whatever vvay they think to evade vvith their concessions and supposed cases vve vvill finde roome enough to escape vvith our case as for exemple vvhen this Surveyer urgeth that subjection spokento Rom. 13. He must either grant that it must be restricted to such and such cases or else plead for an universal absolute unlimited and indispensible subjection and so retract his concessions and if he take the liberty to use his restrictions and so interpret the place as that it shall not reach his cases excepted he must grant us the same liberty to say that our case is not there meaned or condemned 3. By these concessions vve have this advantage that the distinction vvhich is made in this question of resistence betvvixt the Magistrate as such and the person or man vvho is the Magistrate is not so absurd and ridiculous as the Royalists give it out to be for here vve finde them forced to use the same so that if it be a defileing distinction they cannot be clean more then vve and vve see that resistence may be used against the person of or the man vvho is the Magistrate vvithout the least contempt or vvrong done unto the holy Ordinance of God othervvise they must of necessity say that in all the forementioned cases they very Ordinance of God is resisted and hovv then they shall reconcile that vvith Rom. 13. I see not 4. We see also That the Prerogative Royal vvhich they screvv up unto a transcendent absolutenesse and supremacy above lavv is but a meer chimaera vvhich themselves must abhominate as a loathsome brat 5. We see that salus populs est suprema lex the peoples saifty is such a royal thing that the King himself and all his prerogatives yea and municipal lawes too must vaile the cap unto it themselves being judges 6. We see also that they must grant a court of necessity in which private persones may judge the Supream Magistrat in order to their resisting of him for I hope they will grant that in these cases the people act with judgment and as rational men and if so they must say that the people must first judge and condemne the Supream Magistrate as erring and doing amisse before they can lawfully resist him 7. We have this advantage That the Arguments by which They can prove it lawful to resist the Magistrate in the cases granted by them will not be a little steadable to us in our case and for shame they will not condemne their owne arguments because in our mouthes 8. It will be easily granted by all that our case vvhich vve have truely stated vvill come nearer the cases vvhich adversaries do except then the case vvhich he hath sett dovvne and so Hovvever he think the cases mentioned by him do not come vvithin the compasse of the question vvhich he hath set dovvne yet understanding persones vvil see they are not altogether vvithout the compasse of that vvhich is the true question and true state of the controtroversy and that he hath no just cause to fay that vve hovvever he account us discontented and seditious do most disingenuosly strive on all occasions to aggravate matters so that the case concerning us may seem co-incident with these or the like But next more particularly These concessions are much for our advantage For 1. If it be lawful for a private person to defend his life or estate in a moral or legal vvay by petition or plea in court against the Souveraigne yea and by actual force if the Soveraigne or any in his name shal come to poind or take possession illegally as our lavves vvill
allovv vvhy shall it be unlavvfull for a considerable part of the land to defend their Lives and Estates their Libertyes and Religion by forcible resistence made unto the Magistrat's Emissaries cruel bloody souldiers vvhen that moral resistence by petition vvhich yet no rational man can account resistence it being rather an act of subjection is contrare to all lavv and equity denyed and also the legal resistance by plea in court is not admitted Doth the municipal lavv of the land permit the one resistence aud vvill not the lavv of nature and nations vvhich no municipal lavv can infringe be a sufficient vvarandice for the other in case of extream necessity If it be said The Soveraigne hath law and right upon his side in this case which he hath not in the other till the law discusse it Ans The Law and Right which he hath on his fide in this case is but meerly pretended as in the other case and is lis sub judice Neither is he to be both judge and party in this case more then in the other againe if it be said that in this case He acteth as a Soveraigne executeing the lawes but in the other case he acteth only as a private person It is answered 1. That even in the other case He may pretend to be acting as a Soveraigne following executeing the lawes as well as in this 2. The Soveraigne as Soveraigne cannot oppresse nor do wrong therefore even in this case when he doth manifest injury unto the subjects contrare to his place vow and promise he acteth but as a private person and not as Soveraigne 2. If it be lawful for private person to warde off and defensively put back personal injurious assaults to the manifest and immediat peril of life without any colour of deserving of reason of law or judicial proceeding Why shal it not also be lawful for private persons to ward-off and defensively put back the injurious assaults of Emissaries to the manifest peril of Life Libertyes States Lively-hoods Consciences and Religion without any rational or real colour of deserving of reason of law of God or nations or judicial proceeding Shal it be lawful for one private person in the defence of his owne life to warde off such illegal extrajudicial and irrational assaults of the Soveraigne himself and shall it be unlawful for a body of a land or a considerable part thereof in the defence of their lively-hoods and so of their owne lives and of the lives of their posterity of their Consciences of their Libertyes and Religion all secured unto them by all bonds vowes Covenants Statutes and Actes imaginable to warde off the irrational furious illegal extrajudicial and mad assaults of the Soveraign's bloody Emissaries Sure rational men vvill see that vvhatever reason vvil evince the lavv fulnesse of the resistence in the former case the same vvill more strongly and plausibly conclude the lavvfulnesse of resistence in this case 3. If it be lavvfull for a private vvoman to defend her chastity dearer to her then life by violent resisting the Soveraignes attempts lest by non-resistance she should be guilty and oh if all the vvomen of the nation vvere of this temper Shall it not also be lavvful for private persons to defend their Lives Liberties Consciences and Religion dearer to them then their Lives yea and defend their chastity too by violent resisting of the furious attempts of the Soveraignes bloody Emissaries sent of purpose to constraine and compel them to perjury vvhen their non-resistence according to their povver and opportunity could not but be interpreted a voluntary and base quiteing of the cause and truth vvhich they vvere bound before God to maintaine vvith their lives and fortunes 4. If it be lavvfull to resist habited notour and compleat tyranny against all appearance of lavv manifestly tending to the destruction of a body of a people or a greater part thereof by hostile furious actions Shall it be utterly unlavvsul to resist notour tyranny yea compleat and habited though not as to re-iterated acts yet as to the ground laid dovvne of a most compleat and habited tyranny against all appearance of divine lavv or just and right humane lavves vvhich should be consonant thereunto tending to the destruction of the Covenanted-libertyes privileges and Religion of the vvhole body of the people and also unto the actual destruction of the libertyes states lives and lively hoods of a great part thereof by hostile furious actions 5. If resistence be lavvful in the case of violent attempts or destruction of all known legall libertyes and the beeing of religion according to lavv Shall resistence in our case be unlavvsul vvhen all the true libertyes of the subjects once established by lavves re inforced by vovves Covennants solemne engadgments and all bonds imaginable and the very being of our Religion as reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government ratified approved established and confirmed by lavves oathes Covenants vovves and promises vvhich lavves so re inforced vvith oathes protestations attestations declarations solemne vovves and Covenants are by all right divine and humane irrepelable being not only in themselves good and necessary but also becoming hereby sacred vovves to God vvhich must be payed being also fundamentall tearmes of the constitution of the reformed Republick 6. If in the case of Vendition Alienation of and giving the Kingdome to strangers violent resistence be allovved shall it not also be allovved in our case vvhen a land that vvas solemnely devoted consecrated and given avvay to God by solemne vovves and Covenants and the same ovvned approved ratified and confirmed by publick acts edicts proclamations declarations lavves and statutes of plenary and even as to all formalities compleat Parliaments made up of all the Estates of the Realme and the King also is novv treacheroussly and iniquosly forced to depart from their former principles to abjure their former vovves and Covenants to change their God to condemne his vvork and by most abhominable and ever to be-abhorred acts and statutes sold and alienated unto a popish prelatical and malignant faction and designe under vvhich the faithful and true seekers of God's face have and can expect lesse liberty for their consciences then if the whole Kingdome vvere delivered up into the hands of the great Turk Thus vvee see these concessions help our cause vveaken the adversaryes not alittle let us novv proceed to speak to another particular vvhich vvill help us also 2. The authors of Lex Rax and of the Apologetical Relation have sufficiently proved that the late vvarre carryed on by the Parliament of Scotland against the King vvas lavvful both in poynt of lavv and conscience And if that vvas lavvfull as it vvas and shall be found to be vvhen he and all his complices have done their utmost vvith all their lying cavills false calumnies reproaches and vvhat not that Hell can hatch to disprove condemne the same a vvarre raised by the subjects in their owne sin-lesse self
they being properly exnatur a rei and ex institutione instituentium intentione ordained and appoynted for the greater faifty and good of the people And therefore if the Representatives betray their trust the People in so far are as if they had no Representatives and may no lesse defend themselves in extreame necessity then if the officers of their army whom they had chosen and appoynted to defend them against an invadeing enemy should revolt to the enemy they might lawfully rise up in their owne defence and oppse the adversary 7. The law sayeth that deterior conditio domini per procuratorem fieri non debet L. ignorantis ff de procuratoriburs The procurator or advocat his knavery cannot prejudge the Client or wronge his cause And why then shall the perfidy of the peoples Representatives or their betraying of their trust wronge their cause and prejudge them of their just right 8. All will grant That it is as lawful for an oppressed people to defend themselves from the injuryes of a Parliament as from the injuries of a Soveraigne if not more and if it be lawfull for a people to defende themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament as is more then sufficiently proved by all such arguments as have hitherto by any been made use of to prove it lawful to resist a Soveraigne oppressing and tyrannizing no man of common sense will deny it lawful to a people to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny when they but want the concurrence or countenance of these Parliaments 9. If any should allaige that this is against the law of the constitution of the Kingdom We know no such law beside that though there were any such yet necessity knoweth no law and in cases of necessity such lawes are not to be observed sayeth the law L. ut gradatim § I. de muner honor The lavves of nature are irrevocable and cannot be rescinded by municipal lavves for the lavv tells us that civilis ratio jur◠natur alia corrumpere non pote st L. eas oblig D. de cap. privat Novv the lavv of nature allovving self defence against unjust violence addeth no such restriction viz. that it be done by the conduct and concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments 10. The very concessions of our adversaries fore-mentioned vvill confirme this consequence for in these cases they vvill grant the same liberty to a People vvithout as to a People vvith their Representatives to defend themselves for the vveight and ground is not laid upon the manner or vvay of conduct or managing of the resistence and defence but upon the cause and that is alvvayes the same Yea the necessity as was said is greater though it may be the difficulty is also greater when Representatives desert such as they do represente and instead of helping them with counsel and conduct in their necessity do either deserte them or turne enemies unto them Our 3 argument is taken from the law and light of nature which alloweth to beasts power and ability to defend them selves against violence An argument made use of not only by Lex Rex and the Apology but by Divines Canonists Lawyers and others who write of this subject The civil law it self tells us That his necessary defence of life floweth from the law of nature L. ut vim ff de just jure But here cometh out a green statist and takes on him to cry shame on all who ever wrote on that subject and avovves Pag. 15. That it is too grosse divinity to bring such an argument from beasts We must therefore see vvhether this Man be rational in rejecting such an argument taken from beasts and not rather more irrational then a Brute to deny that to a Rational creature vvhich he cannot but grant to Beasts and Creatures vvithout life as vve see he doth Pag. 14. 15. We shall readily grant vvith'him That God hath given this self defending or preserving povver and propension otherwayes to Men then to inanimate creatures or unto beasts which are under no law but that of meer nature and therefore they are not to defend themselves coeco impetu but rationally and ought to subordinate this natural propension to self defence unto and limite it by the higher lawes of reason and of God Doth he think that such as make use of this argument do suppose That in every case and in every manner of way men are to use and exercise this natural propension to self defence in vvhich and after vvhich Beasts are to use it Sure he is in a great mistake and he vvrongeth the authors of Lex Rex and of the Apolog. c. vvhen he sayeth Pag. 15. That they bring arguments from beasts who being under no law of reason nor grace to limite their propensions may alwayes in all imaginable cases defend themselves with force to perswade men that they may do the like and that their propension for their externall preservation is no more under any restraineing rule to stope the exercise of it then that of Beasts is For they intend no such thing nor are they in the least necessitated to use that argument so They only make use of it to disprove That irrational and more then brutish position and maxime of absolute unlimited and indispensible subjection of subjects to their Soveraigne so that in no case they may or can resist which all the Cabal and royal society of Royalists parasites court flatterers and cavalliers who because they themselves in hopes of some crumbs of allowance have brutishly without regaird had to the Law of God or right reason sold and devouted themselves not only in matters concerning their body but in soul matters unto the meer lust and pleasure of a creature of clay think all others should play the beasts with them do furiously obstinately maintaine And as to this the argument hence deduced is most rational and irrefragable for it is irrational to think That God who taketh much more care of man then of beasts 1 Cor. 9 9. Mat. 6 30. should allow and give unto the inanimate creatures and to the beasts a power and propension to defend themselves against violence and should deny the same to Man so that in no case he should be allowed to exerce that natural propension to defend himfelfe and to resist unjust violence with violence So then we might let his restrictions passe as being no thing to the present purpose for it is but his groundlesse imagination to think that we would equalize Men with Beasts because we will not with him and his party depresse them into a condition belovv beasts yet we shall shortly run over them His first is this when it is seen to be to no purpose by reason of a phisical force But alas doth he think this restriction of the natural propension for felfe preservation is upon men only not upon Beasts also did he not say in the same Page the Major vis and a greater phisical force would hinder
because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and the Edomites loved not the true Religion but the meritorious cause on Jehorams part is poynted at Answ The text it self and Commentators to vvhom vve may add Iackson on 2 King 8. the Dutch Annot Ibid. give this as the impulsive cause and only motive vvhich they had before their eyes 2. Any who read the text vvill see his reason very unsound for v. 8. it is said that in his dayes the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Iudah and made themselves a King and no word of this as the impulsive cause there of v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occasion of Iehorams seeking by force to reduce them under his dominion and then in a new period mention is made of Libnah's revolt with the cause and only motive thereof Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers Then he asks if his adversary thinks that the laying aside of the presbyterian frame is the forsaken of the Lord God of our Fathers and a sufficient cause for any one Towne in the Kingdom to revolt from the King though he do not persecute them nor force them to his way as there is no evidence that Libnah was so used shall a Kings swerving in that one point or if there be greater infidelity be sufficient ground of defection from him Ans I nothing doubt but all such as have imbraced this present course of apostasie are guilty of a grievous revolt having impudently and avowedly departed form a sworne Covenant from a covenanted sworne Religion reformed in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline Government and have in a great part forsaken the God of our Fathers that covenanted God whom our Fathers and we both owned and imbraced as our God and is sufficient cause for any City or Company of men so far to revolt from the King as to refuse to concurre with him in this horrible defection and course of perjury and resist his unjust violence pressing and compelling them to a sinful compliance 2. As it is more then probable that Libnah was no better used then were the people of Iudah by this Tyrannous King and is asserted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21 10. So whatever this lyer suggesteth it is notour that the King hath persecuted and doth persecute and force honest people to follow his way and apostatize with him contrare to their consciences and sworne allegiance unto God and if he add this clause as an exception then seing the truth of the thing is notour he fully accords that there is sufficient cause given for any Town in the Kingdome to revolt which is more then we desire At length he tells us That their revolt was sinfull But when not only thiâ— revolt is recorded as done but such and impulsive cause and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord without the least hint of any expression condemning the same we dar not be so bold as is this Surveyer Nor are we so foolish as to receive his word contraire to the testimony of so many expositors Hence we have a strong argument For if it be lawful for a part of the people to revolt from a tyrannous Prince making defection from the true and received Religion and forceing his subjects to a sinful defection and complyance with him in his apostasy It must also be lawful for a part of the people to defend themselves by force against the Emissaries of a King departing from his faith and foresaking the Religion which He hath sworne to owne and maintaine sent forth by him or any under him to force by cruel oppression and violence them to a compliance with his sinful way And the antecedent is cleare in this place 3. They must much more condemne Azariah and the fourescore Priests who being commended as me of courage valour resisted Vziah the King 2 Chron. 26 17. c. they expelled him with force stood against him the lxx say they resisted him deturbarunt eum ex eo loco sayeth Vatablus they forced him forth and compelled him to goe out they caused him make haste sayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum sayeth Hieron When he went in the temple to burne incense upon the altaar of incense on some solemne day as Iosephus thinketh So that there is more then a resistance of him by words as some Royalists say even resistence by force and violence Hence we argue if private subjects may by force resist withstand and with violence hinder the King from transgressing the Law of God Then may they much more lawfully resist him and his bloody Emissaryes when He seeketh to oppresse unjustly and to draw people off from the wayes of the Lord. If any say with doct Ferne that because of an expresse Law of God being a leper he was put out of the congregation Then we see that the Prince is subject to Church-censure and so Subjects may judge him and punish him we see also that Princes were subject to ceremonial lawes as well as any of the subjects and why not also to the moral Lawes and if because of a ceremonial Law the King was to be ceremonially punished why also for the breach of moral Law may he not be punished morally Hence will it undoubtedly follow That a Prince rageing and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reason may be resisted and his violence repelled with violence even by private subjects Worthy Mr Knox in his debate with Lithengtoun doth form this instance gather That subjects not only may but also ought to withstand and resist their Princes whensoever they do any thing that expresly repugnes to God his Law or holy Ordinance Lithingtoun objected That they were not private subjects but the priests of the Lord and figures of Christ and such have we none this day to withstand Kings if they do any thing wrong He answered that though the High Priest was a figure of Christ yet he was a subject For said he I am assured that he in his Priesthood had no prerogative above these that passed before him now so it is that Aaron was subject to Moses and called him Lord Samuel being both prophet and Priest subjected himself unto Saul after he was inaugurated of the people Sadoc bowed before David c. And whereas you say we have no such Priests this day I might answere that neither have we such Kings this day as then were anoynted by Gods commandement and sate upon the seate of David and were no lesse the figures of Christ Iesus in their just administration then were the Priests in their appointed office and such Kings I am assured we have not now no more then we have such Priests for Christ Iesus being anoynted in our nature of God his Father both King Priest and Prophet hath put an end to all external unction and yet I think you will not say that God hath now diminished his graces from these whom he appoynts
Ambassadours betwixt him and his people then he doth from Kings and Princes and therefore why the Servants of Iesus Christ may not also justly withstand Kings and Princes who this day no lesse offend Gods Majesty then Uzziah did I see not unlesse that ye will say That we in the bringhtnesse of the Evangel are not so straitly bound to regaird Gods glory nor his commandements as were the Fathers who lived under the dark shaddowes of the Law And when Lithingtoun sayd That they only spoke unto him without further violence intended He answered That they with stood him the text assures me but that they did nothing but speak I cannot understand for the plame text afformes the contrary viz. That they caused him hastily to depart from the sanctuary yea and that he was compelled to depart which manner of speaking I am assurred in the Hebrew tongue importeth more then exhorting or commanding by word And when Lethingtoun lastly objected that they did that after he was espyed to be leprous He answered They withstood him before but yet their last fact confirmes my proposition so evidently that such as will oppose themselves unto it must needs oppose themselves unto God for my assertion is That Kings have no privilege more then hath the people to offend Gods Majesty and if so they do they are no more exempted from the punishment of the law then is any other subject yea and that subjects may not only lawfully oppose themselves to their Kings whensoever they do any thing that expresly oppugnes God's Commandement But also that they may execute judgment upon them according to God's Law so that if the King be a murtherer an adulterer or an Idolater he should suffer according to God's Law not as a King but as an offender and that the People may put God's Law in execution this History clearly proveth for so soon as the leprosy appeared in his forehead He was not only compelled to depart out of the Sanctuary but also he was removed from all publick society and administration of the Kingdome and was compelled to dwell in a house apart even as the law commanded and gote no greater privilege in that case then any other of the people should have gote And this was executed by the People therefore yet againe I say that People ought to execute God's Law even against their Princes when their open crimes by God's Law deserves punishment but especially when they are such as may insect the rest of the multitude Thus that worthy Servant of God and hence any may see how this passage doth more then confirme what we are now about to prove 4. They must much more condemne such as arose against Amaziah when he turned away from following the Lord pursued him to Lachish and flew him there 2 Chron. 25 21. Concerning which I shall only set downe what famous and worthy Mr Knox said in that forementioned debate which he had with Lithington The whole people sayes he conspired against Amaziah King of Iudah after that he had turned away from the Lord and followed him to Lachish and slew him and took UzZiah and anoynted him King instead of his father The people had not altogether forgotten the League and Covenant which was made betwixt their Kings and them at the inauguration of Ioas his Father to wit that the King and the People should be the People of the Lord and then should they be his Faithful subjects from which Covenant when first the Father and aftervvard the Son had declined they vvere both punished vvith death Ioas by his ovvne Servants and Amaziah by the vvhole People vvhen Lithingtoun said he doubted whether they did well or not He ansvv It shall be free for you to doubt as you please but where I finde execution according to God's law and God himself not to accuse the doers I dar not doubt of the equity of their cause And further it appeareth to me that God gave sufficient approbation and allowance of their fact for he blessed them with victory peace and prosperity the space of fifty two years after and when Lithingt replyed That prosperity doth not alwayes prove that God approveth the facts of Men. He answered Yes when the facts of Men agree with the law of God and are rewarded according to his owne promise expressed in his law I say that the prosperity succeding the fact is a most infallible assurance that God hath approved that fact Now so it is that God hath pronounced in his law That when the people shall exterminate and destroy such as decline from him that he will blesse them and multiply them as he hath promised unto their fathers But so it is that Amasia turned from God for so the text doth witnesse and plaine it is that the People slew their King and like plaine it is that God blessed them Therefore yet againe I conclude that God himself approved their fact and so far as it was done according to his commandement it was blessed according to his promise And when Lithingtoun replyed againe That he thought not the ground so sure as he durst build his conscience thereupon He answered I pray God that your conscience have no worse ground then this is when soever you shall beginne the like work which God in your owne eyes hath already blessed And if so as is very probable and learned Althus pol. C. 38. n 106. is of the same judgment with Mr Knox we need not trouble the reader with forming an argument thence to our purpose the same being so obvious and cleare that he who runneth may read it CAP. IV. Our Argument from other approved instances and authorities both abroad and at home THis practice hovvever it be novv condemned by a generation of perfidious Prelates and Malignants enemies to the glorious vvork of Reformation from the beginning a company of base Sycophants and Court flatterers as an unparallelable act of rebellion and sedition yet as it as abundantly confirmed by precedents in scripture as vve have seen so is it by the practice of others vvhom none but men of the same stampe vvil condemne and by authorities of Divines abroad and at home as vve shall novv shevv And 1. The history of the Maccabees mentioned in that story is a cleare example of private persons resisting and defending themselves frm the iniquous assaults of the Soveraigne or his Emissaries for when Antiochus Epiphanes was compelling them to forsake God and tyrannizing over them Matthias a priest and his sones made open resistence and afterward Mattathias those with him hearing how Matthias out of an overnice superstition would not fight in their owne defence on the Sabbath day resolving upon all occasions to defend themselves their Lives and Lawes and to take all advantages of the Enemy did accordingly assault them and recovered their Cityes Lawes and Libertyes fighting many battels with good successe And Osiander Enchirid. controv c. 9. de mag pol. testifieth that this was
are in great esteem with the reformed and his praise is in all the Churches and whatever come of the book his reasons stand firme and valide In the History of our Reformation Pag. 397 398. edit in 4 to Edinb we finde that Iohn Knox had the Apology of Magdeburgh subscribed by the Ministers there declareing the defence of the towne against the Emperour to be most just and lawful and offered it to Secretary Lithingtoun who then was disputeing against him to read And having now made Mention of Mr. Knox what was his judgment in this poynt that history doth abundantly demonstrate His words to the Queen are remarkable see history of Reformation Pag. 317. When she asked him if he thought That subjects having power might resist their princes He answered If princes do exceed their bounds and do against that wherefore they should be obeyed there is no doubt but they may be resisted even by power for there is Neither greater honour nor greater obedience to be given to Kings and Princes then God hath commanded to be given to Father and Mother But so it is That the father may be stricken with a phrenzie in the which he would stay his owne children Now if the children arise joyne themselves together apprehend the father take the sword or other weapon from him and finally binde his hands and keep him in prisone till that his phrenzie be over-past think ye Madame said he that the children do any wrong or vvill God be offended vvith them that have stayed their father from committing wickednesse It is even so with princes that would murther the people of God that are subject unto them their blinde zeal is nothing but a very mad phrenzie and therefore to take the svvord from them to binde their hands and to cast them into prisone till that they be brought to a more sober minde is no disobedience against princes but just obedience because it agreeth vvith the vvord of God thus he vvho knevv not vvhat is vvas to feare the face of any breathing in the defence of his Master's cause and interest and vvas an eminent divine a holy Man of God living in near communion vvith God and vvas far above the reproaches and calumnies of his adversaryes And it is considerable that this vvas a particular vvhich he had frequent occasion to be thinking upon and no doubt this holy Man vvould be often reflecting upon the matter and upon his ovvne judgment and consulting God and his vvord there anent that he might knovv vvhether his grounds vvere such as he vvould not have cause to be ashamed of vvhen he vvas to appeare before his judge being oft called to shevv his judgment concerning that matter And his constant practice being consonant thereunto And yet vve never finde that his heart reproached him for maintaineing any such opinion vvhile living or vvhile dying nor did he ever change his judgement thereof yea not when the maintaineing thereof might have been a sufficient ground of an accusation and doubtlesse he vvould before hand examine if he vvould lay dovvne his life upon such a ground yet constant vvas he in that cost him vvhat it vvould or could he vvas no changeling nor had he so drunken in truth Yea in the end of that conference vvith Lithingtoun he told them that he vvas not only fully resolved inn conscience but also had heard the judgements of the most godly and learned that he knevv in Europe in that particular and in all other things that he had affirmed I came not sayes he into this realme without their resolution and for my assurance I have the hand-writeing of many Neither was this his judgement alone but also of Mr Georg Hay vvhom the Earle of Mortoun vvould have had disputing against Mr Knox. But sayd he I will not oppose my self unto you as one willing to impugne or confute that head of Doctrine which not only yee but many others yea and my self have affirmed farre be it from me for so should I be found contrarious to my self And of Mr Craig Mr Knox's collegue vvho told vvhat a conclusion he heard defended at Bonnonia Anno 1554. by Thomas de Finola Rector of the University and approved by Vincentius de Placentia as agreeable both to the lavv of God and man viz. That all Rulers be they Supreame or inferiour may ought to be reformed or bridled by them by whom they are chosen or admitted to their office so oft as they break that promise made by oath to their subjects because that the prince is no lesse bound by oath to the Subjects then the Subjects to the Princes therefore ought it to be keeped reformed equally according to law and condition of the oath that is made of either party and when some said that Bonnonia was a Republick He answered My judgement is that every Kingdome is or at least should be a Commonwealth albeit that Every Commonwealth be not a Kingdome and therefore I think that in a Kingdome no lesse diligence ought to be taken that lawes be not violated then in a Commonwealth because that the tyranny of Princes who continue in a Kingdome is more hurtful to the subjects then is the misgovernment of those that from yeer to yeer are changed in free Commonwealths but to assure yow and all others that head was disputed to the utter-most and then in the end was concluded That they spoke not of such things as were done in diverse Kingdomes and Nations by Tyranny and negligence of people but what ought to be done in all Kingdomes and Commonwealths according to the law of God and unto the just lawes of Man and if by the negligence of the People by the Tyranny of Princes contrary lawes have been made yet may that Same people or their posterity justly crave all things to be reformed according to the original institution of Kings and Commonwealths and such as will not do so deserve to eate the frute of their owne foolisnesse thus he see Hist of Reform Pag. 399. 400. Edit in 4. Yea this was the judgement of all the reformed preachers at that time as we see witnessed by the Congregation vindicating the doctrine of their preachers concerning obedience to be given to Magistrats in these words see Hist of reform Pag. 184. In open audience they declare the authority of Princes and Magistrates to be of God and therefore they affirme that they ought to be honoured feared and obeyed even for conscience sake provided that they command nor require nothing expresly repugning to God's commandement and plaine will revealed in his word Moreover they affirme That if wicked persones abuseing the authority established by God move Princes to command things manifestly wicked That such as can do bridle the inordinate appetites of misled Princes cannot be accused as resisters of the authority which is God's good ordinance To bridle the rage and fury of misled Princes in free Kingdomes and Realmes they affirme it appertaineth to
accompanyed with such consequents could never be the instinct of pure nature nor can we suppose that such a thing can be the ordinance of God appoynted for the good of mankinde Therefore this must stand as a firme truth that the condition of a people modelled into a civil state is not worse then it was before but rather better 5. It will be no lesse readyly yeelded That such one or more as are chosen by the Community to act the part of Magistrates notwithstanding of that change made in their condition abide men of the like passions and infirmities with the rest yea and subject to moe temptations and so in greater hazard to miscarry then formerly This change doth not Transforme them into Angels or put them beyond the reach of injuries as all will grant nor beyond a capacity of doing injury even to these over whom they are set No humane power can set any above God's Law or loose him from the binding power thereof and till this be or They out of a capacity or transgressing God's Law which no humane act can do He Or They are still obnoxious to the sin of injuring their neighbour and transgressing the law of righteousnesse no lesse then others 6. It is Left to the People in this case to condescend upon what forme of government they think most expedient and most suteable to their temper and to the condition providence hath cast them into whether it be Monarchy or Arosticracy or Democracy or a mixed kinde for though God and Nature hath instituted Government yet not having determined any one forme to be the only lawful forme People are it liberty to walke here upon rational grounds and to consult their owne advantage next the glory of God and to make choise of that which all things considered promiseth most probable felicity unto them and of the several formes or Kindes of government all lawful in themselves to pitch upon what Kinde they think most expedient and conduceing to their ends This is assented unto by all Politians and so it followeth That it is meerly from the People that this forme and not another is made choise of 7. As neither God nor Nature hath determined the particular forme of government under which Men must live but hath left it as was said to their free choise so it is not determined how large or how little every politick society should be nor whether a people living at some considerable distance from other or more contiguously should joyne together in one and make up one body politick or whether they should erect moe distinct and independent Commonwealthes though possibly of the same extract and language Nature sayeth not that all in one Iland of one extract or of one language should become one Politick Body under one politick head We have heard of the time when there have been many Kings distinct and independent in one England And how many Kings there was at one and the same time in the land of Canaan no vast territory scripture tells us Nor hath Nature determined that distinct bodyes of people living in distinct and far separated places yea having distinct customes and languages may not when they see it for their advantage associate for setting up one Supreame Soveraigne over all So that this also is left to the free choise and determination of the People 8. When a free People have rationally and deliberatly condescended upon the forme it is in their power to condescend upon the time how long that forme shall endure and either prefix a certaine time at vvhich it shall evanish if they see it not expedient to continue it or reserve to themselves a liberty to alter it when they vvill Each of the sormes being in themselves lavvful People may choose vvhich they think best and though one Kinde of government vvill agree to some People better then another yet Bodyes of people being lyable to causal changes and these requireing formes suteable A people at the beginning guyded with reason may rationally foresee such changes and accordingly determine the first forme condescended on to continue longer or shorter time definite or indefinite It is not to my present purpose to determine vvhat a people may do as to this after their predecessours have once imbraced a forme and engaged themselves by oath never to change it Or vvhether it be lavvful to svveare unto any one forme 9. It is from the People that such persones and no other persones are made choise of to Governe according to that forme which they have condescended upon before this deed of the People no man can pretend to it all being equal and none over another by nature in any political capacity no man coming out of the womb into this world with a crowne on his head and a scepter in his hand and God as we here suppose immediatly and particularly designeing none nor without the least concurrence of the People instaleing any into that place of jurisdiction and therefore the People must do something in order to this and upon their deed it followeth that such as before were no lawful Magistrates nor had any formal political power are now Magistrates and Governours having lawful power and authority to exerce the function of a Magistrate for though the People do not institute the office of Magistracy and though the proper essential Magistratical power be from God and not from the People and though the parts and qualifications wherewith the Magistrate ought to be and the person which the people do pitch upon is actually endued be from God yet till the People do some thing all these do not formally cloath a man with Magistratical power nor make him a lawful Magistrate nor authorize him to assume that place charge for the present condition and temper of a people may call for a Monarchy as most fit and there may be among the Community now associated combined into one body moe persones then one alike well qualifyed for the charge yet no man will say that these because of their qualifications become eo ipso Monarchs nor can one create himselfe for what right and power hath he more than his neighbour as wel qualified as he Therefore it must be granted that the People create the Magistrate and make this man King and not that man Hence vve often read in scriptures of the Peoples making Kings Iudg. 9 6 I Sam. 11 v. 15. 2 King 10 5. 1 Chron. 12 38. Iudg. 11 8 11. 2 King 14 21. 1 Sam. 12 1. 2 Chron. 23 3. The Surveyer seemeth to yeeld this Pag. 102. See Gerhard de Magistratu § 49 89. Pag. 718 719. Althus Politic. Cap. 19. numer 103 c. 10. It is from the People that this way of election and not another is pitched upon There being several wayes how in constituted Republiks or Kingdomes the Supreame Magistrates doe succeed to other Some at the death of the former succeed by way of free election and he is chosen who
possibly hath no relation to his predecessour Some are chosen who are of the same family but not as nearest in line but at most fit to exerce the office of the Soveraigne as it was for a considerable time in Scotland In some places the nearest in line are chosen if they be Males as in France where by the old Salicque Law a Woman must not command in chiefe in other places the nearest in line succeed whether Male of Female as in â—râ—anne now a dayes Now whence floweth this diversity of wayes of instaling the succeeding Magistrate or of filling the place when vacant Doth it not flow alone from the People Might they not have pitched upon a way of conveyance of the Kingdome by lineal succession when they made choise of continual election or when they pitched on that might they not have made choise of this And who will say that a Supreame Magistrate of Magistrates chosen by election are not as essentially Soveraigens as these who came to the place by lineal succession seing by all politicians Election is made one of the ordinarie wayes of constituteing of Magistrates and by many preferred to Succession And seing the first of that Race had it by free election he must be as essentially and lawfully the Supreame Magistrate as any of his Successours 11. Even where the way of lineal succession is condescended upon and established the new Soveraigne though he seem to be full and compleat heire haeres ex asse unto his Father or Predecessour Yet originally and radically he is constitute and chosen by the People For whence cometh it but from the Peoples free choise that such a familie or line is chosen and not another and that the Eldest or nearest in the line is made choise of as Successour and not he of that line who is mostly qualified for that place and function So that in this case the Son hath not his Kingdome from his Father for he doth not succeed Iure haereditario sed vi legis per quam primogenitus vel alius preximus succedere jubeâ—ur as sayeth Boxhornius de Majestrate Regum Pag. 11 and 12. Now the Authors of this Law and constitution are only the people See Althus Polit. Cap. 19. n. 90. 12. In all this the People must be supposed to have some certane good End before their eyes for a Rational People must act rationally and rationally they cannot act unlesse they have before their eyes some certain good End Now this end which they Intend as men must be their outward Peace Tranquillity freedome from oppression from strangers or one from another and the like and as Christians the glory of God the good of Religion and of their souls Therefore the People setteth Magistrates over themselves to promove the glory of God the good of Religion and their temporal felicity And if they saw that this meane had not a tendency unto these Ends they would never have condescended upon it far lesse if they had seen that it had a tendency to destroy these Ends and therefore in so far as that meane is preverted and actually abused to the destruction of those high and noble Ends they must be interpreted as Non-consenters and eatenus de Iure in no worse condition then they would have been into if they had not erected such a constitution or set such over themselves It is like the Surveyer will from some or all of these draw scuh Conclusions as he hath done from some innocent expressions of Naphtaly ill understood by him and as ill applyed and say that we drive at nothing else but to have all the parishes of the land cantonized into so many free Republicks or little Kingdomes of Ivetot But is he an able or if able a faithful maintainer of the Union and integrity of his Majesties dominions who vvresteth expressions far contrary to the intent of the Author and starteth questions in Hypothesi according to his fancy and that he may confute the Hypothesis falleth foule upon the Thesis which he supposeth without ground vvas the intent and designe of the Author of Naphtali and vvhich will be granted by all Politicians and Lavvyers Sure as in this he hath shewed himself vveak in his Politiks so he hath bewrayed himself as weak in his prudentials and wise Statesmen will think that to use his owne expressions else where or the like since he raised the Devil he should have laid him better then he hath done both in his first and in his third Chapter and some will think that since he had no cleare cal to meddle with those questions policy should have taught him either to have forborne or to have confuted them better And that for his very cause he should be punished as an ignorant Traitor and his pamphlet condemned to a fire whereof it is much more worthy then severals that have gote that measure But of his foolish and unfaire dealing in those particulars we shall speak more afterward and shall now goe on draw some arguments for our purpose from what hath been said And 1. If People at the first erection of Government and Governours acted rationally it can never be supposed that they resigned and gave their birth-privilege and power of self-defence away so as they might not lavvfully stand to their ovvne defence in cases of necessity vvhen that Government of these Governours should either come short of giving the assistence expected in such cases or prove lets and impediments in their vvay far lesse in case they should prove their avovved and open enemies for is it imaginable that national men would erect such a Government of set up such Governours if it were told them that such Would prove their bane and that by appointing of them and proceeding in that businesse they should denude themselves of that power of self defence vvhich novv they vvere in possession of See Althus Polit. Cap. 38. num 32. 2. If by this constitution they were not brutified they cannot after the constitution be supposed to be in a case worse then Brutes Therefore Since Brutes may defend themselves against injuries this liberty privilege of self defence against manifest injuries cannot be taken away from Rational Creatures by the erection of a Government Againe if by the erection and new constitution the case of the people cannot be supposed to be made worse if it was lawfull unto them before to defend themselves against injuries and to repel violence with violence it cannot become unlawful afterward it is true it is the part of the Magistrate to defend them from injuries and for this end was he set up by them that they might be the more secure and saife but it he neglect his duty they are not to forget themselves or to thinke that their hands are bound up much lesse if he himself turne an enemie unto them 3. If the Erected Magistrates remaine men and sinful men and men that can do wrong and violence and injustice can oppresse innocents destroy
named and chosen by the People And this constituting of him Soveraigne must be by compact and contract betwixt him and them for such mutual relations as are betwixt Prince and People can arise from no other act then a compact unlesse they say it ariseth from a free donation but then they must grant that the whole power cometh from the People and was theirs before and might be given out by them or not as they thought fit for no law can constraine a man to give a gift further if it was from them by free gift the very nature and end of that Donation puts it beyond debate that it was upon some valueable consideration of which when frustrated they might recal their donation and so still it will be a virtual compact But now it being by a real comapct and formal either explicite or implicite that this man and not that man is made Soveraigne There must be some conditions on which this mutual compact standeth for a compact cannot be vvithout conditions 2. We shevv that in this Act of constituting a Government ad Governours the People acted rationally and carryed themselves in this businesse not as irrational brutes but as rational men and if so hovv is it imaginable that they vvould set any over them vvith an illi mited povver vvithout any tearmes and conditions to be condescended unto by him Would rational men acting deliberatly about a matter of such moment and consequence not to themselves alone but to their posterity in after ages set a Soveraigne over them vvithout any limitations conditions or restrictions so as they might rob spoile plunder murther deflore do acts of injustice and oppression and act tyranny as they pleased 3. We shew that in this matter the People had certane real good and necessary Ends before them now can it enter into the heart of any man to think that Rational men acting rationally laying downe wayes for attaineing good aud necessary Ends would set a Prince over themselves without any conditions or restrictions since otherwise they could not rationally expect that the meane which they had condescended upon could ever attaine the End For every one of them might saifly have judged of the Prince by themselves and seing they might have found in themselves an inclination to domineer to oppresse and tyrannize over others they might rationally have concluded that the Prince was and would be but a Man of the same passions and infirmities with themselves and so as ready if not more to deborde and to do wrong therefore unlesse they had made him Soveraigne upon tearmes and conditions they could not have expected that their chooseing of him could have been a meane fitted and accommodated for attaining the Ends proposed A Soveraigne left at liberty to tyrannyze to oppresse and to destroy the Subject is no fit meane to procure their welfare either in soul or body or to set forward the glory of God 4. We shew that their condition after the constitution was not to be worse then it was before the constitution But if they had set up a Soveraigne without any conditions their condition could not but be worse and rational men could not but for see that their condition would of necessity be worse for to set up a Soveraigne without conditions is to set up a Tyrant since if they do not limite him to termes and conditions they give him leave to Rule as he listeth and his will must be to them for a law and what is that but to set up a Tyrant and if a Tyrant be set up over a People shall not their condition in that case be worse then when they were at liberty to manage their owne matters as they could best Moreover this may be cleared from other reasons as 1. In all other relations which arise from mutual consent and compact there are alwayes tearmes conditions on which the contract or compact is concluded as in the contract betwixt Man and Wife Master and Servant Tutor Pupil Master Scholer the like Here alwayes are presupposed tearms conditions on which the compact the only fundation of these relations is founded for no Man marryeth a wife but upon condition she carry as a dutyfull wife and no woman maryeth a Husband but upon the like tearmes So a Master indenteth with his Servant and his Servant bindeth himself to him upon tearmes The Tutor is under obligations to his Pupil and if he break such or such conditions he loseth his benefite and moreover is answerable as law wil. So is the Master obliged to performe such and such conditions unto his Scholer So are there conditions betwixt the Lord and his Vassals and betwixt Pastor and People 2. This will be cleare from the Nature of that power and authority which the Soveraigne hath over the Subjects of which afterward 3. It is against Nature to set up any Tyrant or one who is free from all conditions for that were upon the matter to set up a Waster an Enemy to the Commonwealth a bloody Tyger or Lyon to destroy all see Althus Pol c. 19. n 33. 35. 36. 37. 4. To imagine a King free of conditions unto his Subjects is to put them in among bona fortunae and to say they are as the King's gold his sheep his oxen his lands and revenues unto which he standeth no way obliged 5. If a People should set a Soveraigne over them without conditions they should sin against the Law of God which vvill have such and such dutyes performed by them vvho are Soveraignes and they by setting up Soveraignes vvithout these limitations should say such and such shall be our Soveraignes contrare to the limitations of God's Law 6. This is confirmed by the practice of all Nations where a free People set up Soveraignes It is alwayes upon tearmes and conditions They Persians as Xenophon lib. 8. Cyri Paed. tell us did thus Covenante with Cyrus that he should send aide to them out of his owne Countrey if any should warre against them or violate their lawes and they againe did promise that they should helpe him if any would not obey him defending his Countrey and therefore Xenophon calleth this contract or compact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Spartan King as the same Xenophon tells us de Rep. Laced did every Moneth Renew their oath unto the Ephori promised to governe them according to the lawes of the land the Ephori upon the other hand promised to Establish the Kingdom in their hands We reade of a compact betwixt Romulus and the people of Rome Dionis Halicarn Lib. 1. betwixt the Senate the Caesars Idem Lib. 2. It is notoure enough that the Emperour when he is chosen agrieth unto tearmes and conditions and also the King of Poland and historyes tells us what conditions are made betwixt King and People at the coronation of Kings in England France Boheme Spaine Portugal Sweden Denmark c. 7. The practice of our owne Kingdome
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
obey him in the Lord. Peter Martyr also sayeth that not only King and People covenanted with God but the King also with the People and the People with the King and thereafter that the King was bound to rule the People according to the Lawes equity Secundum Iura Leges and the People promised to obey him Zanches more fully tells us there was a Covenant betwixt the King and the People as uses to be betwixt the Prince and Common-wealths The Prince undertaketh to defend the Kingdome Lawes Equity and to be a keeper and defender of the Countrey and of Religion And upon the other hand People promise obedience and fidelity and such expenses as are necessary for keeping up the Majesty of the Prince c. Now what sayes our Surveyer to this He tells us Pag. 96. That it was also made upon an extraordinary occasion extraordinaryes cannot sound ordinary rules Answ How doth he prove that it was meerly upon the extraordinarynesse of the occasion that this Covenant was made he might as well say that the crowning of him giving him the testimony making him King and making a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King were extraordinary and so could not found ordinary rules yea and that it was extraordinary for the People to sweare allegiance unto him But he hath two things remarkable to his purpose as 1. That he is crowned made King before the Covenant is made which crosseth the antimonarchists who assert the King cannot be made King until he make the Covenant with the People that he gets the crowne and royal authority covenant wise and conditionally Answ Antimonarchists properly so called are against all Monarchs limited or absolute or doth he account them all antimonarchists who say that the King is a limited Magistrate then we know what to think of the Monarchists and Royalists of him and his party 2. He knoweth himself that the series or order of the relation of a complex businesse is not alwayes just according to the series of the things done but be it so this maketh for us in the former instance of David's Covenanting with Israel Which is mentioned before their making of him King 3. But suppose the King had refused to enter into Covenant with the Lord or with the People for mention is made of both Covenants after his Coronation might they not for all their solemnities in crowning of him have refused to have ownned him as King 4. But to put the matter beyond all debate we finde compareing the two places together That beside the Covenant betwixt Iehojadah and the Rulers of Hundereds c. mentioned 2. King 11. 4 and 2 Chron. 23. 1. which was rather a Covenant betwixt themselves to depose Athalia and to set up joash to put down Idolatry and to set up the true worshipe of God as the English annotations the Dutch say then a Covenant of fidelity or allegiance to the King as he would have it we finde 2 Chron. 23. 3. a Covenant made betwixt the Congregation and the King and this was before he was crowned or made King which Covenant as the English annotators say was a mutual stipulation betwixt the King and Them That the King should maintaine the true worshipe of God the peace of the Kingdome and privilege of the subjects and that the People should maintaine the King and yeeld unto him his due The next thing he sayeth is That it is not told us what the tenor of this covenant is Diodaâ— seems to say that Iehojadah made them sweare allegiance and fidelity to the King but how shall it be cleared that it was conditional with a reserve of coactive punitive power over him Answ Of this coactive power over Kings we are not now speaking and he but playeth the fool to start such questions without ground 2. That it was a conditional Covenant the scope of the place cleareth for if they had not expected thaâ— their condition had been better under his reigne then under Athaliah be like they had never resolved to have ventured their lives and estates for him and if the Covenant had not been conditional they could have had no rational expectation of the bettering of their condition from the young King Againe if it was not a conditional Covenant The King could with no more certainty have expected their dutyful obedience then They his faithful government 3. It is true the matter and tenor of the Covenant is not expressed but the nature of the act doth abundantly cleare what it was and that it was such as the English annotators have expressed 4. If Diodat say it was nothing else but the Peoples swearing allegiance he speaketh without ground for it was a mutual Covenant a Covenant betwixt King and People But sayes he suppose all the Kings of Judah made such covenants with the People yet will any judicious man force the Particular customes of that Nation on all Nations that might be best for that Nation that was not simply best their customes without a law of God bearing a standing reason cannot be obligatory on others lest we judaize too much Answ 1. We are not now pressing their practice as our only warrand but by their practice we prove the lawfulnesse of the King 's being brought under conditions and obligations to the people which Politicians Lawyers and Divines use to do 2. He must show why such a practice was best to them not also to other nations 3. We Judaize not more in this then in crowning and making of Kings though I grant they do who use the ceremony of anoynting with oile 4. We have the Law of Nature which is the law of God bearing a standing reason of this as was shewed above 5. Yea that lavv of God mentioned Deut. 17. 15. c. Limiting the Prince shovveth that it was the Peoples duty unto whom that is spoken when they were to set a King over themselves to provide for these conditions so that as they might not de jure set a stranger over them neither might they set any over them who vvould not engage to keep the conditions vvhich they were to required of him v. 16. 17. 18. 19. and these Conditions of the King being held forth unto them sayes that they were impowered to stipulate such of the King whom they were to create and that poynts forth a Covenant to be made betwixt them and their King power also in them to restraine the King from transgessing these conditions as Iosephus tels Ant. Lib. 4. cap. 14. Si autem fuerit alias c. â— e. But if otherwise a desire of a King shall adhere unto you let him be of your stock let him make much of Justice and other vertues and let him know that there is most wisdome in the lawes and in God let him do nothing without the advice of the High priest Elders neither let him assume to himself many vvives nor seek after abundance of riches nor
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
disput but what right Kenneth had to the crowne Now sure it is that before this conquest made he was crowned upon the same ground that his predecessours were his future conquest then uncertaine could not alter the ground of his receiving of the crowne when his father Alpin died 2. What ever superiority he might challenge over these Subjects unto whom he gave these new conquest lands it had no influence upon his holding of the crowne and that his very next successour and brother Donald knew who being given to his pleasures lost a noble victory which they had obtained over the Englishes and after he returned from captivity following his old life was cast in prison by his owne Subjects And his Son knew it also for he was put by the crowne conforme to the old law until this Donald died So that notwithstanding of all this new purchase the people knew that the conveyance of the crowne did still run in the old channel and was held of them after the old tenor His 4. Instance is of Robert Bruce whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem call Conquestor Magnus He re-conquered the Kingdom after the Nobility of Scotland had first at Berwick then at S Andrewes in plaine Parliament sworne homage to the King of England who will assert there were pactions betwixt him and the People Answ We know out of History what a miserable condition the Land was brought unto through occasion of that division and sad disput that was in it concerning the nearest in the line and this was the bitter frute that Scotland reaped of the change of that laudable custome established near the beginning of he constitution whereas had not that been changed in the dayes of Kenneth the third the fitest person to governe might have been chosen and that had prevented all this confusion and misery which the Land was brought unto 2. Though Bruce at length recovered the Kingdome yet he received not his crowne upon that account but before he attempted it's recovery out of the hands of the Englishes he was crowned King at Scone in Aprile 1036. and there received the Kingdom from the Scots upon the old account and according to the old tenor 3. Though he be tearmed a great conquerour as having recovered the Land out of the hands of the Englishes as if it had been a conquest when as it was really but a recovering of what he was bound by his place and power to recover yet we never finde that he claimed a right to the Land upon that ground of conquest but stood upon the old basis His fift last instance is of this King It is known sayes he our Nation was totally subdued by the English and continued so for the space of then yeers The Representatives of Shires and Cities and Townes combined into a Commonwealth government and sent their commissioners to the meeting thereof at London where the King's interest was disclaimed yet in a wonderful way God brought him in againe and finding us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation restored us to our freedome from the bondage of forraigners Answ 1. Through too great haste he hath forgotten a maine particular of this Instance Before we were totally subdued by the Englishes the King was crowned at Scone in as solemne a manner as ever any of his Predecessours except that he was not anoynted with holy Oyle nor gote the Pop's benediction and while crowned was solemnely engaged to the People by Covenants vowes and oathes to defend Religion according to the National Covenant and Solemne League and Covenant and to prosecute the ends of these Covenants and upon these conditions took his Crowne and Scepter Were we a conquest then 2. Ay but we were conquered afterward and our Representatives disclaimed the King's interest But how many were there of these Representatives And had these Representatives power commission from the Land to renunce his Interest Or were these all accounted Enemies to the King How is it then that so many of them are now accounted his most loyal Subjects and more loyal then such as suffered much because they would not take that Tender disclaming his interest how comes it that that Arch-knave Sharp sufficiently now knowne by that name and notion both to King Court and Countrey who was the only Minister so far as I know in all Scotland that took that tender is advanced unto in stead of a gallowes an arch-prelacy and primacy But 3 when the King returned did he make a re-conquest of us what meaned then that compact betwixt Monck and the Nobles and others of Scotland whom he sent for unto the borders and to the end he might more closely carry his businesse made them all to abjure Charles Stewart and his interest a sad presage of what would be our Epidemick distemper when our change or turne begane with manifest perjury did he not a acquante them with his designe and had he not their concurrence and if he had wanted this and had thought that Scotland would have been an adversary unto his designe would he or dursl he have attempted it 4. What way did the King restore us seing if he would speak the matter as it was it was Monck that restored him and us both as to any restauration we gote vvere not vve and he restored together What did he for our restauration vvas He not as passive as we were and some what more 5. Hence then it is false that he found us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation He rather left us so as found us so for we were restored to what we gote pari passu vvith himself 6. It is true at his coming though not by him vve vvere freed from the bondage of forraigners but as for the freedome we vvere restored unto vve are yet ignorant of it and see and feel heavier bondage both as to Church and State then vve did under strangers of forraigners But he addeth If any will say That it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage and that there did lye bands upon him as our sworne King to free ws when he should be in capacity to do it It may be answered 1. It is knowne that when the faâ—al stroke that sunk us into bondage was given there was an expresse disowneing of his right by publick judicatories of the land in the quarrel with the English Sectaryes before Dumbar Answ He should first have removed this objection It was upon the Kings account that the English army did invade us had we forborne to have sent commissioners to have called Him home The Englishes would never have invaded us for that was their only quarrel Because we had taken the Head of the Malignant faction Into our besome and so had we for-borne to have owned his quarrel we had neither been invaded nor subdued by them and there had not been so much of our blood shed as there was And is this all the thanks that
and therefore afterward when he came to be crovvned and formally installed he did also formally and expresly take on the obligation And vvhether he did ever shrink from the observance of that godly oath let this perfidious man avovv vvhat he vvill many vvill assert it as certane in some poynts and too too probable in other 9. But though he should doubt vvhether any King before King Charles the second did svveare any oath or Covenant vvith the People yet he cannot doubt of vvhat this King Charles the second did It being being beyond all denyall and contradiction That he swore both that Oath which was injoyned in King Iames the siâ—t his dayes and also the National Covenant and the Solemne League and Covenant and that according to these the Subjects did sweare obedience unto Him Here was then a mutual conditional Covenant explicitly and in plaine tearmes with all the solemnities imaginable entered into and what needs more to cleare all which we have said and to ground all which we would inferre to justify the late action For as for his vaine inferences they concerne not us and more shall be spoken of them afterward 10. Though this Surveyer be ready to avow that this King hath never swerved from the observation of that oath enjoyed Anno 1567. yet all the World seeth that he hath not as he ought to have done maintained the true Religion nor right preaching and administration of Sacraments Neither hath he according to his power abolished and withstood all false Religions contrary to the same as appeares by the great indulgence and toleration if not countenance granted to Popery and Papists Neither hath he ruled us according to the will of God but rather persecuted us for adhereing to the Word of God nor hath he ruled us by the laudable Lawes and constitutions of the realme but hath with a packt Parliament principled to his minde overturned our lawes libertyes hath framed established iniquity by a law 11. But what sayes he to the Nat. Cov. League Cov. Dar he avow that he hath not broken these If he had not we had not been troubled this day with a Popish Prelatical and Malignant faction nor had we seen these abjured and foresworne Prelates nor had we seen the work of reformation of religion in worship Doctrine Discipline and Government so overthrowne overturned and trode upon as it is this day 12. So then seing he cannot deny but the King took and solemnely swore these Covenants and that now he hath openly and avowedly broken them it is undenyable that he hath broken the conditions on which he was made King yea seing these were the maine conditions and the only conditions considerable and were become the fundamental law of our constitution he hath violated the principal and only conditions covenanted and what we shall hence inferre we shall now show Having thus vindicated and cleared the premises we shall draw out our arguments and conclusions thence and 1. If People propose conditions and tearmes unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in and submitted unto and upon which they are to accept their Crowne and Scepter Then if the Prince of King violate these conditions which he once accepted and contrare of his promise and engagement destroy what he promised to build up The People may very lawfully defend themselves and these good ends which they endeavoured to have secured by proposeing these conditions unto the Prince when he is seeking to destroy all even by force vvhen there is no other remedy But such is our case The King vvas formally and expresly engaged by Compacts and Covenants to secure the Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worshipe Discipline and Government to secure all these vvho owned the same and adhered to the Covenants and to ratify and approve all lavves made for these Covenants and for the security of such as entered into these Covenants and novv notvvithstanding of these conditions agreed unto by him the Covenant and vvork and all is overturned People persecuted meerly upon the account of their adhereing to these Covenants all conditions are violated all Covenants Vowes Compacts Engagements and vvhat could be devised for security of the reformation and of the ovvners thereof are broken Who then can condemne even privat persons if they stand to their defence in this case See Althusius polit cap. 38. n. 30. 2. If People may lavvfully and laudably defend the fundamental lavves of the Kingdom on vvhich the constitution of the Kingdome standeth and on vvhich the security of vvhat is dear to them as men and as Christians relveth Then the late act cannot be condemned because in defending themselves they stood for that vvhich vvas the maine and principal tearme of our constitution But the former is true because the Prince violating these destroyeth the constitution and because He cannot do this as a Prince having already engaged as a Prince to maintaine the constitution he must do it as a private person or an enemy to the constitution and whole body of the land Therefore he may wel be resisted even by private persones see this fully made out by Althus Pol. cap. 38. n. 37. both out of Lawyers and Divines 3. If a People even by resistence may defend their personal libertyes and rights secured unto them by Compacts with the Prince or by the fundamental lawes of the land which the Prince as Prince is bound to maintaine Then the late act cannot be condemned because by it they were but defending that which the King had secured unto them by his compact and which was secured unto them by the fundamental law of the land But the former is true because a privat person is allowed by law to maintaine his Lands and Rights even though some in the Kings name should come under whatsoever pretext to robe and dispossesse him and shut him to the door Therefore this late act though of private persones cannot be condemned 4. If a Prince violating all or he maine conditions upon which he was made Prince becometh stricto jure no Prince but falleth from his benefice not having done the offices in consideration of which he gote that benefice conferred upon him non enim sayeth Althus ubi supra commodum debet sentire ex contractu quem vel omittendo vel committendo quis impugnat Then lawfully enough such an one may be resisted even by Private persones as is cleare But the former is made clear above and such is our case now for the King hath broken palpably and avowedly the maine and principal conditions on which he was made King having overturned the work of reformation which if he had not promised vowed and covenanted to maintaine he had never been crowned or admitted to the exercise of that Government Who then can blaime a People standing to their owne defence when oppressed and tyrannized over by his emissaries who hath thus violated the principal and only conditions of the compact and is forceing them to the
to her step sone Antonius Caracalla si libet licet an nescis te imperatorem esse and no lesse impious was that saying of Anaxarchus to Alexander the Great when he had Killed Clitus in a rage Nesus adsessâ—rem jovi justitiam fas esse quo quicquid actum a dominante fuerit id jus fas sit as if for sooth Alexander could do no wrong It was an abhominable saying of these judges to Cambyses That though they could finde no law permitting a brother to marry his sister yet they knew of another law whereby it was lawful to the Kings of Persia to do whatsoever they pleased All Divines will grant this and so do Lawyers and Polititians See Bodine de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hoenon Disp Polit. 9. Thes 7. Paul Voetius Iurispr Sacra Gerhard de Magist Polit. § 119. Althus Polit. cap. 19. n. 9 10 11. Timpl. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 1. Our Surveyer grants this pag. 57 58. and elswhere 3. Neither is he exempted from the Lawes of Nature and Nations for the law of nature is the very Law of God and God hath no where Subjected his Law unto the vvill of Princes 4. Neither is the exempted from all the civil Lavves sayeth Hoenon ubi supra For sayes he many civil Lavves are but declarative of the Lavv of nature and consectaryes thereof and vvhat povver he hath he hath from the People and the People are certanely bound by these Lavves Yea as Boxhornius sayeth Instit Polit. lib. 1. pag. 33. Principi tantummodo licet quantum populus ei voluit licere No more is lawful for him then the People will The Surveyer in the forecited place sayeth It is a Royal thing for a King to live by the same good Lawes which are given by him to the People and it is of efficacious influence upon them to move them to walk in their dutyes orderly Rex tenetur servare Leges si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes But he might know that our King is bound to observe the Lawes even as Lawes and must pay his debt and submit to the decision of Judges as well as others 5. Our Surveyer confesseth Pag. 75. That the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God of reason and nature yea and to take his directions in government from the rational Lawes of the Kingdome which are deductions from or determinations of the Law of God reason and nature to particular circumstances agreed to by the consent and good likeing of his People Hence it followeth 1. That he cannot dispense by his prerogative Royal with a just Law according to his sole pleasure and so pardon such as deserve death 2. He cannot kill and slay whom he will but according to law 3. Nor can he alone make lawes 4. Nor can his will stand for a law 5. Nor is he the sole interpreter of the law 6. Nor in interpreting of the law hath he a dominion over it to expone it as he wil for if these be not granted it cannot be granted that he is bound to rule us by the Law of God of reason and of nature or by the Lawes of the Kingdome but according to his meer will and pleasure 6. It must be a most unreasonable thing to say That the Soveraignes power is absolute which Royalists contend so much for and say that he is above all law of man for then he might do what he pleased without controle But 1. did ever the People set a Soveraigne over themselves upon these tearmes Did ever People set him over themselves to rage at randon to kill murther massacre and do what seemed good in his eyes 2. Their condition should necessarily be worse after the constitution then it was before 3. The saifty of the People should not be the supreame Law 4. He might then break all bonds and oathes and keep no conditions which he had made 5. If so a Prince as a Prince should be a great plague and judgment to a People 6. All his Subjects should be formal Slaves unto him their lives all they have should be at his devotion 7. He should not then be the Servant of God for the good of the People contrare to Rom. 13 4. 8. If this power agree to him as King then it is from God and so God should give him a power to sin and tyrannize which is most false 9. Then there could be no Tyrants 10. Yea a King as a King should be a Tyrant in actu signato and a Tyrant should be nothing but a King in actu exercito 11. Yea if so they might not so much as be rebuked by the messengers of the Lord for their enormities contrare to the many instances in the Old Testament of Prophets rebuking Princes 12 if his power were absolute lawes would become no lawes neither were there need of lawes nor should the making of lawes be a meane to promove the good of the Realme all which are most absurd And as for for our King That he hath no such prerogative Royal as puts him above all limitations is already sufficiently evidenced by Lex Rex and by the Apology though this Surveyer is pleased to say Pag. 11. That his prerogative Royal is disputed downe most weakly and foolishly in the Apology Yet he will not see so much weaknesse and folly there as he imagineth when ever he cometh to handle that disput But I grant it is easier to him to say that all is weak and foolish which pleaseth nor him then to undertake the confutation thereof It is enough to him that he shew his teeth once and then run away But if he will afterward undertake that debate let him consider the particulars there mentioned and also these 24 particulars Mentioned by Lex Rex Quaest 23. pag. 205. 206. Unto which I shall adde that he may make one work of all these particulars which will furder serve to confirme what is there said and prove our poynt 1. As it is not proper and peculiar to the Kings of Scotland to make lavves and to explaine and interpret lavves so nor is it peculiar unto them to appoynt punishments unto transgressours to liberate and free from the stroke of the lavv As the late Parliament declared by their deed in murthering some and in liberating others guilty of Treason more then such as vvere executed and this by politicians is made a part of the Soveraignity See Bondin de repub mihi Edit Gall. pag. 236. Volgm in Synop de jure principum pag. 58. Hoen Disput Polit. pag. 124. Timpl. Polit. Lib. 5. c. 1. q. 2. 2. The last appeal cometh not alwayes to our King and yet this is reckoned among the royal prerogatives by Bodin ubi supra Pag. 321. and Heen Pag. 127. Timpl. Pol. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. quaest 2. 3. It is not proper and peculiar to the King to appoynt new imposts customes and taxes but Parliaments do this Act. 277. Parl.
15. Iam. 6. c. 2. Parl. 23. Iam. 6. Act. 1. Parl. 1. Char. 1. and act 14. 15. of the same parl act 13. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. and this is reckoned by the forementioned politicians among the prerogatives Volgm pag. 57. Hoen pag. 129. Bodin pag. 244. Timpl. ubi supra 4. Nor doth it belong to him alone to appoynt the value of money as is cleare by our acts act 67. parl 8. Iam. 3. act 93. 97. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 33. parl 8. Iam. 2. act 59. parl 13. Iam. 2. act 2. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 40. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. act 20. of the same parl act 249. parl 15. Iam. 6. c. 9. parl 16. Iam. 6. yet the forecited authors reckon this also among jura Majestatis 5. He must not rule us by his meer will but by the lawes of the land act 79. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 130. 131. parl 8. Iam. 6. and not by any special grant or privat privileges act 48. parl 3. Iam. 1. 6. He is not the proper judge of all causes in the first instance act 45. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 62. parl 8. Iam. 3. 7. Some causes are fully exempted from his judgment and determination act 105. parl 14. Iam. 3. 8. The Lords of the Session may finally decide causes according to the act 65. parl 3. Iam. 1. without any liberty granted to the party to appeal to the King act 63. parl 14. Iam. 2. and this privilege of the Session in ratified act 93. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 1. parl 2. Mar. act 170. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 183. of the same parl act 211. parl 14. Iam. 6. act 23. parl 1. Carol. 1. act 23. parl Anno 1661. Charl. 2. Yea the judges are allowed to discerne according to equity notwithstanding of any write of the King 's to the contrary act 92. parl 6. Iam. 6. act 47. parl 11. Iam. 6. act 79. of the same parl 9. He is limited in granting remissons sic act 46. parl 2. Iam. 1. act 51. parl 3. Iam. 1 act 75. parl 14. Iam. 2. act 42. parl 6. Iam. 3. act 94. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 62. 63. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 174. parl 13. Iam. 6. 10. He is limited in alienating of lands possessions or moveable goods act 2. parl 1. Iam. 2. act 41. parl 11. Iam. 2. act 70. and 71. parl 9. Iam. 3. act 112. parl 14. Iam. 3. act 5. parl 1. Iam. 4. act 10. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 22. ejusd parl act 50. parl 4. Iam. 4. act 90. parl 6. Iam. 4. act 84. parl 6. Iam. 5. act 115. and. 116. parl 7. Iam. 5. act 6. parl 9. Iam. 6. act 176. parl 13. Iam. 6. act 159. ejusdem parl act 203. and 204. parl 14. Iam. 6 act 236. parl 15. Iam. 6. act 242. and 243. ejusdem parl act 1. parl 16. Iam. 6. cap. 4. parl 23. Iam. 6. act 10. parl 1. Carol. 1. 11 So is he limited in erecting Royal brughs act 43. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He is limited in appoynting publick offices for admininistration of justice act 44. parl 11. Iam. 2. 12. He may not passe gifts signatures or remissions but with the consent of the privy Council act 12. parl 2. Iam. 4. 14. He hath been aftentimes admonished of his duty by the Parliament see act 23. parl 1. Iam. 1. act 5. and. 6. parl 3. Iam. 2. act 14. parl 6. Iam. 2. act 92. parl 13. Iam. 3. act 8. parl 2. Iam. 4. act 29. parl 3. Iam. 4. act 17. parl 1. Iam. 6. If this Surveyer hath a minde to defend the King 's civil prerogative royal or his absolute power Let him take all these particulars to his consideration but we goe on to our purpose From what hath been said concerning this limited power of the Kings we draw these particulars for our purpose 1. If the King be a limited Prince Then he may in some cases be lawfully resisted Gerhard himself de Magistrat Pol. § 484. pag. 1303. in answering of that quaestion what shall Subjects do if a Magistrate who is an infidel or an haeretick doth force them unto a false religion sayeth That such a Magistrate who hath absolute and unlimited power and is under no compacts may not be resisted by such as are meer Subjects So that he would grant in this case That it is lawful for meer private Subjects to resist a limited Prince who is bound by compacts and contracts It is true when he cometh afterward to speak of resisting a Tyrant and proponeth the quaestion § 486. whether such who have absolute power and turne Tyrants may be resisted after he hath cited some sayings of Papists he tells us § 487. That all the arguments of iunius Brutus Rossaeus Buckerius are solidly answered by Barclaius Albericus Gentilis Cunerus and Arnisaeus and this passage our Surveyer bringeth in Pag. 89. But who seeth not that it cometh not at all home to our purpose seing our King is not a King of absolute power though he hath his Kingdom by succession but is limited by conditions and stipulations And further every one may see the weaknesse of Gerhard's reasons and how inconsistent he is with himself For. 1. Sayeth he such is only under Gods jurisdicton But alas 1. May not I resist a person vvho is not under my jurisdiction 2. Royalists will say the same of all Princes even Barclaus and Arnisaeus Againe he sayes The People have translated their whole power unto such a Prince cannot recall it But 1. They have never translated over unto him a power to inslave themselves for that was not in their power to do Nor 2. Could they ever give away the power of self defence which is their birth right 3. Sayes he Subjects in this case want God's command and a Superiour power But 1. They have God's command in nature no lesse then these who are under limited Princes 2. They have a superior virtual power in cases of necessity 4. Sayes he He is a Father of the Republict and not a Tutor only and therefore as Children have no power over their Parents no more have Subjects over their Princes But 1. Are not even limited Princes as well Fathers to the Commonwealth So that by this argument it shall be as unlawfull to resist these which he will not say 2. Yea such absolute Princes Look rather to be Tygers and stated enemies unto the Common-wealth then Fathers 3. They have no proper Parental power as we shewed but Metaphorical 4. Even natural parents may be resisted Ergo much more they 5. We are not speaking of giving judgment against Tyrants but of resisting of them and if he grant this vve have our desire And his question vvas touching resistence § 485. Quest. 4. 2. A Limited and pactional Prince may be legally resisted Ergo also with force when a legal resistence cannot be had The antecedent is true
of their accounts should imbrace professe and practise the truth of God and the true Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government Though King Parliament and Council should reject and condemne the same and countenance or command and authorize the practice of idolatry superstition or any false way in the vvorshipe of God or in the doctrine and discipline For no lavv of man can vvarrand iniquity no act or constitution of any Magistrat under Heaven can rescinde or invalidate the mandats of the King of Kings or exempt People from obedience due thereunto No true Christian whatever court flatterers atheists may do can deny this 7. Nor can it be denyed That in Kingdomes or Commonvvealths vvhere once the True Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government hath been received publickly imbraced approved and countenanced by authority ratified by lavves statutes acts declarations proclamations oathes vovves and engagements Though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should turne Apostates from that Reformed and received Religion and by their lavves condemne the same and establish corruptions and enforce corrupt practices by penaltyes yet it vvere the duty of all Subjects vvho had any regaird to the matters of their ovvne salvation to adhere to the truth once received and established and vvorshipe and Serve God after the right manner and refuse to obey these iniquous lavves Will any deny such a truth as this except such as have sold soull consciences and all unto the lust of Men or think there is no Religion but vvhat King and Parliament vvill have and consequently if they should enjoyne the imbraceing of Mahomet's Religion or the vvorshiping of Sun Moon and Starrs or of Satan himself obedience must be yeelded 8. If in the forementioned case The Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should combine together and conspire against Christ and his interest and should not only by their acts and statutes banish him and his glorious interests out of the Kingdome but also by their cruel executions labour to force constraine and compel all their subjects or a part of them to the renunceing of the formerly received and avowed truthes and to the imbraceing of the introduced corruptions and so to run with themselves unto the same excesse of iniquity perjury and abhomination Then it is lawful for these Subjects so oppressed persecuted and abused for their constancy in adhereing to the truths once received contrare to all engagements vowes and Covenants to defend themselves against that unjust tyranny and rage and maintaine the reformed truth which is unjustly violently taken from them by force when there is no other probable meane left for them to essay nay when liberty to supplicate or petition is inhumanely and severely under the very paine of Treason discharged The reasons are 1. because we have shewed above that it is most lawful for Subjects to maintaine their lives persons and Estates against the unjust violence and tyrannical oppression of their enraged Magistrates And if that be lawful this must also be much more lawful for as the soul is much more precious then the body so matters that concerne the soul should be preferred to such things as concerne the body And therefore Religion which is necessary for the life of the soull should be with no lesse Zeale care and industry maintained and preserved pure and uncorrupted then what concerneth the lives of our bodyes 2. It is lawful for Subjects to maintaine their natural and civil libertyes by force when no other way can be used lest they and their posterity after them should be redacted unto a state of perfect slavery and bondage worse then that of the Israilites in Egypt And shall it be unlawfull to fight for the defence of Religion wherein is comprised all true and desireable liberty and to save posterity from tyranny and bondage in their souls and consciences much more dreadfull and terrible then the most insupportable and bitter bondage of the body imaginable Shall men be allowed to fight to preserve their owne bodyes and the bodyes of their posterity from the slavery of men and shall they not be allowed to fight that they may preserve their owne soulls and the souls of their posterity from the tyranny of Satan Who but such as either think they have no soulls more then beasts or know not the worth of their souls will deny this consequence 3. It is lawful for Subjects to defend their lives and libertyes in order to the defence of the true Religion and the interests of Jesus Christs when their losseing of these should certanely tend to the losse of Religion Ergo It cannot be unlawful to defend Religion which is the maine and principal thing 4. If it be lawful to maintaine the interests of a King against an usurper whether a stranger or an inferiour Magistrate who is under the King and is seeking to eject him and his interest contrare to his faith and trust Then much more must it be lawful to defend Christ Iesus and his interest when King and Parliament contrare to their sworne allaigance unto him have rebelled and are seeking to dethrone him by their wicked Lawes and Ordinances and to banish him and his interests out of the Kingdome by their tyrannical cruelty inhumane and mercilesse executions Will any deny this but ingrained Atheistical Malignants whose chief character hitherto hath been to preferre man's interest unto Christs Or such as have renounced all faith and loyalty unto the King of Kings and have set up a creature as their only God whom they minde to Worshipe and adore and for whom they minde to fight against all breathing and against the God of heaven also But their weapons shall fall out of their hands when They shall feel the lighting downe of his arme with the indignation of his anger and with the flame of a devouring fire and with scattering and tempests and hailstones and when he shall cause his glorious voyce to be heard If any should Object That because Christ's Kingdome is not of this World therefore his Servants should not fight for him It is easily answered That as hence it will follow that Religion cannot be forced by the sword upon any So it will not follow that Religion should not be defended for then Magistrates should not defend Religion nor Christians should not defend their Religion against the Turks Which is false And hence 5. If it be lawful for People to defend their Religion against an army of infidells Mahometans or Papists invadeing the Land of purpose to spoile us of our Religion and to force us to imbrace heathenisme Turcisme or Popery Then it must be lawfull to defend the same true Religion against King and Parliament when they seek to rob the People thereof and force corruptious upon them because King and Parliament have no more authority from God to oppresse the consciences of their Subjects to corrupt Religion and force corruptions upon them then the Turk or the Pope hath and
is abundantly cleare from what is said and shall be furder cleared and confirmed when we examine what this Surveyer allaigeth against it 12. Scripture giveth us ground to beleeve that in such a case as this when a defection in a covenanted land and a land devoted to God is carryed on more is required of Private Persones then to mourne and sigh in secret as 1. Deut. 13 12 13 14 c. If thou shall heare say in one of thy cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there saying certane men the children of Belial are gone out from among you and have with drawne the inhabitants of their city saying let us goe and serve other Gods which yee have not known Then shall thou enquire and make search and ask diligently and behold if it be truth and the thing certane that such abhomination is wrought among you thou shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword destroying it utterly and all that is therein and the cattel thereof with all that is therein c. Which words were undenyably spoken to the People to whom the rest of that chapter was spoken and particularly directed So the dutch annot in the contents of that chapt say that the way is shewed how the People of God were to demeane themselves to wards a city that was fallen off and though we readyly grant that these words do not impower private persones to act the part of Magistrates and brevi manu judge and condemne or put to death such as are guilty of the crime mentioned nor to fall upon the execution without previous judging and tryal of the cause yet it will be no wire drawing of Scriptures whatever this Surveyer allaige to say That this place will warrand private persones to defend their Reformation when by oppression and violence it is taken from them and when defection is carryed on in a land devoted to God and Magistrates either neglect to take course therewith or countenance the same The Zeal of the Lord should stirr up people to do more for vindicating the glory of God and saving the land from an universal apostasie then privately mourne in secret Sure this being spoken to the people sayes they should manifest and declare their Zeal otherwayes seing by this they might have sufficiently knowne how detestable such a defection was unto the Lord and that no lesse would pacifie his wrath against that part corrupted then utter exterminion and overthrow of young and old in it with their cattel and goods Will not any readyly yeeld that they had been bound to have concurred with the Magistrate in this execution and that if the Magistrate had been negligent to have remonstrated the matter unto him and if either that had not prevailed or Magistrates being chief actors and patrons thereof they durst not have remonstrated the matter they might lawfully have joyned together and with their swords in their hands have moved the Magistrate to purge out that abhomination and to have granted them security that the contagion should not have spread nor they be infected therewith left the fierce-anger of God had not been turned away from them And if this be granted which cannot easily be denyed we have our purpose and Naphthali hath all which he desired And certanely to say That this course was only to be taken when one city was infected and not when moe when ten or twenty or possibly the major part were but to elude Scripture as Naphtali said seing the same reason will hold in these cases which holdeth in the cases instanced and whatever the Surveyer say pag. 56. such a cleaving to the literal meaning of Scripture as will not admit consequential arguments to be drawne therefrom to the like cases nor an argument drawne a minori ad majus from the case instanced is neither the Doctrine of Christ nor of found Divines nor is the following of Christs example and of the Apostles who made use of such consequences a making a nose of wax of the holy Scriptures nor a wringing or wresting them to bring in our owne fancyes nor a covering of our crooked courses with such a cloak however we be branded by him for this and as being men of blood and violence but his falsly rubbing that aspersion on the innocent will never wipe that right name off him and his party whose violence and thirsting after blood is more then sufficiently knowne yea himself in his 3 Answere pag. 57 58. will allow something to be done by vertue of this text where the major part is corrupt and the minor part found saying Though the lesser part is not to acquiesce in the way of the greater runing into rebellion against God but by all meanes competent to them bear witnesse against that way and study to keep themselves pure when they cannot prevaile to have matters rectified as to the whole body And yet the carnal luckwarmnesse and indifferency of this latitudinarian Politician in the matters of God appeareth That after he had said that there is no coming to an accomodation in this matter whether the True God or other Gods should be served he presently addeth in a parenthesis and yet this man would be very severe if no Nation in the world might having before been embodyed in a Kingdome or State continue and abide in their peaceable communion in civil interests upon supposition of such an equal division ariseing amongst them It seemeth this meek peaceable man would suffer Satan to be worshiped in the same State with the true and living God and that if he apply this to the purpose if the equal half of the Kingdome of Israel had worshiped the devil he would not have been severe but advised the other half to abide united with them in civil communion But leaving these and the like which are not much to our purpose let us see what he sayes to the thing He tells us Pag. 57. That no exposition of a text can subsist that is either contrary to other texts of Scripture or to sound reason This is granted But how showeth he that the exposition given is contrary to either It is contrary to Scripture because sayes he the Scripture committeth the vindicative and punishing sword only to the Magistrate who only is the sword bearer Rom. 13. But this is not against us or our exposition Naphthali speaks only of private persons taking the defensive sword and thereby keeping the land pure and labouring still in their private way not in a judicial authoritative and Magistraticall way to purge out corruption and maintaine Reformation can he shew us Scripture against this Againe sayes he this is poynt-blank contrary to reason remedylesâ—y tending to dissolve humane Societies and all Kingdomes and Comon-wealths Then it seemeth though Magistrates should concurre with the minor and sounder part to purge out the corruption of the greater or concurre with the equal half to purge the other or with a greater part to
shew them the manner of the King and what else was this for but to bring them off their purpose and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder But it is said ver 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place and other Commentators and he will finde it so 3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num 58. thus Impunity sayes he in committing wickednese can make no right Princes have no power to do evil but only to help comforte and to promove the good and profite of the people Vasq Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num 2 3. contr Illustr To do evil is no act of power but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil Vasq D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves and Incendiaries which can do many things which they ought not should be said to do these things by a kingly right and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission which de facto cannot be hindered That is common to others as well as to Kings for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment either because the fact cannot be proved or because they cannot be gotten punished or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted for Tyrants are Adulterers Ravishers Murtherers and such as are guilty of other capital crimes whom Scripture stiles Lyons Beares Dragons Wolves Prov. 28 ver 14. Ezech. 22 27. Dan. 2 c. and the like Pfal 58. Esa 13 ver 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1. Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this Disp select part 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity is not Ius doth found no Ius Or right neither is founded on the law of God of Nature of Nations nor on the civil law And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth that it is a Ius because it shewes what people were to endure willingly and might not resist He answereth Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius and not the King and so it could not be called the manner of the King but the manner of the People Againe he sayes evil losse vexation passion and not to hinder evil in Scripture phrase is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius then Ius or right viz. a privation of it 4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives it is not of the same nature with the former evils sayeth Althusius in the place above cited And the Author of Lex Rex pag. 137. said well If so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the People of God must â—e a lawful power given of God for a lawful power it must be if it cometh from God whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command and be either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the Servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it into the hands of the Woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by law to one man to command Twenty Thousand cut throats to destroy and kill all the children of God that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman married by free Election of a humorous and inconstant Man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven like the law of divorce for the hardnesse of heart not of the jewes only but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch That one Emperour may be such a Law of God as the law of divorce kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name men women and sucking infants 5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. When there was no pleace for repentance no remedy no use of terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far This recorded was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law Answ 1. Though the King was set over them he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book and keeped to posterity no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty is but a begging of vvhat is in question And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant seing he vvas to teach both King and People The good and right way 1 Sam. 12 ver 23 24 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote vvas Not as it is commonly practised Chap. 8. ver 9 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome teaching what dutyes the King ought to performe in the government of his people and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King according to that description of a King set downe by Moses Deut. 17 ver 14 c. Ezech. 45 ver 9 10. Cap. 46 ver 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2 v. 2. The Dutch Annot. say This is not of the way manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted concerning the goverment of Kings see Deut. 17 ver 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects and of the Subjects tovvard their King and these vvere the fundamental lavves
for their defence and preservation Then much more may they lavvfully novv joyne and associate together for their defence and preservation without making any such rupture or new erections but endeavouring to keep the old Society firme and intire undissolved and unweakened So that though his glosse should be admitted he doth but bewray the ignorence of his capricious braine to take the Medium for the conclusion And the antecedent will be granted by politians and is expresly asserted by Althusius Polit Cap. 20. Num. 20. in case the Prince keep not his promise but violate his faith and Covenant 5. Suppose also that this which he alledgeth had been the authors positive assertion can he hence inferred with any colour of reason that it was or is the designe of the author and his party to dissipate and dissolve the old setled frame of this Kingdome and erect new Commonvvealthes vvith nevv distinct Soveraignes Seing every one knovveth that many things are lavvful vvhich are not expedient convenient nor necessary that it vvere the result of no mature deliberation but of madnesse and folly to intend and designe such a thing vvhich though lavvful in it self yet all things considered vvere very inexpendient and unnecessary yea not only not advantageous to their ends and purposes but quite destructive thereof Novv since the Surveyer hath dravvne in this controversy by the eares and set it in the front of his learned and elaborat pamphlet vve must suppose him one vvho is vvell versed in this topick and can give a good account of his politick notions touching this quaestion But alas if he had a real adversary to deal vvith as novv he doth but faigne one to himself it is easy fighting against a man of stravv or one of our ovvne making his ridiculous and yet audacious folly vvould easily be made to appear his adversary vvould laugh as indeed he vvould have cause at the shakeing of his spear He maketh this the thesis which he undertaketh to confirme That when politick bodyes are setled in voluntary associations or whatever way in the course of divine providence they have been reduced to live under the same lawes and authorities and have continued long in the union of a common interest under the protection of magistracy to break off from the body in seditious secessions cannot but be displeasing to God and they are no other then firebrands confounders of humane society fighters against God and his ordinance who instigate People to cut off themselves from the body of the Common wealth whereof they are members But would not his adversary tell him that he had granted as much in the words immediatly preceeding as would make him and his position both ridiculous For he hath granted That the Lord hath not by any precept particularly determined the bounds of every embodied Political society There being some greater and some lesser acting under their several heads and souveraigne Magistrates And seing neither God nor Nature hath determined the quantity and extent of each Republicki or embodyed Politick Society what more affinity hath it with sinful sedition to say that greater bodyes may be divided and subdivided into lesser Republicks then to say that moe lesser bodyes may associate together to make one greater especially seing Politicians tell us that the ends of government are more easily attained in a lesser Republick then in a greater and that a mid way commonwealth neither too largâ— nor too little is the best as being lesse subject to vices and greater calamities as was to be seen in the Roman Republick before it was enlarged in the dayes of Marius Sylla Pompey and Caesar and is to be seen this day in the Commonwealth of Venice and the like as Althusius shewes us Polit. Cap. 9. num 11. The time was when all the World was under one head and after they were multiplied they became distinct Republicks without any sinful or seditious secession The time was when all thess westerne parts were under one Emperour and was nothing but a seditious secession caused by firebrands the ground of their becoming many and distinct Republicks The time was when Scotland England and Irland were distinct Kingdomes and under distinct Soveraigne Magistrates and what repugnancy were it either to the Law of God or nature to say they might be so againe So were there once Seven Kings in England at once and moe then one King in Scotland at once and by no reason can he prove that it should always be as it is at present but by the same reason his adversaries could prove him guilty of treason for he behoved to say that because we were once all under one Emperour we ought to be so still and that the King must either hold his crowne of the Emperour or be an usurper and a seditious rebel for in the course of providence we were then reduced under the same Lawes and Authorities and continued in the union of a common interest for some good space of time Yea and observe many of these civil Lawes yet Thus we see whither this advocate will drive the matter and how little service he doth his Majesty for all his rich recompence But it may be his arguments are cogent and binding He hath many words Pag. 4 5. to prove that this is contrary to Religion The sum is this Never greater perversion of government then in the times of many of the Prophets and in the dayes of Christ and his holy Apostles and primitive Christians and yet this was never their doctrine or sense Answ Is this all that he can say to prove that this is contrary to Religion Sure his adversary will think that he hath little Religion who sayth so and that he hath farlesse loyalty to his Master the King of Great Britane for why Because contrare to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles and the sense of all the primitive Christians he acknowledgeth the King of Britane to be a distinct King from the Roman Emperour and not to depend upon him They never taught that Britane and Irland should be ruled by a King distinct from him and that these Islands should be separate from the Roman Empire and so the King holds his Crowne by usurpation and by an irreligious secession from the Empire which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught and must not this man and not we acknovvledge Iudas of Galilee and Theudas to be his Masters For they taught especially the first as Iosephus and Ruffinus out of him shevv us that no tribute should be given to the Roman Emperour and he vvil do the same and say that it should be payed to king Charles the II. Next his adversary vvould tell him that if this were held and maintained as a poynt absolutely necessary to salvation then his argument vvould say something But seing it is only held as lavvful and according as providence determineth it to be convenient or inconvenient to be practicable it is sufficient if the doctrine of the
all which he hath to this purpose For as touching his application of this pag. 9. and 10. all alleging that there is no perversion of the Ends of government now it hath been spoken to already and his adversaries in this position if there be any such which I am ignorant of will think and make out that the ends of government are so far perverted that if there were no other thing lying in the way of a secession then vvhat he hath said they vvould think it of concernment to minde this outgate vvhich they had no thoughts of before And the King should then think himself little obliged to this man and his defences and wish that he had been sleeping when he wakened such a debate and himself had bestowed his gold another way For sure if such a thing were upon the heart of people now as I hope am confident it is not they will professe themselves obliged to this Surveyer for putting it into their head first and that all which he hath said against it would rather invite and encourage them to it then discourage them from it May not then this Man be ashamed to take his Majesties Money and do so bad service for it as he hath done But Some will possibly say what could any persons have said more Well though some should think me officious to take his Majesties part and defend his cause un-hired yea and undesired yet I will propose one thing which I am confident shall be more effectual for preserving the immemorially setled frame of this Nation and the union of all his Majesties Dominions to all generations without dissipation or dissolution or any hazard or feare thereof Then what this Pamphleting Prelate hath said Or will say though he should write volumes at this rate What is that you will say It is no great secret yet if heartily followed it shall prove infallibly effectual Let his Majesty Turne to the Lord with all his heart and repent of his fearful perjury and defection and minde his oath made unto the great God and performe his vowes and fulfil his Covenant which he swore with hands lifted up to the most high God and solemnely promised to owne and prosecute as he should answere to God in that day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed and execute judgment on the Apostate Prelates by hanging them up before the Sun that the fierce anger of the Lord evidenced by moe as twice three Yeers famine of the word may be removed and on all others who have been authors and abettors of this norrible course of defection and unparallelable apostasy which makes these lands an hissing and a by-word to all nations and let him honestly and with an upright heart prosecute the ends of these holy Covenants and with that Godly King Asa 2. Chron. 15. Enter into a Covenant that whosoever will not seek the Lord God of Israel shall be put to death whether small or great whether Man or woman And let his successours follow his footsteps in this and he and they shall finde no imaginable bond so sure to tye his Kingdomes together perpetually as an indissoluble Society then these holy Covenants particularly that solemne league and Covenant In which all his subjects in Scotland England and Ireland did sweare in a most solemne manner to maintaine and promove reformation of Religion in Worshipe Doctrine Discipline and Government and endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the Three Kingdomes to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion Confession of faith Forme of Church government Directory for worshipe and Catechiseing c. that they and their posterity after them may as brethren live in faith and love and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of them and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three Kingdomes and to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries Malignants or evil instruments by hindering the Reformation of Religion divideing the King from his People or one of the Kingdomes from another or make any faction or partyes among the People contrary to this League and Covenant that they may be brought to publick tryal and receive condigne punishment And that they should each one of them according to their place and interest endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoyned in firme peace and union to all posterity And that they shall not suffer themselves directly nor indirectly by whatsoever combination perswasion or terror to be divided withdrawne from this belssed union and conjunction Now what bonde more strong to unite and keep together his Majestie 's Dominions can the wit of Man imagine And shall not the owneing and prosecuting of this Covenant Appear to all rational persons the most infallible meane to effectuate this indissoluble union and lasting Conjunction that can be invented CAP. XIX How weakly and foolishly the Surveyer defendeth his Majestie 's Life is shewed THe surveyer finding how poorly he had defended the cause now mainly controverted viz. The unlawfulnesse of Peoples defending themselves and maintaining their Religion against manifest and intolerable oppression Cap. 2. That he might do something for his money would start another question wherein he thought he should do his Majsome acceptable piece of servicé and secure his life when all came to all Though he could not cudgil with his railing for he can move none with his reason the People into a stupide and irrational subjection so that let the King rage worse then ever Nero did they should not lift a hand to resist and withstand him He thinks he shall do the next best viz. he shall fortify his Majestie 's person and set such a guard of impregnable reasons about him that no man no company of men yea no judicatoure shall ever approach to touch his sacred person or to spoile him of his life a guard of reasons like lyon rampants be-like he thought them more invincible and saife then a legion of the most valient Champions that his Majestie 's kingdomes can aford But poor man he may dreame that such armes are impenetrable and proof because they are the best in his armory or that his dull head could hammer out But no man of reason will think so yea all who know that belongeth to this controversy and are not professed adversaries yea and the most ingenuous of them too will upon second thoughts be forced to say That never any put pen to paper in the King's quarrel who hath so foolishly and childishly managed that disput and how little he deserveth thanks let be a reward for his paines such as are sober will judge when they consider how little ground he had to move such a question now seeing the wronging of the King's Person or his just authority was not intended by those worthies who arose for the maintenance of Religion as such of them who were publickly put to death did openly upon the scaffold confesse and avow and
And what if his adversaries say and prove also that the King of Britane is not such a King as he accounts truly so His saying that the King of Britane is absolute will note prove that he is so and will be found but a weak defence for his life if he be not able to prove him above all judgement and punishment which we have not yet seen and dispaire to see done 2. These words 1. Pet. 2 ver 13. may be as well rendered The King as supereminent and can import no more but one who had a supreme or supereminent place in the administration of government notwithstanding whereof he might be was accountable to the Senat of Rome for learned politicians and lawyers prove that the supreame power of government was in the Senate even at this time which clearly appeared in their judging and condemning Nero and other impious and tyrannical Emperours So that even hence we see that one may be supreame in order of civil government and yet both judgeable and punishable 3. His adversaries will not much care how he call that government Royal or not and whether he call the government of Britane Royal or not Names in these matters and titles which goe much by fashion or fancy are but weak arguments and he will never be able to stop the mouth of his adversaries who would plead for calling King Charles to account and for judging him and punishing him by saying he is a King and the government is a Royal government they would account these but thinne wals and uselesse cloaks of fig leaves to preserve and defend intolerable tyranny Hath this man no better arguments then thise wherewith to defend his Majestie 's Royal life and person Or hath the King no better advocate to defend his cause But it may be this profound Statist will speak more nervously in the following observations Therefore Let us hear what he sayes in the 2 place It is certane sayes he no man can be judged or punished but by his owne judge who is above him and hath authority over him by lawful commission from God or from men authorized by God to give such commission now who shall be judge to these invested with Soveraigne Majesty seing Every soul under them is commanded to be subject to them Rom. 13 ver 1. and seing the Supreame Power of the sword is committed unto them and not to others but by deputation and in dependence upon them in a true Monarchy there must be an exemption and impunity as to subjects of the person invested with Soveraignity and Majesty God's Law Natures Light and sound reason are all for this that such as are invested with Soveraigne Majesty having the legislative power the jurisdictional power the coërcive and punitive power originally in himself must enjoy exemption and impunity as to subjects actings against them the contrary tenet overthrowes the order of God And Nature and precipitates humane societies in a gulf of endlesse confusions Answ 1. Here is enough to satisfy his adversaries For 1. They will tell him that he hath not yet proved the government of Britane a true Monarchy in his sense and so he but begs the thing in question here 2. They will tell him that the King hath not the sole legislative power nor sole jurisdictional power nor sole cöercive and punitive power far lesse all these solely and originally in himself And it is but to such Soveraignes that he pleads for this exemption impunity Doth not his Advocat deserve a singular reward who pleadeth his Master's cause so dexterously by proving an uncertanty by that which is more uncertane founding all upon his bare word A noble champion forsooth or rather a Monster whose word must be a law an irrefragable reason too Thus it seems what ever power he give to the King there is the Dictators power that the thinks is solely in himself and that originally but for all this he hath one disadvantage that he is of little authority and of as little credite with sober rational persons 2. He will grant that such Monarchies as he accounts only true are not every where no not where there are persons called Kings and Emperours How cometh it then that the order of God and nature is not overthrowne in these Dominions and Republicks and that their Societyes are not precipitated into a gulf of endlesse confusions Shall nothing preserve the order of God and nature but that which is the most ready mean to destroy it viz. an uncontrollable power in one Tyrant to destroy all his Kingdome Man Wife and Childe 3. Politicians will tell him that the Ephori the Parliament are his judges and that the People who by a lawful commission from God made him King and authorized him are above him and have authority over him in case he turne a Tyrant and pervert the ends of government 4. Though it be requisite there be an ordinary standing judge to cognosce of controversies which fall out betwixt one private person and another yet it is not alwayes necessary there be one condescended on to judge betvvixt the Soveraigne and the People vvhen the controversy falleth out betvvixt them more then that there should be a standing ordinary judge to decide controversies falling out betvvixt tvvo distinct and independent Kingdomes 5. What commission from Man authorized by God had the high Priest and such as joyned vvith him vvhen they deposed and killed Athaliah if he say she was an usurper True yet she possessed the place six years peacably without molestation and who was judge whether she was an usurper or not Had the matter been referred to her she would have been as far from calling herselfe an usurper as a Tyrant now will be from judging himself a Tyrant And so as in this case the Tyrant sine titulo had a judge above her though she was invested with Soveraigne Majesty so in the other case The Tyrant exercitio though invested with Soveraigne Majesty hath a judge above him 6. The place Rom. 13. is to be understood as was shewed above of inferiour Magistrates as well as of the supreame And it sayes of all in authority that such as are under them should be subject unto them In so far as they are subjects unto them so in poynt of administration of justice according to equity all are subject to the supreame or supereminent governour but when he becometh a Tyrant he becometh subject unto them who gave him that power and set him up under God 7. He insinuats that inferiour Magistrates are not essential Magistrates but deputation from and in dependence upon the King But Lex Rex Quest 20. hath by many cleare and unanswereable arguments evinced the contrary In the third place he citeth some sentences of Tertullian calling the Emperours second unto God and above all men and only subject unto God Of Optatus saying that none are above them but God And of Ierom speaking of Psal 51. against thee thee only have
teaching should be so far transported as to take the circumstantials of Religion for the greater and weighty matters of Law and Gospel without which known and beleeved none can come to God Can we think or can any but this wretch who feareth not God think that the observing of sacred Covenants made about the life and substantials of Religion as well as more external things is no great and weighty matter of the Law No humble understanding seeker of God but though he knoweth there is a difference betwixt the circumstantialls of Religion and the weightier matters of Law and Gospel yet as He will not account every thing circumstantial which this circumstantially substantial Prelat vvil call so so He vvill have a tender regard to every thing vvhich Christ hath appoynted in his house But I pray vvho can take his Man for one of these meek people vvho hath the promise of God's teaching vvho to obtaine a bishoprick a circumstantial in his account but really to him and his collegues a substantiall sappy thing to sensual carnal Epicures and bellygods and to such as care for no other portion but one in this life hath sold and given away the most weighty matters of Law and Gospel both And how he shall then come to God unlesse he repent I see not It may be the needle headed casuist hath found out a new way and if not sure and saife yet to his experience easy and honourable viz. by ascending from a Presbyter to a Prelate But whither next Exitus acta probat either backward or headlong downe the precipice Againe Who can think sayes he that an intelligent people should account that the concernes of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation do lye with so much stresse upon this poynt that the weakest and most ignorant Minister shall have a potestative parity with the Man of greatest gifts learning and knowledge that the minister weakest in his prudentialls should have equal authority in the managing of the matters of God's house with the wisest and one of the most noted prudence that the youngest rawest and most unexperienced Minister should have as much power in ruleing the house of God as the Man fullest of years whose judgment is consolidated and ripened for government and who hath for a long time given such documents of good and wise behaviour that makes him fitter to rule the younger sort then to be ruled by them Answ No doubt but ye are the people and wisdome shall die with you yee are the Men of greatest gifts learning and knowledge viz. to devoure cups loose the knots of Govenants and to lead people the broad way to hell you are the wisest and most noted for prudence in that carnal wisdome which is enmity to God and in that worldly way of selling soul and conscience to purchase greetings in the high wayes high places honours revenues Court stations Court rewards and Court complements c. You are the Men fullest of years whose judgment is consolidated ripened for government giving for along time documents of good and wise behaviour having not only your judgments stupidly blinded but consciences seared and ripened for a dreadful plague and of this have you for a long time given sufficient documents by shewing how chamelion-like you can change all colours and how wittily you can turne with all tydes and have a behaviour suteable for all companyes but the company of God's people O ye Seraphical Divines or or rather Dunces O ye sufficiently qualified for a bacchus barrel O ye sublime Doctors of the blake art of perjury O ye learned Clerks in the mysteries of the Kingdome of Darknesse O ye whose prudence is to saile with all windes O ye Men of judgment consolidated into a stone having no conscience and far lesse piety Doubtlesse you are the Men the only Men fit for the sole possessing of that potestative power and authority to manage the matters of God's house and to rule the young stirplings But every tree is known by its frute and whether your singular Antichristian supereminency or the Apostolick parity hath best mannaged the matters of Christ's house the present overflowing and abounding of Idolatry Superstition Sodomy Adultery Uncleanesse Drunkenesse Atheisme Ignorance Profanity malignancy hatred of piety persecution of godlinesse and such like abhominations and the villannies of these debauched creatures the Curates will to all serious and soberâ— onlookers determine And by the present face of affaires together with all that which what is already come doth presage compared with what was seen while Presbyterian government was in any vigour and integrity will make all that feare the Lord see that more of the concerns of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation lyeth upon that very poynt of the discipline of Christ's house then by many hath been thought and will be a sufficient confirmation that this parity and not their domineering superiority was the only forme of government established by Christ and his Apostles Moreover he sayes Or who can see the prejudice to Christ's Kingdome and precious souls if such a worthy person as is described be intrusted with inspection over other Brethren and Churches in a reasonable bounds not with a dominative or lordly power but paternal and fatherly not to do after his owne arbitrement and as one unchallengeable in his actions but to be regulated by acts of the Church and Land and to be responsible to his Super tours in case of maleversation not to rule solely but with the consent and Counsel of Presbysers Answ By this Tyranny in the Church all may see what prejudice doth dayly come to Christ's Kingdome and to precious souls who will but open their eyes By what authority should any clame that power of inspection over others and that in a most unreasonable bounds Is the power of the present Lordly Lord Prelates paternal Sure they must be step Fathers then and that of the cruelest kinde Have not the present Lordly Prelats as much dominative and Lordly power as ever they had in Scotland And do they not rule and domineer in the Church after their owne arbitrement Who is to controle them unlesse the good King but a gentle curb in some or their jawes to make way for greater rage and Tyranny What acts of the Church are these which regulate them Be-like the lawes acts which their owne lusts make within their owne breasts for they are the Church the holy Clergy and who but they Who are over them as Superiours Sure none but the King in their account and to him must they be responsible and if they forget not the Court-art but laboure to keep some chief courtiers on their side they know all will be well and they will hear no rebukes but well done good and faithful Servant but no Church judicatory is over them But Zion's King is above them and their Superiour also and he will call them to an account for their usurpation and Tyranny He tells us they rule
to write thus is because his quondaÌ„â—brethren baffled him down among the weak and did not so intrust him as they did that Arch-deceiver his late companion in fear and perplexity And so it would seem he is only grieved that he had not an equal hand with that Arch-traitour sharpe in cutting his Mothers throat O strange But to his sorrow let him know God will take the desire for the dead Then he closeth that paragraph with a quirck saying Imparity was then without tittle now it is with it and there is our change and great defection and surely that which hath been will be there is no new thing under the Sun And so may the Pope say There was an imparity among the Apostles for Peter and some others were pillars without a title but now it is with a title Is not this well pleaded O Prelatical Advocat But whence is your title Mr Prelate Or who gave you than name The King your God Father Well then by that right you must enjoy it but whence cometh the blessing and ratification Not from above but from He hath forgotten one great change but that possibly he will account no great defection viz. that by which he from Mr Presbyter wherein he was in no great account yet noddyfied by some is turned my Lord Prelate And now laboureth to noddiâ—y all into a consent congratulatory acquiescence in his advancement and dignity But Caâ—aphas cometh to tell us that surely that which hath been will be and so as formerly perjured and abjured Prelates have been cast out of Church and Commonwealth with abhomination they shall be yet againe cast out with more abhorrence then ever Esto The Lord hasten it in his time 8. Then he tels us Pag. 9. That this furious Napht. coming â—n upon the back of the Apology another invenomed egg hatched be like by one and the same cockatrice the second justifying the rebellion to which the first did instigate and inflaming to more may let them who will not shut their owne eyes see the mystery of Anabaptistical confusion working and spreading This man measureth others by his owne foot thinking that the laboures of others for the justifying of the people of God in defending themselves against not only invenomed principles but also invenomed practices of such as look rather like cockatrices then any other thing being good for nothing but to destroy to be invenomed eggs hatched by cockatrices because his pamphlet hatched by a cock-prelate hath undisputably the veâ—ome of such an egge in it The Apology did instigate to no rebellion Nor doth Napht. justify any action truely so chargeable As hath been shewed But his egg novv sufficiently crushed and put beyond the hazzard of endangering any who are wise rational if brought to perfection had brocken forth into a cockatrice and had endangered King and Kingdomes and all Commonwealths And because it was full of this venome should be condemned to the fire by all who love their owne welfare and the welfare of Societies and of the Church of God But how can any see here the mysterie of Anabaptistical confusion working for addeth he although the author pretendeth highly for presbytery which he and his complices hauks of the right nest have long agoe hewed downe in this Church as to the practice of it We knovv what this lying calumniator meaneth and these with whom unworthily he was sometimes reckoned being as is novv apparent a bird of another nest who have found grace to be faithful hithertil will now acknowledge I suppose that such as were opposite to them in that debate did strengthen and fortify the pillars of presbyterian government Yet sayes he evidenâ— it is that his pretences for presbytery are but prefaces to some further great designe of michief to Church and State To whom is this evident Sure I think to none but to himself his complices whose plague is and as yet but in part to be in fear where no fear is How can he make this out For sayes he having sold himself to work confusion rebellion he goes about to overthrow all powers ordained of God in a most cyclopick boldnesse displaying a banner against all invested lawfully with any degree of civil or Church-power This author is like the Tinkers dog which according to our countrey proverb would gladly be among good company He foists in his Antichristian usurped tyrannical power and dominion over the Church among the lawful powers ordained of God But when he sayes that Naphtali displayeth a banner against the powers ordained of God he but sheweth his cyclopick boldnesse in averring untruths or his astrangement to cyclopedeja in drawing such inferences but both suteable to that execrated order of abjured Prelacy in which there useth to be but few either civil or learned as this day putteth beyond debate Then he would make us beleeve that The Author doth not behave himself like Naphtaly the hinde let loose which giveth goodly Words c. Genes 49 ver 21. Deut. 33 ver 23. But as in his heart there are evil treasures of wickednesse so in his lips and pen there is a burning fire he strives to enflame all with the rage of his tongue and runs upon all sorts of authorities fâ—om the highest to the lowest like a savage Beast or wilde Beare let loose to waste and confound miserably both the visible Kingdome of Christ in the Land and the civil Kingdome thereof setled upon the best foundations The Book answered its name for it was a hinde let loose and gave goodly words for God his Cause and people and it is not to give goodly words to flatter Princes or Prelates howbeit he who judgeth like a sensualist would account such words of goodlinesse fairnesse and pleasantnesse Naphtaly was satisfied with favour and full of the blessing of the Lord And so was this book though condemned to a fire by such as would care little to cast the Bible into a fire too But their favour or blessing in never expected And when he sayes that in the Author's heart there were evil treasures c. He still measureth others by himself Naphtaly runeth not upon all sorts of authorities or any sort of authorities truely so called He was so farr from wasting and confounding the visible Kingdome of Christ in the Land that he was pleading for the same against all adversaries and defending it especially from these savage Beasts and Bears who have already laid it waste and desolate and if the Lord prevent it not shall make it the visible Kingdome of Antichrist He was so far from troubling the civil Kingdome setled upon the best foundations that it vvas that at vvhich he was driving to have the Kingdome setled upon its old sure and best basis the Covenants and Religion reformed in worshipe doctrine discipline and government Then he must tell us that the book vvants nothing of the compleatnesse of an infamous lybel and why Because it fals upon particular persons by name
tells us That Naphtaly Doth let fall such tenets as smell too rankly of the foul scum of the high flown Anabaptistical and Enthusiastical way while he sayes Pag. 21. c. That meer privat men may now a dayes take their impulses of Zeal as a sufficient call to pull downe all Magistrates from their seats which they abuse to execure judgment upon them and to place themselves in their roomes But of what spirit this man who is of his father the devil who was a lyar from the beginning is vve have seen And this particular will abundantly discover to such as look the place and consider what we have said And no better is the next particular which he citeth out of Pag. 105. Where the author is opposeing that notion of an external call not unto lawful ordination which presupposeth it but unto such a mock ordination whereby such are put into the ministry who have no visible evidence of the call of Jesus Christ as in reason or charity can oblige any to receive such as truely sent Thereafter he draweth the parallel in five particulars The first is this That the Anabaptists laboured to overthrow Magistracy and deny them to have any power in Church matters But can he or dar he say that we do so do we say with them that the office of the Magistrate is not necessary among Christians Do we say that Magistracy is not the ordinance of God Do we say that Kingly government is unlawful as they said abuseing that place 1 Sam. 8 7. Do we say that a Christian may not exerce the office of a Magistrate Do we say that a heathen may not be a Magistrate Do we say that an ungodly Magistrate is no Magistrate Do we presse that place Luk. 22. The Kings of the gentiles c. Any otherwayes then against superiority among Church men With what face then can be draw a parallel here The next is That they studyed to overthrow the ordinance of the ministry declaiming most bitterly against all in that function as Hirelings Thieves Wolves c. But can he say that we cry dovvne a ministery as no ordinance of Christ or as not necessary can he say that we affirme an external call to the ministery needlesse Is it our work to exclude faithful ministers from the esteem of Gods people Hovv can the impudent man alledge this of us Be like because we cry out against him and his fraternity and their reptilia profane wretches of the second-order as no lawful ministers of Chriist being perjured profane apostates never called of God to that functction nor duely and orderly called of Man But in this he and his party come nearer to the Anabaptists then we The. 3. Is that they work division in the Church of God and move people to forsake Church meetings and to follow them in private conventicles But then it seemeth all protestants Who presse Papists to forsake their Masse Assemblies and Masse Priests and rather meet with the Orthodox and that in conventicles are Anabaptists And it seemeth this man would not presse Heathens to leave their publick idol worshipe and serve God in secret conventicles such a publik and peacable Man is he lest he should be accounted an Anabaptist But wee see no connexion betwixt our being Anabaptists and pressing People to forsake Their assemblies and to hear the true and faithful servants of Christ in private who cannot have liberty to preach in publick The 4 is That they were above all men arrogant and proud dispisers of such as were not of their way as being men without God in the world reprobate and wicked denying to them even common civilities But doth not he and his party the most proud and arrogant persones imaginable deal with us all as cursed fanaticks knipperdolians c. What is the 5. When any of theirs were punished for errors fellony or rebellion they cryed them up for martyres and complained tragically that truth and godlinesse was oppressed and that men who would have all things done according to Gods Word were persecuted But might not Heathens and Papists have objected so against the true Christians and protestants who said and did all this when they were persecuted and some of them murthered massacred And were or are all who call account such as die for the Testimony of Jesus martyres persecuted to the death Anabaptists I feare that in so saying he shall be found to befriend the Anabaptist more then we desire to do If he hath no more to say He shall never make it appeare that either Naphtaly or the Apology do approach unto the manners of that odious sect in any particular peculiar to that Sect or wherein that Sect deviateth from truth Then he addeth Pag. 17. When the Spirit that stirreth in these furious writtings especialy in Naphtaly is considered how much confusion may be seen to be portended to Church and State if hearts be infected with the doctrines therein held forth By whom I pray shall these evils be seen to be portended by any thing that is said in these writtings Sure by no rational sober understanding person but only by such who consult the oracle at delphos and minde their belly and worm-eaten carcases more then they consult the oracle God and of sound reason and minde the reall good of either Church or State For there are no doctrines there of any malignant quality but all of them anti-Malignant Solide Plaine Sure and immoveable truthes having a direct tendency unto and necessary influence upon the solide and sure establishing of Church and State upon a firme and lasting basis And therefore if it were right applyed his following wish were good viz. That the Lord would give his people such understanding that they be not ignorant of the wiles of Satan who driveth a deeper designe against this poor Church and Land then the subversion of this or that exteriour forme of Church government For indeed the designe that Satan hath now on foot reacheth furder even to the utter overturneing of all the precious interests of Christ in the Land of destroying not only the outward Libertyes and Privileges of the People which have cost them no small expense of blood to the end they may be made perfect slaves But to the overturning of the whole work of God of banishing the Gospel and of introduceing Atheisme and all sort of profanity and wickednesse that we should no more become the People of the Lord but a visible Kingdome of Satan And all the People Subjects and Slaves to him But we know what his meaning is and therefore he addeth The controversy rests not in matters touching a Bishope or a Presbytery But what thinks he of this controversy He sayes If mens passions or prejudices might permit it might be for the advantage of the gospel well consolidated by their mutual paying of due respects one to another the Episcopal inspection not abrogating but strengthening the due right of presbyters and presbyters not