which was the case of the House of Lords when most of them many of the Commons at the beginning of the first War fled to the King under pretence of force from Westm. Yea when the five members were forc't from sitting yet the rest of the House sat and acted without them and voted a Committee Ian. 5. To sit in London and there to take into consideration the breach of Priviledges the safety of the King and Kingdome and preservation of Ireland which was accordingly done by vertue of those Votes made when Members were thus forct away All our scruples therefore are concerning things to us practicably lawfull or unlawfull in themselves As for the will of the Major part of the people how will the Demurrer prove that they had not rather obey this present Power then seeke to be rid of it by the hazards and calamities of another War They usually looke after nothing but their Rents Markets and reasonable subsistances they are the luxurious and ambitious part onely which pretends to new troubles The peoples question thereof is not how the change was made but an sit whether it be so changed or noe For if according to its formality that be not rightly done it concerneth not their consciences no more then the Thunder or lightning over their heads doth which are things totally out of their power much lesse may they lawfully desolate Neighbours for them But he hath found one firme Axiome That when part of any thing is cut off the whole qua tale is destroyed quià dum cessat forma cessat formatum ergo the late force on the Parliament hath made this no Parliament I wish he had taken the paines to give either a distinction or an instance in his Axiome or have drawn up his inference into a Syllogisme for I feare we shall finde wide impertinence in the first and a grosse non sequitur in the last as he hath ordered it The question disputed here is not whither the denominated Parliament now sitting at Westminster be a Parliament according to the old forme and composure of Parliament or no but whither tht Parliament now sitting at Westminster be the supreame power of the Kingdome or no and to be obeyed in lawfull things His Argument runs thus The surpeme power of the Kingdome consists in a Parliament of King Lords and Commons But at Westminster there is not a Parliament consisting of King Lords and Commons Ergo at Westminster there is no true Parliament at all nam dum cessat forma cessat formatum I thought he had been so good a Logician as to have understood that the conclusion of his Syllogisme ought to have been contradictory to the question from which it is as distant as if he would have concluded that two and three make five which is very true but how is it any thing to the purpose However I will doe him the favour to deny his Major For we speake of powers which now are and he himselfe hath all along condoled the eâ—ection of the King and of house of Lords as things which are not Sed non entium nultae sunt affectiones so consequently they who are now nothing make nothing now at Westminster or anywhere else But doth it follow however that there can not be now any supream power at Westminster at all If he had proved this he had proved something But peâ—â—aps the very word Parliament poses him or else he would thereby impose on others I must confesse words are dangerous when they are not fully explained and possibly the King mistook himselfe very much upon the very Alphabet and word of his Title supposing he could not be named King unlesse he were abâ—olute as he observed other Kings were whereas by our constitution he was but one of three who concurred to the making and abrogating a Law and it belong'd to the Commons alone to lay an universall taxe so that he was in most things rather Prince by office then King by power in tanto non in toto Even so the word Parliament as it hath been popularly understood signifies the assembly of severall houses deliberating and concluding what was judged for the good of the publique But it is a contradiction to say a Parliament cannot at all be truly so called unles so understood we know there are eight Parliaments in France which are not of such a constitution though of the same Denomination And if severall persons plenipotentiarily deputed to conclude for the publique good of the people sit now at Westminster and that the other concurrent powers be civily dead why may not we congruously enough still call them a Parliament His axiome therefore serves onely against himselfe and the true English of dum cessat formâ— cessat formatum is this That seeing the old forme of this state as it was in the supremacy of Kings Lords and Commons hath in that relation ceased to be and is civilly dead not being able any longer to act any thing and that a civill body as well a naturall cannot live without a head one day it followes then by this position that the Regall Government is gone and that we are in the state of a Republique no other power now informing or actuating us besides that which pretends to such a state and where I pray you is that to be found now but at Westminster In the next place he offers a case If the King when hee came to accuse the five Members had detained all but forty and the Speaker and had forc't them to Vote that the whole Legislative power resided in himselfe would we have deemed this a valid Vote Especially seeing some Votes since this Session were adjudged Null because the House was under a force By which it seemes quoth he that with some new veritas non est perpetua and Duo dum faciunt idem non estidem To the first I answer positively That such a Vote attained by the King had beene no wayes duely valid But what is this to the purpose For the question should have beene after the King had detained such a Vote and had got us all into his full possession whether we of the people might have obey'd him ever after in lawfull things Secondly if he would have the people understand this case to be parallel to the late exclusion of the Members he prevaricates grosly againe For he supposes the very forty in the House with the King to have been under a force whereas in the Parliaments late case none but those who were out of the House were under restraint the former were supposed to be forc't to a particular Vote the latter were kept from Voting at all Besides they who de facto Voted in the House have publiquely declared that they past their Votes with all wonted freedome and were rescued as it were from an overawing power which concludes against his Argument abundantly As in this Argument he hath done
there wants the former mark or that the said bushels have another mark will you say Sempronius hath not intrinsically done Titius justice or hath not justly satisfied him in his quantity especially if in the mean time no more of that former marke can be had As for distributive justice we know that St. Paul advised the Corinthians to avoyd the Iegall Magistracy and the judgement of the higher powers of that Countrey and rather to end things by arbitrement among themselves which had been an advice unjust and to the scandall of Christianity if things in themselves just might not be done but by the justice of the legall Magistrate This therefore is but according to an old Axiome of justice Provisio hominis tollit provisionem legis Thus much I have thought fit to answer in generall to this objection but now more particularly I answer to its terms And first why is not this effectually a Parliament seeing it is the Supream present power of the whole Nation no part excluded which in this controversie is the very term of the question I hope he means no Criticisme by the word Parliament if he doth it signifies onely a publique speaking or consulting together for the Publique Moreover the Authour would be I am sure much perplext if I should aske him how he knoweth so indubitably that this is not a Parliament or supreame Power requisite for this Kingdome according to the mind of God He must pardon us if we thinke formes no more then persons are to last here alwaies or that the changes which have been and still are to be of both must never be done but according to the customary formalities of a quiet people but rather according to the extreame necessity of a State For if he aske me what it is that forms in-organizd people into a Government of what sort soever I answer Necessity If what makes or takes away a Law in a Government established I answer Necessity If what takes away a Government it selfe I answer according to himselfe page 2. that which first gave it being viz. Necessity Of which there are severall degrees for in a peaceable State a word may take away that which in a disturbd State must be taken away by the Sword after which it is but equall that he who gives the last blow should in that quarrell give the last word and leave us to a peremptory obedience unlesse we would have no quarter in the world or be like the old servati in bello who were sold confind to chains all their lives or condemnd to dig perpetually in Mynes All which it seems this Authour would have the conclusion of this argument or else we are more beholding to the charity of enemies then to his If we will not be perswaded by the States arguments yet let us hear what Grotius among others determined long agoe for all the world in this case If a King have but part of a supream power which consists in making and taking away Lawes in laying universall Taxes and the People or Senate have the other the King may be forcibly opposed if he invade that part which is not his because for so much he hath no right nor power This is to hold although such a King have the Militia alone for that in his hand relates onely to forraigne warre it being unconceivable how they who share in supreame Rights can be exempt from a right of defending them When war shall happen betwixt such Fundamentall and Supreame parties the King may loose all his share by the right of War Lib. 1. c. 4. 13. de Jubel pa. Which Right of Warre betwixt those who divide a whole Kingdome if it end clearly to the Reduction of one party is not called so properly conquest as victory This Authour uses the name of the first onely for the hatred every one bears to it because it swallows the rights and persons of the whole Whereas victory relates onely to a part of either as beginning and ending in Civill Warres where disputes of Right arise betwixt those of the same Jurisdiction and Country and of the same Common Law But we have Arguments more Authentique then these to shew that such changes may be according to the mind of God and the Demurrer all his life will never prove the contrary Dan. 4.31 32. Gods power is an everlasting power and his Kingdome is from heneracion to generation All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing and according to his will he worketh in the army of Heaven and in the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand nor say unto him what dost thou That is God as Universall Lord and King of Kings governes both Angels men and Divels and all must submit to him because of his supreame irresistibility Psalm 75.7 God is the Iudge he maketh low and he maketh high It must be confest that by him Princes raigne but our Authour had rather perpetually imbroile our bodies and soules then clearly say by whom it is that Princes cease to reign For then this Controversie would easily he reconcâ—l'd and we as easily one to another Wee have shewn how the reason of Constituting and of changing Governments is still one and the same viz. Supreame Necessity But the Demurrer objects that our change hath not beene done by the same order of persons who were in the old viz. By major part of Lords and major part of the Commons Although he is againe besides the state of the Question shewing onely how they who are the Supream Power of the Land ought not to command us rather then that we may not obey them in lawfull things yet I shall here make another sort of reply which will be very short to those who profess themselves Presbyterians that is originally Parliamentarians Kingdoms which are Supream in themselves and communicate not in one anothers Lawes are all of them Iure Gentium in a state of War unless they be mutually bound by Leagues to the contrary which Leagues if they come to be broken usually have the conditions of Invasion annexed and the time and places nominated for beginning it and because there is nothing any longer due by Law or League from the party injured where now the Sword is onely to end the Controversie therefore what ever shall be acquired in this state of things from the party injuring rightly changes all Titles in Iure publico and in the right of governing what is acquired but in one and the same Kingdome where the Supremacie of Power and Right lies divided as Grotius page 7. states it there if they differ fundamentally denying one anothers Rights and Powers they are then immediately in the same state of War with those other separate Kingdoms here onely is the difference that these in their Concurrence and Constitution making but one have none of those ordinary Cautions as Leagues have for their Right of invading one another
supposes many which is sufficient to oppose this Gentlemans single judgement And if he be indeed a Presbyterian he hath already concluded as much in the last Kings case by concurring to invest his person with the accidents of Warre in detayning him prisoner at Holmby and Newcastle c. Thirdly I understand not what he meanes by Gods placing a Magistrate morally over us For God he is our Divine and supreame Magistrate our Parent is our naturall and domestik Magistrate and those who command the State wherein we are are our civill publique subordinate Magistrates under God and every particular man who is arrived to the maturity of reason is if any such be his owne morall or private Magistrate For the principle of a humane or morall action is a minde acting freely according to vertue and those lawes which are written within us But if by a morall Magistrate he meanes such a one only as is seated over us and hath a care that we live conformably to vertue and honesty in relation to others then it followes that whoever hath the capacity so to hold inspection over us is a sufficient Magistrate but that can onely be he under whose full possession we actually are Moreover he is to know againe that States cannot looke so strictly after vertue as after publique quiet For morall vertue is a private thing and by reason of the free concurrence of the will cannot be discovered certainely but by those who are able to look within a man But that which is ad alterum and concernes rather wrong then right belongs to the Politicall Magistrate as a thing which cannot without confusion have redresse otherwayes For the chiefe convenience of a State is that people might be kept from inconvenience or incommoding one another and that they may be conserv'd in a liberty to doe other good things according to Piety and honesty So that he who doth things in themselves good though under an unlawfull civill Magistrate doth not by those acts assert any Magistrates right but his only who originally gave Law and Rules for those internall acts and that is Gods right alone Lastly whereas in this argument he saith a Father of a family so abused should in his required submission sin if he betrayed his place and power which God had naturally given him I answer that there is a difference betwixt betraying a place so given and loosing it by force which indeed is his first supposition The one cannot be done without sin because it is done voluntarily and totally by himselfe but it is not our sin if we be forc't out of a place to which we are compelled by a principle without us and totally besides our power But there is a lawfuller power visible enough to religious eyes though for the present in an Ecclipse and suspended It is not lawfull for a man to marry another woman whilst his owne wife is in a sound or for a woman to marry another man whilst her husband is in captivity or restraint and willing to come to her if he might To this I answer First How knowes he certainely that the other power is onely in an ecclipse or suspended or if it be onely in an Ecclipse doth it follow that we of the People might not doe lawfull Actions by the suppliment of other lights whilst we cannot have that of the Sun Must we all that while cease to be men for the absence of that which we cannot help The Presybterian party would not have that understood so when the King was in prison at Holmby There be no more suns in the world but one but there are many Magistrates and such who give better light one then the other for which reason God first chose not Monarchy for the Jewes certainly in an Ecclipse the Sun is never out of his naturall Orbe though his light and influence may be suspended and intercepted from us but when a Prince is in a forraigne Country and lives under the Lawes of another Magistracy and that all Lawes and di stributions of Justice and Magistracy in the Country he pretends to are made without him and against him will you according to the Lawes of Nature Nations or Policy say he alone and in that condition is the supreame power or Authority of that Country or rather that we of the People do nothing but sinne in his absence though we do things in themselves lawfull If you will aske how he came to be out of his Orbe or Country I am sure it was against the advice either of Presbyterian or Independent It is easily granted That a man may not marry another woman so soone as his wife falls into a swound But you must againe be reminded that the nature of Marriage and of Government differ extreamly there where you suppose them most to agree For Marriage is not alwaies necessary to every particular man But the publique body of a people cannot be without Government one day no more then a man can be without a Head because a smalltime serves to the ruine of a man Secondly to take this or that woman to wife is a thing of free choice but it is not so alwaies with the People in relation to Kings who have many of them committed great Rapes upon them as I beleeve this Gentleman will acknowledge A Woman may not marry another Husband whilst her first is in Captivity and willing to come to her if he might These cases of Marriage still makes a very bad paralell with our present case For first we have been taught by all parties in this Warre that a King of England is not as a Husband to the People of England For a Husband is he who alone makes and abrogates the Laws of his owne Family as a right of his propriety which a King of England could not doe alone in this state Secondly where was this Prince ever Crowned by which this Author meanes solemnly married to this state where was the benedictio sacra the anointing or the Oath of Contract taken by him I am sure the Covenant hath made no provision for him To this purpose is that Argument in the grand case of Conscience viz. The Apostle commands Wives to submit to their Husbands surely quà Husbands not quà men But sheuld a stranger come to anothers Wife and caâ—l himselfe Husband having before either imprisoned or slaine the right full Husband and require submission surely though shee might hee forced yet it were a sinne to submit to him thus as a husband I answer to submit in Adultery is a plaine sinne but for a Woman to submit in lawfull things to the power of a stranger is no sinne though he please to call himselfe her Husband or exercise the Government of the Family There is the same mistake of Husband here as in the former so that the Argument built thereupon of it selfe fals to the ground But if by this he meanes that in matter of
him yet he allowed him to break the childs vow for giving him a sacrifice and both to be guiltles and then why may not we be now absolved if our publique Parent judges it not fit that wee should be any longer tide formally to a conditionall Oath though it have relation to some sacred things You will say no because the Parent did not as a party solemnly concurre to the Childs vow and having never consented he might the better dissent but our publique Parent did concurre at a party to our Oath The Parliament and People tooke the Covenant joyntly together and it is said that if the Father heare the vowes and contradicts them not in the same day then he confirms them and cannot break them without iniquity To this I reply First that v. 16 it is said the Childe is free after the dissent of the Parent and that the Parent is charged with whatsoever was amisse in him which is excuse enough for us of the people Secondly the difference is great in a maine point of the paralell because after the concurrence of the Father to the childs vow for sacrificing something to God that might be compleated in the Temple without his further helping it on but we cannot doe any thing in our case without the cooperation of our publique Parent all along neither can he do any thing without the concurrences of many other possible but uncertaine conditions and if he in effect finde those conditions have come contrary to his publique endeavours what may we doe will it be enough for us to rest in having attempted the utmost of our private endeavours with him or will you authorize every man upon private judgement or interpretation to begin a warre in his own sence A League or Pact authorized betwixt private Neighbours over a whole Nation or over part of it is not as a League betwixt Prince and Prince because these have conditions exprest how and when to begin warre upon one another in case their Leagues be broken But there is no such thing exprest in terminis in that Covenant which we have made one with another and which we made subordinately to our Magistrate so that if we or the Magistrate faile we are equally left to Gods justice solely and to the forfeiture of our own penalties due to him and every one is to answer for his owne deficiency in his own Station And being left to our selves againe we are left to act onely so much of our Oath or of the ancient end of it as we were bound to before we swore which is a great deale because we were bound by precept before wee were by promise all the dayes of our lives to do our utmost for the glory of God and the good of our neighbour Secondly Princes or States who by the supremacy of their powers are able to make Lawes for their separated Kingdomes when they unite their supream Powers they are able to make a common Law for all their Kingdoms together which is called a League or Compact But a law when it comes to be broken which is a publique thing and therefore of every mans interest may be vindicated publiquely by Warre and by those who have a posse regni But I cannot say the same may be done for the Covenant for quo jure can it be done The Scots indeed by one way of arguing make it greater then a Law and by another make it lesse which is when they one while affirme it unalterable and unreformable as a divine text and another while confesse it was not made by the joynt concurrence of all those who with them are essentiall to the making a publique Law I conceive we may safely say it is of a Constitution inferriouâ— to that of a Law and therefore its obligation is lesse though its penalty be greater to the failers in it It was made use of only as a convenient instrument or meanes for the better attaining some lawes as its end A Law it was not because it was not made by all the then Legislative powers of the Kingdome For the Kings concurrence in England if not in Scotland was then held requisite for passing a Law and he ever dissented from this Covenant Halfe the inferiour sort of the People have not any Interest in it nor have taken it And not having any obligation to it how I pray you can they justly be drawne into the Penalty due to it as they must all be if a Warre which is effectually a Penall thing be begun though by a part of the Nation for the nature of Warre is such that it puts a whole Kingdome into imminent danger of desolation though but begun in a part and by a party of it Thus far I have endeavoured to shew the true fast and loose of all promissory Oaths and how their obligations cease according to the nature of the things which they are affixed to The Author of the grand case of Conscience p 1. Objects That if inconvenience may break a promise or disengage an Oath then many may be cheated and David was much mistaken Psal. 15.4 Who saith he shall dwell in Gods Tabernacle who sweareth to his own hinderance and changeth not I answer David speaks here of an Oath violated by a change onely in the Promiser who by his Oath hath past a right to another and therefore can no longer dispose of it againe the party to whom he swore may dispose of it as he pleaseth and may dispense him of it because no man hath a right to make another man keepe his owne longer then he please himselfe It is a duty to pay a debt but not to receive it Finally this is nothing to those cases where the change is not in us but in other persons and in things which relate principally and conjoyntly to the fulfilling of the Oath or Promise For if I promise Titius a sword at such a time and he then chance to be mad an accident not exprest betwixt us at first am I bound to put it into his hands in this change because I was the first promiser Wheras it is said that the obligation of somethings end because they can be no longer kept as that of the Kings person c. He ans. p. 11. That if men shall by violence put an end to the thing that thereby the obligation may end too that is a breach of Covenant A woman promiseth to be faithful to her husband so long as he lives but if she to marry another kills him she breaks her promise I grant it easily that they who use violence to break lawfull contracts sin grievously which is a thing now confest in every Church of Scotland but what is that to those who use no violence to breake them at all nor can helpe it when it is done although many be undone by it One thing I most earnestly desire to learne in this question propounded I guesse concerning the
to have in him a supreame power such as the Apostle Ro. 13. in his sence understands necessary for the Kingdome of England But in our sence of plenary possession which was the case of the Apostles time we can easily see first how our present power is the higher the whole Kingdome now receiving all law protection and subordinate Magistracy from them and how they may be in lawfull things obeyed according to the same Apostle and to the duty of our Creation and being in this world The case of conscience p. 3. acknowledgeth that a Government may be altered but it must be done still by the higher powers whom we ought equally to obey in submitting to an altered as to a continued for me But it is a sinne if a party forcibly lay the higher powers low and exact obedience as to the legall authority I thought that he who in his sence understood the Covenant in terminis Eternall would not have allowed a change of Government here no more then he might allow the Scots though upon never so much reason to themselves to change their Doctrine or discipline because we swore during all our lives to preserve that which was established among them at the time of our swearing But I now see we may well distinguish betwixt the Covenant it selfe and some Covenanters the Covenant being as open for one change as for the other Secondly If a Government though never so reasonably reformed or altered be never in any lawfull things to be obeyed termes which he did ill to leave out of his Argument unlesse by the concurrence of all the higher powers then farewell all the old consequences of Solis populi suprema lex and the Presbyterians formâ— Armes are unjustifiable How corrupt and Tyrannicall are most of the Governments of the world and yet how many of those supreame powers hath he observed to reforme themselves or diminish any thing in themselves to alter for the better although the taking away of something in a Government may be as necessary as continuing any old or new thing in it Certainly these Authors have read but few of Ionases who voluntarily renounce themselves to settle a Tempest Thirdly Our Alteration was made by the present supreame power of the people and the reason wherefore both Houses laid the exercise of Regall power aside for some yeares made the Commons as they have agrued it lay it aside for altogether viz. Salus populi suprema lex The laying of it aside for some yeares is argument enough to us of the people that it might be laid aside for more yeares and that one King might be laid aside as well as another For to us it seemes effectually all one Non esse non operari for a thing not to be at all and in this world to doe nothing at all If they sinned who did this is that any thing to any but themselves It is an Axiome of good Law Noxa sequitur caput Thus whilst his Argument should have been against our lawfull obedience it is against their exacting it as to the legall authority which yet is grosly false for they exact it not as to the old legall authority but as to the present supreame power of the people Non nomine Regis sed nominepopuli And yet in one good sence it may be still called the same legall Authority because we have still under it the same lawes for our properties as before and continued in life by them as our lives themselves are Case of Cons. p. 3. it is objected that this principle of obeying those onely who are in plenary possession of all supreame power is fit onely to destroy States for then should none Governe any longer then their swords and strengths could beare them up I conceive according to what is already proved that nothing can befound either more consonant to Christian charity or to the preservation of States then this our principle of obedience besides he knowes no Kingdome in the world where people doe not obey upon this same plenary possession Allegiance alwayes relating to protection And if according to his consequence we should suspend all obedience till we have infallibly found out that Perâ—on who derives a knowne and an undubitable right from him who was the first in compact because according to these Authors intermediate intrusions are violations of rights and may not be obeyed even in things lawfull then I pray you of what can we resolve lesse then certainly to extirpate one another which will come to passe ere we finde what we search for in such a blind scuffle and for feare of doing a lawfull thing under the inspection of one who is suppos'd to have done another thing unlawfully must we resolve of doing all unlawfull things by warre our selves and desert unnecessarily the cares of Wife and Children of Church and Neighbour For non-obedience in a State is but a Chimaera neutrality a State without relation there is no subsistence for it in any State and unlesse you will allow me to concurre with others and under others in lawfull things I must leave the world my subsistence being onely in a conjunction with others here in this jurisdiction The two Demurrers p. 3. p. 7. Except against this our present obedience beeause the present powers is yet new neither is there a totall cessation of all hopes of recovery Philosophers hold that the Definition of a man belongs to an infant as well as to one of many yeares Because after the Organization of the parts he is informed with the same principle of life and reason as a growne man is and having the same forme is the same thing Even so the present power hath possest all the parts of this Kingdome gives them life in the administration of publique justice and protection which are the soule of a State and the power which preceded this what did it infuse more vitall then this And now that that is taken away if this other did not presently enter into its place the Common-wealth were dead and each man were left in his naturals to subsist of himselfe and to cast how hee could in such a state of warre defend himselfe from all the rest of the world every man in this State having an equall right to every thing Wherefore let every man especially they who would informe consciences take heed of affecting popular revenge vvhich must also reach themselves at last for vvhen they have once frighted people from lawfull actions vvhat can they thâ—n commit but the un'avvfull Into what an unhappy transport are we fallen that such a principle should be derived from our Church the very Papists being ever ready to obey in things lawfull though the State seemed to them unlawfull These will judge better of the State now then of the Church the one inviting and incouraging us to lawfull things the other deterring us from them But to return to the Argument I
have already shewed that new or old powers never can signifie good or bad powers The uncertaine hopes of recovering in the future proves that the thing is certainly lost for the present and it is our obedience at this time which this Qâ—estion relates to However the King of Portugals acquisition or Usurpation was presently acknowledged by our King and others although the King of Spaine then had and still hath great hopes of recovering it he being alwaies Hannibal ad portas and never removing out of his own Dominion into another Forreigne Magistracy The first Demurrer p. 7. concâ—ives our present condition like that of Israel betwixt David and Absalom at which time quoth he the people had grievously sinned had they rendrd obedience to Absaloms commands and substitutes so long as David was living This is very true but farre from the purpose For Absalom was not a fundamentall legislative party in the state of Israel as the House of Commons lately was and so could not pretend such a right of Warre Secondly David had his Army hard by in the same Kingdome with Absalom We have none here but the Parliaments all the Kings forces and adherents being dissipated Thirdly the Israelites scruples are supposed during the time of Warre in Israel our after the War is ended But if he mean by this fallacious paralell that the Israelites ought not to have opposed David at all in the way of Warre then how will he salue the scruples of his own breast who promoted the course of War as well as others against the King The Author of the grand case of Conscience is very ingenuous in his contest with his adversary to forme a Syllogisme with foure terms and their be able to finde them out and to answer the fallacy so that whilst he wrastles thus stoutly with himself he can have but a faire fall in his own shaddow to prevent which I shall take the pains to part them both His Syllogisme as he imputes it to his Adversary is p. 4.5 If the people of the Roman Empire did submit to the power of Claudius and Nero who by force were put upon them then the people of England may lawfully submit to a change of Government though beleeved unlawfull But they did submit Ergo those of England may Here he excepts against the equality of inference made betwixt those whose persons were without due Title forc't upon people but still in the same Government and those persons who without right of Title force themselves upon us now in another Government But what if the Syllogisme be indeed and vertually onely this If the people of the Roman Empire were required by the Apostle to continue obedience to Claudius and Nero then the people of England may lawfully continue obedience to their present Governours But those might Ergo these may His distinction of persons intruding wrongfully into the same Government and into a different Government according to his former position satisfies not conscience in either because both are supposed unlawfull and differ only secundum mâ—jus minus quae non varâ—ant speciem so that if obedience were not a sin in one it is not a sin in the other If he say obedience to intruders into the same Government is not a sin then he hath dispatcht all controversie concerning the exclusion of the Kings Line and that the Parliamens fault as to him was that they rather changed the Government then the Governours which he acknowledgeth more plainly P. 5. where speaking concerning the persons comming to power he saith it is not materiall who puts them in nor what men are put into powers ordained by God But to come nearer to the point he cannot say that of the usurping Caesars which may be said of the Parliament For these are the representers of the people of England and were lawfully a third part of the supreame power before the change of Government Caesar had no part of supreame right but what he rather usurped then acquired by any dicision of right or fundamentall legislative controversie betwixt the Senate and him To say as the Demurrer p. 4. That Caesar had gotten the consent of the Senate and added compact to his conquest is absurd unlesse he meanes he had gotten the Senate so into his power that he had them in a condition of Quarter in which case as the Law saith principum rogamina sunt mandata without doubt if the peoples submission to Caesar were lawfull upon his changing a Republique into a monarchy after the Senate had for bad the approach of his Army and that he had expelled many members from the Senate why may not a lawfuller obedience be given to those of a Senate it self who have changed Monarchy into a Republique These two changes are so farre alike that they frustrate this Authors distinction of persons intruding unlawfully into the same and into a different Government He followes his objection still p. 5. arguing that though people did de facto obey such false possessors and Vsurpers yet that proves not the lawfulnesse of our obedience nam a facto ad jus non valet consequentia their submission should have been proued legall If he hath a quarrell to us for our peaceablenesse yet why should he quarrell with St. Paul He bad the Romans submit in the same kinde and unlesse we had Prophets on purpose to tell Governours as well as us of the People who must alwaies succeed according to the minde of God then the state of the world the nature of politick justicâ— of society and Religion is such that we may ought to submit in obedience to those who plenarily possesse protect and command us lawfull things Surely he did not consider his Axiome well For a facto ad jus valet consequentia from fact wee inferre many civill rights as custome and prescription c. Neither is it necessary to prove their submission legall is it be prov'd absolutely necessary and equitable And yet we conceive another case besides that before mentioned wherein this submission to a new power may be call'd legall For the end of all law and Government is to preserve our persons and estates and they who are in supremacy of power have power to preserve or destroy both if they please and therefore have as great a power over our lawes which are lesse then our lives So soone as one supreame power is expelled by another law life and estate fall all into the hands of the succeeding power and what it doth not actually take away stands in effect as deriving from it and if that supreame power make a sanction for our obedience to it as alwaies is immediately done then we may say our submission is legall or else the supreame power cannot make a law To that argument where we assert that the Authority which excluds all other Authorities must be obey'd or else all authority falls to the ground The grand case
for acknowledging the Vsurping Stearesmans right which is still falsely suppos'd in our case Here I desire this Casuist to pull off his maske and speake plainly whether he doth not plead for his owne punishment as one who at the beginning of our warre principally incouraged us not to be guided by the then pretending Stearesman whom they of his party said aside and stear'd a while themselves the Scots declaring that he was not fit to touch the helme againe till hee had satisfied c. Besides this is true that they then required obedience from compounding Royalists although to them they seemed an unlawfull power and Magistracy as to the dispencing of publique and private justice Secondly the reason wherefore these marriners might not acknowledge him the right master as he hath varied the case is rather because this is in an inferiour thing de jure privato Master and Marriners being accountants to the Merchants who have a Court of Justice to judge the fact but what Court is there in this world to call that power which here is the supreamest to any account Thirdly he supposes the usurper and the complyers to be brought to account by the others but not till they come to shore whereas in our case we can do nothing but in the ship that is in the common-wealth when we leave that we go into another world our true patria where indeed we doe not call one another but are all called together to an account by our supreame Magistrate whose sentence we would faine prejudge here by a confusion of the ship in via The grand case of Conscience p. 9. Adviseth that seeing we are so unsetled we should use meanes for a settlement though by its procurement wee were more unsetled If a man be at the rivers brinke he would advise him to keepe out of the water but if at once he leap into the middle of the river he would perswade him to come to the bank although he wade through much water to come thither I see according to this horrid tenent that if God as the Scotch phrase hath it comes not to the whole length of our desire then there must be no peace betwixt man and man in this world Mr. Ste. Marshall preacht lately that God was to be thankt for some thing that Church doores were yet open to those who had a zeale and a will to congregate that they were not under their enemies swords nor compounding with them Hee saw how they might be worse if God should through their peevishnesse let them see forraigne armies at their doores who have both faces tongues religions affections different from ours and wil not care for firing our houses and Churches or for giving us lawes againe in an unknown tongue and perhaps Religion too Can he think the Notion of our Church government would be a charme to such swords and consciences Or rather can he assure us of his prophecy here that if we begin new troubles we shall certainly have victory For his argument supposes it must needs end so and that by his perswasion we shall wade to the bank If we were indeed in the midst of the water that is in the midst of warre and confusion then being engaged for life we might endeavour to wade through though the streame were running deepe with our own and Childrens innocent bloods for after all Metaphors that is the element which he means Thus in no diseases but those which are supposeddeadly may we use desperate remedies such as may endanger the destruction of the whole body But may a man indanger his whole body when it is not for the cure of himselfe but of another and by the killing also of others besides himselfe wife and children I will not name what sort of subtilty this Gentleman hath used in this Argument nor defâ—ne with what conscience here he seekes to satisfie anothers For lest we of the People should bogle at comming on the Stage to Act our late Tragedy over againe hee would impose it on our beleifes that we are still in the middle act of it and that we ought to finish it It is high time for him to consider whither if we run along with him in this we should not shut up compassion from our Brethren and shut out a great part of our gratitude towards God although I confesse some scars and haltings may remaine yet after the warre it selfe is ended Methinks he should finde every thing both in Nature and Christianity more favourable for our present Peace then for our third Warre especially seeing all our former warres have ended very contrary to the expectation of those who were hottest to begin them But I consider that passion is the last hold out of which we are beaten of which the fuller men are the lesse do they through a great judgement on their spirits perceive into what deformities they doe transport them it being the nature of all intoxications that their defects are better perceivd by any then by those who are opprest by them THE Second Part THAT This obedience to the present Government is not contrary to but consistent with our Solemn League and Covenant BY these steps we are come at last ad sacras columnas to those sacred Pillars on which the holy Covenant hangs almost in every Church as a sanctum aeternitati a law sacred to eternity The hands which hung it there have not they say power to take it downe againe Who therefore may undertake to tell these persons that they actually are or else may be freed from it seeing they finde themselves obliged if they can to tie all the world with them in the same sort of knot Here is certainly a zealâ— worthy to be â—ixt on that which should obliege alwayes and the world must confesse that there hath been no publique oath taken by any person anywhere who have been more scrupulously attent not to double with their God in relation to his part in contract But yet let not these consciences be scandalized if I say it was compild by none but mortall men taken onely by such and as a promissory oath cannot possibly be free from those exceptions and accidents wherewith time changes the constitution of all those things which it doth not absolutely destroy wherfore upon a sober review of al I doubt not but as many Oaths and Leagues are transient so to shew that this according to its nature and as it is originally a League or Covenant that is as it is a formall compact relating to the publique and united corporation of severall Nations and Magistracies by which each people were united together and without which neither people were respectively to act any thing separately within and against themselves I say I doubt not but to shew that such a Covenant uppon what hath interven'd is expir'd to us the People of England and that without any default of ours And though our Magistrate would give it a
so union to union and certainly that Union of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms was at an end ever since the Scotch Army here received their money and returned home leaving the Delinquents of both Nations dis-united and clearly reduced to receive condigne punishment as the Covenant calls it at the respective judicatories of both Kingdoms and if it ended not then yet it could not bee consistent with their Declaration and divisions presently after and if not then yet I am sure it could not be consistent with their Nationall invasion and tampering to divide all in England and Ireland the effect whereof hath been a change of Government here and hath made them totally distinct forrainers to us The Demurrers premisses in this Argument by a new logick relate onely to a State of publique Vnion and his conclusion relates only to a State of publique dis-union of the consequences whereof the Covenant saith nothing at all in any Article It enjoynâ—s the bringing of Delinquents to condigne punishment and those private persons likewise among our selves who should helpe on either divisions amongst us or the invasion of either Nation first But whether should they be brought to punishment The Covenant answers Either before the respective judicatories of each Kingdome who onely have power to judge of what is Condigne or before no body It speakes likewise how we should unitedly venture our lives against the Enemy which then was it doth not or at least ought not to sweare us to get the better of them for ever nor that we should in a rout or dis-union end our lives against all opposition and without quarter If the termes of our utmost endeavours and all the dayes of our lives are to be understood litterally and that we must not survive any violation of the Covenant then why do these Gentlemen who conclude themselves in the State of the Covenant thus understood thinke of living till to morow The termes of forever or for all the dayes of our lives are not in our contracts to be understood naturally but morally For we finde it plainly in the Judicial law that after a Jew had taken a servant and bor'd a hole through his eare he was as the Text saith to serve him for ever although one of them might possâ—bly have dyed the next day and both of them after a while might have beene made captives to others The law calls the league of Marriage individua vitae consueâ—udo a câ—habitaâ—ion for all the dayes of our lives For so it should be ex voto contrahentiâ—m in the sincere desires of the contractors Yet we know one ordinarily dyes before the other and that many conditions may happen to legitimate their divorce afterwards though the contract was never so religiously made in the presence of almighty God at first The Scots in their late proceedings with their King at the Hague pag. the 6. interpret the words of utmost endeavour as morally as we doe here For the Commissioners of the Kirk said they us'd their utmost endeavours to save the Kings life according to Covenant but how They answer that it was in Papers messages Declarations Testimonies and Protestations onely they name not warre or bloodshed for they protested against that way last yeare as contrary to Covenant when the Parliament of Scotland invaded us and I hope for the reputation of the religion they professe they have not altered their publique commentary of that sacred Text contradictorily so soone To conclude Either wee are still in the Vnion of the end of the Covenant or we are not If we be in it then these breake the Covenant by seeking to dis-unite us If we be not in it where then is the Article for our private forming a warre upon it and under whom if not under our English supreame iudicatory and if they call us not out to revenge that which was more then a bare falling off from the Covenant last yeare amongst ourselves when the Scots exercis'd such high hostilities and were the first shatterers of all our frame which otherwise might by Gods blessing have cemented againe how durst these private trumpets sound the alarum and open the wounds of the Nations once more Though the respective iudicatory of that Kingdome now cannot make that which was once done undone Yet by the present punishment of the Kirke it is acknowledged that they hold the Covenant to have been more then nationally broken in regard of the harme and damage which was done to us after it was broken For there is a great deale of difference betwixt ceasing to helpe according to a league and acting hostily contrary to it especially when no such penalty is in such a league exprest betwixt the parties But you will object that if the Covenant were so broken in one or two points by them yet it doth not follow that the whole Covenant is broken thereby and dead in every part I have answered before that we are no longer obliged to any thing in it by the way of League and Covenant The reason here is because here in leagues everything is to be observed conâ—unctively otherwise all is broken which is so true and cleare that if we looke upon Gods league and Covenant with Israel we shall finde the same thing pronounc't there God said If yee keepe my Commandements I will be your God and will maintaine you in your plenty and in your Land Yet he said that if they broke any one Commandement in their part of Covenant they were guilty of all and that all should be at an end betwixt them just as St. Iohn in the conclusion of his Revelation saith Who ever shall diminish but one word of that Booke defaceth the whole and looseth the whole benefit which he might expect thereby in the holy City by vertue of the second Covenant It is asserted that there is no clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a common sence forbids obedience to a present Government To this the grand case of Conscience answers That the Covenant engages to another Government therefore it forbids obedience to this and Oathes ought to bee their owne interpreters Here he at first begs the question whether the Covenant can now engage us or no seeing it hath beene proved that that which is now nothing cannot now engage us to any thing and conseqently our submitting to and acting under the present Government cannot be contrary to Covenant because things which are contrary one to the other must have actuall being together at the same time But the very being of this Government supposes the nullity of the Covenant whose death as it was other where contrived before gave life to that mutation here afterwards Secondly Though the Covenant were still valid and in force yet when we were sworne to it first it found us actually out of that Government here pointed at viz. Of King Lords and Commons For that is the supreame Government of a Country which makes
a supreame law there But at that time the supreamest humane law which according to these gentlemens opinions was ever made in England or Scotland or perhaps in all the world was made without the King in those Kingdomes and against his dissent For which reason the Covenant engages not so positively for King or Kingly Government as for the Vnion of the Covenanters in any forme and against any opposition Whereupon the Presbyterians when it was as most conceiv'd in their power to restablish King or Kingly Goveâ—nment they omitted both for many dayes of their lives without question because they conceiv'd it not a Government absolutely necessary by Covenant When D. Hamilton entred England so hostilely for that end and as he thought by vertue of Covenant yet he was excommunicated for it by the Oracles of the Covenant Lastly The reigne of the Covenant since the first day of its birth and obligation was never yet a Râ—gall reigne no not for one day anywhere so that the change which is is not determinatly contrary to that principle out of which according to the circumstances of security any Government may be moulded for any place For which reason if I should grant you that the Covenant were not expir'd and had not beene so palpably broken as it was betwixt the Nations yet Scotland if they had pleas'd might have beene Govern'd by a King and England by a free State yet both consonantly enough to Covenant and without any contrariety because the circumstances of securitie in one might have been different from the circumstances of security in the other which though different might as well have been mutually maintained as their discipline differing from ours might have beene preserv'd by us From all which it appears that that Oath is Cloudy in the positive or set Government which we ought to have and so cannot be justly called it's owne interpreter besides a reformation according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches supposes such a latitude of Logick as would if all sides should be heard give us as much exercise as all our waâ—res have And certainly the Covenant is alike undefin'd in Religion and in civill Government For we swore to bring the Church Discipline in the three Kingdoms to as neer a similitude as the constitution of the places would bear not into the very same and as for the civill Government it was to receive its forme in the security of that just as water doth receive not onely the figure of the Pot or Glasse into which it is put but its conservation from being totally lost and spilt But how then will you free your selfe from this contradiction in asserting that the civill State is unalterable by Covenant when that of the Church which formes the other is so much alterable and seeing that of the State receives from this not only its form and being but what ever else you alone please to attribute to your security in it From whence I conclude again that a change of Government is consistent with Covenant that a submission to it in lawful things is much more and consequently it ingages not to any one determinate Government and so is not against this of ours I beleeve it hath been a frequent observation of many who have calmely converst with our Divines and others zealous for Presbytery That they have found them little satisfied with that sort of Presbytery which our Parliament modelled for us of this Nation as having little affinity with the Couenant My beliefe is that they in that discernd not the consequence of their own dissatisfaction For if their consciences regulated by Covenant can admit no civill Government but the Kingly which they so much argue for here and if the Covenant and a Scotch Presbytery whose right they hold to be Divine be essentially linkt together Then we and they may all of us learne not onely from direct inferences but from the declar'd experience of the Sonne the Father the Grandfather and great GrandMother that is of the three last Scotch Kings and one Queene That if the Scotch Presbitery come out of the Covenant then Kingly government cannot derive from it because they are jurisdictions incompatible and inconsistant in the same place and if one can conserve it then may we say as much of the other How much Mary Queene of Scotland experienced of this let the world judge by that which she wrote both with inke in her Letters and with her blood on the Scaffold For how came she to be Beheaded in England but by Mr. Knox and the Kirkes having done little better than put her into the hands of those who could not keepe her long alive with security to themselves King Iames hath writ and argued largely concerning his dangers sufferings under it it is yet remembred in what Dialect they of the Presbytery were wont to Preach and Pray against him to his face and he not know how to remedy it or by what right to top theirs When he came into England he profest his deliverance from that subjection not of small satisfaction to his minde and therefore at this diâ—tance he contrived how to extinguish or check that â—ate there after some progresse in that worke he himselfe dyed peaceably in a milder Country But K. Charles with that Crown inherited the consequences of that undertaking for his first troubles began in the controversie of that Presbytery and what a preservation he thought the Covenant from which it seemes their Presbytery is so inseparable might be to him and what his fate was and who helpt it on nay who diverted him from agreement here all the world knowes and in his writings likewise he hath showne to the world that he himselfe was not ignorant of it This only is the wonder that in the midst of this their specious zeale for Kingly Government the Covenant should be so silent concerning Royall Posterity or for their succession in case the Scots or English Souldiers had kill'd the King casually before he had given them the satisfaction which they required the consideration of all this with some other lately offer'd to the young Prince at the Hague by the Scotch Commissioners and the satisfaction which they in their late Declaration require from him as they did from his Father have questionlesse made him scruple so long at his adventure into that Country though so much invited For they told him p. 14.15 That for longer then these eight yeares yea ever since that Queene Mary their fundamentall priviledge hath beene to assemble in Parliament and to conclude there of themselves either without King or Kings Commissioners and that if his Majesty refuse those their reasonable desires they shall be constrained in so great an extremity to doe what is incumbent on them to preserve Religion and the Kingdom from ruine Here they plainly acknowledge and assume that supreame power and right