The Peoples Right to Defend Themselves and their Covenanted Religion, Religious tract · Chapter 15
CAP. XV.
Some other Particulars, alledged by the Surveyer, againſt us, examined.
HAving in the two preceeding Chapters anſwered his maine &Cardinal Arguments, our labour will not be great in confuteing what followeth.
He ſays Pag. 22. We shake hands with any Papiſts, aſſerting that any perſon, unjuſtly purſued by Magiſtrates, may defend himſelf by armes, and ſlay them if he cannot otherwise eſcape, no leſſe then Robbers or cut-throats. Thus Becan. Tom. 2. contr. Tract. 3. quaeſt. 8. & Swarez. contra Reg. Angl. Lib. 6. cap. 4. §. 6. So Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 70. Art. 4. c.] To which we anſwere 1. That the queſtion, which theſe Papiſts ſpeak to, is different from ours: We ſpeak not concerning vvhat a privat ſingle perſon may do vvhen arraigned and unjuſtly condemned, but concerning what a community may do, when unjuſtly oppreſſed & perſecuted by Magiſtrats, contrare to their trust and oath; 2. We ſpeake not of private perſons killing Magiſtrates at their own hand; but of privat perſons or a community their defending themſelves againſt unjuſt violence: and this truth which we maintain, was owned and practiſed before ever any Papiſt put pen to Paper.
Next he tells us, That Mr Calvsn is of another judgment, Inſt. Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 26, 31. To which we anſwere 1 Mr Calvin is aſſerting that wicked men may be Magiſtrates, and that ſuch, though wicked, while they are in office, should be acknowledged as God's deputyes; for, (ſo ſayes he §. 25.) [In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indigniſſimo penes quem modò ſit publica poteſtas, praeclaram illam & Divinam poteſtatem reſidere, quam Dominus justitiae ac judicit ſui Miniſtris verbo ſuo detulit: proinde à ſubditis eâdem in reverent: â &dignatione habendum, quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet, qua optimum Regem, ſi daretur, habituri eſſent.] And in the following Sections sheweth that ſuch ought to be ſo accounted who are in the possession of the Throne, whatever way they have attained to it, as Nebuchadnezzar (who yet was but the hammer of the earth, Ierem. 50: ver. 23.) Belſazer, and the rest, of that Kinde, and therefore §. 29. he ſayeth [Hunc reverentiae atque adeo pietatis affectum debemus ad extremum prafectis noſtris omnibus qualescunque tandem ſint.] And would have us §. 31. carefull not to rub contempt upon, or to violent the office, or ordinance of God, even in ſuch; which we eaſily aſſent unto: Becauſe that this is not repugnant to a ſinleſſe ſelf-defence, and reſiſtence made to their open Tyranny, when ſeeking to deſtroy Religion, Libertyes, and every thing that is previous and deare unto the Subjects. It is true, ſome-where his expreſſions ſeem to condemne reſiſtence, but that which we have mentioned is the maine thing he preſſeth: and he doth not ſpeak to the caſe of reſiſtence particularly. 2. Though we should grant that in this particular Calvin is not ours; yet the Surveyer muſt know that §. 31. he is againſt him alſo, for the Surveyer putteth Parliaments & all inferiour Magiſtrates in the ſame condition with private Subjects; and yet Calvin ſayeth that ſuch as are as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians; the Tribuns of the people among the Romans; and the Demarchi among the Atheniens; and the Eſtates of Parliament, may and ought to ſuppreſſe the Tyranny of Princes: And ſo in this matter Calvin shall be more for us then for him. 3. It would be noted, both in reference to the teſtimony cited out of Calvin, and to the teſtimonies of other following, That the caſe which they ſpeak to, is different far from ours: For with us, both King and Subject are bound in a ſolemne Covenant to God, to maintaine and promote a work of Reformation, and upon theſe tearmes did out King imbrace the Scepter, and became obliged by conditions unto his People: And ſure more may be ſaid for our defending our ſelves, our Covenant, and our Religion, when unjuſtly perſecuted by the King, then for other privat Subjects, who are (by Gods Providence) under Heathen Princes, or conquerours, or under Princes of a different Religion, and who have no ſecurity or immunity covenanted unto them by theſe Princes.
Then the citeth ſome paſſages out of Peter Martyr's Loc. Com. Claſſ. 4. Cap. 20. Pag. 680. &c. To which we anſwere, 1. The queſtion which he moveth Pag. 680. doth not concerne us: For there he ſayes that meer privat perſones may not depoſe Kings or Princes, or riſe againſt them for this end, Vt eos à dignitate, ſeu gradu ſuo deturbent. Now this is not our queſtion, which is concerning neceſſary ſelf-defence in caſes of extreame neceſſity. 2. He grants it lawfull to inferiour Magiſtrates, who ſet limites to the Prince, if the Prince violat his compacts, and break his Covenant, to force him to ſtand to his conditions, eum in ordinem cogere, ac vi redigere, ut conditiones & pacta quae fuerat pollicitus, compleat, idque vel armis cum aliter fieri non poſſit. Our Surveyer will not aſſent to this which Martyr ſayeth, notwithſtanding he account him one of the moſt learned of our Proteſtants. 3. It is true Pag. 682. he would have private perſones enduring a Tyrant, who commands contrary to equity, and good lawes, and ſuffer him patiently, as we are to ſuffer patiently ſickneſſe. But who ſeeth not, that notwithſtanding of this patient ſubmission, we may uſe reſiſtence, as we may uſe reſiſtence, by all lawful meanes, to ſicknesse and diſeaſes. 4. Though we should yeeld that ſuch a Tyrant as he deſcribed should not be reſiſted, viz. ſuch an one as commandeth contra aequum bonum ac leges, yet our caſe is different: For not only are there ſuch acts of iniquity commanded; but alſo Subjects are compelled by meer force and cruelty, to conſent to, and approve iniquous courſes; and our Magiſtrates are in a ſingular manner obliged to proſecute the Ends of a ſworne Covenant, which the Subjects deſire to adhere unto, and for adherence thereunto, are perſecuted in a moſt inhumane and cruel manner. So that this is tyranny of a higher nature, then what Peter Martyr ſpeaketh of.
In the next place he citeth Rivet. in Decal. Pag. 233. and 235. But we anſwere. 1. Rivet granteth it lawful unto all, vim vi repellere to repel force with force, a proveth it. 2. In the place by him cited, he is ſpeaking of a private man's reſiſting the violence of another, who, if (under pretext of exponeing the law of Nature) should avenge himſelf, privato appetitu vel contumaciâ, or raiſe ſeditions againſt the Magiſtrates, he should but abuſe his power and liberty, and this we grant. But our caſe is of a Community, to which Rivet ſpeaketh nothing. Yea 3. in the other place, though he will not have a private perſon kill his Father or a Magiſtrate, in his owne defence; yet he granteth it lawful to reſiſt, ſo far as can be, to hinder our owne destruction [Id (ſayes he) nos abſolute ſontimus de Parente & Principe; quibus licet quidem reſiſtere, quantum id fieri poteſt, cum invadunt injuſte; eo fine ut impediamus perniciem noſtram.] Whence it appeareth that Rivet is much for us; for he acknowledgeth it lawful for a private ſingle perſon to defend himſelf, as much as is poſſible, from the unjuſt aſſaults of Princes, Much more then shall it be lawfull for a community to defend themſelves againſt the King's Emiſſaries.
After Rivet he citeth D. Ames conſ, cas. Lib. 5. cap. 20. But Doct. Ames ſpeaketh nothing againſt us, for he is ſummarily holding forth what is the duty of Superiours towards their inferiours, and of inferiours towards their Superiours; and among the dutyes of inferiours, he reckoneth ſubjection and obedience, but what calleth he this ſubjection? Doth he meane thereby a ſtupide and abſolute ſubmiſſion to all acts of Tyranny and opreſſion? No, but ſuch an acknowledgement of their power & authority as hath with it a care to preſerve the ſame unhurt. Now this is conſiſtent with reſiſtence in caſes of neceſſity: A community may defend themſelves from unjuſt violence of Magiſtratees, and yet attempt nothing againſt their juſt power and authority, but labour tenderly to preſerve the ſame. 2. It is true, that he ſayeth all violent inſurrection is oppoſite hereunto, and alſo contempt: But that is violent inſurrection againſt the power and authority, and not againſt the perſon who is abuſeing his povver to the ruine and deſtruction of the Commonvvealth; for no body will deny but tyranny, and the Tyrant as ſuch, may be deſpiſed and undervalued, vvithout vvrong to the povver and authority if ſelf. So may that be reſiſted vvithout violation of the power. 3. It is true he ſayeth that ſubjection may be, vvhere there is not obedience, but wherein ſayeth he doth this ſubjection conſiſt? In ſubmiſsâ recuſatione obedientiae, quando illicitum eſſe conſtat quod a ſuperiore mandatur; in a ſubmiſſive refuſeing to give obedience. And this is ſome other thing, then a ſtupide ſubmission to all acts of Tyranny. 4. This ſame Ames Cap. 25. where he is ſpeaking of Maagiſtrates and Subjects, and shewing the duty of ſubjcets unto them, puts ſubjection and obedience together §. 16. Wherefore, as hence it cannot follow, becauſe obedience is due unto them, when they command things juſt and agreable to God's Law; that therefore obedience is due unto them, when they command things unjuſt and repugnant to the Law of God: So nor will it follow, that becauſe ſubjection is due unto them, when their power is not abuſed to the deſtruction of the Commonwealth; therefore ſubjection is due unto them or non-reſiſtence, when they tyrannize over the conſciences, ſtates and bodyes of their ſubjects, and laboure to overturne all. 5. It is true he ſayeth Cap. 31. §. 10. that the perſon invading may be ſuch, and there may be ſuch other circumſtances, as that the perſon invaded may rather chooſe to die, as to Kill: But that ſpeakes nothing to our caſe, which is a reſiſting to the King's bloody emiſſaries, not by one private perſon, but by a Community: And ſince D. Ames in the ſame Chapt. §. 4. 5. &c. thinks it lawful for a private perſon to defend himſelf even by killing the aggreſſor, when there is no other remedy, he will abundantly juſtify our practice. And likewiſe he alloweth this defence even in the behalf of others. §. 9. Rectè etiam extenditur ad defenſionem non tantum nost…um, ſed & aliorum innocentium: Hoc enim poſtula lex, ut proximum diligamus ſicut nosipſos! And therefore Ameſius is much for us.
As for the two Papiſts Eſtius and Tollet whom he citeth▪ they ſpeak not againſt us, who plead for the Liberty of ſelf defence unto a Community againſt the Magiſtrate, and not to every private ſingle perſon; neither plead we for a power of Killing Kings. And if they were againſt us he could not have much reaſon to ſay, that we joyned hands with Papiſts. Thus are all his authorities from divines anſwered, let us ſee what he ſayeth further.
He tells us Pag. 25. 26. [That when Lex Rex had in ſeverral places (ſuch as Pag. 313. 314. 322. 463.) vented that principle in reference to the civil governement, That no man is bound in conſcience to ſubjection paſſive under unjuſt punishments inflicted by the Magistràte, more then to active obedience unto unlawful commands; and that paſſive obedience under unjust ſentences comes under no command of God? Yea that it is a ſin againſt God's command to be paſsively ſubject to unjuſt ſentences, and that it it an act of grace and vertue, for a man to reſiſt the Magiſtrate violently, when he does him wrong: and a ſelf murther againſt the ſixt command, not to resist when he offers to take away the life without cauſe, though not without law: They were quickly applyed to the Church by this man and his party, who pleaded for non-ſubmiſſion unto, and counteracting of all the judicatories, Whenſoever the perſones injured thought the ſentence wrong—and how well their practices in the Church do homologate with their practices as to the State, we may now ſee; for it is the way which they clearly owne, that every perſon (when and ſo long as they are able, or are in probable capacity, to act violently againſt the Magiſtrate) ought to counter-act him violently, when he thinks the Magiſtrate wrongs him (for this muſt be referred to every man's private deſcretive judgment, as Naphtaly tells us Pag. 141.—How contrary ſuch principles and practices of privat mens non-ſubmiſſion to, and counteracting of Church Judicatories (ſupposed to do wrong) are unto the Word of God; how ſubverſive of Church government; how introductory of ſchiſme, hereſies and all miſchiefs into the Church, is well diſcovered by the learned Reviewer of the pamphet intituled presbytery no papacy, &c. And with equal reaſon, may the ſame grounds be made uſe of againſt this man's inciteing all private perſons, to counteract the Magiſtrate violently, when they think he doth them vvrong, or when they account their ſentences unjust.]
Anſw, 1. It is a poor defence of a weak and tottering cauſe, to follow ſuch courſes as this Surveyer doth. To wreſt and wire-draw the ſayings of his adverſaries, is neither a faire way of confirming his owne opinion, nor a ſolid way of confuteing his adverſaries. He ſets dovvne ſome ſentences here, as aſſertions of Lex Rex: And if any vvill consult the places cited, they vvill diſcover unhandſome dealing. I shall only ſet downe what Lex Rex ſayeth, and the Reader, vvhen he compareth, may judge. Lex Rex ſayeth Pag. 313. [That patient bearing of evil and reſiſtence, are not incompatible in one & the ſame perſon] Pag. 314. He ſayeth [one act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another, Reſiſtence is in the Children of God, an innocent act of ſelf preſervation, as in a patient ſuffering, and therefore they may well ſubſiſt in one.] And ibid [Neither ſuffering formally as ſuffering, and ſo neither can non-reſiſting paſſive fall under any moral law of God, except in two caſes] Pag. 322. [when a man may preſerve his owne life, and doth not that which Natures law alloweth him to do, rather to Kill as be Killed, he is guilty of ſelf murther; becauſe he is deficient in the duty of lawful ſelf defence.] And Pag. 463 [It is not dishononrable to the Majeſty of the Ruler, that we deny Paſſive ſubjection to him, when he punisheth beſide his warrant, more then it is againſt his Majeſty and Honour, that we deny active obedience, when the Commandeth illegally.] I shall not trouble the Reader with words, to diſcover the difference betwixt what Lex Rex ſayeth, and what this Surveyer alledgeth he did ſay; ſeing the judicious and obſervant Reader will Sine monitore eaſily perceive it.
2. What the Surveyer driveth at in making this parallel now, may be obvious to any, even to imbarque with himſelf and his party, the few of thoſe who were for the Publick Reſolutions, that have hitherto gotten grace of the Lord to abide faithful, and not to ſay a confederacy with all, with whom this Apoſtate generation hath now baſely conſpired, againſt Chirſt and his intereſts. But we hope that thoſe few will be ſo far from intertaining their former prejudices againſt their faithful and affectionat Brethren, who withſtood theſe Reſolutions, and owned the Proteſtations; that on the contrare, perceiving themſelves miſtaken as to what they feared, concerning the Proteſters, as if they had intended to overturn all diſcipline and Church government, and to ſide with Sectaryes; ſince themſelves have novv ſeen ſome of them owneing the ſame unto death, and becomeing a martyr upon the account of Church privileges, & all the reſt (ſcarce three of foure excepted) abideing faithful, and ſuffering upon that account unto this day; and ſince with all they ſee the feares of the Proteſters, concerning the inclination to Malignancy and Prelacy, of the far greater part of theſe, who ſtifly maintained theſe Reſolutions, now verified beyond all contradiction; and that their objecting, that the major part of the Miniſtery was then corrupted, was too too true, and too well grounded, which things, if theſe faithful men who now ſtand, had but ſuſpected then, as now they ſee with their eyes, they would, (we are confident) have forborne to have ſided with them in theſe debates, and much more heartily have concurred with the honeſt propoſals of the Proteſters, for a through way of purging the church of ſuch corrupt naughty perſones, as have now moſt baſely betrayed the intereſt of Christ, and departed from their profeſſion and Covenant, and made that Church a hiſſing and a by-word to all nations, by returning with the Sow to the puddle and with the dog to their vomite. Theſe worthy men, I ſay, perceiving now how far they have been miſtaken not to their grief but to their joy (as famous and zealous Mr Wood one of their number, did before his ſickneſſe, after ſome heavy groans, plainely profeſſe and declare to a credible perſon, yet on life to verify the ſame, if any should queſtion it) will be ſo far from owning this man and his principles, that they will rather, (we hope) condemne their former practices, if not altogether yet in ſo far at leaſt, as it is now viſible they did tend, to the ſetting up of a arbitrary government and tyranny in the Church, and are now improved by this Surveyer to confirme a Tyranny in the ſtate. Sure they now ſee, what ſome at leaſt of theſe, who were very active and forward to ſcrew up that debate to the hieght, and to preſſe and abſolute ſubjection, might have been driveing at under hand, though they made ſuch faire profeſſions of their firme purpoſe to adhere to presbyterian government, as moved others to entruſt them with the management of their affairs at Court, and while entruſted therewith, deſtroyed and overturned the whole government, ſo that now they will be loath to ſay as the Reviewer did Pag. 5, 6. [That the innocency of his agency, to prevent the evils the proteſters were endeavouring to bring upon this Church, and his carriage and integrity in managing that Trust, are ſo wel: known at home and abroad, that we beleeve he needs not write Apolog…ticks againſt the ſlanders of their tongue or pen.] And rather blush when they read or remember this: & we are hopeful that ſuch and the like perfidious practices well pondered, will not only contribute much to re-unite them in hearty affection, unto their faithful Brethren now in the ſame furnace with themſelves, for the ſame cauſe and intereſt; but alſo cauſe them reflect upon their former proceedings, & conſider what a native tendency, that which gave the riſe to all that debate, had unto this, which is to day our ſin, our shame, and our Sorrow, that they may joyne with the Reſt of the faithful of the land, in mourning for ſuch national ſinnes, Whereby the wrath of God may be turned away from us, and the Church reſtored to her former beauty and integrity, in the Lord's good time.
3. It is Manifeſt, that this Surveyer, who ever he be, & ſome others with him, had ſome other thoughts in their heads at that time, then they durſt expreſſe; & finding the far greater part of the Miniſterie corrupted, would have had the reſt reſolving upon an abſolute ſubmiſſion to all their determinations, though they had been openly & avowedly to introduce prelacy, yea & popery, & to have ſubmitted to their ſummar cenſures of depoſition, & what elſe they thought good to inflict, without the leaſt reſiſtence or counteracting, & thus to have patiently ſubmitted, to ſee Chriſt & his royall truthes banished out of the land by eccleſiaſtical acts, & Popery & Prelacy re-eſtablished by horrible iniquity: Though we were ever confident, ſuch as now through grace abide ſtedfaſt, had no ſuch thoughts or intentions.
4. This Surveyer dealeth with all alike: as he miſrepreſented Lex Rex in the civil debate, ſo doth he now miſrepreſent the proteſters in the Church-debate; for when or where did they ſay, That perſones were not bound to ſubmit, but to counter-act the judicatories of the presbyteriall government, whenſoever they thought the ſentence wrong & unlawfull? Did they ever aſſert that a mans owne conſcience, was the only vvarrand and ground of his ſubmiſſion or non-ſubmiſſion, or of his obedience or disobedience?
5. So doth he abuſe & miſrepreſent Naphtaly, as any vvill ſee who conſidereth his words in the place cited, which are theſe. Now how a diſcretive judgment in theſe caſes, both of unrighteous commands, & wicked violence, & ſpecially in the later, which is (by far) the more ſenſible, doth neceſſarily remaine with the people, & in what manner the ſame is to be determined & cautioned, ſo as neither to licenſe diſobedience against authority, nor create ſeditions in the Commonwealth, is already fully cleared.] This is ſome other thing then to ſay, that al is to be referred to every man's privat diſcretive judgement, vvithout any caution or limitation added or ſupponed.
6. Becauſe it is not our purpoſe to revive that debate vvhichwhich vvas betvvixt the Proteſters & the Publick Reſolutioners; but as vve vvish it had never been heard of, ſo vve deſire it may buryed in perpetual oblivion; & that hence forth there may be hearty joyning in the cauſe & covenant of God, for proſecution of all the ends thereof, according to our ſeverall capacities, That ſo we may become one ſtick in the hand of the Lord, & renunce this apoſtacy, & all courſes tending thereunto, & ſo goe on as before that un happy difference broke out, with zeal, & unanimity. Therefore we shall forbeare to examine what that Reviewer, of presbytery no papacy, ſaid: And though we finde that much of what the Surveyer ſayeth here, is borrowed from that Reviewer, & is anſwered already as to our purpoſe; yet we finde the Reviewer grant ſeverall things, which will quite deſtroy the parallel, as to our caſe, & shew the Surveyer to have been but a fool in mentioning that pamphlet now. For 1. He Pag. 104. ſayeth [We do not urge ſubmiſſion, in this matter betwixt us, in matters of doctrine, or articles of faith, in morshipe, government, nay nor rules of diſcipline.] And ſo inſinuats as much, as that if the Dogmatick and Diatactick power of Chriſt's courts be abuſed, and corrupt doctrine and practices preſſed, he would not be for ſubmiſſion: And therefore upon this ground, waves the arguments of the proteſters, taken from the inſtance of Athanaſius not ſubmitting to the Arians, depoſeing him for aſſerting the divinity of the Sone of God; and the 11. Arg. making a ſuppoſition of enacting the Maſſe, and all the hereſies of Rome, ſaying [For when Church judicatories deny homage to the Sone of God and returne to Rome, We shall not debate the poynt of non-ſubmiſſion only with them, but shall run from them as from synagogues of Satan.] Upon this ſame ground he waves the argument 13. which did shew that this ſubmiſſion was prelatical: And the paſſage of our confeſſion of faith ratified An. 1567. which is thus, art. 12. [So far as the Council proveth the determination and commandement that it giveth, by the plaine word of God, ſo ſoon do we reverence and imbrace the ſame; but if men under the name of a Council, pretend to forge unto us new articles of our faith, or to make conſtitutions repugning to the word of God, then utterly we muſt refuſe the ſame, as the doctrine of devils, which draweth our ſouls from the voyce of our only God, to follow the doctrines & conſtitutions of Men.] So doth he upon this ground lay by what they ſaid Pag. 49. [That by this ſubmiſsion there was no remedy, but that, at one ſtroke, the precious intereſts of Chriſt and truthes of God muſt be borne downe, and buryed in oblivion, and the Saints and Miniſters of the goſpel be buryed under the rubbish thereof.] As alſo their Arg. 15. which did shew, that this unlimited ſubmiſſion did [Leave the Church deſtitute of all Eccleſiaſtical remedies, in the caſe of a general defection, and open a wide door for making the government of the houſe of God degenerate into Tyranny, &c.] And their 2 Argum shewing how contrary it was to Scripture, and how hard it was to ſay that a man duely qualified, being ſuſpended from the Sacrament, or from the exerciſe of his Miniſtery, or excommunicated, becauſe of his preſſing and holding forth ſome precious Truth of God, which a Church judicatory condemneth for a lie, should ſubmit: And alſo their 8. Arg. Pag. 108. which was this [What is denyed jure to Oecumenick Councils, and ſo lawfully called Prophets and Miniſters of the goſpel, to Nathan, to David, to Paul, to an Angel from heaven Gal. 1: ver. 18. cannot warrantably be given to General Aſſemblies. If—they teach or decree not according to the word of the Lord, we are to counteract, and to contradict Gal. 1: ver. 8. Therefore, &c.] Now in all theſe caſes the Reviewer would not plead for ſubmiſſion to Church judicatories: Why then doth this Surveyer plead for abſolute ſubmiſſion and unlimited to civil powers, ſince he is pleaſed to draw a parallel betwixt them? But we ſee that evil men and ſeducers waxe worſe and worſe. So that by the Reviewer's conceſſions, we are not bound to ſubmit vvhen the higher povvers perſecute us for truthes ſake, deny homage to the Sone of God, preſſe the approving of corruptions in the poynt of government, deſtroy the precious truthes of God, and intereſts of Chriſt, make a general defection and Apoſtaſy: And in a vvord, turne Enemies to the liberties of the People, deſtroy the Covenanted vvork of God, oppreſſe the Subjects in bodyes, States, and Conſciences; and ſo croſſe the very ends for vvhichwhich they vvere appoynted. 2. The Reviewer Pag. 109, 110. though he vvould have ſubmiſſion, in the matter of diſcipline, vvhere the hazard is only perſonal, and a mans ſuffering is not tanti as to diſturb a vvell ſetled national Church, vvhere doctrine and vvorshipe are in their integrity; yet he thinks the caſe is of greater moment, vvhen a National Church in her judicatoryes introduceth falfe doctrine, and corrupt vvorshipe, to be impoſed upon a Church: And ſo dar not affirme that ſubmiſſion is in this caſe due. Why vvill not the Surveyer take notice of this & grant ſo much in our caſe? We should readyly grant to him, that ſubmiſſion might be yeelded in ſmaller matters, when the hazard was only perſonal, and the ſuffering of one, or of a few, was not tanti as therefore to diſturb the ſetled State, wherein the maine matters were keeped in their integrity. But he cannot in reaſon demand more of us, (if the parallel hold) or ſeek ſubmiſſion, when Higher powers are overturning the precious Truthes of God, and intereſts of Chriſt, are deſtoying a glorious work of reformation, are preſſing all to open and avowed perjury, are deſtroying the fundamental rights, libertyes and privileges of the Chriſtian Subjects, and tyrannizing over their Eſtates, their Bodyes and their conſciences. 3. So tender was the Reviewer that Pag. 115. he would not urge ſubmiſſion to ſentences of inferiour courts, when appeales from one judicatory to another could not be had; yet ſo untender is our Surveyer that he will have abſolute and unlimited ſubmiſſion yeelded, when he knowes that not only is there no liberty of appeal granted, but not ſo much as liberty to petition and ſupplicate, to get any thing that is amiſſe righted. Thus he would have the whole land ſubmitting to meer and cruel tyranny. 4. Pag. 129. the Reviewer ſaid [We never aſserted a judicatory might be contra-acted in no caſe, as we cleared before] far leſſe will be affirme, that a judicatory may not be contradicted in any caſe, ibid. Hovv cometh it then, that our Surveyer doth not follow the Reviewer's footſteps; but pleadeth for abſolute and illimited ſubmiſſion, in all caſes vvhatſomever. 5. Pag. 131. vvhen he comes to that argument taken from the Tyranny which would hereby be introduced in the Church, which would conſequently condemne defenſive armes uſed againſt Tyranny in the State: He only ſayes [That no learned man would ever allow people to riſe (far leſſe a party only) against a prince upon the account only of the unjust ſufferings of particular perſones, whole yet the affaires of Church and State were well ordered-while yet they adhered unto & overturned none of the righteous things in a nation.] Sure then it will be allowed by him, that people, though the leſſer part, defend themſelves againſt Tyranny; when not only particular perſones are unjuſtly ſuffering, but the righteous things once concluded and confirmed by lawes, Oathes Vowes, Covenants, Acknowledgments, Declarations, & Proteſtations, are overturned; the work of God razed to the fundation; perjury and breach of Covenant eſtablished; Conrſes laid downe for a conſtant exerciſe of tyranny and oppreſſion &c. againe. 6. pag. 134. [let once (ſayes he) a judicatory grow ſo corrupt as to condemne the dutyes of preaching Chriſt, and participation of publick ordinances, in the very nature and kinde, and as to all ſorts of perſons univerſally—and in that caſe we shall without ſcruple conclude them no true courts of Chriſt, & conſequently not to be ſubmitted unto; yea in caſe ſuch decrees were published, we should hold it a caſe of confeſſion for miniſters to preach▪ and people to frequent ordinances ſo long as they had liberty or oportunity.] How then can ſubmiſſion be given to theſe in povver, vvho novv have deſtroyed the intereſts of Chriſt, and vvill ſuffer none to plead or contend for Chriſt and his oppreſſed truth, or ſpeak againſt perjury and dreadful defection, vvhere of the land is novv guilty? But enough of this, vve proceed.
Another particular which we shall here examine is that diſcourſe he hath concerning I Sam. 8: ver. 10. Pag. 63: 64. The ſumme of what he ſayeth is this. [It is true (ſayes he) the place, I Sam. 8: ver. 10. neither contradicts nor repeales that law Deut. 17: ver. 14.—But it is falſe that only the tyranny of a King is there ſpoken of by way of meer diſſuaſive: Moſes and Samuel agree: The one shewes what a King should do ex officio and de Jure, The other what a King may do, by the power he hath, and yet not be …b…oxious to punishment, from Subjects,— or what a people should ſuffer of an evil King, without attempt of violence upon him. The one ſets out Gods approbative law, The other his permiſſive law—as albeit the Lord approve not divorce, yet by a permiſſive law, Deut 24: ver. I. Husbands had liberty to put away their Wives, without being obnoxious to humane punishment— The fact it the manner of Tyranny, but the permiſſive power without punishment from ſubjects, is the juſt right of all lawfull Kings— Though Samuel might have here intended to diſſwade the people; yet his maine intention was to shew the people their duty under a Kings oppreſſ…on, what they were to ſuffer without reſiſtence; for to what purpoſe should he have written the Manner of the King in a book, and laid it up before the Lord, 1 Sam. 10: ver. 25. But to teach the people their beheaviour to the King? So that this was not the law of the King, Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the Ark.]
Anſw. 1. It is well that he granteth that this …us Regis Or the manner of the King is de facto the manner of tyranny; and ſo that it was no wayes lawful for the King to do theſe things there mentioned, which yet other Royaliſts do peremptorily, deny and averre hence, that Kings have full, abſolute and illimited power over the Subjects perſons and goods. And thus as to the King's part, he muſt grant that what is here ſpoken, is contrary to what is ſaid, Deut. 17.
2. All the circumſtances of the text shew, that this tyranny of the King is ſpoken of meerly in way of diſſwaſive; for it was a King to judge them like unto the Kings of other Nations, which they were ſeeking, and this diſpleaſed Samuel ver. 6. and the Lord ſaid to Samuel, that hereby they had rejected not Samuel, but himſelf, that he should not reigne over him, ver. 7. and the Lord commanded him ſolemnely to proteſt againſt them, and then 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 …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 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, vvhichwhich 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.