The Peoples Right to Defend Themselves and their Covenanted Religion, Religious tract · Chapter 2
CAP. II.
Three Arguments propoſed, taken I. from the Conceſſions of Adverſaryes. 2 The reſiſtence of Parliaments: 3. The Light & Law of Nature.
Having thus cleared the true ſtate of the queſtion, we shall now fall about the confirming of the affirmative; and ſo take occaſion to examine what this Surveyer ſayeth, as he cometh in our way: and though there should not be great neceſſitie to confirme our hypotheſis, or the preſent queſtion under debate, unto ſuch, as have not proſtituted their ſoull unto a brutish beleef of an abſolute and indiſpenſible ſubjection, or ſubmiſſion in all caſes whatſomever, unto the luſts and rage of men abuſeing their power and places, and overturning that good order which God only wiſe eſtabished in his love and favour, for the good mankinde; yet becauſe this ſeemeth to be an age, wherein the ſpirits of many of ſunk below that of beaſts; and men of no conſciences, or, at beſt, debauched conſciences, have willingly ſurrendered their privilege as men, and aſſumed the ſlavish diſpoſition of bond-men, that for their owne baſe ends, a little maſe of pottage, they may gratify ſuch as are nothing leſſe, then what they ought to be; it will be neceſſary to ſpeak a little more to it.
Our firſt argument then shall be taken from the conceſſions of adverſaries, and from what this ſame surveyer, ſeemeth (if not expreſly and directly to grant, yet) not to deny or condemne altogether Barclarius contra Monarchom: lib. 1. c. 8. granteth to the people liberty to defend themſelves from injury, and to reſiſt quando immani ſavitia petuntur and lib. 4. c. 16. he doth fully an plainely acknowledge [That the king falleth from the right to this Kingdomes, & that the people may not only reſiſt him, & refuſe obedience unto him but many alſo remove him from the throne, if without the ſubjects conſent he should ſubjecte the Kingdome to another, or be tranſported with an hoſtile minde againſt the Commonwealth. [Doct▪ ferne alſo acknowledgeth [That perſonal defence is lawful againſt the ſuddaine and illegal aſſaults, of the King's meſſengers, yea of the Prince himſelf, thus farre, to ward his blowes, to hold his hands; ſo when the aſſault is inevitable] and elſe where he grants it lawful [to reſiſt the King's cut-throats.] So Arniſaeus de author: princip. Cap. 2. n. 10. granteth it lawful to private perſons, to reſiſt the King, when he acteth extrajudicially. And Crotius de jur. bel. & pac. lib. I. c. 4. n. 7. ſeemeth to ſay that the law of non-reſiſtence doth not oblige, in certane & extreame danger, ſeing ſome divine lawes, though generally propoſed, have this tacite exception of extreame neceſſity; and giveth this for a ground. That the law of non-reſiſtence ſeemeth to have flowed from them, who firſt combined together into a ſociety, and from whom ſuch as did command, did derive their power: now if it had been asked of ſuch, Whether they would chooſe to die, rather then in any caſe to reſiſt the Superiours with armes, I know not (ſayeth he) if they would have yeelded thereunto, unleſſe with this addition, if they could not be reſiſted, but with the greateſt perturbation of the Commonwealth, and deſtruction of many innocents. And a little thereafter He hath theſe words [Att… men indiſcriminatim damnare, AUT SINGULOS, AUT PARTEM MINOREM, quae ultimo neceſſitatis praeſidio ſic utatur, ut interim, & communis boni reſpectum non deſerat, vix auſim] It is true, in the end of that Section, he ſeemeth to ſay that nothing is now left to chriſtians, but flight, yet § 10. & 11. he aſſenteth to Barclaius his conceſſions. Let us next ſee what our Surveyer ſeemeth to yeeld Pag. 23. 24. [Whatever may he ſaid(ſayeth he) of moral of legal felf defence, againſt the souveraigne, by way of petition, or plea in court, for ſaifty of a mans perſon or Eſtate; and whatever may be ſaid of warding off, and defenſively puting back, perſonal injurious aſſaults, to the manifeſt and immediat peril of life; without any colour of deſerving, of reaſon, of law, or judicial proceeding; or of a Womans violent reſiſting attempts, againſt the honour of her chaſtity (dearer to her then life) and tending to inſnare her alſo in ſin, againſs God (whereof her non-reſiſtence makes her formally guilty) and whatever may be done in the caſe of moſt habited, notoure and compleat tyranny, againſt all appearance of law, manifeſily tending to the deſtruction of the body of a people, or greater part thereof, by hoſtile furious actions, or in the caſe of violent attempts, or deſtruction of all knowne legal libertyes, and the beeing of Reliagion, according to law; or in the caſe of vendition, alienation of, and giving a whole Kingdome to forraigners, or ſtrangers, or ſome ſuch like; whatever I ſay in ſuch horried caſes (which for most part cannot befal a prince, in his natural and right wits, (a caſe wherein proviſion may be made, that he hurt not himſelf, nor his dominions) may be done, comes not at all within the compaſſe of our queſtion; although most diſingenuouſly, the diſcontented and ſeditious, do ſtrive on all occaſions, to aggravate matters ſo, that the caſe concerning them, may ſeem co-incident with theſe, or the like, that ſo they may juſtify their violence against the powers.]
But howbeit this Surveyer think that theſe conceſſions make little for our advantage; yet to underſtanding perſons, it will be cleare in general.
1. That He, and the reſt of the Royal ſociety of Court paraſites and ſlatterers, ſpeak moſt inconſequentially unto themſelves; They cry up in their writtings an abſolute, and indiſpenſible ſubjection, unto the Supreame Magiſtrate, due by all his ſubjects; and yet when they are ſore pinched, they muſt clap their wings cloſer, And drawe in their faire ſailes, & grant that in ſuch & ſuch caſes, not only his E miſſaries & ſuch as have his commiſſion, but Himſelf may be reſiſted not only by the Ephort, & Primores Regni, but by very private ſubjects. Did we not but juſt now heare our Surveyer crying out againſt Naphtaly, for ſaying That what reaſons could prove an abſolute & indiſpenſible ſubjection, will alſo prove an aboſolute & unlimited obedience, as being unwelling to heare any thing ſpoken againſt an abſolute & vaſt, ſubjection; and yet behold here, he is as willing as the reſt, to clip the wings of this inviolable ſoveraignity, & ſet forth unto us a limited & retrenched ſubjection due to the Supreame Magiſtrate, even by private perſons.
2. That by theſe conceſſions, He and the reſt cut the ſinewes of their owne arguments, and cauſe them to halt ere they aſſault us, and teach us away of rejecting or anſwereing them; For, when they produce their arguments, vvhether from reaſon, or authorities, they cannot but make them conclude univerſally, and then they are neceſſitated themſelves to anſvvere theſe univerſal arguments, or otherwiſe retract their conceſſions; and whatever vvay they think to evade vvith their conceſſions, and ſuppoſed caſes, vve vvill finde roome enough to eſcape vvith our caſe; as for exemple, vvhen this Surveyer urgeth that ſubjection ſpokento, Rom. 13. He muſt either grant, that it muſt be reſtricted to ſuch and ſuch caſes, or elſe plead for an univerſal, abſolute, unlimited and indiſpenſible ſubjection, and ſo retract his conceſſions; and if he take the liberty to uſe his reſtrictions, and ſo interpret the place, as that it shall not reach his caſes excepted, he muſt grant us the ſame liberty, to ſay that our caſe is not there meaned, or condemned.
3. By theſe conceſſions vve have this advantage, that the diſtinction vvhichwhich is made, in this queſtion of reſiſtence, betvvixt the Magiſtrate as ſuch, and the perſon or man, vvho is the Magiſtrate, is not ſo abſurd and ridiculous, as the Royaliſts give it out to be; for here vve finde them forced to uſe the ſame, ſo that if it be a defileing diſtinction they cannot be clean, more then vve: and vve ſee that reſiſtence may be uſed againſt the perſon of, or the man vvho is, the Magiſtrate, vvithout the leaſt contempt, or vvrong done unto the holy Ordinance of God, othervviſe they muſt of neceſſity ſay, that in all the forementioned caſes, they very Ordinance of God is reſiſted; and hovv then they shall reconcile that, vvith Rom. 13. I ſee not.
4. We ſee alſo, That the Prerogative Royal, vvhichwhich they ſcrevv up unto a tranſcendent abſoluteneſſe and ſupremacy above lavv, is but a meer chimaera, vvhichwhich themselves muſt abhominate as a loathſome brat.
5. We ſee that ſalus populs eſt ſuprema lex, the peoples ſaifty is ſuch a royal thing, that the King himſelf, and all his prerogatives, yea and municipal lawes too, muſt vaile the cap unto it themſelves being judges.
6. We ſee alſo, that they muſt grant a court of neceſſity, in which private perſones, may judge the Supream Magistrat, in order to their reſiſting of him; for, I hope, they will grant, that in theſe caſes, the people act with judgment, and as rational men; and if ſo, they muſt ſay, that the people muſt firſt judge and condemne the Supream Magiſtrate, as erring, and doing amiſſe, before they can lawfully reſiſt him.
7. We have this advantage, That the Arguments by which, They can prove it lawful to reſiſt the Magiſtrate, in the caſes granted by them, will not be a little ſteadable to us, in our caſe; and for ſhame they will not condemne their owne arguments, becauſe in our mouthes.
8. It will be eaſily granted by all, that our caſe, vvhichwhich vve have truely ſtated, vvill come nearer the caſes, vvhichwhich adverſaries do except, then the caſe vvhichwhich he hath ſett dovvne; and ſo, Hovvever he think the caſes mentioned by him, do not come vvithin the compaſſe of the queſtion vvhichwhich he hath ſet dovvne; yet underſtanding perſones vvil ſee, they are not altogether vvithout the compaſſe of that vvhichwhich is the true queſtion, and true ſtate of the controtroverſy; and that he hath no juſt cauſe to fay, that vve (hovvever he account us diſcontented and ſeditious) do moſt diſingenuoſly ſtrive, on all occaſions, to aggravate matters, ſo that the caſe concerning us, may ſeem co-incident with theſe or the like.
But next, more particularly, Theſe conceſſions are much for our advantage. For,
1. If it be lawful for a private perſon to defend his life or eſtate in a moral or legal vvay, by petition, or plea in court, againſt the Souveraigne, (yea and by actual force, if the Soveraigne, or any in his name, shal come to poind, or take poſſeſſion illegally, as our lavves vvill allovv,) vvhy shall it be unlavvfull, for a conſiderable part of the land, to defend their Lives, and Eſtates, their Libertyes and Religion, by forcible reſiſtence, made unto the Magiſtrat's Emiſſaries, cruel, bloody ſouldiers, vvhen that moral reſiſtence by petition, (vvhichwhich yet no rational man can account reſiſtence, it being rather an act of ſubjection) is, contrare to all lavv and equity, denyed; and alſo, the legal reſiſtance, by plea in court, is not admitted? Doth the municipal lavv of the land permit the one reſiſtence, aud vvill not the lavv of nature and nations (vvhichwhich no municipal lavv can infringe) be a ſufficient vvarandice for the other, in caſe of extream neceſſity? If it be ſaid, The Soveraigne hath law and right upon his ſide, in this caſe, which he hath not in the other, till the law diſcuſſe it. Anſ. The Law and Right which he hath on his fide in this caſe, is but meerly pretended, as in the other caſe; and is lis ſub judice Neither is he, to be both judge and party in this caſe, more then in the other: againe, if it be ſaid that in this caſe, He acteth as a Soveraigne, executeing the lawes, but in the other caſe, he acteth only, as a private perſon. It is anſwered. 1. That even in the other caſe He may pretend to be acting as a Soveraigne, following & executeing the lawes, as well as in this. 2. The Soveraigne as Soveraigne cannot oppreſſe nor do wrong, & therefore even in this caſe, when he doth manifeſt injury unto the ſubjects, contrare to his place, vow and promiſe, he acteth but as a private perſon, and not as Soveraigne.
2. If it be lawful for private perſon to warde off, and defenſively put back perſonal injurious aſſaults, to the manifeſt and immediat peril of life, without any colour of deſerving, of reaſon, of law, or judicial proceeding. Why shal it not alſo be lawful for private perſons to ward-off, and defenſively put back, the injurious aſſaults of Emiſſaries, to the manifeſt peril of Life, Libertyes, States, Lively-hoods, Conſciences and Religion, without any rational, or real colour of deſerving, of reaſon of law, of God, or nations, or judicial proceeding? Shal it be lawful for one private perſon, in the defence of his owne life, to warde off ſuch illegal, extrajudicial and irrational aſſaults of the Soveraigne himſelf; and shall it be unlawful for a body of a land, or a conſiderable part thereof, in the defence of their lively-hoods, and ſo of their owne lives, and of the lives of their poſterity, of their Conſciences, of their Libertyes and Religion, all ſecured unto them by all bonds, vowes, Covenants, Statutes and Actes imaginable, to warde off the irrational, furious, illegal, extrajudicial and mad aſſaults of the Soveraign's bloody Emiſſaries? Sure rational men vvill ſee that vvhatever reaſon vvil evince the lavv fulneſſe of the reſiſtence in the former case, the ſame vvill more ſtrongly and plauſibly, conclude the lavvfulneſſe of reſiſtence in this caſe.
3. If it be lavvfull for a private vvoman to defend her chaſtity, dearer to her then life, by violent reſiſting the Soveraignes attempts, leſt by non-reſiſtance, she should be guilty (and oh if all the vvomen of the nation vvere of this temper.) Shall it not alſo be lavvful for private perſons to defend their Lives, Liberties, Conſciences and Religion, dearer to them then their Lives; yea and defend their chaſtity too, by violent reſiſting of the furious attempts of the Soveraignes bloody Emiſſaries, ſent of purpoſe to conſtraine and compel them to perjury, vvhen their non-reſiſtence, according to their povver and opportunity, could not but be interpreted a voluntary and baſe quiteing of the cauſe and truth, vvhichwhich they vvere bound before God, to maintaine vvith their lives and fortunes?
4. If it be lavvfull to reſiſt habited, notour and compleat tyranny, againſt all appearance of lavv, manifeſtly tending to the deſtruction of a body of a people, or a greater part thereof, by hoſtile furious actions: Shall it be utterly unlavvſul to reſiſt notour tyranny, yea compleat and habited (though not as to re-iterated acts, yet as to the ground laid dovvne of a moſt compleat and habited tyranny) againſt all appearance of divine lavv, or juſt and right humane lavves, vvhichwhich should be conſonant thereunto, tending to the deſtruction of the Covenanted-libertyes, privileges and Religion, of the vvhole body of the people; and alſo unto the actual deſtruction of the libertyes, ſtates, lives and lively hoods of a great part thereof, by hoſtile furious actions?
5. If reſiſtence be lavvful in the caſe of violent attempts, or deſtruction of all known legall libertyes, and the beeing of religion according to lavv: Shall reſiſtence in our caſe be unlavvſul, vvhen all the true libertyes of the ſubjects, once eſtablished by lavves, re inforced by vovves, Covennants, ſolemne engadgments, and all bonds imaginable; and the very being of our Religion, as reformed in doctrine, vvorshipe, diſcipline and government, ratified, approved, eſtablished, and confirmed by lavves, oathes, Covenants, vovves and promiſes, vvhichwhich lavves ſo re inforced vvith oathes, proteſtations, atteſtations, declarations, ſolemne vovves and Covenants, are, by all right divine and humane, irrepelable, being not only in themſelves good and neceſſary, but alſo becoming hereby ſacred vovves to God, vvhichwhich muſt be payed, & being alſo fundamentall tearmes of the conſtitution of the reformed Republick?
6. If in the caſe of Vendition, Alienation of, and giving the Kingdome to ſtrangers, violent reſiſtence be allovved; shall it not alſo be allovved in our caſe, vvhen a land that vvas ſolemnely devoted, conſecrated, and given avvay to God by ſolemne vovves and Covenants, and the ſame ovvned, approved, ratified and confirmed by publick acts, edicts, proclamations, declarations, lavves and ſtatutes of plenary, and (even as to all formalities) compleat Parliaments, made up of all the Eſtates of the Realme, and the King also, is novv treacherousſly, and iniquoſly, forced to depart from their former principles, to abjure their former vovves and Covenants, to change their God, to condemne his vvork; and by moſt abhominable, and ever to be-abhorred acts and ſtatutes, ſold and alienated unto a popish prelatical and malignant faction and deſigne, under vvhichwhich, the faithful and true ſeekers of God's face, have, and can expect, leſſe liberty for their conſciences, then if the whole Kingdome vvere delivered up into the hands of the great Turk.
Thus vvee ſee theſe conceſſions help our cauſe, & vveaken the adverſaryes not alittle: let us novv proceed to ſpeak to another particular vvhichwhich vvill help us alſo.
2. The authors of Lex Rax, and of the Apologetical Relation have ſufficiently proved, that the late vvarre carryed on by the Parliament of Scotland againſt the King, vvas lavvful, both in poynt of lavv and conſcience; And if that vvas lavvfull (as it vvas, and shall be found to be, vvhen he and all his complices have done their utmoſt vvith all their lying cavills, falſe calumnies, reproaches, and vvhat not, that Hell can hatch, to diſprove & condemne the ſame;) a vvarre raiſed by the ſubjects in their owne ſin-leſſe ſelf defence, without the conduct of their repreſentative, cannot in every caſe be condemned; particularly not in our caſe now.
The antecedent, I ſay, is abundantly proved in the books mentioned, which this windy man thinks needleſſe to run out upon (but he might rather ſay, he thinks impoſſible to anſwere, and beyond his poor ſtrength to graple vvith) as he ſayeth Page. 20. vve muſt then take ſome notice of vvhat, in that Page (vvhichwhich he thinks ſufficient to oppoſe unto the many arguments produced by them) he is pleaſed to preſent; [what ſenſe (ſayes he) the people of Scotland (when they have come to liberty) have of theſe armes, their late repreſentative have declared, and it were to be wished, that the memory of ſuch wayes, were buryed, that the poſterity might never look upon them as exemplary; Their progenitors have ſo deeply drunk of the bitter fruites of the ſame, the reſult of them having been ſo much ſin, shame and ſorrow, vastation confuſion and deſtruction to Princes and People.] I anſwer, 1. What that liberty is, which the people of Scotland are now come to, who can ſee it, for the perfect ſlavery and bondage they are ſold unto? A freedome he talkes of, when all our libertyes are ſold, and we given up as bond men and bond women unto the luſt of a Man, and are denyed the very liberty, which is the privilege of all free ſubjects, yea and that which is the birthright and native privilege of all men, viz. to ſupplicate, petition or to pray: what liberty can he then meane, unleſſe the liberty (which is licentiouſneſſe) to forſake God and our Covenant, to turne Apoſtats from his truth and our profeſſion, to ſweare & foreſweare, to drink, debauch, whore, commit ſodomy, & all ſort of wickedneſſe, without curb or controll? Is this the liberty he underſtandeth? Sure, all true chriſtians and ſuch as feare the Lord account that develish ſlavery and bondage. 2. We know what this late Repreſentatives have done, but whether therein they have acted the part of Repreſentatives, and given the true ſenſe of the people of Scotland, will (it may be) be conſidered, when He and I both are rotten. Sure they never had any expreſſe, yea nor tacite commiſſion from the people of Scotland, to give up all their necks to the ſtroke the axe, as treatours and rebels, for doing nothing but ſtanding to their owne defence, againſt manifeſt tyrranny, and oppreſſion of both ſoul and body; and to condemne them and their worthy progenitors who valiently ſtood for the truth, and the libertyes of Church and State, to the loſſe of their lives and fortunes; and to proclame and declare themſelves guilty before God and Men, of all the blood that was shed in that warre, though moſt lawful and laudable. 3. We are perſuaded, let him with what he will, the memory of theſe memorable wayes shall never be buried, but shall ſtand as exemplary monuments to ſucceeding generations, when God shall think it meet to animate them with the ſpirit of courage, to free the land of tyranny, and of domineering abjured prelats, withal their taile and traine: and wiſe men will think that his Repreſentatives have not taken a courſe fit for burying the memory of theſe wayes; but rather a way to revive afresh the memory of them, and to commend them more to the thoughts and hearts of all who love and pray for the comeing of our Lord's Kingdome. 4. What bitter frutes theſe are, which, he ſayeth, our progenitours have drunk ſo deeply of, we know not, They lived and died, ſuch of them as owned, and ſtedfaſtly adhered to that cauſe and Covenant, in honour and peace; and their names shall be in perpetual remembrance, when his, and the names of the reſt of this perjured, Malignant apoſtate faction shall rot. We needed not have feared that either ſin, shame, ſorrow, vaſtation, confuſion, or deſtruction, should have come to Prices or People, if we had proſecuted the ends of our Covenants, with zeal and faithfulneſſe according to our manifold vowes, promiſes, ſolemne oathes and ingagments: But what ever of theſe have followed, should be, and will be rightly fathered on our defection and loſe of zeal: And what ſin and shame, and ſorrow, & vaſtation, & confuſion, & deſtruction shall now follow both to Princes and People (if they repent not) upon this unparallelable defection & Apoſtaſie, whereof now they are avowedly guilty, none, who is not an utter ſtranger unto God, his faithful word, and diſpenſations, but may, without any extraordinary Spirit of Prophecy, foretell.
Next he tells us, That theſe diſputes proceed upon a moſt untrue and malitious miſrepreſentation of matters of fact, & upon two falſe hypotheſes: Let us heare what are thoſe? [As if (ſayes he) the King had been the firſt invader of the Nation, whereas it is known, his authority was firſt invaded, his lawes trodden upon, kis proclamations openly deſpiſed, his caſtles violently ſeiſed; his armes he took were notinvaſive againſt the Nation, but defenſive of his owne authority, of his lawes, and the perſones of orderly walking ſubjects, and for reduceing theſe who ſtrayed from their duty.] Anſw. Quis tulerit Gracchos de ſeditione querentes? Who would ſuffer ſuch a manifeſt notorius lyar to ſay, that others made miſrepreſentations of matters of fact? But, 1. Do not all who then lived, and yet read the publick papers, and other acts that paſſed then, know that through the inſtigation of ſome falſe, perfidious, fugitive Prelates, the King was ſtirred up to make warre on Scotland, ere ever they thought of any ſuch thing? Was not warre concluded both by ſea and land? Was not free tradeing taken away? Were not the Scottish Nobility at court made to abjure the National Covenant, and the General Aſſembly at Glasgow? was there not a declaration emitted Feb. 27. & publickly read in all the Churches of England, wherein the faithful ſubjects and Covenanters in Scotland were tearmed Rebels? Were not Berwik and Carlile frontier cities ſtrongly fortifyed and garriſoned? Was not the Earle of Huntly made Governour of the North of Scotland, and had ſome foure or five thouſand men in armes, for the King? Was not Aberdeen fortifying it ſelf, to take in the King's navy of shipes, when it should come? Was not the Marquis of Douglas, & Lord Haris ready to riſe with the Papiſts in the South of Scotland? Was not the Deputy of Ireland prepareing men to land them in the Weſt of Scotland? Was not the Earle of Arundale made the Kings General? and was not the King to have his rendezvouz at York in Aprile, and all the English Nobility commanded to attend him there by a letter written Ian. 26. before the faithful People of Scotland had any army in readineſſe? What impudency is this then to ſay, the King was not the firſt invader of the Nation? And as for the ſecond expedition, Anno Dom. 1640. managed, and carryed on, by the Parliament, it was abundantly verified by their publick papers, that it was purely defenſive. And it is notour, that before the leavy was made, and appointed, the King had violated the conditions made; had cauſed burne by the hand of the Hangman a paper containeing explications of ſome tearmes uſed by him in the treaty of Peace; had denyed acceſſe to their commiſſioners, & afterward, when he had ſignified his willingneſſe to heare ſuch as they should ſend, ſuch as were ſent were committed to priſone, and one of them, viz. The Lord Lowdon ordained ſecretly to be beheaded in the Towr of London; and, in the meane while, warre was concluded againſt the Realme of Scotland, in the King's Council; The Earle of Northumberland was made General, a Parliament was convocated, both in England and Irland, for raiſing of ſubſidies, to the carrying on of this warre; The Deputy of Irland with ſome there, had promiſed much aſſiſtence. The Prelates of England had offered great ſummes to carry on this Bellum Epiſcopale, as they named it; Scottish shipes were intercepted, their goods taken away, and the ſeamen caſt into prifſones and miſerably handled; The ſea ports were cloſed up with frigots; The caſtle of Edinbrugh oppreſſed the City with their shot, and killed many both young and old. Were all theſe things no beginnings of a warre, nor no acts of hoſtility? How can he, or any elſe then, ſay that the King was not the firſt aggreſſor, or that Scotlands warre was not purely defenſive? 2. As to theſe things wherein he would make his reader beleeve, that the Honeſt people of Scotland, were the firſt invaders, what a malitious fool doth he manifeſt himſelf to be; for 1. How or what way was his authority invaded? was it, becauſe they would not receive a maſſe book in English, obtruded upon them by his ſole authority without the concurrence of Church or State? 2. What lawes were troden upon? Weknow no lawes, but acts and ſtatutes of a lawful Parliament, made for the glory of God, and the good of the land: and what ſuch were trode upon? 3. What way were his proclamations deſpiſed? Is it to deſpiſe a King's proclamation, for free ſubjects to vindicate them ſelves of what is unjuſtly laid to their charge in this proclamations, by faithful and humble proteſtations of their innocency? 4. What were thoſe caſtles ſeiſed upon? Some be like in Vtopia; for, before this warre was begun Anno 1639. The Covenanters ſeiſed upon none of the King's caſtles: When they ſavv the King bore a hoſtile minde againſt them and intended no good, they watched the caſtle of Edinbrugh that more ammunition and proviſion should not be carryed into it: And this was all they did, until they were neceſſitated to put themſelves, into a poſture of defence, & then they ſeiſed upon ſome houſes here & there, the lawfulneſſe of which, is demonſtrated by Lex Rex, & the Apology. 5. What illegal courts were thoſe which were ſet up? Sure thoſe tables, as they were called, were no courts aſſumeing to themſelves any judicial determination in any matter of State civil or Eccleſiaſtical, nor conventions: for diſturbance of the peace, or uſurpation againſt authority; but meer meetings (allowed by the light and law of nature) for conſultation and advice anent the matter and manner of ſupplications, which they were to preſent to his Majeſty, and his Council; and of propoſitions to be preſented to the lawful State and Church-judicatories. 6. Who were thoſe ſubjects walking according to the lawes, who were perſecuted? We know of none, who were troubled at that time, except the Prelates, the Troublers of our Iſrael, and all the perſecution they met with, was that the honeſt Covenanters did give in complaints againſt them, and offered to make good what they allaiged, upon the higheſt perill, and did ſupplicate the Council (whereof ſome of them were Members) that they might not fit there as judges, but ſtand as Rëi, and anſwere for themſelves, and that the General aſſembly indicted by his Majeſty, after mature deliberation, and full examination, did excommunicate them, for high and notorious crymes, to be ſeen in the regiſters of that Aſſembly. But 2 will theſe things, to judicious perſons, lay the ground of a lawful warre by the Magiſtrate, againſt his owne ſubjects? Are theſe who cannot yeeld obedience unto unlawful commands, who humbly proteſt for their owne innocency, who meet together for drawing up ſupplications, and ordering matters thereanent, and who give in complaints againſt the Peſts & Troublers of the land, and exerce Church cenſures upon the ſcandalous, invaders of the Soveraign's authority? And when a King upon theſe grounds invadeth his ſubjects, with an army of armed men, can any man of common ſenſe think that his war is not an invaſive vvarre? Hath not Magiſtrats other lavvfull vvayes to defend their ovvne authority and lavves and orderly ſubjects, and to reduce the diſorderly, then fire and ſvvord? Sure, for a King to cut off his ſubjects, is to diminish and annihilate his authority and lavves both: And for a King to vvage vvarre againſt the Body of a land, to pleaſure Fourteen of a fevv of the baſeſt and moſt unvvorthy of all the ſubjects, vvould ſeem to be the reſult of no grave and ſage Council; nor vvould it appeare to be much for the Kings honour, to have his Soveraigne authority imbarqued vvith a fevv abjects, ſo as if they did ſinke to the bottome of the ſea, It could not ſwime.
The next thing, (and that is the 2 hypotheſis) he allegeth is. [That they repreſent him, in their virulent (he should ſay nervous) writeings, as Nerone ipſo Neronior, a great perſecuter of Religion, intending the total ruine and deſtrustion of the proteſtant profeſſion, and the total ruine and deſtruction, of the whole people of the land.] Anſw. They repreſente him no othervvayes, then his owne publicke, owned, and avowed deeds, and declarations did repreſente him to all the world. What was his ſecret intentions God knoweth, but his deeds did declare that he minded no good to the poor Church and State of Scotland; for, to pleaſure a few abjects, that had drunken in much Popery, and Arminianiſme, and ſtirred him up to urge upon our Church 2 Popish publick ſervice, book of canons, and ordination, Popish ceremonies, and ſuch Romish trash, he ſought, by fire and ſword to reduce us to ashes. We shal not now trouble his Urne, by ſpeaking to what this Surveyer ſayeth afterward: This we knovv, That he died; but vvhether as a glorious Martyr for the true Religion of God (vvhichwhich yet may admit ſeveral ſenſes, ſo ambiguous is it, though vve let it paſſe in the beſt) and lavves and liberties of the people, (as he ſayeth) many doubt. At length he cloſeth his digreſſion thus. [If there was any thing that could not have a favourable interpretation in that unhappy book that gave theriſe to the troubles, how timely was it retired, and great ſatisfaction and ſecurity given for religion? If through default of Miniſters of State, any thing had creeped in, that could not abide the teſt of law, how willingly was …treformed? yet all could not ſiſt begun courſe of violence, till through God's dreadful indignation againſt a ſinfull people, his fatal end might be brought on, not becauſe he had been a Tyrant, but becauſe he had not been ſuch] Anſw. That book which was unholy, as well as, unhappy in giving the riſe to ſuch troubles, had not only ſomethings in it, that could not bear a favourable interpretation, but the whole of it, was the extract and quint eſſence of the Romish maſſe book, book of ritualls, &c. And how ſlowly it was retired, and ſatisfaction and ſecurity given, for our religion, and how ſoon conditions covenanted and condeſcended upon, were broken, the hiſtory of thoſe times doth ſufficiently declare; as alſo how unwillingly any thing was reformed that had creeped in, whether through the default of Miniſters of State or others, But how can this baſe calumniator inſinuat that the Kings loyall ſubjects in Scotland had a hand in bringing him to his fatal end, ſeing even the late Repreſentatives, though they would willingly have raked hell for it, could not finde a man, in all Scotland, to be charged with that crime. That he came to his fatal end, we know; but that it was through Gods dreadful indignation against a ſinful people (if he mean the faithful and honeſt Covenanters) I know none, except baſe ignorant ſycophants, that will ſay it: That it was not becauſe he had been a Tyrant, many will doubt. And when he ſayes, that it was becauſe he had not been a Tyrant. I am ſure, he giveth non ca… ſam pro cauſa…: and who can underſtand how God in his dreadful indignation againſt a ſinful people, doth take away a Prince who vvas not a Tyrant, ſeing upon that account he giveth ſuch Tyrants ſometimes.
Having thus vindicated the Antecedent from what this Surveyer had to ſay againſt it, we shall now ſpeak a word to the conſequence of the argument. And 1. The whole Cabal of the Royaliſts will grant it; for, with them, both Repreſentatives and People are put into one and the ſame category, viz. of meer ſubjects; ſo that if the Antecedent ſtand good, (as it shall, for all which they have ſaid, or all which this their new collegue or young raw diſciple, can ſay to the contrary) the argument is good ad hominem. 2. Such as grant it lawful for a Land having their Repreſentatives with them, to defend themſelves againſt tyranny; But deny it to privat ſubjects, in caſe of neceſſity, when they cannot have the conduct and concurrence of their Repreſentatives, can adduce no argument againſt this laſt, but ſuch, as will weaken their aſſertion in the former: As for exemple Hoenonius politic. diſp. 9. theſ. 55. diſproveth reſiſtence in this laſt caſe, by theſe arguments. 1. becauſe, Subjects are obliged to pay to their owne Magiſtrats, the duty of fidelity and obedience, 2. Becauſe, by this meanes a gap would be opened to ſeditions and rebellions. 3. Becauſe the ſcripture commandeth ſubjects to pray for their Magiſtrats. 4. The ſon may not wronge his father how wicked ſo ever he be. 5. Violence done to the head, though ſickly, tendeth to the ruine of the whole body. 6. It is better to have a ſickly head then none. 7. There is greater danger to Caſt off a Tyrant, then to Tolerate him. 8. A Tyrant cannot be reſiſted but deſtruction will follow to the reſiſters. 9. God punished the wicked kings of the jewes by ſtrangers. 10. Jeremias did not ſtirre up the jewes againſt Nebuchadnezar but allowed them to pray. 11. Chriſt commanded to pay tribute unto the Prince. 12. Paul will not have an evil Prince to be curſed with words. 13. Kings are from God, and ſuch like. But who ſeeth not, that theſe, if of any force, (as indeed they are of none, as shall afterward be made appear, in due time) conclude as much againſt a peoples oppoſeing and reſiſting a Tyrant, even when they have their Repreſentatives with them, as when they are left alone: and yet this ſame Hoenonius ubi ſupra theſ. 45. granteth it lawful yea and neceſſary for the Ephori and the Eſtates of a land to reſiſt the Tyrant. 3. If our Surveyer will grant the caſe different now, from what it was then, when the primores Regni were ingadged in the oppoſition, (as he doth Pag. 21.) and grant that when the primores Regni concurre, the oppoſition is lawful (as he muſt grant, in caſe the Soveraigne become Tyrannnical, and be the firſt-aggreſſor, becauſe only upon the contrary ſuppoſition he condemneth the laſt reſiſtence, which was made to the King by Scotland) He muſt of neceſſity ſeek out other arguments then what we ſee he hath, to condemne this reſiſtence of Private perſons, in caſe of neceſſity; or otherwayes contradict himſelf; for, as may eaſily be ſeen, this being granted, all his arguments shall be eaſily discuſſed. 4. If he grant the caſe now, to be much different from what it was then, ſo as then, it was a lawful reſiſtence, but not ſo now (as he muſt grant, otherwiſe, we cannot ſee what this is to the poynt, and wherein his much difference doth slye) how can he ſave himſelf a from contradiction; for he muſt put a diffence betwixt a reſiſtence made by the people with their primores, and a reſiſtence made by the People with their Repreſentatives in Parliament; or elſe ſay, That whatever the Nobles of a land do, is the ſame with what a Parliament doth; and that wherever they are, there is a Parliament, and the peoples Repreſentatives: Now this he darre not ſay, left he should be hiſſed at; and therefore he muſt grant it lawful, for a people to defend themſelves, when they want the conduct and concurrence of their Representatives, acting authoritatively; or elſe retract, what he hath ſaid, and planely confeſſe That the caſe to be noticeed now, is not different from what it was then. 5. I hope no man will ſay that a war carryed on, or a reſiſtence made againſt the Soveraigne, by the Repreſentatives of a people, Is eo ipſo lawful, unleſſe the ground of the warre, or reſiſtance, be reall and valide: And if the ground be valid, and good whereupon a People unjuſtly oppreſſed and tyrannized over are allowed to defend themſelves, haveing their Repreſentatives to goe before them, why shall not the ſame ground ſtand valid and ſufficient, to warrand them to defend themſelves, when they have not the concurrence of their Repreſentatives? I would gladly heare a reaſon, making the defence in the one caſe lawful, and not in the other, ſeing the ground remaines the ſame, the ſame neceſſity abideth, yea, it rather increaſeth when the Repreſentatives, who should be a ſcreen unto the people, betray their truſt, and either neglect to vindicate with their authority and conduct, the innocent oppreſſed people, or turne adverſaries to them, and oppreſſours of them, themſelves. 6. Since Parliments are the peoples Repreſentatives, no man will ſay That de jure their power is privative, or deſtructive; but rather cumulative and helpful; ſo that the peoples Repreſentative cannot, de jure, make them more liable to irremediable tyranny and oppreſſion, then they were: they being properly exnatur a rei and ex inſtitutione, & inſtituentium intentione, ordained and appoynted, for the greater faifty, and good of the people. And therefore, if the Repreſentatives betray their truſt, the People, in ſo far, are as if they had no Repreſentatives, and may no leſſe defend themſelves in extreame neceſſity, then if the officers of their army, whom they had choſen and appoynted to defend them, againſt an invadeing enemy, should revolt to the enemy, they might lawfully riſe up in their owne defence, and oppſe the adverſary. 7. The law ſayeth that deterior conditio domini per procuratorem fieri non debet L. ignorantis ff. de procuratoriburs. The procurator or advocat his knavery, cannot prejudge the Client or wronge his cauſe. And why then shall the perfidy of the peoples Repreſentatives, or their betraying of their truſt, wronge their cauſe, and prejudge them of their juſt right? 8. All will grant, That it is as lawful, for an oppreſſed people to defend themſelves from the injuryes of a Parliament, as from the injuries of a Soveraigne, if not more: and if it be lawfull for a people to defende themſelves againſt the Tyranny of a Parliament (as is more then ſufficiently proved by all ſuch arguments as have hitherto, by any, been made uſe of, to prove it lawful, to reſiſt a Soveraigne oppreſſing and tyrannizing) no man of common ſenſe, will deny it lawful to a people to defend themſelves againſt oppreſſion and tyranny, when they but want the concurrence or countenance of theſe Parliaments. 9. If any should allaige that this is againſt the law of the conſtitution of the Kingdom. We know no ſuch law: beſide, that though there were any ſuch; yet neceſſity knoweth no law: and in caſes of neceſſity, ſuch lawes are not to be obſerved, ſayeth the law L. ut gradatim §. I. de muner: & honor. The lavves of nature are irrevocable and cannot be reſcinded by municipal lavves: for the lavv tells us that civilis ratio jur… natur alia corrumpere non pote ſt L. eas oblig. D. de cap. privat. Novv the lavv of nature allovving ſelf defence againſt unjuſt violence, addeth no ſuch reſtriction, viz. that it be done by the conduct, and concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments. 10. The very conceſſions of our adverſaries fore-mentioned, vvill confirme this conſequence, for in theſe caſes, they vvill grant the ſame liberty to a People vvithout, as to a People vvith their Repreſentatives, to defend themſelves: for the vveight and ground is not laid upon the manner, or vvay of conduct, or managing of the reſiſtence and defence; but upon the cauſe, and that is alvvayes the ſame. Yea, the neceſſity (as was ſaid) is greater (though, it may be, the difficulty is alſo greater) when Repreſentatives deſert ſuch as they do repreſente, and inſtead of helping them with counſel and conduct, in their neceſſity, do either deſerte them, or turne enemies unto them.
Our 3 argument is taken from the law and light of nature which alloweth to beaſts, power and ability to defend them ſelves, againſt violence. An argument made uſe of, not only by Lex Rex and the Apology,▪ but by Divines, Canoniſts, Lawyers and others who write of this ſubject. The civil law it ſelf tells us That his neceſſary defence of life, floweth from the law of nature L. ut vim. ff. de juſt. & jure. But here cometh out a green ſtatiſt, and takes on him to cry shame on all who ever wrote on that ſubject, and avovves Pag. 15. That it is too groſſe divinity to bring ſuch an argument from beaſts. We muſt therefore ſee vvhether this Man be rational in rejecting ſuch an argument taken from beaſts; and not rather more irrational then a Brute, to deny that to a Rational creature, vvhichwhich he cannot but grant to Beaſts, and Creatures vvithout life, as vve ſee he doth Pag. 14. 15. We shall readily grant vvith'him, That God hath given this ſelf defending or preſerving povver and propenſion, otherwayes to Men, then to inanimate creatures, or unto beaſts, which are under no law, but that of meer nature, and therefore, they are not to defend themſelves coeco impetu, but rationally; and ought to ſubordinate this natural propenſion to ſelf defence unto, and limite it, by the higher lawes of reaſon and of God. Doth he think that ſuch as make uſe of this argument, do ſuppoſe That in every caſe and in every manner of way, men are to uſe and exerciſe this natural propenſion to ſelf defence, in vvhichwhich and after vvhichwhich, Beaſts are to uſe it? Sure he is in a great miſtake, and he vvrongeth the authors of Lex Rex and of the Apolog. &c. vvhen he ſayeth Pag. 15. [That they bring arguments from beaſts, (who being under no law of reaſon nor grace, to limite their propenſions, may alwayes, in all imaginable caſes, defend themſelves with force) to perſwade men, that they may do the like, and that their propenſion for their externall preſervation, is no more under any restraineing rule, to ſtope the exerciſe of it, then that of Beaſts is;] For, they intend no ſuch thing, nor are they, in the leaſt, neceſſitated, to uſe that argument ſo: They only make uſe of it to diſprove That irrational, and more then brutish poſition and maxime of abſolute, unlimited and indispenſible ſubjection of ſubjects to their Soveraigne, ſo that in no caſe, they may or can reſiſt, which all the Cabal and royal ſociety of Royaliſts, paraſites, court flatterers and cavalliers, who, becauſe they themſelves, in hopes of ſome crumbs of allowance, have brutishly, without regaird had to the Law of God, or right reaſon, ſold and devouted themſelves, not only in matters concerning their body, but in ſoul matters, unto the meer luſt and pleaſure of a creature of clay, think all others should play the beaſts with them, do furiouſly & obſtinately maintaine. And as to this, the argument hence deduced is moſt rational and irrefragable: for it is irrational to think That God (who taketh much more care of man; then of beaſts 1 Cor. 9:9. Mat. 6:30.) should allow and give unto the inanimate creatures, and to the beaſts, a power and propenſion to defend themſelves againſt violence, and should deny the ſame to Man; ſo that in no caſe he should be allowed to exerce that natural propenſion, to defend himfelfe, and to reſiſt unjuſt violence with violence. So then we might let his reſtrictions paſſe, as being no thing to the preſent purpoſe; for, it is but his groundleſſe imagination to think that we would equalize Men with Beaſts, becauſe we will not, with him and his party, depreſſe them into a condition belovv beaſts; yet we shall shortly run over them. His firſt is this, when it is ſeen to be to no purpoſe, by reaſon of a phiſical force. But alas doth he think this reſtriction of the natural propenſion for felfe preſervation is upon men only, & not upon Beaſts alſo? did he not ſay in the ſame Page, the Major vis and a greater phiſical force would hinder this even in Beaſts? His next reſtriction is this, A man juſtly condemned to death, both according to a juſt law, and by a juſt proceſs according to law, may not uſe violent ſelf defence againſt the Magiſtrate, with re-offending him. Anſ. It is granted, what then? will it therefore follow, that this principle of ſelfe preſervation is ſo reſtricted, as that a whole Land, or a conſiderable part thereof, being unjuſtly condemned, both by an unjuſt law, and by an unjuſt proceſſe according to, or without that unjuſt law, may not defend themſelves againſt the Magiſtrate's Emiſſaries, ſent to deſtroy, without reſpect had either to law or conſcience? Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too neare to blaſpheme God, by ſaying [That it were a mighty defect in divine providence, that men should not have as large a liberty to defend themſelves violently, as Beaſts have; and that men were in a worſe condition then beaſts, if as Beaſts have alwayes power to defend themſelves violently, with their horns, heels, teeth &c. So men should not have as large a liberty, in every caſe to uſe violence upon Magiſtrates, putting them to vexation, or perhaps troubling them in life ſtates &c.] But where findes he theſe words in Lex Rex▪ The author of Lex Rex ſayeth Pag. 334. [It were a mighty defect in providence to man, if dogs, by nature, may defend themſelves againſt Wolves, Bulls againſt Lyons, doves againſt haukes; If a man in the abſence of the lawful Magiſtrate, should not defend himſelf againſt unjuſt violence, but one man might raiſe armyes of papiſts ſick for blood, to deſtroy innocent men] but this is far from [as large a liberty, in every caſe] and cometh no way near to blaſphemy, but is a real truth. Suppoſe Lex Rex had ſaid ſo (which I finde not) it had not been appoſite to his poynt now, while he is ſpeaking of oppoſeing Magiſtrates not puting to vexation, or perhaps troubling in life, ſtate, &c. but rightly executeing a juſt law, againſt a malefactor, which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned, but would have ſaid, That the Magiſtrate was bound to execute Gods Law againſt men-ſworne Apoſtats, ſuch as he and his fraternity are, & that they were bound to ſubmite to the ſtroke of juſtice. Thridly he ſayes Pag, 16. may not the exerciſe of ſelfe defence and violent reſiſtence, be reſtrained by the grace of God, and the power of his command for ſubmiſſion, abiding upon a mans ſpirit? as in Iſaac's caſe, who did not reſist his aged father going to ſacrifice him. Anſ. Whether Iſaac made any forceable reſiſtence or not, we know not, ſcripture is ſilent; but it tels us his father bound him, we acknowledge God is Lord of life, but no man is; and he may reſtraine by his will and working on the ſpirit, ſo as a man who lawfully might flee, and ſave his life, shall not have power to do ſo, but abide and glorify him by giving a faithful teſtimony unto his truth when queſtioned. But thinks he that ſuch inſtances are binding precedents▪ Sure, then he shall contradict his owne doctrine, Cap. 4. Or thinks he, that a Body of a people or a conſiderable part thereof, shall not exerciſe lawfully this privilege of ſelf defence & violent reſiſtence, when neither the Law of God, nor ſuch extraordinary force or reſtraint of God on the Spirit, but the vaine pleadings of Court Paraſites, would have it reſtrained? Fourthly Pag. 17. He ſayes, May not the defence of our temporal life, in ſome caſe, ceaſe, for the preſervation of the eternal life of our Neighbour, when it comes to that, that the defence of the one shall be the certane loſſe of the other? Anſ. True, and therefore He and the reſt of the perjured clergy should much more ceaſe from the preſervation, or ratheruſurpation, of their places, livings, and dignities, when ſo long as they domineer, there is certane ruine to Religion, and to the ſouls of many thouſands. And againe, if a man may lay downe his natural life, for the preſervation of of the ſoul of his Neighbour, much more may he with others, hazard the ſame in oppoſeing unjuſt violence, for the defence of the pure Religion, whereby thouſands of ſoulls may be eternally preſerved. But doth he think that a Nation or a whole countrey-ſide is to give up their lives to the ſword of the Kings mercyleſſe Emiſſaries, for to preſerve the vaine pompe, and to fill the bellyes of a few drons, whoſe God is their belly, though they should account that their eternal life, and all their felicity? Fiftly, ſayes he, doth not this obligation ceaſe, for the publick good and preſervation of the Commonwealth. Anſwer: What then▪ doth it follow That Men should renunce their priviledge of ſelf defence, when their doing of that shall be ſo far, from promoving the publick good, and preſervation of the Commonwealth, that upon the contrare, their doing ſo shall tend directly to the ruine of the publick good and deſtruction of the Commonwealth? Sure if this be true, that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth. It is alſo true, that moe should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth, and violently reſiſt violence. And doct Ames caſe mentioned Caſ. Conſc. Lib. 5. c.. 31. q. 3. would ſute the Prelates well, and their adherents: ſo that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland, they should give up their necks to the ſtroke of juſtice, that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land: for till theſe be removed, we can not expect any thing, but judgement upon judgement from the Lord, till we be deſtroyed. Neither doth Naphtaly croſſe D. Ames, for Naphtaly only ſpeaks of a mans ſuffering intolerable and inevitable injuries, under pretext of the good of the Commonwealth; which indeed for a man to do, would be, for the deluſion of an empty name, only for the luſt of others, really to deprive himſelf of his whole share and intereſt therein, neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share, ſeing it vvere a great queſtion and doubt; if, in that caſe, he vvere in the vvay of his duty. What he addeth, Pag. 18. of a ſouldiers going to a dangerous poſt, at the command of his General, is utterly impertinent; Natures inſtinct vvil teach ſome dog to ſtand in the gap to keep out the Bare. His laſt reſtriction is this That it muſt ceaſe to preſerve the King, the Head of the Commonwealth, when the caſe is ſo, that the King muſt either loſe his life or the private man his. Anſ. I grant Lex Rex ſayeth [I think that a private man should rather ſuffer the King to kill him, then that he should kill the King, becauſe he is not to preferre the life of a private man, to the life of a publick man,] But I doubt that it is ſo agreed among the learned. Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag. 162. thinketh othervvayes, and proveth that ſelf defence is lavvful to a private perſon againſt the Magiſtrate, for the lavv vvhichwhich allovveth to repel violence vvith violence, maketh no diſtinction betvvixt a publick perſon and a privat perſon, and the law of Nature alloweth it againſt every one; for it knovveth no difference: And as to that vvhichwhich ſome vvould ſay, That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth. He anſwereth, [That he who reſiſteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republick, and it is not per ſe, but per accidens, that he ſtandeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth; and if he should ſuffer himſelf to be killed, he should transgreſſe against the Law of Nature.] Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himſelf, would not rather kill, in this caſe, as be killed, and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteouſneſſe, however now he would diſprove this aſſertion if he could: And would let that paſſe of loving himſelf more ad finem ſuum ultimum, and ſuam virtutem. Finally; what he ſayeth againſt this aſſertion of Naphtaly is to no purpoſe; for the Author of Naphtaly will readyly grant that in ſome caſes, not only a man, but a compauy of men, may, yea ought to preferre the preſervation of others, unto the preſervation of their owne life, becauſe of a divine command to defend Religion, Libertyes, Poſterity and Countrey, from the unjuſt invaſion and violence offered by wicked Emiſſaries. But he shall never prove, That the Body of a land or a conſiderable part thereof, is to hold up their throats, to be cut by the Kings cut-throats, when he & they are ſeeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation, to deſtroy the Libertyes of the land, and to make all perfect ſlaves, both in ſoul and body.