Might Overcoming Right, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Sect. 1.
Maſter Goodwin proceeds to a fourth Objection, To prove the Armies Act unjuſtifiable, becauſe againſt the Law of the Land; which ſhould rightly be framed thus:
WHoſoever being under law, and ſworn to maintaine the Law, or legall Priviledges of others; doe againſt Law, or legall Priviledge impriſon the Perſons of others, are guilty of an act of impious tranſgreſſion. The Army being under Law, and ſworn to maintaine the legall Priviledges of others yet againſt Law, and legall Priviledges have impriſon'd the Perſons of others; Therefore by that act of theirs they have made themſelves guilty of impious tranſgreſſion: That impriſonment of the Members is againſt Law, and legall priviledge, is clear; for the Law is, That no free man ſhall be impriſoned without due proceſſe in Law. And the greater the perſon, the greater is the preſumption, in the oppreſſion of them.
Maſter Goodw. To this: Firſt, Sums up his Anſwers alread given to this Objection, which have had their Anſwers in their places.
He addes,Pag. 33. That we may charitably ſuppoſe, that there is no Law prohibiting any ſort of men from being benefactors to the Publike eſpecially from preſerving the Publike Liberties, when they ſtand in extremâ tegulâ.
Anſ. How falſe this ſuppoſition is in the Armies caſe, to wit, that the Liberties ſtand in extremâ tegulâ, I have formerly ſhewed, nor is there any thing more prejudiciall to the Publike Liberties, then that the perſons of their Publick Counſell, ſhall be reſtrained upon the uncertaine fancies of a ſmall Party: And neceſſity cannot diſpence with a lie, nor an Oath, as he hath formerly confeſt: God can preſerve where our hands are bound without our lie*Rom. 3.7. or perjury, or ſanctifie all that is to be ſuffered.
Sect. 2.
Secondly,Pag. 4. Saith he, If there were ſuch a Law, it could have no obliging force, &c. If he mean it could have no obliging force in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven; ſo that man ſhould not obey it: It is true. But if he mean, it hath no obliging force in foro humano, in the Courts of men; ſo that a man ought not to ſuffer, but reſiſt, it is falfe; for then all the Lawes of Emperours made againſt Chriſtians are invalid: And thoſe ſufferings of Primitive Chriſtians, eſpecially when they grew into multitudes and legions, were not ſuch glorious actions, but rather the follies of the Chriſtians, that knew not their Liberty to uſe their power to reſiſt thoſe dead Lawes to which they no wayes ſtood bound: At leaſt, Bellarmines Anſwer in behalfe of the Church of Rome, running courſes contrary to Primitive times, is true; that then derant vires temporales, they wanted temporall ſtrength; and Proteſtants have been in an errour that have aſcribed the diſſimilitude to the decay of ſpirituall graces. But its nothing for ſuch as Mr Goodwin to ſymbolize with Papiſts.
Sect. 3.
He proceeds: Thirdly,Pag. 31.35. If there were a Law to make force in any kinde to interrupt Magiſtrates in their way puniſhable, yet this would not evict this Act of the Army, to have been contrary to the Lawes, becauſe it is the conſtant genius and manner of Lawes, to lay down only the generall Rules, and conceale the exception: Now the exception doth not break the rule. And here hee cites ſomething out of Tully, Grotius, Ariſtotle, and the Impeirall Lawes; and the chiefeſt exception is neceſſity.
But firſt, where no ſuch exception againſt the Law lies, there the Actor is the Tranſgreſſor of the Law. And thoſe that urge the Law againſt them, ſuppoſe it clear that there was no ſuch neceſſity. For thoſe Magiſtrates reſtrained, were good and wiſe men, and in their ſerious thoughts judged the way that they were in preſervative, and ten parts of the Land to one, are of their mind ſtill; and ſo the neceſſity is but pretended. Beſides, though the Lawes of men be ſubject to exceptions, I referre it to his conſcience, in caſe a Magiſtrate may be conſulted, whether he thinks that any of his Authors will ſay, that private mens exceptions are to be received before the judgment of thoſe with whom power of interpreting Lawes is intruſted? And laſtly, whether an Oath to a partiticular Law engage not to it, though it prove detrimentall? Pſal. 15.4.