The Northerne Subſcribers Plea, re-inforc'd.
THeſe Conſcientious Non-ſubſcribers, who in the Title Page of their Plea beare the World in hand that they much deſire ſatisfaction, and in the entry of their Appendix ſeeme to be very eager of it, by pointing out an expedite way to thoſe who may pleaſe to undertake the buſineſſe; That it may yet further appeare it was not a deſire to contend, but a care to proceed upon a cleare ground, which put them to a ſtand about the Engagement; yet theſe very men tell us betwixt their**Fronti nulla fides Juv. Title and the Appendix, viz. Pag. 68. That now it would be conſtruable thoſe courſes (even all endeavours after their ſatisfaction) are held to defend themſelves who are pre-engaged, and to decoy others into the ſame trap with them, rather then to ſatisfie Conſcience, daſhing downe at once by this profeſſion of their thoughts, all their pretences to ſatisfaction, as men reſolved to faſten the deſigne of deceiving, as an odious Vizzard, upon the moſt brotherly and Chriſtian intendments and eſſayes that can be drawne from any man to that end, like thoſe Priſoners who paſſionately deſiring a releaſe, yet out of a ſullen or a jealous temper doe avowedly interpret every mans endeavour to that purpoſe as a deſigne upon them, to make them greater ſlaves. Prepoſſeſſion is a very tough and intractable humor, and Apologies ſometimes harden and inrage the perſecutors of innocency; Why, what evill hath he done ſaith Pilate? and they cryed out the more exceedingly, crucifie him, Mark 15.14. Now although upon this account it may be thought too late, or to little purpoſe to emit any Plea for the ſatisfaction of diſſenting Conſciences in point of ſubmiſſion to the powers in being over us, yet that we may not be wanting to our owne Conſciences, or the ſubmitting Conſciences of our friends, in juſtifying their ſubmiſſion2 as conſcionable indeed, we thinke our ſelves bound to take the weight of thoſe exceptions laid againſt our Plea, by thoſe Claſſicall Authors, as turning the ballance clearly (in their eſteeme) againſt that obedience which we contended for, as due from us to the preſent Authority; we then profeſt not to undertake the**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. ſatisfying of Conſciences, Pag. 13. our end was to acquit our ſelves from the imputations of time-ſerving, and‖‖Nil-bonum niſi quod rationabiliter bonum, Jo. 13.17. blinde obedience, in owning or taking part with thoſe few heads and ſtayes of our Tribes, kept together by the Providence of God for our ſupport in this ſtrait of time, thoſe few graines not‖‖Amos 9.9. fallen to the earth in this ſeaſon of our Nations ſifting, that it might not be preſumed, or concluded (as commonly it uſeth to be) that there is little conſcience in any, ſaving in thoſe who put themſelves on the ſuffering ſide, ſeeing men generally at a loſſe, we made ſearch after our duties, and then made**Intellecta licet pro re, pro tempore fari. Mant. knowne to the world, that we found upon ſearch to have influence on our Conſciences; how farre theſe undertaker•have weakned our Plea, as to its eſſentials, who thinke they have driven conſcience and reaſon out of every line of it, ſcarce leaving one ragge to cover the Subſcribers nakedneſſe,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. 5.14. after examination we ſhall cheerfully ſubmit to the judgements of all thoſe, who by reaſon of uſe, leave their ſences exerciſed to diſcerne both good and evill; ſometimes we are charged as ſenſleſſe, other times as religionleſſe, but to us it is a very‖‖1 Cor. 4.3. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synes. ſmall thing that we ſhould be judged of mans judgement, we muſt ſtand or fall to another Maſter; if we beare not the ſame reſpect and conſcience to the truth in this our defence, which theſe Miniſters pretend to, in making up their judgement againſt us, and if we labour not to approve our hearts and waies to God in our preſent obedience to the Powers that be,Job 11.11: as much as others doe in diſ-obliging themſelves at this ſeaſon, he, who is the diſcerner of all hearts ſhall not he judge, and he who knowes vaine man, ſhall not be conſider it? We ſhall begin our reply where their firſt exceptions are commenc'd, and that is againſt our firſt Argument; here we muſt take notice of what they grant, which is our Argument in terminis, and what they deny, which is our ſence of it, they grant the being of theſe preſent Powers over us from God, and the propoſition likewiſe upon which this is built, viz. That all conſtitutions3 of Government have their making and marring, their ſtanding and falling from God: This they ſay proves our aſſertion, in a right acceptation, but not in that ſence which ſerves for our turne. Therefore they diſtinguiſh betwixt events following from Gods decree, concourſe, or providence, and thoſe events which are authorized and approved of by God, we receive the diſtinction, and if it be made appeare, that both thoſe ſenſes, or diſtinct notions of events are at the ſervice of our aſſertion, then our turnes ſhall ſurely be ſerved, but the latter ſence (ſay they) concerns your purpoſe, therefore our aſſertion ſhal proceed in theſe termes, That the powers in being are from God by way of Authorization, or that he approves their being over us, that the Lord appropriates changes of Government and Governours to himſelfe, we proved in our Plea from theſe Scriptures, Ezek. 21.27. Zech. 11.8. Hoſ: 13.11. And Acts 13.20, 21, 22. which theſe Gentlemen are content to wave as impertinent to what we ſhould prove:
But Sirs, if you be content that the Lord ſhould approve of what he appropriates to himſelfe, they ſerve clearly for the proofe of our propoſition, formed to your own ſence, and evince the being of our Authority over us by way of Authorization from God, if the Lord commands the diadem off mens heads, removes the Crowne, ſets up or exalts him that is low, and abaſes him that is high; if he cuts off thoſe who were given for Shepheards, gives his people Judges, raiſeth them up Kings; grant that he never intitles himſelfe to the thing hee diſ-owns, and then all theſe things are from him by way of Authorization, when God ſaith, I exalt this man, ſhall wee ſay; he approves not of his exaltation? Jer. 27.6, 7.I have given all theſe lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzer, and all Nations ſhall ſerve him, ſaith the Lord. I, but it is unlawful to ſerve him, ſaies man, for God doth not approve of this his gift, doth not warrant this mans Authority as a divine Ordinance; thus man becomes more wiſe and jealous then the holy one his Maker; Well, to our caſe then, the ſwaying powers amongſt us, are they of Gods lifting up or no? has he given the Kingdom into their hands, or may they ſay our own hands and power has gotten us this greatneſſe? and laid the foundation of this eminency? not the latter, The holy one will have the living to know that the moſt4 high ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomſoever he pleaſeth, and ſetteth up over it the baſeſt of men, Dan. 4.17. If the Lord himſelfe hath raiſed them up, we dare not thinke but he approves his own act, they tell us, that God may be intitled to their power, as it is a**Pag. 2. and 8. natural force or inergy, or in reſpect of its metaphyſical exiſtence, and no otherwiſe, but we take Majeſteriall power or dominion to be a thing of a clear diſtinct nature and conſideration from Phyſical Energy, and ſo we beleeve do the Miniſters of Lancaſhire too; Dominion is a judicial power, or‖‖Jus imperandi Pſa. 72.8. Gen, 1.28. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉jus et dominium ac aeuthoritatem denotat, &c. Mercer. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&c. Chryſ. in Gen. 1. jus in creaturas Deus homini dedit & ſtitit illas coram homine ut ſiſti ſolēt ſubditi coràm novo principe inaugurando et accipiendis mandatis ejus atque〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſuit figonum dominii et imperii. Polan. Syntag. li. 5. ca. 35. the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſpeaks no leſſe. See Gen. 42.6. with Pſal. 105.22. — 144.13. Dan. 7.27. Eceleſ. 9.19. Pſal. 8.6. morall right to rule; the Lord in tranſlating Throns and Scepters, ſhifting principalities from hand to hand, and poureth ſupremacy from veſſel to veſſell, he does more ſurely then give men a naturall power to grow great, this he communicates as the Author of nature, but as that God whoſe Kingdome ruleth over all, he diſpoſeth of Dominions, modells, and breakes againe frames of Government, and ſtil continues his Ordinance amongſt the ſons of men. When God as ſovereign of the world, lifted up Nebuchadnezzar over Judah, he did not only enable him with power to conquer that people, but gave him a right of Dominion and rule likewiſe, we cannot perſwade our ſelves that he would have commanded the remnant of his people of ſerve him, or have promiſed that it ſhould be well with thoſe that did ſerve him if it had been otherwiſe; beſides this, Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah, Jehojachins Uncle King in his ſtead, 2 King. 14.17. which delegation ſtood approved, as his act who had royal power**Nil dat quod non habet. to give, for when Zedekiah endeavoured to ſhake off Nebuchadnezzars ſupremacy, the Holy Ghoſt ſtiles it, a Rebellion againſt that King, and Ezek. 17.16. the Lord threatens him ſeverely for it, as I live ſaith the Lord God,Verſ. 20ſurely in the place where the King dwelleth, that made him King, whoſe Oath he deſpiſed, and whoſe Covenant hee brake, even with him in the mideſt of Babylon he ſhall dye; So that God ownes the making men Rulers, as well as the raiſing of them from the duſt, 1 King, 16.2. this was his word to Baaſha, I have made thee Prince (or Ruler as the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is rendred5 2 Sam. 7.8. 1 Chron. 5.2. ) over my people Iſrael, and this is that we contend for touching our preſent Powers; their right inforo humano, to rule, cannot be leſſe then Baaſhaes was, yet he is regiſtred for a King of Iſrael, and inforo Divino, it is as great, the high Diſpoſer of rule and power having poſſeſt them of dominion, which proceeds from him by way of Authorization (as we have proved) if it be his gift, the ſumme then is this.
1 That God approves of what he hath given into the hands of our preſent Powers, what he hath given he is pleaſed they ſhould have.
2 That they have more given them then a naturall Power of force from the Divine concourſe, viz. Dominion, or power of Rule, therefore both the members of the diſtinction (as we preſumed above) are ready to ſerve our turnes, God having diſpoſed of the Kingdome into their hands, hath in ſo doing given them dominion, yea though it be acknowledged for to gratifie any man (as it might without impeaching their power of right) that by reaſon of ſome in-direct and injuſtifiable actings, or courſes in themſelves, or thoſe who have been inſtrumentall to their lifting up, that they are not by him, as Hoſ. 8.4. and that the Lord knew it not, viz. approved not the wayes of their exaltation; yet we ſay, notwithſtanding the ſinfulneſſe of men as to their agency in the buſineſſe, Promotion commeth neither from the Eaſt, nor from the Weſt, nor from the South, but God is the Judge, be putteth downe one, and ſetteth up another, Pſal. 75.6, 7. Diſcernendum eſt inter jus Dei quod in res bonas nunquam amittit à quibuſcunque& quomodocunqueteneantur & inter judicia Dei quibus bona ſua ſic diſtribuit, ut in eorum acquiſitione & uſu, vitium hominis aliquando concurrere permittat ſic, igitur de acquiſitione quorundam regnorum eſt judicandum: Pareus.
And ſince we perceive the over-flowings of your Gal in this controverſie fall mainly upon the corrupt intereſts of perſons, and their indirect wayes of compaſsing power and dominion, we ſhall propound and aſſert ſome particulars tending to the clearing and elucidating the matter in debate betwixt us, and which may happily make way for the breaking in of(a)(a)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Naz. Orat. 12. convictions upon our Conſciences, if you undertake to perſwade us, the truth is otherwiſe.
61 Our aſſertion is this, that God may, and oft times does diſclaime the intereſt and aimes of perſons getting into power, and yet owne the power in their hands as his Ordinance. This will be evident from the inſtance of Nebuchadnezzar, God gives him a charge againſt an hypocriticall Nation, and uſeth him as a rod in his hand to ſcourge his people; howbeit he meaneth not ſo, neither doth his heart thinke ſo, but it is in his heart to cut off Nations not a few, Iſa. 10.6, 7. God by no meanes(b)(b)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synes Ep. 57. approves of that Tyrants aime or end, nor of the bitterneſſe and haſtineſſe of his people, who came all for violence, Hab. 1.9. yet he approved of the power and dominion in Nebuchadnezzars**ver. 12, 17. 1 King. 16. hand, as his Ordinance is cleare, Jer. 27. where the people are expreſly commanded, to put their necks under his yoke, and to ſerve him.
2 We aſſert, That God may, and often times doth diſclaime the meanes and ſteps whereby ſome men are raiſed into the Seat of Authority, and yet authorize their being there; we have pregnant inſtances enow to prove this, that of Baaſha which we toucht upon before may ſuffice, the Lord approved not of his killing Jeroboam, whereby his way was made unto the Throne, 1 King. 16.7, yet he owned the power in Baaſhaes hand as his Ordinance, I have made thee, ſaith God, Ruler over my people Iſrael, verſ. 2. And hence we might deduce thus much for the information of Gods Servants living under ſuch diſpenſations, that they may lawfully own Magiſteriall power in the hands of ſuch intruders, ſince the Lord himſelfe ownes it, and in this our new Annotations, Rom. 13.1. will ſtand by us, It is juſt and equall ſay they that man ſhould approve and tolerate that which God himſelfe approves and tolerates; herein we(c)(c)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chryſoſt in Rom: 13.3. acknowledge Gods ſupreame right, and yet we deeme our ſelves acquitted of mans guilt, unleſſe we conclude the ſins of Baaſha chargeable upon all thoſe that ſubmitted to his power, but of this we ſuppoſe the Miniſters of Lancaſhire and Cheſhire will ſay,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God forbid.
3 Thoſe who undertake to prove this, that God diſ-ownes the aimes and intereſts of thoſe now in power amongſt us, muſt evidence their ends to be uncapable of divine approvall, and Sirs, unleſſe you dwell in their boſomes, your arguments wil paſſe but for preſumptions, mens actings ſeldome making up more then a fallible conjecture of their ends;7 Wee have learned for our parts,1 Cor. 4.5. to judge nothing before the time.
4 Yet further, we conceive, and that upon deliberation too, it wil be very hard for theſe undertakers to find a caſe paralelling that capacity which our Commons in Parliament ſtood in before their acting in this ſolitary Supremacy, for they had then a co-equall title, at leaſt to, and a ſhare in that Soveraignty, which now they are veſted withall, excluſivè, and if this paralell be found upon ſearch into ſome American conſtitutions or other, it will be as hard a matter then, to cleare the divine diſapprovall of perſons thus acting in the like caſe, yea, or to lay downe any ſound rules whence by Analogy our preſent Rulers actings can be concluded abſolutely injuſtifiable, as the means of their attaining this power.
The difficulties therefore and intricacies being very many, wherewith ſuch as take in hand to prove the ſinfulneſſe of the meanes by which, or the corruption of thoſe intereſts for which our Government has been changed, muſt neceſſarily labour, and be intangled, and the duty of obedience to our preſent Governours continuing in full force (according to our firſt aſſertions) notwithſtanding theſe difficulties ſhould be broken thorough, ſince we ſay it is ſo hard a taske, and in our judgements infeaſible, to prove the meanes or end of our preſent eſtabliſhment evill; and this done, ſtill as difficult to prove that obedience and ſubjection are not good and neceſſary, we conclude that our wiſdome, as well as our ſtrength will be to ſit ſtill, and humbly to acquieſſe in the**Mr. Burroughs rare jewell of Chriſtian contentment. pag. 35. Prov. 22.5. providential wil of our God; Quae pertingit a fine uſquead finem fortiter & diſponſit omnia ſuaviter: Thornes and ſnares will be in the way of thoſe froward ones who ſtudy the intangling of other mens conſciences, and the diſ-obliging their own at this ſeaſon. ‖‖See Pro. 28. in Rom. 14.19,Such a work wil be as dangerous, as lyable to the exceptions of men, and as capable of his diſ-owning, who commands us to ſtudy what makes for quietneſſe, and the edifying of one another, as any change of Government amongſt us or our neighbours, hath been for many Centuries of yeares; this attempt (we thinke) few quiet and undeſigning ſpirits will be forward to ingage themſelves in; but what beſotting intereſts have wrought men to, we ſee, and ſeeing, have cauſe to bewaile, the fruits of their8 diſtempers, ſhaking and indangering the publicke bottome, that hath gone a nine years voyage for peace, and is now within view of harbor, our having been wounded is not ſo much, as that our wound ſhould be perpetuall,Jer. 15.18. — 8.15.22. — 14.19. and ſtill kept open by the ſons of peace official healers, if here you acquit your ſelves Sirs, tis well. Quiſquis vel quod poteſt arguendo corrigit vel quod corrigere non poteſt, ſalvo pacis vinculo excludit, vel quod ſalvo pacis vinculo excludere non poteſt equitate improbat firmitate ſupportat,Auguſt: hic**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alexan. ſtrom. l. 5. pacificus eſt.
Wee have inſiſted ſomewhat largely in our rejoynder to that exception (commenc'd againſt our Argument) touching the being of the preſent Authority over us from God, both becauſe it is of confeſſed importance, and becauſe it much facilitates our retargation of what followes under this head. To proceed therefore,
To this explanation of our Poſition, viz. That frames of Government are reſolved by God into the peoples wills, as the immediate cauſe of their ſpecification. They anſwer pag. 3.
1 That People deſtitute of a lawfull Magiſtracie have an elective Power, in the conſtitution of Government, but ſtanding in the relation of Subjects, they have not a privative, or innovative power.
Wee Anſwer, if at any time people are enabled to chuſe what forme they will be governed under,Anſw. then when neceſſitated, they may lawfully innovate, the very being or ordination of Magiſtracy for their good, warrants the one as well as the other, and though that Mode of Government from which they change be lawfull, yet power tyrannically and injuſtifiably exerciſed, juſtifies their election of thoſe meanes for their comfort and ſecurity, which the law of nature owned by the word,Grot Nunquam aliud natura, aliud ſapientia dicit, Juv. dictates to them, Neceſſitas enim ſumma reducit res ad merum jus naturale: Take away a peoples privative power in this caſe, and their elective power ſerves onely to make them perpetuall ſlaves, before their choyce of ſuch a Governour or Government they were free to provide for their liberties, and naturall immunities, but after their choyce made, they muſt be content, (it ſeemes) with what falls out, though to the deſtruction of theſe for ever, this is to enable people to make themſelves miſerable, and there to leave them remedileſſe, but the Lord has provided more mercifully9 for them, ordaining Magiſtracy and Order as their accumulative freedome, not deſtroying by his poſtuate inſtitution, what by that generall Statute, that unreſtrain'd Charter, the Law of Nature, he had before granted to them, yet if a people have no greater cauſe to deſire a change of Government amongſt them then Iſrael had when they cryed,‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Sam. 8.19, 20. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joſeph, Antiq. li. 8. Act. 26.18. Make us a King, we ſhall never plead their excuſe in endeavouring it.
2 They ſay, Some kinde of Governments are unlawfull in their owne nature, ſo is that of the beaſt, Rev. 17. and the ten Kings giving their power and ſtrength to the beaſt, theſe cannot be ſaid to be approved of God.
Anſw. 1. The power of thoſe ten Kings, or Kingdomes, is lawfull in its owne nature, the text notes its abuſe, and ſuggeſts thus much to thoſe that alledge it, viz. That regall Government is apt above all other modes whatſoever for the ſervice of the beaſt; this is neither only nor alſo for their purpoſe.
2 That beaſtiall power they inſtance in, is but an equivocall power, that ſway of Satan in the hearts of the children of diſobedience, is called a power too; but what hinders this that God may not approve all civil frames of Government upon the Earth, how various ſoever? every Ordinance of man, which is confeſt to be only an Application, or a Modification of the generall Ordinance of God? Theſe are capable of his owning ſure, notwithſtanding this out-leape, or eſſay of theirs, touching a power Antichriſtian in its very eſſence, and of an helliſh Parentage; our Poſition reaches to no ſuch power, when we ſay, What kinde of Government a people doe will for their owne good, the Lord ſets his ſeale upon it. Their inſtances indeed under the next Head, and our inſtance in 1 Sam. 8, 9, 10, 12. Chap. prove that God diſ-ownes the ſinfulneſſe of their wils who are given to change, and tranſgreſſe without a cauſe, not that h•diſ-approves the Government they deſire. It is ordinary for m•n to abuſe their Liberty, and that latitude of choyce which God allowes them in things of this kinde; but to conclude, that ergo God gives not a People liberty of change, and that he reſolves not frames of Government into their wils, becauſe ſome men have, and others may ſinne in erecting new Models, and changing their conſtitutions, is like daſhing out a mans braines to cure the Megrime,10 or like that practicall Logick of Lycurgus, who prohibited the planting of Vines, becauſe men uſed to be drunke with the Grapes.
3 We ſay, That in all changes of Government the prevailing, not the over-borne Party may lay claime to the ſignature of Divine approbation; this they conceive, contradicts our former Poſition, which entitled the Peoples will to the ſpecification of Government, and the ſeale of Gods approvall; We all know (ſay they) the Peoples wills may goe one way, a prevailing Party another, contrary to it, &c.
Anſw. We need not labour much to ſhake off that contradiction which is pinn'd upon us gratis, for though the wills of ſome people, yea of moſt people, may goe one way, and the prevailing Party another way, yet we all know that the prevailing will goes but one way, and which way this will goes that way goes the divine approvall, otherwiſe we had never been commanded to obey EVERY ORDINANCE of man FOR THE LORDS SAKE, 1 Pet. 2.13. Though men may ſinne in the motions of their wils, yet God diſ-owns not the power and priviledges he has given them, but to hitch on a little.
Theſe Gentlemen fight notably with their owne ſhadowes from hence all along, till our ſecond Medium (as they call it) gives them the opportunity of a new encounter, proceeding from a ſuppoſition which is no grant of ours, nor educible from any thing we have yet ſaid, viz. that the prevailing Party is owned of God quatenus prevailing, hence they frame mountainous abſurdities and lay them to our charge, as the conſequences of our Principles; but we know that ſuppoſito quo libet ſequitur quid libet, if any Miniſter of this combination ſhould deliver ſuch a Doctrine as this, The doers of Gods will, not the hearers only may lay claime to ſalvation (the ſuppoſition may paſſe) would he thinke himſelfe fairely dealt with all, if ſome wilde Antinomian ſhould charge him with teaching, that thoſe whom God ſaves he ſaves them becauſe they are doers, or for their deeds? We doubt he would hardly bear ſuch a miſ-conſtruction, or indulge the liberty of ſuch an interpretation as this; ſo we ſay the prevailing Party layes claime to Gods approbation in the conteſts about Government among the Sons of men, but will it thence follow that we hold God approves them becauſe they prevaile? ſurely he may doe it upon another account, but whatever11 that be, their prevailency may beare witneſſe that he does owne them Pro hic & nunc, whatever the ends be that his holy will makes uſe of thoſe powers for, we make God the great Arbiter in all Quarrels, and prevailency in conteſts of this nature ſhewes us for whom he Arbitrates, 1 Chro. 5.2. Judah prevailed,(a)(a)Hence comes Gibbor Nimrods ſtile, that mighty Hunter, Gen. 10.8.9. (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉was ſtrong) above his Brethren, and of him came the chiefe Rulers, but the birth-right was Ioſephs, the leaſt that we can give to Iudah's prevailency is this, to atteſt the Lords deſignement of that Tribe to beare rule, and his actuall diſpoſition of authority to it, and wil it now follow
1 That we make force the infallible umpire betwixt Parties claiming intereſt in the conſtitution of Government? or,
2 That the ſame Government and cauſe (without any alteration of its inſtitution and demeanour) may lay claime to divine approbation, as its ſtrength varieth: That Abſolons and Zimries authority were good before God during the time of their prevailence? Sirs, thoſe inſtances are not of caſes Arbitrated, but in Arbitration, David had then a conſiderable Army, when he fled from his Sonne, with which the Lord of Hoſts pleaded his cauſe againſt that rebellious Abſolon in the day of Battell, ſo when Zimries wickedneſſe was heard of, it preſently came to umpeirage, all Iſrael made Omri the Captaine of the Hoſt, King over Iſrael THAT DAY in the camp, 1 King. 16.16. and when upon the death of Zimri the people were divided into two parts, 'tis ſaid, the people that followed Omri PREVAILED againſt the people that followed Tibui the Sonne of Ginah, ſo Tibui dyed, and OMRI REIGNED, ver. 22. I wonder what witneſſe we have of the Divine Authorization of many that were Kings over Iſrael, ſetting aſide theirs and the peoples, prevailency that cleaved to them? it wil be eaſily granted that Menahem, Pekah, and Hoſea,〈◊〉Kings over Iſrael, and reigned till God cut them off for their abominations; but how came they to be Kings? what Titles had they? how neare of kin to the Scepter? the text tels us, they were Captaines of the Hoſt, men of power; and we ſay, God diſpoſed of the Kingdome into their hands; but how will this be proved? why, they prevailed, upon what ſcore, or to what purpoſe the Lord owned12 them we are unworthy to know, but owne them he did, as Kings, and his people owned them too, upon their prevailency this was the needle that drew after it the thread of Allegiance. The like we ſay touching Jerobohams and Omri's Enthronment, theſe diſſenters acknowledge, that Jerobohams reigning over the Ten Tribes was from God, only they ſay, that the buſineſſe betwixt them and the Two Tribes adhering to Rehoboham was not debated by the Sword,, and ſo the two Tribes were not the worsted and over-borne party, As if there could be no worſting or prevailency unleſſe it be by the ſword. 1 Kings 12.22, 23.True, God tooke up that difference by the mouth of his Prophet; he is not tyed to manifeſt his approvall onely one way, this takes nothing therefore from our aſſertion touching prevailency; it may be a teſtimony of Gods good pleaſure in every conteſt about the diſpoſall of power (where he interpoſeth not more immediately) notwithſtanding this. Concerning Omri they tell us, that Gods not approving him, and the people, is but a ſlender argument that he approved their actions, God ſometimes will not ſuffer his Prophets to be reprovers.
Anſw. 1. Why then do theſe men take ſuch paines to bend ſeverall Texts in Hoſea and Micah to a reproofe of them? ſuch Texts too as will then ſuit their purpoſe, when the councells of the houſe of Ahab, and the Statutes of Omri are proved to be the powers of Ahab and Omri? the ſubmiſſion of Gods Prophets to Ahab, and ſo many of Gods people to Omri would hardly have been gained if this had been to walk in the Statutes of Omri,Micah 6.16. and to keep the councells and works of the houſe of Ahab.
2 Thoſe ſinnes in the Kings of Iſrael which were of ſuch a reach and influence upon the people under them, as to involve the whole Nation in a miſerable guilt, (never as we know of) eſcaped reproofe, the ſins of Ahab, Ahaz, Jeroboham, and Manaſſeth, that were of this impli•ancy came all under the laſh, yea the ſinnes of Omri too, 1 King. 16.26. yet he is not reproved for uſurpation, though by their principles, it involves every one in his ſinne who ſubmitted to his power.
3 Tis the abuſe of Gods patience, and that line upon line he has given them, which cauſeth him to ſtop his prophets mouthes, I will make thy tongue cleave to the roofe of thy mouth, that thou ſhalt be dumb, and ſhall not be to them a man reproving, for they13 are a rebellious houſe, Ezek. 3.26. this ſin, theſe Miniſters lay not to the charge of the people, who choſe Omri for their King, as we can ſee:
In the cloſe of their exceptions againſt our firſt medium, though they thinke they have us faſt enough, yet they complaine they know not where to hold us, we doe ſo contradict and thwart our ſelves here only (ſay they) we wiſh them to conſider if the ſuperinduction of a power againſt the wills of many; yea of moſt men (which in our plea we juſtifie) be not a ſelfe-contradiction in reflexion upon that poſition of theirs, viz. Frames of Government are by God reſolved into peoples wills? And in anſwer hereto we wiſh them to conſider, that this contradiction vaniſheth as eaſily as the former, if the caſe prove ever ſuch, as that the will of the moſt people happen not to be the prevailing will; it will be hardly proved that that halfe of the people which made Omri King were the greater halfe, though they were the prevailing halfe, thus we ſee this other contradiction falls into accord without any helpe from Sancta clara, or Scotus de duno.
And now having ſufficiently (as it ſhould ſeeme) broken the bones of our firſt argument, brought to prove the being of theſe preſent powers over us from God, they proceed to give their ſence on our ſecond, taken from Rom. 13.2. and then diſcant upon it.
Firſt they tell us, if the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉here uſed for Divine Ordination bee any where uſed for the Lords Ordination of a power, which is as to the perſons comming in, and ſuſtaining it unjuſtifiable (as it is Hab. 1.12. ) then it cannot make the Text pregnant to our purpoſe.
Anſwer, We neither ſay, that the word makes the Text full and pregnant to our purpoſe, the Scripture indeed we ſay is ſo, nor doe we deny but our preſent powers may be ordained for judgement, and‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&c. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Euſeb. praepar. Evangel. li. 8. eſtabliſhed for correction. Lord (ſaith the Prophet) thou haſt ordained them (the Chaldean powers) for judgement, this Text therefore confirmes what we have to prove, viz. That the Powers in being over any people, are Gods Ordinance, though they may be (as moſt commonly they are) both attained unto, as to mans agency, and ſuſtained unjuſtifiably thus they have not diſ-favoured our argument at all by this ſeptuagint-allegation.
14After this velitation anent the word Ordained, they come to a propoſition of ours, which (they ſay) we formed out of it, viz. In what ever ſeries of events God manifeſts his ſpeciall concurrence or appearing, that cauſe he ownes, and authorizeth mans Agency in it: This they deny, But before wee joyne iſſue, wee muſt needs gratifie them with ſome what, which they would faine know from us by the way, and it is this, why we call the powerful working of God unto events, flowing from the efficacious decree, his ſpeciall concurrence or appearing, after wee had thus paraphraſed the words, the Powers that be, are ordained of God, as the firſt and cheife cauſe of all Beings, but all Beings are not by his ſpeciall concurrence?
Anſwer, All thoſe beings we ſpeak of are, viz. All poſitive futuritions determined by him, and well pleaſing to him. Is it another contradiction to ſay, the cheife cauſe of all Beings may both generally and ſpecially concur to the production of the ſame event? When we looke back unto the years of the right hand of the moſt high God, and conſider what great things he has done in England, Ireland and Scotland, and by what means, we conclude thus, Not by might, nor by power, but by the ſpirit of the Lord, and cry grace, grace to them, intituling the ſpecial out-goings,Iſa. 41.15. and unbareings of his holy arme to theſe effects, wherein he made the worme Jacob a threſhing inſtrument with teeth to beat the mountaines like chaffe; every work morally good, all the gracious actings of his Saints and Servants are drawne forth and his creatures inabled to them by a twofold divine concourſe,Twiſt. vindic. Gratiae li. digreſ. or aſſiſtance, the one Phiſicall the other ſupernaturall, but that we ſhall make uſe of in this debate, is onely the ſpeciall exertions of his divine power, and the might of his arme unto naturall effects with his generall providence in the ſupport of inſtruments, theſe ſignall and obſervable exercions of his might in weake meanes, we call his ſpeciall appearings, or efficiency; Now to the buſineſſe.
We muſt needs tel them they do us wrong in aſſuming that for the ſinews of our argument which neither the argument it ſelfe, nor our judgements any way befriend, viz. That Gods efficatious decree, and hand in powerfull working is converſant or operative in no humaine affaires or actions, but what are in man lawfull or agreeable to the rule of Gods word; and therefore this elaborate digreſſion15 of theirs touching the Metaphiſicall derivation of all Actions, and Beings, with their morall ſtate and qualifications; and touching Gods agency in all the affaires and actings of men, without the leaſt‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Synes. tincture of ſinne, might have wel been ſpared: we acknowledge with them that if the preſent power over us have no more from God then a Metaphiſicall exiſtence, or a naturall exiſtence, or a natural power and production by his concourſe, or co-operation with ſecond cauſes, it is diſ-owned by him with abomination, wee plead not Gods ordinary workings, but his ſpeciall appearings, in favour of our preſent Authority, as by our above mentioned propoſition appeares, though they would cajole it to ſpeake their ſence, who make no diſtinction betwixt Gods ordinary operations, and thoſe workings of his which are marvellous in al mens eyes. Surely Sirs, you may acknowledge ſome kind of language in Gods lifting up of his arme to a wonder, as well as the Pſalmiſt does in all the works of his fingers, day unto day uttereth ſpeech, and night unto night telleth knowledge, there is no ſpeech nor language where their voyce is not heard, Saith David: and if his wonders upon earth, ſpeake any thing, it is the might of that God whoſe workes they are, and his favour towards that people on whoſe behalfe, and that cauſe in which they are wrought; Hath God eſſayed (ſaith Moſes) to goe and take him a Nation from the middeſt of a Nation, by temptations, by ſignes, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, according to all that the Lord did for you? and what followes? becauſe he loved thy Fathers, therefore he choſe their ſeed after them, and brought thee out in his ſight, with his mighty power out of Egypt. Moſes argues from the great things God did for that people to his owning of them, as about ſeven year agoe theſe Miniſters, at leaſt ſome of them, made no bones to do, when God ſhewed us any great ſalvation, or gave us any notable victory over the late Kings forces, though now the ſame preſence of God with our Councells and Armys ſpeaks nothing at all, yet we confeſſe this Plea of Gods mighty workings towards a people would be very weak if it went alone, but we plead the Law and Testimony for Gods owning our preſent Authority and their cauſe, as the witneſſe beyond exception. His workes we mention in the ſecond place as a good comment upon the word only. Having thus righted16 our ſelves, we need ſay little to their needleſſe and exhojudiciall digreſsion, only it ſeemes ſtrange to us that they ſhould inſinuate, as if our preſent Powers derived from God only as a Metaphyſicall entity, when as his giving a Kingdome into any mens hands imports clearly another thing, viz. Gods making them Rulers, which in ſo doing he ownes, notwithſtanding he may diſ-owne their intereſts in graſping of power, and the ſinfull or indirect courſes whereby they may become poſſeſt of it.
It creates us not any carefull thoughts, that in taking their leave of our ſecond Medium they call our Paraphraſe, or gloſſe on Rom. 13.1. a wide one, unleſſe they could make it appeare we reſtraine Gods Ordination of the Powers that are to Divine concourſe, we have ſhewed that our Powers are, from God by way of Authorization, and that his diſpoſall of the Kingdome into their hands (conferring thereby his right unto them) has made the Authority lawfull in the Subjects wherein it reſts, let us ſee now how it fares with our third Medium.
Their third Medium (ſay they) to prove that the preſent Powers are from God, as approving and legitimating them to the Perſons, is divine Providence, the conduct thereof, and the Lords preſence, with the inſtruments in his hand for effecting this change of Government, his wonderfull appearings, his hand lifted up in breaking Conſpiracies, diſſcipating numerous Bodies, preventing confuſions, un-interrupted continuance of his goodneſſe, all theſe make up an evidence of Gods ſignall owning that Power in being over us, which is the product of theſe Wonders; not to quarrell with their Short Hand in cramping our Argument thus, they tell us, we are ſo paſſionately confident of this Medium from providence, that we pronounce them more deeply baptized into the ſpirit of Atheiſme then the Aegyptian Sorcerers, and declare a curſe of God ſurely to come upon them that confeſſe not what we thinke undeniably inferres our concluſion.
Anſw. Now let the world judge what paſſion or confidence our words have bewrayed, he that conſiders the workes done in our dayes, pondering them well, and yet confeſſeth notDigitum Dei hic & hic, the Arme of the Almighty made bare for us, we cannot but thinke he is more deeply baptized into the ſpirit of Atheiſme then the Aegyptian Sorcerers,17 which withſtood Moſes, Exod. 8.19. If the falling of a Sparrow to the ground, though worth but halfe a farthing, hath ſomething of Providence in it, much more thoſe wonderfull appearings of God, anticedent, concomitant, and ſubſequent to our change of Government: Have not the hils melted like wax at the preſence of the Lord,Pſal. 97.5. at the preſence of the Lord of the whole earth? God wil ſurely curſe that man, and his houſe, who ſaith, it was an arme of fleſh that did what was done in England, as making way for this change, or what hath been done in Ireland ſince,P.W.Generalls Letter from Ireland, Decem. 1649. Surely theſe men are angry with Providence, or they would not call our taking notice of it paſſion, but yet it ſeemes they are not deſirous to come under the curſe of thoſe who wil not ſee, for we acknowledge (ſay they) the hand of God, and his providence to have been operative, yea viſibly and wonderfully working in theſe changes; neither are they willing to deny what we thinke inferres our concluſion, ſo that (our premiſes paſſing currant) we muſt needs judge of this their Reply, as a battery raiſed only againſt our concluſion. But the Iudgements of God are a great deep, and without the Cynoſure of his Word they finde no ſafety, or warrant to lanch forth into them; neither doe thoſe whom they jerk at, as hardy Steerſ-men, or bold Adventurers, when they take us without a ſure word for our Chart and Compaſſe, let their little fingers be as heavie upon us as their loynes have been; but ſhall we through a ferulary awe of any mens threats or cenſures, ſuffer the Lords workings, thoſe perfect Eccho's of his Word, to vaniſh into aire, or abſtruſe nothings? All his wayes are judgement, Deut. 32.4. muſt we therefore looke into none of them? ſhall not the juſt walke in them becauſe tranſgreſſors fall therein? Hoſ. 14.9.
2 Men uſed not formerly in the heat of our late diſſertation betwixt King and Parliament to be ſo nice and ſqueamiſh in this particular, but could venture at interpreting the minde of the Lord of Hoſts from events of Warre; moſt, if not all the Thankeſgiving Sermons preached before the Houſes are yet living to atteſt this? it ſeems we can tel how to blow both hot and cold, Providence is a Topick which muſt ſerve only at ſome ſeaſons, and that for friends too; in ſhort,Tertul. Si Deus homini non placuerit Deus non erit. God muſt not be ſeen in that18 which ſuits not our intereſts, nor pleaſeth us; we dare not adventure to interpret that ſo, which we have no minde ſhould be ſo, yet let us take heed, diſlike of perſons or inſtruments may keep us from ſeeing God where he is, at leaſt, be a temptation to hinder us from acknowledging him there.
3 Gods Judgements we conceive in their more darke and hidden diſpenſations are a great deep, but to call his Providences ſo at all ſeaſons, ſo that nothing may be learnt from them, no diſcoveries of his minde at all, we ſee no warrant for,Habac. 3.9. Job 36.24, 25. when his arme is made bare, and his bow made QVITE NAKED. Surely theſe appearings of his, may be ſoberly adventured on without lanching into Gods ſecret depths; they are bruitiſh who underſtand not the obvious purport of his workings; thou haſt made me glad through thy worke, ſaith the Pſalmiſt, and they are not only eyed,Pſal. 92.4, 5. 28.5. but ſought out of all thoſe that have pleaſure therein, Pſal. 111.2. may we not by obſerving them underſtand the loving kindneſſe of the Lord? Pſalm. 107.43. A Law ſhal proceed from me (ſaith God) and I will make my Iudgement to reſt for a light of the people, Iſa. 51.4.
4 They tell us, that the appearances of Gods hand in the advancement and ſucceſſes of men, wipes not off the leaſt ſpot of that grand guilt which reſts upon their perſons, much leſſe, &c. We plead not Patronage, or juſtification to any mens cauſe, much leſſe to their perſons, from Providences alone, all that we draw from the pre-mentioned great workes of the Lord, in order to that great change of Powers over us, is, that be deales not ſo with every people, that he ſhewed himſelfe ſo in effecting it, as he uſeth to doe in the production of thoſe events which are of ſpeciall complacency to him; and certainly he that undertakes to prove that God uſeth to doe ſuch things, for the Managers of that Cauſe which he abominates, will finde it very operous; It is not a ſupercilious non ſequitur therefore, that ſhall beate us off from taking comfort in Gods Workes, nor from glorying in the operations of his hands; neither will that which followes prevaile ſo farre upon us, where we are put in minde of the uſuall lot and condition of Gods Church, viz. A low degree, a ſtate of oppreſsion, a Wine-preſſe of troubles and wrongs to be bowed downe and made a footſtocle or ſtreete for the enemies of God and his Church to ſet their feet and walke upon, to have men to ride over their heads, to plow and make19 long furrowes upon their backs, to be made to turne back from the enemy, to be ſpoyled of them that hate them, to be given like ſheep appointed for meat, and to be ſcattered among the Heathen, &c. and on the contrary, earthly power, pomp and triumph, outward illuſtriouſneſſe, and victoriouſneſſe, to be deſtroyers of Cities, ſhakers and overturners of Kingdomes; are more frequently the Characters and Equipage of God-leſſe and notoriouſly wicked men, and practiſes, then of them that are better.
Anſw. We grant they are ſo, ſuch have been the wayes of Providence God hath walked in towards his Church and choſen hitherto,Pſal. 71.20: yet ſometimes he hath lifted them up as wel as caſt them downe; here are many of Sions complaints and lamentations gathered together, and it were eaſie for us to collect as large a bundle of her Hymns, Hallelujahs, and triumphant Exaltations, when God has given her the necks of her enemies to tread upon, but theſe gleanings on either hand, only ſhew how and in what manner God dealt with his people, at ſuch and ſuch ſeaſons,Heb. 3.1. calling them to Songs upon Sigionoth, ſometimes to rejoycing, ſometimes to ejaculation; they only prove that it has been thus from the beginning, but are not ſtanding or perpetuall rules of Divine adminiſtrations towards the godly, nor prove that it ſhall be ſo unto the end; if we looke upon thoſe gracious promiſes drawing to the birth in theſe latter dayes, we may conclude, Zion ſhall be comforted according to the times wherein ſhe has knowne adverſity, and that ſhe ſhall not be troden under foot ſtill of the wicked; ſo that prevailency and outward illuſtriouſneſſe, though Characters of the wicked race, till their day be done; ſhall Characterize the Generation of the juſt, when their day begins, and the acceptable yeare is proclaimed; The Sons of them that afflicted thee ſhall come bending unto thee (ſaith the Lord) and all they that deſpiſed thee ſhall bow themſelves downe at the ſoles of thy feet, and they ſhall call thee the City of the Lord, the Zion of the holy one of Iſrael; whereas thou haſt been forſaken, and hated, ſo that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternall Excellency, a joy of many Generations, Iſa. 60.14, 15. And it ſhall come to paſſe in the laſt dayes, that the mountaine of the Lords Houſe ſhall be eſtabliſhed upon the top of the mountaines, and ſhall be exalted above the hils, and all Nations ſhall flow unto it, Iſa. 2.2. And the Kingdome, and Dominion, and the20 greatneſſe of the Kingdome under the whole heaven, ſhall bee given to the people of the Saints of the moſt high, whoſe Kingdome is an everlaſting Kingdome, and all Dominions ſhall ſerve and obey him, Dan. 7.27.
What though proſperity ſpake againſt the Church of old, may it not therefore now ſpeak for it? an argument from this Topick, viz. ſucceſſefull providence, is of that purport and force in theſe daies of ours, which it was not of in ancient times, tis very conſiderable (in our caſe) now thoſe promiſes are fullfilling, though when they were but in making, it lookt another way, yea tis a thriving argument, and will gather yet more ſtrength and weight, in favour of the Church, before it come into the mouthes of our children.
Had theſe Miniſters but heapt together as many promiſes of what the Churches condition ſhall be, (and which we ſee have taken effect in ſome comfortable degree) as they have done teſtimonies of what its lot was of old; it is likely they would have ſeene they have very little ground for ſuch an odious untheologicall inſinuation, as that of theirs in this paragraph is, viz. That the mighty preſence of God with his Saints and Servants, who bend themſelves againſt the uſurpations of Antichriſt, and labour his dethronment in theſe dayes, is no otherwiſe to be accounted of, then his providences towards the Babylonian, Seleucidan, and Roman Tyrants were of old, in effecting their enſlavements of, his Church and choſen. Now to goe forward, In driving on their Anſwer, to that uſe wee make of providence a little further, they charge us as counterfeiters of the broad ſe ale of heaven, by making that a ſigne of Gods mind, which he never inſtituted to that purpoſe, but preſumption is a groundleſſe charge, we have told them once and againe, and now tell them once for all, it is Heterodoxie in our judgements to affirm, that the Lord hath ordained Providences, and prevailing ſucceſſes**Yet ſee what ſingle providence once did Jona. 1.15, 16. ſolitarily to nolifie his approving or diſ-approving will, yet providence in conjunction with the word, gives effectuall notice and ſound conviction, yea, the Lord many times by Providence alone gives a check to the cenſorious and unadviſed harſhnes of mens ſpirits, againſt a people or cauſe,Dan. 3.25, 26. and boring through their propoſitions, makes way for a more impartiall judgement, and charitable perſwaſion in them,21 Pauls ſhaking the Viper off his hand without harme,Act. 28.6. made the Barbarians think otherwiſe of him then before, thus croſſe and adverſe providences in a good cauſe ſtrike many heartſearchings,Joſ. 7.8. and ſtaggerings into the ſtableſt and beſt ballanced leaders, Lord, ſaith Joſhua what ſhall I ſay when Iſrael turneth their backs before their enemies? ſucceſſe hath light, as wel as heat and comfort in it to Gods people, and adverſe occurrences, darkneſſe as well as trouble, the Lambes conquering the Kingdomes of the World, will ſo cleare the promiſes that all Nations ſhall come to the brightneſſe of Zions riſing, Chriſt gets up to his Throne by pulling downe the Principalities and Thrones of others, preſent proprietors no doubt,Hag. 2.21, 22. and if prevailencie, helpe not the Sons of men in diſcerning his title to dominion, the promiſes of his ſucceſſe (ſuch is the hardneſſe of mens hearts) muſt ſtand ſtill for Cyphers, and 'tis to us altogether inconceiveable (Si prae ſcriptio malefida in omni foro procedat) how he will ever finde a vacant or empty Throne upon the earth, or how he ſhall get poſſeſſion of what his Father has given him, if his way be not made by notable ſhakings,See Mr. Owen's Sermon on Heb. 12.26, 27. and tranſlations of the cuſtomes, and the conſtitutions of Governments in the World, A dead woman, ſaith the Proverbe, will not be carried out of her houſe under foure men.
Their compariſon betwixt Providence, as we uſe it,Pag. 14. and Lot, ſeemes to us a very poore one, we never looked at Providence as an Ordinance of God for the determining a Right, but ſeeing the hand of the Almighty in important events, we think our ſelves bound to acknowledge it, and to conclude as much from it as his Word will give us leave, which in a righteous cauſe amounts to a teſtimony that he ownes it, if he favours and more then ordinarily ſucceeds the managers of it, for God is in the Generation of the juſt, Pſal. 14.5. Pſal. 41.11.And by this I know ſaith David thou favoureſt me, becauſe mine enemy doth not triumph over me; if the Army have tempted God, by caſting themſelves upon Providence, and by their appeales to his Majeſty in courſes injuſtifiable (as they here tell us) we ſhal in no caſe ſtand by them, but leave them, as they deſire to be left, even to him that judgeth righteouſly, their ſinne no doubt ſhall finde them out, and are there not with us, even with us, ſinnes againſt the Lord our God, 2 Chron. 28.10. In the next place they thus documentize us,22 the argument from Providence is ab eventu, or from the iſſue of a thing, they then that will conclude from this Medium (ſay theſe Cunctators) muſt tarry a while longer, even till the end be ſeene, and the winding up of Providence, &c. God hath taken time to viſite the iniquities of them that hate him to the third and fourth Generation.
Anſw. The text ſaith, God is a jealous God, viſiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate him. Here is nothing about his taking time to puniſh, this Scripture ſpeakes forth Gods juſt reſolution to protract his Viſitations to poſterity, not to ſuſpend or withhold them from the firſt Generation, he will begin with the ſinfull Fathers (according to his Oath) and that betimes to, Bloudy and deceitfull men ſhall not live out halfe their dayes, Pſal. 55.23. Behold, the righteous ſhall be recompenced in the earth, much more the wicked and the ſinner, Prov. 11.31. What meane ye that ye uſe this Proverb concerning the Land of Iſrael, ſaying, the Fathers have eaten ſower grapes, and the Childrens teeth are ſet on edge? As I live ſaith the Lord God, ye ſhall not have occaſion any more to uſe this Proverb in Iſrael: behold! all ſoules are mine, as the ſoule of the Father, ſo alſo the ſoule of the Childe is mine, the ſoule that ſinneth it ſhall dye, Ezek. 18.2, 3, 4.
Againe, Glorying and boaſting of an outward happineſſe, and ſucceſſefulneſſe, is the uſuall effect which ſuch proſperity hath upon a wicked heart; this is another of their documents to us, or rather a charge breathed indirectly upon thoſe in power over us, as if ſucceſſe had fly-blowne their ſpirits with pride, and wrought them to unſeemly glorying, it is true, Providence may be wreſted to the ſupport and ſtrengthening of men in evil waies, ſo may the Word of God, but thoſe who feare the Lord make not this uſe of either; for our parts, we are as ſhie and jealous of opening providences without the key of the Word, and as fearefull of inconſequentiall deductions from them, or of abuſing them, as thoſe are who ſeeme to account them moſt ſacred; and could we judge the Parliament or Army (which here they ſtrike at) to be haters of God, or men counterworking his great deſigne in theſe latter dayes, did we heare them boaſt of their hearts deſire, or the glory of their ſucceſſes and atchievements otherwiſe then in humility, to the23 prayſes of the moſt high God, we ſhould looke to have the wheele brought over them, and that ſoone, for a ſhort worke will the Lord make upon the face of the earth; we ſhould thinke that he had lift them up to caſt them downe, but if they continue to exerciſe that dependance upon God they have hitherto profeſt to doe, and purſue thoſe ends which they hold out to the World in their appeales to the Majeſty of Heaven, we are confident that the winding up of Providence will be more comfortable to them then the beginning has been, and that they ſhall have the thankes of that very people, whoſe curſes and reproaches they lye under at this day; and had we only Providences for the bottome of our perſwaſions, we might in likelihood change our mindes as the people of Melita did, Act. 28. but we have a ſure word of Propheſie, by which examining and trying their ſtate and agency in the worke of this ſeaſon, we conclude that theſe and theſe Providences are the iſſue of former promiſes, and though God carry them back, yet that their cauſe ſhall goe forward, till ſuch a top ſtone be laid upon it as the people of God ſhal cry Grace unto; and now let us ſee how our ſecond argument for engageing is dealt withall.
The mutuall relation of protection and Allegiance preſſeth us to an owning and realliance with them (our preſent Powers) as our actuall Protectours, every benefit requiring ſome duty: Our argument proceeds in theſe termes, theſe Non-ſubſcribers deny that protection, and allegiance, are propter, or ſecundum, elſe relatives, (we can ſcarcely gueſſe at what they here meane, conſidering what they grant by and by) Magiſtracy and Allegiance indeed they ſay, are Relatives, but protection in actu exercito, is not ſimul natura with Allegiance, and in actu ſignato is ſeparable from Magiſtracy, ſo that they cannot be ſaid properly to be Relata.
Anſ. We ſhall not breake with our Brethren for a Logicall notion, ſuppoſing they have found a flaw in our Logick, we doe not rixari de lana caprina, fight for Goats Wooll, and in caſe our expreſſion makes but way for our Conceptions into the mindes of men, we uſe not (vervecum in patria craſſóqueſub aëre, in the coaſts where we live) to ſubtelize our notions; we preſume from what they here yeeld, that our propoſition is Theologically true, we grant, ſay they, in ſome ſort a relation, and ſo a24 mutuall connectedneſſe betwixt Protection and Allegiance; this connectedneſſe ſerves our turnes fully, He is the Miniſter of God to thee for good, ſaith the Apoſtle, WHEREFORE ye muſt needs be ſubject, &c. and FOR THIS CAVSE pay you tribute alſo, render THEREFORE to all their dues, &c. Rom. 13.5, 6, 7. So that had not they granted this relation, we ſhould have forc'd it.
But in accommodating this their generall deliberative to the buſineſſe, they ſtrive to husband their Allegiance due from them by reaſon of this acknowledged connectedneſſe to our preſent rulers, forcing it by a ſet of niggardly diſtinctions in Stillicidia, into ſyllabicall and wary conceſſions, ſuch as is the protection (ſay they) ſuch onely can the Allegiance be required to be, now the protection is or may be deemed
1 But voluntary (ſuppoſing the power to be intruded into, not lawfully poſſeſt) and not of Magiſtraticall duty; we ſay this exception, as to our caſe, vaniſheth upon our proving the powers that are, to be Gods Ordinance, furniſhed and inſtructed with rule and dominion or Magiſtratical Authority, which we have done already in its place.
2 But actuall, not fixed or ſettled, it being (as we ſuppoſe) without any Baſis of a regular vocation to it, Anſwer.
1 By actuall wee gueſſe that they meane temporary, and if they ſcruple not temporary allegiance, we conceive it may come off as conſcionably from them(b)(b)Nuſquam & nunquam licet quod ſemper & ubiquenon licet. Tertul. de Specta. all the while they receive protection.
2 For the Baſis of a regular vocation, they ſuppoſe our Rulers have none, and we on the other ſide ſuppoſe they have ſuch a call as may ſatisfie the ſubmitting conſciences, if they mean by a regular cal, ſuch a cal as our Parliaments ab initio uſed to have unto their ſupream truſt, we conceive they have it, but if they mean ſuch a cal as is every way incorrupt and compleat in all circumſtantiall requiſites,Pind. and formalities (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ſuch a call as few Magiſtrates (ſoveraign ones at leaſt) have among any people on the earth; laſtly, ſuch a call as no man can except againſt, or finde fault with, this we ſay is not neceſſary for the juſtifying of the powers that are over us in their claim of Allegiance from us.
3 Protection may be but partiall, they ſay, or in ſome things, for it25 cannot be that where an arbitrary, or uſurped power is erected, there ſhould be univerſall protection. Anſwer,
1 If you have not protection in Lancaſhire and Cheſhire, where is the fault? is this mutuall connectedneſſe you ſpeake of verified among you? if you have protection (as for ought we know you have) remember what Job ſaith, Loweth the Oxe over his fodder? Job 6.5.
2 We cannot skil of this partiall Allegiance, if it be confeſſed due in ſome things, viz. any one duty, we ſhall deſire no more to drive you to an acknowledgement of a due in all, to whom Tribute is due, honor, fear, and obedience, is due likewiſe.
3 This uſurpation is but a thing ſuppoſed, if applyed to our caſe, a meere peradventure, and they ſay, Fortaſſe ita ſoluiturper forte non; theſe foundations proving thus ſuccumbent and infirm, what they build upon them againſt engaging muſt needs fall, as that Allegiance is to be but of choyſe or prudence, not of duty, actuall only, not fixed and engaged; and laſtly partiall, which they thus reſtraine.
1 That it entrench not upon anothers right, but if the preſent Authority be lawfull, and authorized from above, Conſcience puts no man upon the inqueſt after anothers right, or upon the ſearch into any mans pretentions, to Soveraignty over us.
2 That it be ſo farre as is lawfull; they are afraid of the Uſurpers guilt it ſeemes by what followes, but uſurpation is only preſum'd by them in our caſe, we muſt ſee the queſtion otherwiſe mooted then we have done yet, before we carry Coales over the ſame bridge with them in this point, but though this were out of debate, yet we have ſhewed the lawfulneſſe of obeying Uſurpers in licitis & honeſtis, and that it may be done without participating in their ſinnes, Chriſt Jeſus himſelfe would never have paid tribute unto Caeſar had it been otherwiſe, and we deſire no eaſier a task then to prove, that the Roman Eagles prey'd upon the Jewiſh State, and got their Authority indirectly. To conclude therefore they tell us, that to engage is to pay too much Allegiance to our preſent Rulers, let allegiance, (that is, an acting in conformity to the Command, and ſubmitting to the power of the Protectors) be qualified as above, and what is this to enga•ing, ſay they, it falls ſhort of it by many miles; the compenſation will overweigh the favour.
26Anſ. 1. It is eaſie to undervalue what we receive from our Protectors, if we have a minde not to be over laviſh in our‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chryſoſt in Rom. 13. returnes, or reſponſals.
2 If any duties anſwer the claime of protection, beſides a thankfull owning of thoſe Perſons, and Powers, by whoſe meanes it is diſpenced unto us, and a cheerfull ſubmiſſion to them, let it be ſhewed us; if theſe tenatious Non-ſubſcribers will give any thing, let it be ſeene, if to be true and faithfull to the Powers as now eſtabliſhed, be of too high a ſize, and finedneſſe, what they will allow them ſure is next to nothing, but a ſmall Wax Candle may ſerve the turne now, it ſeemes, though in our ſtormy times, when the proud waves reached even unto our ſoules, we ſtuck not to promiſe one as bigge as the Maſt of our Ship, to thoſe that ſhould helpe to ſhoare us; to live and dye with our Protectors then was a ſmall matter, now to be true and faithfull to them is a monſtrous courteſie; In taking their farewell of this Argument they plead the Parliaments Declaration of Febr. 9. 1648. and tell us how farre the State ſhall be beholding to them; that which theſe. Miniſters plead runs thus: We are fully reſolved to maintaine, preſerve, and keep the fundamentall Lawes of this Nation, for and concerning the preſervation of the Lives, Properties, and Liberties of the People, with all things incident thereunto; that which they Promiſe, or reſolve to doe, is this, to live and conforme themſelves according to thoſe Lawes, and in ſo doing apprehend that they ſhould enjoy the protection of them,Act for ſubſcript. Ian. 10. 1649. eſpecially ſince the DECLARERS make their protection an Argument for their demand of ſubjection.
Anſ. 1. Subſcribing the Engagement we take to be the giving of an aſſurance of this their reſolved ſubjection and conformity, to plead any thing in their act without performing the condition of it, is to ſay, the Parliament muſt doe whatſoever we claime from them, although we refuſe them in every thing.
2 The Houſe declared their reſolutions, Febr. 9. 1648, but we ſee not how ſuch as diſ-owne the Power, and the relation of the Declarers over them, come within the compaſſe, or under the benefit of thoſe reſolves, If I acknowledge not this man for my Father, how can I expect or begge a Fathers bleſſing from him, or looke for a childs portion?
27Our third Argument followes;We know not how to approve our hearts before God, if we ſhould put our ſelves out of a capacity of ſerving his providence, while he offers us opportunity thereunto, as we ſhould doe by refuſing the Engagement; now every man almoſt cryes out, MAKE ME NOT A RVLER TO THIS PEOPLE, let me not meddle, this breach ſhall not be under my hand,Ezek. 13.5.22.30. Pſal. 106.23. we thinke it moſt ſeaſonable ſtanding up in the gap (as our callings may require) and offering our ſervices to the God of our lives and comforts. This argument the Miniſters turne off with a Nil probat, ſerving God and his providence, ſtanding up in the gap, and going after his conduct (ſay they) are very neceſſary and goodly Pleas, when they are not miſ-applyed, but how doe they prove that taking and obſerving the Engagement is a worke of this nature, &c. This they touch not upon, we are perſwaded to enter the Engagement would be a diſ-ſervice to God, a breaking downe the gap, &c.
Anſ. 1. This perſwaſion of theirs they let alone to ſhift for it ſelfe, and win upon the Reader if it may be, without any reaſon to make way for it; they only tell us their minde, and that we knew before; we ſhall make bold therefore to caſt their perſwaſion over the barre, and number it amongſt the dead, as they doe our aſſumption, they teach us an eaſie way of anſwering.
2 It lyes not upon us to prove,Honeſtè ſuccumbit qui ſervit tempori, Sen. that taking the Engagement is a worke of that nature they ſpeake, goodly and neceſſary in it ſelfe; 'tis only conditio ſine qua non, a doore or inlet at this ſeaſon to that ſervice which is alwaies good and neceſſary, 'tis not for us to account that no ſervice of Providence (as thoſe Non-ſubſcribers doe) which we cannot performe in our owne way, or at our owne liberty; never man fell off from the Lords worke upon any temptation whatſoever, but he would tell us, he could not conſcienciouſly goe on, it would be diſ-ſervice to God, &c.
3 Though ſometimes their ſagacity**Caetitatis duae ſpecies facilè oecurrunt, ut qui non vident quae ſunt, & videre videantur quae non ſunt. Tert. Apol. creates an object, yet they ſeldome ſee what they had as leive were not to be ſeene, Iſa. 42.19. the owning that power which God himſelf ownes can be no conſciencious Plea, for declining a Morall duty;28 ſomewhat of this purport they might have taken notice of in our Argument, as the proofe of our aſſumption, which we ſpeake more to (according as we there referre them) in the beginning of our Plea; we are ſure that whatſoever is a ſtanding up in the gap, the laying a mans ſelfe aſide, or ſtepping behind the hedge in a ſurly diſcontent,‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Dem. in A•chy. 1 King. 19.4.14. that is not; though the Children of Iſrael had forſaken the Lords Covenant, throwne downe his Altars, and ſlaine the Prophets with the ſword, yet Elijah was not to be excuſed in making requeſt, that God would take away his life, ſo ridding him of his ingrate and troubleſome ſervice.
4 They require a commiſſion from God for the ſervice they are to do; this is good, we ſuppoſe they are Miniſters, they write themſelves ſo, hence 'tis preſumed they have a commiſſion from God for all Miniſteriall ſervice, and no man (for ought we heare) goes to take it away from them; if any thing be required of them which they cannot doe by vertue of that commiſſion, they may looke into theſe Scriptures, Pſalme 75.3. Mic. 6.8. and furniſh themſelves with another; we conceive they need not feare a deſigne here, or any danger in our advice, though we are told, they cannot but feare our ſtiling what we have done, and would have others to follow us in, A STANDING ƲP IN THE GAP, will prove a dawbing them with untempered morter, who are like Wolves, ravening the prey to get diſhoneſt gaine, Ezek. 22.27, 28.
Anſ. Prov. 25.15.1. What! Iracundiores Adria? ſoft words will ſooner breake the bones, here's another goodly inſinuation, they lift up their voyces like Trumpets indeed, but Non refert tales verſus qua voce legantar, had we any liſt to recriminate directly, or indirectly, we could tell them, that‖‖〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Cyr. Hier. Cat. l. 1. Wolves were on both ſides, ſome they ſay ravening the Prey, others we ſee in Sheeps cloathing, theſe look to their own way likewiſe, every one for his gain from his Quarter; the deſign is noble on neither ſide, if filling their own bowels be the end, if ſuch intereſts be yet, though diſadvowedly, driven on amongſt us, we ſhall patiently waite for him,Eſa. 56.11. Ezek. 22.25. who with righteouſneſſe ſhall judge the poore, and argue with equity for the meek of the earth; who ſhall ſmite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips ſhall ſlay the wicked, Iſa. 11.4.
292 Feare is wonderfully jealous,Quod timet eſſe putat. Ovid. and makes the worſt of every thing, ſo doe theſe Miniſters; we dare not account them amongſt thoſe which the Pſalmiſt ſpeakes of, that feare where no feare is; but unleſſe they had ſhewed us ſome reall ground for their feares, or prov'd our Morter untempered, they might have ſpared their application of that Scripture, Ezek. 22. and their pointing it againſt Engagers, it ſuites thoſe of the Lanca ſhire Aſſociation better, and gives a fuller blow to the Statiſts of their temper, and intereſt, who were tooth and naile for dawbing up a bargaine with the late King at Newport, against Covenant, Conſcience, and Religion, as the Scots could tell us, for if that lift were not to get diſhoneſt gaine we may ſtand and admire, but ſhall never be able to make any tollerable conjecture what the mens aimes ſhould be.
In anſwer to an Objection, pag. 13. of our Plea, we ſay, Tha ſubſcribing to the preſent Authority, concludes neither our approbatio•of what hath been done in order to the change of Government, no nor ye of the change it ſelfe. To this Declaration of our judgements touching that conſequence from the Engagement, which ex profeſſo moſt of all pincheth them, their reply is this;How a man can engage in the forme preſcribed, and not approve of, or conſent to the eſtabliſhment of the new, and the excluſion of the old (forme) is beyond us to conceive.
Anſw. What, will they never understand?Chauce• the forme preſcribed (ſo farre as we can ſee into the words, or they either for ought that yet appeares) neither requires our conſent to, nor approbation of the antiquating King, and Houſe of Lords, tying us only to ſubjection, and from a ſubverſion of the eſtabliſhment in eſſe, and therefore they might eaſily conceive the diſ-engagement of a mans conſent as to the change, notwithſtanding his perſonall engagement of ſubmiſſion to the Powers changed. To the proofe of this:
They ſay,We ſhall yeeld all that they alledge of the Engliſh ſubmitting to the Normane yoke, and of the Duke of Braganre to the Spaniard, but deny their inference, which ſhould be a parallel, but is not at all in the thing wherein they ſtand againſt us, which is the point of approvall of the change, for the Engliſh, and the ſaid Dukes ſubmiſſion was a conſenting to the change made by their reſpective invaders.
30To this we anſwer, It was indeed ſuch a conſent as theſe Miniſters yeeld to our preſent Powers, per force majore as the Dutchman calls it, there was a yeelding to the change, but that action, or rather that paſſion flowing from an il-logicall principle, conſtraint implyes the inward diſſent of the ſubmitters wil, which if prevailed upon to a conſent, it had been done with other manner of Weapons then thoſe the Conquerours uſed; there can be no proper conſent without a precedent ground of conviction upon the Judgement, but neither the Norman, nor the Spaniſh Knapſacks afforded any arguments congruous to ſuch a purpoſe as this.
But, ſay they, Thoſe Caſes and ours are widely different in point of conſcience, to whom was the wrong done by the invading Parties? ſurely to none (ſo farre as thoſe replyers repreſent) but to the Parties ſubmitting or ſwearing Allegiance, who could remit the wrong done to themſelves reſpectively, and transferre a Right over themſelves to their reſpective invaders, but in our caſe the wrong redounds not only to our ſelves, but to the Nation in generall, and to the diſ-poſſeſſed power, &c.
Anſw. 1. Who authorized you Sirs, for Advocates of the Nation in generall? ſurely the Subſcribers are a part of it; or for the diſpoſed power! have you the broad Seale of Scotland for this? but,
2 Thoſe who ſubmitted to the Norman yoke were no other then all the people, and that under a pre-eſtabliſht Magiſtracy, to which they were bound up no doubt, and pre-engaged by Oathes of Allegiance; aske the Elders, and they will tel you: could theſe Miniſters make the contrary appeare, they might plead a difference in the caſe, we know of none in Authority that receded from their owne rights, to give way or place to the Conquerour in England, therefore if engaging in our caſe would be a participation in ſinne, by conſenting to, and eſtabliſhing the change, theirs could not be without ſuch an acceſſarineſſe. But wel may the Ghoſts of our Grand-fathers reſt till ſuch a change as this finde them out; they knew if this Governour, or Government was diſ-enabled from giving them protection, they were free for another, Supremacy being ambulatory,Salus Populi. but the ſupreame Law faſt fixed.
313 Who can beleeve that the Dukes of Braganre‖‖Philippus ſecundus qui nequeex Luſitanorum voluntate, nequeex juſto bello poterat in Luſitania regnare, &c. D. Anton. de Souſa, Hiſt. li. 2. c. 3. conſented to their owne dethronement? Ingens telum neceſſitas, to this they gave way, or that the Portugoes approved Caſtiles uſurpation over him and them, if the preſent King of Portugals Grand-father had given away his right to the Crowne by ſwearing Allegiance to the Spaniard (as theſe rejoynders intimate) how could here-aſſume it as he did about 1640, and yet be juſtified? ſurely in both theſe caſes wrong was not done only to thoſe who of right were poſſeſt of power, which wrong they might releaſe the uſurpers of, but to the Nations in generall, over which the pre-authorized perſons could not transferre any right of power to thoſe who conquered and vaſſaliz'd them, ſo that our parallel yet holds good; to goe on therefore we inſiſt, that Powers irregularly and diſorderly changed, may be lawfully and conſcientiouſly ſubſcribed to, and owned as powers ordained of God: And here the whole Claſſes Votes with us, We ſay ſo too, if they have beſides that diſorderly entrance (ſay they) a lawfull calling or title conveyed to them.
Anſw. We conceive a perfect implicancy in what they here would ſeeme to grant us, for the condition which they annext to their grant, makes ſubmiſſion to powers diſorderly changed, an abſolute impoſſibility (ſaving their owne principles) this we prove thus; To ſubmit or give any countenance to perſons irregularly poſſeſt of the ſeat of Authority brings men under a participation of their ſinne, for (ſay they, pag. 22.) anent engaging to a changed power, We doe inſiſt that it doth neceſſarily carry in it an expreſſe conſent to the eſſentials, or executive acts of the change; tis impoſsible therefore that men thus perſwaded ſhould furniſh diſorderly intruders with a poſtuentionall power, and not ſinne againſt conſcience; to countenance them at all levels their principles, they cannot call any to authority without ſinning, who have no Baſis for their Authority before their call, and by this meanes Gods ſupreame right to a diſpoſall of the Kingdomes of the world becomes altogether null and vacated, and by conſequence the very Ordinance of Magiſtracy, when we cannot perſwade our ſelves of mans right (as the caſe now happens) for if this power be by the providence of God diſ-enabled from affording us protection, no other power (unleſſe of the ſame right, conſtitution, and formality32 with that to which we were pre-engaged) may be lawfully (by theſe principles) ſubmitted to as his Ordinance; Homo jam Deo propitius eſto, no doubt Sirs, but yee are the people, and wiſdome ſhall dye with you. Job 12.2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog. Laerr. de Gyſip.
To this one perſwaſion, viz. That neither Gods commands touching ſubjection, nor the Parliaments Act for ſubſcription, puts the ſubmitting conſcience either upon the approbation or diſ-approbation of the equity or iniquity of this change of Government wrought amongſt us, &c. They ſay, Here is a ſtrange confuſed Divinity, a conſcientious acknowledgement of a thing, and yet no act of conſcience exerciſed either by way of approbation, or diſ-approbation, &c. ye that built this labyrinth, lend your clue to lead us out.
Anſw. In returne to this wonderment of theirs, we muſt ſay, that had theſe ſmart Caſuiſts but taken notice, of the ſentence immediately preceding that they here alledge, they might happily have avoyded the charging confuſion upon us, or of confounding themſelves, and have driven this caſe of conſcience to a cleare and more ſatisfying iſſue then they have done; but ſeeing they have intricated themſelves, we ſhall endeavour to extricate them (as they deſire us) ſtep by ſtep.
1 The firſt ſtep is this, Governing Powers may be irregularly changed, and yet conſcienciouſly ſubmitted to, this is their owne acknowledgement at the top of the Page, if therefore they know the print of their owne feet, this ſtep they may ſafely take without our conduct.
2 The ſecond ſtep, it belongs not to perſons of a private ſpheare in times of conteſt about Soveraignty, deciſively to determine of the right, that pretenders to ſupreame power in the world have over us; conſcience cannot be ſuppoſed to demand that of every man, which is beyond the abilities and helps of moſt men, to attaine unto any certainty or exactneſſe in, viz. the knowledge of every parties pretention to Government, or the grounds of their claime.
3 The third ſtep, if the title or tenure of Magiſtrates concerne not private conſciences, then the innovation and antiquation of this or that order in publique Government, or the change of perſons in power with the equity or iniquity of either, concernes them as little.
4 The fourth ſtep, wher-ever men live and enjoy protection, the33 proper fruit of Magiſtracy, there the Ordinance of God is in being.
5 The fifth ſtep, this Ordinance of God which they ſee miniſtring to their good, they are bound to acknowledge, and (in whatſoever perſons it is ſeated) to pay homage unto it, Rom. 13.1, &c. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13. &c. this bindes Conſciences to a changed power, and yet puts it not upon the examination of the equity or iniquity of the change, as out of duty, much leſſe upon the approvall or diſ-approvall thereof, where we ſee the end of Magiſtracy performed, there Magiſtracy is in being we conclude, and where this power reſides we cannot be long ignorant, if we ſee who they are that miniſter to our good in this nature.
But let us heare what they ſay againſt theſe things:
Where God commands ſubjection, beyond all doubt he requires the conſcience to approve, or diſ-approve, the aſſent of conſcience muſt be of faith, and this cannot be without its inquiry into the equity or iniquity of the thing propos'd; this is the ſubſtance.
Anſw. The aſſent of Conſcience as to ſubmiſſion is of faith, when we ſee thoſe over us are Miniſters for our good in a judiciary, irreprovable orderly way, if we finde this inquiſition after the titles of men in power to doe us good, or to command us in order thereto, is not neceſſary for the binding of Conſcience; we heare very much of duty preſt by the Apoſtles upon the primitive Saints, private Chriſtians, towards thoſe impowred over them, obedience, prayers, honours, feare, tribute, &c. but not a word about diſputing or queſtioning their titles who were in civill ſupremacy; had Conſcience been ſo much concern'd herein, could they not have ſubmitted, and that out of faith too, without canvaſing the titles of the great ones in the world to Authority over them, or ſearching into the Right of their claimes and pretences to power, the Apoſtles no doubt, who inſtructed them fully to every good worke, would have left ſome light that they might not be at a loſſe in their ſearch after juſt titles in men to rule and command them, eſpecially conſidering how eaſily they might be benighted ere they could make up a judgement of faith in ſuch a difficult matter (Souldiers‖‖Ab eo tempore ſtatus Reipublicae fuit eò redactus ut penes exercitum atquelegiones populi Romani eſſet crean Caeſarem; hunc ad modum factus eſt etiam Caeſar Veſpatianus, &c. Sleid. De quatuor ſum. Imper. ita & Iuſtinus, &c. Evagr. li. 4. uſing now and then to carve out titles ill-favouredly34 for their Emperours with the ſword) and ſo they might be in danger of blinde obedience, but not a word of this that wee ſee; all the help they had for the diſcerning to whom they owed and were to pay obedience was this; they are for the puniſhment of evill doers, and the praiſe of them that doe well, revengers to execute wrath on them that doe evill, &c. Theſe are their adminiſtrations, not their titles.
To the caſe they put, to cleare the buſineſſe; we ſay, Conſcience is oftner reſolv'd in its doubtings from the cauſe, then the titles of perſons, or parties commanding both at once, as we beleeve moſt private mens Conſciences were in the caſe betwixt King and Parliament,2 Chron. 13. their Cauſe gain'd them more abettours then a knowledge of their competency to command and doe what they did; and this is the way we intend to take for the reſolving our owne Conſciences under ſuch ſcruples; If the title on one hand be not ſuch as that he who runs may read the juſtice of it; and,
Here they doe not take a caſe, but make a caſe, for,
2 The caſe they minde us of, runs but halfe parallel with that which we ſhall minde them of in the application, and 'tis like we both meane the ſame caſe, viz. our owne at this preſent; there may be granted two Parties claiming a title to rule over us, but there are not two actually commanding (as they ſuggeſt in the Hypotheſis) if the King of Scots Warrants come amongſt them into Lancaſhire, and Cheſhire now, (as ſometimes the Kings and Parliaments they ſay did to the ſame place formerly) 'tis more then we know, or heare of, and ſo can ſay little to it; we are ſure the Parliaments Warrants or Commands doe, though they finde not ſo much as a Potentia obedientiali, amongſt the Claſſes there; and ſuppoſing the ſaid King doth ſend any of his injunctions or prohibitions thither, we are ſure likewiſe that they are ſuch ſolitary wouldings, ſuch Perſonall commands, or ſcar-crowes from a non-King'd man, as would not have been owned by them from the late King in times of War before he was unking'd, unleſſe they were then Prerogative ſticklers, the contrary whereto themſelves profeſſe; we ſhall only ſay this more, that if a ſcrupling their title who now ſolely command (notwithſtanding their pretence to a title as35 faire as any others claiming) may abſolve or exempt the conſcience of any man from the tye of obedience, we muſt be forc'd at this time to deny many mens competency to the performing ſeverall ſuch morall duties, as they are at no time bound up from exerciſing themſelves in, but at all times tyed to be doing, ſo long as the Lord continues them to ſerve their Generations; now to proceed, We have ſaid enough before (ſay they) to diſprove the challenge of Authority upon meere preſent poſſeſſion.
Anſw. The claime of thoſe Powers over us being not thus bottom'd, viz. meerly upon the preſentneſſe of ſuperiority, what-ever they have ſaid againſt ſuch a challenge hurts us not, and that which they have faſtned upon our Authority to this purpoſe gratis, has met with an anſwer in its proper place; There is yet a knot remaining which they cannot untye, and that is, how the act for ſubſcription ſhould binde us to be true and faithfull to the Common-weale as now eſtabliſhed, &c. and yet not put the Conſcience upon approvall, or diſ-approvall of the change. We have led them already out of the maze wherein they profeſt themſelves loſt touching Gods command, for ſubjection binding the Conſcience without putting it upon the approbation or diſapprobation of the equity, &c. of a changed Power; and being helpt out of that labyrinth, we doubt not but they will looſe this knot with much eaſe.
In the next place, ſuppoſing this conſequence good (ſay we, P. 14.) That Subſcription drew with it a conſent to the change of Government, and an approbation of what was done in order to it; we conceive that both of theſe, without any injury offered to Conſcience, may be approved, the Parliaments Declaration, March 17, 1648. renders the former approveable to us, and as to the maine things done in order to this change, we ſhall ſpeake our thoughts in particular; This Declaration theſe Miniſters tell us, is neither in their hands, nor allowed to be under their conſideration, yea they affirme that ſome in high degree and office amongſt us have declared in open Court, that there is no change of the Government made.
Anſw. Peradventure the King of Scotland has bound up his forward faithfull ones in this Common-wealth, under the forfeiture of their Allegiance from looking into any ſuch dangerous36 Declarations, otherwiſe they might come into Lancaſhire, and Cheſhire ſurely; and theſe unſatisfied ones might have allowance to conſider them, being publiſhed for the whole world to conſider of; and for what was declared in open Court concerning our Government's being not changed, we ſuppoſe theſe Gentlemen beleeved it not, for ſome of them declared the contrary as openly in their Pulpits (we heare) to the faces of thoſe high officers, which we conceive they here relate to.
Touching that diſcourſe of theirs unto which we are referred for the diſapproveableneſſe of this change amongſt us, &c. we muſt tell them, as they doe us; it is not allowed to come under ours, or any mens conſideration, we dare only take the boldneſſe, being particularly concerned, to vindicate our own grounds, for ſubmiſſion from their confident exceptions, under which yet we conceive the ſubſtance of their Plea, againſt the lawfulneſſe of our preſent Authority is brought in, which how ſubſtantiall it is, we referre to the judgements of diſcerning ſpirits for a ſentence. Concerning the maine things done in order to this change of Government we ſpeak our thoughts, and they ſpeake theirs: As,
1 Touching the Parliaments declaring the People to be the originall of all lawfull power; To this indeed they ſay nothing, not reckoning it happily amongſt the eſſentials, or executive act of the change.
2 Touching their laying aſide the Houſe of Lords, which in effect they had done ſeven yeares before, in declaring, That if their Lordſhips refuſed to joyne with them in ſetling the Militia, they would proceed to doe it without them. To this their Reply is;
1 That they are not cleare in the truth of this Report, and if they be not, we ſay, there are ſeverall of their correſponding friends the Miniſters of London, who after conference had with them by ſome of the Members touching that buſineſſe, did approve of it, as a thing lawfull and neceſſary to be done; theſe men, we doubt not, will abundantly cleare them.
2 But thence we cannot inferre the juſtneſſe of an act, viz. becauſe it was done many yeares ſince; 'Tis truth we confeſſe, in caſe there37 was nothing elſe to juſtifie the thing but only the doing of it, but it was accounted an wholſome reſolve, and juſtified then, therefore the ſame thing cannot in it ſelfe be unjuſtifiable now.
3 But ſuppoſing it to have been done, and juſt in the doing, yet (as their laſt and ſureſt hold) they difference what the Parliament did in laying the Lords aſide then, from their laying them by now, by this diſtinction, Co-ordinates may exerciſe (ſay they) a cumulative or ſuppletive power upon the defectiveneſſe of one another, but they cannot put forth a privative power to take away one the other, which was done in this caſe.
Anſw. Nobis non licet eſſe tam acutis.
We cannot poſſibly divide the haire betwixt that ſuppletive act which the Commons did put forth, and that privative act which they tell us, is not allowed them to put forth, we thinke them tantamount or equipolent, and cannot but ſo judge of them till theſe diſtinguiſhers, or ſome other, ſhew us a difference betwixt co-ordinals acting without, and againſt the conſent of thoſe that ſtand in an equality of power with them (this the Commons did) and their putting forth a privative power againſt them; if it be ſaid, This was but once or twice done, and in caſe of neceſſity too; we ſay, if the ſame neceſſity revert over and over, the Lords might be laid aſide againe and againe, and if by their delayes and Negatives they continue to ſhew their implacable bent (as they did doe) againſt the ſenſe of the Commons, upon that account they were laid aſide temporarily, or at ſuch a ſeaſon; upon the ſame account they may be laid aſide for ever; To their illuſtration we ſay, that the Lords were not TRVSTEES, but ſate in Parliament for their owne intereſts, and as Prerogative-ſupporters, thus much we are told by ſuch as underſtand Parliaments better then we doe, in the Declaration, March 17. 1648.
2 But what if the Lords laid themſelves aſide (as ſome ſay they did, by not meeting upon the period of their adjournment) then they have no injury, if they receded from their owne right, what are we concerned in their being unhouſed?
3 Laſtly, ſuppoſing there has been injury done unto the38 Lords (for we make not our ſelves Judges of their Priviledges and Rights) yet we underſtand not how that injury can take away a Right from the Commons, or abſolve us of our ſubjection.
3 Touching their bringing the late King to a Triall, ſentencing him, and taking him away; this we mention as approveable by conſciencious men, and inſtance in Knox, &c. but for the rendring this approveable, they ſay, our ſole reaſon is, Fiat juſtitia ruat coelum; God is no accepter of perſons, he hath ſtrictly commanded that we take no ſatisfaction for the life of a Murtherer,Numb. 35.30, 31, 33. &c. Who hath he commanded, ſay they? all thoſe who are called to execute wrath upon evill doers, ſay we; and it ſtands every man in hand to ſee that they doe it, for at the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of man ſaith the Lord, Gen. 9.5. After ſome preparatives of this nature, they come to ſtate the point in debate, the queſtion betwixt us will be (ſay they) not whether ſome are exempt from the ſentence of the Law or no, (this it ſeems muſt needs be granted) but, who they are who ſitting in the higheſt chair of Magiſtracy amongſt us, have none placed by God above them to take cognizance of, and unſheath the ſword of Authority againſt their offences? upon this ſeat they would prove the King to be ſet, from the Oath of Supremacy, and the words of both Houſes of Parliament thus declaring,Exact. Collat. Pag. 727. We did, and doe ſay, that the Soveraigne Power doth reſide in the King, and both Houſes of Parliament.
Anſw. 1. It would be knowne indeed who they be that are elevated to ſuch a ſeat of eminency as that no hand may touch them? or whether there be any ſuch menin the World or no? what they here alledge lookes another way; they ſhould prove the King to be unaccountable, and they prove him only the ſupreame Officer of State, Ignoratio Elenchi, unaccountableneſſe is not a neceſſary adjunct of Supremacy, the higheſt in the world doe, or ſhould Miniſter to others, as Truſtees for the Publique, and this implyes their accountableneſſe; the wiſe King doth not ſay, Princes may not be ſtricken, but it is not good to ſtrike them for equity, Prov. 17.26.
2 Upon this ground they give us for the-Kings impunity, (if it hold good) both the Houſes of Parliament, and every individuall Member of both come under a neceſſary unaccountableneſſe39 and impunity likewiſe, as having (confeſſedly) all of them a ſhare in the Supreame Power; if the reſidence of Soveraigne Authority in any perſon or perſons makes them Juſtice-proofe, and this Authority reſides where we heard, in the Houſes as well as the King, then we underſtand not the legality of queſtioning and condemning Strafford, Laud, Hotham, &c. or how any the Members of either Houſes during their Memberſhip, ſhould be queſtioned by any perſons whatſoever; and ſo the Houſes of Parliament might become Cities of refuge, or Sanctuaries to the vileſt of men, who could get within thoſe walls, as well as to the King. Who can take away his Priviledge, or Prerogative, that is choſen to a ſhare in the ſupreame Authority? This is well argued Sirs, and if any one ſay the Major part of either Houſe may queſtion the Minor, we conceive not, if the reſidence of ſupreame Authority in that part conjunctly with the other, renders it unaccountable, as we are taught it doth, and as it muſt needs doe, if any man whatſoever by reaſon of his ſhare in Supremacy becomes invulnerable, as annointed with the ſoveraigne Oyle of impunity; therefore we contend, that no man whatſoever is thus placed above the reach of Juſtice, and conſequently, that ſuch as are impowred by a call to judiciall Authority, may and ought (as the caſe may be) to execute Gods Judgements upon the King. See what the rationall Scotch-man ſpeaks to this purpoſe, and if he ſpeakes not truth beleeve him not; he proves by various arguments that the King is under the La•, as King; amongſt which arguments one is this,Lex Rex, pag. 183, &c. Elſe theLord in making a King to preſerve his people, ſhould give liberty, without all Politick reſtraint, for one man to deſtory many, which is contrary to Gods end in the Fifth Commandement, if one man have abſolute power to deſtroy ſoules and bodies of many thouſands. Againe, That the King ſhould be under one Law of God, to be executed by men (viz. the Guardian Law of property) and not under another Law, Royalliſts are to ſhew a difference from Gods Word, Deut. 17.20. The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother, Pſal. 22.22. and ſo the Judges, or three Eſtates are not to accept of the Perſon of the King for his greatneſſe in Judgement, Deut. 1.16, 17. and the Judge is to40 give out ſuch a ſentence in Judgement as the Lord, with whom there is no iniquity,Pag. 235. &c. Againe, pag. 235. If God have provided that the King, who is a part of the Commonwealth ſhall be free of all puniſhment, though he be an habituall deſtroyer of the whole Kingdome, ſeeing God hath given him to be a Father, Tutor, Saviour, Defender thereof, and deſtinated him as a meanes for its ſafety, then muſt God have worſe, not better, provided for the ſafety of the whole, then of the part.
And laſtly, the Prelate taketh it for confeſſed (ſaith our Author) that it had bin Treaſon in the Santiedrin and States of Iſrael to have taken on them to judge and puniſh David for his Adultery,Pag. 241. and for his Murther, but he giveth no reaſon for this, nor any Word of God, and truly though I wil not preſume to goe before others in this: Gods Law, Gen. 9.5. compared with Numb. 35.30, 31. ſeemeth to ſay againſt them, nor can I think that Gods Law, or his Deputies the Judges, are to accept the perſons of the great, becauſe they are great, 2 Chron. 19.6, 7. and we ſay we cannot diſtinguiſh where the Law diſtinguiſheth not; the Lord ſpeaketh to under Judges, Levit. 19.15. Thou ſhalt not reſpect the perſon of the poore, nor honour the perſon of the mighty, or, of the Prince, (for we know what theſe words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉mean) I grant, it is not Gods meaning that the King ſhould draw the Sword againſt himſelfe, but yet it followes not that if we ſpeake of the DEMERIT OF BLOOD, that the Law of God accepteth any Judge, great or ſmall, and if the Eſtate be above the King, as I conceive they are, though it be an humane Politick conſtitution, that the King be free of all co-action of Law, becauſe it conduceth for the peace of that Common-wealth, yet if we make a matter of Conſcience, for my part, I ſee no exception that God maketh, if men make, I crave leave to ſay, A facto ad jus non ſequitur, thus far that honeſt publique Advocate.We ſee all Scotch-men are not41 of the bloud Royall, and when we heare this mans reaſons,Junius Brutus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I. M. ſenure of King, &c. and thoſe which other men have brought againſt exempting the King from the Co-action of the Law, anſwered, we ſhall then thinke men have ſome cauſe and ground for their hainous reſentment of the proceedings againſt the late King, and for that great ſtirre they make in the world about them.
But ſuppoſe (ſay they) the King notwithſtanding his place to be liable to capitall puniſhment by the Parliament, it remaines to be clearly prov'd that they who did it were qualified with that power.
Anſ. We muſt conceive (plowing with their owne Heifer) that by that power, they meane Parliamentary power, and this is the power that they who did it were choſen to, and enabled to act till they diſſolved themſelves; that they are eſſentially Judges, and ſo men competent and quallified to doe Juſtice is ſolidly aſſerted and demonſtrated by the above-cited ſtrenuous Author,Lex Rex. and though the Houſe hath been diſmembred (for that we know theſe Miniſters hint at, taking the excluders for Presbyterian, when indeed they were royall Martyrs) though it be not ſo full and formall a power as we could wiſh; yet we ſay againe, an injury takes not away a right; the remnant of them, after the ſecluſion of ſome, and the defection of others, farre exceeding that number which by Law (as we are informed) makes an houſe, and till they unhouſe themſelves, retaine that authority to which they were elected, ſuppoſing the proceedings were in ſome reſpect extraordinary, yet here againe the Scotch-man (who ecchoes well in Lancaſhire) will helpe us out; Elias cauſeth to kill the Prophets and Prieſts of Ball, ſaith he, 1 King. 18.19 according to Gods expreſſe Law; tis true, it was extraordinary, but no otherwiſe extraordinary then it is at this day, when the ſupreame Magiſtrate will not execute the Judgement of the Lord, thoſe who made him a ſupreame Magiſtrate under God, who have under God Soveraigne liberty to diſpoſe of Crownes and Kingdomes, are to execute the JVDGEMENT OF THE LORD, when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect; ſo Samuel Killed Agag, whom the Lord commanded expreſly to be killed, becauſe Saul diſobeyed the voyce of the Lord, 1 Sam. 15.32.
But in the laſt place, if this be made to appeare (ſay the Miniſters) yet by vertue of religious Oathes and Vowes which have42 been taken, we conceive the King ought to have been exempred from that proceeding.
Anſ. It was the Kings choyce‖‖See his anſwer to the Pet. of Right. Maxime, that he owed account of his actions to none but God, and theſe men ſwallow it roundly of late, but this Prerogative being deſtructive to the end of Magiſtracy, and rendring it an inconceiveable diſcommode (conſidering the corruption and temptations of great ones) rather then an advantage to any people, is abſolutely incompatible in its owne nature to any mans perſon though in ſupreame truſt, this being cleare, the ſupervention of Oathes for the preſerving his perſon alters not the caſe, if any ſuch Oath or Vow be lawfull, we conceive it muſt be conditionall, ſince the declared minde and Lawes of God are the boundaries which men may not ſtep beyond; In priviledging their Kings, if they lift them up by Oath higher then they ought to doe, or inveſt them with impunity whatever their demerits and miſ deſerts may be, even by deſtroying the Nation habitually; the matter of that Oath we doe inſiſt is, res illicita, and ſo it falls a peeces, but ſurely no man can be ſo irrationall as to deny the latent veine of a‖‖Vide Ames Caſ. Conſ. l. 4. cap. 22. Queſt. 8. condition running through every promiſe or Covenant where the contrary is not expreſt; if therefore we Covenanted for the preſervation of his perſon conditionally, 'tis all one as if we had not covenanted at all, the condition proving apparently impoſſible and inconſiſtent with what we promiſed, ſtreines upon the promiſe and revokes it, if abſolutely and in expreſſe termes excluding all condition (as ſurely we never did) the Covenant were unlawfull, ſetting man up above Gods Ordinance, and ſo has no obligatory power at all in it, but enough of this: ſeeing theſe Miniſters in this page call the Kings death an impertinency, we ſhal now be content to let it paſſe for one, after this forreigne velitation anent it, which we could have wav'd likewiſe very contentedly had we not been charg'd, as having ſaid little in our Plea to render it approveable, beſides fiat juſtitia ruat coelum.
They tell us, pag. 26. That they will only touch upon what we ſay is, and they judge it not to be approv'd in order to the change of Government, yet here (forgetting themſelves ſurely) they bring in ſomewhat as introductory to it, and charge the maintaining of it as approveable upon us, which43 we neither grant properly introductory, but forinſecum quid, being not done by thoſe who chang'd the Government, nor yet that we touch upon it as approveable, for the contrary might be ſeene in the page immediatly preceding, where we preſume that the Parliament end Army might doe ſome things in order to the change, which themſelves hold only juſtifyable upon the plea of neceſſity; this it ſeems could put no ſtop to their fury, but they will needs have the Engagement (from what cogency of Reaſon we cannot ſee) to draw in the Engagers to a neceſſary approbation of the ſuppoſed miſcarriage, viz. The breach of Parliaments priviledges, by forcing the Houſe, excluding the Members, &c. for, that which I promiſe to be true and faithfull to, I muſt needs ſuppoſe and avow to be juſt and good; but we ſay, that by this rule all our forefathers that ſware Allegiance to the Conquerour, muſt be ſuppoſed to avow his Authority juſt and good, which theſe Gentlemen will implead, unleſſe their conſent made it ſo.
2 That the authority may be owned as juſt and good (the Lord himſelfe owning it) we have prov'd before, notwithſtanding the meanes of attaining it, as to mans acting in them be juſtly diſavow'd and abhor• 'd,aa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chryſ. we can diſtinguiſh the Powers that be, from the ſinfulneſſe of their introduction, therefore fuppoſing the truth of what followes; That our preſent Rulers entrance into, and continuance in power, depends upon theſe two con-cauſes, their owne and the Armies force, what is this to the ſubmitting conſcience, who knowes of no other powers that be? (however theſe came to be) and therefore concludes, If he reſiſts the power, he reſiſts the Ordinance of God; unlawfull introductions, neither taking away the being of the Powers, nor diſ-obliging conſcience from obedience.
But let us examine their aſſertion a little, 'tis ſtrange that the Parliament and Army ſhould act as they did, without the conſent and concurrence of any men beſides themſelves, if their Authority depends meerly upon their owne and the Armies force it ſhould needs be thus; but we can tell them of a great number that concurr'd with, and conſented to, what they did antecedentià, and of many more that gave their ſubſequent conſent (which was ſufficient (they ſay) to make Leah, Jacobs Wife) to the change of Government, and ſo eſpouſed the preſent Authority. Peradventure few did, or doe conſent to it44 in Lancaſhire, what then? ſure the Claſſis of Miniſters there, is not like the Frogge, who thought the Ditch hee liv'd in was all the World, thus the fire-edge of their aſſertion is taken off.
3 Suppoſe a man gets that which he hath a right to, and keeps poſſeſſion of it by force, does this denude him of his title? Is it unjuſt in him after this force, which before he uſed any force he had a juſt claime to? eſpecially if it be no otherwiſe recoverable, as it is uſually with publique liberties, where Prerogative has once faſtned its clawes in them, making that its free-hold or inheritance which was originally in the peoples power to diſpoſe of? now let us minde you of a pretty Alluſion; Two Sons of a loving Mother, heare her cry out in her Bed-chamber, as likely to be abuſed by vile Fellowes, one of theſe Sons ſtrives to unlocke the doore and cannot (the key having contracted a ſeaven yeares ruſt) the other unhinges, or breakes open the doore, and comes in timely to reſcue her, is be juſtifiable, yea, or no? certainly though force he not the arbitor of right, yet it followes not, that whatſoever is gotten by force is vainely gotten, the poſſeſſion of our powers may depend upon force, and their cauſe be never the worſe for all this.
3 It would be knowne what theſe men meane by that which they terme their owne force; If the prevalency of our preſent Rulers Judgements, it is an allowable force, but an improper one, if we indulge them not the liberty of Voting their ſence, they muſt be all (as the Lord Faulkland ſaid of Finch) ſilent Speakers, if we allow thus much to them, then what is this force ſtill? A power or competency for the managing and carrying on their Votes and Orders, if we gratifie them not with this force, the freeſt Parliament that ever ſhall ſit in England will be Vox & praeterea nihil, therefore ▪
4 It muſt needs be the Armies Force which adnuls, or makes our preſent Authority baſe-borne, if any force doe it, the former force (ſay they) could give no juſt title,See the Declar•t. Febr. 17. 1648. pag, 15. & Declarat. March 17. 1648. pag. 22. and without this could not availe to their advancement. But Sirs, if the Army acted gratis or without command, in this heavie buſineſſe of ſecluding ſome Members, this being an extrinſicall force could not poſsibly denude the remaining numbers of a right to act authoritatively; the Kings routing of five Members did not breake45 the Houſe, and if five doe it not, an hundred and fifty will not; if the Army in this doing acted the Houſes pleaſure, or by the call of the Houſe they acted as ſervants, and is this that which unauthorized the Houſe? Suppoſe the Parliament had called Sir William Waller, Stapleton, or Balfore, to their doore, upon the refuſall of many to ſwear the vow, 1643. and had commanded them to ſeculde thoſe who then were ſecluded for diſguſting that Engagement, and their renitency to the worke of that ſeaſon, would this have vacated the power of that remnant? Surely no, the Houſe it is granted may preſcribe conditions to it ſelfe, and the Members which refuſe them are ipſo facto unmembred, ſo that the outing or ſecluding them is at moſt but aggravated by the Souldiers interpoſition, it is not made another thing; ſuch the caſe may be therefore, as that men may enable themſelves by force to act anthoritatively, and poſſeſſe themſelves of Authority by force, and be juſtified; ſuch we inſiſt was that our caſe in debate, but upon ſuppoſall it was not ſo, we ſay againe, that ſinfull meanes or introductories render not an authority uncapable of a conſciencious mans owning; yet it ſhould ſeeme by what followes, that thoſe Miniſters Boanerges like (out of a pretended zeale to the Covenant) could willingly ſound an alarme to the undertaking,— Nimium placet ipſe Caton•— Si bellum civile placet — Lucan. viz. the diſ-poſſeſſion of our preſent Powers, a good minde they have that Warre ſhould be raiſed in behalfe of thoſe who remaine yet Confeſſors for the Covenant, in a certaine ſence, and they would not ſtick to call it, an**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Adm. ad Gentes. holy Warre, what elſe meanes this Divinity of theirs? A preſent impediment or privation of the act, creates not an impoſſibility in the thing, and ſo diſſolves no Oath; ſome the Covenant bindes to counſell, command, pray, and pay, others to hand force. for the remedying the breaches of it; halfe an eye may ſee the drift of theſe inſinuations. But it would be canvaſſed a little, whether the Covenant gives them a call to endeavour the ſubverting our preſent Parliament to redeeme Parliament priviledges, yea, or no? (this they muſt needs plead for here, otherwiſe they beate the ayre, their argument is diſſolute, and does them no ſervice at all) if it indeed gives them a Call, and Commiſſions them to this worke, viz. the breaking our preſent eſtabliſhment, this Commiſſion is convey'd to them by ſome Mediativa, for the Covenant hath Warre in it but vertually, and46 therefore is no formall warrant for the raiſing of Armes; now we cannot thinke that the Parliament (as we call it) will thus mediate, or Commiſſion any perſons to ſuch a Project, or that the King (as they call him) can doe it of himſelfe, (unleſſe he muſt be a Sultan, Mogull, or‖‖Though in Scotland an Ahenian royalty ſerves his turne. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. de regno. abſolute Lord over us) his Fathers Commiſſions of this nature during our late Warres uſed not to be much own'd in Lanc•ſhire, nor his Commands obey'd being ſolitary, perſonall, and Anti-parliamentary, but peradventure they may expect a call in its ſeaſon from the Scots Kings Divan, or a confluence of thoſe Attoms which were ſwept out of the Commons Houſe for making ſuch a duſt in the yeare, 1648. from ſome Juncto or other, of hot Covenanteirs, called by the name of a Parliament; if ſo, they exclude theſe in place, and null their Commiſsions by the heinous ſin of our preſent Rulers, uſurpation; yea, if ever they command they muſt be enabled to it by ſome force too, ſtill worſe; if force when it ſerveth mens turnes have not the happineſſe, as it uſually hath, to paſſe for no force, or elſe to be adjudged Orthodox, neceſſary, and legall, could we but ſee therefore how the Covenant-Commiſsions run, it is ten to one but wee ſhould finde them capable of ſome exceptions.
In the next Paragraph we finde what we laſt ſpake to verified (by the Judgements of theſe Miniſters touching a certaine force upon the Scotch Parliament when time was) viz. Force when it**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tatian: Aſſyr. befriends us, and our intereſts, is no force; You tell us (ſay they) of a force in Scotland, by which the Power there in being was brought in, which was greater then ever our Parliament groaned under here; they ſay, It is not congruous to conclude others by thoſe preſidents which we our ſelves will not receive a bound from; cannot we mention ſuch a thing then without concluding others by that preſident? farre be it from us to conclude this Claſsis by a Scotch preſident, though we thinke it would goe farther then a better argument, and doe more toward the concluding of very many amongſt us, who doate upon Scottiſh modes exceedingly, and hang upon the lips of their Mufti, and oricular Conſiſtorians; but theſe Gentlemen are not cleare in the matter of the Fact there; We tell them (ſay they) of a force, and truly we conceive they need not be told any more of it; yet they doe not beleeve that we can alledge that the Parliament there was called,47 chofen, and conveened, or hath ſate and acted under, or been diſmembred by any force, nor that we have heard of any actuall force upon any Parliament in Scotland, ſince the Covenant here was first taken.
Anſ. Theſe words are very warily packt together, here are creepes•now if ever they ſhould be put to a ſtart, and it concernes them in this point not to lye too open, not an actuall force, but what if we can tell them of a force which wrought as ſtrongly Per contactum virtualem, as that force of the rude Apprentices did upon our Speaker in 1645? not upon any Parliament, what if it was upon the Committee of ſafety? their Parliament contracted? will not this ſerve the turne? this is a force in Scotland ſure, and that is it we undertake to tell them of; now to the thing in queſtion, they cannot beleeve that there was ever a forc't or diſmembred Parliament in Scotland ſince, &c. what thinke they of the Parliament which ſent Hambleton into Lancaſhire in England? reſolv'd into a Committee of ſafety? routed head and tayle, branch and raſh by Arguile, with ſome other unauthoriz'd perſons? This was the only Nationall Authority then in being, and if that be a force in Scotland which is accounted ſo in England, out of doubt this was a force, the Notoreity whereof gives not any latitude of diſ-beleefe; true, this aſſembly was not diſ-membred, it was utterly unbodied, and the Parliament next ſurrogated, or ſucceeding, was choſen by Rules, framed and preſcribed by the prevailing Arguile and his Party, countenanc'd and manag'd herein by the power of an Engliſh Army, that this was not only a force, but a greater force then ever our Parliament groan'd under, will appeare by this Parallel.
1 Scotland had none of thoſe who were Members of the old Parliament (not garbled, but routed) ſitting and retaining their Authority after the force, England had a Parliamentary number.
2 We called not in a Forreigne Power to disband our Authority, but it is very well knowne Scotland did.
3 Our Parliament Members which ſate and acted, after the force, were all choſen (by ancient rules) and that long before the force too, thoſe in Scotland who then ſtept into the Seat of Authority, were not only choſen De novo, but choſen by rules48 newly framed, the very framing of which was ſo arbitrary and violent a fact, that in England thoſe who had come in upon ſuch a ſcore ſhould never have been acknowledged the Ordinance of God.
4 Their routed Members were diſ-enabled from ſitting any more in their former capacity, ours have the liberty to reſume their places if they pleaſe, as many have repented and done, ſo that the Scotch Authority does not only depend upon a Force, but upon a greater Force then ours in England,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Our in ference from this Force in Scotland, ſo uſefull to the Kirk there, and ſo in-offenſive, as it ſeems, to the Miniſters in Lancaſhire & Cheſhire that they judge it no force, was this; Hence we conceive that Parliament priviledges may be ſometimes looked at as formalities, rather then ſacred and indiſpenſible rights, viz. when the greater number of Parliament men ſet themſelves in a way of utter ruining, rather then of building up and eſtabliſhing a Nation on the ſure foundation of peace and righteouſneſſe. Certainly Sirs, if any Priviledges ſhould enable a Parliament to ruine us, as good we ſate content under the mercies of a Lawleſſe-Royall-Prerogative as of a Parliament ſo priviledged, yet this inference of ours the Gentlemen take too much to heart, that even—〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.it ſtirres them out of meaſure,Theecr. ſo that incontinently they fall into a fierce Parexyſme. This gloſſe (ſay they) calls not ſo much for an anſwer as for admiration and execration, and aske, Is this all the reverence and force which we give to Vowes, Proteſtations, and Oathes? truly as little as they ſay we reverence them, we yet reverence them as highly as the Kirke of Scotland does, which are ſometimes (we ſee) diſpenced with in its reſpect to Parliament Priviledges, we Covenant for them as ſervants, not as Maſters to the Publique good, though they be not ſuch light formalities but they may be lawfully Covenanted for; what is a ſacred thing in its place, becomes a ſhadow if miſ-plac'd, and unduly preferr'd, it may be Sacriledge to purſue that, which zeale and duty well inform'd let goe, as inconfiſtent with what is moſt ſacred; the Scots allow of a ſubordination in the matters of the moſt ſolemne Covenant (as we ſhew'd in our Plea) and ſubordinates, we know are in a ſenſe formalities, diſpenſable withall, ſurely if49 ſet in ballance with the more ſacred and ſuperiour ends encovenanted for; ſo are Parliament Priviledges (though in themſelves grave and grand realities) if they ſtand in competition, or be compared with reformation, publique liberty, and ſafety, thoſe SANCTA SANCTORUM of the Covenant. And now let wiſe men judge whether this inference or gloſſe of ours (as the Miniſters call it) be ſuch an execrable heinous one, as they would render it, and whether it be a dangerleſſe and religionleſſe excuſe of the Armies force?
1 Is there danger in preferring publique good, before the priviledges of any particular men, or any ſort of men whatſoever? this would implead not only the Armies force, but alſo the Selfe-denying Ordinance, Sirs.
2 Religion lets us not know to give flattering titles to men,Job 32.21, 22. much leſſe to indulge them with undue Seraphicall inreſpective priviledges, this is reall and tranſcendent adulation; how comes it to be religionleſſe then, to give publique weale and ſafety an higher roome in our Covenant, then Parliament Priviledges? every publique ſpirit ſavours ſuch ir-religion as this, Covenants are conſervatories of theſe Priviledges, whiles improv'd to publique ſervice, otherwiſe men might ruine a Nation cum privilegio, and plead Covenant for their juſtification; but this is prevented by that limitation in our Solemne League and Covenant, viz. in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdome; This we alledge in anſwer to that queſtion of theſe Miniſters, whother there be ſuch a condition (as we ſpeake to) reſerv'd out of the covenanted preſervation of Parliament priviledges yea or no? The letter of the Covenant notes out this reſervation or condition, providing for Parliament Priviledges as things ſubordinate and ſub-ſervant to Religion and Liberty; but (ſay they) Doe we finde any where in Scripture that ſubjects are diſ-engaged from ſubjection to, and maintaining of the rights, or the Authorities lawfully placed over them in caſe of their maeleadminiſtration?
Anſ. There were many ſuch texts of Scripture to be found eight or nine yeares agoe, when men cryed out, To thy tents O Iſrael, and Miniſters cryed, Curſe ye Meroz, &c. Subjection was not with drawne from King Charles, nor Armes raiſed againſt him, and he beaten from one place to another without ſome50 Scripture warrant, but if men vomit up their principles and build again what they deſtroyed, they are to be dealt with upon another ſcore.
2 There are ſome rights or particular priviledges belonging to Magiſtrates in all conſtitutions (we conceive) which may undergo a dominution yea be peſſundated, Salva authoritate, perſonall rights may at ſome feaſons interfer with common ſafety and peace, which authority never doth, therefore in the queſtion propounded there is fallacia compoſitionis. But
3 Tis a thorny ſolemne point, and we dare not ruſh on unheedily in it, let the grave and bold Lapinian lead us the way, in his Treatiſe touching peoples withdrawing ſubjection from their King, or otherwiſe called the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, he thus expreſſeth himſelf, it can hardly ſeem probable, much leſſe credible, that any**Negari non poteſt quin populus aliquis neceſſitate coactus poſſit ſe vendere Regi, ut omnes ſint pl•ne ſervi ipſius, Gen. 47.23. ſed nequehoc unquam praeſumi debet, quando non eſt manifeſtum, quia contra mores eſt, & contra naturae inclinationem, nequelicitè honeſteve ab ullo principe quaeri poteſt, quia ejus officium eſt communem utilitatem populi praecipué ſpectare; nequedeniquecivitas aut politia eſſet quae illum in modum conſtitueretur, ſed herile dominium & ſervitium monſtroſum. Ames. caſ. conſc. lib. 5. cap. 25.free people whatſoever, when they voluntarily at firſt encorporated themſelves into a Kingdom, or ſet up an elective or hereditary King over them, would ſo abſolutely reſign up their ſoveraign, popular, originall authority, power and liberty to their Kings, &c. as to give them an abſolute irrevocable, uncontrolable ſupremacy over them, ſuperiour to, irreſtrainable, irreſiſtable, or unalterable by their own primitive, inherent, national ſoveraignty, out of which their regall power was derived, for this had been to make the creator in ferior to the creature, &c. a moſt bruitiſh, ſottiſh, inconſiderate, raſh action, not once to be imagined of any people, and had our Anceſtors, or any other nations when they firſt erected Kings, and inſtituted Kingly government, been askt this queſtion, whether they meant thereby to transfer all their National Authority, Power, and Priviledges ſo far over to their Kings, &c. as not ſtill to reſerve the ſupremeſt power and juriſdiction to themſelves to direct, limit, reſtrain, their Princes ſupremacy, and the exorbitant abuſes of it, when they ſhould ſee juſt cauſe; or ſo, as not to be able ever after TO ALTER or diminiſh this forme of Government upon any occaſion whatſoever? or if their Kings ſhould turn profeſſed Tyrants, &c.51 patiently to ſubmit themſelves to their deſtructive proceedings without any reſtraint of them, or calling them to account for thoſe groſſe irregularities? I make no queſtion but they would have joyntly anſwered that they had never any imagination to erect ſuch an abſolute irreſiſtible unlimited Monarchy, or plaine Tyranny over them, and that they ever intended to receive the abſolute originall ſoveraigne juriſdiction in themſelves, as their native hereditary Priviledge which they never meant to diveſt themſelves of.
Well therefore, preſuming the truth of this doctrine, as being true yeſterday, and comming from the pen of one ſo Orthodox; and which is more, a Non-Subſcriber, a Martyr for the Cauſe of the Covenant (as they call it) we ſhall adde but little, the male-adminiſtration of Monarchical authority may be ſuch, ſaith Mr. Prynne as that it may diſ-ingage duty-bound Subjects from ſubmiſſion, and make them reſume their owne native originall ſoveraignty; and if this hold true againſt Kingly power and ſupremacy, it holds true againſt power in any other forme whatſoever, though lawfully plac'd over a people: in a word, if that ſoveraignty or Power concredited by a Nation to any perſon or perſons as Truſtees, be forfeitable (as our above-named author will affirme and avow) then there may be ſuch a thing as a diſ-ingagement from ſubjection in the people, ſo far as any authority is limited, tis reſiſtible. (This we dare tye our ſelves to make good) and then the caſe is clear, the diſſolution of ſubjection neceſſarily followes, but if our ſuppoſition ſhould prove groundleſſe, and our aſſertion weake, if Power or Authority be an unforfeitable free-hold, and abſolutely irreſiſtable all our lawes for Publique Safety, Advantage and Freedome, which any way tye the hands of our Rulers, are meer mock-guardians of property, and moſt perfect nullities; yea, we may then write folly upon the very wiſdome of our Progenitors, their capitulations, and taking ſecurity from Princes and Magiſtrates for their good behaviour by any Parchment devices, this would be but ridiculous vanity, if the perſons empowred or intruſted may not be withſtood in their incroachments, exorbitances and wretched expilations, wherewith they exerciſe the people under them: Yea, if they may not be unpowred, as the late King was ſome years before he dyed, in52 caſe they perſiſt in a ruining way; He (viz. the Magiſtrate) is the miniſter of God to thee for good, ſaith the Apoſtle, And if he miniſters to our ruine, whoſe vice-gerent is he in that miniſtration? Muſt we needs be held under the bond of duty, notwithſtanding he thus miniſters? yea, and that habitually and inflexibly too? our paying Cuſtome, Honour, Tribute, is inforced (as we have noted before) from the Magiſtrates Miniſtering to our good, and if this argument be taken away, his claime to ſubjection is a poor ſeeble thing.
Thus we have re-inforced our Arguments for ingaging with the preſent Authority over us, and paſt the brow of the hil, the heat of the Encounter, it remaines only that we ſee how their Reſerves againſt ingaging will ſtand the diſpute. We examined the validity of theſe in our Plea, to that purpoſe they are urged againſt us.
One of them, viz. The Oath of Allegiance we found had no life in it, and with the other, viz. the Covenant after ſome ſhort debate we parted friends as we met. But theſe men putting life into the one, and emnity into the other againſt us, preſſe them into their ſervice a new, and give them the advantage of a full blow at the Engagement, leaving it not any ſhift or guard at all to ſave it ſelfe by, not any ſalve invented (as they ſay) by us to clude the force of theſe Oathes. Well,
Firſt, Touching the Oath of Allegiance, We do ſtill inſiſt, that the ground of it is our protection, and that it binds us not but to our actuall protectors ſucceſſively. They acknowledge That Protection is a ſecondary ground of Allegiance, and conſequently of the Oath, But contend that Gods ordination and image imprinted upon the Magiſtrate as his deputed Ʋice-gerent: is the firſt and cheif ground.
Anſwer, What if this be granted? their advantage againſt us will not be much greatned, in applying theſe notions to our preſent purpoſe, we aske, Where is that Magiſtrate, that bears this image ſpoken of? is he in being amongſt us or not? And how ſhall we know this? Why, do we receive due and legall protection? and by whoſe mediation is it conveyed to us? Now by ſatisfying our ſelves in theſe laſt Queries, we come to a reſolution in the two former; We cannot ſeparate Gods Ordination of any perſon or power from that which is the very office53 and end of that power, nor underſtand the impreſſion of his image any where without ſome argument of it. Faine would we ſee ſome Rules that may inſtruct and inable us to judge of Gods ordinance, or helpe us to find it out, when there is no miniſtery for a peoples good: We are utterly to ſeek how to diſcern this image they ſpeake of, without its ſhining forth upon us by protective emanations; tis to little purpoſe to tell us of a man in the clouds, a deputed vice-gerency, if we have no feeling at all of its activity, as to our well-being, nor ſee any thing like the beamings forth of Gods image upon us in goodneſſe and righteouſneſſe.
Metaphyſicall Magiſtracy is a thing we cannot skill of, and the caſe which theſe Divines put, viz. Of Subjects riſing up in arms and diſ-inabling the Magiſtrate from protecting them (and ſo freeing themſelves from Allegiance) helpes us very little in the buſineſſe, tis a thing begged of us, not following upon our Principles, that a people in ſo doing diſcharge themſelves of the debt of Allegiance, if they fall under the Magiſtrates captivating power, in this caſe they looſe the benefit of Subjects, we affirme, but not that the Magiſtrate looſes his title to their Allegiance, becauſe they put from themſelves his ſuppoſed Protection, which if they may have it, is all one to conſcience as if they had it: But now they muſt ſhew us how we may come by protection from any other powers then thoſe that are over us, or elſe they ſay nothing to our caſe? nor convince us that the debt of our Allegiance is due to any other, but thoſe to whom we pay it, notwithſtanding the Oath urged againſt us; it is not any mans pretended power or obligation to protect us, that can be ſatisfaction to us in the condition we now are; we ſay, That people is in danger to be very miſerable, whoſe well fare is no otherwiſe ſecured then by a Kings obligation to protect them. In Anſwer whereto inſtead of ſhewing us the compleatneſſe of this proviſion for a peoples ſafety, they ſhoot at Rovers, and tell us that by the Oath of Allegiance, the King not the people is ſecured. Truly we never thought that this Oath was provided for the peoples ſecurity, but being told that the Magiſtrates obligation to protect us, is all the proviſion God hath made for the ſecuring our properties, liberties and lives, this we impugn, and there may be other ſecuritie for our wellfare,54 though the Oath of Allegiance be none of it.
Secondly, they retort upon us, miſerable is that Prince, or that Power, whoſe title to Allegiance depends upon his actuall protection, &c. true, if they intend to be Nero's, Caligula's, Heliogabula's men of wild-fire ſpirits, who (**L. Catelina in Senatu, M. Cicerone incendium ab ipſo incitatum dicente; ſentio, inquit, & quidem illud ſi aqua non potuero, ruina extinguam. Val. Max. è Salluſt. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Syn. See Prov. 16.12 20.28.31.3. Prov. 29.14. Cataline-like) care not to ſacrifice Nations at the Altar of their ambition and tyranny; if their aymes be to make their Houſes great, and to that end doe trample upon the poore, if they leave off to doe Judgement, and are as roaring Lions, and ranging Beares, pitty but they ſhould be miſerable, but if their deportment be as becomes Gods Vice-gerent, their Titles are well enough ſecur'd, the Throne ſhall be eſtabliſhed by righteouſneſſe, ſhalt thou reigne becauſe thou cloſeſt thy ſelfe in Cedar? (ſaith the Lord to Jehoiakim) did not thy Father eat and drinke, and doe judgement and justice, and then it was well with him? what better ſecurity can be given to Princes then this? what deſtroyes their Title and right in Scripture account, but unrighteouſneſſe, tyranny, and wickedneſſe, Ezek. 21.25.27? and thou profaine wicked Prince of Iſrael, whoſe day is come when iniquity ſhall have an end; thus ſaith the Lord God, remove the Diadem, &c. I will overturne, overturne, overturne it, and it ſhall be no more untill he come WHOSE RIGHT it is, and to him I will give it.
Kings (ſay we) have got a knack to diſ-oblige themſelves, &c. but ſay they, 'Tis impoſſible they ſhould be diſ-obliged in conſcience, and yet remaine Kings, and for fact how can they doe it?
Anſ. 1. Did not the late King profeſſe, that he could not in Conſcience yeeld to many things which the Parliament declared it his duty to grant? as the abolition of Epiſcopacy, Litturgy, the puniſhing of Delinquents? &c. but perhaps they'l ſay, being thus diſ-oblig'd of his duty, in Conſcience he remained nothing, if ſo (as they ſeeme plainly to ſuggeſt) we ſhall kiſſe their lips for giving ſo right an anſwer.
2 What de facto Kings have lately done in this point, Europe's ſad experience ſhall ſpeake, where Lawes have been too ſhort Beds for Monarchs to ſtretch themſelves upon, and ſcarcely in any corner is there a ragge of freedome left the Commons, unleſſe empty formalities (ſuch as, will you have this man reigne over you) paſſe for freedome indeed, and as little ſecurity, unleſſe written Lawes will ſecure them, which is all the defence and ſhelter we ſee theſe Miniſters allow them; but the Parliament55 was more favourable and good when time was,Declarat. March 4. 1647. and more Orthodox in our Judgements. We ſhall offer to the conſideration of all Engliſh-men (ſay they) that however they may pleaſe themſelves with their Magna Charta, their Courts of Juſtice, high Court of Parliament, &c. all this ſignifiesnothing, &c. Ridiculous are thoſe Lawes which may be violated by force, and by force ſhall not be defended, &c.
3 Their complaint of Subjects diſ-obliging themſelves is a wide retortion, this they ſay, many now doe (for their pleaſure and advantage) but, ſuch a Buskin will fit any legge, we beleeve that if ever theſe men diſ-obey'd the late Kings perſonall commands, or diſ-own'd his Warrants in Cheſhire, &c. other men have ſaid as much of them as now they ſay of others, ſo that for their advantage they could diſ-oblige themſelves of Allegiance too, if to tell them ſo was to prove it; we diſcharge our ſelves of no homage due to any ſet over us by God, any that afford us, or in likeli-hood may afford us quiet and legall protection, but becauſe we refuſe to eſpouſe the Scots Kings quarrell for Dominion and Lordſhip here, which was to put our Sickle into another mans Harveſt, therefore they tell us, we diſ-oblige our ſelves, &c. But content your ſelves Sirs, for untill you can perſwade us, that the Powers which ARE NOT are ordained of God,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
4 The next thing they finde themſelves agriev'd withall, and thinke good to take notice of is, our apprehenſion touching the Coalition, or the meane of a People and their Rulers cloſing together; we conceive in this tranſaction a mutuall ſtipulation betwixt Magiſtrate and people, they ſay, 'tis not alwayes mutuall, but ſince they grant that it is ſo with us in England in a ſenſe, which we take to be our ſence, we ſhall proceed to examine their exceptions againſt that rule, which we aſſumed withall as a ſafe and true one, viz. That if he who promiſeth mutually will not performe what he promiſeth, our obligation is not binding, this (ſay they) is no true rule.
1 Firſt, Becauſe what the Prince and people promiſe or ſweare to each other, they were bound to by the Law of God and Nature before ſuch Oathes; This they dictate to us, telling us it is evident, but we ſee no ſuch thing; ſure we are 'tis none of thoſe principles that are〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉carrying their evidence in themſelves, neither56 doe they offer us any proofe of it. Beſides this, in our caſe (ſay they) this is evident by the conſtitution, Law, and continuall practiſe of the Kingdome, which to us is ignotum per ignotius, and did we know it, it would not ſway much with us, unleſſe we could come acquainted with the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉as well as the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉thereof, yet we ſhal be content to ſuppoſe it; wel therefore, be it ſo, Subjects cannot be conceived bound without all condition. 'Tis preſumed ſurely that they ſhall receive protection if they ſtand bound, for the Magiſtrates debt is every whit as due as the peoples, and if ſo, our Oath cannot render that abſolute which before was but conditionall, unleſſe in the letter of it, it excepts againſt all condition; let us heare their other Argument.
2 Secondly (ſay they) Becauſe the Covenants between Prince and people are abſolute and irreſpective, they are not as two parts of one and the ſame convention or Covenant, they make not one Indenture interchangeably ſealed on both ſides, &c. How prove they this? why forſooth, firſt, becauſe they ſweare at ſeverall times, a proper Argument to prove an Independant Covenant, may not many men promiſe the ſame thing under a condition, and yet tye themſelves to it by Oath, ſome at one time, ſome at another, and he to whom the promiſe is made engage himſelfe at a diſtinct time too, to all thoſe who ſhall ſo ſweare? people cannot be ſo formall & punctual in indenting with their Princes as they may be one with another, yet this makes nothing againſt the cogent equity and neceſſity of a Relative covenant. Secondly, becauſe they ſweare to performe a Morall duty of the fifth Commandement; here it is preſumed that all Morall duties are to be performed ir-reſpectively, and without condition; we deny this latent propoſition, we conceive a debt of Morall duties as juſtly due and payable from us, to thoſe who are over us in the Lord, as to our Civill Rulers, yet we are not tyed to pay it but upon condition, viz. of their labour amongſt us, or for their workes ſake, 1 Theſ. 5.12, 13. 1 Tim. 5.17. in caſe our Shepheards be Idol Shepheards, is their claime to maintenance and eſteem from us valid? we are told the contrary by a**Dr. Ames. Haec non debentur ratione tituli, ſed propter ordinationem divinam, & operam impenſam; idcireò nequehominum creaturis dedeptur neq, prorſus indignis. Caſ. conſc. li. 5. c. 24. faithful Shepheard, and we thinke there are Idol Shepheards of two ſorts, viz. Politick or‖‖Geneſ. 49.24. Pſal. 78.71, 72. Zech. 11.8.17. Thus the Graecians entitle their Prince, or Ruler,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Peoples Shepbraid. Magiſteriall, as well as Eccleſiaſtick, or Miniſteriall. Time was57 when ſome of theſe Miniſters of Cheſhire and Lancaſhire accounted diſobedience a Moral duty, viz. when the late King was beſide himſelfe, or under an incapacity of commanding; this makes us thinke that (whatever they here ſpeake) they never ſware irreſpective allegiance. It ſomewhat ſtartled us to ſee them parallel Allegiance with conjugall duties, and to offer it as the proofe of their argument, making the relations betwixt Prince and People, as infringible as the relation betwixt Man and Wife, we preſently expected that they ſhould prove Magiſtrates and their people to be one fleſh, as they twaine are, but failing in our expectations, we ſhall let the lame alluſion goe, and tell them in anſwer to what followes, that, Non entis nulla ſunt accidentia, the King of Scotland never promiſed any thing to us, nor was called ſo to doe that we know of, and therefore cannot be ſaid to refuſe performance; if this rule that we have vindicated diſ-obliged us from Allegiance to the Father, the Sons claime to Allegiance, or his putting in for it ſhall not much trouble us.
Next, they lift up their hands to cripple an Argument, which (they ſay) is lamely propounded, viz. the formall cauſe of a promiſſary Oath ceaſing, the Obligation it ſelfe ceaſeth, but the formall cauſe of Allegiance is protection, therefore we conceive our ſelves looſed from Allegiance, according to that Oath, its correlate and foundation being taken away, &c.
Here they cannot ſee our reaſon for want of Logick, and quote Dr. Saunderſon (their familiar in this point) to prove the formall cauſe of an Oath to be the invocation of Gods Name; It is not a Punctillio, or formality of Logick ſhall breake them and us if reaſon doe not, they might eaſily have ſeene what we meant by the formall cauſe of that Oath, viz. the foundation or reaſon of it, and that this is proper ſpeaking, yea and Logical too; Dr. Ames, and old Henderſon, quoted by us in that very Page and point, will maintaine, ſo that if we may be admitted to take Cauſa formalis for that which we doe, and may take it, their reaſons from the relation betwixt forma and formatum, to invalidate our aſſertion doe them very little ſervice; and ſomething we could bring out of Dr. Saunderſons Prelections which would not pleaſe their Worſhips neither very well in the application.
But we are told, 'Tis a wide over-ſight to ſay that the formall cauſe of Allegiance is protection; and we tell them againe, that we are58 not tentativi Dialectici, pickeering Logicians, neither doe we diſpute or contend about formalities, it ſufficeth us if the reaſon or foundation of Allegiance be protection, this is it which we ſpeake to, and this they ſpeake nothing againſt, when they prove Allegiance to be due where protection neither is, nor may be had, or which is all one, where the Magiſtrate is no Miniſter of God to a people for good, and ſo indeed no Magiſtrate, then we ſhall acknowledge that they enervate our reaſon, till then they doe but ſcratch the face of our Logick, and in ſo doing,Job 15.2. utter vaine knowledge, and fill their bellies with the Eaſt Wind, which wiſe men ſhould not doe.
The Northerne Subſcribers goe on thus; When we ſweare homage to our Lord and Superiour, who afterwards ceaſeth to be ſo, the obligation ceaſeth; can this Oath binde us now our Superiour is not? however taken away by might or right, Caveat actor. The Northerne Non-ſubſcribers reply thus; That the Party ſworne to is not, or that his ſuperiority is not, we neither of our ſelves ſee reaſon to judge, nor in theſe Authors finde we any argument to prove.
Anſ. 1. It ſeemes then that they have ſworne Allegiance to another ſince the King was taken away, for ſure we are be is not, and his Superiority is not; if ſo, Valeat quoad valere poteſt.
2 Becauſe they complaine for want of Arguments to prove the diſ-obligation of this Oath, or that our Leige Lords Superiority is expired, we ſhall direct them to one which they went round about, and yet it ſeemes had not the good hap to light on, and it is this: If we ſweare Homage to the Kings Succeſſors, they muſt either ſucceed him before we can pay or performe it, elſe our Oath tyes us to his Children, or Heires while he lives, as well and fully as when he is dead, &c. This they will not averre, therefore failor in ſucceſſion proves the expiration of the ſuppoſed Superiority, and renders the Oath diſ-obliging.
But how comes the expiration of the intereſt of our late Kings Children about? Firſt, meere abſence out of the Realme (ſay they) cannot debarre his title who is next Heire to the Crowne, our Engliſh Chronicles gives us many preſidents of Princes comming to the Crowne by the death of their reſpective Predeceſſors, who (though abſent at the commencing of their title, were acknowledged, and their regnancies imbraced during their abſence, as Edward the firſt for inſtance, &c.
59Anſ. But they ſhould have inſtanced in one who was not acknowledged, and had Allegiance paid him though his regancy were not embraced, and that would ſuite our caſe indeed, this which they alledge proves that Edward the firſt did de facto ſucceed Henry the third, notwithſtanding his abſence, &c. but they ſhould prove that Charles Stuart which now it doth de facto ſucceed Charles that was in his Government, notwithſtanding his abſence from us, (and then as we told them) we ſhall yeeld our Allegiance due; but,
Secondly, no act of them that poſſeſſe the place of power, they inſiſt, can put an end to the title and being of that Soveraignty ſworne to in this Oath, as to conſcience; this they tell us is largely argued in their firſt part.
Anſ. 1. Whether they could of Right put an end to that Soveraignty or no, concernes us very little, unleſſe by the Engagement we ſhould be drawne to a participation in the act (which they neither prove in the firſt nor ſecond part of their Diſcourſe) certaine it is that they have done it, and conſequently either theſe Gentlemens Allegiance is expir'd, or elſe if they continue to pay it, and pay it not to the Powers that be, they pay it to a Non ens, or an Jſhboſheth, a King without a Kingdome.
2 We are ſo fully perſwaded of their power and competency to diſ-mantle, and lay aſide King-ſhip, ſo fully inſtructed in their ſufficiency who have done it, that if engaging be a guarding the doore, that none enter into that Office more (as they inſinuate) we dare ſtand in that doore to guard our preſent Rulers, and in ſo doing, thinke our Allegiance duly paid. We never ſware Allegiance to Kingly Power, but to our Royall Protectours, neither can we be termed his Leige people, who is not actually our Leige Lord.
Touching that Maxime, viz. The King cannot dye, we thus expreſſe our diſ-reliſh;A King dethron'd is dead in Law, and a King lay'd aſide, or dead, dyes in Law; otherwiſe there could be no ſuch thing as an Inter-regnum, &c. but we are told hereupon, that ſuch as the laying aſide of a King is, ſuch is the inter-regnum which happens by that meanes, viz. it is de facto, and not of right, and therefore alters not at all the point of title or property, when you make good60 and lawfull the preſent laying aſide, then we ſhall embrace the inter-regnum.
Anſ. 1. We affirme not that there is an inter-regnum now, and never may we have more cauſe to call it ſo, nor are they deſired to owne the preſent Authority as a Chas'me or intervall of regall power, a Common-wealth ſounds as well as a Kingdome every whit, and may we live under a Democracy we ſhall never much luſt afteraaFaelicitatem ego ſic definio, reditum uniuſcujuſquerei ad ſuum principium. Mirand. Heptap. the happineſſe of a Monarchy againe; we know that the kindes ofbb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog. Laert. in Plat. Magiſtracy are humane Creature for the Creators glory, one of them as lawfull as another, and that ſucceſſive Royalty is next of kin to tyranny; neither doe we beleeve any of the Royall Progeny to be ſuch**Du Pleſſis progreſ. 62. ex Abb. Urſpurg. Ziſca's that we ſhould deeme our ſelves Orphans without them.
2 We told them in our Plea that the Parliaments Declaration ſatisfied us touching the equity, and neceſſity of the change of Government amongſt us, we judge it needleſſe and miſ-becomming us to meddle any further then we have done, What can the man doe (ſaith Solomon) that commeth after the King? Eccleſ. 2.12. yet we truſt that ere long we ſhall ſee their cauſe pleaded better, and far more convincingly then they themſelves have pleaded it: But to goe on; We ever thought the Kings Coronation to be his actuall inveſtiture with power, &c. this the Miniſters ſay was but a Complement, then ſay we, his Coronation Oath was no more, and thus it ſeemes we were complemented into Slavery; but Sirs, from the beginning it was not ſo, all the antiquity in Bodley's Library will atteſt this, yet being they ſo pleaſe, let it paſſe for a complement now, ſince we are like to have no more ſuch fooling or complementing amongſt us, till Vrſa Major, and Vrſa Minor meet together.
Laſtly,Page 22.If any of the Kings Children doe de facto ſucceed him as King (ſay we) or Heire his Power, we ſhall be their Leige people, but for a ſucceſſion DE JVRE, as we are made no Judges of any ſuch thing;ſo, &c.
Hence the Replyers draw mickle advantage, and ſugaciouſly redargue us of ſinning againſt Conſcience, in keeping our Allegiance we know not from whom, If we be the Leige People61 of any of them upon ſuch a ſucceſſion as you expreſſe (ſay they) is it becauſe your Allegiance and Oath would binde you to it? Aſſuming this as granted, they conclude from it, that the Oath of Allegiance is acknowledged in force by us.
Anſ. 1. In caſe any of the late Kings Children ſhould de facto ſucceed, they will be then the powers that are, their regnancies being embrac'd by our repreſentatives would create them a title to our Allegiance, till then their claimes (if ever they had jus ad rem) are dead as dead can be, that Soveraignty to which they pretend, having laine in the Grave ſeverall yeares already.
2 'Tis none of our Callings to judge of that ſucceſſion de jure, to which any great ones of the world may pretend for rule over us, neither does the Lord put ſubmitting Conſciences upon ſuch an Inqueſt, as we conceive;'Tis not morally poſſible, ſaith one, for private men to have a true inſight into ſuch a buſineſſe, becauſe all claimes amongſt men depend upon the concurrence of many circumſtances which in the way of juſtice give to one, and take away from another, a right to the ſame; the incidences of which circumſtances, changing the nature of rights and claimes to places, private men cannot poſſibly in their ordinary way (wherein they are bound to ſtand, and walke)come to any certaine knowledge of; and conſequently ſuch rights cannot be ſuppos'd to fall under their Umpirage. But waving this Plea at preſent, (as being a reſerve whereof we ſtand in no great need) theſe two particulars (the ſumme of what we have dogmatiz'd in this point) are to us cleare as the day.
1 The foundation or reaſon of our Allegiance as payable to Kings or Queenes of England ceaſeth; we receiving protection from no ſuch perſons
2 The Relativum formale of that Oath is extinct, that Soveraignty under which the Oath was exacted, being devolved into their hands who neither owne the name nor thing of Kingſhip.
Hence we conclude our ſelves alleviated and aſſoil'd of its obligation, unleſſe by that Oath we ſtand bound to make a King or a Queen to heire our Allegiance, which deſigne, the letter of the Oath is no whit guilty of forcing upon us.
62Now in the laſt place we muſt re-examine how wonderfully the Covenant befriends theſe Royaliſts,That〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉behinde. and whether Monarchy, the Goard they are ſo fond of, grow in this Garden or no? formerly when this Covenant was entred into, Monarchicall power humbled, and proſtituted, cry'd out thus: Call me no more Naomi,Ruth. 1.20. but call me Mara, and Covenanters were then its bittereſt enemies, how come they now ſo paſſionately to court this Helena, and make the Covenant ſerve for a Spokeſman? is Monarchy another thing, or is there a freſh gloſſe now upon neglected Royalty?Juven. ſurely — Facies non uxor amatur; well, we ſhall not aske why Spaniels when they are beaten fawne upon us? but how the Covenant comes to ſtrike up a Match betwixt Presbyterie and Monarchy? if it provides indiſpencably for Kingly Government in the letter of it, we are ſatisfied; but we ſee theſe Gentlemen quit the letter, and retire to the preface of it, certainly Sirs, Ad•triarios deventam eſt, you are ſhrewly thruſt at, if none of the Covenants Articles will ſtand by you, but you muſt needs fall unleſſe the Preface lend you an hand, 'tis a pretty kinde of argument this;The Kings Poſterity is mentioned in the Preface, ergo Kingly Government is provided for in the Covenant, or that which is to be ſeene in never an Article of the Covenant, yet muſt needs be there, becauſe ſomething which ſounds like it is in the Preface. How could the honour and happineſſe of his Majeſties Poſterity be before our eyes in Covenanting (ſay they) if they were no where included in, or provided for, by the Covenant?Now inſtead of asking this queſtion, they ſhould have argued thus, viz. the happineſſe of the Kings Poſterity is provided for in ſuch or ſuch an Article, therefore its certainly covenanted for; and this would have ſtricken us ſtone dead; we thinke the Articles of the Covenant are the Covenant, and the Preface only an introductory, no eſſentiall part of it, the frame thereof (being only declaratory of the Covenanters then conceptions, and reſolutions) not running like an Obligation (as the Covenant Articles doe) inforceth to a grant of this; but ſince we are put upon anſwering an Interrogatory inſtead of an Argument, this ſhall be ſaid to their queſtion.
1 It is not neceſſary that whatever men have before their63 eyes in Covenanting (eſpecially when the ſubject is Arbytrary) ſhould be provided for, or included formally in their Covenant; put caſe a man be highly injured by ſome unworthy perſon, and having him under his power, promiſeth to deale as favourably with him as may be, out of reſpect to his Family and Poſterity, becauſe if he falls they are like to fall too; now though the Promiſer hath before his eyes, the happineſſe and welfare of his Poſterity, in whoſe behalfe he makes the promiſe, yet his Poſterity is not formally and expreſly concluded, intereſſed in, or provided for, by that his promiſe.
2 Let us grant for this once, that proviſion is made by the Covenant for the honour and happineſſe of the Kings poſterity, it cannot hence follow (which is the point in queſtion) that Monarchy comes within the compaſſe of the Covenant, or that it makes proviſion for the everlaſtingneſſe of Kingly Government, for the Kings Poſterity or Children may be both honourable and happy, and yet neither Kings nor Queenes.
3 But in caſe proviſion be made for King-ſhip by the Covenant, yet this proviſion cannot be deemed abſolute,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Medit. on the Covenant. but conditionall, ſo the late Kings perſon, and perſonall Authority were provided for, and yet both of them now laid in the duſt; Salvo foedere Nationali, that clauſe in the preſervation of Religion, &c. which the King ſaid, was of a dangerous limitation as to his Perſon, muſt be acknowledged of as dangerous a limitation as to King-ſhip, the being whereof maybe ſuppos'd as much inconſiſtent with Religion, Liberty, &c. as the late Kings perſonall ſafety, ſo that ſtill we are where we were.
The Preface thus ſhrinking from the ſervice it was call'd to, one help at maw they have yet left, and that is the Declaration of April, 1646, which without faile will make the Covenant open its mealie, mouth, and ſpeake aloud for Monarchy; but as we inſiſted in our Plea, ſo we doe ſtill, that we are not bound by the Covenant to maintaine any thing beſides the letter, and obvious ſence of it, it being unreaſonable to faſten any Poſt-nate, or occaſionall Declarations upon mens Conſciences in this caſe. Here theſe Miniſters finde out two contradictions (ſure they are very full of contradictions‖‖Ictericis quibuſdam lutca videntur omnia, item vertiginoſis omnia circumagi — cui amarer in lingua eſt, amara videnter omnia. Seal. Exercis. 265. within, that they thus pluck the ſtraiteſt lines without to make them lye croſſe) but theſe aeriall croſſes vaniſh like Antipherons Image, which had a being meerly in his64 fancy. Firſt, ſay they, This ſeemes to us not only to croſſe what the Commons in their Declaration (April 17. 1646. ) aſſume to them at their peculiar, viz. That the Covenant in caſe of any doubt ariſing, is only to be expounded by them, by whoſe authority it was ſetled in this Kingdome.
Anſ. 1. What makes this to the weakning of our Poſition? We ſuppoſe that the ſence of the Commons expounding the Covenant otherwiſe then the Letter will beare, may without preſumption be deem'd unreaſonable, and their expoſition, (eſpecially if it be poſtnate) unreaſonably impos'd upon the Conſciences of Covenantiers, wil theſe Miniſters judge themſelves reaſonably bound by any mens ſenſe, when in Conſcience they conclude it not the Covenant ſenſe? we conceive no, becauſe
2 They will not admit the preſent ſenſe of our Commons touching the Covenant, notwithſtanding they are as authentick Interpreters of it as any we know, or as any they tell us of.
Secondly, We contradict our ſelves (pag. 18.) where for the ſenſe of this very clauſe (ſay they) you will not leave men to their owne judgement of the Letter, but referre it to the Parliament to unfold it. Deale ingeniouſly Sirs, did we ſo? we ſpeake indeed there to this purpoſe, viz. That we account not our ſelves but the Houſe of Commons competent Judges, whether the Kings Perſon and authority could have been preſerved, and the maine ends of the Covenant obtain'd, yea, or no? Is this to allow them a power, or latitude of binding mens conſciences to what ſenſe of the Covenant they pleaſe by a poſtnate Declaration? Here is an unpardonable ſayling in this deduction, we ſpeake nothing at all in that place touching the ſenſe of the Covenant, our words are theſe:If the Kings preſervation was conditionall, we muſt leave it to the determination of thoſe who are choſen to judge, and conclude what is conſiſtent with our Liberties, and what not, whether the things mainely Covenanted for, or the condition of the Covenant could have been obtained, and preſerved, with the preſervation of the Kings Perſon, yea, or no?And now Sirs,
Let the world know upon your ſecond thoughts, whether in theſe words by our owne confeſſion, we can be concluded to65 judge it reaſonable that the Parliament ſhould faſten poſtnate, and occaſionall declarations upon mens conſciences touching the ſenſe of the Covenant? we conceive you will find your ſelves heavenly wide and beſides the book in raiſing the inference, that which followes therefore in theſe authors (inſtead of an anſwer to what we aver, touching the alterable nature of Declarations) is full as wide from the buſineſſe they had to ſpeake to, they ſay the ſenſe of an Oath, or Covenant is unalterable, and we ſay the letter of the Covenant (no after-declaration) makes that ſenſe out to us, here is no claſhing betwixt theſe propoſitions: Therefore haſtning towards a concluſion, we ſhall briefly vindicate, what we ſub-joyned in our Plea, for the clearing our Averment touching the alterableneſſe of that Declaration 1646. viz. The obligation of a promiſe muſt needs ceaſe, if the ſtate of things and perſons be ſo altered, as that in the judgement of wiſe men, thoſe who promiſed or declared ought, cannot be thought to have willed the including ſuch or ſuch an event in the promiſe: Here, ſay they, is a little miſſing the marke.
Anſwer, Not of the marke we aimed at, the frame of that objection, to which, in our Plea we undertooke a reply, forcing us to ſpeake both to the Parliaments interpretation of the Covenant in reference to Kingly power, and likewiſe to their Promiſe, that they would maintain the government of the Nation, by King, Lords, and Commons, as to the former of theſe, we affirme, that no poſtnate interpretation (that may be ſuppos'd to have more or leſſe in it then the letter of a Covenant) can be reaſonably impoſed upon the conſcience, neither do we ſee cauſe to judge that the Parliament by their above named Declaration intended to elucidate or interpret the letter of the Covenant. To the latter, we ſay, that although ſuch and ſuch things were declared for, yet declarations (as they here acknowledge) are alterable pro re nata and therefore are of no perpetuall obligation.
Let us hear what they ſay, to our reaſon or evidence brought to prove this, viz. The obligation of a promiſe muſt needs ceaſe, if the ſtate of things and perſons be, &c. after a diſtinction premiſed (to very little purpoſe) about**Touching their inſtance in the caſe of the Gibeonites, Joſ. 9. ſee Ames Caſ. conſc. l. 4. cap. 22. Queſt. 9. particular and generall willing the incluſion of an event in any promiſe, they come to this concluſion66 Such events as may make the performing of the promiſe a ſinne in the Promiſer, infringe the obligation, theſe in the judgements of wiſe men are deem'd to be excluded to the Promiſer, but the event brought in by us, as falling out in the Parliaments caſe, viz. The Kings implacability and inexoribleneſſe (as we groſly enough ſtile it) they ſay, is not to be ranged amongſt events of that nature, they might have performed their promiſe without ſinne, and it ſeemes they did intend to include the Kings perſiſtency (thus they mollifie our expreſſion) not excepting against it, after ſeverall of thoſe addreſſes made to him, divers of them before the Covenant, most of them before the Declaration, April 17. 1646. ſo that the greateſt part of his perſiſtency was precedent to the making ſome of thoſe promiſes, &c.
Anſ. 1. If after all their experience had of the Kings preſiſtency in a ruining way, and all their hopes of bowing him to a complyance with their juſt deſires, extinct, the Houſe of Lords by their delayes and Negatives in matters of higheſt moment making it appeare too, that they drew the ſame way with him; if after theſe ſad experiences the Parliament had ſacrific'd the peace and welfare of the Nation to the intereſts of King and Lords, we cannot but deeme it had been a very ſinfull thing, a betraying their truſt, a ruining the Nation, a giving us up to a ſeven-times worſe ſlavery then at their firſt convention they found us in; and we can ſee nothing here alledged by theſe Divines, though we looke longly for it, to perſwade us of the contrary; they only ſay, it had not been matter of ſinne in the Commons to have made good that Declaration of which we are ſpeaking, but for this we want evidence.
2 The Kings perſiſtency in his way was that very event which put the Commons out of a capacity or poſſibility of ſerving the Publique with his advancement, an event to be wondred at by all wiſe men;Declar. of. March 17. 1648. and therefore in the judgements of wiſe men not includible in the promiſe: The Commons themſelves tell us, that upon their making that Declaration they were confident the King would have conformed himſelfe to the deſires of his people in Parliament, and that the Peers who remained with the Parliament would have been a great cauſe of his ſo doing, and therefore certainly they intended not to include his preſiſtency, or the Houſe of Lords67 declining the publique cauſe in their promiſe,Si aliquid incautius aliquem j•••ſſe contigerit quod obſervatum inpejorē vergat exitum illud ſalubri conſilio mutandum noverimus, &c. Soter. Epiſt. ad Epiſc. Ital. Charſum. Concil. Ann. 163 Concil. Toler. 8. Can. 2. we conceive they were not bound at that inſtant expreſly to except theſe events, they ſhewed what their exception was, very reaſonably when (after all their fruitleſſe endeavours to win the King) they voted no more addreſſes to him; peradventure this vote is interpreted one of the Parliaments ſwervings from their principles which theſe Miniſters minde us of, but we cannot ſo judge of it, that principle which reſpects the Kings Perſon and Authority, having an expreſſe condition joyned with it, ever ſince the Covenant was entr•d into, therefore, for ought we know, they might have voted no more addreſſes ſooner then they did, that famous and ſafe limitation ſaving the Covenant harmleſſe had they done ſo, and the emergency of an event (as if confeſt) a warranting the change of Lawes and Declarations, may juſtifie the Commons in receding from what they had declared about governing the Nation by King, Lords, and Commons, yet theſe aſſaylants have not done with us, but ere they leave us will get betwixt the joynts of our harneſſe by a pretty ſleight blow, a pure ſubtilty, the Kings inexorableneſſe was not any change, ſay they, but a going on in the way he was when the promiſe was made, and therefore cannot be urged truly as a change of a perſon or thing, to releaſe the Parliament of their promiſe in his behalfe, truly this is ſubtile nihil, for we muſt tell them, that, as to our caſe, in the judgement of wiſe men, there is not any imaginable difference betwixt the failing of an event fully and confidently expected, and the failing out of an event utterly unexpected, the Kings flexibleneſſe was the event confidently preſumed, and made the ground of what was declared concerning him by the Parliament, and his not changing to their minde, together with the Houſe of Peers changing from their mindes, (viz. their ſence) may be tollerably called a change of Perſons, (ſubverting the foundation of that promiſe) the one not doing what was expected, the other doing what was not expected; but the King was not ſo ſtiffe as is pretended it ſeemes, for he did not hold out after ſeaven addreſſes; We ſuppoſe, ſay they, that Treaty at Newport was one of the ſeaven, no Sirs, it was the eighth,Declar. March. 17. 1648, p. 12. if they keep a true account who declare it ſo to the whole world; neither was he then inexorable, but contrarily yeelded to more then had been deſired of68 him, in former addreſſes to him: Did he ſo? well, but did he grant enough? peradventure thoſe who treated with him had no minde to aske what they ſhould have ask'd, ſo we are told, thoſe Members proceeded to make ſuch Propoſitions to the King at the Iſle of Wight for a ſafe and well-grounded peace,D•clar. Jan. 15. 1648. as if they had been granted and kept (of which there was no probability) would have returned the people againe to their former ſlavery, &c. yea, this Treaty was entertained upon ſuch Propoſitions as the King himſelfe alſo ſhould make, which was formerly held to be ſo deſtructive to any well ſetled peace, as neither the Houſes of Parliament, nor the Commiſſioners for the Kingdome of Scotland did thinke fitting to admit, when he was in his greateſt height of power; whether now is here ſeene the Kings bounty to the Treaters, or their prodigality to him; he never would yeeld to recall Ormonds Commiſſion (as we are informed) granted in the time of the Treaty, nor that Epiſcopacy ſhould be aboliſhed, only ſuſpended: (Oh! royall bounty) nor laſtly, that any one Delinquent ſhould be capitally puniſhed, one only (according to the Covenant no doubt) being offered unto him, namely poore David Jenkins; in the meane time, the worthy Treaters let him alone with his negative voyce, and Booke of Common Prayer, &c. brave daubing; ſo that the Scottiſh Conſiſtories had cauſe to lift up their voyces againſt acquieſſing in the Kings Conceſſions at Newport, as being deſtructive to Religion and Covenant: But, the Houſe voted theſe Conceſſions a ground to proceed upon for the ſettlement of the peace of the Kingdome.
Anſ. We have heard of ſuch a Vote indeed, but 'twas to us a myſterious Caball, we could never get acquainted with the reaſon of it, no more then with their reaſons for re-calling thoſe Votes of non-addreſſes to the King, made upon ſuch and ſo many reaſons of great weight, unto the leaſt of which there was never any anſwer given; deſigning Statiſts uſe not it ſeemes to play above board, but the reaſons of adnulling that Vote (for proceeding upon the Kings Conceſsions) are viſible, Parliament Votes and Parliament reaſons doe well together, unleſſewe ſhould deny the goodneſſe of our Cauſe (ſaith the Parliament) which God hath adjudged on our ſide,Declar. Jan. 15 1648. by the gracious bleſsings of ſo many ſignall Victories, unleſſe we69 ſhould betray our friends, who have engaged with us upon our Votes of Non-addreſſes to the hazzard of their lives and fortunes, unleſſe we ſhould value this one man, the King, above ſo many Millions of people whom we repreſent; and unleſſe we ſhould ſcorne and contemne any peace which the great God of Heaven and Earth, (our aſſured helpe in our greateſt diſtreſſes) hath given us, and that we muſt relye only upon ſuch a peace, which the King (a Mortall man, and our implacable enemy) ſhall allow us, unleſſe we ſhould give up our ſelves to the ſlaughter, and ſuffer our owne Members to undermine the Parliament and Kingdomes Cauſe, unleſſe we ſhould ſtake all to the Kings nothing, and Treat with him who hath not any thing to give us, &c. And laſtly, unleſſe we ſhould value the bloud of ſo many Innocents, and the Army of ſo many Martyrs, who have dyed in this Cauſe, leſſe then the bloud of a few guilty perſons by what name or title ſoever ſtiled, we could doe no leſſe then repeale thoſe Votes before ſpecified, as being highly repugnant to the glory of God, greatly diſhonourable to the proceedings of Parliament, and apparently deſtructive to the good of this Kingdome.
And here we ſhould cut off our Web, but that for a cloſe we muſt needs remember what in a margicall note they tell us we forgot, viz. That Scripture, Job 34.18. and that Morall rule, De mortuis nil niſi bonum, and why? becauſe we call the Kings perſiſtency by no ſofter a name then inexoribleneſſe, and implacability; plaine dealing is a jewell Sirs, the vile perſon ſhall be no more called liberall, nor the Churle ſaid to be bountifull, Iſa. 32.5.
1 Therefore we did not forget that text in Job, but theſe gentle Doctors forgot to take in the 17 verſ. with the 18. we read them both together, and then they expound one another, and chide the Claſſis for putting them aſunder;Job 34.17, 18. Shall even he that hateth right, governe? and wilt thou condemne him that is moſt juſt? Is it fit to ſay to a King, thou art wicked, and to Princes, ye are ungodly? If Princes be juſt, God forbid they ſhould be evil ſpoken of, It is not fit to ſtrike Rulers for equity; but what if they hate right, muſt no Prophet come within the Princes Chappel? muſt not Kings know their Names? Am. 7.13.Thou prophane wicked Prince of Iſrael, ſaith Ezekiel. Thou and thy Fathers houſe hath troubled Iſrael,70 ſaith Elijah;Ezek. 21.25. 1 King. 18.18. 2 Chron, 16.9 1 Sam. 15. Luk. •3.32. Herein thou haſt done fooliſhly, ſaith the Seer unto Aſa; this is plaine dealing. Did Samuel ſpare Saul when he rebelled againſt the Lord? Did our bleſſed Maſter the Lord Jeſus ſpare Herod? In a word, did the generall Aſſembly of the Kirke of Scotland ſpare King Charles, or might they charge him as a Sabbath-breaker, an Idolater, a Murtherer? and is it a Piaculum, or any blaſphemy for us poore Mortals to call him an inexorable man? the Heathen Lawyer Papinian boldly reproved the Emperour Caracalla for his Parricide, and are Kings yet more ſacred? We are perſwaded that ſometime within the memory of Man, divers Miniſters of Lancaſhire and Cheſhire, (though they opened not their mouthes as Papinian did againſt Caracalla) yet have ſpoken as groſly of King Charles as ever the Northerne Subſcribers did, Non enim Sacerdotale eſt, quod Sentias non dicere, Ambroſ.
2 Neither did we forget that ſaying, De mortuis nil niſi bonum, to ſpeake the truth of the dead is to ſpeake what is‖‖Bonum et verum convertuntur. good, and if we have ſpoken otherwiſe, let the World beare witneſſe of the evill; that rule requires Charity, but not in diſpendium veritatis. The names of the wicked ſhall rot, ſaith the ſurer Word; ſo did the names of Ahab, Omri, and Jeroboam, though Kings; and how unſavoury doth the Spirit of God make the memory of Ahaz by that brand upon his bones? that inſcription upon his Grave, 2 Chron. 28.22. This is that King Ahaz? theſe Miniſters we preſume are no ſtrangers to Nazianzens invectives, where the deceaſed**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&c Orat. 3.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ibid. Paulo poſt. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orat. 19. Julian is drawn to the life; to flatter the dead is to wrong the living, and to ſtrengthen the hands of wicked men in evil wayes (the great diſcommode of funerall Panegyricks) were it not better that a Spade were called a Spade, then to ſay, King Charles of bleſſed memory, unleſſe there was cauſe for it? truly, this Princes Fate is obſerveable, for many who made no more of him (either in Preſſe or Pulpit) when hee was alive, then one would doe of a dead Dogge,aaPanaeb. Regis defuncti corpus terrâ condunt, caput abſcindunt inaurant, in ſacris collocan•, Cauſſ: Hierogl. l. 5 c 58. now can hardly71 beare a word ſpoken againſt him,See Prov. 24.24 Suet. in Otho. — Quieſcat Obba parum, Mantu. but upon all occaſions riſe up as his compurgators, but there is no new thing. Thus Suetonius tells us it was with Otho; Magna pars hominum incolumem graviſſime deteſtata mortuum laudibus tulit; but we ſhall provoke theſe Royaliſts indignation no further. Here let our Pitchar ſtand, farewell.
Now the Lord of peace himſelfe give us peace alwayes, by all means, 2 Theſ. 3.16.