Government none of the Community having any legal Claim to Soveraignity more than the rest When therfore they were forced to conclude upon Association for their Mutual Preservation they must be thought to act rationally and not to make their condition worse but rather better by that conclusion and if they found it worse to resume their radical Right which they had conferred upon men subject to Law not to Tyrannize over them And in this case certainly they had the power of choosing what Kind of Government suited most to their advantage and would best preserve their Liberties and how far this should be extended and who should be assumed into this Combination still with a reservation of the Priviledge to their oun safety if their Associates should not do their duty And so they might also reserve to themselves a Liberty to alter the forme when they found it productive of more prejudice than advantage and never to leave their condition remedieless And to pitch upon this way of succession and not another the way of free election of every successor or of definite election limited to one line or to the nearest in line And e contra with a reserve still of their primeve Priviledges to secure themselves from the inconveniences of that determination or to change it And to make choise of such a family line and not another and whether the eldest alwise of that family or the fittest is to be chosen And however it be yet still by the peoples consent And in all this to have respect to some good great Necessary Ends which if they should be disappointed of and find these means useless or destructive to they were to be loosed from their obligation to use or to oune them See Ius populi vindicat ch 5. pag. 80. c. 2. If we consider how Nature determines the peoples Interest in the constitution of Governours whence comes it that this man and not that man this race family and not that is invested with that Title It will be found there is no Title on earth now to the Crowns to families to persons but the peoples suffrage for the Institution of Magistracy in general does not make Iames Stewart a King no more than Iohn Chamberlain Neither do qualifications make one otherwise there might be many better than is this day extant for there are many men better qualified And there is no Prophetical or immediate Callings to Kingdoms now And as for Conquest without consent and having no more for a Title it is no better than Royal Latrocinie It is certain God would not Command us to obey Kings and leave us in the Dark that we should not know him that hath a reall call to 〈◊〉 And if he have not the peoples Call where shall we find another It remains therefore they must have it from the people who have it to give Radically virtually having a power to preserve themselves and to put it in the hands of one or more Rulers that they may preserve themselves by them All men are born alike as to Civil power no man being born with a Croun on his head and yet men united in Society may give it to this man not to that man therefore they must have it virtually for they can not give what they have not And as Cities have power to choose their Magistrats so many Cities have power to creat an Universal Ruler over them all The people also have power to Limit the Magistrats power with conditions so that the present Ruler shall not have so much prerogative as his predecessor as Royalists cannot deny therefore they must have given that power which they can Limit See Lex Rex Quest. 4. pag. 10. c. Secondly the Scripture also gives Light in this particular 1. In giving directions Rules about their Orderly calling their Governours Impowering them to take wise men understanding known among their tribes to be made Rulers Dâ—ut 1. 13. To make Judges Officers in all their gates Deut. 16. 18. To set one among their brethren King over them and not a stranger Deut. 17. 15. To what purpose are these Rules given them if they had no interest to choose their Magistrats Would God command them to set a King over them if they had not power to do it And to set such a man over them and not such an one if they had no influence in making one at all And accordingly that wise Statist sayes very well 2 Sam. 16. 18. Hushai to Aâ—salem Nay but whom the Lard this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide Which will also hold in the Negative whom the Lord the people and all the men of the Kingdom do not choose his we will not be nor with him will we abide 2. The Scripture expressly attributeth the making of Kings to the people All the people of Iuda took Azariah and made him King instead of his Father Amaziah whom they had executed 2 King. 14. 21. They came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron 1 Chron. 12. 38. So they made Ioash King 2 Chron. 23. 11. 3. Even these that were particularly designed of God chosen to be Rulers yet were not formally invested with power before the people conferred it upon them Gideon was called of God to it but was not Judge till the people said Rule thow over us both thow thy Son giving him an hereditary right for his Children Iudg. 8. 12. Saal was appointed to be King and therefore Samuel honoured him because he was marked out of God to be King 1 Sam. 9. 24. and anointed him with oyl 1 Sam. 10. 1. after which he was gifted qualified for Government God gave him another heart vers 9. yet all this did not make him King till the people met for his inauguration vers 17. c. and Crowned him made him King in Gilgal 1 Sam. 11. ult David was anointed by Samuel and yet was a persecuted fugitive for several years and never acknowledged formally King till the men of Iudah came anointed him 2 Sam. 2. 4. for if he had been King before then there were two Kings in Israel at one time and David failed of his Royal duty in not punishing the Murderer Saul whereas himself sayes he would not touch the Lords 〈◊〉 Therefore the people made all these Kings and that by choise consent without which they were no Kings Hence I argue If the consent choise of the people be so essentially necessary to the making of Kings then they who set up themselves against the consent of the body of the Land and without the choise of any must be Usurpers not to be acknowledged for Lawful Kings But the former is true as is proven above Ergo Now Plain it is that this Duke set up himself against the consent of the body being excluded from the Government by the Representatives of
their Posterity which would multiply as many Common wealths as there have been fathers since Or if it went by Primogeniture only to the first born that he alone could claim the power which would infer the necessity of an universal Monarchy without multiplication of Common-wealths If it was by his voluntary assignment to whom in what proportion he pleased then the universal Monarchy died with himself and so could not be conveyed at all for either he behoved to give each son a share to be conveyed dounwards to their children in that proportion or whole solide to one So also the former dilemma recurs for if the first be said it will make as many litle Kingdoms as there have been sons of Adam if the second the world should be but still one Kingdom But however it be this could never be the way that God appointed either for raising a Magistratical power where it is wanting or deriving a right to any in being Considering the multiplication division confusion Extinction of families that have been If it be from Fergus the first of this line then either it comes from him as a King or as a Father not the first for the reason above hinted nor as a father for a father may defraud his son of the heritage a King cannot deprive his son of the Crown a father may divide his heritage a King cannot divide the Kingdom among his sons It must then be at length refounded on the peoples Consent 3. If even where lineal succession is Constituted by Law for eviting the inconveniences of frequent elections people are not tied to admit every first born of that line then that birth righr where there is no more cannot make a King But the former is true for they are tied only conditionally so he be qualified and have a head to sit at the helme and not a fool or monster neither are they free to admit Murderers or Idolaters by the Laws of God and of the Land It is not birth then but their admission being so qualified that makes Kings Hence 4. That which takes away the peoples birth-right given them of God to provide for their liberties in the fitest Government that is not to be ouned But to make birth alone a tile to the Crown takes away the peoples birth-right given them of God of providing for their liberties in the fitest Government and fetters their choise to one destructive to these Certainly where God hath not bound the conscience men may not bind themselves nor their posterity But God hath never fettered men to a choise of a Government or Governing line which contrary to the intention of the Oath may prove destructive to the ends thereof Nor can the fathers leave in legacy by Oath any chains to fetter the after wits of posterity to a choise destructive to Religion liberty Israel was bound by Covenant not to destroy the Gibeonites but if they had risen to cut off Isael who can doubt but they were loosed from that obligation for to preserve Cut-throats was contrary to the intention of the Oath so when either Monarchy or the succeeding Monarch proves destructive to the ends of Government the Choice Law or Oath of our fathers cannot bind us 5. If we are tied to the hereditary succession not for the right the successor hath by birth but for our Covenanted allegiance to them whose successor he is then cannot his birth-right be the ground of our Allegiance And consequently hereditary succession cannot make a King But the former is true for in hereditary Crowns the first family being chosen by the suffrages of the people for that Cause the hereditary Prince comes to the Throne becanse his first father and in him the whole line was chosen The hereditary successor hath no priviledge or prerogative but from him who was chosen King. Therefore the obligation to the son being no greater than the obligation to the father which is the ground of that if the father then was ouned only because he was chosen qualified for Government the Son cannot be ouned for any other Cause but as chosen in him and also qualified and admitted with Consent We cannot choose the father as qualified and tye our selves to the Successors be what they will. 6. If a King be not born heir of a Kingdom then is he not King by birth But he is not born heir of a Kindom for a mean cannot be born to inherit the end the King is but a mean for the Kingdoms preservation If the Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance why may he not upon necessary occasions sell his inheritance but if he sell it then all confess he is no more King. 7. If that which makes a King cannot be transmitted from father to son then succession by birth cannot make a King But the former is true The Royal faculty of Governing cannot be transmitted Solomon asked it from God he had it not from his father nor can he be born to the honour of a King because not born with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high low not birth Nor can the Call Constitution of a King according to the will of God be transferred from father to son for that cannot be in Gods way without the intervening Consent of the people that cannot make him a born King. 8. If no Dominion can come by Nature as is proven before then can no man be a born King Nature birth cannot give them a Scepter in their hand nor Kingly Majestie they must have that alone from God the people and may only expect honour from their oun good Government Kings as Plutarch sayes must be like dogs that are best hunters not these who are born of best dogs 9. The peculiar Prerogative of Iesus Christ must not be ascribed to any other But this is His peculiar Prerogative to be a born King of whom it might be truely faid Where is He that is born King of the Iewes And for this end was He born who came out of the womb with a Crown on His Head which no Creature can bear 10. In Scripture we find that a King was to be so so qualified not a stranger but a reader of Gods Word c. Deut. 17. 15. c. he was not qualified by naked birth Hence if all the qualifications requisite in an heir cannot make a King qualified according to the Institution of God then his being heir cannot make him King But the first is true an heir may be an heir without these qualifications 11. We find in the Scripture the people were to make the Kings by that Law Deut. 17. thow shalt choose him whom the Lord chooseth yea neither Saul nor David were Kings till the people met to make them Therefore birth never made them Kings even though the Kingdom was tied to Davids line That was only a Typical designment by special Promise because Christ was to come of that line it was
a transgression of His Covenant trespass against His Law that they had set up Kings not by Him and had made Princes and He knew it not Hos. 8. 4. and then taxes them with Idolatry which ordinarly is the Consequent of it as we have reason to fear will be in our case He shewes there the Apostasie of that people in changing both the Ordinances of the Magistracy and of the Ministry both of the Kingdom of the priest-hood in which two the safety of that people was founded So they overturned all the order of God and openly declared they would not be governed by the hand of God as Calvin upon the place expounds it Whereas the Lord had commanded if they would set up Kings they should set none up but whom He choosed Deut. 17. 15. yet they had no regard to this nor consulted Him in their admission of Kings but set them up and never let Him to wit of it without His knowledge that is without consulting Him and without His approbation for it can have no other sense I know it is alledged by several Interpreters that here is meant the tribes secession from the house of David and their setting up Ieroboam I shall confess that the ten tribes did sin in that erection of Ieroboam without respect to the Counsel or Command of God without waiting on the vocation of God as to the time manner and without Covenanting with him for security for their Religion Liberty But that their secession from Davids line which by no precept or promise of God they were astricted to but only conditionally if his Children should walk in the wayes of God Or that their erecting of Ieroboam was materially their sin I must deny and assert that if Ieroboam had not turned Tyrant Apostate from God for which they should have rejected him afterwards and returned to the good Kings of Davids line he would have been as Lawful a King as any in Iudah for he got the Kingdom from the Lord the same way and upon the same terms that David did as may be seen expressly in 1 King. 11. 38. It must be therefore meant either generally of all Tyrants whom they would set up without the Lords mind as at first they would have Kings on any terms though they should prove Tyrants as we have seen in Sauls case Or particularly Omri whom they set up but not by the Lord 1 King. 16. 16. And Abab his Son And Shallum Menahem Pekah c. who were all set up by blood treacherie the same way that our Popish Duke is now set up but not by the Lord that is by His approbation Hence I argue those Kings that are not ouned of God nor set up by Him must not be ouned by us for we can oune none for Kings but those that reign by Him Prov. 8. 15. and are ordained of Him Rom. 13. 1. But Tyrants Usurpers are not ouned of God as Kings nor are set up by Him Ergo Again if it be a sin to set up Kings and not by God then it is a sin to oune them when set up for that is a partaking of continuing in the sin of that erection and hath as much affinity with it as resetting hath with thieft for if they be the thieves they are the ressetters who receive them oune them 4. The Prophet Habakkuk in his Complaint to God of the Chaldean Tyranny Asserts that God hath made the righteous as the Fishes of the Sea as the Creeping things that have no Ruler over them Habak 1. 14. Now how were they said to be without a Ruler when the Chaldean actually commanded absolutely ruled over them yea how can the Fishes Reptiles have no Ruler over them If Domineering be ruling they want not that when the weaker are over-mastered by the stronger and by them made either to be subject ar to become their prey But the meaning is these Creatures have no Ruler over them by order of nature And the Iewes had then no Ruler over them by order of Law or ordination from God or any that was properly their Magistrate by Divine Institution or humane orderly constitution We see then it is one thing for a people to have an arbitrary or enthraâ—ing Tyranny another to have true Magistracy or Authority to be ouned over them without which Kingdoms are but as Mountains of prey and Seas of Confusion Hence I argue If the Iewes having the Chaldean Monarch tyrannising over them had really no Ruler over them then is a Tyrant Usurper not to be ouned for a Ruler But the former is true therefore also the Latter 5 Our Saviour Christ delivers this as a Commonly received a true Maxime Iohn 8. 54. He that honoureth himself his honour is nothing The Iewes had objected that He had only made himself Messias vers 53. To whom He answers by way of concession if it were so indeed then His Claims were void If I honour my self my honour is nothing And then claims an indubitable title to His dignity It is my Father that honoureth me Here is a two fold honour distinguished the one real the other suppositious null the one renounced the other ouned by Christ Self-honour honour which is from God. Hence I argue A self created dignity is not to be ouned the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a self created dignity Ergo this was confirmed above Thirdly I shall offer some other considerations confirming this truth from those Scriptures which I class among precepts And these I find of diverse sorts touching this subject 1. I shew before that the greatest of men even Kings are not exempted from punishment and Capital punishment if guilty of Capital Crimes for where the Law distinguisheth not we ought not to distinguish There is one special very peremptory Law given before the Law for regulating Kings which by that posterior Law was neither abrogated nor limited even as to Kings Deut. 13. 6-9 If thy Brother and a King must be a Brother Deut. 17. 15. entice the secretly saying let us go serve other Gods Thow shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine eye pity him How famous Mr Knox improved this Argument is shewed in the third Period That which I take notice of here is only that Kings are not excepted from this Law but if they be open Intycers to Idolatry by force or fraud Persecution or Tolleration as this Idolater now reigning is palpably doing they are obnoxious to a legal animadversion As it cannot be supposed that Secret Intycers should be lyable to punishment and not open Avouchers of a desire design to pervert all the Nation to Idolatry that a private perverter of one man though never so nearly dearly related should be pursued brought to condign punishment and a publick Subverter of whole Nations and Introducer of a false blasphemous Idolatrous Religion should escape Scot-free Let the
God save a Heretick neither must we say God save an Hertical King or a Popish Tyrant a sworn enemy to the Gospel of Christ and the coming of His Kingdom This is also inconsistent with that Rule Directory of our prayers commonly called The Lords prayer not only because it cannot be reduced to any of its petitions which are comprehensive of all that we are warranted to pray for but because it is contradictory to the Second which is Thy Kingdom come The Coming of Christs Kingdom in our Land cannot consist with the preservation of the Tyrants reign which is Satans rule for Antichrists â— Satans Kingdom and Christs cannot be promoted both at once It may be also demonstrated that it is inconsistent with all the petitions of that perfect form of prayer With the first Hallowed be thy Name for when they who rule over His people make them to houl then His Name continually every day is Blasphemed Isai 52. 5. yea much profaned in the frequent repeating that imposition With the Second Thy Kingdom come for when He takes unto Him His great power Reigns then is the time He will destroy them that destroy the earth Revel 11. 17 18. It is against the third Thy will be done for it is against His preceptive will that there should be a Throne of iniquity it shall not have fellowship with Him as it would have if according to His will. And therefore Habbakkuk pleads from the Lords Holiness Righteousness against Tyrants Habbak 1. 13 14. It is against the fourth Give us this day our daily bread to pray for them that rob us of it whom the Lord hath set over us for a plague to domineer over our bodies and all the means of life Neh. 9. 37. The Saints there make a Complaint of Kings and pray to remove them not to save them The Church also prayes againsâ— base Rulers on this account because under them they get their bread with the peril of their lives Lam. â— 8 9. It is against the fifth Forgive us our debts or sins for if we pray for taking away the guilt of sin we must also pray for removing the punishment whereof this is one to be under Tyrants And if it be sin which brings on such a judgment then it is sin to pray for the keeping of it on continuing thereof And though we should forgive their sin against us yet we ought to complain against their sins against God and the Church in defiling it shedding the blood of the Saints Psal. 79. 1-7 It is against the sixth Lead us not into Temptation and deliver us from evil for their Government is a continued tract of Temptation they being a snare on Mizpah a net spread upon Tabor Hos. 5. 1. And if we pray to be delivered from all evil then we must pray to be delivered from Tyranny which is a great evil It is against the Conclusion also for thine is the Kingdom Glory Tyrants being stated in opposition to the Glory of God. Again in the next place it is against many promises of giving good Rulers and of breaking the yoke of Tyrants as I cited several above Neiether of which can consist with the preservation of Tyrants if such a Prayer should be answered according to the idol of the heart of the supplicants for if God should save this man as long as we may pray for him as a King then all the promises of a Change Revolution are precluded Lastly it is contrary to the constant tenor of the Saints prayers against theé Enemies of God. Deborah prayed upon the destruction of a Tyrant So let all thine enemies perish O Lord Iudg. 5. ult Iotham prayed against that bastard King let fire come out from Abimelech devour the men of Shechem and let fire come out from the men of Shechem devour Abimelech Iudg. 9. 20. David prayes against Saul whom he calls Cush the Benjamite in the title of Psal. 7. alluding to Kish his Father or because he was no better than an Ethiopian a Cushite Amos 9. 7. and could no more change his manners than an Ethiopian can change his skin Ier. 13. 23. See Pool Synops. Critic in Locum Where it is proven that this was Saul against him he prayes that the Lord would awake to Iudgement Psal. 7. 6. and that He would break the arm of the wicked and the evil man Psal. 10. 15. that He would not slay them to wit suddenly or in a common way lest the people forget but scatter and bring them doun and consume them in wrath that they may not be that it may be known God ruleth in Iacob to the ends of the earth Psal. 59. 11 13. This is a Psalm against Dogs vers 6. what Dogs Saul and his men watching David See the Title As also it is against Saul that he prayes that the Lord would not grant his desires nor further his devices and as for the head of them that compassed him about which was Saul let the mischief of their oun lips cover them Psal. 140. 8 9. There is also a prayer that the Saints may execute vengeance the judgement written upon Tyrants and bind them with chains Psal. 149. 7 8 9. The Church is brought in praying for vengeance against the Babylonian Tyrant Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon hath devoured me the violence done to me and my flesh be upon Babylon shall the Inhabitant of Zion say Ier. 51. 34 35. Paul imprecates any man that does not love the Lord Jesus let him be Anathema Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. and sure no Tyrant persecuter subverter of Christs Kingdom can be a Lover of Christ. The Martyrs under the fifth seal slain for the Word of God and the Testimony which they held are brought in crying against the Tyrants that murdered them How long O Lord Holy True dost thow not judge aveange our blood Revel 6. 9 10. Which though it be to be understood of a Moral Cry of blood as Abels blood cried against Cain yet ought to be a pattern of our prayers against such Bloody Enemies imbrewing their hands in the blood of our Brethren for which we ought to pray that the Lord would haste to make inquisition Durham Observes from this place that Gods people in a holy way may pray for vengeance upon persecuters 5. Let us consider the person matter for whom and for what this prayer is extorted Either it is for the personal salvation of Iames the Papist or the Royal preservation of Iames the Tyrant It will not satisfie to pray that if it be possible and if it were the Lords will he might be taken to Heaven that so we might be quit of him Neither were it Lawful to pray that except we prayed first that he might repent of this his wickedness if perhaps it might be forgiven him as Peter directed Simon Mâ—gus to pray for himself Act. 8. 22. for it is unlawful to pray for the salvation of
or personal injuries it is Murder For the affection intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life homicide or no homicide as Lex Rex saith Quest. 31. Pag. 338. If a man out of hatred deliberately take away another mans life he is a Murtherer eatenus but if that same man had taken away the others life by the flying off of his axe head he neither hating him before nor intending to hurt him he is no Murtherer by Gods express Law allowing Cities of refuge for the one and not for the other Deut. 4. 42. Deut. 19. 4. c. private revenge is indignity to God whose it is to take vengeance Deut. 32. 35. Rom. 12. 19. Dearly beloved avenge not your selves for vengeance is the Lords For which cause Iacob curses Simeon Levi their Murder of the Schechemites for in their anger they slew a man Gen. 49. 6 7. So David would not put forth his hand against Saul for his oun private personal quarrel So Ioab killed Abner and Absalom Amnon But this doth not make the execution or Judgement out of zeal for God respect to Righteousness love to the Nations Interest and care to preserve the persecuted people of God from imminent destruction upon publick Enemies Incendiaries that are trampling upon all these precious Interests and threatening the utter ruine of them and in a particular manner their destruction who thus prevent them 9. Thô the motive or cause were upon a publick account yet it may be Murder to have a wrong End in it as either to intend simply the destruction of the person on whom they execute Judgement as the end to which all their Action is directed or to make their oun advantage or honour the end of the Action Thus David would not kill Saul because it might have been thought he did it to obtain the Kingdom of which he was rightfull successor And deservedly he punished the Amalekite that brought newes of his killing Saul and Baanah Rechab for their killing Ishbosheth thinking thereby to advance themselves at Davids Court. So also Ioab murdered Amasa to secure himself in the Generals place And Iehu though upon the matter he executed righteous Judgement his end was only himself it is condemned as murder But when the execution of righteous Judgement is both formally intended by the Actors and natively really doth conduce to the Glory of God the preservation of the Remnant threatened to be destroyed by these Murderers the suppressing of impiety doing of Justice turning away wrath and removing of present and preventing of future judgments then it may be duty Naph Pag. 23. Prior edit 10. Thô the end also were not culpable yet it may be Murder to kill Criminals by transgressing the sphere of our vocation and usurping upon the Magistrats sword for he by Office is a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Rom. 13. 4. none must make use of the sword of vindictive Justice but he to whom the Lord giveth it therefore they that came to take Christ are condemned threatened for this Math. 26. 52. all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword The God of Order hath assigned to every man his station calling within the bounds whereof he should keep without transgressing by defect or excess let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called 1 Cor. 7. 20. and study to be quiet and do his oun business 1 Thess. 4. 11. Therefore David would not kill Saul because he would have done it beside his calling And therefore the killing of Ioash and Amon was murder because the Assassines did transgress their vocation But when Notorious Incendiaries do not only transgress their vocation but the Limits of humane societie and turn open enemies to God man destroying the innocent making havock of the Lords heritage and vaunting of their villanies and boasting of their wickedness and thereby bringing wrath upon the Land if such effrontries of insolence should pass unpunished and when there is no Magistrate to do that work of Justice but all in that pâ—ace are airt part with them patrons defenders of them yea no Magistrate that can be acknowledged as a Minister of God to be applied unto in that case it is no a transgression of our vocation nor an Usurpation upon the Magistrats where there is none to endeavour to avert wrath by executing righteous Judgement Otherwise if for fear or suspicion of the accidental hazard of private mens Usurping the Office or doing of the duty of Publick persons every vertuous Action which may be abused shall be utterly neglected Impiety shall quickly gain Universal Empire to the extermination of all goodness Naph Pag. 24. Prior edit To clear this it must be considered that a mans calling is two fold his particular calling whereunto in the ordinary course of things he is regularly confined and his general calling not circumscribed by particular rules which from the common obligation of the end for which all callings are institute in the clear exigence of an extraordinary emergent according to the general rules of righteousness bind to an aggreeable practice Therefore circumstances may sometimes so diversitie Actions that what in the ordinary undisturbed state of things would be accounted an excess of our particular calling an Usurpation in an extraordinary occurrence may become a necessary duty of our general calling 11. Thô it were no Usurpation beyond our calling yet it may be murder to kill any without the Call of God in a case of necessity either in tuteâ—â vitae proximâ or though it be remotâ when the hazard is unavoidable Every thing must have Gods Call in its season to make it duty so also the time of killing Eccles. 3. 3. For want of this David would not kill Saul Lex Rex saith excellently to this Quest. 31. pag. 329 330. David might have killed Saul when he was sleeping and when he cut of the lap of his garment but it was unlawful for him to kill the Lords anointed as it is unlawful to kill a man because he is the image of God Gen. 9. 6. except in case of necessity David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actual nor unavoidable nor a necessary mean in humane prudence for self preservation for King Saul was not in an actual pursuit of the whole Princes Elders Community of Israel Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for Religion or a National pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords Anointed but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon as a Cypher to boast Saul and rather kill then be killed Thus he By a Call here we do not mean an express or immediate Call from God such as the Prophets
supposing also they might be pardoned for that which is done from whose guiltiness the Land cannot be cleansed but by executing Gods righteous Judgements upon them yet they cannot now be believed after they have violated all that humane wisdom could devise to bind them Upon these accounts they reject that King and those associate with him in the Government and declare them henceforth no lawful Rulers as they had declared them to be no lawful Subjects they having destroyed the established Religion overturned the fundamental Lawes of the Kingdom taken away Christs Church-Government and changed the Civil into Tyrannie where none are associate in partaking of the Government but only these who will be found by Justice guilty of Criminals And declare they shall God giving power set up Government Governours according to the Word of God and the qualifications required Exod. 18. vers 20. And shall not commit the Government to any single person or lineal succession being not tyed as the Jewes were to one single family and that kind being lyable to most inconveniences aptest to degenerate into Tyrannie And moreover that these men set over them shall be engaged to Govern Principally by that Civil Judicial Law not that which is any way Typical given by God to His people of Israel as the best so far as it goes being given by God especially in matters of life death and other things so far as they reach and are consistent with Christian Liberty exempting Divorces Polygamie 6. Seeing the greatest part of Ministers not only were defective in Preaching against the Acts of the Rulers for overthrowing Religion but hindered others also who were willing and censured some that did it and have voted for acceptation of that Liberty founded upon given by virtue of that blaspemously arrogate Usurped power and appeared before their Courts to accept of it and to be enacted authorized their Ministers whereby they have become the Ministers of men and bound to be answerable to them as they will And have preached for the lawfulness of paying that Tribute declared to be imposed for the bearing doun of the true Worship of God And advised poor Prisoners to subscribe that Bond which if it were universally subscribed they should close that door which the Lord hath made use of in all the Churches of Europe for casting off the yoke of the whore and stop all regress of men when once brought under Tyrannie to recover their Libertie again They declare they neither can nor will hear them c. nor any who encouraged strengthened their hands and pleaded for them and trafficqued for union with them 7. That they are for a standing Gospel Ministrie rightly chosen rightly ordained that none shall take upon them the Preaching of the Word c. unless called ordained thereunto And whereas Separation might be imputed to them they refell both the malice and the ignorance of that Calumnie for if there be a Separation it must be where the change is and that was not to be found in them who were not separating from the Communion of the true Church nor setting up a New Ministrie but cleaving to the same Ministers Ordinances that formerly they followed when others have fled to new wayes and a new Authority which is like the old piece in the new Garment 8. That they shall defend themselves in their Civil Natural Divine Rights Liberties And if any assault them they shall look on it as a declaring a war and take all advantages that one enemie does of another but trouble and injure none but those that injure them This is the Compend of that Paper which the Enemies seised and published while it was only in a rude draught and not polished digested nor consulted by the rest of the Community yet whether or not it was for their advantage so to blaze their oun baseness in that Paper truly represented I leave it to the Reader to judge or if they did not thereby Proclaim their oun Tyrannie and the Innocency honesty of that people whom thereby they were seeking to make odious but in effect inviting all Lovers of Religion Liberty to Sympathise with them in their difficulties distresses there discovered However that poor Partie continued together in a posture of defence without the Concurrence or Countenance of their Covenanted Brethren who staid at home and left both them to be murdered and their Testimony to be trampled upon untill the 22. of Iulij 1680. Upon the which day they were attacqued at Airsmoss by a strong party of about 120 horse well armed while they were but 23 horse and 40 foot at most and so fighting valiantly were at length routed not without their Adversaries Testimony of their being resolute men Several of Zions precious Mourners and faithful Witnesses of Christ were killed and among the rest that faithful Minister of Christ Mr Richard Cameron sealed fulfilled his Testimony with his blood And with others the valiant and much honoured Gentleman David Hackstoun of Rathillet was after many received wounds apprehended brought in to Edinburgh and there resolutely adhering to the Testimony and disouning the Authority of King Council and all their Tyrannical Judicatories was cruelly murdered but countenanced eminently of the Lord. Now remained Mr Donald Cargil deprived of his faithful Collegue destitute of his Brethrens concurrence but not of the Lords Counsel Conduct by which he was prompted helped to prosecute the Testimony against the Universal Apostasie of the Church Nation Tyranny of Enemies Backsliding of Friends and all the wrongs done to his Master on all hands And considering in the zeal of God and sense of His holy Jealousie provoked and threatening wrath against the Land for the sins especially of Rulers who had arrived to the hight of Heaven-daring Insolence in all wickedness in which they were still growing going on without control That notwithstanding of all the Testimonies given against them by publick Preachings Protestations and Declarations remonstrating their Tyranny and disouning their Authority yet not only did they still persist in their sins scandals to make the Lords fierce Anger break forth into a flame but were ouned also by Professors not only as Magistrats but as members of the Christian Protestant Church And that however both the defensive armes of men had been used against them and the Christian armes of Prayers and the Ministerial weapon of Preaching yet that of Ecclesiastical Censure had not been Authoritatively exerted against them Therefore that no Weapon which Christ allowes His Servants under His Standart to manage against His Enemies might be wanting thô he could not obtain the Concurrence of his Brethren to strengthen the solemnity formality of the Action yet he did not judge that defect in this broken Case of the Church could disable his Authority nor deâ—ur the duty but that he might and ought to proceed to Excommunication And accordingly in September
England and generally hated of all who disdaining to wait upon the formall choise of any but after he had paved his passage to the Throne upon his Brothers blood did usurpe the Title without all Law. 5. The second thing necessary for the Legal Constitution of a King by the people is their Compact with him which must either be Express or Tacite Explicite or Implicite Two things are here to be proven that will furnish an Argument for disouning both the Brothers First That there must be a Conditionall reciprocally obliging Covenant between the Soveraign and the Subjects without which there is no such relation to be ouned Secondly That when this compact is broken in all or its chiefest conditions by the Soveraign the peoples obligation ceases The first I shall set doun in the words of a famous Author our Renouned Country man Buchanan in his Dialogue de Iure Regni apud Scotos Mutua igitur Regi cum Civibus est pactio c. There is then or there ought to be a Mutual compact between the King and his subjects c. That this is indispensibly necessary essential to make up the Relation of Soveraign Subjects may be proved both from the Light of Nature Revelation First it may appear from the Light of Natural reason 1. From the Rise of Government and the Interest people have in erecting it by consent choise at is shewed above If a King cannot be with out the peoples making then all the power he hath must either be by compact or gift If by compact then we have what we proposed And if by gift then if abused they may recall it or if they cannot recover it yet they may ought to hold their hand and give him no more that they may retain that is no more honour or respect which is in the honourer before the honoured get it Can it be imagined that a people acting rationally would give a power absolutely without restrictions to destroy all their oun rights Could they suppose this boundless Lawless Creature left at Liberty to Tyrannize would be a fit mean to procure the the ends of Government for this were to set up a rampant Tyrant to rule as he listeth which would make their condition a great deal worse then if they had no Ruler at all for then they might have more Liberty to see to their safety See Ius populi ch 6. pag. 96. 97. 2. This will be clear from the nature of that Authority which only a Soveraign can have over his Subjects which whatever be the Nature of it it cannot be absolute that is against Scripture Nature Common sense as shall be proven at more length That is to set up a Tyrant one who is free from all conditions a roaring Lyon a ranging Bear to destroy all if he pleases It must be granted by all that the Soveraign Authority is only fiduciarie entrusted by God the people with a great Charge A great Pledge is impauned committed to the Care Custody of the Magistrate which he must take special care of and not abuse or waste or alienate or sell for in that case Royalists themselves grant he may be deposed He is by Office a Patron of the Subjects Liberties and Keeper of the Law both of God Man the Keeper of both Tables Sure he hath no power over the Lawes of God but a Ministerial power he may not stop disable them as he pleases Of the same nature is it over all other Parts of his Charge He is rather a Tutor than an Inheritor proprietor of the Common-wealth and may not do with his pupils interest what he pleases In a word the Nature whole significancy of his power lyes in this that he is the Nations publick Servant both Objectively in that he is only for the good of the people and Representatively in that the people hath impauned in his hand all their power to do Royal Service The Scripture eaches this in giving him the Titles of Service as Watchman c. allowing him Royal wages for his Royal work Rom. 13. he is Gods Minister attending continually on this thing There is his work for this cause pay yow tribute also There is his wages maintinance He is called so in that transaction with Rehoboam The old men advised him to be a Servant unto the People then they should be his Servants 1 King. 12. 7. There was a conditional bargain proposed As to be a Servant or Tutor or Guardian upon Trust always implies Conditions Acconntableness to them that entrust them 3. It must needs be so otherwise great absurdities would follow Here would be a voluntary contracted Relation obliging as to relative duties to a man that ouwed none correlative to us and yet one whom we set over us It were strange if there were no Condition here and no other voluntarly suscepted Relations can be without this as between Man Wife Master Servant c. This would give him the disposal of us Ours as if both we and what we have were his oun as a mans goods are against which he does not sin whatever he do with them So this would make a King that could not sin against us being no ways obliged to us for he can no otherwise be obliged to us but upon Covenant conditions he may be obliged bound in duty to God otherwise but he cannot be bound to us otherwise And if he be not bound then he may do what he will he can do no wrong to us to whom he is no wayes bound This also is point blank against the Law of God which is the Second way to prove it by the Light of Revelation or Scripture 1. In thevery directions about making seting up of Kings the Lord shewes what conditions shall be required of them Deut. 17. 15. c. and in all directions for obeying them the qualifications they should have are rehearsed as Rom. 13. 3 4. Therefore none are to be set up but on these conditions and none are to be obeyed but such as have these qualifications 2. In His promises of the succession of Kings He secures their continuation only Conditionally to establish the Kingdom if they be constant to do His Commandments Judgements 1 Chron. 28. 7. There shall not fail a man to sit upon the Trone yet so that they take heed to their way to walk in Gods Law as David did 2 Chron. 6. 16. Now He was not otherwise to perform these promises but by the action suffrage of the people seting him up which He had appointed to be the way of calling Kings to Thrones if therefore the Lords promise be conditional the peoples actions also behoved to be suspended upon the same conditions 3. We have many express Covenants between Rulers Subjects in Scripture Iephthah was fetcht from the Land of Tob and made the head of the Gileadites by an explicite mutual stipulation wherein the Lord
was invocated as a Witness Iudg. 11. 6 8 9 10 11. So all the Elders of Israel came to make David King and King David made a League with them in Hebron before the Lord and then they anointed him over Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. he made there a Covenant with them before the Lord 1 Chron. 11 3. He was no King before this Covenant and so it was a Pactional Oath between him the Kingdom upon termes according to the Law Deut. 17. he was only a King in fieri one who was to be King but now actually inaugurate a Covenanted King upon termes that satisfied them It s true they came to recognosce his Right from the Lord But so did they recognosce Rehoboams Right and came to Shechem to make him King 1 King. 12. 1. and yet when he would not enter in Covenant terms with them to satisfie their just demands the people answered the King saying what portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the Son of Iesse to your tents O Israel vers 16. They refused to acknowledge such an Usurper and we find no Prophets ever condemning them for it So when Iehoash or Ioash was Crowned Iehojada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and the people 2 King. 11. 17. 2 Chron. 23. 11 16. From all these Reasons Scriptures It is clear there must be a Mutual Compact between the Subjects and every Soveraign they oune subjection to which if he refuse and usurp the Sword they are under an Anterior obligation to substract their Allegiance and to make use of their Sword if they be in capacity to pull it out of his hands and use it against him And of this we are put in mind by the Motto of our old Coronation pieces which have these Words about the Sword. pro me si mereor in me that is for me but if I deserve against me And surely to him that hath it now in his hands it may be said tu meruisti adhuc meres We see then the Allegiance that this Usurper alledges is his due wants a bottom to wit a compact with the people Whence I argue If there must of necessity be a compact between the King the people when he is advanced to the Government then he that advances himself without against this compact is an Usurper not to be ouned But the former is true Ergo he that advances himself without against this compact is an Usurper not to be ouned And who more Notoriously deserving such a signature than Iames the 7 2 who hath made horns of his oun strength or the Popes Biills to push his Brother out and himself in to the Throne upon no termes at all or any security for Religion Liberty One Objection is to be removed here Can the Customs of the Iewes be binding to all Nations The Kings of Iudah made such Covenants shall therefore all Kings do so Ans. why not this Custom as well as Crowing which they used likewise These Rules are not Typical or Cermonial nor only so Iudicial as to be peculiarly Iudaical but are matters of moral equity bearing a standing reason founded upon that Law Deut. 17. 15. c. Limiting the Prince to stand to conditions If we cast at Divine Laws for Rules of Government where wil we find better Laws It is recorded of the first of the British Kings who was Christian that writing to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome before Antichrist took that seat for the Roman Laws he received this Answer By Divine Clemency ye have received the Law faith of Christ yow have the Old New Testaments out of them in Gods Name by Counsel of your State take Laws Govern your Kingdom And of another that he began his Laws thus God speake all these words c. And so repeated the Laws of God. The Second thing I undertook to prove is that Assertion of Buchanan ubi supra de Iure Regni Qui prior a Conventis recidit c. There being a paction between the King Subjects he who first recedes from what is Covenanted and doth Counteract what he hath Covenanted he looses the contract and the bond being loosed which did hold fast the King with the people whatever right did belong to him by virtue of that compact he looses it and the people are as free as before the stipulation Which is also asserted by the Author of Ius populi ch 6. pag. 112. It is no less clear that when the Soveraign doth not performe the principal main most necessary conditions condescended aggreed upon de jure he falleth from his Soveraignity and pag. 117. when the Prince doth violate his compact as to all its conditions or as to its chief main most necessary condition the subjects are de jure free from subjection to him and at Liberty to make choise of another This is so clear that it needs no labour to prove it that upon this head we were loosed from all Allegiance ro the former Tyrant who was admitted upon terms of an explicite Covenant the conditions whereof he did as explicitely break There are two cases wherein Subjects are loosed from Covenanted Allegiance to their Princes 1. When the Prince remitts the obligation of the Subjects and refuses Allegiance upon that basis then he can no more demand it by virtue of that compact He that remitts will not have that Allegiance that the Subjects Covenanted upon such such conditions to him these Subjects should not give it that they so Covenanted for they should not prostitute it to a Refuser Remitter But Charles the Second remitted and would not have that Allegiance which we Covenanted upon such such conditions viz. upon the terms of the Covenant which he cassed annulled and made Criminal to oune Ergo to him we should not have given it which we so Covenanted 2. When the Prince did enter into a Mutual Covenant with the people upon Mutual conditions and does not only cease to performe the conditions but simply denies all obligation to do it and makes it a quarrel to insinuate so much yea persecutes all who dare assert the obligation of that Covenant and yet demands Allegiance not upon the obligation of that Covenant which he hath remitted but absolutely upon the grounds of his prerogative In this case it will be evident also the subjects are not bound either to oune their formerly Covenanted Allegiance to him Or that which he demands on other grounds Grotius de Iure belli is clear as to this Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Num. 12. Si ex Clausula posita in ipsa delatione Imperii ut si Rex hoc aut hoc faciet subditi omni obedientiae vinculo solvuntur tunc quoque Rex in privatam personam recidit If there be such a Clause or condition in the very devolution of the Government upon a Prince as
then they are no more to oune him as their Soveraign But the former is proved that a Covenanted Prince breaking all the conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance Ergo And Consequently when Charles the Second expressly bound by Covenant to defend promote the Convenanted Reformation Liberties of the Kingdom to whom only we were bound in the terms of his defending promoting the same did violently villainously violate vilify these conditions we were no more bound to them Somewhat possibly may be Objected here 1. If this be the sense of the Covenant then it would seem that we were not bound to oune the King but only when while he were actually promoving carrying on the ends of the Covenant Ans. It does not follow but that we are obliged to preserve his Person Authority in these necessary intervalls when he is called to see to himself as a man for we must preserve him as a mean because of his aptitude designation for such an End albeit not alwayes formally prosecuting it we do not say that we are never to oune him but when actually exercised in prosecuting these ends but we say we are never to oune him when he is Tyrannically Treacherously abusing his Authority for destroying overturning these ends and violating all the conditions of his compact It may be Obj. 2. Saul was a Tyrant and a breaker of his Royal Covenant and persecuter of the Godly and Murderer of the Priests of the Lord usurper upon the Priests Office and many other wayes guilty of breaking all conditions And yet David and all Israel ouned him as the Anointed of the Lord. Ans. 1. Saul was indeed a Tyrant rejected of God and to be ejected out of his Kingdom in His oun time way which David a Prophet knowing would not anticipate But he was far short and a meer Bungler in acts of Tyranny in comparison of our Grassators he broke his Royal Covenant in very gross particular acts but did not cass rescind the whole of it did not burn it did not make it Criminal to oune its obligation nor did he so much as profess a breach of it nor arrogate an Absolute prerogative nor attempt arbitrary Government nor to evert the fundamental Laws and overturn the Religion of Israel bring in Idolatry as Ours have done He was a Persecuter of David upon some private quarrels not of all the Godly upon the account of their Covenanted Religion He Murdered 85 Priests of the Lord in a transport of fury because of their kindness to David but he did not make Laws adjudging all the Ministers of the Lord to death who should be found most faithful in their duty to God His Church as Ours have done against all Field Preachers He Usurped upon the Priests Office in one elicit act of Sacrificing but he did not usurp a Supremacy over them and annex it as an inherent right of his Crown 2. He was indeed such a Tyrant as deserved to have been dethroned brought to condign punishment upon the same accounts that Amaziah Uzziah were deposed for afterwards And in this the people failed in their duty and for it they were plagued remarkably shall their Omission be an Argument to us 3. As the question was never put to the people whether they ouned his Authority as Lawful or not So we do not read either of their Universal ouning him or their positive disouning him However That 's no good Argument which is drawen a non facto ad faciendum because they did it not therefore it must not be done 4. They ouned him but how as the Minister of God not to be resisted or revolted from under pain of damnation as all Lawful Magistrats ought to be ouned Rom. 13. 2 4. This I deny for David his six hundred men resisted him resolutely And though the body of the Nation did long Lazily lye couch as Asses under his burden yet at length weary of his Tyranny many revolted from under him and adjoined themselves to David at Ziklag while he kept himself close because of Saul the Son of Kish 1 Chron. 12. 1. who are commended by the Spirit of God for their valour vers 2. c. and many out of Manasseh fell to him when he came with the Philistims against Saul to battel vers 19. This was a practical disouning of the Tyrant before the Lord deposed him 5. David did indeed pay him his Character some deference as having been the Anointed of the Lord yet perhaps his honouring him with that title the Lords anointed 1 Sam. 24. 1 Sam. 26. and calling him so often his Lord the King cannot be altogether Justified no more than his using that same language to Achish King of Gath. 1 Sam. 29. 8. I shew before how titles might be allowed but this so circumstantiate does not seem so consistent with his imprecatory prayer for the Lords avenging him on him 1 Sam. 24. 12. and many other imprecations against him in his Psalms in some of which he calls the same man whom here he stiles the Lords anointed a Dog as Saul his Complices are called Psal. 95. 6 14. and the evil violent wicked man Psal 140. 1 4. and the vilest of men Psal. 12. ult However it be there can be no Argument from hence to oune the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers 6. Though this Necessary conditional compact which must alwayes be in the constitution of Lawfuâ— Rulers be not alwayes express explicite so that a written Authentick Copy of it cannot be always produced yet it is alwise to be understood implicitely at least transacted in the Rulers admission to the Government wherein the Law of God must regulate both parties and when he is made Ruler it must natively be understood that it is upon terms to be a Father feeder Protector and not a Tyrant Murderer Destroyer All Princes are so far pactional that they are obliged by the high absolute Soveraign from whom they derive their Authority to reign for the Peace profit of the people this is fixed unalterably by the Laws of the Supreme Legislator and solemnly engaged unto at the Coronation and whosoever declines or destroyes this fundamental condition he degrades deposes himself It is also not only the Universal practice but necessary for the Constitution Conservation of all Common-wealths to have fundamental Laws Provisions about Government both for the upholding transmitting transfering it as occasion calls and preventing punishing violations thereof that there be no invasion or intrusion upon the Government and if there be any entrance upon it not according to the Constitution that it be illegitimated and the Nations Liberties always secured This doeth infer regulate a conditional compact with all that are advanced to the Government albeit it should not be expressed For it is undenyable that in the erection of all Governours the
it makes every thing that he can do as a man to be Legally done as a King But a Possessory occupation giving right would enervate take away that distinction for how can these be distinguished in a meer Possessory power the mans Possession is all his legal power and if Possession give a right his power will give legality 6. What sort or size of Possession can be ouned to give a right Either it must be partial or plenary possession Not partial for then others may be equally entitled to the Government in competition with that partial possessor having also a part of it Not plenary for them every interruption or Usurpation on a part would make a dissolution of the Government 7. Hence would follow infinite absurdities this would give equal warrant in case of vacancy to all men to step to stickle for the throne and expose the Common wealth as a booty to all aspiring spirits for they needed no more to make them Soveraigns and lay a tye of subjection upon the consciences of people but to get into possession And in case of Competition it would leave people still in suspense uncertainties whom to oune for they behoved to be subject only to the Uppermost which could not be known until the Controversy be decided It would cassate make void all preobligations Cautions restrictions from God about the Government it would Cancel and make vain all other titles of any or Constitutions or provisions or Oaths of Allegiance yea to what purpose were Laws or pactions made about ordering the Government if possession gave right laid an obligation on all to oune it yea then it were sinful to make any such provisions to fence in limit the determination of providence if providential possession may authorize every intruesive acquisition to be ouned Then also in case of competition of two equal pretenders to the Government there would be no place left for arbitrations If this were true that he is the power that is in possession the difference were at an end no man could plead for his oun right then In this also it is inconsistent with it self condemning all resistence against the present occupant yet justifying every resistence that is but successful to give possession 8. That which would oblige us to oune the Devil the Pope cannot be a ground to oune any man But if this were true that possession gave right it would oblige us to oune the Devil the pope Satan we find claiming to himself the possession of the worlds Kingdoms Luk. 4. 6. which as to many of them is in some respect true for he is called the God of this world and the Prince of this world Iohn 14. 30. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Are men therefore obliged to oune his authority or shall they deny his and acknowledge his lievtenant who bears his name and by whom all his orders are execute I mean the man that Tyranizes over the people of God for he is the Devil that casts some into prison Revel 2. 10. Again the Pope his Captain-General layes claim to a Temporal power Ecclesiastick both over all the Nations and possesses it over many and again under the Conduct of his vassal the Duke of York is attempting to recover the possession of Britain Shall he therefore be ouned This Cursed Principle disposes men for Poperie and contributes to strengthen Poperie Tyrannie both on the stage to the vacating of all the promises of their dispossession 9. That which would justify a Damnable sin and make it a ground of a duty cannot be ouned But this fancy of ouning every power in possession would justify a damnable sin and make it the ground of a duty for Resistence to the powers ordained of God is a damnable sin Rom 13. 2. but the Resisters having success in providence may come to the possession of the power by expelling the just occupant and by this opinion that possession would be ground for the duty of subjection for Conscience sake 10. If a self-created dignity be null and not to be ouned then a meer possessory is not to be ouned But the former is ttue as Christ saith Iohn S. 54. If I honour myself my honor is nothing 11. That which God hath disallowed cannot be ouned But God hath expresly disallowed possession without right Ezek. 21. 27. I will overturn overturn overturn it until He come whose right it is Hos. 8. 4. They have set up Kings not by me Math. 26. 52. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword by this the Usurper of the Sword is differenced from the true ouner 12. Many Scripture examples confut this shewing that the possession may be in one and the power with right in another David was the Magistrate and yet Absalom possessed the place 2 Sam. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. chap. Shebah also made a revolt and Usurped the possession in a great part and yet David was King 2 Sam. 20. 2. Adonijah got the start in respect of possession exalting himself saying I will be King yet the Kingdom was Solomons from the Lord. 1 King. 1. ch The house of Ahaziah had not power to keep still the Kingdom 2 Chron. 22. 9. and Athaliah took the possession of it yet the people set up Ioash 23. 3. Next we have many examples of such who have invaded the possessor Witness Iehoram Iehoshaphat their expedition against Mesba King of Moah Elisha being in the expedition 2 King. 3. 4 5. Hence we see the first pretence removed The Second is no better which Augustine calls Magnum Latrocinium a Great Robberie I mean conquest or a power of the Sword gotten by the Sword which that it can give no right to be ouned I prove 1. That which can give no signification of Gods approving will cannot give a Title to be ouned But meer conquest can give no signification of Gods approving will as is just now proven about possession for then the Lord should have approven all the unjust conquests that have been in the world 2. Either conquest as conquest must be ouned as a just Title to the Crown and so the Ammonites Moabites Philistims c. prevailing over Gods people for a time must have reigned by right or as a just conquest in this case conquest is only a mean to the conquerours seising holding that power which the State of the war entitled him unto And this ingress into Authority over the conquered is not grounded on conquest but on justice and not at all privative but Inclusive of the consent of the people and then it may be ouned but without a compact upon conditions of securing Religion Liberty the posterity cannot be subjected without their consent for what ever just quarrel the conquerour had with the present Generation he could haue none with the Posterity the Father can have no power to resign the Liberty of the Children 3. A King as King and by virtue of his Royal Office
must be ouned to be a Father Tutor Protector Shepherd Patron of the people But a mere conquerour without consent cannot be ouned as such Can he be a Father Patron to us against our will by the sole power of the sword a Father to these that are unwilling to be Sons an head over such as will not be members and a defender through violence 4. A King as such is a special gift of God and blessing not a judgement But a conquerour as such is not a blessing but a judgement his native end being not Peace but fire sword 5. That which hath nothing of a King in it can not be ouned to make a King But conquest hath nothing of a King in it for it hath nothing but violence force nothing out what the bloodyest villain that was never a King may have nothing of Gods approving regulating Will nothing of Institution or constitution and a plain repugnancy to the Ordination of God for God hath said thow shalt not kill conquest sayes I will kill and Prosper reign 6. A Lawful Call to a Lawful Office may not be resisted But a Call to conquest which is nothing but ambition or revenge ought to be resisted because not of Gods preceptive will otherwise He should be the Author of sin 7. That power which we must oune to be the Ordinance oâ— God must not be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But conquest may be resisted in defence of our King Country Therefore it must no be ouned to be the Ordinance of God. 8. That which God condemns in His Word cannot be ouned But Dominion by the sword God condemns in His Word Ezek. 33. 26. ye stand upon your sword and shall possess the Land Amos 6. 13. ye rejoice in a thing of naught which say have we not taken horns to us by our oun strength Habhak 2. 5 6 Wo to him that encreaseth that which is not his how long c. 9. We have many examples of invading Conquerours as Abraham for the rescue of Lot pursued the Conquering Kings unto Dan. Gen. 14. 14. Ionathan smote a Garison of the Conqueering Philistims 1 Sam. 13. 3. The Lord ouning authorizing them so to do The people did often shake off the yoke of their Conquerours in the history of the Judges But this they might not do to their Lawful Rulers What is objected from the Lords people Conquering Canaan c. is no Argument for conquest for He to whom belongs the earth and its fullness disponed to Israel the Land of Canaan for their Inheritance and ordained that they should get the possession thereof by conquest It followeth not therefore that Kings now wanting any word of promise or divine Grant to any Lands may ascend to the Thrones of other Kingdoms than their oun by no better title than the bloody sword See Lex Rex Quest 12. The Third pretence of Hereditary Succession remaines to be removed which may be thus disproven 1. This clashes with the former though commonly asserted by Royalists For either Conquest gives a right or it does not If it does then it looses all allegiance to the heirs of the Crown dispossessed thereby If it does not give a right then no Hereditary Succession founded upon conquest can have any right being founded upon that which hath no right And this will shake the most part of Hereditary Successions that are now in the world 2. If Hereditary Succession have no right but the peoples consent then of it self it can give none to a man that hath not that consent But the former is true For it is demanded how doth the Son or Brother succeed by what right It must either be by divine promise Or by the Fathers will Or it must come by propogation from the first Ruler by a right of the Primogeniture But none of these can be For the first we have no immediate Divine Constitution tying the Crown to such a race as in Davids Covenant It will be easily granted they fetched not their Charter from Heaven immediatly as David had it a man of many peculiar prerogatives to whose line the promise was astricted of the Coming of Messias and Iacobs Prophesie that the Scepter should not depart from Iudah until His coming Gen. 49. 10. was restricted to his family afterwards Wherefore he could say The Lord God of Israel chose me befor all the house of my father to be King over Israel for ever for He hath chosen Iudah to be the Ruler and of the house of Iudah the house of my father and among the sons of my father He liked me to make me King over Israel and of all my Sons He hath chosen Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 4. 5. All Kings cannot say this neither could Saul say it though immediatly called of God as well as David yet this same Promise to David was Conditional if His Children should keep the Lords wayes 2 Chron. 6. 16. Next it cannot be said this comes from the will of the father for according to the Scripture no King can make a King though a King may appoint design his son for succession as David did Solomon but the people make him The father is some way a Cause why his son succeedeth but he is not the Cause of the Royaltie conferred upon him by line for the question will recur who made him a King and his father grand father till we come up to the first father Then who made him a King not himself therefore it must be refounded upon the peoples choise constitution And who appointed the lineal succession and tyed the Crown to the line but they It is then at the best the Patrimony of the people by the fundamental Law of the Kingdom conferred upon the successor by consent And generally it is granted even where the succession is lineal he that comes to inherit Doth it not jure hereditario but vi legis he does not succeed by heritage but by the force of Law the Son then hath not his Kingdom from his father but by Law which the people made stand to as long as it may consist with the reasons of publick advantage upon which they condiscended to establish such a family over them Neither can it be said It is by a right of Primogeniture propogated from the first Ruler for this must either be Adam the first of the world or Fergus v. G. the first of this Kingdom It could not come from Adam as a Monarch father of all For that behoved to be either by order of Nature or his volunâ—ary assignment It could not be transferred by order of Nature for besides the difficulty to find out Adams successor in the universal Monarchy and the absurdity of fixing it on Cain who was a Cursed vagabond afraied of every man and could not be an universal Monarch yet Adams first born It will be asked how this passed from him unto others whether it went by father-hood to all the Sons fathers to
Lords displeasure they are to give Judgment though the King should countermand it Secondly that the King is not excepted from their Judgment is also evident from the General Commands Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood â—y man shall his blood be shed there is no exception of Kings or Dukes here and we must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not Numb 35. 30 31. whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer which is guilty of death but he shall be surely put to death What should hinder then Justice to be awarded upon a Murdering King Shall it be for want of witnesses It will be easy to adduce thousands Or shall this be satisfaction for his life that he is a Crowned King the Law saith there shall no satisfaction be taken The Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19. 15. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment thow shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honour the person of the Mighty If Kings be not among the Mighty how shall they be classed Deut. 1. 17. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment but yow shall hear the small as well as the great yow shall not be afraid of the face of man for the judgment is Gods if then no mans face can outdare the Law Judgment of God then the Kings Majestick face must not do it but as to the demerit of blood he must be subject as well as another It s no Argument to say the Sanhedrin did not punish David for his Murther Adulterie Ergo now it is not Lawful to punish a King for the same a reason a non facto is not relevant David did not punish Ioab for his Murder but Authorized it as also he did Bathsheba's Adulterie will that prove that Murders connived at or commanded by the King shall not be punished or that Whores of State are not to be called to an account Neither will it prove that a Murdering king should not be punished that David was not punished because he got both the sin pardoned and his life granted from the Lord saying to him by the mouth of the Prophet Nathan Thow shalt not die But as for the demerit of that fact he himself pronounced the sentence out of his oun mouth 2 Sam. 12. 15. As the Lord liveth the man that hath done this thing shall surely die So every king condemned by the Law is condemned by his oun mouth for the Law is the voice of the king why then do we so much weary our selves concerning a Judge seeing we have the kings oun Confession that is the Law. Buchanan de jure regni And there needs be no other difficultie to find a Tribunal for a Murdering king than to find one for a Murderer for a Judgment must acknowledge but one name to wit of the Crime if a king then be guilty of Murder he hath no more the name of a king but of a Murderer when brought to Judgment for he is not Judged for his kingship but for his Murther as when a Gentleman is Judged for Robbery he is not hanged neither is he spared because he is a Gentleman but because he is a Robber See Buchanan ubi supra 6. If the Peoples Representatives be superior to the king in Judgment and may execute Judgment without him and against his will then they may also seek account of him for if he hath no Power but from them and no Power without them to act as king no more than the eye or hand hath Power to act without the body then his Power must be inferior fiduciary accountable to them But the former is true The Peoples Representatives are superior to the king in Judgment and may execute Judgment without him and against his will. In Scripture we find the Power of the Elders and heads of the People was very great and in many cases superior to the king which the Learned Dr Owen demonstrates in his Preliminary Exercitations on the Epist. to the Heb. and proves out of the Rabbins that the kings of the Iewes might have been called to an account punished for transgressing of the Law. But in the Scripture we find 1 They had a Power of Judgment with the Supreme Magistrate in matters of Religion Justice Government Hamor Shechem would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the Citie Gen. 34. 20. David behoved to consult with the Captains of thousands every Leader if it seemed good to them to bring again the Ark of God. 1. Chron. 13. 1 2 3. So also Solomon could not do it without them 1 King. 8. 1. Ahab could not make peace with Benhadad against the consent of the People 1 King. 20. 8. The men of Ephraim complain that Iephthah the Supreme Magistrate had gone to War against the Children of Ammon without them and threatened to burn his house with fire which he only excuses by the Law of necessity Iudg. 12. 1 2 3. The Seventy Elders are appointed by God not to be the Advisers only helpers of Moses but to bear a part of the burden of ruling governing the People that Moses might be eased Numb 11. 14 17. Moses upon his sole pleasure had not power to restrain them in the exercise of Judgment given of God. They were not the Magistrats depending deputies but in the act of Judging they were independent and their Consciences as immediatly subjected to God as the Superior Magistrate who was to adde his approbative suffrage to their actings but not his directive nor imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure but only according to the Law he might command them to do their duty but he could do nothing without them 2 They had Power not derived from the Prince at all even a Power of life death The rebellious Son was to be brought to the Elders of the Citie who had Power to stone him Deut. 21. 18 24. They had Power to punish Adulterie with death Deut. 22. 21. They had Power to cognosce whom to admit into and whom to seclude from the Cities of refuge So that if the King had commanded to take the life of an innocent man they were not to deliver him Iosh. 20. per tot But besides the Elders of Cities there were the Elders and heads of the People who had judicial Power to cognosce on all Criminal Matters even when Ioshua was Judge in Israel we find they assumed this Power to judge of that matter of the two tribes the half Iosh. 22. 30. And they had Power to make Kings as Saul David as was shewed and it must needs follow they had Power to unmake them in case of Tyranny 3 They had Power to conveen even without the indiction of the Ruler as in that Iosh. 22. they convene without him and without advice or knowledge of Samuel the Ruler they
Serpent Dragon Isai. 27. 1. and have great affinity in name Nature with the Apocalyptick Dragon So also Isai. 51. 9. the Egyptian Tyrant is called Dragon And Nebuchadnezzar swallowed up the Church like a Dragon Ier. 51 34. See also Ezek. 29. 3. 6. They are wolves ravening the prey Ezek. 22. 27. evening wolves that gnaw not the bones till the morrow Zeph. 3. 3. 7. They are Leopards So the Grecian Tyrants is called Dan. 7. 6. and Antichrist Revel 13. 2. 8. They are foxes So Christ calls Herod Luk. 13. 32. 9. They are Devils who cast the Lords people into Prison Revel 2. 10 13. Now can we oune all these abommable Creatures to be Magistrates Can these be the fathers we are bound to honour in the fifth Commandment They must be esteemed sons of dogs Devils that belive so and oune themselves sones of such fathers If we further take notice how the Spirit of God describes Tyranny as altogether Contradistinct opposite unto the Magistracy He will have ouned we may infer hence Tyrants Usurpers are not to be ouned What the Government instituted by God among His people was the Scripture doth both relate in matter of â—act and describes what it ought to be de jure viz. That according to the Institution of God magistrates should be established by the Constitution of the people who were to make them Iudges Officers in all their gates that they might Iudge the people with just Iudgment Deut. 16. 18. But foreseeing that people would affect a change of that first forme of Government and in imitation of their neighbouring Nations would desire a King and say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are about me Deut. 17. 14. The Lord intending high holy ends by it chiefly the procreation of the Messias from a Kingly race did permit the change and gave directions how he should be moulded bounded that was to be ouned as the Magistrate under a Monarchial forme To wit that he should be chosen of God and set up by their suffrages that he should be a brother and not a stranger that he should not multiply horses nor wives nor money which are Cautions all calculated for the peoples good and the security of their Religion Liberty and for precluding preventing his degeneration into Tyranny and that he should write a Copy of the Law in a book according to which he should Govern vers 15. ad â—in cap. yet the Lord did not approve the change of the form which that luxuriant people was long affecting and at length obtained For long before Saul was made King they profered an Hereditary Monarchy to Gideon without the boundaries Gods Law required Which that brave Captain knowing how derogatory it was to the Authority of Gods Institution not to be altered in form or frame without His order generously refused faying I will not rule over yow neither shall my son rule over yow the Lord shall rule over yow Iud. 8. 23. But his bastard the first Monarch Tyrant of Israel Abimelech by sinstrous means being advanced to be King by the traiterous Schechemites Iotham and other of the Godly disouned him which by the Spirit of God Iotham describes Parabolically significantly hoâ—ding out the Nature of that Tyrannical usurpation under the Apologue of the trees itching after a King and the offer being repudiate by the more generous sort embraced by the bramble Signifying that men of worth virtue would never have taken upon them such an arrogant Domination and that such a Tyrannicall Government in its Nature tendency was nothing but an useless worthless sapless aspiring scratching vexing shadow of a Government under subjection to which there could be no peace nor safety But this was rather a Tumultuary interruption than a Change of the Government not being universally either desired or ouned therefore after that the Lord restored the pristine form Which continued until being much perverted by Samuels sons the people unanimously peremptorly desired the change thereof and whether it were reason or not would have a King as we were fondly set upon one after we had been delivered from his fathers yoke And the Lord gave them a King with a Curse and tooke him away with a vengeance Hos. 13. 11. as He did our Charles the Second Yet He permited it but with a Protestation against and conviction of the sin that thereby they had rejected the Lord 1 Sam. 8. 7. and with a demonstration from Heaven which extorted their oun confession that they bad added unto all their sins this evil to ask a King 1 Sam. 12. 17 18 19. And to deter disswad from such a Conclusion He appoints the Prophet to shew them the manner of the King that should reign over them 1 Sam. 8. 9. to declare before hand what sort of a Ruler he woud prove when they got him to wit a meer Tyrant who would take their sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and for horsemen and to run before his Chariots and make them his sowldiers and labourers of the ground and Instrument-makers and houshold servants and he would take their fields vineyards the best of them and give unto his servants in a word to make all slaves and that in the end when this should come to pass they should cry out because of their King but the Lord would not hear them vers 11-18 All which as it is palpable in it self so we have sensibly felt in our experience to be the Natural description of Tyranny but more tollerable than an account of ours would amount to It is both foolishly falsely alledged by Royalists or Tyrannists that here is a grant of incontroulable absoluteness to Kings to Tyrannise over the people without resistence And that this manner of the King is in the Original Mishphat which signifies right or Law So that here was a permissive Law given to Kings to Tyrannise and to oblige people to passive obedience without any remedy but tears And therefore it was registered laid up before the Lord in a book 1 Sam 10. 25. But I answer 1. If any thing be here granted to Kings it is either by Gods Approbation directing instructing how they should govern or it is only by permission providential Commission to them to be a plague to the people for their sin of choosing them to make them drink as they have brewed as sometimes He gave a Charge to the Assyrian rod to trample them doun as the mire of the streets If the first be said Then a King that does not govern after that manner and so does not make people cry out for their oppression would came short of his duty and all behoved to Tyrannize and make the people cry out then a King may take what He will from his subjects and be approved of God this were blasphemously absurd for God cannot approve of the sin of oppression If the Second
desire it as Darius did that we might offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of Heaven and pray for the life of the King and of his sons Ezra 6. 10. we could not refuse to pray for him so far as might consist with that Prayer of the same Darius in that same decree vers 12. that God may destroy all Kings people that shall put to their hand to alter and destroy the House of God. We can pray no Prayer inconsistent with this And to pray that God would save this King and yet destroy all Kings that put to their hand against His House were to pray Contradictions But they know they deserve no Prayers and must force them if they get them And all the world knows that Compelled Prayers are no devotion and if they be no devotion they must be sin Imposed Prayers are not the Prayers that God will hear accept And if we have not the faith of acceptance in them they must be sin for whatever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14. ult All Prayers which God will hear must proceed from the heart voluntarely and fervently in Spirit in Truth with the whole heart But imposed compelled Prayers cannot be such especially when they are not only by them imposed but prescribed as to the form of them Which sets and formes prescribed by men and such men as usurp a Supremacy over the Church cannot be subjected to according to the Word of God and the Principles of our Reformation 3. That infallible Proposition of the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sin must be urged yet a litle further And that with a reference both to the Person required to be prayed for and to the matter of the duty more generally First if we cannot pray for this man neither as a Christian nor as a King then we cannot satisfie this imposed demand for it will not satisfie to pray for him as a Heathen But we cannot in faith pray for him either as a Christian or as a King Not as a Christian for besides that he is an excommunicate Apostate by a sentance which we beleeve stands yet rate in Heaven Pronounced by a faithful Servant of Christ and a Papist which as such can no more be prayed for than the Pope as Pope for whom and all the limbs of Antichrist the only prayer that Protestants can pray is that the Lord would consume him with the Spirit of His Mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming 2 Thess. 2. 8. we cannot reconcile the prayers of some that pray against the Pope and his supporters and upholders of his tottering Kingdom and yet for this his Antichristian vassal His rage resolution in prosecuting a war against Christ and His followers is such that if we may make Comparisons our faith will have litle more ground to pray for Iames than Christians of old could find for Iulian the the Apostate Nor as a King for that we cannot do because he is none with Gods approbation and may not do for a very heathen could teach us to pray that God would destroy all Kings that put to their hand to alter destroy the House of God Ezra 6. 12. And besides in the Second place with respect to the matter of the duty in general That cannot be in faith which wants a warrant in the Word either by precept promise or practice But to pray for wicked Tyrants Enemies of God wants a Warrant in the Word either by precept promise or practice There is no precept for it either General on particular neither express nor any to which this is reducible And who dare adde without a precept in the Worship of God either for matter or manner or end what He hath not commanded for such presumption Nadab Abihu were destroyed Levit. 10. 1 2. because they did that which the Lord had not commanded What Command can there be for praying for that which is against the preceptive Will of God But it is against the preceptive Will of God that there should be Tyrants Therefore to pray that these may be preserved in the World cannot fall under a Command of God. There is no promise for it which is the foment foundation of Prayer We can pray for nothing that we have not a promise for either General or Particular But we have none nor can have any for the preservation of a plague to us as Tyrants are There is no Practice for it in Scripture to pray for Kings that put to their hand to destroy the House of God. Samuel did indeed mourn for Saul but the Lord reproved him for it How long wilt thow mourn for Saul seeing I have rejected him from being King over Isrrel 1 Sam. 16. 1. belike this reproof was for his praying for Sauls preservation as King for otherwise we may mourn for wicked wretches for their sin Miserie both But hence if the Lord reprove His Servant for mourning for a King whom He disounâ—d then we may not pray for such a King whom the Lord disounes as He disounes all Tyrants for they are set up not by Him But the Antecedent is true in that example of Samuel Therefore also the Consequent that we may not pray for them as Kings whom the Lord disounes 4. Moreover to confirm this yet further That Prayer is not of Faith and so sin which is contrary to the Precepts of God and his promises and the practices of the Saints But praying for wicked Kings their preservation is contrary to these precepts promises practices c. Ergo It is contrary to some Divine precepts both Affirmative Negative There is an Affirmative precept prescribing what Prayer should be used under the Domination of Tyrants that they should weep and say Spare thy people O Lord give not they Heritage to reproach that the heathen should rule over them wherefore should they say among the people where is their God Ioel. 3. 17. If it be a reproach to be under Heathen Rulers and if we should pray that they may not Rule but that Our God may shew Himself where He is and who He is in delivering His people from their Domination Then it is contrary to this to pray for the preservation of Tyrants that do rule over them to their destruction reproach For it is contradictory to pray that they may not Rule and that they may be preserved in Ruling There is a negative precept prohibiting the salutation of Hereticks and Enemies of the Gospel which will condemn this salutation of Heretical Kings for in the Original God save the King is no more than a solemn salutation or apprecatory Wish that he may prosper 2 Epist. Iohn vers 10 11. If there come any and bring not this Doctrine neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds God speed in the Greek is the same with God save in the Hebrew If then we must not say
it But here it is given before the Institution of Magistracy when now there was no Government in the world but family-Government as Grotius on the place saith Cum enim lex haec â—ata est non dum constituta sunt judicia itaque naturale justaliatus hic indicatur quod aucto humano genere in gentes distributo merito solis judicibus permissum fuit extra casus quosdam exceptos in quibus mansit jus illud 〈◊〉 When this Law was given publick Judgement was not yet constitute Therefore the natural right Law of Taliation is here held forth which when mankind was increased and divided into several Nations was justly permitted only to Judges some cases excepted in which that primaeve right did remain And if in any then in this case in question Hence Lex Rex answereth the P. Prelate essaying to prove that a Magiâ—â—racy is established in the Text denyes that Ba Adam by man must signify a Magistrate for than there was but family Government and cites 〈◊〉 of the same mind that the Magistrate is not spoken of here Though this Command afterwards was given to the Magistrate Numb 35. 30. yet in a ease of necessity we must recur to the Original Command 2. This same Command of punishing Murdering Enemies is even after the Institution of Magistrates in several cases not astricted to them but permitted to the people yea enjoyned to them As 1 Not only Magistrates but the people are Commanded to avenge themselves on their publick Enemies as the Israelites after their being insnared in the matter of Peor are Commanded to vexe the Midianites smite them because they beguiled them and brought a Plague upon them Numb 25. 17 18 and Numb 31. 2. to avenge themselves on them and for this end to arme themselves and go against them and avenge the Lord of Midian Which they executed with the slaughter of all the males So likewise are they Commanded to destroy Amalek It is true these Commands are given primarly principally to Magistrates as there to Moses and afterwards to Saul yet afterwards we find other than Magistrates upon this Moral Ground having the Call of God did execute Judgement upon them as Gidion David before they were Magistrates did avenge themselves and the Lord upon them as is before cleared It is also true that there was some holy severity then to be extended against particular Nations as such peculiar to that Dispensation which is not pleaded as imitable but the ground was Moral and the right of a peoples saving themselves by the destruction of their enemies when there is no other way for it is Natural And this is all we plead for here If people may vexe their enemies and avenge themselves against them even without publick Authority when ensnared by their Craftiness Much more may they put a stop to their insolency by cutting off their principal most pernicious Instruments in case of necessity when invaded by their Cruelty But here a people is Commanded to vexe their enemies and avenge themselves on them and accordingly Gideon David did so without publick Authority and that upon a ground which is Moral Natural Ergo 2 The execution of the punishment of Murderers is committed to the people The revenger of blood himself shall slay the Murderer what he meeteth him he shall slay him Numb 35. 19 21. So that if he met him before he got into any Refuge he might Lawfully slay him and if he did flee to any he was to be rendered up to the Avengers hands Deut. 19. 12. that the guilt of innocent blood may be put away from Israâ—l vers 23. This revenger of blood was not the Magistrate for he was the party pursuing Numb 35. 24. between whom and the Murderer the Congregation was to judge He was only the next in blood or kindred In the Original he is called Goel the redeemer or he to whom the right of redemption belongs and very properly so called both because he seeks redemption and compensation for the blood of his Brother and because he redeems the Land from blood guiltiness in which other-wise it would be involved I do not plead that this is alwayes to be imitated as neither it was alwayes practiced in Israel but If a private man in a hot pursuit of his Brothers Murderer might be his avenger before he could be brought to Judgement then much more may this power be assumed in a case of necessity when there is no Judgement to be expected by Law and when not only our Brethren have been murdered by them that profess a trade of it but others also and our selves are dayly in hazard of it which may be prevented in cutting them off I do not see what is here meerly Iudicial so as to be rejected as Iudaical for sure Murderers must be slain now as well as then and there is the same hazard of their escaping now as then Murder involves the Land in guilt now as well as then and in this case of necessity especially that Law that gives a man right to preserve himself gives him also right to be his oun avenger if he cannot otherwise defend himself 3 Not only the execution the decision of matters of life death is committed to them as in the case of Blasphemie Cursing all that heard were to lay their hands upon his head and all the Congregation was to stone him Levit. 24. 14 16. The man-slayer was to stand before the Congregation in Judgement Then the Congregation shall judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood Numb 35. 12 24. The people claimed the power of life death in seeking to execute Judgement upon those that had spoken Treason against Saul bring the men say they that we may put them to death 1 Sam. 11. 12. Especially in the case of punishing Tyrants as they did with Amaziah Certainly this is not so Judicial or Judaical as that in no case it may be imitated for That can never be abrogated altogether which in many cases is absolutely necessary but that the people without publick Authority should take the power of life death of puting a stop to the insolency of Destroyers by puting them to death is in many cases absolutely necessary for without this they cannot preserye themselves against Grassant Tyrants nor the fury of publick enemies or fire-brands within themselves in case they have no publick Authority or none but such as are on their Destroyers side 4 Not only the power of purging the Land by Divine precept is incumbent on the people that it may not lye under blood guiltiness but also the power of Reforming the Courts of Kings by taking Course with their wicked Abetters and evil Instruments is committed to them with a promise that if this be done it shall tend to the establishment of their Throne which is not only a supposition in case it be done but a supposed Precept to do it with an
oblivion of this that God is righteous to whom the reckoning must be made 2. Let it be supposed under Sauls Tyranny when the Ziphims informed him of Davids hiding himself with them Or when Doeg informed him of Abimelechs resetting him That an order had been given forth to all Israel with this Narrative Whereas that Rebel David had now openly despised Authority had been intertained by the Priest received Goliabs sword from him and gathered a Company of armed men together therefore to the end he and his Complices may be brought to Justice We ordain all from Dan to Beersheba to concur either personally in this Expedition against him or to pay Cess to our standing forces to maintain them in this expedition or so much to gratify the Ziphims for their kindness or to furnish Doeg with a sword to murder the Priests of the Lord. Would any that favoured Davids righteous Cause have dared to do any of these Would these that durst not concur themselves contribute any encouragment to the Concurers Would Sauls Servants that would not fall upon the Priests of the Lord themselves have given Doeg one of their swords to do it or money to buy one if it had been demanded To the same purpose suppose a party comes to a Dissenter with an express order and this Narrative Whereas there is such a Minister meet with some people at an execrable Conventicle as they call it but in it self the pure Worship of God therefore to the end the Minister may be taken murdered and the Servants of the Lord for the Countenance they gave him may be brought to the same punishment they ordain him for the accomplishing of their design to furnish that partie with all necessares or to pay such a summ of money for not concuring with them Now should he in this case not only forbear to lay doun his life for his brethren and forbear to deliver them that are thus drawn unto death on such an account into which forbearance the Great God will make so accurate an inquirie Prov. 24. 11 12. as may make us tremble whether we look backward or forward but also furnish according to the tenor of this Order that partie of the Dragons Legions in their War against the Prince Michael His Angels with supplies and think to put off the matter and plead innocent with this that he was under the Moral force of a Law accompanied with such military force as if he had refused they would have taken away all he had c. For this Plea in its full strength is to do evil that some good may come of it no true good which brings just damnation Rom. 3. 8. or to chuse sin rather than affliction 3. What if Manasseh or other Idolatrous Princes that sacrificed to Devils and made Children pass through the fire to Molech had enacted a Cess or under severe Impositions of Fynes had commanded all to concur to a solemn Sacrifice of that nature charging every man against a certain day to bring in his proportion in order to celebrate the Sacrifice with all its statute solemnities Or should have taken a child from every father and then made a Law that each of these should contribute such a summ for furnishing with all necessaries and maintaining these Murderers whom they had conduced to shed the blood of their innocent Children or sacrifice them to Molech Could it be expected that any of the Godly would have payed such Exactions and then have wyped his mouth with the notion of a moral force This comes home enough to our Case For no sacrifice they can offer to the Devil can be more real or so acceptable as what they declare they intend to do being so direct not only an opposition to the coming of the Kingdom of Christ but the deletion of His precious Interests and exstirpation of His faithful Remnant and the giving Satan such an absolute Dominion in the Nation as that they who have made the decree and all who put it in execution practically declare thereby they have mancipate themselves to his slavery and sold themselves to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord So likewise that all the rest of the Nation may with themselves become his vassals and in evidence of their opposition to Christ and in recognition of Satans Soveraignity their subjection they are appointed to pay these black Meales 4. Let it be supposed that after Nebuchadnezzar had made the decree for all to fall doun worship his Image and the three Children were apprehended for refusing it he had made another that all the Jewes especially should contribute every one a Faggot or money to buy it to heat the furnace or a rope to lead them to it Can any man suppose that Daniel or the rest of the faithful would have payed it Even so let it be supposed that any one of these faithful Ambassadours of Christ or all these zealous Workers together with God who have laboured among the people in the Preached Gospel should fall into the hands of these Hunters And then they should make a Law and appoint every man in the Nation to send but one threed to make a Towe to hang that Minister or to hang the whole Company of Christs Ambassadours and a farthing to pay the Executioner Can any man without horrour think of complying so far as to contribute what is commanded Or would not a Gracious man frighted into an abhorrence at the attrociousness of the wickedness or fired into a flame of zeal for God say without demur as not daunted with fear of what flesh could do unto him I will rather venture my All to keep them alive or be hanged with them than by doing what is demanded be brought forth classed in the cursed cruel Company of those who shall be dragged before the Tribunal of Christ with their fingers dyed dropping with the blood of those who are peculiarly dear to Him I know it will be said that in all these cases it would be a clear case of Confession Well that 's all I would have granted For that which doth over ballance to a Testimony in all the cases mentioned is so far from being wanting in the cases now under consideration that they have all to enforce the duty that all of them put together do include As will be clear to any who consider 1 The preciousness of the things Interests to be destroyed 2 The Concurrence called for from every one that this desperate design may be accomplished 3 The great manifold indispensible obligations all are under not only to abstain from the required Concurrence but to preserve also maintain these things in opposition to all whom Satan sets on work to serve him in this Expedition against the Son of God and to do it or endeavour it with the loss of life and all things dearest to men to the end that these things which are Satans eyesore as only obstructive of His Kingdom may
briefly plainly We do not usuâ—p a judgment in the case pretending no more Authority over them in our private Capacity than we allow them to have over us that is none at all Nor can we admit that they should be both Judges party for then they might challenge that prerogative in every case and strengthen themselves in an incontrollable immunity impunity to do what they pleased But we appeal to the fundamental Lawes of the Kingdom aggreeable to the word of God to Judge and to the whole world of impartial Spectators to read pronounce the judgment Lâ—x Rex Quest. 24. Pag. 213. sayeth in answer to this There is a Court of Necessity no less than a Court of Justice And the fundamental Lawes must then speak and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no ruler And as to the doubtsomness of these Lawes he sayeth 1 As the Scriptures in all fundamentals are clear expone themselves actu primo condemn Heresies So all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature Nations are clear 2 Tyranny is more visible intelligible than Heresie and it s soon discerned The people have a Natural Throne of Policy in their conscience to give warning materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant where Tyranny is more obscure and the thread smal that it escape the eye of man the King keepeth Possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long 7. I shall grant that many things are yeeldable even to a Grassant Dominator Tyrannical Occupant of the place of Magistracy as 1. There may be some cases wherein its Lawful for a people to yeeld subjection to a Lawless Tyrant when groaning under his overpouring yoke under which they must patiently bear the inâ—â—â—nation of the Lord because they have sinned against Him until He arise plead His oun Cause execute judgment in the earth Mic. 7. 9. until which time they must kiss the rod as in the hand of God and oune adore the holyness Soveraignty of that Providence that hath subjected them under such a slavery and are not to attempt a violent ejection or excussion when either the thing attempted is altogether impracticable or the means manner of effectuating it dubious unwarrantable or the necessary Concomitants consequents of the cure more hurtful or dangerous than the disease or the like As in many cases also a man may be subject to a robber prevailing against him So we find the people of Israel in Egyt Babylon c. yeelded subjection to Tyrants But in this case we deny two things to them 1 Allegiance or active voluntary subjection so as to oune them for Magistrats 2 Stupid Passive obedience or suffering without resistence For the first we owe it only to Magistrats by virtue of the Law either Ordinative of God or Constitutive of man. And it is no Argument to infer as a mans subjecting himself to a Robber assaulting him is no soild proof of his approving or acknowledging the injury violence committed by the robber therefore a Persons yeelding subjection to a Tyrant a Publick robber does not argue his acknowledging or approving his Tyranny oppression For the subjection that a Tyrant requires and which a Robber requires is not of the same nature the one is Legal of subjects which we cannot oune to a Tyrant the other is forced of the subdued which we must acknowledge to a Robber But to make the Paralell If the Robber should demand in our subjecting our selves to him an ouning of him to be no robber but an honest man as the Tyrant demands in our subjecting our selves to him in ouning him to be no Tyrant but a Magistrate then we ought not to yeeld it to the one no more than to the other For the Second to allow them Passive obedience is in-intelligible Non-sense a meer Contradiction for nothing that 's meerly passive can be obedience as relative to a Law nor can any obedience be meerly passive for obedience is always active But not only is the inaccuracy of the Phrase excepted against but also that position maintained by many that in reference to a yoke of Tyranny there is a time which may be called the proper season of suffering that is when suffering in opposition to acting or resisting is a necessary indispensible duty and resisting is a sin For if the one be an indispensible duty the other must be a sin at the same time But this cannot be admitted For though certainly there is such a season of suffering wherein suffering is Lawful laudable necessary and all must lay their account with suffering and litle else can be attempted but which will encrease sufferings yet even then we may resist as well as we can and these two Resistence Suffering at the same time are not incompatible David did bear most patiently the injury of his Sons usurpation when he said let the Lord do to me as seemeth Him good 2 Sam. 15. 26. ch 10. 12. and betaketh himself to fervent prayers Psal. 3. and yet these were not all the weapons he used against him Neither did he ever oune him as a Magistrate We are to suffer all things patiently as the Servants of the Lord and look to Him for Mercy relief Psal. 123. 2. but we are not obliged to suffer even in that season as the slaves of men Again suffering in opposition to resistence does never fall under any moral Law of God execept in the absolutely extraordinary Case of Christs passive obedience which cannot fall under our deliberation or imitation Or in the case of a positive Law as was given to the Iewes to submit to Nebuchadnezzar which was express peculiar to them as shall be cleared That can never be commanded as indispensible duty which does not fall under our free will or deliberation but the enemies will as the Lord permits them as the Case of suffering is That can never be indispensible duty which we may decline without sin as we may do suffering if we have not a call to it yea in that case it were sin to suffer therefore in no case it can be formally indispensibly commanded so as we may not shift it if we can without sin Suffering simply the evil of punishment just or unjust can never be a conformity to Gods preceptive Will but only to His Providential disposal it hath not voluntas signi for its rule but only voluntas beneplaciti All the Commands that we have for suffering are either to direct the manner of it that it be Patiently Chearfully when forced to it wrongfully 1 Pet. 2. 19 20. or Comparatively to determine our choise in an unavoidable alternative either to suffer or sin and so we are commanded rather to suffer than to deny Christ Math. 13. 33. and we are commanded upon these termes to follow Christ to take up His Cross when He layes
if he do so so the subjects shall be loosed from all bonds of obedience then when he does so he becomes a meer private person Grotius there supposes the power is transferred upon a resolutive condition that is if he transgress the condition the power shall be resolved into its first fountain much more if it be transferred expressly also upon a suspensive condition that he shall continue to maintain the ends of the Covenant defend Religion the Liberties of the Subjects in the defence whereof we shall oune Allegiance to him otherwise not in that case if he do not maintain these ends plain it is our obligation ceases for how can it stand upon a conditional obligation when his performance of the condition sists But whatever be the conditions Mutual it flowes Natively from the Nature of a Mutual compact that qui non praestat officium promissum cadit beneficio hac lege dato he who doth not perform the conditions aggreed upon hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of performance of these conditions especially if he performe not or violate these conditions upon supposition whereof he would not have gotten the benefite It were very absurd to say in a Mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to perform his conditions though the other perform none but break all Were it the act of rational Creatures to set up a Soveraign upon conditions he shall not play the Tyrant and yet be bound to him thô he Tyrannize never so much We have the Nature of Mutual compacts in the Spies Covenant with Rahab Iosh. 2. 20. If thow utter this our business then we will be quite of thine Oath which thow hast made us to swear if she should break condition then the obligation of the Oath on their part should cease But next all the stress will ly in proving that the Covenant on such such conditions between a Prince Subjects doth equally mutually oblige both to each other for if it equally oblige both then both are equally disengaged from other by the breach on either side and either of them may have a just claim in Law against the other for breach of the conditions But Royalists Court-slaves alledge that such a Covenant obliges the King to God but not to the people at all so that he is no more accountable to them than if he had made none at all But the contrare is evident For 1 If the compact be Mutual and if it be infringed on one side it must be so in the other also for in contracts the parties are considered as equalls whatever inequality there may be betwixt them otherwise I speak of contracts among men 2 If it be not so there is no Covenant made with the people at all And so David did no more Covenant with Israel than with the Chaldeans for to all with whom the Covenant is made it obliges to them Otherwise it must be said he only made the Covenant with God contrary to the Text for he made it only before the Lord as a Witness not with Him as a party Ioashs Covenant with the Lord is expresly distinguished from that with the people 3 If it be not so it were altogether non-sense to say there were any Covenant made with the King on the other hand for he is supposed to be made King on such such terms and yet by this after he is made King he is no more obliged unto them than if there had been no compact with him at all 4 If he be bound as King and not only as a man or Christian then he is bound with respect to the people for with respect to them he is only King But he is bound as King and not only as a man or Christian because it is only with him as King that the people Covenant and he must transact with them under the same consideration Next that which he is obliged to is the specifical act of a King to defend Religion Liberty Rule in Righteousness And therefore his Covenant binds him as King. Again if he be not bound as King then as a King he is under no obligation of Law or Oath which is to make him a Lawless Tyrant yea none of Gods subjects It would also suppose that the King as King could not sin against the people at all but only against God for as King he could be under no obligation of duty to the people and where there is no obligation there is no sin by this he would be set above all obligations to love his neighbour as himself for he is above all his neighbours and all mankind and only less than God and so by this doctrine he is loosed from all duties of the Second Table or at least he is not so much obliged to them as others But against this it is Objected both Prince people are obliged to performe their part to each other and both are obliged to God but both are not accountable to each other there is not mutual power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty the King hath it indeed over the people but not the people over the King and there is no indifferent Judge Superior to both to compell both but God. Ans. 1. What if all this should be granted yet it doth not infringe the proposition what if the people have not power to compell him yet Iure he may fall from his Soveraignity though de facto he is not deposed he loses his right to our part when he breaks his part 2. There is no need of a Superior Arbiter for as in contracting they are considered as equal so the party keeping the contract is Superior to the other breaking it 3. There may be Mutual Coactive Power where there is no Mutual relation of Superiority Inferiority yea in some cases Inferiours may have a Coactive Power by Law to compell their Superiours failing in their duty to them As a Son wronged by his Father may compel him to reparation by Law And independent Kingdoms nothing inferior to each other being in Covenant together the wronged may have a Coactive power to force the other to duty without any Superior Arbiter 4. The bond of suretyship brings a man under the obligation to be accountable to the Creditor though the surety were never so high and the Creditor never so low Solomon sayes in General without exception of Kings yea including them because he was a King that spake it Prov. 6. 1 2. My son if thow be Surety for thy friend thow art snared with the words of thy Mouth Now a Kings power is but fiduciary And therefore he cannot be unaccountable for the power concredited to him And if the Generation had minded this our Stewarts should have been called to an account for their Stewardship ere now Hence I argue If a Covenanted Prince breaking all the Conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance
conveen to ask a King 1 Sam. 8. And without any head or superior they convene make David King notwithstanding of Isbosheths hereditary right Without against Tyrannous Athaliah her consent they convene make Ioash King and cared not for her Treason Treason 2 King. 11. But now the king alone challenges the Prerogative-power of calling dessolving Parliaments as he pleases and condemns all meetings of Estates without his warrant which is purely Tyrannical for in cases of necessity by the very Law of nature they may must convene The Power is given to the king only by a positive Law for orders sake but otherwise they have an intrinsical Power to assemble themselves All the forecited Commands Admonitions Certifications to execute Iudgement must necessarly involve imply Power to convene without which they could not be in a Capacity for it Not only unjust Judgement but no Iâ—dgement in a time when Truth is fallen in the streets equity cannot enter is charged as the sin of the State therefore they must convene to prevent this sin and the wrath of God for it God hath committed the keeping of the Common-wealth not to the king only but also to the peoples Representatives heads And if the king have Power to break up all Conventions of this nature then he hath Power to hinder Judgement to proceed which the Lord Commands And this would be an excuse when God threatens vengeance for it we could not execute Iudgement because ehe King forbad us Yet many of these forementioned reproofs threatenings certifications were given in the time of Tyrannous Idolatrous kings who no doubt would inhibite discharge the doing of their duty yet we see that was no excuse but the Lord denounces wrath for the omission 4 They had Power to execute Judgement against the will of the Prince Samuel killed Agag against Sauls will but according to the Command of God 1 Sam. 15. 32. Against Ahabs will mind Elijah caused kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods express Law 1 King. 18. 40. It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise than it is this day when there is no Magistrate that will execute the Judgment of the Lord then they who have Power to make the Magistrate may ought to execute it when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect So the Princes of Iudah had power against the kings will to put Ieremiah to death which the king supposes when he directs him what to say to them Ier. 38. 25. They had really such a Power though in Ieremiahs case it would have been wickedly perverted See Lex Rex Q. 19. 20. 5 They had a power to execute Judgement upon the king himself as in the case of Amaziah Uzziah as shall be cleared afterwards I conclude with repeating the Argument If the king be accountable whensoever this Account shall be taken we are confident our disouning him for the present will be justified and all will be obliged to imitate it If he be not then we cannot oune his Authority that so presumptously exalts himself above the People 10. If we will further consider the nature of Magistracy it will appear what Authority can conscienciously be ouned to wit that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potestas not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potentia Authorized Power not Might or force Moral Power not merely Natural There is a great difference betwixt these two Natural Power is common to brutes Moral Power is peculiar to men Narural Power is more in the Subjects because they have more strength force Moral Power is in the Magistrate they can never meet adequately in the same subject Natural power can Moral only may warrantably exercise rule Natural power is opposed to impotency weakness Moral to illicitness or unlawfulness Natural power consists in strength Moral in righteousness Natural power may be in a Reut of Rogues making an uproar Moral only in the Rulers they cannot be distinguished by their acts but by the Principle from which the acts proceed in the one from meer force in the other from Authority The Principle of Natural power is its oun might will and the end only self Moral hath its rise from positive Constitution and its end publick safety The strength of Natural power lies in the Sword whereby its might gives Law the strength of Moral power is in its Word whereby reason gives Law unto which the Sword is added for punishment of Contraveners Natural power takes the Sword Math. 26. 52. Moral bears the Sword Rom. 13. 4. In Natural power the Sword is the Cause in Moral it is only the Consequent of Authority In Natural power the Sword legitimates the Scepter in Moral the Scepter legitimates the Sword The Sword of the Natural is only backed with Metal the Sword of the Moral power is backed with Gods warrant Natural power involves men in passive subjection as a traveller is made to yeeld to a Robber Moral power reduces to Consciencious subordination Hence the power that is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas cannot be ouned But the power of Tyrants Usurpers is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major cannot be denied for it is only the Moral Power that is ordained of God unto which we must be subject for Conscience sake The Minor also for the Power of Tyrants is not Moral because not Authorized nor warranted nor ordained of God by His preceptive Ordinance and therefore no Lawful Magistratical Power For the clearer understanding of this let it be observed there are four things required to the making of a Moral or Lawful Power the matter of it must be Lawful the Person Lawful the Title Lawful and the Use Lawful 1. The matter of it about which it is exerted or the work to be done by it must be Lawful warranted by God and if it be unlawful it destroyes its Moral being As the Popes power in dispensing with Divine Laws is null no Moral Power And so also the Kings power in dispensing with both Divine humane Laws is null Hence that power which is in regard of matter unlawful and never warranted by God cannot be ouned But absolute power which is the power of Tyrants Usurpers particularly of this of ours is in regard of matter unlawful never warranted by God Ergo 2. The Person holding the power must be such as not only is capable of but competent to the tenure of it and to whom the holding of it is allowed and if it be prohibited it evacuates the Morality of the power Korah his Company arrogated to themselves the Office of the Priesthood this power was prohibited to them their power then was a nullity As therefore a person that should not be a Minister when he usurps that office is no Minister So a person that should not be a Magistrate when he usurps that Office is no
oune them as Magistrates The least deference we can pay to Magistrates is subjection as it is required in these words Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers and submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake But this cannot be given to Tyrants Usurpers Ergo no deference can be paid to them at all and consequently they cannot be ouned That this subjection which is required to the higher Powers cannot be ouned to Tyrants will be apparent if we consider 1. The Subjection required is orderly subjection to an orderly power that we be regularly under him that is regularly above But Usurpation Tyranny is not an Orderly Power orderly placed above us Therefore we cannot be ordely under it This is gathered from the Original Language where the powers to be subjected to are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of God and he that resisteth the Power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Counter-ordered or contrary to his orderly duty So the duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject They are all words coming from one root which signifies to Order So that subjection is to be placed in order under another relative to an Orderly Superiority But to occupy the seat of dignity unauthorized is an Ataxie a breaking of order and bringing the Common-wealth quite out of order Whereby it may appear that in relation to an Arbitrary Government there can be properly no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no orderly subjection 2. The thing it self must import that relative duty which the fifth Command requires not only a passive stooping endurance or a â—eigned Counterfeit submission but a real Active duty including obedience to Lawful Commands and not only so but support maintinance and that both to the acts of his administration and to his standing keeping his station assisting him with all our abilities both humane Christian And not only as to the external acts of duties but the inward motions of the heart as consent Love Reverence Honour and all sincere fealty Allegiance But can a subjection of this extent be payed to a Tyrant or Usurper Can we support those we are bound to suppress Shall we love the ungodly and help those that hate the Lord Can we consent that we our posterity should be slaves Can we honour them who are vile and the vilest of men how high soever they be exalted 3. The ground of this subjection is for conscience sake not for wrath that is so far so long as one is constrained by fear to avoid a greater evil to stoop to him but out of conscience of duty both that of Piety to God who ordained Magistracy and that of equity to him who is His Minister for good and under pain of damnation if we break this orderly subjection Rom. 13. 2 5. But can it be imagined that all this is due to a Tyrant Usurper Can it be out of conscience because he is the Lords Minister for good the contrary is clear that he is the Devils drudge serving his Interest Is resistance to Tyrants a damnable sin I hope to prove it to be a duty 4. If subjection to Tyrants Usurpers will inveigle us in their snares and involve us in their sin judgment then it is not to be ouned to them But the former is true Therefore the Latter In the foregoing head I drew an Argument for withdrawing from disouning the Prelatick Ministers from the hazard of partaking in their sin and of being obnoxious to their judgment because people are often punished for their Pastors sins Aaron his sons polluting themselves would have brought wrath upon all the people Lâ—v. 10. 6. because the Teachers had transgressed against the Lord therefore was Iacob given to the Curse Israel to reproaches Isai 43. 27 28. and all these Miseries Lamented by the Church were inflicted for the sins of her Prophets and the iniquites of her Priests Lam. 4. 13. the reason was because they ouned them followed them countenanced them complyed with them or connived at them or did not hinder or else disoune them The same Argument will evince the necessity of withdrawing our subjection from disouning Usurping Tyrannical Rulers when we cannot hinder their wickedness nor give any other Testimony against them to avert the wrath of the Lord. If the defections of Ministers will bring on the whole Nation desolating judgments then much more have we reason to fear it when both Magistrates Ministers are involved in and jointly carrying on and carressing encouraging each other in promoting a woful Apostasie from God when the heads of the house of Iacob Princes of the house of Israeel abhor judgement pervert all equity the heads Judge for reward and the Priests teach for hire and the Prophets divine for money and yet lean upon the Lord and say Is not the Lord among us none evil can come upon us Then we can expect nothing but that Zion for their sake shall be plowed as a field Ierusalem become heaps and the Mountain of the house as the high places of the forest Mich. 3. 9 11 12. Certain it is that subjects have smarted sore for the sins of their Rulers for Sauls sin in breaking Covenant with the Gibeonites the Land suffered three years famine 2 Sam. 21. 1. and the wrath of the Lord could not be appeased till seven of his sons were hanged up unto the Lord. What then shall appease the wrath of God for the unpâ—ralelled breach of Covenant with God in our day For Davids sin of numbering the people 70000 men died by the Pestilence 2 Sam. 24. 5. For Ieroboams sin of Idolatry who made Israel to sin the Lord threatens to give Israel up because of the sins of Ieroboam 1 King. 14. 16. only they escaped this Judgment who withdrew themselves and fell into Iudah For Ahabs sin of letting go a man whom the Lord had appointed to utter destruction the Lord threatens him thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people 1 King. 20. 42. Because Manasseh King of Iudah did many abominations therefore the Lord threatened to bring such evil upon Ierusalem Iudah that whosoever heard it his ears should tingle c. 2 King. 21. 11 12. and not withstanding of his repentance and the Reformation in the dayes of Iosiah notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath wherewith His anger was kindled against Iudah because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked Him withall 2 King. 23. 26. which was accomplished by the hands of the Chaldeans in Iehojakims time Surely at the Commandment of the Lord came this upon Iudah to remove them out of His sight for the sins of Manasseh according to all that he did and also for the innocent blood which he shed ... which the Lord would not pardon 2 King. 24. 3 4. And Ieremiah
further threatens that they should be removed into all Kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh for that which he did in Ierusalem Ier. 15. 4. Certainly these passages were recorded for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. and for our examples to the intent we should not do as they did 1 Cor. 10. 6. and for our admonition vers 11. Whence we may be admonished that it is not enough to keep our selves free of publick sins of Rulers Many of those then punished were free of all actual accession to them but they became accessory to and involved in the guilt of them when they did not endeavour to hinder them and bring them to condign punishment for them according to the Law of God which respecteth not persons or at least because they did not revolt from them as Libnah did There might be other provocations on the peoples part no doubt which the Lord did also punish by these Judgments â—ut when the Lord specifies the sin of Rulers as the particular procuring Cause of the Judgment it were presumption to make it the Occasion only of the Lords punishing them for plain it is if these sins of Rulers had not been committed which was the ground of the threatening execution the Judgment would have been prevented And if people had bestirred themselves as became them in repressing restraining such wickedness they had not so smarted And when that sin so threatened punished was removed then the Judgment it self was removed or deferred It is just necessary that the subjects being Jointly included with their Rulers in the same bond of fidelity to God be lyable to be punished for their Rebellion Apostasie when they continue under the bond of subjection to them But how deplorable were our Condition if we shold stand obnoxions to divine Judgments for the Atheisme Idolatry Murders Adulteries of our Rulers and yet be neither Authorized nor Capacitated to hinder it nor permitted to withdraw our selves from subjection to them But it is not so for the Lords making us responsable for their debt is an impowering us either to repress their wickedness when He gives us Capacity or at least to save our selves harmless from their Crimes by disouning them that being the only way of standing no longer accountable for their faults 12. It remains to Consider the Ends for which Government was institute by God and constitute by men from whence I Argue That Government that destroyes the Ends of Government is not to be ouned But Tyranny and especially this under which we houl destroyes all the Ends of Government Ergo it is not to be ouned The Minor I prove thus That Government that destroyes Religion Safety destroyes all the Ends of Government But this Popish arbitrary Absolute power destroyes Religion Safety Ergo It is evident both from the Laws of Nature Revelation that the Ends of Government are the Glory of God the good of Mankind The first is the Glory of God the ultimate end of all Ordinances to which whatever is opposite is not to be ouned by them that fear Him whatever power then is destructive to Religion and is applyed imployed against the Glory of the Uuniversal King and for withdrawing us from our fealtie obedience to Him is nothing but Rebellion against the Supreme Lord Lawgiver and a Traiterous Conspiracy against the Almighty and therefore not to be ouned And they are enemies to Religion or strangers to it who are not sensible this hath been the design of the present Government at least these 27 years to overturn the Reformed Covenanted Religion and to introduce Popery Hence seeing a King at his best highest elevation is only a mean for preserving Religion and for this end only chosen of the people to be Custos utriusque tabulae keeper of both Tables of the Law he is not to be regarded but wholly laid aside when he not only moves without his sphere but his motion infers the ruine of the ends of his erection and when he imployes all his power for the destruction of the Cause of Christ and advancement of Antichrists giving his power to the beast he is so far from deserving the deference of the power ordained of God that he is to be looked upon treated as a Traitor to God and Stated enemy to Religion all Righteousness The Second End of Government is the good of the people which is the Supreme Cardinal Law Salus Populi est Suprema Lex Which cannot be denied if it be considered 1. For this only the Magistrate is appointed of God to be His Minister for the peoples good Rom. 13. 4. and they have no goodness but as they conduce to this end for all the power they have of God is with this Proviso to promote His peoples prosperity It were blasphemy to say they are His Authorized Ministers for their destruction to which if their Conduct degenerate they degrade themselves and so must be disouned He is therefore in his institution no more than a mean for this end and himself cannot be either the whole or half of the end for then he should be both the end the mean of Government and it is contrary to Gods mould to have this for his end to multiply to himself silver gold or lift up himself above his brethren Deut. 17. 17 20. if therefore he hath any other end than the good of the people he cannot be ouned as one of Gods moulding 2. This only is the highest pitch of good Princes ambition to postpone their oun safety to the peoples safety Moses desired rather than the people should be destroyed that his name should be razed out of the Book of life And David would rather the Lords hand be on him his fathers house than on the people that they should be plagued 1 Chron. 21. 17. but he that would seek his oun ambitious ends with the destruction of the people hath the spirit of the Devil and is to be carried towards as one possessed with that malignant spirit 3. Originally their power is from the people from whom all their dignity is derived with reserve of their safety which is not the donative of Kings nor held by concession from them nor can it be resigned or surrendered to the disposal of Kings since God hath provided in His universal Laws that no Authority make any disposal but for the good of the people This cannot be forfeited by the usurpation of Monarchs but being alwise fixed in the essential Laws of Government they may reclaim recover it when they please Since then we cannot alienate our safety we cannot oune that Authority which is inconsistent with it 4. The attaining this end was the main ground motive of peoples deliberating to constitute a Goverment and to choose such a forme because they thought it most conducible for their good and to admit such persons as fittest Instruments for compassing this end and to establish such
smitten by him Authoritatively whom therefore he did threaten with the judgment of God it were wicked to think that he would retract that threatening which he pronunced by the Spirit of God. And therefore this place confirms my Thesis If a Tyrannical Judge acting contrary to Law is not to be known or acknowledged to be a Ruler but upbraided as a whited wall Then a Tyrant is not to be known or acknowledged as such But the former is true from this place Therefore also the latter Paul knew well enough he was a Judge and knew well enough what was his duty to a Judge that he should not be reviled but he would not acknowledge this Priest to be a Judge or retract his threatening against him 2. He is of God ordained of God I proved before Tyrants are not capable of this yea it were blasphemy to say they are Authorized or Ordained of God by His Preceptive Will. Hence take only this Argument All Rulers that we must oune are ordained of God do reign are set up by God Prov. 8. 15. for that this place are paralell But Tyrants do not reign nor are set up by God Hos. 8. 4. They are set up saith the Lord but not by me Ergo we cannot oune them to be ordained of God. 3. Whosoever resisteth this power ordained of God resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation vers 2. This cannot be ouned of a Tyrant that it is a damnable sin to resist him for it is duty to resist also repress him as is proven already and shall be afterwards Hence whatsoever Authority we oune subjection to we must not resist it But we cannot oune that we must not resist this Authority therefore we cannot oun it at all Again That cannot be the power not to be resisted which is acquired improved by resisting the Ordinance of God But the power of Usurpers Tyrants is acquired improved by resisting the ordinance of God Ergo their power cannot be the power not to be resisted The Major is manifest for when the Apostle sayes the resisting of the power bring damnation to the resister certainly that resistance cannot purchase Dominion instead of damnation And if he that resists in a lesser degree be under the doom of damnation then certainly he that does it in a greater degree so as to complete it in puting himself in place of that power which he resisted cannot be free The Minor is also undenyable for if Usurpers acquire their power without resistence forcible sensible it is because they that defend the power invaded are wanting in their duty but however Morally the Tyrant or Usurper is alwayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in contrary order to a Lawful Power 4. Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil and they that doe that which is good shall have praise of the same vers 3. This is the Character duty of righteous Magistrates though it be not alwayes their Administration But an Usurper Tyrant is not capable or susceptible of this Character but on the contrary is must be a terror to good works and a praise to the evil for he must be a Terror to them that would secure their rights Liberties in opposition to his encroachments which is a good work he must be a fautor Patron Protector of such as encourage maintain him in his Usurpation Tyranny which is an evil work And if he were a terror to the evil then he would be a terror to himself all his Complices which he cannot be Therefore that power which is not capable of the duties of Magistrates cannot be ouned But the Power of Tyrants Usurpers is such Ergo We find in Scripture the best Commentare on this Character where the duties of a Magistrate are described They must justify the righteous condemn the wicked Deut. 27. 1. They must as Iob did deliver the poor that cry and put on righteousness as a cloathing and be eyes to the blind feet to the lame and a Father to the poor and break the Jawes of the the wicked Iob 29. 12-17 Their Throne must be established by righteousness Prov. 16. 12. a King sitting on the Throne of Judgement must scatter away all evil with his eyes then Mercy Truth will preserve him and his Throne is upholden by Mercy Prov. 20. 8 28. But Tyrants have a quite contrary Character The Throne of iniquity frames Mischief by a Law and condemns the innocent blood Psal. 94. 20. 21. They judge not the fatherless neither doeth the cause of the widow come unto them Isai. 1. 23. They build their house by unrighteousness their chambers by wrong and use their neighbours service without wages Ier. 22. 13. They oppress the poor crush the needy Amos 4. 1. They turn judgement to Gall the fruit of righteousness to hemlock and say have we not taken horns to as by our oun strength Amos 6. 12 13. These contrary Characters cannot consist together 5. He is the Minister of God for good vers 4. not by Providential Commission as Nebuchadnezzar was and Tyrants may be eventually by the Lord making all things turn about for the good of the Church but he hath a Moral Commission from God is entrusted by the people to procure their Publick Politick good at least Now this and Tyranny Usurpation are together inconsistible for if Tyrants Usurpers were Ministers for good then they would restore the publick personal Rights and rectify all wrongs done by them but then they must surrender their Authority and resign it or else all rights cannot be restored nor wrongs rectified Hence these that cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good cannot be ouned as Magistrates But Tyrants Usurpers and in particular this Man are such as cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good Ergo Again If Magistracy be alwise a blessing and Tyranny Usurpation alwise a Curse then they cannot be ouned to be the same thing and the one cannot be ouned to be the other But Magistracy or the right-ful Magistrate is alwise a blessing Tyranny Usurpation or the Tyrant Usurper alwise a curse Ergo That the former is true these Scriptures prove it God provides him for the benefite of His people 1 Sam. 16. 1. a just Ruler is compared to the light of the morning when the sun riseth even a morning without Clouds 2 Sam. 23. 4. So the Lord exalted Davids Kingdom for His people Israels sake 2 Sam. 5. 12. because the Lord Loved Israel for ever therefore made He Solomon King to do judgement Justice 1 King. 10. 9. when the righteous are in Authority the people rejoice the King by Judgement stabilisheth the Land Prov. 29. 2 4. The Lord promises Magistrates as a special blessing Isai. 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. and therefore their continuance is to be praye◠for that we
David on thy side thow son of Iesse Here was a formed Revolt from Saul unto David before he was King for after this he was made King in Hebron and there could not be two Kings at once Hence I argue if people may separate themselves from and take part with the Resister against a Tyrant then they may disoune him for if they oune him still to be the Minister of God they must not resist him Rom. 13. 2. But here is an example that many people did separate themselves from Saul and took part with the Resister David Ergo Here two of the first Monarchs of Israel were disouned Abimelech Saul 3. The first Hereditary Successor was likewise disouned as was hinted above likewise The ten tribes offer to Covenant with Rehoboam in terms securing their Rights Liberties They desired nothing on the matter but that he would engage to rule over them according to the Law of God To which when he answered most Tyrannically and avowed he would Tyrannise over them and oppress them more than any of his Predicessors they fell away from him and erected themselves into a new Common-wealth 1 King. 12. 16. So when Israel saw that the King hearkened not unto them they answered what portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Iesse to your tents O Israel now see to thine oun house David 2 Chron. 10. 16. Now however the event of this declared Revolt proved sorrowful when they and their new King made defection unto Idolatry yet if they had stated managed it right the Cause was good justifyable commendable For 1 We find nothing in all the Text condemning this 2 On the Contrary its expressly said the Cause was from the Lord that He might perform His saying which He spake by Ahijah 1 King. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 10. 15. And 3 When Rehoboam was preparing to pursue his pretended right he was reproved discharged by Shemajah ye shall not go up nor fight against your brethren for this thing is from me 1 King. 12. 24. 2 Chron. 11. 4. 4 Whereas it is alledged by some that this was of God only by His providence and not by His Ordinance the contrary will appear if we consider how formally Covenant-wise the Lord gave ten tribes to Ieroboam 1 King. 11. 35 37 38. I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and I will give it unto thee even ten tribes And I will take thee and thow shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shall be King over Israel And it shall be if thow wilt hearken unto all that I command thee and will walk in my wayes and do that which is right in my sight to keep my statutes my commandments as David my servant did that I will be with thee build thee a sure house as I built for David and will give Israel unto thee Where we see the Kingdom was given unto him on the same Terms conditions that it was given to David He may indeed give Kingdoms to whom He wiâ— by Providential grant as unto Nebuchadnezzar and others but He never gave them a Kingdom upon these Conditions and by way of Covenant that does alwayes imply import His Word Warrant ordinance 5 If we consider the Cause of the Revolt we will find it very just for after the decease of the former King they enter upon terms of a Compact with the successor upon a suspensive condition to engage into fealty Allegiance to him as subjects if he would give them security for their Liberties Priviledges A very Lawful Laudable necessary transaction founded upon Moral equity upon the fundamental Constitutions of that Government and suitable to the constant practice of their Predicessors in their Covenanting with Saul David As for that Word 1 King. 12. 19. So Israel Rebelled against the house of David It is no more then in the margent they fell away or revolted And no more to be condemned then Hezekiahs Rebellion 2 King. 18. 7. The Lord was with him and he Rebelled against the King of Assyria That was a good Rebellion Hence If it be Lawful for a part of the people to shake off the King refuse subjection to him and set up a new King of their oun when he resolveth to play the Tyrant and rule them after his oun absolute power then it is a duty when he actually playes the Tyrant and by his absolute power overturns Laws Religion and claims by Law such a prerogative But the former is true Ergo See Ius Pepuli vindic chap. 3. Pag 52. 4. This same Ieroboam when he turned Tyrant Idolater was revolted from and deserted by the Priests the Levites and after them out of all the tribes of Israel by all such as set their heart to seek the Lord God of Israel because that King degenerating into Tyranny Idolatry had put them from the exercise of their office Religion as our Charles did and ordained him Priests for the Devils for the Calves So they returned to Rehoboam being induced by his administration of the Government which for a time was better then he promised for three years he walked in the wayes of David Salomon 2 Chron. 11. 13-17 Hence I argue If Idolatrous Tyrants may be deserted then they may be disouned for when they desert them they disoune them abroad in coming under another Government and if they may be disouned abroad it is the same duty at home though may be not the same Policy or Prudence 5. Another example of the like nature we have in the reign of Baasha who succeeded to Nadab Ieroboams son whom he slew reigned in his stead the same way that the Duke came to the Throne For he could not keep his subjects within his Kingdom but behoved to build Ramah that he might not suffer any to go out or come in to Asa. King of Iudah a good Prince 1 King 15. 17. yet that could not hinder them but many strangers out of Ephraim Manasseh Simeon fell to him in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him 2 Chron. 15. 9. Hence If people may chuse another King when they see the Lord is with him then they may disoune their Country King when they see the Devil is with him 6. When Jehoram the son of Ahab reigned over Israel we have an express example of Elisha's disouning him 2 King. 3. 14. 15. And Elisha said unto the King of Israel what have I to do with thee As the Lord of hosts liveth before whom I stand surely were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah I would not look toward thee nor see thee Here he declares so much contempt of him and so litle regard that he disdains him a look And if he would not regard him nor give him honour then he did not oune him as King for all
that we can put upon their snares for they reckon that a yeelding in part and are glead to find us so far justifying their acts impositions as by our offer practically to declare they bear a good sense and they will come many wayes to our hand to get us kooked so Secondly These things being premitted I shall offer Reasons why it was necessary in point of Conscience to Refuse all the Oaths hitherto tendered and Consequently Consciencious Sufferers upon this Account will be vindicated And first some General Reasons against all of them together and Then a Word to each sort of them 1. There is one General Argument that will Condemn coming in any terms of Oaths or Bonds with that party that have broken the Covenant overturned the Reformation and destroyed the people of the Lord Because such Transactions with them as is hinted above are a sort of Confederacy with the known Enemies of Truth Godliness importing a voluntary subjection to them Complyance Incorporation with them as members of the same Community whereof they are acknowledged to be head Now all such sort of Confederacy with such malignant Enemies of God and of the Church is unlawful as Mr. Gillespie demonstrates in his Useful Case of Conscience concerning Associations Confederacies with Idolaters or any known Enemies of Truth Godliness Though Civil Compacts for common Commerce may be allowed as Abram was confederate with Aner Eshcol Mamre Gen. 14. 13. Iacob Covenanted with Laban by way of Lawborrowes Gen. 31. 44. But Sacred Confederations of this sort are unlawful from these Arguments 1. The Law of God condemns them Exod. 23. 32. Thow shalt make no Covenant with them nor with their gods they shall not dwell in thy Land lest they make thee sin against me Where not only Religious Covenants are discharged in a tolleration of their Idolatry but familiar Conversation also they shall not dwell in thy Land. If then we must not suffer them if in Capacity sure we must far less be imposed upon by them if we are not to be familiar with heathens far less with Apostates that calls themselves Christians for the Apostle layes much more restraint from communion with them than with Pagans 1 Cor. 5. 10 11. The reason of the Law lest they make thee sin as long therefore as there is that hazard of sinning the Law obliges to that caution So Exod. 34. 12-16 Take heed to thy self lest thow make a Covenant with the inhabitants of the Land lest it be a snare but ye shall destroy their Altars lest thow make a Covenant with them and they go a whoring after their gods and thow take of their daughters unto thy sons Here again all Sacred Transactions are discharged upon a Moral perpetually binding ground and all Toleration is prohibited and Conjugal Affinity Such complyance brought on the first desolating Judgment the flood on the old world Gen. 6. 1 2 3. when the Godly conformed incorporated themselves and joined in affinity with that ungodly crew from whom they should have separated themselves Likewise Deut. 7. 2 3 4 5. Thow shalt make no Covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them neither shalt thow make marriages with them for they will turn away thy son from following Me so shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against yow but thus shall ye deal with them ye shall destroy their Altars Where all Transactions with a people devoted to destruction are discharged even that of tolleration of Malignant enemies according to which precept David resolveth to destroy early all the wicked of the Land and cut off all wicked doers from the City of the Lord Psal. 101. 8. Mark this All of what degree or quality so ever without respect of persons And lest it should be thought this is meant only of these seven Nations there enumerate the Law is interpreted by the Spirit of God of many other Nations where Solomon is condemned for joining in affinity with other wicked people besides these 1 King. 11. 1 2. So that it is to be understood generally against Confederacies with all to whom the Moral ground is applicable the danger of insnaring the people of God. It is clear likewise we must have nothing to do with the wicked but to treat them with them as enemies Psal. 139. 21 22. with whom as such there can be no Confederation for that supposes alwayes the enmity is laid aside but that can never be between the Professors of Religion and the professed Enemies thereof but that must alwayes be the language of their Practice Depart from me ye workers of iniquity for the Lord hath heard me Psal. 6. 8. The command is peremptory perpetual for sake the foolish Prov. 9. 6. make no friendship with them Prov. 22. 24. Say not a Confederacy to them Isai. 8. 12. Where it is clear from the opposition in that Text betwixt Confederating with the wicked and the fear of God that the one is not consistent with the other There is an express discharge to yoke or have any fellowship with them 2 Cor. 6. 14. to the end for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness what Concord hath Christ with Belial wherefore come out from among them and be separate 2. Many fad sharp reproofs for such Transactions Confederations do conclude the same thing Iud. 2. 1 2 3. Isaid ye shall make no league with the Inhabitants of this Land yow shall throw doun their Altars but yow have not obeyed my voice why have yow done this Wherefore I will not drive them out from before yow It cannot be expected the Lord will drive out these enemies if we swear subjection Allegiance come under Confederations with them for thereby we contribute actively to their settlement establishment and bring our selves not only under the miserie but the guilt of strengthening the hands of evil doers So Ier. 2. the people of God are reproved for making themselves home born slaves how by out-Landish Confederacies vers 18. Now what hast thow to do in the way of Egypt to drink the waters of Sihor or what hast thow to do in the way of Assyria The Chaldee Paraphrase hath it Nunc ergo quid vobis contrahendo Societatem cum Pharaone rege Egyptiorum quid vobis percutiendo faedus cum Assyria What have yow to do Associate with Pharaoh King of Egypt and what have yow to do to make a Covenant with the Assyrian So may we say what have we to do to take their Oaths Bonds that are as great enemies as they were Ephraim is reproved for mixing himself among the people Hos. 7. 8. by making Confederacies with them what followes he is a Cake not turned hot in the neither side zealous for earthly things but cold raw in the upperside remiss in the things of Christ. And this we have seen in our experience to be the fruit of such bargains or bonds or Oaths that they that were
faith of men and the faith of Nations can be of no force above a century of years nay nor after the decease of them that personally made the promise And so every new Ruler every new Parliament yea every person coming up to succeed the Father in any Capacity might be free not to stand to it which were very absurd Certainly that promise of the Iewish Nobles Rulers not to exact Usury of their Brethren but to restore not require it of them did not only oblige themselves but would bring their posterity under the curse if they should exact the same debt there remitted Neh. 5. 12 31. And does not a National promise of preserving the Reformation bind as much to the curse of the breach of it 2. They are National vowes avowing avouching and devoting themselves their posterity to be the Lords people and to keep His Statutes promove His Interests which do bind the posterity Iacobs vow at Bethel that the Lord should be his God Gen. 28. 21. did oblige all his posterity virtually comprehended in him He found Him in Bethel and there He speake with Us saith the Prophet many hundered years after Hâ—s 12. 4. The Israelites vow to destroy the Canaanites did oblige all their posterity Numb 21. 2. Not only by virtue of the Lords Command but by virtue of their vow as we are obliged to preserve the Reformation not only by virtue of the Lords Command but by virtue of our Covenants Vowes are bonds to the Soul which must stand Numb 20. 2 4. And whereas it is said that as a womans father or husband might disanull her vow and so the Magistrate might abrogate the Covenant Besides the impertinency of this Comparison as might be easie to demonstrate it may be refelled by giving not granting that he might do so yet if the father husband shall hold their peace then all her vowes shall stand and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand vers 4 7. but so it was that the Supreme Magistrate did give his Consent to the National Covenant and the Successor did swear the Solemn League Covenant and received the Crown on the terms thereof to preserve promote Religion Liberty and therefore her vowes must stand they cannot be made void afterwards for it is a snare to devour that which is holy and after vowes to make enquiry Prov. 20. 25. So we find the Rechabites were obliged to observe the vow of their forefather Ionadab Ier. 35. 6 14. And if the fathers vow obliges the Children shall not the Nations vow oblige the posterity 3. They are National Oaths which do oblige posterity Esaws Oath to Iacob resigning his birth-right did oblige his posterity never to recover it Gen. 25. 33. Ioseph took an Oath of the Children of Israel to carry up his bones into Canaan Gen. 50. 25. which the posterity going forth of Egypt in after ages found themselves straitly sworn to observe Exod. 13. 19. and accordingly buryed them in Shechem Ioshua 24. 32. The Spies swore to preserve Rahab alive and her house Ioshua 2. 12 c. which was without the Consent of the Magistrate and yet Ioshua found himself obliged to observe it Ioshua 6. 22. Moses swore unto Caleb to ensure him an inheritance Ioshua 14. 9. and upon this ground he demanâ—s it as his right vers 12. which he could not do if Successors might reverse their Predicessors Lawful Oaths The Lord will in a special manner resent revenge the posterities breach of the Oath of their fathers Covenant Ezek. 16. 59. Thus saith the Lord God I will even deal with thee as thow hast done which hast despised the Oath in breaking the Covenant which was the Covenant of their fathers 4. They are National Covenants wherein King Parliament people do Covenant with each other for the performance of the respective Duties of their several stations either as to the work of Reformation or as to the preservation of each others mutual Rights Priviledges So that they are National Covenants made by men with men and these we find do oblige the posterity Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites did oblige the posterity Iosh. 9. 15 19. and for the breach of it many ages after the posterity was plagued 2 Sam. 21. 1. Zedekiah was bound by his Predecessors Covenant though it was such as made the Kingdom base yet in keeping it it was only to stand Shall he break the Covenant be delivered Thus saith the Lord as I live surely mine Oath that he hath despised and my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompense upon his oun hâ—ad Ezek. 17. 12 14 15 19. The Apostle sayes even of humane Covenants Though it be but a Mans Covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto Gal. 3. 15. that is cannot do so Lawfully much less can one man disanull a Nations Covenant 5. They are National Attestations of God as a Witness for the perpetuity as well as fidelity of these Sacred Engagments All such Covenants wherein the Holy Name of God is invocated as Witness are ouned of God as His hence the Covenant betwixt David Ionathan is called the Covenant of the Lord 1 Sam. 20. 8. and Zedekiahs fault was the breach of the Lords Covenant Ezek. 17. forecited So likewise that Covenant mentioned Ier. 34. 8 9 10. wherein the Princes People did swear to let their Hebrew Servants go free is called Gods Covenant 〈◊〉 18. and upon this account sorer Judgements are threatened vers 19 20. And I will give the men that have transgressed my Covenant which have not performed the Words of the Covenant which thâ—y had made before me into the hands of their enemies Certainly this did oblige the posterity at least not to recall these Servants and it was alwayes Morally obliging So our National Covenant sworn with hands lifted up to the Most high God being materially also binding cannot be abrogated by the posterity except the Lord renounce His Interest in them as long as the Witness liveth then who claims them as His they cannot be made void Especially considering 6. They are National Covenants made with God as the other party Contracting in the matters of God which none can dispense with or grant Remissions in and therefore they must perpetually bind until He loose them And if even the posterity break them the Lord will make them that hate them to reign over them and He will bring a Swosd upon them to aveange the quarrel of His Covenant Levit. 26. 15 17 25. Such were all the National Covenants of the Lords people renewed by Ioshua Asa Iehoshaphat Hezekiah Iosiah Ezra Nehemiah for the breaches of which the Lord plagued the posterity It was for breach of their fathers Covenant with God that the ten tribes were carried away Captive 2 King. 17. 15. c. We have already experienced the threatened Judgments for Covenant-breaking and may look for more 7. They are
when they should be in a Capacity to improve them against their Murdering Persecuters against whom He gives His Royal Grant of Resistence that the world may know His Subjects thô they have more Priviledges Spiritual yet they have no less humane Priviledges than other men Albeit at that Period of His determined Suffering He would not allow the present use of them Hence If the Lords people should provide themselves with Armes of defence thô they should be reputed Transgressors for so doing Then may they use these Armes of Defence against them that Persecute them under that Notion But the Antecedent is clear Therefore c. Fifthly We may infer the same Truth from some of the Prayers of the Saints wherein they glory in the confident expectation of the Lords strengthening them favouring approving their helpers in the experience of the Lord Assisting them while in the mean time constitute in a formed Appearance of Resistence I shall only hint these 1. In that prayer Psal. 44. 5. They glory in hope that through the Lord they will push doun their enemies c. yet now they were under the power of Tyrannizing Dominators which they were Resisting for vers 9. they complain they were put to shame because the Lord went not forth with their Armies they which hated them spoyled them And for His Sake were killed all day long Hence they plead that the Lord would awake and not forget their affliction oppression Whereby it is evident they were under the yoke of Tyrannizing powers and Resisting according to their might Which by whomsoever or upon what occasion soever the Psalm was compiled shewes that no want of Success in Resisting Tyrants can mar the Saints faith in pleading for the Lords Assistence Approbation of the Duty Hence they that in faith may pray for boast of their treading doun their Tyrannizing powers that rise up against them may also in faith attempt the Resisting of them in their oun defence But here the Lords people did the former 2. We find David under Sauls persecution while he had a party of 600. men to defend himself against his rage in the Psalmes which he composed upon that occasion not only complaining of Oppressors but encouraging himself in the faith that God would be with them that assisted him in his essay of defending himself and imprecating destruction to Saul his Complices that the Lord would cut them off in His Truth and let him see his desire upon them Psal. 54. 4 5. ult And Psal. 57. 4. And Psal 57. throughout And Psal. 140. 7 9. He imprecates against the head of them that compassed him about and consequently against Saul Whence I argue 1. If the Lords people conflicting with encompassed with Oppressing Rulers as so many Lyons Dogs may pray praise for the help of those that assist them in their endeavours of Self-preservation from them then may they make use of their help for their Defence for which they pray praise But here we see the Lords people did the former Therefore they may do the latter 2. If we may pray against Kings and for preservation from them Then may we Defend our selves against them and endeavour the means of that preservation for which we pray The Connexion is before cleared yet here I adde That which will give a Dispensation from our duty of praying for them will also dispense from the duty of being passively subject to their will And consequently will allow defending our selves from their violence But here we see Tyrannie Treacherie and designed Mischief will give a Dispensation from our duty of praying for them thô that be duty as indispensable as subjection Again if any thing demur us from Resisting of Princes it must be respect to their Majestie and the Character of the Lords anointing upon them But we see no respect to that will demur a Believer from praying in faith against them Therefore no such respect will hinder but that he may defend himself against his violence And indeed if we consider it right if the impression of any Majestie God hath put upon Princes should bind up our hands from any Resistence it will restrain from prayer-resistence for if that impression have any force at any time it must be when a man is most solemnly stated before God and speaking to God as a Christian rather than when he is acting as a man with a man like himself And as prayer-resistence is the more formidable forcible Resistence than any other as this Saul and many other Kings have found by their woful experience so it is more restricted than other Resistence for we may defend our selves against many whom we must not pray against to wit our private enemies for whom we are commanded to pray yet no body will deny but we may resist their violence And likewise we are commanded to pray for Kings when invested with Gods Authority But when their degeneration looses us from that obligation to pray for them and allowes us to pray against them when they turn Enemies to God as we see in the prayers of the Psalmist Then also we may more warrantably resist them by Defensive Armes 3. Among the Halle-luyahs in the end of Psalmes there is one Calculaâ—e for the prevailing time of the Church when the Lord shall take pleasure in His people In that time of the Saints being joyful in Glory when they may glory in the rest security the Lord will vouchafe upon them they are Prophetically very Pathetically excited to praise prayer-wise Psal. 149. 6. to the end Let the high praises of God be in their mouth and a two edged sword in their hand to bind their Kings with chains to execute upon them the Iudgement written this hâ—nour have all the Saints Halle-lujah This was their praise honour when they were brought in to execute vengeance upon the Kings Nobles of 〈◊〉 This also in Davids time was the ambition and also the attainment of the Saints in their Triumphant victories over many of their Oppressors round about them But it looks to a further more famous execution of vengeance upon the Tyrants of the earth when they shall have long kept under the Church of God at length the Lord shall give His people a Capacity to break their yoke which when ever it shall be shall be their honour Hence If it be the honour of the Saints when the Lord puts them in Capacity to execute vengeance upon their Enemies thô they be Kings that Oppress them Then it may be their ambition to seek it at least they may resist them Thus from several Scripture Practices Reproofs Promises Precepts prayers this Truth may be proven from which Scriptures though other precious Truths are more Natively deduced yet this Truth by unstrained unconstrained Consequence may be also clearly inferred HEAD VI. The Sufferings of Some upon the account of Extraordinary executing of Iudgement upon Notorious Incendiaries
stoping the Career of their Murders in a time of real extreame necessity the matter of the action being unquestionably Lawful their ends intentions really good commendable there being also a deficiency of others to do the work and themselves in some probable Capacity for it See Ius Popul Cap. 20. Pag. 410. Neither can it be denyed but true zeal may sometimes incite people to such exploits for the preservation of Religion Liberty their oun lives and Brethren all like to be destroyed by the impunity of beasts of prey This will be found very consistent with a Gospel Spirit And though this Principle be asserted and also put in practice all persons notwithstanding thereof would have sufficient securitie for their life except such as hath really forefeited their lives by all Law of God man. Those that are led by Impulses may pretend the imitation of extraordinary examples and abuse them yet hence it will not follow that in no case these extraordinary Examples may be imitated Shall the examples of good Magistrats executing Justice on Idolaters Murderers be altogether unimitable because Tyrants abuse them in persecuting the innocent If this arguing were good it would make all vertuous Actions in the world unimitable for these may be abused by pretenders See Ius Popul ubi supra Pag. 412. But it cannot be charged upon the Sufferers upon this head that they had nothing to give as the reasons of their Actions but pretexts of Enthusiasmes 5. Thô a man be really so Criminal as thaâ— he deserves death by the Law of God man yet it may be murder to kill him if we do not certainly know it and can prove it and convict him of it upon Tryal for no man must be killed indictâ or incognitâ causâ Thus even Magistrats may Murder Murderers when they proceed against them without probation or cognition according to Law far more private persons Thus the Abiezrites would have murdered Gideon not only unjustly for his duty of throwing doun the Altar of Baal but illegally because they would had him brought out that he might die without any further Tryal Iudg. 6. 29 30. So likewise the Iewes that banded bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul before he was tried would have Murdered him not only unjustly for his duty but illegally before he was tried Act. 23. 12. But this doth not condemn the Actions of those Sufferers in maintaining the necessary execution of Judgement upon persons who are Notorious Murderers yea professing a trade and prosecuting habitually a tract of continued Murdering the people of the Lord. 6. Thô it should be certainly known and sufficiently proven that a man is a Murderer c. Yet it were Murder for an inferiour under a relation of subjection to him to kill him as long as that subjection were acknowledged for whensoever the common mutual right or relation either Natural Moral Civil or Religious to the prejudice or scandal of the Church or State or particular persons is broken by killing any person that is Murder thô the person killed deserve to die As if a Subject should kill an acknowled King a Son by Nature or in Law should kill his Natural or legal father a Servant should kill his Master breaking these relations while their right tye were acknowledged as some of them must still be acknowledged as long as the Correlates continue in being to wit that of a father is not broken by his becoming a Murderer and to the danger detriment scandal of the Church State That were properly Assassination for Assassines are they who being subject to others either out of their oun head for their oun ends or by command of their Superiours kill their Superiours or such as they command them to kill as Alstedius describes them Theolog. Cas. cap. 18. de homicid reg 55. Therefore David would not kill Saul because he acknowledged him to be the Lords Anointed to whom he was under a relation of subjection and because he was his Master and Father in Law And because it would have tended to the hurt of the Kingdom and involved it in Combustions Contentions about the succession and prejudged his oun right as well as to the scandal of the people of God thô Saul deserved otherwise to be capitally punished So Ishbosheth was killed by Baanah Rehab 2 Sam. 4. 7. So Iozachar Iehozabad who killed Ioash 2 King. 12. 21. were punished as Murderers chap. 14. 6. because they were his servants and did assassinate him to whom they were subject So the servants of Amon were punished by the people as Conspirators against their King Master 2 King. 21. 23 24. though Amon deserved to have been punished as well as Amaziah was Hence generally it is observed by some that thô right be given to equals or Superiours to bring their nearest relations to condign punishment when they turn entycers to Idolatry Deut. 13. 6. Yet no right or jus upon any cause or occasion whatsoever is given to inferiours as Children c. to punish their fathers See Pool Synop. Critie in Locum However it be this cannot condemn the taking off of Notorious Murderers by the hand of such as were no way subject nor related to them but as enemies who in extreame necessity executed righteous Judgement upon them without prejudice of the true necessary chief good of the Church Commonwealth or of any particular persons just right security as Napthali qualifies it Pag. 22. 23. Prior edit 7. Thô the matter of the Action were just and the Murderer such a person as we might punish without any breach of relative obligations or duties Yet the manner may aggravate it to some degree of Murder if it be done Secretly when it may be execute publickly or suddenly precipitantly when it may be done deliberately without rushing upon such an Action or hurrying the Murderer to eternity as this also might have had some weight with David not to murder Saul secretly suddenly in the Cave or when he was sleeping So Ishbosheth and Ioâ—sh and Amoa were murdered Or if it be done subtilly when it may be performed in more plain fair dealing or teacherously under colour of friendship or cruelly without regard to humanity and especially when the Actors are at peace with the person whose blood they shed as Ioab shed the blood of war in peace 1 King. 2. 5. in killing Abner Amasa so craftily cruelly and Absalom made his servants Assassinate Amnon 2 Sam 13. 28 29. But this cannot be charged upon them who executed righteous Judgement as publickly deliberately and calmely as the extraordinary exigence of pressing necessity in extremity of danger could allow upon notorious Murderers with whom they were in open and avowed terms of hostility 8. Thô the manner also be inculpable yet if the principle and motive of killing even those that deserve to die be out of malice hatred rage or revenge for private
to death while it is yet morning Judg. 6. 31. Moreover as Mr Mitchel adduces the example very pertinently we see that the people of Israel destroyed Idolatry not only in Judah wherein the King concurred but in Ephraim and in Manassâ—h where the King himself was an Idolater and albeit they were but private persons without publick Authority for what all the people was bound to do by the Law of God every one was bound to do it to the uttermost of his power Capacity Mr Mitchel offers this place to vindicate his fact of shooting at the prelate Deut. 13. 9. Wherein sayes he it is manifest that the Idolater or intycer to Worship a false god is to be put to death by the hand of those whom he seeks to turn away from the Lord Which precept I humbly take to be Moral and not meerly Iudicial and that it is not at all Ceremonial or Levitical And as every Moral precept is Universal as to the extent of place so also as to the extent of Time persons The chief thing Objected here is that this is a Judicial precept peculiarly suited to the Old Dispensation which to plead for as a Rule under the New Testament would favour of Jewish rigidity inconsistent with a Gospel Spirit Ans. How Mr Knox refells this and clears that the Command here is given to all the people needs not be here repeated but it were sufficient to read it in the foregoing Representation Period 3. Pag. 30. as it is also cited by Ius Pop. Pag. 212. c. But these General Truths may be added concerning the Iudicial Laws 1. None can say that none of the Judicial Laws concerning political Constitutions is to be observed in the New Testament for then many special Rules of Natural Necessary equity would be rejected which are contained in the Judicial Laws of God Yea all the Laws of equity in the World would be so cast for none can be instanced which may not be reduced to some of the Judicial Laws And if any of them are to be observed certainly these Penal Statutes so necessary for the preservation of Policies must be binding 2. If we take not our measures from the Judicial Laws of God we shall have no Laws for punishment of any Malefactors by death juris Divini in the New Testament And so all Capital punishments must be only humane Constitutions and consequently they must be all Murders for to take away the life of man except for such Causes as the Lord of our life to whose Arbitriment it is only subject hath not approven is Murder as Dr Ames saith de homocidio Conscience Lib. 5. cap. 31. quest 2. For in the New Testament thô in the general the power of punishing is given to the Magistrate yet it is no where determined neither what nor how Crimes are to be punished If therefore Penal Laws must be taken from the Old Testament the Subject of executing them as well as the Object must be thence deduced that is what is there astricted to the Magistrate must be so still and what is permitted to the people must remain in like manner their Priviledge since it is certain the New Testament-Liberty is not more restricted as to Penal Laws than the Old. 3. Those Judicial Laws which had either somewhat Typical or Paedagogical or peculiar to the then Iudacial State are indeed not binding to us under that formality thô even these Doctrinally are very useful in so far as in their general nature of equity of proportion they exhibite to us some Documents of Duty But those Penal Judgements which in the matter of them are appended to the Moral Law and are in effect but accurate determinations accommodations of the Law of Nature which may suit our Circumstances as well as the Jewes do oblige us as well as them And such are these Penal Statutes I adduce for that Blasphemy Murder Idolatry are heinous Crimes and that they are to be punished the Law of Nature dictates and how and by whom in several cases they are to be punished the Law judicial determines Concerning the Moral equity even of the strictest of them Amesius de Conscienc lib. 5. de Mosaicis appendicibus praeceptorum doth very learnedly assert their binding force 4. Those Judicial Laws which are but Positive in their forme yet if their special internal proper Reason Ground be Moral which pertains to all Nations which is necessary useful to Mankind which is rooted in and may be fortified by humane reason and as to the substance of them approven by the more intelligent Heathens those are Moral and oblige all Christians as well as Jewes And such are these Laws of punishing Idolaters c. founded upon Moral grounds pertaining to all Nations necessary useful to Mankind rooted in fortified by humane Reason to wit that the Wrath of God may be averted and that all may hear fear and do no more so wickedly especially if this Reason be superadded when the case is such that innocent honest people cannot be preserved if such wicked persons be not taken order with 5. Those Judicial Laws which being given by the Lords immediate Authority thô not so solemnly as the Moral Decalogue are neither as to their end Mortuae dead nor as to their use Mortiferae deadly nor as to their nature Indifferent nor in any peculiar respect restringible only to the Jewes but the transgressions whereof both by omission commission are still sins and were never abolished neither Formally nor Consequentially in the New Testament must be Moral But such as these Penal Laws I am speaking of They cannot be reputed among the Ceremonial Laws dead as to their end and deadly as to their use or indifferent in their nature for sure to punish the Innocent upon the account of these Crimes were still sin now as well as under the Old Testament and not to punish the Guilty were likewise sin now as well as then If then the matter be Moral and not abolished the execution of it by private persons in some cases when there is no access to publick Authority must be Lawful also Or if it be Indifferent that which is in its oun nature Indifferent cannot be in a case of extreame necessity unlawful when otherwise the destruction of our selves Brethren is in all humane consideration inevitable That which God hath once Commanded and never expressly Forbidden cannot be unlawful in extraordinary cases but such are these precepts we speak of Therefore they cannot be in every case unlawful Concerning this case of the obligation of Judicial Laws Ames de Conscienc lib. 5. cap. 1. quest 9. 6. Those Laws which are predicted to be observed executed in the New Testament times cannot be Judicial or Judaical restricted to the Old But such is this In the day that a fountain shall be opened for thâ— house of David for sin for uncleaness which clearly points at Gospel-times It is said the
Lord will cause the Prophâ—ts and the unclean Spirits to pass out of the Land And it shall come to pass that when any shall yet Prophesie then his father his mother that begat him shall say unto him thow shalt not live and shall thrust him through when he Prophesieth Zech. 13. 3. Which cannot be meant of a Spiritual penetration of the heart for it is said he shall not live and the wounds of such as might escape by resistence or flight are visible in his hands vers 6. It is therefore to be understood of Corporal killing Intycers to Idolatrie according to the Law Deut. 13. 9. either by delivering them up to the Judges as Piscator on the place sayes Or as Grotius saith transfodient ut Phineas Zimri Numb 25. hoc intellige de Pseudo-propheta populum volente abducere ad cultum falsorum deorum nam in tales quemvis Iudaeum Lex armabat Deut. 13. quae Lex expresse addit in tali crimine nec filio parcendum From all which I conclude If people are to bring to condign punishment Idolatrous Apostates seeking to intyce them Then may oppressed people dayly in hazard of the death of their Souls by Complyance or of their bodys by their Constancy in Duty put forth their hand to execute Judgement in case of necessity upon Idolatrous Apostates Incendiaries and the principal Murdering Emissaries of Tyrants that seek to destroy people or enforce them to the same Apostasie But the former is true Therefore c. 4. The same may be inferred from that Command of Rescuing Delivering our Brother when in hazard of his life for omitting which duty no pretence even of ignorance will excuse us Prov. 24. 11 12. If thow forbear to deliver them that are drawen unto death and those that are ready to be slain if thow sayest behold we knew it not doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it and He that keepeth thy Soul doth not He know it and shall not He render to every man according to his works eripe h. e. ex manu invasoris latronis injusti Magistratus c. idque vel manu vel lingua defendente vel quovis alio modo licito Solent homines multas excusationes nectere se nescire illius vel periculum vel innocentiam non tanta authoritate valere ut eum liberent rerum suarum satagere alienis nolle se ingerere c. hic unam excusationem reliquas omnes complectentem exempli causâ proponit refellit as Commentators say Pool Synops. Critic in locum This precept is indefinitely given to all Principally indeed belonging to righteous Magistrates But in case of their omission And if instead of detending them they be the persons that draw or send out their destroying Emissaries to draw them to death then the precept is no more to be restricted to them than that vers 2. not to be envious against evil men or that vers 10. If thow faint in the day of Adversity thy strength is small can be said to be spoken only to Magistrates Hence If it be a Duty to Rescue our Brethren from any prevailing power that would take their lives unjustly and no pretence even of ignorance will excuse the forbearance of it Then it must be Lawful in some extraordinary cases to prevent the Murdering violence of publick Incendiaries by killing them rather than to suffer our selves or our Brethren to be killed when there is no other way in probability either of saving our selves or Rescuing them But here the former is Commanded as a duty Therefore the Later also must be justified when the duty cannot otherwise be discharged Now having thus at some length endeavoured to discuss this some way odd esteemed odious Head to which Task I have been as unwillingly drawn as the Actors here pleaded for were driven to the occasion thereof whom only the necessity of danger did force to such Atchievements to preserve their oun and Brethrens lives in prosecuting the Cause and nothing but the necessity of duty did force me to this Undertaking to defend their Name from Reproach and the Cause from Calumnies I shall Conclude with a humble Protestation that what I have said be not stretched further than my obvious declared Design doth aim at which is not to press a practice from these precedents but to vindicate a Scripture Truth from invidious or ignorant Obloquies and not to specify what may or must be done in such Cases hereafter but to justify what hath been done in such Circumstances before Wherein I acknowledge that thô the Truth be certain such things may be done yet the duty is most difficult to be done with Approbation Such is the fury of corrupt passion far more fierce in all than the pure zeal of God is to be found fervent in any that too much Caution Tenderness Fear can scarce be adhibite in a Subject wherein even the most warrantable provocation of holy zeal is ordinarly attended with such a concurrence of Self-interest and other carnal Tentations as it is impossible without the signal Assistance of special Grace to have its exercise in any notable Measure or Manner without the Mixture of sinful allay as the True Non-conformist doth truly observe ubi supra Pag. 391. Yet this Doctrine thô in its defined and uncautioned Latitude be obnoxious to accidental abuses as all Doctrines may be abused by mens corruption or ignorance misapplying the same is nevertheless built upon such Foundations that Religion will oune to be firme and Reason will ratify their force And I hope it is here so circumscribed with Scripture-boundaries and restricted in the narrow Circumstantiation of the Case that as the Ungodly cannot captate advantage from it to encourage themselves in their Murdering villanies seeing they never were never can be so Circumstantiate as the Exigence here defined requires So as for the Godly I may presume upon their tenderness and the Conduct of that Spirit that is promised to lead them and the zeal they have for the honour of Holiness with which all real Cruelty is inconsistent to promise in their Name that if their Enemies will repent of their wickedness and so far at least Reforme themselves as to surcease from their cruel Murdering violence in persecuting them to the death and devouring them as a prey then they shall not need to fear from them the danger of this Doctrine but as saith the proverb of the Ancients Wickedness proceedeth from the Wicked but their hand shall not be upon them But if they shall still proceed to Murder the Innocent they must understand they that hold this Truth in Theorie will also reduce it to practice And bloody Papists must know that Christians now are more Men than either stupidly to surrender their throats to their Murdering swords or supinely to suffer their villanie to pass unpunished and thô their favours have flattered many and their sury hath forced others into a faint succumbing superceding from