God of His Word warranting Authorizing So we are commanded to try the spirits whether they be of God 1 Iohn 4. 1. So in this sense sin tentation lust Corruptions of the world are not of God Iam. 1. 13. 1 Iohn 2. 16. Again things are ordained of God either by the order of His Counsel or Providential will either effectively by way of Production or Direction or Permissively by way of non-impedition Or they are ordained by the order of His Word Preceptive will The former is Gods Rule the latter is ours The former is alwise accomplished the latter is often contradicted The former orders all actions even sinful the latter only that which is good acceptable in the sight of God By the former Israel rejected Samuel by the latter they should have continued Samuels Government and not sought a King By the former Athaliah usurped the Government by the latter she should have yeelded obedience resigned the Government to the posterity of Ahaziah By the former all have a physical subordination to God as Creatures subject to His All-disposing will by the latter Those whom He approves have a moral subordination to God as obedient subjects to His Commanding will. Now Magistrats are of God and ordained by Him both these wayes Tyrants but one of them I say Magistrats the higher Powers to whom we owe must oune subjection are of God both these wayes both by His purpose Providence and that not meerly eventual but effective executive of His Word disposing both of the Title Right Possession of the power to them whom He approves and bringing the People under a consciencious subjection And by His Word warrant So Adonijah the Usurper though he had the pretence of Hereditary right and also possession by Providence was forced to oune King Solomon in these termes upon which only a Magistrate may be ouned The Kingdome sayes he was mine and all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign howbeit the Kingdom is turned about and become my brothers for it was his from the Lord 1 King. 2. 15. He had both Providence turning about the Kingdom to him and also the Warrant of the Lords Approbative preceptive will. But Tyrants Usurpers are only of God and ordained of God by His overruling purpose permissive Providence either for performing His holy purpose towards themselves as Rehoboams professing he would be a Tyrant and refusing the Lawful desires of the people was of God 2 Chron. 10. 15. Or for a judgment vengeance upon them that are subject to them Zech. 11 6 whereby they get a power in their hand which is the Rod of the Lords Indignation and a Charge Commission against a Hypocritical Nation Isa. 10. 5. 6. This is all the power they have from God who gives Iacob to the spoil Israel to the Robbers when they sin against Him Isa. 42. 24. This doth not give these Robbers any right no more than they whose Tabernacle prosper into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Iob. 12. 6. Thus all Robbers and the great Legal Robbers Tyrants and their Authorized Murderers may be of God to wit by His Providence Hence those that are not ordained of Gods preceptive will but meerly by His Providential will their Authority is not to be ouned But Tyrants Usurpers are not ordained of Gods Preceptive but meerly by His Providential will. The Minor needs no proof yet will be cleared by many folowing Arguments The Major will be afterwards more demonstrated Here I shall only say They that have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers than the devil hath must not be ouned But they that have no other than the ordination of Providence have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers than the devil hath Ergo they that have no other than the ordination of Providence must not be ouned 2. But let us next consider what is comprehended in the Ordination of that Authority which is to be ouned as of God And it may be demonstrated there are two things in it without which no Authority can be ouned as of God viz. Institution Constitution So as to give him whom we must oune as Gods Minister Authority both in the Abstract Concrete that is that he should have Magistracy by Gods Ordination and be a Magistrate by according to the will of God. All acknowledge that Magistracy hath Gods Institution for the Powers that be are ordained of God which contains not only the Appointment of it but the qualification forme of it That Government is appointed by Divine Precept all agree but whether the Precept be Moral Natural or Moral Positive Whether it was appointed in the State of Innocency or since disorder came in the world Whether it be Primario or Secundario from the Law of nature is not agreed upon It may possibly be all these wayes Government in the General may be from the Law and light of Nature appointed in Innocency because all its relative duties are enjoined in the fifth Command and all Nations Naturally have an esteem of it Without which ther could be no order distinction or Communion in humane Societies But the Specification or Individuation may be by a Postnate Positive Secundary Law yet Natural too for though ther be no reason in Nature why any man should be King Lord over another being in some sense all Naturally free but as they yeeld themselves under Jurisdiction The exalting of David over Israel is not ascribed to Nature but to an act of divine bounty which took him from following the Ewes and made him feeder of the People of Israel Psal. 78. 70 71 yet Nature teacheth that Israel and other People should have a Government and that this should be subjected to Next not only is it appointed to be but qualified by Institution and the Office is defined the End prescribed and the measures Boundaries thereof are limited as we shall hear Again the formes of it though Politically they are not stinted that People should have such a forme not another yet Morally at least Negatively whatever be the forme it is limited to the Rules of equity justice and must be none other than what hath the Lords Mould Sanction But there is no Institution any of these wayes for Tyranny Hence that Power that hath no Institution from God cannot be ouned as His ordinance But the Power of Tyrants is that Power being contrary in every respect to Gods Institution and a meer deviation from it eversion of it Ergo To the Minor it may be replyed Though the Power which Tyrants may exerce Usurpers assume may be in Concretâ— contrary to Gods Institution and so not to be ouned yet in abstracto it may be acknowledged of God. It s but the abuse of the Power and that does not take away the use We may oune the Power though we do not oune the abuse of it
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
first original and approved by the mutual consent of all Nations and by natures Sanction continued inviolable and perpetual which being subject to no other Lawes do Command rule all This which in every action doth offer it self to our eyes minds and whether we will or not abides in our breasts our Predecessors followed being alwayes armed against violence and ready to suppress Tyrants And now for the present what have we done but insisting in the footsteps of so many Kingdoms free Nations suppressed Tyrannical Licentiousness extolling it self above all order of Laws not indeed so severely as our Predicessors in like cases if we had imitated them not only wold we have been far from all fear of danger but also have escaped the trouble of Calumnies What would our Adversaries be at Is it that we should arm with Authority Tyrants convicted of grievous Crimes maintained by the spoils of the subjects having hands embrued in royal blood and hearts gaping for the oppression of all good men And shall we put them upon our head who are infamously suspected of Parricide both projected perpetrated To which we may adde a forreign conclusion indeed but adduced maintained by Mr Craig in the Assembly anno 1564. which had been determined by Learned men in Bononia Principes omnes tam supremi quam inferiores possunt debent Reformari vel deponi per cos per quos eriguntur confirmantur vel admittuntur ad officium quoties a side praestita subditis per juramentum desiciant quoniam relatio juramenti subditorum principum mutua est utrinque aequo jure servanda resormanda juxta Legem conditionem juramenti ab utraque parte sacti That is all Rulers be they supreme or inferior may ought to be reformed or bridled to speak moderatly by them by whom they are chosen confirmed or admitted to their office so oft as they break that promise made by Oath to their subjects because that the Prince is no less bound by Oath to their subjects then are the subjects to their Princes And therefor ought it to be kept reformed equally according to Law condition of the Oath that is made of either Party By comparing which two Testimonyes together we may see the reasons why neither of the two Royal Brothers that have ruled in our day could be conscienciously ouned as Magistrates in the Case they have been in for several years past The first testimony is for the second Brother the Latter is for he first that 's gone But as for Mr Knox his opinion it is evident he had written aâ— a book against the Government of women which though he did not intend it particularly against Mary of Scotland yet it did invalidate her authority as well as other womens This book he ounes and maintains in his first conference with her and consequently could not oune her authority as of the Lord though he gave her common respect as the title of Majestie c. yet when he was particularly urged by the Queens question yow think said she that I have no just authority He would not answer in the affirmative but shifted it by telling her That learned men in all ages have had their judgment free and most commonly disagreeing from the Common judgment of the world And tho he sayes he could live under her government so may would the greatest disouners of Tyranny if they be not troubled with questions about ovvneing it yet he affirms that with the Testimony of a good Conscience he had communicate his judgment to the world and that if the realme found no inconveniences in her government he would no further disallow than within his oun breast Certainly then in his Conscience he did not could not oune her as the Magistrate of God And that thô many things which before were holden stable had been called in doubt yet neither Protestant nor Papist could prove that any such question was at any time moved in publick or private Neither could ever such a question be moved if the Conscience were not posed and then when it must speak it must of necessity be unpleasant to Tyrants Thus we have heard both the positions scruples of this witness let us also hear his arguings that People may punish Princes for their Idolatry murther c. And therefore much more may disoune them And therefore again much more may they forbear to oune them when called for can a dead man by Law be ouned to be a Magistrate Custos of the Law. Idolatry sayth he in his conference with Lithington ought not only to be suppressed but the Idolater ought to die the death but by whom by the people of God for the Commandment was given to Israel yea a Command that if it be heard that Idolatry is committed in any one City that then the whole body of the people arise and destroy that City sparing neither man woman nor child But shall the King also be punished If he be an Idolater I find no priviledge granted unto Kings more then unto people to offend Gods Majestie But the people may not be Judges to their King. God is the universal Judge so that what His Word commands to be punished in the one is not to be absolved in the other And that the people yea or a part of the people may not execute Gods judgments against their King being an offender I am sure you have no other warrant except your own imaginations and the opinion of such as more fear to offend their Princes than God. In the same Conference we have the instance of Iehu adduced to prove that Subjects may execute Gods judgments upon their Princes It was objected Iehu was a King before he executed judgment upon Ahabs house and the fact was extraordinary and not to be imitated He answered he was a meer Subject No doubt Iezabel both thought said he was a Traitor and so did many others in Israel Samaria And whereas it was said that the fact was extraordinary I say it had the ground of Gods ordinary judgment which commandeth the Idolater to die the death and â—herefore I yet again affirme it is to be imitated of all those that prefer the true honour of the true Worship Glory of God to the affection of flesh wicked Princes We are not bound said Lithingtoun to follow extraordinary examples unless we have the like Commanâ—ment assurance I grant said the other if the example repugne to the Law but where the example aggrees with the Law is as it were the execution of Gods judgment expressed within the same I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a Commandment for as God in His Nature is Constant Immutable so cannot He condemne in the ages subsequent that which He hath approved in His Servants before us Then he brings another Argument from Amaziah who fled to Lachish but the people sent
Witnesses did gradually ascend to the pitch it is novv arrived at I. These Enemies of God having once got footing again with the favour and the fawnings of the foolish Nation went on fervently to further and promote their wicked design and meeting with no opposition at first did encourage themelves to begin boldly Wherefore hearing of some Ministers peaceably Assembled to draw up a Monitory Letter to the King minding him of his Covenant Engagments promises which was though weak yet the first witness warning against that Heaven-daring wickedness then begun they cruelly incarcerate them Having hereby much daunted the Ministry from their duty in that day for fear of the like unusual outragious usage The Parliament conveens Ianuar. 1. 1661. without so much as a Protestation for Religion Liberty given in to them And there in the first place they frame take the Oath of Supremacy Exauctorating Christ and investing His usurping Enemy with the spoils of his robbed Prerogative acknowledging the King only supreme Governour over all persons in all Causes and that his power Iurisdiction must not be declined Whereby under all persons all Causeâ— All Church Officers in their most properly Ecclesiastick Affairs Concerns of Christ are comprehended And if the King shall take upon him to judge their Doctrine Worship Discipline or Government he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge Which did at once enervate all the Testimony of the 4th Period above declared and laid the foundation for all this Babel they have built since and of all this war that hath been waged against the Son of God and did introduce all this Tyrannie absolute power which hath been since carried to its Complement and made the Kings Throne the foundation of all the succeeding perjurie Apostasie Yet though then our Synods Presbytries were not discharged but might have had access in some Concurrence to witness against this horrid Invasion upon Christs Prerogative and the Churches Priviledge no joint Testimony was given against it except that some were found witnessing against it in their singular Capacity by themselves As faithful Mr Iames Guthrie for declining this usurped Authority in prejudice of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus suffered death and got the Martyrs Crown upon his head And some others for refusing that Oath arbitrarly imposed were Banished or Confined when they had gained this Bulwark of Christs Kingdom Then they waxed more insolent and set up their Ensigns for signs and broke doun the carved Work of Reformation with axes hammers In this Parliament 1661. They past an Act Rescissorie whereby they annulled declared void the National Covenant the Solemn League Covenant Presbytrial Government and all Lawes made in favours of the Work of Reformation since the year 1633. O horrid wickedness both in its nature so attrocious to condemn rescind what God did so signally seal as His oun Work to the conviction of the world and for which He will rescind the Rescinders and overturn these Overturners of His Work and make the curse of that broken Covenant bind them to the punishment vvhom its bond could not oblige to the duty Covenanted And in its design end so base detestable for nothing but to flatter the King in making way for Prelacy Tyranny Popery and to indulge the licenciousness of some debauched Nobles who could not endure the yoke of Christs Government and to suppress Religion Righteousness under the ruines of that Reformation But O holy astonishing Justice thus to recompense our way upon our own head to suffer this work cause to be ruined under our unhappy hands who suffered this Destroyer to come in before it was so effectually secured as it should not have been in the power of his hand whatever had been in his heart swelled with enmity against Christ to have razed ruined that Work as now most wickedly he did and drew in so many into the guilt of the same deed that almost the whole Land not only consented unto it but applauded it by approving countenancing another wicked Act framed at the same time by that same perfidious Parliament for an Anniversary Thanksgiving commemorating every 29. of May that Blasphemy against the Spirit Work of God and celebrating that unhappy Restauration of the Rescinder of the Reformation which had not only the concurrence of the universality of the Nation But alas for shame that it should be told in Gath c even of some Ministers who afterwards accepted the Indulgence one of which a Pillar among them was seen scandalously dancing about the bonefires And others who should have alarmed the whole Nation quasi pro aris focis to rise for Religion Liberty to resist such wickedness did wink at it O how Righteous is the Lord now in turning our Harps into mourning Though alas we will not suffer our selves to this day to see the shining Righteousness of this Retribution And though we be scourged with Scorpions brayed in a Mortar our madness our folly in these irreligious frolicks is not yet acknowledged let be lamented Yet albeit neither in this day when the Covenant was not only broken but Cassed declared of no obligation nor afterward when it was burnt for which Turks Pagans would have been ashamed afraid at such a terrible sight and for which the Lords Anger is burning against these bold burners and against them who suffered it and did not witness against it was there any publick Testimony by protestation or Remonstrance or an publick witness though the Lord had some then and some who came out afterward with the Trumpet at their mouth whose heart then sorrowed at the sight And some suffered for the sense they shewed of that Anniversary abomination for not keeping which they lost both Church Liberty It s true the ordinary Meetings of Presbytries Synods were about that time discharged to make way for the exercise of the new power conferred on the four Prelats who were at Court reordained Consecrated thereby renouncing their former Title to the Ministry But this could not give a discharge from a Necessary Testimony then called for from faithful Watchmen However the Reformation being thus rescinded razed and the House of the Lord pulled doun then they begin to build their Babel In the Parliament anno 1662. by their first Act they restore reestablish Prelacy upon such a foundation as they might by the same Law bring in Poperie which was then designed and so settled its Harbinger Diocesan Erastiar Prelacy by fuller Enlargment of the Supremacy The very Act beginneth thus For as much as the ordering disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong to his Maj. as an Inherent right of the Croun by virtue of his Royal Prerogative Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastick what ever shall be determined by his Maj. with advice of the Arch Bishops and such of the
like lightning or like the Sun in its Meridian beauty discovering so the Wonders of Gods Law the Mysteries of His Gospel and the Secrets of His Covenant and the Sins Duties of that day that a numerous issue was begotten to Christ and His Conquest was Glorious Captivating poor slaves of Satan and bringing them from his power unto God and from darkness to Light. O! who can remember the Glory of that Day without a melting heart in reflecting upon what we have lost and let go and sinned away by our Misimprovements O that in that our day we had hearkened to His voice and had known the things that belonged to our peace A day of such power that it made the People even the bulk body of the People willing to come out and venture upon the greatest of hardships and the greatest of hazards in pursuing after the Gospel through Mosses Moors inaccessible Mountains Summer Winter through excess of heat extremity of cold many dayes night-journeyes even when they could not have a probable expectation of escaping the Sword of the wilderness and the barbarous fury of bloody Burrio's raging for their prey sent out with orders to take kill them it being now made Criminal by Law especially to the preachers Convocaters of those Meetings But this was a day of such power that nothing could daunt them from their duty that had tasted once the sweetness of the Lords presence at these persecuted Meetings Then had we such Humiliation-dayes for personal publick Defections such Communion-dayes even in the open fields and such Sabbath-Solemnities that the places where they were kept might have been called Bethel or Peniel or Bochim and all of them Iehovah-Shammah wherein many were truly Converted more Convinced and generally all Reformed from their former immoralities That even Robbers Thieves and Profane Men were some of them brought to a saving subjection to Christ and generally under such restraint that all the severities of heading hanging c. in a great many years could not make such a Civil Reformation as a few dayes of the Gospel in these formerly the Devils Teritories now Christs Quarters where His Kingly Standart was displayed I have not Language to lay out the inexpressible Glory of that day But I will make bold to say two things of it first I doubt if ever there was Greater dayes of the Son of Man upon the Earth since the Apostolick times than we enjoyed for the space of Seven years at that time And next I doubt if upon the back of such a lightsome day there was ever a blacker night of darkness defection division confusion and a more universal impudent Apostasie than we have seen since The world is at a great loss that a more exact complete account demonstrating both these is not published which I am sure would be a fertile Theme to any faithful pen. But this not being my scope at present but only to deduce the steps of the Contendings of Christs Friends His Enemies I must follow the threed of my Narration Now when Christ is gaining Ground by the preached Gospel in plenty in purity power the Usurpers Supremacy was like to stagger and Prelacy came under universal Contempt in so much that several Country Curats would have had but scarce half a dozen of hearers and some none at all And this was a General Observe that never failed that no sooner did any poor Soul come to get a serious sense of Religion and was brought under any real Exercise of Spirit about their Souls Concerns but as soon they did fall out with Prelacy and left the Curats Hence to secure what he had possessed himself of by Law and to prevent a dangerous Paraxisme which he thought would ensue upon these Commotions the King returned to exerce his innate Tyranny and to emit terrible Orders and more terrible Executioners bloody Emissaries against all Field Meetings which after long patience the people at length could not endure but being first chased to the Fields where they would have been content to have the Gospel with all the inconveniences of it and also expelled from the Fields being resolute to maintain the Gospel they resolved to defend it themselves by Armes To which unavoidable necessity in unsupportable extremity did constrain them as the only remaining remedy It is known for several years they met without any Armes where frequently they were disturbed dispersed with Souldiers some killed others wounded which they patiently endured without Resistence At length the Ministers that were most in hazard having a Price set upon their heads to be brought in dead or alive with some attending them in their wanderings understanding they were thus appointed for death judged it their duty to provide for the necessary defence of their lives from the violence of their Armed Assaulters And as Meetings increased diverse others came under the same hazard which enforced them to endeavour the same remedy without the least intention of prejudice to any Thus the number of Sufferers increasing as they joyned in the Ordinances at these persecuted Meetings found themselves in some probable Capacity to defend themselves and these much endeared precious Gospel Priviledges to preserve the Memory of the Lords great Work in the Land which to transmit to posterity was their great design And they had no small encouragment to endeavour it by the satisfying sweetness comfort they found in these Ordinances being perswaded of the justness of their Cause and of the groundlessness of their Adversaries quarrel against them And hereunto also they were incited prompted by the palpableness of the Enemies purposes to destroy the Remainder of the Gospel by extirpating the Remnant that professed it Wherefore in these circumstances being redacted to that strait either to be deprived of the Gospel or to defend themselves in their Meetings for it And thinking their turning their backs upon it for hazard was a cowardly deserting duty and palpable breach of Covenant-Engagments abandoning their greatest Interest They thought it expedient yea necessary to carry defensive Armes with them And as for that discouragment from the difficulty danger of it because of their fewness meanness it did not deter or daunt them from the endeavour of their duty when they considered the Lord in former times was wont to oune a very small party of their Ancestors who in extremity jeoparded their lives in defence of Reformation against very potent powerful Enemies These now ouning the same Cause judged themselves obliged to run the same hazard in the same circumstances and to follow the same method durst not leave it unessayed leaving the event to God considering also that not only the Law of Nature Nations doth allow self defence from unjust violence but also the indissoluble obligation of their Covenants to maintain defend the true Religion one another in promoving the same made it indispensible to use
afflicted the Kingdoms of the world and affected not only their backs in bearing the burden thereof but thir hearts into a Lethargick stupor of insensibleness and their heads in infatuating intoxicating them with Notions of the Sacredness incontroulablness of Tyrannie and their hands in infeebling and fettering them from all attempts to work a Cure Or else it hath had another effect on many that have been sensible of a touch of it even equivalent to that which an ingenious Author Mr Gee in his Preface to the Divine right Original of the Civil Magistrate to which Mr Durham is not absonant expounds to be the effect of the fourth vial Rev. 16. 8 9. when in these Dog-dayes of the world power is given to the Sun of Imperial especially Popish Tyannie by their exorbitant streaches of absolute Prerogative to scorch men with fire of furious oppressions they then blaspheme the Name of God which hath power over these Plagues in their Mal-content Complaints grumblings grudgings and Murmurings under the miserie but they do not repent nor give Him Glory in mourning over the causes promeriting such a Plague and their oun accession in exposing themselves to such a scorching sun nakedly without a Sconce Certainly this would be the remedy that Conscience would suggest and Interest would incite to an endeavour either of allaying the heat or of subtracting from it under a shelter by declining the oblique Malignity of its Scorching rayes But will the world never be a wakened out of this Dream dotage of Dull stupid subjection to every Monster that can Mount a Throne Sure at length it may be expected either Conscience from within as Gods deputy challenging for the palpable perversion of this His excellent Ordinance Or Iudgments from without making sensible of the effects of it will convince confute these old inveterate Prejudices And then these Martyrs for that universal Interest of mankind who got the fore-start and the first sight of this will not be so flouted as fools as now they are And who knoweth what Prelude or Preparative fore-boding presaging the doun fal of Tyranny may be in its aspirings to this hight of arbitrary absoluteness and in the many questions raised about it and by them imposed upon Consciences to be resolved If we consider the object of this question as Conscience can only clear it so in nothing can it be more concerned It is that Great Ordinance of God most signally impressed by a very Sacred illustrious Character of the Glorious Majestie of the Most High who hath appointed Magistracy in which considering either its fountain or Dignity ends or effects Conscience must have a very great Concern The fountain or efficient cause of Magistracy is high sublime The powers that are be of God not only by the all disposing hand of God in His Providence as Tyranny is nor only by way of naked approbation but by Divine institution And that not only in the general by at least a Secondary Law of Nature but also the special investiture of it in Institution Constitution is from God and therefore they are said to be ordained of God to which Ordinance we must be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake which is the Great Duty required in the fifth Command the first Commandment with Promise that hath the Priority of Place befor all the Second table because the other Commandments respect each some one Interest this hath a supereminent influence upon all But Tyrannical powers are not of God in this sense And it were Blasphemie to assert they were of the Lords Authorization Conscience cannot bind to a subjection to this Again the Dignity of Magistracy ordained for the maintenance of Truth righteousness the only foundations of peoples felicity whether temporal or eternal including the bonds boundaries of all obedience subjection for which they are intended to which they refer is supereminent as that Epithet of higher added to the powers that are of God may be rendered making them high sublime in Glory whose highest prerogative is that being Gods Ministers they sit in the Throne of God anointed of the Lord judging not for man but for the Lord as the Scripture speaks To this Conscience is concerned in duty to render honour as due by the Prescript of the fifth Commandment but for Tyranny Conscience is bound to deny it because not due no more than obedience which Conscience dare not pay to a Throne of Iniqulty and a Throne of the Devil as Tyranny may be called as really as Magistracy is called the Throne of God. Next Conscience is much concerned in the ends of Magistracy which are the Greatest the Glory of God and the good of Mankind And in the effects of it the maintenance of Truth Righteousness Religion Liberty Peace Safety and all choicest external blessings But the ends effects of Tyranny are quite Contrary Domineering for pleasure and destroying for profit Can we think that Conscience is nothing Concerned here that these great ends shall be subverted and the effects precluded and to that effect that Tyrannie not only be shrouded under a Priviledge of impunity but by our subjection acknowledment of it as a Lawful power encouraged into all enormities and Licensed to usurpe not only our Liberties but Gods Throne by an uncontroulable Soveraignty But if we Consider the subjective Concern of Conscience it must be very great when it is the only thing that prompts to subjection that regulats subjection and is a bottom for subjection to lawful powers If it were not out of Conscience men that are free born are naturally such Lovers of Liberty and under Corruption such lusters after Licenciousness that they would never come under the Order of this Ordinance except constrained for wraths sake but now understanding that they that resist the power resist the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation they must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake If Conscience were not exercised in regulating our duty to Magistrats we would either obey none or else would observe all their Commands promiscously Lawful or unlawful and would make no difference either of the matter commanded or the power commanding but now understanding that we must obey God rather then man and that we must render to all their dues fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Conscience regulats us what whom to obey And without conscience there is litle hope for Government to prove either beneficial or permanent litle likelyhood of either a reall regular or durable subjection to it The discernible standing of Government upon conscientious grounds is the only thing that can bring in conscience a conscientious submission to it it being the highest most kindly principle of and the strongest most lasting obligation to any relative duty It will not be Liberty of Conscience as sayeth the late Declaration
to speakevil of dignities and that they are filthy dreamers who despise Dominion speakevil of dignities and of those things which they know not We allow the Magistrate in whatsoever form of Government all the power the Scripture Lawes of Nature or Nations or Municipal do allow him Asserting that he is the keeper avenger of both the Tables of the Law having a power over the Church as well as the state suited to his Capacity that is not formally Ecclesiastical but objectively for the Churches good an external power of Providing for the Church Protecting her from outward violence or in ward disorder an imperate power of commanding all to do their respective duties a Civil power of Punishing all even Church officers for Crimes a Secundary power of Judicial approbation or condemnation or discretive in order to give his Sanction to Synodical results a Cumulative power assisting strengthening the Church in all her Priviledges subservient though not servill Coordinate with Church power not Subordinate though as a Christian he is subject in his oun affairs to wit Civil not to be declined as Judge but to be obeyed in all things Lawful and honoured strengthened with all his dwes We would give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods But to Tyrants that usurpe pervert both the things of God of Cesar and of the peoples Liberties we can render none of them neither Gods nor Cesars nor our oun Nor can we from conscience give him any other deference but as an enemy to all even to God to Cesar the people And in this though it doth not sound now with Court parasites nor with others that are infected with Royal Indulgences Indemnities we bring forth but the transumpt of old Principles according to which our fathers walked when they still contended for Religion Liberty against the attemptings aggressions of Tyranny against both 5. It must be conceded it is not an easie thing to make a man in the place of Magistracy a Tyrant For as every escape error or act of unfaithfulness even known continued in whether in a Ministers entry to the Ministry or in his Doctrine doth not unminister him nor give sufficient ground to withdraw from him or reject him as a Minister of Christ So neither does every enormity misdemeanure or act of Tyranny Injustice perfidie or profanity in the Civil Magistrate whether as to his way of entry to that office or in the execution of it or in his private or personal behaviour denominate him a Tyrant or usurper or give sufficient ground to divest him of Magistratical power and reject him as the Lawful Magistrate It is not any one or tuo Acts contrary to the Royal Covenant or office that doth denude a man of the Royal dignity that God the people gave him David committed tuo acts of Tyranny Murder Adultery yet the people were to acknowledge him as their King and so it may be said of some others ouned still as Kings in Scripture the reason is because though he sinned against a man or some particular persons yet he did not sin against the State and the Catholick good of the Kingdom subverting Law for then he would have turned Tyrant and ceased to have been Lawful King. There is a great difference between a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit the first does not cease to be a King. But on the other hand as every thing will not make a Magistrate to be a Tyrant So nothing will make a Tyrant habitu a Magistrate And as every fault will not unminister a Minister So some will oblige the people to reject his Ministry as if he turn Heretical Preach Atheisme Mahumetanisme or the like the people though they could not formally depose him or through the corruption of the times could not get him deposed yet they might reject disoune his Ministry So it will be granted that a people have more power in creating a Magistrate than in making a Minister and Consequently they have more right and may have more light in disouning a King as being unkinged than in disouning a Minister as being un-ministerd It will be necessary therefore for clearing our way to fix upon some ordinary Characters of a Tyrant which may discriminate him from a Magistrate and be ground of disouning him as such I shall rehearse some from very much approved Authors the application of which will be as apposite to the tuo Brothers that we have been burthened with as if they had intended a particular exact description of them Buchanan de jure regni apud Scotos Shewes that the word Tyranâ— was at first honourable being attributed to them that had the full power in their hands which power was not astricted by any bonds of Lawes nor obnoxious to the Cognition of Judges and that it was the usual denomination of Heroes and thought at first so honourable that it was attribute to the Gods But as Nero Iudas were sometimes among the Romans Iewes names of greatest account but afterwards by the faults of tuo men of these names it came to pass that the most flagitious would not have these names given to their Children So in process of time Rulers made this name so infamous by their wicked deeds that all men abhorred it as contagious Pestilentious and thought it a more light reproach to be called a hangman then a Tyrant Thereafter he Condiscends upon several Characters of a Tyrant 1. He that doth not receive a Government by the will of the people but by force invadeth it or intercepteth it by fraud is a Tyrant and who domineers even over the unwilling for Rex volentibus Tyrannus invitis imperat and procures the Supreme rule without the peoples Consent even though for several years they may so govern that the people shall not think it irksome Which very well aggrees with the present Gentleman that rules over us who after he was by publick vote in Parliament secluded from the Government of which the standing Lawes of both Kingdoms made him incapable for his Murthers Adulteries Idolatries by force fraud did intercept first an Act for His Succession in Scotland and then the actual Succession in England by blood treacherie usurping intruding himself into the Government without any Compact with or Consent of the people though now he studies to make himself like another Syracusan Hiero or the Florentine Cosinodo Medices in a mild Moderation of his usurped power but the West of England and the West of Scotland both have felt the force of it 2. Tyrannus non civibus sed sibi gerit imperium neque publicae utilitatis sed suae voluptatis rationem habet c. He does not govern for the subjects well-fare or publick ultility but for himself having no regard to that but to his oun lust Acting in this like robbers who cunningly disposing of what wickedly they
have acquired do seek the praise of Justice by injury of Liberality by robbery So he can make some shew of a Civil mind but so much the less assurance gives he of it that it is manifest he intends not thereby the subjects good but the greater security of his oun lusts and stability of empire over posterity having some what Mitigated the peoples hatred which when he hath done he will turn back again to his old manners for the fruit which is to follow may easily be known both by the seed and by the sower thereof An exact Copy of this we have seen within these tuo years as oft before in the rule of the other Brother After God hath been robbed of His prerogatives the Church of her Priviledges the State of its Lawes the Subjects of their Libertie property he is now affecting the praise captating the Applause of tenderness to conscience and Love of Peace by offering now Liberty after all his Cruelties wherein all the thinking part of men do discern he is prosecuting that hellish Project introducing Popery slaverie and overturning Religion Law Liberty 3. Regium imperium secundum Naturam est Tyrannicum contra Regium Liberi inter Liberos est Principatus Tyrannus domini in servas c. Tyranny is against Nature and a Masterly Principality over slaves Can he be called a father who accounts his subjects slaves or a Shepherd who does not feed but devours his flock or a Pilot who doth allwise study to make shipwrack of the goods and strikes a leak in the very ship where he sails what is he then that bears Command not for the peoples advantage but studies only himself who leadeth his subjects into manifest snares he shall not verily be accounted by me either Commander Emperour or Governour King Iames the 6 th also in a speech to the Parliament anno 1609. makes this one Character of a Tyrant when he begins to invade his subjects rights Liberties And if this be true then we have not had a King these many years the foregoing deduction will demonstrate what a slavery we have been under 4. Quid qui non de virtute certet câ—m bonis c. What is he then who doth not contend for vertue with the good but to exceed the most flagitious in vices If yow see then any usurping the Royal name and not excelling in any virtue but striving to exceed all in baseness not tendering his subjects good with native affection but pressing them with proud domination esteeming the people committed to his trust not for their safegaurd but for his oun gain will yow imagine this man is truly a King albeit he vapours with a numerous Lieveguard and makes an ostentation of gorgeous Pomp The learned Althusius likewise in his Politicks cap. 38. Num. 15. as He is cited by Ius Populi chap. 16. Pag. 347. makes this one Character of a Tyrant that liveing in Luxury whoredome greed idleness he neglecteth or is unfit for his office How these suite our times we need not express what effrontry of impudence is it for such monsters to pretend to rule by virtue of any Authority derived from God who pollute the world with their Adulteries Incests and Live in open defyance of all the Lawes of the universal King with whom to exceed in all villanies is the way to purchase the Countenance of the Court and to aspire to preferment No Heliogabulus c. could ever come up the length in wickedness that our Rulers have professed 5. Omnium vim Legum in se transferre c. He can transfer unto himself the strength of all Lawes and abrogate them when he pleases King Iames the 6. in that fore-cited speech saith a King degenerateth into a Tyrant when he leaveth to rule by Law. Althusius also loc cit saith there is one kind of Tyranny which consisteth in violating changing or removing of fundamental Lawes specially such as concern Religion such saith he Philip the King of Spain who contrare to the fundamental Belgick Lawes did erect an administration of Justice by force of armes and such was Charles the 9 th of France that thought to overturn the Salicque Law. All that knoweth what hath been done in Britain these 27 years can attest our Lawes have been subverted the Reformation of Religion overturned and all our best Lawes rescinded and now the Penal Statuts against Papists disabled stopped without against Law. 6. Ad suum eum unius nutum omnia c. He can revoke all things to his nod at his pleasure This is also one part of King Iames the 6 his Character of a Tyrant when he sets upon arbitrary power And of Althusius loc cit when he makes use of an absolute Power and so breaks all bonds for the good of humane Society We allow a King an absolute power taken in a good sense that is he is not subaltern nor subordinate to any other Prince but supreme in his oun dominions or if by absolute be meant Perfect he is most absolute that governs best according to the word of God. But if it be to be Legibus solutus loosed from all Lawes we thinke it blasphemy to ascribe it to any Creature Where was there ever such an arbitrary absolute power arrogated by any Mortal as hath been claimed by our Rulers these years past especially by the present Usurper who in this Liberty of conscience now granted to Scotland assumes to himself an absolute power which all are to obey without reserve which carries the subjects slavery many stages beyond what ever the Grand Seigneur did attempt 7. Tyranno ad cives opprumendos c. For by a Tyrant strangers are imployed to oppress the subjects They place the establishment of ther Authority in the peoples weakness and think that a Kingdom is not a Procuration concredited to them by God but rather a prey fallen into their hands Such are not joined to us by any Civil bond or any bond of humanity but should be accounted the most Capital enemies of God and of all men King Iames ub supra sayes he is a Tyrant that imposes un Lawful Taxes raises forces makes war upon his subjects to Pillage Plnnder wast spoil his Kingdoms Althusins ubi supra makes a Tyrant who by immoderate exactions and the like exhausts the subjects and cites Scripture Ier. 22. 13. 14. Ezek. 34. 1 King. 12. 19. Psal. 14. 4. It is a famous saying of Bracton He is no longer King then dum bene regit while he rules well but a Tyrant when-soever he oppresseth the people that are trusted to his Care Government And Cicero sayes amittitis omne exceritus imperit jiu qui eo imperio exercitâ— Rempublicans oppugnat He loseth all legal power in over an Army or Empire who by that Government army does obstruct the wel-fare of that republick What oppressions exactions by armed force our Nation hath been wasted with in part is
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
6. pag. 195. in vita Kennethi 3. This continued until the dayes of Kenneth the 3. who to cover his villanous Murder of his Brothers Son Malcolm and prevent his and secure his oun sons succession procured this Charter for Tyranny the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the Parliament which as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniences arising from Contentions Competions about the succession So it was limited by Lawes Precluding the succession of Fools or Monsters and preserving the peoples liberty to shake off the yoke when Tyranny should thereby be introduced Otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their oune Rights enslaving the posterity but an irreligious contempt of Providence refusing anticipating its Determination in such a case However it is clear before this time that as none but the fittest were admitted to the Government So if any did usurpe upon it or afterwards did degenerate into Tyranny they took such order with him as if he had not been admitted at all as is clear in the instances of the first Period and would never oune every pretender to hereditary succession 2 As before Kenneths dayes it is hard to reckon the numerous Instances of Kings that were dethroned or imprisoned or slain upon no other account than that of their oppression Tyranny So afterwards they maintained the same power priviledge of repressing them when ever they began to encroach And although no Nation hath been more patient towards bad Kings as well as Loyal towards good ones yet in all former times they understood so well their Right they had and the duty they owed to their oun preservation as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account And albeit in stead of condoling or avenging the death of the Tyrannous they have often both excused justified it yet no Kingdom hath inflicted severer Punishments upon the Murderers of just righteous Princes And therefore though they did neither enquire after nor animadvert upon those that slew Iames the 3. a flagitious Tyrant yet they did by most exquisite Torments put them to death who slew Iames the 1. a vertuous Monarch Hence because these other instances I mind to adduce of deposing Tyrants may be excepted against as not pertinent to my purpose who am not pleading for exauctoration deposition of Tyrants being impracticable in our case I shall once for all remove that and desire it may be considered 1 That though we cannot formally exauctorate a Tyrant yet he may ipso jure fall from his right and may exauctorate himself by His Law by whom Kings reign and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not ouning him 2 Though we have not the same power yet we have the same grounds and as great good if not greater better reasons to reject disoune our Tyrant as they whose example is here adduced had to depose some of their Tyrannizing Princes 3 If they had power ground to depose them then a fortiori they had power ground to disoune them for that is less inculded in the other and this we have 4 Though it should be granted that they did not disoune them before they were deposed yet it cannot be said that they did disoune them only because they were deposed for it is not deposition that makes a Tyrant it only declares him to be justly punished for what he was before As the sentance of a Judge does not make a man a murderer or Thief only declares him convict of these Crimes punishable for them it s his oun committing them that makes him Criminal And as before the sentance having certain knowledge of the fact we might disoune the Mans innocency or honesty So a Rulers Acts of Tyranny Usurpation make him a Tyrant Usurper and give ground to disoune his just legal Authority which he can have no more than a Murtherer or Thief can have innocency or honesty 3 We find also examples of their disouning Kings undeposed as King Baliol was disouned with his whole race for attempting to enslave the Kingdoms Liberties to forreign power And if this may be done for such an attempt as the greatest Court parasites Sycophants consent what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to Domestick or Intestine Slaverie Shall we refuse to be slaves to one without and be oune our selves contented Slaves to one with in the Kingdom It is known also that King Iames the 1. his Authority was refused by his subjects in France so long as he was a Prisoner to the English there though he charged them upon their Allegiance not to fight against the party who had his person Prisoner They answered they ouned no Prisoner for their King nor owed no Allegiance to a Prisoner Hence Princes may learn though people submit to their Government yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full as that they are obliged to oune Allegiance to them when either Morally or Physically they are incapacitate to exerce Authority over them They that cannot rule themselves cannot be ouned as Rulers over a people 2. Neither hath there been any Nation but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this Nature The English History gives account how some of their Kings have been dealt with by their Subjects for impieties against the Law Light of Nature and encroachments upon the Lawes of the Land. Vortigernuâ— was dethroned for incestously marying his oun Sister Neither did ever Blasphemies Adulteries Murders Plotting against the lives of Innocents and taking them away by Poison or Razor use to escape the animadversion of men before they were Priest-ridden unto a belief that Princes persons were sacred And if men had that generosity now this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion And we find also King Edward Richard the 2. were deposed for Usurpation upon Lawes Liberties in doing whereof the people avowed They would not suffer the Lawes of England to be changed Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate who having such Lawes transmitted to them from their worthy Ancestors and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a Change do now suffer them to be so encroached upon and mancipate themselves leave their Children vassals to Poperie slaves to Tyranny 3. The Dutch also who have the best way of guiding of Kings of any that ever had to do with them witness their having so many of them in Chains now in Batavia in the East Indies are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples When the King of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their Ancient Lawes and rule for the good of the people they declared him to be fallen from the Seigniorie of the Netherlands and so erected themselves into a flourishing Common-wealth It will not
I ans 1. I acknowledge the distinction as to Magistrats is very pertinent for it is well said by the Congregation in a Letter to the Nobility Knox Hist. of Scot. lib. 2. That there is a great difference betwixt the Authority which is Gods ordinance and the persons of these who are placed in Authority the Authority ordinance of God can never do wrong for it commandeth that vice be punished virtue maintained But the Corrupt Person placed in this Authority may offend Its certain higher Powers are not to be resisted but some persons in Power may be resisted The Powers are ordained of God but Kings commanding unjust things are not ordained of God to do such things But to apply this to Tyâ—ants I do not understand Magistrats in some Acts may be guilty of Tyranny and yet retain the Power of Magistracy but Tyrants cannot be capable of Magistracy nor any one of the Scripture Characters of Righteous Rulers They cannot retain that which they have forefeited and which they have overturned And Usurpers cannot retain that which they never had They may act enact some things materially just but they are not formally such as can make them Magistrats no more then some unjust actions can make a Magistrate a Tyrant A Murderer saying the â—ife of one killing another does not make him no Murderer Once a Murderer ay a Murderer once a Robber ay a Robber till he restore what he hath robbed So once a Tyrant ay a Tyrant till he make amends for his Tyranny and that will be hard to do 2. The Concrete does specificate the Abstract in actuating it as a Magistrate in his exercising Government makes his Power to be Magistracy a Robber in his robbing makes his Power to be Roberie an Usurper in his usurping makes his Power to be Usurpation So a Tyrant in his Tyrannizing can have no Power but Tyranny As the Abstract of a Magistrate is nothing but Magistracy So the Abstract of a Tyrant is nothing but Tyranny It s frivolous then to distinguish between a Tyrannical power in the Concrete Tyranny in the Abstract the power the abuse of the power for he hath no power as a Tyrant but what is abused 3. They that objects thus must either mean that power in its general Notion is ordained of God but this particular Power abâ—sed by Tyrants and assumed by Usurpers is not ordained Or they must mean that the very Power of Tyrants Usurpers is ordained of God but the way of holding using it is not of God. If the first be said they grant all I plead for for thô the Power in general be ordained yet what is this to Tyrants Usurpers would not this Claim be ridiculous for any man to say God hath ordained Governments to be therefore I will challenge it God hath ordained Marriage therefore any may cohabit together as man wife without formal Matrimony If the Second be alledged that the Power of these prevailing Dominators is ordained but not their holding using of it This is Non-sense for how can a Power be ordained and the use of it be unlawful For the abuse use of Tyrannical Power is all one and reciprocal an Usurper cannot use his Power but by Usurpation Again is it not plain that the Abstract the Concrete the act or habit and the subject wherein it is cannot have a contrary Denomination if Drunkenness and Thieft Lying or Murder be of the Devil then the Drunkard the Thief the Lyar the Murderer are of the Devil too So if Tyranny and Usurpation or the use or abuse of Tyrants Usurpers be of the Devil Then must the Tyrants Usurpers also be of him None can say the one is of the Devil and the other of God. Wherefore it is altogether impertinent to use such a Distinction with application to Tyrants or Usurpers as many do in their pleading for the ouning of our Oppressors for they have no power but what is the abuse of power 3. As that Authority which is Gods Ordinance must have His Institution So it must have His divine Constitution from Himself and by the people Wherever then there is Authority to be ouned of men there must be these tuo Constitution from God and Constitution from the people For the first God hath a special Interest in the Constitution of Authority both Immediatly Mediatly Immediatly He declares such such formes of Government to be Lawful Eligible and does order whom who and how people shall erect Governours And so He confers Royal Graces Enduements Gifts for Government on them as on Ioshua Saul So they become the Lords Anointed placed set on the Throne of the Lord 1 Chron. 29. 23. and honoured with Majestie as His deputies vicegerents having their Croun set on by God Psal. 21. 3. But in regard now He doth not by any special Revelation determine who shall be the Governours in this or that place Therefore He makes this Constitution by mediation of men giving them Rules how they shall proceed in setting them up And seeing by the Law of Nature He hath enjoined Government to be but hath ordered no particular in it with application to singulars He hath committed it to the positive transaction of men to be disposed according to certain General Rules of Justice And it must needs be so for 1. without this Constitution either all or none would be Magistrats if He hath ordained Civil Power to be and taken no order in whom it shall be or how it shall be conveyed any might pretend to it and yet none would have a right to it more than another If then He â—ath affixed it to a peculiar having holding by virtue whereof this man is enstated entitled to the office and not that man there must be a Law for Constituting him in Authority which will discover in whom it is 2. If it were not so then a resisting of a particular Magistrate would not be a resisting of the ordinance of God if a particular Magistrate were not Constitute of God as well as Magistracy is Institute of God for still it would be undetermined who were the Power and so it would be left as free Lawful for the resister to take the place as for the resisted to hold it the institution would be satisfied if any possessed iâ— therefore there must be Constitution to determine it 3. No Common Law of Nature can be put into practice without particular Constitution regulating it That Wives Children oune their superior relations is the Law of Nature but there must be such a relation first fixed by humane transaction before they can oune them there must be Marriage Authorized of God there must be Children begotten and then the Divine Ordination of these relative duties take place So the Judges of Israel for 450 years were given of God Act. 13. 20. not all by an immediate express designation but a mediate
Call from God by men as Iephthah Iudg. 11. 6. 11. Inferior judges also are Magistrats appointed by God yet they have their Deputation from men Our Saviour speaks of all Magistrats when he applies that of the 82. Psalm to them I said ye are Gods and shewes how they were Gods because unto them the Word of God came Iohn 10. 35. that is by His Word Warrant He Authorized them not by immediate designation in reference to the most of them but the Word of God comes to them or His Constitution is past upon them who are advanced by men according to His Word When men therefore do act according to the Divine Rule in the Moulding Erecting of Government Governours there the Constitution is of God though it be not immediate And where this is not observed whatever power so named or pretended there may be or what-soever persons there be that take upon them to be the power and are not thereto appointed or therein instated and do exerce such a power as God hath not legitmated they are not a power ordained of God. Hence whatsoever power hath no Constitution from God eather Immediate or Mediate cannot be ouned But the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a power that hath no Constitution from God either Immediate or Mediate Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major is cleared above The Minor is also undenyable For either they must pretend to an Immediate Constitution by revelation that Iames Duke of York a vassal of Antichrist had by all his plots pranks Merited the Crown of Britain and therefore must be Constitute King And this I hope they will not pretend to except the Pope hath gotten such a Revelation from Pluto's Oracle Or they must have recourse to the Mediate Constitution by men And if so Then either this Mediate Constitution of God is left undetermined indefinitely absolutely giving way to any that will assume what power they please can And then I confess Tyrants may have a Constitution but this confusion cannot be of God Or else it is fixed by a Rule regulating the succession or Constitution of the Governours and obliging the people to oune the Government so constituted with exclusion disallowance of any other And so if in that Constitution there be a Substantial Deviation from the Rule as when incompetent or unallowed persons be the advancers of themselves or others into that place by illegal sinistrous means in as much as in that case there is the Divine disapprobation it may be said there is no Ordinance of God but a Contradiction Contraordination to Gods Order Gee's Magist. Origin chap. 5. Sect. 4. subject 3. pag. 135. This will shake off this of ours and all other Tyrants Usurpers that come into the Government hold it not according to Gods Rule 4. It is clear also in the second place that the Authority which we can oune out of conscience must have Constitution by the people The special way by which men should be called into the place of Soveraign power may perhaps not be found so expressly defined in Scripture as mens Call to the other Ordinance of the Ministrie is yet in this two things are essentially necessary to the Constitution of a Magistrate The peoples consent compact either formal or virtual And without these we can oune consciencious subjection Allegiance to no man living That the first is necessary will be evident from the Law of Nature Nations and from Scripture First the light Law of Nature dictates that the Right Interest of Constituting Magistrats is in the Elective vote or suffrage of the people This will Appear 1. If we consider The Original of Government among men especially after they were so multiplied that there was a necessity of a reduction into diverse Communities which whatever was before the flood yet after it behoved to be by a Coalition with consent under an Elective Government The Scripture makes it more than probable that the first partition of Common-wealths was in Pelegs dayes in whose time the earth was Divided Gen. 10. 25. occasioned by the Confusion of Languages at Babel which did dissolve their union and scatter them abroad upon the face of all the eath Gen. 11. 9. Then was it that we may conceive as Buchanan sayes de Iure Regni apud Scot. the time was when men dwelt in cottages caves and as strangers did wander to fro without Laws and such as could converse together of the same language assembled together as their humors did lead them or as some common Utilitie did allure them A certain instinct of Nature did oblige them to desire Converse Societie But this confusion of Languages and Communion of Language in several divided Parcels could not incorporate these several Parties into Communities that behoved to be the effect of some other cause what should that be but the joint will consent aggreement of the severally Languaged It could not be by Consanguinity for there is no direction from Nature for a confinement of that into such such degrees to make out the bounds of a Common-wealth or Possibility of knowing all with in such degrees besides all within these degrees might not be of the same Language Now the Scripture sayes they were divided every one after his tongue after their families in their Nations Gen. 10. 5. Next it could not be by Cohabitation for how that must go to be the boundaries of a Common-wealth inclusively or exclusively is not defined by nature nor can it be otherwise determined than by humane choise Then it could not be by mens belonging to such a Soveraign for after that Division Confusion they could not all be under one Soveraign nor under the same that they were subject to before and a Soveraign cannot be before the aggregation of the Subjects whereof he is head they must first be a Common-wealth before they can belong to it Again it cannot be founded upon the Right of fatherhood for in that scattering such a Right could not be uninterruptedly preserved And then Noah should also have been the Universal Magistrate which he could not be in these multiplied secessions And further if it be refounded on the Right of fatherhood either every Company had one Common Father over all or every Father made a Common-wealth of his oun Children The Latter cannot be said for that would multiply Common-wealts in infinitum Neither can the first be said for if they had one Common Father either this behoved to be the Natural Father of all the Company which none can think was so happily ordered by Babels confusion Or else the eldest in age and so he might be incapable for Government and the Law of Nature does not direct that the Government should alwise be astricted to the eldest of the Community Or else finally he behoved to be their Political Father by consent For before this consent they were uningaged as to common order of
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
grand Interests of the Community must be seen to by Legal Securities for Religion Liberty which is the end use of fundamental Laws Now how these have been unhinged infringed by the introduction present establishment by Law of that Monster of the prerogative enacted in Parliament Anno 1661. the Apologetick Relation doth abundantly demonstrate Sect. 10. Concerning the Kings Civil Supremacy enhancing all the Absoluteness that ever the Great Turk could arrogate and yet far short of what hath been Usurped since and impudently proclaimed to the world especially by him who now domineers in his Challenges of Soveraign Authority prerogative Royal Absolute Power which all are to obey without reserve whereby the whole basis of our Constitution and Bulwark of our Religion Laws Liberties is enervated and we have security of no Law but the Kings lust Hence I argue Those Princes that contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown have overturned all fundamental Laws cannot be ouned But our Princes have contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown overturned all fundamental Laws Ergo they cannot be ouned The Major is plain for they that overturn fundamental Laws are no Magistrats thereby all the ends of Government being subverted and the subverter cannot be ouned as a Father or friend but an open enemy to the Common-wealth nor looked upon as Magistrats doing their duty but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Common-wealth And in this case the compact the ground of the Constitution being violated they fall from their right and the people are Liberated from their obligation and they being no Magistrats the people are no subjects for the relation is mutual and so is the obligation Ius populi chap. 9. pag. 183. The Minor is manifest both from the matter of fact and the Mischiefs framed into Laws by the Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power foresaid whereby what remains of our fundamental Constitutions either in Religious or Civil Settlements unsubverted as yet may be subverted when this Absolute Monarch pleases Which Absolute Authority we cannot in conscience oune for these Reasons taken both from Reason Scripture First it s against Reason 1. A power contrare to Nature cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which takes away and makes the people to give away their Natural power of preserving their lives Liberties and sets a man above all rule Law is contrare to Nature such is Absolute power making people resign that which is not in their power to resign an absolute power to destroy Tyrannize 2. A power contrare to the first rise of its Constitution cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for The first rise of the Constitution is a peoples seting a Soveraign over them giving him Authority to administer justice over them But it were against this to set one over them with a power to rage at randome and rule as he lists It s proven before a King hath no power but what the people gave him but they never gave never could give an absolute power to destroy themselves 3. That power which is against the ends of Government cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which will make a peoples condition worse then before the Constitution and that mean which they intended for a blessing to turn a plague scourage to them and all the subjects to be formal slaves at the Princes devotion must needs be contrare to the ends of Government But Absolute power is such for against the exorbitance thereof no means would be left to prevent its obstructing all the fountains of Justice and commanding Laws Lawyers to speak not justice righteousness reason but the lust pleasure of one man and turning all into Anarchy confusion Certainly it could never be the intention either of the work or workers at the Constitution of Government to set up a power to enslave the people to be a Curse to them but their ends was to get comfort safety Liberty under the shadow of Government 4. That power which invalidates and is inconsistent with the Kings compact with the people cannot be ouned Absolute Power is such for the tenor of that is alwise to secure Laws Liberties to rule according to Law but to be Absolute invalidates is inconsistent with that That which were an engagment into Contradictories cannot consist with that compact but to engage to be absolute and yet to rule by Law is an engagment into Contradictories which no people could admit for a security It s inconsistent with this compact to give the King Absolute Power to overturn Religion Liberty and to assume it which was never given were to invalidate this compact and to make himself no King but to restore unto the people the power they conferred upon him for the defence of Religion Liberty 5 That power which is not from God nor of God cannot be ouned But Absolute Power is not of God because it is a power to Tyrannize Sin which if it were of God He should be the Author of Sin for if the Moral Power be of God so must the acts be but the acts of Absolute Power being Lawless cannot be from God Ergo neither the Moral Power to commit these acts 6. That Ruler who cannot be Gods Minister for the peoples good cannot be ouned for that is the formal reason of our consfiencious subjection to Rulers Rom. 13. 4 5. But Absolute Soveraigns are such as cannot be Gods Ministers for the peoples good for if they be Gods Ministers for good they must administer justice preserve peace rule by Law take directions from their Master and if so they cannot be absolute 7. A Tyrant in actu signato exercito cannot be ouned But an Absolute Prince is such being a power that may play the Tyrant if he pleases and jure as King And so if Kings be actu primo Tyrants then people are actu primo Slaves and so Royal Power cannot be a blessing to them yea a Lawless breaker of all bonds promises Oaths cannot be ouned as Lawful Power But Absolute Power is such for it cannot be limited by these Obligations at least people cannot have any seurity by them 8. A Lawless Power is not to be ouned An Absolute Power is a Lawless power Ergo not to be ouned The Major is plain Cicero sayes Lib. 2. de officio Eadem constituendarum Legum causa fuit quae Regum The reason of making Lawes was the same as of the creation of Kings And Buchanan de jure Regni very excellently when the lust of Kings was in stead of Laws and being vested with an infinite immoderate power they did not contain themselves within bounds the insolency of Kings made Laws to be desired for this cause Laws were made by the people and Kings constrained to make use not of their Licencious wills in judgment but of
that right priviledge which the people had conferred upon them being taught by many experiences that it was better that their Liberty should be concredited to Laws than to Kings better to have the Law which is a dumb King than a King who is not a speaking Law. If then Laws be necessary for the making of Kings and more necessary than Kings And the same cause requirs both then a King without Laws is not to be ouned Rex must be Lex loquens a King must be a speaking living Law reducing the Law to practice So much then as a King hath of Law so much he hath of a King and he who hath nothing of the Law hath nothing of a King. Magna Charta of England saith the King can do nothing but by Law and no obedience is due to him but by Law. Buchanan rehearses the words of the most famous Emperours Theodosius Valentinianus to this effect Digna vox Majestate regnantis legibus se alligatum Principem fateri revero Imperio majus ost submittere legibus Principatum It is say they a word worthy of the Majestie of a King to confess he is a tyed Prince to the Laws and indeed it is more to submit a Principality to the Laws than to enjoy an Empire But now that an absolute power must be a Lawless power is also evident for that 's a Lawless power that makes all Laws void needless useless but such is absolute power for it cannot be confined to the observance of Laws 9. That power which is destructive to the peoples Liberties cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for such a Licencious freedom as is absolute cannot consist with the peoples Liberties for these he may infringe when he pleases Now these in their oun Nature and in all respects being preferable to the Kings prerogative And it being no prerogative which is not consistent with yea in its oun nature adapted to the precious Interests of Religion Liberty when the Kings Absolute Authority is stated in contradictory terms to these we cannot oune that Authority for now he hath another Authority than could be given him for the preservation of these Interests in the preservation whereof he can only have an Authority to be ouned seeing he claimes a power to destroy them if he please 10. If we should oune Absolute Authority then we should oune a Royal prerogative in the King to make dispense with Laws Now that cannot be ouned for it would infer that the King had a Masterly Dominion over his subjects to make Lawes inflict Penalties without their consent And plain it is they that make Kings must have a Coordinate power to make Laws also but the people in their Representatives make Kings as is proven Next a prerogative to dispense with Laws except such Laws as are in their oun nature dispensable without prejudice to any Law of God or Liberties of men cannot be ouned for any power to dispense with Reason Law not grounded on any other reason but meer will absolute pleasure is a brutish power It cannot be jus Coronae a right annexed to the Crown to do so for a King as a King illud tantum potest quod jure potest can do nothing but what he may do by Law. Nay this is not only a Brutish power but a Blasphemous power making him a Kind of God on earth illimited that can do what he pleases And to dispute it further were to dispute whether God hath made all under him slaves by their oun consent Or whether he may encroach on the prerogative of God or not By this prerogative he arrogates a power to dispense with the Laws of God also in pardoning Murtherers c. which no man hath power to do the Law of God being so peremptorly indispensable Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Numb 35. 30. 31. Who so killeth any person the murderer shall he put to death more over ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer but he shall be surely put to death These pardons are acts of blood to the Community If the Judgment be Gods as it is Deut. 1. 17. and not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. then no King can arrogate a power to dispense with it no more then an inferior Judge can dispense with the Kings Laws for the King is but a Minister bearing the Sword not in vain but as a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13. 4. They are but bastard Kings who give out sentances out of their oun mouth contrary to Gods mind And if he may do acts of grace by Prerogative above Law then may he also do acts of Justice so pretended by the same Prerogative and so may murder Innocents as well as pardon Murderers he may condemn the just as well as justify the wicked both which are alike abomination to the Lord Pro. 17. 15. This power cannot be ouned in any man. 11. To oune Absolute power were to recognosce the King as the proper sole Interpreter of the Law. This Buchanan shews to be very absurd Cum regi Legum interpretationem c. when yow grant the interpretation of Laws to a King yow give him such a Licence that the Law should not speak what the Lawgiver meaneth but what is for the Interpreters Interest so that he may turn it to all actions as a Lesbian rule for his oun advantage And so what he pleases the Laws shall speak and what he will not it shall not speak Now the Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the sense of the Law than it can be the Law it self He is King by Law but he is not King of Law No mortal can make a sense to a Law contrare to the Law for it involves a Contradiction the true meaning is only the Law. This also would take away the use of all Laws for they could not declare what were just unjust but as the King pleased their genuine sense could not be the rule 12. If we oune the Law to be above the King then we cannot oune the King to be absolute But the former is true For he must be under it several wayes 1 under its Directive power that will not be denyed 2 under its Constitutive power he is not a King by Nature but by Constitution Law therefore the Law is above the King because it s only from the Law that there is a King and that such a man and not another is King and that the King must be so so qualified and they that made him a King may also unmake him by the same Law. 3 under its Limiting Restrictive power as a man he cannot be absolute nor as a King by Law. 4 under its Coactive power A Law maker said King Iames the 6. should not be a Law breaker but if he turn an overturner of the fundamental Laws that Law or
same subject both in Thesi Hypothesi whosoever shall offer to rule Arbitrarly does immediatly cease to be King de jure seeing by the fundamental Common Statute-Laws of the Realme we know none for Supreme Magistrate Governour but a limited Prince and one who stands circumscribed bounded in his power Prerogative Ill effects of animosities Pag. 17. 7. From what is said this is the result that it is essentially necessary to a Moral power Authority to have a right title without which we can oune none but as a Tyrant sine Titulo For what is Authority but a right to rule if then it have not a right it is not Authority This will be undeniable if we consider that as Private dominon or Property consists in a right to enjoy So Publick dominion in a right to rule Some things indeed are exposed to the common arbitrary use of every man and also at the begining by reason of the fewness of mankind Dominion was not reduced to distinct Property yet now upon the Multiplication of Occupants of necessity it must be stated by peculiar appropriation from the Law of Nature and by the Grant of the Supreme King who hath given the earth to the Children of men Psal. 115. 16 not to be catched up as the food of beasts which the stronger seise and the weaker get only what the other leave them but divided by right as an Inheritance by Him who separated the Sons of Adam and set the bounds of the People Deut. 32. 8. Especially Publick Dominion cannot be without a foundation for its relation to the subjected and must be so tied up that it may be said this man is to command and these are to obey I shew that Authority is from God both by Institution Constitution so that the Subjects are given to understand such an one is singled out by God to sustain this Authority by prescribing a rule for mens entry into the Authoritative relation whereby He communicates that power to them which is not in others and which otherwise would not be in them Hence it is that Orderly admittance that must give the right and upon mens having or not having such an entrance to it depends the reality or nullity of the power they challenge Where therefore there is no Lawful Investure there is no Moral power to be ouned otherwise Iohn of Leyden his Authority might have been ouned the unlawfulness of such a power consists in the very tenore it self and if we take away the use or holding of it we take away the very being of it it is not then the abuse of a power Lawfully to be used but the very use of it is unlawful But in the Usurpation of this Man or Monster rather that is now mounted the Throne there is no Lawful investure in the way God hath appointed as is shewed above Ergo there is no Moral power to be ouned To clear this alitle further it will be necessary to remove the ordinary Prentences pleaded for a Title to warrant the ouning of such as are in power Which are three chiefly viz. Possession Conquest and Hereditary Succession The first must be touched more particularly because it hath been the originate error spring of all the stupid mistakes about Government and is the pitiful plea of many even Malecontents why this Mans Authority is to be ouned asserting that a person attaining occupying the place of power by whatsoever means is to be ouned as the Magistrate But this can give no right for 1. If Providence cannot signify Gods approbative ordination it can give no right for without that there can be no right But Providence cannot signify His approbative Ordination because that without the warrant of His Word cannot signify either allowance or dissallowance it is so various being often the same to Courses directly contrary and oftentimes contrary to the same Course sometimes favouring it sometimes crossing it whether it be good or bad And the same Common Providence may proceed from far different Purposes to one in Mercy to another in Judgment And most frequently very disproportionable to mens wayes Providence places sometimes wickedness in the place of Iudgment and iniquity in the place of righteousness Eccless 3. 16. that is not by allowance By Providence it happens to the just according to the work of the wicked and to the wicked according to the work of the righteous Eccless 8. 14. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them all things come alike to all there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked Eccel 9. 1. It were a great debasing of the Lords anointed to give him no other warrant then sin hath in the world or the falling of a Sparrow 2. Either every Providential Possession in every ease gives a title Or God hath Declared it as a Law that it shall be so in this particular matter of Authority only The first cannot be said for that would justify all robbery Nor the second for where is that Law found Nay it were impious to alledge it for it would say there is no unjust Possessor or Disorderly occupant but if he were once in the Possession he were right enough And then Usurpation would be no sin 3. If none of the Causes of Magistracy be required to the producing of this Possessory power then it cannot give or have any right for without the true Causes it cannot be the true effect and so can have no true right to be ouned But none of the Causes of Magistracy are required to the production of this neither the Institution of God for this might have been if Magistracy had never been instituted Nor the Constitution of men for this may usurp without that 4. That which must follow upon the right and be Legitimated by it cannot be ouned as the right nor can it give the title But the Possession of the power or the Possessory exercise thereof must follow upon its right and be legitimated by it Ergo A man must first be in the relation of a Ruler before he can rule and men must first be in the relation of subjects before they obey The Commands of Publick Justice to whom are they given but to Magistrats They must then be Magistrats before they can be ouned as the Ministers of Justice he must be a Magistrate before he can have the power of the Sword he cannot by the power of the Sword make himself Magistrate 5. That which would make every one in the Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession a Tyrant for that which enervats takes away that necessary Distinction between the Kings personal Capacity his Legal Capacity his natural his moral power will make every King a Tyrant seeing
where called and the year of redemption was a Iubile of joy so the freedom of release every seven years a great priviledge Ier 34. 9. but to be free of Government is a judgment Isai. 3. 4 5. it s threatened Israel shall abide without a King without a Prince Hos. 3. 4. In the Next place they cannot be ouned as Masters or Proprietors over the goods of the subjects thâ— in the case of necessity the King may make use of all goods in common for the good of the Kingdom For 1. The introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation by the Law of Nature property was given to man Kings cannot rescind that 2. A man had goods ere ever there was a King a King was made only to preserve property therefore he cannot take it away 3. It cannot be supposed that rational people would choose a King at all if he had power to turn a greater Robber to preserve them from lesser Robberies oppressions would rational men give up themselves for a prey to one that they might be safe from becoming a prey to others 4. Then their case should be worse by erecting of Government if the Prince were proprietor of their goods for they had the property themselves before 5. Then Government should not be a blessing but a curse and the Magistrate could not be a Minister for good 6. Kingdoms then should be among bona fortunae the goods of fortune which the King might sell dispone as he pleased 7. His place then should not be a function but a possession 8. People could not then by their removes or otherwise change their Soveraigns 9. Then no man might dispose of his oun goods without the Kings consent by buying or selling or giving almes nay nor pay tribute for they cannot do these things except they have of their oun 10. This is the very Character of a Tyrant as described 1 Sam. 8. 11. he will take your sons c. Zeph. 3. 3. her Princes are roaring Lyons her Iudges are evening Wolves 11. All the threatenings rebukes of oppression condemn this Isai. 3. 14. 15. Ezek. 45. 9. Mic. 3. 2 3. Ahab condemned for taking Naboths vineyard 12. Pharaoh had not all the Land of Egypt till he bought it Gen. 42. 20. So the Land became Pharaohs not otherwise Yet giving and not granting that he were really a Master in all these respects Notwithstanding if he turn to pursue me for my life because of my fidelity to my Master his both will withdraw me from the service of the Supreme Universal Master I may Lawfully withdraw my self from his and disoune him for one when I cannot serve two Masters Sure he cannot be Master of the conscience Thirdly They cannot come under the conjugal relation though there may be some proportion between that and subjection to a Lawful Ruler because of the Mutual Covenant transacted betwixt them but the Tyrant Usurper cannot pretend to this who refuse all Covenants Yet hence it cannot be inferred that because the wife may not put away her husband Or renounce him as he may do her in the case of Adultery therefore the people cannot disoune the King in the case of the violation of the Royal Covenant For the Kings power is not at all properly a husbands power 1. The wife by nature is the weaker vessel but the Kingdom is not weaker than the King. 2. The wife is given as an help to the man but here the man is given as an help to the Common-wealth 3. The wife cannot limit the husbands power as subjects may limit their Soveraigns 4. The wife cannot prescribe the time of her continuing under him as subjects may do with their Soveraigns 5. The wife cannot change her husband as a Kingdom can do their Government 6. The husband hath not power of life death but the Soveraign hath it over Malefactors Yet giving and not granting his power were properly Marital if the case be put that the man do habitually break the Marriage Covenant or take another wife and turn also Cruel intollerable in compelling his oun wife to wickedness and put the case also that she should not get a Legal divorce procured who can doubt but she might disoune him and leave him for this case is excepted out of that Command 1 Cor. 7. 10. let not the wife depart from her husband meaning for mere difference in Religion or other lesser causes but Adulterie doth annual the Marriage relation See Pool Synopsis Critic in Locum So when a Prince breaks the Royal Covenant and turns Tyrant or without any Covenant committs a rape upon the Common-wealth that pretended relation may must be disouned Hence we see there is no relation can bring a King or Ruler under the object of the duty of the fifth Command except it be that of a fiduciary Patron or Trustee and Publick Servant for we cannot oune him properly either to be a Father or a Master or a husband Therefore what can remain but that he must be a fiduciary Servant Wherefore if he shall either treacherously break his trust or presumptously refuse to be entrusted upon terms conditions to secure be accountable for before God man Religion Liberty we cannot oune his usurped Authority That Metaphore which the learned Buchanan uses de Iure Regni of a Publick Politick Phisician is not a relation different from this of a fiduciary Servant when he elegantly represents him as entrusted with the preservation restauration of the health of the politick body and endued with shill experience of the Laws of his Craft If then he be orderly called unto this charge and qualified for it and discharges his duty faithfully he deserves and we are obliged to give him the deference of an honoured Physician But if he abuse his Calling and not observe the rules thereof and in stead of curing go about wilfully to kill the body he is entrusted with he is no more to be ouned for a Physician but for a Murderer 9. If we inquire further into the nature of this Relation between a King whose Authority is to be ouned and his subjects we can oune it only as it is Reciprocal in respect of Superiority Inferiority that is whereby in some respects the King is Superior to the people and in some respects the people is Superior to him The King is Superior Supreme as he is called 1 Pet. 2. 13. in respect of formal Soveraignty and executive Authority and Majestick Royal dignity resulting from the peoples devolving upon him that Power and constituting him in that relation over themselves whereby he is higher in place power than they and in respect of his Charge conduct is worth ten thousands of the people 2 Sam. 18. 3. and there is no formally regal Tribunal higher than his And though he be Minor universis yet he is Major singulis greater than any one or all the people distributively taken And
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
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
according to the sworn Covenant yow say nothing to the point in hand that sure is not your meaning 3 whoever promises so much of peaceable living under his Maj. Authority leaveing out the exposition of the 5. Command may upon the very same ground subscribe the bond refused by the Godly and so yow pass from the Covenant and make all these bypast Actings of this Kirk State these years by-past to be horrid Rebellion and how deep this guilt drawes consider 5. This would infer though the King should send and kill us we must not resist nor defend our oun lives yet being an Oath against the Sixth Command which enjoineth Natural self preservation it should be intrinsecally sinful and it s all one to swear to non-preservation of self as to swear to self Murder 6. I hope to make it appear in the 5. Head that this is against the practice of Nations the Law of Nature and the Word of God. Yet all this Complex iniquity is clearly comprehended in the Oath of Abjuration in terminis abâ—uring all war against the King. VI. There were some other Oaths frequently obtruded upon people for refusing which they have suffered great cruelties that can hardly be described by any name Nor can their imposition have a paralel in any age or place for illegaltty inhumanity arbitrariness odiousness These were the Oaths of Inquisition or Super inquirendis Whereby people were pressed to answer the Inquisitors according to all their knowledge of things they were interrogate upon and delate discover Intercommuned persons in their Wanderings or such whose names were in their Porteous Rolls c. And power was given to single Souldiers to press these Oaths upon whom they pleased The iniquity of which is monstrous for 1. This was the worst Kind of Combination with these blood-hound to abett assist them in their pursuing after the Lords people Which is worse than to be bare consenters to such wickedness or to be onlookers to their affliction in the day of their Calamity but like that sin charged upon Edom that they delivered up those of His that did remain in the day of distress Obad. vers 13. 14. for these that took Oaths obliged themselves to do all they could to deliver up the Remnant that escaped and if they did not no thanks to them if they could not their sin was in their willingness if they would not and yet swore would contribute their help towards it by telling of all they knew that was horrid perjury false swearing 2. This could be no wayes capable of the qualifications of an Oath not only because the matter is wicked unnatural to discover may be the husband or Children or nearest relations to please men or save their oun life which was a great tentation and therefore in it there could be no delibaration in swearing but also for the doubtful perplexity confounding the mind that they either could not or durst not tell of all they knew and yet sware to do it 3. It is against the Covenant which obliges to discover Malignant enemies and assist our Covenanting Brethren and not to discover them and assist Malignant enemies which is a perfect inverting the fourth sixth Articles of the Covenant 4. It is contrary to clear precepts in Scripture to assist defend our Brethren to make our shaddow as the night in the midst of the noon day and hide the Outcast and bewray not him that wandereth Isai. 16. 3. 5. The illegality of this imposition makes it very absurd that every pitiful Officer or Souldier should be impowered to impose exact Oaths and impannel examine Witnesses about alledged Criminals Yet the monstrousness of this Oath serves to aggravate the Oath of Abjuration in that the Abjurers do renounce their part of disoune the Declarers of that abjured Declaration and so do as much as from them is required to give them up for a prey to their hunters yea they declare them Murderers in that they abjure their Declaration as asserting Murder And consequently they must be obliged to discover them to their acknowledged Judges VII The Abominable Test comes next which needs no other refutation than to rehearse it the substance whereof was a Solemn Swearing that they Ouned sincerely professed the true Protestant Religion contained in the confession of faith recorded in the first Parl. of K. Iaemes the 6 and that they would adhere thereunto all the dayes of their life and never consent to any change or alteration contrary thereto but renounce all Doctrines principles practices whether Popish or Fanatical contrary thereto And they swear that the King is the only Supreme Governour of this Realme over all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil and promise to bear faith true allegiance to the Kings Maj. his heirs Lawful successors and to their power shall assist defend all rights jurisdictions prerogatives belonging to them And affirme it unlawful for subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Covenants or to convocate conveen or assemble to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without his Maj. special command or to take up Armes against the King or these Commissionate by him And that there lies no obligation on them from the National Covenant or Solemn League Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of the Kingdom and they shall never decline his Maj. power jurisdiction And finally they swear that this Oath is given in the plain genuine sense meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or any manner of evasion whatsoever This is the Complement of a wicked Conspiracy couching in its Capicious bosome the Complication of all their Mischiefs comprehending all explaining all the former which indeed cannot be taken with any equivocating evasion that can escape either the Stigma of nonsense self contradiction or the censure of Atheisme irreligion or the sentence of Divine vengeance against such baffling the Name of God. The best sense that can be put upon it is that which a poor Sot expressed when it was tendered to him prefacing thus before he took it Lord have mercy upon my Soul. For. 1. It is not consistent with itself there being such contradictions between that confession of faith and the following part that no man can reconcile Some whereof may be instanced as followes 1 In the 11. Art. of that confession entituled of Christs Ascension it is said that Christ is the only Head of the Church Just Lawgiver in which Honours Offices if man or Angels presume to intrude themselves we utterly detest abhore them as blasphemous to our Soveraign Supreme Governour Christ Jesus and a litle before in that same Article it is said this Glory Honour prerogative He alone among the Brethren
the chief of our fundamental Land-rights and the Cardinal Condition of the established Policy upon which we can only oune men for Magistrats by the Law of the Land And this Testimony by defence of the Gospel and of our oun lives cannot be given expediently any where but in the Fields It is also a Testimony for the freedom Authority of the Gospel-Ministrie and for their holding their unremovable Relation to the Church of Scotland which is infringed by these Tyrannical Acts and maintained by these exercises which is a priviledge to be contended for above beyond all other that can be contended for or defended especially to be maintained against those that have no power or Authority to take it away There will no man quite any of his goods upon a sentence coming from an incompetent Judge And shall Ministers or people be hectored or fooled from such a priviledge by them that have no such power 6. The keeping of Field-Meetings now is a Testimony for our Covenants the ouning whereof is declared Criminal by that same Law that discharges these Meetings in which we are sworn to preserve the Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government and to defend all the Churches Liberties and to oppose all their Opposites and endeavour their exstirpation And in the Solemn Acknowledgment of sins Engagment to duties we are sworn because many have of late laboured to supplant the Liberties of the Kirk to maintain defend the Kirk of Scotland in all her Liberties Priviledges against all who shall oppose undermine the same or encroach thereupon under any pretext whatsoever Since then the ouning of these Meetings and the Covenants are both discharged together and the ouning of the Covenant does oblige to a publick opposition against the dischargers and an avowed Maintinance of the Churches priviledges whereof this is in a manner the only chief Liberty now left to be maintained to keep Meetings where we may testify against them without dependence on their Toleration it must follow that these Meetings are to be maintained which only can be in the fields with conveniency 7. To give over these Field-Meetings now would be an hardening encouraging of these Enemies in their wicked design of banishing all these Meetings out of the Land which manifestly would be defeat by a resolute refusal of all to submit to their discharging of them and they that do submit and give them over do evidently contribute to the effectuating that wicked design which is certain does not nor will not terminate upon a simple suppression of that sort but further is intended to exstirpate all Meetings for Gospel Ordinances in which there is any Testimony against them To Comply therefore with such a forbearance of them at this time would lay a stone of stumbling before them to encourage them in these their designs when they should see their Contrivance so universally complyed with wherein they might boast that at length they had prevailed to put quite away that eye-sore of theirs Field-Meetings 8. To give over these Field-Meetings now were a stumbling to the poor ignorant people who might think that now it appears that Work was but of men and so hath come to naught and would look upon it as an evidence of fainting succumbing at last in the matter of the Testimony as being quite overcome and that indeed all have embraced accepted this present Toleration and were all alike sleeping under the shade and eating the fruits of such a bramble 9. Finally To give over these Field-Meetings now would be very scandalous to the posterity and to Strangers who shall read the History of our Church to find that as Prelacy came in without a joint Witness and the monstrous Blasphemous Sacrilegious Supremacy was erected without a Testimony in its season So black Poperie it self and Tyranny was introduced by a Toleration which laid them all by from a Testimony against these who formerly had valiantly resolutely faithfully contended against all lesser Corruptions but at last when that came and stricter prohibitions of all publick Meetings but under the Covert thereof were emitted then all were perswaded to comply with that Course How astonishing would it be to read that all these Contendings sealed with so much precious blood should come to such a pitiful Period But I hasten to the Next which is the Second Positive Ground of Suffering HEAD V. The Principle of Testimony for Defensive Armes Vindicated THis Truth is of that sort that can hardly be illustrated by demonstration not for the darkness thereof but for its self evidencing clearness being scarcely capable of any further elucidation than what is offered to the rational understanding by its simple proposition As first Principles can hardly be proven because they need no probation and cannot be made clearer than they are and such as cannot consent to them are incapable of conceiving any probation of them So this Truth of Self-preservation being Lawful because it is congenite with and irradicated in every nature that hath a Self which it can preserve can scarcely be more illustrated that it may do so than that it can do so And therefore to all who have a true respect to their oun as well as a due concern in the Interest of Mankind and zeal for the Interest of Christ it might seem superfluous to make a doubt or debate of this Were it not that a Generation of men is now prevailing that are as great Monsters in Nature as they are Malignant in Religion and as great perverters of the Law of Nature as they are Subverters of Municipal Laws and Everters of the Laws of God Who for ouning this principle as well as using the practice of Defensive Resistence for self preservation against Tyrannical violence have set up such Monuments of rage cruelty in the Murder of many innocent people as was never read nor heard of before It hath been indeed the practice of all Nations in the World and the greatest of men have maintained this principle in all ages But the bare Asserting the principle when extorted by severe Inquisitions was never a Cause of taking the lives of any before this was imposed on the poor Sufâ—erers in Scotland to give their judgement Whether or not such Appearances for Defence as the Tyranny of Rulers had forced people to were Rebâ—llion and a Sin against God Which they could not in Conscience assert and therefore thô many that have suffered upon this head have been as free of the practice of such Resâ—stence as any yet because they would not condemn the principle they have been Criminally processed Arraigned Condemned to the death And against this Truth they have been observed to have a special kind of indignation either because the light of it which cannot be â—id hath some heat with it to seâ—rch them or because they fear the impression of this in the hearts of people more than others knowing that they deserve the
not Gods Ordinance and there is no hazard of damnation for refusing to obey their unjust commands but rather the hazard of that is in walking willingly after the Commandment when the Statutes of Omri are kept So that what is objected from Eccles. 8. 2-4 I counsell thee to keep the Kings Commandment c. is answered on Head. 2. And is to be unsterstood only of the Lawful commands of Lawful Kings 2. Rebellion is a damnable sin except where the word is taken in a laxe sense as Israel is said to have Rebelled against Rehoboam and Hezekias against Sennacherib which was a good Rebellion and clear duty being taken there for Resistence Revolt In that sense indeed some of our Risings in Armes might be called Rebellions for it is Lawful to Rebel against Tyrants But because the word is usually taken in an evil sense therefore would have been offensive to acknowledge that before the Inquisitors except it had been explained But Rebellion against Lawful Magistrats is a damnable sin exemplarly punished in Korah and his Companâ— who rebelled against Moses and in Shebah and Absalom who rebelled against David for to punish the Just is not good nor to strike Princes for equity Prov. 17. 26. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13. 2. So that this Objection brought from this place as if the Apostle were commanding there subjection without Resistence to Nero and such Tyrants as it is very impertinent It is fully answered above Head. 2. Here it will be sufficient to reply 1. He is hereby vindicating Christianity from that reproach of casting off or refusing subjection to all Magistrats as if Christian Liberty had destroyed that Relation or that they were not to be subject to Heathen Magistrats Whereupon he binds this duty of subjection to Magistrats for conscience sake in general And it is very considerable what Buchanan sayes in his book de jure regni that Paul did not write to the Kings themselves because they were not Christians and therefore the more might be born with from them tho they should not understand the duty of Magistrats But imagine that there had been some Christian King who had turned Tyrant and Apostate to the Scandal of Religion what would he have written then Sure if he had been like himself he would have denyed that he should be ouned for a King and would have interdicted all Christians Communion with him and that they should account him no King but such as they were to have no fellowship with according to the Law of the Gospel 2. He speaks of Lawful Rulers here not Tyrants but of all such as are defined qualified here being powers ordained of God terrours to evil works Ministers of God for good Yea but says Prelats and their Malignant Adherents these are only Motives of subjection to all powers not qualifications of the powers I answer they are indeed Motives but such as can be extended to none but to these powers that are so qualified 3. He speaks of Lawful powers indefinitely in the plural number not specifying any Kind or degree of them as if only Kings Emperours were here meant It cannot be proven that the power of the sword is only in them Neither was there a plurality of Kings or Emperours at Rome to be subject to if he meant the Roman Emperour he would have designed him in the singular number All the reasons of the Text aggree to inferiour Judges also for they are Ordained of God they are called Rulers in Scripture and Gods Ministers revengers by Office who judge not for man but for the Lord And inferiour Magistrats also are not to be resisted when doing their duty 1 Pet. 2. 13. yet all will grant when they go beyond their bounds and turns litle Tyrants they may be with-stood 4. He does not speak of Nero concerning whom it cannot be proven that at this time he had the Soveraign power as the learned Mr Prin shewes Or if he had that he was a Tyrant at this time and if he meant him at all it was only as he was obliged to be de jure not as he was de facto All men know and none condemns the fact of the Senate that resisted Nero at length without transgressing this precept Yea I should rather think the Senate is the power that the Apostle applies this Text to if he applied it to any in particular 5. The subjection here required is the same with the honour in the fifth Command whereof this is an exposition and is opposite to the Contraordinatness here condemned Now subjection takes in all the duties we owe to Magistrates and Resistence all the contraries forbidden but unlimited obedience is not here required so neither unlimited subjection 3. We may allow Passive subjection in some cases even to Tyrants when the Lord layes on that yoke and in effect sayes He will have us to lie under it a while as He Commanded the Jewes to be subject to Nebuchadnezzar of which passage adduced to prove subjection to Tyrants Universally Buchanan ubi supra infers that if all Tyrants be to be subjected to because God by His Prephet Commanded His people to be subject to one Tyrant Then it must be likewise concluded that all Tyrants ought to be killed because Ahabs house was Commanded to be destroyed by Iehu But passive subjection when people are not in capacity to resist is necessary I do not say Passive obedience which is a meer Chimaera invented in the brains of such Sycophants as would make the world slaves to Tyrants Whosoever suffereth if he can shun it is an enemy to his oun being for every natural thing must strive to preserve it self against what annoyeth it and also he sins against the order of God Who in vain hath ordained so many Lawful means for preservation of our being if we must suffer it to be destroyed having power to help it 4. We abhor all war of subjects professedly declared against a Lawful King as such all war against Lawful Authority founded upon or designed for maintaining Principles inconsistent with Government or against Policy Piety Yea all war without Authority Yes when all Authority of Magistrates supreme subordinate is perverted and abused contrary to the ends thereof to the oppressing of the people and overturning of their Laws Liberties people must not suspend their Resistence upon the Concurrence of men of Authority and forbear the Duty in case of necessity because they have noâ— the peers or Primores to lead them for if the ground be Lawful the call clear the necessity cogent the capacity probable they that have the Law of Nature the Law of God and the fundamental Laws of the Land on their side cannot want Authority though they may want Parâ—iaments to espouse their quarrel This is cleared above Head. 2. Yet here I shall adde 1. The people have this priviledge of nature to defend themselves and their Rights Liberties as well as
Peers and had it before they erected and constituted Peers or Primores There is no distinction of quality in interests of Nature though ther be in Civil order but self defence is not an act of Civil order In such Interests people must not depend upon the priority of their superiours nor suspend the duties they owe to themselves and their neighbours upon the manuduction of other mens greatness The Law of Nature allowing self defence or the defence of our Brethren against unjust violence addeth no such restriction that it must only be done by the conduct or concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments 2. The people have as great Interest to defend their Religion as the Peers and more because they have more souls to care for than they who are far fewer And to be violented in their Consciences which are as free to them as to the Peers is as unsupportable to them yea both are equally concerned to maintain Truth and rescue their Brethren suffering for it which are the chief grounds of war and if the ground of the defensive war be the same with them and without them what reason can be given making their Resistence in the one case Lawful and not in the other Both are alike obliged to concur and both are equally obnoxious to Gods threatened Judgments for suffering Religion to be ruined and not relieving rescuing Innocents It will be but a poor excuse for people to plead they had no Peers to head them What if both King Nobles turn enemies to Religion as they are at this day shall people do nothing for the defence of it then Many times the Lord hath begun a Work of Reformation by foolish things and hath made the least of the flock to draw them out Ier. 49. 2. and 50. 45. and did not think fit to begin with Nobles but began it when powers Peers were in opposition to it and when He blessed it so at length as to engage the publick Representatives to oune it what was done by private persons before they never condenmed 3. The people are injured without the Nobles therefore they may resist without them if they be able for there can be no Argument adduced to make it unlawful to resist without them which will not equally make it unlawful to do it with them 4. It s true the Primores are obliged beyond others and have Authority more than others to concur but Separately they cannot act as Representatives judicially They have a Magistratical power but limited to their particular Precincts where they have Interest and cannot extend it beyond these bounds And so if they should concur they are still in the capacity of subjects for out of a Parliamentary Capacity they are not Representatives 5. All the power they can have is Cumulative not Privative for deterior conditio Domini per Procurationem fieri non debet Why then shall the Representatives betraying their Trust wrong the Cause of the people whose Trustees they are Nay if it were not Lawful for people to defend their Religion Lives Liberties without the concurrence of Parliaments then their case should be worse with them than without them for they have done it before they had them and so they had better be without them still 6. People may defend themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament or Primores or Nobles Ergo they may do it without them for if it be Lawful to resist them its Lawful to wave them when they are in a Conspiracy with the King against them 5. We disallow all war without real indeclinable Necessity and great grievous wrongs sustained and do not maintain it is to be declared or undertaken upon supposed Grounds or pretended Causes And so the Question is impertinently stated by our Adversaries Whether or not it be Lawful for Subjects or a party of them when they think themselves injured or to be in a capacity to Resist or Oppose the Supreme power of a Nation For the Question is not if when they think themselves injured they may Resist but when the injuries are real Neither is it every realitie of injuries will justify their Resistence but when their dearest nearest Liberties are invaded especially when such an invasion is made as threatens inâ—luctable subversion of them Next we do not say that a parties esteeming themselves in a Capacity or their being really in a Capacity doth make Resistence a duty except caeteris Paribus they have a Call as well as a Capacity which requires real Necessity and a right to the action and the things contended for to be real legal Rights really illegally encroached upon their Capacity gives them only a Conveniency to go about the duty that is previously Lawful upon a Moral ground No man needs to say who shall be Judge the Magistrate or people For. 1. All who have eyes in their head may judge whether the sun shine or not and all who have common sense may judge in this case For when it comes to a Necessity of Resistence it is to be supposed that the Grievances complained of and sought to be redressed by armes are not hid but manifest it cannot be so with any party only pretending their suffering wrong 2. There is no need of the formality of a Judge in things evident to Natures eye as Grassant Tyranny undermining overturning Religion Liberty must be Nature in the acts of necessitated Resistence in such a case is Judge party Accuser Witness all Neither is it an act of Judgement for people to defend their oun Defence is no act of jurisdiction but a priviledge of Nature Hence these common sayings vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt And defendere se est juris Naturae Defensio vitae necessaria est a jure Naturali profluit 3. Be Judge who will the Tyrant cannot be Judge in the case for in these Tyrannical Acts that force the people to that Resistence he cannot be acknowledged as King and therefore no Judge for it s supposed the Judge is absent when he is the party that does the wrong And he that does the wrong as such is inferior to the innocent 4. Let God be Judge and all the World taking cognizance of the evidence of their respective Manifesto's of the State of their Cause 6. We condemn Resing to revenge private injuries whereby the Land may be involved in blood for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small And abhor revengful Usurping of the Magistrats sword to avenge our selves for personal injuries As Davids killing of Saul would have been 1 Sam. 24. 10 12 13. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. To Object which in this case were very impertinent for it would have been an act of offence in a remote defence if Saul had been immediatly asaulting him it could not be denied to be Lawful and it would have been an act of private revenge for a personal injurie and a sinful preventing of Gods promise of Davids
every soul be subject unto the higher Powers whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God as Resistence by Prayer is with that 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. I exhort that Supplications be made for Kings and for all that are in Authority If the Prince be good the one as is unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the Ordinance of God to pray against him no less than the other to fight against him Therefore when he becomes a Tyrant destroyer of the Lords Inheritance and an Apostate as I may not pray for him except conditionally but against him as an Enemy of Christ so I may also fight against him as such 2. As Adversaries themselves will grant that Resistence by Prayers tears is more powerful effectual than the other So the Laws of the Land make the one treasonable as well as the other and that deservedly when the Prince is doing his duty but when he turneth Tyrant neither can justly be condemned These things being premitted I shall come shortly to the purpose and endeavour to prove this Truth That it is a necessary duty for a Community whether they have the Concurrence of the Primores Nobles Representatives or not to endeavour in the defence of their Religion Lives Laws Liberties to Resist Repress the Usurpation Tyranny of prevailing Dominators using or abusing their Power for subverting Religion invading the Liberties and overturning the foundamental Laws of their Country Wherein I shall be but short because this Truth is sufficiently confirmed by all the Arguments of the Second Head. Yet I may only hint at many other And prosecute them in this Order First I shall produce some Arguments from the Law of Nature Nations Secondly from the Common practice of all Christian people Thirdly from express Scriptures I. The Arguments of the first Class are very multifarious I shall reduce them to a few as Compendiously as may be and only give the strength of them in a Syllogistical forme without expatiating save where the matters requires 1. The greatest Antagonists of this Truth through the clearness thereof are forced to assert grant such particulars as will by Consequence justify this plea. 1. Barclay contra Monarchum is cited by the Apol. Relat. and Ius Populi asserting that if a King will alienate subject his Kingdom without his Subjects consent or be carried with a hostile mind to the destruction of his people his Kingdom is actually lost and the people may not only Lawfully resist but also depose him Grotius de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. asserts the same and adds if he but attempt to do so he may be resisted The Surveyer of Napâ—tali grants the same pag. 23 24. Yea this hath been granted in open Court by the Council of Scotland that in case of the Kings alienating his Kingdoms he may be Resisted Hence 1 If vendition or alienation of Kingdoms or attempts of it do annull a Kings Authority Then an alienation of them from Christ to whom they are devoted by Covenant and selling them to Antichrist as is attempted by this King gives the people a right to Resist him But the former is here conceded Ergo 2 We need say no more to apply the other that carrying a hostile mind to the destruction of the people does forfeit his Kingdom and gives the people right to Resist than that a Papist is alwise known to carry a hostile mind to the destruction of Protestants and all the designs declared these 27 years have been demonstrative efforts of it 2. Dr Ferne acknowledgeth that personal defence is Lawful against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the Kings Messengers or of himself in so far as to ward off his blowes or hold his hands As also he alloweth private persons Libertie to deny subsidies tribute to the Prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Hence 1 If one man may defend himself against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the King or his Messengers Then may many men in defence of their Lives Liberties defend themselves against the surprising Massacres the sudden assaults and much more the devised deliberate assaults of a Tyrants bloody Emissaries which are illegal inevitable as all their furious bloody on-sets have been But the former is here acknowledged Ergo 2 If people may deny subsidies to a King when he employeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Then as this justifies the denyal of the Cess imposed for destruction of the Church banishing of the Gospel So this gives them right to Resist him for if he be the power ordained of God not to be resisted then for this Cause tribute must be paid for they are Gods Ministers Rom. 13. 6. and if tribute must not be paid then he is not the power ordained of God and so may be resisted But the former is here allowed Ergo 3. Bodin de Repub. lib. 2. cap. 5. granteth if a King turn Tyrant he may Lawfully at his subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slain by a foraign Prince Hence if foraign Princes may Lawfully help a people oppressed by their oun Soveraign then people may Resist themselves if they be able and hold in their pains But the former is here granted Ergo The Consequence cannot be denyed for foraigners have no more Power or Authority over another Soveraign then the people have themselves 4. Arnisaeus de Author Princip c. 2. n. 10 granteth that if the Prince proceed extrajudicially without order of Law by violence every private man hath power to resist So the Surveyer of Naphtali ubi supra grants so much of a womans violent resisting attempts against the honour of her chastitie and tending to ensnare her in sin whereof her non-resistence makes her guilty Hence 1 If every extrajudicial violence of a Prince may be Resisted Then also all Contrajudicial violence against Law or reason must be opposed for that is more grievous and all their violences wherein they do not act as Judges must be resisted and that is all together for in none of them they can act as Judges But the former is here granted Ergo 2 If a woman may defend her Chastity against the K. lest her non-resistence make her guilty Oh if all women had been of this mind the Country would not have been pestered so with the Kings bastards Then may a Nation or any part of it Resist a Tyrants attempts upon the honour of their Religion entycing them to fornication with the Mother of harlots lest their non-resistence make them guilty But the former is here yeelded Ergo 5. That same Arnisaeus cap. 4. saith Of the former to wit he who is called a Tyrant in title it is determined by all without any difficultie that he may be Lawfully repulsed or if by force he be gotten into the Throne he may warrantably be thence removed because he hath not any Jot of power which
is not illegitimate and unto which resistence is forbidden for the fear of God and for conscience sake and therefore he is no further to be looked at than as an enemy This is so pat pertinent to the present possessor of the Government that no words can more particularly apply it 6. Grotius de jure belli Lib. 1. c. 4. granteth the Law of not resisting does not bind when the danger is most weighty certain And we do not plead for it in any other case And further he sayes The Law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them who first combined together into societie and from whom such as did command did derive their power Now if it had been asked of such whether they would chuse to die rather than in any case to resist the Superior with Armes I know not if they would have yeelded thereto unless with this addition if they could not be resisted but with the greatest perturbation of the Common-wealth destruction of many Innocents And afterwards he hath these words Attamen indiscriminatim damâ—are aut singulos aut partem minorem quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur ut interim communis boni respectum non deseruit vix ausim From which we need make no inference the Concession is so large that it answers our case 7. The Surveyer of Naphtali in the place above cited grants Legal self defence against the Soveraign by way of plea in Court for safety of a mans person or estate as also in the case of most habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known Legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law And in case of his not being in his natural right wits Hence 1 If it be Lawful to resist the King by a Plea in Law for an Estate yea the Law will allow by actual force if he come to take possession of it illegally Then it must be Lawful for their lives estates Liberties Religion to resist him by force when the Legal resistence is not admitted But the former is yeelded here Ergo The reason of the Connexion is The Municipal Law permits the one and the Law of Nature Nations which no Municipal Law can infringe will warrand the other He hath no more right to be both Judge Party in this case more than in the other And he can no more act as Soveraign in this case than in the other 2 If it be Lawful to resist habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law Then we desire no more to conclude the duty of resisting this Tyranny exerced this 27 years habitually which the desolation of many hindered families the banishment of many hundreds to slavery the rivers of blood c. have made Notour to all Scotland at least and the perversion of all the fundamental Laws and all Civil Religious Liberties yea the subversion of every remaining Model of Our Religion as Reformed Covenanted to be preserved in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government and designs to introduce Popery establish Arbitrary Government have made Complete But the former is here granted Ergo 3 If in the case of his being out of his wits he should run upon an innocent man to kill him or attempt to cut his oun throat it were then Lawful to resist him yea a sin not to do it Then when in a rage oâ— deliberately he is seeking to destroy many hundreds of the people of God he may be resisted But the former is clear Ergo 8. King Iames the Sixth in his Remonstrance for the right of Kings against the Oration of Cardinal Perron hath these words The publick Laws makes it Lawful and free for any private person to enterprize against an Usurper of the Kingdom Then shall it not be duty to enterprize against a man who by the Laws of the Land is not capable of a right to reign who hath got into the Throne by the means of Murder and can pretend no right but that of Succession which I proved to be none Head. 2. However we see by these Concessions of Adversaries that the Absolute subjection they talk of will not hold nor the prerogative be so incontrollable in every case as they would pretend and that in many cases Salus populi hath the Supremacy above it And that also in these cases the people must be Judges whether they may resist or not 2. From the Law of Nature I may argue 1. If God the fountain of all power and Author of all Right hath given unto man both the power and the right of and reason to manage self defence and hath no wayes interdicted it in His Word to be put forth against Tyrants Then it is duty to use it against them upon occasion But the former is true Ergo 2. If this power right were restrained in man against the unjust violence of any it would either be by Policy or Grace or some express prohibition in the Word of God But none of these can be said Ergo Policy cannot destroy nature but is rather cumulative to it A man entering into a Politick Incorporation does not lose the priviledge of nature If one particular nature may defend it self against destroying violence out of Societie then must many of these Natures combined in Societie have the same right and so much the more that their relative duties superadde an obligation of mutual assistence Grace does not restrain the right of sinless nature though it restrains corruption but self defence is no corruption Grace makes a man more a man than he was And nothing can be more dishonourable to the Gospel than that by the Law of Nature it is Lawful to resist Tyrants but we are bound by Religion from withstanding their Cruelty The Laws of God do not interfâ—â—e â—ne with another 3. That Law which alloweth comparative re-offending so as to kill rather than be killed teacheth Resistence But so the Law of Nature alloweth except we be guilty or Murder in the culpable omission of self defence The reason is because the love of self is nearer and greater as to temporal life than the love of our Neighbour that being the measure of this Therefore it obliges rather to kill than be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring 4. If nature put no difference between the violence of a Tyrant than of another man then it teaches to Resist both alike But it putteth no difference but rather aggravates that of a Tyrant being the violence of a man the injustice of a member of the Common-wealth the cruelty of a Tyrant And it were absurd to say we might defend our selves from the lesser violence not from the greater 5. If particular Nature must yeeld to the good of Universal nature then must one man though in
greatest power be Resisted rather than the Universal Common-wealth suffer hurt But the former is true for that dictates the necessity of the distracted father to be bound by his oun sons lest all the family be hurt Ergo the greatest of men or Kings when destructive to the Common-wealth must be Resisted for he is but one man so but particular nature 6. That which is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition then Brutes is absurd and contrary to the Law of Nature But to say that the Brutes have power to defend themselves by resisting what annoyes them and deny this power to men is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition than Brutes Therefore it is absurd contrary to the Law of Nature 3. From the Institution of Government I may argue thus That power and Government which is not of God may be Resisted The Tyrants power Government in overturning Laws subverting Religion bringing in Idolatry oppressing Subjects is not of God Ergo it may be Resisted The Major is clear because that is only the reason why he is not to be resisted because the Ordinance of God is not to be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But they that resist a man destroying all the Interests of mankind overturning Laws subverting Religion c. do not resist the Ordinance of God. And if it were not so this would tend irremedilessly to overthrow all Policies and open a gap to all disorder injustice cruelty and would give as great encouragment to Tyrants to do what they lift as thieves would be encouraged if they knew no body would resist them or bring them to punishment 4. From the Original Constitution of Government by men It may be argued thus If people at the first erection of Government acted rationally and did not put themselves in a worse case than before wherein it was Lawful to defend themselves against all injuries but devolved their rights upon the fiduuciary Tutory of such as should remain still in the rank of men that can do wrong who had no power but by their gift consent choice with whom they associated not to their detriment but for their advantage and determined the form of their Government and time of its continuance and in what cases they might recur to their primeve Liberty and settled a succession to have Course not jure hereditario but jure vi legis for good ends Then they did not give away their birth-right of self defence and power of resistence which they had before to withstand the violence injuries oppressions of the men they set over them when they pervert the form and convert it to Tyranny but did retain a power priviledge to resist and revolt from them and repell their violence when they should do violence to the Constitution and pervert the ends thereof But the former is true Ergo The Minor is cleared Head. 2. And the Connexion is confirmed from this if the Estates of a Kingdom give the power to a King it is their oun power in the fountain and if they give it for their oun good they have power to judge when it is used against themselves and for their evil and so power to limit resist the power that they gave 5. From the way manner of erecting Governours by Compact the necessity whereof is proven Head. 2. Many arguments might be deduced I shall reduce them to this form If people must propose Conditions unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in submitted unto at their Admission to the Government which thereupon becomes the fundamental Laws of the Government and Securities for the peoples rights Liberties giving a Law Claim to the people to pursue the Prince in case of faiâ—ing in the main principal thing Covenanted as their oun Covenanted Mandatarius who hath no Ius or Authority of his oun but what he hath from them and no more power but what is contained in the Conditions upon which he undertaketh the Government Then when either an Usurper will come under no such conditions or a Tyrant doth break all these conditions which he once accepted and so become stricto jure no Prince and the people be stricto jure Liberated from subjection to him they may must Defend themselves and their fundamental Rights Priviledges Religion Laws and Resist the Tyanny overturning them But the former is true Ergo The Connexion is clear And the Minor is proved Head. 2. And at length demonstrated and applied to the Government of Charles the Second by Ius Populi cap. 6. See Arg. 4. 5. Head. 2. 6. From the Nature of Magistracy it may be argued thus That power which is properly neither Parental nor Marital nor Masterly Despotick over the Subjects Persons goods but only fiduciary and by way of trust is more to be Resisted than that which is properly so But that power which is properly so that is Parental power and Marital and Masterly may be Resisted in many cases Ergo that power which is not so properly but only fiduciary is more to be Resisted That a Kings power over his subjects is neither Parental nor Marital c. is proven Head. 2. And the Major needs no Probation The Minor is clear by Instances 1. If Children may in case of necessity resist the fury of their father seeking to destroy them then must private subjects Resist the rage Tyranny of Princes seeking to destroy them and what is dearest to them for there is no stricter obligation Moral between King people than between Parents Children nor so strict and between Tyrants people there is none at all But the former cannot be denyed Ergo 2. If Wives may Lawfully defend themselves against the unjust violence of enraged Husbands then must private subjects have power to Resist the furious assaults of enraged Tyrants for there is not so great a tye betwixt them and people as between man wife yea there is none at all But the former is true Ergo 3. If Servants may defend themselves against their Masters then must private subjects defend themselves against a Tyrant or his Emissaries But the former is true Ergo 4. If the Kings power be only fiduciary and by way of Paun which he hath got to keep then when that power is manifestly abused to the hurt of them that entrusted him with it he ought to be Resisted by all whom he undertook to protect But the former is true Ergo the latter 7. From in the Limited power of Princes it may be thus argued If Princes be limited by Laws Contracts and may be resisted by Plea's in Law and have no absolute power to do command what they will but must be limited both by the Laws of God and man and cannot make what Laws they will in prejudice of the peoples Rights nor execute the Laws made according to their pleasure nor conser on others a
that cryed Crucifie Iesus were Murderers of Christ Or by procuring it as Haman was guilty of the intended murder of the Iewes Or Concurring therein as Ioab was guilty of Uriahs death as well as David and Iudas of Christs by betraying him Or by the Patrocinie thereof defending sparing the Murderers when called by Office to punish them as David was guilty in not punishing Ioab Ahab in patronizing the Murder of Naboth Or by Consenting thereunto as Saul consented to the death of Stephen or by knowing permitting conniving at it as is condemned Prov. 24. 11 12. Whether this be done under colour of Law as Pilate Murdered our Lord Herod killed Iames or without all colour by Absolute power as Herod the Ascalonite murdered the Infants or whether it be done by purpose as Ioab murdered Abner Amasa or without previous purpose yet with knowledge of the Action in the perpetrating of it as men may do in passion when provoked beside their purpose or in a Tumult without intending it before hand yet that is Murder Barabas committed Murder in the Insurection For as for Casual killing contrary to intention without knowledge that 's no breach of the Command And whatever may be said of necessitated delivering up the Innocent pursued by a potent Enemy to deliver the City from his fury or of prefering our oun life to our innocent neighbour in a case when both cannot be preserved and by preserving the one Lawfully the other happens to lose his life I do not medle with these Cases But since this is taken for granted by Casuists I infer if it be Lawful that an innocent man die in case of necessity that others may be preserved Then much more is it Lawful that the nocent wo are guilty of murdering the Righteous all these wayes above specified and actually prosecuting their murdering designs by these methods should rather be made to die than the Righteous be destroyed But of this sort of Murder taking away the life of the Righteous none hath the impudence to accuse that Reproached people 2. Thô a man kill an innocent unwittingly unwillingly besides his knowledge and against his will yet he may be guilty of sinful homicide if he was obliged to know that he was in hazard of it and neglected to consider lest a man might be killed by what he was doing as if a man should shoot at random when he doth not know but some may be killed thereby or if one were hewing with an axe which he either knew or might have known to be loose and the head not well fastened to the helve did not advertise those about him of it if by flying off it happened to kill any person he were not innocent but if he knew not without any inadvertency then he were guiltless Deut. 19. 5. See Durham on 6. Com. So if a man built a house without battlements he should bring blood upon his house if any man fell from thence Deut. 22. 8. But of this the question is not 3. Thô a person be not altogether innocent nor to be reckoned among the Rigtheous but suppose him wicked profane and engaged in an evil Course dishonourable to God prejudicial to the Church Kingdom and very injurious to us Yet it may be Murder to kill him if he be not guilty of Crimes that deserve death by the Law of God for the life of man is not subjected to the arbitrement of any but His who is the Author of life death It s necessary to all to obey the Law Thow shalt not kill without exception but such killing as is approven by the Author of the Law as saith Amesâ—de Consciencia cap 31. quest 2 Hence this people so much reproached with extravagant Actions do abundantly clear themselves of that imputation of being of the mind to kill all that differ from them which was the impudent forgerie of the father of lies in their Informatory Vindication Head. 2. Pag. 54. We positively disoune say they as horrid Murder the killing of any because of a different perswasion or opinion from us albeit some have invidiously cast this odious Calumny upon us And it is as clear they that took the Oath of Abjuration swore a lie when they abjured the Apologetical Declaration in so far as it asserted it was Lawful to kill all imployed in the Kings service when it asserted no such thing as is shewed above Head. 3. To think so much let be to declare it far more to practise such a thing against all that served the King or any meerly because they served him or because they are in a wicked Course or because they have oppressed us were abominable for these things simply do not make men guilty of death to be punished Capitally by men according to the Law of God. But when they are stated in such opposition to us and serve the Tyrants Murdering Mandats by all those wayes above specified then we may by the Law of God and Nature and Nations destroy slay and cause to perish and avenge our selves on them that would assault us and are seeking our destruction as it was Lawful for the Iewes to do with Hamans Emissaries Esther 8. 11 13. 9. 1 2 5. This Charge then cannot reach the Case 4. Thô Murderers and such as are guilty of death by the Law of God must be punished by death for he that sheddeth mans blood by man must his blood be shed Yet it may be Murder for a man to kill another because he thought him so Criminal and because he thought it his duty being moved by a pretended Enthusiastical Impulse in imitation of the extraordinary Actions of such as were really moved by the Spirit of God. As when Iames Iohn would have commanded fire to come doun to consume the Samaritans the Lord rebuked them saying ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Luk. 9. 54-56 Such impulses had need to be well examined for ordinarly they will be found not consistent with a Gospel Spirit which is alwayes averse from act of Cruelty Blind zeal sometimes may incite men to fearful work yea the persecuters have often most of that Spirit as our Lord foretells the time cometh that whosoever killeth yow shall think that â—e doth God service Iohn 16. 2. Paul in his Pharisaical zeal breathed out slaughter against the disciples And Satan can drive men under several colours to act such things as he did the Bours in Germany and Iohn of Leyden and his followers whose practices are deservedly detested by all that have any spark of Christianity or humanity for if this were espoused as a Principle there would be no security for mens lives But hence it cannot be concluded that God may not animate some to some rare Enterprises for the cutting off of Tyrants and their bloody Emissaries Incendiaries Destroyers of innocent people and puting an end to and
drunk with hellish fury and are runing in a rage to destroy the people of God whom they can meet with But all the Nations where the best Policy was established have been of this mind In Greece publick rewards were enacted to be given and honours appointed by several Cities to those that should kill Tyrants from the mightiest of them to the meanest with whom they thought there was no bond of humanity to be kept Hence Thebe is usually commended for killing her husband Timoleon for killing his Brother because they were pernicious destructive to the Common-wealth which thô it seem not justifyable because of the breach of relation of natural subjection yet it shewes what sentiments the most politick Nations have had of this practice As also among the Romans Cassius is commended for killing his son and Fulvius for killing his oun son going to Catiline and Brutus for killing his kinsmen having understood they had conspired to introduce Tyranny again Servilius Ahalas is commended for killing even in the Court Sp. Melius turning his back and refusing to compear in judgement and for this was never judged guilty of bloodshed but thought nobilitate by the slaughter of a Tyrant and all posterity did affirme the same Cicero speaking of the slaughter of Cesar stiles it a famous divine fact positum ad imitandum Sulpitius Asper being asked why he had combined with others against Nero and thought to have killed him made this bold reply that he knew not any other way to put a stop to his villanies and redeem the world from the infection of his example and the evils which it groaned under by reason of his crimes On the contrary Domitius Corbulo is reprehended by all for neglecting the safety of mankind in not puting an end to Nero's Cruelty when he might very easily have done it And not only was he by the Romans reprehended but by Tyridates the Persian King being not at all afrayed lest it should afterward befall an example unto himself When the Ministers of Cajus Caligula a most cruel Tyrant were with the like crueltie tumultuating for the slaughter of their Master requiring them that killed him to be punished Valerius Asiaticus the Senator cried out aloud I wish I had killed him and thereby both composed their clamour stopt their rage For there is so great force in an honest deed saith Buchannan de jure Regni relating this passage that the very lightest shew thereof being presented to the minds of men the most furious assaults are allyed and fury will languish and madness it self muâ—t acknowledge the soveraignity of reason The Senate of Rome did often approve the fact thô done without their order oftentimes by private hands As upon the slaughter of Commodus in stead of revenging it they decreed that his Carcass should be exposed and torn in pieces Sometimes they ordered before hand to have it done As when they condemned Didimus Iulianus they sent a Tribune to slay him in the Palace Nay they have gone so far as in some cases to appoint reward for such as should kill those Tyrants that trampled upon their Laws and murdered virtuous innocent people As that sentence of the Senate against the two Maximim doth witness qui cos occiderit proeâ—ium merebitur Buchannan ubi supra rehearsing many instances of this nature gives reasons of their approvableness And these I find here and there scattered in his book de jure Regni 1. They that make a prey of the Common-wealth are not joined to us by any civil bond or tye of humanity but should be accounted the most Capital enemies of God and of all men 2. They are not to be counted as within humane societie but transgressors of the limits thereof Which who so will not enter into and contain himself within should be taken treated as wolveâ— or other kinds of noysome beasts which whosoever spares he preserves them to his oun destruction and of others and whosoever killeth doth not only good to himself but to all others and therefore doth merit rather reward than to be condemned for it For if any man divested of humanity should degenerate into such Crueltie as he would not meet with other men but for their destruction as the Monsters I am speaking of could meet with none of the party here treated on but to this effect he is not to be called a man no more than Satyres Apes or Bears 3. It is expressly Commanded to cut off wickedness wicked men without any exception of rank or degree And if Kings would abandon the Counsells of wicked men and measure their greatness rather by duties of virtue than by the impunity of evil deeds they would not be grived for the punishment of Tyrants nor think that Royal Majestie is lessened by their destruction but rather be glad that it is purged from such a stain of wickedness 4. What is here to be reprehended is it the cause of their punishment that is palpable Is it the Law which adjudges them to punishment All Laws were desired as necessary for repressing Tyrants whosoever doth condemn this must likewise condemn all the Laws of Nations Is it the person executing the Laws where will any other be found to doe it in such circumstances 5. A Lawful war being once undertaken with an enemy for a just cause it is Lawful not only for the whole people to kill that enemy But for every one of them every one therefore may kill a Tyrant who is a publick enemy with whom all good men have a perpetual war-fare Meaning if he be habitually Tyrannical and destructive to the people so that there is no living for good people for him Otherwise thô a man by force or fraud acquire Soveraignity no such violence is to be done to him providing he use a moderate way in his Government such as Vespasian among the Romans Hiero in Syracuse 6. Treason cannot be committed against one who destroyes all Laws and Liberties of the people and is a pernicious plague to the Common-wealth 2. Such is the force of this Truth in the case circumstantiate that it extorts the acknowledgment of the Greatest Authors Ancient Modern Domestick Forreign and even of all rational Royalists as Mr Mitchel sayes in his Post-script to the forecited letter that it is Lawful for any private person to kill a Tyrant sine titulo and to kill Tories or open Murderers as devouring beasts because the good of his Action doth not only redound to the person himself but to the whole Common-wealth and the person acting incurs the danger himself alone Tertulltan though a man loyal to excess sayes Every man is a souldier enrolled to bear Armes against all Traitors publick Enemies The Ancient Ecclesiastical Historian Sozomene relating the death of Iulian and intimating that he was supposed to have been slain by a Christian souldier addes Let none be so rash as to condemn the person that did it considering he was â—us
Loc. defendeth thus I say it was done by the Law of God for Deut. 18. 20. God decerned that the false Prophet should die and chap. 17. the same is said of private men women who would worship Idols But chap. 13. not only is death threatened against a seducing Prophet but a Command is added that no man should spare his Brethren thirdly it is Commanded that the whole City when it becometh Idolatrous should be cut off by fire sword And Levit. 24 14 16. it is Statute that the Blasphemer should not live to which we may adde the Law or equity of Taliation for these Prophets of Baal caused Iezebel Ahab kill the Servants of the Lord. See Ius Pop. cap. 20. Pag. 425. Upon this also Mr Mitchel defends his fact ubi supra Also Elijah by virtue of that precept Deut. 13 gave commandment to the people to destroy Baals priests contrary to the command of the seducing Magistrate who was not only remiss negligent in executing Justice but became a Protector defender of the Seducers then in that case I suppose the Christians duty not to be very dark 9. This Idolatrous Tyrannical house was afterwards condignly punished by Iâ—hu 2 King. 9. And 10 chapt who destroyed all the Idolaters who were before encouraged protected by that Court chap. 10. 25. This extraordinary fact was not justified by his Magistratical Authority for that was as extraordinary as the fact it self and conferred as a mean to accomplish the fact He had no Authority by the peoples suffrages nor was he acknowledged as such by the Court or body of the people only the Lord gave it extraordinarly But it is not the imitation of his assumption of Authority that is here pleaded for but the imitation of his fact in extraordinary cases when not only Tyrants Idolaters pass unpunished but their insolency in Murdering the Innocent is intolerable Mr Knox vindicates this at length ubi supra and shewes that it had the ground of Gods ordinary Judgement which commands the Idolater to die the death And that thô we must not indeed follow extraordinary examples if the example repugn to the Law but where it agrees with and is the execution of the Law an example uncondemned stands for a Command for God is constant and will not condemn in ages subsequent what He hath approved in His Servants before See the Testim of Period 3. above and Ius pop cap. 20. pag. 418. 10. When Athaliah the Mother of Ahaziah had Tyrannized six years at length Iehojada with others made a Conspiracie against her to depose her and make Ioash King which when it was discovered she cried Treason Treason as indeed it would have been so if she had been the Lawful Magistrate for it was an attempt of Subjects against her that had the possession of the Soveraign power But Iâ—â—â—â—da commanded the Captains to have her forth without the ranges and him that followeth her kill with the sword And they laid hands on her and she was slain 2 King. 11. 14 16. That this is imitable in the punishment of Tyrants is cleared above If therefore it be Lawful for Subjects to kill Usurping Tyrants and such as follow them to help them under whom nevertheless people might have a life then it must be Lawful for private persons to put forth their hand against their Cut-throat Emâ—ssaries in a case of necessity when there is no living for them 11. When Amaziah turned Idolater Tyrant after the time that he turned away from following the Lord they made a Conspiracy against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him slew him there 2 Chron. 25 27. This fact is before vindicated by Mr Knox Period 3. afterward Head 2. and Head 5. 12. When Esther made suite to reverse Hamans Letters the King granted the Iewes in every City not only to gather themselves together and to stand for their life but also to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province that would assault them both litle Ones Women and to avenge themselves on their Enemies And accordingly in the day that their enemies hoped to have power over them the Iewes gathered themselves to lay hand on such as sought their hurt and smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword Esther 8. 11 13. chap. 9. 1 5. c. They had indeed that Law of Nature fortified by the Kings accessory Authority as Valentinâ—â—â— by his Edict granted the like Liberty to resist any unjust invader to depopulate the Lands of his Subjects ut digno ilico supplicio subjugetur ac mortem quam ininabatur accipiat And the like of Arcadius is extant in Codice Iustinaneo titulo Quomodo liceat unicuique sine judice se vindicare vel publicam devotionem But that doth not exclude the Lawfulness of such Resistences in case of necessity without publick Authority So here it was not the Kings commandment that made the Iewes avenging themselves Lawful if it had not been Lawful before without it it gave them only Liberty to improve that priviledge which they had from God and Nature Surely their power of Resisting did not depend on the Kings Commandment as is proven Head 5. Ergo neither their power of avenging themselves to prevent their Murder by their enemies Which they could and were obliged to do if there had been no such Authority Ergo it was not only suspended upon the Kings Authority And as for Hamans sons and adherents being Agagites they were obliged by a Prior Command to avenge themselves on them on all occasions by that Command to destroy Amalek Therefore it must be Lawful even without publick Authority in some cases of necessity to prevent the Murder of publick Enemies by laying hands on them that seek the hurt of all the people of God. Secundly There are some Precepts from which the same may be concluded 1. There is a Command and the first Penal Statute against Murderers we read Gen. 9. 6. Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Here the Command is given in general to punish Capitally all Murderers but there may be some that no Magistrate can punish who are not here exempted to wit they that are in Supreme Authority and turn Murderers as was said above Again the Command is given in general to Man involving all the Community where the Murderer is in guilt if his blood be not shed as we find in the Scripture all the people were threatened punished because Judgement was not executed and when it was executed even by these that were no Magistrates the Wrath of God was turned away Whereof there are many examples above Further if the Command to shed the blood of Murderers be given before the Institution of Magistracy then in case of necessity to stop the Course of Murderers it may be obeyed When there is no Magistrate to execute
given to us to remember Lots wife turned into a Pillar of Salt to season us lest the stink of our Destruction and what may follow upon it be all that the posterity get for a warning not to tread our paths As for the few that have suffered upon this Head they have been so discruciated with perplexities in their Conflicts with the rage of Enemies and reproach of Friends and fear of these snares attending every lot or occupation they could put themselves in that they have been made to desire death as their best refuge and only retreat wherein they may find rest from all these rackings For in no place could they escape the reach of some of these Impositions nor the noise of their clamarous Contendings of Arguments that pleaded for it But some have had more Love to Christ and His Interests than language to plead for Him and more resolution to suffer than learning to dispute for His Cause And where pure zeal for Christ and love to His bleeding Interests in a time when He is crucified afresh and put to open shame and the Concurrence of all is required to help forward the War against Him is in integrity vigor it will burn with its flame those knots that it cannot in hast loose And chuse rather to lie under the imputation of being zealous without knowledge than lose or let go such an opportunity of witnessing a good Confession yea when it could do no more expire with an Ichabod in its mouth But shortly to come to the point I shall 1. Permit some Concessions 2. Propose some paralel Questions 3. Offer some Reasons to clear it 1. I shall willingly grant in the General concerning paying of Exactions Impositions or Emoluments 1. They are to be paid to these to whom they are due As Tribute Custom is to be paid to the Powers ordained of God and for this Cause that they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Rom. 13. 6 7. So Stipends and all outward Encouragments are due to Ministers of the Gospel who sow Spiritual things and should reap these carnal things 1 Cor. 9. 11 12. Fynes also and all legal Amercements for Delinquencies against just Laws must be payed Deut. 22. 19. And whatsoever is due by Law to Officers appointed by Law for keeping Delinquents in Custody As all Debts whatsoever But Tyrants Exactions enacted exacted for promoving their wicked designs against Religion Liberty Hirelings Salaries for encouraging them in their intrusions upon the Church of God Arbitrary Impositions of pecuniary punishments for clear Duties And extorted hirings of the subordinate instruments of Persecuters oppressions are no wise due and cannot be debt and therefore no equity to pay them 2. It s Lawful to pay them when due and debt either by Law or Contract even thô they should be afterward abused and misimproven to pernicious ends But these payments for such wicked ends either particularly specified expressed in the very Act appointing them or openly avouched by the Exactors are of another nature than Impositions fundamentally appointed for the publick good and the after misapplication thereof made by such as are entrusted therewith is no more imputable unto the Land or Payers than is the theft of a Collector stealing or running away with the same without making Count or reckoning to Superiours It is then a foolish thing to say that former Impositions were peacably payed thô we saw and were convinced that their use was perverted and they were used against the good of the Land and Gods people For no such thing was laid doun as the ground or declared as the end of these exactions but what fell out was by the personal abuse and perversion of those in power which was rheir oun personal fault and posteriour to the legal engagment and submission to the payment thereof by the Land in their Representatives 3. It s Lawful to pay them sometimes even when fundamentally and Originally from the first Constitution of them they were not due but Illegally or Usurpatively challenged exacted if afterwards they were by dedition or voluntary engagment legally submitted unto by the true Representatives But not so when they were never either Lawfully enacted or legally exacted or voluntarly engaged by the Representatives except such as represented the enslavement of the Nation and betrayed the Country Religion Liberty Property and all precious Interests and declaredly imposed to further the destruction of all Nor can any with reason say that this Case is but like the Case of the people of Israel under the feet of Enemies paying to them of the fruits of their Ground as was regrated lamented by Nehemiah Chap. 9. 36 37. For so they must say the Exactions now in debate are their Redemption-money and by these they purchase their Liberty of Life Lands and oune themselues to be a people under Conquest And yet they cannot deny but they are both exacted payed as Tests of their Allegiance as Subjects and Badges of their Loyaltie Obedience But this is answered before Head 2. Conces 7. § 2. Pag. If any should object the practice of Christ thô otherwise free yet paying Custom lest He should offend It is fully solved ibid. Head 2. Conces 9. Pag. Here it s sufficient to hint 1 That which made â—hem marvel at His wise Answer was that He left the Title unstated and the Claim unresolved whether it belonged to Cesar or not and taught them in the general to give nothing to Cesar with prejudice to what was Gods which condemns all the Payments we speak of which are all for carrying on the War against God. 2 Cesar was no Tyrant nor Usurper at this time because they had legally submitted themselves unto several Cesars successively before 3 It was lest He should offend But here it will be evident that the offence scandal lyeth upon the other hand of paying the Exaction And it is against all Religion to say that both the doing and refusing to do the same Act can give offence But 4 make the Case like ours and I doubt not to call it Blasphemy to say that Christ would have payed or permitted to pay a Taxation professedly imposed for levying a War against Him or banishing Him and His Disciples out of the Land Or to fill the mouths of the greedy Pharisees devouring widowes houses for their pretence of long Prayers Or that He would have payed or suffered to pay their Extortions if any had been exacted of Him or His Disciples for His Preaching or working Miracles Or if help or hire had been demanded for encouraging those that rose to stone Him for His good deeds 4. It is Lawful to pay a part to preserve the whole when it is extorted only by force threatenings and not exacted by Law when it is a yeelding only to a lesser suffering and not a consenting to a Sin to shift suffering The Objection of a man being seised by a Robber transacting with
shall surely bring innocent blood upon your selves and upon the City and upon the Inhabitants thereof Now if the Princes the whole people should have been guilty of the Prophets blood how shall others be judged innocent before God if they suffer the blood of Innocents to be shed when they may save it 3 Ibid. he argues from the distinction between the person placed in Authority and the ordinance of God the one may be resisted the other cannot The plain words of the Apostle makes the difference The ordinance is of God for preservation of mankind punishment oâ—vice which is holy constant Persons commonly are profane unjust He that resisteth the power there is only meant of the just power wherewith God hath armed His Magistrats which who so resists resists Gods orâ—inance But if men in the fear of God oppose themselves to the fury of Princes they then resist not God but the Devil who abuses the sword Authority of God It is evident the people resisted Saul when he had sworn Ionathan should dye whom they delivered The Spirit of God accuses them not of any crime but praises them condemns the King This same Saul again commanded the Priests of the Lord to be slain his guard would not obey but Doeg put the Kings cruelty in execution I will not ask whether the Kings servants not obeying resisted the ordinance of God or whether Doeg murthering gave obedience to just Authority The Spirit of God condemns that fact Psal. 52. that God would not only punish the Commander but also the merciless executer Therefore they who gainstood his command resisted not the ordinance of God. 4 Ibid. He argues from examples not only of resisting but of punishing Tyrants chiefly the example of Uzziah is pertinent to this purpose 2 Chon 26. who after his usurping the Priests Office was put out of the Temple When it was replyed that they were the Priests that with stood the King not simple people He answered The Priests were subjects as Abâ—athar was deposed by Solomon c. yet they made him go out of the Temple for his Leprosie and the people put him from the Kingdom It is noted also that Mr Knox in that discourse adduces examples of those who use to be brought in as objections against defensive Armes even the Primitive Christians before that Passage last cited what precepts sayes he the Apostles gave I will not affirme But I find two things the faithful did the one was they assisted their Preachers even against the rulers the other was they suppressed Idolatrie wheresoever God gave unto them force asking no leave of the Emperour nor of his deputies Read the Ecclesiastical Histories and ye shall find examples sufficient IV. In the next place we may inquire into the judgment of these Reformers concerning that Question that is now so pusling to many which indeed was never started before this time as a head of suffering but now when it is started we may gather from our Ancestors Actings Determinations about it how it ought to be answered They were indeed in capacity and accordingly did improve it for disouning the Authority of both the Queens but their capacity was not the thing that made it duty if it had not been so before Capacity makes a thing possible but not lawful It does indeed make a duty seasonable and clears the Call to it and regulates the timing of Affirmative duties but the want of it can never dispense with negative Precepts And a duty negative especially may become necessary when it hath not the advantage of seasonableness or capacity certainly it were duty to depose â—he Pope from his usurped authority and to disoune it even in Rome it self but there it would not be thought very feasible or seasonable for twenty or thirty people to avouch such a thing there yet at all times it is a duty never to oune it It is thought unseasonable unfeasable to disoune the Tyrants authority but it is made necessary when uâ—ged never to oune it And for this we have the grounds of our Ancestors shewing who may be disouned and must not be ouned I shall first insert here John Knox his propositions prosecuted in his second blast extant at the end of Anton. Gilbies Admonition to England Scotland 1. It is not birth only nor propinquity of bloodh that maketh a King lawfully to Reign over a people professing Christ Iesus and His Eternal verity but in his Election the ordinance which God hath established in the election of inferior judges must be observed 2. No manifest Idolater nor notorious transgressor of Gods holy precepts ought to be promoâ—ed to any publick regiment honour or dignity in any realme Province or Citie that hath subjected themselves to Christ Iesus and His blessed Evangel 3. Neither can Oath or promise bind any such people to obey maintain Tyrants against God and His Truth known 4. Bâ—t if rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one as after Declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God and such be all Idolaters Cruel Presecuters most justly may the same men depose punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate appoint elect Accordingly this was done in deposing both the Queens wich is fully vindicated by the Earle of Morton in his discourse to the Queen of England as Buchanan Relates it Lib. 20. Pag. 746. The deed it self neither the Custom of our Ancestors of taking a Course with their Governour will suffer it to be accounted new nor the moderation of the punishment to be odious for it were not needful to recount so many Kings punished by death bonds exile by our Progenitors For the Scotish nation being from the begining alwise free hath created Kings upon these conditions that the Government entrusted to them by the peoples suffrages might be also if the matter required removed by the same suffrages Of which Law there are many footsteps remaining even to our day for both in the Isles about and in many places of the continent in which the old Language institutions have any abode this Custom is kept in creating their Governours of Clanns And the Ceremonies used at the entering into Government do yet retain the express representation of this Law. Whence it is evident that the Government is nothing else but a mutual stipulation between Kings people which further appears from the inviolated tenor of the Ancient Law since the begining of the Scotish Government reserved even unto our memory without the least essay either to abrogate it or disable or diminish it Yea even when our fathers have deposed banished more severely punished so many Kings yet never was any mention or motion made of relaxing the rigor of that Law And not without reason seeing it was not of that kind of Constitutions that change with the times but of those which are engraven in the minds of men from the