their Curats have entered into officiate fixedly in this Church without her Authority Consent Ergo The Major is manifest for if this Church have a just right power of Electing Calling of Ministers then they who enter into officiate fixedly in this Church without her Authority Consent have no just Authority or right so to do But this Church hath a just right power of Electing Calling of Ministers as all true Churches have And if it were not evident from what is said above might be easily demonstrated from Scripture The minor to wit that the Prelats their Curats have entered into officiate fixedly in this Church without her Authority consent is evident from matter of fact for there was no Church Judicatory called or convocated for bringing of Prelats in to this Church but on the contrary her Judicatories were all cashiered discharged and all her officers turned out to let them in And all was done immediatly by the King Acts of Parliament without the Church A practice wanting a Precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches All that the Curats can say is that they came in by the Bishop Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do all their right power is founded upon derived from the Supremacy whereby the Diocesan Erastian Prelat is made the Kings Delegate substitute only impowered thereto by his Law. This is Mr Smiths 1 st 6 Argum. If we suppose a particular Congregation acknowledging their oun Lawful Pastor and a few violent Persons arise and bring in a Minister by plain force and cast out their Lawful Pastor Are not the faithful in that Church obliged to relinquish the Intruder and not only Discountenance him but endeavour his ejection This is our case Napth Pag. 106. § 5. Prior Edit 2. If we cannot submit to these Curats without consenting to the great Encroachments made upon the Priviledges of this Church then we cannot submit to them without sin But we cannot submit to them without consenting to the great Encroachments made upon the Priviledges of this Church Therefore we cannot submit to them without sin The Minor is all the question but instances will make it out As first The robbing of the Church of the Priviledge of Election of her Pastors and substituting the bondage of Patrons presentations is a great Encroachment upon the Priviledge of this Church But accepting of Curats as Ministers Lawfully called notwithstanding that they want the Election of the people and have nothing for their warrant but a presentation from the Patron were a Consenting to that Robberie and wicked Substitution It will be of no force to say our forefathers did submit to this and to a Ministry who had no other Call. This is answered above in the Narrative It s a poor Consequence to say the posterity may return backward because their forefathers could not advance further forward Secondly the thrusting out of Lawfull Ministers without any Cause but their adhering to the Covenanted work of Reformation and the thrusting in others in their rooms who denyed the same is a great Encroachment on the Churches Priviledges But embracing encouraging Curats by countenancing their pretended Ministry were a consenting to this violent extrusion intrusion The minor is proven thus They who leave the extruded countenance the Intruded they consent to the extrusion intrusion and declare they confess the Intruded his right is better than his who is extruded But they who embrace encourage Curats by countenancing their pretended Ministry do leave the extruded to wit their old Ministers and countenance the intruded Ergo To say that people in this case should protest against these Encroachments is frivolous for withdrawing is the best protestation And if after their protestation they still countenance the Encroachment they should undo their oun protestation The same Argument will militate against countenancing the Indulged or any that obtained Authority to Preach in any place by a power encroaching on the Churches Liberties There is an objection to be removed here from Math. 23. 2 3. The Scribes Pharisees sit in Moses Chair therefore whatever they bid yow observe that observe do therefore they who without a title usurpe the office may be heard Ans. 1. The case is no wayes alike for then the Lord had no other Church in the world but that which was confined in its Solemnities of worship to that place where they intruded themselves He had not yet instituted the New Testament forme of Administration in its ordinances Officers Therefore the Head of the Church being present might give a Toleration Durante beneplacito But it is not so now But 2. Our Lords words bears no command for the people to hear them at all but only not to reject sound Doctrine because it came from them Surely he would not bid them hear such as He calls Plants that His Father had never planted whom He bids let alone Math. 15. 13 14. and who were Thieves Robbers whom His Sheep should not hear V. They must not only be Ministers acknowledged as such then and there when where we joine with them but they must be such as we can oune Church Communion with in the Ordinances administrated by them as to the matter of them Otherwise if they pervert corrupt their Ministrie by preaching maintaining errors either in Doctrine Worship Discipline or Government contrare to the Scriptures our Confessions principles of our Covenanted Reformation and contradictory to our Testimony founded thereupon aggreable thereunto maintaining errors condemned thereby or condemning Truths maintained thereby we must withdraw from them For if any seek to turn us away from the Lord our God we most put away that evil not consent nor hearken to them Deut. 13. 5 8. We must cease to hear the instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge Prov. 19. 27. we must have a care of these Leaders that will cause us to erre lest we be destroyed with them Isa. 9. 16. we must mark these who contradict the Doctrine that we have Learned avoid them Rom. 16. 17. If any man teach otherwise we must withdraw our selves from such 1 Tim. 6. 3 5. If there come any bring not this Doctrine we must not receive him nor bid him God speed in that work of his preaching or practising against any of the Truths we have received from the word 2 Iohn 10 11. Hence we most not hear false Teachers who in preaching prayer bring forth false Doctrine contrary to the principles of our Reformation But the Curats are false Teachers who in preaching prayer bring forth salse Doctrine c. Therefore we must not hear them The Minor is certain in that not only many of them are tainted with points of Poperie Arâ—inianisme but all of them do teach false Doctrine
all Power given to him in Heaven in Earth and all Authority even because He is the Son of man An Institute right by the Fathers Inauguration which hath set Him as King in Zion An Acquisite right by His oun Purchase by which He hath merited obtained not only Subjects to Govern but the Glory of the Sole Soveraignty over them in that relation a Name above every Name A Bellical right by Conquest making the People fall under Him and be willing in the day of His Power and overcoming those that make war with Him An Hereditary right by Proximity of blood Primogeniture being the first born higher then the Kings of the Earth and the first born from the dead that in all things He might have the Preeminence An Elective right by His Peoples choise surrender a Croun wherewith His Mother Crouned Him in the Day of His espousals In a humble recognizance of all which Rights we oune avouch that He hath that Incommunicable Prerogative of Sole Soveraignty over his Visible Kingdom as well as Invisible without a Copartner or Competitor either Coordinate or subordinate in Prescribing Lawes by no humane Authority to be reversed in appointing Ordinances immutable without addition or diminution for matter or manner instituting a Government which no man or Angel can without Blasphemy arrogate a Power either to invert or evert change or overturn And Constituting Officers which must depend only on His Authority and His alone and must be cloathed only with His Commission and His alone guided by His Instructions His alone Acting according to His Lawes Prescribed Platforme and His alone without any dependence on subordination to Licence warrand or Indulgence from any Mortal And therefore We disoune detest every thing that hath not the stamp of His Authority either in Doctrine Worship Discipline or Government And will discountenance Prelacy Supremacy Popery and all Corruption contrarie to His Institution who is Sole Supreme Lawgiver to the Conscience and will submit to or comply with nothing that may directly or indirectly signify our respect unto them Hence we will take none of their Oaths subscribe none of their bonds yeeld to none of their Impositions pay none of their Exactions Neither will we hear or receive Ordinances from any Minister but the faithful Authorized Ambassadours of Christ our King whatever either rage or reproach we suffer for it We assert affirm also that our Exalted Prince is King of the whole world by whom Kings reign Princes Decree Justice as His Ministers of Justice in subordination to Him whom He hath appointed to rule over us with just boundaries that they may not exceed and true Characters by which we should know them pay them deference And therefore who soever shall arrogate to themselves and extend their power beyond above His prescripts being neither called to nor qualified for nor improving the Office for the ends He hath appointed We will acknowledge them no otherwise than Usurping Tyrants not Magistrats nor Ministers of Justice to whom He hath given the Sword by His preceptive Will only as Lyons Bears Wolves to whom he hath given a rod by His providential Will In that case we may be passively subject when we cannot do better but will never oune Consciencious Allegiance to them nor oune them as our Lawful Magistrars And therefore we will not bow to their Idols they have set up nor prostitute either Conscience or Liberty to their Lust But will endeavour under our Masters Banner Conduct to preserve whatever he hath intrusted to us Religion Life Liberty Estate And whatsoever the Lord our God hath given us to possess As they unjustly possess what their God gives them And will maintain a war of constant opposition to them against whom our Lord hath declared a war for ever without parly Treaty of peace Capitulation Composition Truce or any Transaction we will neither Medle nor make with them less or more nor seek their favour nor embrace it when it is offered on any termes that may imply any obligation to surcease from our duty to our King and irreconcileable opposition to them c. Now I shall come more Distinctly to the purpose in offering a short vindication of the Heads Grounds of our great sufferings Dividing them into their principal parts which I reduce to two viz Negatives Positives The Negative Grounds I reckon three principally 1. For Refusing to acknowledge a Corrupt Ministrie 2. For Refusing to oune a Tyrannical Magistracy 3. For Refusing to Swear subscribe their unlawful imposed Oaths Chiefly that of Abjuration which was the occasion of suffering unto death The positive Grounds are also three 1. For frequenting field-meetings to receive Gospel-Ordinancs from faithful Ministers 2. For maintaining the principle practice of Defensive Resistence of Superior powers 3. For maintaining the priviledge Duty of offensive revenge in executing Justice upon Murdering Enemies of Mankind in cases of extreme necessity In prosecuting which I shall intertexe some subordinate questions relating to their respective Heads and endeavour to discuss them briefly HEAD I. Where The Sufferings of many for Refusing to acknowledge a Corrupt Ministrie are Vindicated and the Question of Hearing Curats is cleared THis Question though it may seem nice and of no great Moment to Persons of Gallio's or Laodiceds temper indifferent Lukwarm dispositions consulting their oun more them the things of Christ which maks it pass without any enquiry with the most part of the world Yet to all who are truly tender in keeping a good Conscience free of the times Contagion to all who have the true Impression of the fear of God who is Iealous especially in the matters of his worship to all who have the true zeal of God eating them up in a just indignation at the indignities done to him in usurping the office corrupting the Administration of the Ministrie to all who truly Love the Gospel and put a due value on the Ordinances of Christ the Corruptions whereof this Question touches it will be accounted of great importance There are three Questions about the Duty of hearing the Word Concerning which the Lord Jesus gives us very weighty Cautions viz what we should hear Mark. 4. 24. how we should hear Luk. 8. 18. and whom we should hear The last of which though it be not so expressly Stated as the other two yet the Searcher of the Scriptures will find it as clearly Determined and as many Cautions to guard from erring in it as in any other Case And that the Concern of Conscience in it is very weighty And certain it is if there had been more advertency in this Point there would not have been such inconsideration and Licenciousness in the matter manner of hearing Nor would that itching humor Luxuriancy of lust in heaping up teachers to please the fancy have been so much encouraged to the great detriment of the Church disgrace of the
defection to the Enemy and taken on with him Let the Indulged and Addressing Ministers advert to this And consider whether or not the truly tender have reason to discountenance them while they continue in their palpable defection But undenyably this refells that Objection of the Curats Ordination before they were Curats For they that change their holding of a right and take a new right which is null they forego forefeit their old right all right But the Prelatick Curats have changed their holding of their right and taken a new one which is null Therefore they have foregone forefeited their old one The minor I prove thus They who had aright from Christ by Conveyance of His officers and take a new grant for the exercise of it not from Christ but by conveyance of such as are none of His officers they change their holdâ—ng and take a new one which is null But the Prelatick Curats who had a right by conveyance of His officers have taken a new grant for the exercise of it not from Christ but by conveyance of the Prelat which is none of His officers Ergo The stress of all will ly in the Probation of this that the Prelat is none of Christs officers and therefore the conveyance of a power from him is not from Christ. Which I prove 1. Because His office is cross to the very nature of Gospel Church-Government and therefore he cannot be a Gospel Church Ruler Christ discharged His officers to exercise Dominion or Lordship Luk. 22. 25. or Authority as the Gentils did but that the Chiefest should be only a Minister Math. 22. 25 26. The Apostle Paul disclaims Dominion over the Church 2 Cor. 1. ult Peter exhorts the Elders not to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. 3. The Authority of Church officers then is not a Despâ—tick power but a Ministerial Stewardship But the Diocesan Bishop is both a Lordly Title Power having all Authority in the Diocess derived from him as being as it were the Universal Pastor and so taking upon him a power which is neither commanded nor can be discharged Hence he that subjects his His Ministrie to the Domination of a strange Lord inverting the Nature of Gospel Church-Government cannot be ouned in His Ministrie But all Curats subject their Ministry c. Ergo 2. Because he is an officer Distinct from superior to a Presbyter or Pastor whereas the Scripture makes a Bishop and Presbyter all one The Elders of the Church of Ephesus are called Episcopi or Overseers Act. 20. 17. 28. An ordainded Elder must be a blameless Bishop as the steward of God Tit. 1. 5 7. Again it cannot be shown where the Scripture mentions either Name qualification work Duty or ordination of an ordinary Church officer Superior to Presbyters and which are not likewise appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops In all the Holy Ghost His purposed recitalls of ordinary Church Officers there is not the least hint of a Diocesan Bishop and yet a Deacon is described the meanest officer in His work qualifications Hence then if this Diocesan Prelate be such an uncouth beast that neither in name nor Nature is found in the word of God all the power derived from him is null But the first is true Ergo 3. Because every Officer in the Scripture relates to the flock except the extraordinary Officers who were further extended now ceased Bishops of Ephesus were overseers over the flock Act. 20. the Elders that Peter writes to were over the flock But this Diocesan Antiscriptural Monster pretends to be over the Shepherds And invents new Degrees orders of Superiority inferiority of officers of the same kind beside against the Scripture which makes all Apostles alike all Evangelists so all Teachers though there be a Distinction Superiority in diverse Kinds yet not in the same God hath set some in the Church first Apostles Secondarly Prophets thirdly Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. but not among Teachers some above others in a power of order Jurisdiction Hence an Officer over officers of the same kind is not an Officer of Christs institution And consequently any power conveyed from his is null But a Prelat pretends to be an officer over Officers of the same kind Ergo 4. Because every officer in the Church hath equally and in perfect parity equall power Authority allowed them of God in the exercise of both the keyes both of order Jurisdiction All ruling Elders may rule alike and deserve equal honour And all Preaching Elders have the like Authority and the like honour conferred upon them 1 Tim. 6. 17. The scripture attributes both power of Order Jurisdiction to all Preaching Presbyters equally They must oversee the flock or as the word is do the part of a Bishop over them Act. 20. 28. and they must also feed the flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. Subjection obedience is one to them all alike All that are over us and admonish us we must esteem highly for their works sake 1 Thess. 5. 12. and obey submit our selves to them that watch for our souls Heb. 13. 17. we find also excommunication belongs to all alike 2 Cor. 2. 6. and ordination 1 Tim. 4. 14. But the Diocesan Prelat takes from Presbyters to himself power of ordination assuming only his Curats for fashions sake and the sole decisive power in Church Judicatories wherein he hath a Negative voice like a Diotrephes the first Prelat who loved to have the preeminence 3 Iohn 9. the only precedent for Prelacy in the Scripture Hence he that would take all power to himself which is undivided equall to all officers by Christs appointment hath none by Christs allowance but is to be reckoned an usurping Diotrephes But the Diocesan Prelat would take all the power to himself which is undivided equall to all By all which it appears the prelate being no Authorized Church Officer of Christs no Authority can be derived from him And so that such as betake themselves to this pretended power for warranting them in the function can warrantably claim no deference thereupon nor can be ouned as Ministers whatever they were before For this were an acknowledging of the power Authority of Prelats especially when the Law commands our hearing as a submitting to them The reason is because these men came forth from the Prelat having no other call or warrant but what the Prelat giveth And so a receiving of them will be a receiving of the Prelate as a refusing of them will be accounted a slighting of the Prelat his power Apol. Relat. 15. pag. 272. III. It is necessare also that all with whom we oune Communion as Ministers should be Christs Ambassadours having then when we hear them and holding still their Commission from Christ as King and only Head of His Church conveyed not only from Church officers in a way that He hath revealed as the Prophet of His
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
a transgression of His Covenant trespass against His Law that they had set up Kings not by Him and had made Princes and He knew it not Hos. 8. 4. and then taxes them with Idolatry which ordinarly is the Consequent of it as we have reason to fear will be in our case He shewes there the Apostasie of that people in changing both the Ordinances of the Magistracy and of the Ministry both of the Kingdom of the priest-hood in which two the safety of that people was founded So they overturned all the order of God and openly declared they would not be governed by the hand of God as Calvin upon the place expounds it Whereas the Lord had commanded if they would set up Kings they should set none up but whom He choosed Deut. 17. 15. yet they had no regard to this nor consulted Him in their admission of Kings but set them up and never let Him to wit of it without His knowledge that is without consulting Him and without His approbation for it can have no other sense I know it is alledged by several Interpreters that here is meant the tribes secession from the house of David and their setting up Ieroboam I shall confess that the ten tribes did sin in that erection of Ieroboam without respect to the Counsel or Command of God without waiting on the vocation of God as to the time manner and without Covenanting with him for security for their Religion Liberty But that their secession from Davids line which by no precept or promise of God they were astricted to but only conditionally if his Children should walk in the wayes of God Or that their erecting of Ieroboam was materially their sin I must deny and assert that if Ieroboam had not turned Tyrant Apostate from God for which they should have rejected him afterwards and returned to the good Kings of Davids line he would have been as Lawful a King as any in Iudah for he got the Kingdom from the Lord the same way and upon the same terms that David did as may be seen expressly in 1 King. 11. 38. It must be therefore meant either generally of all Tyrants whom they would set up without the Lords mind as at first they would have Kings on any terms though they should prove Tyrants as we have seen in Sauls case Or particularly Omri whom they set up but not by the Lord 1 King. 16. 16. And Abab his Son And Shallum Menahem Pekah c. who were all set up by blood treacherie the same way that our Popish Duke is now set up but not by the Lord that is by His approbation Hence I argue those Kings that are not ouned of God nor set up by Him must not be ouned by us for we can oune none for Kings but those that reign by Him Prov. 8. 15. and are ordained of Him Rom. 13. 1. But Tyrants Usurpers are not ouned of God as Kings nor are set up by Him Ergo Again if it be a sin to set up Kings and not by God then it is a sin to oune them when set up for that is a partaking of continuing in the sin of that erection and hath as much affinity with it as resetting hath with thieft for if they be the thieves they are the ressetters who receive them oune them 4. The Prophet Habakkuk in his Complaint to God of the Chaldean Tyranny Asserts that God hath made the righteous as the Fishes of the Sea as the Creeping things that have no Ruler over them Habak 1. 14. Now how were they said to be without a Ruler when the Chaldean actually commanded absolutely ruled over them yea how can the Fishes Reptiles have no Ruler over them If Domineering be ruling they want not that when the weaker are over-mastered by the stronger and by them made either to be subject ar to become their prey But the meaning is these Creatures have no Ruler over them by order of nature And the Iewes had then no Ruler over them by order of Law or ordination from God or any that was properly their Magistrate by Divine Institution or humane orderly constitution We see then it is one thing for a people to have an arbitrary or enthraâ—ing Tyranny another to have true Magistracy or Authority to be ouned over them without which Kingdoms are but as Mountains of prey and Seas of Confusion Hence I argue If the Iewes having the Chaldean Monarch tyrannising over them had really no Ruler over them then is a Tyrant Usurper not to be ouned for a Ruler But the former is true therefore also the Latter 5 Our Saviour Christ delivers this as a Commonly received a true Maxime Iohn 8. 54. He that honoureth himself his honour is nothing The Iewes had objected that He had only made himself Messias vers 53. To whom He answers by way of concession if it were so indeed then His Claims were void If I honour my self my honour is nothing And then claims an indubitable title to His dignity It is my Father that honoureth me Here is a two fold honour distinguished the one real the other suppositious null the one renounced the other ouned by Christ Self-honour honour which is from God. Hence I argue A self created dignity is not to be ouned the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a self created dignity Ergo this was confirmed above Thirdly I shall offer some other considerations confirming this truth from those Scriptures which I class among precepts And these I find of diverse sorts touching this subject 1. I shew before that the greatest of men even Kings are not exempted from punishment and Capital punishment if guilty of Capital Crimes for where the Law distinguisheth not we ought not to distinguish There is one special very peremptory Law given before the Law for regulating Kings which by that posterior Law was neither abrogated nor limited even as to Kings Deut. 13. 6-9 If thy Brother and a King must be a Brother Deut. 17. 15. entice the secretly saying let us go serve other Gods Thow shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine eye pity him How famous Mr Knox improved this Argument is shewed in the third Period That which I take notice of here is only that Kings are not excepted from this Law but if they be open Intycers to Idolatry by force or fraud Persecution or Tolleration as this Idolater now reigning is palpably doing they are obnoxious to a legal animadversion As it cannot be supposed that Secret Intycers should be lyable to punishment and not open Avouchers of a desire design to pervert all the Nation to Idolatry that a private perverter of one man though never so nearly dearly related should be pursued brought to condign punishment and a publick Subverter of whole Nations and Introducer of a false blasphemous Idolatrous Religion should escape Scot-free Let the
each other Math. 7. 12. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to yow do ye even so to them We would have them helping us when we are oppressed so should we do to them when it is in the power of our hands to do it and not forbear to deliver them for fear the Lord require their blood at our hand Prov. 24. 11 12. But this cannot be done by meer subjection with out Resistence 3. There is no way to free our selves of the sin judgment of Tyrants by meer Passive subjection We find in the Scriptures people have been so involved and punished for the sins of Tyrants As the people of Iudah for Manasseh 2 King. 21. 11. c. Ier. 15. 4. whose sins if they had not been committed the judgments for them had been prevented and if the people had hindered them they had not smarted But being joyntly included with their Rulers in the same bond of fidelity to God and made accountable as joynt Principals with their Kings for that debt by their Mutual as well as Several engagments to walk in His Wayes they were lyable to be punished for their Rebellion Apostasie because they did not hinder it Hence some-what must be done to free our selves of their sin and to escape their Judgments But this can be nothing else but opposition to them by Resistence or else if we make any other opposition it will make us more a prey to their fury II. Secondly this Truth is Confirmed from the Common Practice of the people of God even under Persecution Whence I shall draw an Argument ab Exemplis which to condemn were impious and to deny were most impudent And for formes sake it may run thus What the people of God under both Testaments have frequently done in time of Persecution for defending vindicating or recovering their Religion Liberties may ought to be done again in the like Circumstances when these are in the like hazard But under both Testaments the people of God frequently in times of Persecution have defended vindicated or Recovered their Religion Liberties by defensive Armes Resisting the Soveraign powers that sought to dostroy them Ergo this may ought to be done again when these Religious Civil natural priviledges are in the like hazard to be destroyed by the violent encroachments of the Soveraign powers The Proposition cannot be denyed except by them that do profess themselves enemies to the people of God and condemn their most frequently reiterated practices most solemnly signally ouned of God to the confusion of their enemies to the conviction of the World that the Cause for which they contended was of God and to the encouragment of all the Patrons of such a Cause to hope that when it is at the lowest it shall have a Revival Glorious Issue It is true somtimes they did not Resist when either they were not in a Capacity or did not see a Call to such an Action but were extraordinarly Spirited of the Lord for Passive Testimonies under a suffering dispensation But 't is as true that many times they did Resist when the Lord capacitated called Spirited them for Active Testimonies And therefore if their Suffering under these Circumstances may be imitated by a people so stated Then also their Actions under these other Circumstances may be imitated by a people in the like case And by an impartial Scrutiny it will be found that the examples of their endeavoured Resistence will be litle inferiour if not superiour in number or importance to the examples of their submissive Sufferings in all ages Which will appear in the Probation of the Assumption by adduction of many Instances which I shall only cursorly glean out of that plentiful harvest that Histories afford 1. I need only to glance at that known famous History of the Maccabees of undoubted verity though not of Cannonical Authority In which according to Scripture Predictions we have a notable account of Heroick Interprizes Atchievments Exploits performed by them that knew their God and tendered His Glory and their Religion Countries Liberties above the Common Catechrestick notions of incontrollable irresistible Royaltie and absolute implicite Loyaltie that have abused the world in all ages We have there an account of the noble successful Resistence of a party of a few Godly zealous Patriots without the concurrence of Civil Authority or countenance of the Ephori or Primores regni against a King universally acknowledged subjected unto that came in Peaceably and obtained the Kingdom by flâ—ttâ—ries with whom the greatest part and those of the greatest note took part and did wickedly against the Covenant and Nations Interest and were corrupt by flatteries Yet a few Priests with the concurrence of some common Country-men did go to armes against him and them And the Lord did wonderfully assist them for a considerable time as was foretold by Daniel 11. This fell out under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and was happily begun by Mathias a Godly Priest and his five Sons who being commanded under severe Certifications to Worship according to the then Law and the Kings wicked lust did valiantly resist that abomination and went to defensive armes which while living he Patronized and when adying did encourage his sons to it by a notable Oration shewing what case his Country was in and what a duty dignity it was to redeem deliver it This was vigorously prosecuted by Iudas Maccabeus expressly for the quarrel of Religion Liberty against that mighty Tyrant all his Emissaries 2. To come to the History of the Gospel Dispensation It is true in that time of the Primitive Persecutions under Heathen Emperours this Priviledge of Self Defence was not much improved or contended for by Christians who studied more to play the Martyrs than to play the Men because in these Circumstances the Lord was pleased to Spirit for and call them unto and accept off their hands passive Testimonies while they were incorporate under a Civil relation with the Heathens in subjection to Governours who did not by open Tyrannie overturn their Civil Liberties only did endeavour to eradicate Religion which at that time had never become their Right by Law while they were scattered and out of Capacity and never could come to a separate formed Community by joynt Concurrence Correspondence to undertake a Declared Resistence while Religion was only a propagating through the Nations and the Lord Providentially did preclude the least appearance that might be of propagating it by any formed force being the Gospel of Peace designed to save and not to destroy Yet even then Instances are not wanting of Christians Resisting their Enemies and of Rescuing their Ministers c. As these are found on record 1. How some inhabiting Mareots with force rescued Dyonisiâ—â— of Alexandria out of the hands of such as were carrying him away about the year 235. 2. How about the year 310. the Armenians waged war against
City they strengthened their hands for that good work against very much opposition And when challenged by Sanâ—allat the Horonite Tobiah the Servant the Ammonite and Geshâ—m the Arabian Great Kings-men all of them who despise â—oasted them what is this that ye do will ye rebeli against the King say they He would not plead Authority thô in the general he had the Kings warrant for it Yet he would not give them any other satisfaction than to intimate whether they had that or not having the Call of God to the Work they would go on in the duty and God would prosper them against their opposition Nehem. 2. 19 20. And accordingly not withstanding of all Scoffs Plots Conspiracies to hinder the building yet they went on and were encouraged to remember the Lord fight for their Brethren c. and to build with weapons in their hands Nâ—h 4. and brought it to an end notwithstanding of all their Practices to fright them from it chap. 6. Hence If neither Challenges of Rebellion nor Practices of Malignant Enemies who pretend Authority nor any discouragements whatsoever should deter people from a duty which they have a Call Capacity from God to prosecute and if they may promove it against all opposition by defensive armes Then when a people are oppressed treated as Rebells for a necessary duty they may must defend themselves and maintain their duty notwithstanding of all Pretences of Authority against them 18. I shall adde one Instance more which is vindicated by jus populi from the Historie of Esther Because Mordecai refused to do homage to a Hangman Haman I should say a cruel Edict was procured from Ahasuerus to destroy all the Jewes written sealled with the Kings ring according to the Laws of the Medes Persians becoming a Law irrevocable irreversible Esther 3. 12 13. Yet the Lords Providence always propitious to His People brought it about so that Haman being hanged Mordecai advanced the Jewes were Called Capacitated as well as Necessitated to resist that armed Authority that decreed to Massacre them and that by the Kings oun Allowance Esther 9. When his former decree drew near to be put in execution in the day that the Enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them it was turned to the Contrary that no man could withstand them Here they had the allowance of Authority to resist Authority And this was not a Gift of a new right by that Grant which they had not before only it was corroborative of their radical right to defend themselves which is not the Donative of Princes And which they had power to exerce use without this thô may be not the same Capacity for the Kings warrand could not make it Lawful in point of Conscience if it had not been so before Hence If people may have the Allowance of well advised Authority to resist the decree force of unlawful Authority then may a people maintain right Authority in defending themselves against the injuries of pretended Authority But by this Instance we see the Jewes had Ahasuerus his Allowance to resist the decree force of his oun ill-advised Authority thô irreversible And hence we see that Distinction in this Point is not groundless between resisting the Authority of Supreme powers and the abuses of the same Secundly We have in the Scripture both tacite express Reproofs for lying by from this duty in the season thereof 1. In Jacobs Swan-Song or Prophetical Testament wherein he foretells what should be the fate future condition of each of the Tribes and what should be remarked in their carriage influencing their after Lot in their generations for which they should be commended or discommended approved or reproved Coming to Issachar he Prophetically exprobates his future Ass-like stupiditie that indulging himself in his lazie ease and lukewarm security he should mancipate himself his Interests into a servile subjection unto his Oppressors Imposâ—itions even when he should be in a Capacity to shake them off and free himself by Resistence Gen. 49. 14 15. Issachar is a strong Ass couching doun between two burdens This is set doun by the Holy Ghost as the brand bane not of the person of Issachar Jacobs Son but of the Tribe to be inured upon them when they should be in such a concition by their oun silliness Hence I argue If the Holy Ghost exprobrate a people for their stupid subjection to prevailing Tyranny when they do not improve their Ability Capacity Right to maintain defend their Liberties Priviledges Then this implies a Commanded duty to defend them according to their Capacity from all unjust invasion But the former is true here Therefore also the later 2. In Deborahs Song after their victorious Resistence the people are severely upbraided for not concurring in that Expedition Iudg. 5. 16 17 23. and Meroz is particularly cursed for not coming to the help of the Lord to the help of the Lord against the Mighty This is Recorded as a resting Reproof against all that will withdraw their helping hand from the Lords people when necessitate to appear in defensive Armes for the preservation of their lives Liberties On the other hand Zebulon Naphtali are commended for jeoparding their lives in the high places of the fields and are approved in that practice of fighting against the Kings of Canaan that then ruled over them vers 18 19. Hence if people be Reproved Cursed for staying at home to look to their oun Interests when others jeopard their lives for their Countries defence freedom from Tyrannie Oppression Then this implies its a duty to concur in so venturing But here Rubeen Dan Asher Meroz are Reproved Cursed for staying at home when Zebulon Naphtali jeoparded their lives c. Ergo. Thirdly we have in the Scriptures many promises of the Lords approving countenancing the duty of Defensive Armes even against their Oppressing Rulers 1. In that forecited Testament of the Patriarch Iacob in that part of it which concerns Gad he Prophecies that Tribe should have a lot in the world answering his name and be engaged in many Conflicts with Oppressing Dominators who at first should prevail over him but at length God should so bless his endeavours to free himself from their oppressions that he should overcome There is an excellent Elegancy in the Original answering to the Etymology of the name Gad which signifies a Troop reading thus in the Hebrew Gad a Troop shall overtroup him but he shall ouertroup them at the last Gen. 49. 19. And Moses homologating the same Testimony in his blessing the Tribes before his death shewes that he should make a very forcible successful Resistence and should execute the Justice of the Lord over his Oppressors Deut. 33. 20. 21. Wherein is implied a promise of Resistence to be made against Oppressing Conquerours who should acquire the supreme rule over them for a
Authority to execute Judgement To this I reply 1. I trust to make the Contrary appear from Scripture and by 2. If the Law obliges none but those in publick Authority to execute Judgement then when there is no Judgement execute it must be the sin of non but those in publick Authority And if it be only their sin now comes others to be threatened punished for this that Judgement is not executed if they must only stand by and be spectators of their omissions unconcerned What shall they do to evite this wrath Shall they exhort them or witness against them But that more than all this is required is proved before several times where this Argument of peoples being punished for the sin of their Rulers hath been touched 3. Then when there is no Authority it must be no sin at all that Judgement is not executed because it is the sin of none it can not be sin except it be the sin of some 4. What if those in publick Authority be the Murderers who shall put them do death By what Authority shall Judgement be execute upon them Whither publick or private publick it cannot be for there is no formal publick Authority above the Supreame who are supposed the party to be punished If it be by the radical Authority of the people which is the thing we plead for then it is but private as that of one party against another The people are the party grieved and so cannot be Judges At best then this will be extrajudicial executing of Judgement And if the people may do it upon the Greatest of Tyrants then a part of them who are in greatest hazard may save themselves from those of Lesser Note by puting them to death for if all the people have right to punish Universal Tyrants because they are destroyers of all then a part hath right to punish particular Tyrants because they are destroyers of them when they cannot have access to publick Authority nor the concurrence of the whole body 4. Let these Murderers Incendiaries be considered either as a part of the Community with them whom they murder destroy or not If they be a part and do belong to the same Community which is not granted in this case yet let it be given Then when the safety of the whole or better part cannot consist with the sparing or preserving of a single man especially such an one as prejudges all and destroyes that better part he is rather to be cut off than the whole or the better part be endangered for the cutting off of a Contagious Member that destroyes the rest of the body is well warranted by Nature because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part especially a destructive part But now who shall cut it off since it must be cut off otherwise a greater part of the body will be presently consumed and the whole endangered It is sure the Phisicians duty but what if he will not or can not or there be no Phisician then any that can may must yea one member may in that case cut off another So when either the Magistrate will not or dare not or does not or there is none to do this necessary work of Justice for the preservation of the Community any member of it may rather prevent the destruction of the whole or a greater part by destroying the Murdering destructive Member than suffer himself others to be unavoidably destroyed by his being spared If they be not within or belonging to that Societie then they may be dealt with carried towards as publick Enemies Strangers and all advantages may be taken of them in cases of necessity as men would do if invaded by Turks or Tartars 5. Let it be considered what men might have done in such a case before Government was erected if there had been some publick notour Murderers still preying upon some sort of men Certainly then private persons as all are in that case might kill them to prevent further destruction Hence if this was Lawful before Government was established it cannot be unlawful when people cannot have the benefit of the Government when the Government that is instead of giving redress to the grieved oppressed does allow impower them to destroy them otherwise people might be better without Government than with it for then they might prevent their Murderers by cutting them off But so it is that this was Lawful before Government was established For let it be adverted that the Scripture seems to insinuate such a Case before the flood Cain after he Murdered his brother feared that every man that found him should slay him Gen. 4. 14. If he had reason to fear this as certainly he had if the Lord had not removed that by proroguing the execution of vengeance upon him for his greater punishment and the worlds more Lasting instruction and by seting a mark upon him and inhibiting under a severe threatening any to touch him Then either every man that should have killed him was the Magistrate which were ridiculous or every man was every any private person universally which might have killed him if this inhibition had not past upon it Anisworth upon the place sayes that among the ancient Romans every one might kill without a challenge any man that was Cursed for some publick Crime and cites Dyonis Halicarnas L. 2. And so Cain spoke this from a dictate of Nature and a guilty Conscience 6. At the Erection of Government thô the people resign the formal power of life death and punishing Criminals over to the Governour Constitute by them yet as they retain the radical power right virtually So when either the Magistrats neglects their duty of vindicating the innocent and punishing their destroyers or impowers Murderers to prey upon them In that case they may resume the exercise of it to destroy their destroyers when there is no other way of preventing or escaping their destructions because extremis morbis extrema remedia In an extraordinary exigent when Ahab Iezebel did undo the Church of God Elias with the peoples help killed all Baals Priests against and without the Kings will in this case its evident the people resumed their power as Lex Rex saith Quest. 9 Pag. 63. There must be a Court of Necessity no less than a Court of Justice when it is in this extremity as if they had no Ruler as that same Learned Author sayeth Quest. 24. Pag. 213. If then the people may resume that power in cases of necessity which they resigned to the Magistrate then a part may resume it when a part only is in that necessity and all may claim an interest in the Resumption that had an interest in the Resignation 7. Especially upon the dissolution of a Government when people are under a necessity to revolt from it and so are reduced to their primeve Liberty they may then resume all that power they had before
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