so must be a precedent example for judges and Magistrates in all time coming and by this example any member of the Council might lawfully rise up and execute judgment on this wicked wreatch and his cursed fraternity who have brought by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God the wrath and curse of God upon the land 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's sone we know and that he was afterward High priest himself is truth but that he was at this time a publick Magistrate or a member of the great Sanhedrin we see not It is true there were some Princes of the tribes men of renowne Numb 1. ver 16. but he is not mentioned among those neither were these the great Sanhedrin So these princes of the assembly Numb 16 2. were not the Sanhedrin which did consist but of 70 Members Numb 11. Nor was Phineas one of them And that congregation of the children of Israel mentioned Numb 25 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver 7. was not the Sanhedrin which we never finde as I remember so called but the whole body of the People who were then mourning partly for the sin commited and partly for the execution when the heads of the People vvere hanged up and a thousand moe killed by the judges at Moses his command for Paul 1 Cor. 10 ver 8. sayes there died of the plague tvventy three thousand and here vve finde there fell in all tvventy foure thousand Againe it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord yea more then the many who were killed by the judges ver 5. So that it seemes he was no publick Magistrate and that he did it with the approbation of Moses is probable but that Moses did command him we see not only we finde that the Zeal of God moved him and therefore is he highly rewarded though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this for Deodat calleth it an act of extraordinary zeal motion of God's Spirit and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did approve it but what needed this if he had been a Magistrate seing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver 5. and a command is more then an approbation Aquinas and Gerhard call him it is true a judge but we see no proof unlesse they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aarons rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal 106 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling His 2. answere is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a meer private person yet it could prove nothing because he did it with the approbation and good liking of Moses and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence Answ But not only is this not written but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact then any warrand or command of Moses And so his answere in rebus facti a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God which is not spoken of the other judges who ver 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgment yea that word Psal 106 30. then stood up Phineas and executed judgment clearely hinteth at more then his being a meer satelles Magistratus and the ample reward which was given him and the Lord 's counting it to him for righteousnesse speak some other thing then that he had a call of the Magistrate and was his executioner In the 3 place he sayes The cases are different for then was horrible idolatry and villanous whordome committed avowedly and with a high hand in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God but it is not so now Answ Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afrayed if any did intend to follow that example For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy and how ever he mince it as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleannesse when he justified the fact before the Council as he told us Iosephus said yet the apostasy and perjury is open avowed abhominable and villanous committed in the sight of the Sun in despite of God and maintained as right and lawful howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at For such open avovved malapert vvickednesse defection and perjury all things considered vvas never heard of in any generation Hovv our reformation aud confession of faith is maintained vve have heard and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior forme of Church government yet when he is before his judge he shall finde in the cup of this iniquity manifest avowed perjury overturning of the work of God destroying of the interest of Christ blasphemy near unto that unpardonable sin if not the very same in fathering the works of the right hand of the Most high on Satan open and avowed persecution of godlinesse opening of a gap to all licentiousnesse horrid iniquity increase of idolatry villanous and avowed whordome Sodomy atheisme and devilry and more wickednesse then tongue can tell or pen can paint out but is on clear record before the Lord. 4. Sayes he Let it be so that he was a meer private man and had no warrand from the Supreame Magistrate to do what he did his fact cannot warrand Men to attempt the doing of such acts unlesse they can shew as good warr and and approbation from God as he could Answ That he had God's warrand and approbation vve do not doubt but that it was such an approbation as was peculiar to extraordinary un-imitable acts is the thing in question we grant with him That God is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all men's lives can when it pleaseth him crosse ordinary rules and apppoynt some to execute his judgments extraordinariely but the question is whether every thing which the Surv. accounteth extraordinary is so indeed He may sayes he send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud he should say Ehud to kill Eglon Elias to destroy companyes of men with fire from heaven or to kill Baal's Priests He may command Abraham to kill his sone Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duëel Sampson to murther himself Ans Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrand any private person now to kill a tyrant without title But I lay more weight upon Iohn Knox his distinction in this matter in his debate with Lithingtoun hist. of reformation Pag. 390. edit in fol. And as touching sayes Mr.
high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue though extraordinary actions which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue may not be imitated And he hath not yet proved neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as was that of Abraham and the like We shall grant with him That Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set And that men may have heroick motions actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as Luther had as sometimes though they have an extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions as Peeter when he dissembled But what sayes this to Phine as his fact Phineas sayes he had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions but supposeing him a meer private person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God Answer Doth this man give a distinct sound He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas that he turned himself Protëus -like into many shapes and we finde himself doing little better here He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not but if he was such then the action was extraordinary but what if he was not Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical and thus we are no wiser then we were for we know not what to make of the action nor what to make of the person but we must judge of the person by the action And of the action by the person That is to say if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary and è contra if the action was extraordinary he was a private person and if it was ordinare and imitable Then he was a publick person Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel and yet that action of theirs is imitable But how proves he this extraordinary call It is sayes he fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our wil service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by P sal 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousnesse though judging according to ordinary Rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposeing him for a meer private man yet having God's warrand whose will is the rule of righteousnesse the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ It is true God revvards not nor approves not vvil-service yet he approves and revvards other actions then such as are extraordinary and not imitable 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse sayes clearly he vvas a private person and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory and rather speakes out an encouragement to all to do the like in the like case then any extraordinary call he had vvhich none novv can expect Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings sayes that Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate there is no mids betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories if they be not called by the intervention of men their allowance they must plead an immediat calling from God Ans Beacause I minde not to enter into a Logomachy or debate about words tearmes I would desre him to tell me what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not or do not call People forth unto that work They have not Man's call nor have they an immediate call from heaven and yet they have a lawful call from God Nature and necessity to save the city their houses goods little ones from being burnt into ashes And what ever name he give to this call we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty And when men whether out of secret impulses heroical motions or out of meer sense conscience of duty do this they do not desert their owne calling and state like these spirits lud ver 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office though they do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrates by office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable necessity which knoweth no humane law and to which some divine positive lawes will cede But then he sayes Pag. 115. Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministery without a call from men externally Answ And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men in some cases What if a company of Men be cast out on an island having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places whence they might have some lawfully called Minister and there be one among them qualified for the work might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function And when we grant this we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists Enthusiasts photinians or the like who are against an external call at any time alledging that gifts are sufficient And sayes he how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessity Answ He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist and then he will imbrace the consequent also without our admission In the 8 place he comes to tell us that It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened c. for our question is not of that but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned we have warrand to look for any extraordinary persosones having Gods secret and special Mandates to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in Answ Prophecyes and predictions of future events are not works which any ordinary calling men have by allowance and approbation of Men according to the rules of common reason and the word doth interest them in and doth he think God's
defence without the conduct of their representative cannot in every case be condemned particularly not in our case now The antecedent I say is abundantly proved in the books mentioned which this windy man thinks needlesse to run out upon but he might rather say he thinks impossible to answere and beyond his poor strength to graple vvith as he sayeth Page 20. vve must then take some notice of vvhat in that Page vvhich he thinks sufficient to oppose unto the many arguments produced by them he is pleased to present what sense sayes he the people of Scotland when they have come to liberty have of these armes their late representative have declared and it were to be wished that the memory of such wayes were buryed that the posterity might never look upon them as exemplary Their progenitors have so deeply drunk of the bitter fruites of the same the result of them having been so much sin shame and sorrow vastation confusion and destruction to Princes and People I answer 1. What that liberty is which the people of Scotland are now come to who can see it for the perfect slavery and bondage they are sold unto A freedome he talkes of when all our libertyes are sold and we given up as bond men and bond women unto the lust of a Man and are denyed the very liberty which is the privilege of all free subjects yea and that which is the birthright and native privilege of all men viz. to supplicate petition or to pray what liberty can he then meane unlesse the liberty which is licentiousnesse to forsake God and our Covenant to turne Apostats from his truth and our profession to sweare foresweare to drink debauch whore commit sodomy all sort of wickednesse without curb or controll Is this the liberty he understandeth Sure all true christians and such as feare the Lord account that develish slavery and bondage 2. We know what this late Representatives have done but whether therein they have acted the part of Representatives and given the true sense of the people of Scotland will it may be be considered when He and I both are rotten Sure they never had any expresse yea nor tacite commission from the people of Scotland to give up all their necks to the stroke the axe as treatours and rebels for doing nothing but standing to their owne defence against manifest tyrranny and oppression of both soul and body and to condemne them and their worthy progenitors who valiently stood for the truth and the libertyes of Church and State to the losse of their lives and fortunes and to proclame and declare themselves guilty before God and Men of all the blood that was shed in that warre though most lawful and laudable 3. We are persuaded let him with what he will the memory of these memorable wayes shall never be buried but shall stand as exemplary monuments to succeeding generations when God shall think it meet to animate them with the spirit of courage to free the land of tyranny and of domineering abjured prelats withal their taile and traine and wise men will think that his Representatives have not taken a course fit for burying the memory of these wayes but rather a way to revive afresh the memory of them and to commend them more to the thoughts and hearts of all who love and pray for the comeing of our Lord's Kingdome 4. What bitter frutes these are which he sayeth our progenitours have drunk so deeply of we know not They lived and died such of them as owned and stedfastly adhered to that cause and Covenant in honour and peace and their names shall be in perpetual remembrance when his and the names of the rest of this perjured Malignant apostate faction shall rot We needed not have feared that either sin shame sorrow vastation confusion or destruction should have come to Prices or People if we had prosecuted the ends of our Covenants with zeal and faithfulnesse according to our manifold vowes promises solemne oathes and ingagments But what ever of these have followed should be and will be rightly fathered on our defection and lose of zeal And what sin and shame and sorrow vastation confusion destruction shall now follow both to Princes and People if they repent not upon this unparallelable defection Apostasie whereof now they are avowedly guilty none who is not an utter stranger unto God his faithful word and dispensations but may without any extraordinary Spirit of Prophecy foretell Next he tells us That these disputes proceed upon a most untrue and malitious misrepresentation of matters of fact upon two false hypotheses Let us heare what are those As if sayes he the King had been the first invader of the Nation whereas it is known his authority was first invaded his lawes trodden upon kis proclamations openly despised his castles violently seised his armes he took were notinvasive against the Nation but defensive of his owne authority of his lawes and the persones of orderly walking subjects and for reduceing these who strayed from their duty Answ Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes Who would suffer such a manifest notorius lyar to say that others made misrepresentations of matters of fact But 1. Do not all who then lived and yet read the publick papers and other acts that passed then know that through the instigation of some false perfidious fugitive Prelates the King was stirred up to make warre on Scotland ere ever they thought of any such thing Was not warre concluded both by sea and land Was not free tradeing taken away Were not the Scottish Nobility at court made to abjure the National Covenant and the General Assembly at Glasgow was there not a declaration emitted Feb. 27. publickly read in all the Churches of England wherein the faithful subjects and Covenanters in Scotland were tearmed Rebels Were not Berwik and Carlile frontier cities strongly fortifyed and garrisoned Was not the Earle of Huntly made Governour of the North of Scotland and had some foure or five thousand men in armes for the King Was not Aberdeen fortifying it self to take in the King's navy of shipes when it should come Was not the Marquis of Douglas Lord Haris ready to rise with the Papists in the South of Scotland Was not the Deputy of Ireland prepareing men to land them in the West of Scotland Was not the Earle of Arundale made the Kings General and was not the King to have his rendezvouz at York in Aprile and all the English Nobility commanded to attend him there by a letter written Ian. 26. before the faithful People of Scotland had any army in readinesse What impudency is this then to say the King was not the first invader of the Nation And as for the second expedition Anno Dom. 1640. managed and carryed on by the Parliament it was abundantly verified by their publick papers that it was purely defensive And it is notour that before the leavy was made and appointed
this even in Beasts His next restriction is this A man justly condemned to death both according to a just law and by a just process according to law may not use violent self defence against the Magistrate with re-offending him Ans It is granted what then will it therefore follow that this principle of selfe preservation is so restricted as that a whole Land or a considerable part thereof being unjustly condemned both by an unjust law and by an unjust processe according to or without that unjust law may not defend themselves against the Magistrate's Emissaries sent to destroy without respect had either to law or conscience Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too neare to blaspheme God by saying That it were a mighty defect in divine providence that men should not have as large a liberty to defend themselves violently as Beasts have and that men were in a worse condition then beasts if as Beasts have alwayes power to defend themselves violently with their horns heels teeth c. So men should not have as large a liberty in every case to use violence upon Magistrates putting them to vexation or perhaps troubling them in life states c. But where findes he these words in Lex Rex The author of Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 334. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons doves against haukes If a man in the absence of the lawful Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armyes of papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men but this is far from as large a liberty in every case and cometh no way near to blasphemy but is a real truth Suppose Lex Rex had said so which I finde not it had not been apposite to his poynt now while he is speaking of opposeing Magistrates not puting to vexation or perhaps troubling in life state c. but rightly executeing a just law against a malefactor which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned but would have said That the Magistrate was bound to execute Gods Law against men-sworne Apostats such as he and his fraternity are that they were bound to submite to the stroke of justice Thridly he sayes Pag 16. may not the exercise of selfe defence and violent resistence be restrained by the grace of God and the power of his command for submission abiding upon a mans spirit as in Isaac's case who did not resist his aged father going to sacrifice him Ans Whether Isaac made any forceable resistence or not we know not scripture is silent but it tels us his father bound him we acknowledge God is Lord of life but no man is and he may restraine by his will and working on the spirit so as a man who lawfully might flee and save his life shall not have power to do so but abide and glorify him by giving a faithful testimony unto his truth when questioned But thinks he that such instances are binding precedents Sure then he shall contradict his owne doctrine Cap. 4. Or thinks he that a Body of a people or a considerable part thereof shall not exercise lawfully this privilege of self defence violent resistence when neither the Law of God nor such extraordinary force or restraint of God on the Spirit but the vaine pleadings of Court Parasites would have it restrained Fourthly Pag. 17. He sayes May not the defence of our temporal life in some case cease for the preservation of the eternal life of our Neighbour when it comes to that that the defence of the one shall be the certane losse of the other Ans True and therefore He and the rest of the perjured clergy should much more cease from the preservation or ratherusurpation of their places livings and dignities when so long as they domineer there is certane ruine to Religion and to the souls of many thousands And againe if a man may lay downe his natural life for the preservation of of the soul of his Neighbour much more may he with others hazard the same in opposeing unjust violence for the defence of the pure Religion whereby thousands of soulls may be eternally preserved But doth he think that a Nation or a whole countrey-side is to give up their lives to the sword of the Kings mercylesse Emissaries for to preserve the vaine pompe and to fill the bellyes of a few drons whose God is their belly though they should account that their eternal life and all their felicity Fiftly sayes he doth not this obligation cease for the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth Answer What then doth it follow That Men should renunce their priviledge of self defence when their doing of that shall be so far from promoving the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth that upon the contrare their doing so shall tend directly to the ruine of the publick good and destruction of the Commonwealth Sure if this be true that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth It is also true that moe should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth and violently resist violence And doct Ames case mentioned Cas Consc Lib. 5. c.. 31. q. 3. would sute the Prelates well and their adherents so that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland they should give up their necks to the stroke of justice that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land for till these be removed we can not expect any thing but judgement upon judgement from the Lord till we be destroyed Neither doth Naphtaly crosse D. Ames for Naphtaly only speaks of a mans suffering intolerable and inevitable injuries under pretext of the good of the Commonwealth which indeed for a man to do would be for the delusion of an empty name only for the lust of others really to deprive himself of his whole share and interest therein neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share seing it vvere a great question and doubt if in that case he vvere in the vvay of his duty What he addeth Pag. 18. of a souldiers going to a dangerous post at the command of his General is utterly impertinent Natures instinct vvil teach some dog to stand in the gap to keep out the Bare His last restriction is this That it must cease to preserve the King the Head of the Commonwealth when the case is so that the King must either lose his life or the private man his Ans I grant Lex Rex sayeth I think that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him then that he should kill the King because he is not to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publick man But I doubt that it is so agreed among the learned Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag.
private persons in cases of necessity So will the law of Nations and the Civil law for it maketh no distinction betwixt self defence used by private persons alone and that which is used by private persons having their Representatives concurring And where the law distinguisheth not we should not distinguish As all law permits to repel violence with violence so doth it give this allowance to all persons whatsoever l. Liberam C. quando licet unicuique sine judic 18. To maintaine that in no case it were lawful for Private subjects to resist the unjust violence and to defend themselves from the tyranny of Princes would be a direct condemning of our owne Princes K. Iames and K. Charles who helped the private Subjects of other Princes against them and is it not unreasonable to plead for more absolute subjection then princes themselves will plead for Or to condemne that resistence which even they will approve of countenance and encourage to 16. If it were not lawful for private persons to defend themselves against the manifest tyranny of a Soveraigne without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament or their Representative Then the condition of such as live under such a government where there are Ephori or where there is a Representative constituted should be worse then is the condition of these who want such Representatives But that were absurd Therefore c. The consequence of the Major is hence cleared Because all the arguments which have been adduced by any for proving the lawfulnesse of resistence in cases of necessity will evince that a people who have no formal Representative may resist the tyranny of their Prince But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Representatives their case should certanely be worse Because their hands should be bound up from that necessary defence which otherwise they might have used viz. when Representatives should betray their trust and comply with a tyrannous Prince against the people The Minor is most certane because Parliaments or Representatives have been instituted for the good advantage of the people And therefore should not prove hurtful and destructive otherwise they cease to be a benefite and a blessing A benefite should not prove onerous sayeth the law si filiusf ff ut legator nom caveaetur 20. If it be lawful for private persons to resist the Tyranny of Parliaments and other inferiour Magistrates Then it cannot be unlawful for them to resist the Tyranny of others without their concurrence and conduct But the former is true as all the arguments used by divines and politicians to prove resistence will evince and as several of our adversaries will very readily grant though they will stifly maintaine that no resistence is to be used against the Soveraigne Therefore c. The connexion is hence cleare That to whom the greater is lawful the lesse is also lawful Now it is a greater matter to resist a Parliament then to wave them and miskend them or to resist others vvithout their help as all may see and will easily grant There is not a more expresse command for Subjects to do nothing without the concurrence of a Parliament then not to resist them and oppose them Nor are people more obliged to the one then to the other 21. Privat persons without the concurrence of Parliaments may resist and oppose the Prince yea and binde his hands when in a fit of frenzie of a distempered braine and madnesse he would seek to cut his owne throat or with Saul would run upon his sword Therefore they may also resist oppose him when in madnesse and fury he would not only endanger his owne life in soul and body but vvould destroy the inheritance of the Lord and cut off his faithful and innocent subjects and destroy the land The connexion is cleare Because more respect is to be had unto the life of Thousands then to the life of one Man The antecedent is certane because otherwise they should be guilty before the Lord of his death if they vvould not hinder it when it was in the povver of their hands for he vvho hindereth not a mischief vvhen he may he vvilleth it and so is formally guilty before God 22. Privat persons vvithout the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates may resist the Soveraigne vvhen in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man passing by and with Saul vvhen an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him vvould cast his javelin or deadly instrument at the innocent Davids This no rational person vvill deny vvho knovveth vvhat a hazard it is to partake of other men's sinnes Love to the Prince should presse to this perserving of him from shedding innocent blood and vvho doth not this vvhen he may consenteth to that murther Therefore they may also no lesse yea much more resist him vvhen in his madnesse and distemper he is seeking to destroy millions of the people of God And againe much more may vve resist him vvhen he is seeking to destroy ourselves vve being much more bound to love and defend ourselves then to love and defend others 23. If it be lawful for private subjects without the Commande or allowance of Parliaments or their Representatives to resist a Tyrant or the Tyranny of a Prince with teares and prayers Then also in cases of necessity it shall be lawful for them to resist his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence with violence But the former is true Therefore c. The minor is cleare For Royalists themselves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be opposed to Tyranny Thus did the ancient Christians resist their tyrannical Emperours with earnest cryes and prayers to God especially Iulian the Apostate whom they ordinarily stiled Idolianus Pisaeus Adonaeus Tauricremus alter Hieroboam Achab Pharaoh c. And we are allowed to pray against the Enemies of Christs Kingdome against the Turk the Pope that great Antichrist and all the little Antichrists that make warre against the Lord and his interest Therefore we may also resist a Prince Tyrannically oppressing the People of God destroying the mountaine of the Lord makeing havock of his Church when we are in probable capacity for that work The reason is because the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other 2. The one is no more a sinful resisting of the Ordinance of God then is the other 3. Adversaries themselves will grant that resistence by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual then the other 4. This personal resistence is as consistent with that command let every soul be subject to higher powers as the other is with that 1 Tim. 2 ver 1 2. 1 exhort that supplications prayers and intercessions be made for Kings and for all in authority 5. If the Prince be good the one is as unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the ordinance of God no lesse then the other Therefore when he becometh a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the inheritance of the Lord an Apostate as
Knox that ye alledge that the fact was extraordinary is not to be imitated I say That it had the ground of God's ordinary judgement which commandeth the Idolater to die the death and therefore I yet againe affirme that it is to be imitate of all these that preferre the true honour of the true worshipe and glory of God to the affection of flesh and wicked Princes and when Lithingtoun replyed That we are not bound to follow extraordinary examples unlesse we have the like commandment and assurance the same which this Surveyer sayeth He answered I grant if the example repugne to the law as if an avaricious and deceitful man would borrow Silver Rayment or other Necessaryes from his Neighbour and withhold the same alledging that so he might do and not offend God because the Israelites at their departure out of Egypt did so to the Egyptians The example served to no purpose unlesse that they could produce the like cause and the like commandement that the Israelites had And that because their fact repugned to this commandement of God Thou shall not steal But where the example agrees with the law and is as it were the execution of God's judgment expressed within the same I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a commandement for as God in his Nature is constant and immutable so can he not condemne in the ages subsequent that which he hath approved in his servants before us but in his servants before us he in his owne word confounds all such as crave further approbation of Gods will then it already expressed within his scriptures for Abraham said They have Moses and the Prophets c. Even so I say that such as will not be taught what they ought to do by the commandement of God once given and once put in practice will not beleeve nor obey albeit that God should send Angles from heaven to instruct that doctrine Now sure I am this fact of Phineas was according to the law and to the expresse minde of God and why then might it not be imitated in the like case what warrand command nor commisssion had Phineas which none now can expect 1. sayes he He had the Motion and direction of God's Spirit which was loco specialis mandati Answ. We know men must need the Motions and directions of God's spirit to ordinary and allovved dutyes Hovv shall these make this fact altogether un-imitable It is true Calvin sayeth it was singular and extraordinare motion which may not be drawne to a common rule but notwithstanding thereof I see not how it should be altogether un-imitable or uselesse But grant it were so as Calvin sayeth unlesse he say that it is never to be imitated in no case and that no such thing is ever to be expected which I suppose he will not say how will he prevent confusions thorow the abuse of corrupt men who can pretend as wel these singulare and extraordinare Motions as the examples of Phineas As for what he tells us Augustin and Bernard say of Samson's case is not to the poynt Because according to that solid distinction of Mr. Knox that was contrare to an expresse law Thou shall not kill and such also is the example of Abraham 2. He tells us That Phineas had not only a large reward of his fact Numb 25 ver 12 13. but an ample approbation of it Psal 106 sver 31 it was accounted to him for righteousnesse i. e. as a righteous action both as to the intention of it God's honour and as to the ground and warrand of it God's direction God doth not approve or remuner at any action which one way or other he doth not command Ausw This is all granted and as it sayeth that Phineas was no publick person or Magistrate otherwise there had been no doubt anent its being accounted to him for righteousnesse though it had not been expresly mentioned by the Spirit of God for it sayeth that sometimes private persones are allowed of God to do what he requireth in ordinary to be done by Magistrates There are none of these extraordinary actions sayes he mentioned in Scripture but either God's stirring up men to the same or his approbation of the same one way or other is noted See Judg. 3 ver 10. and 5 ver 7. and 10 ver 23. and 3 ver 9 15. and 2 16 18. Answ Will he say that all these instances were extraordinary and not imitable Whence will Royalists then prove that privaate persons may kill a Tyrant without title And if they be not altogether unimitable then the cause is here yeelded for God may be said to raise up and to stir up Mens Spritis even to imitable actions so he hath given us no reason as yet to prove Phineas fact altogether unimitable nor will the real rebukes which he saith God gave the late risers proclame that they had not his approbation unlesse he say that God's approbation of actions must alwayes be interpreted by the event which is not consonant to true Divinity In the 5. place he tells us That if once men come to presse the imitation of this instance they must say first that even when the Magistrate is godly and zealous and willing to execute judgement as Moses was private perssons may do it and without any legal processe 2. goe to mens tents and chambers and stob them and 3. that though such things be done inconsulto pio Magistratu yet the doer must not be challenged Answ. It will be sufficient if it be granted when the case is every way the like or whose It is true Moses was not unwilling but it is like at present in capacitated through the want of assistence of inferiour Magistrates many of whom were guilty and many had been executed and through grief while lying mourning before the Lord. 2. There needed no legall processe for both the law and the sentence was written with characters of blood upon the carcases of thousands this Mans fact was notour and avowed to all the Congregation 3. He had the interpretative consent of that pious Magistrate why then may not the like be done in the like case where the Ius and the factum is as clear and undenyable as here and the Magistrate who should execute the sentence is out of a present capacity and the matter admitteth of no delay as here for till this was done the plague was never stayed much more if he will not and wrath is still poured out from the Lord and the Magistrate by his place is bound to assent approve of the thing If such a fact were done in the like case would any think that the person should be challenged and not rather approved by the Magistrate In the 6. Place he giveth us the distinction betwixt extraordinary and heröical acts telling us that a heroick act doth not deviat from the rule of a common vertue but only proceeds from a more intense disposition to a