where called and the year of redemption was a Iubile of joy so the freedom of release every seven years a great priviledge Ier 34. 9. but to be free of Government is a judgment Isai. 3. 4 5. it s threatened Israel shall abide without a King without a Prince Hos. 3. 4. In the Next place they cannot be ouned as Masters or Proprietors over the goods of the subjects thâ— in the case of necessity the King may make use of all goods in common for the good of the Kingdom For 1. The introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation by the Law of Nature property was given to man Kings cannot rescind that 2. A man had goods ere ever there was a King a King was made only to preserve property therefore he cannot take it away 3. It cannot be supposed that rational people would choose a King at all if he had power to turn a greater Robber to preserve them from lesser Robberies oppressions would rational men give up themselves for a prey to one that they might be safe from becoming a prey to others 4. Then their case should be worse by erecting of Government if the Prince were proprietor of their goods for they had the property themselves before 5. Then Government should not be a blessing but a curse and the Magistrate could not be a Minister for good 6. Kingdoms then should be among bona fortunae the goods of fortune which the King might sell dispone as he pleased 7. His place then should not be a function but a possession 8. People could not then by their removes or otherwise change their Soveraigns 9. Then no man might dispose of his oun goods without the Kings consent by buying or selling or giving almes nay nor pay tribute for they cannot do these things except they have of their oun 10. This is the very Character of a Tyrant as described 1 Sam. 8. 11. he will take your sons c. Zeph. 3. 3. her Princes are roaring Lyons her Iudges are evening Wolves 11. All the threatenings rebukes of oppression condemn this Isai. 3. 14. 15. Ezek. 45. 9. Mic. 3. 2 3. Ahab condemned for taking Naboths vineyard 12. Pharaoh had not all the Land of Egypt till he bought it Gen. 42. 20. So the Land became Pharaohs not otherwise Yet giving and not granting that he were really a Master in all these respects Notwithstanding if he turn to pursue me for my life because of my fidelity to my Master his both will withdraw me from the service of the Supreme Universal Master I may Lawfully withdraw my self from his and disoune him for one when I cannot serve two Masters Sure he cannot be Master of the conscience Thirdly They cannot come under the conjugal relation though there may be some proportion between that and subjection to a Lawful Ruler because of the Mutual Covenant transacted betwixt them but the Tyrant Usurper cannot pretend to this who refuse all Covenants Yet hence it cannot be inferred that because the wife may not put away her husband Or renounce him as he may do her in the case of Adultery therefore the people cannot disoune the King in the case of the violation of the Royal Covenant For the Kings power is not at all properly a husbands power 1. The wife by nature is the weaker vessel but the Kingdom is not weaker than the King. 2. The wife is given as an help to the man but here the man is given as an help to the Common-wealth 3. The wife cannot limit the husbands power as subjects may limit their Soveraigns 4. The wife cannot prescribe the time of her continuing under him as subjects may do with their Soveraigns 5. The wife cannot change her husband as a Kingdom can do their Government 6. The husband hath not power of life death but the Soveraign hath it over Malefactors Yet giving and not granting his power were properly Marital if the case be put that the man do habitually break the Marriage Covenant or take another wife and turn also Cruel intollerable in compelling his oun wife to wickedness and put the case also that she should not get a Legal divorce procured who can doubt but she might disoune him and leave him for this case is excepted out of that Command 1 Cor. 7. 10. let not the wife depart from her husband meaning for mere difference in Religion or other lesser causes but Adulterie doth annual the Marriage relation See Pool Synopsis Critic in Locum So when a Prince breaks the Royal Covenant and turns Tyrant or without any Covenant committs a rape upon the Common-wealth that pretended relation may must be disouned Hence we see there is no relation can bring a King or Ruler under the object of the duty of the fifth Command except it be that of a fiduciary Patron or Trustee and Publick Servant for we cannot oune him properly either to be a Father or a Master or a husband Therefore what can remain but that he must be a fiduciary Servant Wherefore if he shall either treacherously break his trust or presumptously refuse to be entrusted upon terms conditions to secure be accountable for before God man Religion Liberty we cannot oune his usurped Authority That Metaphore which the learned Buchanan uses de Iure Regni of a Publick Politick Phisician is not a relation different from this of a fiduciary Servant when he elegantly represents him as entrusted with the preservation restauration of the health of the politick body and endued with shill experience of the Laws of his Craft If then he be orderly called unto this charge and qualified for it and discharges his duty faithfully he deserves and we are obliged to give him the deference of an honoured Physician But if he abuse his Calling and not observe the rules thereof and in stead of curing go about wilfully to kill the body he is entrusted with he is no more to be ouned for a Physician but for a Murderer 9. If we inquire further into the nature of this Relation between a King whose Authority is to be ouned and his subjects we can oune it only as it is Reciprocal in respect of Superiority Inferiority that is whereby in some respects the King is Superior to the people and in some respects the people is Superior to him The King is Superior Supreme as he is called 1 Pet. 2. 13. in respect of formal Soveraignty and executive Authority and Majestick Royal dignity resulting from the peoples devolving upon him that Power and constituting him in that relation over themselves whereby he is higher in place power than they and in respect of his Charge conduct is worth ten thousands of the people 2 Sam. 18. 3. and there is no formally regal Tribunal higher than his And though he be Minor universis yet he is Major singulis greater than any one or all the people distributively taken And
except that it was not so far extended against Tyranny because that Tyrant was not such an usurper nor such a violater of the fundamental constitutions of the Civil Government as these that we have had to do with all But as to the managing the Testimony they far out stripped their successors in this generation in conduct courage Prudence zeal as is above hintend in many instances to which we may adde some more When several plots of Papist Lords had been discovered conspiring with the King of Spain And they were by the Kings Indulgence favoured and some were also perswaded to treat with them famous Mr Davidson opposed with great resolution Declaring before the Synod of Lothian that it favoured much of defection in these dayes that such notorious rebells to God His Church the Country should be so treated with we should not rashly open a door to Gods Enemies without better proof of their manners nor were yet seen And when a convention in Falkland was consulting to call home these conspiring Traitors Mr Andrew Melvin went thither uncalled and when found fault with by the King for his boldness he answered Sir I have a call to come here from Christ His Church who have special Interest in this Turn and against whom this Convention is assembled directly I charge yow and your Estates in the Name of Christ His Church that ye favour not His Enemies whom He hateth nor go about to call home nor make Citizens of these who have traiterously sought to betray their City native Countrey with the overthroiw of Chists Kingdom And further challenged them of treason against Christ His Church the Countrey in that purpose they were about About the same time in a private Conference with the King he called the King Gods sillie vassal and taking him by the sleeve told him Sir yow and Church Countrey is like to be wracked for not telling the Truth and giving yow faithful Counsel we must discharge our duty or else be enemies to Christ yow Therefore I must tell yow there are two Kings and two Kingdoms There is Christ and His Kingdom whose subject King Iames the 6th is and of whose Kingdom he is not a King nor a Head nor a Lord but a member and they vvhom Christ hath called to vvatch over govern his Church have sufficient Authority and Power from Him which no Christian King should control but assist othervvise they are not faithfull subjects to Christ. Sir vvhen yovv vvere in your svvedling clouts Christ reigned freely in this Land in spight of all His enemies but novv the vvisdom of your Council vvhich is Devilish pernicious is this that yovv may be served of all sorts of men to your purpose grandour Iew Gentile Papist Protestant because the Ministers Protestants in Scotland are too strong control the King they must be vveakened brought lovv by stirring up a party against them and the King being equal indifferent both shall be fain to flee to him so shall he be well setled But Sir let Gods wisedom be the only wisdom this will prove meer mad folly for His curse cannot but light upon it so that in seeking both yow shall lose both To the like effect Mr Robert Bruce in a Sermon upon Psal 51. gives faithful warning of the danger of the times It is not we sayes he that are Partie in this cause no the quarrel is betwixt a greater Prince and them What are we but sillie men Yet it has pleased Him to set us in this Office that we should oppone to the manifest usurpation that is made upon His Spiritual Kingdom Is there a more forcible mean to draw down the wrath of God than to let Barrabas that nobilitate Malefactor pass free and to begin the war against Christ and His Ministry It puteth on the Copestone that so many of our brethren should not be so faithful as their Calling this Cause craveth Fy upon false brethren to see them dumb so faint hearted when it comes to the Chock Not only are they ashamed to speak the thing they think which is a shame in a Pastor but speak directly against their former Doctrin They will speak the Truth a while till they be put at but incontinent they will turn and make their gifts weapons to fight against Christ for there is none so malicious as an Apostate when he begins to slide back c. The same faithful witness because he would not preach as the King would have him against his oun conscience to justifie Proclaim the Kings Innocency in a forged conspiracy against him was put from his Church in Edinburgh and being requested in an insinuating manner to desist from preaching but for nine or ten dayes he condiscended at first thinking the matter of no great importance yet that night his body was cast in a fever with the terror of his conscience and he promised he should never obey their Commandment any more These were faithful men yet we find they challenge themselves in deep humiliation for their short comings defections at the renovation of the National Covenant March 30. 1596. the greatst solemnity ever had been seen in Scotland before that time so that the place might worthily have been called Bochim O when shall we see such a day when even the most faithful among us shall mourn over our far more aggravated defections but if they mourned then for these first degrees of declensions we may say quam gravius ingemiscerent illi fortes viri qui propter Ecclesiae Scoticanae Libertatem olim in acie decertarunt si nostram hanc ignaviam ne quid gravius dicam conspicerent I know notwithstanding of all this that some encourage themselves in a base Complyance with the present corruptions of our Church from the practise of these Worthies Alledging they did not scruple to hear join with Prelatical men dispensing the ordinances But this Objection will be easily refelled if we consider first the Period wherein they were but growing up to a more perfect Reformation and therefore might bear with many things which we cannot after we have been reformed from them They were then advancing and still gaining ground we are now declining and therefore should be more shie to lose what we have gained They had then of a long time enjoyed their Judicatories unto which they might recur for an orderly redress of such grievances that offended them and when they were deprived of them yet they were still in hopes of recovering them and so suspended their total secession from that corrupt Church untill they should recover them in the mean time still holding their right and maintaining their cause against these Invaders But we were at thevery first begining of this unhappy Revolution totally deprived of our Judicatories and denuded of all expectation of them in an ordinary way and of all place but what they are Masters of to contend with them
upon thee from the Lord. Whereunto is subjoined his dying Testimony to the same purpose wherein are these words But if there shall be a falling back to the sin of complyance with Malignant ungodly men then I look for the breaking out of the wrath of the Lord till there be no remedy This was the warning of a worthy dying Man. Notwithstanding of which many other warnings witnessings a course of complyance was commenced by the pulick Resolutioners and continued in to this day wherein that faithful warning of a dying servant of Christ is verified But before I leave this purpose I must obviate an objection that some make use of for strengthening themselves in their incorporations joinings at least in Worship with the corruptions of the time and for condemning conscientious withdrawers That the Godly in those dayes did not separate from the men of these complyances defections as many do now to wit the protesting party did not withdraw from the publick Resolutioners Associators with Malignants I answer first many these the most Godly tender did withdraw even from their oun Ministers and would have gone 40. or 50 myles to hear a faithful Minister at that time yea Ministers themselves in the case of intrusion of the unfaithful would have supplyed the Paroch as if the Church had been vacant and when they could not get access to the pulpit they preached in the fields on purpose to witness against and professedly to withdraw the people from such an unfaithful Intruder as might be instanced particularly for time place if need were But next The Church then though broken by division and under the subjection of strangers deprived of her General Assemblies yet was in a constitut Case enjoying the priviledge power order of Synods Presbyteries to whom the people offended with their Ministers might address themselves for an orderly redress and removal of these Scandals in an ordinary way and so they needed not assume to themselves that power to regulate their communion that in a broken State as now is must be allowed to them And besides both the Ministers at that time who were faithful though they might have proceeded to censure silence the corrupt party as they were obliged yet not only found it difficult by reason of the injury of the times but also thought it best to spare them And the people to bear them as burdens untill as they were still in hopes they should obtain a General Assembly to take order with them but now it is not so And then the defection was but begining and people did not know and could not expect it would go such a length and therefore could not fall upon the rigor of that duty which such disorders call for at first but if they had seen where these beginings would Land them at length I doubt not but they would have resisted those beginings in such a way as would have precluded this imputation of novelty upon our necessitated with drawings III. We have in this Period not only an Illustrious Testimony for the Principle but a continued and unintermitted putting into practice the duty of defensive Armes in resisting the Soverain power malversing abusing Authority to the destruction of the ends of it which resistence was avowed encouraged furthered by the General Assembly both for the defence of themselves and for the help of their Brethren in England Take one expression in their Solemn seasonable Warning to all ranks Feb. 12. 1645. Sess 18. Unless men will blot out of their hearts the love of Religion cause of God and cast off all care of their Country Lawes Liberties c. all being in visible danger of present ruine destruction they must now or never appear actively each one stretching himself to yea beyond his power It is no time to dally or to go about the business by halfs nor be almost but altogether zealous Cursed is he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently If we have been forward to assist our Neighbour Kingdoms shall we neglect to defend our oun Or shall the Enemies of God be more active against His cause than His people for it God forbid In another seasonable necessary warning Iuly 27. 1649. Sess. 27. They say But if his Maj. or any having or pretending power commission from him shall invade this Kingdom upon pretext of establishing him in the exercise of his royal power as it will be an high provocation against God to be accessory or assisting there to so it will be a necessary duty to resist oppose the same These Fathers could well distinguish between Authority and the person abusing it And were not so Loyal as now their degenerate Children are ambitious to shew themselves stupidly stouping to the shaddow thereof and yet will be called the only Asserters of Presbyterian principles But we find they put it among the Characters of Malignants to confound the Kings honour Authority with the abuse pretence thereof and with Commissions warrants Letters procured from the King by the Enemies of the cause Covenant as if we could not oppose the Latter without increaching upon the former But here an Objection or two must be removed out of the way before we go forward One is from the Third Atticle of the Covinant where there seems to be a great deal of Loyaltie obliging to defend the Kings Maj. his person Authority in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our Loyaltie And that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power greatness I Ans. There is indeed a deal of Loyaltie there and true Loyaltie because Lawfully limited being qualified with subordinate unto the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdom as the makers of the Covenant do expound it in the Assembles declaration against the unlawful Eugagment Iuly ult 1648. Sess. 21. not that Reverse Loyaltie which makes duties to God conditional limited and duties to thee King absolute unlimited as our Loyalists do now And I wish others were free of it who have sworn Oaths of unlimited Alledgiances to maintain the King in any power unto which his force aspires and to justify this their Loyaltie will bring in this Article of the Covenant with a distorted sense reading it backward that we in the preservation defence of Religion must preserve defend the King As if Religion obliged to defend him do what he will. It were better such pretended Covenanters denyed the Covenant than to be such a reproach to it in wresting its genuine sense But I have adduced the sense of the best Interpreters of it the General Assembly Next when they entered under the bond of this Covenant they did it with a purpose to oppose all his invasions upon Religion the Liberty of the people and to
over all persons therein And that it is unlawful for Subjects on any Pretence or for any Cause whatsoever to rise in Armes against him or any Commissionated by him and that I shall never so rise in Armes nor assist any who shall so do And that I shall never resist his power or Authority nor ever oppose this Authority to his person but shall to the utmost of my power assist defend maintain him his heirs lawful successors in the exercise of their Absolute power Authority against all deadly And by the same absolute power giving his ful ample Indemnitie to all the foresaid sorts of People under the foresaid restrictions Here is a Proclamation for a Prince That Proclaims him in whose name it is emitted to be the greatest Tyrant that ever lived in the world and their Revolt who have disouned him to be the justest that ever was For herein that Monster of Prerogative is not only advanced paramount to all Lawes Divine humane but far surmounting all the lust impudence insolence of all the Roman Sicilian Turkish Tartarian or Indian Tyrants that ever trampled upon the Liberties of Mankind who have indeed demanded absolute subjectio◠surrender of their Lives Lands Liberties at their pleasure but never arrived at such a hight of arrogance as this does to claim absolute obedience without reserve of Conscience Religion Honour or Reason Not only that which ignorantly is called Passive never to resist him not only on any Pretence but for any Cause even thô he should command his Popish Ianizaries to murder massacre all Protestants which is the tender mercy burning fervent charity of Papists but also of absolute Active obedience without reserve to assist defend maintain him in every thing whereby he shall be pleased to exercise his absolute power thô he should command to burn the Bible as well as the Covenant as already he applauded Iohn Gib in doing of it and to burn and butcher all that will not go to Mass which we have all grounds to expect will be the end of his Clemency at last Herein he claims a power to command what he will and obliging subjects to obey whatsoever he will command A power to rescind stop disable all Lawes which unhinges all stabilitie and unsettles all the security of humane societie yea extinguishes all that remains of natural Liberty Wherein as is wel observed by the Author of the Representation of the threatening dangers impending over Protestants Pag. 53. It is very natural to observe that he allowes the Government under which we were born and to which we were sworn to be hereby subverted changed and that thereupon we are not only absolved acquited from all Allegiance to him but indispensably obliged by the ties engagments that are upon us to apply our selves to the use of all means endeavours against him as an Enemy of the People subverter of the legal Government But this was so gross and grievously gripping in its restrictions as to persons as to the place as to the matter allowed the Presbyterians in Preaching that it was disdained of all and therefore he behoved to busk it better and mend the matter in a Letter to the Council the Supreme Law of Scotland bearing date March 31. 1687. of this tenor Whereas we did recommend to yow to take care that any of the Presbyterians should not be allowed to Preach but such only as should have your Allowance for the same and that they at the receiving the Indulgence should take the Oath contained in the Proclamation These are therefore to let you know that thereby we meant such of them as did not solemnly take the Test but if nevertheless the Presbyterian Preachers do scruple to take the said Oath or any other Oath whatsoever and that you shall find it reasonable or fit to grant them or any of them our said Indulgence so as they desire it upon these termes It is now our will pleasure to grant them our said Indulgence without being obliged to take the Oath with power unto them to enjoy the benefite of the said Indulgence during our pleasure only or so long as yow shall find they behave themselves regularly peaceably without giving any cause of offence to us or any in Authority or trust under us in our Government Thus finding the former Proposal not adequately apportioned to his design because of its palpable odiousness he would pretend his meaning was mistaken thô it was manifest enough and mitigate the matter by taking away of the Oaths altogether if any should scruple it whereas he could not but know that all that had sense would abhor it yet it is clogged with the same restrictions limited to the same persons characterized more plainly and peremptorly with an addition of Cautions not only that they shall not say or do any thing contrare to the wel peace of his reign seditious or treasonable but also that they behave themselves regularly peaceably without giving any cause of offence to him or any under him which comprehends lesser offences than sedition or treason even every thing that will displease a Tyrant and a Papist that is all faithfulness in seasonable Duties or Testimonies But at length lest the difformity disparity of the Proclamation for the Toleration in Scotland and the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience in England should make his Pretences to Conscience suspect of disingenuity and lest it should be said he had one Conscience for England and another for Scotland therefore he added a third eke to the liberty but such as made it still an ill favoured patched project to destroy Religion true Liberty in another Proclamation dated at Windsor Iune 28. 1687. wherein he sayes Taking into our Royal Consideration the sinistrous Interpretations which either have or may be made of some Restrictions mentioned in the last we have thought fit by this further to declare that we will Protect our Arch-bishops c. And we do likewise by our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and Absolute power suspend stop disable all penal Sanguinary Lawes made against any for Non-conformity to the Religion established by Law in that our Ancient Kingdom to the end that by the Liberty thereby granted the peace security of our Government in the practice thereof may not be endangered we hereby straitly charge all our Loving subjects that as we do give them leave to meet serve God after their oun way in private Houses Chappels or Places purposely hired or built for that use so that they take care that nothing be Preached or taught which may any way tend to alienate the hearts of our People from us our Government and that their Meetings be peaceably publickly held and all persons freely admitted to them and that they do signify make known to some one or more of the next Privie Councellors Sheriffs Stewards Bailiffs Justices of the Peace or Magistrats
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
for it but reality of conscience and Government founded upon a bottom of conscience that will Unite the Governed to the Governours by inclination as well as duty And if that be then there is needful a rule of Gods revealed preceptive will the only Cynosure Empress of conscience touching the founding erecting of Government that it have the stamp of Gods Authority It must needs then follow that conscience hath a very great concernment in this question in the General and that before it be forced to an abandoning of its light in a matter of such moments it will rather oblige people that are conscientious to suffer the worst that Tyrants can do especially when it is imposed obtruded upon conscince to give its suffrage express acknowledment that the present Tyranny is the Authority of God which is so visible in the view of all that have their eyes open that the meanest capacity that was never conversant in Lawes Politicks can give this verdict that the Constitution administration of the Government of the tuo Royal Brothers under whose burthen the earth and we have been groaning these 27 years past hath been a compleat Habitual Tyranny and can no more be ouned to be Magistracy theâ— Robbery can be acknowledged to be a rightful possession It is so plain that I need not the help of Lawyers Politicians to demonstrate it nor lanch into the Ocean of their endless debates in handling the head of Magistracy Tyrannie yet I shall improve what help I find in our most approved Authors who have enlarged upon this Question though not as I must state it to dilucidate the matter in Thesi and refer to the foregoing Deduction of the succession of Testimonies against Tyranny to clear it in Hypothesi Whence we may see the occasion and clearly gather the solution of the Question which is this Whether a people long oppressed with the encroachments of Tyrants Usurpers may disoune their pretended Authority when imposed upon to acknowledge it may rather chiefe to suffer than to oune it To clear this question I shall first premit some concessions and then come more formally to resolve it I. It must be granted the Question is extraordinary and never so stated by any writer on this head which makes it the more difficult and odious because odd singular in the esteem of those who take up opinions rather from the number of votes than from the weight of the reasons of the asserters of them It will also be yeelded that this was never a case of confession for Christians to suffer upon And the reason of both is because before these seven years past this was never imposed upon private common subjects to give an account of their thoughts conscience about the Lawfulness of the Government they lived under Conquerers Usurpers sometimes have demanded an acknowledgment of their Authority from men of greatest note stroke in the Countries they have seised but they never since the Creation urged it upon common people as a Test of Loyalty but thought alwayes their Lawes power to execute them on offenders did secure their subjection Or otherwise to what purpose are Lawes made and the execution of them committed to men in power if they be not thought a sufficient fence for the Authority that makes them except it also have the actual acknowledgment of the subjects to ratify it Men that are really invested with Authority would think it both a disparagment to their Authority and would disdain such a suspicion of the questionableness of it as to put it as a queston to the subjects whether they ouned it or not But the Gentlemen that rule us have fallen upon a piece of unprecedented Policy wherein they think both to involve the Nation in the guilt of their unparalelled Rebellion against the Lord by ouning that Authority that promotes it and so secure their Usurpations either by the suffrage of all that oune them or by the exstirpation of the Consciencious that dare not with the odium obliâ—uie of being enemies to Authority by which Trick they think to bury the honour of their Testimony Yet in sobriety without Prophecying it may be presumed at the long run this project will prove very prejudicial to their Interest and herein they may verify that Scots Proverb ov'r fast ov'r loose and accomplish these Divine sayings He disappointeth the devices of the Crafty He taketh the wise in their oun Craftiness and the Counsel of the froward is carried head long For as they have put people upon this question who would not otherwise have made such inquiries into it and now finding they must be resolved in conscience to answer it when ever they shall be brought before them upon a very overly search they see terrible Tyranny witten in legible bloody Characters almost on all administrations of the Government and so come to be fixed in the verdict that their conscience the word of God gives of it So it may be thought this question now started for as despicable beginings it hath yet ere it come to a ful final Decision will be more inquired into through the world and at length prove as fatal to Tyranny as ever any thing could be and then they may know whom to thank But however though the question be extraordinary and the sufferings thereupon be unprecedented And therefore among other contradictions that may be objected that neither in History nor Scripture we can find instances of private people their refusing to oune the Authority they were under nor of their suffering for that refusal yet nevertheless it may be duty without example Many things may be done though not against the Law of God yet without a precedent of the practice of the people of God. Though we could not adduce an example for it yet we can gather it from the Law of God that Tyranny must not be ouned this will be equivalent to a thousand examples Every age in somethings must be a precedent to the following and I think never did any age produce a more honourable precedent than this begining to decline a yoke under which all ages have groaned 2. It will be also granted It is not always indispensablie necessarie at all times for a people to declare their disclaim of the Tyranny they are under when they cannot shake it off nor when they are staged for their duty before wicked Tyrannical Judges is it always necessarie to disoune their pretended Authority positively when either they are not urged with questions about it then they may be silent in reference to that or when they are imposed upon to give their judgment of it they are not alwayes obliged as in a case of confession to declare all their mind especially when such Questions are put to them with a manifest design to entrap their lives or intangle their Conscience All Truth is not to be told at all times neither are all
not be an evasion from their extortions he objected the ambiguity of the termes in which the Question was conceived being capable of diverse senses And inquired what they meant by Authority what by ouning Authority By Authority whether did they mean the Administration of it as now improved if so then he was not satisfied with it or the right as now established if so then he was not clear to give his opinion of it as being neither significant nor necessary and that it was fitter for Lawyers and those that were better acquaint with the Arcana Imperii than for him to dispute it Again he asked what they meant by ouning either it is Passive subjection that he did not decline or Active acknowledgment of it and that he said he looked upon as all the suffrage he could give to its establishment in his station which he must demur upon some scruple The replies he received were very various and some of them very rare either for ignorance or imposture Sometimes it was answered To oune the Kings Authority is to take the Oath of Allegiance this he refused Some answered it is to engage never to rise in Armes against the King upon any pretence whatsoever this he refused likewise Others explained it to be to acknowledge his right to be King To this he answered when the Authority is Legally devolved upon him by the Representatives of both Kingdoms it was time enough for him to give account of his sentiments Others defined it to oune him to be Lawful King by succession To this he Answered he did not understand succession could make a man formally King if there were not some other way of Conveyance of it it might put him in the nearest Capacity to be King but could not make him King. Some did thus Paraphrase upon it that he must oune him to be his Soveraign Lord under God and Gods vicegerent to be obeyed in all things Lawful To this he answered whom God appoints and the People choose according to Law he would oune When those shifts would not do but from time to time being urged to a Categorical Answer he told them he was content to live in subjection to any Government Providence set up but for ouning the present Constitution as of God and according to Law he durst not acknowledge it nor oune any Mortal as his Lawful Soveraign but in termes consistent with the Covenant securing Religion and Liberty This not satisfying when he came to a more pinching Trial he declared he ouned all Lawful Authority according to the Word of God and all Authority that was the Ordinance of God by His Preceptive Will and he could be subject to any but further to acknowledge it he behooved to have more clearness for sometimes a Nation might be charged with that ye have set up Kings and not by me c Further he conceded he ouned his providential Advancement to the Throne he ouned as much as he thought did oblige him to subject himself with patience he ouned him to be as Lawful as providence possessing him of the Throne of his Ancestors and Lineal succession as presumed next in blood line could make him But still he declined to oune him as Lawful King and alledged that was all one whether he was Lawful or not he refused not subjection distinguishing it always from Allegiance But all these concessions did not satisfie them they alledged he might say all this of a Tyrant therefore commanded him to give it under his hand to oune not only the Lineal but the Legal succession of King Iames the 7. to the Croun of Scotland which he did upon a fancy that Legal did not import Lawful but only the formality of their Law withal protesting he might not be interpreted to approve of his succession But this was a vain Protestatio contra factum However by this we see what is ouning this Authority in the sense of the Inquisitors The result of all is to acknowledge Allegiance to the present possessor and to approve his pretended Authority as Lawful Rightful Righteous which indeed is the true sense of the Words and any other that men can forge or find out is strained For to speak properly if we oune his Authority in any respect we oune it to be Lawful for eyery Authority that is ouned to be Authority indeed is Lawful Authority alwayes importing Authorization and consisting in a Right or Call to rule and is formally essentially contradistinct to Usurpation wherever the place of power is meerly usurped there is no Authority but verbo tenuâ— A Style without truth a barely pretended nominal equivocal Authority no real denomination if we then oune this Mans Authority we oune it to be Lawful Authority And if we cannot oune it so we cannot oune it at all For it is most suitable either to manly ingenuity or Christian simplicity to speak properly and to take words always in the sense that they to whom they are speaking will understand them without equivacating These Preliminaries being thus put by which do contribute to clear somewhat in this Controversie and both furnish us with some Arguments for and solutions in most of the objections against my Thesis in answer to the Question above stated I set it doun thus A people long oppressed with the Encroachments of Tyrants Usurpers may disoune all Allegiance to their pretended Authority and when imposed upon to acknowledge it may must ratber chuse to suffer than to oune it And consequently we cannot as matters now stand oune acknowledge or approve the pretended Authority of King Iames the 7. as Lawful King of Scotland as we could not as matters then stood oune the Authority of Charles the 2. This consequence is abundantly clear from the foregoing deduction demonstrating their Tyranny usurpation In prosecuting of this General Thesis which will evince the particular Hypothesis I shall 1. Adduce some Historical Instances whence it may be gathered that this is not altogether without a precedent but that people have disouned Allegiance to Tyrants Usurpers before now 2. Deduce it from the Dictates of reason 3. Confirme it by Scripture Arguments I. Albeit as was shewed before this Question as now stated is in many respects unprecedented yet the practice which in our day hath been the result of it to wit to disoune or not to oune Prevailing Dominators Usurping the Government or abusing it is not so alien from the examples of History but that by Equivalency or consequence it may be collected from confirmed by instances 1. To begin at home besides many Passages related already for confirmation we may adde 1 That for about 1025. years the people had in their choise whom to oune ar admit to succeed in the Government even though the Kingdom was hereditary and used to elect not such who were nearest in blood line but these that were judged most fit for Government being of the same progeny of Fergus Buchan Rer. Scot. lib.
conveen to ask a King 1 Sam. 8. And without any head or superior they convene make David King notwithstanding of Isbosheths hereditary right Without against Tyrannous Athaliah her consent they convene make Ioash King and cared not for her Treason Treason 2 King. 11. But now the king alone challenges the Prerogative-power of calling dessolving Parliaments as he pleases and condemns all meetings of Estates without his warrant which is purely Tyrannical for in cases of necessity by the very Law of nature they may must convene The Power is given to the king only by a positive Law for orders sake but otherwise they have an intrinsical Power to assemble themselves All the forecited Commands Admonitions Certifications to execute Iudgement must necessarly involve imply Power to convene without which they could not be in a Capacity for it Not only unjust Judgement but no Iâ—dgement in a time when Truth is fallen in the streets equity cannot enter is charged as the sin of the State therefore they must convene to prevent this sin and the wrath of God for it God hath committed the keeping of the Common-wealth not to the king only but also to the peoples Representatives heads And if the king have Power to break up all Conventions of this nature then he hath Power to hinder Judgement to proceed which the Lord Commands And this would be an excuse when God threatens vengeance for it we could not execute Iudgement because ehe King forbad us Yet many of these forementioned reproofs threatenings certifications were given in the time of Tyrannous Idolatrous kings who no doubt would inhibite discharge the doing of their duty yet we see that was no excuse but the Lord denounces wrath for the omission 4 They had Power to execute Judgement against the will of the Prince Samuel killed Agag against Sauls will but according to the Command of God 1 Sam. 15. 32. Against Ahabs will mind Elijah caused kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods express Law 1 King. 18. 40. It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise than it is this day when there is no Magistrate that will execute the Judgment of the Lord then they who have Power to make the Magistrate may ought to execute it when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect So the Princes of Iudah had power against the kings will to put Ieremiah to death which the king supposes when he directs him what to say to them Ier. 38. 25. They had really such a Power though in Ieremiahs case it would have been wickedly perverted See Lex Rex Q. 19. 20. 5 They had a power to execute Judgement upon the king himself as in the case of Amaziah Uzziah as shall be cleared afterwards I conclude with repeating the Argument If the king be accountable whensoever this Account shall be taken we are confident our disouning him for the present will be justified and all will be obliged to imitate it If he be not then we cannot oune his Authority that so presumptously exalts himself above the People 10. If we will further consider the nature of Magistracy it will appear what Authority can conscienciously be ouned to wit that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potestas not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potentia Authorized Power not Might or force Moral Power not merely Natural There is a great difference betwixt these two Natural Power is common to brutes Moral Power is peculiar to men Narural Power is more in the Subjects because they have more strength force Moral Power is in the Magistrate they can never meet adequately in the same subject Natural power can Moral only may warrantably exercise rule Natural power is opposed to impotency weakness Moral to illicitness or unlawfulness Natural power consists in strength Moral in righteousness Natural power may be in a Reut of Rogues making an uproar Moral only in the Rulers they cannot be distinguished by their acts but by the Principle from which the acts proceed in the one from meer force in the other from Authority The Principle of Natural power is its oun might will and the end only self Moral hath its rise from positive Constitution and its end publick safety The strength of Natural power lies in the Sword whereby its might gives Law the strength of Moral power is in its Word whereby reason gives Law unto which the Sword is added for punishment of Contraveners Natural power takes the Sword Math. 26. 52. Moral bears the Sword Rom. 13. 4. In Natural power the Sword is the Cause in Moral it is only the Consequent of Authority In Natural power the Sword legitimates the Scepter in Moral the Scepter legitimates the Sword The Sword of the Natural is only backed with Metal the Sword of the Moral power is backed with Gods warrant Natural power involves men in passive subjection as a traveller is made to yeeld to a Robber Moral power reduces to Consciencious subordination Hence the power that is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas cannot be ouned But the power of Tyrants Usurpers is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major cannot be denied for it is only the Moral Power that is ordained of God unto which we must be subject for Conscience sake The Minor also for the Power of Tyrants is not Moral because not Authorized nor warranted nor ordained of God by His preceptive Ordinance and therefore no Lawful Magistratical Power For the clearer understanding of this let it be observed there are four things required to the making of a Moral or Lawful Power the matter of it must be Lawful the Person Lawful the Title Lawful and the Use Lawful 1. The matter of it about which it is exerted or the work to be done by it must be Lawful warranted by God and if it be unlawful it destroyes its Moral being As the Popes power in dispensing with Divine Laws is null no Moral Power And so also the Kings power in dispensing with both Divine humane Laws is null Hence that power which is in regard of matter unlawful and never warranted by God cannot be ouned But absolute power which is the power of Tyrants Usurpers particularly of this of ours is in regard of matter unlawful never warranted by God Ergo 2. The Person holding the power must be such as not only is capable of but competent to the tenure of it and to whom the holding of it is allowed and if it be prohibited it evacuates the Morality of the power Korah his Company arrogated to themselves the Office of the Priesthood this power was prohibited to them their power then was a nullity As therefore a person that should not be a Minister when he usurps that office is no Minister So a person that should not be a Magistrate when he usurps that Office is no
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
shall surely bring innocent blood upon your selves and upon the City and upon the Inhabitants thereof Now if the Princes the whole people should have been guilty of the Prophets blood how shall others be judged innocent before God if they suffer the blood of Innocents to be shed when they may save it 3 Ibid. he argues from the distinction between the person placed in Authority and the ordinance of God the one may be resisted the other cannot The plain words of the Apostle makes the difference The ordinance is of God for preservation of mankind punishment oâ—vice which is holy constant Persons commonly are profane unjust He that resisteth the power there is only meant of the just power wherewith God hath armed His Magistrats which who so resists resists Gods orâ—inance But if men in the fear of God oppose themselves to the fury of Princes they then resist not God but the Devil who abuses the sword Authority of God It is evident the people resisted Saul when he had sworn Ionathan should dye whom they delivered The Spirit of God accuses them not of any crime but praises them condemns the King This same Saul again commanded the Priests of the Lord to be slain his guard would not obey but Doeg put the Kings cruelty in execution I will not ask whether the Kings servants not obeying resisted the ordinance of God or whether Doeg murthering gave obedience to just Authority The Spirit of God condemns that fact Psal. 52. that God would not only punish the Commander but also the merciless executer Therefore they who gainstood his command resisted not the ordinance of God. 4 Ibid. He argues from examples not only of resisting but of punishing Tyrants chiefly the example of Uzziah is pertinent to this purpose 2 Chon 26. who after his usurping the Priests Office was put out of the Temple When it was replyed that they were the Priests that with stood the King not simple people He answered The Priests were subjects as Abâ—athar was deposed by Solomon c. yet they made him go out of the Temple for his Leprosie and the people put him from the Kingdom It is noted also that Mr Knox in that discourse adduces examples of those who use to be brought in as objections against defensive Armes even the Primitive Christians before that Passage last cited what precepts sayes he the Apostles gave I will not affirme But I find two things the faithful did the one was they assisted their Preachers even against the rulers the other was they suppressed Idolatrie wheresoever God gave unto them force asking no leave of the Emperour nor of his deputies Read the Ecclesiastical Histories and ye shall find examples sufficient IV. In the next place we may inquire into the judgment of these Reformers concerning that Question that is now so pusling to many which indeed was never started before this time as a head of suffering but now when it is started we may gather from our Ancestors Actings Determinations about it how it ought to be answered They were indeed in capacity and accordingly did improve it for disouning the Authority of both the Queens but their capacity was not the thing that made it duty if it had not been so before Capacity makes a thing possible but not lawful It does indeed make a duty seasonable and clears the Call to it and regulates the timing of Affirmative duties but the want of it can never dispense with negative Precepts And a duty negative especially may become necessary when it hath not the advantage of seasonableness or capacity certainly it were duty to depose â—he Pope from his usurped authority and to disoune it even in Rome it self but there it would not be thought very feasible or seasonable for twenty or thirty people to avouch such a thing there yet at all times it is a duty never to oune it It is thought unseasonable unfeasable to disoune the Tyrants authority but it is made necessary when uâ—ged never to oune it And for this we have the grounds of our Ancestors shewing who may be disouned and must not be ouned I shall first insert here John Knox his propositions prosecuted in his second blast extant at the end of Anton. Gilbies Admonition to England Scotland 1. It is not birth only nor propinquity of bloodh that maketh a King lawfully to Reign over a people professing Christ Iesus and His Eternal verity but in his Election the ordinance which God hath established in the election of inferior judges must be observed 2. No manifest Idolater nor notorious transgressor of Gods holy precepts ought to be promoâ—ed to any publick regiment honour or dignity in any realme Province or Citie that hath subjected themselves to Christ Iesus and His blessed Evangel 3. Neither can Oath or promise bind any such people to obey maintain Tyrants against God and His Truth known 4. Bâ—t if rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one as after Declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God and such be all Idolaters Cruel Presecuters most justly may the same men depose punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate appoint elect Accordingly this was done in deposing both the Queens wich is fully vindicated by the Earle of Morton in his discourse to the Queen of England as Buchanan Relates it Lib. 20. Pag. 746. The deed it self neither the Custom of our Ancestors of taking a Course with their Governour will suffer it to be accounted new nor the moderation of the punishment to be odious for it were not needful to recount so many Kings punished by death bonds exile by our Progenitors For the Scotish nation being from the begining alwise free hath created Kings upon these conditions that the Government entrusted to them by the peoples suffrages might be also if the matter required removed by the same suffrages Of which Law there are many footsteps remaining even to our day for both in the Isles about and in many places of the continent in which the old Language institutions have any abode this Custom is kept in creating their Governours of Clanns And the Ceremonies used at the entering into Government do yet retain the express representation of this Law. Whence it is evident that the Government is nothing else but a mutual stipulation between Kings people which further appears from the inviolated tenor of the Ancient Law since the begining of the Scotish Government reserved even unto our memory without the least essay either to abrogate it or disable or diminish it Yea even when our fathers have deposed banished more severely punished so many Kings yet never was any mention or motion made of relaxing the rigor of that Law And not without reason seeing it was not of that kind of Constitutions that change with the times but of those which are engraven in the minds of men from the
now for refusing such compelled imposed Devotion to pray or praise for the King poor people are much condemned I know it is alleadged that these faithful sufferers in those days were not so strict as they are now in submitting to unjust Sentences and obeying keeping their Confinements I shall grant there was much of this and much might be tollerate in their circumstances when the Court procedure against them was not so illegal their Authority was not so Tyrannical nor so necessary to be disouned and they were so stated that they were afrayed to take guilt upon them in making their escapes whereas it is not so with us Yet we find very faithful men broke their Confinements As Mr Iohn Murray confined about Dumfreis perceiving there was no end of the Bishops malice and that he would be in no worse case than he was he resolved without Licence either of King or Council to transport himself So did also Mr Robert Bruce III. For resistence of Superior Powers we have in this Period first the practice of some Noblemen an Ruthven anno 1582. who took the King and seised on that Arrant Traitor Enemy to the Church Countrey the Earle of Arran declaring to the world the Causes of it the Kings Correspondence with Papists his usurping the Supremacy over the Church and oppressing the Ministers all by means of his wicked Councellors whom therefore they removed from him The King himself emitted a Declaration allowing this deed The General Assembly approved of it and perswaded to a Concurrence with it and nothing was wanting to ratifie it as a most Lawfull laudable action At length the Fox escapes changes all and retracts his former Declaration The Lords again rallie and interprise the taking of the Castle of Stirling and gain it but afterward surrender it after which the Earle of Gowrie is executed and Ministers are commanded to retract the Approbation of Ruthven business but they refused and many were forced to flee to England and the Lords were banished But in the year 1585. they return with more success and take the Castle of Stirling The cowardly King does again acknowledge justify their Enterprise that they needed no Apology of words Weapons had spoken well enough and gotten them audience to clear their own Cause but his after carriage declared him as crafty false as he was cowardly fearful Again we have the advice of the General Assembly for resisting when the Ministers were troubled upon Mr Blacks bussiness and there was an intention to pull them out of their Pulpits They advised them to stand to the discharge of their Calling if their flocks would save them from violence and yet this violence was expected from the King and his Emissaries As to that point then there can be no dispute IV. There was litle occasion for the Question about the Kings Authority in this Period but generally all acknowledged it because they were not sensible of his usurpation and his cowardice made him incapable of attempting any thing that might raise commotions in civil things Yet we remark that whatsoever Authority he usurped beyond his sphere that was disouned declined by all the Faithful as the Supremacy Next that they resented represented very harshly any aspiring to Absoluteness as Mr Andrew Melvin could give it no better name nor intertain no better notion of it then to terme it The bloodie Guillie as he inveighs against it in the Assembly 1582. And next in this same Period we have a very good description of that Authority which the King himself allowes not to be ouned which out of a Kings mouth abundantly justifies the disouning of the present Tyrannie This same King Iames in a speech to the Parliament in the year 1609. sayth A King degenerateth into a Tyrant when he leaveth to rule by 〈◊〉 much more when he beginneth to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Arbitrary Power impose unlawful taxes raise forces make War upon his Subjects to pillage plunder wast and spoil his Kingdoms PERIOD V. Containing the Testimony for the last Reformation from Prelacy in all its steps from the year 1638 to 1660. THe following Period from the year 1638. to 1660 continues advances the Testimony to the greatest hight of Purity Power that either this Church or any other did ever arrive unto with a Gradation Succession Complication of wonders of Divine Wisdom Power Justice Mercy signally singularly ouning sealing it to the Confusion of His Enemies Comfort of His People Conviction of Indifferent Neutrals and Consternation of All. Now after a long winter and night of Deadness Darkness the sun returns with an amiable approach of Light Life now the winter was past the rain was over gone the flowers appear on the earth and the time of singing of birds is come and the voice of the turtle is heard in our Land. Now the second time the Testimony comes to be managed in an Active manner as before it was Passive As the one hath been alwayes observed to follow interchangably upon the other especially in Scotland and the Last alwayes the Greatest which gives ground to hope though it be now our turn to suffer that when the summer comes again after this winter and the day after this night the next Active Testimony shall be more notable than any that went before The matter of the Testimony was the same as before for the Concerns of Christs Kingly Prerogative but with some more increase as to its opposites for these grew successively in every Period the Last alwayes including all that went before The first Period had Gentilisme principally to deal with the second Poperie The third Poperie Tyrannie the fourth Prelacy Supremacy this fifth hath all together and Sectarianisme also to contend against The former had alwayes the opposites on one hand but this hath them in extremes on both hands both fighting against one another and both fighting together against the Church of Scotland and she against both till at length one of her opposites prevailed viz. the Secterian Party and that prevailing brought in the other to wit the Malignant which now domineers over all together Wherefore because this Period is in it self of so great importance the Revolutions therein emergent so eminent the Reformation therein prosecuted wanting litle of its perfect Complement the Deformation succeeding in its Deviation from the Pattern being so destructive to the end it may be seen from whence we have fallen and whether or not the present reproached Sufferers have lost or left their ground we must give a short deduction of the Rise Progress End of the Contendings of that Period In the midst of the forementioned Miseries Mischiefs that the pride of Prelacy and Tyrannical Supremacy had multiplied beyond measure upon this Church Nation and at the hight of all their haughtiness when they were setting up their Dagon and erecting Altars for him
they were or to some other Paroches where they may be ordinary hearers and to declare condiscend upon the Paroches where they intend to have their Residence After this they assumed a Power to Dispose of these their Curats as they pleased and transport them from place to place whereof the only ground was a simple Act of Council the Instructions alwayes going along with them as the constant Companion of the Indulgence By all which it is apparent what ever these Ministers alledge in vindication of it to cover its deformity in their Balmes to take away its Stink and in their Surveyes to gather Plaisters to scurf over its Scurveyness viz. that it was but the removal of the Civil restraint And that they entered into their places by the Call of the People a meer mock pretence for a Prelimited imposition whereby that Ordinance of Christ was basely prostituted abused And that their Testimony Protestation was a Salvo for their conscience a meer Outopian fancy that the Indulgers with whom they bargained never heard of otherwise as they did with some who were faithful in testifying against their Encroachments they would soon have given them a Bill of Ease It cannot be denyed that that doleful Indulgeâ—â—e both in its Rise Contrivance Conveyance Grant Acceptance End Effects was a Grievous Encroachment upon the Princely Prerogative of Jesus Christ the only Head of the Church whereby the usurpers Supremacy was Homologated bowed to complyed with strengthened established the Cause Kingdom of Christ betrayed His Churches Priviledges surrendered His Enemies hardened His Friends stumbled and the Remnant rent ruined in that it was granted deduced from the Kings Supremacy and conveyed by the Council in that according to his pleasure he gave and they received a Licence warrant to such as he nominated Elected and judged fit qualified for it and fixed them in what particular Paroch he pleased to assign under the notion of a Confinment in that he imposed and they submitted to restrictions in the exercise of their Ministry in these particular Paroches inhibiting to Preach elswhere in the Church And with these restrictions he gave and they received instructions to regulate direct them in their functions All which was done without Advice or Consent of the Church And thereupon they have frequentlie been called coveened before the Counciâ— to give acâ—ount of their Ministerial exercise and some of them sentenced silenced deposed for alledged disobedience This was a manifest Treason against Christ which involved many in the actual guilt of it that day and many others who gaped after it could not obtain it and for more at that time since in the guilt of Misprision of Treason in passing this also without a witness Thus in holy judgement because of our Indulging Conniving at the usurper of Christs Throne He left a great part of the Ministers to take that wretched Indulgence and another part instead of remonstrating the wickedness of that deed have been left to palliate plaister Patronize it in keeping up the Credit of the King Councils Curats wherein they have shewed more zeal than ever against that wicked Indulgence Yet the Lord had some Witnesses who prettie early did give significations of their resentment of this dishonour done to Christ as Mr William Weer who having got the Legal Call of the People and discharging his duty honestly was turned out And Mr Iohn Burnet who wrote a Testimony directed to the Council shewing why he could not submit to that Indulgence inserted at large in the History of the Indulgence Where also we have the Testimony of other ten Ministers who drew up their Reasons of Non-Complyance with such a snare And Mr Alexander Blair who upon occasion of a Citation before the Council for not observing the 29 of Maij having with others made his appearance and got new Copies of Instructions presented to them being moved with zeal and remembering whose Ambassadour he was told the Council plainly that he could receive no Instructions from them in the exercise of his Ministry otherwise he should not be Christs Ambassadour but theirs and herewith lets their Instructions drop out of his hand knowing of no other Salvâ— or manner of Testifying for the Truth in the CaseØ› for which he was imprisoned died under Confinement But afterwards the Lord raised up some more explicite Witnesses against that defection All this Trouble was before the year 1673. About which time finding this device of Indulgences proved so steadable for his Service in Scotland he was induced to try it also in England which he did almost with the same or like success producing the same effects of defection security unfaithfulness The Occasion was upon his wars with the Dutch Which gave another demonstrative discovery of his Treacherie Popish perfidie in breaking League with them and entering into one with the French to destroy Religion Liberty in Britain Wherein the King of France assures him an Absolute Authority over his Parliaments and to reestablish the Catholick Religion in his Kingdoms of England Scotland Ireland to Compass which it was necessary first to abate the pride power of the Dutch and to reduce them to the sole Province of Holland by which means the King of England should have Zeland for a retreat in case of need and that the rest of the Low Countries should remain to the King of France if he could render himself Master of it But to return to Scotland While by the forementioned Device he thought he had utterly suppressed the Gospel in house field Meetings he was so far disappointed that these very means Machins by which he thought to bury it did chiefly contribute to its revival For when by Persecution many Ministers had been chased away by illegal Law-Sentences many had been banished away and by their ensnaring Indulgences many had been drawen away from their duty and others were now sentenced with Confinements Restraints if they should not choose fix their residence where they could not keep their Quiet Conscience both they were forced to wander and disperse through the Country and the People being tired of the cold dead Curats and wanting long the Ministrie of their old Pastors so longed hungered after the Word that they behoved to have it at any rate cost what it would which made them entertain the dispersed Ministers more earnestly and encouraged them more to their duty By whose Endeavours through the mighty power presence of God and the Light of His Countenance now shining through the Cloud after so fatal fearful a darkness that had over-clouded the Land for a while with such a resplendent brightness that it darkened the Prelatick Locusts and made them hisse and gnash their tongues for pain and dazeled the eyes of all Onlookers the Word of God grew exceedingly and went through at least the Southern borders of the Kingdom
1680. at the Torwood he excommunicated some of the most scandalous and Principal Promoters Abettors of this Conspiracy against Christ as formally as the present Case could admit After Sermon upon Ezek. 21. 25 26 27. And thou profane wicked Prince of Israel whose day is come c. He had a short and pertinent discourse on the nature the subject the causes and the ends of Excommunication in general And then declared that he was not led out of any private Spirit or passion to this Action but constrained by Conscience of duty and zeal to God to stigmatize with this brand and wound with the Sword of the Lord these Enemies of God that had so Apostatized rebelled against mocked despised defied Our Lord and to declare them as they are none of His to be none of ours The persons excommunicated and the Sentence against them was given forth as followes I being a Minister of Iesus Christ and having Authority and Power from Him do in His Name by His Spirit excommunicatâ— cast out of the true Church and deliver up to Satan Charles the Second King c. The Sentence was founded upon these grounds declared in the pronunciation thereof 1 for his high mocking of God in that after he had acknowledged his own sins his fathers sins his mothers Idolatrie yet had gone on more avowedly in the same than all before him 2 for his great Perjurie in breaking burning the Covenant 3 for his rescinding all Lawes for establishing the Reformation and enacting Lawes contrarie thereunto 4 for commanding of Armies to destroy the Lords people 5 for his being an Enemy to true Protestants helper of the Papists and hindering the execution of just Lawes against them 6 for his granting Remissions Pardons for Murderers which is in the power of no King to do being expressly contrare to the Law of God. 7 for his Adulteries and dissembling with God man Next by the same Authority and in the same name he excommunicated Iames Duke of York for his Idolatrie and setting it up in Scotland to defile the Land and entycing encouraging others to do so Not mentioning any other sins but what he scandalously persisted in in Scotland c. With several other rotten Malignant Enemies on whom the Lord hath ratiâ—â—ed that Sentence since very remarkably whose sins punishments both may be read more visiblie in the Providences of the time than I can record them But about this time when amidst all the abounding defections divisions of that dark dismal hour of tentation some in zeal for the Cause were endeavouring to keep up the Testimony of the day in an abstraction from Complying Ministers Others were left in holy judgment to be a stumbling block to the Generation hardening them in their defections and to be a beacon to the most zealous to keep off from all unwarrantable excesses to fall into fearâ—ul extravagances and delirious damnable delusions being overdriven with ignorant blind zeal into untroden paths which led them into a labyrinth of darkness when as they were stumbled at many Ministers their unfaithfulness so through the deceit of Sathan and the hypocrisie of his Instruments they came to be offended at Mr Cargil his faithfulness who spared neither left hand declensions nor right hand extremes and left him and all the Ministers not only disouning all Communion with those that were not of their way but execrating Cursing them and kept themselves in desert places from all Company where they persisted prodigiously in fastings and singing Psalms pretending to wonderful raptures Enthusiasmes and in fine I. Gib with 4 more of them came to that hight of Blasphemy that they burnt the Bible Confession of Faith. These were the sweet singers as they were called led away into these delusions by that Impostor Sorcerer Iohn Gib who never encreased to such a number as was then feared reported being within thirty most part women all which for the most part have been through Mercy reclaimed from that destructive way which through Grace the Reproached Remnant adhering to the foresaid Testimony had alwayes an abhorrence of Wherefore that ignorant impudent Calumnie of their Consortship with Gibs followers is only the vent of viperous Envy For they were the first that discovered them and whose pains the Lord blessed in reclaiming them and were alwayes so far from partaking with them that to this day these that have come off from that way and have offered the Confession of their scandal do still complain of their over-rigid severity in not admitting them to their select fellowships To which may be added this undenyable Demonstration that whereas the persecuâ—ing Courts of Inquisition did alwayes extend the utmost severity against the Ouners of this Testimony yet they spared them And the Duke of York then in Scotland was so weâ— pleased with Gib's Blasphemies that he favoured him extraordinarly and freely dismissed him This was a cloudy dark day but not without a burning shining light as long as that faithful Minister of Christ Mr Donald Cargil was following the Work of the Lord who shortly after this finished his Testimony being apprehended with other two faithful zealous Witnesses of Christ Mr Walter Smith and Mr Iames Boog who with 2 more were altogether at Edinburgh 27. Iulij 1681. Crouned with the Glory of Martyrdom Then came the day of the Remnants vexation trouble darkness dimness of anguish wherein who so looked unto the Land could see nothing but darkness sorrow the light darkened in the Heavens thereof wherein neither Star nor Sun appeared for many dayes and poor People were made to grope for the wall like the blind and to stumble in noon day as in the night While the Persecution advanced on the one hand a violent spait of defection carried doun the most part of Ministers Professors before it driving them to Courses of sinful scandalous Conformings with the times Corruptions Compearings before their Courts Complyings with their Commands paying of theis Cesses and other Exactions Taking of their Oaths Bonds and countenancing their Prelatical Church-Services which they were ashamed to do before And thereupon on the other hand the Divisions and Confusions were augmented and poor people that desired to cleave to the Testimony were more more offended and stumbled at the Ministers who either left the Land in that clamant Call of the peoples necessity or lurked in their own retirements and declined the duty of that day leaving people to determine themselves in all their perplexities as a prey to all tentations But the tender Pastor and Shepherd of Israel who leads the blind in the way they know not did not forsake a Remnant in that hour of tentation who kept the Word of His Patience and as He helped those that fell into the hands of Enemies to Witness a good Confession so He strengthened the zeal of the remaining Contenders against all the
Party of the Enemies in which they slew the Captain and about 12 or some moe of his men and afterwards they dispersed themselves also The Enemies searching the Country gleaned up the E. of Argyle himself Col. Rumbol an Englishman Mr Thomas Archer Minister Gawin Russel an David Law who were all condemned execute at Edinburgh and many others who were banished to America and about some 20 in the Highlands who were hanged at Inerarie In England the D. of Monmouths expedition though it had more action yet terminated in the same success the loss of many hundred lives many killed in Battel And afterwas by the mercy of the Duke of York several hunderds in the West of England were carried about and hanged before the door of their oun habitations and to make his Captains sport by the way according to the number of the hours of the day when the murdering humour came in their head so many of the poor Captives were hanged as a prodigious monument of monstrous Crueltie This was the Comencement of the present Tyrants Government In the mean time the Wanderers in Scotland thô they did not associate with this Expedition upon the account of the too promiscuous admittence of persons to trust in that Partie who were then and since have discovered themselves to be Enemies to the Cause and because they could not espouse their Declaration as the State of their Quarrel being not concerted according to the constant Plea of the Scots Covenanters and for other reasons given in their late Vindication yet against this Usurpation of a bloody Papist advancing himself to the Throne in such a manner they published another Declaration at Sanquhair May 28. 1685. Wherein Approving adhering unto all their former Declarations And considering that Iames Duke of York a Profest Excommunicate Papist was proclaimed To testify their resentment of that deed And to make it appear unto the world that they were free thereof by concurrence or connivance They Protest against the foresaid Proclamation of Iames Duke of York as King In regard that it is the choosing of a Murtherer to be a Governour who hath shed the blood of the Saints that it is the hight of Confederacy with an Idolater for bidden by the Law of God contrarie to the Declaration of the Gen. Ass. of the Church Iulij 27. 1649. And contrary to many wholesome laudable Acts of Parliament and inconsistent with the safety faith Conscience Christian Libertie of a Christian People to chuse a subject of Antichrist to be their Supreme Magistrate and to entrust an Enemy to the Work People of God with the Interests of both And upon many important grounds reasons which there they express they Protest against the validity Constitution of that Parliament approving ratifying the foresaid Proclamation And against all kind of Poperie in General Particular heads as abjured by the National Covenant and abrogated by Acts of Parliament and against its entrie again into this Land And every thing that doth or may directly or indirectly make way for the same Disclaiming likewise all Sectarianisme Malignancy and any Confederacy therewith This was their Testimony against Poperie in the season thereof which thô it was not so much condemned as any former Declarations yet neither in this had they the Concurrence of any Ministers or Professors who as they had been silent and omitted a seasonable Testimony against Prelacy and the Supremacy when these were introduced so now also even when this wicked Mysterie Conspiracie of Poperie Tyrannie twisted together in the present designe of Antichrist had made so great a progress and was evidently brought above board they were left to let â—lip this opportunity of a Testimony also to the reproach of the declining far degenerate Church of Scotland Yea to their shame the very rabble of ignorant People may be brought as a witness against the body of Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland in that they testified their detestation of the first Erection of the Idolatrous Mass and some of the souldierie and such as had no Profession of Religion suffered unto death for speaking against Poperie and the designs of the King while the Ministers were silent And some of the Curats and members of the late Parliament 1686. made some stickling against the taking away of the penal Statutes against Papists while Presbyterians from whom might have been expected greater opposition were sleeping in a profound submission I cannot without Confusion of Spirit touch these obvious dolorous reflections and yet in candor cannot forbear them However the Persecution against the Wanderers went on and more cruel Edicts were given forth against them while a relenting abatement of severity was pretended against other Dissenters At length what could not be obtained by Law at the late Parliament for taking off the Statutes against Papists was effectuated by Prerogative and to make it pass with the greater approbation it was convoyed in a channel of pretended Clemency offering a sort of Liberty but really introducing a licencious Latitude for bringing in all future snares by taking off some former as arbitrarly as before they were imposed in a Proclamation dated Feb. 12. 1687. Granting by the Kings Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and absolute power which all Subjects are to obey without reserve a Royal Toleration to the several Professors of the Christian Religion afternamed with under the several Conditions restrictions limitations aftermentioned In the first place tolerating the Moderate Presbyterians to meet in their private houses and there to hear all such Ministers as either have or are willing to accept of the Indulgence allanerly and none other And that there be nothing said or done contrare to the wel peace of his reign seditious or treasonable under the highest pains these Crimes will import nor are they to presume to build Meeting houses or to use out-houses or barns In the mean time it s his Royal will pleasure that Field Conventicles and such as Preach at them or who shall any way assist or connive at them shall be prosecute according to the utmost severity of Lawes made against them In like manner tolerating the Quakers to meet exercise in their forme in any place or places appointed for their Worship And by the same absolute power foresaid suspending stoping disabling all Lawes or Acts of Parliament Customs or Constitutions against any Roman Catholick subjects So that they shall in all things be as free in all respects as any Protestant subjects whatsoever not only to exercise their Religion but to enjoy all Offices benefices c. which he shall think fit to bestow upon them in all time coming And cassing annulling discharging all Oaths whatsoever and Tests and Lawes enjoyning them And in place of them this Oath only is to be taken I A. B. do ackowledge testifie declare that Iames the Seventh c. is rightful King Supreme Governour of these Realms and
Security indispensibly required of him before at his entry to the Government Yet this Liberty cannot be Complyed with without recognoscing his Authority that he arrogates in giving it Seeing he tenders it to all his good Subjects and gives it by his Soveraign Authority and to the end that by the Liberty thereby granted the peace security of the Government in the practice thereof may not be indangered And in the Declaration to England it is offered as an expedient to establish his Government on sach a foundation as may make his Subjects happy and unite them to him by inclination as well as duty to which indeed the Acceptance thereof hath a very apt subserviency seeing it implies not only ouning of the Government out of Duty but an union joyning with it and him by inclination which is a cordial Confederacy with Gods enemie and a cooperating to the establishment of his Tyrannie that the peace security thereof may not be endangered And in his former Proclamation he gives them the same security for their Rights Properties which he gives for Religion And in the English Declaration addeth that to the perfect enjoyment of their Propertie which was never invaded c. Which to accept were not only to take the security of a manifest lie but to prefer the word of a man that cannot must not will not keep it without going cross to his principles to the Security of Right Law which is hereby infringed and to acknowledge not only the Liberty of Religion but the Right of Property to his grant which when ever it is removed there must remain no more Charter for it but stupid slavery entailed upon Posterity and pure perfect Tyranny transmitted to them The sin absurdity where of may be seen demonstrated Head. 2. 4 Considering the Fountain whence it flowes they cannot defile themselves with it In the English Declaration it flowes from the Royal will pleasurâ— which speaks a Domination Despotical Arbitrary enough but more gently expressed than in the Scots Proclamation where it is refounded on Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and Absolute Power Proclaiming by sound of Trumpet à Power Paramount to all Law Reason Religion and outvying the hight of Ottoman Tyranny A Power which all are to obey without resâ—rve A power to Tolerate or Restrain the Protestant Religion according to his Royal will or pleasure An Absolute power which can not be limited by Lawes nor most Sacred Obligations but only regulated by the Royal lust whereby indeed he may suffer the Protestant Religion but only precariously so long as he pleases and until his Royal pleasure shall be to command the establishment of Poperie which then must be complyed with without control Whereby all the tenure that Protestants have for their Religion is only the Arbitrary word of an absolute Monarch whose principles oblige him to break it and his ambition to disdain to be a slave to it Now the Acceptance of this Grant would imply the recognizance of this power that the Granter claims in granting it which utterly disolves all Government and all security for Religion Liberty and all the precious Interests of men Christians Which to acknowledge were contrare to Scripture contrary to Reason and contrary to the Principles of the Church of Scotland particularly the Declaration of the Gen. Ass. Iulij 27. 1649. See pag. 89. c. and contrary to the Covenant 5. Considering the Channel in which it is conveyed they cannot Comply with it Because it comes through such a Conveyance as suspends stops disables all penal Lawes against Papists and thereby everts all the Securities legal Bulwarks that Protestants can have for the establishment of their Religion yea in effect leaves no Lawes in force against any that shall attempt the utter subversion of it but ratiâ—ies leaves in ful vigour all wicked Lawes Acts of Parliament against such as would most avowedly assert it and stops disables none of the most cruel bloody Lawes against Protestants for the most cruel are such as have been made against Field-Meetings which are hereby left in ful force vigour Hence as he hath formally by absolute power suspended all Lawes made for the Protection of our Religion so he may when he will dispense with all the Lawes made for its establishment and those who approve the one by such an Acceptance cannot disallow the other but must recognosce a power in the King to subvert all Lawes Rights Liberties which is contrare to Reason as wel as Religion and a clear breach of the National Solemn League Covenants 6. Considering the Ends of its Contrivance they dare not have any accession to accomplish such wicked Projects to which this Acceptance would be so natively subservient The expressed ends of this Grant are to unite the hearts of his Subjects to him in Loyaltie and to their Neighbours in love as in the former Proclamation And that by the Liberty granted the peace security of his Government in the practice thereof may not be endangered as in the latter Proclamation And to unite the Subjects to him by inclination as well as duty which he thinks can be done by no means so effectually as by granting the free exercise of Religion as in the English Declaration Whence we may gather not obscurely what is the proper tendency of it both as to the work worker to wit to incline induce us by flatterie to a lawless Loyaltie and a stupid contented slavery when he cannot compel us by force and make us actively cooperate in setting settling his Tyranny in the peaceable possession of all his Usurpations Robberies Encroachments upon our Religion Lawes Liberties and to incorporate us with Babylon for wbo are the Neighbours he would have us unite with in love but the Papists against whom all the Lovers of Christ must profess themselves irreconcileable Enemies The English Declaration does further discover the design of this device in one expression which will most easily be obtained to be beleeved of any in it viz. that he heartily wishes that all the People of these Dominions were members of the Catholick Church which clearly insinuates that hereby he would entyce them to commit fornication with that Mother of harlots which entycing to Idolatrie if we consult the Scripture should meet with another sort of entertainment than such a kind thankful Acceptance which is not an opposing of such a wicked wish but an encouraging corroberating of it And further he sayes that all the former tract of Persecutions never obtained the end for which it was employed For after all the frequent pressing endeavours that were used to reduce this Kingdom to an exact conâ—ormity in Religion it is visible the success has not answered the design and that the difficultie is invincible Wherein we may note his extorted acknowledgment that all former endeavours to destroy the Work of God have been
the Innocency of Sufferers may more clearly appear 1. They can accuse whom they will of what they please And if by summar Citation he will not may be because he cannot compear if once his Name be in their Porteous rolls that is sufficient to render him convict 2. They used also to seize some and shut them up in Prison year day without any signification of the cause of their imprisonment 3. They can pick any man off the Street and if he do not answer their Captious Questions proceed against him to the utmost of severity as they have taken some among the Croud at Executions imposed upon them the Questions 4. They can also go through all the houses of the City as well as the Prisons and examine all families upon the Questions of the Councils Catechisme upon the hazard of their life if they do not answer to their satisfaction as hath been done in Edinburgh 5. When any are brought in by Seisure sometimes as is said before they let them lie long without any hearing if they expect they cannot reach them But if they think they can win at them any way then they hurry them in such hast that they have no time to deliberate upon and oftentimes have no knowledgâ— or conjecture of the matter of their Prosecution Yea if they be never so insignificant they will take Diversion from their weightiest affairs to examine take Cognizance of poor Things if they understand they dare vent or avow any respect to the Cause of Christ And the silliest body will not escape their Catechization about affairs of State what they think of the Authority c. 6. If they be kept in Prison any space they take all wayes to pump and discover what can be brought in against them Yea sometimes they have exactly observed that Device of the Spanish Inquisition in suborning sending Flies among them under the disguise shew of Prisoners to search find out their minds who will outstrip all in an Hypocritical zeal thereby to extort draw forth words from the most wary which may be brought in judgement against them the next day 7. When Prisoners are brought in before them they have neither Lybel nor Accuser but must answer super inquirendis to all Questions they are pleased to ask 8. If at any time they forme a sort of Lybel they will not restrict themselves to the Charges thereof but examine the person about other things altogether extraneous to the Lybel 9. They have frequently suborned Witnesses and have sustained them as Witnesses who either were sent out by themselves as Spies Inteâ—ligencers or who palpably were known to delate those against whom they witnessed out of a pick prejudice and yet would not suâ—â—er them to be cast for partial Counsel 10. If they suppose a man to be wary circumspect and more prudent than forward in the Testimony then they multiply questions and at first many impertinent Interrogations having no Connexion with the Cause to try his humour freedom that they may know how to deal with him And renew reiterate several Criminal examinations that they may know whereof and find matter wherein to indyte him by endeavouring to confound or intrap or involve him in Confessions or Contradictions by wresting his words 11. They will admit no time for advice nor any Lawful defence for a delay but will have them to answer presently except they have some hopes of their Complyance and find them begining to stagger succumb in the Testimony in that case when a man seeks time to advise they are animated to a keenness to impose and encouraged to an expectation of Catching by their snares which then they contrive prepare with greater cunning 12. If a man should answer all their questions and clear himself of all things they can alledge against him yet they used to impose some of the Oaths that they concluded he would not take and according to the measure of the tenderness they discovered in any man so they apportioned the Oaths to trap them to the Stricter the smoother Oaths to the Laxer the more odious that all natural Consciences did scar at 13. They will not only have their Lawes obeyed but subscribed And they reckon not their Subjects obedience secured by the Law-makers sanction but the Peoples hand-writing And think it not sufficient that People transgress no Lawes but they must also oune the justice of them and the Authority that enacts them and swear to maintain it And yet when some have done all this and cleared themselves by all Complyances they will not discharge them but under a bond to answer again when called 14. They will have their Lawes to reach not only actions but thoughts and therefore they require what People think of the Bishops death and of Bothwel Insurection And whether they oune the Authority when they can neither prove their disouning of it nor any way offending it 15. They will have men to declare their thoughts and hold them convict if they do not answer Positively all their Captious questions And if they will not tell what they think of this or that then they must go as guilty 16. If they insist in waving and will not give Categorical Answers then they can extort all and prove what they please by torture And when they have extorted their thoughts of things thô they be innocent as to all actions their Law can charge them with then they used to hang them when they had done 17. They have wheedled men sometimes into Confession either of Practices or Principles by promising to favour their ingenuity and upbraiding them for dissemblers if they would not and by mock-expostulations why were they ashamed to give a Testimony And then make them sign their Confessions at the Council to bring them in as a witness against them at the Criminal Court. 18. Yea not only extrajudicial Confession will sustain in their Law but when they have given the Publick faith the Kings security the Act Oath of Council that their Confesion shall not militate against them they have brought it in as witness against them and given it upon Oath when their former Oath Act was produced in open Court in demonstration of their perjurie 19. When the matter comes to an Assize or Cognizance of a Iurie they use to pack them for their purpose and pick out such as are listed who they think will not be bloody enough 20. Sometimes when the Jurie hath brought their verdict in favours of the Pannal they have made them sit doun resume the Cognition of the Case again and threatened them with an Assize of errour if they did not â—ring him in guilty 21. Yea most frequently the Kings Advocate used to Command them to Condemn and bring in the Pannal Guilty under most peremptory Certification of punishment if they should not so that they needed â—o Juries but only for the fashion 22. Sometimes they have sentenced innocent
visible Kingdom of which the Government is layd upon His shoulders against the heaven-daring Usurpations encroachments made thereupon both as He is Mediator King Head of the Church and as He is God Universal King of the world As He is Mediator it is His Peculiar Prerogative to have a Supremacy Sole Soveraignty over His oun Kingdom to institute His oun Government to constitute His oun Lawes to ordain His oun Officers to appoint His oun Ordinances which He will have observed without alteration addition or diminution untill His Second Coming This His Prerogative hath been is invaded by Erastian Prelacy Sacrilegious Supremacy and now by Antichristian Poperie which have overturned His Government inverted His Lawes subverted His Officiers Perverted His Ordinances As He is God Universal King it is His in communicable Property Glory not only to have Absolute Illimited Power but to invest his Deputed Ministers of Justice with His Authority Ordinance of Magistracy to be administred in subordination to Him to be regulated by His Lawes and to be improved for His Glory the good of Mankind This Glory of His hath been invaded by Tyrants Usurpers arrogating to themselves an Absolute Power intruding themselves without His investment into Authority in a Rebellion against Him in opposition to His Lawes and abusing it to His dishonour and the destruction of Mankind Against both which Encroachments the Present Testimony is stated in a Witness for Religion Liberty to both which these are destructive This will appear to be the Result Tendency of the Testimony in all its parts opposed by the Enemies of Religion Liberty and the end of all their oppositions to bring it to this Crinomenon who shall he King Iesus or Cesar Let any seriously search into all their Proclamations Edicts against Religion Liberty this will be found to be the soul sense of them practically Really speaking to this purpose especially since this man came to the Throne J. R. JAmes the 7 2 by the V. of G. King of Scotland England France Ireland Defender of the Antichristian faith To'all sundry our good subjects whom these presents do or many concern Greeting We having taken into our Royal Consideratiâ—n the many great inconveniences which have happened in that our Ancient Kingdom of Scotland especially of late years through the persuasions of the Christian Religion the great heats animosities betuixt the Professors therof and our good faithful subjects whose faith Religion is subject subservient to our Royal will the Supreme Law Reason publick Conscience to the disappointment of our Projects restraint of our pleasures and Contempt of the Royal power Convertingâ— true Loyaltie absolute subjection into words names which we care not for of Religion Liberty Conscience the Word of God thereby withdrawing some to the Christian faction from an absolute implicite subjection to us our will as if there were a Superiour Law to which they might appeal And considering that these Rebellious Christians do never cease to assert maintain strange Paradoxes such Principles as are inconsistent with the glory interest of our Government as that the Authority of Kings should be hem'd in with Limits and that their Acts Actions are to be examined by another rule than their oun Authority to make them Lawful that somethings in the Kingdom are not subject to the Kings Authority That there is a Kingdom within a Kingdom not subordinate to the King And that there is another King Superior to the Supreme whom they will rather obey than us And that we must either take Laws from Him or otherwise we are not Magistrats And Considering also their Practices are Conforme to their Principles They will not obey our Lawes but the Lawes of Another inconsistent with ours and will calculate their Religion according to His Lawes and not according to ours And continually make their Addresses to and receive Ambassadours from a Prince whom we know not whom our Predicessors of truely worthy memory did crucify One Iesus who was dead whom they affirm to be alive whose Government they alledge is Supreme over all Kings Whom they acknowledge but as His Vassals Being now by favourable fortune not only brought to the Imperial Croun of these Kingdoms through the greatest difficulties but preserved upon the throne of our Royal Ancestors which from our Great founder Nimrod of Glorious Memory and our Illustrious Predecessors Pharaoh Nebuchadnezzar Herod the Great Nero Caligula c. of blessed pious Memory hath been ever opposite to and projecting the Destruction of that Kingdom of Christ Do after their Laudable example resolve to suppress that Kingdom by all the means might we can use because His Government is hateful to us His yoke heavy His sayings are hard His Lawes are contrary to our lusts Therefore we will not let this man reign over us we will break His bonds and cast away His Cords from us And advance exerce our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power which all our subjects are to obey without reserve And as by virtue of our Supremacy whereby we are above all but such as we are pleased to subject our selves to settled by Law and Lineally Derived to us as an Inherent right to the Croun we have Power to order all matters of Church as well as State as we in our Royal wisdom shall think fit All Laws Acts of Christ to the contrary notwithstanding And accordingly in our Royal wisdom have overturned the plat-form of that Government which Christ hath instituted razed all Courts fenced in His Name and severely interdicted all Meetings of His subjects and intertainment of His Ambassadours many of whom in contempt of Him that sent them we have punished according to Law for negotiating His Affairs in our Kingdoms without our pleasure requiring Allegiance obedience to Him after we had exauctorated Him we have also established our Right Trusty Entirely beloved Clerks in Ecclesiastick affairs and their underlings by our Authority to have the Administration of the business of Religion and impowered our Right Trusty well beloved Cousins Counsellers to Compell all to submitt to them by Finings Confinings Imprisonment Banishment Oaths Bonds and all Legal means So now having prosecuted this war against Christ to this length that we have no fears of a Rally of His forces again so often beaten we are now engaged with other Antichristian Princes to give our Power to our holy Father Antichrist so far as may serve his purpose to oppse Christ in his way but we reserve so much to our seeves as may encroach upon Him in our Capacity And therefore we have thought fit to restore to Antichrist our Ecclesiastical Supremacy from whom we borrowed it and for which we have no use at present But we resolve to maintain prosecute our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and
Absolute Power foresaid against Christ and without subordation to Him from whom as we sought none so we received no Power by His Warrant Grant and against whom we mind to manage it to the utter most of out power Yet reflecting upon the Conduct of the four last Reigns how after all the frequent pressing endeavours that were used in each of them to reduce our Kingdoms to Antichrist the Subjects of Christ were so stubborn that the success hath not answered the designe We must now change our Methods alitle and tollerate that Profession of Christ which we cannot yet get overturned His Subjects being so numerous but alwayes upon these termes that they take aspecial care that nothing be Preached or taught among them which may be a Testimony for Christs Prerogatives in opposition to our Usurpation or may any way tend to alienate the hearts of our People from us or our Government or Preach his Truths which we have condemned as Seditious Treasonable under the highest pains these Crimes will import Hereby we shall establish our Government on such a foundation on the ruine of Christs as may make our subjects happy and unite them to us by Inclination as well as Duty in a belief that we will not constrain Conscience in matters of meer Religion for which we have a Dispensation from our holy-Father and also from our oun Absoluteness to be slaves to this Promise no longer then consists with our Interest And which we have power to Interpret as we please And would have all to understand that no Testimony for Christs Supremacy against our Encroachments thereupon shall be Comprehended under these Matters of meer Religion â—or which the Conscience shall not be constrained But we will have the Consciences of such Subjects of his that dare assert it brought to a Test probation how they stand affected in this Competition betuixt us this King Iesus and see whether they will oune or decline our Authority because not of him nor for him nor to him but against him all his Interests Our will is therefore that all who will Countenance any other Meetings of His Subjects than we have allowed or connive at them shall be prosecuted according to the utmost severity of our Lawes made against them which we leave in full force vigour notwithstanding of the Premises And for this effect we further Command all our Iudges Magistrats Officers of our Forces to prosecute all these Subjects Followers of Christ who shall be guilty of treating with or paying homage to that exauctorated King of theirs in their Assemblies with His Ambassadours in the Fields with the utmost rigor as they would avoid our highest Displeasure for we are confident none will after these Liberties freedoms we have given to all without reserve to serve God Publickly in such a way as we by our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power foresaid have prescribed allowed presume to meet in these Assemblies except such whose Loyaltie to Christ doth alienate them from us our Government As also under the same Certifications by the same Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power foresaid We charge impower warrand Authorize against all hazards Hell excepted all our foresaid Judges Officers in their respective places to Prosecute execute our Lawes against all that may be suspected or convicted of their Adherence to Christ or be found guilty of ouning their Allegiance to Him as their Liege Lord by Solemn Covenant which we have caused burn by the hand of the hangman and declared Criminal to oune it or shall be found guilty of declining Allegiance to us our Absolute Authority stated in opposition to Him His or of maintaining that pernicious Principle inconsistent with our Government that their lives are their oun which they will preserve without surrender to our Mercy All which we Command to be executed to death or banished as Slaves as shall be found most conducible to our Interest And to the end the few that remain of that way may be totally exterminated we straitly Command all our Souldiers Horse Foot to be ready upon order to march make search pursue follow seise apprehend kill slay cause to perish all such whether they shall be found at Meetings or in their wanderings wherever they may be apprehended And ordain all our good Subjects to be assistent to these our Forces in prosecuting this War against Christ and his Followers and Contribute their best help encouragement in giving them their required Maintinance duely paying the Cess Locality imposed for that end And that they shall not dare to Countenance Converse with resett harbour supply or keep any manner of Correspondence with any of these Traitors that adhere to Christ under the pain of being found airt part with them and obnoxious to the same Punishments to which they are lyable But on the contrary to Assist our Forces to apprehend and raise the Hue Cry after them wherever they shall be seen that they may be forthwith purswed seised cut off destroyed which we order to be instantly done upon the place where â—â—ey or any of them are apprehended that without any delay or mercy to age or sexe c. On the other hand if any will take a look of the Declarations Testimonies of the other Party without prejudice or stumbling at some Expressions which may be offensive to Criticks he will find the Scope Strain of them to have this Importance WE a Poor Company of Persecuted reproached despised Christians who indeed have not many wise men among us after the flesh not many mighty not many noble but are a few foolish weak base despised nothings in the world Yet having this Ambition to be His called chosen faithful Souldiers who is King of Glory King of Heaven King of Saints King of Nations King of Kings whose Kingdom is Everlasting Universal Considering the many insolent indignities affronts reproaches cast upon His Name Glory and the many Usurpations Encroachments Invasions made upon His Croun dignity by a Pestilent Generation of His Atheistical Papistical Prelatical Tyrannical Enemies who have rebelled against Him and have renounced corrupted subverted His Royal Government both in the Church in the world both in His Kingdom of Grace and of Power Do bear Witness Testimony against these Rebels from the Highest to the Lowest And assert the Interest Title of our Princely Master and oune Allegiance absolute obedience to Him and His Government to which He hath all undoubted right An Essential right by His Eternal God head being the Everlasting Father whose goings forth have been of old from Everlasting A Covenant right by Compact with the Father to bear the Glory and rule upon His Throne by virtue of the Council of Peace between them both A Donative right by the Fathers right of Delegation by which He hath
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
Gospel destruction of many poor Souls But through the ignorance neglect of this Duty of trying whom we should hear by seeking some satisfieing evidence of their being cloathed with Authority from Christ the world hath been left louse in a Licence to hear what they pleased and so have received the Poison of error from Monte banks instead of the true wholesome Potions of Christs Prescripts from them that had Power skill to administer them Hence the many Sects Schismes errors that have Pestered the Church in all ages have in a great measure proceeded from this latitude laxness of Promiscous hearing of all whom they pleased whom either the worlds Authority impowered or by other means were possessed of the place of Preaching without taking any Cognizance whether they had the Characters of Christs Ambassadours or not If this had been observed and People had scrupled refused to hear these whom they might know should not have Preached neither the Great Antichrist nor the many lesser Antichrists would have had such footing in the world as they have this day It is then of no small Consequence to have this Question cleared Neither is it of small difficulty to solve the intricacies of it what Characters to fix for a discovery of Christs true Ministers whom we should submit to obey in the Lord and Love esteem them for their Works sake and for their qualities sake as standing in Christs stead having the dispensation of the word of Reconciliation committed to them And how we may discern those Characters what judgment is incumbent to private Christians for the satisfaction of theiroun Consciences in the Case And how they ought to demean themselves in their practice with out Scandal on either hand or sin against their oun Conscience how to avoid the rocks Extremes that inadvertency or precipitancy in this matter may rush upon So as to escape sail by the Scylla of sinful Separation on the one hand and the Charybdis of sinful union Communion on the other which are equally dangerous especially how these Cautions are to be managed in a broken and disturbed divided Case of the Church The Question also is the more difficult that as it was never so much questioned before this time and never so much sought to be obscured by the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds to find out evasions to cover sin escape sufferings upon this account So it hath never been discussed by Divines either at home or abroad with relation to our Case except what hath been of late by some faithful men who have suffered upon this head from whom I shall gather the most of my Arguments in as Compendious a way as I can without wronging them The reason I fancy that we are at such a loss in our helps from the Learned on this head is partly that they have written with relation to their oun times in a Constitute Case of the Church when Corruptions disorders might be orderly rectified and people might have access to get their scruples removed in a Legal way by Church-order in which case the Learned Judicious Mr Durham hath written excellently in his book on Scandal but therein neither he nor others did consult nor could have a prospect of such a case as ours is And partly that forreign Divines not having this for their exercise could not be acquainted with our circumstantiate case and so are not fit nor Competent Arbiters to decide this Contraversie hence many of them do wonder at our sufferings upon this head Every Church is best acquainted with her oun Testimony Yet we want not the suffrage of some of the Learnedst of them as the Great Gisb. Voetius in his Polit Eccles. in several places comes near to favour us where he allowes People to leave some hear such Ministers as they profit most by from these grounds that people should chuse the best most edifying gifts and from that scripture 1 Thess. 5. 21. Prove all things c. and answers objections to the contrare and granteth that upon several occasions one may abstain from explicite Communion with a Corrupt Church for these reasons that such Communion is not absolutely necessary Necessitate either Medii or Precepti where the Christian shall have more peace of Conscience and free exercise of Christian Duties elswhere And that he may keep Communion with more Purity in other places Polit. Ecces Quest. 17. Pag. 68. And he approves of People refusing to bring their Children to be baptized by such Corrupt Ministers because they may wait until they have occasion of a Minister for if the best gifts be to be Coveted why should not the best Ministers be preferred and why should not Christians shew by their deeds that they honour such as fear the Lord contemn a vile Person They ought not to partake of other mens sins 1 Cor. 5. 9. 11. Eph. 5. 11. They should not strengthen the hands of the wicked and make sad the Godly The Authority of such Ministers should not be strengthened Voet. Polit Eccles. Pag. 637. to 640. But though it labour under all these disadvantages yet it is not the less but so much the rather necessary to say somwhat to clear it with dependance upon light from the Fountain and with the help of those faithful men who hath sufficiently cleared it up to all that have a Conscience not blinded or bribed with some prejudices by which more light hath accrued to the Church in this point of withdrawing from Corrupt Ministers 〈◊〉 ever was attained in former times which is all the good we have got of Prelacy In so much that I might spare labour in adding any thing were it not that I would make the Arguments vindicating this Cause of suffering alitle more publick and take occasion to shew that the grounds espoused by the Present reproached party for their withdrawings so far as they are stretched are no other than have been ouned by our writers on this head to the intent it may appear there is no Discrepancy but great likness harmony between the Arguments Grounds of withdrawing in the late Informatorie Vindication c. and those that are found in other writings And so much the rather I think it needful to touch this subject now that not only this hath been the first ground of our sufferings but many that suffered a while for it now have fainted and condemned all their former Contendings for this Part of the Testimony calling in question all these reasons that formerly satisfied ' them But to proceed with some distinctness in this thorny point Some Concessory Assertions must first be premitted And then Our Grounds Propounded First I willingly yeeld to Cordially close with the Truth of these Assertions I. The Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace ought to be the Endeavour of all that are members of the One Body of Christ Partakers of his One Spirit
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
Church but in a way of Dependence upon subordination to Christ as King who ascending far above Principalities Powers appointed gave the Gifts of the Ministry Eph. 4. 8. 11. and set them in the Church 1. Cor. 12. 28. and gave them commission to go teach the Nations by virtue of that all Power that was given to Him in Heaven Earth Math. 28. 18 19. If then they take a new holding close with a new Conveyance of the Ministrie and of the Power to exercise the same from a new Architectonick usurped Power in the Church encroaching on Christs Royal prerogative we dare not Homologat such an affront to Christ as to give them the respect of His Ambassadours when they become the servants of men and subject even in Ministerial functions to another Head then Christ for then they are the Ministers of men by men and not by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead because they do not hold the Head Col. 2. 19. Hence those that receive derive their Church-Power from and are subordinate in its exercise to another Head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the Ministers of Christ in His Church But the Prelats their curats do receive derive their Church Power from are subordinate in its exercise to another Head then Christ Therefore they should not be received c. The first Proposition cannot be denyed The Second is proved thus Those officers in the Church Professing themselves such that derive their Church-Power from are subordinate in its exercise to a Power truly Architectonick Supreme in the Church to wit the Magistrate beside Christ Do derive their Power from are subordinate in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus But so it is that Prelats their Curats do derive c. Ergo The Major is evident for whosoever hath a Supreme Architectonick Power in over the Church must be a Head to the same and the fountain of all Church Power The Minor is also clear from the foregoing Historical Deduction manifesting the Present Prelacy to be Gross Erastianisme for the disposal of the Government of the Church is declared by Law to be the Croun right and an inherent perpetual Prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored to the Episcopal function And it is expressly Declared that there is no Church Power in the Church-office bearers but what depends upon is subordinate unto the Supremacy and authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to the King for the Administration By virtue of which Ecclesiastick Supremacy He put excomunication spiritual Censures consequently the Power of the Keyes into the hands of Persons meerly Civil in the Act for the High Commission Hence it is clear that as the fountain of all Church Government he imparts his Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Commissioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick power which is originally in Himself and that the Curats are only His under Clerks All the stress will lie in proving that this Monster of a Supremacy from which the Prelats their Curats have all their Authority is a Great Encroachment on the Glory of Christ as King which will appear if we briefly consider these Particulars 1. It usurps upon Christs Prerogative who only hath all undoubted right to this Architectonick Magisterial Dominion over the Church His oun Mediatory Kingdom not only an Essential right by His Eternal Godhead being the Everlasting Father whose goings forth hath been of old from Everlasting Isa. 9. 6. Mic. 5. 2. in recognizance of which we oune but one God the Father and one Lord by whom are all things we by Him 1. Cor. 8. 6. But also a Covenant-right by Compact with the Father to bear the Glory rule upon His Throne by virtue of the Counsel of Peace between them both Zech. 6. 13. A Donative right by the Fathers Delegation by which He hath all power given in Heaven in Earth Math. 28. 18. and all things given unto His hand Iohn 3. 35. and all judgment Authority to execute it even because He is the Son of man Iohn 5. 22 27. and to be Head over all things to the Church Eph. 1. 22. An Institute right by the Fathers inaugaration who hath set Him as King in Zion Psal. 2. 6. and appointed Him Governour that shall rule His people Israel Math. 2. 6. 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 Phil. 2. 9. which is that He is the Head of the Church which is as much His Peculiar Prerogative as to be Saviour of the body Eph. 5. 23. A Bellical right by Conquest making the people fall under Him Psal. 45. 4. and be willing in the Day of His power Psal. 110. 3. and overcoming those that make war with Him Rev. 17. 14. An Hereditary right by Proximity of blood Primogeniture being the first born higher then the Kings of the Earth Psal. 89. 27. and the first born from the dead that in all things He might have the preeminence Col. 1. 18. An Elective right by His peoples choise surrender having a Croun wherewith His Mother Crouned Him in the day of His Espousals Cant 3. ult By all which undoubted Titles It is His Sole incommunicable Prerogative without a Copartner or Competitor Coordinate or subordinate to be Iudge only Lawgiver King in Spirituals Isa. 33. 22. to be that one Lawgiver Iam. 4. 12. who only can give the power of the keyes to His officers which Comprehends all the power they have Math. 16. 19. to be that one Master over all Church officers who are but brethren Math. 23. 8 10. in whose Name only they must perform all Church Acts and all Parts of their Ministry and not in the Name of any Mortal Math. 28. 18. 19. Math. 18. 20. from whom only they receive what ever they have to deliver to the Church 1. Cor. 11. 23. To be the only Instituter of His Officers who hath set them in the Church 1. Cor. 12. 28. and gave them to the Church Eph. 4. 11. whose Ambassadours only they are 2. Cor. 5. 20. from whom they have authority for edification of the Church 2 Cor. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 10. in whose Name only they are to assemble and keep fence their Courts both the least Math. 18. 20. and the Greatest Act. 15. But now all this is usurped by one who is not so much as a Church member let be a Church Officer as such for the Magistrate is neither as he is a Magistrate otherwise all Magistrats would be Church members Hence they that have all their power from a meer usurper on Christs Prerogative who is neither member nor officer of the Church have none
at all to be ouned or received as His Lawful Ambassadours But the Prelats their Curats have all their power from a meer usurper on Christs Prerogative who is neither Member nor officer of the Church Ergo 2. It confounds the Mediatory Kingdom of Christ with subjects it to the Kingly Government of the world removes the Seripture Land Marks Limits between civil Ecclesiastick Powers in making the Governours of the State to be Governours of the Church and denying all Church Government in the hands of Church officers Distinct from independent upon the civil Magistrat which clearly derogats from the Glory of Christs Mediatory Kingdom which is altogether distinct from not subordinate to the Government of the world both in the Old Testament in the New. For they have distinct fountains whence they flow civil Government flowes from God Creator Church Government from Christ the Lord Redeemer Head King of His Church whose Kingdom is not of this world Iohn 18. 36. though for this end He came into the world that He should have a Kingdom there vers 37. They have distinct Objects civil Government hath a civil object the out ward man Church Government a Spiritual object men considered as Christians In the Old Testament the matters of the Lord are clearly distinguished from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. ult In the new Testament there are matters of Church Cognizance which do not at all belong to the civil Magistrate as in the case of offence they must tell the Church not the civil Magistrate Math. 18. 15. 20. In the case of Excommunication the Church is to act by virtue of the power of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. not by the Magistrats power In the case of Absolution the Church is to Iudge what Punishment is sufficient and what evidence of repentance is sufficient to remove it 2 Cor. 2. 6. 7. So in the case of Tryal ordination of Ministers c. None of these belong to the Magistrate They have distinct Natures The civil is a Magisterial the Ecclesiastick is a Minsterial Government the one is the power of the sword the other of the Keyes The one put forth in Political Punishments the other in Ecclesiastick Censures In the Old Testament the Magistrats power was Coactive by death banishment Confiscation c. Ezra 7. 26. The Church by puting out of the Synagogue interdiction from Sacred things c. In the New Testament The Magistrats power is described Rom. 13. to be that of the sword by punishment the power of the Church only in binding Loosing Math. 16. 19. They have distinct Ends the end of the one being the good of the Common wealth the other the Churches Edification In the Old Testament the end of the civil Government was one thing and of the Church another to wit to warn not to trespass against the Lord in that forecited 2. Chron. 19. 10. In the New Testament the end of Magistratical power is to be a terror to evil works a praise te the good Rom. 13. 3. but the end of Church power is Edification 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 2. Cor. 13. 10. They have distinct Courts of officers In the Old Testament the distinction of the civil Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin is known where there were distinct causes Persons set over them to judge them respectively 2. Chron. 19. ult In the New Testament we find officers given unto the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. with no mention of the civil Magistrate at all And Church-Assemblies distinct from Parliaments or senats yea when the Magistrate was an Enemy determining questions that did not belong to the Magistrate at all Act. 15. we have Rulers distinct from the Rulers of the Common wealth 1 Thess. 5. 12. whom we are to obey and submit our selves as those who are accountable to Christ only for to whom else can they give account of souls Heb. 13. 17. we have Rulers inferiour to Labourers in word doctrine not to be honoured so much as they Sure these cannot be civil Rulers 1 Tim. 5. 17. we have Rulers commended for trying Impostors which were not Magistrats Rev. 2. 2. And others who are rebuked for suffering Hereticks ibid. vers 14 15 20. which supposes they had Authority to do it yet distinct from not depending on the Magistrate Besides from this confusion of the two Governments together and making the Supreme Magistrate to be Supreme Governour of the Church would follow many absurdities as that They who are not Church members should be Church officers even Heathen Magistrats yea women should be Church officers and none should be chosen for Magistrats but such as have the qualifications of Church officers Sic Apol. Relat. Sect. 12. pag. 190. Rectius Instruen Confut. 1 Dial. chap. 6. pag. 50. Hence they that in deriving their Authority do confound the tuo Governments civil Ecclesiastick and take it all from a meer civil power cannot be ouned as having any Authority of Christs Institution But the Prelats their Curats in deriving their Authority do confound the tuo Governments civil Ecclesiastick and take it all from a meer civil power This same Argument equally militates against hearing the Indulged Ministers who have taken a Licence warrand from the Usurper of this Supremacy because it is highly injurious to Christs Headship very contrary to to Presbyterian Principles clearly Homologatorie of the Supremacy plainly Prejudicial to the power of the people very much establishing Erastianisme Sadly obstructive destructive to the good of the Church wronging our cause ground of suffering Strengthening the Prelats hands contradictory to our Covenants Prejudging the Meetings of Gods people and heinously Scandalous offensive As is clear by unanswerably poven in the History of the Indulgence IV. There is a necessity that any man whom we may Joine with as a Minister must not only be a minister and a Minister cloathed with Christs commission then when we Joins with Him but He must also have a right to administer there where we Ioin with Him. Else we can look upon him no otherwise than a thief a robber whom Christs sheep should not hear Io. 10. 1-5 Now the Prelats Curats though they should he accounted acknowledged Ministers yet they have not a right to officiate where they have intruded themselves Hence we have several Arguments as 1. They who have no just Authority nor right to officiate fixedly in this Church as the proper Pastors of it ought not to be Received but withdrawen from But the Prelats their Curats have no just Authority or right to officiate in this Church as her proper Pastors Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawen from All the debate is about the Minor which may thus be made good They who have entered into do officiate fixedly in this Church without her Authority Consent have no right so to do But the Prelats
hour of tentation and hold it fast that no man take our Croun Rev. 3. 10 11. All Truth must be avowed practically avowed on the greatest hazard And as this Testimony must be full so must it be also constant It was Demass shame that the afflictions of the Gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ And therefore whatever Truth or Duty is opposed that becomes the special object of this Testimony Rectius Instruend Consut 3. Dial. chap. 1. pag. 18. 19. Hence if Hearing of the Curats would infer involve us under the guilt both of commission of sin and omission os Duty then we cannot hear them without sin But the former is true Therefore also the Latter I prove the Minor by Parts First that it would infer involve us under the guilt of Commisssion of sin All that is said above doth evince it And besides palpable breach of Covenant hereafter to be charged cleared And Idolatrie is a great sin of that naâ—ur but the hearing of the Curats doth infer this Which may be made out thus The breach of the sceond Commandment is Idolatrie for to make the sins against that Command odious they are all commprehended under that odious name of worshipping Images as the sins against the seventh are called Adultrie comprehending all unchast thoughts words actions Hearing of Curats is a breach of the second Command Ergo The Minor I prove thus Every worship not according to Christs appointment is a breach of the second Commandment But hearing of Curats is a worship not according to Christs appointment Which I prove thus A worship enjoined by and performed in obedience to a Law establishing a humane Ordinance in the Church besides and against the Institution of Christ is a worship not according to Christs appointment But the hearing of Curats is a worship enjoined by and performed in obedience to a Law establishing a humane Ordinance to wit Diocesan Erastian Prelacy with the Curats their substitutes Hence also the second doth follow by necessary consequence that it would infer involve us under the guilt of Omission of Duty For first if reductively it may involve us under the guilt of Idolatrie breach of the second Commandment then it will infer the guilt of omission of these necessary Duties incumbent to the Lords people with a reference to Idolatry to make no Covenant with them nor with their Gods nor let them dwell in the Land lest they make us sin Exod. 23. 32 33 Exod. 34. 14 15. to overthrow their Altars break their Pillars and destroy the names of them out of the place Deut. 12. 3. Iudg 2. 2. I do not adduce these precepts to stretch them to the full measure of the demerit of the grossest of Idolaters for as there are degrees of breaches or the Commandment some grosser some smaller so there are also degrees of punishment and as to the manner of destroying extirpating all pieces of Idolatry But that the Commands being founded upon a Moral ground lest they 〈◊〉 snares unto us do oblige us to some endeavour 〈…〉 extirpating overthrowing all Pieces or 〈◊〉 according to the word and our Covenants And 〈…〉 true right Zeal of God should and would not only inspire all with an unanimous aversion against the profane intruding Curats but animate us as one man to drive away these wolves theives and to eradicate these plants which our heavenly Father never planted Napht. Prior edit pag. 108. The least Duty that can be inferred is that of the Apostles flee from Idolatry 1 Co 10. 14. which Idolatry there mentioned to be avoided is to eat of the sacrifices offered to Idols whence we infer that if to eat of things consecrated to Idols be Idolatrie then also to partake of Sacred things consecrated by Idols must be Idolatry as the Curats dispensing of Ordinances is consecrated by hath all its Sanction from an Iâ—ol of Diocesan Erastian Prelacy But we see the Apostle expresses the former Therefore we may infer the Latter Further it will also infer a declining from denying a Necessary Testimony in the case circumstantiated Even the smallest matter is great when a Testimony is concerned in it were it but the circumstance of an open window Daniel durst not omitt it upon the greatest hazard And now this is clearly come to a case of confession when there is no other way to exoner our consciences befor God the world and declare our Non-conformity to this course of backsliding no getting of wrongs redrest or corruptions in the Ministry removed but by this practice And certainly some way we must give publick Testimony against these courses and there is no otherway so harmless innocent as this though suffering follow upon it Apol. Relat. Sect. 14. 272. 273. And now there is no other way apparent whereby the difference shall be kept up betuixt such as honestly mind the Covenanted work of Reformation and the corrupt Prelatical Malignant Enemies but this Argument also will infer the expediency of withdrawing from all Ministers with whom our circumstantiat Joyning would involve us in a participation with their defections IX As we would endeavour to avoid Sin in our selves So we must have a care to give no occasion of others sinning by our taking Liberty in a promiscuous Joining in Church Communion whereby we may offend stumble the consciences of others for to that in this as well as in other things we must have a special respect and forbear things not only for our oun unclearness but for the sake of others also If therefore the Hearing of Curats be a Scandal we must refuse it be the hazard what will. For who so shall offend one of Christs little ones it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck Math. 18. 6. No man must put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brothers way Rom. 14. 13. They that sin so against the brethren and wound their weak Conscience they sin against Christ 1 Cor. 8. 12. we must forbear somthings for conscience sake conscience I say not our oun but of others giving none offence neither to the Iewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 1. Cor. 10. 28 29 32. and so cut off all occasion from them that desire occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. These Commands discharge whatever Practice give occasion of our brothers sinning of calling Truth in question of acting with a doubting conscience or which weakens his Plerophory or assurance And neither the Lawfulness nor indifferency of the thing it self nor mens Authority commanding it nor the weakness yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled will warrand the doing of that out of which offence arises Rectius Instruend Confut. 3. Dial. chap. 1. pag. 19. Mr Durham in that forecited place saith It carries offence along with it in reference to the partie who runs unsent it proves a strengthening
questions to be answered when impertinently interrogate but may be both Cautiously Conscienciously waved We have Christs oun practice his faithful servant Pauls example for a Pattern of such prudence Christian caution But yet it were cruel unchristian rigour to censure such as out of a pious principle of zeal to God conscience of duty do freely positively declare their judgment in an absolute disouning of their pretended Authority when posed with such Questions though to the manifest detriment of their lives they Conscienciously looking upon it as a case of confession For where the Lord hath not peremptorily astricted His Confessors to such rules of prudence but hath both promised and usually gives His Spirits Conduct encouraging animating them to boldness so as before hand they should not take thought how or what they shall speak and in that same hour they find it given them it were presumption for us to stint them to our rules of prudence We may indeed find rules to know what is a case of confession but hardly can it be determined what Truth or duty we are questioned about is not or may not be a case of confession And who can deny but this may be in some circumstances a case of confession even Positively to disoune the pretended Authority of a bloody Court or Council when either they go out of their Sphere taking upon them Christs Supremacy and the Cognizance of the concerns of His Croun whereof they are Judges no ways Competent then they must freely faithfully be declined Or when to the dishonour of Christ they blaspheme His Authority and the Sacred boundaries He hath prescribed to all humane Authority and will assert an illimited absolute Authority refusing discharging all offered Legal Scriptural restrictions to be put thereupon as hath been the case of the most part of these worthy though poor Martyrs who have died upon this head then they must think themselves bound to disoune it Or when they have done some cruel indignity despight to the Spirit of God and to Christ His prerogative Glory and work of Reformation and people in murdering them without Mercy and imposing this ouning of their King by whose Authority all is acted as a condemnation of these witnesses of Christ their Testimony and a justification of their bloody cruelties against them which hath frequently been the case of these poor people that have been staged upon this account In this case and several others of this sort that might be mentioned then they may be free Positive in disouning this Test of wicked Loyaltie as the mark of the Dragon of the secular beast of Tyranny And in many such cases when the Lord gives the Spirit I see no reason but that Christs witnesses must follow His Pattern of zeal in the case of confession which He witnessed before Pontius Pilate in asserting His oun Kingship as they may in other cases follow His Pattern of Prudence And why may we not imitate the zeal of Stephen who called the Council before whom he was staged stiff necked resisters of the Holy Ghost Persecuters of the Prophets and betrayers Murderers of Christ the Just one as well as the Prudence of Paul But however it be the present Testimony against this pretended Authority Lies in the Negative which obliges alwayes semper ad semper that is to say we plead that it must never be Ouned There is a great difference between a Positive disouning and a not Ouning though the first be not alwayes necessary the Latter is the Testimony of the day and a negative case of confession which is allwise clearer than the Positive Though we must not allwise confess every Truth yet we must never deny any 3. It is confessed we are under this sad disadvantage besides others that not only all our Brethren groaning under the same yoke with us will not take the same way of declining this pretended Authority nor adventure when called to declare their judgment about it which we do not condemn as is said and would expect from the rules of equity charity they will not condemn us when we find our selves in conscience bound to use greater freedom But also some when they do declare their judgment give it in termes condemnatory of contradictory unto our Testimony in that they have freedom positively to oune this Tyranny as Authority and the Tyrant as their Lawful Soveraign And many of our Ministers also are of the same mind And further as we have few expressly asserting our part of the debate as it is now stated so we have many famous learned divines expressly against us in this point as especially we find in their Comments upon Rom. 13. among whom I cannot dissemble my sorrow to find the great Calvin saying saepe solent inquirere c. men often inquire by what right they have obtained their power who have the rule It should be enough to us that they do govern for they have not ascended to this eminency by their oun power but are imposed by the hand of the Lord. As also Pareus saying too much against us For answer to this I refer to Mr Knox his reply to Lithingtoun producing several Testimonies of Divines against him upon this very same head wherein he shewes that the occasions of their Discourses Circumstances wherein they were stated were very far different from those that have to do with Tyrants Usurpers as indeed they that are most concerned and smart most under their scourge are in best case to speak to the purpose I shall only say Mens averment in a Case of Conscience is not an oracle when we look upon it with an impartial eye in the case wherein we are not prepossessedâ— it will bear no other value than what is allayed with the imperfections of fallibility and moreover is contradicted by some others whose Testimony will help us as much to confirm our persuasion as others will hurt us to infirm it 4. But now when Tyrants go for Magistrats lest my plea against ouning Tyranny should be mistaken as if it were a pleading for Anarchy I must assert that I and all those I am vindicating are for Magistracy as being of divine Original institute for the common good of humane Christian Societies whereunto every soul must be subject of whatsoever quality or Character and not only for wrath but also for conscience sake though as to our soul conscience we are not subject which whosoever resisteth resisteth the ordinance of God and against which Rebellion is a damnable sin Whereunto according to the fifth Commandment and the many reiterated exhortations of the Apostles we must be subject and obey Magistrates and submit ourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as Supreme c. And we account it a hateful brand of them that walk after the flesh to despise Government to be presumptuous self willed and not afrayed
not one the same Tribute It s a question for whom by whom that of Math. 17. was gathered it s most likely it was gathered by the officers of the Temple for its service however the payment was made with such caution tacitely declining the strict right to exact it from him but to avoid offence in an act in it self unobliging that their claim is left as much in the dark as if the question had never been moved The other Math. 22. was exacted for Cesar but to that captious question our Lord returns such an Answer as might both solve it and evade the snare of the proponders giving a general Rule of giving to God to Cesar each their oun without defining which of them had the right to the payment in question whether Cesar should have it or whether it should be payed only for the Temples use Upon which they marvelled which they needed not do if they had understood in His words an express positive declaration of an obligation to make that payment to Cesar for then they would have obtained one of their ends in making Him odious to the people who were not satisfied with the payment of it But however the knot is loosed by considering that they were now Lawfully subject to the Roman Emperours as their Governours to whom they were obliged I do not say Christ was to pay tribute For they had yeelded themselves unto ouned the Roman Dominion in Pompey Cesar Augustus Tiberius ere this question about Tribute paying was proposed to our Saviour and therfore they who stuck at the payment of it were a seditious party dissenting from the body of the Nation Else it is not supposable readily that their Dominion in Iudea could have been exercised long without some consent sufficient to legitimate it to the present Rulers And this is the more likely if we consider the confession of the Iewes themselves disavowing the power of Capital punishment It is not Lawful for us to put any man to death And ouning Cesar as their King with an exclusive a brenounciation of all other we have no King but Cesar As Paul also acknowleeges he ought to be judged at Cesars bar in his appeal to Cesar. It is also acknowledged by very good Authors that this was the tribute which Iudas the Galilean stood up to free the people from and that the sedition of those Iewes that folowed him mentioned Act. 5. 37. who mutinied upon this occasion was according to Gamaliels speech disallowed by that Sanhedrin or Council of the Iewes And it may be gathered out of Iosephus that the Iewes of Hircanus his party came under the Roman power by consent dedition while they of Aristobalus his party looked upon the Romans as Usurpers Which difference continued till our Saviours time when some part of them acknowledged the Cesarean Authority some part looked upon it as an Usurpation and of this generally were the Pharisees To confirm this Calvins Testimony may be adduced upon Math. 22. who sayeth the Authority of the Roman Emperours was by common use approved and received among the Iewes whence it was manifest that the Iewes had now of their oun accord imposed on themselves a Law of paying the tribute because they had passed over to the Romans the power of the sword And Chamiers Panstrat Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 16. pag. 635. what then if Cesars Authority were from bad beginings did therefore Christ untruly say it was from above Can no power at first unjust afterward become just if that were so then either none or very few Kingâ—oms would be just 10. As Tyranny is a destructive plague to all the Interests of men Christians So Anarchy the usual product of it is no less pernicious bringing a Community into a Paroxysme as deadly dangerous We must oune Government to be absolutely necessary for the constitution conservation of all Societies I shall not enter into a disquisition let be determination of the Species or Kind of Magistracy whether Monarchy Aristocracy or Democracy be preferable My dispute at present is not levelled against Monarchy but the present Monarch Not against the Institution of the Species though I beleeve except we betake our selves to the Divine allowance permission we shal be as pusled to find out the Divine Original of it as Cosmographers are in their search of the Spring of Nilus or Theologues of the Father of Melchizedeck but the constitution of this Individual Monarchy established among us which in its root branch Spring streams in its Original Nature ends effects is Diametrically opposite to Religion Liberty And because its Contagion universally perverting corrupting all the ends Orders of Magistracy doth affect infect all the subordinate officers deriving their power from such a filthy fountain we must also substract deny their demanded ackowledgments as any way due so long as they serve the pride projects of such a wicked power And do not reckon our selves obliged by Covenant or any otherways though in the third Article of the Solemn League we are bound to preserve the rights priviledges of our Parliaments consequently the honour deference that 's due to our Peers or other Parliament men acting according to the trust committed to them but not when they turn Traitors ingaged in a Conspiracy with the Tyrant to oune or defend a Soul-less shadow of a Court Cabal made up of persons who have sold themselves to work wickedness in conspiring with this throne of iniquity against the Lord which is all we have for a Parliament whom we can in no ways oune as our Representatives but must look upon them as perjured perfidious Traitors to God their Countrey which they have betrayed into the hands of a Tyrant And therefore divested of that power Authority which they had of the people as their Representatives which now is returned to the fountain And therefore we must act as we can against them and also what is necessary for securing of our selves Religion Liberty without them We would think Nobles ennobled with virtue a great Mercy encouragment And if they would concur in the Testimony for Religion Liberty we would be glad that they should lead the van and prove themselves to be powers appointed by God in acting for Him His Interest But for the want of their Conduct we must not surcease from that duty that they abandon nor think that the Concurrence of Peers is so necessary to legitimate our actions as that without that formality our resolutions to maintain the Truth of God on all hazards in a private Capacity were unlawful in the Court of God Nature But on the contrare must judge that their relinquishing or opposing their duty which before God they are obliged to maintain preserve promove is so far from loosing our obligation or eximing us from our duty that is should rather press us to prosecute it with
which case the people may make their Publick servant sensible he is at his highest elevation but a Servant Hence now when this species named in the Covenant viz Monarchy is by Law so vitiate as it is become the mean instrument of the destruction of all the ends of that Covenant and now by Law transmitted to all successors as a hereditary pure perfect perpetual opposition to the coming of Christs kingdom So that as long as there is one to wear that Croun but Iehavah will in righteousness execute Coniahs doom upon the race Ier. 22. ult write this man childless and enter heir to the Government as now established he must be an enemy to Christ there is no other way left but to think on a new Modell moulded according the true Pattern As to the Second we are far less obliged to oune acknowledge the interest of any of the two Monarchs that we have been Mourning under these many years from these Sacred Covenants For as to the first of them Charles the 2. Those Considerations did cassate his Interest as to any Covenant obligation to oune him 1. In these Covenants we are not sworn absolutely to maintain the Kings Person Authority but only Conditionally in the Preservation defence of Religion Liberties Now when this Condition was not performed but on the contrare professedly resolved never to be fulfilled And when he laid out himself to the full of his power Authority for the destuction of that Reformed Religion Liberties of the Kingdom which he solemnly swore to defend when he received the Croun only in the termes that he should be a Loyal subject to Christ and a true faithful Servant to the people in order to which a Magistrate is chosen and all his worth excellency valuableness consists in his answering that purpose for the excellency of a mean as such is to be measured from the end and its answerableness thereunto We were not then obliged to maintain such an enemy to these precious Interests 2. Because as the people were bound to him so he was bound to them by the same Covenant being only on these termes entrusted with the Government All which Conditions he perfidiously broke whereupon only his Authority our Allegiance were founded And thereby we were loosed from all reciprocal obligation to him by virtue of that Covenant 3. Though he and we stood equally engaged to the duties of that Covenant only with this difference that the Kings Capacity being greater he was the more obliged to have laid out that power in causing all to stand to their Covenant Engagments as Iosiah did 2 Chron. 34. 31 32 33. But alas there was never a Iosiah in the race yet he rose up to the hight of rebellion against God and the people in heaven-daring insolency and not only brake but burnt that Covenant and made Lawes to case rescind it and made a not-concurring in this Conspiracy a note of incapacity for any Trust in Church or State. Therefore to plead for an ouning of him in this case were only concludent of this that the Generation had dreamed themselves into such a distraction as may be feared will be pursued with destruction and make such dreamers the detestation of posterity and cause all men Proclaim the righteousness of God in bringing ruine upon them by that very power Authority they ouned in such circumstances 4. It is a known maxime Qui non implet conditionem a se promissam cadit beneficio qui remittit obligationem non potest exigere He that does not fulfill the conditions falls from the benefit of it and whoso remitts the obligation of the party obliged upon condition cannot exact it afterwards So then it is evident that the subjects of Scotland were by King Charles the 2 de his consent yea express command disengaged from so much of that Covenant as could be alledged in favors of himself So that all that he did by burning rescinding these Covenants and pursuing all who endeavoured to adâ—ere to them was a most explicite Liberating his subjects from remission of their Allegiance to him and in this we had been fools if we had not taken him at his word yea he rescinded his very Coronation by an act of his first Parliament after his return which did declare null void all Acts Constitutions establishments from the year 1633 to that present session not excepting those for his oun Coronation after which he was never recrouned And therefore we could not oune that right which himself did annul But as for his Royal Brother Iames the 7 2 we cannot indeed make use of the same reasons arguments to disoune him as we have now adduced yet as we shall prove afterwards this Covenant does oblige to renounce him So it is so clear that it needs no Illustration that there lies no obligation from the Covenant to oune him And also that for this cause we are obliged not to oune him 1. Because as he is an enemy to the whole of our Covenant and especially to these terms upon which Authority is to be ouned therein So he will not come under the bond of this Covenant nor any other compact with the people but intrude himself upon the Throne â—n such a way as overturns the Basis of our Government and destroyes all the Liberties of a free people which by Covenant we are bound to preserve and consequently as inconsistent therewith to renounce his Usurpation For a Prince that will set himself up without any transactions with the people or conditions giving Security for Religion Liberty is an Usurping Tyrant not bounded by any Law but his oun lusts And to say to such an one Reign thow over us is all one as to say come thow and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust will be a Law to us which is both against Scripture Natural-sense If he be not a King upon Covenant termes either expressly or tacitely or general stipulations according to the word of God Lawes of the Land he cannot be ouned as a father Protector or Tutor having any fiduciary power entrusted to him over the Commonwealth but as a Lawless absolute Dominator assuming to himself a power to rule or rage as he lists whom to oune were against our Covenants for there we are sworn to Maintain his Maj. just Lawful Authority and by consequence not to oune Usurpation Tyranny stated in opposition to Religion Liberty which there also we are engaged to maintain Sure this cannot be Lawful Authority which is of God for God giveth no power against Himself Nor can it be of the people who had never power granted them of God to create one over them with a Liberty to destroy them their Religion Liberty at his pleasure 2. As he is not nor will not be our Covenanted sworn King and therefore we cannot be his Covenanted sworn subjects So
he is not nor can not be our Crouned King and therefore we must not be his Liege subjects ouning fealty obedience to him For according to the National Covenant as all Lieges are to maintain the Kings Authority consistent with the subjects Liberties which if they be innovated or prejudged such Confusion would ensue as this realme could be no more a free Monarchy So for the Preservation of true Religion Lawes Liberties of this Kingdom it is statute by the 8 Act. Parl. 1 repeated in the 99 Act. Parl. 7. ratified in the 23. Act. Parl. 11. and 114 Act. Parl. 12. of King Iames 6. and 4 Act of K. Charles 1. that all Kings Princes â— at their coronation reception of their Princely Authority shall make their faithful Promise by their solemn Oath in the presence of the Eternal God That enduring the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utter-most of their power according as He hath required in His most holy Word contained in the Old new Testaments and according to the same Word shall maintain the true Religion of Christ Jesus the preaching of His holy Word the due right Ministration of the Sacraments now received Preached within this realme according to the Confession of faith immediatly preceding and shall abolish gainstand all false religion contrary to the same And shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will Command of God revealed in His fore-said Word and according to the Laudable Lawes Constitutions received in this realme no wayes repugnant to the said Will of the Eternal God And shal procure to the uttermost of their power to the Kirk of God whole Christian people true perfect peace in all time coming And that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all Hereticks Enemies to the true Worship of God who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the foresaid Crimes Now this Coronation Oath he hath not taken he will not he cannot take and therefore cannot be our Crouned King according to Law. As there be also many other Lawes incapacitating his admission to the Croun being a Professed Papist and no Law for it at all but one of his oun making by a Pacqued Cabal of his oun Complices a Parliament wherein himself presided as Commissioner enacting matterially his succession and rescinding all these Ancient Lawes which Act of Succession which is all the legal right he can pretend to in Scotland because it cannot be justified therefore his right cannot be ouned which is founded upon the subversion of our Ancient Lawes But as he cannot be our Legally Crouned King so he is not so much as formally Crouned And therfore before his Inauguration whatever right to be King whom the Representatives may admit to the Government he may pretend to by hereditary Succession yet he cannot formally bemade King till the people make a Compact with him upon termes for the safety of their dearest nearst Liberties even though he were not disabled by Law. He might as they say pretend to some jus ad rem but he could have no jus in re The Kings of Scotland while uncrouned can exerce no Royal Government for the Coronation in Concret according to the substance of the Act is no Ceremonie as they who make Conscience it self but a Ceremony call it nor an accidental ingredient in the Constitution of a King but as it is distinctive so it is Constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and made him from no King to be a King it is dative not only Declarative it puts some honour upon him that he had not before 3. Though the Lawes should not strike against his Coronation And though the Representatives Legally should take the same measures with him that they took with his brother and admit him upon the termes of the Covenant yet after such doleful experiences of such transactions with these Sons of Belial who must not be taken with hands nor by the hand it were hard to trust or entrust them with the Government even though they should make the fairest Professions Since they whose Principle is to keep no faith to Hereticks as they call us and who will be as absolute in their promises as they are in their power have deservedly forefeited all Credit Trust with honest men so that none could rationally refer the determination of a half Croun reckoning to any of them far less oune them their Government in the Managment of the weightiest affairs of State since their Male-versations are written in such bloody Characters as he that runs may read them At least it were wisdom is our duty to take our Measures from the General Assemblies Procedure with the other Brother before his admission to the Government to suspend our Allegiance to him until Authority be Legally devolved upon him and founded upon bounded by termes giving all security for Religion Liberty 12. As I said before wary Prudence in waving such an impertinent Ticklish Question cannot be condemned since what ever he may be in conscience no man in Law can be obliged so far to surrender the common Priviledge of all Mankind to give an account of all his inward thoughts which are alwise said to be free And as in nothing they are more various so in nothing they can be more violented than to have our opinion sentiments of the current Government extorted from us a declining of which Declaration of thoughts where no overt Act in project or practice can be proven against it cannot be Treason in any Law in the world So a Cautelous Answer in such a ticklish entrapping imposition cannot be censured in point of Lawfullnesse of expediency even though much be concedded to stop the Mouths of these bloody Butchers gaping greedily after the blood of the Answerer if he do not really oune but give them to understand he cannot approve of this Tyranny But as these poor faithful Witnesses who were helped to be most free have alwise been honoured with the most signal Countenance of the Lord in a happy issue of their Testimony So those that used their Prudentials most in seeking shifts to shâ—n severity and studying to satisfie these Inquisitors with their stretched Concessions were ordinarly more exposed to snares and found less satisfaction in their Sufferings even though they could say much to justify or at least extenuate their Shiftings I knew one who had proof of this who afterwards was ashamed of this kind of Prudence A short account of whose managing of Answers to this Question because it may conduce somewhat to the explication of it may here be hinted The question moved after the usual forme was Do ye onne the Authority of King Iames the 7 In answer to which he pleaded first for the immunity of his thoughts which he said were not subject to theirs or any Tribunal When this could
6. pag. 195. in vita Kennethi 3. This continued until the dayes of Kenneth the 3. who to cover his villanous Murder of his Brothers Son Malcolm and prevent his and secure his oun sons succession procured this Charter for Tyranny the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the Parliament which as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniences arising from Contentions Competions about the succession So it was limited by Lawes Precluding the succession of Fools or Monsters and preserving the peoples liberty to shake off the yoke when Tyranny should thereby be introduced Otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their oune Rights enslaving the posterity but an irreligious contempt of Providence refusing anticipating its Determination in such a case However it is clear before this time that as none but the fittest were admitted to the Government So if any did usurpe upon it or afterwards did degenerate into Tyranny they took such order with him as if he had not been admitted at all as is clear in the instances of the first Period and would never oune every pretender to hereditary succession 2 As before Kenneths dayes it is hard to reckon the numerous Instances of Kings that were dethroned or imprisoned or slain upon no other account than that of their oppression Tyranny So afterwards they maintained the same power priviledge of repressing them when ever they began to encroach And although no Nation hath been more patient towards bad Kings as well as Loyal towards good ones yet in all former times they understood so well their Right they had and the duty they owed to their oun preservation as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account And albeit in stead of condoling or avenging the death of the Tyrannous they have often both excused justified it yet no Kingdom hath inflicted severer Punishments upon the Murderers of just righteous Princes And therefore though they did neither enquire after nor animadvert upon those that slew Iames the 3. a flagitious Tyrant yet they did by most exquisite Torments put them to death who slew Iames the 1. a vertuous Monarch Hence because these other instances I mind to adduce of deposing Tyrants may be excepted against as not pertinent to my purpose who am not pleading for exauctoration deposition of Tyrants being impracticable in our case I shall once for all remove that and desire it may be considered 1 That though we cannot formally exauctorate a Tyrant yet he may ipso jure fall from his right and may exauctorate himself by His Law by whom Kings reign and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not ouning him 2 Though we have not the same power yet we have the same grounds and as great good if not greater better reasons to reject disoune our Tyrant as they whose example is here adduced had to depose some of their Tyrannizing Princes 3 If they had power ground to depose them then a fortiori they had power ground to disoune them for that is less inculded in the other and this we have 4 Though it should be granted that they did not disoune them before they were deposed yet it cannot be said that they did disoune them only because they were deposed for it is not deposition that makes a Tyrant it only declares him to be justly punished for what he was before As the sentance of a Judge does not make a man a murderer or Thief only declares him convict of these Crimes punishable for them it s his oun committing them that makes him Criminal And as before the sentance having certain knowledge of the fact we might disoune the Mans innocency or honesty So a Rulers Acts of Tyranny Usurpation make him a Tyrant Usurper and give ground to disoune his just legal Authority which he can have no more than a Murtherer or Thief can have innocency or honesty 3 We find also examples of their disouning Kings undeposed as King Baliol was disouned with his whole race for attempting to enslave the Kingdoms Liberties to forreign power And if this may be done for such an attempt as the greatest Court parasites Sycophants consent what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to Domestick or Intestine Slaverie Shall we refuse to be slaves to one without and be oune our selves contented Slaves to one with in the Kingdom It is known also that King Iames the 1. his Authority was refused by his subjects in France so long as he was a Prisoner to the English there though he charged them upon their Allegiance not to fight against the party who had his person Prisoner They answered they ouned no Prisoner for their King nor owed no Allegiance to a Prisoner Hence Princes may learn though people submit to their Government yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full as that they are obliged to oune Allegiance to them when either Morally or Physically they are incapacitate to exerce Authority over them They that cannot rule themselves cannot be ouned as Rulers over a people 2. Neither hath there been any Nation but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this Nature The English History gives account how some of their Kings have been dealt with by their Subjects for impieties against the Law Light of Nature and encroachments upon the Lawes of the Land. Vortigernuâ— was dethroned for incestously marying his oun Sister Neither did ever Blasphemies Adulteries Murders Plotting against the lives of Innocents and taking them away by Poison or Razor use to escape the animadversion of men before they were Priest-ridden unto a belief that Princes persons were sacred And if men had that generosity now this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion And we find also King Edward Richard the 2. were deposed for Usurpation upon Lawes Liberties in doing whereof the people avowed They would not suffer the Lawes of England to be changed Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate who having such Lawes transmitted to them from their worthy Ancestors and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a Change do now suffer them to be so encroached upon and mancipate themselves leave their Children vassals to Poperie slaves to Tyranny 3. The Dutch also who have the best way of guiding of Kings of any that ever had to do with them witness their having so many of them in Chains now in Batavia in the East Indies are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples When the King of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their Ancient Lawes and rule for the good of the people they declared him to be fallen from the Seigniorie of the Netherlands and so erected themselves into a flourishing Common-wealth It will not
under the bond of a Covenant with his people So thô he make never so many fair promises with the greatest Solemnities maintains a principle that he will keep no promises but when with whom he pleases and can get a Dispensation to break all when he likes This is Iames his Ingenuity Sure in this case Such as are so Characterized Declare themselves so far from being Princes that they profess befor the world they are no more men to be conversed with for if neither their words Writs vowes promises Oaths Declarations nor Protestations can bind them what Society can be had with them Are they not to be looked upon carried towards as Common Enemies of Morality Religion Righteousness Liberty Humanity yea even of Mankind it self Now then let the world be Judge if the people of Scotland can be judged in Conscience Reason Prudence Policie or any imaginable way bound to oune their Authority being so Stated and by the Act Rescissory all humane ground rescinded that ever it shall be otherwise let them go seek other slaves where they can find them for we will not sell our selves posteritie to Tyrants as slaves nor give up our Religion and the exercise of it to the Mouldings of the Court. II. In the Second place It being clear from these forementioned Instances that Tyrants Uusurpers have been disouned And it being also as clear as light can make any thing from the foregoing Account of their Government and all the Characters of Truculency Treachery Tyranny conspicuously relucent therein that these two Gentlemen whose Authority we are pressed to oune were Tyrants Usurpers It remains therefore to prove from all dictates of Reason about Government that their pretended Authority could not nor cannot be ouned For the Argument runs thus The Authority of Tyrants Uusurpers cannot be ouned But the Authority of Charles Iames was is the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers Ergo their Authority cannot be ouned Now it s the Major of this Syllogisim that I under take to prove The Minor being so clear from their History that to prove it by witnesses were actum agere 1. All Authority to be ouned of men must be of God and ordained of God for so the Apostle teacheth Expressly Rom. 13. 1. c. Which is the alone formal reason of our Subjection to them and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist them because it is a resisting the Ordinâ—nce of God. The Lord ounes Himself to be the Author of Magistrats Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. As He is the Author of man and hath made him a sociable Creature so He is the Author of the Order of humane Society which is necessare for the Preservation of Mankind He being the God of Order not of Confusion And this must hold not only of the Supreme Authority but of subordinate Magistrates also for they must be included in the higher Powers to whom we must be subject Rom. 13. And they that resist them resist Gods Ordinance too Their judgment is Gods as well as the judgment of the Supreme Magistrate Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 8. They are called Gods among whom the Lord judgeth Psal. 82. 1. He speaketh not there of a Congregation of Kings We are to be subject to them for the Lords sake as well as to the Supreme Magistrat 1. Pet. 2. 13. Therefore all Magistrats superior Inferior are ordained of God in the respective Places It s true Peter calls every degree of Magistracy an Ordinance of man not that he denies it to be an Ordinance of God for so he would cantradict Paul Rom. 13. but termes it so Emphatically to commend the worth of obedience to Magistrats though but men when we do it for the Lords sake Not effectively as an invention of men but subjectively because exercised by men created invested by humane suffrages considered as men in Societie and objectively for the good of man and for the external Peace safety of man thereby differenced from the Ministry an Ordinance of Christ for the spiritual good of mens souls Hence Those Rulers that are not of God nor ordained of God cannot be ouned without sin But Tyrants Usurpers are the Rulers that are not of God nor ordained of God but are set up and not by Him c. Hos. 8. 1-4 Therefore they cannot be ouned without sin I refer it to any man of conscience Reason to judge if these Scriptures proving Magistracy to be the Ordinance of God for which alone it is to be ouned can be applyed to Tyrants Usurpers How will that Rom 13. read of Tyrants let every soul be subject to Tyrants for they are ordained of God as His Ministers of Iustice c. and are a terror to evil works and a praise to the good would not every man nauseate that as not the Doctrine of God Again how would that sound Prov. 8. By me Tyrants reign Usurpers decree injustice harsh to Christian ears Can they be said to be Gods among whom the Lord judgeth If they be they must be such as the witch of Endor saw Gods coming out of the earth when she raised the Devil in a very Catichrestical meaning as the Devil is called the God of this world And indeed they have no more power nor otherwise to be ouned than he hath for this is a Truth Tyranny is a work of Satan not from God because sin either habitual or actual is not from God Tyranny is sin in habit act Ergo The Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature end being the Minister of God for good A Tyrant as a Tyrant is quite contrary Lex Rex saith well A power Ethical Politick or Moral to oppress is not from God and is not a power but a Licentious deviation of a power and no more from God but from sinful Nature the old Serpent than a licence to sin Quest. 9. Pag. 59. Hence sin a Licence to sin a Licencious sinning cannot be from God But Tyranny Usurpation absolute power encroaching upon all Liberties Laws Divine humane is sin a Licence to sin a Licencious sinning Ergo But to make this clear and to obviate what may be said against this let it be Considered how the powers that be are of God ordained of God. Things are said to be of God and ordained of God two wayes by His purpose providence and by His Word Warrant Things may be of God either of His Hand working or bringing them about ordaining ordering them to be to His Glory either by a holy overruling Providence as Samsons desire of a wife was of God Iudg. 14. 4. and Amaziahs insolent foolish rejection of Ioash his Peaceable overture 2 Chron. 25. 20. Or by a powerful effective providence So Rom. 11. 36. Of Him through Him are all things 1 Cor. 8. 6. One God of whom are all things Or things be of
God of His Word warranting Authorizing So we are commanded to try the spirits whether they be of God 1 Iohn 4. 1. So in this sense sin tentation lust Corruptions of the world are not of God Iam. 1. 13. 1 Iohn 2. 16. Again things are ordained of God either by the order of His Counsel or Providential will either effectively by way of Production or Direction or Permissively by way of non-impedition Or they are ordained by the order of His Word Preceptive will The former is Gods Rule the latter is ours The former is alwise accomplished the latter is often contradicted The former orders all actions even sinful the latter only that which is good acceptable in the sight of God By the former Israel rejected Samuel by the latter they should have continued Samuels Government and not sought a King By the former Athaliah usurped the Government by the latter she should have yeelded obedience resigned the Government to the posterity of Ahaziah By the former all have a physical subordination to God as Creatures subject to His All-disposing will by the latter Those whom He approves have a moral subordination to God as obedient subjects to His Commanding will. Now Magistrats are of God and ordained by Him both these wayes Tyrants but one of them I say Magistrats the higher Powers to whom we owe must oune subjection are of God both these wayes both by His purpose Providence and that not meerly eventual but effective executive of His Word disposing both of the Title Right Possession of the power to them whom He approves and bringing the People under a consciencious subjection And by His Word warrant So Adonijah the Usurper though he had the pretence of Hereditary right and also possession by Providence was forced to oune King Solomon in these termes upon which only a Magistrate may be ouned The Kingdome sayes he was mine and all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign howbeit the Kingdom is turned about and become my brothers for it was his from the Lord 1 King. 2. 15. He had both Providence turning about the Kingdom to him and also the Warrant of the Lords Approbative preceptive will. But Tyrants Usurpers are only of God and ordained of God by His overruling purpose permissive Providence either for performing His holy purpose towards themselves as Rehoboams professing he would be a Tyrant and refusing the Lawful desires of the people was of God 2 Chron. 10. 15. Or for a judgment vengeance upon them that are subject to them Zech. 11 6 whereby they get a power in their hand which is the Rod of the Lords Indignation and a Charge Commission against a Hypocritical Nation Isa. 10. 5. 6. This is all the power they have from God who gives Iacob to the spoil Israel to the Robbers when they sin against Him Isa. 42. 24. This doth not give these Robbers any right no more than they whose Tabernacle prosper into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Iob. 12. 6. Thus all Robbers and the great Legal Robbers Tyrants and their Authorized Murderers may be of God to wit by His Providence Hence those that are not ordained of Gods preceptive will but meerly by His Providential will their Authority is not to be ouned But Tyrants Usurpers are not ordained of Gods Preceptive but meerly by His Providential will. The Minor needs no proof yet will be cleared by many folowing Arguments The Major will be afterwards more demonstrated Here I shall only say They that have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers than the devil hath must not be ouned But they that have no other than the ordination of Providence have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers than the devil hath Ergo they that have no other than the ordination of Providence must not be ouned 2. But let us next consider what is comprehended in the Ordination of that Authority which is to be ouned as of God And it may be demonstrated there are two things in it without which no Authority can be ouned as of God viz. Institution Constitution So as to give him whom we must oune as Gods Minister Authority both in the Abstract Concrete that is that he should have Magistracy by Gods Ordination and be a Magistrate by according to the will of God. All acknowledge that Magistracy hath Gods Institution for the Powers that be are ordained of God which contains not only the Appointment of it but the qualification forme of it That Government is appointed by Divine Precept all agree but whether the Precept be Moral Natural or Moral Positive Whether it was appointed in the State of Innocency or since disorder came in the world Whether it be Primario or Secundario from the Law of nature is not agreed upon It may possibly be all these wayes Government in the General may be from the Law and light of Nature appointed in Innocency because all its relative duties are enjoined in the fifth Command and all Nations Naturally have an esteem of it Without which ther could be no order distinction or Communion in humane Societies But the Specification or Individuation may be by a Postnate Positive Secundary Law yet Natural too for though ther be no reason in Nature why any man should be King Lord over another being in some sense all Naturally free but as they yeeld themselves under Jurisdiction The exalting of David over Israel is not ascribed to Nature but to an act of divine bounty which took him from following the Ewes and made him feeder of the People of Israel Psal. 78. 70 71 yet Nature teacheth that Israel and other People should have a Government and that this should be subjected to Next not only is it appointed to be but qualified by Institution and the Office is defined the End prescribed and the measures Boundaries thereof are limited as we shall hear Again the formes of it though Politically they are not stinted that People should have such a forme not another yet Morally at least Negatively whatever be the forme it is limited to the Rules of equity justice and must be none other than what hath the Lords Mould Sanction But there is no Institution any of these wayes for Tyranny Hence that Power that hath no Institution from God cannot be ouned as His ordinance But the Power of Tyrants is that Power being contrary in every respect to Gods Institution and a meer deviation from it eversion of it Ergo To the Minor it may be replyed Though the Power which Tyrants may exerce Usurpers assume may be in Concretâ— contrary to Gods Institution and so not to be ouned yet in abstracto it may be acknowledged of God. It s but the abuse of the Power and that does not take away the use We may oune the Power though we do not oune the abuse of it
I ans 1. I acknowledge the distinction as to Magistrats is very pertinent for it is well said by the Congregation in a Letter to the Nobility Knox Hist. of Scot. lib. 2. That there is a great difference betwixt the Authority which is Gods ordinance and the persons of these who are placed in Authority the Authority ordinance of God can never do wrong for it commandeth that vice be punished virtue maintained But the Corrupt Person placed in this Authority may offend Its certain higher Powers are not to be resisted but some persons in Power may be resisted The Powers are ordained of God but Kings commanding unjust things are not ordained of God to do such things But to apply this to Tyâ—ants I do not understand Magistrats in some Acts may be guilty of Tyranny and yet retain the Power of Magistracy but Tyrants cannot be capable of Magistracy nor any one of the Scripture Characters of Righteous Rulers They cannot retain that which they have forefeited and which they have overturned And Usurpers cannot retain that which they never had They may act enact some things materially just but they are not formally such as can make them Magistrats no more then some unjust actions can make a Magistrate a Tyrant A Murderer saying the â—ife of one killing another does not make him no Murderer Once a Murderer ay a Murderer once a Robber ay a Robber till he restore what he hath robbed So once a Tyrant ay a Tyrant till he make amends for his Tyranny and that will be hard to do 2. The Concrete does specificate the Abstract in actuating it as a Magistrate in his exercising Government makes his Power to be Magistracy a Robber in his robbing makes his Power to be Roberie an Usurper in his usurping makes his Power to be Usurpation So a Tyrant in his Tyrannizing can have no Power but Tyranny As the Abstract of a Magistrate is nothing but Magistracy So the Abstract of a Tyrant is nothing but Tyranny It s frivolous then to distinguish between a Tyrannical power in the Concrete Tyranny in the Abstract the power the abuse of the power for he hath no power as a Tyrant but what is abused 3. They that objects thus must either mean that power in its general Notion is ordained of God but this particular Power abâ—sed by Tyrants and assumed by Usurpers is not ordained Or they must mean that the very Power of Tyrants Usurpers is ordained of God but the way of holding using it is not of God. If the first be said they grant all I plead for for thô the Power in general be ordained yet what is this to Tyrants Usurpers would not this Claim be ridiculous for any man to say God hath ordained Governments to be therefore I will challenge it God hath ordained Marriage therefore any may cohabit together as man wife without formal Matrimony If the Second be alledged that the Power of these prevailing Dominators is ordained but not their holding using of it This is Non-sense for how can a Power be ordained and the use of it be unlawful For the abuse use of Tyrannical Power is all one and reciprocal an Usurper cannot use his Power but by Usurpation Again is it not plain that the Abstract the Concrete the act or habit and the subject wherein it is cannot have a contrary Denomination if Drunkenness and Thieft Lying or Murder be of the Devil then the Drunkard the Thief the Lyar the Murderer are of the Devil too So if Tyranny and Usurpation or the use or abuse of Tyrants Usurpers be of the Devil Then must the Tyrants Usurpers also be of him None can say the one is of the Devil and the other of God. Wherefore it is altogether impertinent to use such a Distinction with application to Tyrants or Usurpers as many do in their pleading for the ouning of our Oppressors for they have no power but what is the abuse of power 3. As that Authority which is Gods Ordinance must have His Institution So it must have His divine Constitution from Himself and by the people Wherever then there is Authority to be ouned of men there must be these tuo Constitution from God and Constitution from the people For the first God hath a special Interest in the Constitution of Authority both Immediatly Mediatly Immediatly He declares such such formes of Government to be Lawful Eligible and does order whom who and how people shall erect Governours And so He confers Royal Graces Enduements Gifts for Government on them as on Ioshua Saul So they become the Lords Anointed placed set on the Throne of the Lord 1 Chron. 29. 23. and honoured with Majestie as His deputies vicegerents having their Croun set on by God Psal. 21. 3. But in regard now He doth not by any special Revelation determine who shall be the Governours in this or that place Therefore He makes this Constitution by mediation of men giving them Rules how they shall proceed in setting them up And seeing by the Law of Nature He hath enjoined Government to be but hath ordered no particular in it with application to singulars He hath committed it to the positive transaction of men to be disposed according to certain General Rules of Justice And it must needs be so for 1. without this Constitution either all or none would be Magistrats if He hath ordained Civil Power to be and taken no order in whom it shall be or how it shall be conveyed any might pretend to it and yet none would have a right to it more than another If then He â—ath affixed it to a peculiar having holding by virtue whereof this man is enstated entitled to the office and not that man there must be a Law for Constituting him in Authority which will discover in whom it is 2. If it were not so then a resisting of a particular Magistrate would not be a resisting of the ordinance of God if a particular Magistrate were not Constitute of God as well as Magistracy is Institute of God for still it would be undetermined who were the Power and so it would be left as free Lawful for the resister to take the place as for the resisted to hold it the institution would be satisfied if any possessed iâ— therefore there must be Constitution to determine it 3. No Common Law of Nature can be put into practice without particular Constitution regulating it That Wives Children oune their superior relations is the Law of Nature but there must be such a relation first fixed by humane transaction before they can oune them there must be Marriage Authorized of God there must be Children begotten and then the Divine Ordination of these relative duties take place So the Judges of Israel for 450 years were given of God Act. 13. 20. not all by an immediate express designation but a mediate
Call from God by men as Iephthah Iudg. 11. 6. 11. Inferior judges also are Magistrats appointed by God yet they have their Deputation from men Our Saviour speaks of all Magistrats when he applies that of the 82. Psalm to them I said ye are Gods and shewes how they were Gods because unto them the Word of God came Iohn 10. 35. that is by His Word Warrant He Authorized them not by immediate designation in reference to the most of them but the Word of God comes to them or His Constitution is past upon them who are advanced by men according to His Word When men therefore do act according to the Divine Rule in the Moulding Erecting of Government Governours there the Constitution is of God though it be not immediate And where this is not observed whatever power so named or pretended there may be or what-soever persons there be that take upon them to be the power and are not thereto appointed or therein instated and do exerce such a power as God hath not legitmated they are not a power ordained of God. Hence whatsoever power hath no Constitution from God eather Immediate or Mediate cannot be ouned But the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a power that hath no Constitution from God either Immediate or Mediate Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major is cleared above The Minor is also undenyable For either they must pretend to an Immediate Constitution by revelation that Iames Duke of York a vassal of Antichrist had by all his plots pranks Merited the Crown of Britain and therefore must be Constitute King And this I hope they will not pretend to except the Pope hath gotten such a Revelation from Pluto's Oracle Or they must have recourse to the Mediate Constitution by men And if so Then either this Mediate Constitution of God is left undetermined indefinitely absolutely giving way to any that will assume what power they please can And then I confess Tyrants may have a Constitution but this confusion cannot be of God Or else it is fixed by a Rule regulating the succession or Constitution of the Governours and obliging the people to oune the Government so constituted with exclusion disallowance of any other And so if in that Constitution there be a Substantial Deviation from the Rule as when incompetent or unallowed persons be the advancers of themselves or others into that place by illegal sinistrous means in as much as in that case there is the Divine disapprobation it may be said there is no Ordinance of God but a Contradiction Contraordination to Gods Order Gee's Magist. Origin chap. 5. Sect. 4. subject 3. pag. 135. This will shake off this of ours and all other Tyrants Usurpers that come into the Government hold it not according to Gods Rule 4. It is clear also in the second place that the Authority which we can oune out of conscience must have Constitution by the people The special way by which men should be called into the place of Soveraign power may perhaps not be found so expressly defined in Scripture as mens Call to the other Ordinance of the Ministrie is yet in this two things are essentially necessary to the Constitution of a Magistrate The peoples consent compact either formal or virtual And without these we can oune consciencious subjection Allegiance to no man living That the first is necessary will be evident from the Law of Nature Nations and from Scripture First the light Law of Nature dictates that the Right Interest of Constituting Magistrats is in the Elective vote or suffrage of the people This will Appear 1. If we consider The Original of Government among men especially after they were so multiplied that there was a necessity of a reduction into diverse Communities which whatever was before the flood yet after it behoved to be by a Coalition with consent under an Elective Government The Scripture makes it more than probable that the first partition of Common-wealths was in Pelegs dayes in whose time the earth was Divided Gen. 10. 25. occasioned by the Confusion of Languages at Babel which did dissolve their union and scatter them abroad upon the face of all the eath Gen. 11. 9. Then was it that we may conceive as Buchanan sayes de Iure Regni apud Scot. the time was when men dwelt in cottages caves and as strangers did wander to fro without Laws and such as could converse together of the same language assembled together as their humors did lead them or as some common Utilitie did allure them A certain instinct of Nature did oblige them to desire Converse Societie But this confusion of Languages and Communion of Language in several divided Parcels could not incorporate these several Parties into Communities that behoved to be the effect of some other cause what should that be but the joint will consent aggreement of the severally Languaged It could not be by Consanguinity for there is no direction from Nature for a confinement of that into such such degrees to make out the bounds of a Common-wealth or Possibility of knowing all with in such degrees besides all within these degrees might not be of the same Language Now the Scripture sayes they were divided every one after his tongue after their families in their Nations Gen. 10. 5. Next it could not be by Cohabitation for how that must go to be the boundaries of a Common-wealth inclusively or exclusively is not defined by nature nor can it be otherwise determined than by humane choise Then it could not be by mens belonging to such a Soveraign for after that Division Confusion they could not all be under one Soveraign nor under the same that they were subject to before and a Soveraign cannot be before the aggregation of the Subjects whereof he is head they must first be a Common-wealth before they can belong to it Again it cannot be founded upon the Right of fatherhood for in that scattering such a Right could not be uninterruptedly preserved And then Noah should also have been the Universal Magistrate which he could not be in these multiplied secessions And further if it be refounded on the Right of fatherhood either every Company had one Common Father over all or every Father made a Common-wealth of his oun Children The Latter cannot be said for that would multiply Common-wealts in infinitum Neither can the first be said for if they had one Common Father either this behoved to be the Natural Father of all the Company which none can think was so happily ordered by Babels confusion Or else the eldest in age and so he might be incapable for Government and the Law of Nature does not direct that the Government should alwise be astricted to the eldest of the Community Or else finally he behoved to be their Political Father by consent For before this consent they were uningaged as to common order of
then they are no more to oune him as their Soveraign But the former is proved that a Covenanted Prince breaking all the conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance Ergo And Consequently when Charles the Second expressly bound by Covenant to defend promote the Convenanted Reformation Liberties of the Kingdom to whom only we were bound in the terms of his defending promoting the same did violently villainously violate vilify these conditions we were no more bound to them Somewhat possibly may be Objected here 1. If this be the sense of the Covenant then it would seem that we were not bound to oune the King but only when while he were actually promoving carrying on the ends of the Covenant Ans. It does not follow but that we are obliged to preserve his Person Authority in these necessary intervalls when he is called to see to himself as a man for we must preserve him as a mean because of his aptitude designation for such an End albeit not alwayes formally prosecuting it we do not say that we are never to oune him but when actually exercised in prosecuting these ends but we say we are never to oune him when he is Tyrannically Treacherously abusing his Authority for destroying overturning these ends and violating all the conditions of his compact It may be Obj. 2. Saul was a Tyrant and a breaker of his Royal Covenant and persecuter of the Godly and Murderer of the Priests of the Lord usurper upon the Priests Office and many other wayes guilty of breaking all conditions And yet David and all Israel ouned him as the Anointed of the Lord. Ans. 1. Saul was indeed a Tyrant rejected of God and to be ejected out of his Kingdom in His oun time way which David a Prophet knowing would not anticipate But he was far short and a meer Bungler in acts of Tyranny in comparison of our Grassators he broke his Royal Covenant in very gross particular acts but did not cass rescind the whole of it did not burn it did not make it Criminal to oune its obligation nor did he so much as profess a breach of it nor arrogate an Absolute prerogative nor attempt arbitrary Government nor to evert the fundamental Laws and overturn the Religion of Israel bring in Idolatry as Ours have done He was a Persecuter of David upon some private quarrels not of all the Godly upon the account of their Covenanted Religion He Murdered 85 Priests of the Lord in a transport of fury because of their kindness to David but he did not make Laws adjudging all the Ministers of the Lord to death who should be found most faithful in their duty to God His Church as Ours have done against all Field Preachers He Usurped upon the Priests Office in one elicit act of Sacrificing but he did not usurp a Supremacy over them and annex it as an inherent right of his Crown 2. He was indeed such a Tyrant as deserved to have been dethroned brought to condign punishment upon the same accounts that Amaziah Uzziah were deposed for afterwards And in this the people failed in their duty and for it they were plagued remarkably shall their Omission be an Argument to us 3. As the question was never put to the people whether they ouned his Authority as Lawful or not So we do not read either of their Universal ouning him or their positive disouning him However That 's no good Argument which is drawen a non facto ad faciendum because they did it not therefore it must not be done 4. They ouned him but how as the Minister of God not to be resisted or revolted from under pain of damnation as all Lawful Magistrats ought to be ouned Rom. 13. 2 4. This I deny for David his six hundred men resisted him resolutely And though the body of the Nation did long Lazily lye couch as Asses under his burden yet at length weary of his Tyranny many revolted from under him and adjoined themselves to David at Ziklag while he kept himself close because of Saul the Son of Kish 1 Chron. 12. 1. who are commended by the Spirit of God for their valour vers 2. c. and many out of Manasseh fell to him when he came with the Philistims against Saul to battel vers 19. This was a practical disouning of the Tyrant before the Lord deposed him 5. David did indeed pay him his Character some deference as having been the Anointed of the Lord yet perhaps his honouring him with that title the Lords anointed 1 Sam. 24. 1 Sam. 26. and calling him so often his Lord the King cannot be altogether Justified no more than his using that same language to Achish King of Gath. 1 Sam. 29. 8. I shew before how titles might be allowed but this so circumstantiate does not seem so consistent with his imprecatory prayer for the Lords avenging him on him 1 Sam. 24. 12. and many other imprecations against him in his Psalms in some of which he calls the same man whom here he stiles the Lords anointed a Dog as Saul his Complices are called Psal. 95. 6 14. and the evil violent wicked man Psal 140. 1 4. and the vilest of men Psal. 12. ult However it be there can be no Argument from hence to oune the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers 6. Though this Necessary conditional compact which must alwayes be in the constitution of Lawfuâ— Rulers be not alwayes express explicite so that a written Authentick Copy of it cannot be always produced yet it is alwise to be understood implicitely at least transacted in the Rulers admission to the Government wherein the Law of God must regulate both parties and when he is made Ruler it must natively be understood that it is upon terms to be a Father feeder Protector and not a Tyrant Murderer Destroyer All Princes are so far pactional that they are obliged by the high absolute Soveraign from whom they derive their Authority to reign for the Peace profit of the people this is fixed unalterably by the Laws of the Supreme Legislator and solemnly engaged unto at the Coronation and whosoever declines or destroyes this fundamental condition he degrades deposes himself It is also not only the Universal practice but necessary for the Constitution Conservation of all Common-wealths to have fundamental Laws Provisions about Government both for the upholding transmitting transfering it as occasion calls and preventing punishing violations thereof that there be no invasion or intrusion upon the Government and if there be any entrance upon it not according to the Constitution that it be illegitimated and the Nations Liberties always secured This doeth infer regulate a conditional compact with all that are advanced to the Government albeit it should not be expressed For it is undenyable that in the erection of all Governours the
grand Interests of the Community must be seen to by Legal Securities for Religion Liberty which is the end use of fundamental Laws Now how these have been unhinged infringed by the introduction present establishment by Law of that Monster of the prerogative enacted in Parliament Anno 1661. the Apologetick Relation doth abundantly demonstrate Sect. 10. Concerning the Kings Civil Supremacy enhancing all the Absoluteness that ever the Great Turk could arrogate and yet far short of what hath been Usurped since and impudently proclaimed to the world especially by him who now domineers in his Challenges of Soveraign Authority prerogative Royal Absolute Power which all are to obey without reserve whereby the whole basis of our Constitution and Bulwark of our Religion Laws Liberties is enervated and we have security of no Law but the Kings lust Hence I argue Those Princes that contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown have overturned all fundamental Laws cannot be ouned But our Princes have contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown overturned all fundamental Laws Ergo they cannot be ouned The Major is plain for they that overturn fundamental Laws are no Magistrats thereby all the ends of Government being subverted and the subverter cannot be ouned as a Father or friend but an open enemy to the Common-wealth nor looked upon as Magistrats doing their duty but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Common-wealth And in this case the compact the ground of the Constitution being violated they fall from their right and the people are Liberated from their obligation and they being no Magistrats the people are no subjects for the relation is mutual and so is the obligation Ius populi chap. 9. pag. 183. The Minor is manifest both from the matter of fact and the Mischiefs framed into Laws by the Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power foresaid whereby what remains of our fundamental Constitutions either in Religious or Civil Settlements unsubverted as yet may be subverted when this Absolute Monarch pleases Which Absolute Authority we cannot in conscience oune for these Reasons taken both from Reason Scripture First it s against Reason 1. A power contrare to Nature cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which takes away and makes the people to give away their Natural power of preserving their lives Liberties and sets a man above all rule Law is contrare to Nature such is Absolute power making people resign that which is not in their power to resign an absolute power to destroy Tyrannize 2. A power contrare to the first rise of its Constitution cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for The first rise of the Constitution is a peoples seting a Soveraign over them giving him Authority to administer justice over them But it were against this to set one over them with a power to rage at randome and rule as he lists It s proven before a King hath no power but what the people gave him but they never gave never could give an absolute power to destroy themselves 3. That power which is against the ends of Government cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which will make a peoples condition worse then before the Constitution and that mean which they intended for a blessing to turn a plague scourage to them and all the subjects to be formal slaves at the Princes devotion must needs be contrare to the ends of Government But Absolute power is such for against the exorbitance thereof no means would be left to prevent its obstructing all the fountains of Justice and commanding Laws Lawyers to speak not justice righteousness reason but the lust pleasure of one man and turning all into Anarchy confusion Certainly it could never be the intention either of the work or workers at the Constitution of Government to set up a power to enslave the people to be a Curse to them but their ends was to get comfort safety Liberty under the shadow of Government 4. That power which invalidates and is inconsistent with the Kings compact with the people cannot be ouned Absolute Power is such for the tenor of that is alwise to secure Laws Liberties to rule according to Law but to be Absolute invalidates is inconsistent with that That which were an engagment into Contradictories cannot consist with that compact but to engage to be absolute and yet to rule by Law is an engagment into Contradictories which no people could admit for a security It s inconsistent with this compact to give the King Absolute Power to overturn Religion Liberty and to assume it which was never given were to invalidate this compact and to make himself no King but to restore unto the people the power they conferred upon him for the defence of Religion Liberty 5 That power which is not from God nor of God cannot be ouned But Absolute Power is not of God because it is a power to Tyrannize Sin which if it were of God He should be the Author of Sin for if the Moral Power be of God so must the acts be but the acts of Absolute Power being Lawless cannot be from God Ergo neither the Moral Power to commit these acts 6. That Ruler who cannot be Gods Minister for the peoples good cannot be ouned for that is the formal reason of our consfiencious subjection to Rulers Rom. 13. 4 5. But Absolute Soveraigns are such as cannot be Gods Ministers for the peoples good for if they be Gods Ministers for good they must administer justice preserve peace rule by Law take directions from their Master and if so they cannot be absolute 7. A Tyrant in actu signato exercito cannot be ouned But an Absolute Prince is such being a power that may play the Tyrant if he pleases and jure as King And so if Kings be actu primo Tyrants then people are actu primo Slaves and so Royal Power cannot be a blessing to them yea a Lawless breaker of all bonds promises Oaths cannot be ouned as Lawful Power But Absolute Power is such for it cannot be limited by these Obligations at least people cannot have any seurity by them 8. A Lawless Power is not to be ouned An Absolute Power is a Lawless power Ergo not to be ouned The Major is plain Cicero sayes Lib. 2. de officio Eadem constituendarum Legum causa fuit quae Regum The reason of making Lawes was the same as of the creation of Kings And Buchanan de jure Regni very excellently when the lust of Kings was in stead of Laws and being vested with an infinite immoderate power they did not contain themselves within bounds the insolency of Kings made Laws to be desired for this cause Laws were made by the people and Kings constrained to make use not of their Licencious wills in judgment but of
that right priviledge which the people had conferred upon them being taught by many experiences that it was better that their Liberty should be concredited to Laws than to Kings better to have the Law which is a dumb King than a King who is not a speaking Law. If then Laws be necessary for the making of Kings and more necessary than Kings And the same cause requirs both then a King without Laws is not to be ouned Rex must be Lex loquens a King must be a speaking living Law reducing the Law to practice So much then as a King hath of Law so much he hath of a King and he who hath nothing of the Law hath nothing of a King. Magna Charta of England saith the King can do nothing but by Law and no obedience is due to him but by Law. Buchanan rehearses the words of the most famous Emperours Theodosius Valentinianus to this effect Digna vox Majestate regnantis legibus se alligatum Principem fateri revero Imperio majus ost submittere legibus Principatum It is say they a word worthy of the Majestie of a King to confess he is a tyed Prince to the Laws and indeed it is more to submit a Principality to the Laws than to enjoy an Empire But now that an absolute power must be a Lawless power is also evident for that 's a Lawless power that makes all Laws void needless useless but such is absolute power for it cannot be confined to the observance of Laws 9. That power which is destructive to the peoples Liberties cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for such a Licencious freedom as is absolute cannot consist with the peoples Liberties for these he may infringe when he pleases Now these in their oun Nature and in all respects being preferable to the Kings prerogative And it being no prerogative which is not consistent with yea in its oun nature adapted to the precious Interests of Religion Liberty when the Kings Absolute Authority is stated in contradictory terms to these we cannot oune that Authority for now he hath another Authority than could be given him for the preservation of these Interests in the preservation whereof he can only have an Authority to be ouned seeing he claimes a power to destroy them if he please 10. If we should oune Absolute Authority then we should oune a Royal prerogative in the King to make dispense with Laws Now that cannot be ouned for it would infer that the King had a Masterly Dominion over his subjects to make Lawes inflict Penalties without their consent And plain it is they that make Kings must have a Coordinate power to make Laws also but the people in their Representatives make Kings as is proven Next a prerogative to dispense with Laws except such Laws as are in their oun nature dispensable without prejudice to any Law of God or Liberties of men cannot be ouned for any power to dispense with Reason Law not grounded on any other reason but meer will absolute pleasure is a brutish power It cannot be jus Coronae a right annexed to the Crown to do so for a King as a King illud tantum potest quod jure potest can do nothing but what he may do by Law. Nay this is not only a Brutish power but a Blasphemous power making him a Kind of God on earth illimited that can do what he pleases And to dispute it further were to dispute whether God hath made all under him slaves by their oun consent Or whether he may encroach on the prerogative of God or not By this prerogative he arrogates a power to dispense with the Laws of God also in pardoning Murtherers c. which no man hath power to do the Law of God being so peremptorly indispensable Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Numb 35. 30. 31. Who so killeth any person the murderer shall he put to death more over ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer but he shall be surely put to death These pardons are acts of blood to the Community If the Judgment be Gods as it is Deut. 1. 17. and not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. then no King can arrogate a power to dispense with it no more then an inferior Judge can dispense with the Kings Laws for the King is but a Minister bearing the Sword not in vain but as a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13. 4. They are but bastard Kings who give out sentances out of their oun mouth contrary to Gods mind And if he may do acts of grace by Prerogative above Law then may he also do acts of Justice so pretended by the same Prerogative and so may murder Innocents as well as pardon Murderers he may condemn the just as well as justify the wicked both which are alike abomination to the Lord Pro. 17. 15. This power cannot be ouned in any man. 11. To oune Absolute power were to recognosce the King as the proper sole Interpreter of the Law. This Buchanan shews to be very absurd Cum regi Legum interpretationem c. when yow grant the interpretation of Laws to a King yow give him such a Licence that the Law should not speak what the Lawgiver meaneth but what is for the Interpreters Interest so that he may turn it to all actions as a Lesbian rule for his oun advantage And so what he pleases the Laws shall speak and what he will not it shall not speak Now the Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the sense of the Law than it can be the Law it self He is King by Law but he is not King of Law No mortal can make a sense to a Law contrare to the Law for it involves a Contradiction the true meaning is only the Law. This also would take away the use of all Laws for they could not declare what were just unjust but as the King pleased their genuine sense could not be the rule 12. If we oune the Law to be above the King then we cannot oune the King to be absolute But the former is true For he must be under it several wayes 1 under its Directive power that will not be denyed 2 under its Constitutive power he is not a King by Nature but by Constitution Law therefore the Law is above the King because it s only from the Law that there is a King and that such a man and not another is King and that the King must be so so qualified and they that made him a King may also unmake him by the same Law. 3 under its Limiting Restrictive power as a man he cannot be absolute nor as a King by Law. 4 under its Coactive power A Law maker said King Iames the 6. should not be a Law breaker but if he turn an overturner of the fundamental Laws that Law or
same subject both in Thesi Hypothesi whosoever shall offer to rule Arbitrarly does immediatly cease to be King de jure seeing by the fundamental Common Statute-Laws of the Realme we know none for Supreme Magistrate Governour but a limited Prince and one who stands circumscribed bounded in his power Prerogative Ill effects of animosities Pag. 17. 7. From what is said this is the result that it is essentially necessary to a Moral power Authority to have a right title without which we can oune none but as a Tyrant sine Titulo For what is Authority but a right to rule if then it have not a right it is not Authority This will be undeniable if we consider that as Private dominon or Property consists in a right to enjoy So Publick dominion in a right to rule Some things indeed are exposed to the common arbitrary use of every man and also at the begining by reason of the fewness of mankind Dominion was not reduced to distinct Property yet now upon the Multiplication of Occupants of necessity it must be stated by peculiar appropriation from the Law of Nature and by the Grant of the Supreme King who hath given the earth to the Children of men Psal. 115. 16 not to be catched up as the food of beasts which the stronger seise and the weaker get only what the other leave them but divided by right as an Inheritance by Him who separated the Sons of Adam and set the bounds of the People Deut. 32. 8. Especially Publick Dominion cannot be without a foundation for its relation to the subjected and must be so tied up that it may be said this man is to command and these are to obey I shew that Authority is from God both by Institution Constitution so that the Subjects are given to understand such an one is singled out by God to sustain this Authority by prescribing a rule for mens entry into the Authoritative relation whereby He communicates that power to them which is not in others and which otherwise would not be in them Hence it is that Orderly admittance that must give the right and upon mens having or not having such an entrance to it depends the reality or nullity of the power they challenge Where therefore there is no Lawful Investure there is no Moral power to be ouned otherwise Iohn of Leyden his Authority might have been ouned the unlawfulness of such a power consists in the very tenore it self and if we take away the use or holding of it we take away the very being of it it is not then the abuse of a power Lawfully to be used but the very use of it is unlawful But in the Usurpation of this Man or Monster rather that is now mounted the Throne there is no Lawful investure in the way God hath appointed as is shewed above Ergo there is no Moral power to be ouned To clear this alitle further it will be necessary to remove the ordinary Prentences pleaded for a Title to warrant the ouning of such as are in power Which are three chiefly viz. Possession Conquest and Hereditary Succession The first must be touched more particularly because it hath been the originate error spring of all the stupid mistakes about Government and is the pitiful plea of many even Malecontents why this Mans Authority is to be ouned asserting that a person attaining occupying the place of power by whatsoever means is to be ouned as the Magistrate But this can give no right for 1. If Providence cannot signify Gods approbative ordination it can give no right for without that there can be no right But Providence cannot signify His approbative Ordination because that without the warrant of His Word cannot signify either allowance or dissallowance it is so various being often the same to Courses directly contrary and oftentimes contrary to the same Course sometimes favouring it sometimes crossing it whether it be good or bad And the same Common Providence may proceed from far different Purposes to one in Mercy to another in Judgment And most frequently very disproportionable to mens wayes Providence places sometimes wickedness in the place of Iudgment and iniquity in the place of righteousness Eccless 3. 16. that is not by allowance By Providence it happens to the just according to the work of the wicked and to the wicked according to the work of the righteous Eccless 8. 14. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them all things come alike to all there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked Eccel 9. 1. It were a great debasing of the Lords anointed to give him no other warrant then sin hath in the world or the falling of a Sparrow 2. Either every Providential Possession in every ease gives a title Or God hath Declared it as a Law that it shall be so in this particular matter of Authority only The first cannot be said for that would justify all robbery Nor the second for where is that Law found Nay it were impious to alledge it for it would say there is no unjust Possessor or Disorderly occupant but if he were once in the Possession he were right enough And then Usurpation would be no sin 3. If none of the Causes of Magistracy be required to the producing of this Possessory power then it cannot give or have any right for without the true Causes it cannot be the true effect and so can have no true right to be ouned But none of the Causes of Magistracy are required to the production of this neither the Institution of God for this might have been if Magistracy had never been instituted Nor the Constitution of men for this may usurp without that 4. That which must follow upon the right and be Legitimated by it cannot be ouned as the right nor can it give the title But the Possession of the power or the Possessory exercise thereof must follow upon its right and be legitimated by it Ergo A man must first be in the relation of a Ruler before he can rule and men must first be in the relation of subjects before they obey The Commands of Publick Justice to whom are they given but to Magistrats They must then be Magistrats before they can be ouned as the Ministers of Justice he must be a Magistrate before he can have the power of the Sword he cannot by the power of the Sword make himself Magistrate 5. That which would make every one in the Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession a Tyrant for that which enervats takes away that necessary Distinction between the Kings personal Capacity his Legal Capacity his natural his moral power will make every King a Tyrant seeing
it makes every thing that he can do as a man to be Legally done as a King But a Possessory occupation giving right would enervate take away that distinction for how can these be distinguished in a meer Possessory power the mans Possession is all his legal power and if Possession give a right his power will give legality 6. What sort or size of Possession can be ouned to give a right Either it must be partial or plenary possession Not partial for then others may be equally entitled to the Government in competition with that partial possessor having also a part of it Not plenary for them every interruption or Usurpation on a part would make a dissolution of the Government 7. Hence would follow infinite absurdities this would give equal warrant in case of vacancy to all men to step to stickle for the throne and expose the Common wealth as a booty to all aspiring spirits for they needed no more to make them Soveraigns and lay a tye of subjection upon the consciences of people but to get into possession And in case of Competition it would leave people still in suspense uncertainties whom to oune for they behoved to be subject only to the Uppermost which could not be known until the Controversy be decided It would cassate make void all preobligations Cautions restrictions from God about the Government it would Cancel and make vain all other titles of any or Constitutions or provisions or Oaths of Allegiance yea to what purpose were Laws or pactions made about ordering the Government if possession gave right laid an obligation on all to oune it yea then it were sinful to make any such provisions to fence in limit the determination of providence if providential possession may authorize every intruesive acquisition to be ouned Then also in case of competition of two equal pretenders to the Government there would be no place left for arbitrations If this were true that he is the power that is in possession the difference were at an end no man could plead for his oun right then In this also it is inconsistent with it self condemning all resistence against the present occupant yet justifying every resistence that is but successful to give possession 8. That which would oblige us to oune the Devil the Pope cannot be a ground to oune any man But if this were true that possession gave right it would oblige us to oune the Devil the pope Satan we find claiming to himself the possession of the worlds Kingdoms Luk. 4. 6. which as to many of them is in some respect true for he is called the God of this world and the Prince of this world Iohn 14. 30. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Are men therefore obliged to oune his authority or shall they deny his and acknowledge his lievtenant who bears his name and by whom all his orders are execute I mean the man that Tyranizes over the people of God for he is the Devil that casts some into prison Revel 2. 10. Again the Pope his Captain-General layes claim to a Temporal power Ecclesiastick both over all the Nations and possesses it over many and again under the Conduct of his vassal the Duke of York is attempting to recover the possession of Britain Shall he therefore be ouned This Cursed Principle disposes men for Poperie and contributes to strengthen Poperie Tyrannie both on the stage to the vacating of all the promises of their dispossession 9. That which would justify a Damnable sin and make it a ground of a duty cannot be ouned But this fancy of ouning every power in possession would justify a damnable sin and make it the ground of a duty for Resistence to the powers ordained of God is a damnable sin Rom 13. 2. but the Resisters having success in providence may come to the possession of the power by expelling the just occupant and by this opinion that possession would be ground for the duty of subjection for Conscience sake 10. If a self-created dignity be null and not to be ouned then a meer possessory is not to be ouned But the former is ttue as Christ saith Iohn S. 54. If I honour myself my honor is nothing 11. That which God hath disallowed cannot be ouned But God hath expresly disallowed possession without right Ezek. 21. 27. I will overturn overturn overturn it until He come whose right it is Hos. 8. 4. They have set up Kings not by me Math. 26. 52. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword by this the Usurper of the Sword is differenced from the true ouner 12. Many Scripture examples confut this shewing that the possession may be in one and the power with right in another David was the Magistrate and yet Absalom possessed the place 2 Sam. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. chap. Shebah also made a revolt and Usurped the possession in a great part and yet David was King 2 Sam. 20. 2. Adonijah got the start in respect of possession exalting himself saying I will be King yet the Kingdom was Solomons from the Lord. 1 King. 1. ch The house of Ahaziah had not power to keep still the Kingdom 2 Chron. 22. 9. and Athaliah took the possession of it yet the people set up Ioash 23. 3. Next we have many examples of such who have invaded the possessor Witness Iehoram Iehoshaphat their expedition against Mesba King of Moah Elisha being in the expedition 2 King. 3. 4 5. Hence we see the first pretence removed The Second is no better which Augustine calls Magnum Latrocinium a Great Robberie I mean conquest or a power of the Sword gotten by the Sword which that it can give no right to be ouned I prove 1. That which can give no signification of Gods approving will cannot give a Title to be ouned But meer conquest can give no signification of Gods approving will as is just now proven about possession for then the Lord should have approven all the unjust conquests that have been in the world 2. Either conquest as conquest must be ouned as a just Title to the Crown and so the Ammonites Moabites Philistims c. prevailing over Gods people for a time must have reigned by right or as a just conquest in this case conquest is only a mean to the conquerours seising holding that power which the State of the war entitled him unto And this ingress into Authority over the conquered is not grounded on conquest but on justice and not at all privative but Inclusive of the consent of the people and then it may be ouned but without a compact upon conditions of securing Religion Liberty the posterity cannot be subjected without their consent for what ever just quarrel the conquerour had with the present Generation he could haue none with the Posterity the Father can have no power to resign the Liberty of the Children 3. A King as King and by virtue of his Royal Office
the Lord. So that we sin against the fifth Command when we honour them that we are obliged to contemn by another Command Hence I argue If ouning or honouring of Tyrants be a breach of the fifth Command then we cannot oune their Authority But the former is true Ergo the latter I prove the Assumption A honouring the vile to whom no honour is due and who stand under no relation of Fathers as Fathers is a breach of the fifth Command But the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a honouring the vile to whom no honour is due and who stand under no relation of Fathers and is yet a honouring them as Fathers Ergo the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a breach of the fifth Command The Major is clear for if the honouring of these to whom no honour is due were not a breach of the fifth Command that precept conld neither be kept at all nor broken at all It could not be kept at all for either it must oblige us to honour all indefinitely as Fathers and other relations which cannot be or else it must leave us still in suspence ignorance who shall be the object of our honour and then it can never be kept or finally it must astrict our honouring to such definite relations to whom it is due then our transgression of that restriction shall be a breach of it Next if it were not so it could not be broken at all for if prostituting abusing honour be not a sin we cannot sin in the matter of honour at all for if the abuse of honour be not a sin then dishonour also is not a sin for that is but an abuse of the duty which is a sin as well as the omission of it And what should make the taking away of honour from the proper object to be sin and the giving it to a wrong object to be no sin Moreover if this Command do not restrict honour to the proper object we shall never know who is the object how shall we know who is our Father or what we owe to him if we may give another his due The Minor also is manifest for if Tyrants be vile then no honour is due to them according to that Psal. 15. 4. And yet it is a honouring them as Fathers if they be ouned as Magistrats for Magistrats are in a politick sense Fathers But certain it is that Tyrants are vile as the Epithets Characters they get in Scripture prove But because in contradiction to this it may be said though Fathers be never so wicked yet they are to be honoured because they are still Fathers And though Masters be never so vile and froward yet they are to be subjected unto 1 Pet. 2. 18-20 and so of other relations to whom honour is due by this Command therefore though Tyrants be never so vile they are to be ouned under these relations because they are the higher Powers in place of Eminency to whom the Apostle Paul commands to yeeld subjection Rom. 13. and Peter to give submission honour 1 Pet. 2. 13 17. Therefore it must be considered that as the relative duty of honouring the relations to whom it is due must not interfere with the moral duty of contemning the vile who are not under these relations So this general Moral of contemning the vile must not caâ—sate the obligation of relative duties but must be understood with a Consistency therewith without any prejudice to the duty it self We must contemn all the vile that are not under a relation to be honoured and these also that are in that relation in so far as they are vile But now Tyrants do not come under these Relations at all that are to be honoured by this Command As for the higher Powers that Paul speaks of Rom. 13. they are not those which are higher in foâ—ce but higher in Power not in potentia but in potestate not in a Celsitude of prevalency but in a precellency of dignity not in the pomp pride of their prosperity possession of the place but by the virtue value of their office being ordained of God not to be resisted the Ministers of God for good terrors to evil doers to whom honour is due those are not Tyrants but Magistrats Hence it is a word of the same root which is rendered Authority or an Authorized Power 1 Tim. 2. 2. And from the same word also comes that supreme to whom Peter commands subjection honour 1 Pet. 2. 13. Now these he speaks of have the Legal Constitution of the people being the ordinance of man to be subjected to for the Lords sake and who sends other inferior Magistrats for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well who are to be honoured as Kings or Lawful Magistrats this cannot be said of Tyrants But more particularly to evince that Tyrants Usurpers are not to be honoured according to this Command and that it is a breach of it so to do let us go through all these Relations of Superiority that come under the obligation of this Command and we shall find Tyrants Usurpers excluded out of all First they cannot come under the Parental relation We are indeed to esteem Kings as Fathers though not properly but by way of some Analogy because it is their office to care for the people and to be their Counsellers and to defend them as Fathers do for Children but Roaring Lyons Ranging Bears as wicked Rulers are Prov. 28. 15. cannot be Fathers But Kings cannot properly be ouned under this Relation far less Tyrants with whom the Analogy of Fathers cannot consist there being so many notable disparities betwixt Kings Fathers 1. A Father may be a Father to one Child but a King cannot be a King or Politick Father to one only but his Correlate must be a Community a Tyrant can be a Father to none at all in a Politick sense 2. A Father is a Father by Generation to all coming out of his loyns a King not so he doth not beget them nor doth their relation flow from that a Tyrant is a destroyer not a Procreator of people 3. A Father is the cause of the Natural being of his Children A King only of the Politick well being of his subjects but Tyrants are he cause of the ill being of both 4. A Father once a Father as long as his Children live retains still the relation thô he turn mad and never so wicked A King turning mad may be served as Nebuchadnezzar was at least all will grant in some cases the subjects may shake off thâ— King and if in any case it is when he turns Tyrant 5. A Fathers relation never ceases whither soeuer his Children go but subjects may change their relation to a King by coming under another King in another Kingdom a Tyrant will force all lovers of freedom to leave the Kingdom where he Domineers 6. A Fathers relation never changes he can neither
Magistrate Hence a person that is incapable incompetent for Government cannot be ouned for a Governour But the D. of Y. is such a person not only not qualified as the Word of God requires a Magistrate to be but by the Laws of the Land declared incapable of Rule because he is a Papist a Murderer an Adulterer c. 3. There must be in Moral Power a Lawful Title Investure as is shewed above which if it be wanting the Power is null and the person but a Scenical King like Iohn of Leyden This is essentially necessary to the being of a Magistrate which only properly distinguishes him from a private man for when a person becomes a Magistrate what is the change that is wrought in him what new habit or endewment is produced in him he hath no more natural power than he had before only now he hath the Moral Power right Authority to Rule Legally impowering him to Govern. Let it be Considered what makes a subordinate Magistrate whom we may oune as such It must be only his Commission from a Superior Power otherwise we reject him If one come to us of his oun head taking upon him the style office of a Bailif Sheriff or Judge and command our Persons demand our purses or exact our Oaths we think we may deny him not taking our selves to owe him any subjection not ouning any bond of conscience to him why because he hath no lawful Commission Now if we require this qualification in the subordinate why not in the Supreme Hence that Magistrate that cannot produce his Legal Investure cannot be ouned But the D. of Y. cannot produce his Legal Investure his admission to the Crown upon Oath Compact and with the consent of the subjects according to the Laws of the Land as is shewed above Ergo 4. There must also be the Lawful Use of the Power which must be not only legal for its composure but right for its practice its Course Process in Government must be just Governing according to Law otherwise it is meer Tyranny for what is Government but the subjecting of the Community to the rule of Governours for Peace Orders sake and the security of all their precious Interests and for what end was it ordained and continued among men but that the stronger may not domineer over the weaker And what is Anarchy but the playing the Rex of the Natural power over the Moral Hence that Power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical can tye none to subjection But the power of the King abused to the destruction of Laws Religion Liberties giving his power strength unto the beast making war with the Lamb Revel 17. 13 14. is a power contrary to Law evil Tyrannical Ergo it can tye none to subjection wickedness by no imaginable reason can oblige any man. It is Objected by some from Rom. 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Usurping power is a power Therefore it is of God and consequently we owe subjection to it Ans. 1. The Original reading is not Universal but thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is no power if not from God which confirms what I plead for that we are not to oune any Authority if it be not Authorized by God. The words are only relative to higher powers in a restricted sense and at most are but indefinite to be determined according to the matter not all power simply but all Lawful power 2. It is a fallacia a dicto secundum quid There is no power but of God that is no Moral Power as Universal negatives use to be understood Heb. 5. 4. no man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God which is clear must not be understood for the negation of the fact as if no man at all doth or ever did take unto himself that honour for Korah did it c. but no man taketh it warrantably with a Moral right and Gods allowance without Gods call So also the universal imperative in that same Text must not be taken absolutely without restriction for if every soul without exception were to be subject there could be none left to be the higher powers but it is understood with restriction to the relation of a subject So here no Power but of God to be understood with restriction to the relation of a Lawful Magistrate It it also to be understood indiscriminately in reference to the diverse species sorts degrees of Lawful Power Supreme subordinate whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours c. as Peter expresses it Or whether they be Christian or Pagan It cannot be meant of all universally that may pretend to power and may attain to prevailing Potency for then by this Text we must subject our selves to the Papacy now intended to be introduced and indeed if we subject our selves to this Papist the next thing he will require will be that 3. To the Minor proposition I Answer The usurping power is a power It is Potentia I grant that it is Potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority I deny Therefore it is of God by His Providence I concede by His Ordinance I deny Consequently we owe subjection to it I deny We may be subject passively I grant Actively out of conscience I deny But some will Object 2. Though the Power be Usurped and so not Morally Lawful in all these respects yet it may do good its Laws administrations may be good Ans. I grant all is good that ends well and hath a good begining That cannot be good which hath a bad principle bonum ex integra causa Some Government for constitution good may in some acts be bad but a Government for constitution bad cannot for the acts it puts forth be good These good acts may be good for matter but formally they are not good as done by the Usurper They may be comparatively good that is better so then worse but they cannot be absolutely and in a Moral sense good for to make a Politick action good not only the matter must be warrantable but the Call also It may indeed induce subjects to bear improve to the best what cannot be remedied but cannot oblige to oune a Magistratical Relation II. The Nature of the power thus discovered lets us see the Nature of that relative duty which we owe must oune as due to Magistrates and what sort of ouning we must give them which to inquire a litle into will give light to the question All the duty deference the Lord requires of us towards them whom we must oune as Magistrates is comprehended in these two expressions honour required in the fifth Command and subjection required in Rom. 13. 1. c. 1 Pet. 2. 13. c. Whomsoever then we oune as Magistrates we must oune honour subjection as due to them And if so be we cannot upon a consciencious ground give them honour subjection we cannot
smitten by him Authoritatively whom therefore he did threaten with the judgment of God it were wicked to think that he would retract that threatening which he pronunced by the Spirit of God. And therefore this place confirms my Thesis If a Tyrannical Judge acting contrary to Law is not to be known or acknowledged to be a Ruler but upbraided as a whited wall Then a Tyrant is not to be known or acknowledged as such But the former is true from this place Therefore also the latter Paul knew well enough he was a Judge and knew well enough what was his duty to a Judge that he should not be reviled but he would not acknowledge this Priest to be a Judge or retract his threatening against him 2. He is of God ordained of God I proved before Tyrants are not capable of this yea it were blasphemy to say they are Authorized or Ordained of God by His Preceptive Will. Hence take only this Argument All Rulers that we must oune are ordained of God do reign are set up by God Prov. 8. 15. for that this place are paralell But Tyrants do not reign nor are set up by God Hos. 8. 4. They are set up saith the Lord but not by me Ergo we cannot oune them to be ordained of God. 3. Whosoever resisteth this power ordained of God resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation vers 2. This cannot be ouned of a Tyrant that it is a damnable sin to resist him for it is duty to resist also repress him as is proven already and shall be afterwards Hence whatsoever Authority we oune subjection to we must not resist it But we cannot oune that we must not resist this Authority therefore we cannot oun it at all Again That cannot be the power not to be resisted which is acquired improved by resisting the Ordinance of God But the power of Usurpers Tyrants is acquired improved by resisting the ordinance of God Ergo their power cannot be the power not to be resisted The Major is manifest for when the Apostle sayes the resisting of the power bring damnation to the resister certainly that resistance cannot purchase Dominion instead of damnation And if he that resists in a lesser degree be under the doom of damnation then certainly he that does it in a greater degree so as to complete it in puting himself in place of that power which he resisted cannot be free The Minor is also undenyable for if Usurpers acquire their power without resistence forcible sensible it is because they that defend the power invaded are wanting in their duty but however Morally the Tyrant or Usurper is alwayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in contrary order to a Lawful Power 4. Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil and they that doe that which is good shall have praise of the same vers 3. This is the Character duty of righteous Magistrates though it be not alwayes their Administration But an Usurper Tyrant is not capable or susceptible of this Character but on the contrary is must be a terror to good works and a praise to the evil for he must be a Terror to them that would secure their rights Liberties in opposition to his encroachments which is a good work he must be a fautor Patron Protector of such as encourage maintain him in his Usurpation Tyranny which is an evil work And if he were a terror to the evil then he would be a terror to himself all his Complices which he cannot be Therefore that power which is not capable of the duties of Magistrates cannot be ouned But the Power of Tyrants Usurpers is such Ergo We find in Scripture the best Commentare on this Character where the duties of a Magistrate are described They must justify the righteous condemn the wicked Deut. 27. 1. They must as Iob did deliver the poor that cry and put on righteousness as a cloathing and be eyes to the blind feet to the lame and a Father to the poor and break the Jawes of the the wicked Iob 29. 12-17 Their Throne must be established by righteousness Prov. 16. 12. a King sitting on the Throne of Judgement must scatter away all evil with his eyes then Mercy Truth will preserve him and his Throne is upholden by Mercy Prov. 20. 8 28. But Tyrants have a quite contrary Character The Throne of iniquity frames Mischief by a Law and condemns the innocent blood Psal. 94. 20. 21. They judge not the fatherless neither doeth the cause of the widow come unto them Isai. 1. 23. They build their house by unrighteousness their chambers by wrong and use their neighbours service without wages Ier. 22. 13. They oppress the poor crush the needy Amos 4. 1. They turn judgement to Gall the fruit of righteousness to hemlock and say have we not taken horns to as by our oun strength Amos 6. 12 13. These contrary Characters cannot consist together 5. He is the Minister of God for good vers 4. not by Providential Commission as Nebuchadnezzar was and Tyrants may be eventually by the Lord making all things turn about for the good of the Church but he hath a Moral Commission from God is entrusted by the people to procure their Publick Politick good at least Now this and Tyranny Usurpation are together inconsistible for if Tyrants Usurpers were Ministers for good then they would restore the publick personal Rights and rectify all wrongs done by them but then they must surrender their Authority and resign it or else all rights cannot be restored nor wrongs rectified Hence these that cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good cannot be ouned as Magistrates But Tyrants Usurpers and in particular this Man are such as cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good Ergo Again If Magistracy be alwise a blessing and Tyranny Usurpation alwise a Curse then they cannot be ouned to be the same thing and the one cannot be ouned to be the other But Magistracy or the right-ful Magistrate is alwise a blessing Tyranny Usurpation or the Tyrant Usurper alwise a curse Ergo That the former is true these Scriptures prove it God provides him for the benefite of His people 1 Sam. 16. 1. a just Ruler is compared to the light of the morning when the sun riseth even a morning without Clouds 2 Sam. 23. 4. So the Lord exalted Davids Kingdom for His people Israels sake 2 Sam. 5. 12. because the Lord Loved Israel for ever therefore made He Solomon King to do judgement Justice 1 King. 10. 9. when the righteous are in Authority the people rejoice the King by Judgement stabilisheth the Land Prov. 29. 2 4. The Lord promises Magistrates as a special blessing Isai. 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. and therefore their continuance is to be praye◠for that we
shall possess And in the 16. Art. of the Kirk Christ is the only Head of the same Kirk And yet in the Test the King is affirmed to be the only supreme in all causes Ecclesiastical 2 In the 14. Art. among good works are reckoned these to obey Superior powers and their charges not repugning to the Commandment of God to save the lives of Innocents to repress Tyranny to defend the oppressed And among evil works these are qualified to resist any that God hath placed in Authority while they pass not over the bounds of their Office And Art. 24. it is confessed that such as resist the supreme power doing that which pertains to his charge do resist Gods Ordinance while the Princes Rulers vigilantly travel in the execution of their Office. And yet in the Test true Allegiance is engaged into without any such limitations And it is affirmed to be unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to convocate c. or to take up Armes against the King. 3 In the 14. Art. Evil works are affirmed to be not only those that expressly are done against Gods Commandment but those also that in matters of Religion Worshipping of God have no other assurance but the invention opinion of men And Art. 18. among the Notes of the true Church Ecclesiastical Discipline uprightly ministred as Gods Word prescribes whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished is one In Art. 20. the voice of God and constitution of men are opposed And yet in the Test they swear never to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government of the Church as it is now established whereof many things must be altered yea the whole forme frame of it if these propositions be true as they are 4 In the Test they swear never to consent to any change or alteration contrary to that confession and that all principles practices contrary thereto are Popish fanatical for so they divide them into one of these disjunctively then must all the following principles in their Test be renounced as such seeing they are contrary to that confession in some propositions or Articles And that the Government established by that confession was Presbyterian and this established by the Test is Episcopal 2. It comprehends all the former Oaths Bonds which are cleared above to be sinful Yet for as wicked as it is it must be some way homologated by the Oath of Abjuration excepting the contradiction that is in it Seeing all these oppositions against the King sworn aginst in the Test are abjured renounced in that Oath of Abjuration in renouncing all Declarations of war against the King for if any war can be undertaken against him all these Kinds of opposition must be allowed that are in the Test sworn against VIII In the last place I shall come to consider more particularly the Oath of Abjuration it self for refusing of which the sufferings were more severe being extended even to death or banishment though the words be more smooth than in any of the former which are these I do abjure renounce disoune a late pretended Declaration affixed on several Merâ—at Crosses c. in so far as it declares War against the King and assert it Lawful to kill any that serve his Maj. in Church State Army or Country That the taking of this Oath is a step of Complyance dishonourable to God derogatory to the dayes Testimony contradictory to the many reiterated Confessions of Christs Worthy though poor despised Witnesses sealed by their blood bonds banishments encouraging gratifying to the Enemies of God hardening to backsliding Brethren offensive to the Generation of the Righteous stumbling to all leaving a stain sting upon the Conscience of the Subscriber I shall endeavour to make out by these Considerations 1. Considering the party who imposed it it must be looked upon as a Confederacy with them being tendered upon all the Subjects as a Test of their incorporating themselves with and declaring themselves for their head and syding with them him in this their Contest Contention with a poor Remnant of the Lords people persecuted murdered by them for Truth Conscience sake who issued forth that Declaration against them here abjured Therefore let the party be considered imposing the Oath with such rigour and prosecuting the Refusers with ravenous rage murdering torturing all who did not comply with them declaring a Ware more formally explicitely against Christ as King and all that will dare to assert their Allegiance to Him under an open displayed banner of defyance of Him His than ever Mortals durst espouse avouch The head of that Treacherous Truculent faction both he who was first declared against in that Declaration and he who hath by bloody treacherous Usurpation succeeded to him being such a Monster for Murder Mischief Tyranny Oppression Perfidy that among all the Nimrods Nero's that past ages can recount we cannot find a paralel by all Law Divine humane incapable of Government or any Trust or so much as Protection or any Priviledge but to be pursued by all as a Common enemy to mankind And his Underlings Agents Complices devoted to his lust serving his wicked designs in their respective offices places of trust under him which by his nomination sole appointment they have been erected to established in with the stain indelible Character of perjurie the only qualification of their being capable of any advancement occupying by usurpation intrusion violence the publick places of judicatories and carrying all so insolently arbitrarly and with an effrontry of wickedness despight of all Reason Religion or Justice that they cannot but be looked upon as the most pestilent pestiferous Plague that ever pestered a People The taking then of this Oath by them projected as a Pest to infect Consciences with and pervert them to wicked Truth-deserting Law-perverting Loyaltie and imposed as a Test of Complyance with them and coming off from that litle flock whom they design to devour destinate to destruction must be in their oun esteem as well as of the Generation of the Righteous to their satisfaction and the others sorrow a real incorporating with them an ouning of their usurped power as Judges to administer Oaths giving them all obedience they required for the time to their Authority and all the security they demanded for the Subscribers Loyaltie an approving of all their Proceedings in that matter and transacting tampering bargaining with these Sons of Belial out of fear whereby a right is purchased to that common badge of their ouned professed friends who upon taking that Oath had from them a priviledge allowance to travel traffique where and how they will through the Country denyed to all other that wanted that Badge I mean the Pass or Testificate they got from them thereupon which was the Mark of that secular beast of Tyrannie no less pernicious to
but our Ministers that ventured their lives in preaching in the fields have had a certain seal to their Ministry is sealed sensibly in the conviction of many confession of moe That Christs Ministers Witnesses employed about the Great Gospel Message cloathed with His Authority under the obligation of His Commands lying upon them must preach the people must hear them not withstanding of all Laws to the contrary Divines grant that the Magistrate can no more suspend from the exercise than he can depose from the Office of the Ministry for the one is a degree unto the other See Apollon de jure Majest circa Sacra Part. 1. Pag. 334. c. Rutherf Due right of Presb. Pag. 430. c. For whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God the Consciences of the greatest enemies may be appealed unto Act. 4. 19. They must not cease wherever they have a Call Occasion to Teach Preach Iesus Christ Act. 5. ult Necessity is laid upon them yea wo unto them if they Preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 16. In all things they must approve themselves as the Ministers of God in much patience in afflictions in necessities c. by honour dishonour by evil report good report as deceivers and yet true as unknown yet well known 2 Cor. 6. 4 8 9. They must preach the Word be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 2. Dare any say then that a Magistrats or Tyrants Laws can exauctorate a Minister or silence him by his oun proper elicite acts as King or Tyrant or formally immediately Will Mischiefs framed into a Law warrant such iniquity or an act of a King of Clay rescind the Mandats of the King of Kings or exempt people from obedience due thereunto Or will the Bishops Canons who have no power from Christ or the Censures of them that stand condemned themselves by the Constitutions of the Church Acts of the General Assemblies have any weight in the case And yet these are all that can be alledged except odious invidious Calumnies the ordinary Lot of the most faithful against the present preachers in the fields which are sufficiently confuted in their late Informatory Vindication and need not here be touched Seeing therefore they have given up themselves unto Christ as His servants they must resolve to be employed for Him to the outmost of their power and must not think of laying up their Talent in a Napkin especially now when there is so great necessity when Defection is yet growing covered countenanced more more Division nothing abated but new oyl cast daylie into the flames of devouring Contentions the people generally drouned in the deluge of the times snares sins and like to be over whelmed in the inundation of black Poperie now coming in at the opened sluce of this wicked Toleration with the Congratulations of Addressing Ministers when now the Harvest is great and the Labourers are few Great then is the necessity and double must the woe be that abideth such Ministers as are silent at such a time And great inexcusable is the sin of the people if they do not come out and countenance faithful Ministers the Messengers of the Lord of hosts from whom they should seek the Law Mal. 2. 7. especially when there are so many that have palpably betrayed their Trust and so few that are faithful in the necessary Testimony of the day Seeing then faithful Ministers must preach people must hear where can they meet with conveniency safety freedom except either under the shelter of this wicked Toleration which they dare not do or else go to the fields 5. It must be obtained also that the Ministers have a right to Preach in this unfixed manner whereever they have a Call their relation now in this disturbed state of the Church being to be considered more extensively than in its settled condition For understanding which we must distinguish a three or four-fold relation that a Minister of the Gospel stands into First He is a Minister of Christ and Steward of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. having his Commission from Christ as his Master And this relation he hath universally wherever he is Secondly he is a Minister of the Catholick Church though not a Catholick Minister of it which is his primary relation for that is the Church in which Ministers are set 1 Cor. 12. 28. and to which they are given Eph. 4. 11 12. Thirdly He is a Minister of the particular Church whereof he is a Member and so in Scotland a Minister is a Minister of the Church of Scotland and is obliged to lay out himself for the good of that Church Fourthly he is a Minister of the particular Congregation whereunto he hath a fixed relation in a constitute case of the Church This last is not essential to a Minister of Christ but is subservient to the former relations but when separated from such a relation or when it is impossible to be held he is still a Minister of Christ and His Call to preach the Gospel stands binds See M r Durhams Degression on this particular on Revel chap. 2. pag. 89. c. in quarto For thô he be not a Catholick Officer having an equal relation to all Churches as the Apostles were Nevertheless he may exerce Ministerial Acts Authoritatively upon occasions warrantably calling for the same in other Churches as Heraulds of one King having Authority to charge in His Name wherever it be especially in a broken state of the Church when all the restriction his Ministerial relation is capable of is only a tye call to officiate in the service of that Church whereof he is a Member and so he hath right to preach every where as he is called for the edification of that Church The reasons are 1. He hath power from Christ the Master of the whole Church and therefore wherever the Masters Authority is acknowledged the Servants Ministerial Authority cannot be denied at least in relation to that Church whereof he is a Member as well as a Minister 2. He hath Commission from Christ principally for the edification of Christs body as far as his Ministrie can reach according to the Second relation 3. His relation to the whole Church is principal that which is fixed to a part is only subordinate because it is a part of the whole 4. His Commission is indefinite to preach the Gospel which will sâ—it as well in one place as in another 5. The same great ends of the Churches greater good edification which warrands fixing of a Minister to a particular charge in the Churches peaceable state will warrand his officiating more largely in her disturbed state 6. Else it would follow that a faithful Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed destroyed Church and all his
the chief of our fundamental Land-rights and the Cardinal Condition of the established Policy upon which we can only oune men for Magistrats by the Law of the Land And this Testimony by defence of the Gospel and of our oun lives cannot be given expediently any where but in the Fields It is also a Testimony for the freedom Authority of the Gospel-Ministrie and for their holding their unremovable Relation to the Church of Scotland which is infringed by these Tyrannical Acts and maintained by these exercises which is a priviledge to be contended for above beyond all other that can be contended for or defended especially to be maintained against those that have no power or Authority to take it away There will no man quite any of his goods upon a sentence coming from an incompetent Judge And shall Ministers or people be hectored or fooled from such a priviledge by them that have no such power 6. The keeping of Field-Meetings now is a Testimony for our Covenants the ouning whereof is declared Criminal by that same Law that discharges these Meetings in which we are sworn to preserve the Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government and to defend all the Churches Liberties and to oppose all their Opposites and endeavour their exstirpation And in the Solemn Acknowledgment of sins Engagment to duties we are sworn because many have of late laboured to supplant the Liberties of the Kirk to maintain defend the Kirk of Scotland in all her Liberties Priviledges against all who shall oppose undermine the same or encroach thereupon under any pretext whatsoever Since then the ouning of these Meetings and the Covenants are both discharged together and the ouning of the Covenant does oblige to a publick opposition against the dischargers and an avowed Maintinance of the Churches priviledges whereof this is in a manner the only chief Liberty now left to be maintained to keep Meetings where we may testify against them without dependence on their Toleration it must follow that these Meetings are to be maintained which only can be in the fields with conveniency 7. To give over these Field-Meetings now would be an hardening encouraging of these Enemies in their wicked design of banishing all these Meetings out of the Land which manifestly would be defeat by a resolute refusal of all to submit to their discharging of them and they that do submit and give them over do evidently contribute to the effectuating that wicked design which is certain does not nor will not terminate upon a simple suppression of that sort but further is intended to exstirpate all Meetings for Gospel Ordinances in which there is any Testimony against them To Comply therefore with such a forbearance of them at this time would lay a stone of stumbling before them to encourage them in these their designs when they should see their Contrivance so universally complyed with wherein they might boast that at length they had prevailed to put quite away that eye-sore of theirs Field-Meetings 8. To give over these Field-Meetings now were a stumbling to the poor ignorant people who might think that now it appears that Work was but of men and so hath come to naught and would look upon it as an evidence of fainting succumbing at last in the matter of the Testimony as being quite overcome and that indeed all have embraced accepted this present Toleration and were all alike sleeping under the shade and eating the fruits of such a bramble 9. Finally To give over these Field-Meetings now would be very scandalous to the posterity and to Strangers who shall read the History of our Church to find that as Prelacy came in without a joint Witness and the monstrous Blasphemous Sacrilegious Supremacy was erected without a Testimony in its season So black Poperie it self and Tyranny was introduced by a Toleration which laid them all by from a Testimony against these who formerly had valiantly resolutely faithfully contended against all lesser Corruptions but at last when that came and stricter prohibitions of all publick Meetings but under the Covert thereof were emitted then all were perswaded to comply with that Course How astonishing would it be to read that all these Contendings sealed with so much precious blood should come to such a pitiful Period But I hasten to the Next which is the Second Positive Ground of Suffering HEAD V. The Principle of Testimony for Defensive Armes Vindicated THis Truth is of that sort that can hardly be illustrated by demonstration not for the darkness thereof but for its self evidencing clearness being scarcely capable of any further elucidation than what is offered to the rational understanding by its simple proposition As first Principles can hardly be proven because they need no probation and cannot be made clearer than they are and such as cannot consent to them are incapable of conceiving any probation of them So this Truth of Self-preservation being Lawful because it is congenite with and irradicated in every nature that hath a Self which it can preserve can scarcely be more illustrated that it may do so than that it can do so And therefore to all who have a true respect to their oun as well as a due concern in the Interest of Mankind and zeal for the Interest of Christ it might seem superfluous to make a doubt or debate of this Were it not that a Generation of men is now prevailing that are as great Monsters in Nature as they are Malignant in Religion and as great perverters of the Law of Nature as they are Subverters of Municipal Laws and Everters of the Laws of God Who for ouning this principle as well as using the practice of Defensive Resistence for self preservation against Tyrannical violence have set up such Monuments of rage cruelty in the Murder of many innocent people as was never read nor heard of before It hath been indeed the practice of all Nations in the World and the greatest of men have maintained this principle in all ages But the bare Asserting the principle when extorted by severe Inquisitions was never a Cause of taking the lives of any before this was imposed on the poor Sufâ—erers in Scotland to give their judgement Whether or not such Appearances for Defence as the Tyranny of Rulers had forced people to were Rebâ—llion and a Sin against God Which they could not in Conscience assert and therefore thô many that have suffered upon this head have been as free of the practice of such Resâ—stence as any yet because they would not condemn the principle they have been Criminally processed Arraigned Condemned to the death And against this Truth they have been observed to have a special kind of indignation either because the light of it which cannot be â—id hath some heat with it to seâ—rch them or because they fear the impression of this in the hearts of people more than others knowing that they deserve the
not Gods Ordinance and there is no hazard of damnation for refusing to obey their unjust commands but rather the hazard of that is in walking willingly after the Commandment when the Statutes of Omri are kept So that what is objected from Eccles. 8. 2-4 I counsell thee to keep the Kings Commandment c. is answered on Head. 2. And is to be unsterstood only of the Lawful commands of Lawful Kings 2. Rebellion is a damnable sin except where the word is taken in a laxe sense as Israel is said to have Rebelled against Rehoboam and Hezekias against Sennacherib which was a good Rebellion and clear duty being taken there for Resistence Revolt In that sense indeed some of our Risings in Armes might be called Rebellions for it is Lawful to Rebel against Tyrants But because the word is usually taken in an evil sense therefore would have been offensive to acknowledge that before the Inquisitors except it had been explained But Rebellion against Lawful Magistrats is a damnable sin exemplarly punished in Korah and his Companâ— who rebelled against Moses and in Shebah and Absalom who rebelled against David for to punish the Just is not good nor to strike Princes for equity Prov. 17. 26. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13. 2. So that this Objection brought from this place as if the Apostle were commanding there subjection without Resistence to Nero and such Tyrants as it is very impertinent It is fully answered above Head. 2. Here it will be sufficient to reply 1. He is hereby vindicating Christianity from that reproach of casting off or refusing subjection to all Magistrats as if Christian Liberty had destroyed that Relation or that they were not to be subject to Heathen Magistrats Whereupon he binds this duty of subjection to Magistrats for conscience sake in general And it is very considerable what Buchanan sayes in his book de jure regni that Paul did not write to the Kings themselves because they were not Christians and therefore the more might be born with from them tho they should not understand the duty of Magistrats But imagine that there had been some Christian King who had turned Tyrant and Apostate to the Scandal of Religion what would he have written then Sure if he had been like himself he would have denyed that he should be ouned for a King and would have interdicted all Christians Communion with him and that they should account him no King but such as they were to have no fellowship with according to the Law of the Gospel 2. He speaks of Lawful Rulers here not Tyrants but of all such as are defined qualified here being powers ordained of God terrours to evil works Ministers of God for good Yea but says Prelats and their Malignant Adherents these are only Motives of subjection to all powers not qualifications of the powers I answer they are indeed Motives but such as can be extended to none but to these powers that are so qualified 3. He speaks of Lawful powers indefinitely in the plural number not specifying any Kind or degree of them as if only Kings Emperours were here meant It cannot be proven that the power of the sword is only in them Neither was there a plurality of Kings or Emperours at Rome to be subject to if he meant the Roman Emperour he would have designed him in the singular number All the reasons of the Text aggree to inferiour Judges also for they are Ordained of God they are called Rulers in Scripture and Gods Ministers revengers by Office who judge not for man but for the Lord And inferiour Magistrats also are not to be resisted when doing their duty 1 Pet. 2. 13. yet all will grant when they go beyond their bounds and turns litle Tyrants they may be with-stood 4. He does not speak of Nero concerning whom it cannot be proven that at this time he had the Soveraign power as the learned Mr Prin shewes Or if he had that he was a Tyrant at this time and if he meant him at all it was only as he was obliged to be de jure not as he was de facto All men know and none condemns the fact of the Senate that resisted Nero at length without transgressing this precept Yea I should rather think the Senate is the power that the Apostle applies this Text to if he applied it to any in particular 5. The subjection here required is the same with the honour in the fifth Command whereof this is an exposition and is opposite to the Contraordinatness here condemned Now subjection takes in all the duties we owe to Magistrates and Resistence all the contraries forbidden but unlimited obedience is not here required so neither unlimited subjection 3. We may allow Passive subjection in some cases even to Tyrants when the Lord layes on that yoke and in effect sayes He will have us to lie under it a while as He Commanded the Jewes to be subject to Nebuchadnezzar of which passage adduced to prove subjection to Tyrants Universally Buchanan ubi supra infers that if all Tyrants be to be subjected to because God by His Prephet Commanded His people to be subject to one Tyrant Then it must be likewise concluded that all Tyrants ought to be killed because Ahabs house was Commanded to be destroyed by Iehu But passive subjection when people are not in capacity to resist is necessary I do not say Passive obedience which is a meer Chimaera invented in the brains of such Sycophants as would make the world slaves to Tyrants Whosoever suffereth if he can shun it is an enemy to his oun being for every natural thing must strive to preserve it self against what annoyeth it and also he sins against the order of God Who in vain hath ordained so many Lawful means for preservation of our being if we must suffer it to be destroyed having power to help it 4. We abhor all war of subjects professedly declared against a Lawful King as such all war against Lawful Authority founded upon or designed for maintaining Principles inconsistent with Government or against Policy Piety Yea all war without Authority Yes when all Authority of Magistrates supreme subordinate is perverted and abused contrary to the ends thereof to the oppressing of the people and overturning of their Laws Liberties people must not suspend their Resistence upon the Concurrence of men of Authority and forbear the Duty in case of necessity because they have noâ— the peers or Primores to lead them for if the ground be Lawful the call clear the necessity cogent the capacity probable they that have the Law of Nature the Law of God and the fundamental Laws of the Land on their side cannot want Authority though they may want Parâ—iaments to espouse their quarrel This is cleared above Head. 2. Yet here I shall adde 1. The people have this priviledge of nature to defend themselves and their Rights Liberties as well as
Peers and had it before they erected and constituted Peers or Primores There is no distinction of quality in interests of Nature though ther be in Civil order but self defence is not an act of Civil order In such Interests people must not depend upon the priority of their superiours nor suspend the duties they owe to themselves and their neighbours upon the manuduction of other mens greatness The Law of Nature allowing self defence or the defence of our Brethren against unjust violence addeth no such restriction that it must only be done by the conduct or concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments 2. The people have as great Interest to defend their Religion as the Peers and more because they have more souls to care for than they who are far fewer And to be violented in their Consciences which are as free to them as to the Peers is as unsupportable to them yea both are equally concerned to maintain Truth and rescue their Brethren suffering for it which are the chief grounds of war and if the ground of the defensive war be the same with them and without them what reason can be given making their Resistence in the one case Lawful and not in the other Both are alike obliged to concur and both are equally obnoxious to Gods threatened Judgments for suffering Religion to be ruined and not relieving rescuing Innocents It will be but a poor excuse for people to plead they had no Peers to head them What if both King Nobles turn enemies to Religion as they are at this day shall people do nothing for the defence of it then Many times the Lord hath begun a Work of Reformation by foolish things and hath made the least of the flock to draw them out Ier. 49. 2. and 50. 45. and did not think fit to begin with Nobles but began it when powers Peers were in opposition to it and when He blessed it so at length as to engage the publick Representatives to oune it what was done by private persons before they never condenmed 3. The people are injured without the Nobles therefore they may resist without them if they be able for there can be no Argument adduced to make it unlawful to resist without them which will not equally make it unlawful to do it with them 4. It s true the Primores are obliged beyond others and have Authority more than others to concur but Separately they cannot act as Representatives judicially They have a Magistratical power but limited to their particular Precincts where they have Interest and cannot extend it beyond these bounds And so if they should concur they are still in the capacity of subjects for out of a Parliamentary Capacity they are not Representatives 5. All the power they can have is Cumulative not Privative for deterior conditio Domini per Procurationem fieri non debet Why then shall the Representatives betraying their Trust wrong the Cause of the people whose Trustees they are Nay if it were not Lawful for people to defend their Religion Lives Liberties without the concurrence of Parliaments then their case should be worse with them than without them for they have done it before they had them and so they had better be without them still 6. People may defend themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament or Primores or Nobles Ergo they may do it without them for if it be Lawful to resist them its Lawful to wave them when they are in a Conspiracy with the King against them 5. We disallow all war without real indeclinable Necessity and great grievous wrongs sustained and do not maintain it is to be declared or undertaken upon supposed Grounds or pretended Causes And so the Question is impertinently stated by our Adversaries Whether or not it be Lawful for Subjects or a party of them when they think themselves injured or to be in a capacity to Resist or Oppose the Supreme power of a Nation For the Question is not if when they think themselves injured they may Resist but when the injuries are real Neither is it every realitie of injuries will justify their Resistence but when their dearest nearest Liberties are invaded especially when such an invasion is made as threatens inâ—luctable subversion of them Next we do not say that a parties esteeming themselves in a Capacity or their being really in a Capacity doth make Resistence a duty except caeteris Paribus they have a Call as well as a Capacity which requires real Necessity and a right to the action and the things contended for to be real legal Rights really illegally encroached upon their Capacity gives them only a Conveniency to go about the duty that is previously Lawful upon a Moral ground No man needs to say who shall be Judge the Magistrate or people For. 1. All who have eyes in their head may judge whether the sun shine or not and all who have common sense may judge in this case For when it comes to a Necessity of Resistence it is to be supposed that the Grievances complained of and sought to be redressed by armes are not hid but manifest it cannot be so with any party only pretending their suffering wrong 2. There is no need of the formality of a Judge in things evident to Natures eye as Grassant Tyranny undermining overturning Religion Liberty must be Nature in the acts of necessitated Resistence in such a case is Judge party Accuser Witness all Neither is it an act of Judgement for people to defend their oun Defence is no act of jurisdiction but a priviledge of Nature Hence these common sayings vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt And defendere se est juris Naturae Defensio vitae necessaria est a jure Naturali profluit 3. Be Judge who will the Tyrant cannot be Judge in the case for in these Tyrannical Acts that force the people to that Resistence he cannot be acknowledged as King and therefore no Judge for it s supposed the Judge is absent when he is the party that does the wrong And he that does the wrong as such is inferior to the innocent 4. Let God be Judge and all the World taking cognizance of the evidence of their respective Manifesto's of the State of their Cause 6. We condemn Resing to revenge private injuries whereby the Land may be involved in blood for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small And abhor revengful Usurping of the Magistrats sword to avenge our selves for personal injuries As Davids killing of Saul would have been 1 Sam. 24. 10 12 13. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. To Object which in this case were very impertinent for it would have been an act of offence in a remote defence if Saul had been immediatly asaulting him it could not be denied to be Lawful and it would have been an act of private revenge for a personal injurie and a sinful preventing of Gods promise of Davids
every soul be subject unto the higher Powers whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God as Resistence by Prayer is with that 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. I exhort that Supplications be made for Kings and for all that are in Authority If the Prince be good the one as is unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the Ordinance of God to pray against him no less than the other to fight against him Therefore when he becomes a Tyrant destroyer of the Lords Inheritance and an Apostate as I may not pray for him except conditionally but against him as an Enemy of Christ so I may also fight against him as such 2. As Adversaries themselves will grant that Resistence by Prayers tears is more powerful effectual than the other So the Laws of the Land make the one treasonable as well as the other and that deservedly when the Prince is doing his duty but when he turneth Tyrant neither can justly be condemned These things being premitted I shall come shortly to the purpose and endeavour to prove this Truth That it is a necessary duty for a Community whether they have the Concurrence of the Primores Nobles Representatives or not to endeavour in the defence of their Religion Lives Laws Liberties to Resist Repress the Usurpation Tyranny of prevailing Dominators using or abusing their Power for subverting Religion invading the Liberties and overturning the foundamental Laws of their Country Wherein I shall be but short because this Truth is sufficiently confirmed by all the Arguments of the Second Head. Yet I may only hint at many other And prosecute them in this Order First I shall produce some Arguments from the Law of Nature Nations Secondly from the Common practice of all Christian people Thirdly from express Scriptures I. The Arguments of the first Class are very multifarious I shall reduce them to a few as Compendiously as may be and only give the strength of them in a Syllogistical forme without expatiating save where the matters requires 1. The greatest Antagonists of this Truth through the clearness thereof are forced to assert grant such particulars as will by Consequence justify this plea. 1. Barclay contra Monarchum is cited by the Apol. Relat. and Ius Populi asserting that if a King will alienate subject his Kingdom without his Subjects consent or be carried with a hostile mind to the destruction of his people his Kingdom is actually lost and the people may not only Lawfully resist but also depose him Grotius de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. asserts the same and adds if he but attempt to do so he may be resisted The Surveyer of Napâ—tali grants the same pag. 23 24. Yea this hath been granted in open Court by the Council of Scotland that in case of the Kings alienating his Kingdoms he may be Resisted Hence 1 If vendition or alienation of Kingdoms or attempts of it do annull a Kings Authority Then an alienation of them from Christ to whom they are devoted by Covenant and selling them to Antichrist as is attempted by this King gives the people a right to Resist him But the former is here conceded Ergo 2 We need say no more to apply the other that carrying a hostile mind to the destruction of the people does forfeit his Kingdom and gives the people right to Resist than that a Papist is alwise known to carry a hostile mind to the destruction of Protestants and all the designs declared these 27 years have been demonstrative efforts of it 2. Dr Ferne acknowledgeth that personal defence is Lawful against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the Kings Messengers or of himself in so far as to ward off his blowes or hold his hands As also he alloweth private persons Libertie to deny subsidies tribute to the Prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Hence 1 If one man may defend himself against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the King or his Messengers Then may many men in defence of their Lives Liberties defend themselves against the surprising Massacres the sudden assaults and much more the devised deliberate assaults of a Tyrants bloody Emissaries which are illegal inevitable as all their furious bloody on-sets have been But the former is here acknowledged Ergo 2 If people may deny subsidies to a King when he employeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Then as this justifies the denyal of the Cess imposed for destruction of the Church banishing of the Gospel So this gives them right to Resist him for if he be the power ordained of God not to be resisted then for this Cause tribute must be paid for they are Gods Ministers Rom. 13. 6. and if tribute must not be paid then he is not the power ordained of God and so may be resisted But the former is here allowed Ergo 3. Bodin de Repub. lib. 2. cap. 5. granteth if a King turn Tyrant he may Lawfully at his subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slain by a foraign Prince Hence if foraign Princes may Lawfully help a people oppressed by their oun Soveraign then people may Resist themselves if they be able and hold in their pains But the former is here granted Ergo The Consequence cannot be denyed for foraigners have no more Power or Authority over another Soveraign then the people have themselves 4. Arnisaeus de Author Princip c. 2. n. 10 granteth that if the Prince proceed extrajudicially without order of Law by violence every private man hath power to resist So the Surveyer of Naphtali ubi supra grants so much of a womans violent resisting attempts against the honour of her chastitie and tending to ensnare her in sin whereof her non-resistence makes her guilty Hence 1 If every extrajudicial violence of a Prince may be Resisted Then also all Contrajudicial violence against Law or reason must be opposed for that is more grievous and all their violences wherein they do not act as Judges must be resisted and that is all together for in none of them they can act as Judges But the former is here granted Ergo 2 If a woman may defend her Chastity against the K. lest her non-resistence make her guilty Oh if all women had been of this mind the Country would not have been pestered so with the Kings bastards Then may a Nation or any part of it Resist a Tyrants attempts upon the honour of their Religion entycing them to fornication with the Mother of harlots lest their non-resistence make them guilty But the former is here yeelded Ergo 5. That same Arnisaeus cap. 4. saith Of the former to wit he who is called a Tyrant in title it is determined by all without any difficultie that he may be Lawfully repulsed or if by force he be gotten into the Throne he may warrantably be thence removed because he hath not any Jot of power which
greatest power be Resisted rather than the Universal Common-wealth suffer hurt But the former is true for that dictates the necessity of the distracted father to be bound by his oun sons lest all the family be hurt Ergo the greatest of men or Kings when destructive to the Common-wealth must be Resisted for he is but one man so but particular nature 6. That which is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition then Brutes is absurd and contrary to the Law of Nature But to say that the Brutes have power to defend themselves by resisting what annoyes them and deny this power to men is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition than Brutes Therefore it is absurd contrary to the Law of Nature 3. From the Institution of Government I may argue thus That power and Government which is not of God may be Resisted The Tyrants power Government in overturning Laws subverting Religion bringing in Idolatry oppressing Subjects is not of God Ergo it may be Resisted The Major is clear because that is only the reason why he is not to be resisted because the Ordinance of God is not to be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But they that resist a man destroying all the Interests of mankind overturning Laws subverting Religion c. do not resist the Ordinance of God. And if it were not so this would tend irremedilessly to overthrow all Policies and open a gap to all disorder injustice cruelty and would give as great encouragment to Tyrants to do what they lift as thieves would be encouraged if they knew no body would resist them or bring them to punishment 4. From the Original Constitution of Government by men It may be argued thus If people at the first erection of Government acted rationally and did not put themselves in a worse case than before wherein it was Lawful to defend themselves against all injuries but devolved their rights upon the fiduuciary Tutory of such as should remain still in the rank of men that can do wrong who had no power but by their gift consent choice with whom they associated not to their detriment but for their advantage and determined the form of their Government and time of its continuance and in what cases they might recur to their primeve Liberty and settled a succession to have Course not jure hereditario but jure vi legis for good ends Then they did not give away their birth-right of self defence and power of resistence which they had before to withstand the violence injuries oppressions of the men they set over them when they pervert the form and convert it to Tyranny but did retain a power priviledge to resist and revolt from them and repell their violence when they should do violence to the Constitution and pervert the ends thereof But the former is true Ergo The Minor is cleared Head. 2. And the Connexion is confirmed from this if the Estates of a Kingdom give the power to a King it is their oun power in the fountain and if they give it for their oun good they have power to judge when it is used against themselves and for their evil and so power to limit resist the power that they gave 5. From the way manner of erecting Governours by Compact the necessity whereof is proven Head. 2. Many arguments might be deduced I shall reduce them to this form If people must propose Conditions unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in submitted unto at their Admission to the Government which thereupon becomes the fundamental Laws of the Government and Securities for the peoples rights Liberties giving a Law Claim to the people to pursue the Prince in case of faiâ—ing in the main principal thing Covenanted as their oun Covenanted Mandatarius who hath no Ius or Authority of his oun but what he hath from them and no more power but what is contained in the Conditions upon which he undertaketh the Government Then when either an Usurper will come under no such conditions or a Tyrant doth break all these conditions which he once accepted and so become stricto jure no Prince and the people be stricto jure Liberated from subjection to him they may must Defend themselves and their fundamental Rights Priviledges Religion Laws and Resist the Tyanny overturning them But the former is true Ergo The Connexion is clear And the Minor is proved Head. 2. And at length demonstrated and applied to the Government of Charles the Second by Ius Populi cap. 6. See Arg. 4. 5. Head. 2. 6. From the Nature of Magistracy it may be argued thus That power which is properly neither Parental nor Marital nor Masterly Despotick over the Subjects Persons goods but only fiduciary and by way of trust is more to be Resisted than that which is properly so But that power which is properly so that is Parental power and Marital and Masterly may be Resisted in many cases Ergo that power which is not so properly but only fiduciary is more to be Resisted That a Kings power over his subjects is neither Parental nor Marital c. is proven Head. 2. And the Major needs no Probation The Minor is clear by Instances 1. If Children may in case of necessity resist the fury of their father seeking to destroy them then must private subjects Resist the rage Tyranny of Princes seeking to destroy them and what is dearest to them for there is no stricter obligation Moral between King people than between Parents Children nor so strict and between Tyrants people there is none at all But the former cannot be denyed Ergo 2. If Wives may Lawfully defend themselves against the unjust violence of enraged Husbands then must private subjects have power to Resist the furious assaults of enraged Tyrants for there is not so great a tye betwixt them and people as between man wife yea there is none at all But the former is true Ergo 3. If Servants may defend themselves against their Masters then must private subjects defend themselves against a Tyrant or his Emissaries But the former is true Ergo 4. If the Kings power be only fiduciary and by way of Paun which he hath got to keep then when that power is manifestly abused to the hurt of them that entrusted him with it he ought to be Resisted by all whom he undertook to protect But the former is true Ergo the latter 7. From in the Limited power of Princes it may be thus argued If Princes be limited by Laws Contracts and may be resisted by Plea's in Law and have no absolute power to do command what they will but must be limited both by the Laws of God and man and cannot make what Laws they will in prejudice of the peoples Rights nor execute the Laws made according to their pleasure nor conser on others a
Lawless licence to oppress whom they please Then when they turn Tyrants and arrogate a Lawless Absoluteness and cross the Rules transgress the Bounds prescribed by Gods Law mans Law and make their oun lust a Law and execute the same arbitrarly They must be Resisted by force when a legal resistence cannot be had in defence of Religion and Liberty But all Princes are limited c. Ergo The Minor is proved Head. 2. And the Connexion may be thus confirmed in short That power which is not the Ordinance of God may be resisted But an absolute illimited power crossing the Rules and transgressing the bounds prescribed by Gods Law and mans is not the Ordinance of God Ergo it may be Resisted 8. Further from the Rule of Government it may be argued several wayes 1. That power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical can tye none to subjection but if it oblige to anything it tyes to Resistence But the power of a King against Law Religion and the Interests of the subjects is a power contrary to Law evil Tyrannical Ergo The Major is plain for Wickedness can tye no man but to resist it That power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical is Wickedness 2. That power and those Acts which neither King can exerce nor command nor others execute nor any obey must certainly be Resisted But such is the power and Acts that oppress the subjects and overturn Religion Liberty Ergo The Minor is evident from Scriptures condemning oppression violence both in them that command and in them that execute the same and also them that obey such wicked commands The Major is clear from Reason both because such power such Acts as cannot be commanded cannot be executed cannot be obeyed Lawfully are sinful wicked and because it cannot be a Magistratical power for that may alwayes be exerced executed Lawfully And what a man cannot command the resisting of that he cannot punish But acts of oppression against Law Religion Liberty a man cannot command Ergo the Resisting of these he cannot punish 3. That Government or Administration which is not subordinate to the Law Will of God who hath appointed it must be Resisted But that Government or Administration which undermines or overturnes Religion Liberty is not subordinate to the Law Will of God Ergo The Major is clear for nothing but what is the Ordinance of God subordinate to His Law Will is irresistible Rom. 13. 2. The Assumption is undenyable 9. From the Ends of Government which must be acknowledged by all to be the Glory of God and the Good of Mankind yea all that have been either wise or honest have alwayes held that Salus Populi est Suprema Lex The Arguments may run thus in short 1. That Doctrine which makes the Holy one to cross His oun ends in giving Governours must be absurd Unchristian as well as irrational But such is the Doctrine that makes all Kings Tyrants irresistible upon any pretence whatsoever Ergo The minor I prove That Doctrine which makes God intending His oun Glory the peoples good to give Governours both as Fathers to preserve and as Murderers to destroy them must make the Holy one to cross His oun ends for these are Contradictory But the Doctrine that makes all Kings Tyrants irresistible c. is such For by Office they are Fathers to preserve and by Office also they must be Murderers vested with such a power from God actu primo if they be irresistible when they do so seeing every power that is irresistible is the Ordinance of God. Hence also when a Blessing turns a Curse it is no more the Ordinance of God but to be resisted But when a King turns a Tyrant overturning Religion Liberty then a Blessing turns a Curse Ergo 2. Means are to be Resisted when they are not useful for but destructive to the ends they were appointed for But Governours overturning Religion Liberty are Means not useful for but destructive to the ends for which they were appointed Seeing then they are neither for the Glory of God nor the good of Mankind Ergo 3. If all powers Prerogatives of men are only means appointed for and should vaile unto the Supreme Law of the peoples Safety and all Laws be subordinate to and corroborative of this Law and when cross to it are eatenus null no Laws and all Law-formalities in Competition with it are to be laid aside and all Parliamentary priviledges must yeeld to this and King Parliament both conspiring have no power against it and no Soveraign power by virtue of any resignation from the people can comprize any Authority to act against it Then it is duty to obey this Supreme Law in Resisting all powers Prerogatives all Laws Law-formalities and all conspiracies whatsoever against this Supreme Law the Safety of the people But the former is true as was proven Head. 2. Ergo 4. That power which is obliged appointed to command rule Justly Religiously for the good of the people and is only set over them on these conditions and for that end cannot tye them to subjection without Resistence when the power is abused to destruction of Laws Religion and people But all power is so obliged appointed Therefore whensoever it is so abused it cannot tye people to subjection but rather oblige them to Rejection of it 10. From the Obedience required to Government It may be argued thus 1. If we may flee from Tyrants then we may Resist them But we may flee from Tyrants Ergo we may Resist them The Connexion I prove 1 If all grounds of Justice will warrand the one as well as the other then if the one be duty so is the other But the former is true For the same justice equity that warrands declining a Tyrants unjust violence by flight will warrand Resistence when flight will not do it The same Principle of self defence that makes flight duty when Resistence is not possible will aso make Resistence duty when flight is not possible The same Principle of Charity to Wives Children that makes flight Lawful when by Resistence they cannot avoid Tyranny will make Resistence duty when by flight they cannot evite it The same Principle of Conscience to keep Religion free that prompts to flight when Resistence will not save it will also prompt to Resist when flight is not practicable 2 If to flee from a just power when in Justice we are obnoxious to its sword be to resist the Ordinance of God and so sin then to flee from an unjust power must be also a Resisting of the abusing of it and so duty for the one is Resistence as the other but the difference of the power resisted makes the one Lawful the other not Again if Royal power may be resisted by interposing seas and miles why not also by interposing walls armes both is resistence
couragious in behalf of God Religion Sozom. Hist. Lib. 6. cap. 2. Barclaâ—us a great Royalist saith Tyrannos ut hostes publâ—s non solum ab universo populo sed a singulis etiam impeti caedique jure optimo posse tota Antiquitas ceasuit That Tyrants as publick Enemies may be attacqued and Lawfully slain not only by all the people but every one of them all Antiquity judged Grotiue de jure beâ—i Lib. 1. cap. 4. saith 〈◊〉 cui juris gentium requisita non adsint imperium arripuerit â—â—que pactio uâ—a sequuta sit aut fides illi data sed sola vi reâ—â—â—tur possessio videtur manere bellis jus ac proinde 〈◊〉 eum 〈◊〉 quod in hostem licet qui a quolibet etiam priâ—ato jure poâ—est interfici Yea King Iames the 6. in his Râ—mâ—â—strancs for the right of Kings sayes The publick Laws makes it Lawful and free for any private person to enterprize against an Usurper Divines say the same Chamier Tom. 2. Lib. 15. cap. 12. Sect. 19. Cives omnes jus habent insurgendi contra Tyrannos Aisted Theolog. Gas. cap. 17. reg 9. pag. 321. Tyrannum absque Titulo qui est invasor quilibet pr. vatus potest debet â— medio tollere quia patriam hostiliter invadit And cap. 18. reg 14. pag. 332. Licitum est privato cuivis occidere Tyrannum qui injuste invadit Dominium But Dr Ames de Consâ—tentia Lib. 5. cap. 31. de homicidio quest 4. asserts all that is here pleaded for in terminis Quest. 4. An aliquando licet occidere hominem Authoritate privata Resp. Aliquando licet occidere nulla publica Cognitione precedente sed tum solum quando causa evidenter postulat ut hoc siat Authoritas publica non potest implorari In isthoc enim casu privatus publice Minister constituitur tam nâ—â—tu Dei quam omnium hominum consensu He propones the question If sometimes it be Lawful to kill a man by private Authority He answers It is sometimes Lawful to kill another without publick Cognition proceeding but then only when the cause doth evidently require it that it be done and publick Authority cannot be implored for in that case any private man is constitute in stead of a publick Minister of Justice both by Gods allowance and by the consent of all men These propositions carry such evidence in them that the Authors thought it superfluous to confirme them and sufficient to affirme them And from any reason that can be adduced to prove any of these Assertions it will be as evident that this Truth I plead for is thereby confirmed as that it self is thereby strengthened For it will follow natively if Tyrants and Tyrants sine titulo be to be thus dealt with then the Monsters of whom the question is those Notorious Incendiaries and Murdering publick Enemies are also to be so served For either these Authors assert the Lawfulness of so treating Tyrants sine titulo because they are Tyrants or because they want a title If the first be said Then all Tyrants are to be so served and reason would say and Royalists will subscribe if Tyrants that call themselves Kings may be so animadverted upon because of their perniciousness to the Common-wealth by their Usurped Authority then the subordinate firebrands that are tho immediate instruments of that destruction the inferior emissaries that act it and actually accomplish it in Murdering innocent people may be so treated for their persons are not more sacred than the other nor more impunible If the second be said it is Lawful to kill them because they want a title Then it is either because they want a pretended title or because they want a real Lawful one The Latter is as good as none and it is proved Head. 2. Arg. 7. that no Tyrants can have any The former can not be said for all Tyrants will pretend some at least before they be killed 3. But thô some of these Great Authors neither give their reasons for what they assert nor do they extend it to all Tyrants that Tyrannise by virtue of their pretended Authority yet it will not be difficult to prove that all great small that murder destroy and Tyrannise over poor people are to be punished though they pretend Authority for what they do And hence If all Tyrants Murderers Destroyers of mankind ought to be punished then when it cannot be done by publick Authority it may be done by private But all Tyrants Murderers Destroyers of mankind ought to be punished Ergo The Minor is manifest from the General Commands of shedding the blood of every man that shedsâ— it Gen. 9. 6. of puting to death whosoever killeth any person Numb 35. 30 31. of respecting no mans person in Iudgement Deut. 1. 17. and universally all penal Laws are general without exception of any for under that reduplication of criminal transgressing those Laws under that general Sanction they are to be judged which admits of no partial respect for if the greatest of men be Murderers they are not to be considered as great but as Murderers just as the meanest are not to be considered as mean or poor but as Murderers But I need not insist on this being sufficiently proved Head. 2. Arg. 9. And through out that Head proving that Tyrants can have no Authority And if they have no Authority then Authority which they have not cannot exempt them from punishment The Connexion of the Major Proposition may be thus urged When this Judgement cannot be executed by publick Authority either it must be done by private Authority in case of extreame necessity or not at all for there is no Medium but either to do it by publick Authority or private If not at all Then the Land must remain still defiled with blood and cannot be cleansed Numb 35. 33. Then the fierce anger of the Lord cannot be averted Numb 25. 4. for without this executing of Judgement He will not turn it away Ier. 5. 1. Then must Murderers be encouraged by their impunity to make havock of all according to their Lust besides that poor Handful who cannot eschape being their prey as their Case is circumstantiate Besides this is point blank contrary to these General Commands which say peremptorely The Murderer shall be put to death but this supposed Case when publick Authority will not or cannot put them to death sayes they shall not be put to death In this Case then I demand whether their impunity is necessary because they must not be put to death or because they cannot be put to death To say the Latter were an untruth for private persons can do it when they get access which is possible If the former then it is clearly contradictory to the Commands which say they must be put to death excepting no Case but when they cannot be put to death If it be said they must not be put to death because the Law obliges only publick
the resignation and exert it in extraordinary exigents of necessity If then a people that have no Magistrats at all may take order with their destroyers then must they have the same power under a Lawful revolt As the ten tribes if they had not exceeded in severity against Adoram Râ—hâ—boams Collector had just cause to take order with that Usurpers Emissarie if he came to oppress them But if he had come to Murder them then certainly it was duty to put him to death and could not be censured at all as it is not in the Historie 1 King. 12. 18. But so it is that the people pursued by these Murderers some of which in their extreame exigences they put to death have for these several years maintained a declared Revolt from the present Government and have denyed all subjection to it upon the grounds vindicated Head. 2. And therefore they must be considered as reduced to their primeve Liberty and their pursuers as their publick Enemies to whom they are no otherwise related than if they were Turks whom none will deny it Lawful to kill if they invade the Land to destroy the inhabitants 8. Hence seeing they are no other than publick Enemies unjustly invading pursuing and seeking them to destroy them what Arguments will prove the Lawfulness of Resistance and the necessity of self Defence in tutelâ vitae proximà will also prove the Lawfulness of taking all advantages upon them in tutelâ remotà for if it be Lawful to kill an enemy in his immediat assault to prevent his killing of them when there is no other way of preserving themselves from his fury Then it must be Lawful also in his remote but still incessant pursuit to prevent his Murdering them by killing him when theâ—e is no other way to escape in a case of extreame necessity But that this was the Case of that poor people Witnesses can best prove it And I dare appeal to two sorts of them that know it best that is all the pursuers and all the pursued 9. This is founded and followes upon the 4 Art. of the Solemn League Covenant Where we are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants or evil Instruments that they may be brought to publick trial receive condign punishment Now as this obliges to the orderly ordinary way of prosecuting them when there is access to publick Judicatories so when there is none Either this Article obliges to no endeavour at all which cannot be for it is Moral duty to endeavour the punishment of such or else it must oblige to this extraordinary Action execution of Judgement if to any at all Especially considering how in the sense of the short comings of this duty it is renewed in the Solemn Acknowledgment of sins Engagement to duties That we shall be so far from conniving at Malignity injustice c. that we shall take a more effectual Course than heretofore in our respective Places Callings for punishing suppressing these evils Certainly we were called to one way of prosecuting this obligation then when it was first engaged into and to another now when our Capacity Circumstances are so materially formally altered if the effectual Course then was by publick Authority then now when that is wanting there must be some obligation to take some effectual Course still that may suit our Places Callings which will certainly comprehend this extraordinary way of suppressing those-evils by preventing their growth in curbing the Instruments executing Judgement upon them in a case of extreame Necessity which will suit with all Places all Callings II. From the Scriptures these Arguments are offered First Some approven Examples and imitable in the like Circumstances will clear confirm the Lawfulness of this extraordinary Work of Judgement executed by private persons upon notorious Incendiaries firebrands Murderers guilty of death by the Law of God. 1. Moses spyed an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew one of his Brethren and he looked this way and that way and when he saw that there was no man he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand Exod. 2. 11 12. Here 's an uncondemned Example whereof the Actor who was the Relator did not condemn himself thô he condems himself for faults that seem less odious yea in effect he is rather commended by Stephen the Martyr Act. 7. And thô it be extraordinary in that it was done by private Authority not by a Judge as it was objected to him the second day yet it was not unimitable Because that Action thô Heroical whereof the ground was ordinary the Rule Moral the Circumstances commonly incident the managment directed by humane prudence cannot be unimitable But such was this Action thô Heroical The ground was ordinary spying his Brother in hazard whose Murder he would have prevented The Rule was Moral being according to that Moral precept of rescuing our Brother in hazard Prov. 24. 11 12. The Circumstances were incident in a case of extreame necessity which he managed very prudently looking this way that way and hiding him in the sand Therefore it may be imitated in the like Case It signifies nothing to say that he was moved by the Spirit of God thereto for unto every righteous performance the motion of the Spirit of God is requisite This Impulse that Moses had and others aftermentioned was nothing but a greater measure of that assisting Grace which the extraordinariness of the case and the difficulties therein occurring did call for but the intervening of such motions do not alter the Rule so as to make the action unimitable Impulses are not the Rule of duty either under an ordinary or extraordinary exigence but when they are subsequent subservient both to the Rule of duty and to a mans call in his present circumstances they clearly determine to the species of an Heroick Enterprise in so much that it is not only the particular deed that we are to heed for our imitation but we are to emulate the Grace Principle of zeal which produced it and is thereby so conspicuously relucent for our upstirring to acts in like manner as God may give opportunity As is observed by the True Non-conformist Dial. 7. Pag. 392. c. 2. When Israel Joyned himself unto Baal-Peor the Lord said unto Moses take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the Sun that the fierce Anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel And Moses said unto the Judges slay every one his men that were joyned unto Baal-Peor And when Zimri brought the Medianitish Cozbi in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the Congregatâ—on who were weeping before the door of the Tabernacle And when Phinehas saw it he rose up and took a javelin in his hand and he went after the man of Israel into the Tent and thrust both of them through So the
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
it But here it is given before the Institution of Magistracy when now there was no Government in the world but family-Government as Grotius on the place saith Cum enim lex haec â—ata est non dum constituta sunt judicia itaque naturale justaliatus hic indicatur quod aucto humano genere in gentes distributo merito solis judicibus permissum fuit extra casus quosdam exceptos in quibus mansit jus illud 〈◊〉 When this Law was given publick Judgement was not yet constitute Therefore the natural right Law of Taliation is here held forth which when mankind was increased and divided into several Nations was justly permitted only to Judges some cases excepted in which that primaeve right did remain And if in any then in this case in question Hence Lex Rex answereth the P. Prelate essaying to prove that a Magiâ—â—racy is established in the Text denyes that Ba Adam by man must signify a Magistrate for than there was but family Government and cites 〈◊〉 of the same mind that the Magistrate is not spoken of here Though this Command afterwards was given to the Magistrate Numb 35. 30. yet in a ease of necessity we must recur to the Original Command 2. This same Command of punishing Murdering Enemies is even after the Institution of Magistrates in several cases not astricted to them but permitted to the people yea enjoyned to them As 1 Not only Magistrates but the people are Commanded to avenge themselves on their publick Enemies as the Israelites after their being insnared in the matter of Peor are Commanded to vexe the Midianites smite them because they beguiled them and brought a Plague upon them Numb 25. 17 18 and Numb 31. 2. to avenge themselves on them and for this end to arme themselves and go against them and avenge the Lord of Midian Which they executed with the slaughter of all the males So likewise are they Commanded to destroy Amalek It is true these Commands are given primarly principally to Magistrates as there to Moses and afterwards to Saul yet afterwards we find other than Magistrates upon this Moral Ground having the Call of God did execute Judgement upon them as Gidion David before they were Magistrates did avenge themselves and the Lord upon them as is before cleared It is also true that there was some holy severity then to be extended against particular Nations as such peculiar to that Dispensation which is not pleaded as imitable but the ground was Moral and the right of a peoples saving themselves by the destruction of their enemies when there is no other way for it is Natural And this is all we plead for here If people may vexe their enemies and avenge themselves against them even without publick Authority when ensnared by their Craftiness Much more may they put a stop to their insolency by cutting off their principal most pernicious Instruments in case of necessity when invaded by their Cruelty But here a people is Commanded to vexe their enemies and avenge themselves on them and accordingly Gideon David did so without publick Authority and that upon a ground which is Moral Natural Ergo 2 The execution of the punishment of Murderers is committed to the people The revenger of blood himself shall slay the Murderer what he meeteth him he shall slay him Numb 35. 19 21. So that if he met him before he got into any Refuge he might Lawfully slay him and if he did flee to any he was to be rendered up to the Avengers hands Deut. 19. 12. that the guilt of innocent blood may be put away from Israâ—l vers 23. This revenger of blood was not the Magistrate for he was the party pursuing Numb 35. 24. between whom and the Murderer the Congregation was to judge He was only the next in blood or kindred In the Original he is called Goel the redeemer or he to whom the right of redemption belongs and very properly so called both because he seeks redemption and compensation for the blood of his Brother and because he redeems the Land from blood guiltiness in which other-wise it would be involved I do not plead that this is alwayes to be imitated as neither it was alwayes practiced in Israel but If a private man in a hot pursuit of his Brothers Murderer might be his avenger before he could be brought to Judgement then much more may this power be assumed in a case of necessity when there is no Judgement to be expected by Law and when not only our Brethren have been murdered by them that profess a trade of it but others also and our selves are dayly in hazard of it which may be prevented in cutting them off I do not see what is here meerly Iudicial so as to be rejected as Iudaical for sure Murderers must be slain now as well as then and there is the same hazard of their escaping now as then Murder involves the Land in guilt now as well as then and in this case of necessity especially that Law that gives a man right to preserve himself gives him also right to be his oun avenger if he cannot otherwise defend himself 3 Not only the execution the decision of matters of life death is committed to them as in the case of Blasphemie Cursing all that heard were to lay their hands upon his head and all the Congregation was to stone him Levit. 24. 14 16. The man-slayer was to stand before the Congregation in Judgement Then the Congregation shall judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood Numb 35. 12 24. The people claimed the power of life death in seeking to execute Judgement upon those that had spoken Treason against Saul bring the men say they that we may put them to death 1 Sam. 11. 12. Especially in the case of punishing Tyrants as they did with Amaziah Certainly this is not so Judicial or Judaical as that in no case it may be imitated for That can never be abrogated altogether which in many cases is absolutely necessary but that the people without publick Authority should take the power of life death of puting a stop to the insolency of Destroyers by puting them to death is in many cases absolutely necessary for without this they cannot preserye themselves against Grassant Tyrants nor the fury of publick enemies or fire-brands within themselves in case they have no publick Authority or none but such as are on their Destroyers side 4 Not only the power of purging the Land by Divine precept is incumbent on the people that it may not lye under blood guiltiness but also the power of Reforming the Courts of Kings by taking Course with their wicked Abetters and evil Instruments is committed to them with a promise that if this be done it shall tend to the establishment of their Throne which is not only a supposition in case it be done but a supposed Precept to do it with an
to death while it is yet morning Judg. 6. 31. Moreover as Mr Mitchel adduces the example very pertinently we see that the people of Israel destroyed Idolatry not only in Judah wherein the King concurred but in Ephraim and in Manassâ—h where the King himself was an Idolater and albeit they were but private persons without publick Authority for what all the people was bound to do by the Law of God every one was bound to do it to the uttermost of his power Capacity Mr Mitchel offers this place to vindicate his fact of shooting at the prelate Deut. 13. 9. Wherein sayes he it is manifest that the Idolater or intycer to Worship a false god is to be put to death by the hand of those whom he seeks to turn away from the Lord Which precept I humbly take to be Moral and not meerly Iudicial and that it is not at all Ceremonial or Levitical And as every Moral precept is Universal as to the extent of place so also as to the extent of Time persons The chief thing Objected here is that this is a Judicial precept peculiarly suited to the Old Dispensation which to plead for as a Rule under the New Testament would favour of Jewish rigidity inconsistent with a Gospel Spirit Ans. How Mr Knox refells this and clears that the Command here is given to all the people needs not be here repeated but it were sufficient to read it in the foregoing Representation Period 3. Pag. 30. as it is also cited by Ius Pop. Pag. 212. c. But these General Truths may be added concerning the Iudicial Laws 1. None can say that none of the Judicial Laws concerning political Constitutions is to be observed in the New Testament for then many special Rules of Natural Necessary equity would be rejected which are contained in the Judicial Laws of God Yea all the Laws of equity in the World would be so cast for none can be instanced which may not be reduced to some of the Judicial Laws And if any of them are to be observed certainly these Penal Statutes so necessary for the preservation of Policies must be binding 2. If we take not our measures from the Judicial Laws of God we shall have no Laws for punishment of any Malefactors by death juris Divini in the New Testament And so all Capital punishments must be only humane Constitutions and consequently they must be all Murders for to take away the life of man except for such Causes as the Lord of our life to whose Arbitriment it is only subject hath not approven is Murder as Dr Ames saith de homocidio Conscience Lib. 5. cap. 31. quest 2. For in the New Testament thô in the general the power of punishing is given to the Magistrate yet it is no where determined neither what nor how Crimes are to be punished If therefore Penal Laws must be taken from the Old Testament the Subject of executing them as well as the Object must be thence deduced that is what is there astricted to the Magistrate must be so still and what is permitted to the people must remain in like manner their Priviledge since it is certain the New Testament-Liberty is not more restricted as to Penal Laws than the Old. 3. Those Judicial Laws which had either somewhat Typical or Paedagogical or peculiar to the then Iudacial State are indeed not binding to us under that formality thô even these Doctrinally are very useful in so far as in their general nature of equity of proportion they exhibite to us some Documents of Duty But those Penal Judgements which in the matter of them are appended to the Moral Law and are in effect but accurate determinations accommodations of the Law of Nature which may suit our Circumstances as well as the Jewes do oblige us as well as them And such are these Penal Statutes I adduce for that Blasphemy Murder Idolatry are heinous Crimes and that they are to be punished the Law of Nature dictates and how and by whom in several cases they are to be punished the Law judicial determines Concerning the Moral equity even of the strictest of them Amesius de Conscienc lib. 5. de Mosaicis appendicibus praeceptorum doth very learnedly assert their binding force 4. Those Judicial Laws which are but Positive in their forme yet if their special internal proper Reason Ground be Moral which pertains to all Nations which is necessary useful to Mankind which is rooted in and may be fortified by humane reason and as to the substance of them approven by the more intelligent Heathens those are Moral and oblige all Christians as well as Jewes And such are these Laws of punishing Idolaters c. founded upon Moral grounds pertaining to all Nations necessary useful to Mankind rooted in fortified by humane Reason to wit that the Wrath of God may be averted and that all may hear fear and do no more so wickedly especially if this Reason be superadded when the case is such that innocent honest people cannot be preserved if such wicked persons be not taken order with 5. Those Judicial Laws which being given by the Lords immediate Authority thô not so solemnly as the Moral Decalogue are neither as to their end Mortuae dead nor as to their use Mortiferae deadly nor as to their nature Indifferent nor in any peculiar respect restringible only to the Jewes but the transgressions whereof both by omission commission are still sins and were never abolished neither Formally nor Consequentially in the New Testament must be Moral But such as these Penal Laws I am speaking of They cannot be reputed among the Ceremonial Laws dead as to their end and deadly as to their use or indifferent in their nature for sure to punish the Innocent upon the account of these Crimes were still sin now as well as under the Old Testament and not to punish the Guilty were likewise sin now as well as then If then the matter be Moral and not abolished the execution of it by private persons in some cases when there is no access to publick Authority must be Lawful also Or if it be Indifferent that which is in its oun nature Indifferent cannot be in a case of extreame necessity unlawful when otherwise the destruction of our selves Brethren is in all humane consideration inevitable That which God hath once Commanded and never expressly Forbidden cannot be unlawful in extraordinary cases but such are these precepts we speak of Therefore they cannot be in every case unlawful Concerning this case of the obligation of Judicial Laws Ames de Conscienc lib. 5. cap. 1. quest 9. 6. Those Laws which are predicted to be observed executed in the New Testament times cannot be Judicial or Judaical restricted to the Old But such is this In the day that a fountain shall be opened for thâ— house of David for sin for uncleaness which clearly points at Gospel-times It is said the