him as King which was one great cause of his persecuting them It s true he persecuted them also for other things as for their not denying Christ So are we persecuted for many other things than for our simple disouning of the King yet this is reckoned as a distinct cause of their suffering by Mr Mede on the Revel Part. 1. Pag. 43. Gees Magist. Origin ch 10. Sect. 7. Pag. 361. The same last cited Author shewes that when Albinus Niger Cassius successively usurped the Empire having none of them any Legal investure the Christians declined the recognition of their Claim and would not oune them and that upon this Tertulian sayes Nunquam Albiniani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani that is the Christians could never be found to be Albinians or Nigrians or Cassians meaning they were never ouners of these men for Magistrats And so may we say Pudet inveniri inter Carolinianos Iacobinianos hujus temporis Not unlike is the passage of Ambrose who in favors of Valentiniaâ— the rightful Governour contested against Maximus the Tyrant and not only disouned him but excommunicated him for which he was threatened with death And yet it is observable that when Maximus offered to interpose his power in defence of Ambrose that he might not be banished by Iustina the Empress he would not accept of the help of Maximus whose power he disallowed disouned Whence I observe that it is not without a Precedent for a Minister to disoune a Tyrant to refuse favour from him yea and to excommunicate him yea even without the concurrence of his fainting brethren for all which some of our faithful Ministers have been much condemned in our day especially Mr Donald Cargil for excommunicating Charles the Second Iames Duke of York as if such a thing had never been done before Whereas we see what Ambrose did to Maximus And this same faithful Minister Ambrosius Minister at Millain in Italy did also hold out of the Assembly of the Christians Theodosius the Emperour though a most vertuous Prince for that grievous Scandal committed by him against the innocent people at Thessalonica in killing so many of them in a Passionate transport But 3. since this objection of the Primitive Christians is much insisted on both against this and the head of defensive Armes I shall further take notice of several distinctions that do make the difference between their case Ours very vast 1 There is a great difference betuixt a Prince of the common Religion of his Subjects but distinct from some of them whom yet he does not seek to entice to his Religion but gives them liberty the benefite of the Law as other Subjects which was the case of many in these primitive times sometimes And a Prince by all means both foul fair pressing to a revolt from the true and to embrace a false Religion In this case which is ours with a witness it must be granted we should be wary that we neither engage with him nor oune Allegiance to him when he would withdraw us from our Allegiance to God. 2 There is a great difference betuixt a Prince persecuting the true Religion which only a few of his subjects here there did profess who in regard of their Paucity were never in capacity to be looked upon as the body of the people impowering him as their publick Servant which was their case And a Prince persecuting that Religionâ— which was professed by the body of the Nation when they sett him up In this Latter case men of great sense have denyed he should be ouned for a Prince because then he is stated against the Common good This was our case under the former King and yet under this though all Professors be not now persecuted the publick Religion Ancient Reformation is persecuted in a few whom he intends to destroy and in their destruction to bury it 3 There is a difference betwixt a Prince Persecuting Religion publickly ouned received of his subjects yet never approved nor confirmed by Law as it was not in the primitive times And a Prince persecuting Religion ratified established by the Laws of the Land which is our case It will seem clear to every soul not benighted with Court darkness that he then deâ—acto and ipso jure falleth from his right in this case because now he is not only stated against the common good but against the very Laws by which the Subjects must be ruled Then he ruleth not as a Prince to whom the Law giveth his Measures Bounds but rageth as a Tiger Tyrant and ought to be carried towards as such 4 There is a difference betwixt a Prince suppressing that Religion established by Law which he never professed nor never gave his consent to these Laws as might be the case of some of the Arian Emperours though it be unlawful for any people to set up any Mortal over them who is not in this case bound to the good behaviour And a Prince opposing oppressing that Religion which himself hath professed and is ratified by Laws with his oun consent which was our case under the former King who did give the most solemn Ratification of them that ever was given but afterwards most perfidiously retracted it As also this Apostate Papist did somtime profess himself Protestant and consented to the Laws establishing it and the Penal Statutes against Papists though now he is going about to raze all and ruine that alone valuable Treasure of our Nation Religion 5 There is a difference betwixt a Prince consenting to Laws establishing Religion which he now persecuteth which might have been the case of Iulian the Apostate And a Prince who not only consented to these Laws but who did upon these very terms no other get receive his Croun Scepter that he should preserve the Religion as Reformed and protect as a Father the Professors thereof and maintain the Laws establishing it which yet he perfidiously perniciously being once settled in the Government Breaks Casts Cassats Overturns which was done by Charles Or And a Prince who will neither be bounded by the Laws he consented to nor be bound to the Observation of any Laws whatsoever but challenges it as his prerogative Royal to be absolute above all Laws and denying all Security upon terms is free to destroy Religion Liberty and all the valuable Interests of the Nation when he pleases This is Iames his Character 6 There is a difference betwixt a Prince breaking the main only Article of his Covenant in a fit of fury rage being transported upon some Mistakes which was the case of Theodosius the Emperour And a Prince not only violating this upon deliberation but plainly Declaring that neither Oath nor Declaration can or will bind him but these being made void he will destroy without restraint all these Covenanted priviledges This was the case of Charles Or And a Prince who as he never will come
briefly plainly We do not usuâ—p a judgment in the case pretending no more Authority over them in our private Capacity than we allow them to have over us that is none at all Nor can we admit that they should be both Judges party for then they might challenge that prerogative in every case and strengthen themselves in an incontrollable immunity impunity to do what they pleased But we appeal to the fundamental Lawes of the Kingdom aggreeable to the word of God to Judge and to the whole world of impartial Spectators to read pronounce the judgment Lâ—x Rex Quest. 24. Pag. 213. sayeth in answer to this There is a Court of Necessity no less than a Court of Justice And the fundamental Lawes must then speak and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no ruler And as to the doubtsomness of these Lawes he sayeth 1 As the Scriptures in all fundamentals are clear expone themselves actu primo condemn Heresies So all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature Nations are clear 2 Tyranny is more visible intelligible than Heresie and it s soon discerned The people have a Natural Throne of Policy in their conscience to give warning materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant where Tyranny is more obscure and the thread smal that it escape the eye of man the King keepeth Possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long 7. I shall grant that many things are yeeldable even to a Grassant Dominator Tyrannical Occupant of the place of Magistracy as 1. There may be some cases wherein its Lawful for a people to yeeld subjection to a Lawless Tyrant when groaning under his overpouring yoke under which they must patiently bear the inâ—â—â—nation of the Lord because they have sinned against Him until He arise plead His oun Cause execute judgment in the earth Mic. 7. 9. until which time they must kiss the rod as in the hand of God and oune adore the holyness Soveraignty of that Providence that hath subjected them under such a slavery and are not to attempt a violent ejection or excussion when either the thing attempted is altogether impracticable or the means manner of effectuating it dubious unwarrantable or the necessary Concomitants consequents of the cure more hurtful or dangerous than the disease or the like As in many cases also a man may be subject to a robber prevailing against him So we find the people of Israel in Egyt Babylon c. yeelded subjection to Tyrants But in this case we deny two things to them 1 Allegiance or active voluntary subjection so as to oune them for Magistrats 2 Stupid Passive obedience or suffering without resistence For the first we owe it only to Magistrats by virtue of the Law either Ordinative of God or Constitutive of man. And it is no Argument to infer as a mans subjecting himself to a Robber assaulting him is no soild proof of his approving or acknowledging the injury violence committed by the robber therefore a Persons yeelding subjection to a Tyrant a Publick robber does not argue his acknowledging or approving his Tyranny oppression For the subjection that a Tyrant requires and which a Robber requires is not of the same nature the one is Legal of subjects which we cannot oune to a Tyrant the other is forced of the subdued which we must acknowledge to a Robber But to make the Paralell If the Robber should demand in our subjecting our selves to him an ouning of him to be no robber but an honest man as the Tyrant demands in our subjecting our selves to him in ouning him to be no Tyrant but a Magistrate then we ought not to yeeld it to the one no more than to the other For the Second to allow them Passive obedience is in-intelligible Non-sense a meer Contradiction for nothing that 's meerly passive can be obedience as relative to a Law nor can any obedience be meerly passive for obedience is always active But not only is the inaccuracy of the Phrase excepted against but also that position maintained by many that in reference to a yoke of Tyranny there is a time which may be called the proper season of suffering that is when suffering in opposition to acting or resisting is a necessary indispensible duty and resisting is a sin For if the one be an indispensible duty the other must be a sin at the same time But this cannot be admitted For though certainly there is such a season of suffering wherein suffering is Lawful laudable necessary and all must lay their account with suffering and litle else can be attempted but which will encrease sufferings yet even then we may resist as well as we can and these two Resistence Suffering at the same time are not incompatible David did bear most patiently the injury of his Sons usurpation when he said let the Lord do to me as seemeth Him good 2 Sam. 15. 26. ch 10. 12. and betaketh himself to fervent prayers Psal. 3. and yet these were not all the weapons he used against him Neither did he ever oune him as a Magistrate We are to suffer all things patiently as the Servants of the Lord and look to Him for Mercy relief Psal. 123. 2. but we are not obliged to suffer even in that season as the slaves of men Again suffering in opposition to resistence does never fall under any moral Law of God execept in the absolutely extraordinary Case of Christs passive obedience which cannot fall under our deliberation or imitation Or in the case of a positive Law as was given to the Iewes to submit to Nebuchadnezzar which was express peculiar to them as shall be cleared That can never be commanded as indispensible duty which does not fall under our free will or deliberation but the enemies will as the Lord permits them as the Case of suffering is That can never be indispensible duty which we may decline without sin as we may do suffering if we have not a call to it yea in that case it were sin to suffer therefore in no case it can be formally indispensibly commanded so as we may not shift it if we can without sin Suffering simply the evil of punishment just or unjust can never be a conformity to Gods preceptive Will but only to His Providential disposal it hath not voluntas signi for its rule but only voluntas beneplaciti All the Commands that we have for suffering are either to direct the manner of it that it be Patiently Chearfully when forced to it wrongfully 1 Pet. 2. 19 20. or Comparatively to determine our choise in an unavoidable alternative either to suffer or sin and so we are commanded rather to suffer than to deny Christ Math. 13. 33. and we are commanded upon these termes to follow Christ to take up His Cross when He layes
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
Clergy as he shall nominate in the external Government of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide effectual And in the same Act all Lawes are rescinded by which the sole power Jurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church Assemblies And all which may be interpreted to have given any Church power Jurisdiction or Government to the Office bearers of the Church other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon subordination to the Soveraign power of the King as Supreme By which Prelats are redintegrated to all their priviledges preheminencies that they possessed anno 1637. And all their Church power robbed from the Officers of Christ is made to be derived from to depend upon and to be subordinate to the Croun prerogative of the King whereby the King is made the only fountain of Church power and that exclusive even of Christ of whom there is no mentioned exception And his vassals the Bishops as his Clerks in Ecclesiastiks are accountable to him for all their administrations A greater usurpation upon the Kingdom of Christ than ever the Papacy it self aspired unto Yet albeit here was another display of a banner of defyance against Christ in altering the Church Government of Christs Institution into the humane Invention of Lordly Prelacy in assuming a power by prerogative to dispose of the external Government of the Church and in giving his Creatures patents for this effect to be his Administrators in that usurped Government There was no publick Ministerial at least united Testimony against this neither Therefore the Lord punished this sinful shamful silence of Ministers in His holy Justice though by mens horrid wickedness when by another wicked Act of the Council at Glasgow above 300 Ministers were put from their Charges and afterwards for their Non-conformity in not Countenancing their Diocesan Meeting and not keeping the Anniversary day May 29. The rest were violently thrust from their labours in the Lords vineyard and banished from their Parishes and adjudged unto a nice strange Confinement twenty miles from their oun parishes six miles from a Cathedral Church as they called it and three miles from a Burgh whereby they were reduced in to many inconveniencies Yet in this fatal Convulsion of the Church generally all were struck with blindness baseness that a Paper-Proclamation made them all run from their posts and obey the Kings Orders for their ejection Thus were they given up because of their forbearing to sound an alarm charging the people of God in point of Loyaltie to Christ and under the pain of the Curse of the Covenant to a wake and acquit themselves like men and not to suffer the enemie to rob them of that Treasure of Reformation which they were put in possession of by the tears prayers blood of such as went before them instead of those prudential fumblings fisflings then since so much followed Wherefore the Lord in His holy righteousness left that enemie against whom they should have cried contended and to whose eye they should have held the Curse of the Covenant as having held it first to their oun in case of unfaithful silence in not holding it to his to cast them out of the House of the Lord and dissolve their Assemblies and deprive them of their priviledges because of their not being so valiant for the Truth as that a ful faithful Testimony against that Encroachment might be found upon record Nevertheless somewere found faithful in that hour pour of darkness who kept the Word of the Lords patience and who were therefore kept in from that tentation which carried many away into sad shamful defections though not from suffering hard things from the hands of men only these who felt most of their violence found grace helping them to acquit themselves suitably to that dayes Testimony being thereby prevented from an Active yeelding to their impositions when they were made passively to suffer force However that season of a publick Testimony was lost and as to the most part never recovered to this day The Prelats being settled readmitted to voice in Parliament they procure an Act Dogmatically condemning several Material parts points of our Covenanted Reformation to wit these positions That it was lawful for Subjects for Reformation or necessary self defence to enter into leagues or take up Armes against the King And particularly declaring that the national Covenant as explained in the year 1638. and the Solemn league Covenant were are iâ— themselves unlawful Oaths and were taken by imposed upon the subjects of this Kingdom against the fundamental Lawes Liberties thereof That all such gatherings petitions that were used in the begining of the late troubles were unlawful seditious And whereas then People were led unto these things by having disseminated among them such principles as these That it was lawful to come with petitions Representations of grievances to the King That it was lawful for people to restrict their Allegiance under such such limitations and suspend it untill he should give security for Religion c. It was therefore enacted that all such positions practices founded thereupon were treasonable And furder did enact that no person by writing praying preaching or malicious or advised speaking express or publish any words or sentences to stir up the people to the dislike of the Kings prerogative Supremacy or of the Government of the Church by Bishops or justifie any of the deeds actings or things declared against by that Act. Yet not withstanding of all this subversion of Religion Liberty and restraint of asserting these Truths here trampled upon either before men by Testimony or before God in mourning over these Indignities done unto Him in everting these all the parts of Reformation even when it came to Daniels case of confession preaching praying Truths interdicted by Lavv fevv had their eyes open let be their vvindovvs in an open avouching them to see the duty of the day calling for a Testimony Though aftervvards the Lord Spirited some to assert demonstrate the Glory of these Truths duties to the vvorld As that Judicious Author of the Apologetical Relation vvhose Labours need no Elagium to commend them But this is not all for these men having novv as they thought subverted the Work of God they provided also against the fears of its revival making Acts declaring that if the outed Ministers dare to continue to preach and presume to exercise their Ministrie they should be punished as seditious persons requiring of all a due acknowledgment of hearty complyance with the Kings Government Ecclesiastical Civil And that who soever shall ordinarly wilfully withdraw absent from the ordinary Meetings for Divine Worship in their ouâ— Churches on the Lords day shall incur the Penalties there insert Thus the sometimes Chast Virgin whose name was Beulah to the Lord the Reformed Church
contended against by Professors and is really the same with the Condition of the Cautionary Bond in the Indulgence after Bothuel of which see Pag. 129. And further they must be openly publickly held and all persons freely admitted to them which is for the informing trade exposing to all the inconveniences of Iesuites and other Spies Flies their delations in case any thing be spoken reflecting on the Government a great tentation to Ministers 4 The worst of all is upon ther matter of Preaching which is so restricted limited that nothing must be said or done contrare to the well peace of his reign seditious or treasonable And in case any treasonable speeches be uttered the Law is to take place against the guilty and none other present providing they reveal to any of the Council the guilt so committed as in the former Proclamation And in the last it is further declared that nothing must be Preached or taught which may any way tend to alienate the hearts of the People from him or his Government Here is the price at which they are to purchase their freedom a sad bargain to buy Liberty sell Truth which yet hardly can be so exactly paid but he may find a pretence for retrenching it when he pleases for if a Minister shall Pray for the overturning of a throne of iniquity or for confounding all that serve graven Images and for destruction to the Pope and all that give their power to that beast there will be something said against the well of his Government Or if any shall hear this and not delate it then the same pretence is relevant Or if he shall Preach against the Kings Religion as Idolatry and the Church of Rome as Babylon and discharge his Conscience Duty in speaking against the Tyrannie of the times Or let him Preach against any publick sin faithfully a Popish Critick or Romish Bigot shall interpret it to be an alienation of the Peoples hearts from the King his Government But who can be faithful and Preach in season out of season now but he must think it his duty to endeavour to alienate the hearts of the People from such an Enemy to Christ and his absolute Tyranny so declaredly stated against God What Watchman must not see it his indispensable Duty to warn all People of his Devilish designs to destroy the Church Nation and Preach so that People may hate the whore and this Pimp of hers Sure if he Preach the whole Counsel of God he must Preach against Poperie Tyrannie And if he think this Indulgence from Absolute Prerogative granted accepted on these termes can supercede him from this faithfulness then he is no more the Servant of Christ but a pleaser of men Therefore since it is so clogged with so many restrictions so inconsistent with duty so contrary to Scripture so clearly violatory of Covenant-Engagements so cross to the constant Contendings Constitutions of this Church and Acts of Ass. See Pag. 80. c. it were a great defection to Accept of it 11. Considering the Scandal of it they dare not so offend the generation of the Righteous by the Acceptance and dishonour God disgrace the Protestant Profession wrong the Interest thereof and betray their native Country as thus to comply with the Design of Antichrist and partake of this cruel tender mercy of the beast who hath alwayes mischief in his heart and intends this as a Preparative for inducing or inforcing all that are hereby lulled asleep either to take on his Mark or bear the Marks of his fiery fury afterwards For hereby forreign Churches may think we are in a fair way of reconciliation with Antichrist when we so kindly accept his Harbingers favours And it cannot but be very stumbling to see the Ministers of Scotland whose Testimony used to be terrible to the Popish and renouned through all the Protestant Churches purchasing a Liberty to themselves at the rate of burying betraying the Cause into bondage restraint and thus to be laid by from all active open opposition to Antichrists Designs in such a season The world will be tempted to think they are not governed by Principles but their oun Interest in this juncture seeking their oun things more than the things of Christ And that it was not the late Usurpation upon overturning of Religion Liberty that offended them so much as the Persecution they sustained thereby but if that Arbitrary Power had been exerted in their favours tho with the same prejudice of the Cause of Christ they would have complyed with it as they do now Alas sad dolorous have been the Scandals given taken by from the Declining Ministers of Scotland heretofore which have rent racked the poor Remnant and offended many both at home abroad but none so stumbling as this And therefore the tender will be shie to medle with it 12. Considering the Addresses made thereupon with such a stain of foulsome blasphemous flatteries to the dishonour of God the reproach of the Cause the betraying of the Church and detriment of the Nation and exposing themselves to the contempt of all the poor Persecuted Partie dare not so much as seem to incorporate with them I shall set doun the first of their Addresses given forth in the name of all the Presbyterian Ministers And let the Reader judge whether there be not Cause of standing aloof from every appearance of being of their number It is dated at Edinburgh Iulj 21. 1687. of this tenor To the Kings most excellent Majestie The humble Address of the Presbyterian Ministers of his Majesties Kingdom of Scotland We your Maj. most loyal subjects the Ministers of the Presbyterian persuasion in your Ancient Kingdom of Scotland from the due sense we have of your Maj. gracious surprising favour in not only puting a stop to our long sad sufferings for Non-conformity but granting us the Liberty of the Publick Peaceable exercise of our Ministerial function without any hazard As we bless the Great God who hath put this in your Royal heart do with all find our selves bound in duty to offer our most humble hearty thanks to your Sacred Majestie the favour bestowed being to us and all the People of our Persuasion valuable above all our earthly comforts especially since we have ground from your Maj. to beleeve that our Loyaltie is not to be questioned upon the account of our being Presbyterians who as we have amidst all former tentations endeavoured so we are firmly resolved still to preserve an intire Loyaltie in our Doctrine Practice consonant to our known Principles which according to the Holy Scriptures are contained in the Confession of faith generally ouned by Presbyterians in all your Maj. Dominions and by the help of God so to demean our selves as your Maj. may find cause rather to enlarge than to diminish your favours towards us throughly perswading our selves from your Maj. justice
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
have acquired do seek the praise of Justice by injury of Liberality by robbery So he can make some shew of a Civil mind but so much the less assurance gives he of it that it is manifest he intends not thereby the subjects good but the greater security of his oun lusts and stability of empire over posterity having some what Mitigated the peoples hatred which when he hath done he will turn back again to his old manners for the fruit which is to follow may easily be known both by the seed and by the sower thereof An exact Copy of this we have seen within these tuo years as oft before in the rule of the other Brother After God hath been robbed of His prerogatives the Church of her Priviledges the State of its Lawes the Subjects of their Libertie property he is now affecting the praise captating the Applause of tenderness to conscience and Love of Peace by offering now Liberty after all his Cruelties wherein all the thinking part of men do discern he is prosecuting that hellish Project introducing Popery slaverie and overturning Religion Law Liberty 3. Regium imperium secundum Naturam est Tyrannicum contra Regium Liberi inter Liberos est Principatus Tyrannus domini in servas c. Tyranny is against Nature and a Masterly Principality over slaves Can he be called a father who accounts his subjects slaves or a Shepherd who does not feed but devours his flock or a Pilot who doth allwise study to make shipwrack of the goods and strikes a leak in the very ship where he sails what is he then that bears Command not for the peoples advantage but studies only himself who leadeth his subjects into manifest snares he shall not verily be accounted by me either Commander Emperour or Governour King Iames the 6 th also in a speech to the Parliament anno 1609. makes this one Character of a Tyrant when he begins to invade his subjects rights Liberties And if this be true then we have not had a King these many years the foregoing deduction will demonstrate what a slavery we have been under 4. Quid qui non de virtute certet câ—m bonis c. What is he then who doth not contend for vertue with the good but to exceed the most flagitious in vices If yow see then any usurping the Royal name and not excelling in any virtue but striving to exceed all in baseness not tendering his subjects good with native affection but pressing them with proud domination esteeming the people committed to his trust not for their safegaurd but for his oun gain will yow imagine this man is truly a King albeit he vapours with a numerous Lieveguard and makes an ostentation of gorgeous Pomp The learned Althusius likewise in his Politicks cap. 38. Num. 15. as He is cited by Ius Populi chap. 16. Pag. 347. makes this one Character of a Tyrant that liveing in Luxury whoredome greed idleness he neglecteth or is unfit for his office How these suite our times we need not express what effrontry of impudence is it for such monsters to pretend to rule by virtue of any Authority derived from God who pollute the world with their Adulteries Incests and Live in open defyance of all the Lawes of the universal King with whom to exceed in all villanies is the way to purchase the Countenance of the Court and to aspire to preferment No Heliogabulus c. could ever come up the length in wickedness that our Rulers have professed 5. Omnium vim Legum in se transferre c. He can transfer unto himself the strength of all Lawes and abrogate them when he pleases King Iames the 6. in that fore-cited speech saith a King degenerateth into a Tyrant when he leaveth to rule by Law. Althusius also loc cit saith there is one kind of Tyranny which consisteth in violating changing or removing of fundamental Lawes specially such as concern Religion such saith he Philip the King of Spain who contrare to the fundamental Belgick Lawes did erect an administration of Justice by force of armes and such was Charles the 9 th of France that thought to overturn the Salicque Law. All that knoweth what hath been done in Britain these 27 years can attest our Lawes have been subverted the Reformation of Religion overturned and all our best Lawes rescinded and now the Penal Statuts against Papists disabled stopped without against Law. 6. Ad suum eum unius nutum omnia c. He can revoke all things to his nod at his pleasure This is also one part of King Iames the 6 his Character of a Tyrant when he sets upon arbitrary power And of Althusius loc cit when he makes use of an absolute Power and so breaks all bonds for the good of humane Society We allow a King an absolute power taken in a good sense that is he is not subaltern nor subordinate to any other Prince but supreme in his oun dominions or if by absolute be meant Perfect he is most absolute that governs best according to the word of God. But if it be to be Legibus solutus loosed from all Lawes we thinke it blasphemy to ascribe it to any Creature Where was there ever such an arbitrary absolute power arrogated by any Mortal as hath been claimed by our Rulers these years past especially by the present Usurper who in this Liberty of conscience now granted to Scotland assumes to himself an absolute power which all are to obey without reserve which carries the subjects slavery many stages beyond what ever the Grand Seigneur did attempt 7. Tyranno ad cives opprumendos c. For by a Tyrant strangers are imployed to oppress the subjects They place the establishment of ther Authority in the peoples weakness and think that a Kingdom is not a Procuration concredited to them by God but rather a prey fallen into their hands Such are not joined to us by any Civil bond or any bond of humanity but should be accounted the most Capital enemies of God and of all men King Iames ub supra sayes he is a Tyrant that imposes un Lawful Taxes raises forces makes war upon his subjects to Pillage Plnnder wast spoil his Kingdoms Althusins ubi supra makes a Tyrant who by immoderate exactions and the like exhausts the subjects and cites Scripture Ier. 22. 13. 14. Ezek. 34. 1 King. 12. 19. Psal. 14. 4. It is a famous saying of Bracton He is no longer King then dum bene regit while he rules well but a Tyrant when-soever he oppresseth the people that are trusted to his Care Government And Cicero sayes amittitis omne exceritus imperit jiu qui eo imperio exercitâ— Rempublicans oppugnat He loseth all legal power in over an Army or Empire who by that Government army does obstruct the wel-fare of that republick What oppressions exactions by armed force our Nation hath been wasted with in part is
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
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
be amiss to transcribe some of the words of the Edict of the Estates General to this purpose It is well known say they that a Prince Lord of a Countrey is Ordained by God to be Soveraign Head over his subjects to preserve defend them from all injuries force violence and that if the Prince therefore faileth therein and in stead of preserving his subjects doth outrage oppress them depriveth them of their Priviledges Ancient Customs commandeth them and will be served of them as slaves they are no longer bound to respect him as their Soveraign Lord but to esteem of him as a Tyrant neither are they bound to acknowledge him as their Prince but may abandon him c. And with this aggrees the answer of William Prince of Orange to the Edict of Proscription published against him by Philip. the II. There is sayes he a Reciprocal Bond betwixt the Lord his vassal so that if the Lord break the Oath which he hath made unto his vassal the vassal is discharged of the Oath made unto his Lord. This was the very Argument of the poor suffering people of Scotland whereupon they disouned the Authority of Charles the Second 4. The Monarchy of France is very absolute yet there also the State hath taken order with their Tyrants not only have we many instances of resistances made against them but also of disouning disabling invalidating their pretended Authority repressing their Tyranny So was the two Childerici served So also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the II. Kings of France 5. The great body of Germany moves very slowly and is inured to bear great burdens yet there also we find Ioanâ—a of Austria Mother of Charles the 5. was put to perpetual sonment which example is adduced by the Earle of Mortoun in his discourse to the Queen of England whereof I rehearsed a part before vindicating the deposing disouning Queen Mary of Scotland If saith he we compare her with Ioanna of Austria what did that poor wretch commit but that she could not want a litle lustful pleasure as a remedy necessary for her age And yet poor Creature she suffered that punishment of which our Dame convicted of most grievous Crimes now complains Buchan Rer. Scotic l. b. 20. pag. 748. The Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse and the Magistrats of Magdeburgh joined in a war against her Son Charles the 5. and drew up a conclusion by resolution of Lawyers wherein are these words Neither are we bound to him by any other reason than if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour By the Laws themselves it is provided that the Superior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior if the Superior Magistrate exceed the Limits of his power and command that which is wicked not only we need not obey him but if he offer force we may resist him Which Opinion is confirmed by some of the greatest Lawyers and even some who are Patrons of Tyranny Grotius none of the greatest enemies of Tyrants de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. n 11. sayth out of Barclaius with him that the King doth loss his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects It was upon the account of the Tyranny of that bloody house of Austria over the Helvetians that they shook off the rule Government of that family and established themselves into a Republick And at this present time upon the same accounts the Tyranny Treachery of this Imperial Majestie the Hungarians have essayed to maintain justify a revolt in disouning the Emperour now for several years 6. Polland is an Elective Kingdom and so cannot but be fertile of many instances of casting off Tyrants Henricus Valesius disouned for fleeing and Sigismuadus for violating his faith to the States may suffice Lex Rex Q. 24. Pag. 217. 7. In Denmark we find Christiernus their King was for his intollerable Cruelty put from the Kingdom he and all his Posterity and after twenty years did end his life in Prison 8. In Swedland within the Compass of one Century the people deposed banished the two Christierns and dethroned imprisoned Ericus for their oppressions Tyranny and for pursuing the destruction of their Subjects 9. The Portugieses not many years ago laid aside and confined Alphonsus their King for his rapines Murders 10. Some Dukes of Venice have been so disouned by these Common-wealths men that laying aside their Royal honours as private men they have spent their dayes in Monasteries Buchan de jure regni apud Scotos 11. If we will revolve the old Roman Histories we shall find no small store of such examples both in the time of their Kings Consuls Emperours Their seventh King Tarquinius Superbus was removed by the people for his evident Usurpation Neque enim ad jus regni quicquam praeter vim habebat ut qui neque populi jussu neque Patribus Authoribus regnavit sayth Livius i.e. for he had nothing for a right to the Government but meer force and got the rule neither by the peoples consent choise nor by the Authority of the Senators So afterwards the Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabulus Maximinus Didius Iulianus Lex Rex ub supra 12. But it will be said Can there be any Instances of the Primitive Christians adduced Did ever they while groaning under the most insupportable Tyranny of their Persecuting Emperours disoune their Authority or suffer for not ouning it To this I answer 1. What they did or did not of this Kind is not of moment to inquire seeing their practice Example under such disavantages can neither be known exactly nor what is known of it be accommodated to our case for 1 they were never forced to give their judgement neither was the question ever put to them whether they ouned their Authority or not if they transgressed the Lawes they were lyable to the punishment they craved no more of them 2 They confess themselves to be strangers that had no establishments by Law and therefore they behoved to be passively subject when in no capacity to resist there was no more required of them Yet Lex Rex Quest. 35. pag. 371. cites Theodoret affirming Thâ—n evil men reigned through the unmanlyness of the subâ—ects 3 Their examples are not imitable in all things They were against resistence which we doubt not to prove is Lawful against Tyrannical vioâ—ence Many of them refused to flee from the fury of Persecuters They ran to Martyrdom when neither cited nor accused And to obtain the Croun thereof they willingly yeelded up their lives Liberties also to the rage or Tyrants We cannot be obliged to all these 2 Yet we find some examples not altogether unapplicable to this purpose When Barochbach the pretended King of the Iewes after the destruction of Ierusalem set himself up as King in Bitter a City in Arabia the Christians that were in his precincts refused to oune
England and generally hated of all who disdaining to wait upon the formall choise of any but after he had paved his passage to the Throne upon his Brothers blood did usurpe the Title without all Law. 5. The second thing necessary for the Legal Constitution of a King by the people is their Compact with him which must either be Express or Tacite Explicite or Implicite Two things are here to be proven that will furnish an Argument for disouning both the Brothers First That there must be a Conditionall reciprocally obliging Covenant between the Soveraign and the Subjects without which there is no such relation to be ouned Secondly That when this compact is broken in all or its chiefest conditions by the Soveraign the peoples obligation ceases The first I shall set doun in the words of a famous Author our Renouned Country man Buchanan in his Dialogue de Iure Regni apud Scotos Mutua igitur Regi cum Civibus est pactio c. There is then or there ought to be a Mutual compact between the King and his subjects c. That this is indispensibly necessary essential to make up the Relation of Soveraign Subjects may be proved both from the Light of Nature Revelation First it may appear from the Light of Natural reason 1. From the Rise of Government and the Interest people have in erecting it by consent choise at is shewed above If a King cannot be with out the peoples making then all the power he hath must either be by compact or gift If by compact then we have what we proposed And if by gift then if abused they may recall it or if they cannot recover it yet they may ought to hold their hand and give him no more that they may retain that is no more honour or respect which is in the honourer before the honoured get it Can it be imagined that a people acting rationally would give a power absolutely without restrictions to destroy all their oun rights Could they suppose this boundless Lawless Creature left at Liberty to Tyrannize would be a fit mean to procure the the ends of Government for this were to set up a rampant Tyrant to rule as he listeth which would make their condition a great deal worse then if they had no Ruler at all for then they might have more Liberty to see to their safety See Ius populi ch 6. pag. 96. 97. 2. This will be clear from the nature of that Authority which only a Soveraign can have over his Subjects which whatever be the Nature of it it cannot be absolute that is against Scripture Nature Common sense as shall be proven at more length That is to set up a Tyrant one who is free from all conditions a roaring Lyon a ranging Bear to destroy all if he pleases It must be granted by all that the Soveraign Authority is only fiduciarie entrusted by God the people with a great Charge A great Pledge is impauned committed to the Care Custody of the Magistrate which he must take special care of and not abuse or waste or alienate or sell for in that case Royalists themselves grant he may be deposed He is by Office a Patron of the Subjects Liberties and Keeper of the Law both of God Man the Keeper of both Tables Sure he hath no power over the Lawes of God but a Ministerial power he may not stop disable them as he pleases Of the same nature is it over all other Parts of his Charge He is rather a Tutor than an Inheritor proprietor of the Common-wealth and may not do with his pupils interest what he pleases In a word the Nature whole significancy of his power lyes in this that he is the Nations publick Servant both Objectively in that he is only for the good of the people and Representatively in that the people hath impauned in his hand all their power to do Royal Service The Scripture eaches this in giving him the Titles of Service as Watchman c. allowing him Royal wages for his Royal work Rom. 13. he is Gods Minister attending continually on this thing There is his work for this cause pay yow tribute also There is his wages maintinance He is called so in that transaction with Rehoboam The old men advised him to be a Servant unto the People then they should be his Servants 1 King. 12. 7. There was a conditional bargain proposed As to be a Servant or Tutor or Guardian upon Trust always implies Conditions Acconntableness to them that entrust them 3. It must needs be so otherwise great absurdities would follow Here would be a voluntary contracted Relation obliging as to relative duties to a man that ouwed none correlative to us and yet one whom we set over us It were strange if there were no Condition here and no other voluntarly suscepted Relations can be without this as between Man Wife Master Servant c. This would give him the disposal of us Ours as if both we and what we have were his oun as a mans goods are against which he does not sin whatever he do with them So this would make a King that could not sin against us being no ways obliged to us for he can no otherwise be obliged to us but upon Covenant conditions he may be obliged bound in duty to God otherwise but he cannot be bound to us otherwise And if he be not bound then he may do what he will he can do no wrong to us to whom he is no wayes bound This also is point blank against the Law of God which is the Second way to prove it by the Light of Revelation or Scripture 1. In thevery directions about making seting up of Kings the Lord shewes what conditions shall be required of them Deut. 17. 15. c. and in all directions for obeying them the qualifications they should have are rehearsed as Rom. 13. 3 4. Therefore none are to be set up but on these conditions and none are to be obeyed but such as have these qualifications 2. In His promises of the succession of Kings He secures their continuation only Conditionally to establish the Kingdom if they be constant to do His Commandments Judgements 1 Chron. 28. 7. There shall not fail a man to sit upon the Trone yet so that they take heed to their way to walk in Gods Law as David did 2 Chron. 6. 16. Now He was not otherwise to perform these promises but by the action suffrage of the people seting him up which He had appointed to be the way of calling Kings to Thrones if therefore the Lords promise be conditional the peoples actions also behoved to be suspended upon the same conditions 3. We have many express Covenants between Rulers Subjects in Scripture Iephthah was fetcht from the Land of Tob and made the head of the Gileadites by an explicite mutual stipulation wherein the Lord
if he do so so the subjects shall be loosed from all bonds of obedience then when he does so he becomes a meer private person Grotius there supposes the power is transferred upon a resolutive condition that is if he transgress the condition the power shall be resolved into its first fountain much more if it be transferred expressly also upon a suspensive condition that he shall continue to maintain the ends of the Covenant defend Religion the Liberties of the Subjects in the defence whereof we shall oune Allegiance to him otherwise not in that case if he do not maintain these ends plain it is our obligation ceases for how can it stand upon a conditional obligation when his performance of the condition sists But whatever be the conditions Mutual it flowes Natively from the Nature of a Mutual compact that qui non praestat officium promissum cadit beneficio hac lege dato he who doth not perform the conditions aggreed upon hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of performance of these conditions especially if he performe not or violate these conditions upon supposition whereof he would not have gotten the benefite It were very absurd to say in a Mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to perform his conditions though the other perform none but break all Were it the act of rational Creatures to set up a Soveraign upon conditions he shall not play the Tyrant and yet be bound to him thô he Tyrannize never so much We have the Nature of Mutual compacts in the Spies Covenant with Rahab Iosh. 2. 20. If thow utter this our business then we will be quite of thine Oath which thow hast made us to swear if she should break condition then the obligation of the Oath on their part should cease But next all the stress will ly in proving that the Covenant on such such conditions between a Prince Subjects doth equally mutually oblige both to each other for if it equally oblige both then both are equally disengaged from other by the breach on either side and either of them may have a just claim in Law against the other for breach of the conditions But Royalists Court-slaves alledge that such a Covenant obliges the King to God but not to the people at all so that he is no more accountable to them than if he had made none at all But the contrare is evident For 1 If the compact be Mutual and if it be infringed on one side it must be so in the other also for in contracts the parties are considered as equalls whatever inequality there may be betwixt them otherwise I speak of contracts among men 2 If it be not so there is no Covenant made with the people at all And so David did no more Covenant with Israel than with the Chaldeans for to all with whom the Covenant is made it obliges to them Otherwise it must be said he only made the Covenant with God contrary to the Text for he made it only before the Lord as a Witness not with Him as a party Ioashs Covenant with the Lord is expresly distinguished from that with the people 3 If it be not so it were altogether non-sense to say there were any Covenant made with the King on the other hand for he is supposed to be made King on such such terms and yet by this after he is made King he is no more obliged unto them than if there had been no compact with him at all 4 If he be bound as King and not only as a man or Christian then he is bound with respect to the people for with respect to them he is only King But he is bound as King and not only as a man or Christian because it is only with him as King that the people Covenant and he must transact with them under the same consideration Next that which he is obliged to is the specifical act of a King to defend Religion Liberty Rule in Righteousness And therefore his Covenant binds him as King. Again if he be not bound as King then as a King he is under no obligation of Law or Oath which is to make him a Lawless Tyrant yea none of Gods subjects It would also suppose that the King as King could not sin against the people at all but only against God for as King he could be under no obligation of duty to the people and where there is no obligation there is no sin by this he would be set above all obligations to love his neighbour as himself for he is above all his neighbours and all mankind and only less than God and so by this doctrine he is loosed from all duties of the Second Table or at least he is not so much obliged to them as others But against this it is Objected both Prince people are obliged to performe their part to each other and both are obliged to God but both are not accountable to each other there is not mutual power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty the King hath it indeed over the people but not the people over the King and there is no indifferent Judge Superior to both to compell both but God. Ans. 1. What if all this should be granted yet it doth not infringe the proposition what if the people have not power to compell him yet Iure he may fall from his Soveraignity though de facto he is not deposed he loses his right to our part when he breaks his part 2. There is no need of a Superior Arbiter for as in contracting they are considered as equal so the party keeping the contract is Superior to the other breaking it 3. There may be Mutual Coactive Power where there is no Mutual relation of Superiority Inferiority yea in some cases Inferiours may have a Coactive Power by Law to compell their Superiours failing in their duty to them As a Son wronged by his Father may compel him to reparation by Law And independent Kingdoms nothing inferior to each other being in Covenant together the wronged may have a Coactive power to force the other to duty without any Superior Arbiter 4. The bond of suretyship brings a man under the obligation to be accountable to the Creditor though the surety were never so high and the Creditor never so low Solomon sayes in General without exception of Kings yea including them because he was a King that spake it Prov. 6. 1 2. My son if thow be Surety for thy friend thow art snared with the words of thy Mouth Now a Kings power is but fiduciary And therefore he cannot be unaccountable for the power concredited to him And if the Generation had minded this our Stewarts should have been called to an account for their Stewardship ere now Hence I argue If a Covenanted Prince breaking all the Conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance
though he be a Royal Vassal of the Kingdom Princely Servant of the people yet he is not their deputy because he is really their Soveraign to whom they have made over their Power of governing protecting themselves irrevocably except in the case of Tyranny and in acts of Justice he is not countable to any and does not depend on the people as a deputy But on the other hand the people is superior to the King in respect of their fountain power of Soveraignty that remains radically virtually in them in that they make him their Royal Servant and him rather than another and limit him to the Laws for their oun good advantage and though they give to him a Politick Power for their oun safety yet they keep a Natural Power which they cannot give away but must resume it in case of Tyranny And though they cannot retract the power of Justice to govern righteously yet it is not so irrevocably given away to him but that when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects they may wrest a sword out of a mad mans hand though it be his oun sword and he hath a just power to use it for good but all fiduciary power abused may be repealed They have not indeed Soveraignity or power of life death formally yet in respect they may constitute a Magistrate with Laws which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives they have this power eminently virtually Hence in respect that the Kings Power is and can be only fiducial by way of trust reposed upon him he is not so superior to the people but he may ought to be accountable to them in case of Tyranny which is evident from what is said and now I intend to make it further appear But first I form the Argument thus We can oune no King that is not accountable to the people Ergo we cannot oune this King. To clear the Connexion of the antecedent consequent I adde Either he is accountable to the people or he is not If he be accountible to all then he is renouncible by a part when the Collective body either wil not or cannot exact an account from him when the Community is defective as to their part it is the interest of a part that would but cannot do their duty to give no account to such as they can get no account from for his Maleversations This is all we crave If he be not accountable then we cannot oune him because all Kings are accountable for these reasons 1. The Inferior is accountable to the Superior the King is inferior the people superior Ergo the King is accountable to the people The proposition is plain if the Kings superiority make the people accountable to him in case of transgressing the Laws then why should not the peoples superiority make the King accountable to them in case of transgressing the Laws especially seeing the King is inferior to the Laws because the Law restrains him and from the Law he hath that whereby he is King the Law is inferior to the people because they are as it were its parent and way make or unmake it upon occasion and seeing the Law is more powerful than the King and the people more powerful than the Law we may see before which we may call the King to answer in Judgment Buchan Iure Regni apud Scot. That the King is inferior to the people is clear on many accounts for these things which are institute for others sake are inferior to those for whose sake they are required or sought a horse is inferior to them that use him for victory A King is only a mean for the peoples good A Captain is less then the Army a King is but a Captain over the Lords Inheritance 1 Sam. 10. 1. He is but the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13. 4. Those who are before the King and may be a people without him must be superior to him who is a posteriour and cannot be a King without them let the King be considered either Materially as a Mortal man he is then but a part inferior to the whole or formally under the reduplication as a King he is no more but a Royal Servant obliged to spend his life for the people to save them out of the hand of their enemies 2 Sam. 19 9. A part is inferior to the whole the King is but a part of the Kingdom A Gift is inferior to them to whom it is given a King is but a gift given of God for the peoples good That which is Mortal but accidental is inferior to that which is eternal cannot perish Politically a King is but mortal and it is but accidental to Government that there be a succession of Kings but the people is eternal one generation passeth away another generation cometh Eccles. 1. 4. especially the people of God the portion of the Lords inheritance is superior to any King and their ruine of greater moment than all the Kings of the world for if the Lord for their sake smite great Kings slay famous Kings as Sihon Og Psal. 137. 17-20 if he give kings famous kingdoms for their ransome Isai. 43. 3 4. then His people must be so much superior than kings by how much His Justice is active to destroy the one and His Mercy to save the other All this proves the people to be superior in dignity And therefore even in that respect its frivolous to say the king cannot be accountable to them because so much superior in Glory Pomp for they are superior every way in excellency And though it were not so yet Judges may be inferior in rank considered as men but they are superior in Law over the greatest as they are Judges to whom far greater than they are accountable The low mean condition of them to whom belongs the power of Judgment does not diminish its dignity when the king then is Judged by the people the Judgment is of as great dignity as if it were done by a superior king for the Judgment is the sentence of the Law 2. They are superior in power because every constituent cause is superior to the effect the people is the constituent cause the king is the effect and hath all his Royaltie from them by the Conveyance God hath appointed so that they need not feâ—ch it from Heaven God gives it by the people by whom also his power is limited and it need be diminished from what they gave his Ancestors Hence if the people constitute limit the power they give the King then they may call him to an account and judge him for the abuse of it But the first is true as is proven above Ergo The Major is undenyable for sure they may judge their oun Creature and call him to an account for the power they gave him when he abuses it though there be no Tribunal formally Regal above him
yet in the case of Tyranny and violating his Trust there is a Tribunal virtual eminently above him in them that made him reposed that Trust upon him as is said 3. The fountain power is superior to the power derived The people though they constitute a King above them yet retain the fountain power he only hath the derived power Certainly the people must retain more power eminently than they could give to the King for they gave it and he receives it with limitations if he turn mad or uncapable they may put Curators Tutors over him if he be taken captive they may appoint another to exercise the power if he die then they may constitute another with more or less power So then if they give a way all their power as a slave selleth his Liberty and retain no fountain power or radical right they could not make use of it to produce any of these acts They set a King above them only with an executive power for their good but the radical power remains in the people as in an immortal spring which they communicate by succession to this or that Mortal man in the manner measure they think expedient for otherwise if they gave all their power away what shall they reserve to make a new King if this man die What if the Royal line surcease there be no Prophets now sent to make Kings And if they have power in these cases why not in the case of Tyranny 4. If the King be accountable by Law for any act of Tyranny done against one man then much more is he accountable for many against the whole state But the former is true a private man may go to Law before the ordinary Judges for wronging his inheritance and the King is made accountable for the wrong done by him Now shall the Laws be like Spiders webs which hold flies but let bigger beasts pass through Shall Sentence be past for petty wrongs against a man and none for Tyrannizing over Religion Laws Liberties of the Kingdom Shall none be past against parricide or fratricide for killing his Brother Murdering the Nobles and burning Cities Shall pettie Thieves be hanged for stealing a Sheep and does the Laws of God or man give impunity for robbing a whole Country of the nearest dearest Interests they have to Crowned heads for the fancied Character of Royalty which thereby is forfeited 5. If there be Judges appointed of God independently to give out execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders without exception of the highest then the King also must be subject to that Judgment But there are Judges appointed of God independently to give out execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders without exception of the highest Two things must be here proved first that in giving Judgment they do not depend on the King but are the immediate vicars of God Secondly that the King is not excepted from but subject to their Judgment in case he be Criminal First they cannot depend upon the King because they are more necessary then the King and it is not left to the Kings pleasure whether there be Judges or not There may be Judges without a King but there can be no King without Judges nor no Justice but Confusion no man can bear the peoples burden alone Numb 11. 14 17 If they depended on the King their Power would die with the King the streams must dry up with the fountain but that cannot be for they are not Ministri regis but regni they are not Ministers of the King but of the Kingdom whose honour promotion though by the Kings external call yet comes from God as all honour promotion does Psal. 75. 7 The King cannot make Judges whom he will by his absolute Power he must be tied to that Law Deut. 1. 13. To take wise men understanding known Neither can he make them dura ite beneplacito for if these qualifications remain there is no allowance given for their removal They are Gods the Children of the Mosâ— High appointed to defend the poor fatherless as well as he Psal. 82. 3 6. They are ordained of God for the punishment of evil doers in which they must not be resisted as well as he Rom. 13. 1 2. by me saith the Lord rule ... all the Iudges of the earth Prov. 8. 16. To them we must be subject for Conscience sake as being the Ministers of God for good they must be obeyed for the Lords sake as well as the King though they are sent of him yet they Judge not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. hence they sit in his room and are to act as if he were on the bench the King cannot say the Judgment is mine because it is the Lords neither can he limit their sentance as he might if they were nothing but his deputies because the Judgment is not his nor are their Consciences subordinate to him but to the Lord immediatly otherwise if they were his deputies depending on him then they could neither be admonished nor condemned for unjust Judgment because their sentence should neither be righteous nor unrighteous but as the King makes it And all directions to them were capable of this exception do not so or so except the King command yow crush not the poor oppress not the fatherless except the King command yow yea then they could not execute any Judgment but with the Kings Licence and so could not be rebuked for their not executing Judgment Now all this is contrary to Scripture which makes the sentence of the Judges undeclinable when just Deut. 17. 11. the Lords indignation is kindled when He looks for Iudgment behold oppression for righteousness behold a Cry Isai. 5. 7. neither will it excuse the Judges to say the king would have it so for even they that are subservient to write grievousness to turn aside the needy from Iudgment c. are under the wo as well as they that prescribe it Isai. 10. 1 2. The Lord is displeased when Iudgment is turned away back ward and Justice stands a far of and when there is no Iudgment what ever be the Cause of it Isai. 59. 14 15. The Lord threatens He will be avenged on the Nation when a man is not found to execute Iudgment Ier. 5. 1 9. And promises if they will execute Judgment righteousness and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor He will give them righteous Magistrats Ier. 22. 3 4. but if they do not He will send desolation ibid. He rebukes those that turn Judgment to wormwood and leave of righteousness in the earth Amos. 5. 7. He resents it when the Law is slacked and Judgment doth not go forth freely without overawing or overruling restraint Habb 1. 4. Can these Scriptures consist with the Judges dependence on the kings pleasure in the exercise execution of their Power Therefore if they would avoid the
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
a Conveyance as they thought most contributive for this end When therefore Princes cease to be what they could be constitute for they cease to have an Authority to be ouned but ceasing to answer these ends of Government they cease to be what they could be constitute for 5. For no other end were Magistrates limited with Conditions but to bound them that they might do nothing against the peoples good safety Whosoever then breaking through all legal limitations shall became injurious to the Community lists himself in the number of enemies and is only to be looked upon as such 6. For this end all Laws are ratified or rescinded as they conduce to this end which is the soul reason of the Law then it is but reason that the Law establishing such a King which proves an enemy to this should be rescinded also 7. Contrary to this end no Law can be of force if then either Law or King be prejudicial to the Realme they are to be abolished 8. For this end in cases of necessity Kings are allowed sometimes to neglect the Letter of the Laws or private Interests for the safety of the Community but if they neglect the publick safety and make Laws for their oun Interests they are no more Trustees but Traitors 9. If it were not for this end it were more eligible to live in deserts than to enter into Societies When therefore a Ruler in direct opposition to the ends of Government seeks the ruine not only of Religion but also of the peoples safety he must certainly forfeit his right to reign And what a vast as well as innocent number have for Religion and their adherence to their fundamental rights been ruined rooted out of their families Possessions oppressed persecuted Murdered destroyed by this and the deceased Tyrant all Scotland can tell and all Europe hath heard If ever the ends of Government were perverted subverted in any place Britain is the stage where this Tragedy hath been acted 13. I may argue from the Covenant that to oune this Authority is contrary to all the Articles thereof 1. That Authority which overturns the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government which we are sworn to preserve against the Common Enemies thereof in the first Art. cannot be ouned But the present pretended Authority overturned and continues more to overturn the Reformation of Religion c. Ergo it cannot be ouned for against what common enemy must we preserve it if not against him that is the chief Enemy thereof and how can we oune that Authority that is wholly employed applied for the destruction of Religion 2. If we are obliged to exstirpate Poperie without respect of persons lest we partake in other mens sins then we are obliged to exstirpate Papists without respect of persons and consequently the head of them For how otherwise can Poperie be exstirpated or how otherwise can we cleanse the Land of their sins But in the 2d Art. we are obliged to exstirpate Poperie without respect of persons lest we partake in other mens sins Ergo we are obliged to exstirpate Papists without respect of Persons and consequently the Crowned Iesuite and therefore cannot oune him for how can we oune him whom we are bound to exstirpate 3. If we be engaged to preserve the Rights Liberties of Parliaments and the Liberties of the Kingdoms and the Kings Authority only in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms then we cannot oune his Authority when it is inconsistent with opposite to destructive of all these precious Interests as now it is with a witness But in the 3. Art. we are engaged to preserve the Rights Priviledges of Parliaments the Liberties of the Kingdoms and the Kings Authority only in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms Ergo. All allegiance that we can oune to any man must stand perpetually thus qualified in defence of Religion Liberty that is so far as it is not contrary to Religion Liberty and no further for if it be destructive of these it is null If we should then oune this man with this restricted allegiance and apply it to his Authority as we must apply it to all Authority that we can oune it were to mock God the world and oune Contradictions for can we maintain the Destroyer of Religion in defence of Religion And the Destroyer of all our rights Liberties and all our legal securities for them in the preservation of these rights Liberties that were pure Non-sense 4. If we be obliged to endeavour that all Incendiaries Malignants c. be brought to condign punishment then we cannot oune the Authority of the head of these Incendiaries malignant Enemies But in the 4. Art we are obliged to endeavour that all Incendiaries Malignants c. be brought to Condign Punishment Ergo The Connexion of the Major cannot well be doubted for is it imaginable that the head of that unhallowed Party the Great malignant Enemy who is the spring gives life unto all these Abominations shall be exempted from punishment or ouned for a Sacred Majestie shall we be obliged to discover and bring to Justice the litle petty Malignants and this implacably stated Enemy to Christ escape with a Crown on his head Nay we are by this obliged if ever we be in case to bring these stated Enemies to God the Country to condign punishment from the highest to the Lowest And this we are to do as we would have the anger of the Lord turned away from us which cannot be without hanging up their heads before the Lord against the sun as was done in the matter of Peor Numb 25. 4. For hath not he his Complices made the Kingdom a Curse and we with our oun consent have made our selves obnoxious to it if we do not procure each in our Capacities and pursue these Traitors Rebells that the Judgment of the Lord be executed upon the accursed 5. No wilful oâ—poser of Peace union between the Kingdoms is to be ouned but according to the 5. Art. we are obliged to endeâ—vour that Justice be done upon him But this man his brother have been wilful opposers of Peace union between the Kingdoms all true Peace union except an union in Confederacy against the Lord for they have taken Peace from both the Kingdoms and destroyed annulled that which was the bond of their union viz. the Solemn League Covenant 6. If we are obliged to assist defend all those that enter into this League Covenant in the maintaining pursuing thereof and never to suffer our selves to be divided to make defection to the contrary part c. According to the 6 Art. Then we must not oun the Butcher of our Covenanted Brethren who hath imbrued â—is hands in their blood in the maintaining pursuing thereof and would have us
sayes he The draught of that petition which yow sent me speaks not one word of the Covenant of God for the adhering to which yow now suffer and which is the Object of mens hatred and the destruction whereof is the great work of the times and your silence in this nick of time appears to be a not confessing of Christ before men and yow want nothing to begen an uncleanly deliverance but the profession of silence which is professed by all that petition for such a bond when their address transaction speaks no more in favours of the cause than if they denied it It is plainly a coming out of prison without a Testimony which cannot consist with faithful zealous suffering for Christ and is far from the choise of Christs Witnesses who overcame by the blood of the Lamb and the Word of their Testimony recorded Heb. 11. 35. who were tortured not accepting deâ—iverance that they might obtain a better resurection 5. As it is Scandalous so it is very inconvenient unsuitable for the Confessors of Christ. In that not only they may be ignorant and much troubled to know what underhand â—ealings their friends may use sometimes to procure that Liberty without acquainting them and how odiously their Act of deliverance may be worded registred to the prejudice of the cause which they dare not testify against afterwards when they do know it for fear of many inconveniencies But also it cannot be vindicated from being a dishonourable shifting and puting off or casting off the Call of a Testimony and confessing either an inconstancy or impatience or unreadiness or want of resolution to confess or profess the Testimony for Christ without some respyte to gather new defences for it Whereas Christs Witnesses should be ready always to give an Answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them 1 Pet. 3. 15. And besides they involve themselves into the incumbrances of a doubtful suspence about the event whereas if they keep their first resolution condition with cheerfullness aloof from such bargains they know the utmost they have to fear or hope from men But now as it is Hard for them to come off without some sinful engagment and to continue any measure of faithfulness when they are out for fear of being soon called again so they bring themselves into many sad difficulties how to behave and cast themselves into many tentations unadvoidably However except of late a precedent of this practice can hardly be instanced among the Sufferers of Christ in former times but on the contrary many have refused such offers I shall only name one In the persecution of Qeen Mary of England Dr Sands Prisoner at London had the offer of Liberty upon the terms of such a bond finding bail to appear when he should be called but refused it absolutely and when a Gentleman without his knowledge having procured it by giving a thowsand pound Bond for him brought him forth and required his consent and observance of the obligation he would not consent to give any security and denied his resolution to observe it in the least whereupon the Gentleman very courteously told him he would stand to his hazard This was far more like the innocency of the dove but this new prudence resembles more the wisdom of the serpent Finally as for Iasons business which is so much harped upon by these Bonders 1 These were Rulers that he had to deal with all and not raging Tyrants 2 They were indifferent Arbiters between Iason and the Lewd fellowes that troubled him and not both Judge party he gave no security to his persecuters as these Bonders do but to the true Judges of the cause who impartially took cognizance of it from whom Iason might did expect right 3 This was before he was Prisoner being as free as his accusers and having the Law as free for him as it was for them whereby he could vindicate himself and abide the Law and be absolved by it which does not answer the case of Prisoners actually ingaged in called to a Testimony for Christ when there is no Law but what is established in opposition to Christ. 4 In the Original it is when they got satisfaction from him that is when he so cleared himself that they could not fasten any transgression upon him then they absolved him 2. All these Oaths solemn Securities that have been imposed in these times are dreadful heinous breaches of the Third Command by taking His Name in vain in the worst sort whereby the takers cannot be holden guiltless For it is impossible such Oaths Bonds however they be constructed can ever be taken with these requisite qualifications necessary to be observed in all Oaths and consequently in all Solemn promises or Bonds that are mentioned once for all Ier. 4. 2. where one that sweareth must do it in Truth in Iudgement in Righteousness 1. They cannot be taken in Truth which is a necessary qualification in all Oaths according to the definition of a true Oath Which is a Solemn Invocation of God for Confirmation of some true Lawful grave and weighty Useful worthy business wherein He is attested appealed unto that He as the only Searcher of hearts may give His Testimony to the Truth of the thing and punish the Swearer if he swear not in Truth And this Swearing in Truth does import require both Sincerity of the heart filled with Reverence and the awful apprehension of a present God And Simplicity of the mind well informed of the genuine meaning of the Oath that we have clear uptaking of it and take it not implicitely but with our oun understanding And also singleness honesty of the intention that it be not to deceive by puting any other sense than the imposer hath or will allow when he understands it So the meaning must be clear and such as may be obviously gathered from the Words and according as they are supposed to be understood by others especially them that exact the Oath for if they mean one thing and we another Gods Name is profaned and the end of the Oath frustrate and so all equivocations mental reservations are condemned As all Divine treating on Oaths teach and worthy Mr Durham particularly on the Third Command who Asserts that though we could devise some other meaning that might seem to make for us yet if that was not meant at first tendering but otherwise understood by him that did take it it will not absolve from the guilt of perjurie for an Oath is stricti juris and will not admit on any respct or account of interpretations prejudicial to the Native Truth of it lest it should be found to be according to Psal. 24. 4. a swearing deceitfully And afterwards he sayes Much less will it exempt a man from guilt that in swearing he had a meaning of the words contrary to what in common sense they bear and in the
construction of all indifferent persons sine juramento or extra but it should be plain single clear And Pareus saith in Catech Urs. Part. 2. quest 102. Sancitum est Iuramentum ut sit vinculum veritatis inter homines Testimonium quod Deus sit Author Desensor veritatis An Oath hath the Divine Sanction that it might be a bond of verity among men and a Testimony that God is the Author defender of Truth Now none of these Oaths Bonds can be taken in Truth for if they may be safely taken in any sense it must be such as the Oath in the design of the Imposers cannot bear and which the Imposers never intended nor would they ever have allowed if they had understood it which industriously the Takers have a care they should not understand and so they must take it in that sense cum animo fallendi which cannot be in Truth but most derogatory both to the Truth simplicity of the Gospel And they are all unclear ambiguous which cannot be taken in Truth because they have no Truth in them as Dr. Sanderson saith De Iur. Promiss Oblig Prael 6. §. 10. a Proposition of an ambiguous indefinite sense before the matter be distinguished is not a true proposition yea nor a proposition at all for a proposition as its definition cleareth should signify either a truth or a falshood without any ambiguity And therefore sayes he such Oaths should be supected that there is some deceit lurking and every pious prudent man should refuse them offered under such terms cited by Apol. Relat Sect. 10. Pag. 118. Sect. 14. Pag. 267. In fine None of them can be taken in Truth since they are all a denying the Truth as will be evident by the induction of all of them Which how it can consist with the fear of God or sincerity of the heart cannot be imagined and if conscience be called in to Judgement it will condemn the taking them 2. They cannot be taken in Iudgement that is with knowledge deliberation minding understanding what it is we swear or subscribe as Mr Durham explains it in the place above cited For first they cannot be taken in Judgement because they are all ambiguous the terms of them being capable of diverse senses not explained by the Imposersâ— And if they were explained in their sense then they could not be taken in Righteousness And so at best they are uncertain And that is dreadful to invock the Majestie of God to be a Witness to uncertainties for that is to swear with an evil conscience contempt of God to dare to call Him in as a Witness of that which is in suspense whether it be Truth or a lie And such a swearer must make it a matter indifferent whether he make God a Witness of a Truth or of a lie in the case Vide Pareum Loc. supra citat Pag. 654 Sect. 4. Dr Sanderson ubi supra gives these reasons further against all ambiguous Oaths because of him who tendereth the Oath for the proper end of an Oath is that he in whose favours it is taken should have some certainity of that whereof he doubted before but there can be no certainity out of words which have no certain sense Next because of him who sweareth who if he take such an Oath in these terms either stumbleth his neighbour or spreadeth a net for his oun feet for to what else should such collusion tend but either that by our example others may be induced to take it whereby they are stumbled Or that afterwards by virtue of that Oath some thing may be required of us which is either unlawful or hurtful and this is to lay a snare for our selves Therefore let every prudent man beware of suffering himself to be deceived by these wiles and of thinking so much either of the favour or of the ill will of any other as to swallow the bait under which he is sure there is a hook It is expedient that in the matter of Oaths all things be done aright and that the sense be clear to all and that is jurare Liquido to swear with a clear conscience Apol. Relat. Pag. 267. But next they cannot be taken in Judgement because they are all imposed and extorted under a sever penalty and some of them of death and so must be taken out of fear Such Oaths are by many famous Divines judged unlawful especially Publick Oaths imposed by Authority and under colour of Law these are worse than a mans private Oath given to a Robber â—for fear of Death if the matter be unlawful for whether the matter be Lawful or unlawful such Oaths coacted exacted imposed by Law cannot be taken in Judgement for if they be taken out of respect to the Law then it is the persons suffrage to the equitie of that Law and an approbation of the imposition Which in the present case cannot be done by any man of conscience for whether the Oaths be Lawful or not the Authority imposing them is naught and the Law wicked and can never be approven And if they be extorted out of fear then they cannot be taken with deliberation or voluntary unviolented choise unconstrained light or liberty which are all the ingredients of Judgement 3. They cannot be taken in Righteousness that is according to the Law of equity as well as piety neither wronging God nor others by our Oaths Lawful Oaths should be in themselves vincula aequitatis as well as veritatis And Pareus saith loco supra citato Iuramenta licita tantum ea sunt quae suscipiuntur de rebus veris certo cognitis licitis possibilibus gravibus necessariis utilibus dignis Lawful Oaths are only these which are ingaged into about things true certainly known lawful possible weighty necessary useful worthy And if that be true then are all the Oaths Bonds taken these many years but fetterings into bonds of iniquity which when the consciences of the Takers will reflect on them will become Galls of bitterness and found to have none of these qualifications but on the contrary to be about matters false uncertain unlawful impossible frivolous fruitless useless unworthy to the worst degree of baseness and which is worst of all dreadfully sinful and horrid to be thought on to interpose the Name of God upon making Him the Approver of what His Soul hates and a Witness of that which He will be an Avanger of as will appear by the particular consideration af all of them 3. Let it be considered that though as the pleaders for these transactions do impertinently alledge the same words in other cases might be subscribed in a more abstract sense as being capable of a good construction yet Complexly considered in the form frame of all the Oaths Bonds we have been troubled with they cannot be subscribed in any sense and if in any that must be the Impoposers sense which in them all is alwayes pernicious
for their matter National Covenants about things Moral objectively obliging to joine our selves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten Ier. 50. 5. I might easily demonstrate all the Articles of the Covenant to be Morally obliging but they are demonstrate sufficiently above Head. 1. Arg. 11. Therefore they are perpetually binding 8. They are for their Ends National Covenants inviolably obliging which cannot be made void though they should be broken because the ends of them are alwayes to be pursued as is proved above Head. 1. Therefore they are perpetual 9. They are for their formality National Covenants most Solemnly Sworn subscribed by all ranks with uplifted hands with bended knees with solemn invocating the Name of God with solemn preaching prayer praise rendering themselves and the posterity obnoxious to the Curse if they should break it Now the Solemnities of the Oath do aggravate the heinousness of the breach of it as is clear from Ier. 34. 19. Ezek. 17. 18. quoted above the reason is because of their greater deliberation in the action and because of the greater scandal accompanying the violation thereof Hence as they are National Oaths Covenants so solemnized they are National Adiurations under the pain of a National Curse not to break them Nationally Which do make the posterity obnoxious to it as Ioshua adjuring Israel saying Cursed be the man that riseth up and buildeth this City Iericho Iosh. 6. 26. Which was fulfilled many generations after in the dayes of Ahab upon Hiel the Bethelite 1 King. 16. Ult. So the Curse of introducing abjured Prelacy and Popery if it be let in will be impendent on the Nation All National Covenants have a Curse annexed in case of a breach when ever it shall be So in Nehemiahs Covenant they clave to their Brethren entered into a Curse and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law which was given by Moses the Servant of God and to observe do all the Commandments of thâ— Lord our Lord and His Judgements Statutes particularly not to enter into affinity with their Malignant enemies Neh. 10. 29 30. Which certainly did oblige the posterity because the thing was Moral So in our Covenants we are bound to the same things and nothing but these And therefore the posterity is lyable to the Curse of perjurie for the breach thereof 10. They are for their Legality National Laws being Solemnly Ratified by the Parliament and by the King and made the foundation of their Compact with him at his Inauguration whereby they became the fundamental Laws of the Government and among the very Leges regulae regnandi which though they be rescinded by a wicked Law yet make the Rescinders chargable not only of Perjurie in breaking a Covenant but of Treason Tyranny in breaking and altering the Constitution of the Government and render them lyable to the Curse thereof for they cannot rescind that nor escape its vengeance whereof we have a speaking pledge already in that the Rescinder of these Covenants was so terribly rescinded and cut off by the hands of unnatural violence God thereby fulfilling that threatend Judgment of Covenant breakers that he that hath broken His Covenant shall be brought to destruction and bloody deceitful men shall not live out half their dayes Psal. 55. 20. ult So Charles the Second got not leave to live out half the dayes that he projected to himself 11. They are National Engagments of an Hereditary Nature like that of Israel Deut. 29. 14 15. which did oblige not only the present but the absent not only them that stood there that day before the Lord their God but theâ— that were not there that day Grotius de jur â—el Lib. 2. cap. 6. gives these Marks of Hereditary Covenants 1 When the subject is of a permanent Nature and as long as manet idem Corpus therefore as long as Scotland is Scotland whose people in their personal Capacity whose Parliaments in their Parliamentary Capacity whose King in his princely Capacity did all solemnly Sacredly engage in the Covenant it must be real perpetually obliging 2 when there is such a Clause in the Covenant as that it should be perpetual There are many Clauses in the Solemn league to this purpose in Art. 1. are these words that we our posterity after us may as brethren live in faith lâ—ve aâ—d the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us in the 5. Art we shall each one of us according to our place interest endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firme peace union to all posterity 3 when it is such as is made for the good of thâ— Kingdom The Covenant expresses its end for the perpetual good of the Kingdom having before our eyes the Glory of God the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ the honour happiness of the King his posterity and the true publick Liberty Safety Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included and again it is added for preservation of our selves our Religion from utter ruine destruction All this is a publick National good 4 The matter is Moral about materially binding duties and therefore it must be hereditary and of perpetual obligation 12. Lastly They are National obligations taking on publick duties by way of virtual Representation of the posterity And they that think it irrational that the father should represent involve the family must resolve us how the Religious Civil Covenants of Israel Iudâ—h made in Moses Ioshua's Davids Asa's Ioash's Hezekiahs Iosiahs 〈◊〉 dayes did comprehend bird as well the absent as the preâ—ent their posterity yet unborn as also how the Laws Contracts continually passed by some do take in others not personally consenting yea how comes it to pass that every succeeding generation is â—ound to the Laws and must be obedient to the Kings that they did not make themselves no reason can be given but because they are virtually represented by included in their fathers Now if these Arguments prove our National Covenants to be perpetually binding and cannot be dispensed with theâ— must these posterior Oaths that are made in a diametrical opposition to the Covenants and are condemned by the Covenants be false unlawful Oaths But the first is proved Therefore these Oaths so opposite to condemned by the Covenants are false unlawful That they are opposite to the Covenant will appear in the induction of all of them And that what ever they be imposed by this party they are condemned by the Covenants wherein we are obliged to make no such Transactions with them will appear if we consider these and the like expressions that we shall neither directly nor indirectly suffer our selves to be divided by whatsoever suggestion allurement or terror from this blessed Conjunction nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stop or hinder any such resolution as
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
succession by a scandalous Assassination But it is clear then David was Resisting him and that is enough for us and he supposes he might descend into battel perish 1 Sam. 26. 10. not excluding but that he might perish in battel against himself resisting him We are commanded indeed not to resist evil but whosoever shall smite us on the one check to turn to him the other also Math. 5. 39. and to recompense to no man evil for evil Rom. 12. 17. But this doth not condemn self defence or Resisting Tyrants violently endangering our Lives Laws Religion Liberties but only resistence by way of private revenge retaliation and enjoins patience when the clear call dispensation do inevitably call into suffering but not to give way to all violence Sacriledge to the subverting of Religion Righteousness These Texts do no more condemn private persons retaliating the Magistrate than Magistrats retaliating private persons unless Magistrats be exempted from this precept and consequently be not among Christs followers Yea they do no more forbid private persons to resist the unjust violence of Magistrats than to resist the unjust violence of private persons That Objection from our Lords reproving Peter Math. 26. 52. Put up thy sword for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword hath no weight here for this condemns only making use of the sword either by way of private revenge or usurping the use of it without Authority and so condemns all Tyrants which private subjects do not want to defend themselves their Religion Liberty or using it without necessity which was not in Peters case tum quia valebat Christus se ipsum defendere tum quia volebat se ipsum tradere Pool Synops. Critic in Locum Christ could easily have defended himself but he would not and therefore there was no necessity for Peters rashness it condemns also a rash precipitating and preventing the Call of God to acts of Resistence But otherwise it is plain it was not Peters fault to defend his Master but a necessary duty The reason our Lord gives for that inhibition at that time was two fold one expressed Math. 26. 52. for they that take the sword c. Which do not belong to Peter as if Peter were hereby threatened but to those that were coming to take Christ they usurped the sword of Tyrannical violence and therefore are threatened with destruction by the sword of the Romans so is that commination to be understood of Antichrist and the Tyrants that serve him Rev. 13. 10. he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword which is a terrible word against persecuters The other reason is Iohn 18. 11. The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink Which clearly resells that Objection of Christs non-resistence To which it is answered that suffering was the end of His voluntary suscepted humiliation and His errand to the World appointed by the Father and undertaken by Himself which is not the Rule of our practice Thô it be true that even in His Sufferings He left us an ensample that we should follow His steps 1 Pet. 2. 21. In many things as He was a Martyr His Sufferings were the purest Rule Example for us to follow both for the matter and frame of Spirit submission patience constancy meekness c. but not as He was our Sponsor and after the same manner for then it were unlawful for us to flee as well as to resist because He would not flee at that time 7. As we are not for Rising in Armes for triffles of our oun things or small injuries done to our selves but in a case of necessity for the preservation of our Lives Religion Laws Liberties when all that are dear to us as men and as Christians are in hazard So we are not for Rising up in Armes to force the Magistrate to be of our Religion but to defend our Religion against his force We do not think it the way that Christ hath appointed to propogate Religion by Armes Let Persecuters Limbs of Antichrist take that to them but we think it a Priviledge which Christ hath allowed us to defend preserve our Religion by Armes especially when it hath been established by the Laws of the Land and become a Land-right and the dearest and most precious Right Interest we have to contend for It is true Christ saith Iohn 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this world if my Kingdom were of this world then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes But this Objection will not conclude that Christs Kingdom is not to be defended preserved even by Resistence of all that would impiously sacrilegiously spoil us of it in this world because it is not of this world for then all were obliged to suffer it to be run doun by slaves of Hell and Satan and Antichrists vassals Papists Malignants Yea Magistrats were not to fight for it for they are among His Servants if they be Christians But the good Confession He Witnesses here before Pilat is that He hath a Kingdom which as it is not in opposition to any Cesarean Majestie So it must not be usurped upon by any King of Clay but is specifically distinct from all the Kingdoms of the world and subordinate to no earthly power being of a Spiritual Nature whereof this is a demonstration and sufficient security for earthly Kingdoms that His Servants as such that is as Christians and as Ministers were not appointed by Him to propogate it by Armes nor to deliver Him their King at that time because He would not suffer His Glorious design of Redemption to be any longer retarded but this doth not say but thô they are not to propogate it as Christians and as Ministers by carnal weapons yet they may preserve it with such weapons as men Hence that old saying may be vindicated preces lachrimae sunt arma Ecclesiae Prayers and tears are the Armes of the Church I grant they are so the only best prevailing Armes and without which all others would be ineffectual and that they together with Preaching Church Discipline c. are the only Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Armes of a Church as a Church but the Members thereof are also Men and as men they may use the same weapons that others do And ye my flock the flock of my Pasture are men saith the Lord Ezek. 33. 31. Yea from this I shall take an Argument It it be Lawful for private Subjects without the concurrence of Parliaments to resist a Tyrant by Prayers and tears Then it is Lawful also to resist him by violence But the former is true as our Adversaries grant by this Objection and I have proved it to be duty to pray against Tyrants Head 2. Ergo The Connexion is founded upon these reasons 1. This personal Resistence by violence is as consistent with that Command Rom. 13. 1 2. Let
is not illegitimate and unto which resistence is forbidden for the fear of God and for conscience sake and therefore he is no further to be looked at than as an enemy This is so pat pertinent to the present possessor of the Government that no words can more particularly apply it 6. Grotius de jure belli Lib. 1. c. 4. granteth the Law of not resisting does not bind when the danger is most weighty certain And we do not plead for it in any other case And further he sayes The Law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them who first combined together into societie and from whom such as did command did derive their power Now if it had been asked of such whether they would chuse to die rather than in any case to resist the Superior with Armes I know not if they would have yeelded thereto unless with this addition if they could not be resisted but with the greatest perturbation of the Common-wealth destruction of many Innocents And afterwards he hath these words Attamen indiscriminatim damâ—are aut singulos aut partem minorem quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur ut interim communis boni respectum non deseruit vix ausim From which we need make no inference the Concession is so large that it answers our case 7. The Surveyer of Naphtali in the place above cited grants Legal self defence against the Soveraign by way of plea in Court for safety of a mans person or estate as also in the case of most habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known Legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law And in case of his not being in his natural right wits Hence 1 If it be Lawful to resist the King by a Plea in Law for an Estate yea the Law will allow by actual force if he come to take possession of it illegally Then it must be Lawful for their lives estates Liberties Religion to resist him by force when the Legal resistence is not admitted But the former is yeelded here Ergo The reason of the Connexion is The Municipal Law permits the one and the Law of Nature Nations which no Municipal Law can infringe will warrand the other He hath no more right to be both Judge Party in this case more than in the other And he can no more act as Soveraign in this case than in the other 2 If it be Lawful to resist habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law Then we desire no more to conclude the duty of resisting this Tyranny exerced this 27 years habitually which the desolation of many hindered families the banishment of many hundreds to slavery the rivers of blood c. have made Notour to all Scotland at least and the perversion of all the fundamental Laws and all Civil Religious Liberties yea the subversion of every remaining Model of Our Religion as Reformed Covenanted to be preserved in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government and designs to introduce Popery establish Arbitrary Government have made Complete But the former is here granted Ergo 3 If in the case of his being out of his wits he should run upon an innocent man to kill him or attempt to cut his oun throat it were then Lawful to resist him yea a sin not to do it Then when in a rage oâ— deliberately he is seeking to destroy many hundreds of the people of God he may be resisted But the former is clear Ergo 8. King Iames the Sixth in his Remonstrance for the right of Kings against the Oration of Cardinal Perron hath these words The publick Laws makes it Lawful and free for any private person to enterprize against an Usurper of the Kingdom Then shall it not be duty to enterprize against a man who by the Laws of the Land is not capable of a right to reign who hath got into the Throne by the means of Murder and can pretend no right but that of Succession which I proved to be none Head. 2. However we see by these Concessions of Adversaries that the Absolute subjection they talk of will not hold nor the prerogative be so incontrollable in every case as they would pretend and that in many cases Salus populi hath the Supremacy above it And that also in these cases the people must be Judges whether they may resist or not 2. From the Law of Nature I may argue 1. If God the fountain of all power and Author of all Right hath given unto man both the power and the right of and reason to manage self defence and hath no wayes interdicted it in His Word to be put forth against Tyrants Then it is duty to use it against them upon occasion But the former is true Ergo 2. If this power right were restrained in man against the unjust violence of any it would either be by Policy or Grace or some express prohibition in the Word of God But none of these can be said Ergo Policy cannot destroy nature but is rather cumulative to it A man entering into a Politick Incorporation does not lose the priviledge of nature If one particular nature may defend it self against destroying violence out of Societie then must many of these Natures combined in Societie have the same right and so much the more that their relative duties superadde an obligation of mutual assistence Grace does not restrain the right of sinless nature though it restrains corruption but self defence is no corruption Grace makes a man more a man than he was And nothing can be more dishonourable to the Gospel than that by the Law of Nature it is Lawful to resist Tyrants but we are bound by Religion from withstanding their Cruelty The Laws of God do not interfâ—â—e â—ne with another 3. That Law which alloweth comparative re-offending so as to kill rather than be killed teacheth Resistence But so the Law of Nature alloweth except we be guilty or Murder in the culpable omission of self defence The reason is because the love of self is nearer and greater as to temporal life than the love of our Neighbour that being the measure of this Therefore it obliges rather to kill than be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring 4. If nature put no difference between the violence of a Tyrant than of another man then it teaches to Resist both alike But it putteth no difference but rather aggravates that of a Tyrant being the violence of a man the injustice of a member of the Common-wealth the cruelty of a Tyrant And it were absurd to say we might defend our selves from the lesser violence not from the greater 5. If particular Nature must yeeld to the good of Universal nature then must one man though in
that cryed Crucifie Iesus were Murderers of Christ Or by procuring it as Haman was guilty of the intended murder of the Iewes Or Concurring therein as Ioab was guilty of Uriahs death as well as David and Iudas of Christs by betraying him Or by the Patrocinie thereof defending sparing the Murderers when called by Office to punish them as David was guilty in not punishing Ioab Ahab in patronizing the Murder of Naboth Or by Consenting thereunto as Saul consented to the death of Stephen or by knowing permitting conniving at it as is condemned Prov. 24. 11 12. Whether this be done under colour of Law as Pilate Murdered our Lord Herod killed Iames or without all colour by Absolute power as Herod the Ascalonite murdered the Infants or whether it be done by purpose as Ioab murdered Abner Amasa or without previous purpose yet with knowledge of the Action in the perpetrating of it as men may do in passion when provoked beside their purpose or in a Tumult without intending it before hand yet that is Murder Barabas committed Murder in the Insurection For as for Casual killing contrary to intention without knowledge that 's no breach of the Command And whatever may be said of necessitated delivering up the Innocent pursued by a potent Enemy to deliver the City from his fury or of prefering our oun life to our innocent neighbour in a case when both cannot be preserved and by preserving the one Lawfully the other happens to lose his life I do not medle with these Cases But since this is taken for granted by Casuists I infer if it be Lawful that an innocent man die in case of necessity that others may be preserved Then much more is it Lawful that the nocent wo are guilty of murdering the Righteous all these wayes above specified and actually prosecuting their murdering designs by these methods should rather be made to die than the Righteous be destroyed But of this sort of Murder taking away the life of the Righteous none hath the impudence to accuse that Reproached people 2. Thô a man kill an innocent unwittingly unwillingly besides his knowledge and against his will yet he may be guilty of sinful homicide if he was obliged to know that he was in hazard of it and neglected to consider lest a man might be killed by what he was doing as if a man should shoot at random when he doth not know but some may be killed thereby or if one were hewing with an axe which he either knew or might have known to be loose and the head not well fastened to the helve did not advertise those about him of it if by flying off it happened to kill any person he were not innocent but if he knew not without any inadvertency then he were guiltless Deut. 19. 5. See Durham on 6. Com. So if a man built a house without battlements he should bring blood upon his house if any man fell from thence Deut. 22. 8. But of this the question is not 3. Thô a person be not altogether innocent nor to be reckoned among the Rigtheous but suppose him wicked profane and engaged in an evil Course dishonourable to God prejudicial to the Church Kingdom and very injurious to us Yet it may be Murder to kill him if he be not guilty of Crimes that deserve death by the Law of God for the life of man is not subjected to the arbitrement of any but His who is the Author of life death It s necessary to all to obey the Law Thow shalt not kill without exception but such killing as is approven by the Author of the Law as saith Amesâ—de Consciencia cap 31. quest 2 Hence this people so much reproached with extravagant Actions do abundantly clear themselves of that imputation of being of the mind to kill all that differ from them which was the impudent forgerie of the father of lies in their Informatory Vindication Head. 2. Pag. 54. We positively disoune say they as horrid Murder the killing of any because of a different perswasion or opinion from us albeit some have invidiously cast this odious Calumny upon us And it is as clear they that took the Oath of Abjuration swore a lie when they abjured the Apologetical Declaration in so far as it asserted it was Lawful to kill all imployed in the Kings service when it asserted no such thing as is shewed above Head. 3. To think so much let be to declare it far more to practise such a thing against all that served the King or any meerly because they served him or because they are in a wicked Course or because they have oppressed us were abominable for these things simply do not make men guilty of death to be punished Capitally by men according to the Law of God. But when they are stated in such opposition to us and serve the Tyrants Murdering Mandats by all those wayes above specified then we may by the Law of God and Nature and Nations destroy slay and cause to perish and avenge our selves on them that would assault us and are seeking our destruction as it was Lawful for the Iewes to do with Hamans Emissaries Esther 8. 11 13. 9. 1 2 5. This Charge then cannot reach the Case 4. Thô Murderers and such as are guilty of death by the Law of God must be punished by death for he that sheddeth mans blood by man must his blood be shed Yet it may be Murder for a man to kill another because he thought him so Criminal and because he thought it his duty being moved by a pretended Enthusiastical Impulse in imitation of the extraordinary Actions of such as were really moved by the Spirit of God. As when Iames Iohn would have commanded fire to come doun to consume the Samaritans the Lord rebuked them saying ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Luk. 9. 54-56 Such impulses had need to be well examined for ordinarly they will be found not consistent with a Gospel Spirit which is alwayes averse from act of Cruelty Blind zeal sometimes may incite men to fearful work yea the persecuters have often most of that Spirit as our Lord foretells the time cometh that whosoever killeth yow shall think that â—e doth God service Iohn 16. 2. Paul in his Pharisaical zeal breathed out slaughter against the disciples And Satan can drive men under several colours to act such things as he did the Bours in Germany and Iohn of Leyden and his followers whose practices are deservedly detested by all that have any spark of Christianity or humanity for if this were espoused as a Principle there would be no security for mens lives But hence it cannot be concluded that God may not animate some to some rare Enterprises for the cutting off of Tyrants and their bloody Emissaries Incendiaries Destroyers of innocent people and puting an end to and
might have to their extraordinary executions of Judgement as Samuel Elijah had to kill Agag and Baals Prophets but either the allowance of man then there is no question about it Or if that cannot be had as in the case circumstantiate it cannot Then the Providential Morall Call of extream necessity for preservation of our lives and preventing the murder of our Brethren may warrant an extraordinary executing of righteous Judgement upon the Murderers Men may have a Call to a necessary duty neither every way mediate nor immediate as the Call of runing together to quench a fire in a City when Magistrats through wickedness or negligence will not or do not call people forth unto that work they have not mans call nor an immediate call from Heaven yet they have a Lawful Call from God So they do not intrud upon the Magistrats Office nor want they a call to this execution of Judgement who do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrats by Office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable Necessity which knoweth no hâ—mane Law and to which some Divine positive Laws will cede Ius populi cap. 20. pag. 423. 12. Thô this be a principle of reason natural Justice when all the forementioned circumstances are clear that it is Lawful for private persons to execute righteous Judgement upon notorious Incendiaries and Murdering publick Enemies in cases of necessity yet it might be a sinful breach of the Sixth Command to draw extraordinary examples of it to an ordinary practice in killing all who might be found Criminal and would deserve death by the Law as all that have served under a banner of Tyrannie violence displayed against God His people to the ruine of the Reformation wasting of the Country oppression of many honest families and destruction of many innocent people are and would be found guilty of Murder as the Chief Captain would have truly alledged Paul to have been a Murderer if he had been the Egyptian which made an uproar and led out four thousand men that were Murderers Act. 21. 38. As for the vulgar ordinary sort of those Vermine of Varlets it is of no advantage for oppressed people to foul their fingers upon them when their slaughter would not put a stop to but rather encrease the destruction of the people of God and were unlawful to prevent anticipate the due Legal execution of Justice where there is any prospect or expectation of its runing in its right channel But for the chief principal Ring-leaders and common publick habitual Incendiaries and Masters of the â—rade of Murdering the Lords people when there is no other way of being rid of their rage and preserving our selves and preventing the destruction of our Brethren we may in that case of necessity make publick examples of them in an extraordinary Procedure against them that may be most answerable to the Rules of the ordinary Procedure of Justice and in imitation of the Heroick Actions recorded and justified in the Word of God in the like extraordinary cases which are imitable when the matter of their Actions is ordinary that is neither preternatural nor Supernatural thô the occasion was singular just and necessary both by Divine precept and as a mean to good necessary ends and when there is no other to do the work nor any prospect of access to Justice in its ordinary orderly course nor possibility of suspending it till that can be obtained We need not then any other call than a Spirit of holy zeal for God and for our oun our Brethrens preservation in that pinch of extremity We do not hold these extraordinary Actions for regular ordinary Precedents for all times persons universally which if people should fancy and heed more the glory fame of the Action than the sound solid Rule of the Scriptures they may be tempted carried to fearful extravagances But they may be Warrants for private persons in their doing of these things in an extreame necessity to which at other times they are not called And when the Lord with Whom is the residue of the Spirit doth breath upon His people moe or fewer to the exciting of more than ordinary zeal for the execution of Justice upon such Adversaries we should rather ascribe Glory Praise to Him Whose hand is not shortened but many times chooseth the weak foolish things of the world to confound the mighty the wise than condemn His Instruments for doing such things Naph pag. 24 25. Prior Edit All these cases which are all I can think on at present comprehending all that may any way infer the guilt of murder I have collected to the end I may conclude this one Argument and leave it to be considered If this extraordinary executing of Judgement upon Notorious Incendiaries and Murdering publick Enemies by private persons in the circumstances above declared cannot be reduced to any case that can infer the guilt of murder Then it cannot be condemned but justified But this extraordinary executing of Judgement c. cannot be reduced to any case that can infer the guilt of murder as will appear by the induction of all of them Ergo this extraordinary executing of Judgement c. cannot be condemned but justified II. In the Next place What we oune may be done warrantably in taking away the life of men without breach of the Sixth Command will appear by these propositions Assertions which will bring the matter to the present Circumstantiate Case 1. It is certain thô the Command be indefinitely expressed it doth not prohibite all killing but only that which is condemned in other explicatorie Commands Our Lord Jesus repeating this Command explains it by expressing it thus Math. 19. 18. Thow shalt not Murder And if any be Lawful it is granted by all that is which is unavoidable by the invincible necessity of Providence when a man following his duty doth that which beside contrary his intention and without any previous neglect or oversight in him proveth the hurt death of another in which case he was allowed to flee to the City of refuge by the Law of God. Whence if that Physical necessity did justify that kind of killing shall not a Moral necessity every way invincibly unavoidable except we suffer our selves and our Brethren to be destroyed by beasts of prey vindicate this kind in an extraordinary extremity when the Murderers are protected under the sconce of pretended Authority In which case the Law of God would allow deliberate Murderers should be pursued by the Avenger of blood and not to have Liberty to flee to these subterfuges and pretexts of Authority meer Tyranny but to be taken from the horns of such altars and be put to death as Mr Mitchel sayes in vindicating his oun Action in a Letter dated Feb. 1674. 2. It is Lawful to take the life of known convicted Murderers
so necessary to prevent him that our life cannot be otherwise defended but by preventing And hence he justifies that saying licitum est occidere insidiantem It is Lawful to kill him that lyeth in wait to murder ibid. This is all the length that the reproached Sufferers whom I am vindicating go in asserting this principle as may be seen in their Informatory Vindication Head 2. pag. 55. where they say We maintain it as both righteous rational in defence of our lives Liberties Religion after an orderly Christian manner to endeavour by all means Lawful possible to defend our selves rescue our Brethren and prevent their murder in a martial opposition against wicked Persecuters who are seeking to destroy them us and imbrue their hands in our blood according to the true import of the Apologetical Declaration Which is very rational Especially considering 7. These Murderers who are thus to be prevented are such whom the Law of God commands to be put to death and no where allowes to be spared being publick Enemies to God and good men Open Blasphemers avowed Idolaters affronted Adulterers Notorious Murderers habitual Tyrants suppressing Religion oppressing the Innocent and professing a trade of destroying the Lords people Surely if God hath expressly in His Laws provided that Blasphemers Idolaters Murderers c. should not be suffered to live He never intended men dayly guilty yea making profession of these Crimes should be allowed impunity either by virtue of their Office or because there is none in Office to execute Judgement upon them but in a case of extreame necessity these Laws will not only allow but oblige people dayly Murthered by them for their oun preservation for vindication of Religion for purging the Land of such wickedness for turning away the wrath of God to prevent their prosecuting their Murdering designs any further and put a stop to their persecution by puting an end to their wicked lives Seeing as Buchannan sayes de jure Regni It is expressly commanded to cut off wickedness wicked men without any exception of rank or degree and yet in no place of Sacred Scripture are Tyrants more spared than private persons Much less their bloody Emissaries Now seeing all these Cases of Killing I have collected are justifyable in Scripture and none of the Sufferers upon this Head whom I am vindicating have exceeded in principle or practice the amount of these Assertions What is said already may have some weight to demur a censorious condemnation of them But as the True Non-Conformist well observes in answer to Dial. 7. pag. 391. Seeing the consideration resulting from the Concurrence of all circumstances whereupon the right dignoscing of such deeds when actually existent doth mostly depend doth more contribute to the clearing passing a judgement on a case of this nature when the whole contexture is exposed to certain examination than to set doun general rules directive of such practices which yet will all justify this in question Therefore to clear the case further all may be resolved into this State of the Question Whether or not private persons incessantly pursued unto death and threatened with ineluctable destruction by Tyrants and their Emissaries May to save themselves from their violence in case of extreame Necessity put forth their hand to execute righteous Judgement upon the Chief principal Ringleaders Instruments Promoters of all these destructive Mischiefs Miseries Who are open avowed Enemies to God Apostates Blasphemers Idolaters Tyrants Traitors Notorious Incendiaries Atrocious Murderers and known and convict to be publick Enemies prosecuting their Murdering Designs notourly habitually and therefore guilty of death by all Laws of God man And in such an extraordinary case put them to death who have de jure forefeited their lives to Justice when there is no access to publick Justice nor prospect of obtaining it in an orderly way nor any probability of escaping their intended destruction either by flight or resistence if they be past longer unpunished And so deliver themselves from their Murdering Tyranny while they are under no acknowledged subjection to them nor at peace with them but maintaining a defensive resistence against them And in this extraordinary execution of Justice being not chargable with ignorance of matters of fact so manifest nor mistake of circumstances so palpable nor with malice rage or revenge against their persons for private particular injuries nor with Enthusiastick Impulses pretended as their Rule nor with deceit or Treacherie in the manner nor with any breach of relation or obligation nor Usurpation upon or prejudice to any Lawful Right whatsoever in the matter nor with any selfish or sinistrous ends in the design But forced to performe this Work of Judgement when there is none other to do it out of zeal for the Glory of God Care of the Countries good love to their Brethren sense of their oun Danger Respect to Justice to the end that by the removal of these wicked Destroyers their war against the prevailing faction of their Malignant Enemies may be more successfully maintained their Religion Lives Laws Liberties more securely defended their Brethren rescued their Murder prevented Impietie suppressed the Land cleansed from blood and the wrath of God averted That this is the true State of the Question the preceeding Assertions all comprehended here do make it evident To which I answer in the Affirmative And shall come to give my Reasons Secondly Then I shall offer some Reasons for this first from some grounds Hypotheses of Reason Then more expressly from Scripture proofs I. There may be some Arguments offered from the Dictates of natural reason Which I shall but only glance at 1. I premit the Consideration of the Practice of all Nations even such from whom Patterns have been taken for Government and who have had the most polite purest Policy and have been the severest Animadverters upon all Extravagants Transgressers of their vocation Yet even among them for private persons to destroy and rid the Common-wealth of such burdens and vile vermine so pernicious to it was thought a virtue meriting rather Commendation than a thing to be Condemned I shall not here instance the laudable practices recorded in Scripture These may be seen in their oun place Neither do I speak of ruder Nations among whom this is a relâ—ct of reason not of ruderness as the Oriental Indians have a Custome whenever any person runs a muck that is in a revengeful fury takes such a quantity of Opium as distracts them into such a rage of mad animosity that they fear not to assault which is the common operation of that potion there and go through destroying whom they can find in their way Then every man Armes against him and is ambitious of the honour of first killing him which is very rational for otherwise no man could be safe and it seems to be as rational to take the same Course with our mad Malignant mucks who are
drunk with hellish fury and are runing in a rage to destroy the people of God whom they can meet with But all the Nations where the best Policy was established have been of this mind In Greece publick rewards were enacted to be given and honours appointed by several Cities to those that should kill Tyrants from the mightiest of them to the meanest with whom they thought there was no bond of humanity to be kept Hence Thebe is usually commended for killing her husband Timoleon for killing his Brother because they were pernicious destructive to the Common-wealth which thô it seem not justifyable because of the breach of relation of natural subjection yet it shewes what sentiments the most politick Nations have had of this practice As also among the Romans Cassius is commended for killing his son and Fulvius for killing his oun son going to Catiline and Brutus for killing his kinsmen having understood they had conspired to introduce Tyranny again Servilius Ahalas is commended for killing even in the Court Sp. Melius turning his back and refusing to compear in judgement and for this was never judged guilty of bloodshed but thought nobilitate by the slaughter of a Tyrant and all posterity did affirme the same Cicero speaking of the slaughter of Cesar stiles it a famous divine fact positum ad imitandum Sulpitius Asper being asked why he had combined with others against Nero and thought to have killed him made this bold reply that he knew not any other way to put a stop to his villanies and redeem the world from the infection of his example and the evils which it groaned under by reason of his crimes On the contrary Domitius Corbulo is reprehended by all for neglecting the safety of mankind in not puting an end to Nero's Cruelty when he might very easily have done it And not only was he by the Romans reprehended but by Tyridates the Persian King being not at all afrayed lest it should afterward befall an example unto himself When the Ministers of Cajus Caligula a most cruel Tyrant were with the like crueltie tumultuating for the slaughter of their Master requiring them that killed him to be punished Valerius Asiaticus the Senator cried out aloud I wish I had killed him and thereby both composed their clamour stopt their rage For there is so great force in an honest deed saith Buchannan de jure Regni relating this passage that the very lightest shew thereof being presented to the minds of men the most furious assaults are allyed and fury will languish and madness it self muâ—t acknowledge the soveraignity of reason The Senate of Rome did often approve the fact thô done without their order oftentimes by private hands As upon the slaughter of Commodus in stead of revenging it they decreed that his Carcass should be exposed and torn in pieces Sometimes they ordered before hand to have it done As when they condemned Didimus Iulianus they sent a Tribune to slay him in the Palace Nay they have gone so far as in some cases to appoint reward for such as should kill those Tyrants that trampled upon their Laws and murdered virtuous innocent people As that sentence of the Senate against the two Maximim doth witness qui cos occiderit proeâ—ium merebitur Buchannan ubi supra rehearsing many instances of this nature gives reasons of their approvableness And these I find here and there scattered in his book de jure Regni 1. They that make a prey of the Common-wealth are not joined to us by any civil bond or tye of humanity but should be accounted the most Capital enemies of God and of all men 2. They are not to be counted as within humane societie but transgressors of the limits thereof Which who so will not enter into and contain himself within should be taken treated as wolveâ— or other kinds of noysome beasts which whosoever spares he preserves them to his oun destruction and of others and whosoever killeth doth not only good to himself but to all others and therefore doth merit rather reward than to be condemned for it For if any man divested of humanity should degenerate into such Crueltie as he would not meet with other men but for their destruction as the Monsters I am speaking of could meet with none of the party here treated on but to this effect he is not to be called a man no more than Satyres Apes or Bears 3. It is expressly Commanded to cut off wickedness wicked men without any exception of rank or degree And if Kings would abandon the Counsells of wicked men and measure their greatness rather by duties of virtue than by the impunity of evil deeds they would not be grived for the punishment of Tyrants nor think that Royal Majestie is lessened by their destruction but rather be glad that it is purged from such a stain of wickedness 4. What is here to be reprehended is it the cause of their punishment that is palpable Is it the Law which adjudges them to punishment All Laws were desired as necessary for repressing Tyrants whosoever doth condemn this must likewise condemn all the Laws of Nations Is it the person executing the Laws where will any other be found to doe it in such circumstances 5. A Lawful war being once undertaken with an enemy for a just cause it is Lawful not only for the whole people to kill that enemy But for every one of them every one therefore may kill a Tyrant who is a publick enemy with whom all good men have a perpetual war-fare Meaning if he be habitually Tyrannical and destructive to the people so that there is no living for good people for him Otherwise thô a man by force or fraud acquire Soveraignity no such violence is to be done to him providing he use a moderate way in his Government such as Vespasian among the Romans Hiero in Syracuse 6. Treason cannot be committed against one who destroyes all Laws and Liberties of the people and is a pernicious plague to the Common-wealth 2. Such is the force of this Truth in the case circumstantiate that it extorts the acknowledgment of the Greatest Authors Ancient Modern Domestick Forreign and even of all rational Royalists as Mr Mitchel sayes in his Post-script to the forecited letter that it is Lawful for any private person to kill a Tyrant sine titulo and to kill Tories or open Murderers as devouring beasts because the good of his Action doth not only redound to the person himself but to the whole Common-wealth and the person acting incurs the danger himself alone Tertulltan though a man loyal to excess sayes Every man is a souldier enrolled to bear Armes against all Traitors publick Enemies The Ancient Ecclesiastical Historian Sozomene relating the death of Iulian and intimating that he was supposed to have been slain by a Christian souldier addes Let none be so rash as to condemn the person that did it considering he was â—us
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
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
him to give him the one half or more to save the rest and his life commonly made use of to justify the paying of these Impositions while under the power and at the reverence of such publick Robbers cannot satisfie in this Case It is thus far satisfying that there is a manifest Concession in it that instead of righteous Rulers we are under the power and fallen into the hand of Robbers from whom we are not able to rise up But there is no paritie For to bring it home without halting and make it speak sense we must suppose that the Robber not only requires a part for himself and a part for his underling Shavers horse-rubbers c. but a part upon this declared Account that he may by that supplie be enabled furnished with all things necessary for murdering my Father Mother Wife Children Kinsmen Friends all whom he hath now in his power yea and for doing that besides which is worse than all these put together Whether then shall I by giving the Robber that part which he seeks enable him to do all these mischiefs Or by refusing expose my self to the hazard of being robbed or slain Let the Conscience of any man answer this for nothing can be here alledged against the paritie as now propounded and then I fear not but the Objection shall be found a blaze of empty words blown away by any breath But Alas will this Tattle of a Robber be found relevant in that day when the publick Robbers shall be proceeded against by the just Judge Let them who think so think also they see the Court fenced and the Judge set and hear these words sounding in their ears ye are cursed with a Curse for ye have robbed Me. even this whole Nation And then they are like to lay as litle weight on the Objection for fear of falling under the weight of the Curse as I do 5. It is Lawful Passively by forcible constraint to submit to the execution of such wicked Sentences as impose these burdens if it be not by way of Obedience to them This is suffering and not sinning Hence it is easie to refell that Objection If it be Lawful which hitherto was never questioned for a man who is sentenced to die to go to the place of execution then a man being under the Moral force of a Law which is equivalent may pay Cesses Localities Fines c. Ans. 1. Might it not be doubted whether a mans going upon his oun feet to be execute had as manifest and ex natura rei a tendency yea proper Causuality to advance the design of the enemy and his refusing to go had as clear a Testimony against the Clamant wickedness of their Course as his refusing to pay their Impositions Whether I say in this case a man might noâ— yea ought not to refuse to go to the place of execution But 2. Whosoever would conclude any thing from it to give it either life or legs must make it run thus Let the order run in this forme else there is no paralel and so no inference we appoint all the Opposers of our Course that is all the lovers of our Lord Jesus whom we have for their Rebellious Randevouzing at Conventicles sentenced as Enemies Traitors to die to come and be hanged by virtue of our sentence Otherwâ—se besides the Moral force of the Law adjudging them to die we shall use force and drag them like Dogs to the place of execution And in puting us to this Trouble they shall fall under the reproach that being sentenced to die they scrupled forsooth yea refused to go on their oun legs to the Gibbet Let this I say be made the Case which to me is the exact paralel and their every Child will know what to Answer or to hiss the Objection as pure ridicule 3. I suppose the Objection speaks of a righteous innocent person who for Righteousness is brought as a Sheep to the slaughter for a Malefactor who hath lost all right to his life is not to be understood Then to make the Case paralel it must be taken for granted 1 There is a publick Law with the penaltie of death statute for the violation thereof 2 That the person to be executed hath not only transgressed that Law but his disobedience to the Law is notour 3 That he is processed and convict of the transgression thereof Whereupon followes 4 The Sentence and then the Execution Now the Law being wicked and the man from the fear of God being constrained to disobey the Law he can in nothing be justly construed Active but in that disobedience or renitence But in the whole of what befalls him for this he being a captive Prisoner is to be looked upon as passive Yea the very Act of going to the place of execution in the present Case howbeit as to its Physical entitie it is of the same kind with the Executioners Motion that goes along with him yet in its Moral Religious being whence it hath its specification it s wholly the Suffering of a Captive Well then ere any thing can be pleaded from the pretended paritie seeing there are Laws made for paying such Exactions Cesses Salaries Fynes for the declared ends of ruining the people Interests of Christ. It s necessary in order to a just paralel that the Law must be â—irst disobeyed 2 The disobedience must be notour 3 The delinquent must be processed pursued as guilty of the transgression and convicted thereof whereupon Sentence passeth against him for the breach of the Law. Here I grant all with advantage to the Cause As in the first Case so in this he who is judged guilty of the breach of this wicked Law and who is sentenced for that violation ought to suffer patiently the spoiling of his goods and not to decline suffering if it were unto blood striving against this sin 6. It s Lawful of two evils of Sufferings to chuse the least where both come in the election as in the Cases forementioned and in a mans throwing of his goods over board in a storm These and the like are deeds in the present exigent voluntary rational being upon deliberation choise where the least evil is chosen under the notion of good yea of the best that can be in the present case and accordingly the will is determined and meets closes with its proper object Or one of them only be proposed to be submitted to but another lesser evil of suffering is in a mans power to chuse propose for purchasing his immunity from a greater which is not imposed nor exacted of him either by a wicked Law or for wicked ends declared but voluntarely offered As in the Case of parting with some money to a Robber or Murderer to save the life when he is seeking only the life As the ten men that were going to the House of the Lord said unto Ishmael slay us not for we have treasures in the
Christs declared Enemies and do partake of Unitive Confederacies with them which are demonstrated to be sinful Head 3. Arg. 1. in gen Pag. Certainly such bargains cannot be discretive exacted and complied with by Persons no wayes incorporate together being only overcome by meer force since they are not only demanded and granted Acknowledgements of that Power that imposes them as legally Lording over them but obediential submissions to these wicked Laws that enacts them which is a formal justifying of these Laws For Laws cannot be obeyed except they be justified seeing Laws unjust and unjustifyable cannot be obeyed Therefore seeing the Payment of the Cess Locality Fynes stipends fees c. is an obediential Complyance with the Laws that enjoyn them that obedience can no more be justified than the Laws enacting such Payments which none can justify but he that is an enemy to those things for opposing which they are exacted If then Complyances with the wicked Impositions exactions of Arbitrary Dominators enemies to the Work People of God be in Scripture condemned then such Payments cannot be justified But such Complyances are condemned and cannot be approven This was Issachars brand that being a strong Ass he couched between burdens and bowed his shoulder to bear and became a servant to Tribute Gen. 49. 14. This was Asa's folly that he so far Complyed with Benhadad as to give money to take his help 1 King. 15. 18. Condemned by the Prophet Hanani 2 Chron. 16. 7. c. much more if he had given it to help him It s one of the instances of the Evil that Menahem did in the sight of the Lord 2 King. 15. 18 2c that when Pul the King of Assyria came against the Land he gave him a thousand talents of silver that his hand might be with him which he exacted of Israel This was certainly evil in the sight of the Lord for if the Confederacy was evil then this price to procure it was evil also And if Menahems exaction was evil then Israels Complyance was evil also for thus Ephraim was oppressed broken in judgement because he willingly walked after the Commandment Hos. 5. 11. It was also a part proof of Ahaz's Confederacy with Tiglith-Pileser King of Assyria that he sent money to him 2 King. 16. 8. Which to all the fearers of the Lord is condemned discharged Isai. 8. 12 13. Which if it was evil then also Hezekiahs Complyance with Sennacherib giving him money and offering to bear that which was put on him 2 King. 18. 14 15. was evil And also Iehojakims taxing the Land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharoh 2 King. 23. 35. was sinful to the Exacter and likewise to the Complyers These were all sinful Complyances and Confederacies with the wicked making their peace with them to whom they payed them Therefore all Peace-making payments by way of Unitive aggreement with the wicked must be sinful And accordingly in the time of Montrose the Gen. Ass. made an Act for Censuring the Complyers with the Publick Enemies of this Church Kingdom Iun. 17. 1646. Sess. 14. See Part. 1. Per. 5. Pag. 82. 5. Where these Exactions are extorted only as badges of bondage without Consent unto the Law imposing them it s a Case more suitable for lamentation then Censure that she that was Princess among the Provinces should become tributary Lam. 1. 1. But when they are Acknowledgemens of the Lawgivers and an exact obedience to the Law and voluntary agreement bargain with them strengthening them to the prosecution of their Mischiefs they cannot be free of the Imposers sin It was the sin of the men of Shechem and a proof of their hearts inclination to follow Abimelech that they gave him threescore and ten pieces of silver enabling him to kill threescore ten persons and to hire vain light persons to follow him which they payed as an acknowledgement of his usurped Power Iudg. 9. 3 5. for which afterwards fire came out of the house of Abimelech devoured them Certainly a voluntary consent into a Mischief is a partaking with the sin of it a consent unto Theft is a partaking with it Psal. 50. 18. But if there be any consent unto a Mischief it must be when the person agrees it be done against himself and voluntarily subjects himself to the force of the Law imposing it and not only does not oppose or witness against the doing of it against others but yeelds to its reaching himself and gives what is demanded to strengthen the Robbers to exercise their Robberie over all As the Payer of the Cess Fynes Fees c. gives all the consent required of him to these Mischiefs framed into Law not only to rob himself but the Church Nation of its dearest Treasure the Gospel for the punishment of ouning which and as means to remove it these Payments are exacted But the Plea of the payers is that they are constrained to it and they do it against their will. Ans. 1 He who sayes he understands this that the Payer of these Exactions can purge himself of the guilt of them is like to buy an after wit at a dear rate Can it be thought by any man of knowledge conscience that so remote a force makes the deed unvoluntary whereby the payer is purged from the guilt of accession to the Imposers deed whom hereby in this very Imposition he ounes as his Representatives 2. The payment cannot be involuntary for the Law enjoyning it being the publick declared will of the Nation requires no other voluntareness but obedience and judgeth no other thing involuntareness but disobedience So that the Law being fatisfied it absolves the Satisfier from all transgression and looks npon all who yeeld obedience as equally willing and equally out of the reach of its appended penaltie in case of disobedience Neither are we to please our selves with other fancies fictitious unwillingness when real obedience is yeelded whereby the Law is satisfied and the Law-maker capacitated thereby to act all his intended Mischiefs For to be unwilling to part with money in the Case as it is no vertue in it self so I suppose there are few who will be sollicitous to purge themselves of this And to be unwilling from some struglings of light conscience is such an unwillingness as aggravates the guilt of the Giver and makes it more heinous in the sight of God and hateful in the eyes of all tender men The Law enjoyning such payments takes no notice of such reluctancies only requireth obedience and when that is yeelded the Law is satisfied as to the voluntareness of the Action and must construe the Agent a willing walker after the Command and a voluntary Complyer with the publick will of the Nation 3. It must be simply really truly a voluntary deed when there is Deliberation and Election The Law requiring these payments being promulgate every man must be supposed to put the question
to himself what shall I do in the case Shall I obey and be free Or disobey and suffer Here is Election choice upon mature deliberation And so the deed becomes truly voluntary This will be confirmed if we consider the Law of God Deut. 22. 25. concerning Rapes Where to make the unvoluntareness of the betrothed Virgin she must not only be supposed to strugle resist the attempt made upon her chastitie honour by the villain but she must cry for assistence in that resistence without which she is held in Law willingly to consent to the committing of that wickedness And moreover if we consider the Law vers 13. it will be manifest in order to her escaping of death that when violented and the villain hath committed this villany she is to carry as Tamar when defiled of that beast thô of the blood Royal did 2 Sam. 13. 19. that is to complain cry and crave Justice against him and be wanting in nothing that may bring him to condign punishment This doth aptly correspond to our Case Scotland is the betrothed Virgin We were espoused to Jesus Christ and joyned to Him by a Marriage Covenant never to be forgotten But the Rulers and with them the body of the Land have treacherously broken it yet there is a Remnant that adhere to Him as Head Husband because of which these called Rulers incensed against Him will violently commit a Rape upon them and have them prostitute their bodies their fortunes yea their Souls Consciences to their lusts and thus they will needs ravish the Queen in the Kings presence And so while with displayed banner they declare they will drive our Covenanted Husband out of the Nation and destroy all who will oune Him as such they call for our Assistence Complyance to enable them to accomplish this wickedness Now either must we make all the Resistence that is in our power or the Law judgeth us willingly to consent and because of that we fall in the hands of the righteous Judge and have neither the evidence of our Resisting nor Crying nor pursuing the wicked for this violent Rape to produce and plead upon why Sentence should not pass and the Laws just severity be execute upon us What Alas do they declare they will stone our Husband Ah! for which of His good deeds is this done And shall they make a Law whereby we shall be obliged to furnish them with stones to do it And shall they be obeyed Is this our strugling Is this our Crying Is this our endeavour that the wicked may be brought to condign punishment Oh! let us meditate terror lest we be brought forth as willing Consenters For whatever vengeance the jealous just God shall execute upon them who have committed the Rapt shall equally in its crushing everlastingly confounding weight fall upon them who do not by their-Refusing their Resisting make their unwillingness manifest which in the present Case is their strugling their Crying and calling God and man to witness they are not Consenters but continue constant loyal in their love to their betrothed Husband 6. A formal Consent to the wickedness of these Impositions were the less matter if the payment of them were not also a Concurrence to assist them and a strengthening their hands in it But this is so manifest that the paying of the Cess Locality Fynes Fees c. is a Concurrence with and a Contributing towards the promoving the wicked designs for which they are imposed that he must have a conscience of brass and in a great measure seared who will run upon such a formal Engagement against the Lord and His anointed King in Zion If it was Aarons sin which made the people naked and which brought so great a sin upon them to take and the peoples sin shame to give that Contribution of Golden ear-rings for making a Calf Exod. 32. 3. c. And if it was Gideons sin to take and Israels to give that Contribution of the ear-rings of their prey to make an Ephod Iudg. 8. 25. Then as it is our oppressors sin to take so it must be our sin shame to give their demanded Exaction to help them in erecting such Idols of Jealousie as they have set up and are commanding al◠to bow to to provoke the Lord to Jealousie especially when they affrontedly require such Contributions to be payed both as punishments for not assisting and as means to assist in their establishment Should we thus help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord And will not this bring doun wrath upon us from the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 2. Alas instead of Arguing it were more fitt to fall a weeping when it s come to be a question amongst us whether in stead of coming to the help of the Lord against the Mighty we shall really help the Mighty against the Lord and that while they call for our assistence formally upon this declared account As the very inscription of their Acts does carry it in their front requiring a supply to his Majestie c. If this be not a Casting in a Lot among them who can tell what it is Sure it is a preparing a table for that troup and a furnishing a drink-offering unto that number Isai. 65. 31. Seeing it is a supplying them with necessaries to solemnize their Idolatrous fest vities who forsake the Lord and not only forget but lay waste His Holy Mountain for which all that have any accession to it are threatned to be numbered to the sword If any thing be a strengthening the hands of evil doers Ier. 23. 14. certainly this is For as they cannot accomplish their cursed ends without these Exactions so the payment of them is all the present personal publick Concurrence in wageing this war with Heaven that is required of the Nation to wit such a summ to furnish them with all necessaries and maintain the Executioners of their hell-hatched and Heaven-daring Decrees Orders And the Law requiring no more but contributing what is appointed looks equally upon all the Givers as followers of the Command and active Concurrers in complying with its end and carrying on promoving its design and so assoils them from all the statute serverities in case of Deficiencie 7. If it were only a Concurrence in their wickedness to pay those their Exacted supplies it were more easily comported with But I fear it shall be found a hire reward for their wicked service At first they were only enacted exacted as Helps to capacitate this Popish Prelatical Malignant faction to prosecute the war they had undertaken declared against Christ But now having thereby been enabled to carry it through this length that they have almost got all visible Appearances for Christ in ouning His Gospel and propagating His Testimony quite suppressed by means of these Impositions and having got the fields cleared of those that formerly opposed their Course Career and all obstacles
the nail into his temples Iudg. 4. 21. Of which the Prophetess Deborah sayes chap. 5. 24. blessed above wemen shall Iael the wife of Heber the Kenite be blessed shall she be above women in the tent Yet not only was Iael no Magistrate but in subjection to at peace with Iabin thô she killed his Captain But nulla hic erat inâ—ustitia cum declaratus esset hostis publicuâ— justum erat Bellum Oppressor erat Populi Dei debebat Iael quasi membrum reipublicae communem hostem prodere perdere Itaque peccasset Iahel si eum non occidisset Martyr alâ—i cirati in Pool Synops. Critic in Locum Albeit that Author himself in his English Annotations does cut the knot in stead of loosing it in denying Deborahs Song to be Divinely inspired in its first composure but only recorded as a History by Divine inspiration as other Historical Passages not approven only because this Heroick fact of Iael is there commended which is too bold an attempt upon this part of the holy Canon of the Scripture Whence we see what inconveniences they are driven to that deny this principle of natural Justice the Lawfulness of cutting off publick Enemies to procure the Deliverance of the Lords people Hence if it be Lawful for private persons under subjection to and at peace with the publick Enemies of the Lords people to take all advantages to break their yoke and deliver the oppressed from their bondage by killing their Oppressors it must be much more Lawful for such as acknowledge no such subjection nor aggreement to attempt the same in extreame necessity But the former is true Therefor the later 5. When Samson married the Timnite and obliged himself by compact to give them thirty sheets and thirty change of garmentts upon their solving his riddle The Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he went doun to Aâ—hkelon and slew thirty men of them and took their Spoyl Iud. 14. 19. And afterwards when he lost his wife by the crueltie treacherie of those Philistines he said unto them Though yow have done this yet will I be avenged of yow and after that I will cease and he smote them hip thigh with a great slaughter chap. 15. 7 8. And wen the Iewes who acknowledged the Philistims for Rulers 〈◊〉 to Etâ—m to expostulate with him all the satisfaction he gave them was to avouch that as they did unto him so he had done unto themâ— and to kill a thousand more of them vers 11. c. These were extraordinary Heroick facts not only because they flowed from an extraordinary power wherewith he was endued and from an extraordinary Motion Call but because of his avenging his oun private injuries for the publick good in a way both of fortitude prudence without a declared war provoking the enemies against himself and diverting from the people and converting against himself all their fury in which also he acted as a Type of Christ and also because he acted not as a Magistrate at this time for by whom was he called or counted a Magistrate not by the Philistines nor by the men of Iudah for they tell him that the Philistines were their Lords and they bound him and delivered him up to them Yet in his private Capacity in that extraordinary exigence he avenged himself and his Country against his publick enemies by a Clandestine war which is imitable in the like case when a prevailing faction of Murdering enemies domineer over destroy the people of God and there is no other way to be delivered from them for his ground was Moral because they were publick enemis to whom he might do as they did to him Hence If Saints sometimes in cases of necessity may do unto their publick enemies as they have done unto them in prosecuting a war not declared against them then much more may they do so in cases of necessity to deliver themselves from their Murdering violence when a war is declared But here is an example of the former Ergo 6. When these same Philistims again invaded and overran the Land in the time of Saul Ionathan his son and his Armour-bearer fell upon the Garrison of these uncircumcised and killed them 1 Sam. 14. 6 13. This was an Heroick Action without publick Authority for he told not his father vers 1. And singular indeed in respect of the effect and were a tempting of the Lord for so few to assault such a multitude as it were to imitate Samsâ—n in his Exploits but in this respect these Actions are only unimitable in consideration of prudence not of Conscience or as to the Lawfulness of the thing their ground was Moral to cut off publick enemies Hence If it be Lawful to fall upon a Garrison of publick enemies oppressing the Country then it must be Lawful to fall upon one or two that are the Ring-leaders of publick Enemies and main promoters of their destruction that are as pernicious and have no more right or power than the Philistims But such is the Case of those about whom the question is 7. When David dwelt in the Country of the Philistims he and his men went up invaded the Gesharites and the Gezrites and the Amalekites And David smote the Land and left neither man nor woman alive 1 Sam. 27. 8 9. This was without publick Authority having none from Saul none from Achish in whose Country he dwelt and none of his oun being no Magistrate We deny not the Divine motion but plead that it is imitable from its Moral ground which was that Command to cut off the Amalekites Exod. 17. and the Amorites whose relicts these Nations were the same Ground that Saul the Magistrate had to destroy them Whence it is Lawful sometimes for others than Magistrates to do that which is incumbent to Magistrates when they neglect their duty All I plead for from it is If it be Lawful for private persons upon the Call of God to cut off their publick enemies when they are obliged by the Command of God to destroy them thô they be living quietly peacably in the Country then may it be Lawful in cases of necessity for private persons to cut off their publick enemies whom they are obliged by the Covenant of God to bring to condign punishment and to exstirpate them as the Covenant obliges in reference to Malignant Incendiaries when they are ravening like Lyons for their prey 8. In the dayes of Ahab Iezebels Tyranny whereby the Idolatrous Prophets of Baal were not punished according to the Law Elijah said unto the people take the Prophets of Baal let none of them escape and they took them to the brook Kishon slew them there 1 King. 18. 40. How Mr Knox improved this passage we heard before in the Historical Representation Per. 3. And Ius Pop vindicates it that in some cases private persons may execute Judgement on Malefactors after the example of Elias here Which fact Peter Martyr in
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