without sedition withhold the fruits profits which your false Bishops Clergy most unjustly received of yow Upon which he subjoins the preceeding Arguments Yet now a dayes these have no weight but such as refuse either to pay Oppressors exactions or Curats stipends are condemned for giddy fools Again we find that when they were challenged for duty they would never decline a declaration of its righteousness nor do any thing directly or indirectly which might seem a condemning of it And therefore they wold receive no pardons for these things which they could not confess to be offences Iohn Knox challenged for offending the Queen had her promise that if he would confess an offence his greatest punishment should be but to go within the Castle of Edinburgh and immediatly to return to his own house he refused absolutely But now if our Pardon-mongers prudent men had been so circumstantiate surely they could have helped themselves with their distinctions they might confess be pardoned for offending the Queen thô not confess it to be a fault in their Conscience But Mr Knox had not learned that then When they were pursuing the Murder of King Henry of Darnely the Queen finding her self not strong enough offers to forgive pardon that insurection The Earle of Morton in name of all the rest did not only refuse a Cessation but told her they would not ask a pardon But now sufferers for refusing of these base unmanly aswell as unchristian Complyances are much condemned Finally because this strictness especially in their severity against their Enemies may be accused of Iewish rigidity inconsistent with a Gospel Spirit of Lenity which also is imputed to the much condemned sufferers of Scotland at this time for their Testimonies against Toleration Liberty of Conscience Let us hear what Knox sayes whatsoever God required of the Civil Magistrate in Israel or Juda concerning the observation of true Religion during the time of the Law the same doth He require of Lawful Magistrates professing Christ Jesus in the time of the Gospel And Cites a large Testimony out of Augustine to this purpose And afterward objecting to himself the practice of the Apostles who did not punish the Idolatrous Gentiles he answers That the Gentiles being never avowed to be Gods people before had never received his Law and therefore were not to be punished according to the rigor of it to which they were never subject being strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel But if any think after the Gentiles were received in the number of Abrahams children and so made one people with the Jewes beleeving then â—hey were not bound to the same obedience of Israels Covenant the same seems to make Christ inferior to Moses and contrare to the Law of His heavenly Father for if the Contempt and transgression of Moses's Law was worthy of death what judge we the contempt of Christs ordinance to be And if Christ be not come to dissolve but to fulfill the Law of His Heavenly Father shall the Liberty of His Gospel be an occasion that the special glory of His Father be troden under foot and regarded of no man God forbid And therefore I fear not to affirme that the Gentiles be bound by the same Covenant that God made with His people Israel in these words Beware that thou make not any Covenant with the Inhabitants of the Land but thou shalt destroy their Altars c. When therefore the Lord puteth the Sword in the hand of a people they are no less bound to purge their Cities Countreyes from Idolatrie then were the Israelites what time they received the Possession of the Land of Canaan III. For the head of Resistence of Superior powers we have no clearer instances in any Period then in this where of the above mentioned hints give some account to which in their sentiments arguments may be here subjoined They prised and improved this principle so much that they put it in their Confession of faith Art. 14. To save the Life of Innocents to repress Tyranny to defend the oppressed are among the good works of the Second Table which are most pleasing acceptable to God as these works are commanded by Himself And to suffer innocent blood to be â—hed if we may withstand it is affirmed to be sin by which Gods hot Displeasure is kindled against the proud unthankful world And if there were no more to render the late Test of Scotland detestable that condemns all resistence of Kings upon any pretence whatsoever this may make all Christians all men abhor the contrivance of it that that same Test that confirms this Thesis doth also impose the Antithesis upon Conscience It obliges to this Confession in the first part of it and to deny it in the Latter But no wonder that men of feared Consciences can receive any thing thô never so contradictory to it self And that men who deny sense and that principle irradicated in humane nature may also deny Conscience make a fool of it in sowdering Contradictories But not only did our Reformers assert this Truth for which now their children adhering to their Testimony suffer both rage and reproach but also gave their reasons for it As 1 Mr Knox in his first Conference with the Queen argues thus There is neither greater honour nor obedience to be given to Princes than Parents but so it is that the father may be stricken with a phrensie in the which he would slay his oun children now if the children arise take his weapon from him bind his hands do the children any wrong It is even so with Princes that would murder the Children of God subject to them their blind zeal is nothing but a very mad phrensie and therefore to take the sword from them and cast them into prison till they be brought to a more sober mind is no disobedience against Princes 2 In his Conference with Lithingtoun he proves the same point from the consideration of the justice of God punishing the people for not resisting the Prince The Scripture of God teacheth me saith he Ierusalem Iuda were punished for the sins of Manassoh If you alledge they were punished because they were wicked and not because the King was wicked the Scripture sayes expressly for the sins of Manasseh yet will I not absolve the people I will grant the whole people offended with their King but how to affirme that all Iuda committee the acts of his impiety hath no certainty who can think that all Ierusalem should turn Idolaters immediatly after Hezekias notable Reformation One part therefore willingly followed him in his Idolatry the other suffered him so were criminal of his sin even as Scotland is guilty of the Queens Idolatry this day In the same Discourse he makes it plain that all are guilty of Innocents murder who do not oppose it from Ieremies words in his defence before the Princes Know ye for certain if ye put me to death ye
Call from God by men as Iephthah Iudg. 11. 6. 11. Inferior judges also are Magistrats appointed by God yet they have their Deputation from men Our Saviour speaks of all Magistrats when he applies that of the 82. Psalm to them I said ye are Gods and shewes how they were Gods because unto them the Word of God came Iohn 10. 35. that is by His Word Warrant He Authorized them not by immediate designation in reference to the most of them but the Word of God comes to them or His Constitution is past upon them who are advanced by men according to His Word When men therefore do act according to the Divine Rule in the Moulding Erecting of Government Governours there the Constitution is of God though it be not immediate And where this is not observed whatever power so named or pretended there may be or what-soever persons there be that take upon them to be the power and are not thereto appointed or therein instated and do exerce such a power as God hath not legitmated they are not a power ordained of God. Hence whatsoever power hath no Constitution from God eather Immediate or Mediate cannot be ouned But the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a power that hath no Constitution from God either Immediate or Mediate Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major is cleared above The Minor is also undenyable For either they must pretend to an Immediate Constitution by revelation that Iames Duke of York a vassal of Antichrist had by all his plots pranks Merited the Crown of Britain and therefore must be Constitute King And this I hope they will not pretend to except the Pope hath gotten such a Revelation from Pluto's Oracle Or they must have recourse to the Mediate Constitution by men And if so Then either this Mediate Constitution of God is left undetermined indefinitely absolutely giving way to any that will assume what power they please can And then I confess Tyrants may have a Constitution but this confusion cannot be of God Or else it is fixed by a Rule regulating the succession or Constitution of the Governours and obliging the people to oune the Government so constituted with exclusion disallowance of any other And so if in that Constitution there be a Substantial Deviation from the Rule as when incompetent or unallowed persons be the advancers of themselves or others into that place by illegal sinistrous means in as much as in that case there is the Divine disapprobation it may be said there is no Ordinance of God but a Contradiction Contraordination to Gods Order Gee's Magist. Origin chap. 5. Sect. 4. subject 3. pag. 135. This will shake off this of ours and all other Tyrants Usurpers that come into the Government hold it not according to Gods Rule 4. It is clear also in the second place that the Authority which we can oune out of conscience must have Constitution by the people The special way by which men should be called into the place of Soveraign power may perhaps not be found so expressly defined in Scripture as mens Call to the other Ordinance of the Ministrie is yet in this two things are essentially necessary to the Constitution of a Magistrate The peoples consent compact either formal or virtual And without these we can oune consciencious subjection Allegiance to no man living That the first is necessary will be evident from the Law of Nature Nations and from Scripture First the light Law of Nature dictates that the Right Interest of Constituting Magistrats is in the Elective vote or suffrage of the people This will Appear 1. If we consider The Original of Government among men especially after they were so multiplied that there was a necessity of a reduction into diverse Communities which whatever was before the flood yet after it behoved to be by a Coalition with consent under an Elective Government The Scripture makes it more than probable that the first partition of Common-wealths was in Pelegs dayes in whose time the earth was Divided Gen. 10. 25. occasioned by the Confusion of Languages at Babel which did dissolve their union and scatter them abroad upon the face of all the eath Gen. 11. 9. Then was it that we may conceive as Buchanan sayes de Iure Regni apud Scot. the time was when men dwelt in cottages caves and as strangers did wander to fro without Laws and such as could converse together of the same language assembled together as their humors did lead them or as some common Utilitie did allure them A certain instinct of Nature did oblige them to desire Converse Societie But this confusion of Languages and Communion of Language in several divided Parcels could not incorporate these several Parties into Communities that behoved to be the effect of some other cause what should that be but the joint will consent aggreement of the severally Languaged It could not be by Consanguinity for there is no direction from Nature for a confinement of that into such such degrees to make out the bounds of a Common-wealth or Possibility of knowing all with in such degrees besides all within these degrees might not be of the same Language Now the Scripture sayes they were divided every one after his tongue after their families in their Nations Gen. 10. 5. Next it could not be by Cohabitation for how that must go to be the boundaries of a Common-wealth inclusively or exclusively is not defined by nature nor can it be otherwise determined than by humane choise Then it could not be by mens belonging to such a Soveraign for after that Division Confusion they could not all be under one Soveraign nor under the same that they were subject to before and a Soveraign cannot be before the aggregation of the Subjects whereof he is head they must first be a Common-wealth before they can belong to it Again it cannot be founded upon the Right of fatherhood for in that scattering such a Right could not be uninterruptedly preserved And then Noah should also have been the Universal Magistrate which he could not be in these multiplied secessions And further if it be refounded on the Right of fatherhood either every Company had one Common Father over all or every Father made a Common-wealth of his oun Children The Latter cannot be said for that would multiply Common-wealts in infinitum Neither can the first be said for if they had one Common Father either this behoved to be the Natural Father of all the Company which none can think was so happily ordered by Babels confusion Or else the eldest in age and so he might be incapable for Government and the Law of Nature does not direct that the Government should alwise be astricted to the eldest of the Community Or else finally he behoved to be their Political Father by consent For before this consent they were uningaged as to common order of
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
must be ouned to be a Father Tutor Protector Shepherd Patron of the people But a mere conquerour without consent cannot be ouned as such Can he be a Father Patron to us against our will by the sole power of the sword a Father to these that are unwilling to be Sons an head over such as will not be members and a defender through violence 4. A King as such is a special gift of God and blessing not a judgement But a conquerour as such is not a blessing but a judgement his native end being not Peace but fire sword 5. That which hath nothing of a King in it can not be ouned to make a King But conquest hath nothing of a King in it for it hath nothing but violence force nothing out what the bloodyest villain that was never a King may have nothing of Gods approving regulating Will nothing of Institution or constitution and a plain repugnancy to the Ordination of God for God hath said thow shalt not kill conquest sayes I will kill and Prosper reign 6. A Lawful Call to a Lawful Office may not be resisted But a Call to conquest which is nothing but ambition or revenge ought to be resisted because not of Gods preceptive will otherwise He should be the Author of sin 7. That power which we must oune to be the Ordinance oâ— God must not be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But conquest may be resisted in defence of our King Country Therefore it must no be ouned to be the Ordinance of God. 8. That which God condemns in His Word cannot be ouned But Dominion by the sword God condemns in His Word Ezek. 33. 26. ye stand upon your sword and shall possess the Land Amos 6. 13. ye rejoice in a thing of naught which say have we not taken horns to us by our oun strength Habhak 2. 5 6 Wo to him that encreaseth that which is not his how long c. 9. We have many examples of invading Conquerours as Abraham for the rescue of Lot pursued the Conquering Kings unto Dan. Gen. 14. 14. Ionathan smote a Garison of the Conqueering Philistims 1 Sam. 13. 3. The Lord ouning authorizing them so to do The people did often shake off the yoke of their Conquerours in the history of the Judges But this they might not do to their Lawful Rulers What is objected from the Lords people Conquering Canaan c. is no Argument for conquest for He to whom belongs the earth and its fullness disponed to Israel the Land of Canaan for their Inheritance and ordained that they should get the possession thereof by conquest It followeth not therefore that Kings now wanting any word of promise or divine Grant to any Lands may ascend to the Thrones of other Kingdoms than their oun by no better title than the bloody sword See Lex Rex Quest 12. The Third pretence of Hereditary Succession remaines to be removed which may be thus disproven 1. This clashes with the former though commonly asserted by Royalists For either Conquest gives a right or it does not If it does then it looses all allegiance to the heirs of the Crown dispossessed thereby If it does not give a right then no Hereditary Succession founded upon conquest can have any right being founded upon that which hath no right And this will shake the most part of Hereditary Successions that are now in the world 2. If Hereditary Succession have no right but the peoples consent then of it self it can give none to a man that hath not that consent But the former is true For it is demanded how doth the Son or Brother succeed by what right It must either be by divine promise Or by the Fathers will Or it must come by propogation from the first Ruler by a right of the Primogeniture But none of these can be For the first we have no immediate Divine Constitution tying the Crown to such a race as in Davids Covenant It will be easily granted they fetched not their Charter from Heaven immediatly as David had it a man of many peculiar prerogatives to whose line the promise was astricted of the Coming of Messias and Iacobs Prophesie that the Scepter should not depart from Iudah until His coming Gen. 49. 10. was restricted to his family afterwards Wherefore he could say The Lord God of Israel chose me befor all the house of my father to be King over Israel for ever for He hath chosen Iudah to be the Ruler and of the house of Iudah the house of my father and among the sons of my father He liked me to make me King over Israel and of all my Sons He hath chosen Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 4. 5. All Kings cannot say this neither could Saul say it though immediatly called of God as well as David yet this same Promise to David was Conditional if His Children should keep the Lords wayes 2 Chron. 6. 16. Next it cannot be said this comes from the will of the father for according to the Scripture no King can make a King though a King may appoint design his son for succession as David did Solomon but the people make him The father is some way a Cause why his son succeedeth but he is not the Cause of the Royaltie conferred upon him by line for the question will recur who made him a King and his father grand father till we come up to the first father Then who made him a King not himself therefore it must be refounded upon the peoples choise constitution And who appointed the lineal succession and tyed the Crown to the line but they It is then at the best the Patrimony of the people by the fundamental Law of the Kingdom conferred upon the successor by consent And generally it is granted even where the succession is lineal he that comes to inherit Doth it not jure hereditario but vi legis he does not succeed by heritage but by the force of Law the Son then hath not his Kingdom from his father but by Law which the people made stand to as long as it may consist with the reasons of publick advantage upon which they condiscended to establish such a family over them Neither can it be said It is by a right of Primogeniture propogated from the first Ruler for this must either be Adam the first of the world or Fergus v. G. the first of this Kingdom It could not come from Adam as a Monarch father of all For that behoved to be either by order of Nature or his volunâ—ary assignment It could not be transferred by order of Nature for besides the difficulty to find out Adams successor in the universal Monarchy and the absurdity of fixing it on Cain who was a Cursed vagabond afraied of every man and could not be an universal Monarch yet Adams first born It will be asked how this passed from him unto others whether it went by father-hood to all the Sons fathers to
change his children nor they change their Father but a King may naturalize new subjects and subjects may also change their Soveraign Royalists will grant a State or Common-wealth way make a King and there is great reason sometimes that a Monarchy be turned into a Common-wealth but a Tyrant changes those that are under him expells the natives brings in forreigners and all good Patriots do pant for a Change of him every day 7. A Father hath no power of life death over his Children a King hath it over his subjects according to Law a Tyrant Usurps it over the innocent against Law. 8. A Father is not a Father by consent of his Childeren as a King is by consent of his subjects a Tyrant is neither a Father with it nor without it 9. A Father is not made by the Children as a King is by his subjects as was shewed a Tyrant is neither a Natural nor by compact but a self created power 10. A Father is not chosen conditionally upon compact as a King is by the free suffrages of the Community A Tyrant in this Differs from a King that he is not chosen and in Tyranny from a Father 11. Children wanting a Father cannot choose whom they will to be their Father as subjects wanting a King may choose whom they will and what form they please but though they can yet if they be rational they will never choose a Tyrant nor a Tyrannical form of Government 12. Children cannot restrict their Fathers power to what degrees they please as subjects may limit their Kings at their first erection but a Tyrant though he ought yet he will not be limited and if he might he should be restrained 13. Children cannot set bounds how long they will have their Fathers to continue Subjects may condescend upon the time in making Laws how long such an one shall be their Soveraign ad vitam or ad culpam according as the fundamental Law is made at first Tyrants ought every day to be repressed that they should not continue at all Yet giving and not granting that a King were to be ouned under the relation of a Father though every man be bound to oune mantain his Fathers parental Authority yet let the case be put that the Father turns a Robber murderer an avowed enemy to God and the country is his person Authority in that case to be ouned to the dishonour of God and hurt hazard of the country or ought he not rather to be delivered up even by the Son to Justice Much more then will it follow that a King who turns the more dangerous because the more powerfull Robber Legal Murderer and enemy to God the country cannot be ouned seeing the relation betwixt Father Son is stronger stricter as having another Original than can be betwixt King subjects and stands unremoved as long as he is Father though turning such they ought to contribute in moral duty to which their relative duty must cede that he should no more be a Father nor no more a living man when dead by Law. Secondly They cannot come under the herile or Masterly relation though Analogically also sometimes they are stiled so and subjects are called Servants by reason of their subjection and because it is the Office of Kings to command subjects to obey in this there is some Analogy But Kings cannot properly be ouned under this relation as Masters over either persons or goods of subjects far less Tyrans yea Kings assuming a Masterly power turn Tyrants Now that the Magistratical relation is not that of a Master is clear from many disparities absurdities whether we consider the state of hired Servants or Slaves For hired Servants the difference is vast betwixt them subjects 1. The hired Servant gets reward for his service by compact the subjects none but rather gives the Royal reward of Tribute to the King for his service the Tyrant exacts it to maintain his Tyranny 2. The hired Servant is maintained by his Master the subjects maintain the King the Tyrant Robbes it from them by force 3. The hired Servant bargains only for a time and then may leave him the subject cannot give up his Covenanted allegiance at that rate and for these reasons as the servant may his service a Tyrant wil make nor keep no such bargain 4. The hired Servant must have his Masters profit mainly before his eyes and his oun only secundarly but the Magistrates power is primarly ordinated to the publick good of the Community and only consequentially to the good of himself 5. The Master hath a greater power over the hired Servant to make give out Lawes to him which if they be Lawful he must obey than the King hath over the Nation to which he is not the sole Lawgiver as is shewed 6. The hired Servant his subjection is Mercenary servile but the subjects subjection is civil free voluntary liberal â—oving to a Lawful King. Again for Slaves the difference between them subjects is great 1. Slavery being against Nature rational people would never choose that life if they could help it but they gladly choose Government Governours 2. Slavery would make their condition worse then when they had no Government for Liberty is alwise preferable Neither could people have acted rationally in seting up Government if to be free of oppression of others they had given themselves up to slavery under a Master who may do what he pleases with them 3. All Slaves are either taken in war or bought with money or born in the house where their parents were slaves as Abraham Solomon had of that sort But subjects are neither captives nor bought nor born slaves 4. Slavery is not Natural but a penal fruit of sin and would never have been if sin had not been But Government is not so but Natural necessary 5. Slaves are not their Masters brethren subjects are the Kings brethren over whom he must not lift up himself Deut. 17. 20. 6. Masters might purchase and sell their slaves Abimelech took sheep men servants gave them unto Abraham Gen. 20. 14. Iacob had maid servants men servants Asses Gen. 30. 43. no otherwise than other goods Solomon got to himself servants and maidens servants born in his house Eccles. 2. 7. a King cannot do so with his subjects 7. Princes have not this power to make the people slaves neither from God nor from the people From God they have none but to feed and to lead them 2 Sam. 5. 2. to rule them so as to feed them 1 Chron. 11. 2. Psal. 78. 71 72. From the people they have no power to make slaves they can give none such 8. Slavery is a Curse It was Canaans Curse to be a servant of servants Gen. 9. 25. but to have Magistrats is a promised blessing Ier. 17. 27. 9. To be free of Slavery is a blessing as the redemption from Egypts bondage is every
Lords displeasure they are to give Judgment though the King should countermand it Secondly that the King is not excepted from their Judgment is also evident from the General Commands Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood â—y man shall his blood be shed there is no exception of Kings or Dukes here and we must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not Numb 35. 30 31. whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer which is guilty of death but he shall be surely put to death What should hinder then Justice to be awarded upon a Murdering King Shall it be for want of witnesses It will be easy to adduce thousands Or shall this be satisfaction for his life that he is a Crowned King the Law saith there shall no satisfaction be taken The Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19. 15. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment thow shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honour the person of the Mighty If Kings be not among the Mighty how shall they be classed Deut. 1. 17. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment but yow shall hear the small as well as the great yow shall not be afraid of the face of man for the judgment is Gods if then no mans face can outdare the Law Judgment of God then the Kings Majestick face must not do it but as to the demerit of blood he must be subject as well as another It s no Argument to say the Sanhedrin did not punish David for his Murther Adulterie Ergo now it is not Lawful to punish a King for the same a reason a non facto is not relevant David did not punish Ioab for his Murder but Authorized it as also he did Bathsheba's Adulterie will that prove that Murders connived at or commanded by the King shall not be punished or that Whores of State are not to be called to an account Neither will it prove that a Murdering king should not be punished that David was not punished because he got both the sin pardoned and his life granted from the Lord saying to him by the mouth of the Prophet Nathan Thow shalt not die But as for the demerit of that fact he himself pronounced the sentence out of his oun mouth 2 Sam. 12. 15. As the Lord liveth the man that hath done this thing shall surely die So every king condemned by the Law is condemned by his oun mouth for the Law is the voice of the king why then do we so much weary our selves concerning a Judge seeing we have the kings oun Confession that is the Law. Buchanan de jure regni And there needs be no other difficultie to find a Tribunal for a Murdering king than to find one for a Murderer for a Judgment must acknowledge but one name to wit of the Crime if a king then be guilty of Murder he hath no more the name of a king but of a Murderer when brought to Judgment for he is not Judged for his kingship but for his Murther as when a Gentleman is Judged for Robbery he is not hanged neither is he spared because he is a Gentleman but because he is a Robber See Buchanan ubi supra 6. If the Peoples Representatives be superior to the king in Judgment and may execute Judgment without him and against his will then they may also seek account of him for if he hath no Power but from them and no Power without them to act as king no more than the eye or hand hath Power to act without the body then his Power must be inferior fiduciary accountable to them But the former is true The Peoples Representatives are superior to the king in Judgment and may execute Judgment without him and against his will. In Scripture we find the Power of the Elders and heads of the People was very great and in many cases superior to the king which the Learned Dr Owen demonstrates in his Preliminary Exercitations on the Epist. to the Heb. and proves out of the Rabbins that the kings of the Iewes might have been called to an account punished for transgressing of the Law. But in the Scripture we find 1 They had a Power of Judgment with the Supreme Magistrate in matters of Religion Justice Government Hamor Shechem would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the Citie Gen. 34. 20. David behoved to consult with the Captains of thousands every Leader if it seemed good to them to bring again the Ark of God. 1. Chron. 13. 1 2 3. So also Solomon could not do it without them 1 King. 8. 1. Ahab could not make peace with Benhadad against the consent of the People 1 King. 20. 8. The men of Ephraim complain that Iephthah the Supreme Magistrate had gone to War against the Children of Ammon without them and threatened to burn his house with fire which he only excuses by the Law of necessity Iudg. 12. 1 2 3. The Seventy Elders are appointed by God not to be the Advisers only helpers of Moses but to bear a part of the burden of ruling governing the People that Moses might be eased Numb 11. 14 17. Moses upon his sole pleasure had not power to restrain them in the exercise of Judgment given of God. They were not the Magistrats depending deputies but in the act of Judging they were independent and their Consciences as immediatly subjected to God as the Superior Magistrate who was to adde his approbative suffrage to their actings but not his directive nor imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure but only according to the Law he might command them to do their duty but he could do nothing without them 2 They had Power not derived from the Prince at all even a Power of life death The rebellious Son was to be brought to the Elders of the Citie who had Power to stone him Deut. 21. 18 24. They had Power to punish Adulterie with death Deut. 22. 21. They had Power to cognosce whom to admit into and whom to seclude from the Cities of refuge So that if the King had commanded to take the life of an innocent man they were not to deliver him Iosh. 20. per tot But besides the Elders of Cities there were the Elders and heads of the People who had judicial Power to cognosce on all Criminal Matters even when Ioshua was Judge in Israel we find they assumed this Power to judge of that matter of the two tribes the half Iosh. 22. 30. And they had Power to make Kings as Saul David as was shewed and it must needs follow they had Power to unmake them in case of Tyranny 3 They had Power to conveen even without the indiction of the Ruler as in that Iosh. 22. they convene without him and without advice or knowledge of Samuel the Ruler they
oblivion of this that God is righteous to whom the reckoning must be made 2. Let it be supposed under Sauls Tyranny when the Ziphims informed him of Davids hiding himself with them Or when Doeg informed him of Abimelechs resetting him That an order had been given forth to all Israel with this Narrative Whereas that Rebel David had now openly despised Authority had been intertained by the Priest received Goliabs sword from him and gathered a Company of armed men together therefore to the end he and his Complices may be brought to Justice We ordain all from Dan to Beersheba to concur either personally in this Expedition against him or to pay Cess to our standing forces to maintain them in this expedition or so much to gratify the Ziphims for their kindness or to furnish Doeg with a sword to murder the Priests of the Lord. Would any that favoured Davids righteous Cause have dared to do any of these Would these that durst not concur themselves contribute any encouragment to the Concurers Would Sauls Servants that would not fall upon the Priests of the Lord themselves have given Doeg one of their swords to do it or money to buy one if it had been demanded To the same purpose suppose a party comes to a Dissenter with an express order and this Narrative Whereas there is such a Minister meet with some people at an execrable Conventicle as they call it but in it self the pure Worship of God therefore to the end the Minister may be taken murdered and the Servants of the Lord for the Countenance they gave him may be brought to the same punishment they ordain him for the accomplishing of their design to furnish that partie with all necessares or to pay such a summ of money for not concuring with them Now should he in this case not only forbear to lay doun his life for his brethren and forbear to deliver them that are thus drawn unto death on such an account into which forbearance the Great God will make so accurate an inquirie Prov. 24. 11 12. as may make us tremble whether we look backward or forward but also furnish according to the tenor of this Order that partie of the Dragons Legions in their War against the Prince Michael His Angels with supplies and think to put off the matter and plead innocent with this that he was under the Moral force of a Law accompanied with such military force as if he had refused they would have taken away all he had c. For this Plea in its full strength is to do evil that some good may come of it no true good which brings just damnation Rom. 3. 8. or to chuse sin rather than affliction 3. What if Manasseh or other Idolatrous Princes that sacrificed to Devils and made Children pass through the fire to Molech had enacted a Cess or under severe Impositions of Fynes had commanded all to concur to a solemn Sacrifice of that nature charging every man against a certain day to bring in his proportion in order to celebrate the Sacrifice with all its statute solemnities Or should have taken a child from every father and then made a Law that each of these should contribute such a summ for furnishing with all necessaries and maintaining these Murderers whom they had conduced to shed the blood of their innocent Children or sacrifice them to Molech Could it be expected that any of the Godly would have payed such Exactions and then have wyped his mouth with the notion of a moral force This comes home enough to our Case For no sacrifice they can offer to the Devil can be more real or so acceptable as what they declare they intend to do being so direct not only an opposition to the coming of the Kingdom of Christ but the deletion of His precious Interests and exstirpation of His faithful Remnant and the giving Satan such an absolute Dominion in the Nation as that they who have made the decree and all who put it in execution practically declare thereby they have mancipate themselves to his slavery and sold themselves to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord So likewise that all the rest of the Nation may with themselves become his vassals and in evidence of their opposition to Christ and in recognition of Satans Soveraignity their subjection they are appointed to pay these black Meales 4. Let it be supposed that after Nebuchadnezzar had made the decree for all to fall doun worship his Image and the three Children were apprehended for refusing it he had made another that all the Jewes especially should contribute every one a Faggot or money to buy it to heat the furnace or a rope to lead them to it Can any man suppose that Daniel or the rest of the faithful would have payed it Even so let it be supposed that any one of these faithful Ambassadours of Christ or all these zealous Workers together with God who have laboured among the people in the Preached Gospel should fall into the hands of these Hunters And then they should make a Law and appoint every man in the Nation to send but one threed to make a Towe to hang that Minister or to hang the whole Company of Christs Ambassadours and a farthing to pay the Executioner Can any man without horrour think of complying so far as to contribute what is commanded Or would not a Gracious man frighted into an abhorrence at the attrociousness of the wickedness or fired into a flame of zeal for God say without demur as not daunted with fear of what flesh could do unto him I will rather venture my All to keep them alive or be hanged with them than by doing what is demanded be brought forth classed in the cursed cruel Company of those who shall be dragged before the Tribunal of Christ with their fingers dyed dropping with the blood of those who are peculiarly dear to Him I know it will be said that in all these cases it would be a clear case of Confession Well that 's all I would have granted For that which doth over ballance to a Testimony in all the cases mentioned is so far from being wanting in the cases now under consideration that they have all to enforce the duty that all of them put together do include As will be clear to any who consider 1 The preciousness of the things Interests to be destroyed 2 The Concurrence called for from every one that this desperate design may be accomplished 3 The great manifold indispensible obligations all are under not only to abstain from the required Concurrence but to preserve also maintain these things in opposition to all whom Satan sets on work to serve him in this Expedition against the Son of God and to do it or endeavour it with the loss of life and all things dearest to men to the end that these things which are Satans eyesore as only obstructive of His Kingdom may
he is not nor can not be our Crouned King and therefore we must not be his Liege subjects ouning fealty obedience to him For according to the National Covenant as all Lieges are to maintain the Kings Authority consistent with the subjects Liberties which if they be innovated or prejudged such Confusion would ensue as this realme could be no more a free Monarchy So for the Preservation of true Religion Lawes Liberties of this Kingdom it is statute by the 8 Act. Parl. 1 repeated in the 99 Act. Parl. 7. ratified in the 23. Act. Parl. 11. and 114 Act. Parl. 12. of King Iames 6. and 4 Act of K. Charles 1. that all Kings Princes â— at their coronation reception of their Princely Authority shall make their faithful Promise by their solemn Oath in the presence of the Eternal God That enduring the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utter-most of their power according as He hath required in His most holy Word contained in the Old new Testaments and according to the same Word shall maintain the true Religion of Christ Jesus the preaching of His holy Word the due right Ministration of the Sacraments now received Preached within this realme according to the Confession of faith immediatly preceding and shall abolish gainstand all false religion contrary to the same And shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will Command of God revealed in His fore-said Word and according to the Laudable Lawes Constitutions received in this realme no wayes repugnant to the said Will of the Eternal God And shal procure to the uttermost of their power to the Kirk of God whole Christian people true perfect peace in all time coming And that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all Hereticks Enemies to the true Worship of God who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the foresaid Crimes Now this Coronation Oath he hath not taken he will not he cannot take and therefore cannot be our Crouned King according to Law. As there be also many other Lawes incapacitating his admission to the Croun being a Professed Papist and no Law for it at all but one of his oun making by a Pacqued Cabal of his oun Complices a Parliament wherein himself presided as Commissioner enacting matterially his succession and rescinding all these Ancient Lawes which Act of Succession which is all the legal right he can pretend to in Scotland because it cannot be justified therefore his right cannot be ouned which is founded upon the subversion of our Ancient Lawes But as he cannot be our Legally Crouned King so he is not so much as formally Crouned And therfore before his Inauguration whatever right to be King whom the Representatives may admit to the Government he may pretend to by hereditary Succession yet he cannot formally bemade King till the people make a Compact with him upon termes for the safety of their dearest nearst Liberties even though he were not disabled by Law. He might as they say pretend to some jus ad rem but he could have no jus in re The Kings of Scotland while uncrouned can exerce no Royal Government for the Coronation in Concret according to the substance of the Act is no Ceremonie as they who make Conscience it self but a Ceremony call it nor an accidental ingredient in the Constitution of a King but as it is distinctive so it is Constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and made him from no King to be a King it is dative not only Declarative it puts some honour upon him that he had not before 3. Though the Lawes should not strike against his Coronation And though the Representatives Legally should take the same measures with him that they took with his brother and admit him upon the termes of the Covenant yet after such doleful experiences of such transactions with these Sons of Belial who must not be taken with hands nor by the hand it were hard to trust or entrust them with the Government even though they should make the fairest Professions Since they whose Principle is to keep no faith to Hereticks as they call us and who will be as absolute in their promises as they are in their power have deservedly forefeited all Credit Trust with honest men so that none could rationally refer the determination of a half Croun reckoning to any of them far less oune them their Government in the Managment of the weightiest affairs of State since their Male-versations are written in such bloody Characters as he that runs may read them At least it were wisdom is our duty to take our Measures from the General Assemblies Procedure with the other Brother before his admission to the Government to suspend our Allegiance to him until Authority be Legally devolved upon him and founded upon bounded by termes giving all security for Religion Liberty 12. As I said before wary Prudence in waving such an impertinent Ticklish Question cannot be condemned since what ever he may be in conscience no man in Law can be obliged so far to surrender the common Priviledge of all Mankind to give an account of all his inward thoughts which are alwise said to be free And as in nothing they are more various so in nothing they can be more violented than to have our opinion sentiments of the current Government extorted from us a declining of which Declaration of thoughts where no overt Act in project or practice can be proven against it cannot be Treason in any Law in the world So a Cautelous Answer in such a ticklish entrapping imposition cannot be censured in point of Lawfullnesse of expediency even though much be concedded to stop the Mouths of these bloody Butchers gaping greedily after the blood of the Answerer if he do not really oune but give them to understand he cannot approve of this Tyranny But as these poor faithful Witnesses who were helped to be most free have alwise been honoured with the most signal Countenance of the Lord in a happy issue of their Testimony So those that used their Prudentials most in seeking shifts to shâ—n severity and studying to satisfie these Inquisitors with their stretched Concessions were ordinarly more exposed to snares and found less satisfaction in their Sufferings even though they could say much to justify or at least extenuate their Shiftings I knew one who had proof of this who afterwards was ashamed of this kind of Prudence A short account of whose managing of Answers to this Question because it may conduce somewhat to the explication of it may here be hinted The question moved after the usual forme was Do ye onne the Authority of King Iames the 7 In answer to which he pleaded first for the immunity of his thoughts which he said were not subject to theirs or any Tribunal When this could
I ans 1. I acknowledge the distinction as to Magistrats is very pertinent for it is well said by the Congregation in a Letter to the Nobility Knox Hist. of Scot. lib. 2. That there is a great difference betwixt the Authority which is Gods ordinance and the persons of these who are placed in Authority the Authority ordinance of God can never do wrong for it commandeth that vice be punished virtue maintained But the Corrupt Person placed in this Authority may offend Its certain higher Powers are not to be resisted but some persons in Power may be resisted The Powers are ordained of God but Kings commanding unjust things are not ordained of God to do such things But to apply this to Tyâ—ants I do not understand Magistrats in some Acts may be guilty of Tyranny and yet retain the Power of Magistracy but Tyrants cannot be capable of Magistracy nor any one of the Scripture Characters of Righteous Rulers They cannot retain that which they have forefeited and which they have overturned And Usurpers cannot retain that which they never had They may act enact some things materially just but they are not formally such as can make them Magistrats no more then some unjust actions can make a Magistrate a Tyrant A Murderer saying the â—ife of one killing another does not make him no Murderer Once a Murderer ay a Murderer once a Robber ay a Robber till he restore what he hath robbed So once a Tyrant ay a Tyrant till he make amends for his Tyranny and that will be hard to do 2. The Concrete does specificate the Abstract in actuating it as a Magistrate in his exercising Government makes his Power to be Magistracy a Robber in his robbing makes his Power to be Roberie an Usurper in his usurping makes his Power to be Usurpation So a Tyrant in his Tyrannizing can have no Power but Tyranny As the Abstract of a Magistrate is nothing but Magistracy So the Abstract of a Tyrant is nothing but Tyranny It s frivolous then to distinguish between a Tyrannical power in the Concrete Tyranny in the Abstract the power the abuse of the power for he hath no power as a Tyrant but what is abused 3. They that objects thus must either mean that power in its general Notion is ordained of God but this particular Power abâ—sed by Tyrants and assumed by Usurpers is not ordained Or they must mean that the very Power of Tyrants Usurpers is ordained of God but the way of holding using it is not of God. If the first be said they grant all I plead for for thô the Power in general be ordained yet what is this to Tyrants Usurpers would not this Claim be ridiculous for any man to say God hath ordained Governments to be therefore I will challenge it God hath ordained Marriage therefore any may cohabit together as man wife without formal Matrimony If the Second be alledged that the Power of these prevailing Dominators is ordained but not their holding using of it This is Non-sense for how can a Power be ordained and the use of it be unlawful For the abuse use of Tyrannical Power is all one and reciprocal an Usurper cannot use his Power but by Usurpation Again is it not plain that the Abstract the Concrete the act or habit and the subject wherein it is cannot have a contrary Denomination if Drunkenness and Thieft Lying or Murder be of the Devil then the Drunkard the Thief the Lyar the Murderer are of the Devil too So if Tyranny and Usurpation or the use or abuse of Tyrants Usurpers be of the Devil Then must the Tyrants Usurpers also be of him None can say the one is of the Devil and the other of God. Wherefore it is altogether impertinent to use such a Distinction with application to Tyrants or Usurpers as many do in their pleading for the ouning of our Oppressors for they have no power but what is the abuse of power 3. As that Authority which is Gods Ordinance must have His Institution So it must have His divine Constitution from Himself and by the people Wherever then there is Authority to be ouned of men there must be these tuo Constitution from God and Constitution from the people For the first God hath a special Interest in the Constitution of Authority both Immediatly Mediatly Immediatly He declares such such formes of Government to be Lawful Eligible and does order whom who and how people shall erect Governours And so He confers Royal Graces Enduements Gifts for Government on them as on Ioshua Saul So they become the Lords Anointed placed set on the Throne of the Lord 1 Chron. 29. 23. and honoured with Majestie as His deputies vicegerents having their Croun set on by God Psal. 21. 3. But in regard now He doth not by any special Revelation determine who shall be the Governours in this or that place Therefore He makes this Constitution by mediation of men giving them Rules how they shall proceed in setting them up And seeing by the Law of Nature He hath enjoined Government to be but hath ordered no particular in it with application to singulars He hath committed it to the positive transaction of men to be disposed according to certain General Rules of Justice And it must needs be so for 1. without this Constitution either all or none would be Magistrats if He hath ordained Civil Power to be and taken no order in whom it shall be or how it shall be conveyed any might pretend to it and yet none would have a right to it more than another If then He â—ath affixed it to a peculiar having holding by virtue whereof this man is enstated entitled to the office and not that man there must be a Law for Constituting him in Authority which will discover in whom it is 2. If it were not so then a resisting of a particular Magistrate would not be a resisting of the ordinance of God if a particular Magistrate were not Constitute of God as well as Magistracy is Institute of God for still it would be undetermined who were the Power and so it would be left as free Lawful for the resister to take the place as for the resisted to hold it the institution would be satisfied if any possessed iâ— therefore there must be Constitution to determine it 3. No Common Law of Nature can be put into practice without particular Constitution regulating it That Wives Children oune their superior relations is the Law of Nature but there must be such a relation first fixed by humane transaction before they can oune them there must be Marriage Authorized of God there must be Children begotten and then the Divine Ordination of these relative duties take place So the Judges of Israel for 450 years were given of God Act. 13. 20. not all by an immediate express designation but a mediate
Serpent Dragon Isai. 27. 1. and have great affinity in name Nature with the Apocalyptick Dragon So also Isai. 51. 9. the Egyptian Tyrant is called Dragon And Nebuchadnezzar swallowed up the Church like a Dragon Ier. 51 34. See also Ezek. 29. 3. 6. They are wolves ravening the prey Ezek. 22. 27. evening wolves that gnaw not the bones till the morrow Zeph. 3. 3. 7. They are Leopards So the Grecian Tyrants is called Dan. 7. 6. and Antichrist Revel 13. 2. 8. They are foxes So Christ calls Herod Luk. 13. 32. 9. They are Devils who cast the Lords people into Prison Revel 2. 10 13. Now can we oune all these abommable Creatures to be Magistrates Can these be the fathers we are bound to honour in the fifth Commandment They must be esteemed sons of dogs Devils that belive so and oune themselves sones of such fathers If we further take notice how the Spirit of God describes Tyranny as altogether Contradistinct opposite unto the Magistracy He will have ouned we may infer hence Tyrants Usurpers are not to be ouned What the Government instituted by God among His people was the Scripture doth both relate in matter of â—act and describes what it ought to be de jure viz. That according to the Institution of God magistrates should be established by the Constitution of the people who were to make them Iudges Officers in all their gates that they might Iudge the people with just Iudgment Deut. 16. 18. But foreseeing that people would affect a change of that first forme of Government and in imitation of their neighbouring Nations would desire a King and say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are about me Deut. 17. 14. The Lord intending high holy ends by it chiefly the procreation of the Messias from a Kingly race did permit the change and gave directions how he should be moulded bounded that was to be ouned as the Magistrate under a Monarchial forme To wit that he should be chosen of God and set up by their suffrages that he should be a brother and not a stranger that he should not multiply horses nor wives nor money which are Cautions all calculated for the peoples good and the security of their Religion Liberty and for precluding preventing his degeneration into Tyranny and that he should write a Copy of the Law in a book according to which he should Govern vers 15. ad â—in cap. yet the Lord did not approve the change of the form which that luxuriant people was long affecting and at length obtained For long before Saul was made King they profered an Hereditary Monarchy to Gideon without the boundaries Gods Law required Which that brave Captain knowing how derogatory it was to the Authority of Gods Institution not to be altered in form or frame without His order generously refused faying I will not rule over yow neither shall my son rule over yow the Lord shall rule over yow Iud. 8. 23. But his bastard the first Monarch Tyrant of Israel Abimelech by sinstrous means being advanced to be King by the traiterous Schechemites Iotham and other of the Godly disouned him which by the Spirit of God Iotham describes Parabolically significantly hoâ—ding out the Nature of that Tyrannical usurpation under the Apologue of the trees itching after a King and the offer being repudiate by the more generous sort embraced by the bramble Signifying that men of worth virtue would never have taken upon them such an arrogant Domination and that such a Tyrannicall Government in its Nature tendency was nothing but an useless worthless sapless aspiring scratching vexing shadow of a Government under subjection to which there could be no peace nor safety But this was rather a Tumultuary interruption than a Change of the Government not being universally either desired or ouned therefore after that the Lord restored the pristine form Which continued until being much perverted by Samuels sons the people unanimously peremptorly desired the change thereof and whether it were reason or not would have a King as we were fondly set upon one after we had been delivered from his fathers yoke And the Lord gave them a King with a Curse and tooke him away with a vengeance Hos. 13. 11. as He did our Charles the Second Yet He permited it but with a Protestation against and conviction of the sin that thereby they had rejected the Lord 1 Sam. 8. 7. and with a demonstration from Heaven which extorted their oun confession that they bad added unto all their sins this evil to ask a King 1 Sam. 12. 17 18 19. And to deter disswad from such a Conclusion He appoints the Prophet to shew them the manner of the King that should reign over them 1 Sam. 8. 9. to declare before hand what sort of a Ruler he woud prove when they got him to wit a meer Tyrant who would take their sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and for horsemen and to run before his Chariots and make them his sowldiers and labourers of the ground and Instrument-makers and houshold servants and he would take their fields vineyards the best of them and give unto his servants in a word to make all slaves and that in the end when this should come to pass they should cry out because of their King but the Lord would not hear them vers 11-18 All which as it is palpable in it self so we have sensibly felt in our experience to be the Natural description of Tyranny but more tollerable than an account of ours would amount to It is both foolishly falsely alledged by Royalists or Tyrannists that here is a grant of incontroulable absoluteness to Kings to Tyrannise over the people without resistence And that this manner of the King is in the Original Mishphat which signifies right or Law So that here was a permissive Law given to Kings to Tyrannise and to oblige people to passive obedience without any remedy but tears And therefore it was registered laid up before the Lord in a book 1 Sam 10. 25. But I answer 1. If any thing be here granted to Kings it is either by Gods Approbation directing instructing how they should govern or it is only by permission providential Commission to them to be a plague to the people for their sin of choosing them to make them drink as they have brewed as sometimes He gave a Charge to the Assyrian rod to trample them doun as the mire of the streets If the first be said Then a King that does not govern after that manner and so does not make people cry out for their oppression would came short of his duty and all behoved to Tyrannize and make the people cry out then a King may take what He will from his subjects and be approved of God this were blasphemously absurd for God cannot approve of the sin of oppression If the Second
Kings are to be honoured that are ouned to be Kings really It may be alledged by some that Elisha was an extraordinary man and this was an extraordinary action and therefore not imitable I shall grant it so far extraordinary that it is not Usual to carry so to persons of that figure and that indeed there are few Elisha's now not only for his Prophetick Spirit which now is ceased but even in respect of his Gracious Spirit of zeal which in a great measure is now extinguished He was indeed an extraordinary man and this Action did demonstrate much of the Spirit of Elias to have been abiding with him But that this was unimitable these reasons induce me to deny 1 Prophets were subject to Kings as well as others as Nathan was to David 1 King. 1. 32 33. every soul must be subject to the higher powers that are of God 2 All the Actions of Prophets were not extraordinary nor did they every thing by extraordinary inspiration that was peculiar to Christ that He could Prophecy do extraordinary acts when He pleased because He received the Spirit not by measure and it rested upon Him. 3 this particular Action carriage was before he called for the Minstrel and before the hand of the Lord came upon him vers 15. Ergo this was not by inspiration 4 The ground of this was Moral Ordinary for hereby he only shewed himself to be a person fit to abide in the Lords Tabernacle and an upright walker in whose eyes a vile person is contemned Psal. 15. 4. and a just man to whom the unjust is an abomination Prov. 29. 27. What further can be aledged against this instance I see not And I need draw no Argument by Consequence it is so plain 7. This same Jehoram after many signal demonstrations of the power of God exerted in the Ministry of His Servant Elisha which sometimes did extort his acknowledgment and made him call the Prophet his father 2 King. 6. 21. yet when in the strait siege of Samaria he was plagued with famine for his Idolatry in so much that the pitiful Mothers were made to eat their oun tender Children became so insolent a Tyrant that being incensed into a madness of outragious malice against the Prophet Elisah that he sware God do so to him more also if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat should stand on him that day accordingly he sent a messenger to execute it But the Prophet from a Principle of Nature Reason Law as well as Grace and by the Spirit of a man as well as of a Prophet stood upon his defence and encouraged those that were with him to keep out the house against him saying See ye how this son of a Murderer a proper style for such a Monster of a King hath sent to take away mine head ... 2 King. 6. 32. This is a strong Argument for self defence but I improve it thus If Tyrants may be opposed as sons of Murderers Murderers themselves and no otherwise to be accounted then under such a vile Character then can they not be ouned as Kings But here is an example for the first Ergo 8. This mans brother in Law of the same name Iehoram the son of Iehoshaphat who had the Daughter of Ahab to wife and therefore walked in the way of the house of Ahab gives us another instance He turned Apostate Tyrant and Abimelech-like or if yow will Yorklike slew his brethren and diverse also of the Princes of Israel Moreover he made high places in the Mountains of Iudah and caused the Inhabitants of Ierusalem to commit â—ornication and compelled Iudah thereto For which Cause of his intollerable insolency in wickedness Libnah one of the Cities of Priests in Iudah Revolted from him 2 King. 8. 22. because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers 2 Chron. 21. 10. which was the motive impulsive Cause of their disouning him and is not to be detorted to that restricted Cavil of Royalists understanding it only as the Meritorous or procuring Cause of his punishment loss sustained thereby for it is not so said of the Edomites who revolted at the same time as it is mentioned in another Paragraph Neither of the Philistims Arabians Ethiopians whose spirit the Lord stirred up against him These were also a punishment to him Nor would it found very suitably to be said that they opposed him because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers for that would insinuate some influence that his Apostasie had on them as certainly it could not but have on the Lords Priests that dwelt in Libnah who understood by the Law of God what was their duty to do with Intycers or Drawers or Drivers to Idolatry And when they were not in capacity to execute the Judgement of the Lord this was the least they could do to Revolt Here then is an example of a Peoples Revolt from a Prince and disouning Allegiance to him because of Apostasie Tyranny 9. In this Kingdom of Iudah after long experience of a Succession of Hereditary Tyranny in many wicked Kings the people after they had long smarted for their lazie Loyaltie in their stupid abandoning forgetting foregoing this Priviledge of disouning Tyrants and keeping them in order began at length to bestir themselves in their endeavours to recover their lost Liberties and repress Tyrants Insolencies on several occasions Wherein though sometimes there were extravagances when Circumstances did mar the Justice of the Action and some did go beyond their sphere in tumultuary precipitations yet upon the matter it was Justice and in conformity to a Moral Command One impregnable witness of this we have in the pious Plot of Iehojada the Priest who being but a Subject as all Priests were as the deposition of Abiathar by King Solomon 1 King. 2. 27. proveth entered into an Association with the inferior Rulers to choose make a new King and notwithstanding that the Idolatress She-Tyrant Athaliab who had the Possession of the Government cried Treason Treason at the fact they had her forth without the ranges slew her 2 King. 11. 14-16 This was according to the Law Deut. 13. And approven by all Interpreters even Mr Pool in his Synopsis Critic though alias Superlatively Loyal yet approves of this and sayes she was an incurable Idolatress and therefore deserved to be deposed by the Nobles of the Kingdom And quotes Grotius in Loc. saying she reigned by meer force no right and therefore justly repressed by force for the Hebrewes were to have Brethren for their Kings but not Sisters Deut. 17. 15. Hence if Tyrants may be forcibly repressed then may they peaceably be disouned But this example comfirms that Ergo 10. The Sacred History proceeds in the Relation how this same Joash the Son of Ahaziah after he degenerated into Murdering Tyranny was slain by Jozachar Jehozabad 2 King. 12. 20 21. But that was by his oun Servants in
private Assassination therefore they are called Murderers by Amaziah his Son 2 King. 14. 5 6. but upon the matter it was the Justice of God which he deserved if it had been duely execute for the blood of the Sone of Jehojada the Priest 2 Chron. 24. 25. So Amon the Son of Manasseh for his walking in the way of his Father in Idolatry Tyranny and forsaking the Lord God of his Fathers was slain in his oun house by his Servants who conspired against him But though this was Justice also upon the matter and consonant to the Command for punishing Idolaters Murderers yet because defective in the manner and done by them that tooke too much upon them in a perfidious way of private Assassination Conspiracy therefore the People of the Land punished them for it 2 King. 21. 23. 24. But the repressing punishing of Amaziah is a more unexceptionable instance The people made a Conspiracy against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent after him to Lachish and slew him there 2 King. 14. 19. after the time that he turned away from following the Lord 2 Chron. 25. 27. Which was according to the Command Deut. 13. which hath no exception of Kings in it This Action was not questioned either by the people or his Successor as the formentioned Conspiracies were His son Uzziah succeeding who did right consulted the Lord 2 Chron. 26. 4 5. did not resent nor revenge his Fathers death which certainly he would have done by advice of Zechariah who had understanding in the visions of God if it had been a transgression The famous faithful Mr Knox doth clear this passage beyond Contradiction in his conference with Lithingtoun Hence I take an Argument a fortiori If people may conspire concur in executing Judgement upon their King turning Idolater Tyrant Then much more may they Revolt from him But this example clears the Antecedent Ergo. 11. The same power priviledge of peoples punishing their Princes was exemplified in the Successor of him last mentioned to wit in Uzziah the son of Amaziah called Azariah 2 King. 15. when he degenerated into the ambition of arrogating a Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastick Sacred as well as Civil his heart was lifted up to his destruction for he transgressed against the Lord his God and went into the Temple of the Lord to burn Incense In which Usurpation he was resisted by Azariah the Priest and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men who withstood him and told him it did not appertain to him to take upon him so much and bade him go out of the Sanctuary or else it should not be for his honour Which indeed he stomacked at as an affront to be controled resisted but in thinking to resent it he was plagued of the Lord with leprosie which the Priests looking upon they thrust him out from thence And thereafter sequestred him from all Supremacy both that which he had before in things Civil and that which he was affecting in matters Sacred for he was made to dwell in a Several house being a leper the Law including here execute upon the King as well as the beggar and to resign the Government into his son Jothams hands 2 Chron. 26. 16-21 Where it appears he was not only excommunicated by a Ceremonial punishment but also deposed Judicially Whether he voluntarly dimited or not it is to no purpose to contend its evident that by the Law of God the actual exercise of his power was removed whether with his will or against it it is all one And that he was punished both by God and by men is undeniable Yea in this his punishment was very gentle and far short of the Severity of the Law for by the Law he should have been put to death for intermedling with these holy things interdicted to all but to the Priests under pain of death Numb 3. 10. Numb 18. 7. The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death All were strangers that were not Priests Whence I argue If a Prince for his Usurpation beyond his line in things Sacred may by the Priests be excommunicated and by the people deposed then may a Prince not only Usurping a Supremacy as Charles did but an absolute power of overturning all things Sacred Civil as James doeth oppressing his subjects in all their Liberties be disouned a fortiori for that is less than deposing or dethroning But this Example clears the Antecedent Ergo See Knox discourse to Lethingtoun Lex Rex Quest. 44. § 15. pag. 461. Ius popul chap. 3. pag. 56. 12. What if I should adduce the Example of a Kings Rebellion against and Revolt from a Superior King to whom he his Fathers both acknowledged themselves subject Surely our Royalists and Loyalists would not condemn this and yet in justifying it they should condemn their beloved principle of uncontroled subjection to uncontrolable Soveraigns possessing the Government Ahaz became Servant to the Assyrian Monarch 2 King. 16. 7. yet Hezekiah his son when the Lord was with him and he prospered Rebelled against the King of Assyria and he served him not 2 King. 18. 7. Hezekiah was indeed a King but he was not Sennacheribs King he acknowledges himself his vassal and that he offended in disouning him vers 14. which certainly was his sin against the Lord to make such an acknowledgment for if his Fathers transaction with the Assyrian was sin then it was duty to break the yoke if the Lord was with him in that rebellion then it was his sin to acknowledge it to be his offence And to make good this ackowledgment it was certainly his sin to commit Sacriledge in robbing the House of God to satisfie that Tyrant By way of Supplement I shall adde that instance of repressing a mad furious Tyrant which all will acknowledge to be Lawful Nebuchadnezzar was both stricken of God with madness and for that was depelled from the Kingdom according to the heavenly Oracle The Kingdom is departed from thee and they shall drive thee from men Dan. 4. 31-33 Calvin sayes upon the place he was ejected as usually is done to Tyrants by the Combination of the nobles people Pool Synopsis Critic in Locum Thus he was unkinged for a time both by the just Judgement of God and by the intermediation of the just Judgement of men and could not be ouned to be King at that time when his nails were like birds Clawes and he could not tell his oun fingers They could not oune him to be the Governour then of so many Kingdoms when he could not Govern himself Hence though this is an instance of Heathens yet because they acted upon a rational ground it may be argued If Kings because of Natural madness when they cannot govern themselves may not be ouned Then also because of Moral madness when they will not govern but to the destruction of Kingdoms may not be ouned But
7. 2 6. I shew before that there is reason to fear that the sins of a few especially of Magistrats Ministers will bring wrath upon the whole body of the people as is plain from these Scriptures Levit. 10. 6. Isai. 43. 27 28. Lam. 4 13. Mic. 3. 11 21. shewing the sins of Ministers may procure universal Destruction And 2 Sam. 24. 25. 2 King. 21. 11. Ier. 15 4. proving the sins of Magistrats may procure it And Num. 3. 14 15. Iosh. 22. 17 18. Demonstrating that the sins of a party of the people may draw wrath upon the whole Now the only way the Scripture points out to evite avert such publick judgments is to make our resentment of these indignities done to our God our Mourning over them and our witness against them as publick as the sins are at least as publick as we can get them by a publick pleading for Truth Isai. 59. 4. for the defect whereof He hides His face and wonders that there is no man no Intercessor vers 16. that is none to plead with God in behalf of His born doun Truths There must be in order to this a publick seeking of Truth which if there be any found making conscience of the Lord makes a gracious overture to pardon the City Ier. 5. 1. we cannot think there were no mourners in secret there but there was no publick Meeting for it and publick ouning the duty of that day There must be valour for the Truth upon the earth Ier. 9. 3. a publick resolute ouning of Truth There must be a making up the hedge standing in the Gap for the Land that the Lord should not destroy it Ezek. 22. 30. a publick Testimony in opposition to defection There must be a pleading with our Mother Hos. 2. 2. which is spoken to private persons in the plural number Commanding all that would consult their oun safety publickly to condemn the sins of the whole Nation that they may escape the publick punishment thereof as it is expounded in Pool Synops. Critic in locum By this means we must endeavour to avert the wrath anger of God which must certainly be expected to go out against the Land which hath all the procuring causes all the Symptoms Prognosticks Evidences of a Land devoted to destruction that ever a Land had If then there must be such Publick Mourning and such Solemn Gathering for it such public pleading for Truth Seeking of Truth valour for Truth making up the hedge and pleading with our Mother there must of Necessity be publick Meetings for it for these things cannot be done in private but must be done by way of Testimony Which I make a 2. Reason The Nature End of Meeting for Gospel Ordinances is for a publick Testimony for Christ and His Truths Interest against Sin and all dishonours done to the Son of God. So that the only end is not only to bring to Christ build up Souls in Christ but it is to Testify also for the Glory of Christ whether Souls be brought in built up or not The Preached Gospel is not only the Testimony of Christ 1 Cor 1. 6. but a Testimony for Christ in which sense The Testimony of Iesus is said to be the Spirit of Prophesie Revel 19. 10. so called Durham expounds it for its bearing Witness to Christ in which respect Ministers are often called Witnesses It is also the Testimony of Israel not only given to Israel but given by Israel unto which the tribes go up the tribes of the Lord Ps. 122. 4. Whensoever therefore or howsoever the Testimony of the Church is contradicted that 's not a Lawful Meeting of the tribes of the Lord. It is also the Testimony of the Preachers for Christ against them that will not receive them Mark. 6. 11. And a Witness unto all Nations to whom they preach Math. 24. 14. And of all the Witnesses that hold it suffer for it Rev. 6. 9. And the same which is the Word of Christs Testimony is the Word of theirs Rev 12. 11. by which they overcome for which they love not their lives Wherever then the Gospel is preached it must be a Testimony But it cannot be a Testimony except it be Publick at least as publick as it can be as we find all Christs Witnesses were in the Old New Testaments 3. The Motive or principle prompting the Lords people to a frequenting of Gospel Ordinances is a publick Spirit stirring up to a publick Generation Work whereof this is the Scope to promote the Kingdom of Christ and not only to obey the Lords Command enjoining the duty to enjoy the Lord the end thereof or to edify their oun Souls But to partake in promote this Great Work of the Day for the Glory of God and the Churches good For the Gospel is not only a Banner of Love over His Friends but Christs Standart of war against His Enemies Isai. 59. 19. under which all that countenance it are called to list themselves as His Souldiers called chosen faithful And it is required of His Souldiers that they be valiant for the Truth upon the earth Discovering a Gallant greatness generosity of a Publick Spirit having their designs desires not limited to their oun interests even Spiritual but aiming at no less than Christs Publick Glory the Churches publick good the Saints publick Comfort having a publick Concern for all Christs Interests Publik Sympathie for all Christs Friends and a publick declared Opposition to all Christs Enemies This is a Publick Spirit the true Spirit of all Christs zealous Lovers Votaries Which when He is a missing will prompt them to go about the City in the streets and in the broad wayes to seek Him whom their Soul loveth Cant. 3. 2. and not only in their beds or secret corners but they must go to the streets and to the fields and avow their seeking of Christ even though the Watchmen should smite them the keepers of the walls take their vails from them Cant. 5. Which obliges them not only to take Him in to their oun Cottages and intertain Him in their hearts and give Him a Throne there but also to endeavour to enlarge His dwelling and propagate His Courtly residence through the World that the Kingdoms of the earth may becom the Kingdoms of the Lord and if they cannot get that done yet that He may have the Throne in â—her Mothers house and take up His abode in the Church or Nation they belong to that there His Ordinances be established in purity peace plenty power according to His oun Order And if that cannot be but that their Mother play the harlot and He be provoked to give up house with her and by her Childrens treacherie the Usurping Enemy be invited in to His place Habitation and take violent possession of it and enact His extrusion expulsion by Law yet they will endeavour to secure a place for Him among
the Remnant that He may get a lodging among the afflicted poor people that trust in the Name of the Lord that they may feed Lie doun none make them afraid Zeph. 3. 12 13. that the poor of the flock that wait on Him may know that it is the Word of the Lord Zech. 11. 11. they will lay out themselves to strengthen their hands This is the Work of the publick spirited Lovers of the Gospel which hath been and yet is the great work of this our day to carry the Gospel and follow it and keep it up through the Land as the Standart of Christ against all opposition from mountain to hill when now Zion hath been Labouring to bring forth as a woman in travel and made to go forth out of the City and to dwell in the field Mic. 4. 10. Therefore seeing it is the publick Work of the day and all its followers must have such a publick spirit it followes that the Meetings to promote it must be as publick as is possible 4. The Interest priviledge of the Gospel to have it in freedom purty power plenty is the publick Concern of all the Lords people preferable to all other Interests and therefore more publickly peremptorly and zealously to be contended for than any other Interest whatsoever It is the Glory of the Land 1 Sam. 4. 21. without which Ichabod may be the name of every thing and every Land though never so pleasant will be but a dry parched Land where no water is in the esteem of them that have seen the Lords Glory power in the Sanctuary Psal. 63. 1. Where as its name is Hephzibah Beulah Isai. 62. 4. and Iehovah-Shammah Ezek. 48. ult where God is enjoyed in His Gospel Ordinances And the want reproach of the Solemn Assemblies is a matter of the saddest mourning to the Lords people Zeph. 3. 18. Therefore while the Ark abode in Kerjath-jearim the time was thought very Long and all the house of Israel Lamented after the Lord 1 Sam. 7. 2. then they heard of it at Ephratah and found it in the fields of the Wood Psal. 132. 6. But it hath been longer than twenty years in our fields of the Woods and therefore we should be Lamenting after it with greater concernedness especially remembering how we were priviledged with the Gospel which was somtimes publickly embraced countenanced by Authority and ensured to us by Laws Statutes Declarations Proclamations Oaths Vowes Covenant-engagments whereby the Land was dedicated devoted unto the Son of God whose Conquest it was And now are not all the people of God obliged to do what they can to hinder the recalling of this dedication and the giving up of the Land as an offering unto Satan Antichrist And how shall this be but by a publick Contending for this priviledge and a resolving they shall sooner bereave us of our hearts blood than of the Gospel in its freedom purity But this we cannot contend for publickly if our Meetings be not publick 5. The nature business of the Gospel Ministrie is such that it obliges them that exercise it to endeavour all publickness without which they cannot discharge the extent of their Instructions their very names titles do insinuate so much They are Witnesses for Christ and therefore their Testimony should be publick though their Lot oftentimes be to Witness in Sackcloth They are Heraulds and therefore they should Proclaim their Masters Will though their Lot be often to be a voice crying in the Wilderness as Iohn the Baptist was in his field Preachings They are Ambassadours and therefore they should maintain their Masters Majestie in the Publick port of His Ambassadours and be wholly taken up about their Soveraigns business They are Watchmen and therefore they should keep maintain their post their Masters hath placed them at Nay they are Lights Candles and therefore cannot be hid Math. 5. 14 15. The Commands Instructions given them infer the necâ—ssity of this They must cry aloud and not spare and left up their voice like a Trumpet and shew the Lords People their transgressions sins Isai. 58. 1. They are Watchmen upon Ierusalems walls which must not hold their peace day nor night nor keep silence nor give the Lord rest till He establish and till He make Ierusalem a praise in the earth Isai. 62. 6 7. They are Watchmen that must command all to hearken to the sound of the Trumpet Ier. 6. 17. They must be valiant for the Truth upon the earth Ier. 9. 3. They must say thus saith the Lord even to a rebellious Nation whether they will hear or forbear and not be afraid of them Ezek. 2. 5 6. They must cause the people to know their abominations Ezek. 16. 2. and the abominations of their Fathers Ezek. 20. 4. And what their Master tells them in darkness that they must speak in the Light and what they hear in the ear that they must Preach upon the house tops Math 10. 27. These things cannot be done in a Clandestine way And therefore now when there is so much necessity it is the duty of all faithful Ministers to be laying out themselves to the utmost in their Pastoral function for the suppreffing of all the evils of the time not withstanding of any prohibition to the contrary in the most publick manner according to the examples of all the faithful servants of the Lord both in the Old New Testaments Though it be most impiously Tyrannically interdicted yet the Laws of God stand unrepealed and therefore all who have a Trumpet a Mouth should set the Trumpet to their Mouth and sound a certain sound not in secret for that will not alarme the people but in in the most publick manner they can have access to And it is the duty of all to come hear obey their Warnings Witnessings command who will the contrary It was for mocking despising His Words misusing His Prophets that the wrath of the Lord arose against His people the Iewes until there was no remedy 2 Chron. 36 16. Therefore from all that is said it must be Concluded that Meetings for Gospel Ordinances must be as publick as can be And if so then that they should be in houses safety will not permit to us to go to the streets or Mercat places neither safety nor prudence will admit Therefore we must go to the fields with it cost what it will. 4. Seeing then there must be Meettngs publick Meetings And seeing we cannot and dare not in Conscience countenance the Curats Meetings we must hear oune embrace follow such faithful Ministers as are cloathed with Christ Commission Righteousness salvation and do keep the Words of the Lords patience and the Testimony of the Church of Scotland in particular This I think will not or dare not be denyed by any that oune the Authority of Christ which none can deny or instruct the contrary
for against a Lawful Magistrate that would be resistence 3 If a Tyrant hath irresistible power to kill and destroy the people he hath also irresistible power to cite summond them before him and if it be unlawful to resist his murders it must be as unlawful to resist his summonds 4 For a Church or Community of Christians persecuted for Religion to flee with Wives Children strong weak old yong to escape Tyrannical violence and leave the Land were more unlawful than to Resist For what is not possible as a Natural means of preservation is not a Lawful mean but this were not a possible mean Neither is it warranted in Natures Law or Gods Word for a Communitie or Society of Christians that have Gods Right and mans Law to the Land and the Covenanted Priviledges thereof to leave the Country and Cause of Christ and all in the hands of a Tyrant Papist to set up Idolatry upon the ruines of Reformation there A private man may flee but flight is not warranted of them as of a private single man. 2. If it be duty to disobey its duty to Resist Tyrants in defence of Religion Liberty But it is duty to disobey them Ergo The Connexion only will be stuck at which is thus strengthened If subjection be no more pressed in Scripture than obedience then if non-obedience be duty non-subjection must be so also and consequently Resistence But subjection is no more pressed in Scripture than obedience For all Commands of subjection to the Higher powers as Gods Ministers under pain of damnation do only respect Lawful Magistrats and in Lawful things and do include obedience and non-obedience to the power so qualified is a resisting of the Ordinance of God as well as non-subjection If then obedience to Magistrats be duty and non-obedience sin and obedience to Tyrants sin and non-obedience duty Then by Parity of reason subjection to Magistrats is duty and non-subjection is sin and also subjection to Tyrants is sin and non-subjection duty 11. From the Resistence allowed in all Governments it may be argued thus If it be duty to defend our Religion Lives Liberties against an invading army of Cut-throat Papists Turks or Tartars without or against the Magistrats warrand Then it must be duty to defend the same against invading home-bred Tyrants except we would subscribe our selves home-born slaves But the former is true Ergo The Minor cannot be doubted because the Magistrats power cannot be privative destructive to defence of our Religion Lives Liberties nor can it take away Natures birth-right to defend these or make it fare the worse than if we had no Magistrats at all now if we had no Magistrats at all we might defend these against Invaders and whether we have Magistrats or not we are under Moral obligations of the Law of God to endeavour the defence of these But this needs not be insisted on The Connexion of the Proposition is clear If Princes be more Tyrannical in invading Religion Liberties themselves than in suffering others to do it or hindering them to be opposed And if their invasion be more Tyrannical hurtful dangerous than the invasion of Strangers Then if it be duty to resist Strangers invading these Interests it is more duty to Resist home-bred Tyrants invading the same But the former is true Therefore the latter Resisting in the one case is no more Resisting the Ordinance of God than in the other 12. From the Motives of Resistence we may draw this Argument which might be branched out into several but I shall reduce it to this Complexe one If when we are in a Capacity we cannot acquit our selves in the duties that we owe to our Covenanted Religion and our Covenanted Brethren and Posterity and our selves nor absolve exoner our selves from the sin Judgment of Tyrants who overturn Religion oppress our Brethren impose slavery on our selves and entail it upon Posterity by a Passive subjection submission to and not opposing these mischiefs Then Resistence is necessary But the former is true Ergo The Connexion is clear for there cannot be a Medium if we cannot discharge these duties by subjection submission and not opposing then we must do them by non-subjection non-submission and opposing since they must be done some way The Assumption is thus confirmed 1. The duties we owe to Religion when it is corrupted declined from overturned are not only to Reforme our oun hearts wayes and keep our selves Pure from the Corruptions established and to rebuke and witness against the Complyers with the same and so by work doing suffering keep contend for the Word of our Testimony But further when by the Constitution of the Kingdom Religion is become a fundamental Law and consequently the Magistrate overturning it is violating everting the main grounds ends of the Government and turning grassant ingrained Tyrant especially when it is not only so Authorized Confirmed by Law but Corroberated by solemn vowes Covenants made sworn unto God by all ranks of people to maintain defend this Religion with their lives fortunes and resist all contrary errors corruptions according to their vocation and the uttermost of that power that God puts in their hands all the dayes of their lives As also mutually to defend assist one another as in the National Covenant And sincerely really constantly endeavour the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government the extirpation of Poperie Prelacie c and to assist defend all those that enter into the same bond in the maintaining thereof as in the Solemn League Then to defend maintain that Religion and themselves Professing it when it is sought to be razed This must be an Interest as necessary to be defended as that of our bodies which is far inferiour and as necessary a duty as to defend our Natural Civil Liberties from perpetual slaverie and as preferrable thereunto as Christ Interest is to mans and as the end of all self preservation is to the means of it the preservation of Religion being the end of all self preservation But this duty cannot be discharged without Resistence in a meer Passive subjection submission Otherwise the same might be discharged in our universal submission to Turks coming to destroy our Religion Certainly this Passive way cannot answer the duty of Pleading for Truth Isai. 59. 4. seeking the Truth Ier. 5. 1. being valiant for it Ier. 9. 3. making up the hedge standing in the Gap c. Ezek. 22. 30. which yet are necessary incumbent duties according to our Capacity Therefore we cannot answer the duties we owe to Religion in a meer Passive way 2. The duty we owe to our Covenanted Brethren is to assist defend them and releive them when oppressed as we are bound by our Covenants and antecedently by the Royal Law of Christ the foundation of all Righteousness among men toward
each other Math. 7. 12. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to yow do ye even so to them We would have them helping us when we are oppressed so should we do to them when it is in the power of our hands to do it and not forbear to deliver them for fear the Lord require their blood at our hand Prov. 24. 11 12. But this cannot be done by meer subjection with out Resistence 3. There is no way to free our selves of the sin judgment of Tyrants by meer Passive subjection We find in the Scriptures people have been so involved and punished for the sins of Tyrants As the people of Iudah for Manasseh 2 King. 21. 11. c. Ier. 15. 4. whose sins if they had not been committed the judgments for them had been prevented and if the people had hindered them they had not smarted But being joyntly included with their Rulers in the same bond of fidelity to God and made accountable as joynt Principals with their Kings for that debt by their Mutual as well as Several engagments to walk in His Wayes they were lyable to be punished for their Rebellion Apostasie because they did not hinder it Hence some-what must be done to free our selves of their sin and to escape their Judgments But this can be nothing else but opposition to them by Resistence or else if we make any other opposition it will make us more a prey to their fury II. Secondly this Truth is Confirmed from the Common Practice of the people of God even under Persecution Whence I shall draw an Argument ab Exemplis which to condemn were impious and to deny were most impudent And for formes sake it may run thus What the people of God under both Testaments have frequently done in time of Persecution for defending vindicating or recovering their Religion Liberties may ought to be done again in the like Circumstances when these are in the like hazard But under both Testaments the people of God frequently in times of Persecution have defended vindicated or Recovered their Religion Liberties by defensive Armes Resisting the Soveraign powers that sought to dostroy them Ergo this may ought to be done again when these Religious Civil natural priviledges are in the like hazard to be destroyed by the violent encroachments of the Soveraign powers The Proposition cannot be denyed except by them that do profess themselves enemies to the people of God and condemn their most frequently reiterated practices most solemnly signally ouned of God to the confusion of their enemies to the conviction of the World that the Cause for which they contended was of God and to the encouragment of all the Patrons of such a Cause to hope that when it is at the lowest it shall have a Revival Glorious Issue It is true somtimes they did not Resist when either they were not in a Capacity or did not see a Call to such an Action but were extraordinarly Spirited of the Lord for Passive Testimonies under a suffering dispensation But 't is as true that many times they did Resist when the Lord capacitated called Spirited them for Active Testimonies And therefore if their Suffering under these Circumstances may be imitated by a people so stated Then also their Actions under these other Circumstances may be imitated by a people in the like case And by an impartial Scrutiny it will be found that the examples of their endeavoured Resistence will be litle inferiour if not superiour in number or importance to the examples of their submissive Sufferings in all ages Which will appear in the Probation of the Assumption by adduction of many Instances which I shall only cursorly glean out of that plentiful harvest that Histories afford 1. I need only to glance at that known famous History of the Maccabees of undoubted verity though not of Cannonical Authority In which according to Scripture Predictions we have a notable account of Heroick Interprizes Atchievments Exploits performed by them that knew their God and tendered His Glory and their Religion Countries Liberties above the Common Catechrestick notions of incontrollable irresistible Royaltie and absolute implicite Loyaltie that have abused the world in all ages We have there an account of the noble successful Resistence of a party of a few Godly zealous Patriots without the concurrence of Civil Authority or countenance of the Ephori or Primores regni against a King universally acknowledged subjected unto that came in Peaceably and obtained the Kingdom by flâ—ttâ—ries with whom the greatest part and those of the greatest note took part and did wickedly against the Covenant and Nations Interest and were corrupt by flatteries Yet a few Priests with the concurrence of some common Country-men did go to armes against him and them And the Lord did wonderfully assist them for a considerable time as was foretold by Daniel 11. This fell out under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and was happily begun by Mathias a Godly Priest and his five Sons who being commanded under severe Certifications to Worship according to the then Law and the Kings wicked lust did valiantly resist that abomination and went to defensive armes which while living he Patronized and when adying did encourage his sons to it by a notable Oration shewing what case his Country was in and what a duty dignity it was to redeem deliver it This was vigorously prosecuted by Iudas Maccabeus expressly for the quarrel of Religion Liberty against that mighty Tyrant all his Emissaries 2. To come to the History of the Gospel Dispensation It is true in that time of the Primitive Persecutions under Heathen Emperours this Priviledge of Self Defence was not much improved or contended for by Christians who studied more to play the Martyrs than to play the Men because in these Circumstances the Lord was pleased to Spirit for and call them unto and accept off their hands passive Testimonies while they were incorporate under a Civil relation with the Heathens in subjection to Governours who did not by open Tyrannie overturn their Civil Liberties only did endeavour to eradicate Religion which at that time had never become their Right by Law while they were scattered and out of Capacity and never could come to a separate formed Community by joynt Concurrence Correspondence to undertake a Declared Resistence while Religion was only a propagating through the Nations and the Lord Providentially did preclude the least appearance that might be of propagating it by any formed force being the Gospel of Peace designed to save and not to destroy Yet even then Instances are not wanting of Christians Resisting their Enemies and of Rescuing their Ministers c. As these are found on record 1. How some inhabiting Mareots with force rescued Dyonisiâ—â— of Alexandria out of the hands of such as were carrying him away about the year 235. 2. How about the year 310. the Armenians waged war against
be said then it cannot be an universal Grant or otherwise all Kings must be ordained for plagnes And if so it were better we wanted such nursing fathers 2. Though Mishphat signifies right or Law yet it signifies also and perhaps no less frequently Manner Course or Custome And here it cannot signify the Law of God for all these Acts of Tyranny are contrary to the Law of God for to make Servants of subjects is contrary to the Law of God Deut. 17. 20. forbidding to lift up himself so far above his brethren but this was to deal with them as a proud Pharaoh to take so many for Chariots horsemen is also contrary to the Law Deut. 17. 15. he shall not multiply horses to take their fields vineyards is meer Robbery contrary to the Moral Judicial Law whereof he was to have alwise a Copy vers 18. And contrary to Ezek. 46. 18. The Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance c. This would justify Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard which yet the Lord accounted Robberie and for which Tyrants are called Companions of Thieves Isai. 1. 23. Robbers Isai. 42. 24. into whose hands the Lord somtimes may give His people for a spoyl in Judicial providence but never with His Approbation grant of right to make them cry out â—s oppression which the Lord abhors Isai. 5. 7 8. And if this be all the remedy it is none for it is such a Cry as the Lord threatens He will not hear 3. It is false that this manner of the King was registered in that Book mentioned 1 Sam. 10. 25. for that was the Law of the Kingdom accordingly the Copy of which the King was to have for his instruction containing the fundamental Laws point blank contrary to this which was the manner of the King There is a great difference between the Manner of the Kingdom what ought to be observed as Law and the Manner of the King what he would have as lust Would Samuel write in a Book the rules of Tyranny to teach to oppress contrary to the Law of God He sayes himself he would only teach both King people the good the right way Sam. 12. 23 25. 4. Nothing can be more plain than that this was a meer disswasive against seeking a King for he protests against this Course and then layes before them what sort of King he should be in a description of many acts of Tyranny and yet in end its said vers 19. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel and said Nay but we will have a King. Now what else was the voice of Samuel than a disswasion I am not here levelling this Argument against Monarchy in the abstract that does not lie in my road But I infer from hence 1. If God was displeased with this people for asking ouning a King who was only Tyrannus in fieri and disswades from the choise by a description of his future Tyranny Then Certainly He was displeased with them when they continued ouning him when a Tyrant in facto esse according to that description But the former is true Therefore also the latter The Consequence is clear for Continuing in sin is sin but continuing in ouning that Tyrant which was their sin at first was a continuing in sin Ergo The Minor is confirmed thus Continuing in counteracting the Motives of Gods disswasion especially when they are sensibly visible is a Continuing in sin But their Continuing in ouning Saul after he became a Tyrant was a Continuing in counteracting the Motives of Gods disswasion when they were sensibly visible I do not say because it was their sin to ask Soul therefore it was not Lawful to oune him while he ruled as a Magistrate And so if Charles the second had ruled righteously it would not have been sin to oune him but after the Lord uses disswasives from a choise of such a one and these are signally verified if it was sin to make the choise then it must be sin to keep it 2. If it was their sin to seek set up such a one before he was Tyrant who yet was admitted upon Covenant terms and the manner of it registered Then much more is it a sin to seek set up one after he declared himself a Tyrant and to admit him without any terms at all or for any to consent or give their suffrage to such a deed But the former is true Therefore the latter and Consequently to give our consent to the erection of the D. of Y. by ouning his Authority were our sin 3. If it be a sin to oune the manner of the King there described then it is a sin to oune the present pretended Authority which is the exact transumpt of it But it is a sin to oune the manner of the King there described or else it would never have been used as a disswasive from seeking such a King. 4. To bring our selves under such a burden which the Lord will not remove and involve our selves under such a miserie wherein the Lord will not hear us is certainly a sin vers 18. But to oune or chuse such a King whose manner is there described would bring our selves under such a burden miserie wherein the Lord would not hear us Ergo it were our sin 4. We may adde the necessary Qualifications of Magistrates which the Lord requires to be in all both Superior Inferior And thence it may be inserred that such pretended Rulers who neither have nor can have these Qualifications are not to be ouned as Magistrates no more than such are to be ouned as Ministers who have no qualifications for such a function We find their essentially necessary qualifications particularly described Iethros Counsel was Gods Counsel Command That Rulers must be able men such as fear God men of Truth hating Covetousness Exod. 18. 21. Tyrants Usurpers have none nor can have any of these qualifications except that they may have ability of force which is not here meant but that they be Morally able for the discharge of their duty Surely they cannot fear God nor be men of Truth for then they would not be Tyrants It is Gods direction that the man to be advanced assumed to Rule must be a man in whom is the Spirit Numb 27. 18. as is said of Ioshua what Spirit this was Deut. 34. 9. explains He was full of the Spirit of Wisdom that is the Spirit of Government not the Spirit of infernal or Iesuitical Policy which Tyrants may have but they cannot have the true Regal Spirit but such a Spirit as Saul had when he turned Tyrant an evil Spirit from the Lord. Moses saith they must be wise men understanding and known among the tribes Deut. 1. 13. for if they be Children or fools they are plagues punishments Isai. 3. 2 3 4. c. not Magistrates who are alwise blessings And they must be known men of intergrity not known to be
knaves or fools as all Tyrants are alwayes The Law of the King is Deut 17. 15. he must be one of the Lords choosing Can Tyrants Usurpers be such No they are set up but not by Him Hos. 8. 4. he must be a brother not a stranger that is of the same Nation and of the same Religion for though infidelity does not make void a Magistrates Authority yet both by the Law of God man he ought not to be chosen who is an enemy to Religion Liberty Now it were almost treason to call the Tyrant a brother and I am sure it is no reason for he disdains it being absolute above all That good Kings Testament confirms this the God of Israel said the Rock of Israel spake he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God 2 Sam. 23. 3. But Tyrants Usurpers cannot be just for if they should render every one their right they would keep none to themselves but behoved to resign their Robberies in the first place and then also they must give the Law its course and that against themselves These Scriptures indeed do not prove that all Magistrates are in all their Administrations so qualified nor that none ought to be ouned but such as are so qualified in all respects But as they demonstrate what they ought to be so they prove that they cannot be Magistrates of Gods ordaining who have none of these qualifications But Tyrants Usurpers have none of these qualifications Much more do they prove that they cannot be ouned to be Magistrats who are not capable of any of these qualifications But Usurpers are not capable of any of these qualifications At least they conclude in so far as they are not so qualfied they ought not to be ouned but disouned But Tyrants Usurpers are not so qualified in any thing therefore in any thing they are not to be ouned but disouned for in nothing they are so qualified as the Lord prescribes Secondly I shall offer some reasons from Scripture Assertions 1. It is strongly Asserted in Elihu's speech to Iob that he that hateth right should not govern Where he is charging Iob with blasphemie in accusing God of injustice of which he vindicates the Almighty in Asserting His Soveraignity Absolute Dominion which is inconsistent with injustice and shewes both that if He be Soveraign He cannot be unjust and if He be unjust He could not be Soveraign which were horrid Blasphemy to deny And in the demonstration of this he gives one Maxime in a question which is equivalent to an universal negative Iob. 34. 17 18. Shall even he that hateth right govern and wilt thow condemn him that is most just Is it fit to say to a King thow art wicked and to Princes ye are ungodly In which Words the Scope makes it clear that if Iob made God a hater of right he should then deny His Government and if he took upon him to condemn Him of injustice he should blasphemously deny Him to be King of the World. For it is not fit to say to any King that he is wicked or so ungodly as to be a hater of right for that were treason Lese-Majestie and in effect a denying him to be King much less is it fit to say to Him that is King of Kings Here then it is affirmed supposed to hold good of all Governours that he that hateth right should not govern or bind as it is in the Margent for â—abash signifies both to bind and to Govern but all to one sense for Governours only can bind subjects Authoritatively with the bonds of Laws Punishments I know the following Words are alledged to favour the incontroulableness absoluteness of Princes that it is not fit to say to them they are wicked But plain it is the words do import treason against Lawful Kings whom to call haters of right were to call their Kingship in question as the Scope shewes in that these words are adduced to Justify the Soveraignity of God by His Justice and to confute any indirect charging Him with injustice because that would derogate from His Kingly Glory it being impossible He could be King unjust too So in some Analogy though every act of injustice do not unking a Prince yet to call him wicked that is habitually unjust and a hater of Justice were as much as to say he is no King which were intollerable treason against Lawful Kings But this is no treason against Tyrants for Truth Law can be no treason now this is the language of Truth Law that wicked Kings are wicked And they that are wicked ungodly ought to be called so as Samuel called Saul and Elijah Ahab c. However it will hold to be a true Maxime whether we express it by way of Negation or Interrogation Shall even he that hateth right Govern But are not Tyrants Usurpers haters of right shall therefore they Govern I think it must be answered they should not Govern. If then they should not Govern I infer they should not be ouned as Governours For if it be their sin to Govern right or wrong it s all one case for they should not Govern at all then it is our sin to oune them in their Government for it is alwise a sin to oune a man in his sinning 2. The Royal Prophet or whoever was the Penman of that Appeal for Justice against Tyranny Psal. 94. 20. does tacitely Assert the same truth in that Expostulation shall the Throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee that frameth mischief by a Law which is as much as if he had said the Throne of iniquity shall not no cannot have fellowship with God that is it cannot be the Throne of God that He hath any Interest in or Concern with by way of approbation He hath nothing to do with it except it be to suffer it a while till He take vengeance on it in the end And shall we have fellowship with that Throne that God hath no fellowship with and that is not His Throne but the Devils as it must be if God doth not oune it Much may be argued from hence but in a word A Throne which is not of God nor ordained of God but rather of the Devil cannot be ouned for that is the reason of our subjection to any power because it is of God and ordained of God Rom. 13. 1. And that is the great dignity of Magistracy that its Throne is the Throne of God 1 Chron. 29. 23. But a Throne of Tyrannie usurpation is a Throne which is not of God nor ordained of God but rather of the Devil Ergo the Minor is proved A Throne of iniquity c. is a Throne which is not of God nor ordained of God but rather of the Devil But a Throne of Tyranny usurpation is a Throne of iniquity Ergo it is not of God so not to be ouned 3. The Lord charges it upon Israel as