have acquired do seek the praise of Justice by injury of Liberality by robbery So he can make some shew of a Civil mind but so much the less assurance gives he of it that it is manifest he intends not thereby the subjects good but the greater security of his oun lusts and stability of empire over posterity having some what Mitigated the peoples hatred which when he hath done he will turn back again to his old manners for the fruit which is to follow may easily be known both by the seed and by the sower thereof An exact Copy of this we have seen within these tuo years as oft before in the rule of the other Brother After God hath been robbed of His prerogatives the Church of her Priviledges the State of its Lawes the Subjects of their Libertie property he is now affecting the praise captating the Applause of tenderness to conscience and Love of Peace by offering now Liberty after all his Cruelties wherein all the thinking part of men do discern he is prosecuting that hellish Project introducing Popery slaverie and overturning Religion Law Liberty 3. Regium imperium secundum Naturam est Tyrannicum contra Regium Liberi inter Liberos est Principatus Tyrannus domini in servas c. Tyranny is against Nature and a Masterly Principality over slaves Can he be called a father who accounts his subjects slaves or a Shepherd who does not feed but devours his flock or a Pilot who doth allwise study to make shipwrack of the goods and strikes a leak in the very ship where he sails what is he then that bears Command not for the peoples advantage but studies only himself who leadeth his subjects into manifest snares he shall not verily be accounted by me either Commander Emperour or Governour King Iames the 6 th also in a speech to the Parliament anno 1609. makes this one Character of a Tyrant when he begins to invade his subjects rights Liberties And if this be true then we have not had a King these many years the foregoing deduction will demonstrate what a slavery we have been under 4. Quid qui non de virtute certet câ—m bonis c. What is he then who doth not contend for vertue with the good but to exceed the most flagitious in vices If yow see then any usurping the Royal name and not excelling in any virtue but striving to exceed all in baseness not tendering his subjects good with native affection but pressing them with proud domination esteeming the people committed to his trust not for their safegaurd but for his oun gain will yow imagine this man is truly a King albeit he vapours with a numerous Lieveguard and makes an ostentation of gorgeous Pomp The learned Althusius likewise in his Politicks cap. 38. Num. 15. as He is cited by Ius Populi chap. 16. Pag. 347. makes this one Character of a Tyrant that liveing in Luxury whoredome greed idleness he neglecteth or is unfit for his office How these suite our times we need not express what effrontry of impudence is it for such monsters to pretend to rule by virtue of any Authority derived from God who pollute the world with their Adulteries Incests and Live in open defyance of all the Lawes of the universal King with whom to exceed in all villanies is the way to purchase the Countenance of the Court and to aspire to preferment No Heliogabulus c. could ever come up the length in wickedness that our Rulers have professed 5. Omnium vim Legum in se transferre c. He can transfer unto himself the strength of all Lawes and abrogate them when he pleases King Iames the 6. in that fore-cited speech saith a King degenerateth into a Tyrant when he leaveth to rule by Law. Althusius also loc cit saith there is one kind of Tyranny which consisteth in violating changing or removing of fundamental Lawes specially such as concern Religion such saith he Philip the King of Spain who contrare to the fundamental Belgick Lawes did erect an administration of Justice by force of armes and such was Charles the 9 th of France that thought to overturn the Salicque Law. All that knoweth what hath been done in Britain these 27 years can attest our Lawes have been subverted the Reformation of Religion overturned and all our best Lawes rescinded and now the Penal Statuts against Papists disabled stopped without against Law. 6. Ad suum eum unius nutum omnia c. He can revoke all things to his nod at his pleasure This is also one part of King Iames the 6 his Character of a Tyrant when he sets upon arbitrary power And of Althusius loc cit when he makes use of an absolute Power and so breaks all bonds for the good of humane Society We allow a King an absolute power taken in a good sense that is he is not subaltern nor subordinate to any other Prince but supreme in his oun dominions or if by absolute be meant Perfect he is most absolute that governs best according to the word of God. But if it be to be Legibus solutus loosed from all Lawes we thinke it blasphemy to ascribe it to any Creature Where was there ever such an arbitrary absolute power arrogated by any Mortal as hath been claimed by our Rulers these years past especially by the present Usurper who in this Liberty of conscience now granted to Scotland assumes to himself an absolute power which all are to obey without reserve which carries the subjects slavery many stages beyond what ever the Grand Seigneur did attempt 7. Tyranno ad cives opprumendos c. For by a Tyrant strangers are imployed to oppress the subjects They place the establishment of ther Authority in the peoples weakness and think that a Kingdom is not a Procuration concredited to them by God but rather a prey fallen into their hands Such are not joined to us by any Civil bond or any bond of humanity but should be accounted the most Capital enemies of God and of all men King Iames ub supra sayes he is a Tyrant that imposes un Lawful Taxes raises forces makes war upon his subjects to Pillage Plnnder wast spoil his Kingdoms Althusins ubi supra makes a Tyrant who by immoderate exactions and the like exhausts the subjects and cites Scripture Ier. 22. 13. 14. Ezek. 34. 1 King. 12. 19. Psal. 14. 4. It is a famous saying of Bracton He is no longer King then dum bene regit while he rules well but a Tyrant when-soever he oppresseth the people that are trusted to his Care Government And Cicero sayes amittitis omne exceritus imperit jiu qui eo imperio exercitâ— Rempublicans oppugnat He loseth all legal power in over an Army or Empire who by that Government army does obstruct the wel-fare of that republick What oppressions exactions by armed force our Nation hath been wasted with in part is
same subject both in Thesi Hypothesi whosoever shall offer to rule Arbitrarly does immediatly cease to be King de jure seeing by the fundamental Common statute-Statute-Laws of the Realme we know none for Supreme Magistrate Governour but a limited Prince and one who stands circumscribed bounded in his power Prerogative Ill effects of animosities Pag. 17. 7. From what is said this is the result that it is essentially necessary to a Moral power Authority to have a right title without which we can oune none but as a Tyrant sine Titulo For what is Authority but a right to rule if then it have not a right it is not Authority This will be undeniable if we consider that as Private dominon or Property consists in a right to enjoy So Publick dominion in a right to rule Some things indeed are exposed to the common arbitrary use of every man and also at the begining by reason of the fewness of mankind Dominion was not reduced to distinct Property yet now upon the Multiplication of Occupants of necessity it must be stated by peculiar appropriation from the Law of Nature and by the Grant of the Supreme King who hath given the earth to the Children of men Psal. 115. 16 not to be catched up as the food of beasts which the stronger seise and the weaker get only what the other leave them but divided by right as an Inheritance by Him who separated the Sons of Adam and set the bounds of the People Deut. 32. 8. Especially Publick Dominion cannot be without a foundation for its relation to the subjected and must be so tied up that it may be said this man is to command and these are to obey I shew that Authority is from God both by Institution Constitution so that the Subjects are given to understand such an one is singled out by God to sustain this Authority by prescribing a rule for mens entry into the Authoritative relation whereby He communicates that power to them which is not in others and which otherwise would not be in them Hence it is that Orderly admittance that must give the right and upon mens having or not having such an entrance to it depends the reality or nullity of the power they challenge Where therefore there is no Lawful Investure there is no Moral power to be ouned otherwise Iohn of Leyden his Authority might have been ouned the unlawfulness of such a power consists in the very tenore it self and if we take away the use or holding of it we take away the very being of it it is not then the abuse of a power Lawfully to be used but the very use of it is unlawful But in the Usurpation of this Man or Monster rather that is now mounted the Throne there is no Lawful investure in the way God hath appointed as is shewed above Ergo there is no Moral power to be ouned To clear this alitle further it will be necessary to remove the ordinary Prentences pleaded for a Title to warrant the ouning of such as are in power Which are three chiefly viz. Possession Conquest and Hereditary Succession The first must be touched more particularly because it hath been the originate error spring of all the stupid mistakes about Government and is the pitiful plea of many even Malecontents why this Mans Authority is to be ouned asserting that a person attaining occupying the place of power by whatsoever means is to be ouned as the Magistrate But this can give no right for 1. If Providence cannot signify Gods approbative ordination it can give no right for without that there can be no right But Providence cannot signify His approbative Ordination because that without the warrant of His Word cannot signify either allowance or dissallowance it is so various being often the same to Courses directly contrary and oftentimes contrary to the same Course sometimes favouring it sometimes crossing it whether it be good or bad And the same Common Providence may proceed from far different Purposes to one in Mercy to another in Judgment And most frequently very disproportionable to mens wayes Providence places sometimes wickedness in the place of Iudgment and iniquity in the place of righteousness Eccless 3. 16. that is not by allowance By Providence it happens to the just according to the work of the wicked and to the wicked according to the work of the righteous Eccless 8. 14. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them all things come alike to all there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked Eccel 9. 1. It were a great debasing of the Lords anointed to give him no other warrant then sin hath in the world or the falling of a Sparrow 2. Either every Providential Possession in every ease gives a title Or God hath Declared it as a Law that it shall be so in this particular matter of Authority only The first cannot be said for that would justify all robbery Nor the second for where is that Law found Nay it were impious to alledge it for it would say there is no unjust Possessor or Disorderly occupant but if he were once in the Possession he were right enough And then Usurpation would be no sin 3. If none of the Causes of Magistracy be required to the producing of this Possessory power then it cannot give or have any right for without the true Causes it cannot be the true effect and so can have no true right to be ouned But none of the Causes of Magistracy are required to the production of this neither the Institution of God for this might have been if Magistracy had never been instituted Nor the Constitution of men for this may usurp without that 4. That which must follow upon the right and be Legitimated by it cannot be ouned as the right nor can it give the title But the Possession of the power or the Possessory exercise thereof must follow upon its right and be legitimated by it Ergo A man must first be in the relation of a Ruler before he can rule and men must first be in the relation of subjects before they obey The Commands of Publick Justice to whom are they given but to Magistrats They must then be Magistrats before they can be ouned as the Ministers of Justice he must be a Magistrate before he can have the power of the Sword he cannot by the power of the Sword make himself Magistrate 5. That which would make every one in the Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant can not be ouned But a Possessory occupation giving right would make every one in Possession a Tyrant for that which enervats takes away that necessary Distinction between the Kings personal Capacity his Legal Capacity his natural his moral power will make every King a Tyrant seeing
is not illegitimate and unto which resistence is forbidden for the fear of God and for conscience sake and therefore he is no further to be looked at than as an enemy This is so pat pertinent to the present possessor of the Government that no words can more particularly apply it 6. Grotius de jure belli Lib. 1. c. 4. granteth the Law of not resisting does not bind when the danger is most weighty certain And we do not plead for it in any other case And further he sayes The Law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them who first combined together into societie and from whom such as did command did derive their power Now if it had been asked of such whether they would chuse to die rather than in any case to resist the Superior with Armes I know not if they would have yeelded thereto unless with this addition if they could not be resisted but with the greatest perturbation of the Common-wealth destruction of many Innocents And afterwards he hath these words Attamen indiscriminatim damâ—are aut singulos aut partem minorem quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur ut interim communis boni respectum non deseruit vix ausim From which we need make no inference the Concession is so large that it answers our case 7. The Surveyer of Naphtali in the place above cited grants Legal self defence against the Soveraign by way of plea in Court for safety of a mans person or estate as also in the case of most habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known Legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law And in case of his not being in his natural right wits Hence 1 If it be Lawful to resist the King by a Plea in Law for an Estate yea the Law will allow by actual force if he come to take possession of it illegally Then it must be Lawful for their lives estates Liberties Religion to resist him by force when the Legal resistence is not admitted But the former is yeelded here Ergo The reason of the Connexion is The Municipal Law permits the one and the Law of Nature Nations which no Municipal Law can infringe will warrand the other He hath no more right to be both Judge Party in this case more than in the other And he can no more act as Soveraign in this case than in the other 2 If it be Lawful to resist habited notour Complete Tyranny against Law to the destruction of the body of a people and of all known legal Liberties and the being of Religion according to Law Then we desire no more to conclude the duty of resisting this Tyranny exerced this 27 years habitually which the desolation of many hindered families the banishment of many hundreds to slavery the rivers of blood c. have made Notour to all Scotland at least and the perversion of all the fundamental Laws and all Civil Religious Liberties yea the subversion of every remaining Model of Our Religion as Reformed Covenanted to be preserved in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government and designs to introduce Popery establish Arbitrary Government have made Complete But the former is here granted Ergo 3 If in the case of his being out of his wits he should run upon an innocent man to kill him or attempt to cut his oun throat it were then Lawful to resist him yea a sin not to do it Then when in a rage oâ— deliberately he is seeking to destroy many hundreds of the people of God he may be resisted But the former is clear Ergo 8. King Iames the Sixth in his Remonstrance for the right of Kings against the Oration of Cardinal Perron hath these words The publick Laws makes it Lawful and free for any private person to enterprize against an Usurper of the Kingdom Then shall it not be duty to enterprize against a man who by the Laws of the Land is not capable of a right to reign who hath got into the Throne by the means of Murder and can pretend no right but that of Succession which I proved to be none Head. 2. However we see by these Concessions of Adversaries that the Absolute subjection they talk of will not hold nor the prerogative be so incontrollable in every case as they would pretend and that in many cases Salus populi hath the Supremacy above it And that also in these cases the people must be Judges whether they may resist or not 2. From the Law of Nature I may argue 1. If God the fountain of all power and Author of all Right hath given unto man both the power and the right of and reason to manage self defence and hath no wayes interdicted it in His Word to be put forth against Tyrants Then it is duty to use it against them upon occasion But the former is true Ergo 2. If this power right were restrained in man against the unjust violence of any it would either be by Policy or Grace or some express prohibition in the Word of God But none of these can be said Ergo Policy cannot destroy nature but is rather cumulative to it A man entering into a Politick Incorporation does not lose the priviledge of nature If one particular nature may defend it self against destroying violence out of Societie then must many of these Natures combined in Societie have the same right and so much the more that their relative duties superadde an obligation of mutual assistence Grace does not restrain the right of sinless nature though it restrains corruption but self defence is no corruption Grace makes a man more a man than he was And nothing can be more dishonourable to the Gospel than that by the Law of Nature it is Lawful to resist Tyrants but we are bound by Religion from withstanding their Cruelty The Laws of God do not interfâ—â—e â—ne with another 3. That Law which alloweth comparative re-offending so as to kill rather than be killed teacheth Resistence But so the Law of Nature alloweth except we be guilty or Murder in the culpable omission of self defence The reason is because the love of self is nearer and greater as to temporal life than the love of our Neighbour that being the measure of this Therefore it obliges rather to kill than be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring 4. If nature put no difference between the violence of a Tyrant than of another man then it teaches to Resist both alike But it putteth no difference but rather aggravates that of a Tyrant being the violence of a man the injustice of a member of the Common-wealth the cruelty of a Tyrant And it were absurd to say we might defend our selves from the lesser violence not from the greater 5. If particular Nature must yeeld to the good of Universal nature then must one man though in
fictionibus sese liceat involvere i. e. Whither the confiscation of goods can be sought back again from a Prince in the name and behalf of these who are forfaulted for Religion to which he Answers that it is certain it cannot be done without sin for the new right or the de novo damus as we call it granted by the Prince doeth really contain open blasphemies against the glory of God because therein mention is made of errors crims divine lese-Majestie whereof the condemned are found guilty which new right most in Law be exhibited by him who intendeth to use the same and that is a certain kind of approbation no ways to be tolerat Wherfore I see not that it is Lawfull for a Godly man rightly instructed in the Gospel to involve himself into such fictions 2. From the Fountain Conveyance whence they proceed the iniquity of these payments might be concluded which is nothing else than that Arbitrary Power domineering over us and oppressing overpressing the Kingdoms with intolerable Exactions which to pay is all the consent Concurrence required of us to entail slaverie on the posterity I mean to pay it out of submission only to the Moral force of its Imposition which is all the justification required of that absolute Tyranny imposing it For we have the Testimony of a King for it K. Iames Speech to the Parliament anno 1609. that a King degenerateth into a Tyrant when he leaveth to rule by Law much more when he begins to set up an Arbitrary Power impose unlawful Taxes c. It can be denyed by none that know either Religion or Liberty and are not enemies to both that these Impositions under consideration upon such accounts for such ends are as unlawful Taxes and as illegally and arbitrarily imposed as ever could demonstrate the most Despotical Absoluteness Paramount to all Law or precedent but that of Benhadad of a very Tyrannical strain Thus saith Benhadad thy silver thy gold is mine yet I will send my Servants and they shall search thine house and it shall be that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes they shall put in their hand take it away 1 King. 20. 3 6. which even an Ahab and his Elders would not hearken to nor consent But from an Exotick Dominator this were not so intollerable as from such as pretend an hereditary right to Govern who should remove violence spoyl and take away their Exactions from the Lords people as the Lord saith Ezek. 45. 9. but instead of that that they may do evil with both hands earnestly the Prince asketh and the Iudge asketh for a reward and the great man uttereth his mischievous desire so they wrap it up Mic. 7. 3. The easie Complyance with which makes Zion as the grape gleanings of the vintage If those Exactions be wicked then Complyance with them must be iniquity For it justifies the Court that enacts exacts them a paâ—qued Iunctâ— of a prevalent faction made up of perjured Traitors in a Course of enmity against God and the Country who to prosecute the War against the Almighty and root out all His people out of the Land condescend upon these Cesses Fynes c. as a fit adapted Medium thereunto Wherefore of necessity all that would not oune that Conclusion as their oun deed in these Representatives and oune them as their Representatives in that deed must bear witness against the same by a Refusal to oune the debt or pay the same But I shall conclude this with observing 1 The holy remarkable righteousness of the Lord that we who would not contend earnestly for the Liberty of the Gospel who would not acquit our selves like men in witnessing our Loyaltie to Christ were not fixed in our Engagements nor stedfast in holding the Liberties wherewith Christ hath made us free did not reclaim nor reluctate when we saw our Royal Masters Prerogative invaded should be trode upon in all Civills and treated as Slaves even by these whom we had gratified with a base sinful forbearance to plead for God and preserve from their violence these things these precious invaluable things which we should have kept more tenderly than the apple of our eye O the relucency of this Righteousness in making the Gods whom we have served smite us and in making them whose interest we minded with a misregard Perjury-involving neglect of the Interest of Christ thus to destroy our poor pitiful Interests And thus having taught them to be Captains over us we must now sit in the house of bondage in our Land. 2 Who will not adore admire the Righteousness of the Lord particularly in leaving some of these to be designedly trode upon who not only were involved in the common guilt of not with-standing these Encroachments but first went a great way in concuring to the making of these wicked Laws And now have been made to lye under the load laid upon their loyns by the hands of such to whom they gave the hand in overturning the Work of God Why should not they be spoyled Why should not the young Lyons roar upon them and make their Land wast Why should not men of the same mettal soul with the Children of Noph Tahapanes break the Crown of their head or feed upon their Crown who have sold set the Crown of Christ upon anothers head and concured to crush His faithful Remnant O let us learn to read revere Let us not be wheedled with we know not what out of our good old Principles into the espousing the Interest or embarquing into the same bottom with men of such Principles Practices And whoso is wise and will observe these things even they shall understand the loving kindness of the Lord Great loving kindness that He hath shewed to his poor Remnant in delivering us from deliverances by such Deliverers whereby the work had been more really and more shamefully ruined and the hope of the posterity more certainly razed 3. From the declared Ends of all of them declared either verbally or virtually and indisputably universally known To wit that by such Exactions they might be enabled to maintain prosecute the National Rebellion against Christ and root out His Gospel and all the faithful Preachers Professors thereof These designs being notour and the Impositions demanded being the best expedients and most adapted means to attain them it cannot but be manifest that whosoever complyes with the means do cooperate with the ends Which if any thing will involve the Complyers in the Contrivers sin and make the Payers obnoxious to the Enacters judgments If they that take rewards to slay Innocents be lyable to a Curse Deut. 27. 25. they cannot be free who give them They cannot say Amen to it who so cooperate to the effectuating the slaughter If any thing make Zion lyable to be plowed as a field when the heads thereof judge for reward Mic. 3. 11 11. it must be
Clergy as he shall nominate in the external Government of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide effectual And in the same Act all Lawes are rescinded by which the sole power Jurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church Assemblies And all which may be interpreted to have given any Church power Jurisdiction or Government to the Office bearers of the Church other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon subordination to the Soveraign power of the King as Supreme By which Prelats are redintegrated to all their priviledges preheminencies that they possessed anno 1637. And all their Church power robbed from the Officers of Christ is made to be derived from to depend upon and to be subordinate to the Croun prerogative of the King whereby the King is made the only fountain of Church power and that exclusive even of Christ of whom there is no mentioned exception And his vassals the Bishops as his Clerks in Ecclesiastiks are accountable to him for all their administrations A greater usurpation upon the Kingdom of Christ than ever the Papacy it self aspired unto Yet albeit here was another display of a banner of defyance against Christ in altering the Church Government of Christs Institution into the humane Invention of Lordly Prelacy in assuming a power by prerogative to dispose of the external Government of the Church and in giving his Creatures patents for this effect to be his Administrators in that usurped Government There was no publick Ministerial at least united Testimony against this neither Therefore the Lord punished this sinful shamful silence of Ministers in His holy Justice though by mens horrid wickedness when by another wicked Act of the Council at Glasgow above 300 Ministers were put from their Charges and afterwards for their Non-conformity in not Countenancing their Diocesan Meeting and not keeping the Anniversary day May 29. The rest were violently thrust from their labours in the Lords vineyard and banished from their Parishes and adjudged unto a nice strange Confinement twenty miles from their oun parishes six miles from a Cathedral Church as they called it and three miles from a Burgh whereby they were reduced in to many inconveniencies Yet in this fatal Convulsion of the Church generally all were struck with blindness baseness that a Paper-Proclamation made them all run from their posts and obey the Kings Orders for their ejection Thus were they given up because of their forbearing to sound an alarm charging the people of God in point of Loyaltie to Christ and under the pain of the Curse of the Covenant to a wake and acquit themselves like men and not to suffer the enemie to rob them of that Treasure of Reformation which they were put in possession of by the tears prayers blood of such as went before them instead of those prudential fumblings fisflings then since so much followed Wherefore the Lord in His holy righteousness left that enemie against whom they should have cried contended and to whose eye they should have held the Curse of the Covenant as having held it first to their oun in case of unfaithful silence in not holding it to his to cast them out of the House of the Lord and dissolve their Assemblies and deprive them of their priviledges because of their not being so valiant for the Truth as that a ful faithful Testimony against that Encroachment might be found upon record Nevertheless somewere found faithful in that hour pour of darkness who kept the Word of the Lords patience and who were therefore kept in from that tentation which carried many away into sad shamful defections though not from suffering hard things from the hands of men only these who felt most of their violence found grace helping them to acquit themselves suitably to that dayes Testimony being thereby prevented from an Active yeelding to their impositions when they were made passively to suffer force However that season of a publick Testimony was lost and as to the most part never recovered to this day The Prelats being settled readmitted to voice in Parliament they procure an Act Dogmatically condemning several Material parts points of our Covenanted Reformation to wit these positions That it was lawful for Subjects for Reformation or necessary self defence to enter into leagues or take up Armes against the King And particularly declaring that the national Covenant as explained in the year 1638. and the Solemn league Covenant were are iâ— themselves unlawful Oaths and were taken by imposed upon the subjects of this Kingdom against the fundamental Lawes Liberties thereof That all such gatherings petitions that were used in the begining of the late troubles were unlawful seditious And whereas then People were led unto these things by having disseminated among them such principles as these That it was lawful to come with petitions Representations of grievances to the King That it was lawful for people to restrict their Allegiance under such such limitations and suspend it untill he should give security for Religion c. It was therefore enacted that all such positions practices founded thereupon were treasonable And furder did enact that no person by writing praying preaching or malicious or advised speaking express or publish any words or sentences to stir up the people to the dislike of the Kings prerogative Supremacy or of the Government of the Church by Bishops or justifie any of the deeds actings or things declared against by that Act. Yet not withstanding of all this subversion of Religion Liberty and restraint of asserting these Truths here trampled upon either before men by Testimony or before God in mourning over these Indignities done unto Him in everting these all the parts of Reformation even when it came to Daniels case of confession preaching praying Truths interdicted by Lavv fevv had their eyes open let be their vvindovvs in an open avouching them to see the duty of the day calling for a Testimony Though aftervvards the Lord Spirited some to assert demonstrate the Glory of these Truths duties to the vvorld As that Judicious Author of the Apologetical Relation vvhose Labours need no Elagium to commend them But this is not all for these men having novv as they thought subverted the Work of God they provided also against the fears of its revival making Acts declaring that if the outed Ministers dare to continue to preach and presume to exercise their Ministrie they should be punished as seditious persons requiring of all a due acknowledgment of hearty complyance with the Kings Government Ecclesiastical Civil And that who soever shall ordinarly wilfully withdraw absent from the ordinary Meetings for Divine Worship in their ouâ— Churches on the Lords day shall incur the Penalties there insert Thus the sometimes Chast Virgin whose name was Beulah to the Lord the Reformed Church
Antichrists Interest And therefore having gotten the Supremacy devolved upon him by Law for which also he had the Popes dispensation to take it to himself for the time under promise to restore surrender it to him as soon as he could attain his end by it as the other Brother succeeding hath now done he would now exert that usurped power and work by infnaring policy to effectuate the end which he could not do by other means Therefore seeing he was not able to suppress the Meetings of the Lords people for Gospel Ordinances in house fields but that the more he laboured by violent courses the greater more frequent they grew he fell upon a more Craftie device not only to overthrow the Gospel and suppress the Meetings but to break the faithful and to divide between the Mad-cap the Moderate Fanaticks as they phrased it that he might the more easily destroy both to confirm the usurpation and to settle people in a sinful silence stupid submission to all the Incroachments made on Christs Prerogatives and more effectually to overturn what remained of the Work of God. And knowing that nothing could more fortifie the Supremacy than Ministers their homologating acknowledging it Therefore he offerd the first Indulgence Anno 1669. Signifying in a Letter dated that year Iune 7. His gracious pleasure was to appoint so many of the outed Ministers as have lived peaceably orderly to return to preach exercise other functions of the Ministrie in the Paroch Churches where they formerly served provided they be vacant and to allow Patrons to present to other vacant Churches such others of them as the Council should approve That all who are so Indulged be enjoyned to keep Presbytries and the Refusers to be confined within the bounds of their paroches And that they be enjoined not to admitt any of their neighbour Paroches unto their Communions nor Baptize their Children nor marry any of them without the allowance of the Minister of the Paroch and if they Countenance the people deserting their oun Paroches they are to be silenced for shorter or longer time or altogether turned out as the Council shall see cause And upon Complaint made verified of any Seditious discourse or expressions in the Pulpit uttered by any of the Ministers they are immediatly to be turned out and further punished according to Law And seeing by these orders all Pretences for Conventickles were taken away if any should be found hereafter to Preach without Authority or keep Conventickles his Pleasure is to proceed with all severity against them as Seditious persons Contemners of Authority To salve this in point of Law because it was against former Lawes of their oun and to make the Kings Letter the supreme Law afterwards and a valid ground in Law where upon the Council might proceed enact and execute what the King pleased in Matters Ecclesiastick he therefore caused frame a formal Statutory Act of Supremacy of this Tenor. That his Maj. hath the supreme Authority Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastick within his dominions and that by virtue thereof the ordering disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong to him his successors as an Inherent right to the Croun And that he may settle enact emitt such Constitutions Acts Orders concerning the Administrating therof and Persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings Matters to be proposed determined therein as he in his Royal wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders Constitutions are to be observed obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects any Law act or custom to the contrary notwithstanding Where upon accordingly the Council in their Act Iuliâ— 27. 1669. do nominate several Ministers and appoint them to Preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie at their respective Churches there specified with Consent of the Patrons The same day also they conclude enact the forementioned Restrictions conform to the Kings Letter above rehearsed And ordain them to be intimat to every person who is by Authority foresaid allowed the exercise of the Ministrie These Indulged Ministers having that Indulgence given only upon these termes that they should accept these Injunctions and having received it upon these termes also as an essential part of the bargain Condition on which the Indulgence was granted accepted as many following Proclamations did expressly declare do Appoint Mr Hutcheson one of the number to declare so much In Acknowledging his Maj. favour Clemency in granting that Liberty after so long a restraint And however they had received their Ministrie from Jesus Christ with full Prescriptions from Him for regulating them therein yet nothing could be more refreshing on earth to them than to have free Liberty for the exercise of their Ministrie under the Protection of Lawful Authority And so they purposed to be have themselves in the discharge of the Ministrie with that wisdom that became faithful Ministers and to demean themselves towards Lawful Authority notwithstanding of their known judgment in Church affairs as wel becometh Loyal subjects And their prayer to God should be that the Lord should bless his Maj. in his person Government and the Council in the publick administration and especially in the Pursuance of his Maj. mind in his Letter wherein his singular moderation eminently appears Afterwards they issued out Proclamations reinforcing the punctual observation of the forementioned Injunctions and delivered them into the Indulged In the mean time though Cruel Acts Edicts were made against the Meetings of the Lords people in houses the fields after all these Midianitish wyles to suppress them such was the presence of the Lord in these Meetings and so powerful was His Countenance Concurrence with the Labours of a few who laid out themselves to hold up the Standart of Christ that the number of Converts multiplyed dayly to the praise of free Grace and to the great encouragment of the few hands that wrestled in that Work through all humane discouragment Therefore King Council was put to a new shift which they supposed would prove more effectual To wit because there was a great number of Non-conformed Ministers not yet Indulged who either did or might hereafter hold Conventickles therefore to remeed or prevent this in time coming they appoint ordain them to such places where Indulged Ministers were settled there to be confined with allowance to Preach as the Indulged should employ them thinking by this means to incapacitate many to hold Meetings there or elswere And to these also they give injunctions restrictions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie And to the end that all the outed Ministers might be brought under restraint and the Word of God be kept under bonds by another Act of Council they Command that all other Ministers not Disposed of as is said were either to repair to the Paroch Churches where
that endeavour the defect of which through their former supineness gave no small encouragment to the Enemies They considered also what would be the consequence of that War declared against all the Faithful of tâ—e Land with a displayed banner prosecuted with fire â—word and all acts of horrid hostility published in printed Proclamations written in Characters of blood by barbarous souldiers so that none could enjoy Gospel Ordinances dispensed in Purity but upon the hazard of their lives And therefore to prevent frustrate these effects they endeavoured to put themselves in a posture And hereunto they were encouraged by the constant experience of the Lords countenancing their endeavours in that posture which alwayes proved successful for several years their enemies either turning their backs without disturbance when they observed them resolve defence or in their assaultings repulsed So that there was never a Meeting which stood to their defence got any considerable harme thereby Thus the Lord was with us while we were with Him but when we forsook Him then He forsook us and left us in the hands of our enemies However while Meetings for Gospel Ordinances did continue the wicked Rulers did not cease from time to time to encrease their numerous â—ands of Barbarous Souldiers for suppressing the Gospel in these field-Meetings And for their Maintinance they imposed new wicked arbitrary Cesses Taxations professedly required for suppressing Religion Liberty banishing the Gospel out of the Land and preserving promoting his Absoluteness over all Matters Persons Sacred Civil Which under that tentation of great suffering threatened to Refusers and under the disadvantage of the silence unfaithfulness of many Ministers who either did not condemn it or pleaded for the peaceable payment of it many did comply with it then and far more since Yet at that time there were far more Recusants in some places especially in the Western Shires than Complyers And there were many of the Ministers that did faithfully declare to the people the sin of it Not only from the illegality of its imposition by a convention of overawed and prelimited States but from the nature of that imposed Complyance that it was a sinful transaction with Christs declared Enemies a strengthening the hands of the wicked an Obedience to a wicked Law a Consenting to Christs Expulsion out of the Land and not only that but far worse than the sin of the Gadarens a formal Concurrence to assist His Expellers by maintaining their force a hiring our Oppressours to destroy Religion Liberty And from the fountain of it an Arbitrary power domineering over us and oppressing overpressing the Kingdoms with intollerable exactions That to pay it it was to entail slaverie on the posterity And from the declared end of it expressed in the very Narrative of the Act viz to levy maintain forces for suppressing dispersing Meetings of the Lords people and to shew unanimous affection for maintaining the Kings Supremacy as now established by Law which designs he resolved and would be capacitate by the Granters to effectuate by such a Grant which in effect to all tender Consciences had an evident tendency to the exauctorating the Lord Christ to maintain Souldiers to suppress His Work murder His Followers yet all this time Ministers Professors were unite and with one soul shoulder followed the Work of the Lord till the Indulged being dissatisfied with the Meetings in the fields whose Glory was like to overcloud obscure their beds of ease and especially being offended at the freedom faithfulness of some who set the Trumpet to their mouth and shewed Iacob his sins Israel his transgressions impartially without a clock or cover they began to make a faction among the Ministers and to devise how to quench the fervour of their zeal who were faithful for God. But the more they sought to extinguish it the more it brake out and blazed into a flame For Several of Christs Ambassadours touched affected with the affronts done to their Princely Master by the Supremacy and the Indulgence its Bastard brood brat began after long silence to discover its iniquity and to acquaint the people how the Usurper had invaded the Mediators Chair in taking upon him to depose suspend silence plant transplant His Ministers where when how he pleased and to give forth warrants Licences for admitting them with Canons Instructions for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie and to arraign censure them at his Courts for delinquencies in their Ministry pursuing all to the death who are faithful to Christ and maintain their Loyaltie to His Lawes and will not prostitute their Consciences to his lusts and bow doun to the Idol of his Supremacy but will oune the Kingly Authority of Christ. Yet others and the greater number of dissenting Ministers were not only deficient herein but defended them joyned with them and pretending prudence prevention of Schisme in effect homologated that deed and the practice of these Priests Ezek. 22. 26. teaching advising the people to hear them both by precept and going along with them in that Erastian Course And not only so but condemned censured such who preached against the sinfulness thereof especially in the first place Worthy Mr Walwood who was among the first Witnesses against that defection and Mr Kid Mr King Mr Cameron Mr Donald Cargil c. who sealed their Testimony afterwards with their blood yet then even by their Brethren were loaden with the reproachful Nicknames of Schismaticks blind Zeaâ—ots Iâ—suits c. But it was alwayes observed as long as Ministers were faithful in following the Lord in the way of their duty Professors were fervent And un-under all their Conflicts with Persecuters the courage zeal of the lovers of Christ was blazing and never out-braved by all the enemies boastings to undertake brisk Exploits which from time to time they were now and then essaying till defection destroyed and division diverted their zeal against the Enemis of God who before were alwayes the object against which they whetted the edge of their just Indignation Especially the insulting insolency insolent villanie of that publick Incendiarie the Arch-Prelate Sharp was judged intollerable by ingenuous Spirits because he had treacherously betrayed the Church Nation and being imployed as their delegate to oppose the threatened introduction of Prelacy he had like a perjured Apostate and perfidious Traitor advanced himself into the place of Primate of Scotland and being a member of Council he became a chief Instrument of all the Persecution and main Instigator to all the bloody violence cruelty that was exerced against the people of God by whose means the letter sent doun to stop the shedding of more blood after Pentland was keptâ— up until several of these Martyrs were Murdered Therefore in Iulij 1668. Mr Iames Mitchel thought in his duty to save himself deliver his Brethren and free the
supposing also they might be pardoned for that which is done from whose guiltiness the Land cannot be cleansed but by executing Gods righteous Judgements upon them yet they cannot now be believed after they have violated all that humane wisdom could devise to bind them Upon these accounts they reject that King and those associate with him in the Government and declare them henceforth no lawful Rulers as they had declared them to be no lawful Subjects they having destroyed the established Religion overturned the fundamental Lawes of the Kingdom taken away Christs Church-Government and changed the Civil into Tyrannie where none are associate in partaking of the Government but only these who will be found by Justice guilty of Criminals And declare they shall God giving power set up Government Governours according to the Word of God and the qualifications required Exod. 18. vers 20. And shall not commit the Government to any single person or lineal succession being not tyed as the Jewes were to one single family and that kind being lyable to most inconveniences aptest to degenerate into Tyrannie And moreover that these men set over them shall be engaged to Govern Principally by that Civil Judicial Law not that which is any way Typical given by God to His people of Israel as the best so far as it goes being given by God especially in matters of life death and other things so far as they reach and are consistent with Christian Liberty exempting Divorces Polygamie 6. Seeing the greatest part of Ministers not only were defective in Preaching against the Acts of the Rulers for overthrowing Religion but hindered others also who were willing and censured some that did it and have voted for acceptation of that Liberty founded upon given by virtue of that blaspemously arrogate Usurped power and appeared before their Courts to accept of it and to be enacted authorized their Ministers whereby they have become the Ministers of men and bound to be answerable to them as they will And have preached for the lawfulness of paying that Tribute declared to be imposed for the bearing doun of the true Worship of God And advised poor Prisoners to subscribe that Bond which if it were universally subscribed they should close that door which the Lord hath made use of in all the Churches of Europe for casting off the yoke of the whore and stop all regress of men when once brought under Tyrannie to recover their Libertie again They declare they neither can nor will hear them c. nor any who encouraged strengthened their hands and pleaded for them and trafficqued for union with them 7. That they are for a standing Gospel Ministrie rightly chosen rightly ordained that none shall take upon them the Preaching of the Word c. unless called ordained thereunto And whereas Separation might be imputed to them they refell both the malice and the ignorance of that Calumnie for if there be a Separation it must be where the change is and that was not to be found in them who were not separating from the Communion of the true Church nor setting up a New Ministrie but cleaving to the same Ministers Ordinances that formerly they followed when others have fled to new wayes and a new Authority which is like the old piece in the new Garment 8. That they shall defend themselves in their Civil Natural Divine Rights Liberties And if any assault them they shall look on it as a declaring a war and take all advantages that one enemie does of another but trouble and injure none but those that injure them This is the Compend of that Paper which the Enemies seised and published while it was only in a rude draught and not polished digested nor consulted by the rest of the Community yet whether or not it was for their advantage so to blaze their oun baseness in that Paper truly represented I leave it to the Reader to judge or if they did not thereby Proclaim their oun Tyrannie and the Innocency honesty of that people whom thereby they were seeking to make odious but in effect inviting all Lovers of Religion Liberty to Sympathise with them in their difficulties distresses there discovered However that poor Partie continued together in a posture of defence without the Concurrence or Countenance of their Covenanted Brethren who staid at home and left both them to be murdered and their Testimony to be trampled upon untill the 22. of Iulij 1680. Upon the which day they were attacqued at Airsmoss by a strong party of about 120 horse well armed while they were but 23 horse and 40 foot at most and so fighting valiantly were at length routed not without their Adversaries Testimony of their being resolute men Several of Zions precious Mourners and faithful Witnesses of Christ were killed and among the rest that faithful Minister of Christ Mr Richard Cameron sealed fulfilled his Testimony with his blood And with others the valiant and much honoured Gentleman David Hackstoun of Rathillet was after many received wounds apprehended brought in to Edinburgh and there resolutely adhering to the Testimony and disouning the Authority of King Council and all their Tyrannical Judicatories was cruelly murdered but countenanced eminently of the Lord. Now remained Mr Donald Cargil deprived of his faithful Collegue destitute of his Brethrens concurrence but not of the Lords Counsel Conduct by which he was prompted helped to prosecute the Testimony against the Universal Apostasie of the Church Nation Tyranny of Enemies Backsliding of Friends and all the wrongs done to his Master on all hands And considering in the zeal of God and sense of His holy Jealousie provoked and threatening wrath against the Land for the sins especially of Rulers who had arrived to the hight of Heaven-daring Insolence in all wickedness in which they were still growing going on without control That notwithstanding of all the Testimonies given against them by publick Preachings Protestations and Declarations remonstrating their Tyranny and disouning their Authority yet not only did they still persist in their sins scandals to make the Lords fierce Anger break forth into a flame but were ouned also by Professors not only as Magistrats but as members of the Christian Protestant Church And that however both the defensive armes of men had been used against them and the Christian armes of Prayers and the Ministerial weapon of Preaching yet that of Ecclesiastical Censure had not been Authoritatively exerted against them Therefore that no Weapon which Christ allowes His Servants under His Standart to manage against His Enemies might be wanting thô he could not obtain the Concurrence of his Brethren to strengthen the solemnity formality of the Action yet he did not judge that defect in this broken Case of the Church could disable his Authority nor deâ—ur the duty but that he might and ought to proceed to Excommunication And accordingly in September
1680. at the Torwood he excommunicated some of the most scandalous and Principal Promoters Abettors of this Conspiracy against Christ as formally as the present Case could admit After Sermon upon Ezek. 21. 25 26 27. And thou profane wicked Prince of Israel whose day is come c. He had a short and pertinent discourse on the nature the subject the causes and the ends of Excommunication in general And then declared that he was not led out of any private Spirit or passion to this Action but constrained by Conscience of duty and zeal to God to stigmatize with this brand and wound with the Sword of the Lord these Enemies of God that had so Apostatized rebelled against mocked despised defied Our Lord and to declare them as they are none of His to be none of ours The persons excommunicated and the Sentence against them was given forth as followes I being a Minister of Iesus Christ and having Authority and Power from Him do in His Name by His Spirit excommunicatâ— cast out of the true Church and deliver up to Satan Charles the Second King c. The Sentence was founded upon these grounds declared in the pronunciation thereof 1 for his high mocking of God in that after he had acknowledged his own sins his fathers sins his mothers Idolatrie yet had gone on more avowedly in the same than all before him 2 for his great Perjurie in breaking burning the Covenant 3 for his rescinding all Lawes for establishing the Reformation and enacting Lawes contrarie thereunto 4 for commanding of Armies to destroy the Lords people 5 for his being an Enemy to true Protestants helper of the Papists and hindering the execution of just Lawes against them 6 for his granting Remissions Pardons for Murderers which is in the power of no King to do being expressly contrare to the Law of God. 7 for his Adulteries and dissembling with God man Next by the same Authority and in the same name he excommunicated Iames Duke of York for his Idolatrie and setting it up in Scotland to defile the Land and entycing encouraging others to do so Not mentioning any other sins but what he scandalously persisted in in Scotland c. With several other rotten Malignant Enemies on whom the Lord hath ratiâ—â—ed that Sentence since very remarkably whose sins punishments both may be read more visiblie in the Providences of the time than I can record them But about this time when amidst all the abounding defections divisions of that dark dismal hour of tentation some in zeal for the Cause were endeavouring to keep up the Testimony of the day in an abstraction from Complying Ministers Others were left in holy judgment to be a stumbling block to the Generation hardening them in their defections and to be a beacon to the most zealous to keep off from all unwarrantable excesses to fall into fearâ—ul extravagances and delirious damnable delusions being overdriven with ignorant blind zeal into untroden paths which led them into a labyrinth of darkness when as they were stumbled at many Ministers their unfaithfulness so through the deceit of Sathan and the hypocrisie of his Instruments they came to be offended at Mr Cargil his faithfulness who spared neither left hand declensions nor right hand extremes and left him and all the Ministers not only disouning all Communion with those that were not of their way but execrating Cursing them and kept themselves in desert places from all Company where they persisted prodigiously in fastings and singing Psalms pretending to wonderful raptures Enthusiasmes and in fine I. Gib with 4 more of them came to that hight of Blasphemy that they burnt the Bible Confession of Faith. These were the sweet singers as they were called led away into these delusions by that Impostor Sorcerer Iohn Gib who never encreased to such a number as was then feared reported being within thirty most part women all which for the most part have been through Mercy reclaimed from that destructive way which through Grace the Reproached Remnant adhering to the foresaid Testimony had alwayes an abhorrence of Wherefore that ignorant impudent Calumnie of their Consortship with Gibs followers is only the vent of viperous Envy For they were the first that discovered them and whose pains the Lord blessed in reclaiming them and were alwayes so far from partaking with them that to this day these that have come off from that way and have offered the Confession of their scandal do still complain of their over-rigid severity in not admitting them to their select fellowships To which may be added this undenyable Demonstration that whereas the persecuâ—ing Courts of Inquisition did alwayes extend the utmost severity against the Ouners of this Testimony yet they spared them And the Duke of York then in Scotland was so weâ— pleased with Gib's Blasphemies that he favoured him extraordinarly and freely dismissed him This was a cloudy dark day but not without a burning shining light as long as that faithful Minister of Christ Mr Donald Cargil was following the Work of the Lord who shortly after this finished his Testimony being apprehended with other two faithful zealous Witnesses of Christ Mr Walter Smith and Mr Iames Boog who with 2 more were altogether at Edinburgh 27. Iulij 1681. Crouned with the Glory of Martyrdom Then came the day of the Remnants vexation trouble darkness dimness of anguish wherein who so looked unto the Land could see nothing but darkness sorrow the light darkened in the Heavens thereof wherein neither Star nor Sun appeared for many dayes and poor People were made to grope for the wall like the blind and to stumble in noon day as in the night While the Persecution advanced on the one hand a violent spait of defection carried doun the most part of Ministers Professors before it driving them to Courses of sinful scandalous Conformings with the times Corruptions Compearings before their Courts Complyings with their Commands paying of theis Cesses and other Exactions Taking of their Oaths Bonds and countenancing their Prelatical Church-Services which they were ashamed to do before And thereupon on the other hand the Divisions and Confusions were augmented and poor people that desired to cleave to the Testimony were more more offended and stumbled at the Ministers who either left the Land in that clamant Call of the peoples necessity or lurked in their own retirements and declined the duty of that day leaving people to determine themselves in all their perplexities as a prey to all tentations But the tender Pastor and Shepherd of Israel who leads the blind in the way they know not did not forsake a Remnant in that hour of tentation who kept the Word of His Patience and as He helped those that fell into the hands of Enemies to Witness a good Confession so He strengthened the zeal of the remaining Contenders against all the
Party of the Enemies in which they slew the Captain and about 12 or some moe of his men and afterwards they dispersed themselves also The Enemies searching the Country gleaned up the E. of Argyle himself Col. Rumbol an Englishman Mr Thomas Archer Minister Gawin Russel an David Law who were all condemned execute at Edinburgh and many others who were banished to America and about some 20 in the Highlands who were hanged at Inerarie In England the D. of Monmouths expedition though it had more action yet terminated in the same success the loss of many hundred lives many killed in Battel And afterwas by the mercy of the Duke of York several hunderds in the West of England were carried about and hanged before the door of their oun habitations and to make his Captains sport by the way according to the number of the hours of the day when the murdering humour came in their head so many of the poor Captives were hanged as a prodigious monument of monstrous Crueltie This was the Comencement of the present Tyrants Government In the mean time the Wanderers in Scotland thô they did not associate with this Expedition upon the account of the too promiscuous admittence of persons to trust in that Partie who were then and since have discovered themselves to be Enemies to the Cause and because they could not espouse their Declaration as the State of their Quarrel being not concerted according to the constant Plea of the Scots Covenanters and for other reasons given in their late Vindication yet against this Usurpation of a bloody Papist advancing himself to the Throne in such a manner they published another Declaration at Sanquhair May 28. 1685. Wherein Approving adhering unto all their former Declarations And considering that Iames Duke of York a Profest Excommunicate Papist was proclaimed To testify their resentment of that deed And to make it appear unto the world that they were free thereof by concurrence or connivance They Protest against the foresaid Proclamation of Iames Duke of York as King In regard that it is the choosing of a Murtherer to be a Governour who hath shed the blood of the Saints that it is the hight of Confederacy with an Idolater for bidden by the Law of God contrarie to the Declaration of the Gen. Ass. of the Church Iulij 27. 1649. And contrary to many wholesome laudable Acts of Parliament and inconsistent with the safety faith Conscience Christian Libertie of a Christian People to chuse a subject of Antichrist to be their Supreme Magistrate and to entrust an Enemy to the Work People of God with the Interests of both And upon many important grounds reasons which there they express they Protest against the validity Constitution of that Parliament approving ratifying the foresaid Proclamation And against all kind of Poperie in General Particular heads as abjured by the National Covenant and abrogated by Acts of Parliament and against its entrie again into this Land And every thing that doth or may directly or indirectly make way for the same Disclaiming likewise all Sectarianisme Malignancy and any Confederacy therewith This was their Testimony against Poperie in the season thereof which thô it was not so much condemned as any former Declarations yet neither in this had they the Concurrence of any Ministers or Professors who as they had been silent and omitted a seasonable Testimony against Prelacy and the Supremacy when these were introduced so now also even when this wicked Mysterie Conspiracie of Poperie Tyrannie twisted together in the present designe of Antichrist had made so great a progress and was evidently brought above board they were left to let â—lip this opportunity of a Testimony also to the reproach of the declining far degenerate Church of Scotland Yea to their shame the very rabble of ignorant People may be brought as a witness against the body of Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland in that they testified their detestation of the first Erection of the Idolatrous Mass and some of the souldierie and such as had no Profession of Religion suffered unto death for speaking against Poperie and the designs of the King while the Ministers were silent And some of the Curats and members of the late Parliament 1686. made some stickling against the taking away of the penal Statutes against Papists while Presbyterians from whom might have been expected greater opposition were sleeping in a profound submission I cannot without Confusion of Spirit touch these obvious dolorous reflections and yet in candor cannot forbear them However the Persecution against the Wanderers went on and more cruel Edicts were given forth against them while a relenting abatement of severity was pretended against other Dissenters At length what could not be obtained by Law at the late Parliament for taking off the Statutes against Papists was effectuated by Prerogative and to make it pass with the greater approbation it was convoyed in a channel of pretended Clemency offering a sort of Liberty but really introducing a licencious Latitude for bringing in all future snares by taking off some former as arbitrarly as before they were imposed in a Proclamation dated Feb. 12. 1687. Granting by the Kings Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and absolute power which all Subjects are to obey without reserve a Royal Toleration to the several Professors of the Christian Religion afternamed with under the several Conditions restrictions limitations aftermentioned In the first place tolerating the Moderate Presbyterians to meet in their private houses and there to hear all such Ministers as either have or are willing to accept of the Indulgence allanerly and none other And that there be nothing said or done contrare to the wel peace of his reign seditious or treasonable under the highest pains these Crimes will import nor are they to presume to build Meeting houses or to use out-houses or barns In the mean time it s his Royal will pleasure that Field Conventicles and such as Preach at them or who shall any way assist or connive at them shall be prosecute according to the utmost severity of Lawes made against them In like manner tolerating the Quakers to meet exercise in their forme in any place or places appointed for their Worship And by the same absolute power foresaid suspending stoping disabling all Lawes or Acts of Parliament Customs or Constitutions against any Roman Catholick subjects So that they shall in all things be as free in all respects as any Protestant subjects whatsoever not only to exercise their Religion but to enjoy all Offices benefices c. which he shall think fit to bestow upon them in all time coming And cassing annulling discharging all Oaths whatsoever and Tests and Lawes enjoyning them And in place of them this Oath only is to be taken I A. B. do ackowledge testifie declare that Iames the Seventh c. is rightful King Supreme Governour of these Realms and
Security indispensibly required of him before at his entry to the Government Yet this Liberty cannot be Complyed with without recognoscing his Authority that he arrogates in giving it Seeing he tenders it to all his good Subjects and gives it by his Soveraign Authority and to the end that by the Liberty thereby granted the peace security of the Government in the practice thereof may not be indangered And in the Declaration to England it is offered as an expedient to establish his Government on sach a foundation as may make his Subjects happy and unite them to him by inclination as well as duty to which indeed the Acceptance thereof hath a very apt subserviency seeing it implies not only ouning of the Government out of Duty but an union joyning with it and him by inclination which is a cordial Confederacy with Gods enemie and a cooperating to the establishment of his Tyrannie that the peace security thereof may not be endangered And in his former Proclamation he gives them the same security for their Rights Properties which he gives for Religion And in the English Declaration addeth that to the perfect enjoyment of their Propertie which was never invaded c. Which to accept were not only to take the security of a manifest lie but to prefer the word of a man that cannot must not will not keep it without going cross to his principles to the Security of Right Law which is hereby infringed and to acknowledge not only the Liberty of Religion but the Right of Property to his grant which when ever it is removed there must remain no more Charter for it but stupid slavery entailed upon Posterity and pure perfect Tyranny transmitted to them The sin absurdity where of may be seen demonstrated Head. 2. 4 Considering the Fountain whence it flowes they cannot defile themselves with it In the English Declaration it flowes from the Royal will pleasurâ— which speaks a Domination Despotical Arbitrary enough but more gently expressed than in the Scots Proclamation where it is refounded on Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and Absolute Power Proclaiming by sound of Trumpet à Power Paramount to all Law Reason Religion and outvying the hight of Ottoman Tyranny A Power which all are to obey without resâ—rve A power to Tolerate or Restrain the Protestant Religion according to his Royal will or pleasure An Absolute power which can not be limited by Lawes nor most Sacred Obligations but only regulated by the Royal lust whereby indeed he may suffer the Protestant Religion but only precariously so long as he pleases and until his Royal pleasure shall be to command the establishment of Poperie which then must be complyed with without control Whereby all the tenure that Protestants have for their Religion is only the Arbitrary word of an absolute Monarch whose principles oblige him to break it and his ambition to disdain to be a slave to it Now the Acceptance of this Grant would imply the recognizance of this power that the Granter claims in granting it which utterly disolves all Government and all security for Religion Liberty and all the precious Interests of men Christians Which to acknowledge were contrare to Scripture contrary to Reason and contrary to the Principles of the Church of Scotland particularly the Declaration of the Gen. Ass. Iulij 27. 1649. See pag. 89. c. and contrary to the Covenant 5. Considering the Channel in which it is conveyed they cannot Comply with it Because it comes through such a Conveyance as suspends stops disables all penal Lawes against Papists and thereby everts all the Securities legal Bulwarks that Protestants can have for the establishment of their Religion yea in effect leaves no Lawes in force against any that shall attempt the utter subversion of it but ratiâ—ies leaves in ful vigour all wicked Lawes Acts of Parliament against such as would most avowedly assert it and stops disables none of the most cruel bloody Lawes against Protestants for the most cruel are such as have been made against Field-Meetings which are hereby left in ful force vigour Hence as he hath formally by absolute power suspended all Lawes made for the Protection of our Religion so he may when he will dispense with all the Lawes made for its establishment and those who approve the one by such an Acceptance cannot disallow the other but must recognosce a power in the King to subvert all Lawes Rights Liberties which is contrare to Reason as wel as Religion and a clear breach of the National Solemn League Covenants 6. Considering the Ends of its Contrivance they dare not have any accession to accomplish such wicked Projects to which this Acceptance would be so natively subservient The expressed ends of this Grant are to unite the hearts of his Subjects to him in Loyaltie and to their Neighbours in love as in the former Proclamation And that by the Liberty granted the peace security of his Government in the practice thereof may not be endangered as in the latter Proclamation And to unite the Subjects to him by inclination as well as duty which he thinks can be done by no means so effectually as by granting the free exercise of Religion as in the English Declaration Whence we may gather not obscurely what is the proper tendency of it both as to the work worker to wit to incline induce us by flatterie to a lawless Loyaltie and a stupid contented slavery when he cannot compel us by force and make us actively cooperate in setting settling his Tyranny in the peaceable possession of all his Usurpations Robberies Encroachments upon our Religion Lawes Liberties and to incorporate us with Babylon for wbo are the Neighbours he would have us unite with in love but the Papists against whom all the Lovers of Christ must profess themselves irreconcileable Enemies The English Declaration does further discover the design of this device in one expression which will most easily be obtained to be beleeved of any in it viz. that he heartily wishes that all the People of these Dominions were members of the Catholick Church which clearly insinuates that hereby he would entyce them to commit fornication with that Mother of harlots which entycing to Idolatrie if we consult the Scripture should meet with another sort of entertainment than such a kind thankful Acceptance which is not an opposing of such a wicked wish but an encouraging corroberating of it And further he sayes that all the former tract of Persecutions never obtained the end for which it was employed For after all the frequent pressing endeavours that were used to reduce this Kingdom to an exact conâ—ormity in Religion it is visible the success has not answered the design and that the difficultie is invincible Wherein we may note his extorted acknowledgment that all former endeavours to destroy the Work of God have been
visible Kingdom of which the Government is layd upon His shoulders against the heaven-daring Usurpations encroachments made thereupon both as He is Mediator King Head of the Church and as He is God Universal King of the world As He is Mediator it is His Peculiar Prerogative to have a Supremacy Sole Soveraignty over His oun Kingdom to institute His oun Government to constitute His oun Lawes to ordain His oun Officers to appoint His oun Ordinances which He will have observed without alteration addition or diminution untill His Second Coming This His Prerogative hath been is invaded by Erastian Prelacy Sacrilegious Supremacy and now by Antichristian Poperie which have overturned His Government inverted His Lawes subverted His Officiers Perverted His Ordinances As He is God Universal King it is His in communicable Property Glory not only to have Absolute Illimited Power but to invest his Deputed Ministers of Justice with His Authority Ordinance of Magistracy to be administred in subordination to Him to be regulated by His Lawes and to be improved for His Glory the good of Mankind This Glory of His hath been invaded by Tyrants Usurpers arrogating to themselves an Absolute Power intruding themselves without His investment into Authority in a Rebellion against Him in opposition to His Lawes and abusing it to His dishonour and the destruction of Mankind Against both which Encroachments the Present Testimony is stated in a Witness for Religion Liberty to both which these are destructive This will appear to be the Result Tendency of the Testimony in all its parts opposed by the Enemies of Religion Liberty and the end of all their oppositions to bring it to this Crinomenon who shall he King Iesus or Cesar Let any seriously search into all their Proclamations Edicts against Religion Liberty this will be found to be the soul sense of them practically Really speaking to this purpose especially since this man came to the Throne J. R. JAmes the 7 2 by the V. of G. King of Scotland England France Ireland Defender of the Antichristian faith To'all sundry our good subjects whom these presents do or many concern Greeting We having taken into our Royal Consideratiâ—n the many great inconveniences which have happened in that our Ancient Kingdom of Scotland especially of late years through the persuasions of the Christian Religion the great heats animosities betuixt the Professors therof and our good faithful subjects whose faith Religion is subject subservient to our Royal will the Supreme Law Reason publick Conscience to the disappointment of our Projects restraint of our pleasures and Contempt of the Royal power Convertingâ— true Loyaltie absolute subjection into words names which we care not for of Religion Liberty Conscience the Word of God thereby withdrawing some to the Christian faction from an absolute implicite subjection to us our will as if there were a Superiour Law to which they might appeal And considering that these Rebellious Christians do never cease to assert maintain strange Paradoxes such Principles as are inconsistent with the glory interest of our Government as that the Authority of Kings should be hem'd in with Limits and that their Acts Actions are to be examined by another rule than their oun Authority to make them Lawful that somethings in the Kingdom are not subject to the Kings Authority That there is a Kingdom within a Kingdom not subordinate to the King And that there is another King Superior to the Supreme whom they will rather obey than us And that we must either take Laws from Him or otherwise we are not Magistrats And Considering also their Practices are Conforme to their Principles They will not obey our Lawes but the Lawes of Another inconsistent with ours and will calculate their Religion according to His Lawes and not according to ours And continually make their Addresses to and receive Ambassadours from a Prince whom we know not whom our Predicessors of truely worthy memory did crucify One Iesus who was dead whom they affirm to be alive whose Government they alledge is Supreme over all Kings Whom they acknowledge but as His Vassals Being now by favourable fortune not only brought to the Imperial Croun of these Kingdoms through the greatest difficulties but preserved upon the throne of our Royal Ancestors which from our Great founder Nimrod of Glorious Memory and our Illustrious Predecessors Pharaoh Nebuchadnezzar Herod the Great Nero Caligula c. of blessed pious Memory hath been ever opposite to and projecting the Destruction of that Kingdom of Christ Do after their Laudable example resolve to suppress that Kingdom by all the means might we can use because His Government is hateful to us His yoke heavy His sayings are hard His Lawes are contrary to our lusts Therefore we will not let this man reign over us we will break His bonds and cast away His Cords from us And advance exerce our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power which all our subjects are to obey without reserve And as by virtue of our Supremacy whereby we are above all but such as we are pleased to subject our selves to settled by Law and Lineally Derived to us as an Inherent right to the Croun we have Power to order all matters of Church as well as State as we in our Royal wisdom shall think fit All Laws Acts of Christ to the contrary notwithstanding And accordingly in our Royal wisdom have overturned the plat-form of that Government which Christ hath instituted razed all Courts fenced in His Name and severely interdicted all Meetings of His subjects and intertainment of His Ambassadours many of whom in contempt of Him that sent them we have punished according to Law for negotiating His Affairs in our Kingdoms without our pleasure requiring Allegiance obedience to Him after we had exauctorated Him we have also established our Right Trusty Entirely beloved Clerks in Ecclesiastick affairs and their underlings by our Authority to have the Administration of the business of Religion and impowered our Right Trusty well beloved Cousins Counsellers to Compell all to submitt to them by Finings Confinings Imprisonment Banishment Oaths Bonds and all Legal means So now having prosecuted this war against Christ to this length that we have no fears of a Rally of His forces again so often beaten we are now engaged with other Antichristian Princes to give our Power to our holy Father Antichrist so far as may serve his purpose to oppse Christ in his way but we reserve so much to our seeves as may encroach upon Him in our Capacity And therefore we have thought fit to restore to Antichrist our Ecclesiastical Supremacy from whom we borrowed it and for which we have no use at present But we resolve to maintain prosecute our Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and
to speakevil of dignities and that they are filthy dreamers who despise Dominion speakevil of dignities and of those things which they know not We allow the Magistrate in whatsoever form of Government all the power the Scripture Lawes of Nature or Nations or Municipal do allow him Asserting that he is the keeper avenger of both the Tables of the Law having a power over the Church as well as the state suited to his Capacity that is not formally Ecclesiastical but objectively for the Churches good an external power of Providing for the Church Protecting her from outward violence or in ward disorder an imperate power of commanding all to do their respective duties a Civil power of Punishing all even Church officers for Crimes a Secundary power of Judicial approbation or condemnation or discretive in order to give his Sanction to Synodical results a Cumulative power assisting strengthening the Church in all her Priviledges subservient though not servill Coordinate with Church power not Subordinate though as a Christian he is subject in his oun affairs to wit Civil not to be declined as Judge but to be obeyed in all things Lawful and honoured strengthened with all his dwes We would give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods But to Tyrants that usurpe pervert both the things of God of Cesar and of the peoples Liberties we can render none of them neither Gods nor Cesars nor our oun Nor can we from conscience give him any other deference but as an enemy to all even to God to Cesar the people And in this though it doth not sound now with Court parasites nor with others that are infected with Royal Indulgences Indemnities we bring forth but the transumpt of old Principles according to which our fathers walked when they still contended for Religion Liberty against the attemptings aggressions of Tyranny against both 5. It must be conceded it is not an easie thing to make a man in the place of Magistracy a Tyrant For as every escape error or act of unfaithfulness even known continued in whether in a Ministers entry to the Ministry or in his Doctrine doth not unminister him nor give sufficient ground to withdraw from him or reject him as a Minister of Christ So neither does every enormity misdemeanure or act of Tyranny Injustice perfidie or profanity in the Civil Magistrate whether as to his way of entry to that office or in the execution of it or in his private or personal behaviour denominate him a Tyrant or usurper or give sufficient ground to divest him of Magistratical power and reject him as the Lawful Magistrate It is not any one or tuo Acts contrary to the Royal Covenant or office that doth denude a man of the Royal dignity that God the people gave him David committed tuo acts of Tyranny Murder Adultery yet the people were to acknowledge him as their King and so it may be said of some others ouned still as Kings in Scripture the reason is because though he sinned against a man or some particular persons yet he did not sin against the State and the Catholick good of the Kingdom subverting Law for then he would have turned Tyrant and ceased to have been Lawful King. There is a great difference between a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit the first does not cease to be a King. But on the other hand as every thing will not make a Magistrate to be a Tyrant So nothing will make a Tyrant habitu a Magistrate And as every fault will not unminister a Minister So some will oblige the people to reject his Ministry as if he turn Heretical Preach Atheisme Mahumetanisme or the like the people though they could not formally depose him or through the corruption of the times could not get him deposed yet they might reject disoune his Ministry So it will be granted that a people have more power in creating a Magistrate than in making a Minister and Consequently they have more right and may have more light in disouning a King as being unkinged than in disouning a Minister as being un-ministerd It will be necessary therefore for clearing our way to fix upon some ordinary Characters of a Tyrant which may discriminate him from a Magistrate and be ground of disouning him as such I shall rehearse some from very much approved Authors the application of which will be as apposite to the tuo Brothers that we have been burthened with as if they had intended a particular exact description of them Buchanan de jure regni apud Scotos Shewes that the word Tyranâ— was at first honourable being attributed to them that had the full power in their hands which power was not astricted by any bonds of Lawes nor obnoxious to the Cognition of Judges and that it was the usual denomination of Heroes and thought at first so honourable that it was attribute to the Gods But as Nero Iudas were sometimes among the Romans Iewes names of greatest account but afterwards by the faults of tuo men of these names it came to pass that the most flagitious would not have these names given to their Children So in process of time Rulers made this name so infamous by their wicked deeds that all men abhorred it as contagious Pestilentious and thought it a more light reproach to be called a hangman then a Tyrant Thereafter he Condiscends upon several Characters of a Tyrant 1. He that doth not receive a Government by the will of the people but by force invadeth it or intercepteth it by fraud is a Tyrant and who domineers even over the unwilling for Rex volentibus Tyrannus invitis imperat and procures the Supreme rule without the peoples Consent even though for several years they may so govern that the people shall not think it irksome Which very well aggrees with the present Gentleman that rules over us who after he was by publick vote in Parliament secluded from the Government of which the standing Lawes of both Kingdoms made him incapable for his Murthers Adulteries Idolatries by force fraud did intercept first an Act for His Succession in Scotland and then the actual Succession in England by blood treacherie usurping intruding himself into the Government without any Compact with or Consent of the people though now he studies to make himself like another Syracusan Hiero or the Florentine Cosinodo Medices in a mild Moderation of his usurped power but the West of England and the West of Scotland both have felt the force of it 2. Tyrannus non civibus sed sibi gerit imperium neque publicae utilitatis sed suae voluptatis rationem habet c. He does not govern for the subjects well-fare or publick ultility but for himself having no regard to that but to his oun lust Acting in this like robbers who cunningly disposing of what wickedly they
which case the people may make their Publick servant sensible he is at his highest elevation but a Servant Hence now when this species named in the Covenant viz Monarchy is by Law so vitiate as it is become the mean instrument of the destruction of all the ends of that Covenant and now by Law transmitted to all successors as a hereditary pure perfect perpetual opposition to the coming of Christs kingdom So that as long as there is one to wear that Croun but Iehavah will in righteousness execute Coniahs doom upon the race Ier. 22. ult write this man childless and enter heir to the Government as now established he must be an enemy to Christ there is no other way left but to think on a new Modell moulded according the true Pattern As to the Second we are far less obliged to oune acknowledge the interest of any of the two Monarchs that we have been Mourning under these many years from these Sacred Covenants For as to the first of them Charles the 2. Those Considerations did cassate his Interest as to any Covenant obligation to oune him 1. In these Covenants we are not sworn absolutely to maintain the Kings Person Authority but only Conditionally in the Preservation defence of Religion Liberties Now when this Condition was not performed but on the contrare professedly resolved never to be fulfilled And when he laid out himself to the full of his power Authority for the destuction of that Reformed Religion Liberties of the Kingdom which he solemnly swore to defend when he received the Croun only in the termes that he should be a Loyal subject to Christ and a true faithful Servant to the people in order to which a Magistrate is chosen and all his worth excellency valuableness consists in his answering that purpose for the excellency of a mean as such is to be measured from the end and its answerableness thereunto We were not then obliged to maintain such an enemy to these precious Interests 2. Because as the people were bound to him so he was bound to them by the same Covenant being only on these termes entrusted with the Government All which Conditions he perfidiously broke whereupon only his Authority our Allegiance were founded And thereby we were loosed from all reciprocal obligation to him by virtue of that Covenant 3. Though he and we stood equally engaged to the duties of that Covenant only with this difference that the Kings Capacity being greater he was the more obliged to have laid out that power in causing all to stand to their Covenant Engagments as Iosiah did 2 Chron. 34. 31 32 33. But alas there was never a Iosiah in the race yet he rose up to the hight of rebellion against God and the people in heaven-daring insolency and not only brake but burnt that Covenant and made Lawes to case rescind it and made a not-concurring in this Conspiracy a note of incapacity for any Trust in Church or State. Therefore to plead for an ouning of him in this case were only concludent of this that the Generation had dreamed themselves into such a distraction as may be feared will be pursued with destruction and make such dreamers the detestation of posterity and cause all men Proclaim the righteousness of God in bringing ruine upon them by that very power Authority they ouned in such circumstances 4. It is a known maxime Qui non implet conditionem a se promissam cadit beneficio qui remittit obligationem non potest exigere He that does not fulfill the conditions falls from the benefit of it and whoso remitts the obligation of the party obliged upon condition cannot exact it afterwards So then it is evident that the subjects of Scotland were by King Charles the 2 de his consent yea express command disengaged from so much of that Covenant as could be alledged in favors of himself So that all that he did by burning rescinding these Covenants and pursuing all who endeavoured to adâ—ere to them was a most explicite Liberating his subjects from remission of their Allegiance to him and in this we had been fools if we had not taken him at his word yea he rescinded his very Coronation by an act of his first Parliament after his return which did declare null void all Acts Constitutions establishments from the year 1633 to that present session not excepting those for his oun Coronation after which he was never recrouned And therefore we could not oune that right which himself did annul But as for his Royal Brother Iames the 7 2 we cannot indeed make use of the same reasons arguments to disoune him as we have now adduced yet as we shall prove afterwards this Covenant does oblige to renounce him So it is so clear that it needs no Illustration that there lies no obligation from the Covenant to oune him And also that for this cause we are obliged not to oune him 1. Because as he is an enemy to the whole of our Covenant and especially to these terms upon which Authority is to be ouned therein So he will not come under the bond of this Covenant nor any other compact with the people but intrude himself upon the Throne â—n such a way as overturns the Basis of our Government and destroyes all the Liberties of a free people which by Covenant we are bound to preserve and consequently as inconsistent therewith to renounce his Usurpation For a Prince that will set himself up without any transactions with the people or conditions giving Security for Religion Liberty is an Usurping Tyrant not bounded by any Law but his oun lusts And to say to such an one Reign thow over us is all one as to say come thow and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust will be a Law to us which is both against Scripture Natural-sense If he be not a King upon Covenant termes either expressly or tacitely or general stipulations according to the word of God Lawes of the Land he cannot be ouned as a father Protector or Tutor having any fiduciary power entrusted to him over the Commonwealth but as a Lawless absolute Dominator assuming to himself a power to rule or rage as he lists whom to oune were against our Covenants for there we are sworn to Maintain his Maj. just Lawful Authority and by consequence not to oune Usurpation Tyranny stated in opposition to Religion Liberty which there also we are engaged to maintain Sure this cannot be Lawful Authority which is of God for God giveth no power against Himself Nor can it be of the people who had never power granted them of God to create one over them with a Liberty to destroy them their Religion Liberty at his pleasure 2. As he is not nor will not be our Covenanted sworn King and therefore we cannot be his Covenanted sworn subjects So
he is not nor can not be our Crouned King and therefore we must not be his Liege subjects ouning fealty obedience to him For according to the National Covenant as all Lieges are to maintain the Kings Authority consistent with the subjects Liberties which if they be innovated or prejudged such Confusion would ensue as this realme could be no more a free Monarchy So for the Preservation of true Religion Lawes Liberties of this Kingdom it is statute by the 8 Act. Parl. 1 repeated in the 99 Act. Parl. 7. ratified in the 23. Act. Parl. 11. and 114 Act. Parl. 12. of King Iames 6. and 4 Act of K. Charles 1. that all Kings Princes â— at their coronation reception of their Princely Authority shall make their faithful Promise by their solemn Oath in the presence of the Eternal God That enduring the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utter-most of their power according as He hath required in His most holy Word contained in the Old new Testaments and according to the same Word shall maintain the true Religion of Christ Jesus the preaching of His holy Word the due right Ministration of the Sacraments now received Preached within this realme according to the Confession of faith immediatly preceding and shall abolish gainstand all false religion contrary to the same And shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will Command of God revealed in His fore-said Word and according to the Laudable Lawes Constitutions received in this realme no wayes repugnant to the said Will of the Eternal God And shal procure to the uttermost of their power to the Kirk of God whole Christian people true perfect peace in all time coming And that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all Hereticks Enemies to the true Worship of God who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the foresaid Crimes Now this Coronation Oath he hath not taken he will not he cannot take and therefore cannot be our Crouned King according to Law. As there be also many other Lawes incapacitating his admission to the Croun being a Professed Papist and no Law for it at all but one of his oun making by a Pacqued Cabal of his oun Complices a Parliament wherein himself presided as Commissioner enacting matterially his succession and rescinding all these Ancient Lawes which Act of Succession which is all the legal right he can pretend to in Scotland because it cannot be justified therefore his right cannot be ouned which is founded upon the subversion of our Ancient Lawes But as he cannot be our Legally Crouned King so he is not so much as formally Crouned And therfore before his Inauguration whatever right to be King whom the Representatives may admit to the Government he may pretend to by hereditary Succession yet he cannot formally bemade King till the people make a Compact with him upon termes for the safety of their dearest nearst Liberties even though he were not disabled by Law. He might as they say pretend to some jus ad rem but he could have no jus in re The Kings of Scotland while uncrouned can exerce no Royal Government for the Coronation in Concret according to the substance of the Act is no Ceremonie as they who make Conscience it self but a Ceremony call it nor an accidental ingredient in the Constitution of a King but as it is distinctive so it is Constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and made him from no King to be a King it is dative not only Declarative it puts some honour upon him that he had not before 3. Though the Lawes should not strike against his Coronation And though the Representatives Legally should take the same measures with him that they took with his brother and admit him upon the termes of the Covenant yet after such doleful experiences of such transactions with these Sons of Belial who must not be taken with hands nor by the hand it were hard to trust or entrust them with the Government even though they should make the fairest Professions Since they whose Principle is to keep no faith to Hereticks as they call us and who will be as absolute in their promises as they are in their power have deservedly forefeited all Credit Trust with honest men so that none could rationally refer the determination of a half Croun reckoning to any of them far less oune them their Government in the Managment of the weightiest affairs of State since their Male-versations are written in such bloody Characters as he that runs may read them At least it were wisdom is our duty to take our Measures from the General Assemblies Procedure with the other Brother before his admission to the Government to suspend our Allegiance to him until Authority be Legally devolved upon him and founded upon bounded by termes giving all security for Religion Liberty 12. As I said before wary Prudence in waving such an impertinent Ticklish Question cannot be condemned since what ever he may be in conscience no man in Law can be obliged so far to surrender the common Priviledge of all Mankind to give an account of all his inward thoughts which are alwise said to be free And as in nothing they are more various so in nothing they can be more violented than to have our opinion sentiments of the current Government extorted from us a declining of which Declaration of thoughts where no overt Act in project or practice can be proven against it cannot be Treason in any Law in the world So a Cautelous Answer in such a ticklish entrapping imposition cannot be censured in point of Lawfullnesse of expediency even though much be concedded to stop the Mouths of these bloody Butchers gaping greedily after the blood of the Answerer if he do not really oune but give them to understand he cannot approve of this Tyranny But as these poor faithful Witnesses who were helped to be most free have alwise been honoured with the most signal Countenance of the Lord in a happy issue of their Testimony So those that used their Prudentials most in seeking shifts to shâ—n severity and studying to satisfie these Inquisitors with their stretched Concessions were ordinarly more exposed to snares and found less satisfaction in their Sufferings even though they could say much to justify or at least extenuate their Shiftings I knew one who had proof of this who afterwards was ashamed of this kind of Prudence A short account of whose managing of Answers to this Question because it may conduce somewhat to the explication of it may here be hinted The question moved after the usual forme was Do ye onne the Authority of King Iames the 7 In answer to which he pleaded first for the immunity of his thoughts which he said were not subject to theirs or any Tribunal When this could
6. pag. 195. in vita Kennethi 3. This continued until the dayes of Kenneth the 3. who to cover his villanous Murder of his Brothers Son Malcolm and prevent his and secure his oun sons succession procured this Charter for Tyranny the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the Parliament which as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniences arising from Contentions Competions about the succession So it was limited by Lawes Precluding the succession of Fools or Monsters and preserving the peoples liberty to shake off the yoke when Tyranny should thereby be introduced Otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their oune Rights enslaving the posterity but an irreligious contempt of Providence refusing anticipating its Determination in such a case However it is clear before this time that as none but the fittest were admitted to the Government So if any did usurpe upon it or afterwards did degenerate into Tyranny they took such order with him as if he had not been admitted at all as is clear in the instances of the first Period and would never oune every pretender to hereditary succession 2 As before Kenneths dayes it is hard to reckon the numerous Instances of Kings that were dethroned or imprisoned or slain upon no other account than that of their oppression Tyranny So afterwards they maintained the same power priviledge of repressing them when ever they began to encroach And although no Nation hath been more patient towards bad Kings as well as Loyal towards good ones yet in all former times they understood so well their Right they had and the duty they owed to their oun preservation as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account And albeit in stead of condoling or avenging the death of the Tyrannous they have often both excused justified it yet no Kingdom hath inflicted severer Punishments upon the Murderers of just righteous Princes And therefore though they did neither enquire after nor animadvert upon those that slew Iames the 3. a flagitious Tyrant yet they did by most exquisite Torments put them to death who slew Iames the 1. a vertuous Monarch Hence because these other instances I mind to adduce of deposing Tyrants may be excepted against as not pertinent to my purpose who am not pleading for exauctoration deposition of Tyrants being impracticable in our case I shall once for all remove that and desire it may be considered 1 That though we cannot formally exauctorate a Tyrant yet he may ipso jure fall from his right and may exauctorate himself by His Law by whom Kings reign and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not ouning him 2 Though we have not the same power yet we have the same grounds and as great good if not greater better reasons to reject disoune our Tyrant as they whose example is here adduced had to depose some of their Tyrannizing Princes 3 If they had power ground to depose them then a fortiori they had power ground to disoune them for that is less inculded in the other and this we have 4 Though it should be granted that they did not disoune them before they were deposed yet it cannot be said that they did disoune them only because they were deposed for it is not deposition that makes a Tyrant it only declares him to be justly punished for what he was before As the sentance of a Judge does not make a man a murderer or Thief only declares him convict of these Crimes punishable for them it s his oun committing them that makes him Criminal And as before the sentance having certain knowledge of the fact we might disoune the Mans innocency or honesty So a Rulers Acts of Tyranny Usurpation make him a Tyrant Usurper and give ground to disoune his just legal Authority which he can have no more than a Murtherer or Thief can have innocency or honesty 3 We find also examples of their disouning Kings undeposed as King Baliol was disouned with his whole race for attempting to enslave the Kingdoms Liberties to forreign power And if this may be done for such an attempt as the greatest Court parasites Sycophants consent what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to Domestick or Intestine Slaverie Shall we refuse to be slaves to one without and be oune our selves contented Slaves to one with in the Kingdom It is known also that King Iames the 1. his Authority was refused by his subjects in France so long as he was a Prisoner to the English there though he charged them upon their Allegiance not to fight against the party who had his person Prisoner They answered they ouned no Prisoner for their King nor owed no Allegiance to a Prisoner Hence Princes may learn though people submit to their Government yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full as that they are obliged to oune Allegiance to them when either Morally or Physically they are incapacitate to exerce Authority over them They that cannot rule themselves cannot be ouned as Rulers over a people 2. Neither hath there been any Nation but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this Nature The English History gives account how some of their Kings have been dealt with by their Subjects for impieties against the Law Light of Nature and encroachments upon the Lawes of the Land. Vortigernuâ— was dethroned for incestously marying his oun Sister Neither did ever Blasphemies Adulteries Murders Plotting against the lives of Innocents and taking them away by Poison or Razor use to escape the animadversion of men before they were Priest-ridden unto a belief that Princes persons were sacred And if men had that generosity now this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion And we find also King Edward Richard the 2. were deposed for Usurpation upon Lawes Liberties in doing whereof the people avowed They would not suffer the Lawes of England to be changed Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate who having such Lawes transmitted to them from their worthy Ancestors and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a Change do now suffer them to be so encroached upon and mancipate themselves leave their Children vassals to Poperie slaves to Tyranny 3. The Dutch also who have the best way of guiding of Kings of any that ever had to do with them witness their having so many of them in Chains now in Batavia in the East Indies are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples When the King of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their Ancient Lawes and rule for the good of the people they declared him to be fallen from the Seigniorie of the Netherlands and so erected themselves into a flourishing Common-wealth It will not
England and generally hated of all who disdaining to wait upon the formall choise of any but after he had paved his passage to the Throne upon his Brothers blood did usurpe the Title without all Law. 5. The second thing necessary for the Legal Constitution of a King by the people is their Compact with him which must either be Express or Tacite Explicite or Implicite Two things are here to be proven that will furnish an Argument for disouning both the Brothers First That there must be a Conditionall reciprocally obliging Covenant between the Soveraign and the Subjects without which there is no such relation to be ouned Secondly That when this compact is broken in all or its chiefest conditions by the Soveraign the peoples obligation ceases The first I shall set doun in the words of a famous Author our Renouned Country man Buchanan in his Dialogue de Iure Regni apud Scotos Mutua igitur Regi cum Civibus est pactio c. There is then or there ought to be a Mutual compact between the King and his subjects c. That this is indispensibly necessary essential to make up the Relation of Soveraign Subjects may be proved both from the Light of Nature Revelation First it may appear from the Light of Natural reason 1. From the Rise of Government and the Interest people have in erecting it by consent choise at is shewed above If a King cannot be with out the peoples making then all the power he hath must either be by compact or gift If by compact then we have what we proposed And if by gift then if abused they may recall it or if they cannot recover it yet they may ought to hold their hand and give him no more that they may retain that is no more honour or respect which is in the honourer before the honoured get it Can it be imagined that a people acting rationally would give a power absolutely without restrictions to destroy all their oun rights Could they suppose this boundless Lawless Creature left at Liberty to Tyrannize would be a fit mean to procure the the ends of Government for this were to set up a rampant Tyrant to rule as he listeth which would make their condition a great deal worse then if they had no Ruler at all for then they might have more Liberty to see to their safety See Ius populi ch 6. pag. 96. 97. 2. This will be clear from the nature of that Authority which only a Soveraign can have over his Subjects which whatever be the Nature of it it cannot be absolute that is against Scripture Nature Common sense as shall be proven at more length That is to set up a Tyrant one who is free from all conditions a roaring Lyon a ranging Bear to destroy all if he pleases It must be granted by all that the Soveraign Authority is only fiduciarie entrusted by God the people with a great Charge A great Pledge is impauned committed to the Care Custody of the Magistrate which he must take special care of and not abuse or waste or alienate or sell for in that case Royalists themselves grant he may be deposed He is by Office a Patron of the Subjects Liberties and Keeper of the Law both of God Man the Keeper of both Tables Sure he hath no power over the Lawes of God but a Ministerial power he may not stop disable them as he pleases Of the same nature is it over all other Parts of his Charge He is rather a Tutor than an Inheritor proprietor of the Common-wealth and may not do with his pupils interest what he pleases In a word the Nature whole significancy of his power lyes in this that he is the Nations publick Servant both Objectively in that he is only for the good of the people and Representatively in that the people hath impauned in his hand all their power to do Royal Service The Scripture eaches this in giving him the Titles of Service as Watchman c. allowing him Royal wages for his Royal work Rom. 13. he is Gods Minister attending continually on this thing There is his work for this cause pay yow tribute also There is his wages maintinance He is called so in that transaction with Rehoboam The old men advised him to be a Servant unto the People then they should be his Servants 1 King. 12. 7. There was a conditional bargain proposed As to be a Servant or Tutor or Guardian upon Trust always implies Conditions Acconntableness to them that entrust them 3. It must needs be so otherwise great absurdities would follow Here would be a voluntary contracted Relation obliging as to relative duties to a man that ouwed none correlative to us and yet one whom we set over us It were strange if there were no Condition here and no other voluntarly suscepted Relations can be without this as between Man Wife Master Servant c. This would give him the disposal of us Ours as if both we and what we have were his oun as a mans goods are against which he does not sin whatever he do with them So this would make a King that could not sin against us being no ways obliged to us for he can no otherwise be obliged to us but upon Covenant conditions he may be obliged bound in duty to God otherwise but he cannot be bound to us otherwise And if he be not bound then he may do what he will he can do no wrong to us to whom he is no wayes bound This also is point blank against the Law of God which is the Second way to prove it by the Light of Revelation or Scripture 1. In thevery directions about making seting up of Kings the Lord shewes what conditions shall be required of them Deut. 17. 15. c. and in all directions for obeying them the qualifications they should have are rehearsed as Rom. 13. 3 4. Therefore none are to be set up but on these conditions and none are to be obeyed but such as have these qualifications 2. In His promises of the succession of Kings He secures their continuation only Conditionally to establish the Kingdom if they be constant to do His Commandments Judgements 1 Chron. 28. 7. There shall not fail a man to sit upon the Trone yet so that they take heed to their way to walk in Gods Law as David did 2 Chron. 6. 16. Now He was not otherwise to perform these promises but by the action suffrage of the people seting him up which He had appointed to be the way of calling Kings to Thrones if therefore the Lords promise be conditional the peoples actions also behoved to be suspended upon the same conditions 3. We have many express Covenants between Rulers Subjects in Scripture Iephthah was fetcht from the Land of Tob and made the head of the Gileadites by an explicite mutual stipulation wherein the Lord
if he do so so the subjects shall be loosed from all bonds of obedience then when he does so he becomes a meer private person Grotius there supposes the power is transferred upon a resolutive condition that is if he transgress the condition the power shall be resolved into its first fountain much more if it be transferred expressly also upon a suspensive condition that he shall continue to maintain the ends of the Covenant defend Religion the Liberties of the Subjects in the defence whereof we shall oune Allegiance to him otherwise not in that case if he do not maintain these ends plain it is our obligation ceases for how can it stand upon a conditional obligation when his performance of the condition sists But whatever be the conditions Mutual it flowes Natively from the Nature of a Mutual compact that qui non praestat officium promissum cadit beneficio hac lege dato he who doth not perform the conditions aggreed upon hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of performance of these conditions especially if he performe not or violate these conditions upon supposition whereof he would not have gotten the benefite It were very absurd to say in a Mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to perform his conditions though the other perform none but break all Were it the act of rational Creatures to set up a Soveraign upon conditions he shall not play the Tyrant and yet be bound to him thô he Tyrannize never so much We have the Nature of Mutual compacts in the Spies Covenant with Rahab Iosh. 2. 20. If thow utter this our business then we will be quite of thine Oath which thow hast made us to swear if she should break condition then the obligation of the Oath on their part should cease But next all the stress will ly in proving that the Covenant on such such conditions between a Prince Subjects doth equally mutually oblige both to each other for if it equally oblige both then both are equally disengaged from other by the breach on either side and either of them may have a just claim in Law against the other for breach of the conditions But Royalists Court-slaves alledge that such a Covenant obliges the King to God but not to the people at all so that he is no more accountable to them than if he had made none at all But the contrare is evident For 1 If the compact be Mutual and if it be infringed on one side it must be so in the other also for in contracts the parties are considered as equalls whatever inequality there may be betwixt them otherwise I speak of contracts among men 2 If it be not so there is no Covenant made with the people at all And so David did no more Covenant with Israel than with the Chaldeans for to all with whom the Covenant is made it obliges to them Otherwise it must be said he only made the Covenant with God contrary to the Text for he made it only before the Lord as a Witness not with Him as a party Ioashs Covenant with the Lord is expresly distinguished from that with the people 3 If it be not so it were altogether non-sense to say there were any Covenant made with the King on the other hand for he is supposed to be made King on such such terms and yet by this after he is made King he is no more obliged unto them than if there had been no compact with him at all 4 If he be bound as King and not only as a man or Christian then he is bound with respect to the people for with respect to them he is only King But he is bound as King and not only as a man or Christian because it is only with him as King that the people Covenant and he must transact with them under the same consideration Next that which he is obliged to is the specifical act of a King to defend Religion Liberty Rule in Righteousness And therefore his Covenant binds him as King. Again if he be not bound as King then as a King he is under no obligation of Law or Oath which is to make him a Lawless Tyrant yea none of Gods subjects It would also suppose that the King as King could not sin against the people at all but only against God for as King he could be under no obligation of duty to the people and where there is no obligation there is no sin by this he would be set above all obligations to love his neighbour as himself for he is above all his neighbours and all mankind and only less than God and so by this doctrine he is loosed from all duties of the Second Table or at least he is not so much obliged to them as others But against this it is Objected both Prince people are obliged to performe their part to each other and both are obliged to God but both are not accountable to each other there is not mutual power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty the King hath it indeed over the people but not the people over the King and there is no indifferent Judge Superior to both to compell both but God. Ans. 1. What if all this should be granted yet it doth not infringe the proposition what if the people have not power to compell him yet Iure he may fall from his Soveraignity though de facto he is not deposed he loses his right to our part when he breaks his part 2. There is no need of a Superior Arbiter for as in contracting they are considered as equal so the party keeping the contract is Superior to the other breaking it 3. There may be Mutual Coactive Power where there is no Mutual relation of Superiority Inferiority yea in some cases Inferiours may have a Coactive Power by Law to compell their Superiours failing in their duty to them As a Son wronged by his Father may compel him to reparation by Law And independent Kingdoms nothing inferior to each other being in Covenant together the wronged may have a Coactive power to force the other to duty without any Superior Arbiter 4. The bond of suretyship brings a man under the obligation to be accountable to the Creditor though the surety were never so high and the Creditor never so low Solomon sayes in General without exception of Kings yea including them because he was a King that spake it Prov. 6. 1 2. My son if thow be Surety for thy friend thow art snared with the words of thy Mouth Now a Kings power is but fiduciary And therefore he cannot be unaccountable for the power concredited to him And if the Generation had minded this our Stewarts should have been called to an account for their Stewardship ere now Hence I argue If a Covenanted Prince breaking all the Conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance
grand Interests of the Community must be seen to by Legal Securities for Religion Liberty which is the end use of fundamental Laws Now how these have been unhinged infringed by the introduction present establishment by Law of that Monster of the prerogative enacted in Parliament Anno 1661. the Apologetick Relation doth abundantly demonstrate Sect. 10. Concerning the Kings Civil Supremacy enhancing all the Absoluteness that ever the Great Turk could arrogate and yet far short of what hath been Usurped since and impudently proclaimed to the world especially by him who now domineers in his Challenges of Soveraign Authority prerogative Royal Absolute Power which all are to obey without reserve whereby the whole basis of our Constitution and Bulwark of our Religion Laws Liberties is enervated and we have security of no Law but the Kings lust Hence I argue Those Princes that contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown have overturned all fundamental Laws cannot be ouned But our Princes have contrary to their virtual compact at least at their coming to the Crown overturned all fundamental Laws Ergo they cannot be ouned The Major is plain for they that overturn fundamental Laws are no Magistrats thereby all the ends of Government being subverted and the subverter cannot be ouned as a Father or friend but an open enemy to the Common-wealth nor looked upon as Magistrats doing their duty but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Common-wealth And in this case the compact the ground of the Constitution being violated they fall from their right and the people are Liberated from their obligation and they being no Magistrats the people are no subjects for the relation is mutual and so is the obligation Ius populi chap. 9. pag. 183. The Minor is manifest both from the matter of fact and the Mischiefs framed into Laws by the Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal Absolute Power foresaid whereby what remains of our fundamental Constitutions either in Religious or Civil Settlements unsubverted as yet may be subverted when this Absolute Monarch pleases Which Absolute Authority we cannot in conscience oune for these Reasons taken both from Reason Scripture First it s against Reason 1. A power contrare to Nature cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which takes away and makes the people to give away their Natural power of preserving their lives Liberties and sets a man above all rule Law is contrare to Nature such is Absolute power making people resign that which is not in their power to resign an absolute power to destroy Tyrannize 2. A power contrare to the first rise of its Constitution cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for The first rise of the Constitution is a peoples seting a Soveraign over them giving him Authority to administer justice over them But it were against this to set one over them with a power to rage at randome and rule as he lists It s proven before a King hath no power but what the people gave him but they never gave never could give an absolute power to destroy themselves 3. That power which is against the ends of Government cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for that which will make a peoples condition worse then before the Constitution and that mean which they intended for a blessing to turn a plague scourage to them and all the subjects to be formal slaves at the Princes devotion must needs be contrare to the ends of Government But Absolute power is such for against the exorbitance thereof no means would be left to prevent its obstructing all the fountains of Justice and commanding Laws Lawyers to speak not justice righteousness reason but the lust pleasure of one man and turning all into Anarchy confusion Certainly it could never be the intention either of the work or workers at the Constitution of Government to set up a power to enslave the people to be a Curse to them but their ends was to get comfort safety Liberty under the shadow of Government 4. That power which invalidates and is inconsistent with the Kings compact with the people cannot be ouned Absolute Power is such for the tenor of that is alwise to secure Laws Liberties to rule according to Law but to be Absolute invalidates is inconsistent with that That which were an engagment into Contradictories cannot consist with that compact but to engage to be absolute and yet to rule by Law is an engagment into Contradictories which no people could admit for a security It s inconsistent with this compact to give the King Absolute Power to overturn Religion Liberty and to assume it which was never given were to invalidate this compact and to make himself no King but to restore unto the people the power they conferred upon him for the defence of Religion Liberty 5 That power which is not from God nor of God cannot be ouned But Absolute Power is not of God because it is a power to Tyrannize Sin which if it were of God He should be the Author of Sin for if the Moral Power be of God so must the acts be but the acts of Absolute Power being Lawless cannot be from God Ergo neither the Moral Power to commit these acts 6. That Ruler who cannot be Gods Minister for the peoples good cannot be ouned for that is the formal reason of our consfiencious subjection to Rulers Rom. 13. 4 5. But Absolute Soveraigns are such as cannot be Gods Ministers for the peoples good for if they be Gods Ministers for good they must administer justice preserve peace rule by Law take directions from their Master and if so they cannot be absolute 7. A Tyrant in actu signato exercito cannot be ouned But an Absolute Prince is such being a power that may play the Tyrant if he pleases and jure as King And so if Kings be actu primo Tyrants then people are actu primo Slaves and so Royal Power cannot be a blessing to them yea a Lawless breaker of all bonds promises Oaths cannot be ouned as Lawful Power But Absolute Power is such for it cannot be limited by these Obligations at least people cannot have any seurity by them 8. A Lawless Power is not to be ouned An Absolute Power is a Lawless power Ergo not to be ouned The Major is plain Cicero sayes Lib. 2. de officio Eadem constituendarum Legum causa fuit quae Regum The reason of making Lawes was the same as of the creation of Kings And Buchanan de jure Regni very excellently when the lust of Kings was in stead of Laws and being vested with an infinite immoderate power they did not contain themselves within bounds the insolency of Kings made Laws to be desired for this cause Laws were made by the people and Kings constrained to make use not of their Licencious wills in judgment but of
that right priviledge which the people had conferred upon them being taught by many experiences that it was better that their Liberty should be concredited to Laws than to Kings better to have the Law which is a dumb King than a King who is not a speaking Law. If then Laws be necessary for the making of Kings and more necessary than Kings And the same cause requirs both then a King without Laws is not to be ouned Rex must be Lex loquens a King must be a speaking living Law reducing the Law to practice So much then as a King hath of Law so much he hath of a King and he who hath nothing of the Law hath nothing of a King. Magna Charta of England saith the King can do nothing but by Law and no obedience is due to him but by Law. Buchanan rehearses the words of the most famous Emperours Theodosius Valentinianus to this effect Digna vox Majestate regnantis legibus se alligatum Principem fateri revero Imperio majus ost submittere legibus Principatum It is say they a word worthy of the Majestie of a King to confess he is a tyed Prince to the Laws and indeed it is more to submit a Principality to the Laws than to enjoy an Empire But now that an absolute power must be a Lawless power is also evident for that 's a Lawless power that makes all Laws void needless useless but such is absolute power for it cannot be confined to the observance of Laws 9. That power which is destructive to the peoples Liberties cannot be ouned Absolute power is such for such a Licencious freedom as is absolute cannot consist with the peoples Liberties for these he may infringe when he pleases Now these in their oun Nature and in all respects being preferable to the Kings prerogative And it being no prerogative which is not consistent with yea in its oun nature adapted to the precious Interests of Religion Liberty when the Kings Absolute Authority is stated in contradictory terms to these we cannot oune that Authority for now he hath another Authority than could be given him for the preservation of these Interests in the preservation whereof he can only have an Authority to be ouned seeing he claimes a power to destroy them if he please 10. If we should oune Absolute Authority then we should oune a Royal prerogative in the King to make dispense with Laws Now that cannot be ouned for it would infer that the King had a Masterly Dominion over his subjects to make Lawes inflict Penalties without their consent And plain it is they that make Kings must have a Coordinate power to make Laws also but the people in their Representatives make Kings as is proven Next a prerogative to dispense with Laws except such Laws as are in their oun nature dispensable without prejudice to any Law of God or Liberties of men cannot be ouned for any power to dispense with Reason Law not grounded on any other reason but meer will absolute pleasure is a brutish power It cannot be jus Coronae a right annexed to the Crown to do so for a King as a King illud tantum potest quod jure potest can do nothing but what he may do by Law. Nay this is not only a Brutish power but a Blasphemous power making him a Kind of God on earth illimited that can do what he pleases And to dispute it further were to dispute whether God hath made all under him slaves by their oun consent Or whether he may encroach on the prerogative of God or not By this prerogative he arrogates a power to dispense with the Laws of God also in pardoning Murtherers c. which no man hath power to do the Law of God being so peremptorly indispensable Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Numb 35. 30. 31. Who so killeth any person the murderer shall he put to death more over ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer but he shall be surely put to death These pardons are acts of blood to the Community If the Judgment be Gods as it is Deut. 1. 17. and not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. then no King can arrogate a power to dispense with it no more then an inferior Judge can dispense with the Kings Laws for the King is but a Minister bearing the Sword not in vain but as a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13. 4. They are but bastard Kings who give out sentances out of their oun mouth contrary to Gods mind And if he may do acts of grace by Prerogative above Law then may he also do acts of Justice so pretended by the same Prerogative and so may murder Innocents as well as pardon Murderers he may condemn the just as well as justify the wicked both which are alike abomination to the Lord Pro. 17. 15. This power cannot be ouned in any man. 11. To oune Absolute power were to recognosce the King as the proper sole Interpreter of the Law. This Buchanan shews to be very absurd Cum regi Legum interpretationem c. when yow grant the interpretation of Laws to a King yow give him such a Licence that the Law should not speak what the Lawgiver meaneth but what is for the Interpreters Interest so that he may turn it to all actions as a Lesbian rule for his oun advantage And so what he pleases the Laws shall speak and what he will not it shall not speak Now the Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the sense of the Law than it can be the Law it self He is King by Law but he is not King of Law No mortal can make a sense to a Law contrare to the Law for it involves a Contradiction the true meaning is only the Law. This also would take away the use of all Laws for they could not declare what were just unjust but as the King pleased their genuine sense could not be the rule 12. If we oune the Law to be above the King then we cannot oune the King to be absolute But the former is true For he must be under it several wayes 1 under its Directive power that will not be denyed 2 under its Constitutive power he is not a King by Nature but by Constitution Law therefore the Law is above the King because it s only from the Law that there is a King and that such a man and not another is King and that the King must be so so qualified and they that made him a King may also unmake him by the same Law. 3 under its Limiting Restrictive power as a man he cannot be absolute nor as a King by Law. 4 under its Coactive power A Law maker said King Iames the 6. should not be a Law breaker but if he turn an overturner of the fundamental Laws that Law or
Covenant that made him King doth oblige to unmake him Whatever power he hath it is only a borrowed fiduciary power as the Nations Publick servant and that which was lent him in Pledge or paun may be reclaimed when abused by him Especially if he turn parricide Kill his brother murder his nobles burn Cities then he may ought to be punished by Law. Otherwise God should have provided better for the safety of the part than of the whole though that part be but a mean for the safety of the whole for if he turn Tyrant in his absoluteness the people must be destroyed if they may not repress him thus he is secured and the whole exposed to ruine Yea if he be a man as well as a King he must be under rule of Law and when he transgresses either his transgressions are punishable by men or they are not transgressions with men See many Arguments to this purpose in Lex Rex Quest. 14. 19. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. But Secondly I prove it by Scripture 1. Even as King he is regulated by Law not to multiply horses nor wives nor money but to keep the words of the Law and not lift up himself above his brethren Deut. 17. 16 17 19 20. he must observe to do according to the Law and not turn from it to the right hand or to the left Iosh. 1. 7. Ergo he must not be absolute 2. He is certainly under that Law Math. 7. 12. what so ever ye would that men should do to yow do ye even so to them which is the universal fundamental Law. If then he would have us keeping in our line of subordination to him he must keep his line and so cannot be absolute 3. What is Gods dwe peculiar Prerogative can be ouned in no Mortal But Absolute power is Gods due peculiar Prerogative He alone does whatsoever pleaseth Him Psal. 115. 3. He alone worketh alle things after the Counsel of His oun will Eph. 1. 11. Acts or Commands founded upon the sole pleasure of the Agent are proper to God. Its Gods will and not the Creatures that can make things good or just It s Blasphemy therefore to ascribe absolute power to any Creature 4. That which the spirit of God condemned as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar that is no prerogative to be ouned but the Spirit of God condemned this in him proceeding from absolute power that whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up and whom he would he put doun And his heart was lifted up Dan. 5. 19. 20. 5. That which God condemns threatens in Tyrants in the Word in General cannot be ouned but Absolute power God condemns thereatens in the word in general that they turned Iudgement into Gall and said have we not taken to us horns by our oun strength Amos. 6. 12. 13. 6. The Word of God speaks nothing of the Kings Absolute prerogative to make Laws as he will. It is plain the Kings of Iudah had it not but the Sanhedrin had a great part of the Nomothetick power and of the punitive power in a special manner the Princes people had it by Ieremahs acknowledgment Ier. 26. 14. And Zedekiah confesses to them the King is not he that can do any thing against yow Ier. 38. 5. 7. we find the King in Scripture had not an absolute power to expone or execute the Law as he would Saul made a Law 1 Sam. 14. 2â— Cursed be the man that eats any food until evening But expening it thinking to execute it after a Tyrannical manner he was justly resisted by the people who would not let him kill innocent Ionathan 8. Nor had he the sole power of Interpreting it for inferior Judges were Interpreters who are no less essential Judges than the King who are set to Judge for the Lord and not for the King 2 Cron. 19. 6. and therefore they were to expone it according to their oun conscience and not the Kings They were to speak righteousness Iudge uprightly Psal. 58. 1. hence called Gods as well as Kings Psal. 82. 1. There was no essential Difference between a King of Gods approving and a Judge there being but one Law to both Deut. 17. 9. he was subject to judgment as well as others for being but a brother even while on the throne who was not to lift up his heart above his brethren Deut. 17. ult When his Cause was to be judged his person though never so great was not to be respected nor were they to be afrayed of the face of man for the judgment was Gods Deut. 1. 17. therefore the Judges were to give out sentence in judgment as if the Lord were to give it out There was no exception of Kings there Yea we find according to common Law they judged punished offending Kings as shall be made appear 10. If they were under Church Censures then they were not absolute but we find Kings were under Church Censures not only rebuked sharply to their face of which we have many instances but also subjected to Church discipline as Uzziah shut up for his Leprosie And certainly at all times this must be extended to all for the King is either a brother or not If not then he should not be King according to the Scripture Deut. 17. 15. then also he is not a Christian nor can he say the Lords Prayer If he be then if a brother offend he is subject to the Church Math. 18. there is no exceptions of Kings there The Objection from Eccles 8. 3. 4. he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what doest thow is of no significancy here For. 1. This Argument will enforce absolute obedience if the power be to be taken absolutely for it is obedience that is there commanded and so we must not only oune the absolute Authority but obey it without reserve which never any yet had the impudence to plead for until Iames the unjust claimed it in a Scots Proclaimation but we answer It is better to obey God than man 2. If he may do whatsoever pleases him then he may turn Priest then he may kill whom he pleases take possession and yet for Saules Usurpation Samuel could say more than what doest thow even to tell him he had done foolishly and his Kingdom should not continue 1 Sam. 13. 13. 14. And for Ahabs Tyranny Elâ—ah could tell him the dogs shall lick thy blood even thine 1 King. 21. 19. And Ezekiel thow profane wicked-Prince of Israel Ezek. 21. 25. 3. The meaning is then only this that a righteous King his just power may not be controlled he is armed with power that may not be resisted for he beareth not the Sword in vain and therefore we must not stand in an evil matter against them I conlude then this Argument with the words of an Ingenious Author upon this
though he be a Royal Vassal of the Kingdom Princely Servant of the people yet he is not their deputy because he is really their Soveraign to whom they have made over their Power of governing protecting themselves irrevocably except in the case of Tyranny and in acts of Justice he is not countable to any and does not depend on the people as a deputy But on the other hand the people is superior to the King in respect of their fountain power of Soveraignty that remains radically virtually in them in that they make him their Royal Servant and him rather than another and limit him to the Laws for their oun good advantage and though they give to him a Politick Power for their oun safety yet they keep a Natural Power which they cannot give away but must resume it in case of Tyranny And though they cannot retract the power of Justice to govern righteously yet it is not so irrevocably given away to him but that when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects they may wrest a sword out of a mad mans hand though it be his oun sword and he hath a just power to use it for good but all fiduciary power abused may be repealed They have not indeed Soveraignity or power of life death formally yet in respect they may constitute a Magistrate with Laws which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives they have this power eminently virtually Hence in respect that the Kings Power is and can be only fiducial by way of trust reposed upon him he is not so superior to the people but he may ought to be accountable to them in case of Tyranny which is evident from what is said and now I intend to make it further appear But first I form the Argument thus We can oune no King that is not accountable to the people Ergo we cannot oune this King. To clear the Connexion of the antecedent consequent I adde Either he is accountable to the people or he is not If he be accountible to all then he is renouncible by a part when the Collective body either wil not or cannot exact an account from him when the Community is defective as to their part it is the interest of a part that would but cannot do their duty to give no account to such as they can get no account from for his Maleversations This is all we crave If he be not accountable then we cannot oune him because all Kings are accountable for these reasons 1. The Inferior is accountable to the Superior the King is inferior the people superior Ergo the King is accountable to the people The proposition is plain if the Kings superiority make the people accountable to him in case of transgressing the Laws then why should not the peoples superiority make the King accountable to them in case of transgressing the Laws especially seeing the King is inferior to the Laws because the Law restrains him and from the Law he hath that whereby he is King the Law is inferior to the people because they are as it were its parent and way make or unmake it upon occasion and seeing the Law is more powerful than the King and the people more powerful than the Law we may see before which we may call the King to answer in Judgment Buchan Iure Regni apud Scot. That the King is inferior to the people is clear on many accounts for these things which are institute for others sake are inferior to those for whose sake they are required or sought a horse is inferior to them that use him for victory A King is only a mean for the peoples good A Captain is less then the Army a King is but a Captain over the Lords Inheritance 1 Sam. 10. 1. He is but the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13. 4. Those who are before the King and may be a people without him must be superior to him who is a posteriour and cannot be a King without them let the King be considered either Materially as a Mortal man he is then but a part inferior to the whole or formally under the reduplication as a King he is no more but a Royal Servant obliged to spend his life for the people to save them out of the hand of their enemies 2 Sam. 19 9. A part is inferior to the whole the King is but a part of the Kingdom A Gift is inferior to them to whom it is given a King is but a gift given of God for the peoples good That which is Mortal but accidental is inferior to that which is eternal cannot perish Politically a King is but mortal and it is but accidental to Government that there be a succession of Kings but the people is eternal one generation passeth away another generation cometh Eccles. 1. 4. especially the people of God the portion of the Lords inheritance is superior to any King and their ruine of greater moment than all the Kings of the world for if the Lord for their sake smite great Kings slay famous Kings as Sihon Og Psal. 137. 17-20 if he give kings famous kingdoms for their ransome Isai. 43. 3 4. then His people must be so much superior than kings by how much His Justice is active to destroy the one and His Mercy to save the other All this proves the people to be superior in dignity And therefore even in that respect its frivolous to say the king cannot be accountable to them because so much superior in Glory Pomp for they are superior every way in excellency And though it were not so yet Judges may be inferior in rank considered as men but they are superior in Law over the greatest as they are Judges to whom far greater than they are accountable The low mean condition of them to whom belongs the power of Judgment does not diminish its dignity when the king then is Judged by the people the Judgment is of as great dignity as if it were done by a superior king for the Judgment is the sentence of the Law 2. They are superior in power because every constituent cause is superior to the effect the people is the constituent cause the king is the effect and hath all his Royaltie from them by the Conveyance God hath appointed so that they need not feâ—ch it from Heaven God gives it by the people by whom also his power is limited and it need be diminished from what they gave his Ancestors Hence if the people constitute limit the power they give the King then they may call him to an account and judge him for the abuse of it But the first is true as is proven above Ergo The Major is undenyable for sure they may judge their oun Creature and call him to an account for the power they gave him when he abuses it though there be no Tribunal formally Regal above him
yet in the case of Tyranny and violating his Trust there is a Tribunal virtual eminently above him in them that made him reposed that Trust upon him as is said 3. The fountain power is superior to the power derived The people though they constitute a King above them yet retain the fountain power he only hath the derived power Certainly the people must retain more power eminently than they could give to the King for they gave it and he receives it with limitations if he turn mad or uncapable they may put Curators Tutors over him if he be taken captive they may appoint another to exercise the power if he die then they may constitute another with more or less power So then if they give a way all their power as a slave selleth his Liberty and retain no fountain power or radical right they could not make use of it to produce any of these acts They set a King above them only with an executive power for their good but the radical power remains in the people as in an immortal spring which they communicate by succession to this or that Mortal man in the manner measure they think expedient for otherwise if they gave all their power away what shall they reserve to make a new King if this man die What if the Royal line surcease there be no Prophets now sent to make Kings And if they have power in these cases why not in the case of Tyranny 4. If the King be accountable by Law for any act of Tyranny done against one man then much more is he accountable for many against the whole state But the former is true a private man may go to Law before the ordinary Judges for wronging his inheritance and the King is made accountable for the wrong done by him Now shall the Laws be like Spiders webs which hold flies but let bigger beasts pass through Shall Sentence be past for petty wrongs against a man and none for Tyrannizing over Religion Laws Liberties of the Kingdom Shall none be past against parricide or fratricide for killing his Brother Murdering the Nobles and burning Cities Shall pettie Thieves be hanged for stealing a Sheep and does the Laws of God or man give impunity for robbing a whole Country of the nearest dearest Interests they have to Crowned heads for the fancied Character of Royalty which thereby is forfeited 5. If there be Judges appointed of God independently to give out execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders without exception of the highest then the King also must be subject to that Judgment But there are Judges appointed of God independently to give out execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders without exception of the highest Two things must be here proved first that in giving Judgment they do not depend on the King but are the immediate vicars of God Secondly that the King is not excepted from but subject to their Judgment in case he be Criminal First they cannot depend upon the King because they are more necessary then the King and it is not left to the Kings pleasure whether there be Judges or not There may be Judges without a King but there can be no King without Judges nor no Justice but Confusion no man can bear the peoples burden alone Numb 11. 14 17 If they depended on the King their Power would die with the King the streams must dry up with the fountain but that cannot be for they are not Ministri regis but regni they are not Ministers of the King but of the Kingdom whose honour promotion though by the Kings external call yet comes from God as all honour promotion does Psal. 75. 7 The King cannot make Judges whom he will by his absolute Power he must be tied to that Law Deut. 1. 13. To take wise men understanding known Neither can he make them dura ite beneplacito for if these qualifications remain there is no allowance given for their removal They are Gods the Children of the Mosâ— High appointed to defend the poor fatherless as well as he Psal. 82. 3 6. They are ordained of God for the punishment of evil doers in which they must not be resisted as well as he Rom. 13. 1 2. by me saith the Lord rule ... all the Iudges of the earth Prov. 8. 16. To them we must be subject for Conscience sake as being the Ministers of God for good they must be obeyed for the Lords sake as well as the King though they are sent of him yet they Judge not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. hence they sit in his room and are to act as if he were on the bench the King cannot say the Judgment is mine because it is the Lords neither can he limit their sentance as he might if they were nothing but his deputies because the Judgment is not his nor are their Consciences subordinate to him but to the Lord immediatly otherwise if they were his deputies depending on him then they could neither be admonished nor condemned for unjust Judgment because their sentence should neither be righteous nor unrighteous but as the King makes it And all directions to them were capable of this exception do not so or so except the King command yow crush not the poor oppress not the fatherless except the King command yow yea then they could not execute any Judgment but with the Kings Licence and so could not be rebuked for their not executing Judgment Now all this is contrary to Scripture which makes the sentence of the Judges undeclinable when just Deut. 17. 11. the Lords indignation is kindled when He looks for Iudgment behold oppression for righteousness behold a Cry Isai. 5. 7. neither will it excuse the Judges to say the king would have it so for even they that are subservient to write grievousness to turn aside the needy from Iudgment c. are under the wo as well as they that prescribe it Isai. 10. 1 2. The Lord is displeased when Iudgment is turned away back ward and Justice stands a far of and when there is no Iudgment what ever be the Cause of it Isai. 59. 14 15. The Lord threatens He will be avenged on the Nation when a man is not found to execute Iudgment Ier. 5. 1 9. And promises if they will execute Judgment righteousness and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor He will give them righteous Magistrats Ier. 22. 3 4. but if they do not He will send desolation ibid. He rebukes those that turn Judgment to wormwood and leave of righteousness in the earth Amos. 5. 7. He resents it when the Law is slacked and Judgment doth not go forth freely without overawing or overruling restraint Habb 1. 4. Can these Scriptures consist with the Judges dependence on the kings pleasure in the exercise execution of their Power Therefore if they would avoid the
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
conveen to ask a King 1 Sam. 8. And without any head or superior they convene make David King notwithstanding of Isbosheths hereditary right Without against Tyrannous Athaliah her consent they convene make Ioash King and cared not for her Treason Treason 2 King. 11. But now the king alone challenges the Prerogative-power of calling dessolving Parliaments as he pleases and condemns all meetings of Estates without his warrant which is purely Tyrannical for in cases of necessity by the very Law of nature they may must convene The Power is given to the king only by a positive Law for orders sake but otherwise they have an intrinsical Power to assemble themselves All the forecited Commands Admonitions Certifications to execute Iudgement must necessarly involve imply Power to convene without which they could not be in a Capacity for it Not only unjust Judgement but no Iâ—dgement in a time when Truth is fallen in the streets equity cannot enter is charged as the sin of the State therefore they must convene to prevent this sin and the wrath of God for it God hath committed the keeping of the Common-wealth not to the king only but also to the peoples Representatives heads And if the king have Power to break up all Conventions of this nature then he hath Power to hinder Judgement to proceed which the Lord Commands And this would be an excuse when God threatens vengeance for it we could not execute Iudgement because ehe King forbad us Yet many of these forementioned reproofs threatenings certifications were given in the time of Tyrannous Idolatrous kings who no doubt would inhibite discharge the doing of their duty yet we see that was no excuse but the Lord denounces wrath for the omission 4 They had Power to execute Judgement against the will of the Prince Samuel killed Agag against Sauls will but according to the Command of God 1 Sam. 15. 32. Against Ahabs will mind Elijah caused kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods express Law 1 King. 18. 40. It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise than it is this day when there is no Magistrate that will execute the Judgment of the Lord then they who have Power to make the Magistrate may ought to execute it when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect So the Princes of Iudah had power against the kings will to put Ieremiah to death which the king supposes when he directs him what to say to them Ier. 38. 25. They had really such a Power though in Ieremiahs case it would have been wickedly perverted See Lex Rex Q. 19. 20. 5 They had a power to execute Judgement upon the king himself as in the case of Amaziah Uzziah as shall be cleared afterwards I conclude with repeating the Argument If the king be accountable whensoever this Account shall be taken we are confident our disouning him for the present will be justified and all will be obliged to imitate it If he be not then we cannot oune his Authority that so presumptously exalts himself above the People 10. If we will further consider the nature of Magistracy it will appear what Authority can conscienciously be ouned to wit that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potestas not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potentia Authorized Power not Might or force Moral Power not merely Natural There is a great difference betwixt these two Natural Power is common to brutes Moral Power is peculiar to men Narural Power is more in the Subjects because they have more strength force Moral Power is in the Magistrate they can never meet adequately in the same subject Natural power can Moral only may warrantably exercise rule Natural power is opposed to impotency weakness Moral to illicitness or unlawfulness Natural power consists in strength Moral in righteousness Natural power may be in a Reut of Rogues making an uproar Moral only in the Rulers they cannot be distinguished by their acts but by the Principle from which the acts proceed in the one from meer force in the other from Authority The Principle of Natural power is its oun might will and the end only self Moral hath its rise from positive Constitution and its end publick safety The strength of Natural power lies in the Sword whereby its might gives Law the strength of Moral power is in its Word whereby reason gives Law unto which the Sword is added for punishment of Contraveners Natural power takes the Sword Math. 26. 52. Moral bears the Sword Rom. 13. 4. In Natural power the Sword is the Cause in Moral it is only the Consequent of Authority In Natural power the Sword legitimates the Scepter in Moral the Scepter legitimates the Sword The Sword of the Natural is only backed with Metal the Sword of the Moral power is backed with Gods warrant Natural power involves men in passive subjection as a traveller is made to yeeld to a Robber Moral power reduces to Consciencious subordination Hence the power that is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas cannot be ouned But the power of Tyrants Usurpers is only Natural not Moral Potentia not Potestas Ergo it cannot be ouned The Major cannot be denied for it is only the Moral Power that is ordained of God unto which we must be subject for Conscience sake The Minor also for the Power of Tyrants is not Moral because not Authorized nor warranted nor ordained of God by His preceptive Ordinance and therefore no Lawful Magistratical Power For the clearer understanding of this let it be observed there are four things required to the making of a Moral or Lawful Power the matter of it must be Lawful the Person Lawful the Title Lawful and the Use Lawful 1. The matter of it about which it is exerted or the work to be done by it must be Lawful warranted by God and if it be unlawful it destroyes its Moral being As the Popes power in dispensing with Divine Laws is null no Moral Power And so also the Kings power in dispensing with both Divine humane Laws is null Hence that power which is in regard of matter unlawful and never warranted by God cannot be ouned But absolute power which is the power of Tyrants Usurpers particularly of this of ours is in regard of matter unlawful never warranted by God Ergo 2. The Person holding the power must be such as not only is capable of but competent to the tenure of it and to whom the holding of it is allowed and if it be prohibited it evacuates the Morality of the power Korah his Company arrogated to themselves the Office of the Priesthood this power was prohibited to them their power then was a nullity As therefore a person that should not be a Minister when he usurps that office is no Minister So a person that should not be a Magistrate when he usurps that Office is no
Magistrate Hence a person that is incapable incompetent for Government cannot be ouned for a Governour But the D. of Y. is such a person not only not qualified as the Word of God requires a Magistrate to be but by the Laws of the Land declared incapable of Rule because he is a Papist a Murderer an Adulterer c. 3. There must be in Moral Power a Lawful Title Investure as is shewed above which if it be wanting the Power is null and the person but a Scenical King like Iohn of Leyden This is essentially necessary to the being of a Magistrate which only properly distinguishes him from a private man for when a person becomes a Magistrate what is the change that is wrought in him what new habit or endewment is produced in him he hath no more natural power than he had before only now he hath the Moral Power right Authority to Rule Legally impowering him to Govern. Let it be Considered what makes a subordinate Magistrate whom we may oune as such It must be only his Commission from a Superior Power otherwise we reject him If one come to us of his oun head taking upon him the style office of a Bailif Sheriff or Judge and command our Persons demand our purses or exact our Oaths we think we may deny him not taking our selves to owe him any subjection not ouning any bond of conscience to him why because he hath no lawful Commission Now if we require this qualification in the subordinate why not in the Supreme Hence that Magistrate that cannot produce his Legal Investure cannot be ouned But the D. of Y. cannot produce his Legal Investure his admission to the Crown upon Oath Compact and with the consent of the subjects according to the Laws of the Land as is shewed above Ergo 4. There must also be the Lawful Use of the Power which must be not only legal for its composure but right for its practice its Course Process in Government must be just Governing according to Law otherwise it is meer Tyranny for what is Government but the subjecting of the Community to the rule of Governours for Peace Orders sake and the security of all their precious Interests and for what end was it ordained and continued among men but that the stronger may not domineer over the weaker And what is Anarchy but the playing the Rex of the Natural power over the Moral Hence that Power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical can tye none to subjection But the power of the King abused to the destruction of Laws Religion Liberties giving his power strength unto the beast making war with the Lamb Revel 17. 13 14. is a power contrary to Law evil Tyrannical Ergo it can tye none to subjection wickedness by no imaginable reason can oblige any man. It is Objected by some from Rom. 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Usurping power is a power Therefore it is of God and consequently we owe subjection to it Ans. 1. The Original reading is not Universal but thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is no power if not from God which confirms what I plead for that we are not to oune any Authority if it be not Authorized by God. The words are only relative to higher powers in a restricted sense and at most are but indefinite to be determined according to the matter not all power simply but all Lawful power 2. It is a fallacia a dicto secundum quid There is no power but of God that is no Moral Power as Universal negatives use to be understood Heb. 5. 4. no man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God which is clear must not be understood for the negation of the fact as if no man at all doth or ever did take unto himself that honour for Korah did it c. but no man taketh it warrantably with a Moral right and Gods allowance without Gods call So also the universal imperative in that same Text must not be taken absolutely without restriction for if every soul without exception were to be subject there could be none left to be the higher powers but it is understood with restriction to the relation of a subject So here no Power but of God to be understood with restriction to the relation of a Lawful Magistrate It it also to be understood indiscriminately in reference to the diverse species sorts degrees of Lawful Power Supreme subordinate whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours c. as Peter expresses it Or whether they be Christian or Pagan It cannot be meant of all universally that may pretend to power and may attain to prevailing Potency for then by this Text we must subject our selves to the Papacy now intended to be introduced and indeed if we subject our selves to this Papist the next thing he will require will be that 3. To the Minor proposition I Answer The usurping power is a power It is Potentia I grant that it is Potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority I deny Therefore it is of God by His Providence I concede by His Ordinance I deny Consequently we owe subjection to it I deny We may be subject passively I grant Actively out of conscience I deny But some will Object 2. Though the Power be Usurped and so not Morally Lawful in all these respects yet it may do good its Laws administrations may be good Ans. I grant all is good that ends well and hath a good begining That cannot be good which hath a bad principle bonum ex integra causa Some Government for constitution good may in some acts be bad but a Government for constitution bad cannot for the acts it puts forth be good These good acts may be good for matter but formally they are not good as done by the Usurper They may be comparatively good that is better so then worse but they cannot be absolutely and in a Moral sense good for to make a Politick action good not only the matter must be warrantable but the Call also It may indeed induce subjects to bear improve to the best what cannot be remedied but cannot oblige to oune a Magistratical Relation II. The Nature of the power thus discovered lets us see the Nature of that relative duty which we owe must oune as due to Magistrates and what sort of ouning we must give them which to inquire a litle into will give light to the question All the duty deference the Lord requires of us towards them whom we must oune as Magistrates is comprehended in these two expressions honour required in the fifth Command and subjection required in Rom. 13. 1. c. 1 Pet. 2. 13. c. Whomsoever then we oune as Magistrates we must oune honour subjection as due to them And if so be we cannot upon a consciencious ground give them honour subjection we cannot
further threatens that they should be removed into all Kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh for that which he did in Ierusalem Ier. 15. 4. Certainly these passages were recorded for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. and for our examples to the intent we should not do as they did 1 Cor. 10. 6. and for our admonition vers 11. Whence we may be admonished that it is not enough to keep our selves free of publick sins of Rulers Many of those then punished were free of all actual accession to them but they became accessory to and involved in the guilt of them when they did not endeavour to hinder them and bring them to condign punishment for them according to the Law of God which respecteth not persons or at least because they did not revolt from them as Libnah did There might be other provocations on the peoples part no doubt which the Lord did also punish by these Judgments â—ut when the Lord specifies the sin of Rulers as the particular procuring Cause of the Judgment it were presumption to make it the Occasion only of the Lords punishing them for plain it is if these sins of Rulers had not been committed which was the ground of the threatening execution the Judgment would have been prevented And if people had bestirred themselves as became them in repressing restraining such wickedness they had not so smarted And when that sin so threatened punished was removed then the Judgment it self was removed or deferred It is just necessary that the subjects being Jointly included with their Rulers in the same bond of fidelity to God be lyable to be punished for their Rebellion Apostasie when they continue under the bond of subjection to them But how deplorable were our Condition if we shold stand obnoxions to divine Judgments for the Atheisme Idolatry Murders Adulteries of our Rulers and yet be neither Authorized nor Capacitated to hinder it nor permitted to withdraw our selves from subjection to them But it is not so for the Lords making us responsable for their debt is an impowering us either to repress their wickedness when He gives us Capacity or at least to save our selves harmless from their Crimes by disouning them that being the only way of standing no longer accountable for their faults 12. It remains to Consider the Ends for which Government was institute by God and constitute by men from whence I Argue That Government that destroyes the Ends of Government is not to be ouned But Tyranny and especially this under which we houl destroyes all the Ends of Government Ergo it is not to be ouned The Minor I prove thus That Government that destroyes Religion Safety destroyes all the Ends of Government But this Popish arbitrary Absolute power destroyes Religion Safety Ergo It is evident both from the Laws of Nature Revelation that the Ends of Government are the Glory of God the good of Mankind The first is the Glory of God the ultimate end of all Ordinances to which whatever is opposite is not to be ouned by them that fear Him whatever power then is destructive to Religion and is applyed imployed against the Glory of the Uuniversal King and for withdrawing us from our fealtie obedience to Him is nothing but Rebellion against the Supreme Lord Lawgiver and a Traiterous Conspiracy against the Almighty and therefore not to be ouned And they are enemies to Religion or strangers to it who are not sensible this hath been the design of the present Government at least these 27 years to overturn the Reformed Covenanted Religion and to introduce Popery Hence seeing a King at his best highest elevation is only a mean for preserving Religion and for this end only chosen of the people to be Custos utriusque tabulae keeper of both Tables of the Law he is not to be regarded but wholly laid aside when he not only moves without his sphere but his motion infers the ruine of the ends of his erection and when he imployes all his power for the destruction of the Cause of Christ and advancement of Antichrists giving his power to the beast he is so far from deserving the deference of the power ordained of God that he is to be looked upon treated as a Traitor to God and Stated enemy to Religion all Righteousness The Second End of Government is the good of the people which is the Supreme Cardinal Law Salus Populi est Suprema Lex Which cannot be denied if it be considered 1. For this only the Magistrate is appointed of God to be His Minister for the peoples good Rom. 13. 4. and they have no goodness but as they conduce to this end for all the power they have of God is with this Proviso to promote His peoples prosperity It were blasphemy to say they are His Authorized Ministers for their destruction to which if their Conduct degenerate they degrade themselves and so must be disouned He is therefore in his institution no more than a mean for this end and himself cannot be either the whole or half of the end for then he should be both the end the mean of Government and it is contrary to Gods mould to have this for his end to multiply to himself silver gold or lift up himself above his brethren Deut. 17. 17 20. if therefore he hath any other end than the good of the people he cannot be ouned as one of Gods moulding 2. This only is the highest pitch of good Princes ambition to postpone their oun safety to the peoples safety Moses desired rather than the people should be destroyed that his name should be razed out of the Book of life And David would rather the Lords hand be on him his fathers house than on the people that they should be plagued 1 Chron. 21. 17. but he that would seek his oun ambitious ends with the destruction of the people hath the spirit of the Devil and is to be carried towards as one possessed with that malignant spirit 3. Originally their power is from the people from whom all their dignity is derived with reserve of their safety which is not the donative of Kings nor held by concession from them nor can it be resigned or surrendered to the disposal of Kings since God hath provided in His universal Laws that no Authority make any disposal but for the good of the people This cannot be forfeited by the usurpation of Monarchs but being alwise fixed in the essential Laws of Government they may reclaim recover it when they please Since then we cannot alienate our safety we cannot oune that Authority which is inconsistent with it 4. The attaining this end was the main ground motive of peoples deliberating to constitute a Goverment and to choose such a forme because they thought it most conducible for their good and to admit such persons as fittest Instruments for compassing this end and to establish such
according to the sworn Covenant yow say nothing to the point in hand that sure is not your meaning 3 whoever promises so much of peaceable living under his Maj. Authority leaveing out the exposition of the 5. Command may upon the very same ground subscribe the bond refused by the Godly and so yow pass from the Covenant and make all these bypast Actings of this Kirk State these years by-past to be horrid Rebellion and how deep this guilt drawes consider 5. This would infer though the King should send and kill us we must not resist nor defend our oun lives yet being an Oath against the Sixth Command which enjoineth Natural self preservation it should be intrinsecally sinful and it s all one to swear to non-preservation of self as to swear to self Murder 6. I hope to make it appear in the 5. Head that this is against the practice of Nations the Law of Nature and the Word of God. Yet all this Complex iniquity is clearly comprehended in the Oath of Abjuration in terminis abâ—uring all war against the King. VI. There were some other Oaths frequently obtruded upon people for refusing which they have suffered great cruelties that can hardly be described by any name Nor can their imposition have a paralel in any age or place for illegaltty inhumanity arbitrariness odiousness These were the Oaths of Inquisition or Super inquirendis Whereby people were pressed to answer the Inquisitors according to all their knowledge of things they were interrogate upon and delate discover Intercommuned persons in their Wanderings or such whose names were in their Porteous Rolls c. And power was given to single Souldiers to press these Oaths upon whom they pleased The iniquity of which is monstrous for 1. This was the worst Kind of Combination with these blood-hound to abett assist them in their pursuing after the Lords people Which is worse than to be bare consenters to such wickedness or to be onlookers to their affliction in the day of their Calamity but like that sin charged upon Edom that they delivered up those of His that did remain in the day of distress Obad. vers 13. 14. for these that took Oaths obliged themselves to do all they could to deliver up the Remnant that escaped and if they did not no thanks to them if they could not their sin was in their willingness if they would not and yet swore would contribute their help towards it by telling of all they knew that was horrid perjury false swearing 2. This could be no wayes capable of the qualifications of an Oath not only because the matter is wicked unnatural to discover may be the husband or Children or nearest relations to please men or save their oun life which was a great tentation and therefore in it there could be no delibaration in swearing but also for the doubtful perplexity confounding the mind that they either could not or durst not tell of all they knew and yet sware to do it 3. It is against the Covenant which obliges to discover Malignant enemies and assist our Covenanting Brethren and not to discover them and assist Malignant enemies which is a perfect inverting the fourth sixth Articles of the Covenant 4. It is contrary to clear precepts in Scripture to assist defend our Brethren to make our shaddow as the night in the midst of the noon day and hide the Outcast and bewray not him that wandereth Isai. 16. 3. 5. The illegality of this imposition makes it very absurd that every pitiful Officer or Souldier should be impowered to impose exact Oaths and impannel examine Witnesses about alledged Criminals Yet the monstrousness of this Oath serves to aggravate the Oath of Abjuration in that the Abjurers do renounce their part of disoune the Declarers of that abjured Declaration and so do as much as from them is required to give them up for a prey to their hunters yea they declare them Murderers in that they abjure their Declaration as asserting Murder And consequently they must be obliged to discover them to their acknowledged Judges VII The Abominable Test comes next which needs no other refutation than to rehearse it the substance whereof was a Solemn Swearing that they Ouned sincerely professed the true Protestant Religion contained in the confession of faith recorded in the first Parl. of K. Iaemes the 6 and that they would adhere thereunto all the dayes of their life and never consent to any change or alteration contrary thereto but renounce all Doctrines principles practices whether Popish or Fanatical contrary thereto And they swear that the King is the only Supreme Governour of this Realme over all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil and promise to bear faith true allegiance to the Kings Maj. his heirs Lawful successors and to their power shall assist defend all rights jurisdictions prerogatives belonging to them And affirme it unlawful for subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Covenants or to convocate conveen or assemble to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without his Maj. special command or to take up Armes against the King or these Commissionate by him And that there lies no obligation on them from the National Covenant or Solemn League Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of the Kingdom and they shall never decline his Maj. power jurisdiction And finally they swear that this Oath is given in the plain genuine sense meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or any manner of evasion whatsoever This is the Complement of a wicked Conspiracy couching in its Capicious bosome the Complication of all their Mischiefs comprehending all explaining all the former which indeed cannot be taken with any equivocating evasion that can escape either the Stigma of nonsense self contradiction or the censure of Atheisme irreligion or the sentence of Divine vengeance against such baffling the Name of God. The best sense that can be put upon it is that which a poor Sot expressed when it was tendered to him prefacing thus before he took it Lord have mercy upon my Soul. For. 1. It is not consistent with itself there being such contradictions between that confession of faith and the following part that no man can reconcile Some whereof may be instanced as followes 1 In the 11. Art. of that confession entituled of Christs Ascension it is said that Christ is the only Head of the Church Just Lawgiver in which Honours Offices if man or Angels presume to intrude themselves we utterly detest abhore them as blasphemous to our Soveraign Supreme Governour Christ Jesus and a litle before in that same Article it is said this Glory Honour prerogative He alone among the Brethren
but our Ministers that ventured their lives in preaching in the fields have had a certain seal to their Ministry is sealed sensibly in the conviction of many confession of moe That Christs Ministers Witnesses employed about the Great Gospel Message cloathed with His Authority under the obligation of His Commands lying upon them must preach the people must hear them not withstanding of all Laws to the contrary Divines grant that the Magistrate can no more suspend from the exercise than he can depose from the Office of the Ministry for the one is a degree unto the other See Apollon de jure Majest circa Sacra Part. 1. Pag. 334. c. Rutherf Due right of Presb. Pag. 430. c. For whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God the Consciences of the greatest enemies may be appealed unto Act. 4. 19. They must not cease wherever they have a Call Occasion to Teach Preach Iesus Christ Act. 5. ult Necessity is laid upon them yea wo unto them if they Preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 16. In all things they must approve themselves as the Ministers of God in much patience in afflictions in necessities c. by honour dishonour by evil report good report as deceivers and yet true as unknown yet well known 2 Cor. 6. 4 8 9. They must preach the Word be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 2. Dare any say then that a Magistrats or Tyrants Laws can exauctorate a Minister or silence him by his oun proper elicite acts as King or Tyrant or formally immediately Will Mischiefs framed into a Law warrant such iniquity or an act of a King of Clay rescind the Mandats of the King of Kings or exempt people from obedience due thereunto Or will the Bishops Canons who have no power from Christ or the Censures of them that stand condemned themselves by the Constitutions of the Church Acts of the General Assemblies have any weight in the case And yet these are all that can be alledged except odious invidious Calumnies the ordinary Lot of the most faithful against the present preachers in the fields which are sufficiently confuted in their late Informatory Vindication and need not here be touched Seeing therefore they have given up themselves unto Christ as His servants they must resolve to be employed for Him to the outmost of their power and must not think of laying up their Talent in a Napkin especially now when there is so great necessity when Defection is yet growing covered countenanced more more Division nothing abated but new oyl cast daylie into the flames of devouring Contentions the people generally drouned in the deluge of the times snares sins and like to be over whelmed in the inundation of black Poperie now coming in at the opened sluce of this wicked Toleration with the Congratulations of Addressing Ministers when now the Harvest is great and the Labourers are few Great then is the necessity and double must the woe be that abideth such Ministers as are silent at such a time And great inexcusable is the sin of the people if they do not come out and countenance faithful Ministers the Messengers of the Lord of hosts from whom they should seek the Law Mal. 2. 7. especially when there are so many that have palpably betrayed their Trust and so few that are faithful in the necessary Testimony of the day Seeing then faithful Ministers must preach people must hear where can they meet with conveniency safety freedom except either under the shelter of this wicked Toleration which they dare not do or else go to the fields 5. It must be obtained also that the Ministers have a right to Preach in this unfixed manner whereever they have a Call their relation now in this disturbed state of the Church being to be considered more extensively than in its settled condition For understanding which we must distinguish a three or four-fold relation that a Minister of the Gospel stands into First He is a Minister of Christ and Steward of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. having his Commission from Christ as his Master And this relation he hath universally wherever he is Secondly he is a Minister of the Catholick Church though not a Catholick Minister of it which is his primary relation for that is the Church in which Ministers are set 1 Cor. 12. 28. and to which they are given Eph. 4. 11 12. Thirdly He is a Minister of the particular Church whereof he is a Member and so in Scotland a Minister is a Minister of the Church of Scotland and is obliged to lay out himself for the good of that Church Fourthly he is a Minister of the particular Congregation whereunto he hath a fixed relation in a constitute case of the Church This last is not essential to a Minister of Christ but is subservient to the former relations but when separated from such a relation or when it is impossible to be held he is still a Minister of Christ and His Call to preach the Gospel stands binds See M r Durhams Degression on this particular on Revel chap. 2. pag. 89. c. in quarto For thô he be not a Catholick Officer having an equal relation to all Churches as the Apostles were Nevertheless he may exerce Ministerial Acts Authoritatively upon occasions warrantably calling for the same in other Churches as Heraulds of one King having Authority to charge in His Name wherever it be especially in a broken state of the Church when all the restriction his Ministerial relation is capable of is only a tye call to officiate in the service of that Church whereof he is a Member and so he hath right to preach every where as he is called for the edification of that Church The reasons are 1. He hath power from Christ the Master of the whole Church and therefore wherever the Masters Authority is acknowledged the Servants Ministerial Authority cannot be denied at least in relation to that Church whereof he is a Member as well as a Minister 2. He hath Commission from Christ principally for the edification of Christs body as far as his Ministrie can reach according to the Second relation 3. His relation to the whole Church is principal that which is fixed to a part is only subordinate because it is a part of the whole 4. His Commission is indefinite to preach the Gospel which will sâ—it as well in one place as in another 5. The same great ends of the Churches greater good edification which warrands fixing of a Minister to a particular charge in the Churches peaceable state will warrand his officiating more largely in her disturbed state 6. Else it would follow that a faithful Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed destroyed Church and all his
not Gods Ordinance and there is no hazard of damnation for refusing to obey their unjust commands but rather the hazard of that is in walking willingly after the Commandment when the Statutes of Omri are kept So that what is objected from Eccles. 8. 2-4 I counsell thee to keep the Kings Commandment c. is answered on Head. 2. And is to be unsterstood only of the Lawful commands of Lawful Kings 2. Rebellion is a damnable sin except where the word is taken in a laxe sense as Israel is said to have Rebelled against Rehoboam and Hezekias against Sennacherib which was a good Rebellion and clear duty being taken there for Resistence Revolt In that sense indeed some of our Risings in Armes might be called Rebellions for it is Lawful to Rebel against Tyrants But because the word is usually taken in an evil sense therefore would have been offensive to acknowledge that before the Inquisitors except it had been explained But Rebellion against Lawful Magistrats is a damnable sin exemplarly punished in Korah and his Companâ— who rebelled against Moses and in Shebah and Absalom who rebelled against David for to punish the Just is not good nor to strike Princes for equity Prov. 17. 26. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13. 2. So that this Objection brought from this place as if the Apostle were commanding there subjection without Resistence to Nero and such Tyrants as it is very impertinent It is fully answered above Head. 2. Here it will be sufficient to reply 1. He is hereby vindicating Christianity from that reproach of casting off or refusing subjection to all Magistrats as if Christian Liberty had destroyed that Relation or that they were not to be subject to Heathen Magistrats Whereupon he binds this duty of subjection to Magistrats for conscience sake in general And it is very considerable what Buchanan sayes in his book de jure regni that Paul did not write to the Kings themselves because they were not Christians and therefore the more might be born with from them tho they should not understand the duty of Magistrats But imagine that there had been some Christian King who had turned Tyrant and Apostate to the Scandal of Religion what would he have written then Sure if he had been like himself he would have denyed that he should be ouned for a King and would have interdicted all Christians Communion with him and that they should account him no King but such as they were to have no fellowship with according to the Law of the Gospel 2. He speaks of Lawful Rulers here not Tyrants but of all such as are defined qualified here being powers ordained of God terrours to evil works Ministers of God for good Yea but says Prelats and their Malignant Adherents these are only Motives of subjection to all powers not qualifications of the powers I answer they are indeed Motives but such as can be extended to none but to these powers that are so qualified 3. He speaks of Lawful powers indefinitely in the plural number not specifying any Kind or degree of them as if only Kings Emperours were here meant It cannot be proven that the power of the sword is only in them Neither was there a plurality of Kings or Emperours at Rome to be subject to if he meant the Roman Emperour he would have designed him in the singular number All the reasons of the Text aggree to inferiour Judges also for they are Ordained of God they are called Rulers in Scripture and Gods Ministers revengers by Office who judge not for man but for the Lord And inferiour Magistrats also are not to be resisted when doing their duty 1 Pet. 2. 13. yet all will grant when they go beyond their bounds and turns litle Tyrants they may be with-stood 4. He does not speak of Nero concerning whom it cannot be proven that at this time he had the Soveraign power as the learned Mr Prin shewes Or if he had that he was a Tyrant at this time and if he meant him at all it was only as he was obliged to be de jure not as he was de facto All men know and none condemns the fact of the Senate that resisted Nero at length without transgressing this precept Yea I should rather think the Senate is the power that the Apostle applies this Text to if he applied it to any in particular 5. The subjection here required is the same with the honour in the fifth Command whereof this is an exposition and is opposite to the Contraordinatness here condemned Now subjection takes in all the duties we owe to Magistrates and Resistence all the contraries forbidden but unlimited obedience is not here required so neither unlimited subjection 3. We may allow Passive subjection in some cases even to Tyrants when the Lord layes on that yoke and in effect sayes He will have us to lie under it a while as He Commanded the Jewes to be subject to Nebuchadnezzar of which passage adduced to prove subjection to Tyrants Universally Buchanan ubi supra infers that if all Tyrants be to be subjected to because God by His Prephet Commanded His people to be subject to one Tyrant Then it must be likewise concluded that all Tyrants ought to be killed because Ahabs house was Commanded to be destroyed by Iehu But passive subjection when people are not in capacity to resist is necessary I do not say Passive obedience which is a meer Chimaera invented in the brains of such Sycophants as would make the world slaves to Tyrants Whosoever suffereth if he can shun it is an enemy to his oun being for every natural thing must strive to preserve it self against what annoyeth it and also he sins against the order of God Who in vain hath ordained so many Lawful means for preservation of our being if we must suffer it to be destroyed having power to help it 4. We abhor all war of subjects professedly declared against a Lawful King as such all war against Lawful Authority founded upon or designed for maintaining Principles inconsistent with Government or against Policy Piety Yea all war without Authority Yes when all Authority of Magistrates supreme subordinate is perverted and abused contrary to the ends thereof to the oppressing of the people and overturning of their Laws Liberties people must not suspend their Resistence upon the Concurrence of men of Authority and forbear the Duty in case of necessity because they have noâ— the peers or Primores to lead them for if the ground be Lawful the call clear the necessity cogent the capacity probable they that have the Law of Nature the Law of God and the fundamental Laws of the Land on their side cannot want Authority though they may want Parâ—iaments to espouse their quarrel This is cleared above Head. 2. Yet here I shall adde 1. The people have this priviledge of nature to defend themselves and their Rights Liberties as well as
greatest power be Resisted rather than the Universal Common-wealth suffer hurt But the former is true for that dictates the necessity of the distracted father to be bound by his oun sons lest all the family be hurt Ergo the greatest of men or Kings when destructive to the Common-wealth must be Resisted for he is but one man so but particular nature 6. That which is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition then Brutes is absurd and contrary to the Law of Nature But to say that the Brutes have power to defend themselves by resisting what annoyes them and deny this power to men is irrational and reflects upon Providence as puting men in a worse condition than Brutes Therefore it is absurd contrary to the Law of Nature 3. From the Institution of Government I may argue thus That power and Government which is not of God may be Resisted The Tyrants power Government in overturning Laws subverting Religion bringing in Idolatry oppressing Subjects is not of God Ergo it may be Resisted The Major is clear because that is only the reason why he is not to be resisted because the Ordinance of God is not to be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But they that resist a man destroying all the Interests of mankind overturning Laws subverting Religion c. do not resist the Ordinance of God. And if it were not so this would tend irremedilessly to overthrow all Policies and open a gap to all disorder injustice cruelty and would give as great encouragment to Tyrants to do what they lift as thieves would be encouraged if they knew no body would resist them or bring them to punishment 4. From the Original Constitution of Government by men It may be argued thus If people at the first erection of Government acted rationally and did not put themselves in a worse case than before wherein it was Lawful to defend themselves against all injuries but devolved their rights upon the fiduuciary Tutory of such as should remain still in the rank of men that can do wrong who had no power but by their gift consent choice with whom they associated not to their detriment but for their advantage and determined the form of their Government and time of its continuance and in what cases they might recur to their primeve Liberty and settled a succession to have Course not jure hereditario but jure vi legis for good ends Then they did not give away their birth-right of self defence and power of resistence which they had before to withstand the violence injuries oppressions of the men they set over them when they pervert the form and convert it to Tyranny but did retain a power priviledge to resist and revolt from them and repell their violence when they should do violence to the Constitution and pervert the ends thereof But the former is true Ergo The Minor is cleared Head. 2. And the Connexion is confirmed from this if the Estates of a Kingdom give the power to a King it is their oun power in the fountain and if they give it for their oun good they have power to judge when it is used against themselves and for their evil and so power to limit resist the power that they gave 5. From the way manner of erecting Governours by Compact the necessity whereof is proven Head. 2. Many arguments might be deduced I shall reduce them to this form If people must propose Conditions unto Princes to be by them acquiesced in submitted unto at their Admission to the Government which thereupon becomes the fundamental Laws of the Government and Securities for the peoples rights Liberties giving a Law Claim to the people to pursue the Prince in case of faiâ—ing in the main principal thing Covenanted as their oun Covenanted Mandatarius who hath no Ius or Authority of his oun but what he hath from them and no more power but what is contained in the Conditions upon which he undertaketh the Government Then when either an Usurper will come under no such conditions or a Tyrant doth break all these conditions which he once accepted and so become stricto jure no Prince and the people be stricto jure Liberated from subjection to him they may must Defend themselves and their fundamental Rights Priviledges Religion Laws and Resist the Tyanny overturning them But the former is true Ergo The Connexion is clear And the Minor is proved Head. 2. And at length demonstrated and applied to the Government of Charles the Second by Ius Populi cap. 6. See Arg. 4. 5. Head. 2. 6. From the Nature of Magistracy it may be argued thus That power which is properly neither Parental nor Marital nor Masterly Despotick over the Subjects Persons goods but only fiduciary and by way of trust is more to be Resisted than that which is properly so But that power which is properly so that is Parental power and Marital and Masterly may be Resisted in many cases Ergo that power which is not so properly but only fiduciary is more to be Resisted That a Kings power over his subjects is neither Parental nor Marital c. is proven Head. 2. And the Major needs no Probation The Minor is clear by Instances 1. If Children may in case of necessity resist the fury of their father seeking to destroy them then must private subjects Resist the rage Tyranny of Princes seeking to destroy them and what is dearest to them for there is no stricter obligation Moral between King people than between Parents Children nor so strict and between Tyrants people there is none at all But the former cannot be denyed Ergo 2. If Wives may Lawfully defend themselves against the unjust violence of enraged Husbands then must private subjects have power to Resist the furious assaults of enraged Tyrants for there is not so great a tye betwixt them and people as between man wife yea there is none at all But the former is true Ergo 3. If Servants may defend themselves against their Masters then must private subjects defend themselves against a Tyrant or his Emissaries But the former is true Ergo 4. If the Kings power be only fiduciary and by way of Paun which he hath got to keep then when that power is manifestly abused to the hurt of them that entrusted him with it he ought to be Resisted by all whom he undertook to protect But the former is true Ergo the latter 7. From in the Limited power of Princes it may be thus argued If Princes be limited by Laws Contracts and may be resisted by Plea's in Law and have no absolute power to do command what they will but must be limited both by the Laws of God and man and cannot make what Laws they will in prejudice of the peoples Rights nor execute the Laws made according to their pleasure nor conser on others a
Lawless licence to oppress whom they please Then when they turn Tyrants and arrogate a Lawless Absoluteness and cross the Rules transgress the Bounds prescribed by Gods Law mans Law and make their oun lust a Law and execute the same arbitrarly They must be Resisted by force when a legal resistence cannot be had in defence of Religion and Liberty But all Princes are limited c. Ergo The Minor is proved Head. 2. And the Connexion may be thus confirmed in short That power which is not the Ordinance of God may be resisted But an absolute illimited power crossing the Rules and transgressing the bounds prescribed by Gods Law and mans is not the Ordinance of God Ergo it may be Resisted 8. Further from the Rule of Government it may be argued several wayes 1. That power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical can tye none to subjection but if it oblige to anything it tyes to Resistence But the power of a King against Law Religion and the Interests of the subjects is a power contrary to Law evil Tyrannical Ergo The Major is plain for Wickedness can tye no man but to resist it That power which is contrary to Law evil Tyrannical is Wickedness 2. That power and those Acts which neither King can exerce nor command nor others execute nor any obey must certainly be Resisted But such is the power and Acts that oppress the subjects and overturn Religion Liberty Ergo The Minor is evident from Scriptures condemning oppression violence both in them that command and in them that execute the same and also them that obey such wicked commands The Major is clear from Reason both because such power such Acts as cannot be commanded cannot be executed cannot be obeyed Lawfully are sinful wicked and because it cannot be a Magistratical power for that may alwayes be exerced executed Lawfully And what a man cannot command the resisting of that he cannot punish But acts of oppression against Law Religion Liberty a man cannot command Ergo the Resisting of these he cannot punish 3. That Government or Administration which is not subordinate to the Law Will of God who hath appointed it must be Resisted But that Government or Administration which undermines or overturnes Religion Liberty is not subordinate to the Law Will of God Ergo The Major is clear for nothing but what is the Ordinance of God subordinate to His Law Will is irresistible Rom. 13. 2. The Assumption is undenyable 9. From the Ends of Government which must be acknowledged by all to be the Glory of God and the Good of Mankind yea all that have been either wise or honest have alwayes held that Salus Populi est Suprema Lex The Arguments may run thus in short 1. That Doctrine which makes the Holy one to cross His oun ends in giving Governours must be absurd Unchristian as well as irrational But such is the Doctrine that makes all Kings Tyrants irresistible upon any pretence whatsoever Ergo The minor I prove That Doctrine which makes God intending His oun Glory the peoples good to give Governours both as Fathers to preserve and as Murderers to destroy them must make the Holy one to cross His oun ends for these are Contradictory But the Doctrine that makes all Kings Tyrants irresistible c. is such For by Office they are Fathers to preserve and by Office also they must be Murderers vested with such a power from God actu primo if they be irresistible when they do so seeing every power that is irresistible is the Ordinance of God. Hence also when a Blessing turns a Curse it is no more the Ordinance of God but to be resisted But when a King turns a Tyrant overturning Religion Liberty then a Blessing turns a Curse Ergo 2. Means are to be Resisted when they are not useful for but destructive to the ends they were appointed for But Governours overturning Religion Liberty are Means not useful for but destructive to the ends for which they were appointed Seeing then they are neither for the Glory of God nor the good of Mankind Ergo 3. If all powers Prerogatives of men are only means appointed for and should vaile unto the Supreme Law of the peoples Safety and all Laws be subordinate to and corroborative of this Law and when cross to it are eatenus null no Laws and all Law-formalities in Competition with it are to be laid aside and all Parliamentary priviledges must yeeld to this and King Parliament both conspiring have no power against it and no Soveraign power by virtue of any resignation from the people can comprize any Authority to act against it Then it is duty to obey this Supreme Law in Resisting all powers Prerogatives all Laws Law-formalities and all conspiracies whatsoever against this Supreme Law the Safety of the people But the former is true as was proven Head. 2. Ergo 4. That power which is obliged appointed to command rule Justly Religiously for the good of the people and is only set over them on these conditions and for that end cannot tye them to subjection without Resistence when the power is abused to destruction of Laws Religion and people But all power is so obliged appointed Therefore whensoever it is so abused it cannot tye people to subjection but rather oblige them to Rejection of it 10. From the Obedience required to Government It may be argued thus 1. If we may flee from Tyrants then we may Resist them But we may flee from Tyrants Ergo we may Resist them The Connexion I prove 1 If all grounds of Justice will warrand the one as well as the other then if the one be duty so is the other But the former is true For the same justice equity that warrands declining a Tyrants unjust violence by flight will warrand Resistence when flight will not do it The same Principle of self defence that makes flight duty when Resistence is not possible will aso make Resistence duty when flight is not possible The same Principle of Charity to Wives Children that makes flight Lawful when by Resistence they cannot avoid Tyranny will make Resistence duty when by flight they cannot evite it The same Principle of Conscience to keep Religion free that prompts to flight when Resistence will not save it will also prompt to Resist when flight is not practicable 2 If to flee from a just power when in Justice we are obnoxious to its sword be to resist the Ordinance of God and so sin then to flee from an unjust power must be also a Resisting of the abusing of it and so duty for the one is Resistence as the other but the difference of the power resisted makes the one Lawful the other not Again if Royal power may be resisted by interposing seas and miles why not also by interposing walls armes both is resistence
that cryed Crucifie Iesus were Murderers of Christ Or by procuring it as Haman was guilty of the intended murder of the Iewes Or Concurring therein as Ioab was guilty of Uriahs death as well as David and Iudas of Christs by betraying him Or by the Patrocinie thereof defending sparing the Murderers when called by Office to punish them as David was guilty in not punishing Ioab Ahab in patronizing the Murder of Naboth Or by Consenting thereunto as Saul consented to the death of Stephen or by knowing permitting conniving at it as is condemned Prov. 24. 11 12. Whether this be done under colour of Law as Pilate Murdered our Lord Herod killed Iames or without all colour by Absolute power as Herod the Ascalonite murdered the Infants or whether it be done by purpose as Ioab murdered Abner Amasa or without previous purpose yet with knowledge of the Action in the perpetrating of it as men may do in passion when provoked beside their purpose or in a Tumult without intending it before hand yet that is Murder Barabas committed Murder in the Insurection For as for Casual killing contrary to intention without knowledge that 's no breach of the Command And whatever may be said of necessitated delivering up the Innocent pursued by a potent Enemy to deliver the City from his fury or of prefering our oun life to our innocent neighbour in a case when both cannot be preserved and by preserving the one Lawfully the other happens to lose his life I do not medle with these Cases But since this is taken for granted by Casuists I infer if it be Lawful that an innocent man die in case of necessity that others may be preserved Then much more is it Lawful that the nocent wo are guilty of murdering the Righteous all these wayes above specified and actually prosecuting their murdering designs by these methods should rather be made to die than the Righteous be destroyed But of this sort of Murder taking away the life of the Righteous none hath the impudence to accuse that Reproached people 2. Thô a man kill an innocent unwittingly unwillingly besides his knowledge and against his will yet he may be guilty of sinful homicide if he was obliged to know that he was in hazard of it and neglected to consider lest a man might be killed by what he was doing as if a man should shoot at random when he doth not know but some may be killed thereby or if one were hewing with an axe which he either knew or might have known to be loose and the head not well fastened to the helve did not advertise those about him of it if by flying off it happened to kill any person he were not innocent but if he knew not without any inadvertency then he were guiltless Deut. 19. 5. See Durham on 6. Com. So if a man built a house without battlements he should bring blood upon his house if any man fell from thence Deut. 22. 8. But of this the question is not 3. Thô a person be not altogether innocent nor to be reckoned among the Rigtheous but suppose him wicked profane and engaged in an evil Course dishonourable to God prejudicial to the Church Kingdom and very injurious to us Yet it may be Murder to kill him if he be not guilty of Crimes that deserve death by the Law of God for the life of man is not subjected to the arbitrement of any but His who is the Author of life death It s necessary to all to obey the Law Thow shalt not kill without exception but such killing as is approven by the Author of the Law as saith Amesâ—de Consciencia cap 31. quest 2 Hence this people so much reproached with extravagant Actions do abundantly clear themselves of that imputation of being of the mind to kill all that differ from them which was the impudent forgerie of the father of lies in their Informatory Vindication Head. 2. Pag. 54. We positively disoune say they as horrid Murder the killing of any because of a different perswasion or opinion from us albeit some have invidiously cast this odious Calumny upon us And it is as clear they that took the Oath of Abjuration swore a lie when they abjured the Apologetical Declaration in so far as it asserted it was Lawful to kill all imployed in the Kings service when it asserted no such thing as is shewed above Head. 3. To think so much let be to declare it far more to practise such a thing against all that served the King or any meerly because they served him or because they are in a wicked Course or because they have oppressed us were abominable for these things simply do not make men guilty of death to be punished Capitally by men according to the Law of God. But when they are stated in such opposition to us and serve the Tyrants Murdering Mandats by all those wayes above specified then we may by the Law of God and Nature and Nations destroy slay and cause to perish and avenge our selves on them that would assault us and are seeking our destruction as it was Lawful for the Iewes to do with Hamans Emissaries Esther 8. 11 13. 9. 1 2 5. This Charge then cannot reach the Case 4. Thô Murderers and such as are guilty of death by the Law of God must be punished by death for he that sheddeth mans blood by man must his blood be shed Yet it may be Murder for a man to kill another because he thought him so Criminal and because he thought it his duty being moved by a pretended Enthusiastical Impulse in imitation of the extraordinary Actions of such as were really moved by the Spirit of God. As when Iames Iohn would have commanded fire to come doun to consume the Samaritans the Lord rebuked them saying ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Luk. 9. 54-56 Such impulses had need to be well examined for ordinarly they will be found not consistent with a Gospel Spirit which is alwayes averse from act of Cruelty Blind zeal sometimes may incite men to fearful work yea the persecuters have often most of that Spirit as our Lord foretells the time cometh that whosoever killeth yow shall think that â—e doth God service Iohn 16. 2. Paul in his Pharisaical zeal breathed out slaughter against the disciples And Satan can drive men under several colours to act such things as he did the Bours in Germany and Iohn of Leyden and his followers whose practices are deservedly detested by all that have any spark of Christianity or humanity for if this were espoused as a Principle there would be no security for mens lives But hence it cannot be concluded that God may not animate some to some rare Enterprises for the cutting off of Tyrants and their bloody Emissaries Incendiaries Destroyers of innocent people and puting an end to and
to death while it is yet morning Judg. 6. 31. Moreover as Mr Mitchel adduces the example very pertinently we see that the people of Israel destroyed Idolatry not only in Judah wherein the King concurred but in Ephraim and in Manassâ—h where the King himself was an Idolater and albeit they were but private persons without publick Authority for what all the people was bound to do by the Law of God every one was bound to do it to the uttermost of his power Capacity Mr Mitchel offers this place to vindicate his fact of shooting at the prelate Deut. 13. 9. Wherein sayes he it is manifest that the Idolater or intycer to Worship a false god is to be put to death by the hand of those whom he seeks to turn away from the Lord Which precept I humbly take to be Moral and not meerly Iudicial and that it is not at all Ceremonial or Levitical And as every Moral precept is Universal as to the extent of place so also as to the extent of Time persons The chief thing Objected here is that this is a Judicial precept peculiarly suited to the Old Dispensation which to plead for as a Rule under the New Testament would favour of Jewish rigidity inconsistent with a Gospel Spirit Ans. How Mr Knox refells this and clears that the Command here is given to all the people needs not be here repeated but it were sufficient to read it in the foregoing Representation Period 3. Pag. 30. as it is also cited by Ius Pop. Pag. 212. c. But these General Truths may be added concerning the Iudicial Laws 1. None can say that none of the Judicial Laws concerning political Constitutions is to be observed in the New Testament for then many special Rules of Natural Necessary equity would be rejected which are contained in the Judicial Laws of God Yea all the Laws of equity in the World would be so cast for none can be instanced which may not be reduced to some of the Judicial Laws And if any of them are to be observed certainly these Penal Statutes so necessary for the preservation of Policies must be binding 2. If we take not our measures from the Judicial Laws of God we shall have no Laws for punishment of any Malefactors by death juris Divini in the New Testament And so all Capital punishments must be only humane Constitutions and consequently they must be all Murders for to take away the life of man except for such Causes as the Lord of our life to whose Arbitriment it is only subject hath not approven is Murder as Dr Ames saith de homocidio Conscience Lib. 5. cap. 31. quest 2. For in the New Testament thô in the general the power of punishing is given to the Magistrate yet it is no where determined neither what nor how Crimes are to be punished If therefore Penal Laws must be taken from the Old Testament the Subject of executing them as well as the Object must be thence deduced that is what is there astricted to the Magistrate must be so still and what is permitted to the people must remain in like manner their Priviledge since it is certain the New Testament-Liberty is not more restricted as to Penal Laws than the Old. 3. Those Judicial Laws which had either somewhat Typical or Paedagogical or peculiar to the then Iudacial State are indeed not binding to us under that formality thô even these Doctrinally are very useful in so far as in their general nature of equity of proportion they exhibite to us some Documents of Duty But those Penal Judgements which in the matter of them are appended to the Moral Law and are in effect but accurate determinations accommodations of the Law of Nature which may suit our Circumstances as well as the Jewes do oblige us as well as them And such are these Penal Statutes I adduce for that Blasphemy Murder Idolatry are heinous Crimes and that they are to be punished the Law of Nature dictates and how and by whom in several cases they are to be punished the Law judicial determines Concerning the Moral equity even of the strictest of them Amesius de Conscienc lib. 5. de Mosaicis appendicibus praeceptorum doth very learnedly assert their binding force 4. Those Judicial Laws which are but Positive in their forme yet if their special internal proper Reason Ground be Moral which pertains to all Nations which is necessary useful to Mankind which is rooted in and may be fortified by humane reason and as to the substance of them approven by the more intelligent Heathens those are Moral and oblige all Christians as well as Jewes And such are these Laws of punishing Idolaters c. founded upon Moral grounds pertaining to all Nations necessary useful to Mankind rooted in fortified by humane Reason to wit that the Wrath of God may be averted and that all may hear fear and do no more so wickedly especially if this Reason be superadded when the case is such that innocent honest people cannot be preserved if such wicked persons be not taken order with 5. Those Judicial Laws which being given by the Lords immediate Authority thô not so solemnly as the Moral Decalogue are neither as to their end Mortuae dead nor as to their use Mortiferae deadly nor as to their nature Indifferent nor in any peculiar respect restringible only to the Jewes but the transgressions whereof both by omission commission are still sins and were never abolished neither Formally nor Consequentially in the New Testament must be Moral But such as these Penal Laws I am speaking of They cannot be reputed among the Ceremonial Laws dead as to their end and deadly as to their use or indifferent in their nature for sure to punish the Innocent upon the account of these Crimes were still sin now as well as under the Old Testament and not to punish the Guilty were likewise sin now as well as then If then the matter be Moral and not abolished the execution of it by private persons in some cases when there is no access to publick Authority must be Lawful also Or if it be Indifferent that which is in its oun nature Indifferent cannot be in a case of extreame necessity unlawful when otherwise the destruction of our selves Brethren is in all humane consideration inevitable That which God hath once Commanded and never expressly Forbidden cannot be unlawful in extraordinary cases but such are these precepts we speak of Therefore they cannot be in every case unlawful Concerning this case of the obligation of Judicial Laws Ames de Conscienc lib. 5. cap. 1. quest 9. 6. Those Laws which are predicted to be observed executed in the New Testament times cannot be Judicial or Judaical restricted to the Old But such is this In the day that a fountain shall be opened for thâ— house of David for sin for uncleaness which clearly points at Gospel-times It is said the
are The Adversaries then when constrained by diversions of the times troubles or when their designes were not ripe pretended more moderation aversation from severity but no sooner got they opportunity which always they sought but so soon they renewed the Battel against Jesus Christ so now when they had seven abominations in their hearts many cursed designes in their heads they always spoke fairest so now when they had a mind to execute their cruelty they would resolve befor-hand whom to pitch upon before conviction so now And when so resolved the least pretence of a fault obnoxious to their wicked Law would serve their design so now They used then to forge Articles falsly misrepresent their answers declarations of their principles so now Yet on the other hand if now poor sufferers should glory in that they are counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ as they did then If now they should suffer with as great cheerfullnesse for the smallest points as for the greatest heads as they did then who endured the flames as gallantly for eating a Goose upon Friday as others did for the Doctrin of Justification or Purgatory or Indulgences or worshipping of Images Saints If now they should speak for every truth in question with all simplicity plainness without reserves or shifts declining a Testimony as they did If they should supersede from all applications to their Enemies for savour not medle with either petitioning or bonding with them as they did nay not accepting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection Then they might expect the severe Censure of ignorant precise fools as the most part who suffer now are counted III. That they stood aloof from every appearance of a base Complyance with them not so much as to give them an interpretative sign of it which in their meaning might be thought a recantation though abstractly consideredit might be capable of a more favourable construction As the required burning of their Bill was which might have been thought a condemning of their accusations but because that was not their Adversaries sense of it they durst not do it Not like many now a dayes who will not be solicitous to consult that Neither would they take any of their Oaths nor pay any of their Eccllesiastical Exactions as we find in the Articles brought in against the Lollards of Kyle Knox Hist. of Reform These things are easily complyed with now and such as will suffer upon such things are condemned IV. That while the Love of God and his blessed Truth and the precepts promise presence of our Lord Jesus Christ did enable them into all patience with joy in a passive Testimony being by the call of a clear 8 necessary providence sent sett forth to behis witnesses they did not indeed endeavour any resistence yet we find they never resigned nor abandoned that first most just priviledge of resistence nay nor bringing publick beasts of prey to condigne punishment in an extraordinary way of vindictive Justice for the Murder of the Saints As upon the Murder of Mr. George Wishchard was done with Cardinal Beaton who was slain in the tower of St. Andrews by Iames Melvin who perceiving his consorts in the interprise moved with passion withdrew them said this work judgment of God although it be secret ought to be done with greater gravity And presenting the point of the sword to the Cardinal said Repent thee of thy former wicked life but especially of the shedding of the blood of that notable instrument of God Mr. George Wishchard which albeit the flame of fire consumed before men yet it cryes for vengeance upon theâ— we from God are sent to revenge it for here before my God I protest that neither the hatred of thy person the love of thy riches nor the fear of any trouble thow couldst have dâ—me to me in particular moved or moveth me to strike thee but only because thow hast been remainest an obstinate Enemy against Christ Iesus His holy Gospel Of which fact the famous faithful Historian Mr Knox speaks very honorably and was so far from condemning it that while after the slaughter they kept out the Castle he with other Godly men went to them stayed with them till they were together caryed captives to Frâ—nce Yet now such a fact committed upon such another bloody treacherous Beast the Cardinal Prelat of Scotland eight years agone is generally condemned as horrid Murther V. However tho in this dark Period there be no noted instances of these witnesses resisting the Superior powers for reasons above hinted yet in this Period we find many instances of noble vertuous Patriots their not only resisting but also revenging to the utmost of severity rigorous raging Tyrants As may be seen in Histories For before the corruption of Antichrist came to its hight we find Ferchardus I. the 52. K. was drawen to judgment against his will great crimes were layd to his charge among others the Pelagian heresie contempt of Baptisme for which he was cast into Prison where he killed himself anno 636. Eugenius 8. the 62. King degenerating into wickednesse rejecting the Admonitious of his friends especially of the Ministers was killed in a convention of his nobles with the consent of all anno 765. Donaldus 7. was imprisoned where he killed himself anno 859. Ethus surnamed Alipes the 72. King was apprehended his wicked life layd out befor the people then compelled to resigne the Government dyed in Prison anno 875. Afterwards when the Government was transmitted to the Stewarts Iames the 2. the 103. King who killed William E. of Douglas in the Castle of Sterling most treacherously after he had pretended a civil treatment was publickly defyed by the Earles friends who took the Kings publick writ subscription made to the said Earle tyed it to a horse tail dragging it through the streets when they came to the Mercat place they Proclaimed both King Nobles perjured Covenant-breakers And thereafter when E. Iames his Brother was desired to submit he answered he would never put himself in their reverence who had no regard to shame nor to the lawes of God or man and who had so perfidiously treacherously killed his Brother his Cousins Iames 3. the 104. King for his Treachery Tyranny was opposed purswed by armes by his oun subjects who finding himself under disadvantages sent to the rebells as he thought them called them an offer of peace received this answer that seeing the King did nothing honestly a certain war seemed better to them then a peace not to be trusted that there was no other hope of agreement but one that he should quite the Government otherwise it was to no purpose to trouble themselves with treaties Thereafter in a battel he was slain at Bannockburn by Gray Ker Borthwick Iames the 4. the 105. King was
their example in renewing reiterating such Covenants of the same Nature Tenor binding to the same very duties and prosecute in the same methods of keeping General Meetings for Correspondence consultation about common mutual Duties in common danger whereunto they have not only present necessity to urge them but also preterite examples of these Worthies to encourage them and their experience of comfort tranquillity they reaped by these Christian Assemblies Godly Conferences as ost as any danger appeared to any member or members of their body These beginings the zealous Covenanted Reformers left no means unessayed to promote by Protestations to the Parliament Petitions many reiterated Addresses to the Queen Dowager From whom they received many renewed fair promises which she had never mind to keep and wanted not the impudence when challenged for breaking them to declare It becomes not Subjects to burthen their Princes with promises further then it pleased them to keep the same And at another time that she was bound to keep no Faith to Hereticks And again that Princes must not be strictly bound to keep their promises And that her self would make litle Conscience to take from all that sort their Lives Inheritance if she might do it with an honest excuse Wherein she spoke not only the venome of her oun heart but the very soul sense principle project of all Popish Princes Whereby we may see what security we have for Religion Liberty this day though the most part make such a pretence a pillow to sleep on But after many Discoveries in this kind of the Queens Treachery at length they would no more be bribed by promises blinded by pretences nor boasted by her Proclamations slandering their interprise as if it pertained nothing to Religion from their endeavours to prosecute the same but finding themselves compelled to take the Sword of Just defence against all that should persue them for the matter of Religion they first signified unto her That they would notifie to the King of France all Christian Princes that her cruel unjust most Tyrannieal murther intended against Touns Mnltitudes was is the only Cause of their revolt from their accustomed obedience which they ouned promised to their Soveraign provided they might live in Peace Liberty and enjoy Christs Gospel without which they firmly purpose never to be subject to mortal man And that better it were to expose their bodies to a thousand deaths than to deny Christ which thing not only do they who commit open Idolatry but also all such as seeing their Brethren purswed for the Cause of Religion and haveing sufficient means to comfort assist them do nevertheless withdraw from them their dutiful support And thereafter they published a Declaration to the generation of Antichrist the pestilent Prelats their shavelings within Scotland That they should not be abused thinking to escape just punishment after that they in their blind fury had caused the blood of many to be shed but if they proceeded in this their malicious Cruelty they should be dealt with all wheresoever they should be apprehended as Murderers open Enemies to God to Mankind And that with the same measure they had measured intended to measure to others it should be measured to them that is they should with all force power they had execute just vengeance punishment upon them yea begin that same War which God commandeth Israel to execute against the Canaanites that is Contract of Peace should never be made till they desist from their open Idolatry cruel Persecution of Gods Children I rehearse this Declaration the more expresly because in our day Declarations of this stile strain and aiming at the same Scope is hideously hissed houted at as unheard of novelties Finally when by all their Letters Warnings Admonitions Protestations they could obtain no redress but rather an increase of insupportable violence they proponed the Question in a General Meeting Whether she whose pretences threatened the bondage of the whole Commonwealth ought to be suffered so Tyrannically to domineer over them Unto which the Ministers being required to give their judgment answered that she ought not And accordingly they declared her deposed from all Government over them because of her persecuting the Professors of the true Religion and oppressing the Liberties of the true Lieges never being called nor convinced of any Crime because of her intrusion of Magistrats against all order of Election because of her bringing in strangers to suppress the Liberty of the Countrey and placing them in greatest Offices of Credite because of her altering and subverting the old Laws of the Realme c. Which I mention because hence we may see what things our Fathers judged did dissolve the relation between the people their Rulers And when applyed to our Case will justify their reasons that have renounced the present Tyranny This was done at Edinburgh anno 1559. And thereafter while they vindicated themselves went on with the work of Reformation throwing doun all monuments of Idolatry propogateing the Reformed Religion God so blessed their endeavours that their Confession of faith and all Articles of the Protestant Religion was Read Ratified by the three Estates of Parliament at Edinburgh Iulij 1560. And the same year the Book of Discipline containing the forme order of Presbyterial Government was subscribed by a great part of the Nobility Thus through the wisdom power of God alone even by the weaknesse of very mean Instrâ—ments against the rage fury of the devil and of all the powers of Hell was this work of Reformation advanced effectuated And came to the establishment of a Law which did not only ratifie confirme the Pâ—oteâ—â—ant Religion but abolish Antichristian Popery and appoint punishment for the Professors promoters thereof Which Law often confirmed ratified afterwards though it be now cassed rescinded by the Prerogative of the present Tyrant because it anulls invalidates his pretence to succession in the Government it being expressly enacted afterwards by a Parliament at Edinburgh 156. Confirming this that all Princes Kings hereafter before their Coronation shall take Oath to maintain the true Religion then professed suppress all things contrary to it yet is still in force in the hearts of all honest men that will not prostitute Religion Law Liberty to the lusts of Tyrants and will be accounted a better bottom to build the hope of enjoying Religion upon than the perfidious promises of a Popish Usurper pretending a Liberty to dissenting Protestants by takeing away the Penal Statuts the Legal Bulwark against Popery All which yet to the reproach of all Protestants some are applauding Congratulating in this time by their Addresses Petitions to this destroyer of Law Religion I wish they would look back to see what the building of this Bulwark cost our Fathers before they sell it at such a
shall surely bring innocent blood upon your selves and upon the City and upon the Inhabitants thereof Now if the Princes the whole people should have been guilty of the Prophets blood how shall others be judged innocent before God if they suffer the blood of Innocents to be shed when they may save it 3 Ibid. he argues from the distinction between the person placed in Authority and the ordinance of God the one may be resisted the other cannot The plain words of the Apostle makes the difference The ordinance is of God for preservation of mankind punishment oâ—vice which is holy constant Persons commonly are profane unjust He that resisteth the power there is only meant of the just power wherewith God hath armed His Magistrats which who so resists resists Gods orâ—inance But if men in the fear of God oppose themselves to the fury of Princes they then resist not God but the Devil who abuses the sword Authority of God It is evident the people resisted Saul when he had sworn Ionathan should dye whom they delivered The Spirit of God accuses them not of any crime but praises them condemns the King This same Saul again commanded the Priests of the Lord to be slain his guard would not obey but Doeg put the Kings cruelty in execution I will not ask whether the Kings servants not obeying resisted the ordinance of God or whether Doeg murthering gave obedience to just Authority The Spirit of God condemns that fact Psal. 52. that God would not only punish the Commander but also the merciless executer Therefore they who gainstood his command resisted not the ordinance of God. 4 Ibid. He argues from examples not only of resisting but of punishing Tyrants chiefly the example of Uzziah is pertinent to this purpose 2 Chon 26. who after his usurping the Priests Office was put out of the Temple When it was replyed that they were the Priests that with stood the King not simple people He answered The Priests were subjects as Abâ—athar was deposed by Solomon c. yet they made him go out of the Temple for his Leprosie and the people put him from the Kingdom It is noted also that Mr Knox in that discourse adduces examples of those who use to be brought in as objections against defensive Armes even the Primitive Christians before that Passage last cited what precepts sayes he the Apostles gave I will not affirme But I find two things the faithful did the one was they assisted their Preachers even against the rulers the other was they suppressed Idolatrie wheresoever God gave unto them force asking no leave of the Emperour nor of his deputies Read the Ecclesiastical Histories and ye shall find examples sufficient IV. In the next place we may inquire into the judgment of these Reformers concerning that Question that is now so pusling to many which indeed was never started before this time as a head of suffering but now when it is started we may gather from our Ancestors Actings Determinations about it how it ought to be answered They were indeed in capacity and accordingly did improve it for disouning the Authority of both the Queens but their capacity was not the thing that made it duty if it had not been so before Capacity makes a thing possible but not lawful It does indeed make a duty seasonable and clears the Call to it and regulates the timing of Affirmative duties but the want of it can never dispense with negative Precepts And a duty negative especially may become necessary when it hath not the advantage of seasonableness or capacity certainly it were duty to depose â—he Pope from his usurped authority and to disoune it even in Rome it self but there it would not be thought very feasible or seasonable for twenty or thirty people to avouch such a thing there yet at all times it is a duty never to oune it It is thought unseasonable unfeasable to disoune the Tyrants authority but it is made necessary when uâ—ged never to oune it And for this we have the grounds of our Ancestors shewing who may be disouned and must not be ouned I shall first insert here John Knox his propositions prosecuted in his second blast extant at the end of Anton. Gilbies Admonition to England Scotland 1. It is not birth only nor propinquity of bloodh that maketh a King lawfully to Reign over a people professing Christ Iesus and His Eternal verity but in his Election the ordinance which God hath established in the election of inferior judges must be observed 2. No manifest Idolater nor notorious transgressor of Gods holy precepts ought to be promoâ—ed to any publick regiment honour or dignity in any realme Province or Citie that hath subjected themselves to Christ Iesus and His blessed Evangel 3. Neither can Oath or promise bind any such people to obey maintain Tyrants against God and His Truth known 4. Bâ—t if rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one as after Declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God and such be all Idolaters Cruel Presecuters most justly may the same men depose punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate appoint elect Accordingly this was done in deposing both the Queens wich is fully vindicated by the Earle of Morton in his discourse to the Queen of England as Buchanan Relates it Lib. 20. Pag. 746. The deed it self neither the Custom of our Ancestors of taking a Course with their Governour will suffer it to be accounted new nor the moderation of the punishment to be odious for it were not needful to recount so many Kings punished by death bonds exile by our Progenitors For the Scotish nation being from the begining alwise free hath created Kings upon these conditions that the Government entrusted to them by the peoples suffrages might be also if the matter required removed by the same suffrages Of which Law there are many footsteps remaining even to our day for both in the Isles about and in many places of the continent in which the old Language institutions have any abode this Custom is kept in creating their Governours of Clanns And the Ceremonies used at the entering into Government do yet retain the express representation of this Law. Whence it is evident that the Government is nothing else but a mutual stipulation between Kings people which further appears from the inviolated tenor of the Ancient Law since the begining of the Scotish Government reserved even unto our memory without the least essay either to abrogate it or disable or diminish it Yea even when our fathers have deposed banished more severely punished so many Kings yet never was any mention or motion made of relaxing the rigor of that Law And not without reason seeing it was not of that kind of Constitutions that change with the times but of those which are engraven in the minds of men from the
imposing the Service-book and book of Canons c. the Lord in Mercy remembered His people and surprised them with a sudden unexpected Deliverance by very despicable means even the opposition of a few weak women at the beginning of that Contest which ere it was quashed made the Tyrant tumble headless off his throne The zeal against the English popish Ceremonies obtruded on Edinburgh did first inflame some feminine hearts to witness their detestation of them but afterwards was followed out with more Masculine fervor accosting King Council with Petitions Remonstrances Protestations Testimonies against the Innovations and resolving upon a mutual Conjunction to defend Religion Lives Liberties against all that would innovate or invade them To fortifie which and conciliate the favour both of God man in the Resolution All the Lovers of God and friends to the Liberty of the Nation did solemnly Renew the National Covenant wherein they were signally countenanced of the Lord vvhich though in it self obliging to the Condemnation of Prelatical Hierarchie and clearly enough confirming Presbyterial Government yet they ingaged into it vvith an inlargment to suspend the practice of Novations already introduced and the approbation of the Corruptions of the present Government vvith the late places povver of Church men till they be tried in a free General Assembly Which vvas obtaineâ— that same year and indicted at Glasgow and there not vvith standing all the opposition that the Kings Commissioner could make by Protestations Proclamations to dissolve it the six preceeding Assemblies establishing Prelacy vvere annulled The Service-Book and high Commission vvere condemned All the Bishops vvere deposed and their Government declared to be abjured in that National Covenant though many had through the Commissioners persvvasions subscribed it in another sense vvithout that application As also the five Articles of Perth vvere there discovered to have been inconsistent vvith that Covenant Confession and the Civil places povver of Church men vvere disproved rejected on the other hand Presbyterial Government vvas Justified Approved and an Act vvas passed for their keeping yearly General Assemblies This was a bold begining into which they were animated with more than humane resolution against more than humane opposition Hell as well as the powers of the earth being set against them But when the Lord gave the Call they considered not their oun deadness nor were daunted with Discouragments nor staggered at the promise through unbelief but gave Glory to God out braving all difficulties Which in the following year were much increased by the Prelats and their Popish Partakers rendevouzing their forces under the Kings Personal Standart and menacing nothing but misery to the zealous Covenanters yet when they found them prepared to resist were forced to yeeld to a Pacification concluding that an Assembly Parliament should be held for healing all grievances of Church and State. In which Assembly at Edinburgh the Covenant is ratified subscribed by the Earle of Traquair Commissioner and enjoined to be subscribed by the body of the whole Land with an explication expressly condemning the five Articles of Perth the Government of Bishops the Civil places power of Church men But the sons of Belial cannot be taken with hands nor bound with bonds of faith humanity or honour For in the year following King Prelats with their Popish Abettors go to arms again but were fain to accommodate the matter by a new Pacification whereby all Civil Religious Liberties were ratified And in the folowing year 1641 by Lawes Oaths Promises subscriptions of King Parliament fully confirmed The King Charles the I. being present and consenting to all though in the mean time he was treacherously encouraging the Irish murderers who by his Authority made a Massacre of many thousand Innocent Protestants in Ireland But in Scotland things vvent vvell the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus vvas greatly advanced the Gospel flourished and the Glory of the Lord did shine upon us vvith such a splendor that it avvaked England and animated the Lords People there then groaning under those Grievances from vvhich Scotland vvas delivered to aspire to the like Reformation For advice in vvhich because though all aggreed to cast off the yoke of Prelacy yet sundry forms of Church Government vvere projected to be set up in the room thereof chiefly the Independent order determining all Acts of Church Government as Election ordination and deposition of officers vvith Admission Excommunication Absolution of members to be done decided by the voices of every Particular Congregation vvithout any Authoritative Concurrence or interposition of any other condemning all imperative decisive povver of Classes c. as a meer usurpation Therefore the Brethren in England vvrote to the Assembly then fitting at Edinburgh vvho gave them ansvver That they vvere grieved that any of the Godly should be found not aggreeing vvith other Reformed Churches in point of Government as well as Doctrine and that it was to be feared where the edge of Discipline Government is different the Doctrine Worship shall not long continue the same without change That the Government of the Church by Compound Presbytries Synods is a help strength and not a hinderance to particular Congregations Elderships in all the parts of Government and are not an extrinsecal Power set over Particular Churches but the intrinsecal power where with Christ hath invested His Officers who may not exercise it Independently but with subordination unto Presbytries c. Which as they are Representative of particular Churches conjoined together in one under their Government so their determination when they proceed orderly whether in Causes common to all or brought before them by reference in case of aberration is to the several Congregations Authoritative not Consultatory only And this subordination is not only warranted by the light of nature but grounded upon the Word of God and conforme to the Pattern of the Primitive Apostolick Church for the Preservation of verity unity against Schisme Heresie Tyrannie which is the fruit of this Government where soever it hath place So from henceforth the Assembly did incessantly urge uniformity in Reformation with their Brethren in England as the chiefest of their Desires Prayers Cares And in the year 1643. prevailed so far that the English Parliament did first desire that the two Nations might be strictly united for their mutual defence against the Papists Prelatical faction and their Adherents in both Kingdoms and not to lay down Armes till these implacable Enemies should be brought in subjection and did instantly urge for the help assistance from Scotland Which being sent did return with an Olive branch of Peace and not without some beginings of a Reformation in England And afterwards a bloody War begining between the King Parliament with great success on the Kings side whence the Papists at the time got great advantage witness the cessation of Armes concluded in Ireland
imposed upon consulted again vvhat to do and in end being oversvvayed more vvith respect to their oun credite vvhich they thought should be impeached if they should retract their oun Plenipotentiary Instructions to conclude the Treaty upon the Kings assent to their Conditions than to their reclamant consciences they resolved to bring home that pest and thereby Precipitated themselves us into ineluctable miserie Yet they thought to mend the Matter by binding him vvith all Cords and puting him to all most explicite Engagments before he should receive the Imperial Croun Well upon these termes home he comes and before he set his foot on British ground he takes the Covenant And thereafter because the Commission of the General Assembly by the Act oâ— the West Kirk August 13. 1650. Precluded his Admittance unto the Croun if he should refuse the then required satifaction before his Coronation he emits that Declaration at Dumferling wherein Professing appearing in the full perswasion love of the Truth he repenteth as having to do with in the sight of God his Fathers opposition to the Covenant work of God his oun reluctances against the same hoping for Mercy through the blood of Jesus Christ and obtesting the prayers of the faithful to God for his stedfastness and than protesteth his Truth sincerity in entering into the Oath of God resolving to prosecute the ends of the Covenant to his utmost and to have with it the same Common friends Enemies exhorting all to lay doun their enmity against the cause of God and not to prefer mans Interest to Gods which will prove an Idol of Jealousie to provoke the Lord and he himself accounteth to be but selfish flatterie A declaration so full of heart Professions high Attestations of God that none considering what followed can reflect thereon without horror trembling from the holy Jealousie of the Lord either for the then deep dissimulation or the after unparalelled Apostacy I know it is objected by Court parasites that the King was then compelled to do these things To which I shall only say It would have cost any of them their head at that time to have asserted that he did upon deliberation choise mock God man and entered into these Engagments only with a purpose to be thereby in better Capacity to destroy what he swore to maintain only because he could not have the Croun without this way which in the Confession of the objectors themselves was only deliberate premeditate Perjurie Next if it should be granted he was Compelled let it be also considered who Compelled him and these will be found to be the deceitful Courtiers For let it be adverted what Mr Gilespie declares of the Case who put the pen in his hand when he subscribed that Declaration He perceiving there was sufficient ground to Jealouse his reality and seeing evidently that the Courtiers prevailed with the King on a sudden to offer to subscribe the Declaration when they observed that the Commissioners of Churh State were resolute ready to go away in a fixedness to leave out the puting of his Interest in the state of the quarrel and being afrayed of the sad Consequences of it spoke his mind plainly to the King That if he was not satisfied in his Soul Conscience beyond all hesitation of the righteousness of the subscription he was so far from overdriving him to run upon that for which he had no light as he obtested him yea he charged him in his Masters name and in the name of these who sent him not to subscribe this Declaration no not for the three Kingdoms Whereupon the King answered Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie I am satisfied I am satisfied with the Declaration and therefore will subscribe it Upon which some of the Courtiers swore that Mr Gillespie intended simply to disswade the King from subscribing it that so Church and State might professedly lay aside his Inetrest which would have defeat their hopes to make up themselves as now they have done upon the then designed ruine of the Interest of Truth Then at his Coronation we have his again reiterated confirmations of that Covenant first he is desired in name of the people to accept the Crown and maintain Religion according to the National Solemn League Covenant whereunto he gave his apparently Cordial consent the words are in the forme order of the Coronation with the whole Action Then next a Sermon being Preached upon 2 King. 11. 12 17. the action commenceth with his most solemn renewing of the National and solemn League Covenant by Oath Then he is presented to the people and their willingness demanded to have him for their King on these termes At the same time in the next place he took the Coronation Oath Then on these termes he accepted the Sword. And after the Crown is set upon his head the peoples obligatory Oath is proclaimed on the termes foresaid otherwise he is not that King to whom they swore subjection Then being set upon the Throne he was by the Minister put in mind of his Engagments from 1 Chron. 29. 33. And then the Nobles of the Land came one by one kneeling and lifting up their hands between his hands swore the same Oath These things done the whole Action was closed with a most solid severe exhortation from several instances Neh. 5. 13. Ier. 34. 18 19 20 c. There after in the year 1651. followed the Ratification of all these preceeding Treaties Transactions Engagments concluded enacted by the King and the Parliament then fully freely conveened whereby the same did pass into a Perpetual Law. And this Covenant which from the begining was is the most sure indispensible Oath of God became at length the very fundamental Law of the Kingdom whereon all the rights or priviledges either of King or people are principally bottomed secured This might seem security sufficient but considering the former discoveries experiences they had of his Treachery and the visible appearances in the mean time of his Refusalls visible Reluctances manifest Resilings open Counter actings and continued prejudices against the Covenant and his following unprecedented avowed perjurie every thing doth indelebly fasten upon them the weakness at least of an overweening Credulity and upon him the wickedness of a perfidious Policy in all these Condiscensions After this it came to pass that zeal for the Cause rightly stated was suddenly contracted to a few and the flame thereof extinguished in many and Court wild fire substitute in its place whereby a plain defection was violently carried on by the Publick Resolutioners who relapsing into that most sinful Conjunction with the People of these abominations so solemnly repented for resolved against did notwithstanding bring in Notorious Malignants into places of power Trust in Judicatories Armies in a more Politick than Pious way of requiring of them a constrained dissembled Repentance to the mocking
up the spirits of these few who stood in the Gap to oppose resist the same and to begin the work of Reformation in the Land since which time the silence of some Ministers the complyance of others hath had great influence upon the backslidings of many amongst the people who upon the discovery of the evil of their way complain that they got not warning or that if they were warned by some others held their peace or did justify them in the course of their backsliding we can look upon such Ministers no otherwise than upon these that are guilty of the blood of the Lords people and with whom the Lord will reckon for all the breach of Covenant defection that hath been in the Land The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts but such as are departed out of the way and have caused many to stumble at the Law therefore hath the Lord made them contemptible before all the people according as they have not kept His wayes but have been partial in His Law because they have lost their savour He hath cast out many of them as unsavoury salt Further more to evidence the Purity power of zeal burning blazing in these dayes in their Contendings against Publick Enemies on all hands I shall instance some of their Acts Testimonies clearly condemning the manifold Complyances of this Generation and which may contribute somewhat to Justifie the reproached preciseness of a Remnant standing at the furthest distance from them There is an Act for Censuring the Complyers with the publick Enemies of this Church Kingdom Gen. Ass. Edinb Iunij 17. 1646. Sess. 14. where they judge it a great scandalous provocation grievous defection from the publick cause to comply with these Malignants such as Iames Graham then was in any degree even to procure Protections from them or to have invited them to their houses or to have drunk Iames Graham his health or to be guilty of any other such Gross degrees of Complyance censured to be suspended from the communions ay while they acknowledge their offence And yet now for refusing these degrees of complyance for not having the protectior of a Pass from the wicked courts of malignant enemies by taking a wicked oath and for refusing to drink the Kings health a greater Enemy then ever Iames Graham was some poor conscientious people have not only been murdereâ— by Enemies but mocked condemned by professores There is an Act likewise declaration against all new oaths or bonds in the common cause imposed without consent of the Church Gen. Ass. Edinb Iuly 28. 1648. Sess. 18. Enjoining all the members of the Church to forbear the swearing or subscribing any new oaths or bonds in this Cause without Advice concurrence of the Church especially any negative oaths or bonds which may any way limit or restrain them in the duties whereunto they are obliged by National or Solemn League Covenant Yet now for refusing Oaths not only limiting in Covenanted duties but contradicting condemning many material Principles of the Covenanted Reformation many have not only lost their Lives but also have been condemned by them that are at ease having a wider conscience to swallow such baits It is known how pertinacious the most faithful in those dayes were in their contendings against Associations in any undertaking for the cause with persons disaffected to the true state thereof I need not give any account of this were it not that now that Principle is quite inverted and poor Adherers to it for their abstracting substracting their concurrence with such promiscuous Associations are much hated flouted therefore I shall give some hints of their sentiments of them In their Answer to the Committee of Estates Iulij 25. 1648. Sess. 14. the Gen. Assembly sayes It was represented to the Parliament that for securing of Religion it was necessary that the Popish Prelatical Malignant party be declared Enemies to the cause upon the one hand as well as Sectaries upon the other and that all Associations either in forces or counsels with the former as well as with the latter be avoided And in their declaration concerning the Present dangers of Religion especially the unlawful Engagment in War Iulij ult 1648. Sess. 21. They say suppose the ends of that Engagment be good as they are not yet the means wayes of Prosecution are unlawful because there is not an equal avoiding of rocks on both hands but a joining with Malignants to suppress Sectaries a joining hands with a black devil to beat a white devil They are bad Phisicians who would so cure one disease as to breed another as evil or worse we find in the Scriptures condemned all Confederacies Associations with the Enemies of true Religion whether Canaanites Exod. 23. 32. and 24. 12 15. Deut. 7. 2. or other heathens 1. King. 11. 1 2. More Arguments against Associations may be seen in that excellent discussion of this useful Case Concerning Associations Confederacies with Idolaters Infidels Hereticks or any other known enemy of Truth or Godliness by famous Mr G. Gillespie published at that same time whereunto is appended his Letter to the commission of the General Assembly having these golden words in it words fitly spoken in that season when he was a dying at the begining of the Publick Resolutions Having heard of some motions beginings of complyance with these who have been so deeply engaged in a war destructive to Religion the Kingdoms Liberties I cannot but discharge my conscience in giving a Testimony against all such complyance I know am perswaded that all the faithful witnesses that gave Testimony to the Thesis that the late Engagment was contrary destructive to the Covenant will also give Testimony to the Appendix that complyance with any who have been active in that Engagment is most sinful unlawful I am not able to express all the evils of that complyance they are so many But above all that which would highten this sin even to the Heavens is that it were not only a horrid backsliding but a backsliding into that very sin vvhich vvas specially pointed at punished by the prevailency of the Malignant party God justly making them thorns scourges vvho were taken in as friends Alas shall we split twice upon the same rock yea run upon it when God hath set a beacon on it yea I may say shall we thus out face out dare the Almighty by protecting His our Enemies by making peace friendship with them when the anger of the Lord is burning against them I musâ— here apply to our present condition the words of Ezrah 9. 14 O happy Scotland if thow canst now improve not abuse this Golden opportunity but if thou help the ungodly love them that hate the Lord wrath upon wrath and wo upon wo shall be
upon thee from the Lord. Whereunto is subjoined his dying Testimony to the same purpose wherein are these words But if there shall be a falling back to the sin of complyance with Malignant ungodly men then I look for the breaking out of the wrath of the Lord till there be no remedy This was the warning of a worthy dying Man. Notwithstanding of which many other warnings witnessings a course of complyance was commenced by the pulick Resolutioners and continued in to this day wherein that faithful warning of a dying servant of Christ is verified But before I leave this purpose I must obviate an objection that some make use of for strengthening themselves in their incorporations joinings at least in Worship with the corruptions of the time and for condemning conscientious withdrawers That the Godly in those dayes did not separate from the men of these complyances defections as many do now to wit the protesting party did not withdraw from the publick Resolutioners Associators with Malignants I answer first many these the most Godly tender did withdraw even from their oun Ministers and would have gone 40. or 50 myles to hear a faithful Minister at that time yea Ministers themselves in the case of intrusion of the unfaithful would have supplyed the Paroch as if the Church had been vacant and when they could not get access to the pulpit they preached in the fields on purpose to witness against and professedly to withdraw the people from such an unfaithful Intruder as might be instanced particularly for time place if need were But next The Church then though broken by division and under the subjection of strangers deprived of her General Assemblies yet was in a constitut Case enjoying the priviledge power order of Synods Presbyteries to whom the people offended with their Ministers might address themselves for an orderly redress and removal of these Scandals in an ordinary way and so they needed not assume to themselves that power to regulate their communion that in a broken State as now is must be allowed to them And besides both the Ministers at that time who were faithful though they might have proceeded to censure silence the corrupt party as they were obliged yet not only found it difficult by reason of the injury of the times but also thought it best to spare them And the people to bear them as burdens untill as they were still in hopes they should obtain a General Assembly to take order with them but now it is not so And then the defection was but begining and people did not know and could not expect it would go such a length and therefore could not fall upon the rigor of that duty which such disorders call for at first but if they had seen where these beginings would Land them at length I doubt not but they would have resisted those beginings in such a way as would have precluded this imputation of novelty upon our necessitated with drawings III. We have in this Period not only an Illustrious Testimony for the Principle but a continued and unintermitted putting into practice the duty of defensive Armes in resisting the Soverain power malversing abusing Authority to the destruction of the ends of it which resistence was avowed encouraged furthered by the General Assembly both for the defence of themselves and for the help of their Brethren in England Take one expression in their Solemn seasonable Warning to all ranks Feb. 12. 1645. Sess 18. Unless men will blot out of their hearts the love of Religion cause of God and cast off all care of their Country Lawes Liberties c. all being in visible danger of present ruine destruction they must now or never appear actively each one stretching himself to yea beyond his power It is no time to dally or to go about the business by halfs nor be almost but altogether zealous Cursed is he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently If we have been forward to assist our Neighbour Kingdoms shall we neglect to defend our oun Or shall the Enemies of God be more active against His cause than His people for it God forbid In another seasonable necessary warning Iuly 27. 1649. Sess. 27. They say But if his Maj. or any having or pretending power commission from him shall invade this Kingdom upon pretext of establishing him in the exercise of his royal power as it will be an high provocation against God to be accessory or assisting there to so it will be a necessary duty to resist oppose the same These Fathers could well distinguish between Authority and the person abusing it And were not so Loyal as now their degenerate Children are ambitious to shew themselves stupidly stouping to the shaddow thereof and yet will be called the only Asserters of Presbyterian principles But we find they put it among the Characters of Malignants to confound the Kings honour Authority with the abuse pretence thereof and with Commissions warrants Letters procured from the King by the Enemies of the cause Covenant as if we could not oppose the Latter without increaching upon the former But here an Objection or two must be removed out of the way before we go forward One is from the Third Atticle of the Covinant where there seems to be a great deal of Loyaltie obliging to defend the Kings Maj. his person Authority in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our Loyaltie And that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power greatness I Ans. There is indeed a deal of Loyaltie there and true Loyaltie because Lawfully limited being qualified with subordinate unto the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdom as the makers of the Covenant do expound it in the Assembles declaration against the unlawful Eugagment Iuly ult 1648. Sess. 21. not that Reverse Loyaltie which makes duties to God conditional limited and duties to thee King absolute unlimited as our Loyalists do now And I wish others were free of it who have sworn Oaths of unlimited Alledgiances to maintain the King in any power unto which his force aspires and to justify this their Loyaltie will bring in this Article of the Covenant with a distorted sense reading it backward that we in the preservation defence of Religion must preserve defend the King As if Religion obliged to defend him do what he will. It were better such pretended Covenanters denyed the Covenant than to be such a reproach to it in wresting its genuine sense But I have adduced the sense of the best Interpreters of it the General Assembly Next when they entered under the bond of this Covenant they did it with a purpose to oppose all his invasions upon Religion the Liberty of the people and to
vindicate these precious Interests from his usurpings into a state of Liberty And shall we imagine that that very Oath of God did lay upon them or us an obligation to defend the person who is a destroyer of all these contrary to the very nature of the Oath contrare to the scope of the Covenanters and contrary to their subsequent practise But then it will be urged why then was that clause cast into the Covenant I answer we have not the same cause to keep it as they had some cause to put it in with accommodation to the present possessor of the Soveraignity The ouning of it in our circumstances would be as great a reproach to us as the want of it was to them in theirs They put in the words to prevent the worlds mistake and to remove that odium industriously heaped upon the heads of those whose hearts were associate in the defence of Religion Liberty therefore they would profess they would not be disloyal while he was for God. And a defiance may be given to clamour calumnie it self to give one instance of the defect of performance hereof while he went not about to ruine those things incomparably more precious then his person or Authority and in ruining whereof no person can retain Authority IV. But now two things will chiefly be desiderated which now we oune in our Testimony for which many have dyed that seem not to be confirmed by or consistent with the Testimony of this Period One is that we not only maintain defensive resistance but in some cases vindictive punitive force to be executed upon men that are bloody beasts of prey and burdens to the earth in cases of necessity when there is no living for them This principle of Reason natural Justice was not much inquired into in this time when the sun was up whose warmth light made these beasts creep into their dens and when they being brought under subjection could not force people into such extraordinary violent courses when the ordinary orderly course of Law was running in its right Channel Yet from the ground of their ordinary Procedure Military Civil against such Monsters we may gather the lawfullness of an ordinary Procedure in a pinch of necessity conforme to their grounds I hope to make this evident when I come ex proposito to vincicate this head But there is another thing that we onne which seems not to have been known in these dayes viz. That when we are required to oune the Authority of the present Dominator we hold sinful to oune it Yet we find these Reverend renouned Fathers ouned King Charles I. and did not refuse the succession of Charles II. I shall answer in order First as to King Charles the first there was a great difference betuixt him and his sons that succeeded he never declared Parliamentarely that neither Promises Contracts nor Oaths should bind him as the first of his perfidious sons did It might have been then presumed if he had engaged so far for promoving the Work of God he would have been a man of his word for to say a King of his word is antiquitate in a good sense except that it means he is as absolute in his word as in his sword and scorns to be a slave to it Neither professed he himself a Papist as the second Son hath done Again it must be granted that more might have been comported with in the begining when there were some hopes of redress than after such process of time whereby now we see feel beyond all debate that the Throne stands and is stated not only in opposition to but upon the ruines of the Rights Priviledges both of Religion Liberty But was not the equivalent done by the Church anno 1648. when they refused to concur with that unlawful Engagment for restoring of the King till security be had by Solem Oath under his hand Seal that he shall for himself Successors give his assent to all Acts Bills for enjoining Presbyterial Government and never make opposition to it nor endeavour any change thereof Iulij ult 1648. Sess 21. But it will be said that in their renewing the Covenant that year they did not leave out that Article True thereby they stopped the mouths of their Adversaries And then they were not without hopes but that in his straits he might have proved a Manasseh taken among the thornes And the Covenanters at that time not being clear that he had done that which ipso jure made him no Magistrate chused rather while matters stood so to ingage to maintain him than simply to disoune him which yet our forefathers did upon smaller grounds many times in the hopes of being prevailed with at last But when they saw that this proved ineffectual therefore at the Coronation of the new King they made the Covenanted Interest the sole Basis upon which alone Authority was conferred upon him For the second though they did not refuse the succession of Charles the Second which vvas their blame and our bane of vvhich vve may blush this day yet vve find many things in that Transaction vvhich justifie our disouning of him and condemn the ouning of the present Possessor 1. In that seasonable necessary warning Iulij 27. Sess. 27. vvhereas many vvould have admitted his Maj. to the exercise of his Royal povver upon any termes vvhatsoever The Assembly declares first That a boundless illimited povver is to be acknovvledged in no King nor Magistrate neither is our King to be admitted to the exercise of his povver as long as he refuses to vvalk in the administration of the same according to this rule Secondly that there is a mutual stipulation obligation betvveen the King the people as both of them are tyed to God so each of them are tyed to one another for the performance of mutual reciprocal duties accordingly Kings are to take the Oath of Coronation to abolish Popery maintain the Protestant Religion As long therefore as the King refuses to engage oblige himself for security of Religion safety of his people it is consonant to Scripture Reason and Lavves of the Kingdom that he should be refused Thirdly in the League Covenant the duty of defending preserving the King is subordinate to the duty of preserving Religion Liberty And therefore he standing in opposition to the publick desires of the people for their security it vvere a manifest breach of Covenant and a preferring the Kings Interest to the Interest of Jesus Christ to bring him to the exercise of his povver Fourthly That it vvas for restraint of Arbitrary Government and for their Just defence against Tyranny that the Lords people did join in Covenant and have been at the expence of so much blood these years past And if he should be admitted to the Government before satisfaction it vvere to put in his hand that Arbitrary Povver and so to abandon their
of Scotland did now suffer a violent villanous rape from a vermine of vile Schismatical Apostates obtruded imposed upon her instead of her able painful faithful succeseful Pastors that the Lord had set over her and now by their faintness the Enemies force robbed from her And none now allowed by Law to administer the Ordinances but either Apostate Curats who by their Perjurie Apostacy forfaulted their Ministry or other Hirelings Prelatâ— Journey-men who run without a Mission except from them who had none to give according to Christs Institution the seal of whose Ministry could never yet be shown in the Conversion of any sinner to Christ but if the tree may be known by its fruitâ— we may know whose Ministers they are ut ex ungue Leonem by their Conversions of Reformation into Deformation of the Work Cause of God into the similitude of the Roman beast of Ministers into Hirelings of their Proselytes into ten times worse children of the Devil then they were before of the power of Godlyness into formality of Preaching Christ into Orations of Morality of the purity of Christs Ordinances into the vanity of mens Inventions of the beautiful Government of the House of God for Edification to a Lordly preheminence Domination over consciences in a word of Church State Constitutions for Religion Liberty all up side doun into wickedness slavery These are the Conversions of Prelacy But now this astonishing blow to the Gospel of the Kingdom introducing such a Swarm of Locusts into the Church And in forcing a Complyance of the people with this defection and that so violently rigorously as even simple withdrawing was so severely punished by severe Edicts of fyning other arbitrary punishments at first what did it produce did it awaken all Christs Ambassadours now to appear for Christ in this clear clamant case of Confessing Him and the freedom Purity of His Ordinances Alas the backwardness bentness to backsliding in a Superseding from the duties of that day did make it evident that now the Lord had in a great measure forsaken them because they had forsaken Him. The standart of the Gospel was then fallen and few to take it up The Generality of Ministers Professors both went Conformed so far as to hear the Curats contrary to many points of the Reformation formerly attained contrare to their Covenant Engagments and contrare to their oun principles practice at that same time scrupling and refusing to keep the Bishops visitations and to Countenance their Discipline power of Iurisdiction because it was required as a Testification of their acknowledgment of Complyance with the present Government And yet not scrupling to Countenance their Doctrine usurped power of Order required also by the same Law as the same Test of the same Compliance submission It s strange that some yet doe plead for persisting in that same Complyance after all the bitter Consequents of it Other Ministers Lay altogether by in their retired recesses waiting to see what things would turn to Others were hopeless turned Farmers Doctors others more wyllie staid at home Preached quietly in Ladies Chambeâ—â— But the faithful thought that this Tyrannical ejection did 〈◊〉 or could not unminister them so as they might not Preaâ—â—â— Gospel where ever they were as Ambassadours of 〈◊〉 but rather found themselves under an indispensible necessity to Preach the Gospel and witness for the freedom of their Ministry and make full proof of it in preaching in season out of season and thereupon as occasion offered preached to all such as were willing to hear but at first only in private houses and that for the most part at such times when Sermons in publick surceased a superplus of Caution But afterwards finding so great difficulties and Persecutions for their house Meetings where they were so easily attrapped were constrained at last to keep their Meetings in the fields without shelter from cold wind snow or rain Where testifieing both practically particularly against these Usurpations on their Masters Prerogatives and witnessing for their Ministerial freedom contrary to all Law-Interdictions without any Licences or Indulgences from the Usurper but holding their Ministry from Jesus Christ alone both as to the Office exercise thereof they had so much of their Masters Countenance success in their labours that they valued neither hazards nor hardships neither the contempt of pretended Friends nor the Laws nor threatnings of Enemies adjudging the penalty of death it self to Preachers at Field Conventicles as they called them Now having thus overturned the Church Government by introducing Prelacy to advance an absolute Supremacy the effects whereof were either the Corruption or Persecution of all the Ministrie Encouragment of profanity wickedness the enerease advancment of Popery Superstition Error cruel impositions on the Conscience and oppressions for Conscience sake by the practices of cruel Supra-Spanish Inquisitions and all manner of outcryes of outragious violence villany The King proceeds in his design to pervert evert the wel modelled moderated Constitution of the State Government also by introducing advancing an Arbitrary Tyranny the effects whereof were an absolute Mancipation of Lives Liberties and estates unto his lust pleasure the utter subversion of Lawes and absolute impoverishinâ—â— the people For effectuating which he first procâ—â— lasting Imposition of intollerable Subsidies Taxatiâ—â— to impoverish that he might the more easily enslave the Nation Next a further recognizance of his Prerogative in a subjection of persons fortunes whole strength of the Kingdom to his absolute arbitrement in a Levy of Militia of 20000 footmen 2000 horsemen sufficiently armed with 40 dayes provision to be ready upon the Kings call to march to any part of his Dominions for opposing whatsoever invasion or insurrection or for any other service The first sproutings of Tyrannie were cherished by the cheerfull stupid submission generally yeelded to these exorbitances under which they who suffered most were inwardly Malecontents but there was no opposition to them by word or Action but on the contrary generally people did not so much as scruple sending out or going out as Militia-men never adverting unto what this Concurrence was designed demanded and given for Nor what an accession it was in the nature influence of the mean it self and in the sense intention of the Requirers unto a Confederacy for a Complyance with and a Confirmation strengthening of Arbitrary Tyrannie After the fundamental constitutions of both Church State are thus razed rooted up to confirm this Absolute Power he contrived to frame all inferior Magistrats according to his mould And for this end appointed that all persons in any publick Trust or Office whatsoever should subscribe a Declaration renouncing abjuring the Covenants whereby Perjurie was made the chief indispensible qualification and Conditio sine qua non of all that were
like lightning or like the Sun in its Meridian beauty discovering so the Wonders of Gods Law the Mysteries of His Gospel and the Secrets of His Covenant and the Sins Duties of that day that a numerous issue was begotten to Christ and His Conquest was Glorious Captivating poor slaves of Satan and bringing them from his power unto God and from darkness to Light. O! who can remember the Glory of that Day without a melting heart in reflecting upon what we have lost and let go and sinned away by our Misimprovements O that in that our day we had hearkened to His voice and had known the things that belonged to our peace A day of such power that it made the People even the bulk body of the People willing to come out and venture upon the greatest of hardships and the greatest of hazards in pursuing after the Gospel through Mosses Moors inaccessible Mountains Summer Winter through excess of heat extremity of cold many dayes night-journeyes even when they could not have a probable expectation of escaping the Sword of the wilderness and the barbarous fury of bloody Burrio's raging for their prey sent out with orders to take kill them it being now made Criminal by Law especially to the preachers Convocaters of those Meetings But this was a day of such power that nothing could daunt them from their duty that had tasted once the sweetness of the Lords presence at these persecuted Meetings Then had we such Humiliation-dayes for personal publick Defections such Communion-dayes even in the open fields and such Sabbath-Solemnities that the places where they were kept might have been called Bethel or Peniel or Bochim and all of them Iehovah-Shammah wherein many were truly Converted more Convinced and generally all Reformed from their former immoralities That even Robbers Thieves and Profane Men were some of them brought to a saving subjection to Christ and generally under such restraint that all the severities of heading hanging c. in a great many years could not make such a Civil Reformation as a few dayes of the Gospel in these formerly the Devils Teritories now Christs Quarters where His Kingly Standart was displayed I have not Language to lay out the inexpressible Glory of that day But I will make bold to say two things of it first I doubt if ever there was Greater dayes of the Son of Man upon the Earth since the Apostolick times than we enjoyed for the space of Seven years at that time And next I doubt if upon the back of such a lightsome day there was ever a blacker night of darkness defection division confusion and a more universal impudent Apostasie than we have seen since The world is at a great loss that a more exact complete account demonstrating both these is not published which I am sure would be a fertile Theme to any faithful pen. But this not being my scope at present but only to deduce the steps of the Contendings of Christs Friends His Enemies I must follow the threed of my Narration Now when Christ is gaining Ground by the preached Gospel in plenty in purity power the Usurpers Supremacy was like to stagger and Prelacy came under universal Contempt in so much that several Country Curats would have had but scarce half a dozen of hearers and some none at all And this was a General Observe that never failed that no sooner did any poor Soul come to get a serious sense of Religion and was brought under any real Exercise of Spirit about their Souls Concerns but as soon they did fall out with Prelacy and left the Curats Hence to secure what he had possessed himself of by Law and to prevent a dangerous Paraxisme which he thought would ensue upon these Commotions the King returned to exerce his innate Tyranny and to emit terrible Orders and more terrible Executioners bloody Emissaries against all Field Meetings which after long patience the people at length could not endure but being first chased to the Fields where they would have been content to have the Gospel with all the inconveniences of it and also expelled from the Fields being resolute to maintain the Gospel they resolved to defend it themselves by Armes To which unavoidable necessity in unsupportable extremity did constrain them as the only remaining remedy It is known for several years they met without any Armes where frequently they were disturbed dispersed with Souldiers some killed others wounded which they patiently endured without Resistence At length the Ministers that were most in hazard having a Price set upon their heads to be brought in dead or alive with some attending them in their wanderings understanding they were thus appointed for death judged it their duty to provide for the necessary defence of their lives from the violence of their Armed Assaulters And as Meetings increased diverse others came under the same hazard which enforced them to endeavour the same remedy without the least intention of prejudice to any Thus the number of Sufferers increasing as they joyned in the Ordinances at these persecuted Meetings found themselves in some probable Capacity to defend themselves and these much endeared precious Gospel Priviledges to preserve the Memory of the Lords great Work in the Land which to transmit to posterity was their great design And they had no small encouragment to endeavour it by the satisfying sweetness comfort they found in these Ordinances being perswaded of the justness of their Cause and of the groundlessness of their Adversaries quarrel against them And hereunto also they were incited prompted by the palpableness of the Enemies purposes to destroy the Remainder of the Gospel by extirpating the Remnant that professed it Wherefore in these circumstances being redacted to that strait either to be deprived of the Gospel or to defend themselves in their Meetings for it And thinking their turning their backs upon it for hazard was a cowardly deserting duty and palpable breach of Covenant-Engagments abandoning their greatest Interest They thought it expedient yea necessary to carry defensive Armes with them And as for that discouragment from the difficulty danger of it because of their fewness meanness it did not deter or daunt them from the endeavour of their duty when they considered the Lord in former times was wont to oune a very small party of their Ancestors who in extremity jeoparded their lives in defence of Reformation against very potent powerful Enemies These now ouning the same Cause judged themselves obliged to run the same hazard in the same circumstances and to follow the same method durst not leave it unessayed leaving the event to God considering also that not only the Law of Nature Nations doth allow self defence from unjust violence but also the indissoluble obligation of their Covenants to maintain defend the true Religion one another in promoving the same made it indispensible to use
of Burgh Royal what place or places they set a part for these uses with the names of the Preachers provided alwayes that the Meetings be in houses and not in the open fields for which now after this our Royal grace favour which surpasses the hopes equalls the very wishes of the most zealously concerned there is not the least shadow of execuse left Which Meetings in the fields we do hereby strictly prohibite forbid against all which we do leave our Lawes Acts of Parliament in full force vigour notwithstanding the premises and do further command all our Judges Magistrats Officers of forces to prosecute such as shall be guilty of the said field Conventicles with the utmost rigour for we are confident none will after these Liberties freedoms given to all without reserve to serve God in their oun way presume to meet in these Assemblies except such as make a pretence of Religion to cover their treasonable designs against our Royal person the peace of our Government This is the Royal Charter for security of the Protestant Religion intended to secure it so that it shall not go much abroad again in Lieu of all the Lawes Constitutions Oaths Covenants wherewith it was formerly confirmed This is the only patent which the Royal Dâties the Moderate Presbyterians have now received to ensure their enjoyment of it durante beneplacito during his pleasure whose Faith is as absolute over all ties of promises as his power from whence it flowes is over all Lawes whose chiefest principle of Conscience is that no Faith is to be kept to Hereticks Here is the Liberty which is said to surpass the hopes and equal the wishes of the most zealously concerned holding true indeed of too many whose hopes wishes zeal are terminate upon peace rather than Truth ease rather than duty and their own things rather than the things of Christ But as for the poor wild Wanderers it some way answers their fears and corrosponds with their jealousies who put the same interpretation upon it as on all the former Indulgences Indemnities Tolerations proceeding from the same fountain designed for the same sinistrous ends with this which they look upon as more openly obviously Anti-christian and therefore while others are rejoicing under the bramble-shadow of it they think it a cause of weeping matter of mourning not because they do not share of the benefit of it but because they are afraid to share of the Curse of it For which cause thô a freedom be pretended to be given to all without reserve to serve God in their own way they think it necessary to reserve to themselves the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free and to serve Him in His Way thô interdicted by men and to take none from Antichrist restricted with his reserves And do look upon it as a Seasonable Testimony for the Cause of Christ and the Interest of the Protestant Religion and the Lawes Liberties of the Country all overturned subverted by this Toleration to keep their Meetings as in former times in the open fields whither their Tyranny hath driven them And let them call these Meetings covered treasonable designs against the Government on pretence of Religion I trust it shall be made evident in the Conviction of all that know Religion that their designs are to preserve it in opposition to the Tyranny that goes about all these wayes to suppress it Though I must suspend the Reasons of their keeping their Meetings in the fields till I come to discuss that Case in its oun place Here I shall only say none that is acquainted with their Circumstances which are as dangerously stated as ever by reason of the Constant Persecution of Cruel enraged Enemies incessantly pursuing them without relenting notwithstanding of all this pretence of Clemency tenderness to Conscience but may know they can neither have safety secrecy nor conveniency in houses for fear of their entrapping enemies and none will blame them that after so many discoveries of their truculent treachery they dare not trust them And besides they think it sinful scandalous inconvenient to seem to homologate this Toleration the wickedness whereof they are convinced of from these Reasons I. Considering the Granter in his personal Capacity as to his Morals they look upon him as a person with whom they cannot in Prudence communicate in any transaction of that nature First because being in his Principles practice professedly treacherous yea obliged to be both perfidious cruel by that Religion whereunto he is addicted he cannot be trusted in the least concerns let be those of such momentous consequence as this without a stupid abandoning of Conscience Reason Experience Since both that known principle that no Faith is to be kept to Hereticks which is espoused by all Papists does to them justify all their lying dissimulations equivocations treacheries imaginable and that Lateran Canon that enjoyns Kings to destroy exstirpate Hereticks under pain of excommunication does oblige him to be cruel besides what deep engagments he is known to be under by Oaths Promises to the Pope both in his exile and while a subject and since he came to the Croun which make him to all Considering persons to be a person of that Character whose deceitful dainties are not to be desired and that when he speaketh fair is not to be beleeved for there are seven abominations in his heart Of which open affronted Lies we have a sufficient swatch both in his Proclamation for Scotland and Declaration for England where he speaks of his constant resolves of uniting the hearts of Subjects to God in Religion to their Neighbours in Christian Love and that it never was his principle to offer violence to any mans Conscience or use invincible necessity against any man on the account of his persuasion and that their Property was never in any case invaded since his coming to the Croun and that it hath been his constant sense opinion that Conscience ought not to to be constrained nor People forced in matters of meer Religion To which his uninterrupted endeavours to divide us from God and from on another that he might the more easily destroy us and his constant encroachments upon Lawes Liberties Properties and all Interests of men Christians for Conscience sake do give the lie manifestly And it must be great blindness not to see and great baseness willingly to wink at that double faced equivocation in matters of meer Religion by which he may elude all these flattering promises of tenderness by excepting at the most necessary indispensable duties if either they be such wherein any other Interest is concerned beside meer Religion or if their troubles sustained thereupon be not altogether invincible necessities Hence the plain falsehood doubleness of his Assertions as to what is past may give ground to conclude his intended perfidie in the promises of
all Power given to him in Heaven in Earth and all Authority even because He is the Son of man An Institute right by the Fathers Inauguration which hath set Him as King in Zion An Acquisite right by His oun Purchase by which He hath merited obtained not only Subjects to Govern but the Glory of the Sole Soveraignty over them in that relation a Name above every Name A Bellical right by Conquest making the People fall under Him and be willing in the day of His Power and overcoming those that make war with Him An Hereditary right by Proximity of blood Primogeniture being the first born higher then the Kings of the Earth and the first born from the dead that in all things He might have the Preeminence An Elective right by His Peoples choise surrender a Croun wherewith His Mother Crouned Him in the Day of His espousals In a humble recognizance of all which Rights we oune avouch that He hath that Incommunicable Prerogative of Sole Soveraignty over his Visible Kingdom as well as Invisible without a Copartner or Competitor either Coordinate or subordinate in Prescribing Lawes by no humane Authority to be reversed in appointing Ordinances immutable without addition or diminution for matter or manner instituting a Government which no man or Angel can without Blasphemy arrogate a Power either to invert or evert change or overturn And Constituting Officers which must depend only on His Authority and His alone and must be cloathed only with His Commission and His alone guided by His Instructions His alone Acting according to His Lawes Prescribed Platforme and His alone without any dependence on subordination to Licence warrand or Indulgence from any Mortal And therefore We disoune detest every thing that hath not the stamp of His Authority either in Doctrine Worship Discipline or Government And will discountenance Prelacy Supremacy Popery and all Corruption contrarie to His Institution who is Sole Supreme Lawgiver to the Conscience and will submit to or comply with nothing that may directly or indirectly signify our respect unto them Hence we will take none of their Oaths subscribe none of their bonds yeeld to none of their Impositions pay none of their Exactions Neither will we hear or receive Ordinances from any Minister but the faithful Authorized Ambassadours of Christ our King whatever either rage or reproach we suffer for it We assert affirm also that our Exalted Prince is King of the whole world by whom Kings reign Princes Decree Justice as His Ministers of Justice in subordination to Him whom He hath appointed to rule over us with just boundaries that they may not exceed and true Characters by which we should know them pay them deference And therefore who soever shall arrogate to themselves and extend their power beyond above His prescripts being neither called to nor qualified for nor improving the Office for the ends He hath appointed We will acknowledge them no otherwise than Usurping Tyrants not Magistrats nor Ministers of Justice to whom He hath given the Sword by His preceptive Will only as Lyons Bears Wolves to whom he hath given a rod by His providential Will In that case we may be passively subject when we cannot do better but will never oune Consciencious Allegiance to them nor oune them as our Lawful Magistrars And therefore we will not bow to their Idols they have set up nor prostitute either Conscience or Liberty to their Lust But will endeavour under our Masters Banner Conduct to preserve whatever he hath intrusted to us Religion Life Liberty Estate And whatsoever the Lord our God hath given us to possess As they unjustly possess what their God gives them And will maintain a war of constant opposition to them against whom our Lord hath declared a war for ever without parly Treaty of peace Capitulation Composition Truce or any Transaction we will neither Medle nor make with them less or more nor seek their favour nor embrace it when it is offered on any termes that may imply any obligation to surcease from our duty to our King and irreconcileable opposition to them c. Now I shall come more Distinctly to the purpose in offering a short vindication of the Heads Grounds of our great sufferings Dividing them into their principal parts which I reduce to two viz Negatives Positives The Negative Grounds I reckon three principally 1. For Refusing to acknowledge a Corrupt Ministrie 2. For Refusing to oune a Tyrannical Magistracy 3. For Refusing to Swear subscribe their unlawful imposed Oaths Chiefly that of Abjuration which was the occasion of suffering unto death The positive Grounds are also three 1. For frequenting field-meetings to receive Gospel-Ordinancs from faithful Ministers 2. For maintaining the principle practice of Defensive Resistence of Superior powers 3. For maintaining the priviledge Duty of offensive revenge in executing Justice upon Murdering Enemies of Mankind in cases of extreme necessity In prosecuting which I shall intertexe some subordinate questions relating to their respective Heads and endeavour to discuss them briefly HEAD I. Where The Sufferings of many for Refusing to acknowledge a Corrupt Ministrie are Vindicated and the Question of Hearing Curats is cleared THis Question though it may seem nice and of no great Moment to Persons of Gallio's or Laodiceds temper indifferent Lukwarm dispositions consulting their oun more them the things of Christ which maks it pass without any enquiry with the most part of the world Yet to all who are truly tender in keeping a good Conscience free of the times Contagion to all who have the true Impression of the fear of God who is Iealous especially in the matters of his worship to all who have the true zeal of God eating them up in a just indignation at the indignities done to him in usurping the office corrupting the Administration of the Ministrie to all who truly Love the Gospel and put a due value on the Ordinances of Christ the Corruptions whereof this Question touches it will be accounted of great importance There are three Questions about the Duty of hearing the Word Concerning which the Lord Jesus gives us very weighty Cautions viz what we should hear Mark. 4. 24. how we should hear Luk. 8. 18. and whom we should hear The last of which though it be not so expressly Stated as the other two yet the Searcher of the Scriptures will find it as clearly Determined and as many Cautions to guard from erring in it as in any other Case And that the Concern of Conscience in it is very weighty And certain it is if there had been more advertency in this Point there would not have been such inconsideration and Licenciousness in the matter manner of hearing Nor would that itching humor Luxuriancy of lust in heaping up teachers to please the fancy have been so much encouraged to the great detriment of the Church disgrace of the
Church but in a way of Dependence upon subordination to Christ as King who ascending far above Principalities Powers appointed gave the Gifts of the Ministry Eph. 4. 8. 11. and set them in the Church 1. Cor. 12. 28. and gave them commission to go teach the Nations by virtue of that all Power that was given to Him in Heaven Earth Math. 28. 18 19. If then they take a new holding close with a new Conveyance of the Ministrie and of the Power to exercise the same from a new Architectonick usurped Power in the Church encroaching on Christs Royal prerogative we dare not Homologat such an affront to Christ as to give them the respect of His Ambassadours when they become the servants of men and subject even in Ministerial functions to another Head then Christ for then they are the Ministers of men by men and not by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead because they do not hold the Head Col. 2. 19. Hence those that receive derive their Church-Power from and are subordinate in its exercise to another Head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the Ministers of Christ in His Church But the Prelats their curats do receive derive their Church Power from are subordinate in its exercise to another Head then Christ Therefore they should not be received c. The first Proposition cannot be denyed The Second is proved thus Those officers in the Church Professing themselves such that derive their Church-Power from are subordinate in its exercise to a Power truly Architectonick Supreme in the Church to wit the Magistrate beside Christ Do derive their Power from are subordinate in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus But so it is that Prelats their Curats do derive c. Ergo The Major is evident for whosoever hath a Supreme Architectonick Power in over the Church must be a Head to the same and the fountain of all Church Power The Minor is also clear from the foregoing Historical Deduction manifesting the Present Prelacy to be Gross Erastianisme for the disposal of the Government of the Church is declared by Law to be the Croun right and an inherent perpetual Prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored to the Episcopal function And it is expressly Declared that there is no Church Power in the Church-office bearers but what depends upon is subordinate unto the Supremacy and authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to the King for the Administration By virtue of which Ecclesiastick Supremacy He put excomunication spiritual Censures consequently the Power of the Keyes into the hands of Persons meerly Civil in the Act for the High Commission Hence it is clear that as the fountain of all Church Government he imparts his Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Commissioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick power which is originally in Himself and that the Curats are only His under Clerks All the stress will lie in proving that this Monster of a Supremacy from which the Prelats their Curats have all their Authority is a Great Encroachment on the Glory of Christ as King which will appear if we briefly consider these Particulars 1. It usurps upon Christs Prerogative who only hath all undoubted right to this Architectonick Magisterial Dominion over the Church His oun Mediatory Kingdom not only an Essential right by His Eternal Godhead being the Everlasting Father whose goings forth hath been of old from Everlasting Isa. 9. 6. Mic. 5. 2. in recognizance of which we oune but one God the Father and one Lord by whom are all things we by Him 1. Cor. 8. 6. But also a Covenant-right by Compact with the Father to bear the Glory rule upon His Throne by virtue of the Counsel of Peace between them both Zech. 6. 13. A Donative right by the Fathers Delegation by which He hath all power given in Heaven in Earth Math. 28. 18. and all things given unto His hand Iohn 3. 35. and all judgment Authority to execute it even because He is the Son of man Iohn 5. 22 27. and to be Head over all things to the Church Eph. 1. 22. An Institute right by the Fathers inaugaration who hath set Him as King in Zion Psal. 2. 6. and appointed Him Governour that shall rule His people Israel Math. 2. 6. An Acquisite right by His oun purchase by which He hath merited obtained not only subjects to Govern but the Glory of the Sole Soveraignty over them in that relation A name above every name Phil. 2. 9. which is that He is the Head of the Church which is as much His Peculiar Prerogative as to be Saviour of the body Eph. 5. 23. A Bellical right by Conquest making the people fall under Him Psal. 45. 4. and be willing in the Day of His power Psal. 110. 3. and overcoming those that make war with Him Rev. 17. 14. An Hereditary right by Proximity of blood Primogeniture being the first born higher then the Kings of the Earth Psal. 89. 27. and the first born from the dead that in all things He might have the preeminence Col. 1. 18. An Elective right by His peoples choise surrender having a Croun wherewith His Mother Crouned Him in the day of His Espousals Cant 3. ult By all which undoubted Titles It is His Sole incommunicable Prerogative without a Copartner or Competitor Coordinate or subordinate to be Iudge only Lawgiver King in Spirituals Isa. 33. 22. to be that one Lawgiver Iam. 4. 12. who only can give the power of the keyes to His officers which Comprehends all the power they have Math. 16. 19. to be that one Master over all Church officers who are but brethren Math. 23. 8 10. in whose Name only they must perform all Church Acts and all Parts of their Ministry and not in the Name of any Mortal Math. 28. 18. 19. Math. 18. 20. from whom only they receive what ever they have to deliver to the Church 1. Cor. 11. 23. To be the only Instituter of His Officers who hath set them in the Church 1. Cor. 12. 28. and gave them to the Church Eph. 4. 11. whose Ambassadours only they are 2. Cor. 5. 20. from whom they have authority for edification of the Church 2 Cor. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 10. in whose Name only they are to assemble and keep fence their Courts both the least Math. 18. 20. and the Greatest Act. 15. But now all this is usurped by one who is not so much as a Church member let be a Church Officer as such for the Magistrate is neither as he is a Magistrate otherwise all Magistrats would be Church members Hence they that have all their power from a meer usurper on Christs Prerogative who is neither member nor officer of the Church have none
for it but reality of conscience and Government founded upon a bottom of conscience that will Unite the Governed to the Governours by inclination as well as duty And if that be then there is needful a rule of Gods revealed preceptive will the only Cynosure Empress of conscience touching the founding erecting of Government that it have the stamp of Gods Authority It must needs then follow that conscience hath a very great concernment in this question in the General and that before it be forced to an abandoning of its light in a matter of such moments it will rather oblige people that are conscientious to suffer the worst that Tyrants can do especially when it is imposed obtruded upon conscince to give its suffrage express acknowledment that the present Tyranny is the Authority of God which is so visible in the view of all that have their eyes open that the meanest capacity that was never conversant in Lawes Politicks can give this verdict that the Constitution administration of the Government of the tuo Royal Brothers under whose burthen the earth and we have been groaning these 27 years past hath been a compleat Habitual Tyranny and can no more be ouned to be Magistracy theâ— Robbery can be acknowledged to be a rightful possession It is so plain that I need not the help of Lawyers Politicians to demonstrate it nor lanch into the Ocean of their endless debates in handling the head of Magistracy Tyrannie yet I shall improve what help I find in our most approved Authors who have enlarged upon this Question though not as I must state it to dilucidate the matter in Thesi and refer to the foregoing Deduction of the succession of Testimonies against Tyranny to clear it in Hypothesi Whence we may see the occasion and clearly gather the solution of the Question which is this Whether a people long oppressed with the encroachments of Tyrants Usurpers may disoune their pretended Authority when imposed upon to acknowledge it may rather chiefe to suffer than to oune it To clear this question I shall first premit some concessions and then come more formally to resolve it I. It must be granted the Question is extraordinary and never so stated by any writer on this head which makes it the more difficult and odious because odd singular in the esteem of those who take up opinions rather from the number of votes than from the weight of the reasons of the asserters of them It will also be yeelded that this was never a case of confession for Christians to suffer upon And the reason of both is because before these seven years past this was never imposed upon private common subjects to give an account of their thoughts conscience about the Lawfulness of the Government they lived under Conquerers Usurpers sometimes have demanded an acknowledgment of their Authority from men of greatest note stroke in the Countries they have seised but they never since the Creation urged it upon common people as a Test of Loyalty but thought alwayes their Lawes power to execute them on offenders did secure their subjection Or otherwise to what purpose are Lawes made and the execution of them committed to men in power if they be not thought a sufficient fence for the Authority that makes them except it also have the actual acknowledgment of the subjects to ratify it Men that are really invested with Authority would think it both a disparagment to their Authority and would disdain such a suspicion of the questionableness of it as to put it as a queston to the subjects whether they ouned it or not But the Gentlemen that rule us have fallen upon a piece of unprecedented Policy wherein they think both to involve the Nation in the guilt of their unparalelled Rebellion against the Lord by ouning that Authority that promotes it and so secure their Usurpations either by the suffrage of all that oune them or by the exstirpation of the Consciencious that dare not with the odium obliâ—uie of being enemies to Authority by which Trick they think to bury the honour of their Testimony Yet in sobriety without Prophecying it may be presumed at the long run this project will prove very prejudicial to their Interest and herein they may verify that Scots Proverb ov'r fast ov'r loose and accomplish these Divine sayings He disappointeth the devices of the Crafty He taketh the wise in their oun Craftiness and the Counsel of the froward is carried head long For as they have put people upon this question who would not otherwise have made such inquiries into it and now finding they must be resolved in conscience to answer it when ever they shall be brought before them upon a very overly search they see terrible Tyranny witten in legible bloody Characters almost on all administrations of the Government and so come to be fixed in the verdict that their conscience the word of God gives of it So it may be thought this question now started for as despicable beginings it hath yet ere it come to a ful final Decision will be more inquired into through the world and at length prove as fatal to Tyranny as ever any thing could be and then they may know whom to thank But however though the question be extraordinary and the sufferings thereupon be unprecedented And therefore among other contradictions that may be objected that neither in History nor Scripture we can find instances of private people their refusing to oune the Authority they were under nor of their suffering for that refusal yet nevertheless it may be duty without example Many things may be done though not against the Law of God yet without a precedent of the practice of the people of God. Though we could not adduce an example for it yet we can gather it from the Law of God that Tyranny must not be ouned this will be equivalent to a thousand examples Every age in somethings must be a precedent to the following and I think never did any age produce a more honourable precedent than this begining to decline a yoke under which all ages have groaned 2. It will be also granted It is not always indispensablie necessarie at all times for a people to declare their disclaim of the Tyranny they are under when they cannot shake it off nor when they are staged for their duty before wicked Tyrannical Judges is it always necessarie to disoune their pretended Authority positively when either they are not urged with questions about it then they may be silent in reference to that or when they are imposed upon to give their judgment of it they are not alwayes obliged as in a case of confession to declare all their mind especially when such Questions are put to them with a manifest design to entrap their lives or intangle their Conscience All Truth is not to be told at all times neither are all
discovered above 8. Althusius in the place above quoted makes this an other mark when he keepeth not his faith promise but despiseth his very oath made unto the people What shall we say of him then who not only brake but burnt and made it Criminal to assert the obligation of the most solemnly transacted Covenant with God and with the people that ever was entered into who yet upon these termes of keeping that Covenant only was admitted to the Government And what shall we say of his Brother succeeding who disdains all bonds whose professed principle is as a Papist to keep no faith to Hereticks 9. In the same place he makes this on Character a Tyrants is he who takes away from one or moe members of the common wealth the free exercise of the Orthodox Religion And the Grave Author of the Impartial inquiry into the administration of affairs in England doeth assert pag. 3 4. whensoever a Prince becomes depraved to that degree of wickedness as to apply employ his power Interest to debauch withdraw his subjects from their fealty obedience to God or sets himself to extirpate that Religion which the Lord hath revealed appointed to be the rule of our living the means of our happiness he doth ipso facto depose himself and instead of being ouned any longer for a King ought to be treated as a Rebel Traiter against the Supreme Universal Soveraign This is the perfect Protracture of our Princes the former of which declared an open war against Religion all that professed it and the Latter did begin to prosecute it with the same cruelty of persecution and yet continues without relenting against us though to others he tolerates it under the Notion of a Crime to be for the present dispensed with until he accomplish his design 10. Ibid. he tells us that for corrupting of youth he erecteth stage plages Whore-houses other Play-houses and suffers the Colledges other Seminaries of Learning to be corrupted There was never more of this in any age than in the conduct of our Court which like another Sodom profess it to be their design to debauch mankind in to all villanies and to poison the fountains of all learning virtue by intruding the basest of men into the place of teachers both in Church University and precluding all access to honest men 11. Further he sayes he is a Tyrant who doth not defend his subjects from injuries when he may but suffereth them to be oppressed and what if he oppress them himself It was one of the Lawes of Edward the Confessor Quod si Rex desit officio nomen Regis in eo non constabit If the King fail in the discharge of his Trust office he no longer deserves nor ought to enjoy that name What name do they deserve then who not only fail in the duty of defending their subjects but send out their Lictors bloody Executioners to oppress them neither will suffer them to defend themselves But Althusius makes a distinct Character of this 12. Then in fine he must certainly be a Tyrant who will not suffer the people by themselves nor by their Representatives to maintain their oun rights neither by Law nor force for sayeth my Author Forecited he is a Tyrant who hindereth the free suffrages of members of Parliament so that they dare not speak what they would And chiefly he who takes away from the people all power to resist his Tyranny as Armes strengths chief men whom therefore though innocent he hateth afflicteth persecuteth exhausts their goods livelyhoods without right or reason All know that our blades have been all alongs enemies to Parliaments and when their Interest forced to call them what means were used always to pacque prelimit them and over-aw them and how men who have faithfully discharged their trust in them have been prosecuted with the hight of envy fury and many murthered thereupon And how all the armed force of the Kingdoms have been inhanced into their hand and the people kept so under foot that they have been rendered incapable either to defend their oun from intestine Usurpers or forreign Invaders All that is said amounts to this that when ever men in power do evert subvert all the ends of Government and intrude themselves upon it and abuse it to the hurt of the Common wealth and the destruction of that for which Government was appointed They are then Tyrants and cease to be Magistrates To this purpose I shall here append the words of that forecited Ingenious Author of the Impartial Enquirie Pap. 13. 14. There can be nothing more evident from the light of reason as well as Scripture than that all Magistracy is appointed for the benefite of mankind and the common good of Societies God never gave any one power to reign over others for their destruction unless by His providence where He had devoted a people for their sins to ruine but on whomsoever He confers Authority over Cities or Nations it is with this Conditional Proviso Limitation that they are to Promote their Prosperity good and to study their defence Protection All Princes are thus far Pactional And whosoever refuseth to perform this fundamental condition he degrades deposes himself nor is it rebellion in any to resist him whensoever Princes ceases to be for the common good they answer not the end they were instituted unto and cease to be what they were chosen for 6. It will not be denyed but when the Case is so circumstantiate that it would require the arbitration of judgment to determine whether the King be a Tyrant or not that then people are not to disoune him for if it be a question whether the people be really robbed of their rights Liberties and that the King might pretend as much reason to complain of the people their doing indignity to his Soveraignty as they might of his Tyranny Then it were hard for them to assume so for the umpirage of their oun Cause as to make themselves absolute judges of it and forth with to reject his Authority upon these debateable grounds But the Case is not so with us no Place being left for doubt or debate but that our fundamental rights Liberties Civil Religious are overturned and an absolute Tyranny exactly Characterized as above is established on the ruines thereof Hence we have not disouned the pretended Authority because we judged it was Tyrannical but because it was really so Our discretive judgment in the case was not our rule but it was our understanding of the rule by which only we could be regulated and not by the understanding of another which cannot be better nor so good of our grievances which certainly we may be supposed to understand best our selves and yet they are such as are understood every where To the question then who shall be Judge between these Usurping Tyrannizing Rulers us we answer
it on in His Providence Math. 16. 24. See at length this cleared Lex rex Q. 30. Pag. 317-320 otherwise in no case subjection even Passive can be a duty for it is allwise to be considered under the notion of a plague Judgment Curse to be complained of as a burden never to be ouned as a duty to Magistrats As we find the Lords people resenting it as a servitude under which they were servants even in their oun Land which did yeeld increase unto the Kings whom the Lord had set over them because of their sins Neh. 9. 36. 37. 2. In diverse cases there may be some Complyance with a meer occupant that hath no right to reign as upon this account the Noble Marquis of Argyle and Lord waristoun suffered for their Complyance with the Usurper Cromuel Such may be the warrantableness or goodness or necessity or profitableness of a Complyance when people are by Providence brought under a yoke which they cannot shake off that they may part with some of their Priviledges for the avoidance of the loss of the rest and for the conveniency profit peace safety of themselves and their Countrey which would be in hazard if they did not comply they may do whatsoever is due from them to the Publick weal what soever is an office of their station or place or which they have any other way a call unto whatsoever may make for their oun honest interest without wronging others or the Countries Liberties in their transactions with these Powers even though such a Complyance may be occasionally to the advantage of the Usurpers Seeing good necessary actions are not to be declined for the ill effects that are accidental to them and arise from the use which others make of them But though this may be yeelded in some cases to such Usurpers especially Conquerers that have no right of occupying the empire but are Capable of it by derivation from the peoples consent yet it must not be extended to such Usurpers as are also Tyrants that have no right of their oun nor are capable of any and that overturn all rights of subjects To such we can yeeld no Complyance as may infer either transacting with them or ouning them as Magistrates We find indeed the Saints enjoyed Places under these who were not their Magistrates as Nehemiah Mordecai and Esther was Queen to Ahaswerus But here was no Complyance with Tyrants for these Heathens were not such only some of them were extraordinary Persons raised up by an extraordinary spirit for extraordinary ends in extraordinary times that cannot be brought to an ordinary rule as Esthers Mariage and all of them in their places kept the Law of their God served the work of their generation defiled not themselves with their Customes acted against no good and engaged to no evil but by their Complyance promoted the wellfare of their Countrey as Argyle waristoun did under Cromuel Again we find they payed Custom to them as Neh. 9. 36. 37. and we read of Augustus his taxation universally complyed with Luk. 2. 1-5 and Christ payd it This shall be more fully answered afterwards Here I shall only say 1 It can never be proven that these were Tyrants 2 Christ Paid it with such a Caution as Leaves the title unstated not for conscience as tribute must be paid to Magistrats Rom. 13. 5 6. but only that he might not offend them 3 Any other instances of the Saints taxations are to be judged forced acts badges of their bondage which if they had been exacted as tests of their allegiance they would not have yeelded Strangers also that are not subjects use to pay Custom in their trafficquing but not as tests of their allegiance 3. There may be also in some cases obedience allowed to their Lawful Commands because of the Lawfulness of the thing commanded or the coincidency of another Just obliging Authority commanding the same We may do many things Tyranno Iubente which he commands and Tyranno premente which he enforces and many things also ipso sou volente seu nolente whether he will or not But we must do nothing Tyranni jussu upon the consideration of his Command in the acknowledgment of obedience due by virtue of Allegiance which we oune of Conscience to a Lawful Magistrate We must do nothing which may seem to have an accessoriness to the Tyrants unlawful occupancy or which depends only on the warrant of his Authority to do it or may entrench on the Divine Institution of Magistracy or bring us into a Participation of the Usurpers sin In these cases we can neither yeeld obedience in Lawful things nor in unlawful Nor can we oune absolute subjection no more then we can oune absolute obedience for all subjection is enjoined in order to obedience And to plead for a Priviledge in point of obedience and to disclaim it in point of subjection is only the flattery of such as having renounced with conscience all distinction of obedience would divest others of all priviledges that they may exercise their Tyranny without Controll Napthali pag. 28. prior edit 4. There may be Addresses made to such as are not rightful Possessors of the Government for justice or mercy or redress of some intollerable grievances without scruple of accepting that which is materially justice or mercy or seeking them at the hand of any who may reach them out to us though he that conveyes them to us be not interested in the umpirage of them Thus we find Ieremiah supplicated Zedekiah for mercy not to return to prison and Paul appealed to Cesar for justice But in these Addresses we may not acknowledge the wicked Lawes that brought on these grivances nor conceal the wickedness no more than the miserie of them which we have endured nor may we oune the Legal power of them that we address to take them off nor signify any thing in the matter or manner of our Representations that may either import a declining our Testimony for which we have suffered these grievances or a contradiction to our declinature of their pretended Authority Only we may remonstrate what cruelties we have endured and how terrible it will be to them to be guilty of or accessory to our blood in not pitying us which was all that Ieremiah did And as for Pauls appeal we find he was threatened to be murdered by his Countrey-men Act. 23. 14. from whose hands he was rescued brought before the judicatory of Festus the Roman deputy not voluntarely thence also they sought to remand him to Ierusalem that they might kill him Act. 25. 3. whereupon he demands in justice that he might not be delivered to his accusers Murderers but claims the benefite of the Heathens oun Law by that appeal to Cesar. which was the only constrained expedient of saving his oun life Act. 28. 19. by which also he got an opportunity to witness for Christ at Rome But as shall be cleared further afterwards Cesar
not one the same Tribute It s a question for whom by whom that of Math. 17. was gathered it s most likely it was gathered by the officers of the Temple for its service however the payment was made with such caution tacitely declining the strict right to exact it from him but to avoid offence in an act in it self unobliging that their claim is left as much in the dark as if the question had never been moved The other Math. 22. was exacted for Cesar but to that captious question our Lord returns such an Answer as might both solve it and evade the snare of the proponders giving a general Rule of giving to God to Cesar each their oun without defining which of them had the right to the payment in question whether Cesar should have it or whether it should be payed only for the Temples use Upon which they marvelled which they needed not do if they had understood in His words an express positive declaration of an obligation to make that payment to Cesar for then they would have obtained one of their ends in making Him odious to the people who were not satisfied with the payment of it But however the knot is loosed by considering that they were now Lawfully subject to the Roman Emperours as their Governours to whom they were obliged I do not say Christ was to pay tribute For they had yeelded themselves unto ouned the Roman Dominion in Pompey Cesar Augustus Tiberius ere this question about Tribute paying was proposed to our Saviour and therfore they who stuck at the payment of it were a seditious party dissenting from the body of the Nation Else it is not supposable readily that their Dominion in Iudea could have been exercised long without some consent sufficient to legitimate it to the present Rulers And this is the more likely if we consider the confession of the Iewes themselves disavowing the power of Capital punishment It is not Lawful for us to put any man to death And ouning Cesar as their King with an exclusive a brenounciation of all other we have no King but Cesar As Paul also acknowleeges he ought to be judged at Cesars bar in his appeal to Cesar. It is also acknowledged by very good Authors that this was the tribute which Iudas the Galilean stood up to free the people from and that the sedition of those Iewes that folowed him mentioned Act. 5. 37. who mutinied upon this occasion was according to Gamaliels speech disallowed by that Sanhedrin or Council of the Iewes And it may be gathered out of Iosephus that the Iewes of Hircanus his party came under the Roman power by consent dedition while they of Aristobalus his party looked upon the Romans as Usurpers Which difference continued till our Saviours time when some part of them acknowledged the Cesarean Authority some part looked upon it as an Usurpation and of this generally were the Pharisees To confirm this Calvins Testimony may be adduced upon Math. 22. who sayeth the Authority of the Roman Emperours was by common use approved and received among the Iewes whence it was manifest that the Iewes had now of their oun accord imposed on themselves a Law of paying the tribute because they had passed over to the Romans the power of the sword And Chamiers Panstrat Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 16. pag. 635. what then if Cesars Authority were from bad beginings did therefore Christ untruly say it was from above Can no power at first unjust afterward become just if that were so then either none or very few Kingâ—oms would be just 10. As Tyranny is a destructive plague to all the Interests of men Christians So Anarchy the usual product of it is no less pernicious bringing a Community into a Paroxysme as deadly dangerous We must oune Government to be absolutely necessary for the constitution conservation of all Societies I shall not enter into a disquisition let be determination of the Species or Kind of Magistracy whether Monarchy Aristocracy or Democracy be preferable My dispute at present is not levelled against Monarchy but the present Monarch Not against the Institution of the Species though I beleeve except we betake our selves to the Divine allowance permission we shal be as pusled to find out the Divine Original of it as Cosmographers are in their search of the Spring of Nilus or Theologues of the Father of Melchizedeck but the constitution of this Individual Monarchy established among us which in its root branch Spring streams in its Original Nature ends effects is Diametrically opposite to Religion Liberty And because its Contagion universally perverting corrupting all the ends Orders of Magistracy doth affect infect all the subordinate officers deriving their power from such a filthy fountain we must also substract deny their demanded ackowledgments as any way due so long as they serve the pride projects of such a wicked power And do not reckon our selves obliged by Covenant or any otherways though in the third Article of the Solemn League we are bound to preserve the rights priviledges of our Parliaments consequently the honour deference that 's due to our Peers or other Parliament men acting according to the trust committed to them but not when they turn Traitors ingaged in a Conspiracy with the Tyrant to oune or defend a Soul-less shadow of a Court Cabal made up of persons who have sold themselves to work wickedness in conspiring with this throne of iniquity against the Lord which is all we have for a Parliament whom we can in no ways oune as our Representatives but must look upon them as perjured perfidious Traitors to God their Countrey which they have betrayed into the hands of a Tyrant And therefore divested of that power Authority which they had of the people as their Representatives which now is returned to the fountain And therefore we must act as we can against them and also what is necessary for securing of our selves Religion Liberty without them We would think Nobles ennobled with virtue a great Mercy encouragment And if they would concur in the Testimony for Religion Liberty we would be glad that they should lead the van and prove themselves to be powers appointed by God in acting for Him His Interest But for the want of their Conduct we must not surcease from that duty that they abandon nor think that the Concurrence of Peers is so necessary to legitimate our actions as that without that formality our resolutions to maintain the Truth of God on all hazards in a private Capacity were unlawful in the Court of God Nature But on the contrare must judge that their relinquishing or opposing their duty which before God they are obliged to maintain preserve promove is so far from loosing our obligation or eximing us from our duty that is should rather press us to prosecute it with
Cause doth require may upon the very same Principles again joine associate for our better defence Preservation as we did at first enter into Societies Naph P. 150. yet whatever we may do in this case We are not for presumptuous Assumptions of Authority which maleversers have forefaulted Neither are we for new erections of Government but are for keeping the Societie of which we are members intire in an endeavour to have all our fellow members united unto God to one another in Religion Liberty according to the bond of the Solemn League Covenant Certain it is that Greater Societies under one Government may in some cases make a Secession divide into Lesser without sedition or else how would there be now so many distinct Common-wealths in the world seeing at first all was under one head and how comes it to pass that there are so many Kingdoms in Europe when it can be instanced when all or the most part were under on Roman Emperour But this in our Circumstance is no way expedient neither was it ever in Projection But our aim is to abstract our selves inoffensively and maintain our rights that remain unrobbed and to adhere clossly to the fundamental Constitutions Lawes Laudable Practices of our native Kingdome 11. We oune the obligation of our Sacred Covenants unrepealably indispensibly binding to all the duties of Christian subjection to Magistrates But we deny that hereby we are bound either to maintain Monarchy especially thus perverted nor to oune the Authority of either of the two Monarchs that have Monarchized or Tyrannized over us these 27 years past For as to the first we assert that that which is in its oun nature Mutable cannot be simply sworn unto to be maintained preserved but Hypothetically it most else it were simply sinful since it were to make things in their oun nature and in the Providence of God changable unchangable yea it were a doun right swearing not to comply with but to spurn against the various vicisitudes of Divine Providence the great Rector of the Universe And it is unquestionable that when things alterable unalterable are put in the same Oath to make the Engagment Lawful the things must be understood as they are in their oun nature and no otherwise else both the Imposer the Taker grievously transgress the former in taking upon him what is in the power of no Morta and a Contradicton to the Prerogative of the Immorta God and the other in ouning that power as just Hence when these two fall to be in the same Oath they must be so understood as it may not be made a snare to the conscience of the Sweaer For it may fall so out in the Providence of God that the Preservation of both is in all respects made impossible And an adhesion to the one may so far interfere with the Preservation of the other as if the Mutable and that which hath no objective obligation be stuck to the other which with the loss of all Interests we are to maintain must be abandoned yea that which was sworn to be maintained as a mean only a mutable one too may not only cease to be a mean but may actually destroy the main end and then it is to be laid aside because then it inverts the order of things Hence also it may be questioned if it were not more convenient to leave out those things that are alterable in themselves out of the same Oath with things unalterable and put them in a distinct Oaths or Covenant by themselves as we see Iehojadah did 2 King. 11. 17. He made a Covenant between the Lord and the King the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also the People Here are two distinct Covenants the one made with God about things eternally obligatory wherein King people engage themselves upon level ground to serve the Lord and Joash the King his treacherous dealing with God in that matter brought the Curse of that Covenant upon him The other Covenant was Civil about things alterable relating to Points of Government Subjection And as he by virtue of that prior Covenant had obliged himself under the pain of the Curse thereof to carry as one Covenanted to God with the people and so not to Tyrannize over his brethren So the people by virtue of that same Covenant were to yeeld obedience but in nothing to acknowledge him as having power or Authority to countermand Gods Command Neither had it been an act of disloyaltie to have broken doun his Groves which he had with the addition of the guilt of Perjurie set up and to have bound his ungrateful hands from the blood of the Gracious Zechariah A perfect parallel to our Case under the former dominator save that it was out-done as to all dimensions of wickedness by him To speak more plainly the Religious part of our Covenant is of an Eternal obligation but as to the Civil part it is impossible it can ever be so unless it be well Cautiously understood that is unless instead of any species of Government as Monarchy c. we put in Magistracy it self For this is that power which is of God but Monarchy c. is only a humane Creature about the creation whereof men take a Liberty according to what suits them best in their present Circumstances And as to this Species of Monarchy men are never left at Liberty to cloath therewith any inept or impious Person And they are perfectly loosed from it 1. when that Species of Government becomes opposite to the ends of Government and is turned Tyranny especially when a legal establishment is pretended then it affects with its contagion the very species it self The house is to be pulled doun when the Leprosie is got into the walls foundation 2. when as it is exercised it is turned inept for answering the end of its erection and prejudicial to the main thing for which Government is given to wit the Gospel and the coming of Christs Kingdom hence it is promised to the Church Isai. 49. 23. Kings shall be nursing fathers to the Church And Isai. 52. 15. It is promised to the Meâ—iator that Kings shall shute their mouths I. e. never a word in their head but out of reverence respect to His absolute Soveraignty they shall take the Law from Him without daring to contradict far less to take upon them to prescribe in the House of God as they in their wisdom think fit 3. when Providence without any sinful hand makes that species impossible to be kept up without the ruine of that for which it was erected when things come to this push pinch whosoever are cloathed with the power are then under an obligation to comply with that alteration of providence for the safety of the people else they declare themselves unworthy of rule and such who would sacrifice the interest of the people to their particular interest in
not be an evasion from their extortions he objected the ambiguity of the termes in which the Question was conceived being capable of diverse senses And inquired what they meant by Authority what by ouning Authority By Authority whether did they mean the Administration of it as now improved if so then he was not satisfied with it or the right as now established if so then he was not clear to give his opinion of it as being neither significant nor necessary and that it was fitter for Lawyers and those that were better acquaint with the Arcana Imperii than for him to dispute it Again he asked what they meant by ouning either it is Passive subjection that he did not decline or Active acknowledgment of it and that he said he looked upon as all the suffrage he could give to its establishment in his station which he must demur upon some scruple The replies he received were very various and some of them very rare either for ignorance or imposture Sometimes it was answered To oune the Kings Authority is to take the Oath of Allegiance this he refused Some answered it is to engage never to rise in Armes against the King upon any pretence whatsoever this he refused likewise Others explained it to be to acknowledge his right to be King To this he answered when the Authority is Legally devolved upon him by the Representatives of both Kingdoms it was time enough for him to give account of his sentiments Others defined it to oune him to be Lawful King by succession To this he Answered he did not understand succession could make a man formally King if there were not some other way of Conveyance of it it might put him in the nearest Capacity to be King but could not make him King. Some did thus Paraphrase upon it that he must oune him to be his Soveraign Lord under God and Gods vicegerent to be obeyed in all things Lawful To this he answered whom God appoints and the People choose according to Law he would oune When those shifts would not do but from time to time being urged to a Categorical Answer he told them he was content to live in subjection to any Government Providence set up but for ouning the present Constitution as of God and according to Law he durst not acknowledge it nor oune any Mortal as his Lawful Soveraign but in termes consistent with the Covenant securing Religion and Liberty This not satisfying when he came to a more pinching Trial he declared he ouned all Lawful Authority according to the Word of God and all Authority that was the Ordinance of God by His Preceptive Will and he could be subject to any but further to acknowledge it he behooved to have more clearness for sometimes a Nation might be charged with that ye have set up Kings and not by me c Further he conceded he ouned his providential Advancement to the Throne he ouned as much as he thought did oblige him to subject himself with patience he ouned him to be as Lawful as providence possessing him of the Throne of his Ancestors and Lineal succession as presumed next in blood line could make him But still he declined to oune him as Lawful King and alledged that was all one whether he was Lawful or not he refused not subjection distinguishing it always from Allegiance But all these concessions did not satisfie them they alledged he might say all this of a Tyrant therefore commanded him to give it under his hand to oune not only the Lineal but the Legal succession of King Iames the 7. to the Croun of Scotland which he did upon a fancy that Legal did not import Lawful but only the formality of their Law withal protesting he might not be interpreted to approve of his succession But this was a vain Protestatio contra factum However by this we see what is ouning this Authority in the sense of the Inquisitors The result of all is to acknowledge Allegiance to the present possessor and to approve his pretended Authority as Lawful Rightful Righteous which indeed is the true sense of the Words and any other that men can forge or find out is strained For to speak properly if we oune his Authority in any respect we oune it to be Lawful for eyery Authority that is ouned to be Authority indeed is Lawful Authority alwayes importing Authorization and consisting in a Right or Call to rule and is formally essentially contradistinct to Usurpation wherever the place of power is meerly usurped there is no Authority but verbo tenuâ— A Style without truth a barely pretended nominal equivocal Authority no real denomination if we then oune this Mans Authority we oune it to be Lawful Authority And if we cannot oune it so we cannot oune it at all For it is most suitable either to manly ingenuity or Christian simplicity to speak properly and to take words always in the sense that they to whom they are speaking will understand them without equivacating These Preliminaries being thus put by which do contribute to clear somewhat in this Controversie and both furnish us with some Arguments for and solutions in most of the objections against my Thesis in answer to the Question above stated I set it doun thus A people long oppressed with the Encroachments of Tyrants Usurpers may disoune all Allegiance to their pretended Authority and when imposed upon to acknowledge it may must ratber chuse to suffer than to oune it And consequently we cannot as matters now stand oune acknowledge or approve the pretended Authority of King Iames the 7. as Lawful King of Scotland as we could not as matters then stood oune the Authority of Charles the 2. This consequence is abundantly clear from the foregoing deduction demonstrating their Tyranny usurpation In prosecuting of this General Thesis which will evince the particular Hypothesis I shall 1. Adduce some Historical Instances whence it may be gathered that this is not altogether without a precedent but that people have disouned Allegiance to Tyrants Usurpers before now 2. Deduce it from the Dictates of reason 3. Confirme it by Scripture Arguments I. Albeit as was shewed before this Question as now stated is in many respects unprecedented yet the practice which in our day hath been the result of it to wit to disoune or not to oune Prevailing Dominators Usurping the Government or abusing it is not so alien from the examples of History but that by Equivalency or consequence it may be collected from confirmed by instances 1. To begin at home besides many Passages related already for confirmation we may adde 1 That for about 1025. years the people had in their choise whom to oune ar admit to succeed in the Government even though the Kingdom was hereditary and used to elect not such who were nearest in blood line but these that were judged most fit for Government being of the same progeny of Fergus Buchan Rer. Scot. lib.
be amiss to transcribe some of the words of the Edict of the Estates General to this purpose It is well known say they that a Prince Lord of a Countrey is Ordained by God to be Soveraign Head over his subjects to preserve defend them from all injuries force violence and that if the Prince therefore faileth therein and in stead of preserving his subjects doth outrage oppress them depriveth them of their Priviledges Ancient Customs commandeth them and will be served of them as slaves they are no longer bound to respect him as their Soveraign Lord but to esteem of him as a Tyrant neither are they bound to acknowledge him as their Prince but may abandon him c. And with this aggrees the answer of William Prince of Orange to the Edict of Proscription published against him by Philip. the II. There is sayes he a Reciprocal Bond betwixt the Lord his vassal so that if the Lord break the Oath which he hath made unto his vassal the vassal is discharged of the Oath made unto his Lord. This was the very Argument of the poor suffering people of Scotland whereupon they disouned the Authority of Charles the Second 4. The Monarchy of France is very absolute yet there also the State hath taken order with their Tyrants not only have we many instances of resistances made against them but also of disouning disabling invalidating their pretended Authority repressing their Tyranny So was the two Childerici served So also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the II. Kings of France 5. The great body of Germany moves very slowly and is inured to bear great burdens yet there also we find Ioanâ—a of Austria Mother of Charles the 5. was put to perpetual sonment which example is adduced by the Earle of Mortoun in his discourse to the Queen of England whereof I rehearsed a part before vindicating the deposing disouning Queen Mary of Scotland If saith he we compare her with Ioanna of Austria what did that poor wretch commit but that she could not want a litle lustful pleasure as a remedy necessary for her age And yet poor Creature she suffered that punishment of which our Dame convicted of most grievous Crimes now complains Buchan Rer. Scotic l. b. 20. pag. 748. The Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse and the Magistrats of Magdeburgh joined in a war against her Son Charles the 5. and drew up a conclusion by resolution of Lawyers wherein are these words Neither are we bound to him by any other reason than if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour By the Laws themselves it is provided that the Superior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior if the Superior Magistrate exceed the Limits of his power and command that which is wicked not only we need not obey him but if he offer force we may resist him Which Opinion is confirmed by some of the greatest Lawyers and even some who are Patrons of Tyranny Grotius none of the greatest enemies of Tyrants de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. n 11. sayth out of Barclaius with him that the King doth loss his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects It was upon the account of the Tyranny of that bloody house of Austria over the Helvetians that they shook off the rule Government of that family and established themselves into a Republick And at this present time upon the same accounts the Tyranny Treachery of this Imperial Majestie the Hungarians have essayed to maintain justify a revolt in disouning the Emperour now for several years 6. Polland is an Elective Kingdom and so cannot but be fertile of many instances of casting off Tyrants Henricus Valesius disouned for fleeing and Sigismuadus for violating his faith to the States may suffice Lex Rex Q. 24. Pag. 217. 7. In Denmark we find Christiernus their King was for his intollerable Cruelty put from the Kingdom he and all his Posterity and after twenty years did end his life in Prison 8. In Swedland within the Compass of one Century the people deposed banished the two Christierns and dethroned imprisoned Ericus for their oppressions Tyranny and for pursuing the destruction of their Subjects 9. The Portugieses not many years ago laid aside and confined Alphonsus their King for his rapines Murders 10. Some Dukes of Venice have been so disouned by these Common-wealths men that laying aside their Royal honours as private men they have spent their dayes in Monasteries Buchan de jure regni apud Scotos 11. If we will revolve the old Roman Histories we shall find no small store of such examples both in the time of their Kings Consuls Emperours Their seventh King Tarquinius Superbus was removed by the people for his evident Usurpation Neque enim ad jus regni quicquam praeter vim habebat ut qui neque populi jussu neque Patribus Authoribus regnavit sayth Livius i.e. for he had nothing for a right to the Government but meer force and got the rule neither by the peoples consent choise nor by the Authority of the Senators So afterwards the Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabulus Maximinus Didius Iulianus Lex Rex ub supra 12. But it will be said Can there be any Instances of the Primitive Christians adduced Did ever they while groaning under the most insupportable Tyranny of their Persecuting Emperours disoune their Authority or suffer for not ouning it To this I answer 1. What they did or did not of this Kind is not of moment to inquire seeing their practice Example under such disavantages can neither be known exactly nor what is known of it be accommodated to our case for 1 they were never forced to give their judgement neither was the question ever put to them whether they ouned their Authority or not if they transgressed the Lawes they were lyable to the punishment they craved no more of them 2 They confess themselves to be strangers that had no establishments by Law and therefore they behoved to be passively subject when in no capacity to resist there was no more required of them Yet Lex Rex Quest. 35. pag. 371. cites Theodoret affirming Thâ—n evil men reigned through the unmanlyness of the subâ—ects 3 Their examples are not imitable in all things They were against resistence which we doubt not to prove is Lawful against Tyrannical vioâ—ence Many of them refused to flee from the fury of Persecuters They ran to Martyrdom when neither cited nor accused And to obtain the Croun thereof they willingly yeelded up their lives Liberties also to the rage or Tyrants We cannot be obliged to all these 2 Yet we find some examples not altogether unapplicable to this purpose When Barochbach the pretended King of the Iewes after the destruction of Ierusalem set himself up as King in Bitter a City in Arabia the Christians that were in his precincts refused to oune
him as King which was one great cause of his persecuting them It s true he persecuted them also for other things as for their not denying Christ So are we persecuted for many other things than for our simple disouning of the King yet this is reckoned as a distinct cause of their suffering by Mr Mede on the Revel Part. 1. Pag. 43. Gees Magist. Origin ch 10. Sect. 7. Pag. 361. The same last cited Author shewes that when Albinus Niger Cassius successively usurped the Empire having none of them any Legal investure the Christians declined the recognition of their Claim and would not oune them and that upon this Tertulian sayes Nunquam Albiniani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani that is the Christians could never be found to be Albinians or Nigrians or Cassians meaning they were never ouners of these men for Magistrats And so may we say Pudet inveniri inter Carolinianos Iacobinianos hujus temporis Not unlike is the passage of Ambrose who in favors of Valentiniaâ— the rightful Governour contested against Maximus the Tyrant and not only disouned him but excommunicated him for which he was threatened with death And yet it is observable that when Maximus offered to interpose his power in defence of Ambrose that he might not be banished by Iustina the Empress he would not accept of the help of Maximus whose power he disallowed disouned Whence I observe that it is not without a Precedent for a Minister to disoune a Tyrant to refuse favour from him yea and to excommunicate him yea even without the concurrence of his fainting brethren for all which some of our faithful Ministers have been much condemned in our day especially Mr Donald Cargil for excommunicating Charles the Second Iames Duke of York as if such a thing had never been done before Whereas we see what Ambrose did to Maximus And this same faithful Minister Ambrosius Minister at Millain in Italy did also hold out of the Assembly of the Christians Theodosius the Emperour though a most vertuous Prince for that grievous Scandal committed by him against the innocent people at Thessalonica in killing so many of them in a Passionate transport But 3. since this objection of the Primitive Christians is much insisted on both against this and the head of defensive Armes I shall further take notice of several distinctions that do make the difference between their case Ours very vast 1 There is a great difference betuixt a Prince of the common Religion of his Subjects but distinct from some of them whom yet he does not seek to entice to his Religion but gives them liberty the benefite of the Law as other Subjects which was the case of many in these primitive times sometimes And a Prince by all means both foul fair pressing to a revolt from the true and to embrace a false Religion In this case which is ours with a witness it must be granted we should be wary that we neither engage with him nor oune Allegiance to him when he would withdraw us from our Allegiance to God. 2 There is a great difference betuixt a Prince persecuting the true Religion which only a few of his subjects here there did profess who in regard of their Paucity were never in capacity to be looked upon as the body of the people impowering him as their publick Servant which was their case And a Prince persecuting that Religionâ— which was professed by the body of the Nation when they sett him up In this Latter case men of great sense have denyed he should be ouned for a Prince because then he is stated against the Common good This was our case under the former King and yet under this though all Professors be not now persecuted the publick Religion Ancient Reformation is persecuted in a few whom he intends to destroy and in their destruction to bury it 3 There is a difference betwixt a Prince Persecuting Religion publickly ouned received of his subjects yet never approved nor confirmed by Law as it was not in the primitive times And a Prince persecuting Religion ratified established by the Laws of the Land which is our case It will seem clear to every soul not benighted with Court darkness that he then deâ—acto and ipso jure falleth from his right in this case because now he is not only stated against the common good but against the very Laws by which the Subjects must be ruled Then he ruleth not as a Prince to whom the Law giveth his Measures Bounds but rageth as a Tiger Tyrant and ought to be carried towards as such 4 There is a difference betwixt a Prince suppressing that Religion established by Law which he never professed nor never gave his consent to these Laws as might be the case of some of the Arian Emperours though it be unlawful for any people to set up any Mortal over them who is not in this case bound to the good behaviour And a Prince opposing oppressing that Religion which himself hath professed and is ratified by Laws with his oun consent which was our case under the former King who did give the most solemn Ratification of them that ever was given but afterwards most perfidiously retracted it As also this Apostate Papist did somtime profess himself Protestant and consented to the Laws establishing it and the Penal Statutes against Papists though now he is going about to raze all and ruine that alone valuable Treasure of our Nation Religion 5 There is a difference betwixt a Prince consenting to Laws establishing Religion which he now persecuteth which might have been the case of Iulian the Apostate And a Prince who not only consented to these Laws but who did upon these very terms no other get receive his Croun Scepter that he should preserve the Religion as Reformed and protect as a Father the Professors thereof and maintain the Laws establishing it which yet he perfidiously perniciously being once settled in the Government Breaks Casts Cassats Overturns which was done by Charles Or And a Prince who will neither be bounded by the Laws he consented to nor be bound to the Observation of any Laws whatsoever but challenges it as his prerogative Royal to be absolute above all Laws and denying all Security upon terms is free to destroy Religion Liberty and all the valuable Interests of the Nation when he pleases This is Iames his Character 6 There is a difference betwixt a Prince breaking the main only Article of his Covenant in a fit of fury rage being transported upon some Mistakes which was the case of Theodosius the Emperour And a Prince not only violating this upon deliberation but plainly Declaring that neither Oath nor Declaration can or will bind him but these being made void he will destroy without restraint all these Covenanted priviledges This was the case of Charles Or And a Prince who as he never will come
under the bond of a Covenant with his people So thô he make never so many fair promises with the greatest Solemnities maintains a principle that he will keep no promises but when with whom he pleases and can get a Dispensation to break all when he likes This is Iames his Ingenuity Sure in this case Such as are so Characterized Declare themselves so far from being Princes that they profess befor the world they are no more men to be conversed with for if neither their words Writs vowes promises Oaths Declarations nor Protestations can bind them what Society can be had with them Are they not to be looked upon carried towards as Common Enemies of Morality Religion Righteousness Liberty Humanity yea even of Mankind it self Now then let the world be Judge if the people of Scotland can be judged in Conscience Reason Prudence Policie or any imaginable way bound to oune their Authority being so Stated and by the Act Rescissory all humane ground rescinded that ever it shall be otherwise let them go seek other slaves where they can find them for we will not sell our selves posteritie to Tyrants as slaves nor give up our Religion and the exercise of it to the Mouldings of the Court. II. In the Second place It being clear from these forementioned Instances that Tyrants Uusurpers have been disouned And it being also as clear as light can make any thing from the foregoing Account of their Government and all the Characters of Truculency Treachery Tyranny conspicuously relucent therein that these two Gentlemen whose Authority we are pressed to oune were Tyrants Usurpers It remains therefore to prove from all dictates of Reason about Government that their pretended Authority could not nor cannot be ouned For the Argument runs thus The Authority of Tyrants Uusurpers cannot be ouned But the Authority of Charles Iames was is the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers Ergo their Authority cannot be ouned Now it s the Major of this Syllogisim that I under take to prove The Minor being so clear from their History that to prove it by witnesses were actum agere 1. All Authority to be ouned of men must be of God and ordained of God for so the Apostle teacheth Expressly Rom. 13. 1. c. Which is the alone formal reason of our Subjection to them and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist them because it is a resisting the Ordinâ—nce of God. The Lord ounes Himself to be the Author of Magistrats Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. As He is the Author of man and hath made him a sociable Creature so He is the Author of the Order of humane Society which is necessare for the Preservation of Mankind He being the God of Order not of Confusion And this must hold not only of the Supreme Authority but of subordinate Magistrates also for they must be included in the higher Powers to whom we must be subject Rom. 13. And they that resist them resist Gods Ordinance too Their judgment is Gods as well as the judgment of the Supreme Magistrate Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 8. They are called Gods among whom the Lord judgeth Psal. 82. 1. He speaketh not there of a Congregation of Kings We are to be subject to them for the Lords sake as well as to the Supreme Magistrat 1. Pet. 2. 13. Therefore all Magistrats superior Inferior are ordained of God in the respective Places It s true Peter calls every degree of Magistracy an Ordinance of man not that he denies it to be an Ordinance of God for so he would cantradict Paul Rom. 13. but termes it so Emphatically to commend the worth of obedience to Magistrats though but men when we do it for the Lords sake Not effectively as an invention of men but subjectively because exercised by men created invested by humane suffrages considered as men in Societie and objectively for the good of man and for the external Peace safety of man thereby differenced from the Ministry an Ordinance of Christ for the spiritual good of mens souls Hence Those Rulers that are not of God nor ordained of God cannot be ouned without sin But Tyrants Usurpers are the Rulers that are not of God nor ordained of God but are set up and not by Him c. Hos. 8. 1-4 Therefore they cannot be ouned without sin I refer it to any man of conscience Reason to judge if these Scriptures proving Magistracy to be the Ordinance of God for which alone it is to be ouned can be applyed to Tyrants Usurpers How will that Rom 13. read of Tyrants let every soul be subject to Tyrants for they are ordained of God as His Ministers of Iustice c. and are a terror to evil works and a praise to the good would not every man nauseate that as not the Doctrine of God Again how would that sound Prov. 8. By me Tyrants reign Usurpers decree injustice harsh to Christian ears Can they be said to be Gods among whom the Lord judgeth If they be they must be such as the witch of Endor saw Gods coming out of the earth when she raised the Devil in a very Catichrestical meaning as the Devil is called the God of this world And indeed they have no more power nor otherwise to be ouned than he hath for this is a Truth Tyranny is a work of Satan not from God because sin either habitual or actual is not from God Tyranny is sin in habit act Ergo The Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature end being the Minister of God for good A Tyrant as a Tyrant is quite contrary Lex Rex saith well A power Ethical Politick or Moral to oppress is not from God and is not a power but a Licentious deviation of a power and no more from God but from sinful Nature the old Serpent than a licence to sin Quest. 9. Pag. 59. Hence sin a Licence to sin a Licencious sinning cannot be from God But Tyranny Usurpation absolute power encroaching upon all Liberties Laws Divine humane is sin a Licence to sin a Licencious sinning Ergo But to make this clear and to obviate what may be said against this let it be Considered how the powers that be are of God ordained of God. Things are said to be of God and ordained of God two wayes by His purpose providence and by His Word Warrant Things may be of God either of His Hand working or bringing them about ordaining ordering them to be to His Glory either by a holy overruling Providence as Samsons desire of a wife was of God Iudg. 14. 4. and Amaziahs insolent foolish rejection of Ioash his Peaceable overture 2 Chron. 25. 20. Or by a powerful effective providence So Rom. 11. 36. Of Him through Him are all things 1 Cor. 8. 6. One God of whom are all things Or things be of
Government none of the Community having any legal Claim to Soveraignity more than the rest When therfore they were forced to conclude upon Association for their Mutual Preservation they must be thought to act rationally and not to make their condition worse but rather better by that conclusion and if they found it worse to resume their radical Right which they had conferred upon men subject to Law not to Tyrannize over them And in this case certainly they had the power of choosing what Kind of Government suited most to their advantage and would best preserve their Liberties and how far this should be extended and who should be assumed into this Combination still with a reservation of the Priviledge to their oun safety if their Associates should not do their duty And so they might also reserve to themselves a Liberty to alter the forme when they found it productive of more prejudice than advantage and never to leave their condition remedieless And to pitch upon this way of succession and not another the way of free election of every successor or of definite election limited to one line or to the nearest in line And e contra with a reserve still of their primeve Priviledges to secure themselves from the inconveniences of that determination or to change it And to make choise of such a family line and not another and whether the eldest alwise of that family or the fittest is to be chosen And however it be yet still by the peoples consent And in all this to have respect to some good great Necessary Ends which if they should be disappointed of and find these means useless or destructive to they were to be loosed from their obligation to use or to oune them See Ius populi vindicat ch 5. pag. 80. c. 2. If we consider how Nature determines the peoples Interest in the constitution of Governours whence comes it that this man and not that man this race family and not that is invested with that Title It will be found there is no Title on earth now to the Crowns to families to persons but the peoples suffrage for the Institution of Magistracy in general does not make Iames Stewart a King no more than Iohn Chamberlain Neither do qualifications make one otherwise there might be many better than is this day extant for there are many men better qualified And there is no Prophetical or immediate Callings to Kingdoms now And as for Conquest without consent and having no more for a Title it is no better than Royal Latrocinie It is certain God would not Command us to obey Kings and leave us in the Dark that we should not know him that hath a reall call to 〈◊〉 And if he have not the peoples Call where shall we find another It remains therefore they must have it from the people who have it to give Radically virtually having a power to preserve themselves and to put it in the hands of one or more Rulers that they may preserve themselves by them All men are born alike as to Civil power no man being born with a Croun on his head and yet men united in Society may give it to this man not to that man therefore they must have it virtually for they can not give what they have not And as Cities have power to choose their Magistrats so many Cities have power to creat an Universal Ruler over them all The people also have power to Limit the Magistrats power with conditions so that the present Ruler shall not have so much prerogative as his predecessor as Royalists cannot deny therefore they must have given that power which they can Limit See Lex Rex Quest. 4. pag. 10. c. Secondly the Scripture also gives Light in this particular 1. In giving directions Rules about their Orderly calling their Governours Impowering them to take wise men understanding known among their tribes to be made Rulers Dâ—ut 1. 13. To make Judges Officers in all their gates Deut. 16. 18. To set one among their brethren King over them and not a stranger Deut. 17. 15. To what purpose are these Rules given them if they had no interest to choose their Magistrats Would God command them to set a King over them if they had not power to do it And to set such a man over them and not such an one if they had no influence in making one at all And accordingly that wise Statist sayes very well 2 Sam. 16. 18. Hushai to Aâ—salem Nay but whom the Lard this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide Which will also hold in the Negative whom the Lord the people and all the men of the Kingdom do not choose his we will not be nor with him will we abide 2. The Scripture expressly attributeth the making of Kings to the people All the people of Iuda took Azariah and made him King instead of his Father Amaziah whom they had executed 2 King. 14. 21. They came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron 1 Chron. 12. 38. So they made Ioash King 2 Chron. 23. 11. 3. Even these that were particularly designed of God chosen to be Rulers yet were not formally invested with power before the people conferred it upon them Gideon was called of God to it but was not Judge till the people said Rule thow over us both thow thy Son giving him an hereditary right for his Children Iudg. 8. 12. Saal was appointed to be King and therefore Samuel honoured him because he was marked out of God to be King 1 Sam. 9. 24. and anointed him with oyl 1 Sam. 10. 1. after which he was gifted qualified for Government God gave him another heart vers 9. yet all this did not make him King till the people met for his inauguration vers 17. c. and Crowned him made him King in Gilgal 1 Sam. 11. ult David was anointed by Samuel and yet was a persecuted fugitive for several years and never acknowledged formally King till the men of Iudah came anointed him 2 Sam. 2. 4. for if he had been King before then there were two Kings in Israel at one time and David failed of his Royal duty in not punishing the Murderer Saul whereas himself sayes he would not touch the Lords 〈◊〉 Therefore the people made all these Kings and that by choise consent without which they were no Kings Hence I argue If the consent choise of the people be so essentially necessary to the making of Kings then they who set up themselves against the consent of the body of the Land and without the choise of any must be Usurpers not to be acknowledged for Lawful Kings But the former is true as is proven above Ergo Now Plain it is that this Duke set up himself against the consent of the body being excluded from the Government by the Representatives of
was invocated as a Witness Iudg. 11. 6 8 9 10 11. So all the Elders of Israel came to make David King and King David made a League with them in Hebron before the Lord and then they anointed him over Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. he made there a Covenant with them before the Lord 1 Chron. 11 3. He was no King before this Covenant and so it was a Pactional Oath between him the Kingdom upon termes according to the Law Deut. 17. he was only a King in fieri one who was to be King but now actually inaugurate a Covenanted King upon termes that satisfied them It s true they came to recognosce his Right from the Lord But so did they recognosce Rehoboams Right and came to Shechem to make him King 1 King. 12. 1. and yet when he would not enter in Covenant terms with them to satisfie their just demands the people answered the King saying what portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the Son of Iesse to your tents O Israel vers 16. They refused to acknowledge such an Usurper and we find no Prophets ever condemning them for it So when Iehoash or Ioash was Crowned Iehojada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and the people 2 King. 11. 17. 2 Chron. 23. 11 16. From all these Reasons Scriptures It is clear there must be a Mutual Compact between the Subjects and every Soveraign they oune subjection to which if he refuse and usurp the Sword they are under an Anterior obligation to substract their Allegiance and to make use of their Sword if they be in capacity to pull it out of his hands and use it against him And of this we are put in mind by the Motto of our old Coronation pieces which have these Words about the Sword. pro me si mereor in me that is for me but if I deserve against me And surely to him that hath it now in his hands it may be said tu meruisti adhuc meres We see then the Allegiance that this Usurper alledges is his due wants a bottom to wit a compact with the people Whence I argue If there must of necessity be a compact between the King the people when he is advanced to the Government then he that advances himself without against this compact is an Usurper not to be ouned But the former is true Ergo he that advances himself without against this compact is an Usurper not to be ouned And who more Notoriously deserving such a signature than Iames the 7 2 who hath made horns of his oun strength or the Popes Biills to push his Brother out and himself in to the Throne upon no termes at all or any security for Religion Liberty One Objection is to be removed here Can the Customs of the Iewes be binding to all Nations The Kings of Iudah made such Covenants shall therefore all Kings do so Ans. why not this Custom as well as Crowing which they used likewise These Rules are not Typical or Cermonial nor only so Iudicial as to be peculiarly Iudaical but are matters of moral equity bearing a standing reason founded upon that Law Deut. 17. 15. c. Limiting the Prince to stand to conditions If we cast at Divine Laws for Rules of Government where wil we find better Laws It is recorded of the first of the British Kings who was Christian that writing to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome before Antichrist took that seat for the Roman Laws he received this Answer By Divine Clemency ye have received the Law faith of Christ yow have the Old New Testaments out of them in Gods Name by Counsel of your State take Laws Govern your Kingdom And of another that he began his Laws thus God speake all these words c. And so repeated the Laws of God. The Second thing I undertook to prove is that Assertion of Buchanan ubi supra de Iure Regni Qui prior a Conventis recidit c. There being a paction between the King Subjects he who first recedes from what is Covenanted and doth Counteract what he hath Covenanted he looses the contract and the bond being loosed which did hold fast the King with the people whatever right did belong to him by virtue of that compact he looses it and the people are as free as before the stipulation Which is also asserted by the Author of Ius populi ch 6. pag. 112. It is no less clear that when the Soveraign doth not performe the principal main most necessary conditions condescended aggreed upon de jure he falleth from his Soveraignity and pag. 117. when the Prince doth violate his compact as to all its conditions or as to its chief main most necessary condition the subjects are de jure free from subjection to him and at Liberty to make choise of another This is so clear that it needs no labour to prove it that upon this head we were loosed from all Allegiance ro the former Tyrant who was admitted upon terms of an explicite Covenant the conditions whereof he did as explicitely break There are two cases wherein Subjects are loosed from Covenanted Allegiance to their Princes 1. When the Prince remitts the obligation of the Subjects and refuses Allegiance upon that basis then he can no more demand it by virtue of that compact He that remitts will not have that Allegiance that the Subjects Covenanted upon such such conditions to him these Subjects should not give it that they so Covenanted for they should not prostitute it to a Refuser Remitter But Charles the Second remitted and would not have that Allegiance which we Covenanted upon such such conditions viz. upon the terms of the Covenant which he cassed annulled and made Criminal to oune Ergo to him we should not have given it which we so Covenanted 2. When the Prince did enter into a Mutual Covenant with the people upon Mutual conditions and does not only cease to performe the conditions but simply denies all obligation to do it and makes it a quarrel to insinuate so much yea persecutes all who dare assert the obligation of that Covenant and yet demands Allegiance not upon the obligation of that Covenant which he hath remitted but absolutely upon the grounds of his prerogative In this case it will be evident also the subjects are not bound either to oune their formerly Covenanted Allegiance to him Or that which he demands on other grounds Grotius de Iure belli is clear as to this Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Num. 12. Si ex Clausula posita in ipsa delatione Imperii ut si Rex hoc aut hoc faciet subditi omni obedientiae vinculo solvuntur tunc quoque Rex in privatam personam recidit If there be such a Clause or condition in the very devolution of the Government upon a Prince as
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
their Posterity which would multiply as many Common wealths as there have been fathers since Or if it went by Primogeniture only to the first born that he alone could claim the power which would infer the necessity of an universal Monarchy without multiplication of Common-wealths If it was by his voluntary assignment to whom in what proportion he pleased then the universal Monarchy died with himself and so could not be conveyed at all for either he behoved to give each son a share to be conveyed dounwards to their children in that proportion or whole solide to one So also the former dilemma recurs for if the first be said it will make as many litle Kingdoms as there have been sons of Adam if the second the world should be but still one Kingdom But however it be this could never be the way that God appointed either for raising a Magistratical power where it is wanting or deriving a right to any in being Considering the multiplication division confusion Extinction of families that have been If it be from Fergus the first of this line then either it comes from him as a King or as a Father not the first for the reason above hinted nor as a father for a father may defraud his son of the heritage a King cannot deprive his son of the Crown a father may divide his heritage a King cannot divide the Kingdom among his sons It must then be at length refounded on the peoples Consent 3. If even where lineal succession is Constituted by Law for eviting the inconveniences of frequent elections people are not tied to admit every first born of that line then that birth righr where there is no more cannot make a King But the former is true for they are tied only conditionally so he be qualified and have a head to sit at the helme and not a fool or monster neither are they free to admit Murderers or Idolaters by the Laws of God and of the Land It is not birth then but their admission being so qualified that makes Kings Hence 4. That which takes away the peoples birth-right given them of God to provide for their liberties in the fitest Government that is not to be ouned But to make birth alone a tile to the Crown takes away the peoples birth-right given them of God of providing for their liberties in the fitest Government and fetters their choise to one destructive to these Certainly where God hath not bound the conscience men may not bind themselves nor their posterity But God hath never fettered men to a choise of a Government or Governing line which contrary to the intention of the Oath may prove destructive to the ends thereof Nor can the fathers leave in legacy by Oath any chains to fetter the after wits of posterity to a choise destructive to Religion liberty Israel was bound by Covenant not to destroy the Gibeonites but if they had risen to cut off Isael who can doubt but they were loosed from that obligation for to preserve Cut-throats was contrary to the intention of the Oath so when either Monarchy or the succeeding Monarch proves destructive to the ends of Government the Choice Law or Oath of our fathers cannot bind us 5. If we are tied to the hereditary succession not for the right the successor hath by birth but for our Covenanted allegiance to them whose successor he is then cannot his birth-right be the ground of our Allegiance And consequently hereditary succession cannot make a King But the former is true for in hereditary Crowns the first family being chosen by the suffrages of the people for that Cause the hereditary Prince comes to the Throne becanse his first father and in him the whole line was chosen The hereditary successor hath no priviledge or prerogative but from him who was chosen King. Therefore the obligation to the son being no greater than the obligation to the father which is the ground of that if the father then was ouned only because he was chosen qualified for Government the Son cannot be ouned for any other Cause but as chosen in him and also qualified and admitted with Consent We cannot choose the father as qualified and tye our selves to the Successors be what they will. 6. If a King be not born heir of a Kingdom then is he not King by birth But he is not born heir of a Kindom for a mean cannot be born to inherit the end the King is but a mean for the Kingdoms preservation If the Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance why may he not upon necessary occasions sell his inheritance but if he sell it then all confess he is no more King. 7. If that which makes a King cannot be transmitted from father to son then succession by birth cannot make a King But the former is true The Royal faculty of Governing cannot be transmitted Solomon asked it from God he had it not from his father nor can he be born to the honour of a King because not born with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high low not birth Nor can the Call Constitution of a King according to the will of God be transferred from father to son for that cannot be in Gods way without the intervening Consent of the people that cannot make him a born King. 8. If no Dominion can come by Nature as is proven before then can no man be a born King Nature birth cannot give them a Scepter in their hand nor Kingly Majestie they must have that alone from God the people and may only expect honour from their oun good Government Kings as Plutarch sayes must be like dogs that are best hunters not these who are born of best dogs 9. The peculiar Prerogative of Iesus Christ must not be ascribed to any other But this is His peculiar Prerogative to be a born King of whom it might be truely faid Where is He that is born King of the Iewes And for this end was He born who came out of the womb with a Crown on His Head which no Creature can bear 10. In Scripture we find that a King was to be so so qualified not a stranger but a reader of Gods Word c. Deut. 17. 15. c. he was not qualified by naked birth Hence if all the qualifications requisite in an heir cannot make a King qualified according to the Institution of God then his being heir cannot make him King But the first is true an heir may be an heir without these qualifications 11. We find in the Scripture the people were to make the Kings by that Law Deut. 17. thow shalt choose him whom the Lord chooseth yea neither Saul nor David were Kings till the people met to make them Therefore birth never made them Kings even though the Kingdom was tied to Davids line That was only a Typical designment by special Promise because Christ was to come of that line it was
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
where called and the year of redemption was a Iubile of joy so the freedom of release every seven years a great priviledge Ier 34. 9. but to be free of Government is a judgment Isai. 3. 4 5. it s threatened Israel shall abide without a King without a Prince Hos. 3. 4. In the Next place they cannot be ouned as Masters or Proprietors over the goods of the subjects thâ— in the case of necessity the King may make use of all goods in common for the good of the Kingdom For 1. The introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation by the Law of Nature property was given to man Kings cannot rescind that 2. A man had goods ere ever there was a King a King was made only to preserve property therefore he cannot take it away 3. It cannot be supposed that rational people would choose a King at all if he had power to turn a greater Robber to preserve them from lesser Robberies oppressions would rational men give up themselves for a prey to one that they might be safe from becoming a prey to others 4. Then their case should be worse by erecting of Government if the Prince were proprietor of their goods for they had the property themselves before 5. Then Government should not be a blessing but a curse and the Magistrate could not be a Minister for good 6. Kingdoms then should be among bona fortunae the goods of fortune which the King might sell dispone as he pleased 7. His place then should not be a function but a possession 8. People could not then by their removes or otherwise change their Soveraigns 9. Then no man might dispose of his oun goods without the Kings consent by buying or selling or giving almes nay nor pay tribute for they cannot do these things except they have of their oun 10. This is the very Character of a Tyrant as described 1 Sam. 8. 11. he will take your sons c. Zeph. 3. 3. her Princes are roaring Lyons her Iudges are evening Wolves 11. All the threatenings rebukes of oppression condemn this Isai. 3. 14. 15. Ezek. 45. 9. Mic. 3. 2 3. Ahab condemned for taking Naboths vineyard 12. Pharaoh had not all the Land of Egypt till he bought it Gen. 42. 20. So the Land became Pharaohs not otherwise Yet giving and not granting that he were really a Master in all these respects Notwithstanding if he turn to pursue me for my life because of my fidelity to my Master his both will withdraw me from the service of the Supreme Universal Master I may Lawfully withdraw my self from his and disoune him for one when I cannot serve two Masters Sure he cannot be Master of the conscience Thirdly They cannot come under the conjugal relation though there may be some proportion between that and subjection to a Lawful Ruler because of the Mutual Covenant transacted betwixt them but the Tyrant Usurper cannot pretend to this who refuse all Covenants Yet hence it cannot be inferred that because the wife may not put away her husband Or renounce him as he may do her in the case of Adultery therefore the people cannot disoune the King in the case of the violation of the Royal Covenant For the Kings power is not at all properly a husbands power 1. The wife by nature is the weaker vessel but the Kingdom is not weaker than the King. 2. The wife is given as an help to the man but here the man is given as an help to the Common-wealth 3. The wife cannot limit the husbands power as subjects may limit their Soveraigns 4. The wife cannot prescribe the time of her continuing under him as subjects may do with their Soveraigns 5. The wife cannot change her husband as a Kingdom can do their Government 6. The husband hath not power of life death but the Soveraign hath it over Malefactors Yet giving and not granting his power were properly Marital if the case be put that the man do habitually break the Marriage Covenant or take another wife and turn also Cruel intollerable in compelling his oun wife to wickedness and put the case also that she should not get a Legal divorce procured who can doubt but she might disoune him and leave him for this case is excepted out of that Command 1 Cor. 7. 10. let not the wife depart from her husband meaning for mere difference in Religion or other lesser causes but Adulterie doth annual the Marriage relation See Pool Synopsis Critic in Locum So when a Prince breaks the Royal Covenant and turns Tyrant or without any Covenant committs a rape upon the Common-wealth that pretended relation may must be disouned Hence we see there is no relation can bring a King or Ruler under the object of the duty of the fifth Command except it be that of a fiduciary Patron or Trustee and Publick Servant for we cannot oune him properly either to be a Father or a Master or a husband Therefore what can remain but that he must be a fiduciary Servant Wherefore if he shall either treacherously break his trust or presumptously refuse to be entrusted upon terms conditions to secure be accountable for before God man Religion Liberty we cannot oune his usurped Authority That Metaphore which the learned Buchanan uses de Iure Regni of a Publick Politick Phisician is not a relation different from this of a fiduciary Servant when he elegantly represents him as entrusted with the preservation restauration of the health of the politick body and endued with shill experience of the Laws of his Craft If then he be orderly called unto this charge and qualified for it and discharges his duty faithfully he deserves and we are obliged to give him the deference of an honoured Physician But if he abuse his Calling and not observe the rules thereof and in stead of curing go about wilfully to kill the body he is entrusted with he is no more to be ouned for a Physician but for a Murderer 9. If we inquire further into the nature of this Relation between a King whose Authority is to be ouned and his subjects we can oune it only as it is Reciprocal in respect of Superiority Inferiority that is whereby in some respects the King is Superior to the people and in some respects the people is Superior to him The King is Superior Supreme as he is called 1 Pet. 2. 13. in respect of formal Soveraignty and executive Authority and Majestick Royal dignity resulting from the peoples devolving upon him that Power and constituting him in that relation over themselves whereby he is higher in place power than they and in respect of his Charge conduct is worth ten thousands of the people 2 Sam. 18. 3. and there is no formally regal Tribunal higher than his And though he be Minor universis yet he is Major singulis greater than any one or all the people distributively taken And
a Conveyance as they thought most contributive for this end When therefore Princes cease to be what they could be constitute for they cease to have an Authority to be ouned but ceasing to answer these ends of Government they cease to be what they could be constitute for 5. For no other end were Magistrates limited with Conditions but to bound them that they might do nothing against the peoples good safety Whosoever then breaking through all legal limitations shall became injurious to the Community lists himself in the number of enemies and is only to be looked upon as such 6. For this end all Laws are ratified or rescinded as they conduce to this end which is the soul reason of the Law then it is but reason that the Law establishing such a King which proves an enemy to this should be rescinded also 7. Contrary to this end no Law can be of force if then either Law or King be prejudicial to the Realme they are to be abolished 8. For this end in cases of necessity Kings are allowed sometimes to neglect the Letter of the Laws or private Interests for the safety of the Community but if they neglect the publick safety and make Laws for their oun Interests they are no more Trustees but Traitors 9. If it were not for this end it were more eligible to live in deserts than to enter into Societies When therefore a Ruler in direct opposition to the ends of Government seeks the ruine not only of Religion but also of the peoples safety he must certainly forfeit his right to reign And what a vast as well as innocent number have for Religion and their adherence to their fundamental rights been ruined rooted out of their families Possessions oppressed persecuted Murdered destroyed by this and the deceased Tyrant all Scotland can tell and all Europe hath heard If ever the ends of Government were perverted subverted in any place Britain is the stage where this Tragedy hath been acted 13. I may argue from the Covenant that to oune this Authority is contrary to all the Articles thereof 1. That Authority which overturns the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline Government which we are sworn to preserve against the Common Enemies thereof in the first Art. cannot be ouned But the present pretended Authority overturned and continues more to overturn the Reformation of Religion c. Ergo it cannot be ouned for against what common enemy must we preserve it if not against him that is the chief Enemy thereof and how can we oune that Authority that is wholly employed applied for the destruction of Religion 2. If we are obliged to exstirpate Poperie without respect of persons lest we partake in other mens sins then we are obliged to exstirpate Papists without respect of persons and consequently the head of them For how otherwise can Poperie be exstirpated or how otherwise can we cleanse the Land of their sins But in the 2d Art. we are obliged to exstirpate Poperie without respect of persons lest we partake in other mens sins Ergo we are obliged to exstirpate Papists without respect of Persons and consequently the Crowned Iesuite and therefore cannot oune him for how can we oune him whom we are bound to exstirpate 3. If we be engaged to preserve the Rights Liberties of Parliaments and the Liberties of the Kingdoms and the Kings Authority only in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms then we cannot oune his Authority when it is inconsistent with opposite to destructive of all these precious Interests as now it is with a witness But in the 3. Art. we are engaged to preserve the Rights Priviledges of Parliaments the Liberties of the Kingdoms and the Kings Authority only in the preservation defence of the true Religion Liberties of the Kingdoms Ergo. All allegiance that we can oune to any man must stand perpetually thus qualified in defence of Religion Liberty that is so far as it is not contrary to Religion Liberty and no further for if it be destructive of these it is null If we should then oune this man with this restricted allegiance and apply it to his Authority as we must apply it to all Authority that we can oune it were to mock God the world and oune Contradictions for can we maintain the Destroyer of Religion in defence of Religion And the Destroyer of all our rights Liberties and all our legal securities for them in the preservation of these rights Liberties that were pure Non-sense 4. If we be obliged to endeavour that all Incendiaries Malignants c. be brought to condign punishment then we cannot oune the Authority of the head of these Incendiaries malignant Enemies But in the 4. Art we are obliged to endeavour that all Incendiaries Malignants c. be brought to Condign Punishment Ergo The Connexion of the Major cannot well be doubted for is it imaginable that the head of that unhallowed Party the Great malignant Enemy who is the spring gives life unto all these Abominations shall be exempted from punishment or ouned for a Sacred Majestie shall we be obliged to discover and bring to Justice the litle petty Malignants and this implacably stated Enemy to Christ escape with a Crown on his head Nay we are by this obliged if ever we be in case to bring these stated Enemies to God the Country to condign punishment from the highest to the Lowest And this we are to do as we would have the anger of the Lord turned away from us which cannot be without hanging up their heads before the Lord against the sun as was done in the matter of Peor Numb 25. 4. For hath not he his Complices made the Kingdom a Curse and we with our oun consent have made our selves obnoxious to it if we do not procure each in our Capacities and pursue these Traitors Rebells that the Judgment of the Lord be executed upon the accursed 5. No wilful oâ—poser of Peace union between the Kingdoms is to be ouned but according to the 5. Art. we are obliged to endeâ—vour that Justice be done upon him But this man his brother have been wilful opposers of Peace union between the Kingdoms all true Peace union except an union in Confederacy against the Lord for they have taken Peace from both the Kingdoms and destroyed annulled that which was the bond of their union viz. the Solemn League Covenant 6. If we are obliged to assist defend all those that enter into this League Covenant in the maintaining pursuing thereof and never to suffer our selves to be divided to make defection to the contrary part c. According to the 6 Art. Then we must not oun the Butcher of our Covenanted Brethren who hath imbrued â—is hands in their blood in the maintaining pursuing thereof and would have us
smitten by him Authoritatively whom therefore he did threaten with the judgment of God it were wicked to think that he would retract that threatening which he pronunced by the Spirit of God. And therefore this place confirms my Thesis If a Tyrannical Judge acting contrary to Law is not to be known or acknowledged to be a Ruler but upbraided as a whited wall Then a Tyrant is not to be known or acknowledged as such But the former is true from this place Therefore also the latter Paul knew well enough he was a Judge and knew well enough what was his duty to a Judge that he should not be reviled but he would not acknowledge this Priest to be a Judge or retract his threatening against him 2. He is of God ordained of God I proved before Tyrants are not capable of this yea it were blasphemy to say they are Authorized or Ordained of God by His Preceptive Will. Hence take only this Argument All Rulers that we must oune are ordained of God do reign are set up by God Prov. 8. 15. for that this place are paralell But Tyrants do not reign nor are set up by God Hos. 8. 4. They are set up saith the Lord but not by me Ergo we cannot oune them to be ordained of God. 3. Whosoever resisteth this power ordained of God resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation vers 2. This cannot be ouned of a Tyrant that it is a damnable sin to resist him for it is duty to resist also repress him as is proven already and shall be afterwards Hence whatsoever Authority we oune subjection to we must not resist it But we cannot oune that we must not resist this Authority therefore we cannot oun it at all Again That cannot be the power not to be resisted which is acquired improved by resisting the Ordinance of God But the power of Usurpers Tyrants is acquired improved by resisting the ordinance of God Ergo their power cannot be the power not to be resisted The Major is manifest for when the Apostle sayes the resisting of the power bring damnation to the resister certainly that resistance cannot purchase Dominion instead of damnation And if he that resists in a lesser degree be under the doom of damnation then certainly he that does it in a greater degree so as to complete it in puting himself in place of that power which he resisted cannot be free The Minor is also undenyable for if Usurpers acquire their power without resistence forcible sensible it is because they that defend the power invaded are wanting in their duty but however Morally the Tyrant or Usurper is alwayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in contrary order to a Lawful Power 4. Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil and they that doe that which is good shall have praise of the same vers 3. This is the Character duty of righteous Magistrates though it be not alwayes their Administration But an Usurper Tyrant is not capable or susceptible of this Character but on the contrary is must be a terror to good works and a praise to the evil for he must be a Terror to them that would secure their rights Liberties in opposition to his encroachments which is a good work he must be a fautor Patron Protector of such as encourage maintain him in his Usurpation Tyranny which is an evil work And if he were a terror to the evil then he would be a terror to himself all his Complices which he cannot be Therefore that power which is not capable of the duties of Magistrates cannot be ouned But the Power of Tyrants Usurpers is such Ergo We find in Scripture the best Commentare on this Character where the duties of a Magistrate are described They must justify the righteous condemn the wicked Deut. 27. 1. They must as Iob did deliver the poor that cry and put on righteousness as a cloathing and be eyes to the blind feet to the lame and a Father to the poor and break the Jawes of the the wicked Iob 29. 12-17 Their Throne must be established by righteousness Prov. 16. 12. a King sitting on the Throne of Judgement must scatter away all evil with his eyes then Mercy Truth will preserve him and his Throne is upholden by Mercy Prov. 20. 8 28. But Tyrants have a quite contrary Character The Throne of iniquity frames Mischief by a Law and condemns the innocent blood Psal. 94. 20. 21. They judge not the fatherless neither doeth the cause of the widow come unto them Isai. 1. 23. They build their house by unrighteousness their chambers by wrong and use their neighbours service without wages Ier. 22. 13. They oppress the poor crush the needy Amos 4. 1. They turn judgement to Gall the fruit of righteousness to hemlock and say have we not taken horns to as by our oun strength Amos 6. 12 13. These contrary Characters cannot consist together 5. He is the Minister of God for good vers 4. not by Providential Commission as Nebuchadnezzar was and Tyrants may be eventually by the Lord making all things turn about for the good of the Church but he hath a Moral Commission from God is entrusted by the people to procure their Publick Politick good at least Now this and Tyranny Usurpation are together inconsistible for if Tyrants Usurpers were Ministers for good then they would restore the publick personal Rights and rectify all wrongs done by them but then they must surrender their Authority and resign it or else all rights cannot be restored nor wrongs rectified Hence these that cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good cannot be ouned as Magistrates But Tyrants Usurpers and in particular this Man are such as cannot be ouned as Ministers of God for good Ergo Again If Magistracy be alwise a blessing and Tyranny Usurpation alwise a Curse then they cannot be ouned to be the same thing and the one cannot be ouned to be the other But Magistracy or the right-ful Magistrate is alwise a blessing Tyranny Usurpation or the Tyrant Usurper alwise a curse Ergo That the former is true these Scriptures prove it God provides him for the benefite of His people 1 Sam. 16. 1. a just Ruler is compared to the light of the morning when the sun riseth even a morning without Clouds 2 Sam. 23. 4. So the Lord exalted Davids Kingdom for His people Israels sake 2 Sam. 5. 12. because the Lord Loved Israel for ever therefore made He Solomon King to do judgement Justice 1 King. 10. 9. when the righteous are in Authority the people rejoice the King by Judgement stabilisheth the Land Prov. 29. 2 4. The Lord promises Magistrates as a special blessing Isai. 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. and therefore their continuance is to be praye◠for that we
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
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
a transgression of His Covenant trespass against His Law that they had set up Kings not by Him and had made Princes and He knew it not Hos. 8. 4. and then taxes them with Idolatry which ordinarly is the Consequent of it as we have reason to fear will be in our case He shewes there the Apostasie of that people in changing both the Ordinances of the Magistracy and of the Ministry both of the Kingdom of the priest-hood in which two the safety of that people was founded So they overturned all the order of God and openly declared they would not be governed by the hand of God as Calvin upon the place expounds it Whereas the Lord had commanded if they would set up Kings they should set none up but whom He choosed Deut. 17. 15. yet they had no regard to this nor consulted Him in their admission of Kings but set them up and never let Him to wit of it without His knowledge that is without consulting Him and without His approbation for it can have no other sense I know it is alledged by several Interpreters that here is meant the tribes secession from the house of David and their setting up Ieroboam I shall confess that the ten tribes did sin in that erection of Ieroboam without respect to the Counsel or Command of God without waiting on the vocation of God as to the time manner and without Covenanting with him for security for their Religion Liberty But that their secession from Davids line which by no precept or promise of God they were astricted to but only conditionally if his Children should walk in the wayes of God Or that their erecting of Ieroboam was materially their sin I must deny and assert that if Ieroboam had not turned Tyrant Apostate from God for which they should have rejected him afterwards and returned to the good Kings of Davids line he would have been as Lawful a King as any in Iudah for he got the Kingdom from the Lord the same way and upon the same terms that David did as may be seen expressly in 1 King. 11. 38. It must be therefore meant either generally of all Tyrants whom they would set up without the Lords mind as at first they would have Kings on any terms though they should prove Tyrants as we have seen in Sauls case Or particularly Omri whom they set up but not by the Lord 1 King. 16. 16. And Abab his Son And Shallum Menahem Pekah c. who were all set up by blood treacherie the same way that our Popish Duke is now set up but not by the Lord that is by His approbation Hence I argue those Kings that are not ouned of God nor set up by Him must not be ouned by us for we can oune none for Kings but those that reign by Him Prov. 8. 15. and are ordained of Him Rom. 13. 1. But Tyrants Usurpers are not ouned of God as Kings nor are set up by Him Ergo Again if it be a sin to set up Kings and not by God then it is a sin to oune them when set up for that is a partaking of continuing in the sin of that erection and hath as much affinity with it as resetting hath with thieft for if they be the thieves they are the ressetters who receive them oune them 4. The Prophet Habakkuk in his Complaint to God of the Chaldean Tyranny Asserts that God hath made the righteous as the Fishes of the Sea as the Creeping things that have no Ruler over them Habak 1. 14. Now how were they said to be without a Ruler when the Chaldean actually commanded absolutely ruled over them yea how can the Fishes Reptiles have no Ruler over them If Domineering be ruling they want not that when the weaker are over-mastered by the stronger and by them made either to be subject ar to become their prey But the meaning is these Creatures have no Ruler over them by order of nature And the Iewes had then no Ruler over them by order of Law or ordination from God or any that was properly their Magistrate by Divine Institution or humane orderly constitution We see then it is one thing for a people to have an arbitrary or enthraâ—ing Tyranny another to have true Magistracy or Authority to be ouned over them without which Kingdoms are but as Mountains of prey and Seas of Confusion Hence I argue If the Iewes having the Chaldean Monarch tyrannising over them had really no Ruler over them then is a Tyrant Usurper not to be ouned for a Ruler But the former is true therefore also the Latter 5 Our Saviour Christ delivers this as a Commonly received a true Maxime Iohn 8. 54. He that honoureth himself his honour is nothing The Iewes had objected that He had only made himself Messias vers 53. To whom He answers by way of concession if it were so indeed then His Claims were void If I honour my self my honour is nothing And then claims an indubitable title to His dignity It is my Father that honoureth me Here is a two fold honour distinguished the one real the other suppositious null the one renounced the other ouned by Christ Self-honour honour which is from God. Hence I argue A self created dignity is not to be ouned the Authority of Tyrants Usurpers is a self created dignity Ergo this was confirmed above Thirdly I shall offer some other considerations confirming this truth from those Scriptures which I class among precepts And these I find of diverse sorts touching this subject 1. I shew before that the greatest of men even Kings are not exempted from punishment and Capital punishment if guilty of Capital Crimes for where the Law distinguisheth not we ought not to distinguish There is one special very peremptory Law given before the Law for regulating Kings which by that posterior Law was neither abrogated nor limited even as to Kings Deut. 13. 6-9 If thy Brother and a King must be a Brother Deut. 17. 15. entice the secretly saying let us go serve other Gods Thow shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine eye pity him How famous Mr Knox improved this Argument is shewed in the third Period That which I take notice of here is only that Kings are not excepted from this Law but if they be open Intycers to Idolatry by force or fraud Persecution or Tolleration as this Idolater now reigning is palpably doing they are obnoxious to a legal animadversion As it cannot be supposed that Secret Intycers should be lyable to punishment and not open Avouchers of a desire design to pervert all the Nation to Idolatry that a private perverter of one man though never so nearly dearly related should be pursued brought to condign punishment and a publick Subverter of whole Nations and Introducer of a false blasphemous Idolatrous Religion should escape Scot-free Let the
punishment inflicted be in a Judicial way and of what measures it pleases the Judge to determine I shall not controvert here Only I plead that Idolatrous Tyrants are not excepted from this Law and infer that if they ought to be punished they ought to be deposed And if they ought to be deposed they cannot be ouned when undenyably guilty of this Capital Crime as was urged above To this I may adde that part of that Prophetical Kings Testament who being about to leave the world under some Challenges of Mal-administration in his oun Government for which he took himself to the well ordered everlasting Covenant for pardon encouragment after he had shown what Rulers should be he threatens by Antithesis Tyrannicalâ—pretenders in these severe words which do also imply a precept and a direction how to deal with them 2 Sam 23. 6 7. But they of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away because they cannot be taken with hands but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron the staff of a spear and they shall be utterly burnt with fire in the same place Let these words be understood as a threatening against all the wicked in general who ars to bequenched as the fire of thorns or particularly of the Promoters of Antichrists Kingdom in opposition to Christs as some Interpreters judge it will not weaken but confirm my Argument if Kings who are ringleaders of that gang be not excepted I know some do understand this of Rebells against righteous Rulers which though indeed it be a truth that they that are such should be so served and roughly handled with iron and the staff of a spear yet it is not so consonant to the scope connexion of this place shewing the Characters of righteous Rulers and of usurping Tyrants making an opposition between Rulers that are just ruling in the fear of God and those that are Rulers of Belial promising blessings upon the Government of the one contempt Rejection to the other and shewing how both should be carried towards Neither does it aggree with the words themselves where the supplement in our translation is redundant for it is not in the Hebrw the sons of Belial only They of Belial clearly relative to the Rulers of whom he was speaking before And indeed the word Belial in its Etymology is not more applicable to any than to Tyrants for it comes from beli non and Hhall supra because they will have none above them or from beli non and Hhol jugum because they cannot suffer a yoke but cast away the yoke of Laws and the yoke of Christ saying let us burst His bands c. Nor is it alwayes aggreeable to truth to understand it only of Rebells against righteous Rulers that they can never be taken with hands For as very rarely righteous Rulers have any Rebells to be the objects of their rigour rage So when there are any discreet wise Rulers will find many wayes to take touch them and quash or quiet them But it is alwise true of Tyrants for they can never be taken with hands neither in a friendly manner taken by the hand and transacted with in any bargain as other men for they that would do so will find them like pricking jagging bryers which a man cannot handle without hurt to himself Nor can they be any other way repressed or restrained or touched but by hands fenced with iron that is with the sword of necessity or ax of Justice And this is insinuated as duty so to endeavour to exstirpate eradicate such thorns as pester the Common-wealth but if it cannot be done it must be duty wisdom both not to medle with them nor oune them no more than Iotham who would not subject himself nor come under the shaddow of the bastard bramble I confess it is commonly taken as a threatening of the Lords Judgement against these Sons of Belial And so it is But it teacheth also what men are called to when they have to do with such to wit to take the same course with them as they would to clear the ground of thorns bryars And that it is restricted to the Lords immediate way of taking them off is not credible For it can have no tollerable sense to say they shall be thrust away because they cannot be taken with the Lords hands Neither is there need that He should be fenced with iron c. And let iron c. be taken tropically for the Lords sword of vengeance yet how can it be understood that He must be fenced there with or that He will trust them away as a man must be fenced against thorns What defence needs the Lord against Tyrants It is only then intelligible that the Lord in His righteous Judgement will make use of men legal means and of those who cannot take them with hands in His Judicial procedure against them Hence I argue If Tyrants are to be dealt with as thorns that cannot be taken with hands but to be thrust away by violence Then when we are not in case to thrust them away we must let them alone and not medle nor make with them and so must not oune them for we cannot oune them withount medling and without being pricked to our hurt But the former is true Ergo Of this same nature another threatening confuting the pretence of Princes impunity may be subjoined out of Psal. 82. 6 7. I have said ye are Gods and all of yow are Children of the most High but ye shall die like men fall as one of the Princes From which words the learned Author of the History of the Douglasses Mr David Hume of Gods craft in his discourse upon Mr Craigs Sermon upon the words doth strongly prove that the Scope is to beat off all Kings Princes Rulers from the conceit of impunity for their Tyrannical Dominations that they must not think to Domineer and do what they list and overturn the foundations or fundamental Laws of Kingdoms because they are gods as if they were thereby incontrolable and above all Law punishment no they must know that if they be guilty of the same transgressions of the Law as other Capital offenders they shall die like other men fall as Princes who have been formerly punished It is not to be restricted to a threatening of Mortality for that is unavoidable whether they Judge justly or unjustly and the fear thereof usually hath litle efficacy to deter men from Crimes punishable by Law Neither can it be understood only of the Lords immediate hand taking them away exclusive of mens legal punishment for expresly they are threatened to die like Common men and to be lyable to the like punishment with them Now common men are not only lyabl to the Lords immediate Judgement but also to mens punishment Hence if Tyrants and overturners of the foundations of the earth must be punished as other men then when
David on thy side thow son of Iesse Here was a formed Revolt from Saul unto David before he was King for after this he was made King in Hebron and there could not be two Kings at once Hence I argue if people may separate themselves from and take part with the Resister against a Tyrant then they may disoune him for if they oune him still to be the Minister of God they must not resist him Rom. 13. 2. But here is an example that many people did separate themselves from Saul and took part with the Resister David Ergo Here two of the first Monarchs of Israel were disouned Abimelech Saul 3. The first Hereditary Successor was likewise disouned as was hinted above likewise The ten tribes offer to Covenant with Rehoboam in terms securing their Rights Liberties They desired nothing on the matter but that he would engage to rule over them according to the Law of God To which when he answered most Tyrannically and avowed he would Tyrannise over them and oppress them more than any of his Predicessors they fell away from him and erected themselves into a new Common-wealth 1 King. 12. 16. So when Israel saw that the King hearkened not unto them they answered what portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Iesse to your tents O Israel now see to thine oun house David 2 Chron. 10. 16. Now however the event of this declared Revolt proved sorrowful when they and their new King made defection unto Idolatry yet if they had stated managed it right the Cause was good justifyable commendable For 1 We find nothing in all the Text condemning this 2 On the Contrary its expressly said the Cause was from the Lord that He might perform His saying which He spake by Ahijah 1 King. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 10. 15. And 3 When Rehoboam was preparing to pursue his pretended right he was reproved discharged by Shemajah ye shall not go up nor fight against your brethren for this thing is from me 1 King. 12. 24. 2 Chron. 11. 4. 4 Whereas it is alledged by some that this was of God only by His providence and not by His Ordinance the contrary will appear if we consider how formally Covenant-wise the Lord gave ten tribes to Ieroboam 1 King. 11. 35 37 38. I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and I will give it unto thee even ten tribes And I will take thee and thow shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shall be King over Israel And it shall be if thow wilt hearken unto all that I command thee and will walk in my wayes and do that which is right in my sight to keep my statutes my commandments as David my servant did that I will be with thee build thee a sure house as I built for David and will give Israel unto thee Where we see the Kingdom was given unto him on the same Terms conditions that it was given to David He may indeed give Kingdoms to whom He wiâ— by Providential grant as unto Nebuchadnezzar and others but He never gave them a Kingdom upon these Conditions and by way of Covenant that does alwayes imply import His Word Warrant ordinance 5 If we consider the Cause of the Revolt we will find it very just for after the decease of the former King they enter upon terms of a Compact with the successor upon a suspensive condition to engage into fealty Allegiance to him as subjects if he would give them security for their Liberties Priviledges A very Lawful Laudable necessary transaction founded upon Moral equity upon the fundamental Constitutions of that Government and suitable to the constant practice of their Predicessors in their Covenanting with Saul David As for that Word 1 King. 12. 19. So Israel Rebelled against the house of David It is no more then in the margent they fell away or revolted And no more to be condemned then Hezekiahs Rebellion 2 King. 18. 7. The Lord was with him and he Rebelled against the King of Assyria That was a good Rebellion Hence If it be Lawful for a part of the people to shake off the King refuse subjection to him and set up a new King of their oun when he resolveth to play the Tyrant and rule them after his oun absolute power then it is a duty when he actually playes the Tyrant and by his absolute power overturns Laws Religion and claims by Law such a prerogative But the former is true Ergo See Ius Pepuli vindic chap. 3. Pag 52. 4. This same Ieroboam when he turned Tyrant Idolater was revolted from and deserted by the Priests the Levites and after them out of all the tribes of Israel by all such as set their heart to seek the Lord God of Israel because that King degenerating into Tyranny Idolatry had put them from the exercise of their office Religion as our Charles did and ordained him Priests for the Devils for the Calves So they returned to Rehoboam being induced by his administration of the Government which for a time was better then he promised for three years he walked in the wayes of David Salomon 2 Chron. 11. 13-17 Hence I argue If Idolatrous Tyrants may be deserted then they may be disouned for when they desert them they disoune them abroad in coming under another Government and if they may be disouned abroad it is the same duty at home though may be not the same Policy or Prudence 5. Another example of the like nature we have in the reign of Baasha who succeeded to Nadab Ieroboams son whom he slew reigned in his stead the same way that the Duke came to the Throne For he could not keep his subjects within his Kingdom but behoved to build Ramah that he might not suffer any to go out or come in to Asa. King of Iudah a good Prince 1 King 15. 17. yet that could not hinder them but many strangers out of Ephraim Manasseh Simeon fell to him in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him 2 Chron. 15. 9. Hence If people may chuse another King when they see the Lord is with him then they may disoune their Country King when they see the Devil is with him 6. When Jehoram the son of Ahab reigned over Israel we have an express example of Elisha's disouning him 2 King. 3. 14. 15. And Elisha said unto the King of Israel what have I to do with thee As the Lord of hosts liveth before whom I stand surely were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah I would not look toward thee nor see thee Here he declares so much contempt of him and so litle regard that he disdains him a look And if he would not regard him nor give him honour then he did not oune him as King for all
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
laxe in this point homolating both Doctrinally Practically their heathenish notions say to the contrary I hope it be in some measure made out that Tyrants are no more the Ordinance of God nor to be ouned as His Ministers Vicegerents than the Devil the Prince of this World for the Lords Anointed or Baals Priests for true Ministers If we pray for them as Kings we must pray for their peace prosperity preservation that their Government may be blessed with success their designs not frustrated nor their desires disappointed This we cannot pray for Tyrants 6. Albeit we may pray for the Peace of the Nation and for the Government thereof so far as it may conduce to our oun the Churches Tranquility that we may live a peaceable Godly life under it yet this cannot be extended to the peace of Tyrants for whom the best Prayer that we can bestow is that the Lord would bridle restrain them that they may not mâ—r the Churches peace That Command Ier. 29. 7. Seek the Peace of the City whither soever I have caused yow to be carried Captives and pray unto the Lord for it for in the peace thereof shall yow have peace is apparent to have been but of a temporary nature upon occasion of their Captivity there until the 70 years should be expired having it also declared by God that their oun peace was bound up in that of Babylons For after that time they are taught the contrary carriage towards that City to depart and pray against it and exult rejoice in its ruine O Daughter of Babylon happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thow hast served us that dasheth thy litle ones against the Stones Psal. 137. 8 9. The voice of them that flee out of the Land of Babylon to declare in Zion the vengeance of the Lord the vengeance of His Temple Ier. 50. 28. And Ier. 51. 35. The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the inhabitant of Zion say and my blood be upon Chaldea shall Ierusalem say Certainly this is not the season to seek the Peace of Misticall Babylon but to pray for the destruction thereof and all its supporters Which we cannot do if we pray for them that improve imploy apply all their power to support it lest we pray contradictions as many do who pray against Babels brats and yet pray for the King but the Comfort is this that Nonsensical Prayers will do litle good litle hurt but to themselves that pray them Secondly To vindicate the Scruplers Refusers of such Compelled extorted Devotion in praying for Tyrants I shall offer these Considerations 1. The imposed form of it which as it is found in the Original from whence it is taken is only Paraphrastically expounded God save the King and most Catechrestically applied to Tyrants being in the native sense of the words of this signification Let the King Live which is a very improper Wish for men of death of whom God sayes they shall die and the Law sayes they should die for their Murders Capital Crimes must be taken either as an Adulatory Complement or a Congratulatory honour or a precatory benediction The first as it is extorted most illegally so it can be rendered neither Civilly nor Sincerly nor Christianly but all ingenuus men would think it a base imposition to be forced not only to subject themselves to their Tyrannical Oppressors but to flatter them as if they were not such Whatever they may force the mouth to speak dissemblingly they can never compell the heart to think such wishes are due to them and so they can never be Cordial nor consistent with Candor and to interpose the Holy Dreadful Name of God in a dissembling Complement to flatter base men is a horrid mocking of God and a heinous taking His Name in vain contrary to the Third Command If it be a Congratulation as alwayes it is used in Scripture and in all cases formerly being never imposed on men by way of Compulsion before this sett of Tyrants started up that know they can get no deference of honest men but by extortion It is the more abominable not only for the Hypocrisie that is in it but the Blasphemie in giving thanks for the Promoter of the Devils Interest and the Destroyer of Christs and the Liberties of Mankind What have we to Congratulate him for but for overturning our Laws Liberties and oppressing us in most grievous Tyranny Besides to give the vilest of men when exalted any Congratulatory honour is contrary to the fifth Command as is shewed above And it were a forsaking of the Law thus to praise the wicked since they that keep the Law will contend with them Prov. 28. 4. If it be a Benediction we cannot bestow it upon one whom our Father Curses our Mother Curses and all our Brethren It is no less preposterous to bless whom the Lord declaredly Curses than to Curse whom he blesses The Curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked Prov. 3. 33. we cannot then bless that house Nor can we bless them that our Mother curses and cries for vengeance against as she did against Nebuchadnezzar Ier. 51. 34 35. Nor them against whom the blood of our dead Brethren hath a Moral Cry How long O Lord holy true doest thow not Iudge avenge our blood Revel 6. 10. And the vexed Spirits of our Brethren yet houling under the same yoke are puting up before the Throne of Grace the same continued Cry with incessant importunity How long how long shall the wicked triumph how long shall they break in pieces thy people O God to whom vengeance belongeth Psal. 94. 1-4 Yea God hath said it and we must not contradict it in our practice against all Tyrants that wrest Judgement and say unto the wicked thow art righteous him shall the people curse Nations shall abhor him Prov. 2. 24. And this must stand registred as the everlasting Claise of all Zions haters to which all her Lovers must say Amen that they shall be as the grass upon the house tops and never have the benefit of the Churches benediction Psal. 129. 8. Neither do they which go by say the blessing of Lord be upon yow we bless yow in the Name of the Lord. This one word may be a sufficient Supercedeas from blessing any of the enemies of God or of the Church while acting in a declared opposition to God for the destruction of His people interest 2. Either this Save the King as they mouth it and demand the repetition of it is a Prayer or it is not If not it must be a dreadful profanation of the name of God to be commanded to speak to Him and yet not to pray If it be a Prayer we would expect another way of dealing with us if rhey really desired the benefit of our Prayers than a threatening us with death if we did it not And if they did
a Papist except upon supposition of his repentance relinquishing Poperie We must pray nothing but according to the Wil of God and it is not the Wil of God that they that have keep will not part with the Mark of the beast should be saved for he is adjudged of God to drink of the wine of His wrath Revel 14. 9 10. So we cannot pray for him as a Christian which he is not Nor as a Papist except that he may get repentance Nor can we pray for him as a King which he is not nor as a Tyrant except that he may repent of relinquish his Tyranny Usurpation for Tyrants as such cannot be saved no more than Papists as such for Tophet is ordained of old yea for the King it is prepared Isai. 30. 33. We cannot then pray for his salvation except we pray for his repentance and relinquishing all his sins and so we must pray for his relinquishing his Kingship and that he may cease to be King for that is his sin that he hath made himself King without God and against the Laws of the Land. And now whilâ— he continues such we must complain in prayer not for his Misgovernment only but for that he Governs and desire to be delivered from him See Gees Magistrates Original pag. 258. But now considering what a Man and what a King he hath been guilty of Murder Adulterie Idolatrie under sentence of the Law both of God Man We can pray no otherwise for him than for a Murderer Adulterer or an Idolater We cannot pray for him as Cloathed with Authority or that the Lord may bless his Government for that is his sin our Miserie that he is a Governour And his Throne is a Throne of iniquity which we dare not pray may have fellowship with God. Can we pray that God would bless him on a Throne of iniquity Could we pray that the Lord would bless a Drunkard in his drunkenness abusing his enjoyments Or a Thief in Stealing his though he used his purchase never so soberly What if prevailing Robbers by Land or pyrats by sea preying upon all passengers should require this as the sign of subjection to them and only condition whereupon such as they apprehended overcame should be suffered to live that they should pray for preservation prosperity to them Would not this be wickedness thus to pray for Thieves Robbers And are not Tyrants the greatest of Thieves that rob destroy twenty for one of private Robbers And do they not require this as such a sign on such a Condition 6. Lastly then the plea will be reduced to this that it is exacted as a Badge of Loyaltie and Sign Tessera Sbibboleth of ouning the Authority Which I have at this length endeavoured to prove cannot be conscienciously Ouned by us in these circumstances And even by this Argument That Authority which we cannot pray for we cannot oune But we cannot pray for this Tyrannical Authority Ergo The Minor I trust is in some measure made manifest by what is said above And so I conclude this Head with that forme of prayer that I use for the King. O Lord God to whom vengeance belongeth shew thy self lift up thy self thow Iudge of the Earth render a reward to the proud Lord how long shall the wicked how long shall the wicked Triumph Shall the Throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee that Frameth Mischief by a Law The Mighty Terrible God destroy all Kings people that put to their hand to alter destroy the House of God. Overturn Overturn Overturn this Throne of Tyraâ—ny and let it be no more until he come whose right it is HEAD III. The Refusing to Swear Subscribe the many unlawful imposed Oaths for which many have suffered great Cruelties Chiefly that of Abjuration which was the Cause of Several their Suffering to Death Vindicated ANother Great Head of Grievous Sufferings in this fatal Period hath been that during this Stated War between Christ and His Enemies in Scotland He hath no wanted Witnesses who in their Wrestlings for the Word of God and the Testimony which they held thought it their duty to refuse all illegally imposed wickedly required Transactions with His Declared Enemies and tampering any manner of way with them in taking or subscribing any of their conscience-conzening Impositions of deceitful destructive Bonds Oaths obtruded by men who have cast off all sense of a Deity or regard to Humanity upon the Consciences of poor people to debauch them and cast them doun from the only excellency or integrity that was left them Whereby though they have missed of their design as to some who through grace have escaped the snares of these fowlers and in resisting have overcome through the blood of the Lamb they have prevailed to inveigle the Generality even of the Professors of this Generation into such a degree of defection wretched Complyance with all their snares that as it Prognosticates universal desolation ineluctable if it be not prevented by Repentance as universal as the Complyance hath been So it proclaims the infamy of the Complyers perjurie as indeleble as their perfidie with whom they have complyed The Consideration of which woful Apostacie in its various steps by which it hath been propogated promoted ought to deter demur all the fearers of God that would not partake of its threatened punishment from venturing any more to come near the brink or border of such precipices and paths of the destroyer when so many have stumbled fallen been hooked snared taken yea not so much as to look near them lest they be left to follow their look but to stand aloof from every appearance of Transacting with these Man-Catchers yea Conscience-Catchers who are so cunning to ensnare destroy as their predicessors to whose sins Judgments also they serve themselves heirs are described by the Holy Ghost Ier. 5. 26. 29. They lay wait as he that setteth snares they sct a trap they catch men their houses are full of deceit therefore they are become great waxen rich shall I not visite for these things saith the Lord Many and manifold have been the snares traps gins laid in the way of Professors of this Generation Nation by these Mischief-hatchers these keen cunning persecuters the party now regnant or rather raging in madness malice against Christ and all that are Loyal zealous for His Interest against their Encroachings thereon Where by they have caught cozened many out of their Conscience have broken the neck of some the Peace of others the heart of not a few Yea no Nation can be instanced wherein so many Oaths Bonds have been imposed on peoples Consciences so nawseating for naughtyness number as well as noxious in their nature in an Age as have been in Scotland within these 27 years past on design to wast all remainder of Conscience or
1. They cannot be taken in any sense though never so good if we consider the absolute illegality of their arbitrary imposition It will be confessed that Oaths should be very tenderly imposed upon consciences not only lest the Name of God be prostitute to profanation in matters light trivial or dubious uncertain but lest a Tyrannical Jurisdiction be exercised over the Souls of men which are not subject to any power that Mortals can claim So it cannot be denied but that the Constitution of our Government requires and Reason as well as Religion sayes it is necessary that no Ruler hath right to enjoin an Oath which is not first enacted into a Law And it was alwayes accounted a good plea for refusing Oaths when there was no Law for them And some have been charged with Treason for exacting Oaths without a Statute ordaining them Which might be brought in as a Charge against all the Imposers of Our Oaths the most part of which have been exacted extorted without any colour of Law some of them being never ordained by any Act of Parliament and others of them before they could obtain such a Mischief framed into an Act for them and all of them neither ever legally administred nor righteously enacted by such who had power to make Acts for as for the pacqued Parliaments that made them no consciencious Man could ever oune such a Company of perjured Traitors to be their Parliamentary Representatives Yet abstracting from that I say the Oaths that have been imposed without and against Law could never be taken in any sense without consenting to their treasonable breach of Law for which they have forfeited their lives to Justice when ever there shall be a Judicatory to revise their administrations And these that have been imposed by a pretended Law could never be taken without justifying of that Law that ordained them which hath been nothing but a mischief framed into a Law by a Throne of iniquity 2. They cannot be taken in a good sense with a safe conscience considering either what is plain in them or what is more ambiguous What is plain and capable but of one sense that is alwayes either constraining to a clear Sin to renounce some part of the Covenanted Reformation in profession or practice Or Restraining from a clear duty that we should not do that which we may or ought to do There is nothing in all of them plain but what obliges to one of these two Again what is ambiguous in them as it ought to be refused for its ambiguity so when it is explained according to the Imposers mind meaning the sense will be found alwayes pernicious though the words may be plausible As when they require an obligation to Allegiance or Loyaltie or peaceableness or Orderlyness and other smooth words signifying excellent things in an abstract Notion these will be found to carry quite another sense if we inquire into the Imposers meaning in which only Oaths Bonds must be taken The only way to find out their meaning is to consider either their Acts or Actings or their designs intentions as they are discoverable by any man of Prudence or consideration If we consult their Acts or Actings practically only legally explaining them for a commentary then by Allegiance we can understand nothing else but an ouning of their Absolute Tyranny by Loyaltie nothing but an absolute implicite Obedience of their absolute Commands without reserve as the late Proclamation for the Tolleration expounds it by peaceableness nothing but a stupid subjection to them leting them do what they please without resistence or control and by Orderlyness nothing but a disorderly Complyance Conformity with them in going along with the Corruptions Defections of the time for their Acts Actings expound them so If we consider their designs intentions according to which they are all uniformly calculate and equally levelled He is blind who hath not seen they have been driving all this time at these designs to which all these Oaths Bonds have been adapted successfully subservient and by which they have been promoted to the present pass to overturn gradually all the degrees of our Covenanted Reformation to establish Tyranny and advance it unto greater degrees of Absoluteness and to introduce Poperie slavery So that by Allegiance Loyaltie can be meant nothing else but an obligation to oune obey and never to oppose the design of advancing Tyranny And by Peaceableness Orderlyness nothing else can be intended than an obligation never to oppose either the present Settlement or future establishment of Poperie arbitrary power upon the ruines of the Reformation and our Civil Religious Rights Liberties Whence they that can take these Oaths Bonds in any other sense and plead for the inoffensiveness of the terms in a more abstract notion and sense alledged more legal without regard to that of the Imposers practically explained by their administrations and so looking more to the briberies of their blinded reason and wordly Interest than to the Dictates of conscience please themselves with such notions quibling evasions do but Mock God deceive the world illude the enemies and delude themselves And all these debatings for Accommodations Expositions in another sense are but foull fairdings of conscience-beguiling Compoundings in and pitiful priggings for a base Complyance But it is usual for a guilty Son of Adam to sow fig-leaves 4. Let it be considered that all these Oaths Bonds that the Land hath been debauched with these 27 years are all condemned by and contradictory to anterior binding Orders the Acts of the General Assembles requiring no Oaths in the common cause to be taken without the Churches consent as was cleared in the Historical part upon the fifth Period pag. 82. And that especially they are condemned as being contradictory to violatory of prior Oaths of continuing indispensible Obligation being designed pressed imposed on purpose to delete the same out of the minds memories of the present Generation I mean the National and Solemn League Covenants and other former Nationally binding Publick Engagments Which because they are not only broken burnt but declared Criminal to be ouned and because the ouning of their obligation is ordinarly inserted in the Indytments of our Martyrs I must touch upon them more particularly It was cleared above Head. 1. Arg. 11. from the Form the Object and from the Ends of the Covenant which are all Moral and of indispensible obligation that it is of perpetual and unalterably binding force obliging the present and all future Generations as well as that which did first come under the bond of it And to confirm this I shall adde more particularly these many consideration 1. The National Engagments are National promises plighting pledging the Nations publick faith for the preservation propagation of Religion Liberty to succeding posterity which if succeeding Generations may reverse then the
for their matter National Covenants about things Moral objectively obliging to joine our selves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten Ier. 50. 5. I might easily demonstrate all the Articles of the Covenant to be Morally obliging but they are demonstrate sufficiently above Head. 1. Arg. 11. Therefore they are perpetually binding 8. They are for their Ends National Covenants inviolably obliging which cannot be made void though they should be broken because the ends of them are alwayes to be pursued as is proved above Head. 1. Therefore they are perpetual 9. They are for their formality National Covenants most Solemnly Sworn subscribed by all ranks with uplifted hands with bended knees with solemn invocating the Name of God with solemn preaching prayer praise rendering themselves and the posterity obnoxious to the Curse if they should break it Now the Solemnities of the Oath do aggravate the heinousness of the breach of it as is clear from Ier. 34. 19. Ezek. 17. 18. quoted above the reason is because of their greater deliberation in the action and because of the greater scandal accompanying the violation thereof Hence as they are National Oaths Covenants so solemnized they are National Adiurations under the pain of a National Curse not to break them Nationally Which do make the posterity obnoxious to it as Ioshua adjuring Israel saying Cursed be the man that riseth up and buildeth this City Iericho Iosh. 6. 26. Which was fulfilled many generations after in the dayes of Ahab upon Hiel the Bethelite 1 King. 16. Ult. So the Curse of introducing abjured Prelacy and Popery if it be let in will be impendent on the Nation All National Covenants have a Curse annexed in case of a breach when ever it shall be So in Nehemiahs Covenant they clave to their Brethren entered into a Curse and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law which was given by Moses the Servant of God and to observe do all the Commandments of thâ— Lord our Lord and His Judgements Statutes particularly not to enter into affinity with their Malignant enemies Neh. 10. 29 30. Which certainly did oblige the posterity because the thing was Moral So in our Covenants we are bound to the same things and nothing but these And therefore the posterity is lyable to the Curse of perjurie for the breach thereof 10. They are for their Legality National Laws being Solemnly Ratified by the Parliament and by the King and made the foundation of their Compact with him at his Inauguration whereby they became the fundamental Laws of the Government and among the very Leges regulae regnandi which though they be rescinded by a wicked Law yet make the Rescinders chargable not only of Perjurie in breaking a Covenant but of Treason Tyranny in breaking and altering the Constitution of the Government and render them lyable to the Curse thereof for they cannot rescind that nor escape its vengeance whereof we have a speaking pledge already in that the Rescinder of these Covenants was so terribly rescinded and cut off by the hands of unnatural violence God thereby fulfilling that threatend Judgment of Covenant breakers that he that hath broken His Covenant shall be brought to destruction and bloody deceitful men shall not live out half their dayes Psal. 55. 20. ult So Charles the Second got not leave to live out half the dayes that he projected to himself 11. They are National Engagments of an Hereditary Nature like that of Israel Deut. 29. 14 15. which did oblige not only the present but the absent not only them that stood there that day before the Lord their God but theâ— that were not there that day Grotius de jur â—el Lib. 2. cap. 6. gives these Marks of Hereditary Covenants 1 When the subject is of a permanent Nature and as long as manet idem Corpus therefore as long as Scotland is Scotland whose people in their personal Capacity whose Parliaments in their Parliamentary Capacity whose King in his princely Capacity did all solemnly Sacredly engage in the Covenant it must be real perpetually obliging 2 when there is such a Clause in the Covenant as that it should be perpetual There are many Clauses in the Solemn league to this purpose in Art. 1. are these words that we our posterity after us may as brethren live in faith lâ—ve aâ—d the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us in the 5. Art we shall each one of us according to our place interest endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firme peace union to all posterity 3 when it is such as is made for the good of thâ— Kingdom The Covenant expresses its end for the perpetual good of the Kingdom having before our eyes the Glory of God the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ the honour happiness of the King his posterity and the true publick Liberty Safety Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included and again it is added for preservation of our selves our Religion from utter ruine destruction All this is a publick National good 4 The matter is Moral about materially binding duties and therefore it must be hereditary and of perpetual obligation 12. Lastly They are National obligations taking on publick duties by way of virtual Representation of the posterity And they that think it irrational that the father should represent involve the family must resolve us how the Religious Civil Covenants of Israel Iudâ—h made in Moses Ioshua's Davids Asa's Ioash's Hezekiahs Iosiahs 〈◊〉 dayes did comprehend bird as well the absent as the preâ—ent their posterity yet unborn as also how the Laws Contracts continually passed by some do take in others not personally consenting yea how comes it to pass that every succeeding generation is â—ound to the Laws and must be obedient to the Kings that they did not make themselves no reason can be given but because they are virtually represented by included in their fathers Now if these Arguments prove our National Covenants to be perpetually binding and cannot be dispensed with theâ— must these posterior Oaths that are made in a diametrical opposition to the Covenants and are condemned by the Covenants be false unlawful Oaths But the first is proved Therefore these Oaths so opposite to condemned by the Covenants are false unlawful That they are opposite to the Covenant will appear in the induction of all of them And that what ever they be imposed by this party they are condemned by the Covenants wherein we are obliged to make no such Transactions with them will appear if we consider these and the like expressions that we shall neither directly nor indirectly suffer our selves to be divided by whatsoever suggestion allurement or terror from this blessed Conjunction nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stop or hinder any such resolution as
shall be found to conduce for so good ends Which are the Words of the National Covenant clearly condemning Oaths Bonds given to Malignants which are divisive of them that adhere to and Unitive with them that oppose the Covenant and impeditive of resolutions to prosecute the ends thereof So in the Solemn League Covenant Art. 4. We are obliged to oppose all such as make any faction or parties amongst the people contrary to this League Covenant but by these Oaths Bonds such factions are made c. And by Art. 6. we are obliged to assist defend all those that enter into this Covenant contradicted by all the later Oaths Bonds and not to suffer our selves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination to be divided from this blessed union whether to make defection to the contrary part or to give our selves to a detestable indifferency c. Which we do when we divide our selves from these that refuse these Oaths and makes defection unto the party that impose them And in the Solemn Acknowledgment of sins Engagment to duties We are sworn § 6. to be so far from conniving at complying with or countenancing of Malignancy Injustice c. that we shall not only avoid discountenance these things c. but take an effectual course to punish suppress these evils All which we counteract contradict when we take any of these Oaths or Bonds In the Second place by a Particular induction of the several kinds of these Oaths Bonds the iniquity of each of them will appear and the Complex iniquity of the smoothest of them the Oath of Abjuration compared with every one of them will be manifest And consequently the honesty innocency of Sufferers for Refusing them will be discovered I. The first in order which was a Copy to all the rest was the Declaration ordained to be subscribed by all in publick Charge office or Trust within the Kingdom Wherein they do affirme declare they judge it unlawful to Subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Leagues Covenants or take up armes against the King and that all these Gatherings petitions protestations that were used for carrying on of the late troubles were unlawful seditious And particularly that these Oaths the National Covenant and the Salemn League Covenant were and are in themselves unlawful Oaths Here is a Confederacy required against the Lord at which the Heavens might stand astonished an unparalelled breach of the Third Command Which could no more be taken in Truth Righteousness than an Oath renouncing the Bible but it hath this advantage of the rest that it is some what plain And the iniquity legible on its front 1. That it is a renouncing of Solemn Sacred Covenants perpetually binding to Moral indispensable duties the wickedness whereof is evident from what is said above 2. It makes perjurie of the deepest dye the necessary sine qua non qualification of all in publick Office who cannot be presumed capable of administrating Justice when they have avowed themselves perjured perfidious and not to be admitted among heathens let be Christians nor trusted in a matter of ten shillings money according to the Laws of Scotland 3. It renounces the whole Work of Reformation and the way of Carrying it on as a Pretence and trouble unlawful seditious Which if it be a Trouble then the Peace they have taken in renouncing it must be such a Peace as is the plague of God upon the heart filling it with senslessness stupidity in His just Judgement because of the palpable breach of Covenant or such a Peace as is very consistent with the Curse vengeance of God pursuing the quarrel of a broken Covenant 4. It condemns the taking up armes against the King which shall be proven to be duty Head 5. Besides that hereby the most innocent means of seeking the redress of Grievances that Religion Risings Law practice of all Nations allowes is condemned Yet in effect for as monstrous as this Oath is the Complexe of its iniquity is couched in the Oath of Abjuration in which many of these Methods of Combinations Risings Declarations of war against the King and Protestations against his Tyranny which were used in the late Troubles for carrying on the Reformation are abjured in that a Declaration is renounced in so far as it Declares war against the King and asserts it Lawful to kill them that serve him Which yet in many cases in the Covenanted Reformation here renounced were acknowledged practised as Lawful besides that it hath many other breaches of Covenant in it as will be shewed II. The next Net they contrived to catch Consciences was the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Wherein they that took it for testification of their faithful obedience to their most gracious redoubted Soveraign Charles King of Great Britain do affirme testifie Declare that they acknowledg their said Soveraign only supreme Governour of this Kingdom over all persons in all Causes And that no forreign Prince hath any jurisdiction power or superiority over the same and therefore do utterly renounce all forreign power and shall at their utmost power defend assist maintain his Majs jurisdiction foresaid and never decline his power The iniquity of this Oath is very vast and various 1. It is a Covenant of Allegiance with a King turned Tyrant and enemy to Religion Subverter of the Reformation and overturner of our Laws Liberties and therefore demonstrate to be sinful both from the first General Argument against Oaths and from Head. 2. 2. It cannot be taken in Truth Righteousness or Iudgement beause the words are general very comprehensive and ambiguous capable of diverse senses when he is affirmed to be supreme over all Persons and in all Causes and to be assistest maintained in that jurisdiction Who can be sure in swearing such an Oath but that he may thereby wrong others wrong Parliaments in their Priviledges wrong the Church in her Liberties and which is worse wrong the Lord Jesus Christ who is Supreme alone in some Causes Can an Oath be taken in Truth Righteousness to assist him in all encroachments upon Causes that are not subordinate to him and in invading all those Priviledges of Subjects which are Natural Civil Moral Religious for if he be supreme in all Causes then all these depend upon him be subordinate to him And can it be taken in Iudgement and with a clear mind when it may be debated doubted as it is by some whether the obligation of it is to be considered as circumstantiate specificate to the present Object of it supposing him a Tyrant or in a more abstract notion as it might be tendered in the sense of its first Authors as it was taken in King Iames the 6. his dayes And as they plead for taking the English Oath of Allegiance as it was accepted by the
Puritans in Queen Elizabeths dayesâ— whether it obliges to a King in Idea and in a more general consideration as one who is said never to die Or with reference to such an one as we have a mortaâ— man and an immortal enemy to all those precious Interests for preservation of which he only received his Kingship Whether it must be taken in that of the Imposers practically explained by their administrations or in any other sense alledged more Legal These would be clear before it can be taken with the due qualifications of an Oath 3. As for the Civil part of it or Ecclesiastical no other explanation needeth to be inquired after than what they give forth in their Acts on record The Act of Supremacy to be seen in the Historical Representation of the Sixth last Period pag. 111. senses the Ecclesiastical part of it And the Act for acknowledgment of his Majesties prerogative does sufficiently sense explain expound the Civil part Declaring That it is inherent in the Crown and an undoubted part of the Royal prerogative to have the sole choise appointment of all Officers of State the power of calling holding dissolving Parliaments and all Conventions Meetings of Estates the power of Armies making of peace war treaties leagues with forreign Princes or States or at home by the subjects among themselves and that it is high treason in the subjects upon whatsoever ground to rise in Armes or make any treaties or leagues among themselves without his Maj. Authority first interponed thereto That it is unlawful to the subjects of whatsoever quality or function to convocate themselves for holding of Councils to treat consult or determine in any matters Civil or Ecclesiastick except in the ordinary Judgements or make leagues or bonds upon whatsoever colour or pretence without his Maj. special consent That the league Covenant and all treaties following thereupon and acts or deeds that do or may relate thereunto are not obligatory and that none should presume upon any pretext of any Authority whatsoever to require the renewing or swearing of the said league Covenant c. Whereby it appears that all this screwing up the prerogative to such a pitch is by the Oath of Allegiance to defend all this jurisdiction justified and so these palpable encroachments on the priviledges of the Scots Parliaments that by the fundamental Constitutions of the Government alwayes had a share in making Laws and Peace War These robberies of our Natural priviledges of defending our selves by Armes in case of the Kings Tyranny oppression and of Convocating for Consultations about the best means thereof And these Invasions upon our Ecclesiastical priviledges in keeping General Assemblies for the affairs of Religion Prorenata alwayes strenously contended for as a part of the Testimony yea all these rescindings repealings and condemnings of the Way Manner Methods Measures of promoting the Covenanted Reformation are by this Oath explained by this Act acknowledged to be parts of that supremacy Jurisdiction to be defended maintained As like wise by many wicked Acts since promulgated which promote the Supremacy to a vast degree of Absoluteness which all do interpret what that Supremacy is which is sworn to be maintained to wit pure Tyranny established by Law. See the many grievous Consequences of this laid out at large in Apol. Relat. Sect. 10. 4. Here is absolute Allegiance sworn to an Absolute power Paramount to all Law engaging to faithful obedience to their Soveraign as Supreme over all Persons and in all causes and to defend assist maintain his said jurisdiction and never to decline his power there is no restriction here on obedience nor Limitation on the power nor definition of the Causes nor circumscription of the cases in which that assistance c. is to be given whether they be Lawful or not Now absolute allegiance to an absolute power cannot be sworn by any man of Conscience nor ouned by any man of reason as is proven Head. 2. Arg. 6. It cannot be Lawful in any sense to swear such an Oath to any Mortal nay not to a David nor Hezekiah because to swear unrestricted unlimited Allegiance to any man were a manifest mancipating of Mankind not only to an Ass-like subjection but to a servile obligation to maintain uphold the Persons Government of mutable men be what they will turn to what they will it is known the best of men may degenerate And by this no remedy is left to redress our selves bâ—t our heads hearts and hands all tied up under an engagment to defend assist maintain whosoever doth hold the Government manage it as he pleases This reason will also conclude against the English Oath of Allegiance though it be a great deal more smoothly worded and seems only to require a rejection of the Pope and legal subjection to the King yet that comprehensive Clause makes it border upon absoluteness I will bear faith true allegiance to his Maj. heirs successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies attempts whatsoever There are no Conditions here at all limiting the Allegiance or qualifying the Object but an arbitrary imposition of true Allegiance and defence in all cases against all attempts even that of repressing their Tyranny not excepted not only of their persons but of their Dignities if this be not an illimited Allegiance to an absolute power I know not what it is 5. Here is an acknowledgment of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy resident in the King which is the most blasphemous Usurpation on the prerogatives of Christ and priviledges of His Church that ever the greatest Monster among men durst arrogate yea the Roman beast never claimed more And in effect it is nothing else but one of his Names of Blasphemie twisted out of the Popes hands by K. Henry the Eight and handed doun to Q. Elizabeth and wafted over to Iames the 6 th for that was the Original conveyance of it The iniquity whereof is discovered above Head. 1. Arg. 3. But further may be aggravated in these particulars 1 It is only a change of the Pope but not of the Popedâ—m and nothing else but a shaking off the Ecclesiastical Pope and submitting to a Civil Pope by whom Christs Head-ship is as much wronged as by the other And hereby a door is opened for bringing in Poperie as indeed by this Strategem it is brought now to our very doors for by the Act of Supremacy he hath power to settle all things concerning Doctrine Worship discipline or Government by his Clerks the Bishops having all the Architectonick power of disposing ordering ordaining these as he in his Royal wisdom thinks fit 2 By this Church State are confounded whereof the Distinction is demonstrate above making the Magistrate a proper Competent Judge in Church matters not to be declined wherby also he hath power to erect new Courts Mongrel-Judicatories
adverse party But this distinction will not be a Salvo to the Conscience For the object declared against is either a King or not if he be not then a Declaration of war against him is not to be abjured if he be King then he is either declared against as King qua Rex perse or as an oppressor or an Abuser of his power the first indeed is to be disouned for a King as King or Lawful Magistrate must not be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But the second to declare war against a King as an oppressor and abuser of his power and subverter of the Laws hath been ouned by our Church State many a time and they have opposed declared war as purposedly against him as he did against them and as really formally as he was an oppresâ—or sure he cannot be an oppressor only per accidens nor does he declare war against the subjects only pes accidens However this hath been ouned alwayes by Presbyterians that war may be declared against him who is called King. And therefore to abjure a Declaration in so far as it declares war against the King will condemn not only that Declaration upon the heads wherein its honesty faithfulness chiefly consists but all other most honest honourable Declarations that have been made emitted by our worthy renouned Ancestors and by our Worthies in our oun time who have formally avowedly explicitely or expressly purposedly designedly declared their opposition to Tyranny Tyrants and their Lawful laudable designs to repress depress suppress them by all the wayes means that God Nature and the Laws of Nations allow when they did ipso jure depose exauctorate themselves from all Rule or priviledge or prerogative of Rulers and became no more Gods ministers but Beelzebubs vicegerents and Monsters to be exterminated out of the Society of Mankind The honestest of all our Declarations of defensive war have alwayes run in this strain And others insinuating more preposterous Loayltie have been justly taxed for asserting the Interest of the Tyrant the greatest enemy of the declarers and principal object of the declared war which disingenuous jugling foysting in such flattering falsifying distinctions in the State of the Quarrel hath rationally been thought one of the procuring Causes or Occasions of the discomfiture of our former Appearances for the Work of God Liberties of our Country 3. This must infer an ouning of his Authority as Lawful King when the Declaration disouning him is abjured in so far as it declares war against his Majestie for in this Oath he is styled and asserted to be King and to have the Majestie of a Lawful King and therefore must be ouned as such by all that take it which yet I have proved to be sinful above Head. 2. Against this it hath been quibbled by some that that Declaration does not declare war against the King expresly as King but only against Charles Stewart by them declared to be no King who set forth the Declaration But this will not salve the matter for then 1 It is a subscribing to a lie in abjuring a Declaration in so far as it did declare a thing which it did not if that hold 2 The enemies impose the abjuring disouning of it in so far as it declares war against their King who had none other but Charles Stewart at that time who was the King in their sense and an Oath cannot be taken in any other sense contradictory to the Imposers even though by them allowed without an unjustifiable equivocation 3 Though he had been King and had not committed such acts of Tyranny as might actually denominate him a Tyrant forefeit his Kingship yet to repress his illegal arbitrariness intollerable enormities and to repel his unjust violence and reduce him to good order Subjects at least for their oun defence may declare a war expresly purposedly designedly against their oun acknowledged King This ought not in so far to be disouned For then all our Declarations emitted during the whole time of prosecuting the Reformation in opposition to our King would be disouned And so with one dash unhappily the whole Work of Reformation and the way of carrying it on is hereby tacitely consequentially reflected upon reproached if not disouned 4. It must infer an ouning of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy when it asserts that some do serve the King in Church as well as in State there is no Distinction here but they are said to serve him the same way in both And it is certain they mean so and have expressed so much in their Acts that Church men are as subordinate and the same way subject to the Kings Supremacy as Statsmen are The absurdity blasphemy of which is discovered above 5. This condemns all killing of any that serve the King in Church State Army or Country for a Declaration is abjured in so far as it asserts it Lawful to kill any such And so by this Oath there is an impunity secured for his Idolatrous priests and Murdering varlets that serve him in the Church for his bloody Councellors and Gouned Murderers that serve his Tyrannical designs in the State for his bloody Lictors Executioners the Sword men that serve him in the Army whom he may send when he pleases to murder us and for his bloody Iust-asses Informers Intelligencing Sycophants the Ziphites that serve him in the Country All these must escape bringing to conâ—ign punishment contrary to the 4. Art. of the Solemn League Covenant and shall be confuted Head. 6. Against this it is excepted by the Pleaders for this Oath that it is only a declared abhoring of Murdering principles which no Christian dare refuse And it may be taken in this sense safly that it is to be abjured in so far as it asserts it Lawful to kill all that are to be imployed by his Maj. or any because so imployed in Church State Army or Country Which never any did assert was Law-ful But though Murdering principles are indeed alwayes to be declaredly abhorred and all Refusers of that Oath did both declare so much and abhorred the thoughts of them yet this evasion is naught for 1 The Declaration asserts no such thing neither for that cause nor for any other but expressly makes a distinction between persons under the Epithet of bloody cruel Murderers and these only whom it threateneth to animadvert upon 2 The only reason of their declared intent of prosecuting these whom they threaten to bring to conding punishment was because they were so imployed by the Tyrant in such service as shedding the blood of Innocents Murdering people where they met them And so that 's the very reason for which they deserve to be killed and therefore foolish impertinent and very absurd to be alledged as a qualification of the sense of that impious Oath 5. If we consider the Proclamation enjoining this Oath and narrating and explaining the Occasions
practical expression of it by the hands of all But the reason they give why they are so offended at it is that they look upon it as the Spring of all the errors of Presbyterians and a Notion that destroyes them Which indeed will be found to have a necessary connexion with many of the Truths that they contend for this day as it hath been the necessary methode of deâ—ending them What practices of this kind hath been and what were the occasions inducing or rather enforcing to these Defensive Resistences here to be vindicated as to the principle of them is manifested in the Historical Representation Shewing that after the whole body of the Land was engaged under the bond of a Solemn Covenant several times renewed to defend Religion Liberty and in special manner the Magistrats of all ranks the Supreme whereof was formally admitted to the Government upon these terms he with his Associates conspiring with the Nobles to involve the whole Land in perjury Apostasie overturned the whole Covenanted Work of Reformation and thereby not only encroached upon the Interest of Christ and the Churches Priviledges but subverted the fundamental Constitution of the Kingdoms Government and pressed all to a submission unto and complyance with that Tyranny Apostasie erected upon the ruines thereof Yet the Godly Faithful in the Land sensible of the indispensable obligation of these Covenants resolved to adhere thereunto and suffered long patiently for adherence unto the same until being quite out wearyed by a continued tract of Tyrannical oppressions arbitrarly enacted by wicked Laws and illegally executed against their oun Laws and cruelly prosecuted even without all colour of Law in many unheard of barbarities when there could be no access for or success in complaining or getting redress by Law all Petitions Remonstrances of Grievances being declared seditious treasonable and interdicted as such they were forced to betake themselves to this last remedy of Defensive Resistence intending only the preservation of their Lives Religion Liberties which many times hath been blessed with success and therefore zealously contended for as an inamissible Priviledge by all well affected to the Cause of Christ and Interest of their Country because they found it alwayes Countenanced of the Lord until the cause was betrayed by the Treachery and abandoned by the Cowardice of such as were more Loyal for the Kings Interests than zealous for Christs and the Countries for which the Lord in His holy Jealousie discountenanced many repeated endeavours of this nature Cuting us off and puting us to shame and would not go forth with our Armies But because the duty is not to be measured by and hath a more fixed Rule to be founded upon than providence therefore the Godly did not only maintain the principle in their confessions Testimonies but prosecute the practice in carrying armes making use of them in the defence of the Gospel and of themselves at Field-Meetings which were alwayes successfully prosperous by the power presence of God. This Question is sufficiently discussed by our famous learned invincible Patrons Champions for this excellent priviledge of Mankind the unanswerable Authors of Lex Rex the Apologetical Relation Napthali Ius populi Vindicatum But because facile est inventis addere I shall subjoine my mite And their Arguments being various and volumniously prosecute and scattered at large through their books I shall endeavour to collect a Compend of them in some order The two first speak of a Defensive war managed in a Parliamentary way And the two last of Resistence against the abuse of a Lawful power when there is no access to maintain Religion Liberty any other way which does not come up so closs to our case nor is it an adequate Antithesis to the Assertions of our Adversaries who say that it is no wayes Lawful in any case or upon any pretence whatsoever to Resist the Soveraign power of a Nation in whomsoever it be resident or which way soever it be erected I shall consider it more complexely extensively and plead both for Resistence against the abuse of a Lawful power and against the Use Usurpation of a Tyrannical power And infer not only the Lawfulness of Resisting Kings when they abuse their power as is demonstrate unanswerably by these Authors but the expediency necessity of the duty of Resisting this Tyrannical power whensoever we are in a Capacity if we would not be found treatherous Covenant-breakers betrayers of the Interest of God and the Liberties of the Nation and of our Brethren together with the posterity into the hands of this Popish Implacable Enemie and so bring on us the Curse of Meroz and the Curse of our Brethrens blood crying for vengeance on the heads of the shedders thereof and upon all who being in case came not to their rescue and the Curse of posterity for not transmitting that Reformation Liberty whereof we were by the valour of our fore-fathers put left in possession I shall not therefore restrict my self to the State of the Question as propounded ordinarly viz. Whether or not when a Covenanted King doth really injure oppress invade his Subjects Civil Religious Rights or unavoidably threatens to deprive them of their dearest nearest Liberties and sends out his Emissaries with armed violence against them and when all redress to be had or hope by any Address or petition is rendered void or inaccessible yea addressing interdicted under severe penalties as treasonable Then in that case may a Communitie of these Subjects defend themselves their Religion Liberties by armes in resisting his bloody Emissaries But to bring it home to our present case and answer the Laxness of the Adversaries position of the uncontrollableness of every one that wears a Crown I shall State it thus Whether or not is it necessary duty for a Community whether they have the Concurrence of the primores or Nobles or not to endeavour in the Defence of their Lives Religion Laws Liberties to Resist Repress the Usurpation Tyranny of Prevailing Dominators using or abusing their power for subverting Religion invading the Liberties and overturning the foundamental Laws of their Country I hold the Affirmative and shall essay to prove it by the same Arguments that conclude this Question as usually stated Which will more than evince the Justifyableness of the Sufferings upon this Head. In prosecuting of this Subject I shall first premit some Concessory Considerations to clear it And Secondly bring Reasons to prove it First for clearing of this Truth and taking off Mistakes these Concessions may be considered 1. The Ordinance of Magistracy which is of God is not to be Resisted no not so much as by disobedience or non-obedience nay not so much as mentally by cursing in the heart Eccles. 10. 20. but a person cloathed therewith abusing his power may be in so far Resisted But Tyrants or Magistrates turning Tyrants are
every soul be subject unto the higher Powers whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God as Resistence by Prayer is with that 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. I exhort that Supplications be made for Kings and for all that are in Authority If the Prince be good the one as is unlawful as the other and a sinful resistence of the Ordinance of God to pray against him no less than the other to fight against him Therefore when he becomes a Tyrant destroyer of the Lords Inheritance and an Apostate as I may not pray for him except conditionally but against him as an Enemy of Christ so I may also fight against him as such 2. As Adversaries themselves will grant that Resistence by Prayers tears is more powerful effectual than the other So the Laws of the Land make the one treasonable as well as the other and that deservedly when the Prince is doing his duty but when he turneth Tyrant neither can justly be condemned These things being premitted I shall come shortly to the purpose and endeavour to prove this Truth That it is a necessary duty for a Community whether they have the Concurrence of the Primores Nobles Representatives or not to endeavour in the defence of their Religion Lives Laws Liberties to Resist Repress the Usurpation Tyranny of prevailing Dominators using or abusing their Power for subverting Religion invading the Liberties and overturning the foundamental Laws of their Country Wherein I shall be but short because this Truth is sufficiently confirmed by all the Arguments of the Second Head. Yet I may only hint at many other And prosecute them in this Order First I shall produce some Arguments from the Law of Nature Nations Secondly from the Common practice of all Christian people Thirdly from express Scriptures I. The Arguments of the first Class are very multifarious I shall reduce them to a few as Compendiously as may be and only give the strength of them in a Syllogistical forme without expatiating save where the matters requires 1. The greatest Antagonists of this Truth through the clearness thereof are forced to assert grant such particulars as will by Consequence justify this plea. 1. Barclay contra Monarchum is cited by the Apol. Relat. and Ius Populi asserting that if a King will alienate subject his Kingdom without his Subjects consent or be carried with a hostile mind to the destruction of his people his Kingdom is actually lost and the people may not only Lawfully resist but also depose him Grotius de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. asserts the same and adds if he but attempt to do so he may be resisted The Surveyer of Napâ—tali grants the same pag. 23 24. Yea this hath been granted in open Court by the Council of Scotland that in case of the Kings alienating his Kingdoms he may be Resisted Hence 1 If vendition or alienation of Kingdoms or attempts of it do annull a Kings Authority Then an alienation of them from Christ to whom they are devoted by Covenant and selling them to Antichrist as is attempted by this King gives the people a right to Resist him But the former is here conceded Ergo 2 We need say no more to apply the other that carrying a hostile mind to the destruction of the people does forfeit his Kingdom and gives the people right to Resist than that a Papist is alwise known to carry a hostile mind to the destruction of Protestants and all the designs declared these 27 years have been demonstrative efforts of it 2. Dr Ferne acknowledgeth that personal defence is Lawful against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the Kings Messengers or of himself in so far as to ward off his blowes or hold his hands As also he alloweth private persons Libertie to deny subsidies tribute to the Prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Hence 1 If one man may defend himself against the sudden illegal inevitable assaults of the King or his Messengers Then may many men in defence of their Lives Liberties defend themselves against the surprising Massacres the sudden assaults and much more the devised deliberate assaults of a Tyrants bloody Emissaries which are illegal inevitable as all their furious bloody on-sets have been But the former is here acknowledged Ergo 2 If people may deny subsidies to a King when he employeth it to the destruction of the Commonwealth Then as this justifies the denyal of the Cess imposed for destruction of the Church banishing of the Gospel So this gives them right to Resist him for if he be the power ordained of God not to be resisted then for this Cause tribute must be paid for they are Gods Ministers Rom. 13. 6. and if tribute must not be paid then he is not the power ordained of God and so may be resisted But the former is here allowed Ergo 3. Bodin de Repub. lib. 2. cap. 5. granteth if a King turn Tyrant he may Lawfully at his subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slain by a foraign Prince Hence if foraign Princes may Lawfully help a people oppressed by their oun Soveraign then people may Resist themselves if they be able and hold in their pains But the former is here granted Ergo The Consequence cannot be denyed for foraigners have no more Power or Authority over another Soveraign then the people have themselves 4. Arnisaeus de Author Princip c. 2. n. 10 granteth that if the Prince proceed extrajudicially without order of Law by violence every private man hath power to resist So the Surveyer of Naphtali ubi supra grants so much of a womans violent resisting attempts against the honour of her chastitie and tending to ensnare her in sin whereof her non-resistence makes her guilty Hence 1 If every extrajudicial violence of a Prince may be Resisted Then also all Contrajudicial violence against Law or reason must be opposed for that is more grievous and all their violences wherein they do not act as Judges must be resisted and that is all together for in none of them they can act as Judges But the former is here granted Ergo 2 If a woman may defend her Chastity against the K. lest her non-resistence make her guilty Oh if all women had been of this mind the Country would not have been pestered so with the Kings bastards Then may a Nation or any part of it Resist a Tyrants attempts upon the honour of their Religion entycing them to fornication with the Mother of harlots lest their non-resistence make them guilty But the former is here yeelded Ergo 5. That same Arnisaeus cap. 4. saith Of the former to wit he who is called a Tyrant in title it is determined by all without any difficultie that he may be Lawfully repulsed or if by force he be gotten into the Throne he may warrantably be thence removed because he hath not any Jot of power which
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
Maximus who was come against them with an Army because of their Religion 3. How about the year 342. the Citizens of Alexandria defended Athanasius their Minister against Gregorius the intruded Curate and Syrianus the Emperours Captain who came with great force to put him in 4. How about the year 356. the people of Constantinople did in like manner stand to the defence of Paulus against Constantius the Emperour and killed his Captain Hermogenes And afterwards in great Multitudes they opposed the intrusion of the Heretick Macedonius 5. How when a wicked Edict was sent forth to pull doun the Churches of such as were for the Clause of one Substance the Christians that maintained that Testimony resisted the bands of Souldiers that were procured at the Emperours Command by Macedonius to force the Mantinians to embrace the Arrian Heresie But the Christians at Mantinium kindled with an earnest zeal towards Christian Religion went against the Souldiers with Cheerful minds valiant Courage and made a great slaughter of them 6. How about the year 387. the people of Cesarea did defend Basil their Minister 7. How for fear of the people the Lievtenant of the Emperour Valens durst not execute those 80 Priests who had came to supplicate the Emperour and were commanded to be killed by him 8. How the Inhabitants of Mount Nitria espoused Cyrilâ—s quarrel and assaulted the Lievtenant and forced his Guards to flee 9. How about the year 404. when the Emperour had banished Chrysostome the people flocked together so that the Emperour was necessitated to call him back again from his Exile 10. How the people resisted also the transportation of Ambrose by the command of Valentinian the Emperour And chused rather to lose their lives than to suffer their pastor to be taken away by the Souldiers 11. How the Christians oppressed by Baratanes King of Persia did flee to the Romans to seek their help And Theodosius the Emperour is much praised for the war which he commenced against Chosroes King of Persia upon this inducement that that King sought to ruine exstirpate those Christians in his Dominions that would not renounce the Gospel 3. But when Religion was once imbraced in imbodyed Corporations and established by Law and became a peoples common Interest Liberty in a Capacity to defend it with their lives other Liberties and when it was propagated through the Nations Then the Lord did call for other more Active Testimonies in the preservation defence of it Of which we have many Instances in Histories About the year 894. The Bohemian Christians Resisted Drahomica their Queen who thought to have destroyed them reintroduced Paganisme About the year 1420. they maintained a long defensive war against the Government and the Popes Legats under the managment of their brave Captain Zizca which was further prosecuted after him by the remaining Thaborites And again in this Century anno 1618. They maintained a Defensive war against the Emperour Ferdinand the Second electing and erecting a new King in opposition to him Frederick Palatine of the Rhine in which Cause many received the Crown of Martyrdom and this was also espoused by King Iames the 6. who sent to aid his Son in Law against the Emperour 4. If we look to the Histories of the Waldenses these constant Opposers of Antichrist we will find many Instances of their Resistence About the year 1194. very early while Waldo from whom they had their name was alive they began to defend themselves by Armes after the bloody Edict of Aldephonsus King of Arragon an Edict so like to many of ours emitted this day that as it would seem our Enemies have taken the Copy of it so it were very seemly for the people grieved with such Edicts to imitate the Copy of the Waldenses their practice in opposition to them Anno 1488. they resist by Armes Albert de Capitaneis sent by Pope Innocent the 8. in Pragola Frassaniere and through out Piedmont where for the most part the off-spring of the old Waldenses had their residence where very evidently through many successions of ages they shewed themselves to be the true Successors of their Worthy Progenitors valiant for the Truth That 's a famous Instance of their Resistence in opposing vigorously the Lord of Trinity in that same Piedmont at which time they so solemnly asked their Ministers Whether it were not Lawful to defend themselves against his violence Who answered affirmatively And accordingly they did it with wonderful success at that time and many times thereafter Especially it is notour in the memory of this present age how anno 1655. a vigorous defensive war was prosecuted against the D. Savoy by their Captains Gianavel Iahier c. which was espoused by many Protestant Princes And no further gone than the very last year it is known how they resisted the Armes of the Tyger and the French that helped him and that their Simplicity in trusting Popish promises was their ruine 5. If we look over the Histories of the Albigenses we find many Instances of their Defensive Resisting their Oppressing Superiours About anno 1200. They defended themselves at Beziers and Carcasson against the Popes Legat and his Crossed Souldiers under the Conduct first of the Earle of Beziers and then of the Earle of Foix and Earle Remand of Thoulouse and were helped by the English who then possessed Guienne bordering upon Thoulouse which resistence continued several years Afterwards anno 1226. they maintained a Resistence against the King of France 6. In Spain we find the people of Arragon contesting with Alphonso 3 d. and associating themselves together against him And they tell Pedro 3 d. their King that if he would not contain himself within the limits of the Laws they would pursue him by Armes about anno 1283. As also other Spaniards who rose in Armes several times against Pedro the 1 King of Castile 7. It was this which brought the Cantons of Helvetia into this State of freedom wherein they have continued many years For about the year 1260. they levied war against their oppressing nobles And anno 1308. they joined in Covenant to defend themselves against the house of Austria and anno 1315. they renewed it at Brunna in which at length the rest of the Cantons joined and formed themselves into a Common-wealth 8. If we take a glance of the Germans we will find at the very Commencement of the Reformation as soon as they got the name of Protestants they Resisted the Emperour Charles the fifth The Duke of Saxon the Land Grave of Hesse and the City of Magdâ—burgh with Advice of Lawyers concluded That the Laws of the Empire permitted Resistence of the Emperour in some cases that the times were then so dangerous that the very force of Conscience did lead them to Armes and to make a League to defend themselves though Caesar or any in his name should make war against them for since he attempteth to root out Religion and subvert our
eat any food until the evening Ionathan his son tasted but a litle honey and lo he must die Which Saul confirmed with another peremptory Oath God do so to him and more also if he should not die Whereupon the people as resolute on the other hand to save him Resisted the rage of that Ruler and swore as peremptorly that not one hair of his head should fall to the ground So the people rescued Ionathan that he died not 1 Sam. 14. 44 45. Hence If people may Covenant by Oath to Resist the Commands and Rescue a man from a Tyrants Cruelty then it is duty to defend themselves against him The Antecedent is true here 8. Afterwards when the manner of the King presaged by Samuel was verified in Sauls degeneration into many abuses of Government this priviledge of Resistence was not wholly mancipated but maintained by Davids defensive Appearance with his litle Army He took Goliahs sword not for ornament or only to fright Saul but to defend himself with it and was Captain first to four hundred men 1 Sam. 22. 2. had a mind to keep out â—eilah against him with 600 men 1 Sam. 23. 13. and afterwards a great host came to him to Ziklag while he kept himself closs because of Saul the son of Kish 1 Chron. 12. 1. throughout where they left Saul and came helped David against him This is proved at length by Lex Rex quest 32. Pag. 340. 9. The City Abel whither Shebah the Traitor had fled did well to Resist Ioab the Kings General coming to destroy a whole Citie for a Traitors sake and not offering peace to it according to the Law Deut. 20. 10. and defended themselves by Gates Walls not withstanding he had a Commission from the King 2 Sam. 20. And after the Capitulating they are never challenged for Rebellion 10. The ten tribes revolted from the House of David when Rehoboam claimed an Absolute power and would not acquiesce to the peoples just conditions 1 King. 12. 2 Chron. 10. Which is before justified Head. 2. Hence if it be Lawful for a part of the people to shake off the King refuse subjection to him set up a new one when he but resolves to play the Tyrant then it must be duty to resist his violence when he is Tyrannizing But the Antecedent is clear from this Example This is vindicated at more length by Ius Pop. Ch. 3. Pag. 52. 11. The Example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable 2 King. 6. 32. Elisha sat in his house and the Elders with him And the King sent a man before him but ere the Messengers came to him he said to the Elders see how the son of a Murderer hath sent to take away mine head look when the Messenger cometh shut the door and hold him fast at the door is not the sound of his Masters feet behind him Here was violent Resistence resolved against both the man the Master thô the King of the Land for the time And this calling him the son of a Murderer and resisting him is no more extraordinary thô it was an extraordinary mans Act than it is for a plaintiff to lybel a true crime against a wicked person and for an oppressed man to close the door upon a Murderer Lex Rex Quest. 32. Pag. 346. Hence if a King or his Messenger coming to use unjust violence against an innocent Subject be no more to be regarded than a Murderers Emissarie but may be resisted by that innocent Subject Then must a Community of such innocent Subjects defend themselves against a Tyrant or his Emissaries coming against them on such a wicked errand The Antecedent is here clear 12. The City Libnah revolted from under Iehorams Tyrannie 2 Chron. 21. 10. P. Martyr on the place saith they revolted because he endeavoured to compell them to Idolatrie This is justified above Head. 2. Hence if it be Lawful for a part of the people to revolt from a Tyrannical Prince making defection from the true Religion then it is duty to defend themselves against his force The Antecedent is here plain 13. When Athaliah usurped the Monarchy Iehojada the priest strenghtened himself and made a Covenant with the Captains c. to put her doun and set up Ioash 2 King. 11. 2. Chron. 23. and when she came cried Treason Treason they regarded it not but commanded to kill her and all that help her Whence if those that are not Kings may Lawfully kill an Usurpress and all her helpers then may a people resist them But Iehojada though no Magistrate did it 14. The repressing punishing Amaziah the son of Ioash is an undenyable Instance vindicated by Mr Knox see above Per. 3. Pag. 38. After the time that he turned away from following the Lord the people made a Conspiracy against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent slew him there 2 King. 14. 19. 2 Chron 25. 27. Hence a fortiori If people may conspire concur in executing Judgment upon their King turning Idolater Tyrant then much more must they defend themselves against his violence 15. The same power of peoples Resisting Princes was exemplified in Uzziah or Azariah when he would needs be supreme in things Sacred as well as Civil 2 King. 15. 2 Chron. 26. fourscore priests that were valiant men withstood him and thrust him out of the Temple deturbarunt eum saith Vatablus expulerunt eum saith Ar. Mont. vid. Pool Synopss in Loc. See this vindicated by Mr Knox. Per. 3. Pag. 33. above Hence If private Subjects may by force resist and hinder the King from transgressing the Law then must they resist him when forcing them to transgress the Law of God. 16. After the Return from the Babylonish Captivity when the Iewes were setting about the Work of building the Temple which they would do by themselves and not admit of any Association with Malignants upon their sinister misinformation Sycophantick Accusation that they were building the rebellious bad City and would refuse to pay the King toll tribute custome they were straitlie discharged by Artaxerxes to proceed in their Work and the inhibition was execute by force power Ezrah 4. But by the encouragement of the Prophets Haggai Zechariah countermanding the Kings decree they would not be hindered the eye of their God being upon them thô Tatnai the Governour of those parts Shetharboznai and their Companions would have boasted them from it with the Usual Arguments of Malignants who hath commanded yow to do so so Ezrah 5. 3-5 And yet this was before the decree of Darius was obtained in their favours Ezrah 6. Hence if people may prosecute a duty without against a Kings command and before an allowance by Law can be obtained Then may a people resist their Commands and force Used to execute them But here the Antecedent is manifest 17. When Nehemiah came to Ierusalem and invited the Iewes to build up the Walls of the
City they strengthened their hands for that good work against very much opposition And when challenged by Sanâ—allat the Horonite Tobiah the Servant the Ammonite and Geshâ—m the Arabian Great Kings-men all of them who despise â—oasted them what is this that ye do will ye rebeli against the King say they He would not plead Authority thô in the general he had the Kings warrant for it Yet he would not give them any other satisfaction than to intimate whether they had that or not having the Call of God to the Work they would go on in the duty and God would prosper them against their opposition Nehem. 2. 19 20. And accordingly not withstanding of all Scoffs Plots Conspiracies to hinder the building yet they went on and were encouraged to remember the Lord fight for their Brethren c. and to build with weapons in their hands Nâ—h 4. and brought it to an end notwithstanding of all their Practices to fright them from it chap. 6. Hence If neither Challenges of Rebellion nor Practices of Malignant Enemies who pretend Authority nor any discouragements whatsoever should deter people from a duty which they have a Call Capacity from God to prosecute and if they may promove it against all opposition by defensive armes Then when a people are oppressed treated as Rebells for a necessary duty they may must defend themselves and maintain their duty notwithstanding of all Pretences of Authority against them 18. I shall adde one Instance more which is vindicated by jus populi from the Historie of Esther Because Mordecai refused to do homage to a Hangman Haman I should say a cruel Edict was procured from Ahasuerus to destroy all the Jewes written sealled with the Kings ring according to the Laws of the Medes Persians becoming a Law irrevocable irreversible Esther 3. 12 13. Yet the Lords Providence always propitious to His People brought it about so that Haman being hanged Mordecai advanced the Jewes were Called Capacitated as well as Necessitated to resist that armed Authority that decreed to Massacre them and that by the Kings oun Allowance Esther 9. When his former decree drew near to be put in execution in the day that the Enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them it was turned to the Contrary that no man could withstand them Here they had the allowance of Authority to resist Authority And this was not a Gift of a new right by that Grant which they had not before only it was corroborative of their radical right to defend themselves which is not the Donative of Princes And which they had power to exerce use without this thô may be not the same Capacity for the Kings warrand could not make it Lawful in point of Conscience if it had not been so before Hence If people may have the Allowance of well advised Authority to resist the decree force of unlawful Authority then may a people maintain right Authority in defending themselves against the injuries of pretended Authority But by this Instance we see the Jewes had Ahasuerus his Allowance to resist the decree force of his oun ill-advised Authority thô irreversible And hence we see that Distinction in this Point is not groundless between resisting the Authority of Supreme powers and the abuses of the same Secundly We have in the Scripture both tacite express Reproofs for lying by from this duty in the season thereof 1. In Jacobs Swan-Song or Prophetical Testament wherein he foretells what should be the fate future condition of each of the Tribes and what should be remarked in their carriage influencing their after Lot in their generations for which they should be commended or discommended approved or reproved Coming to Issachar he Prophetically exprobates his future Ass-like stupiditie that indulging himself in his lazie ease and lukewarm security he should mancipate himself his Interests into a servile subjection unto his Oppressors Imposâ—itions even when he should be in a Capacity to shake them off and free himself by Resistence Gen. 49. 14 15. Issachar is a strong Ass couching doun between two burdens This is set doun by the Holy Ghost as the brand bane not of the person of Issachar Jacobs Son but of the Tribe to be inured upon them when they should be in such a concition by their oun silliness Hence I argue If the Holy Ghost exprobrate a people for their stupid subjection to prevailing Tyranny when they do not improve their Ability Capacity Right to maintain defend their Liberties Priviledges Then this implies a Commanded duty to defend them according to their Capacity from all unjust invasion But the former is true here Therefore also the later 2. In Deborahs Song after their victorious Resistence the people are severely upbraided for not concurring in that Expedition Iudg. 5. 16 17 23. and Meroz is particularly cursed for not coming to the help of the Lord to the help of the Lord against the Mighty This is Recorded as a resting Reproof against all that will withdraw their helping hand from the Lords people when necessitate to appear in defensive Armes for the preservation of their lives Liberties On the other hand Zebulon Naphtali are commended for jeoparding their lives in the high places of the fields and are approved in that practice of fighting against the Kings of Canaan that then ruled over them vers 18 19. Hence if people be Reproved Cursed for staying at home to look to their oun Interests when others jeopard their lives for their Countries defence freedom from Tyrannie Oppression Then this implies its a duty to concur in so venturing But here Rubeen Dan Asher Meroz are Reproved Cursed for staying at home when Zebulon Naphtali jeoparded their lives c. Ergo. Thirdly we have in the Scriptures many promises of the Lords approving countenancing the duty of Defensive Armes even against their Oppressing Rulers 1. In that forecited Testament of the Patriarch Iacob in that part of it which concerns Gad he Prophecies that Tribe should have a lot in the world answering his name and be engaged in many Conflicts with Oppressing Dominators who at first should prevail over him but at length God should so bless his endeavours to free himself from their oppressions that he should overcome There is an excellent Elegancy in the Original answering to the Etymology of the name Gad which signifies a Troop reading thus in the Hebrew Gad a Troop shall overtroup him but he shall ouertroup them at the last Gen. 49. 19. And Moses homologating the same Testimony in his blessing the Tribes before his death shewes that he should make a very forcible successful Resistence and should execute the Justice of the Lord over his Oppressors Deut. 33. 20. 21. Wherein is implied a promise of Resistence to be made against Oppressing Conquerours who should acquire the supreme rule over them for a
stoping the Career of their Murders in a time of real extreame necessity the matter of the action being unquestionably Lawful their ends intentions really good commendable there being also a deficiency of others to do the work and themselves in some probable Capacity for it See Ius Popul Cap. 20. Pag. 410. Neither can it be denyed but true zeal may sometimes incite people to such exploits for the preservation of Religion Liberty their oun lives and Brethren all like to be destroyed by the impunity of beasts of prey This will be found very consistent with a Gospel Spirit And though this Principle be asserted and also put in practice all persons notwithstanding thereof would have sufficient securitie for their life except such as hath really forefeited their lives by all Law of God man. Those that are led by Impulses may pretend the imitation of extraordinary examples and abuse them yet hence it will not follow that in no case these extraordinary Examples may be imitated Shall the examples of good Magistrats executing Justice on Idolaters Murderers be altogether unimitable because Tyrants abuse them in persecuting the innocent If this arguing were good it would make all vertuous Actions in the world unimitable for these may be abused by pretenders See Ius Popul ubi supra Pag. 412. But it cannot be charged upon the Sufferers upon this head that they had nothing to give as the reasons of their Actions but pretexts of Enthusiasmes 5. Thô a man be really so Criminal as thaâ— he deserves death by the Law of God man yet it may be murder to kill him if we do not certainly know it and can prove it and convict him of it upon Tryal for no man must be killed indictâ or incognitâ causâ Thus even Magistrats may Murder Murderers when they proceed against them without probation or cognition according to Law far more private persons Thus the Abiezrites would have murdered Gideon not only unjustly for his duty of throwing doun the Altar of Baal but illegally because they would had him brought out that he might die without any further Tryal Iudg. 6. 29 30. So likewise the Iewes that banded bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul before he was tried would have Murdered him not only unjustly for his duty but illegally before he was tried Act. 23. 12. But this doth not condemn the Actions of those Sufferers in maintaining the necessary execution of Judgement upon persons who are Notorious Murderers yea professing a trade and prosecuting habitually a tract of continued Murdering the people of the Lord. 6. Thô it should be certainly known and sufficiently proven that a man is a Murderer c. Yet it were Murder for an inferiour under a relation of subjection to him to kill him as long as that subjection were acknowledged for whensoever the common mutual right or relation either Natural Moral Civil or Religious to the prejudice or scandal of the Church or State or particular persons is broken by killing any person that is Murder thô the person killed deserve to die As if a Subject should kill an acknowled King a Son by Nature or in Law should kill his Natural or legal father a Servant should kill his Master breaking these relations while their right tye were acknowledged as some of them must still be acknowledged as long as the Correlates continue in being to wit that of a father is not broken by his becoming a Murderer and to the danger detriment scandal of the Church State That were properly Assassination for Assassines are they who being subject to others either out of their oun head for their oun ends or by command of their Superiours kill their Superiours or such as they command them to kill as Alstedius describes them Theolog. Cas. cap. 18. de homicid reg 55. Therefore David would not kill Saul because he acknowledged him to be the Lords Anointed to whom he was under a relation of subjection and because he was his Master and Father in Law And because it would have tended to the hurt of the Kingdom and involved it in Combustions Contentions about the succession and prejudged his oun right as well as to the scandal of the people of God thô Saul deserved otherwise to be capitally punished So Ishbosheth was killed by Baanah Rehab 2 Sam. 4. 7. So Iozachar Iehozabad who killed Ioash 2 King. 12. 21. were punished as Murderers chap. 14. 6. because they were his servants and did assassinate him to whom they were subject So the servants of Amon were punished by the people as Conspirators against their King Master 2 King. 21. 23 24. though Amon deserved to have been punished as well as Amaziah was Hence generally it is observed by some that thô right be given to equals or Superiours to bring their nearest relations to condign punishment when they turn entycers to Idolatry Deut. 13. 6. Yet no right or jus upon any cause or occasion whatsoever is given to inferiours as Children c. to punish their fathers See Pool Synop. Critie in Locum However it be this cannot condemn the taking off of Notorious Murderers by the hand of such as were no way subject nor related to them but as enemies who in extreame necessity executed righteous Judgement upon them without prejudice of the true necessary chief good of the Church Commonwealth or of any particular persons just right security as Napthali qualifies it Pag. 22. 23. Prior edit 7. Thô the matter of the Action were just and the Murderer such a person as we might punish without any breach of relative obligations or duties Yet the manner may aggravate it to some degree of Murder if it be done Secretly when it may be execute publickly or suddenly precipitantly when it may be done deliberately without rushing upon such an Action or hurrying the Murderer to eternity as this also might have had some weight with David not to murder Saul secretly suddenly in the Cave or when he was sleeping So Ishbosheth and Ioâ—sh and Amoa were murdered Or if it be done subtilly when it may be performed in more plain fair dealing or teacherously under colour of friendship or cruelly without regard to humanity and especially when the Actors are at peace with the person whose blood they shed as Ioab shed the blood of war in peace 1 King. 2. 5. in killing Abner Amasa so craftily cruelly and Absalom made his servants Assassinate Amnon 2 Sam 13. 28 29. But this cannot be charged upon them who executed righteous Judgement as publickly deliberately and calmely as the extraordinary exigence of pressing necessity in extremity of danger could allow upon notorious Murderers with whom they were in open and avowed terms of hostility 8. Thô the manner also be inculpable yet if the principle and motive of killing even those that deserve to die be out of malice hatred rage or revenge for private
couragious in behalf of God Religion Sozom. Hist. Lib. 6. cap. 2. Barclaâ—us a great Royalist saith Tyrannos ut hostes publâ—s non solum ab universo populo sed a singulis etiam impeti caedique jure optimo posse tota Antiquitas ceasuit That Tyrants as publick Enemies may be attacqued and Lawfully slain not only by all the people but every one of them all Antiquity judged Grotiue de jure beâ—i Lib. 1. cap. 4. saith 〈◊〉 cui juris gentium requisita non adsint imperium arripuerit â—â—que pactio uâ—a sequuta sit aut fides illi data sed sola vi reâ—â—â—tur possessio videtur manere bellis jus ac proinde 〈◊〉 eum 〈◊〉 quod in hostem licet qui a quolibet etiam priâ—ato jure poâ—est interfici Yea King Iames the 6. in his Râ—mâ—â—strancs for the right of Kings sayes The publick Laws makes it Lawful and free for any private person to enterprize against an Usurper Divines say the same Chamier Tom. 2. Lib. 15. cap. 12. Sect. 19. Cives omnes jus habent insurgendi contra Tyrannos Aisted Theolog. Gas. cap. 17. reg 9. pag. 321. Tyrannum absque Titulo qui est invasor quilibet pr. vatus potest debet â— medio tollere quia patriam hostiliter invadit And cap. 18. reg 14. pag. 332. Licitum est privato cuivis occidere Tyrannum qui injuste invadit Dominium But Dr Ames de Consâ—tentia Lib. 5. cap. 31. de homicidio quest 4. asserts all that is here pleaded for in terminis Quest. 4. An aliquando licet occidere hominem Authoritate privata Resp. Aliquando licet occidere nulla publica Cognitione precedente sed tum solum quando causa evidenter postulat ut hoc siat Authoritas publica non potest implorari In isthoc enim casu privatus publice Minister constituitur tam nâ—â—tu Dei quam omnium hominum consensu He propones the question If sometimes it be Lawful to kill a man by private Authority He answers It is sometimes Lawful to kill another without publick Cognition proceeding but then only when the cause doth evidently require it that it be done and publick Authority cannot be implored for in that case any private man is constitute in stead of a publick Minister of Justice both by Gods allowance and by the consent of all men These propositions carry such evidence in them that the Authors thought it superfluous to confirme them and sufficient to affirme them And from any reason that can be adduced to prove any of these Assertions it will be as evident that this Truth I plead for is thereby confirmed as that it self is thereby strengthened For it will follow natively if Tyrants and Tyrants sine titulo be to be thus dealt with then the Monsters of whom the question is those Notorious Incendiaries and Murdering publick Enemies are also to be so served For either these Authors assert the Lawfulness of so treating Tyrants sine titulo because they are Tyrants or because they want a title If the first be said Then all Tyrants are to be so served and reason would say and Royalists will subscribe if Tyrants that call themselves Kings may be so animadverted upon because of their perniciousness to the Common-wealth by their Usurped Authority then the subordinate firebrands that are tho immediate instruments of that destruction the inferior emissaries that act it and actually accomplish it in Murdering innocent people may be so treated for their persons are not more sacred than the other nor more impunible If the second be said it is Lawful to kill them because they want a title Then it is either because they want a pretended title or because they want a real Lawful one The Latter is as good as none and it is proved Head. 2. Arg. 7. that no Tyrants can have any The former can not be said for all Tyrants will pretend some at least before they be killed 3. But thô some of these Great Authors neither give their reasons for what they assert nor do they extend it to all Tyrants that Tyrannise by virtue of their pretended Authority yet it will not be difficult to prove that all great small that murder destroy and Tyrannise over poor people are to be punished though they pretend Authority for what they do And hence If all Tyrants Murderers Destroyers of mankind ought to be punished then when it cannot be done by publick Authority it may be done by private But all Tyrants Murderers Destroyers of mankind ought to be punished Ergo The Minor is manifest from the General Commands of shedding the blood of every man that shedsâ— it Gen. 9. 6. of puting to death whosoever killeth any person Numb 35. 30 31. of respecting no mans person in Iudgement Deut. 1. 17. and universally all penal Laws are general without exception of any for under that reduplication of criminal transgressing those Laws under that general Sanction they are to be judged which admits of no partial respect for if the greatest of men be Murderers they are not to be considered as great but as Murderers just as the meanest are not to be considered as mean or poor but as Murderers But I need not insist on this being sufficiently proved Head. 2. Arg. 9. And through out that Head proving that Tyrants can have no Authority And if they have no Authority then Authority which they have not cannot exempt them from punishment The Connexion of the Major Proposition may be thus urged When this Judgement cannot be executed by publick Authority either it must be done by private Authority in case of extreame necessity or not at all for there is no Medium but either to do it by publick Authority or private If not at all Then the Land must remain still defiled with blood and cannot be cleansed Numb 35. 33. Then the fierce anger of the Lord cannot be averted Numb 25. 4. for without this executing of Judgement He will not turn it away Ier. 5. 1. Then must Murderers be encouraged by their impunity to make havock of all according to their Lust besides that poor Handful who cannot eschape being their prey as their Case is circumstantiate Besides this is point blank contrary to these General Commands which say peremptorely The Murderer shall be put to death but this supposed Case when publick Authority will not or cannot put them to death sayes they shall not be put to death In this Case then I demand whether their impunity is necessary because they must not be put to death or because they cannot be put to death To say the Latter were an untruth for private persons can do it when they get access which is possible If the former then it is clearly contradictory to the Commands which say they must be put to death excepting no Case but when they cannot be put to death If it be said they must not be put to death because the Law obliges only publick