Chapter XXVIII: Part III: The Present testimony stated and vindicated in its principal heads (17)

8. As for the circumstance of the time, that is specially alledged to be unseasonable, especially when there is a little breathing, and some relaxation from the heat of persecution, to break the peace, and awaken sleeping dogs by such irritating courses, is thought not consistent with christian prudence. This is the old pretence of them that were at ease, and preferred that to duty. But as we know no peace at this time, but a peace of confederacy with the enemies of God, which we desire not to partake of, and know of no relaxation of persecution against such as continue to witness against them; so let what hath been said above in the third hypothesis, of the necessity of publicness in our meetings at such a time as this is, be considered; and let the scripture be consulted, and it will appear, not only that in preaching the gospel there must be a witness and testimony kept up, (as is proved above) and not only that ministers preach the word, and be instant in season and out of season, 2 Tim. iv. 2. But that such a time, as this, is the very season of a testimony. For, in the scripture, we find, that testimonies are to be given in these seasons especially, 1. When the enemies of God, beginning to relent from their stiffness and severity, would compound with his witnesses, and give them some liberty, but not total; as Pharaoh would let the children of Israel go, but stay their flocks; and now our Pharaoh will give some liberty to serve God, but with a reservation of that part of the matter of it, that nothing be said to alienate the hearts of the subjects from his arbitrary government. But Moses thought it then a season to testify (though the bondage of the people should be thereby continued) that there should not a hoof be left behind; for, says he, we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither, Exod. x. 24, 25, 26. So must we testify for every hoof of the interest of Christ this day. 2. When these is a toleration of idolatry, and confederacy with idolaters, and suspending the execution of penal laws against them, or pardoning of those that should be punished: in such a season as this, that messenger, that came from Gilgal, gave his testimony as Bochim against their toleration of idolatrous altars, and confederacy with the Canaanites, Judg. ii. 1, 2. He is called an angel indeed, but he was only such an one as ministers are, who are called so, Rev. ii. 1. for heavenly spirits have brought a heavenly message to particular persons, but never to the whole people; the Lord hath committed such a treasure to earthern vessels, 2 Cor. iv. 7. and this came from Gilgal, not from heaven: so the man of God testified against Eli, for his toleration of wicked priests, though they were his own sons, 1 Sam ii. 27, &c. So Samuel witnessed against Saul, for his toleration and indemnity granted to Agag, 1 Sam. xv. 23. So the prophet against Ahab, for sparing Benhadad, 1 Kings xx. 42. The angel of Ephesus is commended for this, and he of Pergamos, and he of Thyatira is condemned, for omitting this testimony, and allowing a toleration of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, Rev. ii. 2, 14, 20. In such a case of universal compliance with these things, and the peoples indulging themselves under the shadow of the protection of such a confederacy, the servants of the Lord that fear him must not say a confederacy, though they should be accounted for signs and wonders in Israel, Isa. viii. 12, 13, 18. But now idolatrous mass-altars are set up, none thrown down, penal statutes against papists are stopt and disabled, and the generality of ministers are congratulating, and saying a confederacy in their addresses for the same. 3. When the universal apostasy is come to such a height, that error is prevailing, and few siding themselves in an avowed opposition against it; as Elijah chose that time, when the people were halting between two opinions, 1 Kings xviii. 21. And generally all the prophets and servants of Christ, consulted alway the peoples necessity for the timing of their testimonies: and was there ever greater necessity than now, when popery is coming in like a flood? 4. When wicked men are chief in power; as when Haman was promoted. Mordecai would not give him one bow, though all the people of God should be endangered by such a provocation, Esther iii. 2. And when tyrants and usurpers are set up without the Lord's approbation, then they that have the Lord's trumpet should set it to their mouth, Hos. viii. 1, 4. Is not this the case now? 5. When, upon the account of this their testimony, the Lord's people are in greater danger, and enemies design to massacre them, then, if they altogether hold their peace at such a time, there shall enlargement and deliverance, arise another way, but they and their father's house shall be destroyed, who are silent then as Mordecai said to Esther, Esth. iv. 11. And who knows not the cruel designs of the papists now? 6. When iniquity is universally abounding, and hypocrisy among professors, then the servants of the Lord must cry aloud and not spare, Isa. lviii. 1. as the case is this day. 7. When the concern of truth, and the glory of God, is not so illustriously vindicated as he gives us to expect it shall be; then the watchmen must not hold their peace, and they that make mention of the name of the Lord must not keep silence, Isa. lxii. 6, 7. especially when his name and glory is blasphemed, baffled, and affronted, as at this day with a witness. 8. When ministers generally are involved in a course of defection, and do not give faithful warning, but daub over the peoples and their own defections; then the prophets must prophesy against the prophets, Ezek. xiii. 2, 10. &c. As, alas! this day there is a necessity for it. 9. When public worship is interdicted by law, as it was by that edict prohibiting public prayer for 30 days in Daniel's time: they could not interdict all prayer to God; for they could forbid nothing by that law, but that which they might hinder and punish for contraveening; but mental prayer at least could not be so restrained. And certain it is, they intended only such prayer should be discharged as might discover Daniel: but might not the wisdom of Daniel have eluded this interdiction, by praying only secretly or mentally? No, whatever carnal wisdom might dictate, his honesty did oblige him in that case of confession, when he knew the writing was signed, to go into his house, and to open his windows, and to kneel upon his knees three times a day,----as he did aforetime, Dan. vi. 10. Now, what reason can be given for his opening his windows? Was it only to let in the air? or was it to see Jerusalem out at these windows? The temple he could look toward, as well when they were shut. No other reason can be assigned, but that it was necessary then to avouch the testimony for that indispensible duty then interdicted. And is not public preaching indispensible duty too? which is declared criminal, except it be confined to the mode their wicked law tolerates; which we can no more homologate, than omit the duty. 10. When it is an evil time, the evil of sin is incumbent, and the evil of wrath is impendent over a land; then the lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy? Amos iii. 8. There is no contradiction here to that word, which hath been miserably perverted in our day, to palliate sinful silence of time-servers, Amos v. 13. The prudent shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time: whereby we cannot understand a wylie withdrawing our witness against the time's evils: for there they are commanded to bestir themselves actively, in seeking good, hating the evil, loving the good, and establishing judgment in the gate, ver. 14, 15. but we understand by it a submissive silence to God, without fretting (according to that word, Jer. viii. 14. For the Lord our God hath put us to silence,----and Mic. vii. 9.) Calvin upon the place expounds it, 'The prudent shall be affrighted at the terrible vengeance of God; or they shall be compelled to silence, not willingly (for that were unworthy of men of courage to be silent at such wickedness) but, by the force of tyrants, giving them no leave to speak.' Sure then this is such a time, wherein it is prudence to be silent to God, but not to be silent for God, but to give public witness against the evils of sin abounding, and public warning of the evils of punishment imminent. 11. Then is the season of it, when worldly wisdom thinks it unseasonable, when men cannot endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and turn away their ears from the truth; then to preach the word, and be instant is indeed in itself seasonable, because profitable and necessary; but it is out of season as to the preachers or hearers external interest, and in the esteem of worldly wiselings, 2 Tim. iv. 2, 3, 4. See Pool's Synops. Critic. in Locum. So in our day, men cannot endure free and faithful dealing against the sins of the times, but would have smooth things and deceits spoken unto them; like those, Isa. xxx. 10. And nothing can be more offensive, than to speak plainly (so as to give every thing its own name) either of the sins of the times, or of the snares of the times, or of the miseries and evils of the times, or of the duties of the times, or of the dangers, and the present crisis of the times: which no faithful minister can forbear. Therefore so much the more is it seasonable, that it is generally thought unseasonable. 12. In a word, whenever the testimony of the church, or any part of it, is opposed and suppressed; then is the season to keep it, and contend for it, and to hold it fast, as our crown, Rev. iii. 10, 11. It must be then a word spoken in due season, and good and necessary (Prov. xv. 23.) at this time, to give a public testimony against all wrongs done to our blessed Lord Jesus, all the encroachments upon his prerogatives, all the invasions of the church's privileges, all the overturnings of our covenanted reformation, and this openly designed introduction of popery and slavery. But now how shall this testimony be given by us conveniently? Or how can it be given at all, at this time, in our circumstances, so as both the matter and manner of it may be a most significant witness bearing to the merit of it, except we go to the fields? Who can witness significantly against popery and tyranny, and all the evils to be spoken against this day, under the protection of a papist and tyrant, as house-meetings under the covert of this toleration are stated? For if these meetings be private and secret, then the testimony is not known; if they be public, then they are exposed to a prey. Now, by all these general hypotheses, it is already in some measure evident, that field meetings are very expedient. But I shall add some particular considerations, to inculcate the same more closely.

In the third place, besides what is said, To clear the lawfulness and necessity of a public testimony against the evils of the present time, some considerations may be added to prove the expediency of this way and manner of giving a testimony, by maintaining held meetings in our present circumstances,

1. The keeping of field meetings now, is not only most convenient for testifying, but a very significant testimony in itself, against this popish toleration; the wickedness of whole spring and original, and of its nature and terms, channel and conveyance, end and design, is shewed in the historical narrative thereof, and cannot be denied by any presbyterian, whose constant principle is that there should be no toleration of popery, idolatry, or heresy, in this reformed and covenanted church. Reason and religion both will conclude, that this is to be witnessed against, by all that will adhere to the cause of reformation overturned hereby, and resolve to stand in the gap against popery, to be introduced hereby, and that will approve themselves as honest patriots in defending the laws and liberties of the country subverted hereby. And besides, if it be considered with respect to the granter; it is palpable his design is to introduce popery, and advance tyranny, which can be hid from none that accept it, the effectuating whereof hath a necessary and inseparable connexion with the acceptance of the liberty; and is so far from being avertible by the accepters, that it is chiefly promoted by their acceptance, and the design of it is to lay them by from all opposition thereto. If it be considered with relation to the accepters, it is plain it must be taken as it is given, and received as it is conveyed, from its fountain of absolute power, through a channel of an arbitrary law disabling and religion dishonouring toleration, which is always evil; and with consent to the sinful impositions, with which it is tendered; concerning and affecting the doctrine of ministers, that they shall preach nothing which may alienate the subjects from the government: against all which there is no access for a protestation, confident with the improvement of the liberty, for it is granted and accepted on these very terms; that there shall be no protestation; for if there be, that will be found an alienating of the hearts of the subjects from the government, which, by that protestation, will be reflected upon. If it be considered with respect to the addressers for it, who formally say a confederacy with, and congratulate the tolerator for his toleration, and all the mischiefs he is machinating and effectuating thereby: then seeing they have presumptuously taking upon them to send it in the name of all presbyterians, it concerns all honest men, zealous Christians, and faithful ministers of that persuasion and denomination, in honour and conscience, to declare to the world by some public testimony, that they are not consenters to that sinful, shameful, and scandalous conspiracy, nor of the corporation of these flattering addresses who have betrayed the cause; with which all will be interpreted consenters, that are not contradicters. Further this toleration is sinful as is cleared above, Period 6. And to accept of it is contrary to our solemn covenants and engagements, where we are bound to extirpate popery, preserve the reformation, defend our liberties, and never to accept of a toleration eversive of all these precious interests we are sworn to maintain. And it is heinously scandalous, being, in effect, a succumbing at length, and yielding up the cause, which hath been so long controverted, and so long contended for; at least an appearance of ceding and lying by from contending for the interests of Christ, of condemning our former wrestlings for the same, of purchasing a liberty to ourselves at the rate of burying the testimony in bondage and oblivion; of hardening and confirming open adversaries in their wicked invasions on our religion, laws, and liberties; of being weary of the cross of Christ, that we would fain have ease upon any terms, and of weakening the hands, yea, condemning the practice and peremptoriness of these that are exempted from the benefit, or rather the snare of it, and suffer when others are at ease. It is also attended with many inconveniences; for either such as preach under the covert of it, must forbear declaring some part of the counsel of God, and give no testimony seasonable this day: or else if they do, they will soon be discovered, and made a prey. Hence, seeing there must be a testimony against this toleration, it is certainly most expedient to give it there, where the meeting is without the reach and bounds of it, and interdicted by the same proclamation that tenders it, and where the very gathering in such places is a testimony against it: for to preach in houses constantly and leave the fields, would now be interpreted and homologating the toleration that commands preaching to be restricted; especially when an address is made in name of all that accept the benefit of it, from which odium we could not vindicate ourselves, if we should so make use of it.

2. The keeping of field meetings now is a testimony against that wicked law that discharges them, and interdicts them as criminal; yea, in some respect a case of confession; for if Daniel's case, when public prayer was discharged under pain of death, was a case of confession, as all grant; then must also our case be, when public preaching is discharged under the same penalty; for it is equivalent to an universal discharge of all public preaching, when the manner of it is discharged, which we can only have with freedom and safety in way of public testimony, which can be none other in our circumstances but in the fields. Again, if the law be wicked that discharges them, as certainly it is, and is demonstrated from what is said already, then it must be sin to obey it; but it were an obeying of it to quit the fields.

3. The keeping of field meetings now is a testimony against tyranny and usurpation, encroaching upon our religion, laws, and liberties, and presuming to restrict and bound the exercise of the ministerial function, and discharge it altogether, except it be modified according to the circumstances prescribed by a wicked law, which cannot be allowed as competent to any man whose authority is not acknowledged, for reasons given in Head 2. Therefore, though there were no more, this is sufficient to call all ministers to give testimony against such an usurpation, by refusing to obey any such act, and preaching where God giveth a call. For otherwise, to submit to it, would be an acknowledging of his magistratical power to discharge these meetings, and to give forth sentences against faithful ministers.

4. The keeping of field meetings now is a testimony for the honour, headship, and princely prerogative of Jesus Christ, which hath been the great word of his patience in Scotland, and by an unparalleled insolence encroached upon by usurpers in our day, and in effect, denied by such as took a new holding for the exercise of their ministry from their usurped power. Now in these meetings, there is a practical declaration of their holding their ministry, and the exercise thereof from Christ alone, without any dependence upon, subordination to, or licence and warrant from his usurping enemies; and that they may and will preach in public, without authority from them. If then it be lawful and expedient to maintain the interests of a king of clay against an usurper; then much more must it be lawful and expedient, to maintain the quarrel of the King of kings, when wicked men would banish him and his interests out of the kingdom by their tyrannical cruelty, and cruel mercy of a destructive toleration.

5. The keeping of field meetings now is a testimony for the gospel and the ministry thereof; which is always the dearest and nearest privilege of Christians, and in the present circumstances, when our lives and our all are embarked in the same bottom with it, and sought to be destroyed together with it, by a party conspiring against Christ, it is necessary duty to defend both by resisting their unjust violence; especially when religion and the gospel is one and the chief of our fundamental land rights, and the cardinal condition of the established policy, upon which we can only own men for magistrates by the law of the land: and this testimony, by defence of the gospel and of our own lives, cannot be given expediently any where but in the fields. It is also a testimony for the freedom and authority of the gospel ministry, and for their holding their unremoveable relation to the church of Scotland, which is infringed by these tyrannical acts, and maintained by these exercises; which is a privilege to be contended for, above and beyond all other that can be contended for or defended, especially to be maintained again those that have no power or authority to take it away. There will no man quit any of his goods upon a sentence coming from an incompetent judge: and shall ministers or people be hectored or fooled from such a privilege by them that have no such power.

6. The keeping of field meetings now is a testimony for our covenants, the owning whereof is declared criminal by that same law that discharges these meetings; in which we are sworn to preserve the reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, and to defend all the church's liberties, and to oppose all their opposites, and endeavour their extirpation: And in the solemn acknowledgment of sins and engagements to duties, we are sworn, Because many have of late laboured to supplant the liberties of the kirk, to maintain and defend the kirk of Scotland, in all her liberties and privileges, against all who shall oppose and undermine the same, or encroach thereupon, under any pretext whatsoever. Since then, the owning of these meetings and the covenants are both discharged together, and the owning of the covenant does oblige to a public opposition against the dischargers, and an avowed maintenance of the church's privileges, whereof this is, in a manner, the only and chief liberty now left to be maintained, to keep meetings where we may testify against them, without dependence on their toleration; it must follow, that these meetings are to be maintained, which only can be in the fields, with conveniency.

7. To give over these field meetings now, would be an hardening and encouraging of these enemies in their wicked design of banishing all these meetings out of the land; which manifestly would be defeat, by a resolute refusal of all to submit to their discharging of them; and they that do submit, and give them over, do evidently contribute to the effectuating that wicked design, which is of that sort, but further is intended to extirpate all meetings for gospel ordinances, in which there is any testimony against them. To comply therefore with such a forbearance of them at this time, would lay a stone of stumbling before them, to encourage them in these their designs: when they should see their contrivance so universally complied with, wherein they might boast that at length they had prevailed, to put quite away that eye-sore of theirs, field meetings.

8. To give over these field meetings now, were a stumbling to the poor ignorant people; who might think, that now it appears that work was but of men, and so hath come to naught; and would look upon it as an evidence of fainting, and succumbing at last in the matter of the testimony, as being quite overcome; and that indeed all have embraced and accepted this present toleration, and were all alike sleeping under the shade, and eating the fruits of such a bramble.

9. Finally, To give over these field meetings now, would be very scandalous to the posterity, and to strangers, who shall read the history of our church, to find, that as prelacy came in without a joint witness, and the monstrous, blasphemous, and sacrilegious supremacy was erected, without a testimony in its season; so black popery itself, and tyranny, was introduced by a toleration, which laid them all by from a testimony against these; who formerly had valiantly, resolutely, and faithfully contended against all lesser corruptions; but at last, when that came, and stricter prohibitions of all public meetings, but under the covert thereof, were emitted, then all were persuaded to comply with that course. How astonishing would it be to read, that all these contendings, sealed with so much precious blood, should come to such a pitiful period! But I hasten to the next, which is the second positive ground of suffering.

HEAD V.

_The Principle of, and Testimony for, Defensive Arms Vindicated._

This truth is of that sort, that can hardly be illustrated by demonstration; not for the darkness thereof, but for its self-evidencing clearness, being scarcely capable of any further elucidation, than what is offered to the rational understanding by its simple proposition. As first principles can hardly be proven because they need no probation, and cannot be made clearer than they are, and such as cannot consent to them, are incapable of conceiving any probation of them; so this truth of self preservation being lawful, because it is congenite with and irradicated in every nature, that hath a self which it can preserve, can scarcely be more illustrated that it may do so, than that it can do so. And therefore to all who have a true respect to their own, as well as a due concern in the interest of mankind, and zeal for the interest of Christ, it might seem superfluous to make a doubt or debate of this: were it not that a generation of men is now prevailing, that are as great monsters in nature, as they are malignant in religion, and as great perverters of the law of nature, as they are subverters of municipal laws, and everters of the laws of God: who for owning this principle, as well as using the practice of defensive resistance for self-preservation against tyrannical violence, have set up such monuments of rage and cruelty, in the murder of many innocent people, as was never read nor heard of before. It hath been indeed the practice of all nations in the world, and the greatest of men have maintained this principle in all ages; but the bare asserting the principle, when extorted by severe inquisitions, was never a cause of taking the lives of any, before this was imposed on the poor sufferers in Scotland, to give their judgment, whether or not such appearances for defence (as the tyranny of rulers had forced people to) were rebellion, and a sin against God, which they could not in conscience assert; and therefore, though many that have suffered upon this head, have been as free of the practice of such resistance as any; yet because they would not condemn the principle, they have been criminally processed, arraigned, and condemned to the death. And against this truth they have been observed to have a special kind of indignation, either because the light of it, which cannot be hid, hath some heat with it to scorch them; or because they fear the impression of this in the hearts of people more than others, knowing that they deserve the 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 destroys 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 method of defending them. What practices of this kind hath been, and what were the occasions inducing, or rather enforcing to these defensive resistances, 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 and liberty; and in special manner the magistrates 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 and apostasy, overturned the whole covenanted work of reformation; and thereby not only encroached upon the interest of Christ and the church's privileges, but subverted the fundamental constitution of the kingdom's government, and pressed all to a submission unto, and compliance with that tyranny and apostasy, erected upon the ruins thereof; yet the godly and faithful in the land, sensible of the indispensible obligation of these covenants, resolved to adhere thereunto, and suffered long patiently for adherence unto the same, until being quite wearied by a continued tract of tyrannical oppressions, arbitrarily enacted by wicked laws, and illegally executed against their own 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 and remonstrances of grievances being declared seditious and treasonable, and interdicted as such: they were forced to betake themselves to this last remedy of defensive resistance, intending only the preservation of their lives, religion and liberties; which many times hath been blessed with success, and therefore zealously contended for, as an inadmissible privilege, by all well affected to the cause of Christ, and interest of their country, because they found it always 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 king's interests, than zealous for Christ's and the country's; for which the Lord in his holy jealousy discountenanced many repeated endeavours of this nature, cutting us off, and putting 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 and testimonies, but prosecute the practice in carrying arms, and making use of them in the defence of the gospel and of themselves, at field meetings; which were always successfully prosperous, by the power and presence of God. This question is sufficiently discussed, by our famous and learned invincible patrons and champions for this excellent privilege of mankind, the unanswerable authors of Lex Rex, the Apologetical Relation, Naphtali, and Jus populi vindicatum. But because it is easy to add to what is found, I shall subjoin my mite; and their arguments being various and voluminously 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 resistance against the abuse of a lawful power, when there is no access to maintain religion and liberty any other way; which does not come up so close to our case, nor is an antithesis to the assertions of our adversaries, who say, that it is no ways lawful, in any case, or upon any pretence whatsoever, to resist the sovereign power of a nation, in whomsoever it be resident, or which way soever it be erected. I shall consider it more complexly and extensively, and plead both for resistance against the abuse of a lawful power, and against the use and 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 and necessity of the duty of resisting this tyrannical power, whensoever we are in a capacity, if we would not be found treacherous covenant-breakers, and 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 and implacable enemy, and so bring on us the curse of Meroz, and the curse of our brethren's 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 and liberty, whereof we were by the valour of our forefathers put and left in possession. I shall not therefore restrict myself to the state of the question, as propounded ordinarily, to wit, Whether or not, when a covenanted king doth really injure, oppress and invade his subjects civil and religious rights, or unavoidably threatens to deprive their dearest and 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, and in that case, may a community of these subjects defend themselves, and their religion and liberties, by arms, in resisting his bloody emissaries? But, to bring it home to our present case, and answer the laxness of the adversaries position of the uncontroulableness of every one that wears a crown, I shall state it thus: Whether or not is it a 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 and liberties, to resist and repress the usurpation and tyranny of prevailing dominators, using or abusing their power for subverting religion, invading the liberties, and overturning the fundamental 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 justifiableness 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. x. 20. but a person clothed therewith, abusing his power, may be in so far resisted. But tyrants, or magistrates turning tyrants, are not God's 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 Eccl. viii. 2-4. "I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment," &c. is answered on Head II. and is to be understood only of the lawful commands of lawful kings.

2. Rebellion is a damnable sin, except where the word is taken in a lax sense, as Israel is said to have rebelled against Rehoboam, and Hezekiah against Sennacherib, which was a good rebellion, and clear duty, being taken there for resistance and revolt. In that sense indeed some of our risings in arms might be called rebellion; for it is lawful to rebel against tyrants. But because the word is usually taken in an evil sense, therefore it would have been offensive to acknowledge that before the inquisitors, except it had been explained. But rebellion against lawful magistrates, is a damnable sin, exemplarily punished in Korah and his company, who rebelled against Moses; and in Sheba and Absalom, who rebelled against David. For to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity, Prov. xvii. 26. and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. xiii. 2. So that this objection brought from this place, as if the apostle were commanding their subjection without resistance to Nero, and such tyrants; as it is very impertinent, it is fully answered above, Head II. Here it will be sufficient to reply, 1. He is hereby vindicating Christianity from that reproach, of casting off or refusing subjection to magistrates for conscience sake in general. And it is very considerable, what Buchanan says in his book de juri 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, though they should not understand the duty of magistrates; 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 denied that he should be owned 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 and qualified here, being powers ordained of God, terrors to evil works, ministers of God for good. Yea, but say prelates, 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 and emperors 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 emperors at Rome to be subject to: if he meant the Roman emperor, he would have designed him in the singular number. All the reasons of the text agree to inferior judges also, for they are ordained of God, they are called rulers in scripture, and God's ministers, revengers by office, who judge not for man, but for the Lord: and inferior magistrates also are not to be resisted, when doing their duty, 1 Pet. ii. 13. yet all will grant, when they go beyond their bounds, and turn little tyrants, they may be withstood. 4. He does not speak of Nero, concerning whom it cannot be proven, that at this time he had the soverereign power as the learned Mr. Prin shews: 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 by right, nor as he was in deed. 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 contraordinateness here condemned. Now, subjection takes in all the duties we owe to magistrates, and resistance 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 lays on that yoke, and in effect says, he will have us to lie under it a while, as he commanded the Jews to be subject to Nebuchadnezzar: of which passage, adduced to prove subjection to tyrants universally, Buchanan, as above, infers, that if all tyrants be to be subjected to, because God by his prophet commanded his people to be subject to one tyrant; then it must be likewise concluded, that all tyrants ought, to be killed, because Ahab's house was commanded to be destroyed by Jehu. But passive subjection, when people are not in capacity to resist, is necessary. I do not say passive obedience, which is a mere chimera, 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 own being: for every natural thing must strive to preserve itself 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 and piety; yea, all war without authority. Yet, when all authority of magistrates, supreme and subordinate, is perverted and abused, contrary to the ends thereof, to the oppressing of the people, and overturning of their laws and liberties, people must not suspend their resistance upon the concurrence of men of authority, and forbear the duty in case of necessity, because they have not the peers or nobles 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 parliaments to espouse their quarrel. This is cleared above, Head 2. yet here I shall add, 1. The people have this privilege of nature, to defend themselves and their rights and liberties, as well as peers; and had it, before they erected and constituted peers or nobles. There is no distinction of quality in interests of nature, though there be in civil order: but self defence is not an act of civil order. In such interests, people must not depend upon the priority of their superiors, nor suspend the duties they owe to themselves and their neighbours, upon the manuduction of other mens greatness. The law of nature allowing self-defence, or the defence of our brethren, against unjust violence, addeth no such restriction, that it must only be done by the conduit or concurrence of the nobles or parliaments. 2. The people have as great interest to defend their religion as the peers, and more, because they have more souls to care for than they, who are fewer. And to be violented in their consciences, which are as free to them as to the peers, is as insupportable to them: yea, both are equally concerned to maintain truth, and rescue their brethren suffering for it, which are the chief grounds of war; and if the ground of the defensive war be the same with them and without them, what reason can be given, making their resistance in one case lawful, and not in the other? Both are alike obliged to concur, and both are equally, obnoxious to God's threatened judgments, for suffering religion to be ruined, and not relieving and rescuing innocents. It will be but a poor excuse for people to plead, they had no peers to head them. What if both king and nobles turn enemies to religion, (as they are at this day) shall people do nothing for the defence of it then? Many times the Lord hath begun a work of reformation by foolish things, and hath made the least of the flock to draw them out, Jer. xlix. 2. and l. 45. and did not think fit to begin with nobles, but began it, when powers and peers were in opposition to it; and when he blessed it so at length, as to engage the public representatives to own it, what was done by private persons before, they never condemned. 3. The people are injured without the nobles, therefore they may resist without them, if they be able: for there can be no argument adduced, to make it unlawful to do it with them. 4. It is true the nobles are obliged beyond others, and have authority more than others to concur; but separately they cannot act as representatives judicially: they have a magistratical power, but limited to their particular precincts where they have interest, and cannot extend it beyond these bounds; and so if they should concur, they are still in the capacity of subjects; for out of a parliamentary capacity they are not representatives. 5. All the power they can have is cumulative, not privative; for the worse condition of a ruler ought not to be by procuring. Why then shall the representatives, betraying their trust, wrong the cause of the people, whose trustees they are? Nay, if it were not lawful for people to defend their religion, lives, and liberties without the concurrence of parliaments, then their case should be worse with them than without them; for they have done it before they had them, and so they had better be without them still. 6. People may defend themselves against the tyranny of a parliament, or primores, or nobles: therefore, they may do it without them; for if it be lawful to resist them, it is lawful to wave them, when they are in a conspiracy with the king against them.

5. We disallow all war without real undeclinable necessity, and great and grievous wrongs sustained: and do not maintain it is to be declared or undertaken upon supposed grounds, or pretended causes: and so the question is impertinently stated by our adversaries, 'Whether or not it be lawful for subjects, or a party of them, when they think themselves injured, or to be in a capacity, to resist or oppose the supreme power of a nation.' For the question is not, if when they think themselves injured they may resist? But when the injuries are real: neither is it every reality of injuries will justify their resistance, but when their dearest and nearest liberties are invaded, especially when such an invasion is made, as threatens ineluctable subversion of them. Next, we do not say, That a party's esteeming themselves in a capacity, or their being really in a capacity, doth make resistance a duty; except, all alike, they have a call as well as a capacity, which requires real necessity, and a right to the action, and the things contended for to be real and legal rights, really and illegally encroached upon: their capacity gives them only a conveniency to go about the duty, that is, previously lawful upon a moral ground. No man needs to say, Who shall be judge? the magistrate or people? For, 1. All who have eyes in their head may judge whether the sun shine or not; and all who have common sense may judge in this case. For when it comes to a necessity of resistance, it is to be supposed, that the grievances complained of, and sought to be redressed by arms, are not hid, but manifest; it cannot be so with any party only pretending their suffering wrong. 2. There is no need of the formality of a judge, in things evident to nature's eye, as grassant tyranny undermining and overturning religion and liberty must be. Nature, in the acts of necessitated ressistance, in such a case, is judge, party, accuser, witness, and all. Neither is it an act of judgment, for people to defend their own: defence is no act of jurisdiction, but a privilege of nature. Hence, these common sayings, all laws permit force to be repelled by force; and the law of nature allows self defence: the defence of life is necessary, and flows from the law of nature. 3. Be judge who will, the tyrant cannot be judge in the case: for, in these tyrannical acts, that force the people to that resistance, he cannot be acknowledged as king, and therefore no judge: for it is supposed, the judge is absent, when he is the party that does the wrong. And he that does the wrong, as such, is inferior to the innocent. 4. Let God be judge, and all the world, taking cognizance of the evidence of their respective manifestos of the state of their cause.

6. We condemn rising to revenge private injuries; whereby the land may be involved in blood for some petty wrongs done to some persons, great or small; and abhor revengeful usurping of the magistrate's sword, to avenge ourselves for personal injuries. As David's killing of Saul would have been, 1 Sam. xxiv. 10. 12. 13, 1 Sam. xxvi. 9, 10. To object which, in this case, were very impertinent: for it would have been an act of offence in a remote defence: if Saul had been immediately assaulting him, it could not be denied to be lawful: and it would have been an act of private revenge for a personal injury, and a sinful preventing of God's promise of David's succession, by a scandalous assassination. But it is clear, then David was resisting him, and that is enough for us; and he supposes he might descend into battle, and perish, 1 Sam. xxvi. 10. not excluding, but that he might perish in battle against himself resisting him. We are commanded indeed not to resist evil, but whosoever shall smite us on the one cheek, to turn to him the other also, Matth. v. 39. and to recompence to no man evil for evil, Rom. xii. 17. But this doth not condemn self defence, or resisting tyrants violently, endangering our lives, laws, religion, and liberties, but only resistance by way of private revenge and retaliation, and enjoin patience, when the clear call and dispensation do inevitably call unto suffering; but not to give way to all violence and sacrilege, to the subverting of religion and righteousness. These texts do no more condemn private persons retaliating the magistrate, than magistrates retaliating private persons, unless magistrates be exempted from this precept, and consequently be not among Christ's followers: yea, they do no more forbid private persons, to resist the unjust violence of magistrates, than to resist the unjust violence of private persons. That objection from our Lord's reproving Peter, Matth. xxvi. 52. Put up thy sword, for all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword, hath no weight here: for this condemns only making use of the sword, either by way of private revenge, or usurping the use of it without authority, (and so condemns all tyrants) which private subjects do not want to defend themselves, their religion and liberty; or using it without necessity, which was not in Peter's case, both because Christ was able to defend himself, and because he was willing to deliver up himself. Pool's Synops. Critic. in Locum. Christ could easily have defended himself, but he would not; and therefore there was no necessity for Peter's rashness; it condemns also a rash precipitating and preventing the call of God to acts of resistance; but otherwise it is plain, it was not Peter's fault to defend his master, but a necessary duty. The reason, our Lord gives for that inhibition at that time, was twofold; one expressed Matth. xixvi. 52. For they that take the sword, &c. Which do not belong to Peter, as if Peter were hereby threatened; but to those that were coming to take Christ, they usurped the sword of tyranical violence, and therefore are threatened with destruction, by the sword of the Romans: so is that commination to be understood of antichrist, and the tyrants that serve him, Rev. xiii. 13. He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword, which is a terrible word against persecutors. The reason is, John xviii. 11.----The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink? Which clearly refels that objection of Christ's non-resistance. To which it is answered, That suffering was the end of his voluntary suscepted humiliation, and his errand to the world, appointed by the Father, and undertaken by himself, which is not our practice: though it be true, that even in his sufferings he left us an ensample that we should follow his steps, 1 Pet. ii. 21. In many things, as he was a martyr, his sufferings were the purest rule and example for us to follow, both for the matter, and frame of spirit, submission, patience, constancy, meekness, &c. but not as he was our sponsor, and after the same manner, for then it were unlawful for us to flee, as well as to resist, because he would not flee at that time.