Chapter LII: Section III (2)

But we reply, 1. Though it be true, that this enemy is the rod of God’s indignation against the whole land, yet it is certain to us, and hath been formerly unquestioned, that they are raised up in a special way, to execute God’s wrath on malignants, and God doth arm them with power in a signal manner for that end. Besides, the Lord’s anger and indignation against his enemies is such, as will burn and none can quench it. It is of another nature than his wrath against his own people, which is a hiding of his face for a moment. He corrects us in measure and judgment, but leaves us not altogether unpunished. But he makes an end of other nations especially these that rise up to actual enmity and hatred of his people, and shedding of their blood. And therefore, if any man would not meet with wrath and sore displeasure, he would stand at a distance with such as God hath appointed for destruction, we mean, as long as they carry in their foreheads the mark of the beast. When God hath such a remarkable controversy against a people, then “he that helpeth and he that is helped shall both fall together,” Isa. xxxi. 3. All that is in league with them, shall fall with them by the sword, Ezek. xxx. 5 and xxxii. 21. 2. Since it is known that the malignant party have not changed their principles, and so they cannot but in prosecuting this war establish their old quarrel and follow it viz. the king’s arbitrary power, the interest of man above God’s, or the kingdom’s interest, we leave it to be judged impartially, whether or not these that associate with them, do espouse that quarrel and interest, at least expose themselves to all that wrath and indignation, which hath hitherto followed that quarrel, seeing they must have common blessings and curses. Will not that quarrel holden up by most part of the army, be a wicked thing, an Achan in the camp, that will make God turn away from it, and put Israel to shame?

Having thus established the truth, in the next place, we come to take off what objections are made to the contrary.

First: It is argued from human authority. The uncontroverted and universal practice of all nations in all generations, is, to employ all subjects in the case of necessary just defence. It was the practice of our reformers, who took into the congregation, and received all that, upon acknowledgment of their error, were willing to join, though they had been on the contrary faction. Such an universal practice of Christian nations, though it be not the ground of our faith, yet it is apparent that it cannot want reason for it.(378)

_Answer 1_: This will plead as much against the exceptions added in the answer to the query and act of levy, for seeing other nations except none, in the case of necessary defence, why should we except any? And if once we except any upon good and convincing grounds, upon the same ground we ought to except far more. 2: Mr. Gillespie, in his Treatise of Miscellany Questions,(379) makes mention that the city of Strasburg, 1529, made a defensive league with Zurich, Berne, and Basil; because they were not only neighbours, but men of the same religion. And the Elector of Saxony refused to take into confederacy those who differed from him in the point of the Lord’s supper, lest such sad things should befall him, as befell these in Scripture, who used any means of their own defence. This rule was good _in thesi_,(380) though in that case misapplied. Now then, if they made conscience of choosing as the means of their own defence, a confederacy with foreigners, may not the same ground lead us to a distance from our own countrymen, as unqualified, who have nothing to commend them but that they are of the same nation, which is nothing in point of conscience? 3: The practice of other nations that are not tender in many greater points, cannot be very convincing, especially, when we consider that the Lord hath made light to arise, in this particular, more bright than in former times. God hath taken occasion of illustrating and commending many truths unto us in this generation, from the darkness of error, and of making straight many rules, from the crookedness of men’s practice and walking. Is not the Lord now performing the promise of purging out the rebels from among us and them that transgress? God hath winked at former times of ignorance. But now, the Lord having cleared his mind so to us, how great madness were it to forsake our own mercy, and despise the counsel of God against our own souls? (1) As for that instance of our reformers there could not have been any thing brought more prejudicial to that cause, and more advantageous for us. After they were twice beaten by the French in Leith, and their forces scattered, and the leaders and chief men of the congregation forced to retire to Stirling, John Knox, preaching upon the eightieth Psalm, and searching the causes of God’s wrath against them, condescends upon this as the chief cause, that they had received into their councils and forces such men as had formerly opposed the congregation, and says, God never blest them since the Duke had come among them. See Knox’s Chron.(381) (2) It cannot be showed that ever they took in a party and faction of such men, but only some few persons, which, though it was not altogether justifiable, was yet more excusable. But now the public resolutions hold forth a conjunction with all the bloody murderers in the kingdom (excepting very few), and these without profession of repentance in many, and without evidence of the reality of it almost in any. (3) These persons were not such as had once joined with the congregation, and relapsed and became enemies to it, but they turned to the protestant religion from popery. But ours is a different case.

Second. It is argued from scripture. Three scripture instances are brought to justify the present proceedings. The first instance is from the practice of God’s people in the book of Judges, who, when for defection from religion they were brought under oppression, yet when any governor was raised by God for their defence, they gathered and came all out promiscuously, notwithstanding a great part of them had been in the defection. Yet it is not found that their governors are reproved for this, but rather sad curses on them that came not out to the work, Judges v. 15, 16, 17, 23. The second instance is from the story of the kings, very like the first. When, after defection, gracious reforming kings arose, and had to do against foreign invasion, we find them not debarring any subjects, but calling them out promiscuously. Neither is this laid to their charge, that they called out such and such subjects, though we may perceive by the story of the prophets, that the greater part of the body of the people were wicked, &c.

We answer to these two instances jointly. 1. We may by the like reason prove, that which is as yet uncontroverted (we know not how long), that we ought at no time to make choice of instruments, neither in case of prosecution of the cause and the invasion of others, nor yet in the time when choice is to be had, and so, that all our former engagements, resolutions, and proceedings, in the point of purging judicatories and armies, was superfluous and supererogatory, because we read not that the reforming kings and judges, whenever they had an invasive war, and in the times that they had greatest plenty and multitudes of people, did ever debar any of their subjects from that service, but called them out promiscuously. Neither is this laid to their charge, though we may perceive that the greater part of the people were wicked under the best kings. Therefore we may lawfully employ any subjects of the kingdom in any of our wars. And we may look upon all indifferently, without any discerning of persons that fear God and them that fear him not, as in good capacity to be intrusted, even when otherwise we have choice of good instruments. Certainly it follows, by parity of reason. For if you conclude that, from the calling forth all promiscuously, and no reproof given for it, in the case of necessary defence, then we may conclude, from the calling forth of all promiscuously, and in the case of an invasive war, and no reproof recorded, that neither, in such a case, is it sinful to make no difference, and that with strong reason, because it being more easy in such a case to choose instruments, and no necessity pleading for it, if it had been sinful, the prophets would have rather reproved it, then rebuked them for using such means in a case of necessity. 2. We may argue after that manner, that in the case of necessary just defence, there should be no exceptions made at all of any persons, because we read not that the judges or kings debarred any subjects, neither that they were rebuked for so doing. Therefore the instances militate as much against the exceptions added in the answer to the query, as against us, unless it be said that there were no such persons among that people, which were as groundless rashness as to say that they gave all evidence of repentance. 3. Seeing the judges and the reforming kings of Judah were so accurate and exact in cleaving to the law of God, and walking according to it in all other things, it were more charitable and Christian judgment to say, that since they are not reproved for any fault in this particular, that they were also exact to walk according to the rule, (Deut. xxiii.) in so great a point as this. 4. Men’s practice is often lame and crooked, and therefore must be examined according to the rule, but it were not fair dealing to accommodate the rule to men’s practice. Seeing then we have so clear and perfect a rule (Deut. xxiii.), which must judge both their practice and ours, we see not how their practice can be obtruded as a rule upon us, which itself must be examined according to a common and general rule. If it be not according to that law, we hold it to be sinful in itself, and so no precedent for us; albeit the prophets did not reprove it in express and particular terms (as they did not reprove man stealing, &c.), yet they rebuked it by consequence, in as far as they rebuked the kings for association with wicked Israelites, which is condemned upon grounds common to this very case in hand. 5. We see not any ground for such promiscuous calling forth of the people by the judges. Barak’s business, as that of Jephthah and Gideon, was done by no great multitudes of people, but a few choice men. 6. As the oppression was heavy and continued long, so the repentance of the people was solemn, and their deliverance a fruit of this. 7. Their case and ours is very different. None of Israel or Judah did fight against the profession of the true religion, and shed the blood of their fellow subjects who were for the defence of the same. Israel in the days of the judges, and Judah in the time of the reforming kings, was not divided the one half against the other, upon opposition and defence of the true religion, and the better part, after many experiences of the treachery and enmity of the most of the worst part, solemnly engaged to God not to admit them to employment and trust, but upon real evidence of repentance of which they should judge as in the sight of God. And last of all, did ever Israel or Judah, in the days of their judges and reforming kings, admit into their armies a party and faction of such as had given no real evidence of their abandoning their former course, and such a party, as had been long studying to get the power of armies and judicatories in their own hands for attaining their own ends? But all those are in our case.

The third instance from scripture, is from 1 Sam. xi., which is alleged to be a clear practice, and stamped with divine approbation. In the case of Jabesh-Gilead besieged by a foreign enemy, Saul commands all to come forth for defence of their brethren, under pain of a severe civil censure. Now, what Saul did in this business, the Spirit of God is said to act him to it, and what the people did, was from the fear of God, making them obey the king. And then Samuel in this acting concurs jointly, and makes no opposition. And last of all, the people came forth as one man, and yet (chap. x. 27) many men of Belial were among them, who malignantly opposed Saul’s government, contrary to God’s revealed will.

To which we answer, 1. The stamp of divine approbation is not apparent to us, success doth not prove it. Neither the Spirit coming on Saul, nor the fear of God falling on the people, will import a divine approbation of all that was done in the managing that war. That motion of the Spirit is no sanctifying motion, but a common, though extraordinary, impulse of Saul’s spirit to the present work, which, doubtless, was in the king of Babylon, whom God raised up, fitted and sent for the destruction of many nations albeit that work in his hand was iniquity. That fear of God that fell upon the people, was but a fear of the king imprinted by God, and it is more peculiarly attributed to God, because the people did despise and contemn him, which makes their reverence and fear to be a more extraordinary thing upon a sudden. Then Samuel, not opposing the course in hand, doth no more import his approbation of all that was done in it, than his not reproving the men of Belial doth prove that he approved of their opposition. 2. It doth not appear that the men of Belial were a great faction and party, there is something in ver. 12 speaks against it. It is not like the people would put a faction and party to death. 3. Neither doth it appear that they were in the army. For that which is said, that all the people came out as one man, doth only import, that the body and generality of them came forth, and that it was a wonder so many came forth so suddenly at the command of the king, who was but mean and abject in their eyes. It is certain that all fencible persons were not present, because the whole army being numbered, ver. 8, was but 330,000. And who will say there was no more men in Israel, when they had 600,000 such, and above, before their coming into the land? Seeing then, many have staid at home, it is most probable that these men of Belial would not come, seeing they despised Saul’s mean and low condition in their heart and thought him unfit to lead their armies, till he should prove what was in him. That which is said, ver. 12, doth not prove they were in the camp. It might be conveniently spoken of absent persons. 4. It is not certain that these men were wicked and scandalous in their conversation, haters of godliness and of their brethren, but that they stood at distance only with Saul, in the point of his election, which indeed was blame worthy, seeing God had revealed his mind in it. And therefore they are called men of Belial, as Peter was called Satan, for opposing Christ’s suffering.

Some other scriptures are alleged by some, as David’s employing of such men, &c., all which are cleared in Mr. Gillespie’s Treatise of Miscellany Questions, quest. 14.

Third. It is argued from reason. And, 1. That which any is obliged to do for another’s preservation by the law of God and nature, and which he cannot omit without the guilt of the other’s destruction, that may the other lawfully require of him to do when he needs it, and when it may be done without the undoing of a greater good. But so it is, that every subject is obliged by the law of nature, oath and covenants, and the law of God, to endeavour to their power, the preservation of the kingdom against unjust violence. And the safety of the kingdom stands in need of many subjects’ assistance who were secluded. And it may be done without undoing a greater good than is the preservation of religion. _Ergo_.

This argument hath an answer to it in the bosom of it. (1) We shortly deny the assumption, in relation to the two last branches, both that the kingdom’s preservation stands in necessity of these men’s help, and that their help tends not to the undoing of a greater good, seeing there is no reason given to confirm these two points, wherein the nerve of the business lies. We refer to a reason of our denial of them given p. 22.(382) (2) It is true that the obligation to such a duty lies upon all, but that obligation is to be brought into act and exercise in an orderly and qualified way, else what need any exceptions be in the act of levy? Excommunicated persons are under the same obligation, yet the magistrate is not actually obliged to call such, but rather to seclude them. Are not all bound to come to the sacrament who are church members? Yet many are not in a capacity to come, and so ought neither to presume to come nor be admitted. Are not all subjects obliged to defend the cause of God, and to prosecute it? And yet many, because of their enmity to the cause of God, are actually incapable of employment in the defence or prosecution thereof. (3) The law of nature is above all human laws and constitutions, they must cede whenever they come in opposition to it. _Salus populi_ is _suprema lex_(383) in relation to these. But, in relation to the law of God, it is not so. Sometimes the law of nature must yield to positive commands of God. Abraham must sacrifice his son at God’s command. The law of nature obliges us to the preservation of ourselves, but it does not oblige to every mean that may be found expedient to that end, unless it be supposed lawful and approven of God. Therefore the Lord in his written word doth determine what means we may use for that end, and what not. But, (4) We conceive that the law forbidding association and confederacy with known wicked and ungodly persons, is included in the law of nature, as well as the law that obliges us to self preservation. That is grounded on perpetual reason, as well as this. Nature bids me preserve myself, and nature binds me to have one friend and foe with God. The heathens had a notion of it. They observed, that Amphiaraus, a wise and virtuous man, was therefore swallowed up in the earth with seven men and seven horses, because he had joined himself and associated with Tydeus, Capaneus, and other wicked commanders marching to the siege of Thebe. Mr Gill. Miscell. Quest. chap. 14 p. 171.(384)

2. The second reason is framed thus _in hypothesi_.(385) Such as are excluded are a great part, if not the greater part of the remnant of the land, if rules of exclusion be extended impartially. Now, they having their lives and liberties allowed them, must either in these things be insured by the interposing of a competent power for their defence, or else they must have liberty to act for themselves. But so it is, that we cannot interpose a competent power for their protection. _Ergo_, They must have liberty to act for themselves. _Nam qui dat vitam dat necessaria ad vitam._(386)

We answer, (1) It is not certain that such as are excluded are the greater part of the land. However, it is certain, that though the rule had been kept, and endeavours had been used to walk according to it, yet many whom it excludes would have been taken in. There is a great difference between endeavour of duty, and attaining its perfection. If the rule had not been quite destroyed, so great offence could not have been taken, though it had not been strictly urged in all particulars. (2) We still affirm, upon evident grounds to us, that there is a power competent in the land, beside the malignant party, which may protect the land and insure their lives and liberties. (3)(387) We are persuaded many of that party, who have been so deeply involved in blood guiltiness and barbarous cruelties should neither have lives nor liberties secured to them, because they ought not to be permitted to live. But the not taking away so much guilty blood from the land by acts of justice, is the cause that so much innocent and precious blood is now shed. Our rulers have pardoned that blood which God would not pardon, and therefore would not pardon it to the land because they pardoned it to the murderers.