The Peoples Right to Defend Themselves and their Covenanted Religion, Religious tract · Chapter 3
CAP. III.
A fourth Argument Vindicated, taken from Scripture-inſtances.
Our fourth argument shall be taken from inſtances of oppoſition and reſiſtence, made unto the Soveraigne, or his bloody Emiſſaries, by private ſubjects, without the conduct or concurrence of their Repreſentatives, recorded in ſcripture, and which we finde not condemned by the Spirit of the Lord: So that whoſoever shall condemne the late vindicators, muſt alſo condemne theſe inſtances.
As. 1. They muſt condemne the Iewes ſtanding for their lives againſt their Enemies armed againſt them, with a commiſſion from King Ahaſuerus, ſealed with his ring, which no man might reverſe, in the dayes of Mordecai & Eſther. But ſome vvill ſay. That they had the King's commiſſion, which did warrand them to take the ſword of defence againſt any that should aſſault them, under pretence of the former decree, I Anſwere. If their having of the King's commiſmiſſion did in poynt of conſcience warrand them, It had been utterly unlawful for them, to have withſtood the King's butchers, if they had not abtained that commiſſion and warrand: But what man of common ſenſe will ſay this? This later decree did, in poynt of law, warrand them to gather together with ſaifty and ſecurity, that they might the more eaſily, not only defend themſelves from their Adverſaries aſſaulting them; but alſo to deſtroy, to ſtay, and to cauſe to perish, all the power of the people and province, that would aſſault them, both little ones & women, and to take the ſpoile of them for a prey Eſth 8:11. But didnot, could not, make their ſelfdefence againſt ſuch manifeſt & bloody cruelty, lawful in poynt of conſcience, if, otherwiſe it had been unlawful. Though every inſtance will not in all poynts quadrate (for nullum ſimile eſt idem) yet vve have here in this inſtance theſe things for our purpoſe, 1. private ſubjects without their Ephori or Repreſentatives, arming themſelves for defence: & that 2. againſt bloody Emiſſaryes of the King: & 3. bloody Emiſſaries armed by a formal commiſſion, decree and vvarrand from the King. 4. A commiſſion formally never reverſed, but ſtanding in force, as the decrees of the Medes and Perſians that might not be altered. 5. and this defence, as lavvful in it ſelf in poynt of conſcience, (for if it had not not been ſo, the King's vvarrand had never made it ſo) ſo declared lavvful in poynt of lavv, by a decree from the King, after better thoughts. In imitation of vvhichwhich, It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council, if they had been ſo farr from condemning theſe innocent ſelf-defenders, (ſince, as they thought, in poynt of honour and credite, they vvould not retract or reverſe their decrees and commiſſions once granted) that they vvould have authorized them, and abſolved them in poynt of lavv, ſince in poynt of conſcience, no man could condemne them, for ſtanding to the defence of their Eſtates, Lands, Libertyes, Lives and Conſciences, unjuſtly oppreſſed by mercyleſſe Emiſſaries.
2. They muſt condemne the people their reſcueing of Ionathan from the ſentence of death, unjuſtly given out againſt him, by King Saul 1 Sam. 14: 44. In anſvvere to this inſtance, our Surveyer ſayeth Pag. 65. [That the people uſed no violence againſt Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jonathan, but in the heat of ſouldiery boldneſſe, do effectually interpoſe with Saul, and mediate for the life of Jonathan, moving Saul to Wave reſpect to his rash oath, and to regaird what was just and right. Anſw. 1. The matter came not the length of violence; but had the King pertinaciouſly adhered to his rash and ſinful reſolution, and, by force, had offered to draw the innocent Man to death, that which they did, ſpoke clearly, they would have reſiſted him; for, whether the King would or not, yea contrare to his oath, they ſweare in the face of the King, that Ionathan should not die, 2. It is but gratis dictum, that only in the heat of a ſouldiery boldneſſe, they did mediate; beſide, that there ſeemeth to be a material contradiction here, for ſouldiers mediating and interpoſing eſpecially in the heate of ſouldiery-boldneſſe, uſeth not to be with humble ſupplications & intreaties, but with violence or with what will usher in violence. 3. We heare of no arguments they uſe to move bloody Saul to change his purpoſe, but this, as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground. He ſayes Pag. 66. That [the people did not oppoſe an oath to Saul's oath, for Junius expoſition may paſſe well; that they ſpoke not by way of ſwearing, but by way of reaſoning, abhorring the deſtruction of ſuch a perſon, abſit, ut vivit Jehovah, an cadere debet.] Anſ. The word which they uſe is no other way tranſlated here, by Iunius, then elſewhere; and elſewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath, as may be ſeen Iudg. 8. 19. 1 Sam. 19: 16. and 20. 3, 21, 25, 26. and in many other places. 2. The People ſpoke theſe words, as Saul ſpoke them, ver. 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people oppoſed to Saul's oath. 3. Iunius himſelf ſayeth, that they oppoſed a juſt oath to Saul's hypocritical oath. Sanctius in locum, ſayeth, [the people oppoſed to the Kings oath, a publick oath, & ſwore that they would not ſuffer that any evil should be done unto him.] The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kinde of oath in uſe among the Hebrevvs. But (ſayes he)[It is a vvonder to ſee underſtanding men argue from this place, for violence and forcible reſiſtence to Kings, eſpecially vvhen acting according to lavves, conſented to by private perſones] Anſ. This place proveth clearly that princes may be reſiſted, and reſiſted vvhen they uſe violence and oppreſſion, and that by private perſones, even vvhen the oppreſſion, or iniquity is acted according to a pretended lavv, or ſomething equivalent to a lavv. Let us ſee vvhere the difference lyeth. Here (ſayes he) the King is not acting according to law, but proſecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath] Anſw: 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emiſſaries act according to lavv, but were proſecuting the execution of a develish and rash reſolution, to root out and deſtroy a vvhole Countrey ſide, 2. If Royaliſts ſpeak truth, Sauls vvord, let be his oath, vvas as good as a lavv: and Sanctius ſayeth it vvas Decretum decreed. And vvhatever it vvas formally, it vvas materially a law, unto which they had all tacitely aſſented, v. 24. & which they durſt not tranſgreſſe v. 26. [Here (ſayes he)the oppoſition made to the King is by way of interceſſion & earneſt reaſoning that he ought to regaird what was right more then his rash oath.) Anſw. No reaſoning vve heare but a peremptour telling of the King, to his face, that he should not get his vvill, not one haire of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground, if he should attempt any thing, againſt Ionathan, it should be over their bellyes: Their vvords look like club-agruments. [Here (ſayes he)their oppoſition was acceptable and welcome, acquieſced in and yeelded to] Anſw. It is like it vvas condeſcention by force and conſtraint, for vvhether he vvould or not, he ſavv he could not get his vvill, and therefore paſſed from vvhat he intended, 2. His acquieſcence ſayes the reſiſtence vvas more forcible then meer interceſſion vvould be; for, he vvas another ſort of bloody Tyrant, then to yeeld to petitions, vvhen he thought his honour ſtood upon it [Here (ſayes he) the oppoſition is made by the Princes of the land, Captains of Thouſands &c.] Anſw. The text ſayes The people reſcued Ionathan. Who ever they vvere & vvhatever they vvere, they acted not here as the Supreame Sanhedrin, nor as a court of judicatour haveing povver of government, but as private perſones, according to their povver and capacities. And ſo all this makes much for a party of private perſones (for here vvas not all the land) their reſiſting of the King's bloody emiſſaries executing cruelty, not ſo much as according to an iniquous lavv, but contrare to all lavv, right and reaſon [Let (ſayes he) Peter martyr be looked upon this place, and he ſpeaks not ably well, his owne words will diſcover how notourly he is falſified by L. R. p 349.] Anſw. Lex Rex. dealt ingenuouſly with his reader concerning him, telling him, in the margine that with adoubt he ſaid, ſi iſta ſeditioſe fecerunt nullo modo excuſari poſſunt. And that he ſaid they might Suffragiis. vvith their ſuffrages free him. Why did not the Surveyer ſet dovvn his vvords? did Lex Rex falſify alſo Chryſostome homil. 14. ad Pop. Antioch. Iunius: Corn, a lapide: Sanctius: Lyra: Hugo Cardin. Ioſephus L. 6. antiq. c. 7. and Althuſ. Polit. c. 38. n. 109.
3. They muſt condemne David, for his reſiſting of King Saul, with armed men, which yet the ſpirit of God doth not condemne, but rather approve, in commending ſuch as helped him I Chron. 12: 1. 2. 8. &c. and inſpireing Amazia who was chief of the captaines to ſay Thine are we David, and on thy ſide, peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be unto thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee. So did he intend to keep out the city Keila againſt the King, and conſulted God thereanent, and had his anſwere, that the city would betray him. Now if it had been unlavvful for him to have defended himſelf by ſuch forcible reſiſtence, vve cannot think that he vvould have goten ſuch anſvvers as he gote. Grotius himſelf approveth this deed of David's. All vvhichwhich this Surveyer ſayeth againſt this Pag. 67. is, That Davids unction did ſo diſtinguish him from private perſons, as that it made it lawful for him to reſist violence with violence: But, the law of nature reſtricteth not this lawful ſelf-defence to anoynted perſons. 2. If his anoynting made him no private perſon, what did it make him? it could not make Him King, othervviſe he might not only have reſiſted Saul, but have taken his life as a traitour; or elſe vve muſt ſay, there were two Kings at once in Iſrael. 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his reſiſtence, nor is there any hint of this in the text.
4. They muſt condemne the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which reſiſted Ioab, Davids General, and his forces, when they beſieged it, till the matter came to a capitulation, Ioab should have offered tearmes unto the city, before he had threatned to deſtroy it; and should have communed with the Magiſtrates, concerning the delivering up of the Taitour, before he had reſolved to deſtroy the whole city, for one Traitours cauſe: and therefore juſtly did they defend themſelves againſt his unjuſt invaſion notwithſtanding he was armed with a commiſſion from the King: and remarkable it is, that after the capitulation, they were never challenged for traitours in reſiſting, with cloſed gates, and fenſed walls, the King's General and army. So that here is a private city ſtanding out for a time, againſt the King's ſouldiours, unjuſtly ſeeking to deſtroy them, becauſe of one Traitour among them.
5. They muſt condemne the Prophet Elias for reſiſting Ahaziah's bloody Emiſſaries ſent by him, in an angry moode, to apprehend him and to compell him, in a ſpite full manner, and to take him priſoner, as ſay the Dutch Annot. on the place, For ſpeaking ſuch things as he did, unto the meſſengers of the King, who were ſent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron, to enquire if he should recover of his deſeaſe; and to bring him to the King by violence, if he would not come willingly, as Ioſephus ſayeth antiq. Lib. 9. C. 2. 2 King. 1. Now he reſiſted ſuch as were ſent, and killed two Captanes & their fifties, with fire from heaven, which inſtance doth ſufficiently declare that it is lavvful for private ſubjects, in ſome caſes, to reſiſt the unjuſt violence of the King's Emiſſaries, though armed with his commiſſion. It is true, the manner of his reſiſtence, and of killing theſe, vvas extraordinary, by way of a miracle; yet the reſiſtence it ſelf, was not extraordinare, as we have ſeen by other inſtances, and shall ſee cleared by moe.
6. They muſt condemne the prophet Elisha who reſiſted both the King and his Emiſſaries in his ovvne defence 2 Kings 6:32. ſaying to the Elders who ſate with him ſee yee how this Sone of a murderer hath ſent to take away my head? look where the Meſſenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him faſt at the door, is not the ſound of his Maſters feet behinde him? Here was unjuſt violence offered to the innocent Prophet, an Emiſſary ſent to kill him without cauſe: and the Prophet reſiſteth his violence, cauſeth hold him at the door, and violently preſſe him, or preſſe him betvvixt the door and the wall, vvich ſpeaketh violent reſiſtence: keep him (ſay the Dutch Annot.) by force at the door: yea Ioſephus thinketh that the King follovved quickly after, left the Prophet should have killed his ſervant. This clearly ſayes that it is lawful for privat perſones (for the Prophet vvas no other but a private ſubject) to reſiſt unjuſt violence offered them by the King or his Emiſſaries, and with violente reſiſtence, to defend themſelves.
7. Much more will they condemne other inſtances of greater oppoſition, made to the rage and tyranny of Princes, which we finde recorded in ſcripture, and not condemned.
As. 1. That oppoſition made by the Ten tribes to Rehoboam, when they revolted from him, after they had a rough and tyrannical anſwere unto their juſt and lawful demands 1 King. 12: 1. &c. 2 Cbron. 10: & 11. They deſired nothing, upon the matter, but that He would engadge to Rule over them according to the law of God, and He gave a moſt harsh and tyrannical anſwere, and avowed that he would tyrannize over them, and oppreſſe them more then any of his predeceſſours, and that his little finger should be heavier then their loyns; whereupon they fell away from him, and erected themſelves into a new Commonwealth, and chooſed a nevv King: And vve finde nothing in all the text condemning this; for, it vvas done of the Lord, the cauſe vvas from the Lord, that he might performe his ſaying vvhichwhich he ſpoke by Ahijah; and vvhen Rehoboam raiſed an army to reduce them againe under his power and command, the vvord of God came unto Shemaiah ſaying ſpeak unto Rehoboam &c. and ſay thus ſayeth the Lord, yee shall not goe up, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Iſrael, returne every man to his houſe, for this thing is from me. It vvas done by the vvill of God ſayeth Ioſephus Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 11. And there is not one word, in the text importing that this vvas condemned by the Spirit of the Lord; for, as for that vvord 1 King. 12. 19. So Iſrael rebelled against the houſe of David. It may be as vvel rendered, as it is in the margine, they fell away; and ſo doth the dutch render it, and lunius defecerunt, they fell avvay, or made defection, and the original vvord is of a larger ſignification then foreign vvhichwhich properly ſignifieth to rebel, yea though the vvord foreign had been here uſed, it vvould not have imported a ſinfull rebellion and defection, more then 2 King. 18. 7. vvhere Hezekiah is ſaid to have rebelled againſt the King of Aſſyria, and this was a frute and effect of the Lords being with him, and proſpering him, whitherſoever he vvent forth. The Surveyer Pag. 66. can ſay nothing but [That no ſound man will think the ſuddaine and furious rebellion of the ten Tribes from Davids houſe, upon the furious and rash anſwer of a young King, was juſtifiable.] But vvhatever he ſay or think, it doth not weigh much with us; had he shewed us out of the Text, that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord, as ſinful upon the matter, we should heartily have acquieſced, but ſince we ſee more hinting at an approbation thereof, we muſt reſt there, till we ſee ſtronger reaſons, then his naked aſſertions. But ſayes he [It would be conſidered that theſe who made the ſeceſſion were the major part of the body of the people, but what is all this to juſtifie the inſurrections of any leſſer party of private people againſt the Magiſtrate, and all Magiſtrates ſupreme & ſubordinate.] Anſ. By what right, this Major part of the Body did make ſeceſſion, by that ſame right, might the equal half, or the leſſer part have made ſeceſſion; for the ground of the lawfulneſſe of this ſeceſſion, is not founded upon their being the major part, but upon the reaſonableneſſe of their demand, and the tyrannicalneſſe of the King's reply. 2. This ſayes much for us; for, if it be lawful for a part of the people, to shake off the King, refuſe ſubjection unto him, and ſet up a new King of their owne, when he reſolveth to play the Tyrant, and not to rule them according to the law of the Lord, but after his owne tyrannical will; then it cannot be unlawful for a part of the people to reſiſt his unjuſt violence, and defend themſelves againſt his illegal tyranny, and oppreſſion. The conſequence cannot be denyed, ſeing they who may lawfully do the more, may do the leſſe alſo: So that ſeing this people might lawfully refuſe ſubjection and homage unto Rehoboam and all his ſubordinat Magiſtrates, They might alſo lawfully have defended themſelves againſt his tyranny, and the tyranny of all under him: and if They might lawfully have done ſo, ſo may we.
2. They should far more condemne the revolt of the city of Libnah 2 Chron. 21. 10. This wicked King Iehoram when he was riſen up to the Kingdom of his father, ſtrengthened himſelf, and ſlew all his brethren with the ſword, and diverſe alſo of the Princes of Iſrael v. 4. and walked in the wayes of the Kings of Iſrael, like as did the houſe of Ahab, for he had the Daughter of Ahab to wife, & he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord v. 6. and he made him high places in the mountaines of Iudah and cauſed the inhabitants of Ieruſalem to commit fornication, and compelled Iudah there to v. 11. 13. and becauſe he had thus forſaken the Lord God of his fathers, did the city Libnah revolt from under his hand. Commentators cleare this to have been the reaſon as Cornel. a. lap. in loc. propter impietatem Regis defecit ab eo Libna. Sancitus on 2 King 8. 22. Lobnah receſſit ne eſſet ſub manus illius, dereliquer at enim dominum patruum ſuorum. & Pet. Martyr on 2 King. 8. v. 22. [Cauſa in Paralip. deſcribitur, ob Regis impietatem qui ſuos nitebatur cogere ad idololatriam, quod ipſi Libnen ſes pati noluerunt, & merito: principibus enim parendum est, verum uſque ad aras, & cum illam terram inhabitandam a deo, eo foedere, habuiſſent, ubi illum juxta ejus verbum colerent, jure ejus idololatriam admittere, non debuerunt,] Thus he approveth of their revolt in this caſe. What ſayes our Surveyer to this [This (ſayes he) imports not the impulſive cauſe of the revolt, or motive which they had before their eyes (for, in that ſame verſe & period, it is ſaid the Edomites alſo revolted from him, becauſe he had forſaken the Lord God of his Fathers, and the Edomites loved not the true Religion) but the meritorious cauſe on Jehorams part is poynted at.] Anſw. The text it ſelf and Commentators, to vvhom vve may add Iackſon on 2 King 8. & the Dutch Annot. Ibid. give this as the impulſive cauſe, and only motive vvhichwhich they had before their eyes. 2. Any who read the text vvill ſee his reaſon very unſound; for v. 8. it is ſaid, that in his dayes the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Iudah, and made themſelves a King; and no word of this, as the impulſive cauſe there of; & v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occaſion of Iehorams ſeeking by force, to reduce them under his dominion; and then in a new period, mention is made of Libnah's revolt, with the cauſe and only motive thereof; Becauſe he had forſaken the Lord God of his Fathers. Then he asks if his adverſary [thinks that the laying aſide of the presbyterian frame, is the forſaken of the Lord God of our Fathers, and a ſufficient cauſe for any one Towne in the Kingdom, to revolt from the King, (though he do not perſecute them, nor force them to his way, as there is no evidence that Libnah was ſo uſed) shall a Kings ſwerving in that one point, or if there be greater infidelity, be ſufficient ground of defection from him?] Anſ. I nothing doubt, but all ſuch as have imbraced this preſent courſe of apoſtaſie are guilty of a grievous revolt, having impudently and avowedly departed form a ſworne Covenant, from a covenanted & ſworne Religion, reformed in Doctrine, Worshipe, Diſcipline, & Government; and have in a great part forſaken the God of our Fathers, that covenanted God whom our Fathers, and we both owned, and imbraced as our God; and is ſufficient cauſe for any City, or Company of men, ſo far to revolt from the King, as to refuſe to concurre with him, in this horrible defection and courſe of perjury, and reſiſt his unjuſt violence preſſing and compelling them to a ſinful compliance. 2. As it is more then probable, that Libnah was no better uſed, then were the people of Iudah, by this Tyrannous King, and is aſſerted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21:10. So whatever this lyer ſuggeſteth, it is notour that the King hath perſecuted and doth perſecute and force honeſt people, to follow his way, and apoſtatize with him, contrare to their conſciences and ſworne allegiance unto God, and if he add this clauſe as an exception, then (ſeing the truth of the thing is notour) he fully accords, that there is ſufficient cauſe given, for any Town in the Kingdome to revolt, which is more then we deſire. At length he tells us. That their revolt was ſinfull. But when not only thi… revolt is recorded as done, but ſuch and impulſive cauſe and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord, without the leaſt hint of any expreſſion condemning the ſame, we dar not be ſo bold, as is this Surveyer; Nor are we ſo foolish as to receive his word, contraire to the teſtimony of ſo many expoſitors.
Hence we have a ſtrong argument: For▪ if it be lawful for a part of the people, to revolt from a tyrannous Prince, making defection from the true and received Religion, and forceing his ſubjects to a ſinful defection and complyance with him in his apoſtaſy: It muſt alſo be lawful for a part of the people to defend themſelves by force againſt the Emiſſaries of a King departing from his faith and foreſaking the Religion, which He hath ſworne to owne and maintaine, ſent forth by him, or any under him, to force, by cruel oppreſſion and violence, them to a compliance with his ſinful way. And the antecedent is cleare in this place.
3. They muſt much more condemne Azariah, and the foureſcore Prieſts who being commended as me of courage & valour, reſiſted Vziah the King, 2 Chron. 26: 17. &c. they expelled him with force, ſtood againſt him; the lxx. ſay they reſisted him; deturbarunt eum ex eo loco, ſayeth Vatablus: they forced him forth, and compelled him to goe out; they cauſed him make haſte, ſayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum, ſayeth Hieron. When he went in the temple to burne incenſe, upon the altaar of incenſe, on ſome ſolemne day (as Ioſephus thinketh.) So that there is more then a reſiſtance of him by words, as ſome Royaliſts ſay; even reſiſtence by force and violence. Hence we argue; if private ſubjects may by force reſiſt, withſtand, and with violence hinder the King from tranſgreſſing the Law of God; Then may they much more lawfully reſiſt him, and his bloody Emiſſaryes, when He ſeeketh to oppreſſe unjuſtly and to draw people off from the wayes of the Lord. If any ſay with doct Ferne, that becauſe of an expreſſe Law of God, being a leper, he was put out of the congregation: Then we ſee, that the Prince is ſubject to Church-cenſure, and ſo Subjects may judge him and punish him; we ſee alſo that Princes were ſubject to ceremonial lawes, as well as any of the ſubjects; and why not alſo to the moral Lawes; and if becauſe of a ceremonial Law, the King was to be ceremonially punished, why alſo, for the breach of moral Law, may he not be punished morally? Hence will it undoubtedly follow, That a Prince rageing and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reaſon, may be reſiſted and his violence repelled with violence, even by private ſubjects. Worthy Mr Knox, in his debate with Lithengtoun, doth form this inſtance gather; That ſubjects not only may, but alſo ought to withſtand and reſiſt their Princes whenſoever they do any thing that expreſly repugnes to God, his Law, or holy Ordinance. Lithingtoun objected That [they were not private subjects, but the prieſts of the Lord and figures of Christ, and ſuch have we none this day, to withſtand Kings if they do any thing wrong.] He anſwered that though the High Prieſt was a figure of Chriſt, yet he was a ſubject. [For (ſaid he) I am aſſured that he, in his Priesthood, had no prerogative above theſe that paſsed before him; now ſo it is, that Aaron was ſubject to Moſes, and called him Lord: Samuel being both prophet, and Prieſt, ſubjected himſelf unto Saul, after he was inaugurated of the people; Sadoc bowed before David, &c. And whereas you ſay, we have no ſuch Priests this day, I might anſwere, that neither have we ſuch Kings this day, as then were anoynted by Gods commandement, and ſate upon the ſeate of David, and were no leſſe the figures of Christ Ieſus, in their juſt adminiſtration, then were the Prieſts, in their appointed office; and ſuch Kings (I am aſſured) we have not now, no more then we have ſuch Prieſts, for Christ Ieſus being anoynted in our nature, of God his Father, both King Priest, and Prophet, hath put an end to all external unction: and yet I think you will not ſay, that God hath now diminished his graces from theſe whom he appoynts Ambaſſadours betwixt him and his people, then he doth, from Kings and Princes, and therefore, why the Servants of Ieſus Christ may not alſo justly withſtand Kings and Princes who this day no leſſe offend Gods Majeſty, then Uzziah did, I ſee not; unleſſe that ye will ſay, That we in the bringhtneſse of the Evangel, are not ſo ſtraitly bound to regaird Gods glory, nor his commandements, as were the Fathers who lived under the dark shaddowes of the Law.] And when Lithingtoun ſayd, That they only ſpoke unto him without further violence intended. He anſwered, [That they with ſtood him, the text aſſures me, but that they did nothing, but ſpeak, I cannot underſtand, for the plame text afformes the contrary, viz. That they cauſed him haſtily to depart from the ſanctuary, yea and that he was compelled to depart; which manner of ſpeaking (I am aſsurred) in the Hebrew tongue importeth more then exhorting, or commanding by word.] And when Lethingtoun laſtly objected that they did that after he was eſpyed to be leprous. He anſwered, [They withſtood him before, but yet their last fact confirmes my propoſition, ſo evidently, that ſuch as will oppoſe themſelves unto it, muſt needs oppoſe themſelves unto God; for my aſſertion is, That Kings have no privilege, more then hath the people, to offend Gods Majeſty, and if ſo they do, they are no more exempted from the punishment of the law, then is any other ſubject; yea, and that ſubjects may not only lawfully oppoſe themſelves to their Kings, whenſoever they do any thing that expreſly oppugnes God's Commandement, But alſo that they may execute judgment upon them, according to God's Law; ſo that if the King be a murtherer, an adulterer, or an Idolater, he should ſuffer, according to God's Law, not as a King, but as an offender: and that the People may put God's Law in execution, this History clearly proveth; for ſo ſoon as the leproſy appeared in his forehead, He was not only compelled, to depart out of the Sanctuary; but alſo he was removed from all publick ſociety, and administration of the Kingdome, and was compelled to dwell in a houſe apart, even as the law commanded, and gote no greater privilege in that caſe, then any other of the people should have gote: And this was executed by the People—& therefore yet againe I ſay that People ought to execute God's Law, even against their Princes, when their open crimes by God's Law deſerves punishment, but eſpecially when they are ſuch as may inſect the reſt of the multitude.] Thus that worthy Servant of God, and hence any may ſee, how this paſſage doth more then confirme what we are now about to prove.
4. They muſt much more condemne ſuch as aroſe againſt Amaziah when he turned away from following the Lord, & purſued him to Lachish and flew him there, 2 Chron. 25: 21. Concerning which I shall only ſet downe what famous and worthy Mr Knox ſaid in that forementioned debate, which he had with Lithington, [ The whole people (ſayes he) conſpired againſt Amaziah, King of Iudah, after that he had turned away from the Lord, and followed him to Lachish, and ſlew him, and took UzZiah and anoynted him King inſtead of his father. The people had not altogether forgotten the League and Covenant, which was made betwixt their Kings and them, at the inauguration of Ioas his Father, to wit, that the King and the People should, be the People of the Lord, and then should they be his Faithful ſubjects, from which Covenant, when firſt the Father and aftervvard the Son had declined, they vvere both punished vvith death, Ioas by his ovvne Servants, and Amaziah by the vvhole People, vvhen Lithingtoun (ſaid) he doubted whether they did well or not. He anſvv. [It shall be free for you to doubt as you pleaſe, but where I finde execution according to God's law, and God himſelf not to accuſe the doers, I dar not doubt of the equity of their cauſe. And further it appeareth to me; that God gave ſufficient approbation, and allowance of their fact, for he bleſſed them with victory, peace and proſperity, the ſpace of fifty two years after] and when Lithingt: replyed That proſperity doth not alwayes prove that God approveth the facts of Men. He anſwered (Yes, when the facts of Men agree with the law of God, and are rewarded according to his owne promiſe expreſſed in his law, I ſay that the proſperity ſucceding the fact, is a moſt infallible aſſurance, that God hath approved that fact: Now ſo it is, that God hath pronounced in his law, That when the people shall exterminate and deſtroy ſuch as decline from him, that he will bleſſe them, and multiply them, as he hath promiſed unto their fathers. But ſo it is, that Amaſia turned from God, for ſo the text doth witneſſe, and plaine it is, that the People ſlew their King, and like plaine it is, that God bleſſed them. Therefore yet againe I conclude that God himſelf approved their fact: and ſo far as it was done according to his commandement, it was bleſſed according to his promiſe.) And when Lithingtoun replyed againe That he thought not the ground ſo ſure as he durſt build his conſcience thereupon. He anſwered [I pray God that your conſcience have no worſe ground then this is, when ſoever you shall beginne the like work, which God in your owne eyes hath already bleſſed.] And if ſo (as is very probable) and learned Althuſ. pol. C. 38. n 106. is of the ſame judgment with Mr Knox, we need not trouble the reader with forming an argument thence to our purpoſe, the ſame being ſo obvious and cleare, that he who runneth may read it.