The History of Self-Defence, etc.  
THere being nothing so natural to a Creature endued with life, as by all means possible to endeavour the perserving of it, it may be justly matter of admiration to the considering part of the World, that some that seem to have improved their understandings many degrees beyond the reach of Ordinary Men in all manner of Knowledge, should yet degenerate so far as to be more stupid than the Brutes themselves, and not only endeavour to persuade men out of their senses, and render them mere Statues, but flout at, yea represent them as persons not worthy to be suffered to live in the World, who cannot be so far bewitched out of both their Reason and Sense, but stand up for the Common Interest of Mankind, and maintain the Common Liberties and Privileges thereof, than which none is more innate, nor more approved, either among Christians or Heathens (some few self-designing, and other weak persons hoodwinked by them excepted) than that of Innocent self-defence is; which if it could be removed from the minds of men, what could be expected in the World but Tyranny, and all manner of Injustice and Oppression? And though many of late are sufficiently persuaded of the folly (if not wickedness) of those principles, and returned to their right wits again, yet how many are there still, whom either the Vanity of being accounted constant in their Opinions, or some worse principle, keeps as Stiff and Tenacious of their mischievous Tenet as ever? Yea so far have they blinded themselves, that they cannot, or at least will not see what mischiefs they have already brought upon these Kingdoms, that 'twas next to a Miracle that they had not been inevitably ruined; and tho' a year ago many of them were sensible of their being too active in propagating such principles, and seemed to resolve for the future not to be so instrumental in their own Thraldom, yet no sooner was the Storm over, but they strait licked up their Vomit again, and have become as great Wonderers after that Beast as ever, and as ready to condemn all those that maintain that great principle of Self-defence, which is the only Bulwark against Slavery and Tyranny, as Rebellious, Seditious, Enemies to Kings, etc. Wherein they bewray their Gross Ignorance, since Rebellion as such must needs consist in the Offensive, and not in the Defensive part, as we may see from both Sacred and profane History, to instance but a few that of the 5 Kings of the Cities of the Plain who had served Chedarlaomer 13 years, and so owned him for their Lawful Sovereign, and without any Acts of Oppression committed by him against them at that time rebelled: That of Corah, which has been so much insisted on, when there was not the least injustice committed by Moses against them, not to mention others, there being no just reason in both cases why they should have rebelled, seeing they enjoyed both their Privileges and Lives. As for their branding honest spirited men as being Enemies to Kings, there is no man if he reflects impartially upon our Nonresistance men, but must acknowledge that none have proved more mischievous to Kings than they: Tho we have sufficiency of Instances to prove the Truth of this, yet if we but look back to that unfortunate Prince the late King James, as being freshest in our memory, we may easily see it. For who knows not that that Prince might have still been sitting upon his Throne, and that whatever Zeal he might have had for his Religion, yet would not have run so great a risk, as Illegally to introduce it, and to overturn the Constitution of our Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical, had he not believed, that because that Opinion had got such an Ascendant about his coming to the Crown that his Subjects would prove another Thebean Legion, nay hold out their Throats to the Knife, and unconcernedly suffer themselves to be bubbled out of their Religion, Lives and Liberties? Nay were not the Patrons of this Asinine Opinion opprobriously twitted by the Jesuits here, when in their highest Elevation, that tho' His then Majesty should introduce Popery, and put all his Protestant Subjects to the Sword, yet they must not resist him under the pain of damnation? Nor do I believe that any Prince under the Size of a Tyrant will look upon such men as any other than self-seeking Parasites, and equally Enemies both to him and his Subjects, whom a Good Prince will cherish as his Children. Nor will he fear, notwithstanding it be the Received Opinion that in case a King should degenerate into a Tyrant, and instead of maintaining his Subjects in their Rights and Privileges, should oppress and destroy them, they may justly defend themselves against his Invading of their Rights, seeing he never designs any such thing; and 'tis certain that while King confines himself to the Legal Exercise of his Office, there is not the least ground to fear that any Party can be made against him, but there shall be 40 to one for them; and if he has reason to fear any, I humbly conceive it is our passive Obedience men; for as they do applaud even the worst of Princes in their most Arbitrary Actions if they find them for their purpose, so as they may have some Ascendant over them and such as are like them (as too plainly appears in their now Justifying and wishing success to that most Christian Tyrant, not to mention others) so it is more than probable that they do not love to have a Good Prince over them, which is sufficiently verified by their carriage towards their present Majesties.  
But to come to the matter I design, since a late Anonymous Author has brought over some of his passive Commodities (as he says) from Amsterdam, a place where that precious Pearl is as mere a Drug as in any Empory in the World, which makes me think that our Author is so enamoured with his Strumpet (Nonresistance that he has lost his senses, or it may be drowned them with drinking of King James' Health:) In opposition thereto I shall only present the Reader with a short History of self-defence, which shall not consist merely of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ as that History does, but a plain Relation of matters of Fact, from Histories both Sacred and Profane, and show that however that has been traduced by weak men, or men of depraved principles, yet in all Ages of the World it has been received as the Sovereign Remedy against Oppression, by as Wise, Pious, Learned men as any that are or have been in the World, and in number infinitely exceeding the other, and that they never questioned the Lawfulness thereof when necessity forced them thereto (for otherwise it cannot be Self-defence) and have by a timeous, innocent use thereof preserved their Lives, and freed themselves from the Oppressions they groaned under; and have procured themselves such a lasting settlement that their Posterity since happily enjoys what they thus purchased for them.  
The first Instance I shall begin with is that of David when King Saul sought to take his life away, that he might secure the Kingdom the better to his Posterity; I need not particularly insist on that which first prompted Saul thereto, nor mention all the passages that fell out then; but however this is certain that David, if it was not upon the account of his defending his life against the unjust Attempts of King Saul, would not have had such a Train, for otherwise it had been far more easy for him to have escaped privately by himself, or one or two with him than with 600 Men at his back; and it may likewise be evineed from his words to Abiathar, who fled to David, when Doeg the Ed●mite by the appointment of Saul cut off all his Father's House, Stay with me, fear not, for he that seeketh my life seeketh thy life, but thou shalt be sufe with me. Now I would fain know what Gloss else Author would out upon these words; for if David had not those men with design to defend himself against Saul and his Parties he should send out to take him, what comfort could that be to Abiathar, that upon a Party of them coming against them he would surrender himself, and so he would bear Abiathar Company in Death? For tho' it be a trite Prowerb, Solamen miseris socios habuisse malorum est, yet David would have been but a Jobs Comforter to him, to tell him; Well now, you are come to me, fear not, you and I will not resist the Lords Anointed, but whenever he sends a party to apprehend us, we will patiently undergo death together; since it had been more comfortable for him to have died with the rest of his Father's Family, and not have survived their Destruction. But the last words of the Verse, should any man be so stupid as to put such a Gloss upon these Words, would confute them, viz. Thou shalt be safe with me, which undoubtedly import this, I will defend thy Life as I will my own to the utmost: And tho' it be certain that David fled several times before Saul, whither he could, yet the reason why he did so is expressly mentioned in Scripture, viz. For fear of Saul, because he had much more numerous Forces with him, and so could have easily cut off him and his Men; and besides, he being in League with Jonathan, so as he acknowledged even the Crown to be his due after his Father's Death, he knew that if he could ward off the Blow till saul's Death, he should have no reason to fear, which made him to seek no more than only to shun encountering with him: but had he been so shut up as that there had been no visible way of escape without fight him and his Forces, there is not the least doubt to be made but he would have opposed him to the utmost. It is worth the while here to observe that Saul pursued David only upon a private spite, and as a private man; we do not hear of any Encroachment made upon the Privileges and Liberties of the People in General, but that Saul acquitted himself indifferently, as to that, save in cutting off Abimelech and his Sons, and that upon a presumptive Treason, in harbouring and assisting with Arms and Victuals one whom he had declared Rebel, (quo Jure, quave Injuria is not material;) And we need not look back 100 years to find more arbitrary proceed than this was. And if it was lawful for David to defend his Life thus against that King and his Forces (who shed as many Prayers and Tears as ever any of our Nonresistance men, had as good Audience and did likewise send forth many upon this account, yet would not lie down in the Myre and pray to God to save him by a Miracle) to save his own private life; much more is it lawful for a Community to defend their Religion, Lives and Liberties against Princes, who go about to subvert the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. And tho' at 2 several times when David; had King Saul delivered into his Hands, he would not cut him off, or do him the least hurt, yet that makes nothing for their purpose, for there is no doubt to be made, but that there were a great many in the Parliament Army, who would not have done the least harm to the person of King Charles I. I shall conclude this with what St. Chrysostom says of it, Hom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vol. 2. p. 105. Who introduces David speaking on this wise, when he fled from before Saul and had Goliahs' Sword with him, and put himself into a Posture of Defence; It is better for me to be miserable, and to suffer more hardship, than that Saul should be condemned by God for the Murder of an Innocent person, etc.  
I cannot hear but take notice of a Passage of Scripture that has been egregiously wrested by our Nonresistance Men, that which was spoken by the Prophet Samuel to Saul upon his not obeying the Command of God when he was ordered to destroy the Amalekites, viz. REBELLION IS AS THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT, which has been used by them as an Argument for Non resistancetill it's become Thread bare; and yet any ordinary capacity may see the weakness of it, since the Rebellion here immediately spoken of was, not that of Subjects against a Prince (tho' none will deny that that which is really Rebellion is undoubtedly a great sin) but that of King Saul against God: So that this is very far fetched when used for an Argument against whatever those Gentlemen are pleased to Interpret Rebellion. And I am ready to Conjecture that it may have some allusion to what fell out towards the latter end of saul's Reign, viz. His going upon Gods deserting him to consult with the Witch of Endor, 1 Sam. 28. And so his Rebellion was as his Witchcraft, the one having been committed in the beginning of his Reign, and the other upon the last day of his Reign, or thereabouts, for next day or 2 he was slain by the Phil●shines. Tho' this be but a Conjecture, yet it seems as little to wrest the meaning of the Text, as their Gloss. No less impertinently are those words of Samuel when he was offended at that people's making choice of a King, This shall be the manner of the King that shall rule over you applied, when they would thereby evince that a King may lawfully do whatever he please: Whereas, he is only there telling them the Inconveniency of an evil King; and yet all the while he never spoke a word of Nonresistance, as their Sovereign Duty; Yea most particulars there mentioned are such as all Subjects willingly allow to Kings; and for that of taking their Vineyards from them, we never read of its being put in Practice; for Ahab himself, who was a very wicked King, did not take away Naboth's Vineyard, but proffered him one as good for it, as is clear from, 1 Kings 21.2, 3. And when he refused it, that King went home displeased, but did not intent to proceed any further in it, though Jezabel found out a trick to take away both his Life and it, by suborning persons to swear Treason against him. So that this Argument bears not that force in it, which they would persuade themselves it has. I shall add a 3d Scripture to the former, which is likewise stretched beyond its native meaning, viz. that in the Psalms, Touch not mine Anointed, do my Prophets no harm. For it is plain from the words preceding that these words were directed to Kings themselves, to show them, that tho' they were called the Lords Anointed, yet he in a special manner owned the Children of Israel his peculiar People as his Anointed, and they being then but few in Number, and the Kings designing to cut them off, he thereupon shown them that he would maintain their cause against those Kings, and if they wronged them, he would take it as done to himself, and redress it. And the words may very well be rendered thus with a Supplement, and then they show how remote their sense is that apply it immediately to Kings, viz. Yea he reproved Kings for their sakes, saying, [unto those Kings, O ye Kings,] Touch [you] not mine Anointed, and do [you] my Prophets no harm. And I wonder if any Nonresistance man can say that this is not the Immediate and native sense of the words: How far fetched then must the Consequences be which those Gentlemen have made from them?  
A 2d Instance from Scripture, and which imports a greater Opposition than a mere self-defence, is that of the 10 Tribes of Israel's revolting from Rehoboam, upon his harsh return to their complaint of the Grievances of his Father's Reign, and desire that he would redress them, 1 Kin. 12.1, etc. For that King, rejecting the good advice of his Father's sage Counsellors, and following the Council of Young, Loyal, Tory, Dammee boys, would own his Authority from none but God, and for that insignificant Mob, he did not value them, but said that his little finger should be heavier than his Father's Loins; whereupon they fell away from him, and made choice of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat for their King. And yet we no where hear them condemned for it in Scripture, as we find they were for Idolatry and other crying sins: So that it seems our Passive Obedience Gentlemen, have found out new Scriptures, who will have whatever they are pleased to interpret Rebellion, one of the grievousest sins that can be committed. And this thing was done by the Lord himself, as is clear from the Text; and therefore if it was a sin, God must be the Author of it, which those Gentlemen are very far from asserting. Yea when Rehoboam had like a brave-spirited Prince, raised a great Army to reduce them again to Obedience to him their Natural Sovereign, the Lord forbidden him by Shemajah the Prophet, in 1 Kings 12.19. Thus saith the Lord, you shall not go up, nor fight against your Brethren the Children of Israel; return every man to his house; it is of me. As for that word, 1 Kings 12.19. So Israel rebelled against the House of David, it may be as well rendered as it is in the Margin, & the Dutch, fell away, and Junius renders it, they made defection; and though the word Rebellion had been used here, it would not have imported a sinful Rebellion, no more than, 2 Kings 18.7. Where Hezekiah is said to have rebelled against the King of Assyria, which was a fruit and effect of the Lords being with him, and prospering him in all his undertake. Now since by this Instance we see that the People without sin (otherwise not doubt they would have been severely reproved for it in the Scripture) did thus as to the 10 Tribes unking Rehoboam, because he would not promise to redress their just Grievances, or to apply it to our Custom, because he would not take the Coronation Oath, whereby Princes bind themselves not to oppress their Subjects, but to exercise as Gentle a Gevernment over them as possibly they can; how much more is it lawful for Subjects to defend themselves against the unjust Invasions and Oppressions of one who designs not only to overturn their Religion, and to introduce an Idolatrous Worship, but likewise expose all their Lives to the mercies of those, who have been guilty of the horridest cruelties that ever were perpetrated upon Earth? And not only the People were never reproved for this, but even the Arch Rebel himself Jeroboam was never charged with any guilt in this Action, tho' he was severely checked for setting up the Golden Calves, from whence he had the denomination of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, which he did merely upon a Political account, lest the 10 Tribes resorting yearly to the Passover and other Feasts at Jerusalem, should at last be persuaded to forsake him, and return to the House of David. That he was never in the least charged with any sin in this, appears from the Words of Ahijah the Prophet, when Jeroboam sent his Wife in disguise to him about his Child that was sick, 1 Kings 14.7, 8, 9 etc.  
A 3d is that of Elisha's resisting those commissionated by the King to kill him, 2 Kings 6.32. Saying to the Elders who sat with him in his House, See ye how this Son of a Murderer hath sent to take away my head, look when the Messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door; is not the sound of his Master's feet behind him? You see here that the King offered unjust Violence to the Innocent Prophet, and sent a Ruffian to take away his life without just cause; and the Prophet defendeth himself against him as well as he could in such circumstances, for he causeth hold him at the door, and violently press him, or press him betwixt the door and the Wall, which speaketh violent Resistance: The Dutch Annotations render it, Keep him by force at the door. And Josephus is of Opinion that the King followed quickly after, lest the Prophet should have killed his Servant. By which it would seem that private persons (for the Prophet was such) might sometimes lawfully defend themselves against unjust violence offered them by Kings or their Emissaries: And if so, there cannot remain the least doubt of the Lawfulness of a Community, or Body of the People's defending themselves against the Unjust Encroachments of a King upon their Religion, Lives and Liberties, when he is endeavouring to subvert the fundamental Constitutions, on which the Preservation of all depends.  
4. The City of Libna, 2 Chron. 21.10. Revolted (which is the highest degree of resistance) from wicked King Jehoram, who when he obtained the Kingdom of his Father, strengthened himself, and slew all his Brethren with the Sword, and likewise several of the Princes of Israel, v. 4. and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab did, for he took Ahabs' Daughter to Wife, and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, v. 6. And made him high places in the Mountains of Judah, and caused the Inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto, v. 11, 13. And because he had thus forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers, the City of Libnah revolted from him: And this is the Judgement of several Learned Commentators; Cornelius à Lapide on the place saith, Libna made defection from the King because of his wickedness. And Sanctius on, 2 Kings 8.22. Libnah revolted from being under his hand, for he had forsaken the God of his Fathers. And Peter Martyr, The cause is described in the Chronicles to have been the King's wickedness, who went about to force his Subjects to Idolatry, which even those of Libnah would not sit with, and that with good reason, for we must obey the King but to the Altars, and since they had the possession of that Land on this condition, that they should worship him there according to his Word, by right thereof they ought not to suffer Idolatry. And whereas some say; This imports not the Impulsive cause of the Revolt, or Motive which they had before their Eyes (for in the same verse and 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 pointed at: It may be answered, That the Text itself and Commentators, to whom we may add Jackson, on 2 Kings 8. And the Dutch Annotations on the same place, give this as the Impulsive cause and only Motive they had before their Eyes. 2. It is obvious to any from the very Text itself that this is very remote from the true scope thereof, for v. 8. It's said, that in his days the Edomites revolted from under the Dominion of Judah, and made themselves a King, without any mention of this as the impulsive cause thereof; and mention is made again of their revolt, v. 10. upon Jehorams endeavouring to reduce them to his Dominion; and then mention is made of Libnahs' Revolt in a distinct sentence with the cause and only Motive thereof; Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers:  
5. Azariah and the fourscore Priests with him opposed King Uzziah, and would not suffer him to offer Incense (not considering it seems that he was the Lords Anointed) yea and when he persisted therein and took the Incense in his hand, and was smitten with Leprosy they thrust him out of the Temple, 2 Chron. 26.17, etc. They expelled him with force, stood against him, the LXX say, they resisted him, Vatablus, they thrust him out of the Place, Arias Montanus, they caused him to make haste, Jerom. They drove him out in haste; when he went into the Temple to burn Incense upon the Altar of Incense on some solemn day, (as Josephus is of opinion.) So that here was a double resistance of him; 1. By words, a What dost thou O King? (to use that Expression of the Proverbs so much abused by our Passive-Obedience Champions) it appertaineth not unto thee, to offer Incense, that Office by God is appointed to the Priests only; and they very peremptorily charged him to go out of the Temple; and when upon his Obstinacy he was smitten with Leprosy, they not in the least regarded that he was Gods Anointed, but forceably drove him out of the Temple. Had those Priests been of our gentlemen's Opinion, they would have said, God forbidden that we should stretch out our hand any ways against Lords Anointed, it is true that God hath forbid any to offer Incense but the Priests, but he is unaccountable for what he does, we have no power to oppose him, tho' in a humble way we will Petition him, and pray his Majesty not to do that which will so much provoke God against him: And when he was turned Leper, how might they upon the same reason have said, that tho' 'tis true that God hath said that a Leper shall not enter into the Congregation, yet that was spoken of the Body of the People but not of Kings, who whatever they do must not be resisted by us, seeing they are accountable to none but God, and thorefore let us not thrust him out. But we find no such Loyal Language proceeding out of their Mouths to this King. And hence it will undoubtedly follow, That a Prince, when he Rages and Tyrannizes' contrary to all Justice and reason may be opposed by his Subjects.  
6. And which is yet more than has been Instanced, In 2. Chron. 25.27. After that Amaziah turned away from following the Lord, the People made a Conspiracy against him, and after that he having notice thereof, fled to Lachish, they sent men who slew him there, and afterwards set up his Son Uzziah upon the Throne. Now we do not read in Scripture that ever the People were reproved for this, nor was it ever reckoned afterwards to have been one of the procuring sins of all the Judgements that were poured out upon that Nation: And which, I think is very material, Uzziah upon his Accession to the Crown never in the least called any of them in Question for it, as was done in other cases, when some of their Servants treacherously risen up against them and slew them. These Instances I thought fit to lay before the Reader out of the Old Testament, that they may be laid in the Balance with what our Nonresistance men say to the contrary.  
I shall only adduce one Instance out of the Apocrypha, and 'tis this.  
7. The History of the Macchabees is a clear Example of private persons resisting and defending themselves from the unjust Oppression and Bloodshed of their then Sovereign's: for when Antiochus was compelling them to forsake God, and acting the Tyrant overthem, Mathias a Priest and his Sons made open Resistance; and afterwards Mattathias and those with him, hearing how Mathias out of an overnice Superstition would not sight in their own defence on the Sabbath-day, resolved upon all occasions to defend themselves, their Lives and Laws, and to take all advantage of the Enemy; and it pleased God so to bless their so Laudable designs that they recovered their Cities, Laws and Liberties, and overthrew their Oppressors in several Battles. And Osiander Enchirid Contr. c. 9 de Mag. Pol. Testifies that this was done by the Encouragement and Assistance of the Spirit of God. And if any should allege that this Instance is Impertinent, because they think that Antiochus was not their Lawful Supreme Magistrate, but only a Tyrant without Title, I will recommend them to Grotius words in this case, who is of so great Authority with them in other things. In his Book de Jure Belli & Pacis, l. 1. c. 4. l. 7. he hath these words about it. Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Macchabees, for whereas some think to defend these Arms upon this ground, that Antiochus was not King, but an Invader, it seems foolish to me, since in all the History of the Macchabees, and of such as took their part, they never name Antiochus any thing else but their King; and that not without reason, for long before this the Jews had acknowledged the Authority of the Macedonians, unto whose Power and Place Antiochus did succeed; and as to that that the Law forbiddeth that any Stranger should be set over them, that is to be understood of a voluntary Election, and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do. And, whereas others say that the Macchabees used only the right of the People, cui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deberetur, neither is that solid, for the Jews being at first overcome by Nabuchadnezzar, and subjected to him by the Law of War, by the same Law they did obey the Medes and Persians, who succeeded unto the Chaldeans, and all this Empire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians: Hence it is that Tacitus reckoned the Jews amongst the basest of such as served these Assyrians, Medes and Persians. Nor did they require any thing by Stipulation from Alexander and his Successors, but without any conditions give themselves up unto their Power, as formerly they had been under the Command of Darius. And if at any time the Jews were permitted to use their own Rites and Laws, that was but a begged Right, which they had through the Indulgence of the Kings, but not through any Imperial Law. So that there is nothing that can defend the Macchabees but most imminent and certain danger. Thus he.  
Innumerable Instances of Self-defence might be adduced out of ancient Greek and Roman Histories; but since they are not of such force as those are which are produced from People professing the true Religion, I shall forbear it, and apply myself to adduce Instances from the practice of People under the Gospel.  
'Tis true in the New Testament we meet but with one Instance of self-defence, and there it's prohibited: But not so forbidden as if it were sinful, much less so great a sin as many of late have held it forth to be: For whereas in other places of the new Testament our Saviour rebuked Peter very severely with a Get thee behind me, Satan, at this time, when he drew his Sword in his Master's defence, he only said, Suffer thus far, for thus it must be: Now had this been a sin, it cannot be supposed but that our Saviour would not only have forbid it at this time, but have warned his Disciples against it for ever; And as to the words, He that useth the Sword shall perish by the Sword, that makes nothing at all for Nonresistance, since if taken merely literally it would equally prohibit all fight whatsoever, tho' against a Foreign Enemy Invading us, or against a Robber that is about to take away our Lives, which yet none will say is unlawful. And tho' some would make our Saviour's Practice in this point a Rule for us, yet there is not the least ground for it; For if we consider the great Work of Redemption which he came into the World to accomplish, we may easily see that we are not to imitate every particular practice of his; and consequently that tho' he would not defend himself against any, yet we may lawfully do it, when necessity requires.  
But since those that plead so much for Nonresistance lay their main stress on Rom. 13.1, 2, etc. and 1 Pet. 2.13. We shall briefly hint at it. And it seems very plain that Obedience and Subjection to Lawful Magistrates is here insisted on, and not to Tyrants: For, 1. We are here commanded to be Subject to that Power which is the Ordinance of God, or as it is in Peter, the Ordinance of Man: But Tyranny is neither, but the Ordinance of Satan. Gerhard de Magist. Polit. N. 54. Tells us that the Apostle accurately distinguishes betwixt the Power and the abuse of the Power, and says that the Power, and not the abuse of it, is from God, and likewise betwixt the Office itself, and the Person in the Office, and Beza and many other Learned Men are of the same Opinion. 2. The Power that is not to be resisted is for the terror of evil doers, and encouragement of those that do well: But Tyranny is an encourager of those that do evil, and a persecutor of those that do well. 3. He is not to be resisted who is the Minister of God for good: But Tyrants are not the Ministers of God, nor for good, but of Satan? And so the Text enforces our Subjection, not to such as are Tyrants, or abuse their Power to the Oppression and Destruction of Subjects, but to such as carry themselves as the Ministers of God, for the Ends appointed, viz. the Advancement of Order and Peace in the World: So that notwithstanding any thing in this Text, Tyrants, or rather Tyranny may be opposed.  
If any object, That there was no need St. Paul should insist so much on submission to Magistrates that answered the true ends of Government, since that was a Duty so plain that it needed not be much inculcated: I answer, with the abovementioned Gerhard, Polit. N. 34. and other Learned Men, That St. Paul gave this Exhortation to warn Christians to beware of that Heresy that then got up (which the Author of the History of Passive Obedience mentions himself) that despised all Governments, and accounted them the contrivance of evil Spirits, and likewise to prevent Christians from being led aside by the Jews, who held it unlawful to yield any Subjection to the Romans; And therefore to confute these Errors, the Apostle says, Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers; and St. Peter. Be subject to every Ordinance of Man. But neither of these Apostles, carries this Nonresistance and Subjection to them, to that height as those men have done of late. Nor does either of them to say, that tho' a King were going to destroy his Subjects, yet they must not defend themselves, nor resist the Lords anointed, tho' never so great a Tyrant; which undoubtedly they would have done had they designed such a degree of Nonresistance as was lately so much cried up here.  
It may likewise be answered that the Apostles in the above-cited places are only giving Exhortations to private Christians as such, and not to Communities: And therefore what is spoken in both these Places does not concern the Body of a People Collectiuè, but private Christians in particular. And so it makes nothing for our Adversaries purpose.  
I shall now proceed to give some farther Instances of Self-Defence; and since the Primitive Christians lie in my way I shall a little consider them, especially since so much stress is laid upon their practice; but if no stronger Argument can be produced than their practice, it will be very weak.  
For, Should we make their practice our Rule in this point, we must do the same in others that are parallel: And so we should hold it unlawful for us to defend ourselves against a Rabble that have no Authority at all: For Tertullian tells us that they would not resist the Common People that assailed them without any Law, and seems to put no difference between resisting Emperors and private persons, as appears by his words; Idem sumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis nostris— Quodcunque enim non licet in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam. We behave ourselves after the same manner to Emperors as we do to our Neighbours.— Whatever is not lawful to do against the Emperor, is not lawful against any Man. And several of the Fathers thought it unlawful to kill even a private man upon their own defence. See Ambrose de Offic. l. 3. c. 4. August. Epist. ad Public. 154. & de lib. Arbit. c. 5. But which is yet more, many of those Christians would not so much as flee from the fury of their Persecutors; Yea Tertul. condemned flight in time of persecution, lib. de suga in persecut. Many of them run wilfully upon persecution, when they had no call from God to do it: Nay, so ambitious were they of Martyrdom, that the Church at last was forced to emit a Declaration, that if any wilfully exposed themselves to danger unless he were taken up by the Persecutors, he should not be reputed a Martyr. So that as the practice of the Primitive Christians in these abovementioned is (as all acknowledge) no Precedent for us, so neither can it be in the other, since it is certain that what they did was rather the Effect of a desire of Martyrdom, which, as Sulpitius Severus says they gaped more after than men in his days did after Bishoprics, than a firm persuasion of the necessity of Nonresistance in all cases. For we never read that they maintained it unlawful for People to defend themselves in any case. And Besides, They had no Law on their side; and therefore their case was vastly different from ours, who have our Religion and Liberties confirmed to us by so many Acts of Parliament.  
But even then we find some Instances of self defence; for about the Year 235, some men inhabiting Mareota, with force rescued Dionysius of Alexandria, out of the hands of those that were carrying him away; see Blondel Schol, in Grot. de Imp. Sum. Pot. And the same Blondel tells us that about the year 310 the Armenians defended themselves against Maximius, who came against them with an Army because of their Religion.  
And since the World was blest with Christian Emperors, and had Laws made on their side, we find Christians behaved themselves otherwise than they did under Heathen Emperors, especially when they were under such Princes as Apostatised from the true Religion, particularly Julian the Apostate: For the Christians of those times did not only upbraid him, and prayed for his Destruction, but plainly showed, that if he had used forcible means against them, they would have resisted him, as plainly appears from Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 19 p. 307. and in his first Oration against Jultan. And that Tyrant was sensible enough of that, and therefore he never used open force against them, but took what underhand Methods he could to supplant them, as appears from the Words of the said Father, Nos enim si vis inferatur, acriores, obstantioresque futuros, ac Tyrannidi obnixum pietatis tuendae studium objecturos, &c, i. e. If he had used violence, he knew that we would be more Active and Refractory, and would have opposed to his Tyranny a firm Resolution to defend our Religion, etc. I might adduce many other Authors of undoubted Credit to confirm this; but more have been showed already than the Champions of Nonresistance shall ever be able to answer, and therefore for brevity's sake I omit them, and shall bring some Instances of the Primitive Christians defending both their Pastors and themselves against their Persecutors.  
1. When the Emperor at Macedonius Instigation, emitted a Proclamation that the Churches of such as embraced the Creed, 
Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 30.  containing the clause of one Substance should be thrown down, and the Commissioners for suppressing Churches went to put it in Execution, a great number of Novatians and others that maintained the Doctrine of one Substance, pulled down that Church, removed it to another place, and there erected it again— Again Macedonius understanding that there were many both at Paphlagonia and Mantinium; that could not be commodiously removed by Ecclesiastical Authority, persuaded the Emperor to send 4 Bands of Soldiers into Paphlagonia, to terrify the Inhabitants, and make them turn Arians. But the Inhabitants of Mantinium, kindled with a fervent Zeal for the Orthodox Religion, went against the Soldiers with cheerful minds and valiant Courage; after they had mustered a great Body, and provided themselves with the best Arms they could procure, they marched to meet their Enemies, and fought them; in this Battle many of the Paphlagonians fell, but few, if any, of the Soldiers escaped. He likewise tells us in the same place, that when this Macedonius was about to destroy the Temple in which Constantine lay interred, and designed to translate the Emperor's Bones, the People resisted him, and when he got the Bones carried into the Church where Acacius the Martyr was buried, the Multitude of the contrary side ran thither in haste; and this occasioned a very great Slaughter, and the Porch unto the Street run with Blood, and was full of Dead Bodies. And the Emperor was mightily enraged at Macedonius for his precipitancy in this Action.  
2. The Christians in Persia, when they were oppressed by Barabanes or Baratanes King thereof, 
Hist. Tripartit. l. 11. c. 15.  fled to the Romans, to beg their help; upon which and some other causes the Romans declared War against that King. It is true they did not rise up against that King when they remained in his Country, because they were not in a case to do it. But Socrates, lib. 7. declares that they came as Suppliants to the Romans, and craved that they would commiserate their case, and not suffer them to be so oppressed: And the Emperor made this a great cause of the War: And when the Persian King demanded back his Fugitives (as our Nonresistance Gentleman's most dearly beloved Champion did a few years ago) they answered they would not do it; and that they would not only endeavour to set the Suppliants at Freedom, and deliver them from their Oppressors; but also that they would undergo any thing for the good of the Christian Religion, and (as Socrates saith, lib. 7. c. 18.) they designed not only to aid them, but also by all means endeavour to maintain the Quarrel of the Christian Religion.  
3. When Athanasius was forced to flee out of Alexandria, and Gregorius was brought thither with armed Soldiers, 
Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. o. 8. Greek Copy, 11.  and put in possession of the Church, the Citizens of Alexandria, notwithstanding that Syrianus the Captain under the Emperor was there with 5000 Armed Men, were so displeased at what was done, that they set St Denis Church on fire.  
4. After the Orthodox at Constantinople had chosen Paul for their Bishop on the Death of Eusebius, 
Idem l. 2. o. 10.  the Emperor sent Hermogenes the Captain to thrust Paul out of the Church, and when he came to execute his Commission by force, the People prepared themselves to aid their Bishop, broke into the House where Hermogenes was, pulled him out and killed him. And when Paul was again placed in Constantinople, the Emperor sent Philip the Precedent to remove him, and to set up Macedonius the Arian in his stead. But Philip was so afraid of the People (it seems the Doctrine of Nonresistance was not much preached up among them, otherwise he would not have been afraid, for they were very observant of their Teacher's Injunctions) that he went strait into the public Bath called Zenxippus, and sent for Paul; and being in fear of the Multitude, that flocked thither upon Suspicion, conveyed him secretly out at a Window: Then he and Macedonius went into the Church, and were guarded all along with Soldiers, and when they came to the door, there was so great a crowd that they could not enter, till some thousands, were killed. And likewise Valens the Emperor durst not, for fear of the People, 
Socr. l. 4. c. 13.  put to death those 80 Priests that came to supplicate in name of all the rest in Nicomedia and were Commanded to be killed.  
5. Several Monks inhabiting Mount Nitria, 
Idem. l. 7. c. 14.  espoused Cyrills' Quarrel, and coming to Alexandria, assaulted the Lieutenant in his Chariot, with Stones, so that his Guard was forced to betake themselves to flight.  
6. When the Emperor had banished Chrysostom, about the year 404. 
Hist. Tripartit. l. 10. c. 13.  The People flocked together about the Palace, so that the Emperor, to pacify them, was forced to recall him from his Banishment.  
7. When Ambrose was banished by Valentinian, at the Instigation of his Mother Justina, 
Ibid. l. 9 c. 20.  the People did resist such as came to carry him away; such was their Zeal for the Truth, and Love to their injured Bishop, and chose rather to lose their Lives, than suffer their Pastor to be taken away by the Soldiers, 
Ruffin Hist. l. 11. c. 15.  that were sent to drag him out of the Church.  
More Instances might be adduced from those times, which shows of how little account the Doctrine of Nonresistance was in those days: And that they were far from thinking it a damnable Doctrine, that People might lawfully defend themselves against the Invasions of Tyrannous Princes upon their Rights and Privileges. I shall now descend to show what Instances of Self-defence are extant since the time that Popery prevailed in the Christian Church.  
The first Instance we have after the Prevalency of Popery over true Christianity is that of the Waldenses or Albingenses, 
Thuan. Preaf. in hist. sui temp. & lib. 5. A. 1550.  (who are undoubtedly the Ancientest Protestants in Europe) who had been a long time oppressed by Princes that had given up their Power to the Beast, and endeavoured by all means to suppress the true Religion there, and used now and then to take off some of the Professors thereof, putting many of them to exquisite Torments: But their Enemies, being but Novices in respect of those who followed them, and not having then found out that Sovereign Method of extirpating Heretics by Massacring, had their Address to open force, and made greater Preparations against them than ever were formerly made against the Turks, that they might make an end of them all at once: Which those Innocent People perceiving, they got together upon their own defence, and had several Battles with them; and tho' it pleased God to let their Enemies have the Victory, and the poor people were forced to fly; yet their flight contributed much to the Advancoment of the Gospel, for being thus scattered, they sowed the seed of the Gospel through several Places of Europe.  
2. The Protestants of Bohemia, 
Theat. Mat. p. 681. Mut. in Chron. l. 27. p. 314, 315.  after they saw that John Huss and Jerom of Prague Martyred by their Enemies, (the former of whom was most unjustly taken off by his adversaries, when he had the public faith of the Emperor Sigismond, for his safe appearance) thought it time to look to their Preservation, when they saw that they were all designed for slaughter; and therefore they stood up to defend themselves and their Religion; their first Leader was Ziska (or Joannes de Trots Nova) who behaved himself so valiantly that the Germans were not able to stand before him; and when he was a dying he ordered a Drum to be made of his Skin, affirming that whenever his Enemies heard the sound thereof, they would forthwith betake themselves to flight. This War continued 13 years, A●neas Silvius speaking of it saith, that it would be more admired than believed by Posterity. The Emperor sent 3 Armies against them. viz▪ one under the Duke of Saxony, another under the Marquis of Brandenburg and a 3d under the Bishop of Trier, who in all consisted of 200000 Men. Yet they were routed in several Battles, and forced to go out of Bohemia. Several Cardinals were with them, to curse those Rebels of damnable Commonwealth Principles with Bell. Book and Candle, with all Order and Decency that could be, and yet notwithstanding, that Loyal Army could not stand before this factious Rabble, tho' a Cardinal gave them his Blessing, told them that they fought against Heretics, Dogs, and what not? promised them Indulgences, Apostolical Blessings, etc. Yet all would not do. For as good a cause as those Men had, viz. fight for their Gracious Sovereign, they were forced to betake themselves to that which was the others part to have done, viz. Prayers and Tears, and run for it. And had those people continued unanimous, they might without Interruption have enjoyed the freedom of their Religion and other Privileges till this day, but they being made up of 2 sorts, as generally all Churches are, the one, and by far the greatest, stood up only for the Cup in the Sacrament, who were therefore called Calixtines, in other points agreeing with the Church of Rome. The other called Taborites far inferior in Number, rejected likewise the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as superstitious and false; the other Party, by the persuasion of Rokyzana who gaped after the Archbishopric of Prague, were reconciled to the Church of Rome, retaining only the use of the Cup; and when the Taborites protested against them for it; this Party to show that they were in earnest reconciled to that Church, and had received the Gifts of that Spirit that are diffused there, viz. Blind-zeal, Blood thirstiness, etc. raised forces against them and gave them a total Overthrow, Anno 1434. So that they dragooned them to Nonresistance; for since they had now no force against them, they were forced to restrict themselves to what defence they could make by the Sword of the Word and Patience. The City Tabor which they had built was likewise Sacked, and they dispersed. But Rokyzana, when he saw the Pope tantalized him with the vain hopes of the Archbishopric, began to thunder out afresh against the Pope as Antichrist, and to separate from the Latin, and unite with the Greek Church. But the Pope, knowing that the only way to stop a Dog's Mouth, when he is a snarling, is to throw him a Bone, gave him his Bishopric; after which this good Bishop was pleased to interceded with King George to grant them free Liberty to dwell in the Mountainous parts of Silesia; whither they went in the year 1459. Giving themselves wholly to the reading of the Scriptures and Prayer; their Faith and Lives being framed according to Apostolical simplicity. But their Peace was not long lived, as it seldom ever was in a Church, when it had no other means left it but Prayers and Tears; for that good Bishop (its like out of a pious design to nip so dangerous a faction as that was in the bud, and to advance Mother Churches peace) informing the King what dangerous men those were, persuaded him to use his fatherly Chastisement to reduce his Rebellious Subjects to their due Obedience, which could not be done, without an Uniformity in matters of Religion and Ceremonies; So that they were forced to betake themselves to the Woods and Caves, where they durst not kindle fire in the day time, in the extremity of Cold, lest the smoke should discover them to their Enemies. See Regensvolc. Hist. Slavon. p. 2.29, etc. Who relates a great many things of these Brethren even till the times of Erasmus, who himself did not disapprove their Opinion.  
3. When in the year 1529 a Meeting of the States of the Empire was held at Spire, 
Sleidan, l. vi, seven. xvii. Thuan l. iv. Hist.  a Decree was published which very much straitened the Liberty of the Protestants, Joh. Elector of Saxony, Geo. of Brandenburg, Ernest and Fran. of Lunenburgh Phil. of Hassia, protested publicly against it on April 19 And several Cities, as Strasburg, Norimberg, Ulme and others subscribed their Protestation; from which time they had the name of Protestants. And when they were threatened a War by the Emperor, the rest of the States of the Empire and all the Popish Faction, they entered into a League at Smalcald, on Nou. 23. to defend their Religion and Liberties, against their unjust Invasions. And afterwards in the Year 1547. The Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hassia gave the Emperor battle at Mulberg where they were routed by his Army, and Friderick Elector of Saxony after he had received several wounds was taken Prisoner. And in the year 1552 Maisrice of Saxony made War upon the Emperor, to procure the Landgrave of Hassia his Father in Law his Liberty. And he made so great Expedition, that he was upon the Emperor before he was ware, and did so surprise him, that he made him fly from Mulhousia in the Middle of the Night, and set at Liberty both the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave. And when Maurice had almost overrun all Germany, a Peace was concluded at Passaw, by the Mediation of Ferdinand King of Hungary and Bohemia, wherein Liberty of Religion according to the Auspurg Confession was established.  
4. It is no less certain, that the French Protestants defended themselves against Authority, 
Thuan. Sl●id. Contin. Gallasius, etc.  when they saw that they were designed as sheep for the Slaughter and that great Armies were raised there, and much blood shed, so that Rivers are said to be coloured with Blood. And when it pleased God so to defend those distressed Protestants that their Bloody Enemies, could not obtain their ends by open Hostility, they betook themselves to that Inhuman way of Massacring, and having gathered together most of the leading Protestants of France under pretence of solemnising the Marriage of that King's Daughter with the King of Navarre, they cut them off in one night, to the number of 70000, that so the Country People being destitute of their Leaders might be a Prey to them. Now had our so much magnified Doctrine of Nonresistance been in force there, there had been no need of having recourse to such Inhuman a Method as this; for there needed no more, if so be they would have made no Opposition in their own defence, but stringed them up in hundreds and thousands.  
5. It is likewise sufficiently known how the Protestants of the Netherlands defended themselves against the Tyrannical Oppressions and Cruelties of the King of Spain and the Duke de Alva his Governor, 
Stad. de Bello Belg. Grot. Meteran, Redan.  when the Inquisition was set up there, whereby several of their Nobles were cut off, and that at that time William of Nassaw Prince of Orange, made his Escape to his Father in Law Maurice Elector of Saxony: At the news of whose escape, Granvellan said, that it signified, little that the Counts of Horn and Egmond were taken, since that Quiet thinking William had made his Escape. He returned afterwards, and was made use of by God as the Great Instrument of the Delivery of God's Church and People there, and defended them against their Bloody Enemies: And had not God stirred up this great Prince to put a stop to that Tyrant's fury, and to resist his unjust Encroachments upon the People's Liberties, and defend the true Apostolic Faith against the Romish Innovations, 'tis a great Question whether that had not still been a Land of graven Images: And had Nonresistance been in Vogue there, we had been deprived of that Great Mercy we now enjoy in having a Prince descended of his Loins to reign over us: For that Noble Family had then been undoubtedly destroyed.  
6. To name no more (tho' several others might be instanced) It is likewise known, how in the beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, the same Method was taken there, viz. that some of the Nobility and People when they saw that Queen wholly abandoned to the Counsel of her Priests, and when no Petitions could avail any thing, entered into a mutual League to defend themselves against what unjust force should be attempted against them, tho' in the mean while they treated that Queen very honourably, and would have given her all deference possible, but only they found it as much for her good as theirs, to prevent her embruing her hands in the Blood of the Saints, and her making opposition to God in that great work he was bringing about there. And it pleased God so to espouse their Quarrel that they freed themselves from that Romish Yoke under which they had so long groaned, and revived the pure Apostolic Religion there. By all which Instances it appears that the Doctrine of Self-Defence is not such a Bugbear as our Nonresistance men would make it: But that it has been more or less practised in all Ages; nor can they show half so many Precedents for their Passive Obedience; Nor was it ever so enjoined in Scripture, as they maintain it: Nay I am sure it has been more insisted upon here in one Sunday than ever it was in all the Scriptures, and Primitive Christians, and others subsequent till of late years, and that at a time when Charters and Privileges were taken away, traps laid against the Lives of several Innocent persons and a Prince devouted to the Romish Interests ready to mount the Throne; Pio nun conamine? Methinks were there the least grain of Modesty in those persons they should be ashamed of former actings, and not endeavour to do them over again. But 'tis easily known what these men drive at.  
Nor will this seem harsh Doctrine to good Princes, that love their Subjects, and whose aim it is to answer that great end for which they were set up, no more than a Husband or Parent would be offended, if told, that if he in a mad or drunken sit should go about to Murder his Wife, Children or Servants, they would bind him till such time as his drunken fit or madness were over: In such a case undoubtedly the Parent, etc. would be so far from resenting the affront offered to his Despotic or Paternal Authority, that he would thank them for doing it; the Application is easy.  
But since contraria juxta se posita clariùs elucescunt, I shall only present the Reader with one instance of the resisting of Authority that is condemned in the Scriptures, and 'tis that of Storch and Muntzer, and the other Anabaptists in Germany, An. 1525. who would not give due Obedience to Magistrates, and under a pretext of Christian Liberty committed many Riots, so that in one Summer about 50000 of the Factious were cut off. Muntzer was the Instigator of this Fury, who pretended to Enthusiasms, Dreams, Internal Revelations, and other Fanatical Whimsies. He rejected Infant-Baptism, said that not the Scripture, but that which was secretly revealed to Men, was the Word of God; that God was about to set up a new Government, in which he would destroy all Earthly Potentates, and put the Government into the hands of the Godly. His principal Tenet, on which all the Sedition depended was, That Wicked Magistrates should be destroyed, and Godly Magistrates should be set up in their places. By which means he gathered together a great many silly people, seized on several Cities, and committed great Outrages, till his Enthusiastic Army was routed, and he himself taken, and punished according to his deserts.  
I say this Instance is quite different from those we mentioned above, who never had any design against the Magistrates, but only endeavoured to defend their Lives and Religion against the Illegal Invasions of Tyrannous Princes; whereas these now mentioned had no less design than wholly to overturn that Sacred Order, they being much of the same Principles with Fifth Monarchy men, and those of that Kidney here, by whose means undoubtedly, they having made so strong a Party in the Army, King Charles I. was so horridly Murdered, to the abhorrence of all good Men, even such as were of Opinion that Subjects might lawfully defend themselves against the Encroachments of Princes upon their Laws and Liberties. And since our Nonresistance men have taken occasion to expose those in our Neighbouring Kingdom of Scotland as men of the same Principles, I shall briefly show how maliciously they aspersed them; for the first rising there An. 1666, was occasioned by the Outrage of Soldiers, who grievously harassed that poor People in the West of Scotland to the beggaring of many hundreds of Families who lived in good repute there; all that while they never offered to rise, till the barbarous Soldiers offered violence to some of those poor distressed People, whereupon they defending themselves against their Outrage, and several of the Country people coming in to their Assistance, they killed some of the Soldiers; and then expecting nothing but to be made a Sacrifice, they resolved to defend themselves to the utmost, and got together some 3000 Men; and tho' they took Major Turner (who had been so great an Oppressor) Prisoner, yet they did not offer him the least Injury, but shown him all the Civility imaginable, as he himself afterward declared, which shows that they were not such Bloodthirsty Men as they were represented to be: Nor did they then declare against the King, but only against the Tyranny of their Bishops, they having no other way left of making his Majesty sensible of the grievous Oppressions they groaned under. And that also in 1679 was occasioned by the late Dundee then Claver-house his going against them, when at a Field meeting; and discovering him, they sent out what armed Men they had to treat with him, who prayed him to let them conclude their Devotions, and they would all disperse themselves peaceably; but he thirsting after their Blood, and designing to make as many of them Prisoners as he could, (which was but little better than death, considering in what Jails they were Imprisoned, and how long kept) ordered his Men to Fire upon them, whereupon after receiving his Fire they discharged upon him, and gave him and his Men such warm Entertainment that they were glad to scamper. This raising the Country again in a few days they were 7 or 8000 strong, (a sufficient instance to confute that which is with so much confidence whispered about here, that the Major part of Scotland is for Episcopal Government, when all Dundee and his Party could muster up in a quarter of a years time never equalled this number) and would have increased to above 20000 in a few days, had not some of their Number been dispatched Messengers through the Countries to pray the People not to come in, upon a difference that arose among them, about their Obligation to King Charles II. at penning of their Declaration why they were thus in Arms; the by far greatest number of them declaring that they did not in the least design any thing against His Person or Authority, but would maintain the same according as they were obliged by their Covenant, but only they had no other way of informing his Majesty of the sadness of their condition, since he was encompassed with their Enemies; tho' some others, and especially those who had taken upon them to command the rest, would have declared against him likewise, who no doubt might be seduced by some Romish Emissaries, that in such a juncture might easily insinuate themselves amongst them. By which it may appear that however those Men have been maligned by black Mouths, yet they are as great Lovers of Monarchy, as Loyal, and as ready and cheerful to give a Rational and Conscientious Obedience to Monarches as any, tho' I confess I cannot boast of their Loyalty to the Mitre, especially they cannot endure that it should be set a top of the Crown: But how much they are for Monarchy may be seen by their being so active in bringing home King Charles the Second, tho' I will not Swear that the Proverb is not fulfilled. ●●●●re quod fi● ingrato.  
Having thus deduced the History of Self-Defence from the very first King of the Israelites, and shown by Instances, that as it began with Kings there, so it continued as long as the Jewish Government lasted, and adduced several instances of it in the Primitive Times, but more especially in the time of the Reformation, I shall conclude with a few Remarks upon the Author's Preface, where he is principally concerned, he having done nothing in the rest, but brought in some far fetched Consequences. He gins his Preface with telling you that he always thought that the Doctrine of Nonresistance had been a Doctrine founded in the Holy Scriptures, 
Page 1.  etc. Which is much the same with the Dying Testimony of a late Reverend Prelate of the Church of England, who had sucked it in with his Mothers, Milk: So that by his own words, he seems never to have impartially weighed the strength of Argumentsion both sides, but has taken it upon trust, so that it can have little weight with any considering Man. But what he says as to its being maintained in the first Ages of the Reformation, is easilier said than proved. That the first Reformers of the Church of England acknowledged all due subjection to Authority (in the same some as all other Churches, and every honest Man does, viz. to Princes acting Legally, and those who are true Fathers of their Country is beyond ●●l doubt. But that the first Reformers of the Church of England did maintain. Nonresistance to the same height that this Author and his Party does, is more than he can evince, since there is nothing of it in the 39 Articles; and the Citations which he brings out of the Homilies seem to affect private Persons, and not a Community. But if this was always the professed Doctrine of the Church of England, that it was in no case Lawful for Subjects to resist of defend themselves against the Tyrannical Invasions of their Princes, how came she to approve of and contribute to the assisting of Protestants actually in Arms against their Kings, particularly those of the Seven Provinces, those of Scotland, and of later days the Protestants of Rochel? I believe that Author will scarce venture to say, that she did not approve it: And therefore it must either be granted that she did not maintain Nonresistance in that height as our Author and his Party do, or that she acted very dissonantly to her Principles; which would be a great Reflection on so great and pious Divines as lived then: For had she been of Opinion that it was unlawful for Subjects upon any account to defend themselves against the unjust Oppressions of their Sovereigns, she must needs at the same time see that it was unlawful for her to be Aider and Abettor with them, and partake of their sin: And so instead of approving or sending of supplies to them, she should have sent them over that Christian Exhortation, that it was their indispensable Duty to submit their Necks to whatever their Sovereigns should impose upon them, and suffer it patiently, and by no means to resist their Superior Powers: But we have nothing upon Record that any of her Divines at that time living objected any thing against it: And therefore we may with all the reason of the World conclude that had it been her, own case, she would have taken the same Methods of defending herself as other Protestants did. For she had but a little before been under the same Trials herself, and therefore she knew experience, than our Author, and his Party, to whom we may truly apply that of our Saviour to his Disciples, which they have so often applied to others. That they know not what manner of Spirit they are of. As to what he says after ward of her Loyalty during Queen Mary's, Reign: It may be answered, that in King Edward the Sixth Days she was but in her Infancy, and 'tis probable that the Protestants at that time were not so, strong in England, but that the Papists clothed with Authority would have been too hard for them: Besides that the Protestant Party was at that time weakened by the Factions and Animosities of some, great Men, which no doubt (as it was promoted by the Papal Faction so) gave great advantage to their Enemies: As by the heats of our present Nonresistance Men great advantage is now given to the common Enemy, so as they are become, very insolent, who otherwise were there no Fowds amongst us, durst not so much as mutter. As to her being so active in bringing Queen Mary to the Throne, I think it, may deserve enquiry, whether she might not have done as well if she had excluded Queen Mary, and set up Queen Elizabeth immediately, upon King Edward, VI Death: Since she could have sufficiently justified herself in so doing, in as much as, King Henry VIII. Marriage with her Mother was declared unlawful by the most Earned Divines and Casuists in Europe, as being not only forbidden in the Old Testament, but likewise in the New by John the Baptist, when he told Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his Brother's Wife, which being true, Queen Mary had no Right to succeed, since she was Illegitimate, more than the late Duke of Monmouth had; so that the Loyalty during the Marian Persecution will not be very much to his purpose: And whereas that Author seems to obviate an Objection, viz. That Adversaries pretend that there is something of self in the case that makes them stand up so much for Nonresistance: 
Page 1.  I do not see, notwithstanding all he has said for the Vindication of his Party, but it is still unanswered, since there hath never been a time since the Church of England was in her most flourishing state, that she had occasion to discover her Loyalty towards persecuting Princes. And since I know this Gentleman reckons only those of his own size the True Churchmen (they having sufficiently discovered this to the World, when they branded the most Learned, most Religious, most Moderate, and numerous Party of the Church with the opprobrious Name of Timmer) I would desire him to pause a little, and consider upon what ground it is that they found their Nonresistance upon: There are two great commands upon which the whole Duty of Man hangs; viz. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, etc. and Thou shalt love by Neighbour at thyself. They cannot say it depends on the former, at least immediately; tho' there are not wanting: Instances of too many of that sort of Men, who both by their Doctrine and Practice shown much more Zeal to the Earthly God than to the Heavenly, as could be made appear both from their so much insisting upon their Nonresistance (at a time when it might not have been thought so seasonable) and thereby shuffling out those Exhortations which immediately concerned the Salvation of Souls, and by the Immoral practices of several of them. We know there is a Church where more honour is showed to Christ's Vicar than to himself; I wish it be not so with many of our Nonresistance Men to his Vicegerent. But since it must needs be granted that it depends on the latter, the sincerity of those men in this particular may be tried by their observance of other parallel Duties enjoined in that same General Precept, and if they be sound tardy in those we have the more reason to suspect them in this. I have several times wondered why of all men in the World most of our Nonresistance Champions should have the confidence to pretend to the Observation of so selfdenying a Precept, as that seems to be, since none are readier to resent the least Injuries than they are, yea, when they will look upon that to be an Injury which is really none; and if so be they cannot put up the least supposed injury in the smallest things, and from which they can receive the least prejudice, how can it be supposed they would do it, if it should come to the loss of Lives and Liberties? None that I know of, except the Romanists, have so far vented their Spleen, and used such rigour and severity against those that differ from them, none have defamed and misrepresented them more than those men who especially plead for Nonresistance; and how that great Christian principle of Love which they so much pretend to, is exercised therein, I cannot conceive. Now if there be such a failure in that so Obvious and Necessary a Duty, I think, that without any great breach of Charity a man may conclude that their Doctrine of Nonresistance is no other than the Doctrine of the Bowstring. For if their Loyalty, which they so much pretend to proceeded from an unfeigned respect to the Command of God, a respect to the same Command would likewise inspire them with Christian Love and Charity towards all men, tho' never so much dissenting from them, much more towards those who differ only from them in smaller Matters. So that while they thus boast that they have fulfilled the Commandment of the Lord in destroying those Amalekites, I mean those sinful Passions that are so prejudicial to Societies as well as particular Men, the bleat of the Sheep testify against them that they are not such as they would make the World believe, notwithstanding all their specious pretences to Loyalty. And since they used to inveigh so much against other persons when they expressed their dislike against some Arbitrary Proceed in the Reign of King Charles II. as those that spoke evil of Dignities, and so reckoned them as the worst of men, when those that but espoused their darling Nonresistance, tho' otherwise the stain of Humanity itself, much more of Christianity, were good honest men; I only would desire them to reflect upon their Invectives against the late King James, for near the last 2 years of his Reign, and how kindly they entertained the severest Lampoons against him. There is none that conversed with them but can testify to the Truth of this, and I doubt not but this Author had his share in it. Nay, may we not remember how highly many of them resented King Charles II. His pardoning the late Duke of Monmouth, and could not forbear saying, What! has His Majesty served us thus? So that we may see that either they must be above the King and have him at their beck, or nothing will satisfy them: And notwithstanding all our Author has said in his Parties Vindication, that saying of the Father of lies will be a Truth when applied to them, viz. Does Job serve God for nought? For if they be but dissatisfied in the least none would curse the King more than they would do.  
As for what he says, that the Doctrine cannot be unseasonable, since no Government can be safe without it, 
Pag. 2.  it is manifestly false; for if a King keeps himself within the due bounds that God and the Laws of the Land set him, he needs not fear any hurt from his Subjects, tho' there were not a Man in the world that maintained Nonresistance. And on the other hand, if this Principle were generally maintained, I would fain know how the World could be preserved from Tyranny and all manner of Oppression and Injustice. I hope this Author will acknowledge that we must not always expect Miracles. Now were this Doctrine generally held, we could never he safe but under good Princes, and scarce under them, could but such Gentlemen as this Author get the Ascendant over them, and if we peruse Histories of former times, we shall find several bad Kings to one Good. Now if this Doctrine were become Universal, there would be no restrain upon a King, the Laws would prove but like Samsons Cords, which he without fear would snap asunder at his pleasure, since he knew that whatever he did all would be patiently taken. May we not then justly apply that of our Saviour to the Pharisees, to those men that advance such dangerous Opinions, That they would bind heavy Burdens on other men's Shoulders, but would not touch them with one of their little Fingers? And put the same Question to them which the Apostle did to Judaizing Christians, Acts. 15.10. Why tempt you God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear? And is there any Yoke more grievous than, that People and Nations must be all their life long in Bondage, and that without any hopes of Redress, except by a Miracle? Did not the wisest of Men and Princes say, Oppression maketh a wise man mad? But to apply this Doctrine to our Constitution here, would not this Doctrine at one blow cut off all the Rights of Parliament? And then we should have no Laws but the King's Pleasure; For were this Doctrine in force, he might lay on a Tax at his pleasure, and send out Booted Apostles to force the People to pay whatever the imposed upon them, and if they would not pay it willingly, take it perforce from them, and all the while they must patiently sit still, and not make the least Opposition against those that are sent out by him, whatever Outrages they should commit. And is not this a Doctrine highly advantageous to Humane Societies? I am afraid our Author and his party were they touched in the quick with this would be as ready to kick as those men they so much rail at. But we may generally observe that the greatest Cowards boast most of their Courage, before it come to be tried in Battle, and therefore we shall excuse them for once.  
As for his Instance of King Charles I. Tho' there is no good Man but abhors the barbarous Murdering of that Prince, 
Ibid.  yet I think our Author cannot but acknowledge, that he, tho' of a very good nature, was drawn aside (no doubt by such Gentlemen as he) to act several Illegal things. It is certainly known that the Massacre in Ireland did stir up the Spirits of many in England, out of a fear lest they should suffer the same things here; and the advice of some high flown men given to that King, of introducing new Ceremonies into the Church of Scotland, stirred up the Spirits of that Kingdom; all which jumping together made way to his ruin: Which was afterwards effected by some bloody, self-designing men that made a party in the Army. But our Author needs not wonder so much as he does to see her Sons disown that which he calls her Doctrine, since he might have known that many of her Sons were in the Parliament Army (a great part of King Charles I. Army being Roman Catholics, so that they were but the smallest Number of the Church of England that joined him.) But as I said, before this Gentleman reckons none true Sons of the Church but those of his own size; As for the rest, I doubt not but he includes them with those Enemies, who make a fasting day of our Saviour's Nativity (as if they were sorry that he came into the World, and perhaps with reason, because their Actions were so contrary, both to his Precepts and Example.) By which we may see that this Gentleman has been so intent in cunning the 13 of the Romans, that he had no time to spare for the 14th. Otherwise he would have been more sparing in rash judging, for he might have read in Verse 4 of that Chapter. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not let not him that eateth not, despise him that eateth— and in v. 6. He that keepeth a day to the Lord be keepeth it; and he that keepeth not a day to the Lord he keepeth it not.— Or it may be our Author has passed his courses of smaller Duties, such as this is, and minds only the Topping and most difficult, such as Non resistance, etc. And so the old Proverb may be applied to him, Aquila non captat muscas. But I must take the Liberty to tell him, that the Generality of our high Nonresistance men's practice is as contrary to the Precepts and Example of our Lord, as the worst of those that (he says) make a fasting day for our Saviour's Nativity.  
He tells us next, Did we seriously study the Laws of Providence, 
Pag. 3.  and consider the Indispensable Obligations laid on us of taking up the Cross, etc. Very true, but because we are ordered to take up the Cross when called to it, must we therefore make one for ourselves, as if we were as ambitious of it as the Primitive Christians were of Martyrdom. I think our Author himself, if he be of that Church he professes, will not therefore justify the Papists making a Rod to chastise themselves with on good Friday, or think that God is pleased therewith, since he never desired them to take up that Cross: many crosses are laid upon us by God, which yet we may use lawful means to get rid of particularly sickness; and he would be thought a fool that would not apply himself to Physicians to get free of it, but would expect to be cured by a Miracle: And till our Author has given better Arguments for Nonresistance than we have yet seen, we must take the Liberty to say, that in order to the preserving of our Lives against a Tyrant that would take them away, we may as warrantably make use of Self-Defence, as of Physicians when sickness threatens us with Death.  
His Instance of the Gnostics is very far from the purpose, for as the Author he quotes upon that Subject says, 
Ibid.  they reckoned all Governments to be nothing else but the contrivance of some evil Spirits, whereas there are none of those that are for Self-defence (if we except those of the Fifth Monarchy Principle) but have as great a veneration for Government as any of his Party, and would hazard as much for the supporting thereof as any of them; but as for Tyranny, when people are much in the same case, if not worse, than if there were no Government at all, the case is quite altered. That other Citation of Machiavelli is much to the same purpose, and therefore I pass it.  
He next reflects upon Hobbs, (but I suppose designed to wound another through his sides, 
Page 4.  for in other points I believe they needed no Reconciliation) and his Conscience is mightily startled (if he has any) at the dangerous Tenets which he revived, viz. That Power is originally in the people, that the Foundation of all Government is laid in Compact, and that the Breach of Conditions by one Party justifies that of the other. But I would gladly hear his Proofs that Power was not Originally in the people; and how Kings came first by their Power: For all that ever this Author or any of his party have said about it is a mere Chimaera, viz. That Kings as they derived their Lives, so they received their Power from Adam and Noah, by virtue of their Primogeniture, as the first had it immediately from God, without any consent of the People: But first, than it would follow that Mankind should be born as great slaves as Beasts, since a King in such a case should have as much Propriety over them, as any Countryman has over his Horse, Cows or Sheep; than which nothing can be more repugnant to reason. 2. It would follow that there should have been but one Universal King over the whole Earth, viz. the Eldest Son of Noah, who undoubtedly must have that Power over all his Younger Brethren, and consequently his Posterity in the right line, must have had the same Power over their Posterity, and there could not have been any other Kings unless he or his Posterity in the right line had made them their Vicegerents; but this is altogether Inhistorical: And therefore their position must be false. For it is certain that the great Monarchies that have been in the World were but small Kingdoms at the first, and that for a considerable time, and were afterward enlarged by Conquest. 3. If this Conjecture had been true; it would follow that God himself contradicted his own Order, without any reason for it: For upon the Israelites desiring a King, should not he rather have made choice of the chief of the first Tribe, than of one of the meanest families of the Youngest Tribe, viz. Saul, who was not master of such Virtues as to recommend him to the Crown before all the rest of the Children of Israel? The like may be said of David who was not of the Eldest Family of Judah; and tho' he was a Man after Gods own heart, yet according to those gentlemen's opinion, another should not have been deprived of his Right. And since this Opinion has not the least ground for it, it must necessarily follow that it was by Election, and consequently that the Power of Election resided in the People; and as the People did elect them, so it is most rational to suppose, that Articles were drawn up betwixt them and the People, which were to be mutually observed; for 'tis very improbable that People would give up themselves as Bondslaves to that Prince, but entrusted him with the Government merely that they might under him lead quiet and peaceable Lives; and since he had no right to Tyrannize over People, his Successors could have no more right than he, and if he or they did endeavour to oppress the Subjects, & encroach upon their Liberties and Privileges, they might lawfully defend themselves. But this Subject is too large to insist upon, and therefore I must leave it, tho' in our Gentleman's opinion one of the Fundamental Points of Christianity!  
Another Damnable Doctrine that makes this good Man's hairs stand an end is, That when Religion is a part of our Property it may be defended. 
Ibid.  But why should this be such a Bugbear? For what has been more dear to all Nations in the World than Religion? If Civil Privileges may be maintained, and if we enjoy as them helps to us in our Religion, or serving God, than it will follow, that we may much more maintain our religious Privileges. Nothing can be more dear or more worth the preserving in a Land than the freedom of our Religion: Has not the Scripture itself reckoned it the greatest of Privileges when it said, Blessed are they that hear the Joyful sound? And if it be such a Mercy, may we not at least use all the means for maintaining of it that we may do for a Mercy of an Inferior Nature? But I would fain know if a King should go about to put down the Hierarchy and Ceremonies of the Church of England, what our Author and his Party would do, whether or no they would defend their Religion: He that would think they would patiently sit with it, would I doubt not be mightily mistaken: Nay have we not sufficiently seen of late what they would do, by the practice of their Brethren in Scotland, and their public Approbation of it here in most Coffeehouses? For none have been so Industrious of late (and that with a mischievous Design to stir up people against the Government) as those very Men, in buzzing it about here that the turning out of the Bishops in Scotland was the only occasion of Dundees Rebellion there. And why have so many of them Vindicated them for so doing? Of all men of the World it lest became them; & had they considered how contradictory that behaviour is to the Doctrine of Nonresistance, they would have had more prudence whatever they thought, than to have said so. So that by this we may see however Heterodox this Opinion is, That Religion when it is a part of our Property may be defended, yet those Gentlemen would maintain it when it makes for their Turn.  
He concludes this Paragraph with telling you, that he speaks this God knows to confute the Calumny, 
Page 5.  and with the deepest sense of the Interests of a poor despised Church, which is still and will be the best, the most Orthodox, and most Primitive of all Christendom Magisterially spoken! But why despised? I know no Man despises her; but it would seem our Author by his despised Church means only those persons that have refused to take the Oaths: And it is no wonder if that party of it be despised, that out of a humour or some sinister Arbitrary design, advance such Doctrines in the World as have such a tendency to the enslaving and Oppression of Mankind in General. But this Gentleman talks more like a Son of Infallibility, than one that acknowledges a Church to be fallible: For why should he thus extol the Church of England so highly beyond all other Churches: That she is a famous Church none will deny, and also that she has as Learned and Pious men in her Communion as any other Church: But it is always a sign both of Prudence and Modesty not to run out too much in our own Praise: The Proverb holds still Laus proprio fordescit in ore, I could wish it were more minded by those men, when they thus claim to themselves an Excellence beyond all other Churches. This more becomes a Church that pretends to Infallibility than any other. We have heard of a Church that said she was rich and well clothed, and stood in need of nothing, when yet she wanted every thing: I do not say this as If I thought that her case were the same with that of that Church, but only that she and every other Church should not think of themselves so as to despise all others. But he not only says that she is, but that she will be, which yet savours more of Infallibility: Can our Author spare so much time from reading those places in the Scripture which he thinks make most for Nonresistance, I would desire him to read the second and third Chapter of the Revelation, and there he would find that the Seven Churches of Asia (which the Spirit of God called the Seven Golden Candlesticks) were once as famous Churches as ever the Church of England or any other Church was, and yet many years ago there has been little resemblance of a Church there. And the same may befall her or any other Church: But if it do not, I am sure she need not thank this Author or any of his Party for it; for could they bring about their designs, she would quickly be brought to that pass, when we had the Romish Crew again brought in amongst us.  
That Citation he quotes out of Cressy is as little to his purpose, and he mentions it only to make us believe that Mr. Calvin and other Protestants abroad were Champions for Nonresistance; 
Ibid.  but if so, how came so many Pulpits to thunder out against Calvin and other Foreign Protestants as the Broachers of Sedition? And why were several of their Works burnt at Oxford, An. 1683. when Nonresistance was culminant? However it seems he is a very good-natured Gentleman, and would make Mr. Calvin some redress for the Injury that has been done to his Reputation.  
But to let you know the sincerity of his Undertaking, he tells you that he intends no Disturbance by it, 
Ibid.  since he only does the Office of an Historian, in barely citing his Authors, and so he excuses himself from making good every Argument therein, since the Authors most of them being alive, are obliged to manage that; wherein he is to be commended for his Prudence, for I am afraid it would have been too difficult a Task for him: But I thought that the Evidence of Scripture and Reason was to be a Protestants Rule, and not blindly to believe as the Church or generality of her Fathers believe: And therefore he would have done much more for his Cause, had he himself demonstrated the Necessity of Nonresistance by solid Arguments taken from Scripture and Reason, and the universal practice of all sober men, than by thus setting down a multitude (of it may be not a few of them wrested) expressions of several Learned Men. But his design is no less than, since he sees that he and his Party cannot carry on their mischievous purposes, to stir up and exasperate the minds of simple inconsiderate people against those Learned Men. For all men of consideration must acknowledge, that the best and most Learned Men are not exempted from Errors, as also that there is scarce any man so even tempered, but that sometimes Passion and Prejudice against a Party may carry them out too far in a preposterous Zeal, so as to utter not only many unbecoming expressions against the Opinions of a Party they have a dislike at, but even to run too far upon the extreme. And this is no new thing in the World. But that those Learned Men have remitted of that height of Loyalty, which they maintained at the times when they published those say which he quotes, seems to me clear from this: That since the Restauration of King Charles II. that subject was mostly insisted on (and that chief, as I believe, from a detestation of the Barbarous Murder of King Charles I.) and especially towards the latter end of his Reign, and the beginning of the late King James', when yet there was not half the danger of its being transgressed, (by those of the Communion of the Church of England at least) as towards the latter end of King James' Reign, when the generality of the Church of England was discontented; and yet then, when it was in most danger to be laid aside, especially about the time when His Present Majesty was Undertaking his Expedition for our Delivery, it was not in the least insisted on any where that I could hear of; which if it had been effectually done, and people practised accordingly, who doubts but we had been in worse Circumstances than ever? For the Army that was brought over could have signified nothing against King James', had not (to give them our Author's denomination) so many Rebellious Subjects joined them. Now I can see no other reason why they did not insist on it then, but that they saw the evil of running out too much upon it formerly, and considered that if they should slight so favourable a Providence as God had offered, for delivering them from Popery and Slavery, they should justly have forfeited all share of the Compassion of God, when their destruction would have been so manifestly of themselves, and incurred the just hatred and indignation of all Protestants abroad, whose security depended upon theirs, and the derision even of Papists themselves. And what reasonable Man will condemn them for renouncing a Doctrine, which if they had at that time retained it, would have ruined Three Kingdoms?  
To conclude, since what follows of his Preface is much the same with what has been taken notice of above, I shall pass it. Any understanding Reader may easily smell out the design of it, as also of publishing the Declaration of a lately deceased Prelate, the publishers whereof seem to have had little respect to his credit, when they exposed what he wrote in his weakness to public censure. But I am very far mistaken if it carry any more weight in it than the dying words of some of the Cameronian party in Scotland, since his Reasons he produces for it have no greater strength than theirs had, and they died with as much comfort as he, and which is more, died actually for that which they gave Testimony to, which he did not, though it's true he was suspended for it: But grant he had died for it, yet should we embrace every Opinion, upon our seeing some dye for it, we should change as many Opinions as there are points in the Compass.  
And seeing the great Argument they insist upon is, that since they have Sworn Allegiance to the late King, they cannot Swear to any other during his Life, if some do not go further, viz. the pretended Prince of Wales, and whither that would tend, the Reader may judge: I shall only adduce one Instance out of Scripture, that seems to come pretty near our case, viz. that when Nabuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, and made Zedekiah his Prisoner, tho' that King was of a different Religion and Foreign Nation, (which was of great weight among the Jews,) yet all the honest Men of the Jewish Nation owned his Authority, and were justified by the Scripture for so doing: Tho' there was a Party of them that would not (set on work by the King of the Ammonites, who designed no less in it, than the utter destruction of that People; as we know a Neighbouring Tyrant, that is and has been no less active in stirring up People here, with the same design as that King did then) yet we see from Jer. 42. what sort of Men they were. And tho' I doubt not but some of those that refuse to take the Oaths do it in the sincerity of their Soul, yet it is too plain that there are too many of the same sort of men amongst the●. But I hope that all true hearted Englishmen and good Protestants will in th●● their day know the things that belong to their Peace, before they be hid from their Eyes, and as they have hither to appeared for their Religious and Civil Liberties in devolving the Government upon their present Majesties; so they will concur with them in setting the three Kingdoms, and endeavour to bring to exemplary punishment all such as disturb the Peace of our Israel.  
FINIS,