Doosan Dielsel Forklift D20G D25G D30G Part Book SB1110E02

Doosan Dielsel Forklift D20G D25G

D30G Part Book SB1110E02
To download the complete and correct content, please visit:

https://manualpost.com/download/doosan-dielsel-forklift-d20g-d25g-d30g-part-boo
k-sb1110e02/

Doosan Dielsel Forklift D20G D25G D30G Part Book SB1110E02 Size: 10.5 MB
Format: PDF Language: English Brand: Doosan Type of Machine: Dielsel Forklift
Type of Document: Part Book Model: Doosan Dielsel D20G D25G D30G Number
of Pages: 591 Pages Form Number: SB1110E02
Download all on: manualpost.com.

Visit ManualPost.com to get correct and complete item

 [Unrelated content]
Another random document on
Internet:
 XII. Finally, for union's sake, and to avoid schism in the body, we
must withdraw from them. This may seem another paradox; but it is
apparent, if we consider, 'That there should be no schism in the
body, but that the members should have the same care one for
another,' 1 Cor. xii. 25. And that for to prevent and remeid this, the
apostle 'beseeches us to mark them which cause divisions and
offences, contrary to the doctrine which we have learned, and avoid
them,' Rom. xvi. 17. Now then, if the prelates and their curates be
schismatics and separatists, and dividers, then we must avoid and
withdraw from them, but so it is, that the prelates and their curates
are schismatics and separatists, and dividers: therefore we must
avoid and withdraw from them. The minor I prove from all the
constituents of a formed schism, separation and sinful division. 1.
They that start out from under due relations to a church, and from
her ministry, are schismatics, separatists and dividers; but the
prelates and their curates have started out from under due relations
to the covenanted church of Scotland, and from her ministry, in
being so unnatural rebellious children, as have broken their mother's
beauty and bands, order and union, and razed her covenanted
reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and government. 2.
These who withdraw from the communion of a true church, and
therefore are censurable by all her standing acts, are schismatical
separatists; but the prelates and their curates have withdrawn from
the communion of the true church of Scotland, and therefore are
censureable by all her standing acts, in that they have made a
faction and combination repugnant to the communion of this church,
and all her established order. 3. Those who separate from a church,
whose principles and practices are subservient to that church's true
union and communion, and right establishment, are properly
schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have separated from
this church, whose principles and practices are subservient to its true
union and communion, and right establishment: for they could never
yet impeach or challenge any principle or practice, contrary to the
word of God, or not subservient to true union and order, but their
principles and practices are stated in opposition to her purity and
reformation. Those who innovate the worship and government,
owned and established in a true church, are schismatics; but the
prelates and their curates have innovated the worship and
government of the true church of Scotland, in bringing a doctrine
new and odd, and not the voice of this church; and their worship,
over and above the corruption adhering to it, is the worshipping of
an innovating party, contrary to our church's established order. 5.
They that make a rent in the bowels of the true and genuine church,
are the schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have made a
rent in the bowels of this church, and have caused all the divisions in
this church. 6. Those that divide themselves from the fellowship of a
pure church, either in her ministry, lawful courts and ordinances, are
the schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have divided
themselves from the fellowship of this pure church, in her ministry,
lawful courts and ordinances, in that they have caused the ejection
of her ministry, dissipation of her assemblies, and subversion of her
pure ordinances. 7. Those that break union with such, to whom they
were under obligations to adhere, are schismatical dividers; but the
prelates and their curates have broken union with such to whom
they were under obligations to adhere, both from the antecedent
morally obliging duty, and from the superadded obligation of the
covenants, neither could they ever pretend any thing that might
loose the obligation. 8. That party in a reformed church, which
having overturned her reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and
persecute away sound adherers thereunto, both ministers and
professors, and will not admit ministers to officiate, but upon the
sinful terms of compliance with their way, are schismatics; but the
prelates and their curates are that party in this reformed church,
which having overturned her reformation, hath shut out, laid aside,
and persecute away sound adherers thereunto, &c. therefore they
are the schismatics to be withdrawn from, and their way is the
schism, which we are bound to extirpate in the covenant.

HEAD II.

The sufferings of many for refusing to own the tyrant's authority

vindicated.

The other grand ordinance of God, magistracy, which he hath in

his sovereign wisdom, justice, and goodness, appointed, ordained,
and consecrated, for the demonstration, illustration, and vindication
of his own glory, and the communication, conservation, and
reparation of the peace, safety, order, liberty, and universal good of
mankind, is next to that of the ministry of great concern: wherein
not only the prudence, policy, property, and liberty of men, but also
the conscience, duty, and religion of Christians, have a special
interest. And therefore it is no less important, pertinent, profitable,
and necessary for every one that hath any of these to care and
contend for, keep and recover, to inquire into and understand
something of the institution, constitution, nature, and boundaries of
the sacred ordinances of magistracy, than into the holy ordinance of
the ministry; so far at least as may consist with the sphere of every
one's capacity and station, and may conduce to the satisfaction of
every one's conscience, in the discharge of the duties of their
relations. Every private man indeed hath neither capacity, concern,
nor necessity, to study the politics, or search into the secrets, or
intrigues of government, no more than he is to be versed in all the
administrations of ecclesiastical policy, and interests of the ministry;
yet every man's conscience is no less concerned, in distinguishing
the character of God's ministers of justice, the magistrates, to whom
he owes and owns allegiance, that they be not usurping tyrants,
everting the ordinances of the magistracy, than in acknowledging the
character of Christ's ministers of the gospel, to whom he owes and
owns obedience, that they be not usurping prelates or impostors,
perverting the ordinance of the ministry. The glory of God is much
concerned, in our owning and keeping pure and entire, according to
his will and word, both these ordinances. And our conscience as well
as interest is concerned in the advantage or hurt, profit or prejudice,
of the right or wrong, observation or prevarication, of both these
ordinances; being interested in the advantage of magistracy, and
hurt of tyranny in the state, as well as in the advantage of the
ministry, and hurt of diocesan, or erastian supremacy in the church;
in the advantage of liberty, and hurt of slavery in the state, as well
as in the advantage of religion, and hurt of profaneness in the
church; in the profit of laws, and prejudice of prerogative in the
state, as well as in the profit of truth, and prejudice of error in the
church; in the profit of peace and true loyalty, and prejudice of
oppression and rebellion in the state, as well as in the profit of purity
and unity, and prejudice of defection, and division or schism in the
church. So that in confidence, we are no more free to prostitute our
loyalty and liberty absolutely, in owning every possessor of the
magistracy; than we are free to prostitute our religion and faith
implicitly, in owning every pretender to the ministry. This may seem
very paradoxical to some, because so dissonant and dissentient from
the vulgar, yea almost universal and inveterate opinion and practice
of the world, that hitherto hath not been so precise in the matter of
magistracy. And it may seem yet more strange, that not only some
should be found to assert this; but that any should be found so strict
and strait laced, as to adventure upon suffering, and even to death,
for that which hath hitherto been seldom scrupled, by any that were
forced to subjection under a yoke, which they had no force to shake
off, and wherein religion seems little or nothing concerned; for not
owning the authority of the present possessors of the place of
government: which seems to be a question not only excentric and
extrinsic to religion, but such a state-question, as for its thorny
intricacies and difficulties, is more proper for politicians and lawyers
to dispute about, (as indeed their debates about this head of
authority, have been as manifold and multiplied as about any one
thing) than for private christians to search into, and suffer for, as a
part of their testimony. But if we will cast off prejudices, and the
tyranny of custom, and the bondage of being bound to the world's
mind in our inquiries about tyranny, and suffer ourselves to ponder
impartially the importance of this matter; and then to state the
question right; we shall find religion and conscience hath no small
interest in this business. They must have no small interest in it, if we
consider the importance of this matter, either extensively, objectively,
or subjectively. Extensively considered, it is the interest of all
mankind to know and be resolved in conscience, whether the
government they are under be of God's ordination, or of the devil's
administration? Whether it be magistracy or tyranny? Whether it
gives security for religion and liberty, to themselves and their
posterity? Or whether it induces upon themselves, and entails upon
the posterity, slavery as to both these invaluable interests? Whether
they have matter of praise to God for the blessings and mercies of
magistracy, or matter of mourning for the plagues and miseries of
tyranny, to the end they may know both the sins and snares, duties
and dangers, cases and crisis, of the times they live in? All men, that
ever enjoyed the mercy of a right constitute magistracy, have
experienced, and were bound to bless God for the blessed fruits of
it: and, on the other hand, the world is full of the tragical
monuments of tyranny, for which men were bound both to search
into the causes, and see the effects of such plagues from the Lord,
to the end they might mourn over both. And from the beginning it
hath been observed, that as people's sins have always procured the
scourge of tyranny; so all their miseries might be refounded upon
tyrants encroachments, usurping upon or betraying their trust, and
overturning religion, laws and liberties. Certainly mankind is
concerned in point of interest and conscience, to inquire into the
cause and cure of this epidemic distemper, that hath so long held
the world in misery, and so habitually, that now it is become, as it
were, natural to ly stupidly under it; that is, that old ingrained
gangrene of the king's evil, or compliance with tyranny, that hath
long afflicted the kingdoms of the world, and affected not only their
backs in bearing the burden thereof; but their hearts into a lethargic
stupor of insensibleness; and their heads in infatuating and
intoxicating them with notions of the sacredness and
uncontroulableness of tyranny; and their hands in infeebling and
fettering them from all attempts to work a cure: or else it hath had
another effect on many that have been sensible of a touch of it;
even equivalent to that, which an ingenious author, Mr. Gee, in his
preface to the divine right and original of the civil magistrate, (to
which Mr. Durham is not absonant) expounds to be the effect of the
fourth vial, Rev. xvi. 8, 9. when in these dog days of the world,
power is given to the sun of imperial, especially popish, tyranny, by
their exorbitant stretches of absolute prerogative, to scorch men
with fire of furious oppressions, they then blaspheme the name of
God which hath power over these plagues, in their male-content
complaints, grumblings, grudgings, and murmurings under the
misery, but they do not repent, nor give him glory, in mourning over
the causes promeriting such a plague, and their own accession in
exposing themselves to such a scorching sun, nakedly without a
sconce. Certainly this would be the remedy that conscience would
suggest, and interest would incite to, an endeavour either of allaying
the heat or of subtracting from it under a shelter, by declining the
oblique malignity of its scorching rays. But will the world never be
awakened out of this dream and dotage, of dull and stupid
subjection to every monster that can mount a throne? Sure at length
it may be expected, either conscience from within as God's deputy,
challenging for the palpable perversion of this his excellent
ordinance, or judgments from without, making sensible of the
effects of it, will convince and confute these old inveterate
prejudices. And then these martyrs for that universal interest of
mankind, who got the fore-start and the first sight of this, will not be
so flouted as fools, as now they are. And who knoweth, what
prelude or preparative, foreboding and presaging the downfal of
tyranny, may be in its aspirings to this height of arbitrary
absoluteness, and in the many questions raised about it, and by
them imposed upon consciences to be resolved. If we consider the
object of this question; as conscience can only clear it, so in nothing
can it be more concerned. It is that great ordinance of God, most
signally impressed by a very sacred and illustrious character of the
glorious majesty of the Most High, who hath appointed magistracy;
in which, considering either its fountain, or dignity, ends, or effects,
conscience must have a very great concern. The fountain, or
efficient cause of magistracy, is high and sublime. The powers that
are, be of God, not only by the all-disposing hand of God in his
providence, as tyranny is, nor only by way of naked approbation, but
by divine in-institution; and that not only in the general, by at least a
secondary law of nature, but also the special investiture of it, in
institution and constitution, is from God; and therefore they are said
to be ordained of God, to which ordinance we must be subject, not
only for wrath, but also for conscience sake: which is the great duty
required in the fifth commandment, the first commandment with
promise; that hath the priority of place before all the second table,
because the other commandments respect each some one interest,
this hath a supereminent influence upon all. But tyrannical powers
are not of God in this sense. And it were blasphemy to assert they
were of the Lord's authorization, conscience cannot bind to a
subjection to this. Again, the dignity of magistracy, ordained for the
maintenance of truth and righteousness, the only foundations of
people's felicity, whether temporal or eternal, including the bonds
and boundaries of all obedience and subjection, for which they are
intended, and to which they refer, is supereminent; as that epithet of
higher, added to the powers that are of God, may be rendered;
making them high and sublime in glory, whose highest prerogative
is, That, being God's ministers, they sit in the throne of God,
anointed of the Lord; judging not for man, but for the Lord, as the
scripture speaks. To this conscience is concerned in duty to render
honour as due, by the prescript of the fifth commandment; but for
tyranny, conscience is bound to deny it, because not due, no more
than obedience, which conscience dare not pay to a throne of
iniquity, and a throne of the devil, as tyranny may be called, as really
as magistracy is called the throne of God. Next, conscience is much
concerned in the ends of magistracy, which are the greatest, the
glory of God, and the good of mankind. And, in the effects of it, the
maintenance of truth, righteousness, religion, liberty, peace, and
safety, and all choicest external blessings; but the ends and effects
of tyranny are quite contrary, domineering for pleasure, and
destroying for profit. Can we think that conscience is nothing
concerned here, that these great ends shall be subverted, and the
effects precluded; and to that effect, that tyranny not only be
shrouded under a privilege of impunity, but by our subjection and
acknowledgement of it, as a lawful power, encouraged into all
enormities, and licensed to usurp, not only our liberties, but God's
throne by an uncontroulable sovereignty? But if we consider the
subjective concern of conscience, it must be very graat, when it is
the only thing that prompts to subjection, that regulates subjection,
and is a bottom for subjection to lawful powers. If it were not out of
conscience, men that are free born are naturally such lovers of
liberty, and under corruption such lusters after licentiousness, that
they would never come under the order of this ordinance, except
constrained for wrath's sake: but now, understanding that they that
resist the power, resist the ordinance of God, and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation, they must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. If conscience were
not exercised in regulating our duty to magistrates, we would either
obey none, or else would observe all their commands promiscuously,
lawful or unlawful, and would make no difference either of the
matter commanded, or the power commanding: but now,
understanding that we must obey God rather than man, and that we
must render to all their dues, fear to whom fear, honour to whom
honour, conscience regulates us what and whom to obey. And
without conscience there is little hope for government to prove
either beneficial or permanent; little likelihood of either a real,
regular, or durable subjection to it. The discernible standing of
government upon conscientious grounds, is the only thing that can
bring in conscience, and a conscientious submission to it; it being
the highest and most kindly principle of, and the strongest and most
lasting obligation to any relative duty. It will not be liberty of
conscience, (as saith the late declaration for it) but reality of
conscience, and government founded upon a bottom of conscience,
that will unite the governed to the governors, by inclination as well
as duty. And if that be, then there is needful a rule of God's revealed
preceptive will, (the only cynosure and empress of conscience),
touching the founding and erecting of government, that it have the
stamp of God's authority. It must needs then follow, that conscience
hath a very great concernment in this question in the general, and
that before it be forced to an abandoning of its light in a matter of
such moment, it will rather oblige people that are conscientious to
suffer the worst that tyrants can do; especially when it is imposed
and obtruded upon conscience, to give its sufferage and express
acknowledgment that the present tyranny is the authority of God,
which is so visible in the view of all that have their eyes open, that
the meanest capacity that was never conversant in laws and politics
can give this verdict that the constitution and administration of the
government of the two royal brothers, under whose burden the
earth and we have been groaning these twenty-seven years past,
hath been a complete and habitual tyranny, and can no more be
owned to be magistracy, than robbery can be acknowledged to be a
rightful possession. It is so plain, that I need not the help of lawyers
and politicians to demonstrate it, nor launch into the ocean of their
endless debates in handling the head of magistracy and tyranny: yet
I shall improve what help I find in our most approved authors who
have enlarged upon this question, (though not as I must state it) to
dilucidate the matter in Thesi, and refer to the foregoing deduction
of the succession of testimonies against tyranny, to clear it in
Hypothesi. Whence we may see the occasion, and clearly gather the
solution of the question, which is this:

Whether a people, long oppressed with the encroachments of

tyrants and usurpers, may disown their pretended authority; and,
when imposed upon, to acknowledge it, may rather choose to suffer
than to own it?

To clear this question: I shall premit some concessions, and then

come more formally to resolve it.

1. It must be granted the question is extraordinary, and never so

stated by any writer on this head; which makes it the more difficult
and odious, because odd and singular, in the esteem of those who
take up opinions rather from the number of votes than from the
weight of the reasons of the asserters of them. It will also be
yielded, that this was never a case of confession for Christians to
suffer upon. And the reason of both is, because, before these seven
years past, this was never imposed upon private and common
subjects to give an account of their thoughts and conscience about
the lawfulness of the government they lived under. Conquerors and
usurpers sometimes have demanded an acknowledgment of their
authority, from men of greatest note and stroke in the countries they
have seized; but they never since the creation urged it upon
common people, as a test of loyalty; but thought always their laws
and power to execute them on offenders, did secure their
subjection. Or otherwise to what purpose are laws made, and the
execution of them committed to men in power, if they be not
thought a sufficient fence for the authority that makes them; except
it also have the actual acknowledgment of the subjects to ratify it?
Men that are really invested with authority, would think it both a
disparagement to their authority, and would disdain such a suspicion
of the questionableness of it, as to put it as a question to the
subjects, whether they owned it or not. But the gentlemen that rules
us, have fallen upon a piece of unprecedented policy; wherein they
think both to involve the nation in the guilt of their unparalelled
rebellion against the Lord, by owning that authority that promotes it;
and so secure their usurpations, either by the suffrage of all that
own them, or by the extirpation of the conscientious that dare not,
with the odium and obloquy of being enemies to authority; by which
trick they think to bury the honour of their testimony. Yet in sobriety
without prophesying it may be presumed, at the long run, this
project will prove very prejudicial to their interest: and herein they
may verify that Scots proverb, 'o'er fast o'er loose,' and accomplish
these divine sayings, 'He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, he
taketh the wise in their own craftiness, and the counsel of the
froward is carried headlong.' For as they have put people upon this
question, who would not otherwise have made such inquiries into it,
and now finding they must be resolved in conscience to answer it,
whenever they shall be brought before them; upon a very overly
search, they see terrible tyranny written in legible bloody characters
almost on all administrations of the government, and so come to be
fixed in the verdict that their conscience and the word of God gives
of it; so it may be thought, this question now started, for as
despicable beginnings it hath, yet ere it come to a full and final
decision, will be more enquired into through the world, and at length
prove as fatal to tyranny, as ever any thing could be, and then they
may know whom to thank. But however, though the question be
extraordinary, and the sufferings thereupon be unprecedented, and
therefore, among other contradictions that may be objected, that
neither in history nor scripture we can find instances of private
people's refusing to own the authority they were under, nor of their
suffering for that refusal; yet nevertheless it may be duty without
example. Many things may be done, though not against the law of
God, yet without a precedent of the practice of the people of God.
Though we could not adduce an example for it, yet we can gather it
from the law of God, that tyranny must not be owned, this will be
equivalent to a thousand examples. Every age in some things must
be a precedent to the following, and I think never did any age
produce a more honourable precedent, than this beginning to
decline a yoke under which all ages have groaned.

2. It will be also granted, it is not always indispensibly necessary,

at all times, for a people to declare their disclaim of the tyranny they
are under, when they cannot shake it off; nor, when they are staged
for their duty before wicked and tyrannical judges, is it always
necessary to disown their pretended authority positively; when
either they are not urged with questions about it, then they may be
silent in reference to that; or when they are imposed upon to give
their judgment of it, they are not always obligated, as in a case of
confession, to declare all their mind, especially when such questions
are put to them with a manifest design to entrap their lives, or
intangle their conscience. All truth is not to be told at all times;
neither are all questions to be answered when impertinently
interrogate, but may be both cautiously and conscientiously waved.
We have Christ's own practice, and his faithful servant Paul's
example, for a pattern of such prudence and Christian caution. But
yet it were cruel and unchristian rigour, to censure such as, out of a
pious principle of zeal to God and conscience of duty, do freely and
positively declare their judgment, in an absolute disowning of their
pretended authority, when posed with such questions, though to the
manifest detriment of their lives, they conscientiously looking upon it
as a case of confession. For where the Lord hath not peremptorily
astricted his confessors to such rules of prudence, but hath both
promised, and usually gives his Spirit's conduct, encouraging and
animating them to boldness, so as before hand they should not take
thought how or what they shall speak, and in that same hour they
find it given them, it were presumption for us to stint them to our
rules of prudence. We may indeed find rules to know, what is a case
of confession; but hardly can it be determined, what truth or duty
we are questioned about is not, or may not be, a case of confession.
And who can deny, but this may be in some circumstance, a case of
confession, even positively to disown the pretended authority of a
bloody court or council? when either they go out of their sphere,
taking upon them Christ's supremacy, and the cognizance of the
concerns of his crown, whereof they are judges noways competent;
then they must freely and faithfully be declined. Or when, to the
dishonour of Christ, they blaspheme his authority, and the sacred
boundaries he hath prescribed to all human authority, and will assert
an illimited absolute authority, refusing and discharging all offered
legal and scriptural restrictions to be put thereupon, (as hath been
the case of the most part of these worthy though poor martyrs, who
have died upon this head) then they must think themselves bound to
disown it. Or when they have done some cruel indignity and despite
to the Spirit of God, and to Christ's prerogative and glory, and work
of reformation, and people, in murdering them without mercy, and
imposing this owning of their king, by whose authority all is acted,
as a condemnation of these witnesses of Christ their testimony, and
a justification of their bloody cruelties against them, which hath
frequently been the case of these poor people that hath been staged
upon this account: in this case, and several others of this sort that
might be mentioned, then they may be free and positive in
disowning this test of wicked loyalty, as the mark of the dragon of
the secular beast of tyranny. And in many such cases, when the Lord
gives the spirit, I see no reason but that Christ's witnesses must
follow his pattern of zeal in the case of confession, which he
witnessed before Pontius Pilate in asserting his own kingship, as they
may in other cases follow his pattern of prudence. And why may we
not imitate the zeal of Stephen who called the council before whom
he was staged stiff-necked resisters of the Holy Ghost, persecutors
of the prophets, and betrayers and murderers of Christ the just one,
as well as the prudence of Paul? But, however it be, the present
testimony against this pretended authority lies in the negative, which
obliges always, for ever and for ever; that is to say, we plead, that it
must never be owned. There is a great difference between a positive
disowning and a not owning; though the first be not always
necessary, the latter is the testimony of the day, and a negative case
of confession, which is always clearer than the positive. Though we
must not always confess every truth, yet we must never deny any.

3. It is confessed, we are under this sad disadvantage besides

others, that not only all our brethren, groaning under the same yoke
with us, will not take the same way of declining this pretended
authority, nor adventure, when called, to declare their judgment
about it, (which we do not condemn, as is said, and would expect
from the rules of equity and charity, they will not condemn us when
we find ourselves in conscience bound to use greater freedom) but
also some when they do declare their judgment, give it in terms
condemnatory of, and contradictory unto our testimony, in that they
have freedom positively to own this tyranny as authority, and the
tyrant as their lawful sovereign: and many of our ministers also are
of the same mind. And further, as we have few expressly asserting
our part of the debate, as it is now stated; so we have many famous
divines expresly against us in this point, as especially we find in their
comments upon, Rom. xiii. among whom I cannot dissemble my
sorrow to find the great Calvin, saying, Sæpe solent inquirere, &c.
'Men often enquire, by what right they have obtained their power
who have the rule! it should be enough to us that they do govern;
for they have not ascended to this eminency by their own power, but
are imposed by the hand of the Lord.' As also Pareus saying too
much against us. For answer to this, I refer to Mr. Knox's reply to
Lethington, producing several testimonies of divines against him
upon this very head; wherein he shews, that the occasions of their
discourses and circumstances wherein they were stated, were very
far different from those that have to do with tyrants and usurpers, as
indeed they are the most concerned, and smart most under their
scourge, are in best case to speak to the purpose. I shall only say,
mens averment, in a case of conscience, is not an oracle, when we
look upon it with an impartial eye, in the case wherein we are not
prepossessed: it will bear no other value, than what is allayed with
the imperfections of fallibility, and moreover is contradicted by some
others, whose testimony will help us as much to confirm our
persuasion, as others will hurt us to infirm it.

4. But now when tyrants go for magistrates, lest my plea against

owning tyranny, should be mistaken, as if it were a pleading for
anarchy, I must assert, that I and all those I am vindicating, are for
magistracy, as being of divine original, institute for the common
good of human and Christian societies, whereunto every soul must
be subject, of whatsoever quality or character, and not only for
wrath but also for conscience sake (though as to our soul and
conscience, we are not subject) which whosoever resisteth, resisteth
the ordinance of God, and against which rebellion is a damnable sin,
whereunto (according to the fifth commandment, and the many
reiterated exhortations of the apostles) we must be subject, and
obey magistrates, and submit ourselves to every ordinance of man,
for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the king as supreme, &c. And
we account it a hateful brand of them that walk after the flesh, to
despise government, to be presumptuous, self-willed, and not afraid
to speak evil of dignities: and that they are filthy dreamers, who
despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities: and of those things
which they know not. We allow the magistrate, in whatsoever form
of government, all the power the scripture, laws of nature and
nations, or municipal do allow him; asserting, that he is the keeper
and avenger of both the tables of the law, having a power over the
church, as well as the state, suited to his capacity, that is, not
formally ecclesiastical, but objectively, for the church's good; an
external power, of providing for the church, and protecting her from
outward violence, or inward disorder, an imperate power, of
commanding all to do their respective duties; a civil power of
punishing all, even church-officers, for crimes; a secondary power of
judicial approbation or condemnation; or discretive, in order to give
his sanction to synodical results; a cumulative power, assisting and
strengthening the church in all her privileges, subservient, though
not servile, co-ordinate with church-power, not subordinate (though
as a christian he is subject) in his own affairs, viz. civil; not to be
declined as judge, but to be obeyed in all things lawful, and
honoured and strengthened with all his dues. We would give unto
Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are
God's; but to tyrants, that usurp and pervert both the things of God
and of Cæsar, and of the peoples liberties, we can render none of
them, neither God's, nor Cæsar's, nor our own: nor can we from
conscience give him any other deference, but as an enemy to all,
even to God, to Cæsar, and the people. And in this, though it doth
not sound now with court-parasites, nor with others, that are
infected with royal indulgencies and indemnities, we bring forth but
the transumpt of old principles, according to which our fathers
walked when they still contended for religion and liberty, against the
attemptings and aggressions of tyranny, against both.

5. It must be conceded, it is not an easy thing to make a man in

the place of magistracy a tyrant: for as every escape, error, or act of
unfaithfulness, even known and continued in, whether in a minister's
entry to the ministry, or in his doctrine, doth not unminister him, nor
give sufficient ground to withdraw from him, or reject him as a
minister of Christ: so neither does every enormity, misdemeanor, or
act of tyranny, injustice, perfidy, or profanity in the civil magistrate,
whether as to his way of entry to that office, or in the execution of
it, or in his private or personal behaviour, denominate him a tyrant or
an usurper, or give sufficient ground to divest him of magistratical
power, and reject him as the lawful magistrate. It is not any one or
two acts contrary to the royal covenant or office, that doth denude a
man of the royal dignity, that God and the people gave him. David
committed two acts of tyranny, murder and adultery; yet the people
were to acknowledge him as their king (and so it may be said of
some others, owned still as kings in scripture) the reason is, because
though he sinned against a man or some particular persons, yet he
did not sin against the state, and the catholic good of the kingdom,
subverting law; for then he would have turned tyrant, and ceased to
have been lawful king. There is a great difference between a tyrant
in act, and a tyrant in habit; the first does not cease to be a king.
But on the other hand, as every thing will not make a magistrate to
be a tyrant; so nothing will make a tyrant by habit a magistrate. And
as every fault will not unminister a minister; so some will oblige the
people to reject his ministry, as if he turn heretical, and preach
atheism, Mahometanism, or the like, the people, though they could
not formally depose him, or through the corruption of the times
could not get him deposed; yet they might reject and disown his
ministry: so it will be granted, that a people have more power in
creating a magistrate, than in making a minister; and consequently
they have more right, and may have more light in disowning a king,
as being unkinged; than in disowning a minister, as being
unministred. It will be necessary therefore, for clearing our way, to
fix upon some ordinary characters of a tyrant, which may discrimate
him from a magistrate, and be ground of disowning him as such. I
shall rehearse some, from very much approved authors; the
application of which will be as apposite to the two brothers, that we
have been burdened with, as if they had intended a particular and
exact description of them. Buchanan de jure regni apud Scotos,
shews, 'That the word tyrant was at first honourable, being
attributed to them that had the full power in their hands, which
power was not astricted by any bonds of laws, nor obnoxious to the
cognition of judges; and that it was the usual denomination of
heroes, and thought at first so honourable, that it was attributed to
the gods: but as Nero and Judas were sometimes among the
Romans and Jews names of greatest account, but afterwards by the
faults of two men of these names, it came to pass, that the most
flagitious would not have these names given to their children, so in
process of time, rulers made this name so infamous by their wicked
deeds, that all men abhorred it, as contagious and pestilentious, and
thought it a more light reproach to be called hangman than a tyrant.'
Thereafter he condescends upon several characters of a tyrant. 1.
'He that doth not receive a government by the will of the people, but
by force invadeth it, or intercepteth it by fraud, is a tyrant; and who
domineers even over the unwilling (for a king rules by consent, but a
tyrant by constraint) and procures the supreme rule without the
peoples consent, even tho' for several years they may so govern,
that the people shall not think it irksome.' Which very well agrees
with the present gentleman that rules over us, who, after he was by
public vote in parliament secluded from the government, of which
the standing laws of both kingdoms made him incapable for his
murders, adulteries and idolatries, by force and fraud did intercept
first an act for his succession in Scotland, and then the actual
succession in England, by blood and treachery, usurping and
intruding himself into the government, without any compact with, or
consent of the people; though now he studies to make himself
another Syracusan Hiero, or the Florentine Cosmo de medices, in a
mild moderation of his usurped power; but the west of England, and
the west of Scotland both, have felt the force of it. 2. He does not
govern for the subjects welfare, or public utility, but for himself,
having no regard to that, but to his own lust, 'acting in this like
robbers, who cunningly disposing of what wickedly they have
acquired, do seek the praise of justice by injury, and of liberality by
robbery; so he can make some shew of a civil mind; but so much
the less assurance gives he of it, that it is manifest, he intends not
hereby the subjects good, but the greater security of his own lusts,
and stability of empire over posterity, having somewhat mitigated
the peoples hatred, which when he had done, he will turn back
again to his old manners; for the fruit which is to follow, may easily
be known, both by the seed and by the sower thereof.' An exact
copy of this we have seen within these two years, oft before in the
rule of the other brother.

After God hath been robbed of his prerogatives, the church of her
privileges, the state of its laws, the subjects of their liberty and