That The Employing Of, And Associating With The Malignant Party, According As Is Contained In The Public Resolutions, Is Sinful And Unlawful.
If there be in the land a malignant party of power and policy, and the exceptions contained in the Act of Levy do comprehend but few of that party, then there need be no more difficulty to prove, that the present public resolutions and proceedings do import an association and conjunction with a malignant party, than to gather a conclusion from clear premises. But that such a conjunction is in itself sinful and unlawful, and besides, a violation of our solemn oaths and engagements, a backsliding from our principles and professions, and a walking contrary to the whole tenor and current of our former resolutions and practices, is now to be made manifest.
First: We reason from that constant, standing and perpetual rule, which the Lord gives concerning the modelling and carnage of the armies of his people in all their wars, Deut. xxiii. 9, “When the host goeth forth against their enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.” And after, “If there be among you any man that is unclean, by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp.” (If for ceremonial uncleanness he was to be excluded, much more for moral, as our divines [pg 487] reason from the Old Testament in the point of excommunication, and if for uncleanness not voluntary, much more for voluntary wickedness). The reason of all is given ver. 14: “For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of the camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee. Therefore shall thy camp be holy, that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” Even as they would expert a blessing of the Lord, so ought they to keep their camp holy, as he is holy. He gives not such a strict rule for the competency of number, as for the qualifications of the persons, as being the principal thing. Therefore the present conjunction with so many ungodly and wicked men, that have formerly declared themselves enemies to God and his people, and to this day give no evidence to the contrary, is sinful and unlawful.
Second, The Lord hath frequently in scripture declared his dislike and hatred of such associations and conjunctions. The scriptures cited in the General Assembly's declaration in the year 1648, against the Engagement,[349] are sufficient proof of this. We shall take the argument as it is formed by the commissioners of that assembly, in their answer to the observations of the committee of estates upon the assembly's declaration, p. 7. “Every engagement in war, that is pretended to be for religion, and hath in it a confederacy and association with wicked men, enemies of true religion, is sinful and unlawful. But the present engagement in war, as it is held forth in the public resolutions, is pretended to be for religion, and yet hath in it a confederacy and conjunction with wicked men, and enemies of true religion.” Ergo, The second proposition is evident from the two first sections.
The first proposition is proved from those scriptures forementioned. God forbade conjunctions and confederacies with the enemies of his cause and people, not only the Canaanites, (Exod. xxxiv. 12, 15, Deut. vii. 2.) and other heathens, such was Asa his covenant with Benhadad, (2 Chron. xvi. to ver. 10,) Ahaz his confederacy with the king of Assyria, (2 Kings xvi. 7, 10, 2 Chron. xxviii. 16,) but also with wicked men of the seed of Abraham, as Jehoshaphat's with Ahab, (2 Chron. xviii. 3: “And Ahab king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Wilt thou go with me to Ramoth Gilead? And he answered him, I am as thou art, and my people as thy people, and we will be with thee in the war,” compared with chap. xix. 2. “And Jehu the son of Hanam the seer, went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord,”) and with Ahaziah, (2 Chron. xx. 35: “And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly,”) which being reproved for, he would not again join with Ahaziah, 1 Kings xxii. 49: “Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat: Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships.” But Jehoshaphat would not. And then Amaziah's association with 100,000 of Israel, 2 Chron. xxv. 7, 8, 9, 10: “But there came a man of God to him, saying, O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee for the Lord is not with Israel to wit, with all the children of Ephraim. But if thou wilt go, do it, be strong for the battle. God shall make thee fall before the enemy, for God hath power to help and to cast down. And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this. Then Amaziah separated them, to wit, the army that was to come to him out of Ephraim, to go home again wherefore their anger was greatly kindled against Judah, and they returned home in great anger.” The sin and danger of such associations may further appear from Isa. viii. 12, 13: “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy, neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread,” Jer. ii. 18 “And now,—what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the river?” Psal. cvi. 35. “But were mingled [pg 488] among the heathen, and learned their works,” Hosea v. 13. “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb, yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound,” and chap. vii. 8, 11. “Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people, Ephraim is a cake not turned, Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart, they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria,” 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” And if we should esteem God's enemies our enemies, and hate them with perfect hatred, how can we then join with them as friends? Psal. cxxxix. 21.
The committee of estates at that time endeavoured to elude the strength of these scriptures, and vindicate their engagement from the falling within the compass of them. But the commission of the Assembly that year took the mask off their evasions. Would to God we had no other party to deal with now! It was the evil and complaint of that time, that church and state were divided. But what an evil time are we now fallen into, that the union of those in this point, is the complaint of many of the godly? The commission, in their letter to Stirling presbytery,[350] sets up the committee's answer in a new dress, and holds it out for satisfaction to our consciences. All that is answered may be reduced to three or four heads.
I. There is made a great difference between an invasive and defensive war as if in the one, choice of instruments ought to be sought, but in the case of just and necessary defence, all subjects may be employed.[351]
To which we answer, 1. That the scriptures cited conclude most expressly against conjunctions of that kind in defensive wars. Such was Asa's covenant, such was Ahaz his confederacy. Were not the reproofs of the prophets directed particularly against the people's seeking of help from Egypt and Assyria, in the case of their own just and necessary defence? Jer. ii. 18, Hosea v. 13, and vii. 8, 11, Isa. viii. 12, 13, 2 Chron. xvi. to ver. 10. 2. The law and rule given, Deut. xxiii. is general, regulating all their wars whether defensive or offensive, and it is strange that any should imagine such a difference where the law makes none, nay, when the ground of the law is moral and general, equally respecting all wars. Is there any ground of conscience, why wicked persons may not be kept in the camp when we invade others, and yet these may be employed and intrusted when we defend ourselves? If there be any reason to prefer the one to the other in this point, we conceive defensive war should have the preference, because when the Lord brings upon us an unjust invasion, he is ordinarily pursuing a controversy against us. And therefore we ought to be most tender and circumspect, that there be no unclean [pg 489] thing in the camp, and put away every wicked thing from us, even the appearance of evil, lest we add oil to the flame of his indignation, and he seeing such an unclean thing in us, turn yet further from us, except we say, that we need not take care to have God in the camp with us, when we are upon just and necessary defence, seeing our cause is so good. 3. There is more hazard and danger to our religion and liberties in having a wicked malignant army at home among us, than abroad in another nation. While they are here, they have the power of the sword, and can command all, but there might be some hope and endeavour for vindicating our own liberties and religion while they are abroad, as it fell out in the time of the Engagement.
II. It is answered, that there is a difference between this case and the Engagement, because there was then no necessity of choosing such instruments, a competency of power might be had, but now it is not so, and therefore the scriptures mentioned do not militate against the present case. Answer 1. The scriptures cited will obviate this. What made Israel and Judah run to Egypt and Assyria for help, but their weakness and necessity? Their wound was incurable, and their bruise grievous, as Jeremiah often laments, and particularly chap. viii. 20-22, and x. 19, &c., and yet this did not excuse them for going to Egypt or Assyria to heal their wound, Hosea v. 13, and vii. 8, 11. The scripture holds out infidelity and distrust in God as the ground of such association, (2 Chron. xvi. 7-9, Isa. viii. 12, 13,) which proceeds from the incompetency of means as the occasion of it. 2. Suppose there was a necessity for the calling forth the body of the common people, yet certainly there is no necessity of employing any such persons of whom the question is, and putting them in places of trust. There is none can deny but there are, besides all secluded persons, many that might fill the places of trust and power. Therefore the plea of necessity is but a pretence to cover some design, that under its specious and plausible covering, the power of the land may be engrossed into the hands of malignants, and so by this means all power and trust may return, as the rivers to the sea or fountain, as they judge the king, that so in his person there may be established an unlimited and arbitrary power. 3. Necessity is a very plausible argument and strong plea to carnal reason for any thing, but it cannot be a good ground, in point of conscience, for that which is sinful in itself. Now that this is sinful in itself appears, from the word of God simply condemning such associations, upon moral, and so general and perpetual grounds. Now, in such a case of necessity, we are called either to trust in God, in the use of competent means, seeing in such cases we have so many promises, or if all help be gone which God allows us to make use of, we must wait on him till he brings salvation with his own arm.
But because the plea of necessity is the strongest that is made use of for the present public resolutions, we must consider it a little more. It is alleged, that the best part of the land is under the feet of the enemy, and so no help can be had from it, and for other parts of the land which are yet free, there is not much choice of persons, and the testimony of faithful men in the state declares, that when all that are called forth of these places are gathered, it cannot amount to a power competent enough, and therefore in such a question of the existence of second means, the knowledge whereof immediately depends on sense and experience, these who are not acquainted should give credit to the testimony of faithful witnesses, and that a competency of power must be had, according to the ordinary way of Providence, in relation to which we must act, except we would tempt God by requiring of him wonders.[352]