s. And we may look upon all indifferently, without any
discerning of persons that fear God and them that fear him not, as in good
capacity to be intrusted, even when otherwise we have choice of good
instruments. Certainly it follows, by parity of reason. For if you
conclude that, from the calling forth all promiscuously, and no reproof
given for it, in the case of necessary defence, then we may conclude, from
the calling forth of all promiscuously, and in the case of an invasive
war, and no reproof recorded, that neither, in such a case, is it sinful
to make no difference, and that with strong reason, because it being more
easy in such a case to choose instruments, and no necessity pleading for
it, if it had been sinful, the prophets would have rather reproved it,
then rebuked them for using such means in a case of necessity. 2. We may
argue after that manner, that in the case of necessary just defence, there
should be no exceptions made at all of any persons, because we read not
that the judges or kings debarred any subjects, neither that they were
rebuked for so doing. Therefore the instances militate as much against the
exceptions added in the answer to the query, as against us, unless it be
said that there were no such persons among that people, which were as
groundless rashness as to say that they gave all evidence of repentance.
3. Seeing the judges and the reforming kings of Judah were so accurate and
exact in cleaving to the law of God, and walking according to it in all
other things, it were more charitable and Christian judgment to say, that
since they are not reproved for any fault in this particular, that they
were also exact to walk according to the rule, (Deut. xxiii.) in so great
a point as this. 4. Men's practice is often lame and crooked, and
therefore must be examined according to the rule, but it were not fair
dealing to accommodate the rule to men's practice. Seeing then we have so
clear and perfect a rule (Deut. xxiii.), which must judge both their
practice and ours, we see not how their practice can be obtruded as a rule
upon us, which itself must be examined according to a common and general
rule. If it be not according to that law, we hold it to be sinful in
itself, and so no precedent for us; albeit the prophets did not reprove it
in express and particular terms (as they did not reprove man stealing,
&c.), yet they rebuked it by consequence, in as far as they rebuked the
kings for association with