toward such over whom they have power but doâ—s neither instigate the inferior Magistrates against the superior nor the People against any of them where it is said He that sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed concluding hence that there is here a Precept that the blood of every man though he be in the supreme Power should be shed by his Inferiors if he shed blood innocently and without cause for supposing this word not only to be predictional or interminative foretelling and threatning what should come upon shedders of innocent blood as some expone it but also diatactick and preceptive there must be meet limitations of the sentence both in the subject and the attribute that it may agree with other sentences of holy Scripture The subject is he that sheds mans blood which is not to be understood of every one that sheds mans blood but only of such as have no authority and do it out of private revenge for we must not own the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemn lawful wars or capital punishments by the hand or Authority of Magistrates albeit they argue from this place Again the attribute or that which is affirmed or commanded concerning the shedder of mans blood by man shall his blood be shed is to be consider'd Certainly taking the words as a Precept it is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood but the man who is to shed the Blood of that person is the Magistrate who is his Judge above him All interpreters are agreed that here is if not the institution yet the approbation of the office of the civil Magistrate and his capital punishing of murtherers Pareus saith Sancitur hic lex civilis ut homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem non quemvis sed gladio divinitus armatum h. e. per Magistratum Peter Martyr loci com p. 634. non temere nec per quemvis est effundenduâ— homicidae sanguis id enim esset valde absurdum quare colligendum est ex illis verbis Magistratum non obscure esse a Deo institutum qui animadvertat in homicidas So Musculus Bezelius Diodat and every one almost will have the man impowered here to shed the blood of the murtherer to be the Magistrate and the Judge And the Chaldee Paraphrast hath well expon'd it qui effuderit sanguinem hominis per testes juxta sententiam Judicum sanguis ejus fundetur And Bezelius sayes well on the place that here God is communicating his right and power to the Magistrate giving him jus vitae necis and power to kill murtherers Certum hominem intelligit saith he qui ad eam executionem constitutus est So the man that in this Text hath power to shed the blood of the homicide or murtherer is the Magistrate or Judge that is above him constitute by God in politick power over the Society whereof he is a member But if the persons invested with supreme Power of the Sword abusing their power become guilty of shedding innocent blood who in that Society whereof they are heads shall judge or punish them Who is superior over the Supreme to punish him It is true God will take the matter in his own hand in his time and so taking the words as a prediction or threatning they may be comprehensive of the supreme Power it self and of men in that power abusing the same But it is inexplicable how that any in whom the Soveraign Majesty and magistratical Power resides or who is therewith invested should according to order be punished by Subjects who are not appointed to be his Judges nor to be Gods Sword-bearers for executing Justice The Text alwayes supposes that he who is the avenger of blood-shed must be Judge above him that shed it being in one body of one Society civil When the Apostle Rom. 13. sayes let every Soul be subject to superiour Powers that every Soul doth not comprehend the supreme Power it self for how can the man invested with it be subject to a superior Power but it is meant that every Soul under the superior Power or Supreme should be subject to it And let men as they will indulge themselves in their seditious notions they must at last â—ist in some supreme Power on earth which is not judgeable nor punishable by any if soveraign Majesty be placed in Parliament or people who may be guilty of shedding innocent blood as well as a King who shall shed their blood I pray you when they transgresse where shall we have Judges to sit upon them and to punish them unlesse this be referred to the sounder and smaller part of the people as this man saith p. 240. And then there is ground enough laid for eternal confusion any lesser part when they have or think they have wit and strength enough to through their business will undoubtedly call themselves the sounder part and labour to bear down the corrupt plurality as we did see not many years ago in our Church-business God pitty us if these Principles be embraced and put in practcie But the christian Reader may easily see how hard this Author is put to it and for all his saying that according to Gods law Kings must be punished as well as others yet is he forced to acknowledge a supremacy of Power in some not punishable by any but by God For L. R. p. 389. when he hath given all power to the Parliament over the King he objects to himself who shall punish and coerce the Parliament in case of exorbitance he answers posterior Parliaments and p. 211. he sayeth by the people and conscience of the people are they to be judged let all our Nobles and Parliaments hearken to this Now who ever heard of this that one Parliament posterior should punish the prior Their acts they may retract indeed but to punish them for their acts it is most absurd because the prior Parliament in the capacity of that Judicatory had as much power as the posterior States-men will wonder at such Doctrine that members of a Parliament should be punished for their free votes by a succeeding Parliament and far more at the subjecting them to the conscience of the people as he speakes But then another objection he makes posterior Parliaments and people both may erre he answers all that is true God only must remeed that Well then if Parliament or people destroy and murther persons innocently God only must remeed that there is no Power on earth to call them to an account Who sees not that at last this Author is driven to acknowledge a Power which if it deviate cannot be judged by any on earth and there is no remedy but in God against its unjust violence although he will not acknowledge this Power to be in the King yet in the people as contradistinct from Parliaments he acknowledges it whereby also it may be seen that his Principles
these but subjection to the passion may fall under a command and this is called passive obedience which implyes more then meer passion or suffering even a disposition and motion of the heart to lye under that lot with an eye to God whose ordinance is used upon the sufferer Only it is called passive obedience because as to the precise suffering the punishment there is no external action done enjoyned by the Law or Command of the Magistrate as there is in active obedience although there be some dispositive or preparatory actions in order to suffering not inferring a direct co-operation to a mans own suffering which he may and ought to do as going to a Gallows on his own feet or up a Ladder or laying down his head on a Block that it may be strucken off It is an error to say that such passive obedience is not commanded of God but only the modus rei that it be done patiently and christianly when it cannot be by force avoided For it is clear that passive obedience or submission and subjection to suffering where the Magistrate hath just cause to inflict the punishment falls under a command of God that same command that forbids resisting the Magistrate in doing his duty enjoyns submission and passive obedience to him although we were able by force to deliver our selves out of his hand In conscience we are bound not to offer him violence in doing his duty though there were power in our hand so to do so that it is not only modus rei that in this case is commanded viz. that we suffer patiently in a christian way when it cannot be avoided but res ipsa that we submit to the suffering if there be no occasion of flying without using force against him Besides that in this case Christian patience and violent resistance are incompatible there can be no Christian patience opposite to Christian submission and subjection to the Powers ordained by God doing their duty But if it might stand with violent resistance it should be opposite to this Christian submission Therefore it appears to be a groundlesse assertion that no passive obedience or submission to suffering is under a command For it is clear there is a command for this subjection we have spoken of But then the difficulty is if passive obedience to unjustly punishing Powers fall under any commandment of God or if there be any command of submission to cleanly suffering it is this mans mind so long as there is any power of violent and forcible resisting a man is guilty of self-murther who will not in this case as well as in the former and the former as well as this endeavour the preservation of his own life by fighting and resisting and re-offending and all that is required is when he is overpowered then to use Christian patience in bearing affliction But we assert that a private person though wrongfully afflicted by the lawful Magistrate proceeding according to Law let it be so that it is Lex male posita or an evil Law is bound not only to Christian patience in suffering to this he is obliged in suffering from any private wicked hand or from the hand of a manifest Usurper or Intruder in Magistracy whose violence he may repell by violence so long as he can but unto a submission without repelling of violence by violence and that in conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested although abusing it in this particular and with a tender regard to the prevention of seditions and confusions in humane Societies which are unavoidable if every one as he thinks himself wrong'd shall be allowed to use force upon the lawful Magistrat's proceeding by Law the greatest Malefactors being ready to justifie themselves and to violate the justest Magistrates in their just proceedings if once this repelling the Magistrat's force be allowed as a duty And no tender-hearted Christian is there who will not rather submit without resistance to his own private suffering commending his soul and cause to God then by such evil and scandalous doctrines open a wide gap for all wicked seditious persons to work confusion in the Common-wealth and to overthrow the best and justest Magistrates Mr. Burroughs an Independent writing on the 1. of Hos 10. v. hath said well to this purpose When saith he things are brought into a Law suppose the Authority be abused and there be an evil Law made then I confess if the Law be in force we must either quite our selves of the Countrey or else submit and suffer when it comes to be a Power or a Law it is Authority though abused and we must yeeld obedience to it either actively or passively This is sound and Orthodox and it were well others would homologate this Doctrine to prevent the scandals of sedition and rebellion which this tender-hearted Libeller speaks of very slightingly striving to introduce Libertinisme and to abolish the sense of these sins For sayes he Napth Page 39. Treason sedition and disorder are but formalities and notions pretended to palliate and colour the Kings usurpation But to add no more from the Scripture that known passage Rom. 13.1 2. c. with 1. Pet. 2.11 makes for this submission and subjection which is pleaded for by us For such subjection is there commanded to the powers then existing or in beeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as were Caligula Nero Domitian monstruous tyrants enemies and persecutors of Gods people as is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stand in order against them the word is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a military term every Soul is commanded to be subject or to stand in order under them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and forbidden to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stand in military order against them either defensive or offensive by powers which are not to be resisted are clearly mâ—ant the persons iâ— power as the Apostle after expones himself 3. and 4. vers calling them Rulers and the Ministers of God he meanes undoubtedly certain supposita and persons invested with power And cannot mean the abstract Ordinance of God Magistracy or Power in the abstract for it can neither be said to exist separate from persons nor to be the subject and recipient of duties enjoyned to be payed to the Power nor of the offences forbidden nor can it be an Agent or Administrator of these Acts attributed to the Power as to bear the Sword to be the Minister of God to praise the good or terrify the evil So that of necessity by Power is meant Power in the Concrete or the person invested with the Power who is not to be violently resisted by private persons under him when he is acting according to Law suppose the Law be judged by private men not just which is the present case of private persons resistance to Authority The person of the King because invested with power official power though in a particular act abused is not to be
to them yet hath he not made his Providence the Rule of our actions to warrand us being private Persons to punish them but we must go to the Law and Testimony to seek the Rules of our actions And whatever action is not according to this there is no light in it it is but a work of darkness for all the fair colours men can set upon it albeit God visit the sins of Parents upon Children yet that gives no warrand to Children to offer violence to their Parents for their sins But yet the Libeller cannot so leave the matter but after many ranting and rambling words which it were a pain to ripe up nor is it our purpose minding onely to notice his abuses of Scripture and impertinent reasonings he comes at length to his great reserve pag. 30. and sayes If all these things do not satisfy as indeed they are soon pleased who will be satisfied by him he hath yet four or five particulars that will make all sure for his position which he hath been labouring to underprop viz. That any private persons may against all Magistrates and the great body of the Common-wealth take and use not only the self defending but vindicative punishing and reforming Sword And 1. he saith That the reason of delivering the Kingdom to the People and not to the King with the Law it self Deut. 17.14 no way contradicted or repealed by the manner of the Kingdom and in effect of Tyranny fore told by way of disswasive 1 Sam. 8.10 doth make much for his position But 1. the man utters here a gross untruth For God doth not in the Text deliver the Kingdom to the People and not to the King as he saith he doth only before hand instruct the People anent the right way of setting of a King over them when it should come to pass that they should do so and leaves in his Word instructions for the King that shouâ—d be set over them how to behave himself That the Kingdom is here delivered to the People to be managed by them as well as to the King or with reserve of Power to them to use violence upon and against the King if he should deviate from the rules there set down as this man contends is most false the People had not so much Power as to choose the person that was to be King God reserved this for himself 15. ver Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose neither ever did they choose a King but onely accepted of the Kings chosen and given them by God and designed to them by his extraordinary Embassadours as is clear first in Saul and after in David and his Family the chosen Royal Family Neither were the People to look on their Kings as their servants or vassals or creatures as such men use to write but as set over them Thou shalt set him over thee not under thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose neither had they power over the King but the King by Gods Ordinance had Power over them 2. Were it so that the Kingdom or the Power of managing it were delivered to the People which is most false yet this makes nothing to this Libellers position giving Power to any party of private Persons amongst People to punish all Magistrates and the major part of the people too if they be strong enough whatever was granted to the People here was granted to the body not to this or that party of private persons 3. It is very true the place 1 Sam. 8.10 and not 1 Sam. 10.10 as he mis-cites both this and the former Scripture neither contradicts nor repeales that Law Deut. 17.14 but agrees notably with it But it is false that onely the Tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of meerly disswasive Moses and Samuel do very well agree together the one shews what a King should do ex officio and de jure the other what a King may do by the power he hath and yet not be obnoxious to punishment from Subjects The one shews what a good King should do the other what a People should suffer of an evil King without attempt of violence upon him The one sets forth Gods approbative Law and instructs Kings in their kingly duties the other sets down the permissive Law of the King shewing the reach of his Power if he should abuse it without punishment from man The doing of such things 1 Sam. 8.10 was in effect tyrannical not approven by God but if the King came to abuse his Power so far he had a permissive Law for him that it was not free to his Subjects to punish him As albeit the Lord approveth not Divorce or a mans putting away of his wife yet by a permissive Law husbands amongst Gods People had liberty Deut. 24.1 to put away their wives without being obnoxious to humane punishment for that cause albeit God reserved the punishment of the hard-hearted husbands to himself So the Lord gives no approbation to over-imperious or tyrannical facts of Princes yet if they abuse their Power he will reserve them unto dreadful punishments by his own hand but will not have the hands of their Subjects to be upon or against them As parents do evil in correcting their children for their pleasure Heb. 12.9 10. and have no moral approven power from God so to do yet it is a sort of right of parents that if they so do their children may not use violence upon them or rise to destroy them but be in a reverent subjection to them But this great Theologue tells us That it is only the manner of Tyranny that is here set down by Samuel And that meerly by way of disswasive to disswade them from seeking a King Ans 1. It is true the fact is the manner of Tyranny but the permissive power without punishment from Subjects is the just right of all Lawful Kings of whom as it may be said Nil paenas metuunt nulla quia lege tenentur So to them if they deboard and abuse their power it may be said Si genus humanum mortalia temnitis aâ—ma At sperate deos memores fandi atque nefandi 2. Let it be so that Samuel in setting forth the manner or Law of the King intended to disswade the people from insisting in their petition for a King yet that was not his only nor his main intention his main intention is to shew the People their duty under a Kings oppression though it was not his duty to oppresse them to shew them I say what they behoved to suffer under a King beyond measure imperious without resistance for he is not now teaching the King his duty This is clear for otherwise to what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a Book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10.25 when there was no place for repentance no remedy no use of
terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their behaviour towards the King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his Government or to offer violence to him albeit he should over-stretch his Power too far This that he recorded was not the Law of the King Deut. 17. that was already keeped in the Ark with the rest of the Law and needed not to be written again in a Book to lay it up before the Lord. Nor is there any ground for their fancy who think that Samuel did write certain fundamental Laws of the Kingdom to withstand the abuse of absolute Power and to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting the People This is but a guess without ground had there been any such special fundamental Lawes the ten Tribes had a fair ground of pleading upon the same before their revolt but no such thing is heard of and it is as easie to deny it as it is to affirm that there was any such thing as these imagined fundamental Laws Besides that the People claim no vote in such fundamental Laws or Pactions and had there been any such thing it was their interest to be consulted with in the matter and had they thought of any such Covenants or Laws fundamental wherein liberty might be left them to resist their Kings or take order with them how easily could they have shewed the weakness of Samuels disswasion and said If the King become evil we will resist him and be revenged upon him for we take him to reign but only on such termes that he reign well But no such thoughts had they I shall only adde two or three testimonies concerning this place 1 Sam. 8.10 Mr Calvin Instit lib. 4. c. 20. S. 26. speaking of this Jus Regis 1 Sam. 8. sayes well Certe non id jure facturi erant Reges quos optime ad omnem continentiam lex instituebat sed jus in populum vocabatur cui parere ipsi necesse esset nec obsistere liceret n. b. ac si dixisset Samuel eo se proripiet licentiae regum libido quam cohibere vestrum non erit n. b. quibus hoc restabit unum jussa excipere dicto audientes esse So Brentius Hom. 27. 1 Sam. Etiamsi velletis jugum Regis excutere tamen ut semel susceperitis nequaquam id vobis licebit Adde Diodat on the place that this jus Regis was by consent of Nations and Gods toleration become as it were a right in absolute Kingdoms God prescribing to Subjects the Law of patience and obedience and the Prince being no way subject to punishment albeit Gods expresse Command Deut. 17. moderates his actions otherwise The next thing the Libeller addes in his reserve to satisfie mens judgements anent his seditious position of private mens using the punishing Sword against all Magistrates c. is the contract and covenant betwixt King and people c. Better occasion shall be given to speak of this in the next Chap. Only now we say it is impertinently alledged to the satisfying of men anent his foresaid position for whatever interest the body of a people have to oppose powers above them by that supposed contract and covenant will not justifie meer private persons and the far fewer and lesser part in their insurrections against all Magistrates and the Body of the community for it is not with them as separate from the Body that such a contract if any be is made but it is between the King and the People nor can it enstate them in a Power of punishing all Magistrates over them and all their neighbours being the Plurality which this man aims at But he proceeds to seek further protection for sedition in sacred Scripture out of which he would produce three instances First the peoples opposing Saul in the case of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.45 To which we say though Saul had made a rash oath and had rashly and sinfully adjured the people that they should eat no food till the evening v. 24. which L. R. untruly calls a standing Law which the People had agreed to P. 349. yet the people use no violence against Saul when he goes about to put to death innocent Jonathan who tasted of the honey not having heard of the adjuration But in the heat of a souldierly boldness after so great a victory obtain'd specially by Jonathans valour who in that day of Battel wrought with God and wrought great salvation in Jsrael do effectually interpose with Saul and mediate for the life of Jonathan moving Saul to wave respect to his rash oath and to regard what was just and right The people as Junius saith adjurat Saulem appellat ipsius conscientiam coram vivente Deo ut posthabita juramenti ratione juris habeat rationem c. se interponentes Saulem impediverunt ne eum morti traderet They interposed by mediation for so worthy a person and their mediation was willingly welcomed and not a word is there more of that matter Saul not counting himself crossed in such mediation for so noble and dear a Son whom he in his rashness had devoted to death Neither do the people oppose an oath against Sauls oath for saving Jonathan Junius exposition may passe well that they speak not by way of swearing but by way of reasoning abhorring the destruction of such a person Ab sit ut vivit Jehova an cadere debet ullus ex capillis capitis ejus quandoquidem c. As the Lord liveth should any hair of Jonathans head fall to the ground c. It is a wonder to see understanding men argue from this place for violent and forcible resistance to Kings especially when acting according to Laws consented to by private persons here the King is not acting according to Law but prosecuting the observation of a foolish and rash oath Here the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession and earnest reasoning that he ought to regard what was right more then his rash oath here the opposition made by way of intercession was acceptable and welcome acquiesced in and yeelded to Here the opposition made is not only by one part of the people but the Princes of the Land and Captains of thousands as L. R. saith p 348. Now what makes all this for a party of meer private persons making insurrection and using force and violence upon all Magistrates acting according to established Laws and affronting grieving dishonouring them yes professedly aiming at their destruction Let Peter Martyr be looked upon this place and he speaks notably well his own words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p. 349. But yet again the Libeller produceth the example of the ten tribes rejecting Rehoboam 1 Kings 12. as a laudable example to justifie his position Be-like now the matter goes farther on then private mens innocent self-defence against violence for the defection of the
exemption and impunity as to subjects of the person invested with Soveraignity and Majesty Gods law natures light and sound reason are all for this that the person or persons invested with soveraign Majesty having the Legislative-power the Jurisdictional-power the Coerecive and Punitive-power originally in himself must enjoy exemption and impunity as to subjects actings against them The contrary tenet overthrows the order of God and nature and precipitates humane Societies in a gulf of endlesse confusions 3. This hath been the constant sense of the generation of the righteous and the antient Christians and great lights of Gods Church whom none will call flatterers of Princes but such as have lost their fore-heads Tertul. apol contra gentes imperatores sunt in solius Dei potestate a quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes Deos super omnes homines And a little after Majestatem Caesaris soli Deo subjicio So ad Scapulam Imperator omnibus major est dum solo deo est minor So Optat. contra Parmenian super imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit imperatorem And Jerom. epist ad Rusticum speaking of Davids words Ps 51. Against thee against thee onely have I sinned sayes he spake so quia Rex erat alium non timebat And Ambrose in Apol. Davidis cap. 4. 10. speaking of the same words sayes Rex utique erat nullis ipse legibus tenebatur he means as to fear punishment from man quia liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictorum neque enim ullis ad paenam vocantur Legibus tuti Imperii potestate homini ergo non peccavit qui non tenebatur obnoxius There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Vriah the occasion of that Psalm and of the scandal he had given to Gods people in which sense he might be well said to sin against both But in this word against thee thee only have I sinned As he minds to acknowledge that God onely was conscious to his sin in committing it So also he shews that this above all touched his conscience that he had violated Gods Law and shews that he is touched with his terrors as his only Judge though as Diodat on the place sayes well as he was a King he was exempted from the punishment of man and not obnoxious to humane Tribunals And excellent Mr. Calvin in that 20. Ch. of the 4. Book of his institut S. 2 7. Assumptum in Regiam Majestatem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem S. 29 Personam sustinent voluntate Domini cui inviolabilem Majestatem ipse impressit insculpsit And if Princes be tyrannous nostrum non est hujusmodi malis mederi c. and so S. 31. fully to our purpose it is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Calvin as he is indeed most worthy of respect should dare to violate the Sacrosanct Maiesty of Kings if they will but read over that Chapter wherein he speaks most notably against the seditious Doctrines of our times as if he had been living in them 4. It is not denyed that the King is bound before God to rule his people according to the Law of God of reason and nature yea and to take his direction in Government from the rational Laws of the Kingdom which are deductions from or determinations of the Law of God reason and nature to particular circumstances agreed to by the consent and with the good liking of his people It is too grosse a saying Regi quicquid libet licet a good King will turn the word and say Regi quod licet supposing it expedient libet he will make use of good Laws as his instruments in governing the people and account it his honour and a thing greatly becoming his Majesty to do nothing contrary to Law in the ordinary course of his Government and not at all stray there-from but when great reason urges an equitable interpretation of the Law and respect to the end and aim of it when precise cleaving to the rigidity of the letter thereof might make summum jus summa injuria It is a royal thing for a King to live by the same good Laws which are given by him to the people and it is of efficicious influence upon them to move them to walk in their duties orderly Rex tenetur servare Leges si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes But if the supreme Power should deviat we maintain that as a sure truth which this man proudly and traiterously jeers at That impunity as from Subjects necessarily attends Soveraignity and supreme Majesty which hath this inseparable priviledge of exemption from violence by Subjects by the Law of God Reason and Nature whatever sort the Government be Monarchical or Polyarchical For no man can be judged or punished but by a Judge above him and the Supreme hath none such otherwise he were not Supreme To teach contrary to this is but to confound Gods Order and dissipate humane Societies by continual rebellions Yet this inviolableness of the sacred persons of Kings and supreme â—owers invested with Soveraign Authority from God thus asserted should be so far from licensing or incouraging them to do what they list that they have the greater cause to walk with holy fear within the boundaries of Gods Law and their own just Laws for the more immunity they have from mens violence which must be granted unless all things be turned into confusion the sadder punishments they shall have from God if they debord The sixth Chapter of the Book of Wisdom though it be Apocrypha is well worthy to be read by Kings and Potentates and to be trembled at for the matter is very agreeable to Gods Word The heaviest vengeances that are recorded in History sacred and profane have come upon flagitious and tyrannous Kings their exemption from mens hands reserves them to fall into the hands of the living God which is a fearful thing who besides the wrath that is to come sometimes calls for forreign scourges upon them sometimes suffers an evil spirit of rebellion to go out amongst their own Subjects who though they do wickedly in stretching forth their hands against the sacred head of the Lords Anointed yet it is ordinary for the great God to do the work of his holy Justice by wicked hands and when men are serving their own lusts and crossing his revealed will for which vengeance attends them yet they may be in these actions serving his Providence and his Justice against wicked Powers albeit they think not so nor comes it into their minds or hearts But Potentates should remember the word Potentes paâ—ce debent uti potestate sua ut semper eam retinere possint But the Libeller will have the memorable instance of the times whereof he now speaks Naph P. 30. of casting away the Carcases and
insurrections against Kings as false Prophets do now albeit they had as great cause as ever people had under some of their Kings and were in capacity probable enough to crush them they never suggested to them that their obligations to subjection unto their Kings being but conditional they were set free when they became so extreamly wicked idolatrous c. nor did ever Godly people although they strived to keep themselves pure and to gain-stand in their private capacities the evils of the times think themselves free to use violence against Powers above them had this been their duty no doubt Gods Prophets would plainly and down-right have told them of it without circumlocutions but this they never did either that was no duty or the Prophets were not faithful in not admonishing them of their duty When at first that people sought a King from Samuel they resolved not to take him conditionally si bene regnaverit but with all the faults that might follow him neither reserved they Power to coerce him which had it been in their thoughts would easily have answered and weakned Samuels terrifying disswasive for they could have said we take him only as King on condition of his good behaviour otherwise we will take order with him but would have one as other Nations had Kings about them of whom Buchanan says they were not legitimi Reges but tyranni in his language because not under Law coaction And so also they behaved themselves toward them not using them as they deserved but forbearing violence against them although they were very evil Princes many of them But yet further it is pressed that such an Oath and Covenant betwixt King and People was in use then because Eccles 8.2 It is said I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Therefore there was say they an Oath or Covenant betwixt King and People Ans 1. The most that can be made of this place is as Diodat in his note thereupon affirms that the subjects swore the oath of Allegiance and Obedience to the King upon the ground whereof they were to obey him it was at most foedus unilaterum as they call it in the Schools but it imports not mutual engagement of the King to them or that he swore to them much less that the Oath they made to him was conditional with a reserve of Power to punish him for his deviations which in this same King that writes this were very great albeit we grant all such oaths to Kings to be understood salvo jure Dei salva Deo obedientia 2. We do not see ground to assert that ordinarily amongst that people there were oaths of fidelity and obedience given to their Kings whatever was done in the extraordinary cases above mentioned far lesse that Kings engaged to them by oath ordinarily both the King ruled without such an oath and the people obeyed without such an oath or engagement Neither is there in Deut. 17. or Sam. 8. or any where else such a rule set in the institution or constitution of the King that any such matter should be done Nor hear we in the History of this same King Solomon who writes this that when he entred to the Throne either he swore to the people or they to him unlesse perhaps 2 Sam. 29.24 may import this as to Solomon Junius translation of this Text wherein he is followed by Cartwright may well passe praestitutum Regis observa sed pro ratione juramenti Dei i. e. Keep the Kings Commandment so far as it may be keeped retaining fidelity to God to whom absolute and illimited obedience is sworn So not the motive of obedience to the King because of the oath sworn to him is here imported but only the measure and moderation of our obedience due to him so as it may consist with the duty sworn to God our obedience to the King is here cautionated saith Cartwright dummodo non pugnet cum juramento quo divino imperio obstricti sumus we are to obey him 3. We may hold close to our own translation and yet not be necessitate to grant so much to be spoken of here as an oath of the people to the King let be a mutual Oath and Covenant betwixt King and People neither of which was in ordinary use amongst that people nor mentioned in sacred Scripture as ordinary For they were all bound by oath to obey all Gods Commandments this was the oath of God and amongst his Commandments this was one that they should obey the King in the Lord and obey all the Kings lawful Commandments in regard of their general oath and engagement to God to obey all his commandments they were bound to obey the Kings Command under God and in subordination to him albeit they never took any particular oath to obey the King and dealt not covenant-wise with him And thus the sense runs fairly I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of or propter the oath of God because thou hast sworn to obey God obey the King in all lawful things for this is the will of God The motive of obedience is taken not from any particular oath made to the King but from the general oath made to God engaging in all things to obey him But yet this business of the civil Covenant is not at an end for it is urged L. R. P. 97. that this Covenant tyes the King be it tacite or expresse not to God only but to the people and brings him by reciprocation of bands to be under a Law-obligation to be subject to the peoples censure and punishment in case of failing as well as they are subject to to him in case of failing and that all covenants and contracts betwixt man and man bring the covenanters under a law and claim before men if the contract be broken And that the King becoming bound to the people he comes under action and claim by them if he fail and is punishable as they are if they fail And that the King and they have a mutual coactive power one over another and are mutually Magistrates one to another and the people if the King fail may judge him in their tribunal of necessity and that there needs no judge on earth between them more then between two Nations independent one upon another when they warr together And that in reformations of things amisse especially in Religion people may extraordinarily intrude in the Magistrates office and not only reform themselves actibus elicitis but reform others actibus imperatis And that people by vertue of this supposed covenant may when they see cause formally and effectively excercise upon their Kings that royalty which they have in themselves virtually and fountally Much of that sort of stuffe is to be found quest 14.40 and every where in that Book And it is lamentable that while they who labour to preserve Gods order in the world should be branded as flatterers
discretion of the sufferers of prejudice by it were they never so few in comparison of the whole body of the people they may pronounce upon the same and according to their discretive judgement of the injurious perverting of Government determine their actions for renouncing or revolting from the society in which and Government under which they are and nothing should hinder them from this but want of probable capacity to through their work as he often speaks So wise and cautious must his followers be though not conscientious that in working a mischief they light not upon a mischief Good God! to what times are we reserved wherein the unmeasurable audaciousness of men dare present such poyson to a Christian People and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such Doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhorres Dare this Libeller say that this is a fundamental constitution of political Societies that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons pretending a perversion of the ends of Government a pretence that will never be wanting to malecontents and malapert wicked ones even katherines and highlandish theeves and it is real to them if they themselves be admitted Judges they may make secession from the Society in which they are embodied and renounce their obligation to the Government thereof Is not such a principle rather contra-fundamental to all humane combined Societies and were it at first entring of the Society expresly proposed that when ever any minor party should account the ends of Government perverted they should be at their primaeve liberty again to break off from all the magistratical Order and from society with the major party of these with whom they are combined Would not the overture of such a condition be rejected with indignation and upon just reason for that were to open a gap to continual seditions divisions and fractions And all rational men would judge it were better not to joyn in society with such men then to joyn in such termes Again suppose there be a breaking off from a magistratical Power and major part of a society upon pretension which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion such is the corruption of men of a perversion of the ends of Government the party making secession may haply meet with that same measure they gave to the Community wherewith they were formerly joyned For when they have combined and embodied themselves in a Society if a minor party arise amongst themselves with the same accusations against them which they had against the body they did separate from Must not that same party have the same priviledge of Primaeve liberty to combine and erect a corporation by themselves which they claimed before will not they plead that the obligation to the Government and Society ceaseth and they are free to erect a new one And where shall there be a stand till humane Societies be miserably broken in pieces which seems to be Satans design by this Mans Doctrine Further can this assertion subsist that neither alledgiance or fidelity nor obedience is to be given unto any created power but in defence of Religion and Liberty That obedience is not to be given unto any Creature on earth against Religion or the Revealed Will of God shall be easily granted we abhorre the very thought of so doing Again it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to Powers against the Liberty competent to us as Subjects and consistent with Soveraignty yet so that the measure of that Liberty must not be made by every private mans will but by the Declarature of the Parliament representative of the Subjects which best knows what thereunto belongs But to say that all not only obedience but alledgiance and fidelity due to any created power is indispensibly restricted to this qualification in Defence of Religion and Liberty viz. of the subject is a most false assertion It is known that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictve proposition included now it is certain there may be cases wherein we ought to obey the Magistrate and yet the act of obedience cannot be properly and directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the Liberty of the Subject there may be some causes that properly concern his own honour wherein defence of Religion is not concerned the Magistrate perhaps not being of our Religion and far less defence of the Liberty of the Subject unless by a very remote and unnecessary consequence yet am I bound to him in causes concerning his honour this made the Ministers that disputed with the Doctors of Aberdeen decline to acknowledge that clause of the first Covenant in defence of Religion c. to be limitative or restrictive of duty to the King affirming it onely to be specificativen aming duties to him in some respects or in respect to some things not excluding others Yea the General Assembly 1639. will not have that clause in the Covenant restrictive for in their supplication to the Commissioner and Council they speak thus We have solemly sworn and do swear not only our mutual concurrence and assistance for the cause of Religion and to the utmost of our power with our Means and Lives to stand to the defence of our Dread Soveraign His Person and Authority in the preservation of true Religion Liberties and Laws of this Kirk and Kingdom but also n. b. in every cause that may concern His Majesties Honour shall concur with our friends and followers as we shall be required c. So Duty and Obedience to the King is there extended beyond what is expresly mentioned in the Covenant in defence of Religion and Liberties But further as to the point of Alledgiance or Fidelity that is another matter then Obedience Alledgiance to a King imports owning him as Lawful and Rightful King and that none others have power over him together with fidelity to his Person Crown and Dignity against all conspiracies and treason Obedience is the result of this acknowledged Soveraignty where commands appear lawful A man may keep Alledgiance and Fidelity to the King albeit sometimes there may be commands given which cannot be obeyed because of Gods countermand many learned Priests and Papists in England took the Oath of Alledgiance when first it was emitted and injoyn'd albeit they thought they could not give obedience to the King as to matters of Religion But this man is plain in his assertion that no Alledgiance is due to the King except with this restriction in defence of Religion And as he said a main part of his Religion is to erect Presbytery and root out Prelacy So that if Presbytery be not defended people are taught to renounce Alledgiance to the King How contrary is this to the Confession of Faith cap. 23. S. 4. Difference in Religion doth not saith the Confession make void the Magistrates just and legal Authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him But this
man will have no Alledgiance due to him nor Obedience but in defence of Religion which it is like he will not defend if he be of a different perswasion in matters of Religion and so must his Authority be made void The contrary Thesis we must rest upon that although a supreme Magistrate defend not Religion yet Alledgiance and Fidelity is alwayes due to him and Obedience also in all things lawful It is the Lords way for keeping humane Societies from gross disorders to allow to such as are in supreme Power by lawful calling the honour due unto their place even although in the main things they pervert the ends of Government not glorifying God by advancing true Religion but dishonouring him by false Religion or seducing others to their evil way and persecuting them who follow not their unlawful commandments Yet where administrations of Justice in civil things are tolerably managed and civil Societies by Magistratical Authority kept in tolerable order that there be no general out-breakings in outragious oppressions God will have due respects payed to the places of Authority and persons therein installed and will reckon dreadfully with them for any perversions of the ends of Government in his own time Though Caesar give not God his due yet it is Christs mind that we give Caesar his due and his Apostles mind that he should be honoured not for his personal faults or abuse of his power but because he is invested with power from God which though he abuseth yet it remains the Ordinance of God And hereunto Mr. Calvin fully agrees lib. 4. instit cap. 20. S. 24 25. c. where at length he asserts That Alledgiance and Obedience in things lawful is due even to the worst of Princes and who do most manifestly pervert the ends of Government by private Subjects of which our question is now S 25. Si Dei verbum respicimus longius nos deducet viz. then to give alledgiance to good Princes ut non eorum modo principum imperio subditi simus qui probe qua debent fide munere suo erga nos defunguntur sed omnium qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur etiamsi nihil minus praestent quam quod ex officio erat principum Again Omnes saith he speaking of evil Princes illa sancta Majestate sunt praediti qua legittimam potestatem instruxit Deus Again In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo penes quem modo sit publica potestas praeclara illa divina potestas residet quam Dominus justitiae judicii sui ministris verbo suo detulit proinde à subditis eadem reverentia dignatione habendus est quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet qua optimum Regem si daretur habituri essent Again S. 27. he sayes of an evil King Assumptus est in Regiam Majestatem quam violare nefas est Again Nunquam in animum nobis seditiosae illae cogitationes veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem nec aequum esse ut subditos nos ei praestemus qui vicissim Regem nobis se non praestet Any may see that in the matter of Civil Government Mr. Calvin was of another and a better spirit than these men who inflame the people with their seditious Doctrine and tells them if the King do not his duty their alledgiance to him and obligation to his Government ceaseth and no alledgiance nor obedience due to him when he does not or does contrary to his duty But 2. As the Position in it self is most unchristian and irrational so the application of it to the case in these Times made by this Master of confusion is most unjust for not to speak of the first times of Reformation wherein he sayes that there was such perversion of the ends of Government as made the obligation of the injured Subjects thereto to cease Pag. 16. he repeats the same more fully Pag. 150. to justifie the late Insurrection against the King as if now there were such manifest and notorious perversion of the ends of Government that the band thereof is loosed and people are relapsed into their primaeve liberty to joyn in new Societies and Combinations as they see fit rejecting the old Now may not any see the desperate design of this Libeller and his like to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially settled frame of this Nation and Kingdom which through divine Providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Soveraigns for the common benefit of the Subjects at home and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad yea and to the glory of divine Providence which hath through many storms in several ages preserved us in this comfortable constitution But behold a foul gap is now opened to let in all confusion upon us and to dissipate and break us in pieces miserably if such wicked Doctrine take upon people God guard their hearts we hope sanctiores sunt aures corda auditorum quam linguae Doctorum as to this Now it is left to the arbitrement and lust of every party even lesser party of the people to break off the old union with the Nation to erect themselves into new Societies and Combinations as being now as free as if they had not been members of this Nation they are relapsed into their primaeve liberty and now every Paroch in Galloway is allowed to cantonize themselves into a free Re-publick or to become a little Kingdom of Ivetot or make Combinations and Heads of these Combinations as they see fit for they are liberate and loosed from the old Society and Government because the ends thereof are so manifestly perverted And wherein forsooth Doth not the true Protestant Religion as it is held forth in Scripture and was publickly confessed by our first Reformers which Confession is registred Parl. 1. K. James 6. through Gods mercy continue with us without variation from it in the least Doth not the Kings Majesty protect and advance this blessed Truth of the Saving Gospel and incourage and invite all according to his power to embrace it Is he not willing and desirous that the Laws be vigorously executed against Papists and all perverters of this sound Doctrine If there be deficiency in execution the blame lyes elsewhere then upon him Are Gods people or any people in the Land spoiled of their lawful civil Liberties What one thing hath he done without consent of the peoples Representatives in Parliament at which any may except as a grievance What burthen hath he laid upon their Estates but by Law of by their own consent in a necessary exigence What should be the great ground then of so horrid a dismembring of the body of this Common-wealth and secession from the civil Society and from subjection to the lawful Government thereof as this man teaches and would perswade What is that so fundamental perversion of the ends of Government that may to any minor party that pleases bear the Weight of a rational licence to
allows the reverend subjection of the Child under such unreasonable and unjust dealing So 1 Pet. 2.18 Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully c. v. 20. If when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God For even hereunto were ye called No Master had a moral power or warrand from God to afflict his servant wrongfully that was not acceptable to God but displeasing to him yet that Servants should endure a suffering lot in and for following their duty to God with subjection to their Masters afflicting them and that from a principle of conscience toward God was a thing acceptable to God And hereunto were Servants then called it is not only subjection to patient suffering for their faults they were called to nor only subjection to endure suffering in well-doing meerly out of prudence or because they could not help it not being in probable capacity to violent their Masters though they would but a subjection to endure wrongful sufferings from their hands from a principle of conscience toward God moving them to regard their authority albeit abused by putting them to grievous trouble wrongfully And though perhaps they will say there is great difference between respects due by Children to their Parents and Servants to their Lords and Masters and that which is due by Subjects to Kings the King neither having properly paternal nor yet despotick nor lordly power over his Subjects And they will say also there is great difference between the evils spoken of in these Texts to be endured by Children or Servants corrections bufferings c. and that irreparable loss of life wherein should it come to that subjection without resistance is pressed to the wrongful Sentences and Proceedings of the Magistrate or Prince Though I say they will and do assert this to show the disparity of the cases yet 1. There is a full parity and agreement of these relative Powers Paternal Masterly and Magistratical or Royal in this that in the inflicting of evils upon those who are under them such as are competent to them to inflict within their sphere a patient reverend subjection is due from their inferiours without violent insurrection against them even when they abuse their power in some particulars not in way of justification or respect to the abuse but in a humble conscientious regard of their being invested with that power they do abuse 2. Kings are not Fathers of our flesh or by generation nor can they be truly called so political and parental power are different things although they may be co-incident in one and the same subject as most probably they were in the first political Governments that were in the world Yet as Kings and Magistrates should have fatherly hearts to their Subjects they being a sort of official Fathers to them to procure their good and to defend them from evil every King should be Abimelech i. e. my Father King So Subjects ought to have such hearts to their King as Children have to their Father giving them special reverence subjection and obedience from their very soul and inward affections and although sometimes they are not such as they should be yet they ought to account their persons sealed with Gods Ordinance and the Image of his Soveraignty sacred and inviolable resolving to suffer any thing of them rather then to be guilty of parricide although under the colour of self-defence Gods Law in the fifth Command hath injoyned reverence and subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calvin lib. 4. inst cap. 8. shews the end of that Command is under the name and title of Parents Father and Mother to shew us that all the degrees of eminency God hath ordered to be over us should be inviolable Oportere nobis esse inviolabiles quia omnium est eadem ratio God saith he under the name of the most amiable relations of Father and Mother leads us to subjection to all Superiors Hoc saith he de subjectione praeceptum cum humani ingenii pravitate valde pugnat quod ut est celsitudinis appetentia turgidum aegre se subjici sustinet Therefore he adds to commend this subjection he hath communicate his own name to them who are in eminency In unum ipsum saith he ita conveniunt patris Dei ac Domini tituli ut quoties unum aliquem ex istis audimus Majestatis illius sensu animum nostrum feriri oporteat quos ergo istorum facit participes c. S. 35. These whom God makes sharers in these stiles he illustrates them with some sparkle of his own glory that they may all appear in their places conspicuous and reverend We ought to think that he that is a Father to us habet aliquid divini for he carries not a divine title without cause he that is a Prince or a Lord habet nonnullam cum Deo communionem Thus he And as he adds further we are not to doubt but God is in this Command setting down an universal rule touching Superiorâ— nec interest saith he it is not concerning to consider whether they who are to be thus honoured by us be worthy or unworthy for whatsoever they be they have not attained to such eminency without Divine Providence Cujus ratione ipse Legislator illos honorari voluit So that whatsoever reverence and subjection a man is to give to to this natural Father when he inflicts punishments that are within his sphere that same subjection and reverence is to be yielded to the Magistrate that beareth the Sword punishing in his capacity albeit perhaps he erre in his procedure as Parents may do 3. It shall not be asserted that there is no difference between a Royal or Magistratical power and that which is called dominative and masterly seing besides other differences they do mainly differ in this that the Master or Lord of Slaves hath his own profit mainly before his eyes which he may under Gods glory lawfully have but the profit of his Slaves onely secondarily and also in order to his own good which is maintained by their well doing But a King or Magistrate should think that his power is primarily ordinated to the publick good of the community it self and only secondarily and consequently to the good of himself it being profitable for him that the Common-wealth should flourish 2. In this that a dominative and masterly power such as was of old in use and under which people were made Slaves either having their lives spared in a just War and quitting their liberty to spare their lives serva serviam or being sold and bought by the possessors money which was no way like the condition of our hired servants free to go off when they will did interest these who were invested with it with a greater power over the bodies and goods
violated nor violence offered to it by private men a subjection excluding violent resistance is commanded and no such exception is put in that if he abuse his power or if we be strong enough for him we are loosed from that subjection and are at liberty for resisting him and no submission is required under his abuse of his power so long as we can violently act against him It is said by those of the other judgement that even by this same text Rom. 13. subjection or submission to unjust suffering by these invested with power is not commanded nor resistance in that case forbidden for all the subjection commanded to be given to persons in power is onely so far as they manage their power lawfully according to Gods Ordinance and as the Ministers of God for our good who are for the praise of well-doers and the terror of evil-doers And all the resistance forbidden is onely that they be not resisted while they do their duties but when they do not their duties or do contrary to duty in afflicting the innocent they are not powers ordained of God pro tanto nor his Ministers for good to people nor is resistance to them in such acts unlawful resistance to the ordinance of God nor to them as the Ministers God but onely resistance to them is sinful men serving their own lusts and Sathan their evil-doing is no ordinance of God but of Sathan So that in effect they think subjection here commanded and resistance forbidden doth only relate to Magistrates quatenus quamdiu bene se gesserint when and so far as they carry themselves rightly in Government but that from this Text no submission is due to them no resistance to them is forbidden in their inflicting unjust punishments but that for any thing said here Subjects may make insurrections against them whenever they think they do wrong even any part of private Subjects against all Magistrates of all degrees the Supreme as well as the Subordinate So Naphtali teacheth and borrows this out of his poisoned Fountain Lex Rex But as to this 1â— It hath been often granted and still is that no man nor Magistrate on earth hath a moral power commission or command from God to do evil or to afflict any unjustly 2. The question is not concerning the Magistrat's duty but anent the Subjects duty in case through the permission of Divine Providence the Magistrate abuse his place and power in unjust â—fflicting the innocent whether the private Subject may use violence against or upon the Magistrate or should rather then so do submit to suffering though unjustly not for reverence to the abuse of the power but in reverence to God whose Ordinance the power which is abused is It may be easily seen that subjection to the power opposite to resistance is all alongs injoyned whether the power be rightly used or otherwise if it be rightly used subjection without refusing active obâ—dience is required if it be not rightly used subjection without resistance violent or forcible repelling of the power is required upon this formal reason and ground Because even when the power is abused it remains a power ordained by God although the abuse of it be not ordained even as a mans eye remains his eye although sometimes it is not rightly used The formal reason of the subjection and non-resistance pressed is not the right use of the power but because it is a power ordained of God however perverted in the use by man And although the spirit of God in describing the Magistrate saith He is the minister of God for thy good A praiser of the good and a terror to the evil it is not meant that that is the formal reason of subjection to him in the full latitude of subjection nor that the Magistrates then existing and in beeing to whom the people are commanded to be subject and forbidden to resist them were such de facto in all their actings or that all others in reference to whom the direction may be after extended should in time coming be such in all their actings but only it is told what the Magistrate is ex officio and what he should be de jure as it is ordinary in Scripture that qualifications of Kings spoken of do not de facto agree to them all though they seem to be spoken assertively of all onely it is shewed what they should do de jure as Prov. 14.35 Pro. 16.10.12.13.15 Pro. 22.11 So here the Apostle speaking of the power or person invested with power calling him the minister of God for thy good no terror to good works but evil A praiser of the good c. shews only what a Magistrate should be ex officio and what he is de jure but layes not this as the ground of subjection and non-resistance to him but this that he is a Superior Power ordained of God If he abuse his place he is to answer to God for it but the abuse of the power in a particular doth not nullifie the power or make it no power if he do evil he doth it not as invested with authority from God yet he abides invested with authority it cannot be said he hath no authority when he abuses authority subjection of one sort or another is due to him because he is in officio not because he abuseth his Office To this purpose amongst many things wrong Lex Rex hath that true word Page 325. We are saith he to suffer evil of punishment of Tyrants some other way and in some other notion then we are to suffer evil of equals for we are to suffer evil of equals not for any paternal authority they have over us as certainly we are to suffer evil of Superiors Thus he And this is all we require to suffer evil of the Magistrate or Superior without violating his person upon the account of his paternal authority which though in a particular abused hic nunc remains the Ordinance of God And in a respective reverence to that Ordinance wherewith they are invested we are humbly to suffer wrong from them if we cannot by petitions move their forbearance neither justifying in our consciences the wrong which they do to us nor judging them to have a commission from God as to this wrong doing but regarding both Gods Providence and Gods Ordinance in their persons which ceaseth not to be his although abused in a particular act toward us This hath been the common sense of the generation of Gods children before this fiery iron age whose sober examples tenderly respecting Gods Ordinance and the standing of humane Societies are with us of a great deal more weight and more worthy imitation then the furious practices of any of late whereunto they have been inflamed by the Doctrines of popular Parasites and fierce Demagogues such as this Libeller and his Complices are The ancient Christians who lived nearest the light of the Apostolick times and had hearts fuller of zeal through the recent warmth of
Scripture or mocking the Holy Ghost by whom it was given are not they rather deluders of the Scripture and of the Spirit of God who labour to make a nose of wax of the Holy Scriptures wringing and wresting them where they will introducing their own fancies upon the Word and not embracing the clear sense of the Spirit of God directly held forth in the Word In this art of wyre-drawing the Scripture-words without any waâ—rand or good reason and of covering crooked courses with Gods cloak as is said of these Mal. 2.16 who cover violence with his garment this man and his complices men of blood and violence are singularly experienced 2. This is a sure rule That no exposition of a Text can subsist that is either contrary to other Texts of Scripture or to found reason but so it is that the exposition given by this man of this Text as if it favoured his position for meer private persons or any part of a peoples taking not only the defensive Sword in hand but the vindicative and punishing Sword against all Magistrates higher and lower and against the body of the Society whereof they are Members and the lesser part also is contrary both to plain Scripture and to reason The Scripture commits the vindicative and punishing Sword only to the Magistrate Rom. 13. He only is Gods Sword-bearer that way And amongst Magistrates there is a supreme power 1 Pet. 2. on whom all others have dependence as to their call and the exercise thereof And it is a Doctrine point-blank contrary to reason remedilesly tending to dissolve humane Societies and all Kingdoms and Common-wealths and opening a door to all seditious confusions to teach that any meer private persons or any part of a people who think themselves strong enough should take on them to sit and act as punishing Judges over all Magistrates supreme and subordinate constituted by the body of a people yea and upon the major part of the people themselves Oh horrid confusion to be detested by all rational and Christian hearts that the minor meer private part of a people should set themselves down as Judges upon the whole body of a people and the generality of the Magistrates and upon their own fansies led with their own lusts draw the magistratical Sword which God never committed to them and strike both the Magistrates of all sorts and degrees and their neighbours therewith This sure is not the work of God however it be faced or varnished but of Sathan 3. The man fansies an adversary to himself while he brings-in some saying That in the case of equal division of Cities faithful and unfaithful matters should come to accommodation anent serving or not serving other gods the case Deut. 13. or that if the major part went wrong the minor should rest in a sinful acquiescence and be thereto oblieged by the major part Who ever said so or if there be any spark of Gods fear in the heart will say so There is no coming to accommodation in such matters whither the true God or other gods should be served and followed and yet this man would be very severe if no Nation in the world might having before been embodied in a Kingdom or State continue and abide in their peaceable communion in civil interests upon supposition of such an equal division arising amongst them As for the obligation that the major part of a people might put upon the minor to a sinful acquiescence who will allow that There should be no sinful acquiescence nor any acquiescence at all to any party were they never so many who run away from God after other gods or idols But supposing a Government democratick though the lesser part is not to acqulesce in the way of the greater running into rebellion against God but by all means competent to them bear witness against that way and study to keep themselves pure when they cannot prevail to have matters rectified as to the whole body yet cannot people keep their conscience and practice undefiled unless they overthrow by violence which is the thing all alongs aimed at by this man Gods order in the Societies whereof they are members and instate themselves in the power God hath not given them 4. This Libeller is a very confident person pronouncing Oracles ex scrinâ—o pectoris while he affirmeth that the constitution of Civil Government amongst Gods people to which the Texts Deut. 13. Judg 22. c. do relate was democratick Upon the contrary we affirm that from Moses time who is called King in Jesurun Deut. 33.5 the Lord never appointed nor allowed a democratical Government amongst his people although the principles of this man and his consorts do lead to the worst sort of Democracy as the only lawful Government yea to an Oligarchick Democracy if so we may speak wherein the lesser part of meer private persons may tread down the greater and all Magistrates also from the highest to the lowest if they can have strength enough The Government of that people until Sauls time was properly Theocratical The Lord was their King 1 Sam. 12.12 in another way and more special then he is King over all the earth From him they had their judicial Laws particularly set down to them He appointed in his Word their high Senate or Sanhedrim wherein the high Priest was a chief Member and other Priests Members also not eligible by the people as neither were the heads of the Tribes of Israel to rule them under himself He did now and then send out his extraordinary Vice-royes the Judges till Samuels time who not only were Saviours to deliver them from their enemies but Judges to rule them in times of peace for many years together and when these were not sent they had their setled Sanhedrim or Senate of Gods appointment to govern them Again that command Deut. 13. did reach all times of that Israelitish estate even when they came to be under Kings and visible Monarchs who unquestionably had the supreme power of the Sword nor was it free for private persons upon any pretence to take hold of it for revenging or punishing without them as this man would have private persons now to do And further though the word Deut. 13.12 be spoken to the people If thou shalt hear say c. yet it is alwayes to be understood that the peoples concurrence in the punishing of an apostate City was to be within the bounds of their calling and under the conduct of the Magistratical power set over them As when inticers to idolatry are in the former part of the Chapter injoined to be taken order with however nearly they were related to people and to be stoned it is not to be supposed that the charge is given to every private person brevi manu to do this but judgement was to be execute on them after judicial conviction and sentence given by the Magistrate as Diodat notes well ver 8. Procure saith he vengeance on him in way of justice
ten tribes is held forth as imitable we see what is the tendency of this mans Principles But no sound man will think the suddain and furious Rebellion of the ten tribes from Davids house upon the rash and furious answer of a young King was justifiable although the Lord in his Providence ordered it so And upon the revelation hereof it was acquiesced in and arms were not used against the dividing party and it would be consider'd also that they who made the secession were the major part of the body of the people But what is all this to justifie the insurrections of any lesser party of private people against the Magistrate and all Magistrates supreme and subordinate as this man would have them to do Every example recorded in Scripture is not imitable As to the revolt of Libnah 2 Chron. 21.10 this is reported in Scripture as a fact but is not justified and approven although it be said they revolted because Jehoram had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers This imports not the impulsive cause of the revolt or motive which they had before their eyes for in that 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 of that piece of judgement coming on him is pointed at as oft-times God punisheth mens sins by the sinful actions of other men against them the instruments are sinful but his justice is holy But let the Libeller tell us in good earnest if he thinks that the laying aside of the Presbyterian frame is the forsaking of the Lord God of our fathers and a sufficient cause for any one Town in the Kingdom to revolt from the King though he do not persecute them nor force them to his way as there is no evidence that Libnah was thus used shall a Kings swerving in that one point or if there be greater infidelity be sufficient ground of defection from him Cave dixeris Libnah was a City of the Priests Josh 10. perhaps much of the temper of this sort of men but their revolt was sinful because with the secession from the Common-wealth they fell off from the Church of God from Jerusalem the Temple and publick Worship and place of it which was as yet owned by God notwithstanding many corruptions the revolt is only recorded as done not as well done As to what he adds of the Practices Prophesies and manner of the late blessed Reformations and the Right and Constitution of this Kingdom afterward it shall be considered But it is a wonder that upon this point of resistance and taking arms against Kings he hath omitted Davids taking Goliaths Sword and gathering bands of men for his own defence against Sauls violence which because he medleth not with neither shall we further then to note what Beza in his answer to Castellio P. 20. sayes Davidis unctio ita eum à privatis distinguebat ut jure posset armis vim injustam repellere And it were to be wished that this Libeller who mocks at the exemption of Kings from punishment by Subjects as we will hear may let Davids word sink in his heart Who shall stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be innocent Now to draw to a close of this matter let these few things be observed 1. That whatever may be said of the lawfulness of defensive arms against the illegal violences and extreme oppression of a Prince who is not integrae Majestatis by other Magistrates to whom with him the protection of Laws and Liberties is jointly committed by certain pactions and conditions expressed that will say nothing to warrand the insurrection of any party of private persons against all their Magistrates acting according to Laws agreed upon by the Magistrates of all degrees and the body of the Community 2. That the late rising against and resisting the King and all Authorities in the Land was utterly unwarrantable not only upon the account of their being meer private persons who did take arms but because there was neither sufficient ground for that deed had it in its nature been lawful nor did they abide within due limits of an innocent defence The Author of L. R. tells us P. 329. When there is no actual invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending Again he saith P. 327 328. Private men must not presently use violence to the Kings servants till they supplicate nor may use re-offending if flight may save and must not use violent re-offending against the servants of the King but in the exigence of last and most inexorable necessity And P. 321. Any mean not used for preventing death must be an act of revenge not of self-defence And adds there That in paying tribute or suffering a buffet of a rough Master we are not to use any act of re-offending c. Now the world knows the life or blood of these people was not sought upon any termes there was no forcing them to idolatry to false worship nor frighting them to any thing of that kind upon pain of their lives only for their contempt of the outward Ordinances of God purely administred in an Orthodox Church they were put to pay such moderate fines as the publick Laws had appointed without any actual invasion of them or their persons they were the first aggressors and invaders wounding and murthering the Kings Servants and Ministers and seising on his chief Officer Napht. p. 137. confesseth they shed the first blood and first murthered the Kings Servants They had never before that essayed supplicating these in power for mitigation of their fines which was not forbidden them to do if so be they would have done it without tumults and combinations but being inflamed by furious Agitators they would flee to the Sword and provoke others to combinations with them And so spoiling loyal persons who would not concur with them and their hearts being full of much more mischief they marched on to mock Authority with armed Petitions as they had mocked God by sinful prayers to prosper their evil course as if he had been altogether such a one as themselves But not only have others but themselves also cause to praise God that they had no success in sin which might have been a snare and a stumbling block to them and others also It is Gods great mercy not to thrive in an evil way 3. All the people of God are to advert carefully to the dangerous principle of this Libeller and his adherents which is this all alongs his Book That it is as or more irrational and unlawful to suffer unjustly from the Magistrate so long as there is strength enough to act against him as it is to obey actively his unlawful commandments This doctrine cannot but be a source and spring of perpetual seditions under every kind of Government Civil and Ecclesiastical For thus
lead him to own a meer democracy which is the worst of Governments as the only lawful Government he placeth and fixeth the unpunâ—shable Soveraignty there Kings and Parliaments may be according to him punished by the people but they have a Power attended with impunity from men if they erre God must amend that onely we see where we are and that the resolution of all supreme Power is upon the people under God according to these mens tenets the rabble of the multitude against King and all Nobles and Rulers are instated in the Soveraignty under God yea Napht. goes further giving to any part of meer private persons power over King and all Magistrates and Nobles to judge depose and punish them or the major part of the people if there be strength enough and that uncontrollably upon their own judgement of discretion as we have heard and will hear further But now ventum est ad triarios we come to the great Guns whereby Napht. and his witnesses L. R. and the Apol. strives to batter down Gods order and to make soveraign Powers in the case of abuse of Power punishable by their inferiors and subjects a thing which all the Lords and Superiors in Scotland had need to look to for with as good reason may their tennents and vassals be exhorted to rise against them and take order with them when they think they do them wrong as subjects may be exhorted to rise against their King Lex Rex harps much upon the Covenant betwixt the King and the people and betwixt both together with God quest 14. and 40. asserting That the King is only a King conditionally and Covenant-wise that this Covenant giveth the people a coactive Power over the King to punish him if he fail in his duty and that if it be not performed on his part although it be but a tacite and implicite Covenant the people for their part are loosed from the Covenant These and many such Doctrines consequent on these he hath in these questions But Naph out-stripes his leader for albeit he also harpes upon that supposed Covenant p. 19. p. 30. and elsewhere laying much of the stresse of resistance against and revenge upon the King abusing his power upon that rotten foundation Yet he goes a greater length then L. R. doth for L. R. takes the Covenant as the warrand for the body of the people with their Rulers of inferior degree to resist and punish the King but Napth pleads the Covenant for any party of meer private persons to rise against resist throw down King and all Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate and in their Phineas-like motions to use the vindicative punishing reforming Power of the Sword especially in case of defection in matter of Religion such as he thinks the cause now to be And the great stresse of the business is still laid upon these Covenants tacite and virtual or expresse and it is pleaded the people or any part of the people have by that Covenant a joynt obligation with the King and all Magistrates lying upon them to use a vindicative and reforming Power in case of defection in Religion yea even against all back-slidden Rulers and the plurality of an apostate Nation There is a two-fold Covenant they talk of as the foundation of all humane Societies 1. the religious joynt Covenant between the King or Soveraign and people with God 2. The civil Covenant betwixt the King and the people Concerning the former it is Naph mind p. 18. That albeit the care of Religion toward God in a vindicative and punishing way and reforming it c. lyeth upon the King or Magistrates mainly he should have said onely for none can produce a commission but the Powers ordained of God for using the vindicative punitive and reforming Sword about which the question is now but only the Magistrate Yet there is a joynt obligation lying upon the people and every party thereof to vindicate and reform Religion in a publick punitive way even against all Magistrates and Nobles if they be the principal perverters and patrons of abominations and against the plurality of the people for sayes he 18. p. Idolatry perjury c. ought by all meanes n. b. to be suppressed restrained and severly punished So that if any part of the people do think the Magistrates all of them or the plurality of the people Patrons of abominations as in the present case he challenges them to be any private party that think they have power enough may slee to the vindicative punishing and reforming Sword and fall upon all Rulers and others whom they think to be in a defection and will boldly say that in truth they are so This is the mans fine Doctrine he conceals not his own intentions and his parties upon the account of the Apostasie which they now fansie to fall with bloody cruelty on all Magistrates and people too who stand in their way he shews his bloody teeth but God will knock out the teeth of this sanguinary Faction as he hath done Yea Naph runs yet higher for upon the conceit of setting up Government for Truth and Relâ—gion and Gods Worship as the main ends P. 16. he asserts The cessation of the obligation to the Government when there is a perversion in that great design of it and a returning of people to their primaeve liberty as he often speaks to erect Governments to their mind and to combine with whom they will as before we heard Concerning these things we say 1. That albeit it be Gods holy will that in erections of Civil Government his Truth sincere Worship and Glory in these should be mainly minded and intended by men and it is mens duty so to do yet it is clear that in many places de facto it is not so although men profess in the general aiming at Truth and right Worship yet there are aberrations in the particular 2. Albeit there be in the point of Truth and the Worship of God which de jure should be principally cared for in Government a notable perversion and swerving that doth not at all invalidate the Authority or Government nor break the obligation thereunto although it be injurious to favourers of Truth and right Worship For God so far regards the keeping of humane Societies in tolerable order that albeit the great duties of advancement of his Truth and Worship be not minded by Rulers yet he will not have the Common-wealths where justice between man and man is maintained for his Glory although Religion not minded as it ought to be casten loose nor will have men think themselves loosed from obligation to the Government albeit there be perversion in the managing thereof as to Religion for neither must they be heard who hold That civil Dominion is grounded on Grace nor they who say That infidel heretical or excommunicate Magistrates fall from their power or that the Subjects obligation to them ceaseth 3. It shall be easily granted that the people and every one of the
people ought to reform themselves from all real corruptions in the Worship of God and keep themselves pure from abominable things every one is bound to amend one and so all will be more easily amended yea no man should say Am I my Brothers keeper but by faithful instruction warning reproof strive to save others from the evils of the times and places wherein they live But 4. That there lyes upon the people with the Magistrate a joynt obligation of publick reforming and using the avenging or punitive Sword in amending things amiss against the will of all Magistrates or even turning that Sword in a violent way against him or that such obligation lyes upon one part of the people against all Magistrates and their fellow Subjects as to violent them in matters of Religion or which they account Religion it is utterly denyed acting in a publick co-active way or by the use of the vindicative and punitive Sword For Reformation in a co-active way is so fully and only the Magistrates duty that whoever will intrude into it being persons of meer private capacity they stain Religion and brings scandal on it by their Rebellion Though the result of the work be good the manner is evil God needs no mans sin to help him in his work nor will he ever impute it as sin to private persons that they did tolerate with grief what they could not amend nor that they did forbear violent forcing the Magistrate to their mind supposing them in the right If in a way God hath set me in I cannot without manifest schisme and sedition and leaping beyond the limits of my calling do a good work I am to leave it to God to do it in his own cleanly way it is well if I keep my self pure mourning for abominations done and praying to God against them and using all charitable and fraternal means becoming a private Christian and thus my tolerating of what I cannot amend shall not be my sin albeit it is sin in them who have a publick Power and do not reform but connive at abuses As no part of a people or private persons have power to usurp the Office of a Minister to preach minister Sacraments c. So no private persons can lawfully under whatsoever pretence of good intentions meddle with the Magistrates work or intrude in the publick actings only competent to his place who is the Minister of God invested with Authority by him Far less can they in case of his deficiency or opposition use the vindicative or punishing Sword against him for not being of their Religion supposing â—t to be true nor against their fellow-subjects but all this is according to this mans mind The great mistake in all this matter is that the Magistrate and People are as to Covenant with God or engagements to him for advancing his Truth looked upon as two debitors bound in a Band conjunctly and severally for one sum so that in the deficiency of the one the other must pay all and hath power to stresse the deficient So they think there is a joynt and equal obligation betwixt Princes and People as touching the publick promoting of Religion If the Magistrate be deficient they must do it yea and fall on him for his deficiency But there is no such joynt obligation it is true the Magistrate in his place is bound in a publick way to advance Religion the people are also bound in their private capacities and callings to advance Religion and to serve the Magistrate therein as he employes and calls them But there is no such joynt obligation of King and People unto God that either of them should be so bound for the other that if the one be deficient the other party contracting becomes therefore obliged to the duty to which the deficient party is obliged or becomes guilty if he intrude not in the part of their duty Nor is there a mutual tye on both to force one another to their duty Qui diversimode obligantur ad diversa non sunt correi in promittendo The case betwixt the King and People in the religious Covenant with God is like the case of two men binding in one band for their several moieties of a sum if the one be deficient the other is not stressed for it nor is the payer bound to force the deficient by vertue of the band If the People reform themselves and keep themselves pure from abominations the Magistrates deficiency which they tolerate with grief shall not be imputed to them because God gives them not a calling to intrude into the Magistrates office or to use the reforming Sword or vindicative and puniing acts of it which only are committed to the Magistrate The King indeed is bound both as a Christian to own Religion for his own souls good and as a King to use his magistratical Power to force his Subjects to the use of external means of Religion which is all he can do and if he do this and meet with the insuperable stubbornesse of an evil people the guiltinesse lyes not on him but on them But upon the people there lyes no obligation to force the King or their fellow subjects to external means of Worship and Religion because that is not within the verge of their calling only they are to keep themselves pure and to use all moral means usable by persons in their station to move others to embrace true Religion And having done this they discharge themselves sufficiently and may commit the rest to God The late Covenant it self doth only bind private persons in their places and callings which certainly are private and to be managed by private means to endeavour reformation and doth not bind any number of meer private persons to pull the Sword out of the Magistrates hands when they think he useth it otherwise then he should and then they would have him use it It is not can never be the place and calling of meer private persons and the minor or far minor part of the People to use the vindicative punishing and reforming Sword against all Magistrates reckoned by them as Apostates and against all the body of the Land If the Covenant be passive of such Commentaries as this man puts upon it that whatever any private party accounts Reformation they may use the vindictive punishing Sword against all of all degrees that stand in their way to advance the same we have little reason to be in love with it and just cause to cast it by till it be cleared of such corrupt glossâ—â— But let us now consider the civil Covenant betwixt the King and the People Napht. touches on it on the forecited places and the Author of L. R. puts forth his strength such as it is upon this matter avowing that the King is not King but Covenant-wise and conditionally and that by Covenant the people have a civil claim against him may punish him and have a right to a coactive power over him in Courts set up
ponit secures arbitrio popularis aurae no King is so absolute to rule as he lists we abhor quicquid libet licet he is subordinate unto God and his Will and he ought also to walk according to the particular good Laws he hath made with consent of his people Digna vox est Majestate regnantis se alligatum legibus principem fateri and we doubt not our King doth and will do so but he is so absolute that if he deviate which God avert he is not under co-active power of Subjects that they should have Law-claim against him and in their Courts of Nature and Necessity as this man loves to speak pronounce judgement upon him to destroy him A Crown was never given him never accepted by him on such horrid termes far less that by virtue of this supposed tacite Covenant any minor meer private party of the people might without and against the great body have liberty to pull not only the King but all Magistrates out of their seat punishing them and possessing themselves in their rooms which is the expresse doctrine of Naph out-stripping his Master Sequiturque patrem non passibus aequis 4. There are several wayes of conveighances of Kingdoms Where there is freedom of election of the particular person to reign there may possibly be expresse limiting conditions allowing a reserve of Power to some not meer subjects to coerce and reduce in order diviating Soveraignty As in the Empire of Germany and Kingdom of Poland or if there be any like whose Kings are not veri nominis Reges but personated Kings and Monarchs as a pâ—inted man is not a man there is some likeness to a Kingship and Monarchy and some power over others given for executing the Laws But the Supreme Majesty doth not wholly reside in these more then in the mock Kings of Sparta when they were under the tutory of the Ephori But in the conveighances of many Kingdoms and all properly called Monarchies there is neither tacit nor expressed Covenants impowering others to be Judges over the King which is the design these Covenants are pleaded for how many Kingdoms are and have been attained to by conquest in a just War which is a sufficient title and no the right of robbers as some call it albeit there be direct opposition so long as there is power and a tacit dissent when their power is gone yet the conquest coming by a lawful and well grounded War the dominion and the authority even over the unwilling and repining subjects is lawful though it may be made surer by their after consent to submit And if this purchased power be hereditarily transmitted the successors receives power from their Parents not from the people nor is there any shaddow of tacit or express Covenant in this matter if ye Rule well we shall obey you otherwise not 5. If we look to our own Kingdom of Scotland from the beginning there will be found no such Covenant on which the constitution of the same is founded There are four or five remarkable instances concerning this Kingdom to clear the matter 1. Look to the foundation thereof in Fergus the first 330. yeares before Christs birth Buchannan himself cannot say that he is admitted King upon conditions the subjects indeed by their oath confirmed the Kingdom to him and his posterity but no oath was required of him nor of any of his successors till King James the sixth his time of which we shall anon hear Of this Fergus the black Book of Pasley as I have heard from credible Reporters saith Fergusius se Regem fecit 2. Fergus the second the 40. King the great restorer of our Nation who began to Reign Anno. Chr. 404. did by his valour under the conduct of divine Providence and by the help of Strangers Danes and others with some small remainder of Scots recover the Kingdom after that the whole Nation was banished and no Scots-man might abide in Scotland under pain of death he was not beholden to the people for the Kingdom nor had it by paction with them 3. Kenneth the first the 50. King Anno Chr. 605. who destroyed the Picts and enlarged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs purchasing more and better Lands then he had before which he distributed to his subjects he held not this purchased Kingdom of them by contract or paction to be subject to them on whom he bestowed the Lands thereof The 4. is Robert Bruce the 97. King Anno Chr. 1036. Whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem c. calls Conquestor magnus he re-conquered the Kingdom when it was almost wholly alienated and subdued by the English and but little reserved The English held it for many years And the Nobility of Scotland first at Barwick then at St. Andrews in plain Parliament swore homage and obedience to the King of England Yet that Prince having a prosperous gale of divine Providence assisting his Valour recovered the Nation out of bondage And who will assert there were pactions between him and the people to bring him under their coactive judicial Power A fifth instance there is right memorable in our own times It is known our Nation was totally subdued by the English and continued so for the space of ten years The representatives of Shires and Cities and Towns combined into a Common-wealth-government and sent their Commissioners to the meeting thereof at London where the Kings interest was disclaimed yet in a wonderful way God brought him in again and finding us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued Nation restored us to our freedom from the bondage of Forraigners If any will say that it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage and that there did ly bands upon him as our sworn King to free us when he should be in capacity to do it It may be answered 1. It is known that when the fatal stroke that sunk us into bondage was given there was an express disowning of his right by publick Judicatories of the Land in the quarrel with the English Sectaries before Dumbar 2. Whatever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation Yet if these mens principles were to be followed they could had no force on him to move him to labour our vindication into liberty for do not they teach that in the mutual Contract and Covenant betwixt King and People the People are loosed from their duty if the King fail in his frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem And why then is not the King loosed if the people fail on their part It is known that although the Nobles and Body of the People were well enough affected to the King and cordially loved him when they were overpowered and could do nothing yet by their representatives he was disowned which in Law would be reckoned their own deed And if a sworn people desert and disclaim their King by their representatives may not the King also have the benefite of the
conditional Covenant and leave them as he found them in bondage to forreigners But such was his Majesties Graciousness and Wisdom as well as Conscience of duty that although the Nation had failed much to him he would not walk after the counsels of these men And we may all things consider'd assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him then he doth owe his Authority to them or by vertue of any Covenant with them But not to dwell too much on this as to any expresse Covenant enstating the People or any part thereof in a coactive judicial Power over our Princes to punish them in case of aberrations in Government from the foundation of our Kingdom of Scotland there is no such thing to be found Buchannan himself can never show that before King James the sixth his time any of our Kings at their installing did swear to or covenant with the people albeit the people have sworn homage to them none of them all before that time did swear covenant-wise at their reception of the Crown nor can it be evidenced that Loyalty was engaged to the King if they thought he ruled well and no otherwise Some of our Historians cited by Blackwood make mention of one of our Kings Gregory the Great who did reign Anno Chr. 876. who when he was crown'd did in his piety swear to defend the liberties of Christian Religion of the Church of all the Priests and Ministers of Religion and ordained that all his Successors Kings of Scotland should swear that oath at their entry to the Government Yet this is not mentioned by Buchannan least perhaps our Kings might think obligations do lye on them by that Law to maintain Popery far advanced in Gregories time But no other oath is mentioned till James the sixth his time when he was in the craddle his Regent Murray fram'd an oath to be sworn by him and his Successors recorded Parliament 1. King James the 6. but that oath never any did swear for him albeit at his Coronation in the moneth of July before that Act which was not made till the 15. of Decemb. after Anno 1567. the Earles of Mortoun and Hume did promise some such thing for the King as Buchannan sayes nor did he himself ever swear it when he came to be Major and from under the Tutory of Regents When he entred actually to reign and accepted the Regiment in his own person Anno 1577. being of the age of twelve years no man durst ever offer that oath to him nor when he came to be of full and perfect age Not but that it is in it self and rightly understood a good and godly oath but in regard of the evil Principles with which some Subjects were in that time poisoned as if such an Oath and Covenant gave a coactive right and power to Subjects over their Prince in all their apprehensions of his failing as now we are taught by men of the seditious stamp it was thought fit to wave the putting such an oath unto him at his entry to the actual Government he not having taken it before that the fancy of such a coactive Covenant which might breed evil humours in the Subjects might be removed Whither King Charles the first did swear that same oath recorded in the first Parliament of King James the sixth we cannot certainly say there is nothing left upon publick record of that matter at his Coronation but if he did so he was the first King of this Nation that received the Crown in way of Covenant with the people or swearing to them yet had he reigned eight years over us before that time and no man durst or in reason could say as now is printed that he was no King till he took the Coronation oath How this came to passe we know not but it is to be believed on good ground could that King once have thought that his taking of that oath although it be in it self godly and good should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects as that he should have been thought thereby to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power in every case wherein they or any party of them being meer private persons might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death then so to cast himself away at the pleasure of malecontented parties amongst the people taking advantage against him by that oath But it shall be avowed that that King of glorious memory did never shrink from the observance of that godly oath whatever the malice of his clamorous and embitter'd enemies represents to the contrary Neither hath his Majesty that now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto and we are hopeful Gods grace shall preserve him hereafter from any such thing But the matter concerning this civil Covenant is not yet at an end for the Author of L. R. bends his wit to wrest the holy Scriptures to make this Covenant necessary yea for such ends as he designs viz. the coaction and punishing of the Prince and backs his wrested Scriptures with some sophistical reasonings Did we indeed find sufficient ground for such a Covenant or for such ends in holy Scriptures we should strike sail and no wait for ragged reasonings to cast dust in our eyes But when we look to Gods directions about setting up of Kings amongst his people and upon the doing of the thing suitably to these directions We professe in sincerity that we find nothing but that it was Gods mind that both King and People should do their mutual duties the one to the other but that there is any such Covenant impowering people to use force upon the King to throw him down punish or destroy him when they or any particular party of meer private persons apprehend the ends of Government to be perverted There is no mention of any such Covenant Deut. 17. where the manner of setting a King over them is prescribed there is no such thing done when Samuel by Gods appointment anoints and sets a King over the people nor is there any such thing found at the entry of any of the Kings of Gods people to their Government only there are two instances upon special and extraordinary occasions of such Covenants betwixt the King and People the import of neither of which is to state the people in coactive judicial Power over these Kings and which cannot by any Logick be drawn to be Patterns of necessary doing such a thing in all Kingdoms The first instance is of David 2 Sam. 5.3 1 Chr. 11.3 where though he had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the men of Judah without any such Covenant 2 Sam. 2.4 Israel and the rest of the Tribes having all that time resisted David and cleaved to Saul's Son as their King 2 Sam. 2.10 The King being killed and Abner the General they come to a submission to David and he being willing to entertain them enters in covenant with them in a
piece of holy policy meet for that time to gather together the scattered people of God who might be tempted otherwise to other courses they were now coming to be his Subjects who were not so before but were under another King and fit it was to give them security touching his good mind toward them they having so long stood it out in arms against him But the question is what was the nature the matter and import of that Covenant The Scripture sayes not it was such a Covenant as these men would have I shall rule you rightly if you obey me dutifully otherwise not upon the Kings part And upon the peoples part We shall obey you and be subject to you if ye rule us rightly otherwise we will not but use our co-active power upon you to dethrone and destroy you and punish you That there was any such conditional Covenant expressed or meant is far from the truth David neither minds to admit them to be his Subjects conditionally or to subject himself to their co-active power nor minde they to offer themselves to be his Subjects in such terms On the contrary it appeareth clearly in the Text that they recognosce his right of reigning over them is from God and that he was not subject to be removed by them see 2 Sam. 5.2 1 Chr. 11.2 3. They say The Lord said to thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and shalt be Captain or Ruler over them And it is added Therefore they came c. and anointed him King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel They humbly declare him King whom God had constituted whom they could not lawfully reject and it is impious to think that they recognoscing Gods constitution of him yet should fancy a Paction or Covenant giving them co-active superiority over him to remove him when they thought meet though God had set him on the Throne by a special appointment All the Covenant that can be supposed here is upon the peoples part an engagement to humble subjection and homage And upon the Kings part a Covenant of indempnity for former oppositions to him wherein they had need to be comfortably secured or at most we shall not repugne if it be called a Covenant both of protection and right ruling of them yet so as not subjecting himself to their censures or co-action or that they should be his Subjects only upon that condition being otherwise free to fall upon him The Covenant may be to mutual duties and yet on neither side conditional but absolute each party oblieging themselves to their own duty absolutely but not on condition that the other party do their duty As if a man bind himself by oath to give me one hundred pounds and I bind my self again by oath to him to give him one hundred pounds without conditional provision that he pay me the money he promised me Albeit he should fail in his oath and not pay me yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him because my oath is separate from his and independent upon it and hath a separate obligation absolute which no failing of the other party to me can loose Indeed the case is otherwise when there is a reciprocal contract of things to be done by one party upon condition of some things to be done by the other as in Covenants of Peace between Nations there the breach of condition by one party looses the promise of the other which was only conditionally made But subjection is not engaged to Kings conditionally but absolutely albeit obedience to God be reserved when any active obedience contrary to him is called for Again for the other instance of the Covenant which Jehoiadah made between King Joash and the people 2 Chr. 13.2 3. 2 Kings 11.17 this was also made upon an extraordinary occasion for ordinarily we never hear of any such Covenants amongst Gods people and their Kings and extraordinaries cannot Found ordinary Rules Athaliah had murthered all the royal Seed 2 King 11. 2 Chr. 23. except Joash who was kept secret six years in the house of the Lord while the usurper possessed the Kingdom Now when the godly Priest Jehoiadah the Kings Tutor saw a fit time he ingaged the principal men in Covenant of fidelity to the King 2 King 11.4 and shewed them the Kings Son This was a necessary piece of holy Policy when the Usurper and her faction had so long strengthned themselves to engage the chief men to special fidelity to him And after that 12.17 He brought forth the Kings Son and put the Crown upon him and gave him the Testimony and they made him King and anointed him and they clapt their hands and said God save the King and Jehoiadah made a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people and that they should be the Lords people between the King also and the people Joash was then but seven years old and not in capacity to make a Covenant with the people but his godly Tutor did preside in that business But two things to our purpose are remarkable 1. That he is Crowned and made King before the Covenant is made as is clear in the Text which crosses our Antimonarchists who assert the King cannot be made King untill he make the Covenant with the people and that he gets the Crown and royal Authority Covenant-wise and conditionally whereas here he is made King antecedently to any Covenant as the Text clears it 2. That albeit the matter of King and peoples Covenant with God be expressed viz. That they should be the Lords people yet it is not told us what the tenor of the Covenant betwixt King and people was nor what the King or Jehoiadah Covenanted in his name the young King of seven years old what could he say in Covenanting Jehoiadah was only President in the matter Diodat seems to say well that in this place Jehoiadah made the people swear alledgiance and fidelity to the King as before he had made the Rulers do vers 4. and no more he took an oath of fidelity of them But how shall it be cleared that it was conditional and with a reserve of coactive and punitive Power over him as these men will have it But passing from this let it be so which cannot be asserted with warrand that all the Kings of Judah made such conditional Covenants with the people as is supposed yet will any judicious man force the particular customes of that Nation on all Nations that might be best for that Nation that was not simply best their customs without a Law of God bearing a standing reason cannot be obligatory on others least we judaize too much But the constant practice of all the Prophets and people of God in that Kingdom when their Kings were very wicked idolatrous and tyrannous speaks clearly that they never had such thoughts of a liberty by vertue of covenant to fall with violence on their Kings The Prophets of God never taught them
and Parasits of Princes such flatterers of People to their own confusion and destruction should with their writings have such entertainment and countenance But yet it must be said that L. R. is far more tolerable then Naph for what he grants only to the body of the people or the inferior Rulers and Nobles with the people in acting against the King Napht. extends in favours of any party of meer private persons amongst the people against all Magistrates supreme and subordinate and affirms what the whole body with inferior Magistrates may do against a King deviating from his duty any small part of meer private persons if they have strength enough may by vertue of the Covenant do the same against all Magistrates supreme and subordinate not only as to resistance but as to revenge and punishing them A few notes shall be sufficient upon the former Doctrine and then the matter shall be at an end 1. Where a Covenant is made between a King and a People a King I say that is truly such a one it s granted that the Covenant on the Kings part binds him not only to God in relation to the people as the object of his duty but doth bind him to the people formally yet not so as if he be deficient in his duties they are enstated in a power above him to sit as his Judges or that they are loosed from all duty to him and free to do him violence If a Father swear to do his fatherly duty to his Child that makes not the Child his Superior to punish him if he fail when a Minister is admitted to teach a people he swears to them to be dutiful but they are not therefore made his Superiors to punish him if he fail It is a most false assertion that goes alongs that whole Book that a right is given by the covenant sworn to the inferiors and subjects in the politick Society to judge and punish their superiors in case of failing No man can lawfully be judged and punished whatever contract be by another then his lawful Judge that is above him in that Society whereof he is a part L R. Pag. 100.101 2. There is a very great difference between these who are in different political Societies when they break their Contracts or Covenants one with another and betwixt the head and body or members of one and that same civil Society God having allowed lawful Wars allows seeking of reparation or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another by force of the Sword when no rational means can bring the doers of the wrong to do right and there being no other remedy he himself the Lord of hosts and God of armies sits Judge and Moderator in that great business and in the use of War is appealed to as Judge there being no common Judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations But God having set and established in one particular and political Society or Nation his own Ordinance of Magistracy to which every soul must be subject and all subject to the Supreme he hath not put the punishing Sword in any hand but in the hand of the Magistrate his Sword-bearer Rom. 13. Nor hath allowed liberty to meer private persons to manage it against the supreme Magistrate no nor to inferior Magistrates as to him who in respect of the supreme Majesty are but private persons whatever they be toward their inferiors The Magistrates chiefly the Supreme are by their official power above the whole Nation and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers which God hath set over them as L R. p. 460. saith Thrasonically he hath proved unanswerably as to say that every Parish is above the Minister in an Ecclesiastical way though he have official power over them all or that every Lord in Scotland have their Tennents and Vassals above them a thing which the Nobles of Scotland had need to look to For certainly the Principles which lead to subject Kings to people lead clearly and by undoubted consequence to subject them to their Vassals and to all under them yea and all Masters to Servants and Parents to Children and to confound and invert the order of all humane Societies This truth we must cleave to that in one and that same civil Society where God hath appointed Rulers and ruled Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God snatch the Sword out of the Magistrates hand to punish him with it though in some particulars he abuse it Neither can a War intended for this end by meer private persons be lawful against their head or heads nor can any forraign War be managed without a lawful Authority on the Part of the undertakers 3. It is a very false assertion That the people gave the Kingdom to David only conditionally if he did such and such duties to them and if not reserving power to dethrone him L. R. p. 97. God having set David upon his holy hill as his King and not only made him King by his Providence but express designment special command and word none on earth were left at liberty to undo what God would have done and appointed to be 4. It is very weakly reasoned L. R. p. 97. That because Gods people may humbly plead with himself upon the account of his own fidelity in promising or as this man sayes have action of Law and jus quoddam a bold enough expression against God to plead with him that therefore the Kings Covenant gives the people ground of civil action against him to coerce or punish him It had been better said that upon this ground they might humbly plead with him supplicat and reason with him as Gods Deputy bearing the impress of his Majesty and Soveraignty on earth But as God cannot otherwise be pleaded with upon account of his promise wherein he is bound not so much to us as to his own fidelity to evidence it reddit ille debita nulli debens and cannot be pleaded with by force or violence So his Deputies on earth on whom under himself he hath stamped inviolable Majesty whatever they be as Calvin writes in the place often cited are not to be pleaded with by strong hand and force howsoever in somethings they miscarry a thing not competent to the Majesty of God For he hath not in his Word given any commission to any of their Subjects to rise violently against them or use the punishing Sword upon them If this commission can be produced we have no more to say but Good is the Word of the Lord but till this be seen we shall cleave to Rom. 13. that makes the Magistrate the only Sword-bearer of God to avenge or punish however perhaps he hath his aberrations in using it If this man can shew a Superior on earth to use the Sword upon the Soveraign Magistrate people shall have fair liberty to plead their claim or law-suit as he calls it before him But who will judge it more