now speaks of asserts That according to Gods Word the approbation of Gods providence and of his people animated by himself the pretended exemption and impunity of Princes is made void their Carcases removed and their Scepters broken P. 29. And P. 151. he allows any private persons to step forward and remove them who abuse their Authority and occupy their places and assert the interests which these wicked persons Magistrates have so traiterously forfeited and deserted And when they do so though but private persons he avows they are acting in their places and callings according to the Covenant Most of the venome this man hath against the Powers ordained of God he hath sucked out of the breasts of Lex Rex It were not right to dig up all the pestilent untruths of that Piece set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings mixt with infinite inhumane bitterness against the late King only as it were to be wished that such errors might be buried in eternal oblivion So it is to be regrated that too too many of the Ministery and others in Scotland have been poisoned with such Principles and the same not being very like to be suddenly extirpate the more need have the Powers above us to be watchful To come to the matter then 1. It would be observed that in all political Societies there is according to Gods Ordinance a supreme Subject of Majesty in all these Societies the chief Power is either subjected in one person or in moe persons in an united way The God of order hath in all humane political Societies appointed under himself a supreme Power whither subjected in a single person or in a complex company which is as one by political union This supreme Power or they who are vested with it orders the whole body and hath nothing before or above it in the nature and order of civil Power and Authority And this first and supreme Power governs all in the Society and is governed by none therein In all order there is a necessity to arrive at something that is first before which or above which there is nothing in that order In ordine impossibile est abire in infinitum To say that in civil Societies a person is first and chief and hath the Majesty of the Society resident in him and withall that that same person hath a Superior or equal is to speak contradictions for then the Power or Person endowed with power should be both Supreme and not Supreme in the same kind of civil order Wise men have said that the multitude of gods is the nullity of gods a multitude of infinites so called makes none of them infinite The Gentiles who had many gods were indeed Atheists and without God in the World So a multitude of Supreme Powers in one humane civil Society destroyes the divine order set by God himself and allowed by the light of reason in humane Societies a chimaera of idle distinctions is whelped by the late masters of confusion of co-ordinate and collateral Soveraignes in one Kingdom the fountality of Royalty in the people resumable at their pleasure is talked of also Kings and People their being mutual Magistrates to punish one another And besides ordinary Courts of Justice where the Magistrate Gods Sword-bearer bears sway Courts of necessity and Tribunals of Nature where People are Judges Accusers and all are bigly talked of but these are only cloaks of fig-leaves to cover horrid Rebellion and Disorder It is certain supreme Power is indivisible and incommunicable to distinct Subjects in any one political Society There is no political Society but the Soveraign Power must rest either in one single person who hath no Peer let be Superior or in the plurality either of the best or chiefest or of the most and greatest number and which are in a manner one by aggregation And there is no part of the Society or persons equal to or above these in whom the Supremacy is In a democratick constitution the supreme Majesty is in the body or plurality of the People So we often hear in Tullie of majestas populi Romani In an Aristocratick constitution the Majesty and right of Majesty is in the body or plurality of the Nobles or Lords or Patritii or however they be named in several such states And in a Monarchy the Soveraign Majesty is indivisibly and incommunicably resident in the person of the King who hath none co-ordinate with him in the politick body nor superior to him he is solo Deo minor which was the loyal faith of the primitive Christians concerning their Emperors as Tertullian tells us and was the antient Language of our Parliaments concerning the King as may be seen in regiam majest lib. 1. c. 1. the loyal simplicity of the antient Christians and of our antient forebeers in this Land would have accounted the distinctions of the needle-headed seditious which we hear for levelling Royalty very monsters But why should we doubt that where there is a King one truly so his Soveraignty is matchlesse on earth when the Scriptures calls him Supreme 1 Pet. 2.13 Is there any equal to the Supreme in order of civil Government by whom he is judgeable or punishable if there be any he is not Supreme nor the Government Royal Monogamy admitts no Rival so neither doth Monarchy truly and properly so called 2. It is certain no man can be judged or punished but by his own Judge who is above him and hath Authority over him by lawful commission from God or from men authorized by God to give such commission Now who shall be judge to the person or persons invested with Soveraign Majesty seing every Soul under them is Commanded to be subject to them Rom. 13.1 and seing the supreme Power of the Sword is committed unto them and not to others but by deputation and in dependence upon them In an aristocratical constitution of Government as is at Venice who shall be judges to the Patritii or Senators if they or the major part deviate or do wrong In a democracy such as sometimes was at Rome Athens and other places where the people are the supreme receptacle of Majesty or the pluralitie of them who shall judge them wen they do wrong either to particular persons or to considerable parts of the people as at Athens Socrates was put to death for avowing the only true and one God just Aristides was billetted into banishment for no cause valiant Themistocles had that same lot and many moe and how often in such a constitution hath the corrupt majority or plurality extreamly wronged considerable parts of the people yet who had power to punish them who could be Judges between the doers and sufferers of the wrong Is there not in both these Governments a necessity of impunity and exemption for these invested with the Soveraginty as to their subjects unlesse a door be opened to most horrid confusions and dissolutions of States So also in a true Monarchy there must be an
the heads or rulers and famous men amongst them called the congregation or the renouned of the congregation Numb 1.16.16.2 who did in that dismal time wherein so much sin did break forth and so much wrath from the Lord attending sin meet with Moses the chief Magistrate Numb 25.6 to lament the abominable idolatry and bodily filthiness committed at that time and to consult and advise about the authoritative restraining of this wickedness In the mean time when the great Council are humbled before the Lord for the common wickedness and for the wrath that was upon them Zimri a Prince of Simeon with his Midianitish woman are in their very sight going into the Prince of Israels tent and Josephus tells us that before Moses and the Council he justified the fact and pleaded frowardly to have and retain her In this case of so effronted wickedness Phineas then one of the congregation or great Council 7. ver Rose from amongst the congregation or great Council which shews he was sitting amongst them and under the eye and knowledge and approbation of Moses the supreme Magistrate pursued them both to the tent executing judgment on them and thrusting them through The words of Diodat on ver 8. are That this was an act of extraordinary zeal and motion of Gods Spirit in a cruel and fierce delict which was approved in Phineas by God after the act was done And n. b. by Moses the supreme Magistrate the execution being done under his eyes and known of him Thus Diodat To this purpose Aquinas 2◠2ae quest 60. Art 6. where he disputes Vtrum Judicium reddator perversum per usurpationem Resolves That judgement cannot be execute upon any without publick Authority more then a Law can be made without publick Authority and speaking of the fact of Phineas he sayes He did this by divine inspiration being moved with the zeal of God and adds Albeit he was not the high Priest yet he was the Son of the high Priest and the executing of judgement belonged to him as to other Judges to whom that was commanded of God Gerhard de Magistratu P. 841. Phineas non fuit omnino privata persona he was one of the chief Priests who as Aarons rod tells us lib. 1. cap. 1. had equal power with all other members both in decrees and executions of judgments So that he in all probability being no meer private person and doing what he did with approbation of the Soveraign Magistrate it is a very weak argument that is brought from him to enstate any private persons in a power of executing judgement 2. Suppose Phineas to have been a meer private person yet seing he did this act under the eye and presence with the approbation and good-liking of Moses as Diodat rationally saith and of the great Council there assembled and he is to be looked upon as the executor of their unaninimous sentence against effronted villany As at another time Exod. 32.27 28. Moses as Gods Vice-gerent set the Levits and others on work to execute judgment by the sword upon an idolatrous people in which case they were satellites Magistratus and had his Commission and why might not Phineas have here the like warrand from Moses If any say it is not written it may be answered In rebus facti à non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia all things done are not written We have heard famous Authors accouning him to have had warrand whether as a Judge or Executor of the will of the great Council and of Moses who did well approve his deed But how absurd is it to bring an argument from this instance to warrand any private man to do justice when he thinks there is need not only without the Magistrates consent but even upon all Magistrates supreme and subordinate which is the scope this mans writing drives at 3. The case wherein Phineas executed judgement was when horrible idolatry and villanous whoredom was avowedly and with an high hand committed in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God and to all Magistrates and the supreme Council then assembled to mourn before God and to take course for remedying by their Authority the horrible looseness broken forth at that time But dare this man say that there is now such horrid wickedness although he is bold to call all the Magistrates supreme and subordinate Patrons of abominations and men acting in the meer spirit of wickedness while the true Protestant Religion according to the Scriptures and the Laws at our first Reformation and Confession of Faith recorded in Parliament is sincerely and constantly held There is a change and regulation of the exterior form of Church-government anent which godly men differ and the change that is made will be maintained against this man to contain nothing contrary to Gods Word Yet forsooth this is the great abomination and so gross that it may licence every private person to rise up against all Magistrates supreme and subordinate to depose them or cut their throats and this must be called executing judgement for the Lord and a Phineas-like fact 4. Let it be so that Phineas was a meer private man and had no warrand from the supreme Magistrate to do what he did which yet cannot be proved his fact can be no warrand for private men to attempt the doing of such acts unless they can shew as good warrand and approbation from God as he could God who is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all mens lives can when it pleaseth him cross ordinary rules and can appoint some to execute his judgements extraordinarily wherein they are not to be followed by such as have not the same spirit the same warrand and command or commission He may send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud Elias to destroy companies of men with fire from Heaven or to kill Baals Priests an instance which it is strange the Libeller omitted seing it is the ordinary dialect of the Faction as may be seen in the Apology and elsewhere to call most wickedly all Church-men dissenting from their way Baals Priests God may command Abraham to kill his Son Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duel and Samson to murther himself with others so also might he stir up Phineas though a private man to execute judgement but 1. he had the motion and direction of Gods Spirit setting him on to that work such motions were loco specialis mandati as Divines speak and Calvin Ps 106. speaking of this same fact saith he had singularis extraordinarius motus qui ad communem regulam exigi non debet And when he hath compared Moses killing the Egyptian with this fact of Phineas he saith Talis fuit impulsus in Phinea nam et si nemo putabat gladio Dei esse armatum ipse tamen potestatis divinitus concessae probe sibi conscius fuit Augustin speaking of Samson lib. 2. de civit Dei c. 21.
the power of self-defence Page 14. as he calls violent resisting the Magistrate is competent to all men by the instinct of pure nature and is the principal rule of righteousness and a priviledge competent to all men separately and joyntly not needing any other prerequisite but intollerable injury and is compleated in exercise by a probable capacity to encourage to it And to suffer injury under ptetext of the good of the Common-wealth is for the delusion of an empty name and for the lusts of others really to deprive a mans self of all share and benefit in it Page 15. propelling by force injuries done in the cause of Religion is the justest quarrel that men in their primaeve liberty could be engaged into And Page 16 17. Combinations for assistance in violent opposition of the Magistrate when the ends of Government are perverted which must be referred to the discretion of them who minds insurrection are necessary by the Law of Nature of Charity and in order to Gods glory and for violation of this duty of delivering the oppressed from Magistrates judgements comes upon people And Page 18 19. not only power of self-defence but vindicative and reforming power is in any part of the people against the whole and against all Magistrates and if they use it not judgement comes on supposing their capacity probable to bear them forth and they shall be punish'd for their connivance and not acting in way of vindication of crimes and reforming abuses And Page 28. they are but Flatterers and Men that have renounced Conscience who say that absolute subjection in suffering may be given to Authority abusing their power and not absolute obedience to their Commands and whatsoever reason saith he pleads for absolute subjection in suffering will far more rationally and plausibly infer unlimited and absolute obedience Absolute obedience may be more rationally yeelded then absolute subjection to suffering Page 157. to resist and rise up against persons abusing Authority is to adhere to God and Page 155. The late rising was altogether lawful righteous and necessary But what needs insisting on his justifying of any number of private persons rising up and resisting the whole Magistrates and Body of the People when ever they think they have cause seing this is the main scope of his Book and more too even to state them in a punitive power of all who are against them and a power to pull down all Authorities that are in their way as after shall more clearly appear But upon this point of resistance which he lispeth out as innocent harmless self-defence it is fit we should now abstracting from the other questions of private persons vindicative and punitive power till the next Chapter speak somewhat It is the subtilty of Sathan and of mans corruption that most horrid sins and crimes are covered under very smooth termes and cloaked with some Vizard of Vertue or with something so plausible and sweet to self-nature that few there are who will not own it Innocent self-defence and a mans preservation of his own beeing is so plausible a Plea that every one in any vexation that comes upon them from any justly or unjustly are much inclined to take hold of it It is true the God of nature who hath given a beeing to all creatures hath also given them inclinations and propensions to preserve themselves against opposition destroying nature the very inanimate creatures have this Fire preserves and defends it self against water when it is cast upon it there is a fight between the two contrary qualities of these creatures the fire with a noise resisting the water that it be not quenched with the contrary qualities of that creature So also are the sensitive creatures the beasts are carried impetu naturae to oppose every thing that tends to their destruction and to preserve their own beeing untill they be over-powered And all this self-defence is without sin for they being onely under natures Law and not under any Legal restraints of the exercise of their self-defending power by Gods word nor under any rule of reason in the exercise thereof do and may to the uttermost in all cases endeavour their self-preservation and nothing can hinder them from it but major vis and a Physical force greater then theirs is And this self-defending or preserving power and propension God hath given also unto Men yet otherwise then to inanimate creatures or unto beasts for these being under no other Law or Order but that of meer Nature that onely seeks its own preservation and labours in self-defence alwayes against all things afflicting nature caec◠impetu that self-defence is alwayes sinless But Mans natural propension to defend himself is subordinated unto and limited by the higher Laws of Reason and Grace and regulated by respects to the eternal good of the Soul in following duties to God albeit with vexation and trouble upon the outward man a rational and gracious man will advert lest in self-preservation as to his body or outward state he bring not on self-destruction as to his Soul It was wisely said by Thomas 2◠2◠quest 70. art 4. ad 1. Ideo Homini data est Ratio and I may add Gratia ut eá ad quae natura inclinat non passim sed secundum rationis vel gratia ordinem exequatur ideo non quaelibet defensio sui est licita sed quae fit cum debito moderamine It is too gross Divinity to bring arguments from Beasts who being under no Law of Reason nor Grace to limite their propensions may alwayes in all imaginable cases defend themselves with force to perswade men that they may do the like and that their propension for their external preservation is no more under any restraining rule to stop the exercise of it then that of Beasts is There are many cases of Rational and Gracious restraint of the exercise of that natural propension for self-preservation upon Men which are not upon Beasts For 1. the Libeller it is hoped will not allow self-defence of violent and forcible defence not of moral we do here alwayes speak or violent resistance of the Magistrate when Men are not in probable Capacity to mend themselves or when it is seen to be to no purpose In this case he will say it is no fault for a Man not to use violent resistance because Reason tells him it is to no purpose self-defence of a rational creature should not be meerly natural but rational it is natural to a Man to defend himself as it is to a Beast but not in the same way not alwayes when a Beast upon which there is no restraint of reason may do it It will not be denyed that the obligation of violent self-preservation ceaseth when a Man is put out by a Physical-force of all probable Capacity to help himself 2. A Man who is justly condemned to death both according to a just Law and by a just process according to the Law though he were in
to the Soveraign but now a Proclamation is made by this Libeller to all meer private persons not having any Nobles and Magistrates amongst them to make insurrections against all Magistrates from the highest to the lowest and against the plurality of the people if they think themselves in probable capacity and what confidence will not desperate men designing confusion have and not only so but a liberty is given them by this man to pull all Magistrates out of their seats to install themselves and to punish Magistrates who as he sayes have forfeited their right by the abuse thereof If this Doctrine hath not a native tendency to the ruine and destruction of this Nation and of all Nations where this evil seed shall take root let them who are judicious declare That Magistrates have no power nor warrand from God to abuse their Authority or to oppresse and deal injustly is a thing out of all question they who do so will make a sad reckoning for it to the great Judge of all here and hereafter But when the corruption of these who are in power leads them to abuse their Authority either in making unjust Laws or punishing according to these the question is what is in this case the duty of meer private Subjects whither they should with violence oppose all Magistrates under whom they are from the highest to the lowest together with the plurality of the Body of that Community whereof they are Members yea and in their own defence destroy them all if they be in probable capacity for such work and if they cannot eschew this and preserve themselves yea farther if after they have subdued Providence so permitting or ordering all the Magistratical power and major part of the people they may use a vindicative avenging and punishing Power upon all being only persons of private capacity This as will appear by this and the next Chapter is the true state of the question at this time as the Libeller in his Book hath stated it Upon the resolution of this question this Advocate of the seditious Party shakes hands with many Papists albeit some of the more Orthodox are of a contrary opinion asserting That any person that is unjustly condemned or pursued or that thinks himself so dealt with by the Magistrate or Judge whatever he be Supreme or Subordinate may defend himself by Arms against the Judge or Magistrate and his Officers and Ministers even by slaying them if he cannot otherwise escape because in that case the Magistrate is an unjust Invader And it is lawful in that case for a private man to kill the Magistrate in order to his own defence as it is to kill a Robber or a Cut-throat invading a man while he is going on in his Journey Thus Becan Tom. 2. Controv. tractat 3. quest 8. and Swarez contra Regem Augliae Lib. 6. Cap. 4. S. 6. where he asserts a man unjustly invaded by the King may kill him if otherwise he cannot defend his own life And Thomas in this went before them 2ª 2â— quest 70. Art 4. C. but addes a caution licet resistere malis Principibus nisi forte propter scandalum vitandum cum ex hoc aliqua gravis turbatio sequeretur But our Protestant Divines who are deserted by this man and his complices are of another spirit Mr Calvin is plain Institut Lib. 4. Cap. 20. S. 31. privatit hominibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum he supposes where there is not opportunity of flying or withdrawing which is also a sort of suffering and speaking of the tyrannies and oppressions of wicked Princes 298. Non nostrum est meaning of private men hujusmodi malis mederi hoc tantum reliquum est ut Domini opem imploremus Again S. 26. speaking of 1 Sam. 8.11 he expones it thus that albeit Kings have no jus or right to do Acts of Tyranny yet vocatur jus in populum cui parere ipsi necesse esset nec obsistere liceret eo se proripiet licentiae Regum libido quam cohibere vestrum non erit c. And Art 31. nobis summopere cavendum ne illam plenam venerandae majestatis magistratuum authoritatem etiamsi apud indignissimos â—esideat qui eam sua nequitia quantum in se est polluunt spernemus aut violemus Accordingly Peter Martyr one of the most learned of our Protestants Loci com clas 4. cap. 20. p. 680. Illi subjecti qui tantum subjiciuntur omnino privati sunt adversus Principes Dominos suos non debent incitari ut eos è dignitate seu gradu suo deturbent quamvis probe noverim ab aethnicis praemia olim constituta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attamen id respondi quod pietas sacrae literae persuadent Certe si populo sit fas Regno deâ—icere injuste Imperantes nulli Principes Reges usquam tuti erunt quamvis enim probe sancte regnant non tamen populo satisfaciunt And Page 684. Improbum Principem pii homines quando privati sunt super illo jus non habent ferant oportet neque illorum est seditiose adversus eum arma movere Again speaking to private men Adversus Tyrannum non habes quod agas except Prayers to God and Petitions to them in power nisi seditionem aut tumultum conspirationemve contra illum excites aut ipse privata Authoritate interficias quae aliena sunt a sacrarum literarum sententia Again Colum. 2. ibid. quia potestas est à Deo Tyrannis est ferenda Again solummodo ad Tribunal Dei est appellandum cum non detur alia superior aut major potestas cui tuus Tyrannus pareat Again omnes pii hoc sibi persuasum habeant exauthoratas esse eorum vires ad movendas in republica turbas eo nomine quod vi aliquod facere veliut adversus publicum Magistratum cujusvis formae fuerit Thus famous Martyr So also Andreas Rivet in Deâ—alog Page 233. non est vera legis naturalis notitia sed depravatio ab humano corrupto affectu movere seditionem contra injustam magistratus violentiam And Page 235. approving their opinion who say a man should rather suffer death then defend his own life by destroying the Princes life or bringing it in danger albeit he allow labouring to ward off our own destruction against unjust invasion yet if a man cannot deliver himself without destroying the Prince he sayes si tamen evitari non possit malum quodlibet quod hujus vitae terminâ— concluditur praestat mortem oppetere quam fieri reum parricidii id nos absolute sentimus de Parente Principe adde Dr. Ames Lib. 5. Conscien Cap. 20.4 potestas authoritas superioris non magis potest consistere actu sine hac subjectione quam relatum unum sine suo correlato huic autem subjectioni omnis violenta insurrectio adversatur And 6. he will have this subjection contrary to violent
submission Piâ—uâ— or out of any Principle of Conscience but prudential and politick because they are not in probable capacity to give him Battel if they had the tempting opportunity and capacity the case would be altered Then not only violent resistance should come to be duty but pulling of the Magistrate out of his chair of Government as we will hear punishing him and placing themselves though but private Men in his room How contrary such principles and practices of private Mens non-submission to and counter-acting of Church-judicatories supposed to do wrong are unto the Word of God how subversive of Church-government how introductory of Schisme Heresies and all Mischiefs into the Church is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the Pamphlet intituled Presbytery no Papacy Protesters no Subverters And with equal reason may the same grounds be made use of against this Mans inciting all private persons to counter-act the Magistrate violently when they think he doth them wrong or when they account their Sentences unjust As certain confusion comes on the Church if the Principles of that Party be entertained so let People once drink in this Mans Doctrine in reference to the State there shall be no end of sedition no security for the powers ordained by God for any private persons are made judges of the justice of the Magistrates Sentences and Punishments and what Man will readily condemn himself if he may be admitted to be judge in his own cause And upon their own private judgement of the injustice of the Magistrates dealing with them are allowed without any further prerequisite to use violence against him pull the sword out of his hand and pull himself out of his seat onely there must be probable capacity for this and nothing excuses from not doing so but want of that capacity If that be wanting there must be submission to unjust Sentences not out of any consciencious respect to the Power but ad redimendam majorem vexationem This is the Libellers mind Such Doctrine surely is neither consonant to Gods Word to the practices of his dear and approven People to the mind of his soundest Servants nor to sound Reason Who ever will consult the holy Oracles of God will find that not only is obedience commanded to be given to Magistrates in their lawful injunctions and submission not only for wraths-sake but also for conscience-sake to their just punishments of sin and wickedness who ever re-offends or violently resists the Magistrate in either of these no doubt resists the Ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.2 but also that there is a submission required to be yielded them even when they put us to suffer wrongfully and unjustly may be evidently gathered from Scripture grounds in the case of unjust suffering God hath not left his people without direction what to do in reference to Magistrates abusing their power It is true as hath been said the Lord hath not given a moral power or warrand to any invested with Authority to do evil or unjustly concerning that the question is not But the question is what duty is owed by the Subject unto the Magistrate especially the Supreme for there may be remedies had against the injuries of the inferior by appellation in case of his male-administration and unjust Laws or Sentences according to these Laws or Executions according to Sentence whether they may violate or violent the person invested with Authority and not submit to him but counter-act him by force in self-defence against his violence or if they be bound in conscience or by any Law of God to submit humbly to what he inflicts although unjustly if they can neither move him by their humble petitions to forbear them nor can flee from his wrath or go out of his Dominions This man and his Complices maintain that if the Magistrate abuse his power in making unjust Laws or punishing according to these any private man or company of men that think themselves strong enough for the Magistrate ought never to suffer but use forcible resistance against the Magistrate abusing his power and that all the patience that is required of Christians toward oppressing Magistrates is only to bear suffering patiently when they are out of capacity of acting and may not better do and to suffer patiently when they see they cannot repress the violence of the unjustly-dealing Magistrate with a sufficient contrary violence This Doctrine favouring so strongly of carnal selfie-nature and being too suitable to the way of beasts who know no other thing but to be carried with a natural impetus to repay violence with violence till they be over-powered we utterly dislike and do assert according to the Holy Scriptures That even when Magistrates deal unjustly or put any to suffering wrongfully albeit they are for this to give a dreadful account and albeit Subjects are to judge of their actions as they deserve and not approve their malversation but modestly witness against it as there is opportunity yet suffering persons are bound to a passive submission or obedience enduring wrongs done to them not only with respect to Gods providential Ordinance by which their suffering comes to pass but with respect to his institutive Ordinance of Magistracy wherewith the persons afflicting them are invested albeit in the particular acts concerning them abusing their power For albeit the abuse of the power be not of God yet the abused power is of God and the person invested therewith must have respect from the sufferer other respect then is to be given to a private invader intuitu officii not intuitu abusus officii and this respect is patient submission under the affliction though unjustly inflicted and not daring to re-violent the person invested with Magistratical power although in a particular toward us he abuse his power to commit our persons and our cause to him that judgeth righteously not offering to move sedition albeit we were able for it If we shall only look to these three things in the Scripture we shall see ground for what is said 1. Consider what is required of Children toward their Parents unjustly afflicting them and likewise from Servants toward their Masters and by analogy we may learn somewhat of the mind of God of the duty of Subjects to their Princes who are their political Fathers and have a despotical and lordly power over them For Children Heb. 12.9 10. We had Fathers of our flesh who corrected and chastned us after their own pleasure and we gave them reverence which in the apodosis of the similitude is expon'd subjection v. 9. This is not only spoken of narrativè but approbativè if it were not so the argument taken from our carriage to Parents to enforce reverent subjection to God were not good The Apostle approves the reverend subjection of Children to their Parents though unreasonably and with mixtures of unjust passion correcting them he allows not the deed of the Parent for his own pleasure afflicting the Child but
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
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
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