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
the Presbytery Otherwise what marvel is it that they be looked upon in the esteem of these who value them as involved in the guilty connivance and consent to all the vile things that issue from Napht. and his party And that this Libeller be looked upon as the common allowed Advocate of the Presbytery and who reads the Book will with some ground say crimine ab uno disce omnes Neither is it our design or will to grieve or give offence to the generation of the humble meek and self-denyed seekers of Gods face partakers with us of the same pretious faith and running to obtain the same prize of the inheritance with us however differing in judgement in some particulars nor shall we take them as partakers with this furious Author and his adherents For who can imagine that a meek people who hath the promise of Gods teaching should be so far transported as to take the circumstantials of Religion for the great and weighty matters of the Law and Gospel without which known and beloved none can come to God Who can think that an intelligent people should account that the concerns of Christs Kingdom and their own salvation doth lye with so much stresse upon this point that the weakest and most ignorant Minister shall have a potestative parity with the man of greatest Gifts Learning and Knowledge that the Minister weakest in his Prudentials should have equal Authority in mannaging the matters of Gods house with the wisest and one of the most noted prudence that the youngest rawest most unexperienced Minister should have as much power in ruling the house of God as the man fullest of years whose judgement is consolidated and ripened for Government and who hath for a long time given such documents of good and wise behaviour that makes him fitter to rule the younger sort then to be ruled by them Or who can see the prejudice to Christs Kingdom and pretious souls if such a worthy person as is described be intrusted with an inspection over other Brethren and Churches in a reasonable bounds not with a dominative or lordly power but paternal and fatherly not to do after his own arbitrement and as one unchallengeable in his actions but to be regulated by acts of the Church and Land and to be responsible to his Superiors in case of maleversation not to rule solly but with the consent and counsel of Presbyters Can this way be disrellished by sober Christians being so strongly pleaded by the light of sound reason making so much for the comliness and order of Christs Church being so suitable and correspondent to the antient Government of the Church of Israel where there were Priests and chief Priests and several ranks of Ministers an order which was neither typical nor temporal but hath a standing reason reaching us being so conform to the beginnings of Christs ordering the New-testament Ministry where there were Apostles above the seventy Disciples being so agreeable to the Apostles constitution of the Government of the Churches of the New Testament which was in an imparity of Power in Ministers as is luculently exemplified in the Power of Timothy and Titus who were no Evangelists nor ever accounted so by the Spirit of God And finally our ascended glorious Saviour having honoured persons invested with that precedency by Letters written by his Secretary John unto them Rev. 2.3 chap. wherein he shews the approbation of their office and power reproving their neglects yet honouring them with the stile of Angels to the Churches or his Messengers in special manner To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus c. which cannot without notable perversion of the Scripture be otherwise understood but of single persons presiding over Presbyters And this order Christs Church and dear Spouse having since that time retained in all places where Churches were constitute without exception in all times without interruption untill this last Age wherein through hatred of corruptions adhering thereto under Popery and because of the enimity of the popish Bishops to the Reformation some have utterly without any reason rejected the office it self Who can think that a Christian people will not readily follow the foot-steps of the flock in former generations Neither is there any intention to provoke any fearers of God who have been perhaps in an hour of tentation miscarried to irregular courses following too readily in the simplicity of their hearts cunning leaders who have had too much dominion over their faith these we judge worthy of greatest tenderness in dealing with them nor are we without hope that God who stills the noise of the seas the noise of the waves and the tumult of the people Ps 65. v. 7. will in time allay their animosities and rebuke the stormy wind and seas of their passions that they may be still and that he will bring them to consider their wayes wherein they have exceeded and give them to know how ill and bitter a thing it is to forsake their own mercies in the ordinances of God for the want or having of this or that form of external Government But these we aim at in this parallel with Anabaptists are the Naphtalian party i. e. the furious sort of these who under the conduct of this teacher and his like make sport of rebellions murders assassinations that have so hardened and harnessed their hearts as appears by their writings and deeds that they have become stout in a dedolent greediness to commit any wickedness which they account meet to serve their design as if their supposed good cause could legittimat the worst course who make no reckoning as their Doctor here professes of overturning Thrones making the Land drunk with the blood of the Inhabitants multiplying fatherlesse and widows in the midst thereof and introducing greatest confusions and calamities that may make all faces gather blackness and all to smite on the thigh crying alas for the day if so be they may upon the ruins of all erect the idol of pretended parity of Ministers which when they have set up the imperious agitators will as they have done formerly baffle if any offer be to level them to others and howsoever the weaker brethren must be entertained with fair words and noddified with notional disputes anent their parity with the best that they may think themselves somewhat yet how disdainfully was it and yet would be taken if these low shrubs should essay a practical parity with the tall Cedars in the Government of affairs Imparity was then without a title now it is with it and there is our change and great defection and surely that which hath been will be and there is no new thing under the Sun This furious Napht. coming in upon the back of the Apology as another invenomed Egg hatched be-like by one and the same Cockatrice the second justifying the rebellion to which the first did instigate and inflaming to more may let them who will not shut their own eyes see the mystery of Anabaptistical
his Acts of violent resistance and vindication of liberty according to the Covenant And in reference to the case of the Nation in these Times the man is so far transported as to teach the people That their liberty is so far lost that they are reduced to the condition of a most insupportable and unnatural conquest which should be a most just cause and provocation to all ingenuous Spirits and good Patriots to undertake the asserting of their own liberty upon the greatest peril Page 116. And that the pressures and grievances of the Nation by reason only of that Court of Commission for executing the Laws anent Church matters do far exceed all the pressures and injuries of that Spanish inquisition whereupon the United Provinces have justified and approved their revolt from the King of Spain Page 126. So that this mans design is clear from his words to dissolve and confound this Kingdom to move them who will be taken in his snare to renounce Allegiance to the King to revolt from him as having better cause then the United Provinces had to revolt from the King of Spain to combine themselves in new Societies to their own mind they being now relapsed into their primaeve liberty and the obligation to the Government being loosed and that every man and every Party as they find themselves strong enough should upon their own discretive judgement of what is their due civil Liberty as well as what is right Religion and upon their greatest peril undertake not only violent resistance of all powers above them but valiant vindication of Religion and Liberties and reforming what they think amisse vi armis even to the punishing all and whatsoever person that will oppose them in their way The particulars shall be after spoken to but now more generally we consider his fundamental Doctrines of confusion That the true ends of instituting civil Government are the true happiness of People here and hereafter and the glory of God and that Magistrates and Governours are oblieged to prosecute these ends no judicious Christian will question All the question is anent the Duty of the fearers of God in the case of the perversion of the ends of Government by these in whose hand it is whether when this perversion is manifest the band and tye to the Government ceaseth as to the persons injur'd thereby and whither this be the case as matters are now stated that private persons or any number of them are for the present suppos'd perversions of the ends of Government disoblieged from all tyes to the same and relaps'd into their primaeve liberty and priviledge to combine in Societies which are to their mind as at first they did associate themselves in the political bodies whereof now they are members for their own good and preservation As for the general position or affirmative resolution to the former question it is undoubtedly both unchristian and unreasonable When was there at any time greater perversion and straying from the ends of Government then was in the times of many of the holy Prophets of God and in the times of Christ his holy Apostles and the primitive Christians who were both replenish'd with much light to know their duties and much zeal to act for the honour of God against all perils and dangers whatsoever lying in their way Government was perverted by manifest Idolatry and horrid Tyranny many monsters of men possessing the thrones of Soveraignty yet look over all the sacred Writings of the holy Prophets look to the history of the life and actions of Christ and his Apostles or to the history of the great Lights of the primitive Church for many hundreds of years and see if any of the teachers taught such doctrine that in case of the manifest perversion of the ends of Government people did relapse into their primaeve liberty and priviledge to combine with whom they pleased to forsake the union with these political bodies with which they were conjoyn'd or that they were liberated from the obligation and band to the civil order and Government under which they were or if that was the sense of any of the godly zealous Christians and fearers of God in these times who alwayes keeped themselves pure from sinning against God refusing obedience unto mens unlawful Commandments but the Doctrine of these new Christians never came in their hearts that they should make secessions from the civil Societies wherein they lived so long as they keep'd within the bounds over which such or such Government was and account all their obligation to abused Government dissolved Yea upon the contrary as there are never to be found amongst the people fearing God any such rentings of the States and Common-wealths they lived in approven of God or injoyn'd by his Prophets in his name So in reproving sins and menacing judgements against these in Authority albeit they grievously abused their places yet the Prophets Apostles and Christ also studied to preserve respects to the Soveraignty and Powers set over People and while they warn'd all from the highest to the lowest to amend their wayes they guarded against seditious dissolutions of the Common-wealth on any pretext never prescribing rebellion and revolting the greater sin as the cure of Tyranny or irreligiousness in the Actings of Powers What abusers of Government and perverters of the ends thereof were Tiberius Claudius Nero Domitian c. yet Christ will have Caesars due given him and his Apostles presse subjection to them Honor to be given them Tribute to be paid to them Prayers to be made for them not for destroying them and their Government but for preserving their Persons and sanctifying their hearts that they might govern rightly and peaceably a Prayer Point-blank contrary to endeavours to disturbe their Kingdoms by seditious courses to dissolve and dissipate them and to take vengeance on their persons So that they must needs be the disciples not of Christ or Paul or Peter but of Judas of Galilee and of Theudas Acts 5.36 37. who upon account of perversion of Government teach any part of the people to dissolve and confound the Societies whereof they are members and that the obligation being loosed from the Government they may break off from it and erect themselves in new Combinations and Societies with whom they think best If this may passe for good divinity the grand enemy shall never want opportunity of casting Fire-balls in humane Societies and working confusion and every evil work But as this position is very dissonant from Religion so it is no less to sound reason for it hath a clear tendency to the breaking and crumbling in pieces of all humane political Societies all Commonwealths and Kingdoms of the World which no wit of Man can preserve from dissolution if once this Principle be drunk into the hearts of People and sink there For by this mans opinion the judgement of the perversion of the ends of Government in tyranny oppression c. is alwayes put over to the
reject the Government and the Society of the Common-wealth to erect themselves into new separate and politick Bodies Or that may perswade them as the case stands they are relapsed into their primaeve liberty like the Fishes of the Sea that have no Ruler Or that now being liberate they are free as they were at first to combine themselves in new Societies as they see fit It must surely be some great thing that should warrand such great actions It were too much to question their judgement to assert that they indeed think that because the moderate Episcopacy and inspection of some Ministers over others in several parts of the Land to hold them to their duties established by former Laws is now re-established by the King with consent of his people in Parliament the lawfulness of which shall be afterwards spoken to That therefore this and legal courses for carrying on of this is sufficient ground for so unnatural a rupture although the King should not for the pleasure of an inconsiderable party recede from owning and prosecuting his just Laws concerning this experience having abundantly taught that giving way to evil humours and unreasonable demands is but a mean to provoke to greater insolencies But under such pretensions against a lawful way surely something lurketh that doth not yet appear For supposing a change of the established way it is folly to think the matter should there rest this man and his party are of another spirit then to be satisfied with such low matters were they according to his mind for all alongs in his Naphtali and Apology Prerogative is the mark that is shot at as well as Prelacy as we shall see the one is as great an eye-sore as the other And were all other quarrels that seemed to touch upon Religion laid aside yet is not the battel done without retrenchment of Royal Prerogative even in civil things which as well as in Ecclesiastical is disputed down in the Apology but most weakly and foolishly And still also the liberty of the Subject should be a subject of controversie wherein this high-flown man his Party and complices will not have the Parliament to be Judge what is the true Liberty of the People consistent with Soveraignty or what not for this man sets forth the late Parliament as the great betrayers of the Liberty of the People but every Covenanter must make his discretive judgement his rule to determine his actings for the Liberty of the People And if there be any Party in sufficient capacity to take the fields they will and must according to their discretion carve out the measure of the Subjects Liberties which it is like will be large enough at least toward themselves if not toward others and will account themselves bound by Covenant according to their own interpretation to fight to death for what they count Liberty and to forsake the Government and Society of others in the Land though they be the far lesse part and erect new Combinations of their own under new Heads that they may injoy their Covenanted Liberty which the perverted Government deprives them of and from which therefore they are loosed and liberated for ever and reduced to their primaeve liberty to choose Government and Societies as best liketh them Oh miserable confusion that men of perverse spirits strive to drive this poor Nation into Were Episcopacy out of â—he Nation and out of the World there have been and are in this Time such pestilent Principles vented by perverse Teachers tending to the perpetual disquietness of the State of the Kingdom that if People be possessed with the same there is no security for the most just and justly acting Authority nor any rest nor peace amongst people but continual stirrings are to be looked for as there are occasions of Fire-brands to inflame them But it is to be hoped that the wise and godly management of the present Government continued will in time wear out that irreverence to Soveraign Authority and unquietness of a seditious humor that hath too much prevailed by the principles and practices of many in these Times CHAP. II. Of violent resistance to the Powers ordain'd of God by meer private persons their Subjects THe point of violent resistance to the Supreme Magistrate by Subjects hath been hotly and violently debated both elsewhere and in those Lands upon sad occasions The more moderate Asserters of it do not give the liberty of so doing unto meer private persons nor against Princes integrae Majestatis or who have come to their Kingdoms without pactions of restraint put on them by the people nor do they at all grant the liberty of this resistance but in the case of immanest Tyranny and extreamest Cruelty against the Body or most considerable part of the Body of the Common-wealth or such like or in case of sudden personal extra-judicial illegal invasions importing irreparable losse of life c. wherein judicious Royalists will not much differ from others nor do they grant a liberty to proceed beyond the bounds of inculpata tutela innocent and harmlesse self-defence for if either there be a preventive invasion of the Magistrat or a succeeding revenge if he be brought under all agree that this exceeds moderamen inculpatae tutelae so men are not properly self-defenders but Magistrate-invaders And whatever power of defence is allowed to inferiour Magistrates with the People yet that meer Subjects or private persons should take on them power of judging or punishing the Supreme Magistrate or punishing him it is abhorrent from the common sense of Christian and Learned men But this Libeller goes a great length for not only doth he allow the body of the People with inferiour Magistrates to make violent resistance to the King whensoever they think he wrongs them but allows any part of the People only requiring that they make sure that they are in probable capacity to carry through their matters to rise in Arms and make violent resistance to all the Magistrates supreme and subordinate yea and against all the major part of the people And albeit Magistrates act according to Laws agreed upon by the representatives of the people yet this man allows any part of the People though no Magistrate be amongst them to take Arms against all Magistrates and violently resist them when they think their Laws either unjust or the punishments executed unjust and he maintains that passive subjection to unjust Laws and Punishments where there is power to make active violent resistance is a greater sin then active obedience to unlawful Commands of Magistrates This seems strange Doctrine but more and worse will be seen in the following Chapter But that he may get no wrong look upon his own words referring what he speaks of punishing Magistrates to the following Chapter There is saith he Page 8. a necessity of Convocations and Combinations not only without but even against Authority and it is sufficiently warranded before God and all men for necessary and just ends Again
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
the shed blood of Christ and of his glorious extraordinary Ambassadors then we in this frozen age have knew not owned not any such Doctrines of violent resistance to Magistrates as the new sort of Christians have made a main Article of their Faith In Tertullians time they wanted not abundant power and might to raise armes and manage war against their persecuting enemies as he very plainly shews Apolog. cap. 37. and ch 1. ch 33. They were certainly in a probable capacity to have combined in armes against their persecuting Emperors and to have carried their will by force and taken order with these who were over them and did oppress them as this Libeller allows all persons of the most private place if they be strong enough to deal with the powers above them yet they would never entertain a thought of any such matter let be to attempt it they were never although defamed as enemies to Severus Emperor at that time found amongst the seditious Nunquam tamen Albiniani vel Nigriani vel Cassiani never were they followers of seditious Leaders Apol. c. 33. Although they had filled all their Cities their Camps their Courts and the Empire every where full of Christians yet they made conscience of making insurrection they knew not such a thing that the Word of God and laws of Humanity and Christian Charity oblieged them as now it is pleaded to take arms against their Emperors and to combine against them for mutual defence against their persecutions and for violent taking order with them Were the antient Christians so utterly ignorant or so void of humanity and of Christian love and zeal that having more then probable capacity they would suffer their Brethren be put to suffer and not offer violence to the Magistrate in such courses and rescue the oppressed out of their hands either they were not knowing and loving Christians or else we have catched an error in our heads that is not Christian and a fire in our hearts that is not from above If we look forward to Cyprians time long after Tertullian though in that same age he is free to tell us in Epistola ad Demetrianum when Christians were grown very numerous beyond what Tertullian saw them to have been Nemo nostrum c. not one of us offers to resist your violence speaking of and to Pagans or to revenge it Etiam si nimius copiosus sit populus noster Yea after that the great Constantine had owned Christian Religion and by his Authority so far as it could reach legally establish'd it so that now Religion became to be a legal right by Caesarean Edicts and Laws and multitudes embracing it as useth to be when examples of religious Princes go before so there is no doubt Christians were both for number and power able to hold their own Religion by force against all contrary Powers and that upon the ground of legal humane right as well as divine Yet when the Arian Emperors Constantius Valent. c. and Julian the Apostate persecuted them for Religion they never attempted such a thing as to make head against them and to combine for a resistance albeit they wanted neither the legal right of humane Imperial Law for it nor physical Power sufficient against the Apostate and Arian Emperors nec dâ—erat jus humanum nec deerant vires temporales yet there was never the least attempt made by Christians in these times against their Emperors apostatizing turning heretical and cruel Persecutors No other remedy did Christians then know against persecuting Powers but prayers and tears to God and Man with patience in suffering for Christ albeit they had arms in their hands they knew not how to use the same against the Powers above them When that vile Persecutor Maximian was raging against Christian Professors Anno 297. He had under him a whole Legion of Christian Souldiers called the Theban Legion consisting of six thousand six hundred and sixty six armed men who had strength aâ—â— power enough to sell their lives dear to any that would seek the sâ—â—â—e Yet rather then they would offer violence to the wicked Emperor or his Officers they did lay aside their weapons and suffer'd themselves for Christs sake to be slain by the executors of the Commands of that cruel Tyrant And it is known by the History that the plurality of the Army under Julian the Apostate were Christians as appeared by their joynt Proclamation and Declaration at the entry of Jovinian his Successor Nos Christiani sumus yet never did they make head against the Apostate nor violent him in his courses against Religion and their Brethren the Professors thereof Oh silly foolish and feminine Christians then who neither knew to use the priviledge of self-defence against Magistrates for themselves nor how to combine for the aid of others and were so destitute of reason for themselves and humanity and religious charity toward others that neither the Paganisme Apostasie Arianisme of the Emperors nor Persecution of Brethren by them could move them to such ways of violent and bloody resistance of Powers though they did indeed resist to blood striving against sin as Heb. 12.4 But O! how illuminated masculous and martial are the spirits of Christians now a dayes and how full of charity one to another as well as of zeal to God that any number of private persons are allowed if they can carry on the business without a seen mischief to themselves to take the Sword against all Magistrates whom they account oppressors of them though falsly to combine in bands against them to pull them out of their seats to revenge upon them the injuries done to themselves or their Brethren and to punish them condignly yea it is counted high impiety against God and want of Christian charity to omit this This is the clear doctrine of this Libeller and his Complices as hath in part and will further appear And what shall we say to it I will say anima mea sit cum animabus veterum Christianorum shall we think that they were generally so ignorant senseless and stupid that they knew not what belonged to their duty toward God themselves or their Brethren Wanted they the light to know their duty the zeal to Gods glory the Christian love to brethren which we have so abundantly that moves us to resisting of Powers and did not them Credat Judaeus Apella non ego But the truth is this as in the fear of God they refused to give active obedience to any evil command of Powers above them so when they could neither mitigate the fury of persecuting powers by Petitions nor in Gods Providence find a way of escaping out of their Dominions and flying which is no resistance albeit the pair of Pseudomartyrs have brought forth this Monster of a stoical Paradox that flying from the Magistrate is resistance to him whereas it is only a withdrawing from under his Dominion and putting ones self under another Dominion where his Power reaches not
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
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
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
reason that these who are Plaintifes shall be judges of the Party they complain of more then the party or Prince Judge to them Is not this a perversion of all judgement that in one and the same body politick the accuser and Judge shall be coincident in the same persons or person And they shall use the punishing Sword over all Rulers to whom God never committed it the notions of original fountaine virtual royalty in the people which they may render formal effectual and actual when they see fit are but high flown unregardable fancies of the masters of confusion All magistratical Authority is originally and fountally in God alone whose Minister the Magistrate is and not the peoples although for the peoples good whatever interests people may have in instrumental application of the power to such or such persons sometimes Government is not in the people virtually though wrongously sometimes they usurp it No man hath the Power of the Sword over his own life nor over the life of his neighbours as he is a private man not invested with magistratical Authority and so cannot transmit that to another which he hath not himself None have this avenging Power of the Sword over mens lives but the Magistrate alone whom people by Gods law are bound to choose if they want one in their Societies and Combinations but whomever they designe they do not empower him it is God by his Ordinance that doth this the Power is from God not from them albeit the application of the person to the Power or of it to him be instrumentally and dispositively by the peoples act where they have liberty for such acts 5. Though it be true that all Covenants and Contracts amongst men embodied in a Society brings each of the contracters under a Law-claim in case of failing coram Judice proprio before his own and competent Judge yet it is not true that any Contracts betwixt man and man in one and the same Society gives the party keeping contract coactive Power over the party breaking it is true the Judge hath a coactive Power to lay forth in behalf of the keeper against the breaker but that is not the keeper his coactive Power but the Judges employed for his good the one party is not Judge of the other but the Magistrate is Judge over both Now there is no Judge over all Magistrates nor the supreme Magistrate before whom a complaining people can plead wrong done to them This complaint lyes before God only to take order with it And it must needs be a strange assertion to say as some do that it leads Kings to Atheisme to tell them They are countable to God only whereas this leads them genuinly to stand in awe of God and the lesse fear they have from men to be in greater dreador of more terrible strokes from God if if they do wrong ordinarily where there is much fear of mans punishments there is lesse fear of Gods but when it is told Princes the more exemption they have from man the more terribly will God handle them if they do wrong this may make the highest and stoutest hearts to tremble at the dreadful vengeance by the hands of the living God which will strike a deeper stroke then creatures can 6. To provoke people to go about the medling with the advancing Religion actibus Imperatis which is the Magistrates part and not only actibus elicitis is but a ruining of all order God hath set the imperate acts for advancing Religion are not to be done but by these to whom God hath given the Empire It is not his will that people run out of their rank and calling to serve him more then it was his will that Saul or Vzziah offered sacrifice or incense the works were good in themselves but the workers were not warranded to do the same extraordinary necessities are more easily pleaded then justified as ground sufficient for actions whereto there is no extraordinary call If Magistrates be deficient as to their imperat acts in advancing Religion private persons are sufficiently discharged if they keep themselves pure and do what possibly they can for advancing Religion in their private capacities and by their elicit acts Nor shall they be involved in guiltiness for not intruding in the Magistrates office or doing his duty wherein he hath failed If a mans eyes be put out his ears or other senses will go as far to supply that defect for the good of the body as may be yet cannot help the body by elicit acts of seeing So whatever length private persons may go for the good of the body they must not go to exercise and exert formally acts Magistratical upon whatever pretence of extraordinary need which will never be wanting to a people enflamed with a seditious spirit August Lib. 2. contra literas Petiliani Auferenda idola non potest quispiam jubere privatis Lact. instit S. 20. Defendenda est Religio a privatis omnibus non occidendo sed moriendo c. It is a dangerous and destructive tenent to be held forth to be believed by people That in all cases whither concerning Religion or Liberty when they account the Magistrate to pervert the Government that they are eatenus and so far even as they had no King and that the royalty hath recurred to themselves and they may act and exercise it formally as if they had no King at all which is the express Doctrine of L. R. p 99.100 And more intolerable is Naphtali who grants this not only to the body of the people and inferiour Magistrates but to any the least meer private part of the people against the whole body and against all Magistrates supreme and subordinate Where or when shall confusions end if these Doctrines have faith or free passage CHAP. IV. Anent the following of Phineas fact of heroick or extraordinary impulsions and concerning some courses taken at our first Reformation and their exemplariness THat every man should walk in his own calling with God 1 Cor. 7.20 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love the honour to be quiet and do his own business 1 Thes 4.11 yea ambitiously contend as the word bears it so to do is agreeable to the mind and will of the God of Order it is a godly ambition to act within the precincts of our own calling but Sathan striving to make men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disorderly and unsubject to these whom God hath set over them under several colours of extreme necessity the lawfulness of the matter of actions in themselves the goodness of ends and intentions the want or deficiency of others to do the work mens own probable capacity to do it doth often drive men out of their ranks and stations to act such things whereof God will say I never required them at your hands in your hands they are evil quia ego non jussi and because sometimes God hath given extraordinary callings or incited men by