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
and so by flight and withdrawing from the Kingdoms the man ceaseth to be a Subject to him whose Subject he was and comes to be under other Lords and Laws But I say when Christians could neither by Petitions nor Apologies allay the fury of Persecutors nor escape from them in the fear of God commanding submission to his Ordinance although in the use perverted as to them they having light enough to know their duty great zeal for Christ great love to their brethren sufficient power to have overpowered their enemies did notwithstanding without violent resistance or combinations to that end against Powers meekly lay down their lives for Christ and choosed rather to suffer then resist Herein their practice is a better Commentary of Rom. 13. and 1 of Pet. 2. then all seditious glosses And is preferable for imitation to all the contrary actings of men in these dregs of time Some go about to question the truth of Tertullians narration concerning the number and power of Christians in his time asserting that onely their weakness excused them from the sin of non-resistance to their Magistrates But it is strange to think that Tertullian in an Apology made to the Gentiles for Christians should assert so gross an untruth in matter of fact concerning these of his Religion whereof his enemies if they could would no doubt take advantage And as strange it is that any now living should after thirteen or fourteen hundred years take on them to know the number and power of Christians in Tertullians time better then he did also to say that in Julians Army the Christians were not the prevailing and greater part is contrary to the truth of the story as appears by their cry at the reception of Jovinian whereof before yet it is well said Lex Rex pag. 372. that they had scruples of Conscience and doubts of the lawfulness of resisting the Emperour being sworn to him which may make it the more strange that there is so little doubting now when our engagement to Magistrates over us is no less True it is Constantine did make War upon Licinius whom he had assumed to be an assistant in governing the Empire for his breach of Faith and of Trust given him in that society of the Empire and for first denouncing War against him the help of the distressed Christians cruelly persecuted by him concurring also as a motive Euseb lib. 9. Hist Eccl. cap. 10 but that they sought help from Constantine the Great against Licinius is not said in the history and although they had so done it onely shews hat the help of the chief Emperour may be sought against him who was assumed as an Adjutant in the Empire who in effect was little more then a Deputy It is also true that the Christians oppressed by Barabanes King of Persia in the time of Theodosius as it is Hist Tripart Lib. 11 cap. 15. did flee to the Romans seeking their help but then it is also evâ—dent in the story that remaining in the Countrey of that King they made no insurrection against him albeit the persecution was very cruel they did flee and with-draw from that Kingdom to the bounds of the Roman Empire And the Romans refusing upon demand of that King to send back these who had run away was one ground of the war that arose between them and the Persian Again it is onely said the Christians fleeing to the Romans sought their help which will not necessarily import that they stirred them up to invade their King in their behalf but that having come to them they might have the help and benefit of their protection and not be delivered up to the fury of the Tyrant upon his demand And further the Persian Kings had once submitted themselves to the Roman Emperors as their Lords two or three of their Kings being given them at the appointment of the Senate and Emperour of Rome Augustus getting both King and Kingdom submitted to him in his time and although after that time there were many changes and revolutions in that Kingdom the Romans did never quit their claim thereto but keeped close to their right and to the possession they had of most of it till Constantin's time and even long also after the time of Theodosius Now if the Christians presuming upon the Roman right to that Kingdom as being held of the Emperor implored this help against a persecutor whom they thought he had legal power to chastise what makes this for private subjects without concurrence of any Magistrate rising in violence against their own Soveraigns who have none superior to them but God But not to insist too much on this we onely add that excellent Calvin in the last chap. of the 4. book of his Institutions hath like a primitive Christian and Divine written so fully and learnedly against private persons resisting the Magistrates by violence though they abuse their power that whoever will read the same as it is most worthy to be read throughout will find a strong confutation of all seditious Doctrines stirring up private persons to do violence to the Magistrate in any case and his spirit will be seen to be another then theirs is who teach such things We come now to consider how far contrary to the light of sound reason this position giving liberty to any private persons when they are able and when they think themselves wronged to use violence upon all Magistrates is Surely that doctrine cannot be of God which to the eye of sound reason doth remedilesly and unavoidably if it be admitted and reduced into practice overthrow Gods Order for settling Humane Societies and which opens a wide gap to perpetual seditions against all Magistrates not leaving any even the best of them and most justly governing in any security from violence For in the way of this Libeller every private person is not only made judge of his own actings and what he is to do or not to do in obedience to the Magistrate but he is made judge of his own sufferings he must suffer no more from the Magistrate then he thinks meet if he can help himself by force And it is held forth as a sin equal at least to the obeying unlawful commands to suffer unjust punishments inflicted by Powers if men be in capacity to do violence to the Powers or if they can conspire and combine with others for this end This is a Doctrine that will please all wicked malefactors wonderous well and is a fair proclamation to them whenever they are attached or arraigned or condemned or punished to bestir themselves to make a party to do violence to the Magistrate for they will never want the colour of this plea of self-defence And how few of them will not if they may be their own judges say they are innocent and deserve no punishment or not so great The judge saith he is guilty and that he must be so and so punished make the man his own judge he will say the sentence is
to them yet hath he not made his Providence the Rule of our actions to warrand us being private Persons to punish them but we must go to the Law and Testimony to seek the Rules of our actions And whatever action is not according to this there is no light in it it is but a work of darkness for all the fair colours men can set upon it albeit God visit the sins of Parents upon Children yet that gives no warrand to Children to offer violence to their Parents for their sins But yet the Libeller cannot so leave the matter but after many ranting and rambling words which it were a pain to ripe up nor is it our purpose minding onely to notice his abuses of Scripture and impertinent reasonings he comes at length to his great reserve pag. 30. and sayes If all these things do not satisfy as indeed they are soon pleased who will be satisfied by him he hath yet four or five particulars that will make all sure for his position which he hath been labouring to underprop viz. That any private persons may against all Magistrates and the great body of the Common-wealth take and use not only the self defending but vindicative punishing and reforming Sword And 1. he saith That the reason of delivering the Kingdom to the People and not to the King with the Law it self Deut. 17.14 no way contradicted or repealed by the manner of the Kingdom and in effect of Tyranny fore told by way of disswasive 1 Sam. 8.10 doth make much for his position But 1. the man utters here a gross untruth For God doth not in the Text deliver the Kingdom to the People and not to the King as he saith he doth only before hand instruct the People anent the right way of setting of a King over them when it should come to pass that they should do so and leaves in his Word instructions for the King that shouâ—d be set over them how to behave himself That the Kingdom is here delivered to the People to be managed by them as well as to the King or with reserve of Power to them to use violence upon and against the King if he should deviate from the rules there set down as this man contends is most false the People had not so much Power as to choose the person that was to be King God reserved this for himself 15. ver Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose neither ever did they choose a King but onely accepted of the Kings chosen and given them by God and designed to them by his extraordinary Embassadours as is clear first in Saul and after in David and his Family the chosen Royal Family Neither were the People to look on their Kings as their servants or vassals or creatures as such men use to write but as set over them Thou shalt set him over thee not under thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose neither had they power over the King but the King by Gods Ordinance had Power over them 2. Were it so that the Kingdom or the Power of managing it were delivered to the People which is most false yet this makes nothing to this Libellers position giving Power to any party of private Persons amongst People to punish all Magistrates and the major part of the people too if they be strong enough whatever was granted to the People here was granted to the body not to this or that party of private persons 3. It is very true the place 1 Sam. 8.10 and not 1 Sam. 10.10 as he mis-cites both this and the former Scripture neither contradicts nor repeales that Law Deut. 17.14 but agrees notably with it But it is false that onely the Tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of meerly disswasive Moses and Samuel do very well agree together the one shews what a King should do ex officio and de jure the other what a King may do by the power he hath and yet not be obnoxious to punishment from Subjects The one shews what a good King should do the other what a People should suffer of an evil King without attempt of violence upon him The one sets forth Gods approbative Law and instructs Kings in their kingly duties the other sets down the permissive Law of the King shewing the reach of his Power if he should abuse it without punishment from man The doing of such things 1 Sam. 8.10 was in effect tyrannical not approven by God but if the King came to abuse his Power so far he had a permissive Law for him that it was not free to his Subjects to punish him As albeit the Lord approveth not Divorce or a mans putting away of his wife yet by a permissive Law husbands amongst Gods People had liberty Deut. 24.1 to put away their wives without being obnoxious to humane punishment for that cause albeit God reserved the punishment of the hard-hearted husbands to himself So the Lord gives no approbation to over-imperious or tyrannical facts of Princes yet if they abuse their Power he will reserve them unto dreadful punishments by his own hand but will not have the hands of their Subjects to be upon or against them As parents do evil in correcting their children for their pleasure Heb. 12.9 10. and have no moral approven power from God so to do yet it is a sort of right of parents that if they so do their children may not use violence upon them or rise to destroy them but be in a reverent subjection to them But this great Theologue tells us That it is only the manner of Tyranny that is here set down by Samuel And that meerly by way of disswasive to disswade them from seeking a King Ans 1. It is true the fact is the manner of Tyranny but the permissive power without punishment from Subjects is the just right of all Lawful Kings of whom as it may be said Nil paenas metuunt nulla quia lege tenentur So to them if they deboard and abuse their power it may be said Si genus humanum mortalia temnitis aâ—ma At sperate deos memores fandi atque nefandi 2. Let it be so that Samuel in setting forth the manner or Law of the King intended to disswade the people from insisting in their petition for a King yet that was not his only nor his main intention his main intention is to shew the People their duty under a Kings oppression though it was not his duty to oppresse them to shew them I say what they behoved to suffer under a King beyond measure imperious without resistance for he is not now teaching the King his duty This is clear for otherwise to what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a Book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10.25 when there was no place for repentance no remedy no use of
exemption and impunity as to subjects of the person invested with Soveraignity and Majesty Gods law natures light and sound reason are all for this that the person or persons invested with soveraign Majesty having the Legislative-power the Jurisdictional-power the Coerecive and Punitive-power originally in himself must enjoy exemption and impunity as to subjects actings against them The contrary tenet overthrows the order of God and nature and precipitates humane Societies in a gulf of endlesse confusions 3. This hath been the constant sense of the generation of the righteous and the antient Christians and great lights of Gods Church whom none will call flatterers of Princes but such as have lost their fore-heads Tertul. apol contra gentes imperatores sunt in solius Dei potestate a quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes Deos super omnes homines And a little after Majestatem Caesaris soli Deo subjicio So ad Scapulam Imperator omnibus major est dum solo deo est minor So Optat. contra Parmenian super imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit imperatorem And Jerom. epist ad Rusticum speaking of Davids words Ps 51. Against thee against thee onely have I sinned sayes he spake so quia Rex erat alium non timebat And Ambrose in Apol. Davidis cap. 4. 10. speaking of the same words sayes Rex utique erat nullis ipse legibus tenebatur he means as to fear punishment from man quia liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictorum neque enim ullis ad paenam vocantur Legibus tuti Imperii potestate homini ergo non peccavit qui non tenebatur obnoxius There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Vriah the occasion of that Psalm and of the scandal he had given to Gods people in which sense he might be well said to sin against both But in this word against thee thee only have I sinned As he minds to acknowledge that God onely was conscious to his sin in committing it So also he shews that this above all touched his conscience that he had violated Gods Law and shews that he is touched with his terrors as his only Judge though as Diodat on the place sayes well as he was a King he was exempted from the punishment of man and not obnoxious to humane Tribunals And excellent Mr. Calvin in that 20. Ch. of the 4. Book of his institut S. 2 7. Assumptum in Regiam Majestatem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem S. 29 Personam sustinent voluntate Domini cui inviolabilem Majestatem ipse impressit insculpsit And if Princes be tyrannous nostrum non est hujusmodi malis mederi c. and so S. 31. fully to our purpose it is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Calvin as he is indeed most worthy of respect should dare to violate the Sacrosanct Maiesty of Kings if they will but read over that Chapter wherein he speaks most notably against the seditious Doctrines of our times as if he had been living in them 4. It is not denyed that the King is bound before God to rule his people according to the Law of God of reason and nature yea and to take his direction in Government from the rational Laws of the Kingdom which are deductions from or determinations of the Law of God reason and nature to particular circumstances agreed to by the consent and with the good liking of his people It is too grosse a saying Regi quicquid libet licet a good King will turn the word and say Regi quod licet supposing it expedient libet he will make use of good Laws as his instruments in governing the people and account it his honour and a thing greatly becoming his Majesty to do nothing contrary to Law in the ordinary course of his Government and not at all stray there-from but when great reason urges an equitable interpretation of the Law and respect to the end and aim of it when precise cleaving to the rigidity of the letter thereof might make summum jus summa injuria It is a royal thing for a King to live by the same good Laws which are given by him to the people and it is of efficicious influence upon them to move them to walk in their duties orderly Rex tenetur servare Leges si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes But if the supreme Power should deviat we maintain that as a sure truth which this man proudly and traiterously jeers at That impunity as from Subjects necessarily attends Soveraignity and supreme Majesty which hath this inseparable priviledge of exemption from violence by Subjects by the Law of God Reason and Nature whatever sort the Government be Monarchical or Polyarchical For no man can be judged or punished but by a Judge above him and the Supreme hath none such otherwise he were not Supreme To teach contrary to this is but to confound Gods Order and dissipate humane Societies by continual rebellions Yet this inviolableness of the sacred persons of Kings and supreme â—owers invested with Soveraign Authority from God thus asserted should be so far from licensing or incouraging them to do what they list that they have the greater cause to walk with holy fear within the boundaries of Gods Law and their own just Laws for the more immunity they have from mens violence which must be granted unless all things be turned into confusion the sadder punishments they shall have from God if they debord The sixth Chapter of the Book of Wisdom though it be Apocrypha is well worthy to be read by Kings and Potentates and to be trembled at for the matter is very agreeable to Gods Word The heaviest vengeances that are recorded in History sacred and profane have come upon flagitious and tyrannous Kings their exemption from mens hands reserves them to fall into the hands of the living God which is a fearful thing who besides the wrath that is to come sometimes calls for forreign scourges upon them sometimes suffers an evil spirit of rebellion to go out amongst their own Subjects who though they do wickedly in stretching forth their hands against the sacred head of the Lords Anointed yet it is ordinary for the great God to do the work of his holy Justice by wicked hands and when men are serving their own lusts and crossing his revealed will for which vengeance attends them yet they may be in these actions serving his Providence and his Justice against wicked Powers albeit they think not so nor comes it into their minds or hearts But Potentates should remember the word Potentes paâ—ce debent uti potestate sua ut semper eam retinere possint But the Libeller will have the memorable instance of the times whereof he now speaks Naph P. 30. of casting away the Carcases and
breaking the Scepters of Kings to be remembred and sayes such a thing had the approbation of divine Providence of his Word and of his People animated thereto by himself Albeit his speech be subdolous and double-faced leaving it doubtful of what times he speaks wherein this memorable instance of murthering Kings and dethroning them is to be found at the time of Reformation whereat he seems to hint no such thing was there yet it is too palpable he points at the horrid instance of the murther committed upon the sacred Person of our late King by the vile and desperate Sectaries the instance saith he of the times we now speak of is worthily recorded another instance in the times of first Reformation of such murther we know not But it is most falsly and wickedly said whether that particular be meant or not that Gods Providence or Gods Word approves the murthering or deposing of Princes or that he thereunto animates his people Gods Word never warranded any Subjects to take the Sword to destroy their Soveraigns or to adjudge them to death under any pretence they not being their Judges above them but under them and what Gods Word approves not his Providence doth not approve although he may and doth in his holy Providence permit many things to be which he approves not in his Word which is our rule and not his Providence And to say God animates his people to such horrid actions is blasphemy making God the author of sin he animates none to any thing that is against his Word the ordinary rule of our walking albeit extraordinarily he may stir up the spirits of some to actions not according to the ordinary rule as in the times of the Judges but they were sure of their warrand from him the like whereof none have ground to wait for now But God save the King from such people so animated as this man would have them he may call them the people of God that carry such murthering-hearts towards Princes but it is to be feared God will say to them Depart from me I know you not One of Naphtali's commended Pseudomartyrs the Apology labours to produce many instances of the Parliaments of Scotland punishing Princes for their enormities all which he sets forth as laudable and imitable presidents and examples Yet the most that all of them amounts to is nothing but the insurrection of Nobles Proceres as Buchannan calls them against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous such were several of them as it happens every where and was so in Judah where were more evil Kings then good by far But neither Buchannan nor this Apolog. can produce any one instance of our lawful Parliaments or Peoples taking on them in a judicial way in cold blood and under forms of process to punish or destroy their Kings howsoever evil Whatever insurrections have been wherein Kings have perished and not a few people also as oft-times the cure of Tyranny is worse to the people then Tyranny it self Minori cum periculo tyrannus toleratur quam ejicitur yet God hath since the foundation of our Kingdom to this day preserved our Parliaments and People from such a way against their Kings even when they were under Paganisme for some ages even when Popery did over-grow the Land choaking and darkening the light of the Gospel after it was come amongst us and when the Land was in many ages under much barbarity it never came in the hearts of Parliaments or People to sit as Judges on their Soveraigns in cold blood and advisedly with forms of Process to attempt their destruction however evil they were The more shame do they cast upon these who in the fair day-light of the Gospel endeavour to poison souls with such a Doctrine of devils or who instigate to or approve of such wayes against the Powers ordained by God But to pull out this Libeller and his Complices from the Sanctuary of the Word of God which he sayes does approve the destroying of Princes and makes void their exemption and impunity as to men their Subjects Let it be considered what colour there is for this horrid Tenet from the Word of God A little we must reflect upon his Magazine whence he borrowes all his stuffe printing that pretious matter that is there over and over again under different shapes L. R. quest 26. is bold to say That the Sanhedrim might and should have put David to death for the matter of Vriah For sayes he he sees no exception God makes in the Law of great or small but the murtherer should be put to death according to Gen. 9.6 Numb 35.30 31. and if men make difference be craves leave to say à facto ad jus non sequitur and though it be an humane politick constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth Yet if we make it a matter of conscience I see no exception that God makes the persons of the Great must not be excepted Deut. 1.17 1 Chron. 19.6 7. Levit. 19.15 So also P. 348. and 428. and 238. And often elsewhere he will have the estates executing the moral Law as he calls it on the King and punishing him not only resisting him And why because he sayes most Thrasonically P. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdom is superior to the King and the people may be their own Judge in the Tribunal of necessity To which we say 1. What should he mean to make it conducible to the Peace of the Common-wealth that the King be free of the coaction of Law and yet not so if it be made a matter of Conscience Is the preservation of the Peace of the Common-wealth no matter of Conscience to him or Is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law for that end warrandable 2. It is good that this Metaphysical Statist was no chief Priest or Levite or such a member of the Sanhedrim in Davids time for he would certainly have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law in reference to the King that he might be cut off What sots or cold-rife senselesse men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time who did not instigate the Sanhedrim to execute the moral Law on David that wrath might be turned away from the Land this man could in his sublime speculations have instructed the Sanhedrim better in their duty and could have told them that albeit David was not bound to draw his Sword against himself yet the Judges under him should not accept his person because he was a great man he could have told them the Sanhedrim is above the King to punish him as well as another man for his sin and in point of Conscience and by Gods Law they were bound to do it 3. He utterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God Gen. 9.6 as for the other Texts they clearly concern Magistrates only
conditional Covenant and leave them as he found them in bondage to forreigners But such was his Majesties Graciousness and Wisdom as well as Conscience of duty that although the Nation had failed much to him he would not walk after the counsels of these men And we may all things consider'd assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him then he doth owe his Authority to them or by vertue of any Covenant with them But not to dwell too much on this as to any expresse Covenant enstating the People or any part thereof in a coactive judicial Power over our Princes to punish them in case of aberrations in Government from the foundation of our Kingdom of Scotland there is no such thing to be found Buchannan himself can never show that before King James the sixth his time any of our Kings at their installing did swear to or covenant with the people albeit the people have sworn homage to them none of them all before that time did swear covenant-wise at their reception of the Crown nor can it be evidenced that Loyalty was engaged to the King if they thought he ruled well and no otherwise Some of our Historians cited by Blackwood make mention of one of our Kings Gregory the Great who did reign Anno Chr. 876. who when he was crown'd did in his piety swear to defend the liberties of Christian Religion of the Church of all the Priests and Ministers of Religion and ordained that all his Successors Kings of Scotland should swear that oath at their entry to the Government Yet this is not mentioned by Buchannan least perhaps our Kings might think obligations do lye on them by that Law to maintain Popery far advanced in Gregories time But no other oath is mentioned till James the sixth his time when he was in the craddle his Regent Murray fram'd an oath to be sworn by him and his Successors recorded Parliament 1. King James the 6. but that oath never any did swear for him albeit at his Coronation in the moneth of July before that Act which was not made till the 15. of Decemb. after Anno 1567. the Earles of Mortoun and Hume did promise some such thing for the King as Buchannan sayes nor did he himself ever swear it when he came to be Major and from under the Tutory of Regents When he entred actually to reign and accepted the Regiment in his own person Anno 1577. being of the age of twelve years no man durst ever offer that oath to him nor when he came to be of full and perfect age Not but that it is in it self and rightly understood a good and godly oath but in regard of the evil Principles with which some Subjects were in that time poisoned as if such an Oath and Covenant gave a coactive right and power to Subjects over their Prince in all their apprehensions of his failing as now we are taught by men of the seditious stamp it was thought fit to wave the putting such an oath unto him at his entry to the actual Government he not having taken it before that the fancy of such a coactive Covenant which might breed evil humours in the Subjects might be removed Whither King Charles the first did swear that same oath recorded in the first Parliament of King James the sixth we cannot certainly say there is nothing left upon publick record of that matter at his Coronation but if he did so he was the first King of this Nation that received the Crown in way of Covenant with the people or swearing to them yet had he reigned eight years over us before that time and no man durst or in reason could say as now is printed that he was no King till he took the Coronation oath How this came to passe we know not but it is to be believed on good ground could that King once have thought that his taking of that oath although it be in it self godly and good should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects as that he should have been thought thereby to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power in every case wherein they or any party of them being meer private persons might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death then so to cast himself away at the pleasure of malecontented parties amongst the people taking advantage against him by that oath But it shall be avowed that that King of glorious memory did never shrink from the observance of that godly oath whatever the malice of his clamorous and embitter'd enemies represents to the contrary Neither hath his Majesty that now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto and we are hopeful Gods grace shall preserve him hereafter from any such thing But the matter concerning this civil Covenant is not yet at an end for the Author of L. R. bends his wit to wrest the holy Scriptures to make this Covenant necessary yea for such ends as he designs viz. the coaction and punishing of the Prince and backs his wrested Scriptures with some sophistical reasonings Did we indeed find sufficient ground for such a Covenant or for such ends in holy Scriptures we should strike sail and no wait for ragged reasonings to cast dust in our eyes But when we look to Gods directions about setting up of Kings amongst his people and upon the doing of the thing suitably to these directions We professe in sincerity that we find nothing but that it was Gods mind that both King and People should do their mutual duties the one to the other but that there is any such Covenant impowering people to use force upon the King to throw him down punish or destroy him when they or any particular party of meer private persons apprehend the ends of Government to be perverted There is no mention of any such Covenant Deut. 17. where the manner of setting a King over them is prescribed there is no such thing done when Samuel by Gods appointment anoints and sets a King over the people nor is there any such thing found at the entry of any of the Kings of Gods people to their Government only there are two instances upon special and extraordinary occasions of such Covenants betwixt the King and People the import of neither of which is to state the people in coactive judicial Power over these Kings and which cannot by any Logick be drawn to be Patterns of necessary doing such a thing in all Kingdoms The first instance is of David 2 Sam. 5.3 1 Chr. 11.3 where though he had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the men of Judah without any such Covenant 2 Sam. 2.4 Israel and the rest of the Tribes having all that time resisted David and cleaved to Saul's Son as their King 2 Sam. 2.10 The King being killed and Abner the General they come to a submission to David and he being willing to entertain them enters in covenant with them in a
piece of holy policy meet for that time to gather together the scattered people of God who might be tempted otherwise to other courses they were now coming to be his Subjects who were not so before but were under another King and fit it was to give them security touching his good mind toward them they having so long stood it out in arms against him But the question is what was the nature the matter and import of that Covenant The Scripture sayes not it was such a Covenant as these men would have I shall rule you rightly if you obey me dutifully otherwise not upon the Kings part And upon the peoples part We shall obey you and be subject to you if ye rule us rightly otherwise we will not but use our co-active power upon you to dethrone and destroy you and punish you That there was any such conditional Covenant expressed or meant is far from the truth David neither minds to admit them to be his Subjects conditionally or to subject himself to their co-active power nor minde they to offer themselves to be his Subjects in such terms On the contrary it appeareth clearly in the Text that they recognosce his right of reigning over them is from God and that he was not subject to be removed by them see 2 Sam. 5.2 1 Chr. 11.2 3. They say The Lord said to thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and shalt be Captain or Ruler over them And it is added Therefore they came c. and anointed him King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel They humbly declare him King whom God had constituted whom they could not lawfully reject and it is impious to think that they recognoscing Gods constitution of him yet should fancy a Paction or Covenant giving them co-active superiority over him to remove him when they thought meet though God had set him on the Throne by a special appointment All the Covenant that can be supposed here is upon the peoples part an engagement to humble subjection and homage And upon the Kings part a Covenant of indempnity for former oppositions to him wherein they had need to be comfortably secured or at most we shall not repugne if it be called a Covenant both of protection and right ruling of them yet so as not subjecting himself to their censures or co-action or that they should be his Subjects only upon that condition being otherwise free to fall upon him The Covenant may be to mutual duties and yet on neither side conditional but absolute each party oblieging themselves to their own duty absolutely but not on condition that the other party do their duty As if a man bind himself by oath to give me one hundred pounds and I bind my self again by oath to him to give him one hundred pounds without conditional provision that he pay me the money he promised me Albeit he should fail in his oath and not pay me yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him because my oath is separate from his and independent upon it and hath a separate obligation absolute which no failing of the other party to me can loose Indeed the case is otherwise when there is a reciprocal contract of things to be done by one party upon condition of some things to be done by the other as in Covenants of Peace between Nations there the breach of condition by one party looses the promise of the other which was only conditionally made But subjection is not engaged to Kings conditionally but absolutely albeit obedience to God be reserved when any active obedience contrary to him is called for Again for the other instance of the Covenant which Jehoiadah made between King Joash and the people 2 Chr. 13.2 3. 2 Kings 11.17 this was also made upon an extraordinary occasion for ordinarily we never hear of any such Covenants amongst Gods people and their Kings and extraordinaries cannot Found ordinary Rules Athaliah had murthered all the royal Seed 2 King 11. 2 Chr. 23. except Joash who was kept secret six years in the house of the Lord while the usurper possessed the Kingdom Now when the godly Priest Jehoiadah the Kings Tutor saw a fit time he ingaged the principal men in Covenant of fidelity to the King 2 King 11.4 and shewed them the Kings Son This was a necessary piece of holy Policy when the Usurper and her faction had so long strengthned themselves to engage the chief men to special fidelity to him And after that 12.17 He brought forth the Kings Son and put the Crown upon him and gave him the Testimony and they made him King and anointed him and they clapt their hands and said God save the King and Jehoiadah made a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people and that they should be the Lords people between the King also and the people Joash was then but seven years old and not in capacity to make a Covenant with the people but his godly Tutor did preside in that business But two things to our purpose are remarkable 1. That he is Crowned and made King before the Covenant is made as is clear in the Text which crosses our Antimonarchists who assert the King cannot be made King untill he make the Covenant with the people and that he gets the Crown and royal Authority Covenant-wise and conditionally whereas here he is made King antecedently to any Covenant as the Text clears it 2. That albeit the matter of King and peoples Covenant with God be expressed viz. That they should be the Lords people yet it is not told us what the tenor of the Covenant betwixt King and people was nor what the King or Jehoiadah Covenanted in his name the young King of seven years old what could he say in Covenanting Jehoiadah was only President in the matter Diodat seems to say well that in this place Jehoiadah made the people swear alledgiance and fidelity to the King as before he had made the Rulers do vers 4. and no more he took an oath of fidelity of them But how shall it be cleared that it was conditional and with a reserve of coactive and punitive Power over him as these men will have it But passing from this let it be so which cannot be asserted with warrand that all the Kings of Judah made such conditional Covenants with the people as is supposed yet will any judicious man force the particular customes of that Nation on all Nations that might be best for that Nation that was not simply best their customs without a Law of God bearing a standing reason cannot be obligatory on others least we judaize too much But the constant practice of all the Prophets and people of God in that Kingdom when their Kings were very wicked idolatrous and tyrannous speaks clearly that they never had such thoughts of a liberty by vertue of covenant to fall with violence on their Kings The Prophets of God never taught them
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
by themselves And may as they see fit resume what power he hath for he is but their Servant and Vassal as he saith What can Protestant Princes expect but destructive doctrine from this hand and pen that hath written up Page 178. John Marian the Jesuite lib. 1. de Rege for one of his approved Authors as he calls them a reprobate Author amongst all good men is the man and his book commending regicide by any means is infamous in all Christendom however this man count of him as an approved Author and his spirit may be no lesse seen in that while he approves this man he hath set this mark on famous Bishop Andrews known in his time to be most adverse to Papists P. 423. Bishop Andrews saith he his name is a curse on the earth his writings prove him to be a popish Apostate What of his writings this man hath seen who can tell but all that the world hath seen of his writings prove him a great Antipopist and sound Protestant But to our purpose This civil Covenant 'twixt King and People is pleaded as that which is essential and fundamental to the constitution of all politick Societies and whereupon peoples both resisting the Prince and revenging themselves upon him is mainly grounded Yea Naph will have it to be a sufficient ground not only for the Proceres or Body of the people to proceed vindicatively against the King but in application to the Rebellion he intends to justifie for any private persons whatsoever if they be in probable capacity to do mischief without drawing mischief upon themselves and so out-stripes his master who gives not much to any private persons upon this account but to the States of the Land and inferior Magistrates with the Body of the people But as to the Covenant betwixt King and People both L. R. and Naph urge it as the ground for not only resisting but punishing Kings and all Magistrates when they account them Tyrants and will have a tacite virtual Covenant as valid for their ends as where it is express avowing it to be essentially fundamental in the constitution of all political Societies This brings to mind the folly of the man that would have all to be tyed in a Band that he had made aswell these who subscribed not as these who subscribed it But to be serious as to this matter we say 1. it is easily conceded that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects to mutual duties which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politick Body but this obligation arises not from any tacite or express Covenant betwixt them but from the Ordinance and Will of God enjoining them these duties in such relations in that Society wherein they are combined 2. That obligation though it be mutual in the relations they are in yet it is not conditional there is a mutual obligation to mutual duties betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional nor is there such a Contract or Covenant that if Parents be undutiful Children should be loosed from their duty or upon the contrary but Children are bound to be subject to their Parents without any condition or pâ—ction on their part only in point of obedience active Gods will is to be preferred to theirs and nothing is to be done contrary to Gods Will for their pleasure otherwise the subjection is not conditional but absolute So also peoples obedience to Kings properly and truly so called is not conditional si meruerint nor is the duty of the King to them conditional si meruerint but each of them is absolutely bound to do duty in their own relations wherein they are one to another the obligation is absolute salva Deo obedientia Reverend Mr. Calvin speaks home to this purpose lib. 4. inst cap. 20. S. 29. preventing an objection against obeying wicked and tyrrannous Magistrates At mutuas inquies subditis suis vices debent praefecti Id jam confessus sum verum si ex eo statuis non nisi justis imperiis rependenda esse obsequia insulsus es rationator nam Viri Vxoribus Liberi Parentibus mutuis officiis astringuntur c. He sayes that albeit Parents discedant ab officio c. depart from their duty and exceedingly provoke their Children to wrath and Husbands use their Wives reproachfully whom they ought to entertain kindly yet improbis inofficiosis subjiciuntur Vxores Liberi And he adds there gravely that inferiors should not so much inquire into the duties of their superiors as every one should search what is their own duty and no think themselves disoblieged from their duty because the other bound to do duty to them is therein deficient this is Christian divinity indeed As the Magistrate is not to think the performance of his duty is dependent upon the condition of the Subjects doing their duty So neither are the Subjects of a lawful King to account themselves bound only conditionally to him if he do his duty 3. The fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People as they use to call it equivalent to all ends that an explicite and express Covenant can have overthrows the distinction that all sound Protestant Divines and Polititians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis who takes not his Kingdom upon conditions prescribed to him so as in case of failing he be subject to their censure or punishment Est alius principatus absolutus saith Rivet Ps 68. p. 420. Est etiam alius sub conditione pacti conventi temperatus to that same purpose Gerhard de Magistrat p. 935. wherein they agree with Calvin lib. 4 inst cap. 20. art 31. But now this man is bold to say There is no absolute King that such a King is contrary to the Word of God L. R. p. 107. and herein he deserting our Protestant Divines sides with Bellarm. recognit lib. de laicis where he saith Inter principem subditos est reciproca obligatio si non expressa tamen tacita ut Magistratus potest subditos ad obedientiam vi illius obligationis cogere ita subditi possunt à Magistratu deficere si capita illius foederis transgrediatur Whereupon and the like speeches Gerhard in the foresaid place speaking asserts Totam horum similium argumentorum structuram uno impetu dejicit Apostolus Omnis anima Rom. 13. c. and sayes that Barclay Cunerus Albericus Gentilis Arnisaeus solide refutarunt have refuted solidly the arguments of the Antimonarchists as they have done indeed But as to an absolute Prince albeit this Statist sayes he is contrary to the word of God it is most untrue For as our Laws which this man cares not to contradict allows our Kings to be absolute in express termes Jam. 1. Par. 18. an 1606. Act. 2. So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Laws and we understand him qui non sumit aut