discretion of the sufferers of prejudice by it were they never so few in comparison of the whole body of the people they may pronounce upon the same and according to their discretive judgement of the injurious perverting of Government determine their actions for renouncing or revolting from the society in which and Government under which they are and nothing should hinder them from this but want of probable capacity to through their work as he often speaks So wise and cautious must his followers be though not conscientious that in working a mischief they light not upon a mischief Good God! to what times are we reserved wherein the unmeasurable audaciousness of men dare present such poyson to a Christian People and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such Doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhorres Dare this Libeller say that this is a fundamental constitution of political Societies that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons pretending a perversion of the ends of Government a pretence that will never be wanting to malecontents and malapert wicked ones even katherines and highlandish theeves and it is real to them if they themselves be admitted Judges they may make secession from the Society in which they are embodied and renounce their obligation to the Government thereof Is not such a principle rather contra-fundamental to all humane combined Societies and were it at first entring of the Society expresly proposed that when ever any minor party should account the ends of Government perverted they should be at their primaeve liberty again to break off from all the magistratical Order and from society with the major party of these with whom they are combined Would not the overture of such a condition be rejected with indignation and upon just reason for that were to open a gap to continual seditions divisions and fractions And all rational men would judge it were better not to joyn in society with such men then to joyn in such termes Again suppose there be a breaking off from a magistratical Power and major part of a society upon pretension which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion such is the corruption of men of a perversion of the ends of Government the party making secession may haply meet with that same measure they gave to the Community wherewith they were formerly joyned For when they have combined and embodied themselves in a Society if a minor party arise amongst themselves with the same accusations against them which they had against the body they did separate from Must not that same party have the same priviledge of Primaeve liberty to combine and erect a corporation by themselves which they claimed before will not they plead that the obligation to the Government and Society ceaseth and they are free to erect a new one And where shall there be a stand till humane Societies be miserably broken in pieces which seems to be Satans design by this Mans Doctrine Further can this assertion subsist that neither alledgiance or fidelity nor obedience is to be given unto any created power but in defence of Religion and Liberty That obedience is not to be given unto any Creature on earth against Religion or the Revealed Will of God shall be easily granted we abhorre the very thought of so doing Again it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to Powers against the Liberty competent to us as Subjects and consistent with Soveraignty yet so that the measure of that Liberty must not be made by every private mans will but by the Declarature of the Parliament representative of the Subjects which best knows what thereunto belongs But to say that all not only obedience but alledgiance and fidelity due to any created power is indispensibly restricted to this qualification in Defence of Religion and Liberty viz. of the subject is a most false assertion It is known that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictve proposition included now it is certain there may be cases wherein we ought to obey the Magistrate and yet the act of obedience cannot be properly and directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the Liberty of the Subject there may be some causes that properly concern his own honour wherein defence of Religion is not concerned the Magistrate perhaps not being of our Religion and far less defence of the Liberty of the Subject unless by a very remote and unnecessary consequence yet am I bound to him in causes concerning his honour this made the Ministers that disputed with the Doctors of Aberdeen decline to acknowledge that clause of the first Covenant in defence of Religion c. to be limitative or restrictive of duty to the King affirming it onely to be specificativen aming duties to him in some respects or in respect to some things not excluding others Yea the General Assembly 1639. will not have that clause in the Covenant restrictive for in their supplication to the Commissioner and Council they speak thus We have solemly sworn and do swear not only our mutual concurrence and assistance for the cause of Religion and to the utmost of our power with our Means and Lives to stand to the defence of our Dread Soveraign His Person and Authority in the preservation of true Religion Liberties and Laws of this Kirk and Kingdom but also n. b. in every cause that may concern His Majesties Honour shall concur with our friends and followers as we shall be required c. So Duty and Obedience to the King is there extended beyond what is expresly mentioned in the Covenant in defence of Religion and Liberties But further as to the point of Alledgiance or Fidelity that is another matter then Obedience Alledgiance to a King imports owning him as Lawful and Rightful King and that none others have power over him together with fidelity to his Person Crown and Dignity against all conspiracies and treason Obedience is the result of this acknowledged Soveraignty where commands appear lawful A man may keep Alledgiance and Fidelity to the King albeit sometimes there may be commands given which cannot be obeyed because of Gods countermand many learned Priests and Papists in England took the Oath of Alledgiance when first it was emitted and injoyn'd albeit they thought they could not give obedience to the King as to matters of Religion But this man is plain in his assertion that no Alledgiance is due to the King except with this restriction in defence of Religion And as he said a main part of his Religion is to erect Presbytery and root out Prelacy So that if Presbytery be not defended people are taught to renounce Alledgiance to the King How contrary is this to the Confession of Faith cap. 23. S. 4. Difference in Religion doth not saith the Confession make void the Magistrates just and legal Authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him But this
man will have no Alledgiance due to him nor Obedience but in defence of Religion which it is like he will not defend if he be of a different perswasion in matters of Religion and so must his Authority be made void The contrary Thesis we must rest upon that although a supreme Magistrate defend not Religion yet Alledgiance and Fidelity is alwayes due to him and Obedience also in all things lawful It is the Lords way for keeping humane Societies from gross disorders to allow to such as are in supreme Power by lawful calling the honour due unto their place even although in the main things they pervert the ends of Government not glorifying God by advancing true Religion but dishonouring him by false Religion or seducing others to their evil way and persecuting them who follow not their unlawful commandments Yet where administrations of Justice in civil things are tolerably managed and civil Societies by Magistratical Authority kept in tolerable order that there be no general out-breakings in outragious oppressions God will have due respects payed to the places of Authority and persons therein installed and will reckon dreadfully with them for any perversions of the ends of Government in his own time Though Caesar give not God his due yet it is Christs mind that we give Caesar his due and his Apostles mind that he should be honoured not for his personal faults or abuse of his power but because he is invested with power from God which though he abuseth yet it remains the Ordinance of God And hereunto Mr. Calvin fully agrees lib. 4. instit cap. 20. S. 24 25. c. where at length he asserts That Alledgiance and Obedience in things lawful is due even to the worst of Princes and who do most manifestly pervert the ends of Government by private Subjects of which our question is now S 25. Si Dei verbum respicimus longius nos deducet viz. then to give alledgiance to good Princes ut non eorum modo principum imperio subditi simus qui probe qua debent fide munere suo erga nos defunguntur sed omnium qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur etiamsi nihil minus praestent quam quod ex officio erat principum Again Omnes saith he speaking of evil Princes illa sancta Majestate sunt praediti qua legittimam potestatem instruxit Deus Again In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo penes quem modo sit publica potestas praeclara illa divina potestas residet quam Dominus justitiae judicii sui ministris verbo suo detulit proinde à subditis eadem reverentia dignatione habendus est quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet qua optimum Regem si daretur habituri essent Again S. 27. he sayes of an evil King Assumptus est in Regiam Majestatem quam violare nefas est Again Nunquam in animum nobis seditiosae illae cogitationes veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem nec aequum esse ut subditos nos ei praestemus qui vicissim Regem nobis se non praestet Any may see that in the matter of Civil Government Mr. Calvin was of another and a better spirit than these men who inflame the people with their seditious Doctrine and tells them if the King do not his duty their alledgiance to him and obligation to his Government ceaseth and no alledgiance nor obedience due to him when he does not or does contrary to his duty But 2. As the Position in it self is most unchristian and irrational so the application of it to the case in these Times made by this Master of confusion is most unjust for not to speak of the first times of Reformation wherein he sayes that there was such perversion of the ends of Government as made the obligation of the injured Subjects thereto to cease Pag. 16. he repeats the same more fully Pag. 150. to justifie the late Insurrection against the King as if now there were such manifest and notorious perversion of the ends of Government that the band thereof is loosed and people are relapsed into their primaeve liberty to joyn in new Societies and Combinations as they see fit rejecting the old Now may not any see the desperate design of this Libeller and his like to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially settled frame of this Nation and Kingdom which through divine Providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Soveraigns for the common benefit of the Subjects at home and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad yea and to the glory of divine Providence which hath through many storms in several ages preserved us in this comfortable constitution But behold a foul gap is now opened to let in all confusion upon us and to dissipate and break us in pieces miserably if such wicked Doctrine take upon people God guard their hearts we hope sanctiores sunt aures corda auditorum quam linguae Doctorum as to this Now it is left to the arbitrement and lust of every party even lesser party of the people to break off the old union with the Nation to erect themselves into new Societies and Combinations as being now as free as if they had not been members of this Nation they are relapsed into their primaeve liberty and now every Paroch in Galloway is allowed to cantonize themselves into a free Re-publick or to become a little Kingdom of Ivetot or make Combinations and Heads of these Combinations as they see fit for they are liberate and loosed from the old Society and Government because the ends thereof are so manifestly perverted And wherein forsooth Doth not the true Protestant Religion as it is held forth in Scripture and was publickly confessed by our first Reformers which Confession is registred Parl. 1. K. James 6. through Gods mercy continue with us without variation from it in the least Doth not the Kings Majesty protect and advance this blessed Truth of the Saving Gospel and incourage and invite all according to his power to embrace it Is he not willing and desirous that the Laws be vigorously executed against Papists and all perverters of this sound Doctrine If there be deficiency in execution the blame lyes elsewhere then upon him Are Gods people or any people in the Land spoiled of their lawful civil Liberties What one thing hath he done without consent of the peoples Representatives in Parliament at which any may except as a grievance What burthen hath he laid upon their Estates but by Law of by their own consent in a necessary exigence What should be the great ground then of so horrid a dismembring of the body of this Common-wealth and secession from the civil Society and from subjection to the lawful Government thereof as this man teaches and would perswade What is that so fundamental perversion of the ends of Government that may to any minor party that pleases bear the Weight of a rational licence to
unjust he is not bound to submit to it And therefore if he be in probale capacity he will think it his duty to fall upon the Magistrate pull the Sword out of his hand call in to his assistance whom he may raise violent seditions against the Magistrate and what may he not do for his own deliverance Thus under this colour all evil-doers are encouraged to use violence against the Magistrate and let this Libeller consider how he will stop the gap which he hath opened to confusion the matter according to his mind being referred to each particular person to judge of the justice of his own suffering and his discretive judgement anent this must determine him to resist as he is able when he thinks himself wronged shall not this be a source of continual seditions and violent insurrections against the Magistrate even when he proceeds most justly Again how can Magistrates in doing their duty be secured from violence according to this mans way or from continual insurrections of persons pretending their innocency It is in vain to say Let Magistrates rule rightly and not oppress and then Subjects will do their duty for albeit be true faithful and just Magistrates may in the way of their duty expect from God that he will incline the hearts of their Subjects to repay duty to them yet in the holy permissive providence of God it comes often to pass that the best Princes are not best used by their Subjects God thus teaching good Princes to rule in his fear and righteousness with an eye to his will and with respect to that crown of Life whatever hard measure they have from seditious people How often is it found that Subjects are unruly and seditious even against good Magistrates Some crossing of the will of a froward and furious party may move them to fancy their Prince a Tyrant and as one that is an injurious and intolerable Oppressour whereupon they account themselves free to offer violence to him under the cloak of self-defence and goes on from resistance to revenge if they can have the upper-hand over him and will not cease the fury of evil consciences instigating them till they ruine the Prince whom they have greatly provoked in order to self-preservation from what they â—eâ—â— from him and they will be ready even to mock Justice in destroying him for saving of themselves as they call it but the end is the destruction of their souls and bodies for such wickedness Let Histories be looked into it will be found that hardly did ever people resist a Prince with violence but in end the matter came to revenge if they had power neither could they rest but in his ruine And also it will be found that oft-times the best Princes have been worst used or at least as evil as the naughtiest Princes Look to the Roman Emperors while they were Pagans how many amongst them who were good as Heathens might be came under the same or worse fate by the unjust violence of their Subjects with these who were the worst Princes Look to Christian Emperors and Kings how many of them who were truly good were oppressed and destroyed by their Subjects sometimes inflammed with superstition which they called Religion and superstitious respect to the Roman See the Sentences whereof were accounted as Oracles in these dark times and sometimes wrought upon by seditious Ring-leaders buzzing into their ears great abuses done to them in the matter of their Liberties Yea amongst our own Kings some of the best have been as evil used by prevailing parties amongst the people as some of the worst When once that gap is opened and people taught that any party of them strong enough may get up against the King and all Magistrates when they judge them to deal wrongously and injuriously with them the reverence of Soveraignty is lost the evil wit of a seditious Party can soon paint the best King as a black and ugly Tyrant and under that form waken up others to conspire to his destruction which should make all the fearers of God rather to endure some acts of real Tyranny then by their Doctrines or Practices of resistance open a door to the destruction of good Kings by a party not of their spirit but lurking under their pretences and to the continual dissolution concussion and desolation of humane Societies It is good for us to hold close to that necessary distinction which all sound Divines have held of obedience or subjection active and subjection passive where the former cannot be given for fear of sinning against God the Magistrat's superior and who should be obeyed rather than any man in the world the latter if we stay within his Dominions and with-draw not from under his Soveraignty putting our selves under the protection of another soveraign Power is necessary And so the Apology p. 376 377. acknowledged this to be necessary when active obedience could not be given but Naphtali Pag. 28. repents of this moderation and contradicts the Apology calling this submission brutal though it be upon rational grounds and the fierce violence against Magistrates is rather brutal â—verâ—ing That none pleads for this submission who have not prostituted their conscience to absolute obedience to Princes arbitrements and avowing that illimited obedience is more rational then illimited subjection and that they are but flatterers that have renounced conscience who plead against obedience in all things to the Powers and yet will plead for passive submission In this Category must all they stand who have owned the sound Doctrine of this Distinction and these are the soundest Divines that ever we had in the Church of God yea the Apologist himself if he be worthy to be named with these escapes not this blow Good God! To what times are we reserved to see so certain truths that may be reckoned among the immovables of Religion and the ancient land-marks removed by an up-start furious Crue who by their new Principles as false as new seek to confound both Church and State The lawfulness of private mens counter-acting and violent resistance to a whole Church and a whole State is a main Article of their new Faith and to do so is one of their new Commandments added to God's But the Libeller is all alongs much in pressing violent resistance to all powers from the highest to the lowest and of the whole body of the people by any party thereof though the far minor and lesser part in the cause of Religion his Religion in the hypothesis debated in the times is the external form of Church-government about which he sayes all the zeal of the godly should be concentred a low zeal God knoweth that hath no higher objects And laying down grounds some true some false concerning Religion he labours to animate any party that think themselves able to violent all Magistrates and the body of the people about this and to strengthen themselves by combinations threatning Gods judgements against them who do not combine for
lead him to own a meer democracy which is the worst of Governments as the only lawful Government he placeth and fixeth the unpunâ—shable Soveraignty there Kings and Parliaments may be according to him punished by the people but they have a Power attended with impunity from men if they erre God must amend that onely we see where we are and that the resolution of all supreme Power is upon the people under God according to these mens tenets the rabble of the multitude against King and all Nobles and Rulers are instated in the Soveraignty under God yea Napht. goes further giving to any part of meer private persons power over King and all Magistrates and Nobles to judge depose and punish them or the major part of the people if there be strength enough and that uncontrollably upon their own judgement of discretion as we have heard and will hear further But now ventum est ad triarios we come to the great Guns whereby Napht. and his witnesses L. R. and the Apol. strives to batter down Gods order and to make soveraign Powers in the case of abuse of Power punishable by their inferiors and subjects a thing which all the Lords and Superiors in Scotland had need to look to for with as good reason may their tennents and vassals be exhorted to rise against them and take order with them when they think they do them wrong as subjects may be exhorted to rise against their King Lex Rex harps much upon the Covenant betwixt the King and the people and betwixt both together with God quest 14. and 40. asserting That the King is only a King conditionally and Covenant-wise that this Covenant giveth the people a coactive Power over the King to punish him if he fail in his duty and that if it be not performed on his part although it be but a tacite and implicite Covenant the people for their part are loosed from the Covenant These and many such Doctrines consequent on these he hath in these questions But Naph out-stripes his leader for albeit he also harpes upon that supposed Covenant p. 19. p. 30. and elsewhere laying much of the stresse of resistance against and revenge upon the King abusing his power upon that rotten foundation Yet he goes a greater length then L. R. doth for L. R. takes the Covenant as the warrand for the body of the people with their Rulers of inferior degree to resist and punish the King but Napth pleads the Covenant for any party of meer private persons to rise against resist throw down King and all Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate and in their Phineas-like motions to use the vindicative punishing reforming Power of the Sword especially in case of defection in matter of Religion such as he thinks the cause now to be And the great stresse of the business is still laid upon these Covenants tacite and virtual or expresse and it is pleaded the people or any part of the people have by that Covenant a joynt obligation with the King and all Magistrates lying upon them to use a vindicative and reforming Power in case of defection in Religion yea even against all back-slidden Rulers and the plurality of an apostate Nation There is a two-fold Covenant they talk of as the foundation of all humane Societies 1. the religious joynt Covenant between the King or Soveraign and people with God 2. The civil Covenant betwixt the King and the people Concerning the former it is Naph mind p. 18. That albeit the care of Religion toward God in a vindicative and punishing way and reforming it c. lyeth upon the King or Magistrates mainly he should have said onely for none can produce a commission but the Powers ordained of God for using the vindicative punitive and reforming Sword about which the question is now but only the Magistrate Yet there is a joynt obligation lying upon the people and every party thereof to vindicate and reform Religion in a publick punitive way even against all Magistrates and Nobles if they be the principal perverters and patrons of abominations and against the plurality of the people for sayes he 18. p. Idolatry perjury c. ought by all meanes n. b. to be suppressed restrained and severly punished So that if any part of the people do think the Magistrates all of them or the plurality of the people Patrons of abominations as in the present case he challenges them to be any private party that think they have power enough may slee to the vindicative punishing and reforming Sword and fall upon all Rulers and others whom they think to be in a defection and will boldly say that in truth they are so This is the mans fine Doctrine he conceals not his own intentions and his parties upon the account of the Apostasie which they now fansie to fall with bloody cruelty on all Magistrates and people too who stand in their way he shews his bloody teeth but God will knock out the teeth of this sanguinary Faction as he hath done Yea Naph runs yet higher for upon the conceit of setting up Government for Truth and Relâ—gion and Gods Worship as the main ends P. 16. he asserts The cessation of the obligation to the Government when there is a perversion in that great design of it and a returning of people to their primaeve liberty as he often speaks to erect Governments to their mind and to combine with whom they will as before we heard Concerning these things we say 1. That albeit it be Gods holy will that in erections of Civil Government his Truth sincere Worship and Glory in these should be mainly minded and intended by men and it is mens duty so to do yet it is clear that in many places de facto it is not so although men profess in the general aiming at Truth and right Worship yet there are aberrations in the particular 2. Albeit there be in the point of Truth and the Worship of God which de jure should be principally cared for in Government a notable perversion and swerving that doth not at all invalidate the Authority or Government nor break the obligation thereunto although it be injurious to favourers of Truth and right Worship For God so far regards the keeping of humane Societies in tolerable order that albeit the great duties of advancement of his Truth and Worship be not minded by Rulers yet he will not have the Common-wealths where justice between man and man is maintained for his Glory although Religion not minded as it ought to be casten loose nor will have men think themselves loosed from obligation to the Government albeit there be perversion in the managing thereof as to Religion for neither must they be heard who hold That civil Dominion is grounded on Grace nor they who say That infidel heretical or excommunicate Magistrates fall from their power or that the Subjects obligation to them ceaseth 3. It shall be easily granted that the people and every one of the
people ought to reform themselves from all real corruptions in the Worship of God and keep themselves pure from abominable things every one is bound to amend one and so all will be more easily amended yea no man should say Am I my Brothers keeper but by faithful instruction warning reproof strive to save others from the evils of the times and places wherein they live But 4. That there lyes upon the people with the Magistrate a joynt obligation of publick reforming and using the avenging or punitive Sword in amending things amiss against the will of all Magistrates or even turning that Sword in a violent way against him or that such obligation lyes upon one part of the people against all Magistrates and their fellow Subjects as to violent them in matters of Religion or which they account Religion it is utterly denyed acting in a publick co-active way or by the use of the vindicative and punitive Sword For Reformation in a co-active way is so fully and only the Magistrates duty that whoever will intrude into it being persons of meer private capacity they stain Religion and brings scandal on it by their Rebellion Though the result of the work be good the manner is evil God needs no mans sin to help him in his work nor will he ever impute it as sin to private persons that they did tolerate with grief what they could not amend nor that they did forbear violent forcing the Magistrate to their mind supposing them in the right If in a way God hath set me in I cannot without manifest schisme and sedition and leaping beyond the limits of my calling do a good work I am to leave it to God to do it in his own cleanly way it is well if I keep my self pure mourning for abominations done and praying to God against them and using all charitable and fraternal means becoming a private Christian and thus my tolerating of what I cannot amend shall not be my sin albeit it is sin in them who have a publick Power and do not reform but connive at abuses As no part of a people or private persons have power to usurp the Office of a Minister to preach minister Sacraments c. So no private persons can lawfully under whatsoever pretence of good intentions meddle with the Magistrates work or intrude in the publick actings only competent to his place who is the Minister of God invested with Authority by him Far less can they in case of his deficiency or opposition use the vindicative or punishing Sword against him for not being of their Religion supposing â—t to be true nor against their fellow-subjects but all this is according to this mans mind The great mistake in all this matter is that the Magistrate and People are as to Covenant with God or engagements to him for advancing his Truth looked upon as two debitors bound in a Band conjunctly and severally for one sum so that in the deficiency of the one the other must pay all and hath power to stresse the deficient So they think there is a joynt and equal obligation betwixt Princes and People as touching the publick promoting of Religion If the Magistrate be deficient they must do it yea and fall on him for his deficiency But there is no such joynt obligation it is true the Magistrate in his place is bound in a publick way to advance Religion the people are also bound in their private capacities and callings to advance Religion and to serve the Magistrate therein as he employes and calls them But there is no such joynt obligation of King and People unto God that either of them should be so bound for the other that if the one be deficient the other party contracting becomes therefore obliged to the duty to which the deficient party is obliged or becomes guilty if he intrude not in the part of their duty Nor is there a mutual tye on both to force one another to their duty Qui diversimode obligantur ad diversa non sunt correi in promittendo The case betwixt the King and People in the religious Covenant with God is like the case of two men binding in one band for their several moieties of a sum if the one be deficient the other is not stressed for it nor is the payer bound to force the deficient by vertue of the band If the People reform themselves and keep themselves pure from abominations the Magistrates deficiency which they tolerate with grief shall not be imputed to them because God gives them not a calling to intrude into the Magistrates office or to use the reforming Sword or vindicative and puniing acts of it which only are committed to the Magistrate The King indeed is bound both as a Christian to own Religion for his own souls good and as a King to use his magistratical Power to force his Subjects to the use of external means of Religion which is all he can do and if he do this and meet with the insuperable stubbornesse of an evil people the guiltinesse lyes not on him but on them But upon the people there lyes no obligation to force the King or their fellow subjects to external means of Worship and Religion because that is not within the verge of their calling only they are to keep themselves pure and to use all moral means usable by persons in their station to move others to embrace true Religion And having done this they discharge themselves sufficiently and may commit the rest to God The late Covenant it self doth only bind private persons in their places and callings which certainly are private and to be managed by private means to endeavour reformation and doth not bind any number of meer private persons to pull the Sword out of the Magistrates hands when they think he useth it otherwise then he should and then they would have him use it It is not can never be the place and calling of meer private persons and the minor or far minor part of the People to use the vindicative punishing and reforming Sword against all Magistrates reckoned by them as Apostates and against all the body of the Land If the Covenant be passive of such Commentaries as this man puts upon it that whatever any private party accounts Reformation they may use the vindictive punishing Sword against all of all degrees that stand in their way to advance the same we have little reason to be in love with it and just cause to cast it by till it be cleared of such corrupt glossâ—â— But let us now consider the civil Covenant betwixt the King and the People Napht. touches on it on the forecited places and the Author of L. R. puts forth his strength such as it is upon this matter avowing that the King is not King but Covenant-wise and conditionally and that by Covenant the people have a civil claim against him may punish him and have a right to a coactive power over him in Courts set up
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
insurrections against Kings as false Prophets do now albeit they had as great cause as ever people had under some of their Kings and were in capacity probable enough to crush them they never suggested to them that their obligations to subjection unto their Kings being but conditional they were set free when they became so extreamly wicked idolatrous c. nor did ever Godly people although they strived to keep themselves pure and to gain-stand in their private capacities the evils of the times think themselves free to use violence against Powers above them had this been their duty no doubt Gods Prophets would plainly and down-right have told them of it without circumlocutions but this they never did either that was no duty or the Prophets were not faithful in not admonishing them of their duty When at first that people sought a King from Samuel they resolved not to take him conditionally si bene regnaverit but with all the faults that might follow him neither reserved they Power to coerce him which had it been in their thoughts would easily have answered and weakned Samuels terrifying disswasive for they could have said we take him only as King on condition of his good behaviour otherwise we will take order with him but would have one as other Nations had Kings about them of whom Buchanan says they were not legitimi Reges but tyranni in his language because not under Law coaction And so also they behaved themselves toward them not using them as they deserved but forbearing violence against them although they were very evil Princes many of them But yet further it is pressed that such an Oath and Covenant betwixt King and People was in use then because Eccles 8.2 It is said I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Therefore there was say they an Oath or Covenant betwixt King and People Ans 1. The most that can be made of this place is as Diodat in his note thereupon affirms that the subjects swore the oath of Allegiance and Obedience to the King upon the ground whereof they were to obey him it was at most foedus unilaterum as they call it in the Schools but it imports not mutual engagement of the King to them or that he swore to them much less that the Oath they made to him was conditional with a reserve of Power to punish him for his deviations which in this same King that writes this were very great albeit we grant all such oaths to Kings to be understood salvo jure Dei salva Deo obedientia 2. We do not see ground to assert that ordinarily amongst that people there were oaths of fidelity and obedience given to their Kings whatever was done in the extraordinary cases above mentioned far lesse that Kings engaged to them by oath ordinarily both the King ruled without such an oath and the people obeyed without such an oath or engagement Neither is there in Deut. 17. or Sam. 8. or any where else such a rule set in the institution or constitution of the King that any such matter should be done Nor hear we in the History of this same King Solomon who writes this that when he entred to the Throne either he swore to the people or they to him unlesse perhaps 2 Sam. 29.24 may import this as to Solomon Junius translation of this Text wherein he is followed by Cartwright may well passe praestitutum Regis observa sed pro ratione juramenti Dei i. e. Keep the Kings Commandment so far as it may be keeped retaining fidelity to God to whom absolute and illimited obedience is sworn So not the motive of obedience to the King because of the oath sworn to him is here imported but only the measure and moderation of our obedience due to him so as it may consist with the duty sworn to God our obedience to the King is here cautionated saith Cartwright dummodo non pugnet cum juramento quo divino imperio obstricti sumus we are to obey him 3. We may hold close to our own translation and yet not be necessitate to grant so much to be spoken of here as an oath of the people to the King let be a mutual Oath and Covenant betwixt King and People neither of which was in ordinary use amongst that people nor mentioned in sacred Scripture as ordinary For they were all bound by oath to obey all Gods Commandments this was the oath of God and amongst his Commandments this was one that they should obey the King in the Lord and obey all the Kings lawful Commandments in regard of their general oath and engagement to God to obey all his commandments they were bound to obey the Kings Command under God and in subordination to him albeit they never took any particular oath to obey the King and dealt not covenant-wise with him And thus the sense runs fairly I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of or propter the oath of God because thou hast sworn to obey God obey the King in all lawful things for this is the will of God The motive of obedience is taken not from any particular oath made to the King but from the general oath made to God engaging in all things to obey him But yet this business of the civil Covenant is not at an end for it is urged L. R. P. 97. that this Covenant tyes the King be it tacite or expresse not to God only but to the people and brings him by reciprocation of bands to be under a Law-obligation to be subject to the peoples censure and punishment in case of failing as well as they are subject to to him in case of failing and that all covenants and contracts betwixt man and man bring the covenanters under a law and claim before men if the contract be broken And that the King becoming bound to the people he comes under action and claim by them if he fail and is punishable as they are if they fail And that the King and they have a mutual coactive power one over another and are mutually Magistrates one to another and the people if the King fail may judge him in their tribunal of necessity and that there needs no judge on earth between them more then between two Nations independent one upon another when they warr together And that in reformations of things amisse especially in Religion people may extraordinarily intrude in the Magistrates office and not only reform themselves actibus elicitis but reform others actibus imperatis And that people by vertue of this supposed covenant may when they see cause formally and effectively excercise upon their Kings that royalty which they have in themselves virtually and fountally Much of that sort of stuffe is to be found quest 14.40 and every where in that Book And it is lamentable that while they who labour to preserve Gods order in the world should be branded as flatterers