John Fairly on Magistracy IV.

CHAP. IV.

An enquiry into the foundation of magistracy,—whether in any sense founded in scripture.—The sentiments of the Reformed Presbytery thereanent, represented and vindicated.—Mr. Goodlet’s sentiments and sense about this matter examined into.—Proven against Mr. Goodlet, that magistracy, as a divine institution, is founded on the preceptive will of God in scripture.

---

This chapter brings us forward to the consideration of the other of these particulars I formerly proposed to examine into our author’s meaning about.—From what has been said, it may appear how inconsistent his account of the law of nature is. But allowing him to use his own terms and way of speaking, I shall endeavour, for the reader’s information, to point out what he intends when he says, that “Civil magistracy is founded, or hath its foundation only in the light and law of nature.” This is what he lays down as his great foundation point; his quod demonstrandum est [which is to be demonstrated], against his

[Page 40]

adversaries. He supposes and takes it for granted that the Reformed Presbytery are so stupid and senseless, as to maintain or hold in principle and doctrine, that civil magistracy is founded upon, i.e. owes its original to, and derives it from, divine supernatural revelation, in the same way as gospel doctrines or ordinances do, whereas they have, in the most public manner, declared themselves in opposition to this: I shall, to make proof of this, here insert some of their own words, which will best speak for them.

“Secondly, As the presbytery formerly agreed, that dominion is not founded on grace;—so, in opposition to the Anabaptistical scheme, who understand it of grace subjectively in the hearts of magistrates, so as thus no man can be a lawful magistrate, unless he be a real Christian endued with saving grace, they in this sense deny the proposition: As also, if thereby is understood grace objectively, so as that it, (viz. magistracy) is (understood to be) of such positive divine revelation, as the doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation, &c. are, or yet such as the positive unalterable institution of Presbyterian church-government;—while at the same time, the presbytery declare, that scripture qualifications are essential to the being of a lawful magistrate in a Christian land; and none but such as are qualified according to scripture, our covenants, and the fundamental laws of the land agreeable thereunto, can be lawful magistrates over these reformed lands; and that otherwise the government cannot be said to promote, either the glory of God, or the true peace and happiness of the society; and they reject all tenets contrary thereunto.

Thirdly, The presbytery formerly agreed that the magistrate is not the vicegerent of Christ, substitute under him in the church. Agreeable thereto, in opposition to the Erastian tenet, viz. That the civil magistrate is substitute under Christ as Mediator, they still declare, that the magistrate, as Christ’s vicegerent, is not substitute in the church under him. But at the same time they maintain, that a lawful magistrate hath authority from the word of God, and it is his indispensible duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, &c. See Confession, chap. xxiii.

[Page 41]

sect. 3. To conclude, it seems to be undeniable, if the scriptures of truth are owned to be a perfect rule; that wherever Christianity comes, the civil government should be so moulded and framed as to correspond with the circumstances of such a people; and that all laws, statutes, ordinances, and institutions whatsoever, either respecting the constitution or administration of the government, must needs be formed and built upon the plan of divine revelation. Hence, not only are the laws of the Mediator binding upon the consciences of magistrates in their public administrations; but also, must this glorious person be invested with a headship of power over them, for the sake of his body the church, disposing their hearts, and over-ruling their transactions, &c.” (n) Such are the declared sentiments of the presbytery on these heads. Sentiments they have no cause to be ashamed of, though they express, I suppose, the direct contrast of the professed sentiments of our author and his brethren. After what they have here declared, how injurious and unjust must it be in Mr. Goodlet to represent the presbytery in the light he does? and point them out as holding, with the Erastians, that the civil magistrates office is from Christ as Mediator; or with the Anabaptists, that dominion is founded on subjective grace, or on supernatural divine revelation as above said? To affirm which would be the very same as to say, that the magistrates office is from Christ as Mediator. The presbytery have indeed said and asserted, Testim. page 191. “That civil government hath its foundation and institution, as the ordinance of God, in his revealed will”; that is, as it is express, page 195. “In the moral preceptive law of God.” The justness and propriety of which I shall afterwards make evident; only here, let it be observed, that it is of the divine institution of civil magistracy that they speak, whereby it becomes the ordinance of God, and not of the human constitution, election and investiture of the magistrate, on which account it is called the ordinance of man, 1 Pet. ii. 13. With respect to the first of these, I may, in name of the Reformed Presbytery, challenge Mr. Goodlet, or any other, to show me the institution

_____

(n) Serious examination of a print design’d the true state, &c. pages 210, 211, 212. (appendix)

[Page 42]

of civil magistracy in the light of nature, or moral dictates of right reason, which he calls the law of nature. The light of nature or reason may discover, evince, or prove the divine institution of magistracy: But that it is instituted in the light of nature or dictates of right reason, neither nature, nor reason will ever dictate. And for any to talk of the divine institution of civil magistracy, and so of its being the ordinance of God, and yet to deny it to be, or to be found, in the moral preceptive law of God, in his revealed will, or in his (written) word, (all which are synonymous,) is to talk like a Heathen, and not a Christian; yea, for any to write and say as the Associate Presbytery does in their defence, whose words Mr. Goodlet cites, page 26. sub fine, That “the institution of civil magistrates is allenarly [only] by the preceptive will of God,” and yet rotundo ore [with a round/full mouth] to deny it to be an ordinance of God, instituted in his (written) word, must either be the most unintelligible jargon imaginable, or else they must shew us where that other discovery of the preceptive will of God the supreme lawgiver is, distinct and different from that which we have written and recorded in scripture. This they would do well to favour the world with, or otherwise cease to delude and hoodwink them with such double, unintelligible and crafty language. And as to the second, namely, the constitution and erection of government, our author grants, page 24. that it is included and required, and so in that respect founded in the sixth command of the moral law, Thou shalt not kill: which is just a precept of the law of nature: So that there needs be no controversy about this, if Mr. Goodlet does not retract what he has granted, which yet, I am much afraid he will. These things I have but just mentioned, as I shall have occasion to insist more directly and largely upon them afterwards.

Upon the whole; I may appeal to the reader, whether, upon the presbytery’s saying that magistracy is an ordinance of God, instituted in his revealed will or law, Mr. Goodlet had any ground or reason to raise the clamorous hue and cry against them as he does, of Erastianism, Anabaptism, &c.

But I now go on to inquire into his and his brethren’s meaning, when they affirm that magistracy is founded, and founded only, in the light of nature;—in the moral

[Page 43]

dictates of right reason. And here we shall take it as granted for once, that they do not mean by this, that the institution of civil magistracy is in the light of nature or moral dictates of right reason. And moreover, after what I have above represented of the sentiments of the Reformed Presbytery, I presume, Mr. Goodlet cannot imagine that the presbytery are of opinion, that a principle of saving subjective grace is fundamentally necessary to qualify a person for the performance of magistratical duties, as it is towards the performance of those of the Christian.—Yet I confess, it is somewhat considerably hard and difficult for me to investigate and trace out our author’s true meaning in these words, That magistracy is founded in the light and law of nature. The light and law of nature with him, are synonymous. I can understand the account that some others give of this matter, because they express and explain themselves more clearly upon this head, namely, That the actual constitution of civil society and government among men fallen, may take its rise, beginning and original among any number or company of individuals, from the sense, experience and perception that they soon come to have of the absolute necessity of entering upon some method and means for the defence and preservation of themselves, their lives and property, from the lawless lusts and desires of depraved and corrupt nature. Here these particulars are to be considered,

1st, That whatever dominion or government should have existed, or to what ends soever it should have been exercised, had man abode in his first estate, none need pretend, or take upon them to determine. But it is certain and undeniably evident, that civil rule and government became specially necessary after the fall of man; Et ad providendum ejus felicitatem, et ad coercendum ipsius malitiam, [And for providing for his happiness, and for restraining his wickedness] (as one speaks) both for the preservation of human life, and the means of it; for the improvement of man’s happiness, and for restraining his wickedness, ready to break out both unto his own and others hurt: Or, in the words of the apostle, for the punishment of evil doers, and the (encouragement and) praise of them that do well. Human nature depraved, and under the dominion of sin, and government of Satan, may sometimes, like our lower heavens or atmosphere, appear with a smiling, pleasant aspect, all quiet, calm and peaceable; but how variable

[Page 44]

and uncertain is such an appearance; presently the clouds may gather, the stormy winds blow, and rains fall. Just so is it with fallen human nature; so that experience convinces of the necessity of houses, cloths, &c. for shelter and defence in the one case, so also of society, laws and government among men for defence in the other.

2dly, It must be observed, that man is animal conservandi sui studiosissimum, i.e. a creature most studious of his own preservation and safety; of all other creatures of this lower world he is only capable of being studious of this, being not only endued with the natural principles of self-preservation, common with him to all other animals; but also, with reason and understanding, whereby he is fitted and carried out to be providently careful and concerned not only about his present, but his future safety. To this purpose it has been very justly observed, that among the various other excellent purposes for which reason and understanding is given to man, this is one, that it might be a guardian and defence to the body. Reason supplies the place of those weapons which nature hath furnished other creatures with for their defence.—These it hath diversely armed, (ex. gra. [exempli gratia; for example]) giving horns to one, hoofs to another, swiftness to another, strength to another, &c. To man, God hath given reason, understanding and wisdom, which is more than an equivalent to all these advantages of his fellow-creature, in order to his defence and safety (o). This intellectual eye not only espies and foresees such danger, and damage as may likely happen, but provides against it, by pointing out from the revelation God hath made of himself and his will, such divinely warranted and approven methods of self-preservation, as shall be effectual to the protection and defence both of the individual and the species. Thus God teacheth man more than the beasts of the earth, and makes him wiser than the fowls of heaven, Job xxxv. 11.

3dly, Add to these, the natural weakness and insufficiency of man, considered as an individual, without all social connection with others of the species, either for furnishing himself with such things as are necessary for his comfortable living and subsistence, or for the defence of his life and property from the attacks of numbers of such as might be viciously disposed to invade and injure him

_____

(o) Grove’s discourse on reason.

[Page 45]

therein. So that if we could conceive of any individual of mankind to be in such a lonely situation, as to be cast off and destitute of all foreign aid, help or favour from others, the life of such a person would be his very misery and punishment. From the sense of this natural weakness and imbecility, and of the danger that men are in from the outrageous and turbulent lusts of corrupt nature, their own or others; and from that natural and rational care and concern that men cannot but have for their safety and peace, civil government may, as I have said, take its rise and actual beginning among men, though destitute of any other light than that of natural reason. Hence, they cannot but be convinced of the expediency and necessity of some such method for the curbing and restraining the corruption and lusts of depraved human nature (p), and for the maintenance of peace and external righteousness. But here we may ask, Will ever a subjective sense and conviction of those things that render civil government and magistracy so necessary among men (as above noticed) make, or constitute it, a divine ordinance? No.—The word of divine institution is absolutely necessary in order to this, (Psalm lxxxii. 6. John x. 35.) And moreover, can any be so foolish as to think that man can be, or was originally and at first before-hand with God in the knowledge, perception and observation of these things? Surely no. To this purpose we may apply these words, Job iv. 17. Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall man be more just than his maker? Or those, Psalm xciv. 9. He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see; he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know. However studiously careful man is of life and safety, may we so much as imagine or suppose, that in this he excels him who is, and hath made himself known by the name and title of the preserver of men. To this purpose we may apply the apostle’s words, Doth God take care for oxen? and will he not much more for men? Or, Were men originally left in this matter to shift and provide for themselves, without instruction, command or injunction from God? nay, we are certified of the contrary of this from sacred history. We are there assured

_____

(p) See all these particulars largely insisted on, apud Puffendorff, De Jure Nat. et Gentium, page 123.—137.

[Page 46]

that from the care and concern that the great Creator and Preserver of men had about the life of man, after it became in hazard, and exposed to danger, through the entry of sin into the world by the fall, (by which men became not only enemies to God, but to one another,) he issued forth his express command and order for the constitution and maintenance of magistracy and government, before any thing of that kind actually existed in the world, that we have any account of, other than what was natural, viz. the power, dominion and rule called Patriarchal. If it be demanded where this original divine mandate enjoining the erection and maintenance of magistracy and government is to be found; I refer to Gen. ix. 2—7. where we have it not obscurely, but plainly and expressly laid down. And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. But particularly, verses 5th, and 6th, And surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man, at the hand-of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Can any thing be more express, or more evidently bear the marks and characters of a command, yea, of a law, than these words of the sixth verse? Here God (as in the 3d verse) renews to Noah and his sons, (the second common parents of mankind) the general grant of power and dominion over the creatures, given to Adam; but wisely foreseeing, that an unlimited grant to use the creatures at pleasure, might come to be the cause of much cruelty exercised upon the poor creatures, he therefore expressly provides and guards against the abuse of this grant of dominion over their life, and indulgence to use their flesh for food, by adding a solemn and express prohibition of all unnecessary cruelty in the use of that right, verse 4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, ye shall not eat. The design of which prohibition was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood; and therefore is a most fit preamble to the law we have in the 6th verse; (cruelty towards beasts sometimes making way for, or breeding up to cruelty towards men;) for if God would not allow man

[Page 47]

to be cruel to other creatures, even though their lives were put into his power, much less would he permit one man to be cruel towards another, or to take away the life of another, over whom he had given him no right nor power: And therefore he declares, that the man who shall dare to incur such guilt, shall have severe vengeance executed upon him; Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;—by man,—not by any man; nor is it meant of what shall allenarly [only] by or in the course of divine providence fall to be the punishment of the murderer; but by man, i.e. by one authorised and appointed for that purpose, viz. By a civil judge or magistrate. And can any thing be possibly more positive (q), and express, bearing not only an injunction and command, not only with respect to the more faithful and assiduous application and exercise of the power, but even appointing an order of men for the exercise of that power and execution of the work of it, distinct from what had formerly been actually existing. Just as if God, the supreme lawgiver and fountain of all power, had said, “Whatever care and concern I have to curb and restrain that unmercifulness and cruelty that men may be ready to run into with respect to inferior creatures, through the depravity of their nature, and proneness to mischief and iniquity, yet I have still a far superior regard to the life of man and its preservation, who was made after the image of God; and therefore I allow and enjoin you, and in you, your posterity, to have a prudent and provident care of your own lives, and the preservation of them; and not to injure, or unjustly to take away the lives of one another; whosoever incurs the guilt of shedding man’s blood, I enjoin shall be punished with death; and therefore, as a most suitable mean for the preservation of your own, and the lives of others, and as a testimony of your care and regard to human life, in subordination to mine, I require you to provide and appoint proper and fit persons, judges and magistrates, who shall have the care of human life, and of the execution of this law I have given out for the defence and preservation of man’s life (r).”

_____

(q) This word I use not in a theological, but in a popular sense.

(r) As life is more than meat, and the body than raiment, Luke

[Page 48]

That this must be the design, sense and import of this divine mandate and law, I may appeal to any person of consideration and impartial judgment.

But here I very readily advert, and am aware, that my saying as above, that this text not only seems to contain a command to judges already being and existing, to exert their power more faithfully and assiduously, but carries an appearance of the appointment of a rank and order not formerly existing. This, I say, will perhaps sound very harsh and absurd with Mr. Goodlet, and those of his sentiments and principles; with him it will be rank and downright Erastianism, to say that any thing that is natural, or founded on the law of nature, that is, according to him, right reason, can be at all said to be appointed in the word of God. To such an objection as this I would just answer, in the words of a very valuable and judicious writer (s) in defence of divine revelation, against the Deists, (though out of modesty, it seems, he has thought fit to conceal his name,) “What means (says he) this monstrous doctrine (t) so much cried up of late, that no positive institutions, or restraints, of natural liberty, can come from God, i.e. in truth that there is no instance or exert of wisdom in the divine nature with regard to the government of free agents, of which we are not competent judges. A supposition as wild and as wicked

_____

[continued from page 47] xii. 23. so the care, charge and protection of life here committed to the civil magistrate, we must understand as including all the means of life, and every thing conducing to life, that is to the happiness and comfort of life.

(s) Revelation examined with candour, vol. ii. dissertation 1st. page 18.

(t) See Christianity as old as the creation, chap. x. xi. For obviating objections against the sense and import of Gen. ix. 5, 6. as I have explained it above, I shall here note down the comment of a late expositor of note, upon it. In the preamble to his exposition of the chapter: “In this chapter we have an account of God’s blessing Noah and his sons—and renewing the blessing of propagating their species, and replenishing the earth. The dominion over the creatures,—with liberty to eat flesh, only, it must not be eaten with blood; with a providential care and preservation of their lives from men and beasts,—by making a law that man or

[Page 49]

as ever yet entered into the heart of man.” I know it will be said here, that this mandatory appointment is given by Christ the Mediator, who must here undoubtedly be supposed to be the giver of this law and command. This I own, and shall afterwards both explain and vindicate in what sense he does, and may be said to do so. From this place of scripture, and upon the whole of what I have said as above, anent the sense and import of it, I will

_____

[continued from page 48] beast should die that shed man’s blood, verse 1.—6. Ver. 4th. “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, thou shalt not eat.” The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which they might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which they say is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the sixth, which the sons of Adam were bound to observe:—and they are these, The first forbids idolatry;—the second blasphemy:—the third shedding of blood or murder;—the fourth, uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations;—the fifth, rapine or robbery;—the sixth required the administration of justice, to magistrates: And this seventh forbids the eating of any member or flesh of a beast, while alive.—And such of the Heathen who conformed to these precepts were admitted to dwell amongst the Israelites, and were called proselytes of the gate.

Verse 5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, i.e. Should a beast kill a man, it should be slain for it. Not by another beast, God so ordering it; but by the hand or order of the civil magistrate, which was to be done, partly to shew the great regard God has to the life of man, and partly to punish men for not taking more care of their beasts.

Verse 8. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: That is, he that is guilty of wilful murder, shall surely be put to death; so the targum of Jonathan. But a witness the judge shall condemn him to death. The fact being clearly proven, the judges shall pass sentence of death upon him and execute it. For this is the law of retaliation—a just and equitable one; blood for blood, and life for life; though it seems to be the first of this kind that impowered the civil magistrate to take away life: God, as it is thought,

[Page 50]

make these remarks, however cross the contents of them may be to the genius and principles of Mr. Goodlet on this head. And,

First, Hence, it is plain, That magistracy does not owe its original to the invention of human reason, but is the ordinance of God, and as such, is instituted in his word, or law reveal’d in scripture.—Here all the precepts, duties and privileges belonging either to the law of nature, or that of grace, are, and may be found; and particularly, there is none of God’s ordinances or institutions as such to be found elsewhere.

Secondly, That the ordinance of magistracy, and maintenance of it, was first given in commandment and charge to the church of God; for Noah and his family were such. I say not, that it was given to them as such; nor yet, that it is an ordinance of the same nature with the

_____

[continued from page 49] reserving the right and power to himself before: and which, for some reason, he thought fit not to make use of in the case of Cain, whom he only banished, and suffered not others to take away his life.” Gill in Loc.

To this purpose I shall also add the sentiments of the judicious anonymous author I have quoted above. “‘Tis a fundamental doctrine with them, (viz. the Jews) that revelations were given to mankind from the beginning; that God gave Adam six grand principal precepts, by which to conduct his life and govern society. And these they say, are the fundamental principles of the law of nature, and are as follow. First, To abstain from idolatry. Secondly, To bless the name of God, or as others express it, to abstain from malediction of the Divine name. Thirdly, To abstain from murders. Fourthly, From adultery, or the pollution of impure mixtures. Fifthly, From theft. And Sixthly, To appoint judges to be guardians of these precepts. And that to these six given to Adam, a seventh was added to Noah, viz. To abstain from the limb of a living creature.—And these seven precepts, they call the seven precepts of the sons of Noah, that is, the rules which all the descendants of Noah were obliged to observe—and consequently the observance of which, they exacted from all the Gentiles which dwelt among them.” Revelation examined with candour, Vol. II. page 4.

To the same purpose, see Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. book I. chap. iv.—Also, Sir Isaac Newton’s Chronology, page 186.—190.

[Page 51]

ministry or sacraments of the New Testament; but that it was given to them being such, cannot be deny’d: So, that in so far, as mankind broke off from the religion and government under which they were brought up and educated in Noah’s family, so far we find they became monstrous and corrupt both in their religion and government, as is evident from the instance of Nimrod’s rebellion, and of those who sided with him, an account of which we have, Gen. x. And so,

Thirdly, That civil government and magistracy being the ordinance of God, it is what that people who are the church of God, owing and professing obedience to him, (either as individuals, or considered as a community) are so far from having little or no concern with, that both the law of God and light of nature require them to have a very particular care and concern about it. The very light of reason, sanctified and yielded in obedience to God, will dictate and require as duty with respect to magistracy,

1st, To look that it be a divine institution, that is, that the office, function and power, abstractly considered, be so. In regard, that it is the divine institution and command, that only can bind the conscience to subjection and obedience. Now, this can only be found in, and known distinctly from the word of God (u). Again, 2d, As to

_____

(u) I have read, that when Luther had wrote a book in defence of the civil magistrate’s office, (against the old German Anabaptists, who reviled and reproached it) and proved it to be God’s ordinance, and very pleasing to him: After Frederick duke of Saxony had read it, it is said, that for joy he lifted up his hands to heaven, and gave thanks to God, that now he knew out of the holy scriptures, that his calling was ordained of God, and that with a good conscience he might now perform the duties of it. And indeed, if magistracy, or the magistrate’s office be not of divine institution, no Christian can warrantably, or with a good conscience, meddle with it, or do the duties of it, nay, neither religion, nor the consciences of men, nor the church of Christ, hath any concern with it, or it with them. The denying of the divine institution of magistracy seems to lie at the foundation of all those many vague Sectarian tenets now so industriously spread and propagated, impugning and denying, that, now under the New Testament, the civil magistrate hath, or ought to have, any power, care or concern circa sacra, about religion, godliness, or first table duties in general.

[Page 52]

the persons occupying such a place of office and trust, the very same light will require and direct, to look that they be not such as are only and merely put into such places by men, but not approved of God (v); but that they be such as are placed there by him, not as powers of permission, but of commission; standing in the place, and judging in the name of God; representing God,—being his ministers to us for good. But by what characters shall such be known? By no other or better, than by their being endued with those qualifications which both the law of God, and very light of nature, do harmoniously require as essential to the constitution of this ordinance. Will even the judgment, either of reason or conscience, say or find, that such as are in the place of rulers, but bear more of the resemblance of the beast than the man; or such as are, it may be, devoid of the marks and lineaments of the image of God’s moral perfections, (not to speak of his gracious image) are of God’s institution? To say that such were the representatives, or ministers of God, even tho’ in a Pagan country, destitute of the light of divine revelation, would be to cast a most vile reproach both upon God and his ordinance. These things every individual that would act dutifully, and in the fear of God, will find himself concern’d to look into, and to be satisfied about, before he can find himself obliged to pay the debt of love, honour, fear and obedience for conscience sake, the which is only due to God’s ordinance. And no marvel that this is the case with such. For if common prudence will direct a man that owes a debt or sum of money, to take heed, if there be various claimants, that he pay it to the rightful creditor at law, lest being deceived in this, he should be obliged to pay it over again; much more will Christian wisdom, and the fear of God, teach its subjects to take heed to whom they pay the debt of love, fear, reverence and obedience, &c. which is due only to God in his ordinance, and servants. And,

_____

(v) Many have been put into such places and offices by men, far from having the divine approbation; for instance, such as that Jewish high-priest, before whom Paul was brought as his judge, Acts xxiii. and whom he calls a whited wall: and tells him, God shall smite him, which was far from any thing like that honour and reverence that is due to God’s ordinance. See Ridgley on the Larger Catechism, vol. II. page 326.

[Page 53]

Finally, If we consider those who are the people of God, or his church by professed subjection and dedication, in the capacity of a civil community, in ordering their affairs of that kind, they are obliged, by the very light of nature and reason, (or for once to use Mr. Goodlet’s term, The law of reason) to receive the better and brighter light of gracious revelation, as an help to, and for the improvement of, their naturally dark, faint and obscure light of reason, and, to walk by its instructions and directions, ordering even their civil constitution and government so as may best conduce to the preservation and advancement of their most precious interests and privileges, viz. those of religion and righteousness; the native issue of the cultivation and advancement of which, will be a happy peace. And moreover, how natural and rational this is; how agreeable to the general consent and resolutions of all nations, the inspired prophet will testify; All people will walk every one in the name of his God, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God, for ever and ever, Micah iv. 5. It is a most unnatural, unreasonable, and ungodly practice for any people who have God’s word, not to study to observe it, nor regard it, in setting up magistrates over them, (which every nation hath hitherto found to be a matter of very interesting concern) much more, when, instead of studying to observe its instructions and counsels in this matter, they resolutely and obstinately reject them,—saying, Let us break their bands, (the bands both of God and Christ, of reason and religion) and cast their cords from us. And, having broke through all these sacred bonds, to betake themselves to the way, law and rule of the poor, dark, Heathen nations, whose unhappiness, and very misery it was, that they were left without the written law, to be a law unto themselves. How great must the sin of such an ungrateful, ungodly people be? Will ever either scripture or reason say, that the magistrates or rulers constitute on such a plan and footing, are God’s ordinance, according either with the law of nature, or the law of scripture? Nay, in this case, God’s complaint and charge against such a people, is what we find, Hosea viii. 3, 4. They have cast off the thing that is good.—They have set up kings, but not by me; They have made princes, and I knew it not. Once more, how great must the sin and guilt of those be, who justify them in all this?—Who encourage them to persist

[Page 54]

in it, by telling them that what they do is duty, and the ordinance of God, as our author and his brethren are not ashamed to do. And thus, like the unfaithful prophets of Jerusalem, Jer. xxiii. 14. They strengthen the hands of evil doers, that none doth return from his wickedness. Or those mentioned, Ezek. xxii. 10. One built up a wall, and, lo! others daubed it with untempered mortar.—For, says Mr. Goodlet, page 59. “Where a people have divine revelation, and do not regulate their conduct by it, their neglect and contempt of it is a sin, and rebellion against God.” (He means in their setting of magistrates and rulers) very well; and are they to be justified, owned and encouraged in sin and rebellion against God? Can such a practice be thought consistent with, or a fruit of that true Christian love and charity that we owe to all, much more those who stand in the relation of brethren, both by nation and religion, and are under the same bonds of duty with ourselves, tho’ revolted from what they once generally received and professed? Is it consistent with that Christian and patriotic love that ought to be shown towards our native country; towards church or state; or towards the persons of such magistrates and rulers themselves, to encourage and flatter them in such a way of opposition to and rebellion against heaven, as is like to bring the consuming and destroying wrath of God upon the whole? Nay, it is absolutely contrary to the laws of love and loyalty both to God and men. The law of love forbids to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; and, on the contrary, it requires to reprove them, Eph. v. 7, 11. So that if our author and his brethren’s faithfulness, love and loyalty, either towards God, to the present civil state, or civil rulers were genuine, such as they pretend it to be, it would certainly oblige them to testify not only against the evils in the constitution, but also both against the act of the civil state constituting, (and setting up rulers upon such a footing, on such terms, and with such a power) and the constitution itself, as being contrary both to the law of God, and light of reason, evidently inconsistent with the flourishing of the Redeemer’s interests and kingdom in the lands, yea, and as inseparably including the manifest spoiling and robbery of the Son of God, of his crown-rights, and royal dignities, as God’s king upon his

[Page 55]

holy hill of Zion. But, says our author, “Tho’ a people have God’s word, and do not study to observe it as they ought in setting up magistrates over them, it will not follow, that if they observe the dictates of nature’s light or the law of reason, that the observance of these is unlawful.” Strange and surprising logic indeed! that will make sin and rebellion against God to be duty, to be lawful! Where a people are destitute of any other light to instruct and guide them, than the light of nature and reason, I shall not say but that what they do conform to that light, so far as it is agreeable to the law of God, may be morally good. Thus the apostle tells us, that the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law, Rom. ii. 14. But where a people or person, casts off the law and command of God, and their solemn obligations to him, that which they do in this case according to their own mind, or their own lusts, is duty, or lawful, I utterly deny; or otherwise I must call perjury and apostacy lawful—which indeed is the total amount of this author’s talk and reasoning. “But their action being according to the law and light of nature is materially good, and the magistrate (so set up) is God’s ordinance” a bold and hasty conclusion indeed! I wonder that Mr. Goodlet’s conscience did not so smite him when he wrote this, and convict him of a self-contradiction, as at least, might have prevented him from printing and publishing it to the proclaiming of his own folly.—I would gladly understand what he means by an action’s being materially good. This new term of his, I cannot see the propriety of, nor that it has any sense in it at all; for it does not appear to me that an action materially considered, can be called either good or evil. The stoning of Achan, Josh. vii. was a good action, and the stoning of Stephen, Acts vii. was a bad action; but the goodness of the one, and the badness of the other, did not arise from the matter of the action which was the same in both, viz. throwing of stones; but from one’s being agreeable to the law and command of God, and the other contrary. It may be farther observed here, that our author blunders in his usual way, founding morality, moral duty and goodness upon men’s reason and inward convictions, instead of the moral law of God; “Their actions, (says he,) being according to the law and light of nature,—(that is reason and conscience) is—good.” According to this, the

[Page 56]

stoning of Stephen was a good action too; for it was agreeable to the reason, judgment and conviction of those who did it, and assisted at it. Paul declares long after, that what he did in this, he did with a good conscience, i.e. according to his knowledge and the light of his conscience, Acts xxiii. Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Not only since his conversion to Christianity, but during his continuance in the Jewish religion (w); so that what he did, corresponding to our author’s divine law (of reason and conscience) was materially good, yea, and formally too, (if there be any need for adding that word after the other) for he thought he did God service in so doing.

The sum of all I have above said, upon the divine institution of magistracy, is expressed in the words of the assembly of divines in our Confession of Faith, chap xxiii. sect. 1. “God the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath (in his word) ordain’d civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers (x), (Gen. ix. 6.) Rom. i. 2, 3, 4. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14.”

But, if now we take a view of what appears to be Mr. Goodlet’s intended meaning, when he says, page 14. “That magistracy or civil government, is founded, or hath its foundation only in the light and law of nature,” we will find it to be mostly opposite to what has been above said with respect to the ordinance of magistracy; and something very singular. The law of nature, as has been already observed, on which he founds this ordinance, is “the light of nature in the moral dictates of right reason.” And

_____

(w) Vide Burkit and Guise on the place.

(x) To the words of our Confession, declaring the divine ordination and appointment of the civil magistrate, I have added in a parenthesis (in his word); perhaps our author may hence take occasion farther to display his talent for biting satire and disdainful irony. I do not pretend to reform our Confession of Faith. And that I have done no wrong to the sentiments of that venerable body, but only express in words, what they really understood and meant, shall afterwards be made evident.

[Page 57]

And sometimes, one would think, he meant no more by the law of nature, on which he says magistracy is founded, than the principles of self-preservation, which are common to men with beasts. However, these two taken together, I suppose, make up what he calls the law of nature. I do not find or remember, that through the whole course of his performance, he ever considers magistracy as a divine institution, or calls it a divine ordinance at all. All the account he gives of it, of its rise and foundation, evidently amounts to no more than this, 1st. “That civil government and magistracy is just an invention of human reason; without any express and particular appointment and institution by God at all: That is, that the law of self-preservation and reason (as he calls it) lays men, in their present state under, and convinces them of, the indispensable necessity of uniting together, and falling upon some method for the defence and preservation of themselves, their lives and properties. And that hence civil government and magistracy is a mean, way and method that men have excogitated and found out, fit and proper for such an end and purpose.” So that magistracy, according to him, owes its origin, rise, progress, invention, and all its improvements, to reason; the reason first of individuals, and then of the community, which (viz. the reason of the community) he makes, page 11. to be the standard, (I suppose he means the supreme standard, for he says nothing to the contrary) of right and wrong, or good and evil. And hence, according to his account of this matter, magistracy is no more jure divino, or of divine right, than agriculture or tillage, physic, navigation, or other useful arts, and sciences among men;—all which owe their invention, rise and progress to human reason, and which necessity first put men upon the search and invention of, in order to their own benefit, better commodity and utility. And thus we find him frequently stating a comparison and similitude between the magistrate’s office and the common arts and professions of life, such as physicians, lawyers and tradesmen, &c. (As in page 72. and alibi.)

It is true, he says men are called to the erection and maintenance of civil society and government by the voice of God; and that it is a moral duty, &c. Well, and all this is equally true with respect to any honest and useful

[Page 58]

profession, trade, or civil occupation among men. Every man is by the voice of God in the law of nature, called to exercise himself in some honest and civil employment, for his own and others good. This is a moral duty lying upon every individual, capable of the performance of it, Gen. iii. 19. Eph. iv. 28. And so, it is like, magistracy is an ordinance of the same kind with any of these.

2dly, Another thing that he seems evidently to intend by this, is, “That the light of nature and reason is a sufficiently clear and perfect,—an universally complete rule, without the word, both to (any people or) civil society, in their choice and erection of magistrates, and to magistrates in the execution and discharge of their duty.” So that it would seem, according to his scheme, any farther, or better light or direction as to this particular matter is quite needless and superfluous.

That the first of these particulars is really what he seems to intend and mean when he affirms that magistracy is founded on the law of nature, i.e. according to him, on the light of nature in the moral dictates of right reason, may be evident from the following passages of his book; page 9. “Men are called together into (a state of civil society) by the voice of God in the law of nature; and thus they are called these three ways, viz. 1st, By the constitution of their nature. Man is a social creature; his nature is fitted for society by his great Creator. 2d, Every man is bound and directed, by the law of nature, to take all habile methods for preserving his own life, liberty and property; and also that of others, so far as he can; which cannot be effectually done, but in a state of society and government.” Also, page 17. The words are not, I believe, Mr. Goodlet’s own; but as he adopts them, we shall consider them as his, “The remainder of natural light, in the moral dictates of right reason, is the natural and eternal law of God. Now, this divine law not only endows men in their present estate with a natural inclination to civil society and government, but it prescribes unto them an indispensible necessity of erecting and maintaining the same, in some form, as a moral duty, &c.” Before I reply particularly, I shall take occasion to make a few cursory remarks on this quotation. And,

First, I have above sufficiently evinced the absurdity of

[Page 59]

that way of speaking, which calls “the remainder of natural light in the moral dictates of right reason, the natural and eternal law of God.” It is contrary both to sound philosophy and sound divinity. Besides, it will perhaps be as hard a task as ever Mr. Goodlet engaged in, to prove that there is any such to be found in man now as a remainder of that natural light and knowledge with which he was endued in his creation state; at least, should he attempt this, he must turn adversary both to his favourite assistant author Mr. Locke, and to many sound and orthodox divines, who generally hold, “That mankind by the fall have not only wholly lost the supernatural image of God; but that even what they call his natural image in man (that is to say, man’s natural reason and intellectual powers) is also miserably defaced hereby.” “Not only spoliatus supernaturalibus [stripped of supernatural gifts], but also vulneratus in ipsis naturalibus [wounded in the natural faculties themselves].” (a)

2dly, I can by no means understand the sense of these words, “Now, this divine law endows men with a natural inclination, to civil society and government.” It is somewhat very singular to find that work or property attributed to a law, viz. of endowing men with inclinations and dispositions. This (if the dispositions are good) I think should rather belong to the Creator.

3dly, These words, “The remainder of natural light in the moral dictates of right reason, is the natural and eternal law of God,” to me convey the idea and impression of something very shocking and inconsistent, both with the light of scripture and reason. If “the moral dictates of right reason in man, be the natural and eternal law of God,” I desire to know where this law existed, or where was its place of abode before created reason, or its dictates, had any actual being? It is acknowledged by all, to be an essentially necessary condition of the existence of any law, that it be “proclaimed, published, or made known.” (b) The matter and ingredients of a law

_____

(a) Culverwell, p. 103.

(b) Lex est divinæ eternæque voluntatis patefactio, qua quod fieri ab hominibus velit quidve vetari, tum docet, tum id, ut fiat atque vitetur præcipit, ad sui gloriam et ad hominum bonum. [Law is the revelation of the divine and eternal will, by which He both teaches what He wills to be done by men and what He wills to be forbidden, and commands that the former be done and the latter avoided, for His own glory and for the good of men.] Zanchii oper. theologicorum, vol. IV. page 187. De Lege Dei, thesis 5.

[Page 60]

law may indeed exist in the mind and breast of the legislator, or in his secret decrees and purposes; but it is impossible that these can have any real and formal existence as a law, i.e. with a binding obliging force, till once they are promulgated. I would know then to whom these moral dictates of right reason were published and made known from eternity, so as to have the binding force of a law, before either angel or man existed. The truth is, (to use the words of that expert and ingenious writer, whom I have already quoted oftener than once,) “This eternal law is not really distinguished from God himself; for nil est ab æterno, nisi ipse Deus [Nothing is from eternity except God Himself]. So that it is much of the same nature with those decrees of his, and that providence which was awake from everlasting; for as God from all eternity, by the hand of infinite wisdom did Dr.aw the several faces and lineaments of being which he meant to shew in time; so he did then also confine their several frames, with such limits and compass, as he meant to set them, and said to every thing, Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further (c).” Now, if this be the truth, as it undeniably is, with respect to this particular; how absurd and contradictory is it (to call it no worse) to give out and say, that the “light of nature in the moral dictates of right reason, is the natural and eternal law of God,” I leave to the judgment of every reader. But more particularly,

4thly, With respect to what I have said, as above, appears to be Mr. Goodlet’s judgment and sentiments anent the divine right of magistracy, I shall not positively affirm it, as he has not directly and expressly said so. And I would not incline to charge any thing upon him, by way of inference from his principles, that he has not yet explicitly own’d and declared. However, it must be acknowledged, that such a vile and base esteem of the ordinance of magistracy, as puts it on a par and level with the ordinary professions and occupations of human life, such as physicians, nurses, tradesmen, is a very natural and native consequent of his inconsistent and spurious notions about the law of God, from which his ordinance derives its divine right and sanction. For, to say that the law of God is any thing excogitated, fram’d or produc’d by the

_____

(c) Culverwell on the eternal law of God.

[Page 61]

faculty of human reason in man, and to think and judge magistracy to be only an human, earthly thing, owing its origin and invention to human reason, are sentiments entirely homogenous and of a piece. But to entertain such an opinion with respect either to God’s law, or any of his ordinances, is doctrine worse and more corrupt than that of Heathen moralists. For the proof of this, see the note below (d).

But granting that he has said no more than simply this, “That the principles of self love and self-preservation in men, guided and directed by the light of reason, point out, and put them upon the actual constitution and erection of magistrates and government for their common mutual safety, and defence of life and property,” would this ever sanctify such a method or mean, and make it to be a divine institution? No; no more than the same principles and motives which, together with man’s necessities, gave rise and being to the most of useful arts and inventions among men, can sanctify these, and make them to be divine institutions. For with reference to this I would ask, 1st, Whether man, as to his natural inclinations, appetites and desires, is not to be considered as under the restraint, obligation and direction of a law? Or, are we to suppose every man to have a right, and to be at liberty to provide and furnish himself with such things as he finds or thinks needful for him, or imagines may conduce towards his natural good, benefit or satisfaction, in any way or method that he can, without regard to any regulating and obliging law? Surely no; this would at once legitimate all immorality, fraud and injustice. Now,

_____

(d) Hanc video sapientissimorum fuisse sententiam, legem neque hominum ingeniis excogitatam, neque scitum aliquid esse populorum, sed eternum quiddam quod universum mundum regeret, imperandi prohibendique sapientia, &c. Cicero De Legibus, lib. ii. Which may be rendered thus, “Wise men did ever look upon a law, not as a spark struck from human intellectuals, nor blown up or kindled with popular breath; but they thought it an eternal light shining from God himself, irradiating, guiding, and ruling the whole universe; most efficaciously and powerfully discovering what ways were to be chosen, and what to be refused. And the mind of God himself is the centre of laws from which they were drawn, and into which they must return.” Culverwell, page 25.

[Page 62]

if he is subject to the direction and obligation of a law in providing for himself; he must be considered as equally subject to the direction and obligation of the law in keeping and defending what he hath provided, i.e. as to every method he takes for this purpose. I doubt not but Mr. Goodlet will allow, that men as to all these are under the “law of reason” (as he speaks.) Well; but is reason under no law? Yes, it is under the law of nature, i.e. right reason; now this is just to say, that reason is subject to reason, which is mere nonsense: or perhaps he means, that the reason of individuals is under or subject to the reason of the community; which will not mend the matter: And therefore, it must be the law of nature as I have described it above, that human reason is primarily subject to. But I would further ask, whether our author believes that reason was form’d to be subject to scripture light and instruction, wherever, and to whomsoever God in his goodness should be pleased to vouchsafe such a favour? I grant, that from God’s manifestation of himself, and of his name, by and in his works, to be the Creator and Preserver of men; reason may collect and gather, that he allows men to use all lawful means for their preservation and safety; and so that he approves of magistracy: But cannot reason read these divine relations, and this divine institution, with a degree of light and clearness incomparably greater from the book of scripture than from the book of nature: Nay, it is impossible for reason ever to read the divine institution of civil government from the book of nature; all that it can gather from thence, is, (as I have said) that God approves of it. But divine institution implies more than a simple approbation or allowance. “The royal office (as Mr. Rutherford justly distinguishes and observes, Lex Rex, page 6.) is from God by divine institution, and not by naked approbation” only; and this divine institution can only be found and read in the book of scripture. Mr. Goodlet however, seems to be of the mind, that human reason is not required to be subject to, nor is beholden to scripture light in reference to this particular, (neither the reason of individuals, or that of the civil society or community,) for, according to him, all the magistrate’s qualifications, all the duties incumbent upon him, which Mr. Rutherford (as will be afterwards noticed) makes to be definitive proofs of the divine institution of the civil magistrate,

[Page 63]

are to be fetched from the light of reason and nature, and not that of scripture. The which is indeed so far very Deist like. In opposition to this I may here adduce the judgment of an author whom I have sometimes already referred to, and whom Mr. Goodlet will have no reason to suspect of partiality towards the Reformed Presbytery.—“For the settling its principles (says he) reason either consults its own light, or the light of revelation; for the truth of the revelation being once well established, whatever that revelation dictates hath the same authority, and proves as firm a foundation in our reasonings as the first principles of nature (e).” So that one would think Mr. Goodlet must either, according to this sentiment, (which is certainly just and agreeable to truth) deny the authority of divine revelation, or otherwise acknowledge that it is as firm a foundation for this divine ordinance of magistracy, and for our reasonings thereanent, as the first principles of nature are. Again, if magistracy, or civil government, (or, I shall say, such a thing (the lawfulness of which arises (not from its agreeableness to human reason but) from its agreeableness to the nature and relations of God;—Why then may it not be said to be founded on divine revelation, or the moral law therein expressed and explained unto us, in regard that this divine law is just a clear and perfect representation of the nature and perfections of God, and of his relations excelling all others. On which account he is said to have magnify’d his word above all his name, Psalm cxxxviii. 2. Where therefore can the incongruity be of saying, that to us the lawfulness of this ordinance arises from its agreeableness to the divine nature and relations of God, as revealed in his word, more than saying that it arises from the revelation of these in his works. The last being now to us become dark and obscure, through our internal darkness and depravity; so that, as the learned Calvin demonstrates at great length, Institutions, book I. Even the right knowledge of God, as the creator and governor of the

_____

(e) Grove’s Discourse on Reason as it relates to Morality. The reader, if he pleases, may peruse the whole of that discourse, where he will find the distinction between the law of nature and reason settled and explained in the same manner as I have done above. This discourse is to be found in the 8th volume of his works, or 3d of his posthumous works.

[Page 64]

the world, cannot now be obtained from the book of creation and providence, without the light of divine revelation; nor is this a making two foundations, as Mr. Goodlet would give out; since both these are substantially the same. The law of nature, and the moral law, are terms equivalent and synonymous. The law of nature is the moral law; and the moral law, the law of the ten commandments recorded in scripture, is just the law of nature.

Lastly, I am far from denying that man is endued by his great Creator with an “inclination to society,” and friendly commerce with his fellow creatures; “And that men are called into a state of society by the voice of God in the law of nature.” By the very constitution of their nature, and that from the relations that all stand in, first to God, the Supreme Being, and then to one another, they are bound to be helpful, useful and serviceable to one another. But however natural, or agreeable to human nature and reason, this may be, it does, by no means, supersede the necessity, or expediency of the divine command, institution and appointment with respect to such things as are so: Nay, on the contrary, it exhibits and affords a clearer ground, reason, and foundation for such a law, appointment and institution to build upon. There is no sort of society among men more natural than conjugal society; this kind of society lies as it were at the foundation, or is the source and origin of all other; yet we find the naturalness of it, or its agreeableness to human nature and necessities, did not supersede the necessity of the divine command and care, or detract any thing from its beauty. A full and clear proof of this we have in the first institution of marriage, Gen. ii. where the sacred historian beautifully represents the knowledge and observation the divine Creator took of man’s situation, and wants, and the care and concern he shewed to provide for his happiness and supply, prior to any concern or care that we find man expressing for himself, verse 18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him. And indeed, rulers and governors, such as are of his making and providing, i.e. of his institution, are as truly the special, the singular gift of God, as a prudent wife is, Prov. xix. 14. If Mr. Goodlet had meant no more by saying that magistracy is founded

[Page 65]

on nature, that is, on reason, than that this divine institution is a most rational one, most becoming, suitable and agreeable to human nature, I would have had, for my part, no fault to his doctrine; for thus the whole divine law, and all the duties and obedience required therein, is founded in reason, even the highest reason: All the commands of God are most eminently reasonable; his service is reasonable service, Rom. xii. 1. most agreeable to man’s nature, as a reasonable and intelligent being, and conducive to its perfection, peace and happiness; For wisdom’s ways are all ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace, Prov. iii. 17. As, on the other hand, sin, the lusts and ways of sin and wickedness, however sweet and pleasant they may be to the depraved desires of vitiated nature, yet are really most unnatural and unreasonable, degrading to the rational nature, and most contrary to its happiness and destructive of its peace: For there is no peace saith the Lord, unto the wicked, Isa. xlviii. 22. All that I have said on this particular, may be summed up in this one sentence, viz. That as neither, men’s natural inclinations, nor reason, are to be a governing law to them; but are required to be under the law to God, and to be regulated by his will, which ever way he makes it known; so the magistratical office and power must be considered as an ordinance primarily founded upon, (i.e. deriving its being and original from) the nature, and will of God revealed, and not from the nature, will and inclinations of man.

The consideration of the other particular, which I formerly mentioned, as evidently included in our author’s intended meaning, in founding magistracy and civil government on “the light of nature, and moral dictates of right reason,” I shall not, now enter upon, but leave it to the following chapter.