more For I am sure had he but read over those Canons which might be done in half an hour he had argued this point at another rate and had he seen the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus he had not accused the Conformist for citing that Canon as the fortieth since it is so in his division who was their first publisher in the Latine Church tho it be the thirty ninth in the Greek division But I will deal roundly in this matter and acknowledge that collection to be none of the Apostles nor Clement's since all that passed under Clement's name was accounted spurious except his first Epistle to the Corinthians Nor was this a production of the first two ages For the silence of the Writers of those Centuries gives clear evidence for their novelty They not being cited for the decision of things then in controversie wherein they are express as in the matter of Easter the rebaptizing Hereticks and divers other particulars Yet in the Fourth and Fifth Century reference is after made to some Elders rules of the Church which are to be found no where but in this Collection The Apostolical Canons are also sometimes expresly mentioned and this gives good ground to believe there were from the Third Century and forward some rules general received in the Church and held Apostolical as being at first introduced by Apostolical men This was at first learnedly made out by De Marca Concord lib. 3. c. 2. and of late more fully by that most ingenious and accurate searcher into Antiquity Beveregius in his Preface to his Annotations on these Canons Yet I am apt to think they were only preserv'd by an oral tradition and that no collection of them was agreed on and publish'd before the fifth Century It is certain the Latine Church in Pope Innocent 's days acknowledged no Canons but those of Nice And many of the Canons in this Collection we find among Canons of other Councils particularly in that of Antioch without any reference to a preceding authority that had enjoined them which we can hardly think they had omitted had they received the collection I speak of as Apostolical And that of the triple immersion in Baptism looks like a Rule no elder than the Arrian Controversie They began first to appear under the name of the Apostles Canons in the Fifth Century which made Pope Gelasius with a Synod of seventy Bishops condemn them as Apocryphal though I must add that the authority of that pretended Council and Decree though generally received be on many accounts justly questionable And yet by this we are only to understand that he rejected that pretended authority of the Apostles prefixed to these Canons In the beginning of the Sixth Century they were published by Dionysius Exiguus who prefixed fifty of them to his translation of the Greek Canons but he confesses they were much doubted by many At the same time they were published in the Greek Church with the addition of thirty five more Canons and were acknowledged generally Iustinian cites them often in the Novels and in the sixth Novel calls them the Canons of the holy Apostles kept and interpreted by the Fathers And the same authority was ascribed to them by the Council in Trullo These things had been pertinently alledged if you had known them but for your Friends niblings at them if you will but give your self the trouble of reading these Canons you will be ashamed of his weakness who manageth his advantage so ill And to instance this but in one particular had he read these Canons himself could he have cited the eighty which is among the latter additions and passed by the sixth which is full to the same purpose But for that impudent allegation as if a bare precedency had been only ascribed to Bishops by these Canons look but on the 14. the 30. 37. 40. 54. and 73. and then pass your verdict on your Friends ingenuity or his knowledg By the 14. No Churchman may pass from one Parish to another without his Bishop's sentence otherwise he is suspended from Ecclesiastical Functions and if he refuse to return when required by his Bishop he is to be accounted a Churchman no more By the 30. A Presbyter who in contempt of his Bishop gathers a Congregation apart having nothing to condemn his Bishop of either as being unholy or unjust he is to be deposed as one that is ambitious and tyrannous and such of the Clergy or Laity as join with them are likewise to be censured By the 37. The Bishop hath the care of all Church matters which he must administrate as in the sight of God By the 39. The Bishop hath power over all the goods of the Church and the reason given is that since the precious souls of men are committed to him it is much more just he have the charge of the goods of the Church By the 54. If a Clergy-man reproach their Bishop he is to be deposed for it is written Thou shalt not curse the Ruler of thy people And by the 73. A Bishop when accused is only to be judged of by other Bishops Now from these hints judg whether there be truth in that Assertion that only a precedency is asserted in these Canons and if all the power is now pleaded for be not there held out not to mention the Canon was cited by the Conformist that Presbyters or Deacons might finish nothing without the Bishop's Sentence since the Souls of the people are trusted to him As for the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction I am sure none among us do claim it but willingly allow the Presbyters a concurrence in both these And as to what your friend saith of Cyprian it is of a piece with the learning and ingenuity that runneth through the rest of his Discourse from page 150 to page 160. where for divers pages he belabours his Reader with brave shews of Learning and high invention so that no doubt he thinks he hath performed Wonders and fully satisfied every scruple concerning the rise and progress of Episcopacy Isot. I pray you do not fly too high and make not too much ado about any small advantages you conceive you have of my Friend but upon the whole matter I am willing to believe there was a precedency pretty early begun in the Church which I shall not deny was useful and innocent tho a deviation from the first pattern Neither shall I deny that holy men were of that Order but when it is considered what a step even that Precedency was to Lordly Prelacy and how from that the son of perdition rose up to his pretence of Supremacy we are taught how unsafe it is to change any thing in the Church from the first institution of its blessed Head who knew best what was fit for it according to whose will all things in it should be managed Poly. It hath been often repeated that nothing was ever so sacred as to escape that to which all things when they
p. 486. Basil. In order to a clear progress in this matter I shall first discuss the nature and power of the Church by which a step shall be made to the Power the Magistrate may pretend to in matters Sacred The Apostles being sent by Iesus Christ did every where promulgate the Gospel and required such as received it to meet often together for joint Worship and the free profession of the Faith wherein they were particularly obliged to the use of the Sacraments The Apostles and after them all Church-men were also endued with a double Power The one was declarative for promulgating the Gospel the other was directive which properly is no power and by this they were to advise in such matters wherein they had no warrant to command So S. Paul wrote sometimes his own sense which he did by permission and not by commandment only he advised as one that had obtained mercy to be faithful But because Christ was to be in his Church to the end of the World the things they had heard were to be committed to faithful men that they might be able to teach others All Church men being thus the Successors of the Apostles they are vested with a Divine Authority for solemn publishing the Gospel but with this odds from the Apostles That whereas they were infallible their Successors are subject to error And the power of Church-men consists formally in this that they are Heralds of the Gospel and by their preaching it a solemn offer of it is made to all their hearers which to despise is to despise him that sent them But in this power they are bound up to the Commission they have from God so that what they say beyond that is none of the divine Message Yet because many particulars may fall in about which it was impossible Rules could be given they have a directive Authority which if it be managed as S. Paul did we need fear no tyrannical imposition from it And therefore in these matters their definitions are not binding Laws but Rules of advice for in matters wherein we are left at liberty by God if Church-men pretend to a Dominion over our Souls they make us the servants of Men. And indeed it is the most incoherent thing imaginable for these who lay no claim to Infallibility to pretend to absolute obedience It is true the Laws of peace and order bind us to an association if we be Christians and therefore we ought to yield in many things for peace but since we are all a Royal Priesthood why Church-men should pretend to Authority or Jurisdiction except in that which is expresly in their Commission wherein they are purely Heralds I do not see It is true Christians ought to assemble for Worship but for the associations of Churches in Judicatories I cannot imagine in what corner of the New Testastament that shall be found In which I am the more confirmed since all the labor of that Pamphleteer from p. 126. to 144. could not find it out For it is a strange Method to prove a divine Warrant because some reasons are brought to prove it must be so to have cited the words where a shorter and clearer method of proof since to prove that such a thing must be and yet not to shew that it is is only to attempt against the Scripture for being defective in that which it ought to have contained But if the phrase of one body conclude a proof for Associations then since the Body includes all Christians the whole faithful must meet together in Councils For where have you a difference in that betwixt the Clergy and the faithful Laicks But here yielding your Laick Elders of divine Institution and to have from GOD an Authority of Ruling as well as the Ministers have then why do they not all come to Presbyteries And why but one deputed from them Was not this an Encroachment on them For if they have from CHRIST a power to Rule as well as Ministers why should not all the Elders meet in Presbyteries and Synods as well as Ministers And why but one Elder from every Presbytery when three Ministers go to the National Synod For it is folly to say because Ministers have a power of teaching therefore in Presbyteries and Synods the Elders must only equal their number and in National Synods be near half their number for that will only say that in matters of doctrine the Elders should be quite silent but in matters of discipline why all should not come if any have a right from Christ will not be proved And is not this to Lord it over your Brethren And do not your Ministers thus tyrannize over their Elders But the reason of it was visible lest the Elders had thereby got the power in their hands had they been the plurality in the Judicatories which was well enough foreseen and guarded against by your Clergy who though they were willing to serve themselves of them for a while yet had no mind to part with their beloved Authority But for Synods if the obligation to them be from the unity of the Body then nothing under an OEcumenical one will answer this which yet is simply unpracticable Now as for your National Synods it is visible they are and must be framed according to the divisions of the World in the several Kingdoms for according to the Rules are pretended from Scripture tell the Church the binding and loosing of sins or the like it follows that Parochial Congregations and the Pastors in them are vested with an authoritative power now why they should be made to resign this to the plurality of the Church-men of that Kingdom will be a great Atchievement to prove in your Principles For why shall not a Parochial Church make Laws within it self And why must it renounce its priviledg to such a number of Church-men cast in such a Classis by a humane power As likewise where find you a divine Warrant for your delegating Commissioners to Synods For either they are Plenipotentiaries or such as go upon a restricted deputation but so as their Votes beyond their Commission shall signifie nothing till they return and be approved by those who sent them if they go with a full power assign a Warrant for such a delegation or that many Church-men may commissionate one in their name and that what shall be agreed to by the major part of these delegates shall be a binding obligation on Christians and yet I know you will think the Independents carry the Cause if it be said that the appointments of these superiour Courts have no authority till ratified by the inferiour which will resolve the Power into the inferiour Courts By all which I think it is clear abundantly that the associations of Churches into Synods cannot be by a divine Warrant But I must call in some relief for I grow weary of speaking too long Eud. I suppose none will deny the association of Churches to be an excellent mean for preserving
unity and peace but to assert a divine original for them methinks is a hard task and truly to assert the divine Authority of the major part which must be done according to the principles of Presbytery is a thing fuller of Tyranny over Consciences than any thing can be feared from Episcopacy since the greater part of mankind being evil which holds true of no sort of people more than of Church-men what mischief may be expected if the plurality must decide all matters And to speak plainly I look on a potion of Physick as the best cure for him who can think a National Synod according to the model of Glasgow is the Kingdom of Christ on Earth or that Court to which he hath committed his Authority for he seems beyond the power or conviction of Reason Crit. The Scripture clearly holds forth an authority among Church-men but visibly restricted to their Commission which truly is not properly a power residing among them for they only declare what the Rule of the Gospel is wherein if they keep close to it they are only Publishers of the Laws of CHRIST and if they err from it they are not to be regarded It is true the administration of Sacraments is appropriated to them yet he that will argue this to have proceeded more from the general rules of Order the constant practice of the Church and the fitness of the thing which is truly sutable to the dictates of Nature and the Laws of Nations than from an express positive Command needs much Logick to make good his attempt It is true the ordaining of Successors in their Office belongs undoubtedly to them and in trying them Rules are expresly given out in Scripture to which they ought to adhere and follow them but as for other things they are either decisions of opinions or rules for practice In the former their authority is purely to declare and in that they act but as Men and we find whole Schools of them have been abused and in the other they only give advices and directions but have no Jurisdiction It is true much noise is made about the Council of Ierusalem p. 106 as if that were a warrant for Synods to meet together But first it is clear no command is there given so at most that will prove Synods to be lawful but that gives them no authority except you produce a clear Command for them and obedience to them Next what strange wresting of Scripture is it from that place to prove the subordination of Church Judicatories for if that Council was not an OEcumenical Council nor a Provincial one which must be yielded since we see nothing like a Convocation then either Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch as from one sister Church to ask advice of another and if so it proves nothing for the authority of Synods since advices are not Laws or Antioch sent to Ierusalem as to a Superior Church by its constitution which cannot be imagined for what authority could the Church of Ierusalem pretend over Antioch And indeed had that been true some vestige of it had remained in History which is so far to the contrary that the Church of Ierusalem was subordinate to the Church of Cesarea which was Metropolitan in Palestine was subject to Antioch the third Patriarchal Sea It will therefore remain that this was only a reference to the other Apostles who besides their extraordinary endowments and inspiration were acknowledged by all to be men of great eminency and authority and therefore the authority of Paul and Barnabas not being at that time so universally acknowledged they were sent to Ierusalem where S. Iames was resident and S. Peter occasionally present Now the Authority of the Decree must be drawn from their infallible spirit otherwise it will prove too much that one Church may give out decrees to another But will the Apostles mutual consulting or conferring together prove the National constitution and authority of Synods or Assemblies Poly. All that hath been said illustrates clearly the practice of the Iews among whom as the High-Priest was possessed with a Prophetical Spirit which sometimes fell on him by illapses as apears from what is said of Caiaphas and sometimes from the shining of the Stones in the Pectoral called the Urim and Thummim so the Priests and Levites being the chief Trustees and Depositaries of the Law Their lips were to preserve knowledg and the Law was to be sought at their mouth yet they had no Legislative Authority they had indeed a Court among themselves called the Parhedrim made up of the heads of the Orders and of the Families but that Court did not pretend to Jurisdiction but only to explain things that concerned the Temple-worship nay the High-Priest was so restricted to the King and Sanbedrim that he might not consult the Oracle without he had been ordered to do it by them neither do we ever hear of any Laws given out all the Old Testament over in the name of the Priests And in the New Testament the Power it seems was to be managed by the body of the faithful as well as by Church-men It is true the Apostles were clothed with an extraordinary power of binding and loosing of sins but no proofs are brought to justifie the pretences to Jurisdiction that are found among their Successors For in the Epistle to Corinth the Rules there laid down are addressed to all the Saints that were called to be faithful so also is the Epistle to the Thessalonians where he tells them to note such as walked disorderly and have no fellowship with them which are shrewd grounds to believe that at first all things were managed Parochially where the faithful were also admitted to determine about what occurred but for Synods we find not the least vestige of them before the end of the second Century that Synods were gathered about the Controversie concerning the day of Easter and the following Associations of Churches shew clearly that they took their model from the division of the Roman Empire and so according as the Provinces were divided the Churches in them did associate to the Metropolitans and became subordinate to them and these were subordinate to the Patriarchs by which means it was that the Bishops of Rome had the precedency not from any imaginary derivation from St. Peter for had they gone on such Rules Ierusalem where our Lord himself was had undoubtedly carried it of all the World but Rome being the Imperial City it was the See of the greatest Authority And no sooner did Bizantium creep into the dignity of being the Imperial City but the Bishop of Constantinople was made second Patriarch and in all things equal to the Bishop of Rome the precedency only excepted Much might be here said for proving that these Synods did not pretend to a divine Original though afterwards they claimed a high Authority yet their appointments were never called Laws but only Canons and Rules which could not pretend to a Jurisdiction Basil.
far as concerns him in his Parliament hath obliged himself in the word of a Prince and his Son the Earl of Carrict afterwards Robert the third being constituted by the King for fulfilling of the premises so far as touches him gave and made his Oath the holy Evangils being touched by him and then the States of Parliament did also swear to maintain the Earl of Carrict made then Lieutenant under the King Now the reason why these mutual Oaths were then given is well known since the King's Sâ—ccession was so doubtful But after that no Oath seems to have been given and tho King Iames the Second his Coronation be set down in the Records of Parliament there is not a word of an Oath given by any in his Name It is true in the 11. Parl. of that King cap 41. for securing of the Crown-lands from being alienated it is appointed That the King who then was should be sworn and in like manner all his Successors Kings of Scotland into their Coronation to the keeping of that Statute and all the points thereof But this is not such an Oath as you alledg Likewise in King Iames the Fourth his Reign 2. Parl. Ch. 12. where the Council was sworn it is added And our Sovereign Lord hath humbled his Highness to promit and grant in Parliament to abide and remain at their Counsels while the next Parliament But it is to be observed the King was then but 17 years old and so not of full age this promise was also a temporary provision Besides the very stile of it shews that it was below his Majesty to be so bound But the first Act for a Coronation Oath I can meet with is Cap. 8. of the 1. Parl. of King Iames the Sixth An. 1567. where the stile wherein the Act runs shews it was a new thing it bearing no narrative of any such former Custom the words of the Act are Item because that the increase of Vertue and suppressing of Idolatry craves that the Prince and the people be of one perfect Religion which of GOD'S mercy is now presently professed within this Realm Therefore it is statute and ordained by our Sovereign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament that all Kings and Princes or Magistrates what 〈◊〉 holding their place which hereafter may happen to Reign and bear Rule over this Realm at the time of their Coronation and receipt of their Princely authority make their faithful promise by Oath c. Now you see the beginning of the Coronation Oath and I need not here reflect on the time when that Act passed it being so obvious to every one But I suppose it is made out that the Kings of Scotland have not their Authority from any stipulation used at their Coronation The next thing you alledg to prove the King of Scotland a limited Prince is because he must govern by Laws which cannot be enacted without the Authority of the three Estates in Parliament But this will not serve turn unless you prove that the Estates can cognosce on the King and coerce him if he transgress for which there is not a tittle in our Laws I acknowledg the Constitution of Parliaments to be both a rational and excellent Model and that the King becomes a Tyrant when he violates their Priviledges and governs without Law But tho his Ministers who serve him in such tyrannical ways are liable to punishment by the Law yet himself is subject to none but GOD. And from our Kings their Justice and goodness in governing legally by the Councils of their Parliaments you have no reason to argue against their absolute Authority for their binding themselves to such Rules and being tied to the observance of Laws enacted by themselves will never overthrow their Authority but rather commend it as having such a temperature of Sovereignty Justice and Goodness in it Isot. But was not King Iames the Third resisted and killed in the Field of Striveling and afterwards in his Sons first Parl. Act. 14. all who were against him in that Field were declared innocent and his slaughter was declared to be his own fault which was never rescinded As also Cap. 130. of Iac. 6. Parl. 8. the Honour and Authority of Parliament upon the free Vote of the three Estates thereof is asserted And are not you an impugner of the Authority of the three Estates who plead thus for the King 's Sovereign Power See Answer to the Letter written to the Author of Ius Populi Basil. I shall not engage far in the Story of King Iames the Third which even as it is represented by Buchanan lib. 11. no friend to Monarchy is very far from being justifiable on the side of those who fought against him nor was it the least part of their guilt that they forced his Son being then but fifteen years old to own their Rebellion And what wonder was it that they who had killed the Father and kept his Son in their power passed such an Act in their own favors But King Iames the Fourth quickly discovered what a sincere Penitent he was for his Accession to that Rebellion as appeared by the Iron Belt he wore all his life as a penance for this sin yet the meekness of his Spirit and the power of that Faction made that things continued in the posture they formerly were in It is true that Act was not expresly repelled which perhaps was not safe at that time to have attempted but it was really done by his Revocation ratified in his 6. Parl. cap. 100. wherein with consent of the three Estates He annuls and revokes all Statutes and Acts of Parliament which he had enacted in his former years that tended either to the prejudice of the Catholic Church his Soul or of the Crown declaring them to have no force but to be deleted and cancell'd out of the Books And it is not to be doubted but in this he had an eye to that former Act but for your Act asserting the Authority of Parliament look but what immediately precedes it and you will find the King's Authority and Supremacy fully established and I acknowledg that whosoever impugns the Authority of Parliament as the King 's Great Council doth incur a very high punishment but this will never prove an Authority in the States to coerce and resist the King One thing I must mind you of from that Act which is That none of the Lieges must presume to impugn the dignity and Authority of the said three Estates or to seek or procure the innovation or diminution of the Power and Authority of the same three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason And can you be so ignorant of our Laws as not to know that the Church was one of these Estates for the small Barons which some called the Third Estate came not in till three years after Iac. 6. Parl. 11. cap. 113. And now from all these premises I think we
to their vanity humor or perhaps their secular interests But I hold on my design and add that if the Magistrate encroach on God's Prerogative by contradicting or abrogating divine Laws all he doth that way falls on himself But as for the Churches Directive Power since the exercise of that is not of obligation he may command a surcease in it It is true he may sin in so doing yet cases may be wherein he will do right to discharge all Associations of Judicatories if a Church be in such commotion that these Synods would but add to the flame but certainly he forbidding such Synods they are not to be gone about there being no positive command for them in Scripture and therefore a discharge of them contradicts no Law of God and so cannot be disobeyed without sin and when the Magistrate allows of Synods he is to judg on whether side in case of differences he will pass his Law neither is the decision of these Synods obligatory in prejudice of his authority for there can be but one Supream and two Coordinate Powers are a Chymaera Therefore in case a Synod and the Magistrate contradict one another in matters undetermined by GOD it is certain a Synod sins if it offer to countermand the Civil Authority since all must be subject to the Powers that are of which number the Synod is a part therefore they are subject as well as others And if they be bound to obey the Magistrates commands they cannot have a power to warrant the subjects in their disobedience since they cannot secure themselves from sin by such disobedience And in the case of such countermands it is indisputable the Subjects are to be determined by the Magistrates Laws by which only the Rules of Synods are Laws or bind the consciences formally since without they be authorized by him they cannot be Laws for we cannot serve two Masters nor be subject to two Legislators And thus methinks enough is said for clearing the Title of the Magistrate in exacting our obedience to his Laws in matters of Religion Crit. Indeed the congesting of all the Old Testament offers for proving the Civil Powers their authority in things sacred were a task of time And first of all that the High Priest might not consult the Oracle but when either desired by the King or in a business that concerned the whole Congregation is a great step to prove what the Civil Authority was in those matters Next we find the Kings of Iudah give out many Laws about matters of Religion I shall wave the instances of David and Solomon which are so express that no evasion can serve the turn but to say they acted by immediate Commission and were inspired of GOD. It is indeed true that they had a particular direction from GOD. But it is as clear that they enacted these Laws upon their own Authority as Kings and not on a Prophetical Power But we find Iehoshaphat 2 Chr. 17. v. 7. sending to his Princes to teach in the Cities of Iudah with whom also he sent Priests and Levites and they went about and taught the people There you see secular men appointed by the King to teach the people he also 2. Chr. 19. v. 5. set up in Ierusalem a Court made up of Levites Priests and the chief of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the LORD and for the controversies among the people and names two Presidents Amariah the chief Priest to be over them in the matters of the LORD and Zebadiah for all the Kings matters And he that will consider these words either as they lie in themselves or as they relate to the first institution of that Court of seventy by Moses where no mention is made but by one Judicatory or to the Commentary of the whole Writings and Histories of the Iews shall be set beyond dispute that here was but one Court to judg both of sacred and secular matters It is true the Priests had a Court already mentioned but it was no Judicatory and medled only with the Rituals of the Temple The Levites had also as the other Tribes a Court of twenty three for their Tribe which have occasioned the mistakes of some places among the Iewish Writings but this is so clear from their Writings that a very overly knowledg of them will satisfie an impartial Observer And it is yet more certain that from the time of Ezra to the destruction of the Temple there was but one Court that determined of all matters both Sacred and Civil who particularly tried the Priests if free of the blemishes which might cast one from the service and could cognosce on the High Priest and whip him when he failed in his duty Now this commixtion of these matters in one Judicatory if it had been so criminal whence is it that our LORD not only never reproved so great a disorder but when convened before them did not accuse their constitution and answered to the High Priest when adjured by him Likewise when his Apostles were arraigned before them they never declined that Judicatory but pleaded their own innocence without accusing the constitution of the Court though challenged upon a matter of doctrine But they good men thought only of catching Souls into the Net of the Gospel and were utterly unacquainted with these new coined distinctions Neither did they refuse obedience pretending the Court had no Jurisdiction in these matters but because it was better to obey GOD than Man which saith They judged Obedience to that Court due if it had not countermanded GOD. But to return to Iehoshaphat we find him constituting these Courts and choosing the persons and empowering them for their work for he constituted them for Iudgment and for Controversie so that though it were yielded as it will never be proved that two Courts were here instituted yet it cannot be denied but here is a Church Judicatory constituted by a King the persons named by him a President appointed over them and a trust committed to them And very little Logick will serve to draw from this as much as the Acts among us asserting the King's Supremacy yield to him Next We have a clear instance of Hezekiah who 2 Chron. 30. ver 2. with the Counsel of his Princes and of the whole Congregation made a decree for keeping the Passover that year on the second Month whereas the Law of GOD had affixed it to the first Month leaving only an exception Numb 9.10 for the unclean or such as were on a journey to keep it on the second Month. Npon which Hezekiah with the Sanhedrim and people appoints the Passover to be entirely cast over to the second Month for that Year Where a very great point of their Worship for the distinction of days was no small matter to the Iews was determined by the King without asking the advice of the Priests upon it But that you may not think this was peculiar to the King of Israel I shall urge you with
minds from the fâ—llowship of the Saints But on the other hand great caution must be had by all Subjects on what grounds they refuse obedience to the Laws that so they be not found following their own designs and interests under a colour of adhering firmly to their consciences They must deliver themselves from all prepossessions and narrowly examine all things ere they adventure on refusing obedience to the Laws But now consider if an unjust motive or narrative in a Law deliver tender consciences from an obligation to obey it or not Basil. If the Magistrate do couple his motive and narrative with our obedience so that we cannot do the one without a seeming consent to the other then certainly we are not to obey For actions being often signs of the thoughts an action how indifferent soever if declared a sign of concurring in a sinful design makes us guilty in so far as we express our concurrence by a sign enjoyned for that end But if the motive or narrative be simply an account of the Magistrates own thoughts without expressing that obedience is to be understood as a concurrence in such intentions then we are to obey a lawful command tho enacted upon a bad design For we must obey these in Authority ever till they stand in competition with GOD. If then their Laws contradict not GOD's Precepts neither in their natural nor intended siâ—nification they are to be obeyed whatever the grounds were for enacting them which is only the Magistrates deed for which he shall answer to GOD. Poly. This calls me to mind of two Stories not impertinent to this purpose The one is of Iulian the Apostate who to entangle the Christians that never scrupled the bowing to the Emperors Statue as a thing lawful caused to set up his with the Images of some of the Gods about it that such as bowed to it might be understood as likewise bowing to the Images which abused some of the simpler but the more discerning refused to bow at all to those Statues because he intended to expound that innocent bowing to his Statue as an adoration of the Gods about it A Christian likewise being brought to the King of Persia did according to the Law bow before him but when he understood that to be exacted as a divine Honor to the King he refused it Eud. This is clear enough that all actions are as they are understood and accordingly to be performed or surceased from But it seems more difficult to determine what is to be done in case a Magistrate enact wicked Laws Are not both his Subjects bound to refuse obedience and the Heads of the Church and the watchmen of Souls likewise to witness against it And may they not declare openly their dislike of such Laws or practices and proceed against him with the censures of the Church since as to the Censures of the Church we see no reason why they should be dispensed with respect of persons which S. Iames condemns in all Church Judicatories Basil. I shall not need to repeat what hath been so often said that we must obey GOD rather than man if then the Magistrates enjoyn what is directly contrary to the divine Law all are to refuse obedience and watchmen ought to warn their Flocks against such hazards and such as can have admittance to their Princes or who have the charge of their Consciences ought with a great deal of sincere freedom as well as humble duty represent the evil and sinfulness of such Laws but for any Synodical Convention or any Declaration against them no warrant for that doth appear and therefore if the Magistrate shall simply discharge all Synods I cannot see how they can meet without sin But for Parochial meetings of Christians for a solemn acknowledgment of GOD such Assemblings for divine Worship being enjoined both by the Laws of Nature and Nations and particularly commanded in the Gospel no consideration can free Christians from their Obligation thus to assemble for Worship if then the Magistrate should discharge these or any part of them such as Prayer Praisâ—s and reading of Scriptures preaching the Gospel or the use of the Sacraments they are notwithstanding all that to be continued in But for the consultative or directive Government of the Church till a divine Command be produced for Synods or Discipline it cannot lawfully be gone about without or against his authority Crit. For refusing obedience to an unjust command of surceasing visible Worship the instance of Daniel is signal who not only continued his adorations to GOD for all Darius his Law but did it openly and avowedly that so he might own his subjection to GOD. But for reproving Kings we see what caution was to be observed in it since GOD sent Prophets with express Commissions for it in the Old Testament and Samuel notwithstanding this severe message to Saul yet honored him before his people It is true there should be no respect of persons in Christian Judicatories but that is only to be understood of these who are subject to them and how it can agree to the King who is Supream to be a Subject is not easily to be comprehended Since then honor and obedience is by divine precept due to Magistrates nothing that invades that honor or detracts from that obedience can be lawfully attempted against them such as is any Church-censure or excommunication And therefore I cannot see how that practice of Ambrose upon Theodosius or other later instances of some Bishops of Rome can be reconciled to that Render fear to whom fear and honor to whom honor is due Phil. I am sure their practice is far less justifiable who are always preaching about the Laws and times to the people with virulent reflections on King Parliament and Council much more such as not content with flying discourses do by their writings which they hope shall be longer lived study the vilifying the persons and affronting the authority of these GOD hath set over them And how much of this stuff the Press hath vented these thirty years by past such as knew the late times or see their writings can best judge Eud. Now our discourse having dwelt so long upon generals is to descend to particulars That we may examine whether upon the grounds hitherto laid down the late tumults or the present Schisms and divisions can be justified or ought to be censured I know this is a nice point and it is to be tenderly handled lest all that shall be said be imputed to the suggestions of passions and malice Wherefore let me intreat you who are to bear the greater part of that discourse to proceed in it calmly that it may appear your designs are not to lodge infamy on any party or person but simply to lay out things as they are hoping withal that you will not take your informations of what you say from the tatles of persons concerned but will proceed on true and sure grounds And that we may return to this with
fall in the hands of Mortals are obnoxious And may not one that quarrels a standing Ministery argue on the same grounds a Ministers authority over the people gave the rise to the authority Bishops pretend over Ministers and so the Ministery will be concluded the first step of the Beast's Throne Or may not the authority your Judicatories pretend to be at the same rate struck out since from lesser Synods sprung greater ones from Provincial rose Generals and from these Oecumenical ones with the pretence of infallibility But to come nearer you that whole frame of Metropolitans and Patriarchs was taken from the division of the Roman Empire which made up but one great National Church and so no wonder the Bishop of the Imperial City of that Empire was the Metropolitan of that Church yet he was not all that neither since he had no authority over his fellow Patriarchs being only the first in order which truly were the Bishops of that Church what they were for the first four Ages it was never judged an absurdity to grant to them still tho the ruin of the Roman Empire and its division into so many Kingdoms which are constituted in various National Churches do alter the present frame of Europe so entirely from what was then that with very good reason what was then submitted to on the account of the Unity of the Empire may be now undone by reason of the several Kingdoms which are National Churches within themselves and need not to own so much as the acknowledgment of Primacy to any but to the Metropolitan of their own Kingdom And it seems the interest of Princes as well as Churches to assert this But for the pretence of the Pope's supremacy Episcopacy was so far from being judged a step to it that the ruin of the Episcopal authority over Presbyters and the granting them exemptions from the Jurisdiction of their Ordinary was the greatest advance the Roman Bishop ever made in his tyrannical usurpation over Churches I need not here tell so known a matter as is that of the exemption of the Regulars who being subject to their own Superiors and Generals and by them to the Pope were sent through the World in swarms and with great shews of piety devotion and poverty carried away all the esteem and following from the secular Clergy who were indeed become too secular and these were the Pope's Agents and Emissaries who brought the World to receive the mark of the Beast and wonder at her For before that time the Popes found more difficulty to carry on their pretensions both from secular Princes and Bishops But these Regulars being warranted to preach and administer the Sacraments without the Bishop's license or being subject and accountable to him as they brought the Bishops under great contempt so they were the Pope's chief confidents in all their treasonable plots against the Princes of Europe And when at the Council of Trent the Bishops of Spain being weary of the insolencies of the Regulars and of the Papal yoak designed to get free from it The great mean they proposed was to get Episcopacy declared to be of divine Right which would have struck out both the one and the other But the Papal Party foresaw this well and opposed it with all the Artifice imaginable and Lainez the Jesuit did at large discourse against it and they carried it so that it was not permitted to be declared of divine Right And by this judg if it be likely that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy since the declaring it to be of divine Right was judged one of the greatest blows the Papal Dominion could have received as the abusing of the Episcopal authority was the greatest step to its Exaltation Isot. Be in these things what may be I am sure from the beginning it was not so since Christ did so expresly prohibit all dominion and authority among his Disciples when he said But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister Luke 22.26 Whereby he did not only condemn a tyrannical domination but simply all Authority like that the Lords of the Gentiles exercised over them See page 88. Crit. I confess the advantages some have drawn from these words of CHRIST for deciding this question have many times appeared strange to me their purpose being so visibly different from that to which they are applied But if we examine the occasion that drew these words from CHRIST it will furnish us with a key for understanding them aright and that was the frequent contentions were among the Disciples about the precedency in the Kingdom of CHRIST for they were in the vulgar Iudaical Error who believed the Messiah was to be a temporal Prince and so understood all the pompous promises of the New Dispensation liberally and thought that CHRIST should have restored Israel in the literal meaning therefore they began to contend who should be preferred in his Kingdom and the Wife of Zebedee did early bespeak the chief preferments for her Sons Yea we find them sticking to this mistake even at CHRIST's Ascension by the question then moved concerning his restoring the Kingdom at that time to Israel Now these Contentions as they sprung from an error of their judgments so also they took their rise from their proud ambition And for a check to both our Saviour answers them by telling the difference was to be betwixt his Kingdom and the Kingdoms of the Nations these being exercised by Grandeur and temporal Authority whereas his Kingdom was Spiritual and allowed nothing of that since Churchmen have not by CHRIST a Lordly or Despotick dominion over Christians committed to them but a paternal and brotherly one by which in commanding they serve their Flock so that it is both a Ministery and an Authority Therefore the words of Christ it shall not be so among you relate nothing to the degrees or ranks of Churchmen but to the nature of their power and jurisdiction over their flock and not to their degrees among themselves which appears evidently from the whole contexture of the words And that he is not speaking of any equality among Churchmen in their Church power appears from the mention is made of the greatest and the chief He that is greatest among you let him be as the younger and he that is chief as he that doth serve which shew he was not here designed to strike out the degrees of superiority when he makes express mention of them but to intimate that the higher the degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices did raise them they were thereby obliged to the more humility and the greater labor All which is evidently confirmed by the instance he gives of himself which shews still he is not meaning of Church power since he had certainly the highest Ecclesiastical aâ—thority but only of Civil dominion nothing of which he would assume And if this place be to be applied to Church power then it will rather