matters will never infer a surrender of conscience to him for certainly that must relate to what goeth before of the outward Government and Policy of the Church Besides none will quarrel the phrase of the Kings authority in all things that are Civil yet that will not infer that he can enact the lawfulness of murther and theft So these expressions must carry with them a tacite exception Yea even without that allowance the phrase may be well justified since it only imports that the Kings enacting any thing in these matters makes them legal which differs much from lawful and saith only that such Orders issued forth by the King are de facto Laws which will not conclude they must be obeyed but only that his authority is to be acknowledged either by obedience if the command be just or by suffering if unjust As for the effects this may produce I am sure they cannot prove worse than these which have followed upon the pretences of the Churches absolute authority and intrinsick Sovereign Power And indeed since there is so much corruption among men nothing that falls into the hands of men can scape the mixtures of abuse at long run But I must add that the passions and pride of many Church-men in all Ages have been such that the decision of the plurality of Church-men seems the model of the World that is fullest of danger Isot. Three things yet remain to be discussed The one is if obedience be due to the Laws when they command things contrary to our consciences For sure you cannot pretend in that case to give a preference to humane Laws beyond conscience which is the voice of GOD. The next is when the Magistrate commands things just of themselves but upon unjust motives and narratives whether my obedience doth not homologate his bad designs And finally where the commands of the Magistrate are manifestly unlawful how far should the Church and Church men oppose and contradict them For a bare non-obedience seems not to be all we are bound to in that case When I am satisfied in these things I will quit this purpose Basil. To engage in a particular discussion of what is now moved by you would draw on more discourse than our present leisure will allow of yet I shall attempt the saying of what may satisfie a clear and unprejudged mind And to the first I shall not fall on any longer enquiry into the nature and obligation of conscience than to tell that conscience is a conviction of our rational faculties that such or such things are sutable to the nature and Will of God Now all Religion is bound upon us on this account that there is such evidence offered for its truth which may and ought to satisfie the strictest Examen of Reason And all certainty is resolved in this that our rational faculties are convinced of the truth of the objects that he before us which conviction when applied to divine matters is called Conscience But there may be great mistakes in this Conviction for either the prejudices that lie on our minds from our senses the prepossessions of Education interest or humors the want of a due application of our faculties to their objects or chiefly the dulness and lesion of our Organs the corruption of our minds through sin and lust occasion many errors so that often without good reason oft contrary to it we take up persuasions to which we stifly adhere and count such convictions evidences of the Will of GOD. I acknowledg when a Man lies under a persuasion of the Will of GOD he ought not to go cross to it for this opens a door to Atheism when that is contradicted of which we are convinced But if this persuasion be false it cannot secure a Man from sinning in following of it For it is a Man 's own fault that he is thus imposed upon since if his rational faculties were duly applied and well purified they should prove unerring touchstones of truth If therefore through vanity wilfulness rashness or any other byass of the mind it be carried to wrong measures a Man is to blame himself and thus his errour ought to aggravate and not lessen his guilt If then a Man's conscience dictate to him the contrary of what GOD commands in that case he is in a visible hazard for his error can never tâ—ke away GOD's Authoâ—ity and so his wrong informed conscience doth not secure him from guilt if he be disobedient On the other hand nothing in Scripture can bind a Man to act a-against the convictions of conscience since we are bound to believe the Scriptures only because of the evidence of their authority to our rational faculties If then our belief of the Scriptures rest on that foundation no part of Scripture can bind us to walk contrary to that evidence for then it should destroy that Principle on which our Obligation to believe it self is founded which is the evidence of reason and so in that case a Man sins whatever he do Neither is this to be accountd strange since that erroneous conscience is from man's own fault And that which some alledg to escape this that in such cases a Man ought to forbear from acting will not serve turn to excuse a Man from sin For in these Precepts which exact a positive obedience such a â—orbearance and surceasing from action is a sin Upon these Evidences then it will follow that if the conviction of our conscience run contrary to the Magistrates commands these convictions are either well grounded or ill If the former then the Magistrates command being contrary to the nature and Will of GOD aâ—e not to be obeyed If ill grounded then that mistaken persuasion cannot secure us from sin no more than in the case of conscience contradicting the Law of GOD for the Laws of the Magistrates in things lawful are the Laws of GOD being the application of his general Laws unto particular instances by one cloathed with authority from him Therefore tho I do not say the Laws of the Magistrate can warrant our counteracting an erroneous conscience yet on the contrary a misinformed conscience will not secure us when we disobey the Magistrates lawful commands And thus I think your first Question is clearly answered End You have a great deal of reason to say so your discourse being so closely rational that I cannot see any escape from any paâ—t of it yet I must add that certainly it is a piece of Christian tenderness which obligeth all in Authority to beware of laying gall-traps and snares in the way of tender consciences And the best way to get an undisputed obedience is that their commands be liable to as few exceptions as is possible and that the good of any such Laws be well ballanced with the hazards of them that so the Communion of the Church in all outwards particularly in the Sacraments may be had on as easie terms as is possible whereby nothing be enacted that may frighten away weakâ—r
not oblige For the common resolution of Casuists being that a Man under an erroneous Conscience is yet to follow its dictates though he sin by so doing then all parties that are oppressed ought to vindicate what they judg to be the truth of GOD. And by this you may see to what a fair pass the peace of mankind is brought by these Opinions But mistake me not as if I were here pleading for sâ—â—mission to patronize the tyranny or cruelty of persecuting Princes who shall answer to God for that great trust deposited in their hands which if they transgress they have a dear account to make to him who sits in heaven and laughs at the raging and consultings of these Kings or Princes who design to throw off his Yoak or burst his bonds in sunder He who hath set his King upon his holy Hâ—ll of Zion shall rule them with a rod of Iron and break them in pieces as a Potter's Vessel And he to whom vengeance doth belong will avenge himself of all the injuries they do his truths or followers but as they sin against him so they aâ—e only countable to him Yet I need not add what hath been often said that it is not the name of a King or the ceremonies of a Coronation that cloaths one with the Sovereign Power since I know there are and have been titular Kings who are indeed but the first Persons of the State and only Administrators of the Laws the Sovereign Power lying in some Assembly of the Nobility and States to whom they are accountable In which Case that Court to whom these Kings must give account is the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom and the King is but a Subject Isot. But doth not the Coronation of a King together with his Oath given and the consent of the People demanded at it prove him to have his Power upon the Conditions in that Oath And these Oaths being mutually given his Coronation Oath first and the Oath of Allegiance next do shew it is a Compact and in all mutual Agreements the nature of Compacts is that the one party breaking the other is also free Further Kings who are tied up so that they cannot make nor repeal Laws nor impose Taxes without the consent of the States of their Kingdom shew their Power to be limited and that at least such Assemblies of the States share with them in the Sovereign Power which is at large made out by Ius populi Basil. It is certain there cannot be two co-ordinate Powers in a Kingdom for no man can serve two Masters therefore such an Assembly of the States must either be Sovereign or subject for a middle there is not As for the Coronation of Princes it is like enough that aâ— first it was the formal giving their Power to them and the old Ceremonies yet observ'd in it prove it hath been at first so among us But it being a thing clear in our Law that the King never dies his Heir coming in his place the very moment he expires so that he is to be obeyed before his Coronation as well as after and that the Coronation is nothing but the solemn inaugurating in the Authority which the King possessed from his Father's death shews that any Ceremonies may be used in it whatever the original of them may have been do not subject his Title to the Crown to the Peoples consent And therefore his Coronation Oath is not the condition upon which he gets his Power since he possess'd that before nor is it upon that Title that he exacts the Oath of Alegiance which he likewise exacted before his Coronation This being the practice of a Kingdom passed all Prescription proves the Coronation to be no compact betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore he is indeed bound by his Coronation Oath to God who will be avenged on him if he break it so the matter of it were lawful but the breaking of it cannot forfeit a prior Right he had to the Peoples Obedience And as for the limitations Kings have consented to pass on their own Power that they may act nothing but in such a form of Law these being either the King 's free Concessions to the People or restraints arising from some Rebellions which extorted such Priviledges will never prove the King a Subject to such a Court unless by the clear Laws and Practices of that Kingdom it be so provided that if he do malverse he may be punished which when made appear proves that Court to have the Sovereign Power and that never weakens my design that Subjects ought not to resist their Sovereign Philar. You have dwelt methinks too long on this though considering the nature of the thing it deserves indeed an exact discussion yet this whole Doctrine appears so clear to a discerning Mind that I cannot imagine whence all the mist is raised about it can spring except from the corrupt Passions or Lusts of men which are subtle enough to invent excuses and fair colors for the blackest of Crimes And the smoak of the bottomless pit may have its share in occasioning the darkness is raised about that which by the help of the light of God or of reason stands so clear and obvious But when I consider the instances of sufferings under both Dispensations I cannot see how any should escape the force of so much evident proof as hangs about this opinion And if it had been the Peoples duty to have reformed by the force of Arms under the Old Dispensation so that it was a base and servile Compliance with the Tyranny and Idolatry of their Kings not to have resisted their subverting of Religion and setting up of Idolatry where was then the fidelity of the Prophets who were to lift up their voices as Trumpets and to shew the house of Iacob their iniquities And since the watch-man who gave not warning to the wicked from his wicked way was guilty of his Blood I see not what will excâ—se the silence of the Prophets in this if it was the Peoples duty to reform For it is a poor refuge to say because the People were so much inclin'd to Idolatry that therefore it was in vain to exhort them to reform See pag. 10 11. since by that Argument you may as well conclude it to have been needless to have exhorted their Kings to Reformation their inclination to Idolatry being so strong but their duty was to be discharged how small soever the likelihood was of the Peoples yielding obedience to their warnings If then it was the Peoples duty to reform the oâ—ission of it was undoubtedly a Sin how then comes it that they who had it in commission to cause Ierusalem to know her abominations under so severe a Certificate do never charge the People for not going about a popular Reformation nor coâ—rcing these wicked Kings who enacted so much Idolatry backing it with such Tyranny nor ever require them to set about it I know one hath pick'd out some
fightings and such like Truly Sir he that will found the Doctrine of Resistance on such grounds hath a mind on very easie terms to run himself upon Condemnation And yet such like are the warrants your Friends bring from Church History Therefore I see there is yet good ground to assert that Doctrine was unknown in the Christian Church till the times wherein the Popes pretended to the Temporal Power over Princes all whose plea was managed upon the grounds of the great Importance of Religion to be preferred to all human Interests and that Christ had told his Disciples to buy a sword and that Princes being the Ministers of God were to be no longer acknowledged than they observed that design for which they were set up Only in one particular less disorder may be apprehended from the pretensions of the Roman Bishops than from these Maxims that put the power of judging and controuling the Magistrate in the Peoples hands which opens a door to endless confusions and indeed sets every private Person on the Throne and introduceth an Anarchy which will never admit of order or remedy whereas these who had but one pretender over them could more easily deal with him and more vigorously resist him Isot. You have said very many things from History which I shall not at this time undertake to examine but I am sure it hath been both the Practice and Doctrine of the Reformed Churches that in case of unjust Tyranny the States of a Kingdom may put a stop to the fury of a King and therefore where the Reformation was opposed by Cruelty it was also defended by Arms. And let me add that I believe your great quarrel at this Doctrine is because the practice of it was so great a mean of preserving the Reformation which though in good manners you must commend yet I am afraid you hate it in your heart Philar. Whether you or we be greater friends to the Reformation let the world judge by this one Indication that you study to draw all can be devised for the staining it with blood which is the constant calumny of its adversaries whereas we offer with the clearest evidences to evince its Innocence But let me premise the distinction of Doctrine from Practices and tho some unjustifiable Practices appear these must never be charged on the Reformed Churches unless it be made appear they were founded on their Doctrine Besides the Reformers coming out of the corruptions of Poperâ— in which the Doctrine and Practice of Resistance upon pretences of Religion were triumphant it will not be found strange tho some of that ill-tempered Zeal continued still to leaven them But for their Doctrine I take the Standart of it to be in the Confessions of the several Churches all which being gathered in one harmony we are in the right scent of their Opinions when we search for them there Now the Doctrine of resisting of Magistrates is by divers of their Confessions expressly condemned but in none of them asserted It is true there were some ambiguous expressions in our Scots Confession registred in Parliament Anno 1567 for Art 14. among the transgressions of the second Table they reckon to disobey or resist any that God hath placed in authority while they pass not over the bounds of their office which seems to imply the lawfulness of Resistance when they so transgress but besides that it is not clearly asserted and only inferred this doth not determine what the bounds of the Magistrate's Office are And if it be found that his Office is to coërce with the Sword so as to be accountable to none but to God then no Resistance will follow from hence except of a limited Magistrate who is accountable to others The same Explication is to be given to that part of the 24. Art where all such are condemned who resist the Supream Power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge But in the same Article the Magistrate is called God's Lieutenant in whose Sessions God himself doth sit and judge But with this it is to be considered when that Confession was ratified in Parliament even when no Sovereign was to look to the clearing of any ambiguities which might have-been upon design by some and through the neglect of others let pass The Confessions of the other Churches are unexceptionably plain and without restriction in the point of subjection For what seems like a Restriction in the French Confession that the yoke of subjection is willingly to be born though the Magistrates were Infidels provided that God's Sovereign authority remain entire and uncorrupted imports nothing but that our subjection to them which takes in both Obedience and Suffering is not to strike out the great Dominion God hath over our Souls whom we should obey rather than man And even the Confession of the Assembly of Divines ratified by the Scots General Assembly speaks of submission to Authority in absolute terms without the exception of Resistance in case of Tyranny Cap. 22. art 4. It is the duty of People to be subject to their authority for Conscience sake Infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrate's just and legal Aurity nor frâ—e the people from their due obedience to him If then the Doctrine of Resistance be to be owned as a Law of Nature and as a part of the Christian Freedom how came it that it was not more expresly owned in this Confession especially since it is known to have been the opinion of most of both these Assemblies But on the contrary it seems condemned and only the undiscerned reserves of just legal and due are slipâ— in for the defence of their actings Truly this seems not fair dealing and such an asserting of Subjection at that time looks either like the force of truth extorting it or intimates them afraid or ashamed to have owned that as their Doctrine to the World And by this time I suppose it is clear that the Reformed Churches ought not to be charged with the Doctrine of Resistance Poly. Nay nor the Reformed Writers neither with whose words I could fill much Paper and shew how they do all generally condemn the resistance of Subjects and when any of them gives any Caveat to this it is not in behalf of the People but of the States of the Kingdom who they say perhaps are impowered with authority to curb the tyranny of Kings as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians the Tribuns of the people and the Demarchs in Rome and Athens Now it is acknowledged that if by the Laws of the Kingdom it be found that the King is accountable to the States then their coercing of him is not the resistance of Subjects but rather the managing of the Supreme Power which lies in their hands If then you will stand to their decision in this Point of the Peoples resisting of their Sovereigns though Tyrants the debate will not run long they being so express And this will be nothing shaken by any thing
you may alledge in some corner of a Peter Martyr or some other Persons of less name for as from the same Writers other places may be brought to the contrary so what can these serve to enervate so much evident proof Besides we are not to consider the Writings of some particular Persons so much as what hath been the generally received opinion among the Protestant Writers and most taught in their Pulpits and Schools And whoever will attempt the contradicting that this hath been for absolute submission it must be confessed to be hard to determine whether his ignorance be most to be pitied or his confidence most wondered at By these things all may guess if there be not strong grounds to apprehend the Reformed Churches must be innocent of that which both their Confessions disown and their Writers condemn Isot. I confess the Author of the Dialogues did with great confidence undertake the refuting of what is generally acknowledged about resistance used by the Reformed Churches but his Answerer hath so refuted all he alledgeth from History that I am confident he repents of his undertaking and were it to be done again perhaps he would think on other tasks than to attempt what hath miscarried so in his hand that truly I cannot but pity him in my heart Eud. It will be strange if he be so much mistaken as your Author represents him yet his design in that was so good to deliver the Reformation from such a Challenge that methinks he deserved a little better usage than your Friend bestows on him But I am much deceived if he be not able to make good all was asserted by him let us therefore hear what Polyhistor saith on these matters Isot. Begin then with the matter of the Albigenses where force was used against Simon Montfort who had not only the permission of the French King as is acknowledged but was assisted by him by 15000. men which is vouched by some Authors Besides that the cruelties then used which are made use of to aggravate their not resisting the King of France if pertinently adduced prove the King of France guilty of accession to them And the Kings Son Prince Lewis coming with an Army afterward shews all to have been done by the Kings Command And what is alledged from the Count of Tolouse his being a Peer of France by which he was a Vassal and not a Subject is to no purpose since by the Feudal Law Vassals are Subjects and whatever authority they may have within their own Dominions they are still Subjects to the Lord of the Feud See p. 418. Poly. I shall not with big words blow away what you alledg but shall examine it from the accounts are given of that War It is true the Writers of that time do so strangely misrepresent these Innocents that little credit is due to most of the Histories about them but thus much is clear that the Waldenses were every where persecuted both in Dauphine Provence Piedmont Calabria Boheme and other places to which they scattered themselves and fled for shelter and notwithstanding all the Persecutions they lay under from the Inquisition in France they never armed against the King's authority These about Alby embracing the same Doctrine with the Waldenses and called from the Country they lived in Albigenses were thundered against by the Pope and a Iacobin Monk being killed in their Country Pope Innocent proclaimed a Crotsade promising Paradise to all who came and fought against these Hereticks and avenged the blood of that Monk and in particular suspecting Raymond Count of Tolouse he Excommunicated him and absolved his Subjects from their obedience permitting any to pursue his Person and possess his Lands with which he wrote to all Christian Princes to come into his Croisade But the King of France was imployed in Wars both with the Emperor and King of England and so could not join in it but gave way to his Barons to take the Cross And here the King consenting to so cruel an Invasion did undoubtedly shake much of his right to these Provinces since he thus exposed them to the fuâ—y of an unjust Invader so that tho they had absolutely rejected his Authority this had quadrated with the case of a Kings deserting of his Subjects However the War went on all managed by the Legate as the Popes war But Raymond came and submitted himself to the Pope yet the Legate went on against Beziers and Carcasson who had a great deal of reason to resist such an unjust Aggressor Afterwards the Legate gaping for the County of Tolouse picked another quarrel with Raymond and did excommunicate him of new tho he had got the Popes absolution whereupon he armed with the assistance of the King of Arragon against the Legate and his General Simon Montfort but afterwards the King of Arragon was defeated yet all this while the King of France lay neutral and would not permit his Son to go against the Albigenses because he had promised to the King of Arragon to be neutral but the King of Arragon being dead he gave way to it and so his Son came to the Army and this must be that which Gulielmus Brito confounds with the beginning of the War This also is that Affair which the Centuriators say Philippus Augustus had with the Albigenses But the Legate fearing the numbers Prince Lewis brought with him and apprehending he might have possessed himself of the other places which belonged to the Albigenses granted them all absolution with the protection of the Church and assumed the confidence to tell the Prince that since he had taken the Cross he was to depend on his Orders he representing the Pope and not to command in that Army as the Kings Son reproaching him because his Father had given no assistance to the destruction of the Albigenses when there was need of it but that after the miraculous Victories had been obtained he was now come to reap the Harvest of what was due to them who had hazarded their lives for the Church And for all this I refer you to the History of the Albigenses compiled by M. Perrin lib. 1. cap. 12 c. But what if by an overplus I should justifie the Count of Tolouse tho he had armed against the King of France upon the account of his being a Peer of France which exempted him from the condition of ordinary Subjects of whom Pasquier Recherches de France lib. 2. cap. 8 saith It was the vulgar Opinion that they were constituted by Charles the Great who is believed to have given them almost as much authority as himself had reserving only to himself the principal voice in the Chapter but he refutes that vulgar Error and shews how in the end of the Carolovingian Race great confusions were in France partly through the various Pretenders but more through their folly at which time the Crown of France did likewise become Elective and he shews how Eude Robert Raoul Lewis surnamed beyond the Sea Lot
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
may fairly infer with Sir Iohn Sheen Title 8. of the heads of our Laws drawn up by him That all Iurisdiction stands and consists in the King's Person by reason of his Royal Authority and Crown and is competent to no Subject but flows and proceeds from the King having Supreme Iurisdiction and is given and committed by him to such Subjects as he pleases Eud. I must confess my self pleased with this discussion of these points you have been tossing among you and though I have sate silent yet I have followed the thread of all your discourse with much close attention and was mightily confirmed in my former Perswasion both by the evidence of Reason the authorities of Scripture and these instances of History were adduced But there are many other things yet to be talked of though I confess this be of the greatest Importance and the satisfaction I have received in this makes me long to hear you handle the other matters in debate Phil. I suppose we have forgot little that belonged to this question but for engaging further at this time I have no mind to it it being so long passed Midnight we shall therefore give some truce to our debates and return upon the next appointment Eud. I were unworthy of the kindness you shew me did I importune you too much but I will presume upon your friendship for me to expect your company to Morrow at the same hour you did me the favor to come here to day Isot. I shall not fail to keep your hour tho I be hardly beset in such a croud of Assailants but Truth is on my side and it is great and shall prevail therefore good night to you Basil. I see you are not shaken out of your confidence for all the foils you get yet our next days discourse will perhaps humble you a little more but I refer this to the appointment wherein we hope to meet again and so Adieu Eud. Adieu to you all my good Friends THE SECOND CONFERENCE Eudaimon YOU are again welcome to this place and so much the more that your staying some minutes later than the appointment was making me doubt of your coming and indeed this delay proved more tedious and seemed longer to me than the many hours were bestowed on your yesterdays Conference but methinks Isotimus your looks though never very serene have an unusual Cloud upon them I doubt you have been among the Brotherhood whom your ingenious Relation of what passed here hath offended Their Temper is pretty well known to us all some of them being as the Pestilence that walketh in darkness with the no less zealous but scarcely more ignorant Sisterhood they vent their pedling stuff but of all things in the World shun most to engage with any that can unmask them and discover their follies And their safest way of dealing with such Persons is to laugh at them or solemnly to pity them with a disdainful Brow And that is the best refutation they will bestow on the solidest Reason or if any of them yelp out with an Answer sense or nonsense all is alike the premises are never examined only if the conclusion be positively vouched as clearly proved from Scriptures and Reason the sentence is irreversibly past and you may as soon bow an Oak of an hundred years old as deal with so much supercilious Ignorance Tell plainly have you been in any such Company Isot. What wild extravagant stuff pour you out on better men than your self but I pity your ignorance who know not some of these precious Worthies whose Shooe Latchets you are not worthy to unloose But the truth is you have got me here among you and bait me by turns either to ease your own Galls or to try mine yet it is needless to attempt upon me for as I am not convinced by your Reasons so I will not be behind with you in Reflections and I will â—â—ow and fight both as a Coâ—k of the Game 〈◊〉 Hold hold for these serve to no use bâ—t t◠〈◊〉 pâ—â—vish humâ—rs I will therefore engage you in another subject about the Civil Authority which our yesterdays debate left untouched which is the obedience due to their Commands let us therefore consider how far Subjection obligeth us to obey the Laws of the Civil Powers Isot. Had you not enough of that yesterday Is it not enough that the Magistrate be not resisted but will not that serve turn with you or do you design that we surrender our Consciences to him and obey all his Laws good or bad and follow Leviathan's Doctrine of embracing the Magistrates Faith without enquiry which is bravely asserted by the Author of Ecclesiastical Policy This is indeed to make the King in God'â— stead and to render Cesar the things that are God's which is a visible design either for Pâ—peâ—â— or Atheism Philâ—r Truly Sir you consider little if you â—uâ—ge submission to the Penalties of the Lawâ— to be all the duty we owe Superiors It is true where the Legislators leave it to the Subjects choice either to do a thing enacted or to pay a Fine in that Case Obedience is not simply required so that he who pays the Mâ—lct fulfils his Obligation But wheâ—e a Law is simply made and Obedience enâ—oined and a Penalty fixed on Disobedience in that Case nâ—thing but the sinfulness of the Command can excuse our disobedience neither can it be said that he sins not who is content to submit to the punishment since by the same method of arguing you may prove that such horrid Atheists as say they are content to be damned do not sin against God since they are willing to submit to the threatned punishment The right of exacting our Obedience is therefore to be distinguished from the power of punishing our faults And as we have already considered how far the latter is to be acquiesced in it remains to be examined what is due to the former But here I lay down for a Principle That whatever is determined by the Law of God cannot be reversed nor countermanded by any humane Law For the Powers that are being ordained of God and they being his Ministers do act as his Deputies and the tie which lies on us to obey God being the foundation of our subjection to them it cannot bind us to that which overthrows it self Therefore it is certain God is first to be obeyed and all the Laws of men which contradict his Authority or Commands are null and void of all obligation on our Obedience but I must add it is one of the arts of you know whom to fasten Tenets on men who judge these Tenets worthy of the highest Anathema For if it be maintained that the Magistrate can bind obligations on our Consciences then it will be told in every Conventicle that here a new Tyranny is brought upon Souls which are God's Prerogative though this be nothing more than to say we ought to be subject for Conscience sake If again it be proved that the
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
Glasgow But before they went to it a written citation of the Bishops was ordered to be read through all the Churches of Scotland wherein they were chaâ—ged as guilty of all the crimes imaginable which as an Agape after the Lords Supper was first read after a Communion at Edinburgh and upon it orders were sent every where for bringing in the privatest of their escapes And you may judge how consonant this was to that Royal Law of charity which covers a multitude of sins nor was the Kings Authority any whit regarded all this while Was ever greater contempt put on the largest offers of grace and favor And when at Glasgow His Majesty offered by his Commissioner to consent to the limiting of Bishops nothing would satisfie their zeal without condemning the order as unlawful and abjured But when many illegalities of the constitution and procedure of that Assembly were discovered their partiality appeared for being both Judg and Party they justified all their own disorders Upon which His Majesties Commissioner was forced to discharge their further sitting or procedure under pain of Treason but withal published His Majesties Royal intentions to them for satisfying all their legal desires and securing their fears But their stomachs were too great to yield obedience and so they sate still pretending their authority was from CHRIST and condemned Episcopacy excommunicated the Bishops with a great many other illegal and unjustifiable Acts. And when His Majesty came with an Army to do himself right by the Sword GOD had put in his hands they took the start of him and seised on his Castles and on the houses and persons of his good Subjects and went in a great body against him Now in this His Majesty had the Law clearly of his side For Episcopacy stood established by Act of Parliament And if this was a cause of Religion or a defence of it much less such as deserved all that bloud and confusion which it drew on let all the World judg It is true His Majesty was willing to settle things and receive them again into his grace and upon the matter granted all their desires but they were unsatisfiable upon which they again armed But of this I shall not recount the particulars because I hope to see a clear and unbyassed narration of these things ere long Only one Villany I will not conceal at the pacification at Berwick seven Articles of Treaty were signed But the Covenanters got a paper among them which passed for the conditions of the agreement though neither signed by his Majesty nor attested by Secretary or Clerk and this being every where spread his Majesty challenged it as a Forgery and all the English Lords who were of the Treaty having declared upon Oath that no such paper was agreed on it was burnt at London by the hand of the Hangman as a scandalous paper But this was from the Pulpits in Scotland represented as a violation of the Treaty and that the Articles of it were burnt These and such were the Arts the men of that time used to inflame that blessed King 's native Subjects against him But all these were small matters to the following invasion of England An. 1643. For his Majesty did An. 1641. come to Scotland and give them full satisfaction to all even their most unreasonable demands which he consented to pass into Acts of Parliaments But upon his return into England the woful rupture betwixt him and the two Houses following was our Church-party satisfied with the trouble they occasioned him No they were not for they did all they could to cherish and foment the Houses in their insolent Demands chiefly about Religion and were as forward in pressing England's uniformity with Scotland as they were formerly in condemning the design of bringing Scotland to an uniformity with England I shall not engage further in the differences betwixt the King and the two Houses than to shew that His Majesty had the Law clearly of his side since he not only consented to the redress of all grievances for which the least color of Law was alledged but had also yielded to larger concessions for securing the fears of his Subjects than had been granted by all the Kings of England since the Conquest Yet their demands were unsatisfiable without His Majesty had consented to the abolishing of Episcopacy and discharge of the Liturgy which neither his Conscience nor the Laws of England allowed of so that the following War cannot be said to have gone on the principles of defending Religion since His Majesty was invading no part of the established Religion And thus you see that the War in England was for advancing a pretence of Religion And for Scotlands part in it no Sophistry will prove it defensive for His Majesty had setled all matters to their hearts desire and by many frequent and solemn protestations declared his resolutions of observing inviolably that agreement neither did he so much as require their assistance in that just defence of his Authority and the Laws invaded by the two Houses though in the explication of the Covenant An. 1039. it was agreed to and sworn That they should in quiet manner or in Arms defend His Majesties Authority within or without the Kingdom as they should be required by His Majesty or any having his Authority But all the King desired was that Scotland might lie neutral in the quarrel enjoying their happy tranquillity yet this was not enough for your Churches zeal but they remonstrated that Prelacy was the great Mountain stood in the way of Reformation which must be removed and they sent their Commissioners to the King with these desires which His Majesty answered by a Writing yet extant under his own Royal hand shewing That the present settlement of the Church of England was so rooted in the Law that he could not consent to a change till a new form were agreed to and presented to him to which these at Westminster had no mind but he offered all ease to tender Consciences and to call a Synod to judg of these differences to which he was willing to call some Divines from Scotland for bearing their opinions and reasons At that time Petitions came in from several Presbyteries in Scotland to the Conservators of the Peace inciting them to own the Parliaments quarrel upon which many of the Nobility and others signed a Cross Petition which had no other design but the diverting these Lords from interrupting the Peace of Scotland by medling in the English quarrel upon which Thunders were given out against these Petitioners both from the Pulpits and the Remonstrances of the Commission of the General Assembly and they led Processes against all who subscribed it But His Majesty still desired a neutrality from Scotland and tho highly provoked by them yet continued to bear with more than humane patience the affronts were put on his Authority Yet for animating the people of Scotland into the designed War the Leaders of that Party did every where
Covenant brings upon us to oppose Episcopacy I shall discuss it with all the clearness I am master of I shall not tell you how much many who took that Covenant and do still plead its obligation have said from the words of the second Article and the explication given in it to Prelacy for reconciling as much of Episcopacy as is setled among us to it according to the declared meaning of its first imposers when they took it and authorized it But leaving you and them to contend about this upon the whole matter consider that Episcopacy is either necessary unlawful or indifferent if the first be true then you will without much ado confess that no Oath in prejudice of a necessary duty can bind any tie upon our conscience If it be unlawful I shall freely acknowledg that from the oaths of the Covenants there is a supervenient tie lying on us for its extirpation But if it be indifferent then I say it was a very great sin for a Nation so far to bind up their Christian liberty as by Oath to determine themselves to that to which GOD had not obliged them for the circumstances of things indifferent may so far vary that what is of it self indifferent may by the change of these become necessary or unlawful Therefore in these matters it is a great invasion of our Christian liberty to fetter consciences with Oaths And though the Rulers and chief Magistrates of a Society have either rashly or out of fear or upon other unjustifiable accounts sworn an Oath about indifferent things which afterwards becomes highly prejudicial to the Society then they must consider that the Government of that State is put in their hands by GOD to whom they must answer for their administration Theeefore they stand bound by the Laws of Nature of Religion and of all Societies to do every thing that may tend most for the good of the Society And if a Case fall in where a thing tends much to the good and peace of a Land but the Prince stands bound some way or other by Oath against it he did indeed sin by so swearing but should sin much more if by reason of that Oath he judged himself limited from doing what might prove for the good of the Society Indeed when an Oath concerns only a man's private rights it ties him to performance tho to his hurt but the administration of Government is none of these rights a Magistrate may dispose of at pleasure For he must conduct himself so as he shall be answerable to God whose Vicegerent he is and when these two Obligations interfere the one of procuring the good of the Society the other of adhering to an Oath so that they stand in terms of direct opposition then certainly the greater must swallow up the lesser It is therefore to be under consideration whether the Obligation of procuring the good of the Society or that of the Magistrates Oath be the greater But this must be soon decided if it be considered that the former is an Obligation lying on him by GOD who for that end raised him up to his power and is indeed the very end of Government whereas the other is a voluntary engagement he hath taken on himself and can never be equal to that which was antecedent to it much less justle it out But if it contradict the other the Magistrate is indeed bound to repent for his rash swearing but cannot be imagined from that to be bound to go against the good of the Society for the procuring whereof he hath the Sword and power put in his hands by GOD. And so much of the tie can lie upon a Magistrate by his Oath about things indifferent in ordering or governing the State that is subject to him in which he must proceed as he shall answer to GOD in the great day of his accounts and ought not to be censured or judged for what he doth by his Subjects But he enacting Laws in matters indifferent they become necessary Obligations on his Subjects which no private oath of theirs can make void Indeed the late Writer his arguing against this is so subtil that I cannot comprehend it so far as to find sense in it for he confesseth Pag. 232. That the Magistrate is vested with a power proportional to the ends of Government so that no Subject may decline his lawful commands or bind himself by any such Oath as may interfere with a supervenient rational command All this is sound and indeed all I pleaded only his explication of rational I cannot allow of For tho a Magistrate may proceed to unreasonable commands yet I see no limits set to our obedience but from the unlawfulness of them But in the next page he eats all this up by telling That there are many things still left to our selves and our own free disposal wherein we may freely vow and having vowed must not break our word And for instance he adduceth a mans devoting the tenth of his substance to the Lord from which no countermand of the Magistrates can excuse But still he concludes Page 334. That the Magistrates Power may make void such vows as are directly or designedly made to frustrate its right or to suspend the execution of others in so far as they do eventually cross its lawful exercise This last yields to me all I pretend in this case For the Covenant being made on purpose to exclude Episcopacy though at that time setled by Law if Episcopacy be not unlawful but lawful which I now suppose then the King's authority enjoining it and it being a great part likewise of the Government of the Subjects it is to be submitted to notwithstanding the Oath made against it So that your Friend yields without consideration that which he thinks he denies and therefore the reasoning in the Dialogues holds good that the Oath of a Subject in a matter indifferent cannot free him from the obedience he owes the Laws It is true his private vows in matters of his own concern are of another nature and so not within the compass of this Debate which is only about the obedience we owe the Laws supposing their matter lawful notwithstanding our Compacts made in opposition to them and therefore I shall not discourse of them but stick close to the purpose in hand But my next undertaking must be to free Children from any tie may be imagined to lie on them from the Fathers Oath which was a matter so clear to my thinking that I wonder what can be said against it Isot. Indeed here your Friend the Conformist bewrayed his ignorance notably not considering the authority Parents have over their Children by divine command which dies not with them their commands being obligatory even after their death for God commends the Rechabites for obeying Ionadabs command some ages after his death Therefore Parents adjuring Children they are obliged by it as the people of Israel by Saul's adjuring them not to eat food till the evening
easily off I have subjoyned to it an account of the form and rules of Church Government as I found them to have been received in the first and purest ages of the Church But I add no more for Preface to that work since in the end of the last Conference enough is said for introduction to it I have divided my work in four parts and Conferences The first examines the opinion of resisting lawful Magistrates upon the pretence of defending Religion The second considers the Authority of Laws and the obedience due to them together with the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical The third examines the spirit that acted during the late times and Wars and continues yet to divide us by Schism and faction And the fourth examines the lawfulness and usefulness of Episcopacy I must now release my Reader from the delay this Introduction may have occasioned him without the usual formality of Apologies for the defects the following papers are guilty of since I know these generally prevail but little for gaining what they desire but shall only say that this morose way of writing by engaging into Controversies is as contrary to my Genius as to any mans alive For I know well how little such writings prevail for convincing of any and that by them the most part are rather hardened into more wilfulness and exasperated into more bitterness Yet for this once I was prevailed on to do violence to my own inclinations by this Patrociny of the authority and laws of that Church and Kingdom wherein I live I am so far from thinking my self concerned to make Apology for the slowness of this Piece its appearance in publick that I encline rather to make excuses for its coming abroad too soon That it was ready near a twelve-month ago can be witnessed by many who then saw it Yet I was willing to let it lye some time by me and my aversion from the motions of the Press put it often under debate with me whether I should stifle it or give it vent at length I yielded to the frequent importunities of my friends who assaulted me from all hands and told me how much it was longed for and what insultings were made upon the delay of its publication And by what is near the end of the third Conference it will appear that it was written before the discovery of these who had robbed and wounded the Ministers in the West of Scotland I let what is there said continue as it was written before the discovery but shall add somewhat here In September last after a new robbery had been committed on another conformable Minister whose actors no search could discover some few days had not passed over when by a strange Providence one of them was catched on another account by a brave Soldier and being seized such indications of his accession to the robbery were found about him that he to prevent torture confessed not only his own guilt but discovered a great many more most of them escaped yet three were taken and had Justice done on them with him who had been their chief Leader and who continued to cant it out highly after he got his Sentence talking of his blood as innocently shed and railing against the Prelats and Curats though before Sentence he was basely sordid as any could be One of his complices who died with more sense acknowledged when he spake his last words that bitter zeal had prompted him to that villany and not covetousness or a design of robbing their goods Yet I shall not conceal what I was a witness to when a Minister of the Presbyterian perswasion being with them for two of them would willingly admit of none that were Episcopal after he had taken pains to convince the chief Robber of the atroâ—iousness of his crimes which was no â—asie task he charged him to discover if either Gentlemen or Ministers had prompted or cherished him in it or been conscious to his committing these robberies he cleared all except a few particular and mean persons who went sharers with him And by this fair and ingenuous procedure the Reader may judge how far the Author is from a design of lodging infamy on these who differ from him when of his own accord he offers a testimony for their vindication But I shall leave this purpose and the further prefacing at once If my poor labors be blessed with any measure of success I humbly offer up the praise of it to him fâ—om whom I derive all I have and to whom I owe the praise of all I can do But if these attempts bring forth none of the wished-for effects I shall have this satisfaction that I have sincerely and seriously studied the calming the passions and the clearing the mistakes of these among whom I live so that more lyes not on me but to follow my endeavours with my most earnest prayers that the GOD of Peace may in this our day cause us discern and consider these things which belong to our Peace THE HEADS TREATED OF in these Conferences THe first Conference examines the origine and power of Magistracy and whether Subjects may by arms resist their Sovereigns on the account or pretence of defending Religion against Tyranny and unjust oppression And whether the King of Scotland be a Sovereign Prince or limited so that he may be called to account and coerced by force The second examines the nature of humane Laws and of the obedience due to them and the Civil Magistrates Right of enacting Laws in matters Ecclesiastical The third examines the grounds and progress of the late Wars whether they were Defensive or Invasive and what Spirit did then prevail And the grounds of our present Schiâ—m are considered The fourth examines the origine lawfulness and usefulness of Episcopal Government which is concluded with an account of the Primiâ—ive Constitution and Government of the Churches that were first gathered and planted The COLLOCUTORS Eudaimon A Moderate man Philarchaeus An Episcâ—pal man Isotimus A Presbyterian Basilius An Asserter of the Kings Authority Criticus One well studied in Scripture Polyhistor An Historian The FIRST CONFERENCE Eudaimon YOU are welcome my good Friends and the rather that you come in such a number whereby our converse shall be the more agreeable Pray sit down Philarcheus The rules of Custom should make us begin with asking after your Health and what News you have Eud. Truly the first is not worth enquiring after and for the other you know how seldom I stir abroad and how few break in upon my retirement so that you can expect nothing from me but you have brought one with you who uses to know every thing that is done Isotimus I know you mean me the truth is I am very glad to hear every thing that passeth and think it no piece of Virtue to be so unconcerned in what befals the Church of GOD as never to look after it but you are much wronged if notwithstanding all your seeming abstraction you be
yet they were ordained of GOD and not to be resisted but submitted to under the hazard of resisting the Ordinance of GOD and receiving of damnation p. 2. And it is like the sacredness of the Magistrates power was a part of the traditional Religion conveyed from Noah to his posterity as was the practice of extraordinary Sacrifices Basil. It is not to be denied but a people may chase their own form of Government and the persons in whose hands it shall be deposited and the Sovereignty is in their hands of whom they do thus freely make choice so that if they expressly agree that any Administrators of the power by what name soever designed Kings Lords or whatever else shall be accountable to them in that case the Sovereignty lies in the major part of the people and these Administrators are subject to them as to the Supreme But when it is agreed in whose hands the Sovereign power lies and that it is not with the people then if the people pretend to the sword they invade GODS right and that which he hath devolved on his Vicegerent And as in marriage either of the parties make a free choice but the Marriage-bond is of GOD neither is it free for them afterwards to refile upon pretence of injuries till that which GOD hath declared to be a breach of the bond be committed by either party so though the election of the Sovereign may be of the people yet the tie of subjection is of GOD and therefore is not to be shaken off without we have express warrant from him And according to your reasoning one that hath made a bad choice in his marriage may argue that marriage was intended for a help and comfort to man and for propagation therefore when these things are missed in a marriage that voluntary contract may be refiled from and all this will conclude as well to unty an ill chosen marriage as to shake off a Sovereign Philarch. To this reasoning I shall add what seems from rational conjectures and such hints as we can expect of things at so great a distance from us to have been the rise of Magistracy We find no warrant to kill no not for murder before the Floud as appears from the instances of Cain and Lamech so no Magistracy appears to have been then Yet from what GOD said to Cain Gen. 4.7 we see the elder brother was to rule over the younger But the want of Magistracy before the Flood was perhaps none of the least occasions of the wickedness which was great upon earth but to Noah was the Law first given of punishing murder by death Gen. 9.6 and he was undoubtedly cloathed with that power So his eldest Son coming in his place by the right of representation and being by the right of primogeniture asserted before the Flood to be over his Brethren was cloathed with the same power and so it should have descended by the order of Nature still to the first-born But afterwards Families divided and went over the world to people it whereby the single jurisdiction of one Emperor could not serve the end of Government especially in that rude time in which none of these ways of correspondence which after Ages have invented were fallen upon These Families did then or at least by that Law of GOD of the elder Brothers power ought to have been subject to the eldest of their several Families And another rise of Magistracy was the poverty of many who sold themselves to others that were Richer and were in all Nations subâ—ect to them both they and their children and this was very early begun for Abraham's family consisted of 318. persons and the many little Kings at that time seem to have risen out of these Families for the posterity of these servants were likewise under the Masters Authority and these servants were by their Masters pleasure to live or lie nor had they any right to resist this unjust force But afterwards emancipation was used some dominion being still reserved and it is highly probable that from these numerous Families did most of the little Kingdoms then in the world spring up afterwards the more aspiring came to pretend over others and so great Empires rose by their Conquests Crit. I know it is strongly pretended that the state of servitude or such a surrender of ones life or liberty as subjects it to the tyranny of another is not lawful but this will be found groundless for though even the Law of GOD counted the servants a Man's money so that he was not to be punished though he had smitten them with a rod so that they died provided they lived a day or two after it Exod. 21.20 21. Yet in that dispensation it was not unlawful to be a servant nay nor unlawful to continue in that state for ever and not accept of the emancipation which was provided to them in the year of Iubily Neither is this state declared unlawful under the Gospel since S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 7.21 Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayst be free use it rather By which we see the Gospel doth not emancipate servants but placeth that state among things which may be lawfully submitted to though liberty be preferable Basil. From this it may be well inferred that if a Society have so intirely surrendred themselves that they are in no better case than were the servants among the Romans or Hebrews the thing is not unlawful nor can they make it void or resume the freedom without his consent whose servants they are and as S. Peter tells 1 Pet. 2.18 The servants to submit to their Masters tho punishing them wrongfully By whom all know that he means not of hired but of bought servants so if a people be under any degrees of that state they ought to submit not only to the good but to the froward and still it appears that the Sword is only in the Magistrates hand and that the people have no claim to it It is true in case the Magistrate be furious or desert his right or expose his Kingdoms to the fury of others the Laws and Sense of all Nations agree that the States of the Land are to be the Administrators of the power till he recover himself But the instance of Nebuchadnâ—zzar Dan. 4.26 shews that still the Kingdom should be sure to him when he recovers Iâ—â—t Now you begin to yield to truth and confess that a Magistrate when he grosly abuseth his Power may be coërced this then shews that the People are not slaves Basil. The Case varies very much when the abuse is such that it tends to a total Subversion which may be called justly a Phrensie since no man is capable of it till he be under some lesion of his mind in which case the Power is to be administred by others for the Prince and his Peoples safety But this will never prove that a Magistrate governing by Law though there be great errors in his
against Ierusalem to which he was admitted by the men of his party who opened the gates to him after which he polluted their worship and Temple and fell on the cruellest persecution imaginable Now his title over them being so ill grounded their asserting their freedom and Religion against that cruel and unjust Invader was not of the nature of Subjects â—esistâ—ng their Sovereign Besides what is brought from the Epistle to the Hebrews ch 11. for justifying these Wars seems ill applied for from the end of the 32. verse it appears he only speaks there of what was done in the times of the Prophets and none of these being during the time of the Maccabees that is not applicable to them Next as for Mattathias I must tell you that GOD often raised up extraordinary persons to judg Iâ—rael whose practices must be no rule to us for GOD sets up Kings and Rulers at his pleasure and in the Old Dispensation he frequently sent extraordinary Persons to do extraordinary things who were called Zealots and such was Samuel's hewing Agag in pieces before the Lord Elijah's causing to kill the Priests of Baal which was not done upon the peoples power to kill Idolâ—teâ—s but Elijah having by that signal Miracle of fire falling from heaven proved both that GOD was the LORD and onely to be worshiped and that he was his Prophet and commanding these Priests to be killed he was to be obeyed Of the same nature was his praying for fire from heaven on the Captains who came to take him and Eliâ—ha his câ—râ—ing of the Children who reproached him From these Precedents we see it is apparent that often in the Old Dispensation the power of the Sword both ordinary and extraordinary was assumed by persons sent of GOD which will never warrant private and ordinary uninspired Persons to do the like Isot. I acknowledg this hath some ground but the first instance of these Zealots was Phâ—nehas in whom we find no vestige of an extraordinary mission and yet he killed Zimri and Cosbi for which he was rewarded with an everlasting Priesthood So a zeal for GOD in extraordinary cases seems warrant enough for extraordinary practices Pag. 382. to 405. Basil. If you will read the account of that action given by Moses it will clear you of all your mistakes since Phinehas had the warrant of the Magistrate for all he did for Moses being then the Person in whose hands the Civil Power was committed by GOD did say to the Judges of Israel Numb 25.5 Slay ye every one his men that were joyned to Baal Peor Now that Phinehas was a Judg in Israel at that time is not to be doubted for Eleazer was then High Priest and by that means exempted from that Authority which when his Father Aaron lived was in his hand Numb 3.32 and he being now in his Fathers place there is no ground to doubt but Phinehas was also in his and so as one of the Judges he had received command from Moses to execute judgment on these impure Idolaters which he did with so much noble zeal that the Plague was stayed and GOD'S wrath turned away But if this conclude a Precedent it will prove too much both that a Church-man may execute judgment and that a private person in the sight of a holy Magistrate without waiting for his Justice may go and punish Crimes From the instances adduced it will appear how Zealots were ordinarily raised up in that Dispensation But when two of CHRISTS Disciples lay claim to that priviledg of praying for fire from heaven he gives check to the fervor of their thundring zeal and tells them Luk. 9.55 56. You know not what spirit you are of adding that the Son of man was not come to destroy mens lives but to save them whereby he shews that tho in the Old Dispensation GOD having by his own command given his people a title to invade the Nations of Canaan and extirpate them having also given them Political Laws for the administration of Justice and order among them it was proper for that time that GOD should raise up Judges to work extraordinary deliverances to his People whose Example we are not now to imitate GOD also sent Prophets who had it sometimes in Commission to execute Justice on Transgressors yet in the New Dispensation these things were not to take place where we have no temporal Canaan nor Judicial Laws given us and consequently none are now extraordinarily called in the Name of GOD to inflict ordinary and corporal punishments Having said all this it will be no hard task to make it appear that Mattathias was a Person extraordinarily raised up by GOD as were the Iudges And though no mention of that be made neither by Iosephus nor the Book of Maccabees that is not to be stood upon for we have many of the Judges of Israel of whose call no account is given and yet undoubtedly they were warranted to act as they did otherwise they had been Invaders But if that practice of Mattathias conclude any thing by way of Precedent it will prove that Church-men may invade the Magistrates Office and kill his Officers and raise War against him Crit. I wonder we hear not Isotimus alledging the practice of the ten Tribes who rejected Rehoboam and made choice of Ieroboam which useth to be very confidently adduced for proving it to be the peoples right to give Laws to their Princes and to shake them off when they refuse obedience to their desires But to this and all other instances of this nature it is to be answered that the Iewish State being a Theocracy as it is called by their own Writers their Judges and many of their Kings had their title from GOD's designation and the possession was only yielded to them by the People according to the command Deut. 17.15 To set him King over them whom the LORD their GOD did chuse So when they sought a King they came to Samuel as the known Prophet of GOD and desired him to give them a King which he afterwards did In like manner was David designed to succeed Saul by the same Prophet and upon Sauâ—'s death the Tribe of Iudah came and aknowledged and anointed him King which was the solemn investiture in that to which he had formerly a right Ieroboam being by the same authority designed King over the ten Tribes by the mouth of Ahijab in the name of GOD 1 Kings 11. Ch. from v. 28. he derived his Title from that and there was as good warrants for the people to reject Rehoboam and follow him as was formerly to quite Ishbosheth and follow David Another instance of this nature is Elisha his sending one to Iehu where that young Prophet saith 2 Kings 9.6 Thus saith the LORD GOD of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the LORD even over Israel Upon the notice whereof v. 13. he is declared King These instances will sufficiently prove what I have alledged that the Kings of
faith and patience of the Saints Which seems to imply that since retaliation will be gâ—ven out by God upon unjust Murderers therefore Faith and Patâ—ence must be the Exercise of the Saints which to all unprejudged Minds will sound a discharge of the use of Weapons of War But after all this the phrase of taking the sword seems only applicable to S. Peter for the Band being sent out by a Magistrate could not properly be said to have taken the Sword it being put in their hands by these who were invested with it though they now tyrannically abuse their power but the phrase agrees much better with S. Peter's drawing it who had no warrant for it and so did indeed takâ— it Next we hear no mention of the Band of Soldiers their using their Swords therefore this Prediction seems fitted for S. Peter and all such as mistaking the nature of the Chrâ—â—stian Dispensation do take the Sword But next consider CHRIST'S words to Pilate Iohn 18.36 Mâ— Kingdom 〈◊〉 nâ—t of thâ—â— world if my Kingdom were of this 〈◊〉 then wâ—ulâ— my servants fight that I should nâ—t be â—â—lâ—vâ—râ—d to the â—â—ws but now is my Kingdom not from â—ence And this being said upon the Accusation the Iews had given against him to Pilate that he call'd himself a King charging him upon his friendship to Cesar to put him to death CHRIST S answer shews that earthly Kings need apprehend no prejudiâ—â— from his Kingdom since it not being about worldly things was not to be â—ought foâ— Isot. Speak plainly do you mean by this that CHRIST should have no Kingdom upon Earth which I fear too many of you desire since you press this so warmly But consider you not that by this CHRIST only means he was not to set up a Temporal Dominion upon Earth to â—ustle Cesar from his Throne such as the Iews expected from their Messiah and therefore this place is indeed strong against the pretences of some Carnal Fifth-Monarchy Men but is ill adduced to condemn defence when we are unjustly assaulted by a persecuting Tyrant See p. 25. Crit. It is no new thing to find the sincere Doctrine of the Gospel misrepresented by Sons of Belial but learn the difference betwixt a Kingdom of the World and in the World and so temper your Passion CHRIST must have a Kingdom in the World but not of it And the greatest hazard of a pretending King being the raising of Wars and Commotions upon his Title CHRIST'S words are not truly commented on by the practice of his Servants unless they secâ—re Princes from their Fears of their raising Wars upon his â—itle Therefore as the sighting at that time for preserving CHRIST from the Iews had been contrary to the nature of his Spiritual Kingdom to the Rule of the Gospel binding all the succeeding Ages of the Church no less than these to whom it was first delivered what was then contrary to the nature of CHRIST'S Kingdom will be so still And to this I might add the Doctrine of Peace so much insisted on in the New Testament it being the Legacy CHRIST left to his Disciples which we are commanded to follow with all men as much as is possible and as in â—s lies And if with all men â—â—re much more with the Magistrate And S. Paul's words in the xiii to the Romans are so express that methinks they should strike a terror in all men from resisting the Superior Powers leâ—t they resist the ordinance of GOD and receive damnation And it is observable that S. Paul who as a Zealot had formerly persecuted the Christians doth now so directly contradict that Doctrine which was at that time so horridly corrupted among the Iews This place is so express that it needs not the advantages may be given to it either from the consideration of the power the Roman Empire had usurped over the World or from the Emperor who then reigned who must have been either Claudius or Nero and if the former we find Acâ—s 18.2 that he banished all the Iews from Rome and with them the Christians not being distinguishâ—d by the Romans from the Iews were also banished and here was a driving of Christians from Rome which you will not deny to have been a Persecution But if it was Nero we know very well how the Christians were used by him But these words of S. Paul being as at first addressed to the Romans so also designed by the holy Ghost to be a part of the Rule of all Christians do prove that whoever hath the Supreme Power is to be submitted to and never resisted Isot. If you were not in too great a haste you would not be so forward consider therefore the reason S. Paul gives for sâ—bmission to Superior Rulers is because they are the Ministers of GOD for good If then they sweâ—ve from this they forsake the end for which they are raised up and so faâ—l from their power and right to our obedience Basil. Truly what you have said makes me not repent of any haste I seemed to make for what you have alledged pâ—oves indeed that the Sovereign is a Minister of GOD for good so that he corrupts his power grosly when he pursues not that design but in that he is only accountable to GOD whoâ—e Minister he is And this must hold good except you give us good ground to believe that GOD hath given authority to the Subjects to call him to account for his trust but if that be not made appear then he must be left to GOD who did impower him and therefore can only â—oerce him As one having his power from a King is countable to none for the administration of it but to the King or to these on whom the King shall devolve it so except it be proved that GOD hath warranted Subjects to call their Sovereigns to account they being his Ministers must only be answerable to him And according to these Principles of yours the Magistrateâ— authority shall be so enervated that he shall no more be able to serve these designs for which GOD hath vested him with Power every one being thus taught to shake off his Yoak when they think he acts in prejudice of Religion And here I shall add one thing which all Casuists hold a safe Rule in matters that are doubtfâ—l that we ought to follow that side of the doubt which is freest of hazard here then damnation is at least the seeming hazard of resistance therefore except upon as clear evidence you prove the danger of absolute submission to be of the same nature that it may baâ—â—ance the other then absolute submission as being the securest is to be followed Next we find Saint Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 c. who being â—et infecteâ— with the spirit of a Iewiâ—h zealot had drawn the Sword afterwards when indâ—eâ— with power from on High at length pressing the doctrine of Obedience adding that the pâ—etâ—nce of the Christian freedom should not be made a Cloak of maliciousness And
hair and another Lewis were chosen Kings of France and the chief Persons who at that time were most active were these Dukes Counts and Bishops who afterwards were made Peers Hugo Capet therefore taking possession of the Crown for securing himself peaceably in it did confirm those Peers in that great Authority they had assumed which if he had not done they had given him more trouble And their constitution was that if any difference arose either betwixt the King and any of the Peers or among the Peers themselves it should be decided by the Council of the whole twelve Peers And he proves from an old Placart that they would not admit the Chancellor Connestable or any other great Officer of France to judg them they being to be judged by none but their fellow Peers These were also to be the Electors of the King But Hugo Capet apprehending the danger of a free Election caused for preventing it Crown his Son in his own time which was practised by four or five succeeding Kings And Lewis the Gross not being crowned in his Fathers time met with some difficulty at his entry to the Crown which to guard against he crowned his Son in his own time and so that practice continued till the pretence of electing the King was worn out by prescription Yet some vestigies of it do still remain since there must be at all Coronations of France twelve to represent the Peers and by this time I think it is well enough made out that the Count of Tolouse was not an ordinary Subject And as for your confounding of Subject and Vassal Bodinus lib. de Rep. cap. 9. will help you to find out a difference betwixt them who reckons up many kinds of Vassals and Feudataries who are not Subjects for a Vassal is he that holds Lands of a Superior Lord upon such conditions as are agreed to by the nature of the Feud and is bound to protect the Superior but may quit the Feud by which he is free of that subjection so that the dependence of Vassals on their Lord must be determined by the Contract betwixt them and not by the ordinary Laws of Subjects And from this he concludes that one may be a Subject and no Vassal a Vassal and no Subject and likewise both Vassal and Subject The Peers of France did indeed give an Oath of homage by which they became the Liegeâ—men of the King but were not for that his Sâ—bjects for the Oath the Subjects swore was of a far greater extent And thus I am deceived if all was asserted by the Conformist in the Dialogues on this head be not made good Isot. But since you examine this instance so accuratly what say you to those of Piedmont who made a League among themselves against their Prince and did resist his cruel Persecutions by Armies See pag. 423. Poly. Truly I can say little on this Subject having seen none of their Writings or Apologies so that I know not on what grounds they went and I see so much ignorance and partiality in accounts given from the second hand that I seldom consider them much Isot. The next instance in History is from the Wars of Boheme where because the Chalice was denied the People did by violence resist their King and were headed by Zisca who gained many Victories in the following War with Sigismund and in the same Kingdom fifty years ago they not only resisted first Matthias and then Ferdinand their King but rejected his authority and choosed a new King and the account of this change was because he would not make good what Maximilian and Rodolph did grant about the fâ—ee exercise of their Religion and thus when engagements were broken to them they did not judge themselves bound to that tame submission you plead for See p. 424. Poly. Remember what was laid down as a ground that the Laws of a Society must determine who is invested with the Sovereign Power which doth not always follow the Title of a King but if he be accountable to any other Court he is but a Subject and the Sovereign Power rests in that Court If then it be made out that the States of Bohemia are the Sovereigns and that the Kings are accountable to them this instance will not advance the plea of defensive Arms by Subjects That the Crown of Bohemia is elective was indeed much contraverted and was at length and not without great likelihoods on both sides of late debated in divers Writings but among all that were impartial they prevailed who pleaded its being elective Yet I acknowledge this alone will not prove it free for the People to resist unless it be also apparent that the Supreme Power remained with the States which as it is almost always found to dwell with the People when the King is elected by them Bodin doth reckon the King of Bohemia among these that are but Titular Kings and the Provincial Constitutions of that Kingdom do evidently demonstrate that the King is only the Administrator but not the fountain of their Power which is made out from many instances by him who writes the Republick of Bohemia who shews how these Kings are bound to follow the pleasure and Counsel of their States and in the year 1135 it was decreed that the elected Prince of Bohemia should bind himself by his Coronation Oath to rules there set down which if he broke the States were to pay him no Tributes nor to be tied to any further Obedience to him till he amended See Hagecus ad ann 1135. And this Oath was taken by all the following Dukes and Kings of Bohemia which is an evident proof that the States had authority over their Kings and might judge them To this also might be added divers instances of their deposing their Kings upon which no censure ever passed These being then the grounds on which the Bohemians walked it is clear they never justified their Resistance on the account of Subjects fighting for Religion but on the liberties of a free State asserting their Religion when invaded by a limited Prince The account of the first Bohemian War is that Iohn Huss and Ierome of Prague being notwithstanding the Emperors Safe-conduct burnt at Constance the whole States of Bohemia and Moravia met at Prague and found that by the burning of their Doctors an injury was done to the whole Kingdom which was thereby marked with the stain of Heresie and they first expostulated with the Emperor and Counsel about the wrong done them but no reparation being made they resolved to seek it by force and to defend the Religion had been preached by Huss and did declare their design to Winceslaus their King whom the States had before that time made prisoner twice for his maleversation but at that very time he died in an Apoplexy some say through grief at that After his death Sigismund his Brother pretended to the Crown of Bohemia but not being elected was not their righteous King so in the following Wars
deposed him as appears by their Decree St. tom 2. lib. 4. By these indications it is apparent that the Prince of the Netherlands was not Sovereign of these Provinces since they could cognosce upon him and shake off his authority But I shall next make out that Religion was not the ground upon which these Wars were raised The Reformation came unto the Provinces in Charles the V. his time who cruelly persecuted all who received it so that these who were butchered in his time are reckoned not to be under 100000. Gr. Annal. lib. 1. All this Cruelty did neither provoke them to Arms nor quench the Spirit of Reformation whereupon Philip designed to introduce the Inquisition among them as an assured mean of extinguishing that Light But that Court was every where so odious and proceeded so illegally that many of the Nobility among whom divers were Papists entered in a Confederacy against it promising to defend one another if endangered Upon this there were first petitions and after that tumults but it went no further till the Duke of Alva came and proceeded at the rate of the highest Tyranny imaginable both against their Lives and Fortunes particularly against the Counts of Egment and Horn suspect of favoring the former disordâ—â—s But it being needleâ—s to make a vain shew of reading in a thing which every boy may know after the Duke of Alva had so transgressed all Limits the Nobility and Deputies of the Towns of Holland who were the Depositaries of the Laws and Privileges of that State met at Dort anno 1572. Gr. de Ant. Bat. cap. â— and on Iuly 19 decreed a War against the Duke of Alva and made the Prince of Orange their Captain which was done upon his eâ—â—cting the twentieth penny of their Rents and the tenth of their moveables in all their transactions and merchandises Yet all this while the power was in the hands of Papists Gr. Anâ—al lib. 3. Noâ— waâ— the Protestant Religion permitted till the year 1578. that in Amsterâ—â—â— Utrecht and Harlem the Magistrats who were addicted to the Roman Religion were tuâ—neâ— out which gave great offence to some of then Confederates who adhered to Poperv And upon this the Protestants petitioned the Aâ—câ— Duke Matthias whom the States had chosen for their Prince that since it was known that they were the chief object of the Spanish hatred and so might look for the hardest measure it they prevailed it was therefore just they who were in the chief danger might now enjoy some share of the Liberty with the rest wherefore they desired they might have Châ—rchâ—s allowed them and might not be barred from publick trust which after some debate was granted And let this declare whether the War was managed upon the grounds of Religion or not The year after this the States of Holland Geldres Zeland Utrecht and Friesland met at Utrecht and entred in that Union which continues to this day by which it was provided that the Reformed Religion should be received in Holland and Zeland but the rest were at liberty either to chuse it or another or both as they pleased So we see they did not confederate against Spain upon the account of Religion it not being the ground of theiâ—â—eague but in opposition to the Spanish Tyranny and Pride And in their Letters to the Emperor Ian. 8 1578. Str. tom 2. lib. 2. they declared that they never were nor ever should be of another mind but that the Catholick Religion should be still observed in Holland and in the end of the year 1581. they decreed that Philip had forfeited his Title to the Principality of Belgium by his violating their Privileges which he had sworn to observe whereupon they were according to their compact with him at his inauguration free from their obedience to him and therefore they chusâ—â— the Duke of Alenson to be their Prince And now review all this and see if you can stand to your former assertion or believe these Wars to have proceeded upon the grounds of subjects resisting their Sovereign when he persecutes them upon the aâ—count of Religion and you will be made to acknowledge that the States of Holland were not subjects and that their quarrel was not Religion Isot. All this will perhaps be answered in due time but from this let me lead you to France where we find a long Tract of Civil Wars upon the account of Religion and here you cannot pretend the King is a limited Sovereign neither was this War managed by the whole States of France but by the Princes of the Blood with the Nobility of some of the Provinces and these began under Francis the Second then about sixteen years of Age so that he was not under Non-age and tho they were prosecuted under the Minority of Charles the Ninth yet the King of Navarre who was Regent and so bore the King's Authority was resisted and after Charles was of age the Wars continued both during his Reign and much of his Brother's and did again break out in the last King's Reign The Protestants were also owned and assisted in these Wars not only by the Princes of Germany but by the three last Princes who reigned in Britain So here we have an undeniable instance of Subjects defending Religion by Arms. See pag. 454. Poly. I must again put my self and the company to a new penance by this ill understood piece of History which you have alledged and tell you how upon Henry the Second's death Francis his Son was under age by the French Law for which see Thuan. lib. 16. which appointed the Regents power to continue till the King was 22 years of age at least as had been done in the case of Charles the 6. which yet the History of that time saith was a rare privilege granted him because of his Gracefulness and the love was generally born him whereas the year wherein the Kings were judged capable of the Government was 25. But Francis tho under age being every way a Child did for away both the Princes of the Blood the Constable and the Admiral from the Government which he committed to his Mother the Cardinal of Lorrain and the Duke of Guise Upon this the Princes of the Blood met and sent the King of Navarre who was the first Prince of the Blood to the King to complain of their ill usage but tho he was much neglected at Court yet his simplicity was such that he was easily whedled out of his pretensions Upon this the Prince of Conde having a greater spirit and being poor thought upon other Courses and as it is related by Davila lib. 1. gathered a meeting at Ferté where he pâ—â—posed the injury done the Princes of the Blood who in the minority of their King were now excluded the Government which contrary to the Salick law was put in a womans hand and trusted to Strangers wherefore he moved that according to the practices of other Princes of the Blood in the like Cases which
he adduced they might by arms make good their right and assume the Government in the Kings minority But the Admiral considering well the hardiness of the enterprise said that another way must be taken to make it succeed which was that since France was full of the followers of Calvin who through the persecutions they had lain under were now almost desperat and had a particular hatred at the Brethren of Lorrain as their chief enemies therefore it was fit to cherish them and make a party of them by which means assistance might be likewise hoped for from the Princes of Germany and the Queen of England and to this advice all present did yield Upon this saith Thuan lib. 16. many Writings were published proving the Government of the Kingdom in the King's minority to belong to the Princes of the Blood and that by the Laws of France the Regents power was not absolute but to be regulated by the Assembly of the States wherein many instances of the French Law were adduced and whereas it was alledged that the King was major at 15. which was proved from an Edict of Charles the Fifth this was fully refuted and it was shewed that notwithstanding of the Edict of Charles the Fifth his Son was not admitted to the Government till he was full 22 years of age and that in his minority the Kingdom was governed by a Council of the Princes and Nobility which was established by an Assembly of the States I shall not meddle further in the debate which was on both hands about the year of the King's majority or the Power of the Princes of the Blood in his minority but shall refer the Reader to the sixth Book of the voluminous History of France for that time whose Author hath suppressed his Name where a full abstract of all the writings that passed on both sides about these matters is set down but this shews how little your Friends understand the History of that time who take it for granted that Francis the Second was then Major since it was the great matter in controversie But to proceed in my Accounts These grounds being laid down for a war the Pâ—ince of Conde as Thuan relates would not openly own an accession to any design till it should be in a good forwardness but trusted the management of it to one Renaudy who tho a Catholick by his Religion yet drew a great meeting of Protestants to Nantes in the beginning of February anno 1560. where he stirred them up to arm and in his Speech after he had represented all the grievances he added that the greatest scruples that stuck with many was the King's Authority against which whosâ— roseâ—he did rebel and he answered acknowledging the obedience due to Kings notwithstanding their wicked Laws and that it was without doubt that all who resisted the Power constituted by GOD resisted his Ordinance but added their resistance was of these Traitors who having possessed themselves of the young King designed the ruin both of King and Kingdom This then will clear whether they walked on the Principles of Subjects resisting when persecuted by their Sovereign or not Upon this they designed to have seised on the King but as it was to be executed though it had been long carried with a marvellous secrecy it was at length discovered and the King conveyed to Ambâ—iâ—e and as the Protestants were gathering to a Head the Kinâ—'s Forces came upon them and defeated and scattered them But a little after this the King died in good time for the Prince of Conde for his accession to these Commotions being discovered he was sâ—ised on and sentenced to death but the King's death as it â—â—livered him did also put an end to the questions about the King's majority his Brother Charles the Ninth being a child so that the Regency was undoubtedly the King of Navarre his right yet not so entirely but that the other Princes were to share with him and the Assembly of the States to direct him as the Lawyers proved from the French Law The consultation about the Protestants took them long up and a severe Edict passed against them in Iuly 1561. But in the Ianuary of the next year a solemn meeting was called of all the Prinâ—es of the Blood the Privy Counsellors and the eighth Parliament of France in which the Edict of Ianuary was passed giving the Protestants the free exercise of their Religion and all the Magistrats of France were commanded to punish any who interrupted or hindered this liberty which Edict you may see at length Hist. d' Aâ—big lib. 2. c. 32. But after this as Davila lib. 3. relates how the Duke of Guise coming to Paris did disturb a meeting of the Protestants so that it went to the throwing of Stones with one of which the Duke was hurt upon which he designed the breach of that Edict and so was the Author and Contriver of the following Wars After this the Edict was every where violated and the King of Navarre united with the Constable and the Duke of Guise for the ruin of the Protestants upon which the Prince of Conde as the next Prince of the Blood asserted the Edicts so that the â—aw was on his side neither was the Regents power absolute or Sovereign and the Prince of Condé in his Manifesto declared he had armed to free the King from that captivity these stranger Princes kept him in and that his design was only to assert the authority of the late Edict which others were violating Upon this the Wars began and ere the year was ended the King of Navarre was killed after which the Regency did undoubtedly belong to the Prince of Condé And thus you see upon what grounds these Wars began and if they were after that continued during the majority of that same King and his Successors their Case in that was more to be pitied than imitated for it is known that Wars once beginning and Jealousies growing strong and deeply rooted they are not easily setled And to this I shall add what a late Writer of that Church Sieur d'Ormegrigny hath said for them in his reflections on the Third Chapter of the Politicks of France wherein he justifies the Protestants of France from these Imputations What was done that way he doth not justifie but chargeth it on the despair of a lesser Party among them which was disavowed by the greater part And shews how the first Tumults in Francis II. his time were carried mainly on by Renaudy a Papist who had Associates of both Religions He vindicates what followed from the Interest the Princes of the Blood had in the Government in the minority of the Kings And what followed in Henry III. his time he shews was in defence of the King of Navarre the righteous heir of the Crown whom those of the League designed to seclude from his right But after that Henry IV. had setled France he not only granted the Protestants free Exercise of their Religion but gave
them some Towns for their security to be kept by them for twenty years at the end whereof the late King remanding them the Protestants were instant to keep them longer to which he yielded for three or four years in the end he wisely determined saith that Gentleman to take them out of their hands Upon which they met in an Assembly at Rochel and most imprudently he adds and against their duty both to God and the King they resolved to keep them still by force But at that time there was a National Synod at Alais where M. du Moulin presided who searching into the posture of Affairs in that Country where many of these places of strength lay he found the greater and better part inclined to yield them up to the King upon which he wrote an excellent Letter to the Assembly at Rochel disswading them from pursuing the Courses they were ingaging in where he shews it was the general desire of their Churches that it might please God to continue peace by their giving Obedience to the King and since his Majesty was resolved to have these Places in his own hands that they would not on that account ingage in a War But that if Persecution was intended against them all who feared God desired it might be for the Profession of the Gospel and so be truly the cross of Christ and therefore assured them the greater and better part of their Churches desired they would dissolve their meeting if it could be with security to their Persons And presses their parting from that Assembly with many Arguments and obviates what might be objected against it And craves pardon to tell them They would not find inclinations in those of the Religion to obey their resolutions which many of the best quality and greatest capacity avowedly condemned judging that to suffer on that account was not to suffer for the Cause of God And therefore exhorts them to depend on God and not precipitate themselves into Ruin by their Impatience And he ends his Letter with the warmest and serventest language imaginable for gaining them into his opinion It is true his Letter wrought not the desired Effect yet many upon it deserted the meeting Upon the which that Gentleman shews that what was then done ought not to be charged on the Protestant Churches of France since it was condemned by the National Synod of their Divines and three parts of four who were of the Religion continued in their dutiful Obedience to the King without ingaging in Arms with those of their Party Amirald also in his incomparable Apology for those of the Reformed Religion Sect. 2. vindicates them from the imputations of disloyalty to their Prince and after he hath asserted his own opinion that Prayers and Tears ought to be the only weapons of the Church as agreeing best with the nature of the Gospel and the practice of the first Christians he adds his regrates that their Fathers did not crown their other Virtues with invincible Patience in suffering all the Cruelty of their Persecutors without resistance after the Example of the Primitive Church by which all color of reproaching the Reformation had been removed Yet he shews how they held out during the Reign of Francis I. and Henry II. notwithstanding all the Cruelty of the Persecution though their Numbers were great What fell out after that he justifies or rather excuses for he saith he cannot praise but blame it on the Grounds we have already mentioned of the minority of their Kings and of the Interest of the Princes of the Blood And for the business of Renaudy in Francis II. his time he tells how Calvin disapproved it and observes from Thuan that he who first discovered it was of the Reformed Religion and did it purely from the Dictate of his Conscience He also shews that the Protestants never made War with a common Consent till they had the Edicts on their side so that they defended the King's Authority which others were violating But adds withal that the true cause of the Wars was reason of State and a Faction betwixt the Houses of Bourbon and Guise and the defence of the Protestants was pretended to draw them into it And for the late Wars he charges the blame of them on the ambition of some of their Grandees and the factious Inclinations of the Town of Rochel And vindicates the rest of their Church from accession to them whatever good wishes the common Interest of their Religion might have drawn from them for these whose danger they so much apprehended And for the Affaus of our Britain which was then in a great Combustion for which the Protestants were generally blamed as if the Genius of their Religion led to an opposition of Monarchy he saith strangers could not well judge of matters so remore from them but if the King of England was by the constitutions of that Kingdom a Sovereign Prince which is a thing in which he cannot well offer a dicision then he simply condemns their raising a War against him even though that report which was so much spread of his design to change the Reformed Religion settled there were true Neither are these opinions of Amirald to be look'd on as his private thoughts but that Apology being published by the approbation of these appointed to license the Books of the Religion is to be received as the more common and received Doctrine of that Church And what ever approbation or assistance the neighboring Princes might have given the Protestants in the latter or former Wars it will not infer their allowing the Precedent of Subjects resisting their Sovereign though persecuted by him since it is not to be imagined many Princes could be guilty of that But the Maxims of Princes running too commonly upon grounds very different from the Rules of Conscience and tending chiefly to strengthen themselves and weaken their Neighbors we are not to make any great account of their approving or abetting of these Wars And thus far you have drawn from me a great deal of Discourse for justifying the Confâ—rmists design of vindicating the Reformed Churches from the Doctrine and Practice of Subjects resisting their Sovereign upon pretexts of Religion Isot. A little time may produce an Answer to all this which I will not now attempt but study these accounts more accurately But let us now come home to Scotland and examine whether the King be an accountable Prince or not You know well enough how Fergus was first called over by the Scots how many instances there are of the States their coercing the King how the King must swear at his Coronation to observe the Laws of the Kingdom upon which Allegiance is sworn to him so that if he break his part why are not the Subjects also free since the Compact seems mutual I need not add to this that the King can neither make nor abrogate Laws without the consent of the Estates of Parliament that he can impose no Tax without them And from
these things it appears that the King of Scotland is a limited King who as he originally derived his Power from their choice so is still limited by them and liable to them All which is at large made out by the Author of Ius populi Basil. Now you are on a rational Point which I acknowledge deserves to be well discussed for if by the Laws of Scotland the King be liable to his People then their coercing him will be no Rebellion But this point is to be determined not from old Stories about which we have neither Record nor clear account for giving light how to direct our belief nor from some tumultuary Practices but from the Laws and Records of the Kingdom and here the first word of our Laws gives a shrewd Indication that the King's Power is not from the People which is anno 1004 according to Sir Iohn Skeen's Collection of them King Malcome gave and distributed all his Lands of the Realm of Scotland among his men and reserved nothing in property to himself but the Royal Dignity and the Mure-hill in the Town of Scone Now I dare appeal to any Person whether this be not the Stile of a Sovereign and if this prove not the King's Title to the Crown to be of another nature than that of a voluntary Compact The next vestige is to be found in the Books of Regiam Majestatem held to be published by King David I. Anno 1124 and declared authentical by following Parliaments where the third Verse of the Preface is That our most glorious King having the Government of the Realm may happily live both in the time of Peace and of warfare and may ride the Realm committed to him by God who hath no Superior but the Creator of Heaven and Earth ruler over all things c. And let the plain sense of these words tell whether the King of Scotland hath his power from the People and whether he be accountable to any but to God It is also clear that all were bound to follow the King to the Wars and punishment was decreed against those who refused it see the Laws of Alexander II. Cap. 15. and Iac. 1. Parl. 1. Cap. 4. Iac. 2. p. 13. Cap. 57. And this shews they were far from allowing War against the King The Parliaments were also originally the Kings Courts at which all his Vassals were bound to appear personally and give him Counsel which proving a burden to the small Barons they were dispenced with for their appearance in Parliament 1. Iac. Parl. 7. cap. 101. which shews that the coming to the Parliament was looked on in these days rather as an homage due to the King than a priviledg belonging to the Subjects otherwise they had been loth to have parted with it so easily And 2. Fac. 6. Parl. cap. 14. It is ordained that none rebel against the King's person nor his Authority and whoso makes such Rebellion is to be punished after the quality and quantity of such Rebellion by the advice of the three Estates And if it happens any within the Realm openly or notoriously to rebel against the King or make war against the King's Laeges against his forbidding in that case the King is to go upon them with assistance of the whole Lands and to punish them after the quantity of the trespass Here see who hath the Sovereign power and whether any may take Arms against the King's command and the 25. Ch. of that same Parl. defines the points of Treason It is true by that Act those who assault Castles or Houses where the King's person was without the consent of the three Estates are to be punished as Traytors From which one may infer that the Estates may besiege the King but it is clear that was only a provision against these who in the minority of the Kings used to seize upon their Persons and so assumed the Government and therefore it was very reasonable that in such a case provision should be made that it were not Treason for the Estates to come and besiege a place where the Kings Person were for recovering him from such as treasonably seized on him And this did clearly take its rise from the confusions were in that King's minority whom sometimes the Governor sometimes the Chancellor got into their keeping and so carried things as they pleased having the young King in their hands The King is also declared to have full Jurisdiction and free Empire within his Realm 3. Fac. Parl. 5. cap. 30. And all along it is to be observed that in asserting his Majesties Prerogative Royal the phrases of asserting and acknowledging but never of giving or granting are used so that no part of the King's Prerogative is granted him by the Estates and Iac. 6. Parl. 8. cap. 129. his Majesties Royal Power and Authority over all Estates as well spiritual as temporal within the Realm is ratified approved and perpetually confirmed in the person of the King's Majesty his Heirs and Successors And in the 15. Parl. of that same King Chap. 251. these words are Albert it cannot be denied but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Sovereign Power having as great liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and priviledg of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And in the 18. Parl. of the same King Act. 1. The Estates and whole body of that present Parliament all in one valuntary faithful and united heart mind and consent did truly acknowledge his Majesties Sovereign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledg of his Crown over all Estates Persons and Causes within his said Kingdom By this time I suppose it is past debate that by the Tract of the whole Laws of Scotland his Majesty is a Sovereign unaccountable Prince since nothing can be devised more express than are the Acts I have cited For what you objected from the Coronation Oath remember what was said a great while ago that if by the Coronation the King got his Power so that the Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance were of the nature of a mutual stipulation then you might with some reason infer that a failing of the one side did free the other but nothing of that can be alledged here where the King hath his Authority how soon the breath of his Father goes out and acts with full Regal power before he be crowned so that the Coronation is only a solemn inauguration in that which is already his right Next let me tell you that the King 's swearing at his Coronation is but a late practice and so the Title of the Kings of Scotland to the Crown is not upon the swearing of that Oath And here I shall tell you all that I can find in our Laws of the King 's swearing or promising The first instance that meets me is Chap. 17. of the Statutes of King Robert the Second where these words are For fulfilling and observing of all the premises the King so
in your Principles to answer this and see how you will clear this practice of Discipline from Tyranny since to debar men from the Sacraments is a greater dominion over Consciences than the determining about Rituals But to come nearer home there was a certain Society you have heard of ycleped the Kirk which had divers Books of Discipline containing rules for that and a Directory for Worship which had no few rules neither they had also a frame of Government the Supreme Judicatory whereof was composed of three Ministers and one ruling Elder from each Presbytery a ruling Elder beside from each Burrough two being allowed the Metropolis and a Commissioner was sent from each University and in this High Court the King came in with the Privilege of a Burgh for though the Metropolis had two he was allowed to send but one with a single Suffrage to represent him and this Court pretended to an Authority from Christ and their Authority was Sacred with no less certificate than he that despiseth you despiseth me Now how a Power can be committed to delegates without any Commission for it from the Superior will not be easily made out And they will search long ere they find a Divine Warrant for this Court unless they vouch Mary Mitchelsons Testimony for it whose hysterical Distempers were given out for Prophesies And whereas they are so tender of Christian Liberty that no Law must pass about the Rituals of Religion yet their Books of Discipline and Model of Government were not only setled by Law but afterwards sworn to be maintained in the Covenant wherein they swore the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government These were the tender Consciences that could not hear of any Law in matters indifferent and yet would have all swear to their Forms many of which they could not but know were indifferent which was a making them necessary at another rate than is done by a Law which the Legislator can repeal when he will and never were any in the world more addicted to their own Forms than they were An instance of this I will give which I dare say will surprise you When some designers for popularity in the Western parts of that Kirk did begin to disuse the Lord's Prayer in Worship and the singing the Conclusion or Doxology after the Psalm and the Minister's kneeling for private Devotion when he entred the Pulpit the General â—ssembly took this in very ill part and in a Letter they wrote to the Presbyteries complained sadly Of a Spirit of Innovation was beginning to get into the Kirk and to throw these laudible practices out of it mentioning the three I named which are commanded to be still practised and such as refused obedience are appointed to be conferr'd with in order to the giving of them satisfaction and if they continu'd untractable the Presbyteries were to proceed against them as they should be answerable to the next general Assembly This Letter I can produce authentically attested But is it not strange that some who were then zealous to condemn these Innovations should now be carried with the herd to be guilty of them I am become hoarse with speaking so long and so I must break off having as I suppose given many great Precedents from History for the using of Rites in divine matters without an express Warrant and for passing Laws upon these and have cleared the one of Superstition and the other of Tyranny Eud. Truly all of you have done your parts so well that even Isotimus himself seems half convinced It is then fully clear that as nothing is to be obtruded on our Belief without clear revelation so no sacred duty can be bound on oâ—r Obedience without a Divine Warrant but in Rituals especially in determining what may be done in a variety of ways to one particular Form there hath been and still must be a Power on Earth which provided it balance all things right and consider well the fitness of these Rites for attaining the designed end doth not invade God's Dominion by making Laws about them Nor will the pretence of Christian Liberty warrant our Disobedience to them It remains to be considered who are vested with this Power and how much of it belongs to the Magistrate and how much to the Church Basil. I now engage in a Theme which may perhaps lay me open to censure as if I were courting the Civil Powers by the asserting of their rights but I am too well known to you to dread your jealously much in this and I am too little known to my self if flattery be my foible I shall therefore with the greatest frankness and ingenuity lay open my sense of this matter with the Reasons that prevail with me in it but I desire first to hear Isotimus his opinion about it Isot. I do not deny the King hath Authority and Jurisdiction in matters Sacred but it must be asserted in a due line of Subordination First to Christ the King of Kings and the only Head of his Church And next to the Rulers and Office-bearers of the Church who are entrusted by Christ as his Ambassadors with the Souls of their Flocks and who must give him an account of their Labors therefore they must have their Rules only from him who empowers them and to whom they are subject They must also have a Power among them to preserve the Christian Society in order to which they must according to the practice of the Apostles when difficulties emerge meet together and consult what may be for the advancement of the Christian Religion and whoso refuseth to hear the Church when she errs not from her Rule he is to be accounted no better than a Heathen and a Publican And since the Church is called one body they ought to associate together in meetings seeing also they have their Power of Christ as Mediator whereas the Civil Powers hold of him as he is God they have a different Tenor distinct Ends and various Rules therefore the Authority of the Church is among the things of God which only belong to him And indeed Christians were very ill provided for by Christ if they must in matters of Religion be subject to the pleasure of secular and carnal Men who will be ready to serve their own Interests at the rate of the Ruin of every thing that is Sacred It is true the Civil Powers may and ought to convocate Synods to consult about matters of Religion to require Church-men to do their duty to add their Sanctions to Church Laws and to join with the sounder part for carrying on a Reformation But all this is cumulative to the Churches intrinsick Power and not privative so that if the Magistrate fall short of his duty they are notwithstanding that to go on as men empowered by Iesus Christ and he who despâ—seth them be his quality what it will despiseth him that sent them See p. 105. to p. 109. and p. 467. to
But that I may not seem to rob the Church of all her Power I acknowledg that by the Laws of Nature it follows that these who unite in the service of GOD must be warranted to associate in Meetings to agree on generals Rules and to use means for preserving purity and order among themselves and that all Inferiours ought to subject themselves to their Rules But as for that brave distinction of the Churches Authority being derived from CHRIST as Mediator whereas the Regal Authority is from him as GOD well doth it become its inventors and much good may it do them For me I think that CHRIST's asserting that all power in heaven and in earth was given unto him and his being called The KING of Kings and LORD of Lords make it as clear as the Sun that the whole OEconomy of this World is committed to him as Mediator and as they who died before him were saved by him who was slam â—â—om the foundation of the world so all humane authority was given by vertue of the second Covenant by which mankind was preserved from infallible ruin which otherwise it had incurred by Adams fall But leaving any further enquiry after such a foolish nicety I go now to examine what the Magistrates Power is in matters of Religion And first I lay down for a Maxim That the externals of Worship or Government are not of such importance as are the Rules of Iustice and Peace wherein formally the Image of GOD consists For CHRIST came to bring us to GOD and the great end of his Gospel is the assimilation of us to GOD of which justice righteousness mercy and peace make a great part Now what sacredness shall be in the outwards of Worship and Government that these must not be medled with by his hands and what unhallowedness is in the other that they may fall within his Jurisdiction my weakness cannot reach As for instance when the Magistrate allows ten per cent of inâ—â—rest it is just to exact it and when he bringâ— iâ— down to six per cent it is oppression to demand ten per cent so that he can determine some matteâ—s to be just or unjust by his Laws now why he shall not have such a power about outward matters of Worship or of the Government of the Church judg you since the one both in it self and as it tends to commend us to God is much more important than the other It is true he cannot meddle with the holy things himself for the Scripture rule is express that men be separated for the work of the Ministery And without that separation he invades the Altar of GOD that taketh that honor upon him without he be called to it But as for giving Laws in the externals of Religion I see not why he may not do it as well as in matters Civil It is true if he contradict the divine Law by his commands GOD is to be obeyed rather than man But this holds in things Civil as well as Sacred For if he command murder or theft he is undoubtedly to be disobeyed as well as when he commands amiss in matters of Religion In a word all Subjects are bound to obey him in every lawful command Except therefore you prove that Church-men constituted in a Synod are not Subjects they are bound to obedience as well as others Neither doth this Authority of the Magistrate any way prejudge the power Christ hath committed to his Church For a Father hath power over his Children and that by a divine Precept tho the Supreme Authority have power over him and them both so the Churches authority is no way inconsistent with the Kings Supremacy As for their Declarative Power it is not at all subject to him only the exercise of it to this or that person may be suspended For since the Magistrate can banish his Subjects he may well silence them Yet I acknowledg if he do this out of a design to drive the Gospel out of his Dominions they ought to continue in their duty notwithstanding such prohibition for GOD must be obeyed rather than man And this was the case of the Primitive Bishops who rather than give over the feeding their Flocks laid themselves open to Martyrdom But this will not hold for warranting turbulent persons who notwithstanding the Magistrates continuing all encouragements for the publick Worship of GOD chuse rather than concur in it tho not one of an hundred of them hath the confidence to call that unlawful to gather separated Congregations whereby the flocks are scattered Phil. Nay since you are on that Subject let me freely lay open the mischief of it It is a direct breach of the Laws of the Gospel that requires our solemn assembling together which must ever bind all Christians till there be somewhat in the very constitutions of these Assemblies that renders our meeting in them unlawful which few pretend in our case Next the Magistrates commanding these publick Assemblies is certainly a clear and superadded obligation which must bind all under sin till they can prove these our Meetings for Worship unlawful And as these separated Conventicles are of their own nature evil so their effects are yet worse and such as indeed all the ignorance and profanity in the Land is to be charged on them for as they dissolve the union of the Church which must needs draw mischief after it so the vulgar are taught to despise their Ministers and the publick Worship and thus get loose from the yoak And their dependence on these separated Meetings being but precarious as they break away from the order of the Church so they are not tied to their own order and thus betwixt hands the vulgar lose all sense of Piety and of the Worship of GOD. Next in these separated Meetings nothing is to be had but a long preachment so that the knowledg and manners of the people not being look'd after and they taught to revolt from the setled Discipline and to disdain to be câ—techised by their Pastoâ—s ignorance and profanity must be the sure effect of these divided Meetings And in fine the disuse of the LORD's Supper is a guilt of a high nature for the vulgar are taught to loath the Sacrament from their Ministers hands as much as the Mass and preaching is all they get in their Meetings so that what in all Ages of the Church hath been looked on as the great cherishing of Devotion and true Piety and the chief preserver of Peace among Câ—â—â—tiâ—ns is wearing out of practice with our new modelled Christians These are the visible effects of separating practices But I shall not play the uncharitable Diviner to guess at the secret mischief such courses may be guilty of Basil. Truly what you have laid out is so well known to us all that I am confident Isotimus himself must with much sorrow acknowledg what wicked Arts these are that some use to dislocate the Body of Christ and to sacrifice the interests of Religion
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
other instances When Ezra came from Artaxerxes he brings a Commission from him Ezra ch 7. ver 25 26. impowering him according to the wisdom of his GOD that was in his hand to set up Magistrates and Iudges who might judg them that knew the Laws of his GOD and teach them that knew them not and a severe certificate is passed upon the disobedient and one of the branches of their punishment which is by the Translators rendered banishment being in the Chaldaick rooting out is by some judged to be Excommunication which is the more probable because afterwards Chap. 10. ver 8. the Censure he threatens on these who came not upon his Proclamation is forfeiture of goods and separation from the Congregation Here then it seems a Heathen King gives authority to Excommunicate but be in that what will Ezra upon his return acted in a high Character he makes the Priests Levites and all Israel to swear to put away their strange Wives he convenes all the people under the Certificate of separation from the Congregation and enjoyns Confession of their sins and amendment and we find both him and Nehemiah acting in a high Character about the ordering of divine matters which could only flow from the King's Commission for neither of them were Prophets nor was Ezra the High Priest but his Brother and so no more than an ordinary Priest Mordecai likewise instituted the feast of Purim for which nothing could warrant him but the King's authority committed to him who gave him his Ring for sealing such Orders since he was neither King Priest nor Prophet And on the way let me observe what occurs from that History for proving what was yesterday pleaded for The Subjects ought not to resist no not the tyranny of their Superiours since a Writing was procured from Ahasuerus for warranting the Iews to avenge themselves and to stand for their lives and to destroy and slay all that would assault them which saith they might not have done this before that writing was given out and yet their killing of 74000 of their Enemies shews what their strength was But all I have said will prove that the Civil Powers under the Old Testament did formally judg about matters of Religion and that that priviledg belongs to Kings by vertue of their Regal dignity and not as they are in Covenant with GOD since even Heathen Kings give out Orders about divine matters Poly. If from Sacred you descend to humane practices nothing was more used than that the Emperors judged in matters of Religion neither was this yielded to them only after they became Christians but Eusebius lib. 7. cap. 30. tells how they made application to Aurelian a Heathen Emperor for turning Samosatenus out of the Church of Antioch who decreed that the Houses of the Church should be given to those Bishops whom the Christians of Italy and the Roman Bishops should recommend to them Constantine also when not baptized did all his life formally judg in matters both of Doctrine and Discipline and for the Laws they made about Church matters they abound so much that as Grotius saith One needs not read them but look on them to be satisfied about this And indeed I know not how to express my wonder at the affrontedness of that Pamphleter who denies this pag. 483. Pray ask him was the determining about the age the qualifications the Election the duties of Church-men the declaring for what things they should be deposed or excommunicated a formal passing of Laws in Church matters or only the adding Sanctions to the Church determinations And yet who will but with his Eye run through either the first six Titles of the Code or the 123. Novel besides many other places all these and many more Laws about Church matters will meet him But should I take a full Career here I am sure I should be tedious and Grotius hath congested so many instances of this that I refer the curious Reader to him for full satisfaction The Elections of Bishops which had been formerly in the hands of the people and Clergy with the Provincial Synods that judged of them became so tumultuary that popular Elections were discharged by the Council of Laodicea Can. 13. and the Emperors did either formally name as Theodosius did Nectarius or reserve the ratifying their Election to themselves And I must confess it is a pretty piece of History to say the Bishops consented to this either as diffident of their Office or out of ambition See p. 485. Tell your Friends that they must either learn more knowledg or pretend to less for can they produce the least vestige for the one branch of this alternative that the Bishops their allowing the Emperor such an interest in their Elections flowed from a distrust of their Office Let them give but one scrap of proof for this and let them triumph as much as they will Is it not a pretty thing to see one talk so superciliously of things he knows not Isot. But all you have brought will never prove that a King may at one stroke subvert a Government established in the Church and turn out all who adhere to it and set up another in its place neither will this conclude that the King may enact all things about Ecclesiastical matters and Persons by his own bare authority which is a surrender of our consciences to him certainly this is to put him in CHRIST's stead and what mischievous effects may follow upon this if all matters of Religion be determined by the pleasure of secular and carnal men who consider their interests and appetites more than God's glory or the good of the Church and of Souls Truly my heart trembles to think on the effects this both hath produced and still may bring forth See pag. 483. Phil. It is charity to ease your Lungs sometimes by taking a turn in the Discourse though you need none of my help But what you say Isotimus doth no way overturn what hath been asserted for either the change that was made was necessary sinful or indifferent the two former shall not be at this time debated but shall be afterwards discussed but if it be indifferent then the Kings Laws do oblige us to obedience and the mischief hath followed on the change falls to their share who do not obey the King's Laws when the matter of them is lawful And as for the thrusting out Church-men when they are guilty Solomon's precedent is convincing who thrust out Abâ—athar from the High Priesthood neither can the least hint be given to prove that he acted as inspired and not as a King and Nehemiah tho but commissionated by Artaxerxes thrust one out from the Priesthood for marrying a strange Woman For your prying into Acts of Parliament truly neither you nor I need be so much conversant in them Neither were it any strange matter if some expressions in them would not bear a strict Examen But that you now challenge about the King's enacting of all
mâ—stake me not as if I charged one party only with this leaven which is alas too visible among many of all sides and parties But to dwell no longer on generals which every one will drive off himself and lodge on others let us now come to a closer review of our late times And here Philarcheus I quit the Theme to you who I know can manage it better Phil. Truly when I reflect on the late times and the spirit which did then act in the Judicatories both of Church and State I wonder much how any can be guilty of the error of thinking it was the cause of GOD was then fought for I deny not but a great many yea I am willing to hope the greater part were misled and abused and did imagine it was Religion and Liberties they fought for and so went out as they were called in the simplicity of their heart and knew not any thing of the secret designs of their Leaders As in the case of Absoloms rebellion two hundred went from Ierusalem with him which might well a little excuse their fault but could not alleviate the guilt of that unnatural rebellion so whatever may be said for excusing the multitudes who I doubt not meant well yet that will never serve for vindicating the course was followed I confess if I saw any remorse or shame for by-past miscarriages if I found these people we speak of either humbled for them before GOD or ashamed of them among men I should be the last on earth who would upbraid them with them and that the rather that His Majesty hath buried the remembrance of them by a gracious oblivion But when they continue so insolent as still to bear up so high in their pretentions as if GOD had been visibly with them and when they think it an injury to their innocency to tell them of an indemnity who would not be tempted to take them to task and examine all their vain boastings and empty pretences to which I am both provoked from their arrogance and invited from the evident proofs of all I shall alledge which I can lay before you from authentical Papers and Registers and I shall freely tell you that if any of these Pamphleteers had but the half to say of these who yield a complyance to the present Establishment which I can say of them the world would ring with it But I count the defaming of men a woâ—k as mean as it is cruel Yet I look upon my self as obliged to give some accounts of the spirit and ways of these people which I shall do with all the reserve and caution that becomes a Christian. Eud. Hold hold I pray you run not too far in your carreer lest you lay open things were better hid I confess these Writers do justly draw it from you but for the faults of two or three be not cruel to a multitude And what will all you shall say avail for we know well enough how little the clearest evidence will prevail upon their belief And though I in particular know upon what grounds you can go for verifying all you undertake and that they are unexceptionably clear yet it is a dunghil not to be searched too much Wherefore let me with my most earnest intreaties divert you from the discourse you have threatned Isotimus with But because all these mens defences of the resistance Subjects may make to their Sovereigns go upon the principles of maintaining Religion and Liberties when invaded by the Magistrate we will therefore be beholden to you if you satisfie us whether the late wars as they were begun and carried on were defensive or not Phil. Your authority over me is so entire that your commands never fail of determining my obedience therefore for this once I shall yield to your desire but with this declaration that if Isotimus cannot prevail among his friends for conjuring that pamphleting spirit into silence I will be forced on more freedom than I either design or desire and be made to tell name and surname of the Actors of many things which they may wish lay dead and be made to prove them from authentick papers and records and discover a mystery of iniquity which hath lien long hid under fair pretences and in a word let you understand what were the arts caballings and intrigues of these who pretended so much to the interest of CHRIST when they sought their own and if in doing this I be forced on much round and plain dealing the blame of it will fall to their share who extort it from me But I come now to satisfie your desire and doubt not to convince you that the late wars were an invasion of the Kings Authority and of the established Laws and were not for defence of any part of the established Religion and Liberties In the year 1938. His Majesty having understood that the authorizing of the Service-Book and Book of Canons and the establishment of the High-Commission-Courts were illegal did upon the representation of those grievances not only retract what he had formerly done but in the fullest manner discharged them and though the Articles of Perth stood setled by Law yet upon their petitions who counted them grievances he warranted their disuse and for securing the fears of his Subjects of the change of Religion with which some factious spirits had poysoned them he appointed the National Covenant as King Iames had signed it to be taken by all his Subjects with a bond of mutual defence and adherence to it He also summoned an Assembly and Parliament for satisfying all the just demands and grievances of his Subjects But did this satisfie the zeal of that party No for when all colors of grounds were removed from those malicious imputations with which his Majesties actions were aspersed then did they flee to their safe and sure refuge of jealousies and fears out of which there was never any storming of them as if all had been only offered to trepan and deceive them And after His Majesty had called a Synod at Glasgow then came in the Lay-Elders who were all of the Nobility and men of the greatest eminence of the Kingdom and carried the elections of the members of the Assembly in the most arbitrary manner imaginable many instances whereof I can yet prove from authentick papers one generall I shall only name for did I stand to reckon up all I should never get to an end the ruling Elders who came from every Paâ—och to the Presbyteries for electing the Commissioners to the Assembly were men of power and of one knot and so when it was voted what Ministers should be chosen they who were listed being at least six were set to the door and thus the Elders who stayed within carried the election as they pleased And when the commissionated ruling Elder was chosen they were all so associated that they could not choose wrong And thus it was that the secular men did intirely choose the members of the Assembly of
Privileges of Parliament and preserving the King's Person and Authority And when His Majesty was murdered what attempts made they for the preservation of His Person or for the resenting it after it was done This was the Loyalty of that Party and this is what all Princes may expect from you unless they be absolutely at your Devotion Let these things declare whether these Wars went upon the grounds of a pure defence But if next to this I should reckon up the instances of Cruelty that appeared in your Judicatories for several years I should have too large a Theme to run through in a short Discourse What cruel Acts were made against all who would not sign the Covenant They were declared Enemies to GOD the King and the Country Their persons were appointed to be seized on and their goods confisâ—ated And in the November of the year 1643. when some of the most eminent of the Nobility refused to sign the Covenant Commissions were given to Soldiers to bring them in Prisoners warranting them to kill them if they made resistance And praâ— whether had this more of the cruelty of Antichrist or of the meekness of IESUS Or shall I next tell you of the bloody Tribunals were at S Andrews and other plâ—ces after Philips-haughs And of the câ—uelty againâ—t those Priâ—oners of War who bore Arms at the King's command and in defence of his authority What bloudy Stories could I here tell if I had not a greater horror at the relating them thaâ— many of these high Pretenders had at the aâ—ting of them And should I here recount the procedure of the Kiâ—k Iudicatories against all who were thought disaffected I would be look'd on as one telling Romances they being bâ—yond credit What Processes of Ministers are yet upon Record which have no better foundation than their not preaching to the times their speaking with or praying before My Lord Montrose their not railing at the Engagement and the like And what cruelty was practised in the years 1649. and 1650 None of us are so young but we may remember of it A single death of one of the greatest of the Kingdom could not satisfie the bloudâ—thirsty malice of that Party unless made formidable and disgraceful with all the shameful pageantry could be devised Pray do you think these thâ—ngs are forgotten Or shall I go about to narrate and prove them more particularly I confess it is a strange thing to see men who are so obnoxious notwithstanding that so exalted in their own conceits and withal remember that the things I have hinted at were not the particular actings of single and private persons but the publick and owned proceedings of the Courts and Judâ—catories These are the grounds which persuade me that with whatsoever fair colours somâ— mâ—y vaâ—niâ—h thâ—sâ— things yet the â—pirit that then acted in that Party was not the Spirit of GOD. Isot. Truly you have given in a high charge against the proceedings of the late times which as I ought not to believe upon your assertion so I cannot well answer those being matters of fact and done most of them before I was capable of observing things And therefore when I see men of great experience I shall ask after the truth of what you have told me But whatever might be the design of some Politicians at that time or to whatever bad sense some words of the League may be stretched yet you cannot deny but they are capable of a good sense and in that I own them and so cleave to that Oath of GOD which was intended for a solemn Covenanting with GOD and the people meant nothing else by it but a giving themselves to Christ to whose truths and Ordinances they resolved to adhere at all hazards and against all opposition and in particular to oppose every thing might bear down the power and progress of Religion which was the constant effect of Prelacy therefore we are all bound to oppose it upon all hazards And indeed when I remember of the beauty of holiness was then every where and consider the licencious profanity and â—coffing at Religion which now abounds this is stronger with me than all arguments to persuade me that these were the men of GOD who had his Glory before their eyes in all they did or designed whereas now I see every one seeking their own things and none the things of IESUS CHRIST And all these plagues and evils which these Kingdoms do either groan under or may apprehend ought to be imputed to GODS avenging wrath for a broken Covenant which though taken by all from the highest to the lowest is now condemned reviled abjured and shamefully broken These things should afflict our souls and set us to our mournings if haply GOD may turn from the fierceness of his anger Phil. As for these Articles that relate to the combination for engaging by arms in prejudice of the Kings Authority or may seem to bind us to the reacting these Tragedies they being founded on the lawfulness of Subjects resisting their Sovereigns if the unlawfulness of that was already evinced then any obligation can be in that compact for that effect must be of it self null and void and therefore as from the beginning it was sinful to engage in these wars so it will be yet more unlawful if after all the evils we have seen and the judgments we have smarted under any would lick up that vomit or pretend to bind a tye on the Subjects Consciences to rise in arms against their Lawful Sovereâ—gn And let me tell you freely I cannot be so blind or stupid as not to apprehend that GODS wrath hath appeared very visibly against us now for a tract of thirty years and more neiâ—her doth his anger seem to be turned away but his hand is stretched out still But that which I look on as the greater matter of his controversie with us is that the Rulers of our Church and State did engage the ignorant multitude under the colors of Religion to despise the LORDS anointed and his Authority and by Arms to shake off his yoak and afterwards abandon his Person disown his interest refuse to engage for his rescue and in the end look on tamely and see him murdered Do you think it a small crime that nothing could satisfie the Leaders in that time without they got the poor people entangled into things which they knew the vulgar did not and could not understand or judge of and must implicitly rely upon the Glosses of their Teachers For whatever the General Assembly declared was a duty following upon the Covenant which was an easie thing for the leading men to carry as they pleased then all the Ministers must either have preached and published that to their people with all their zeal otherwise they were sure to be turned out The people being thus provoked from the Pulpits they were indeed to be pitied who being engaged in an oath many of them no doubt in singleness of heart having the fear
were obliged to obedience And such adjurations may not only bind the Children adjured but all their posterity after them as did the Oath for carrying Ioseph's bones out of Egypt And further a Society continuing still under the same notion is bound through all ages to make good the compacts of their Progenitors they continuing to be the same Society And this is not only the ground on which the obligation of all alliances among Kingdoms is founded but is also the basis on which our tie to the Allegiance due to our Sovereign is grounded Therefore as we find GOD in Scripture covenanting with Men and their posterity as in Abraham's case and Fathers likewise engaging to GOD for themselves and their Children as did Ioshua for himself and his House so our Covenants being unanimously sworn by almost the whole Nation and confirmed by all the authority in it must have a perpetual obligation on all the subsequent Generations See from pag. 205. to pag. 219. Phil. I suppose if it hold good that the Covenant binds not these who took it to oppose or extirpate Episcopacy when setled by Law all this reasoning will of it self evanish in smoak But to give your Discourse all advantage and to yield its obligation on these who took it what you infer will never be made out since it is founâ—ed on the supposition of a Parents authority to adjure his Child that ties him after his Fathers death which you apply to the Covenant But in this there is a triple error committed by you one of fact and two of right That of fact is that you suppose that in the Covenant the subsequent generations are adjured to its observance whereas not a word of this is in the Covenant On the contrary in the end of the Preface to the League it is said that every one for himself doth swear Neither is there a word in it all that imports an adjuration on posterity It is true in the 5. Article every one is bound according to their place and interest to endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity But he thâ—t will draw an adjuration on posterity from this must have a new Art of Logick not yet known And in the National Covenant as it was taken by King Iames there is not a word that imports an adjuration on â—osterity It is true in the addition was made to it Ann. 1â—38 it is declared That they are convinced in their minds and confess with their mouths that the present and subsequent generations in this Land were bound to keep that National Oath and subscription inviolable But this was only their opinion who signed it Yet for all that there is no adjuration on posterity for observing it no not in that Addition then sworn to The next error of your Hypothesis is that the Parents commands can bind the Childrens confidence in prejudice of the Magistrates authority for you must either suppose this otherwise your arguing is to no purpose since the King's authority is in this case interposed and therefore all our Fathers commands must yield to it which because none deny I shall not stand to evince For if my Father be bound to obey the King as well as I am both he sins if he enjoin me disobedience and I am likewise guilty if upon that I disobey For he that hath no warrant for his own disobedience can be imagined to have none for securing me in mine And in end you suppose a Parents command or authority can bind the Conscience after his death which is manifestly absurd for certainly his authority must die with himself It is true a piety and reverence is due to the memory of our Parents and so much reverence should be payed to their ashes that without a very good reason the things they enjoyned should be religiously observed but this is not a necessary Obligation for circumstances may so vary things that we may be assured that as our Parents enjoyned such a thing so had they seen the inconveniencies of it they had not done it Now while a Father lives a Child hath this liberty to argue with him where it is not to be doubted but the affection of a Parent together with the reasons adduced would make him change his Commands but indeed did their Commands tie us after their death we should be more in subjection to our Parents when dead than we were when they lived which goeth against the sense of all mankind And what equality is there in such mens reasons who will deny absolute obedience to Magistrates tho we be allowed to petition and represent the grievances their Laws bring upon us and yet will assert an absolute and blind obedience due to the commands of our Parents tho dead Your instance of the Rechabites makes against you for their Progenitors had appointed them to dwell in Tents yet the fear of Nebuchadnezzar had driven them to Ierusalem and consider if the incurring our lawful Sovereigns displeasure together with the hazard such obedience may draw after it be not a juster ground of excusing our selves from obedience to any such Command suppose it were real The Rechabites did indeed abstain from Wine upon Ionadab's command for which they are commended and blessed and so I acknowledg it a piece of piety to obey the commands even of a dead Father yet in that place it is not asserted that that Command tied their Conscience but on the contrary the blessing passed upon their obedience seems rather to imply that it was voluntary though generous and dutiful The same Answer is to be made to Ioseph's adjuring the Children of Israel to carry up his bones which ought to have obliged even the Children of these that were so adjured out of the gratitude due to the memory of so great a Man especially nothing intervening that rendered obedience to it either unexpedient or unlawful But in general consider that when a contract is made either of an Association under a form and line of Magistracy or of alliance betwixt two States and confirmed by Oath there is an obligation of Justice that ariseth from the Compact whereby such rights were translated unto the person compacted with and thereby he and his posterity according to the Compact are to enjoy these Rights because translated unto his person by the Compact but being once legally his with a provision that they shall descend to his Heirs then his Heirs have a right to them formally in their persons after his death to which they have a title in justice and not by the fidelity to which the posterity of the first compacters are bound by their Fathers deed but because the right is now theirs so that though the first Compacters were bound by promise and Oath their Successors are only bound by the rules of justice of giving to every man that which is his right therefore whatever our Ancestors may be supposed to have compacted with the King's Progenitors or
ought to be much more determined by the Laws of the Land which in all such matters have a power to bind our consciences to their obedience till we prove the matter of them sinful Now discover where the guilt lyes of fixing one over a Tract of ground who shall have the chief inspection of the Ministery and the greatest Authority in matters of Jurisdiction so that all within that Precinct be governed by him with the concurring votes of the other Presbyters if you say that thereby the Ministers may be restrained of many things which otherwise the good of the Church requires to be done I answer these are either things necessary to be done by divine precept or not if the former then since no power on earth can cancel the Authority of the divine Law such restraints are not to be considered But if the things be not necessary then the Unity and Peace of the Church is certainly preferable to them I acknowledge a Bishop may be tyrannical and become a great burden to his Presbyters but pray may not the same be apprehended from Synods And remember your friends how long it is since they made the same complaints against the Synods and the hazard of an ill Bishop is neither so fixed nor so lasting as that of a bad Synod For a Bishop may die and a good one succeed but when a Synod is corrupt they who are the major part are careful to bring in none but such as are sure to their way whereby they propagate their corruption more infallibly than a Bishop can do And what if the Lay ruling Elders should bend up the same plea against the Ministers who do either assume a Negative over them directly or at least do what is equivalent and carry every thing to the Presbytery Synod or General Assembly where they are sure to carry it against the Lay-Elders they being both more in number and more able with their learning and eloquence to confound the others But should a Lay-Elder plead thus against them We are Office-Bearers instituted by CHRIST for ruling the flock as well as you and yet you take our power from us for whereas in our Church Sessions which are of CHRIST's appointment we are the greater number being generally twelve to one you Ministers have got a device to turn us out of the power for you allow but one of us to come to your Synods and Presbyteries and but one of a whole Presbytery to go to a National Synod whereby you strike the rest of us out of our power and thus you assert a preeminence over us to carry matters as you please Now Isotimus when in your principles you answer this I will undertake on all hazards to satisfie all you can say even in your own principles Next may not one of the Congregational way talk at the same rate and say CHRIST hath given his Office-Bearers full power to preach feed and oversee the flock and yet for all that their power of overseeing is taken from them and put in the hands of a multitude who being generally corrupt themselves and lusting to envy will suffer none to outstrip them but are tyrannical over any they see minding the work of the Gospel more than themselves And must this usurpation be endured and submitted to And let me ask you freely what imaginable device will be fallen upon for securing the Church from the tyranny of Synods unless it be either by the Magistrates power or by selecting some eminent Churchmen who shall have some degrees of power beyond their brethren In a word I deny not but as in Civil Governments there is no form upon which great inconveniences may not follow so the same is unavoidable in Ecclesiastical Government But as you will not deny Monarchy to be the best of Governments for all the hazards of tyranny from it so I must crave leave to have the same impressions of Episcopacy Crit. But suffer me to add a little for checking Isotimus his too positive asserting of parity from the New Testament for except he find a precept for it his Negative Authority will never conclude it and can only prove a parity lawful and that imparity is not necessary I shall acknowledge that without Scripture warrants no new Offices may be instituted but without that in order to Peace Unity Decency and Edification several ranks and dignities in the same Office might well have been introduced whereby some were to be empowered either by the Churches choice or the Kings Authority as Overseers or inspectors of the rest who might be able to restrain them in the exercise of some parts of their functions which are not immediatly commanded by GOD. And you can never prove it unlawful that any should oversee direct and govern Churchmen without you prove the Apostolical function unlawful for what is unlawful and contrary to the rules of the Gospel can upon no occasion and at no time become lawful since then both the Apostles and the Evangelists exercised Authority over Presbyters it cannot be contrary to the Gospel rules that some should do it To pretend that this superiority was for that exigent and to die with that age is a mere allegation without ground from Scripture for if by our LORD's words it shall not be so among you all superiority among Churchmen was forbid how will you clear the Apostles from being the first transgressors of it And further if upon that exigent such superiority was lawful then upon a great exigent of the Church a superiority may be still lawful Besides it is asserted not proved that such an authority as S. Paul left with Timothy and Titus was to die with that age for where the reason of an appointment continues it will follow that the Law should also be coeval with the ground on which it was first enacted if then there be a necessity that Churchmen be kept in order as well as other Christians and if the more exalted their office be they become the more subject to corruption and corruptions among them be both more visible and more dangerous than they are in other persons the same parity of reason that enjoyns a Jurisdiction to be granted to Churchmen over the faithful will likewise determine the fitness of granting some excrescing power to the more venerable and approved of the Clergy over others neither is this a new Office in the House of GOD but an eminent rank of the same Office Isot. You study to present Episcopacy in as harmless a posture as can be yet that it is a distinct Office is apparent by the sole claim of Ordination and Iurisdiction they pretend to and by their consecration to it which shews they account it a second Order besides that they do in all things carry as these who conceit themselves in a Region above the Presbyters Phil. I am not to vindicate neither all the practices nor all the pretensions of some who have asserted this Order no more than you will do the
opinions or actings of all your party which when you undertake then I allow you to charge me with what you will But it is a different thing to say that no Ordination nor greater act of Jurisdiction should pass without the Bishop's consent or concurrence which is all I shall pretend to and is certainly most necessary for preserving of Order and Peace from asserting that the sole power for these sâ—ands in the Bishops person And though I do hold it schismatical to ordain without a Bishop where he may be had yet I am not to annul these Ordinations that pass from Presbyters where no Bishop can be had and this lays no claim to a new Office but only to a higher degree of inspection in the same Office whereby the exercise of some acts of Iurisdiction are restrained to such a method and this may be done either by the Churches free consent or by the King's authority As for the consecration of Bishops by a new imposition of hands it doth not prove them a distinct Office being only a solemn benediction and separation of them for the discharge of that inspection committed to them and so we find Paul and Barnabas though before that they preached the Gospel yet when they were sent on a particular Commission to preach to the gentiles were blessed with imposition of hands Acts 13.3 which was the usual Ceremony of benediction Therefore you have no reason to quarrel this unless you apprehend their managing this oversight the worse that they are blessed in order to it nor can you quarrel the Office in the Liturgy if you do not think they will manage their power the worse if they receive a new effusion of the holy Ghost And thus you see how little ground there is for quarrelling Episcopacy upon such pretences Eud. I am truly glad you have said so much for confirming me in my kindness for that Government for if you evinces its lawfulness I am sure the expediency of that Constitution will not be difficult to be proved both for the tryal of Entrants and the oversight of these in Office for when any thing lyes in the hands of a multitude we have ground enough to apprehend what the issue of it will prove And what sorry overly things these tâ—yals of Entrants are all know â—ow little pains is taken to form their minds into a right sense of that function to which they are to be initiated at one step without either previous degree or mature tryal And here I must say the ruine of the Church springs hence that the passage to sacred Offices lyes so patent whereby every one leaps into them out of a secular life having all the train of his vanities passions and carnal designs about him and most part entering thus unpurified and unprepared what is to be expected from them but that they become idle vain and licentious or proud ambitious popular and covetous I confess things among us are not come to any such settlement as might give a provision against this But devise me one like a Bishop's Authority who shall not confer Orders to any before either himself or some other select and excellent persons on whom he may with confidence devolve that trust be well satisfied not only about the learning and abilities but about the temper the piety the humility the gravity and discretion of such as pretend to holy Orders And that some longer tryal be taken of them by the probationership of some previous degree Indeed the poverty of the Church which is not able to maintain Seminaries and Colledges of such Probationers renders this design almost impracticable But stretch your thoughts as far as your invention can send them and see if you can provide such an expedient for the reforming of so visible an abuse as were the Bishop's plenary authority to decide in this matter For if it lie in the hands of a Plurality the major part of these as of all mankind being acted by lower measures the considerations of Kinred alliance friendship or powerful recommendations will always carry through persons be they what they will as to their abilities and other qualifications And a multitude of Churchmen is less concerned in the shame can follow an unworthy promotion which every individual of such a company will be ready to bear off himself and fasten on the Plurality But if there were one to whom this were peculiarly committed who had authority to stop it till he were clearly convinced that the person to be ordained was one from whose labors good might be expected to the Church he could act more roundly in the matter and it may be presupposed that his condition setting him above these low consideâ—ations to which the inferiour Clergy are more obnoxious he would manage it with more caution as knowing that both before GOD and Man he must bear the blame of any unworthy promotion And as for these in Office can any thing be more rational than that the inspection into their labors their deportment their conversation and their dexterity in Preaching and Catechising be not done mutually by themselves in a parity wherein it is to be imagined that as they degenerate they will be very gentle to one another And when any inspection is managed by an equal it opens a door to faction envy and emulation neither are the private rebukes of an equal so well received nor will it be easie for one of a modest temper to admonish his fellow-Presbyter freely And yet how many things are there of which Churchmen have need to be admonished in the discharge of all the parts of their function especially when they set out first being often equally void of experience and discretion But what a remedy for all this may be expected from an excellent Bishop who shall either if his health and strength allow it be making excursions through his Diocese and himself observe the temper the labors and conversation of his Clergy or at least trust this to such as he hath reason to confide most in that so he may understand what admonitions directions and reproofs are to be given which might obviate a great many indiscretions and scandals that flow from Churchmen And the authority of such a person as it would more recommend the reproofs to these for whom they were meant so it could prevail to make them effectual by a following Censure if neglected If the confusion some keep matters in have hindered us for coming at a desired settlement the Office of Episcopacy is not to be blamed whose native tendency I have laid out before you and in a fair idea but in what was both the rule and practice of the ancient Church and wants not latter instances foâ— verifying it In a word I must tell you I am so far from apprehending danger to the Church from Bishops having too much power that I shall fear rather its slow recovery because they have too little which might be managed with all the meekness and humility
the Hebrews having their right from GOD were to be changed when the most High who ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of mâ—n interposed his authority and command One word more and I have done When the Law of the Judge is set down Deut. 17.12 all who do presumptuously and hearkened not unto the Judge are sentenced to death That evil might be put away from Israel whereby the people might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously This shews that absolute Submission was due to the Judges under the pain of death whereby all private mens judging of their Sentence is struck out It is true the other Laws that prefer the Commands of GOD to the Laws of men do necessarily suppose the exception of unlawful Commands but since no Law warrants the resisting their Sentence it will clearly follow that absolute Submission was due to these Judges Basil. Truly these things as they seem to be well made out from Scripture so they stand with Reason since no order can be expected among men unless there be an uncontrollable Tribunal on Earth Our Consciences are indeed only within GOD'S Jurisdiction but if there be not a Supreme Power to cognosce and determine about our Actions there must follow endless Confusions when any number of People can be got to mutiny against Laws therefore there must be a Supreme Court But the Laws and settled Practices of Kingdoms must determine in whose Person this lies whether in a single Person the Nobility or the Major part of the People Yet I desire to hear what decisions the New Testament offers in this Question Crit. Truly that will be soon dispatched consider then how our LORD Matth. 5. forbids us to resist evil where it is true he enumerates only small Injuries so I shall not deny but that place will amount no farther than that we ought to bear small Injuries rather than revenge or oppose them but you must yield to the doctrine of Submission if afterwards you consider how our LORD tells us Matth. 11.20 To learn of him for he was meek and that he condemns the thundering fervor of his Disciples who called for fire from Heaven shewing the nature of the New Dispensation to be quite different from the Old in that particularly that the Son of man came not to destroy mens lives but to save them And chiefly that when he was to give the greatest instance wherein we should imitate him he refused the defence of the Sword and commanded S. Peter to put up his sword Matth. 26.52 Isot. If you urge this too much then must I answer that by the same Consequence you may prove we must cast our selves on dangers and not flee from them since we find CHRIST going up to Ierusalem though he knew what was abiding him there neither did he fly which yet himself allowed Besides you may as well urge against all Prayer to GOD for deliverance his not praying for Angels to assist him But the clear account of this is given by himself that the Scriptures were to be fulfilled which fore-told his death See pag. 24. and Answer to the Letter about Ius populâ— Crit. I must confess my self amazed at this Answer when I find S. Peter saving expresly 1 Pet. 2.21 That CHRIST suffered leaving us an example that we might follow his steps and applying this to the very Case of suffering wrongfully and that notwithstanding of that you should study to pervert the Scripture so grosly besides consider that CHRIST was to fulfil all righteousness if then the Laws of Nature exact our defence in case of unjust Persecution for Religion he was bound to that Law as well as we For he came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law both by his Example and Precepts If then you charge the Doctrine of Absolute Submission as brutish and stupid see you do not run into blasphemy by charging that â—â—oly One foolishly for whatever he knew of the secret Will of GOD he was to follow his revealed Will in his Actions whereby he might be a perfect Pattern to all his followers for GOD'S revealed Will was his Rule as well as ours But I dwell too long on things that are clear As for your â—nstances they will serve you in no stead For his coming to Ierusalem was a duty all the Males being bound to appear three times a year before the Lord at Ierusalem at the three Festivals the Passover being the first of them Deut. 16. And this being a duty our LORD was to perform it what ever hazard might follow So we find S. Paul on a less obligation going to Ierusalem notwithstanding the bonds were fore-told to abide him there And as for your other pretended Consequence against Prayer from his not praying for legions of Angels it bewrays great Inadvertency for you find our LORD a few minutes before praying in the Garden Matth. 26.42 over and over again that if it were possible that cup might pass from him And there is our warrant from his Practice to pray for a deliverance from Troubles or Persecutions if it may stand with the holy will of GOD But for a miraculous deliverance by the ministry of Angels that our Lord would not pray for lest thereby the Prophesies should not be accomplished and by this our praying for a miraculous Deliverance is indeed from his example condemned but still we are to pray that if it be possible and according to the Will of GOD any bitter cup is put in our hands may pass from us Next let me desiâ—e you to consider the reason given S. Peter for putting up his Sword Matth. 26.52 For they that take the sword shall pâ—â—â—sh by the sword Isot. You â—iâ—apply this place palpably it not being designed as a threatning against S. Peter but for the encouragement of his Disciples and being indeed a Prophesie that the Iews who now come against him with Swords and Staves should perish by the sword of the Romans who should be the avengers of CHRIST'S death See page 25. Crit. You are beholden to Grotius for this Exposition who is the first of the latter Writers that hath given that sense to these words tho he voucheth for his opinion some elder Writers and he designing to prove that a private Person may resist another private Assaillant by force being a little pinch'd with this place which seems to condemn simply the use of the Sword escapes oâ—t of it by the answer you have adduced But though this were the genuine scope of these words still remember that our LORD rejects the use of the Sword for his defence and if his fore-telling the Destruction of the Iews was of force to bind up S. Peter's hands why should not also that general promise Rev. 13.10 He that killeth with the sword must be killed by the sword also secure our Fears and sheath our Swords and the rather that it is there subjoâ—ned Here is the