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
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
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
all the upright in heart shall follow it And in the mean while shall study to bless when you curse and pray for you who do thus despitefully use us We trust our witness is on high that whatever defects cleave to us and though may be we have not wanted a corrupt mixture as you know among whom there was a son of Perdition yet we are free of these things you charge on us promiscuously and that these imputations you charge us with are as false as they are base But all this will not serve the turn of many of your dividers whose Ministers continue with them as formerly and meerly because they hold themselves bound in Conscience to obey the Laws they are separated from Truly if you can clear this of separation you are a Master at subtil reasoning For you know it is not the third part of this Church which was abandoned by the former Ministers upon the late change and yet the humor of separating is universal And though some few of your own Ministers have had the honest zeal to witness against this separation yet how have they being pelted for it by the censures and writings of other Schismaticks which have prevailed so much upon the fear or prudence of others that whatever mislike they had of these separating practices yet they were willing either to comply in practice or to be silent spectators of so great an evil But if separation be a Sin it must have a guilt of a high nature and such as all who would be thought zealous watch-men ought to warn their people of And what shall be said of these even Church-men who at a time when the Laws are sharply looked to do join in our Worship but if there be an unbending in these they not only withdraw and become thereby a scandal to others but draw about them divided Meetings are not these time-servers For if concurrence in our Worship be lawful and to be done at any time it must be a duty which should be done at all times and therefore such Masters of Conscience ought to express an equality in their ways and that they make the rules of their concurrence in worship to be the Laws of GOD and not the fear of civil punishments Finally such as think it lawful to join in our Worship and yet that they may not displease the people do withdraw shew they prefer the pleasing of men to the pleasing of GOD and that they make more account of the one than of the other For if it be lawful to concur in our worship what was formerly said proves it a duty Are not these then the servants of men who to please them dispense with what by their own concession must be a duty Besides such persons withdrawing gives a great and real scandal to the vulgar who are led by their Example and so a humor of separating comes to be derived into all whereby every one thinks it a piece of Religion and that which will be sure to make him considerable and bring customers to him if he be a Merchant or Trades-man that he despise the solemn Worship and rail at his Minister and if he but go to Conventicles and be concern'd in all the humors of the Party he is sure of a good name be he as to other things what he will Eud. Much of this we know to be too true and certainly nothing deserves more blame for all the disorders are among us than this separation Discipline goes down Catechising is despised the Sacraments are loathed the solemn Worship deserted I know the poor Curates bear the blame of all and all of them must be equally condemned if a few of them have miscarried for which when ever it was proved they were censured condignly In end you charge their gifts and that their People are not edified by them But I pray you see whether the prejudices you make them drink in against them occasion not that For it is a more than humane work to overcome prejudices Read but the complaints of the Prophets and you will confess a Churchmans not being profitable to his People will be no good argument to prove him not sent of GOD And when I consider that even the Apostles call for the help of the Churches Prayers that utterance might be given to them yea and desire them to strive together in their Prayers for them I must crave leave to tell you that the defect of that utterance and power in preaching you charge on the present Preachers may be well imputed to the want of the concurrence of the Peoples Prayers whom prepossessions have kept from striving together with them in Prayer that they might come among them with the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel And if there be any of such tender and miâ—led Consciences who have been smitten with remorse for such concurrence in Worship as their tenderness is to be valued so their ignorance is to be pitied and they who thus misled them deserve the heavier censure since they have involved simple and weak Consciences with their pedling Sophistry into such straits and doubts In fine you cannot say that a Minister is by a Divine right placed over any particular flock If then it be humane it with all other things of that nature is within the Magistrates cognizance so that when he removes one and leaves a legal way patent for bringing in another upon which there comes one to be placed over that flock what injustice soever you can fancy in such dealing yet certainly it will never free that Parish from the tie of associating in the publick Worship or receiving the Sacraments from the hands of that Minister whom they cannot deny to be a Minister of the Gospel and therefore no irregularity in the way of his entry though as great as can be imagined will warrant the peoples separating from him Neither can they pretend that the first Incumbent is still their Minister for his relation to them being founded meerly on the Laws of the Church it is as was proved in the Second Conference subject to the Magistrates authority and so lasts no longer than he shall dissolve it by his commands unless it appear that he designs the overthrow of true Religion in which case I confess Pastors are according to the practice of the first Ages of the Church to continue at the hazard of all persecutions and feed their flocks But this is not applicable to our Case where all that concerns Religion continues as formerly only some combinations made in prejudice of the Supreme Authority are broken and order is restored to the Church instead of the confusions and divisions were formerly in it And if this change have occasioned greater disorders wherever the defect of Policy or Prudence may be charged yet certainly if the change that is made be found of its own nature both lawful and good the confusions have followed upon it are their guilt who with so little reason and so much