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
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
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
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
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
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
that were betwixt him and Zisca the resistance was not made to the King of Bohemia and therefore all that time was an Interregnum and is so marked by their Historian who tells that the Bohemians could not be induced to receive him to be their King he indeed invaded the Kingdom and crowned himself but was not chosen by the States till fifteen years after that a Peace was concluded and he with great difficulty prevailed upon the States to ratifie his Coâ—onation and acknowledge him their King See Dub. lib. 24. lib. 26. And by all this I doubt not but you are convinced that the Wars of Zasca were not of the nature of Subjects resisting their Sovereign And for the late Bohemian War besides what was already alledged of the Power of the States their War against Ferdinand and the reason why by a solemn decree they rejected him was because he invaded the Crown without an Election contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom hereupon they choosed the Prince Elector Palatine to be their King It is true they rose also in Arms while Matthias lived though he did not long survive these Tumults but in all their Apologies they founded their plea on the Liberties of the Kingdom of Bohemia And yet though this say much for their defence I am none of the Patrons of that War which had very few defenders among the Protestants Isot. At length you must yield there was War for defence of Religion but if without the inclosure of Bohemia we examine the History of Germany there we meet with that famous Smalcaldick War in opposition to Charles V. who was designing the overthrow of the Protestant Doctrine which the Elector of Saxony with the Landgrave of Hâ—ssen and other free Cities managed against him See p. 427. Poly. If any of the Passions of men have mingled in the actions of Protestants must these therefore be fasten'd on them as their Doctrine especially when they went not upon Principles of Religion but of Provincial Lawâ— As for Germany let me first tell you how far the Protestants were against Rebellion upon pâ—etence of Religion At first the Rustick War had almost kindled all Germany which indeed began upon very unjust Causes but Sleydan lib. 5. tells That some troublesome Preachers had been the cauâ—ers of that great and formidable War Now it is to little purpose to say they were in many errors and so fought not for the true Religion since it was befoâ—e made out that if Religion be to be fought for every man believing his own Religion to be true is bound to take Arms in its defence since even an erring Conscience binds Bâ—t as these Tumults did â—pâ—ead through Germany Luther published a Writing desiring all to abstain fâ—om Sedition though with â—l hâ— told he apprehended some strange â—udgment was hanging over the Church-men but that was to be lâ—ft to God After which he explains the duty of the Magistrates And adds That the People should be severely charged not to stir without the command of their Magistrates and that nâ—thing was to be attempted by private Persons that all Sedition was against the command of God and that Sedition was nothing but private Revenge and therefore hated by God Adding That the Seditions then stirring were raised by the Devil who stirred up these who professed the Gospel to them that thereby the truth might be brought under hatred and reproach as if that could not be of God which gave occasion to so great evils Then he tells what means were to be used for advancing of the Gospel That they were to repent of their sins for which God had permitted that tyranny of the Church-men Next That they should pray for the Divine aid and publickly assert the truth of the Gospel and discover the Impostures of the Popes And he adds That this had been his method which had been much blessed of God In a word the whole strain of that first Paper shews that the great bait used to train all into that Rebellion was the pretence of the liberty of Religion and the tyrannical oppression they were kept under by the Ecclesiasticks But upon this the Beures published a Writing containing their Grievances The first whereof was That they might have liberty to choose Ministers who might preach the Word of God purely to them without the mixture of mens devises The other particulars related to their Civil Liberties And upon these Pretensions they appealed to Luther who wrote again Acknowledging the great Guilt of these Princes who received not the purity of the Gospel but he warns the People to consider what they did lest they lost both Body and Soul in what they attempted That they were neither to consider their own strength nor the faultiness of their Adversaries but the justice and lawfulness of the Cause and to be careful not to believe all Mens preachings for the Devil had raised up many Seditions and bloody Teachers at that time Wherefore he forbids them to take God ' s Name in vain and pretend that they desired in all things to follow his Laws But minds them who threatned that they who took the Sword should perish by the Sword and of the Apostle who commands all to be obedient to Magistrates charging on them that though they pretended the Laws of God yet they took the Sword and resisted the Magistrate But he adds You say the Magistrates become intolerable for they take the Doctrine of the Gospel from us and oppress us to the highest degree But be it so stars and seditions are not therefore to be raised neither must every one coërce crimes that belongs to him to whom the power of the Sword is given as is express in Scripture And besides this is not only according to the Laws but is by the light of Nature impressed on all mens minds which shews that no man can cognosce and judge in his own Cause since all men are blinded with self-love And it cannot be denied but this Tumult and Sedition of yours is a private Revenge But if you have any warrant for this from God you must make it out by some signal Miracle The Magistrate indeed doth unjustly but you much more so who contemning the Command of God invade anothers Iurisdiction And he tells them That if these things take place there will be no more Magistracy nor Courts of Iustice if every man exercise private Revenge And if this be unlawful in a private Person much more is it so in a multitude gathered together Wheâ—efore he counts them unworthy of the name of Christians nay worse than Turks who thus violate the Laws of Nature Then for proof of his opinion he adduceth that of our Lord's resist not evil as also his râ—proving of S. Peter for smiting with the Sword These steps were to be fâ—llowed by you saith he or this glorious Title must be laid down And if you followed his Example God ' s power would appear and he would undoubtedly
Navy to Henry III. of England and got great priviledges from him for their traffick in England There were then 72. Cities in the League who renewed their League every tenth year and consulted whom to receive or whom to exclude from their friendship and choosed a Pâ—oâ—â—â—tor to themselves And one of the Conditions on which any City might be of this League was that they were free Towns and therefore it was that some Towns in the Netherlands being of this League their Princes were by Oath to confirm their freedom otherwise they could not be comprehended within that League the end whereof was to defend one another in any necessity they might fall in Let these things then declare whether Germany be a Monarchy or not and it will never prove the Emperor to be the Sovereign because the Empire is feudal and the Emperor gives the Investitures to the Princes for they are not the Feudatoâ—ies of the Emperor but the Empire and the Emperor by giving the Investiture becomes not their Lord for in the Interregn of the Empire the Electors of Palatine and Saxe are the Vicars of the Empire and give the Investitures who are not clothed with any authority over the rest but only as they are the Vicars of the Empire and not of the Emperor And most of the Princes of Itair receive still their Investiture from the Emperor but are far from concluding themselves his Subjects upon that account And who thinks the King of Naples the Popes Subject tho he receive his Investiture in that Crown from him These things being thus cleared it will be evident that the Wars betwixt Charles V. and the Duke of Saxony will never be a Precedent for Subjects resisting their Sovereign And having said so much it will be to no purpose to examine the rise and progress of the Smalcalâ—â— League and War only thus much is clear that the leaguing of the Princes and Cities together among themselves or with other Princes was not held contrary to the Laws of the Empire for after the Smalcaldic League both the Emperor and other Kings as France and England treated with them and sent Embassadors to them Yea the Pope sent a Nuncio to the Elector of Saxe and Landgrave of Hessen at Smalcald and yet never were they accused by the Emperor for entring into that League of mutual defence which shews it was not judged contrary to the duty of these Princes to associate among themselves or with others And the City of Strasburg and after them the Landgrave of Hessen made a League with the Switzer Cantons that received the Reformation for mutual defence against any Invasion upon the account of Religion At Ausburg the Emperor did on the 11. of November 1530. declare that since the Protestants did reject the Decree made about Religion he had entred in an agreement with the rest of the Diet not to offend any but to defend themselves if any force were used against these who owned that Religion And in the following December the Protestant Princes met at Smalcald and made an agreement among themselves in the same strain neither were they ever condemned for so doing but continued in a good correspondence with the Emperor many years after that till being invaded by the Duke of Brunswick the War took its rise which is all along proved to have been according to the Laws and Liberties of the Empire And thus this Case doth vary exceedingly from the matter of our Debates Eud. If I may glean after your Harvest I could add that the Divines of Germany were notwithstanding of all the immunity of the Princes and injuries they met with very much against all warlike preparations Many vestigies of this appear through Melanclon's Letters particularly in his 71. Letter to Camerarius an 1528. where he gives account of the inclinations many had to War and with how much diligence he had studied to divert them from it though great injuries had been done them and that it was believed that many of the Princes had signed a conspiracy against them And Scultet Exer. Evang. lib. 2. cap. 5. tells how Grumbachius and Iustus Ionas animated the Elector of Saxe to the War assuring him of the Empire of Germany if he woâ—ld adventure for it which he adds the Elector did and his so doing he compares to his throwing himself over the Pinacle of the Temple but all quickly repented them of the attempt the Elector being defeated taken and kept Prisoner many years and his ill Counsellors were well served for their advice Grumbachius was quartered and Ionas was beheaded Thus you see how that war is censured by one of the best of the late German Divines By this time I think no scruples can dwell with any about the German War and that it agrees with the case of a Prince defending his Religion and Subjects against the unjust invasion of another Prince to whom he owes neither obedience nor subjection and this will easily satisfie all that know either Law or History whether the Author of the Dialogues deserved to be treated as his Answerer doth But it is no new thing to find ignorants full of confidence and cowards full of boastings Isot. But for Sweden you yield it and acknowledge that because their King came against them in an unjust invasion designing to subvert their Religion they not only armed against him and resisted him but deposed him and put his Uncle in his place than which nothing can be more express See p. 441. Poly. The design of the Conformist was to prove that the first Reformers did not teach the doctrine of Subjects their resistance upon the account of Religion but he meant not to make good all that followed after that therefore left the more inconsiderat when they heard of the Sâ—ares of Sweden their deposing of Sigâ—smund might have mistaken that as he knows some have done and confounded it with the Reformation he gave the true account of that Affair as it was and it being seventy years after the Reformation was first brought thither cannot be fastened on the Reformation Besides the whole Tract of the Swedish History proves that the Estates as they elected so also coerced and frequently deposed their Kings and therefore Bodin reckons Sweden among these divided States where the Supreme Power lay betwixt the King and the Nobility and tells how in his own time Henry King of Sweden having killed with his own hand one that presented a petition to him the States forced him to quit the Kingdom to his Brother and that he had been for seventeen years a prisoner when he wrote his Books de Republica It being thus frequent in Sweden upon malversation not only to resist but to depose their Kings it was no wonder if when Sigismund came against them with an army of Polanders whose Sovereign he was not for none are so ignorant to think the King of Poland is a Sovereign they resisted him since that was a subjecting of Sweden to foreign force
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
determining of the externals of Government or Worship falls within the Magistrate's Sphere then comes in a new Complaint and it is told that here Religion is given up to the Lusts and Pleasure of men though it be an hundred times repeated that command what the King will in prejudice of the Divine Law no Obedience is due If again it be proved that Church Judicatories in what notions soever are subjects as well as others and no less tied to obedience than others upon this come in vehement outcries as if the Throne and Kingdom of Christ were overturned and betrayed with other such like Expressions in their harsh Stile What is become of Mankind and of Religion when Ignorants triumph upon these baâ—ren Pretences as if they were the only Masters of Reason and directors of Conscience You know what my Temper is in most differences but I acknowledge my mind to be fâ—ll of a just disdain of these ignorant and insolent Pedlers which is the more inflamed when I consider the Ruins not only of sound Learning but of true Piety and the common rules of Humanity which follow these simple Contests they make about nothing Basil. To speak freely I cherish Reflections no where therefore I shall not conceal my mislike of these Invectives which though I am forced to confess are just yet I love to hear truth and peace pleaded for with a calm serene Temper and though the intolerable and peevish railings of these Pamphlets do justifie a severe Procedure yet I would have the softer and milder methods of the Gospel used that so we may overcome evil with good To take you therefore off that angry engagement let me invite you to a sober Examen of the Magistrates Authority in things Divine But before this be engaged in let it be first considered whether â—â—ere be any Legislative Power on Earth about things Sacred and next with whom it is lodged Isot. I will so far comply with your desires that for this once without retaliating I quit to Philarcheus the last word of scolding But to come to the purpose you have suggested consider that Christ hath given us a complete Rule wherein are all things that pertain to Life and Godliness It is then an Imputation on his Gospel â—o say any thing needs be added to it and that it contains not a clear direction for all things therefore they accuse his Wisdom or Goodness who pretend to add to his Laws and wherein he hath not burthened our Consciences what tyranny is it to bind a yoak upon us which our Fathers were not able to bear Whereby as our Christian liberty is invaded so innumerable Schisms and Scandals spring from no other thing so much as from these oppressions of Conscience which are so much the more unjust that the imposers acknowledging their indifferency and the refusers scrupling their lawfulness the peace of the Church is sacrificed to what is acknowledged indifferent neither can any bounds be fixed to those impositions for if one particular may be added why not more and more still till the â—oak become heavier than that of Moses was which is made out from experience For the humor of innovating in divine matters having once crept into the Church it never stopp'd till it swelled to that prodigious bulk of Rites under which the Roman Church lies oppressed And besides all these general considerations there is one particular against significant Rites which is that the instituting of them in order to a particular signification of any Grace makes them Sacraments according to the vulgar definition of Sacraments that they are the outward signs of an inward Grace but the instituting of Sacraments is by the confesâ—ion of all a part of Christ's Prerogative since he who confers grace can only institute the signs of it Upon all these accounts I plead the Rule of Scripture to be that which ought to determine about all divine matters and that no binding Laws ought to be made in divine things wherein we are left at liberty by GOD who is the only Master of our Consciences See from pag. 172. to pag. 180. Phil. You have now given me a full Broad-side after which I doubt not but you triumph as if you had shattered me all to pieces but I am afraid you shall find this Volley of chained Ball hath quite missed me and that I be aboard of you ere you be aware No man can with more heartiness acknowledg the compleatness of Scripture than my self and one part of it is that all things which tend to Order Edification and Peace be done and the Scene of the World altering so that what now tends to advance Order Edification and Peace may afterwards occasion disorder destruction and contention the Scripture had not been compleat if in these things there were not an Authority on Earth to make and unmake Laws in things indifferent I acknowledg the adding of new pieces of worship hath so many inconveniences hanging about it that I should not much patronize it but the determining of what may be done either in this or that fashion to any particular Rule is not of that nature Therefore since Worship must be in a certain posture a certain habit in a determinate place and on such times all these being of one kind Laws made about them upon the accounts of order edification or peace do not pretend to prejudg the perfection of Scripture by any additions to what it prescribes since no new thing is introduced Indeed did humane Law-givers pretend that by their Laws these things became of their own nature more acceptable to GOD they should invade GOD's Prerogative but when they are prescribed only upon the account of Decency and Order it is intolerable peevishness to call a thing indifferent of its nature unlawful because commanded For the Christian liberty consists in the exemption of our Consciences from all humane yoak but not of our actions which are still in the power of our Superiors till they enjoin what is sinful and then a greater than they is to be obeyed I acknowledg the simplicity of the Christian Religion is one of its chief Glories nothing being enjoined in it but what is most properly fitted for advancing the Souls of men towards that wherein their blessedness doth consist And therefore I never reflect without wonder on that Censure Ammian Marcellin a Heathen Writer gives of Constantius That he confounded the Christian Religion which was of it self pure and simple with doating superstitions So I freely acknowledg that whosoever introduce new parts of Worship as if they could commend us to GOD do highly encroach on GOD's Authority and man's Liberty But as for the determining of things that may be done in a variety of ways into one particular form such as the prescribing a set form for Worship the ordering the posture in Sacraments the habit in Worship determinate times for commemorating great mercies the time how long a Sinner must declare his penitence ere he be admitted
study to poison the people with damnable jealousies of the King's inclination to Popery of his accession to the Massacre of Ireland and of his designs to subvert by force the late agreement with Scotland if his Armies were blessed with success in England It were an endless work to tell all the ways were used for rooting these wicked jealousies in the peoples hearts neither were all His Majesties protestations able to overcome them yet in end when His Majesty finding what their inclinations were did refuse to admit the Commissioners from Scotland to mediate betwixt himself and the Houses they returned home and immediately upon that contrary to all the Laws of Scotland a great meeting of Counsellors Conservators and Commissioners for the publick burdens ordained a Convention of Estates to be summoned which was never before done without the King's command except in the minority of the Kings neither did they so much as wait for the King's pleasure but only signified their resolution to him and desired His Commands against the day prefixed Here was an invasion of the King's Prerogative which deserved a high Censure yet so far did His Majesty's clemency and love to his native Kingdom lead him that he dispensed with this transgression and allowed their sitting in a Convention provided they meddled not in the business of England nor raised an Army in order to it But notwithstanding this they voted themselves a free Convention and not restricted to the bounds prescribed in the King's Letter which they refused to registrate And after this they leagued with England But having spoke my self out of breath I quit the giving account of what follows to Basilius Basil. I have observed one defect in your Narration for which I will be very favorable to you becaâ—se I â—ntend to be guilty of that â—ame fault my self which is that you have spoken nothing of the National Covenant and I mean to say as little of the Lâ—ague And I am apt to guesâ— that your silence was designed upon the same grounds that mine is for indeed I can satisfie my self with nothing I can say upon the League except I told all I know of the Arts and manner of its contrivance And truly I cannot prevail upon my self at present for the saying of that Therefore I will draw a vail over it and say nothing till I see further reason for a more full discovery and then I am afraid Isotimus shall confess it was not prudently done to hâ—ve extorted it from me But to quit this and puâ—sue the Narration Philarcheus hath devolved on me I shall tell you how Commissioners câ—me from England to treat for an Army from Scotland for their assistance in the War they were then engaged in against the King Upon which all Articles being agreed to and a League â—woâ—n an Army was sent into England which turned the seales that did then hang in an even ballance to the King's ruin And truly my invention cannot reach an argument or color for proving these to have been defensive Arms they being the effect of a combination with the Subjects of England against our common King Bâ—t shall I next tell you what followed after the fatal revolution of things in England upon his Majesties trusting himself to the Scots Army I am sure I should â—ill your minds with horror For though His Majesty offered Concessions justly to be wondered at he having been willing to quit the Militia for divers years and to set up Presbytery for three years and that in the mean while there should be a free Synod in order to a final settlement with other great diminutions of Royal Authority which shew how willing he was at his own câ—st to have redeemed the peace of his Kingdoms only he added that his Conscience could not allow him to take the Covenant nor authorize it by Law nor consent to the abolition of Episcopacy or the Liturgy protesting that how soon he could do these things with a good Conscience he should yield to all the desires of his Subjects in the mean while he intreated for a personal Treaty in order to mutual satisfaction Yet with how much fury did that Party press the setling of the Government without him the diâ—owning his interest and the abandoning of his Person to his Enemies tho at that very time the designs of the Sectarian Party against both Monarâ—hy and His Majesties Person were breaking out and had been made known to them by those who understood them well What followed upon this I wish my silence could bury from the knowledg of all the World But alâ—s it is too well known what infamy these Men brought upon themselves and their Countâ—y which in the Opinion of the World was generally held guilty of that which was the Crime of the prevailing Party whom the Leaders over-awed and influenced But after that when His Majesty was made Prisoner when he was carried up and down by the Army when the Army forced both the Houses and the City of London when the Treaties of Scotland were violated in all their Articles when the Propositions agreed on by both Kingdoms were laid aside and the four Bills set in their place wherein the Covenant was not mentioned when upon His Majesties refusing of these he was made Prisoner and the Vote of Non-addresses passed against him then did the Loyalty of the Scots Nation begin again to revive and what through the sense of duty what through the remorse of their former actings eveâ—y one was forward to real resentments of these unworthy indignities put both on their King and Country but when the Parliament of Scotland had voted the Country to be put in a posture of War for the defence of their Sâ—vereign then where should I end if I told all the seditious Papers Preachings and Discourses of some of the Clergy who contradicted and countermanded the Parliament to a height of unparalelled boldness even after all their desires which they gave in a large Remonstrance were granted But did that satisfie No they then took refuge in their common Sanctuary of jealousies and fears They threatned all who obeyed the commands of the Parliament not only with their Church-censures but with damnation They did every where incite the people to rise in Arms against the Parliaments Forces and at a Communion at Matchlin they did so work upon the Vulgar that they prevailed to get them draw up in a Body promising them great assistance both from GOD and men They kept a correspondence with the Sectarian Army and continued by many Letters to press their speedy march unto Scotland and after the Scots Army marched unto England and was by the wise judgment of GOD defeated then did many of the Ministers with all the vehemence imaginable inflâ—me the people to Rebellion and got them to rise and theâ— marched before their Parishes like Captains They also called for the help of the Sectarian Army to them And thus did they stand to the Covenant in maintaining the
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
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
and so did totally overturn the whole Foundation of the Kingdom But after all this I may add that Charles Duke of Sudâ—rman was not too well reported of for that abrogation of his Nephew it being generally imputed to his ambition And thus you see upon how many Accounts that Action of the Swedish State will not serve your turn Isot. But these of Zurich resisted the other five Cantons and being provoked by their injuries they stop'd the Passâ—ges of Victuals to them upon which a War followed As also at Basel the people did maintain and assert the Reformation by Arms against their Superiors and brake the Images and burnt them they also made the Senate turn off some of their number who favored the Mass. See p. 443 444. Poly. As for the War among the Cantons it is undeniable that it was not of Subjects against their Sovereigns since the Cities of Helvetia have no dependence one upon another nor can any one City be tied to the opinion or decree of the rest without their own consent which shews that every Canton is a free State within it self and therefore their warrings among themselves makes nothing for subjects resisting of their Sovereigns And what is alledged from the tumult of Basel is as little to our purpose for these free Cities being Democratical it was no wonder if the people offâ—nded with the Senate did raise that Commotion and the Historian expresly asserts that what they did they openly declared was not for defence of Religion but for vindicating of their own liberty And in the end of the Story it appears what they designed for they made the Senat receive 260. out of the Companies of the Citizens whose counsel should be carried along in the greater concernments that might be either for GOD's Glory or the Good of the Commonwealth But if you lay claim to this Story as a Precedent you must acknowledge that a Reformation may be not only maintained by force but that Magistrats may be removed from their Office if they go not along with it and that the people may in their own Authority without waiting for the Magistrats concurrence go by violence and break down Images and throw out an established Religion But this belongs not to the case of Subjects since in these free Cities the power is certainly with the people and so they are not Sâ—bjects to the Senat. And for Geneve it is so fully proved that it was a free Imperial City that I need add nothing to make it out One instance will abundantly suffice to prevail upon the belief of any who can doubt whether the Bishop of Geneve was their Prince which is that the Bishops of Geneve did frequently become Burgesses in it In particular Peter de Baulâ— the last who sate there was received a Citizen by the Senat of Genâ—ve 15. Iuly 1527. which doth fully prove that he could not be their Lord. But as for the Reformation of Geneve it is true Sleydan hints as if the Bishop and Clergy had left the City being angry at the Reformation but in that he was mistaken for their Bishop left the City an 1528. and made war against it upon some disputes were betwixt him and them about their privileges for though he was not Lord of the City yet the Countrey about it belonged to him But an 1533. he returned to the City and left it in the Iuly of the same year fearing some seditious Tumults which he had the more reason to apprehend because of his Transactions with the Duke of Savoy whereby he made over to him his interest in the City And it was two years after this before the Reformation was received by that City For after he left them they passed a Decree for preserving the old Religion and discharging of the Lutheran and banished two of the Ministers of that Religion And on the first of Ianuary 1534. after the Bishop was gone his Vicar published an Edict discharging all Assemblies fâ—r Divine Worship without the Bishops permission and all Bibles in the French or German Tongues were condemned to be burnt And for the Duke of Savoy his invading them and being resisted by them it makes nothing for your design this being a free Imperial City resisting an unjust Invader For all this see Geneva restituta Isot. But at least the States of the United Provinces did maintain their Religion by Arms when Philip the Second was introducing the Inquisition among them and tho these Wars were upon mixed grounds so that Papists as well as Protestants concurred in them yet it is undeniable that Religion gave the chief rise to them and was the main consideration that engaged the Protestants into that War See pag. 446. Poly. One error runs through all your smatterings which is that you never distinguish betwixt a State governed by a Monarch where subjection is due to him by the constitution of the State and a limited Prince who by the Laws of that Society is accountable to and censurable by the Nobility and people which states so great a difference that he must be very purblind who doth not observe it And therefore I will first shew you that the Prince of the Netherlands was but a precarious Prince governing a free people at their pleasure and precariously as Heuterus and Grotius de Ant. Reâ—p Batav call him And among the Laws of the Government of Batavia one was that the old Customs and Laws should be sacred and that if the Prince decreed ought against them he was not to be obeyed and so it was usual among them upon a tâ—anâ—gression to depose their Princes of which many instances are reckoned by Grotius and therefore he compares their Princes to the Lacedemonian Kings upon whom the Ephori and the Senat might have cognosced The Brabantins had indeed looked better to their liberty than the rest and so had guarded against the deceit of their Princes who might have broken their Laws upon the pretence of a publick good by an express agreement that if their Prince should violate the Laws they should not be tied to obedience nor fidelity to him till their injuries were removed and this was confirmed by the examples of their Ancestors Gr. An. lib. 2. And a little after he adds That the other Provinces in Belgium had by practice that same privilege and that the rather that being all united to Brabant by Maximilian they were to enjoy the same privileges with them The Brabantins had also a privilege of chusing a Conservator in any great hazard called Ruart Strada tom 1. lib. 9. whose power was equal to the Roman Dictators this they had by the privileges of the Laetus introitus And upon this they chused the Prince of Orange their Ruart anno 1577. And to run no further for proofs of this when Philip was inaugurated their Prince he expresly provided that if he broke their privileges they should be free from obedience and fidelity to him and this was the ground on which they