unity and peace but to assert a divine original for them methinks is a hard task and truly to assert the divine Authority of the major part which must be done according to the principles of Presbytery is a thing fuller of Tyranny over Consciences than any thing can be feared from Episcopacy since the greater part of mankind being evil which holds true of no sort of people more than of Church-men what mischief may be expected if the plurality must decide all matters And to speak plainly I look on a potion of Physick as the best cure for him who can think a National Synod according to the model of Glasgow is the Kingdom of Christ on Earth or that Court to which he hath committed his Authority for he seems beyond the power or conviction of Reason Crit. The Scripture clearly holds forth an authority among Church-men but visibly restricted to their Commission which truly is not properly a power residing among them for they only declare what the Rule of the Gospel is wherein if they keep close to it they are only Publishers of the Laws of CHRIST and if they err from it they are not to be regarded It is true the administration of Sacraments is appropriated to them yet he that will argue this to have proceeded more from the general rules of Order the constant practice of the Church and the fitness of the thing which is truly sutable to the dictates of Nature and the Laws of Nations than from an express positive Command needs much Logick to make good his attempt It is true the ordaining of Successors in their Office belongs undoubtedly to them and in trying them Rules are expresly given out in Scripture to which they ought to adhere and follow them but as for other things they are either decisions of opinions or rules for practice In the former their authority is purely to declare and in that they act but as Men and we find whole Schools of them have been abused and in the other they only give advices and directions but have no Jurisdiction It is true much noise is made about the Council of Ierusalem p. 106 as if that were a warrant for Synods to meet together But first it is clear no command is there given so at most that will prove Synods to be lawful but that gives them no authority except you produce a clear Command for them and obedience to them Next what strange wresting of Scripture is it from that place to prove the subordination of Church Judicatories for if that Council was not an OEcumenical Council nor a Provincial one which must be yielded since we see nothing like a Convocation then either Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch as from one sister Church to ask advice of another and if so it proves nothing for the authority of Synods since advices are not Laws or Antioch sent to Ierusalem as to a Superior Church by its constitution which cannot be imagined for what authority could the Church of Ierusalem pretend over Antioch And indeed had that been true some vestige of it had remained in History which is so far to the contrary that the Church of Ierusalem was subordinate to the Church of Cesarea which was Metropolitan in Palestine was subject to Antioch the third Patriarchal Sea It will therefore remain that this was only a reference to the other Apostles who besides their extraordinary endowments and inspiration were acknowledged by all to be men of great eminency and authority and therefore the authority of Paul and Barnabas not being at that time so universally acknowledged they were sent to Ierusalem where S. Iames was resident and S. Peter occasionally present Now the Authority of the Decree must be drawn from their infallible spirit otherwise it will prove too much that one Church may give out decrees to another But will the Apostles mutual consulting or conferring together prove the National constitution and authority of Synods or Assemblies Poly. All that hath been said illustrates clearly the practice of the Iews among whom as the High-Priest was possessed with a Prophetical Spirit which sometimes fell on him by illapses as apears from what is said of Caiaphas and sometimes from the shining of the Stones in the Pectoral called the Urim and Thummim so the Priests and Levites being the chief Trustees and Depositaries of the Law Their lips were to preserve knowledg and the Law was to be sought at their mouth yet they had no Legislative Authority they had indeed a Court among themselves called the Parhedrim made up of the heads of the Orders and of the Families but that Court did not pretend to Jurisdiction but only to explain things that concerned the Temple-worship nay the High-Priest was so restricted to the King and Sanbedrim that he might not consult the Oracle without he had been ordered to do it by them neither do we ever hear of any Laws given out all the Old Testament over in the name of the Priests And in the New Testament the Power it seems was to be managed by the body of the faithful as well as by Church-men It is true the Apostles were clothed with an extraordinary power of binding and loosing of sins but no proofs are brought to justifie the pretences to Jurisdiction that are found among their Successors For in the Epistle to Corinth the Rules there laid down are addressed to all the Saints that were called to be faithful so also is the Epistle to the Thessalonians where he tells them to note such as walked disorderly and have no fellowship with them which are shrewd grounds to believe that at first all things were managed Parochially where the faithful were also admitted to determine about what occurred but for Synods we find not the least vestige of them before the end of the second Century that Synods were gathered about the Controversie concerning the day of Easter and the following Associations of Churches shew clearly that they took their model from the division of the Roman Empire and so according as the Provinces were divided the Churches in them did associate to the Metropolitans and became subordinate to them and these were subordinate to the Patriarchs by which means it was that the Bishops of Rome had the precedency not from any imaginary derivation from St. Peter for had they gone on such Rules Ierusalem where our Lord himself was had undoubtedly carried it of all the World but Rome being the Imperial City it was the See of the greatest Authority And no sooner did Bizantium creep into the dignity of being the Imperial City but the Bishop of Constantinople was made second Patriarch and in all things equal to the Bishop of Rome the precedency only excepted Much might be here said for proving that these Synods did not pretend to a divine Original though afterwards they claimed a high Authority yet their appointments were never called Laws but only Canons and Rules which could not pretend to a Jurisdiction Basil.
of all the People about these matters and truly this Answer adds so little to him that nothing can free him so well of that treachery as the reading of this new Book But to our purpose The Question is first in general If Subjects under a lawful Sovereign when oppressed in their established Religion may by Arms defend themselves and resist the Magistrates Let this be first discussed in general and next it shall be considered how far this will quadrat with our present Case or our late Troubles Isot. I like your method well and that we may follow it consider see pag. 20. of the Answer and Ius populi all over if their can be any thing more evident from the Laws of Nature than that men ought to defend themselves when unjustly assaulted And since the Law of Nature teacheth men not to murder themselves it by the same force binds them to hinder another to do it since he that doth not hinder another from committing a Crime when it is in his power so to do becomes guilty of the crime committed he is then a self-murderer who doth not defend himself from unjust force Besides what is the end of all Societies but mutual Protection Did not the People at first choose Princes for their Protection Or do you imagine it was to satisfie the Pride and Cruelty of individual persons It was then the end of Societies that Justice and Peace might be maintain'd so when this is inverted the Subjects are again to resume their own conditional surrender and to coerce the Magistrate who forgetful of the ends of his Authority doth so corrupt it And since the great design of man should be to serve GOD and to worship him in spirit and in truth this is to be preferred to all things else as being of the greatest Importance If then Magistrates whom S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 calls the Ordinances of men or humane Creatures do force there Subjects from the true Worship of GOD they ought to be restrained and the Cause of GOD must be maintained notwithstanding their unjust Laws or cruel Tyranny Bas. You have indeed put such colours on your Opinion that I should be much shaken from mine were not my persuasion well grounded But to examine what you have said you must distinguish well betwixt the Laws of Nature and the Rights or permissions of Nature the first are unalterable Obligations by which all men are bound which can be reversed by no positive Law and transgressed by no Person upon no occasion for the Law of Nature is the Image of GOD yet remaining in some degrees on the Souls of men and is nothing else save certain notions of Truth impressed by GOD on the Souls of all men that enjoy the exercise of Reason Now self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature otherwise it could never be dispensed with without a Sin nay were a man never so criminal For as in no case a man may kill himself were he never so guilty so by that reasoning of yours he ought not to suffer himself to be killed neither should any Malefactor submit to the Sentence of the Judge but stand to his defence by all the force he could raise And it will not serve turn to say that for the good of the Society he ought to submit for no man must violate the Laws of Nature were it on never so good a design and since the utmost standard of our love to our Neighbors is to love them as our selves no consideration of the good of others can oblige one to yield up his Life if bound by the Law of Nature to defend it Crit. If I may interrupt you I should tell you that as among all Nations it hath been counted Heroical to die for ones Country or for the good of others so the Apostle speaks Rom. 5.7 of those who for good men would dare to die But chiefly CHRIST'S dying for us shews that self-defence can be no Law of Nature otherwise CHRIST who filled all Righteousness had never contradicted the Laws of Nature Bas. I thank you for your remark which was pertinent But next consider there are some rights or permissions of Nature which are allowed us but not required of us as propriety of goods marriage and other such like things which whose doth not pretend to he cannot be said to violate the Laws of Nature only for some greater consideration he forgoes these Priviledges it allows And take men out of a Society I acknowledge forcible Resistance of any violent Assailant to be one of the rights of Nature which every man may make use of without a Fault or dispense with likewise at his pleasure But Societies being Associations of People under a Head who hath the power of Life and Death that sets it beyond doubt that the Head must only judge when the Subjects do justly fore-seal their Lives or not which before I go about to evince I must remove that vulgar Error of a Magistrate's deriving his power from the surrender of the People None can surrender what they have not take then a multitude of People not yet associated none of them hath power of his own Life neither hath he power of his Neighbors since no man out of a Society may kill another were his Crime never so great much less be his own murderer and a multitude of People not yet associated are but so many individual Persons therefore the power of the Sword is not from the People nor any of their Delegation but is from GOD. Isot. You will pardon me to tell you that the People must give the power since GOD did it never by a Voice from Heaven or by a Prophets command except in some Instances among the Israelites where even that was not done but upon the previous desire of the People And for what you say of the Peoples having no right to kill themselves they only consent to submit to the Magistrates Sentence when guilty Basil. This will then infallibly prove that forcible self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature but only a Right otherwise we could not thus dispense with it But if though guilty I ought not to kill my self neither can I so much as consent that another do it Hence it is that the original of Magistracy must be from GOD who only can invest the Prince with the power of the Sword Polyb. I could say much in Confirmation of that from the universal Sense of all Nations who ever looked on the Magistrates power as Sacred and Divine but these things are so copiously adduced by others that I may well spare my labor Crit. Nay a greater authority is St. Paul's Rom. 13.1 who saith That the powers that were then were ordained of GOD which on the way saith strongly for asserting the right of a Conquerour after some prescription since if either we consider the power of the Roman Empire over the world or of their Emperours over them both will be found to have no better title than Conquest and
this submission he recommends not only to Subjects whose obedience was more easie but to servants who were under a heavier Yoak according to the Laws of servitude both among the Iews and the Romans and he tells them That when they did well and suffered for it and took it patiently that was acceptable Withal adding For even hereunto were you called becauâ—e CHRIST also suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps Further it is to be considered how the Iew s dâ—d upon the first preaâ—hing of the Gospel persecute the Châ—istiâ—â—s every where S. Stephen was stoned and Saul got Commissions for making havock of the Churchâ— bâ—â— because this was done by the authoâ—ity of the Sanâ—â—drim no resistance was made them though since at two Sermons we hear of 〈◊〉 Converts we may be induced to believe their number was great And from hence subâ—â—me that the case of persecution being then not only imminent but also present besides the grievous persecutions were abiding the Churches for three Centuries it must be confessâ—â— to be strange that the matter of resistance being at least so dubious no decision should be given about it in the New Testaâ—â—nt nothing being alledged from it that hath any aspect that way And indeed I cannot conceal my wonder at them who plead so much the authority and fulness of Scripture to reach even the rituals of Worship and Government and yet in so great a matter adventure on a practice without its warrant Truly Isotimus if these things prevail not with you beyond your little small shufflings I doubt it is because you have lost the Standard to measure Reason by and have given up your Jâ—dgment to your passions and interests Isot. I am far from denying the Doctrine of the Cross to be a great part of these duties we are bound to in the Gospel but this must not be stretched too far lest it infer an obligation on us to submit to a forein Prince the Turk or any other if he come by force to impose on us the Alcoran under a pretence of suffering for Religion See pag. 27 and 28. Basil. Truly when I hear how much weight is laid on what you have now said as if it amounted to a demonstration against all hath been hitherto adduced I am in doubt whether to pity their weakness or blame their pervâ—â—sness who dare adventure on that the punishment whereof the holy Ghost hath made damnation upon such mistakes for God hath put the Sword in their hands who have the Sovereign Power which they bear not in vain for they are the Ministers of God and his Revengers to execute wrath on him that doth evil The Magistrates then are both by the Laws of God and of all Nations the Protectors of their Subjects and therefore Tributes and Customs are due to them for defraying the expence to which that must put them and Prayers are to be offered up for them that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty If then a forein Prince invade a Country under whatever pretence the Sovereign is bound to defend his Subjects with the Sword GOD hath put in his hand which comes to be a most lawful War on his side nay such as he were a betrayer of his trust if he omitted it Iâ—ot But what if our Prince should consent to such an Invasion and expose his Subjects to be a prey to such an Invader must they look on and see themselves destroyed upon the pretence that GOD hath not put the Sword in their hands and therefore they must not take it and because Christ's Kingdom is not of this World therefore they must not fight for him Basil. You suppose a Case not like to fall out in haste but were it real that Invader having no Title to that peoples obedience they may make use of the right of Nature which allows to one out of a Society forcible self-defence if violently assaulted and therefore such hostile invasion be it upon what pretence soever may be as lawfully resisted as one private Man may resist another in his own defence if he threaten to kill him unless he renounce GOD. If then one Man may resist another so may more men resist a great force coming against them for to us who live here the Grand Seignior is but a fellow of our nature and hath no right over us no more than one private person hath over his Neighbour And if you do not acknowledg a great difference betwixt such an asserting of our Liberties from one that hath no Title to them and the resisting of a lawful Magistrate though unjustly persecuting his Subjects you must be set to your horned book again Isot. But at least you will confess that private Men living in a settled Society have no title to the Sword according to your Principles must we then yield out Throats to a Robber that assaults us on the High way Or to come nearer you if one threaten to kill us if we yield not to their Religion must we give way to their fury Basil. Remember still how I told you that Men living out of Societies have a â—ight to self-defence and when they come under Societies they retain all their former rights such only excepted as are by the lawâ— of the Society judged inconsistent with its order and peace therefore resisting of the Supreme Powers or those having their authority being only discharged the right of self defence against equals still remains intire so that a private person may claim it or not as he will and therefore in the case of such an Aggressor the Laws of Nature and Nations do warrant me to use force when assaulted yet if a greater consideration appear and it be evident that my giving way to such unjust force will be more for the honour of the Gospel if I resist I do not sin but do well but if I resist not certainly I do better End I have been a witness to this Discourse not without much pleasure and do acknowledg my self fully convinced of the necessity of obedience and submission to the Supreme Power since without that be once established as the foundation of Societies I see not what peace or order can be looked for but every one will take on him to judg the Law-giver and if he have so much power or policy as to make a party he will never want pretences chiefly about Religion considering in how many various opinions the Christian world hath divided about it And it is a poor Answer to say it must be the true Religion that we should defend since it is to be supposed every one judgeth the Religion he is of to be the true one If then according to that Doctrine Religion be to be defended certainly though the Religion be wrong yet every one oppressed in his Consâ—iâ—nce and judging it to be according to truth is bound to defend it since even an erring conscience doth at least tie if
minds from the fâ—llowship of the Saints But on the other hand great caution must be had by all Subjects on what grounds they refuse obedience to the Laws that so they be not found following their own designs and interests under a colour of adhering firmly to their consciences They must deliver themselves from all prepossessions and narrowly examine all things ere they adventure on refusing obedience to the Laws But now consider if an unjust motive or narrative in a Law deliver tender consciences from an obligation to obey it or not Basil. If the Magistrate do couple his motive and narrative with our obedience so that we cannot do the one without a seeming consent to the other then certainly we are not to obey For actions being often signs of the thoughts an action how indifferent soever if declared a sign of concurring in a sinful design makes us guilty in so far as we express our concurrence by a sign enjoyned for that end But if the motive or narrative be simply an account of the Magistrates own thoughts without expressing that obedience is to be understood as a concurrence in such intentions then we are to obey a lawful command tho enacted upon a bad design For we must obey these in Authority ever till they stand in competition with GOD. If then their Laws contradict not GOD's Precepts neither in their natural nor intended siâ—nification they are to be obeyed whatever the grounds were for enacting them which is only the Magistrates deed for which he shall answer to GOD. Poly. This calls me to mind of two Stories not impertinent to this purpose The one is of Iulian the Apostate who to entangle the Christians that never scrupled the bowing to the Emperors Statue as a thing lawful caused to set up his with the Images of some of the Gods about it that such as bowed to it might be understood as likewise bowing to the Images which abused some of the simpler but the more discerning refused to bow at all to those Statues because he intended to expound that innocent bowing to his Statue as an adoration of the Gods about it A Christian likewise being brought to the King of Persia did according to the Law bow before him but when he understood that to be exacted as a divine Honor to the King he refused it Eud. This is clear enough that all actions are as they are understood and accordingly to be performed or surceased from But it seems more difficult to determine what is to be done in case a Magistrate enact wicked Laws Are not both his Subjects bound to refuse obedience and the Heads of the Church and the watchmen of Souls likewise to witness against it And may they not declare openly their dislike of such Laws or practices and proceed against him with the censures of the Church since as to the Censures of the Church we see no reason why they should be dispensed with respect of persons which S. Iames condemns in all Church Judicatories Basil. I shall not need to repeat what hath been so often said that we must obey GOD rather than man if then the Magistrates enjoyn what is directly contrary to the divine Law all are to refuse obedience and watchmen ought to warn their Flocks against such hazards and such as can have admittance to their Princes or who have the charge of their Consciences ought with a great deal of sincere freedom as well as humble duty represent the evil and sinfulness of such Laws but for any Synodical Convention or any Declaration against them no warrant for that doth appear and therefore if the Magistrate shall simply discharge all Synods I cannot see how they can meet without sin But for Parochial meetings of Christians for a solemn acknowledgment of GOD such Assemblings for divine Worship being enjoined both by the Laws of Nature and Nations and particularly commanded in the Gospel no consideration can free Christians from their Obligation thus to assemble for Worship if then the Magistrate should discharge these or any part of them such as Prayer Praisâ—s and reading of Scriptures preaching the Gospel or the use of the Sacraments they are notwithstanding all that to be continued in But for the consultative or directive Government of the Church till a divine Command be produced for Synods or Discipline it cannot lawfully be gone about without or against his authority Crit. For refusing obedience to an unjust command of surceasing visible Worship the instance of Daniel is signal who not only continued his adorations to GOD for all Darius his Law but did it openly and avowedly that so he might own his subjection to GOD. But for reproving Kings we see what caution was to be observed in it since GOD sent Prophets with express Commissions for it in the Old Testament and Samuel notwithstanding this severe message to Saul yet honored him before his people It is true there should be no respect of persons in Christian Judicatories but that is only to be understood of these who are subject to them and how it can agree to the King who is Supream to be a Subject is not easily to be comprehended Since then honor and obedience is by divine precept due to Magistrates nothing that invades that honor or detracts from that obedience can be lawfully attempted against them such as is any Church-censure or excommunication And therefore I cannot see how that practice of Ambrose upon Theodosius or other later instances of some Bishops of Rome can be reconciled to that Render fear to whom fear and honor to whom honor is due Phil. I am sure their practice is far less justifiable who are always preaching about the Laws and times to the people with virulent reflections on King Parliament and Council much more such as not content with flying discourses do by their writings which they hope shall be longer lived study the vilifying the persons and affronting the authority of these GOD hath set over them And how much of this stuff the Press hath vented these thirty years by past such as knew the late times or see their writings can best judge Eud. Now our discourse having dwelt so long upon generals is to descend to particulars That we may examine whether upon the grounds hitherto laid down the late tumults or the present Schisms and divisions can be justified or ought to be censured I know this is a nice point and it is to be tenderly handled lest all that shall be said be imputed to the suggestions of passions and malice Wherefore let me intreat you who are to bear the greater part of that discourse to proceed in it calmly that it may appear your designs are not to lodge infamy on any party or person but simply to lay out things as they are hoping withal that you will not take your informations of what you say from the tatles of persons concerned but will proceed on true and sure grounds And that we may return to this with
yet they were ordained of GOD and not to be resisted but submitted to under the hazard of resisting the Ordinance of GOD and receiving of damnation p. 2. And it is like the sacredness of the Magistrates power was a part of the traditional Religion conveyed from Noah to his posterity as was the practice of extraordinary Sacrifices Basil. It is not to be denied but a people may chase their own form of Government and the persons in whose hands it shall be deposited and the Sovereignty is in their hands of whom they do thus freely make choice so that if they expressly agree that any Administrators of the power by what name soever designed Kings Lords or whatever else shall be accountable to them in that case the Sovereignty lies in the major part of the people and these Administrators are subject to them as to the Supreme But when it is agreed in whose hands the Sovereign power lies and that it is not with the people then if the people pretend to the sword they invade GODS right and that which he hath devolved on his Vicegerent And as in marriage either of the parties make a free choice but the Marriage-bond is of GOD neither is it free for them afterwards to refile upon pretence of injuries till that which GOD hath declared to be a breach of the bond be committed by either party so though the election of the Sovereign may be of the people yet the tie of subjection is of GOD and therefore is not to be shaken off without we have express warrant from him And according to your reasoning one that hath made a bad choice in his marriage may argue that marriage was intended for a help and comfort to man and for propagation therefore when these things are missed in a marriage that voluntary contract may be refiled from and all this will conclude as well to unty an ill chosen marriage as to shake off a Sovereign Philarch. To this reasoning I shall add what seems from rational conjectures and such hints as we can expect of things at so great a distance from us to have been the rise of Magistracy We find no warrant to kill no not for murder before the Floud as appears from the instances of Cain and Lamech so no Magistracy appears to have been then Yet from what GOD said to Cain Gen. 4.7 we see the elder brother was to rule over the younger But the want of Magistracy before the Flood was perhaps none of the least occasions of the wickedness which was great upon earth but to Noah was the Law first given of punishing murder by death Gen. 9.6 and he was undoubtedly cloathed with that power So his eldest Son coming in his place by the right of representation and being by the right of primogeniture asserted before the Flood to be over his Brethren was cloathed with the same power and so it should have descended by the order of Nature still to the first-born But afterwards Families divided and went over the world to people it whereby the single jurisdiction of one Emperor could not serve the end of Government especially in that rude time in which none of these ways of correspondence which after Ages have invented were fallen upon These Families did then or at least by that Law of GOD of the elder Brothers power ought to have been subject to the eldest of their several Families And another rise of Magistracy was the poverty of many who sold themselves to others that were Richer and were in all Nations subâ—ect to them both they and their children and this was very early begun for Abraham's family consisted of 318. persons and the many little Kings at that time seem to have risen out of these Families for the posterity of these servants were likewise under the Masters Authority and these servants were by their Masters pleasure to live or lie nor had they any right to resist this unjust force But afterwards emancipation was used some dominion being still reserved and it is highly probable that from these numerous Families did most of the little Kingdoms then in the world spring up afterwards the more aspiring came to pretend over others and so great Empires rose by their Conquests Crit. I know it is strongly pretended that the state of servitude or such a surrender of ones life or liberty as subjects it to the tyranny of another is not lawful but this will be found groundless for though even the Law of GOD counted the servants a Man's money so that he was not to be punished though he had smitten them with a rod so that they died provided they lived a day or two after it Exod. 21.20 21. Yet in that dispensation it was not unlawful to be a servant nay nor unlawful to continue in that state for ever and not accept of the emancipation which was provided to them in the year of Iubily Neither is this state declared unlawful under the Gospel since S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 7.21 Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayst be free use it rather By which we see the Gospel doth not emancipate servants but placeth that state among things which may be lawfully submitted to though liberty be preferable Basil. From this it may be well inferred that if a Society have so intirely surrendred themselves that they are in no better case than were the servants among the Romans or Hebrews the thing is not unlawful nor can they make it void or resume the freedom without his consent whose servants they are and as S. Peter tells 1 Pet. 2.18 The servants to submit to their Masters tho punishing them wrongfully By whom all know that he means not of hired but of bought servants so if a people be under any degrees of that state they ought to submit not only to the good but to the froward and still it appears that the Sword is only in the Magistrates hand and that the people have no claim to it It is true in case the Magistrate be furious or desert his right or expose his Kingdoms to the fury of others the Laws and Sense of all Nations agree that the States of the Land are to be the Administrators of the power till he recover himself But the instance of Nebuchadnâ—zzar Dan. 4.26 shews that still the Kingdom should be sure to him when he recovers Iâ—â—t Now you begin to yield to truth and confess that a Magistrate when he grosly abuseth his Power may be coërced this then shews that the People are not slaves Basil. The Case varies very much when the abuse is such that it tends to a total Subversion which may be called justly a Phrensie since no man is capable of it till he be under some lesion of his mind in which case the Power is to be administred by others for the Prince and his Peoples safety But this will never prove that a Magistrate governing by Law though there be great errors in his