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