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
Government ought to be coërced otherwise you must open a door to perpetual Broils since every one by these Maxims becomes Judge and where he is both Judge and Party he is not like to be cast in his Pretensions And even few Malefactors die but they think hard measure is given them If then forcible self-defence be to be followed none of these should yield up their Lives without using all attempts for resâ—uing them Eud. Whatever other Cases allow of certainly the defence of Religion by Arms is never to be admitted for the nature of Christian Religion is such that it excludes all carnal Weapons from its defence And when I consider how expresly CHRIST forbids his disciples to resist evil Matth. 25.39 how severely that resistance is condemned by S. Paul and that condemnation is declared the Punishment of it I am forced to cry out Oh! what times have we fallen in in which men dare against the express Laws of the Gospel defend that practice upon which GOD hath passed this condemnation If whosoever break the least of these Commandments and teach men so to do shall be called the least in the Kingdom of GOD What shall their portion be who teach men to break one of the greatest of these Commandments such as are the Laws of Peace and Subjection And what may we not look for from such Teachers who dare tax that glorious Doctrine of patient Suffering as brutish and irrational and though it be expresly said 1 Pet. 2.21 That CHRIST by suffering for us left us his Example how to follow his steps which was followed by a glorious Cloud of Witnesses Yet in these last days what a brood hath sprung up Of men who are lovers of their own selves traytors heady high-minded lovers of pleasures more than lovers of GOD having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sin It is our sins that provoke GOD to open the bottomless pit and let loose such locusts but were we turning to GOD and repenting of the works of our hands we might hope that their power should be taken from them and that their folly should be made known to all men Isot. Who talk bigly now But let Reason and Scripture take place and you shall find good warrants in the Old Testament for coërcing the Magistrate and subjecting the power in the Peoples hands see p. 12. for the People were warranted to punish Idolaters Deut. 13.12 And from the beginning of Deuteronomy it appears that Book was directed to all Israel therefore any might have punished Idolaters therefore the power of Reforming is with the People And again see p. 13. the Law of the King is set down Deut. 18.14 which gives a clear Evidence that the People might coërce him Otherwise why was that Law delivered to the People Crit. I am much deceived if these Instances do conclude for your design since the utmost they can prove is that some share of the executive power lay in the hands of the People among the Iews but that proves nothing where by Law and Practice it is clear the power is wholly in the hands of Superior unaccountable Magistrates But that the Law of the King or of punishing Idolaters was delivered to the People proves not that they must execute it For the Law of Sacrifices and all the Temple worship was also delivered to them but I hope you will not from that infer that the People were to judge in these matters or to give Laws to their Priests neither will the Law because addressed to the People prove themselves to be the executors of it otherwise the Epistle to the Corinthians addressed to all the Saints in Corinth will prove the People the Iudges of Excommunication and of the Rules of Church-worship which are there delivered so that though the Law was directed to all the People yet that proves not that every precept of it concerned all the People but that the whole of the Law was addressed to the whole People and the respective parts of it to all the individuals according to their several stations And after all this you are to consider that some things were allowed by that Law to private Persons which ought never to be made precedents for the Law allowed the Friends of one that was killed by chance to avenge the Blood on the Person that slew him if he kept not within the City of Refuge but that being a particular provision of their Judicial and Municipal Law will be no warrant for such revenge in other States Isot. But what say you to the revolt of Libnah 2 Chron. 21.10 which revolted from Iehoram because he forsock the LORD GOD of his fathers And of Amaziab 2 Chron. 25. 27. who when he turned away from following the LORD his being killed by a Conspiracy of these in Ierusalem and the fourscore valiant Priests who withstood â—zziah when he went to offer incense 2 Chron. 26.17 See p. 13 14 Crit. As for your instances consider that many things are set down in the Old Testament that are undoubted faults and yet so far are they from being taxed that they rather seem to be applauded so it is in the case of the Midwives lie not to mention the Polygamy of the Patriarchs therefore it not being clear to us by what special warrants they acted a Practice of that Dispensation will be no precedent to us But for that of Libnah it may be justly doubted if the Libnah there mentioned be that City which was assigned to the Priests for Numbers 33.20 we meet with a Libnah in the journyings of Israel and both the Syriack and the Arabick version have understood the place of that City for they render it the Idumeans that dwelt at Libnah But whatever be in this the particle because doth not always import the design of the doer which if you examine the Hebrew will be very clear and I shall name but one place to satisfie you 1 Sam. 2.25 Elies sons hearkned not to the voice of their father because the LORD would slay them But I doubt not you will confess this was not their motive to such disobedience so this will import no more but that GOD in his Providence permitted that revolt for a Punishment of Iehoram's Apostasie neither will fair Pretences justifie bad Actions so the utmost that place can prove is that they made that their pretence But that their revolt could not be without they had also revolted from GOD will appear from this that the Priests were bound to give attendance by turns at the Temple so none of them could have revolted from the King without their rejecting of GOD'S Service as long as the King was Master of Ierusalem whither no doubt they would not have come during their revolt As for your instance of Amaziah I confess it is plain dealing and you disclose the Mystery of defensive Arms that it is but lamely maintain'd till the Doctrine of murdering
not oblige For the common resolution of Casuists being that a Man under an erroneous Conscience is yet to follow its dictates though he sin by so doing then all parties that are oppressed ought to vindicate what they judg to be the truth of GOD. And by this you may see to what a fair pass the peace of mankind is brought by these Opinions But mistake me not as if I were here pleading for sâ—â—mission to patronize the tyranny or cruelty of persecuting Princes who shall answer to God for that great trust deposited in their hands which if they transgress they have a dear account to make to him who sits in heaven and laughs at the raging and consultings of these Kings or Princes who design to throw off his Yoak or burst his bonds in sunder He who hath set his King upon his holy Hâ—ll of Zion shall rule them with a rod of Iron and break them in pieces as a Potter's Vessel And he to whom vengeance doth belong will avenge himself of all the injuries they do his truths or followers but as they sin against him so they aâ—e only countable to him Yet I need not add what hath been often said that it is not the name of a King or the ceremonies of a Coronation that cloaths one with the Sovereign Power since I know there are and have been titular Kings who are indeed but the first Persons of the State and only Administrators of the Laws the Sovereign Power lying in some Assembly of the Nobility and States to whom they are accountable In which Case that Court to whom these Kings must give account is the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom and the King is but a Subject Isot. But doth not the Coronation of a King together with his Oath given and the consent of the People demanded at it prove him to have his Power upon the Conditions in that Oath And these Oaths being mutually given his Coronation Oath first and the Oath of Allegiance next do shew it is a Compact and in all mutual Agreements the nature of Compacts is that the one party breaking the other is also free Further Kings who are tied up so that they cannot make nor repeal Laws nor impose Taxes without the consent of the States of their Kingdom shew their Power to be limited and that at least such Assemblies of the States share with them in the Sovereign Power which is at large made out by Ius populi Basil. It is certain there cannot be two co-ordinate Powers in a Kingdom for no man can serve two Masters therefore such an Assembly of the States must either be Sovereign or subject for a middle there is not As for the Coronation of Princes it is like enough that aâ— first it was the formal giving their Power to them and the old Ceremonies yet observ'd in it prove it hath been at first so among us But it being a thing clear in our Law that the King never dies his Heir coming in his place the very moment he expires so that he is to be obeyed before his Coronation as well as after and that the Coronation is nothing but the solemn inaugurating in the Authority which the King possessed from his Father's death shews that any Ceremonies may be used in it whatever the original of them may have been do not subject his Title to the Crown to the Peoples consent And therefore his Coronation Oath is not the condition upon which he gets his Power since he possess'd that before nor is it upon that Title that he exacts the Oath of Alegiance which he likewise exacted before his Coronation This being the practice of a Kingdom passed all Prescription proves the Coronation to be no compact betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore he is indeed bound by his Coronation Oath to God who will be avenged on him if he break it so the matter of it were lawful but the breaking of it cannot forfeit a prior Right he had to the Peoples Obedience And as for the limitations Kings have consented to pass on their own Power that they may act nothing but in such a form of Law these being either the King 's free Concessions to the People or restraints arising from some Rebellions which extorted such Priviledges will never prove the King a Subject to such a Court unless by the clear Laws and Practices of that Kingdom it be so provided that if he do malverse he may be punished which when made appear proves that Court to have the Sovereign Power and that never weakens my design that Subjects ought not to resist their Sovereign Philar. You have dwelt methinks too long on this though considering the nature of the thing it deserves indeed an exact discussion yet this whole Doctrine appears so clear to a discerning Mind that I cannot imagine whence all the mist is raised about it can spring except from the corrupt Passions or Lusts of men which are subtle enough to invent excuses and fair colors for the blackest of Crimes And the smoak of the bottomless pit may have its share in occasioning the darkness is raised about that which by the help of the light of God or of reason stands so clear and obvious But when I consider the instances of sufferings under both Dispensations I cannot see how any should escape the force of so much evident proof as hangs about this opinion And if it had been the Peoples duty to have reformed by the force of Arms under the Old Dispensation so that it was a base and servile Compliance with the Tyranny and Idolatry of their Kings not to have resisted their subverting of Religion and setting up of Idolatry where was then the fidelity of the Prophets who were to lift up their voices as Trumpets and to shew the house of Iacob their iniquities And since the watch-man who gave not warning to the wicked from his wicked way was guilty of his Blood I see not what will excâ—se the silence of the Prophets in this if it was the Peoples duty to reform For it is a poor refuge to say because the People were so much inclin'd to Idolatry that therefore it was in vain to exhort them to reform See pag. 10 11. since by that Argument you may as well conclude it to have been needless to have exhorted their Kings to Reformation their inclination to Idolatry being so strong but their duty was to be discharged how small soever the likelihood was of the Peoples yielding obedience to their warnings If then it was the Peoples duty to reform the oâ—ission of it was undoubtedly a Sin how then comes it that they who had it in commission to cause Ierusalem to know her abominations under so severe a Certificate do never charge the People for not going about a popular Reformation nor coâ—rcing these wicked Kings who enacted so much Idolatry backing it with such Tyranny nor ever require them to set about it I know one hath pick'd out some
fightings and such like Truly Sir he that will found the Doctrine of Resistance on such grounds hath a mind on very easie terms to run himself upon Condemnation And yet such like are the warrants your Friends bring from Church History Therefore I see there is yet good ground to assert that Doctrine was unknown in the Christian Church till the times wherein the Popes pretended to the Temporal Power over Princes all whose plea was managed upon the grounds of the great Importance of Religion to be preferred to all human Interests and that Christ had told his Disciples to buy a sword and that Princes being the Ministers of God were to be no longer acknowledged than they observed that design for which they were set up Only in one particular less disorder may be apprehended from the pretensions of the Roman Bishops than from these Maxims that put the power of judging and controuling the Magistrate in the Peoples hands which opens a door to endless confusions and indeed sets every private Person on the Throne and introduceth an Anarchy which will never admit of order or remedy whereas these who had but one pretender over them could more easily deal with him and more vigorously resist him Isot. You have said very many things from History which I shall not at this time undertake to examine but I am sure it hath been both the Practice and Doctrine of the Reformed Churches that in case of unjust Tyranny the States of a Kingdom may put a stop to the fury of a King and therefore where the Reformation was opposed by Cruelty it was also defended by Arms. And let me add that I believe your great quarrel at this Doctrine is because the practice of it was so great a mean of preserving the Reformation which though in good manners you must commend yet I am afraid you hate it in your heart Philar. Whether you or we be greater friends to the Reformation let the world judge by this one Indication that you study to draw all can be devised for the staining it with blood which is the constant calumny of its adversaries whereas we offer with the clearest evidences to evince its Innocence But let me premise the distinction of Doctrine from Practices and tho some unjustifiable Practices appear these must never be charged on the Reformed Churches unless it be made appear they were founded on their Doctrine Besides the Reformers coming out of the corruptions of Poperâ— in which the Doctrine and Practice of Resistance upon pretences of Religion were triumphant it will not be found strange tho some of that ill-tempered Zeal continued still to leaven them But for their Doctrine I take the Standart of it to be in the Confessions of the several Churches all which being gathered in one harmony we are in the right scent of their Opinions when we search for them there Now the Doctrine of resisting of Magistrates is by divers of their Confessions expressly condemned but in none of them asserted It is true there were some ambiguous expressions in our Scots Confession registred in Parliament Anno 1567 for Art 14. among the transgressions of the second Table they reckon to disobey or resist any that God hath placed in authority while they pass not over the bounds of their office which seems to imply the lawfulness of Resistance when they so transgress but besides that it is not clearly asserted and only inferred this doth not determine what the bounds of the Magistrate's Office are And if it be found that his Office is to coërce with the Sword so as to be accountable to none but to God then no Resistance will follow from hence except of a limited Magistrate who is accountable to others The same Explication is to be given to that part of the 24. Art where all such are condemned who resist the Supream Power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge But in the same Article the Magistrate is called God's Lieutenant in whose Sessions God himself doth sit and judge But with this it is to be considered when that Confession was ratified in Parliament even when no Sovereign was to look to the clearing of any ambiguities which might have-been upon design by some and through the neglect of others let pass The Confessions of the other Churches are unexceptionably plain and without restriction in the point of subjection For what seems like a Restriction in the French Confession that the yoke of subjection is willingly to be born though the Magistrates were Infidels provided that God's Sovereign authority remain entire and uncorrupted imports nothing but that our subjection to them which takes in both Obedience and Suffering is not to strike out the great Dominion God hath over our Souls whom we should obey rather than man And even the Confession of the Assembly of Divines ratified by the Scots General Assembly speaks of submission to Authority in absolute terms without the exception of Resistance in case of Tyranny Cap. 22. art 4. It is the duty of People to be subject to their authority for Conscience sake Infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrate's just and legal Aurity nor frâ—e the people from their due obedience to him If then the Doctrine of Resistance be to be owned as a Law of Nature and as a part of the Christian Freedom how came it that it was not more expresly owned in this Confession especially since it is known to have been the opinion of most of both these Assemblies But on the contrary it seems condemned and only the undiscerned reserves of just legal and due are slipâ— in for the defence of their actings Truly this seems not fair dealing and such an asserting of Subjection at that time looks either like the force of truth extorting it or intimates them afraid or ashamed to have owned that as their Doctrine to the World And by this time I suppose it is clear that the Reformed Churches ought not to be charged with the Doctrine of Resistance Poly. Nay nor the Reformed Writers neither with whose words I could fill much Paper and shew how they do all generally condemn the resistance of Subjects and when any of them gives any Caveat to this it is not in behalf of the People but of the States of the Kingdom who they say perhaps are impowered with authority to curb the tyranny of Kings as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians the Tribuns of the people and the Demarchs in Rome and Athens Now it is acknowledged that if by the Laws of the Kingdom it be found that the King is accountable to the States then their coercing of him is not the resistance of Subjects but rather the managing of the Supreme Power which lies in their hands If then you will stand to their decision in this Point of the Peoples resisting of their Sovereigns though Tyrants the debate will not run long they being so express And this will be nothing shaken by any thing
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
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
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.
to their vanity humor or perhaps their secular interests But I hold on my design and add that if the Magistrate encroach on God's Prerogative by contradicting or abrogating divine Laws all he doth that way falls on himself But as for the Churches Directive Power since the exercise of that is not of obligation he may command a surcease in it It is true he may sin in so doing yet cases may be wherein he will do right to discharge all Associations of Judicatories if a Church be in such commotion that these Synods would but add to the flame but certainly he forbidding such Synods they are not to be gone about there being no positive command for them in Scripture and therefore a discharge of them contradicts no Law of God and so cannot be disobeyed without sin and when the Magistrate allows of Synods he is to judg on whether side in case of differences he will pass his Law neither is the decision of these Synods obligatory in prejudice of his authority for there can be but one Supream and two Coordinate Powers are a Chymaera Therefore in case a Synod and the Magistrate contradict one another in matters undetermined by GOD it is certain a Synod sins if it offer to countermand the Civil Authority since all must be subject to the Powers that are of which number the Synod is a part therefore they are subject as well as others And if they be bound to obey the Magistrates commands they cannot have a power to warrant the subjects in their disobedience since they cannot secure themselves from sin by such disobedience And in the case of such countermands it is indisputable the Subjects are to be determined by the Magistrates Laws by which only the Rules of Synods are Laws or bind the consciences formally since without they be authorized by him they cannot be Laws for we cannot serve two Masters nor be subject to two Legislators And thus methinks enough is said for clearing the Title of the Magistrate in exacting our obedience to his Laws in matters of Religion Crit. Indeed the congesting of all the Old Testament offers for proving the Civil Powers their authority in things sacred were a task of time And first of all that the High Priest might not consult the Oracle but when either desired by the King or in a business that concerned the whole Congregation is a great step to prove what the Civil Authority was in those matters Next we find the Kings of Iudah give out many Laws about matters of Religion I shall wave the instances of David and Solomon which are so express that no evasion can serve the turn but to say they acted by immediate Commission and were inspired of GOD. It is indeed true that they had a particular direction from GOD. But it is as clear that they enacted these Laws upon their own Authority as Kings and not on a Prophetical Power But we find Iehoshaphat 2 Chr. 17. v. 7. sending to his Princes to teach in the Cities of Iudah with whom also he sent Priests and Levites and they went about and taught the people There you see secular men appointed by the King to teach the people he also 2. Chr. 19. v. 5. set up in Ierusalem a Court made up of Levites Priests and the chief of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the LORD and for the controversies among the people and names two Presidents Amariah the chief Priest to be over them in the matters of the LORD and Zebadiah for all the Kings matters And he that will consider these words either as they lie in themselves or as they relate to the first institution of that Court of seventy by Moses where no mention is made but by one Judicatory or to the Commentary of the whole Writings and Histories of the Iews shall be set beyond dispute that here was but one Court to judg both of sacred and secular matters It is true the Priests had a Court already mentioned but it was no Judicatory and medled only with the Rituals of the Temple The Levites had also as the other Tribes a Court of twenty three for their Tribe which have occasioned the mistakes of some places among the Iewish Writings but this is so clear from their Writings that a very overly knowledg of them will satisfie an impartial Observer And it is yet more certain that from the time of Ezra to the destruction of the Temple there was but one Court that determined of all matters both Sacred and Civil who particularly tried the Priests if free of the blemishes which might cast one from the service and could cognosce on the High Priest and whip him when he failed in his duty Now this commixtion of these matters in one Judicatory if it had been so criminal whence is it that our LORD not only never reproved so great a disorder but when convened before them did not accuse their constitution and answered to the High Priest when adjured by him Likewise when his Apostles were arraigned before them they never declined that Judicatory but pleaded their own innocence without accusing the constitution of the Court though challenged upon a matter of doctrine But they good men thought only of catching Souls into the Net of the Gospel and were utterly unacquainted with these new coined distinctions Neither did they refuse obedience pretending the Court had no Jurisdiction in these matters but because it was better to obey GOD than Man which saith They judged Obedience to that Court due if it had not countermanded GOD. But to return to Iehoshaphat we find him constituting these Courts and choosing the persons and empowering them for their work for he constituted them for Iudgment and for Controversie so that though it were yielded as it will never be proved that two Courts were here instituted yet it cannot be denied but here is a Church Judicatory constituted by a King the persons named by him a President appointed over them and a trust committed to them And very little Logick will serve to draw from this as much as the Acts among us asserting the King's Supremacy yield to him Next We have a clear instance of Hezekiah who 2 Chron. 30. ver 2. with the Counsel of his Princes and of the whole Congregation made a decree for keeping the Passover that year on the second Month whereas the Law of GOD had affixed it to the first Month leaving only an exception Numb 9.10 for the unclean or such as were on a journey to keep it on the second Month. Npon which Hezekiah with the Sanhedrim and people appoints the Passover to be entirely cast over to the second Month for that Year Where a very great point of their Worship for the distinction of days was no small matter to the Iews was determined by the King without asking the advice of the Priests upon it But that you may not think this was peculiar to the King of Israel I shall urge you with
yet they were ordained of GOD and not to be resisted but submitted to under the hazard of resisting the Ordinance of GOD and receiving of damnation p. 2. And it is like the sacredness of the Magistrates power was a part of the traditional Religion conveyed from Noah to his posterity as was the practice of extraordinary Sacrifices Basil. It is not to be denied but a people may chase their own form of Government and the persons in whose hands it shall be deposited and the Sovereignty is in their hands of whom they do thus freely make choice so that if they expressly agree that any Administrators of the power by what name soever designed Kings Lords or whatever else shall be accountable to them in that case the Sovereignty lies in the major part of the people and these Administrators are subject to them as to the Supreme But when it is agreed in whose hands the Sovereign power lies and that it is not with the people then if the people pretend to the sword they invade GODS right and that which he hath devolved on his Vicegerent And as in marriage either of the parties make a free choice but the Marriage-bond is of GOD neither is it free for them afterwards to refile upon pretence of injuries till that which GOD hath declared to be a breach of the bond be committed by either party so though the election of the Sovereign may be of the people yet the tie of subjection is of GOD and therefore is not to be shaken off without we have express warrant from him And according to your reasoning one that hath made a bad choice in his marriage may argue that marriage was intended for a help and comfort to man and for propagation therefore when these things are missed in a marriage that voluntary contract may be refiled from and all this will conclude as well to unty an ill chosen marriage as to shake off a Sovereign Philarch. To this reasoning I shall add what seems from rational conjectures and such hints as we can expect of things at so great a distance from us to have been the rise of Magistracy We find no warrant to kill no not for murder before the Floud as appears from the instances of Cain and Lamech so no Magistracy appears to have been then Yet from what GOD said to Cain Gen. 4.7 we see the elder brother was to rule over the younger But the want of Magistracy before the Flood was perhaps none of the least occasions of the wickedness which was great upon earth but to Noah was the Law first given of punishing murder by death Gen. 9.6 and he was undoubtedly cloathed with that power So his eldest Son coming in his place by the right of representation and being by the right of primogeniture asserted before the Flood to be over his Brethren was cloathed with the same power and so it should have descended by the order of Nature still to the first-born But afterwards Families divided and went over the world to people it whereby the single jurisdiction of one Emperor could not serve the end of Government especially in that rude time in which none of these ways of correspondence which after Ages have invented were fallen upon These Families did then or at least by that Law of GOD of the elder Brothers power ought to have been subject to the eldest of their several Families And another rise of Magistracy was the poverty of many who sold themselves to others that were Richer and were in all Nations subâ—ect to them both they and their children and this was very early begun for Abraham's family consisted of 318. persons and the many little Kings at that time seem to have risen out of these Families for the posterity of these servants were likewise under the Masters Authority and these servants were by their Masters pleasure to live or lie nor had they any right to resist this unjust force But afterwards emancipation was used some dominion being still reserved and it is highly probable that from these numerous Families did most of the little Kingdoms then in the world spring up afterwards the more aspiring came to pretend over others and so great Empires rose by their Conquests Crit. I know it is strongly pretended that the state of servitude or such a surrender of ones life or liberty as subjects it to the tyranny of another is not lawful but this will be found groundless for though even the Law of GOD counted the servants a Man's money so that he was not to be punished though he had smitten them with a rod so that they died provided they lived a day or two after it Exod. 21.20 21. Yet in that dispensation it was not unlawful to be a servant nay nor unlawful to continue in that state for ever and not accept of the emancipation which was provided to them in the year of Iubily Neither is this state declared unlawful under the Gospel since S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 7.21 Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayst be free use it rather By which we see the Gospel doth not emancipate servants but placeth that state among things which may be lawfully submitted to though liberty be preferable Basil. From this it may be well inferred that if a Society have so intirely surrendred themselves that they are in no better case than were the servants among the Romans or Hebrews the thing is not unlawful nor can they make it void or resume the freedom without his consent whose servants they are and as S. Peter tells 1 Pet. 2.18 The servants to submit to their Masters tho punishing them wrongfully By whom all know that he means not of hired but of bought servants so if a people be under any degrees of that state they ought to submit not only to the good but to the froward and still it appears that the Sword is only in the Magistrates hand and that the people have no claim to it It is true in case the Magistrate be furious or desert his right or expose his Kingdoms to the fury of others the Laws and Sense of all Nations agree that the States of the Land are to be the Administrators of the power till he recover himself But the instance of Nebuchadnâ—zzar Dan. 4.26 shews that still the Kingdom should be sure to him when he recovers Iâ—â—t Now you begin to yield to truth and confess that a Magistrate when he grosly abuseth his Power may be coërced this then shews that the People are not slaves Basil. The Case varies very much when the abuse is such that it tends to a total Subversion which may be called justly a Phrensie since no man is capable of it till he be under some lesion of his mind in which case the Power is to be administred by others for the Prince and his Peoples safety But this will never prove that a Magistrate governing by Law though there be great errors in his
against Ierusalem to which he was admitted by the men of his party who opened the gates to him after which he polluted their worship and Temple and fell on the cruellest persecution imaginable Now his title over them being so ill grounded their asserting their freedom and Religion against that cruel and unjust Invader was not of the nature of Subjects â—esistâ—ng their Sovereign Besides what is brought from the Epistle to the Hebrews ch 11. for justifying these Wars seems ill applied for from the end of the 32. verse it appears he only speaks there of what was done in the times of the Prophets and none of these being during the time of the Maccabees that is not applicable to them Next as for Mattathias I must tell you that GOD often raised up extraordinary persons to judg Iâ—rael whose practices must be no rule to us for GOD sets up Kings and Rulers at his pleasure and in the Old Dispensation he frequently sent extraordinary Persons to do extraordinary things who were called Zealots and such was Samuel's hewing Agag in pieces before the Lord Elijah's causing to kill the Priests of Baal which was not done upon the peoples power to kill Idolâ—teâ—s but Elijah having by that signal Miracle of fire falling from heaven proved both that GOD was the LORD and onely to be worshiped and that he was his Prophet and commanding these Priests to be killed he was to be obeyed Of the same nature was his praying for fire from heaven on the Captains who came to take him and Eliâ—ha his câ—râ—ing of the Children who reproached him From these Precedents we see it is apparent that often in the Old Dispensation the power of the Sword both ordinary and extraordinary was assumed by persons sent of GOD which will never warrant private and ordinary uninspired Persons to do the like Isot. I acknowledg this hath some ground but the first instance of these Zealots was Phâ—nehas in whom we find no vestige of an extraordinary mission and yet he killed Zimri and Cosbi for which he was rewarded with an everlasting Priesthood So a zeal for GOD in extraordinary cases seems warrant enough for extraordinary practices Pag. 382. to 405. Basil. If you will read the account of that action given by Moses it will clear you of all your mistakes since Phinehas had the warrant of the Magistrate for all he did for Moses being then the Person in whose hands the Civil Power was committed by GOD did say to the Judges of Israel Numb 25.5 Slay ye every one his men that were joyned to Baal Peor Now that Phinehas was a Judg in Israel at that time is not to be doubted for Eleazer was then High Priest and by that means exempted from that Authority which when his Father Aaron lived was in his hand Numb 3.32 and he being now in his Fathers place there is no ground to doubt but Phinehas was also in his and so as one of the Judges he had received command from Moses to execute judgment on these impure Idolaters which he did with so much noble zeal that the Plague was stayed and GOD'S wrath turned away But if this conclude a Precedent it will prove too much both that a Church-man may execute judgment and that a private person in the sight of a holy Magistrate without waiting for his Justice may go and punish Crimes From the instances adduced it will appear how Zealots were ordinarily raised up in that Dispensation But when two of CHRISTS Disciples lay claim to that priviledg of praying for fire from heaven he gives check to the fervor of their thundring zeal and tells them Luk. 9.55 56. You know not what spirit you are of adding that the Son of man was not come to destroy mens lives but to save them whereby he shews that tho in the Old Dispensation GOD having by his own command given his people a title to invade the Nations of Canaan and extirpate them having also given them Political Laws for the administration of Justice and order among them it was proper for that time that GOD should raise up Judges to work extraordinary deliverances to his People whose Example we are not now to imitate GOD also sent Prophets who had it sometimes in Commission to execute Justice on Transgressors yet in the New Dispensation these things were not to take place where we have no temporal Canaan nor Judicial Laws given us and consequently none are now extraordinarily called in the Name of GOD to inflict ordinary and corporal punishments Having said all this it will be no hard task to make it appear that Mattathias was a Person extraordinarily raised up by GOD as were the Iudges And though no mention of that be made neither by Iosephus nor the Book of Maccabees that is not to be stood upon for we have many of the Judges of Israel of whose call no account is given and yet undoubtedly they were warranted to act as they did otherwise they had been Invaders But if that practice of Mattathias conclude any thing by way of Precedent it will prove that Church-men may invade the Magistrates Office and kill his Officers and raise War against him Crit. I wonder we hear not Isotimus alledging the practice of the ten Tribes who rejected Rehoboam and made choice of Ieroboam which useth to be very confidently adduced for proving it to be the peoples right to give Laws to their Princes and to shake them off when they refuse obedience to their desires But to this and all other instances of this nature it is to be answered that the Iewish State being a Theocracy as it is called by their own Writers their Judges and many of their Kings had their title from GOD's designation and the possession was only yielded to them by the People according to the command Deut. 17.15 To set him King over them whom the LORD their GOD did chuse So when they sought a King they came to Samuel as the known Prophet of GOD and desired him to give them a King which he afterwards did In like manner was David designed to succeed Saul by the same Prophet and upon Sauâ—'s death the Tribe of Iudah came and aknowledged and anointed him King which was the solemn investiture in that to which he had formerly a right Ieroboam being by the same authority designed King over the ten Tribes by the mouth of Ahijab in the name of GOD 1 Kings 11. Ch. from v. 28. he derived his Title from that and there was as good warrants for the people to reject Rehoboam and follow him as was formerly to quite Ishbosheth and follow David Another instance of this nature is Elisha his sending one to Iehu where that young Prophet saith 2 Kings 9.6 Thus saith the LORD GOD of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the LORD even over Israel Upon the notice whereof v. 13. he is declared King These instances will sufficiently prove what I have alledged that the Kings of
not succeed he openly made War against Constantine And as he was preparing for it he made War likewise against GOD and persecuted the Christians because he apprehended they all prayed for Constantine and wished him success whereupon he made severe Laws against the Christians forbidding the Bishops ever to meet among themselves or to instruct any Women afterwards he banished all that would not worship the Gods and from that he went to an open Persecution and not content with that he by severe Laws discharged any to visit and relieve such as were in Prison for the Faith Yet notwithstanding all this none that were under his part of the Empire did resist him nay not so much as turn over to Constantine against him for ought that appears But upon these things a War followed betwixt Constantine and him wherein Licinius was defeated and forced to submit to what conditions Constantine was pleased to give who took from him Greece and Illyricum and only left him Thrace and the East But Licinius returning to his old ways and breaking all agreements a second war followed wherein Licinius was utterly defeated and sent to lead a private life at Thessalonica where he was sometime after that killed because of new designs against Constantine This being the true account of that Story I am to divine what advantage it can yield to the cause of Subjects resisting theiâ— Sovereign for here was a Superior Prince defending himself against the unjust attempts and hostile incuâ—sions of his Enemy who was also inferior to him as Eusebius states it whom consult 10. Book 8. â—â— and 1. Book of Const. life ch 42. and 2. Book ch 2 c. And for your instance of the Persians imploring the aid of the Romans I am afraid it shall serve you in as little stead for the account Socrates gives of it lib. 7. cap. 18. is that Baratanes King of Persia did severely persecute the Christians whereupon the Christians that dwelt in Persia were necessitated to fly to the Romans and beseech them not to neglect them who were so destroyed they were kindly received by Aticus the Bishop of Constantinople who bent all his care and thoughts for their aid and made the matter known to Theodosius the second then Emperor but it happened at that tune the Romans had a quarrel with the Persians who had hired a great many Romans that wrought in Mines and sent them back without paying the agreed hire which quarrel was much heightned by the Persian Christians complaint for the King of Persia sent Ambassadours to remand them as fugitives but the Romans refused to restore them and not only gave them Sanctuary but resolved by all their power to defend the Christian Religion and rather make War with the Persians than see the Christians so destroyed Now it will be a pretty sleight of Logick if from Subjects flying from a Persecution and seeking shelter under another Prince you will infer that they may resist their own King And for Theodosius his War we see other grounds assigned by the Historian and the Politicks even of good Princes in their making of Wars must not be a Rule to our Consciences neither know I why this instance is adduced except it be to justifie some who are said during the Wars betwixt their own Sovereign and the Country where they lived to have openly prayed for Victory against their Country and to have corresponded in opposition to their native Sovereign But I must next discuss that Catalogue of Tumults in the fourth and fifth Century which are brought as Precedents for the resisting of Subjects and here I must mind you of the great change was in Christendom after Constantine's days before whom none were Christians but such as were persuaded of the truth of the Gospel and were ready to suffer for its profession so that it being then a Doctrine objected to many Persecutions few are to be supposed to have entred into its discipline without some Convictions about it in their Consciences but the case varied much after the Emperors became Christian so that what by the severity of their Laws what by the authority of their Example almost all the World rendered themselves Christian which did let in such a swarm of corrupt men into the Christian Societies that the face of them was quickly much changed and both Clergy and Laity became very corrupt as appears from the complaints of all the Writers of the fourth Century what wonder then if a tumultuating Humor crept into such a mixed multitude And indeed most of these instances which are alledged if they be adduced to prove the corruption of that time they conclude but too well But alas will they have the authority of Precedents or can they be look'd upon as the sense of the Church at that time since they are neither approved by Council or Church-Writer And truly the Tumults in these times were too frequent upon various occasions but upon none more than the popular elections of Bishops of which Nazianzen gives divers instances and for which they were taken from the People by the Council of Laodicea Can. 13. It is also well enough known how these Tumults flowed more from the tumultuary temper of the People than from any Doctrine their Teachers did infuse in them And therefore Socrates lib. 7. cap. 13. giving account of one of the Tumults of Alexandria made use of by your Friends as a Precedent tells how that City was ever inclined to Tumults which were never compesced without blood And at that time differences falling in betwixt Orestes the Prefect and Cyril the Bishop who was the first that turned the Priesthood into a temporal Dominion they had many debates for Orestes hating the power of the Bishops which he judged detracted from the Prefect's authority did much oppose Cyril and Cyril having raised a Tumult against the Iews wherein some of them were killed and the rest of them driven out of the City Orestes was so displeased at that that he refused to be reconciled with him whereupon 500 Monks came down from Nitria to fight for their Bishop who set on the Prefect and one of them named Ammonius wounded him in the head with a stone but the People gathering they all fled only Ammonius was taken whom the Prefect tortured till he died but Cyril buried him in the Church and magnified his Fortitude to the degree of reckoning him a Martyr of which he was afterwards ashamed And their being in Alexandria at that time a learned and famous Lady called Hyppatia whom the People suspected of inflaming the Prefect against the Bishop they led on by a Reader of the Church set on her and dragged her from her Chariot into a Church and stript her naked and most cruelly tore her body to pieces which they burnt to ashes And this saith the Historian brought no small Infamy both on Cyril and on the Church of Alexandria since all who profess the Christian Religion should be strangers to killing
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
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
far as concerns him in his Parliament hath obliged himself in the word of a Prince and his Son the Earl of Carrict afterwards Robert the third being constituted by the King for fulfilling of the premises so far as touches him gave and made his Oath the holy Evangils being touched by him and then the States of Parliament did also swear to maintain the Earl of Carrict made then Lieutenant under the King Now the reason why these mutual Oaths were then given is well known since the King's Sâ—ccession was so doubtful But after that no Oath seems to have been given and tho King Iames the Second his Coronation be set down in the Records of Parliament there is not a word of an Oath given by any in his Name It is true in the 11. Parl. of that King cap 41. for securing of the Crown-lands from being alienated it is appointed That the King who then was should be sworn and in like manner all his Successors Kings of Scotland into their Coronation to the keeping of that Statute and all the points thereof But this is not such an Oath as you alledg Likewise in King Iames the Fourth his Reign 2. Parl. Ch. 12. where the Council was sworn it is added And our Sovereign Lord hath humbled his Highness to promit and grant in Parliament to abide and remain at their Counsels while the next Parliament But it is to be observed the King was then but 17 years old and so not of full age this promise was also a temporary provision Besides the very stile of it shews that it was below his Majesty to be so bound But the first Act for a Coronation Oath I can meet with is Cap. 8. of the 1. Parl. of King Iames the Sixth An. 1567. where the stile wherein the Act runs shews it was a new thing it bearing no narrative of any such former Custom the words of the Act are Item because that the increase of Vertue and suppressing of Idolatry craves that the Prince and the people be of one perfect Religion which of GOD'S mercy is now presently professed within this Realm Therefore it is statute and ordained by our Sovereign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament that all Kings and Princes or Magistrates what 〈◊〉 holding their place which hereafter may happen to Reign and bear Rule over this Realm at the time of their Coronation and receipt of their Princely authority make their faithful promise by Oath c. Now you see the beginning of the Coronation Oath and I need not here reflect on the time when that Act passed it being so obvious to every one But I suppose it is made out that the Kings of Scotland have not their Authority from any stipulation used at their Coronation The next thing you alledg to prove the King of Scotland a limited Prince is because he must govern by Laws which cannot be enacted without the Authority of the three Estates in Parliament But this will not serve turn unless you prove that the Estates can cognosce on the King and coerce him if he transgress for which there is not a tittle in our Laws I acknowledg the Constitution of Parliaments to be both a rational and excellent Model and that the King becomes a Tyrant when he violates their Priviledges and governs without Law But tho his Ministers who serve him in such tyrannical ways are liable to punishment by the Law yet himself is subject to none but GOD. And from our Kings their Justice and goodness in governing legally by the Councils of their Parliaments you have no reason to argue against their absolute Authority for their binding themselves to such Rules and being tied to the observance of Laws enacted by themselves will never overthrow their Authority but rather commend it as having such a temperature of Sovereignty Justice and Goodness in it Isot. But was not King Iames the Third resisted and killed in the Field of Striveling and afterwards in his Sons first Parl. Act. 14. all who were against him in that Field were declared innocent and his slaughter was declared to be his own fault which was never rescinded As also Cap. 130. of Iac. 6. Parl. 8. the Honour and Authority of Parliament upon the free Vote of the three Estates thereof is asserted And are not you an impugner of the Authority of the three Estates who plead thus for the King 's Sovereign Power See Answer to the Letter written to the Author of Ius Populi Basil. I shall not engage far in the Story of King Iames the Third which even as it is represented by Buchanan lib. 11. no friend to Monarchy is very far from being justifiable on the side of those who fought against him nor was it the least part of their guilt that they forced his Son being then but fifteen years old to own their Rebellion And what wonder was it that they who had killed the Father and kept his Son in their power passed such an Act in their own favors But King Iames the Fourth quickly discovered what a sincere Penitent he was for his Accession to that Rebellion as appeared by the Iron Belt he wore all his life as a penance for this sin yet the meekness of his Spirit and the power of that Faction made that things continued in the posture they formerly were in It is true that Act was not expresly repelled which perhaps was not safe at that time to have attempted but it was really done by his Revocation ratified in his 6. Parl. cap. 100. wherein with consent of the three Estates He annuls and revokes all Statutes and Acts of Parliament which he had enacted in his former years that tended either to the prejudice of the Catholic Church his Soul or of the Crown declaring them to have no force but to be deleted and cancell'd out of the Books And it is not to be doubted but in this he had an eye to that former Act but for your Act asserting the Authority of Parliament look but what immediately precedes it and you will find the King's Authority and Supremacy fully established and I acknowledg that whosoever impugns the Authority of Parliament as the King 's Great Council doth incur a very high punishment but this will never prove an Authority in the States to coerce and resist the King One thing I must mind you of from that Act which is That none of the Lieges must presume to impugn the dignity and Authority of the said three Estates or to seek or procure the innovation or diminution of the Power and Authority of the same three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason And can you be so ignorant of our Laws as not to know that the Church was one of these Estates for the small Barons which some called the Third Estate came not in till three years after Iac. 6. Parl. 11. cap. 113. And now from all these premises I think we
But that I may not seem to rob the Church of all her Power I acknowledg that by the Laws of Nature it follows that these who unite in the service of GOD must be warranted to associate in Meetings to agree on generals Rules and to use means for preserving purity and order among themselves and that all Inferiours ought to subject themselves to their Rules But as for that brave distinction of the Churches Authority being derived from CHRIST as Mediator whereas the Regal Authority is from him as GOD well doth it become its inventors and much good may it do them For me I think that CHRIST's asserting that all power in heaven and in earth was given unto him and his being called The KING of Kings and LORD of Lords make it as clear as the Sun that the whole OEconomy of this World is committed to him as Mediator and as they who died before him were saved by him who was slam â—â—om the foundation of the world so all humane authority was given by vertue of the second Covenant by which mankind was preserved from infallible ruin which otherwise it had incurred by Adams fall But leaving any further enquiry after such a foolish nicety I go now to examine what the Magistrates Power is in matters of Religion And first I lay down for a Maxim That the externals of Worship or Government are not of such importance as are the Rules of Iustice and Peace wherein formally the Image of GOD consists For CHRIST came to bring us to GOD and the great end of his Gospel is the assimilation of us to GOD of which justice righteousness mercy and peace make a great part Now what sacredness shall be in the outwards of Worship and Government that these must not be medled with by his hands and what unhallowedness is in the other that they may fall within his Jurisdiction my weakness cannot reach As for instance when the Magistrate allows ten per cent of inâ—â—rest it is just to exact it and when he bringâ— iâ— down to six per cent it is oppression to demand ten per cent so that he can determine some matteâ—s to be just or unjust by his Laws now why he shall not have such a power about outward matters of Worship or of the Government of the Church judg you since the one both in it self and as it tends to commend us to God is much more important than the other It is true he cannot meddle with the holy things himself for the Scripture rule is express that men be separated for the work of the Ministery And without that separation he invades the Altar of GOD that taketh that honor upon him without he be called to it But as for giving Laws in the externals of Religion I see not why he may not do it as well as in matters Civil It is true if he contradict the divine Law by his commands GOD is to be obeyed rather than man But this holds in things Civil as well as Sacred For if he command murder or theft he is undoubtedly to be disobeyed as well as when he commands amiss in matters of Religion In a word all Subjects are bound to obey him in every lawful command Except therefore you prove that Church-men constituted in a Synod are not Subjects they are bound to obedience as well as others Neither doth this Authority of the Magistrate any way prejudge the power Christ hath committed to his Church For a Father hath power over his Children and that by a divine Precept tho the Supreme Authority have power over him and them both so the Churches authority is no way inconsistent with the Kings Supremacy As for their Declarative Power it is not at all subject to him only the exercise of it to this or that person may be suspended For since the Magistrate can banish his Subjects he may well silence them Yet I acknowledg if he do this out of a design to drive the Gospel out of his Dominions they ought to continue in their duty notwithstanding such prohibition for GOD must be obeyed rather than man And this was the case of the Primitive Bishops who rather than give over the feeding their Flocks laid themselves open to Martyrdom But this will not hold for warranting turbulent persons who notwithstanding the Magistrates continuing all encouragements for the publick Worship of GOD chuse rather than concur in it tho not one of an hundred of them hath the confidence to call that unlawful to gather separated Congregations whereby the flocks are scattered Phil. Nay since you are on that Subject let me freely lay open the mischief of it It is a direct breach of the Laws of the Gospel that requires our solemn assembling together which must ever bind all Christians till there be somewhat in the very constitutions of these Assemblies that renders our meeting in them unlawful which few pretend in our case Next the Magistrates commanding these publick Assemblies is certainly a clear and superadded obligation which must bind all under sin till they can prove these our Meetings for Worship unlawful And as these separated Conventicles are of their own nature evil so their effects are yet worse and such as indeed all the ignorance and profanity in the Land is to be charged on them for as they dissolve the union of the Church which must needs draw mischief after it so the vulgar are taught to despise their Ministers and the publick Worship and thus get loose from the yoak And their dependence on these separated Meetings being but precarious as they break away from the order of the Church so they are not tied to their own order and thus betwixt hands the vulgar lose all sense of Piety and of the Worship of GOD. Next in these separated Meetings nothing is to be had but a long preachment so that the knowledg and manners of the people not being look'd after and they taught to revolt from the setled Discipline and to disdain to be câ—techised by their Pastoâ—s ignorance and profanity must be the sure effect of these divided Meetings And in fine the disuse of the LORD's Supper is a guilt of a high nature for the vulgar are taught to loath the Sacrament from their Ministers hands as much as the Mass and preaching is all they get in their Meetings so that what in all Ages of the Church hath been looked on as the great cherishing of Devotion and true Piety and the chief preserver of Peace among Câ—â—â—tiâ—ns is wearing out of practice with our new modelled Christians These are the visible effects of separating practices But I shall not play the uncharitable Diviner to guess at the secret mischief such courses may be guilty of Basil. Truly what you have laid out is so well known to us all that I am confident Isotimus himself must with much sorrow acknowledg what wicked Arts these are that some use to dislocate the Body of Christ and to sacrifice the interests of Religion
prove too much that there should be no power at all among Churchmen over other Christians For since the parallel runs betwixt the Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles it will run thus that tho the Lords of the Gentiles bear rule over their people yet you must not over yours so that this must either be restricted to Civil Authority or else it will quite strike out all Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction But how this should be brought to prove that there may not be several ranks in Church Offices I cannot yet imagine And as it is not thought contrary to this that a Minister is over your Lay-Elders and Deacons why should it be more contrary to it that a rank of Bishops be over Ministers In a word since we find the Apostles exercising this paternal authority over other Churchmen it will clearly follow they understood not Christ as hereby meaning to discharge the several ranks of Churchmen with different degrees of power But to tell you plainly what by these words of CHRIST is clearly forbidden I acknowledg that chiefly the Pope's pretence to the Temporal Dominion over Christendom whether directly or indirectly as the Vicar of CHRIST is expresly condemned Next all Churchmen under what notion or in what Judicatory soever are condemned who study upon a pretence of the Churches intrinsick power to possess themselves of the authority to determine about obedience due to Kings or Parliaments and who bring a tyranny on the Christians and prâ—cure what by Arts what by Power the secular Arm to serve at their beck Whether this was the practice of the late General Assemblies or not I leave it to all who are so old as to remember how squares went then and if the leading Men at that time had not really the secular power ready to lacquay at their commands so that they ruled in the spirit of the Lords of the Gentiles whatever they might have pretended And the following change of Government did fully prove that the obedience which was universally given to their commands was only an appendage of the Civil Power which was then directed by them For no sooner was the power invaded by the Usurper who regarded their Judicatories little but the Obedience payed to their Decrees evanished Thus I say these who build all their pretences to parity on their mistakes of these words did most signally despise and neglect them in their true and real meaning Now think not to retort this on any additions of Secular Power which the munificence of Princes may have annexed to the Episcopal Office for that is not at all condemned here CHRIST speaking only of the power Churchmen as such derived from him their Head which only bars all pretensions to Civil Power on the title of their Functions but doth not say that their Functions render them incapable of receiving any Secular Power by a secular conveyance from the Civil Magistrate And so far have I considered this great and pompous argument against precedency in the Church and am mistaken if I have not satisfied you of the slender foundations it is built upon all which is also applicable to St. Peter's words of not Lording it over their flocks Isot. You are much mistaken if you think that to be the great foundation of our belief of a parity among Churchmen for I will give you another page 91. which is this that IESUS CHRIST the head of his Church did institute a setled Ministery in his Church to feed and over-see the Flock to preach to reprove to bind loose c. It is true he gave the Apostles many singular things beyond their Successors which were necessary for that time and work and were to expire with it But as to their Ministerial Power which was to continue he made all equal The Apostles also acknowledged the Pastors of the Churches their fellow-laborors and Brethren And the feeding and overseeing the Flock are duties so complicated together that it is evident none can be fitted for the one without they have also authority for the other And therefore all who have a power to preach must also have a right to govern since Discipline is referable to preaching as a mean to its end preaching being the great end of the Ministery These therefore who are sent upon that work must not be limited in the other neither do we ever find CHRIST instituting a Superiour Order over preaching Presbyters which shews he judged it not necessary And no more did the Apostles though they with-held none of the Counsel of GOD from the flock Therefore this Superior Order usurping the power from the preaching Elders since it hath neither warrant nor institution in Scripture is to be rejected as an invasion of the rights of the Church In fine the great advantage our Plea for parity hath is that it proves its self till you prove a disparity For since you acknowledg it to be of divine Right that there be Officeâ—s in the House of GOD except you prove the institution of several Orders an equality among them must be concluded And upon these accounts it is that we cannot acknowledg the lawfulness of Prelacy Phil. I am sure if your Friends had now heard you they would for ever absolve you from designing to betray their cause by a faint Patrociny since you have in a few words laid out all their Forces but if you call to mind what hath heen already said you will find most of what you have now pleaded to be answered beforehand For I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so I plead for no new Office-Bearers in the Church Next in our second Conference the power given to Churchmen was proved to be double The first branch of it is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments And this is all that is of divine right in the Ministery in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers both being vested with this power But beside this the Church claims a power of Jurisdiction of making rules for discipline and of applying and executing the same all which is indeed suitable to the common Laws of Societies and to the general rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture precept And all these Constitutions of Churches into Synods and the Canons of discipline taking their rise from the divisions of the World into the several Provinces and beginning in the end of the second and beginning of the third Century do clearly shew they can be derived from no divine Original and so were as to their particular form but of humane Constitution therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it in what mould she will and if so then the constant practice of the Church for so many ages should determine us unless we will pretend to understand the exigencies and conveniences of it better than they who were nearest the Apostolical time But we