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.
for one would expect it must be a very concerning matter which hath occasioned so much bloud and confusion and continues still to divide us asunder with so much heat and bitterness I confess my discerning is weak which keeps me from apprehending what importance can be in it to exact so much zeal for it that it should be called the Kingdom of CHRIST â—â—â—n Earth his Interest Cauâ—e and Work which therefore should be â—aâ—nestly contenâ—ed for Iâ—ot The natural man receiveth not the things of GOD and theâ— are 〈◊〉 to him but Wisdom 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—dren That we plead for is CHRIST's Kingdom which is in opposition both to the proud aspirings of the Prelates and to the violent invasions of the Civil Powers We are therefore on CHRIST's side asserting that none in earth can institute new Officers in his House but those he hath appointed and that he hath appointed none higher than ordinary preaching Presbyters among whom he will have an equality observed which whosoever contradict with Diotrephes they lâ—ve the preeminence and Lord it over GOD's inheritance Phil. Though I will not fly so high with my pretensions in big words yet the issue of our Discourse will declare if I have not better grounds to assert Episcopacy to have descended from the Apostles and Apostolical timeâ— into all the Ages and corners of the Church who received it and that there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts â—uch an Institution But I shall â—efer the deciâ—ion of thiâ— to all impartial minds Basil. Truly when without a particular Examen I consider the whole matter in general I can see little to except against Episcopal Government that I cannot avoid the severe thoughts of suspecting the great aveâ—sion many have at it to be occasioned from the â—â—â—rit of contradiction is in many which lusâ—â—th to 〈◊〉 or from their opposition to these in Aâ—thority â—or I doubt not but if Presbytery had the same countenance from the Laws it should meet with the same contradiction from these who seem to adhere to no principle so firmly as to their resisting the Powers that are ordained of GOD. But the handling of this with that fulness and clearness which the noise made about it requires will take up more of our time than we can be now Masters of and may well claim a new Conference Therefore we shall remit any further discourse about it to our next meeting Isot. It is agreed to and I shall let you see that for all the Railings of these days Discourse my patience is yet strong enough to allow of another enterview though I confess my self weary of so much bad Company whose evil Communications are designed to corrupt my good Principles Phil. I confess my weariness is as great as yours though upon a very different account For I am â—urfeited of the Contention and heat hath been among us and long for an end of our Conferences upon these Heads which I shall now go through once for all being encouraged to meet with you again because this penance is near an end out of which if I were once extricated I am resolved to meddle in such contentious Themes no more Eud. Having swallowed the Ox we must not stick on the Rump It is true your Converse is extreamly agreeable yet my stomach begins to turn at so much disputing But I hope to morrow shall put an end to it And therefore I doubt not of your return to finish what you hitherto carried on And so a good night to you THE FOURTH CONFERENCE Isotimus I COME now upon our last Nights appointment to pursue this Conference to its end and to examine what these grounds are which endear Episcopacy to you so much especially considering the great disorders and conâ—usions its re-establishment among us hath occasioned For my part I cannot see what can reconcile the World to it much less what should enamour you so of it as to make you adhere to it notwithstanding all the evils spring from it and all these black Characters of GOD's displeasure are upon it which really appear so signally to me that it seems a fighting against GOD to adhere longer to it Phil. Truly you and I enter on this Sâ—bject with an equal surprize though upon very different accounts For I must tell you freely that after I have with all the application of mind and freedom of thoughts imaginable considered what could engage so many in this Island into so much zeal and rage against the Order I am not able to satisfie my self about it That venerable Order having such a native tendency for advancing of true Religion Peace Order and every thing that is excellent that the aversion and prejudices so many have drunk in against it seem as unjust as unconquerable and look like a part of GOD's controversie with us whereby we are blindly carried into so much unjustifiable zeal against that which if well managed might prove an excellent mean for reviving the power of Religion that hath suffered so great decays I shall not deny but on our part there have been great failings for which GOD's anger hangs over our heads and that he permits all this opposition we meet with for punishing us for our sins which have justly provoked GOD to make us base and contemptible in the sight of the people And this I hope shall be an effectual mean of humbling us and of purging us from our dross whereby this holy Order being again managed with the ancient Spirit may appear into the World in its Pâ—imitive lustre and be attended with the blessings that then followed it to the wonder and conviction of all men But let me add the opposition some firy spirits have given the establishment of Episcopacy deserves much of the blame of its being so little succesful in the great work of the Gospel for always bitter envy and strife produce confusion and every evil work therefore when you are to view Episcopacy in its amiable and lovely colors let me send you back to that cloud of witnesses who for the testimony of IESUS endured all manner of torments were torn by beasts slain by the sword burnt in the fire and in a word who preached the everlasting Gospel through the World How many Churches did these Bishops found with their labors in preaching and water not only with their tears but their blood how sublime was their piety how frevent were their Sermons how constant were their labors how strict was their discipline how zealous were they against heresies and how watchful against vice In a word read but the Histories and Writings of those great Worthies who were by the confession of all men Bishops and had more absolute Authority over the Inferior Clergy than is pretended to among us and then tell me if you have not changed your verdict of that order Have there been such men in the Christian World as were Ignatius Polycarp Iâ—â—naeus Cyprian Thaumaturg Athanasius Basil Nazianzen Martin Ambrose Chrysostome Augustin and
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
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
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
may fairly infer with Sir Iohn Sheen Title 8. of the heads of our Laws drawn up by him That all Iurisdiction stands and consists in the King's Person by reason of his Royal Authority and Crown and is competent to no Subject but flows and proceeds from the King having Supreme Iurisdiction and is given and committed by him to such Subjects as he pleases Eud. I must confess my self pleased with this discussion of these points you have been tossing among you and though I have sate silent yet I have followed the thread of all your discourse with much close attention and was mightily confirmed in my former Perswasion both by the evidence of Reason the authorities of Scripture and these instances of History were adduced But there are many other things yet to be talked of though I confess this be of the greatest Importance and the satisfaction I have received in this makes me long to hear you handle the other matters in debate Phil. I suppose we have forgot little that belonged to this question but for engaging further at this time I have no mind to it it being so long passed Midnight we shall therefore give some truce to our debates and return upon the next appointment Eud. I were unworthy of the kindness you shew me did I importune you too much but I will presume upon your friendship for me to expect your company to Morrow at the same hour you did me the favor to come here to day Isot. I shall not fail to keep your hour tho I be hardly beset in such a croud of Assailants but Truth is on my side and it is great and shall prevail therefore good night to you Basil. I see you are not shaken out of your confidence for all the foils you get yet our next days discourse will perhaps humble you a little more but I refer this to the appointment wherein we hope to meet again and so Adieu Eud. Adieu to you all my good Friends THE SECOND CONFERENCE Eudaimon YOU are again welcome to this place and so much the more that your staying some minutes later than the appointment was making me doubt of your coming and indeed this delay proved more tedious and seemed longer to me than the many hours were bestowed on your yesterdays Conference but methinks Isotimus your looks though never very serene have an unusual Cloud upon them I doubt you have been among the Brotherhood whom your ingenious Relation of what passed here hath offended Their Temper is pretty well known to us all some of them being as the Pestilence that walketh in darkness with the no less zealous but scarcely more ignorant Sisterhood they vent their pedling stuff but of all things in the World shun most to engage with any that can unmask them and discover their follies And their safest way of dealing with such Persons is to laugh at them or solemnly to pity them with a disdainful Brow And that is the best refutation they will bestow on the solidest Reason or if any of them yelp out with an Answer sense or nonsense all is alike the premises are never examined only if the conclusion be positively vouched as clearly proved from Scriptures and Reason the sentence is irreversibly past and you may as soon bow an Oak of an hundred years old as deal with so much supercilious Ignorance Tell plainly have you been in any such Company Isot. What wild extravagant stuff pour you out on better men than your self but I pity your ignorance who know not some of these precious Worthies whose Shooe Latchets you are not worthy to unloose But the truth is you have got me here among you and bait me by turns either to ease your own Galls or to try mine yet it is needless to attempt upon me for as I am not convinced by your Reasons so I will not be behind with you in Reflections and I will â—â—ow and fight both as a Coâ—k of the Game 〈◊〉 Hold hold for these serve to no use bâ—t t◠〈◊〉 pâ—â—vish humâ—rs I will therefore engage you in another subject about the Civil Authority which our yesterdays debate left untouched which is the obedience due to their Commands let us therefore consider how far Subjection obligeth us to obey the Laws of the Civil Powers Isot. Had you not enough of that yesterday Is it not enough that the Magistrate be not resisted but will not that serve turn with you or do you design that we surrender our Consciences to him and obey all his Laws good or bad and follow Leviathan's Doctrine of embracing the Magistrates Faith without enquiry which is bravely asserted by the Author of Ecclesiastical Policy This is indeed to make the King in God'â— stead and to render Cesar the things that are God's which is a visible design either for Pâ—peâ—â— or Atheism Philâ—r Truly Sir you consider little if you â—uâ—ge submission to the Penalties of the Lawâ— to be all the duty we owe Superiors It is true where the Legislators leave it to the Subjects choice either to do a thing enacted or to pay a Fine in that Case Obedience is not simply required so that he who pays the Mâ—lct fulfils his Obligation But wheâ—e a Law is simply made and Obedience enâ—oined and a Penalty fixed on Disobedience in that Case nâ—thing but the sinfulness of the Command can excuse our disobedience neither can it be said that he sins not who is content to submit to the punishment since by the same method of arguing you may prove that such horrid Atheists as say they are content to be damned do not sin against God since they are willing to submit to the threatned punishment The right of exacting our Obedience is therefore to be distinguished from the power of punishing our faults And as we have already considered how far the latter is to be acquiesced in it remains to be examined what is due to the former But here I lay down for a Principle That whatever is determined by the Law of God cannot be reversed nor countermanded by any humane Law For the Powers that are being ordained of God and they being his Ministers do act as his Deputies and the tie which lies on us to obey God being the foundation of our subjection to them it cannot bind us to that which overthrows it self Therefore it is certain God is first to be obeyed and all the Laws of men which contradict his Authority or Commands are null and void of all obligation on our Obedience but I must add it is one of the arts of you know whom to fasten Tenets on men who judge these Tenets worthy of the highest Anathema For if it be maintained that the Magistrate can bind obligations on our Consciences then it will be told in every Conventicle that here a new Tyranny is brought upon Souls which are God's Prerogative though this be nothing more than to say we ought to be subject for Conscience sake If again it be proved that the
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
fall in the hands of Mortals are obnoxious And may not one that quarrels a standing Ministery argue on the same grounds a Ministers authority over the people gave the rise to the authority Bishops pretend over Ministers and so the Ministery will be concluded the first step of the Beast's Throne Or may not the authority your Judicatories pretend to be at the same rate struck out since from lesser Synods sprung greater ones from Provincial rose Generals and from these Oecumenical ones with the pretence of infallibility But to come nearer you that whole frame of Metropolitans and Patriarchs was taken from the division of the Roman Empire which made up but one great National Church and so no wonder the Bishop of the Imperial City of that Empire was the Metropolitan of that Church yet he was not all that neither since he had no authority over his fellow Patriarchs being only the first in order which truly were the Bishops of that Church what they were for the first four Ages it was never judged an absurdity to grant to them still tho the ruin of the Roman Empire and its division into so many Kingdoms which are constituted in various National Churches do alter the present frame of Europe so entirely from what was then that with very good reason what was then submitted to on the account of the Unity of the Empire may be now undone by reason of the several Kingdoms which are National Churches within themselves and need not to own so much as the acknowledgment of Primacy to any but to the Metropolitan of their own Kingdom And it seems the interest of Princes as well as Churches to assert this But for the pretence of the Pope's supremacy Episcopacy was so far from being judged a step to it that the ruin of the Episcopal authority over Presbyters and the granting them exemptions from the Jurisdiction of their Ordinary was the greatest advance the Roman Bishop ever made in his tyrannical usurpation over Churches I need not here tell so known a matter as is that of the exemption of the Regulars who being subject to their own Superiors and Generals and by them to the Pope were sent through the World in swarms and with great shews of piety devotion and poverty carried away all the esteem and following from the secular Clergy who were indeed become too secular and these were the Pope's Agents and Emissaries who brought the World to receive the mark of the Beast and wonder at her For before that time the Popes found more difficulty to carry on their pretensions both from secular Princes and Bishops But these Regulars being warranted to preach and administer the Sacraments without the Bishop's license or being subject and accountable to him as they brought the Bishops under great contempt so they were the Pope's chief confidents in all their treasonable plots against the Princes of Europe And when at the Council of Trent the Bishops of Spain being weary of the insolencies of the Regulars and of the Papal yoak designed to get free from it The great mean they proposed was to get Episcopacy declared to be of divine Right which would have struck out both the one and the other But the Papal Party foresaw this well and opposed it with all the Artifice imaginable and Lainez the Jesuit did at large discourse against it and they carried it so that it was not permitted to be declared of divine Right And by this judg if it be likely that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy since the declaring it to be of divine Right was judged one of the greatest blows the Papal Dominion could have received as the abusing of the Episcopal authority was the greatest step to its Exaltation Isot. Be in these things what may be I am sure from the beginning it was not so since Christ did so expresly prohibit all dominion and authority among his Disciples when he said But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister Luke 22.26 Whereby he did not only condemn a tyrannical domination but simply all Authority like that the Lords of the Gentiles exercised over them See page 88. Crit. I confess the advantages some have drawn from these words of CHRIST for deciding this question have many times appeared strange to me their purpose being so visibly different from that to which they are applied But if we examine the occasion that drew these words from CHRIST it will furnish us with a key for understanding them aright and that was the frequent contentions were among the Disciples about the precedency in the Kingdom of CHRIST for they were in the vulgar Iudaical Error who believed the Messiah was to be a temporal Prince and so understood all the pompous promises of the New Dispensation liberally and thought that CHRIST should have restored Israel in the literal meaning therefore they began to contend who should be preferred in his Kingdom and the Wife of Zebedee did early bespeak the chief preferments for her Sons Yea we find them sticking to this mistake even at CHRIST's Ascension by the question then moved concerning his restoring the Kingdom at that time to Israel Now these Contentions as they sprung from an error of their judgments so also they took their rise from their proud ambition And for a check to both our Saviour answers them by telling the difference was to be betwixt his Kingdom and the Kingdoms of the Nations these being exercised by Grandeur and temporal Authority whereas his Kingdom was Spiritual and allowed nothing of that since Churchmen have not by CHRIST a Lordly or Despotick dominion over Christians committed to them but a paternal and brotherly one by which in commanding they serve their Flock so that it is both a Ministery and an Authority Therefore the words of Christ it shall not be so among you relate nothing to the degrees or ranks of Churchmen but to the nature of their power and jurisdiction over their flock and not to their degrees among themselves which appears evidently from the whole contexture of the words And that he is not speaking of any equality among Churchmen in their Church power appears from the mention is made of the greatest and the chief He that is greatest among you let him be as the younger and he that is chief as he that doth serve which shew he was not here designed to strike out the degrees of superiority when he makes express mention of them but to intimate that the higher the degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices did raise them they were thereby obliged to the more humility and the greater labor All which is evidently confirmed by the instance he gives of himself which shews still he is not meaning of Church power since he had certainly the highest Ecclesiastical aâ—thority but only of Civil dominion nothing of which he would assume And if this place be to be applied to Church power then it will rather
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
of all the People about these matters and truly this Answer adds so little to him that nothing can free him so well of that treachery as the reading of this new Book But to our purpose The Question is first in general If Subjects under a lawful Sovereign when oppressed in their established Religion may by Arms defend themselves and resist the Magistrates Let this be first discussed in general and next it shall be considered how far this will quadrat with our present Case or our late Troubles Isot. I like your method well and that we may follow it consider see pag. 20. of the Answer and Ius populi all over if their can be any thing more evident from the Laws of Nature than that men ought to defend themselves when unjustly assaulted And since the Law of Nature teacheth men not to murder themselves it by the same force binds them to hinder another to do it since he that doth not hinder another from committing a Crime when it is in his power so to do becomes guilty of the crime committed he is then a self-murderer who doth not defend himself from unjust force Besides what is the end of all Societies but mutual Protection Did not the People at first choose Princes for their Protection Or do you imagine it was to satisfie the Pride and Cruelty of individual persons It was then the end of Societies that Justice and Peace might be maintain'd so when this is inverted the Subjects are again to resume their own conditional surrender and to coerce the Magistrate who forgetful of the ends of his Authority doth so corrupt it And since the great design of man should be to serve GOD and to worship him in spirit and in truth this is to be preferred to all things else as being of the greatest Importance If then Magistrates whom S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 calls the Ordinances of men or humane Creatures do force there Subjects from the true Worship of GOD they ought to be restrained and the Cause of GOD must be maintained notwithstanding their unjust Laws or cruel Tyranny Bas. You have indeed put such colours on your Opinion that I should be much shaken from mine were not my persuasion well grounded But to examine what you have said you must distinguish well betwixt the Laws of Nature and the Rights or permissions of Nature the first are unalterable Obligations by which all men are bound which can be reversed by no positive Law and transgressed by no Person upon no occasion for the Law of Nature is the Image of GOD yet remaining in some degrees on the Souls of men and is nothing else save certain notions of Truth impressed by GOD on the Souls of all men that enjoy the exercise of Reason Now self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature otherwise it could never be dispensed with without a Sin nay were a man never so criminal For as in no case a man may kill himself were he never so guilty so by that reasoning of yours he ought not to suffer himself to be killed neither should any Malefactor submit to the Sentence of the Judge but stand to his defence by all the force he could raise And it will not serve turn to say that for the good of the Society he ought to submit for no man must violate the Laws of Nature were it on never so good a design and since the utmost standard of our love to our Neighbors is to love them as our selves no consideration of the good of others can oblige one to yield up his Life if bound by the Law of Nature to defend it Crit. If I may interrupt you I should tell you that as among all Nations it hath been counted Heroical to die for ones Country or for the good of others so the Apostle speaks Rom. 5.7 of those who for good men would dare to die But chiefly CHRIST'S dying for us shews that self-defence can be no Law of Nature otherwise CHRIST who filled all Righteousness had never contradicted the Laws of Nature Bas. I thank you for your remark which was pertinent But next consider there are some rights or permissions of Nature which are allowed us but not required of us as propriety of goods marriage and other such like things which whose doth not pretend to he cannot be said to violate the Laws of Nature only for some greater consideration he forgoes these Priviledges it allows And take men out of a Society I acknowledge forcible Resistance of any violent Assailant to be one of the rights of Nature which every man may make use of without a Fault or dispense with likewise at his pleasure But Societies being Associations of People under a Head who hath the power of Life and Death that sets it beyond doubt that the Head must only judge when the Subjects do justly fore-seal their Lives or not which before I go about to evince I must remove that vulgar Error of a Magistrate's deriving his power from the surrender of the People None can surrender what they have not take then a multitude of People not yet associated none of them hath power of his own Life neither hath he power of his Neighbors since no man out of a Society may kill another were his Crime never so great much less be his own murderer and a multitude of People not yet associated are but so many individual Persons therefore the power of the Sword is not from the People nor any of their Delegation but is from GOD. Isot. You will pardon me to tell you that the People must give the power since GOD did it never by a Voice from Heaven or by a Prophets command except in some Instances among the Israelites where even that was not done but upon the previous desire of the People And for what you say of the Peoples having no right to kill themselves they only consent to submit to the Magistrates Sentence when guilty Basil. This will then infallibly prove that forcible self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature but only a Right otherwise we could not thus dispense with it But if though guilty I ought not to kill my self neither can I so much as consent that another do it Hence it is that the original of Magistracy must be from GOD who only can invest the Prince with the power of the Sword Polyb. I could say much in Confirmation of that from the universal Sense of all Nations who ever looked on the Magistrates power as Sacred and Divine but these things are so copiously adduced by others that I may well spare my labor Crit. Nay a greater authority is St. Paul's Rom. 13.1 who saith That the powers that were then were ordained of GOD which on the way saith strongly for asserting the right of a Conquerour after some prescription since if either we consider the power of the Roman Empire over the world or of their Emperours over them both will be found to have no better title than Conquest and
faith and patience of the Saints Which seems to imply that since retaliation will be gâ—ven out by God upon unjust Murderers therefore Faith and Patâ—ence must be the Exercise of the Saints which to all unprejudged Minds will sound a discharge of the use of Weapons of War But after all this the phrase of taking the sword seems only applicable to S. Peter for the Band being sent out by a Magistrate could not properly be said to have taken the Sword it being put in their hands by these who were invested with it though they now tyrannically abuse their power but the phrase agrees much better with S. Peter's drawing it who had no warrant for it and so did indeed takâ— it Next we hear no mention of the Band of Soldiers their using their Swords therefore this Prediction seems fitted for S. Peter and all such as mistaking the nature of the Chrâ—â—stian Dispensation do take the Sword But next consider CHRIST'S words to Pilate Iohn 18.36 Mâ— Kingdom 〈◊〉 nâ—t of thâ—â— world if my Kingdom were of this 〈◊〉 then wâ—ulâ— my servants fight that I should nâ—t be â—â—lâ—vâ—râ—d to the â—â—ws but now is my Kingdom not from â—ence And this being said upon the Accusation the Iews had given against him to Pilate that he call'd himself a King charging him upon his friendship to Cesar to put him to death CHRIST S answer shews that earthly Kings need apprehend no prejudiâ—â— from his Kingdom since it not being about worldly things was not to be â—ought foâ— Isot. Speak plainly do you mean by this that CHRIST should have no Kingdom upon Earth which I fear too many of you desire since you press this so warmly But consider you not that by this CHRIST only means he was not to set up a Temporal Dominion upon Earth to â—ustle Cesar from his Throne such as the Iews expected from their Messiah and therefore this place is indeed strong against the pretences of some Carnal Fifth-Monarchy Men but is ill adduced to condemn defence when we are unjustly assaulted by a persecuting Tyrant See p. 25. Crit. It is no new thing to find the sincere Doctrine of the Gospel misrepresented by Sons of Belial but learn the difference betwixt a Kingdom of the World and in the World and so temper your Passion CHRIST must have a Kingdom in the World but not of it And the greatest hazard of a pretending King being the raising of Wars and Commotions upon his Title CHRIST'S words are not truly commented on by the practice of his Servants unless they secâ—re Princes from their Fears of their raising Wars upon his â—itle Therefore as the sighting at that time for preserving CHRIST from the Iews had been contrary to the nature of his Spiritual Kingdom to the Rule of the Gospel binding all the succeeding Ages of the Church no less than these to whom it was first delivered what was then contrary to the nature of CHRIST'S Kingdom will be so still And to this I might add the Doctrine of Peace so much insisted on in the New Testament it being the Legacy CHRIST left to his Disciples which we are commanded to follow with all men as much as is possible and as in â—s lies And if with all men â—â—re much more with the Magistrate And S. Paul's words in the xiii to the Romans are so express that methinks they should strike a terror in all men from resisting the Superior Powers leâ—t they resist the ordinance of GOD and receive damnation And it is observable that S. Paul who as a Zealot had formerly persecuted the Christians doth now so directly contradict that Doctrine which was at that time so horridly corrupted among the Iews This place is so express that it needs not the advantages may be given to it either from the consideration of the power the Roman Empire had usurped over the World or from the Emperor who then reigned who must have been either Claudius or Nero and if the former we find Acâ—s 18.2 that he banished all the Iews from Rome and with them the Christians not being distinguishâ—d by the Romans from the Iews were also banished and here was a driving of Christians from Rome which you will not deny to have been a Persecution But if it was Nero we know very well how the Christians were used by him But these words of S. Paul being as at first addressed to the Romans so also designed by the holy Ghost to be a part of the Rule of all Christians do prove that whoever hath the Supreme Power is to be submitted to and never resisted Isot. If you were not in too great a haste you would not be so forward consider therefore the reason S. Paul gives for sâ—bmission to Superior Rulers is because they are the Ministers of GOD for good If then they sweâ—ve from this they forsake the end for which they are raised up and so faâ—l from their power and right to our obedience Basil. Truly what you have said makes me not repent of any haste I seemed to make for what you have alledged pâ—oves indeed that the Sovereign is a Minister of GOD for good so that he corrupts his power grosly when he pursues not that design but in that he is only accountable to GOD whoâ—e Minister he is And this must hold good except you give us good ground to believe that GOD hath given authority to the Subjects to call him to account for his trust but if that be not made appear then he must be left to GOD who did impower him and therefore can only â—oerce him As one having his power from a King is countable to none for the administration of it but to the King or to these on whom the King shall devolve it so except it be proved that GOD hath warranted Subjects to call their Sovereigns to account they being his Ministers must only be answerable to him And according to these Principles of yours the Magistrateâ— authority shall be so enervated that he shall no more be able to serve these designs for which GOD hath vested him with Power every one being thus taught to shake off his Yoak when they think he acts in prejudice of Religion And here I shall add one thing which all Casuists hold a safe Rule in matters that are doubtfâ—l that we ought to follow that side of the doubt which is freest of hazard here then damnation is at least the seeming hazard of resistance therefore except upon as clear evidence you prove the danger of absolute submission to be of the same nature that it may baâ—â—ance the other then absolute submission as being the securest is to be followed Next we find Saint Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 c. who being â—et infecteâ— with the spirit of a Iewiâ—h zealot had drawn the Sword afterwards when indâ—eâ— with power from on High at length pressing the doctrine of Obedience adding that the pâ—etâ—nce of the Christian freedom should not be made a Cloak of maliciousness And
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
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
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
and so did totally overturn the whole Foundation of the Kingdom But after all this I may add that Charles Duke of Sudâ—rman was not too well reported of for that abrogation of his Nephew it being generally imputed to his ambition And thus you see upon how many Accounts that Action of the Swedish State will not serve your turn Isot. But these of Zurich resisted the other five Cantons and being provoked by their injuries they stop'd the Passâ—ges of Victuals to them upon which a War followed As also at Basel the people did maintain and assert the Reformation by Arms against their Superiors and brake the Images and burnt them they also made the Senate turn off some of their number who favored the Mass. See p. 443 444. Poly. As for the War among the Cantons it is undeniable that it was not of Subjects against their Sovereigns since the Cities of Helvetia have no dependence one upon another nor can any one City be tied to the opinion or decree of the rest without their own consent which shews that every Canton is a free State within it self and therefore their warrings among themselves makes nothing for subjects resisting of their Sovereigns And what is alledged from the tumult of Basel is as little to our purpose for these free Cities being Democratical it was no wonder if the people offâ—nded with the Senate did raise that Commotion and the Historian expresly asserts that what they did they openly declared was not for defence of Religion but for vindicating of their own liberty And in the end of the Story it appears what they designed for they made the Senat receive 260. out of the Companies of the Citizens whose counsel should be carried along in the greater concernments that might be either for GOD's Glory or the Good of the Commonwealth But if you lay claim to this Story as a Precedent you must acknowledge that a Reformation may be not only maintained by force but that Magistrats may be removed from their Office if they go not along with it and that the people may in their own Authority without waiting for the Magistrats concurrence go by violence and break down Images and throw out an established Religion But this belongs not to the case of Subjects since in these free Cities the power is certainly with the people and so they are not Sâ—bjects to the Senat. And for Geneve it is so fully proved that it was a free Imperial City that I need add nothing to make it out One instance will abundantly suffice to prevail upon the belief of any who can doubt whether the Bishop of Geneve was their Prince which is that the Bishops of Geneve did frequently become Burgesses in it In particular Peter de Baulâ— the last who sate there was received a Citizen by the Senat of Genâ—ve 15. Iuly 1527. which doth fully prove that he could not be their Lord. But as for the Reformation of Geneve it is true Sleydan hints as if the Bishop and Clergy had left the City being angry at the Reformation but in that he was mistaken for their Bishop left the City an 1528. and made war against it upon some disputes were betwixt him and them about their privileges for though he was not Lord of the City yet the Countrey about it belonged to him But an 1533. he returned to the City and left it in the Iuly of the same year fearing some seditious Tumults which he had the more reason to apprehend because of his Transactions with the Duke of Savoy whereby he made over to him his interest in the City And it was two years after this before the Reformation was received by that City For after he left them they passed a Decree for preserving the old Religion and discharging of the Lutheran and banished two of the Ministers of that Religion And on the first of Ianuary 1534. after the Bishop was gone his Vicar published an Edict discharging all Assemblies fâ—r Divine Worship without the Bishops permission and all Bibles in the French or German Tongues were condemned to be burnt And for the Duke of Savoy his invading them and being resisted by them it makes nothing for your design this being a free Imperial City resisting an unjust Invader For all this see Geneva restituta Isot. But at least the States of the United Provinces did maintain their Religion by Arms when Philip the Second was introducing the Inquisition among them and tho these Wars were upon mixed grounds so that Papists as well as Protestants concurred in them yet it is undeniable that Religion gave the chief rise to them and was the main consideration that engaged the Protestants into that War See pag. 446. Poly. One error runs through all your smatterings which is that you never distinguish betwixt a State governed by a Monarch where subjection is due to him by the constitution of the State and a limited Prince who by the Laws of that Society is accountable to and censurable by the Nobility and people which states so great a difference that he must be very purblind who doth not observe it And therefore I will first shew you that the Prince of the Netherlands was but a precarious Prince governing a free people at their pleasure and precariously as Heuterus and Grotius de Ant. Reâ—p Batav call him And among the Laws of the Government of Batavia one was that the old Customs and Laws should be sacred and that if the Prince decreed ought against them he was not to be obeyed and so it was usual among them upon a tâ—anâ—gression to depose their Princes of which many instances are reckoned by Grotius and therefore he compares their Princes to the Lacedemonian Kings upon whom the Ephori and the Senat might have cognosced The Brabantins had indeed looked better to their liberty than the rest and so had guarded against the deceit of their Princes who might have broken their Laws upon the pretence of a publick good by an express agreement that if their Prince should violate the Laws they should not be tied to obedience nor fidelity to him till their injuries were removed and this was confirmed by the examples of their Ancestors Gr. An. lib. 2. And a little after he adds That the other Provinces in Belgium had by practice that same privilege and that the rather that being all united to Brabant by Maximilian they were to enjoy the same privileges with them The Brabantins had also a privilege of chusing a Conservator in any great hazard called Ruart Strada tom 1. lib. 9. whose power was equal to the Roman Dictators this they had by the privileges of the Laetus introitus And upon this they chused the Prince of Orange their Ruart anno 1577. And to run no further for proofs of this when Philip was inaugurated their Prince he expresly provided that if he broke their privileges they should be free from obedience and fidelity to him and this was the ground on which they
determining of the externals of Government or Worship falls within the Magistrate's Sphere then comes in a new Complaint and it is told that here Religion is given up to the Lusts and Pleasure of men though it be an hundred times repeated that command what the King will in prejudice of the Divine Law no Obedience is due If again it be proved that Church Judicatories in what notions soever are subjects as well as others and no less tied to obedience than others upon this come in vehement outcries as if the Throne and Kingdom of Christ were overturned and betrayed with other such like Expressions in their harsh Stile What is become of Mankind and of Religion when Ignorants triumph upon these baâ—ren Pretences as if they were the only Masters of Reason and directors of Conscience You know what my Temper is in most differences but I acknowledge my mind to be fâ—ll of a just disdain of these ignorant and insolent Pedlers which is the more inflamed when I consider the Ruins not only of sound Learning but of true Piety and the common rules of Humanity which follow these simple Contests they make about nothing Basil. To speak freely I cherish Reflections no where therefore I shall not conceal my mislike of these Invectives which though I am forced to confess are just yet I love to hear truth and peace pleaded for with a calm serene Temper and though the intolerable and peevish railings of these Pamphlets do justifie a severe Procedure yet I would have the softer and milder methods of the Gospel used that so we may overcome evil with good To take you therefore off that angry engagement let me invite you to a sober Examen of the Magistrates Authority in things Divine But before this be engaged in let it be first considered whether â—â—ere be any Legislative Power on Earth about things Sacred and next with whom it is lodged Isot. I will so far comply with your desires that for this once without retaliating I quit to Philarcheus the last word of scolding But to come to the purpose you have suggested consider that Christ hath given us a complete Rule wherein are all things that pertain to Life and Godliness It is then an Imputation on his Gospel â—o say any thing needs be added to it and that it contains not a clear direction for all things therefore they accuse his Wisdom or Goodness who pretend to add to his Laws and wherein he hath not burthened our Consciences what tyranny is it to bind a yoak upon us which our Fathers were not able to bear Whereby as our Christian liberty is invaded so innumerable Schisms and Scandals spring from no other thing so much as from these oppressions of Conscience which are so much the more unjust that the imposers acknowledging their indifferency and the refusers scrupling their lawfulness the peace of the Church is sacrificed to what is acknowledged indifferent neither can any bounds be fixed to those impositions for if one particular may be added why not more and more still till the â—oak become heavier than that of Moses was which is made out from experience For the humor of innovating in divine matters having once crept into the Church it never stopp'd till it swelled to that prodigious bulk of Rites under which the Roman Church lies oppressed And besides all these general considerations there is one particular against significant Rites which is that the instituting of them in order to a particular signification of any Grace makes them Sacraments according to the vulgar definition of Sacraments that they are the outward signs of an inward Grace but the instituting of Sacraments is by the confesâ—ion of all a part of Christ's Prerogative since he who confers grace can only institute the signs of it Upon all these accounts I plead the Rule of Scripture to be that which ought to determine about all divine matters and that no binding Laws ought to be made in divine things wherein we are left at liberty by GOD who is the only Master of our Consciences See from pag. 172. to pag. 180. Phil. You have now given me a full Broad-side after which I doubt not but you triumph as if you had shattered me all to pieces but I am afraid you shall find this Volley of chained Ball hath quite missed me and that I be aboard of you ere you be aware No man can with more heartiness acknowledg the compleatness of Scripture than my self and one part of it is that all things which tend to Order Edification and Peace be done and the Scene of the World altering so that what now tends to advance Order Edification and Peace may afterwards occasion disorder destruction and contention the Scripture had not been compleat if in these things there were not an Authority on Earth to make and unmake Laws in things indifferent I acknowledg the adding of new pieces of worship hath so many inconveniences hanging about it that I should not much patronize it but the determining of what may be done either in this or that fashion to any particular Rule is not of that nature Therefore since Worship must be in a certain posture a certain habit in a determinate place and on such times all these being of one kind Laws made about them upon the accounts of order edification or peace do not pretend to prejudg the perfection of Scripture by any additions to what it prescribes since no new thing is introduced Indeed did humane Law-givers pretend that by their Laws these things became of their own nature more acceptable to GOD they should invade GOD's Prerogative but when they are prescribed only upon the account of Decency and Order it is intolerable peevishness to call a thing indifferent of its nature unlawful because commanded For the Christian liberty consists in the exemption of our Consciences from all humane yoak but not of our actions which are still in the power of our Superiors till they enjoin what is sinful and then a greater than they is to be obeyed I acknowledg the simplicity of the Christian Religion is one of its chief Glories nothing being enjoined in it but what is most properly fitted for advancing the Souls of men towards that wherein their blessedness doth consist And therefore I never reflect without wonder on that Censure Ammian Marcellin a Heathen Writer gives of Constantius That he confounded the Christian Religion which was of it self pure and simple with doating superstitions So I freely acknowledg that whosoever introduce new parts of Worship as if they could commend us to GOD do highly encroach on GOD's Authority and man's Liberty But as for the determining of things that may be done in a variety of ways into one particular form such as the prescribing a set form for Worship the ordering the posture in Sacraments the habit in Worship determinate times for commemorating great mercies the time how long a Sinner must declare his penitence ere he be admitted
caution and tenderness must be used in making of such Laws and that their fitness for attaining the ends of order edification and peace should be well considered and they no longer adhered to than these effects can be drawn from them so that if the nature of Circumstances which vary all things indifferent come to change the same reason that exacted their being first imposed will plead a change I also acknowledge that great abuse hath followed upon the innovating and prescribing in Divine matters and that nothing hath occasioned more divisions among Christians than the overstraining an Uniformity But if because of abuses you overturn all Legislative Power in matters sacred nothing that is humane shall scape your fury since every thing is subject to abuse And nothing will curb ones Career till he turn Quaker that follows these Maxims But one thing is still forgotten that the dictates of Reason are in their kind the Voice of God Reason being nothing save an impress of the Image of God on the Soul of man which because much obliterated by the Fall was to be supplied by Revelation but wherein it remains clear its directions not contradicting any positive or revealed Law are still to be followed as the Laws of God Poly. For proving all this I shall not run so far back as to examine the nature of the Priesthood and Sacrifices were before Moses to consider whether these flow'd from a Revelation conveyed by Tradition or from the dictates of Reason But after Moses his Law was given wherein all was modelled by Divine prescript yet what a vast heap of additions did flow upon that worship before our Saviour's days all that have written on the Temple service do abundantly discover Here is a Field spacious enough for any that designed a vain shew of much reading but a view of Doctor Lightfoot's Temple-Service will quickly convince any that the whole Service of the Temple was interpalated by many Additions whose first Author cannot be traced They also used Baptism to all who were proselyted from Gentilism And in the Paschal Festivity alone how many new Rites do we find Every School-boy may know that they had a Dish called Charaseth which was a thick Sawce of Dates Figs Almonds c. pounded together which looked like Clay to mind them of the Clay in which their Fathers wrought in Egypt which was a significative Ceremony and was the Dish wherein they dipped their hand which we find was not wanting in our Lord 's Passover which proves significant Rites tho of humane appointment cannot be criminal And if to this I should add the several Cups of Wine the divers removes of the Table and covering it of new the frequent washing of their hands and divers other things I should grow tedious But our Lord never reproves these things nay on the contrary he symbolized with them It is true when their Zeal for their Traditions made them break the Commandments of God or adhere so stifly to them as to judge the Consciences of such as did not comply with them in the use of them then he checks their Hypocrisie and accuses them not for the use of these things but because they placed all Religion in them and imposed the Precepts of men as doctrines To this I might add the whole frame of the Synagogues both as to Government Discipline and Worship for whatsoever scraps may be brought which may seem to prove there were Synagogues before the Captivity which yet is much controverted yet the form of Government in them the rules of Excommunication and its degrees together with their Philacteries and set forms of Worship will never be proved from Scripture Now since the Law of God was no less perfect in the Old Dispensation than the Gospel is now it will follow that Additions in things purely external and ritual do no way detract from the Word of God For nothing can be brought to prove the New Testament a complete Rule for Christians which will not plead the same full authority to the Old Testament during that Dispensation since though the Dispensation was imperfect yet the Revelation of God to them was able to make them perfect and throughly furnished foe every good work and the Scriptures which S. Paul saith were able to make wise to salvation can be no other than the Old Testament writings For besides that by Scriptures nothing else is understood in the New Testament there could be no other Scripture known to Timothy of a Child but these of the Old Testament If then they trespass upon the authority of the New Testament and its blessed Author who assert a Power to determine about Rituals in Worship or other matters of Religion they committed the same Crime who pretended to add to what Moses prescribed since he was also faithful in all his house Or if any plead a Divine Warrant for these Institutions which were traditionally conveyed this will open a door for all the pretences of the Roman Church since the Expressions that cancel Traditions are as full in the Old Testament as in the New And thus far I think I have evinced that there were great additions in Rituals made by the Iews and that these were not unlawful since complied with by him who never did amiss and yet these could have no higher oâ—iginal than humane Authority I go on to the New Dispensation wherein I doubt not to evince that as for rituals most of these they found in the Synagogue were retained without any other change than what that Dispensation drew after it and that they took both the Rules of Government Worship and Discipline from the Synagogue Therefore the Epistles do not when treating of these matters speak in their Stile who are instituting new things but of those who are giving directions about what was already received and known For if new Rules had been to be delivered the Institution had been express either in the Gospels Acts or Epistles Now if any will read these without prejudice no such thing will appear of which manner of Stile no account can be given but that things as to Rituals continued as they were the use of the Sacraments being only instituted by Christ where the Language of an Institution is express About two hundred years after Christ outward Penitence was brought into the Church and scandalous Persons were according to the nature of Scandals debarred from the Sacrament for a long space and were by degrees and according to the heighth of their Penitence received to the Communion of the Church but not after some years had passed in outward professions of Penitence and the modelling of this became after that the chief Care of Synods for divers Centuries Now if one will argue that though it be true a scandalous Person should be excommunicated yet since God hath mercy at whatsoever time a Sinner repents so should the Church which only judgeth of the Profession forgive at whasoever time one professeth Penitence It will not be easie
in your Principles to answer this and see how you will clear this practice of Discipline from Tyranny since to debar men from the Sacraments is a greater dominion over Consciences than the determining about Rituals But to come nearer home there was a certain Society you have heard of ycleped the Kirk which had divers Books of Discipline containing rules for that and a Directory for Worship which had no few rules neither they had also a frame of Government the Supreme Judicatory whereof was composed of three Ministers and one ruling Elder from each Presbytery a ruling Elder beside from each Burrough two being allowed the Metropolis and a Commissioner was sent from each University and in this High Court the King came in with the Privilege of a Burgh for though the Metropolis had two he was allowed to send but one with a single Suffrage to represent him and this Court pretended to an Authority from Christ and their Authority was Sacred with no less certificate than he that despiseth you despiseth me Now how a Power can be committed to delegates without any Commission for it from the Superior will not be easily made out And they will search long ere they find a Divine Warrant for this Court unless they vouch Mary Mitchelsons Testimony for it whose hysterical Distempers were given out for Prophesies And whereas they are so tender of Christian Liberty that no Law must pass about the Rituals of Religion yet their Books of Discipline and Model of Government were not only setled by Law but afterwards sworn to be maintained in the Covenant wherein they swore the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government These were the tender Consciences that could not hear of any Law in matters indifferent and yet would have all swear to their Forms many of which they could not but know were indifferent which was a making them necessary at another rate than is done by a Law which the Legislator can repeal when he will and never were any in the world more addicted to their own Forms than they were An instance of this I will give which I dare say will surprise you When some designers for popularity in the Western parts of that Kirk did begin to disuse the Lord's Prayer in Worship and the singing the Conclusion or Doxology after the Psalm and the Minister's kneeling for private Devotion when he entred the Pulpit the General â—ssembly took this in very ill part and in a Letter they wrote to the Presbyteries complained sadly Of a Spirit of Innovation was beginning to get into the Kirk and to throw these laudible practices out of it mentioning the three I named which are commanded to be still practised and such as refused obedience are appointed to be conferr'd with in order to the giving of them satisfaction and if they continu'd untractable the Presbyteries were to proceed against them as they should be answerable to the next general Assembly This Letter I can produce authentically attested But is it not strange that some who were then zealous to condemn these Innovations should now be carried with the herd to be guilty of them I am become hoarse with speaking so long and so I must break off having as I suppose given many great Precedents from History for the using of Rites in divine matters without an express Warrant and for passing Laws upon these and have cleared the one of Superstition and the other of Tyranny Eud. Truly all of you have done your parts so well that even Isotimus himself seems half convinced It is then fully clear that as nothing is to be obtruded on our Belief without clear revelation so no sacred duty can be bound on oâ—r Obedience without a Divine Warrant but in Rituals especially in determining what may be done in a variety of ways to one particular Form there hath been and still must be a Power on Earth which provided it balance all things right and consider well the fitness of these Rites for attaining the designed end doth not invade God's Dominion by making Laws about them Nor will the pretence of Christian Liberty warrant our Disobedience to them It remains to be considered who are vested with this Power and how much of it belongs to the Magistrate and how much to the Church Basil. I now engage in a Theme which may perhaps lay me open to censure as if I were courting the Civil Powers by the asserting of their rights but I am too well known to you to dread your jealously much in this and I am too little known to my self if flattery be my foible I shall therefore with the greatest frankness and ingenuity lay open my sense of this matter with the Reasons that prevail with me in it but I desire first to hear Isotimus his opinion about it Isot. I do not deny the King hath Authority and Jurisdiction in matters Sacred but it must be asserted in a due line of Subordination First to Christ the King of Kings and the only Head of his Church And next to the Rulers and Office-bearers of the Church who are entrusted by Christ as his Ambassadors with the Souls of their Flocks and who must give him an account of their Labors therefore they must have their Rules only from him who empowers them and to whom they are subject They must also have a Power among them to preserve the Christian Society in order to which they must according to the practice of the Apostles when difficulties emerge meet together and consult what may be for the advancement of the Christian Religion and whoso refuseth to hear the Church when she errs not from her Rule he is to be accounted no better than a Heathen and a Publican And since the Church is called one body they ought to associate together in meetings seeing also they have their Power of Christ as Mediator whereas the Civil Powers hold of him as he is God they have a different Tenor distinct Ends and various Rules therefore the Authority of the Church is among the things of God which only belong to him And indeed Christians were very ill provided for by Christ if they must in matters of Religion be subject to the pleasure of secular and carnal Men who will be ready to serve their own Interests at the rate of the Ruin of every thing that is Sacred It is true the Civil Powers may and ought to convocate Synods to consult about matters of Religion to require Church-men to do their duty to add their Sanctions to Church Laws and to join with the sounder part for carrying on a Reformation But all this is cumulative to the Churches intrinsick Power and not privative so that if the Magistrate fall short of his duty they are notwithstanding that to go on as men empowered by Iesus Christ and he who despâ—seth them be his quality what it will despiseth him that sent them See p. 105. to p. 109. and p. 467. to
p. 486. Basil. In order to a clear progress in this matter I shall first discuss the nature and power of the Church by which a step shall be made to the Power the Magistrate may pretend to in matters Sacred The Apostles being sent by Iesus Christ did every where promulgate the Gospel and required such as received it to meet often together for joint Worship and the free profession of the Faith wherein they were particularly obliged to the use of the Sacraments The Apostles and after them all Church-men were also endued with a double Power The one was declarative for promulgating the Gospel the other was directive which properly is no power and by this they were to advise in such matters wherein they had no warrant to command So S. Paul wrote sometimes his own sense which he did by permission and not by commandment only he advised as one that had obtained mercy to be faithful But because Christ was to be in his Church to the end of the World the things they had heard were to be committed to faithful men that they might be able to teach others All Church men being thus the Successors of the Apostles they are vested with a Divine Authority for solemn publishing the Gospel but with this odds from the Apostles That whereas they were infallible their Successors are subject to error And the power of Church-men consists formally in this that they are Heralds of the Gospel and by their preaching it a solemn offer of it is made to all their hearers which to despise is to despise him that sent them But in this power they are bound up to the Commission they have from God so that what they say beyond that is none of the divine Message Yet because many particulars may fall in about which it was impossible Rules could be given they have a directive Authority which if it be managed as S. Paul did we need fear no tyrannical imposition from it And therefore in these matters their definitions are not binding Laws but Rules of advice for in matters wherein we are left at liberty by God if Church-men pretend to a Dominion over our Souls they make us the servants of Men. And indeed it is the most incoherent thing imaginable for these who lay no claim to Infallibility to pretend to absolute obedience It is true the Laws of peace and order bind us to an association if we be Christians and therefore we ought to yield in many things for peace but since we are all a Royal Priesthood why Church-men should pretend to Authority or Jurisdiction except in that which is expresly in their Commission wherein they are purely Heralds I do not see It is true Christians ought to assemble for Worship but for the associations of Churches in Judicatories I cannot imagine in what corner of the New Testastament that shall be found In which I am the more confirmed since all the labor of that Pamphleteer from p. 126. to 144. could not find it out For it is a strange Method to prove a divine Warrant because some reasons are brought to prove it must be so to have cited the words where a shorter and clearer method of proof since to prove that such a thing must be and yet not to shew that it is is only to attempt against the Scripture for being defective in that which it ought to have contained But if the phrase of one body conclude a proof for Associations then since the Body includes all Christians the whole faithful must meet together in Councils For where have you a difference in that betwixt the Clergy and the faithful Laicks But here yielding your Laick Elders of divine Institution and to have from GOD an Authority of Ruling as well as the Ministers have then why do they not all come to Presbyteries And why but one deputed from them Was not this an Encroachment on them For if they have from CHRIST a power to Rule as well as Ministers why should not all the Elders meet in Presbyteries and Synods as well as Ministers And why but one Elder from every Presbytery when three Ministers go to the National Synod For it is folly to say because Ministers have a power of teaching therefore in Presbyteries and Synods the Elders must only equal their number and in National Synods be near half their number for that will only say that in matters of doctrine the Elders should be quite silent but in matters of discipline why all should not come if any have a right from Christ will not be proved And is not this to Lord it over your Brethren And do not your Ministers thus tyrannize over their Elders But the reason of it was visible lest the Elders had thereby got the power in their hands had they been the plurality in the Judicatories which was well enough foreseen and guarded against by your Clergy who though they were willing to serve themselves of them for a while yet had no mind to part with their beloved Authority But for Synods if the obligation to them be from the unity of the Body then nothing under an OEcumenical one will answer this which yet is simply unpracticable Now as for your National Synods it is visible they are and must be framed according to the divisions of the World in the several Kingdoms for according to the Rules are pretended from Scripture tell the Church the binding and loosing of sins or the like it follows that Parochial Congregations and the Pastors in them are vested with an authoritative power now why they should be made to resign this to the plurality of the Church-men of that Kingdom will be a great Atchievement to prove in your Principles For why shall not a Parochial Church make Laws within it self And why must it renounce its priviledg to such a number of Church-men cast in such a Classis by a humane power As likewise where find you a divine Warrant for your delegating Commissioners to Synods For either they are Plenipotentiaries or such as go upon a restricted deputation but so as their Votes beyond their Commission shall signifie nothing till they return and be approved by those who sent them if they go with a full power assign a Warrant for such a delegation or that many Church-men may commissionate one in their name and that what shall be agreed to by the major part of these delegates shall be a binding obligation on Christians and yet I know you will think the Independents carry the Cause if it be said that the appointments of these superiour Courts have no authority till ratified by the inferiour which will resolve the Power into the inferiour Courts By all which I think it is clear abundantly that the associations of Churches into Synods cannot be by a divine Warrant But I must call in some relief for I grow weary of speaking too long Eud. I suppose none will deny the association of Churches to be an excellent mean for preserving
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
matters will never infer a surrender of conscience to him for certainly that must relate to what goeth before of the outward Government and Policy of the Church Besides none will quarrel the phrase of the Kings authority in all things that are Civil yet that will not infer that he can enact the lawfulness of murther and theft So these expressions must carry with them a tacite exception Yea even without that allowance the phrase may be well justified since it only imports that the Kings enacting any thing in these matters makes them legal which differs much from lawful and saith only that such Orders issued forth by the King are de facto Laws which will not conclude they must be obeyed but only that his authority is to be acknowledged either by obedience if the command be just or by suffering if unjust As for the effects this may produce I am sure they cannot prove worse than these which have followed upon the pretences of the Churches absolute authority and intrinsick Sovereign Power And indeed since there is so much corruption among men nothing that falls into the hands of men can scape the mixtures of abuse at long run But I must add that the passions and pride of many Church-men in all Ages have been such that the decision of the plurality of Church-men seems the model of the World that is fullest of danger Isot. Three things yet remain to be discussed The one is if obedience be due to the Laws when they command things contrary to our consciences For sure you cannot pretend in that case to give a preference to humane Laws beyond conscience which is the voice of GOD. The next is when the Magistrate commands things just of themselves but upon unjust motives and narratives whether my obedience doth not homologate his bad designs And finally where the commands of the Magistrate are manifestly unlawful how far should the Church and Church men oppose and contradict them For a bare non-obedience seems not to be all we are bound to in that case When I am satisfied in these things I will quit this purpose Basil. To engage in a particular discussion of what is now moved by you would draw on more discourse than our present leisure will allow of yet I shall attempt the saying of what may satisfie a clear and unprejudged mind And to the first I shall not fall on any longer enquiry into the nature and obligation of conscience than to tell that conscience is a conviction of our rational faculties that such or such things are sutable to the nature and Will of God Now all Religion is bound upon us on this account that there is such evidence offered for its truth which may and ought to satisfie the strictest Examen of Reason And all certainty is resolved in this that our rational faculties are convinced of the truth of the objects that he before us which conviction when applied to divine matters is called Conscience But there may be great mistakes in this Conviction for either the prejudices that lie on our minds from our senses the prepossessions of Education interest or humors the want of a due application of our faculties to their objects or chiefly the dulness and lesion of our Organs the corruption of our minds through sin and lust occasion many errors so that often without good reason oft contrary to it we take up persuasions to which we stifly adhere and count such convictions evidences of the Will of GOD. I acknowledg when a Man lies under a persuasion of the Will of GOD he ought not to go cross to it for this opens a door to Atheism when that is contradicted of which we are convinced But if this persuasion be false it cannot secure a Man from sinning in following of it For it is a Man 's own fault that he is thus imposed upon since if his rational faculties were duly applied and well purified they should prove unerring touchstones of truth If therefore through vanity wilfulness rashness or any other byass of the mind it be carried to wrong measures a Man is to blame himself and thus his errour ought to aggravate and not lessen his guilt If then a Man's conscience dictate to him the contrary of what GOD commands in that case he is in a visible hazard for his error can never tâ—ke away GOD's Authoâ—ity and so his wrong informed conscience doth not secure him from guilt if he be disobedient On the other hand nothing in Scripture can bind a Man to act a-against the convictions of conscience since we are bound to believe the Scriptures only because of the evidence of their authority to our rational faculties If then our belief of the Scriptures rest on that foundation no part of Scripture can bind us to walk contrary to that evidence for then it should destroy that Principle on which our Obligation to believe it self is founded which is the evidence of reason and so in that case a Man sins whatever he do Neither is this to be accountd strange since that erroneous conscience is from man's own fault And that which some alledg to escape this that in such cases a Man ought to forbear from acting will not serve turn to excuse a Man from sin For in these Precepts which exact a positive obedience such a â—orbearance and surceasing from action is a sin Upon these Evidences then it will follow that if the conviction of our conscience run contrary to the Magistrates commands these convictions are either well grounded or ill If the former then the Magistrates command being contrary to the nature and Will of GOD aâ—e not to be obeyed If ill grounded then that mistaken persuasion cannot secure us from sin no more than in the case of conscience contradicting the Law of GOD for the Laws of the Magistrates in things lawful are the Laws of GOD being the application of his general Laws unto particular instances by one cloathed with authority from him Therefore tho I do not say the Laws of the Magistrate can warrant our counteracting an erroneous conscience yet on the contrary a misinformed conscience will not secure us when we disobey the Magistrates lawful commands And thus I think your first Question is clearly answered End You have a great deal of reason to say so your discourse being so closely rational that I cannot see any escape from any paâ—t of it yet I must add that certainly it is a piece of Christian tenderness which obligeth all in Authority to beware of laying gall-traps and snares in the way of tender consciences And the best way to get an undisputed obedience is that their commands be liable to as few exceptions as is possible and that the good of any such Laws be well ballanced with the hazards of them that so the Communion of the Church in all outwards particularly in the Sacraments may be had on as easie terms as is possible whereby nothing be enacted that may frighten away weakâ—r
Christians who were designed and ordained for diffusing the Gospel through the Cities Villages and Places adjacent and these Presbyters were as the Bishop's Children educated and formed by him being in all they did directed by him and accountable to him and were as Probationers for the Bishoprick one of them being always chosen to succeed in the seat when vacant through the Bishop's death Now all these lived together as in a little College and were maintained out of the charitable Oblations of the People which were deposited in the Bishop's hands and divided in four parts one falling to the Bishop another to the Clergy a third to the Widows and Orphans and other poor Persons and a fourth to the building of edifices for Worship Thus the Churches were planted and the Gospel was disseminated through the World But at first every Bishop had but one Parish yet afterwards when the numbers of the Christians encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of the Persecutions they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges in lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the Second Century and these Churches assigned to Presbyters as they received the Gospel from the Bishop so they owned a dependence on him as their Father who was also making frequent excursions to them and visiting the whole bounds of his Precinct And things continued thus in a Parochial Government till toward the end of the Second Century the Bishop being chiefly entrusted with the cure of Souls a share whereof was also committed to the Presbyters who were subject to him and particularly were to be ordained by him nor could any Ordination be without the Bishop who in ordaining was to carry along with him the conâ—urrence of the Presbyters as in every other act of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction But I run not out into more particulars because of an account of all these things which I have drawn with an unbiass'd ingenuity and as much diligence as was possible for me to bring along with me to so laborious a work and this I shall send you when our Conference shall be at an end But in the end of the Seâ—ond Century the Churches were framed in another mould from the division of the Empire and the Bishops of the Cities did according to the several divisions of the Empire associate in Synods with the chief Bishop of that Division or Province who was called the Metropolitan from the dignity of the City where he was Bishop And hence sprang Provincial Synods and the Superiorities and Precedencies of Bishopricks which were ratified in the Council of Nice as ancient Customs they being at that time above an hundred years old In the beginning of the Third Century as the purity of Churchmen begun to abate so new methods were devised for preparing them well to those sacred Functions and therefore they were appointed to pass through several degrees before they could be Deacons Presbyters or Bishops And the Orders of Porters Readers Singers Exorcists or Catechists Acolyths who were to be the Bishops attendants and Sub-deacons were set up of whom mention is made first by Cypâ—ian and these degrees were so many steps of probationership to the supreme Order But all this was not able to keep out the corruptions weâ—e breaking in upon Church Officeâ—s eâ—peâ—â—ally after the Fouâ—th Century that the Empire became Christian which as it brougâ—t much riches and splendor on Church Empâ—oyments so it let in gâ—eat swarms of corrupt men on the Christian Assemblies And then the election to Church Offices which was formerly in the hands of the people was taken from them by reason of the tumults and disorders were in these elections which sometimes ended in blood and occasioned much faction and schism And Ambitus became now such an universal sin among Churchmen that in that Century Monasteries were founded in divers places by holy Bishops as by Basile Augustine Martin and others who imitated the Example of those in Egypt and Nitria whose design was the purifying of these who were to serve in the Gospel It is true these Seminaries did also degenerate and become nests of superstition and idleness yet it cannot be denied but this was an excellent Constitution for rightly forming the minds of the designers for holy Oâ—ders that being trained up in a course of Devotion Fasting Solitude abstraction from the World and Poverty they might be better qualified for the discharge of that holy Function And thus I have given you a general draught and perspective of the first Constitution of Churches together with some steps of their advanceâ— and declinings But I despair not to give you an ampler account and plan of their rules and forms Mean while let this suffice Phil. From what you have told us I shall propose the notion I have of Episcopacy that the work of a Bishop as it is chiefly to feed the flock so it is more particularly to form educate and try these who are to be admitted to Church Imployments and to over-see direct admonish and reprove these who are already setled in Church Offices so that as the chief tryal of those who are to be ordained is his work the Ordinations ought to be performed by him yet not so as to exclude the assistance and concurrence of Presbyters both in the previous tryal and in the Ordination it self But on the other hand no Ordination ought to be without the Bishop And as for Jurisdiction though the Bishop hath authority to over-see reprove and admonish the Clergy yet in all acts of publick Jurisdiction as he ought not to proceed without their concurrence so neither ought they without his knowledge and allowance determine about Ecclesiastical matters As for the notion of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter I confess it is not so clear to me and therefore since I look upon the â—acramental Actions as the highest of sacred Peâ—formances I cannot but acknowledge these who are empowered â—or them must be of the highest Office in the Châ—rch So I do not alledge a Bishop to be a disâ—inct Office from a Presbyter but a different degree in the same Office to whom for order and unities sake the chief inspection and care of Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be referred and who shall have authority to curb the Insolencies of some factious and turbulent Spirits His work should be to feed the flock by the Word and Sacraments as well as other Presbyters and especially to try and ordain Entrants and to over-see direct and admonish such as bear Office And I the more willingly incline to believe Bishops and Presbyters to be the several degrees of the same Office since the names of Bishop and Presbyter are used for the same thing in Scripture and are also used promiscuously by the Writers of the two first Centuries Now Isotimus when you bring either clear Scripture or
more For I am sure had he but read over those Canons which might be done in half an hour he had argued this point at another rate and had he seen the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus he had not accused the Conformist for citing that Canon as the fortieth since it is so in his division who was their first publisher in the Latine Church tho it be the thirty ninth in the Greek division But I will deal roundly in this matter and acknowledge that collection to be none of the Apostles nor Clement's since all that passed under Clement's name was accounted spurious except his first Epistle to the Corinthians Nor was this a production of the first two ages For the silence of the Writers of those Centuries gives clear evidence for their novelty They not being cited for the decision of things then in controversie wherein they are express as in the matter of Easter the rebaptizing Hereticks and divers other particulars Yet in the Fourth and Fifth Century reference is after made to some Elders rules of the Church which are to be found no where but in this Collection The Apostolical Canons are also sometimes expresly mentioned and this gives good ground to believe there were from the Third Century and forward some rules general received in the Church and held Apostolical as being at first introduced by Apostolical men This was at first learnedly made out by De Marca Concord lib. 3. c. 2. and of late more fully by that most ingenious and accurate searcher into Antiquity Beveregius in his Preface to his Annotations on these Canons Yet I am apt to think they were only preserv'd by an oral tradition and that no collection of them was agreed on and publish'd before the fifth Century It is certain the Latine Church in Pope Innocent 's days acknowledged no Canons but those of Nice And many of the Canons in this Collection we find among Canons of other Councils particularly in that of Antioch without any reference to a preceding authority that had enjoined them which we can hardly think they had omitted had they received the collection I speak of as Apostolical And that of the triple immersion in Baptism looks like a Rule no elder than the Arrian Controversie They began first to appear under the name of the Apostles Canons in the Fifth Century which made Pope Gelasius with a Synod of seventy Bishops condemn them as Apocryphal though I must add that the authority of that pretended Council and Decree though generally received be on many accounts justly questionable And yet by this we are only to understand that he rejected that pretended authority of the Apostles prefixed to these Canons In the beginning of the Sixth Century they were published by Dionysius Exiguus who prefixed fifty of them to his translation of the Greek Canons but he confesses they were much doubted by many At the same time they were published in the Greek Church with the addition of thirty five more Canons and were acknowledged generally Iustinian cites them often in the Novels and in the sixth Novel calls them the Canons of the holy Apostles kept and interpreted by the Fathers And the same authority was ascribed to them by the Council in Trullo These things had been pertinently alledged if you had known them but for your Friends niblings at them if you will but give your self the trouble of reading these Canons you will be ashamed of his weakness who manageth his advantage so ill And to instance this but in one particular had he read these Canons himself could he have cited the eighty which is among the latter additions and passed by the sixth which is full to the same purpose But for that impudent allegation as if a bare precedency had been only ascribed to Bishops by these Canons look but on the 14. the 30. 37. 40. 54. and 73. and then pass your verdict on your Friends ingenuity or his knowledg By the 14. No Churchman may pass from one Parish to another without his Bishop's sentence otherwise he is suspended from Ecclesiastical Functions and if he refuse to return when required by his Bishop he is to be accounted a Churchman no more By the 30. A Presbyter who in contempt of his Bishop gathers a Congregation apart having nothing to condemn his Bishop of either as being unholy or unjust he is to be deposed as one that is ambitious and tyrannous and such of the Clergy or Laity as join with them are likewise to be censured By the 37. The Bishop hath the care of all Church matters which he must administrate as in the sight of God By the 39. The Bishop hath power over all the goods of the Church and the reason given is that since the precious souls of men are committed to him it is much more just he have the charge of the goods of the Church By the 54. If a Clergy-man reproach their Bishop he is to be deposed for it is written Thou shalt not curse the Ruler of thy people And by the 73. A Bishop when accused is only to be judged of by other Bishops Now from these hints judg whether there be truth in that Assertion that only a precedency is asserted in these Canons and if all the power is now pleaded for be not there held out not to mention the Canon was cited by the Conformist that Presbyters or Deacons might finish nothing without the Bishop's Sentence since the Souls of the people are trusted to him As for the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction I am sure none among us do claim it but willingly allow the Presbyters a concurrence in both these And as to what your friend saith of Cyprian it is of a piece with the learning and ingenuity that runneth through the rest of his Discourse from page 150 to page 160. where for divers pages he belabours his Reader with brave shews of Learning and high invention so that no doubt he thinks he hath performed Wonders and fully satisfied every scruple concerning the rise and progress of Episcopacy Isot. I pray you do not fly too high and make not too much ado about any small advantages you conceive you have of my Friend but upon the whole matter I am willing to believe there was a precedency pretty early begun in the Church which I shall not deny was useful and innocent tho a deviation from the first pattern Neither shall I deny that holy men were of that Order but when it is considered what a step even that Precedency was to Lordly Prelacy and how from that the son of perdition rose up to his pretence of Supremacy we are taught how unsafe it is to change any thing in the Church from the first institution of its blessed Head who knew best what was fit for it according to whose will all things in it should be managed Poly. It hath been often repeated that nothing was ever so sacred as to escape that to which all things when they
opinions or actings of all your party which when you undertake then I allow you to charge me with what you will But it is a different thing to say that no Ordination nor greater act of Jurisdiction should pass without the Bishop's consent or concurrence which is all I shall pretend to and is certainly most necessary for preserving of Order and Peace from asserting that the sole power for these sâ—ands in the Bishops person And though I do hold it schismatical to ordain without a Bishop where he may be had yet I am not to annul these Ordinations that pass from Presbyters where no Bishop can be had and this lays no claim to a new Office but only to a higher degree of inspection in the same Office whereby the exercise of some acts of Iurisdiction are restrained to such a method and this may be done either by the Churches free consent or by the King's authority As for the consecration of Bishops by a new imposition of hands it doth not prove them a distinct Office being only a solemn benediction and separation of them for the discharge of that inspection committed to them and so we find Paul and Barnabas though before that they preached the Gospel yet when they were sent on a particular Commission to preach to the gentiles were blessed with imposition of hands Acts 13.3 which was the usual Ceremony of benediction Therefore you have no reason to quarrel this unless you apprehend their managing this oversight the worse that they are blessed in order to it nor can you quarrel the Office in the Liturgy if you do not think they will manage their power the worse if they receive a new effusion of the holy Ghost And thus you see how little ground there is for quarrelling Episcopacy upon such pretences Eud. I am truly glad you have said so much for confirming me in my kindness for that Government for if you evinces its lawfulness I am sure the expediency of that Constitution will not be difficult to be proved both for the tryal of Entrants and the oversight of these in Office for when any thing lyes in the hands of a multitude we have ground enough to apprehend what the issue of it will prove And what sorry overly things these tâ—yals of Entrants are all know â—ow little pains is taken to form their minds into a right sense of that function to which they are to be initiated at one step without either previous degree or mature tryal And here I must say the ruine of the Church springs hence that the passage to sacred Offices lyes so patent whereby every one leaps into them out of a secular life having all the train of his vanities passions and carnal designs about him and most part entering thus unpurified and unprepared what is to be expected from them but that they become idle vain and licentious or proud ambitious popular and covetous I confess things among us are not come to any such settlement as might give a provision against this But devise me one like a Bishop's Authority who shall not confer Orders to any before either himself or some other select and excellent persons on whom he may with confidence devolve that trust be well satisfied not only about the learning and abilities but about the temper the piety the humility the gravity and discretion of such as pretend to holy Orders And that some longer tryal be taken of them by the probationership of some previous degree Indeed the poverty of the Church which is not able to maintain Seminaries and Colledges of such Probationers renders this design almost impracticable But stretch your thoughts as far as your invention can send them and see if you can provide such an expedient for the reforming of so visible an abuse as were the Bishop's plenary authority to decide in this matter For if it lie in the hands of a Plurality the major part of these as of all mankind being acted by lower measures the considerations of Kinred alliance friendship or powerful recommendations will always carry through persons be they what they will as to their abilities and other qualifications And a multitude of Churchmen is less concerned in the shame can follow an unworthy promotion which every individual of such a company will be ready to bear off himself and fasten on the Plurality But if there were one to whom this were peculiarly committed who had authority to stop it till he were clearly convinced that the person to be ordained was one from whose labors good might be expected to the Church he could act more roundly in the matter and it may be presupposed that his condition setting him above these low consideâ—ations to which the inferiour Clergy are more obnoxious he would manage it with more caution as knowing that both before GOD and Man he must bear the blame of any unworthy promotion And as for these in Office can any thing be more rational than that the inspection into their labors their deportment their conversation and their dexterity in Preaching and Catechising be not done mutually by themselves in a parity wherein it is to be imagined that as they degenerate they will be very gentle to one another And when any inspection is managed by an equal it opens a door to faction envy and emulation neither are the private rebukes of an equal so well received nor will it be easie for one of a modest temper to admonish his fellow-Presbyter freely And yet how many things are there of which Churchmen have need to be admonished in the discharge of all the parts of their function especially when they set out first being often equally void of experience and discretion But what a remedy for all this may be expected from an excellent Bishop who shall either if his health and strength allow it be making excursions through his Diocese and himself observe the temper the labors and conversation of his Clergy or at least trust this to such as he hath reason to confide most in that so he may understand what admonitions directions and reproofs are to be given which might obviate a great many indiscretions and scandals that flow from Churchmen And the authority of such a person as it would more recommend the reproofs to these for whom they were meant so it could prevail to make them effectual by a following Censure if neglected If the confusion some keep matters in have hindered us for coming at a desired settlement the Office of Episcopacy is not to be blamed whose native tendency I have laid out before you and in a fair idea but in what was both the rule and practice of the ancient Church and wants not latter instances foâ— verifying it In a word I must tell you I am so far from apprehending danger to the Church from Bishops having too much power that I shall fear rather its slow recovery because they have too little which might be managed with all the meekness and humility
imaginable and indeed ought to be always accompanied with the advice and concurrence of the worthiest persons among the inferior Clergy But till you secure my fears of the greater part in all Societies becoming corrupt I shall not say by the major part of them but by the better part Isot. I see you run a high strain and far different from what was the discourse of this Countrey a year ago of an accommodation was inâ—ended wherein large offers seemed to be made but I now see by your ingenuous freedom that though for a while you who were called a great friend to that design were willing to yield up some parts of the Episcopal Grandeur yet you retain the â—oot of that Lordly ambition still in your heart and so though for some particular ends either to deceive or divide the LORDS people you were willing to make an appearance of yielding yet it was with a resolution of returning with the first opportunity to the old practices and designs of the Prelats of enhansing the Ecclesiastical Power to themselves and a few of their associats And this lets me see what reason all honest people have to bless GOD that these arts and devices took not for an Ethiopian cannot change his skin Phil. I confess to you freely I was a little satisfied with these condescentions as any of you and though they gave up the Rights of the Church to a peevish and preverse party whom gentleness will never gain and therefore am no less satisfied than you are that they did not take and so much the more that their refusing to accept of so large offers gave a new and clear character to the World of their temper and that it is a faction and the servile courting of a party which they design and not a strict adherence to the rules of conscience otherwise they had been more tractable Eud. Let me crave pardon to curb your humor a little which seems too near a kin to Isotimus his temper though under a different character For my part I had then the same sense of Episcopacy which I have just now owned But whâ—n I considered the ruines of Religion which our divisions occasioned among us and when I read the large offers S. Augustin made on the like occasion to the Donatists I judged all possible attempts even with the largest condescentions for an accommodation a worthy and pious design well becoming the gravity and moderation of a Bishop to offer and the nobleness of these in authority to second with their warmest endeavors for if it was blessed with success the effect was great even the setling of a broken and divided corner of the Church if it took not as it fully exonered the Church of the evils of the Schism so it rendered the enemies of Peace and Unity the more unexcusable Only I must say this upon my knowledg that whatever designs men of various sentiments fastened upon that attempt it was managed with as much ingenuity and sincerity as mortals could carry along with them in any purpose I know it is expected and desired that a full account of all the steps of that affair be made publick which a friend of ours drew up all along with the progress of it But at present my concern in one whom a late Pamphlet as full of falshoods in matters of fact as of weakness in point of reason hath mirepresented the case of Accommodation Page 31 shall prevail with me to give an account of a particular pasâ—ed in a Conference which a Bishop and two Presbyters had with about thirty of the Nonconformists at Pasley on the 14th of December in the year 1670. When the Bishop had in a long Discourse recommended Unity and Peace to them on the terms were offered he withal said much to the advantage of Episcopacy as he stated it from the rules and practices of the ancient Church offering to turn their Proâ—elyte immediately if they should give him either clear Scripture good reason or warrant from the most Primitive Antiquity against such Episcopacy And with other things he desired to know whether they would have joined in Communion with the Church at the time of the Council of Nice to carry them no higher or not for if they refused that he added he would have less heartiness to desire communion with them since of these he might say Let my soul be with theirs But to that a general answer was made by one who said He hoped they were not looked upon as either so weak or so wilful as to determine in so great a matter but upon good grounds which were the same that the asserters of Presbyterian Government had built on which they judged to be conform both to Scripture and Primitive Antiquity But for Scripture neither he nor any of the meeting offered to bring a Title only he alledged some differences betwixt the anciâ—nt Presidents as he called them and our Bishops But this was more fully enlarged by one who is believed to be among the most learned of the Party whose words with the answer given them I shall read to you as I take both from a Journal was drawn of that affair by one whose exactness and fidelity in it can be attested by some worthy spectators who read what he wrote after the Meeting was ended and Judged it not only faithful but often verbal And that he was so careful to evite the appearances of partiality that he seemed rather studious to be more copious in proposing what was said by these who differed from his opinion whereas he contracted much of what was said by these he favored The account follows Mr. said That he offered to make appear the difference was betwixt the present Episcopacy and what was in the ancient Church in â—ive particulars The first was that they had nâ— Archbishops in the Primitive Church It is true they had Metropolitans but in a Council oâ— Caâ—thage it was decreed that no Bishop should be â—allâ—d â—ummus Sacerdos or Princeps Sacerdoâ—um sed primae sedis Episcopus 2. The Bishops in the ancient Church were Parochial and not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in every Village 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for even in Bethany we find there was a Bishop 3. Two Bishops might be in one Church such was not to mention Alexander and Narcissus at Jerusalem Augustin who with Valerius was ordained Bishop of Hippo. 4. Bishops were elected by their Presbyters so Jerome tells us that in Alexandria the Presbyters choosed one of their number to be Bishop and finally the Bishops were countable to and censurable by their Presbyters for either this must have been otherwise they could not have been censured at all For though we meet with some Provincial Synods in Church History as that of Carthage in Cyprians time for the rebaptizing of hereticks and that at Antioch against Samoâ—atenus yet these instances were rare and recurred seldom therefore there must have been a power in Presbyters to have censured their