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
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
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
you may alledge in some corner of a Peter Martyr or some other Persons of less name for as from the same Writers other places may be brought to the contrary so what can these serve to enervate so much evident proof Besides we are not to consider the Writings of some particular Persons so much as what hath been the generally received opinion among the Protestant Writers and most taught in their Pulpits and Schools And whoever will attempt the contradicting that this hath been for absolute submission it must be confessed to be hard to determine whether his ignorance be most to be pitied or his confidence most wondered at By these things all may guess if there be not strong grounds to apprehend the Reformed Churches must be innocent of that which both their Confessions disown and their Writers condemn Isot. I confess the Author of the Dialogues did with great confidence undertake the refuting of what is generally acknowledged about resistance used by the Reformed Churches but his Answerer hath so refuted all he alledgeth from History that I am confident he repents of his undertaking and were it to be done again perhaps he would think on other tasks than to attempt what hath miscarried so in his hand that truly I cannot but pity him in my heart Eud. It will be strange if he be so much mistaken as your Author represents him yet his design in that was so good to deliver the Reformation from such a Challenge that methinks he deserved a little better usage than your Friend bestows on him But I am much deceived if he be not able to make good all was asserted by him let us therefore hear what Polyhistor saith on these matters Isot. Begin then with the matter of the Albigenses where force was used against Simon Montfort who had not only the permission of the French King as is acknowledged but was assisted by him by 15000. men which is vouched by some Authors Besides that the cruelties then used which are made use of to aggravate their not resisting the King of France if pertinently adduced prove the King of France guilty of accession to them And the Kings Son Prince Lewis coming with an Army afterward shews all to have been done by the Kings Command And what is alledged from the Count of Tolouse his being a Peer of France by which he was a Vassal and not a Subject is to no purpose since by the Feudal Law Vassals are Subjects and whatever authority they may have within their own Dominions they are still Subjects to the Lord of the Feud See p. 418. Poly. I shall not with big words blow away what you alledg but shall examine it from the accounts are given of that War It is true the Writers of that time do so strangely misrepresent these Innocents that little credit is due to most of the Histories about them but thus much is clear that the Waldenses were every where persecuted both in Dauphine Provence Piedmont Calabria Boheme and other places to which they scattered themselves and fled for shelter and notwithstanding all the Persecutions they lay under from the Inquisition in France they never armed against the King's authority These about Alby embracing the same Doctrine with the Waldenses and called from the Country they lived in Albigenses were thundered against by the Pope and a Iacobin Monk being killed in their Country Pope Innocent proclaimed a Crotsade promising Paradise to all who came and fought against these Hereticks and avenged the blood of that Monk and in particular suspecting Raymond Count of Tolouse he Excommunicated him and absolved his Subjects from their obedience permitting any to pursue his Person and possess his Lands with which he wrote to all Christian Princes to come into his Croisade But the King of France was imployed in Wars both with the Emperor and King of England and so could not join in it but gave way to his Barons to take the Cross And here the King consenting to so cruel an Invasion did undoubtedly shake much of his right to these Provinces since he thus exposed them to the fuâ—y of an unjust Invader so that tho they had absolutely rejected his Authority this had quadrated with the case of a Kings deserting of his Subjects However the War went on all managed by the Legate as the Popes war But Raymond came and submitted himself to the Pope yet the Legate went on against Beziers and Carcasson who had a great deal of reason to resist such an unjust Aggressor Afterwards the Legate gaping for the County of Tolouse picked another quarrel with Raymond and did excommunicate him of new tho he had got the Popes absolution whereupon he armed with the assistance of the King of Arragon against the Legate and his General Simon Montfort but afterwards the King of Arragon was defeated yet all this while the King of France lay neutral and would not permit his Son to go against the Albigenses because he had promised to the King of Arragon to be neutral but the King of Arragon being dead he gave way to it and so his Son came to the Army and this must be that which Gulielmus Brito confounds with the beginning of the War This also is that Affair which the Centuriators say Philippus Augustus had with the Albigenses But the Legate fearing the numbers Prince Lewis brought with him and apprehending he might have possessed himself of the other places which belonged to the Albigenses granted them all absolution with the protection of the Church and assumed the confidence to tell the Prince that since he had taken the Cross he was to depend on his Orders he representing the Pope and not to command in that Army as the Kings Son reproaching him because his Father had given no assistance to the destruction of the Albigenses when there was need of it but that after the miraculous Victories had been obtained he was now come to reap the Harvest of what was due to them who had hazarded their lives for the Church And for all this I refer you to the History of the Albigenses compiled by M. Perrin lib. 1. cap. 12 c. But what if by an overplus I should justifie the Count of Tolouse tho he had armed against the King of France upon the account of his being a Peer of France which exempted him from the condition of ordinary Subjects of whom Pasquier Recherches de France lib. 2. cap. 8 saith It was the vulgar Opinion that they were constituted by Charles the Great who is believed to have given them almost as much authority as himself had reserving only to himself the principal voice in the Chapter but he refutes that vulgar Error and shews how in the end of the Carolovingian Race great confusions were in France partly through the various Pretenders but more through their folly at which time the Crown of France did likewise become Elective and he shews how Eude Robert Raoul Lewis surnamed beyond the Sea Lot
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.
minds from the fâ—llowship of the Saints But on the other hand great caution must be had by all Subjects on what grounds they refuse obedience to the Laws that so they be not found following their own designs and interests under a colour of adhering firmly to their consciences They must deliver themselves from all prepossessions and narrowly examine all things ere they adventure on refusing obedience to the Laws But now consider if an unjust motive or narrative in a Law deliver tender consciences from an obligation to obey it or not Basil. If the Magistrate do couple his motive and narrative with our obedience so that we cannot do the one without a seeming consent to the other then certainly we are not to obey For actions being often signs of the thoughts an action how indifferent soever if declared a sign of concurring in a sinful design makes us guilty in so far as we express our concurrence by a sign enjoyned for that end But if the motive or narrative be simply an account of the Magistrates own thoughts without expressing that obedience is to be understood as a concurrence in such intentions then we are to obey a lawful command tho enacted upon a bad design For we must obey these in Authority ever till they stand in competition with GOD. If then their Laws contradict not GOD's Precepts neither in their natural nor intended siâ—nification they are to be obeyed whatever the grounds were for enacting them which is only the Magistrates deed for which he shall answer to GOD. Poly. This calls me to mind of two Stories not impertinent to this purpose The one is of Iulian the Apostate who to entangle the Christians that never scrupled the bowing to the Emperors Statue as a thing lawful caused to set up his with the Images of some of the Gods about it that such as bowed to it might be understood as likewise bowing to the Images which abused some of the simpler but the more discerning refused to bow at all to those Statues because he intended to expound that innocent bowing to his Statue as an adoration of the Gods about it A Christian likewise being brought to the King of Persia did according to the Law bow before him but when he understood that to be exacted as a divine Honor to the King he refused it Eud. This is clear enough that all actions are as they are understood and accordingly to be performed or surceased from But it seems more difficult to determine what is to be done in case a Magistrate enact wicked Laws Are not both his Subjects bound to refuse obedience and the Heads of the Church and the watchmen of Souls likewise to witness against it And may they not declare openly their dislike of such Laws or practices and proceed against him with the censures of the Church since as to the Censures of the Church we see no reason why they should be dispensed with respect of persons which S. Iames condemns in all Church Judicatories Basil. I shall not need to repeat what hath been so often said that we must obey GOD rather than man if then the Magistrates enjoyn what is directly contrary to the divine Law all are to refuse obedience and watchmen ought to warn their Flocks against such hazards and such as can have admittance to their Princes or who have the charge of their Consciences ought with a great deal of sincere freedom as well as humble duty represent the evil and sinfulness of such Laws but for any Synodical Convention or any Declaration against them no warrant for that doth appear and therefore if the Magistrate shall simply discharge all Synods I cannot see how they can meet without sin But for Parochial meetings of Christians for a solemn acknowledgment of GOD such Assemblings for divine Worship being enjoined both by the Laws of Nature and Nations and particularly commanded in the Gospel no consideration can free Christians from their Obligation thus to assemble for Worship if then the Magistrate should discharge these or any part of them such as Prayer Praisâ—s and reading of Scriptures preaching the Gospel or the use of the Sacraments they are notwithstanding all that to be continued in But for the consultative or directive Government of the Church till a divine Command be produced for Synods or Discipline it cannot lawfully be gone about without or against his authority Crit. For refusing obedience to an unjust command of surceasing visible Worship the instance of Daniel is signal who not only continued his adorations to GOD for all Darius his Law but did it openly and avowedly that so he might own his subjection to GOD. But for reproving Kings we see what caution was to be observed in it since GOD sent Prophets with express Commissions for it in the Old Testament and Samuel notwithstanding this severe message to Saul yet honored him before his people It is true there should be no respect of persons in Christian Judicatories but that is only to be understood of these who are subject to them and how it can agree to the King who is Supream to be a Subject is not easily to be comprehended Since then honor and obedience is by divine precept due to Magistrates nothing that invades that honor or detracts from that obedience can be lawfully attempted against them such as is any Church-censure or excommunication And therefore I cannot see how that practice of Ambrose upon Theodosius or other later instances of some Bishops of Rome can be reconciled to that Render fear to whom fear and honor to whom honor is due Phil. I am sure their practice is far less justifiable who are always preaching about the Laws and times to the people with virulent reflections on King Parliament and Council much more such as not content with flying discourses do by their writings which they hope shall be longer lived study the vilifying the persons and affronting the authority of these GOD hath set over them And how much of this stuff the Press hath vented these thirty years by past such as knew the late times or see their writings can best judge Eud. Now our discourse having dwelt so long upon generals is to descend to particulars That we may examine whether upon the grounds hitherto laid down the late tumults or the present Schisms and divisions can be justified or ought to be censured I know this is a nice point and it is to be tenderly handled lest all that shall be said be imputed to the suggestions of passions and malice Wherefore let me intreat you who are to bear the greater part of that discourse to proceed in it calmly that it may appear your designs are not to lodge infamy on any party or person but simply to lay out things as they are hoping withal that you will not take your informations of what you say from the tatles of persons concerned but will proceed on true and sure grounds And that we may return to this with
ought to be much more determined by the Laws of the Land which in all such matters have a power to bind our consciences to their obedience till we prove the matter of them sinful Now discover where the guilt lyes of fixing one over a Tract of ground who shall have the chief inspection of the Ministery and the greatest Authority in matters of Jurisdiction so that all within that Precinct be governed by him with the concurring votes of the other Presbyters if you say that thereby the Ministers may be restrained of many things which otherwise the good of the Church requires to be done I answer these are either things necessary to be done by divine precept or not if the former then since no power on earth can cancel the Authority of the divine Law such restraints are not to be considered But if the things be not necessary then the Unity and Peace of the Church is certainly preferable to them I acknowledge a Bishop may be tyrannical and become a great burden to his Presbyters but pray may not the same be apprehended from Synods And remember your friends how long it is since they made the same complaints against the Synods and the hazard of an ill Bishop is neither so fixed nor so lasting as that of a bad Synod For a Bishop may die and a good one succeed but when a Synod is corrupt they who are the major part are careful to bring in none but such as are sure to their way whereby they propagate their corruption more infallibly than a Bishop can do And what if the Lay ruling Elders should bend up the same plea against the Ministers who do either assume a Negative over them directly or at least do what is equivalent and carry every thing to the Presbytery Synod or General Assembly where they are sure to carry it against the Lay-Elders they being both more in number and more able with their learning and eloquence to confound the others But should a Lay-Elder plead thus against them We are Office-Bearers instituted by CHRIST for ruling the flock as well as you and yet you take our power from us for whereas in our Church Sessions which are of CHRIST's appointment we are the greater number being generally twelve to one you Ministers have got a device to turn us out of the power for you allow but one of us to come to your Synods and Presbyteries and but one of a whole Presbytery to go to a National Synod whereby you strike the rest of us out of our power and thus you assert a preeminence over us to carry matters as you please Now Isotimus when in your principles you answer this I will undertake on all hazards to satisfie all you can say even in your own principles Next may not one of the Congregational way talk at the same rate and say CHRIST hath given his Office-Bearers full power to preach feed and oversee the flock and yet for all that their power of overseeing is taken from them and put in the hands of a multitude who being generally corrupt themselves and lusting to envy will suffer none to outstrip them but are tyrannical over any they see minding the work of the Gospel more than themselves And must this usurpation be endured and submitted to And let me ask you freely what imaginable device will be fallen upon for securing the Church from the tyranny of Synods unless it be either by the Magistrates power or by selecting some eminent Churchmen who shall have some degrees of power beyond their brethren In a word I deny not but as in Civil Governments there is no form upon which great inconveniences may not follow so the same is unavoidable in Ecclesiastical Government But as you will not deny Monarchy to be the best of Governments for all the hazards of tyranny from it so I must crave leave to have the same impressions of Episcopacy Crit. But suffer me to add a little for checking Isotimus his too positive asserting of parity from the New Testament for except he find a precept for it his Negative Authority will never conclude it and can only prove a parity lawful and that imparity is not necessary I shall acknowledge that without Scripture warrants no new Offices may be instituted but without that in order to Peace Unity Decency and Edification several ranks and dignities in the same Office might well have been introduced whereby some were to be empowered either by the Churches choice or the Kings Authority as Overseers or inspectors of the rest who might be able to restrain them in the exercise of some parts of their functions which are not immediatly commanded by GOD. And you can never prove it unlawful that any should oversee direct and govern Churchmen without you prove the Apostolical function unlawful for what is unlawful and contrary to the rules of the Gospel can upon no occasion and at no time become lawful since then both the Apostles and the Evangelists exercised Authority over Presbyters it cannot be contrary to the Gospel rules that some should do it To pretend that this superiority was for that exigent and to die with that age is a mere allegation without ground from Scripture for if by our LORD's words it shall not be so among you all superiority among Churchmen was forbid how will you clear the Apostles from being the first transgressors of it And further if upon that exigent such superiority was lawful then upon a great exigent of the Church a superiority may be still lawful Besides it is asserted not proved that such an authority as S. Paul left with Timothy and Titus was to die with that age for where the reason of an appointment continues it will follow that the Law should also be coeval with the ground on which it was first enacted if then there be a necessity that Churchmen be kept in order as well as other Christians and if the more exalted their office be they become the more subject to corruption and corruptions among them be both more visible and more dangerous than they are in other persons the same parity of reason that enjoyns a Jurisdiction to be granted to Churchmen over the faithful will likewise determine the fitness of granting some excrescing power to the more venerable and approved of the Clergy over others neither is this a new Office in the House of GOD but an eminent rank of the same Office Isot. You study to present Episcopacy in as harmless a posture as can be yet that it is a distinct Office is apparent by the sole claim of Ordination and Iurisdiction they pretend to and by their consecration to it which shews they account it a second Order besides that they do in all things carry as these who conceit themselves in a Region above the Presbyters Phil. I am not to vindicate neither all the practices nor all the pretensions of some who have asserted this Order no more than you will do the
A VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE CHURCH AND STATE OF SCOTLAND IN FOUR CONFERENCES Wherein the Answer to the Dialogues betwixt the Conformist and the Non-conformist is examined By GILBERT BURNET Professor of Theology in Glasgow GLASGOW By ROBERT SANDERS Printer to the City and University M. DC LXXIII TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF LAUDERDALE c. HIS MAJESIES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND MAY IT PLEASE YOUR GRACE The noble Character which you do now so worthily bear together with the more lasting and inward Characters of Your Princely mind did set me beyond doubting to whom this Address was to be made For to whom is a vindication of the Authority and Laws of this Kingdom so due as to Your Grace to whom His Majesty hath by a Royal Delegation committed the administration of Affairs among us and under whose wise and happy conduct we have enjoyed so long a tract of uninterrupted tranquillity But it is not only Your illustrious quality that entitles You to this Dedication No Great Prince greater in Your mind than by Your fortune there is somewhat more inward to You than the gifts of fortune which as it proues her not blind in this instance so commands all the respect can be payed Your Grace by such who are honoured with so much knowledg of You as hath fallen to the happy share of Your poorest servant But My Lord since all I can say either of the vast endowments of Your Mind or of the particular engagements I lie under to honour You must needs fall short of my sense of both and what is just to be said is not fit for me to express the least appearances of flattery being as unpleasant to You as unbecoming one of my Station I must quit this Theme which is too great for me to manage and only add that I know Your understanding in such debates as are here managed to be so profound and your judgment so well balanced that as You deservedly pass for a Master in all learning so if these Sheets be so happy as to be well accounted of by You I shall the less value or apprehend the snarlings of all Censurers I pretend not by prefixing so great a Name to these Conferences to be secure from Censure by Your Patrociny since these Enemies of all Order and Authority with whom I deal will rather be provoked from that to lash me with the more severity I shall not to this add my poor thoughts of what this time and the tempers of those with whom we deal seems to call for since by so doing I should become more ridiculous than Phormio was when he entertained the redoubted Hannibal with a pedantick discourse of a Generals conduct It is from Your Graces deep judgment and great experience that we all expect and long for a happy settlement wherein that success and blessings may attend Your endeavours shall be prayed for more earnestly by none alive than by May it please YOUR GRACE Your Graces most humble most faithful and most obliged servant G. BURNET TO THE READER HOW sad but how full a Commentary doth the age we live in give on these words of our Lord Luke 12.49 I am come to send fire on the earth suppose you that I am come to give peace on the earth I tell you nay but rather division for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided Do we not see the Father divided against the Son and the Son against the Father and engaging into such angry heats and mortal feuds upon colors of Religion as if the seed of the Word of GOD like Cadmus teeth had spawned a generation of cruel and bloud-thirsty men But how surprizing is the Wonder when Religion becomes the pretence and seems to give the rise to these animosities since the wisdom and goodness of GOD hath devised nothing more proper and powerful for over-ruling all the secret passions of the mind and for mortifying of all boisterous disorders The Doctrine delivered by our meek and lowly Master teacheth us the great Lessons of humility of self-diffidence and self-contempt guards against the undervaluing of others and the over-rating of our selves gives check to wrath anger emulation and envy hatred and malice railing and censuring And in a word designs the moulding our natures into a conformity with its blessed Author who when he was reviled reviled not again but practised without a blemish those great Lessons he taught his Disciples of doing good for evil loving his Enemies and praying for such as despitefully used him But how far have we fallen from that lovely Pattern And how is the serene and peaceable visage of Christianity transformed into a sour cankered and surly temper as if that which obliged us to love all men should engage us to look morose on all but a handful of a party and that which should dilate our love to all mankind is given for a ground of contracting it to a few as ill natured as our selves Is there not a generation among us who highly value themselves and all of their own form but whoso differs from them is sure of their fiercest spite and bitterest Censures Are the lives of such as differ from them vertuous then they say they are good moral men But alas they know not what it is to be spiritual Again are they devout and grave then they are called Monastick people Juglers or Papists And if nothing can be fastened on them the charge of hypocrisie is the last shift of malice Or if they have been guilty of any failings and mistakes they are so far from covering or disguising of them that on the contrary the relating the aggravating and the commenting on these is the main subject of all their discourses And if they go on a Visit the first Civilities are scarce over when these Stories true or false all is to one purpose come to make up their conversation Who can have the least tincture of the Christian Spirit and look on without sad regrates and see this bitter fierce and cruel venom poisoning the several Sects and divisions of Christendom The root and spring whereof is no other than a carnal proud and unmortified temper for few are so Atheistical but they desire to pass both in their own account and in the opinion of others for good Christians but when they find how hard a thing it is to be a Christian indeed and that they must mortifie all their carnal appetites their fierce passions and swellings of pride despise the world and be resigned in all things to the Will of GOD before they can deserve that noble Character then they pursue another method more grateful to their corrupt minds which is to list themselves under a party to cherish and value the Heads and Leaders of it and to divide their kindness to all of their stamp they stifly adhere to the forms and maintain all the humors and opinions of that Party to which they have associated themselves
and they whet their Spirits and sharpen their Tongues against all of another mould which some do with an undisguised fierceness Other with a visage of more gravity by which they give the deeper wounds What sad effects flow from this Spirit is too visible and I love not to play the Diviner or to presage all the mischief it threatens but certain it is that the great business of Religion lies under an universal neglect while every one looks more abroad on his Neighbor than inwardly on himself and all stâ—dy more the advancement of a Party than the true interest of Religion I deny not but zeal for GOD must appear when we see indignities done to his holy Name in a just indignation at these who so dishonour him but what relation have little small differences about matters which have no tendency for advancing the Image of GOD in our Souls to that since both sides of the debate may be well maintained without the least indignity done to GOD or his holy Gospel What opposition to the Will of GOD or what harm to Souls can flow from so innocent a practice as the fixing some Churchmen over others for observing directing reproving and coercing of the rest that this should occasion such endless brawlings and such hot contentions But supposing the grounds of our divisions as great as any angry Disputer can imagine them then certainly our zeal for them should be tempered according to the Rules and Spirit of the Gospel Is it a Christian temper that our spirits should boil with rage against all of another persuasion so that we cannot think of them without secret commotions of anger and disdain which breaks often out into four looks ridiculous â—earings bitter scoffings and invectives and in attempts at bloud and cruelty How long shall our Nadabs and Abâ—hus burn this wild-fire on the Altar of GOD whose flames should be peaceful and such as descend from Heaven When we see any endangering their Souls by erroneous Opinions or bad practices had we the divine Spirit in us it would set us to our secret mournings for them our hearts would melt in compassion towards them and not burn in rage against them and we would attempt for their recovery and not contrive their 〈◊〉 The â—ne bears on it a clear impress of that nature which is Love in which none can have interest or union but such as dwell and abide in Love but the other bears on it the lively signature of him that was a murderer from the beginning and all that is mischievous or cruel is of that evil one and tends to the subversion of mankind as well as the ruin of true Religion Another great Rule by which the Peace and Order of all human Societies is maintained and advanced is obedience to the Laws and submission to the Authority of these whom GOD hath set over us to govern and defend us to whose Commands if absolute Obedience be not payed ever till they contradict the Laws of GOD there can be neither peace nor order among men as long as every one prefers his own humour or inclination to the Laws of the Society in which he lives Now it cannot be denied to be one of the sins of the age we live in that small regard is had to that authority GOD hath committed to his Vicegerents on earth The evidence whereof is palpable since the bending or slackening of the execution of Laws is made the measure of most mens Obedience and not the conscience of that duty we owe the commands of our Rulers for what is more servile and unbecoming a man not to say a Christian than to yield Obedience when over-awed by force and to leap from it when allured by gentler methods If Generosity were our principle we should be sooner vanquished by the one than cudgelled by the other Or if Conscience acted us the Obligation of the Law would equally bind whether backed with a strict Execution or slackened into more impunity Hence it appears how few there are who judg themselves bound to pay that reverence to the Persons and that Obedience to the Commands of these GOD hath vested with his Authority which the Laws of Nature and Religion do exact And the root of all this disobedience and contempt can be no other but unruly and ungoverned pride which disdains to submit to others and exalts it self above these who are called Gods The humble are tractable and obedient but the self willed are stubborn and rebellious Yet the height of many mens pride rests not in a bare disobedience but designs the subverting of Thrones and the shaking of Kingdoms unless governed by their own measures Among all the Heresies this age hath spawned there is not one more contrary to the whole design of Religion and more destructive of mankind than is that bloudy Opinion of defending Religion by Arms and of forcible resistance upon the colour of preserving Religion The wisdom of that Policy is â—â—â—hly senâ—â—al and devillish favoring of a carnal unmortified and impatient mind that cannot bear the Cross nor trust to the Providence of GOD and yet with how much zeal is this doctrine maintained and propagated as if on it hung both the Law and the Prophets Neither is the zeal used for its defence only meant for the vindicating of what is past but on purpose advanced for re-acting the same Tragedies which some late villanous attempts have too clearly discovered some of these black Arts tho written in white being by a happy providence of GOD by the intercepting of R. Mac his Letters which contained not a few of their rebellious practisings and designs brought to light Indeed the consideration of these evils should call on all to reflect on the sad posture wherein we are and the evident signatures of the Divine displeasure under which we lâ—e from which it appears that GOD hath no pleasure in 〈◊〉 nor will be glorified among us that so we may discern the signs of the times and by all these sad indications may begin to appehend our danger and â—o turn to GOD with our whole hearts every one repenting of the works of his hands and contributing his prayers and endeavours for a more general Reformation It is not by Political Arts nor by the execution of penal Laws that the power of Religion can be recovered from these decays under which it hath so long suffered No no we must consider wherein we have provoked GOD to chastise us in this fashion by letting loose among us a Spirit of uncharitableness giddiness cruelty and sedition And the progress of these and other great evils we ought to charge on our own faultiness who have provoked GOD to plead a Controversie with us in so severe a manner This is the method we ought to follow which if we did we might sooner look for the Divine protection and assistance and then we should experience it to be better to put our confidence in GOD than to put our confidence in
easily off I have subjoyned to it an account of the form and rules of Church Government as I found them to have been received in the first and purest ages of the Church But I add no more for Preface to that work since in the end of the last Conference enough is said for introduction to it I have divided my work in four parts and Conferences The first examines the opinion of resisting lawful Magistrates upon the pretence of defending Religion The second considers the Authority of Laws and the obedience due to them together with the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical The third examines the spirit that acted during the late times and Wars and continues yet to divide us by Schism and faction And the fourth examines the lawfulness and usefulness of Episcopacy I must now release my Reader from the delay this Introduction may have occasioned him without the usual formality of Apologies for the defects the following papers are guilty of since I know these generally prevail but little for gaining what they desire but shall only say that this morose way of writing by engaging into Controversies is as contrary to my Genius as to any mans alive For I know well how little such writings prevail for convincing of any and that by them the most part are rather hardened into more wilfulness and exasperated into more bitterness Yet for this once I was prevailed on to do violence to my own inclinations by this Patrociny of the authority and laws of that Church and Kingdom wherein I live I am so far from thinking my self concerned to make Apology for the slowness of this Piece its appearance in publick that I encline rather to make excuses for its coming abroad too soon That it was ready near a twelve-month ago can be witnessed by many who then saw it Yet I was willing to let it lye some time by me and my aversion from the motions of the Press put it often under debate with me whether I should stifle it or give it vent at length I yielded to the frequent importunities of my friends who assaulted me from all hands and told me how much it was longed for and what insultings were made upon the delay of its publication And by what is near the end of the third Conference it will appear that it was written before the discovery of these who had robbed and wounded the Ministers in the West of Scotland I let what is there said continue as it was written before the discovery but shall add somewhat here In September last after a new robbery had been committed on another conformable Minister whose actors no search could discover some few days had not passed over when by a strange Providence one of them was catched on another account by a brave Soldier and being seized such indications of his accession to the robbery were found about him that he to prevent torture confessed not only his own guilt but discovered a great many more most of them escaped yet three were taken and had Justice done on them with him who had been their chief Leader and who continued to cant it out highly after he got his Sentence talking of his blood as innocently shed and railing against the Prelats and Curats though before Sentence he was basely sordid as any could be One of his complices who died with more sense acknowledged when he spake his last words that bitter zeal had prompted him to that villany and not covetousness or a design of robbing their goods Yet I shall not conceal what I was a witness to when a Minister of the Presbyterian perswasion being with them for two of them would willingly admit of none that were Episcopal after he had taken pains to convince the chief Robber of the atroâ—iousness of his crimes which was no â—asie task he charged him to discover if either Gentlemen or Ministers had prompted or cherished him in it or been conscious to his committing these robberies he cleared all except a few particular and mean persons who went sharers with him And by this fair and ingenuous procedure the Reader may judge how far the Author is from a design of lodging infamy on these who differ from him when of his own accord he offers a testimony for their vindication But I shall leave this purpose and the further prefacing at once If my poor labors be blessed with any measure of success I humbly offer up the praise of it to him fâ—om whom I derive all I have and to whom I owe the praise of all I can do But if these attempts bring forth none of the wished-for effects I shall have this satisfaction that I have sincerely and seriously studied the calming the passions and the clearing the mistakes of these among whom I live so that more lyes not on me but to follow my endeavours with my most earnest prayers that the GOD of Peace may in this our day cause us discern and consider these things which belong to our Peace THE HEADS TREATED OF in these Conferences THe first Conference examines the origine and power of Magistracy and whether Subjects may by arms resist their Sovereigns on the account or pretence of defending Religion against Tyranny and unjust oppression And whether the King of Scotland be a Sovereign Prince or limited so that he may be called to account and coerced by force The second examines the nature of humane Laws and of the obedience due to them and the Civil Magistrates Right of enacting Laws in matters Ecclesiastical The third examines the grounds and progress of the late Wars whether they were Defensive or Invasive and what Spirit did then prevail And the grounds of our present Schiâ—m are considered The fourth examines the origine lawfulness and usefulness of Episcopal Government which is concluded with an account of the Primiâ—ive Constitution and Government of the Churches that were first gathered and planted The COLLOCUTORS Eudaimon A Moderate man Philarchaeus An Episcâ—pal man Isotimus A Presbyterian Basilius An Asserter of the Kings Authority Criticus One well studied in Scripture Polyhistor An Historian The FIRST CONFERENCE Eudaimon YOU are welcome my good Friends and the rather that you come in such a number whereby our converse shall be the more agreeable Pray sit down Philarcheus The rules of Custom should make us begin with asking after your Health and what News you have Eud. Truly the first is not worth enquiring after and for the other you know how seldom I stir abroad and how few break in upon my retirement so that you can expect nothing from me but you have brought one with you who uses to know every thing that is done Isotimus I know you mean me the truth is I am very glad to hear every thing that passeth and think it no piece of Virtue to be so unconcerned in what befals the Church of GOD as never to look after it but you are much wronged if notwithstanding all your seeming abstraction you be
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
the Doctrine of absolute submission God had appeared for them in such a signal manner to the conviction and horror of their Persecutors I confess there is no piece of Story I read with such pleasure as the accounts are given of these Martyrs for methinks they leave a fervor upon my mind which I meet with in no study that of the Scriptures being only excepted Say not then they were not able to have stood to their own defence when it appears how great their numbers were Or shall I here tell you the known Story of the Thebean Legion which consisted of 6666. who being by Maximinus Herculeus an 287. pressed in the Oath they gave the Emperor to swear upon the Altars of the Idols withdrew from the Camp eight miles off and when he sent to invite them to come and swear as the others had done they who commanded them answered in all their names That they were ready to return and fight stoutly against the Barbarians but that being Christians they would never worship the Gods Whereupon the Emperor caused tith them which they received with such joy that every one desired the lot might fall on himself And this prevailing nothing on them he tithed them a second time and that being also without effect he caused to murder them all to which they submitted without resistance And it is not to be denied but such a number being driven to such despair and having so much courage as to dare to die in cold bloud might have stood to their defence a great while and at least sold their lives at a dear rate especially they having got off eight miles from the Army Were it my design to back these instances with the great authorities of the most eminent Writers of the Church in these times I should grow too tedious but this is so far from being denied that the only way to escape so strong an assault is to study to detract from these holy Men by enquiring into any over-reachings to which their fervor might have engaged them Isot. All their practices are not binding upon us for many of them did precipitate themselves into hazards others were against flight others against resisting of private assailants who without warrant came to murder them therefore the Spirit that acted in them tho it produced effects highly to the honour of the Gospel is not to be imitated by us yet on the other hand I acknowledg we ought to be slow to judg them One thing is observable that Maximinus was resisted by the Armenians when he intended to set up Idolatry among them Constantine also invaded Licinius when he persecuted the Christians in the East and the Persians when persecuted by their King implored the help of the Roman Emperor Besides I have seen a Catalogue of many instances of resistance used in some Cities when their good Bishops were forced away from them which shews they were not so stupid as you design to represent them See pag. 29 c. and Ius populâ— at length Basil. It is certain all Christians have one Law and Rule and the Laws of Nature are eternal and irreversible if then the Law of Nature engage us to self-defence it laid the same ties on them therefore except you turn Enthusiast you must say thâ—t what is a Duty or a sin now was so then likewise and so you must either charge that Clâ—ud of Witnesses with brutish stupidity otherwise acuse our late forwardness of unjust resistance since one Rule was given to both and contradicting practices can never be adjusted to the same Rule And for these invidious aspersions you would fasten on them as if they had not undeâ—stood their own Liberties they are but poor escapes for it being already made out that violent resistance even of an equal is not a Law but a â—ight of Nature if they thought it more for the glory of the Gospel to yield even to private injuries who are we to tax them for it But for flying from the Persecutors it is true Tertullian condemned it but that was neither the opinion nor practice of the Châ—istians in these Ages As for what you alledg about the resistance made by the Armenians to Maximinus I wish your friend had vouched his Author for what he saith of them for I am confident he is not so impudent as to prove a matter of fact done twelve Ages ago by a Writer of this Age. All I can meet with about that is from Euschius lib. 9. cap. 6. who tells That in these times the Tyrant made War against the Armenians men that had been of old Friends and Auxiliaries to the Romans whom because they were Christians and were pious and zealously studious about divine matters that hater of GOD intending to force to worship the false Gods and Devils made to become Enemies instead of Friends and Adversaries instead of Auxiliaries And in the beginning of the next Chapter he tells how in that War he and his Army received a great defeat Now how you will infer from this that Subjects may resist their Sovereign for Religion I see not for these Armenians were his Confederates and noâ— his Subjects and it is clear by the account Eusebius gives that Armenia was not a Province nor governed by a Prefect as were the Provinces Besides consider how Maximinus came in the fag-end of that great persecution begun by Dioclesian and Herculius continued by Galâ—rius and consummated by Maximinus himself in which for all the numbers of the Martyrs and the cruelty of the Persecution there was not so much as a Tumult which makes it evident the Christians at that time understood not the Doctrine of Resistance But the Armenians case varying from that of Subjects it was free for them to resist an unjust Invader who had no Title to their Obedience For your Story of Licinius the true account of it will clear mistakes best as it is given by Eus. 10. cap. 5. Constantine after he turned Christian being then Emperor of the West called for Licinius whom Galerius had made Emperor in the East and they both from Millain gave out Edicts in favour of the Christians giving them absolute liberty and discharging all persecution on that account which is reckoned to have been in the year 313. afterwards he allied with Licinius and gave him his Sister in marriage and acknowledged him his Colleague in the Empire But some years after that Wars arose betwixt them which Zosimus and Eutropius impute to Constantine's ambition and impatience of a Rival but if we believe the account Eusebius gives of it Licinius provoked with envy at Constantine and forgetting the Laws of Nature the bonds of Oaths alliance and agreement raised a pestiferous and cruel War against him and laid many designs and snaâ—es for his destruction which he attempted long by secret and fraudulent ways but these were always by GOD's Providence discovered and so Constantine escaped all his designed mischief At length Licinius finding his secret Arts did
have regard to you And he adds How far he had been always from such Practices and how God had blessed his woâ—k in his hands but for you you advert not how much you obstruct that which you think to promove These are a few of Luther's words by which it will appear both upon what pretences theâ—e Bâ—ures went and what his sense of them was But I know it will be said that as in the first ages of the Church these good simple men understood not their Liberties nor Privileges but were wheeâ—led into a sheepish tameness so likewise when the Reâ—oâ—mation was fiâ—st spâ—inging they â—â—d not in that infancy understand the heroick doctrine that the following ripeness of some Martial Spirits did broach and maintain Alas Luther poor Man he had been bred in his Monastery and understood not the brave Atchievements of Christian Chivalry But who would bear with such disingenuity as to say that because he defines Sedition to be private revenge and afterwards condemns private revenge therefore he must be understood as only condemning that pag 432. But as none that reads Sleydan daâ—e say that I have alledged one word in Luther's name but what is faithfully translated out of these Writings so the parcels I have here inserted will clearly discover that Rebellion to have been coloured over with the pâ—etence of Oppression Persecution and hindering the Doctrine of the Gospel and Luther's opinion in that must not be looked upon as only his private sense but that which was undoubâ—eâ—â—y received by the rest of the Protestants in Germany as appears by the series of the Story And whatever passion Luther might have expressed that will no more brangle what I say than any of his other unjustifiable fâ—rvâ—â—s will shake the rest of his Doctrine For I do not adduce him here only as a private Doctor speaking his single thoughts but as the Head of the Protestants delivering a Doctrine which was then received among them Isot. But he afterwards changed his Opinion when the League of Smalcald was entred into and then we find the Protestants in another tune for upon apprehensions of mischief designed against them they entred into a defensive League among themselves tho the Constitution of the Empire being feudal the Emperor was their Sovereign yet both Princes and free Cities entred into this League which afterwards broke out into War See p 433. Poly. Before I examine that Affair I must first clear the way by removing a mistake which truly I judged none capable of that had ever read any thing of the Constitution of the German Empire or of the Power of the Electors Princes and free Cities I must therefore since I have to do with so much ignorance or perversness shew that the Emperor is not Sovereign in Germany though the thing is so plain that I am almost ashamed to go about it The German Empire was hereditary from the days of Charles the Great till Henry the Fowler and then it begun to be Elective and as is usual in all such cases they who had the right of Election got by degrees the authority transferred upon themselves but the particular time when this begun is not so clearly defined by the German Writers It is true the Diet of Germany is not like the League of the United Provinces or of the Cantons of Switzerland where the Authority remains with the several States and Cantons and they only meet for Counsel but the Diet hath the supreme Authority both of deposing of Emperors as was practised in the case of Adolphus and Wenceslaus and of fining banishing and forfeiting either Princes or Cities And the Princes declare after the Emperor is Crowned that they are the Vassals of the Empire and not of the Emperor and when the Diet sits not all things are judged by the Imperial Chamber whose President must be a Prince of the Empire who hath six Assessors from the Emperor seven from the seven Electors twenty from the ten Circles two from each of them and by them all the differences among the Princes or Members of the Empire are decided Upon greater occasions the Diet is called which Thuan compares to the Assembly of the Amphictyons in Greece that was made up of Princes who had no dependence one upon another The Diet is not called by the Emperor but by the Decree of a former Diet or if the Emperor call one the Princes are not bound to come to it And so the Princes refused to come Anno 1554. and An. 1506. By the Diet Laws are given to the Emperour as well as to the other Princes and any Mony is â—â—â—sed for the use of the Empire is not put in the Emperors hands but in the bank of some Town as shall be agreed on Bodin tells he saw Letters from a German Prince to Mâ—nmorancy telling him that the King of France had reason to complain of Charles the Fifth and of his Brother to the Duke of Saxony and the Count Palatine who were the Vicars of the Empire because they had contrary to the Laws of the Empire and former Customs suppressed the Kings Letters to the States of the Empire And Maximilian the first in a Diet at Constance Anno 1507. acknowledged that the Majesty of the German Empire consisted in the Princes and not in the Emperor himself I might here add much from the way of the Emperors treating with the Princes by sending and receiving of Ambassadors that go betwixt them by the state in which he receives Visits from them and returns them to them by the Princes treating and being treated with by all forein Princes who write to them Brother and not Cousin by their making of Peace and War among themselves and should indeed run out into a long digâ—ession if I adduced all might be alledged for proving the Princes of the Empire to be none of the Emperors Subjects but I have no mind to engage in a vain shew of reading upon so plain a Subject One thing I shall only add that by the 12. Chapter of the Bulla Aurea it is expresly provided that the Electors shall meet together yearly in the four weeks that follow Easter for consulting about the Affairs of the Empire and this is thus explained in the 4th Article of the Cesarean Capitulation That it shall be free for the six Electors by the vigor of the Bulla Aurea to meet together as often as they please for consulting about the Commonwealth and that the Emperour shall make no hinderance to it nor take it in ill part And hence it is that these who give account of the state of the Empire laugh at their ignorance who through a childish mistake ascribe the Sovereign Power to the Emperor The same may be added of the free Cities united together by a League at least 500 years old called the Hanse-towns who came under the protection of the Master of the Teutâ—â—â—â—k Order that possessed Prusse and an 1206 they were so free that they sent a
deposed him as appears by their Decree St. tom 2. lib. 4. By these indications it is apparent that the Prince of the Netherlands was not Sovereign of these Provinces since they could cognosce upon him and shake off his authority But I shall next make out that Religion was not the ground upon which these Wars were raised The Reformation came unto the Provinces in Charles the V. his time who cruelly persecuted all who received it so that these who were butchered in his time are reckoned not to be under 100000. Gr. Annal. lib. 1. All this Cruelty did neither provoke them to Arms nor quench the Spirit of Reformation whereupon Philip designed to introduce the Inquisition among them as an assured mean of extinguishing that Light But that Court was every where so odious and proceeded so illegally that many of the Nobility among whom divers were Papists entered in a Confederacy against it promising to defend one another if endangered Upon this there were first petitions and after that tumults but it went no further till the Duke of Alva came and proceeded at the rate of the highest Tyranny imaginable both against their Lives and Fortunes particularly against the Counts of Egment and Horn suspect of favoring the former disordâ—â—s But it being needleâ—s to make a vain shew of reading in a thing which every boy may know after the Duke of Alva had so transgressed all Limits the Nobility and Deputies of the Towns of Holland who were the Depositaries of the Laws and Privileges of that State met at Dort anno 1572. Gr. de Ant. Bat. cap. â— and on Iuly 19 decreed a War against the Duke of Alva and made the Prince of Orange their Captain which was done upon his eâ—â—cting the twentieth penny of their Rents and the tenth of their moveables in all their transactions and merchandises Yet all this while the power was in the hands of Papists Gr. Anâ—al lib. 3. Noâ— waâ— the Protestant Religion permitted till the year 1578. that in Amsterâ—â—â— Utrecht and Harlem the Magistrats who were addicted to the Roman Religion were tuâ—neâ— out which gave great offence to some of then Confederates who adhered to Poperv And upon this the Protestants petitioned the Aâ—câ— Duke Matthias whom the States had chosen for their Prince that since it was known that they were the chief object of the Spanish hatred and so might look for the hardest measure it they prevailed it was therefore just they who were in the chief danger might now enjoy some share of the Liberty with the rest wherefore they desired they might have Châ—rchâ—s allowed them and might not be barred from publick trust which after some debate was granted And let this declare whether the War was managed upon the grounds of Religion or not The year after this the States of Holland Geldres Zeland Utrecht and Friesland met at Utrecht and entred in that Union which continues to this day by which it was provided that the Reformed Religion should be received in Holland and Zeland but the rest were at liberty either to chuse it or another or both as they pleased So we see they did not confederate against Spain upon the account of Religion it not being the ground of theiâ—â—eague but in opposition to the Spanish Tyranny and Pride And in their Letters to the Emperor Ian. 8 1578. Str. tom 2. lib. 2. they declared that they never were nor ever should be of another mind but that the Catholick Religion should be still observed in Holland and in the end of the year 1581. they decreed that Philip had forfeited his Title to the Principality of Belgium by his violating their Privileges which he had sworn to observe whereupon they were according to their compact with him at his inauguration free from their obedience to him and therefore they chusâ—â— the Duke of Alenson to be their Prince And now review all this and see if you can stand to your former assertion or believe these Wars to have proceeded upon the grounds of subjects resisting their Sovereign when he persecutes them upon the aâ—count of Religion and you will be made to acknowledge that the States of Holland were not subjects and that their quarrel was not Religion Isot. All this will perhaps be answered in due time but from this let me lead you to France where we find a long Tract of Civil Wars upon the account of Religion and here you cannot pretend the King is a limited Sovereign neither was this War managed by the whole States of France but by the Princes of the Blood with the Nobility of some of the Provinces and these began under Francis the Second then about sixteen years of Age so that he was not under Non-age and tho they were prosecuted under the Minority of Charles the Ninth yet the King of Navarre who was Regent and so bore the King's Authority was resisted and after Charles was of age the Wars continued both during his Reign and much of his Brother's and did again break out in the last King's Reign The Protestants were also owned and assisted in these Wars not only by the Princes of Germany but by the three last Princes who reigned in Britain So here we have an undeniable instance of Subjects defending Religion by Arms. See pag. 454. Poly. I must again put my self and the company to a new penance by this ill understood piece of History which you have alledged and tell you how upon Henry the Second's death Francis his Son was under age by the French Law for which see Thuan. lib. 16. which appointed the Regents power to continue till the King was 22 years of age at least as had been done in the case of Charles the 6. which yet the History of that time saith was a rare privilege granted him because of his Gracefulness and the love was generally born him whereas the year wherein the Kings were judged capable of the Government was 25. But Francis tho under age being every way a Child did for away both the Princes of the Blood the Constable and the Admiral from the Government which he committed to his Mother the Cardinal of Lorrain and the Duke of Guise Upon this the Princes of the Blood met and sent the King of Navarre who was the first Prince of the Blood to the King to complain of their ill usage but tho he was much neglected at Court yet his simplicity was such that he was easily whedled out of his pretensions Upon this the Prince of Conde having a greater spirit and being poor thought upon other Courses and as it is related by Davila lib. 1. gathered a meeting at Ferté where he pâ—â—posed the injury done the Princes of the Blood who in the minority of their King were now excluded the Government which contrary to the Salick law was put in a womans hand and trusted to Strangers wherefore he moved that according to the practices of other Princes of the Blood in the like Cases which
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
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
to the use of the Sacraments and the like which is all in question among us they are quite of another nature And it is a strange piece of nicety if in these things because Superiours command what seems most proper for expressing the inward sense we ought to have of things that therefore these injunctions become criminal and not to be obeyed For the significancy alledged to be in them is only a dumb way of expressing our inward thoughts and as we agree to express them by word so some outward signs may be also used as by sackcloth the penitent expresseth his sorrow and by a Surplice a Church man expresseth his purity so those habits are only a silent way of speaking out the sense of the heart Only here on the way if you have a mind to ease your spleen a little read what that late Pamphlet saith to prove a distinction betwixt these two Ceremonies pag. 111. That vulgar Sophism of making Sacraments is the poorest Cavil imaginable for a Sacrament is a federate Rite of stipulating with GOD wherein as we plight our faith to GOD so he visibly makes offer of his Gospel to us which he accompanies with the gracious effusions of his Spirit and indeed to institute any such Rite were the highest encroachment on the divine Authority But what Sophistry will fasten a pretension to this on the institution of a Right which shall only signifie that Duty a creature ows his Maker and Redeemer tending both to quicken the person that performs it to a sence of it as also to work upon Spectators by such a grave solemn Rite To say Men can institute means of conveying the divine Grace is justly to be condemned but how far differs it from that to use signs as well as words for expressing our duty to GOD Thus you see how ill founded that pompouâ— Argument is with which we have heard many triumphing among Ignorants or where none could contradict them â—rit If I may have liberty to add a little I would suggest somewhat of the true Notion of Christian Liberty and how it is to be made use of or restrained For the clearing whereof we are to call to mind how upon tâ—â—â—â—st pâ—oâ—â—lgâ—tion of the Gospel a Contention did early rise about the observation of Moses Law the stipulation whereto was given in Circumcision the Iudaizers pleaded its continuance and the Apostles asserted the Christian Liberty the Iudaizers pretended a divine Obligation from Moses his Law the Apostles proved that was now vacated by the death of CHRIST which freed all from that Yoak and that therefore to be circumcised as a stipulation to Moses's Law was to continue subject to that Yoak and so to deny the Messias was yet come by which CHRIST should profit them nothing But the authority of Paul and Barnabas not being great enough to settle that Question they were sent from Antioch to the Apostles and Presbyters at Ierusalem who determined against the necessity of Circumcision and consequently of the observation of the Mosaical Law and appointed that these who were proselyted from Gentilism to the Christian Faith should be received not as Proselytes of Iustice but as Proselytes of the Gates who were only bound to obey the seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah which I stand not to make out it being sufficiently cleared already by others Here then the Christian Liberty was stated in an exemption from the Law of Moses But for all this we see into what compliances the Apostles consented for gaining upon the Iews by that condescension they Circumcise they Purifie which was done by sprinkling with the ashes of the red Cow they take the Vows of Nazarism they keep the Feasts at Ierusalem which I wonder how that Pamphleteer could deny pag. 301. it being mentioned expresly Acts 18.21 and upon the whole matter Saint Paul gives the following Rules and Assertions The first was that these things did not commend a Man to GOD For the Kingdom of GOD consisted not in meat and drink which clearly relates to the Mosaical differencing of Meats clean and unclean that neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision availed any thing And if neither branch of that Controversie did of its own nature commend men to GOD what judgments may we pass on our trifling wranglings Whence we may infer that we ought to instruct all Christians in the Faith but not in these doubtful Disputations The next Assertion is That even in these matters men might be acceptable to GOD on which side soever they were so they judged what they did was done to GOD. He that made distinction of Days or Meats made it to the LORD and he that regarded them not to the LORD he regarded them not So that GOD may be acceptably served by several men doing things contrary one to another Another Rule is That in these things every Man must be fully persuaded in his own mind and proceed out of a clear conviction in his Conscience A fourth Rule is That in these matters none ought to prescribe or dictate to another such as had a liberty in them were not to despise the scrupulous as unreasonable neither were these who scrupled at them to judg such as acted in a higher Sphere of Liberty as profane or licentious so that all were to be remitted to GOD's Iudgment Seat Another Rule is That for the Peace of the Church many things which are otherwise subject to great inconveniencies may be done for the gaining our Brethren but if such compliance harden people in their imperious humor what was formerly to be done for gaining upon them becomes unfit when so abused by them and therefore if after we have complied with the weak exceptions of others in matters indifferent they become so hardy as to presume upon our goodness to invade our Liberty by enjoying such things as necessary pretending to an authority over us â—re are not to give place by subjection to such â—â— nâ—t for an hour The last Rule is That in matters of indifferency we are to postpone our own inclination or desires when the hazard of our brother's stumbling or of the Peace of the Church lies in our way All these are so clearly asserted by S. Paul and withal are so opposite to our present Heats that I wish they were more minded by the troublers of our Israel and they would certainly give a speedy decision to these Feuds about doubtful disputations which have so long preyed on the Peace of the Church Basil. And I am sure if so great a Compliance may be given to the weakness of our brethren much more is due to the commands of our Superiors except you say we are more subject to equals than to Superiors or that the weakness of a Brother should weigh more than the authority of Father And in fine that the Obligations of Charity should be more prevalent than those of Iustice Obedience being a debt we owe whereas Compliance is a Benevolence given I do not deny but great
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
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
Glasgow But before they went to it a written citation of the Bishops was ordered to be read through all the Churches of Scotland wherein they were chaâ—ged as guilty of all the crimes imaginable which as an Agape after the Lords Supper was first read after a Communion at Edinburgh and upon it orders were sent every where for bringing in the privatest of their escapes And you may judge how consonant this was to that Royal Law of charity which covers a multitude of sins nor was the Kings Authority any whit regarded all this while Was ever greater contempt put on the largest offers of grace and favor And when at Glasgow His Majesty offered by his Commissioner to consent to the limiting of Bishops nothing would satisfie their zeal without condemning the order as unlawful and abjured But when many illegalities of the constitution and procedure of that Assembly were discovered their partiality appeared for being both Judg and Party they justified all their own disorders Upon which His Majesties Commissioner was forced to discharge their further sitting or procedure under pain of Treason but withal published His Majesties Royal intentions to them for satisfying all their legal desires and securing their fears But their stomachs were too great to yield obedience and so they sate still pretending their authority was from CHRIST and condemned Episcopacy excommunicated the Bishops with a great many other illegal and unjustifiable Acts. And when His Majesty came with an Army to do himself right by the Sword GOD had put in his hands they took the start of him and seised on his Castles and on the houses and persons of his good Subjects and went in a great body against him Now in this His Majesty had the Law clearly of his side For Episcopacy stood established by Act of Parliament And if this was a cause of Religion or a defence of it much less such as deserved all that bloud and confusion which it drew on let all the World judg It is true His Majesty was willing to settle things and receive them again into his grace and upon the matter granted all their desires but they were unsatisfiable upon which they again armed But of this I shall not recount the particulars because I hope to see a clear and unbyassed narration of these things ere long Only one Villany I will not conceal at the pacification at Berwick seven Articles of Treaty were signed But the Covenanters got a paper among them which passed for the conditions of the agreement though neither signed by his Majesty nor attested by Secretary or Clerk and this being every where spread his Majesty challenged it as a Forgery and all the English Lords who were of the Treaty having declared upon Oath that no such paper was agreed on it was burnt at London by the hand of the Hangman as a scandalous paper But this was from the Pulpits in Scotland represented as a violation of the Treaty and that the Articles of it were burnt These and such were the Arts the men of that time used to inflame that blessed King 's native Subjects against him But all these were small matters to the following invasion of England An. 1643. For his Majesty did An. 1641. come to Scotland and give them full satisfaction to all even their most unreasonable demands which he consented to pass into Acts of Parliaments But upon his return into England the woful rupture betwixt him and the two Houses following was our Church-party satisfied with the trouble they occasioned him No they were not for they did all they could to cherish and foment the Houses in their insolent Demands chiefly about Religion and were as forward in pressing England's uniformity with Scotland as they were formerly in condemning the design of bringing Scotland to an uniformity with England I shall not engage further in the differences betwixt the King and the two Houses than to shew that His Majesty had the Law clearly of his side since he not only consented to the redress of all grievances for which the least color of Law was alledged but had also yielded to larger concessions for securing the fears of his Subjects than had been granted by all the Kings of England since the Conquest Yet their demands were unsatisfiable without His Majesty had consented to the abolishing of Episcopacy and discharge of the Liturgy which neither his Conscience nor the Laws of England allowed of so that the following War cannot be said to have gone on the principles of defending Religion since His Majesty was invading no part of the established Religion And thus you see that the War in England was for advancing a pretence of Religion And for Scotlands part in it no Sophistry will prove it defensive for His Majesty had setled all matters to their hearts desire and by many frequent and solemn protestations declared his resolutions of observing inviolably that agreement neither did he so much as require their assistance in that just defence of his Authority and the Laws invaded by the two Houses though in the explication of the Covenant An. 1039. it was agreed to and sworn That they should in quiet manner or in Arms defend His Majesties Authority within or without the Kingdom as they should be required by His Majesty or any having his Authority But all the King desired was that Scotland might lie neutral in the quarrel enjoying their happy tranquillity yet this was not enough for your Churches zeal but they remonstrated that Prelacy was the great Mountain stood in the way of Reformation which must be removed and they sent their Commissioners to the King with these desires which His Majesty answered by a Writing yet extant under his own Royal hand shewing That the present settlement of the Church of England was so rooted in the Law that he could not consent to a change till a new form were agreed to and presented to him to which these at Westminster had no mind but he offered all ease to tender Consciences and to call a Synod to judg of these differences to which he was willing to call some Divines from Scotland for bearing their opinions and reasons At that time Petitions came in from several Presbyteries in Scotland to the Conservators of the Peace inciting them to own the Parliaments quarrel upon which many of the Nobility and others signed a Cross Petition which had no other design but the diverting these Lords from interrupting the Peace of Scotland by medling in the English quarrel upon which Thunders were given out against these Petitioners both from the Pulpits and the Remonstrances of the Commission of the General Assembly and they led Processes against all who subscribed it But His Majesty still desired a neutrality from Scotland and tho highly provoked by them yet continued to bear with more than humane patience the affronts were put on his Authority Yet for animating the people of Scotland into the designed War the Leaders of that Party did every where
Privileges of Parliament and preserving the King's Person and Authority And when His Majesty was murdered what attempts made they for the preservation of His Person or for the resenting it after it was done This was the Loyalty of that Party and this is what all Princes may expect from you unless they be absolutely at your Devotion Let these things declare whether these Wars went upon the grounds of a pure defence But if next to this I should reckon up the instances of Cruelty that appeared in your Judicatories for several years I should have too large a Theme to run through in a short Discourse What cruel Acts were made against all who would not sign the Covenant They were declared Enemies to GOD the King and the Country Their persons were appointed to be seized on and their goods confisâ—ated And in the November of the year 1643. when some of the most eminent of the Nobility refused to sign the Covenant Commissions were given to Soldiers to bring them in Prisoners warranting them to kill them if they made resistance And praâ— whether had this more of the cruelty of Antichrist or of the meekness of IESUS Or shall I next tell you of the bloody Tribunals were at S Andrews and other plâ—ces after Philips-haughs And of the câ—uelty againâ—t those Priâ—oners of War who bore Arms at the King's command and in defence of his authority What bloudy Stories could I here tell if I had not a greater horror at the relating them thaâ— many of these high Pretenders had at the aâ—ting of them And should I here recount the procedure of the Kiâ—k Iudicatories against all who were thought disaffected I would be look'd on as one telling Romances they being bâ—yond credit What Processes of Ministers are yet upon Record which have no better foundation than their not preaching to the times their speaking with or praying before My Lord Montrose their not railing at the Engagement and the like And what cruelty was practised in the years 1649. and 1650 None of us are so young but we may remember of it A single death of one of the greatest of the Kingdom could not satisfie the bloudâ—thirsty malice of that Party unless made formidable and disgraceful with all the shameful pageantry could be devised Pray do you think these thâ—ngs are forgotten Or shall I go about to narrate and prove them more particularly I confess it is a strange thing to see men who are so obnoxious notwithstanding that so exalted in their own conceits and withal remember that the things I have hinted at were not the particular actings of single and private persons but the publick and owned proceedings of the Courts and Judâ—catories These are the grounds which persuade me that with whatsoever fair colours somâ— mâ—y vaâ—niâ—h thâ—sâ— things yet the â—pirit that then acted in that Party was not the Spirit of GOD. Isot. Truly you have given in a high charge against the proceedings of the late times which as I ought not to believe upon your assertion so I cannot well answer those being matters of fact and done most of them before I was capable of observing things And therefore when I see men of great experience I shall ask after the truth of what you have told me But whatever might be the design of some Politicians at that time or to whatever bad sense some words of the League may be stretched yet you cannot deny but they are capable of a good sense and in that I own them and so cleave to that Oath of GOD which was intended for a solemn Covenanting with GOD and the people meant nothing else by it but a giving themselves to Christ to whose truths and Ordinances they resolved to adhere at all hazards and against all opposition and in particular to oppose every thing might bear down the power and progress of Religion which was the constant effect of Prelacy therefore we are all bound to oppose it upon all hazards And indeed when I remember of the beauty of holiness was then every where and consider the licencious profanity and â—coffing at Religion which now abounds this is stronger with me than all arguments to persuade me that these were the men of GOD who had his Glory before their eyes in all they did or designed whereas now I see every one seeking their own things and none the things of IESUS CHRIST And all these plagues and evils which these Kingdoms do either groan under or may apprehend ought to be imputed to GODS avenging wrath for a broken Covenant which though taken by all from the highest to the lowest is now condemned reviled abjured and shamefully broken These things should afflict our souls and set us to our mournings if haply GOD may turn from the fierceness of his anger Phil. As for these Articles that relate to the combination for engaging by arms in prejudice of the Kings Authority or may seem to bind us to the reacting these Tragedies they being founded on the lawfulness of Subjects resisting their Sovereigns if the unlawfulness of that was already evinced then any obligation can be in that compact for that effect must be of it self null and void and therefore as from the beginning it was sinful to engage in these wars so it will be yet more unlawful if after all the evils we have seen and the judgments we have smarted under any would lick up that vomit or pretend to bind a tye on the Subjects Consciences to rise in arms against their Lawful Sovereâ—gn And let me tell you freely I cannot be so blind or stupid as not to apprehend that GODS wrath hath appeared very visibly against us now for a tract of thirty years and more neiâ—her doth his anger seem to be turned away but his hand is stretched out still But that which I look on as the greater matter of his controversie with us is that the Rulers of our Church and State did engage the ignorant multitude under the colors of Religion to despise the LORDS anointed and his Authority and by Arms to shake off his yoak and afterwards abandon his Person disown his interest refuse to engage for his rescue and in the end look on tamely and see him murdered Do you think it a small crime that nothing could satisfie the Leaders in that time without they got the poor people entangled into things which they knew the vulgar did not and could not understand or judge of and must implicitly rely upon the Glosses of their Teachers For whatever the General Assembly declared was a duty following upon the Covenant which was an easie thing for the leading men to carry as they pleased then all the Ministers must either have preached and published that to their people with all their zeal otherwise they were sure to be turned out The people being thus provoked from the Pulpits they were indeed to be pitied who being engaged in an oath many of them no doubt in singleness of heart having the fear
Covenant brings upon us to oppose Episcopacy I shall discuss it with all the clearness I am master of I shall not tell you how much many who took that Covenant and do still plead its obligation have said from the words of the second Article and the explication given in it to Prelacy for reconciling as much of Episcopacy as is setled among us to it according to the declared meaning of its first imposers when they took it and authorized it But leaving you and them to contend about this upon the whole matter consider that Episcopacy is either necessary unlawful or indifferent if the first be true then you will without much ado confess that no Oath in prejudice of a necessary duty can bind any tie upon our conscience If it be unlawful I shall freely acknowledg that from the oaths of the Covenants there is a supervenient tie lying on us for its extirpation But if it be indifferent then I say it was a very great sin for a Nation so far to bind up their Christian liberty as by Oath to determine themselves to that to which GOD had not obliged them for the circumstances of things indifferent may so far vary that what is of it self indifferent may by the change of these become necessary or unlawful Therefore in these matters it is a great invasion of our Christian liberty to fetter consciences with Oaths And though the Rulers and chief Magistrates of a Society have either rashly or out of fear or upon other unjustifiable accounts sworn an Oath about indifferent things which afterwards becomes highly prejudicial to the Society then they must consider that the Government of that State is put in their hands by GOD to whom they must answer for their administration Theeefore they stand bound by the Laws of Nature of Religion and of all Societies to do every thing that may tend most for the good of the Society And if a Case fall in where a thing tends much to the good and peace of a Land but the Prince stands bound some way or other by Oath against it he did indeed sin by so swearing but should sin much more if by reason of that Oath he judged himself limited from doing what might prove for the good of the Society Indeed when an Oath concerns only a man's private rights it ties him to performance tho to his hurt but the administration of Government is none of these rights a Magistrate may dispose of at pleasure For he must conduct himself so as he shall be answerable to God whose Vicegerent he is and when these two Obligations interfere the one of procuring the good of the Society the other of adhering to an Oath so that they stand in terms of direct opposition then certainly the greater must swallow up the lesser It is therefore to be under consideration whether the Obligation of procuring the good of the Society or that of the Magistrates Oath be the greater But this must be soon decided if it be considered that the former is an Obligation lying on him by GOD who for that end raised him up to his power and is indeed the very end of Government whereas the other is a voluntary engagement he hath taken on himself and can never be equal to that which was antecedent to it much less justle it out But if it contradict the other the Magistrate is indeed bound to repent for his rash swearing but cannot be imagined from that to be bound to go against the good of the Society for the procuring whereof he hath the Sword and power put in his hands by GOD. And so much of the tie can lie upon a Magistrate by his Oath about things indifferent in ordering or governing the State that is subject to him in which he must proceed as he shall answer to GOD in the great day of his accounts and ought not to be censured or judged for what he doth by his Subjects But he enacting Laws in matters indifferent they become necessary Obligations on his Subjects which no private oath of theirs can make void Indeed the late Writer his arguing against this is so subtil that I cannot comprehend it so far as to find sense in it for he confesseth Pag. 232. That the Magistrate is vested with a power proportional to the ends of Government so that no Subject may decline his lawful commands or bind himself by any such Oath as may interfere with a supervenient rational command All this is sound and indeed all I pleaded only his explication of rational I cannot allow of For tho a Magistrate may proceed to unreasonable commands yet I see no limits set to our obedience but from the unlawfulness of them But in the next page he eats all this up by telling That there are many things still left to our selves and our own free disposal wherein we may freely vow and having vowed must not break our word And for instance he adduceth a mans devoting the tenth of his substance to the Lord from which no countermand of the Magistrates can excuse But still he concludes Page 334. That the Magistrates Power may make void such vows as are directly or designedly made to frustrate its right or to suspend the execution of others in so far as they do eventually cross its lawful exercise This last yields to me all I pretend in this case For the Covenant being made on purpose to exclude Episcopacy though at that time setled by Law if Episcopacy be not unlawful but lawful which I now suppose then the King's authority enjoining it and it being a great part likewise of the Government of the Subjects it is to be submitted to notwithstanding the Oath made against it So that your Friend yields without consideration that which he thinks he denies and therefore the reasoning in the Dialogues holds good that the Oath of a Subject in a matter indifferent cannot free him from the obedience he owes the Laws It is true his private vows in matters of his own concern are of another nature and so not within the compass of this Debate which is only about the obedience we owe the Laws supposing their matter lawful notwithstanding our Compacts made in opposition to them and therefore I shall not discourse of them but stick close to the purpose in hand But my next undertaking must be to free Children from any tie may be imagined to lie on them from the Fathers Oath which was a matter so clear to my thinking that I wonder what can be said against it Isot. Indeed here your Friend the Conformist bewrayed his ignorance notably not considering the authority Parents have over their Children by divine command which dies not with them their commands being obligatory even after their death for God commends the Rechabites for obeying Ionadabs command some ages after his death Therefore Parents adjuring Children they are obliged by it as the people of Israel by Saul's adjuring them not to eat food till the evening
were obliged to obedience And such adjurations may not only bind the Children adjured but all their posterity after them as did the Oath for carrying Ioseph's bones out of Egypt And further a Society continuing still under the same notion is bound through all ages to make good the compacts of their Progenitors they continuing to be the same Society And this is not only the ground on which the obligation of all alliances among Kingdoms is founded but is also the basis on which our tie to the Allegiance due to our Sovereign is grounded Therefore as we find GOD in Scripture covenanting with Men and their posterity as in Abraham's case and Fathers likewise engaging to GOD for themselves and their Children as did Ioshua for himself and his House so our Covenants being unanimously sworn by almost the whole Nation and confirmed by all the authority in it must have a perpetual obligation on all the subsequent Generations See from pag. 205. to pag. 219. Phil. I suppose if it hold good that the Covenant binds not these who took it to oppose or extirpate Episcopacy when setled by Law all this reasoning will of it self evanish in smoak But to give your Discourse all advantage and to yield its obligation on these who took it what you infer will never be made out since it is founâ—ed on the supposition of a Parents authority to adjure his Child that ties him after his Fathers death which you apply to the Covenant But in this there is a triple error committed by you one of fact and two of right That of fact is that you suppose that in the Covenant the subsequent generations are adjured to its observance whereas not a word of this is in the Covenant On the contrary in the end of the Preface to the League it is said that every one for himself doth swear Neither is there a word in it all that imports an adjuration on posterity It is true in the 5. Article every one is bound according to their place and interest to endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity But he thâ—t will draw an adjuration on posterity from this must have a new Art of Logick not yet known And in the National Covenant as it was taken by King Iames there is not a word that imports an adjuration on â—osterity It is true in the addition was made to it Ann. 1â—38 it is declared That they are convinced in their minds and confess with their mouths that the present and subsequent generations in this Land were bound to keep that National Oath and subscription inviolable But this was only their opinion who signed it Yet for all that there is no adjuration on posterity for observing it no not in that Addition then sworn to The next error of your Hypothesis is that the Parents commands can bind the Childrens confidence in prejudice of the Magistrates authority for you must either suppose this otherwise your arguing is to no purpose since the King's authority is in this case interposed and therefore all our Fathers commands must yield to it which because none deny I shall not stand to evince For if my Father be bound to obey the King as well as I am both he sins if he enjoin me disobedience and I am likewise guilty if upon that I disobey For he that hath no warrant for his own disobedience can be imagined to have none for securing me in mine And in end you suppose a Parents command or authority can bind the Conscience after his death which is manifestly absurd for certainly his authority must die with himself It is true a piety and reverence is due to the memory of our Parents and so much reverence should be payed to their ashes that without a very good reason the things they enjoyned should be religiously observed but this is not a necessary Obligation for circumstances may so vary things that we may be assured that as our Parents enjoyned such a thing so had they seen the inconveniencies of it they had not done it Now while a Father lives a Child hath this liberty to argue with him where it is not to be doubted but the affection of a Parent together with the reasons adduced would make him change his Commands but indeed did their Commands tie us after their death we should be more in subjection to our Parents when dead than we were when they lived which goeth against the sense of all mankind And what equality is there in such mens reasons who will deny absolute obedience to Magistrates tho we be allowed to petition and represent the grievances their Laws bring upon us and yet will assert an absolute and blind obedience due to the commands of our Parents tho dead Your instance of the Rechabites makes against you for their Progenitors had appointed them to dwell in Tents yet the fear of Nebuchadnezzar had driven them to Ierusalem and consider if the incurring our lawful Sovereigns displeasure together with the hazard such obedience may draw after it be not a juster ground of excusing our selves from obedience to any such Command suppose it were real The Rechabites did indeed abstain from Wine upon Ionadab's command for which they are commended and blessed and so I acknowledg it a piece of piety to obey the commands even of a dead Father yet in that place it is not asserted that that Command tied their Conscience but on the contrary the blessing passed upon their obedience seems rather to imply that it was voluntary though generous and dutiful The same Answer is to be made to Ioseph's adjuring the Children of Israel to carry up his bones which ought to have obliged even the Children of these that were so adjured out of the gratitude due to the memory of so great a Man especially nothing intervening that rendered obedience to it either unexpedient or unlawful But in general consider that when a contract is made either of an Association under a form and line of Magistracy or of alliance betwixt two States and confirmed by Oath there is an obligation of Justice that ariseth from the Compact whereby such rights were translated unto the person compacted with and thereby he and his posterity according to the Compact are to enjoy these Rights because translated unto his person by the Compact but being once legally his with a provision that they shall descend to his Heirs then his Heirs have a right to them formally in their persons after his death to which they have a title in justice and not by the fidelity to which the posterity of the first compacters are bound by their Fathers deed but because the right is now theirs so that though the first Compacters were bound by promise and Oath their Successors are only bound by the rules of justice of giving to every man that which is his right therefore whatever our Ancestors may be supposed to have compacted with the King's Progenitors or
all the upright in heart shall follow it And in the mean while shall study to bless when you curse and pray for you who do thus despitefully use us We trust our witness is on high that whatever defects cleave to us and though may be we have not wanted a corrupt mixture as you know among whom there was a son of Perdition yet we are free of these things you charge on us promiscuously and that these imputations you charge us with are as false as they are base But all this will not serve the turn of many of your dividers whose Ministers continue with them as formerly and meerly because they hold themselves bound in Conscience to obey the Laws they are separated from Truly if you can clear this of separation you are a Master at subtil reasoning For you know it is not the third part of this Church which was abandoned by the former Ministers upon the late change and yet the humor of separating is universal And though some few of your own Ministers have had the honest zeal to witness against this separation yet how have they being pelted for it by the censures and writings of other Schismaticks which have prevailed so much upon the fear or prudence of others that whatever mislike they had of these separating practices yet they were willing either to comply in practice or to be silent spectators of so great an evil But if separation be a Sin it must have a guilt of a high nature and such as all who would be thought zealous watch-men ought to warn their people of And what shall be said of these even Church-men who at a time when the Laws are sharply looked to do join in our Worship but if there be an unbending in these they not only withdraw and become thereby a scandal to others but draw about them divided Meetings are not these time-servers For if concurrence in our Worship be lawful and to be done at any time it must be a duty which should be done at all times and therefore such Masters of Conscience ought to express an equality in their ways and that they make the rules of their concurrence in worship to be the Laws of GOD and not the fear of civil punishments Finally such as think it lawful to join in our Worship and yet that they may not displease the people do withdraw shew they prefer the pleasing of men to the pleasing of GOD and that they make more account of the one than of the other For if it be lawful to concur in our worship what was formerly said proves it a duty Are not these then the servants of men who to please them dispense with what by their own concession must be a duty Besides such persons withdrawing gives a great and real scandal to the vulgar who are led by their Example and so a humor of separating comes to be derived into all whereby every one thinks it a piece of Religion and that which will be sure to make him considerable and bring customers to him if he be a Merchant or Trades-man that he despise the solemn Worship and rail at his Minister and if he but go to Conventicles and be concern'd in all the humors of the Party he is sure of a good name be he as to other things what he will Eud. Much of this we know to be too true and certainly nothing deserves more blame for all the disorders are among us than this separation Discipline goes down Catechising is despised the Sacraments are loathed the solemn Worship deserted I know the poor Curates bear the blame of all and all of them must be equally condemned if a few of them have miscarried for which when ever it was proved they were censured condignly In end you charge their gifts and that their People are not edified by them But I pray you see whether the prejudices you make them drink in against them occasion not that For it is a more than humane work to overcome prejudices Read but the complaints of the Prophets and you will confess a Churchmans not being profitable to his People will be no good argument to prove him not sent of GOD And when I consider that even the Apostles call for the help of the Churches Prayers that utterance might be given to them yea and desire them to strive together in their Prayers for them I must crave leave to tell you that the defect of that utterance and power in preaching you charge on the present Preachers may be well imputed to the want of the concurrence of the Peoples Prayers whom prepossessions have kept from striving together with them in Prayer that they might come among them with the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel And if there be any of such tender and miâ—led Consciences who have been smitten with remorse for such concurrence in Worship as their tenderness is to be valued so their ignorance is to be pitied and they who thus misled them deserve the heavier censure since they have involved simple and weak Consciences with their pedling Sophistry into such straits and doubts In fine you cannot say that a Minister is by a Divine right placed over any particular flock If then it be humane it with all other things of that nature is within the Magistrates cognizance so that when he removes one and leaves a legal way patent for bringing in another upon which there comes one to be placed over that flock what injustice soever you can fancy in such dealing yet certainly it will never free that Parish from the tie of associating in the publick Worship or receiving the Sacraments from the hands of that Minister whom they cannot deny to be a Minister of the Gospel and therefore no irregularity in the way of his entry though as great as can be imagined will warrant the peoples separating from him Neither can they pretend that the first Incumbent is still their Minister for his relation to them being founded meerly on the Laws of the Church it is as was proved in the Second Conference subject to the Magistrates authority and so lasts no longer than he shall dissolve it by his commands unless it appear that he designs the overthrow of true Religion in which case I confess Pastors are according to the practice of the first Ages of the Church to continue at the hazard of all persecutions and feed their flocks But this is not applicable to our Case where all that concerns Religion continues as formerly only some combinations made in prejudice of the Supreme Authority are broken and order is restored to the Church instead of the confusions and divisions were formerly in it And if this change have occasioned greater disorders wherever the defect of Policy or Prudence may be charged yet certainly if the change that is made be found of its own nature both lawful and good the confusions have followed upon it are their guilt who with so little reason and so much
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
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
the lawfulness and usefulness of Episcopacy and that there is nothing in it contrary either to the nature or rules of the Gospel or of right Reason And for any occasional evils may have risen from the restitution of this Government they are with no justice to be fastened on it I know many accuse their revenues and honors thus the spirit that is in us lusteth to ' envy and the eyes of many are evil because the eyes of our pious Progenitors were good But indeed the ravenous Appetites of some Ostriches among us have swallowed down so much of the Churches Patrimony that what remains of it can scarce provoke envy And truly Churchmen bestowing their Revenues well for Alms-deeds relieving the Widows and Orphans and such modest hospitality and decency as may preserve them from the disesteem of the vulgar who measure their value of men much from these externals there were no ground of quarrelling at them were their riches seven-fold increased I am far from the thoughts of patronizing the German Bishops on whom I look as the disgrace of that Order who live in all things like other Princes making Wars and leading out Armies nor do they once consider their Dioceses or what they owe them as Bishops being wholly immersed in secular affairs But for all this I cannot see cause for blaming Churchmen their being either upon the publick Councils of the Kingdom in Parliaments or on His Majesties Secret Councils and that both because Ecclesiastical matters are often in agitation both in the one and the other in which none are so properly to be advised with as Churchmen Occasion may also be frequently given to those who should be presupposed to understand the rules of equity and conscience best to lay them before others who either know them not or mind them too little And finally they are Subjects as well as others and by the clearness is to be expected in their Judgments and the calmness of their minds together with their abstracted and contemplative manner of life they may upon occasions be very prudent Counsellors And why a Prince shall be deprived of the Councils of that which should be the wisest and best part of his Kingdom no reason can be given But for all this I acknowledge there is great hazard from humane Infirmity lest by such medling they be too much intangled in matters extrinsick to them whereby their thoughts may be drawn out from that inward serene and abstracted temper wherein their minds should be preserved both for more spiritual Contemplation and for a more close pursuing the work of the Gospel which ought still to be their chief labor But I must touch this string no more lest you say that the Fox preacheth and methinks our discourse is now near its period Isot. A great many things do yet remain which are untouched and deserve to be better considered for these crude Dialogues poured out a great deal of stuff which it is like the writer never examined And in these you who are his friends must either vindicate him or leave him to the mercy of every severe censurer Eud. His temper is well enough known to us that he is very little sollicitous about the esteem or censures of men and therefore if all the particulars in his Book cannot maintain themselves to the judgments of rational and unprepossessed Readers he thinks them not worthy of his Patrociny And for that little trifling way of writing by tracing every word in a Book or of making good all a man hath said it is a task equally mean unpleasant and laborious and looks like one contending for victory more than truth Were it a worthy thing for us to go and reckon how often and comes about in any of that Pamphleteers long periods or how often he writes false Grammar how harsh his Phrases and how tedious his Periods are or make other such like remarks Alas did we that there were no end and yet such like are many of his reflections But then how beautiful were our discourse if interwoven with those elegancies of poor wretch babler impertinent confident ignorant atheist scoffer and many more of that same strain I know well enough why he used those his design being to make his gentle and simple Readers stand gravely and turn up the white and look pale and affrighted with all those black Imputations he charges on that poor wretch Methinks I hear the censures of the herd when they first read over his Book to this purpose Oh here is a worthy piece full of deep learning and believe me he speaks home he is a sweet man that wrote it be he who he will and was marvellously born through in it all And oh but it is seasonable and well tâ—ned for he hath answered the whole Book to a word And where we thought it strâ—ngest he shâ—ws its weakness most But I wish the poor wretch râ—pentance yet it is a proud Companion and full of disdain but I hope he is humbled for once it were a pity of him for they say he hath some abilities but they are all wrong set and he will may be study to heal the beast of the wound which one of our Champions hath given it but had he any sparks of grace I could yet love him for his good sake It were a worthy attempt to go and satisfie such a gang of Cattle therefore the cavils on the fifth and sixth Dialogue are so poor that it were lost time to consider them and so groundless that he who from reading over the Dialogues themselves is not able to withstand all those tricks of Sophistry would be little bettered by all we could add and therefore we may well quit the Theme and that the rather that we have examined all that is of publick concern in these debates and for any thing that was started which lies out of the way we will leave the discussing of these to the Conformist himself since our design in this Conference was to get mutual satisfaction to our Consciences in these things which the Laws enjoin and if we have gained this we are to leave contending about other things which relate not to us Only if in these greater points it be found that what the Conformist said in the Dialogues was grounded on so much clear and strong reason as we have discovered since our first meeting it is to be presumed that in other things he was not so rash or irrational as to utter such absurdities or errors as the late Pamphlets do charge upon him Phil. Our work was to consider whether absolute subjection was due to the Civil Authority and how far its dominion over our obedience did reach and whether the Principles and Practices of the late times had such evident characters of GOD's acceptance on them that it was an unpardonable crime to reverse that building which they prepared with so much noise and cemented with so much blood and by consequence whether Episcopacy was that accursed thing