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
hair and another Lewis were chosen Kings of France and the chief Persons who at that time were most active were these Dukes Counts and Bishops who afterwards were made Peers Hugo Capet therefore taking possession of the Crown for securing himself peaceably in it did confirm those Peers in that great Authority they had assumed which if he had not done they had given him more trouble And their constitution was that if any difference arose either betwixt the King and any of the Peers or among the Peers themselves it should be decided by the Council of the whole twelve Peers And he proves from an old Placart that they would not admit the Chancellor Connestable or any other great Officer of France to judg them they being to be judged by none but their fellow Peers These were also to be the Electors of the King But Hugo Capet apprehending the danger of a free Election caused for preventing it Crown his Son in his own time which was practised by four or five succeeding Kings And Lewis the Gross not being crowned in his Fathers time met with some difficulty at his entry to the Crown which to guard against he crowned his Son in his own time and so that practice continued till the pretence of electing the King was worn out by prescription Yet some vestigies of it do still remain since there must be at all Coronations of France twelve to represent the Peers and by this time I think it is well enough made out that the Count of Tolouse was not an ordinary Subject And as for your confounding of Subject and Vassal Bodinus lib. de Rep. cap. 9. will help you to find out a difference betwixt them who reckons up many kinds of Vassals and Feudataries who are not Subjects for a Vassal is he that holds Lands of a Superior Lord upon such conditions as are agreed to by the nature of the Feud and is bound to protect the Superior but may quit the Feud by which he is free of that subjection so that the dependence of Vassals on their Lord must be determined by the Contract betwixt them and not by the ordinary Laws of Subjects And from this he concludes that one may be a Subject and no Vassal a Vassal and no Subject and likewise both Vassal and Subject The Peers of France did indeed give an Oath of homage by which they became the Liegeâ—men of the King but were not for that his Sâ—bjects for the Oath the Subjects swore was of a far greater extent And thus I am deceived if all was asserted by the Conformist in the Dialogues on this head be not made good Isot. But since you examine this instance so accuratly what say you to those of Piedmont who made a League among themselves against their Prince and did resist his cruel Persecutions by Armies See pag. 423. Poly. Truly I can say little on this Subject having seen none of their Writings or Apologies so that I know not on what grounds they went and I see so much ignorance and partiality in accounts given from the second hand that I seldom consider them much Isot. The next instance in History is from the Wars of Boheme where because the Chalice was denied the People did by violence resist their King and were headed by Zisca who gained many Victories in the following War with Sigismund and in the same Kingdom fifty years ago they not only resisted first Matthias and then Ferdinand their King but rejected his authority and choosed a new King and the account of this change was because he would not make good what Maximilian and Rodolph did grant about the fâ—ee exercise of their Religion and thus when engagements were broken to them they did not judge themselves bound to that tame submission you plead for See p. 424. Poly. Remember what was laid down as a ground that the Laws of a Society must determine who is invested with the Sovereign Power which doth not always follow the Title of a King but if he be accountable to any other Court he is but a Subject and the Sovereign Power rests in that Court If then it be made out that the States of Bohemia are the Sovereigns and that the Kings are accountable to them this instance will not advance the plea of defensive Arms by Subjects That the Crown of Bohemia is elective was indeed much contraverted and was at length and not without great likelihoods on both sides of late debated in divers Writings but among all that were impartial they prevailed who pleaded its being elective Yet I acknowledge this alone will not prove it free for the People to resist unless it be also apparent that the Supreme Power remained with the States which as it is almost always found to dwell with the People when the King is elected by them Bodin doth reckon the King of Bohemia among these that are but Titular Kings and the Provincial Constitutions of that Kingdom do evidently demonstrate that the King is only the Administrator but not the fountain of their Power which is made out from many instances by him who writes the Republick of Bohemia who shews how these Kings are bound to follow the pleasure and Counsel of their States and in the year 1135 it was decreed that the elected Prince of Bohemia should bind himself by his Coronation Oath to rules there set down which if he broke the States were to pay him no Tributes nor to be tied to any further Obedience to him till he amended See Hagecus ad ann 1135. And this Oath was taken by all the following Dukes and Kings of Bohemia which is an evident proof that the States had authority over their Kings and might judge them To this also might be added divers instances of their deposing their Kings upon which no censure ever passed These being then the grounds on which the Bohemians walked it is clear they never justified their Resistance on the account of Subjects fighting for Religion but on the liberties of a free State asserting their Religion when invaded by a limited Prince The account of the first Bohemian War is that Iohn Huss and Ierome of Prague being notwithstanding the Emperors Safe-conduct burnt at Constance the whole States of Bohemia and Moravia met at Prague and found that by the burning of their Doctors an injury was done to the whole Kingdom which was thereby marked with the stain of Heresie and they first expostulated with the Emperor and Counsel about the wrong done them but no reparation being made they resolved to seek it by force and to defend the Religion had been preached by Huss and did declare their design to Winceslaus their King whom the States had before that time made prisoner twice for his maleversation but at that very time he died in an Apoplexy some say through grief at that After his death Sigismund his Brother pretended to the Crown of Bohemia but not being elected was not their righteous King so in the following Wars
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
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
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
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