Government ought to be coërced otherwise you must open a door to perpetual Broils since every one by these Maxims becomes Judge and where he is both Judge and Party he is not like to be cast in his Pretensions And even few Malefactors die but they think hard measure is given them If then forcible self-defence be to be followed none of these should yield up their Lives without using all attempts for resâ—uing them Eud. Whatever other Cases allow of certainly the defence of Religion by Arms is never to be admitted for the nature of Christian Religion is such that it excludes all carnal Weapons from its defence And when I consider how expresly CHRIST forbids his disciples to resist evil Matth. 25.39 how severely that resistance is condemned by S. Paul and that condemnation is declared the Punishment of it I am forced to cry out Oh! what times have we fallen in in which men dare against the express Laws of the Gospel defend that practice upon which GOD hath passed this condemnation If whosoever break the least of these Commandments and teach men so to do shall be called the least in the Kingdom of GOD What shall their portion be who teach men to break one of the greatest of these Commandments such as are the Laws of Peace and Subjection And what may we not look for from such Teachers who dare tax that glorious Doctrine of patient Suffering as brutish and irrational and though it be expresly said 1 Pet. 2.21 That CHRIST by suffering for us left us his Example how to follow his steps which was followed by a glorious Cloud of Witnesses Yet in these last days what a brood hath sprung up Of men who are lovers of their own selves traytors heady high-minded lovers of pleasures more than lovers of GOD having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sin It is our sins that provoke GOD to open the bottomless pit and let loose such locusts but were we turning to GOD and repenting of the works of our hands we might hope that their power should be taken from them and that their folly should be made known to all men Isot. Who talk bigly now But let Reason and Scripture take place and you shall find good warrants in the Old Testament for coërcing the Magistrate and subjecting the power in the Peoples hands see p. 12. for the People were warranted to punish Idolaters Deut. 13.12 And from the beginning of Deuteronomy it appears that Book was directed to all Israel therefore any might have punished Idolaters therefore the power of Reforming is with the People And again see p. 13. the Law of the King is set down Deut. 18.14 which gives a clear Evidence that the People might coërce him Otherwise why was that Law delivered to the People Crit. I am much deceived if these Instances do conclude for your design since the utmost they can prove is that some share of the executive power lay in the hands of the People among the Iews but that proves nothing where by Law and Practice it is clear the power is wholly in the hands of Superior unaccountable Magistrates But that the Law of the King or of punishing Idolaters was delivered to the People proves not that they must execute it For the Law of Sacrifices and all the Temple worship was also delivered to them but I hope you will not from that infer that the People were to judge in these matters or to give Laws to their Priests neither will the Law because addressed to the People prove themselves to be the executors of it otherwise the Epistle to the Corinthians addressed to all the Saints in Corinth will prove the People the Iudges of Excommunication and of the Rules of Church-worship which are there delivered so that though the Law was directed to all the People yet that proves not that every precept of it concerned all the People but that the whole of the Law was addressed to the whole People and the respective parts of it to all the individuals according to their several stations And after all this you are to consider that some things were allowed by that Law to private Persons which ought never to be made precedents for the Law allowed the Friends of one that was killed by chance to avenge the Blood on the Person that slew him if he kept not within the City of Refuge but that being a particular provision of their Judicial and Municipal Law will be no warrant for such revenge in other States Isot. But what say you to the revolt of Libnah 2 Chron. 21.10 which revolted from Iehoram because he forsock the LORD GOD of his fathers And of Amaziab 2 Chron. 25. 27. who when he turned away from following the LORD his being killed by a Conspiracy of these in Ierusalem and the fourscore valiant Priests who withstood â—zziah when he went to offer incense 2 Chron. 26.17 See p. 13 14 Crit. As for your instances consider that many things are set down in the Old Testament that are undoubted faults and yet so far are they from being taxed that they rather seem to be applauded so it is in the case of the Midwives lie not to mention the Polygamy of the Patriarchs therefore it not being clear to us by what special warrants they acted a Practice of that Dispensation will be no precedent to us But for that of Libnah it may be justly doubted if the Libnah there mentioned be that City which was assigned to the Priests for Numbers 33.20 we meet with a Libnah in the journyings of Israel and both the Syriack and the Arabick version have understood the place of that City for they render it the Idumeans that dwelt at Libnah But whatever be in this the particle because doth not always import the design of the doer which if you examine the Hebrew will be very clear and I shall name but one place to satisfie you 1 Sam. 2.25 Elies sons hearkned not to the voice of their father because the LORD would slay them But I doubt not you will confess this was not their motive to such disobedience so this will import no more but that GOD in his Providence permitted that revolt for a Punishment of Iehoram's Apostasie neither will fair Pretences justifie bad Actions so the utmost that place can prove is that they made that their pretence But that their revolt could not be without they had also revolted from GOD will appear from this that the Priests were bound to give attendance by turns at the Temple so none of them could have revolted from the King without their rejecting of GOD'S Service as long as the King was Master of Ierusalem whither no doubt they would not have come during their revolt As for your instance of Amaziah I confess it is plain dealing and you disclose the Mystery of defensive Arms that it is but lamely maintain'd till the Doctrine of murdering
not oblige For the common resolution of Casuists being that a Man under an erroneous Conscience is yet to follow its dictates though he sin by so doing then all parties that are oppressed ought to vindicate what they judg to be the truth of GOD. And by this you may see to what a fair pass the peace of mankind is brought by these Opinions But mistake me not as if I were here pleading for sâ—â—mission to patronize the tyranny or cruelty of persecuting Princes who shall answer to God for that great trust deposited in their hands which if they transgress they have a dear account to make to him who sits in heaven and laughs at the raging and consultings of these Kings or Princes who design to throw off his Yoak or burst his bonds in sunder He who hath set his King upon his holy Hâ—ll of Zion shall rule them with a rod of Iron and break them in pieces as a Potter's Vessel And he to whom vengeance doth belong will avenge himself of all the injuries they do his truths or followers but as they sin against him so they aâ—e only countable to him Yet I need not add what hath been often said that it is not the name of a King or the ceremonies of a Coronation that cloaths one with the Sovereign Power since I know there are and have been titular Kings who are indeed but the first Persons of the State and only Administrators of the Laws the Sovereign Power lying in some Assembly of the Nobility and States to whom they are accountable In which Case that Court to whom these Kings must give account is the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom and the King is but a Subject Isot. But doth not the Coronation of a King together with his Oath given and the consent of the People demanded at it prove him to have his Power upon the Conditions in that Oath And these Oaths being mutually given his Coronation Oath first and the Oath of Allegiance next do shew it is a Compact and in all mutual Agreements the nature of Compacts is that the one party breaking the other is also free Further Kings who are tied up so that they cannot make nor repeal Laws nor impose Taxes without the consent of the States of their Kingdom shew their Power to be limited and that at least such Assemblies of the States share with them in the Sovereign Power which is at large made out by Ius populi Basil. It is certain there cannot be two co-ordinate Powers in a Kingdom for no man can serve two Masters therefore such an Assembly of the States must either be Sovereign or subject for a middle there is not As for the Coronation of Princes it is like enough that aâ— first it was the formal giving their Power to them and the old Ceremonies yet observ'd in it prove it hath been at first so among us But it being a thing clear in our Law that the King never dies his Heir coming in his place the very moment he expires so that he is to be obeyed before his Coronation as well as after and that the Coronation is nothing but the solemn inaugurating in the Authority which the King possessed from his Father's death shews that any Ceremonies may be used in it whatever the original of them may have been do not subject his Title to the Crown to the Peoples consent And therefore his Coronation Oath is not the condition upon which he gets his Power since he possess'd that before nor is it upon that Title that he exacts the Oath of Alegiance which he likewise exacted before his Coronation This being the practice of a Kingdom passed all Prescription proves the Coronation to be no compact betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore he is indeed bound by his Coronation Oath to God who will be avenged on him if he break it so the matter of it were lawful but the breaking of it cannot forfeit a prior Right he had to the Peoples Obedience And as for the limitations Kings have consented to pass on their own Power that they may act nothing but in such a form of Law these being either the King 's free Concessions to the People or restraints arising from some Rebellions which extorted such Priviledges will never prove the King a Subject to such a Court unless by the clear Laws and Practices of that Kingdom it be so provided that if he do malverse he may be punished which when made appear proves that Court to have the Sovereign Power and that never weakens my design that Subjects ought not to resist their Sovereign Philar. You have dwelt methinks too long on this though considering the nature of the thing it deserves indeed an exact discussion yet this whole Doctrine appears so clear to a discerning Mind that I cannot imagine whence all the mist is raised about it can spring except from the corrupt Passions or Lusts of men which are subtle enough to invent excuses and fair colors for the blackest of Crimes And the smoak of the bottomless pit may have its share in occasioning the darkness is raised about that which by the help of the light of God or of reason stands so clear and obvious But when I consider the instances of sufferings under both Dispensations I cannot see how any should escape the force of so much evident proof as hangs about this opinion And if it had been the Peoples duty to have reformed by the force of Arms under the Old Dispensation so that it was a base and servile Compliance with the Tyranny and Idolatry of their Kings not to have resisted their subverting of Religion and setting up of Idolatry where was then the fidelity of the Prophets who were to lift up their voices as Trumpets and to shew the house of Iacob their iniquities And since the watch-man who gave not warning to the wicked from his wicked way was guilty of his Blood I see not what will excâ—se the silence of the Prophets in this if it was the Peoples duty to reform For it is a poor refuge to say because the People were so much inclin'd to Idolatry that therefore it was in vain to exhort them to reform See pag. 10 11. since by that Argument you may as well conclude it to have been needless to have exhorted their Kings to Reformation their inclination to Idolatry being so strong but their duty was to be discharged how small soever the likelihood was of the Peoples yielding obedience to their warnings If then it was the Peoples duty to reform the oâ—ission of it was undoubtedly a Sin how then comes it that they who had it in commission to cause Ierusalem to know her abominations under so severe a Certificate do never charge the People for not going about a popular Reformation nor coâ—rcing these wicked Kings who enacted so much Idolatry backing it with such Tyranny nor ever require them to set about it I know one hath pick'd out some
fightings and such like Truly Sir he that will found the Doctrine of Resistance on such grounds hath a mind on very easie terms to run himself upon Condemnation And yet such like are the warrants your Friends bring from Church History Therefore I see there is yet good ground to assert that Doctrine was unknown in the Christian Church till the times wherein the Popes pretended to the Temporal Power over Princes all whose plea was managed upon the grounds of the great Importance of Religion to be preferred to all human Interests and that Christ had told his Disciples to buy a sword and that Princes being the Ministers of God were to be no longer acknowledged than they observed that design for which they were set up Only in one particular less disorder may be apprehended from the pretensions of the Roman Bishops than from these Maxims that put the power of judging and controuling the Magistrate in the Peoples hands which opens a door to endless confusions and indeed sets every private Person on the Throne and introduceth an Anarchy which will never admit of order or remedy whereas these who had but one pretender over them could more easily deal with him and more vigorously resist him Isot. You have said very many things from History which I shall not at this time undertake to examine but I am sure it hath been both the Practice and Doctrine of the Reformed Churches that in case of unjust Tyranny the States of a Kingdom may put a stop to the fury of a King and therefore where the Reformation was opposed by Cruelty it was also defended by Arms. And let me add that I believe your great quarrel at this Doctrine is because the practice of it was so great a mean of preserving the Reformation which though in good manners you must commend yet I am afraid you hate it in your heart Philar. Whether you or we be greater friends to the Reformation let the world judge by this one Indication that you study to draw all can be devised for the staining it with blood which is the constant calumny of its adversaries whereas we offer with the clearest evidences to evince its Innocence But let me premise the distinction of Doctrine from Practices and tho some unjustifiable Practices appear these must never be charged on the Reformed Churches unless it be made appear they were founded on their Doctrine Besides the Reformers coming out of the corruptions of Poperâ— in which the Doctrine and Practice of Resistance upon pretences of Religion were triumphant it will not be found strange tho some of that ill-tempered Zeal continued still to leaven them But for their Doctrine I take the Standart of it to be in the Confessions of the several Churches all which being gathered in one harmony we are in the right scent of their Opinions when we search for them there Now the Doctrine of resisting of Magistrates is by divers of their Confessions expressly condemned but in none of them asserted It is true there were some ambiguous expressions in our Scots Confession registred in Parliament Anno 1567 for Art 14. among the transgressions of the second Table they reckon to disobey or resist any that God hath placed in authority while they pass not over the bounds of their office which seems to imply the lawfulness of Resistance when they so transgress but besides that it is not clearly asserted and only inferred this doth not determine what the bounds of the Magistrate's Office are And if it be found that his Office is to coërce with the Sword so as to be accountable to none but to God then no Resistance will follow from hence except of a limited Magistrate who is accountable to others The same Explication is to be given to that part of the 24. Art where all such are condemned who resist the Supream Power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge But in the same Article the Magistrate is called God's Lieutenant in whose Sessions God himself doth sit and judge But with this it is to be considered when that Confession was ratified in Parliament even when no Sovereign was to look to the clearing of any ambiguities which might have-been upon design by some and through the neglect of others let pass The Confessions of the other Churches are unexceptionably plain and without restriction in the point of subjection For what seems like a Restriction in the French Confession that the yoke of subjection is willingly to be born though the Magistrates were Infidels provided that God's Sovereign authority remain entire and uncorrupted imports nothing but that our subjection to them which takes in both Obedience and Suffering is not to strike out the great Dominion God hath over our Souls whom we should obey rather than man And even the Confession of the Assembly of Divines ratified by the Scots General Assembly speaks of submission to Authority in absolute terms without the exception of Resistance in case of Tyranny Cap. 22. art 4. It is the duty of People to be subject to their authority for Conscience sake Infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrate's just and legal Aurity nor frâ—e the people from their due obedience to him If then the Doctrine of Resistance be to be owned as a Law of Nature and as a part of the Christian Freedom how came it that it was not more expresly owned in this Confession especially since it is known to have been the opinion of most of both these Assemblies But on the contrary it seems condemned and only the undiscerned reserves of just legal and due are slipâ— in for the defence of their actings Truly this seems not fair dealing and such an asserting of Subjection at that time looks either like the force of truth extorting it or intimates them afraid or ashamed to have owned that as their Doctrine to the World And by this time I suppose it is clear that the Reformed Churches ought not to be charged with the Doctrine of Resistance Poly. Nay nor the Reformed Writers neither with whose words I could fill much Paper and shew how they do all generally condemn the resistance of Subjects and when any of them gives any Caveat to this it is not in behalf of the People but of the States of the Kingdom who they say perhaps are impowered with authority to curb the tyranny of Kings as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians the Tribuns of the people and the Demarchs in Rome and Athens Now it is acknowledged that if by the Laws of the Kingdom it be found that the King is accountable to the States then their coercing of him is not the resistance of Subjects but rather the managing of the Supreme Power which lies in their hands If then you will stand to their decision in this Point of the Peoples resisting of their Sovereigns though Tyrants the debate will not run long they being so express And this will be nothing shaken by any thing
he adduced they might by arms make good their right and assume the Government in the Kings minority But the Admiral considering well the hardiness of the enterprise said that another way must be taken to make it succeed which was that since France was full of the followers of Calvin who through the persecutions they had lain under were now almost desperat and had a particular hatred at the Brethren of Lorrain as their chief enemies therefore it was fit to cherish them and make a party of them by which means assistance might be likewise hoped for from the Princes of Germany and the Queen of England and to this advice all present did yield Upon this saith Thuan lib. 16. many Writings were published proving the Government of the Kingdom in the King's minority to belong to the Princes of the Blood and that by the Laws of France the Regents power was not absolute but to be regulated by the Assembly of the States wherein many instances of the French Law were adduced and whereas it was alledged that the King was major at 15. which was proved from an Edict of Charles the Fifth this was fully refuted and it was shewed that notwithstanding of the Edict of Charles the Fifth his Son was not admitted to the Government till he was full 22 years of age and that in his minority the Kingdom was governed by a Council of the Princes and Nobility which was established by an Assembly of the States I shall not meddle further in the debate which was on both hands about the year of the King's majority or the Power of the Princes of the Blood in his minority but shall refer the Reader to the sixth Book of the voluminous History of France for that time whose Author hath suppressed his Name where a full abstract of all the writings that passed on both sides about these matters is set down but this shews how little your Friends understand the History of that time who take it for granted that Francis the Second was then Major since it was the great matter in controversie But to proceed in my Accounts These grounds being laid down for a war the Pâ—ince of Conde as Thuan relates would not openly own an accession to any design till it should be in a good forwardness but trusted the management of it to one Renaudy who tho a Catholick by his Religion yet drew a great meeting of Protestants to Nantes in the beginning of February anno 1560. where he stirred them up to arm and in his Speech after he had represented all the grievances he added that the greatest scruples that stuck with many was the King's Authority against which whosâ— roseâ—he did rebel and he answered acknowledging the obedience due to Kings notwithstanding their wicked Laws and that it was without doubt that all who resisted the Power constituted by GOD resisted his Ordinance but added their resistance was of these Traitors who having possessed themselves of the young King designed the ruin both of King and Kingdom This then will clear whether they walked on the Principles of Subjects resisting when persecuted by their Sovereign or not Upon this they designed to have seised on the King but as it was to be executed though it had been long carried with a marvellous secrecy it was at length discovered and the King conveyed to Ambâ—iâ—e and as the Protestants were gathering to a Head the Kinâ—'s Forces came upon them and defeated and scattered them But a little after this the King died in good time for the Prince of Conde for his accession to these Commotions being discovered he was sâ—ised on and sentenced to death but the King's death as it â—â—livered him did also put an end to the questions about the King's majority his Brother Charles the Ninth being a child so that the Regency was undoubtedly the King of Navarre his right yet not so entirely but that the other Princes were to share with him and the Assembly of the States to direct him as the Lawyers proved from the French Law The consultation about the Protestants took them long up and a severe Edict passed against them in Iuly 1561. But in the Ianuary of the next year a solemn meeting was called of all the Prinâ—es of the Blood the Privy Counsellors and the eighth Parliament of France in which the Edict of Ianuary was passed giving the Protestants the free exercise of their Religion and all the Magistrats of France were commanded to punish any who interrupted or hindered this liberty which Edict you may see at length Hist. d' Aâ—big lib. 2. c. 32. But after this as Davila lib. 3. relates how the Duke of Guise coming to Paris did disturb a meeting of the Protestants so that it went to the throwing of Stones with one of which the Duke was hurt upon which he designed the breach of that Edict and so was the Author and Contriver of the following Wars After this the Edict was every where violated and the King of Navarre united with the Constable and the Duke of Guise for the ruin of the Protestants upon which the Prince of Conde as the next Prince of the Blood asserted the Edicts so that the â—aw was on his side neither was the Regents power absolute or Sovereign and the Prince of Condé in his Manifesto declared he had armed to free the King from that captivity these stranger Princes kept him in and that his design was only to assert the authority of the late Edict which others were violating Upon this the Wars began and ere the year was ended the King of Navarre was killed after which the Regency did undoubtedly belong to the Prince of Condé And thus you see upon what grounds these Wars began and if they were after that continued during the majority of that same King and his Successors their Case in that was more to be pitied than imitated for it is known that Wars once beginning and Jealousies growing strong and deeply rooted they are not easily setled And to this I shall add what a late Writer of that Church Sieur d'Ormegrigny hath said for them in his reflections on the Third Chapter of the Politicks of France wherein he justifies the Protestants of France from these Imputations What was done that way he doth not justifie but chargeth it on the despair of a lesser Party among them which was disavowed by the greater part And shews how the first Tumults in Francis II. his time were carried mainly on by Renaudy a Papist who had Associates of both Religions He vindicates what followed from the Interest the Princes of the Blood had in the Government in the minority of the Kings And what followed in Henry III. his time he shews was in defence of the King of Navarre the righteous heir of the Crown whom those of the League designed to seclude from his right But after that Henry IV. had setled France he not only granted the Protestants free Exercise of their Religion but gave
these things it appears that the King of Scotland is a limited King who as he originally derived his Power from their choice so is still limited by them and liable to them All which is at large made out by the Author of Ius populi Basil. Now you are on a rational Point which I acknowledge deserves to be well discussed for if by the Laws of Scotland the King be liable to his People then their coercing him will be no Rebellion But this point is to be determined not from old Stories about which we have neither Record nor clear account for giving light how to direct our belief nor from some tumultuary Practices but from the Laws and Records of the Kingdom and here the first word of our Laws gives a shrewd Indication that the King's Power is not from the People which is anno 1004 according to Sir Iohn Skeen's Collection of them King Malcome gave and distributed all his Lands of the Realm of Scotland among his men and reserved nothing in property to himself but the Royal Dignity and the Mure-hill in the Town of Scone Now I dare appeal to any Person whether this be not the Stile of a Sovereign and if this prove not the King's Title to the Crown to be of another nature than that of a voluntary Compact The next vestige is to be found in the Books of Regiam Majestatem held to be published by King David I. Anno 1124 and declared authentical by following Parliaments where the third Verse of the Preface is That our most glorious King having the Government of the Realm may happily live both in the time of Peace and of warfare and may ride the Realm committed to him by God who hath no Superior but the Creator of Heaven and Earth ruler over all things c. And let the plain sense of these words tell whether the King of Scotland hath his power from the People and whether he be accountable to any but to God It is also clear that all were bound to follow the King to the Wars and punishment was decreed against those who refused it see the Laws of Alexander II. Cap. 15. and Iac. 1. Parl. 1. Cap. 4. Iac. 2. p. 13. Cap. 57. And this shews they were far from allowing War against the King The Parliaments were also originally the Kings Courts at which all his Vassals were bound to appear personally and give him Counsel which proving a burden to the small Barons they were dispenced with for their appearance in Parliament 1. Iac. Parl. 7. cap. 101. which shews that the coming to the Parliament was looked on in these days rather as an homage due to the King than a priviledg belonging to the Subjects otherwise they had been loth to have parted with it so easily And 2. Fac. 6. Parl. cap. 14. It is ordained that none rebel against the King's person nor his Authority and whoso makes such Rebellion is to be punished after the quality and quantity of such Rebellion by the advice of the three Estates And if it happens any within the Realm openly or notoriously to rebel against the King or make war against the King's Laeges against his forbidding in that case the King is to go upon them with assistance of the whole Lands and to punish them after the quantity of the trespass Here see who hath the Sovereign power and whether any may take Arms against the King's command and the 25. Ch. of that same Parl. defines the points of Treason It is true by that Act those who assault Castles or Houses where the King's person was without the consent of the three Estates are to be punished as Traytors From which one may infer that the Estates may besiege the King but it is clear that was only a provision against these who in the minority of the Kings used to seize upon their Persons and so assumed the Government and therefore it was very reasonable that in such a case provision should be made that it were not Treason for the Estates to come and besiege a place where the Kings Person were for recovering him from such as treasonably seized on him And this did clearly take its rise from the confusions were in that King's minority whom sometimes the Governor sometimes the Chancellor got into their keeping and so carried things as they pleased having the young King in their hands The King is also declared to have full Jurisdiction and free Empire within his Realm 3. Fac. Parl. 5. cap. 30. And all along it is to be observed that in asserting his Majesties Prerogative Royal the phrases of asserting and acknowledging but never of giving or granting are used so that no part of the King's Prerogative is granted him by the Estates and Iac. 6. Parl. 8. cap. 129. his Majesties Royal Power and Authority over all Estates as well spiritual as temporal within the Realm is ratified approved and perpetually confirmed in the person of the King's Majesty his Heirs and Successors And in the 15. Parl. of that same King Chap. 251. these words are Albert it cannot be denied but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Sovereign Power having as great liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and priviledg of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And in the 18. Parl. of the same King Act. 1. The Estates and whole body of that present Parliament all in one valuntary faithful and united heart mind and consent did truly acknowledge his Majesties Sovereign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledg of his Crown over all Estates Persons and Causes within his said Kingdom By this time I suppose it is past debate that by the Tract of the whole Laws of Scotland his Majesty is a Sovereign unaccountable Prince since nothing can be devised more express than are the Acts I have cited For what you objected from the Coronation Oath remember what was said a great while ago that if by the Coronation the King got his Power so that the Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance were of the nature of a mutual stipulation then you might with some reason infer that a failing of the one side did free the other but nothing of that can be alledged here where the King hath his Authority how soon the breath of his Father goes out and acts with full Regal power before he be crowned so that the Coronation is only a solemn inauguration in that which is already his right Next let me tell you that the King 's swearing at his Coronation is but a late practice and so the Title of the Kings of Scotland to the Crown is not upon the swearing of that Oath And here I shall tell you all that I can find in our Laws of the King 's swearing or promising The first instance that meets me is Chap. 17. of the Statutes of King Robert the Second where these words are For fulfilling and observing of all the premises the King so
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
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
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
men Indeed surh a Reformation of our lives and hearts would more strongly plead our cause and advance our interest than the most learned Disputes or the severest Laws tho followed with a most vigorous execution Let us not therefore repine at the contempt we lie under or the hazard we are exposed to nor complain of the non-execution of Laws but let us examine wherein we have walked contrary to the Laws of CHRIST in his Gospel by which we have provoked GOD to render us base and contemptible before the people In a word till we condemn our selves more and others less and think more of reforming our selves and less of punishing others we look not like proper Objects of Mercy or fit for a deliveranee But I shall quit this purpose to give some account of the following Conferences Some years ago a small Book of Dialogues betwixt the Conformist and Nonconformist was published and received with the general applause and good liking of all who were so far unprepossessed as to consider the plain and simple reasonings were there laid open but presently all the mouths of the enraged Zealots were set a yelping and snarling at it and at its suspected Author some laughed at it others despised it and all of them were angry some threatned a speedy answer others doubting of the performance said it deserved none At length divers Pens were said to have undertaken the Task but in end we had an answer from beyond Sea to it which was received with an universal shout of victory and triumph the Answerer acting his part with so much confidence and edging his smatterings with so much bitterness as if he had engaged with a compound of Ignorance and Atheism At first reading I could not but pity one who triumphed so confidently with so little reason and regrate the bitterness of his spirit who belched up gall and wormwood upon every occasion Yet in some matters of fact and History I deny not but his confidence made me imagine truth might be on his side but when I examined things from their Fountains I know not wha verdict to pass on him who fell in so many mistakes and stumbled at every step Most of his errors I imputed to his second-hand reading for he seems to have risen no higher in his learning than the reading of Pamphlets and it is like hath that quarrel with Antiquity that there is not a forty year old Author in his Closet and so much is he beholden to the labours of others that if one unplume him of what is borrowed nothing will remain but scoldings and non-sense For when he meets with anything out of the Road it is not unpleasant to see how browillied he is and so unequal in his stile that sometimes he flies high on borrowed wings and immediately he halts and crawls when on his own legs I was not soon resolved whether such a Scribler deserved an Answer since all he said that was material had both been printed and answered full often yet the confidence of the Author and the value which others much about his own size of knowledg and modesty did set on his labors made me think it necessary to say a little more on these things which were perhaps too overly glanced at by the Conformist in the Dialogues and my interest in that Person secured me from apprehending his mistakes of my interposing in this quarrel for indeed what he said was so far from being shaken by this pretended trifling Answer that as a Person of great judgment and worth said No more pains was needful for refuting the Answer but the reading over the Dialogues whose strength remained entire after all his attempts against them I was doubtful what method to pursue in the following sheets since I ever loathed the answering of Books by retail as an endless and worthless labor for when should I have done did I call him to account for all his incoherencies and impertinencies and examine all his simpering distinctions and whiffling answers I resolved therefore at one dash to wave all that and to examine the matters of greater and more publick concern with that clearness of expression which befits such Subjects and with so much brevity as might not frighten away the more superficial Readers nor surfeit the more laborious Therefore I have not stayed to make good all the Conformists Opinions or arguments hinted in these short Dialogues but have left the examining of them and the Answers made to them to the consideration of the unprejudged Reader and so have considered nothing of what he answers to the fifth and sixth Dialogues To the fifth Dialogue wherein set forms for Worship are pleaded for he answers by confessing their lawfulness arguing only against the imposing them but this I meet with in my second Conference wherein I assert the binding Authority of Laws in all things lawful And for his Answers to the sixth Dialogue they concern me not being made up of reflections It is true to shew his Common place reading he gives a long discourse of Justification but to very little purpose since upon the matter the Conformist differs nothing from him And for the justifying or condemning some phrases or modes of speech they are not worth the while to debate about them All my quarrel at these long winded Common places being that by a pretence of making matters clearer they darken them with a multiplicity of words and an intricacy of phrases And as this is justly censurable on every head about which it is imployed so it is more particularly in the matter of Justification which being the ground of our hope and joy should be so cleared that no difficulty nor nicety get into our conceptions about it What then can be clearer than that GOD in consideration of his Sons sufferings offers free pardon to all sinners on the terms of their forsaking their sins their accepting his mercy through his Son and their obedience to the rules of his Gospel which whosoever do are actually in the â—avor of GOD made partakers of his Grace and shall in due time be admitted to his Glory This being the Coâ—fâ—rmists sense on that head I leave it with all to consider what reason there was for making such ado about it or for charging him with so heavy imputations But he shrouds himself under his own innocency and will patiently bear all the insultings and ungodly rage of that Adversary without recriminating or answering him in his own style and dialect I pursue the method of a Conference as being both more suitable to the purposes here canvassed and more agreeable to the Dialogues only I furnish the Scene with more persons and I am much mistaken if the Answerer himself shall have ground to accuse me of not laying out the strength of his reasonings faithfully since upon every occasion I put in Isotimus his mouth the substance of his arguings as far as I could reach them But to make this unpleasant peace of contention go the more
against Ierusalem to which he was admitted by the men of his party who opened the gates to him after which he polluted their worship and Temple and fell on the cruellest persecution imaginable Now his title over them being so ill grounded their asserting their freedom and Religion against that cruel and unjust Invader was not of the nature of Subjects â—esistâ—ng their Sovereign Besides what is brought from the Epistle to the Hebrews ch 11. for justifying these Wars seems ill applied for from the end of the 32. verse it appears he only speaks there of what was done in the times of the Prophets and none of these being during the time of the Maccabees that is not applicable to them Next as for Mattathias I must tell you that GOD often raised up extraordinary persons to judg Iâ—rael whose practices must be no rule to us for GOD sets up Kings and Rulers at his pleasure and in the Old Dispensation he frequently sent extraordinary Persons to do extraordinary things who were called Zealots and such was Samuel's hewing Agag in pieces before the Lord Elijah's causing to kill the Priests of Baal which was not done upon the peoples power to kill Idolâ—teâ—s but Elijah having by that signal Miracle of fire falling from heaven proved both that GOD was the LORD and onely to be worshiped and that he was his Prophet and commanding these Priests to be killed he was to be obeyed Of the same nature was his praying for fire from heaven on the Captains who came to take him and Eliâ—ha his câ—râ—ing of the Children who reproached him From these Precedents we see it is apparent that often in the Old Dispensation the power of the Sword both ordinary and extraordinary was assumed by persons sent of GOD which will never warrant private and ordinary uninspired Persons to do the like Isot. I acknowledg this hath some ground but the first instance of these Zealots was Phâ—nehas in whom we find no vestige of an extraordinary mission and yet he killed Zimri and Cosbi for which he was rewarded with an everlasting Priesthood So a zeal for GOD in extraordinary cases seems warrant enough for extraordinary practices Pag. 382. to 405. Basil. If you will read the account of that action given by Moses it will clear you of all your mistakes since Phinehas had the warrant of the Magistrate for all he did for Moses being then the Person in whose hands the Civil Power was committed by GOD did say to the Judges of Israel Numb 25.5 Slay ye every one his men that were joyned to Baal Peor Now that Phinehas was a Judg in Israel at that time is not to be doubted for Eleazer was then High Priest and by that means exempted from that Authority which when his Father Aaron lived was in his hand Numb 3.32 and he being now in his Fathers place there is no ground to doubt but Phinehas was also in his and so as one of the Judges he had received command from Moses to execute judgment on these impure Idolaters which he did with so much noble zeal that the Plague was stayed and GOD'S wrath turned away But if this conclude a Precedent it will prove too much both that a Church-man may execute judgment and that a private person in the sight of a holy Magistrate without waiting for his Justice may go and punish Crimes From the instances adduced it will appear how Zealots were ordinarily raised up in that Dispensation But when two of CHRISTS Disciples lay claim to that priviledg of praying for fire from heaven he gives check to the fervor of their thundring zeal and tells them Luk. 9.55 56. You know not what spirit you are of adding that the Son of man was not come to destroy mens lives but to save them whereby he shews that tho in the Old Dispensation GOD having by his own command given his people a title to invade the Nations of Canaan and extirpate them having also given them Political Laws for the administration of Justice and order among them it was proper for that time that GOD should raise up Judges to work extraordinary deliverances to his People whose Example we are not now to imitate GOD also sent Prophets who had it sometimes in Commission to execute Justice on Transgressors yet in the New Dispensation these things were not to take place where we have no temporal Canaan nor Judicial Laws given us and consequently none are now extraordinarily called in the Name of GOD to inflict ordinary and corporal punishments Having said all this it will be no hard task to make it appear that Mattathias was a Person extraordinarily raised up by GOD as were the Iudges And though no mention of that be made neither by Iosephus nor the Book of Maccabees that is not to be stood upon for we have many of the Judges of Israel of whose call no account is given and yet undoubtedly they were warranted to act as they did otherwise they had been Invaders But if that practice of Mattathias conclude any thing by way of Precedent it will prove that Church-men may invade the Magistrates Office and kill his Officers and raise War against him Crit. I wonder we hear not Isotimus alledging the practice of the ten Tribes who rejected Rehoboam and made choice of Ieroboam which useth to be very confidently adduced for proving it to be the peoples right to give Laws to their Princes and to shake them off when they refuse obedience to their desires But to this and all other instances of this nature it is to be answered that the Iewish State being a Theocracy as it is called by their own Writers their Judges and many of their Kings had their title from GOD's designation and the possession was only yielded to them by the People according to the command Deut. 17.15 To set him King over them whom the LORD their GOD did chuse So when they sought a King they came to Samuel as the known Prophet of GOD and desired him to give them a King which he afterwards did In like manner was David designed to succeed Saul by the same Prophet and upon Sauâ—'s death the Tribe of Iudah came and aknowledged and anointed him King which was the solemn investiture in that to which he had formerly a right Ieroboam being by the same authority designed King over the ten Tribes by the mouth of Ahijab in the name of GOD 1 Kings 11. Ch. from v. 28. he derived his Title from that and there was as good warrants for the people to reject Rehoboam and follow him as was formerly to quite Ishbosheth and follow David Another instance of this nature is Elisha his sending one to Iehu where that young Prophet saith 2 Kings 9.6 Thus saith the LORD GOD of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the LORD even over Israel Upon the notice whereof v. 13. he is declared King These instances will sufficiently prove what I have alledged that the Kings of
the Hebrews having their right from GOD were to be changed when the most High who ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of mâ—n interposed his authority and command One word more and I have done When the Law of the Judge is set down Deut. 17.12 all who do presumptuously and hearkened not unto the Judge are sentenced to death That evil might be put away from Israel whereby the people might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously This shews that absolute Submission was due to the Judges under the pain of death whereby all private mens judging of their Sentence is struck out It is true the other Laws that prefer the Commands of GOD to the Laws of men do necessarily suppose the exception of unlawful Commands but since no Law warrants the resisting their Sentence it will clearly follow that absolute Submission was due to these Judges Basil. Truly these things as they seem to be well made out from Scripture so they stand with Reason since no order can be expected among men unless there be an uncontrollable Tribunal on Earth Our Consciences are indeed only within GOD'S Jurisdiction but if there be not a Supreme Power to cognosce and determine about our Actions there must follow endless Confusions when any number of People can be got to mutiny against Laws therefore there must be a Supreme Court But the Laws and settled Practices of Kingdoms must determine in whose Person this lies whether in a single Person the Nobility or the Major part of the People Yet I desire to hear what decisions the New Testament offers in this Question Crit. Truly that will be soon dispatched consider then how our LORD Matth. 5. forbids us to resist evil where it is true he enumerates only small Injuries so I shall not deny but that place will amount no farther than that we ought to bear small Injuries rather than revenge or oppose them but you must yield to the doctrine of Submission if afterwards you consider how our LORD tells us Matth. 11.20 To learn of him for he was meek and that he condemns the thundering fervor of his Disciples who called for fire from Heaven shewing the nature of the New Dispensation to be quite different from the Old in that particularly that the Son of man came not to destroy mens lives but to save them And chiefly that when he was to give the greatest instance wherein we should imitate him he refused the defence of the Sword and commanded S. Peter to put up his sword Matth. 26.52 Isot. If you urge this too much then must I answer that by the same Consequence you may prove we must cast our selves on dangers and not flee from them since we find CHRIST going up to Ierusalem though he knew what was abiding him there neither did he fly which yet himself allowed Besides you may as well urge against all Prayer to GOD for deliverance his not praying for Angels to assist him But the clear account of this is given by himself that the Scriptures were to be fulfilled which fore-told his death See pag. 24. and Answer to the Letter about Ius populâ— Crit. I must confess my self amazed at this Answer when I find S. Peter saving expresly 1 Pet. 2.21 That CHRIST suffered leaving us an example that we might follow his steps and applying this to the very Case of suffering wrongfully and that notwithstanding of that you should study to pervert the Scripture so grosly besides consider that CHRIST was to fulfil all righteousness if then the Laws of Nature exact our defence in case of unjust Persecution for Religion he was bound to that Law as well as we For he came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law both by his Example and Precepts If then you charge the Doctrine of Absolute Submission as brutish and stupid see you do not run into blasphemy by charging that â—â—oly One foolishly for whatever he knew of the secret Will of GOD he was to follow his revealed Will in his Actions whereby he might be a perfect Pattern to all his followers for GOD'S revealed Will was his Rule as well as ours But I dwell too long on things that are clear As for your â—nstances they will serve you in no stead For his coming to Ierusalem was a duty all the Males being bound to appear three times a year before the Lord at Ierusalem at the three Festivals the Passover being the first of them Deut. 16. And this being a duty our LORD was to perform it what ever hazard might follow So we find S. Paul on a less obligation going to Ierusalem notwithstanding the bonds were fore-told to abide him there And as for your other pretended Consequence against Prayer from his not praying for legions of Angels it bewrays great Inadvertency for you find our LORD a few minutes before praying in the Garden Matth. 26.42 over and over again that if it were possible that cup might pass from him And there is our warrant from his Practice to pray for a deliverance from Troubles or Persecutions if it may stand with the holy will of GOD But for a miraculous deliverance by the ministry of Angels that our Lord would not pray for lest thereby the Prophesies should not be accomplished and by this our praying for a miraculous Deliverance is indeed from his example condemned but still we are to pray that if it be possible and according to the Will of GOD any bitter cup is put in our hands may pass from us Next let me desiâ—e you to consider the reason given S. Peter for putting up his Sword Matth. 26.52 For they that take the sword shall pâ—â—â—sh by the sword Isot. You â—iâ—apply this place palpably it not being designed as a threatning against S. Peter but for the encouragement of his Disciples and being indeed a Prophesie that the Iews who now come against him with Swords and Staves should perish by the sword of the Romans who should be the avengers of CHRIST'S death See page 25. Crit. You are beholden to Grotius for this Exposition who is the first of the latter Writers that hath given that sense to these words tho he voucheth for his opinion some elder Writers and he designing to prove that a private Person may resist another private Assaillant by force being a little pinch'd with this place which seems to condemn simply the use of the Sword escapes oâ—t of it by the answer you have adduced But though this were the genuine scope of these words still remember that our LORD rejects the use of the Sword for his defence and if his fore-telling the Destruction of the Iews was of force to bind up S. Peter's hands why should not also that general promise Rev. 13.10 He that killeth with the sword must be killed by the sword also secure our Fears and sheath our Swords and the rather that it is there subjoâ—ned Here is the
and so did totally overturn the whole Foundation of the Kingdom But after all this I may add that Charles Duke of Sudâ—rman was not too well reported of for that abrogation of his Nephew it being generally imputed to his ambition And thus you see upon how many Accounts that Action of the Swedish State will not serve your turn Isot. But these of Zurich resisted the other five Cantons and being provoked by their injuries they stop'd the Passâ—ges of Victuals to them upon which a War followed As also at Basel the people did maintain and assert the Reformation by Arms against their Superiors and brake the Images and burnt them they also made the Senate turn off some of their number who favored the Mass. See p. 443 444. Poly. As for the War among the Cantons it is undeniable that it was not of Subjects against their Sovereigns since the Cities of Helvetia have no dependence one upon another nor can any one City be tied to the opinion or decree of the rest without their own consent which shews that every Canton is a free State within it self and therefore their warrings among themselves makes nothing for subjects resisting of their Sovereigns And what is alledged from the tumult of Basel is as little to our purpose for these free Cities being Democratical it was no wonder if the people offâ—nded with the Senate did raise that Commotion and the Historian expresly asserts that what they did they openly declared was not for defence of Religion but for vindicating of their own liberty And in the end of the Story it appears what they designed for they made the Senat receive 260. out of the Companies of the Citizens whose counsel should be carried along in the greater concernments that might be either for GOD's Glory or the Good of the Commonwealth But if you lay claim to this Story as a Precedent you must acknowledge that a Reformation may be not only maintained by force but that Magistrats may be removed from their Office if they go not along with it and that the people may in their own Authority without waiting for the Magistrats concurrence go by violence and break down Images and throw out an established Religion But this belongs not to the case of Subjects since in these free Cities the power is certainly with the people and so they are not Sâ—bjects to the Senat. And for Geneve it is so fully proved that it was a free Imperial City that I need add nothing to make it out One instance will abundantly suffice to prevail upon the belief of any who can doubt whether the Bishop of Geneve was their Prince which is that the Bishops of Geneve did frequently become Burgesses in it In particular Peter de Baulâ— the last who sate there was received a Citizen by the Senat of Genâ—ve 15. Iuly 1527. which doth fully prove that he could not be their Lord. But as for the Reformation of Geneve it is true Sleydan hints as if the Bishop and Clergy had left the City being angry at the Reformation but in that he was mistaken for their Bishop left the City an 1528. and made war against it upon some disputes were betwixt him and them about their privileges for though he was not Lord of the City yet the Countrey about it belonged to him But an 1533. he returned to the City and left it in the Iuly of the same year fearing some seditious Tumults which he had the more reason to apprehend because of his Transactions with the Duke of Savoy whereby he made over to him his interest in the City And it was two years after this before the Reformation was received by that City For after he left them they passed a Decree for preserving the old Religion and discharging of the Lutheran and banished two of the Ministers of that Religion And on the first of Ianuary 1534. after the Bishop was gone his Vicar published an Edict discharging all Assemblies fâ—r Divine Worship without the Bishops permission and all Bibles in the French or German Tongues were condemned to be burnt And for the Duke of Savoy his invading them and being resisted by them it makes nothing for your design this being a free Imperial City resisting an unjust Invader For all this see Geneva restituta Isot. But at least the States of the United Provinces did maintain their Religion by Arms when Philip the Second was introducing the Inquisition among them and tho these Wars were upon mixed grounds so that Papists as well as Protestants concurred in them yet it is undeniable that Religion gave the chief rise to them and was the main consideration that engaged the Protestants into that War See pag. 446. Poly. One error runs through all your smatterings which is that you never distinguish betwixt a State governed by a Monarch where subjection is due to him by the constitution of the State and a limited Prince who by the Laws of that Society is accountable to and censurable by the Nobility and people which states so great a difference that he must be very purblind who doth not observe it And therefore I will first shew you that the Prince of the Netherlands was but a precarious Prince governing a free people at their pleasure and precariously as Heuterus and Grotius de Ant. Reâ—p Batav call him And among the Laws of the Government of Batavia one was that the old Customs and Laws should be sacred and that if the Prince decreed ought against them he was not to be obeyed and so it was usual among them upon a tâ—anâ—gression to depose their Princes of which many instances are reckoned by Grotius and therefore he compares their Princes to the Lacedemonian Kings upon whom the Ephori and the Senat might have cognosced The Brabantins had indeed looked better to their liberty than the rest and so had guarded against the deceit of their Princes who might have broken their Laws upon the pretence of a publick good by an express agreement that if their Prince should violate the Laws they should not be tied to obedience nor fidelity to him till their injuries were removed and this was confirmed by the examples of their Ancestors Gr. An. lib. 2. And a little after he adds That the other Provinces in Belgium had by practice that same privilege and that the rather that being all united to Brabant by Maximilian they were to enjoy the same privileges with them The Brabantins had also a privilege of chusing a Conservator in any great hazard called Ruart Strada tom 1. lib. 9. whose power was equal to the Roman Dictators this they had by the privileges of the Laetus introitus And upon this they chused the Prince of Orange their Ruart anno 1577. And to run no further for proofs of this when Philip was inaugurated their Prince he expresly provided that if he broke their privileges they should be free from obedience and fidelity to him and this was the ground on which they
of quality and much accounted of since they were puffed up with him they were also a scandal to the Gospel with their litigious Law sutes These were great evils and I hope beyond what you can charge on us and yet though the Apostle commands them to be redressed and rectified doth he ever allow of these in Corinth who were pure and holy to forsake the solemn Assemblies till these things were amended Or doth he not highly commend Charity and Unity to them Next consider what Teachers these were who preached CHRIST of envy and strife out of contention and not sincerely that they might add affliction to the Apostles bonds And yet of these S. Paul's verdict is What then notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or in truth CHRIST is preached and I therein do rejoice yea and will rejoice Now if he rejoiced that Christ was preached at any rate what Spirit have they who because they suppose some preach out of Envy or design to add to their affliction do thereupon study to blast their reputation and to withdraw first the Hearts and then the Ears of all from them Certainly this is not the Spirit of CHRIST or of his Apostles And though we see what corruptions had crept into the Churches of Asia yet in the Epistles to them in the Revelation they are still call'd the Churches of GOD in the midst of whom the Son of GOD walked They are indeed commanded to reform any corruptions were among them but such as had not that doctrine and knew not the depths of Satan but had kept their garments clean are not commanded to separate from the rest on the contrary no other burden is laid upon them nor are they charged for not separating from the rest From which premises I may infer that as long as the Communion of Saints may be kept in without our being polluted in some piece of sinful concurrence all are bound to it under the hazard of tearing Christ's Body to pieces And this stands also with the closest Reason for since Unity is that which holds all the body firm whereas division dislocates and weakens it nothing doth more defeat the ends of Religion and overturn the power of Godliness than Scisms and Contentions which give the greatest offence to the little ones and the fullest advantages to the common enemy imaginable If therefore the Worship of GOD among us continue undefiled even in the confession of all if the Sacraments be administred as before if the Persons that officiate be Ministers of the Gospel then certainly such as separate from our publick Meetings do forsake the Assemblies of the Saints and so break the unity of the Spirit and the bond of Peace And what you said of a non-compliance as distinct from separation hath no relation to this purpose where nothing of a compliance is in the case but only a joining with the Saints in solemn Worship And doth the change of the Government of the Church in so small a matter as the fixing a constant President with some additions of power over your Synods in stead of your ambulatory Moderators derive a Contagion into our Worship so that without a Sin it cannot be joined in Indeed if a Concurrence of Worship required an owning of every particular in the Constitution of the Church a man must go to the New Atlantis to seek a Society he shall join with since few of clear unprepossessed minds will find such Societies in the known Regions of the World against all whose Constitutions they have not some just exceptions and the World shall have as many parties as persons if this be not fixed as the rule of Unity that we cleave to it ever till we be driven to do somewhat which with a good Conscience we cannot yield to And even in that case except the corruption be great and deep a bare withdrawing without a direct opposition is all we are bound to You are therefore guilty of a direct separation who forsake the Assemblies of the Saints they continuing in their former purity unchanged and unmixed even in your own Principles Isot. But one thing is not considered by you which is a main point that we had our Church setled according to CHRIST'S appointment and ratified by Law And a change of that being made all our faithful Ministers were turned out by the tyranny of the present Powers who in stead thereof have set up a new form of Government of none of CHRIST'S appointment and to maintain it have thrust in upon the LORD's People a company of weak ignorant scandalous and godless Men called Curates who instead of edifying study to destroy the flock of whom I could say much had I a little of your virulent temper But their own actions have so painted them out to the world that I may well spare my labor of making them better known it being as unnecessary as it is unpleasant Now if the true seekers of GOD do still stick to their old Teachers and seek wholsome food from them in corners and are afraid of your false Teachers according to CHRIST's command of being aware of such men call you this a separation which is rather an adherence to the true Church and the keeping of our Garments clean from the contagion of these men And indeed these who do join with your Curates do profit so little by their Ministry that no wonder others have no heart to it And I have known some whose consciences are so tender in this matter that their having at sometimes joined with these Curates in Worship hath been matter of mourning to them even to their graves And this may serve to clear us of the guilt of Schism in this matter when our withdrawing is only a non-compliance with your corruption Phil. All this saith nothing for justifying your separation As for the turning out of your Ministers if the Laws to which their obedience was required were just which shall be next considered then their prejudices misinformed consciences or peevisâ—mess and not the tyranny of the Rulers must bear the blame of it And for these set in their places if upon so great a desertion of the Church by so many Church-men all their charges could not be of a sudden supplied with men so well qualified or of such gifts and worth as was to be desired it is nothing but what might have been expected upon such an occasion And for your revilings they well become the spirit which appears too visibly in the rest of your actings but we still study to bear these base and cruel reflections with the patience becoming the Ministers of the Gospel and of these who study to learn of him who when he was reviled reviled not again but stood silent at those unjust Tribunals when he was falsly and blasphemously reproached by his enemies and therefore I shall leave answering of these fearful imputations you charge on our Clergy to the great day of reckoning wherein judgment shall return to the righteous and
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
eagerness have not only refused obedience themselves but hindered such as were willing to have yielded it Crit. Indeed this point of withdrawing from the publick worship for their faulâ—iness who officiate or for the errors are supposed to be in the way of their entry doth so contradict the whole series of the Sacred Rule that nothing can be more expresly condemned in it The Sons of Eli made the People abhor the offering and they defiled the Tabernacle of GOD yet for all that the people continued to come and offer their Sacrifices The Prophets do also tell us what kind of People the Priests in their times were and yet never a word of the peoples withdrawing from the Worship Now this must by the parity of reason hold good under the New Dispensation except you say we are not so much obliged to worship GOD in the unity of the Spirit as they were the contrary whereof will be found true Next the High Priesthood being entailed on the line of Aaron was certainly to descend as all other rights did among the Iews by the right of representation and primogeniture and so did Eleazer and Phinebas follow in a line from Aaron It is true the High Priesthood was afterwards in Ithamar's line but it doth not appear by what conveyance it went to them which certainly must have been Divine if lawful And none can limit GOD from dispensing with his own positive Laws But the High Priesthood was again set in its own channel by David and so continued downward till after the second Temple it becoming the chief Secular Power was exposed to sale and this appears from a passage cited by Doctor Lightfoot out of the Talmud of Ierusalem in the first Temple the High Priests still served the Son succeeding the Father and they were 18 in number but in the second Temple they got the High Priesthood by money And some say they destroyed one another by witchcraft so that some say there were 80 Priests in that space some 81 some 82 some 83 some 84 and some 85. And that Learned Doctor reckons 53 in order till he brings the Succession down to the time of the Wars after which it was so confused that he pursues it no further And in the beginning of the 3 chap. of his Temple-service he proves the High Priesthood to have descended to the first-born as the Priesthood before the Law belonged to the first-born of every Family And therefore it was that when Simeon the Iust would have put Onias his second Son in the Priesthood he could not do it But Simeon the eldest Brother obtained his right and Onias was put to fly to Egypt where he built a famous Temple This will prove that the High Priests in our Saviour's time had no just title to their office and yet our Saviour being by his humiliation in the character of a private Person never questioned it no not when he was upbraided as if he had answered GOD's High Priest irreverently which looks like a case of Confession And S. Paul did the same Now as to what is said of the High Priests being a Civil Magistrate it will not serve to deliver you for his title to the Civil Power flowed from his office therefore the owning him in that did also acknowledge his office since he had no other right to the Civil Power but because he was High Priest and yet subjection was given him by our LORD who acknowledged the High Priest Did he not also continue in the Temple Worship and go thither on their festivities where you know he must have offered Sacrifices by the hands of these Priests and yet we know well enough what a sort of People they were If then we are no less bound under the Gospel to the rules of Order and Unity than they were under the Law it will follow that no personal corruption of Church-men can warrant a separation from Worship even though their Opinions were erroneous and their practices naughty for the impertinency of the distinction of Non-compliance and separation was already proved But next to the Temple-worship was the service of the Synagogue which was for the most part in the hands of the Scribes and Pharisees who expounded the Law to the people And Christ's commanding the people to observe what they taught shews clearly his pleasure was that they should not forsake the Synagogues where they taught And his own going to the Synagogues in which it is not to be doubted but he concurred in the Prayers and Hymns proves abundantly that their Worship was not to be separated from As for your Friends involved discourse about the declining of Churches Pag. 193. I must let it alone till I can make sense of it For if he intend to compare our Lord and his Apostles their joining in the Iewish Worship with the misguided though sincere devotion of some holy Souls who worshipped God with all the corrupâ—ions of the Roman Church I hope he will repent the blasphemy of such a mistake And as for what is alledged Pag. 198. that the Iewish Dispensation being mixed and their Law made up of matters Political as well as Spiritual therefore these Scribes were the Oracles of the Civil Law and so to be gone to it is as weak as the rest For the Law being to be sought from the Priests lips as to all the parts of it any power the Priests had of pronouncing about the questions of the Law was because they were Priests or as they were men separated for officiating in the Synagogues so the receiving their decisions in matters judicial did acknowledg their Office which was purely Ecclesiastical and sacred From all this I may infer that as long as any Society continues to be the Church and people of GOD and hath the service and worship of GOD performed in it by men solemnly separated according to GOD's appointment whatever irregularities be either in their entry to such charges or of their opinions or practices these should indeed be cognosced upon and censured by the Supreme Powers in the Society but will never warrant private persons to separate from the Worship unless it be so vitiated in any part of it that without sin they cannot concur in it in which case they are indeed to keep themselves clean and to withdraw but not to divide until the Worship be so corrupted that the ends of publick Worship can no more be answered by such Assemblies Poly. I know it is thought a piece of noble gallantry among our new modelled people to despise the sentiments of the Ancient Church and therefore whatever I could adduce from them would prevail little for their conviction otherwise many things could be brought to this purpose from these two great Assertors of the Unity of the Church against Schisms and Divisions S. Cyprian and S. Augustin the latter especially who by many large Treatises studied the conviction of the Donatists who maintained their separation from the Church much upon the same grounds which
are by your Friends asserted But I shall dismiss this point with one Sentence of S. Augustin lib. 2. contra Parmen Quisquis ergo vel quod potest arguendo corrigit vel quod corrigere non potest salvo pacis vinculo excludit vel quod salvo pacis vinculo excludere non potest aequitate improbat firmitate supportat hic est pacificus And let me freely tell you that when I consider the temper the untractableness the peevish complainings the railings the high cantings of the Donatists which are set down by him and others I am sometimes made to think I am reading things that are now among our selves and not what passed twelve Ages ago And indeed some late practices make the parallel run more exactly betwixt our modern Zealots and the Circumcellions who were a Sect of the Donatists that was acted by a black and a most desperate spirit For St. Augustin tells us how they fell on these who adhered to the Unity of the Church beating some with Cudgels putting out the Eyes of others and invading the lives of some particularly of Maximinus Bishop of Hagaia whom they left several times for dead And what instances of this nature these few years have produced all the Nation knows How many of the Ministers have been invaded in their Houses their Houses rifled their goods carried away themselves cruelly beaten and wounded and often made to swear to abandon their Churches and that they should not so much as complain of such bad usage to these in Authority their Wives also scaped not the fury of these accursed Zealots but were beaten and wounded some of them being scarce recovered out of their labor in Child-birth Believe me these barbarous outrages have been such that worse could not have been apprehended from Heathens And if after these I should recount the Railings Scoffings and floutings which the Conformable Ministers meet with to their Faces even on streets and publick High-ways not to mention the contempt is poured on them more privately I would be looked on as a forger of extravagant Stories But it is well I am talking to men who know them as well as my self From these things I may well assume that the persecution lies mainly on the Conformists side who for their Obedience to the Laws lie thus open to the fury of their Enemies Isot. Now I dare say you speak against your conscience For do you think any of the LORD's people have accession to so much wickedness which is abhorred by them all and this is well enough known to you though you seem to disguise it For you have often heard our honest Ministers express their horror at such practices do not therefore sin against the generation of the Lord's Children so far as to charge the guilt of some murdering Rogues upon these who would be very glad to see Justice done upon such Villains Phil. You say very fair and I am glad to hear you condemning these Crimes so directly and I am as desirous as any living can be to be furnished with clear evidences of believing as much good as is possible of all mankind But let me tell you plainly that the constant concealing of these murderers whom no search which those in Authority have caused to make could discover tho the Robbers carried with them often a great deal of furniture and other goods which must have been conveyed to some adjacent Houses but could never be found out after so many repeated facts of that nature forceth upon the most charitable a suspicion which I love not to name Next let me tell you that these things are very justifiable from the principles your Friends go upon for if we be by Oath bound to discover all Malignants or evil instruments that they may be brought to condign punishment and if our Conformity be so notorious a wickedness and such a plain breach of Covenant in the punishment whereof the Magistrate is supine and backward then let every one compare the doctrine of the late Pamphlets from p. 282. to p. 408. chiefly 404. and 405. and declare whether by the Rules laid down in them any private persons upon heroical excitations may not execute vengeance on these who are so guilty of gross and notorious backsliding and defection and what may not be expected of this nature from him who hesitates to call the invading of the Bishop with a Pistol an accursed act and will only condemn it as rash precipitant and of evil example and that not simply neither but all circumstances being considered and their exigences duly ballanced Which makes me apprehend his greatest quarrel with that deed was that it misled the designed effect and so was done inadvertently or too publickly or upon some such particular ground which may have occasioned its miscarriage But to deal roundly with you I shall freely acknowledg if the Doctrine of Resistance by private Subjects against these in Authority be lawful I see no ground to condemn such practices For if we may rise in Arms against those in Authority over us and coerce and punish them why not much rather against our fellow Subjects and those to whom we owe no obedience especially when we judg them to have transgressed so signally and to have injured us to a high degree which is the case as most of you state it with the Ministers that are conformable And from this let me take the freedom to tell you that the whole Mystery of Iesuitism doth not discover a principle more destructive of the peace and order of mankind than this doctrine of the lawfulness of private persons executing vengeance on gross offenders where the transgression is judged signal the Magistrate is judged remiss and the actors pretend an heroick excitation This puts a Sword in a mad mans hands and arms the whole multitude and is worse than theirs who will have such deeds warranted by some supreme Ecclâ—â—â—astical Power or at least by a Confessarius and Director of the Conscience Indeed this may justly possess the minds of all that hear it with horror it being a direct contradiction of the Moral Law and an overturning of all the Societies of Mankind and Laws of Nature Eud. I am more charitable than you are for though I must acknowledg what you have alledged to be the native consequence of what is asserted in that Book yet I am inclined to believe he intended not these things should be drawn from it since he in plain terms pag. 402. condemns these outrages I confess his zeal to defend all Naphthali said and to refute every thing the Conformist alledged hath engaged him further than himself could upon second thoughts allow of And as for the instances of Phineâ—as Elijah or other Prophets the argument from them was so fully obviated in our First Conference that I am confident little weight will be laid upon it But now methinks it is more than time we considered the importance of that difference about which all this ado is made