mâ—stake me not as if I charged one party only with this leaven which is alas too visible among many of all sides and parties But to dwell no longer on generals which every one will drive off himself and lodge on others let us now come to a closer review of our late times And here Philarcheus I quit the Theme to you who I know can manage it better Phil. Truly when I reflect on the late times and the spirit which did then act in the Judicatories both of Church and State I wonder much how any can be guilty of the error of thinking it was the cause of GOD was then fought for I deny not but a great many yea I am willing to hope the greater part were misled and abused and did imagine it was Religion and Liberties they fought for and so went out as they were called in the simplicity of their heart and knew not any thing of the secret designs of their Leaders As in the case of Absoloms rebellion two hundred went from Ierusalem with him which might well a little excuse their fault but could not alleviate the guilt of that unnatural rebellion so whatever may be said for excusing the multitudes who I doubt not meant well yet that will never serve for vindicating the course was followed I confess if I saw any remorse or shame for by-past miscarriages if I found these people we speak of either humbled for them before GOD or ashamed of them among men I should be the last on earth who would upbraid them with them and that the rather that His Majesty hath buried the remembrance of them by a gracious oblivion But when they continue so insolent as still to bear up so high in their pretentions as if GOD had been visibly with them and when they think it an injury to their innocency to tell them of an indemnity who would not be tempted to take them to task and examine all their vain boastings and empty pretences to which I am both provoked from their arrogance and invited from the evident proofs of all I shall alledge which I can lay before you from authentical Papers and Registers and I shall freely tell you that if any of these Pamphleteers had but the half to say of these who yield a complyance to the present Establishment which I can say of them the world would ring with it But I count the defaming of men a woâ—k as mean as it is cruel Yet I look upon my self as obliged to give some accounts of the spirit and ways of these people which I shall do with all the reserve and caution that becomes a Christian. Eud. Hold hold I pray you run not too far in your carreer lest you lay open things were better hid I confess these Writers do justly draw it from you but for the faults of two or three be not cruel to a multitude And what will all you shall say avail for we know well enough how little the clearest evidence will prevail upon their belief And though I in particular know upon what grounds you can go for verifying all you undertake and that they are unexceptionably clear yet it is a dunghil not to be searched too much Wherefore let me with my most earnest intreaties divert you from the discourse you have threatned Isotimus with But because all these mens defences of the resistance Subjects may make to their Sovereigns go upon the principles of maintaining Religion and Liberties when invaded by the Magistrate we will therefore be beholden to you if you satisfie us whether the late wars as they were begun and carried on were defensive or not Phil. Your authority over me is so entire that your commands never fail of determining my obedience therefore for this once I shall yield to your desire but with this declaration that if Isotimus cannot prevail among his friends for conjuring that pamphleting spirit into silence I will be forced on more freedom than I either design or desire and be made to tell name and surname of the Actors of many things which they may wish lay dead and be made to prove them from authentick papers and records and discover a mystery of iniquity which hath lien long hid under fair pretences and in a word let you understand what were the arts caballings and intrigues of these who pretended so much to the interest of CHRIST when they sought their own and if in doing this I be forced on much round and plain dealing the blame of it will fall to their share who extort it from me But I come now to satisfie your desire and doubt not to convince you that the late wars were an invasion of the Kings Authority and of the established Laws and were not for defence of any part of the established Religion and Liberties In the year 1938. His Majesty having understood that the authorizing of the Service-Book and Book of Canons and the establishment of the High-Commission-Courts were illegal did upon the representation of those grievances not only retract what he had formerly done but in the fullest manner discharged them and though the Articles of Perth stood setled by Law yet upon their petitions who counted them grievances he warranted their disuse and for securing the fears of his Subjects of the change of Religion with which some factious spirits had poysoned them he appointed the National Covenant as King Iames had signed it to be taken by all his Subjects with a bond of mutual defence and adherence to it He also summoned an Assembly and Parliament for satisfying all the just demands and grievances of his Subjects But did this satisfie the zeal of that party No for when all colors of grounds were removed from those malicious imputations with which his Majesties actions were aspersed then did they flee to their safe and sure refuge of jealousies and fears out of which there was never any storming of them as if all had been only offered to trepan and deceive them And after His Majesty had called a Synod at Glasgow then came in the Lay-Elders who were all of the Nobility and men of the greatest eminence of the Kingdom and carried the elections of the members of the Assembly in the most arbitrary manner imaginable many instances whereof I can yet prove from authentick papers one generall I shall only name for did I stand to reckon up all I should never get to an end the ruling Elders who came from every Paâ—och to the Presbyteries for electing the Commissioners to the Assembly were men of power and of one knot and so when it was voted what Ministers should be chosen they who were listed being at least six were set to the door and thus the Elders who stayed within carried the election as they pleased And when the commissionated ruling Elder was chosen they were all so associated that they could not choose wrong And thus it was that the secular men did intirely choose the members of the Assembly of
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
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
of Kings be also asserted And indeed your Friend by this ingenuity of his hath done that Cause a prejudice of which many are sufficiently sensible for this was a secret Doctrine to be instilled in corners in the hearts of Disciples duly prepared for it but not to be owned to the World For if that place prove any thing it will prove that when a King turns from following the LORD his Subjects may conspire and slay him how this would take among the Fifthâ—Monarchy Men I know not but I am sure it will be abhorred by all Protestants and particularly by these who made it an Article of their Confession of Faith That infidelity or difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just power Therefore this being a direct Breach of both fifth and sixth Commands though it be neither marked as condemned nor punished in that short account there given yet it will never warrant the resisting the Ordinance of GOD upon which GOD hath entailed Damnation And whereas your Friend alledgeth the justice of this may be evinced from Scripture it shews that in his Judgment not only Tyranny but the turning from following GOD is a just cause for conspiring against and killing of Kings But I cannot see where he finds what the cause of this Conspiracy was since the Text taxeth only the time but not the cause of it And for the instance of Uzziah the Priests indeed withstood him as they ought to have done as the Ministers of the Gospel ought yet to do if a King would go and consecrate the LORD'S Supper but their withstanding of that imports no violent Opposition the strict signification of the word being only that they placed themselves over against him and so it is rendered by the LXX Interpreters and remember that S. Paul withstood S. Peter to his face Gal. 2.11 Yet I do not apprehend you will suspect he used force As for what follows that the Priests did thrust him out it will not prove they laid hands on him that word signifying only that they made him haste out of the Temple and is the same word which Esther 6.14 is rendered hasted where none will think that the Chamberlains laid violent hands on Haman so all that the Priests did was to charge Uzziah when his Leprosie appeared to get him quickly out of the Temple and some Copies of the LXX have it so rendered and the following words shew there was no need of using force since himself made haste And for the word rendered valiant or sons of valor that word is not always taken for valor but sometimes for activity so Gen. 47.6 sometimes for riches so Ruth 2.1 It is also rendered wealth Gen. 34.29 so this will not prove that Azariah made choice of these men for the strength of their Body but for the Resolution of their Mind that they might stoutly contradict Uzziah and thus you have drawn a great deal more fâ—om me than I intended or these misapplied places needed for clearing of them from the design you had upon them Isot. But is it not clear from 1 Sam. 14.45 that the people of Israel rescued Jonathan from his fathers bloody sentence against him and swore he should not die See pâ—â— â— 5 Crit. That will prove as little for no force was used in the matter only a solemn Protestation was made Next the word rendered rescued is redeemed which is not used in a sense that imports violence in Scripture but rather for a thing done by contract and agreement And the LXX Interpreters render it the people intreated for Ionathan nor need we doubt but Saul was easily prevailed upon to yield to their desire Besides any King that would murder his eldest Son and heir of his Crown upon so bare a pretence after he had signalized his courage so notably as Ionathan did may well be looked upon as one that is furious and so the holding of his hands is very far different from the case of defensive Arms. Isot. But David a man according to GODS heart gathered four hundred Men about him and stood to his defence when cruelly persecuted by Saul 1 Sam. 22.2 Basil. Many things meet in this instance to take away any colour of an argument might be drawn from it for David was by GODS command designed successor to the Crown and so was no ordinary Subject Next Saul was become furious and an evil spirit seized on him so that in his rage he threw Javelins not only at David but at his Son Ionathan Now all confess that when a Sovereign is frenetick his fuâ—y may be restrained Further we see how far David was from resistance he standing on a pure defence so that when he had Saul in his power twice he would do him no hurt yea his heart smote him when he cut off the hem of his garment 1 Sam. 24.4 5. This was not like some you know of who set Guards about their King for the security of his Person forsooth when he had trusted himself into their hands And it is very doubtful if David's gathering that force about him was lawful for these who came to him were naughty Men and discontented and broken with debt whereas had that been a justifiable practice it is like he should have had another kind of following And his offering his service to the Philistins who were Enemies to GOD to fight for them against the people of GOD is a thing which can admit of no excuse But after all this if the actions even of renowned Persons in the Old Dispensation be Precedents you may adduce the instances of Ehud to prove that we may secretly assassinate a Tyrant and of Iael to prove that after we have offered protection to one who upon that trusts to us we may secretly murder him Isot. But what say you to the resistance used by Mattatbâ—as and his Children who killed the Kings Officers and armed against him which resistance as it was foretold by Daniel so it is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews That by faith they waxed valiant in fight and turned to flight the Armies of Aliens which by all is applied to the Maccabees And who are you to condemn that which the holy Ghost calls the work of faith in them See p. 18 19. Basil. I see Criticus is weary of speaking and therefore will relieve him for this once and tell you that the title Antiâ—â—hus had to command the Iews is not undoubted for Iosephus lib. 12. cap. 7. and 8. shews how the Iewish Nation was tossed betwixt hands and sometimes in the power of the Kings of Egypt and sometimes of Syria and that the factions among the Iews gave the occasion to their being so invaded for ambitious pretenders to the High Priesthood sought the favour of these Kings and so sacrificed the interests both of Religion and their Country to their own base ends which was the case in Antâ—ochus Epiphanes his time who after his attempt upon Egypt came
not oblige For the common resolution of Casuists being that a Man under an erroneous Conscience is yet to follow its dictates though he sin by so doing then all parties that are oppressed ought to vindicate what they judg to be the truth of GOD. And by this you may see to what a fair pass the peace of mankind is brought by these Opinions But mistake me not as if I were here pleading for sâ—â—mission to patronize the tyranny or cruelty of persecuting Princes who shall answer to God for that great trust deposited in their hands which if they transgress they have a dear account to make to him who sits in heaven and laughs at the raging and consultings of these Kings or Princes who design to throw off his Yoak or burst his bonds in sunder He who hath set his King upon his holy Hâ—ll of Zion shall rule them with a rod of Iron and break them in pieces as a Potter's Vessel And he to whom vengeance doth belong will avenge himself of all the injuries they do his truths or followers but as they sin against him so they aâ—e only countable to him Yet I need not add what hath been often said that it is not the name of a King or the ceremonies of a Coronation that cloaths one with the Sovereign Power since I know there are and have been titular Kings who are indeed but the first Persons of the State and only Administrators of the Laws the Sovereign Power lying in some Assembly of the Nobility and States to whom they are accountable In which Case that Court to whom these Kings must give account is the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom and the King is but a Subject Isot. But doth not the Coronation of a King together with his Oath given and the consent of the People demanded at it prove him to have his Power upon the Conditions in that Oath And these Oaths being mutually given his Coronation Oath first and the Oath of Allegiance next do shew it is a Compact and in all mutual Agreements the nature of Compacts is that the one party breaking the other is also free Further Kings who are tied up so that they cannot make nor repeal Laws nor impose Taxes without the consent of the States of their Kingdom shew their Power to be limited and that at least such Assemblies of the States share with them in the Sovereign Power which is at large made out by Ius populi Basil. It is certain there cannot be two co-ordinate Powers in a Kingdom for no man can serve two Masters therefore such an Assembly of the States must either be Sovereign or subject for a middle there is not As for the Coronation of Princes it is like enough that aâ— first it was the formal giving their Power to them and the old Ceremonies yet observ'd in it prove it hath been at first so among us But it being a thing clear in our Law that the King never dies his Heir coming in his place the very moment he expires so that he is to be obeyed before his Coronation as well as after and that the Coronation is nothing but the solemn inaugurating in the Authority which the King possessed from his Father's death shews that any Ceremonies may be used in it whatever the original of them may have been do not subject his Title to the Crown to the Peoples consent And therefore his Coronation Oath is not the condition upon which he gets his Power since he possess'd that before nor is it upon that Title that he exacts the Oath of Alegiance which he likewise exacted before his Coronation This being the practice of a Kingdom passed all Prescription proves the Coronation to be no compact betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore he is indeed bound by his Coronation Oath to God who will be avenged on him if he break it so the matter of it were lawful but the breaking of it cannot forfeit a prior Right he had to the Peoples Obedience And as for the limitations Kings have consented to pass on their own Power that they may act nothing but in such a form of Law these being either the King 's free Concessions to the People or restraints arising from some Rebellions which extorted such Priviledges will never prove the King a Subject to such a Court unless by the clear Laws and Practices of that Kingdom it be so provided that if he do malverse he may be punished which when made appear proves that Court to have the Sovereign Power and that never weakens my design that Subjects ought not to resist their Sovereign Philar. You have dwelt methinks too long on this though considering the nature of the thing it deserves indeed an exact discussion yet this whole Doctrine appears so clear to a discerning Mind that I cannot imagine whence all the mist is raised about it can spring except from the corrupt Passions or Lusts of men which are subtle enough to invent excuses and fair colors for the blackest of Crimes And the smoak of the bottomless pit may have its share in occasioning the darkness is raised about that which by the help of the light of God or of reason stands so clear and obvious But when I consider the instances of sufferings under both Dispensations I cannot see how any should escape the force of so much evident proof as hangs about this opinion And if it had been the Peoples duty to have reformed by the force of Arms under the Old Dispensation so that it was a base and servile Compliance with the Tyranny and Idolatry of their Kings not to have resisted their subverting of Religion and setting up of Idolatry where was then the fidelity of the Prophets who were to lift up their voices as Trumpets and to shew the house of Iacob their iniquities And since the watch-man who gave not warning to the wicked from his wicked way was guilty of his Blood I see not what will excâ—se the silence of the Prophets in this if it was the Peoples duty to reform For it is a poor refuge to say because the People were so much inclin'd to Idolatry that therefore it was in vain to exhort them to reform See pag. 10 11. since by that Argument you may as well conclude it to have been needless to have exhorted their Kings to Reformation their inclination to Idolatry being so strong but their duty was to be discharged how small soever the likelihood was of the Peoples yielding obedience to their warnings If then it was the Peoples duty to reform the oâ—ission of it was undoubtedly a Sin how then comes it that they who had it in commission to cause Ierusalem to know her abominations under so severe a Certificate do never charge the People for not going about a popular Reformation nor coâ—rcing these wicked Kings who enacted so much Idolatry backing it with such Tyranny nor ever require them to set about it I know one hath pick'd out some
not succeed he openly made War against Constantine And as he was preparing for it he made War likewise against GOD and persecuted the Christians because he apprehended they all prayed for Constantine and wished him success whereupon he made severe Laws against the Christians forbidding the Bishops ever to meet among themselves or to instruct any Women afterwards he banished all that would not worship the Gods and from that he went to an open Persecution and not content with that he by severe Laws discharged any to visit and relieve such as were in Prison for the Faith Yet notwithstanding all this none that were under his part of the Empire did resist him nay not so much as turn over to Constantine against him for ought that appears But upon these things a War followed betwixt Constantine and him wherein Licinius was defeated and forced to submit to what conditions Constantine was pleased to give who took from him Greece and Illyricum and only left him Thrace and the East But Licinius returning to his old ways and breaking all agreements a second war followed wherein Licinius was utterly defeated and sent to lead a private life at Thessalonica where he was sometime after that killed because of new designs against Constantine This being the true account of that Story I am to divine what advantage it can yield to the cause of Subjects resisting theiâ— Sovereign for here was a Superior Prince defending himself against the unjust attempts and hostile incuâ—sions of his Enemy who was also inferior to him as Eusebius states it whom consult 10. Book 8. â—â— and 1. Book of Const. life ch 42. and 2. Book ch 2 c. And for your instance of the Persians imploring the aid of the Romans I am afraid it shall serve you in as little stead for the account Socrates gives of it lib. 7. cap. 18. is that Baratanes King of Persia did severely persecute the Christians whereupon the Christians that dwelt in Persia were necessitated to fly to the Romans and beseech them not to neglect them who were so destroyed they were kindly received by Aticus the Bishop of Constantinople who bent all his care and thoughts for their aid and made the matter known to Theodosius the second then Emperor but it happened at that tune the Romans had a quarrel with the Persians who had hired a great many Romans that wrought in Mines and sent them back without paying the agreed hire which quarrel was much heightned by the Persian Christians complaint for the King of Persia sent Ambassadours to remand them as fugitives but the Romans refused to restore them and not only gave them Sanctuary but resolved by all their power to defend the Christian Religion and rather make War with the Persians than see the Christians so destroyed Now it will be a pretty sleight of Logick if from Subjects flying from a Persecution and seeking shelter under another Prince you will infer that they may resist their own King And for Theodosius his War we see other grounds assigned by the Historian and the Politicks even of good Princes in their making of Wars must not be a Rule to our Consciences neither know I why this instance is adduced except it be to justifie some who are said during the Wars betwixt their own Sovereign and the Country where they lived to have openly prayed for Victory against their Country and to have corresponded in opposition to their native Sovereign But I must next discuss that Catalogue of Tumults in the fourth and fifth Century which are brought as Precedents for the resisting of Subjects and here I must mind you of the great change was in Christendom after Constantine's days before whom none were Christians but such as were persuaded of the truth of the Gospel and were ready to suffer for its profession so that it being then a Doctrine objected to many Persecutions few are to be supposed to have entred into its discipline without some Convictions about it in their Consciences but the case varied much after the Emperors became Christian so that what by the severity of their Laws what by the authority of their Example almost all the World rendered themselves Christian which did let in such a swarm of corrupt men into the Christian Societies that the face of them was quickly much changed and both Clergy and Laity became very corrupt as appears from the complaints of all the Writers of the fourth Century what wonder then if a tumultuating Humor crept into such a mixed multitude And indeed most of these instances which are alledged if they be adduced to prove the corruption of that time they conclude but too well But alas will they have the authority of Precedents or can they be look'd upon as the sense of the Church at that time since they are neither approved by Council or Church-Writer And truly the Tumults in these times were too frequent upon various occasions but upon none more than the popular elections of Bishops of which Nazianzen gives divers instances and for which they were taken from the People by the Council of Laodicea Can. 13. It is also well enough known how these Tumults flowed more from the tumultuary temper of the People than from any Doctrine their Teachers did infuse in them And therefore Socrates lib. 7. cap. 13. giving account of one of the Tumults of Alexandria made use of by your Friends as a Precedent tells how that City was ever inclined to Tumults which were never compesced without blood And at that time differences falling in betwixt Orestes the Prefect and Cyril the Bishop who was the first that turned the Priesthood into a temporal Dominion they had many debates for Orestes hating the power of the Bishops which he judged detracted from the Prefect's authority did much oppose Cyril and Cyril having raised a Tumult against the Iews wherein some of them were killed and the rest of them driven out of the City Orestes was so displeased at that that he refused to be reconciled with him whereupon 500 Monks came down from Nitria to fight for their Bishop who set on the Prefect and one of them named Ammonius wounded him in the head with a stone but the People gathering they all fled only Ammonius was taken whom the Prefect tortured till he died but Cyril buried him in the Church and magnified his Fortitude to the degree of reckoning him a Martyr of which he was afterwards ashamed And their being in Alexandria at that time a learned and famous Lady called Hyppatia whom the People suspected of inflaming the Prefect against the Bishop they led on by a Reader of the Church set on her and dragged her from her Chariot into a Church and stript her naked and most cruelly tore her body to pieces which they burnt to ashes And this saith the Historian brought no small Infamy both on Cyril and on the Church of Alexandria since all who profess the Christian Religion should be strangers to killing
hair and another Lewis were chosen Kings of France and the chief Persons who at that time were most active were these Dukes Counts and Bishops who afterwards were made Peers Hugo Capet therefore taking possession of the Crown for securing himself peaceably in it did confirm those Peers in that great Authority they had assumed which if he had not done they had given him more trouble And their constitution was that if any difference arose either betwixt the King and any of the Peers or among the Peers themselves it should be decided by the Council of the whole twelve Peers And he proves from an old Placart that they would not admit the Chancellor Connestable or any other great Officer of France to judg them they being to be judged by none but their fellow Peers These were also to be the Electors of the King But Hugo Capet apprehending the danger of a free Election caused for preventing it Crown his Son in his own time which was practised by four or five succeeding Kings And Lewis the Gross not being crowned in his Fathers time met with some difficulty at his entry to the Crown which to guard against he crowned his Son in his own time and so that practice continued till the pretence of electing the King was worn out by prescription Yet some vestigies of it do still remain since there must be at all Coronations of France twelve to represent the Peers and by this time I think it is well enough made out that the Count of Tolouse was not an ordinary Subject And as for your confounding of Subject and Vassal Bodinus lib. de Rep. cap. 9. will help you to find out a difference betwixt them who reckons up many kinds of Vassals and Feudataries who are not Subjects for a Vassal is he that holds Lands of a Superior Lord upon such conditions as are agreed to by the nature of the Feud and is bound to protect the Superior but may quit the Feud by which he is free of that subjection so that the dependence of Vassals on their Lord must be determined by the Contract betwixt them and not by the ordinary Laws of Subjects And from this he concludes that one may be a Subject and no Vassal a Vassal and no Subject and likewise both Vassal and Subject The Peers of France did indeed give an Oath of homage by which they became the Liegeâ—men of the King but were not for that his Sâ—bjects for the Oath the Subjects swore was of a far greater extent And thus I am deceived if all was asserted by the Conformist in the Dialogues on this head be not made good Isot. But since you examine this instance so accuratly what say you to those of Piedmont who made a League among themselves against their Prince and did resist his cruel Persecutions by Armies See pag. 423. Poly. Truly I can say little on this Subject having seen none of their Writings or Apologies so that I know not on what grounds they went and I see so much ignorance and partiality in accounts given from the second hand that I seldom consider them much Isot. The next instance in History is from the Wars of Boheme where because the Chalice was denied the People did by violence resist their King and were headed by Zisca who gained many Victories in the following War with Sigismund and in the same Kingdom fifty years ago they not only resisted first Matthias and then Ferdinand their King but rejected his authority and choosed a new King and the account of this change was because he would not make good what Maximilian and Rodolph did grant about the fâ—ee exercise of their Religion and thus when engagements were broken to them they did not judge themselves bound to that tame submission you plead for See p. 424. Poly. Remember what was laid down as a ground that the Laws of a Society must determine who is invested with the Sovereign Power which doth not always follow the Title of a King but if he be accountable to any other Court he is but a Subject and the Sovereign Power rests in that Court If then it be made out that the States of Bohemia are the Sovereigns and that the Kings are accountable to them this instance will not advance the plea of defensive Arms by Subjects That the Crown of Bohemia is elective was indeed much contraverted and was at length and not without great likelihoods on both sides of late debated in divers Writings but among all that were impartial they prevailed who pleaded its being elective Yet I acknowledge this alone will not prove it free for the People to resist unless it be also apparent that the Supreme Power remained with the States which as it is almost always found to dwell with the People when the King is elected by them Bodin doth reckon the King of Bohemia among these that are but Titular Kings and the Provincial Constitutions of that Kingdom do evidently demonstrate that the King is only the Administrator but not the fountain of their Power which is made out from many instances by him who writes the Republick of Bohemia who shews how these Kings are bound to follow the pleasure and Counsel of their States and in the year 1135 it was decreed that the elected Prince of Bohemia should bind himself by his Coronation Oath to rules there set down which if he broke the States were to pay him no Tributes nor to be tied to any further Obedience to him till he amended See Hagecus ad ann 1135. And this Oath was taken by all the following Dukes and Kings of Bohemia which is an evident proof that the States had authority over their Kings and might judge them To this also might be added divers instances of their deposing their Kings upon which no censure ever passed These being then the grounds on which the Bohemians walked it is clear they never justified their Resistance on the account of Subjects fighting for Religion but on the liberties of a free State asserting their Religion when invaded by a limited Prince The account of the first Bohemian War is that Iohn Huss and Ierome of Prague being notwithstanding the Emperors Safe-conduct burnt at Constance the whole States of Bohemia and Moravia met at Prague and found that by the burning of their Doctors an injury was done to the whole Kingdom which was thereby marked with the stain of Heresie and they first expostulated with the Emperor and Counsel about the wrong done them but no reparation being made they resolved to seek it by force and to defend the Religion had been preached by Huss and did declare their design to Winceslaus their King whom the States had before that time made prisoner twice for his maleversation but at that very time he died in an Apoplexy some say through grief at that After his death Sigismund his Brother pretended to the Crown of Bohemia but not being elected was not their righteous King so in the following Wars
Navy to Henry III. of England and got great priviledges from him for their traffick in England There were then 72. Cities in the League who renewed their League every tenth year and consulted whom to receive or whom to exclude from their friendship and choosed a Pâ—oâ—â—â—tor to themselves And one of the Conditions on which any City might be of this League was that they were free Towns and therefore it was that some Towns in the Netherlands being of this League their Princes were by Oath to confirm their freedom otherwise they could not be comprehended within that League the end whereof was to defend one another in any necessity they might fall in Let these things then declare whether Germany be a Monarchy or not and it will never prove the Emperor to be the Sovereign because the Empire is feudal and the Emperor gives the Investitures to the Princes for they are not the Feudatoâ—ies of the Emperor but the Empire and the Emperor by giving the Investiture becomes not their Lord for in the Interregn of the Empire the Electors of Palatine and Saxe are the Vicars of the Empire and give the Investitures who are not clothed with any authority over the rest but only as they are the Vicars of the Empire and not of the Emperor And most of the Princes of Itair receive still their Investiture from the Emperor but are far from concluding themselves his Subjects upon that account And who thinks the King of Naples the Popes Subject tho he receive his Investiture in that Crown from him These things being thus cleared it will be evident that the Wars betwixt Charles V. and the Duke of Saxony will never be a Precedent for Subjects resisting their Sovereign And having said so much it will be to no purpose to examine the rise and progress of the Smalcalâ—â— League and War only thus much is clear that the leaguing of the Princes and Cities together among themselves or with other Princes was not held contrary to the Laws of the Empire for after the Smalcaldic League both the Emperor and other Kings as France and England treated with them and sent Embassadors to them Yea the Pope sent a Nuncio to the Elector of Saxe and Landgrave of Hessen at Smalcald and yet never were they accused by the Emperor for entring into that League of mutual defence which shews it was not judged contrary to the duty of these Princes to associate among themselves or with others And the City of Strasburg and after them the Landgrave of Hessen made a League with the Switzer Cantons that received the Reformation for mutual defence against any Invasion upon the account of Religion At Ausburg the Emperor did on the 11. of November 1530. declare that since the Protestants did reject the Decree made about Religion he had entred in an agreement with the rest of the Diet not to offend any but to defend themselves if any force were used against these who owned that Religion And in the following December the Protestant Princes met at Smalcald and made an agreement among themselves in the same strain neither were they ever condemned for so doing but continued in a good correspondence with the Emperor many years after that till being invaded by the Duke of Brunswick the War took its rise which is all along proved to have been according to the Laws and Liberties of the Empire And thus this Case doth vary exceedingly from the matter of our Debates Eud. If I may glean after your Harvest I could add that the Divines of Germany were notwithstanding of all the immunity of the Princes and injuries they met with very much against all warlike preparations Many vestigies of this appear through Melanclon's Letters particularly in his 71. Letter to Camerarius an 1528. where he gives account of the inclinations many had to War and with how much diligence he had studied to divert them from it though great injuries had been done them and that it was believed that many of the Princes had signed a conspiracy against them And Scultet Exer. Evang. lib. 2. cap. 5. tells how Grumbachius and Iustus Ionas animated the Elector of Saxe to the War assuring him of the Empire of Germany if he woâ—ld adventure for it which he adds the Elector did and his so doing he compares to his throwing himself over the Pinacle of the Temple but all quickly repented them of the attempt the Elector being defeated taken and kept Prisoner many years and his ill Counsellors were well served for their advice Grumbachius was quartered and Ionas was beheaded Thus you see how that war is censured by one of the best of the late German Divines By this time I think no scruples can dwell with any about the German War and that it agrees with the case of a Prince defending his Religion and Subjects against the unjust invasion of another Prince to whom he owes neither obedience nor subjection and this will easily satisfie all that know either Law or History whether the Author of the Dialogues deserved to be treated as his Answerer doth But it is no new thing to find ignorants full of confidence and cowards full of boastings Isot. But for Sweden you yield it and acknowledge that because their King came against them in an unjust invasion designing to subvert their Religion they not only armed against him and resisted him but deposed him and put his Uncle in his place than which nothing can be more express See p. 441. Poly. The design of the Conformist was to prove that the first Reformers did not teach the doctrine of Subjects their resistance upon the account of Religion but he meant not to make good all that followed after that therefore left the more inconsiderat when they heard of the Sâ—ares of Sweden their deposing of Sigâ—smund might have mistaken that as he knows some have done and confounded it with the Reformation he gave the true account of that Affair as it was and it being seventy years after the Reformation was first brought thither cannot be fastened on the Reformation Besides the whole Tract of the Swedish History proves that the Estates as they elected so also coerced and frequently deposed their Kings and therefore Bodin reckons Sweden among these divided States where the Supreme Power lay betwixt the King and the Nobility and tells how in his own time Henry King of Sweden having killed with his own hand one that presented a petition to him the States forced him to quit the Kingdom to his Brother and that he had been for seventeen years a prisoner when he wrote his Books de Republica It being thus frequent in Sweden upon malversation not only to resist but to depose their Kings it was no wonder if when Sigismund came against them with an army of Polanders whose Sovereign he was not for none are so ignorant to think the King of Poland is a Sovereign they resisted him since that was a subjecting of Sweden to foreign force
deposed him as appears by their Decree St. tom 2. lib. 4. By these indications it is apparent that the Prince of the Netherlands was not Sovereign of these Provinces since they could cognosce upon him and shake off his authority But I shall next make out that Religion was not the ground upon which these Wars were raised The Reformation came unto the Provinces in Charles the V. his time who cruelly persecuted all who received it so that these who were butchered in his time are reckoned not to be under 100000. Gr. Annal. lib. 1. All this Cruelty did neither provoke them to Arms nor quench the Spirit of Reformation whereupon Philip designed to introduce the Inquisition among them as an assured mean of extinguishing that Light But that Court was every where so odious and proceeded so illegally that many of the Nobility among whom divers were Papists entered in a Confederacy against it promising to defend one another if endangered Upon this there were first petitions and after that tumults but it went no further till the Duke of Alva came and proceeded at the rate of the highest Tyranny imaginable both against their Lives and Fortunes particularly against the Counts of Egment and Horn suspect of favoring the former disordâ—â—s But it being needleâ—s to make a vain shew of reading in a thing which every boy may know after the Duke of Alva had so transgressed all Limits the Nobility and Deputies of the Towns of Holland who were the Depositaries of the Laws and Privileges of that State met at Dort anno 1572. Gr. de Ant. Bat. cap. â— and on Iuly 19 decreed a War against the Duke of Alva and made the Prince of Orange their Captain which was done upon his eâ—â—cting the twentieth penny of their Rents and the tenth of their moveables in all their transactions and merchandises Yet all this while the power was in the hands of Papists Gr. Anâ—al lib. 3. Noâ— waâ— the Protestant Religion permitted till the year 1578. that in Amsterâ—â—â— Utrecht and Harlem the Magistrats who were addicted to the Roman Religion were tuâ—neâ— out which gave great offence to some of then Confederates who adhered to Poperv And upon this the Protestants petitioned the Aâ—câ— Duke Matthias whom the States had chosen for their Prince that since it was known that they were the chief object of the Spanish hatred and so might look for the hardest measure it they prevailed it was therefore just they who were in the chief danger might now enjoy some share of the Liberty with the rest wherefore they desired they might have Châ—rchâ—s allowed them and might not be barred from publick trust which after some debate was granted And let this declare whether the War was managed upon the grounds of Religion or not The year after this the States of Holland Geldres Zeland Utrecht and Friesland met at Utrecht and entred in that Union which continues to this day by which it was provided that the Reformed Religion should be received in Holland and Zeland but the rest were at liberty either to chuse it or another or both as they pleased So we see they did not confederate against Spain upon the account of Religion it not being the ground of theiâ—â—eague but in opposition to the Spanish Tyranny and Pride And in their Letters to the Emperor Ian. 8 1578. Str. tom 2. lib. 2. they declared that they never were nor ever should be of another mind but that the Catholick Religion should be still observed in Holland and in the end of the year 1581. they decreed that Philip had forfeited his Title to the Principality of Belgium by his violating their Privileges which he had sworn to observe whereupon they were according to their compact with him at his inauguration free from their obedience to him and therefore they chusâ—â— the Duke of Alenson to be their Prince And now review all this and see if you can stand to your former assertion or believe these Wars to have proceeded upon the grounds of subjects resisting their Sovereign when he persecutes them upon the aâ—count of Religion and you will be made to acknowledge that the States of Holland were not subjects and that their quarrel was not Religion Isot. All this will perhaps be answered in due time but from this let me lead you to France where we find a long Tract of Civil Wars upon the account of Religion and here you cannot pretend the King is a limited Sovereign neither was this War managed by the whole States of France but by the Princes of the Blood with the Nobility of some of the Provinces and these began under Francis the Second then about sixteen years of Age so that he was not under Non-age and tho they were prosecuted under the Minority of Charles the Ninth yet the King of Navarre who was Regent and so bore the King's Authority was resisted and after Charles was of age the Wars continued both during his Reign and much of his Brother's and did again break out in the last King's Reign The Protestants were also owned and assisted in these Wars not only by the Princes of Germany but by the three last Princes who reigned in Britain So here we have an undeniable instance of Subjects defending Religion by Arms. See pag. 454. Poly. I must again put my self and the company to a new penance by this ill understood piece of History which you have alledged and tell you how upon Henry the Second's death Francis his Son was under age by the French Law for which see Thuan. lib. 16. which appointed the Regents power to continue till the King was 22 years of age at least as had been done in the case of Charles the 6. which yet the History of that time saith was a rare privilege granted him because of his Gracefulness and the love was generally born him whereas the year wherein the Kings were judged capable of the Government was 25. But Francis tho under age being every way a Child did for away both the Princes of the Blood the Constable and the Admiral from the Government which he committed to his Mother the Cardinal of Lorrain and the Duke of Guise Upon this the Princes of the Blood met and sent the King of Navarre who was the first Prince of the Blood to the King to complain of their ill usage but tho he was much neglected at Court yet his simplicity was such that he was easily whedled out of his pretensions Upon this the Prince of Conde having a greater spirit and being poor thought upon other Courses and as it is related by Davila lib. 1. gathered a meeting at Ferté where he pâ—â—posed the injury done the Princes of the Blood who in the minority of their King were now excluded the Government which contrary to the Salick law was put in a womans hand and trusted to Strangers wherefore he moved that according to the practices of other Princes of the Blood in the like Cases which
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
them some Towns for their security to be kept by them for twenty years at the end whereof the late King remanding them the Protestants were instant to keep them longer to which he yielded for three or four years in the end he wisely determined saith that Gentleman to take them out of their hands Upon which they met in an Assembly at Rochel and most imprudently he adds and against their duty both to God and the King they resolved to keep them still by force But at that time there was a National Synod at Alais where M. du Moulin presided who searching into the posture of Affairs in that Country where many of these places of strength lay he found the greater and better part inclined to yield them up to the King upon which he wrote an excellent Letter to the Assembly at Rochel disswading them from pursuing the Courses they were ingaging in where he shews it was the general desire of their Churches that it might please God to continue peace by their giving Obedience to the King and since his Majesty was resolved to have these Places in his own hands that they would not on that account ingage in a War But that if Persecution was intended against them all who feared God desired it might be for the Profession of the Gospel and so be truly the cross of Christ and therefore assured them the greater and better part of their Churches desired they would dissolve their meeting if it could be with security to their Persons And presses their parting from that Assembly with many Arguments and obviates what might be objected against it And craves pardon to tell them They would not find inclinations in those of the Religion to obey their resolutions which many of the best quality and greatest capacity avowedly condemned judging that to suffer on that account was not to suffer for the Cause of God And therefore exhorts them to depend on God and not precipitate themselves into Ruin by their Impatience And he ends his Letter with the warmest and serventest language imaginable for gaining them into his opinion It is true his Letter wrought not the desired Effect yet many upon it deserted the meeting Upon the which that Gentleman shews that what was then done ought not to be charged on the Protestant Churches of France since it was condemned by the National Synod of their Divines and three parts of four who were of the Religion continued in their dutiful Obedience to the King without ingaging in Arms with those of their Party Amirald also in his incomparable Apology for those of the Reformed Religion Sect. 2. vindicates them from the imputations of disloyalty to their Prince and after he hath asserted his own opinion that Prayers and Tears ought to be the only weapons of the Church as agreeing best with the nature of the Gospel and the practice of the first Christians he adds his regrates that their Fathers did not crown their other Virtues with invincible Patience in suffering all the Cruelty of their Persecutors without resistance after the Example of the Primitive Church by which all color of reproaching the Reformation had been removed Yet he shews how they held out during the Reign of Francis I. and Henry II. notwithstanding all the Cruelty of the Persecution though their Numbers were great What fell out after that he justifies or rather excuses for he saith he cannot praise but blame it on the Grounds we have already mentioned of the minority of their Kings and of the Interest of the Princes of the Blood And for the business of Renaudy in Francis II. his time he tells how Calvin disapproved it and observes from Thuan that he who first discovered it was of the Reformed Religion and did it purely from the Dictate of his Conscience He also shews that the Protestants never made War with a common Consent till they had the Edicts on their side so that they defended the King's Authority which others were violating But adds withal that the true cause of the Wars was reason of State and a Faction betwixt the Houses of Bourbon and Guise and the defence of the Protestants was pretended to draw them into it And for the late Wars he charges the blame of them on the ambition of some of their Grandees and the factious Inclinations of the Town of Rochel And vindicates the rest of their Church from accession to them whatever good wishes the common Interest of their Religion might have drawn from them for these whose danger they so much apprehended And for the Affaus of our Britain which was then in a great Combustion for which the Protestants were generally blamed as if the Genius of their Religion led to an opposition of Monarchy he saith strangers could not well judge of matters so remore from them but if the King of England was by the constitutions of that Kingdom a Sovereign Prince which is a thing in which he cannot well offer a dicision then he simply condemns their raising a War against him even though that report which was so much spread of his design to change the Reformed Religion settled there were true Neither are these opinions of Amirald to be look'd on as his private thoughts but that Apology being published by the approbation of these appointed to license the Books of the Religion is to be received as the more common and received Doctrine of that Church And what ever approbation or assistance the neighboring Princes might have given the Protestants in the latter or former Wars it will not infer their allowing the Precedent of Subjects resisting their Sovereign though persecuted by him since it is not to be imagined many Princes could be guilty of that But the Maxims of Princes running too commonly upon grounds very different from the Rules of Conscience and tending chiefly to strengthen themselves and weaken their Neighbors we are not to make any great account of their approving or abetting of these Wars And thus far you have drawn from me a great deal of Discourse for justifying the Confâ—rmists design of vindicating the Reformed Churches from the Doctrine and Practice of Subjects resisting their Sovereign upon pretexts of Religion Isot. A little time may produce an Answer to all this which I will not now attempt but study these accounts more accurately But let us now come home to Scotland and examine whether the King be an accountable Prince or not You know well enough how Fergus was first called over by the Scots how many instances there are of the States their coercing the King how the King must swear at his Coronation to observe the Laws of the Kingdom upon which Allegiance is sworn to him so that if he break his part why are not the Subjects also free since the Compact seems mutual I need not add to this that the King can neither make nor abrogate Laws without the consent of the Estates of Parliament that he can impose no Tax without them And from
other instances When Ezra came from Artaxerxes he brings a Commission from him Ezra ch 7. ver 25 26. impowering him according to the wisdom of his GOD that was in his hand to set up Magistrates and Iudges who might judg them that knew the Laws of his GOD and teach them that knew them not and a severe certificate is passed upon the disobedient and one of the branches of their punishment which is by the Translators rendered banishment being in the Chaldaick rooting out is by some judged to be Excommunication which is the more probable because afterwards Chap. 10. ver 8. the Censure he threatens on these who came not upon his Proclamation is forfeiture of goods and separation from the Congregation Here then it seems a Heathen King gives authority to Excommunicate but be in that what will Ezra upon his return acted in a high Character he makes the Priests Levites and all Israel to swear to put away their strange Wives he convenes all the people under the Certificate of separation from the Congregation and enjoyns Confession of their sins and amendment and we find both him and Nehemiah acting in a high Character about the ordering of divine matters which could only flow from the King's Commission for neither of them were Prophets nor was Ezra the High Priest but his Brother and so no more than an ordinary Priest Mordecai likewise instituted the feast of Purim for which nothing could warrant him but the King's authority committed to him who gave him his Ring for sealing such Orders since he was neither King Priest nor Prophet And on the way let me observe what occurs from that History for proving what was yesterday pleaded for The Subjects ought not to resist no not the tyranny of their Superiours since a Writing was procured from Ahasuerus for warranting the Iews to avenge themselves and to stand for their lives and to destroy and slay all that would assault them which saith they might not have done this before that writing was given out and yet their killing of 74000 of their Enemies shews what their strength was But all I have said will prove that the Civil Powers under the Old Testament did formally judg about matters of Religion and that that priviledg belongs to Kings by vertue of their Regal dignity and not as they are in Covenant with GOD since even Heathen Kings give out Orders about divine matters Poly. If from Sacred you descend to humane practices nothing was more used than that the Emperors judged in matters of Religion neither was this yielded to them only after they became Christians but Eusebius lib. 7. cap. 30. tells how they made application to Aurelian a Heathen Emperor for turning Samosatenus out of the Church of Antioch who decreed that the Houses of the Church should be given to those Bishops whom the Christians of Italy and the Roman Bishops should recommend to them Constantine also when not baptized did all his life formally judg in matters both of Doctrine and Discipline and for the Laws they made about Church matters they abound so much that as Grotius saith One needs not read them but look on them to be satisfied about this And indeed I know not how to express my wonder at the affrontedness of that Pamphleter who denies this pag. 483. Pray ask him was the determining about the age the qualifications the Election the duties of Church-men the declaring for what things they should be deposed or excommunicated a formal passing of Laws in Church matters or only the adding Sanctions to the Church determinations And yet who will but with his Eye run through either the first six Titles of the Code or the 123. Novel besides many other places all these and many more Laws about Church matters will meet him But should I take a full Career here I am sure I should be tedious and Grotius hath congested so many instances of this that I refer the curious Reader to him for full satisfaction The Elections of Bishops which had been formerly in the hands of the people and Clergy with the Provincial Synods that judged of them became so tumultuary that popular Elections were discharged by the Council of Laodicea Can. 13. and the Emperors did either formally name as Theodosius did Nectarius or reserve the ratifying their Election to themselves And I must confess it is a pretty piece of History to say the Bishops consented to this either as diffident of their Office or out of ambition See p. 485. Tell your Friends that they must either learn more knowledg or pretend to less for can they produce the least vestige for the one branch of this alternative that the Bishops their allowing the Emperor such an interest in their Elections flowed from a distrust of their Office Let them give but one scrap of proof for this and let them triumph as much as they will Is it not a pretty thing to see one talk so superciliously of things he knows not Isot. But all you have brought will never prove that a King may at one stroke subvert a Government established in the Church and turn out all who adhere to it and set up another in its place neither will this conclude that the King may enact all things about Ecclesiastical matters and Persons by his own bare authority which is a surrender of our consciences to him certainly this is to put him in CHRIST's stead and what mischievous effects may follow upon this if all matters of Religion be determined by the pleasure of secular and carnal men who consider their interests and appetites more than God's glory or the good of the Church and of Souls Truly my heart trembles to think on the effects this both hath produced and still may bring forth See pag. 483. Phil. It is charity to ease your Lungs sometimes by taking a turn in the Discourse though you need none of my help But what you say Isotimus doth no way overturn what hath been asserted for either the change that was made was necessary sinful or indifferent the two former shall not be at this time debated but shall be afterwards discussed but if it be indifferent then the Kings Laws do oblige us to obedience and the mischief hath followed on the change falls to their share who do not obey the King's Laws when the matter of them is lawful And as for the thrusting out Church-men when they are guilty Solomon's precedent is convincing who thrust out Abâ—athar from the High Priesthood neither can the least hint be given to prove that he acted as inspired and not as a King and Nehemiah tho but commissionated by Artaxerxes thrust one out from the Priesthood for marrying a strange Woman For your prying into Acts of Parliament truly neither you nor I need be so much conversant in them Neither were it any strange matter if some expressions in them would not bear a strict Examen But that you now challenge about the King's enacting of all