caution and tenderness must be used in making of such Laws and that their fitness for attaining the ends of order edification and peace should be well considered and they no longer adhered to than these effects can be drawn from them so that if the nature of Circumstances which vary all things indifferent come to change the same reason that exacted their being first imposed will plead a change I also acknowledge that great abuse hath followed upon the innovating and prescribing in Divine matters and that nothing hath occasioned more divisions among Christians than the overstraining an Uniformity But if because of abuses you overturn all Legislative Power in matters sacred nothing that is humane shall scape your fury since every thing is subject to abuse And nothing will curb ones Career till he turn Quaker that follows these Maxims But one thing is still forgotten that the dictates of Reason are in their kind the Voice of God Reason being nothing save an impress of the Image of God on the Soul of man which because much obliterated by the Fall was to be supplied by Revelation but wherein it remains clear its directions not contradicting any positive or revealed Law are still to be followed as the Laws of God Poly. For proving all this I shall not run so far back as to examine the nature of the Priesthood and Sacrifices were before Moses to consider whether these flow'd from a Revelation conveyed by Tradition or from the dictates of Reason But after Moses his Law was given wherein all was modelled by Divine prescript yet what a vast heap of additions did flow upon that worship before our Saviour's days all that have written on the Temple service do abundantly discover Here is a Field spacious enough for any that designed a vain shew of much reading but a view of Doctor Lightfoot's Temple-Service will quickly convince any that the whole Service of the Temple was interpalated by many Additions whose first Author cannot be traced They also used Baptism to all who were proselyted from Gentilism And in the Paschal Festivity alone how many new Rites do we find Every School-boy may know that they had a Dish called Charaseth which was a thick Sawce of Dates Figs Almonds c. pounded together which looked like Clay to mind them of the Clay in which their Fathers wrought in Egypt which was a significative Ceremony and was the Dish wherein they dipped their hand which we find was not wanting in our Lord 's Passover which proves significant Rites tho of humane appointment cannot be criminal And if to this I should add the several Cups of Wine the divers removes of the Table and covering it of new the frequent washing of their hands and divers other things I should grow tedious But our Lord never reproves these things nay on the contrary he symbolized with them It is true when their Zeal for their Traditions made them break the Commandments of God or adhere so stifly to them as to judge the Consciences of such as did not comply with them in the use of them then he checks their Hypocrisie and accuses them not for the use of these things but because they placed all Religion in them and imposed the Precepts of men as doctrines To this I might add the whole frame of the Synagogues both as to Government Discipline and Worship for whatsoever scraps may be brought which may seem to prove there were Synagogues before the Captivity which yet is much controverted yet the form of Government in them the rules of Excommunication and its degrees together with their Philacteries and set forms of Worship will never be proved from Scripture Now since the Law of God was no less perfect in the Old Dispensation than the Gospel is now it will follow that Additions in things purely external and ritual do no way detract from the Word of God For nothing can be brought to prove the New Testament a complete Rule for Christians which will not plead the same full authority to the Old Testament during that Dispensation since though the Dispensation was imperfect yet the Revelation of God to them was able to make them perfect and throughly furnished foe every good work and the Scriptures which S. Paul saith were able to make wise to salvation can be no other than the Old Testament writings For besides that by Scriptures nothing else is understood in the New Testament there could be no other Scripture known to Timothy of a Child but these of the Old Testament If then they trespass upon the authority of the New Testament and its blessed Author who assert a Power to determine about Rituals in Worship or other matters of Religion they committed the same Crime who pretended to add to what Moses prescribed since he was also faithful in all his house Or if any plead a Divine Warrant for these Institutions which were traditionally conveyed this will open a door for all the pretences of the Roman Church since the Expressions that cancel Traditions are as full in the Old Testament as in the New And thus far I think I have evinced that there were great additions in Rituals made by the Iews and that these were not unlawful since complied with by him who never did amiss and yet these could have no higher oâ—iginal than humane Authority I go on to the New Dispensation wherein I doubt not to evince that as for rituals most of these they found in the Synagogue were retained without any other change than what that Dispensation drew after it and that they took both the Rules of Government Worship and Discipline from the Synagogue Therefore the Epistles do not when treating of these matters speak in their Stile who are instituting new things but of those who are giving directions about what was already received and known For if new Rules had been to be delivered the Institution had been express either in the Gospels Acts or Epistles Now if any will read these without prejudice no such thing will appear of which manner of Stile no account can be given but that things as to Rituals continued as they were the use of the Sacraments being only instituted by Christ where the Language of an Institution is express About two hundred years after Christ outward Penitence was brought into the Church and scandalous Persons were according to the nature of Scandals debarred from the Sacrament for a long space and were by degrees and according to the heighth of their Penitence received to the Communion of the Church but not after some years had passed in outward professions of Penitence and the modelling of this became after that the chief Care of Synods for divers Centuries Now if one will argue that though it be true a scandalous Person should be excommunicated yet since God hath mercy at whatsoever time a Sinner repents so should the Church which only judgeth of the Profession forgive at whasoever time one professeth Penitence It will not be easie
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 all the People about these matters and truly this Answer adds so little to him that nothing can free him so well of that treachery as the reading of this new Book But to our purpose The Question is first in general If Subjects under a lawful Sovereign when oppressed in their established Religion may by Arms defend themselves and resist the Magistrates Let this be first discussed in general and next it shall be considered how far this will quadrat with our present Case or our late Troubles Isot. I like your method well and that we may follow it consider see pag. 20. of the Answer and Ius populi all over if their can be any thing more evident from the Laws of Nature than that men ought to defend themselves when unjustly assaulted And since the Law of Nature teacheth men not to murder themselves it by the same force binds them to hinder another to do it since he that doth not hinder another from committing a Crime when it is in his power so to do becomes guilty of the crime committed he is then a self-murderer who doth not defend himself from unjust force Besides what is the end of all Societies but mutual Protection Did not the People at first choose Princes for their Protection Or do you imagine it was to satisfie the Pride and Cruelty of individual persons It was then the end of Societies that Justice and Peace might be maintain'd so when this is inverted the Subjects are again to resume their own conditional surrender and to coerce the Magistrate who forgetful of the ends of his Authority doth so corrupt it And since the great design of man should be to serve GOD and to worship him in spirit and in truth this is to be preferred to all things else as being of the greatest Importance If then Magistrates whom S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 calls the Ordinances of men or humane Creatures do force there Subjects from the true Worship of GOD they ought to be restrained and the Cause of GOD must be maintained notwithstanding their unjust Laws or cruel Tyranny Bas. You have indeed put such colours on your Opinion that I should be much shaken from mine were not my persuasion well grounded But to examine what you have said you must distinguish well betwixt the Laws of Nature and the Rights or permissions of Nature the first are unalterable Obligations by which all men are bound which can be reversed by no positive Law and transgressed by no Person upon no occasion for the Law of Nature is the Image of GOD yet remaining in some degrees on the Souls of men and is nothing else save certain notions of Truth impressed by GOD on the Souls of all men that enjoy the exercise of Reason Now self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature otherwise it could never be dispensed with without a Sin nay were a man never so criminal For as in no case a man may kill himself were he never so guilty so by that reasoning of yours he ought not to suffer himself to be killed neither should any Malefactor submit to the Sentence of the Judge but stand to his defence by all the force he could raise And it will not serve turn to say that for the good of the Society he ought to submit for no man must violate the Laws of Nature were it on never so good a design and since the utmost standard of our love to our Neighbors is to love them as our selves no consideration of the good of others can oblige one to yield up his Life if bound by the Law of Nature to defend it Crit. If I may interrupt you I should tell you that as among all Nations it hath been counted Heroical to die for ones Country or for the good of others so the Apostle speaks Rom. 5.7 of those who for good men would dare to die But chiefly CHRIST'S dying for us shews that self-defence can be no Law of Nature otherwise CHRIST who filled all Righteousness had never contradicted the Laws of Nature Bas. I thank you for your remark which was pertinent But next consider there are some rights or permissions of Nature which are allowed us but not required of us as propriety of goods marriage and other such like things which whose doth not pretend to he cannot be said to violate the Laws of Nature only for some greater consideration he forgoes these Priviledges it allows And take men out of a Society I acknowledge forcible Resistance of any violent Assailant to be one of the rights of Nature which every man may make use of without a Fault or dispense with likewise at his pleasure But Societies being Associations of People under a Head who hath the power of Life and Death that sets it beyond doubt that the Head must only judge when the Subjects do justly fore-seal their Lives or not which before I go about to evince I must remove that vulgar Error of a Magistrate's deriving his power from the surrender of the People None can surrender what they have not take then a multitude of People not yet associated none of them hath power of his own Life neither hath he power of his Neighbors since no man out of a Society may kill another were his Crime never so great much less be his own murderer and a multitude of People not yet associated are but so many individual Persons therefore the power of the Sword is not from the People nor any of their Delegation but is from GOD. Isot. You will pardon me to tell you that the People must give the power since GOD did it never by a Voice from Heaven or by a Prophets command except in some Instances among the Israelites where even that was not done but upon the previous desire of the People And for what you say of the Peoples having no right to kill themselves they only consent to submit to the Magistrates Sentence when guilty Basil. This will then infallibly prove that forcible self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature but only a Right otherwise we could not thus dispense with it But if though guilty I ought not to kill my self neither can I so much as consent that another do it Hence it is that the original of Magistracy must be from GOD who only can invest the Prince with the power of the Sword Polyb. I could say much in Confirmation of that from the universal Sense of all Nations who ever looked on the Magistrates power as Sacred and Divine but these things are so copiously adduced by others that I may well spare my labor Crit. Nay a greater authority is St. Paul's Rom. 13.1 who saith That the powers that were then were ordained of GOD which on the way saith strongly for asserting the right of a Conquerour after some prescription since if either we consider the power of the Roman Empire over the world or of their Emperours over them both will be found to have no better title than Conquest and
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
far as concerns him in his Parliament hath obliged himself in the word of a Prince and his Son the Earl of Carrict afterwards Robert the third being constituted by the King for fulfilling of the premises so far as touches him gave and made his Oath the holy Evangils being touched by him and then the States of Parliament did also swear to maintain the Earl of Carrict made then Lieutenant under the King Now the reason why these mutual Oaths were then given is well known since the King's Sâ—ccession was so doubtful But after that no Oath seems to have been given and tho King Iames the Second his Coronation be set down in the Records of Parliament there is not a word of an Oath given by any in his Name It is true in the 11. Parl. of that King cap 41. for securing of the Crown-lands from being alienated it is appointed That the King who then was should be sworn and in like manner all his Successors Kings of Scotland into their Coronation to the keeping of that Statute and all the points thereof But this is not such an Oath as you alledg Likewise in King Iames the Fourth his Reign 2. Parl. Ch. 12. where the Council was sworn it is added And our Sovereign Lord hath humbled his Highness to promit and grant in Parliament to abide and remain at their Counsels while the next Parliament But it is to be observed the King was then but 17 years old and so not of full age this promise was also a temporary provision Besides the very stile of it shews that it was below his Majesty to be so bound But the first Act for a Coronation Oath I can meet with is Cap. 8. of the 1. Parl. of King Iames the Sixth An. 1567. where the stile wherein the Act runs shews it was a new thing it bearing no narrative of any such former Custom the words of the Act are Item because that the increase of Vertue and suppressing of Idolatry craves that the Prince and the people be of one perfect Religion which of GOD'S mercy is now presently professed within this Realm Therefore it is statute and ordained by our Sovereign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament that all Kings and Princes or Magistrates what 〈◊〉 holding their place which hereafter may happen to Reign and bear Rule over this Realm at the time of their Coronation and receipt of their Princely authority make their faithful promise by Oath c. Now you see the beginning of the Coronation Oath and I need not here reflect on the time when that Act passed it being so obvious to every one But I suppose it is made out that the Kings of Scotland have not their Authority from any stipulation used at their Coronation The next thing you alledg to prove the King of Scotland a limited Prince is because he must govern by Laws which cannot be enacted without the Authority of the three Estates in Parliament But this will not serve turn unless you prove that the Estates can cognosce on the King and coerce him if he transgress for which there is not a tittle in our Laws I acknowledg the Constitution of Parliaments to be both a rational and excellent Model and that the King becomes a Tyrant when he violates their Priviledges and governs without Law But tho his Ministers who serve him in such tyrannical ways are liable to punishment by the Law yet himself is subject to none but GOD. And from our Kings their Justice and goodness in governing legally by the Councils of their Parliaments you have no reason to argue against their absolute Authority for their binding themselves to such Rules and being tied to the observance of Laws enacted by themselves will never overthrow their Authority but rather commend it as having such a temperature of Sovereignty Justice and Goodness in it Isot. But was not King Iames the Third resisted and killed in the Field of Striveling and afterwards in his Sons first Parl. Act. 14. all who were against him in that Field were declared innocent and his slaughter was declared to be his own fault which was never rescinded As also Cap. 130. of Iac. 6. Parl. 8. the Honour and Authority of Parliament upon the free Vote of the three Estates thereof is asserted And are not you an impugner of the Authority of the three Estates who plead thus for the King 's Sovereign Power See Answer to the Letter written to the Author of Ius Populi Basil. I shall not engage far in the Story of King Iames the Third which even as it is represented by Buchanan lib. 11. no friend to Monarchy is very far from being justifiable on the side of those who fought against him nor was it the least part of their guilt that they forced his Son being then but fifteen years old to own their Rebellion And what wonder was it that they who had killed the Father and kept his Son in their power passed such an Act in their own favors But King Iames the Fourth quickly discovered what a sincere Penitent he was for his Accession to that Rebellion as appeared by the Iron Belt he wore all his life as a penance for this sin yet the meekness of his Spirit and the power of that Faction made that things continued in the posture they formerly were in It is true that Act was not expresly repelled which perhaps was not safe at that time to have attempted but it was really done by his Revocation ratified in his 6. Parl. cap. 100. wherein with consent of the three Estates He annuls and revokes all Statutes and Acts of Parliament which he had enacted in his former years that tended either to the prejudice of the Catholic Church his Soul or of the Crown declaring them to have no force but to be deleted and cancell'd out of the Books And it is not to be doubted but in this he had an eye to that former Act but for your Act asserting the Authority of Parliament look but what immediately precedes it and you will find the King's Authority and Supremacy fully established and I acknowledg that whosoever impugns the Authority of Parliament as the King 's Great Council doth incur a very high punishment but this will never prove an Authority in the States to coerce and resist the King One thing I must mind you of from that Act which is That none of the Lieges must presume to impugn the dignity and Authority of the said three Estates or to seek or procure the innovation or diminution of the Power and Authority of the same three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason And can you be so ignorant of our Laws as not to know that the Church was one of these Estates for the small Barons which some called the Third Estate came not in till three years after Iac. 6. Parl. 11. cap. 113. And now from all these premises I think we
determining of the externals of Government or Worship falls within the Magistrate's Sphere then comes in a new Complaint and it is told that here Religion is given up to the Lusts and Pleasure of men though it be an hundred times repeated that command what the King will in prejudice of the Divine Law no Obedience is due If again it be proved that Church Judicatories in what notions soever are subjects as well as others and no less tied to obedience than others upon this come in vehement outcries as if the Throne and Kingdom of Christ were overturned and betrayed with other such like Expressions in their harsh Stile What is become of Mankind and of Religion when Ignorants triumph upon these baâ—ren Pretences as if they were the only Masters of Reason and directors of Conscience You know what my Temper is in most differences but I acknowledge my mind to be fâ—ll of a just disdain of these ignorant and insolent Pedlers which is the more inflamed when I consider the Ruins not only of sound Learning but of true Piety and the common rules of Humanity which follow these simple Contests they make about nothing Basil. To speak freely I cherish Reflections no where therefore I shall not conceal my mislike of these Invectives which though I am forced to confess are just yet I love to hear truth and peace pleaded for with a calm serene Temper and though the intolerable and peevish railings of these Pamphlets do justifie a severe Procedure yet I would have the softer and milder methods of the Gospel used that so we may overcome evil with good To take you therefore off that angry engagement let me invite you to a sober Examen of the Magistrates Authority in things Divine But before this be engaged in let it be first considered whether â—â—ere be any Legislative Power on Earth about things Sacred and next with whom it is lodged Isot. I will so far comply with your desires that for this once without retaliating I quit to Philarcheus the last word of scolding But to come to the purpose you have suggested consider that Christ hath given us a complete Rule wherein are all things that pertain to Life and Godliness It is then an Imputation on his Gospel â—o say any thing needs be added to it and that it contains not a clear direction for all things therefore they accuse his Wisdom or Goodness who pretend to add to his Laws and wherein he hath not burthened our Consciences what tyranny is it to bind a yoak upon us which our Fathers were not able to bear Whereby as our Christian liberty is invaded so innumerable Schisms and Scandals spring from no other thing so much as from these oppressions of Conscience which are so much the more unjust that the imposers acknowledging their indifferency and the refusers scrupling their lawfulness the peace of the Church is sacrificed to what is acknowledged indifferent neither can any bounds be fixed to those impositions for if one particular may be added why not more and more still till the â—oak become heavier than that of Moses was which is made out from experience For the humor of innovating in divine matters having once crept into the Church it never stopp'd till it swelled to that prodigious bulk of Rites under which the Roman Church lies oppressed And besides all these general considerations there is one particular against significant Rites which is that the instituting of them in order to a particular signification of any Grace makes them Sacraments according to the vulgar definition of Sacraments that they are the outward signs of an inward Grace but the instituting of Sacraments is by the confesâ—ion of all a part of Christ's Prerogative since he who confers grace can only institute the signs of it Upon all these accounts I plead the Rule of Scripture to be that which ought to determine about all divine matters and that no binding Laws ought to be made in divine things wherein we are left at liberty by GOD who is the only Master of our Consciences See from pag. 172. to pag. 180. Phil. You have now given me a full Broad-side after which I doubt not but you triumph as if you had shattered me all to pieces but I am afraid you shall find this Volley of chained Ball hath quite missed me and that I be aboard of you ere you be aware No man can with more heartiness acknowledg the compleatness of Scripture than my self and one part of it is that all things which tend to Order Edification and Peace be done and the Scene of the World altering so that what now tends to advance Order Edification and Peace may afterwards occasion disorder destruction and contention the Scripture had not been compleat if in these things there were not an Authority on Earth to make and unmake Laws in things indifferent I acknowledg the adding of new pieces of worship hath so many inconveniences hanging about it that I should not much patronize it but the determining of what may be done either in this or that fashion to any particular Rule is not of that nature Therefore since Worship must be in a certain posture a certain habit in a determinate place and on such times all these being of one kind Laws made about them upon the accounts of order edification or peace do not pretend to prejudg the perfection of Scripture by any additions to what it prescribes since no new thing is introduced Indeed did humane Law-givers pretend that by their Laws these things became of their own nature more acceptable to GOD they should invade GOD's Prerogative but when they are prescribed only upon the account of Decency and Order it is intolerable peevishness to call a thing indifferent of its nature unlawful because commanded For the Christian liberty consists in the exemption of our Consciences from all humane yoak but not of our actions which are still in the power of our Superiors till they enjoin what is sinful and then a greater than they is to be obeyed I acknowledg the simplicity of the Christian Religion is one of its chief Glories nothing being enjoined in it but what is most properly fitted for advancing the Souls of men towards that wherein their blessedness doth consist And therefore I never reflect without wonder on that Censure Ammian Marcellin a Heathen Writer gives of Constantius That he confounded the Christian Religion which was of it self pure and simple with doating superstitions So I freely acknowledg that whosoever introduce new parts of Worship as if they could commend us to GOD do highly encroach on GOD's Authority and man's Liberty But as for the determining of things that may be done in a variety of ways into one particular form such as the prescribing a set form for Worship the ordering the posture in Sacraments the habit in Worship determinate times for commemorating great mercies the time how long a Sinner must declare his penitence ere he be admitted