Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
When the ſupream magiſtrate is a profeſſed curing to Religion, whether then it be likely and uſuall that the greater part of the people are ſincerely religious: and whether when the greater part are enemies with their magiſtrates, it be then the duty of a few that are ſincere, to aſſemble in a nationall Synod, and there to enter into a nationall Covenant, and alſo to enjoyn the ſame unto that greater part.
PAG. 483. We ſay, that if the magiſtrate be an enemy to Religion, may not the Church without him conveen and renew a Covenant with God? Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompſons anſwer p. 29. that if the ſupream magiſtrate be an enemy to Religion, it is not like, but moſt or many of the people will be of the ſame minde: Regis ad exemplum totus—and then the … in the land with not be able to beare the name of the land or nation, but of a ſmall part thereof, not can it be well contained how they ſhould aſſemble in a nationall Synod, for that or any other purpoſe, when the magiſtrate is a profeſſed enemy, nor doth God require it at their hands.
Anſw. The queſtion between Mr. Hefle and us, as it is ſpoken to, by us, in this paſſage, is ſtill about the meaning of our Saviours words, Tell the Church: which will plainly appear to him that ſhall look upon Mr. Herles Treatiſe and our Anſwer, and compare them together. And though we ſpeak ſomthing of the Churches renewing a a Covenant with God, when the magiſtrate is an enemy to Religion, yet the queſtion lyes not meerly ſo and no further; but firſt, this Church is called the Land or the whole Church therein, or the whole number of Beleevers. Secondly, The thing inquired into concerning this Church, is whether they have not power to enjoyn a ſolemn renewall of the Covenant. In anſwer whereto we firſt of all ſay, that in caſe the magiſtrate be an enemy to Religion, the beleevers in the land are not like to be ſo many, as that they ſhould bear the name of the land or nation, but of a ſmall part therein. Second, that in ſuch caſe, it is not like they can have ſuch liberty as ſafely to meet in ſuch great aſſemblies as nationall Synods: and hereupon we conclude that renewing of Covenant and enjoyning the ſame in national Synods, being not in the power of ſom few beleevers in a land, is not then required at their hands. This being ſaid for clearing the ſcope and ſumme of that paſſage in the anſwer, let us now hear what Mr. Rutherford ſaith thereto.
This ſaith he, is a weak anſwer.
Anſw. Sat magiſtrabiter: would it not do well firſt to diſprove and confute, and then to cenſure, rather then to cenſure firſt? But if it be ſo weak, it will be more eaſie to overthrow it: let us hear therefore why it is ſo weak.
The Chriſtians under Nero were not like their Prince: and its not like, but ſincere Chriſtians will be ſincere Chriſtians and profeſſe truth, even when the magiſtrate is an enemy.
Anſw. And what of this? doth this ſtrongly overthrow that ſaying, which was cenſured for ſo weak? If ſincere Chriſtians be ſincere Chriſtians, when the magiſtrate is an enemy, ſuppoſe as bad as Nero, doth it follow thereupon, that in ſuch times the ſincere Chriſtians will be ſo many in number as to bear the names of the land or nation, where they are, (for there lyes the queſtion) and that it is not like to be otherwiſe? I ſuppoſe no man can juſtly affirm it. For were they ſo many in England in the dayes of Queen Mary? were they ſo many in Scotland in the dayes of popiſh Princes, afore the reformation? Are they ſo many in Spain, in Italy, in Turkey at this day? doth not the Scripture ſay, that when Rehoboam, forſook the Lord, all Iſrael did the ſame with him? 2 Chron. 12. 1. And that Ieroboam did not only ſinne, but made Iſrael to ſinne? and that when a ruler hearkneth to lyes, all his ſervants are wicked, Prov. 29. verſ. 12. which ſayings and many more that might be alledged, beſides common experience do abundantly witneſſe, that when the ſupream magiſtrate is an enemy to religion, often times (if not alwayes▪) ſincere beleevers in thoſe dayes are the ſmaller part of that land. If M. Rutherford can prove this apprehenſion weak, he muſt then prove the contradictory to be true, viz. that when the ſupream magiſtrate is an enemy to religion, it is not like that many of the people will be of the magiſtrates mind, but contrarily the greateſt part of the land will be ſincere beleevers, though the magiſtrate be an enemy. And when he hath confirmed this poſition which ſtrong and convincing proofes; he may then more freely take his liberty to condemne the other for weak: In the mean time, I think it were weakneſſe in us to depart from this apprehenſion without ſome better grounds then yet are given to diſcover the weakneſſe of it.
2. Saith he, If your meaning be, it cannot be conceived how they ſhould aſſemble in a nationall aſſembly, when the magiſtrate is an enemy, becauſe it is not ſafe for feare of perſecution, then you ſay nothing to the argument, becauſe the argument is drawn from a duty.
Anſw. Are thoſe things duties, which are in nature impoſſible? If not, how is it a duty of a few beleevers in a land (for when the magiſtrate is a profeſſed enemy, I doe ſtill conceive the beleevers in that land to be but few, a ſmall part of the land) how is it a duty, I ſay, for theſe few beleevers, in a land to aſſemble in a nationall Synod, and there to enjoyn a nationall Covenant, to be entered into, not onelyonly by themſelves, which are but a few in compariſon, but alſo by the reſt of the land which are farre the greater number? If this be a duty, it is more then I yet underſtand? Suppoſe it be their duty to enter into covenant with God for their own part; Suppoſe alſo it were the duty of others to doe the like, yet when the greater part will not ſo doe, but are enemies to the truth of God like their magiſtrates, is it nevertheleſſe a duty of this ſmaller number to aſſemble in a nationall Synod, and there to enjoyne a ſolemn Covenant to be taken by the land? I mean not onelyonly by themſelves; but alſo by others, who are farre more in number then they? do they fall ſhort of their duty, if they do not thus aſſemble, and impoſe the Covenant? In the dayes of Ieroboam, when the generality of the land walked after his wicked commandement, Hoſ. 5. 11. who made Iſrael to ſin, yet then there were ſome in Iſrael who retained their integrity, and ſet their hearts to ſeek the Lord, who alſo for that end came to Ieruſalem, to ſacrifice to the Lord God of their Fathers, 2 Chron. 11. v. 16. But I doe not remember that theſe few that were ſincere in worſhip, did ever come together in a nationall aſſembly in Iſrael, to renew the Covenant with God, and to enjoyn the ſame to that great multitude of the backſlyding Iſraelites, nor that ſuch a duty was required of them, nor that they are blamed by … Lord, nor any of his Prophets for the neglect thereof. And the caſe we have in ſtand is the ſame.
If you mean that becauſe the Princes power is againſt the Synodicall meeting, this is nothing againſt the power of the Synods that Chriſt hath given to his Church.
Anſw. We mean as we have ſaid, that thoſe few beleevers in a land, being overpowered with the Prince and People that are enemies, therefore this aſſembling of thoſe few in a nationall Synod, and there enjoyning a nationall Covenant is now not in their power, and ſo not required at their hands.
If your meaning be that, it is not lawfull to them to conveen in a nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with God, againſt the ſupreame magiſtrates will; I hope you minde no ſuch thing.
Anſw. If it be our meaning, how can it be hoped that we do not mind it? Can our …ing be one thing, and our mind another? But for his ſatisfaction and reſolution, … plain anſwer is this, that we neither had mind nor meaning to medle at all with that queſtion; whether Churches may aſſemble in nationall Synods againſt the ſupreame magiſtrates will. For we did not think that Mr. Herles treatiſe did lead us thereunto: … ſuch a matter. Nor am I willing at this time to turn aſide to the ſame, but to keep cloſe to my ſcope and ayme, which is to conſider of Mr. Rutherford his exceptions againſt the anſwer. And therefore for his diſcourſe, which here he fals upon, maintaining at large againſt malignants, and namely againſt Tho: Fuller, that the reformation begun in Scotland and proſecuted in England, againſt the Kings will is lawful… and warrantable by the word… this diſcourſe, I ſay, being altogether concerning others, and not us; I will therefore paſſe it over, and come to that wherein our ſelves are concerned.