holy breathings after Christ the love to God! the heavenly mindedness the hatred of all known sin the humility self-denial meekness c. that I have discerned as far as effects can shew the heart to others in abundance of those people that differ from you in some smaller things which occasioned your frequent bitter reproaches if God love them not I have not yet met with the people whom I may say he loveth if he do love them he will scarcely take your dealing well especially when you rise to such bloody desires of hanging them as the better remedy then burning their Books as in your History of Sabbath pag. 254. Ecclesia vindicata Preface and passim you express 7. I am not an approver of the violence of any of them nor do I justifie M. Burtons way nor am I of the minde of the party you most oppose in all their discipline as a Book now in the Press will give the world an account but I am sure the Church must have unity and charity in the ancient simplicity of Doctrine Worship and Government or not at all And if you would have men live in peace as Brethren our union must not be Law or Ceremonies or indâ—fferent Forms nor must you make such rigorous Laws for all and hang them that are against you Scripture and reason and the primitive practise and great experience do lead us all to another course But of these words if I could procure your pardon I expect no more because of our difference 8. To pass by many others I am also much unsatisfied in three things you say concerning Popery 1. That the Papist was the more moderate adversary and the Puritan faction hurried on with greater violence c. Preface to Ecclesia vindicata 2. That you maintain against M. Burton that the Religion of the Papists is not rebellion nor their faith faction I prove both 1 That Religion which defineth the deposition of Princes and absolving their Subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is rebellion Doctrinal but such is the Popish Religion The Minor is evident That which is defined by a Pope and general Council is the Papistâ— Religion It is defide yea and essential because they will have all essentials and deny our distinguishing them from the rest But the aforesaid Doctrin is defined by a Pope and an approved general Council viz at the Laterane under INNOCENT III. That if any Protestant Writers should teach the same that puts it not into our Creed as this is in theirs 2. If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope then the Papists faith is faction But the Antecedent is true being defined by Pope LEO X. in a general Council 3. I am a sorry Lawyer but truly I would fain understand whether it be true that written by M. Dow and you his page 185. and yours 210. of the History of the Sabbath That the Popes decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not abrogated which being made for the direction and reiglement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendom and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative Royal and the municipal Laws and Statuâ—es of this Realm of England these are your words and M. Dow gives some reason for them out from a Statute of HEN. 8. But little know I by what Authority the Popes decretals are Laws to the Church in general or to us and I will yet hope they are not in force But if ever I live to see another Parliament if I be mistaken I shall crave a freedom from that bondage I thought the Acts that impose the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy had disobliged us from all forreign power and nulled the Popes authority in England 9. I am very glad that you who are esteemed the Primipilus among the defenders of the late turgid and persecuting sort of Prelacy do so freely disclaim the Grotian Religion which I never charged you with I hope the more confidently that most of the Prelatical Divines will disown it but if ever you put your self to the trouble of writing to me again I should be glad to understand how you can take the Popes decretals and the body of the Canon Law as a Law for the government of the Church in general and here received to be still so far in force as you affirm and yet not hold that the Pope and his Council have the power of making Laws for the government of the Church in general and see that we and all other Christians are his Subjects Sir I crave your pardon of the displeasing plainness of these lines and remain Your unfaignedly well willing Brother and fellow Servant R. Baxter Octob. 20. 1658. To this Letter being thus received and seriously considered of I thought my self obliged to return an Answer and such an Answer as might satisfie him in all particulars which were in difference between us and it is here chearfully presented to the eye of the Reader The Answer of Peter Heylyn D. D. to M. Baxter's Letter of Octob. 20. SIR YOur Letter of Octo. 20 last I received on Saturday the 30. of the same Month at what time I was preparing for a Journey to London from whence I returned not till that day Month I had there so much other business to take up my thoughts that I could not give my self the leasure to read and consider the Contents of that your Letter much less of dispatching an Answer to it But being now at home in full peace of minde and health of body I thank God for it I have more thorowly considered of all particulars which may sâ—em necessary for me to take notice of in order to my owne defence and your satisfaction which shall go hand in hand together 10. But first I must needs tell you that I could not chuse but wonder at the extream but most unnecessary length thereof and the impertinencies of the greatest part of it in reference to that Letter of mine which it was to Answer and whereunto you had given so full an Answer in the first 25. lines which make but the fifth part of the whole that there was no need of any thing to be added to it The cause of my address unto you was to let you know how much I wished that you had spared my name in your Preface to your Book of the Grotian Religion unless you could have proved me to have been one of that Religion which I thought you could not or had had some more particular charge to have laid against me then I sound you had And secondly To desire you to let me know in what Book or Books of mine you had found a Puritan defined to be a Conformist who was no Arminian a description of whom one Peter Heylyn had
were subject to the Pope Neither indeed was there any need at that time of this Councel that any such Definitions should be made no new Heresie or any new doctrine which by them might be called Heresie being then on foot for Luther did not rise in Germany till this Counsel was ended which might create any disturbance to the peace of that Church If any such priviledges were arrogated by Pope Leo the 10. that none should be accounted members of Christ and his Church but such as were subject to the Pope which you cannot find definitively in the Acts of that Councel you must rather have looked for it in the Bulls of that Pope after Luther had begun to dispute his power and question his usurped authority over all the Church In one of which Bulls you may finde somewhat to your purpose where you shall find him saying that the Church of Rome is Mother and Mistress of all Christians and that her doctrines ought to be received of whosoever would be in the Communion of the Church If this be that you mean much good do it you with though this be rather to be taken for a Declaration then a Definition 45. But if your meaning is as perhaps it may be that the Papists Faith may be called Faction because they appropriate to themselves the name of the Church and exclude all other Christians from being members of Christ and his Church which are not subject to the Pope as indeed they do take heed you lose not more in the Hundreds then you got by the County for then it may be proved by the very same Argument if there were no other that the Puritan Faith is Faction and so to be accounted by all that know it because they do appropriate unto themselves the name of the Church as the old Affrican Scismaticks confined it intra partem Donati For proof whereof if you please to consult Bâ—shop Bancrofts book of Dangerous Positions anâ— Proceedings c. part 3. chap. 15. you will find them writing in this manner viz I know the state of this Church make known to us the state of the Church with you Our Churches are in danger of such as having been of us do renounce all fellowship with us It is long since I have heard from you saith one Blake of the state of the Church of London Another By M. West and M. Brown you shall understand the state of the Churches wherein we are A third If my offence may not be passed by without a further confessiâ—n even before God and his Churâ—h in London will I lye down and lick the dust off your feet where you may see what it is which the heavenly-mindednesse the self-denial meeknesse and Humility which the brethren aim at and confesse it c. I have received saith the fourth a Letter from you in the name of the rest of the Brethren whereby I understand your joining together in choosing my self unto the service of the Church under the Earl of Leicester I am ready to run if the Church command me according to the holy Decrees and Orders of the Discipline Lay all which hath been said together and tell me he that can my wits not being quick enough for so great a nicety whether the Papists Faith or that of the Puritans most properly and meritoriously may be counted Faction 46. The third thing in which you seem unsatisfied in what I say concerning Popery is whether it be true or not that the Popes Decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not being abrogated which being made for the direction and reiâ—lement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendome and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative royal or the municipal laws and statutes of this Realm of England These words I must confesse for mine owning Hist Sab. pa. 2. ch 7. p. 202. and not 210. as your Letter cites it your parenthesis being only excepâ—ed and you name it this Kingdome in stead of the Realm of England though both expressions be to one and the same effect In which you might have satisfied your self by M. Dow who as you say gives some reason for it out of a Statute of Hen. 8. But seeing you remain still unsatisfied in that particular I shall adde something more for your satisfaction In order whereunto you may please to know that in the Stat. 29. Hen. 8. ch 19. commonly called the Statute of the submission of the Clergy it is said expresly First that the Clergie in their convocation promised the King in verbo Saâ—erdoris not to enact or execute any new Canons but by his Majesties royal assent and by his authority first obtained in that behalf and secondly that all such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial as were made before the said submission which were not contrary or repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal were to be used and executed as in former times By which last clause the Decretal of preceding Popes having been admitted into this Land and by several Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England and the main body of the Canon-law having for a long time been accounted for a standing rule by which all proceedings in the Courts Ecclesiastical were to be regulated and directed remain still in force and practice as they had done formerly But then you are to know withall that they were no longer to remain in force and practice then till the said preceding Canons and Constitutions as appears by the said Act of Parliament should be viewed and accommodated to the use of this Church by 32. Commissioners selected out of the whole body of the Lords and Commons and to be nominated by the King But nothing being done therein during the rest of the Kings reign the like authority was granted to King Edw. 6. 3. 4. Edw 6. c. 11. And such a progresse was made in it that a Sub-committee was appointed to review all their said former Canons and Constitutions and to digest such of them into form and order as they thought most fit and necessary for the use of this Church Which Sub committee consisted of eight persons only that is to say Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Lord Bishop of Eli Dr. Richard Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr his Majesties professor for Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Doctors of the Law John Lucas and Richard Gooderick Esquires who having prepared and digested the whole work into form and order were to submit the same to the rest of the 32. and finally to be presented to the King for his Royal Assent and confirmation And though the said Sub-committee had performed their parts as appears by the Book entituled REFORMATIO LEGUM ECCLESIASTICARUM ex authoritate primum Regis HENRICI VIII inchâ—aâ—a Deinde
puts it not into our Creed as this is in theirs But first I hope you do not think that whatsoever is agreed in a General Councel is presently put into our Creed or becomes an Article of the Faith there being some things determined in the first General Councel held by the Apostles in Jerusalem which being long disused are not now binding at all and such as are now binding not being observed because they were decreed in that Councel but as they have their foundation in the Moral Law Secondly if you think the doctrine of Deposing Kings is put into the Papists Creed you must tell me in what Creed it is in none of their old Creeds I am sure of that nor in the new Creed made by Pope Pius the fourth nor in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of the Councel of Trent nor in any other Authentick Record or publick Monument of that Church for if this doctrine had been made a part of their Creed as well before as since the Laterane Councel so many learned men in the Church of Rome as Brian Marsepius Butavinus and divers others had not writ against it nor had so many secular Priests living or abiding here in England so freely written in behalf of the Oath of Allegiance in which this doctrine is disclaimed had it been entertained in that Church as a part of their Creed And on the other side why may we not conceive that this doctrine of Deposing Kings is made an Article of the Creed by the Sect of Calvin considering first how generally it is defended how frequently practised and endeavoured by them as before was said considering secondly that though many National and Provincial Synods have been held by them in their several and respective Churches yet did they never in any one of them disclaim this doctrine or seek to free their Churches from the scandal of it All which clearly shews that they did very well approve the doctrine together with all the consequents thereof in the way of practice And then quid interest utrum velim fieri an gaudeam factum as the Orator hath it what will the difference be I pray you between advising before hand such ungodly practises and approving of them on the post-fact as they seem to do For were it otherwise amongst them they never had a better oportunity to have cleared themselves from being enemies to Monarchical Government from justifying such seditious writings from having a hand in any of those commotions which had before disturbed the peace of Christendome then in the Synod of Dort Anno 1618. where the Commissioners or Delegates of all the Calvinian Churches both in the higher and the lower Germany those of Geneva and the Switzers being added to them were convened together Their doing nothing in it then declares sufficiently how well they liked the doctrine and allowed the practice 42. Having thus justified M. Burton in his first assertion you next proceed unto the maintenance of his second which is that the Papists Faith is Faction and how prove you that Marry thus You say if it be an article of the Popish Faith that none are Members of Christ and his Church but the subjects of the Pope then the Popish Faith is Faction But the Antecedent is true being defined by the Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel This is the Argument by which you hope to justifie M. Burtons second proposition though afterwards you would be thought to be no approver of his wayes But let me tell you M. Baxter your Hypothetical Syllogism is as faulty and halts as much on both legs as your Categorical For taking it for granted that such an article of the Faith was made by Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel yet can you not with any reason or justice either upbraid the whole Faith of the Papists with being a Faction because of the obliquity and partiality of one article of it Nor 2ly can the Papist Faith be termed Faction supposing that any such article had been made in that Councel for it would follow thereupon that if a Canon had been made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergie which make the representative body of the Church of England that whosoever should oppose the Rites and Ceremonies by Law established should not be capable either of the Sacraments or Sacramentals that Canon might be called Faction whereas the Faction lies not in the Canon but in them that do oppose the Ceremonies Or if any act or statute should be made in a free and lawful Parliament that every one who shall not pay the Subsidies and Taxes imposed on them by the same should be put out of the protection of the Laws of the Land that Statute could not be or be called Faction because the Faction lies not in the Act or Statute but in them who do refuse the payment My reason is because the main body of a Church or State or any of the Products or results thereof cannot in any propriety of speech be held for Faction whether considered in themselves or in relation to some few who dislike the same and violently pursue their dislikes thereof For Faction to speak properly is the withdrawing of a smaller or greater number from the main body either of a Church or State governing themselves by their own Councels and openly opposing the established Government as here in England they who communicate not with the Church in favour of the Pope of Rome are commonly called the Popish Faction as they are called the Puritan Faction who conform not to the Rites and Ceremonies by Law established But on the other side the whole body of the Church is by no means to be called a Faction in reference to either of the opposite parties And then again you should have told us whether you take the word Faith in your proposition for a justifying historical temporary Faith or a Faith of Miracles whither you take it for the Habit or Act of Faith by which they believe or for the Object of Faith or that is to say the thing believed If you can take the word Faith in none of these senses as I think you cannot it must be taken in a more general comprehension for the true knowledge and worship of God and then it signifies the same with the word Religion the Christian Faith and the Christian Religion denoting but one and the same thing under divers names so that upon the whole matter you are but where you were before the Papists Religion being no more properly to be called faction in this Proposition then it was Rebellion in the former Had you formed your Proposition thus viz. If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope then the Papists faith or rather that one Article of the Papists faith tends to the making of a faction you had come neerer to the truth but standing in the same tearms in
it that after the Schism made by Pope PIVS V. little or nothing for many years together comparatively with those of the other party was writ against it that being newly translated into the Latine tongue about the year 1618. it gave great content to the more moderate sort of Papists amongst the French as Bishop Hall informeth us in his Quo Vadis and being translated into Spanish at such times as his late Majesty was in Spain it gave no less contentment to the learned and more sober sort amongst the Spaniards who marvelled much to see such a regular order and form of Divine Worship amongst the English of whom they had been frequently informed by our English Fugitives that there was neither form nor order to be found amongst us But on the other side the Genevians beginning to take up the cry called Puritans upon that account in the 6. or 8. year of Q. ELIZABETH animated by Billingham and Benson conntenanced by Cartwright and headed by the Earl of Leicester followed it with such a violent impetuosity that nothing could repress or allay that fury neither the patience and authority of Arch-Bishop Whitgift the great pains and learning of Bishop Bilson the modesty of M. Hooker nor the exactness of D. Coâ—ens all which did write against them in Q. ELIZABETHS time was able to stop their current till the severity of the Laws gave a check unto them Nor was King JAMES sooner received into this Kingdom but they again revived the quarrel as may appeare by their Petitions Admonitions and other Printed Books and Tractates to which the learned labours of Bishop Buckridge Bishop Morton and D. Burges who had been once of that party but regained by K. James unto the Church were not by them thought to give such ample satisfaction that they must be at it once again during the life of K. James in their Alâ—are Damuscenam in which the whole body of the English Liturgie the Hierarchy of Bishops the Discipline and Equâ—nomy of the Church of England was publickly viâ—â—ified and decried How egerly this game was followed by them after the first ten years of his late Majesty K. Charles till they had abolished the Liturgie destroyed the discipline and pluckt up Episcopacy both root and branch is a thing known so well unto you that it needs no telling And this I hope hath satisfied you in your first enquiry viz. why and in what respects it was said in the Preface to my Ecclesia Vindicata That the Papist was the more moderate adversary and for the other words which follow viz. That the Puritan faction hurried on with greater violence c. which you find in the 17. Sect. of it they relate only to the violent prosecution against the Episcopal Government in which how far they out went the Papists is made so manifest in that and the former Section that it is no small wonder to me that you should seek for any further satisfaction in it read but those Sections once again and tell me in your second and more serious thoughts if any thing could be spoken more plainly or proved more fully then that the Puritan â—action with greater violence and impetuosity were hurried on towards their design that is to say the destruction of Episcopal Government then the Papists were Secondly You seem much unsatisfied that I maintained against M. Burton That the Religion of the Papists is not rebellion nor their faith faction But this when I maintained against M. Burton I did it not in the way of laying down my own reasons why it neither was nor could be so but in the way of answering such silly Arguments as he here brought to prove it was but now that I may satisfie you and do right both to the Church and State you shall have one Argument for it now and another I shall give you when I shall come in order to answer yours The Argument which I shall give you now is briefly this shall be founded on a passage of the Speech made in the Star Chamber by the late Arch Bishop at the sentencing of D. Bastwick M. Burton c. in which he telleth us That if we make their Religion to be Rebellion then we make their Religion and Rebellion to be all one and that is against the ground both of State and the Law for when divers Romish Priests and Jesuites have deservedly suffered death for Treason is it not the constant and just profession of the State that they never put any man to death for Religion but for Rebellion and Treason only Doth not the State truly affirm that there was never any Law made against the life of a Papist quatenus a Papist only And is not all this stark false if their very Religion be Rebellion For if their Religion be Rebellion it is not only false but impossible that the same man in the same act should suffer for his Rebellion and not for his Religion And this â—aith he K. James of ever Blessed Memory understood passing well when in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs he saith I do constantly maintain that no Papist either in my time or in the time of the late Queen ever dyed for his conscience therefore he did not think their very Religion was Rebellion thus he And if for all this you shall thus persist and say that the Popish Religion is Rebellion you first acquit Papists from suffering death banishment or imprisonment under the Raign of the three last Princes for their several Treasons and Rebellions and lay the guilt thereof upon the blood-thirstiness of the Laws and of the several Kings and Parliaments by which they were made And secondly you add hereby more Martyrs to the Roman Kalender then all the Protestants in the world ever did besides 36. But this you do not only say but you prove it too at the least you think so Your argument is this 1. That Religion which defineth the deposition of Princes and absolving their subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is rebellion doctrinal But such is the Popish Religion that is to say the Popish Religion defineth the Deposition of Kings and absolveth their Subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. The Minor you say is evident but I am willing to believe that you mean the Major that this only is an escape of the pen because you do not go about to prove the Major but the Minor only To the whole Sylogisme I answer first that it is of a very strange complection both Propositions being false and therefore that it is impossible by the Rules of Logick that the conclusion should insue that the Proposition or the Major as they generally call it is altogether false may be proved by this that the thing which teacheth cannot be the thing which is taught no more then a Preacher can be said to be the word by him preached or the Dog which
mildness of his Majesties Government and the great Moderation shown by Bishop Laud in the use of his power in not compelling men to say or do any thing against their Conscience a moderation which we find not amongst those of the Sect of Calvin when any of the opposite party fell into their hands Sixthly whereas it might be thought that the Ancient Protestants as he merrily calls them had past many such severe censures upon those whom he stiles Arminians he instanceth in none but in Barret and Bridges which make too small a number for so great a bragg Quid dignum tanto and the rest And finally for answer to the Prelatical oppressions I shall referre you to my former Discourse with Mr. Baxter num 20 21 23 repeating only at the present that the Proceeding of the Bishops were mild and gentle compared with the unmerciful dealings of the Presbiterians by whom more Orthodox Learned and Religious Ministers were turned out of their Benefices within the space of three years then by all the Bishops in England since the Reformation 46. But the King must not think to carry it so the Puritan Faction being generally Calvinistical in Doctrine as well as in Discipline prevailed so in the House of Commons Jan. 28. 1628. that they agreed upon this Counterpoise or Anti-declaration following viz. We the Commons now assembled in Parliament do claim profess and avow for truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established in Parliament 13. Eliz. Which by the publick Acts of the Church of England and the general current Exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuites and Arminians and all other wherein they differ from us Which counterpoise made in direct opposition to the Kings Declaration your adversary makes a product of the Civil Authority whereas the House of Commons was so far at that time from being looked on as the Civil Authority of the English Nation that it was of no Authority at all nor could make any Order to bind the Subject or declare any thing to be Law and much less Religion till it was first countenanced by the Lords and finally confirmed by the Royal assent But this he doth in correspondence to the said Protestation in which the Articles of Lambeth are called the publique Acts of the Church of England though made by none but the Arch Bishop of Canterbury two Bishops of which onely one had actually received Consecration one Dean and half a dozen Doctors and other Ministers or thereabouts neither impowered to any such thing by the rest of the Clergy nor authorized to it by the Queen And therefore their determinations can no more properly be called the Acts of the Church then if one Earl with the eldest Sons of two or three others meeting with half a dozen Gentlemen in Westminster Hall can be affirmed to be in a capacity of making Orders which must be looked on by the Subject as Acts of Parliament 47. Your Adversary begins now to draw toward the Lees and in the Dreggs of his discourse offers some Arguments to prove that those doctrines and opinions which he calls Arminianism were countenanced to no other end but to bring in Popery And for the proof hereof he brings in Mr. Prinn's Report to the House of Commons in the Case of Montague An. 1626. In which it is affirmed that the whole frame and scope of his book was to discourage the well affected in Religion and as much as in him lay to reconcile them unto Popery He gives us secondly a fragment of a scattered Paper pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuites Colledge in Bruxels In which the Writer lets him know that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England by planting the Soveraign Drug Arminianism which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie Thirdly he backs this paper with a clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons Anno 1628 where it is said that the hearts of his Majesties Subjects were perplex'd in beholding the dayly growth and spreading of the faction of Arminianism that being as his Majesty well knew so they say at least but a cunning way to bring in Popery All which he flourishes over by a passage in the Lord Faucklands Speech before remembered in which it is affirmed of some of the Bishops that their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel without bringing themselves in danger of being destroyed by the Law c. To all which being but the same words out of divers mouths I shall return one answer only which is briefly this Your adversary cannot be so ignorant as not to know that the same points which are now debated between the Calvinians and the Old Protestants in England between the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants in the Belgick Churches and finally between the Rigid and Moderate Lutherans in the upper Germany have been as fiercely agitated between the Franciscans and Dominicans in the Church of Rome the old English Protestants the Remonstrants and the moderate Lutherans agreeing in these points with the Franciscans as the English Calvinists the Contra-Remonstrants and the Rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans So that there is a complyance on all sides with one of the said two parties in the Church of Rome And therefore why a general compliance in these points with the Friers of St. Dominick the principal Sticklers and Promoters of the Inquisition should not be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery as any such compliance with the Friers of St. Francis I would fain have your Adversary tell me when he puts out next 49. The greatest of the storm being over there remains only a few drops which will make no man shrink in the wetting that is to say the permission of some books to be frequenly printed containing the Calvinian Doctrine and the allowance of many questions to be maintained publiquely in the Act at Oxon contrary to the sence of those which he calls Arminians Amongst the Books so frequently printed he instanceth in the Practise of Piety Perkins his Principles Balls Catechism c. which being incogitantly licensed to the Press at their first coming out could not be afterwards Restrained from being Reprinted notwithstanding the many inconveniences which ensued upon it till the passing of the Decree in Star-Chamber July 1637. concerning Printing by which it was ordered to the great grief and trouble of that Puritan faction that no Book whatsoever should be reprinted except Books of the Law till they were brought under a review and had a new License for reprinting of them And though D. Crakanthorps Book against the Archbishop of Spalato was but once printed yet being called Defensâ—o Ecclesiae Anglicanae it serves your Adversaries turn as well as if it had been Printed an hundred times over How so because
who in the ninth Book of his Odyssees gives this Aphorism viz Vxori natis jus dicit quisque virorum That every man gives law to his wife and children And though the children come to such a condition both of age and fortunes that they are well enough able to live of themselves yet do they still continue servants to their natural parents for Iuâ—a patris naturalis minime solvantur sath the civil Lawyers and therefore are required by God to do the duty of servants till either their Fathers free consent or the Constitution of the Government under which they live shall lease them from it Secondly Admitting this natural liberty of all mankind which our late Polititians so much dream of yet man in his depraved nature is such a violent head-strong and unruly beast that he stands as much in need of a â—it or bridle as the Horse or Mule least otherwise he run headlong to his own destruction And therefore if he will not have a King he must be under the command of some other Government aut Râ—x auâ— Senatus habendus est as once Pacuviusâ—aid â—aid unto those of Capua and whether he live under the command of a King or the power of a Senate he must be servant unto either though otherwise he pretend to the ability of a self-subsistence for unto whomsoever you give your selves servants to obey his servants ye are unto whom ye obey saith the Great Apostle And then the question will be this whither the natural liberty of mankind may be best preserved under a Monarchical Government where he hath but one Master to observe whose tempeâ— and affections he may without much difficulty comply withal under the Government of a Senate or popular State where he must serve some hundredâ— of Masters to every one of which or to the greater part of which it is impossible for the wisest man to give any contentment Supposing Thirdly That the Qâ—estion be resolved in favour of the Popular Government yet every popular Government is to be ordered by some Lawes and every Law is the restraining of the use of this pretended liberty and binds the subject to observance Lex being so called a Ligando say the old Grammarians in all such cases concerning which the Laws are made by what power sover 24. But then say you these laws are of their own making not imposed by others which makes no alteration in the case at all my fetters not being the easier to me because they are of my own making then if they were made by the next Smith or provided for me by some others Besides which you your self have told us that all such Kings as claim by Scripture can be but regulated Monarchs and could of right enact no Law but by the suffrage of the people pag. 15. Which is as notable a preservative of the peoples liberty as ever was enjoyed by them in a popular Government O but say you the people in a popular Government have a power to chuse the Senate which they have not in chusing of their King and that the people with such a Senate have power to make what Laws they please and what can follow thereupon but that a Government so setled in a Senate and people must be accounted for a Divine Institution and be called the Government of God because it is the Government of Laws and not of men as you tell us pag. 11. But first how may we be assured That a Senate so established will not Lord it over the people with greater insolency and put more heavy pressures on them then ever they suffered under Kings for being many in number and all equal in power every one of them will endeavour to enrich himself and serve their turn upon the people there being no superiour power to controul them for it And next how may we be assured That the people I mean the whole body of the people have any power to chuse their Senate or that the Senate being chosen they have a power in voting with them for the making of Laws The Famous Senate of the Romans was ordained by Romulus their first King their number doubled by Tarquinius Priscus and a third hundred added by Brutus which continued in the first times of the Consular Government the people having no hand at all in the nomination nor was it otherwise at Athens though that was the most popular and Democratical Estate that ever was in the World the main body of the people in each Citty having as little to do in the choise of the Senate as they had in making of their Laws And first in the making of their Laws none of the City of Athens were permitted to vote or to give their voices but such as were accounted and enrolled for Citizens and none were either so enrolled or reckoned but the Chief of the City all Servants Labourers Handicrafts-men and Artificers which make the far greater part in every City not passing in account for Citizens and consequently having no voice nor power either in making Laws or electing Magistrates And secondly as it was in the Democratie of Athens so was it in the Timocratie of Rome the infinitly greatest part of the Inhabiâ—anâ—s having no hand at all in the making of Laws or in any other Act of Government of what kind soever For if a Law were past in Senate none of inferiour Order had a suffrage in it If it were made in the general Assembly of the Centuries those of the Nobility agreeing together might pass a Law without the rest and whither they agreed or not the Law was always pâ—ssed by the other Centuries before it came to the sixt consisting of the poorer sort which were never called unto the vote They did in number far exceed all the other five Centuries And finally if the Law were made in the Assembly of the Tribes as all the poorer sort which made up the far greater part of the City could never make any use of their voices in the Assembly of Centuries so the Nobility which made up the most considerable part of the City were quite excluded from having any suffrage or voice at all in the Assembly of the Tribes Admitting finally that all the Inhabitants of Rome Athens Syracuse c. had vote in the Election of their Magistrates and in the making of their Laws yet what makes this unto those multitudes of people which live dispersed in the Territories of those mighty Cities or in any of the remoter Provinces which were subject to them who being infinitely more in number then the Inhabitants of those several and respective Cities unto which they were subject had neither voice in the Election of the Senate or in the making of their Laws or in any matter of concernment to their several Nations but will they nill they they must submit to the will and pleasure of their great Masters in those Cities under whom they served though otherwise as able to subsist of themselves as any of
from the death of Bishop Andrews and Archbishop Harsâ—et then he had taken those of York on this last occasion But I hope onâ— Author was somewhat more then half asleep when this note fell from him for otherwise me thinks he could not be so much a stranger to the affairs of the Church as not to know that ever since the time of William the second for so long that ill custome hath continued nothing hath been more ordinary with the Kings of England then to enter on the temporalities of all vacant Bishoppricks whether it be by death promotion or what way soever and to receive the mean profits of them till the new Bishop after the doing of his homage hath taken out a writ for their restitution 47. Our Author now drawes toward an end and for a conclusion to his Book contrary in a manner to all former Precedents addresseth an Epistle To the Religious Learned and judicious Reader In which he feeds himself and his Reader also with the hopes of this that there are no more Errors to be found in his History then those which have been noted in the Animadversions This I will add saith he for thus he doth bespeak his Reader for my comfort and thy better confidence in reading my Book that according to the received rule in Law Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis it followeth proportionably that Animadversio firmat Regulam in non Animadversis And if so by the Tacit consent of my Adversary himself all other passages in my Book are allowed sound and true save those few which fall under his reproof But if so as it is much otherwise the passages which fall under the Reproof of the Animadvertor are not so few as to give the Reader any confidence that all the rest are to be allowed for sound and true Non omnem molitor quae fluit unda videt as the Proverb hath it The Miller sees not all the water which goes under his Mill much of it passing by without observation and if the blind eat many a fly as the English Adage saith he doth he may swallow many an Error also without discovery when he first finds them in his dish And so it was with me in the Review of our Authors History the second perusal whereof presented many Errors to my consideration which had not been noted in the first And since the publishing of the Animadversions I have fallen accidentally upon divers others not observed before of which I shall advertise him in a private way whensoever he shall please to desire it of me 48. And here I thought I should have ended but the Appealant puts me to the answering of two Objections against the Bishops having place in Parliament as a third Estate Which two Objections may be Answered without being heard as being made against the clear letter of the Law the express words of several Statutes and Records of Parliament as also against the positive determination of Sir Edward Cook the most learned Lawyer of our times whose judgement in that point may seem to carry the authority of a Parliament with it because by Order of this Parliament his Books were appointed to be Printed But since the Appealant doth require it in the way of curtesie I will serve him in it as well as I can at the present without engaging my self in any further enquiry after those particulars And first as to the Bishop of Man the reason why he hath no vote in Parliament is not because he doth not hold his Lands per integram Baroâ—iam as is implyed in the Objections but because he doth not hold his Lands of the King at all The Bishop of Man is Homiger to the Earl of Darby as the chief Lord of the Island of his sole nomination and dependance and therefore there could be no reason which might induce the King of England to admit those Bishops to a place and vote in Parliament who held nothing of them and of whose dutie and affections they could promise little And so much I remember to have read in the learned Work of Francis Mason de Ministerio Anglicano building therein if my memory do not too much fail me upon the judgement and authority of the learned Andrews in his Elaborate Apologie against Cardinal Bellarmine To the second Objection That some Statutes have been made absente or Exclusâ— clero which notwithstanding are esteemed to be good and valid therefore that the Bishops sit not in the Parliament as a third Estate I shall for brevity sake refer the Appealant to my answer to the Book called The stumbling Block c. cap. 5. Sect. 7. 8. c. where he shall find the point discoursed more at large then these short Remembrances can admit of I shall onely now adde thus much that in the Protestation made by the twelve Bishops which was enrolled amongst the Records of that house they thereby entred their Protest against all such Laws Orders Votes Resolutions and determinations as in themselves null and of none effect which in their absence since the 27th of December 1641. as were already passed and likewise against such as should hereafter pass in that most honourable house during the time of their forced and violent absence from it c. Which certainly so many Grave Learned and Judicious men would never have done if they had not looked upon themselves in the capacity of a third Estate according to the Laws of the Realm exprest in several Acts and Records of Parliament And whereas he requests me when my hand is in to answer an Objection taken from a passage in the Parliament at Northampton under Hen. the second in which the Bishops claimed their place not as Bishops but Barons Non sedemus hiâ— Episcopi sed Barones c. it must be understood with reference to the case which was then before them in which they thought themselves better qualified to pass their judgements in the capacity of Barons then in that of Bishops For that the Bishops sat in Parliament in a double capacity will be no hard matter to evince considering that they sat as Bishops in all publick Councels before the entrance of the Normans and that when William the Conqueror changed their tenure from Frank Almoigne to Bâ—râ—nage he rather added some new capacity to them which before they had not then took any of their old Capacities from them which before they had But this dispute is out of doors as the case now stands which makes me willing to decline all such further trouble which the Appealant seems desirous to impose upon me 50. That which I have already done in Order to his satisfaction is more then he can challenge in the ordinary course of Disputation or hath deserved at my hands in the managing of it He tells us in the Third Chapter of his Apparatus that finding himselfe necessitated to return an answer to the Animadversions he was resolved first to abstain from all Rayling that being a
and impotency of the people But you who have no better name for the people in a Commonwealth then the Rascal Rabble will have Kings at a venture to be of Divine right and to be absolute where as in truth if divine right be derived unto Kings from these of the Hebrews onely it is most apparent that no absolute King can be of Divine right For these Kings if they were such by the Law alledged then by the same Law they could neither multiply Horses nor wives nor Silver nor Gold without which â—o King can be absolute but were to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes and so by consequence were regulated Monarchs nay could of right Enact no Law but as those by David for the reduction of the Ark for the regulation of the Priests for the Election of Solomon which were made by the suffrage of the people no otherwise then those under the Kings of Rome and ours under the late Monarchy what then is attributed by Calvin unto popular Magistrates that is not confirmed by Scripture and reason yet nothing will serve your turn but to know what power there was in the Sanhedrim to controle their Kings to which I answer that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that in case the King came to violate those Laws and Statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporal punishment Moreover it is shewn by the latter out of Josephus that Hircanus when he could not deliver Hierom from the Sanhedrim by power he did it by art Nor is your evasion so good as that of Hircanus while you having nothing to say to the contrary but that Herod when he was question'd was no King shuffle over the business without taking notice as to the point in controversie that Hircanus who could not save Herod from the question was King The manner of the restitution of the Sanhedrim made by Jehoshaphat plainly shewes that even under the Monarchy the power of the Sanhedrim was co-ordinate with that of the King at least such is the judgement of the Iewish Writers for saith Grotius the King as is rightly noted by the Talmudists was not to judge in some cases and to this the words of Zedekiah seem to relate whereto the Sanhedrim demanding the Prophet Jeremiah he said Behold he is in your hands for the King is not he that can do any thing without you nor except David had ever any King Session or vote in this Councell to which soon after he adds that this Court contiued till Herod the Great whose insolency when exalting it self more and more against the Law the Senator had not in time as they ought suppressed by their power God punished them in such a manner for the neglect of their duty that they came all to be put to death Herod except Sameae onely whose foresight and frequent warning of this or the like calamity they had as frequently contemned In which words Grotius following the unanimous consent of the Talmudists if they knew any thing of their own orders expresly attributes the same power unto the Sanhedrim and chargeth them with the same dury in Israel that is attributed unto the three Estates in a Gothick Moddel and charged upon these by Calvin Thus that there never lay any appeal from the Sanhedrim unto Moses except when the Jews were in captivity or under provincial Government to any other Magistrate as also that they had power upon their Kings being that your self say Iâ— the objection paramount and which not answered you confess that the three Estates convened in Parliament or any other papular Magistrate Calvin dreams of notwithstanding any discontinuance or non-usage on their parts or any prescription alledged by Kings to the contrary may resume and exercise that authority which God hath given them when ever they shall find a fit time for it And this letter shewing plainly that you have in no wise answered this objection it remains that your whole Book even according to your own acknowledgement is confuted by this letter Or if you be of another mind I shall hope to hear further from you 3. These are the very words of that you Letter to which an answer is required though to no part thereof but that which doth concern the Spartan Ephori and the Iewish Sanhedrim I can by any rules of disputation be required to answer the rest of your discourse touching the balancing or over-balancing of such degrees and ranks of men of which all Government consist is utterly Extrinsecally and extravagant unto my design which was not to dispute the severall forms of Government and in what the differences between them did most especially coâ—sist but onely to declare that neither the Spartan Ephori nor any such popular Magistrates as Calvin dreams of had any authority originally invested in them to controul their Kings much less to murder or depose them Howsoever I shall not purposely pass by any thing which by your self or any indifferent Reader shall be thought material without giving you my judgement and opinion in it Some things you say I writ as a Polititian a silly one I am God help me and some things as a Polititian and divine too And as a Polititian I am charged by you to have affirmed that the Spartan Kings were as absolute Monarchs as any in those times till Euripon the 3d. King of the Race of Hercules and the 2d King of the younger house to procure the favour and good will of the Rascal rabble loosened the raigns of Government and thereby much diminishing the Regall power This I affirm indeed and this you deny but you neither Answer my Authorities nor confute my Reasons my Authorities I derive from Plutarch first who speaking of the said Euripon whom he calleth Eurition affirms that till his time the Government of Sparta was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently Monarchical if it were not more And secondly from Aristotle who calls the Government of Charilaus the sixt King of that House who as you say was generally affirmed to be a good man by the name of a tyranny And if it might be called a Tyranny then when the Regall power was under such a diminution by the folly of Euripon there is no question to be made but that the Spartan Kings were absolute Monarchs before any such diminution had been made To these two proofs you answer nothing nor say you any thing at all in confutation of the Reason by me brought to prove it Which is That having acquired the Estate by conquest and claiming by no other title then by that of Armies there was no question to be made but that they Governed in the way of absolute Monarchs it being not the guise of such as come in by conquest to covessant and capitulate with their Subjects but to impose their will for a Law upon them This being the custome of all Kings who
claim by conquest it must belong to you to prove the contrary and tell me why the Spartan Kings should not observe the same rule in the Acts of Government as all others did Crowns which are purchased by the Sword seldome sit fast upon the head of the Conquerors if they deliver up that Sword by which they were purchased And therefore it was noted for a great error in Julius Cesar a man of greater parts and power then a King of Sparta to hope that he might hold that supream Authority by love of the people which he got by force of Arms and was so to hold it Against this you object First That the Spartan Kings could not be absolute because they had a Nobility Peâ—ple to gratifie But then you should have told us by what rule in Government the Spartan Kings who preceded Eurypon could be obliged to gratifie either the People or Nobility of that Country which they had conquered by the Sword And whereas you alledge in defence of Eurypon That his letting loose the Reines of Government to obtain favour with the people was a confession of the infirmity of the Monarchy and that his Action in so doing was not so voluntary in it self as unavoidable imprudence It was indeed a plain confession of the infirmity of the Monarch in not being able to hold the Kingdom in the same Estate in which it had been held by his Father and Grand father Of the infirmity of the Monarchy that is to say the form of Government by them established and to which the Spartans formerly had been accustomed I cannot think it to be any confession at all nor can I see how that imprudent Act of his can be affirmed to have been unavoidable in point of prudence by that which you produce from the words of Agis the five and twentieth King of Sparta of the younger house where he affirms that a King of Sparta could never come to be equal unto any other King but only by introducing equality among the people But first a King of Sparta might be as absolute in his own Dominions as any other King whatsoever of a larger Territory with whom he could not be thought equal in power and Riches The absoluteness or Autocraty of Kings if I may so call it depending not upon the greatness of their revenues or extent of Empire but only in their form of Government And secondly I would fain know how by the introducing an equality among the people could render a poor King of Sparta equal to any other King either of any greater power or larger Territory It was not possible for Agis aâ— he said himself in his address unto his Mother se alios reges pecunia aquare posse to equal other Kings in wealth and riches and therefore he resolved upon some exploit by which his name and reputation might grow great in the sight of the people and no exploit seemed in his eyes so probable to obtain that name and reputation which he aimed at then by introducing equality among the people which probably might make him a great King in the love and estimation of the common people for I must no longer call them the Rascal rabble though in no bodies else Nor could the low condition of the Kings of Sparta impose any such necessity upon Eurypon to change the Government as you say it did neither Eurypon nor any of his Successors encreasing either in power or riches by the alteration and finally whereas you seem to justifie this necessity by those words of Agis in which he told his Mother That a Servant or Lievtenant of Selinus or Ptolomey was worth more then ever were all the Kings of Sparta put together First Agis speaks not of any of the Lievtenants of those two Princes who possibly might amass more treasures then all the Kings of Sparta had done before but only of the Servants of those Leivtenants for it is Satraparum famuli servi Procuratorum in the translation of Xyland with which not having the Greek by me I content my self And secondly these words being spoken of the Servants of such Lievtenants and of the Servants of such great Persons which lived under either of those two Kings must needs have more of Rhetorique in them then of real truth For Agis did not only tell the people when he came to put this project in execution that he would devide amongst them his own Fields and Pastures of which he had very many in his own possession but that he would deliver up ten thousand Talents to be put into the common Treasury And if this one King were so rich in Lands and so stored with Money Dives agris dives positis in soenore nummis it must be very strange to think that a Servant of any of the Princes or Lievtenants of either of the said two Kings should be worth more then all the Kings of Sparta were they put together 4. But here before we can proceed I must clear my self from that Parenthesis of yours in which you say that I commonly call the people by the name of Rascal rabble as in another place you tell me that I have no better name for them then that but I hope you do not and I am sure you cannot gather out of any such words that I bestow that title on the people generally which either make up the main body of a Common wealth or comprehend all sorts of people which are not in the Rank and order of titular Nobility There is a great difference in the ellegancy and propriety of the Latine tongue between Plebs and Populus Populus signifying somtimes the agregative body of a State as Irasci populo Romano nemo sapienter potest in the words of Livie Somtimes all such of a State or Nation that are not in places of command as Senatus populusque Romanus in the vulgar stile of Republick But Plebs is of lower alloy relating unto none but those of inferiour quality as Laborers Handicrafts Artificers which commonly make up the greatest part of a State or Nation and yet pass under the account of the Rout or Rabble And such are they of whom Aristotle telleth us in his Books of Politiques That they are not only base or wicked Judges in their own Cases and that many of them differ little from Beasts You may do well to quarrel him for the one or not me for the other 5. In the next place you let us know That the Monarchy that is or can be absolute must be founded upon an Army planted by military Colonies upon the over balance of Land being in the Dominion of the Prince And so far I concur in opinion with you seeing it proved by late experience amongst our selves that no Prince can be an absolute Monarch without an Army that is to say without some standing Forces to be ready at command upon all occasions But then what reason have you to think that Aristodemus having conquered the Realm of Sparta