Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n allegiance_n king_n oath_n 2,942 5 7.6429 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A86280 Certamen epistolare, or, The letter-combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr. Baxter of Kederminster. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon. And 4. J.H. of the city of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr. Fullers late Appeal. Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Bernard, Nicholas, d. 1661.; Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.; Harrington, James, 1611-1677. 1659 (1659) Wing H1687; Thomason E1722_1; ESTC R202410 239,292 425

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
better natured then the Lady Moore of whom my Author knows a tale that coming once from Shrift she pleasantly saith unto her Husband be merry Sir Thomas for I have been well shriven to day and mean to lay aside all my old shrewishness yea Madam saith he and to begin again afresh 10. But so it shall not be with me that which my adversary takes for a shrewishness in me shall be laid aside never to be resumed again upon any occasion when I am not personally concerned In which case if either my spirit prove so eager or my style so tart and smart as he * says it is I hope the naturall necessity of self preservation will excuse me in it Where by the way I must needs think my self unequally dealt with by the present Appeallant who is not pleased with my humour be it Grave or Pleasant If I am Grave and serious in my Animadversions he ascribes it ever and anon to my too much Morosi●y as if I were the Morose himselfe in Ben Johnsons Epicaene I● smart and jocular I shall be presently accused o● Railing as if I had been bred in Billings-Gate Colledge I can not make my selfe merry with a mess of Fullers but I must have a Rail laid in my Dish and a quail to boot especially if I touch on our Author himself who will behold me for so doing with no other eyes then the servants of Hezekiah looked on Rabsecah p. 2. fol. 95. And if I do but speak unhappily of a Waltam Calf the application of the Harmless Proverb without more a●o must be Railing also and such a railing as is like a To●d swelled with venome as much beneath a Doctor as against Divinity p. 3. fol. 33. But let not my Author be too Angry upon this account my Title to the Calf being like to prove as good as his especially if our Contentions be so needless as his Letter intimates For i● our Quarels onely be de lana caprina the equall Rider may bestow the Calf upon both alike Et vitulo tu dignus ●ic est as said the Umpire in the Poet. And in all this I hope there is is nothing of the snarling dog to which he i● pleased to compare me within few lines after though he knows well that I can Bite as well as Bark if I set my self to it 11. But now I am to change my weapons or rather to throw down the Sword and take up the Buckler that I may save my self the better from those furious blows which the Appealant le●s fly at me He charges m● in Generall first with not being over dutiful to the Fathers of the Church fol. 2. Dutiful then I am to the Fathers of the Church though not over dutiful which I believe is more then all men who have read his History canaff●●m of him and next particularly for writing against the two Arch-bishops of York and Armah Dr. Prideaux Dr. Hackwell and Calvin who against all the Rules of Heraldry must be marrialled first my engaging with M Lestrange with D. Barnard and his Squire not being forgotten Of which the first four might have slept in Peace in the Bed of Rest without any disturbance on my part if three of them had not been conjured up by Dr. Barnard and his Squire to begin the Quarrel and the fourth raised by M. Lestrange when I least lookt for him And as for Calvin who must needs lead the Van in this General Muster I know no reason which can hinder me or any other who have subscribed unto the Government of the Church of England or have taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to the Kings thereof from taking him to task if he com●●n our way as well as any other forrain o● Domestick Writer of what name soever 12. But my ●ndutifulness hath transported me beyond the Fathers of the Church And I am next accused for waving my Loyalty and Discretion together in having so ●au●ily and unsubject-like counted how often King Charles waved his Crown p. 1. fol. 56. Somewhat is also intimated within few lines after concerning some of those whom he calls ●igh Royalist● who maintaining that all the Goods of the subjects are at the Kings absolute dispose have written of him in a base and disparaging language since the time of his death If any were faulty in this last kind let them speak for themselves neither my Tongue nor Pen shall ever be imployed in their behalf Certain I am that I am free enough from the accusation my nearest kindred being persons of two fair a Fortune to be betrayed by one of their own blood to a loss of that Property which they have by Law in their Estates And no less certain am I that no flattery or time-serving no preaching up the Kings Prerogative nor derogating from the property of the English subjects could be found in any of my Sermons before his Majesty had they been sifted to the very Bran. In confidence whereof as in the way of Anticipation hath been said elsewhere I offered the Committee of the Courts of Justice before whom I was called in December 1640. on the complaint of M. Prinne to put into their hands all the Sermons which I had either preacht at Court or in Westminster Abby to the end that they might see how free and innocent I was from broching any such new Doctrines as might not be good Parliament proof whensoever they should come to be examin'd The 2d crimination for waving my Loyalty and discretion together in speaking something freely let it be called saucily to please my Author of the Kings waving of hs Crown is already answered und the Appeallant might have found it in my Answer to the Observator Observed where the like Objection had been made My Answer is That Errors in conduct of affairs and effects in Councels are not unprofitably noted by the best Historians and that too in the greatest Princes Their successors might be else to seek in the knowledge of some things of weight and consequence and such as most nearly do concern their own preservation He that soweth Pillows under the Elbows of Great Princes when they are alive shall be termed a flatterer and he that flatters them being dead to the prejudice and wrong of their Posterity deserves not to pass for an Historian That wit is alwaies better cheap which is purchased with the price of another mans Errors then with the feeling of our own So that my Adversary in these Criminations doth but Actum agere and therefore is to be content with such former Answers as have been made unto his hands 13 Now as I stand accused for two little Loyalty to the King so I am charged with two much doting on the Queen even the Great Queen and Empress of this world called Regina Pecunia whose Letter must be made more prevalent with me for publishing the Animadversions then all the other considerations pretended by me And for proof
per Regem EDW. VI. provecta c. Reprinted not long since at London 1641. But that King also dying before the said Canons so digested and accommodated could be confirmed and ratified by the Royal Assent and authorised under the Great Seal of England the former Canons Consti●utions and Ordinances and consequently the Decretals of the Popes and the body of the Canon law according to the limitations and restrictions by the Statute of King Hen. 8. did remain in force and so continue to this day so that your hopes of their not being in force amongst us declares you for as sorry a Lawyer as you confesse your self to be 47. Next when you say how little you know by what authority the Popes Decretals are laws to the● Church in gen●ral or to us I will improve you● knowledge in that particular also as far as I can and for so doing I am to put you in mind that the Popes for a long tract of time were possessed of the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical matters over all the Churches in the Western and North-western parts and amongst others in this also and that he did pretend the like authority over all the Churches in the East and South so that their Decretals were made by them intentionally to serve for a rule and reiglement of the Church in general but were admitted only in the Churches of the Western and North-western parts which did acknowledge his Supremacy and made themselves subject to his power But having now shaken off his power in the three Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland in the three Realms of Denmark Norway and Sweden in the united Provinces of the Netherlands and many great Provinces and Estates of the Higher Germany besides some thousands of the Protestant Churches in the Realm of France he hath now lost that power which before he challenged of making laws for the Government of the Church in general though such of them as we here received are still so far in force as I have affirmed that is to say according to the sad restrictions and limitations before laid down And therefore I can well maintain that the Pope and his Councels had a power you never heard me say he hath of imposing his Decretals and the body of the Canon law as a law for the Government of so much of the Church as was then actually under his command having been made intentionally for the reiglement of the Church in general and that being here received are still so far in force that is to say in such form and maner as I have affirmed and yet not grant that he and his Councels have any such power at this present time or that are and all other Christians must be thought to be his Subjects which is the thing you seem glad to understand if ever I should put my self to the trouble of writing to you again as I have done now 48. Having thus laid before you the true state of the Question I am in the next place to answer such Objections as you make against it and your Objections being built chiefly on your own thoughts and such hopes as you had fancied to your self For want of knowledg in these matters will be easily answered You object first That you will yet hope that they are not in force but I have proved to you that they are And you object next That you thought the Acts that impose the Oathes of allegeance and supremacy had disobliged us from all forreigue power and nulled the Pope's authority in England and though you thought well enough in this yet if you think that because those Acts of Parliament above mentioned have disobliged us from all forreign power and nulled the Popes authority in England and therefore that all the Decretals of the former Popes or Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical made in times of Popery are either by those Acts and Oths anulled and abrogated your thoughts will prove to be as deceitful as your hopes are groundless and therefore when you say that if ever you live to see another Parliament which you are like to do very shortly if the news be true you will crave a freedom from that bondage I would fain know from what b●ndage you desire this freedom If from subjection to the Pope you are freed from it by the Act primo Eliz. cap. 1. by which all the Popes authority and jurisdiction in the Realm of England as well over the consciences as the pens of men were finally exterminated and abolished If from their Canons and Decrees made and in force within this Realm before the 25. of King Henry 8. they were confirmed by the Parliament of that year according to the limitations before expressed and are so complicated since that time with the Laws of the Land that the alteration will be far more difficult then you may imagine so that you may do well to spare your address to the following Parliament and reserve that strong influence which you believe you have upon it for some greater occasions or at the least for such as are more possible to be compassed then this present project Besides you may be pleased to know that a great part of the Civil or Imperial Laws are in force amongst us and that they are the standing rules by which the Court of Admiralty as also that for the probate of Wills and Testaments are generally regulated and directed and yet you may conclude as strongly that because no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority within this Realm no not the Emperour himself though honoured with the Title of Augustus Cesar and such like glorious attributes belonging to the Roman Empire therefore the Civil and Imperial Laws so long continued in this Kingdom are to be reckoned of no force and effect amongst us but to be utterly abrogated and abolished also which if it should be took for granted as you take the other you must then double your design in moving and soliciting the next Parliament to free you from that yoke of bondage that the Pontificial and Imperial laws may be for ever banished and expelled this Kingdome that so it may be said of us as Haman once objected against the Jews their Laws were contrary to all Nations Divis●s orbe Brittannos even in that sense also It is reported of Alphonso surnamed the Wise one of the Kings of Castile in Spain that he used many times to say never the wiser for so saying that if he had stood at Gods elbow when he made the World many things should have been ordered better then they were in the first Creation Take heed left that you be thought no wiser then Alphonso was in pressing at the Parliament dores and urging your desires for abrogating all those ancient Canons and Constitutions by what name soever they are called and by what Authority soever they were first enacted which so many Kings and Queens of
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 ind●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 Papist● 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 Statu●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 s●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