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
hunts the Hare is the Hare which is hunted so that although the Religion of the Church of Rome had defined the Deposition of Kings by the Pope for denying Transubstantiation c. as it never did yet could not the Popish Religion upon that account be called Rebellion Rebellion by the Law of England 25. Edw. 3. c. 2. is defined to be an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in hâ— Realm or an adhering to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere And by the Civil Law all those qui arripiant arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt who tak up arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject are declared to be Rebels for which see Spigelus in his Lexicon of the terms of Law But that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is not an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in his Realm or an adhering c.. Nor the the taking up of Arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject Therefore that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes c. neither is really or nominally to be called Rebellion if either the laws of England or the Civil laws do rightly understand what Rebellion is as I think they do And whereas you hope to mend the matter by calling it a Rebellion doctrinal you make it worse on your side then it was before For besides that there is no such thing as Rebell on doctrinal though some Doctrines there may be too frequently preached for inciting the people to Rebellion you find not the word Doctrinal in the proposition which you have undertook to prove and wh en presents it self simply to you in these words that the Religion of the Papists is Rebellion 37. Such being the faultinesse of your Mejor we will next consider whether the Assumption or your Minor be any thing more evident then your Major was Your Minor is that the Popish Religion is such that is to say such a Religion that defineth the Deposition of Kings by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. This is the matter to be proved and you prove it thus That which is defined by a Pope and General Councel is the Popish Religion But the aforesaid Doctrine is defined by a Pope and an approved General Councel viz at the Laterane under Innocent the 3. Erge c. This makes it evident indeed that you never saw the Cannons nor Decrees of the Laterane Councel and possibly your learning may not lie so high but that you took this passage upon trust from some ignorant hand which had seen them as little as your self Your Major I shall grant for true but nothing can be falser or mere unable to be proved then your Minor is Consult the Acts of that Councel search into all Editions of them and into the Commentaries of such Cannonists as have writ upon them and you shall neither find in the one or the other that the Deposition of Kings and Princes by the Pope was defined to be lawful for that I take to be your meaning either for denying Transubstantiation or for any other cause whatsoever Most true it is that the word Transubstantiation then newly hammered on the Anvil by some of the Schoolmen to expresse that carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they then maintained was first received in this Councel and received then ad â—vitandaâ— haereâ—icorum tergiversationes as my Author hath it for avoiding the wranglingâ— and fallacious shifts which Hereticks otherwise might use But that the word was made such an Idol in this Councel that all Christian Kings and Princes which would noâ— fall down and worship it were to be deposed hath neither colour nor foundation in the Acts of that Councel And therefore I wil first lay down the Canon which I think you aim at for otherwise there is none in that Councel which you can pretend to and then acquaint as well with the occasion and the meaning of it and your own mistakings 38. And first the words of the Canon as these now stand in the Tomes of the Councels are these that follow Si quis Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate per Metropolitanum com provinciales Episcopos excommunicationis â—inculo innodetur Etsi satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Poniifici ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponant catholicis occupandam qui eam exterminatis haereticis â—ine ulla contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure domini principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum oppâ—nat eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales such is the Canon or Decree And this was the occasion of it The Albigenses and Waldenses differing in many points from the received opinions of the Church of Rome and constantly denying the Popes Supremacy amongst other things some years before the calling of this Councel was grown to a very great power and insolencie countenanced therein by the two last Raimonds Earls of Tholouse and some of the Petit Lords of Gascoyn all which though absolute enough in their several Territories in respect of their vassals but were fudataries either to the Empire or the Kings of France as the Lords in chief for the reduction of these Albingenses to the Church of Rome Dominick a Spaniard the Founder afterwards of the Order of Dominical Fryars used his best endeavours in the way of Argument and perswasion but failing of his design therein he instigated Pope Innocent the 3. to call this Councel Anno 1215. and the Prelates there assembled to passe this Canon for the suppressing both of them and their Patrons also for having summed up the principle heads of that Religion which was then publickly maintained in the Church of Rome they framed an Oath to be taken by all secular Magistrates ut haereticos universos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus ex terminare studeant to use their best endeavours for the exterminating of all Hereticks that is to say all such as did oppose those Doctrines before laid down out of their dominions and then it followeth as before si quis vero dominus temporalis c that if any Temporal Lord being thereunto required by the Church should neglect to purge his Territories of that Infection he should be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province in which he lived and if he gave no satisfaction within the year notice thereof was to be given to the Pope that thereupon he might absolve his vassals from their Allegiance and give their Countries to the next Catholick Invador
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
occasion and finally acknowledging that the principal part of what he intended was in a Book of M. Dow's But scarce had he absolved me from it when he indeavoured presently to make good the charge out of some scattered passages in a Book of mine against M. Burton published in the year 1637. so that it seems to be my fortune to be called unto as late a reckoning by M. Baxter for some passages in my Answer to Burtons most seditious Pamphlets and by D. Barnard and him both for some things taken up here and there out of my History of the Sabbath first published in the year 1635. And as if this had not been enough to quicken me to a new encounter he passeth from one point unto another charging me with profaneness in reproaching extemporary Prayer and being an enemy to the holy improvements of the Lord's day c. accusing me for many unjust as well as uncharitable speeches against my brethren for having some bloody desires and making such rigorous Laws to hang up all that are against me for speaking more favourably of the Papists then the Protestant partie with many other things intermixed here and there in some of which he disputes against me and in others he desires to be satisfied by me So that taking one thing with another he hath afforded me work enough in returning an answer which being to long to be contained in a Letter I have digested it Letter-wise into a set discourse upon all particulars which are offered to me Now M. Baxter's Letter was as followeth The Copy of M. Baxter's Answer to the first Letter of D. Heylyn's Reverend SIR I Received yours of September 13. containing your favourable judgment of my extorted discourse of Grotius his Religion with your exception of that only which concerns your â—elf And first you here wish I had spared your name unless I could have proved you to have been one of that Religion which yâ—u think I cannot or found some more particular charge against you c. To which I answer First I now wish I had spared your name my self for the reason that I shall render you anon But secondly I never gave the least intimation that I took you to be of Grotius Religion and therefore you need not call for proof of it it is another subject the sensing of the word Puri an that I am speaking of where I mention your name I hope you think not that I charge every man with the same opinion that is but named by me in the same Book Thirdly Yea I did not so much as charge you at all that is accuse you but tell the world who you took for a Puritan Concerning which words in Answer to the rest of your Letter I shall give you the just account I had read on one day above 20. years ago when it first came out your Book against M Burton and M. Dow's Book against him and I think one of M. Pocklinton's on another occasion I certainly remembred the foresaid character of a Puritan in one of them and I was perswaded that it was in yours and that something of it more or less was in both I now confess to you it was my temerity the concomitant of hast to mention you upon the trust of my memory after above 20. years time for I never had your Book since and now upon search I find the principal part of what I intended is in M. Dow's who charactereth them from their Doctrines of predestination perseverance or non-ability to fulfill the Law c. 4. But so much of it I find in yours as justifieth what I said of you if I can understand you you deal with M. Burton as the Puritans Oracle page 152. their superintendent Champion c. Preface And your description of him containeth first that he follows Illyricus in his Doctrines providentia predestinatione gratia libero Arbitrio c. pag. 182. And to satisfie us fully what you meant you refer us to the Arminians necessaria responsio pag. 83 where with pag. 82. 84 85. it is expresly manifest that it is the Doctrine of Pareus and the rest of the Contra-remonstrants that the Arminians there do charge upon Illiricus and consequently that you do charge on M. Burton the Oracle as you call him of the Puritans and so upon the Puritans with him If you say you charge not these on him quatenus a Puritan I Answer You carry it openly in all your Book as if you dealt with him only as a Puritan and seditious and so describe Puritans by him If you mix such Doctrinal charges and afterwards tell us that you meant them on some other account you satisfie your Reader that understandeth you as describing Puritans only when you so often give the person described that name and profess to oppose him as such and tel us of no other ground And what else you mean by their accustomed wresting of the Article in the point of predestination is past my understanding there being no accustomed Doctrine but the Anti-Arminian among the Puritans in the point of Predestination that you can call a wresting of the Article you add also to help us further to understand you that it is false that D. Jackson ' s Books are to maintain Arminianism pag. 122. 123. 5. Sir You are the expounder of your own words and may give us the Law in what sense we shall understand them because they are the signs of your own mind which is known only to your self And if you shall but tell me that you meant somewhat else then your words in the common sense import I shall take my self bound to understand you accordingly hereafter and if you require it I shall willingly publish an account of my mis-understanding of you with my following satisfaction to the world to do you right But till you shall give us another sense of your own you must needs allow us to take your words in the common sense 6. I shall not trouble you with any more on that subject But were it not that in your writings I â—avour a spirit so very distant from my disposition that I have small hopes that my words will escape your displeasure I should on this occasion have dealt freely with you about many things in many of your Books that have long been matter of scandal and grief to men that have much Christian meekness and moderation Many reproaches against extemporary Prayer the holy improvement of the Lords day c. with many unjust as well as uncharitable speeches of your Brethren whom you took for adversaries are matters that I am exceeding confident you have exceeding cause in tears and sorrow to bewaile before the Lord and for which you are very much obliged to publish your penitential lamentations to the World and were it my case I would not for ten thousand Worlds dye before I had done it and if I erre in this I think it not through partiality but through weakness Oh the
exemplifying in my many reprâ—acâ—es against extemporary Prayer the holy improvement of the Lords day c. but where I beseech you in what Book or Books of mine may a man meet with any of those many reproaches against extemporary Prayer May you not be again mistaken and find upon a further search that those many reproaches against extemporary Prayer are to be found in D. â—olkinton or in some body else The most that I have said agâ—inst extemporary Prayer occurreth in a brief discours touching the form of Prayer appointed to be used before the Sermon Sect. 22. in which you read That whereas the Church prescribes a set form of Prayer in her publique Liturgie from which it is not lawful for any of her Ministers to vary or recede she did it principally to avoid all unadvised effusions of gross and undigested Prayers as little capable of piety as they are uterly void of order and this she did upon the reason given in the Melevitan Council viz. least else through ignorance or want of care any thing should be uttered contrary to the rules of faith Ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium siâ— compositum as the Canon hath it And again page 348. We plainly see by the effects what the effect of theirs would tend to What is the issue of the liberty most men have taken to themselves too many of that sort who most stand upon it useing such passages in their Prayers before their Sermons that even their Prayers in the Psalmist's language are turned into sin Thus find we in the General Preface That the inconveniencies which the liberty hath brought upon us in these latter days are so apparent that it is very hard to say whether the liberty of Prophesying or the licentiousness in Praying what and how we list hath more conduced to these distractions which are now amongst us and if there were no such effect too visible of this licentiousness which I desire the present state to take notice of the scandal which is thereby given unto our Religion in speaking so irreverently with such vain repetitions and tautologies to almighty God as in extemporary and unpremeditated Prayers is too frequently done seem a sufficient consideration to bring us back again to that ancient form which the wisedom of the Church prescribed to prevent that mischief And finally that men never did so litterally offer unto God the Calves of their lips as they have done of late since the extemporary way of praying hath been taken up â—nd if it were prohibited by the Law of Moses to offer any thing unto God in the way of the legal Sacrifices which was maimed sported or imperfect how can it rationally be conceived that God should be delighted with those Oblations or spiritual Sacrifices which have nothing almost in them but maims spots and blemishes These are my words I must confess but that they are reproaches I must needs deny But first I do not speak these words of all extemporary Prayers in general or more particularly of those which gifted men may make in their private devotions but of those unpremeditated undigested Prayers which men ungifted and unlearned men have poured out too frequently in the Church of God And secondly if they be reproaches they are such reproaches and such only as when a man is said to have been slandered with a matter of truth and for the proof hereof besides the authority of the Council of Melevis before remembred I maâ— bring that our incomparable Hooker in the fifth Book of his Eccles Politie Num 25. Who though he actually saw but few did foresee many of â—hoâ—e inconveniencies which the humor of extemporary Prayer at last would bring into the publique worship of Almighty God for there he tells us of the grievous and scandalous inconveniences whereunto they make themselves daily subject who by their irksome deformities whereby through endless and sensless effusions of undigested Prayers they oftentimes disgrace in most unsufferable manner the worthiest part of Christian duty towards God when being subject herein to no certain order pray both what they list and how they list But behold a greater then Hooker is here even His most Excellent and most Incomparable Majesty the late King CHARLS who telleth us in his large declaration against the Scots That for want of a set form of Prayer they did sometimes pray so ignorantly that it was a shame to all Religion to hear the Majesty of God so barbarously spoken unto and sometimes so seditiously that their very Prayers were either plain libels against Authority or manifest lies stuffed with all the false reports in the Kingdom And what effects he found of them among the English appears by his Proclamation against the Directory bearing date Novemb. 30. Anno 1644. where we are told That by abolishing the Book of Common-Prayer there would be a means to open the way and give the liberty to all ignorant factious or evil men to broach their own fancies and conceits be they never so wicked and erroneous and to mislead people into sin and rebellion and to utter those things even in that which they make for their Prayers in their Congregations as in Gods presence which no conscientious man can assent to say Amen to And hereunto I shall add no more but this viz. that the passages produced before out of two of my Books and countenanced both by sad experience and such great Authorities must needs be either true or false if true they can be no reproaches if false why do you not rather study to confute them then reprove me for them 17. The next charge which you lay upon me and thereby render me obnoxious to a new reproof relates to my reproaches against the holy improvements of the Lords day c. How far your c. will extend is hard to say and therefore had you done more wisely had you left it out especially consider how many doubtful descants and ridiculous glosses were made upon a former c. and happily left standing in one of the Canons Anno 1640. for either I am guilty of more reproaches against piety and the power of godlines or I am not guilty if guilty why do you not let me know both their number and nature that I may either plead my innocence or confess my crime If not why do you thus insinuate by this c that you suppress some other charges which you have against me But letting that pass cum ceteris â—rroribus Where I beseech you can you point me to any reproaches of that day or of the holy improvements of it Much I confess is to be found in some of my Books against the superstitious and more then judaical observation of it which cannot come within the compass of being a reproach unto it Might not the Scribes and Pharisees Si licet exemplis in parvo grandibus uti in the Poets words have charged our Saviour with the
these passages these breathings of M. Burton in his Apologie and Appeal In which he calls on the Nobility To rouse up their spirits and magnanimous courage for the truth and to stick close to God and the King in helping the Lord and his anointed against the mighty upon the Judges to draw forth the sword of Justice to defend the Laws against such Innovators who as much as in them lieth divide between the King and People upon the Courtiers to put too their helping hands and prayers to rescue our religion and faithful Ministers then suspended from the jaws of those devouring Wolves and tyrannizing lordly Prelates c. Upon the people generally to take notice of the desperate practises innovations and Popish designs of these Antichristian Prelates and to oppose and redress them with all their force and power And yet as if this had not been enough to declare his meaning he breaths more plainly in his Libel called The News from Ipswich in which he lets us know That till his Majesty shall hang up some of these Romish Prelates Inquisitors before the Lord as the Gibbeonites once did the seven sons of Saul we can never hope to abate any of Gods plagues c. What think you of these breathings of Buchannan in his book De Jure Regni apud Scotos where he adviseth Regum interfectoribus proemia discerni c. that Rewards should publickly be decreed for those who kill a Tyrant and the meekest King that ever was shall be called a Tyrant if he oppose the setting up of the holy Discipline as usually are proposed to those who kill Wolves or Bears And finally what think you of these breathings in one of the brethren who preaching before the House of Commons in the beginning of the long Parliament required them in the name of the Lord to shew no mercie to the Prelatical party their wives and children but that they should proceed against them as against Babylon it self even to the taking of their children and dashing their brains against the stones Call you these holy breathings the holy breathings after Christ which you so applaud Or are they not such breathings rather aâ— the Scripture attributes to Saul before his conversion who in the ninth chapter of the Acts is said to be Spirator minarum caedis adversus discipules Domini that is to say that he breathed out threatnings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. 27. As are their breathings such also is their meekness their humility their hatred of known sin their heavenly mindedness and that self-denial which you so commend for of their love to God I can take no notice As well as they are known unto you may you not be deceived in your opinion of them and take that first for a real and Christian meekness which is but counterfeit and pretended for their worldly ends Doth not our Saviour tell us of a sort of men false-preachers seducers and the like which should come in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves What means our Savior by sheeps clothing but that innocence meekness and humility which they should manifest and express in their outward actions it being the observation of Thomas Aquinas that grand dictator in the Schools In nomine â—vis innocentiam simplicitatem per totam Scripturam designarâ— And yet for all this fair appearance they were inwardly but ravening Wolves greedily thiâ—sting for the prey and hungry after spoil and rapine Astutam rapido gestanâ—es pectore vulpem in the Poets language This you may find exemplified in the Sect of the Anabaptists who at their first appearance disguised themselves in such an habit of meekness and humility and Christian patience as gained them great affection amongst the people but when they were grown unto a head and had got some power into their hands what lusts what slaughter what unmerciful cruelties did they not commit when Tyrannie and K. John of Leyden did so rage in Munster But because possible you may say that these are not the men whom your character aims at tell me what spirit of meeknesse you find in Calvin when he called Mary Q. of England by the name of Proserpine and tells us of her that she did superare omnes diabolos that all the Devils in hell were not half so mischievous or what in Beza when he could find no better title for Mary Q. of Scots then those of Athaliah and Medea the one as infamous in Scripture for her barbarous cruelty as the other is in heathen Writers or what of Peury Vdal and the rest of the Rabble of Mar Prelates in Queen Elizabeths time to whom there never was the like generation of railing Rabshakehs since the beginning of the world Or what of Dido Clariâ—s who calls King James for neither Kings nor Queens can escape them intentissimum Evangelii hostem the most bitter enemy of the Gospel and I say nothing of the scandalous reports and base reproaches which were laid upon his son and successor by the tongues and pens of too many others of that party 28. Look upon their humility and you shall find them exalting themselvs above Kings Princes and all that is called God the Pope and they contending for the supreme power in the Church of Christ For doth not Traverse say expresly in his Book of Discipline Huic Disciplinae omnes principes fasces suas submittere necesse est that Kings and Princes must submit their Scepters to the Rod of that Discipline which Calvin had devised and his followers here pursued so fiercely Have not some others of them declared elsewhere that Kings and Princes must lay down their Scepters at the Churches feet yea and lick up the dust thereof understanding always by the Church their one holy Discipline did they not carry themselves so proudly in the time of that Queen whom they compared to a sluttish housewife who swept the middle of the room but left the dust behinde the door and in every corner that being asked by a grave Counsellor of State whether the removal of some Ceremonies would not serve the turn they answered with insolence enough ne ungulam esse relinquendam that they would not leave so much as an hoof behind And that you may perceive they have been as good at it in Scotland as ever they have been in England Take here the testimony of King James who had very good experience of them in the Preface to his Basilicon Doron where telling us what he means by Puritans he describes them thus I give this stile saith he to such brain-sick and Headie Preachers as refusing to be called Anabaptists participate too much with their humours not only agreeing with the general rule of all Anabaptists in the contempt of the Civil Magistrate and in leaning to their own Dreams and Revelations but particularly in accounting all men prophane that swear not to all their phantasies in making for every particular question of the Policie of the
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
which I find it you are as far from it as ever you were 43. Howsoever taking that your Proposition to be undeniable you proceed and say But the Antecedent is true c. which is a very strange piece of news to me You confess your self to be but a sorry Lawyer and you have shewd your self in this to be but a sorry Lâ—gician neither For tell me what you mean by the Antecedent by which if you understand the terms of Logickâ—heâ—e â—heâ—e can be nothing understood but the first clause or member in your Proposition For in every Hypothetical Silogism the Major Pâ—oposition consisteth of two parts or branches whereof the one is called the Antecedent and the other the Consequent as in this of yourâ— these words viz. If it be an Article of the Papists Râ—ligion that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope make the Antecedent the following words viz. then the Papists faith is faction make the consequent of it Now both these parts or members being laid together the Proposition is entire and perfect and may be either true or false according to the subject matter of it as this of yours is by you affirmed to be true and by me proved to be false But the Antecedent in this of yours as in all other Hypothetical Propositions being conditional imperfect and of no full sense cannot be said to be either true or false as your own reason will inform you For what sense truth or falshood can be found in the first branch of your Proposition 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 until the following words be added Had you formed your Silogism thus 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 it is an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope Ergo the Papists faith is faction Had you contrived it thus I say your Silogism had been made in due form of Logick though either Proposition might haue been denied as it pleased the Respondent c. Had you cast your Argument into the form of an Enthimeme thus viz. It is an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Chuâ—ch but the Subjects of the Pope Ergo the Papists faith is Faction the Antecedent had been false and therefore of necessity the consequent of Illation could not passe for true And such a sorry Disputant was D. Burges who undertaking to answer in the Divinity Act at Oxon shewed himself so sufficiently ignorant in the terms of Logick that in stead of saying negatur major negatur minor he could say nothing else but negatur id Whereupon D. Prideaux said to him openly with a merry jear tu potes bene praedicare sed non potes bene disputare that he might possibly be a good preacher though he had shewed himself but a silly disputant 44. But taking your meaning along with me and supposing you to have said the Minor as you ought to have called it how do you prove it to be true because say you It was so defined by Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel The Councel which you mean is called Consilium Lateranense as the other was and you have shewed your self as little skilled in this Laterane Councel as you were in the other So against that which you have said in this answer of yours I have these Exceptions First That all things which are not determined nor defined in a General Councel pass not for Articles of the Faith Secondly The Councel held at Rome by Pope Leo the 10. was no General Councel and Thirdly There was no such Article of the Faith defined in it as you say there was and these three points being proved I shall close the argument Haec tria cum docuero perorabo in the Oracles language And first all things which are determined and defined in General Councels become not Articles of the Faith though for the time they bind mens assent unto them until the point be further canvassed and the mistakes or errours of it manifested in some following Councel But hereof I have spoken already and shall adde but this viz. That if you please to look into the Tomes of the Councels you will find that they do more consist in Laws and Canons for Reformation of Manners then either in the Dâ—claration of points of Faith or the Determination of matters Doctrinal Secondly the Councel held at Rome by Pope Leo the 10. was no General Councel as being called on a particular occasion and consisting of such a slender number of Italian Bishops that it could hardly make good the Reputation of a National Synod which that you may the better see I must let you know the occasion of the calling of that Counsel too which was briefly this Lewis the 12. of France having lately recovered the Dukedome of Millain to which he did pretend some title in the right of his Mother was warred on by Pope Julio the 2. who liked not the neighbourhood of the French Ferdinando King of Spain and some of the Italian Princes confederating with him in that quarrel To curb the insolency of the Pope a Councel is called by the Cardinal S. Severine and Caravaiali at the instigation of the French King to be held at Pisa a Town belonging to the Seigâ—oury and Estate of Florence Anno 1512. To which some of the French Bishops and as many Italian Prelates as lived within the Dukedome of Millane or elsewhere under the command of the Fâ—ench received order to repair And on the other side the Pope to over ballance that Scismatical Councel caâ—sed another to be held in Rome consisting of so many of the Bishops of Italy as could conveniently be drawn together in a time of War But Pope Juliâ— dying not long after before any thing could be done in that Councel more then the condemning that of Pisa and declaring all the Acts thereof to be null and void the Cardinal John de Medices succeeded by the name of Pope Leo the 10. who being of a sweeter temper then his predecessor closed up that breach admitting the two Cardinals and the rest of the Assembly at Pisa to a redintegration with the whole body of the Church from which they were before divided Nothing determined in this Councel touching matters of Faith but that a Decree was made against some Philosophers or rather phylosophizing Schoolmen what or about that time had began to teach quod anima rationalis sit mortalis that is to say that the rational soul of man was subject to Mortality And therefore thirdly there was no such article of Faith defined in that Councel that none should be counted members of Christ and his Church but such as
the whole Work was finished confirmed and put in execution before either of them was brought over dispatcht soon after their arrival to their several Chair'es Martyr to the Divinity Lecture in Oxon and Bucer unto that of Cambridge where he lived not long And dying so quickly as he did vix salutata Accademia as my Author hath it though he had many auditors there yet could he noâ— gain many Disciples in so short a time And though Peter Martyr lived to see the death of King Edward and consequently the end of the Convocation Anno 1552. in which the Articles of Religion were first composed and agreed on yet there was little use made of him in advising and much less in directing any thing which concerned that business For being a stranger and but one and such an one as was of no Authority in Church or State he could not be considered as a Master builder though some use might he made of him as a Labourer to advance the work Calvin had offered his assistance but it was refused Which showes that Cranmer and the Rest to whom he made offer of his service Si quis mei usus esset as his own words are if they thought it needful were not so favourable to the man or his Doctrines either as to make him or them the Rule of their Reformation 33. Pass we next to Alexander Nowel Dean of St. Pauls and Prolocutor of the Convocation An. 1â—â—2 in which the Articles were Revised and afterwards ratified and confirmed by the Queens authority In which capacity I must needs grant it for a truth that he understood the conduct of all affairs in that Convocation as well as any whosoever But then it is to be observed that your Adversary grants their 17. Articles to be the very same verbatim which had before passed in the Convocation of King Edw. 6. No new sence being put upon it by the last establishment And if no new sence were put upon it as most sure there was not it must be understood no otherwise then according to the Judgement of those learned men and Godly Martyrs before remembred who concurred unto the making of it From which if M. Nowels sence should differ in the least degree it is to be looked upon as his own not the sence of the Church And secondly it cannot rationally be inferred from his being Prolocutor in that Convocation and the knowledge which he needs must have of all things which were carried in it that therefore nothing was concluded in that Convocation which might be contrary to his own judgement as a private person admitting that he was inclinable to Calvin in the points disputed which I grant not neither For had he been of his opinions the spirit of that Sect is such as could not be restrained from showing it self dogmatically and in terms express and not occasionally onely or upon the by and that too in such general terms that no particular comfort for your Adversary can be gathered from them And it were worth the while to know first why your Antagonist appealing to his Catechism should decline the Latin Edition of it which had been authorized to be publiquely taught in all the Grammer Schools of England and the English translation of the same by a friend of the Authors 1572. both still in use and both reprinted in these times since the year 1647 And secondly what it was which moved him to fly for succour to the first draught of it in the English Tongue out of which the two last were extracted that first draught or Edition being laid aside many years ago and not approved by any such publick Authority as the others were somewhat there must be in it which brought that first Edition so soon out of credit and therefore possibly thought fit by your Adversary for the present turn and thought to let us know which Catechism it is he means he seems to distinguish it from the other by being dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops yet that doth rather betray his ignorance then advance his cause the Authors own Latine Edition and the English of it being dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops as well as that 34. But since he hath appealed to that English Catèchism to her English Catechism let him go In which he cannot find so much as one single question touching the Doctrine of Predestination or the points depending thereupon and therefore is necessitated to have recourse unto the Articles of the Catholick Church the members and ingredients of it from thence he doth extract these two passages following the first whereof is this viz. To the Church do all they properly belong as many as do truly fear honour and call upon God altogether applying their minds to live holily and Godly and with putting all their trust in God do most assuredly look for the blessings of Eternal life they that be stedfast stable and constant in this faith were chosen and appointed and as we term it predestinate to this so great felicity The second which follows not long after as his Book directeth is this that followeth viz. The Church is the body of the Christian Commonwealth i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the faithful whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life And here again we are to Note that the First of these two passages not being to be found in the Latine Edition nor the English Translation of the same is taken almost word for word out of Poynets Catechism and therefore to be understood in no other sence then before it was And that the second makes the Church to consist of none but the Elect which the nine and tenth Article makes in a more comprehensive signification So that to salve this sore he is fain to fly to the destinction of a visible and invisible Church fit for his definition unto that which he calls invisible making the visible Church of Christ to consist of such as are assembled to hear the Gospel of Christ sincerely taught to call on God by prayer and receive the Sacraments Which persons so assembled together are by the Article called a Cong egation of faithful men as well as those which constitute and make up the Church invisible And yet I doubt your Adversary will not not grant them all to be in the number of the Elect. But granting that the Church doth consist of none but the Elect that is to say of none but such who have been through Christ appointed to everlasting life from before all time as is there affirmed yet there is nothing in all this which justifieth the absolute and irrespective decree of the predestinarians nothing of Gods invincible workings in the hearts of his chosen ones which your Antagonist maintains or which doth manifestly make for such a personal Election as he conceives is to be found in many passages of the Common Prayer Book though what those passages are and where they are to be found he keeeps
c. which no man can conceive to relate onely to the Judges of the lower Courts Nor find I any variation in the rest that follows no nor in that which comes after neiher v. 14. where those directions do begin which concern the people and not the Priests or Judges onely in the Election of their King And therefore give me leave to think and laugh not at me I beseech you for my singularity that there is no other meaning in that Text but this i e. That if a doubt or scruple should arise amongst them in their severall dwellings in matters which concerned Religion and the right understanding of the law of God they should have recourse to the Priests and Levites for satisfaction in the same according unto that of the Prophet Malachy that the people were to seek the Law from the mouth of the Priest as before we had it But if it were a civil controversie matters of difference which they could not end amongst themselves and by the interposition of their friends and Neighbours they should refer it to the Judge or Judges in whose times they lived to be finally decided by him And for this Exposition I have not onely some authority but some reason also My Authority shall be taken from the words of Estius who makes gloss upon the Text viz. Haec sententia modo sacerdotem modo judicem nominat propter duplicem magistratum qui erat in populo dei sacram civilem quamvis contingeret aliquando duplicem magistratum in eandem personam concurrere My reasons shall be taken first from that passage in the 12. verse in which it is said that the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God c. Where the Priest seems to be considered in personal capacity as he stands ministring before the Lord at his holy Altar not as he sits upon the bench and acts â—with other of the Judges in an open Court But whether that be so or not certain I am that many inconveniences must needs happen amongst the people if the Text be no otherwise to be understood as you would have it It is confest on all hands that there was some intervall of time from the death of every one of the supream Judges and the advancing of the next though in Chronologies the years of the succeeding Judges are counted from the death of his Predecessor And you your selfe confess p. 14. that the Sanhedrim did not continue long after Josuah And I can find no restitution of it till the time of Iehoshaphat For though you tell us p. 16. that never any King except David had Session or Vote in this Councel by which you intimate that the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David Yet you have shewed us neither reason nor authority for it And therefore you may do me a greater favour as your own words are then you suddenly imagine to tell me really in what Book of Scripture or in what other Author I may find it written that either the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David or that David did at any time sit and vote amongst them Hereupon I conclude at last that if the Text be to be understood as you would have it and as you say it is understood in the sence of all Authors both Iewish and Christians then must the people be without remedy at the least without remedy of Appeal in their suits and controversies during the interval of time betwixt the Judges and without remedies also in their doubts scruples touching the meaning of the Law for the whole space of time which past betwixt the death of Iosuah and the raign of Iehoshaphat which comes to 511. years or there abouts which I desire you seriously to consider of 32. And yet the matter were the less if having given the Sanhedrim the Dernier Resort or the supream power in all appeals you did not ascribe to them an authority also to controul their Kings For proof whereof you tell us that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that if the King came to violate the Laws and the Statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporall punishment How far Skickardus hath assured you I am not able to say not being directed by you to any Book or Books of his where it may be found But if you find no more in Skickardus then you do in Grotius you will have little cause to brag of this discovery For Grotius in his first Book de jure belli c. cap. 3. and not cap. 1. as is mistaken in the print first telleth us thus viz. Samuel jus regum describens satis ostendit adversus Regis injurias nullam in populo relictam potestatem c. Samuel saith he describing the power of the King of Israel showes plainly that the people had no power to relieve themselves from the oppressions of their Kings according unto that of some antient Writers on those words of David Against thee onely have I sinned Psal 51. And to show how absolutely Kings were exempted from such punishments he presently subjoyns the testimony of Barnach monus an Hebrew In dictis Rabinorum titulo de judicibus which is this nulla creatura judicat regem sed benedictus that is to say that no creature judgeth or can judge the King but onely God for ever blessed According unto which I find a memorable Rule in Bracton an old English Lawyer relating to the Kings of England viz. Omnem esse sub rege ipsum sub nullo sed tantum sub deo That every man is under the King but the King is under none but God Betwixt which passages so plainly destructive of the power ascribed to the Sanhedrim Grotius interlopes this following passage from some Iewish Writers viz. Video consentire Hebraeos regi in eas leges quae de officio regis scriptae extabant peccanti inflicta verbera sedâ—a apud illos infamiâ carebant a rege in signum penitentiae sponte suscipiebantur ideoque non a lictore sed ab eo quem legisset ipse probatur suo arbitrio verberibus statuebat modum I have put down the words at large that the learned and judicious Reader may see what he is to trust to in this point The sence whereof is this in English viz. that stripes were inflicted on the King if he transgressed those Lawes which had been written touching the Regal office But that those stripes carried not with them any mark of infamy but were voluntary undergone by him in testimony of his repentance upon which ground the said stripes were not laid upon him by a common Officer but by some one or other of his own appointment it being also in his power to limit both the the number and severity of those stripes which they were to give him