The Nonconformists Plea for Peace Part 2, Title page – Preface
THE SECOND PART OF THE Nonconformiſts Plea FOR PEACE.
Being an ACCOVNT of their Principles about Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Authority and obedience, (as far as the Author knoweth it), and about Things Indifferent, and evil by Accident or Scandal: and what their Nonconformity is not: and whether the Miniſters encourage Sects and Schiſm: With their judgements and earneſt deſires of the Churches Peace and Concord, and the true and neceſſary means.
Moſtly written many years paſt, and now publiſhed to ſave our Lives and the Kingdoms Peace, from the falſe and bloody Plotters, who would firſt perswade the King and people that the Proteſtants and particularly the Nonconformiſts are Presbyterians and Fanaticks; and next that it was ſuch Presbyterians that killed his Father; and next that our Principles are rebellious; and next that we are plotting a rebellion and his death; and laſtly that this is the genius of the Parliament; and therefore that they and we muſt be uſed as enemies to the King.
By RICHARD BAXTER.
LONDON, Printed for John Hancock at the three Bibles near the Royal Exchange in Cornhil. 1680.
THE PREFACE.
THese Papers were written ſome of them in 1668. and ſome ſince, when the Nonconformiſts Judgement of the Intereſt of Reaſon in Religion was printed, with but 15 ſubſcribed names: Thoſe about Grace and Morality, and Things indifferent, and what our Nonconformity is not, were alſo peruſed by many and conſented to (of whom Doctor Manton, Mr. Sanger and Mr. Bedford are ſince dead) and with that of Scandal were printed many years ago. But my prudent friends perſwaded me to lay them by, (though the printing coſt dear) partly as not ſufficiently elaborate and accurate, and partly leſt any defence ſhould but exaſperate our (then) afflicters, and occaſion more wrath and unpeaceable writings. This Counſel I have till now obeyed: But ſeeing ſuch as the Counterminer, the Popiſh Dialogue and many others, continuing loudly to accuſe us, and make men believe that we are plotting a new war, and that our Principles are rebellious, and remembring what a ſuſpicion of us is left on record in the Oxford Act of Confinement, and hearing by the Publiſhed Narratives of Oates, Bedlow, Prance, Jeniſon, Smith, Dugdale, and ſpecially Dangerfield, that it was part of the Plot for the deſtruction of the King, and change of Government and Religion, to make King and People believe that the Presbyterians had ſuch a Plot, and finding ſo little ſaid to vindicate the Innocent, and laſtly finding great reaſon to think that my change is ſo near, that I muſt do it now or never, I durſt not die in the guilt of ſilence. 1. Leſt I ſhould betray the King into a belief of this pernicious plotted ſlander. 2. Leſt I ſhould betray the Nation into a ſelf-deſtroying belief of ſeditious Liars. 3. Leſt I ſhould betray both the Reputation and Lives of many thouſand Innocents. What diſmal effects muſt needs follow, if the King ſhould believe that ſo many of his People and Parliament as are thus accuſed, are his enemies and ſeek his hurt? Whilſt the odious and horrid uſage of his Father is in his memory, who can wonder if he deſtroy thoſe who he believeth would deſtroy him?
Therefore though this Book be truly guilty of much defectiveneſs, diſorder, repetitions, being but many Papers written on ſeveral occaſions, long ago, now ſet ſome how haſtily together, neceſſity conſtraineth me to think that it is better thus than not at all.
I have already publiſhed the firſt part of our Plea, written many years after almoſt all this: which you muſt eſpecially obſerve when you read, What our Nonconformity is not: For then I thought to go no further. That about ſcandal and evil by accident was written purpoſely to anſwer the groſs miſtaking charge of B. Morley, and the new Eccleſ. Politician, juſt when that Book came out; and ſomewhat occaſioned by Mr. Durels Book: Therefore that I am there ſo diſtinct as will be troubleſome to common readers who love but few words, was long of the quality and charge of the learned accuſers whom I anſwer.
I thought it time to ſpeak the Truth in how broken a manner ſoever, when I read that even ſome that ſeem to condemn the Papiſts Plotters, do yet publickly joyn us with them, as more dangerous than they, and make our deſigned Rebellion to be a Neceſſitating Reaſon, for doing that againſt us, againſt Parliaments, and the Peoples choice of them, which I dread to mention; as if it were neceſſary to all Loyal Subjects to enter into a League, or ſubſcribed Covenant to ſave the King from us.
It is now about twenty years ſince Dr. Gauden, Mr. Calamy, and my ſelf preached at a Faſt to the Parliament for Loyalty, and the King the next morning was voted home to his Crown and Government: and ſince the Duke of Lauderdale cauſed the Printing of Mr. Gaches Letter to me for the King. What is it that we have Preached, Printed or done ever ſince to this day that ſhould bring us under this horrid accuſation? Have we been proved guilty before any Judge? Beſides Preaching the Goſpel (to which we were devoted, and dare not for fear of ſacriledge and perſidiouſneſs caſt off) what have we done theſe twenty years againſt the King or State? Vnleſs it be our crime to live under reproach and ſcorn and poverty, and ſometimes impriſonments, and never once ſo much as Petition a Parliament either to pity us, or to hear us once ſpeak for our ſelves, and give us leave to tell them or the Nation the true caſe and reaſons of our Not-Conforming. What is it that we have ſaid or done? and how came our accuſers to be ſo merciful to us as never to call us before the Judicatures, for any thing but Preaching and coming within five miles of Corporations, or ſome for not communicating with them, which yet other of us never refuſed? If any odde perſons, or whoſoever have ſaid or done any thing againſt the King or Kingdom, or their neighbours right or peace, or have been guilty of any fraud, drunkenneſs, perjury or immorality, beſides their unavoidable Nonconformity, let them be puniſhed as the Law requireth, but let not the Innocent, yea thouſands be ſlandered and deſigned to deſtruction for them▪ But I never yet was by any abuſed, or hurt, but I was accuſed by them as deſerving it.
Our accuſations are, 1. That we are Presbyterians and Fanaticks. 2. That we began the War in 1641, and 1642. 3. That we deſtroyed the King. 4. That our Principles are diſloyal. 5. That we are plotting a rebellion. To all theſe.
I. What a Presbyterian is with theſe men is to us unſearchable; what he is with thoſe that have written for and againſt them is eaſily known; we take Dr. Heylins Deſcription in his Hiſtory againſt them: They are ſuch as hold not only Church Government without Biſhops (for ſo do the Independents alſo) but alſo by Presbyteries, conſiſting of two ſorts of Elders, Preaching and Ruling (called by ſome Lay) and over th…ſe Claſſes, and over theſe a National Aſſembly, conſiſting of the ſame two ſorts. Be it known that whiles I diſown any thing of this, it is not that I think my ſelf wiſer or better than ſuch as I have been acquainted with of that opinion. My own opinion I have oft enough declared, viz. 1. That Jure Divino, one Church hath no Governing Power over another. 2. That every particular Political Church ſhould be a ſociety capable of perſonal preſential communion, and have their own Elders to govern them all of one Order and Office, and if each one have a Biſhop that ſhall have a Preſidency and Ruling or Negative voice, I ſhall like it the better, for Antiquity ſake, and Vnity. 3. That theſe Churches ſhould keep neceſſary correſpondency for Love, Concord, and mutual helps, by Meſſengers and Synods of their Biſhops or Paſtors; but not as Law-makers to their brethren. 4. That it will not be unmeet for the Magiſtrate, or if he permit it, for the Biſhops or Paſtors by conſent to appoint ſome of the wiſeſt and graveſt and beſt, to viſit and overſee the reſt of the Paſtors and Churches in ſeveral Precincts, ſo far as to teach the young and ignorant, and exhort them to holy, prudent diligence, and reprove them that are blame-worthy, but not to have the forcing power of the Sword.
But it is not my judgment only that is in queſtion, Reader, judge by the proof that I ſhall offer thee what truth or modeſty there is in our accuſers.
1. I have elſwhere told you, when the King called us to ſignifie our deſires in 1660. the Miniſters of London were commonly invited to come to Sion Colledge that their common conſent might be known: And there we agreed to deſire or offer nothing for Church Government, but A. B. Uſhers model of the Primitive Epiſcopal Government as it was then Printed (which to me the A. Biſhop owned) And was Uſher a Presbyterian? What new names have our adverſaries made, as Presbyterian A. Biſhops and Primates? Are not all the Dioceſes, Lordſhip, Wealth and Power of Biſhops ſecured in that Model, and is that Presbytery?
2. Biſhop Reignolds, B. Worth, and Dr. Wallis and other Conformiſts agreed and joyned with us in this Offer. And were theſe alſo Presbyterians?
3. When his Majeſty would not grant us that model, nor the Biſhops once treat about it, he was pleaſed in his gracious Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs to offer and preſcribe the Epiſcopacy of England as it ſtood, with little alteration, ſave that the Pariſh Miniſters conſent was allowed to the Confirmation of any in his Pariſh, and the Rural Dean with the Miniſters of his Deanery to meet oft for meer Pariſh perſwaſive work, to the ſcandalous. And this Declaration we joyfully and thankfully accepted, as a hopeful means of common Conformity and Concord. And was this Presbytery too?
4. That this might might not paſs as the private Act of a few, a meeting of the London Miniſters was deſired to give the King thanks for this Declaration in ſignification of their conſent, which was done, and at that meeting there were but two diſſenting Votes, and thoſe two (both dead) profeſſed their thankful acceptance, though they ſubſcribed not.
5. Vncontradicted fame told us that the Houſe of Commons gave the King their publick thanks for that his care ſo to unite his people. And if that Houſe of Commons alſo were Presbyterians, I know not who is not.
6. And I never heard that any of all theſe conſenting and ſubſcribing Miniſters recanted his conſent to this day.
7. Nor did Iever hear that any abſent Miniſters in City or Countrey, ſent us any notice that they diſſented. Only honeſt Dr. Conant who no… Conformeth, at one meeting ſaid, Our attempts for reconciliation with that party were vain, as to reconcile fire and water.
8. Abundance of Countrey Miniſters, (and all that ever I heard from) joyfully expreſſed their approbation of what we did.
9. In all the County of Worceſter where I lived there was but one Miniſter (Mr. Tho. Hall of Kings Norton) taken for a Presbyterian from the year 1647. till the King came in, 1660. Nor did I hear of many out of London and Lancaſhire, that ever ſet up that Government.
10. I know not of one Congregation now in London of Engliſh men (the French and Dutch are not accuſed as plotters) that exerciſeth the Presbyterian Government, nor ever did ſince the King came home: what they may be in ſecret judgement I know not, nor how far the experience of our late Prelacy may have changed any; But, 1. Certainly they have no National aſſembly: 2. They have no Claſſes: 3. They have no coalition of many Churches to make a Presbytery. 4. And I hear of none (unleſs perhaps the Independents, which I know not) that have ſo much as Ruling Lay Elders.
Set all this together and tell me whether it be likely that thoſe men believe a life to come and a judgement of God, who would make King and people believe that Parliaments, Non-conforming Miniſters, and their hearers are Presbyterians, and ſo many and ſo bad as that King and Kingdom are in danger of them.
II. As to the ſecond point of the late War, it's unſeaſonable here to ſay any more but this, 1. The King hath ſaid ſo much for the Act of Oblivion that it's no ſign of Loyalty and peace to violate it. 2. Though falſe reporters ſay, that the Papiſts were the Kings party, and the Presbyterians the Parliaments at the beginning of the Engliſh war, (not medling with Scotland and Ireland) the contrary is ſo well known to men yet living, that the Reporters can hope to ſeduce none but young men and ſtrangers. I again deſire him that would know the truth, but to read Ruſhworths Collections and Heylins life of Laud, and the names of the Parliament and Lord Lieutenants and Commanders, and ask thoſe what they were that knew them: Heylin will convince you that the quarrel was long growing up between two parties of the Epiſcopal Church: of which he maketh in Ireland Arch-Biſhop Uſher the Head, and the Convocation there to follow him; and in England, Arch-Biſhop Abbot to be the Head, and Biſhop Laud to be the Head of the other party, and a very few Biſhops at firſt to follow him; ſo that the Church of England and Ireland (if the Convocation be the Church) were on the ſide that Laud diſſented from; And the Parliaments went the way of the Church as then they called it, and one after another continued accuſing the other ſide, 1. as promoting popery, 2. and Arminianiſm, 3. and arbitrary abſoluteneſs; againſt Law, priviledges, Liberty and property: And where former Parliaments left, that of 1640. began, and between theſe two parties of the Church of England it was that the war began, and not between Papiſts and Presbyterians, (though the Presbyterians in Scotland, and the Papiſts in Ireland began there). The Papiſts were but Auxiliaries to the King, and moſt of the Presbyterians Auxiliaries to the Parliament, long after the beginning of the war. By God great mercy there are yet living the truly worthy and Right Honourable Lords, the Earl of Bedford firſt General of the Horſe, and the Earl of Radnor, Lord Preſident of his Majeſties Council, a Colonel then in the Earl of Eſſex's Army, and the Lord Wharton (and the Lord Hollis is but lately dead) Ask theſe faithful Lords yet living whether the Earl of Eſſex, or any four or five of all his Colonels were Nonconformiſts, or any two of them Presbyterians; But of this elſewhere.
III. As to the death of the King, I have in the times of uſurpation, proved that the Presbyterians deteſted it. That it was a proud conquering Army, by the Contrivance of Ol. Cromwel, and the applauſe of a few fanaticks that did it by the conſent of a ſmall part of the old Parliament called The Rump, that durſt not truſt the King in power: That they could never do it till, 1. They had new modelled the Army, and got out the Earl of Eſſex's Souldiers, and all the Parliament men ſave Cromwel; 2. Till they had firſt driven away the Eleven accuſed members; (Hollis, Stapleton, Maynard, &c.) 3. Till they had got all the Brigades and Gariſon Souldiers beſides disbanded, leſt they ſhould reſiſt them. 4. Till they had forcibly impriſoned a great part of the worthieſt members of the Parliament, and kept and caſt out the moſt of the Houſe, and left only the foreſaid ſmaller remnant. 5. Till they had conquered the City by ſudden ſurprize; when Maſſy, Hollis, Brown and others tryed to have armed the City againſt them. 6. Till they had conquered Scotland, and their Armies. 7. The London Miniſters went to the General to charge him to reſiſt it. 8. They printed their abhorrence of it to the world. And Mr. Love was beheaded and others impriſoned and fled beyond Sea. 9. I have reaſon to believe that Monks Army that reſtored the King had twenty if not forty times as many Presbyterians in it, as the Earl of Eſſex's Army had when the war began. 10. The London Presbyterians and Sir Thomas Allen Lord Mayor were they that turned the Scales for the King by inviting Monk and declaring their conjunction with him. 11. What the Presbyterians did with Sir George Booth, and what Miniſters were impriſoned for it, and other ſuch things I need not report. 12. As ſoon as ever the members of the old Parliament were reſtored, they took effectual care for the Kings reſtitution: eſpecially the Council which they ſettled and left. The Right Honourable the Earls of Angleſea, and Shaftesbury, and many others yet living can tell you enough of this: And if you believe not me, beſides the forementioned worthy Lords, ask the worthy Maſter of the Rolls Sir Harbottle Grimſtone, and Sir John Maynard his Majeſties Serjeant at Law, who were eminent members of the foreſaid Parliament, from the beginning, or any other of them yet living, whether the Parliament was Presbyterians and Nonconformiſts when the war began, or Conformable members of the Church of England; and they can reſolve you.
IV. But if all this had been otherwiſe, muſt this age anſwer for their fathers deeds? What's all this to the preſent Nonconformiſts, of whom I do not believe there is one of 40. now alive that had any hand in any wars againſt the King? Are the Hollanders or French guilty of it becauſe they are Presbyterians? If not, why are the Engliſh? will Names make men Traytors? If ſo, do not they make us Traytors who falſly gave us thoſe names? Either they muſt prove that we hold rebellious principles, or they ſhew that they do but in Plot accuſe us. Therefore I have thought it my duty to give this account of our Principles as far as they are known to me.
In 1649. I wrote a Book called Political Aphoriſmes, in which, 1. I aſſerted the Univerſal Monarchy of God, 2. The Preheminence of Monarchy before Democracy againſt Mr. Harington's Oceana, 3. The way to ſecure a pious Monarchy; 4. And I added the reaſons why I then had adhered to the Parliament, out of a deſire of conviction if I had erred: But for great Reaſons I have ſince deſired that the book be taken as non ſcriptus. But what I judge undenyable I here declare.
Were ſin and madneſs any wonder in the world, it were a wonder that England is not as happy and concordant a Nation as any under heaven. God hath kept us from taſting of thoſe miſerable wars, which have diſtreſſed many other Nations: God loudly calleth us to peace: old and ſad experience of the miſchiefs of war, do call unto all that are in their wits if poſſible to avoid it. The militant Nations round about us, have left us to ſweet peace. But ſin, folly and pride, will not conſent: How many years have we begg'd for peace, of thoſe that ſhould have been the preachers and wiſeſt promoters of peace, and cannot yet obtain it, nor quiet them that call for fire and ſword, not knowing what ſpirit they are of? A miſerable Nation's afraid of confuſions, prayeth for the King and all in authoty, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlineſs and honeſty: and the Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical affairs telleth us that the King would have given the people Peace: but with unpeaceable Clergymen, no plea, no petition could prevail. The things that have been, are; and the confuſions of our age have come from the ſame cauſes and ſorts of men, as the confuſions in former ages did; which in an Abridgement of Church Hiſtory▪ I have lately opened: we rejoyce with Paul that Chriſt is preached: but alas, that ſo many preach him not ſincerely, of good will and love, but in envy, ſtrife and contention, to add affliction to the afflicted, Phil. 1. 15, 16, 17, 18. We are all bound; if it be poſſible, and as much as in us lyeth, to live peaceably, yea to follow peace with all men: Rom. 12. 18. Heb. 12. 14. But none are more obliged to it than Princes that muſt preſerve the peoples peace, and Chriſtian Paſtors that ſhould preach it.
Mans ſoul hath three faculties, underſtanding, will, and executive vital power: The Image of God on theſe three is 1. holy knowledge, faith or Light, 2. Holy Love, 3. and holy Life. The Devils Image is the contrary to theſe three, 1. In dark ignorance, error and unbelief, 2. In malignant enmity to good things and perſons; 3. In deadneſs to good, and hurtfulneſs or evil works. Therefore the Devil is deſcribed by Chriſt, 1. As the Prince of darkneſs and deceit, 2. As the enemy of God and Goodneſs and good men, and, 3. As a deſtroyer. And ſo he is called A Lyar, A malignant enemy and A Murderer: And by theſe properties his children may be known, whatever they profeſs.
I unfeignedly declare that I wiſh no cruelty againſt Papiſts, nor any hurt but what the neceſſary ſafety of thoſe whom they would hurt requireth: But I muſt ſay that their Canons and their writings and practices have had ſo much of theſe three properties, Lying, malignity againſt good men, and hurtfulneſs and bloody cruelty, that the nature which God hath planted in me, is no more reconcileable to it, than to the life of high-way robbers. And let who will make a prudent trial, and I am confident he will find as I have done, that on whomſoever you find theſe three Diabolical Symbols or properties, Lying; Malice and Bloody-hurtfulneſs againſt men that are moſt ſerious and practical Chriſtians, they will prove either open or ſecret Papiſts, or by nearneſs much prepared for them.
Could they be content to forbear DOMINION and BLOODINESS, we might live quietly with them as with other erroneous men. But how can that be hoped for while their Religion eſſentially is, 1. That all Chriſtian Princes and People on earth, muſt be the obedient ſubjects of their Pope, or elſe be no members of the Church of Chriſt? 2. That approved General Councils muſt be believed and obeyed, of which (beſides others) that at the Lateran ſub Innoc. 3. obligeth all temporal Lords on pain of EXCOMMVNICATION, DEPOSITION and DAMNATION to exterminate all their Proteſtant ſubjects if they are able, (and other Canons and Decrees are for burning them) And he that underſtandingly profeſſeth himſelf a Papiſt, profeſſeth both theſe.
As I have here deſcribed the judgment of ſuch Nonconformiſts as I have converſed with (not undertaking for every odd perſon whom I know not) I do deſire thoſe that ſeek our blood and ruine by the falſe accuſation of Rebellious principles, to tell me if they can [what body or party of men on earth have more ſound and Loyal principles of Government and obedience.]
I. If they ſay the Papiſts, Let them read H. Fowlis hiſtory of them, and Biſhop Barlows recitations of multitudes of their Doctors, and my Abridgement of Church Hiſtory, and then believe it if they can: The world knoweth that the Papiſts ſet two ſuperiors over Kings, 1. The Pope and his Councils, who have decreed it to be the Henrician Hereſie and Simony to hold ſo much as Princes Power of Inveſting Biſhops, and that the Pope hath not power pro meritis to depoſe them. 2. The People are commonly made by their Divines and Politicks the Givers of the Princes power, who ſhould not ſo much as tolerate him if he be an Infidel or Heretick.
II. Is it the Church of England only whoſe Principles they prefer? 1. Wherein do we differ from them? Do we not ſubſcribe their Articles, Canons and Homilies as to civil Government? And if we ſubſcribe not the New Covenant or Profeſſion, for the Phraſes [Any Commiſſioned] and [on any pretence whatſoever] that proveth no Doctrinal difference from them, that ſubſcribe them only in a ſenſe which we never were againſt, and who would not do it, if they underſtood them properly. 2. Were B. Jewel, Bilſon, and Mr. Hooker, none of the Church of England? were not the Biſhops and Convocation in A. B. Abbots days, the Repreſentative Church of England? Were not the Parliaments that followed them of the Church of England? Was it only Dr. Sibthorp and Dr. Mainwaring and a few ſuch cried down by Parliaments and Prelates that were the Church of England? Doth not B. Bramhall own Grotius as deſigned for preferment in this Church? 3. And are not the worthy Conformable Clergy, and Parliament, who are yet againſt the Principles of Sibthorp and Mainwaring part of the Church of England?
It may be you will ſay [All the Nonconformiſts be not of your principles, and what then is this to excuſe the reſt?] And many talk of one Goodman and Buchanan in Scotland, and of Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (falſly charged on Beza, and written by Hubert Languet.)
Anſw. And indeed, are all the Church of England of one mind? Are they all of Sibthorps mind on one ſide? Or are they all of Jewel, Hooker and Bilſons mind on the other ſide? Did they not differ when moſt followed Abbot (the refuſer of Sibthorps book,) and the reſt followed Biſhop Laud? and when the two parties began the war, were they all of the mind of Williams Arch-Biſhop of York who was a Commander in armes for the Parliament? Shew us the doctrine of the Church for Loyalty which we receive not, and wherein in this we come behind you. Do all the Church of England agree with Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Dodwel, or Dr. Heylin? Read this mans Hiſtory of the Reformation, and ſee how he expoſeth it to ſcorn? Read his hiſtory of Presbytery, and his life of Arch-Biſhop Laud, and tell as whether you are all of that mind. There is a Papiſt that hath written an Hiſtorical Collection of the horrid confuſions of the Engliſh Reformation almoſt all verbatim out of Dr. Heylins Hiſtory, half as reproachful as Philanax Anglicus; or the Image of both Churches, or any that a Pateſon or a Parſons could have written. Yet this was a Dr. of the Church? I do not think that all the Church will joyn with Biſhop Bramhal & Dr. Pierce in the Vindication of Grotius as a Proteſtant, who writeth for Romes common Miſtriſhip, and for belief of the Doctrine of all the General Councils, even that of Trent. I do not think you all hold that our Reformers followed the meaſure of Eraſmus, though ſome ſay ſo? Nor that you all blame the caſting of Images out of the Churches as much as Dr. Richard Cox did in his epiſtle to Caſſander? Was the ſharp Arch-Biſhop Whitgift and the reſt that were for the Lambeth Articles, and our great Divines that went to Dort, and the Parliaments that decryed Arminianiſm, of the ſame mind as Arch-Biſhop Laud, Neal, Buckeridge, Corbet and Mountague? Why then do you tell us of an odd diſſenter, or of ſects that we own not, or expect that among us there ſhould be no differences? Are we not men?
III. Is it the Principles of the Old Greeks and Romans which you prefer before ours? If you never read them, believe not me, but believe Hobbes and multitudes of other ſorts that ſay, They moſtly hated Kings; and even Ariſtotle, Plato, Cicero, Plutarch, &c. took it for a meritorious act to kill tyrants: (and whom did they mean?) Of all men ſet not them before us.
IV. Is it the new Philoſophers; ſuch Carteſians as Spinoſa, and ſuch as Hobbes that you prefer? I ſhall tell you after, what are their politicks.
V. Is it the famous Lawyers and Politick writers of Europe, Papiſts or Proteſtants? I have told you after what they hold. What heaps of Teſtimonies doth the Great Lawyer Hottoman in his Franco-Gallia bring, to prove the Power of Nobles and Parliaments limiting the Monarch formerly in France? And Bodin is againſt him as to the Conſtitution of France, and by the information of Dale the Engliſh Embaſſador, taketh England alſo to be an Abſolute Monarchy, and that the Parliament hath no Authoritative part in making Laws, but only a requeſting and adviſing part, and the King the only Legiſlative. Yet ſee what are even Bodins Principles. 1. Pag. 98. He ſaith [Soveraign Majeſty and abſolute power, conſiſteth principally in giving Laws to the Subjects in general without their conſent.
2. Chap. 5. He taketh ſlavery to be unlawful.
3. Page 88. c. 8. He maketh Monarchy to be the gift of the people, voluntarily diſſeiſing and deſpoiling themſelves of the Sovereign power to ſeize and inveſt another in it. (As if a man ſhould by pure gift deliver to another man the propriety and poſſeſſion that to him belongeth): And ſo he maketh the Ruler to have juſt ſo much power as the people give him. And at this rate Lawyers ordinarily ſpeak both Proteſtants and Papiſts.
4. He ever excepteth from the abſolute Sovereigns power, all that is commanded or forbidden by the Law of God and Nature, which no man can abrogate, pag. 89, &c.
5. Pag. 85. He tells us how of old the Chief Juſtice thus inveſted the King of Arragon. We which are to thee in virtue nothing inferior, and in power greater than thy ſelf, create thee our King, Yet with this condition, that one among us ſhall have more power and command than thy ſelf] But he believeth not that the people of Arragon choſe the King.
6. He ſaith that a Prince is not ſubject to his Laws, but he is to his own juſt and reaſonable Conventions: and that many are deceived that confound Laws and a Princes contracts which they call alſo Laws (Conſtitutions or Fundamental Laws they are called) The Law depends on the will of him that hath the Soveraignty. But the contract between the Prince and his Subjects is mutual, which reciprocally bindeth both parties, ſo that the one party may not ſtart therefrom, to the prejudice, or without the conſent of the other. (As Conſtitutions are made by contract, ſo ſome countreys make Governing laws by contract).
7. Pag. 95. He ſaith the Prince cannot derogate from the Laws that concern the ſtate of the Realm, and the eſtabliſhing thereof.
8. Pag. 97. He ſaith [It is not in the power of any Prince in the world (no more than the King of Englund) at his pleaſure to raiſe taxes on the people, no more than to take another mans goods from him, as Philip Commines wiſely ſhewed in the Parliament at Towres.]
9. Pag. 97. He objects [that the Eſtates of England have power to condemn; as K. Henry the 6. was condemned by the Eſtates to be kept Priſoner in the Tower of London.] And anſwereth [That was done by the ordinary Judges of England, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Upper Houſe, at the requeſt of them of the Nether Houſe] I thought it was done by traiterous uſurpation.
10. Pag. 200. L. 2. c. 2. He diſtinguiſheth of Lawful or Royal Monarchy, Lordly Monarchy and Tyrannical Monarchy: The Lawful or Royal Monarch is that where the Subjects enjoyning their natural liberty and propriety of their goods, obey the Laws of a Monarch, and the Monarch the Laws of Nature. The Lordly Monarchy is that where the Prince is become Lord of the goods and perſons of his Subjects, by Law of Arms and lawful War, governing them as the Maſter of a Family doth his ſlaves. The Tyrannical Monarchy is where the Prince contemning the Laws of Nature and Nations, imperiouſly abuſeth the perſons of his free-born Subjects, and their goods as his own.
11. Though he juſtly blame Ariſtot. (p. 206.) for defining a King to be him, who choſen by the people, reigneth as they deſire] from whoſe will if he never ſo little depart he becometh a tyrant; And though Althuſius blame Bodin for being for abſolute Monarchy, yet Bodin l. 2. c. 4. deſcribeth a Tyrant juſt as Althuſius (after cited) doth, if not more copiouſly and odiouſly: The learned Reader may peruſe pag. 212. his difference between a King and a Tyrant, too large to be recited, and ſcarce ſafe for the vulgar to read, leſt they ſhould think moſt Princes by thoſe Characters to be Tyrants: I am ſure it goeth far beyond our Language.
12. And it's the more dangerous in that c. 5. p. 220, 221. he teacheth [that it is a fair and magnifical thing, for a Prince (of another land) to take up Arms to relieve a whole Nation and People unjuſtly oppreſſed by the cruelry of a Tyrant. [And that [it is lawful for any ſtranger to kill a Tyrant,] that is to ſay, a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppreſſion, Murder and ſlaughter of his Subjects. But as for Subjects to do the ſame, it muſt be known whether the Prince be an Abſolute Sovereign, or not: For if he be no abſolute Sovereign, then muſt the Sovereignty of neceſſity be either in the people or the nobility, in which caſe there is no doubt but that it is lawful to proceed againſt a Tyrant by way of Juſtice, if ſo men may prevail againſt him: Or elſe by way of fact, and open force, if they may not otherwiſe have reaſon. As the Senate did againſt Nero and Maximinus.—p. 222. It ſhall be lawful not only for ſtrangers but for the Subjects themſelves alſo to take them out of the way].
Albericus Gentilis was made Profeſſor of the Civil Law in Oxford (where he unſucceſsfully wrote for Stage-Plays againſt D. Jo. Reignolds): And therefore he was one of the Church of England: And in his book De jure Belli he holdeth,
1. That unavoidable ignorance may make a war to both ſides lawful, l. 1. c. 6.
2. He joyneth with Bodin againſt war or foreing men to Religion, c. 9, &c. with notable teſtimonies of Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, &c. Bernard, Caſſiodorus, Eraſmus, Hoſpitalius, Victoria, Govarruvia, Baldus, P. Aemilius and others.
Approving Cujacius that ſaith [Religio non eſt quae calet in caedes civium & perniciem patriae.]
3. C. 11. He ſaith diſtinguiſhing [Ita cenſeo; ut qui ſubditus privatuſque non eſt, is ſe defendere contra Principem in iſta cauſa religionis, etiam per bellum poſſit: Qui ſubditus ſimul & privatus non eſt, is ultimo loco & pro remedio ultimo poteſt ſe & in aliis cauſis bello tueri, ut quem non juvat ratio propter potentiam dominii, arma eum defendant—ut Baldus, Defenſio iſta contra omnes eſt, nec debet ullum Patrono honorem: Privatus qui homo eſt, nihil horum poteſt.
4. C. 13. Defenſio etiam brutis jus eſt naturae; non opinione nobis, ſed innata quadam vi perſuaſum & conſtitutum. Et neceſſarium jus eſt: Nam quid eſt quod contra vim (ait Cicero) fieri ſine vi poſſit. Hoc ſuper omnia jura eſt probatiſſimum: vim vi repellere, omnes Leges, & omnia jura permittunt. Lex una & perpetua, ſalutem omni ratione defendere.
5. And to prove that men muſt defend each other, contrary to Hobs and Spinoſa, he notably ſheweth that Chriſtians and Heathens agreed that all the world is one Body, houſe, city, of which all are members, made under one law, c. 15. and citeth Bartolus, Baldus, Alciatus, Albericus and many more Lawyers to prove that the omiſſion of defending others is a ſin: eſpecially when they are our near friends: citing Ulpian and Tully for it as the Law of Nature.
6. C. 16. He writeth for Princes defending the Subjects of other Princes, if unjuſtly oppreſſed, yea ſometime though the Subjects were unjuſt, to keep them from immoderate penalty: Much more I paſs by. And are theſe Lawyers Doctrines more loyal than our here profeſſed?
In a word, Libraries and Bookſellers ſhops abound with ſuch Books, as teach ſuch Doctrines, Philoſophers, Hiſtorians, Papiſts and Proteſtants; and yet no ſuch outcry of Treaſon and Rebellion hath been raiſed againſt them, but the Books commonly tolerated and read: And we that never owned ſuch things are by Plotters repreſented as if we were ready by our diſloyal Doctrine to deſtroy the King and Kingdom.
And the foreſaid Greg. Sayrus ſaith Clav. Reg. l. 3. c. 6. p. 134. That mens Laws bind not, unleſs the people receive them. For it is not meet that men ſhould be ſo governed by humane power, as that they ſhould againſt their will be driven by a Law, to do any thing, which neither by the Law of Nature nor of God they are bound to do:—And this muſt not ſeem hard or abſurd to any one, ſeeing that the power of the Prince who is the maker of the Law, ſeemeth in a ſort to depend on the will of the people, becauſe the authority of Secular Power is delegated to the Prince himſelf or Magiſtrate by the people, for the making of Laws which ſhall ſeem profitable to the good moderating of the Common-wealth; ſo that the Laws which are made by Princes or Magiſtrates, are therefore to be called valid, becauſe they are judged to have come from the conſent of the people themſelves.
Hence Alph. à Caſtro gathereth, That if a Prince or Magiſtrate having ſuch power from the people, would by a Law of his making compel the gainſaying people to any thing which is not neceſſary by the Law of God or Nature, he is to be judged a Tyrant; becauſe he exerciſeth greater power toward the people committed to him than he truly hath. But à Caſtro ſheweth, that this is to be underſtood only of the Lay power; becauſe only this receiveth its ſtrength from the people.
And p. 120. he ſheweth, that a Law binds not, if it extend to thoſe things, which exceed the Law-makers power: and that therefore the Civil Magiſtrates cannot make Law of matters Eccleſiaſtical.—Alſo if they are not for the common good—
I name Sayrus, becauſe you are not to look for better from a Papiſt, his Book being the beſt of Caſes of Conſcience, not only in mine, but the common judgement. And ſee here how near he and Mr. Hooker agree.
It ſeems heretofore ſome Canoniſts thought otherwiſe: But the great Politick Writer Ad. Contzen li. 5. c. 5. tells you, That now the common vote is againſt them: And he concludeth as the true and common judgement, that the power of making Laws, is by nature in the multitude or whole Common-wealth; and that no one Prince hath more than the people give him. And that the people when they chooſe a Royal Perſon or Family, may reſerve this right, that he ſhall abrogate or make no Law without them: that all Civil power flows from the people; and that none without Tyranny can take this power from them: And that ſuch a Tyrant is worſe than he that beateth the innocent, becauſe he wrongeth and oppreſſeth more.
And of all forms of Government, he concludeth [Monarchiam temperatam, in qua Optimatum, ſive Senat svaleat authoritas, in qua Civitatum, atque aliorum Ordinum ſit nonnulla poteſtas, praeferendam eſſe, li. 1. c. 21. p. 43. And he defineth Tyranny to be [Imperium quod ad imperantium, aut alicujus partis in Republicâ utilitatem ſpectat—] c. 16. p. 31. Et p. 32. ait [Prima & vetuſtiſſima tyrannidis origo eſt Regum in pejus mutatio. Ambito, avaritia, libido, poteſtatls comites ſunt & peſtis.—p. 33. Utinam, utimam, quàm ſeriò Tyrannidem & Tyrannum omnes deteſtantur, ita ſedulo fugiant! Si ulla res eſt orbi pernicioſa, ſibi gravis, illa eſt Tyrannis.—p. 34. Accedit & illud ad miſeriam Tyrannorum quod quocunque modo caedantur etlam per fraudem & injuriam, magna tamen in laude apud improbos ſunt illi, qui hoc auſi ſunt, etiamſi per ſcelus—Etſi injuſta ſit credes, multis tamen grata: Cauſam reddit princeps philoſophorum, l. 2. pol. c. 7. [Maximas injurias propter immoderatas homines inferunt, & non propter res neceſſarias—ut libidines impune expleant. Idcirco magna praemia propoſita ſunt, non ei qui furem; ſed qui Tyrannum occiderit—]
But enough of this comparing of our Doctrine with other mens, whoſe Books are commonly ſold and read. An impartial hearing when accuſed, is that which we have in vain long deſired of our hurtfulleſt enemies. But well ſaith the foreſaid Contzen. l. 9. c. 44. p. 732. Abſolvit Judex quem audire formidat.
I have oft wondred that when Chriſt was accuſed as an enemy to Caeſar, the Jews nor Romans did not charge him for gathering the multitude as his guards, to the awe of the Rulers, who durſt not lay hands on him leſt the people ſhould ſtone them or riſe for him againſt them: For they feared the people, Luk. 22. 2. and 20. 19. Mark 12. 12. Mat. 21. 46. when they ſought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, becauſe they took him for a prophet, Yea, K. Herod durſt not put John to death for fear of the multitude that took him for a prophet, Mat. 14. 5. And when the Phariſees bid Chriſt rebuke the multitude that cried Hoſanna, he would not. Yet he declared that his Kingdom was not of this world, and he was not made a divider of inheritances, and paid tribute to Caeſar to avoid offence. I wonder that the Rulers did not proſecute the people rather then fear them. But I will not believe that Chriſt ſinned in this, though Infidels think ſo.
VI. But ſtay: Perhaps it is the ancient Biſhops and Canons which they ſay agreed in more Loyal Doctrine than I here profeſs? But 1. I have newly in my Abridgement of Church Hiſtory ſaid ſo much to anſwer this that I fear not the cenſures of any impartial reader. 2. How greatly doth the great Antiquary Albaſpineus reverence the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions, as the Greek Churches ancient rule: But I diſown their Doctrine, l. 8. c. 2. Neque vero Rex impius Rex eſt amplius, ſed Tyrannus: Neque Epiſcopus ignorantiâ aut malo animo oppletus, Epiſcopus eſt, ſed falſus Epiſcopus, non à Deo, ſed ab hominibus promotus. If I ſhould cite abundance ſuch I ſhould but anger ſome. Read Nazianzenes deſcription of Biſhops and Councils, and Socrates and others of the caſes of Theoph. Alexand. and Chryſoſt. and the horrid inſurrections at Alexandria, Antioch, Conſtantinople, &c. and judge impartially between them and us.
Among a multitude I will add one inſtance of my own uſage, that you may ſee more of my reaſon for this writing. The Tranſproſer rehearſed p. 48. ſaith M. Baxter in his holy Common-wealth maintaineth that he (the King) may be called to account by any ſingle Peer.] Muſt we ſay nothing to ſuch bloody ſlanders? Never ſuch a thought was in my mind, nor word ſpoke or written by me, but all is a meer falſe fiction: Nay, in all the times of uſurpation, and ſince, I ſaid, and wrote that the Kings perſon is inviolable, and to be judged by none, either Peer or Parliament; and that it is none but Subjects that they may call to account and judge and puniſh; and that neither the King may deſtroy or hurt the Kingdom, nor the Kingdom the King (much leſs a Peer) but their Vnion is the Kingdoms life. And the very Book accuſed goeth on ſuch Principles, and hath not a word meet to tempt a man in his wits to this accuſation. Judge now by this one inſtance, and by the cry of the Plotters now againſt us, ſeeking our deſtruction and the Parliaments as ſuppoſed to favour us (which for ought I know never did any thing for our relief or eaſe) whether it be meet that I ſhould die in ſilence under ſuch horrid accuſations: againſt which I appeal to the great and righteous Judge, before whom I am ſhortly to appear, begging his pardon, and reforming-conviction, where ever Ierre.
April 16. 1680. R. e.