who were of that Church The chief byshop is an Aaron and every Christian king a Joshua And as it is a content and support to Aaron to have a Joshua with him to fight Gods battles and keep the people in awe so is it not a little comfort to Joshua to have an Aaron by him with whom he may consult And indeed no kingdom can have a perfect accomplishment without the presence of these two swords civil and spiritual Ecce duo gladij hic satis est And although Christians even at this day when any heresy or novelty arises have still recours unto the same head of their religion for a decision of the doubt whom they consulted before for as the channel of Christianity is and must be still the same so must the spring-head be the same also yet when the thing is once decided they have none but kings and governours under him to see the direction executed as the only overseers with coactive power to do it And thus you see in brief how the Pope is head of the Church and the King head likewise and both immediately under God but with this difference that the king only governs Christianity established in his own royalty by law the Pope without further law rules and guides all the streams and rivulets of religion where ever it flows He is head of primary direction the king of sovereign execution he of guidance and spiritual autority only the king of civil and natural power invested in his place and dignity from God above to maintain any laws as well purely Christian as civil which himself shall accept establish and promulgate The Pope perswades but the King commands and although the Pope should formally command yet vertually and in effect such a command amounts only to a perswasion and he that obeys not feels no smart for it except the king be pleased to espous his caus and punish the contumacious which if he justly do then have kings a just autority in those affairs if otherwise then hath the Pope no means of help or defence in this world any more after the conversion of kings than before it and help himself he cannot any other way than only by putting people out of his communion who care not for it The Pope is obeyed for conscience and love only to his religion the King for wrath and conscience too the Pope delivers the rule but in general only and blunt on one side the King particularises it and gives it an edg the Popes headship is exercised in Ought and Should be the Kings is Will and shall be the Pope directs but the King compells the Pope secludes the contumacious from heaven which he that beleevs not feels not the King over and above that cuts off malefactors from the face of the earth too and they shall be made by feeling to beleev it And these two defend and secure one another and keep both Christians and their faith inviolate And while Christians themselvs do both tenderly love their Pape and chief pastour and spring-head of their religion which is beleeved beyond him to flow invisibly from God the great ocean of truth and withall do honor fear and observ their King and princely governour who only bears the sword of justice and not in vain to take revenge upon all those whom the love of religion and spiritual sword of their pastour will not keep in awe they do their duty as they ought and shall finde happines therein I must make haste and can say no more at present to this busines which as I have told you is somewhat besides my purpos Only one thing I must needs tell you before I pass on Although a King is in a good and proper sence stiled head as well of Church as State within his own dominions as for all coersive power therein yet head of the Church absolutely or head of primary direction in faith is so proper to the chief Prelate that no man upon earth besides himself hath ever so much as pretended to it and that for five reasons First becaus head of the Church absolutely intimates an universal right over the guidance of religion not in one kingdom only but all where ever that religion is And the King of France for example neither did nor can pretend to be head of the Church of England much less of Hungary Spain Africk Italy Greece Asia c. Yet such a head there must needs be to the end the Church may be one mystick body at unity in it self And that head must be unlimited to time and place as the Church it self is ever permanent and universally spread nor must the government alter as governments of particular kingdoms do Secondly head of the Church absolutely involves a primacy both of conveighing and interpreting faith and all princes in Europe received their faith at first from priests who sent for that end from their spiritual superiour converted their kingdoms but they never gave faith either to them or their pastour Thirdly he that is head of the Church absolutely must be of the same connatural condition with the whole hierarchy to confirm baptise ordain preach attone the almighty by sacrifice impose hands segregate men from their worldly state unto his own spiritual one and in a special manner to exercise those priestly functions unto which he segregates them Fourthly head of the Church absolutely is to be indifferent unto kingdoms and all sorts of government as the religion also is and keep it like it self in all places unaltered in its nature however in its general dictates it may concur to the direction and good of all people and governments And therefor he cannot be confined to one place or government but must be as it were separate and in a condition indifferent to all as a general byshop whose sole care is to heed those eradiations of faith spread up and down the world may be and is when princes heed but their own particular kingdoms and care not how religion goes in another any more then their wealth or polity Thus the sun-beams though they fall upon several soils diversly affected yet they keep their own nature unaltered by vertue of one general fountain-head of light which is indifferent to every kingdom and dispenses distributes and keeps the raies unchanged The ends and wayes of religion are quite of another nature from all worldly businesses and therfor require a particular superintendent set apart for them as indeed they ever have had since the time of religions first master who as he did educate his in order to a life eternal in a government apart being himself a man distinct from Caesar so used he to speak of religious duties as separate and differing from others Reddite saith he quae Caesari sunt Caesari quae Dei Deo In very truth the Church and Christianity as it is a thing accidental to all worldly states so is it superinduced upon them as an influence of another rank and order
holy Trinity especially God the Father to be pourtrayed at all And if now they suffer it they have for it I make no doubt a sufficient reason especially since they heed not at all however your Disswader imagines any natural similitude in any of their pictures If they be so made as to raise the sansie to thoughts above and the love and vertues that may bring us thither they care not whether for example Saint Bennet were a man just of that complexion or Christ their Redeemer of those direct features the limner has given him They come not into their Churches nor do they cast their eyes upon their pictures for any such end And if God the Father be represented to their eyes as he is to their ears when he is called Father I see no harm in it If we may use such a form of words when we speak to God as this world we live in may afford our ears why may not the eyes have such an answerable form too But this is a busines which your Disswader if he were a Catholik might well propound in the next general Councel and do otherwise in the mean time if so he please in his own Diocess For neither books nor picturs can be used in any Diocess but what the Ordinary of the place allows And the Byshop still guides himself by the general doctrin and discipline the faith and custom the tradition and laws of the Church in the whole mannagement of his care And when these do not clearly descend to any particular which he is to deal with he uses therin his own discretion going that way if he do well that he findes comes nearest to the rule as temporal superiours also do in their affairs O but the Roman Church with much scandal and against nature and the reason of mankind in their mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot And do they so I have seen I think as many Catholik countreys and mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels as your Disswader ever did and yet I never saw any such picture therin all my life He has been it seems an earnest pryer into the front and faces of books But did he not mistake trow you and take some fortune-book written in old letters for a mass-book and thence conclude that all breviaries and mass-books portuises and manuels were stored with such figures However it were the picture was to blame For three noses and three faces ought to have more than four eyes And if ther were but four eyes I cannot see how ther should be three whole faces although ther were there three noses in it But this is as good stuff and as true and as pertinent too as any other part of this his book which he calls a Disswasive from Popery §. 10. Which is against Papal authority Sayes that the Popes universal byshoprick is another novelty though not so ridiculous yet as dangerous as any other And a novelty it is for Christ left his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another And in the Councel of Jerusalem James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence Christ sent all his Apostles with the same whole power as his Father sent him Therfor S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock And well said S. Cyprian that the Apostles were all the same that S. Peter was And this equality of power must descend to all byshops who succeed the Apostles in their ordinary power as embassadours for Christ. So then by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. And that this was ever beleeved in ancient times is proved by Pope Eleutherius his epistle to the byshops of France by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian Pope Symmachus S. Denyse Ignace Gelasius Jerom Fulgentius and even Pope Gregory the great Wherfor S. Paul expresly sayes that Christ appointed in his Church first Apostles but not S. Peter first Nor did Peter ever rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostom witnesses And it is even confest by som of the Romish party that the succession is not tyed to Rome as Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius Nor was any thing known therof in the primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen and all byshops treated with the Roman byshop as with a brother not superiour and a whole general Councel gave to the byshop of C. P. equal right and preheminence with the byshop of Rome Finally Christ gave no commandment to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing A man would surely think Sir that this nail is knocked in to the head What could be said more But to be brief with you If all the other sections of this your Disswasive have said nothing this I may say speaks somthing wors than nothing For his reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole discours contrary to the laws and constitutions of our English Protestant Church To begin with the last whether you look upon the statutes and acts of Parliament wherby our English Church and government were first settled in England upon the reformation in the dayes of Edward the sixth and afterwards ratified or the articles canons and constitutions that were agreed upon by the byshops and clergy and confirmed both by King Edward Queen Elizabeth King James and our good King Charles we shall clearly see that our English Protestant Church and government is Monarchical and that byshops are as much subjected to their Arch-byshops as Ministers to Byshops and Arch-byshops in like manner to the King in whom the Episcopal power is radical and inherent and in whom is the fulness of ecclesiastical authority and from whom byshops do receiv their place authority power and jurisdiction And that Parson Vicar or other Doctour who shall write or speak contrary to this by the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical made in the time of our late good King Charles he is to be suspended and by the Canons and constitutions ecclesiastical made and confirmed in the Reign of King James he is excommunicated ipso facto and by the laws of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward to be further punished How comes it then that this your disswading Doctour utterly dissolves all this frame of government under pretence of talking against papal power as contrary to the mind and will of Christ which will and mind is notwithstanding most resolutely asserted by the constitutions and laws of this our very English Church and Kingdom which rejected indeed the Roman seat and person but retained still the power and ordination of
thing els to say A general Councel of Chalcedon gave to the byshop of C. P. equal rights and preheminence with the byshop of Rome What general Councel was that and who is that C. P. and what were those equal rights universal over all or by way of similitude over some A Constable may have given him equal rights and preheminence in his lesser charge unto som purposes as a King hath in his whole Kingdom what then If this prove any thing it is that there is a sovereign power over all in proportion to which is measured out the right and authority of another in order to one particular But all byshops ever treated with the Roman Byshop as with a brother not as a superiour As brother and superiour too he both treated with them and they with him as I could easily show at large But to a bare fals affirmation one single negation will suffice Christ gave no command to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing He commanded and probably intended that all should obey those that were set over them Is not that enough I pray you Sir tell me did he give any command to obey the byshop of Canterbury here in England or the byshop of Armagh in Ireland or probably ever intend any such thing Speak out If he did the Roman Prelate will challenge obeysance upon the same title if he did not then is your promise and vow in episcopal ordination insignificant and fond But James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence in the Councel at Jerusalem And why say you so How prove you that his words and not the other were decisive when one of them did but second the other Now since your Disswader hath proved after his manner that ther is not any one sovereign byshop over all pray give me leav Sir to let you know why I think on the contrary that one such there is and ought to be And to omit testimonies which are in this point innumerable I shall for brevities sake only use two reasons The first is That Christ our Lord would have the whole company of Christians upon earth ever to be and remain one flock This I conceiv can never be except they be all under one visible pastour Nor can it suffice to say here that they are all under one Christ and one God For this can never make them all either really to be or truly to be called one flock on earth All the Kingdoms and people in the world however they be governed are under one God the supream King as the whole Church is said to be under one Christ but this makes them not to be one Kingdom Nay those that have not a visible King are not any Kingdom at all but an aristocracy only or commonwealth or wild straglers But if you will have no visible flock of Christians upon earth you teach the Quakers doctrin and abolish all government It is certain then that if the ecclesiastical government of each place do end in the byshop of that respective Diocess as the Disswader talks that ther must be then as many flocks of Christians as there be byshops upon earth which being not subordinate all of them to one general pastour can never bring their flocks into one Second is That such a polity and government must ever be preserved in Christs Church which himself set up and practised This is most certain For if that polity or body be changed it is no more Christs polity or Christs body but that other whatever it be which is introduced in his place and the body of that man or men that introduced it from whence also it receivs its name as from Luther his followers are called Lutherans and Calvinists from Calvin and consequently all the laws which do ever follow the condition of the government must alter with it Thus it was with us here in England the other day When our government was changed we were no more the body of William the Conquerour or any polity instituted by him but another polity or body set up by the Rump-Parliament and all our laws became then liable to their arbitrary interpretation to be wrested as themselvs pleased And they had been if we had continued a while longer in that sad condition by degrees utterly abolished All this not our reason only but heavy experience will acknowledg for a certain truth But Christ our Lord did assuredly both set up and practise himself a visible sovereignty over all the whole flock of Christians which he gathered together from other visible companies of Jews and Pagans And therfor must ther still and ever be som one visible pastour over this one flock unto the worlds end For if that polity or body change then is it no more Christs body but another thing And his laws and religion will be then interpreted according to the pleasure of those who first rejected the government and of their followers afterward unto infinite and endles misery And that this polity or government is ever to remain in Christs Church on earth may be gathered first by this That every wise legislatour knows well enough that all his people under him look upon his example as their rule to steer by ever after so long as they mean to preserv his way and be of his body Thus when any state is once founded either in aristocracy democracy or monarchy the founder of such a state has no need to tell the people what he would have them to do afterwards or whether they should choos themselvs one governour or many where they have his clear example to walk by They will naturally follow his steps therin so long as they mean to preserv the state he has established Now the Apostles and all his disciples and beleevers knew and saw that the Church of Christ which is his state spiritual was founded by him in monarchy or the superintendency of one over all And therfor as soon as our Lord spoke to them of his own departure they began all of them naturally to think of one who should succeed in his general care and who that one should be Nor did they doubt whether one should be over all the flock but who should be that one that should preside and oversee it And to prevent the faction our Lord as Catholik tradition teaches and the letter of the Gossel not obscurely insinuates pointed out one giving him withall a good rule of humility and charity to remain for after ages That he that is greatest among them should be as the least most humble most serv humble most full of observance and charity which rule if that chief pastour observ not he is the more to blame And all ages have ever looked upon the successour of that chief apostle as Vicegerent of our Lord and master under whom they are united in one flock and so keep their laws and religion still one and intirely the the same from age to age however they lye divided
But Sir the thing you heed not and unto which I only speak if I any where hint at such a thing is this If the Scriptur be in two hands for example of the Protestant Church in England and of the Puritan who with that scriptur rose up and rebelled against her can the scriptur alone of it self decide the busines how shall it do it has it ever don it or can that written word now folitary and in private hands so settle any in a way that neither himself nor present adherents nor future generations shall question it or with as much probability dissent from it either totally or in part as himself first set it This Sir is the case unto which you do neither here nor in all your whole book speak one word And what you speak otherwis of the Scripturs excellency I allow it for good What is not against me is with me But no law whatsoever whether divine or humane can be a sufficient rule to men if no judge oversee it Ninth The Pope is a good man and seeks nothing but our good This also I no where aver I might mention the care and industry of that Sea and affirm it to be unworthily traduced But I never saw any Pope nor have I any such acquaintance with him as to know whether he be a good man in your sence or no free from pride anger covetousnes c. though in charity I do not use to judg hardly of any body Much less could I say that he whom I know to have a general solicitude for all Churches seeks nothing but our good Sir if I had pondered my words in Fiat Lux no better than you heed yours in your Animadversions upon it they might even go together both of them to lap pepper and spice or som other yet more vile employment Tenth that the devotion of Catholiks far transcends that of Protestants But Sir I never made in Fiat Lux any comparison between their devotions nor do I remember that I ever so much as mentioned the devotion of Protestants But you are the maddest Commentatour I have ever seen you first make the Text and then Animadversions upon it Here at length you conclude your chapter and would say you your book also if you had none to deal with but ingenious and judicious readers It seems what follows is for readers neither judicious nor ingenious And becaus I knew you took me for one of those I went on in my view Indeed had I not undertaken to give you an account of your whole book I could have been well content to stop here with ingenious and judicious readers and look no further Doubtles in this affair good wits will jump You would write no more had you none but judicious readers and these will read no more becaus they are judicious But I poor ass must jogge on 3 ch from page 110. to 119. Your third chapter concerns my preface which in part you allow and partly dislike And I am equally content with both 4 or 5 ch from page 119. to 148. Your fourth chapter by mistake of press is named fift and so I must here call it It begins my book and takes up five of my paragraffs at once You have loitered long about the gate like a trifling idlesbee and means now it seems when you come to my own words to go nimbly over them as of lesser concernment than your own forestalled conceits which you have hitherto made sport with You first set up a maypole and then danced about it and now at length half tired and almost out of breath you come home to me My first paragraff about Diversity of feuds you do not much except against But I see you do not affect the schoolmen haply for the same reason the French love not Talbot having been used in their infancy to be frighted with that name However you think I have good reason to make honourable mention of them becaus they were say you the hammerers and forgers of Popery Alas Sir I see that anger spoils your memory for in the twelfth and thirteenth chapter of that very book of your Animadversions you make Popery to be hammered and forged not a few hundred of years before any schoolmen were extant You check me also for saying that reformation of religion is pretended by emulous Plebians as though say you Hezekiah Josiah and other good Kings and Princes also of our own were emulous Plebeians But Sir when I say in Fiat Lux p. 20. what glory the emulous Plebeian sees given to higher spirits c. I only speak of the times of vulgar insurrection against autority as all men see except your self who will not My second paragraff of the Ground of quarrels you like well enough and explicate it with a text to help me out I could not haply tell how to cite James the fourth chapter the first and second vers of that chapter without your help However it is kindnes though it be but cours as Sir Thomas Moor told his maid when she kist him as he was going to execution and so I take it My third paragraff about nullity of title would you think every period of it confute my self But that saying of S. Paul An à vobis verbum Dei processit an ad vos solos pervenit which I make use of to stop the mouths of all vitilitigatours in religion was cited by me you think in an unhappy hour becaus say you ther is not any one single text of scriptur more satal to papal pretensions And why so Sir Becaus the Gospel you say came to Rome as well as it came to us here in England And this is all you say to prove that text to be so fatal to papal pretensions To this Sir I have already told you that it came not to us as it came to Rome and now I tell you again that it came to us from Rome and not to Rome from us And therfor is that text fatal to us not to them It may open their mouths but I am sure it stops ours Heats and resolutions the subject of my fourth paragraff which your self will not countenance you will not permit me to dislike You may talk against them and I may not But I may be excused for I knew not then such a man of art as your self would speak of that he understood better then I do The motives of moderation in my sixt paragraff you laugh at and I will not stop your merriment But in all this say you Fiat Lux hath a secret design which your eagle-sighted eye has discovered And in vain is the net spread before the eyes of a thing that hath a wing And I must know that the authour of Animadversions it that thing that hath a wing 6 ch from page 148. to 177. Your sixt chapter which meets just with my sixt paragraff of the Obscurity of God in the beginning where you declare the sufficient knowledg we have of God by
exterior direction and government to his Church Pray tell me is he such an immediate head to all beleevers or no if he be to all then is no man to be governed in affairs of religion by any other man and Presbyterian Ministers are as needless as either Catholik or Protestant byshops On the other side if he be not immediate head to all but ministers head the people and Christ heads the ministers this in effect is nothing els but to make every minister a byshop Why do you not plainly say what it is more than manifest you would have All this while you heed no more the laws of the land than constitutions of gospel As for gospel That Lord who had been visible governour and pastour of his flock on earth when he was now to depart hence as all the apostles expected one to be chosen to succeed him in his care so did he notwithstanding his own invisible presence and providence over his slock publikly appoint one And when he taught them that he who were greatest among them should be as the least he did not deny but suppose one greater and taught in one and the same breath both that he was over them and for what he was over them namely to feed not to tyrannize not to domineer abuse and hurt but to direct comfort and conduct his flock in all humility and tendernes as the servant of all their spiritual necessities And if a byshop be otherwise affected it is the fault of his person not his place As for the laws of the land it is there most strongly decreed by the consent and autority of the whole Kingdom not only that byshops are over ministers but that the Kings majesty is head of byshops also in the line of hierarchy from whose hand they receiv both their place and jurisdiction This was establisht not onely by one but several acts and constitutions both in the reign of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth So that by the laws of the land ther be two greeces between ministers and Christ which you cut off to the end you may secretly usurp the autority and place of both to the overthrow at once both of gospel and our law too By the laws of our land our series of ecclesiastical government stands thus God Christ King Byshop Ministers People the Presbyterian predicament is this God Christ Minister People So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian predicament touches Christs feet immediately and nothing intervenes You pretend indeed that hereby you do exalt Christ but this is a meer cheat as all men may see with their eyes for Christ is but where he was but the minister indeed is exalted being now set in the Kings place one degree higher than the byshops who by the law is under both King and byshop too You will here say to me What is the Papists line of Church government There the Pope must sit next Christ and Kings under his feet Sir I have not time in this short letter to discours this subject as it deserves Nor does it now concern me who have no more here to say than only this that my argument for prelacy howsoever in your words you may disable it is not weakned by you in deeds at all and as far as I can perceiv not understood Yet two things I shall tell you over and above what I need in this affair also First is that Roman catholiks do more truly and cordially acknowledg the respective Christian King of any Kingdom to be supream head of his catholik subjects even in affairs of religion than any other whether Independents Presbyterians or even prelate Protestants have if we speak of truth and reality ever done And this I could easily make good both by the laws and practises of all catholik kingdoms upon earth in any age on one side and the opposite practises of all Protestants on the other Second is that for what reasons Roman catholiks deny a prince to be head of the Church for the same ought all others as they deny it in deeds so if they would speak sincerely as they think and act to deny it in words also as well as they For catholiks do beleev him to be head of the Church from whom the channel of religion and all direction in it is derived and slows for which reason a spring is said to be head of a river But neither does any King upon earth except he be priest and prophet too ever trouble himself to derive religion as the Pope has ever don neither does either Protestant Presbyterian or Independent either in England or elswhere ever seek for religion from the lips of the king or supplicate unto him when any doubt arises in those affairs as they ought in conscience and honesty to do for a final decision any more than the Roman catholik does So that whatever any of them may say all Protestants do as much deny the thing in their behaviour as catholiks do in words and catholiks do in their behaviour observ as much as Protestants either practise or pretend What is the reason that Roman catholiks in all occurring difficulties of faith both have their recours unto their papal Pastour unto whom Kings themselvs remit them and acquiesce also to his decision and judgment but only becaus they beleev him to be head of the Church And if Protestants have no such recours nor will not acquiesce to his Majesties autority in affairs of religion but proceed to wars and quarrels without end the prince neglected as wholly unconcerned in those resolvs they do as manifestly deny his headship as if they profest none Nay to acknowledg a headship in words and deny it in deeds is but mockery By these two words Sir it may appear that the Kings majesty is as much head of the Church to Roman Catholiks as to any Protestants and these no more than they either derive religion or decision of their doubts from the kings chair i th interim it is a shame and general scandal to the whole world that we in England should neither supplicate nor acquiesce in affairs of religion to his Majesties judgment whom in words we acknowledg head of the Church but fight and quarrel without end and yet have the confidence to upbraid Roman catholiks with a contrary beleef who although they ever looked upon their papal patriarch as spiritual head and pastour and deriver of their faith unto whom they so submit that he who after his decision remains contumacious forfeits his Christianity yet have they notwithstanding in all ages and kingdoms resigned with a most ready cordial reverence unto all decisions orders and acts of their temporal princes even in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs as well as civil so far as their laws reached as supreme head and governours of their respective kingdoms And all kings and princes find in a very short space however others may utter hypocritical words of flattery that indeed none but catholik subjects do heed and
fear and observ them universally in all whatever their commands being taught by their religion of which they alone give account at times appointed for penance to hearken and obey for conscience sake all higher powers constituted over them for good That catholiks do universally observ their King in all affairs as well ecclesiastick as civil I need not to make it good send you Sir either to the testimonies of civil law and Codex of Justinian or the othervarious constitutions of so many several provinces and kingdoms as are and have been in Christendom our own home will suffice to justifie it Were not the spiritual courts both court Christian Prerogative court and Chancery all set up in catholik times about matters of religion and affairs of conscience and all mannaged by clerks or clergy-men under the King In brief where ever any civil coaction or coactive power intervenes be it in what affair it will all such power and action who ever uses it hath it autoritatively only from the King For neither Pope nor Byshop nor any Priest ought to be a striker as S. Paul teaches nor have they any lands or livings or court or power to compel or punish either in goods or body but what is lent or given by princes and princely men out of their love and respect to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel whose news they first conveighed about the world although a just donation is I should think as good a title as either emption inheritance or conquest if it be irrevocable The King is the only striker in the land ex jure and the sword of the almighty is only in his hand and none can compel or punish either in body or goods but only himself or others by his commission in any whatever affair He can either by his autority and laws blunt the sword of those who have one in their hand whether by pact or nature as have masters over servants and parents over children or put a civil power into the hands of those who otherwise have none as prelates priests and byshops So that although the Pope derive religion and chiefly direct in it yet is the King the only head of all civil coercition as well in Church affairs as any other which his commands and laws do reach unto So that the line of Church government amongst catholiks since the conversion of kings runs in two streams the one is of direction the other of coercition That of direction is from Christ to the chief pastour from him to patriarchs then to metropolitans arch-byshops byshops priests and people and in this line is no corporal coaction at all except it be borrowed nor any other power to punish but only by debarring men from sacraments In the other line of corporal power and autority the King is immediately under God the Almighty from whom he receivs the sword to keep and defend the dictates of truth and justice as fupream governour though himself for direction and faith be subject to the Church from whose hands he received it as well as other people his subjects after the King succeed his princes and governours in order with that portion of power all of them which they have from him their leige sovereign received This in brief of papal Church government which we in England by our canting talk of the Lord Christ to the end we may be all lords and all Christs have utterly subverted Indeed in primitive times the channel of religion for three hundred years ran apart and separate from civil government which in those dayes persecuted it And then the line of Christian government was unmixt None but priests guided defended governed the Church and Christian flock which they did by the power of their faith vertue secret strength and courage in Jesus their Lord invisible Afterward it pleased the God of mercies to move the hearts of emperours and kings of the earth to submit unto a participation of grace which they were more easily inclined by the innocence and sanctity of Christian faith especially in that particular of peaceful obedience unto kings and rulers though aliens and pagans and persecutors of religion And now kings being made Christian were looked upon by their subjects with a double reverence more loved more feared more honoured than before Nor could Christian people now tell how to expres that ineffable respect they bore their Kings now co-heirs of heaven with them whom before in their very paganism they were taught by their priests to observ as gods upon earth not for wrath only or fear of punishment but for conscience also and danger of hazarding not only their temporal contents but their eternal salvation also for their resisting autority though resident in pagans And Kings on the other side who aforetime by the counsel of wordly senatours enacted laws such as they thought fit for present policy and defended them by the sword of justice wielden under God to the terrour of evil doers and defence of the innocent began now as was incumbent on their duty to use that sword for the protection of Christianity and faith and the better way now chalked out unto them by Christian priests from Jesus the wisdom and Son of God And by the direction of the same holy prelates abbots and other priests who were now admitted with other senators into counsel did they in all places enact speciall and particular laws answerable to the general rule of faith which they found to be more excellent and perfect than any judgment they had by natural reason hitherto difcovered Thus poor Christians who had hitherto but only a head of derivation of counsel and direction which could but only bid them have patience for Christs sake and conform themselves to his meek passion when they suffered from aliens and when they suffered injury from one another could only debar the evil doer if he gave not satisfaction from further use of sacraments those Christians I say who could hitherto have no other comfort or assistance in this world under their spiritual pastour than what words of piety could afford had now by the grace of heaven princely protectours royal defenders and head champions under God to vindicate and make good all Christian rights discipline and truths now accepted and established from faith as well as other civil rites and customs dictated aforetime from meer reason equally revengers upon all evil doers indifferently that were found criminal in affairs as well purely Christian as civil still using the advice and direction of their prelates and Christian peers in the framing and establishing of all those laws they were now resolved to maintain So it was don in England so in all places of the Christian world And then the line of Christian government ran mixt which before was single And Christians now had a Joshua to their Aaron who were only led by Moyses before And although Aaron was head of the Church yet Joshua was head and leader prince and captain of all those people
but not any dignity A Prince it seems signifies only one that is to go before not one that has any dignity or power to command those that follow after Thus will your adversary put authorities into his mouth and draw them in an instant most nimbly out of his throat without ever touching his stomack Can we think him unable by such Hugonot evasions to whiff away all the four gospels and apostles creed as to its former sence and meaning if there should once be a necessity urging him to submit to Mahomets fables or reconcile them and his creed together Who dare say he cannot do it and do it as wisely too as perhaps he ever did thing in his life I think it not amiss Sir to give you yet a little further taste here of our Author your adversaries nimblenes only som little of much for I mean to be very breef Doth emperour Valentinian establish that whatsoever is decreed by the See apostolik which is raised upon the merits of St. Peter dignity of the city and autority of councels should have the force of a law to all Byshops Valentinian faith Whitby was a young man and easily seduced What doth this conclude for the Popes supremacy c. The laws then of Kings and Emperours are to be weighed it seems by the age of the law-maker And if he should be a young man they signifie nothing against any delinquent or transgressour if he have but the wit to plead here with Whitby that the King was young when that law was made This easily seduced young mans law was in force notwithstanding in following times and put into the code by the old mature grave man and not easily seduced Emperour Justinian And no man either young or old ever excepted against it for the youth of the legislator Young Princes do not make laws as boyes tell tales only by strength of their own wits Valentinian was a young man and his laws therfor according to Whitby not to be regarded And what then shall we think of our English protestancy which was here first publikly set up by King Edward the sixt a child Doth an ecclesiastical cannon say that no decree can be established in the Church without the assent of the Roman byshop That is quoth Whitby except the Roman Byshop be present What doth this make for supremacy c. But if he have no autority there why may he not as well be absent There is no certain number required for the making of a decree and that byshop does no more it seems then make up a number Doth the councel of Ephesus refer the judgment of the Patriarch of Antioch his caus to the Pope for that the Church of Antioch had been ever governed by the Roman That was saith Whitby not to use his autority but only to know his mind c. And what matters it I pray what his mind may be if the others never mean to heed it We consult any that are present whether equal or inferiours to know their minds and yet do our selves what we list but we never trouble men a thousand miles off for that Surely when a judgment is referred by parties to another power so far distant with great expence and long expectation and only upon this ground that they are subject and have ever been governed by that power they cannot be thought only to require his mind but use his authority Our honest Quaker will not be unwilling thus to have his caus referred to the judgment of our English Bishops not to use their authorities but only to know their minds Doth the Sardican councel ordain that in a controversie between byshops Appeal should be made to the Byshop of Rome to appoint Judges and renew the proces That cannon sayes he is against the Papists for it permits the Pope to receiv not to command appeals c. So then Papists it seems think the Pope may command not receiv appeals And besides saith he the appellation was there ordained ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum Not to the Pope who then was Julius but to Julius who then was Pope We have here surely another Hudibras In logick a great critick profoundly skilled in Analytick he can distinguish and divide a hair 'twixt South and South-West side Appeal to Julius Pope not to Pope Julius And what does he think to gain by this subtilty The cannon he hopes will ceas forsooth when Julius dies O the wit of some men above other some especially when it is assisted by French Hugonots who drink good wine Our English ale could never have made us out so subtil a distinction as this is Doth the councel of Arles send their decrees to the Byshop of Rome from whom all Christians are to receiv what to beleev and practis Here is somthing of trouble quoth Whitby but nothing of jurisdiction in the Pope c. Can any thing hang more tight then this Conciliar decrees must be sent to Rome from whence all Christians must receiv what they are either to beleev or practis But this is not to acknowledg his power but to trouble his patience Doth St. Basil say it is convenient to write to the byshop of Rome to conclude affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to pass his sentence O quoth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to give sentence but advice Here you have a spice of his grammer to mix with his logick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies counsel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is greek for a juridical sentence Doth Athanasius fly to Rome against the Eusebians and Pope Julius appoint a day in his behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for plea and judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following therein the law and method of the Church He followed that law saith Whitby not in citing them but in not condemning them uncited c. He was just then in not condemning parties uncited But by what authority he either cited or judged them we must not here know Is ther any law of the Church that justifies a condemnation of persons cited to judgment when they are neither cited nor judged by any legal autority And it is to be observed here Sir all this while and quite through his book that Whitby has forgot the fearful execration he made upon himself in the beginning that all fathers are miserably corrupted by you and allegations most disingeniously forged c. This I say he has quite forgot even so far forgot that there is not one autority in a hundred that he does so much as challenge either of forgery or corruption And is therfor in danger to forfeit presently his life But he was then in his own heat now he is amongst his Protestant authors who afford him other kind of evasions And we must leav him to their wits when he has lost his own memory Doth S. Augustin witnes that the caus of the Donatists in Africa was judged by Pope Melchiades in Rome
in this very section he tells us a little afterward that the Councel of Basil decreed the second Article against the Pope And I am sure the same Councel of Basil decreed the first article of the immaculate Conception sess 36. Surely the year of our Lord 1431. when that Councel was kept is not now to come Where and when and how can they be more then they are already I suppose he prophesies this by reason of som vehement disputes about those points If this be it he may adde yet five hundred more which are more vehemently disputed than these be One of them it is much he could miss For the superiority betwixt the King of France and Spain has been often agitated not only by their Embassadours in Kingdoms where they reside but even in Councels also and that with too much of vehemency there As concerning the Conception I know the two schools of divine S. Thomas and subtile Scotus have much altercation about an instant of time an Aristotelical Instant so swift and short an instant that no thought of man though never so nimble can ever catch it And the general Pastour has silenced that School-dispute becaus it sounded ill and signified nothing What is it to action or any esteem towards that Blessed Virgin that she was pure in her Conception by Gods preventing grace as one school speaks or by his sanctifying grace as the other school declares it that she was ever Immaculate Gods mercy providing that in no instant imaginable she should be liable to original sin as Scotus teaches or Gods grace so working that immediatly after that instant she should be made pure and holy as Saint Thomas speaks For this is the school dispute which your Disswader if he understands himself here talks of And those very Doctours who dispute this and all pious Christians have ever unanimously beleeved that the Blessed Virgin was not only most pure and unspotted in her whole life but even from her first animation in the womb So that if we speak of a real and complete Conception she is already beleeved to be Immaculate And from this universal Tradition wherin Catholiks agree and are already resolved the first reforming Protestants departed as well as from many others Nor in any probability will ever that Aristotelical School instant which signifies just nothing as to any Christian action be ever thought of unless som greater disorder then I have yet heard of exact a further decision about a thing which it is not the weight of a hair whether it be expressed according to the school of S. Thomas or of Scotus The like I say to that other article which your Disswader prophesies will shortly come forth concerning the Popes being above a Councel For that ther is and ought to be one visible Pastour over all Christs slock upon earth whether essential or representative is a Christian Tradition which Catholiks still embrace but Protestants have left And this tradition together with the former of the immaculate Conception if your Disswader had endeavoured to show either not to have been or likely not to be perpetual his endeavour however insufficient had not been at least impertinent But instead of that he tells us that this and that will shortly com forth new articles not heeding that himself and such as he have departed from the old And this his prophesie in this is as vain as in the other For that the Pope who is and ever was beleeved the head and Prince of the whole Councel should be also above it and his authority there greater then all the rest beside is a speculative querk that ambition may think but sober reason will never deem of moment For whether he be above the Councel that is to say of greater authority then all the other Prelates put together or not above but their authority joyned together as great or greater then his neither they without him nor he without them can positively declare any thing with authentick authority for the silencing of differences which arise in faith I' th interim the chief Prelate is for certain above the Councel in this sence that he is their Prince and Superiour as also he has in himself a negative voice both with the Councel and without it For this is a right ingrafted naturally in the condition of all whatever superiority spiritual or civil without which they could not rule or mannage their charge By it they silence disquiets and end debates according to the tenour of laws already made which in such cases they are by their place and office to interpret so far at least that one party shall not carry it against the other which he shall judge in such and such circumstances to com nearer to law and right than he This power I say every superiour must have over his subjects whether his authority be greater then all theirs put together in the making of laws or not Nor is it of any concernment at all since one without the other can enact no laws that may have their full and perpetual force which of them is the greater The statutes and acts that are made in any Kingdom by the King and Parliament of the place have the same force whether the Kings Majesty who is superiour prince and head of the Parliament be above the whole Parliament that is of more authority than all the rest there put together and weighed in a ballance against him yea or no. Nor would he gain or lose any one jot of his dignity authority or reverence whatever should be concluded in a pair of subtil speculatours scales concerning that point Although for my part I hold it little better than busie sedition to rais such fantastick doubts And the danger of it we experienced here in this Kingdom but the other day And I may be bold to say by what I know and heard my self that the hint was given them by Ministers talking upon this point of the Popes not being above his Councel Catholiks know how to obey their Pope and Pastour whether he be above or not above a Councel which silly querk concerns not them to think of But others are apt to catch fire at any thing which may any wayes dissolve the bands of their due obedience Thus much concerning the two points of school-speculation which your Disswader prophesies will shortly be determined But he does but dream and so let him sleep on The third new article is that which was lately produced saith he in the Councel of Trent sess 21. which is That although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Insants yet they did not beleev it necessary to salvation Your Disswader seems here tacitly to grant that all the other Canons and Decrees of the Councel of Trent are old and primitive doctrin He would not otherwis have culled out from thence this one only article for new I looked into the Councel of Trent and found there no such article of faith as this your Disswader speaks
to judg the complaints and causes of such as appeal unto him from their own byshops sixtly to decide the controversies that may happen between one byshop and another seventhly to judg the accusations that are against any byshop lastly to call synods and there conclude and decide what may seem best for the welfare and spiritual government of his province Are these the works of authority power and jurisdiction yea or no If they be not how can any autority or power be proved For all power is proved by its act or how in particular may it appear that byshops have any autority over their presbyters of ministers But if they be then is ther more than a precedency or order amongst byshops then did not Christ leav his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another as this Disswader talks For the laws and constitutions of this our Church and Kingdom do publikly attest that this our English Church is settled according to the will of Christ by archbyshops and byshops which is absolutely true then also did not Christ send all his apostles with the same whole power then were not all the apostles the same that Peter was then did not an equality of power descend from the apostles to all byshops then is there a step beyond the ordinary byshop nay two steps before you come to rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls then under Christ is not every byshap supream in spirituals nor yet in all the power which to any byshop is given by Christ all this I say is true whatsoever your Disswader talks against not only the Catholik Church and government which was here for above a thousand years together in England but against the very frame and constitution of his own Protestant Church wherof he is himself an unworthy member But ministers when they begin to talk against popery they are so heedlesly earnest that they knock out their own brains and either to get a benefice or honour in it they destroy their own Church that gives it them I can no more wonder now that such an one as Whitby in his book written against worthy Cressy should say so peremptorily that an archbyshop hath no power or autority and that his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction as he there talks impar congressus Achills since a man of such renown as Doctor Taylor should speak the same here and give the Presbyterians and other Sectaries in the Land such a fair occasion and president to undermine and overthrow that Church which is but lately lift out of the ruins of their hands The same argument that proves the byshop an ordinary byshop to be under none but immediately under Christ will prove as much for a single Presbyter or Presbyterian And it is already done by the subtle pen of John Bastwick in his Apologeticus ad praesules Anglicanos which book is so strongly written both against Popish and Protestant Prelacy too that upon the grounds on which all Protestants go it can never be answered and upon the grounds Doctour Taylor here layes it is all of it in a manner confirmed and made good What a strange madnes is it for any one that he may seem to weaken another Church to overthrow his own Truth is here is no tye in England that any one will be held with The scriptur is in every mans bosom to make what he will of it Ancient canons customs and councels they slight as erroneous Their own constitutions and statutes they do not so much as heed What can be expected from hence but eternal dissention and wars Nay the minister to get his orders and benefice the bishop to enter into his See make a solemn protestation of obedience and subjection When they have got their ends they wipe their mouths and so far forget what they have done that they write and act presently as if they had never thought any such thing See here the form of consecration of byshops prescribed and used by our English Protestant Church ' In the name of God Amen I N. chosen byshop of the Church or See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbyshop and to the Metropolitan Church of N. and to their successours So help me God through Jesus Christ. Where reverence subjection and obedience is due on one side there must needs be autority power and jurisdiction on the other And that man who hath One set over him with such an authority under Christ cannot be immediately under Christ himself and if he affirm he is so then ipso facto doth he reject and rebel against that autority which in words he acknowledged This is Dr. Taylors case who teaches here that byshops are successours of the Apostles and that ther was no superiority amongst the Apostles that by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another that Christ made no head of byshops that beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls c. What is this but to reject all obedience and loyalty solemnly vowed and promised and to rebell against all the laws and constitutions of his own Church and finally which is wors than all the rest to give an example to disaffected ministers of doing the like But how does he prove all this very copiously both by reasons of his own and autorities of other men Only the mishap is those signifie nothing at all for him these very much against him But what are his reasons Byshops are the Apostles successours and ther was no superiour amongst the Apostles Mr. Bastwick and such as he will tell you Sir that priest minister and byshop were but several synonomous words for one and the same thing upon divers respects so that it is to be feared your Disswader hath proved too much here and hath spoken against himself but if he hath not proved too much he hath proved nothing I am sure there was a superiority amongst the Apostles and shall demonstrate it by and by as well as I can In the mean time how prove you ther was none Christ sent all his apostles with the same whole power his father sent him Good Sir our Lord sayes indeed as my father sent me so do I send you giving them a legal commission from him as himself had from God his eternal Father But that he sent them every one with the same whole power that is so to teach and govern that they should be subject to no one amongst them these are your Disswaders words cast in by fraud and fallacy and no autority evangelical and therfor prove nothing Nay if Christ had so sent his Apostles every one with the whole power of governing in himself then had he changed his fathers commission For he was sent himself to be one head and governour and yet he had then constituted many But how can you dream good Doctour that Christ sent his apostles
in place and time under several byshops up and down the world Whereas all others besides this one Catholik flock run into several bodies and by their various interpretations dissolv by little and little according as themselvs increas all the whole frame of ancient religion Secondly it may be gathered by this that Christ our Lord instituted a monarchical government of his Church ruled so long as he lived by one and therfor must that government ever remain He set it up to remain For surely he did not set it up to be pulled down again Thirdly becaus there is no power on earth to change it What God has constituted man cannot undo lawfully I mean he cannot Now we have no such body of Christians in England that remain under one who is general pastour over all the Christian flock in the world or do so much as pretend it save only the few Roman Catholiks that are yet here left alive by the strange providence of that God unto whose universal Church they have still adhered notwithstanding the greatest trials that ever poor Christians were put to Neither Quaker Anabaptist or Independent Presbyterian or Prelate-Protestant do so much as pretend to any such thing but they all oppose it And as they do not pretend to belong to any general body that hath a visible head overseeing the whole flock of Christ throughout the world so neither is any of their Church governments monarchical in their respective place if we may beleev themselvs I know our English Protestant Church was first appointed in the dayes of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be respectively monarchical that is to say within the precincts of this Kingdom the hierarchy ending in the Kings majesty who is doubtles the supream head and governour both of the Protestant Church and the temporal or civil state in all these his three Kingdoms But indeed and truth none of them acknowledg it For they do not any of them expect as they ought all of them to do a full decisive sentence from the Kings Majesties lips in all their controversies or doubts of faith nor will they acquiesce in his judgment which is a strange mad refractorines in our nation and contrary to our own principles The Independents last tribunal is in the light of his own breast The Presbyterian will not look beyond his Presbyteral Consistory And the Prelate-Protestant writer which I most marvel at ends all in the byshops allowing no autority power or jurisdiction to their Archbyshops but only an order and decent precedency for manners sake which in effect is wholly to dissolve the constituted frame of Church-government in this land They speak not indeed of the Kings majesty for fear I suppose of the rod God hath put into his hands But it is not hard to gather both by their words and actions what they think Whitby of late wrote a book against Dean Cressy and there he sayes expesly that an Arch-byshop hath a decent precedency but no authority and that his Grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction and that the Kings Majesty is not the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England And yet he was approved and praised even by our Protestant byshops Do they not see that à pari nay à fortiori the same be affirmed of our byshops that they have no autority and that they have but a decent precedency over Presbyters and that they are not the root of ecclesiastical jurisdiction With what a strange blindnes are our eyes possest Nay this great Disswader an eminent man among Prelate-Protestants here teaches publickly that byshops are all supream under Christ. So that this our Church-government by byshops can be no other but Aristocracy the Presbyterians a Democracy and the rest a plain Anarchy every man thinking and acting what is good in his own eyes And none of these who are all fallen from the general flock and general pastour heed unto effect any one thing that may restrain them either statutes canons laws constitutions or ought els But God blesses his true Church with a true obedience Thus I have given you Sir my reason why I think ther is and must be one general pastour over all the whole flock of Christians Pray ponder it well Brief I am in it becaus it is beyond my general design which is only to shew that Doctour Taylors Disswasive from Popery is insignificant I am now come to the testimonies your Disswader cites for himself which I told you before are above half of them impertinent and the rest if he had not fraudulently maimed them flatly against himself As for the first sort your Disswader imagining in his head that the Apostles had no superiour which is the grand falsity on which all his whole discours runs brings all those authors who either say that byshops are the successours of the Apostles or that they had received the keyes of heaven or that they are not to be contemned and the like for witnesses of his opinion as Irenaeus Cyprian Ambrose Anacletus Clemens Hieronimus Gregorius and various others All this is impertinent But the other autorities had they not been curtaild and perverted by him had openly and plainly spoken that Catholik truth which he here opposes namely that the Apostles had a superiour and that all the whole Christian slock have and ought to have one general pastour and that he ever hitherto hath sate since S. Peters death in the Roman See I know it would be worth my labour to set down all those testimonies by him here cited at large as they lye in those Catholik Fathers and Divines as apt at one and the same time to convince this his whole section of falsity and the Catholik doctrin to be no novelty as he sayes it is But becaus this is already done by the above-named Catholik Gentlemen who with a greater patience than I am master of turned over those many ancient authours I will content my self with only the first of them In the whole new testament faith your Disswader ther is no act or sign of superiority or that one apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian the other apostles are the same that S. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power c. This then is the excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other apostles are the same that St. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power And he cites it out of his epistle de unit Ecclesiae ad Novatian But did S. Cyprian either say or mean by that saying so much of it as is S. Cyprians that ther was no superiority among the apostles or that the Church of God was intrusted to them in common Nay does not S Cyprian use those words in a discours wherin he endeavours industriously to declare that there was a superiority among the Apostles in which as in a cone