his Successors may be added 3. Protestants reach unanimously that it is incumbent on Kings to find out receive embrace and promote the Truth of the Gospel and the Worship of God appointed therein confirming protecting and defending of it by their Regal Power and Authority as also that in their so doing they are to use the Liberty of their own judgements informed by the wayes that God hath appointed for that end independently on the dictates determinations and orders of any other Person or Persons in the world unto whose Authority they should be obnoxious Heathen Kings made Laws for God Dan. 3. chap. 6. Jona 3. And the great thing that we find any of the Good Kings of Judah commended for is that they commanded the worship of God to be observed and performed according unto his own appointment For this end were they then bound to write out a Copy of the Law with their own hands Deut. 14. 18. and to study in it continually To this purpose were they warned charged exhorted and excited by the Prophets that is that they should serve God as Kings And to this purpose are there innumerable Laws of the best Christian Kings and Emperours still extant in the world In these things consists that Supremacy or Headship of Kings which Protestants unanimously ascribe unto them especially those in England to his Royal Majesty And from hence you may see the frivolousness of sundry things you object unto them As first of the Scheme or Series of Ecclesiastical Power which you ascribe to Prelate Protestants and the Laws of the Land from which you say the Presbyterians dissent which you thus express By the Laws of our Land our Series of Government Ecclesiastical stands thus God Christ King Bishop Ministers People The Presbyterian Predicament is thus God Christ Minister People So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian Predicament toucheth 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 then the Bishops who by Law is under King and Bishops too If I mistake not in my guess you greatly pleased your self with your Scheme wherein you pretend to make forsooth an ocular Demonstration of what you undertook to prove whereas indeed it is as trivial a fancy as a man can ordinarily meet withal For 1. Neither the Law nor Prelates nor Presbyterians ascribe any place at all unto the Kings Majesty in the Series of Spiritual Order he is neither Bishop nor Minister nor Deacon or any way authorized by Christ to convey or communicate power meerly spiritual unto any others No such thing is claimed by our Kings or declared in Law or asserted by Protestants of any sort But in the series of exteriour Government both Prelate Protestants and Presbyterians assign a Supremacy over all Persons in his Dominions and that in all Causes that are inquirable and determinable by or in any Court exercising Jurisdiction and Authority unto his Majesty All sorts assign unto him the Supreme place under Christ in external Government and Jurisdiction None assign him any place in Spiritual Order and meerly Spiritual Power Secondly If you place Bishops on the Series of exterior Government as appointed by the King and confirmed by the Law of the Land there is yet no difference with respect unto them 3. The Question then is solely about the Series of Spiritual order and thereabout it is confessed there are various apprehensions of Protestants which is all you prove and so do magno conatu nugas agere who knows it not I wish there were any need to prove it But Sir this difference about the Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters or their equality or Identity was agitated in the Church many and many a hundred year before you or I were born and will be so probably when we are both dead and forgotten So that what it makes in this dispute is very hard for a sober man to conjecture 4. Who they are that pretend to exalt Christ by a meer asserting Ministers not to be by his institution subject to Bishops which you call a cheat I know not nor shall be their advocate they exalt Christ who love him and keep his Commandments and no other 2. You may also as easily discern the frivolousness of your exclamation against Protestants for not giving up their differences in Religion to the Vmpirage of Kings upon the assignment of that Supremacy unto them which hath been declared When we make the King such an Head of the Catholick Church as you make the Pope we shall seek unto him as the fountain of our faith as you pretend to do unto the Pope For the present we give that honour to none but Christ himself and for what we assign in profession unto the King we answer it wholly in our practical submission Protestants never thought nor said that any King was appointed by Christ to be supreme infallible Proposer of all things to be believed and done in the Worship of God no King ever assumed that power unto himself It is Jesus Christ alone who is the Supreme and absolute Lawgiver of his Church the Author and finisher of our Faith and it is the honour of Kings to serve him in the promotion of his Interest by the exercise of that Authority and duty which we have before declared What unto the dethroning and dishonour as much as in you lyeth of Christ himself and of Kings also you assign unto the Pope in making him the Supreme head and fountain of their faith hath been already considered This is the substance of what you except against Protestants either as to Opinion or Practice in this matter of deference unto Kingly Authority in things Ecclesiastical What is the sense of your Church which you prefer unto your sentiments herein I shall after I have a little examined your present pretensions manifest unto you seeing you will have it so from those who are full well able to inform us of it Fas mihi Pontificum sacrata resolvere jura atque omnia ferre sub auras â—Siqua tegunt tenear Romaenec ligebus ullis For your own part you have expressed you seâ—f in this matter so loosely generally and ambiguously that it is very hard for any man to collect from your words what it is that you assert or what you deny I shall endeavour to draw out your sense by a few enâ—quiries As 1. Do you think the King hath any An â—ority vested in him as King in Ecclesiastical affairs and over Ecclesiastical Persons You tell us That Catholicks observe the King in all things as well Eeclesiastick as Civil pag. 59. that in the line of Corporal power and Authority the King is immediately under God p. 61. with other words to the same purpose if they are to any purpose at all
tempore Tiberii Caesaris that is extremo about the end of the raigh of Tiberius Caesar who died in the thirty ninth year of Christ five or six years at least before the foundations of the Roman-Church were layed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things we must speak unto because you suppose them of importance unto your Cause The second Assertion ascribed unto your Fiat in the Animadversions is That whence and from whom we first received our Religion there and with them we must abide therein to them we must repair for guidance and return to their rule and conduct if we have departed from them To which you now say This Principle as it is never delivered by Fiat Lux though you put it upon me so is it in the latitude it carries and wherein you understand it absolutely false never thought of by me and indeed impossible For how can we abide with them in any truth who may not perhaps abide in it themselves Great part of Flanders was first converted by English men and yet are they not obliged to accompany the English in our now present wayes I am glad you confess this Principle now to be false it was sufficiently proved so to be in the Animadversions and your whole Discourse rendred thereby useless For to what purpose will the preceding Assertion so often incuicated by you serve if this be false For what matter is it from whence or whom wereceive the profession of Religion if there be no obligation upon us to continue in their communion any further than as we judge them to continue in the truth And to what purpose do you avoid the consideration of the Reasons and Causes of our not abiding with you and manage all your Charge upon the generall head of our departure if we may have just cause by your own concession so to do It is false then by your own acknowledgement and I am as sure in the sense which I understand it in that it is yours And you labour with all your art to prove and confirm it both in your Fiat pag. 44 45 46 47. and in this very Epistle pag. 38 39 40 41 c. On the account that the Gospel came unto us from Rome you expresly adjudge the preheminence over us unto Rome and determine that her we must all hear and obey and abide with But if you may say and unsay assert and deny avow and disclaim at your pleasure as things make for your advantage and think to evade the owning of the whole drift and scope of your Discourse by having expressed your self in a loose flourish of words it will be to no great purpose further to talk with you Quo teâ—eam vultus mutantem Protea nodo To lay fast hold and not startle at a new shape was the counsell his daughter gave to Menelaus And I must needs urge you to leave off all thoughts of evading by such changes of your hue and to abide by what you say I confess I believe you never intended knowingly to assert this Principle in its whole latitude because you did not as it should seem consider how little it would make for your advantage seeing so many would come in for a share in the priviledge intimated in it with your Roman Church and you do not in any thing love competitors But you would fain have the Conclusion hold as to your Roman Church only those that have received the Gospel from her must alwayes abide in her communion That this Assertion is not built on any generall foundation of Reason or Authority your self now confess And that you have no speciall priviledge to plead in this Cause hath been proved in the Animadversions whereof you are pleased to take no notice CHAP. IV. Further Vindication of the first Chapter of the Animadversions Church of Rome not what she was of old Her Falls and Apostacy Difference between Idolatry Apostacy Heresie and Schism Principles of the Church of Rome condemned by the antient Church Fathers and Councels Imposing Rites unnecessary Persecution for Conscience Papall Supremacy The Branches of it Papall Personall Infallibility Religious veneration of Images THe third Assertion which you review is That the Roman profession of Religion and practice in the worship of God are every way the same as when first we received the Gospel from Rome nor can they ever otherwise be whereunto you say This indeed though I do no where formally express it yet I suppose it because I know it hath been demonstratively proved a hundred times over You deny it hath been proved why do you not then disprove it because you decline say you all common places All that I affirmed was that you did suppose this Principle and built many of your Inferences on the supposition thereof which you here acknowledge And so you have already owned two of the Principles whereof in the foregoing Page you affirmed that you could hardly own any one and that in the sense wherein by me they are proposed and understood But what do you mean that you no where formally express it If you mean that you have not set it down in those syllables wherein you find it expressed in the Animadversions no man ever said you did you do not use to speak so openly and plainly To do so would bring you out of the corners which somewhat that you pretend unto never lead you into But if you deny that you asserted and laboured to prove the whole and entire matter of it your following Discourse wherein you endeavour a vindication of the Sophisme wherewith you pleaded for it in your Fiat will sufficiently confute you And so you have avowed already two of the hardly any one Principles ascribed unto you And this you say hath been demonstratively proved an hundred times over and ask me why I do not disprove it giving a ridiculous Answer as from me unto your Enquiry But pray S r talk not of Demonstrations in this matter palpable Sophismes such as your Masters use in this Cause are far enough from Demonstrations And if you think it enough for you to say that it hath been proved why is it not a sufficient Answer in me to remind you that it hath been disproved and your pretended proofs all refuted And according to what Rules of Logick do you expect Arguments from me to disprove your Assertion whilest I was only answering yours that you produced in its confirmation But that you may not complain any more I shall make some addition of the proofs you require by way of supererrogation when we have considered your vindication of your former Arguments for the confirmation of this Assertion wherewith you closed your Discourse in your Fiat Lux. This you thus propose again The Roman was once a true flourishing Church and if she ever fell she must fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schisme So you now mince the matter in your Fiat it was a most pure flourishing and Mother Church and you know there are many that yet
faith of men is formally and ultimately resolved into so that what ever Propositions that are made unto them they may reject unless they do it with a non obstante for its supposed Revelation the whole Revelation abides unshaken and their saith founded thereon But as to the Persons who first bring unto any the tidings of the Gospel seeing the faith of them that receive it is not resolved into their Authority or Infallibility they may they ought to examine their proposals by that unerring word which they ultimately rest upon as did the Beraeans and receive or reject them at first or afterwards as they see cause and this without the least impeachment of the truth or Authority of the Gospel its self which under this formal consideration as revealed of God they absolutely believe Let us now see what you except hereunto First you ask What love of Christs dictates what commission of Christ allows you to choose and reject at your own pleasure Ans. None nor was that at all in question nor do you speak like a man that durst look upon the true state of the Controversie between us You proclaim your cause desperate by this perpetual tergiversation The Question is whither when men preach the Gospel unto others as a Revelation from God and bring along the Scripture with them wherein they say that Revelation is comprized when that is received as such and hath its authority confirmed in the minds of them that receive it whither are they not bound to try all the teaching in particular of them that first bring it unto them or afterwards continue the preaching of it whither it be consonant to that Rule or Word wherein they believe the whole Revelation of the will of God relating to the Gospel declared unto them to be contained and to embrace what is suitable thereunto and to reject any thing that in particular may be by the mistakes of the teachers imposed upon them Instead of believing what the Scripture teacheth and rejecting what it condemns you substitute choosing or rejecting at your own pleasure a thing wherein our discourse is not at all concerned You adde What Heretick was ever so much a fool as not to pretend the Love of Christ and Commission of Christ for what he did What then I pray may not others do a thing really upon such grounds as some pretend to do them on falsly may not a Judge have his Commission from the King because some have counterfeited the great Seal May not you sincerely seek the good and peace of your Country upon the Principles of your Religion though some pretending the same Principles have sought its disturbance and ruine If there be any force in this exception it overthrows the Authority and Efficacy of every thing that any man may falsly pretend unto which is to shut out all order Rule Government and vertue out of the world You proceed How shall any one know you do it out of any such Love or Commission sith those who delivered the Articles of saith now rejected pretended equal love to Christ and Commission of Christ for the delivery of them as any other I wonder you should proceed with such impertinent enquiries How can any man manifest that he doth any thing by the Commission of another but by his producing and manifesting his Commission to be his and how can be prove that the doth it out of Love to him but by his diligence care and conscience in the discharge of his Duty as our Saviour tells us saying if you love me keep my Commandments which is the proper effect of love unto him and open evidence or manifestation of it Now how should a man prove that he doth any thing by the Commission of Christ but by producing that Commission that is in the things about whâ—ch we treat by declaring and evidencing that the things he proposeth to be believed are revealed by his spirit in his word and that things which he rejects are contrary thereunto And what ever men may pretend Christ gives out no adverse Commissions his word is every way and everywhere the same at perfect harmony and consistency with its self so that if it come to that that several Persons do teach contrary doctrines either before or after one another or together under the same pretence of receiving them from Christ as was the case between the Pharises of old that believed and the Apostles they that attend unto them have a perfect guide to direct them in their choice a perfect Rule to judge of the things proposed As in the Church of the Jews the Pharises had taught the people many things as from God for their Traditions or Oral Law they pretended to be from God Our Saviour comes really a teacher from God and he disproves their false Doctrines which they had prepossessed the people withall and all this he doth by the Scripture the Word of Truth which they had before received And this Example hath he left unto his Church unto the end of the world But you yet proceed Why may we not at length reject all the rest for love of something else when this Love of Christ which is now crept into the very out side of our lips is slipt off from thence Do you think men cannot find a cavil against him as well as his Law delivered unto us with the first news of him and as easily dig up the root as cut up the branches You are the pleasantest man at a disputation that ever I met withal haud ulli veterum virtute secundus you outgo your masters in palpable Sophistry If we may and ought for the Love of Christ reject errours and untruths taught by fallible men then we may reject him also for the love of other things Who doubts it but men may if they will if they have a mind to do so they may do so Physically but may they do so Morally may they do so upon the same or as good grounds and reasons as they reject errours and false worship for the sake of Christ With such kind of arguing is the Roman Cause supported Again you suppose the Law of Christ to be rejected and therefore say that his Person may be so also But this contains an application of the general Thesis unto your particular case and thereupon the begging of the thing in Question Our enquiry was general Whither things at first delivered by any Persons that preach the Gospel may not be rejected without any impeachment of the Authority of the Gospel it self Here that you may insinuate that to be the case between you and us you suppose the things rejected to be the Law of Christ when indeed they are things rejected because they are contrary to the Law of Christ and so affirmed in the Assertion which you seek to oppose For nothing may be rejected by the Commission of Christ but what is contrary to his Law The truth is he that rejects the Law of Christ as it is his
I desire to know whither you grant in him an Authority derived immediately from God in and over Ecclesiastical affairs as to convene Synods or Councils to reform things amiss in the Church as to the outward administration of them or do you think that he hath such power and Authority to make constitute or appoint Laws with penal Sanctions in and about things Ecclesiastical And Secondly Do you think that in the work which he hath to do for the Church be it what it will be may use the liberty of his own judgement directed by the light of the Scripture or that he is precisely to follow the declarations and determinations of the Pope If he have not this Authority if he may not use this liberty the good words you speak of Catholicks and give unto him signifie indeed nothing at all If then he hath and may you openly rise up against the Bulls Briefs and Interdicts of your Popes themselves and the universal practice of your Church for many Ages And therefore I desire you to inform me Thirdly Whether you do not judge him absolutely to be subject and accountable to the Pope for what ever he doth in Ecclesiastical affairs in his own Kingdoms and Dominions if you answer suitably to the Principles Maximes and practise of your Church you must say he is and if so I must tell you that whatever you ascribe unto him in things Ecclesiastical he acts not about them as King but in some other capacity For to do a thing as a King and to be accountable for what he doth therein to the Pope implyes a Contradiction Fourthly Hath not the Pope a power over his Subjects many of them at least to convent censure judge and punish them and to exempt them in Criminal Cases from his Jurisdiction And is not this a fair Supremacy that it is meet he should be contented withal when you put it into the power of another to exempt as many of his Subjects as he pleaseth and are willing from his Regal Authority 5. When you say that in matters of faith Kings for their own ease remit their Subjects to their Papal Pastor pag. 57. Whether you do not collude with us or indeed do at all think as you speak Do you think that Kings have real power in and about those things wherein you depend on the Pope and only remit their Subjects to him for their own ease You cannot but know that this one Concession would ruine the whole Papacy as being expresly destructive of all the foundations on which it is built Nor did ever any Pope proceed on this ground in his interposures in the world about matters of faith that such things indeed belonged unto others and were only by them remitted unto him for their ease 6. Whether you do not include Kings themselves in youâ— general Assertion pag. 55. That they who after Papal decisions remain contâ—nacious forfeit their Christianity And if so whether you do not at once overthrow all your other Splendid Concessions and make Kings absolute Dependents on the Pope for all the Priviledges of their Christianity and whether you account not among them their very Regal Dignity it self Whereby it may easily appear how much Protestant Kings and Potentates are beholding unto you seeing it is manifest that they live and rule in a neglect of many Papal Decisions and Determinations 7. Whether you do not very fondly pretend to prove your Roman Catholicks acknowledgement of the power of Princes to make Laws in Cases Ecclesiastical from the Laws of Justinian p. 59. whereas they are instances of Regal Power in such Cases plainly destructive of your present Hildebrandine faith and Authority and whether you suppose such Laws to have any force or Authority of Law without the Papal Sanction and confirmation 8. Whither you think indeed that Confession unto Priests is such an effectual means of securing the peace and interest of Kings as you pretend p. 59. and whether Queen Elizabeth King James Henry the third and fourth of France had cause to believe it and whether you learned this notion from Parry Raviliac Mariana Clement Parsons Allen Garnet Gerard Oldcome with their Associates 9. Whether you forgot not your self when you place Aaron and Joshuah in government together p. 64. 10. Whether you really believe that the Pope hath Power only to perswade in matters of Religion as you pretend p. 65. and if so from what Topicks he takes the Whips Wires and Racks that he makes use of in his Inquisition And whether he hath not a right even to destroy Kings themselves who will not be his Executioners in destroying of others I wish you would come out of the clouds and speak your mind freely and plainly to some of these enquiries Your present ambiguous discourse in the face of it faiâ—ed unto your interest gives no satisfaction whilest these snakes lye in the grass of it Wherefore leaving you a little to your second thoughts I shall enquire of your Masters and Fathers themselves what is the true sense of your Church in this matter and we shall find them speaking it out plainly and roundly For they tell us 1. That the Government of the whole Catholick Church is Monarchical A State wherein all Power is derived from one fountain one and the same Person This is the first Principle that is laid down by all your Writers in treating of the Church and its power and that which your great Cardinal Baronius layes as the foundation on whirh he builds the huge Structure of his Ecclesiastical Annals 2. That the Pope is this Monarch of the Church the Person in whom alone the Soveraign Rule of it is originally vested so that it is absolutely impossible that any other Person should have enjoy or use any Ecclesiastical Authority but what is derived from him I believe you suppose this sufficiently proved by Bellarmine or others Your self own it nor can deny it without a disclaimure of your present Papacy And this one Principle perfectly discovers the vanity of your pretended attributions of Power in Ecclesiastical things to Kings and Princes For to suppose a Monarchical estate and not to suppose all Power and Authority in that state to be deâ—ived from the Monarch in it and of it alone is to suppose a perfect contraiction or a State Monarchical that is not Monarchical Protestants place the Monarchical State of the Catholick Church in its relation unto Christ alone and therefore it is incumbent on them to assert that no man hath or can have a power in the Church as such but what is derived from and communicated unto him by him And you placing it in reference unto the Pope must of necessity deny that any power can be exercised in it but what is derived from him so that whatever you pretend in this kind to grant unto kings you allow it unto them only by concession or delegation from the Pope They must hold it from him in cheif or he cannot be the chief