about him so madly with the Keys of the Church It was so in Luther's Case The quarrel begun between him and the Procurers of the Pope's Bulls It proceeded from them to their Patrons in the Court of Rome And so at last it came up to the Papal Authority it self Who knows but that it may please God for Vexatio dat intellectum that many among us being vext with Declarations that are certainly uncanonical may be brought by that means to discover that the Power which sent them forth is Antichristian The most difficult thing that is required toward the making this discovery is only to lay aside those strong prejudices which men commonly receive from their Education and from converse with men and things of that Age in which they live He that laying aside these shall look impartially into the Scriptures and into the undoubted Records of the Primitive Church shall find no Foundation for that prodigious Fabrick of the Papacy For the first three hundred years after Christ they will find only two namely Victor and Stephen that took upon them to censure any which were not of their Diocess And though their Censures for ought that appears were only Declarations of Non-Communion such as any Bishop in those days might send forth against the Bishop of Rome as well as he against other Bishops yet we find that even for that they were blamed and condemned by other Bishops And that is all the effect that we read their Censures had in any place out of Rome it self Pope Victor in his Censure of the Asian Bishops is thought not to have gone beyond threatning to break Communion with them and endeavouring to persuade other Bishops to do the same And yet for this he was smartly handled by some of the Brethren and it is charitably thought he was set right by the grave Counsel of Irenaeus who writ to him in the name of the Gallican Church and told him he did not learn this of any of his Predecessors Of Pope Stephen it is certain that he went farther in his Quarrel with the Asian and African Bishops For he not only broke off Communion but all civil Conversation with them and commanded his people not to let any of them come within their doors But this was only at Rome For it does not appear that he pretended any Authority elsewhere And how he was scorn'd abroad for his Pride and Folly in this the Reader may see in those two excellent Epistles The later of which was left out of the Roman Edition of St. Cyprian and Pamelius honestly declares he would have stifled it if others had not publish'd it before him Lest any one should take offence at my not giving the usual garnish of the Popes of that Age to those two whom I mentioned for I dare not call them Saints and Martyrs though the Roman Church does both elsewhere and in her Offices on their days I ought to let him know how that Church is abused by them that have gained no small advantage to themselves by such Fictions That the old Roman Church in the time of Constantius knew nothing of either of their Martyrdoms it appears by her Catalogue of Popes publisht first by Cuspinian and since by Bucherius the Jesuite Nay she knew the contrary of one of them For in the Roman Calendar of that Age publisht by the same Iesuite Victor is not mentioned at all and Stephen is among the Popes that were no Martyrs If this proof were not enough or if this place were proper for it I should shew from good Authors that though these Popes lived under Emperors that were afterwards Persecutors yet they died before the beginning of their persecutions I do not say but they may be Saints but if they are 't is more than we have any ground to believe For neither the Church-History nor any Writer within a hundred years of their time has any more of their Sanctity than of their Sufferings Of Stephen there is great cause to doubt the contrary from what we read of him in St. Cyprian's Epistle and more from that of Firmilian which is thought to have been translated by St. Cyprian and which was written about the time of Stephens death rather after than before it It is to be hoped that many Roman Catholics among us have truly that Reverence which all of them profess to true Primitive Christian Antiquity and to the judgment of Saints and Martyrs in all Ages We all agree that Irenaeus and Cyprian had a just right to those Titles And Firmilian was a chief Pillar of the Church in his Age. He was thought worthy to preside in several Eastern Councils namely in that against the Novatians before Stephen was Pope and those against Samosatenus after Stephen was dead And after his own death the Eastern Church of that Age called him Firmilian of Blessed Memory Why this man is not in the Calendar of Saints they best know who can tell us why Victor and Stephen are there No doubt the Saint-makers do all things with great consideration But can any one imagin that those excellent men did ever believe themselves to be under the Roman Bishop that they ow'd any obedience to Him whom they school'd so or any Reverence to his Censures which they slighted in that manner Could any assurance of their Cause have justified that contempt of Authority if they had known any in him But it appears they knew it not nor did others in that Age. Those that were against them in the Cause blamed them for that and nothing else and yet held Communion with them for all Pope Stephen and his Censures So far it appears those great men had the judgment of the Church on their side They knew of no Authority over the Universal Church that the Pope had more than any other Bishop by any right whether Divine or Humane What the Judgment of the Church was in the next Centuries let them consider that shall read those Canons in the Margent and remember they are such as past in the first Four General Councils and in the African Council of 217 Bishops of whom St. Austin was one assembled at Carthage To which I add the African Church to Pope Coelestine I. as containing a full Declaration of their mind in that Canon I know there are objections against one or two of these Canons But all the dust that has been rais'd will not hinder any reasonable man from seeing that which I think is sufficient for our purpose namely that all the Fathers that sate in those Councils or at least the major part of them were of the same judgment with those above-mentioned in this point of the Authority of the Bishop of Rome They all allow'd him precedency as being Bishop of the Imperial City They had commonly a great deference to his Judgment in Debates between themselves And sometimes the Christian Emperors made him honorary Judge whether
alone or with others in such Controversies Indeed by the Canons of Sardica those few Western Bishops that continued there after the Easterlings had left them were pleased meerly of their Charity to give him a new Power to order the reviewing of any Provincial Judgment upon complaint of any Bishop that was aggrieved in it And Pope Leo not being satisfied with this got the Emperor Valentinian III. to ordain that the Bishop of Rome should give Law throughout his part of the Empire which then contained little more than Italy and part of France and part of Spain and the Illyrian Diocess Yet all that the Bishop of Rome had by these Concessions and Grants did not amount to an Authority over the Universal Church I add nor over the British Church in particular And so far was this from arguing that he had by Divine Right any Jurisdiction out of his own Diocess that his seeking or accepting what was given him by these Concessions or Grants is a convincing argument to the contrary But for the Churches Judgment nothing can be more plain than that all those Bishops who gave their Votes to those Canons which I cited before out of the first Four General Councils and that of Africk together with the Epistle annext had no question or thought of any Authority that he had by Divine Right out of his own proper Diocess or by Humane Right out of the Roman Patriarchy or any power of Jurisdiction that he had elsewhere from the Roman Emperors or from the Primitive Fathers Whatsoever power he has gotten since the decay of the Roman Empire and of the Christian Religion from whence I have already dated the beginning of Popery as it is plain he has gotten in many Countries which were not anciently within his Jurisdiction upon any account it must be either by force or fraud abusing either the weakness or ignorance of the people or else by the concession or connivence of Princes and States Blessed be God there are some Christian Nations in the world which have stood so far out of his reach that he has not been able to hook them in by any of these ways And as he has no colourable pretence to a power over those Countries where it is certain he never had any as Ethiopia Russia c. which they that are pleased to call therefore Schismatical must give me leave to admire as well their folly as their uncharitableness and yet they that do not call them so make the Pope no Head of the Universal Church so in those Countries where he has gotten power it is not necessary that he should always hold it till we see who is Antichrist whether He or one of the Tribe of Dan who they say shall come to take it from him They over whom he gain'd a power by force or fraud are kept under it still the same way which creates no right by any Law whatsoever And therefore when God makes them strong enough and wise enough they will deliver themselves from him They that gave him a power over them when they saw cause may have as good or better cause to recal it And they have just cause to do this when they see him desert that Title by their Gift and claim his power by immediate Divine Right or when he employs his power not to edification but destruction and specially when doing all this he will force their obedience by such means as come not from the Wisdom which is from above but from that which the Apostle calls earthly sensual devillish Whosoever among our Roman Catholicks will be pleased to consider these things with that Attention and Impartiality that is due to all things of Religion I cannot but think he will see that the Christian Religion doth no way oblige him to own the Popes Authority in this Kingdom He will see that Iure Divino the Pope could have no Authority over this particular Church which he had not over the Church universal And it doth not appear by any Records of the Primitive times that the Pope ever had any such Authority over the Universal Church or that by the Diffusive Church he was believed or acknowledged to have it But on the contrary it appears by instances which I have given of those times that he was denied to have such an Authority and that as well by the Bishops assembled in their Councils as by the best and wisest men of those times in their Writings Nay he was contradicted and resisted as oft as he endeavoured to impose any thing against the mind of particular Churches He will see that whatsoever Humane Right the Pope had acquired over the people of this Kingdom was no more of one kind than we are all originally of one Nation and that the power which he was suffered to exercise over us was very much greater at one time than another In the worst and darkest times it was highest for it grew up on the bad Titles or other weakness of Princes and yet then he could not hold it peaceably nor long enough to make a Prescription But at all other times it was much less than he claim'd which sheweth plainly it was no more but what the State pleased to give him and they owned that the Pope had no right over them by any concessions of their own more than what he had over the rest of the Western Churches Particularly in those times next before the Reformation that right which was generally acknowledged to be in him was not a supreme right but subordinate to a General Council This appears to have been the sense of the Western Church For it was declared in plain terms by four Councils which were acknowledged for General in that Age and were abetted as such by the generality of the Western Church They not only declared this Doctrine in their Canons but they reduced it to practice For those Councils deposed divers Popes and made new ones in their stead Which Acts of theirs the Papalins of this Age are obliged to defend as ill as they like the Canons for without them they cannot make up the succescession of their present Popes But admitting those Acts to have been just and good how can they reject those Canons from which they had their virtue and efficacy If they say the Pope did not approve them it is partly true Out of doubt those Popes did not like them that lost by them Nor perhaps those that came in by those Canons might not like them so well at another time But how then could they take upon them to be Popes Their accepting a Title from those Councils and the Peoples owning them in it was enough to shew that those Canons were then in force and they were never repealed by any Council since nor hath there been any Council to do it that can be reasonably thought so fit as those four were to declare the sense of the Western diffusive Church Therefore
have any Right in it Though she had not lost her Right any otherwise than as being cut off by the Pope's uncanonical Censures against which she was relievable on her Appeal thither if that had truly been a General Council And the Bishops whom she should send to represent her in such a Council had as much to do there precedence only excepted as the Pope himself had according to the ancient Canons But now as matters were ordered at Trent if she had sent any thither and if they had been admittable otherwise yet they must not sit there without owning the Pope in his Legate They must not only be joyned into one Body with him but they must acknowledge him for their representative Head who yet to them was no other than a man dead in Law For they knew him to be condemned for a Traytor by that Authority to which they were Subjects as well as Trent as in England And though the Popes placing him there in that Character was the highest Affront that could be done to the Justice of their Nation yet they must submit nay contribute to that Affront by owning him in that Character or else they must have no place in that Council This Contumelious Condition being implicitly imposed on our Bishops was a virtual Exclusion of them from their Right of sitting there And it was so contrived that it lookt as ill upon the State as on the Church The King was not only concerned for both these but also for Himself on another account having his Cause to be heard there if it had been a General Council It was an Injury to him all this while that he had None so long after his Appeal to it But now to make him amends he had a Council pack'd by his Adversary and if that were not enough he had this Traiterous Subject in the Head of it Which last thing went beyond all former Trials of his Patience and perhaps had been enough to have angered the meekest of Princes If it be an ill thing to have ones Judge chosen by his Enemy it is worse to have his Enemy be his Judge He had both in this Council as the Pope had ordered it for him Therefore as he could not be Canonically obliged to stand by it so he did but use his own Right as before in Protesting so now in Declaring against it He did it on all Occasions and continued so doing till his Death His Son Edward VI who reigned next kept the Pope at his distance and had many things reformed in the Church of which I shall not speak particularly because all that he did of this kind was soon after undone by his Successour Queen Mary She for reasons that I mentioned before restored the Pope's Authority in this Kingdom And though his Council of Trent was all her time in adjournment so that she could not send her Bishops thither yet she had it acknowledged by them in a Synod where Cardinal Pool being first restord in bloud had the honour to preside as his Legate But as to the Schism between us and the Roman Church both these Princes were unconcerned in the Original cause of it which was as I have shewn the Popes Sentence concerning their Fathers Marriage For Edward VI. was born to him by another Wife whom he had married after Katharines death And Queen Mary being his Daughter by Katharine was not aggrieved by the Sentence but on the contrary held her self righted by it The only Person aggrieved was Queen Elizabeth the Daughter of Henry VIII by Anne Bolen whose Marriage the Pope had declared to be Null and pronounced any fruit that should come of it to be Illegitimate This Queen being the only fruit of that Marriage the Sentence was injurious to her if to any And whether she was wrong'd in it or no it ought to have been tried before a Lawful General Council to whose Judgement her Father had Appealed as has been already shewn And there being no such Council held in his life time the right of his Appeal descended to her at his death She was now the only party concerned in the Cause and her Right could not be given from her by any other She was as much concerned as ever her Father was to be heard by the Judge to whom He had Appealed and to be Righted against the Pope if it should appear that he had injured her and also against his Council of Trent which abetted him in it And she had as much Reason as ever her Father had to disobey and to resist both the Pope and his Council till they would suffer such a Council to meet as was the only proper Judge of her Cause Thus far all that has been said of her Father except only in things of Personal concernment is as Applicable to her And more needs not be said to shew that they were neither of them guilty of Schism in asserting their Cause as they did against the Adversaries of it For therein they did no more than what they lawfully might and ought to do according to the Principles of the Western Church But there was something in her Case which was not in her Fathers and which would have cleared her of Schism though he had been guilty of it For whereas when he rejected the Pope and his Council he was wholly of their mind in all the Articles of Faith then in being She did it not till the Council had sate and till they had already made sundry new Articles of Faith Whereof the first were defined some months before her Father died However he might like them as they presume he did who tell us that he died in their Faith yet it is certain that though at sometime she did not shew it she did always dislike them her Enemies being Judges And as soon as she came into Power she declared they were so far from being any part of her Faith that she took them for no other than False and Novel opinions If she mistook in so judging which shall be considered in its place then she was at least materially an Heretic And such he must prove her to have been that will make her a Schismatick For if she was in the right and those Doctrines were not of Faith then the Schism occasioned by them must not lie at her door It must be charged on the Council who defined them and on the Pope who added them to the Creed who made the belief and profession of these Doctrines a condition without which there is no living in his Communion She did what she ought to do in refusing to have it on those terms in adhering to the Faith once delivered to the Saints and in rejecting the Authority which would have it defiled with those Mixtures What has been said may suffice to clear Queen Elizabeth from the Imputation of Schism on any Personal account in not obeying the Pope or his Council It appears that she was free from Schism in
it by their practice When he impowered an Archpriest to govern them the Seculars would not receive him And when he would have placed a Bishop over them the Regulars would not receive him So the Seculars and Regulars as it were with one consent have given us their Judgment in the Case and that by no Indeliberate Act on either hand for they contended about it a great part of the last Age. And therefore unless their Principles are altered since the same Right which they exercised in not submitting to a Government they may exercise as well in not receiving a Council though the Pope should presume to impose it And that the Council of it self has no power to oblige them it appears in that judged case of the Egyptian Church The Bishops whereof would not subscribe to a Decree of the Fourth General Council because they had then no Archbishop to give them an Authority for it This was allowed to be a Reasonable excuse though the Decree which they were to have subscribed was in a matter of Faith I suppose they of the Roman Communion here in England have had the same Reason ever since the Reformation They have had no lawful Primate nor no declared Bishops all this while And during this imperfect state of their Church if there had been a General Council and any of their Clergy had been there they might have been excused from subscribing though in matters of Faith What difference there is in the Case makes wholly on our side For there is a wide difference indeed between Subscribing and Receiving The first is only the declaring ones own personal assent to the Decrees of any Council the other is to give them the force of Laws in the National Church And if according to that Canon the Bishops where they are in a Council are not bound to subscribe without their Primate how much less can any National Church be Obliged to receive things for Law without her Bishops Nay more how can she Lawfully receive them Especially such a Church as owns there is no Jurisdiction without Bishops She cannot do it without a Synod of Bishops according to the ancient Canons And therefore the English Church of Roman Catholics is so far from being bound to receive the Trent Council that in her present condition she could not Lawfully receive it I say still according to the ancient Canons which ought to be of some force with them of the Roman Communion But let them do as they please The case is plain that the Reformed Church of England ought not to receive it if she can prove her charge that that Council has innovated in the Christian Faith or rather unless that Council can discharge her self of it by proving that what we call her New Faith is not new but received from Catholick Tradition We think we are sure they cannot bring this Tradition for those Doctrines which are laid as Foundations for all the rest in that Council namely their making unwritten Tradition to be of Divine Authority and therefore equal with the holy Scriptures their bringing those which we call the Apocryphal Books into the Canon of Scripture their making the Vulgar Latine Translation Authentick in all matters of Faith and good life For these and all the rest of their Doctrines of Faith as they are called in the Roman Church which we call Innovations and Errors We are not afraid to refer our selves to Catholic Tradition If they of the Roman side would submit to it as well there would be no difference between us in matters of Faith whatsoever there might be in Opinion And therefore they would have no cause in their own private judgment to conclude us for Heretics much less would they find us condemned for such by any competent Judicature If they think otherwise than we do in this matter the reason must be because they do not mean what we do by Catholic Tradition It is plain that too many of that Church have a wrong notion of it taking that for Catholic Tradition which is only presumed to be so by a Party in these latter Ages For though they call themselves the Catholic Church and perhaps really take themselves to be no other yet they are but a handful to the body of Christians especially considered in our notion of Catholic which as we take it extends to all the Christians of all Ages We plainly profess to take the Catholic Tradition in that sense of Vincentius Lyrinensis and before him of Tertullian in his Prescriptions who make this to be the Standard of all Doctrines of Faith quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus First that which has gone for Christian Faith in all Ages from the beginning of Christianity Secondly which has been taken for such by the whole diffusive Church comprehending all those particular Churches which have not been Canonically condemned either of Schism or Heresie And lastly that which has not only been the Faith of some persons though contradicted by others but that which has been the constant belief of the generality in all those Christian Churches To bring our differences to this standard betwixt us I conceive that first they of the Roman Communion will not find such evidence for their Articles of Faith as they think of in the Primitive Records I say such evidence as will make it appear that they were of Faith antecedently to the Definitions of Councils They will find that those Councils which first defined them to be of Faith were not such against which we have no just exception nor that their Definitions have been generally received throughout the diffusive Catholic Church For the Primitive Records I suppose they of the Roman Church that have read them will scarce pretend to shew how they convey all those Articles to us as of Faith And where they fail to shew this of any Article they must excuse us if we cannot allow it to be a Catholic Tradition Much more when we shew from those Records that there are strong presumptions to the contrary Whereof not to trouble my Reader with more instances I have given some proof in that which Bellarmine calls Caput Fidei namely in that Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy over all Christians For the Councils by which their new Articles have been defined the most they can rationally pretend to by their Definitions is to deliver the sense of the present diffusive Church Which they are presumed to do when they have power to represent it or when their Decrees are received in all parts of it and not otherwise But how few of their General Councils can pretend to either of these Conditions It appears that the Eldest of them could not I mean the Second Council of Nice which first imposed the worship of Images For about thirty years before there was an Eastern Council held at Constantinople which Condemned that very thing And not ten years after there was a Western Council at Francford which
condemned this Nicene Council for imposing it Neither of these Councils can be said to have been less Orthodox than that Council was in any point but that which they opposed And their very Opposing it shews that at those times it was not the sense either of the Eastern or of the Western Church When that Council obtained in the Eastern Church yet still it was opposed by the Western and however there also the practice crept in yet that Council has never been received in the Western Church as hath been lately proved by a most learned Writer Nor has Image-worship been defined by any other Council that could be said to Represent both the Eastern and Western Church In all Ages since the Councils which have defined any Articles have been but Western Councils at best For though some Greek Bishops were present at one or two of them yet what they consented to was never ratified by the Greek Church And for these Western Councils to give them their due it was not so much their fault if they lead us into Error as it is ours if we follow them in it For he that reads them and knows the History of their times will not chuse them for Guides if he has any care of that trust which God has given him of himself He cannot but see that bating the three last of those Councils which have not that Authority in the French Church nor with some other of that Communion all the rest were held in times of such palpable Ignorance that when they went amiss they could not well see how to do otherwise Their Bishops could not but be generally unqualified to judge of matters of Faith For they had a great want of good Books and of the Languages in which they were written I speak of those Books that are now chiefly used in all Questions of Faith as well by their as by our Writers And sure they that had them not to use could not but be miserably to seek in all those parts of knowledge which are Absolutely necessary for any one that should judge of those matters Namely those without which they could not Ordinarily know neither the true sense of holy Scripture nor the Judgments of Councils and Fathers nor the Practice of the Primitive Church We find by the best of their Writers in those times that they were so much to seek in those most needful things that not a Colledge in either of our Universities can be said without scandal to know no more in them than one of those Councils If instead of those last we bate four other of their Councils which are disowned by the Papalins for reasons which have been already given all the rest were in such Bondage to the Papacy that they had not the power to do otherwise than they did Their Bishops by Pope Hildebrand's device were all sworn to maintain the Royalties of St. Peter whereof one was that the Popes Faith could not fail And being assured of that as men should be of things which they swear their wisest course when matters of Faith came before them was to trust the Pope's Judgment and pass every thing as he brought it to their hands This way therefore they took and it saved them the trouble of Examination and Debate and such like Conciliary proceedings It may be worth the observing that in Seven General Councils which they reckon from the time of Pope Hildebrand downward among the many Doctrines which they are said to have Defined there is not one that appears to have cost them any more but the Hearing The Pope had them brought and read before the Council as if that was enough to make them their Acts as well as His. And this was the constant course till the Papacy was weakened by a long and scandalous Schism Then those Councils which made themselves superiour to the Pope thought fit to use their Own Judgment such as it was and they proceeded Conciliarly as Councils had done in former times Which way being more for the credit of their Definitions it was continued in those Councils which restored the Pope to his Supremacy with this difference only that whereas those Seven Councils above-mentioned passed all things in the Lump which the Pope or his Ministers brought before them the Councils since have passed them Piecemeal with some shew of using their own Judgment in every particular though in truth with so entire a resignation to the Pope that nothing could ever pass against his Interest or his will even when they seemed most to endeavour it So that in all these Councils whatsoever has passed in determining Doctrines of Faith is in truth no more than a Papal Decree though it bears the name and perhaps has some shew of a Councils Definition Lastly for the Judgment of the Diffusive Church we are not ignorant that many of the things thus imposed of which we can find no mention in Antiquity and which we know were first started long after the beginnings of Christianity yet have been received as well by Greeks as by the Latines in latter Ages But not to say by what means they obtained it we cannot forget what Ages those were in which these things came to gain such an Authority among Christians They were such as learned men of the Roman Communion who are acquainted with the Writers of those times I say as well with the Greek as Latine Writers do not at all reverence their Judgments apart whatsoever they think of them together in Councils And according to the Rule prescribed by those Fathers it will not pass for the Judgment of the Catholic diffusive Church though both Greeks and Latines agree in it and have done so for some Ages together There must be semper as well as ubique and ab omnibus Though the two last conditions may suffice to make us think any Doctrine to be true or at least the Error in it not to be Damnable yet to make us believe it is a Doctrine of Faith there must be semper likewise without which it is no Catholic Tradition It is surely a great Affront to the Catholic Church and to the great Author and finisher of her Faith that as if that Faith once delivered were Insufficient there must be new things added to it from time to time by a Succession of men that take upon them to be his Vicars without making out any colourable title to that Office And though we find no such things in the Ancient Records of his Church though we see these are framed to support the new Authority of those Vicars and though we know how they abused the Ignorance and Tameness of many Ages yet because in those Ages these things were generally received and have mellowed some time since in the Faith of them that knew no better they are pleased to use this as an Argument not only why others must be concluded and bound for ever to sit down by their Judgment who had little and
or more Popes since And yet many of their Church took that Oath and some of them defended it in writing and 't is taken and defended in like manner to this day By many others it is and hath been refused Whether as being contrary to the Principles of their Sect or whether in Reverence to the Popes Prohibition and possibly some may have refused to take the Oath upon some scruple which they have conceived against the wording of it But whatsoever the cause of their refusal may be the State hath no way left to distinguish and therefore being assured of the lawfulness of the Oath in these Terms and being aware of the wicked design with which it is forbidden hath just cause to secure it self by their peril It hath surely no cause to look on them as Friends that prefer their own scruples to its safety much less that break its just Commands to serve or to please its open Enemy And for this cause that wise and gracious Prince suffered some of their Clergy that were obnoxious otherwise to fall under the edge of the Law But never in his nor his Sons days did any one of that Communion suffer death for any Crime against the State that would clear himself of it by taking the Oath of Allegiance From what I have said it sufficiently appears that the asserting an undue Authority in the Pope or Bishop of Rome is properly to be called Popery 't is the chief thing and the only thing in the Popes esteem 't is most hurtful and dangerous and the worst thing in the Construction of the Law From whence I shall infer that among Roman Catholicks some are properly Papists and some are improperly called so And however they are both of one Communion and meet together in the same Offices of Worship and therefore cannot easily be distinguished unless they please to distinguish themselves yet there is a great difference between them As great a difference in relation to the State as there is between Wens and useful Members in the Body They that wholly deny the Popes Supremacy cannot properly be called Papists but Vnreformed Catholicks as men generally were here in England in the later part of King Henry VIII's days And they as I believe were the first that used the word Papists to denote the Assertors of that outed Supremacy Nor can they properly be called so in France or other Countreys who deny the Pope to have any Authority over them by Divine Right but grant it only by such Canons and Laws as being made upon good Considerations may on better be abrogated and repealed I know there are some of this mind in England and do believe there would appear to be many if they found sufficient cause to declare it Now though such men believe the same erroneous Tenets and use the same Superstitious and Idolatrous Rites that Papists do namely such as the Pope himself has made the Terms of his Communion and therefore they are properly in Communion with him yet those Tenets and Rites are not properly Popery Though they are bad enough otherwise yet if they keep them to themselves they are not hurtful to Humane Society As being consistent with the safety of the Kingdom and with obedience to Government and with Justice of Contracts and love of Neighbours with all which at least collectively taken Popery in the proper Notion of it is inconsistent and generally held so not only by all other Christians but by a very great and considerable part of the Roman Catholicks themselves They are properly Papists that hold the Pope as Vicar of Christ by Divine Right to have a Power and Authority over all Christians And yet if they give him this power in Spirituals only and not also in Temporals they are but half-Papists And so they will find the Pope accounts them if they have occasion to make use of him They only are thorough-Papists that acknowledge his Authority in both First directly in Spiritual things and then in Temporals also whether directly or whether indirectly in order to Spirituals it matters not Let him have the Power and he will trust himself with the use of it Now this thorough-Papist being a man after the Popes own heart I shall from him take the perfect measures of Popery He is one that asserts and maintains or at least practically submits to the Popes pretended Power and Usurpation over all Kings and People in their Temporals and over all Bishops and Churches in their Spirituals and in all things over all persons on earth not only separately but collectively in their Parliaments or Councils and consequently over all their Canons Laws and Definitions In few words that owns him to be the Infallible Oracle and Universal Vicar of God a kind of God upon Earth who has no limits to his Commission or to the execution of it but his own will and pleasure This most excellent Systeme it is that only passes at Rome for the Catholick Doctrine This is authorized by the Pope this is taught in his own Church at Rome and elsewhere by his Stipendiaries or other Dependants And this is properly Popish for it belongs not to any other Christians of whatsoever Church Sect or Denomination Nor is it owned by the far greater number of them that are or call themselves Roman Catholicks I have given my own private Opinion as well of the true as of the false Notion of Popery and have intimated withal though but occasionally what my Opinion is as well of the great Concernment of the Christian World if not of all Mankind to suppress Popery truly such as of the little occasion there is for any great severity to be used against that for Name-sake which in truth is not Popery nor has any essential or necessary conjunction with it Now to enter upon the main design of this Paper which according to the title is a Consideration or Search for the true way of suppressing of Popery I declare my design to be against Popery in its proper Notion And whereas I have shewn a lower degree of it to consist in owning the Popes power in Spirituals only by suppressing of this I intend at least such a restraint upon it as may suffice to keep it from being hurtful or troublesom For the other degree which cannot but be hurtful wheresoever it is in being I declare my design to be no less than the extinguishing of it at least out of England and if it were possible from the face of the Earth Of this matter to deliver my thoughts with all freedom I confess it seems to me that undistinguishing Severity whether of Laws or of the execution of them against all Roman Catholicks in general cannot be the true way to suppress Popery much less to rid it out of this Kingdom or any other of his Majesties Dominions The general Motives which induce me to think so are these three 1. That such
that matter as well in Foro Ecclesiae having the Canonical right of an Appeal against them as in Foro Conscientiae because what she did was to keep her Faith pure from their undue Impositions Whether she can be cleared as well on the account of her Government in Ecclesiastical matters this we ought to consider as a thing that more immediately concerns us For we date the Reformation of our Church from the beginning of her Reign And though we have a Prescription since of above a hundred years which is enough to secure us against the Claims of the Papacy in the Judgment of them that hold it to be only of Humane Right as all men ought to do upon those grounds above mentioned yet to them of the Roman Communion it will perhaps be more satisfactory if it appear that beside the Right that we have now from Prescription there was also an Original Right in our Reformers to do what they did in the beginning of the Reformation The first thing they did was to assert the Queens Supremacy from whence they proceeded to settle the Church Government and ended with the Reformation of Worship and Doctrine 1. First of what she did in assuming the Supremacy more needs not be said than to make it be understood And we cannot understand her meaning in it better than by her own declaration and practice She declared that she took no other power to her self than what Anciently belonged to the Crown of England that is immediately under God to govern her people of all sorts as well the Clergy as the Laity And she exercised no other Power or Jurisdiction over the Church than what was meerly External as appears by her Injunctions and other Acts. Though if she had exercised any other power than what she claimed it had been only an Act of Misgovernment in her for which she was accountable to God and the Church had not therefore been guilty of Schism since it gave her no other power nor owned her in the exercise of any other than what is above-mentioned And that power is so inherent in every Supreme Magistrate and so necessary for the well-being of the People that we cannot deny the right of it in them to whom we grant the Supreme Magistracy it self Wheresoever any Prince or State have seemed to think so ill of themselves as if they were not so fit as a Foreiner was to be trusted with this Power over their own People or rather where they have been so obsequious to the Pope as to take this Flower out of their own Crown and put it into the Triple It may be every where observed that either they or their Successors have found occasion at some time or other to call for it home again or to use it as if they had notgiven it from themselves We may see examples of this in Germany in Ockham's days in Spain under the Emperour Charles V and in Venice at the time of the Interdict But especially in France where the Gallican Church is obliged to justifie this Right of Princes unless she will grant that her most Christian Kings have been in Schism more than once and especially while they stood to the pragmatic Sanction But we need not go abroad for examples having so many at home and such as are very full to our purpose He that will may see them elsewhere gathered to his hand And I have mentioned enough to shew that even in Popish times our Princes were not ignorant of their Right and that between whiles they were fain to assert it in such terms as did import though they did not name a Supremacy But as their Laws did not expresly mention the word so neither did they always stand by their Laws When they had made them the Pope still found some device or other to make them ineffectual Till King Henry VIII having thrown out the Pope for those reasons above mentioned did by advice of his Council and Bishops take both the Power and the Title on himself whether he took more than his due let others judge As I am not engaged to defend all that he assumed so I need not for so much as Queen Mary exercised of it For it is agreed and there was great reason for it that she was always for the Popes Supremacy in her heart though for fear of her life she renounced it when time was And yet she no sooner came to the Crown but she exercised the Supremacy her self in changing most of the Bishops and Reforming what she held to be Abuses in the Church Afterward when she had surrendred it to the Pope yet she did not so wholly put it out of her self but that when He displeased her she could shut his Legate out of her Kingdom So that to adjust the matter between the two Sisters in this point of Supremacy they seem to have differed only thus One adjudged it to the Pope and yet took it from him when she pleased the other thought it belonged to the Crown and therefore kept it wholly to her self 2. What Queen Elizabeth did in setling Church matters was founded on her Right in the Supremacy By vertue whereof she took upon her to Reform abuses in the Church as her Sister Queen Mary had done And I believe that whosoever compares their proceedings will find that she took more leisure and advice than Queen Mary in doing it For before a Parliament sate she had gone only thus far that she allowed her people some of the Church Offices in a Language which they all understood Afterward by advice of her Parliament she restored King Edwards Laws and repealed those which had been made by Queen Mary for Ecclesiastical matters And by those Laws she abolished the Popish Mass and restored the whole Communion to the Laity whereas her Sister had done the contrary without Law by her mere Right of Supremacy Which Right she having afterwards given away by Act of Parliament though still she used it when she saw cause Queen Elizabeth thought fit to have it restored by Act of Parliament or rather Redeclared for the Act was not Operative but Declarative And whereas by this Act it was required that all Bishops and others that held any Church-living in this Kingdom should take an Oath of Supremacy as we call it or else should be uncapable of holding any such Church preferment on refusal of this Oath there were turned out thirteen Bishops I note the number the rather because there had been just so many of the Protestant Bishops turned out by Queen Mary There appears to have been some difference between the turning out of these by Law and of those without any Law then in force But there was more in the cause of their fuffering those being outed for matters purely Religious and these for a Civil cause for refusing an Oath lawfully imposed Which Oath did not truly concern their
Nicen. I. can 6. Concil Constant. I. can 2. Concil Ephes. I. can 8. Conc. Chalced. can 28. together with Act. 16. of that Council Concil Afric can 31. in the Greek or 72. and 92. in the Latin Epist. ad Coelestinum which is at the end of that Council †The Western and Eastern Bishops together were 170. saith St. Athamasius who was one of them AdSolit vitam agenâ—es Tom. 1.818 Of the Eastern 73 declared against the Western Bishops Hilar. Fragm p. 448. and some were Neuters * By his Novel dated An. 445. Iune 6. Vid. Leo I. Epist. 89. * There were no Brittish Bishops at the Council of Sardica as appears by the Inscription of the Synodical Epistle Athan. Tom. 1. p. 756. and by the Subscriptions both of the Synodical Epistle Hilar. Fragm col 408. and of the Canons in the Edition of Isidorus Mercator Though the Brittish Bishops or some of them did afterwards approve of the Councils Judgment in the case of St. Athanasius Ath. Tom. 1. p. 720. where note the Translation is false And as for that Law of Valentinian III. It was not made till after Britain was forsaken by the Romans which was Theodosii 18 or Anno 440. saith Prosper Pithaei Anno 443. saith the Saxon Chron. Theodosii 23. or Anno 455. saith Beda Hist. l. 13. * Page 4 5 c. 2. Cor. 10.8 James 3.15 From King Stephen to Hen. III. Pisa Constance Siena and Basil Greg. XII and Bennet XIII and Iohn XXIII * Concil Const. Sess. 39. Aux Part I. 28 and ult and 11 14 21. Theod. de Niem Nemoris part 6. c. 10. Ioh. Marius de Schism Conc. 1.19 24. a The. Cromwel Herbert p. 173 174. b Dr. Lee and Tregonion Fox p. 119. Dr. London Fox p. 897 and 1104 c. c B. Gardiner B. Bonner c. d Camden Eliz. p. 26. e Sand. de Schism p. 103. B. Ed. 1585. Cressy Pref. to Exom a Labbe Chron. An. 1528. b L. Herbert in Henry VIII c 1502 ending d L. Herbert Ib. e Ibid. f 1505. Iune 27. Ibid. page 249. g 1509. Iune 3. Pol. Virgil. h Sand. de Sch. page 9. who makes 1526. the First Year of the Divorce * Sand. Ib. Pallavicino i Hist. Conc. Trent II. 15.5 Sand. Ib. p. 10. * 1527. the Second Year i L. Herbert †Sand. Ibid. k 1527. Septem L. Herbert l From the Bishop of Tarbe's Speech before the Council Sand. de Schism page 10. m Pallav. Hist. Conc. Trid. II. 15.9 n Sand. de Schism p. 27. L. Herb. p. 233. o Guicciard Hist. Ital. l. 19. Camd. Eliz. p. 3. p 1528. Ian. 13. Letter of Casalis in L. Herbert 1528. The Third Year q Camden Eliz. p. 2. saith in his 38. year of age But he was born 1491. Iune 28. r Camden Ibid. p. 102. s Camden Ibid. saith being then returned Heylin saith she returned with her Father from his Embassie which was in 1527. saith Stow in that year * Page 10. t Camden Ibid. Sand. de Schism p. 23. Pallavic Ibid. 11.15.8 u Sand. Ibid. p. 17. x Camd. Eliz. p. 3. y L. Herb. p. 232. z Sand. Ibid. p. 28. a L. Herb. 1528. Decemb. 17. b Signified to the King 1529 Iun. 13. L. Herbert publisht Iuly 3. Ibid. c Thuan. l. 1. p. 18. C. D. d A vocation signed Iun. 15. L. Herbert 1529. the fourth year e In August Fox Mart. p. 1688. lin 88. f Fuller Hist. of Camb. Sect. 6. n. 40. g Cardinal Bellay's brother and Bishop Stokesly Stow p. 532.1530 the fifth year h Bologna and Padua i L. Herb. 1530. Iun. 13. and 22. k L. Herb. Ib. Aug. 24. and 29. and Sept. 23. l Aug. 31. Ibid. m Speed Hen. 8. n. 71. a Camd. Eliz. p. 3. and 4. b Wolsey and Warham L. Herb. p. 334. c 1530. Aug 9. Florence taken 1531. Iuly 7. Alex. Medices made Duke of it Ricciol Chron. d L. Herb. p. 335.1531 The Sixth Year e Apr. 30. Stow. L. Herb. p. 352. May 31. f L. Herb. p. 354. g Iuly 14. L. Herb. Ibid. h 1532. Feb. L. Herb. p. 363. i March 16. L. Herb. p. 364. 1532. the seventh year k Iuly 8. L. Herb. p. 364. k Iuly 8. L. Herb. p. 364. l Nov. 4. m Nov. 14. L. Herb. Ibid. n Sand. de Schism p. 60. Cooper Holinshed 129 c. 1533. the eighth year o May 23 L. Herb. p. 375 c. p Iune 1. q Sand. de Schism p. 29. r Iuly 11. L. Herb. p. 386. s Nov. 7. Bonner delivered the Appeal L. Herb. p. 389. t Nov. 10. L. Herb. Ibid. u Decemb. 2. L. Herb. p. 395 396. x L. Herb. p. 396. and Lab. Chron. A. 1534 †In the Christmas holy-days L. Herb. p. 396. y L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. z March 19. L. Herb. p. 396â— 1534. a L. Herb. Ibid. b L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. c Pope Iulius II. stiled him Defender of the Papal Dignity Leo X. stiled him Defender of the Faith And Clement VII The Deliverer of the Roman City d L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. e L. Herbert P. 397. f Mar. 23. L. Herb. Ibid. g L. Herbert p. 406. h Bzovius ann 1534.7 i 1534. Sept. 26. Paul III. k L. Herb. p. 451. l Novem. 3 m L. Herb. Ibid. n 1535 Aug. 30. L. Herb. p. 394. o 1538. Dec. 17. L. Herb. and Labbe L. Herb. p. 489. Marius de Schism Conc. part 3. c. 16. Pallav. hist. III. 12.5 Stow Chron. 1533. May. Mantua Vicenza 1536. Iuly 20 L. Herb. p. 471 472. 1537. Mar. 25. L. Herb. p. 489. 1538. April 8. L. Herb. p. 502. Rich. Pates Titular Bishop of Worcester L. Herb. p. 609. * L. Herbert p. 451 452. a L. Her p. 584 and 595. b B. Tonstal's Letter in Foxes Acts c. II. 347.60 Edit 1641. c Sand. de Schism p. 53 L. Herb. p. 329. d Sand. de Schism p. 55. e L. Herbert p. 418. v. Poli Orat. ad Imp. f B. Tonstal Ib. II. 345.10 in his printed Sermon Ibid. 341.46 g L. Herbert p. 511. h Labbe Chro. Anno 1537. i Pag. 45. k Pag. 8 9. l Sand. de Schis p. 68. b. m Pa. 97 98. n Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. An. 1546. April 8. o Supra p. 91 Sand. de Schis p. 139. p Camd. Eliz. p. 39 40. q V.B. Sparrow's Collection r XXXIX Articles Art 37. s See Sir Roger Twisden's Collection of them in his Vindication t Supra p. 18.45 u L. Herbert p. 408. x Supra p. 45. y Sand. de Schism p. 134. z Camd. Eliz. a She puts out thirteen Bishops b Fox Acts and Mon. 1280.60.1282.50 and 1332.20 80. c Full. Church Hist. l. 8 §. 3. n. 41. Pallavic Hist. Conc. Trid. XV. 7.1 2 d 1559. Ian. 23 e Camd. Eliz. p. 39. f Ibid. p. 25. g V. Supra h V. Bramhalâ—'s Vindication p. 86. i Camd. Eliz. p. 41. Bonner Tonstal and Thurlby k Camd. Eliz. p. 36. l Supra p. 6 7. m Anno 1562. n Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. o Cressy's Ep. Apol. n. 132. p Supra p. 8 9. q Conc. Chalced. Can. 30. in the Codex Canonum Universae Ecclisiae and in Binnius III. p. 447. E. Edit Paris An. 1636 a Pa. 81 c. b Anno 787. Conc. Nic. II. said to be of 350 Bishops c Anno 754. Conc. Const. of 338 Bishops Anno 794. Conc. Frankf of about 300. * Dr. Stillingfleet in answer to T. G. p. 812. to p. 838. * Supra p. 88. e V. Greg. VII dictâ—ta f Hence the Style of those Decrees Alex. in Conc. Lateran Innocent in Conc. Lateran c. Pag. 78 80. Objections against the practicableness of this Discrimination * Considerations of present Concernment 1675. I. The Roman Church and Court not differing in their Principles * H. Dodwell of the fundamental Principle of Popery a Pag. 6. a V. Labbe's Edition of the Councils tom X. p. 23. A. and P. 379. E. compared with the Oath in the Pontifical c Ib. tom XIV Col. 944. C. v. sup p. 10. d V. Supra p. 88. e Iohn Major f Anno 1552. Hist. Conc. Trid. l. 4. and Pallavic hist. XII 15.12 15. g V. supra p. 10 h Pallavic hist. Trent XXI 7.5 i Sand. de Schism Contiu p. 182. k Unam sanctam tit de Major Obed. l Concil Edit Labb tom X. p. 405. A. c. m Baron Anno 1046. n. 4. n Baron Anno 1111. n. 29. n. 42. o From Hildebrand downward p H. D. Considerations § XXX of third Lateran § XXXI of the fourth § XXXVI of the Council of Lions q Ibid. § XXXVII of the Council of Constance v. Concil tom 12. p. 276. D. r H.D. Considerations § XXVIII s Ib. § IX c. * King Iames thought himself concerned to write his Defence of the right of Kings in answer to it v. his Works p. 383. t Brunonis Hist. belli Sax. p. 123. Lin. 18. in Freheri Germ. edit Francof 1600. Councils of Labbe's Edition Tom. XI part 1. Col. 727. D. 629. E. u Bzov. An. 1221. n. 2. 1225. n. 10. x Councils of Labbâ—'s Edition Tom. XI part 1. Col. 642. A. y Being called Conciliabula Answer The second Objection * Council of Constance Sess 19. in Labbe's Edition of Councils Tom. XII Col. 196. E. 1 0. A. Answer a Council of Basil in Labbe's Councils Tom. XII p. 620. D. 621. A. 766. B. 767. B. c No new order of Regulars is to be admitted in any place without leave of the Ordinary v. Conc. Trident. Sess. 25. de Regular Cap. 3. Bullam Urb. VIII 1628. Aug. 28. which begins with Romanus Pontifex in the Bullarium Cherubini of Lyons Edition Tom IV. p. 62. d Jesuites discalceat Carmelites and Cappucìns