A JOURNEY INTO THE COUNTRY BEING A DIALOGUE Between an English PROTESTANT Physitian AND AN English PAPIST WHEREIN The proper State of the Popish Controversy is discoursed With Reference only to the Government of ENGLAND in Church and State In some Answer to Peter Walsh and pursuant to the Directions of a Person of Honor. Papa stupor Mundi non Deus non Homo sed utrumque Gloss in proem Clem. Moscan de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 11. LONDON Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun at the West-end of St. Pauls M DC LXXV THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER THIS ensuing Discourse seems to be wrote about the time when by Proclamation Papists were not to reside within ten Miles of London and 't is not yet out of Season nor will be till our Controversies with the Papists be throughly and truly stated after which it cannot be long ere they be ended I see not how English men have to do with the Romish Church or State their Laws Doctrines or Discipline therefore while they have been exercising us with Disputes about those things they had two Ends viz. Either to lead us into some Precipice or to Lap-wing us from the proper tendency of our Enquiries which in truth is our home Concerns and so a Controversy only between English Papists and English Catholicks called Protestants for Distinction with reference to their Prince who governeth by Laws diverse from all the Nations of the World and so is not to be argu'd out of his Right by any Parallel from other Kingdoms But as a Person of Honour hath lately begun so this Author has set forward the proper Contest still meaning between English Papists and English Protestants the latter of whom affirm as follows 1. That the King of England is Emperour and sole Monarch of England and established by a Law diverse from all other Nations 2. That the Church of England has all the Rights of a Patriarchal See from which lies no Appeal to any other Patriarch 3. That all Church Authorities and Jurisdictions with reference to this life and the ends of Government are rightfully derived from the King of England being naturally in him as a mixt Person and Custos utriusque tabulae according to Rom. 13. 4. That he is a Traytor that denyes this or affirms any forreign Prince Prelate or Potentate to have any Jurisdiction in England c. or diminishes the Kings Legal Style 5. There was naturally no difference between Church and State as to Jurisdictions until Christian Monarchs divided Jurisdictions and delegated Civil and Ecclesiastical Persons to take Conusance and judge of Causes separate and those Jurisdictions are called Civil and Ecclesiastical in respect of the Delegates only and not in respect of the Causes whereof they take Conusance and Judge 6. The King hath power naturally within his Dominions by such his delegates respectively to declare what are Articles of Faith according to Scripture and not otherwise and to make and interpret Laws for the Government of Church and State to appoint Forms of Worship and Discipline not against the word of God to add to such Laws Sanctions to punish Offenders against such Laws 7. These Rights and Powers of the King are Inherent in him as Essential Flowers of his Crown as antient as the Crown it self in which his Subjects are so interessed with reference to their Propriety in his personal Government by Original Constitutions as the King cannot by any rightfâ—l Act he can do grant them away to any Forreign Power Person or Potentate or to others but by way of delegation as to the declarative and executive Part. 8. What ever of these Rights and Powers any King of England has at any time allowed to the Pope has been so allowed against the Fundamental Law of the Land and so was utterly void and not obliging to any Successors Kings of England c. 9. That all Papists denying the Jurisdiction of the Pope here both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters yet holding Communion with the Church of Rome in matters of worship against our established Laws are grievous Offenders 10. That passive Obedience is no Obedience In as much as true Obedience must be spontaneous intire active and with respect to the Law of Nature antecedent to the Kings Command which injoyns intire Obedience to the Kings lawful Command for the Lords sake not barely for the Command sake 11. That the King cannot dispense with or free the Subject from such natural Obedience but only from the penalty added by and annexed to his Command 12. That the King cannot tolerate here the Exercise of the Popish Worship the same being superstitious and idolatrous and against the Established Laws 13. That no English man whatsoever how far so ever they pretend to differ from or disown the Pope can give reasonable security for the Preservation of the Peace of the Church or State by them unless they swear due Allegiance to the King and by Oath declare his Supremacy in the Church and by that Oath renounce all the Popes Authority whatsoever over them and his Power to dispense with that Oath and that they will be obedient to all the Kings Laws 14. That an English man in Priests Orders from the Church of Rome â—xcommunicated or censur'd by thaâ— Church and yet holding Communion with that Church iâ— not to be trusted here although he takes the Oaths above mentioned In as much as he is of no Church being wilfully divided from ours and by Censure divided from the other and so disobedient to all Governors a lawless and perjured Person and so in a present State of Damnation nor is any Romish Priest to be trusted here though he takes the said Oaths in as much as he hath taken a former Oath to the contrary not renounced 15. That since no English understanding Papist doth absent or at any time hath absented from our Communion and Worship out of pure Judgment and Reason But purely by reason of the old inhibition of the Pope in Q. Elizabeth's time for before that they joyn'd with us and were called Church Papists and at the same time they in opposition to our Kings Laws do so firmly yield to that Inhibition and disobey several other Commands of the Pope even in some matters of Faith It 's refer'd to the wisdom of the King with the advice of his said Delegates whether such co 〈…〉 ious Offenders be with any safety to be tolerated or even conâ—iv'd at here 16. That the Church and Court of Rome are so incorporated together that if Communion with that Church be admitted or tolerated here it must necessarily be introductory of that Courts Vsurpation 17. That there are now great differences of opinion among the English Papists themselves with reference to the Pope And if they were all of the mind with the most moderate Pretenders yet what Security can be given that they will alwayes be so or that they shall be succeeded by others of the same Judgment or is it
say against Forreigners let them use what Religion their Superiours there injoyn them But against English men who in opposition to the Religion of State distinct from that of Faith which is ordered by the proper Legislative Power such as your Church of Rome Papist is for ought I can yet see If your Father Paul was such I think him either a fool or a Knave for if St. Peters Successor did behave himself well in that Council your Paul was a Knave to traduce him if contrary he was a fool to leave a well ordered Church to follow the Dictates of such a faulty Guide yet were he a Subject of Rome he was much too blame so openly to reproach his Prince and yet was religious to dye a steady Cathâ—lick of that Church while he was obliged to hear the Pharisee sitting in St. Peters Chair Pap. Well Sir say what you will I say I am a true Roman Catholick as to the other World and a true English man as to this Phy. Sir you offered a Distinction lately with a witness viz. Father Paul and now comes a Distinction with Paulo majore and as to this I say it 's a Distinction well becoming a Romish-Church-Catholick but not a true English man for it looks two waies for if Chequer Papist party per pale half true Papist half true English will not do then it is to be interpreted True English man for life and after true Roman Catholick and so it has something of Policy but more of Romish Guile In as much as it serves to secure Protection and Preservation here during life and after in the other world True Roman Catholick goes for it to St. Peter God a mercy good Distinguisher he dares as well be hang'd as tell the Pope this how he cheats the Pope all his life and cheats the King at his death this Distinction dares not appear at Rome no more then peaceable Mr. Walsh Mr. White or Mr. Serjeant who non-conform from the Church of Rome more then our Independent from the Church of England Pap. But Sir if the Distinguisher as you call him explains himself and sayes he owes Allegiance to the King actively as to Matters of State and passively as to Matters of Church and so differs from your Church in pure Judgment only and no more then Presbyterian or Independents there who are good Subjects nevertheless owe Allegiance and claim protection c. what say you then c Phy. First I say that Church and State were all one before Christian Emperours divided them and causes were all derived from the same Fountain the King but as some were put into the hands of Ecclesiasticks and were called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual so others delegated to Civil Magistrates were called Civil thence arose the two Jurisdictions which are naturally one as in our King and by Delegation only made two But I further say if you be in earnest it is the first time I ever heard Papists to fight with Presbyterian weapons and I mean by earnest real for sad Experience has shew'd that it is not the first time by thousands that the Militants of the Romish Church have used the unhallowed Artillery of the spurious English Natives to fight withal against us Yet not in earnest or real as such but in Masquerade and if your Distinguisher be so half witted to tender this peace-meal Obedience I say further It 's the proper Result of Romish Ignorance for such Notional Obedience is indeed none True Obedience ought to be intire and is due to the lawful Magistrates Commands by the Law of Nature antecedent to any Command by the Magistrate for the Lords sake who injoyns to obey not barely for the Commands-sake which injoyns to do And there is more Religion in such Obedience then in all your Worship But Sir I would willingly be resolv'd whether the Romish Church Catholick dissent from us in Church matters in pure Judgment or by reason of some Command from the Pope next whether there be not a great difference between Protestant and Popish Dissenters Inasmuch as the former whatever he thinks concerning the power of his Prince in Church matters and perhaps would have him mend his Discipline according to mistaken Rule of Scripture yet he takes it not from our Prince and lodges it in a forraign Prince or Prelate which last makes it Treason Let this be answered and I 'le promise you not to take such an uncouth Travail as at present gives occasion of our Discourse Pap. Pray Sir is there any harm if I prefer the Pope to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Phy. None at all as the former is a Temporal Prince and the latter but a Subject nay more the Arch-Bishop of Rome shall have my Vote to take Precedency of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at a general Council when it happens but not in England unless by Curtesy And if you prefer the Pope before the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as to any power of Spiritual Jurisdiction in our Kings Dominions you are unmannerly to the Arch-Bishop who is Apostolick and Patriarch here as Pope Vrban the second allowed and you are a Traytor to the King by and under whose undoubted inherent Right and Authority the Arch-bishop is Primate in this Patriarchate Pap. But do you think in your Conscience that the Pope has no Right to Spiritual Jurisdiction in England Phy. Aye I do in my Conscience verily believe that the Pope has no Right to any Jurisdiction whatsoever in our Kings Dominions Pap. Pray what Grounds have you for it Phy. The Grounds I have for it is from the certain Testimony of Records continued in Succession for many hundred years which are to be seen in the Tower and some of them are transcribed by the Lord Coke and cited in the Report of a Law Case called Cawdries Case and in Mr. Prins Collections whereby it plainly appears that in all ages wherein the Pope laid claim to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England and offered to put the same in Execution it was alwaies opposed by Parliaments and Councils as derogatory to the just Rights of this Crown Pap. But how are you certain of the truth of these Testimonies Phy. Sir as to the matter of Certainty I shall not use the notions so much contended about viz. Moral Certainty or sufficient Certainty so much as the Nature of the thing is capable of there being three absolute Certainties by which we come to the knowledg of things 1. A sensible Certainty 2. A Mathematical Certainty 3. An Historical Certainty and all these are in their kinds respectively absolute The Certainty of Sence makes me absolutely Certain of what I see hear c. The Certainty of Demonstration makes me absolutely Certain that one and one makes two and three and three makes six The Certainty of History continued uninterrupted and undoubted and by unanimous Consent of succession of Ages and Historians makes me absolutely certain that there were such Kings of England as Kenulphus King Edwin Edw. the
Peace of the Nation provided ye by the same Oath declared that the Pope could not dispense therewith And if the Pope himself would also declare so That would certainly conduce to make your true Roman Catholick a true English man and until both be so done I cannot promise security to the peace of the Nation But I pray why are you so in love with the Romish Liturgy and Worship that you vvould have it established here Pap. For these Reasons 1. For that it is for the Honour of the Christian Religion that the same way of Worship might be observed in all Christian Churches 2. For that the vvay of the Romish Worship has been used in all Christian Ages and in all Christian Kingdoms and Places till of late and is still used in some Kingdoms where the Popes Jurisdiction is not allowed Phy. Sir as to your first reason I agree it would be exceedingly for the Honour of the Christian Religion if such Harmony and Agreement could be used in religious Worship as that one God might be worshipped in one way but as that never was so I fear never will be till all things be no more As to your second reason I deny that the Romish Worship as now is used was in any Christian Age or Kingdom used for above five hundred years after Christianity came into the world nor do your true English Roman Catholicks as you call them now agree with any other Christian Kingdom Church or Place vvhatsoever if they belie not themselves Pap. Well it has been so long used and with so general a Consent and Approbation as may well Intitle it to a preference to this new upstart way of Worship which this Nation has had not above 100 Years Phy. As to the Argument of Antiquity and long Usage It may be good in cases of Politick and Civil rights and Interests and become determinative provided it be not against positive Laws natural Equity or reason And in these Exterior parts of Religion it can obtain no more For a way of worship repugnant to the positive Law declared in Scripture or repugnant to the positive Law of the supreme Magistrate ought not to be exercised by any Subject living under the protection of that Supream Magistrate without sin and breach of Allegiance And Sir I must tell you further that this Notion of Antiquity though of great veneration in it self yet has been often used to the disadvantage of truth and made a Stale to dangerous mistakes and corrupt purposes You know who was reproved for not walking after the Traditions of the Elders 7. Mat. 5. and who were so zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers 1. Gal. 14. Against whose Arguments of Antiquity it was only opposed search the Scriptures 5. John 39. and you may see 17 Acts 19. who scoff'd at the new Doctrine as you at this new upstart way of Worship though indeed elder to yours So the Antiquity barely as such is no Argument for one or against another or that the more ancient as such is to be preferred before the late but again I say search and try vvhich is the best and adhere to that for the Improvement of your own not another mans Talent must enrich you Pap. This despising of things antient and entertaining of things Novel in Religion has not only made a lamentable breach in the Catholick Church but this Nation more particularly and dolefully has felt the direful Effects thereof in your Divisions and Subdivisions in the matters of Religion and the vvayes of religious Worship witness all your Sects and Dissentions that have lately over-run the Nation Phy. As this Objection is of some standing so it 's nere the better nor stronger for it for new Answers have fully confounded it as vvell to the reason of the thing as to a returning it vvith abundant additions on the Romish Church vvherein are many more Divisions Sects and Dissention then in ours as Doctor Stillingfleet has learnedly and faithfully made out in one Chapter of his Book against Idolatry c. Pap. Pray then tell me a reason why may not I or another so perswaded with good conscience use the Romish Way of Worship and Devotion and not the English Way of Worship if I allow the Kings Supremacy and disallow the Popes Phy. Laying aside the reasons urged against the irrationality foppish feigned Superstition Incredibility and Idolatry at large discoursed by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Book against their Idolatry and Fanaticism and it's Vindication a Book called Reflections on the Romish Devotions another the Triumphs of Rome over despised Protestancy two others viz. the Funeral of the Mass and the depth and mystery of the Mass vvhich I vvish you to read and others I 'le tell you another reason viz. because the King has commanded the contrary Pap. Why can the Kings Command bind me in my vvay of Worship is it not sufficient if I disown the Pope Phy. You disown the Pope only by half yet such disowning may be well done and if we could be assured it was well done might give some Security to the King against Forreign Civil Pretenders but still you give him no Security for perfect Obedience as a true English man and against breach of the peace of the Church if you conform not to his lawful Commands in his waies of Worship Pap. Pray how come the King to have power to impose a way of Worship according to his own Will Phy. The King has as much Power to impose a way of Worship here as the Pope has in his Dominions but neither has Power to impose a way of Worship absolutely according to his own VVill. Pap. What has the King Power to impose a Way of Worship and yet not according to his own Will pray according to whose Will does he so impose c. Phy. He imposes it according to the Will of God Pap. How can that be for the Protestants say that no Way of Worship is expresly appointed in Scripture and they allow no Revelations to holy men to be credited Phy. This is the rule they go by whatsoever in Religion is not of the essence of Christian Religion intituled by our Saviour himself or declared or advised to be practised by the Apostles is lawfully looked on as Religion of State in that it may be altered or improved or abolished by the Soveraign power for the better Advancement of those ends which are essential the same power may remove Errors Inconveniences Scandals and abuses therein and of that Nature is the way of Worship and so within the Power of the King The King has no Power over the kernel but over the shell he has and by his Soveraign power that is preserved inviolate Pap. Well but if he has such power why could he not keep the Old shell but make a New one Phy. Our King has not made a New shell to keep the Old kernel in but he has amended the Old shell for the better preservation of the Old kernel