Vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat Lux, Chapter 16

Vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat Lux · Chapter 16

p. 398CHAP. 16.

The Power assigned by Papists and Protestants unto Kings in matters Ecclesiastical. Their several Principles discussed and compared.

YOur Discourse on this head is not reducible by Logick its self unto any method or rules of Argument. For it is in general, 1. So loose, Ambigucus and Metaphorically expressed: 2. So Sophistical and inclusive; 3. So inconsistent in sundry instances with the Principles and practices of your Church, if you speak intelligibly; 4. So false and untrue in many particulars, that it is scarcely for these excellent qualifications to be paralleld with any thing either in your Fiat or your Epistola. First, It is loose and ambiguous: 1. Not stating what you intend by the Head of the Church, which you discourse about: 2. No… determining whither the King be such an head of Execution in matter of Religion, as may use the Liberty of his own judgement as to what he puts in execution, or whether he be not bound to execute your Popes Determinations on the penalty of the forfeiture of his Christianity; which I doubt we shall find to be your opinion; 3. Not declaring wherein the power which you assign unto him is founded; whether in Gods immediate institution, o… the Concession of the Pope, whereon it should solely depend, unto whom it is in all things to be made subservient. Secondly, Sophistical. (1.) In playing with the ambiguity of that expression Head p. 399of the Church, and by the advantage thereof imposing on Protestants contradictions between their profession and practice, as though in the one they acknowledged the King to be head of the Church, and not in the other: (whereas there is a perfect consonancy between them in the sence wherein they understand that expression) shrowding your own sence and opinion in the mean time under the same ambiguity. (2.) In supposing an absolute universal Head of the whole Catholick Church, and then giving reasons why no King can be that Head; when you know that the whole Question is whither there by any such head of the Catholick Church on earth or no. (3.) In supposing the Principles and practises of the Primitive Church to have been the same with those of the present Roman, and those of the present Roman to have been all known and allowed of old, which begs all that is in Controversie between us; and sundry other instances of the like nature may be observed in it. Thirdly, Inconsistent with the Principles and Practices of your own Church, both 1. In what you ascribe unto Kings, and 2. In your stating of the power and Jurisdiction of your Pope, if the ambiguity of your words and expressions will allow us to conclude what you intend or aim at. Fourthly, False. (1.) In matter of fact, as to what you relate of the obedience of your Church unto Kings. (2.) In the principles and Opinions which you impose on your Advertaries; (3.) In the declaration that you make of your own; and (4.) In many particular Assertions whose consideration will afterwards occur.

This is a business I could have been glad you had not necessitated me to the Considera…ion of; for it cannot be truly and distinctly handled, … p. 400such reflections upon your Church and way, as may without extraordinary indulgence redound unto your disadvantage. Your have by your own voluntary choice called me to the discussion of those Principles which have created you much trouble in these Nations, and put you oftentimes upon attempting their disquiet. Now these are things which I desire not. I am but a private man, and am very well contented you should enjoy all that peace and liberty which you think not meet in other Nations where the P…wer is at your disposal, to grant unto them that dissent from you. Lex talionis should be far from influencing the minds of Christians in this matter: however the equity of it may at any time be pleaded or urged to relieve others in other places, under bondage and persecution. But I am sure, if I judge your proceedings against other men dissenting from you in Conscience, to be unjustifiable by the Scripture or Light of Nature, or suffrage of the Antient Church, as I do, I have no reason to desire that they should be drawn into president against their selves, in any place in the world. And therefore Sir, had you provided the best colour you could for your own Principles, and palliated them to the …, so to hide them from the eyes of those, who it may be are ready to seek their disturbance and trouble from an apprehension of the evil that may ensue upon them, and had not set them up in comparison with the Principles of Protestants of all sorts, and for the setting off your own with the better grace and luster, untruly and individiously reported theirs, to expose them unto those thoughts, and that severity from supream powers which you seek your selves to wave, I should have wholly passed by this discourse, unto which no occasion was administred p. 401in the Animadversions; but now as you have han…dled the matter, unless I would have it taken for granted that the Principles of the Roman Church, are more suited unto the establishment and promotion of the interest and Soveraignty of Kings and other supream Magistrates, and in particular the Kings of these Nations, then those of Protestants, which in Truth I do not believe, I must of necessity make a little further enquiry into your Discourse. And I desire your pardon, if in my so doing, any thing be spoken that suits not so well your interest and designs, neither expecting nor desiring any, if ought be delivered by me not according to Truth.

To make our way the more clear, some of the ambiguous expressions which you make use of to cloud and hide your intention in your enquiry after the Head of the Church, must be explained.

1. By the Church, you understand, not this, or that particular Church, not the Church of this of that Nation, Kingdom, or Countrey, but the whole Catholick Church throughout the world. And when you have explained your self to this purpose you endeavour by six Arguments, (no less, p. 67, 68.) to prove that no King ever was or can be Head of it. He said well of old, In causa facili quemvis licet esse disertum. I wonder you contented your self to give us six Reasons only, and that you proceeded not at least unto the high hills of eighteenthly and nineteenthly, that you talk of in your Fiat Lux where you scoff at the preaching of Presbyterians; it may be you will scarely ever obtain such another opportunity of shewing the fertility of your invention. So did he florish who thought himself secure from adversaries.

p. 402Ca…ut altum in praelia tollit,

Ostendit que humeros latos, alterna que jactat

Brachia protendens, & verberat ictibus auras.

But you do like him, you only beat the ayre; Do you think any man was ever so distempered as to dream that any King whatever could be the absolute Head of the whole Catholick Church of Christ? we no more think any King in any sence to be the Head of the Catholick Church, then we think the Pope so to be. The Roman Empire was at its hight and glory when first Christianity set forth in the world, and had extended its bounds beyond those of any Kingdom that arose before it, or that hath since succeeded unto it. And yet within a very few years, after the Resurrection of Christ, the Gospel had diffused it self beyond the limits of that Empire, among the Parthians, and Indians, and unto Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca, as Tertullian calls them. Now none ever supposed that any King had power or Authority of any sort in reference unto the Church, or any members of it, without or beyond the precise limits of his own Dominions. The Enquiry we have under Consideration about the Power of Kings, and the obedience due unto them in Ecclesiastical things, is limited absolutely unto their own Kingdoms, and unto those of their subjects which are Christians in them. And this

Hi motus animorum at que haec certamina tanta

Pulveris exigui jactu concussa quiescunt.

A little observation of this one known and granted Principle, renders not only your six Reasons altogether useless, but surpersedes also a great part of your Rhetorick, which under the ambiguity p. 403of that expression you display in your whole Discourse.

Secondly, You pleasantly lead about your unwary Reader with the ambiguity of the other term, the Head. Hence p. 58. you fall into a great exclamation against Protestants, that acknowledging the King to be the Head of the Church, they do not supplicate unto him, and acquiesce in his judgement in Religious affairs, as if ever any Protestant acknowledged any King or any mortal man to be such an Head of the Church as you fancy to your selves, in whose determinations in Religion all men are bound spiritually and as to their eternal concernments to acquiesce; and that not because they are true according to the Scripture, but because they are his. Such an Head you make the Pope; such an one on earth all Procestants deny, which evacuates your whole Discourse to that purpose, p. 58, 59. It is true in opposition unto your Papal claim of Authority and Jurisdiction over the subjects of this Kingdom, Protestants do assert the King to be so Head of the Church within his own Realms and Dommions, as that he is by Gods appointment the sole fountain and spring amongst men of all Authority and Power to be exercised over the Persons of his subjects in matters of external cognizance and order; being no way obnoxious to the direction, supervisorship and superintendency of any other, in particular not of the Pope. He is not only the only striker as you phrase it, in his Kingdoms, but the only Protector under God of all his subjects, and the only Distributor of Justice in rewards and punishments unto them, not depending in the administration of the one or other on the determinations or orders of your Pope or Church. Not that any of them do use absolutely p. 404that expression of Head of the Church, but that they ascribe unto him, all Authority that ought or can be exercised in his Dominions over any of his Subjects whither in things Civil or Ecclesiastical, that are not meerly Spiritual, and to be ministerially ordered in obedience unto Christ Jesus: And that you may the better see what it is that Protestants ascribe unto the King, and to every King that is Absolutely supream, as his Majesty is, in his own Dominions, and withall, how exceeding vain your unreasonable reproach is, which you cast upon them for not giving themselves up unto an absolute acquiescency in humane determinations as meerly such, on pretence that they proceed from the Head of the Church; I shall give you a brief account of their thoughts in this whole matter.

First, They say, that the King is the supream Governor over all Persons whatever, within his Realms and Dominions, none being exempted on any account from subjection unto his Regal Authority. How well you approve of this Proposition in the great astignations you pretend unto Kingly power we shall afterwards enquire. Protestants found their perswasion in this matter, on the Authority of the Scripture both Old Testament and New, and the very Principles constituting Soveraign Power amongst men. You speak fair to Kings, but at first dash exempt a considerable number of their born subjects owing them indispensible natural Allegiance, from their jurisdiction. Or this sort are the Clergy. But the Kings of Judah of old were not of your mind. Solomon certainly thought Abiathar though High Priest subject to his Royal Authority, when he denounced against him a sentence of death, and actually deposed him from the Priest hood. The like course p. 405did his successors proceed in. For neither had God in the first provision he made for a King amongst his people, Deut. 18. nor in that prescription of the manner of the Kingdom which he gave them by Samuel, once intimated an exemption of any persons, Priests or others from the Rule or Authority of the Prince, which he would set over them. In the New Testament we have the Rule, as the practice in the Old, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the Higher Powers, the power that bears the sword, the striker. And we think that your Clergy men have souls (at least pro sale) and so come within the circumference of this Command and Rule. Chrysostome in his Comment on that place is of our mind, and prevents your pretence of an exception from the Rule by special Priviledge, giving us a distribution of the universality of the Persons here intended into their several kinds. foreign. He sheweth that these things are commanded unto all, unto Priests and Monks, and not to secular persons only, which he declareth in the very entrance of his Discourse, saying Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers; whither thou be an Apostle, or an Evangelist, or a Prophet, or whatever thou be. For subjection overthrows not Piety. And he saith not simply, Let him obey, but let him be subject. The very same instances are given by Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophilact. Bernard, Epist. 42. ad Archiepisc. Senonens. meets with your exception which in his dayes p. 406began to be broached in the world, and tells you expresly that it is a delusion. In conformity unto this Rule of St. Paul, Peter exhorts all Christians, none excepted, to submit themselves unto the King as Supreme, 1 Epist. ch. 2. 13. And what ever we conclude from these words in reference unto the King, I fear that if instead of the King, he had said the Pope, you would have thought us very impudent, if we had persisted in the denyal of your monstrous imaginary Headship. But in this Principle, on these and the like grounds do all Protestants concur. And indeed to fancy a …veraign Monarch with so great a number of men as yonr Clergy consists of in many Kingdome exempted from his regal Authority, is to lay such an ax unto the root of his Government, as whereby with one stroke you may hew it down at your pleasure.

2. Protestants affirm, that Rex in regno suo, every King in his own Kingdom is the Supreme dispenser of Justice and Judgement unto all Persons, in all Causes that belong unto, or are determinable in foro exteriori in any Court of Judicature, whither the matter which they concern be Civil or Ecclesiastical. No Cause, no difference determinable by any Law of man, and to be determined by Coercive Vmpirage or Authority, is exempted from his cognizance. Neither can any man, on any pretence, claim any Jurisdiction over any of his Subjects not directly and immediately derived from him. Neither can any King, who is a Soveraign Monarch, like the Kings of this Land, yield or grant a power in any other to judge of any Ecclesiastical Causes among his Subjects, as arising from any other Spring, or growing on any other root but that of his own Authority, without an impeachment and irreparable prejudice p. 407to his Crown and Dignity: neither doth any such Concession, grant or supposition make it indeed so to be, but is a meer fiction and mistake, all that is done upon it, being ipso facto null, and of none effect. Neither if a King should make a pretended legal grant of such power unto any, would any right accrew unto them thereby; the making of such a Grant being a matter absolutely out of his power, as are all things whereby his regal Authority, wherein the Majesty of his Kingdom is enwrapped, may be diminished. For that King, who hath a power to diminish his Kingly Authority, never was intrusted with absolute Kingly Power. Neither is this Power granted unto our Kings by the Acts of Parliament, which you mention made in the beginning of the Reformation; but was alwayes inherent in them, and exercised in innumerable instances, and often vindicated with an high hand from Papal encroachments, even during the hour and power of your darkness, as hath been sufficiently proved by many, both Divines and Lawyers. Things of meer spiritual order as preaching the word, Administration of the Sacraments and the like, we ascribe not unto Kings, nor the communicating of power unto any for their performance. The Soveraign Power of these things, is vested in Christ alone, and by him committed unto his Ministers. But Religion hath many concernments that attend it, which must be desposed of by forensical, juridical process and and determinations. All these with the Persons of them, that are interested in them, are subject immediately to the power and Authority of the King, and none other; and to exempt them, or any of them, or any of the like nature, which may emerge amongst men in things relating unto Conscience p. 408and Religion, whose Catalogue may be endlesly extended, from Royal Cognizance, is to make meer properties of Kings in things which in a very special manner concern the peace and wellfare of their subjects, and the distribution of rewards and punishments among them. Of this sort are all things that concern the authoritative publick Conventions of Church Officers, and differences amongst them about their interests, practices, and publick profession of Doctrines, Collations of Legal Dignities and Benefices, by and with investitures legal and valid, all Ecclesiastical revenews with their incidencies, the Courts and Jurisdictions of Ecclesiastical Persons for the reig…ement of the outward man by Censures and Sentences of Law, with the like. And as this whole matter is sufficiently confirmed by what was spoken before of the Power of Kings over the Persons or all their Subjects, and (for to what end should they have such a power, if in respect of many of them, and that in the chief concernments of their rule and Government, it may never be exerted?) so I should tire your patience, if I should report one half of the Laws, Instances and Pleas, made, given and used, by the Antient Christian Kings and Emperours in the persuit, and for the Confirmation of this their just power. The Decrees and Edicts of Constantine the Great, commanding, ruling and disposing of Bishops in Cases Ecclesiastical, the Laws of Justinian, Charls the Great, Ludovicus his Son, and Lotharius his Successor, with more innumerable to the same purpose are extant and known unto all. So also are the Pleas, Protestations and Vindications of most of the Kingdoms of Europe affer once the pretensions of Papacy began to be broached to their prejudice. And in particular, p. 409notable instances you might have, of the exercise of this royal power in the first Christian Magistrate invested with supreme Authority, both in the case of Athanasius, Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 28. & cap. 34. Athan. Apol. 2. as also of the Donatists, Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 5. August. Epist. 162, 166. and advers. Crescon. lib. 3. c. 17. whereunto innumerable instances in 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 p. 410Majesty. 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 p. 411Government, 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 p. 412we 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,

—at que omnia ferre sub auras,

…Siqua tegunt; tenear Romaenec ligebus ullis.

For your own part you have expressed you se…f p. 413in 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 en…quiries. As 1. Do you think the King hath any An …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. 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 p. 414to 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 you… general Assertion, pag. 55. That they who after Papal decisions remain cont…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 p. 415of 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 fai…ed p. 416unto 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 de…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 p. 417derived 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 only, and absolute head and Monarch of the Catholick Church which you would perswade us to believe that he is: Kings then may even in Church affairs be strikers under him; be the servants and executioners of his will and pleasure; but Authority from God immediately in and about them they have none, nor can have any whilest your Imaginary Monarchy takes place. This one fundamental Principle of your Religion sufficiently discovers the insignificancy of your florish about Kingly Authority in Ecclesiastical things, seeing upon a supposition of it, they can have none at all. But you stay not here; for

3. You ascribe unto your Popes an universal Dominion even in Civil things over all Christian Kings and their subjects. In the explanation of this Dominion, I confess you somewhat vary among your selves; but the thing it self is generally asserted by you, and made a foundation of practice. Some of you maintain that the Pope by Divine right and Constitution hath an absolute supream Dominion over the whole world. This opinion, Bellarmine Lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 1. confesseth to be maintained by Augustinus Triumphus, Alvarus, Pelagius, Hostiensis, and Panoruitanus. And himself in the next words condemns the opinion of them who deny the Pope to have any such temporal power, as that he may command secular Princes, and deprive them of the p. 418Kingdoms and Principalities, not only as false but as down right Heresie. And why doth he name the first opinion as that of four or five Doctors, when it is the Common opinion of your Church, as Baronius sufficiently manifests in the life of Gregory the seventh? That great preserver of your Pontificial omnipotency in his Bull against Henry the German Emperour, affirms that he hath power to take away Empires, Kingdoms and Principalities, or what …ver a mortal man may have, as Platina records it in his life. As also Pope Nicholas the second in his Epistle ad Mediolanens▪ asserts, that the rights both of the heavenly and earthly Empires are committed unto him. And he that hath but looked on the Dictates of the forenamed Gregory confirmed in a Council at Rome, and defended by Baronius, or into their Decretals, knows that you give both swords to the Pope, and that over and over. Whence Carerius, Lib. 1. c. 9. affirms that it is the Common opinion of the School Divines that the Pope hath plenissimam Potestatem, plenary power over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical and Temporal matters; and you know the old comparison made by the Canonists cap. de Major. & Obed. between the Pope and the Emperour, namely that he is as the Sun, the Emperour as the Moon, which borrows all its light from the other. Bellarmine and those few whom he follows, or that follow him, maintain that the Pope hath this Power only indirectly and in order unto spiritual things; the meaning of which assertion as he explains himself, is, that besides that direct power, which he hath over those Countreys and Kingdoms which on one pretence or other he claims to be Feaudatory to the Roman See, which are no small number of the chiefest Kingdoms of Europe, he hath a Power over them all, to dispose p. 419of them, their Kings and Rulers, according as he judgeth it to conduce to the good and interest of the Church: which as it really differs very little from the …ormer opinion, so Barclay tells us that Pope Sixtus was very little pleased with that seeming depression of the Papal Power, which his words intimate. But the stated Doctrine of your Church in this matter is so declared by Bozius, Augustinus Triumphus, Carerius, Schioppius, Marta and others, all approved by her Authority, that there can be no question of it. Moreover to make way for the putting of this indirect Power into direct Execution, you declare,

4. That the Pope is the supream Judge of faith, and his Declarations and Determinations so far the Rule of it, as that they are to be received, and finally submitted unto: not to do so, is that which you express Heresie, or Schism, or Apostacy. About this Principle also of your Profession there have been, as about most other things amongst you, great Disputes and wranglings between the Doctors and props of your Church. Much debate there hath been whither this power be to be attributed unto the Pope without a Council, or above a Council, or against one. About these Chimaera's are whole volumes filled with keen and subtil argumentations. But the Popes Personal, or at least Cathedral Determination hath at length prevailed. For whatever some few of you may whisper unto your own trouble and disadvantage, to the impeachment of his Personal Infallibility, you are easily decryed by the general voice of your Doctors; and besides those very persons themselves, wherever they would place the Infallibility of the Church that they fancy, are for…ed to put it so far into the Popes hand and management, as that whatever he determines with the necessary p. 420solemnities in matters of faith, is ultimately at least to be acquiesced in. So your self assure us, averring that he who doth not so, forfeits his Christianity, and consequently all the Priviledges which thereby he enjoyes; and we have reason sufficient from former experience to believe that the Pope have he ability unto his will, is ready enough to take the forfeiture. Whither upon a Princes falling into Heresie, in not acquiescing in your Papal determinations, his subjects are discharged ipso facto from all obedience unto him, as Dominicus Bannes and others maintain, or whither there needs the Denunciation of a sentence against him by the Pope for their absolution, you are not agreed. But yet

5. You affirm that in Case of such Disobedience unto the Pope, he is armed with Power to depose Kings and Princes, and to give away, and bestow their Kingdoms and Dominions on others; Innumerable are the instances whereby the Popes themselves have justified their claim of this Power in the face of the world, and it were endless to recount the Emperours, Kings, and free Princes that they have attempted to ruine and destroy, (in the persuit of some wherof they actually succeeded) with the desolations of Nations that have ensued thereon. I shall mention but one and that given us in the dayes of our Fathers, and it may be in the memory of some yet alive. Pope Pius V takes upon him contrary to the advice and entreaties of the Emperour of Germany and others, to depose Queen Elizabeth, and to devote her to destruction. To this end he absolved all her Subjects from their Allegiance, and gave away her Kingdoms and Dominions to the Spaniard, assisting him to his utmost in his attempt to take possession of his grant: and all for refusing obedience p. 421to the See of Rome. You cannot I presume be offended with my mention of that which is known unto all, for these things were not done in a corner. And is it not hence evident that all the power which you grant unto Kings, is meerly precarious, which they hold of your Pope as Tenants at will? and should they not appear to do so, were his force, wit and courage answerable to his will and pretence of Authority? But be it that because you cannot help it, you suffer them to live at peace and quietness in the main of their Rule, yet you still curb them in their own Dominions; for

6. You exempt all the Clergy from under their Rule and Power. See your Bellarmine sweating to prove that they are not bound to their Laws, so as to be judged by them, without their leave, if they transgress; or to pay any tribute, De Cleric. Lib. 1. Cap. 28. They are all reserved to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope. And he that shall consider into what a vast and boundless multitude by reason of the several disorderly orders of your City Monks and Friars, your Clergy is swelled into in most places of Europe, will easily perceive what your interest is in every Kingdom of it. I am perswaded there is scarce a Considerable Nation wherein the Profession of your Religion is enthroned, in which the Pope hath not an 100000. able fighting men, that are his peculiar subjects, exempted from the Power and jurisdiction of Kings themselves; which you must needs conceive to be a blessed interpretation of that of the Apostle, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers. And

7. You extend the Papal Power to Things as well as Persons in the Dominions of all Kings and Commonwealths. For the Lands and Possessions that p. 422are given unto any of the Popes especial Subjects, you will have to be exempted from Tributes and publick burdens of the state. And you farther contend that it is not in the power of any Kings or Rulers, to hinder such alienations of Lands and Possessions from their Dominions. By this means no small part of the Territories of many Princes is subduced from under their power. The dreadful consequences of which Principles so startled the wise state of Venice, that you know they disputed it to the utmost with your Vice-god Paul the V. In dealing with them, as I remember, their attempt was successless: for notwithstanding the defence made of the Papal process against them by Baronius, Bellarmine and others, yet the actings of that sober state in forbidding such alienation of Lands and Fees from their Rule and power without their consent, with their plea for the subjection of Ecclesiasticks unto them in their own Dominions, was so vindicated by Doctor Paul Suave, Marsilius of Padua, and others, that the horns of the Bull which had been thrust forth against them into so great a length, were pulled in again.

I told you in the entrance of this Discourse, how unwilling I should have been to have given you the least disquietment in your way, had you only attempted to set off your own respects unto Royal Power unto the best advantage you could; but your setting up your Principles and Practices in competition with those of Protestants of any sort whatever, and preferring them before and above them as unto your deference unto Kings, and that in matters Ecclesiastical, hath made these few instances expressive of the real sense of your Church in this matter, as I suppose necessary and equal.