The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 7

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 7

p. 451CHAP. VII. The Popes Authority, not proved from Scripture, or Reason.

The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves. The impertinency of Luk. 22.32. to that purpose. No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause. That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as St. Peters successour, confessed and proved by Vigorius, and Mr. White. The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor, but not as Pope, acknowledged by them. John 21.15. proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy. How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings. T. C's. beggings of the Question, and tedious repetitions, past over. The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge, considered. The Government of the Church not Monarchical, but Aristocratical. The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason. No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church, but much against it. The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy. Gersons Testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae, explained and vindicated. St. Hieromes Testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church. The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of Temporal Princes. The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity, as well as the Church of England.

WE are now come to the places of Scripture insisted on for the proof of the Popes Authority;§. 1. which you have been so often and successfully beaten out of, by so many powerful assaults of our Writers, that it is matter of admiration that you should yet think to find any shelter there. For those which you yet account Fortresses and Bulwarks for your cause, have not only been triumphed over by your Adversaries, but have been slighted by the wisest of your party, and deserted as most untenable places. As I shall make it appear to you in the progress of this dispute: In which I shall not barely shew the palpable weakness of your pretended proofs, but bring unanswerable arguments against them from persons of your own Communion. For the force of that reason by which the Protestants have prevailed over you in this dispute hath been so great, that it hath brought over some of the learnedst of your party, not only to an acknowledgement of the insufficiency of these proofs, but to a zealous opposition against that very Doctrine which you attempt to prove by them. But such is the fate of a sinking cause, that it catcheth hold of any thing to save it self, though it be the Anchor of the ship which makes it sink the sooner. Thus it will appear to be in these baffled Proofs, which you only bring into the Field to shew what streights you are in for help; and no sooner appear there, but they fall off to the conquering side, and help only to promote your ruine. But since they are in the place where Arguments should be, we must in civility consider them, as if they were so. The first place then is, Luke 22.32. I have pray'd for thee that thy faith fail not. What would a Philosopher think, were he chosen as Vmpire between us, (as once one was between Origen and his Adversaries) to hear this place produced to prove the Popes Authority and Infallibility? And when a reason is demanded of so strange an Inference (from a promise of recovery to St. Peter, p. 452to an impossibility of falling in the Pope) nothing else produced, but the forged Epistles of some Popes, and the partial Testimonies of others in their own cause? Could he think otherwise, but that these men loved their cause dearly, and would fain prove it, if they could tell how: but since there was neither evidence in reason or more indifferent writers in it, yet to let them see how confident they were of the Popes Infallibility, they would produce their Infallible Testimonies, to prove they were Infallible. For we ask, What evidence is there that the priviledge obtained for St. Peter, whatever it is, must descend to his Successours; if to his Successours, whether to all his Successours, or only to some; if only to some, why to those at Rome more then at Antioch or any other place; if to them at Rome, why it must be understood of a Doctrinal and not a saving Faith, as it was in St. Peter; if of Doctrinal, why not absolutely, but only conditionally, if they teach the Church? For all these and several other enquiries of this nature, we are told, It must be so understood; but if you ask Why, all the Answer we can get is, Because seven Popes at one time or other said so.

But at this you grow very angry; and tell us, 1. That Bellarmine, besides these, §. 2.P. 208.gives several pregnant reasons from the Text it self. What were it worth, to have a sight of them? If you had thought them so pregnant you are not so sparing of taking out of Bellarmine, but you would have given them us over again. Bellarmins excellent proofs are two or three sine Dubio's. Bell de Pontif. l. 4. c. 3.Sine dubio, saith he, hic Dominus speciale aliquid Petro impetravit. And who denies it? but we grant, it was so special to him that it never came to his Successours; and again, Sine dubio, ipsis praecipuè debeat esse nota suae sedis auctoritas, speaking of the Popes Testimonies for themselves, Without all doubt they knew best their own Authority. They were wonderfully to blame else; but all the difficulty is, to perswade others to believe them sine dubio, when they speak in their own Cause. And for that I can find no pregnant reason in him at all. Well, but we have a third sine dubio yet, which may be more to the purpose than either of the other two. For Bellarmin distinguishes of two priviledges which Christ obtained for St. Peter, the first is, That himself should never lose the true Faith though he were tempted of the Devil; and this his Lordship grants, that it was the special grace which Christs prayer obtained, that, notwithstanding Satans sifting him, and his threefold denyal of his Master, he should not fall into a final Apostacy: The second priviledge is, That he, as Bishop, should not be able to teach any thing against the Faith, sive, ut in sede ejus nunquam inveniretur qui doceret contra veram fidem, or, that there should be none found in his See who should do it. Is not here an excellent conjunction disjunctive in this Sive, Or? that he should not do it himself, or, that his Successours should not do it? Doth not this want pregnant proofs? and we have them in the next words. The first of these, it may be (very modestly!) did not descend to his Successours; but secundum, sine Dubio, manavit ad posteros sive successores; the second, without all doubt, did descend to his Successours. Are not these pregnant reasons; three sine dubio's given us by Cardinal Bellarmin? For when he comes to confirm this last sine dubio, he produces nothing but those Testimonies, which his Lordship excepts against, as not fit to be Judges in their own Cause. If these then be Bellarmins pregnant reasons out of the Text, no wonder that his Lordship was not pleased to Answer them. But yet you are displeased, that his Lordship should think that Popes were interessed persons in their own Cause. No, no; all p. 453that ever sat in that See, were such holy, meek, humble, self-denying men, that they would not for a world, let a word fall to exalt their own Authority in the Church. And we are mightily to blame to think otherwise of them. Is it possible to think that Felix 1, and Lucius 1, should speak for their own interest; though the Epistles under their names be such notorious counterfeits, that all sober men among you are ashamed of them? Is it possible that Leo 1. should do it, who was so humble a man that he contended with 630. Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon about the Primacy of his See; and whose Epistles breathe so much of self-denyal in all the contests he had about it? And although Pope Agatho and the rest be of later standing, when the Popes did begin a little more openly to take upon them; yet, Can the Protestants think that these men were byassed with their proper Interest? Are not these weak pretences for them to reject their Authority upon? For your part (you say), you could never understand this proceeding of Protestants. The more a great deal is the pitty; and if we could help your understanding and not endanger our own, we would willingly do it. Well, but though Bellarmins pregnant reasons prove so abortive, and though the Popes Authorities should not be taken, yet his Lordship must needs wrong Bellarmin, in saying, That he doth upon the matter confess, that there is not one Father in the Church disinteressed in the Cause, who understands this Text as Bellarmin doth, before Theophylact. And the reason is, because, though Bellarmin cite no more, P. 209,yet there might be more for all that: for, must he needs confcss, there are no more Authours citable in any subject, but what he cites himself? As though Bellarmin were wont to leave out any authorities which made for his purpose, especially in so weighty a subject as this? Do you think he was so weak a person to run to Popes Authorities, if he could have found any other? and when he produces no more, is it not a plain confession he found no more to his purpose? But I am weary of such great Impertinencies: and would fain meet with some thing of matter that might hold up the Readers patience as well as mine. All that ever I can meet with, that hath any thing of tendency that way, is, That this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith doth not belong to him as an Apostle, but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles, and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him. Very handsomely begg'd again! but where is the proof for all this? Have you no Popes stand ready again to attest the truth of it? For none else that have any reason would ever say it? did St. Peter deny Christ as Prince of the Apostles? Indeed it was then much for his honour that the Captain should fly from his colours first? and Christs Vicar upon earth should the most need to have his Faith pray'd for, that it should not fail? I had thought St. Peter had been head of the Apostles, and not Simon: if Christ had spoke to him as his Vicar, he would sure have call'd him Peter, Peter, and not Simon, Simon. But it seems he did not attend, that Peter was the Rock, on which his Church must be built: or else he minded it so much, that he thought that name improper when he mentions his falling; You have therefore stoutly and unanswerably (not proved, but) demonstrated that these words were spoken of St. Peter, not as an Apostle, but as Christs Vicar upon earth.

But suppose it were so; what is this to those who pretend to be his Successours? Yes very much. For (say you),§. 3. Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his, did effectively so descend. You might have put one of Bellarmins sine dubio's to this. For, Whoever was so sensless as to question that? But you confess, It is a very disputable question, p. 454Whether every thing which Christ by his prayer intended and obtained for St. Peter, was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours. Yet that some special priviledge was to descend to them, is, you say, manifest by Bellarmins Authorities and Reasons. If from nothing else, I dare confidently say, no man in his wits will believe it manifest. And what that is, neither you, nor any one else can either prove or understand. Yes (say you) it is, that none of his Successours should ever so farr fall from the Faith, as to teach Heresie, in Pontificalibus, or, as you speak with Bellarmine, any thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex; i. e. in vertue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as St. Peters Successours. Here then we fix a while to see this proved; but our expectation is again frustrated: For instead of proofs we meet with the old Mumpsimus, of the Popes erring as private Doctor, but not as Pastour of the Church: A distinction so ridiculous, that many among your selves deride it, as will appear presently. And therefore put in your tanquam Pontifex as long as you please,P. 210. you will gain no great matter by it. When you can prove that Christ did intend in that one prayer, some part of the Gift personally and absolutely to St. Peter, and another part conditionally to his Successours, I will grant it no absurdity to say, that perhaps some part of the Gift did not belong to either of them. But these are such strange fetches out of a plain Scripture, that those may admire your subtilty, who cannot be convinced by your reason. Yet to let you see that these things are not so clear as you would have them, I shall bring you some Arguments out of your own Writers against your interpretation of this place, and I pray Answer them at your leasure. Vigorius therefore proves that this place cannot be understood of St. Peter and his Successours, Comment. in ep. Synod Concil. Basil. c. 7. sect. 3.that their Faith should not fail; for then saith he. 1. The Canons had decreed to no purpose that a Pope might be deposed in case of Heresie; for those that suppose that he may fall into Heresie, do doubtless suppose that his Faith fails. Now here is a witness against you, from your own Church and that out of your Canons too; and that is better worth then twenty Testimonies of Popes for you. 2. If this were understood of St. Peters Successours, they who succeeded him at Antioch would enjoy this priviledge as well as those at Rome; for they are, saith he, as well St. Peters Successours as the other. And, saith he, if they understand this of one and not of the other totis faucibus se deridendos propinarent, they expose themselves to contempt and laughter. 3. If this were true of St. Peters Successours at Rome, then the decrees of one Pope could not be revoked by the other; because, it is impossible they should erre in making those decrees. But it is not Vigorius alone who hath shewed the weakness of your Arguments from this place; for our learned Countryman Mr. White hath more fully and largely discovered the weakness of all your pretences from Scripture, Fathers, and Reason, concerning the Popes succeeding St. Peter in his Infallibility. And particularly as to this place he saith,Tabulae suffr. …ab. 10. p. 111. that either it concerns the present danger St. Peter was in, or else doth represent what was to be afterwards in the Church: and that it doth primarily and directly relate to St. Peters imminent tentation, all the circumstances perswade us; first, because he is called by his private name Simon, and not by his Apostolical name Peter. 2. Because Christ immediately subjoyns after St. Peters answer his threefold denyal of him. 3. The event it self makes it appear, by the Apostles flight, St. Peters temptation and fall, his conversion and tears when Christ looked on him; and by his confirming the Disciples after Christs resurrection. But (saith he), if this place be taken as respecting the future times of the Church, the same thing must p. 455be expected in St. Peters Successours, which fell out in St. Peter himself, viz. that either through fear, or some other motive they may be drawn into the shew of Heresie, or into Heresie it self; but so, as either in themselves or their Successours, they should be restored to the Catholick Faith. But what reason there is for this latter interpretation (though destructive to the Popes infallibility) neither doth that person acquaint us, nor can I possibly understand. All the evasion that you have to avoid the force of what ever is brought against you out of this place, is by conjuring up that rare distinction of the Popes not erring when he defines any thing as matter of Faith. But see what that same person saith of this distinction of yours, Excipiunt aliqui, saith he, Papam posse esse haereticum, sed non posse haeresim promulgare. Tabul. suffrag. p. 145.Adeò quidlibot effutire pro libidine, etiam licitum est. Some Answer, that the Pope may be a Heretick, but cannot promulge or define Heresie: So far do men think it lawful to say what they please. But can any man, saith he, be guilty of so much incogitancy, as not to see that these things are consequent upon each other; It is a Pear tree, and therefore it will bear Pears: It is a Vine, and therefore it will bring forth Grapes. Christ saith, An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit; but these say, an evil tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. The Apostle saith, the wisdom of the Flesh cannot be subject to God; but these say, it cannot but be subject to God. And then he further presseth, That they would declare from what Authour they brought this contradiction into the Church of God, lest men should believe they were inspired by the Father of lyes when they made it. Nay he goes further yet in these stinging expressions, An putatis licere, in re quae totum Ecclesiae statum a…vivum tangit, novitatem adeò inauditam, adeò rationi adversantem, adeò excedentem omnem fidem, ex somniis cerebri vestri inferre? Do you think it lawful, in a matter which toucheth the whole state of the Church to the quick, to produce so unheard of a novelty, so repugnant to reason, so far above all Faith, out of the dreams of your own brain? Go now, and answer these things among your selves; complain not that we account such evasions silly, absurd, and ridiculous; you see they are accounted so by some of your own Communion (or, at least, who pretend to be so) and those no contemptible persons neither. But such as have seen so much of the weakness and absurdity of your common doctrine, that they openly and confidently oppose it, and that upon the same grounds that Protestants had done it before them. And I hope, this is much more to our purpose to shew the insufficiency of these proofs, than it was for you to produce the Testimonies of several Popes in their own Cause. Which was all the proof that Bellarmin or you had, that these words are extended to St. Peters Successours, when we bring men from among your selves, who produce several reasons, that they ought not to be so interpreted.

But yet there is another place as pertinent as the former; the celebrated Pasce oves & agnos, John 21.15, 16, 17. But sheep and Lambs, say you,§. 4. P. 211.are Christs whole flock. So there are both these, saith his Lordship, in every flock that is not of barren Weathers; and every Apostle, P. 191.and every Apostles successour hath charge to feed both sheep and Lambs; that is weaker and stronger Christians, not people and Pastours, subjects and Governours, as A. C. expounds it, to bring the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride. No (say you), no such charge is given to any other Apostles, in the places his Lordship cites, Matth. 28.19. Matth. 10.17. for these speak of persons unbaptized, but that place of St. John, of those who were actually Christs Flock; and the words being absolutely and indefinitely pronounced, must be understood generally p. 456and indefinitely of all Christs sheep and Lambs, that is, of all Christians whatsoever, not excepting the Apostles themselves; unless it appear from some other place, that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christs sheep, as universally and unlimitedly committed to them, as they were here to St. Peter. But all this is nothing, as Vigorius speaks about the solvere, ligare, pascere, but dudum explosis cantilenis aures Christianorum obtundere, to bring us those things over and over,Vigor. p. 61. which have been answered as oft as they have been brought. For how often have you been told, that these words contain no particular Commission to St. Peter, but a more vehement exhortation to the discharge of his duty, and that pressed with the quickness of the question before it, Lovest thou me? How often, that the full Commission to the Apostles was given before?John. 20.21.John 20:21 As the Father hath sent me, so send I you. And that, as Christ was by his Fathers appointment the chief Shepheard of the Sheep and Lambs too; so Christ by this equal Commission to all the Apostles gives them all an equal power and authority to govern his Flock: How often, that nothing appears consequent upon this, whereby St. Peter took this office upon him? but that afterwards we find St. Peter call'd the Apostle of the Circumcision, which certainly he would never have been,Gal. 2 7.Gal 2:7 had he been looked on as the Vniversal Pastour of the Church; we find the Apostles sending St. Peter to Samaria, Acts 8.14.Acts 8:14which was a very unmannerly action, if they looked on him as Head of the Church. How often, that these indefinite expressions are not exclusive of the Pastoral charge of other Apostles over the Flock of Christ? when they are not only bid to preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark 6.16.Mark 6:16but even those Bishops which they ordained in several Churches are charged to feed the Flock;Acts 20.28.Acts 20:28 and therefore certainly the Apostles themselves had not only a charge to preach to unbaptized persons (as you suppose) but to govern the Flock of those who were actually Christs Sheep and Lambs, as well as St. Peter? How often, I say, have you been told all these and several other things in Answer to this place; and have you yet the confidence to object it, as though it had never been taken notice of, without ever offering to take off those Answers which have been so frequently given? But you must be pardoned in this, as in all other things of an equal impossibility.

§. 5.Well, but his Lordship objects a shrewd Consequence from this Universal Pastourship; that this brings the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride. P. 191.And if Kings be meant, (his Lordship saith) yet the command is, pasce, feed them; but deponere, or occidere, to depose or kill them, is not pascere in any sense; Lanii id est, non Pastoris, that's the Butchers, not the Shepheards part. This, you call, his Lordships winding about, and falling upon that odious Question of killing and deposing Kings. Ibid.An odious Question indeed, whether we consider the grounds, or the effects and consequents of it. But yet you would seem to clear your selves from the odium of it. First, By saying that it is a gross fallacy, to argue a negatione speciei ad negationem generis, which is a new kind of Logick. It is indeed, for it is of your own coyning; for his Lordship argues ab affirmatione generis ad affirmationem speciei, and I hope this is no new Logick, unless you think he that saith, He hath power over all living creatures, hath not thereby power over men too. His Lordship therefore doth not argue against the Popes Vniversal Supremacy from the denyal of that, but deduces that as a consequence from your assertion, and explication of what you mean by Sheep and Lambs. But this is but a sleight Answer in comparison p. 457of what follows; Secondly, we answer, P. 212.That the point of Killing Kings, is a most false and scandalous Imputation; scandalous enough indeed, if false: and though your Popes have not given express warrant for the doing it, yet it is sufficiently known, How the Pope in Consistory could not contain his joy when it was done, in the case of Henry 3. of France. And it hath been sufficiently confessed and lamented by persons of your own communion, How much the Doctrine of the Jesuits hath encouraged those Assassinations of those two successive Henryes of France. Will you, or dare you vindicate the Doctrines of Mariana, and others, which do not obscurely deliver their judgement, as to that very thing of Killing Haeretical Princes? But, if we should grant you this, That the Pope may not command to kill, What say you to that of deposing Princes; which seldome falls much short of the other? As to this, you dare not cry, It is a false and scandalous imputation, as you did to the other; but you answer, 'Tis no point of your Faith, that the Pope hath power to do it; and therefore you say it is no part of your task to dispute it. Is this all the security Princes have from you, that it is no point of your Faith, that the Pope hath power to do it? Is it not well enough known, that there are many things which are held undoubtedly by the greatest part of your Church, which yet you say, are no points of Faith? And yet in this you are directly contradicted by one who knew what were points of Faith among you, as well as you, and that was Father Creswell;Philopator. sect. 157. p. 149. whose testimony I have cited already; and he saith expresly, Certum est, & de fide, It is a thing certain, and of Faith: that the subjects of an Haeretical Prince, are not only freed from Allegiance, but are bound, ex hominum Christianorum dominatu ejicere, to cast him out of his power, which certainly is more than the deposing of him. And Sanders plainly enough saith,De visib. Monarch. l. 2, c. 4. That a King that will not submit to the Popes Authority, is by no means to be suffered, but his subjects ought to do their utmost endeavour that another may be placed in his room. Indeed, he saith not, as the other doth, That this is de fide, but that is the only reserve you have when a Doctrine is odious and infamous to the world, to cry out, It is not de side, when yet it may be as firmly believed among you, as any that you account de fide. And if you believe the Duke of Alva in his Manifesto at the siege of Pampelona, when the Pope had deposed the King of Navarre to whom that City belonged, he saith,Nebrissens. de bello Navarr. l. 1. c. 6. That it is not doubted but the Pope had power to depose Heretical Princes. And if you had been of another opinion, you ought to have declared your self more fully than you do. If you had said, that indeed some were of that opinion, but you abhorred and detested it, you had spoken to the purpose; but when you use only that pitiful evasion, That it is not of Faith, &c. you sufficiently shew, What your judgement is, but that you dare not publickly own it. It seems, you remember what was said by your Masters in reference to Emanuel Sà, Non fuit opus ad ista descendere, There was no need to meddle with those things. It seems, if there had been, there was no hurt in the Doctrine, but only that it was unseasonable. I pray God keep us from that time, when you shall think it needful to declare your selves in this point. But you conclude this with a most unworthy and scandalous reflection on Protestants, in these words; But what Protestants have both done and justified in the worst of these kinds, is but too fresh in memory. But, Were those the practices and principles of Protestants? Were they not abhorred and detested in the highest manner by all true Protestants, both at home and abroad? It will be well, if you can clear p. 458some of your selves from having too much a hand in promoting both those principles and practices. I suppose you cannot but have heard, Who it was is said to have expressed so much joy at the time of that horrid execution; What counsels and machinations are said to have been among some devoted Sons of the Church of Rome abroad about that time: Therefore clear your selves more than yet you have done, of those imputations, before you charge that guilt on Protestants, which they express the highest abhorrence of. And let the names of such who either publickly or privately abett or justifie such horrid actions be under a continual Anathema to all Generations.

§. 6.After all this discourse about the Popes Authority, A. C. brings it at last home to the business of Schism. For, he saith, The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock in such sort, as that neither particular man nor Church shall have just cause, under pretence of Reformation in manners of Faith, to make a separation from the whole Church. This (his Lordship saith) by A. C's favour, P. 191. n. 18.is meer begging the Question. For this is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him; namely, that he hath governed, if not the whole, yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power, so as that he hath given too just cause of the present continued Separation. And, as the corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith, in the Church of Rome, were the cause of the first Separation; so are they at this present day the cause why the Separation continues. And the oppression of the Church of Rome, he further adds, is the great cause of all the errours in that part of the Church which is under the Roman Jurisdiction. And for the Protestants, they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called, but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome, and such other Churches as by adhering to her, have hazarded themselves, and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholick Church. Nay, even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, but in her errours; not in the things which constitute a Church, but only in such abuses and corruptions, as work towards the dissolution of a Church. Let now any indifferent Reader be judge, Whether his Lordship, or A. C. be the more guilty in begging the Question. P. 212.For all the Answer you can give, is, That his Lordship begs it, in saying that the Roman Church is not the whole Catholick Church, and that the Roman Catholick Church may be in an errour; but the former we have proved already, and I doubt not but the latter will be as evident as the other, before our task be ended. But, as though it were not possible for you to be guilty of begging the Question, after you have said that the Roman Church cannot erre, you give this as the reason for it, Because she is the unshaken Rock of Truth; and that she hath the sole continual succession of lawfully-sent Pastors and Teachers, who have taught the same unchanged Doctrine, and shall infallibly continue so teaching it to the worlds end. Now, Who dares call this, Begging the Question? No, it must not be called so in you, it shall be only Taking it for granted. Which we have seen, hath been your practice all along, especially when we charge your Church with errour…; for then you cry out presently, What, your Church erre? No, you defie the language. What, the Spouse of Christ, the Catholick Church erre? that is impossible. What, the unshaken Rock of Truth to sink into errours? the Infallible Church be deceived? she that hath never taught any thing but Truth, be charged with falshood? she, that not only never did erre, but, it is impossible, nay, utterly impossible, nay, so impossible, that it cannot be imagined, that ever she should erre? This is the summ of all your arguments, p. 459which, no doubt, sound high to all such who know not what confident begging the Question means, or, out of modesty, are loath to charge you with it.

Much to the same purpose do you go on, to prove, that Protestants have separated not from the errours, but the essence of your Church. And if that be true, which you say, That those things which we call Errours are essential to your Church, we are the more sorry for it; for we are sure, (and, when you please, will prove it) that they are not, cannot be, essential to a true Church; and if they be to yours, the case is so much the worse with you, when your distempers are in your vitals, and your errours essential to your Churches Constitution. What other things you have here, are the bare repetitions of what we have often had before in the Chapters you refer us to. And here we may thank you for some ease you give us in the far greatest remaining part of this Chapter, which consists of tedious repetitions of such things which have been largely discussed in the First part, where they were purposely and designedly handled; as that concerning Traditions, chap. 6. that concerning necessaries to salvation, N. 6.chap. 2, 3, 4. that concerning the Scriptures being an Infallible Rule, N. 8.throughout the Controversie of Resolution of Faith; and that which concerns the Infallibility of General Councils, we shall have occasion at large to handle afterwards;N. 57. and if there be any thing material here, which you omit there, it shall be fully considered. But I know no obligation lying upon me to answer things as often as you repeat them, especially since your gift is so good that way. It is sufficient that I know not of any material passage, which hath not received an Answer in its proper place.

That which is most pertinent to our present purpose, is that which concerns the necessity of a Living Judge, §. 7.besides the Scriptures for ending Controversies of Faith. As to which his Lordship saith, That, supposing there were such a one, and the Pope were he, P. 198. n. 6.yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil, and impious men, to keep the Church at all times from renting even in the Doctrine of Faith, or to soder the Rents which are made. For, oportet esse Haereses, 1 Cor. 11.19, Heresies there will be, and Heresies there properly cannot be but in the Doctrine of Faith. To this you answer, That Heresies are not within, but without the Church, P. 218.and the Rents which stand in need of sodering, are not found among the true members of the Church, who continue still united in the Faith, and due obedience to their Head; but in those who have deserted the true Church, and either made or adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations. A most excellent Answer! His Lordship sayes, If Christ had appointed an Infallible Judge besides the Scripture, certainly it should have been for preventing Heresies, and sodering the Rents of the Church. So it is (say you) for if there be any Heresies, it is nothing to him, they are out of the Church; and if there be any Schisms, they are among those who are divided from him: That is, he is an Infallible Judge only thus far, in condemning all such for Hereticks and Schismaticks, who do not own him. And his only way of preventing Heresies and Schisms, is the making this the only tryal of them, that whatever questions his Authority, is Heresie; and whatever separation be made from him, is Schism. Just as Absalom pretended that there was no Judge appointed to hear and determine causes, and that the Laws were not sufficient without one,2 Sam. 15.2.2 Sam 15:2 and therefore he would do it himself; so doth the Pope by Christ, he pretends that he hath not taken care sufficient for deciding Controversies in Faith, therefore there is a necessity in order to the Churches Vnity, he should take it p. 460upon himself. But now, if we suppose in the former case of Absalom, that he had pretended he could infallibly end all the Controversies in Israel, and keep all in peace and unity; and yet abundance of Controversies to arise among them by what right and power he took that office upon him, and many of them cry out upon it, as an Vsurpation, and a disparagement to the Laws and Government of his Father David; and upon this, some of the wiser Israelites should have asked him, Whether this were the way to end all Controversies, and keep the Nation in peace? Would it not have been a satisfactory Answer for him to have said, Yes, no doubt it is the only way; For, only they that acknowledge my power, are the Kings lawful subjects, and all the rest are Rebels and Traytors. And, Is not this just the same Answer which you give here? That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church, because all that question his Authority, be Hereticks and Schismaticks. But, as in the former case, the surest way to prevent those Consequences, were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him, and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records, and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours; so, if you could produce the Letters Pattents, whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church, to determine all Controversies of Faith, and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church, who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church; this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks, as you say they are, by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority. But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity, and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected, to say, That those are all out of the Church, is just as if a Shepherd should say, That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold, and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it, he should return this Answer, That those were without, and not within his Fold; and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant. So that his meaning was, those that would abide in, he could keep in, but for those that would not, he had nothing to say to them. So it is with you, the Pope he ends Controversies, and keeps the Church at Vnity; How so? They who do agree, are of his Flock, and of the Church; and those that do not, are out of it. A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way, only the Pope hath the greater number of his side; for, they will tell you, If they were hearkned to, the Church should never be in pieces; for all those who embrace their Doctrines, are of the Church, and those who do not, are Hereticks and Schismaticks. So we see upon your principles, What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge, and to end all Controversies in the Church; that only this must be taken for granted, that all who will not own such an infallible Judge, are out of the Church, and so the Church is at Vnity still, how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority. Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is, which you cry so much up in your Church; that you most gravely say, That, had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges, he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion, that is found in the Roman Church: Of what nature that Unity is, we have seen already: And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies, ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent, in the case of the five Propositions. For, How readily the Jansenists have submitted since, and p. 461what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France, all the world can bear you witness. And, whatever you pretend, were it not for Policy and Interest, the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground; for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity, that there had need be a watchful eye, and strong hand to keep it up.

But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge;§. 8. which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom, when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament (which cannot be called upon all occasions) hath, besides the Law-Books, some living Magistrates and Judges, and above all one visible King, the highest Judge, who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies, and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs. And, Shall we think that Christ, the wisest King, hath provided in his Kingdom the Church, only the Law-Books of holy Scripture, and no living visible Judges, and above all one chief, so assisted by his Spirit, as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith? which can never be, if every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the Law-Books, as he list. This his Lordship saith,P. 199. n. 7. is a very plausible argument with the many; but the Foundation of it is but a similitude, and, if the similitude hold not in the main argument, is nothing. And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here. For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority, is brought under the examination of this argument; which you mangle into several Chapters, thereby confounding the Reader, that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another. But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already, I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it. And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design. I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together, and then more particularly go about the vindication of them. 1. Then, his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy, and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed. 2. That supposing it a Kingdom, yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms, and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom. 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour, our Gracious Soveraign, hath, besides the Law-Book of the Scripture, visible Magistrates and Judges, Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace. 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws, which cannot be determined but in Parliament; so in the Church, the making such Canons which must bind all Christians, must belong to a free and lawful General Council. Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer, that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader.

We come now therefore to the first Answer. As to which his Lordship saith, It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom; P. 200.for they are no mean ones which think, our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles, and their Successours, in an Aristocratical, or rather a mixt Government; and that the Church is not Monarchical, otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head. And in this sense indeed, and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom. And the very expressing of this sense, is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture, and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy. But the Church being as large as the world, Christ thought fittest to p. 462govern it Aristocratically, by divers, rather than by one Vice-Roy. And I believe, saith he, this is true. For so it was governed for the first three hundred years, and somewhat better; the Bishops of those times carrying the whole business of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to, or rejecting them from, their Communion. And this, his Lordship saith, He hath carefully examined for the first six hundred years even to, and within, the time of S. Gregory the Great. Now to this you answer. 1. That though A. C. urgeth the argument in a similitude of a Kingdom only, P. 219.yet it is of force in any other kind of settled Government, as in a Common-wealth. But by this A. C. seems a great deal the wiser man, for he knew what he did when he instanced in in a Kingdom; for he foresaw that this only would tend to his purpose concerning the Popes Supremacy; but though there be the same necessity of some Supreme Power in a Common-wealth, yet that would do him no good at all, for all that could be inferred thence, would be the necessity of a General Council. And by this you may see, How little your similitude will hold any other way than A.C. put it. Therefore, 2. You answer, That the Government of the Church is not a pure, but a mixt Monarchy, i. e. the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical, you confess: yet Bishops within their respective Dioceses and Jurisdictions are spiritual Princes also, that is, chief Pastors and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right. How far this latter is consonant to your principles, I have already examined, but the former is that we dispute now, concerning the Supreme Government of the Church, Whether that be Monarchical or no, and this is that which his Lordship denies; and, for all that I see, we may continue to do so too, for any argument you bring to the contrary.

Although you produce your Achilles in the next paragraph, viz. that since the Government of one in chief, §. 9.P. 220.is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect, What wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern the Church by one Vice-Roy, than Aristocratically, or by many, as he would have it? But, Are you sure Christ asked the Philosophers opinions, in establishing a Government in the Church? The Philosophers judged truly that of all Forms of Civil Government, Monarchy was the best, i. e. most conducing to the ends of Civil Government: for the excellency of such things must be measured by their respect to the ends. Now, if we apply this to the Church, we must not measure it by such ends, as we fancy to our selves, or such as are only the ends of meer Civil Societies; but all must be considered with a respect to the chief design of him who first instituted a Church. And from thence we must draw our Inferences, as to what may tend most to the Peace and Vnity of it. Now it appearing to be the great design of Christ, that mankind should be brought to eternal Happiness, we cannot argue from hence, as to the necessity of any manner of Government, unless one of them hath in it self a greater tendency to this than another hath. For in Civil Governments, the whole design of the Society, is the Civil Peace of it; but it is otherwise in the Church, the main end of it, is to order things with the greatest conveniency for a future life: Now this being the main end of this Society, and no manner of Government having in it self a greater tendency to this than other: It was in the power of the Legislator, to appoint what Government he pleased himself. But when we consider that he intended this Church of his should be spread all over the world, and this to be his immediate errand he sent his Apostles upon, to preach to every creature, and to plant Churches in the most remote and distant places from each other; we can have the least ground p. 463to fancy he should appoint an Vniversal Monarchy in his Church of any Government whatsoever. For if we will take that boldness you put us upon, to enquire, What form is fittest for a Society dispersed into all parts of the world, and that are not bound, upon their being Christians, to live nearer Rome, than Mexico or Japan,; Could any one imagine it would be, to appoint one Vice-Roy to superintend his Church at such a place as Rome is? Suppose all the East and West-Indies consisted of Christian Churches, What advantage, in order to the Government of those Churches, could the Popes Authority be? What Heresies and Schisms might be among them before his Holiness could be acquainted with them? These are therefore very slender and narrow Conceptions concerning Christs Institution of a Government over his Catholick Church, as though he should only have regard to these few adjacent parts of Europe, without any respect to the good of the whole Church. But since we see, Christ designed such a Church which might be in most remote and distant places from each other, and yet at such a distance might equally promote the main ends, wherefore they became Churches, it is very unreasonable to think he should appoint one Vice-Roy to be Head over them all. For which, let us suppose, that Europe might be (as the Eastern Churches have been) over-run with the Turkish Power, and only some few suffering Christians left here, and the Pope much in the same condition with the Patriarch of Constantinople: But on the other side, that Christianity should largely spread it self in China, and the East Indies, and the Christian Church flourish in America, Could any Philosopher think that fixing a Monarchy at Rome, or elsewhere, were the best way to Govern the Catholick Church, which consists of all these Christian Societies? For that is certainly the best Government which is suited to all conditions of that Society, which it is intended for; now it is apparent the Christian Church was intended to be so Catholick, that no one Vice-Roy can be supposed able to look to the Government of it. If Christ had intended meerly such a Church which should have consisted of such persons which lay here near about Rome, and no others, the supposition of such a Monarchy in the Church would not have been altogether so incongruous (though liable to very many inconveniencies:) but when he intended his Religion for the universal good of the world, and that in all parts of it, without obliging them to live near each other, it is one of the most unreasonable suppositions in the world, that he should set up a Monarchical Government over his Catholich Church in such a place as Rome is. But now, if we suppose only an Aristocratical Government in the Church under Christ as the alone Supreme Head; nothing can be more suitable to the nature of the Church, or the large extent of it, than that is. For where-ever a Church is, there may be Bishops to govern it, and other Officers of the Church to over-see the lesser parts of it, and all joyn to promote the Peace and Unity of it, which they may with the more ease do, if no one challenge to be Supreme Head, to whom belongs the chief care of the Church. For by this means they cannot with that power and authority redress abuses, and preserve the Churches Purity and Peace, which otherwise they might have done. So that considering barely the nature of things, nothing seems more repugnant to the end for which Christ instituted a Catholick Church, than such a Monarchy as you imagine; and nothing more suitable than an Aristocracy; considering that Christian Churches may be much dispersed abroad, and that where they are, they are incorporated into that Civil Society in which they live (according to the known saying p. 464of Optatus, Ecclesia est in republicâ, &c.) and therefore such a Monarchy would be unsuitable to the civil Governments in which those Churches may be. For it were easie to demonstrate, that such a Monarchy as you challenge in the Church, is the most inconvenient Government for it, take the Church in what way, or sense you please; Whether, as to its own peace and order, or to its spreading into other Churches, or to the respect it must have to the civil Government it lives under. And, if we would more largely enquire into these things, we might easily find, that those which you look on as the great ends, wherefore Christ should institute such a Monarchical Government in his Church, are things unsuitable to the nature of a Christian Church; and which Christ, as far as we can judge, did never intend to take care, that they should never be: which are, freedom from all kind of Controversies, and absolute submission of Judgement to the decrees of an Infallible Judge. We no where find such a state of a Christian Church described or promised, where men shall all be of one mind (only that peace and brotherly love be continued, is that, all Christians are bound to); much less certainly, that this Vnity should be by a submission of our understandings to an Infallible Judge, of whom we read nothing in that Book which perswades us to be Christians: and without which freedom of our understandings (which this pretended Infallibility would deprive us of) we could never have been judicious and rational Christians.

§. 10.But granting that wise men have thought Monarchy the best Government in it self; What is this to the proving, what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church? For that is the best Government for the Church, not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best, but which our Saviour hath appointed in his Word. For he certainly knew best, what would suit with the conveniencies of his Church. And these are bold and insolent disputes, wherein those of your side argue, That Christ must have instituted a Monarchy in his Church, because all Philosophers have judged That the most perfect Government. I need not tell you what these speeches imply Christ to be, if he doth not follow the Philosophers judgement. Will you give him leave to judge what is fittest for his Church himself? or do you think he hath not wisdom enough to do it, unless the Philosophers instruct him? Let us therefore appeal to his Laws to see what Government he hath there appointed. And now I shall deal more closely with you. You tell me, therein Christ hath appointed this Monarchical Government. But I may be nearer your mind, when you will Answer me these following Questions. When, and where did any wise Legislator appoint a matter of so vast concernment to the good of the Society, as the Supreme Government of it, and express no more of it in his Laws, than Christ hath done of this Monarchical Government of the Church? Is there not particular care taken in all Laws about that, to express the rights of Soveraignty, to hinder Vsurpations, to bind all to obedience, to determine the way of Succession by descent or election? And hath Christ instituted a Monarchy in his Church and said nothing of all these things? When the utmost you can pretend to, are some ambiguous places, which you must have the power of Interpreting your selves, or they signifie nothing to your purpose. So that none of the Fathers, or the Primitive Church for several Centuries, could find out such mysteries in super hanc Petram, dabo tibi Claves, and pasce oves, as you have done. If such a Monarchy had been appointed in the Church, what should we have had more frequent mention p. 465of in the Records of the Church, than of this? Where do we meet with any Histories that write the affairs of Kingdoms for some hundred of years, and never mention any Royal Acts of the Kings of them? If St. Peters being at Rome had setled the Monarchy of the Church there, what more famous act could have been mentioned in all Antiquity then that? What notice would have been taken by other Churches of him whom he had left his Successour? What addresses would have been made to him by the Bishops of other Churches? What testimonies of obedience and submission; what appeals and resort thither? And it is wonderful strange that the Histories of the Church should be silent in these grand Affairs, when they report many minute things even during the hottest times of persecution. Did the Christians conspire together in those times not to let their posterity know, Who had the Supream Government of the Church then? Or were they afraid the Heathen Emperours should be jealous of the Popes, if they had understood their great Authority? But then methinks they should have carried it however among themselves with all reverence and submission to the Pope, and not openly oppose him assoon as ever he began to exercise any Authority, as in the case of Victor and the Asian Bishops. But of all things, it seems most strange and unaccountable to me, that Christ should have instituted such a Monarchy in his Church, and none of the Apostles mention any thing of it in any of the Epistles which they writ, in which are several things concerning the Peace and Government of the Church: nay, when there were Schisms and divisions in the Church, and that on the account of their Teachers, among whom Cephas was one (by that very name on which Christ said he would build his Church) and yet no mention of respect more to him, then to any other: no intimation of what power St. Peter had for the Government of the Church, as the Head and Monarch of it: no references at all made to him by any of the divided parties of the Church at that time: no mention at all of any such power given him in the Epistles written by him, but he writes just as any other Apostle did, with great expressions of humility; and, as if he foresaw what Vsurpations would be in the Church, he forbids any Lording it over Gods heritage, and calls Christ the chief Pastour of the Church. And this he doth in an Epistle not writ to the Catholick Church, which had been most proper for him if Head of the Church, but only to the dispersed Jews in some particular Provinces. Can any one then imagine he should be Monarch of the Church, and no act of his, as such, recorded at all of him; but carrying himself with all humility, not fixing himself as Head of the Church in any Chair, but going up and down from one place to another, as the rest of the Apostles for promoting the Gospel of Christ? To conclude all; Is it possible to conceive there should be a Monarch appointed by Christ in the Church, and yet the Apostle when he reckons up those offices which Christ had set in the Church, speak not one word of him: he mentions Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers; but the chief of all is omitted, and he to whom the care of all the rest is committed;Eph. 4 12.Eph 4:12 and in whose Authority the welfare, peace, and unity of the Church is secured. These things to me seem so incredible, that till you have satisfied my mind in these Questions, I must needs judge this pretended Monarchy in the Church to be one of the greatest Figments ever were in the Christian world. And thus I have at large considered your Argument from Reason, Why there should be such a Monarchy in the Church; which I have the rather done, because it is one of the great things in dispute between us, and because p. 466the most plausible Argument brought for it, is, The necessity of it in order to the Churches peace, which Monarchy being the best of Governments would the most tend to promote. To return now to his Lordship.

§. 11.He brings an evidence out of Antiquity against the acknowledgement of any such Monarchy in the Church from the literae communicatoriae which certified from one great Patriarch to another, P. 201.Who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their Communion, upon any occasion of repairing from one See to another. And these were sent mutually, and as freely in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs, as from them to it. Out of which (saith his Lordship) I think this will follow most directly, that the Church-Government then was Aristocratical. For had the Bishop of Rome been then accounted sole Monarch of the Church, and been put into the definition of the Church (as he is now by Bellarmin) all these communicatory Letters should have been directed from him to the rest, as whose admittance ought to be a rule for all to communicate; but not from others to him, at least not in that even equal brotherly way, as now they appear to be written. For it is no way probable the Bishops of Rome, which even then sought their own greatness too much, would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily, had not the very course of the Church put it upon them. P. 220.To this you Answer, That these literae communicatoriae do rather prove our assertion, being ordained by Sixtus 1, in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome, or otherwise forced to repair thither; to the end they might without scruple, be received into their own Diocese at their return: having also decreed, that without such letters communicatory, none in such case should be admitted. But that these letters should be sent from other Bishops to Rome in such an even, equal, and brotherly way, you say, is one of his Lordships Chimaera's. But this difference, or inequality you pretend to be in them; that those to the Pope were meerly Testimonial; those from him were Mandatory, witness (say you) the case of St. Athanasius and other Bishops restored by the Popes communicatory letters. But supposing them equal, you say, it only shewed the Popes humility; and ought to be no prejudice to his just authority, and his right and power to do otherwise if he saw cause. But all this depends upon a meer fiction, viz. That these communicatory letters were ordained by Sixtus 1, in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome, than which nothing can be more improbable. But I do not say, that this is a Chimaera of your own Brains,Baron Annal. A.D. 142. s. 6. Bin. Concil. T…. 1. p. 74. for you follow Baronius in it: for which he produceth no other evidence, but the Authour of the lives of the Popes: but Binius adds that which seems to have been the first ground of it, which is the second decretal Epistle of Sixtus 1, in which that Decree is extant: But whosoever considers the notorious forgery of those decretal Epistles (as will be more manifested where you contend for them) on which account they are slighted by Card. Perron, Baron. An. 865. sect. 5.8.and in many places by Baronius himself, will find little cause to triumph in this Epistle of Sixtus 1. And whoever reflects on the state of those times in which Sixtus lived, will find it improbable enough, that the Pope should take to himself so much Authority to summon Bishops to him, and to order that none should be admitted without Communicatory letters from him. It is not here a place to enquire into the several sorts of those letters which passed among the Bishops of the Primitive Church, whether the Canonical, Pacifical, Ecclesiastical, and Communicatory, were all one; and what difference there was between the Communicatory letters granted to Travellers, in order to their Communion with forrain Churches, and those letters which were sent from one Patriarch to another. But this is sufficiently evident, that those letters which were p. 467the tessera hospitalitatis, as Tertullian calls it, the Pass-port for Communion in forrain Churches, had no more respect to the Bishop of Rome, than to any other Catholick Bishop. Therefore the Council of Antioch passeth two Canons concerning them; one,Concil. Antioch. can. 7, 8. That no Traveller should be received without them; another, That none but Bishops should give them. And that all Bishops did equally grant them to all places,Aug. Epist. 163. appears by that passage in St. Austin, in his Epistle to Eusebius and the other Donatists, relating the conference he had with Fortunius a Bishop of that party; wherein St. Austin asked him, Whether he could give communicatory letters whither he pleased? for by that means it might be easily determined whether he had communion with the whole Catholick Church, or no. From whence it follows, that any Catholick Bishop might without any respect to the Bishop of Rome grant Communicatory letters to all forrain Churches. And the enjoying of that Communion which was consequent upon these letters, is all that Optatus means in that known saying of his, that they had Communion with Siricius at Rome, commercio formatarum, Optat. l. 2,by the use of these communicatory letters. But besides these, there were other letters, which every Patriarch sent to the rest upon his first installment, which were call'd their Synodical Epistles, and these contained the profession of their Faith; and the answers to them did denote their Communion with them. Since therefore these were sent to all the Patriarchs indifferently, and not barely to the Bishop of Rome; there appears no difference at all in the letters sent to or from him and the other Patriarchs on this occasion. As for your instance of the Popes restoring Athanasius, I have sufficiently answered it already; and if the Popes letter were never so Mandatory (as it was not) yet we see it took no effect among the Eastern Bishops: and therefore they were of his Lordships mind, That the Government of the Church was not Monarchical, but Aristocratical. I did expect here to have met with the pretended Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople about the manner of making formed letters, wherein one Π is said to be for the honour of St. Peter; but since you pass it over, on this occasion, I hope you are convinced of the Forgery of it.

In the beginning of your next Chapter (which because of the coherence of the matter I handle with this) you find great fault with his Lordship for a Marginal citation out of Gerson,§. 12. P. 221.because he supposeth that Gersons judgement, was, that the Church might continue without a Monarchical head, because he writ a Tract de Auferibilitate Papae; whereas, you say, Gersons drift is only to shew how many several waies the Pope may be taken away, that is, deprived of his office, and cease to be Pope as to his own person, so that the Church, pro tempore, till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head. But although the truth of what his Lordship proves, doth not at all depend upon this Testimony of Gerson, which was only a Marginal citation; yet since you so boldly accuse him for a false allegation, we must further examine how pertinent this Testimony is to that which his Lordship brought it for. The sentence to which this Citation of Gerson refers, is this. For they are no mean ones, P. 220.who think our Saviour Christ left the Church-militant in the hands of the Apostles, and their Successours, in an Aristocratical, or rather a mixt Government; and that the Church is not Monarchical, otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head. Over against these words, that Tract of Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae is cited. If therefore so much be contained in that Book as makes good this, which his Lordship sayes; he is not so much guilty of false p. 468alledging Gerson, as you are of falsly accusing him. To make this clear, we must consider what Gersons design was in writing that Book, and what his opinion therein is concerning the Churches Government. It is well known, that his Book was written upon the occasion of the Council of Constance in the time of the great Schism between the three Popes; and that the design of it, is, to make it appear that it was in the power of the Council to depose the Popes, Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae Consider. 10and suspend them from all Jurisdiction in the Church. Therefore, he saith, That the Pope may not only lose his office by voluntary cession; but that in many cases he may be deprived by the Church, or by a General Council representing the Church, whether he consent to it or no: Nay, in the next consideration, he saith, That he may be deprived by a General Council which is celebrated without his consent or against his will; And, in the following consideration adds, That this may be done not only declaratively, but juridically: the Question now comes to this, Whether a person who asserts these things, doth believe the Government of the Militant Church to be Monarchical, and not rather Aristocratical and mixt Government? And I dare appeal to any mans reason, whether that may be accounted a Monarchical Government, where he that is Supream may be deposed and deprived of his office in a Juridical manner, by a Senate that hath Authority to do these things? For it is apparent, the Supream power lyes in the Senate and not the Prince, and that the Prince is only a Ministerial Head under them. And this is plainly Gersons opinion as to the Church; although therefore he may allow the supream Ministerial Authority to be in the Pope, (which is all your Citations prove) yet the radical and intrinsecal power lyes in the Church, which being represented in a General Council, may depose the Pope from his Authority in the Church. And the truth is, this opinion of Gerson makes the Fundamental power of the Church to be Democratical, and that the Supream exercise is by Representatives in a General Council, and that the Pope at the highest, is, but a Ministerial and accountable Head. And therefore Spalatensis truly observes, That this opinion of Gerson (which is the same with that of the Paris Divines, of which he speaks) doth only in words attribute supream Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Pope, Spalat. de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 1. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 5.but in reality it takes it quite away from him. And this is the same Doctrine which then prevailed in the Council of Constance, and afterwards at Basil, as may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle, defended by Richerius, Vigorius, and others. Now let any man of reason judge, whether, notwithstanding your charge of false citation, (from some expressions intimating only a Ministerial Headship) his Lordship did not very pertinently cite this Tract of Gersons, to prove that no mean persons did think the Church Militant, not to be Governed by a Monarchical, but by an Aristocratical or mixt Government?

But no sooner is this marginal citation cleared, but the charge is renewed about another,§. 13. P. 222.viz. St. Hierom; yet here you dare not charge his Lordship with a false allegation, but you are put to your shifts to get off this Testimony as well as you can. For, St. Hierom saying expresly in his Epistle to Evagrius, Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, &c. ejusdem meriti est, ejusdem est & sacerdotii; his Lordship might well inferr, That doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy. For what Bishop, saith he, is of the same merit or the same degree in the Priesthood with the Pope, as things are now carried at Rome? To this you Answer, That he speaks not of the Pope, as he is Pope, or in respect of that eminent Authority, which belongs to him as St. Peters Successour, p. 469but only compares him with another private Bishop, in respect of meer character or power of a Bishop, as Bishop only. But though this be all which any of your party ever since the Reformation have been able to Answer to this place; yet nothing looks more like a meer shift than this doth. For had St. Hierom only compared these Bishops together in regard of their order, was not Sacerdotium enough to express that by; if St. Hierom had said only, that all Bishops are ejusdem sacerdotii, there might have been some plausible pretence for this distinction; but when he adds ejusdem meriti too, he wholly precludes the possibility of your evading that way. For, What doth merit here stand for as distinct from Priesthood, if it imports not something besides what belongs to Bishops as Bishops? What can merit here signifie, but some greater Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another. St. Hierom was not so sensless, as not to see that the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, had greater Authority, and larger Jurisdiction in the Church, then the petty Bishops of Eugubium, Rhegium, and Tanis; but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church, that one Bishop should have larger power in the Church then another. But (saith he) if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church, then, saith he, Orbis major est urbe, it is no one City, as that of Rome (which he particularly instanceth in) which can prescribe to the whole world; For (saith he) all Bishops are of equal merit, and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are, whether at Rome or elsewhere. So that it is plain to all, but such as wilfully blind themselves, that St. Hierom speaks not of that, which you call, the Character of Bishops, but of the Authority of them; for that very word he useth immediately before, Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character? They who say, It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense. For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life? But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here. For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus,Concil. Rom. 3. sub Symmacho. To. 3. p. 688.Rom 3 that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church; ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus, deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas, &c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality; apply now but this sense to S. Hierom, and he may be very easily understood, All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus, of the same merit, Dignity or Authority in the Church. But you say, he speaks not of the Pope, as he is Pope: good reason for it, for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope, as he now challengeth. And can you think, if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do, he would ever have used such words as these are, to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood. I cannot perswade my self you can think so, only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend. And since, Bellarmine, and such great men, had gone before you, you could not believe there were any absurdity in saying as they did. Still you say, He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's Successor. But if you would but read a little further, you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, &c. as equally the Apostles Successors: For, it is neither (saith he) riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower. Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt; but they are all the Apostles Successors; therefore he speaks of p. 470them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles. And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here, if he had known any such thing, but he must be excused, he was ignorant of it. No, that he could not be (say you again) for he speaks of it elsewhere, and therefore he must be so understood there, as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself. But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it, a sufficient account hath been given of that already: therefore you add more, and bid us go find them out, to see, Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm, because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church, and not of the the Popes, and that may import only dignity and preheminence, without authority and jurisdiction: besides, that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus, Sixtus Senensis, and many others among your selves. Your second, ad Demetriadem Virginem, is much less to your purpose; for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome, qui Apostolicae Cathedrae & supradicti viri successor & filius est, Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair; But, Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome, and had every one of them supreme authority over the Church of God? What, that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew, I cannot imagine, unless it be that S. Peter is called Princeps Apostolorum, which honour we deny him not, or that he saith, Aedificabo Ec…lesiam meam super te: But how these things concern the Popes Authority, unless you had further enlightened us, I cannot understand. That ep. 54. ad Marcellam, is of the same nature with the last, for the words which I suppose you mean, are, Petrus super quem Dominus funda…it Ecclesiam; and if you see, what Erasmus saith upon that place, you will have little cause to boast much of it. Your last place is, l. 1. Cont. Lucifer; which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence; Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet; but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you, it is understood of every ordinary Bishop, Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom, and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning himself, as to any thing which is here spoken by him. So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church.

His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus;§. 14. P. 200.that wheresoever there is a Church, Optat. l. 3.there the Church is in the Common-wealth, and not the Common-wealth in the Church. And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire. Now from this ground (saith his Lordship) I argue thus. If the Church be within the Empire, or other Kingdom, 'tis impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical. For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion, that shall be greater than himself, since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch. P. 223.Your answer to this, is, That these two Kingdoms are of different natures, the one spiritual, the other temporal: the one exercised only in such things as concern the worship of God, and the Eternal Salvation of souls; the other in affairs that concern this world only. Surely you would perswade us, we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice, about the Popes Temporal Power, which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome; and although he minces the matter as much as may be, and much more p. 471than Baronius and others did, who pleaded downright for the Popes Temporal Power; yet he must be a very weak Prince, who doth not see how far that indirect and reductive power, may extend, when the Pope himself is to be Judge, What comes under it, and what not. And, What may not come under it, when deposing of Princes shall be reduced under that you call The Worship of God? and absolving subjects from their obedience, tend to promote their Eternal Salvation? But if the Pope may be Judge, What temporal things are in ordine ad spiritualia, and bring them under his power in that respect, Why may not the Prince be Judge what spiritual things are in ordine ad temporalia, and use his power over them in that respect too? But in the mean time, Is not a Kingdom like to be at peace then? If the Pope challenged no other authority but what Christ or the Apostles had, his Government might be admitted, as well as that authority which they had; but, What do you think of us the mean while, when you would perswade us, that the Popes Power is no other than what Christ or the Apostles had? you must certainly think us such persons as the Moon hath wrought particularly upon, as you after very civilly speak concerning his Lordship. Your instance from the Kings of France and Spain, his Lordship had sufficiently answered, by telling you, That he that is not blind may see if he will, of what little value the Popes Power is in those Kingdoms, further than to serve their own turns of him, which they do to their great advantage. And when you would have this to be upon the account of Faith and Conscience, Let the Pope exercise his power apparently against their Interest, and then see, on what account they profess obedience to him. But, as long as they can manage such pretences for their advantage, and admit so much of it, and no more, they may very well endure it, and his Lordship be far enough from contradicting himself. When you would urge the same inconvenience against the Aristocratical Government of the Church, you suppose that Aristocratical Government wholly Independent on, and not subordinate to,P. 224. the Civil Government; whereas his Lordship and the Church of England assert the Kings Supremacy in Government over all, both persons and causes Ecclesiastical: And therefore this nothing concerns us. And if from what hath gone before, it must, as you say, remain therefore fully proved, that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical. It may for all that I see, remain as fully proved, that you are now the man who enjoy this Monarchical Power over the Church. And whatever you stile the Pope, Whether the Deputy, or Vicar General of Christ, or Servus servorum, or what you will; it is all one to us as long as we know his meaning, whatever fair words you give him. As though men would take it one jot the better to have one usurp and Tyrannize over them, because he doth not call himself King or Prince, but their humble servant. Is it not by so much the greater Tyranny? to have such kind of Ecclesiastical Saturnalia, when the servus servorum must, under that name, tyrannize over the whole world?

We have already at large shewed, How destructive this pretended Supremacy is to that Government of the Church by Bishops, which, his Lordship proves from the ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church, P. 202.doth of right belong to them, viz. from several Canons of the Councils of Antioch and Nice, and the testimonies of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian. To all this you only say, That you allow the Bishops their portion in the Government of Christs Flock: But it is but a very small portion of what belongs to them,P. 224. if all their Jurisdiction must be derived from the Pope; which I have shewed before to be the most current Opinion in your Church: And I dare say, you p. 472will not dispute the contrary. His Lordship was well enough aware, to what purpose Bellarmine acknowledged that the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops; for he himself saith, It was to exclude temporal Princes; but then he desires A. C. to take notice of that, when Secular Princes are to be excluded, then it shall be pretended, that Bishops have power to govern: but when it comes to sharing stakes between them and the Pope, then hands off; they have nothing to do any further than the Pope gives them leave. What follows concerning the impossibility of a right executing of this Monarchy in the Church hath been already discussed of, and you answer nothing at all to it that hath any face of pertinency; for when you say, it will hold as well against the Aristocratical Form, I have plainly enough shewed you the contrary.

§. 15.That which follows about the design of an Vniversal Monarchy in the State, as well as the Church; about Pope Innocent's making the Pope to be the Sun, and the Emperour the Moon, the Spanish Friers two Scutchions, Campanella's Eclogue, P. 225, 227.since you will not stand to defend them, I shall willingly pass them over. But what concerns the Supremacy of the Civil Power, is more to our purpose, and must be considered. His Lordship therefore saith, That every soul was to be subject to the higher power, Rom. 13.1. And the higher Power there mentioned, P. 205.is the Temporal. And the ancient Fathers come in with a full consent, that every soul comprehends all without exception: All spiritual men, even to the highest Bishop, even in spiritual causes too, so the Foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken: And where they are shaken, there ought to be prayer and patience, there ought not to be opposition by force. Nay, Emperours and Kings are custodes utriusque Tabulae; They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law, for worship to God, and duty to man, are committed. A Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time, to be given to the King, Deut. 17.18. And the Kings under the Law, but still according to it, did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church-businesses; and therein commanded the very Priests themselves, as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah, who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the High-Priests office. Nay, and the greatest Emperours for the Churches honour, Theodosius the elder, and Justinian, and Charls the Great, and divers others, did not only meddle now and then, but enact Laws to the great settlement and encrease of Religion in their several times. Now to this again, you answer, That the civil and spiritual are both absolute and independent powers, though each in their proper Orb, the one in spirituals, the other in temporals. But, What is this to that which his Lordship proves, That there can be no such absolute independent spiritual power; both because all are bound to obey the Civil Power, and because the Civil Power hath a right to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters? And, though you express never so much honour to civil authority, yet still you limit it to the administration meerly of civil affairs; and how far that is, is well enough known. You tell us plainly, That it doth not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church; But why do you not answer the Reasons and Instances which his Lordship brings to the contrary? Yet you yield, That in case of notorious and gross abuses, manifestly contrary to Religion, and connived at by the Pastors of the Church, Christian Princes may lawfully and piously use their Authority, in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastors, P. 226.as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove. But in case the High-Priest would not have yielded to such a reformation, Might not those Princes, by the assistance of other Priests, have effected it? This is p. 473the case you were to speak to: For whereas you fly out, and say, That Princes may not take the Priests office upon them. Whom do you dispute against in that? Not his Lordship certainly, nor any of the Church of England, who never said they might, though they have been most injuriously calumniated, as though they did. That which we assert, is, That Princes may enact Laws concerning Religion, and reform abuses in Divine Worship, but we do not say, they may take the Pastoral office upon them; and therefore you say no more in that than we do our selves. But when you say, They may not reform Religion in the substance of it, I cannot well tell How to understand you. If you mean, not so reform Religion, as to take away any of the substance, that is a Reformation to purpose; but if you bring it ad hypothesin, we utterly deny that any of the substance of Religion was taken away upon our Churches Reformation: If you mean, not reform abuses which go under the name of the substance of Religion, that will be to make the most unsufferable abuses the most incurable. But, when you add, That nothing must be enacted pertaining to Religion by their own Authority without, or contrary to the Priests consent (the High-Priest, I suppose you mean) shew us, Where the Kings of Israel were bound, not to reform in case the High-Priest did not consent: and if you could do this, you must prove such a High-Priest now, and that Princes are bound to wait his leisure for reforming abuses in Religion, when his pretended Authority is upheld by maintaining them. As for your commendations of Pope Hildebrand, and Innocent the Third, for very prudent men, and worthy Champions of your Church, we see, What prudence is with you, and what a worthy Church you have. But it is still an excellent evasion,P. 227. That they never endeavoured to subject the Emperour to themselves in temporal matters; no nor Alexander the Third neither, when he trod upon the Emperours neck? But the proceedings of these Popes with the Emperours, as likewise Adrian 4. Lucius 3. and others, are so gross, that it had been more for your Interest with Christian Princes, to disown them, than to go about to palliate them with such frivolous distinctions, that his Vnderstanding must be as blind as his Obedience, that doth not see thorough them. You are much concerned, that his Lordship should seem to give a lash to those mortified self-denying men, the Jesuits, in bidding them leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour; for, Who could believe they should deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of the world upon such designs? Undoubtedly you are one of the number, for I never heard that any other Order among you, did ever give them half so good words, but condemned them as much for their practising, as we do our selves. And, What holy men they are, and what excellent Casuistical Divinity about both the riches and pleasures of the world, if we did not otherwise know, the Mysteries of Jesuitism would sufficiently discover. To what his Lordship saith further,P. 211. That there is no necessity of one Supreme Living Judge, to keep the Church in peace and unity, but that the several Bishops under their Soveraign Princes, are sufficient in order to it; you only say, That he quotes Occham for it. But, Doth he nothing else but quote Occham? Why do you not answer to the thing, and not barely to Occham? You have very good reason for it; for you have little to say to the thing it self; but for Occham, you have enough to tell him in his ear. 1. That he is in the Index of forbidden Books; a good testimony for the man's honesty. 2. That he sided with the Emperour; a crime beyond an Index Expurgatorius at Rome. 3. That if there were such a Government as Occham supposes, p. 474all those Governours must be Infallible, or else there would be meer Anarchy in the Church: And, Why not as well in the State, without Infallibility there? You say, For want of this Infallibility, those Countries where it is not acknowledged, are in Schisms: And we say, The pretence of this Infallibity hath caused the greatest of them. 4. You say, Occham speaks only de possibili, of what might have been, if our Saviour had pleased; but Occhamsayes, There is no necessity there should be one chief Governour under Christ, and we say, You can never prove that Christ hath appointed that there shall be one; and therefore this is more than disputing a bare possibility.

But now, as though all your beggings the Question had been arguments, all your sayings proofs, and all your proofs demonstrations, with as much authority as if you were in Cathedrâ, you conculde; Remain it therefore a settled Catholick Principle, that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God; But you leave out something which should be at the end of it, among all those who can believe things as strongly without reason, as with it. And for the greater solemnity of the Sentence you give it in the words of the Oecumenical Council at Florence: And I must needs say, You have fitted them very well, for that was just as much an Oecumenical Council, as the Pope is Oecumenical Pastor: but, that neither the one nor the other is so, I have sufficiently proved already.