I.

PART whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Let him "adorn this Sparta," and leave other impertinencies.

[I. Of the authority of the king

of England

SECTION V.

THAT THE KING AND CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO
WITHDRAW THEIR OBEDIENCE FROM ROME.

THE sixth chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground, consisting of these three particulars,—that and Church the king and Church of England had sufficient authority to to reform reform the Church of England, that they had sufficient the English Church.] grounds for doing it, and that they did it with due moderation. His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three sections, whereof this is the first.

[No reason

for the au

shun

ning the

question of

Divine

right to his sovereignty.]

Whatsoever he prateth in this section of my "shuffling thor's away the whole question," by balking the Bishop of Rome's Divine right to his sovereignty of power to treat of his Patrithe Pope's archal right, which is human',-is first vain; for I always was and still am ready to join issue with him concerning the Bishop of Rome's Divine right to a monarchical power in the 380 Church; saving always to myself and my cause this advantage, that a monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same body ecclesiastical are inconsistent: and this right being saved, I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Pope's monarchy, than about his Patriarchate. Secondly, as it is vain, so it is altogether impertinent: for my ground is this, that a sovereign prince hath power within his own dominions for the public good to change any thing in the external regiment of the Church, which is not of Divine institution; but the Pope's pretended patronage of the English Church, and his legislative, judiciary, and dispensative power in the exterior courts of the same Church, do concern the external regiment of the Church, and are not of Divine institution. Here the hinge of our controversy doth move, without encumbering ourselves at all with Patriarchal authority. Thirdly, I say, that this discourse is not only vain and extravagant, but is likewise false. The Pope's [See above p. 509. note c.] [Schism Dispatched, sect. 5. p. 553.]

IV.

Proto-patriarchal power, and the authority of a Bishop of an DISCOURSE Apostolical Church, as the keeper of Apostolical traditions deposited in that Church, are the fairest flowers in his garland. Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a 'primacy of order,' is altogether of human right; and the application of that primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of human right. And whatsoever he presumeth of the universal tradition of the Christian Church, or "the notion which the former and present world," and we ourselves "before the Reformation, had of the Papacy," that is, of the Divine right of the Pope's sovereignty, is but a bold, rattling, groundless brag. I did and do affirm, that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchical power above a thousand years since; not explicitly, by making a formal resignation of it, but implicitly, by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it".

I was contented to forbear further disputing about Patriarchal rights upon two conditions; one, that he should "not presume, that the Pope is a spiritual monarch, without proving it;" the other, that he should "not attempt to make Patriarchal privileges to be royal prerogatives." This, by one of his peculiar idiotisms, he calleth "bribing of me"." If he had had so much civility in him, he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two errors, which I was sure he would commit. After all his bravadoes, all that he hath pretended to prove is but a "Headship," a "first movership," a "chief governorship;" about which we have no difference with them: and all the proof he bringeth even of that, is a bold presumption, that there is such an immediate traditione. There is not so much as a national tradition for those branches of Papal power which we have rejected, and much less for the Divine right of them. And if there were such a particular tradition, yet, wanting both perpetuity and universality, we deny that it is a sufficient proof of any right. This and the privilege to receive appeals, which is a Proto-patriarchal privilege, is all he produceth.

If he would know what a spiritual monarch is, let him

PART Consult with Sanders De Visibili Monarchia, and Bellarmine I. in his first Book De Pontifice Romano. But he is quite out of his aim, who knoweth no mean between a flat tyrant" and "an ordinary chief governors." Upon these terms, a president of a council, a master of a College, a mayor of a corporation, should be so many monarchs. I have shewed him what are those branches of sovereign monarchical power which the Popes have usurped, and when each usurpation did begin (the first of them about eleven hundred years after Christ), with the opposition that was made unto them by the king and kingdom of England. If he will speak to the purpose, let him speak to these in particular, and trouble us no more with his "chief governorships," or hold his peace for All the controversy between them and us is in point of interest, and the external regiment of the Church, which is due to every Christian sovereign in his own kingdom. It is not we, but they, who have changed their governor.

ent of kings

ever.

[Patriarchs He would fain persuade us if he could, that 'no Catholic not wholly independ- will believe that a Patriarch is dependent on a king in ecclein ecclesi- siastical affairs,' yet he himself hath confessed formerly, astical af- that they "hold that every good king is to take order to see fairs.] ecclesiastical grievances remedied, and the canons of the Church observedi." Then Patriarchs are not altogether independent upon kings in ecclesiastical affairs, if a king be 381 bound to see that a Patriarch execute the canons, and see Patriarchal grievances remedied. Sovereign princes have founded Patriarchates, and confirmed Patriarchates, and conferred Patriarchates, and taken away Patriarchates; still here is some dependence. Gregory the Great was a Patriarch and a Pope; yet he acknowledged, that he owed due subjection to the law of Mauritius in an ecclesiastical affair; -"I being subject to your command have transmitted your law to be published through divers parts of the world; and because the law itself is not pleasing to Almighty God, I have expressed my opinion thereof to my lords; wherefore I have performed my duty on both sides, in yielding obedience to the emperor, and not concealing what I thought for God'."

8 [Ibid.]

hIbid., p. 556.]

[Ibid.] sect. 3. p. 525.

[See Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i. pp.

177-179.]

1 Greg., Epist., lib. ii. Ep. 62. [secund. vett. editt. lib. iii. Ep. 65; Op. tom. ii. p. 677. B, C. ed. Bened.]

IV.

But Mr. Serjeant's reason is silly beyond all degrees of com- DISCOURSE parison;-" Otherwise St. Peter could not preach at Rome, if Nero were a king; nor St. James at Hierusalem without un-kinging Herod m." See what a doughty argument he hath brought. Apostles, or Patriarchs, or Bishops, or Priests, may perform the ordinance of Christ notwithstanding the prohibition of Pagan emperors and kings; therefore they are independent upon them, and owe no subjection or obedience to any kings, Christian or Pagan. Yes, Sir; although they owe them only passive obedience in that, yet they owe them active obedience to their other lawful commands, even in ecclesiastical affairs.

ner of in

But now he saith, he will "give" me "fair law.""Put [No manthe case Papal government had not been of Divine but only stitution for of human institution," yet "it ought not to have been jected, unless the abuses had been irremediable"."

Papal encroachments as

re-h

now main

I allow him to "give law," and "shuffle," and "cut," tained.] and use what expressions he pleaseth; yet I used but an innocent allusion to the soaling of a bowl, and it is thrice cast in my teeth. But for his "fair law" I thank him; I will take no law from him, but what I can win myself. He would be glad with all his heart to have but a good pretence of human institution for those branches of Papal power, which are really controverted between us; but I deny him all manner of institution, both Divine and human; and have shewed that they are but upstart usurpations of the Popes themselves, after eleven hundred years, and wanting lawful prescription even in these last ages, which ought to be plucked up as weeds so soon as they are discovered, and to be removed before all other things by those who are in authority;- Ante omnia spoliatus restitui debet.' And here he is at us again with his often repeated and altogether mistaken "case;" which henceforward I shall vouchsafe no other answer to, but pass by it with a “ τὸν δ' απαμειβόμενος.”

He demanded, whether I would condescend to the re- [Mr. Serjection of monarchy, or extirpation of Episcopacy, for the jeant's pa

rallel from

I.

monarchy

and Episcopacy.]

PART misgovernment of princes or prelates1?' I answered, "no¶." We fancy not their method, who cannot prune a tree except they pluck it up root and branch. But I gave him three reasons, why this could not advantage his cause; “first, never any such abuses as these were objected to princes or prelates in England; secondly, we desire not the 'extirpation' of the Papacy, but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution; thirdly, monarchy and Episcopacy are of Divine institution, so is not Papal sovereignty of jurisdiction."

[1. He saith nothing to the author's

first reply.]

[His idle story about

To the first he saith nothing but by way of recrimination, the most ignoble kind of answering, especially when he himself cannot but condemn them in his own conscience for notorious fictions of Cretan minotaurs: but these abuses, which we complain of, are the proper subject of the next section.

He is here pleased to relate a pretty story of the late Archbishop Archbishop of Canterbury, that he "confessed" himself to Laud.] be "in a schism, in a private discourse" (I warrant it was private enough, without either witness or parties), as this author "was told by a very grave person, whose candour" he hath" no reason to suspect"."

And why doth this "grave person" appear in a vizard without a name? or appear after the party's death? that durst not have said it in his life-time, and for fear to be detected now, telleth us it was in "private." And when all is done, it is ten to one this worthy person (if he be in rerum natura) is an utter enemy, and of another communion. We have had many abominable lies spread abroad in the world, upon the bare testimony of some such single adversary; as the apostacy of Bishop Kings, the defection of King Charles', the hopes they had of my Lord of Strafford", when all that knew my Lord of Strafford and that witness, knew right well he 382 never did in the presence of any other, nor ever durst, offer to him any discourse of that nature.