I.

PART both " from Pope, Papacy, and Roman Church"." And here again he falls upon his former needless theme, that personal faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution". If he had been pleased to observe it, I took away this distinction before it was made; shewing, that "the personal faults of Popes or their ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty," but "faulty principles, in doctrine or discipline," do " warrant a more permanent separation, even until they be reformed"."

Our sepa

the Papacy was not for the faults

of Popes, Papacy it

but of the

self.

I do acknowledge the distinction of "Pope, Papacy, and ration from Church of Rome;" but I deny, that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another. As the Pope may have his proper faults, so may the Papacy, so may the Church of Rome. We have separated ourselves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated herself from the ancient Roman Church; in all other things we maintain communion with her. We are ready to yield the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, and whatsoever external honour the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that see, if he would content himself therewith. But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy itself, 'qua talis,' as it is now defended, as they seek to obtrude it upon us the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court; the sovereignty of the Pope above general Councils; his legislative and judiciary power in all Christian kingdoms, against the will of the right owners; his pretended right to convocate synods, and confirm synods, and dissolve synods, and hold legantine courts, and obtrude new points of Faith as necessary articles, and receive the last appeals, and dispose of all ecclesiastical dignities and benefices at his pleasure, and impose tenths and first-fruits and subsidies and pensions; to invest Bishops, and sell pardons, and indulgences, and palls. These and the like are not the faults of Innocent the Tenth, or Urban the Eighth, or Sixtus, or Pius, or Alexander, or Clement, or any particular Pope. But they are the faults of the Papacy itself, woven into the body of it, and without the acknowledgment of which they will suffer us to

n

[Ibid., sect. 3. pp. 86, 87.]

[Ibid., sect. 2. p. 86.]

[Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i.] p. [179.]

220

III.

hold no communion with the Papacy. I do not say that DISCOURSE they are inseparable; for the time hath been when the Papacy was without those blemishes; but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the ancient liberty of the Church: as the countryman expected that the river should be run out, and become dry,

"Rusticus expectat ut defluat amnis, at ille

"Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis ævum P."

We expected remedy and hoped for reformation from the time of Henry the First, in whose reign their encroachments did begin to grow signal and notorious, until the days of Henry the Eighth, throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding kings; and found not the least ease from them, but what we carved out ourselves. No law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally. The Lord of the Luke xiii. Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless figtree, and when it improved not in the fourth year, the sentence issued against it, " cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground."

7.

Popes have

He urgeth, that "if some Popes have wronged England Whether temporally, far more Popes have benefited it much more done more both temporally and spiritually."

"Sufficit unus "Huic operi:"

good or hurt to England not mate

rial.

this were more comely in our mouths than in theirs. Some men would go make an estimate of Papal importations, as parchment and lead and wax and crosses, Agnus Dei's, and relics; and their exportations, gold, silver, jewels, and whatsoever the land afforded either for necessity or delight. But I will spare his modesty, and suppose more than ever he will be able to prove. Ancient virtues or benefits do not justify an old institution, when it is grown useless and subject to desperate abuses. The Brasen Serpent was instituted by God Himself; it was a singular type of Christ; it saved the [Numb. temporal lives of the Israelites, and pointed them out the xxi. 8, 9.] right way to eternal life. Yet, when it was become useless and abused over much, Hezekiah is commended for breaking 2 Kings it in pieces, and calling it Nehushtan-an useless piece of xviii. 4. common brass, that had quite lost its ancient virtue. The

P [Horat., Epist., I. ii. 42, 43. "dum defluat" &c.] [Surv., c. vi. sect. 2. p. 85.]

I.

PART order of the Templars was instituted about the year 1120′. Scarcely any order can shew such a hopeful beginning at their first institution, or such a huge progress towards greatness in so short a revolution of time. He who shall read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernards (who is thought to have been the author of their rule'), will take them rather to have been a society of angels than of mortal men. Yet, in the days of Clement the Fifth, [A.D. 1307 they were generally suppressed throughout the whole world -1311.] as it were in an instant, not for common faults, but horrid crimes, and prodigious villanies, by the joint consent of the occidental Church and sovereign princes". I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not; but from hence I do collect, that in the judgment of this occidental world a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses. As we had not the same latitude of power, which they who censured them had, so we did not act without our own sphere, or the bounds of the English dominions.

[Two

points out of three

SECTION THE SECOND.

In the Vindication I urged three points, wherein the Romans do agree with us.

First, "that sovereign princes not only may but in justice are obliged to repress the tyranny of ecclesiastical judges, urged in the and protect their subjects" from their violence, and "free" them from their oppressive yoke. To this he answereth by R. C.] nothing.

Vindica

tion, unanswered

Secondly, that "princes may be enabled, either by grant or by prescription" (I added by "their sovereign authority over the whole body politic"), "to exercise all external ecclesiastical jurisdiction by themselves or by fit delegates," and

[At the Council of Vienna in 1311; Labb., Concil., tom. xi. Pt. ii. pp. 1538, sq. 1557, sq. See Mosheim, ibid. Cent. xiv. bk. iii. c. 5. § 9, 10.-Du Puy, Hist. de la Condemnation des Templiers; and for England, Shar. Turner, Hist. of Engl. in Mid. Ages, bk. ii. c. 3. in fine, and Wilkins' Concil., there quoted.]

III.

to make ecclesiastical laws for the external regiment of the DISCOURSE Church, to which their subjects owe obedience. This alone were sufficient to free us from schism. But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad.

ful to with

Thirdly, that it is lawful 'in several cases to substract It was lawobedience from the Pope'.' And among other proofs I cited draw obethe Council of Tours. To this only he answers, that they dience from Papal acknowledged it lawful "to withdraw obedience from this or authority corrupted. that Pope, in this or that case," but not "from Papal authority itself." Whereas I shewed him in the Vindication, that the same equity which doth allow substraction of obedience from this or that Pope for "personal faults," as "schism or simony," doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his successors for "faulty principles," as "obtruding new creeds, pressing of unlawful oaths, palpable usurpation of undoubted rights,"-even until they be reformed. "Papal authority" without the Pope is but an imaginary idea; whosoever substracts obedience from the 221 true Pope, substracts obedience from the "Papal authority;" perhaps, indeed, not simply or absolutely, but respectively; as he saith, "in this or that case." But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part, so far as it is due, but have it entire according to his own demands, or none at all? Then it is not they who separate themselves from "Papal authority," but it is "Papal authority" which separates them from it. Either he understands "Papal authority" such as it ought to be de jure; and then we have substracted no obedience from it, for we owed it none, and are not unwilling for peace' sake to pay it more respect than we do owe: or else by "Papal authority" he understands a spiritual monarchy, such as it is now, with superiority above general Councils, and infallibility of judgment, and legislative authority, and patronage of all ecclesiastical preferments, &c. ; and then the universal Church did never acknowledge any such "Papal authority;" and then to withdraw our obedience from it, is not to substract obedience from a lawful, but from an unlawful and tyrannical power.

y [Ibid., pp. 170, 171.] [Ibid., pp. 173, 174.]

Concil. Turon. [A.D. 15107, Respons. ad Artic. 3, 4, et 8. [ap. Labb.,

Concil., tom. xiii. p. 1482; quoted in
Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i. p. 174.]

C

b [Surv., c. vi. sect. 2. p. 83.]

[Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i. p. 179.]

PART

Princes the

of the in

to their

Popes.

When sovereign princes do withdraw obedience "from this I. or that Pope, in this or that case," they make themselves last judges judges of the difference between them and the Court of juries done Rome; as, whether the Pope have invaded their privileges, subjects by or usurped more authority than is due unto him; or in contemning his censures (which the Council of Tours doth expressly allow them to do), and judging whether the Pope's Key have erred or not. Yield thus much, and the question is at an end, that sovereign princes within their own dominions are the last judges of their own liberties, and of Papal oppressions and usurpations, and the validity or invalidity of the Pope's censures.

Kingly authority

from God, [but] not Papal.

1, 2.

15.

There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit,-that "Papal authority" is "instituted immediately by God," but "not regale." Cujus contrarium verum est.' He was once, or seemed to be, of another mind; For of Almighty God His mere bounty and great grace they' (kings) receive and hold their diadems and princely sceptres '.' St. Paul saith expressly, speaking of Rom. xiii. civil powers, "The powers that be, are ordained of God;" and "whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damProv. viii. nation." The Eternal Wisdom of the Father hath said, "By Me kings reign and princes decree justice." If they be "ordained by God," and "reign by God," then they are "instituted by God." Therefore they are justly styled the living images of God That saveth all things. He Who said, "By Me kings reign," never said, 'By Me Popes reign.' Kings may inherit by the law of man, or be elected by the suffrages of men; but the regal office and regal power is immediately from God. No man can give that which he himself hath not. The people have not power of life and death. That must come from God. By the law of nature fathers of families were princes; and when fathers of families did conjoin their power to make

d [Concil. Turon. Respons. ad Artic.
8, as before quoted.]

[Surv., c. vi. sect. 2. p. 84.]
Bish. [of Chalced.], Epist. ad Reg.
Jacob., p. 11. [There is a clause to the
same effect as that in the text in the Latin

one father of a country, to

translation of R. C.'s Epist. Historica ad Reg. Jacob., in fin. Flor. Hist. Eccl. Angl., p. 416; but nothing corresponding to the words. The editor cannot meet with the original English edition of the tract.]