Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 2 · Section 4
SECT. IV.
His third Ground. What is meant by the [then Roman Church] The Romanists confession that 'tis no point of Faith. The contestations of the Gallican Church. Of Germany. Some testimonies fetch'd from the histories and pretensions of the ancient Popes themselves, Julius, Melchiades, Leo. Gregory, exclaiming at the title of Ʋniversal, setting down the steps of Ecclesiastical judicature, acknowledging his own subjection to the Emperor. Of Agatho. The subjection of Canterbury to Rome, as of York to Canterbury, only on the title of receiving the Faith thence.
1. HIS third Ground, like the continued attempts of rebuilding Jerusalem, falls presently under the unhappy presages of the two former. It is but this, that the Papal authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affairs in England was held then as of Christs institution, and to have been derived to the Pope as he was successor to St. Peter.] This I took to be his meaning in his first Ground (it now appears I did not mistake or misrepresent him) and accordingly evidenced his self-evident ground to be not only infirm, but false, and that contrarywise the whole Kingdome professed that the Bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in Scripture, in this Kingdome of England, than any other Bishop. If this had not real truth in it on our part, or if on his part any more force could be now given his pretension by a hand so able, and so liberal, as is that of S. W. this were now the season of it, and it were in reason to be expected from him at his more explicite proposal of his ground in these terms [held then as of Christs institution, and as derived to the Pope as he was successor to St. Peter] but it is a little remarkable, how he hath served this third ground of his, or rather how he hath disserved the two former, by the very few words he hath here added concerning the evidence of this third. The truth, saith he, of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church, and the selfe same controversie perpetually continued till this day.]
2. This is all he hath produced to clear up the self-evidence of this ground. And the ambiguity of the phrase [the then Roman Church being removed, there will be no more colour of truth in this ground, than I acknowledged in the two former, when I refuted them. For either the phrase [the then Roman Church] must signifie what we vulgarly call by that name, the particular Church of Rome, as then it was, together with all those that acknowledged the authority, and submitted to the Bishop of Rome in all things, particularly in his assuming to be Christs sole Vicar by him authorized over the Christian Church of the whole world, or it must signifie in the more Catholike notion all the several Churches of Christendome, that then lived in communion with the Church of Rome, and neither voluntarily parted, nor were excommunicate, or separated from that, yet without any connotation of any such acknowledgement, or giving up their names to his Ʋniversal Pastorship.
3. If it be taken in the former sense, then I now acknowledge again what in answer to his first ground I willingly yielded, that this Papal authority in England, held then as of Christs institution—was confess'd by the then Roman Church; But what hath S. W. gained by this? nay what hath he advanced either by his first or second ground, if they were both granted him, viz. that the Popes authority, and that not as of a Patriarch only, but as of the head of the Ʋniversal Church was acknowledged, and acknowledged in England before the Reformation, meaning still by the word acknowledged, no more, than acknowledged by the Roman Church, the Bishop of Rome, and those that were marked by his signature, submitted to this his assumed power, for that is no more than that this pretended power of his was acknowledged by himself, and all others (every where, and so consequently in England) that did acknowledge it. This therefore as I must in charity to S. W. believe was not his meaning, so I have reason to complain in behalf of his two former grounds, that having before with some confidence pretended the acknowledgednesse of the Papal power in England, indefinitely, his third ground should pretend to no more than the confession of the then Roman Church, which is interpretable to a sense thus farre removed from that of England indefinitely, or all England. This therefore I think was either the disserving his own grounds, or the Reader, that had but a shadow of grounds given him instead of grounds, for, such are all such as are proposed in such ambiguous terms, that he that hath taken them on trust, in the more obvious sense, shall lose them again, when he comes to build on them.
4. But if he take the phrase [the then Roman Church] in the second sense, 'tis then most manifest, that as his first and second, so now his third ground hath no shew of truth in it, for it is visible, in the matter of fact, that the then Church and Kingdome of England, whilest it lived in communion with the Church of Rome, and neither voluntarily departed, nor was excommunicated by that Church, did yet protest their joynt and most constant perswasion, that this Papal authority over Ecclesiastical affairs in England was not held as of Christs institution, or derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter (which is the direct contradictory to what is assumed in S. W's third ground) but contrarywise that he had no greater power conferred on him by Christ in the Scripture (and there is no more pretended to by the Pope from God, then what is deduced by him out of Christs words set down in Scripture) than any other foraign Bishop had, and therefore that he that was born in England had nothing to do with Rome.
5. So in the year 1534. the same with the date of the Ʋniversities answer, and two years before the extinguishing Act, the book De vera differentia Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis, was written by the Bishops of London, Duresme, Winchester, &c. The first part of which clearly evidenceth their sense of these three things, 1. That the texts of the Gospels have no appearance of conferring this supreme authority upon the Pope. 2. That the decrees and practices of the ancient Church, yea and of pious and modest Popes were expressely against it. 3. That this power is evidenced from Scripture to be intrusted to Princes in their own Kingdomes, and that in all sorts of causes. This then being the acknowledgement of those very times, to which his third ground belongs, he hath, it seems, acquired no great advantages by appealing to their confessions, as his first proof. But of this I have spoken more largely in Answer to his first Ground.
6. The other slender proof of his assertion is conformable; The truth, saith he, appears as by the known confession of the Roman Church, so by the self same controversie perpetually continued till this day.] I must ask, Betwixt whom continued? The Reformed, I suppose on one side, but whom on the other side? All those that live and are allowed, as good Catholikes, to live in communion with the Church of Rom…?
7. That he must mean, if he doe not again avowedly betray the deceitfulnesse of all his three grounds. But in this sense his proof will it self want confirming: For it is not a principle indisputable, that all that defend the Popes power in the Church, hold it as of Christs institution, and derived to him, as he was successor to St. Peter. I have*Answ. to Shism. Disarm. p. 237. elsewhere shewed from his Ordinary, the†Answ to Bp. of Derry, p. 69. Bishop of Chalcedon, at a time when he was defending the Popes power, that he yet acknowledged, that whether the Bishop of Rome be St. Peters successor, jure divino, or humano, is no point of faith] and Bellarmines two concessions conclude no lesse, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 4. Non esse de fide, divino & immutabili praecepto Romae sedem Petri esse constitutam, & forte non est de jure divino Romanum pontificem Petro succedere. That it is no point of Faith that Peters See was by divine immutable law setled at Rome, and perhaps it is not of divine right that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter. And he cannot but know 'tis the common opinion of the Doctors of Paris, (who sure defend the Popes power against those of the Religion, who deny it) that the Pope hath not universal jurisdiction jure divino; I suppose he may have heard of the no small collection of Catholike Writers made by Melchier Goldastus, in his three Volumes De Monarchia, which will shew him, that all that live in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, and acknowledge his power in the Church, doe not yet acknowledge the divine right to supreme Pastorship, and this will not be refuted, or lose any part of its truth by suggesting that Goldastus himself was not of that number. And he may also remember the Tracts, and proofs of the liberties of the Gallican Church not long since published, and not be wholly ignorant also, by whom they were published.
8. But instead of these looser references, I shall adde to what hath here lately been said of the judgement and practice of the Gallican Church, (witness'd by the Pragmatick Sanction) these two or three instances. The former out of Bochellus, Ann. 1484. That whereas by ancient custome of France, a… Legate of the Pope, nor Rescript or Mandate of his might be received, but by consent of the most Christian King, and unlesse he did exhibite his Letters of Delegation by the Kings Procurate to be viewed and allowed by the Court of Parliament, limited so as no diminution arise to Regal right, immunity of the Church, or authority of Lawes; Contrary to this Law, Cardinal Balva, entring France as Legate, without advertising the King, the Kings Procurator entred action against him, the Court of Parliament decreed that he should be accused by two Advocates, and interdicted him the exercise of his Legatine power. Is this reconcileable with their belief or acknowledgement, that the supreme universal pastor ship (including France as well as England) was by Christs institution derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter? The second is that of the*Massaei Chron. Ann. 1510. Councel of Tours, which concluded and decreed that Lewis XII. might not only with safety of conscience contemne Bullas abusivas injustasque, the abusive and unjust Bulls of Julius II. but he might withdraw himself from his obedience. So when the Pope laboured with Lewis XI. to have the Pragmatick Sanction abrogated, the Court of Paris exhibited to the King a†Pro lib. Eccl. Gall. adversus Roman. Aulam Defensio Paris. Cur. in Duareni Append. defense of the Gallican liberties branched into many Articles, the third to this sense, that the King their supreme Lord the chief Founder and Defender and Keeper and Vindicater of the Churches when their rights are violated, hath power to convocate the Praelates and other the like Ecclesiastical persons of his dominions, to obviate their attempts and beginnings who shall have dared to indeavour any thing against this liberty. The fourth, that in these Assemblies anciently indicted by the Kings authority many things are recorded to have been excellently constituted, and not without great deliberation of the Princes of the blood, and the Ecclesiastical Order, &c. obviating the vexations, molestations and injuries which were offered by the Court of Rome to the great damage of the people, and these Constitutions were of great authority. The sixth, that these Constitutions being long observed, when the Court of Rome in processe of time attempted many things against the liberty of the Gallican Church, Charles VI. by the advise of his Nobles, Praelates, Colledges, Ʋniversities, Ann. 1408. set out a Constitution which vindicated the Church to the ancient liberty, and was published solemnly, and recorded in the Acts of the Court of Parliament. The ninth, that decree was made by the Court of Paris against Papal exactions. The tenth, that soon after, that decree was confirmed by the Kings Edict, and published in Court, Ann. 1408. May 15. Whereupon the Pope sending out his Bulls of Excommunication against the King and Kingdome, *Theodoric a Niem in Nemore Ʋnion. Tract. 6.the Ʋniversity of Paris caused it to be torn in pieces, and declared the Pope Benedict himself to be an heretick, scismatick, and disturber of the peace, (in which particular†De Monarch. Franc. n. 140, 141, 142. Carolus Molinaeus addes from the acts of the Court of Paris that two officers of the Popes, which brought with them his Bulls of Excommunication, *See the life of Archb. Chichley, p. 15.were dress'd in paper Milres, and carted through the City ignominiously) which will hardly be competible with the acknowledgement of the divine right of his supreme universal pastorship. The like instances are not hard to be found in other Kingdomes. When Pius II. sent his Legate Cardinal Cusanus into Austria, †Paralipom. Abbat. Ʋrsperg.Cum venisset— When he came to his own Church of Brixia on the Alpes, and would have disposed of that, according to the ancient right af the Popes, Sigismund Duke of Austria permitted not that any such custome should be brought into Germany.
9. In like manner, when the*Paralip. Alb. Ʋrsp. Princes of Germany represented to Maximilian the Emperor ten grievances in matters Ecclesiastical, the Emperor for redresse of these called a Councel at Triers and Coloine, Ann. 1512. There it was decreed necessary that the Emperors and Princes should consider of means for redresse of those grievances. Whereupon†Orthuin Gratius Fascic. Rer. Expet. Maximilian set forth a decree, That though of his clemency he had tolerated the Pope and Clergy herein, as did his Father Frederick, yet because by that favour the service of God had fallen to decay, it appertain'd to his duty that Religion decay not, that the worship and service of God be not diminished. And immediately Maximilian with*Galli successu rerum elati Casare & Cardinalibus authoribus Pontificem ad Concilium — citant. Onuph. in vit. Julii II. Lewis XII. of France with some Cardinals called a Councel at Pisa.
10. But I shall now carry him a little higher (that he may have the fairer prospect of this matter) to the practice of some of the ancient Popes themselves. 1. Pope Julius who was willing enough not only to defend, but to take advantage to exalt his power, and accordingly took upon him in case of division among Bishops, to absolve Athanasius, and was therein opposed by the Oriental, not only Eusebian, or Semiarian, but Catholike Bishops, (who in the Councel of Antioch †See Socrates, l. 2. c. 11. Sozomen l 3. c. 3. & Julius's Epist. in Athanas. c. 1.resolved that Julius's absolution was not to be admitted) doth yet in his Epistle written on that occasion defend the right of his act by*foreign— Ep. Jul. p. 741. A. foreign. Ib. B. foreign— Ib. p. 753. C. ancient custome especially, and by the Canon of Nice (which yet 'tis plain would not justifie it) and not by pretense of any divine authority, or in any such dialect, that could signifie or intimate his praetension, that from St. Peter this belonged to him, which sure he would have done, and thereby have silenced all Catholike opposers, if thus it had then been believed by them, or even by himself, to have belonged to him. For the injustice of their dealing with Athanasius, and with him he saith in the close of the Epistle, *P. 753. D:foreign— Pauls ordinances are not thus, the Fathers have not thus delivered, 'tis a new course, this that they have taken, and again, foreign— What things we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter those we signifie to you. But in the debate of the question of right of the Popes drawing a business to himself from the Oriental Bishops, he pretends not to justifie his act from any divine right or supreme jurisdiction devolved to him from St. Peter, but only from the authority of the Nicene Canon, and ancient custome, and that not for any Papal right in him, but upon the score of appealing from one Councel to another, and yet neither of these truly appliable in that cause, which made it more necessary to have appealed to his supreme Pastorship, flowing from Christs donation to St. Peter, if he could with any opinion or appearance of justice have praetended to it.
11. So in that African Councel where St. Augustine was present, and the Popes praetensions were disputed, and his power in their Churches denyed, he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter, but from the Canons of Nice, which yet were so farre from justifying his praetensions, (no such Canon being found upon examination) that if he could have thought that other pleadable, he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it.
12. In that businesse of the Africans, heretofore largely insisted on, these farther passages are considerable (beside those many which I then offered him, Answ. to Schis. Disarm. ch. VI. Sect. 13. and to which I have yet received never a word of Reply from him) 1. That at the first Pope Melchiades had never had cognisance of the Africans affairs, had they been able to accord them themselves, and had it not been by the Africans own permission and allowance brought to him for a brotherly not authoritative decision, pergant ad fratres & collegas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos, Aug. Ep. 162. and so no act of authority or jurisdiction in him, for that depends not on allowance of the Subjects. 2. That the same Augustine much doubts whether Melchiades with his Collegues ought to usurp to themselves this judgement, which had before been determined by seventy Africans, *Ibid.An forte non debuit— by this his doubt assuring us, that if he had done it without their allowance, it had been u… questionably an usurpation. 3. That the Pope did not exercise that power†Nec ipse usurpavit. himself, but had Bishops joyned to sit Judges with him. 4. That the*Rogatus enim Imperator judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, &c. Aug. Ib. Emperor sent or commissionated those Bishops to sit with him. 5. That this was no usurpation in the Emperor (as it must be, if the Pope were by Christs law above the Emperor Ʋniversal Pastor) but, if we will believe†Ep. 162. Ad cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus est, res illa maxim… pertinebas. St. Augustine, that which belonged to his office, of the discharge of which he was to give account unto God.
13. Adde to this 3. that other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the foreign in the Councel of Chalcedon, of which we have*Answ. to Schis. Disarm p. 96. formerly inlarged, and shewed, 1. That that General, and one of the four general Councels acknowledged the Pope no such primacy or supremacy of jurisdiction at all, but defined the Bishop of Constantinople should have aequal priviledges with him, 2. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Councel to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs, without mention of any other. 3. That through the Epistles written on that occasion he deduces not his primacy from St. Peter. 4. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Councel, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch, and other Metropolitanes. 5. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatnesse of that Imperial City, which was more than pretended by that Councel, was never so much as quarrel'd at by the Popes Legates in that controversie, which sure is a competent praejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter.
14. Adde 4. that of Gregory so vulgarly known in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, telling him that he had prohibited him to call him †Ep. ex Reg. l. VII. Indict. 1. c. 30.Ʋniversal Father, that he was not to doe it, that reason required the contrary, that it was derogatory to his brethren, that this honour had by a *See again l. IV. Indict. 13. c. 72. et 76.Councel, that of Chalcedon, been offered to his praedecessors, but refused, and never used by any. A manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him by the law of Christ, for then 1. according to Christs own pronouncing, Joh. XIII. 13. Ye call me Master and Lord, ye do well, for so I am, they should do well who gave that title to him, and he also that took it to himself, 2. it could have been derogatory to none, 3. reason could not have forbid it, 4. he could not have averted it with an absit, recedant (any more than Peter could the sufferings of Christ) without even fighting against God.
15. Much lesse could he have told†L. VII. Ep. 30. Fidenter dico quia quisquis se Ʋniversum Sacerdotem vocat, vel vecari desiderat— Mauritius, that whosoever (not only if the Bishop of Constantinople, but whosoever) calls himself Ʋniversal Priest, or desires to be so called (either, or both) in elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit, is a fore-runner of Antichrist by his pride. And again to the Empresse, l. IV. Ep. 34. In hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur, his pride was an indication of Antich…ists approaching. And to John himselfe he sets it higher, that 'tis*Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso (before s…ulto ac superbo) vocabulo nisi ill… ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum legionibus s…cum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus praeesse videretur. Greg. Ep. ex Reg. l. 4. Ep 38. imitating none but the Devil, Who I pray in this perverse foolish proud title is proposed for imitation, but he that despising the Legions of Angels which were socially created with him, endeavoured to break out to the top of singularity, that he might seem to be under none, and above all. And so on at large, making it to be the transcribing of Lucifers act of arrogance to assume to be Ʋniversal Pastor. And again,†Ibid. that the King of pride is at hand, and the destruction of Priests prepared, because they cervici militant elationis, qui ad hoc positi fuerant, ut ducatum praeberent humilitatis, God, saith he, having decreed to resist the proud, and humble him whosoever exalts himself, *Ibid. Ep. 32.elsewhere he calls it blasphemiae nomen, the name of blasphemy, and†Ibid. Ep. 40. again, that to consent to that wicked title is fidem perdere, to destroy the faith. And that S. W. may not have so ill an opinion of Gregory, as to imagaine that he should declaim against this as Antichristian and diabolical in another, that he might have the monopoly of it himself, besides that what was cited from his Epistle to Eulogius, looked on it only in respect of h…mself, he may also hear him in the application speaking in the first person plural, and so including himself,*Ibid. Quid ergo nos Episcopi dicimus, What then say we Bishops, who have received our place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of his enemy, and again, that the Councel of Chalcedon had offered it to the See of Rome, but†Nullus unquam tali vocabulo appellari voluit, nullus sibi hoc temerarium nomen arripuit. Ibid. none of his Ancestors would receive it, and*Ib. Ep. 32. elsewhere, that he pleads not his own cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the lawes, the venerable Countels, the commands of Christ, which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick style of Ʋniversal Bishop, that†Vece dominicâ sancto et omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Aposto…o totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est, et tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur. Ibid. the care of the whole was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, St Peter, and yet he is not called Ʋniversal Apostle, which shewes evidently that whatever title belonged to Peter, yet not that of Ʋniversal Pastor, and that Princeps Apostolorum was not so to be understood.
16. From the same Gregories confession we have it, that the whole matter of Ecclesiastical judicature is to be concluded in this manner according to the words of the Novelle, *Greg. Ep. ex Reg. l. XI. Ep. 54.that if any complaint be made against a Bishop by any, the cause shall be judged before his Metrorolitane, secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges, according to the Canons and ours, i. e. (for they are the words of the Emperors Novelle) the Imperial lawes, If the party stand not to his judgement, the cause is to be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that Dio…cese, et ille secundum Canones et Leges ei praebeat finem, he shall give it a conclusion (a finally conclusive determination) according to the Canons and Lawes aforesaid. Here then is the last appeal to the Archbishop or Patriarch of the foreign, and as yet no notice taken of the Bishop of Rome, unlesse in his own Patriarchate, which is absolutely exclusive of of his universal jurisdiction, only now he addes, which I must not conceal, Si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropolitanum hahuerit nec Patriarcham, dicendum est, quia a sede Apostolica, quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est, causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. Here then is the place for the Popes cognisance and decision to interpose, according to his opinion, viz. in this one single forlorn case, that the plaintiffe hath neither Metropolitane nor Patriarch, and then Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis, this one exception of those incognite corners of the world (which where they lie, I leave S. W. to discover) that have a Bishop but no Metropolitane or Patriarch, confirms his rule as far as Britain, which certainly hath been alwayes esteemed one of the six Dioeceses of the West, and hath had a Metropolitane, more than one, and a Primate or Patriarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury (acknowledged by the Pope himself to be such, alterius Orbis Apostolicus et Patriarcha, saith Ʋrbane II. of†Guil. Malmesbur. de Gest. Pontif. Angl. p. 223. Anselme) and so by this Novelle of the Emperors cited and approved by Gregory, it is most evident that in his time, and his opinion, the Pope had neither by divine law, nor humane, nor by his own praetending, any such universal jurisdiction.
17. The same Gregory, sure more then in complement, addresses himself to Mauritius, in the style of Ego indignus pietatis vestrae famulus, and in the greatest expression of subjection, Ego haec dominis m…is loquens, quis sum nisi pulvis et vermi…, his unworthy servant, nothing but dust and ashes, in Comparison, and relation to him, and having declaimed against a law of the Emperors, that Souldiers should not become Monastikes, saith,*L. 2. Indict. 11. Ep. 61. Ego jussioni subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci— I being subject to the Imperial command, have caused publication of the law, though he took it to be impious, only adding, because the law is not agreeable to the law of God, Ecce per subjectionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nuntiavi, Behold, I have written to my Lords of it. Thus 'tis sure the Edict of Wenceslaus the Emperor, understood his language, affirming, Nostrum jus patronatus, ne vitium ingratitudinis incurrerent, plures antiquitus summi Pontifices agnoverunt, Augustos Dominos appellantes, et eis in re et nomine reverentiam tanquam suis Patronis exhibentes, ut diffuse in Registro Magni Gregorii habetur— Many of the Popes anciently have acknowledged our right of Patronage, that they might not incurre the crime of ingratitude, calling us their Imperial Lords, and both in deed and words performing reverence to the Emperors as to their Patrons, citing those Epistles of Gregory in many places throughout, and referring to other testimonies.
18. Adde 5. that of Pope Agatho in his†In Sextâ Syn. Act. 4…. Letters sent to the Emperor concerning a General Councel to be holden at Constantinople, who there plainly declareth and confesseth his Primacy to extend*foreign, Concil. t. 5. p. 60. B. foreign— Ib. F. vid. et p. 64. E. & 65. B. onelyonly to the Bishops of the West, and not to the East, and so as it is evident that at that time the Bishops of Rome, neither by the words of Scripture, nor by the consent of the whole Catholike Church, had any such Ʋniversal Primacy as he now requireth.
19. I shall conclude with that ancient resolution at the ordaining of Paulinus Archbishop of York by Justus, the third Archbishop of Canterbury after Augustine, cited by our Britannicae Antiquitates out of Radulphus de Diceto, and briefly set down in the Abbreviationes Chron. of the said Radulphus; Sicut Cantia subjicitur Romae, quod ex eâ fidem accepit, ita Eboracum subjicitur Cantuariae quae eo praedicatores misit, as Kent is subjected to Rome, because it received the Faith from it, so is York to Canterbury, which sent Preachers thither, making the*Sicut— prima fuit in fide, prima sit in honore, Radul. de Dis. Ibid. reception of the faith from Rome, and not any title from Christ to St. Peter, the onelyonly ground of any kinde of subjection to it, and then (to omit many other observations, which that passage would suggest) that is distant enough from S. W's only tenure, the divine right of Ʋniversal Pastorship, on the account whereof he utterly rejects that other of receiving the Faith from Rome, as we have formerly seen. From all these, let the Reader now judge, if there were ever such a layer of self-evident grounds, as S. W. hath thus farre acquitted himself to be.