Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 2 · Section 5

Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist · Chapter 2 · Section 5

p. 139SECT. V.

The fourth Ground invalidated. Regal power of force against all but what is of divine right. Sacra Individua. The Adversaries grant how unjustly praetended by S. W. The verdict of our English Lawes, and ancient practice from Henry the VIII. backward to the Conquest. Stapletons confession. Bracton. Quintinus Haeduus. Sir Roger Twisden. The Bishops Book de Vera Differentia, &c. Stephen Gardiners Oration. Practice of other Nations. S. W's argument from Augustin the Monks carriage to the Abbot of Bangor, considered at large, with reflexion on what had been formerly objected by Mr. H. Turbervile.

1. HIS fourth ground, that this actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance, and setled in an ancient possession] is necessarily lyable to all the feeblenesse of the three former, amass'd together, and so is incomparably inefficacious to support S. Ws praetensions. For, remembring from the former discoveries, what was the utmost that the power the Pope then had in England, amounted to, a power by himself assumed to be divine and over the whole Church of Christ, but not so acknowledged by the Nation, nor by S. W. attempted to be proved with the least probability, that it was thus acknowledged, it followes that if it were true, or in liberality granted, that the actual power which the Pope then really had in England, (and no greater) had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient possession, it would never stand S W. in the least stead. For still it might be but a Patriarchal power, and that is not the power of the Ʋniversal Pastor, or it might be but a power extorted from some one, or more Kings, or by them voluntarily granted, or but permitted and winked at, without any formal concession, and all such personal acts or indulgences of Kings are temporary, and revocable by themselves, and no way p. 140binding to their successors, and none of these hath so much as a praetense to divine institution. Nay on the contrary, the**Molina de Just. Tract. 2. disp. 69. et 74. Romanists themselves confesse, that those things which are intrinsecally due and proper to the Prince, as to punish offenders, to make them subj…ct to his lawes, for subjects to appeal to him from inferior Judges, paying Tributes, and the like, cannot by any other, by possession of never so long time, be praescribed. These, saith††In Authent. Hoc amplius c. de fid. Commiss. et Felinus Rubric. de Praescript. Baluus, are incommunicable, sacra individua, they cannot be**Alex. in l. Filiae quam de lib. Imola in Rubr. de verbo Oblig. usurped, or praescribed, or aliened, or absolutely exercised by any other than by them who bear the supreme Majesty. And if so indefinitely, then chiefly in the most considerable matters, those of religion, which most pertain to the end of Government, publike good and happinesse. And accordingly they acknowledge also, that it is the duty of the Prince, to command, and exact the observation of divine law, and of the Canons of the Church, that he only can make them obliging under exterior penalties, mulcts, imprisonment, exile, as when Justinian decreed the Canons of the Code, ††Novell. 131.foreign, to be observed as lawes, i. e. so as might constrain the unwilling. And as the**Twelfth Ground. p. 52. suggesting these to be derived from the Church, or Pope, as acts of obedience in Princes, and execution of the Churches commands, is but a begging the quaestion, so it shall, when we come to the 12^th Ground, be further examined. Meanwhile the very possibility of any or all of these, is enough to keep his contrary affirmation from being a ground, which cannot be such, unlesse either it be by some prosyllogisme demonstrated to be true, or else the contrary be impossible.

2. For the truth of it, that, he saith, is evinced, but by what medium? Why, saith he, both from our Adversaries grant, the evidence of the fact it selfe, and even by the carriage of St. Austin the Monk. What [even the carriage of St. Austin the Monke] will evince, shall anon be considered. At the present let us examine the eviction from the adversaries grant, the evidence of the fact.

3. But doth the adversary grant indeed, that the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship, as held by divine right from Christs grant to St. Peter, had been of long continuance and setled in ancient possession in England? Nay, doth not S. W. know, that the adversary doth not grant it? p. 141and that the evidence of the fact is so farre from being on his side, that 'tis on the c…trary? Hath he never heard of the Statutes of the Kingdome before the Reign (that sure is before the praetended Reformation) of Henry VIII. which are competently to the prejudice of this Papal praetension, and can he dream that his adversaries will grant so much to their own prejudice, what is so much contrary to their own senses also? From a small piece printed lately at Bruges, De Antiqua Ecclesia Britanicae libertate, besides the evidence that his adversary denyes, what he here pretends him to grant, he shall finde in the margin in one place a collection of many Statutes of the former times, which may in part help to illuminate him in the point of his adversaries eoncession, and evidence of the fact, I shall give him them, with addition of some more.

4. In the first year of Henry VII. Fol. 18. we read, The King is a mixt person, having Ecclesiastical as well as temporal jurisdiction, In the same year Fol. 20. The Pope cannot erect any priviledge of Sanctuary in England.

In the same year, fol. 23.25. the Act of King Kenulphus in exempting the Abbate of Abingdon from Episcopal jurisdiction, was judged regular and lawfull.

In the 6th of Hen. 7.13. Ʋnion to a Priory cannot be without the Kings consent.

In the second of Richard III. fol. 22. Excommunications and Sentences of the Bishop of Rome are of no force in England.

In the twelfth of Edward IV. fol. 16. A Legate landing in England was obliged to take Oath that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the rights of the King or Crown.

Under Henry VI. his nonage, when his Ʋnkle was made a Cardinal and sent Legate by Martine the fifth, the Kings Atturney Ri. Cawdray made protestation against him, that none was to come as Legate from the Pope, or enter the Kingdom without the Kings appointment, and this by singular priviledge of our Kings, who had enjoyed this right from all memory. On which that Cardinal publikely promised conformity. Yet that this priviledge was not so singular to our Kings, but that in like manner it belonged to others, particularly to the King of France, see Ludovicus p. 142Servinus his††Aux. Ploid. vol. 4. Plea before the Parliament of Paris, An. 1590. when Cardinal Cajetane was sent Legate to Henry IV.

In the same Kings Reign not only the**Vit. Henr. C…ichley p. 86. Clergy refused obedience to the Popes Mandate for mony and disposal of the Archbishoprick of York, to Ri: Fleming, but the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus, for acting against the Kings Laws, in getting mony for the Pope, was cast into prison.

So in the Reign of Henry V. when Pope Martine, whilst the King was busied in the affairs of France, had assumed some powers which were interdicted by the Laws of Edward III. and Richard II. the**Vid. vit. Hen. Chichle Arch. Cant. p. 56. Bishop of Lichfield and Dean of York, the Kings Legates in the Councel of Constance, were sent to him for redress, which they had promise of in some things; And at the same time other Ambassadors were dispatcht to demand that he meddle not with disposing of those Benefices in England, which both by pacts, and jure Regio belong to the Kings disposal, and for divers other things, with instructions, upon the Popes refusal to profess, Regem in iis singulis jure suo usurum, that the King will use his own right in each of them, and to make publick protestation thereof before the Congregation of Cardinalls.

Vit. Arch. Chic. p. 78. 80.In his Reign also, the design of sending a Legate from Rome, though it were the Kings own Brother, was opposed, as appears by Archbishop Chichle's Letter to the King, and the consequent of it, the desisting from that enterprise whilst that King lived.

In the second of Henry IV. 'twas enacted, That the Popes Collectors had by vertue of their Bulls no authority or jurisdiction in England, but that the Archbishops and Bishops of England are the Kings spirituall Judges.

In the eleventh of the same King, fol. 37. The Pope cannot alter the Laws of England.

In the same year fol. 69.76. the Judges pronounce with one voice, that the foregoing Statutes were only declarative of the common custom of England, and not introductory of any new Law.

In the Reign of Richard II. Ch. 5. 'Twas enacted, That because the King of England, holds the Crown immediatly from God, therefore if any man shall follow in the Court of Rome any translation of suit, or excommunication, he shall incur the loss of p. 143his Goods, and forfeit the Kings protection.

In the sixth of the same King (M. 6. R. 2. Rot. 8. en lescheg.) The Pope on complaint of the Bishop of Coventry, of one Moses a Pryor there, ordained, that there should be no more Pryor there, Mes que serra, but that he or it should be ad mensam (perhaps it should be ad mentem) Episcopi. Ʋpon which the Pryor and Covent assaulted the Bishop, and beat him, and brake his head with a Cross: And afterward an Assise was brought, and it was held that the dissolution of the Pope was not good.

In the sixteenth of Edward the third, the excommunication of the Archbishop of Canterbury is judged valid, notwithstanding the Popes sentence to the contrary.

In the seventeenth of the same King, fol. 23. The King by his Soveraign power exempted the Archdeacon of Richmund from Episcopall Jurisdiction, as also all Colledges or Monasteries founded by the King are exempt by the same Law.

In the twenty fifth of the same King, it was enacted. The Pope had no right in England to confer any Archbishoprick, or Bishopricks,

In the twenty seventh of the same King, fol. 84. The King, as supreme Ordinary, praesents by lapse.

In the same year, whosoever shall by citation, or impleading draw any of the Subjects of the King of England out of the Kingdome, shall incur the loss of all his goods, which our Law calls incurring a Praemunire.

In the thirty third of the same King, fol. 103. Kings being annoynted with Oyle are capable of Spirituall jurisdiction.

In the same Kings Reign, the dissolution of the Order of Templars by the Pope was not good, untill confirmed by the King. Walsingham 59. and 46. Ed. 3.28.

In this Kings Reign, I refer the Reader to Peter Cassiodor's complaint**Goldasl. monarch fo. 1. De tyrannide pontificum Romanorum in jura regni & Eeclesiae Anglicanae. Of the Tyranny of the Popes on the Rites of the Realm and Church of England.

In the fourth of Edward 1. One that had brought a Bull derogatory to the right of the Crown, was therefore condemned to banishment, and the Fact adjudged to have the nature of Treason.

p. 144In the Reign of Henry the third, the Lords and Commons complain of the great sums carryed hence into Italy, above four hundred thousand pounds yearly. Epist. Angl. ad Innocent. which sure was mentioned by them as a gravamen, and usurpation, and is not by me designed to be further argumentative; yet may, by the way, mind us, what may possibly incite and accend so much zeal in dispatching their Missaries at this time, to reduce this stray Island to the fold of their universall Pastor, and interpret in part, the affectionatness of S.W.'s harangues, so frequently interlaced to his dear Countrymen, there being other motives imaginable to found zeal, beside the deemed certainty of his faith.

5. Henry II. saith Mat. Paris, An. 1164. gave out Orders to be observed by the Archbishop, Thomas Becket, and Bishops, ta… quam avita, i. e. received under his Grandfather Henry I. and his Praedecessors, These Surius interprets, ab avo Regis institutas, enacted by his Grandfather, but that is a deceit, for Mat. Paris saith, they were the Institutes of his Praedecessors. And

6. William Rufus telling Anselme, that he had promised to keeep all the Customes of England, commands him thereupon, that he should not make any appeal to the Pope, (Guil. Malmsb. de Gest. Pontif. Angl. l. 1.) and Eadmer an Acquaintance of Anselmes, affirms, that the King required of him to promise the same under Oath. de vit. Ansel. l. 2. On which occasions, that especially of Henry II. Stapleton (de tribus Thomis, in Thom. Cantuar.) cryes out, Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tectè postulavit, quam quod Henricus VIII completâ jam malitiâ aperte sibi usurpavit, ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset? what difference was there betwixt that demand of Henry II. and the more open usurpation of Henry VIII. when he assumed to be head of the Church in England? And again, Quid hoc aliud rursum est, nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papa? What is this other then to make the King of England Pope among his own Subjects? A competent testimony of the practice from the mouth of an Enemy, and irrefragable to him, that concludes the right from the possession.

Novel 132.7. Thus 'tis not only resolved in the Novells, that the King p. 145hath supreme power over ††Nihil nin perviuns ad inquisitionem Ma…estati extitit Imperatoriae, quae communem in omnes homines moderationem & principatum p…rcipit.all persons in all, and so Ecclesiasticall affairs, and by our own Law, that the King hath no aequall, as**L. 1. Bracton saith, speaking of the Pope, and Archbishops, and other Praelates, and giving this reason, for else the King might lose his praecept and authority of commanding, because an aequall hath no rule over an aequall. But the matter is yet more clear by another Argument which**L.V. de exception. c. 15. Sect. 3. Bracton gives, taken from the practice of the Courts in England; That when an Ecclesiasticall Judge hath received a Prohibition from the King, supersedere debet, in omni çasu, He is in all causes bound to supersede, at least till in the Kings Court it be resolved to whom the Jurisdiction belongs, because if the Ecclesiasticall Judge might resolve of this question, whether it were his Jurisdiction or no, he would in all cases indifferently proceed, notwithstanding the Kings prohibition.

8, In summe, 'tis among the Laws of Edward the Confessor, Chap. 10. that the King is appointed Gods Vicegerent to rule the Kingdome and people of the Lord, and above all, the holy Church.

This concurrence of our ancient Laws in this matter minds me of††Joan. Quint. Heduus Jurisconsult. & Lutetiae Professor publicus in Repet. lectione de Christianae Civitatis Aristocratia, defendit Aristocratiam Christianae Civitatis, qua descriptio Pontificii & Regii Imperii continetur. Possevin. Joannes Quintinus Heduus, who flourished at the same time when Henry VIII. abrogated the Papal praetensions in England, and was also of the Roman Communion, and attributed much to that See. He layes for his ground. In solo principe omnis est potestas. All power is in the Prince alone, and from a learned Lawyer Lotharius asserts, Principem esse fontem omnis jurisdictionis, that the Prince is the fountain of all Jurisdiction: citing the C. Quando vult Deus, Caus. 23. qu. 4. Thence he saith, the Reason is, why it is lawfull for the Prince sometimes to determine those things which concern the Church, least the honour of the Mother (the Church) should in any thing be violated. If any thing, saith he, be an Ecclesiasticall matter, that of convocating Councels is certainly one, and yet 'tis the opinion of many learned men, that the Emperor may call a General Councel, so oft as he sees the Pope and Cardinals be noted of any suspicion, and neglect to do their duty, either for want of skill, or out of sinister intention, or peradventure of both, or when there is any schisme. He puts a particular case, The Pope calls the Bishops to Rome, or to some other p. 146place, the King forbids them to go, or commands them to come to his Court or Councel. The Bishops must, saith he, obey the Kings precept, and not only in this, but in any other matter whatsoever, beside sin; for he that doth not observe his bounden fidelity to the King, whether Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, he ought to be ejected from his degree. This he proves by many Canons, and concludes his opinion to be, when the King calls together the Praelates to a Councel, and to reform the State of the Church, they are bound to obey, yea though the Pope forbid it. But this by the way.

10. 'Twere not difficult further to pursue this through the series of times, and evidence it out of our Histories of almost each former Age from the beginning of Christianity in this Island, to those daies of the extinguishing Act: But for a fair view of that, I refer the Reader to our learned Countryman, Sir Roger Twisden, in his Historicall vindication of the Church of England, in point of Schisme, who hath of late fully and satisfactorily performed that part.

11. All that I shall here further insert concerning our own Affairs, I shall choose to transcribe out of two of our first pieces, which the Bishops set out on this subject, in King Henries dayes (the former, two years before, the latter in the yeare of the exterminating Act) that it may at once appear, that not the luxuriant enormous will of the Prince, but the dispassionate judgment of the Praelates, and the conviction of solid reason, usherd in this (change in the outward face of things, or rather) vindication of the intrinsick Rites, and Liberties of the Anglicane Church, that extinguishing Act being, as hath been sayd, from a competent Authority, not introductory of a new Law, but only declaratory of ancient custome, which had prevailed through all times, and was refreshed and revived, as often as occasion demanded.

12. In the same year then, as hath been said, with the decision of the Ʋniversities forementioned, An. 1534. was written the Book, De vera differentia—where besides what was even now mentioned thence, 'tis punctually demonstrated, that those powers which by S.W. are supposed to have been of long continuance and settled in an ancient possession in the Papacy, p. 147were acknowle…gedly vested in the Kings of England. Their proofs I have elsewhere pointed at, I shall now more largely set them down.

13. First from the Statute of Appeals, and the method of them from Bishop to Archbishop, & postremo ad Regem, in the last resort to the King, ut praecepto ipsius in Curiâ Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debit ulterius procedere sine consensu Regis, That by his Commission the Controversie may be ended in the Archbishops Court, so that there may be no further proceeding without the consent of the King. 2. By the Statute against any Bishop or Archbishop, his going out of the Kingdome without the Kings licence, and giving security, that neither in going nor staying perquirant malum vel damnum Regi vel Regno, they will cause any damage to King or Kingdome. (Either of which, what a destructive influence it must have on all foreign, and so Papal authority, is most visible.) 3. By the Example of Thurstan Archbishop of York, who when he obtained the Kings licence to go to the Councel called by Calixtus, he was required first to take Oath, give faith (and so did) that the would not receive Episcopall benediction from the Pope. (Another clear evidence that the Kings power over Ecclesiasticks, 1. In imposing Oathes on them, 2. In prohibiting them all acknowledgment of Papal jurisdiction, was then in full force against the Popes praetensions.) 4. By our Kings, Canutus, Ethelred, Edgar, Edmund, Aethelstane, Ina, Alfred, making of Laws in Ecclesiastical matters, the severals whereof are there recited. 5. By their authority of investing of Bishops. 6. By the exemptions from all Episcopall authority given by them, as they pleased, for example, by William the Conqueror to the Abbate of Battaile, by him instituted. 7. By the Letter and Protestation of that King to the Pope, that if he did not reform the abuses, which he minded him of, he would himself take a course to do it, with a Torpescere non valemus, quin (ut tenemur) tanta discrimina pro viribus evitemus. We cannot be so sluggish as not to do our utmost (as we are obliged) to avert so great dangers. 8. By the Oration of King Edgar to his Clergie, requiring them to cause a Reformation by the conjunction of his and their power. p. 148Episcopali censura et Regia authoritate, committing the matter to so many Bishops, as are there named. 9. by the Letters of the Parliament to the Pope, when he took upon him to dispose of the Kingdome of Scotland, which our King claimed. This certainly (being the work of the Bishops at that time) was another large testimony of the acknowledgement of the Kingdome at that time (which is somewhat more than of his present adversaries) And the force of it was so great, and the truth so generally acknowledged then, that Stephen Gardiner one of the composers of it, in an Oration of his, soon after delivered on this matter,De Ver. Obed. p. 731. 18. makes no scruple to say, Omnes planè constantission consensu in hoc convenerunt docti pariter atque indocti, viri atque foeminae nihil ei cum Româ esse negotii quem Anglia genuit, All are most constantly agreed, learned and unlearned, men and women, that he that is born in England hath nothing to do with Rome, nothing which can be claimed from him by any tenure of right humane or divine by Christ in Scripture or out of Scripture.

14. That Oration of his De vera Obedientiâ, written Ann. 1536. the year of that Extinguishing Act, is the other piece which even now I mention'd, the Penman whereof being farre from a Reformer, living and dying an eminent persecuter of such, his name possibly may adde some weight to his observations; From one**P. 726. Paragraph of that Oration, the Book being not in every mans hands, I shall give the Reader a foreign of the whole discourse, and a representation of the intire truth in this matter.

15. To this very objection then, that we have now before us, that the Bishop of Rome had been by our Princes acknowledged the head of the Ʋniversal Church, honours given, submissions performed to him, his authority acknowledged, so that if right be judged by fact, the advantage will be on the Popes side, he accommodates this answer, that in those times and passages which seem most to derogate from the right and authority of our Princes, some light of the truth was yet alwayes discernible, by which he that will look close, and carefully, shall easily finde that the acknowledgements that were made them, were not solid, and intire, and built on any foundation of right, but specious rather than true, p. 149acts of civility, not of duty, and**Honoris faenerati potius quam soluti argumenta. arguments that the honour was lent for advantages, not paid them for any obligation. For if our Princes had been resolved that the Bishop of Rome was Christs Vicar on earth whom all were bound to obey, and without whose intervention nothing could be firm or valid, or if the Popes themselves had been really thus perswaded, 'tis not to be imagined, that they would have used humane arts and policies, yea and plain terrors, and associations of secular force to gain this power in this Kingdome (but have made their appeals to the solid t…stimony of divine truth, if they had any such to produce) or that the Princes, such especially who after their death were honoured as Saints, would by facts openly have diminish'd that their authority, which by words and titles they so acknowledged; Had they believed that the administration and care of the whole world was committed to the Pope by God, with what confidence could they have made so many††Quamvis corona Angliae et jura ejusdem coronae ipsumqua regnum fuerunt ab omni tempore retro acto adeo lib…ra, ut nec Dominus summus Pontifex nec aliquis extra regnum se intromittere debeat, de eisdem— Act. Dep. Rich. II. M. S. citat. ab Ad. Reutero p. 4. Decrees, contrary and derogatory to this principle, expressing their dislike of his fatherly care; disclaiming the exercise of his piety, and forbidding him to meddle with their affairs, or have inspection of them, whom they deemed to be set in the Watch Tower by God for this purpose? Besides, the doing this had been strangely irregular, it being not in the power of Inferiors to make Lawes for, or against their Superiors, or to restrain them in their administrations, and yet this our Princes (not passionately in their Courts, but) on mature advise in their Parliaments frequently did, making lawes against the Popes interposition in such or such things, to which also the Popes were so farre from expressing any dislikes, or returning their rebukes, that they took no least notice of them, but liberally commended the actors for their faith and obedience, imitating the subtlest Merchants, when they have made any very circumventing advantageous bargain, they sit down contentedly with halfe, and presse not rigorously for all, esteeming it perfect gain, whatsoever they can get by such arts, when they know nothing is due to them. 'Twas from the benefit they received p. 150by it, not from any opinion of his being the Vicar of Christ, that our Princes allowed him any authority in their Realms, and that**Salvis nobis & haered…bus nost…is justitiis, libertatibus, & regalibus nostris. Instrum. Concession. et obligation. à Joanne a Rege fact. ap. Guil. Paris. cum moderamine, so as they could relieve themselves from suffering any considerable dammage by it, and could cast it out when they pleased, their authority being but precarious, ††Forasmuch as the King hath ordained these things to the honour of God and holy Church, and for the Common-wealth, and for the remedy of such as be grieved, he would not that any other time it should turn in praejudice of himselfe or of his Crown, but that such rights as appertain to him, should be saved in all points. Stat. Edwardi I. in his 3d year, Westm. 1. cap. 48. tit. Concess. fact. Eccles. semper sine praejud. Coron.as long as the Princes judged it best for their own interests, and as soon as they thought fit to stand on their certain right, the Popes authority was presently retrench'd; till then, they prudentially dissembled, and took no notice of his usurpations, and satisfied themselves, that they, as well as he, were the gainers by it. Thus it was for the main, and if there were any singular instances, which seemed contrary to this, yet the concessions of weak, and master'd, or deluded, or temerarious, or negligent Princes can have no force to praejudge the powers which are given to Kings by God. They called them Fathers, and heads, and dignified them with many titles, but this was no prejudice to their Monarchick prerogatives; Again, the ancient Church of Rome was for the lustre of their sanctity, and amplitude of power, not only of great name in the Western Church, and particularly in ours, but of eminent authority, in the sense, that Cicero useth authority, when in giving of testimonies, he attributes authority to men of parts and wealth, not that they are alwayes in the right, but because the multitude are willing to be lead by such, and do not easily distrust them; But for any Divinely establish'd authority, the Pope neither hath, nor hath had among us any more, than any other Bishop. What Princes have done for their interests, or from the necessities of their affairs, or through ignorance, or circumvention, or on any such other respect, can be no prejudice to the truth, or to the native rights of the Diadem vested in them by God, and therefore if it were the custome at any or all times to advise with the Bishop of Rome in governing the Church, and to do nothing without consulting him, and if p. 151Princes permitted their Subjects to repair to him, this was far from freeing their Subjects from their own jurisdiction, which being committed to them by God, could not without violation of the Paternal care due to their Subjects, be abdicated by them. As on the other side, when they had no need of the Pope, when his interpositions grew inconvenient, the Prince might as safely, and without violation of religion dismisse him, as a Lord may do his Chaplain, (they are his own words) whom he had formerly received, and hired to officiate in his Family, especially if he discerned him to assume beyond his bounds, to exact subjection from him and his Family.

16. Thus farre that Great Bishop, who professing that he had formerly sworn to defend the Papal power and authority, and since to have been convinced with the evidence of the contrary, may be an example to others to do the like, on the conviction of his reasons, nor can it much prejudice his testimony (if we stood on that, as we doe not, but on the truth of his observations, and the evidence that S.W's adversaries doe not grant what he would have them) that in Queen Maries dayes he returned to the Papacy again; Whatsoever he thought of the Original right praetended from St. Peter, he might think it lawfull for the Queen by Act of State to set up the Popes power in some degree, and then when it was so, account it his duty to submit to it.

17. Meanwhile it may be added, ex abundanti, that what in that Oration he maintained, is in very full accord with the declared judgement and practice of other Nations through all times; Alciat, whom**An. 534. Baronius justly styles doctissimum, most learned, resolves it in general,††Cod. Rubric. de sacros: Eccl. §. 3. Nemini dubium esse quin in primitiva Ecclesia de rebus et personis Ecclesiasticis jus dicerent Imperatores, that no man doubts but in the Primitive Church the Emperors had jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical matters and persons.

18. Matthias Corvinus King of Hungary punished Bishops and Priests, when they offended, &c. Laurence Roborella the Popes Legate not disallowing it. Ant. Bonfin. Rer. Hungar. Decad. IV. l. 1. & 3.

p. 15219. Charles the great, Capitular. l. 1. Praef. desires that no man will think he took too much upon him, that in Ecclesiastical matters and persons he took care to correct what was amisse, defending himself by the example of Josias. The ninth Councel of Toledo, c. 1. c. filiis. 16. q. 7. admonishes the Curators of the goods of the Church, that if a Minister fraudulently imbecille any of them, he complain to the Bishop, but if the Bishop be the offender, to the Metropolitane, if the Metropolitane, to the King. And many the like, which I shall not now (extra orbitam) insist on.

20. And thus much to his first mediums of eviction, his adversaries grant, and the evidence of the fact it self, of the ancient possession and long continuance of Papal power through the Reigns of our former Kings, that the Reader may discern the distance betwixt S. W's self-evident grounds, and plain matters of fact.

21. It remains, that I take notice of his other medium of eviction, the carriage of St. Austin the Monk, and the Abbat of Bangor, express'd, saith S. W. in that counterfeited testimony alledged by D^r H. whence we see it was the Doctrine St. Austin taught the Saxons.] But it would even move ones compassion to think, how many frustrations he will here meet with also, in this attempt of eviction.

22. For 1. how can he evince that Monks carriage from a testimony, which the same time that he appeals to it, he charges of being counterfeit? Can he think fit to found Principles on the quick-sand, and praetend to evince demonstratively, when he confesses his medium not only to be fallible, but fallacious, and actually counterfeited? 'Tis not enough to say that D^r H. alledges it, and so that ad hominem it is convincing, for an argument ad hominem is at most but a probable argument, and so cannot be sufficient for the evincing of a ground or self-evident principle (which mankinde, and not only hic homo is concerned in) especially when 'tis used by him that doth not himself believe it, but on the contrary charges it for counterfeit, when he thus produces it for evincing. This is still the same rate of demonstrating, that we have oft minded him of, foreign, scientifical falsely so called, a testimony acknowledgedly counterfeit, p. 153yet sit to be a medium of a severe, if not rigorous demonstration.

23. But then 2. I may be allowed to think that there is no truth in his Epithet, and that that testimony was not counterfeited, having had the leisure particularly to examine and invalidate all the suggestions of so learned a man as Mr. H. T. is commended to be by no meaner a person than Thomas de Abbiis, very elaborately and pompously offered, in a peculiar discourse, against that one testimony. And as if there had never pass'd any such thing, or at least as if some kinde of reply had been made to it, this can yet obtain no more then a fastidious mention of [that counterfeited testimony] I desire S. W. will for once so farre take notice of the rules of common justice among men, that the brand of counterfeit be not affix'd ad libitum to whatever comes in his way, unlesse he be at leisure to prove his charge, or be resolved to take a fit opportunity to prove it, and if in order thereto he will in some earnest reflect on that businesse betwixt H.T. the Romanist and me, he shall soon finde who was the gainer by it, it being visible in the entrance, how safe I stood, and how firm the conclusion which I inferr'd from that testimony, it being no other but a matter of fact, of known truth, and no more but what, from all sorts of writers that ever dealt in that subject, I except not Baronius himself, is notorious, and confess'd by the Romanists, viz. that the Britans, those of Bangor particularly, denyed to yield obedience to the Pope, upon Austins demand of it.

24. Whether S. W's conclusion be of this kinde, that it can receive benefit by this testimony, if it be valid, and no praejudice, in case it be counterfeit, let us next consider, and in order to this, I will be good natured, and afford him this ods, that what pass'd for utterly invalid (because counterfeit) when urged against him, shall be of full force and validity, as farre as it can be argumentative against me, which I mean for an essay how happy S. W. would be, if he might have all the gains, and none of the inconveniences of his own wishes.

25. What then was this carriage of Austin the Monk, and the Abbate of Bangor, as it is**Tr. of Schis. p. 111. there set down? Why, that p. 154when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome, the Abbot answered, Notum sit vobis— Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome, but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian, viz. to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect charity, and to help every one by word and deed, to attain to be the Sonnes of God, and for other obedience I know none due to him, whom you call the Pope, and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers, or (as it is**See App. to H. T. p. 184. better rendred from a due punctation of the Welsh) and any other obedience than that, I acknowledge not to be any mans, or to belong to any man, whom ye name Pope or Father of Fathers, to challenge and require. As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Gaerlegion upon Ʋske, who is to overlook and govern us under God.

26. Now with this testimony let us, in the name of truth and sobriety, compare S. W's conclusion, which he saith is evinced by the carriage of St. Austin and that Abbot, express'd in this testimony: The Conclusion is, that this actual power the Pope then had in England, had been of long continuance and setled in an ancient possession.] But from what part of this testimony can that be drawn? sure not from the Abbots telling him they are all subject to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, for that subjection is express'd to be no other than what he payd to every pious and good Christian, and then every good Christian by this argument is aequally instated in this power. No more sure will it be inferred from his denying him all other power, but this. It remains then necessarily, that it be inferred from Augustines requiring the Abbates subjection to the Pope, or it cannot be evinced from this testimony. But 1. doth Augustine the Monk his requiring it, when it was as roundly denyed him, and never afterwards granted him, evince the possession thereof? Doth he possesse what he never had, and is finally rejected from his claim of it?

27. But saith S. W. Hence we see it was the Doctrine Austin taught the Saxons. In good time, Austin taught it the Saxons, therefore the Pope was setled in an ancient possession of it. p. 155The argument is of force the quite contrary way, the Abbate of Bangor refused it, and in the name of the whole British Church renounced all such right as he praetended, therefore infallibly he had it not. Doth not the Ʋniversal Pastorship include the British as well as the Saxons, and can then the teaching it the Saxons conclude him possess'd of it among the Britans, when 'tis evident he is not possess'd of it? Doth not a particular negative destroy an universal affirmative? if then he were not possess'd of this power over the Britans, he was not at that time, nor had …ver been (as farre as can from that, I shall adde, or from any other unsuspected testimony appear) possess'd of an Ʋniversal Pastorship, or acknowledged to be possess'd of it in this Kingdome. Such evictions are S. W's, which unavoidably evince the direct contrary to the conclusion he projected from them.

28. But let us for once endeavour to forget the difference betwixt Ʋniversals and Particulars, and take the Saxons, those few that were then converted by Austin, to be this whole Nation, what hath S. W. gained toward his unimproveable conclusion by this great liberality? All that he praetends to is but Austins teaching it. But 1. the testimony is for no more then p…tens subjectionem Ecclesiae Romanae, demanding or requiring subjection to that Church, which differs from teaching, and can never be any seeming proof of possession.

29. Secondly, subjection to the Roman Church doth not necessarily import that supereminent power of headship of the Ʋniversal Church, and that as derived to him from Christ as to St. Peters successor. This is the least that can serve S. W's praetensions, and teaching or requiring subjection indefinitely can never come home to that, any more than the Abbates answer did, that they were all obedient and subject to him, which we know signified the quite contrary. S.W. must pardon me this strictnesse, that I allow him no more, than the testimony (his only proof) exacts, for besides that this strictnesse, were it never so great, is no more then is necessary to a demonstrator (and such the layer of grounds assumes to be) the Records from Bede, and such other Historians, as the Romanist most depends p. 156on in this matter, amount to no more than this, that Austin finding the Britans to retain some practises different from the Roman usages, as in the celebrating of Easter, &c, laboured to conform them to the Roman way, under the title of Catholike peace, and so to bring all to an uniformity, but the Britans constant to their own Traditions, were not moved with the mention of the authority of the Roman Church or Pope; so Bede sets down his speech to them, In multis quidem nostrae consuetudini imò universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis, In many things you doe contrary to our custome, yea to the custome of the Ʋniversal Church (where by the way, some difference there is betwixt our i. e. the Roman, and the Ʋniversal Church. And so in the Popes answer to his third Interrogatory, he tells Austin, that if he found any thing that might be more acceptable to God, **Sive in Romana, sive in Galliarum, seu in qualibet Ecclesia aliquid invenisti quod plus omnipotenti Deo posset placere, sollicitè eligas & in Anglorum Ecclesia— infundas. Bed. l. 1. c. 27.whether in the Church of Rome or of France, or any other Church, he should infuse it into the Church of England) and then all that is thence conclusible is, that the practice of the Church of Rome being consonant to the rest of the whole Church, was used by Austine as an argument to draw the Britans to the like practice, but sure that differs much from his teaching his Supremacy of power by divine right.

30. And this is yet more manifest, for the difference still continuing among them (what difference? Why, that the Britans would not††Bed. l. 2. c. 2. priscis abdicare moribus, leave their old customes) Austine in fine demands their accord with him but in these three particulars,**Ʋt Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut ministerium baptizandi juxta morem Romanae sanctae Ecclesiae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis, ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis. Bed. Ibid. the time of celebrating Easter, the ministring baptisme according to the manner of the Roman Church and the Apostolike Church (which again one would not take for the same, being so severed) and the preaching the word of God together with them, adding expressely, Caetera quae agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus, Other things which ye doe, though contrary to our manners, we will bear them all patiently. Where it is most manifest, p. 157that Austin presses not, nor demands a subjection to the Papal authority, as that signifies jurisdiction, but subjection to, or rather complyance with a few customes of the Roman, being also the practises of the rest of the Church, to which the British thought they had no reason to yield, knowing that they were not under the Popes jurisdiction.

25. One thing more is here to be observed, that Austin being now Archbishop of Canterbury expected to have the Britans acknowledge him as their Archbishop, but as Baleus tells us,**Dionou…s—fortiter tuebatur Menevensis Arbhiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem, concludens non esse in Britannorum commodum futurum in communionem admittere vel Romanorum fastum vel cognitam Anglo-Saxonum tyrannidem. Balaus. the Britans thought it not for their profit to admit either the pride of Rome, or the known tyranny of the Anglo-Saxons, and strongly defended the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of St. Davids in the affairs of their Churches, so Bede expressely addes, Neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant, they answered, that they would not have him for their Archbishop. All which is very remote from inferring the Popes possession of England at that time; yea, if he were yielded to be possess'd of all that Austin did but petere, demand, or desire, yet it would yield S. W. no more advantage toward inferring the long continuance, and settlednesse in possession, than the Pope hath here had ever since he was disclaimed, for the British Bishops have all that time been subjected to the Bishop of Canterbury, the Successor of that Austin. This I suppose is not enough to satisfie S. W's appetite, and yet from the most favourable representment of this history, there is not a crumb more to be had for him; not the least newes of Ʋniversal Pastorship by divine right here so much as praetended to, (and for the title of conversion from Rome, besides that this is peculiar to the Saxons, and the Britans are not concern'd in it, S. W. disclaims building any thing on that title) and this cannot appear strange to any, that remembers this was in the time of that Gregory, who disclaimed that wicked, fastuous, monstrous, blasphemous, Antichristian, p. 158Luciferian title of Ʋniversal Pastorship, which therefore 'tis not soberly imaginable that Austine should challenge for him, much lesse that he was thus anciently settled in this possession. Thus much for his fourth Ground, exact in nothing, but its conformity with the other three, All aequally capable of, and furnished with his demonstrative evictions.