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

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

p. 91SECT. II.

The first ground, examined. What meant by the Popes Authority. What acknowledgment it had before the E…tinguishing Act. The Judgement of the Ʋniversities (Patriarches and Primates all one in respect of power) of Erasmus. Three arguments proposed, to prove the non-acknowledgment. The first taken from the opinion of no power given by Christ to Peter over the rest of the Apostles, by Tu es Petrus, and Pasce oves. Lyra, Durandus à Sancto Porciano, Abulensis, Cusanus, Victoria. Adolphus and the Bishops of the Province of Colen. John of Antioch. Cusanus from Augustine. Bellarmines foreign derided at Trent, as new. The Bishop of Granada, and of Paris. Cusanus again, The second argument from the authority of Councels above the Pope, unreconcileable with his Ʋniversal Pastorship from Christ. The number of great Authors for it. Of the then Church of England, of France, of Germanie, Pope Martine the fifth. The Fathers of Basil. Leo the tenth in the Lateran Councel. The quarel wide, between Jesuites and Sorbonists, as wide as between either of them and us. The Sorbonists concord. Gersons Tract. Bellarmines rejecting of his stating. Some Newtrals. Picus Mirandula. The third argument from the Supreme power of Princes, in opposition to the Pope. Proofs of it in England. Arguments from reason. The proof of his Ground reduced to Syllogism. The Major examined. What force in the word Reformers, to prove S. W's demonstration. Assuming, no proof of acknowledgment. A Dilemna on supposition of Romes Reforming. The Mi…r examined, the Greeks equal with us in denying the Supremacy. Gregory the ninth of the Greek Church of the fourth Century. Henry VIII. no Reformer. The propriety of that word for Doctrine, and Manners. Enormous encroachments invite opposition. Leo the tenth the Schismatick. The strange p. 92miscarriages of S. W's first ground, 1. in point of truth, as to the Conclusion, 2. of demonstrativeness, in both the Propositions.

1. THe first then of these self-evident Grounds is this, That the first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes authority in England, found England actually subject to that authority in Ecclesiastical matters.] And this, saith he, carries its evidence in its own termes, since they could not be truly said the first Reformers from it, unlesse before, that authority had been there acknowledged, for the word Reformation, which they pretend, argues that tenet was held there before.

2. If the Reader shall here observe what is introduced with [since] and [for] the ordinary dialect of probations, he will indeed soon discern the self-evidence of this ground, as far as concernes S. W's perswasions of it, all the strength which he hath lent it, being but that which is proper to priciples, the proving the question by it self, or a demonstration, which is made up of thrice repeating the same thing in words lightly varied, using this his first ground, as Balak did Balaam, when he did not his business in one, removing him to another place of advantage, from the high places of Baal to Pisgah, and again from Pisgah to Peor, and then tis an ill-natured unimprovable ground, a very foreign, a reprobate soil, in the husbandmans style, if in none of the th…ice varied appearances, it will aford or yield what he would have it, become self evident, and demonstrative, to the bringing down curses upon Israel, anathema's on the poor Protestant.

3. But to shew that this great lustre is not in the object or medium, but only in S. W's Optick nerve, or phansie. I shall briefly demand, what he means by [the Popes, and that Authority] If only the Primacy and dignity of the Patriarch of the west, introduced by the Canons, or Customes of the Church, or any other acquired, or assumed precarious and mutable authority, or power in some Ecclesiastical matters, p. 93depencing wholly on the concessions of Princes, and revocable at the pleasure of them, or their successors, I may safely grant the acknowledgednesse of that in England, at what time soever he shall dare the first pretending to Reforme in the point of the Popes authority, that yeelding no advantage to S. W's pretensions, who (in his second ground) defines this authority to be that of the head of the universal Church, and (in his third) derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter, and censures it in me for frivolous and impertinent to talk of the Kings power to charge Patriarchates, when, saith he, they are questioning an authority above Patriarchs, and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself; and again, as held then of Christs institution.

4. If then (as must hence he assumed, and his second and third insuing grounds expresse) he here means, 1. this supereminent transcendental, far more than Patriarchal power, as it is pretended to be constituted by Christ himself, and 2. the self evidence, that this was acknowledged in England, when the first pretenders to reform appeared, I shall then first consider the truth of what he here concludes, [that the first pretenders to reforme found England actually subject to it in Ecclesiastical matters] and again, [that that authority was acknowledged, that tenet held there before (that must be immediately before) the first Reformers] And 2. I shall examine (what he so confidently pretends) the self-evidence of it.

5. In examining the truth of his conclusion, I may first take notice of his interposing that restrictive phrase [in Ecclesiastical matters] not that I have any dislike to his moderation therein, because I suppose he meant by interposing it to make a difference between the acknowledgment of the Popes supreme power over this Nation in Ecclesiastical, and in temporal matters, and that he was so possest of the former, as he was not of the latter, which indeed very well agrees with what he addes of this power being constituted by Christ himself, by the line of St. Peter; for that must needs be confined to that sort of power which alone was given to St. Peter by Christ, viz. a regiment Ecclesiastical.

p. 9422. This then being supposed to be the express sense of S.W's first ground, that the Popes supereminent authority or plenitude of power over all Churches, and so over the Church of England, as conferred on him by Christ, was here acknowledged before (and if his inference have any force, immediately before) the first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes authority, I suppose it will be brought to a speedy issue, if we shall inquire, and observe, what was the declared opinion in this point in the years immediately preceding the rejection of the Papal power in this Nation.

6. Who it was that signally rejected it, is sufficiently agreed, Henry VIII. by Act of Parliament, Anno Dom. 1536. in the 28 year of his reign, called An Act of extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and prescribing an Oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and Lay, of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority. Here then is the point of time to be fastened, as the date of the first Reformers, to which S. W's first ground referres, and then 'twill cost us little pains to discover what immediately before that, was the acknowledgement of this Kingdome.

7. Herein I referre him to one competent foreign, (though formerly mention'd) the decision of the Ʋniversities, and chief Monasteries, in the XXVI year of his reign, i. e. two years before the foremention'd date, a Record fitted to the point in hand, and a proof that at that time it was not thus acknowledged. For when Henry VIII. May 18. 1534. willing to be duely advised how he might fitly behave himself toward the Pope, applyed himself, after the example of his Predecessors, to the faithfull Counsel of the English Church, and dispatch'd his Letters to the Ʋniversities, as to men of virtue and profound literature (and so likewise to the chief Monasteries, and the rest of the Clergy) requiring their opinion of a certain question, in writing, under their Seal, according to the meer and sincere truth of the same, and proposing the question in no higher a style then this, Whether the Bishop of Rome have in this Kingdome any greater jurisdiction in holy Scripture conferred on him then any other forain Bishop? they after mature deliberation, and consideration of the whole matter, returned answer, Jun. 27. expressely in the Negative, p. 95Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in S. Ser. in hoc regno Angliae, quam alium quemvis externum Episcopum. That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in the holy Scripture, in this Kingdome of England than any other foraign Bishop. These were the words of the Answer of the Ʋniversity of Oxford, as appears in their Register.

8. If it be here suggested by any man else (for S W. is not capable of receiving advantage by it) that this decision of the Ʋniversity set down in those large terms of non majorem quam alium quemvis] was in prejudice also to the Patriarchal dignity, as well as to the Papal Monarchick power of Rome, the bare Patriarchal dignity being superior to that of other foraign Bishops, the answer is obvious, that the decision is peculiarly of majorem aliquam jurisdictionem, any greater jurisdiction, and not of superior dignity, and so that the Patriarch, which in respect of power was no more then a Primate, and had nothing of jurisdiction annext to him, farther than in relation to the foreign (Dioecese in the ancient notion of it for a joynt administration of more Provinces, of which the Patriarch was Primate) but only a priority of dignity, was not touched or violated by this decision.

9. To which purpose I referre the Reader to the Corpus Juris Canonici (formerly cited) Decret. Par. 1. dist. 99. c. 3. Primae sedi… Episcopus non appelletur Princeps facerdotum, vel summus sacerdos. The Bishop of the first See, i. e. the Patriarch, is not to be called Prince of the Priests, or supreme Priest, nor (as the**Afric. Conc. Can. VI. African Canon addes) aliquid hujusmodi, any other thing of the same kinde under another title. And the practice was agreeable, as hath appeared (Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 39) from the Milevitane Councel where St. Augustine was present, Can. XXII. forbidding under pain of excommunication any appeal from the African Councels or Primates of those Provinces, to any foraign Councells or Judicatures, and this again (as there appears) consonant to the V. …non of Nice, and (before that) to the XXXIV. Apostolike, where the Prima… in every Nation is to be accounted their head. But this by the way.

p. 9610. Testimonies of other writers of that time we cannot fail of. Erasmus alone will furnish us with sufficient, who thereby hath▪ brought that character upon himself, Nem…nem probè Catholicum dicimus, qui Erasmo nimium delectatur, He that is exceedingly delighted in his writings, may not be deemed a good Catholike, though he himself lived and dyed a member of the Romish Communion. How far he was from owning the Divine right of the Ʋniversal Pastorship, appears sufficiently by that one ingenuous confession of his, of the first ages. Certè nomen hoc nondum illis temporibus erat auditum, quantum ex veterum omnium scriptis licet colligere; Tituli isti, nempe Ʋniversalis Pontifex, Caput Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae, Christi in terris vicarius, Princeps Sacerdotum, non vulgò recipiebantur ante Bonifacium tertium, Surely that name, as far as we can collect from the writings of all the antients, was not heard of in those times. Those titles, Ʋniversal Bishop, Head of the Ʋniversal Church, Vicar of Christ on earth, Prince of Priests, were not vulgarly received before Boniface the third. But instead of such particular, personal, (or such as may by S. W. be deemed partial) affirmations (which yet are competently qualified to supersede the pretended universal acknowledgement of those times, immediately foregoing the extinguishing Act) and for the farther clearing of this matter I shall assume to prove this proposition (by as undenyable evidences as a matter of this nature is well capable of) that the universal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome, as it is explained, and interpreted by S. W. to be derived to him by St. Peter from Christ, was not held as Catholike Doctrine generally in the Christian Church of the West, more particularly in the Church of England, at the time, when Henry VIII. abrogated the authority of that Bishop in this Nation.

11. My first argument shall be drawn from the opinion, that was had of the equality of the power given to the Apostles, in Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter, and Feed my sheep, &c. For the first (to omit the current of the ancient Fathers in this point) I shall insist r…her on those that are neerer hand, such is Lyra on Mat. XVI. Durand. à St. Porciano in 4. Sent. dist. 18. qu. 2. both which wrote in the fourteenth Century. Thus Abulensis in the fifteenth Century argues vehemently more than once, that none of the p. 97Apostles did understand that any supremacy was given to Peter by those words of Christ, for saith he, afterward they contended for superiority, Mat. XVIII. Again, the two sonnes of Zebedee have their desire of Preference promoted by their Mother, Mat. XX. At the last Supper, the contention is up again, which of them should be the greater, Luk. XXII. and ista contentio fuit omnium duodecem, **Abulens. in Mat. XVIII. qu. 7.Matt 18saith he, that contention was of all the twelve, and††Id. in Mat. XX. qu. 83.Matt 20 again, Quilibet Apostolorum dubitabat, quis eorum esset major, & istud dubium mansit usque ad diem mortis Christi, nam in caena ultima Christi inceperunt inter se conquirere quis eorum major videretur, Luk. XXII. Et tamen non facerent publicè istam disputationem, si putarent Petrum per collatas claves eis praepositum. Ideo adhue putabant se aequalos, cum nescirent quis eorum esset major. Every of the Apostles doubted which of them should be the greater, and that doubt remained untill the day of Christs death, for in his last Supper they began to inquire among themselves which of them should seem the greater, Lu. XXII and yet they would not publikely have made that dispute, if they thought Peter by the collating of the Keyes preferred before them, therefore they yet thought they were aequal, when they knew not which of them was greater. **Qu 84.Again, dicendum verisimilius quod valdè ambiebant omnes discipuli mutuum Primatum, it is to be said with more probability that all the Disciples vehemently desired Primacy one over another, which they could not doe, if Christ had declared for St. Peter. ††De Concordant. Cathol. l. 2. c. 13. et c. 34.Cusanus, his contemporary, argues thus, if Praelates derived their jurisdiction from the Pope, verum foret Petrum aliquid singularitatis recepisse, et Paparu in hoc successorem esse, It would be true …hat Peter had received somewhat of singularity, and that the Pope were in this his successor, but we know, saith he, quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis a Christo recepit aliis Apostolis, that Peter received no more power from Christ than the other Apostles, Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum, quod etiam aliis dictum non sit, nonne sicut Petro dictum, Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, ita aliis, Quaecunque ligaveritis? For there was nothing said to Peter, which was not also said to the rest. As it was said to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth, so was it not said to the rest, whatsoever ye shall binde? So**Relect. 2. de Pet. Eccl. Conclus. 2. Franciscus a Victoria, about the year 1500. Quilibet Apostolus habebat potestatem Ecclesiasticum in …to Orbe, et ad omnes actus ad quos Petrus habuit, Every Apostle had power Ecclesiastical in the whole world, and to all p. 98acts to which Peter had, And he proves it by this, as well as other Texts, Whatsoever ye shall loose—

12. This is the common interpretation also of the Doctors of Paris. So it was of Adolphus Archbishop of Colen, and of the Bishops of his Province. **Bin. Concil. Ann. 1549.They recite the promise made to St. Peter, I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven, Mat. XVI. and say, Quam promissionem non ad unum Petrum pertinere, sed in omnes Apostolos transmissam alio loco insinuat ubi dicit, Amen, dico vobis quaecunque alligaveritis— Which promise that it belongs not to Peter only, but was transmitted to all the Apostles, he insinuates in another place, where he saith, Verily I say to you, whatsoever ye shall binde on earth, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, Mat. XVIII. This Synod, and all the Decrees thereof, were ratified by Charles V. and injoyned to be observed in omnibus sui… punctis, clausulis, articulis, sententiis, & verborum expressionibus, in all the points, clauses, articles, sentences, and expressions of words; And this Adolphus saith††Chron. Ann. 1547. Surius, was so addicted to the Roman Church, that when the Pope had removed Hermannus out of that Bishoprick, he was placed in his stead.

13, For the second, Feed my sheep, (to omit again the ancients, Ambros. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 2. August. de Agone Christiano, c. 30. Theophyl. in Johan. c. XXI.) it appears by the Opusculum of John Patriarch of Antioch, publikely pronounced in the Covent of the Friers Minors, to be subscribed by as many as were willing. In his answer to the several arguments for the Superiority of the Pope above General Councels (taken from some antients) he saith,**Concil. Basil. Append. Fundātur super verbis dictis Petro a Christo, quae saene intellecta juxta jam dicta supra, non fundant Papam Praesidentiam habere supra corpus universalis Ecclesiae; nec obstant …lla verba, Pasce …ves meas,— They are founded on the words spoken to Peter by Christ, which being understood aright, according to what was above said, are not a foundation for the Popes having any presidency ab…ve the body of the Ʋniversal Church; neither, saith he, doe those words, [Feed my sheep,] withstand; which if they be understood de pascuo spirituali, of spiritual feeding, that, saith he, is comprehended under the power of binding and loosing, quae data est Ecclesiae principaliter, which was given principally to the Church. And††De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 23. Cardinal Cusanus, who lived at the same time, makes them words of Precept, not of institution p. 99of authority, and aequally spoken to all the Apostles, Et si Petro dictum est, Pasce oves tamen manifestum est quod illa pascentia est verbo et exemplo, though it were said to Peter, Feed my sheep, yet it is manifest, that that Feeding is by word and example. And so, saith he, according to St. Augustine in his glosse upon that word, omnibus idem est praeceptum, ibi, cuntes— the same is commanded all in that place, Goe into all the world, and preach— in the last of Matthew and Mark. Nihil reperitur Petro aliud dictum, quod potestatem impertit aliquam, ideo rectè dicimus omnes Apostolos in potestate cum Petro aequales, There is not found any thing else said to Peter, which imparts any p…wer, therefore we truely say that all the Apostles were aequal in power with Peter. Nay Bellarmine himself did**De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 12. Edit. Ing…lstad. 1586. sometimes understand the words of Christ, Feed my sheep, confirm thy brethren, whatsoever thou shalt binde] to be said to all Pastors. And to this day the††Baron. Anu. 34 n. 201. Rhemists Annot. in Mat. XVI. 19. See also the Dispatcher, Par 3. Sect. 2.Matt 16:19 greatest Advocates for the Papacy, say that no more was given in Feed my sheep, than was promised in, I will give thee the Keyes, so that all those that said that the words Mat. XVI. belong to all the Apostles aequally, must be interpreted (on this account) to apply [Feed my sheep] to them likewise.

14. One thing only more I shall offer on this head. Bellarmine is under some considerable difficulty in supporting his Hypothesis in this matter, for in**De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c 9. one place he saith, Summa potestas Ecclesiastica non solum data est Petro, sed etiam aliis Apostolis, the Supreme Ecclesiastick power was not only given to Peter, but also to the other Apostles, and††Ibid. c. 11. again, Omnes fuerunt capita, & Pastores Ʋniversae Ecclesiae, They were all heads, and Pastors of the Ʋniversal Church; and**c. 12. again, Omnibus fuit collata summa potestas, the supreme power was conferred on all. But in each place he brings in an adversative, which if it be observed, contradicts rather than excepts, ††Ib. c. 11.Sed ita tamen ut Petrus esset caput eorum, & ab illo pendoretur, **c. 12.cum quadam subjectione ad Petrum, but yet so as Pet…r should be the head of them, and that they should depend on him, with a kinde of subjection to Peter. Where if any shall say, that the supreme power, and headship given to all, and yet Peters being the head of all, and their depending on, and some kinde of subjection to Peter, is a kinde of contradictious subjected Supremacy, inferior headship, and unequal equality, I must not wrong the Cardinal so much as p. 100to conceal his foreign, his way of answering and reconciling this difficulty (and that indeed is the only thing I designed for the Readers observation at this time) the way of escape is, Sed Petro ut ordinario Pastori cui perpetuò succederetur, aliis verò tanquam Delegatis quibus non succederetur, This was given to Peter as to an ordinary Pastor, who should be perpetually sueceeded to, but to others as to Delegates to whom none should succeed.

15. Here I shall not be so impertinent as to confront to him the suffrages of ancient Fathers, which, in perfect opposition, affirm the Bishops in the Churches, to be the Successors of these Delegates, the other Apostles, which, he saith, were to have no successors; My present businesse leads me another way, to advertise the Reader, that Bellarmine was not the author of this artifice, Cajetane and Victoria had made use of this exquisite remedy before, and being derived from them, it had the honour to come into the Councel of Trent; Only the unluckinesse of it was, that the Bishop of Granada in that Councel, made bold to deride them that said the supreme power was personal in the Apostles, and descended not to their successors, and then demands confidently,**Hist. Concil. Trid. 13. Oct. 1562. Quo fundamento, qua authoritate, qua ratione in assertionem adeo audacem prorupissent, On what ground, what authority, what reason, they had broken out into an assertion so audacious, and sayes it was invented but fifty years before, (I desire S. W. will observe that.)

16. And this was not only the opinion of that Bishop, but soon after the††Ibid. paulo post. Bishop of Paris doth there expressely affirm, that Cajetane fifty years before did first devise it, to obtain a Cardinals Hat, that it was unknown to former ages, and at the first broaching i…nominiously censured by the Divines of Sorbon. Yet further, the Bishop of Granada refuted it from Scripture appositely, Christ, saith he, promised to all the Apostles, that he would be with them to the end of the world, which could not be understood of their own persons, but must be of their succession, and so it had been understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen. The same**Concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11. Cusanus concludes from the words of St. Augustine ad Esitium de die Novissimo. The words, saith he, which Christ spake to the Apostles, must be understood of their successors, as that speech, Ye shall be hated p. 101by all, and ye shall be for witnesses to me, and behold I am with you alwayes to the end of the world, which who understands not that he promised to the Ʋniversal Church, which should continue, some dying, and others being born, to the end of the world, as also that is sayd to them (which belongs not to them, and yet is so said, as if it belonged to them alone) when ye see the abomination of desolation—and when ye see these things, know— From these words Cusanus inferres this consideration, quod verba Christi ad Apostolos, trahi debent ad Ecclesiam, that the words of Christ to the Apostles ought to be drawn to the Church, i. e. Not confined to their p…rsons, but applyed to their Successors, And then what becomes of Bellarmines expedient, to reconcile his contradiction, or of S. W's Oral Tradition, and possession of this interpretation of Christs words to Peter. And let this serve for the confirming my first argument.

17. My second is, in consequence to that, drawn from the contestation about the superiority of authority and power of General Councels above Popes. For I shall suppose it undenyable, that the supreme Pastorship vested in the Pope by Christs donation to St. Peter (as S.W. maintains it) is not reconcileable with his being inferior, or subjected to any other person or persons in the Church, nor to the whole Church it self either diffused, or collected in the Representative, any more than a Prince by God immediately set over a people (I say, as the case here lies, not by man, but by God) shall be inferior to those, over whom he is set. And therefore**De Concil. l. 2. c. 14. Bellarmine doth with great reason say, that to hold that a General Councel is superior to the Pope, is to make the Pope as the Duke of Venice, or the General of an Army. And††Analys. Fyd. l. 8. c. 7. Gregory de Valentiâ argues, that to give the supreme and infallible judgement to an Ʋniversal Councel, is **Pugnat cum Primatu—repugnant to the Primacy of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome, for, saith he, if Councels should judge infallibly, the Pope himself were bound to accept their decrees, or there should be two supreme powers in the Church, which is impossible.

18. And yet 'tis certain that Ʋniversal Councels have exercised authority over Popes, one while deposing Popes, and disposing of their Sees, as the Councel of Constance did lately p. 102three together, another while making Canons in opposition to their pretensions, witness that of Chalcedon, for the (foreign) aequal priviledges of New to Old Rome, witnesse the XIII of the sixt Councel in Trullo made expressely and**foreign— by name, in opposition to a Roman Canon, but in complyance with an Apostolical; And though 'tis true the Romanists, as it is their interest,††Canc. Tom. V. p. 8. and p. 311. reject those Canons, yet the seventh Councel, strongly propugned by the Romanist, hath no higher authority to pretend to, than that of this sixt Councel, see**Conc. Tom. V. p. 732. B. Act. VI. and accordingly asserts the Canons thereof, and cites the LXXXII. for their turn, which therefore founds an argument (ad hominem, at least) from this Canon of that Council. And if some flatterers of the Popes have undertaken, and asserted their cause against Councels, yet (which is sufficient to our present argument) we know a very great number, if not much the greater, who were reputed true Catholike members even of the Roman Church, did constantly assert the power and authority of General Councels to be superior to that of the Bishop of Rome, to exercise authority over him, to give Lawes to him, and to censure him.

19. Of this number was the Pope himself,††Quest. de Confi…m. Adrian VI. who was Bishop of Rome but seven years before Henry VIII. was acknowledged here Supreme. Of this were**Ir. de authorit. Eccles. Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis Cameracensis, ††De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. ult.Nicol. Cusanus Cardinalis, **Ca. Significasti. extr. de electione.Panormitanus Cardinalis, ††Ibid.Florentinus Cardinalis, **In Mat. 18. qu. 108. et in Defensor. par. 2 c. 69.Matt 18Alphonsus Tostatus Episcopus Abulensis; And, in the same time of Henry VIII.††Tract. de Potest. Eccl. Joannes Major, and Jacobus Almainus. And**Relect. de Potest Papae et Concil. Propos. 3. Franciscus a Victoria, who stood at the same time doubtfull, gives us a large and fair account of the question, that there were two opinions of it, one of Thomas Aquinas, and many of his followers, and other Doctors learned both in Theology and Canon Law, that the Pope is above the Councel; the other the common opinion of the Parisians, and also p. 103of many other Doctors both in Theology and Canon Law, as Panormitane and others, that the Councel is above the Pope and his resolution is, Puto utramque esse probabilem, I think that both are probable, and if so, then sure this on the Popes side was not by him taken to belong to him by any divine right, devolved to him by St. Peter. To the same purpose**In C. Novit. de Judiciis Notab. 3 num. 84. Navarre, There is, saith he, a great dissension between the Romans and the Parisians, to whom the Ecclesiastical power was more principally conferred by Christ, whether to the whole Church, or to St. Peter, the Roman pretension was favoured by St. Thomas, and Thomas a Vio, the Parisian by Panormitan, whom frequentius nostri sequuntur, our men more frequently follow, as Decius saith. This James Almain a Divine of the Sorbone, constantly defends, and answers Thomas a Vio in a full Tract, and so doth John Major, saying, that as Rome no man is permitted to maintain the Parisian Doctrine, and at Paris none suffered to assert the contrary. To this number must belong Sir Thomas More, whom the Romanist and particularly††Sch. Disarm. p. 187. S. W. hath most confidence in, next the Bishop of Rochester, of any man in those times. His words are exp…ess in his**See L. Cherb. Hen. VIII. p. 394. and Sir Thom. Mores works in the end. Letter to Cromwell (the Original of which is in Sir Robert Cottons Library) that upon perusing the Kings book against Luther he disswaded him so much to exalt the Papal authority, lest it diminished his own, and though he denyed not the Pope a Primacy, yet he could not hold it such as that the authority derived to him thereby was to be preferred before a General Councel. (Of Bishop Fisher I have††Answ. to Sch. Disarm. p. 218. formerly spoken as to the point of the Primacy.) And that it stood as the received opinion of the Church of England, thus appears. The superiority of the Councel above the Pope, being decreed by the**Sess. 4. & 5. Concilium oecumenicum immediate a Christo potestatem habet, eique subest Pontife… Romanus. Council of Constance ending Ann. 1418. Archbishop Chichley ††Registr. Hen. Chichl.summoned a Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to be holden Octav. Apost. Pet. et Pauli 1422. and recites, that whereas it was decreed in the holy Council of Constance, lately congregated with the Holy Ghost, that another General Council should be holden in May, 1423. Nos decretis— We resolving as far as belongs to our person, to obey the decrees of that said Council, and desiring that all our Suffragans and Prelates and Clergy of p. 104our Province of Canterbury would obey them— Then they met according to his summons, chose Procurators for the Church of England, raised a Taxe for the support of their charge, and that Council met at Pavia according to the**Concil. Const. Sess. 44. decree of the Council of Constance. In that Council of Constance the English appeated, and as††In vit. Johan. XXIV. Platina tells us, affairs were carried by the Suffrages of five Nations, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and England, and the**App. Concil. Basil. Orator from the Council of Basil to the King of England, saith, that in the Council of Constance this renowned and most learned Nation was present with honour to it. And in the Council of Basil, (by the interposition especially of those two famous Lawyers, Abbas Panormitanus, and Ludovicus Romanus, Legates from Alfonsus the great, King of Arragon) the same being decreed, and often urged, as was before at Constance, and††Concil. Bas. Sess. 16. & 17. in Append. sworn to be observed by the Legates of the Pope Eugenius, after he had three years opposed it, as to this point, the English Church received it, as it had formerly in Constance. And the particular inclination of the King of England toward the Council of Basil appears by his**Ep. Synod. Concil. Basil. Letter sent to Pope Eugenius, telling him that he intends to conform to them as he ought, and exhorting the Pope to promote the proceedings of the Council.

20. If we look out into France, we shall finde it most vigorously††Binii Not. in Conc. Bitur. ex G…g…no. asserted in the Council of Bourges, Ann. 1438. Let the authority of the Council of Basil (say the Fathers) and the constancy of the decrees thereof be perpetual, which none, not even the Pope of Rome shall presume to take away or weaken. And the narration of the acting for the Pragmatick Sanction by**De Benefic. l. 5. c. 11. Duarenus saith as much. Charles VII. King of France, saith he, yielded to the Orators of the Council of Basil, that the decrees of the Council, should be received and defended in his Kingdome, having first assembled at Bourges a Synod of Nobles, Praelates, and other most learned and grave men, by whose auth… rity and counsel he was lead to receive and confirm the Decrees of that Synod, and set forth that noble Constitution, called ordinarily the Pragmatick Sanction, than which, saith he, nothing was more p. 105popular, nothing more rec…ived with the aplause of all good men, being usually styled the Palladium of France.

21. This Pius II. laboured hard with Lewis XI. to get repealed, Cardinal Balva acting earnestly for him, and obtaining the Kings command to the Parliament of Paris. But this was strenuously resisted, and the attempt very gravely and prudently repressed by the Court, and a book by them exhibited to the King, to convince him that nothing could be more destructive to France, than that he should grant the Popes desire in this matter, and to this he consented, though greatly devoted to reverence the Popes authority. Afterward the Council of Tours assembled by Lewis XII. and consisting of**Genebr. l. 4. Chronol. Omnium Episcoporum Galliae— all the Bishops of France, and many learned men, decreed that the Pragmatick Sanction w…s to be††Chronic. Massaei, An. 1510. kept throughout France. And when Francis I. in his distresse yieldeed to the abrogation of it, and ratified the Concordate in the Lateran Council, he**Concordat. Quando ita forebat ratio difficultasque temporis, rerumque nos circumstantium necessitas. professeth he did it being constrained by his necessity, and so Rebuffus, one sufficiently addicted to the Roman greatnesse, in his interpretation of the Concordat, makes the††Temporis difficultas aliquando permittit non concedenda. Ca. Licet de seriis. Necessitas rerum circumstantium, quae non habet legem. l. 1. ff. de Offic. Cons. necessity of that King an excuse for the abrogation of the Pragmatick. Notwithstanding, this abrogation was protested against by the Ʋniversity of Paris, An. 1517. Mar. 27. in these words,**Orthwinus Gratius fascic. rer. expetend. Bochell. l. 8. decret. Eccl. Gall. c. 4. Leo the tenth in a certain assembly in the City of Rome congregated we know not how, but not in the Spirit of the Lord, thought fit that these so wholesom Statutes should be abrogated, and going against the Catholike Faith, and the authority of the sacred General Councels, hath condemned the sacred Council of Basil, Therefore they appeal from their Lord the Pope not well advised, and from his infringing the sacred Council of Basil, and the Pragmatick Sanction, to the next Council that shall be lawfully and freely called.

22. The Germans stood after the same manner affected; whatsoever was done in the Councils of Constance and Basil, was done chiefly under the protection of the Emperor Sigismund. Afterward††Sabellic. and Onuphr. in vit. Jul. II. Maximilian I. joyned with L…wis XII of France, to p. 106call a General Council at Pisa, for reforming the enormities of Julius II. and**R sc…ipt. Ca… V. ad Cri… …lement 7. Ann. 1525 Charles V. appealed from Clement VII to a G…neral Council.

23. In brief,††Generat. 48. circa An. 1438. Nauclerus shewes how universal this opinion was of the authority of the Councils, the Germans, saith he, the King of France, and of England, favoured the Council of Basil with all their power, and the Council of Basil pronounces,**In fine Sess. 45. Conclus. 5. Nec unquam aliquis peritorum, Never any skilfull man doubted but the Pope was subject to the judgement of General Councils in matters which concern the Faith. What he saith of the periti, skilfull, hath an eminent and signal truth in the Jurisperiti, the Lawyers and Canonists. Panormitan, as was said, in his Tract de Concil. Bas. where he demonstrates that the Councils power is above the Popes, that the Pope hath no power over a Council, but may be questioned, coerced, removed by it, so likewise Lud. Romanus, a most eminent person of his age, of whom Aeneas Sylvius (that was in that Council of Basil with him, and was after Pope)††L. 1. de Act. Concil. Bas. saith, Vir non Româ tantum, sed coelo dignus, a person worthy not only of Rome but of Heaven, who affirms in his answers, that it is**Cons. 521. lawfull to appeal from the Pope to the Council, ††Cons. 522.that to the Pope dismissing the Council no obligation was due, that**Cons. 523. he might be deposed by the Council; see Card. Zabarell Cons. 150. Ancharanus Cons. 181. Felinus ad c. super literis, n. 21. de Rescript. Joh. Roias de haeret. n. 518. Fr. Marc. decis. 944. and others (noted in the**P. 101. margin of Archbishop Chichleyes life) as long as they were permitted to deliver their mindes with freedome.

24. Thus then stood the opinion of the Princes of Europe, which continued communion with the Bishops of Rome, concerning the subjecting them to the authority of such Councils, as then in the title and style of the Western European Churches, were reputed General, and above an hundred years before Henry VIII. in their several Dominions, by the advise, suggestions, and assistance of National Synods, Peers and people, they proceeded in vigorous attempts to bring under Order and Reformation the usurpations of the Bishops of Rome, as appears by the††Orthuin Gratius in fascic. …er. expetend. Schedule of enormities in the Pope and Court of Rome, &c. drawn up by Petrus de Alliaco Bishop of Cambray and Cardinal, p. 107by the appointment of Sigismund the Emperor, in the Councel of Constance, though the new Pope Martine V. delayed and evaded it. The like might be manifested in many other instances; see Theodoric a Niem in Nemore Ʋnionis, Tract. 5. and Quintinus Heduus Repetit. lection. de Aristocr. Christ. Civitat.

25. How the dissenting parties may be reconciled, so as to be one Church, and communion, is not easily set down,**Concil. Bas. Epist. Synod. Martine V. with the consent of the whole Councel of Constance, by his Letters gave Order to all Bishops and Inquisitors, quod est de necessitate salutis credere Generale Concilium habere supremam authoritatem in Ecclesia, That it is of necessity to salvation to believe that a General Councel hath supreme authority in the Church. The Fathers of that Councel of Basil doe oft repeat, that it is de necessitate salutis, of necessity to salvation, and they††Concil. Bas. Sess. 33. call it Veritas Fidei Catholicae, Truth of Catholike Faith, and whosoever pertinaciously opposes it, censendus est haereticus, is to be deemed an heretick. **Concil. Later. Sess. 11.Leo X. with his Laterane Councel first saith, that the Pope hath authority over all Councels, and afterwards addes, cum de necessitate salutis existat, seeing it is of necessity to salvation that all that believe in Christ should be subject to the Bishop of Rome. The difference indeed extremely wide, and the Fathers of the society, and the Doctors of the Sorbon continue the contest betwixt these two Councels to this day.

26. The Jesuites earnest propugners of the superiority of the Pope, speak contemptibly of the authority of Councels without him, and give that vertue to the Popes sole direction, that by it every Plebeian may be rendred Infallible. But all this, both in the founta…n and streams is as earnestly oppugned by the Sorbonists, who will have a General Councel superior to the Pope; Neither hath the Jesuite reason to accuse the Church of England as Schismatical in this, any more than to accuse the Sorbonist. And on the other side, the Sorbonist hath more reason to forbear censure on the Church of England as Schismatical, than on the Jesuite, because a General Council (which is of so little weight with the Jesuite without the Pope) is ackowledged by us to be the supreme external, living determiner of Controversies, and we together with the C…uncel of Basil doe hold a Pope Schismatical, p. 108that pertinaciously opposeth, and divideth himself from a lawful General Councel.

27. And if after all this, the Doctors of the Sorbon will have the Pope Ʋniversal Pastor, yet is not our argument hereby weakned, as farre as I now intend to presse it, viz. against the universal acknowledgement of the supreme Pastorship, as from Christ to St. Peter, because neither do they so maintain his supreme pastorship, as de fide to be jure divino nor is their Doctrin of the superiority of Councels any way reconcileable with that stating, being utterly repugnant to the Papal Primacy, as Valentia told us.

28. The accord which the Sorbonist makes, is set down by Gerson in his Tractate called Concordia, Concord. Concl 3.quod plenitudo potestatis Ecclesiasticae sit in Pontifice, et in Ecclesia, in this manner, Est utrobique, & principaliùs in Ecelesia suo modo, The plenitude of power is on both sides, and more principally in the Church after her manner. And what is that manner? Why, saith he, Quadruplici respectu, scil. indeviabilitatis, & indefectibilitatis, extensionis, regulationis et generalis obligationis, cui subjicitur etiam ipse Papa, tanquam Imperatrici Sponsae Regis summi, quae potest condere Canones, & definire etiamsi fuerit Papa praesens, In a fou…fold respect, to wit, of indeviability, and indefectibility of extension, of regulation, and of general obligation, to which even the Pope himself is subject, as to the Imperial Spouse of the supreme King, which can make Canons and define, although the Pope be present. But this as it is perfectly contradictory to the Supremacy of the Pope, as given to St. Peter by Christ, both over all the Apostles, and over the whole flock, so**De Concil. l. 2. c. 16. Bellarmine utterly rejecteth it, and will not allow the Church to have the Supremacy either formally, or suppletivè, or principally, but places it absolutely and immediately in the Pope, and so is every one obliged to doe, that derives it from Christs donation to St. Peter, which therefore the Sorbonist, for all his concord, and his titular acknowledgement, must still be presumed to deny, as placing the plenitude of Power principaliùs, more principally in the Church.

29. But beside these eager litigants on both sides, of whom we have hitherto spoken, and therein founded our argument, there is yet a third sort, and many no doubt there were, and p. 109are of it, viz. of the judgement of Navarre and Victoria forecited, that each opinion is probable, and no faith to be grounded in either (and that is as much to my purpose, as others contesting it on the Councels side) So we finde in the Synodical Epistle of the Synod of Basil, that when the contention was so fierce betwixt that Councel and Eugenius, some remained neuters, and advised the observing a neutrality of obedience. And Picus Mirandula **Theorem. 4. de Fide et Ord. Credendi.goes farther, liquet varias— It appears that the Doctors have delivered divers sentences of the firmnesse of the judgement of Councels, and the Pope, nor, saith he, is there any thing that he knowes promulgated, by virtue of which we may be bound to believe either. To conclude, the††Sess. 34 et 41. Councel of Basil calls Eugenius Scismatick for not acknowledging their authority above bim, and denounces the censures of the Church against all that adhere to him, as favourers of schisme and haeresie. And**Concil. Lateran. Sess. 11. Leo X. doth as much against all the Praelates of France, that maintain the Sanction made and injoyned at Basil.

30 Thus much may serve for a foreign of the contesting of this point, before, and about Henry VIII. his times (wherein only, and not in the resolution of either side, my second argument is founded)

31. My third argument ariseth from the acknowledged supremacy of Princes within their own Dominions. In this Kingdom of ours the case is clear, when Henry VIII began his Reign, the Lawes were fixed, and unrepealed, which asserted the Kings supreme authority in causes and over persons Ecclesiastical. The Papal usurpations growing exorbitant in the Reigns of King John and Henry III. produced a law for restraint thereof, in the XXV. year of Edward I. which was ratified in his XXXV. year. The incroachments of Rome continuing, the law was strengthned in the XXV. of Edward III. and again in the XXVII. and again in the XXXVIII. and the XII of Richard II. and afterwards more††Cap. 5. expressely in the XVI. of his Reign, where complaining of processes and censures upon Bishops of England made by the Pope, because the Bishops made executions of the Kings commandements in his Courts, &c. they expresse the mischiefs hereupon growing, the open disinherison of the Crown, the destruction of the King, his Law and his Realm, that these things are against the p. 110Crown and Regality— And the Commons assert, that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to God, and to none other—And as they oblige themselves to assist the King and his Crown in the cases aforesaid, to live and to dye, so every of the Lords temporal answered by himself, that the cases aforesaid are clearly in derogation of the Kings Crown, as was well known, and had been long time known, and that they will stand with the Crown—And the Bishops and Praelates did every one severally (after Protestation that it was not their minde to deny, or affirm, that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops, nor that he may make translation of Prelates, after the law of the Church) say, that if any Censures made against any for the execution of the Commandments of the Kings Courts—that is against the Kings Crown, they will and ought to stand with the King in those cases, and in all other touching his Crown, as bound by their Leigeance. The Bishop of Rome, 'tis true, did much contend against these Statutes, **Walsingham Hist. An. 1374.Gregorie XI. wrote earnestly to Edward III. and said, to make such a law, as that of the Provisoes was nothing else but to divide Christs Church, to destroy Christian Religion (the Schisme and noxious effects which S. W. is now pressing on us, in the behalf of his successors) but the King rescinded them not. And though Martine V. wrote more sharply to Henry VI. yet the King kept up the force and execution of the laws, ††An. 1. Hen 7. fol. 10.Humfrey Duke of Glocester, Protector and Ʋncle to the King burnt the letters, and when that Pope made Archbishop Chichley Legate, **Antiq. Brit. p. 284.he protested it was not his intention to exercise without the Kings permission, the Legatine power, which he had received, not to derogate from the rights manners, l…ws, priviledges, liberties, and customes of the King and Kingdome, in any thing, but to conserve, defend, and strengthen them. The instances are continued by††Cawdryes case. Sir Edward Coke through succeeding times. And in the VII. of Henry VIII. it was resolved by all the**Ibid. fol. 32. Judges, that Canons Ecclesiastical may be allowed, or refused by the consent or rejection of the King and his people. And in fine, the absolute Supremacy of the King was p. 111in the Articles against Cardinal Wolsey, asserted by all the Lords of the Counsil, **L^d. Charbury Hen. VIII. p. 266, 274.Sir Thomas More Lord Chancellor first subscribing, and this in expresse opposition to the††Ibid. p. 266. Popes holinesse, and as used and injoyed without interruption for the space of above two hundred years by the Kings of these Realms.

32. And it is yet further observable, that although attempts and incroachments were oft made by the Popes against these Laws, yet it was the resolution of our Laws, that no right could thereby accrew to them, and that no prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power, but that for the publick good it may revoke any Concessions, Permissions, or Priviledges, Thus 'twas declared in**Ch. 25. Parliament in Edward III. his reign, when reciting the Statute of Edward I. they say, The Statute holdeth alway his force, and that the King is bound by his Oath to cause the same to be kept as the Law of his Realm.

33. And as thus it was in the Laws and practice of this Kingdome (which is sufficient to have been confronted to S. W's contrary suggestion) so it will be found in the more Ʋniversal Reason of all Nations. For if Supremacy be examined according to the inseparable properties of it, the pretension or acknowledgement of it will appear incompetible to the Bishop of Rome in this or other Princes Dominions, by the Rules and practice of the Christian Church; For

34. First the Supreme Power gives force and power to all Laws, made in Convocations, and without assent thereof, though all in the Convention besides concurre, yet it hath not the vertue of a Law. ††De. Eccl. l. 3. c. 28.Sir 50:3Johan. de Turrecremata distinguisheth betwixt honorary Presidency (such as would be allowed the Bishop of Rome) and authoritative, It is, saith he, the part of authoritative Presidency jus habere non modo dirigendi, sed regendi — to have right not only of directing, but ruling their actions, and of pronouncing sentence of affairs, out of his own judgement, though it be not approved by the greater part of the Councel, yea though it be approved by none.

35. That this hath not been thought to belong to the Bishop of Rome, the fourth and fifth General Councels are instances: The fourth, that of Chalcedon, ordered Ecclesiastical Government p. 112without, and against the consent of Pope Leo and his Legates; And the fifth, at**Baron. An. 553. n. 209. Constantinople, decreed a matter of Faith contradictory to the determination of Vigilius in his Apostolical constitution, subscribed by himself and sixteen other Bishops adhering to him; whereas a true Supreme power can not only invalidate a Law made by an Assembly, but also by a sole edict make a Law, unlesse it pleaseth to limit it self by taking in an admixtion of Assistants in Councel (which the Romanist acknowledgeth not of his Pope) But neither then can it (salvo contenemento) so debarre it self, that it should be over-ruled by plurality of voices, and thereby forced to consent to the major part. 'Tis the Civilians doctrine of Summuns Imperium, that it is of that nature,††Grotii Apolog c. 2. ut parte amissâ substantiam suam amittat, that by loosing a part, it loseth its substance, or essence.

36. Secondly, Though Supreme authority may limit it self in some particulars, yet can it not be restrained, and limitted by subjects; And yet 'tis evident the Bishops of Rome have been limited both by Councels and Princes, which assures us those are not his proper Subjects.

37. Thirdly, Supreme authority is the fountain of all Jurisdiction, which must consequently be derived thence by emanation. Yet it is evident the Power of Ecclesiasticks is not thus derived from the Pope. **Gerson de Origine Juris.The Power of Excommunication is the only coercive Ecclesiastical power, that is by divine Right, and this is not derived from the Bishop of Rome, but was conferred on all the Apostles together, Joh. XX. 23. and belongs to all Prelates as their Successors; and accordingly it is a received opinion among the Romanists, that Bishops have the power of binding and loosing Jure divino; ††De Justa Haer. pun. c. 24.Alphonsus a Castro saith, that the opposite opinion is contrary to all the Doctors: **L. 2. Disp. 152. c. 3.Gabriel Vasquez concurres with him, And this power, saith Alphonsus, given the Bishop by vertue of his consecration, is not only of Order, but Jurisdiction also, and it is no lesse then Schismatical; not to acknowledge the power residing in every Bishop The Nicene ††Can. V.Canon being therein grounded, foreign, that those that are p. 113cast out by any, are not be admitted by others. To which**Epist. 58. Syn…sius's suffrage is expresse, that if any neglects his authority foreign as the Bishop of a small City, and receives into communion Andronicus and the other, as if there were no necessity to obey a mean poor Cities Bishop, foreign, Let that man know he causes a Schisme in the Church, which Christ would have to be one; And this unity proceeds from co-ordination in this power of excommunicating; whereupon St. Cyprian oft speaks of Episcopatus unus, the same office in so many several Bishops. In the exercise of this power there is indeed subordination according to Canons or Custome, but,Tom. V. dis. 2. Sect. 1. as Suarez saith, the censure of Excommunication, i. e. the actual exercise of that power, in any infliction of penalty, is not jure divino but humano, being ordered or temper'd according to the prudence of the Church, and so that makes no difference.

38. And so likewise the regulating or ligislative power Ecclesiastical, in making Canons or Decrees, is co-ordinate also, all Bishops having their votes in it. Accordingly the Bishops of Rome and their Legates, were wont to sign Decrees as well as other Bishops, whereas in every polity, as the same**De leg. l. 4. c. 4. Suarez affirms, the legislative power is constantly Supreme. ††Ib. n. 17.it extends to Ʋniversality of subjects, to universality of Actions, and in all these must have an immutability, quia nec augeri, nec minui potest, because it is capable neither of augmentation nor diminution.

39. Thus much I hope at this time (he shall have much more**Answ. to the IV. Ground. anon) will satisfie S. W. of the truth of his first ground, or if not him, yet his less interested Reader, which hath not so unreconcileable a quarrel to written Testimonies, though these have not wanted the suffrage of Reason also, which is one sort of unwritten, for the evidencing matters of fact of elder times.

40. Secondly, then for the pretended self-evidence of his ground wherein doth that consist? why, saith he, it carries it in its own terms; what are its own terms, which are thus illustrious? The first pretenders to reform-found England actually p. 114subject— But this is only his affirmation, by others denyed, and no shew of self-evidence in it. Yes, in that they pretended to reform, They could not be said to reform in this point of the Popes authority, if they had not found England actually subject to it; This he insists on over and over again, They could not be truly called the first Reformers from it, unlesse before, that authority had been there acknowledged, and again, for the very word Reformation, which they pretend, argues that tenet was held before.]

41. But to this I answer, 1. that it is very strange a writer of Controversies, as S. W. desires to be esteemed, as also a great pretender to demonstration, and immediate connexion of terms, and a profest enemy to wordish testimonies even of Scripture it self, because they are subject to so many sorts of mis-understandings, should yet lay the foundation of all his impregnable fabrick, the whole weight of his first pretended demonstration, on the most uncertain unconsiderable use of the word Reformers, [they could not, saith he, be truly said the first Reformers, unlesse—] and [for the word Reformation, which they pretend, argues—] When 1. it appears not that they were at all called Reformers, and then what is become of his foundation? 2. in case they were called Reformers, it might be by others a nick-name imposed, and not by themselves, or 3. if by themselves, it might be assumed hypocritically, when they establisht and setled by a law, what before was more modestly and sparingly practiced, (Such Reformations we have heard of from Trent, and from other coasts) or else 4. they might be casually adopted to that title, when they neither looked for it, nor did any thing to deserve it. If any of these be affirmed by his adversary, or if not, because it is possible some one of these might be the truth, what then is become of his demonstration? And truly if S. W. be as he intimates, a disciple of that great Master, P. 27.of whom he saith [it is worthy of him to write grounds] and consider that now they are some previous grounds, which he is proposing, he will have reason to think with others, that it must reflect on some body beyond himself, that his first-ground should so very ill deserve that title, p. 115being but a Topical argument at most, drawn from a title or appellation, which seldome agrees to them on whom 'tis bestowed, and certainly doth not signifie by nature, or by any such necessity from whence any can pretend to conclude demonstratively.

42. Secondly, If we should pass over this, and acknowledge his demonstration valid, as far as it pretends, yet 'twill be far from inferring what it ought to inferre, the acknowledgednesse of the Papal power, in the modern notion of it, (for the Ʋniversal Pastorship and Vicarship of Christ, by him constituted in St. Peter) for they might reform from many other things in the point of the Popes authority without reforming from that.

42. But I shall not need exact thus much from it, above what in terminis it proposeth to perform: It is indeed farre from doing what it pretends to doe, far from demonstrating any the barest, meagerst conclusion: It will be visible; if taking it in the looser terms, wherein he hath (as to his own interests) most advantageously chosen to set it, we shall reduce it to Syllogistical form, thus,

They that use, or pretend to the word Reformation, in point of the Popes authority, acknowledge that tenet was held before in England, or that England was actually subject to it.

But they that disclaimed the Popes Supreme authority in England, called themselves Reformers, or pretended to the word Reformation, Ergo,

44. In which processe, as it pretends to be demonstrative, if upon due examination, either of the propositions shall be found to fail of self evidence, 'tis certain his whole fabrick is demolished. But if beyond expectation both should prove to doe so. S. W. must even go for a Saint or Preacher in his own dialect, i. e. for a most sad unfortunate demonstrator, let the issue testifie of the justice of this intimation.

49. And at first view 'tis discernible, that there is no evidence in, or necessary connexion between the terms of the major proposition, i. e. between pretending Reformation p. 116in that point] and acknowledging that tenet was held before in England] or even that England was then acknowledged to be actually subject to the Popes authority. 'Tis on both sides granted, that the Pope assumed, or claimed this authority at that time, and I need not deny but some of the people, nay Praelates of England once acknowledged and willingly submitted to this claim, and in respect to one, or at least to both of these, the use of the word Reformation in that point might be very proper, without Englands being found actually subject to it, which is farre distant from either of these, yet is the one thing which the words of this ground exact.

46. In the former respect, the Popes assuming] that I hope doth not inferre that the Nation acknowledged his claim; The man that stood upon the Strand, first phansied, and then assumed that all the Ships in the Haven, and then in the Ocean were his, but sure this had no such influence on the mindes of the true owners, Pilots and Mariners, as irresistibly to work or infallibly conclude in all them an acknowledgement of his claim; Nor was it needfull they should set out any solemn manifests to vindicate their title against this Hypocondriack, their taking no notice of his dreams, was a sufficient refutation of them, whilest they went no farther than his own phansie. But should the same man in one of his Paroxysmes, in the full tide of high phansie, have attempted to board one of the Ships, not as a Passenger, nor yet as a Conquerer, but as one that had the Original and unquestioned right of dominion over it, the true owners denying him admission, or (in case of entrance undiscerned) the telling him his mistake, that he was gone astray into another mans quarters, and shewing him the way home again, had been a very fair and charitative attempt of reforming and rectifying him, no man else in this case needing any reformation.

47. But when to this we adde, that some of the good people of England were seduced, and abused by this his claim, and withdrew part of their obedience from their lawfull superiors, to subject it to him, though this cannot be termed the subjection or acknowledgement of England, (for some are as distant p. 117from all, as a particular from an universal) yet here is a proper place for Reformation, to disabuse the seduced, and reduce them to the conscientious discharge of their unquestionable duty, as when Jehosophat, at a time when Judah was farre from any universal defection, (Asa his immediate predecessor having**2 Chron. XV. 12, 13.2 Chr 15:122 Chr 15:13 entred them into a Covenant under pain of death to seek the Lord God of their Fathers) is yet reported to have††ch. XIX. 4. gone through the people from Beersheba to Mount Ephraim, to bring them back to the Lord God of their Fathers.

48. In this point 'tis of no force for S. W. to descend to the examination and balancing of the number of the seduced, what proportion it bare to the rest which were not seduced, 1. Because what is thus to be examined, is not evident before, and perhaps will be as little clear after examination, and 2. it can be no ingredient in the self-evidence of this his first ground, which from the bare pretending to reform, concludes that England was acknowledged subject, and not from the number of those that yielded this subjection, and 3. 'tis not the great number of particular men, that makes a nation, but either the whole collective body, or their legal Representatives, or the Kingdome speaking by its known establish'd Lawes. And I need not now inquire into each or any of these, whether they acknowledged what S. W. would have them, because 1. if it were not notorious that they did not, yet sure it is not evident that they did, (the least that will serve S. W's turn) or if it were, yet still it could not be inferred from the use of the word Reformation, and that is prejudice enough to the self-evidence of his major proposition, which is all we have now under consideration. So that unlesse S. W. will acknowledge his arguing guilty of that strange amphibology, that by [held in England] he meant either held only at Rome, or only by some particular persons in England, and then from thence assume to inferre the possession, viz. that England was actually subject to it, as afterwards from the bare possession he inferres a right (three rare steps of severe discourse) he must acknowledge the feeblenesse of the connexion betwixt the terms of his major proposition, and that p. 118certainly is sufficient to supersede his conclusion, and praejudge the self-evidence of his ground.

49. Before I leave this, I shall ask S. W's opinion of one question, What if the Pope should attempt to reform, retrench the abuses of the Court or See of Rome, whether in Doctrine or Government, would that inferre the Church of Rome to have been formerly subject to that from which the change should be made? If it would, then either it was in error before, or must become erroneous by the change, and so neither way be infallible. There is but one thing possible for him to answer upon his principles, viz. that it is an impossible supposition. And if without considering whether the Reformation be to the better or to the worse, it be resolved impossible for the Pope to do it, then 'tis not the promise of Christ to his Vicar, by which he is become infallible, but the syllogisme of S. W., not the priviledge of the Paraclete (to which Tertullian imputed it,**De Veland. Virgin. c. 1. quod disciplina dirigitur, quod intellectus reformatur, supposing, that the Apostles Creed remaining firm, caetera, admittunt novitatem correctionis, other things are capable of Reformation) but the inmost nature of the thing, an impossibility of its being otherwise, whereby the certainty becomes as irrefragable, that the Church of Rome cannot amend, as that it cannot fall, nay, the former the greater certainty, being a part of S. W's self-evident ground, whereas St. Paul supposes it possible that the whole Church of the Gentiles may be cut off, which is somewhat more then the Church of Rome only, and Mr. White being press'd with the possibility of the latter, thinks fit to wave that question, Apol. p. 114. contenting himself to have told my L. of F. that their Writers intend to prove her indefectibility, which differs much from having rigorously demonstrated it. Mean while, as that Miracle of wit had never a word to say to another parallel part of that Lords question concerning the possibility of Schisme among the Churches now adhaering to Rome, but pass'd it over insensibly, so I will not importune S. W. in that matter, but content my self with having said thus much on the first part of his demonstration.

p. 11950. But what if the M nor prove as little self-evident, and so as feeble a supporter, as the Major hath shewed it self to be? What stability then shall be hoped for to the Conclusion? The Minor was this, They that disclaimed the Popes supreme authority in England called themselves Reformers] But where is the foreign or self-evidence of this? Is this a principle, or a fact so notorious, as to be assented to as soon as proposed? certainly it hath no universal truth in it (and that is necessary to render it an ingredient in demonstration) for the Greek Church, which deny the Popes universal Pastorship, pretend not to have wrought any Reformation in this point, but to follow all their Ancestors in it, and then by this argument we are no more Scismaticks, than they.

51. I speak not now of the Greek Church of the last three hundred years, who I know are by the Pontificians concluded under the same guilt with us, but of the fourth age of the Christian Church, when the Graecians were most flourishing in piety and learning. For Gregory IX sticks not to charge those Churches even in that age with schisme, because they acknowledged not the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. **Mat. Paris, Ann. 1237.It is in an Epistle of his to Germanus Archbishop of Constantinople, where he compares those Churches with the Schismatical and Rebellious ten Tribes of Israel, that divided themselves from the house of David, Praesumpta divisio Tribuum patenter signat Schisma Graecorum, & multitudo abominationum Samariae diversas haereses multitudinis a veneratione veri Templi, Romanae scilicet Ecclesiae, et reverentiâ separatae. The division of the Tribes openly signifies the schisme of the Greeks, and the multitude of the abominations of Samaria, the divers heresies of the multitude which is severed from the veneration and reverence of the true Temple, the Church of Rome. Adding, to make the parallel complete, that whereas Chrysostome, and Nazianzene, and Cyril, and Basile the Great, were eminent in the assembly of the Revolters, this was the same height of the heavenly counsel, by which he would have Elias, and Elizaeus, and the sonnes of the Prophets, to live among the Idolaters. This was the liberal concession of a Pope, ††Platina in vit. Greg. IX.that Pope, who by the help of Raimundus his penitentiary compiled the Decretal Epistles. But this by the way.

p. 12052. But neither hath his Minor any more particular limited truth, in relation to this our Nation. King Henry VIII. and the Houses of Parliament disclaimed the Popes supreme authority in England, and are the first that S. W. can probably accuse for doing so, but where did these style themselves Reformers? was Stephen Gardiner, in delivering and publishing his Latine Oration De verâ Obedientiâ, and Dr. Bonner that praefixt the Praeface to it, fit to be styled Reformers by themselves or others? Or they that put men afterwards to death upon the score of the Six Articles, did they call themselves Reformers, or would a Protestant of this age style them so, for burning those then, which believed, as he doth now? When Cardinal Poole had written his Book De unione Ecclesiasticâ, inveighing against the Kings supremacy, and soon after advised the King to redintegrate himself with the Pope, and accept the Councel then offered, he used this as an argument to inforce his advise, that**L. Cherbury, Hist. Hen. VIII. p. 350. thereby he might have the honour of being the cause of a Reformation of the Church in doctrine and manners. That title then of Reformation in those dayes had no propriety to the point of denying the Popes supremacy, nor was that express'd in other dialect, than of declaring the supremacy to be invested in the King— which sure in no wise concluded, that it had not been so invested) yielding him the title of Supremum caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae, which Bishop Fisher subscribing with this temperament, [quantum per Christi legem licet] was not sure beholding to that, for his rescue from the title of Reformer. The clear truth is, the word Reformation began with respect to doctrine and manners (as Cardinal Poole used it) and was frequently in the mouth of all Christian Princes, and Prelates too, in this notion, who desired and press'd long for a General Councel, peculiarly to this end of reforming and rectifying what was amisse in either of those respects, and no farther concerned the point of the Popes supremacy, than as that was conceived to be either unjustly assumed by him, or Tyrannically exercised;

53. The truth is, Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councel made at that time an exorbitant incroachment upon the authorities both of Councels and Princes, ††Conc. Later. Sess. 2.epressly defining the p. 121Papal supremacy, solum Romanum Pontifi…em authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere, that the Pope alone had authority over all Councels, and that it was de necessitate salutis, of necessity to salvation that all believers should be subject to the Pope, and reprobated the Councel of Basil as a Conventicle. And as when injuries grow to the highest pitch, they then invite a strenuous opposition (thus as was said, the unreasonable oppression of Innocentius the third, and Innocentius the fourth, and some other Popes, that pursued the Dictates of Gregory the seventh, caused Edward the first, Edward the third, and Richard the second to awaken, and maintain their and their peoples rights, and in like manner the Schismes of Rome and Avinion, that pester'd the Church for fifty years, caused the Christian Princes and Churches to vindicate, and execute their authority in the Councel of Constance upon the Popes) so 'tis not strange, if so enormous an attempt of Leo the tenth met with a semblable opposition from a Prince of a known courage. Herein I shall appeal to S. W's acknowledged Master, Thomas de Albiis, if that Pope were not the Schismatick, when he wrote and defined against the sacred authority of Councels, and whether all they are not so too, who pursue the same attempt?

53. And then (to return to the point in hand) a complete Reformation being long desired both in capite & membris, in the Head and the members, the design of Reforming in this point of the Supremacy had respect to the former of these, and was to be acted by the Pope on himself, or by the Councel on the Pope, or by Soveraign Princes with the advise of their Clergy in their several Dominions, and so still only implies what he formerly assumed, not what had been formerly acknowledged his due by those who sought Reformation.

54. Here then we have a cleer and candid view of S. W's self evidencing and demonstrative faculty, his first ground (chief stone in the corner of his impregnable Fabrick, which all our foreign, or engines of battery must never have the confidence to approach) 1. being considered as an affirmation, or assertion of a matter of fact, hath appeared to have no truth in it, in the sense wherein alone he is concerned to have it true; p. 122then 2. as a conclusion, assumed to be demonstratively inferred from two self-evident premisses▪ both of these (could a man with any charity suspect it) have proved discernibly false; And then why should not every proposition in the Alcoran set up for self-evident? when some one (which but half so much as two) false prolepsis would certainly be able to inferre it: The Reader therefore must needs be obliged to S. W.'s superabundant mercy, that having possess'd himself of this enormous gyantly faculty of concluding or atchieving any thing, whatsoever he had pleased, that twice two were but three, or the like (for I shall beg but one false prolepsis, to inferre many millions of such) he hath used these powers so temperately, as to conclude no more from two such vast advantages, but that the Popes authority had once possession in England, distinguishing meanwhile between possession and right, and rebuking me that I**The Dr. mistaking, and not distinguishing b…tween Possession and right, p. 37. did not distinguish between them, a fault which if I had been guilty of, I should readily reform, and then leave him to make his advantage of it, which will sure be small, as long as he is so far from having proved the right, that he hath thus strangely and above once miscarryed, in attempting to prove the possession.

55. Yet in the strength of this thus deplorably improsperous onset, he makes no delay to set up his trophees, and prepare for the solemnest triumph, Hence, saith he, all the evasions of D. H. (no lesse than all) are concluded vain, who when we (the Romanist) plead that the Pope was found in possession of this authority in England, flies off presently and denyes it (who else would have call'd downright denying of the adversaries proposition, a flying off? but it now also appears, I had some small reason to deny it) saying he had no title to such an authority there; and mistaking and not distinguishing betwixt possession and right, saith, we beg the question, when we only take what is evident, that he was in possession, and thence inferre a right, till the contrary be proved.] How farre I now am, or formerly have been from mistaking in denying the right, and charging him of begging the question, when he hath no other way of inferring the right, but from the possession, and that by us was also denyed, and not formerly attempted to be p. 123proved by him, and now forsooth is proposed as a self-evident ground, a principle taken for granted, which also being now pretended to be inferred from demonstrative premisses, both those premisses are demonstrably false, is, I shall now suppose, as manifest, as that the begging the question is the English of petitio principii, or that the Latine of taking that for self-evident, which is so much lesse than so, as to have neither evidence nor truth in it. He hath now but one Reserve left, viz. to accuse me for ridiculous and senselesse, that I can charge that Elench upon an answerer, whose part it is not, to object or dispute. But it falls out unfortunately, that there is no place for that forlorn foreign at this time when he is a laying of self-evident grounds, for those being equivalent to principles, if they fail of the native evidence, and borrow none from his Armory that produced them, that Sophisme must be dasht out of Aristotles Elenchs, or S. W's processe will inevitably fall under it.