Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 4 – Chapter 5

Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist · Chapter 4 – Chapter 5

p. 286CHAP. IV. A view of his six last Grounds.

SECT. I.

His ninth Ground. His plea of Possession unavailable. We plead not our possession at present. No praescribing against Truth. S. W's confession. His censure of Intruders. His great displeasure on dating the Ʋniversal Pastorship from Phocas's time. Gregories testimony. Baronius's Authors. S. W's hard imposition. His weightlesse cavils. His contumely by ill hap falling on Christ.

1. HAving thus largely examined his first set of grounds, and therein expressely his utmost praetensions for that which he professes his best tenure, Possession attested by Tradition of his present Church, I might spare the pains of surveighing his sixth Section, which is intitled The continuation of the same Grounds; For if they are but the same with those, which have been so largely refuted, there will be no need of pursuing them so soon with any fresh refutation. Yet shall I not refuse to attend him through this Stage also, though I doe it more briefly, by way of reference sometimes to what hath already been more largely insisted on.

2. His ninth Ground then [that the Catholike Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession] hath already been weighed in the balance, and found nothing contributive p. 287to the maintenance of the Ʋniversal Pastorship in England, there being no time assignable, wherein this in their notion of it (wherein alone we are concerned) can be proved to have been in possession in this Island, as hath appeared in the answers to his four first grounds. And then sure they that never had possession cannot well be allowed to stand upon it, or if they are peremptorily resolved to do so, will thereby proclaim to the world their want of all solid tenures, who are forced to make so much of this imaginary. Which seeing they are inexorably bent on, I might, one would think, be allowed as reasonably to insist on the title of right, and having at this time certain possession on our side, and little doubt (if we may judge by the first times and records) of a right also, set them united in balance with his single and that imaginary assumed possession, which being brought to prove the right, cannot well be confirmed by it, and is it self so far from approving it self, that it cannot with any reason be thought competent to inferre any thing else.

3. But because I must not praesume, and am not now, out of its place, to attempt the proving the right on our sides, and professe to have no kinde of opinion of such a sort of bare possessions as these, possessions of mens mindes (which are not subject to occupancy and praescription, as material secular possessions are) considered without, and abstracted from the reasonablenesse and justice of them, I shall not think fit to found any plea of mine in such tenures; I have learn'd of the aeternal law of reason, what**De Veland. Virg. c. 1. Pamel. Edit. p. 229. Tertullian hath put into a definition, that truth is a majesty cui nemo praescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum, against which none can prescribe, no space of times, no Patronage of persons, no priviledge of regions, adding that custome receiving its beginning from some ignorance or simplicity in usum per successionem corroboratur, is by succession coroborated into use, and so comes to be defended against the truth, whereas, saith he, Christ calls himself the truth, not custome, and old custome is sometime haeresie, and much more to the same purpose.

p. 2884. And therefore though S. W. in his tenth ground be willing to tempt me to retort this argument from possession, by putting me in minde,**P. 49. that now we are in actual possession of independency from the Pope, and so that by his strengthning the title of possession he praesumes I will apprehend that he hath pleaded for me, and plough'd my ground by his own heifer (and having put this weapon into my hand is sorely put to it, to wrest it out again, and in doing it hath made as full a confession, as I could wish, that††P. 50. though in humane affairs where praescription hath force, we use to call it possession, when one hath injoyed any thing for some certain time, yet in things of divine Institution, against which no praescription pleads, he only can praetend possession of any thing, who can stand upon it that he hath had it neerer Christs time, which is the absolute renouncing of the title of possession, and divolving all to that other of right) yet I shall not be wrought on by his temptation, nor plead that for our selves, which I dislike in him, how great soever the advantage be on our side; but setting aside so feeble a tenure, as that of our bare possession is, which every prosperous thief hath liberty to insist on, and in usurpations of Supreme rights, which are by divine natural law, cannot be made valid by any tract of time, reduce all our plea for our selves (though, as I said, I must not here go out of my way to demonstrate it) to the one claim of right, as that by the best and most authentick records shall be found truly pleadable, and then leave S. W. to reconcile his own antinomies, that**P. 47. possessi…n (in things of this nature) is of it self a title, and yet that††P. 50. he who shall be found to have begun it later, unlesse he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter possession, is not for the present having such a thing or power, to be styled a Possessor, but an Ʋsurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebellious and Schismatical. Censures so severe, that his enemy would not have been forward to heap them on his Church; Let him quit it of them, who hath impertinently drawn them down upon it; For though without submission of the Church to the Popes intrusions it cannot truely be said, that he hath so much as a present possession, and therefore I have hitherto denyed him p. 289that (poorest) Title, yet it cannot be questioned but he hath assumed the Monarchick Authority of Supreme Ʋniversal Bishop, and so is fallen under the severest of S. W's censures, in case he shall be found not to have had it from Christs time, for then he hath begun it later, and is not imaginable to have been driven …ut from an ancienter possession, unlesse he praetend it by inheritance from Caiaphas the Jewish High Priest at that time.

5. In this matter then if it shall appear that the Pope had it not from Christs time, there is no more needfull to be attempted, to bring, by this his Champions own Suffrage, this Catalogue of heavyest guilts upon him, beginning in Ʋsurper, and ending in Schismatical; And for the evidencing of this, what can be deemed sufficient, if the comparing of Gregories, and Bonifaces words and practises be not? Passages in story so manifest, that I should not think fit to reflect on them any more, were I not severely rebuked for affirming this rawly. P. 50.[I am not ignorant, saith he, that D. H. rawly affirms, that the Popes authority began in Phocas's time, but I hope no reader that cares much for his salvation, will take his word for honest, till he shew undenyable and evident matters of fact, concerning the beginning, progresse, authors, abetters, opposers of that newly introduced Government of Head of the Church, the writers that time for it or against it, the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State, and the temporal also, with whose interest the other must needs be enlink'd, and what consequence followed upon those changes, together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actions, Otherwise against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left, the force of Tradition, and so many unlikelyhoods praejudicing it, to tell us only a crude story that it was so, or putting us off with three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose, or imagining some chimerical possibilities, how it might have been done, hardly consisting with the nature of mankinde, is an answer unworthy a man, much more a Doctor, and to say it crept in invisibly and unobserved, as Dreams do into mens heads, when they are asleep, is the part of some dreaming dull head, who never look'd into the actions and nature of man, or compared them with the motives which should work upon them.

p. 2906. Hitherto S. W. hath gone on triumphantly in a very rare and extraordinary piece of Pageantry, which 'twill be hard to parallel in all the most Romance acts of Chivalry, and no title is vile enough for his adversary, that hath brought all this wrath upon himself by saying somewhere (he sayes not, and I remember not, where) that the Popes authority began in Phocas's time, i. e. in effect by referring to two plain matters of fact, which are not for S W's interests to hear of, 1. That Pope Gregory in his own, and all his ancestors name, up to St. Peter, renounced and disclaimed the title of Ʋniversal Pastor, as impious, sacrilegious, blasphemous, Antichristian and Dabolical, and yet Boniface his next Successor but one, affected it, and obtained it to be bestowed on him by Phocas the Emperor.

7. Herein it is not imaginable any more should be incumbent on me, than to vouch my proofs for each part of that relation, and that is done irrefragably as to the first part of it, by the plain words of Gregory in many places of his own Epistles, which remain on the Roman Register, and proclaim it his opinion that it is most impious and Antichristian, &c. for any Bishop to be styled Oecumenical or Ʋniversal (the testimonies have of late been severally set down) and for the second Bonifaces affecting and obtaining it from the murtherer Phocas, it is the expresse narration of their own Historian**Ann. Ch. 606. 1. et 2. Cardinal Baronius out of Anastasius and Paulus Diaconus (he might have added††In vit. Bonif. III. Platina also) 1. that Boniface dwelling at Constantinople till his Predecessor Gregories death, Phocam sibi demeruit in ejus amicitiam insinuant, insinuated himself into Phocas's friendship and got his favour. 2. That hujus rei causa factum est— for this cause it came to passe, that Phocas writing to him, through hatred of Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople, profess'd that only the Bishop of Rome was to be called Oecumenical or Ʋniversal Bishop, adding that the Bishop of Constantinople could not, but Boniface himself obtained it of him. Here is undenyable testimony for the truth of the affi…mation in both parts, and indeed if there be truth in the former part of Gregories renouncing and disclaiming that title (of which his own words are so farre from ambiguous, that the wits must turn Monopolists, and deprive all other men of their wits, ere they can wrest p. 291that evidence from them) it matters not whether Phocas's giving it to Boniface were true or no, because the Title of Ʋniversal Pastor being now assumed, which was disclaimed by Gregory, 'tis necessary there should be some beginning of that Title between Gregory and us, and then it matters not, whether it were in Boniface it began, or any other.

8. This then being sufficiently attested, and so demonstrated by that only medium, which matters of fact can be demonstrated by, I know not what will be deemed a mature, concocted, if this be still a crude or raw affirmation; Is there any thing can secure us of a matter of fact but competency of testimonies, and what can be competent, if these are not? Here then is an essay of the real severity of this demonstrator, that, when a matter of fact is thus testified, and nothing offered to be produced from any dissentient, or contrary testimony, doth yet conjure all, that care much for their salvation, not to take this word for honest, i. e. to disbelieve and reject all testimony, untill many things more be done, [undenyable and evident matters of fact shewn concerning the beginning, progresse, authors, abetters, opposers, writers of that time for it or against it, changes in the face of the State Ecclesiastical and temporal, together with no lesse than all the circumstances, &c.] which what is it but to propose a most impertinent, uselesse, long, if not endlesse task (when the matter is so clear already, that more diligence would but help to obscure it, or else it were more than possible to give expresse answers to most, if not all the particulars of his demand) and this, in stead of answering our argument, as the poenance of that great crime of producing any thing contrary to S. W's interests, or but proving a plain matter of fact by undenyable testimonies?

9. On the back of this 'tis strange to see, how many amusing Chimaera's or seeming objections are thought necessary to be heaped up, 1. The opposite sence of so many Nations in the Church we left] whereas 1. we have not been proved to have left any Church, but only to have been cast out by them, 2. no one Nation of their Communion hath, or ever praetended any sensation contrary to this of Gregories disclaiming, and Bonifaces affecting and assuming the title of Ʋniversal Bishop, and therefore p. 2923. not many, which yet is somewhat lesse than so many.

10. Secondly the opposite force of Tradition when 1. no kinde of Tradition either of the former, or even praesent age, written, or Oral hath ever suggested any thing contrary to this passage of story, but even their own records and authentick Historiographers attested it, 2. when Tradition Oral of this praesent age, which is S. W's Oracle, cannot with any reason be opposed to ancient history, or deserve to be heeded without it, in a matter of their, not our cognizance, Their own**Tom. 1. Ann. Chr. 1. n. 12. Baronius having very reasonably resolved, Quod a recentiore de rebus antiquis sine alicujus vetustioris authoritate profertur, contemnitur, What is said by a modern concerning ancient affairs, without the authority of any more ancient, is contemned.

11. Thirdly, so many unlikelyhoods praejudicing it] when 1. as a thousand probable arguments (in Mr. Whites balance) have not the least weight in them, so improbabilities be they never so many must weigh as little, 2. when there is not so much as one improbability mentioned or suggested to be in this relation, nor 3. is the nature of the relation such, as that it should be capable of more unlikelyho…ds, than there are in this one proposition, that some mens practices are directly contrary to others, that some men are just, pious, and content with that portion of power that God hath given them, and others invasive, ambitious, and inclinable to inlarge their Borders.

12. Fourthly, the contemptuous mention of three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose] when 1. the quotations that are vulgarly produced in this matter are most exact to the purpose, to which they are directed, the concluding this matter of fact irrefragably, 2. none of those quotations are in Greek, but in Latine from Gregories own Epistles, and Baronius and his Latine Authors, Anastasius, Paulus Diaconus and Platina. 3. The Testimonies in this matter are many more than three or four, and 4. three or four authentick Testimonies without any one competent authority offered or praetended to the contrary, are, according to all Lawes of God and man, sufficient to establish the truth of a narration.

13 Fifthly, our imagining some Chimaerical possibilities how it p. 293might have been done] when 1. the subject of our present debate is inferred by positive testimonies, and 2. those testimonies, narrations of things actually done, and 3. all those very consonant, and agreeable one to the other, and so no way chimaerical, and withall very intelligible to him, that is most unwilling to understand them, i. e. to S. W. who certainly would not take all this pains to guard his Reader from believing a chimaera, which he knew he could not understand.

14. Sixthly, the being hardly consistent with the nature of mankind] when 1. for one man to assume what his Predecessors had not assumed, nay what himselfe had formerly renounced, (which is much more than is here praetended to have been done) is a matter of frequent practice, every day experimented among men, and 2 the contrary principles of good and evil, justice and injustice (to which these practices are consequent) are not prodigies in humane depraved reason, or corrupt nature, and 3. the supposing Boniface only to have affected, and the Greek Emperor to have afforded him this title, without the Churches universal acknowledgement of it, is alone able to salve all the contrary appearances, which S. W. is willing to suggest, such as the no discernible changes in the Ecclesiastical and temporal state, and the consequents of them.

15. Lastly, he objects our saying it crept in invisibly and unobserved, as dreams doe into mens heads when they are asleep, and pronounces with great asperity, that to say this is the part of some dreaming dull head] as before the praetended crude affirmation was unworthy of a man much more of a Doctor, when 1. there is no such thing affirmed by us, in this matter of the title of Ʋniversal Pastor, we are so farre from thinking it crept in invisibly, that we specifie the very age wherein, and the person by whom it entred, and who was the first that assumed it, and 2. 'tis very regular and rational for errors to creep into the Church, as dreams into mens heads, even waking dreams, not when they themselves, but when their Pastors sleep, or are negligent, and therefore 3. 'tis no part of either dullnesse or dreaming, to think or affirm, that thus they many times doe, Christ himself having suggested to us this very observation, that in the field, the Church, where p. 294the wheat was sown, the enemy came in by night while the Husband man flept, and sowed his tares (and from the authority of that very Parable it is that at any time we affirm that errors may have crept into the Church unobserved) on which to affixe so sour a censure, will hardly be excused from the grossest blasphemy, but by saying that he meant the stone against his adversary, which without his foreseeing or designing fell on Christ. And I pray God this misadventure may teach him more warynesse or more meeknesse, either to take his solemn leave of all contumelies, or to be sure they be not let fly at truths, for those will either directly or interpretatively reflect on him who is truth it selfe.

16. And so much for his ninth ground, the cosidering of which hath taken in the most part of what he hath said on the tenth ground also, which therefore will now be dispatch'd more speedily.

p. 295SECT. II.

His tenth Ground, how infirmly proved. In the question whether we are guilty of Schisme, we evidently Defendants. In the like of them, they. The Defendant must evidence his own innocency. The method of that by answering objections. Expounding by wit. Oral Tradition an authentick Interpreter of Scripture.

1. HIS tenth ground then, that [in our Controversies about Religion, reason requires that the Romanist should sustain the part of the Defendant, the Protestants of the Opponent] is, it seems, no otherwise proved, than as we have already competently refuted it, from their Obligation to stand upon the title of possession, as a ground beyond all arguments, untill it be convinced to be malae fidei] But for this proof, as farre as the Supreme Pastorship is concerned in it, 1. We have largely shewn, that in the notion, wherein S. W. maintains it from Christs donation to St. Peter, it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation, nor ever appears to have had. 2. If it had, we doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei, by the aequality of power given by Christ to the Apostles, and the no supremacy of any member in that College, and by the unreasonablenesse that those other Apostles, which survived St. Peter, should be subjected to his successors, Bishops of Rome, which they yet must have been, if the Ʋniversal Pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession, and by the many ages, before the power or title of Ʋniversal Pastor was assumed, and wherein it was disclaimed as Antichristian, which must necessarily supersede the uninterrupted succession of it from the Apostles. 3. For his proof of their possession (which again he professes to own as his only ground of all their belief) delivery from Father to Sonne, explicating the places of the written word] It hath been largely manifested from the vanity of that one medium, their holding to their praetended Maxim, that it hath no force to prove any thing.

p. 2962. And then the ground of possession being shaken, on which alone the conclusion is built, that we must sustain the part of Opponents, and they of Defendants,] We are freed from that praetended obligation, and the result is, that the state and nature of the questions disputable between us is it that must assign us our several offices; and the quaestions being of divers sorts, our parts cannot be constantly the same. If the quaestion be about our Schisme [Whether to live obediently under the Primate and Bishops of England, our lawfull Superiors, conferving also fraternal charity with the whole Church of God that particularly which lives in communion with the Bishop of Rome (from which we are inexorably cast out by them, or else should have retained external communion with them) be the great and domning sin of Schisme] herein 'tis impossible we should be any other than Defendants, or they than Opponents, if for thus doing they accuse us of Schisme (for then sure they are bound to prove, or make it good) and we undertake to answer all that they can bring against us. But if the quaestion be [Whether Mr. S. born and baptized, and brought up under the same obedience with his brethren of the Church of England twenty years since, be guilty of Schisme in casting off that obedience, and betaking himself wholly to the Bishop of Rome, as to the Ʋniversal Pastor appointed by God] I then humbly conceive the office of a Defendent belongs to him, and of an Opponent to us.

3. Meanwhile, though we shall not refuse to debate this second quaestion, and therein to afford them, if there be any, the advantages of Defendents, yet 'tis manifest the Tract of Schisme, which I wrote, and hath proved the foreign, apple of debate, was designed on the former account, as the Title proclaims in Defense of the Church of England from that accusation, and then 'tis necessary, till the State and quality of the debate be changed, that the securing of that Tract against all exceptions or suggestions of the Romanist, be acknowledged the part of the Defendent still, and he that will prove us Schismaticks, must be the plaintiffe, accuser, and opponent; And so still my skill in the art of disputing, which on this score is solemnly arraigned, would not be blemished, should I insist (which I remember not that at any p. 297time I yet have done) on my right to be the defendent, in this matter of the Schisme charged on us; And if he have no other praetense but this for his no manner of Testimonies from Antiquity for his praetensions, the Reader will soon discern, that he hath it under S. W's own hand, that he doth not (as he addes) prove things in his Schisme disarm'd (and as little in his Schisme Dispatch'd) and consequently that there is no heed to be given to that, which is without any tender of proof so magisterially affirmed by him.

4. But for all this I see 'tis decreed, that no lesse than three absurdities I must stand guilty of in this matter, The first, that I put my self upon the side of the Defendant, whereas I praetend to evidence, i. e. to prove] But to that I answer, that to evidence ones innocence by answering all the charges produced against him, is to defend, and that was my part at that time. The second, that I imagine that the solving an argument is an evidence to the contrary.] To that I answer, that I do not imagine it, but believe, that when one argument is solved, I am bound to proceed to the next that is produced, and not to think my self safe, as long as any argument produced stands in force against me; But when I have solved all such, I may be allowed to think, I have defended my Client, which is not to be condemned without cause, and that was all I praetended to attempt in the Tract of Schisme, to defend the Church of England in point of Schisme from the Romanists exceptions, and so farre only to evidence our innocence, as to shew that none of the charges brought against us, could endure the test, or appear to have any solidity in them. The third, that I suppose they build their faith upon places of written words as explicable by wit not by Tradition and the practice of their Church, whereas they only own the delivery from Father to Sonne as the ground of all their belief, and make this the only rule by which to explicate Scripture.] To which I answere, that indeed I thought it reasonable for all Christians to interpret Scripture by practice and Tradition Apostolical, conveigh'd and made known to us by those who lived in, or next their times, and so might most probably discern the truth themselves, and had no temptation to be willing to deceive us; As for Explications of Scripture by p. 298wit, if that signifie any other, than by sober, Rational rules of expounding obscurer by plainer places, or understanding plain words according to the obvious meaning of them, and consent with other places of Scripture, and ancient practice, I disclaim having any thing to do with it as much as he, having been told by S. W. what miracles wit can do not in making hard places plain, but in disguising plain unto unintelligible. But for the present practice, or Tradition Oral, or delivery from Father (or rather Mother) to Sonne, that this should be the only Interpreter of Scripture, or that the Parents do at all take upon them to interpret Scripture to their children, or if they did, that their interpretations should in any reason be deemed authentical, any farther than they can approve themselves by the Tradition and practice of the Primitive Church, and the other forementioned rules of sober interpretation, I professe to admire the confidence of S. W. that he should crudely own asserting it, and give no manner of proof of it here, having demonstrated it so infirmly, when ex professo he handled that matter of Tradition Oral.

5. What else is added on occasion of this ground, was taken in, whilest we examined the ninth, and so must here be omitted, and then this is all that needs to be returned to his tenth ground.

p. 299SECT. III.

His eleventh Ground. Fact all one with possession, yet granted not to conclude a right. Regal power concludes against S. W's possession, Papal excommunication of us, only non-communion. That lawfull in another Diocese. The Romanists partiality. No possession anciently praetended to. His three proofs of his eleventh Ground defeated, and retorted. Kings cannot exempt from their own authority. Suarez his resolution of a Jesuite m…de Pope. Popes capable of ambition as well as Kings.

1. HIs eleventh Ground] that Historical proofs which manifest only fact, do not necessarily conclude a right] must be some newes to be delivered, as here it is, in continuation of his former Grounds, by S. W. who hath appeared such an advocate of the tenure and title of possession, abstracted from that of right, and who set it for his fifth Ground, that no possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons, and consequently is it self a title, till those reasons invalidate it and shew it null] and assumed to prove this**P. 38. then by nature, by morals, by Politicks. And yet now, when he apprehends it possible that we may reap fruit by this title, the case is quite altered, and Fact, which in this matter is directly aequivalent with that possession, be it never so manifestly proved, cannot conclude a right.

2. That Fact only] and possession only] are aequivalent in our present disputes, will easily be discerned, if we but consider the matter wherein he praetends their title of possession, and wherein I have urged Historical proofs declarative of ancient Fact, or Practice. The main thing wherein he praetends the title of possession, is that of the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship, and the Fact which he specifies to be manifested by my Historical proofs, P. 52.is that of the Princes erecting and translating of Patriarchates, a thing so directly unreconcileable with the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship, p. 300that as the right of one must needs evacuate and destroy the right of the other, so the practice of the one, as farre as it extends, must needs praejudge the possession of the other.

3. For example, If it be quaestioned, whether in the Roman Empire at any fix'd time, be it the reign of Valentinian or Justinian, the Pope were possessed of the Supreme Pastorship, as conferred by Christ on St. Peter. The meaning of that quaestion, if it be any thing beyond the Popes own dream or phansie, must be [whether the Empire were at that time subjected to that authority, as by right vested in the Pope by Christ, i, e. whether the Emperors and their Subjects at those times acknowledged the divine right of his Ʋniversal Pa…orship, and so own'd or submitted to it] And that being the qu…stion, it followes necessarily, that if those things which are essential branches of that supposed power were not own'd or acknowledged in that Empire, but the contrary powers profess'dly practised by the Emperor, (such is the erecting or translating of Patriarchates, and the like) then the Pope was not at that time possess'd of that power; which is the Negative of the Question.

4. The same may be exemplified in this Kingdome, where the principal title that S. W. praetends for our obedience to the Roman See, is the possession, which the Ʋniversal Pastorship had, in his opinion, among us, before King Henries dayes, and the Extinguishing Act, and from this supposed possession he concludes a Right. If then by Historical proofs which manifest only Fact, or practice in this Kingdome, it appear from time to time, in those ages wherein that possession is pretended, that there was no such possession, but that our Kings made Lawes in Ecclesiastical matters, forbad Appeals to the Roman Tribunal, and entrance to Legates, erected or translated Episcopal Sees, gave immunities and exemptions to whom they pleased, called assemblies, gave**Cooks Rep. Cawdryes case, fol. 23. a. b. frequent inhibitions and restraints of Papal Excommunications, so that an††See Cook ibid. fol. 26. a. and 27. a. b. and Hoveden, fol. 284. b. 23. and Mat. Paris p. 103. 43. and oth…rs cited by Si… Roger Twisd…, p. 65, 66, 67. excommunication made and certified by the Pope was of no force to disable any man in England, and this before any Statute made against foreign Jurisdiction (which concludes the Popes excommunication of the meanest Subject of England to be no exclusion of him from the communion of the Catholike Church, p. 301but only a declaration that he will not joyn in communion with him, and so no act of Supremacy, or any more than a non-communion, such as Paul V. his interdict of Venice, was by the P…aelates and Ecclesiasticks esteemed to be, and such as**foreign. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. c. 76. et Ibid. c. 80 foreign. Vid. Synesii Epist. 58. Edit. Turneb. p. 35. ancient Canons allow of, a communion within ones own Diocese, and not elsewhere) if, I say, these and many the like pregnant Facts and frequent usages be produced from authentick Histories, this certainly is a competent praejudice to possession; And whatsoever can be praetended against such Facts inferring a Right, will be of aequal force against p…ssessions concluding a right also; And for S. W. to make it one of his grounds, that possession alone inferres a title, and another that Facts manifested by Historical proofs will not inferre it, what is it but to make use of the Ladder to advance himself, and then draw it up, or break it in pieces, that no other may ascend after him? or to transcribe that more honourable, but yet parallel example of Constantine, doing the like in his flight or defection from his persecuted Mother in Britanie to Rome, which the other did when he fled from Rome to his Father in Britanie, ††Baron. Ann. 306. n. 9.first using, and then killing all the Post-horses by the way, that so he might not be over-taken?

5. This is a partiality, that nothing but immoderate pursuit of interests could tempt him to, and yet this is not all, for supposing (though not granting) the utmost that he would have supposed, the possession to have been in force immediately before the Reformation, we are yet ready to shew, that more anciently there was neither possession, nor opinion of Right pleadable for this Ʋniversal Pastorship, when yet for the soveraign power of Princes in their own Dominions in all, and so in Ecclesiastical affairs, we are as ready to evidence (and hope that we have in the former Treatises, and some Chapters of this, already performed it) not only by Historical proofs, which are but evidences of the Fact, but by the Lawes both of God and man, which are assurances of right also, that thus they ought to be, and thus they were settled in this Kingdome.

6. And then for his three proofs of this his eleventh ground, 1. that the testimonies expressing only the fact conclude only the fact, p. 3022. because matters of fact which concern execution of any businesse may be performed by him that hath no proper right, but borrowes it from the delegation of others, as in Viceroyes, 3. because in the processe of 1500. or 1600. years it cannot be imagined, but there should be some matters of fact either out of ambition, interest, ignorance, or tyranny, against the most inviolable right in the world, nay sometime out of too much zeal.] First they are all, and each of very small importance and force against us, for 1. our testimonies from Canons of Ʋniversal Councels, and from our Lawes, conclude right, as well as our Historical proofs evidence fact, 2. our Kings acted by inhaerent right, and not as delegates from the Pope, as by our Lawes also appears, and then 3. there is no place for unseasonable suspitions of ambition, tyranny, &c. on the Princes, nor praetense of any kinde of inviolable right, on the Popes side; And secondly it were most easie to retort every of these arguments against S. W's grand Tenure, Possession;

1. For 1. Beside that their possession is farre from being proved, the offers of proof, if there were any, and those valid, would yet, in the words of his first argument, conclude no more than they expresse, and expressing only possession, would conclude only possession, and no way inferre the right of the Papacy.

8. Secondly, the acts of power at any time exercised in this Kingdome by the Pope, and not opposed by our Princes, might be, and actually were by their concession only, and that is thus farre aequivalent to delegation from them, that it supposes the Original right to be in the Princes, not in the Popes, and then the powers which the Princes gave, they might most certainly recall, and if they did not, yet still their Successors might, which were not obliged by their concessions; It being a rule in Government, that Soveraigns who may grant exemptions to some from the power of inferior Magistrates, cannot exempt any from their own authority, which is supreme, they cannot abdicate that right, for no priviledges granted or permitted to Subjects can make them cease to be Subjects within the dominions of that Prince; The Pontificians tell us, that the Pope (who say they, can dispense with Lawes of God, and so hath a good proportion of omnipotence) though he may exempt any one in spirituals from the jurisdiction p. 303of A…chbishops and Bishops, cannot exempt any from his own authority, but he must thereby cease to be Pope, as to that person; In consequence to which 'tis**De Relig. tr. 10. de Rel. Societ. Jesu in particulari, l. 6. c. 9. Zuarez resolution, that a Jesuite professed, who vowes to obey the General of his Order, and to continue that obedience, though he be made a Bishop, is not by that vow obliged, when he is advanced to the Papacy, though if he be but a Cardinal, he is.

9. Thirdly, in the space of so many years it cannot be strange, if some Popes were ambitious to inlarge their power, and praetended divine right for universal Pastorship, and by secular policies founded in manifest interest (and so either through force, or circumvention and artifice) advanced themselves to some degree of possession of that greatnesse, which they so passionately affected, and so diligently pursued.

10. And to this also the ignorance of some, and as S. W. saith, the too much (i. e. the blinde or mistaken) zeal and piety of others, may have brought in their liberal contributions.

11. And then that all the Popes actions have been biassed by none of these, but governed by pure reason, as it is certainly denyed by us, so will it be very hard to prove by S. W's rules, who acknowledges it cannot be done, unlesse it be manifested that he had right, which as it is the principal thing in question, and therefore is farre from being granted, without proof, so if it could be otherwise proved, S. W. is much in the right, that it were very needlesse to stand alleadging those testimonies, which expresse only fact, and more needless sure to insist on an unproved possession.

12. When therefore he conludes that it is frivolous to bring historical proofs of fact upon the stage, in a dispute about right, since taken alone they make a dumb shew, and can act no part in that controversie, for the very alleadging that s me of these faults might intervene, disables such premisses from inferring a right] I wish instead of the word [fact] he would insert [possession] and then judge from his own reasonings here, what feeble foundations those were which he formerly laid in a bare supposed (but unproved) possession. And that is all that is needfull to return to his eleventh Ground.

p. 304SECT. IV.

His twelfth Ground. Two immoderate supposals, or beggings of the question. A third built on them. Acceptation sometimes an Act of Supreme power. The Church-Lawes] an ambignous phrase. Lawes of General Councels not obligatory, till accepted. Acceptation no act of obedience. Imperial Edicts. Supremacy differs from infallibility. Ancient Canons restored. Card. Cusanus, and Pope Innocentius III. for preferring those Canons. Our practice according. A confession of Caetholike Governours now, much to S. W's prejudice. What makes an Ʋniversal Pastor? Dr. Holdens answer. Gerson's, Cusanus's. True Supremacy not transferr'd to any. The Negative performed by us. The Affirmative not yet performed by the Romanist. No Schisme in asserting the Kings Supremacy. Harts Confession. Henry the II. and Lewis XII. of France, to the Pope.

1. HIs twelfth Ground [that the Acceptation of the secular powers, and their command to the people, are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes, whence followes not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own authority, but that they obeyed and executed what the Church had ordered] is made up of four propositions, the two first taken for granted, and so not endeavoured to be proved, the third founded in the supposal of the two former, the fourth an expedient designed for the superseding the force of one sort of our proofs, those from the examples of our Princes making Lawes in Religion, but this of no apperance of force, save what is founded in the two unproved supposals.

2. The supposals are somewhat immoderate, 1. that all the commands of the secular power in Ecclesiastical matters, are but effects of their acceptation of the Churches Lawes, and 2. that they are only in order to the execution of them; The third which is founded in supposal of these two, and hath not so much p. 305as a poss ble ideal being, abstracted from that supposal, is, that supposing the Church to be the only Law-giver, and that 'tis the Princes part only to accept their Lawes, and by civil sanction to command the execution of them, this acceptation and command of the secular powers are very convenient and necessary to the bene esse, the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes. All which if yielded by us, the Corollary would indeed be natural enough, that the Princes Lawes in Ecclesiastical matters cannot be concluded by us to be of their own authority, but on the contrary, of obedience and subordination to the Church.

3. But 'tis very strange 1. that that should be taken for a ground, which is by necessary interpretation the matter of the whole quaestion, 2. that this which is so much quaestioned, and so constantly denyed by us, and the contrary proved by all those arguments, by which either we disprove the Popes right to Supremacy in our Kingdome, or establish the Kings Supreme authority, and the inseparablenesse of that from the Crown, and that chiefly in the chiefest and most important things (such certainly are matters of Religion) and more specially by the Lawes which our Kings alwayes made in Church matters, by their own supreme power, not receiving them from the Pope, but oft making them in opposition to him, should be thought fit to be imposed on the Reader, without the least offer of proof for it, which what is it, but the old soveraign never failing Sophisme, foreign, praesuming the truth of that which is most denyed, and tendering arguments for that only, which is of no importance for him, or against us?

4. For the first 'tis evident, that the quaestion or matter of praesent debate between us is, whether or no in our Kingdome the Supreme Ecclesiastick power belong to the Pope] the Romanist affirming, and we denying, and placing it in the King; now instead of proving their affirmative, all that is here done, is, to suppose that the secular power accepts (and that in the conclusion is interpreted obeying the Church) and executes their orders, which when 'tis no more then so, is certainly to obey them. This therefore is begging the quaestion.

5. And for the second, 'tis as manifest that all that his explication p. 306or confirmation of his twelfth ground is applyed to, is the usefullnesse, or moral necessity of those secular executive commands to the backing the Churches Lawes, which is the third proposition, and would be denyed by none, were it first proved that the secular Lawes are thus executive and no more; but that being denyed by us, and not offered to be proved by them, it matters little what use there would be of that which is not, in case something else were, which hath no being, but in S. W's teeming pha…sie.

6. Another fallacy there is in the ambiguity of the word [acceptation] which is expressely used by S. W. for an act of obedience in the accepter, for so from the acceptation of the secular powers he makes his conclusion, that they obeyed what the Church had ordered, And so for execution also; Whereas Acceptation is sometimes an act of supreme power, as in Parliament, when Statutes are by his Subjects offered to the King to be inacted by him, and the liberty by our Lawes vested in him, of either rejecting, or accepting them, Acceptation is in this case inacting, or making Lawes, and an exercise of the Supreme power. So in Convocations of the Clergy, or National Councels, the Bishops and Clergy prepare Canons, and present them to the King, and he either dislikes and rejects them, or approves and accepts, and so sets his Signature upon them, and inacting, commands the execution of them, and in both these cases the acceptation, and execution are not tokens of obedience, but acts and exercises of supreme authority. And thus unquaestionably it is, as oft as the accepter hath power not to accept, for in that case it is evidents, he is no Subject, or under obligation of obedience, as all Subjects are.

7. Here then is the utmost of the demonstrativenesse and self-evident virtue of his twelfth ground. It is founded in the supposal of two things, which (being set down in ambiguous dialect) as they appear to be understood by him, are the principal quaestions between us, and never attempted to be proved by him, and as they fairly and properly signifie, so they are the confirming the very thing for which we contend the vesting the supreme power in our Kings, without whose acceptation no Lawes of the Church p. 307(be it Pope or Councel, as appears by**See Tr. of Haer…sie, Sect. 10. n, 9. &c. comparing the second Councel of Nice with the Councel of Frankefort) have any force to oblige the Subjects of Christian Kings, and whose accepting is an act of Legislative power, i. e. of Supremacy in the accepters.

8. It is here farther observable, that that which this twelfth ground proceeds upon, is the Churches Lawes, and what the Church hath ordered] And that again is an ambiguous phrase, for it may signifie 1. the Lawes of the universal Church in Oecumenical Councels truely so called, or 2. the Lawes of the Bishop and Church or Consistory of Rome, or 3. the Lawes of some larger Councel, assuming to be, when it is not, Oecumenical, or 4. the Lawes of our own National Councels. To all these notions the words lye common and undistinguished, and it will be uncertain, what the importance of his Ground is, till they be better distinguished.

9. If the Lawes spoken of be the Lawes of the Ʋniversal Church, inacted in any Councel truely Oecumenical (which receives the validity and force of such by being universally accepted) then the Acceptation of those Lawes in any Nation by the supreme power there, is necessary to the validity of those Lawes in that Nation, and not only to the due execution of them. But this hinders not the Princes of those Nations to be Supreme in all causes in their own Dominions, any more than it doth the Pope to have the Supreme power in his own Territories, that his accepting the Lawes of the General Councel is necessary to the validity of those Lawes in his Dominions; It rather proves the contrary, that they are Supreme, because their acceptation is necessary, and till they have accepted, they are not obliged.

10. So likewise in Councels not truely Oecumenical none can be obliged, but those that accept them, and they which do that, doe it freely, and as having power over their own wills, and so might doe the contrary, and that is no act of obedience in them.

11. And then much more, when the yet lesser outhority, the Councel of the Pope and his Cardinals have given any Lawes to p. 308our Kingdome, and our Kings have accepted them, and commanded execution of them, this they have done freely, and without any opinion of obligation thus to doe, and sometimes when they liked not, rejected them, and from their acceptation it was, that all their force as of Lawes was derived, which consequently they wanted, when they were not accepted. (And, by the way, it is observable, that the ancient Emperors did sometime use to put into Edicts some Canons of Councels, but not the decrees of Popes, (S. W. may exercise himself, if he please, in finding any) and in the spurious Epistles of the ancient Popes (I suppose it now granted there are such) many things are imposed, as their decrees, which were indeed the Edicts of the first Christian Emperours.)

12. And in the very same manner it holds of our National Councels, who praetend not to make Canons, but to praepare them, and offer them to the King, and by his acceptance and confirmation, or by his rejection, they either receive, or lose all their force and validity, and are not so much as in Conscience obligatory, till he hath thus establish'd them.

13. Herein 'tis possible the King may make an ill choice, confirm and inact those Canons which were fitter to be rejected, But 1. that is no praejudice to his Supremacy, to which we praetend, but only to his Infallibility, to which we praetend not, and to which for the Pope himself to praetend**Tab. Suffe. Mr. White assures us is Archihaeretical. 2. To secure our selves from such errors, our Ancestors in Henry VIII his dayes proceeded by those rules, that the soberest Romanists themselves judged fit to praescribe, viz. by restoring the Canons of the Ancient Church, to the praeserving of which the Popes are bound by Oath, and by not permitting the Pontifician and later decrees and dictates of the Western Councels to extrude them. Of which decrees saith Cardinal ††De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 20.Cusanus, Quando obviant Canonibus, potius Canonibus obediendum est, when they go against the Canons (of the ancient Church) the Canons must rather be obeyed, proceeding largely to make proof of it. And**Distinct. 50. c. 28. Innocentius III. that whensoever in the Acts of Councels a discordant opinion is f…und, illius Concilii magis teneatur sententia, cujus aut antiquior aut potior extat p. 309authoritas, that Councels opinion is to be held, whose authority is more ancient or more praeferrable. According to which that they then proceeded, appears in the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, in the Chapter of Orders.

14. In the close of his explication of this his twelfth Ground, he tells us, that Testimonies of such Execution and Lawes cannot praejudice the Popes right, since Catholike Governors do the self same at praesent (as farre as concernes this point) which was done then.] These words I think worthy reflecting on a while, as being so farre from helping to demonstrate what he desires, that they are a sore praejudice, and argument of the contrary. For if it shall appear that those things which S. W. imputes to the Princes accepting and executing the Churches Lawes, are at this praesent done by Catholike Governours, and no delegation appear, or be producible, whereby they derive this power from the Pope or the Church, this, I say, is such a praejudice to the Popes universal Pastorship being acknowledged at this day, as S. W. will not readily rid himself of, or reconcile with his Phoenomena.

15. For the evidencing of which, I shall take leave to ask the Romanist this quaestion, wherein the priority, praeeminence and dignity of the Bishop of Rome doth consist, and that which makes him an Vniversal Pastor? and I desire such an answer, as the Romanist, that gives it, hath confidence shall have the universal approbation of other Romanists, particularly those that think him inferior to General Councels, and that are not noted to be enemies to Monarchy.

16. This I think hath not yet been done, though a clear explication of it would be most necessary to the manifesting truth in this point of Schisme, which is founded in the quaestion of Supremacy.

17.**De Resol. Fid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 297. Quinam sint eadem (i. e. divina) lege constituti speciales & peculiares hujus superioritatis actus non adeo facile est decernere. Dr. Holden with much moderation and judgement acknowledgeth, that it is not so casie to determine what are the special and pecul…ar acts of this superiority constituted by divine Law, having††Ibid. p. 293, 294. before said, that those acts, which Divines doe ordinarily reckon as the special and proper acts of the Bishop of Rome are not immediately and expressely annex'd jure divino to that See, which he acknowledges p. 310to be performed by others, yea to be omitted, and to be oppugned, and instances in the calling of General Councels, appeal in greater causes, &c. All these, saith he, we have seen examined, limited, and rejected sometimes by particular Churches, and civil Commonwealths; and yet this derogates nothing from the right of the Apostolical See] From this free concession we are surely allowed to conclude that these particulars, which have been thus rejected, are indeed no rights of the Papacy, imprimis the calling of General Councels, let S. W. remember that. Meanwhile what the Right of that Apostolick See is, or how many Sacra Individua there be, the denying or rejecting, or limiting of which would derogate from the Right thereof he tells us not.

18. Gerson puts the quaestion, whether there be any power in the Pope, **De Potest. Eccl. …onsia. II. quae possit in aliquid quod nulla altera potestas Ecclesiastica potest.that is of force to any thing, to which no other Ecclesiastick power hath force, and resolves that the Church may transferre all such power to one whom they shall designe.

19.††De Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. ult. Cusanus yet more particularly, doubts not to say, that if (by possible supposition) The Archbishop of Triers should by the Church convened be chosen for their Praesident and Head, **Ille proprie plus successor sancti Petri in principatu foret, quam Romanus Praesul.he should be properly the successor of Peter in that praeeminence, more than the Bishop of Rome, whereas we know that the special acts of true Supremacy are not uneasie to be numbred, and of the supreme power it self, 'tis universally resolved, that it cannot be transferred by Subjects to any other.

20. The Sonnes of the Church of England have oft shewed, and specified what the power of the Bishop of Rome did not extend to, in the judgement and practice of the English Nation through all memory (see the worthy Sir Rog. Twisden, Ch. V. p. 104. &c. particularly § 17. p. 108, 109, 110. and the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Derry, c. IV. and VII. where he makes it appear that Germany and France have done all the same acts that Henry VIII. did in limiting and inhibiting Papal attempts) And there being but two wayes possible, the Negative and the Affirmative, the former, what the power of the Pope is not, we have shewed already. It is therefore incumbent on the Romanist to undertake the Affirmative, and shew wherein it consists, or else 'tis vain to praetend, as here S. W. doth, in general, tha… p. 311Catholike Governours may doe what we see, and he saith they do, without praejudicing the Popes rights.

21. Where there is true Supreme power it is much more hard to say negatively these are not acts and praerogatives of it, than to set down positively the most essential and necessary. We have shewed that which is hard st, but instead of doing that, which if there were any truth in it, were the most easie, the Romanist contents himself with confident General claims, that it is well known that the Supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged in England before Henry VIII. And under these generalities all deceit lyes in ambush, which would soon discover it self, if they would but set down, what the rights are, which are peculiar to the Supreme Pastorship, for then it would be discernible; whether Catholike Governours assume them or no, and so whether Henry VIII. were a Catholike, or ceased to be such by assuming them.

20. Meanwhile 'tis certain, that the asserting the Supremacy of the Prince, was in all times in all Nations allowed of, as a defence of their just right, and no Schisme deemed chargeable on Princes on that account; When the Convocation Ann. 1530. expressely declared and recognized the Supreme authority of the King, still communion was held with the Church of Rome, and Archbishop Cranmer An. 1533. received Bulls and his Pall from Rome. But when in Feb. 1533. a Law was made that the Archbishop of Canterbury (not as Legate, but as Primate) might grant Dispensations, and exercise the highest Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within his Province (which yet certainly he might doe, by Commission from him that had supreme authority) without resort to the Bishop of Rome, then soon after issued out Excommunication against the King, and interdict against the Kingdome, so Sanders tells us, The forbidding of suits and appeals to Rome, and placing that power in the Archbishop which had been attributed to the Pope, this was the beginning of Schisme. And yet this is no more, than what is necessarily consequent to the Kings Supremacy, which therefore being rightly understood makes an end of this Controversie. And so it really did with Mr. Hart, who**Confer. bet. Reynold and Hart. p. 859. having read Alexander Nowels answer to Dorman about this matter, he returned answer, that he had mistaken our Doctrine in p. 312this point, and that if we gave the Prince no greater authority than Mr. Nowel doth, he did agree with us, it being no more than what**Contr. Crescon. l. 3. c. 15. St. Augustine did, that Kings serve God in this as Kings, if in their own Realms they command good things and forbid evill, not only concerning the civil state of men, but the Religion of God also; This they cannot doe, if the Supremacy be not vested in them, if what they do of this kinde, they do by accepting, and executing and obeying the Orders of another, for that is not to act as Kings, but as Subjects rather. What therefore the Catholike Governours do as Kings in their own Dominions, that sure they derive not from the Pope, but God, and their own Kingly Office. And till it be resolved on the Romanists side, what the things are, which they may not doe, by this right, as our Lawes and Histories shew what they may, there will he no end of dispute, and as little benefit expectable from it in this matter. With this at present we content our selves, that Henry VIII. did in effect but the same things, that other Catholike Princes are confess'd to have done; Let S. W. shew their Commission from the universal Pastor to do them, as his Ministers; But that sure will not be praetended in those acts, which have been against, and in defiance, and for the retrenching the power of the Popes, as those are, wherein we have formerly instanced, and more particularly that of Henry II. threatning Pope Alexander III. and his Successors, that if he will not do him justice in the businesse of Thomas of Becket, ††Matt. Paris An. 1168. neque ego neque Barones mei neque Clerus meus aliquam eis ulterius servabimus obedientiam. And again An. 1169.neither he nor his Barons nor Clergy will any longer perform obedience to him. And so that of Lewis XII. of France, who had the advise of the**Concil. Turon. in Massaei Chronic. An. 1510. Councel of Tours, that in the case proposed it was lawfull to withdraw obedience from the Pope. And so much for his phansie of the secular powers acceptation, and his twelfth Ground.

p. 313SECT. V.

His thirteenth Ground. Concessions of the Church] ambiguous. The Popes acknowledged subjection. No testimony of the Popes conferring on Princes the powers which they execute.

1. THe thirteenth Ground [that it is granted by Catholikes, that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the concession of the Church, and yet not praejudice thereby the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship] is of the same piece with the former, from a bare possibility that the power, and acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Princes should have been granted to them by the Church, to whisper the unconcludency of those manifest testimonies, which relate the Princes exercise of Ecclesiastical power.

2. But here is a double ambiguity in the phrase [Concession of the Church] for as by the Church may be meant either the Ʋniversal Church, or the Pope their supposed head of the Church, so by [concession] may be meant either granting and conferring a power originally vested in him that grants it, and only from him derived to the other; or else the acknowledging it to be his proper due, that claims it, and willingly allowing it, and praetending nothing against it.

3. If now in the first place we should understand it of the Ʋniversal Church acknowledging Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to be due to Princes, this is certainly a competent evidence, that thus 'tis due, and so must be a praejudice to the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship.

4. Secondly, if the Pope himself shall thus acknowledge, as I suppose * Pope Gregory doth, when he tells Mauritius, Ego jussioni tuae subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci, that he is subject to his command, and as such, causes his Law to be promulgated, and in the other forecited p. 314passages referred to by Wenceslaus's Edict, (see ch. 2. sect. 4. n. 17.) then certainly that is an acknowledgement as praejudicial to the Papal Supremacy, as subjection is unreconcileable with soveraignty.

5. Thirdly, if in the notion of concession for conferring or deriving by grant a power to another, it should appear (as it doth not) that the Ʋniversal Church hath granted exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to Princes, yet even that would be praejudicial to the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship, for in that case if the Church or Councel did no more than they had power to doe, the Church (and that is not the Pope) must have that power, or else it could not conferre it on the Princes, and if it have it, it is above the Pope, and that is unreconcileable with the Popes Supremacy or Pastorship over all. When therefore in the confirmation of this ground, he addes that the Testimonies by me alleadged from the Church in her Councels granting jurisdiction to the secular power is a strong praejudice against their self and proper right] he is very farre from demonstrating or even probable-speaking, for if by granting he meant acknowledging the Jurisdiction in the saecular power, then (as hath been said) 'tis as convincing a proof of it, as the testimony of the Church is of any right, or truth, and sure that cannot be converted to a praejudice against it, but if it should be (which it no where appears to be) a conferring of it, then still it appears that 'tis not conferred on them by the Pope, and consequently that 'tis not originally vested in him, and then he is not the Ʋniversal Pastor.

6. Lastly, if (which is the only thing for S. W's turn) it shall be suggested, that what power Kings have, they have by concession from the Pope, and so it should be thought incumbent on me to shew that the powers they have, are not thus conferred on, or derived to them, then, as I shall not want a competent store of arguments to testifie it to be no borrowed but original right, so it must much more be incumbent on the demonstrator or layer of grounds, to shew any record of the Popes conferring this power, otherwise as p. 315no derivative power is a power, unlesse it be held by some commission or way of conveighance from him, whose it was originally, so a bare suggestion of a naked possibility is very much inferior to a Probability, when yet a thousand probabilities will not amount to the thousandth part of one demonstration.

7. But I cannot believe that S. W. who professes to be Mr. Whites Disciple, will own this of the Popes conferring this Jurisdiction on Princes] to be his meaning, when he saith the concession of the Church] and then as I have no reason farther to disprove that, so he hath secured himselfe from gaining much by his thirteenth Ground.

p. 316SECT. VI.

His fourteenth Ground. The no probability of it. The Schisme at Corinth, described by Clemens, very unlike that which S. W. censures in us to be the only way of Schisme possible. Clements interposition not as Ʋniversal Pastor. The Romanists way of Schisme. Petitio Principii. Schisme and Charity may enter at the same door. Our confession no guilt. The fear of a Praemunire, no cause of the Bishops subscription. Cardinal Wolsey's Legatine power contrary to Statute. The Clergies Petition, and the Title of it. The Ʋniversities debate, and definition. The first mover in Henry VIII his action, the Popes unlawfull dispensation. The Pope formost in the Sacrilege. King Henries repentance falsely praetended. The truth of the History.

1. WE are now come to S. W's exit, or last Ground, that in case a Schisme should invade a whole Countrey, it could not be expected to have happened otherwise then D. H. (of Schisme c.) hath described] still at the same rate of demonstrating, as he hath afforded us all this while, First, the thing that he saith, hath no degree of but probability in it, 2. if it were not only probable, but true, it would no way praejudice our, or aid his praetensions.

2. That it is void of all probability of truth, appears by this easie intelligible relation, which hath more than once had Historical truth in it.

3. In the Church of Corinth (as under that title are comprehended the Saints of all Achaia, and so) that whole National Church, it is somewhat more than possible, that a Schisme should arise, and that this should be the method (beginning and progresse) of it, 1. That some of the Church should differ in some Doctrines and more rites, and praetend severally p. 317to be taught by their severally admired teachers, or by the word of God diversly interpreted by them; Hereupon each, confident in his own way, should separate, and abstain from communion the one of the other; At length the winde or vapour in the bowels of the earth, being violently compress'd, should violently resist and shake the whole body, the Schisme improve into a sedition, foreign, an accursed detestable sedition, **Clem. Rom. Ep ad Cor. 1. p. 2.foreign, which a few giddy and bold persons accended, ††P. 4.foreign, ignoble, mean young men, whose very persons were so infamous, that they might reasonably have deterred and averted all followers (**P. 61. foreign) In this sedition of ambitious, malicious, reasonlesse, restlesse men, all that were††P. 4. & 61. foreign. in honour and dignity in the Church, especially the Bishops, cast out of their seats, **foreign (i. e. foreign) foreign. Ib. p. 59. and foreign. Ib. and foreign. Ib.although they had been consecrated to their Office either by the Apostles, or (mediately from them) by eminent persons, and had without any blame officiated and attended on the flocke of Christ; Then that this tempest that began in the Church, should extend it self to the State, and so the foreign, zeal, strife, sedition, be improved and inlarged into††P. 4. foreign, tumultuous confusion and persecution, warre and captivity, and this in opposition to all obedience due from them foreign, to their rulers or civil Magistrates, such as were not only Christians, but zealous upholders of the faith, and all good order in the Church.

3. That all this was more then a bare unexpectable possibility, even a real and notable History, I referre him to the most pious and charitable Epistle of the Roman Church and Bishop Clemens, St. Peters Deacon, and Successor, who as he sent not out his Emissaries to blow up these coles, which he saw kindled among them, but used the most powerfull suasories to extinguish them, so neither he, nor that Church interposed their authority, as any Ʋniversal Pastor, or ruling Mother, p. 318(though a Roman Advocate Fevardentius would-fain collect somewhat toward it from Irenaeus saying that he wrote foreign, a most sufficient or powerfull writing, no more, than (as hath formerly been shewed) the same**Hinc observa Romanam Ecclesiam etiam ab initio authoritatem suam interposuisse in moderandis quoque Graecorum Ecclesiis, in Iren. p. 240. Irenaeus saith of the Epistle of Policarpe the Bishop of Smyrna to the Philippians, who were no way under his authority) but as a Sister Church Christianly and charitatively debated it with them.

††P. 234. B.4. Here then is an image of a Schisme, wherein a whole Church, or Christian Countrey was ingaged, and yet quite contrary to S. W's expectation, neither the secular Magistrate (the Christian foreign) were for it, nor the Bishops, nor Clergy, nor Ʋniversities, but all in vain oppose, and are overborn by the Paroxisme, unable to give any stop to its proceeding, or to hinder its universal invasion.

5. And Copies (too much to the life) 'twere possible to produce in other Countreyes, where this very Tragoedie hath been acted over again in the very same manner, and yet neither the Roman Church nor Bishop have shewed altogether so much zeal to the quenching them, as that Virgin charity of theirs yielded those which were very farre removed from them.

6. This may serve an indifferent Reader to judge of the truth of this last profound ground of his. For if a Schisme may and have entred and over-run a Kingdome, by inferiors rising up against their Superiors both in Church and State, and casting their most pious Bishops out of their Church, and have been by the Bishop and Church of Rome it self judged to be a most detestable Schisme, though they never sent out any declarations against Rome, then with what truth could S. W. set it for a ground, that in case Schisme should invade a whole Countrey, it could not be expected to happen otherwise, than by the King and Bishops and Ʋniversities being foremost in it.

7. I could mention other wayes, particularly that, by which the Church of Rome hath divided from the Greek Church, and from the Church of England, damnando & a communions arcendo, by denying them communion, and salvation, which p. 319they know, we are not, cannot be guilty of toward them.

8. Meanwhile that any Schisme in a Countrey (of that sort, of which we are accused by the Romanists, a division of inferiors from superiors) can ever possibly happen after this manner by the King and Bishops being foremost in it, if it be believed, it is and must be founded in a supposition that there is some other superior both to King and Bishops, and that he knowes is again the begging the quaestion, a fallacy that he is perpetually ashamed of, and desirous to avert, but will never, it seems, cease to be guilty of, even whilest he is about that work which is most extremely unreconcileable with it, the laying of Grounds.

9. But then 2. on supposition there were some appearance, possibility, nay probability of truth in his sage observation, that this were the only expectable way for Schisme to enter into a whole Church, what could he gain by it? May not truth and peace enter at the very same dore? and by the very same manner of progresse, as haeresie and Schisme doth? Certainly it may. If true Apostles, sober and pious Governours in Church and State, bring in verity and unity, may not false Apostles, deceitfull workers, haeretical Princes and Bishops (witnesse Constantius and Valens, and their Arian Bishops of old, to omit modern examples) introduce falshood and division? Was not the Jewish Church, that was led into Idolatry by their Apostate Princes, reformed by good Josiah, and the like? And then what praejudice can it be to us, or gain to S. W. that he is forced to confesse that what was done in this Nation, was done by the united suffrage of lawfull power and learning, the joynt consent of King and Bishops and Ʋniversities? What Bulrush may not become a Spear, what wooden Knife may not be whet at the Philistins Grindstone into Goliahs Sword, if by S. W's omnipotent faculty this so much lesse then nothing can be heightned into a Demonstration?

10. From this Ground then thus fortunately produced, and managed, S. W. must be allowed to raise his advantages, and so to annexe his consequences, which are no other but these, p. 320that my narrative discourse hath nothing in it to bewonder them (and if I can seriously professe, that I made it not, on any design to be thought a dancer on the ropes, or wonder-worker, I hope that Corollary hath wrought no miraculous advantages for him) 2. That my narration is as plain and particular a confession of the fact, as any poenitent malefactor can make, when he is to suffer] And truely I that meant not to lye, though 'twere in intuition of the greatest advantages, and wanted not such aids to support my cause, resolved to speak as true in setting the case, as if it had been on the Scaffold, or on my daeth-bed, but in doing so, made no… confession, as I thought, of any evil deed; And to call us malefactors, and poenitents, and suggest that a vowing what we have done with a good conscience, is the confession of a guilt, and not so much as attempt to shew, where the guilt lies, is again S. W's severe method, which would be a rarity in another ill Disputant, but is as familiar to S. W. as laying of Grounds or demonstrating.

11. But saith he, the Doctor disgraces his narration by confessing p. 136. that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the fear of a praemunire] I answere, S. W. seems to want some advantages, else he would not probably have sought them by misinterpreting my words. I mentioned the Clergies having incurred a praemunire, but I said not in the page cited, nor any where else, that they were inclined to subscribe for fear of it. A change of sense ordinarily followes a change of an adversaries words, so it doth here. The words in that page of Schisme are, [though the first act of the Clergy in this were so induced, that 'tis easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers that hung over them (by a praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, and therefore I shall not praetend that it was an act of their first will and choice, but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them, yet the matter of right being on that occasion taken into their more serious debate in a Synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitched on by joynt consent of both Houses of Convocation, there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe, the fear being the occasion of their debates, but the p. 321reasons and arguments offe…ed in debate, the causes (as in charity we are to judge) of their decision.

12. Here 'tis visible, that all that I say toward S. W's purpose, is that the fear of the praemunire inclined them to the first act, i. e. to taking this matter into serious debate, which is again express'd by the fear being occasion of their debates, which is very distant from inclining them to consent (as S. W. suggests that I say) for to that I there suppose them induced by the reasons and arguments offered in debate. If therefore he shall still think that he hath duely cited my words or sense, and that I my self disgraced my narration, I must in both these aequally dissent from him: The grounds of my dissent in the former have already appeared in recitation and comparing of the words by me used, and by him imposed on me. And for the later, it stands thus,

13. The Statute of the sixteenth of Richard II. (set down at large by my**P. 262. Lord of Cherbury in the Atturneys charge against Cardinal Wolsey) appoints, that if any purchase or pursue in the Court of Rome any Translations, Processes, &c, and they which bring or receive them, or make notification or execution of them, shall be put out of the Kings protection, and their lands, &c. forfeit to the King, and they attached in their bodies, or processe made against them by Writ of Praemunire facies. Of which Statute the ground is set down that the Crown of England hath been free at all times, and in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Legalty of the same Crown and to none other, particularly not to the Pope.

14. Now it appearing that the††Ibid. p. 263. Cardinal acting as Legatus a latere, had obtained and exercised Bulls quite contrary to this Statute, and exercised Jurisdiction Legatine to the deprivation of the Kings power — and so that he was fallen into the praemunire, and the Law proceeded upon him accordingly, It was also**Ibid. p. 320. found by debate of the Kings Councel, and resolved against the Clergy, that they were concluded under the same crime, and poenalty, by supporting the power Legatine of the Cardinal: And this danger of theirs suggested the praesenting of a petition for the Kings pardon, and the title of the King in the Petition coming p. 322under consideration, they at last resolved, all consenting (Bishop Fisher being one of them) to give him the title of Ecclesiae & Cleri Anglicani protector & summum Caput (quantum per Christi legem licet) and thus they praesented their Petition. All which amounts to no more than this, that they which had done quite contrary to the Lawes, and incurred a visible considerable imminent danger by it, were awaked by the neer approach of their danger, to consider their crime, and on sight and acknowledgement thereof, to return to their obedience; for which they found a concurrence of all the most just reasons, when they considered them, but were first inclined to consisider them by the danger their crime had brought upon them.

15. And this I take to be the very frequent method not of averting sinners from God, but of bringing them back to repentance, when the axe being layd to the root of the tree, dangers approaching, a Baptist advises them to fly from the wrath to come, or an Apostle, to awake and arise from the dead, and they being thus roused by outward judgements, bethink themselves and return to a right minde, and have all the reasons in the world to do so, though till the danger had thus awaked and qualified them, they were not so happy as to admit those considerations. This I think may serve to rescue my narration of the fear of a Praemunire from bringing any disgrace upon it self.

16. What he next addes is of the same stamp, that the quaestion about the Popes right in England being debated in the Vniversities, I say only p. 135. that it was generally defined in the Negative, i. e. saith he, when the Kings party praevailed] And I wonder what I could need to say more, but that it was generally defined in the Negative, and so returned testified under their hands and seals, An evidence of their universal, deliberate, voluntary consent to it. And for him to adde that it was when the Kings party praevailed, is as if he told us, the Kings party praevailed, when the Kings party praevailed, or that it not appearing so plainly before that debate, which way the Vniversities inclined, upon debate it was found that the praevailing suffrage, such as concluded the General consent of the Vniversities, was for the King p. 323against the Pope, which indeed was all that I intended to inferre thence.

17. But saith he, I omit that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, and his final repentance of that Act, which shew that the first Spring which moved the whole Engine was not purity of conscience, but the impurest and basest of passions] I answer I omitted them, because I could not with justice or charity set them down, and I had much rather comply with both these exactly, then offend against both or either of these, on what other interests soever.

18. It cannot, with either of them, be said, that his lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, when first he never Schismatized, but acted as his Praedecessors had done by strength of those Lawes, which declare the Crown of England to be free from all subjection to the Pope, immediately subject to God; on which the Pope excommunicated him, and brake that peace and union which a Spiritual Pastor ought most zealously and sollicitously to have conserved.

19. Secondly, the first visible mover of the Engine was the Popes dispensing with the Law of God, in allowing him to marry his Brothers wife, which one thing, most unjustifiable in the Spiritual Pastor, was the Origine of all the subsequent train of inconveniences, that involved his affairs in England, which yet might in some degree have been redeemed, if he would have discerned his error, and have rescinded his unlawfull dispensation, which the chief Ʋniversities of that part of Christendome which was then in communion with the Pope, declared it his duty to have done. Or if any thing on the Kings part intervened, and contributed, why should not charity judge (at that time, when the King was in as great and universal honour among all, as any Prince in Christendome) that what S. W. will call lust, was truely a desire of an Heir male to inherit his Kingdomes? And if this desire did cooperate with the conscience of the unlawfullnesse of the marriage, to sollicit the divorce, why should not the Spiritual man have considered the necessity of the one, reflecting also on the reasonablenesse of the other motive?

20. A man would have thought, that in a charge of no p. 324great partiality to Henry VIII. the Sacrilege, which was visible, and the covetousnesse, which might tempt invisibly, as well as the lust, might have been as fit to have been added to S. W's inditement brought in against that King. But as he saith without cause, that I omit the one, I may justly observe that he omits the other, and give some guesse at the reason of it; Because in this Scene also the Pope was the first Actor, and he that gave the example and incouragement, and so more than the temptation to all that followed, by consenting to the Cardinals request for suppressing and ruining **Ld Cherb. Hist. Hen. VIII. p. 157, 158.of divers Religious Houses, which the piety of former Princes had erected.

21. As for the Kings final Repentance of that Act (if he mean any thing, he must mean the Extinguishing Act, for to mean Schisme, is again to beg the Principle) I wonder on what ground of History he can think to affirm it, or what he can hope to gain by it, if there were any truth in it.

22. His ground of Storie I may guesse at, because the Catholike Gentleman having the like passage, that to his dying day he desired to be reconciled, and that it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made] he cites it from my Lord of Cherbury, fol. 368. To this I††Reply to Cath. Gent. p. 116. formerly gave answer, such as sufficed, but had not then my Lord of Cherburies Book by me to consult, which having now reviewed, I finde in that page, that in the year 1533. (which is 14. years before his death) the Popes sentence against the King being openly set up at Dunkirk, the King to praevent inconveniences, resolved 1. to inform his Subjects of his Appeal to the Councel Generall, 2. of the unlawfullnesse of the Dowagers Appeal to Rome, 3. to command it to be taught that the General Councel is above the Pope— and then desired the Bishop of Paris to certifie Francis, that if the Pope would supersede from the executing his sentence, untill he had indifferent Judges who might hear the businesse, he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe, in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See, giving also the Bishop power to negotiate at Rome, assuring him that he had intire confidence in his discretion and sufficiency, and would confirm as much as should by him be accorded on his part; Hereupon the Bishop posted to p. 325Rome, came to terms of accord, and a day was fix'd, and a Currier sent for receiving from our King a Confirmation hereof within a set time, but the Currier not returning till two dayes after that time was expired, the sentence was praecipitated, and the censures fulminated, and then the Currier arrived with ample Commission and authority from the King to conclude and confirm all that the Bishop had agreed in his name. But what was that agreement? Why that the King was content to accept the judgement of that Court, upon condition that the suspected and imperial Cardinals should not intervene, and that indifferent persons should be sent to Cambray to be informed of the merits of the cause, giving authority for his Proctors to appear in that Court. And if this be repentance of that Act, and being 14. years before his death, final repentance, S. W. shall be credited still in relating matters of fact; but withall the Pope that would first praecipitate, and then upon an approved or approveable repentance, not rescind it, must lie under the censure not only of Mr. White for a very fallible Judge, even when he hath proceeded by the votes of his Consistory, but of all other men, for a very, unkinde Father, that came not to call or receive sinners to repentance, or poenitents to peace. And that is all I shall need to adde to what hath before been largely replyed to the Catholike Gentleman (on this head of King Henries final repentance) where hath appeared, what moderate gains he was to be content to reap from that suggestion, if supposed to have perfect truth in it, which now it hath failed of also.

p. 326CHAP. V. A Rejoynder to S. W's Exceptions to my former Replies, and inforcements of his own, in his first part.