many of the ancients called every thing which they thought well done, of divine institution, by a large extent of the phrase; in which sense the passages of many fathers, that magnified the see of Rome, were to be understood.

Then he shewed, for what end general councils were called; to declare the faith, and reform errors: not that ever any council was truly general, for even at Nice there were no bishops almost, but out of Egypt, Asia, and Greece; but they were called general, because the emperor summoned them, and all Christendom did agree to their definitions, which he proved by several authorities: therefore, though there were many more bishops in the council of Arimini, than at Nice or Constantinople, yet the one was not received as a general council, and the others were: so that it was not the number, nor authority of the bishops, but the matter of their decisions, which made them be received with so general a submission.

As for the head of the council: St. Peter and St. James had the chief direction of the council of the apostles, but there were no contests then about headship. Christ named no head; which could be no more called a defect in him, than it was one in God, that had named no head to govern the world. Yet the church found it convenient to have one over them; so archbishops were set over provinces. And though St. Peter had been head of the apostles, yet as it is not certain that he was ever in Rome, so it does not appear that he had his headship for Rome's sake, or that he left it there; but he was made head for his faith, and not for the dignity of any see: therefore the bishops of Rome could pretend to nothing from him, but as they followed his faith: and Liberius, and some other bishops there, had been condemned for heresy; and if, according to St. James, faith be to be tried by works, the lives of the popes for several ages gave shrewd presumptions, that their faith was not good. And though it were granted that such a power was given to the see of Rome, yet by many instances he shewed, that positive precepts, in a matter of that nature, were not for ever obligatory. And therefore Gerson wrote a book, De Aufe

ribilitate Papæ. So that if a pope with the cardinals be corrupted, they ought to be tried by a general council, and submit to it. St. Peter gave an account of his baptizing Cornelius, when he was questioned about it. So Damasus, Sixtus, and Leo, purged themselves of some scandals.

Then he shewed how corrupt the present pope was, both in his person and government, for which he was abhorred, even by some of his cardinals, as himself had heard and seen at Rome. It is true, there was no law to proceed against a vicious pope, for it was a thing not foreseen, and thought scarcely possible; but new diseases required new remedies: and if a pope that is an heretic may be judged in a council, the same reason would hold against a simoniacal, covetous, and impious pope, who was salt that had lost its savour. And by several authorities he proved, that every man who lives so, is thereby out of the communion of the church; and that, as the preeminence of the see of Rome flowed only from the laws of men, so there was now good cause to repeal these; for the pope, as was said in the council of Basil, was only vicar of the church, and not of Christ: so he was accountable to the church. The council of Constance, and the divines of Paris, had, according to the doctrine of the ancient church, declared the pope to be subject to a general council, which many popes in former ages had confessed. And all that the pope can claim even by the canon law is, only to call and preside in a general council; but not to overrule it, or have a negative vote in it.

The power of councils did not extend to princes' dominions, or secular matters, but only to points of faith, which they were to declare, and to condemn heretics: nor were their decrees laws, till they were enacted by princes. Upon this he enlarged much, to shew, that though a council did proceed against a king, (with which they then threatened the king,) that their sentence was of no force, as being without their sphere. The determination of councils ought to be well considered and examined by the Scriptures; and in matters indifferent, men ought to be left to their freedom. He taxed the severity of Victor's proceedings against the

churches of the East, about the day of Easter: and concluded, that, as a member of the body is not cut off, except a gangrene comes in it; so no part of the church ought to be cut off, but upon a great and inevitable cause. And he very largely shewed, with what moderation and charity the church should proceed even against those that held errors. And the standard of the council's definitions should only be taken from the Scriptures, and not from men's traditions.

He said, some general councils had been rejected by others; and it was a tender point, how much ought to be deferred to a council: some decrees of councils were not at all obeyed. The divines of Paris held, that a council could not make a new article of faith, that was not in the Scriptures. And as all God's promises to the people of Israel had this condition implied within them, If they kept his commandments; so he thought the promises to the Christian church had this condition in them, If they kept the faith. Therefore he had much doubting in himself as to general councils; and he thought that only the word of God was the rule of faith, which ought to take place in all controversies of religion. The Scriptures were called canonical, as being the only rule of the faith of Christians; and these, by appointment of the ancient councils, were only to be read in the churches. The fathers SS. Ambrose, Jerome, and Austin, did in many things differ from one another; but always appealed to the Scriptures, as the common and certain standard. And he cited some remarkable passage out of St. Austin to shew, what difference he put between the Scriptures, and all the other writings even of the best and holiest fathers. But when all the fathers agreed in the exposition of any place of Scripture, he acknowledged he looked on that as flowing from the Spirit of God; and it was a most dangerous thing to be wise in our own conceit: therefore he thought councils ought to found their decisions on the word of God, and those expositions of it that had been agreed on by the doctors of the church.

Then he discoursed very largely what a person a judge ought to be; he must not be partial, nor a judge in his own

cause, nor so much as sit on the bench when it is tried, lest his presence should overawe others. Things also done upon a common error cannot bind, when the error upon which they were done comes to be discovered; and all human laws ought to be changed, when a public visible inconvenience follows them. From which he concluded, that the pope, being a party, and having already passed his sentence, in things which ought to be examined by a general council, could not be a judge, nor sit in it. Princes also, who, upon a common mistake, thinking the pope head of the church, had sworn to him, finding that this was done upon a false ground, may pull their neck out of his yoke, as every man may make his escape out of the hands of a robber. And the court of Rome was so corrupt, that a pope, though he meant well, as Hadrian did, yet could never bring any good design to an issue; the cardinals and the rest of that court being so engaged to maintain their corruptions.

Foxe, vol.ii.
P. 504.

[A Speech delivered in Convocation, 1536.]

It beseemeth not men of learning and gravity to make much babbling and brawling about bare words, so that we agree in the very substance and effect of the matter. For to brawl about words is the property of sophisters and such as mean deceit and subtilty, which delight in the debate and dissension of the world, and in the miserable state of the church; and not of them which should seek the glory of Christ, and should study for the unity and quietness of the church. There be weighty controversies now moved and put forth, not of ceremonies and light things, but of the true understanding and of the right difference of the Law and the Gospel; of the manner and way how sins be forgiven; of comforting doubtful and wavering consciences, by what means they may be certified that they please God, seeing they feel the strength of the law accusing them of sin; of the true use of the sacraments, whether the outward work of them doth justify man, or whether we receive our justification by faith. Item, which be the good works, and the true service and honour which pleaseth God; and whether the choice of meats, the difference of garments, the vows of monks and priests, and other traditions which have no word of God to confirm them, whether these, I say, be right good works, and such as make a perfect Christian man, or no? Item, whether vain service and false honouring of God, and man's traditions, do bind men's consciences, or no?

f [The debate on this occasion is given at some length by Foxe. An abridged account of it may be seen in Burnet, Ref. vol. i. p. 429. It was opened by the lord Crumwell as vicar-general. The principal speakers on the side of reform, besides Crumwell and Cranmer, were Fox bishop of Hereford, and Alexander Alesse, a Scotchman, residing at that time with the archbishop at Lambeth, who though not a member of the house, was introduced and commanded to speak by Crumwell. On the other side, the argument was chiefly maintained by Stokesley bishop of London. The articles of 1536 seem to have resulted from the discussion.]