A rational account of the grounds of Protestant religion being a vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's relation of a conference, &c., from the pretended answer by T.C. : wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared and the false discovered, the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of schism, and the most important particular controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined / by Edward Stillingfleet ...

PART II. Of Schism. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church.

The Question of Schism explained. The nature of it enquired into. Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie. Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour. The first, of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church, entered upon. How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church. The distin∣ction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified. The grounds of the Vnity of the Catholick Church, as to Doctrine and Government. Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal, causal, and participative Ca∣tholick Church examined. The true sense of the Catholick Church in An∣tiquity manifested from St. Cyprian, and several cases happening in his time: as, the Schism of Novatianus at Rome; the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus. Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose, by all which it is manifest that the unity of the Catholick Church had no dependance on the Church of Rome. The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose, St. Hierome, John Patriarch of Constantino∣ple, St. Augustine, Optatus, &c. particularly examined; and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church. The se∣veral Answers of his Lordship to the testimonies of St. Cyprian, St. Hierom, St. Greg. Nazianzene, St. Cyril, and Ruffinus, about the infallibility of the Church of Rome, justified. From all which it appears that the making the Roman-Church to be the Catholick, is a great Novelty and per∣fect Jesuitism.

SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church,* 1.1 have in these last ages been divided in commu∣nion from each other, the great contest and enquiry hath been, which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation. For, both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity, as to ac∣knowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth; and yet notwithstanding this, we finde these breaches so farr from closing, that,

supposing the same grounds to continue, a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible. An evidence of which, is, that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed, or out of some private interest or design, have made it their busi∣ness to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties, have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed them∣selves the members of. For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church, and desired a reformation of them, or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse, palliate, or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church: we find how little incouragement they have had for such under∣takings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain. The distance then being so great as it is, it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is, and where the main fault lies; and it being ac∣knowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church, and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with, it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there, where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion. For, can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion, where they are so far from being obliged to it, that they have an obligation to the contrary, from the prin∣ples of their common Christianity? and where men are bound not to com∣municate, it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism. For there can be no Schism, but where there is an obligation to communi∣on; Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion; and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism, you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things, which they are Pro∣testants for disowning of. Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church, that no conditions can be so hard, but we are bound rather to submit to them, than not joyn in Communion with you. But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general, the Foundations of its constitution, the ends and designs of it, cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations, and contradict those ends.

* 1.2This being a matter of so vast consequence, in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world, before I come to par∣ticulars, I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are, from all imputation of Schism. Schism then import∣ing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to, the most na∣tural way for understanding what Schism is, is to enquire what the Foun∣dations are of Christian Communion, and how far the bonds of it do extend. Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion. For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true, is the rea∣son why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it; which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it, thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession, which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them. The truth then of Christian Religion be∣ing acknowledged by several persons, they find in this Religion some

actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other. From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christi∣an Society, in all those who profess themselves Christians; and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other, is that which we call the Ca∣tholick Church. But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society; yet for the perform∣ance of particular acts of communion, there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them. But still the obligation to communion in these lesser, is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians, which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary con∣ditions of communion narrower, than those which belong to the Catholick Church; i. e. those things which declare men Christians, ought to capaci∣tate them for communion with Christians. But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true, so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures, there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners, which is, That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society, according to which it must be go∣verned.

These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society,* 1.3 we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communi∣on in it doth extend. For which it must be considered, that the grounds of continuance in Communion, must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it. No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society, to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society; but he is obliged to the contrary, from the general grounds of his first admission into it. His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it, and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it. Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promo∣tion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls, the primary obligation of men entering into it, is the advancement of these ends, to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends; but if any thing come to be requi∣red directly repugnant to these ends, those men of whom such things are required, are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed, but to preserve their communion with the Catho∣lick Society of Christians. But these general discourses seeming more ob∣scure, it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design, to deduce them into particulars. Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians, we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society, how extensive so ever it may pretend its commu∣nion to be.

1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion, but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundations of Christian Society. But if any Society shall pretend a neces∣sity of communion with her, because it is impossible this should be done by her: this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are; nay much more evident, because the belief of Christianity it self, doth (upon this pretence) depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility, and the indispensable obligation to communion de∣pends upon it.

2. There being a possibility acknowledged, that particular Churches may re∣quire unreasonable conditions of communion; the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable; but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society. Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe, and to do the most unjust and un∣reasonable things. But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required, and who must be the judge in that case: to which I answer,

3. Nothing can be more unreasonable, then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge, whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace, and con∣veniency, and order, the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons; but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians, judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of com∣munion, what justice or reason is there, that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause?

4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture, reason, and tradition, that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion, the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism. Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds, because none can be obliged to communion in such cases, and therefore the not communicating is no culpable se∣paration.

5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not commu∣nicating with a Church imposing such conditions, by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger, by so much the more justifia∣ble is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses, and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them. And on those grounds, viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion, it was necessary not to communicate with her; and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power, it was law∣ful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses, but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations. So that the Church of Romes im∣posing unlawful conditions of communion, is the reason why we do not communicate with her, and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self, is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation. On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear, how free the Church of England is from all im∣putation of Schism.

* 1.4These things being thus in general premised, we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches. And having throughly considered your way of management of it, I find all that you have to say may be re∣solved into one of these three grounds. 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church. 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her. 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great, that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her. I confess, if you can make good any one of these three, you do something to the purpose; but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest. I begin then with the first, which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church: and

here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adver∣sary. Mr. Fisher saith, That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady call••d them; and desiring to hear, whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church? the Bishop (saith he) granted that it was. To which his Lordship answers (after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations, by mens resolution to hold their own,* 1.5 though it be by un∣worthy means and disparagement of truth) that the question was neither asked in that form, nor so answered. And that there is a great deal of difference (especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church) between The Church and A Church, and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church. For The Church may import the only true Church, and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick.* 1.6 And this (saith he) I never did grant of the Ro∣man Church, nor ever mean to do. But A Church, can imply no more, then that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did (saith he) nor ever will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also; but not a Right. For Truth only imports the being; right, perfection in conditions; thus a Thief is a true man, though not an upright man. So a corrupt Church may be true, as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name; but it is not therefore a right Church, either in doctrine or manners. And this (he saith) is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him. This is the substance of his Lordships answer, to which we must consider what you reply;* 1.7 That about the terms of the Ladie's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie; and that whatever her words were, she was to be understood to demand this alone, viz. Whether the Roman were not the True, Visible, Infallible Church out of which none can be saved; for, herein (you say) she had from the begin∣ning of the Controversie desired satisfaction: And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all, unless it were The Church and a Right Church. The reason is, because St. Peters successour, being the Bishop of Rome,* 1.8 and Head of the whole Church (as you tell us you will prove anon) that must needs be the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if it be any Church at all. And because the Church can be but one, if it be a true Church it must be the right Church. But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof, which is, that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church, without which it would be no Church at all. Which being a thing so hard to be understood, and therefore much harder to be proved, we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit to prove it. When you therefore tell us afterwards, That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ, and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith, and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vni∣versal Church; When you further add, That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church, because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal: I can only say to all these confident affirmations, that if you had sat in the chair your self, you could not have said more or proved less. It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you (for who questions but you may abuse words?) but in what sense they ought to be taken. You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ, but be∣fore you can expect our submission to him, you must prove that he is so; you may call the Roman Church, The Church if you please, among your selves: but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that, you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small

proof of it, i. e. as much as the cause, and your abilities will afford. And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church? I know but one of these things will follow from it, either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true; or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church, it can be none at all. From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying, That may be a true Church which is not a right Church (which is all the thanks he hath for his kind∣ness to you);* 1.9 for (say you) how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven, but to eternal perdition? Which is as much as to ask, How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him. But if you had considered, what his Lordship had said, you would never have made such an objection. For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church, but of the metaphysical entity of it. For he saith,* 1.10 It is true in that sense as ens and verum, Being and True, are con∣vertible one with another; and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance. But (say you), how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith? because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not; or denies that to be his Word which is: to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God, and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition. An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible! for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not, or deny that to be his Word that is; either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God, it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved: either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour, or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved, or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed. And if so, then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not, and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity; supposing that Society of men doth believe (though falsly) that this is therefore true because revealed by God. In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense, though an erroneous Church in another: true, as there is a possibility of salvation in it; erroneous, as de∣livering that for truth which is not so. But here is a great deal of differ∣ence between a Church acknowledging her self fallible, and that which doth not. For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be be∣lieved, if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal, but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God, the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion; but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours, that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority, without particular ex∣amination of the Doctrines proposed, is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God, and doth as much as in her lies (in your expression) teach men the way to eternal perdition. And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be In∣fallible in their blindness; and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery. The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour, the worse still you make the condition of your Church, where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible, when she proposeth the most dangerous errours. When you say, The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveni∣encies of seducing or being seduced,* 1.11 if you mean (as you speak) of that

which is truly the whole Church of Christ, you are to seek for an Adversary in it; if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so, when neither that is or can be the whole Church, neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear af∣terwards. You quarrel with his Lordship again, for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest, and say it comes not home to the case.

But we must see, how well you have fitted it. Instead of a man,* 1.12 you would have a Saint put, and then (you say) the Parallel would have held much better. But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize; for the Question was of one that might be a man, and not be honest, Will you say the same of your Saint too? If instead of Saint, you had put his Holiness in, there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it. But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases: His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions, for which he instanced in a thiefs be∣ing truly a man, though not an honest man; now you, to mend the matter, make choice of moral Integrity, being consistent with Metaphysical Truth, which is of a Saint, and a man. And, Doth not this now come home to our case? That which follows, to shew the incongruity of his Lord∣ships Similitude would much more shew your wit, if it were capable of to∣lerable sense: For, you say, the word Church in our present debate, implies not a simple or uncompounded term, as that of man,* 1.13 but is a compound of sub∣stance and accidents together. We had thought, Man had been a com∣pound of substance and accidents, as well as a Church: Or, Did you mean some transubstantiated man, that had accidents without substance? But as his Lordship spake of a true real man, who yet might want moral Integri∣ty; so he supposed there might be a true real Church, as to the essential parts of it, which yet might be in other respects a corrupted and defiled Church. But when you add, That the notion of a Church implies Integrity and Perfection of Conditions, still you betray your weak or wilful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true. If you will prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being, that hath any errours in Doctrine, or cor∣ruptions in Practice, you will do something to the purpose: but when you have done it, see what you get by it; for then we shall not so much as acknowledge your Church to be Metaphysically a true Church. If his Lord∣ship therefore be so charitable, as to say, That because your Church receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith: (though but as a partial and imperfect Rule) and both the Sacraments as Instrumental causes and seals of Grace (though they add more, and misuse these) it cannot but be a true Church in essence: And you, on the other side, say, If it doth misuse the Sacraments, and make the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith, it would be unchurched; Let the Reader judge, whether his Lordships charity for, or your own Testimony against your Church, be built on better grounds. What follows concern∣ing the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles Creed, the entire Catholick Faith in the Athanasian Creed, the Churches being the Spouse of Christ, and a pure Virgin, are all things as true in themselves, as your Church is little concern∣ed in them. The truly Catholick Church being quite another thing from that which goes under the name of the Roman Catholick Church; and this latter may prostitute her self to errour, while the other remains a pure Vir∣gin; and it is only your saying, That yours only is the Catholick Church, which is in effect to say, That Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse, as you speak.

* 1.14To omit that which you call, A further skirmishing about the form of words,* 1.15 and whether it savoured more of prudence, and charity, or cunning in the Jesuite, to instruct the Lady what Questions she should ask; we come to that which is the main subject of this chapter, viz. Whether the Church be stiled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome, which (you say) was a re∣ceived and known Truth in the Ancient Church, but is so far from being in the least true,* 1.16 that his Lordship deservedly calls it, A perfect Jesuitism. For (saith he) in all the Primitive times of the Church, a Man, or a Family, or a National Church were accounted right and orthodox, as they agreed with the Catholick Church, but the Catholick was never then measured or judged by Man, Family, or Nation. But now in the Jesuits new School, the One, Holy, Catholick Church, must be measured by that which is in the Diocese or City of Rome, or of them which agreed with it; and not Rome by the Catholick. So upon the matter, belike the Christian Faith was committed to the custody of the Roman, not of the Catholick Church; and a man cannot agree with the Catholick Church of Christ (in this new doctrine of A. C.) unless he agree with the Church of Rome; but if he agree with that, all is safe, and he is as orthodox, as he need be. To which you seem to answer at first by some slight tergiversations,* 1.17 as, though this did not follow from A. C's words, and that the Lady did not trouble her self with such punctilio's as those of the agree∣ment of the Catholick Church with Rome, or Romes agreeing with the Catho∣lick Church, but at last you take heart, and affirm stoutly, That the Church is stiled Catholick from its agreement with Rome, and that this is no Je∣suitism, but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church. In these terms then I fix my self, and this present dispute; as containing the proper state of the Controversie concerning the Catholick Church. And if you can make it appear that the Church is stiled Catholick by agreeing with Rome, and that this was a received Truth in the Ancient Church, then you may very plausibly charge us with Schism in our separation from Rome; but if the contrary be made evident, by your own pretence we are freed from that charge.

Now in the handling this Controversie, you first explain your terms, and then produce your Testimonies.* 1.18 In the explication of your terms, you tell us, The word Catholick may be used in three different Acceptions, viz. either formally, causally, or by way of participation. Formally, the Vni∣versal Church, i. e. the society of all true particular Churches, united together in one body, in one Communion, under one Head, is called Catholick. Cau∣sally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick, because it hath an influence and force to cause Vniversality in the whole body of the Church Catholick; to which two things are necessary, Multitude and Vnity. The Roman Church there∣fore, which as a Center of Ecclesiastical Communion, infuses this Vnity, which is the form of Vniversality, into the Catholick Church, and thereby causes in her Vniversality, may be called Catholick causally, though she be but a par∣ticular Church. As he that commands a whole Army is stiled General, though he be but a particular person. Thirdly, every particular orthodox Church is termed Catholick participative, by way of participation, because they agree in, and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catho∣lick Church. For which (you bring) the instance of the Church of Smyrna writing to the Catholick Church of Philomilion, &c. Thus we see (say you) both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick, and how the Ca∣tholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Vniversal or Catho∣lick from the Roman, considered as the chief particular Church, infusing

Vnity to all the rest, as having dependence of her, and relation to her. Thus I have recited your words, that we may fully understand your meaning; the substance of which is couched in your last words, That the reason why any Church was accounted Catholick, was from its Vnion with the Church of Rome. But if it appear that this sense of the Catholick Church is wholly a stranger to Antiquity, That the Catholick Church was so call'd upon farr different accounts than those mentioned by you, If the Church of Rome had no other relation to the Catholick Church but as a member of it as other Churches were, then all this discourse of yours comes to nothing, and that is it which I now undertake to prove. Now the Vnity of the Catho∣lick Church lying in two things, the Doctrine and the Government of it, if in neither of these, it had any dependence of the Church of Rome, then cer∣tainly it could not be call'd Catholick, causally from the Church of Rome.

First, the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine, and the agreement of all particular Churches in it.* 1.19 So Irenaeus de∣rives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received, and from thence saith, That the Church is but as one house, and having one soul and heart, and speaks as with one mouth. Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church.* 1.20 And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before, That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples. Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world, the continu∣ance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church. To the same purpose Ter∣tullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity, by the adhering to that Do∣ctrine which was first preached by the Apostles, who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there, went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities,* 1.21 from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them, which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches, as the off-spring of those which were founded by them. Therefore so many and so great Churches, are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come. And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity, as long as there is that communication of that title of Brother∣hood and common mark of peace and hospitality. Wherein we see that which made Churches in Ter∣tullians sense Apostolical, is the embracing and continu∣ing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles; and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their con∣sent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them. But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church, for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches. So likewise Theodoret speaks, That there is one Church throughout the world,

and therefore we pray, for the Holy, One, Catholick, and Apostolick Church, ex∣tended from one end of the earth to the other. Which (saith he) is divided by Cities,* 1.22 and Towns, and Villages, so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent, but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true do∣ctrine. So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice, saith, That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church, whose members though dispersed in many several places, yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God. In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose, we see a quite differ∣ent account given of the unity of the Catholick Church, from that which you mention as the cause of it; we find the Church call'd Catholick in re∣gard of its large extent in the world (as is apparent besides these testimo∣nies, from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists) and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome, but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church. So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomina∣tion of Catholick, must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome; but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith, and joyn∣ing in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it. And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient com∣municatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth, or communion with the Church of Rome, but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches. And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak, after Cardinal Perron, from whom you have Verbatim tran∣scribed all your former discourse.* 1.23 This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church, it deserves to be further considered.

* 1.24We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it; and this is that, which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church; because though (as Cardinal Perron says) she be in her own Being particular, yet she may be call'd Catholick causally, as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion, infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church. This therefore must be more narrowly searched into, to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church. Which is so far from it, that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted, but that the Catholick Church was a whole consist∣ing of homogeneal parts, without any such subordination or dependence, as the contrary supposition implies. This is, by none more fully asserted, than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church. The first of whom is St. Cyprian; in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear, upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand. The first I begin with, is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus, which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church, because the first rise of this

Schism was in Rome it self. For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa,* 1.25 falls in with Novatianus (which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound) who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome, was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism. For which, they made this their pre∣text, That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity? upon this, Novatianus gets himself ordained, by three Bishops, Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius: the fame of which Schism be∣ing spread abroad, there was great making of parties on both sides. Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius, so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there; but Fabius of An∣tioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend, and rather encline to Novatianus, for some time; till they were after, more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria. Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church may be easily discerned, which it is plain from the proceedings in it, were (as in all such emergent cases) what should be determined and agreed on, by the consent of the Catholick Church: i. e. of those Churches which all consented in the same Catholick Faith, and there∣fore made up one Catholick Church. Now if the Church of Rome had been the center of Ecclesiastical communion, and had infused Catholick unity into the Church at this time, what way or possibility had there been for re∣storing the Churches unity? Neither was the appeal made to forraign Churches meerly because Rome it self was divided, and so the Controversie could not be ended there, but it appears from the whole story of the proceedings, that this was looked on as the proper means for preserving the unity of the Catholick Church, at that time; when the Faith and com∣munion of the Apostolical Churches were so fully known and distinguished from all others. These things will more fully appear from St. Cyprians Epistle to Antonianus upon the occasion of this Schism.* 1.26 Who it seems at first adhered to Cornelius and with him to the Catholick Church, (not as though his joyning with Cornelius was the cause of his being with the Ca∣tholick Church, but because in joyning with him, he joyned with the Catho∣lick Church which declared for him); but it seems afterwards by some Let∣ters of Novatianus he began to stagger, and desires Cyprian to give him an account what Heresie Novatianus broached, and what the reason was why Cornelius communicated with the lapsed persons. As to which particulars he endeavours to satisfie him, and withall to give an account why they joyned with Cornelius in opposition to Novatianus, and what the practise of the Church was, as to lapsed persons, and on what reasons it was built: wherein he tells him, That though some of their own Bishops had formerly denyed communion to lapsed persons, yet they did not recede from the Vnity of the Catholick Church, or communion of their Fellowships, because by them they were admitted. For, saith he, the bond of concord remaining, and the communion of the Catho∣lick Church continuing,* 1.27 every Bishop orders and dispo∣seth his own actions as one that must give an account of his design to God. Doth St. Cyprian here speak like one that believed the Church of Rome to be the center of Ecclesiastical communion? or, that the unity of the Church lay in acknow∣ledging the Pope to be Christs Vicar, or in dependence on the Church of Rome? when every Bishop is left to himself and God, in all such things which he may

do, and yet hold communion with the Catholick Church? And therefore afterwards he tells us, That there is one Church divided into many members throughout the world,* 1.28 and one Epis∣copal office spread abroad, by the consenting multitude of many Bishops. If this Church be one in this sense, and the whole Government of the Church but as one Bishoprick, as all the Bishops unanimously consent in the management of it; then here is not the least foundation for the Catholick Churches taking its denomination causally from the Roman Church, and much less for the Bishops having dependence on her, or relation to her. Since the care and government of the Church by these words of Cyprian appears to be equal∣ly committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church. And from thence it was, that in this Epistle we read that St. Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome after the death of Fabianus, to advise them what to do in the case of lapsed persons, which letters of his were sent through the world; which, Rigaltius well observes, did arise from that unity of Ecclesiastical discipline,* 1.29 whereby Cyprian, not doubting but the care of all Churches was upon him, dispatched these letters to the Clergy at Rome; from whence they were sent through the Catholick Church, as an evidence that there was but one Episcopal office in the whole Church, part of which was committed in full power to every Bishop. Thus we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church than what you from Cardinal Perron would perswade us of. It being an easie matter for men of wit and parts (especially such as that great Cardinal was master of) to coyn distinctions to make the most absurd things seem plausible; but yet when they come to be examined, they are found to have no other bottom but the invention of that person who coined them.

And that it is so as to this distinction of the formal, causal, and par∣ticipative Catholick Church,* 1.30 will be further evident from another case which happened in St. Cyprians time, which was this. Felicissimus and Fortunatus being cast out of communion by a Synod of African Bishops, when they saw they could do little good in Africa, run over to Rome, and bring letters to Cornelius the Bishop there, misrepresenting the whole business of their being ejected out of the Church, on purpose to perswade Cornelius to admit them into communion. Who at first be∣ing unwilling to hearken to them, was at last by their threats and menaces brought to receive their letters. Upon which St. Cyprian writes an Epistle to Cornelius, wherein he tells him, That if the threats of such profligate persons should relax the Churches discipline, all the power and strength of it would be soon taken away; that the ground of all Schism and Heresie arises from disobedience to the Bishop. Certainly he doth not mean the Bishop of Rome, but every Bishop in the Catholick Church (for it was not Cornelius but Cyprian and the African Bishops who were dis∣obeyed) upon which he falls upon the matter of their appeal to a for∣raign Church, and after some fair commendations of the Church of Rome (the meaning of which will be afterwards examined) he very sharply condemns these appeals to forraign Churches as unreasonable, unjust, and dishonourable to those Bishops, whose sentence they appealed from. For, What cause (saith he) could these persons have of coming and declaring against their Bishops? For either they are pleased in what they have done, and con∣tinue

in their wickedness; or if they are displeased at it and recede from it, they know whither to return. For since it is decreed by us all, and it is a thing just and reasonable in it self,* 1.31 that every ones cause be heard where the fault was com∣mitted, and every Pastour hath a part of the flock com∣mitted to him, which he is to rule and govern as being to give an account of it to God; it is requisite that those whom we rule over, ought not to run about, and break the concord of Bishops by their headdiness and subtilty; but there to defend their cause, where they may have ac∣cusers and witnesses of their faults. Vnless it be, that to a few desperate and profligate persons the authority of the Bishops of Africa seems less to them, who have already sate in judgement upon them, and solemnly condemned them lately for their crimes. Can any thing be more express and punctual then this testimony of Cyprian is, to overthrow that sense of the Catholick Church which you contend for? How farr were Cyprian and the African Bishops from making Rome the center of Ecclesiastical communion, when they looked on appeals thither as very un∣just and unreasonable? What acknowledgement and dependence was there on the Church of Rome in those who looked on themselves as having a por∣tion of Christs flock committed to them, of which they were to give an account to God alone? And I pray what excellent persons were those who under∣valued the Authority of the African Bishops, and ran to Rome? St. Cyprian tells us, they were pauci, desperati, perditi, and translate these with as much advantage to your cause as you can. So fatal hath it been to Rome even from its first foundation to be a receptacle for such persons. And is not this a great credit to your cause that such persons who were ejected out of communion for their crimes at home, did make their resort to Rome? and the more pious and stout any Bishops were, the more they defended their own priviledges in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Sec. Which was apt to take advantage from such Renegado's as these were, by degrees to get more power into her hands, and lift up her head above her fellow-Churches. But, lest you should think that St. Cyprian only spake these things in an heat, out of his opposition to these persons and his desire to crush them, you shall see what his judgement was concerning the same things when he purposely discourseth of them. For in his Book of the Vnity of the Church, he useth that expression which destroyes all your subordinate union in the Church; which is, Episcopatus unus est,* 1.32 cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. They who consider and understand the im∣portance of that speech, will find nothing more destructive to your do∣ctrine of the Catholick Church then that is. For when he makes the Vni∣versal Government of the Church to be but one Episcopal office, and that committed in the several parts of it with full power to particular Bishops, can any be so senseless to imagine that he should ever think the Government of the Church in General to depend on any one particular Church as chief over the rest? And that the former words do really import such a full power in particular Bishops, over that part of the flock which is committed to them, appears from the true importance of the phrase insolidum; a phrase taken out of the Civil Law where great difference is made between an obligation in partem and in solidum, and so proportionable between a

tenure in partem and in solidum: those things were held in solidum which were held in full right and power without payments and acknowledgements. But where the usus-fructus belonged to another, it was not held in solidum. So that when St. Cyprian saith, that every part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum, he therein imports that full right and power which every Bishop hath over his charge; and in this speech he compares the Govern∣ment of the Church to an estate held by several Freeholders, in which every one hath a full right to that share which belongs to him. Whereas ac∣cording to your principles the Government of the Church is like a Mannor or Lordship, in which the several inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord; and you would fain have it at the will of your Lord too. But thus farr we see St. Cyprian was from your modern notion of the Catholick Church, that he looks on the Vnity of it as depending on the con∣sent of the Catholick Bishops and Churches under their full power, and not deriving that Vnity from any particular Church as the head and fountain of it. And therefore in the former Schism at Rome about Cornelius and Novatianus, St. Cyprian imployed two of his colleagues thither, Caldonius and Fortunatus, that not only by the Letters they carried, but by their pre∣sence and Counsel they should do their utmost endea∣vour to bring the members of that divided body to the unity of the Catholick Church.* 1.33 Which is certainly a very different thing from the Catholick Churche's deriving its Vnity from the particular Church of Rome. Many other instances of a like nature might be produced out of the Reports of St. Cyprians times, but these are sufficient to evidence how far the Vnity of the Catholick Church was then, from depending on the Church of Rome.

* 1.34But, lest we should seem to insist only on St. Cyprians testimony, it were easie to multiply examples in this kind; which I shall but touch at some of, and proceed. If the Church of Rome then had been looked on as the center of Ecclesiastical communion, is it possible to conceive, that the ex∣communications of the Church of Rome should be slighted as they were by Polycrates,* 1.35 for which St. Hierome commends him, as a man of courage? that, Stephen should be opposed as he was by Cyprian and Firmilian in a way so reflecting on the Authority of the Roman Church? that appeals to Rome should be so severely prohibited by the African Bishops? that causes should be determined by so many Canons to be heard in their proper Dioceses? that, when the right of appeals was challenged by the Bishops of Rome, it was wholly upon the account of the imaginary Nicene Canons? that, when Julius undertook by his sole power to absolve Athana∣sius,* 1.36 the Oriental Bishops opposed it as irregular on that account, at the Council at Antioch? that, when afterwards, Paulus, Marcellus, and Lucius repaired to Rome to Julius, and he seeks to restore them, the Eastern Bi∣shops wonder at his offering to restore them who were excommunicated by themselves? and that as when Novatus was excommunicated at Rome they opposed it not, so neither ought he to oppose their proceedings against these persons. What account can be given of these passages, if the Vnity of the Catholick Church had depended on the particular Church of Rome? Besides, while the Church of Rome continued regular, we find she looked on her self as much obliged to observe the excommunications made by other Churches, as others were to observe hers. As in the case of Mar∣cion, who being excommunicated by his Father the Bishop of Sinope in

Pontus, and by no means prevailing with his Father for his admission into the Church again; resorts to Rome and with great earnestness begs ad∣mission there, where he received this answer; That they could not do it without the command of his Father;* 1.37 for there is one Faith and one consent, and we cannot contradict our worthy brother, your Father. This shews the Vnity of the Catholick Church to proceed upon other grounds than the causal influence of the Church of Rome, when the consent of the Church did oblige the Church of Rome, not to repeal the excommunication of a particular Bishop. Upon which ground it was, that Synesius proceeded so high in the letters of ex∣communication against Andronicus; that he forbids all the Churches upon earth to receive him into their communion. And withall adds,* 1.38 That if any should contemn his Church because it was of a little City, and should receive those who were condemned by it, as though it were not neces∣sary to obey so poor a Church; he lets them know that they make a Schism in that Church which Christ would have to be one. We see here, on what equal terms the communion of the Catholick Church then stood: when so small a Church as that of Ptole∣mais could so farr oblige by her act the Catholick Church that they should be guilty of Schism who admitted them to communion whom she had cast out of it. If Synesius had believed the Church of Rome to have been the center of Ecclesiastical communion, had it not been good manners, nay duty in him to have asked first the pleasure of the Church of Rome in this case, before he had passed so full and definitive a sentence as this was? But the wise and great men of those ages were utterly strangers to these rare distinctions of a causal, formal, and participative Catholick Church. It is true indeed they did then speak honourably of the Church of Rome in their age as a principal member of the Catholick Church, and having advantages above other Churches by its being fixed in the seat of the Empire, on which account her communion was much desired by other persons. But still we find the persons most apt to extoll her Authority were such as were most obnoxious, who not being able to hold any reputation in their own Churches, where their crimes and scandals were sufficiently known, ran presently to Rome, which was ready still to take their part, thereby to inhance her power: as is most evident in the many disputes which arise upon such accounts between the Roman and African Bishops. But these things we shall have occasion to discuss more particularly afterwards. At the present it may be sufficient by these few (of very many examples which might be produced) to have made it appear, that it was farr from being a known and received truth in the ancient Church, that the Church of Rome was the center of Ecclesiastical communion, or that the Church was call'd Catholick from the union with her and dependence upon her.

But we must now consider what strenuous proofs you produce for so confident an affirmation:* 1.39 your instances therefore being the most preg∣nant to your purpose which you could find in Antiquity must be particu∣larly examined: your first is of St. Ambrose,* 1.40 relating that his brother Sa∣tyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia (where he desired to be Baptized) demanded of the Bishop of that City whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops, that is (saith he) with the Roman Church.* 1.41 These words

I grant to be in St. Ambrose, but whosoever throughly considers them will find how little they make for your purpose. For which it will be suffici∣ent to look on the following words, which tell us, that at that time there was a Schism in the Church, and Sardinia was the chief seat of it. For Lucifer Caralitanus had newly separated himself from the Church,* 1.42 and had left Societies there which joyned in his Schism. For Caralis was the Metro∣polis of Sardinia, and it appears by St. Hierome, that the Luciferians confined the Church only to Sardinia, which is the cause of that expression of his; That Christ did not come meerly for the sake of the Sardini∣ans. So that those Luciferians were much like the Donatists, confining the Church only to their own number. Now there being such a Schism at that time in Sardinia, what did Satyrus any more then enquire whether the Bishop of the place he resorted to was guilty of this Schism or no? But (say you) he made that the tryal whether he was a Catholick or no, by asking whether he agreed with the Church of Rome. To which I answer, that there was very great reason for his particular instancing in the Church of Rome. 1. Because Satyrus was originally of the Church of Rome himself; for Paulinus in the life of S. Am∣brose (Satyrus his brother) speaking of him after his consecration to be Bishop, say's, Ad urbem Romam hoc est ad natale solum perrexit, He went to Rome, i. e. to the place of his birth; now Satyrus being originally a Ro∣man, what wonder is it that he should particularly enquire of the Roman Church? As suppose one of the Gallican Church of Arles or Vienna should have been cast upon shore in another Island belonging to France at the same time, and understanding there was a Schism in the place, should particularly enquire whether they agreed with the Catholick Bishops, i. e. with the Church of Arles or Vienna, Could you hence inferr that either of these were the center of Ecclesiastical communion, and if not from hence, how can you from the other? Or suppose, in the time of the Donatists Schism in Africk, a stranger coming accidentally thither and desiring com∣munion with the Christians of that City he was in, should enquire of the Bishop of the City, whether he communicated with the Catholick Bishops, i. e. with the Church of Hippo or Carthage. Could you hence inferr that Hippo was causally the Catholick Church, and if not, with what reason can you do it from so parallel a case? 2. Because Sardinia did belong to the Metropolitan Province of the Church of Rome; it being one of the Subur∣bicarian Provinces under the jurisdiction of the Roman Lieutenant, and consequently one of the Suburbicarian Churches appertaining to the Metro∣politan power of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore it was but reason to ask whether the Churches in Sardinia did agree with their Mother Church or no. But all this is very farr from implying that the Vnity of the Catholick Church comes from the particular Church of Rome: on this account, be∣cause at that time when the Vnity of the Catholick Church was preserved by that continual correspondence between the parts of it by the formed let∣ters and otherwise, who ever was known to have communion with any one particular Church (which communicated with the rest) had thereby communion with the Catholick Church. So that on that account the que∣stion might as well have been asked of the Churches of Milan, Agobio, or any other in Italy as of the Church of Rome. For whosoever communicated

with any of them did communicate with the Catholick Church, as well as those who did communicate with the Church of Rome. So that your first instance will prove no more the Church of Rome to be the fountain and center of Ecclesiastical communion, then any other particular Church. Your second is, from St. Hieromes saying, That the Church of Alexandria made it her glory to participate of the Roman Faith.* 1.43 But doth it hence follow that the Church of Alexandria was therefore Catholick, because she participated of the Faith of the Roman Church considered as a particular Church? For, any one who reads that Epistle will easily see, that St. Hierome there speaks of the Roman Faith, not as it proceeds from the Roman Church, but as it was received by it; and that he doth not under∣stand it of the then present Roman Faith, any further then it agreed with that Faith which the Apostle commended in them. So that the utmost which can be extracted out of this testimony, is, that it was the glory of the Church of Alexandria to hold the same Faith which the Primitive Roman Church did, for which the Apostle commended it. Which is appa∣rent by the design of the whole Epistle, which is to encourage Theophilus the Patriarch of Alexandria to suppress the Nefarions Heresie (as he calls it) of the Origenists; for, it seems, Theophilus then dealt more mildly with them, which Hierome was displeased at. And therefore tells him, that although he took some care by the discipline of the Church to reduce them, yet that was not enough, and thence brings in these words; But withall know, that nothing is more our design then to preserve the rights of Christ,* 1.44 and not to transgress the bounds of our Fathers, and alwayes to remember the Roman Faith, commended by the mouth of the Apostle, which it is the glory of the Church of Alexandria that she is a partaker of. If you had dealt so fairly as to have cited St. Hieromes words at large, any one might easily see how remote they were from your purpose; it being manifest by them, that St. Hieromes only design was; To perswade Theophilus to assert the ancient Faith against the incroachments of modern Heresies; and, to incourage him to it, mentions that commendation which was given to the ancient Faith by the Apostle writing to the Romans upon their receiving it; and therefore since the same Faith was in the Church of Alexandria which the Romans were commended for receiving of, Theophilus ought to be a vigorous assertor of it, against the oppositions of Hereticks. But how from hence we should inferr that the Church of Rome was the fountain of Faith as well as center of communion, is a thing we are yet to seek for, till you further direct us. Yet, it may be, the strength of it lyes in this, That the Roman Faith was commended by the Apostle. And was not the Faith of other Churches where it was pure, commended as well as that? And al∣though the Fathers in their complemental addresses to the Church of Rome were pleased often to mention this, That the Roman Faith was praised by the apostle; yet, as Rigaltius well observes,* 1.45 That the Latin Fathers took those words of the Apostle, as though their Faith were more pure and sincere then in other places; whereas the Apostle only saith, that he gave thanks to God that there was such a fame abroad, that the Romans who swayed the world, had em∣braced

the Christian Faith. Which by reason of the dignity of the City which was head of the world, and Empress of Nations, did conduce much to the pro∣pagation of the Christian Faith. For that there was no peculiar excellency in the Roman Faith above the Faith of other Churches, appears from the scope of this Epistle which was to instruct and settle them in the right Faith and from the testimonies of the Author of the Commentaries under St. Am∣brose's name, and St. Hierome himself. The former tells us, The reason why St. Paul commended their Faith, was, Because though they saw no miracles yet they believed,* 1.46 though not so purely as they ought to have done. And afterwards saith, That St. Paul commends their Faith although it were not exact according to rule, yet since by that they came to worship God in Christ he rejoyceth in it, know∣ing they might increase more in it. And St. Hierome elsewhere speaking without design or interest, saith, Not that the Romans have any other kind of Faith then what all other Churches have;* 1.47 but that there was greater devotion and simplicity in believing. And withall adds, that the very same faults which the Apostle condemned them for then, did continue still among them, the greatest of which was Pride. And if this present Controversie do not make good St. Hieromes observation till this time, we are strangely mi∣staken: for what greater Pride can there be, than for any particular Church to arrogate the title of Catholick to her self, and to make all others no farther Catholick then they participate of her Faith and Communion?

* 1.48Your next Testimony is that of John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who did in his Epistle to Hormisda, judge those to be severed from the com∣munion of the Catholick Church,* 1.49 who did not consent in all things with the See Apostolick: but the main force of your testimonies lyes in a presum∣ption that men will never take the pains to examine them. We must therefore consider the occasion and manner of the writing this Epistle; for those words you cite, are not the words of the Patriarch himself, but of the form of subscription required by Hormisda in order to an Vnion of the Eastern and Western Churches; which had been then a long time in a Schism. For after that Acacius stood up so resolutely in defence of the rights of his See at Constantinople, the Roman Bishops (who made it then their design to infringe the liberties of other Churches the better to inhance their own) would by no means admit of any reconciliation unless the names of Acacius, and those who defended him in that See being his Suc∣cessours, as Phravita, Euphemius, Macedonius, &c. were expunged out of the Diptychs of the Church; which being so unjust and unreasonable a de∣mand, for a long time the Patriarchs of Constantinople would by no means assent to it. But after the death of the Emperour Anastasius, Justin suc∣ceeds in the throne, one who made it his business to have this breach made up; in order to which he writes to Hormisda, and earnestly perswades him to a reconciliation; and so likewise doth the Patriarch John. But it hath been the common practise of the Bishops of that Church, to be therein unlike the unjust Judge, that they will not be wrought on by im∣portunities; but have been the more implacable, the more they have been sought to: as it appeared in this present case. For this soure and inflex∣ible Pope would not yield to any terms of Vnion, but upon conditions of his own prescribing, which were, the expunging of Acacius, and subscribing

that form which he sent to them. Which when the Emperour and Patri∣arch saw, though they were sufficiently displeased at it, yet out of their greedy desire of peace, they were contented rather to swallow these hard conditions than suffer the Schism to remain still. Now it is in this form of subscription that these words are contained, wherein they promise, not to recite the names of those in the sacred mysteries, who are severed from the communion of the Catholick Church, i. e. who consent not in all things with the See Apostolick. But lest these words being thus inserted by the Pope himself, should be interpreted to the disadvantage of other Churches, and particularly that of Constantinople; The Patriarch makes a Preface to that Subscription by way of Protestation; wherein after declaring the recepti∣on of the Popes letters, and congratulating the hopes of Vnion, he mani∣fests his own desire of peace, and his willingness to refuse the communion of all Hereticks. For, saith he, I look on those most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome,* 1.50 as both making but one Church. And after, declaring his assent to the decrees of the four General Councils, he adds, That those who opposed them he judged fallen off, à Sanct â Dei generali & Apostolicâ Ecclesiâ, from the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church. Now when the Patriarch was thus careful to explain himself, so as to assert that the Church of Rome, and that of Constantinople, made but one Church, when he adds what he means by the Catholick Church, viz. the truely General and Apostolical Church; inferr as much from Hormisda's words as you will, I am sure you can do little to your purpose from the Patriarchs, taking them in the sense he explains himself in, by this Protestation. So that the meaning of them is only this, that as he judged the Church of Rome a member of the Catholick Church (whose Vnity required, that those who were out of communion in one Church should be so with the rest) so he consented to acknowledge them justly excommunicated whom the Church of Rome would have to be so. So that hence nothing ariseth to your purpose, more then will equal∣ly advance the authority of any other particular Church; whose excom∣munications did oblige the whole Church, as we have seen already in the case of Sinope and Ptolemais.

You proceed to another Testimony of St. Austin addressing himself to the Donatists, telling them,* 1.51 That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not, thereby insinuating,* 1.52 that the very suc∣cession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catho∣lick Church. But from whence doth it appear that the succession of the Roman Bishops is the Rock here spoken of? For St. Austin was there arguing against the Donatists and shewing them the danger of being separated from the unity of the Catholick Church; that if they were cut off from the vine, they would wither and be in danger to be cast into the fire; and therefore exhorts them, to come and be planted into the vine, it being a grief to them to see them cut off. Now in order to this,* 1.53 he brings in the former words to acquaint them with the way, whereby they might better understand the Catholick Church, which could not in reason be confined to their own age, but must be derived from the Apostles.* 1.54 So that his counsel is of the same nature with that of Tertullian and Irenaeus, who put men upon a diligent search into the successions of

the Apostolical Churches. But now when by this search they have found out the Catholick Church, he tells them, That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overcome. For so elsewhere St. Austin calls the Catho∣lick Church a Rock, as he calls it likewise a House, and a City, in several places of these disputations against the Donatists. As here before he calls it the Vine,* 1.55 from whence all who are cut off wither and dye: But what is all this to the particular Church of Rome; which none of the Disputes with the Donatists at all concerned? As is fully manifest from the whole management of that Controversie; in which though he was so much put upon shewing what and where the Catholick Church was, yet he never once expressed any such thing, as that the Church was called Catholick from any relation to the Church of Rome, but still mentions it as a particular Church, which with other Churches made up one Catholick Church. So in his Commen∣taries on the 44. Psalm:* 1.56 Behold Rome, saith he, be∣hold Carthage, behold several other Cities; these are Kings daughters and have delighted the King in his honour, but they all make up but one Queen. How incongruous had this expression been, had St. Austin believed the Roman Church to be so much above all others, that the ground why any others were called Catholick, was from their union with her; and therefore he must according to your principles have saluted the Church of Rome as the Queen of all the rest, and made other particular Churches but as her daugh∣ters and hand-maids. But St. Austin knew of no such difference, but looked on all particular Churches, whether at Rome, Carthage, or else∣where, as making up but one Catholick Church. And to the same purpose he frequently speaks, when he sayes, That the Church is call'd One in regard of her Vnity,* 1.57 and Many in re∣gard from the several Societies of Christians abroad in the world; When he calls the several Churches, members of that one Church which is spread all over the world, without setting any note of discrimination upon one above all the rest;* 1.58 When he reckons the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, Ephesian Churches to∣gether, and that all these and the Churches propa∣gated from them, do conspire in one Vniversal Church. But the places are so many to this purpose in him, that it would look too much like ostentati∣on to offer to prove a matter so evident to all that read any thing in him. And is it possible then for you to think That St. Austin made the succession of Bishops at Rome in any sense the Catholick Church? You might as well say, that he made the Church spread all over the world a particular Church, as that he made any particular Church whe∣ther at Rome or elsewhere (for he makes no difference) to be in any sense the Vniversal Church.

But that which you seem to lay the greatest force on, is the testimony of Optatus Milevitanus,* 1.59 Who, say you, after he had said that St. Peter was head of all the Apostles;* 1.60 and that he would have been a Schismatick, who should have erected another chair against that singular one of St. Peter, as also that in that chair of St. Peter being but one, Vnity was to be kept by all; he adds that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion, with

whom the whole world (saith he, meaning the whole Catholick Church) agrees by communicatory letters in one Society of communion; See here (say you) how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church; which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism, and further proves him∣self to be in the Catholick Church, because he was in communion with the See of St. Peter. For our better understanding the meaning of these words of Optatus, we must consider the state of the Controversie between Optatus and Parmenianus, by which it will appear, how very little these words of his make to your purpose. The main question between the Catholicks and the Donatists was, about the Catholick Church, To whom it was that title did belong. The difficulty seemed the greater, because there was no difference between them in any matter of Faith, or in the substance of the Sacraments, and therefore they were fain to find out other means to de∣cide this Controversie, than by either of those two. For which the Ca∣tholicks made choice of these two arguments Vniversality and Succession, the former as agreeing with that large spread of the Church which was Prophesied to be in the times of the Gospel, whereas the Donatists con∣fined the Church to a Corner in Africa: the latter in regard of the neces∣sity of deriving themselves from the Apostolical Churches. Now the Do∣natists denying any but themselves to be the Catholick Church, the proof lay on their Adversaries part, who upon all occasions offer to make it good, That the Church from which the Donatists separated themselves, was the only true and Catholick Church. Accordingly Optatus having in the first book discussed the matters of fact about the rise of the Schism, the ordi∣nations of Cecilian and Majorinus, and the proceedings used for the end∣ing the Schism, in this second Book he enters on the Controversie of the Church which Parmenianus would have to be only among themselves; against which he urgeth first, that then certainly the Church could not be called Catholick, because it was so called from its large comprehension and universal spread.* 1.61 Had Opta∣tus believed, the ground of the Churches being Catho∣lick had been its union with the Church of Rome, he would never have given that account of its being called so, which here he doth. After which he produceth many places of Scripture to prove the large extent of the Church, and concludes, That to be the Catholick Church which was diffused over all the world, than which nothing can be more contrary to your pretensions, who limit and confine the Catholick Church to your own party as the Donatists did. And if those arguments then used against the Donatists had any force against them, they have still as much against you, who exclude so great and considerable Churches from being members of the Catholick Church because not of your communion. From hence Optatus proceeds to examine, Which had the better title to be the Catholick Church on the account of Succession; and Parmenianus reckoning the Cathedra in the first of the dotes Ecclesiae, Optatus begins with that by which is understood the lawful derivation of power for governing the Church, so Albaspinaeus, (as well as others) understands it. Now the Controversie was, where this Cathedra was. Optatus proves,* 1.62 there can be no lawful power but what is derived from the Apostles, and therefore where the succession is plain and uninterrupted, there and no where else can that Cathedra be. Which Episcopal chair being first placed at Rome by St. Peter, in which he as chief of the Apostles sate, from whence he had his

name Cephas; in which one chair Vnity should be kept by all; lest the other Apostles should set up others against it; so that he must be a schismatick and offender,* 1.63 who should place another chair against that. Therefore in this one chair St. Pe∣ter sate first, to whom succeeded Linus, to him Clemens and so on to Syricius who joyns with us, with whom the whole world communicates by the entercourse of formed letters. Do you now give an account of your chair, who challenge to your selves the name of the Holy Church. To pass by that ridiculous account of the name Ce∣phas, which Baldwin supposes to be inserted into the text from some ignorant gloss made in the margin, the main thing to be considered, is the scope and design of these words; in which he doth two things, 1. He shews the evident succession of the Catholick Bishops from St. Peter in the Church of Rome, which he doth by a distinct and particular enumera∣tion of them. 2. From thence shews the unlawfulness of setting up an∣other chair in opposition to that, i. e. pretending to another right of Government then what was conveyed down from the Apostles; or setting up another chair in opposition to that of St. Peter at Rome, i. e. that suc∣cession of Bishops which was derived from him. Now, saith he, God pro∣viding for the unity of the Church, intended there should be but one chair in a place, i. e. that the several Apostles should not in the same place set up a distinct Cathedra or succession of Church-Governours, and therefore though St. Paul as well as St. Peter were instrumental in the settling the Church of Rome, yet, that the Churches Vnity might be preserved, there were not two distinct series of Bishops, the one deriving from St. Peter and the other from St. Paul. So that Optatus his saying is much of the same nature with that of Cyprian in the case of the Schism about Cornelius and Novatianus, who urgeth that most, That there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church, now the Bishop and his Cathedra are correlates to each other. Optatus therefore saying that there was but one Cathedra at Rome, puts the Donatist's upon this issue, that if they could not deduce their succession from St. Peter at Rome, they could have no pretence to the Cathedra there. And therefore challengeth them to deduce the succession of their Bishops there, as at large appears in his following discourse. Which could be no higher then of Macrobius from Encolpius, Encolpius from Bonifacius Balli∣tanus, as he from Victor Garbiensis, who was sent over on purpose from the Donatists in Africk to make a faction and a party at Rome,* 1.64 among the African Inhabitants there. Now this being the utmost suc∣cession, they could pretend to, and that being in opposition to that successi∣on which was derived from St. Peter, nothing could be more plain then that at Rome (about which the Contest was) the Cathedra could not be∣long to the Donatists but their Adversaries; and therefore that being by Parmenianus acknowledged one of the dowries of the Catholick Church, the title of that could not belong to the Donatists but their opposers. This therefore doth not at all concern Romes being causally the Catholick Church, but is only produced as a particular Church for a known instance whereby to decide this particular Controversie of succession. For otherwise the argument would have held as well for any other Apostolical Church where

the succession was clear: And therefore afterwards he makes the commu∣nion with the seven Churches as plain an argument of communion with the Catholick,* 1.65 as he doth here of the Church of Rome. You may therefore every jot as well make the seven Churches of Asia, to be causally the Catholick Church, as the Church of Rome. And to the same purpose he instanceth in the Corinthian, Thessalonian, Galatian Churches, as he doth in that of Rome, or the seven Churches.* 1.66 We see then, Optatus his design was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated, was the true Catholick Church, which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches, which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters. And be∣cause of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome, and the easier knowing the succession there, he instanceth in that in the first place, and then proceeds to the rest of them. But withall, to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches, when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome, he adds, That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters; not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others, but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome, was of the Catholick Church, because the whole Christian world, did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there. And when he speaks of one chair, it is plain, he means it of the particular Church of Rome, be∣cause every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it. So Tertullian expresly, That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining.* 1.67 And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem, as others do that of Mark at Alexan∣dria, and of the rest elsewhere. Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome, but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church, and how much that is, let the Reader judge: And how much soever it be, it will be very little for your advantage, who pretend to something pecu∣liar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches.

From Optatus you proceed, or rather return to S. Hierom, who, (say you) professes the Church is built upon S. Peter's See,* 1.68 * 1.69 and that whoever eats the Lamb, that is, pretends to believe in Christ, and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house, that is,* 1.70 out of the communion of that Church, is prophane, and an Alien; yea, that he belongs to Antichrist, and not to Christ, whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter. This Testimony sounds big and high at first, and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat, or his flattery, although it looks the more suspicious, because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops, and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus. But, setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account, to weaken the force of this Testimony, if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions, we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for. We must therefore consider, that at the time of the writing this Epistle, S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch, concerning Paulinus, Vi∣talis,

and Miletius; but besides this Schism, it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them; from their demand∣ing of him, Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Tri∣nity.* 1.71 Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence, as many of the Greek Fathers did; and thence the Sardian Council defined, That there was but one hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore he suspects, that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases, they might design to entrap him, and unawares betray him into Arria∣nism. And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle, that hypostasis properly signifies essence, and nothing else; and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admit∣ting the terms of three hypostases.* 1.72 Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops, he keeps off from communion with them, and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors, and follows them at present; but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome, and being looked on as a Roman where he was, he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus,* 1.73 to know what he should do in this case. And the rather, because if S. Hierom had consented with them, they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agree∣ment of the Roman Church with them. Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it, as being originally part of his charge, having been baptized in that Church.

But (say you) whatever the occasion of the words were, Is it not plain, that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See, and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church, is an Alien, and belongs to Antichrist? To that therefore I answer, 1. That he doth not say, that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome: for it is not, super hanc Petram, as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding; but, super illam, and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some, that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And, although Erasmus doth imagine, that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place (which is not the thing we contend about) yet withall he sayes, that by the Rock we must not understand Rome; for that may degenerate, but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed.* 1.74 And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius, to tell him, he lyes, as he doth here in plain terms, than to be able to confute what he saith. And that the rather, because he begins his discourse in that manner, Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, whereby he attributes the supreme power, and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For, as for your learned correction of praemium for primum, though you follow Cardinal Perron in it, yet it is without any probability at all, it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus, Vi∣ctorius, Gravius, Possevin, and others; and hath no authority to vouch it, but only Gratian, who is condemned by your own Writers, for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours.

2. I answer, when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane, who are out of the communion of the Church; either it belongs not to the par∣ticular Church of Rome, or, if it doth, it makes not much for your pur∣pose. 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome, but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church;

for it is plain, he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock, now by your own confession, that cannot be the Church of Rome, for that you suppose to be the Rock, it self, viz. the See of Peter, and therefore the Church built upon it, must be the Vniversal Church. And that this must be his meaning, appears from his plain words, for, he saith, Vpon that Rock the Church is built, and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house, is prophane;—he cannot certainly mean, Whosoever eats without the Rock, but without the house built upon it; so that the house in the latter clause must needs be the same with that which was built on the Rock in the former. Either therefore you must deny the See of Peter to be the Rock, or you must of necessity assert the house built upon it to be the Vniversal Church, and not the particular one of Rome; and consequently the danger lyes not upon mens not being in communion with the Roman, but with the truly Catholick Church. And how from hence you will inferr, That they are pro∣phane who are out of the Roman Church; it would be worth our while to un∣derstand. 2. Suppose I should grant, that S. Hierom did mean the particu∣lar Church of Rome, yet I am not satisfied, that this comes home to your purpose, unless you could prove, that S. Hierom spake of what was neces∣sarily and unalterably to be in the Church of Rome, and not meerly of what was in that time, when he spake these words. But that is your perpe∣tual Paralogism in the citations of the Fathers, in praise of the Church of Rome, what they spake, and it may be deservedly of the Church of their own time (although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks) that you will needs have to be understood of the same Church at all times, and in our present age. As though it were not pos∣sible for a Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrine in one age, and to decline as much from it in another. But I need give no other instance in this case, than S. Hierom himself, for if we believe S. Hierom in his Catalogue, the two immediate predecessors of Damasus, in the See of Rome, Liberius, and Felix were tainted with Heresie; and that very Heresie,* 1.75 viz. Arrianism, which S. Hierom writes to Damasus about now. I pray, tell us then, Whether if S. Hierom had lived in Liberius his time, would he have writ to him after the same rate he now writes to Damasus; if he had been of the same mind then, he would have been so farr from scrupling the three hypostases, that he must have subscribed the Arrian confession, as S. Hierom tells us, Liberius did, through the instigation of Fortunatianus. And therefore to let us see, on what account he was now so liberal in his commendations of the Church of Rome, he begins this Epistle with the praise of her present orthodoxness in the Catholick Faith, And that amongst all the divisions and breaches of the Eastern Churches they pre∣served the Faith of their Fore-fathers entire.* 1.76 That now the Sun of Righteousness rises in the West; but that Lu∣cifer, who fell, now reigns in the East; with many ex∣pressions to the same purpose. Which supposition being granted true at that time, that which follows inferrs very little to your purpose, unless you can prove, that what was so then, must necessarily continue so in all ages. If the East was then cor∣rupted, and the West only sound, what praises belonged to the Catholick Church in general, did of right devolve to that part which remained sound in the opinion of those persons who judged so. You would needs there∣fore from hence have your Church accounted Catholick now, by the same argument that Tully said (of the Roman Lady, who still affirmed, she was

but thirty years of age) that he believed it, for he had heard her say so twenty years before; so must we believe your Church sound and Catholick▪ because it was said so of her so many hundred years since; as though no in∣firmities or wrinkles could have come upon her ever since. Prove your Church to be as sound and orthodox, as pure and holy now, as she was in the primitive Fathers time, and we will not grudge her the highest of those commendations which were given her by them. But, without doing this, your Testimonies come to nothing. The same Answer will serve the re∣maining Testimonies of Eulalius, and the Emperour Gratian, who only spake of the communion of the Church of Rome, as it was then: That of Ful∣gentius stiling the Roman Church, The top of the world, only imports the eminency of it, in regard of the power of that City it was in, and so is wide enough from your purpose. Thus we have considered all that you have produced out of Antiquity, to prove that the Church is called Catho∣lick, with a particular relation to, and dependence of the Church of Rome; and can find nothing at all belonging to her, as the center of Catholicism, but that those things which are said of her, and communion with her, in relation to being called Catholick, might as well have agreed with any other Apostolical Church remaining sound in the Catholick Faith.

* 1.77Hence it appears, that what his Lordship is pleased to term, a perfect Jesuitism, viz. the measuring the Catholick Church, by that of Rome, is really nothing else, and that the perfect mistake belongs to you, who assert, that it was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church. Your vindica∣tion of the propriety of your Churches being called the Roman Catholick Church, from the Roman Empire, and the Jewish Church would then signi∣fie something, when you have proved that the Pope hath as much the Go∣vernment of the Church, as the Roman-Emperour had of all the Provinces within the confines of the Empire, or that we are all bound as much to resort to Rome, as the Jews were to Jerusalem for the solemn worship of God. In the mean time the absurdity is never the less for being vulgar, in calling yours, The Roman Catholick Church. And yet, as though you had been only demonstrating these things, you tell us very magisterially, The truth is, in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine, recourse is to be had to S. Peter's successor, who (at least with a General Council) can infallibly re∣solve all difficulties. An excellent way of proving, to say, The truth is! Might not I as well say, The truth is, the Pope neither in Council, nor out of it hath any Infallibility at all? And would not this be full as good an Answer as yours is an Argument? but the very truth is, you had rather have these things believed, than go about to prove them; least the weakness of the arguments should lay too much open your fond pretence of Infallibility. Before you prove, That the Pope can carry his Infallibility out of Rome with him, shew us that he hath it there. I grant S. Peter had been infallible, though he had never been at Rome; and it is far from being clear, that the Pope is at all the more infallible for his being there. How far you have been from proving, That the Faith of every particular Church is to be examined and proved to be Catholick by its conformity to the Faith of the Roman Church, may abundantly appear from the preceding discourse. Those Questions, which you say, make nothing to your purpose concerning the Popes transfer∣ring his chair at Rome, and the Roman Clergies deserting him and the true Faith: I shall so far believe you in, as to ease my self of the trouble of con∣sidering them any further than hath been done already in the very en∣trance into this Conference.

And here, you tell us, You now come to perform your Promise,* 1.78 viz. to ex∣amine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions (as you call them) of Bel∣larmine's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. But for all your boasting at first, what great things you would do, you seem a little fearful of engaging too far, and therefore are resolved only to main∣tain them in general, as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church, or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council. But, as far as you dare go, I shall attend your motions, and doubt not to make it evi∣dent, that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense, which you only offer to maintain them in, and that though they had, yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them.

The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be;* 1.79 In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices,* 1.80 that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage, they sail to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise, and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons, not considering that the Romans (whose Faith was commended by the Apostle) were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access. Now the mean∣ing of this place you would have to be this, and no other, viz. that the See of S. Peter, which is the principal of all Churches, was so infallibly di∣rected by the Holy Ghost, that no errour in Faith could have access to it, or be admitted by it▪ if not as a particular Church,* 1.81 yet at least as the Head of the Vni∣versal Church of Christ, and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity; which S. Cy∣prian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be. This you summe up at last, as the most which can be made of this Testimony; and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to. Which will ap∣pear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship. Three things his Lordship answers to this place.* 1.82 1. That per∣fidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith; and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility. 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine, yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely, but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle. 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation, than a dogmatical assertion. And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility, appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome. This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place, to which we must consider what you reply. 1. His Lordship sayes, That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief, but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action, not error in Faith, but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church. And to make this interpretation appear the more proba∣ble, his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle, which is this, as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius; In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks, Felicissimus and Novatian, about restoring of them to the communion of the Church, which had lapsed in time of danger from Chri∣stianity to Idolatry. Felicissimus would admit all even without penance, and Novatian would admit none, no not after penance. The Fathers 42 in number went, as Truth led them, between both extreams. To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick, but was not admitted because he was former∣ly

excommunicated, and often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his Complices together, and chooses one Fortunatus (who was formerly condemned as well as himself) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against St. Cyprian. This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party, and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them: and their de∣sire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new Bishop acknowledged. Cornelius then Pope, though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters, having formerly heard from him, both of them, and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them, nor receive their letters. They grew insolent and furious (the ordinary way that Schismaticks take). Vpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian▪ and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks, for refusing these African fugitives, declares their Schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline, and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks. This being the story, his Lordship sayes, He would fain know why perfidia (all circumstances considered) may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks? This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give, why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mention∣ed. Why calls he (say you) St. Peters chair, Ecclesiam principalem (the chief Church) but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be sub∣ordinate in matter of doctrine?* 1.83 the words following signifie as much, Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain, unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived. Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith? Is it forsooth, because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them, as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place? or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick? Certain it is perfidia in this sense, is dia∣metrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle (which was true Christian Faith) and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary, viz. misbelief or errour in Faith. Three Arguments in these words you produce, why perfidia must be un∣derstood of errour in Faith. 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church; but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense, but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine? Is it not suffi∣ciently clear from Antiquity, that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church, as the eminency of it joyned with the power of the City (the potentior principalitas in Irenaeus) which advanced its reputation to the height it was then at? What matters of doctrine do you find brought to the Church of Rome to be Infallibly decid∣ed there in St. Cyprians time? how little did St. Cyprian believe this, when he so vehemently opposed the judgement of Stephen Bishop of Rome in the case of rebaptization? Doth he write, speak, or carry himself in that Controversie like one that owned that Church of Rome to be head of all other Churches, to which they must be subordinate in matter of doctrine? Nay in the very next words St. Cyprian argues against appeals to Rome, and is it possible then to think, that in these words he should give such an absolute power and authority to it? And therefore any one who would reconcile

St. Cyprian to himself must by those words of Ecclesia principalis only un∣derstand the dignity and eminency, and not the power, much less the Infalli∣bility of the Church of Rome. And no more is implyed in the Second, That it is said to be the fountain of Sacerdotal Vnity, which some think may probably referr to the Priesthood of the Church of Africk, which had its rise from the Church of Rome, as appears by Tertullian and others,* 1.84 in which sense he might very well say, that the Vnity of the Priesthood did spring from thence; or if it be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense it can import no more then that the Church of Rome was owned as the Principium Vnitatis, which certainly is a very different thing from an infallible judge∣ment in matters of Faith. For what connexion is there between Vnity in Government, and Infallibility in Faith? Suppose the Church of Rome should be owned as the principal Member of the Catholick Church, and therefore that the Vnity of the Church should begin there in regard of the dignity of it, doth it thence follow that there must be an absolute subordi∣nation of all other Churches to it? Nothing then can be inferr'd from either of those particulars, that by perfidia, errour in Faith must be under∣stood, taking those two expressions in the most favourable sense that can be put upon them. But considering the present state of the Church of Rome at the time when Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither, I am apt to think another interpretation more probable than either of the foregoing. For which we must remember that there was a Schism at Rome between Novatianus and Cornelius, the former challenging to be Bishop there, as well as the latter, upon which a great breach was made among them. Now these persons going out of Africa to Rome, that they might manage their business with the more advantage, address themselves to Cornelius and his party; upon which St. Cyprian saith, Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde Vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est, thereby expressing their confidence that they not only went to Rome, but when they were there, they did not presently side with the Schismatical party of the Novatians there, but as though they had been true Catholicks, they go to Cornelius, who, being the legal successour of St. Peter in opposition to Novatianus, calls his See the chair of St. Peter, and the principal Church, and the spring of the Vnity of the Priesthood; because the contrary party of Novatianus had been the cause of all the Schism and disunion which had been among them. And in this sense which seems very agreeable to St. Cyprians words and design, we may easily understand what this perfidia was, viz. that falseness and perfidious dealing of these persons, that al∣though they were Schismaticks themselves, yet they were so farr from seeming so at their coming to Rome, that as though they had been very good Catholicks, they seek to joyn in communion with Cornelius and the Catholick party with him. By which we see what little probability there is from those expressions that perfidia must be taken, for an errour in Faith. But, 3. You say, To what purpose else doth he mention St. Pauls commenda∣tion of their Faith, if this perfidia were not immediately opposite to it? But then inform us what part of that Apostolical Faith was it, which Felicissi∣mus and Fortunatus sought to violate at Rome? It is apparent their whole design was to be admitted into communion with the Church of Rome (which in all probability is that access here spoken of): if therefore this perfidia imported some errour in Faith, it must be some errour broached by those particular persons as contrary to the old Roman Faith which was extold by the Apostle. And although these persons might be guilty of

errours, yet the ground of their going to Rome, was not upon any matter of Doctrine, whereby they sought to corrupt the Church of Rome, but in or∣der to the justifying of their Schism, by being admitted into the commu∣nion of that Church. Notwithstanding then any thing you have pro∣duced to the contrary, there is no necessity of understanding perfidia, for an errour in matter of Faith. And St. Cyprians mentioning the praise given to the Romans for their Faith by the Apostle, was not to shew the opposi∣tion between that and the perfidia as an errour in Faith, but that being the greatest Elogium of the Church of Rome extant in Scripture, he thought it now most convenient to use it, the better to engage Cornelius to oppose the proceedings of the Schismaticks there. Although withall, I suppose St. Cyprian might give him some taste of his old office, of a Rhetorician in the allusion between fides and perfidia, without ever intending that perfi∣dia should be taken in any other sense then what was proper to the cause in hand.

You having effected so little in the solution of his Lordships first an∣swer, you have little cause to boast in your following words, That hence his other explication also vanishes into smoak,* 1.85 viz. when he asserts that Per∣fidia non potest may be taken hyperbolically for non facile potest; because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogiums given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church, as being the principal Church, the Church whence Vnity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches. If you in∣deed may have the liberty to interpret St. Cyprians words as you please, by adding such things to them, of which there is no intimation in what he saith, you may make what you please unsuitable to them. For although he calls it the principal Church, from whence the Vnity of the Priesthood is sprung; yet what is this to the Vnity of Faith and Discipline as derived from thence to all other Churches, as you would perswade the unwary reader that these were St. Cyprians words, which are only your groundless in∣terpretation of them. And therefore there is no such improbability in what his Lordship sayes, That this may be only a Rhetorical excess of speech, in which St. Cyprian may laudando praecipere, by commending them to be such, instruct them that such indeed they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get access. And for this he instanceth in such another Rhetorical expression of Synesius to Theophilus of Alexandria, wherein he tells him that he ought to esteem what his Throne should determine as an Oracle or Divine Law.* 1.86 And certainly this comes nearer Infallibility than that of St. Cyprian doth. But what inconveniency there should be, that St. Cyprian by this interpretation should give no more prerogative to the Church of Rome, than to that of Alexandria or Antioch, I cannot easily imagine, till you prove some greater Infallibility attributed then to the Church of Rome, than was to other Apostolical Churches: which as yet we are to seek for.

But at length (you tell us) after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for errour in Faith,* 1.87 or for perfidious misbelievers and Schismaticks, who had betrayed their Faith; but then (say you) he cavils with the word Romanos. This must be limited only to those Christians, who then lived in Rome, to whom quà tales, as long as they continued such, errour in Faith could not have access. What you say, his Lordship, doth at length and after much ado, he did free∣ly and willingly; but that you might have occasion for those words, you altered the course of his answers, and put the second in the last place. But still you have the unhappiness to misunderstand him. For although he

grants that perfidia may relate to errour in Faith, yet as it is here used, it is not understood of it abstractly but concretely, for perfidious misbelievers, i. e. such perfidious persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their commu∣nion. And in this sense, it is plain that St. Cyprian did not intend by these words, to exempt the Romans from possibility of errour, but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, i. e. such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith. When you therefore ask, is not this great praise? I suppose none but your self would make a questi∣on of it, viz. that the Church of Rome had then so great purity as not to admit such perfidious misbelievers into her communion. And it were well if the present Church of Rome were capable of the same praise. But when you add, It is as if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters See could not erre so long as it continued constant in the truth; you wilfully misunderstand his Lordships meaning, who speaks of the persons and not meerly of their errours; but however, is it not a commendation to say that the Church of Rome consisted of such persons then who adhered to the Apostolical Faith, and therefore errour could not have access to them? And I look on it as so great a commendation, that I heartily wish it could be verified of your Church now. Neither is this any such Identical proposition as that you produce, but only a declaration of their present constancy, and inferring thence, how unlikely it was that errours should be admitted by them. His Lordship to make it plain that St. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome, insists on the contest which after happened between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen; upon which he saith expresly, That Pope Stephen did not only maintain an errour but the very cause of Hereticks,* 1.88 and that against Christians and the very Church of God. And after this he chargeth him, with obstinacy and presumption; And I hope this is plain enough (saith his Lordship) to shew that St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman In∣fallibility. To this you answer,* 1.89 With a famous distinction of the Popes erring as a private Doctor and as the Vniversal Pastor, and that St. Cyprian might very well be supposed to think the Pope erred only in the first sense. Not to spend time in rifling this distinction of the Popes erring personally, but not judicially, or as a private Doctor, but not as Vniversal Pastor, which it were an easie matter to do, by manifesting the incongruity of it, and the ab∣surdities consequent upon it, in case that doctrine which the Pope erres in, comes to be judicially decided by him; It is sufficient for us at present to shew that this distinction cannot relieve you in our present case. For your Doctors tell us, the Pope then erres personally and as a private Doctor, when he erres only in his own judgement without obliging others to believe, what he judges to be true; but then he erres judicially and as Vniversal Pastor, when he declares his judgement so as to oblige others to receive it as true. Now can any thing be more evident then that St. Cyprian judged Pope Stephen to erre in this latter and not in the former sense? For doth he not absolutely and severely declare himself against St. Cyprians opini∣on: condemning it as an errour and an innovation? But say you, He did not properly define any doctrine in that contestation; but said nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum. But was not that the question what was traditum and what not, for Cyprian and his party denyed it to be a tradition, which Stephen asserted was so; and doth he not therefore undertake to define

something in this cause? But say you, If this argument hold good against the Infallibility of Popes, viz. that St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith, it will be a good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, even whilst he maintained an universal immemorial tradition—therefore the Pope may erre whilst he follows such a tradition. I answer, 1. Who besides you, would not have seen, that the question was not, Whether the Pope was Infallible or no, but whether St. Cyprian judged him to be Infallible or no? for if it appear that St. Cyprian did not judge him Infallible, then those former words cannot be interpreted to such a sense as doth imply Infallibility. 2. No doubt if the Pope may err in other things, he may err when he thinks he follows an universal immemorial tradition; not that he doth err, when he doth really follow such a one, but he may err in judging that to be an universal immemorial tradition which is not: and this was the case be∣tween St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen; the Pope pretended to follow an uni∣versal tradition, St. Cyprian judgeth him to err in it, and that it was not so. And is it not plain still, notwithstanding these frivolous pretences, that St. Cyprian had no opinion at all of the Popes Infallibility in any sense: and therefore out of honour to him, you are bound to interpret his former words to some other sense then that of any Infallibility in the Church of Rome. Thus all his Lordships answers standing good, you have gained no great matter by this first testimony of St. Cyprian.

The second Authority is out of St. Hierome whose words are, The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle, admits not such praestigiae,* 1.90 deceits and delusions into it, though an Angel should Preach it otherwise, than it was Preached at first, being armed and fenced by St. Pauls Authority it cannot be changed. Here you tell us, You willing∣ly agree with his Lordship that by Romanam fidem, St. Hierom understands the Catholick Faith of Christ, and so you concur with him against Bellarmine, that it cannot be understood of the particular Church of Rome. But by the way you charge your Adversaries, with great inconsequence that in this place they make Roman and Catholick to be the same, and yet usually condemn you for joyning as Synonyma's Roman and Ca∣tholick together. A wonderful want of judgement! as though the Roman Faith might not be the Catholick Faith then, and yet the Catholick Faith not be the Roman Faith now. The former speech only affirms that the Faith at Rome was truly Catholick; the latter implyes that no Faith can be Catholick but what agrees with Rome: and think you there is no differ∣ence between these two? But you say further, That this Catholick Faith must not here be taken abstractly that so it cannot be changed, for Ruffinus was not ignorant of that,* 1.91 but that it must be understood of the immutable Faith of the See Apostolick, so highly commended by the Apostle and St. Hierom; which is founded upon such a rock, that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it. But St. Hierom speaking this with a reference to that Faith he supposeth the Apostle commended in them (although the Apostle doth not so much commend the Catholickness or soundness of their Faith as the act of believing in them, and therefore whatever is drawn from thence, whether by St. Hierome or any else can have no force in it; for if he should infe•• the immutability of the Faith of the Church of Rome from so apparently weak a foundation, there can be no greater strength in his testimony than there is in the ground on which it is built; and if there be any force in

this Argument, the Church of Thessalonica will be as Infallible as Rome, for her Faith is commended rather in a more ample manner by the Apostle then that of Rome is) St. Hierome, I say,* 1.92 referring to that Faith he sup∣poses the Apostle commended in them, must only be understood of the unchangeableness of that first Faith, which appears by the mention of an Angel from Heaven Preaching otherwise. Which certainly cannot with any tolerable sense be meant thus, that St. Hierome supposed it beyond the power of an Angel from Heaven to alter the Faith of the Roman Church. For in the very same Apology he expresseth his great fears, lest the Faith of the Romans should be corrupted by the Books of Ruffinus. But, say you, What is this then to Ruffinus, who knew, as well as St. Hierom, that Faith could not change its essence? However, though St. Hierome should here speak of the Primitive and Apostolical Faith which was then received at Rome, that this could receive no alteration; yet this was very pertinent to be told Ruffinus, because St. Hierome charges him with an endeavour to subvert the Faith not meerly at Rome, but in all other places, by publishing the Books of Origen with an Encomiastick Preface to them; and therefore the telling him, The Catholick Faith would admit of no alteration, which was received at Rome as elsewhere, might be an Argument to discourage him from any attempts of that nature. And the main charge against Ruffinus, is not an endeavour to subvert meerly the people of Rome,* 1.93 but the Latin Church by his translati∣on; and therefore these words ought to be taken in their greatest latitude; and so imply not at all any Infallibility in the Roman See.

The remaining Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzene, Cyril, and Ruffinus,* 1.94 (as appears to any one who reads them) only import that the Roman Church had to their time preserved the Catholick Faith; but they do not assert it impossible it should ever do otherwise; or that she is an Infalli∣ble preserver of it, and none of their Testimonies are so proper to the Church of Rome, but they would equally hold for any other Apostolical Churches at that time. Gregory Nazianzene indeed sayes, That it would become the Church of Rome to hold the entire Faith alwayes: and would it not become any other Church to do so to? doth this import that she shall Infallibly do it, or rather that it is her duty to do it? And if these then be such pregnant Authorities with you, it is a sign there is little or nothing to be found in Antiquity for your purpose.

But before we end this Chapter,* 1.95 we are called to a new task on occasion of a Testimony of St. Cyril produced by his Lordship in stead of that in Bellarmin which appeared not in that Chapter, where his Name is men∣tioned. In which he asserts, That the foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in or upon the person, much less the Suc∣cessour of St. Peter; but upon the Faith which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmly professed:* 1.96 which (saith his Lordship) is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and of the Protestants. Vpon this Rock, that is, upon this Faith will I build my Church. On which occasion you run presently out into that large common place concerning Tu es Petrus, and super hanc Petram; and although I should grant all that you so earnestly contend for, viz. That these words are not spoken of St. Peters Confession,* 1.97 but of his Person, I know no advantage which will accrue to your cause

by it. For although very many of the Fathers understand this place of St. Peters Confession, as containing in it the ground and Foundation of Christian Religion, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God, which there∣fore may well be said to be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church, and although it were no matter of difficulty to defend this inter∣pretation from all exceptions; yet because I think it not improbable (the words running by way of address to St. Peter) that something pecu∣liar to him, is contained in them, I shall not contend with you about that. But then, if you say that the meaning of St. Peters being the Rock, is, The constant Infallibility in Faith which was derived from St. Peter to the Church of Rome, as you seem to suggest, you must remember you have a new task to make good, and it is not saying, That St. Peter was meant by the Rock, will come within some leagues of doing it. I pass therefore by that discourse as a thing we are not much concerned in, for it is brought in by his Lordship as the last thing out of that testimony of Cyril: but you were contented to let go the other more material Observations, that you might more freely expatiate super hanc ••etram. Touching Ruffinus, I grant his Lordship is of opinion, That he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible, for which he gives this reason, For if he had so esteemed of it,* 1.98 he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the Canon of Scripture as he plainly doth: For reckoning up the Canonical Books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible, or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon, than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of Faith, the Canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; and if she be right now, she was wrong then; and if she do not reckon now more then she did, when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her, which doubtless he durst not have done, had he thought her judgement Infallible. Yea and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides, that he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so, and no otherwise, then as he received them out of the Monuments of the fore-Fa∣thers, and out of which the assertions of our Faith are to be taken. Now what have you to say to this strong and nervous Discourse of his Lordship?* 1.99 Why (forsooth) this argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing. And why so? For (say you) though it should be granted that the Catholick Church (the Roman you mean) at present declares more books to be contained in the Canon, than she did in Ruffinus his time, yet this could be no errour in her. That is strange, that the Church should declare the Canon to be compleat then, without these books, and now not to be, and yet neither time be in an errour! No (say you) unless it be shewed (which I am sure cannot be) that she condemned those books then as not Divine Scripture, or not Canonical, which now she declares to be Divine or Canonical. Excellent good still! that which you are sure cannot be shewed, is obvious to any one that hath eyes in his head. For I only ask you, Whether the Church of Rome did declare any Canon or no, in that age? If not, according to your principles those who lived in that age could have no Divine Faith as to the Scripture: if she did declare the Canon of Scripture, without these Books, did she not there∣by condemn these Books to be not Canonical? For you say, that all are bound to take her judgement what is in the Canon and what not; if there∣fore she did not put them into the Canon, did she not leave them out of the Canon? or, Can you find any medium between being put in and being

left out? Yes (say you) these Books were left then under dispute: with whom were they under dispute? with the Church of Rome or not? If with her, was she not Infallible the mean while, when so great a matter as the Canon of Scripture was under dispute with her? But this whole business concern∣ing the Canon of Scripture is largely discussed already; only here it is sufficient to shew, how you are pent in on every side; so that there is no possibility of getting out.

As to the strait (his Lordship takes notice of) that the Church of Rome is driven to, in borrowing a testimony for her Infallibility from one whom she branded with Heresie in that very Book from whence this testimony is taken; You answer, That it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church, which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it. But if they confess it no better then Ruffinus doth, she will have little cause to applaud her self for her Integrity in that respect. And although a Testi∣mony may be taken from persons suspected in some things, yet it argues those have but very few friends, who are fain to make use of their enemies to bear witness for them. What follows concerning a particular Church being Infallible,* 1.100 because you disown it (although not consonantly to the principles of your party as was shewed in the occasion of the Conference) I pass by.

The errours of the Church of Rome (which his Lordship mentions, but you say proves not) you shall find abundantly proved before our task is over.

Your vindication of Bellarmin from inconsistency in saying A proposition is most true, and yet but peradventure as true as another, is so fine and subtil that it were an injury to the Reader to deprive him of the pleasure of perusing it. And yet when all is done, a Proposition very false might be as true as this which Bellarmin speaks of, viz. That the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre.

And thus I have cleared that there can be no ground of an imputation of Schism on our Church from hence, that the Roman Church is the Catho∣lick Church, which acception of the Catholick Church I have manifested to be as great a stranger to Antiquity as it is an enemy to Reason: And that the calling the Roman Church the Catholick Church, is (as his Lordship truly saith) a meer Novelty and perfect Jesuitism.

CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks.

Schism a culpable separation; therefore the Question of Schism, must be deter∣mined by enquiring into the causes of it. The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church, considered. No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her. An account why the originals of errours seem obscure. By Stapleton's confession, the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same. The falsity of that assertion manifested, That there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times, if the Roman Church were corrupt. No one particular Church free from corruptions; yet no sepa∣ration from the Catholick Church. How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre. Men may have distinct communion from any one particular Church, yet not separate from the Catholick Church. The Testimony of Pe∣trus de Alliaco vindicated. Bellarmin not mis-cited. Almain full to his Lordships purpose. The Romanists guilty of the present Schism, and not Protestants. In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism; and how far that concerns our case. Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome, but were thrust out of it. The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism, at last depends upon the two false Principles, Of her In∣fallibility, and being the Catholick Church. The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S. Austin not to the purpose. The Catalogue of Fundamentals, the Churches not erring, &c. referr'd back to their proper places.

* 1.101BEfore I come to examine the particulars of this Chapter, it will be ne∣cessary to see, what the state of the Controversie was, concerning Schism, between his Lordship and his Adversary. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these words;* 1.102 Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable rent in the Church, and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it; nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity, might he have it with Truth. But, I never said, nor thought, that the Protestants made this rent. The cause of the Schism is yours; for you thrust us from you, because we call'd for truth, and redress of abuses. For a Schism must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it is. The woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence; not against him that takes it ever. And in the Mar∣gent, shewing that a separation may sometimes be necessary, he instanceth in the orthodox departing from the communion of the Arrians: upon which he sayes; It cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism. There may be therefore a necessary separation, which yet incurrs not the guilt of Schism; and that is, when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholick Faith. And after saith, The Protestants did not depart: for, departure is voluntary,* 1.103 so was not theirs; I say not theirs, taking their whole body and cause together. For, that some among them were peevish, and some ignorantly zea∣lous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it. Your body is not so perfect (I wot well) but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of ours. You must not suffer for these, nor we for those,* 1.104 nor should the Church of Christ for either. And when A. C. saith, That though the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her by excommu∣nication, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teach∣ing Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith. His Lordship answers, So then

in his Opinion, Excommunication on their part was not the prime cause of this division, but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions. Why but then in my opinion (saith he) that holding and teaching was not the prime cause nei∣ther, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary: So, the prime cause was theirs still.* 1.105 And A. C. telling him, That he said that it was ill done of those who first made the separation. He answers, That though he remembred not that he said those words; yet withall adds, If I did not say it then, I do say it now; and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, whoere they were, who first made the separation. But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only, but of Causal separation. For (as I said before) the Schism is theirs, whose the cause of it is: and he makes the separation that gives the first just cause of it; not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A. C. cannot deny it, for he sayes it is most true. These passages I have laid together, that the Reader may clearly understand the full state of this great Controversie concerning Schism; the upshot of which, is, that it is agreed between both parties, that all separation from communion with a Church, doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism, but only such a separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it. So that the Question comes to this, Whether your Church were not guilty of such errours and corruptions, as gave sufficient cause for such a separation. The Question being thus stated, we now come to consider how you make good your part in it.

Your first pretence is (if reduced into argument,* 1.106 for you seem to have a particular pique against a close way of disputing) That your Church is a right and orthodox Church, and therefore could never give any just cause of separation from it. For the Lady asked (as A. C. would have it) Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church; not, be not, but, was not; that is, relating to the times, before the breach was made.* 1.107 Now his Lord∣ship tells him, That as to the terms he might take his choice; For the Church of Rome neither is, nor was the right Church, as the Lady desired to hear. A particular Church it is, and was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong: but the right Church, or the Holy Catholick Church, it never was, nor ever can be. And therefore was not such before Luther and others left it, or were thrust from it. A particular Church it was; but then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither. For the Church of Rome, both was, and was not a right or orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it. For the word ante, before, may look upon Rome, and that Church a great way off, or long before; and then in the prime times of it, it was a most right and orthodox Church. But it may look also nearer home, and upon the immediate times before Luther, or some ages before that: and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church, far from being Right. And yet both these times, before Lu∣ther made his breach. And so he concludes that Section with this clause, That the Roman Church which was once right, is now become wrong, by em∣bracing superstition and errour. And what say you now to all this? Two things you have to return in answer to it, or at least to these two all that you say may be reduced. 1. That if the Roman Church was right once, it is so still. 2. That if the Roman Church were wrong before Luther, the Ca∣tholick Church was so too. These two containing all that is said in this case, must be more particularly discussed.

1. That if the Roman was the right Church, it still is so,* 1.108 seeing no change can be shewn in her Doctrine. If there have been a change, let it appear when,

and in what the change was made. Thus you say: but you know his Lord∣ship never granted, that the Roman Church ever was the right Church (in the sense you take those words for the true Catholick Church;) that it was once a right particular Church he acknowledged, and as such was af∣terwards tainted with errours and corruptions. If so, you desire to know what these were, and when they came in; to the former I shall reserve an Answer till I come to the third part of my task, where you shall have an account of them; to the latter, the time when these came in, because this is so much insisted on by your party, I shall return you an Answer in this place. And that I shall do in these following Propositions.

1. Nothing can be more unreasonable, than to deny, that errours and cor∣ruptions have come into a Church, meerly because the punctual time of their coming in cannot be assigned. For, Will any one question the birth of an Infant, because he cannot know the time of his conception? Will any one deny there are tares in the field, because he did not see them sown? and our Saviour hath told us,* 1.109 That the time of sowing tares by the enemy, was, when the men were asleep. So we say, The errours and corruptions of your Church came in, in a time of great Ignorance, when little notice was taken of them, and few records preserved of those times and all the pas∣sages of them. Since Learning and Religion commonly decay and flou∣rish together, How is it possible there should be as exact an account given of the decay of Religion, as of the flourishing of it? Besides, Are there not many things you judge errours and corruptions your selves, which you can give no account when they first entred into the Church? As the necessity of communicating Infants; name us the person who first broached that Doctrine, and the time in which it was first received in the Church? That no souls of men departed, shall see God till the day of resurrection, is, I suppose, with you, an errour; yet it would puzzle you to find out the first Authour of it. So for the rebaptizing Hereticks, and many things of a like nature, it is easier to shew, when they appeared publickly, than when they first came into the Church. And as evident is it, in the decay of the primitive Discipline of the Church, the altering the orders of peni∣tents, and the rites belonging to them, the leaving of the communicatory Letters between Churches, and many other customes of the Church grown into disuse; and yet I suppose you will not presume to name the persons who first altered the former orders of the Church; and methinks, this is as reasonable as the naming the punctual time when other corruptions came in. If you say, the primitive Discipline decayed gradually and in∣sensibly; so say I, that the Churches corruptions came in as the other went out, in the same gradual and insensible manner; and if you cannot name the precise time of the one, it is not reasonable you should expect the other from us.

2. We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errours and corruptions in a Church, though we cannot fix on the time when they came in: Which is, by comparing them with that Rule of Faith which is delivered down by an interrupted tradition to us, and with the practice of the first Ages of the Christian Church. What is apparently contrary to either of these, we have reason to reject, though we cannot determine when it first came in. For as long as these are our certain standards, it matters not who first de∣parted from them, as long as we see that they have departed. But when we own an absolute and infallible Rule of Faith and manners, to question, Whether any thing contrary to it, be an errour or no, because we cannot

tell when it first began, would be, as if the Aegyptians, when they saw their Land overflowed by the Nile, should question, Whether it were so or no, because they could not find out the head of Nilus.

3. They who assert their Doctrines and Practices to be Apostolical, are bound to shew the continued succession of them from the Apostles times. And if they fail in this, upon their own principles, they must be errours and corruptions, though the punctual time of their first obtaining in the Church, cannot be set down. Since therefore you affirm, you are bound to prove. If you say, The judgement of your Church being infallible, you need prove no more than that. I answer, you must prove that this Infallibility then, hath been ever received in the Church; but if there be not the least footstep of it in the records of the ancient Church, we justly look on this as an errour of the first magnitude, though we cannot tell you the minute of its first ri∣sing.

4. We have sufficient evidence from your selves, that many Doctrines and Practices are owned by you, which are of no great antiquity in the Christian Church. Thus, by the confession of Scotus, Transubstantiation is no elder than the Council of Lateran, Purgatory not much heard of in the primitive Church by the acknowledgement of Bishop Fisher, Communion in one kind confessed by most to be contrary to the primitive practice and institution, Prayer in an unknown tongue can be no elder than the general disuse of the Latin tongue in the Roman Provinces. And so for many others, for which we have the confessions of your own party; but I need not insist upon that, since your very Doctrine of the Churches power to declare matters of Faith, may make things necessary in one Age, which were not in a foregoing, and, in that case, sure it is no great difficulty to tell you, when some things of School-points became necessary Doctrines; but then the Question goes off from the time to the matter, Whether any thing declared by your Church can be an errour: but of that, enough hath been said already.

5. There may be a sufficient account given, why the beginnings of errours and corruptions in your Church have been so obscure; because they came not in all of a sudden, but some at one time, some at another, because they rise gradually, as is apparent in Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images, because many of those things which ended in great corruptions, were taken up at first out of good designs, to win more upon the Gentile world, be∣cause many things were at first practised freely, which afterwards were ur∣ged as necessary; because Barbarism came into the Church along with these corruptions; because many who gave occasion to them, were persons of great esteem in their age, and others strove to follow their example more than the Rule; because the state of the Church did very much alter from it self in several ages, which altered mens apprehensions and judgements of things, in regard of their suitableness and necessity; because those persons who brought in, and contended for these things, were the persons chiefly in power then in the Church, which hindered their being cast out of com∣munion as others had been; because a long time most of these errours and corruptions, were but the private opinions and practices of a faction, though then the more prevalent in the Church, and therefore not so vehe∣mently opposed in the first rise of them, as when this imposthumated mat∣ter was grown to a head, and then there was a necessity of lancing it. These, and several other reasons might be given, why the first originals of errours and corruptions in your Church, cannot with so much clearness be manifested, as that they were errours and corruptions: Although such,

who would take the pains to travel in an argument of that nature, might with very great probability, trace the most both of your errours and cor∣ruptions to the time and age, when they were first publickly owned and received. But thus much may here suffice as to your demand, That if your Church be not the same she was, we should mention the time, when the change was made. As though Chronical distempers could not be known, unless we could set down the punctual time of their first on-set. The di∣stempers of your Church are Hectical, I wish not in that respect, that they are seldome fully discovered, till they be incurable.

2. You answer, That if your Church hath erred, the Catholick Church hath done so too;* 1.110 for which you say two things. 1. That in this dispute the Ro∣man Church, and the Catholick Church, are all one. 2. That then there was no one visible Church untainted,* 1.111 uncorrupt, right, orthodox throughout the whole world. 1. You learnedly tell us, That the Roman and Catholick Church are all one in this dispute, and most discreetly tell his Lordship, That he beggs the Question in supposing the contrary; but you know whose arts those are to charge their neighbours with that, they were sure to be told of themselves, if the other had spoke first. But very worthily you prove this, from D. Stapleton, who offers to confirm his assertion by that which overthrows yours. He sayes, That amongst the Ancients, the Roman Church, and the Catholick Church were taken for the same, and his reason is, because the communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholick. And, Can any thing then be more plain, than that the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same? For, Can any thing be the measure of it self? If it were therefore Catholick, be∣cause agreeing with the Catholick Church, then it was not causally the Catholick Church, but only by way of communion and participa∣tion. If I should say, That a man and a living-creature, are the same, and should give this reason for it, Because man agrees in every thing with the nature of a living creature; doth this imply, that the for∣mal notion of man, and a living-creature, are the same? or only that man partakes so much of the properties of a living creature, that he may well receive the denomination? So it is here with the Roman Church, that might well be called Catholick by the Ancients, because it did partake of the properties of the Catholick Church, but not as though the formal Rea∣son of a Churches being Catholick, came from partaking of communion with the Roman Church; as you assert, wherein you are diametrically oppo∣site to Stapleton, for he makes the reason, why the Roman Church was Ca∣tholick, to be, Because it had communion with the Catholick Church. By which it is evident, that the notion of the Catholick Church was much lar∣ger than that of the Roman Church. Besides, Stapleton only saith, That the Ancients thought so, and surely they thought so only of the Roman Church of their own time; which might then have certain communion with the Catholick Church, and yet not have so in the next age ensuing; therefore, though the Catholick Church continue ever the same, and in∣corrupt, it will by no means follow, that the Roman Church must do so too. Whatever A. C. or you understand by the Catholick Church, is not, as you elsewhere phrase it, a straws matter, unless you proved better than you have done, that the proper notion of the Holy Catholick Church, is the same with those who agree with the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Commu∣nion. Which is your fundamental mistake, and a thing you would fain have taken for granted, without the least shadow of a solid proof.

But there may be more force in your second Answer, That if the Ro∣man Church were wrong and corrupted, it follows, that not only for some time,* 1.112 * 1.113 but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one visible Church untainted, uncorrupt, right, orthodox throughout the whole world. It were worth our while to know what you mean by no one Visible Church; Do you think there are, or may be, more Visible Churches than one, taking the Visible Church in its proper sense for the Catholick Visible Church? If this be your meaning in general, how unhappily soever it be expressed, viz. that then it follows, there could be no Visible Church at all with whom we might have communion; I see not how it is proved by what you bring: But if this be all you aim at (for no further your argu∣ments will carry you) that there was no one Visible Church untainted, i. e. no one Church of a distinct communion from other Churches altogether free from errour; I see no such dangerous consequence in the owning it. But if it were so, when Luther began to oppose the corruptions of the Church of Rome, How doth it follow that it must be so even up to the Apostles times? But we ought to see, how you prove your assertion. For if in all those Ages the Roman Church were wrong, corrupted, and tainted; and all those likewise that disagreed from her, viz. Hussites, Albigenses, Waldenses, Wicklevites, Greeks, Abyssins, Armenians, &c. had in them corrupt Doc∣trine during those ages (as 'tis certain they had, neither could the Relator de∣ny it) I say, If the Roman Church was thus corrupt; it follows, that not only for some time, but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one Visible Church untainted, incorrupt, right, and or∣thodox, throughout the whole world. And consequently, that during the said ages, every good Christian was in conscience obliged in some point of Chri∣stian belief or other, to contradict the Doctrine, and desert the communion of all Visible Churches in the world, &c. Whence it would further follow, that Schism or separation from the external communion of the whole Church might be not only lawful, but even necessary; which is impossible, as being contrary to the very essential predicates of Schism, which is defined to be, A voluntary or wilful departure (such as no just cause, or reason, can be given of it) from the commu∣nion of the whole Church. Three things this discourse of yours may be re∣solved into. 1. That if in Luthers time the Roman Church was corrupt, then there was no one Visible Church uncorrupt. 2. That if so, it follows that there was none uncorrupt even up to the Apostles times. 3. That if there were no one Visible Church uncorrupt, then it was necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church. To every one of these I shall return a peculiar and distinct Answer. To the first I say, That the utmost you can prove from hence, is, That there was no one Church of any di∣stinct communion from others, which was free from all errours. And what great absurdity is there in saying so? Unless you could prove, that there must be some one Church in all ages of the world, which must be free from all kind or possibility of errour. And when you have done this, I shall acknowledge it absurd to say the contrary; but otherwise that very sup∣position seems to have the greater absurdity in it; because it restrains the utmost supposable priviledges of the truly Catholick Church, to a particular Church of some one denomination. What then if we grant that in Luthers time, there was no one Visible Church free from errours and corruptions? What if we should say, in our own times? What if, in elder times? For that which is possible to be, may be supposed actually in any time. If it be possible for one particular Church to fall into errours and corruptions, Why is it not for another? (unless some particular priviledge of Infallibi∣lity

be pretended; but that is not our present Question) if it be possible for every particular Church to fall into errour, Why may not that possibi∣lity come into act in one Age, as well as several? Is there any promise that there shall be a succession and course of erring in Churches, that one Church must erre for one age, and another for the next? but that it shall never fall out, that by any means whatsoever they shall erre toge∣ther? If there be no such promise to the contrary, the reason of the thing will hold, that they may all erre at the same time. No, say you, for then it would follow, that the Catholick Church might erre. To that I answer, 1. Either you mean by that, that all societies in the Christian world may concurr in the same errour, or else that several of them may have several errours: and this latter is it only which you prove, for you do not suppose that the Romanists, Hussites, Albigenses, &c. were all guilty of the same errours, but that these several societies were guilty of several errours; and therefore from hence it follows not, that they may all concurr in the same errour, which is the only way to prove that the Church as Catholick may erre, for otherwise you only prove, that the several particular Churches, which make up the Catholick, may fall into errour. 2. Supposing all these Churches should agree in one errour, (which is more than you have pro∣ved, or, it may be, can) have you proved that they concurr in such an errour, which destroies the Being of the Catholick Church? For you would do well to evince, that the Church is secured from any but such errours which destroy its Being; for the means of proving, That the Catholick Church cannot erre, are built on the promises of its perpetuity; now those can only prove that the Church is secured from Fundamental errours, for those are such only which destroy its Being. And so his Lordship tells you,* 1.114 That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, and granted by divers Protestants (so you will but understand its not erring in absolute Fundamental Doctrines) and this he proves, from that promise of Christ, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. So that the Catholick Churche's not erring, and the perpetuity of the Catholick Church do with us,* 1.115 mean the same thing. For his Lordship grants, That she may erre in superstructures, and deductions, and other By, and Vnnecessary truths, if her curiosity, or other weakness, carry her beyond, or cause her to fall short of her Rule. There is then a great difference between saying, That the Ca∣tholick Church cannot erre, which is no more than to say, That there shall be alwaies a Catholick Church, and saying, That there must be alwaies some one Visible Church, which must be free from all errour and corruption. For this we deny, and you produce no reason at all to prove it. Granting, that all particular Churches, whether of Romanists, Greeks, or others, are subject to errours and corruptions, we assert no more of them, than you grant your selves, that any particular Church is subject to; for the only ground, why you would have your Church exempt from errour, is, the supposing her not to be a particular, but the Catholick Church, which implies, that if she were only a particular Church (as she is no more) she might be sub∣ject to errours as well as other Churches. And what incongruity then there is in asserting, that there may be no one Visible Church of any particular denomination free from all errour and corruption, I cannot understand.

But further, you say, If there were no one Visible Church then free from errour,* 1.116 it follows, not only for some time, but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one Visible Church untainted throughout the whole world. Not to meddle with the truth of the thing, Whether there were so or no, the consequence is that, we are now to ex∣amine;

that if it were so in Luthers time, it must be so even up to the Apostles times. The proof of which depends upon the impossibility of a Churches degeneracy in Faith or Manners, and so supposeth the thing in question, that there must be some one Visible Church absolutely exempt from all impossibility of errour. For otherwise that might be true in one age, which might not in another. For although we say, that particular Churches may erre, and be corrupt, we do not say, that it is necessary they should alwaies be so. For, in some ages particular Churches may be free from errour and corruption, and yet in another age be overspread with them. And thus we assert it to have been with the Roman Church: for his Lordship saith, In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church, but in the immediate times before. Luther, or in some ages before, that it was a corrupt and tainted Church: And so in those times in which it was right, those might be heretical who did not communicate with it, not meerly because they did not communicate with it, but because in not com∣municating with a right and orthodox Church they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption. We see then, there is no connexion in the world in the parts of your consequence, That if it were so at one time, it must be so alwaies; if in the time of Luther, it must be so even up to the Apostles times.

3. From hence you say it will follow, That it will be necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church. I answer, there can be no separation from the whole Church, but in such things wherein the Vnity of the whole Church lyes; for separation is a violation of some Vnion: now when men separate from the errours of all particular Churches, they do not separate from the whole, because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for, are not such, as make all them put to∣gether to be the whole, or Catholick Church. This must be somewhat fur∣ther explained. There are two things considerable in all particular Churches; those things which belong to it as a Church, and those things which belong to it as a particular Church. Those things which belong to it as a Church, are the common ligaments or grounds of union between all particular Churches, which taken together, make up the Catholick Church: Those things which belong to it as a particular Church, are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without. Now, I say, Whosoever separates from any particular Church (much more from all) for such things without which that can be no Church, separates from the communion of the Catho∣lick Church; but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being, is only separated from the com∣munion of those Churches, and not the Catholick. And therefore, supposing that all particular Churches have some errours and corruptions in them, though I should separate from them all, I do not separate from the com∣munion of the whole Church, unless it be for something, without which those could be no Churches. An evidence of which, is, that by my decla∣ring the grounds of my separation to be such errours and corruptions, which are crept into the communion of such Churches, and imposed on me in or∣der to it, I withall declare my readiness to joyn with them again, if those errours and corruptions be left out. And where there is this readiness of communion, there is no absolute separation from the Church as such, but only suspending communion till such abuses be reformed. Which is there∣fore more properly a separation from the errours, than the communion of such a Church. Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one Visible Church,

whose communion is not tainted with some corruptions, though, if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion, I cannot communi∣cate with any of those Churches, yet it follows not that I am separated from the external communion of the Catholick Church, but that I only suspend communion with those particular Churches, till I may safely joyn with them. As, suppose all the particular men I can converse with, were infected with Leprosie, my not associating with them, doth not imply that I am separa∣ted from the communion of all mankind, but that I am loath to be in∣fected as they are, and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again. And if se∣veral other persons be of the same mind with me, and we therefore joyn together, Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole world by on∣ly taking care of our own safety? And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them, but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them; our withdrawing our selves, and associating without them will still ap∣pear more reasonable and commendable. Therefore we say, We do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errours or corruptions in them, supposing those errours and corruptions be not imposed on us, as conditions of communion; and thence though we should grant, No one visi∣ble Church free from taint or corruption, yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all: For we may lawfully joyn in Communion with Churches having errours and corruptions, if our joyning be not an appro∣bation of them. Thus though the Greeks, Armenians, Albigenses, Abyssms may have some errours, or corruptions, yet if they be not Fundamental, and be not injoyned as necessary to be approved in order to their Com∣munion, notwithstanding them, we may lawfully Communicate with them. It doth not then at all follow, that if there may be no one visible Church free from errour and corruption, it would be necessary to separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church: because 1. All those par∣ticular Churches may not make those errours conditions of Communion. 2. Though they did, we separate not from them as Catholick, but as cor∣rupt and erroneous particular Churches. And therefore you might have spared your labour in telling us from the Holy Fathers, and the Reverend and learned Dr. Hammond, That it can never be lawful to separate from the Catholick Church, for we assert the same, but have made it appear that it follows not from the premises which were laid down.

* 1.117His Lordship having said, That the Roman Church before Luther was a corrupt and tainted Church, in his Margin produceth a Citation to that purpose of Cardinal de Alliaco, who acknowledgeth infinite abuses,* 1.118 Schisms and Heresies to prevail over the Christian world; so that it is plain, The Church of God stands in need of due reformation. From which his Lordship saith, That it will hardly sink into any mans judgement that so great a man, as Pet. de Alliaco was in that Church, should speak thus if he did not see some errours in the Doctrine of that Church as well as the manners. To this you answer, That he speaks not of false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church,* 1.119 but of Schisms and Heresies raised against the Church (not fostered by her) in all parts of Christendom. But I appeal to any indifferent Reader of this Testimony, whether he can conceive that the Cardinal intended to acquit or accuse the Roman Church in those words of his. For taking them in your sense, they must contain a high commen∣dation

of the Roman Church, that in the midst of so many Heresies and Schisms raised against her, she preserved her Faith entire; and think you that he that said, The Church of God needed reformation, thought there was nothing in the Church which stood in need of it? And therefore this Testimony doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church was a tainted and corrupted Church.

If there be sufficient evidence, that there are tares sown in the Church of Rome, it is not to much purpose to enquire Whether they were sown while the Bishops slept, or whether they themselves did not help to sow them. But it seems in their private capacities they might sow them, as private Do∣ctors, and then it is not likely that in their publick capacity they would pluck them up. If the Catholick Faith only, as you tell us, oblige us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines a General Council; then there will be opportunity enough for errours to be sown, and grow up in the interval of such definitions. But you further add, That though this be all which men are obliged to maintain (for no man can be bound to im∣possibilities) yet that it is a very pious opinion to hold, That no Popes have personally erred as private Doctors, i. e. you have a very good mind to maintain it, if you knew how; for that is the meaning of your pious opini∣on. For if you thought it had been defensible, no doubt it had been de fide long ago. But it was hard thwarting the Records of former ages wherein the errours of Popes, and their mutual contradictions are so visi∣ble to all that search after them, and therefore it was wisely concluded that this should not be held de fide, but, if any would venture upon a thing so acceptable at Rome as Personal Infallibility is, it should be accounted a very pious undertaking. And accordingly Bellarmin hath with the great∣est care and industry endeavoured it in several Chapters; but, as his Lord∣ship truly saith, All Bellarmin's labour though great and full of art, is not able to wash them clean. And this (if you had undertaken the defence of Bellarmin) should have been made good; but since you are so cautious as not to think your self obliged to do it, I commend your discretion in it, and proceed. I cannot see that his Lordship is guilty of a false quotation of Bellarmin for that saying, Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesiâ Christi, luce clarius est, for he doth not seem at all to Cite Bellarmin for it; but having Cited the place just before, where he endeavours to vindicate the Popes from all errours; he adds this expression, as directly contrary to his design, that though he had endeavoured so much to clear them from errours, yet that they had sown some grievous errours in the Church was as clear as the day; and as it immediately follows is proved by Jac. Almain, &c. And therefore it was only your own oscitancy which made you set it in the Contents of your Chapter, that Cardinal Bellarmin was most falsly quoted by him. But that falseness which with so much con∣fidence you charge his Lordship with, rebounds with greater force on your self, when you say, That Almain speaks not of errours in Faith at all, but only of errours, or rather abuses in point of manners; whereas he not only asserts but largely proves, That the Pope may err, not only personally but judicially,* 1.120 and in the same Chapter brings that remarkable Instance of the evident con∣tradiction between the definitions of Pope Nicolaus 3. and John 22. And Platina tells us, that John 22. declared them to be Hereticks who held according to the former definition. And, Is this only concerning some abuses

abuses in point of manners, and not concerning errours in Faith that Al∣main speaks? You might as well say so of Lyra, who said, That many Popes have Apostatized from the Faith; of Cusanus, who saith,* 1.121 That both in a direct and collateral line, several Popes have fallen into Heresie; of Alphonsus à Castro, who saith, That the best friends of the Popes believe they may err in Faith; of Carranza, who sayes, No one questions but the Pope may be an Heretick; of Canus, who sayes, It is not to be denyed but that the chief Bishop may be an Heretick, and that there are examples of it: You might as well, I say, affirm that all these spake only of abuses in Manners, and not errours in Faith, as you do of Almain. Neither will your other subterfuge serve your turn, That they taught errours in Doctrine as private men; for, Alphonsus à Castro expresly affirms in the case of Pope Coelestine, about the dissolution of Marriage in case of Heresie,* 1.122 That it cannot be said that he erred through negligence, and as a private person, and not as Pope; For (saith he) this definition is extant in the decretals, and he had seen it himself. Although the contrary to this were afterwards defined not only by Pope Innocent 3. but by the Council of Trent. And hence it appears whatever you pretend to the contrary, That there may be tares sown in the Church of Rome,* 1.123 not only by private persons, but by the publick hands of the Popes too, if they themselves may be believed, who else do most Infallibly contradict each other. But whether these errours came in at first through negli∣gence or publick definitions is not so material to our purpose; for which it is sufficient to prove that the Church of Rome may be tainted and cor∣rupted, which may be done one way as well as the other. As Corn-fields may be over-run with tares though no one went purposely to sow them there.* 1.124 And so much is acknowledged by Cassander when he speaks of the superstitious practises used in your Church, That those who should have redressed those abuses, were, if not the Authours, yet the incouragers of them for their own advantage; by which means, errours and corruptions may soon grow to a great height in a Church though they were never sown by pub∣lick definitions. And when you disparage Cassanders Testimony, by telling us how little his credit is among Catholicks, you thereby let us see how much your Church is over-run with corruptions, when none among you can speak against them but they presently forfeit their reputation.

The case of the Schism at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus, and the imployment of Caldonius and Fortunatus from St. Cyprian thither,* 1.125 doth belong to the former Chapter, where it hath been fully discoursed of already, and must not be repeated here. Only thence we see that Rome is as capable of a Schism within her own bowels as any other Church is, which is abundantly attested by the multitudes of Schisms, which hap∣pened afterwards between the Bishops of that See. But this being insisted on by his Lordship in the former Controversie of the Catholick Church, doth not refer to this Chapter wherein the causes of our separation should be enquired into.

* 1.126Which at last you come to, and passing by the verbal dispute between A.C. and his Lordship about what was spoken at the Conference,* 1.127 you tell us, It more concerns you to see what could or can be said in this point. You draw up therefore a large and formal charge of Schism against us in your following words. Our assertion, say you, is; but, good Sir, it is not what you assert, but what you prove. It were an easie matter for us to draw up a far larger Bill against your Church, and tell you our assertion is, that you are the

greatest Schismaticks in the world. Would you look on it as sufficiently proved because we asserted it? I pray think the same of us, for we are not apt to think our selves guilty of Schism at all the more, because you tell us what your assertion is; if this be your way of dealing with us, your first assertion had need be, That you are Infallible; but still that had need be more then asserted, for unless it be Infallibly proved we should not be∣lieve it. But however, we must see what your assertion is, that we may at least understand from you the state of the present Controversie. Your asserti∣on therefore is, that Protestants made this rent or Schism,* 1.128 by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines, contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholick Church: by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate; by aggregating them∣selves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians, independent of any Pastours at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them; by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others, and admini∣string Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully im∣power••d to give it; by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christen∣dome; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective See's, Cures, and Benefices; and intruding them∣selves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing, the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living. These are your assertions, and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them. Our assertion therefore is, that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism, by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and super∣stitious practises, as the conditions of her Communion; by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith, and repug∣nant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church; by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and privi∣ledges of particular Churches, under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastour∣ship; by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church, to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church; and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redres∣sed. In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them, nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them, receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles: they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to, or different from the practise of the Primitive Church; they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power, but in case others neglect their office, they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation. Leaving the Supreme Authority of the King∣dome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it. And this we assert to be the case of Schism, in reference to the Church of England, which we shall make good in opposi∣tion to your assertions, where we meet with any thing that seems to con∣tradict the whole or any part of it. These and the like practises of yours (to use your own words) not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Do∣ctrines, as you vainly pretend, we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours. And you truly say, That Protestants were thrust out of your Church; which

is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it, and therefore are no Schismaticks; but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you. And it was not we who left your Church, but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner, as to declare all such ex∣communicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corrupti∣ons, though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith, Piety, and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles, and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages. Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you, by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians, because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine; will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church; and not only so, but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you.

Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions, we come to your Answers.* 1.129 Nor (say you) does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party, by saying,* 1.130 The cause of Schism was ours, and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us, because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses. For first, there can be no just cause of Schism; this hath been granted already even by Prote∣stants. And so it is by us, and the reason is very evident for it, for if there be a just cause, there can be no Schism; and therefore what you intend by this, I cannot imagine, unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism, because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church; or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism, and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it. As if a man being ac∣cused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him, should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him, because there was a suffici∣ent and justifiable cause for what he did; that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road; that this person and several others violently set upon him; that he intreated them to desist, that he sought to avoid them as much as he could, but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine, he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person; Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication? But if so wise a person as your self had been among them, you would no doubt have better informed them; for you would very gravely have told them, All his plea went on a false supposition, that he had a just cause for what he did, but there could be no just cause for murther. Do you not see now how subtil and perti∣nent your Answer is here, by this parallel to it? For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther, because all murther is committed without a just cause; and if there be one, it ceaseth to be murther: So it is here in Schism, which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity, I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it. But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future, you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it, and there can be no just cause for a sin; but be∣sides that, there is that which (if you understand it) you would call the

materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from an∣other. Now this, according to the different grounds and reasons of it, becomes lawful or unlawful, that is, as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary, For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary: now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances, there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it, till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined; and if there be no sufficient grounds for it, then it is formally Schism, i. e. a culpable separation; if there be sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but it can be no Schism. And because the Vnion of the Catho∣lick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths, therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism; it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation. And whosoever doth so, thereby makes himself no member of the Church, because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths. But in all such cases wherein a division may be made, and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christi∣an Church, the separation which may be among any such, must be deter∣mined according to the causes of it. For it being possible of one side, that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Com∣munion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reason∣able; and it being possible on the other side, that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise, as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions, but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her, it is necessary where there is a manifest separati∣on to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it; and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it. And this I hope may help you a little better to understand, what is meant by such, who say, There can be no just cause of Schism; and how little this makes for your purpose.

But you go on and I must follow. And to his calling for truth, &c.* 1.131 I An∣swer, What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God, but pretended truth, and complain'd they were thrust out, and hardly dealt with, meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses? And I pray, what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions, but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine, or separated from her Communion? It is true, Hereticks pretend truth, and Schismaticks abuses, but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion, or is it not? if not, prove but that of your Church, and the cause is at an end; if it be, we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth, and others be deceived in judging of it, yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour. If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth: would not the same reason hold, why men should never enquire after Truth, Reason, or Religion, be∣cause men have pretended to them all which have not had them. It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so; and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so. But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so, by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed; do you the same by us; prove

those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith; prove those we account corruptions, to be parts of Di∣vine worship, and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks, but not before. But, say you, He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet, (and so it may be, and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour) And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle, (but what is this to the Church of Romes being so) And by the Fathers, a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines (so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in, for the truly Catho∣lick Christian Church). And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers did, and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth, and opposition to the preaching of it, and on that ground justly forsake her Communion, which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption, that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty. And therefore that Woe of scandal, his Lordship mentioned, still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world, and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Commu∣nion, when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience. And this is so clear and undeniable (to follow you still in your own language) that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines, or what Judge and Jury you please, provided they be not some of the parties accused; and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines, I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far, as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals.

What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words,* 1.132 because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough, for fear of telling a lye, will have the force of a de∣monstration, (being spoken of and by a Jesuite) among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivo∣cation: And what reason there is that, of all persons in the world, they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences.

But whatever the words were which passed, you justifie A. C. in saying, That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome,* 1.133 and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her. For this (say you) is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it. If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours, Whoever made scruple of confessing it? But because in those terms of departing, leaving, forsaking your Communi∣on, you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it, therefore his Lordship denyes that Prote∣stants did depart; for, saith he, departure is voluntary so was not theirs. But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours, especially in the beginning of it, without using those terms or some like them, as when his Lordship saith, that Lu∣ther made a breach from it. It is sufficient, that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation, but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corrupti∣ons as conditions of Communion with your Church. To the latter part his Lordship answers, That the Protestants did not get that name, by Protesting against the Church of Rome,* 1.134 but by Protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) against her errours and superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, & our Protestation is ended and our Separation too.

This, you think, will be answered with our old put off, That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks, when they sever themselves from the Roman-Catholick Church. If your Church indeed were what she is not, the Catho∣lick Church, we might be what we are not, Hereticks: but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks, that you call us so, unless you will likewise take it for granted, that the Pope is Antichrist, and your Church, the Whore of Babylon, because they are as often, and as confidently call'd so. And if your Church be truly so (as she is shrewdly suspected to be) Do you think she, and all her followers, would not as confidently call such as dissented from her, Hereticks, and the using those expressions of her virulent execra∣tions against her, as you do now, supposing her not to be so. What there∣fore would belong to your Church, supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be, cannot certainly help to perswade us, that she is not so bad as she is. When you say still, That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church, and in so doing, remained separate from the whole Church; you very fairly beg the thing in dispute, and think us uncivil for denying it. You know not what that passage means, That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart, taking their whole body and cause together, since there is no obscurity in the expression, but a defect elsewhere, I can only say, That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it. But it were an easie matter to help you; for it is plain, that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants, from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons, whom he did not intend to justifie, such as he saith, Were either peevish, or ignorantly zealous. And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons, I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men. All that which follows about the name of Protestants, which his Lordship saith, Took its rise, not from protesting simply against the Roman Church, but against the Edict at Worms, which was for the restoring all things to their former state, without any reformation, is so plain and evident, that nothing but a mind to cavil, and to give us the same things over and over,* 1.135 could have made you stay longer upon it. For what else means, your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion (which we say, was caused by you) and protesting against the Roman Church, and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world, and that which none but Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks used to do? Do you think these passages are so hard, that we can∣not know what they mean, unless we have them so often over? But they are not so hard to be understood, as to be believed, and that the ra∣ther, because we see you had rather say them often, than prove them once. If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses, I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church. But, if all the Reformation we are to expect of them, be that, which you say, was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent, if there had not been an Edict at Worms, there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary. Although we think your Church needs Re∣formation in Manners and Discipline, as much as any in the world, yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants, as the grounds of their Separation, and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood, of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church; and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state, did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary

for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion. And whatever you say, till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done, it will appear, that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and unde∣filed Doctrine of the Catholick Church, against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church. And such kind of Protestation no true Christian, who measures his being Catholick, by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome, will ever have cause to be ashamed of.

But A. C. (saith his Lordship) goes on, and will needs have it, that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism.* 1.136 * 1.137 For, (saith he) though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunication, yet they had first di∣vided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith, and practice of the Church, which to do, S. Bernard thinks, is pride, S. Austin, madness. At this his Lordship takes many and just ex∣ceptions. 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary. So the prime cause was theirs still. Now to this your Answer is very considerable. That the Bishop of Rome being S. Peter's suc∣cessor in the Government of the Church,* 1.138 and Infallible (at least with a General Council) it is impossible, that Protestants, or other Sectaries, should ever find such errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him, or received by the Church, as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine, or law∣fully to forsake her communion. We say, Your Church hath erred; you say, It is impossible she should; we offer you evident proofs of her errours; you say, She is Infallible; we say, It is impossible, that Church should be Infal∣lible, which we can make appear hath been deceived; you tell us again, It is impossible she should be deceived; for, let Hereticks say what they will, she is Infallible. And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering, let the world judge. But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibili∣ty, this Answer falls to the ground with it; and to use your phrase, The truth is, all that you have in effect to say for your Church, is, that she is Infallible, and the Catholick Church, and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us; and these things are great enough indeed, if you could but make any shew of proof for them; but not being able to do that, you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick, which, the more he takes pains to do, the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him. And it is shrewdly to be suspected, if your errours had not been great and palpable, you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility. But as the case is with your Church, I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility; for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that, all other things go down without dis∣pute; but if men are left at liberty to examine particulars, they would as soon believe it was impossible for that man to fall, whom they see upon the ground, as your Church to be infallible, which they find overspread with errour and corruptions.

Much such another Answer you return to his Lordship's second Excep∣tion, which is, at his calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith: For, you say, It is no incongruity so to call it, for the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholick Church,* 1.139 the Faith approved and taught by him as Head thereof, though it be de facto the general Faith and Profession of all Christians, may yet very well be called the Roman Faith; Why? because the root, origine, and chief Foundation under Christ, of its being practised and

believed by Christians is at Rome. But if the Bishop of Rome be no such thing as Head of the Christian Church (and they must have a very wide Faith, which must swallow that Vniversal Headship, with all the appurte∣nances upon your bare affirmation) if it belongs no more to him to ap∣prove and teach the Faith then to any other Catholick Bishop, if the com∣ing from Rome affords no credibility at all to the Christian Faith; then still there remains as great an incongruity as may be, in calling the Chri∣stian Faith, the Roman Faith. And as to all these my denial is as good as your affirmation; when you undertake to prove, I shall to answer.

If A. C. adds the practice of the Church to the Roman Faith, I see no ad∣vantage is gotten by it, for the first must limit the latter,* 1.140 and the Faith being Roman, the Church must be so too, and therefore all your cavils on that subject come to nothing.

The third Exception is, against the place out of S. Bernard,* 1.141 and S. Au∣stin, which, his Lordship saith, are mis-applied;* 1.142 for neither of them (saith he) spake of the Roman; and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholick, nor the Roman, but of a particular Church or Congregation. His words are, What greater pride, than that one man should prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation. Which A. C. conveniently to his purpose rendred before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world.* 1.143 Whereas no such thing is in him as all the Christian Churches in the world. And his Lordship saith, He thinks it is plain, that he speaks both of, and to the particular Congregation, to which he was then preaching. This you deny not, but say,* 1.144 The argument holds â minori ad majus, to shew the more exorbitant pride of those, who prefer their private fa∣natick Opinions, before the judgement of the whole Catholick Church. The Roman Church you should have said▪ for you own no Catholick Church, but what is Roman, and therein the argument you mention will hold yet fur∣ther, against those who prefer the Novel Opinions of the Roman Church, be∣fore the ancient Apostolical Faith of the truly Catholick Church. His Lord∣ship adds, That it is one thing to prefer a mans private judgement before the whole Congregation; and another, for an intelligent man in something unsa∣tisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholick Church. And much more may a whole National Church, nay, the whole body of Protestants do it. Now you very wisely leave out this last clause, that you might take an opportunity to declaim against Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. for want of modesty. But what pretext could there have been for such virulency, had they been guilty of what you charge them, if you would but have given us all that his Lordship said; And may not I now therefore more justly return you your own language in the same page upon a far less occa∣sion. That here's a manifest robbery of part of his Lordships words, for which you are bound to restitution. For his Lordship, as it were, foreseeing this ca∣vil, warily adds that concerning a whole National Church, and the whole bo∣dy of Protestants; which you for reasons best known to your self, craftily leave out. But we must excuse our adversary for this slip, though it be an unhand∣some one; For the truth is, he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen, &c. These are your own words only applied, and that much more justly to your self, for a more palpable fault in the very same page wherein you had accused his Lordship for one of that kind. But you go on further, and supposing the doubts had been modestly proposed, yet this could not at all help the Protestant cause, in regard their doubts were in points of

Faith, already determined for such by authority of the Catholick Church; to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful, heretical, and damnable. Were it our present business, it were easie to make it appear, that the far greatest part of the matters in Controversie; were ne∣ver determined as points of Faith, before the Council of Trent, and, I hope you will not say, that was before the Reformation, or any proposal of doubts? But, if they had been defined by your Church for matters of Faith, and our great doubt be, How your Church comes to have this power of determining points of Faith, to whom should this doubt be propounded? to your Church, no doubt then we should hear from her, as now we do from you, That to question it with what seeming modesty soever, is sinful, he∣retical, ond damnable. And, Is it not then likely that your Church should ever yield to the proposal of doubts? and you do well to tell us so; for it will save Protestants a great deal of labour, when they see your Church so incurable, that she makes it sinful, heretical, and damnable, to question any thing she hath determined. Although we do with much more rea∣son assert it to be sinful, heretical, and damnable in your Church, to offer to obtrude erroneous Doctrines on the Faith of the Christian world, as points necessary to be believed, and to urge superstitious practices as the condi∣tions of communion with her.

To the place of S. Austin, wherein he saith, That it is a part of most in∣solent madness, for any man to dispute, Whether that be to be done, which is usually done in and through the whole Catholick Church of Christ. His Lord∣ship answer,* 1.145 1. Here's not a word of the Roman Church, but of that which is all over the world, Catholick, which Rome never yet was; and for all your boast of having often shewn,* 1.146 That the Roman and the Catholick are all one; I dare leave it to the indifferent Reader, Whether you have not miserably failed in your attempts that way. 2. He answers, That A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith, whereas S. Austin speaks expresly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church, and particularly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday, whether it be in the morning, or after supper, or both. 3. Tis manifest by the words themselves, that S. Austin speaks of no mat∣ter of Faith there, Roman, nor Catholick, for he speaks of things done, and to be done, and not for things believed, or to be believed. 4. A right sober man may, without the least touch of insolency or madness, dispute a business of Re∣ligion with the Roman,* 1.147 either Church or Prelate, as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor. Now to all this you reply, That the argument still holds à minori ad majus, and reaches to every person that in any matter whatso∣ever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God. And is not this an excellent way of arguing from the less to the greater, to argue from a rite or ceremony observed by the Universal Church to a matter of Faith de∣termined by the Roman Church? This is à minori ad majus, with a wit∣ness. But your Reason is as good as your Answer, which is, because there was alwaies some point or matter of Faith involved in every Vniversally pra∣ctised rite or ceremony of the Church, I pray Sir then, Tell us what the mat∣ter of Faith was which lay in the offering on Maundy-Thursday in morning, or after supper? and by whom this point of Faith was determined? and and how far it is obligatory? and whether it be not sinful, heretical, and damnable, so much as modestly to doubt of it? For all this, you told us, belongs to all matters of Faith determined by the Catholick Church. What remains of this Chapter, need not hold us long, for A. C's. illation from the Catholick Churches not erring, that therefore it cannot be lawful to

separate from the Roman Church, is absurd and illogical; and depends on that gross mistake that the Roman and Catholick Church are all one, which we have abundantly disproved in the precedent Chapter. What follows concerning the Catholick Churches not erring, and how far that extends,* 1.148 concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals, and any errours admitted in the Church, being destructive to its Being, because derogatory to Gods Veracity, have been so amply discussed in their proper places, that I find no tempta∣tion from any new arguments here suggested, to resume the debate of them. There being then nothing material, which hath not been handled already; I here conclude this Chapter.

CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks.

The occasion of this Dispute. The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended: Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarily follows. The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance; and John Hus opened. Of the nature of the safe-conduct granted him by the Emperour, that it was not a general one, salvâ justitiâ, but particular, jure speciali; which is largely proved. The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague. Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent. Of the distinction of Secu∣lar and Ecclesiastical Power, and that from thence it follows, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. Simancha, and several others fully assert this Doctrine. Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent, and the good Instructions there; and of Publick Disputation.

A. C's Endeavour not only to charge Protestants with the guilt of Schism,* 1.149 but to justifie and clear the proceedings of the Church of Rome towards them, hath led us into a new dispute, how far she is to be trusted in the greatest promises which are made to such whom she ac∣counts Hereticks. Which is occasioned by these words of his, That after this breach was made, the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants, that she invited them publickly with safe conduct to Rome, to a General Council, freely to speak what they could for themselves: Or, if we take his words, as you give them us, the sense is the same to our pur∣pose (and therefore you impertinently cavil with his Lordship for not keeping Faith with A.C.) Which did at first seek to recall them from their Novel Opinions, and after their breach did permit, yea invite them publickly to Rome to a General Council, &c. Upon which his Lordship sayes: In∣deed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants;* 1.150 but I doubt it was to bring them within their net. And she invited them to Rome. A very safe place, if you mark it, for them to come to, just as the Lion (in the Apologue) invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea, but there was safe-conduct offered too: Yes, conduct perhaps, but not safe, or safe perhaps, for going thi∣ther, but none for coming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsum. Yea, but it should have been to a General Council: Perhaps so. But was the conduct safe, that was given to a Council which they call General, to some others before them? No sure, John Hus, and Jerom of Prague burnt for all their safe conduct. And so long as the Jesuits write and maintain. That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks. And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured (as

it hath hitherto done, and no exception put in of force and violence.) A. C. shall pardon us, that we come not to Rome, nor within the reach of Roman Power, what freedom of speech soever he promised us. For to what end free∣dom of speech on their part, since they are resolved to alter nothing? And to what end freedom of speech on our part, if after speech hath been free, life shall not.* 1.151 This you call a Theme, which, for the most part, our Adversaries love to dwell upon, as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein. And, Can you blame them for insisting much on that which their lives are concerned in, and it will appear in the prosecution of this subject, that we have this great advantage against you, that we are come to understand your arts so well, as not so easily to be catched by your perfidious subtil∣ties. And as we understand your practices better than to rely on your promises of this nature, so we are not so ignorant of the intrigues of your proceedings, as to suppose that commonly and openly you should defend this Position, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. For thereby you would lose the intent and design of it; for none would be so silly as to venture themselves into the hands of such, who openly profess, They are not bound to keep Faith with them. For, Do you think that Father Ful∣gentio would ever have gone to Rome on the safe-conduct most solemnly given by Paul. 5. if he had understood beforehand, with what perfidious∣ness he should have been dealt with there; and all under this pre∣text, That safe-conduct was given for his coming hither, but not for his going thence. Is this the Faith of the Apostolical See? Is this the Catholick and Roman Faith? If so, the Roman Faith, before ever it was Christian, was much more infallible▪ than this; that never was acquainted with such a perfidious Infallibility. Well then might his Lord∣ship say, The conduct might be safe for going thither, but not for coming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsum. And so Fulgentio to his sorrow found it. We see therefore, it is very necessary for you to disown this principle as much as possible, till you have occasion to practise it, and then woe be to them to whose lot it falls to make the experiment. Though therefore both pub∣lickly and privately, in word and writing, as you tell us, You teach and pro∣fess, That Faith is to be kept as well with Hereticks as Catholicks, yet your Adversaries have no great reason to reply on your promises; when they find your practices apparently to the contrary, and those practices built on such principles which you all own, and contend for, and that notwith∣standing, what you confidently say to the contrary, several of your Wri∣ters have in terms asserted it. All which shall be made good in this Chap∣ter. And therefore, though you say it, and say it over again, those who know the ambiguity of your expressions, your many reservations, and ex∣ceptions which you make, will not be very confident of the honesty of your meaning, by the fairness of your expressions. These are therefore no clamorous accusations, but very sad truths, which the experience of the world, and your dealings have too often taught us; that at last we are forced to distinguish between a Princes safc-conduct, and an Eccleasti∣cal Trepan. For no other, will that appear to be, which was granted by Pope Paul to Fulgentio, or the Emperour, and Council of Constance to John Hus, and Hierom of Prague. If Christ therefore, after he had said, That they should give to Caesar the things that are Caesars, had either denied the payment of tribute, or demanded it himself, Becanus might then say, That was a fit parallel for you in this Controversie, whose open actions do pal∣pably contradict you, when you say, That Faith is to be kept with Here∣ticks.

For the clearing of which,* 1.152 we must first relate the matter of fact in the case of the Council of Constance, and then examine the several evasions you make in vindication of their proceedings, notwithstanding the safe-conduct given by the Emperour and Council. The story then is briefly this; A Council at Constance being called for redressing abuses in the Church, and putting an end to that Schism, which was between the three Antipopes Gregory 12, Benedict. 13, John 23. John Husse is summoned by the Empe∣rour Sigismund to appear before it. And to take away all fears and suspi∣cions of unhandsome dealing, the Emperour grants him a safe-conduct, in which it was expressed, Omni prorsus impedimento remoto, transire, stare, morari, & redire libere permittatis; that without all manner of hin∣drance, he should be suffered to come, appear, stay, and return freely. That such a safe-conduct was given by the Emperour, and pleaded by Husse, is agreed on all sides. But notwithstanding this, he had not been above three weeks in Constance, but, contrary to his safe-conduct, he is thrown into prison; which being done in the Emperours absence, he re∣turns to the Council, and argues the case with them, upon which they pass the decree contained in the 19 Session of that Council, in these words cited in the Margent, which, that you may not quar∣rel with my interpretation of, I will take your own.* 1.153 This present Sacred Synod declareth, That by whatsoever safe-conduct, granted by the Emperour, Kings, or other Secular Princes, to Hereticks, or such as are defamed for Heresie, no prejudice can arise, no impediment can, or ought to be put to the Catholick Faith, or other Eccle∣siastical jurisdiction, but that (notwithstanding the said safe-conduct) it may be lawful for any competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to enquire into the errours of such persons, and duly otherwaies proceed against them, and punish them so far as justice shall require, if they shall per∣tinaciously refuse to revoke their errours; yea though they come to the place of judgement, relying upon such safe-conduct, and would not otherwise come thither; nor doth he who so promiseth, remain obliged in any thing, having done what lyes in him. Upon this decree of the Council the Emperour looks on himself, as absolved from his obligation, and not only concurred in the sentence against Husse, but gave order himself about his execution. The Question then is, Whether the Emperour did not break his Faith with John Husse in so doing; and, Whether the Council did not decree, that neither he, nor any else, were bound to keep it with He∣reticks. Although this case be so plain and clear to all persons, who have any sense of justice and honesty, that we dare appeal to the most indiffe∣rent persons in the world, Whether it be not a notorious violation of Faith, after a most solemn promise of safe return, to proceed to judgement against the person, who came meerly relying on that promise, and the same person to be the Instrument of his execution, who gave the safe-conduct on which he trusted: And whether the declaring, that such a per∣son is not obliged to keep his promise, because it is a matter of Heresie he had promised in, be not to declare, That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks. Yet since no actions are so bad, if they tend to your advantage, but you will have something to blind the eyes of the simple with, we must consider what you have to plead in vindication of these proceedings. You tell us

then,* 1.154 That the Emperour did not break his Faith with John Husse, and that notwithstanding the safe-conduct given, he was justly burnt. Bold and daring assertions! but we must enquire into the reasons of them. Two things you seem most to rely on, and the strength of all your Answer depends on them: which being the things, Becanus, and the rest of your party insist on in this case, I shall more closely examine. The first is, From the nature of the safe-conduct given, that it was not such as could hinder justice; the second is, From the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, and that the Emperour could make no promise in prejudice of the Churches Jurisdiction.

First, You distinguish of a safe-conduct, which, you say, may be granted two waies;* 1.155 first, jure communi, when tis given only against unjust violence, salvâ semper justitiâ,* 1.156 provided alwaies that Justice be not impeached: Se∣condly, jure speciali, when it secures a man against all violence whatsoever, whether just or unjust, and chiefly in that cause for which it is given. In the former manner only, you say, A safe-conduct was granted by the Emperour to John Husse, and by the Council of Constance to Hierom of Prague: In the latter sort, the Council of Trent offered safe-conduct to the Protestants in Germany, &c. No Faith therefore was broken with John Husse; for, a safe-conduct was only given him jure communi, by which Justice was to remain unimpeachable, since he was only promised to be defended against unjust vio∣lence; which was performed. I grant, a safe-conduct may be given two waies; the first, is to secure men from all unjust violence, in order to a legal trial; and this is granted in such cases, when the person accused looks on the Law, as open for him as well as his Adversaries, and puts him∣self on a fair tryal before equal and indifferent Judges: and in such ca∣ses the intent of the safe-conduct is expressed, Damus tibi fidem publicam causam dicendi in judicio contra vim, non contra juris executionem; as the Formula of it is in the Roman Empire, thence that Imperial Constitution, which prohibits that any safe-conduct be given to the accuser, or the guil∣ty person adversus publicum judicium, sed solum contra vim, against pub∣lick justice, but only against violence: but then, these are the safe-conducts which subordinate Officers can only grant; because these have no power over the life of persons, but they are only to see justice duly administred to all persons, in order to which they may give such safe-conducts as may prevent such things, as may hinder the due execution of Justice. But then further, a safe-conduct may be given with respect to those who are to judge of the cause, i. e. in case a person avoids appearance upon fears that the persons he is summoned before, will presently cast him into pri∣son, or put him to death; now, if a safe-conduct be granted by him, who hath the absolute power of life and liberty, so as to hinder the execution of any sentence passed, in this case the safe-conduct is full and absolute, and admits of no restrictions or limitations. Now this latter is plainly our present case; For John Husse had been summoned before to appear at Rome, to vindicate himself in point of Heresie, but suspecting foul deal∣ing, he durst not go: And, Can we in reason think he would ever have gone to Constance, if the Emperour had not granted him such a Conduct as might secure him from his fears, as to his life and liberty? And therefore, since the Emperour, to whom it only belonged to dispose of both, had granted him so express a safe-conduct, he thought he might securely go. For, To what end or purpose is a safe-conduct granted, if it be not to se∣cure that which the person to whom it was given had most cause to fear? Now it is apparent, John Husse was not afraid of any unjust violence by the

way, for he was so secure as to that, that he left his safe-conduct in the hands of his friends, till he came at Constance, as appears by the unquestionable reports of that story on all hands; which is an evident argument, that the intent of the safe-conduct was to secure him at Constance, from any injury being done him by the Council. And although the Council might take up∣on them, not only to judge of Heresie, but to condemn him for it; yet, as long as the execution of that sentence belonged to the Secular Power, he had reason to think, that whatever the Council might determine, yet the Emperours Faith being solemnly given him, he need not fear the execution of it. For that being in the Emperours power, he was bound by his pub∣lick Faith not to give way to it. To make this clear by an Instance; It is more evident by our Laws, that one who hath taken orders at Rome, coming into the Nation, and being convicted of it, is liable to death, than it was by the Laws then in force, that such who were condemned for Heresie, should be burnt; Suppose now, that a Priest be summoned by the King to appear before his Courts of Justice, with a safe-conduct, or pro∣mise given, that he should come, appear, and return freely, without any hinderance; Would not you, or any other Romish Priest, think your selves hardly dealt with, and that the King had broken his Faith, if he should not only suffer you to be condemned, but give express order for your execu∣tion; and then tell you, that the safe-conduct was to be understood salvâ justitiâ, without any impeachment of Justice, and that it was only to pro∣tect you from all unjust violence? And, Was not the case just the same here of the Emperour Sigismund, and John Husse? Was John Husse so igno∣rant, as not to know they would condemn him for Heresie, when a Coun∣cil at Rome had condemned him for it already? Or, Did not he know what course was like to be taken with persons so condemned? What could he then imagine to be the intent of this safe-conduct, but to secure him from all violence to be done to his person under a pretence of execution of Justice? And for all this, was not the Emperours Faith violated, when he was not only imprisoned, but burnt, by the Emperours express order, not∣withstanding his solemn promise that he should come, appear, and re∣turn freely, without any hinderance? If this be a safe-conduct, it is only such a one as they that go to the Gallows have, a safe-conduct to execution. Besides, that this could not be such a safe-conduct, salvâ justitiá, as you speak of, is manifest from the tenor and words of it. For safe-conducts, be∣ing granted in favour of persons, are to be taken in their largest sense, if no limitations be expressed in them; and it is a Rule among those who should, and do understand these things best, That a safe-conduct is of the nature of a Covenant, and the words of it import a pro∣mise, and therefore if they be general,* 1.157 are extended as far as the words will bear. And that all the Doctors do unanimously concurr, that a general safe-conduct of com∣ing to a Judge, or appearing in a Court of Judicature, do import a freedom of departure and going thence. So that we see, if we take the Emperours safe-conduct in the express words of it, it imports much more than such a one as is only salvâ justitiâ; because it ran in the most general and comprehensive terms, and was granted not by any subordinate Judge, but by the Emperour him∣self, who was able, as well as bound, to make it good in the most large and extensive sense. But further, if this had been granted only salvâ justitiâ, so that the Council had liberty to proceed on him as they saw good, What

made the Emperour take their imprisonment of him so ill, as Nauclerus and others report he did, and that because of the safe-conduct he had given him? It seems the Emperour wanted Becanus, and you, to have told him, That he never granted any safe-conduct, but what had the reservation of a salvâ justitiâ, and that such justice too, as his greatest enemy must shew him: If he had known this, he needed not have been troubled at that which he made account of, in granting the safe-conduct. Lastly, What need the Council have taken such pains to satisfie the Emperour, by decla∣ring in a decree, that neither he, nor any Prince was bound by their safe-conducts, to hinder Hereticks from being punished, if he had not thought himself obliged to do it, by the safe-conduct he had given? and if he did think so before the decree of the Council, then certainly there was no salvâ justitiâ understood by him in the safe-conduct he had granted. Thus we see, how on all hands it appears, from Husse's fears and desires, the Empe∣rours power, the nature of safe-conducts, the Emperours own sense of it, and the Councils decree, that this first Answer hath no ground at all, viz. that the safe conduct was granted jure communi, and that it was only to hinder unjust violence, and not the execution of Justice.

But besides, you say, John Husse was justly burnt, for two reasons: The first is, For being obstinate in his Heresie; the second, For having fled, which the Emperour had prohibited in his safe-conduct, under pain of death. I an∣swer, It is not, Whether a man, obstinate in Heresie, may be burnt, which is now the Question, although that may justly bear a dispute too: But, Whether one, suspected for Heresie, and coming to a Council with safe-conduct for coming and returning, may be burnt without violation of Faith; your first reason then, is nothing to the purpose, and your second as little: First, Because there is no certain evidence at all of Husse's flying; it not being objected against him by the Emperour, who only upbraided him with his obstinacy in his Heresie, as the cause of his execution; and with∣all, if Husse had fled, and had suffered death for that, as you say he ought to have done, he would not have suffered the death proper to Heresie, and not to flying; nor been accounted (as by all your own Authours he is) a sufferer on the account of Heresie. But this being a groundless Calumny, it needs no further confutation.

But before we come to your second Answer, the case of Hierom of Prague must be discussed so far as it is distinct from that of John Husse;* 1.158 who, it seems, was trepanned by a pretended safe-conduct granted him by the Council, and not by the Emperour, wherein, you tell us, that express clause of salvâ semper justitiâ was inserted (which is another argument that the safe-conduct of the Emperour to Husse was of another nature, because it ran in general terms, without any such clause) but poor Hierom, who, it seems, was not acquainted with the arts and subtilties of his enemies, but thought them as honest as himself, ventures to Constance upon this safe-conduct: but when he came thither, and began to understand the jugglings of his ene∣mies, he thought to shift for himself by flight, but being taken, was burnt. So that Hierom suffered through his honest simplicity and credulity, not considering what that salvâ justitiâ would mean in his case, which, as they interpreted it, was such another safe-conduct, as known Malefactors have to the place of Justice: but to call it a safe-conduct, in the sense which Hie∣rom apprehended it in, is as proper as to say, A man that is to be executed shall have a Salvo for his life. This was therefore intended, as appears by the event, as a meer trick to bring him within their power; and so all

such safe-conducts granted with those clauses (by such persons who are to interpret them themselves) are, and nothing else: For they are the sole Judges what this Justice shall be, Neither can you say then, That Faith was kept with Hierom of Prague: for no such thing as a safe-conduct, truly so called, was intended him; and when the Emperour was sollicited to grant him one, he utterly denied it, because of the bad success he had in that of John Husse; and some of the Council being then present with the Emperour, offered to give him a safe-conduct, but they very honestly ex∣plained themselves, that it was a safe-conduct for coming thither, but not for going thence again. And so it proved. So that Faith was well given to Hierom of Prague, and as well kept to John Husse.

But, say you, Had the Protestants gone to the Council of Trent, upon the safe-conduct granted them by that Council jure speciali, in the second manner, they could not at all have been punished under any pretence of Heresie, without manifest breach of Faith; which all Catholicks hold to be unlawful. The like may be said of the safe-conduct offered them for going to Rome. But you must better satisfie us, that you look upon this as a breach of Faith, than as yet you have done. For so are your ambiguities, in your expressions of this nature, that men who know your arts, can hardly tell when they have your right meaning. For you may look on all breach of Faith as unlawful, and yet not look on your acting contrary to your express words, in safe-conducts offered to Hereticks, to be a breach of Faith. For you may say, Faith is there only broken, where men are bound to keep it; but you are not bound to keep it with Hereticks, and that because your obligation to the Church is greater than it can be to Hereticks; when there∣fore you have Hereticks in your power, it is an easie matter for you to say, that, were it in any thing else, but in a matter so nearly concerning the Interest of your Holy Mother the Church, you could not but observe it, but your obligation to that is so great, as destroies all other which are con∣trary to it: and the obligation being destroyed, there is no breach of Faith at all; and therefore you may hold all breach of Faith unlawful, and yet you may proceed against those whom you account Hereticks, contrary to all engagements whatsoever, and then say, This is no breach of Faith. And the truth is, by your Doctrines of aequivocations, and mental reservations, you have made all manner of converse in the world so lubricous and un∣certain, that he who hath to deal with you, especially in matters where the interest of your Church is concerned, had need be wary, and remember to distrust, or else he may repent it afterwards. If you therefore account the Protestants crafty Foxes, in not coming to Rome, or the Council of Trent, it was, because they would not venture too near the Lions Den; but if you will not account them wise men, for refusing so fair an offer, you will give us leave to think them so, till they see better reason to trust your of∣fers. And the Council of Trent did very well to tell them in their form of safe-conduct, they would not do by them as the Council of Constance did, for therein they shew, how much the Faith of Councils was sunk by that, so that if that were not particularly excepted, no trust would ever be given to them more. But, supposing the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent to have been never so free from suspicion, the Protestants had suf∣ficient reasons not to appear there, as will be manifested afterwards.

We come therefore now to your second Answer,* 1.159 in vindication of the Council of Constance, which is this, That by that decree the Council declares, that no Secular Power, how soveraign soever,* 1.160 can hinder the proceedings of the

Ecclesiastical Tribunal in causes of Heresie; for which there is great reason; and consequently, if the Emperour, or any other Secular Prince, grants a safe-conduct, or makes promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction, it shall not hold. The reason is, because 'tis a promise made of a thing not pertain∣ing to the Jurisdiction of that Prince, nor wholly in his power to see performed. To this I answer, 1. That if I understand any thing, this is expresly to say, That no Prince is to keep Faith with Hereticks, and that is it which you are charged with; and you made use of this distinction, to free your selves from. Now that this is the plain meaning of it, thus appears; you say in the words immediately after; But the Council no where teaches, That Faith or safe-conduct given in temporal causes properly pertaining to the Princes Ju∣risdiction, is not to be kept by all, and to all persons of what condition soever, so far as it is possible. Which is as much as to say, That in any other case but that of Heresie, they are to keep Faith, but not in that: for this of He∣resie, is that which you oppose to all Temporal Causes, and challenge it as belonging to an Ecclesiastical Tribunal; when therefore the Council of Constance decrees, That no Secular Power is obliged by any safe-conduct, to any thing which may hinder the Ecclesiastical Tribunals proceeding in cau∣ses of Heresie, what doth it else but declare in express terms, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, i. e. in any thing relating to their Heresie; for this, you say, they have nothing to do with: and therefore let Kings and Princes make never so solemn promises and engagements to men suspected of Heresie, to their peril be it, who rely upon them, for they have nothing to do to promise in such matters, and though their Faith be given never so pub∣lickly and solemnly, they are not bound to keep it; nay, they are bound not to keep it: for, if they should, it would be to the apparent mischief and pre∣judice of the Church. This necessarily follows from your own words, and the distinction here used by you. So that now we need seek no further than your self, and Becanus, for the open avowing of this Principle, That no Prince is bound to keep Faith with Hereticks; but if he doth promise safe-conduct to them though it be more than he can do, yet the Church can make that good use of it, that by that means she may get the Hereticks under her power; and when she hath them, it is but then declaring this promise to be null, and she may do with them as she pleases. Neither is it only Becanus, and you, who say this, but it is the received Principle among you, whatever you say or pretend to the contrary; I mean not, that you say in express terms, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, but by this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesi∣astical Power, as you use it, you say that from whence it necessarily follows. But yet I answer 2. Though this distinction should be granted, yet it can∣not really excuse the Emperour from violating his Faith. For, I say, he pro∣mised nothing but was in his power, which was, to secure him as to life and liberty. Now, although the Emperour had suffered the Ecclesiastical Tri∣bunal, to do what belonged to it, which was to enquire into the charge of Heresie, and to give sentence upon the person, yet the execution belong∣ed wholly to the Secular Power; as the Council it self acknowledged, when after the sentence of Heresie was pronounced against John Husse, there was nothing of the executive part which was pleaded, as belonging to the Church, but only degradation, and that was performed in the presence of the Council;* 1.161 upon which the Sacred Synod declares, That they had no more to do with him, but to deliver him over to the Secular Power, and accordingly

decrees it to be done. Now when the Synod declares this, Is it not plain, that what concerns his life, doth properly and only belong to the Secular Power; if therefore the Emperour was bound to do all which lay in him to do, he was effectually bound to secure him as to life and liberty, for both those lay within his power. And therefore, when he gave order for his execution, he was highly guilty of the violation of his Faith; and if the Council of Constance declared him absolved as to this too, it is yet more evident, that they not only decreed, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks in matters concerning the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, but in such as concerned the Secular Power, which is much as to say, Not at all. And by this the vanity of this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power is sufficiently manifest, and that it evidently appears, that the Council of Constance did decree, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks. And thus I have proved, that his Lordship hath not, as you calumniate him, ignorantly or maliciously wronged the Council, but that no other tolerable sense, besides that which his Lordship saith, can be made of the decree then passed; and notwithstanding your arts and distinctions, nothing can be more plain, than that John Husse was trepanned into his ruine by the Faith of the Emperour given to him. It can be therefore nothing but ei∣ther palpable ignorance, or a deceit as gross as trusting your safe-conduct in a matter of Heresie, for you so confidently to assert, That if the Relator had not mangled the words of the Council (to deceive his Reader) but set down the decree fairly and fully as it is, the business had been so clear, that it would scarce have any dispute. Whereas his Lordship only sets down the title of the decree, and so he tells you himself, and this he doth as faith∣fully as may be, and whereas nothing can more evidence the juglings of the Council, than the Decree it self doth, in which nothing is more plain than that, In case of Heresie, no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any per∣sons whatsoever.

From the Council of Constance, we proceed to other Authors, to see, whether they do not concurr with it in this Opinion. For this,* 1.162 his Lord∣ship cites Simancha a Spanish Bishop, and a Canonist as well as Civilian, who expresly saith, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, as neither with Tyrants, Pyrates,* 1.163 or other publick Robbers; and plainly justifies the proceed∣ings of the Council of Constance in that respect, in that Hereticks by their solemn judgement were burnt, although publick security had been given them. Let us now see, what answer you return to these clear Citations. In general you say, The Bishop was insincere or unadvised in quoting this Author. I wonder wherein:* 1.164 I am sure, not so much as you are in your Answers to him. For, you say Simancha holds not this absolutely and universally, but only in cases, wherein that which is promised cannot be lawfully performed. Hence, say you, Simancha hath these words, Veruntamen (ut Marius Salomonius ait) promissa con∣tra Christum fides, si praestetur, perfidia est, If Faith be given against Christ, that is to the dishonour of God, or contrary to the precepts of true Re∣ligion, it were perfidiousness to observe it. But the Answer to this is easie: for it appears from Simancha's own grounds, that he supposeth it holds universally, because Faith can never be given to Hereticks, so as that pro∣mise can be lawfully performed, because thereby he supposeth it given against Christ, and to the dishonour of God, and therefore concludes, it

would be perfidiousness to observe it. And this is evident from Siman∣cha's own grounds, which he gives for it. For, saith he, if Faith be not kept with Tyrants, Pirats, and other Robbers, which kill the body;* 1.165 much less with Hereticks, who destroy souls: which reason being absolute and universal, his Proposition must be so too. And very consonantly to his former asser∣tions concludes,* 1.166 That if Faith be given them with an Oath, against the publick good, against the salvation of souls, against divine and humane Laws, it is not to be kept; and it is well known that all Heresies are ac∣counted so by you, and therefore in no case Faith is to be kept with Here∣ticks. Neither can this possibly be understood meerly of private per∣sons; for his words are general, and we see he vindicates the proceedings of the Council at Constance upon these grounds, and he quotes Marius Sa∣lomonius and Placa, who likewise assert in terms, That Faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept,* 1.167 and makes use of the instance of the Council of Constance to prove it. And Menochius, whom Simancha likewise cites, who was an Italian Canonist, and therefore might well know the practices of Rome in these cases, saith, That Placa expresly holds, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, which, he saith, he understands so, when Faith is given to the injury of the Catholick Faith: and cites Conradus Brunus to this purpose, That it is not lawful to make such agreements with Hereticks, that they may enjoy the liberty of their own sect. If therefore they must interpret, how far the Faith given tends to the prejudice of the Catholick Faith, we see, how little se∣curity can be had from any solemn promise. And Menochius himself asserts the safe-conduct granted by Princes, in case of Heresie to be unlawful, because the infe∣riour (as he supposes Princes to be to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal) cannot secure them who are condemned by the Superiour, and because Kings and Emperours ought ra∣ther to destroy Hereticks, than to secure them. And therefore the Council of Constance did well in nulling the safe-conducts granted to Hereticks. And what now is this, but in plain terms to assert, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks? Neither can you say, as some do, That they are the Canonists, and not the Church of Rome, which assert this: for, besides that the Canonists understand well enough the intrigues and proceedings of the Court of Rome, although it seems they do not conceal them so much as they should do, yet they are not only these who have asserted it, but some great men of your Church, have, upon occasion, expresly said it; for we are not to expect that this should be avowed as a publick Opinion of your Church, for that were to make it unserviceable to you; but when you have those whom you call Hereticks at an advantage, then is the time to discover this. So there wanted not some to perswade Charls the fifth, notwithstanding the safe-conduct given to Luther at his coming to Worms, to deal by him as the Council of Constance had done by John Husse, and that upon this very ac∣count, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks: But the Emperour, and the Princes about him, were persons of too great honour and honesty

to hearken to such perfidious Councils. And no meaner a person than Cardinal Hosius, admonishes Henry King of Poland, that he ought not to keep the Faith he had given to the Protestants, and gives this reason for it,* 1.168 That an Oath ought to not be the bond of iniquity. And the Jesuit Possevin is reported to have given the same counsel afterwards to Stephen King of Poland. But these things are, as much as possible, kept from our view, and the Books containing such Doctrines in them, are like the Golden Legends bought up by themselves to prevent our discovery of their frauds and im∣posture; and therefore if we cannot instance in those Jesuits, who have expresly taught this Opinion in print, yet that only argues the greater fraud and subtilty of them, who will own and practise such things, which they dare not publickly avow to the world. And yet it appears from the way used by Becanus, and you, in vindication of your selves, that you cannot possibly avoid, the asserting such things from whence it necessarily follows, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. But because the Doctrine it self is grown a matter so odious to the world, being contrary to all principles of humanity and justice, and which, if practised by all those who call each other Hereticks, would overthrow all civil societies; therefore you dare not but in terms disown it, though it still remains among those Arcana So∣cietatis, those hidden works of darkness, which want only a fair opportu∣nity to discover themselves. But as much as you wipe your mouth, though it be foul enough in saying, That neither the Bishop, nor all his gang, are able to name one of them of that Opinion, to make it appear, how much you have abused your self in these words; I shall make a short business of it, and name your self for one, and Becanus your Author for another, and re∣fer the Reader to what goes before, for an evidence that you own those Principles from whence it unavoidably follows, That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks.

But, Are the Jesuits indeed grown such honest men,* 1.169 that not one of their number can be named, who assert this Doctrine? A happy change! For sure they were not alwaies so; if we believe that excellent person of as great integrity as learning, and a Romanist too, Jac. Augustus Thuanus in his Elegy in Parricidas, wherewith he concludes his sa∣cred Poems;* 1.170 in which he speaks great and sad truths of that honest Society; where he mentions those Cruelties and Assasinations, which were brought into these parts of the world by the Arts and Opinions of a famous Society, which makes no∣thing of Laws, Faith, Honesty, Religion, to ad∣vance that Interest which it hath espoused; and expresly saith, That they deny Faith to be kept, that by their distinctions and subtilties, they ener∣vate the force of divine commands, they deny obe∣dience to authority, destroy Religion under a pre∣tence of Piety, break engagements, teach the mur∣thering Kings; and what not? And yet all this while, not one of all this Society ever taught, That Faith was not to be kept with Hereticks. But whence came then the great disputes, Whether an Oath of Allegiance might be taken to Heretical Princes? Was it not from hence that Heresie was supposed to dissolve that

obligation to obedience, which otherwise men lay under? And if it doth destroy that Faith which men owe to their Soveraigns, in case of Heresie; Will it not equally destroy that Faith which Princes promise to their sub∣jects in case of Heresie too? For what reason can be given for the one, which will not hold for the other also. And who were they, I pray, but those loyal persons the Jesuits, who broached, fomented, and propagated that Doctrine? Was not Father Creswell a Jesuit, who, under the name of Andreas Philopator, delivers this excellent Doctrine, That the whole School of Divines teach,* 1.171 and it is a thing certain, and of Faith, that any Christian Prince, if he manifestly falls off from the Religion of the Catholick Roman Church, and endeavours to draw others from it, doth by Law of God and man, fall from all power and authority; and that before the sentence of the Pope and Judge delivered against him; and that all his sub∣jects are free from the obligation of any Oath to him, of obedience and loyalty, and that they may and ought cast such a one out of his power, as an Apostate and a Here∣tick, lest he infect others. I might mention many more, who write after the same nature, but I spare you, only this one may serve instead of many; for he delivers it not only as his own judgement, but the consent of the School, and as a thing most certain, as being of Faith: And will you still say, That no Jesuits own such principles, as, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks? For if Heresie doth thus destroy all obligation to obedience in subjects to Heretical Princes, Will it not much more in Princes toward heretical subjects? because certainly Prin∣ces have a greater power and right to command over subjects, than sub∣jects over them, even in your own case of Heresie. Since this therefore is the avowed Doctrine of the Jesuitical School, perswade whom you can to believe, that you look on an obligation to Faith remaining in a case of Heresie? Certainly none who understand your principles and practices, will have much cause to rely on your Faith in this particular. So much at present of the Jesuits Integrity, as to this principle of keeping Faith with Hereticks.* 1.172 What you add further about the Council of Constance, and John Husse, and Hierom of Prague, is only serving up the very same matter in somewhat different words; for there is nothing contained in them but what hath been sufficiently disproved already: for it all depends on the nature of the safe-conduct, and the difference of the Secular and Eccle∣siastical Power.

* 1.173His Lordship very pertinently asks, supposing men might go safely to Rome, To what purpose is it to go to a General Council thither, and use free∣dom of speech, since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing; and you very pertinently answer, That they were invited thither to be better in∣structed,* 1.174 and reclaimed from their errours. But, Will no place serve to re∣claim them but Rome? Can they not be as well instructed elsewhere, and by other means, than by being summoned to a General Council. We had thought the intention of General Councils had been to have had free de∣bates concerning the matters which divide the Church. But, it seems the Pro∣testants must have been summoned as guilty persons, i. e. Hereticks, and their Adversaries must have sate as their proper Judges, and such who were ac∣cused as the great Innovators, must have believed themselves Infallible, and by your own saying, If an Angel from Heaven had come as a Protestant

thither, he would not have been believed; nay, it had been well he had escaped so, if your power were as great over spirits, as over our grosser bodies. So I suppose John Husse, and Hierom of Prague were invited to Constance to be better instructed; and it is well we know by their example what you mean by your good instructions, and out of a desire to avoid them, care not how little we appear where our Adversaries not only intend to be Judges, but resolve beforehand to condemn us whatsoever we say: For so you tell us, That Rome, and the Fathers of Trent were resolved to stick to their own Doctrine (which they call Catholick) notwithstanding any pre∣tended difficulties or objections brought against it, either by Bishops, or any other person. Your kind invitations then of the Protestants, were won∣derful expressions of your Churches civility towards them; that they might be present to hear themselves condemned, and then escape how they could themselves.

The offer of a publick Disputation, his Lordship truly tells you, signifies nothing without an indifferent arbitration, and the impossibility of agreeing on that, renders the other useless; and only becomes such Thrasonical per∣sons as Campian was, who yet had as little reason as any man to boast of his Atchievements in his disputations. When you therefore say, His Lord∣ship would have some Atheist, Turk or Jew, to fit as indifferent persons; you shew only your Scurrility, and want of understanding. For his Lord∣ship only insists on the necessity of that, to shew the uselesness of publick Disputations, where such cannot be agreed on, as in this case. And he truly saith, This is a good Answer to all such offers; that the Kings and Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Ro∣mish Clergy, till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome, that that Church will submit to a Third, who may be an indifferent Judge be∣tween us and them; or to such a General Council as is after mentioned (not such a one as you would have, wherein the Pope should sit as Head of the Church, for that is to make the greatest Criminal, Judge in his own cause.* 1.175) And this, saith he, is an honest, and, I think, a full Answer. And without this, all Disputation must end in Clamour; and therefore the more publick, the worse. Because, as the Clamour is the greater, so perhaps will be the Schism too.

CHAP. IV. The Reformation of the Church of England justified.

The Church of Rome guilty of Schism, by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion. The Communion of the Catholick and particular Churches distinguished. No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church. The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared. Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption, proved. The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated. The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes. General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary. Whether those things we condemn as errours, were Catho∣lick Tenets at the time of the Reformation. The contrary shewed, and the difference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation. When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines. How far parti∣cular Churches Power to reform themselves extends. His Lordships In∣stances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of Reformation vindicated. The particular case of the Church of England discussed. The proceedings in our Reformation defended. The Church of England a true Church. The National Synod. 1562. a lawful Synod. The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time. The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation. The Popes Power here, a forcible fraudulent usurpation.

HAving thus far examined your Doctrine, of keeping Faith with Here∣ticks,* 1.176 we now return to the main business concerning Schism. And his Lordship saying,* 1.177 That there is difference between departure out of the Church, and causeless thrusting from you; and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church; You answer by a Concession, That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome, but that it was not without cause: Which,* 1.178 that you might not seem to say gratis, you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion. So that by your own confession the present di∣vision or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door, if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion. If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion, for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church, then that must be the Schismatical party, and not the Protestants. For, supposing any Church (though pretending to be never so Catholick) doth restrain her commu∣nion within such narrow and unjust bounds, that she declares such excom∣municate, who do not approve all such errours in doctrine, and corrup∣tions in practice, which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to, the cause of that division which follows, falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion: That i••, when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation. For in this case, that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church; for, the Communion of that lying open and free to all, upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion, whatever Church takes up∣on her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick, becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church: and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure, do not so much divide from the Commu∣nion

of that Church so inclosing, as return to the Communion of the Pri∣mitive and Vniversal Church. The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free, like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants; now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together, to enclose part of it, without consent of the rest, and not to admit any others to their right of Common, without consenting to it, which of these two parties, those who deny to yield their consent; or such who deny their rights if they will not, are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place? Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome, and Ours; the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, and are willing to joyn in the profession of them: Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines, which have no foundation in Scripture, or the consent of the Primitive Church; these, and many superstitious practises, are enjoyned by her, as conditions of her Communion, so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her, who will not approve of them; by which it ap∣pears, your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Ca∣tholick; and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion, for not consenting to your usurpations, do not divide themselves from you, any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church. And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church, the disowning of those things where∣in your Church is become Schismatical, cannot certainly be any culpable separation. For, whatever is so, must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick; but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catho∣lick, i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Commu∣nion of the Vniversal Church.

But herein a great mistake is committed by you, when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church, by the judgement of all,* 1.179 or most of the particular Churches of such an Age, which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age, must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions, which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert; and that is all the ground you have for saying,* 1.180 That the separation of Prote∣stants was not only from the Church of Rome, but (as Calvin confesseth) à toto mundo, from the whole Christian world, and such a separation necessarily in∣volves separation from the true Catholick Church. Now to this, we answer two things. 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed; but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves, is not to separate from the Christian World, but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches. As I hope you will not say, That man is divided from all man∣kind, who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man; but, although he doth so, he doth not differ from any in those things, which are common to all; for that were to differ from all; but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes, from another in his complexion, another in the air of his countenance, and so in other things; this man, though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other, yet is a man still as well as any, because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree, which is, Humane na∣ture, and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other. And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one par∣ticular

Church, it by no means follows, that they separated from the whole Christian World, and therefore from the true Catholick Church. 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particu∣lar opinions and practices of all, or any particular Churches, but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church. For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church, but in such things wherein it is Catholick; now it is not Catholick in any thing, but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution. For whatever else there is, however universal it may be, is extrinsecal to the nature and no∣tion of the Catholick Church, and therefore supposing a separation from the Church, in what is so extrinsecal and accidental, it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church. As for Instance; supposing all men were agreed, that some particular habit should be worn all over the world, will you say, That any number of men who found this habit extremely inconvenient for them, and therefore should disuse it, did on that account separate from humane nature, and ceased to be men by it? Such is the case of any par∣ticular Churches laying aside some customes or ceremonies, which in some one age of the Church, or more, the greatest part of Christian Churches were agreed in the practice of; for, although this general practice should make men more diligent in enquiry, and careful in what they did; yet if such a Church having power to govern it self, see reason to alter it, it doth not separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church therein, and there∣fore doth not cease to be a Church. For there is no culpable separation from the Church Catholick, but what relates to it properly as Catholick; now that doth not relate to it as Catholick, which it may be Catholick with∣out, now certainly you cannot have so little reason as to assert, that the Church cannot be Catholick without such extrinsecal and accidental agree∣ments. And from hence it follows, That no Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church, but what may be proved to separate it self in some thing necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church; and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials, it cannot cease to be a true member of the Catholick Church. If you would therefore prove, that the Church of England, upon the Reformation, is separated from the true Catholick Church; you must not think it enough to say, (which as weakly as commonly is said) That no one particular Church can be named, which in all things agreed with it; for that only proves, that she differed from particular Churches in such things wherein they differed from each other, but that she is divided from all Christian Churches in such things wherein they are all agreed, and which are essential to the Being of the Ca∣tholick Church; when you have proved this, you may expect a further Answer.

This then can be no cause why your Church should expel the Protestants out of her Communion,* 1.181 but it shews us sufficient cause to believe that your Church had separated her self from the Communion of the Catholick. For which we must further consider, that although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick, but what is contrary to the Being of it; yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catho∣lick, by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion, which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church. As for Instance, Though we should grant, Adoration of the Eucharist, Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of Images to be only superstitious practices taken up without sufficient grounds in the Church,

yet since it appears, that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years, without approving or using these things; that Church which shall not only publickly use, but enjoyn such things upon pain of excommunication from the Church, doth, as much as in her lyes, draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within her self, and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church. For, whatever confines, must likewise di∣vide the Church; for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined, and the other, which separation must be made by the party so limiting Christian Communion. As it was in the case of the Do∣natists, who were therefore justly charged with Schism, because they con∣fined the Catholick Church within their own bounds: And if any other Church doth the same which they did, it must be liable to the same charge which they were. The summ then of this discourse is, That the Being of the Catholick Church lyes in Essentials, that for a particular Church to dis∣agree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsecal and acciden∣tal things, is not to separate from the Catholick Church, so as to cease to be a Church; but still, whatever Church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary conditions of Communion, so as to cast men out of the Church, who yield not to them, is Schismatical in so doing; for it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church: and the separation from it, is so far from being Schism, that being cast out of that Church on those terms only, re∣turns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church. On which grounds it will appear, that yours is the Schismatical Church, and not ours. For, although before this imposing humour came into particular Churches, Schism was defined by the Fathers, and others, to be a voluntary departure out of the Church, yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particu∣lar, but the true Catholick Church; for not only persons, but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church; and in such cases, not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches, but those Churches, which de∣parted from the Catholick, are guilty of the Schism.

These things I thought necessary to be further explained, not only to shew, how false that imputation is, of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church, but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the Communion of it; and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion, but your Church so thrusting them out, is apparently guilty of the present Schism.

But still you say, Your Church had sufficient cause for the expulsion of Pro∣testants out of her Communion;* 1.182 and for this you barely repeat your for∣mer assertions, and offer not at the proof of one of them; as though you intended to carry your cause, by the frequent repeating your Declaration. But, Sir, it is the proof of what you say, that we expect from you, and not the bare telling us, That Protestants are Schismaticks, because they are Schismacicks. When you will be at leisure to prove that the Protestants were guilty of Heretical Doctrine, or Schismatical proceedings; that they raised a new, separate, and mutinous faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholick body of the Church; by chusing new Pastors, instituting new rites and ceremonies not in their power to do, by Schismatical convening in several Synods, and there broaching new heretical Confessions of Faith; when I say, You shall think good to prove all, or any one of these, you shall receive so full an Answer as will make it evident, that the Protestants did not depart from the Catholick Churches Doctrine and Communion; but that the Church of Rome is departed thence, first, by imposing erroneous

Doctrines, and superstitious practices, as conditions of Communion, and then by thrusting out all such as would not consent to them.

His Lordship disputing the terms on which a Separation in the Church may be lawful,* 1.183 * 1.184 saith, That corruption in manners only, is no sufficient cause to make a separation in the Church. And, saith he, This is as ingenuously con∣fessed for you, as by me. For if corruption in manners were a just cause of actual separation of one Church from another, in that Catholick body of Christ, the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any, since (as Stapleton grants) there is scarce any sin that can be thought on by man (Heresie only excepted) with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained, especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie, into which Biel grants it possible, the Bishops of the Sea may fall. And Stella and Al∣main grant it freely, that some of them did fall, and so ceased to be Heads of the Church, and left Christ (God be thanked) at that time of his Vicars de∣fection, to look to his Cure himself. But you tell us, The discovery of some few motes,* 1.185 darkens not the brightness of the Sunshine; I wonder what you account Beams, if the Sins of your Popes and others be but motes with you? We grant, that the Sun himself hath his Maculae, but they are such as do not Eclipse his Light; we find the Maculae in your Church, but we are to seek for the bright Sunshine: Or, Doth it lye in the service of your Religi∣ous Votaries? For that is the great part of the conspicuous Piety of your Church, which you instance in. But, Is this indeed the bright Sunshine of your Church, that there are so many thousand of both Sexes (you do well to joyn them together) who tye themselves by perpetual vows, never to be dissolved by their own seeking (and therefore doubtless pleasing to God, whether they are able to keep them or no) and these pray (if they un∣derstand what they say) and sing Divine Hymns day and night (which makes the Sunshine the brighter) which you say is a strange and unheard of thing among Protestants. What, that men and women (though not in Cloysters) pray and sing Hymns to God? no surely. For as the Devo∣tion of our Churches is more grave and solemn, so it is likewise more pi∣ous and intelligible. You pray and sing, but how? Let Erasmus speak, who understood your praying and singing well. Cantiuncularum, clamo∣rum,* 1.186 murmurum ac bomborum ubi{que} plus satis est, si quid ista delectant Su∣peros. Do you think those Prayers and Hymns are pleasing to God, which lye more in the throat than the heart? And such who have been wise and devout men among your selves have been the least admirers of your mimical, uncouth, and superstitious devotions; but have rather con∣demned them as vain, ludicrous things; and wonder∣ed (as Erasmus said) what they thought of Christ,* 1.187 who imagined he could be pleased with them. (Quid sentiunt obsecro de Christo qui putant eum ejusmodi can∣tiunculis delectari?) Are these then the glorious parts of your Devotions, your Prayers and Hymns? But they pray and sing Divine Hymns day and night: If this be the only excellency of your Devotion▪ How much are you out-done by the ancient Psal∣liani and Euchitae, that spent all their time in prayer, and yet were accounted Hereticks for their pains. Still you pray and sing, but to whom? to Saints and Angels often, to the Virgin Mary with great devotion, and most solemn invocations; but to God himself, very sparingly in comparison. If this

then be the warm Sunshine of your Devotions, we had rather use such, wherein we may be sure of Gods blessing; which we cannot be in such Prayers and Hymns which attribute those honours to his creatures, which belong wholly to himself, But you not only sing and pray, but can be ve∣ry idle too; and the number of those men must be called Religious Or∣ders, and the Garment of the Church is said by you to be imbroidered by the variety of them; and for this, Psalm 44.10. is very luckily quoted. And are those indeed the ornaments of your Church, which were become such sinks of wickedness, that those of your Church, who had any modesty left were ashamed of them, and call'd loud for a Reformation. Those were indeed such Gardens wherein it were more worth looking for useful or odo∣riferous flowers (as you express it) than for Diogenes to find out an honest man in his croud of Citizens. Therefore not to dispute with you the first Institutions of Monastick life, nor how commendable the nature of it is, nor the conveniencies of it, where there are no indispensable vows; the main things we blame in them, are, the restraints of mens liberties, what∣ever circumstances they are in, the great degeneracy of them in all re∣spects from their Primitive Institutions, the great snares which the con∣sciences of such as are engaged in them, are almost continually exposed to, the unusefulness of them in their multitudes to the Christian world, the general unserviceableness of the persons who live in them, the great de∣baucheries which they are subject to, and often over-run with; and if these then be the greatest Ornaments of your Churches Garments, it is an easie matter to espy the spots which she hath upon her. What you add con∣cerning the good lives of Papists, and bad of Protestants, if taken universally, i•• as unjust as uncharitable; if indefinitely, it shews only that not th•• par∣ticular lives of men on either side, but the tendency of the Doctrine, to promote or hinder the sanctity of them, is here to be regarded. And to that you speak afterwards, but in a most false and virulent manner, when you say, That though sins be committed among you, they are not defended or justified as good works; whereas, among Protestants,* 1.188 Darkness it self is called Light, and the greatest of all sins, viz. Heresie, Schism, Sacriledge, Rebellion, &c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behind them, are cryed up for perfect Virtue, Zeal, good Reformation, and what not? I doubt not but you would be ready to defend and justifie this open Raillery of yours, and call it a good work, notwithstanding what you said before. If we had a mind to follow you in such things, How easie a matter were it to rip up all the frauds, impostures, villanies of all sorts and kinds which have been commit∣ted by those who have sate in your Infallible Chair, and charge them all on your Church, with much more justice than you do the miscarriages of any under the name of Protestants. For the Protestant Churches disown such persons, and condemn those practices with the greatest indignation; whereas you excuse, palliate, and plead for the lives of the Popes, as much as you dare, and not out-face the Sun at Noon, which hath laid open their Villanies. Where do the Principles of Protestants incourage or plead for, Heresie, Schism, Sacriledge, Rebellion, &c. much less cry them up as Heroi∣call actions? Doth not the Church of England disown and disclaim such things to the uttermost? Have not her sufferings made it appear, how great a hater she is of Heresies, Schisms, Sacriledge, and Rebellion? Did she ever cry up those for Martyrs, who died in Gun-powder treasons? Did she ever teach it lawful to disobey Heretical Princes, and to take away their lives? Yet these things have been done by you, and the doers of them

not condemned, but rather fomented and incouraged, as zealous promo∣ters of the Holy See, and most devout Sons of the Church of Rome. Cease therefore to charge the guilt of persons disowned by the Church of Eng∣land upon her; when you are unwilling to hear of the faults of those per∣sons among your selves, whom you dare not disown, I mean your Popes and Jesuits.

* 1.189Leaving therefore these unbecoming Railleries of yours, and that which occasioneth them, viz. corruption of manners; we come to consider that, which is more pertinent to our purpose, viz. errours in Doctrine; which his Lordship truly assigned as the ground of the Reformation, and not only that there were doctrinal errours in your Church,* 1.190 but that some of the errours of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation. For it is not every light errour in disputable Doctrine and points of curious speculation, that can be a just cause of separation, in that admirable body of Christ, which is his Church, or of one member of it from another. But, that there are errours in Doc∣trine, and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome, is evident to them that will not shut their eyes. The proof (his Lordship saith) runs through the particular points, and so is too long for this discourse. Now to this you manfully answer, That in vain do they at∣tempt to reform the Church of what she can never be guilty.* 1.191 Which, if it de∣pends on your Churches Infallibility (which is largely disproved already) must needs fall to the ground with it. And it is an excellent Answer when a Church is charged actually with erring, to say, She doth not erre, because she cannot: Which is all that you give us here. But if you prove it no better than you have done, the Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy is like to be found in that Church which in her errours challenges Infallibility.

The Question now comes to this, Whether, errours being supposed in the Doctrine, and corruptions in the Communion of a Church, when the General Church would not reform, it was not lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves? To this his Lordship answers affirmatively, in these words. Is it then such a strange thing, that a particular Church may reform it self, if the general will not?* 1.192 I had thought, and do so still, that in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine, it is lawful for the Church, since Christ, to do as the Church before Christ did, and might do. The Church before Christ con∣sisted of Jews and Proselytes: This Church came to have a separation, upon a most ungodly Policy of Jeroboams, so that it never pieced together again. To a Common Council to reform all, they would not come. Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self, when Israel would not joyn? Sure it was, or else the Prophet deceives me, that sayes expresly, Though Israel transgress, yet let not Judah sin.* 1.193 And S. Hierom expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Errour in Religion. After which he proves, That Israel, during this Separation, was a true Church, which we shall insist on, when we have con∣sidered what Answer you return to his Lordships Argument; which lyes in these two things; First, That Judah did not reform her self. Secondly, That Judah is not the Protestant party,* 1.194 as his Lordship supposeth it to be. First, You say, Judah did not reform her self. For Juda being the orthodox Church, united with her Head the High Priest, and not tainted with any Doctrinal er∣rours, What need was there of her Reformation? And so the meaning of that place, Though Israel transgress, yet let not Juda sin, is rather against, than for him, because the sense is rather, Let not Juda fall into Schism, though Israel does, than, let Judah reform her self. But if it appears that Judah had cor∣ruptions crept into her, as well as Israel had, though not so great, and

universal, then it follows, that by these words Judah had power to reform her self. And the antecedent is clear to any one who takes the pains to read the Scripture, and compare the places in it, more than it seems you do. For,* 1.195 Doth not this very Prophet check Judah as well as Israel for transgressing Gods Covenant? Doth he not say,* 1.196 That God had a Controver∣sie with Judah, and would punish Jacob according to his waies? And for all this, Was there no need of Reformation in the Church of Judah? Indeed in one place it is said, That Judah ruleth with God,* 1.197 and is faithful with his Saints; but then that is to be understood of Judah, when she had reform∣ed her self in the daies of Hezekiah: for surely you will not say, That Ju∣dah did not stand in need of Reformation, when Hezekiah began his Reign; for it is said of him, That he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut down the groves. And were not these,* 1.198 things which want∣ed Reformation, think you? If we consider the times of those three Kings before Hezekiah, in which Hosea prophesied; we shall see,* 1.199 what need there was of Reformation among them, and those were Vzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; of the time of Vzziah called Azariah, in the Book of Kings it is said, That the high places were not removed, but the people sacrificed and burnt Incense still on the high places;* 1.200 the same is affirmed of the time of Jo∣tham in the same Chapter; so that though these Princes were good them∣selves, yet there were many corruptions still among the people. But of Ahaz it is said expresly, That he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel; and he sacrificed and burnt Incense in the high places, and on the hills,* 1.201 and under eve∣rygreen tree. Chuse now which of these three you please (for it is most improbable those words, considering the long time of Hosea's Prophecy, should be spoken in the time of Hezekiah the last of the four Kings he pro∣phesied under) And will you tell us again, That the Church of Judah needed no Reformation? But you offer at a reason for it, Because she was united with her Head the High-Priest at Hierusalem. So then, belike as long as Judah and the High-Priest were united, she could be guilty of no Doctrinal Er∣rours: No, not although she should pronounce Christ a blasphemer, and condemn him to be crucified as a malefactor; for then certainly Judah and the High-Priest were united. But, I know you will say, You spake this of the time before the Messias was come. And was it then true,* 1.202 that as long as Judah was united with her Head, the High-Priest, there was no need of Re∣formation? What think you then of the time of Ahaz, when Vzziah the Priest built an Altar at the command of Ahaz, according to the pattern of the Altar of Damascus, contrary to Gods express Law: yet, according to you, as long as Judah was united with her Head, the High-Priest, there was nothing which needed Reformation. And, although it be plainly affirmed, that Judah kept not the commands of the Lord their God,* 1.203 but walked in the statutes of Israel which they had made; yet you, who, it seems, knew Judah's Inno∣cency better than God, or the Prophets did, say very magisterially, That as long as she was united with her Head the High-Priest, What need, I pray, was there of her Reformation? And this being the case of Judah, I may easily grant you, That Judah is not the Protestant party, but that of the Roman Church, i. e. while Judah was under her corruptions; and yet, you say, She needed no Reformation, she is the fittest parallel you could think of for your Church; but we pretend to no parallel between Judah and the Protestant party, in not needing a Reformation, but in her power to re∣form her self. Which we say still, that she had, though Israel would not joyn with her, by virtue of these words of the Prophet, Though Israel trans∣gress,

yet let not Judah sin: thereby manifesting, that though the grea∣test part was degenerated in the ten Tribes, yet Judah might prevent the same in her self, by reforming those abuses which were crept among them; And therefore the sense of those words, Let not Judah sin, must in this case imply a power to reform her self. If therefore we speak of Judah degenerated, we grant the parallel lyes wholly between Judah and the Church of Rome; for, although there were great corruptions in Judah, and as great in your Church, yet with the same reason you say, That neither needed Reformation: But if we speak of Judah reforming her self un∣der Hezekiah, then we say, The parallel lyes between Judah, and the Protestant party; whatever you say to the contrary. But you shrewdly ask,* 1.204 If you be Judah, Who, I pray, are the revolted ten Tribes? Who are of Jeroboams Cabal? Even they who set up the Calves at Dan and Be∣thel: Such who worship Images instead of the true God; though they in∣tend them only as Symbols of the Divine Presence; for no more did Jero∣boam and the Israelites intend by their Calves, and there is no pretence which you use to justifie your selves from Idolatry, but will excuse Jero∣boam, and the ten Tribes from it. If the Protestant party then be Judah; it is easie finding out the revolted ten Tribes, and Jeroboams Cabal, the Court of Rome answering to this, as the Church of Rome doth to the other. But we cannot be Judah, because we left the Catholick Jerusalem, that is Rome the City of Peace: By whom, I pray, was Rome christened, The Catholick Jerusalem? For if we consider the worship there used, and the politick ends of it, it much more looks like Samaria, or Dan, and Bethel. If Rome be our Catholick Jerusalem, shew us, When God made choice of that, for the peculiar place of his Worship? Where we are commanded to resort thither for Divine Worship? When God placed his Name there, as he did of old in Jerusalem? When you have shewed us these things, we may think the worse of our selves for leaving Rome, but not before. And, let the world judge, Whether it be more likely one should meet with the worship of Golden Calves at Rome, or among the Protestants? It is you who have found out new Sacrifices, new Objects of Worship, new Rites and Ceremonies in it, new Altars, and consequently new Priests too; and yet for all this, you must be orthodox Judah, which needed no Reformation? And who, I pray, do in point of obedience most resemble the ten Tribes? Have not you set up a spiritual Jeroboam, as a new Head of the Church, in opposition to the Son of David? And that you may advance the Interest of this spiritual Head, you raise his authority far above that of Kings, and Temporal Princes, whom you ought to be subject to; declaring it in his power to excommunicate, depose, and absolve subjects from obedience to them. And therefore is not the parallel between the ten Tribes, and the Church of Rome, very pat, and much to the purpose? But when you would seem to return this upon us by a false and scurrilous parallel be∣tween Jeroboam,* 1.205 and that excellent Princess Queen Elizabeth in the Refor∣mation of the Church of England, you only betray the badness of your cause, which makes detractions so necessary to maintain it: For as her title to the Crown was undoubted, so her proceedings in the Reformation were such as are warranted by the Law of God, and the Nation; and her carriage in her reign towards Jesuits and Priests, no other than what the apparent necessity of her own and her Kingdoms preservation put her up∣on. But if she must be accounted like Jeroboam, for banishing Priests and Jesuits often convicted of treasonable practices, upon pain of death if they

were found in England; What must we think of the Catholick Jerusalem the City of Peace, that sweet and gentle Mother the Church of Rome, that hath carried her self so peaceably towards those who have dissented from her? Witness the blood of so many hundred thousands which she hath imbrued her hands in, meerly for opposing her doctrines and superstitions; witness that excellent School of Humanity the Inquisition, and the easie Lessons she teaches those who come under her discipline there; witness the proceedings in England in the daies of Queen Mary; and then let any judge if the parallel must be carried by cruelty towards dissenters, which of their two Reigns came the nearest that of Jeroboam. The only true words then that you say, are, but enough of this parallel; and more than enough too of such impudent slanders against the memory of that famous Queen: But your Church would have been more unlike the ten Tribes, if there had not been a lying Prophet there.

You dispute very manfully against his Lordship, for asserting, That Is∣rael remained a Church after the separation between Judah and the ten Tribes;* 1.206 and yet, after you have spent many words about it, you yield all that he asserts; when you say,* 1.207 That in a general sense they were called the people of God, as they were Abrahams seed, according to the flesh, by reason of the pro∣mise made to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And what is there more than this, that his Lordship contends for? for he never dreamt that the ten Tribes were Abraham's seed according to the Spi∣rit; but only sayes, That there was salvation for those thousands that had not bowed their knees to Baal, which cannot be in the ordinary way where there is no Church. And if, as you say, Abrahams seed only according to the Spirit, i. e. the faithful make the true Church; then it follows, Where there were so many faithful, there must needs be a true Church. And thus for any thing you have said to the contrary, his Lordships argument from the case of Judah holds for every particular Churches power to reform it self, when the General will not reform.

His Lordship further argues,* 1.208 That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners, is as lawful for a particular Church,* 1.209 as it is to publish and pro∣mulgate any thing that is Catholick in either. And your Question, Quô ju∣dice? lies alike against both. And yet, I think, saith he, It may be proved, that the Church of Rome, and that as a particular Church, did promulgate an orthodox truth, which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church; namely, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. If she erred in this fact, confess her errour; if she erred not, Why may not another particular Church do as she did? From whence he inferrs, That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent; it may reform any thing that is not Catholick, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not.* 1.210 Now to this you answer, 1. That this procession from the Son, was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church; but what concerns that,* 1.211 and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed, have been so amply discussed already, that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition, having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self▪* 1.212 or its ad∣dition to the Creed. 2. You answer, That the consequence will not hold, that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth, not as yet Catholickly received by the Church, then a particular Church may repeal, or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received? Surely no. Yet this (say you) is his Lordships, and the Protestants case. You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently af∣ter

these words; for surely this is so. For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick, and repealing something Catholick toge∣ther? Surely no. But the promulgating something true, but not Catho∣lickly received with the reforming something not Catholick. Either there∣fore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words, or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question, viz. that all those which we call for a Reforma∣tion of, were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church: which you know we utterly deny. But you go on, and say, That thence it follows not, that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Ca∣tholick, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not, because this would suppose errour, or something uncatholick, to be taught or admitted by the whole Church. To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance; Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel, had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah, and Benjamin, as well as the rest; Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Wor∣ship of God? For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church; and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church. And so the greater the corruptions are, the more impossible it is to cure them; and in case they spread generally, no attempts of Refor∣mation can be lawful: which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so. And the truth is, such pretences as these are, are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed; for if something not good in it self, should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches, this only makes a Reformation the more necessary; so far is it from making it the more disputable. For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous, and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection. And if any other Churches neglect themselves, What reason is it that the rest should? For, any or all other particular Churches neglect∣ing their duty, is no more an argument, that no particular Church should reform it self, than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague, then I am bound to neglect it too. But you answer, 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings, because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines, directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Ca∣tholick Truths. This is the great thing in Question; but I see, you love best the lazy trade of begging things, which are impossible to be rational∣ly proved.

But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subse∣quent words;* 1.213 For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began,* 1.214 was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist, by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine, generally held by the whole Church? Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally be∣lieved? Was not Veneration of Holy Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Praying for the dead, that they might be eased of their pains, and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians? Was not Free will, Merit of good works, and Justification by Charity, or inherent Grace, and not by Faith only, universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom? Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope, and the Latin Church? To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge, that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick? This

doth not justifie at all his Reformation; he should prove that it may not only add, but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church; for this the pretended Reformers did, as well in England as elsewhere. His Lordship never pretends, much less disputes, that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick; but the ground why he supposeth, such things as those mentioned by you, might be taken away, is, because they are not Catholick; the Question then is be∣tween us, Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not: this you at∣tempt to prove by this medium, Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation. To which I answer, 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by, what was Catholick and what not; then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense, it was in our Churches power to reject, and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church. And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy, your Churches Infallibility, the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy, Communion in one kind, Prayer in an unknown tongue, Indulgences, &c. Will you say, That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reforma∣tion? If you could have said so, no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points, and some of which gave the first occasion to the Re∣formation. If then these were not Catholickly received, a particular Church might without Schism reject them, and so the Church of England is sufficiently vindicated from Schism by your self, as to these points here mentioned; which you willingly omitted, because you could not but know how far they were from being universally received in all Churches in Christendom?

2. As to those things which you insist on, you give no sufficient evidence at all, that they were received by the whole Church as Catholick Doctrines. For, so far it is from appearing, that these were held as Catholick Do∣ctrines by all Churches in the Christian world (for then you do most unrea∣sonably condemn the Greek, and Abyssine Churches, &c. for Heresie or Schism, if they owned all Catholick Doctrines; and they must do so, if they agreed with your Church in all these things which are the only Doctrines you mention as Catholick, in opposition to such whom you condemn for Heresie or Schism; and if the agreement of all Churches be the measure of what is Catholick, then those Doctrines cannot be so, which those great Churches differ from you in, by your own argument) but, so far is it, I say, from appearing, that these were held so by all Churches in Christen∣dom, that you cannot prove they were so held in the Church of Rome her self, before the Reformation. The Church of Rome I take here in the largest sense, as it takes in all such who were the visible members of her Commu∣nion. Now, I hope you will not say, that such Doctrines are received as Catholick Doctrines, which are imbraced only by a party in your Church, another party opposing it, both which still remain members of your Communion; for whatever is received as a Catholick Doctrine (according to you) is so received, that those who deny or doubt of it, do thereby be∣come no members of the visible Communion of that Church; which is by the Churches so declaring her self in those points, that she admits none to her Communion, but upon the acknowledgement of them. Now, Will you say, This was the case of your Church, as to these Doctrines at the be∣ginning of the Reformation? Were Transubstantiation, real Sacrifice of the Mass, Veneration of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, &c. so defined

then by your Church to be Articles of Faith, that whoever did not assent to them, was declared excommunicate, and cast out of your Church? If not, it is impossible, upon your own grounds, to prove, that these were univer∣sally held and believed as Catholick Doctrines of your Church. I do not say, As truly Catholick Doctrines in themselves; for, whatever your Church de∣fines concerning them, they are not more or less so in themselves for your Churches definition; but, I say, you cannot assert that these were held by your Church to be Catholick Doctrines, till they were defined to be such. For, according to your principles, that which differenceth a Catholick Doctrine from a particular Opinion, is the Churches Definition; before then the Church had passed a definition in these points, they could not be held as Catholick Doctrines. To make this somewhat clearer, because it is necessary for undeceiving those who are told, as you tell us here, That at the Reformation we rejected such things which were universally own∣ed for Catholick Doctrines, which is so far from being true, that it is im∣possible they should be owned for such by the Church of Rome upon your own principles. For, I pray, tell us, Are there not several sorts of Opini∣ons among you at this day, none of which are pretended to be Catholick Doctrines? and this you constantly tell us, when we object to you your dissentions about them. As for Instance, the Popes personal Infallibility, the Superiority of Pope over General Councils, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the Disputes about Praedestination, &c. when we tell you of your differences in these points, you answer, That these hinder not the Vnity of the Church, because these are only in matters of Opinion; and that it is not de fide, that men should hold either way. When we demand the reason of this difference concerning these things, your Answer is, That the Church hath defined some things to be believed, and not others; that what the Church hath defined, is to be looked on as Catholick Doctrine, and the de∣nyers of it are guilty of Heresie; but where the Church hath not defined, those are not Catholick Doctrines, but only at best but pious Opinions, and men may be good Catholicks, and yet differ about them. I pray, tell me, Is this your Doctrine, or, is it not? If not, there may be Hereticks within your Church, as well as without: if it be your Doctrine, apply it to the matters in hand. Were these things defined by the Church at the beginning of the Reforma∣tion? If they were, produce those Definitions for all those things which you say were owned as Catholick Doctrines then: that we may see, that at least in the judgement of your Church they were accounted so. Tell us, when and where those Doctrines were defined before the Council of Trent? and, I hope you will not say, that was before the beginning of the Refor∣mation. If then there were no such definitions concerning them, they could not by your Church be accounted as Catholick Doctrines; at the most, they could be but only pious Opinions, as that of the Popes Infallibility among you is, and consequently men might be Catholicks still, though they dispu∣ted or denied them. And how then come the Protestants to be accounted Hereticks in their Reformation, if upon your own principles, those things which they denied were then no Catholick Doctrines: Though you should therefore prove more than you have done, That these points of Doctrine were generally received at the time of the Reformation, yet that by no means proves that they were Catholick Doctrines, unless you make it impossible that meer Opinions should be generally received in your Church. For, if any thing may be generally received in the nature of an Opinion, you cannot prove from the bare general reception, that it was a Catholick

Doctrine: unless you would attempt to prove it by the notion under which it was received, Whether as an Opinion, or a Catholick Doctrine.

But then you must remember to prove these things, 1. That all those who did receive it, received it under that notion; as for instance,* 1.215 In any one of those Articles by you mentioned, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, &c. you must first prove, That all who were in your Churche's Communion did believe those things; which it is impossible for you to do, unless you could prove, that none could be of your Church, unless they be∣lieved them; which is again impossible to be done, unless your Church had so defined those things, that they ceased to be members of it who did not believe them. Thus, we see, your first task is rendred impossible, viz. to know, Whether all in your Church held these Doctrines or no; but, sup∣pose you knew this, it falls short of your purpose, unless you can prove, that all those who held these things, did not hold them as bare Opinions, but as Catholick Doctrines; and this is again as impossible as the former; for, How can you tell, whether they judged these things to be so, unless you knew what their Rule was whereby they judged of Catholick Doc∣trines? If you knew their Rule, How can you tell, Whether they made a right Vse of it or no? or, Whether they made any Use at all of it? or, Whe∣ther they did not take up such Opinions by prejudice, education, the judgement of others, and several other waies, without examining of what nature or importance the things were. If you think you have a certain Rule to judge of Catholick Doctrines by, you must prove that they had the same Rule, and looked upon it as such too: otherwise they might not use it for those ends, nor be governed at all by it. When you will therefore prove any Doctrines to be Catholick, by being generally received, you must re∣member what brave impossibilities you have undertaken. But, suppose you could master this too, and prove, that men generally received these as Catholick Doctrines; yet, before you can prove, that these are Catholick Doctrines from thence, you have a further task yet upon you, which is, to prove it impossible that these men should be out in their judgement con∣cerning the nature of an Opinion, and that they could not look on any thing as a Catholick Doctrine, but what was really so. For, if they may be mistaken in their judgement, we are as far to seek as ever, for know∣ing what are Catholick Doctrines, and what not. You must therefore prove the judgement of all these persons infallible concerning what are Catholick Doctrines, and what not: And by that time, the Pope will return you little thanks for your pains, in making every member of your Church as infal∣lible as himself. If it be then so impossible to prove, that these were re∣ceived as Catholick Doctrines, either from any definition of your Church, or from the general reception of them among the members of it, you see, what little reason you had to say, That the Protestants at the beginning of the Reformation, did take away something that was Catholick from the Doc∣trine of the Church. Which is notoriously false and inconsistent with your own principles. If we should therefore grant, that Transubstantiation, Pur∣gatory, &c. were generally owned in your Church at the time of the Reformation, the utmost you can prove, is, only that they were owned as particular Doctrines by particular men, but not that they were owned as the Catho∣lick Doctrines of your Church. And therefore we deny not, but that party and faction in your Church which owned and contended for these, had got the upper-hand of the other, before the time of the Reformation, so that those who doubted of, or denied them, durst not appear so publickly as

their adversaries did; but they were but a party, and a faction still, and there were many outward members of your Church, who groaned under the abuses and tyrannies of the prevailing faction, and call'd loud for a Refor∣mation. As appeared not only by the open testimonies of some against such Doctrines; the sad complaint of others for want of Reformation; but by the general sense of the necessity of it, at the time when it was set upon, the great applause it met with among all persons who allowed themselves liberty to enquire into things, the general consent of the main bodies of those who set about reforming themselves in the main Articles of Christian Doctrine, and unanimous opposition to those erroneous Opinions which you call Catholick Doctrines. So that these were not at the time of the Refor∣mation, so much as the owned Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church; but the Opinions of a prevailing Faction in it: and therefore the disown∣ing them, is no rejecting any thing Catholick, but rejecting the opinions and practices of a tyrannical and usurping Faction. There must be then a great deal of difference put between the State and Doctrine of the Church of Rome, before the beginning of the Reformation, and since, espe∣cially since the Council of Trent. For then these Doctrines were owned by a Faction, but yet there might have been communion with that Church, without believing them to be Catholick Doctrines; and no doubt, ma∣ny pious souls went to Heaven without believing any of these things, (viz. such who believed and improved the common principles of Christianity, without regarding the erroneous Doctrines, or superstitious Practices of those among whom they lived) but upon the first stirrings towards a Reformation, the Court of Rome was so far from reforming the abuses which were complained of, that they sought to inforce them with the greatest severity upon all persons, thundering out Excommunications against all such who should question or dispute them. By which means those who might have lived peaceably before within the external Commu∣nion of that Church, without consenting to the errours of it, are now forced out of it, unless they would approve of such things which their consciences detested; in comparison with the peace of which, they accounted not their lives to be dear to them, as many thousands of them made it appear in several Countries. This is the true and just account of the state of things at the beginning of the Reformation; but afterwards, when, through the necessity of the Pope's affairs, a Council was summoned, and all the arts imaginable were made use of, to steer that grand affair for the Interess of the Court of Rome; a new scene of affairs appears in the Christian world: those Doctrines which before were owned only by particular men, are de∣fined by Pope and Council, to be the Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church, and all those Anathematized who will not own them. By which means the Roman Church is become it self that party and faction, which on∣ly prevailed in it before but with reluctancy and opposition; and now, none are looked on as members of that Church, but such as own the defi∣nitions of that Council in point of Doctrine. Which makes it vastly to dif∣fer from what it was before, as to the terms of its Communion, and the state of the persons who remain in it; who can neither enjoy that free∣dom in judgement which they might use before, nor yet can pretend those excuses for not knowing the errours and corruptions of that Church, which might have prevented obstinacy in them before. So that upon the whole it appears, that the Protestants in the beginning of the Reformation, were so far from taking away any thing that was received as a Catholick Do∣ctrine,

by all Christian Churches, that they did not reject any thing which could be looked on as the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and consequently that the Protestants were so far from a wilful separation from the Church of Rome, that they were driven out by a prevalent Faction, which imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons, as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church, and the neces∣sary conditions of Communion with her.

3. I may answer yet further, That it is not enough to prove any Do∣ctrine to be Catholick, that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age; but it must be made appear, to have been so received from the Apostles times. So that if we should grant, that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick, not only by the Church of Rome, but all other Chri∣stian Churches (so far as it can be discerned by their Communion) yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick, unless you can first prove, that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never be∣lieve a Doctrine to be Catholick, which is not so. You see therefore your task increases further upon you: for, it is not enough to say, That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick, and therefore they were so; but that for 1517. years, successively from the Apostles to that time, they were judged to be so, and then we shall more easily be∣lieve you. When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation, the Sacri∣fice of the Mass, Image-worship, Invocation of Saints, or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you, in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines, you may then say, That Protestants in denying these, did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church; but, till that time, these Answers may abun∣dantly suffice.

We now come closer to the business of the Reformation; but,* 1.216 before we examine the particulars of it, the general grounds on which it proceeded, must somewhat further be cleared, which his Lordship tells you, are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves, in case the whole Church is negligent, or will not; to which you say,* 1.217 That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does, to particular Churches, to Na∣tional and Provincial Councils, in reforming errours and abuses either of do∣ctrine or practice: only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church, and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith, especially when they define or declare points not generally known and ac∣knowledged to be Catholick Truths. What you grant in effect at first, you in effect deny again afterwards. For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome; and when you grant a power to reform only, in case the Pope consent, you grant no power to reform at all. For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us, How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Refor∣mation. For his Lordship truly saith, in Answer to Capellus, who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith, without consult∣ing the Roman See,* 1.218 That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made: So it is as certain, that, were it proved and practised, we should have no Reformation. For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured, if that See alone should be her Physitian, which in truth is her disease. Now to this you say, That even Capellus himself requires this: as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing. But besides you say,

The practise of the Church is evident for it, in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils, which, as St. Austin witnesseth, sent their decrees touching Grace, Original sin in Infants, and other matters against Pelagius, to be confirmed by the Pope: but what is all this to the business of Refor∣mation, that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent? That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent, Who denyes? but, what is it you would thence infer to your purpose? for the utmost which can be drawn hence, is, that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius; by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees: that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed. And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation, (which is all that Authority im∣plyes) and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism, if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine. But because they communicated their de∣crees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them, that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference; and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers, who so stoutly opposed Zosimus, Innocents Successour, in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius. Did they, think you, look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority, who would by no means yield to those en∣croachments of power, which Zosimus would have usurped over them? Nay it appears, that, till the African Fathers had better informed him, Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself, and in case he had gone on so to do, do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them? And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them, though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See, yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges; and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them, which he hath done since, no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church, (without any un∣handsomness or incivility) and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it.

To that pretence, That things should have been born with, till the time of a General Council,* 1.219 his Lordship answers: First, 'tis true, a General Council, free and entire,* 1.220 would have been the best remedy, and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far, and eaten so deep into Christianity. But what? should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all, rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge, and a less able hand? Secondly we live to see since, if we had stayed and expected a General Council, what manner of one we should have had if any. For that at Trent was neither General nor free. And for the errours which Rome had contracted, it con∣firmed them, it cured them not. And yet I much doubt, whether ever that Council (such as it was) would have been call'd, if some Provincial and Nation∣al Synods under Supreme and Regal power, had not first set upon this great work of Reformation; which I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self. But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men, as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that. For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accom∣plish

the will of God, St. James 1.20. but I have learnt not to reject the good, which God hath wrought, for any evil which men may fasten upon it. Now to this you answer, 1. By a fair Concession again, that a Provincial Coun∣cil is the next Chirurgion, when a Gangrene endangers life,* 1.221 but still the Popes assistance is required: For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself, you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by, whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church, to give way to an effectual cure. 2. But you say further, That the most proper expedi∣ent is an Oecumenical Council; and this you spoil again, with saying; Such as the Council of Trent was. For what you say in vindication of that being General and free, we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that pur∣pose. What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this; which that we may make way for, we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds; in which his Lordship proves, That when the Vniversal Church will not, or for the iniqui∣ty of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council, 'tis lawful,* 1.222 nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial. To this you answer in General,* 1.223 That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies, abuses in manners and discipline, may be re∣formed by particular Councils, without express leave of the Pope; but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church, Sacraments, and whatever else is of Divine Institution, or universal obligation, particular Councils, (if they duly proceed) attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick, and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed. Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head! we are indeed by this put into a very good condi∣tion; for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self; but if one comes to ravish her, her hands are tyed, and by no means must she defend her self. For in case, say you, it be any matter of great moment, it must be left to the Pope, and nothing to be done without his consent; no not although the main of the distempers come through him. But thanks be to God, our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian, who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure: we know of no such obligation we have, to sleep in St. Peters Church, as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure. God hath en∣trusted every National Church with the care of her own safety, and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end. It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy, to say, The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured. I won∣der where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self? Whence doth he derive this Autho∣rity and sole power of reforming Churches? But that must be afterwards examined. But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates, and Christian Bishops in Churches, and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous? Do we not read in the Apo∣stolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves, without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all? if any abuses were among them, the particular Governours of those Churches are check∣ed and rebuked for it, and commanded to exercise their power over offenders? and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that

full power which is committed to the Governours of them? Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such, but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times. For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach, but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches, that they did not yield themselves his Vassals, but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations. As hath partly appeared al∣ready, and will do more afterwards.

* 1.224And that particular Churches may reform themselves, his Lordship pro∣duceth several Testimonies; The first is of Gerson, who tells us plainly, That he will not deny,* 1.225 but that the Church may be reformed by parts. And that this is necessary; and, that to effect it, Provincial Councils may suffice, and in some things Diocesan. And again, Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council, or command them to be reformed in Provin∣cial Councils:* 1.226 But all this, you say, doth not concern matters of Faith, but only personal abuses; But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other? Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary, that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved? and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses? Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other? that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses, then much more certainly as to greater. Besides, you say, Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head; neither do we plead for any such; but then you must shew, Who the Churches head is, and, By what right he comes to be so; otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others, and is as corrupt a member as any in the body. But his Lord∣ship adds,* 1.227 This right of Provincial Synods, that they might decree in causes of Faith, and in cases of Reformation, where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ, was practised much above a thousand years ago by many, both National and Provincial Synods. For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius, whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith; but here you say, The very title confutes his pretence, for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him.* 1.228 But however, whether with the Pope or against him, it was no more then a Provincial Synod; and this decreed something in matters of Faith, though according to your own Doctrine the Pope could not be Infallible there: for you restrain his Infallibility to a General Council, and do not assert that it belongs to the particular Church of Rome. As well then may any other Provincial Synod determine matters of Faith, as that of Rome, since that hath no more Infallibility belonging to it as such then any other particular Church hath; and the Pope himself you say may erre when he doth not define matters of Faith in a General Council. To his Lordships second instance of the Council of Gangra about the same time condemning Eustathius for his condemning marriage as un∣lawful; you answer to the same purpose, That Osius was there Pope Syl∣vester's Legat; but what then? if the Pope had been there himself he had not been Infallible, much less certainly his Legat who could have only a Second-hand Infallibility. To the third of the Council of Carthage con∣demning rebaptization about 348. you grant, That it was assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, but that no new Article was defined in it, but only the perpetual tradition of the Church was confirmed therein. Neither do we

plead for any power in Provincial Councils to define any new Articles of Faith, but only to revive the old, and to confirm them in opposition to any Innovations in point of Doctrine; and as to this we profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils. To the fourth of the Council of Aquileia A. D. 381. condemning Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie, St. Ambrose being present; you answer, That they only condemned those who had been condemned already by the Nicene Council; and, St. Ambrose and other Bishops of Italy being present, Who can doubt but every thing was done there by the Popes authority and consent? But if they only enforced the decrees of the Council of Nice, What need of the Pope's autho∣rity to do that? And do you think that there were no Provincial Councils in that part of Italy which was particularly distinguished from the subur∣bicarian Churches under the Bishop of Rome, wherein the Pope was not pre∣sent either by himself or Legats? If you think so, your thoughts have more of your will then understanding in them. But if this Council pro∣ceeded according to that of Nice, Will it not be as lawful for other Pro∣vincial Councils to reform particular Churches, as long as they keep to the Decrees not barely of Nice, but of the four General Councils, which the Church of England looks on, as her duty to do. In the two following In∣stances of the second Council of Carthage declaring in behalf of the Trinity, and the Milevitan Council about the Pelagian Heresie; you say, The Bishops of Rome were consulted: But what then? Were they consulted as the Heads of the Church, or only as eminent members of it in regard of their Faith and Piety? Prove the former when you are able; and as to the latter it depends upon the continuance of that Faith and Piety in them; and when once the reason is taken away, there can be no necessity of con∣tinuing the same resort. The same answer will serve for what you say concerning the second Council of Aurange, determining the Controversies about Grace and Free-will, supposing we grant it assembled by the means of Felix 4. Bishop of Rome; as likewise to the third of Toledo. We come therefore to that which you call his Lordships reserve, and Master-allegation the fourth Council of Toledo; which, saith he,* 1.229 did not only handle matters of Faith for the reformation of that people, but even added also something to the Creed, which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds. Nay, the Bishops did not only practise this, to condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods, and so to reform those several places and the Church it self by parts; but they did openly challenge this as their right and due, and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome.* 1.230 For in this fourth Council of Toledo they decree, that, If there happen a cause of Faith to be setled, a general that is a National Synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held thereon. And this in the year 643. where you see it was then Catholick Doctrine in all Spain, that a National Synod might be a competent Judge in a cause of Faith. But here still we meet with the same Answer,* 1.231 That all this might be done with a due subordination to the See Apostolick, but that it doth not hence follow that any thing may be done in Provincial Councils against the authority of it. Neither do we plead that any thing may be done against the just authority of the Bishop of Rome, or any other Bishop; but then you must prove that he had a just authority over the Church of England, and that he exercised no power here at the Reformation but what did of right belong to him. But the fuller debate of these things must be left to that place where you de∣signedly assert and vindicate the Pope's Authority.

* 1.232These things being thus in the general cleared, we come to the parti∣cular application of them to the case of the Church of England. As to which,* 1.233 his Lordship say's; And if this were practised so often and in so many places, Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like? As she did.* 1.234 For she cast off the Pope's usurpation, and as much as in her lay re∣stored the King to his right.* 1.235 That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighths time. And by the Records in the Archbishops office, or∣derly kept and to be seen. In the Reformation which came after, our Princes had their parts, and the Clergy theirs. And to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs. That our Princes had their parts, is manifest by their calling together of the Bishops, and others of the Clergy, to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation. And the Clergy did their part: for, being thus call'd together by Regal power, they met in the Na∣tional Synod of sixty two. And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of State, and the Royal assent. In this Synod, the Positive truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks. So that a meer ca∣lumny it is, that we profess only a Negative Religion. True it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our Confession must needs contain some Negatives. For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored. Nor can we admit maimed Sacraments. Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue. And in a corrupt time or place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert and vindicate Truth. Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former, an Affirmative verity being ever included in the Negative to a falshood. As for any errour which might fall into this (as any other Refor∣mation) if any such can be found; then I say, and 'tis most true, Refor∣mation, especially in cases of Religion, is so difficult a work, and subject to so many Pretensions, that 'tis almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far, or fall too short in some smaller things or other, which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the Reformation it self, may well be passed over and born withall. But if there have been any wilfull and gross errours, not so much in opinion as in Fact (Sacriledge too often pretending to Reform Superstition) that's the crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation; and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them.

This is his Lordships full and just account of the proceedings of the Reformation in the Church of England, to which we must consider what Answer you return. To his Lordships Question, Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like; you give this answer, Truly I know no reason why it may not,* 1.236 provided it be a true National Council and a true Church of England, (as those recited were true Churches and Councils) and provided also that it do no more. We are contended to put the issue of this business upon these three things, viz. That our Church is a true Church, That the power which reformed it was sufficient for that purpose, and, That no more was done by them then was in their power to do. But for the first you tell us, That seeing by the Church of England he means the present Protestant Church there,* 1.237 you must crave leave of his Lord∣ship to deny his supposition, and tell him the Church of England in that sense, signifies no true Church. Were it not an easie matter to requite you by telling you, It is impossible we should be guilty of Schism in any separation from your Communion, because we must crave leave of you to say that the Church of Rome is no true Church; and where there is Schism that must be a true Church which men are guilty of it in separating from. Not as though I sought only to return a blow on you which I could not defend

our Church from; but to let you see, that by whatever way you would prove your Church to be true, by the same we may prove ours to be so too. If you own and believe the Christian Doctrine to be the way to salvation, so do we. If you embrace the ancient Creeds, so do we. If you acknow∣ledge the Scriptures to be Gods Word, so do we. If you joyn together in participation of the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, so do we. If you have a constant succession of Bishops, so have we. Name then What it is, which is Fundamental to the Being of a Church, which our Pro∣testant Church doth want? You grant the Church of England was a true Church before the Reformation, Wherein was it altered from it self by it, that it ceased to be a true Church? Was it, in denying the Pope's Supremacy in Henry the eighth's time? That cannot be: for you very remarkably grant afterwards, That the Bishops, and the King too,* 1.238 left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge. (Which is a concession we shall make more use of afterwards.) Surely then this could not unchurch them. Or, Was it the proceedings of the Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's time? The Su∣premacy could not be it neither now; for that was asserted under a more moderate title in her time, than in her Fathers. Was it the Vse of the Liturgy in the English tongue? Surely not; when Pius the fourth offered to confirm it, as is credibly reported from Vincentius Parpalia, whom that Pope imployed on a Message to Queen Elizabeth, with terms of Accommo∣dation. But, What was it which did unchurch us? Were they the Ar∣ticles of Religion agreed on in the Convocation, 1562? If they were these, Were they either the positive or negative Articles? If the positive, Were they the asserting the Articles contained in the three Creeds, the sufficien∣cy of Scriptures, the necessity of Divine Grace? or, What else? If the nega∣tive, Was it the denying Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Vnlawfulness of Priests Marriage, Communion in one kind? or, Which of them else was it, which made the Protestant Church to be no true Church? Or, Is it lastly the asserting, That as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their livings,* 1.239 and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith? Is this it which hath done us all the mischief to unchurch us, viz. the denying your Churches Infallibility? If this be it, it is our comfort yet, that our Church will remain a true Church, till yours be proved to be Infallible; which I dare say, will be long enough. But, as though it were in your absolute power to church and unchurch whom, and when you please, you offer at no proof at all of this assertion, but only very fairly crave his Lordships leave to call the Protestant Church no true Church: Which indeed is a more civil way of begging the Question. And if it will not be granted, you cannot help it; for you have done your utmost, in craving his leave for it, and you have no more to say to it.

But, you seem to say much more to the second,* 1.240 That the Reformation was not managed by a lawful power, nor carried on in a due manner; for you of∣fer to prove, that the National Synod 1562. was no lawful Synod, in these words. For is it not notorious, that pretended Synod A. D. 1562. were all manifest usurpers? Is it not manifest,* 1.241 that they all by force intruded them∣selves, both into the Sees of other lawful Bishops, and into the cures of other lawful Pastors, quietly and Canonically possessed of them before the said intru∣sion? Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England, or law∣fully to represent the English Church, who never had any lawful, that is, Cano∣nical and just Vocation, Mission, or Jurisdiction given them to, and over the

English Nation? Two things you object as the great reasons why those persons who sate in the Convocation, A. 1562. could make no lawful Sy∣nod, and those are Intrusion, and want of a lawful Mission: which shall be particularly examined. The first charge is of Intrusion, which you would seem to aggravate by several circumstances, that they intruded them∣selves, and that by force; and not some, but all; and that into the Sees of other lawful Bishops, and cures of lawful Pastors. But how true these cir∣cumstances are, must appear by a true account of the matters of fact re∣lating to these things in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. How false that is, That all intruded themselves, is notorious to any one who un∣derstands any thing of those times; For this Convocation was held in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth, and in the fifth of her Reign: Of 26 Cathe∣dral Churches, there were but fourteen or fifteen Bishops then living in England. For the Sees of Salisbury and Oxford fell vacant A. 1557. and were not supplied in the time of Queen Mary. Hereford, Bristow, Bangor, were vacant by the death of the several Bishops some weeks before Queen Mary. Canterbury by the death of Cardinal Pool, the same day with the Queen. Norwich and Gloucester a few weeks after her; and so likewise Ro∣chester, Worcester, and S. Asaph became vacant by the voluntary exile of Pates and Goldwell, the Bishops thereof; so that but fifteen Bishops were then living and remaining in England. And, Were all those who supplied these vacant Sees, Intruders? A strange kind of Intrusion into dead mens places! So then, this circumstance is notoriously false, That they All by force intruded themselves into the Sees of other lawful Bishops. But let us see, Whe∣ther the other are more justly charged with a forcible Intrusion into the Sees of the other Bishops. For which we must consider what the proceed∣ings were in reference to them: It appears then, that in the first year of the Queen, the Oath of Supremacy, formed and enjoyned in the time of Henry 8. was in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth revived for the better securing the Queen of the Fidelity of her subjects; but yet it was so revived, that several considerable passages in the Act concerning it, were upon mature deliberation mitigated, both as to the Queens title which was not Supreme Head, but Supreme Governour; a title which Queen Mary had used before, as appears by an Act passed in the third Ses∣sion of Parliament in her time: and likewise as to the penalty; for, where∣as the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. c. 10. was so very severe, That whosoever did ex∣tol the authority of the Bishop of Rome, was, for the first offence, within the compass of a Praemunire, and for refusing to take the Oath, was guilty of Trea∣son; it passed now in Queen Elizabeth's time, only with this penalty, That such who refused it, should be excluded such places of honour and profit, as they held in the Church or Common-wealth; and that such as should maintain or defend the authority, preheminence, power, or jurisdiction, Spiritual or Eccle∣siastical of any forein Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate whatsoever, should be three times convicted before he suffered the pains of death. Upon the expiring of the Parliament, Commissioners were appointed to require the Bishops to take the Oath of Supremacy, according to the Law made to that purpose, which being tendred to them, they all (Kitchin of Landaffe on∣ly excepted) unanimously refused it, although they had taken it before as Priests or Bishops, in the Reign of Henry 8. or Edward 6. But whether by some secret intimations from Rome, or their own obstinacy, they were resolved rather to undergo the penalty of the Law, than to take it now; and accordingly before the end of that year they were deprived of

their Bishopricks. So that the Question about the Intrusion of those Bishops, who came into their Sees, depends upon the legality of the depri∣vation of these. And certainly, whosoever considers their former car∣riage towards the Queen, in refusing to assist at her Coronation,* 1.242 and some of them threatning to excommunicate her instead of disputing at West∣minster, as they had solemnly engaged to do, joyned with this contuma∣cy in refusing the Oath, will find that these persons did not unjustly suffer this deprivation. For which I need not run out into the Princes power over Ecclesiastical persons; for you have given a sufficient reason for it your self in that acknowledgement of yours, That the Bishops, and the King too (meaning King Henry) left the Pope in possession of all he could rightly chal∣lenge. If this be true, that notwithstanding the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. notwith∣standing the Oath of Supremacy then taken, the Pope might injoy all that belonged to him of Divine Right, he might then do the same, notwith∣standing this Oath in Queen Elizabeth's time, which was only reviving the former with some mitigation; and what could it be then else but obstina∣cy and contumacy in them to refuse it? And therefore the plea which you make for those whom you call the Henry-Bishops, will sufficiently con∣demn these present Bishops, whom we now speak of. For if those Bishops only renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in Eng∣land, as you say, i. e. that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters, which the Pope exercised here by virtue of the Canons, Prescription, and other titles of humane right, and gave it to the King; yet they never renounced or de∣prived him of that part of his authority, which is far more intrinsecal to his office, and of Divine Right; they never denied the Popes Soveraign Power to teach the Vniversal Church, and determine all Controversies of Faith whatso∣ever in a General Council. If these things, I say, be true, which you con∣fidently assert, the more inexcusable were these Bishops for refusing that Oath of Supremacy which they had not only taken in King Henry's time, but which, by your own confession, takes away nothing of the Pope's Au∣thority, in relation to the whole Catholick Church. And by this means their obstinacy appeared so great, as might justly deserve a deprivation. It be∣ing certainly in the Power of the King and Bishops to assert their own rights in opposition to any Canons or Prescriptions whatsoever of meerly humane right. So that by your own confession, the more excusable the Henry-Bishops were, as you call them, the less excusable the Mary-Bishops were (as, to follow you, we must call them) in refusing the Oath of Supremacy, when tendred to them. Was it lawful then in King Henry's time, to take this Oath or not? If not, then King Henry's Bishops are infinitely to blame for taking it, and you for defending them: If it was lawful then, why not in Queen Elizabeth's time? Had she not as much reason to impose it as her Father? Had she not as much power to do it? When one of the chief refusers, Heath, Arch-Bishop of York, and then L. Chancellour of England, did, upon the first notice of the death of Queen Mary, declare to the House of Commons, That the succession of the Crown did of right belong to the Princess Elizabeth, whose title they conceived to be free from all legal Que∣stions; this could be then no plea at all for them. So that if any persons through the greatest obstinacy, might be deprived by a Prince of their Ec∣clesiastical preferments, these might; and when you can prove, that in no case a Prince hath power to deprive Ecclesiastical persons, you will say more to your purpose than yet you have done. But till you have done that, it remains clear, that these Bishops were justly deprived; and if so,

What was to be done with their vacant Sees? Must they be kept vacant still? or such be put into them who were guilty of the same fault with themselves, in refusing the Oath, when tendred to them? If not such, then it was necessary that other fit persons should be legally consecrated and invested in them: And so they were, the places being supplied by wor∣thy persons; the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury being consecrated by a Canoni∣cal number of Edward-Bishops, and the rest duly consecrated by other hands. And for all this, Must all these persons be intruders, and intrude themselves by force, and that into the places of other lawful Bishops? When so many Sees were actually vacant, and the rest by due form of Law, into which other Bishops were elected, and legally consecrated, notwithstand∣ing the putid Fable of the Nags-Head ordination, which hath so often and so evidently been disproved, that I am glad to find you have so much mo∣desty, as not to mention it. These Bishops being thus legally invested in their places, To whom did the care and Government of the English Church belong? to these, or to those who were justly deprived? If to these, Were not they then the due representatives of the English Church in a National Sy∣nod, who with those of the lower House of Convocation, make up a true National Council? And if so, it belonged to them as such, to consider what appertained to the Faith and Government of the Church of England. For they undertook not to prescribe to the whole world, that they leave to the Bishop and Church of Rome (not as legally belonging to them, but arro∣gantly usurped by them) but to draw up Articles of Religion, which should be owned by all such who enjoyed any place of Trust in the Church of England. So that in all this they were neither intruders, neither did they act any thing beyond their place and authority. But you would seem to quarrel with their Vocation, Mission, and Jurisdiction, as though it were not lawful, i. e. Canonical and Just; all these are your own words, and they are but words; for not one syllable like a proof is suggested. I tell you then (not to spend time in a needless vindication of the Vocation of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England, when you give us no rea∣son to question it) that by the same arguments that you can prove that you have any lawful Bishops and Pastors in your Church, it will appear that we have too. And that our Vocation and Mission is far more consonant to the Apostolical and Primitive Church than yours is.

* 1.243But, the main quarrel is still behind, which is, that, Supposing they had been true Bishops,* 1.244 and Pastors of the English Church, and their Assembly a law∣ful National Council, yet, you say, They were so far from doing the like (that other Provincial Councils had done) that they acted directly contrary to them, which charge lyes in these things. 1. Condemning points of Faith that had been generally believed and practised in the Church before them. This you know we deny, and you barely affirm it, and I have shewed some reason of our denial already, and shall do more when we come to particulars. 2. In contradicting the Doctrine of the Roman Church: A great Heresie indeed, but never yet condemned in any General Council. 3. In convening against the express Will of the Church of Rome: We shall then think that a fault, when you prove it belongs to that only, to summon all Councils, General, National, and Provincial. 4. In denying the Popes Authority, or attempting to deprive him of it: if you speak of his usurped Authority, you must prove it a fault to deprive him of it, i. e. to withdraw our selves from obedience to it, for that is all the deprivation can be here understood. If you mean Just Authority, shew wherein it lyes, whence he had it, by what means he

came into it in the Church of England, and if you can make it appear that he had a just claim, it will be easie proving them guilty of a fault who dis∣owned it. But, Whether it were a fault in them or no, I am sure it is one in you, to lay such things, and so many to our charge, and not offering to give evidence for one of them. But I must consider the Infallibility of your Church lyes in dictating, and not proving. Thus then, for any thing which you so much as seem to say to the contrary, the proceedings of the Reformation were very regular and just, being built on sufficient grounds, managed in a legal manner, and carried on with due moderation. Which are the highest commendations can be given to a work of Reformation; and do with the greatest right belong to the Church of England, of any Church in the Christian world. There remains nothing now which you object against our Reformation, but some faults of the Reformers; as to which his Lordship had already said, If any such be found, they are the crimes of the persons, and not of the Reformation,* 1.245 and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them. Which Answer so full of justice and modesty, one would have thought, should have been sufficient for any reasonable man; but you are not satisfied with it. For you will have those faults to come from the principles of the Reformation, and that they did not belong to the persons of the Reformers, but are entailed on their Suc∣cessors. But a short Answer will suffice for both these: shew us, What avowed principles of the Church of England tend to any real Sacriledge, be∣fore you charge any thing of that nature, as flowing from the Maxims of the Reformation. And if you can prove the Successors of the Reformers to continue in any Sacrilegious Actions, let those plead for them who will, I shall not; but leave them, as his Lordship did, to answer such things to God.

As to the Memorandum, which his Lordship concludes this discourse with, That he spake at that time of the General Church, as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman See: not doubting,* 1.246 but that as the Vniversal Catholick Church would have reformed her self, had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke; so, while she was for the most in these Western parts under that Yoke, the Church of Rome was, if not the only, yet the chief hinderance of Reformation: You answer with some stomach; By what force I pray? Is it possible? or,* 1.247 Can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man, that a single Bishop, of no very large Diocese, should be able by force, to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom, as confessedly did ac∣knowledge the Popes Power, when the pretended Reformation began? But, What reasonable man can imagine, that a single Bishop indeed of no very large Diocese (if kept within his bounds) should, in progress of time, extend his power so far as the Pope did, but by one of these two means, force, or fraud? And since, you seem to be so much displeased at the former, I pray take the latter; or rather, the conjunction of both together. For that there was force used, appears by the manifold resistance which was made to the encroachments of the Popes power; and the sad complaints of the usurpations and abuses which were in it; and these abundantly delivered by Classical Authors of both the present and precedent times: and (to use more of your own words) all Ecclesiastical Monuments are full of them; so that this is no false calumny, or bitter Pasquil (as you call it) but a very plain and evi∣dent truth. But that there was likewise a great deal of art, subtilty and fraud used in the getting, keeping, and managing the Popes power, he hath but a small measure of wit who doth not understand, and they as little of honesty, who dare not confess it.

CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority.

The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon. How far our Church, in reforming her self, condemns the Church of Rome. The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs, asserted. The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious. The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. The Rights of Primates and Metropolitans settled by it. The suitableness of the Eccle∣siastical, to the Civil Government. That the Bishop of Rome had then a li∣mited Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches; as Primate of the Ro∣man Diocese. Of the Cyprian Priviledge; that it was not peculiar, but common to all Primates of Dioceses. Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons; how far pertinent to our dispute. How far the Pope's Confirmati∣on requisite to new elected Patriarchs. Of the Synodical and Communica∣tory Letters. The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops. The Instances brought for it, considered. The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius, truly stated. The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared, and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy. Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome, how far allowed by the Canons of the Church. The great case of Ap∣peals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed. That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited, as well as those of the inferiour Clergy. T. C's. fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops, for acknowledging Ap∣peals to Rome. The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface, and the other to Coelestine. The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome, asserted. The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered. The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk. The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion. Of the state of the African Churches, after their denying Appeals to Rome. The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours. Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod, in case of Ap∣peals: Whether ever received by the Church: No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy. Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene. The weakness of the pleas for it, manifested.

* 1.248THat which now remains to be discussed in the Question of Schism, is, concerning the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome, Whe∣ther that be so large and extensive, as to bind us to an universal submission, so that by renouncing of it, we violate the Vnity of the Church, and are thereby guilty of Schism? But, before we come to a particular discussion of that,* 1.249 we must cast our eyes back on the precedent Chapter, in which the title promiseth us, That Protestants should be further convinced of Schism; but upon examination of it, there appears not so much as the shadow of any new matter, but it wholly depends upon principles already refuted, and so contains a bare repetition of what hath been abundantly answered in the first part. So your first Section hath no more of strength, than what lyes in your Churches Infallibility: For, when you would plead, That though the Church of Rome be the accused party, yet she may judge in her own cause;* 1.250 you do it upon this ground, That you had already proved the Ro∣man

Church to be infallible, and therefore your Church might as well condemn her accusers, as the Apostles theirs; and that Protestants not pretending In∣fallibility cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church. Now, What doth all this come to, in case your Church be not infallible, as we have evidently proved she is not, in the first part; and that she is so far from it, that she hath most grosly erred, as we shall prove in the third part? Your second Section supposes the mat∣ter of fact evident,* 1.251 That Protestants did contradict the publick Doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world, which we have lately proved to be an egregious falsity, and shall do more afterwards. The cause of the Separatists, and the Church of England, is vastly different, Whether wee look on the authority, cause, or manner of their proceed∣ings; and in your other Instances you still beg the Question, That your Church is our Mother-Church, and therefore we are bound to submit to her judgement, though she be the accused party. But as to this whole business of Quô Judice, nothing can be spoken with more solidity and satisfaction, than what his Lordship saith. If it be a cause common to both, as certain it is here (between the Protestant and Roman Church) then neither part alone may be Judge; if neither alone may judge,* 1.252 then either they must be judged by a third, which stands indifferent to both, and that is the Scripture: or if there be a jealousie, or a doubt of the sense of the Scripture, they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that; or both call and submit to a General Council, which shall be lawfully called, and fairly and freely held with indifferency to all parties; and that must judge the Difference according to Scripture, which must be their Rule as well as private mens. When you either attempt to shew the unreasonableness of this, or substitute any thing more reasonable instead of it, you may expect a fur∣ther Answer to the Question, Quô Judice? as far as it concerns the diffe∣rence between your Church, or ours. The remainder of this whole Chap∣ter is only a repetition of somewhat concerning Fundamentals,* 1.253 and a fur∣ther expatiating in words, without the addition of any more strength from reason or authority upon the Churches Infallibility being proved from Scri∣pture; which having been throughly considered already, and an account given, not only of the meaning of those places (one excepted, which we shall meet with again) but of the reason, Why the sense of them as to In∣fallibility should be restrained to the Apostles, I find no sufficient motive inducing me to follow you, in distrusting the Readers memory, and tres∣passing on his patience, so much as to inculcate the same things over and over, as you do. Passing by therefore the things already handled, and leaving the rest (if any such thing appear) to a more convenient place, where these very places of Scripture are again brought upon the stage in the Questions of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility of General Councils, I come to your following Chapter, in which you enter upon the Vindica∣tion of the Roman Churches Authority.

2. That which his Lordship hath long insisted on,* 1.254 and evidently prov∣ed, is, The Right which particular Churches have to reform themselves, when the General Church cannot for impediments, or will not for negligence do it. And your Answers to his proofs have had their weakness sufficiently laid open; the only thing here objected further, is, Whether in so doing parti∣cular Churches do not condemn others of Errours in Faith? To which his Lordship answers, That to reform themselves, and to condemn others,* 1.255 are two different works, unless it fall out so, that by reforming themselves, they do

by consequence condemn any other, that is guilty in that point, in which they reform themselves; and so far to judge and condemn others, is not only law∣ful but necessary. A man that lives Religiously doth not by and by sit in judge∣ment, and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers: but yet while he is silent, his very life condemns them. To what end his Lordship produceth this Instance, any one may easily understand; but you abuse it, as though his Lordship had said, That Protestants only by their Religious lives do con∣demn your Church; and upon this run out into a strange declamation about Who the men are that live so Religiously?* 1.256 They who to propagate the Gospel the better, marry wives contrary to the Canons and bring Scripture for it? Yes surely, much more then they who to propagate your Church, en∣joy Concubines; for which if they can bring some Canons of your Church, I am sure they can bring no Scripture for it. They who pull down Mona∣steries both of Religious men and women? I see, you are still as loth to part them, as they are to be parted themselves; but if all their lives be no more Religious then the most of them have been; the pulling of them down might be a greater act of Religion then living in them. They who cast Altars to the ground? More certainly then they who worshipped them. They who partly banish Priests, and partly put them to death? Or they who commit treasons and do things worthy of death? But you are doubt∣less very Religious and tender-hearted men, whose consciences would never suffer you to banish or put any to death for the sake of Religion; no not in Queen Maries time here in England! They who deface the very Tombs of Saints, and will not permit them to rest even when they are dead? Or they who profess to worship dead Saints, and martyr living ones with Fire and Faggot? If this be your religious living, none who know what Religion means will be much taken with it. I shall easily grant that you stick close to the Pope, but are therein far enough from the Doctrine or life of St. Peter. If any of you have endured Sequestrations, Imprisonments, Death it self, I am sure it was not for any good you did; not for the Catholick Faith, but if you will, for some Catholick Treasons, such as would have enwrapt a whole Nation in misery. If this be your suffering persecution for righteous∣ness sake, you will have little cause to rejoyce in your Fellow-sufferers. But if you had not a mind to calumniate us, and provoke us to speak sad truths of you, all this might have been spared; for his Lordship only chose this Instance, to shew that a Church or person may be condemned conse∣quentially, which was not intentionally. But you say, Our Church hath formally condemned yours, by publick and solemn censures in the 39. Articles. Doth his Lordship deny that our Church in order to our own reformation hath condemned many things which your Church holds? No, but that our Churches main intention was to reform it self; but, considering the cor∣ruption and degeneracy of your Church, she could not do it, without con∣sequentially condemning yours: and, that she did justly in so doing, we are ready on all occasions to justifie.

* 1.257But his Lordship asks, If one particular Church may not judge or condemn another,* 1.258 What must then be done where particulars need reformation? To which his Adversary gives a plain Answer, That particular Churches must in that case (as Irenaeus intimateth) have recourse to the Church of Rome, which hath more powerful principality; and to her Bishop, who is the chief Pa∣stour of the whole Church, as being St. Peters Successour, &c. This is the rise and occasion of the present Controversie. To this his Lordship Answers, That it is most true indeed; the Church of Rome hath had, and hath yet, more

powerful Principality, then any other particular Church. But she hath not this power from Christ. The Roman Patriarch by Ecclesiastical constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of order: but for principality of power, the Patriarchs were as even, as equal, as the Apostles were before them. The truth is, this more powerful Principality the Roman Bishops got under the Emperours, af∣ter they became Christian; and they used the matter so, that they grew big enough to oppose, nay to depose the Emperours, by the same power which they had given them. And after this, other particular Churches, especially here in the West, submitted themselves to them for Succour and Protections sake. And this was one main cause that swel'd Rome into this more powerful Principali∣ty, and not any right given by Christ to make that Prelate, Pastour of the whole Church. To this you Answer, That to say that the Roman Churches Princi∣pality is not from Christ,* 1.259 is contrary to St. Austin and the whole Milevitan Council, who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess that the Popes Autho∣rity is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. But whoever seriously reads and throughly considers that Epistle will find no such thing as that you aim at there.* 1.260 For the scope of the Epistle is to per∣swade Pope Innocent to appear against Coelestius and Pelagius; to that end they give first an account of their Doctrine, shewing how pernicious and contra∣ry to Scripture it was; after which they tell him that Pelagius being at Jerusalem was like to do a great deal of mischief there, but that many of the Brethren opposed him and especially St. Hierom. But we, say they, do suppose that through the mercy of our Lord Christ assisting you, those which hold such perverse and pernicious principles may more easily yield by your Au∣thority drawn out of Scripture. Where they do not in the least dream of his Authority as Vniversal Pastor being grounded on Scripture, but of his ap∣pearing against the Pelagians with his Authority drawn out of Scripture, that is, to that Authority which he had in the Church, by the reputation of the Roman See, the Authority of the Scripture being added, which was so clear against the Pelagians, or both these going together were the most probable way to suppress their Doctrine. And it hath been sufficiently proved by others, by very many instances of the writers about that Age, that Authoritas was no more then Rescriptum; as particularly appears by many passages in Leo's Epistles, in which sense no more is expressed by this, than, that by the Pope's Answer to the Council drawn out of the Authority of Scripture, the Pelagians might more probably be suppressed. But what is this to an Vniversal Pastorship given by Christ to him; any otherwise then to those who sat in any other Apostolical Sees?

But your great quarrel is against his Lordship, for making all the Pa∣triarchs even and equal, as to Principality of power: and when he saith, Equal as the Apostles were, you say, that is aequivocal; for though the Apostles had equal jurisdiction over the whole Church, yet St. Peter alone had jurisdi∣ction over the Apostles; but this is neither proved from John 21. nor is it at all clear in Antiquity as will appear when we come to that Subject.

But this assertion of the equality of Protestants is so destructive to your pretensions in behalf of the Church of Rome,* 1.261 that you set your self more particularly to disprove it; which you offer to do by two things. 1. By a Canon of the Nicene Council. 2. By the practise of the ancient Church.* 1.262 You begin with the first of them, and tell us, That 'tis contrary to the Council of Nice, In the third Canon whereof, which concerns the jurisdiction

of Patriarchs, the Authority (or Principality if you will) of the Bishop of Rome is made the Pattern, and Model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which Pa∣triarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops. The words of the Canon are these. Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus, qui sub ejus potestate sunt, sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romae, caput est & princeps omnium Pa∣triarcharum, The Patriarch (say they) is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority, as he who holds the See of Rome is head and Prince of the Patriarchs. And in the same Canon the Pope is afterwards styled, Petro similis & Authoritate par, resembling St. Peter and his equal in Au∣thority. These are big words indeed and to your purpose, if ever any such thing had been decreed by the Council of Nice; but I shall evidently prove that this Canon is supposititious, and a notorious piece of Forgery. Which forgery is much increased by you when you tell us, these words are con∣tained in the third Canon of the Council of Nice: Which in the Greek Editions of the Canons by du Tillet, and the Codex Canonum by Justellus, and all other extant, in the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus, and Isidore Mercator, is wholly against the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. such kind of women which Clergy men took into their houses, neither as wives or Concubines, but under a pretext of piety. In the Arabick Edition of the Nicene Canons, set out by Alphonsus Pisanus, the third Canon is against the ordination either of Neophyti or criminal persons, and so likewise in that of Turrianus. So that in no Edition, whether Arabick or other, is this the third Canon of the Council of Nice; and therefore you were guilty either of great ignorance and negligence in saying so, or of notorious fraud and imposture if you knew it to be otherwise, and yet said it that the unwary reader might believe this Canon to be within the 20. which are the only genuine Canons of the Council of Nice. Indeed such a Canon there is in these Arabick Edi∣tions, but it is so far from being the third, that in the Editions both of Pisanus and Turrianus it is the thirty ninth, and in it I grant those words are; but yet you will have little reason to rejoyce in them, when I have proved, (as I doubt not to do) that this whole farrago of Arabick Canons is a meer forgery; and that I shall prove both from the true number of the Nicene Canons, and the incongruity of many things in the Arabick Canons with the State and Polity of the Church at that time.

In those Editions set out by Pisanus and Turrianus from the Copy which they say was brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriarch of Alexan∣dria there are no fewer then eighty Canons; whereas the Nicene Council never passed above 20. Which if it appear true, that will sufficiently dis∣cover the Forgery and Supposititiousness of these Arabick Canons. Now that there were no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice, I thus prove. First from Theodoret, who after he had given an account of the proceedings in the Council against the Arrians, he saith, That the Fa∣thers met in Council again, and passed twenty Canons relating to the Churches Polity:* 1.263 and Gelasius Gricenus whom Alphonsus Pisanus set forth with his Latin ver∣sion, recounts no more then twenty Canons; the same number is asserted by Nicephorus Callistus; and we need not trouble our selves with reciting the testi∣monies of more Greek Authors, since Binius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say, there were no more then twenty Canons then determined. But al∣though certainly the Greeks were the most compe∣tent

Judges in this case, yet the Latins themselves did not allow of more.* 1.264 For although Ruffinus makes twenty two, yet that is not by the addition of any more Canons, but by splitting two into four.* 1.265 And if we believe Pope Stephen in Gratian, the Roman Church did allow of no more then twenty. And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches,* 1.266 A.D. 773. the same number of the Nicene Canons appears still. And in a M S. of Hincmarus Rhemensis against Hincmarus Laudunensis,* 1.267 this is not only asserted but at large contended for, that there were no more Canons determined at Nice, then those twenty which we now have, from the testimonies of the Tripartite history, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalce∣don. So that if both Greeks and Latins say true, there could be no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice; which may be yet further proved by two things, viz. the proceedings of the African Fa∣thers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae, both which yield an abundant testimony to our pur∣pose. If ever there was a just occasion given for an early and exact search into the authentick Canons of the Council of Nice, it was certainly in that grand Debate between the African Fathers and the Roman Bishops in the case of Appeals. For Zosimus challenging not only a right of Appeals to himself, but a power of dispatching Legats unto the African Churches to hear causes there, and all this by vertue of a Canon in the Nicene Council, and this being delivered to them in Council by Faustinus, Philippus, and Asellus whom Zosimus sent into Africa, to negotiate this affair; no sooner did they hear this, but they were startled and amazed at it, that such a thing should be challenged by vertue of a Canon in the Council of Nice which they had never heard of before. Upon this they declare them∣selves willing to yield to what should appear to be determined by the Nicene Canons; thence they propound that a more exact search might be made into the authentical Copies of them: for they profess no such thing at all to appear, in all the Greek copies which they had among them; al∣though Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage were present in the Council of Nice and brought home those Copies which were preserved in the Church of Africa. For in all the subscriptions of the Nicene Council, whether Arabick or others, the name of Caecilian appears; now Caecilian was immediate Pre∣decessor in Carthage to Aurelius who presided in that Council wherein these things were debated. And there it is expresly said,* 1.268 There were but twenty Canons. But in order to further satisfaction, they decree that a message should be sent on purpose to Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexan∣dria to find out the authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons, and after a most diligent search no more Canons could be found then what the African Fathers had before. And thence in the Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople written to the Council of Carthage, he acquaints them that he according to their desire had sent them the true and compleat Canons (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of the Nicene Council.* 1.269 And to the same purpose Cyril the Patriarch of A∣lexandria mentioning their desires of having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the most true and authentick copies out of the Archives of that Church, so he tells them he had

sent (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the most faithful copies of the authentick Synod of Nice.* 1.270 Now if there had been any ground in the world for Turrianus his conjecture,* 1.271 that the Nicene Canons were tran∣slated into Arabick by Alexander who was present at the Council, for the Benefit of those in Pentapolis or Aegypt who only understood that lan∣guage, (and that before the Nicene Canons were burnt, of which Athanasius complains); who was more likely to have found out these Arabick Canons then Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria upon this occasion especially, when the full and authentick Copies were so extreamly desired? And since no such thing at all appeared then, upon the most diligent inquiry, What can be more evident, then that these eighty Arabick Canons are the imposture of some latter age? Besides, if these Canons had been genuine and authen∣tick, what imaginable reason can be given why they were not inserted in the Codex Canonum as the other twenty were? For, as Jacobus Leschasserius well observes, we are not to imagine that the Ancient Church was govern∣ed at Randome by loose and dispersed Canons, where∣by it had been an easie matter to have foisted in false and supposititious Canons;* 1.272 but that there was a cer∣tain body and collection of them digested into an exact order; so that none could add to or take away any thing from it: and whatever Canons were not contained in this body had no power or force at all in the Church. And that there was such a Codex Canonum, that learned Person hath abundantly proved from the Council of Chalcedon, which hath many passages referring to it; so that there is now no questi∣on made, but that which Justellus published is the true collection of those Canons of the Vniversal Church which were inserted into the Codex; in which we find but only the twenty Canons of the Nicene Council; and that there could possibly be no more, appears by the number of the Canons as they are reckoned in the Council of Chalcedon. From whence it follows that only these twenty Canons were ever own'd by the Vniversal Church; for had the Fathers of the Church known of so many other Canons of the Nicene Council, (as surely at least the Patriarchs of Alexandria could not be ignorant of them if there had been any such) can we possibly think that those who had so great a Veneration for the Nicene Council, should have left the far greater part of the Canons of it, out of the Code of the Churches Canons? I am not ignorant of what is objected by Binius, Bellarmin, and others, to prove that there were more then twenty Canons of the Council of Nice; but those proofs either depend upon things as supposititious as the Arabick Canons themselves, such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum; or else they only prove that several other things were de∣termined by the Nicene Council as concerning the celebration of Easter, rebaptizing Hereticks, and such like, which might be by the Acts of the Council without putting them into the Canons, as Baronius confesseth; but there cannot be any evidence brought of any Canon which concerned the Churches Polity (for about that Theodoret and Nicephorus tell us the Canons were made) which was not among these twenty. So that it appears that these Arabick Canons are a meer forgery of later times, there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four General Councils:* 1.273 and therefore Baronius, (notwithstanding the pretences of Pisanus and Turrianus from the Alexandrian Copy, and that out of Marcellus his Library, yet) since these Canons were unknown in the

Controversie of the African Church about the Nicene Canons, leaves the Patronage of them to such as might be able to defend them. And Sponda∣nus in his contraction of him, (though in his marginal note he saith,* 1.274 Baronius was sometimes more inclinable to the inlarged number of the Nicene Canons) yet he relates it as his positive opinion, that he rejected all but the twenty, whether Arabick or other as spuri∣ous and supposititious. You see then what a fair choice you have made of the third Canon of the Council of Nice to prove the superiority of the Pope over other Patriarchs by; when neither is it the third Canon, nor any Canon at all of the Council of Nice, but a spurious figment like those of Isidore Mercator, who thought all would pass for gold which made for the Interess of the Church of Rome.

But were there not such a strong and pregnant evidence from authority to make it appear that these Canons were supposititious,* 1.275 yet the incongrui∣ty of them, with the state of the Church at that time would abundantly manifest it, if we had time to compare many of those Canons with it. But that which is most material to our purpose, concerning the equality of the Patriarchs, your following words will put us upon a further enquiry into. This also, say you (viz. That the Pope was head and Prince of all the Patri∣archs) the practise of the Church shews,* 1.276 which is alwayes the best expositor and assertor of the Canons. For not only the Popes confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs, but it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, and restore the unjustly deposed by others.* 1.277 We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome. Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem, as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie. On the contrary, Athanasius Patri∣arch of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople,* 1.278 were by Julius the first restored to their respective Sees having been unjustly expelled by Hereticks. The same might be said of divers others; over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority: which he could never have done, upon any other ground, then that of Divine Right, and as being generally acknowledged St. Peters Suc∣cessour in the Government of the whole Church. Three things I shall return you in Answer to this Discourse. 1. That the practise of the Church doth not shew any such inequality as you contend for between the Pope and other Pa∣triarchs. 2. That no such practise of the Church can be proved from the in∣stances by you brought; And therefore, lastly, It by no means follows that the Pope exercised any such authority by Divine right, or was acknowledged to be St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church. I begin with the practice of the ancient Church, which is so far from being an evidence of such an inequality of Patriarchs as that you contend for, that nothing doth more confirm that which his Lordship saith concerning the equality of them then that doth. For which we appeal to that famous testimony to this purpose in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council.* 1.279 Let ancient customes prevail; according to which, let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome. And ac∣cordingly in Antioch and other Provinces, let the pri∣viledges be preserved to the Churches. Which Canon is the more remark∣able,

because it is the first that ever was made by the ancient Church for regulating the rights and priviledges of Churches over each other; which there was like to be now more contest about, not only by reason of the Churches liberty under Constantine, but because of the new disposition of the Empire by him, which was made not long before the sitting of the Council of Nice. But the particular occasion of this Canon is generally supposed to be this. Meletius an ambitious Bishop in Aegypt, much about the time that Arrius broached his Heresie at Alexandria, takes upon him to ordain Bishops and others in Aegypt, without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria. This case being brought before the Nicene Fathers, they pronounce these ordinations null, depose Meletius, and, to prevent the like practises for the future, do by this Canon confirm the ancient customs of that nature in the Church; so that the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy as full right and power over the Provinces of Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, as the Bishop of Rome had over those subject to him, as likewise Antioch and other Churches should enjoy their former priviledges. Where we plainly see that the ground of this extent of power is not attributed to any Divine right of the Bishop of Rome, or any other Metropolitan, but to the ancient custome of the Church; whereby it had obtained that such Churches that were deduced (as it were so many colonies) from the Mother-Church, should retain so much respect to and dependence upon her, as not to receive any Bishop into them without the consent of that Bishop who governed in the Metropolis. Which was the prime reason of the subor∣dination of those lesser Churches to the Metropolis: And this custome be∣ing drawn down from the first plantation of Churches, and likewise much conducing to the preserving of unity in them, these Nicene Fathers saw no reason to alter it, but much to confirm it. For otherwise, there might have been continual bandying and opposition of lesser Bishops and Churches against the greater; and therefore the Discipline and Vnity of the Church did call for this subordination; which could not be better determined then by the ancient custome which had obtained in the sever∣al Churches. It being found most convenient that the Churches in their subordination should be most agreeable to the civil disposition of the Em∣pire. And therefore for our better understanding the force and effect of this Nicene Canon, we must cast our eye a little upon the civil disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantine, then lately altered from the former disposition of it under Augustus and Adrian. He therefore distributed the administration of the Government of the Roman Empire under four Praefecti Praetorio; but for the more convenient management of it, the whole body of the Empire was cast into several Jurisdictions containing many Provinces within them which were in the Law call'd Dioeceses; over every one of which there was appointed a Vicarius, or Lieutenant, to one of the Praefecti Praetorio, whose residence was in the chief City of the Diocese, where the Praetorium was, and justice was administred to all within that Diocese, and thither appeals were made. Under these were those Proconsuls or Correctores who ruled in the particular Provinces; and had their residence in the Metropolis of it, under whom were the particular Magistrates of every City; now according to this disposition of the Empire, the Western part of it contained in it seven of these Dioceses, as, under the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum, was the Diocese of Gaul, which contained seventeen Provinces; the Diocese of Britain, which contained five, (after∣wards but three in Constantines time) the Diocese of Spain, seven. Under

the praefectus Praetorio Italiae, was the Diocese of Africa, which had six Pro∣vinces, the Diocese of Italy, whose seat was Milan, 7. the Diocese of Rome, 10. Under the Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici, was the Diocese of Illyricum, in which were seventeen Provinces. In the Eastern Division, were the Diocese of Thrace, which had six Provinces, the Diocese of Pontus 11. and so the Dio∣cese of Asia, the Oriental (properly so called) wherein Antioch was, 15. all which were under the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis; the Aegyptian Dio∣cese, which had six Provinces, was under the Praefectus Augustalis; in the time of Theodosius the elder, Illyricum was divided into two Dioceses, the Eastern, whose Metropolis was Thessalonica, and had eleven Provinces, the Western, whose Metropolis was Syrmium, and had six Provinces. Accord∣ing to this division of the Empire, we may better understand the Affairs and Government of the Church, which was model'd much after the same way; unless where Ancient custom, or the Emperour's edict, did cause any variation. For as the Cities had their Bishops, so the Provinces had their Arch-Bishops, and the Dioceses their Primates, whose Jurisdiction extended as far as the Diocese did; and as the Conventus Juridici were kept in the chief City of the Diocese for matters of Civil Judicature, so the chief Ecclesiastical Councils for the affairs of the Church, were to be kept there too; for which there is an express passage in the Codex of Theodosius, whereby care is taken, That the same course should be used in Ecclesiastical, which was in civil matters;* 1.280 so that such things which concerned them should he heard in the Synods of the Diocese. Where the word Diocese is not used in the sense the African Fathers used it in, for that which belonged to one Bishop (as it is now used) but as it is generally used in the Codex of Theodosius and Justinian, and the Novells and Greek Canons; for, that which comprehends in it many Pro∣vinces, as a Province, takes in several Dioceses of particular Bishops.

These things being premised,* 1.281 we may the better understand the scope of the Canon of the Council of Nice; in which three things are to our pur∣pose considerable; 1. That it supposeth particular bounds and limits set to the Jurisdiction of those who are mentioned in it. 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before this Council had them confirmed by this Canon, as not to be altered. 3. That the Churches enjoying these priviledges were not subordinate to each other.

1. That particular bounds and limits were supposed to the power of those Churches therein mentioned. For, although we grant that this Ca∣non doth not fix or determine, What the bounds were of the Roman Bishops power, yet that it doth suppose that it had its bounds, is apparent from the example being drawn from thence for the limits of other Churches. For, What an unlikely thing is it, that the Church of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning the limits of other Metropolitan Churches, if that had not its known limits at that time? And, Can any thing be more absurd or unreasonable, than the Answer which Bellarmin gives to this place, That the Bishop of Alexandria ought to govern those Provinces,* 1.282 because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed, i. e. saith he, To let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them. Here is an id est with a witness. What will not these men break through, that can so confidently obtrude such mon∣strous interpretations upon the credulous world▪

Is it possible to conceive when the Canon makes use of the parallel of the Roman Bishop, and makes that the ground why the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy full power over those Provinces, because the Bishop of Rome did so; that the meaning should be, That he gave the Bishop of Alexandria power to govern those Provinces? They who can believe such things, may easily find arguments for the Pope's unlimited Supremacy every where. I make no scruple to grant what Bellarmin contends for, from the Epistle of Nico∣laus 1, That the Council did not herein assign limits to the Church of Rome, but made that a pattern whereby to order the Government of other Churches. And from thence it is sufficiently clear to any reasonable man, that the limits of her Government were, though not assigned, yet suppo∣sed by the Council. For otherwise, How absurd were it to say, Let the Bishop of Alexandria govern Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of the Church of Rome hath no limits at all, but governs the whole Church? Doth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 import some parallel custom in the Church of Rome, and name therefore what that is, supposing he hath no limits set to his Jurisdiction? Yes, it may be you will reply, He had limits as a Metro∣politan, but not as Head of the Church. Grant me then, that he had limits as Metropolitan, and then prove you, that ever he had any unlimited power acknowledged as Head of the Church. Would they ever have made such an instance in him, without any discrimination of his several capacities, if they had known any other power that he had, but only as a Metropoli∣tan? Nay, might not the Bishops of Antioch, and Alexandria, be rather supposed to have the greater power, because their Provinces were much larger here than his. And although Bellarmin useth that as his great ar∣gument, Why Ruffinus his exposition cannot hold, Because the Bishop of Rome would have a lesser Diocese assigned him, than either the Bishops of An∣tioch, or Alexandria; yet when we consider, What hath been said alrea∣dy of the agreement of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, a sufficient account may thence be given of it. For as the Praefectus Augustalis had all the Provinces of Aegypt for his Diocese, so had the Bishop of Alexandria; and, as the Lieutenant of Antioch had that which was properly called the Orient, containing fifteen Provinces under him, so had the Bishop of Antioch; and by the same proportion, the power of the Bishop of Rome did correspond to the Diocese of the Roman Lieutenant, which was over those ten Provinces, which were subject to his Jurisdiction, as it was distinct from the Diocese of Italy, which was under that Lieutenant, whose residence was at Milan. Here we see then a parity of reason in all of them: and therefore I cannot but think that the true account of the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus his exposition of this Canon, is, that which we have now set down, viz. those Churches which lay within the ten Provinces subject to the Roman Lieutenant. But of them more afterwards. That which I now insist on, is, that the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction, as other Metro∣politans and Primats had. Nay, if we should grant that the title produ∣ced by Paschasinus in the Council of Chalcedon to this Canon, were not such a forgery as that of Zosimus, yet the most that it could prove, was only this, That the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy within her Diocese, i. e. all Metropolitical power; but not that it had an unlimited primacy in the whole Church, which was a thing none of those Fathers who lived in the time of the four Councils, did ever acknowledge; but alwaies opposed any thing tending to it, as appears by those very proceedings of Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon, and by the Canons of that Council, and of the

Council of Constantinople. And it is a rare Answer to say, That those Canons are not allowed by the Roman Church; for by that very Answer it appears, that they did oppose the Pope's Supremacy, or else doubtless they would have been allowed there. But that the Pope's Metropolitical Power was con∣fined within the Roman Diocese, so as not to extend to the Italick, we have this pregnant evidence, that it appears by the occasion of the Nicene Ca∣non, that the main Power contested for, was that of Ordination; and it is evident by Theodoret and Synesius his Epistles,* 1.283 that the Bishop of Alexandria did retain it as his due by virtue of this Canon, to ordain the Bishops of Pen∣tapolis as well as Aegypt. But now the Bishop of Rome did not ordain the Bishop of Milan who was in the Italick Diocese; for S. Ambrose was ordain∣ed Bishop by a Synod of Italy at the appointment of the Emperour Valenti∣nian, and by an Epistle of Pelagius 1. A. D. 555. it appears that the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan, were wont to ordain each other; which, though he would have believed, was only to save charges in going to Rome; yet as that learned and ingenuous person Petrus de Marcâ observes, the true reason of it, was, because Milan was the Head of the Italick Diocese, as appears by the Council of Aquileia,* 1.284 and therefore the ordination of the Bishop of Aquileia, did of right belong to the Bishop of Milan; and the or∣dination of the Bishop of Milan did belong to him of Aquileia, as the chief Metropolitan of the general Sy∣nod of the Italick Diocese. Although afterwards the Bishops of Rome got it so far into their hands, that their consent was necessary for such an ordination, yet that was only when they began more openly to encroach upon the li∣berties of other Churches. But, as the same learned Author goes on,* 1.285 those Provinces which lay out of Italy, did undoubtedly ordain their own Me∣tropolitans, without the authority or consent of the Bishop of Rome, which he there largely proves of the African, Spanish, and French Churches. It follows then from the scope of the Nicene Canon, and the practice of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome had a limited Jurisdiction, as the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, and other Primates had.

2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before,* 1.286 had them confirmed by this Canon, as not to be altered. For it makes provision against any such alteration, by ordaining that the ancient Customs should be in force still. And accordingly we find it decreed in the second Canon of the Con∣stantinopolitan Council, That the same limits of Dioceses should be observed, which were decreed in the Council of Nice; and that none should intrude to do any thing in the Dioceses of others. And by the earnest and vehement Epistles of Pope Leo to Anatolius, we see the main thing he had to plead against the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was, that by this means the most sacred Decrees of the Council of Nice would be violated. We see then, that those priviledges which belonged to Churches then, ought still to be inviolably observed; so that those Churches which then had Pri∣mates and Metropolitans of their own, might plead their own right by vir∣tue of the Nicene Canon. So we find it decreed in that Council of Ephesus in the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops; for their Metropolitan being dead (Troilus the Bishop of Constance) the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan,* 1.287 because Cyprus was with∣in the civil Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch; upon this the Cyprian Bishops make their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus, and ground

it upon that ancient custom which the Niccne Canon insists on, viz. that their Metropolitan had been exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops; which priviledge was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council, but a general de∣cree passed, That the rights of every Province should be preserved whole and inviolate, which it had of old according to ancient cu∣stom.* 1.288 Which was not a decree made meerly in fa∣vour of the Cyprian Bishops, but a common asserting the rights of Metropolitans, that they should be held inviolate. Now therefore it appears, that all the Churches then were far from being under one of the three Patriarchs, of Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria; for, not only the three Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, were exempt (al∣though afterwards they voluntarily submitted to the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople) but likewise all those Churches which were in distinct Dioceses from these, had Primates of their own, who were independent upon any other. Upon which account it hath not only been justly pleaded in behalf of the Britannick Churches, that they are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Ro∣man Bishop; but it is ingenuously confessed by Fa∣ther Barns,* 1.289 That the Britannick Church might plead the Cyprian priviledge, that it was subject to no Pa∣triarch. And, although this priviledge was taken away by force and tumult, yet being restored by the consent of the Kingdom, in Henry 8. time, and quietly enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace sake, without pre∣judice of Catholicism, and the brand of Schism. If so, certainly it can be no Schism, to withdraw from the usurped Authority of the Roman Church. But, these things have been more largely insisted on by others, and therefore I pass them over.

3. From thence it follows, that there was then an equality, not only among the Patriarchs (whose name came not up till some time after the Council of Nice) but among the several Primates of Dioceses, all enjoying equal power and authority over their respective Dioceses, without subordi∣nation to each other. But here it is vehemently pleaded by some, who yet are no Friends to the unlimited power of the Roman Bishop, That it is hardly conceivable, that he should have no other power in the Church, but meer∣ly as Head of the Roman Diocese, and that it appears by the Acts of the Church he had a regular preheminence above others in ordering the Affairs of the Church. To which I answer, 1. If this be granted, it is nothing at all to that Vniversal Pastorship over the Church, which our Adversaries contend for, as due by divine right, and acknowledged to be so by consent of the Church. Let the Bishop of Rome then quit his former plea, and insist only on this, and we shall speedily return an Answer, and shew, How far this Canonical Primacy did extend. But, as long as he challengeth a Supremacy upon other grounds, he forfeits this right, whatever it is, which comes by the Canons of the Church. 2. What meerly comes by the Canons of the Church, cannot bind the Church to an absolute submission, in case that authority be abused to the Churches apparent prejudice. For the Church can never give away her Power to secure her self against whatever incroachments tend to the injury of it. This power then may be rescinded by the parts of the Church, when it tends to the mischief of it. 3. This Canonical prehemi∣nence is not the main thing we dispute with the Church of Rome; let her

reform her self from all those errours and corruptions which are in her communion, and reduce the Church to the primitive purity and simplici∣ty of Faith and Worship, and then see if we will quarrel with the Prima∣cy of the Bishop of Rome, according to the Canons, or any regular prehe∣minence in him meerly in order to the Churches Peace and Unity. But this is not the case between us and them, they challenge an unlimited power, and that by divine right, and nothing else will satisfie them but this, al∣though there be neither any ground in Scripture for it, nor any evidence of it in the practice of the Ancient Church.

But however, we must see, what you produce for it; First, you say, The Pope's Confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs. To that I shall return the full and satisfactory Answer of the late renowned Arch-Bishop of Paris, Petrus de Marcâ,* 1.290 where he propounds this as an Objection out of Baro∣nius, and thus solves it; That the confirmation of Pa∣triarchs by the Bishop of Rome, was no token of Ju∣risdiction, but only of receiving into Communion, and a testimony of his consent to the consecration already performed. And this was no more than was done by other Bishops in reference to the Bishop of Rome him∣self;* 1.291 for S. Cyprian writing to Antonianus about the election of Cornelius, saith, That he was not only cho∣sen by the suffrage of the people, and testimony of the Clergy; but that his election was confirmed by all their consent. May not you then as well say, That the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome, because his ordination was confirmed by him, and other African Bishops.* 1.292 But any one who had understood better than you seem to do, the pro∣ceedings of the Church in those ages, would never have made this an argument of the Pope's Authority over other Patriarchs, since, as the same Petrus de Marcâ observes, It was the custom in those times, that not only the Patriarchs but the Roman Bishop himself upon their election, were wont to send abroad Letters, testifying their ordination, to which was added a profession of Faith contained in their Synodical Epistles. Upon the receipt of which, Com∣municatory Letters were sent to the person newly ordained, to testifie their Communion with him, in case there were no just impediment produced. So that this was only a matter of Fraternal Communion, and importing nothing at all of Jurisdiction; but the Bishops of Rome, who were ready to make use of all occasions to advance their own Grandeur, did in time make use of this for quite other ends, than it was primarily intended; for, in case of any suspicions and jealousies of any thing that might tend to the dis-service of their See, they would then deny their Communicatory Letters as Simpli∣cius did in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria. And in that Confirma∣tion of Anatolius by Leo 1. which Baronius so much insists on, Leo himself gives a sufficient account of it, viz. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the world.* 1.293 So that if the Pope's own judge∣ment may be taken, this Confirmation of new elected Patriarchs imported nothing of Jurisdiction. But, in case the Popes did deny their Communicatory Letters, that did not pre∣sently

hinder them from the execution of their office; as appears by the instance of Flavianus, the Patriarch of Antioch: for although three Roman Bishops successively opposed him,* 1.294 Damasus, Syricius, and Anastasius, and used great importunity with the Emperour, that he might not continue in his place, yet because the Churches of the Orient, Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, did approve of him, and communicate with him, he opposed their con∣sent against the Bishops of Rome. Upon which, and the Emperour's severe checking them for their pride and contention, they at last promised the Emperour, that they would lay aside their enmity, and acknowledge him. So that, notwithstanding whatever the Roman Bishops could do against him, he was acknowledged for a true Patriarch, and at last their consent was given only by renewing Communion with him; which certainly is far from being an instance of the Pope's power over the other Patriarchs.

* 1.295Whereby we also see, What little power he had in deposing them; al∣though you tell us,* 1.296 That it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, & restore the unjustly deposed by others. But, that the power of deposing Bishops was anciently in Provincial Councils, appears sufficiently by the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council, and by the practice of the Church, both before and after it; and it is acknowledged by Petrus de Marcâ, that the sole power of deposing Bishops, was not in the hands of the Bishop of Rome, till about eight hundred years since; and refutes the Cardinal Perron for saying otherwise;* 1.297 and afterwards largely proves, that the Supreme authority of de∣posing Bishops, was still in Provincial Councils, and that the Pope had nothing to do in it, till the decree of the Sardican Synod, in the case of Athanasius; which yet, he saith, did not (as is commonly said) decree Appeals to be made to Rome, but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to Review their actions, but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in. All the power which he then had, was only this, that he might decree that the matters might be handled over again, but not that he had the power himself of deposing or resto∣ring Bishops: Which is proved with that clearness and evidence by that excellent Author, that I shall refer you to him for it: and consider the instances produced by you to the contrary. We read (say you) of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome. Surely if you had read this your self, you would have quoted the place, with more care and accuracy than you do: for you give us only a blind citation of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus, to the Emperour Michael, neither citing the words, nor telling us which it is, when there are several, and those no very short ones neither. But however, it is well chosen, to have a Pope's testimony in his own cause, and that such a Pope who was then in contest with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that too so long after the encroachments of the Bishops of Rome, it being in the ninth Century; and yet for all this, this Pope doth not say those words which you would fasten upon him; that which he saith, is, That none of the Bishops of Constantinople,* 1.298 or scarce any of them, were ejected without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. And then instanceth in Maximus, Nestorius, Accacius, An∣thimus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus; but his de∣sign in this, is only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent. But what is all this to the Pope's sole power of deposing? when even at that time the Pope did not challenge it: But, supposing the Popes had done it before, it doth not follow that it was

in their power to do it, and that the Canons had given them right to do it, but least of all certainly that they had a Divine right for it, which never was in the least acknowledged by the Church as to a deposition of Patri∣archs, which you contend for. But besides this, you say, Sixtus the third, deposed Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem. Whereas Sixtus only sent eight persons from a Synod at Rome to Hierusalem, who when they came there, did not offer to depose Polychronius by vertue of the Popes power; but a Synod of seventy or more neighbour Bishops were call'd, by whom he was deposed; and yet after all this, Binius himself condemns those Acts which report this story, for spurious; there being a manifest repug∣nancy in the time of them,* 1.299 and no such person as Polychronius ever men∣tioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time, and other fabulous Narrations inserted in them. Yet these are your goodly proofs of the Popes power to depose Patriarchs.

But we must see whether you have any better success in proving his power to restore such as were deposed; for which you only instance in Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius; whose case must be further ex∣amined, which, in short, is this: Athanasius being condemned by the Synods of Tyre and Antioch, goes to Rome, where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius, who would not accept of the Decree of the Eastern Bishops which was sent after him to Rome. For Pope Julius did not formally offer to restore Athanasius to his Church, but only owned and received him into Communion as Bishop of Alexandria, and that because he looked on the proceedings as unjust in his condemnation. And all that Julius himself pleads for, is, not a power to depose or restore Patri∣archs himself, but only that such things ought not to have been done with∣out communicating those proceedings to him, which the Vnity of the Church might require. And therefore Petrus de Marca saith, that Baronius, Bellarmin, and Perron are all strangely out in this story,* 1.300 when they would infer, That the causes of the Eastern Bishops upon appeal were to be judged by the Bishop of Rome: whereas all that Julius pleads for, is, that such things should not be done by the Eastern Bishops alone, which concerned the deposition of so great a person in the Church as the Patriarch of Alex∣andria, but that there ought to be a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops; on which account afterwards the Sardican Synod was call'd. But when we consider with what heat and stomack this was re∣ceived by the Eastern Bishops, how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings, then they had with theirs; when they say, that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed, we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of, to prove the Popes power of restoring Bishops by Divine right, and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church.

The next thing to be considered is that speech of St. Augustine,* 1.301 That in the Church of Rome there did alwayes flourish the Prin∣cipality of an Apostolick chair.* 1.302 As to which his Lord∣ship saith, That neither was the word Principatus so great, nor the Bishops of those times so little,* 1.303 as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and Latin Fathers of this great and learnedst age of the Church made up of the fourth and fift hundred years, alwayes understanding Principatus of their spiritual power, and within the limits of their several jurisdictions, which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed. And there is not one word in St. Augustine, that this

Principality of the Apostolick chair in the Church of Rome was then, or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmin insinuates there, and as A. C. would have it here. To all this you say nothing to pur∣pose; but only tell us, That the Bishop by this makes way to some other pretty perversions (as you call them) of the same Father.* 1.304 For we must know, say you, that he is entering upon that main Question concerning the Donatists of Africk; and he is so indeed, and that not only for clearing the meaning of St. Augustine in the present Epistle, but of the whole Controversie, to which a great light will be given by a true account of those proceedings. Thus then his Lordship goes on. And to prove that St. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any power out of his own limits (which God knows were far short of the whole Church) I shall make it most manifest out of the same Epistle.* 1.305 For afterwards (saith St. Augustine) when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bi∣shops, only they gave them leave to be heard by forraign Bishops. And after that he hath these words: And yet peradventure Mel∣ciades the Bishop of the Roman Church,* 1.306 with his Col∣leagues the transmarine Bishops, non debuit, ought not to usurp to himself this judgement which was determin'd by seventy African Bishops; Tigisitanus, sitting Primate. And what will you say if he did not usurp this power? for the Emperour being desired, sent Bishops Judges, which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause. In which passage, saith his Lordship, there are very many things observable. As first, That the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops. Secondly, That if the Pope had come in without this leave, it had been an Vsurpation. Thirdly, That when he did thus come in, not by his own Authority, but by Leave, there were other Bishops made Judges with him. Fourthly, That these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his power; that which the Pope least of all will endure. Lastly, Lest the Pope and his Adherents should say, this was an Vsurpation in the Emperour, St. Austin tells us a little before in the same Epistle still, that this doth chiefly belong ad curam ejus, to the Emperours care and charge,* 1.307 and that he is to give an account to God for it. And Melciades did sit and judge the bu∣siness with all Christian Prudence and Moderation. So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church, say A. C. what he please; nor had he Supremacy over the other Patriarchs. In order to the better shaping your Answer to this Discourse, you pretend to give us a true Narrative of the Donatists proceedings, by the same figure that Luci∣ans Book is inscribed De vera historia. There are several things therefore to be taken notice of in your Narrative, before we come to your parti∣cular Answers, whose strength depends upon the matters of fact.

First, You give no satisfactory account at all, Why, if the Popes Vni∣versal Pastourship had been then owned, the first appeal on both sides was not made to the Bishop of Rome; for in so great a Schism as that was be∣tween the different parties of Caecilian and Majorinus, To whom should they have directly gone but to Melchiades then Bishop of Rome? How comes it to pass that there is no mention at all of his judgement by either party, till Constantine had appointed him to be one of the Judges? St. Au∣stin indeed pleads in behalf of Caecilian, why he would not be judged by

the African Synod of LXX. Bishops, that there were thousands of his Colleagues on the other side the Sea, whom he might be tryed by? But why not by the Bishop of Rome alone, if the Vniversal Pastorship did belong to him?* 1.308 But your Narrative gives us a rare account, why the Donatists did not go to the Pope before they went to the Emperour, viz. That they durst not ap∣pear there, or else knew it would be to little purpose.* 1.309 But by what Arguments do you prove they durst not appear there before, when we see they went readily thither after the Emperour had appointed Rome for the place, where their cause was to be heard; if they thought it were to so little purpose? For we see the Donatists never except against the place at all, or the person of the Bishop of Rome; but upon the command of Constantine made known to them by Analinus the Proconsul of Africa, ten of their par∣ty go to Rome to negotiate their affairs before the Delegates. This is but therefore a very lame account, why the first appeal should be to the Em∣perour and not to the Pope, if he had been then known to be the Vniversal Pastour of the Church. But say you further, The Emperour disliked their proceedings and told them expresly, That it belonged not to him, neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops. But on what grounds he durst not do it, we may easily judge by his undertaking it at last, and passing a final judgement in this cause himself after the Councils at Rome, at Arles, could not put an end to it. If Constantine had judged it unlawful, could their importunity have excused it? and could it be any other then un∣lawful if the Pope were the Vniversal Pastour of the Church? Do you think it would be accounted a sufficient plea among you now, for any Prince to assume to himself the judgement of any cause already determin'd by the Pope, because of the importunity of the persons concerned in it? Indeed Constantine did at first prudently wave the business himself, and that I sup∣pose the rather because the Donatists in their Petition had intreated that some of the Bishops of Gaul might umpire the business; either because that was then the place of the Emperours residence, or else that Gaul under Constantius had escaped the late persecution, and therefore were not ly∣able to the suspicion of those crimes whereof Caecilian and Felix of Aptung were accused. But however though Constantine did not sit as Judge himself, he appointed Marinus, Rheticius, and Maternus, to joyn with Melchiades the Bishop of Rome in the determining this case. But this he did, you say, to comply with the Donatists. What, to joyn other Bishops with the Head of the Church in equal power for deciding Controversies? and all this meerly to comply with the Schismatical Donatists? was this, think you, becoming one who believed the Popes Vniversal Pastourship by Divine Right? Well fare then the Answer of others who love to speak plain truths, and impute all these proceedings to Constantines Ignorance of his duty, being yet but a Catechumen in Christian Religion, and therefore did, he knew not what: But methinks the Vniversal Pastour or some of those nineteen Bishops who sat at Rome in this business, or of those two hundred whom you say met afterwards at Arles about it, should have a little better instructed him in his duty; and not let him go so far on in it, as from delegating Judges to hear it, and among them the Head of the Church, to resume it afterwards himself both to hear and determine it. If the Emperour had (as you say) protested against this as in it self unlawful, would none of the Bishops hinder him from doing it?* 1.310 But where doth Constantine profess against it as in it self unlawful? if so, no circumstances, no importunities could ever make it lawful: Unless you think the impor∣tunity

of Josephs Mistress would have made adultery no sin in him. If Constantine said he would ask the Bishops pardon in it, that might be, as look∣ing on them as the more competent Judges, but not thinking it unlawful in it self for him to do, as you say.

Well but you tell us, It was rather the justice and moderation of the Ro∣man Prelate,* 1.311 that he came not in before it was due time, and the matter order∣ly brought before him. I am very much of your mind in this, and if all Popes since Melchiades had used the same justice and moderation, to have staid till things had been orderly brought to them, and not usurped upon the pri∣viledges of other Churches, things had been in a far better condition in the Christian world then they are. Had there been none but such as Melchiades, who shewed so much Christian prudence and moderation in the management of this business, that great Schism, which your Church hath caused by her arrogant pretences, might have been prevented. But how come you to know, that this case did properly belong to the Popes cog∣nizance? who told you this? to be sure not the Emperour Constantine, who in his Epistle to Miltiades, extant in Eusebius, intimates no such thing; but only writes to him as one delegated to hear that cause with the other Bishops and gives him Instructions in order to it.* 1.312 Do the Donatists or their Adversaries mention any such thing? Doth the Pope himself ever ex∣press or intimate it? It seems, he wanted your information much at that time. Or it may be, like the late Pope Innocent in the case of the five propositions, he might say, he was bred no Divine, and therefore might the less understand his duty. But can it possibly enter into your head, that this case came to the Pope at last by way of regular appeal, as you seem to assert afterwards. Is this the way of appeals to go to the Emperour and Petition him to appoint Judges to hear the case? If the case of appeals must be de∣termined from these proceedings, to be sure, the last resort will be to the Emperour himself, as well as the first appeal.

Whether the African Bishops gave leave to the Donatists to be heard by for∣raign Bishops, or they took it themselves, is not much material; because the Schism was so great at home, that there was no likelihood of any ending the Controversie by standing to a fair arbitration among themselves. And therefore there seemed a necessity on both sides of referring the business to some unconcerned persons who might hear the Allegations and judge indifferently between them. And no other way did the nineteen Bishops at Rome proceed with them, but as indifferent Arbitrators; and therefore the Witnesses and Allegations on both sides were brought before them; but we read of no power at all challenged absolutely to bind the persons to the judgement of the Church of Rome, as the final judgement in the case.* 1.313 The Question, Whether the Pope had usurped this power or no, de∣pends not upon the Donatists Question, Whether Melchiades ought to have undertaken the judgement of that cause which had been already determined by a Synod of LXX. Bishops in Africk? But upon St. Augustines Answer, who justifies the lawfulness of his doing it, because he was thereto appointed by the Emperour. But when you say, St. Austin gives this answer only per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by way of condescension to his adversaries way of speaking: you would do well to prove elsewhere from St. Austin that when he lay's aside his Rhetorick he ever speaks otherwise, but that it would have been an Vsurpation in the Pope to challenge to himself the hearing of those causes which had been determined by African Bishops. But what St. Augustines judgement as well as the other African Fathers was in this point abundant∣ly

appears from the Controversies between them and the Bishop of Rome in the case of Appeals. It sufficiently appears already, That neither our Sa∣viour, nor the Canons of the Vniversal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church; and therefore you were put to your shifts when you run thither for security. But that which follows is notoriously false, That when he did so interpose, no man (no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffered by his judgement) complained or accused him of usurpation; when in the case of Athanasius it is so vehemently pleaded by the Eastern Bishops that the Pope had nothing at all to do in it; but they might as well call in Question what was done at Rome, as he what was done at Antioch. Nay name us any one cause in that age of the Church, where the Pope did offer to meddle in matters determined by other Bishops, which he was not op∣posed in, and the persons concern'd did not complain and accuse him of meddling with what he had no right to, which are but other words for Vsurpation.

You say, The Bishops whom the Emperour sent as Judges with the Pope,* 1.314 were an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence. It seems three to one are with you an inconsiderable number. But say you, The Pope to shew his authority added fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assi∣stants in the business. Either these fifteen Bishops were properly Judges in the cause, or only assistants for better management and speedier dispatch; if they were Judges, how prove you that Constantine did not appoint them, if they were only assistants and suffragans to the Bishop of Rome, as is most probable (except Merocles Bishop of Milan) what authority did the Pope shew in calling his Suffragans to his assistance in a matter of that nature, which required so much examination of Witnesses. But the Pope had more effectually shewn his authority if he had refused the Bishops whom Constantine sent; and told him he medled with that which did not con∣cern him, to appoint any Judges at all in a matter of Ecclesiastical Cogni∣sance, and that it was an unsufferable presumption in him to offer to send three underling Bishops to sit with him in deciding Controversies; as though he were not the Vniversal Pastour of the Church himself, to whom alone by Divine right all such things did belong. Such language as this would have become the Head of the Church; and in that indeed he had shewn his authority. But for him sneakingly to admit other Bishops as joynt-commissioners, forsooth, with him; and that by the Emperours ap∣pointment too; What did he else but betray the rights of his See, and ex∣pose his Infallible Headship to great contempt? Do you think that Pope Hildebrand or any of his Successours would have done this? No, they un∣derstood their power far better then so; and the Emperour should have known his own, for offering such an Affront to his Holiness. And if his Bay-leaves did not secure him, the Thunder-bolts of Excommunication might have lighted on him to his prejudice. For shame then never say, That Pope Miltiades shewed his authority; but rather give him over among those good Bishops of Rome but bad Popes, who knew better how to suffer Martyrdom, then assert the Authority of the Roman See. I pray imagine but Paul 5. or any other of our stout-spirited Popes in Miltiades his place, Would they have taken such things at Constantines hands as poor Miltiades did? and, for all that we see, was very well contented too; and thought he did but his duty in doing what the Emperour bid him. Would they have been contented to have had a cause once passed

the Infallible judgement of the Roman See, to be resumed again, and handled in another Council, as though there could be any suspicion that all things were not rightly carried there? and that after all this too, the Emperour should undertake to give the final decision to it? would these things have been born with by any of our Infallible Heads of the Church? But good Miltiades must be excused, he went as far as his knowledge car∣ried him, and thought he might do good service to the Church in what he did; and that was it he looked at more then the grandeur of his See. The good Bishops then were just crept out of the Flames of persecution, and they thought it a great matter that they had liberty themselves, and did not much concern themselves about those Vsurpations which the Pride and Ease of the following ages gave occasion for. They were sorry to see a Church that had survived the cruel Flames of Dioclesians perse∣cution, so suddenly to feel new ones in her own bowels; that a Church whose constitution was so strong as to endure Martyrdomes, should no sooner be at ease but she begins to putrifie, and to be fly-blown with heats and divisions among her members; and that her own Children should rake in those wounds, which the violence of her professed enemies had caused in her; and therefore these good Bishops used their care and in∣dustry to close them up; and rather rejoyced they had so good an Em∣perour who would concern himself so much in healing the Churches breaches, then dispute his Authority or disobey his Commands. And if Constantine doth express himself unwilling to engage himself to meddle in a business concerning the Bishops of the Church, it was out of his tender re∣spect to those Bishops who had manifested their piety and sincerity so much in their late persecutions, and not from any Question of his own Authori∣ty in it. For that he after sufficiently asserted, not only in his own actions, but when the case of Felix of Aptung was thought not sufficiently scanned at Rome, in appointing (about four months after the judgement at Rome) Aelianus the Proconsul of Africa to exa∣mine the case of Felix the Bishop of Aptung,* 1.315 who had ordained Caecilian. To this the Donatists pleaded,* 1.316 That a Bishop ought not to be tryed by Pro∣consular judgement: to which St. Austin Answers, That it was not his own seeking, but the Emperours appointing, to whose care and charge that business did chiefly belong, of which he must give an account to God. And can it now enter into any head but yours, that for all this the Emperour looked on the judgement of this cause as a thing not belong∣ing to his Authority? They who can believe such things as these, and not∣withstanding all the circumstances of this story can think the Popes Vni∣versal Pastourship was then owned, the most I can say of them, is, that they are in a fair way to believe Transubstantiation; there being nothing so improbable, but upon equal grounds they may judge it true.

* 1.317That the Pope had no Supremacy over other Patriarchs, his Lordship saith, That,* 1.318 were all other Records of Antiquity silent, the Civil Law is proof enough; And that's a Monument of the Primitive Church. The Text there is, A Pa∣triarchâ non datur appellatio. From a Patriarch there lyes no appeal. No appeal. Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate. Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacy over the whole Church.* 1.319 Therefore certainly not then received as universal Pastor. Two things you answer to this. 1. That this reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves,

who must have some higher ordinary Tribunal, where such causes may be heard and determined. Very well argued against the Pope's power of judging:* 1.320 for, in case of a difference between him and the other Patriarchs, who must decide the difference? Himself no doubt! But still, it is your way to beg that you can never prove; for you herein suppose the Pope to be above all Patriarchs, which you know is the thing in dispute. Or, Do you sup∣pose it very possible, that other Patriarchs may quarrel and fall out among themselves, but that the Popes are alwaies such mild and good men, that it is impossible any should fall out with them, or they with others; that still they must stand by as unconcerned in all the quarrels of the Christian world, and be ready to receive complaints from all places. If therefore a General Council must not be the Judge in this case, I pray name somewhat else more agreeable to reason, and the practice of the Church. But you answer. 2. What the Law saith, is rightly understood, and must be explicated of inferiour Clerks only, who were not (of ordinary course) to appeal further than the Patriarch, or the Primate of their Province. For so the Council of Africk determines. But 'tis even there acknowledged,* 1.321 that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome. This answer of yours necessarily leads us to the debates of the great case of appeals to Rome, as it was ma∣naged between the African Bishops, and the Bishops of Rome, by which we shall easily discover the weakness of your answer, and the most palpable fraud of your citation; by which we may see, What an excellent cause you have to manage, which cannot be defended but by such frauds as here you make use of, and hope to impose upon your Reader by. Your An∣swer therefore in the general, is, That the Laws concerning appeals, did only concern inferiour Clergy-men; but that Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome, even by the Council of Africk, which not only decreed it, but acknow∣ledged it in an Epistle to Pope Boniface. And therefore for our through un∣derstanding the truth in this case, those proceedings of the African Church must be briefly explained, and truly represented. Two occasions the Churches of Africa had to determine in the case of Appeals to Rome; the first in the Milevitan, the second in the Carthaginian Councils: in both which we have several things very considerable to our purpose. In the Milevitan Council they decree, That whosoever would appeal beyond the Sea, should not be received into Communion by any in Africa; which decree is sup∣posed by some to be occasioned by Coelestius, having recourse to Pope Zosi∣mus, after he had been condemned in Africa. No doubt, those prudent Bishops began to be quickly sensible of the monstrous inconvenience which would speedily follow upon the permission of such appeals to Rome; for by that means they should never preserve any discipline in their Churches, but every person, who was called in Question for any crimes,* 1.322 would slight the Bishops of those Churches, and presently appeal to Rome. To prevent which mischief, they make that excellent Canon, which allows only liber∣ty of appealing to the Councils of Africa, or to the Primates of their Pro∣vince, but absolutely forbids all forein appeals. All the difficulty is, Whe∣ther this Canon only concerned the Inferiour Clergy, as you say, (and which is all that the greatest of your side have said in it) or, Whether it doth not take away all appeals of Bishops too. For which we need no more than produce the Canon it self, as it is extant in the authentick collection of the Canons of the African Church. In which is an express clause, declaring

that the same thing had been often determined in the case of Bishops. Which, because it strikes home, therefore Perron and others have no other shift, but to say, That this clause was not in the original Milevitan Canons, but was inserted afterwards. But why do not they, who assert such bold things, produce the true authentick Copy of these Mi∣levitan Canons? that we may see, What is genuine, and what not: But, suppose we should grant, that this clause was in∣serted afterwards, it will be rather for the advantage, than prejudice of our cause. For which we must consider, that in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, there had been very many Councils celebrated there: no fewer than seventeen Justellus and others reckon. But a general Council meeting at Carthage A. D. 419. (which was about three years after that Milevitan Council which was held 416. as appears by the Answer of Inno∣centius to it, A. D. 417.) at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of those lesser Councils, and out of them all composed that Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae, as Justellus at large proves in the pre∣face to his edition of it. So that if this clause were inserted, it must be inserted then, for it is well known, that the case of Appeals was then at large debated; and by that means it received a more general authority by passing in this African Council. And hence it was that this Canon pas∣sed with this clause into the Greek Churches; for Balsamon and Zonaras both acknowledge it; and not only they, but many ancient Latin Copies had it too, and is so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes; as Hinc∣marus, and others, have already proved. But Gracian hath helped it well out, for he hath added a brave Antidote at the end of it, by putting to it a very useful clause, Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit; by which the Canon makes excellent sense, that none shall appeal to Rome, unless they do appeal to Rome; for none who have any understanding of the state of those Churches at that time, do make the least Question, but the intent of the Canon was to prohibit appeals to Rome; but then, say they, They were only the appeals of the Inferiour Clergy, which were to be ended by the Bishops of their own Province.

But this Answer is very unreasonable on these accounts. 1. If Appeals do of right belong to the Bishop of Rome,* 1.323 as Vniversal Pastor of the Church, then, Why not the Appeals of the Inferiour Clergy, as well as Bishops? In∣deed, if Appeals were challenged only by virtue of the Canons, and those Canons limit one, and not the other (as the most eager pleaders for Ap∣peals in that age, pleaded only the Canons of the Church for them) then there might be some reason, Why one should be restrained, and not the other; but if they belong to him by Divine Right, then all Appeals must necessarily belong to him. 2. If Appeals belong to the Pope, as Vniver∣sal Pastor, then no Council or persons had any thing to do to determine who should appeal, and who not. For this were an usurping of the Pope's pri∣viledge, for he to whom only the right of Appeals belongs, can deter∣mine, Who should appeal, and who not; and where, and by whom those Controversies should be ended. So that the very act of the Council in of∣fering to limit Appeals, implies that they did not believe any such Vniversal Pastorship in the Pope; for, had they not done so, they would have waited his judgement, and not offered to have determined such things them∣selves. 3. The Appeals of the upper and inferiour Clergy, cannot be suppo∣sed to be separate from each other. For the Appeal of a Presbyter doth sup∣pose the impeachment of the Bishop for some wrong done to him, as in the

case of Apiarius accusing Vrban the Bishop of Sicca for excommunicating him. So that the Bishop becomes a party in the Appeal of a Presbyter. And if Appeals be allowed to the Bishop, it is supposed to be in his favour, for clearing of his right the better; and if it be denied to the Presbyter, it would savour too much of injustice and partiality. 4. The reason of the Canon extends to one as well as the other, which must be supposed to pre∣vent all those troubles and inconveniencies which would arise from the li∣berty of Appeals to Rome; and, would not these come as well by the Appeals of Bishops, as of Inferiour Clergy? Nay, Doth not the Canon insist on that, that no Appeals should be made from the Council of Bishops, or the Primates of Africa; but, in case of Bishops Appeals, this would be done as well as the other: and therefore they are equally against the reason and design of the Canon. 5. The case of Presbyters, may be as great and considerable as that of Bishops, and as much requiring the judgement of the Vni∣versal Pastor of the Church. As, for instance, that very case which pro∣bably gave occasion to the Milevitan Canon, viz. the going of Coelestius to Rome, being condemned of Heresie in Africa: Now, What greater cause could there be made an Appeal to Rome in, than in so great a matter of Faith as that was, about the necessity of Grace.* 1.324 And therefore Petrus de Marcá proves at large against Perron, that in the Epistle of Innocent to Victricius, where it is said, That the greater causes must be referred to the Apostolick See, is not to be understood only of the causes of Bishops, but may referr to the causes of Presbyters too, i. e. when they either concern matter of Faith, or some doubtful piece of Church-discipline. 6. The Pope, notwithstanding this Canon, looked on himself as no more hindred from receiving the Appeals of Presbyters, than those of Bishops. If there∣fore any difference had been made by any act of the Church, surely the Pope would have remanded Presbyters back to their own Provinces again; but, instead of that, we see, he received the Appeal of Apiarius. But, for this, a rare Answer is given, viz. that though the Presbyters were forbidden to appeal, yet the Pope was not forbidden to receive them, if they did appeal. But, to what purpose then were such prohibitions made, if the Pope might by his open incouragement of them upon their Appeals to him, make them not value such Canons at all; for they knew, if they could but get to Rome, they should be received for all them.

Notwithstanding all which hath been said, you tell us, That in the Council of Africk it was acknowledged,* 1.325 that Bishops had power in their own cause, to appeal to Rome; for which you cite in your Margent, part of an Epistle of the Council to Boniface. But, with what honesty and integrity you do this, will appear by the story. Apiarius then appealing to Zosimus, he sends over Faustinus to Africa, to negotiate the business of Appeals, and to restore Apiarius, for which he pleads the Nicene Canons (an account of which will be given afterwards) the Fathers all protest they could find no such thing there, but they agree to send Deputies into the East, to fetch the true Canons thence (as hath been related already) in the mean time Zosimus dyes, and Boniface succeeds him; but for the better satisfa∣ction of the Pope, the Council of Carthage dispatch away a Letter to Boniface, to give him an account of their proceedings; in which Epistle (extant in the African Code of Canons) after they have given an account of the business of Apiarius, they proceed to the instructions which Faustinus brought with him to Africa, the chief of which is that concerning Appeals to be made to Rome, and then follow those words which you quote, in which they

say, That in a Letter written the year before to Zosimus, they had granted liberty to Bishops, to appeal to Rome; and that there∣in they had intimated so much to him.* 1.326 Thus far you are right; but there is usually some mystery couch∣ed in your, &c. for you know very well, where to cut off sentences; for, had you added but the next words, they had spoiled all your foregoing; there being contained in them, the full reason of what went before, viz. that because the Pope pretended that the Appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true Canons were produced. And is this now all their acknowledgement, that Bishops might in their own causes appeal to Rome, when they made only a Provisional decree, What should be done till the matter came to a resolution? But if you will throughly understand what their final judgement was in this business, I pray read their excellent Epistle to Pope Celestine, who succeeded Boni∣face; after they had received the Nicene Canons out of the East. Which being so excellent a Monument of Antiquity,* 1.327 and giving so great light to our present Controversie, I shall at large recite and render it, so far as concerns this business. After our bounden duty of Salutation, we earnestly be∣seech you, that hereafter you admit not so easily to your ears those that come from hence, and that you admit no more into communion, those whom we have cast out: for your Reverence will easily perceive, that this is forbid by the Council of Nice. For if this be taken care for, as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity, How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops; that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion, be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness. Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks; for no Canon of the Fathers hath ta∣ken that from the Church of Africk; and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy, and Bishops, io their Metropolitans. For they have most wisely and justly provided, that every business be determined in the place where it begun: and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province, that so equity may be prudently discovered, and constantly held by Christ's Priests. Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one, if he be of∣fended, to appeal to the Council of the Province, or even to an Vniversal Council. Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us, the justice of examination of a cause, and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council. Or, How can a judgement made beyond the

Sea be valid, to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought, by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age, or of many other intervening im∣pediments. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness, we do not find com∣manded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council, sent by holy Cyril our Colleague, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Con∣stantinople: which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface, of happy memo∣ry, by Innocent a Presbyter, and Marcellus a Deacon. Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors, to those who desire it, lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity, and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God. And concerning our Brother Faustinus (Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ) we are confident, that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness, Africa shall no more be troubled with him. Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence, courage, and simplicity of the Afri∣can Fathers; enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome. I wonder not that Baronius saith, There are some hard things in this Epistle, that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose, to enervate the force of it; for, as long as the records of it last, we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpati∣ons of the Church of Rome. And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers, as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome, who, with as much evidence and reason, as courage and resolution, did finally oppose it. What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals, than is here urged by them: That they have neither authority from Councils, nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity; that God's pre∣sence was as well in Africk as Rome (no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there) that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel, that they tended only to nourish swelling pride, and secular ambition in the Church. That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes, and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was. All these things are so evident in this testimony, that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them. I hope then, this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers, by saying, that they deter∣mined, the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome.

Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory,* 1.328 which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals,* 1.329 viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those cau∣ses, which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops, is the ve∣ry same, that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy, and therefore is taken off already. But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory, where there is neither Metropolitan, nor Patriarch of that Diocese, there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick, as being the Head of all Churches. Then surely it follows, say you, the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, is not only over the Western, and Southern Provinces, but over the whole Church, whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended. See how well you make good the common saying, That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration; for, Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words; if you had either understood, or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them?* 1.330 1. That if

there be a Metropolitan, or a Patriarch, in those Churches, his judgement is fi∣nal, and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome. 2. It is as plain, that in those ancient times of Church-Government, Britain was never subject to the See of Rome (of which afterwards.) 3. It will be hard for any man to prove, that there were any Churches then in the world, which were not under some ei∣ther Patriarch or Metropolitan. 4. If any such were, 'tis gratis dictum, and impossible to be proved, that all such Churches, where-ever seated in the world, were obliged to depend on Rome. And, Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words? I may more justly wonder why you re∣turn no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes. But still the Caput omni∣um Ecclesiarum sticks with you; if his Lordship hath not particularly spo∣ken to that, it was, because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity, to let him see, that no more could be meant by it, but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dig∣nity, but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be de∣duced from it. And if Gregory understood more by it, as his Lordship saith, 'Tis gratis dictum, and Gregory himself was not a person to be be∣lieved in his own cause. But now, as you express it, his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome,* 1.331 to the Church of England: No, neither his Lordship, nor we, take a leap from thence hither; but you are the men who leap over the Alps, from the Church of England, to that of Rome, We plead as his Lordship doth truly, That in the ancient times of the Church, Britain was never subject to the See of Rome, but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire, it had a Primate of its own. This, you say, his Lordship should have proved,* 1.332 and not meerly said. But, What an unrea∣sonable man are you, who would put his Lordship to prove Negatives; if you challenge a right which the Pope hath over us, it is your business to prove it; his Lordship gave a sufficient reason for what he said, in saying that Britain was one of the Dioceses of the Empire, and therefore had a Pri∣mate of her own. This you deny not, but say, this only proves, That the In∣feriour Clergy could not appeal to Rome. What again? but this subterfuge hath been prevented already. But to pass by what without any shadow of proof you say of the Patriarch of Constantinople's being subject to the Pope; and Pope Urban's calling Anselm the Patriarch of the other world; which we are far from making the least ground to make Canterbury a Patriarchal See; which, as far as concerns the rights of Primacy, was so long before the Sy∣nod of Bar in Apulia; we come to that which is more material, viz. your attempt to prove, That Britain was anciently subject to the See of Rome; for which you instance in Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of York appealing to Rome, about A. D. 673. who was restored to his Bishoprick by virtue of the sen∣tence passed in his behalf at Rome;* 1.333 and so being a second time expelled, ap∣pealed as formerly, and was again restored. To which I shall return you a clear and full Answer in the words of another Arch-Bishop, the late learned L. Primate of Ireland.* 1.334

The most famous, saith he, (I had almost said the only) appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Con∣quest, was Wilfride Archbishop of York, who, notwithstanding that he gained sentence upon sentence at Rome in his Favour; and notwith∣standing that the Pope did send express Nuncio's into England, on pur∣pose to see his sentence executed; yet he could not obtain his restitution or the benefit of his sentence for six years during the Raigns of King Egbert and Alfrede his son. Yea King Alfrede told the Popes Nuncio's ex∣presly, That he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and ho∣nourable

aspects; but he could not give any assent to their Legation, because it was against reason,* 1.335 that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes letter. If they had believed the Pope to be their competent Judge, either as Universal Monarch, or so much as Patriarch of Brittain, or any more then an honourable Arbitra∣tour (which all the Patriarchs were, even without the bounds of their proper jurisdictions) How comes it to pass that two Kings successively, and the great Councils of the Kingdom, and the other Archbishop Theo∣dore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks, and the flower of the English Clergy, did so long and so resolutely oppose so many sentences and messages from Rome, and condemn him twice whom the Pope had absolved? Con∣sider that Wilfride was an Archbishop, not an Inferiour Clerk; and if an appeal from England to Rome had been proper or lawful in any case, it had been so in this case. But it was otherwise determined by those who were most concerned. Malmsbury supposeth, either by Inspiration, or upon his own head, that the King and the Archbishop Theodore, were smitten with remorse before their deaths, for the injury done to Wil∣fride, and the slighting the Popes sentence, letter, and Legats. But the contrary is most apparently true; For first, it was not King Alfrede alone, but the great Council of the Kingdome also; not Theodore alone, but the main body of the Clergy, that opposed the Popes letter, and the restitution of Wilfride in that manner as it was decreed at Rome. Se∣condly, after Alfrede and Theodore were both dead, we find the Popes sentence, and Wilfrides restitution, still opposed by the surviving Bishops in the Raign of Alfredes son. To clear the matter past contradiction, let us consider the ground of this long and bitter contention; Wilfride the Archbishop was become a great Pluralist, and had ingrossed into his hands too many Ecclesiastical Dignities. The King and the Church of England thought fit to deprive him of some of them, and to confer them upon others. Wilfride appealed from their sentence to Rome. The Pope gave sentence after sentence in favour of Wilfride. But for all his sentences, he was not, he could not be restored, untill he had quitted two of his Monasteries which were in Question, Hongestilldean, and Ripon, which of all others he loved most dearly, and where he was after∣wards interred. This was not a Conquest, but a plain waving of his sentences from Rome, and yielding of the Question; for those had been the chief causes of the Controversie. So the King and the Church after Alfredes death still made good his conclusion, That it was against rea∣son, that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Popes Bull. And as he did not, so neither did they give any assent to the Popes Legation.

This I hope may suffice as a most sufficient Answer to your Objection from Wilfrides Ap∣peal.

But you would seem to urge yet further for the ancient subjection of Britain to the Church of Rome, in these words, Again,* 1.336 is it not manifest out of him (Bede),* 1.337 that even the Primitive original Institution of our English Bi∣shops is from Rome? And for this you cite a letter of Pope Gregory 1. to Augustine the Monk, whom you call our English Apostle; in which Gregory grants to him the use of the Pall, the proper badge or sign of Archiepiscopal Dig∣nity, and that he condescended, that he should ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, &c. Behold here, say you, the original Charter, as I may say,* 1.338 of the Primacy of Canterbury; in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is

founded; nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other origin. And by vertue of this Grant, have all the succeeding Bishops of that See enjoyn'd the Dignity and Authority of Primats of this Nation. From whence you very civilly charge his Lordship, either with gross Ignorance if he knew it not; or with great Ingratitude if he knew it. To which I Answer; that his Lordship knowing this no doubt very well, that Gregory sent Austin in∣to England, &c. could not from thence think himself bound to submit to the Roman Bishop; and it had been more pertinent to your purpose, not to charge him with Ingratitude, but with Disobedience. For that was it which you ought to prove hence, that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought still to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, because Gregory 1. made Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury. A wonderful strong Argument no doubt! which out of charity to you, we must further examine; for you tell us, The Original Charter of the Primacy of Canterbury is contained in that Grant. To satisfie you as to this, two things are to be considered, the Primacy it self, and the exercise of it by a particular person in some particular place. If you speak of the Primacy it self, i. e. the indepen∣dent right of Governing the Churches within the Provinces of Britain, then we utterly deny that this was contained in that Grant. For Britain having been a Province before, in which Bishops did Govern Independently on any Forrein Bishop, no Forrein Bishops could take away that Priviledge from it. I will not stand here to deduce the History of the Bishops of Britain, before Augustines coming into England; but it is as certain that there were such, as it is that St. Augustine ever came hither. For not only all our own Historians and Bede himself confess it; but it is most evident from the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius de civitate Coloniâ Londinensium (which some will have to be a mistake for Colonia Camaloduni, whether by that, Colchester, Maldon, or Winchester be meant as it is differently thought) from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod and the Council of Ariminum, as appears by Athanasius and others; but this I suppose you will not deny, that there were Bishops in England before Austin came. And, that these Bishops had then no dependence on the See of Rome, if it were not sufficiently evident from other Arguments, the relation of the pro∣ceedings in Bede himself between Austin and them, about submission, would abundantly discover, as likewise that there was then an Archbishop with Metropolitical power over them, whose ancient seat had been Caerleon. But I consider not this Primacy now as in any particular place, but in gener∣al as belonging to the Provinces of Britain, which I say had a Primacy be∣longing to it, (whether at York or London is not material) at the time of the Council of Nice (according to what hath been formerly said about the state of Churches then) now the Council of Nice takes care that the privi∣ledges of all Churches should be preserved, i. e. That where there had been a Primacy it should so continue. Now therefore I ask, How came this priviledge of Britain to be lost, which was not only confirmed with others by the Nicene Council, but by that of Chalcedon and Ephesus, in which the ancient priviledges of Churches are secured? what right had Austin the Monk to cassate the ancient Metropolitical power of the Britannick Church, and to require absolute subjection to himself? If the Pope made him Arch∣bishop of Canterbury, by what right was he Primate over the Britain Church? How came the Archbishop then in being to lose his Primacy by Austins coming into England? Was it because the Britannick Church was

then over-run with Pagan-Saxons, and the visible power of it confined to a narrow compass? Yet I doubt not, but there were many Brittish Christi∣ans living here among the Saxons, though oppressed by them, as they were after by the Normans (for, Where is it that any conquest hath carried away all the inhabitants?) and that these did many of them retain their Christianity, though not daring publickly to own it, there are many not improbable circumstances to lead us to suppose. But we will grant that the face of the Britannick Church was only in Wales; what follows thence? that the whole Province had lost its right? Let us suppose a case like this; as that the Church of Rome should be over-run with a Barbarous people (as it was by the Goths and Vandals) and the inhabitants destroyed; these Barbarous people continuing in possession of it, and that a Bishop should have been sent from Britain to convert them to the Faith, and upon their Conversion to Govern those Churches, and should be made Bishop of that place by the Brittish Bishops; Whether would he be bound to continue al∣wayes in subjection to them or no? If not; but you say, by his succession in the See of Rome he enjoyes the priviledges of that See, though the inha∣bitants be altered; the same I say of the Britannick Churches, though the inhabitants were altered, and Saxons succeeded the Britains, yet the pri∣viledge of the Church remains still as to its Primacy and Independency. And therefore the Popes making Augustine Archbishop, so as to give him withall the Primacy over the Churches in the Province of Britain, was an Vsurpation upon the rights of our Church, which had an absolute and Inde∣pendent Primacy within it self; as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishop. As supposing those ancient Sects of Churches which are over-run with Turks should again be converted to Christianity, the Bishops of those Churches as of Ephesus or the like would enjoy the same rights which the ancient Bishops had; so we say it was in our case, though the Nation was then over-spread with Paganism, yet Christianity returning, the priviledges of our Churches did return with it; and whosoever were rightly conse∣crated Bishops of them would enjoy the same rights which they did before. So that Gregory might make Austin a Bishop and send him to convert this Nation, by which he was capable to Govern the Churches here which he did convert, but he could not give to him the right over these Churches, which Gregory had no power over himself; neither could Austin or any other Archbishop of Canterbury give away the Primacy of England by sub∣mitting himself to the Roman See. What therefore is Gregories Grant to Austin, to the Primacy of England? If you ask then, How the Arch∣bishops of Canterbury come to be Primates of England? I Answer, 1. This Primacy must be lodged somewhere; and it is not unalterably fixed to any certain place, because the Primacy belongs to the Church and not to a particular See. 2. It is in the power of Princes to fix the Metropolitan See in what place is judged most convenient; thence have been the fre∣quent removes of Episcopal and Archiepiscopal See's; as is evident in many examples in Ecclesiastical history, particularly in Justiniana Prima made a Metropolis by Justinian. 3. Where ever the Primacy is lodged it retains its ancient priviledges; so that there is no need of a succession of our Arch∣bishops from the Brittish Archbishops of Caerleon to preserve the Brittish Primacy; but that See being removed by the Power of Princes; the Pri∣macy still remains the same, that it was in the Brittish Metropolitans. And thus I hope I have shewn you, that the Original Charter of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Primacy, was not contained in the Popes grant to Austin.

* 1.339From hence we proceed again to the case of the African Churches; for (as his Lordship saith) the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melchiades his temper,* 1.340 set themselves to assert their own liberties, and held it out stoutly against Zozimus, Boniface 1, and Caelestine 1. who were successively Bishops of Rome. At last, it was concluded in the sixth Council of Carthage, (wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops, of which St. Augustine himself was one) that they would not give way to such a manifest encroachment upon their rights and liberties; and there∣upon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them, lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome; and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years. For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils; the one an Epistle from Bo∣niface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eu∣lalius then Bishop of Carthage; but the separation, instigante Diabolo, by the Temptation of the Devil. The other is an exemplar precum, or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius, in which he damns and curses all those his Pre∣decessours which went against the Church of Rome. Now his Lordship urges from hence; Either these Instruments are true, or false. If they be false, then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome, or some for them are notorious for∣gers, and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ, and to the perpetual Infamy of that See, and all this foolishly and to no purpose: On the other side, if these instruments be true; then 'tis manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome; which separation was either unjust, or just; if unjust then St. Austin, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution, dyed in actual and unrepented Schism, and out of the Church; If it were just, then is it far more lawful for the Church of Eng∣land by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation, as she did, than it was for the African Church to separate; because then the African Church ex∣cepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals, and two other Canons less material; but the Church of England excepts (besides this grievance) against many corruptions in Doctrine, with which Rome at that time was not tainted. And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome, had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ, and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had. This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return. Which in short is, That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments,* 1.341 but are very willing to think them forgeries; but you say, the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story, and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances, which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touch∣ing matter of Appeals, were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church, even during the term of this pretended separation. For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin, the pro∣ceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus, the Testimonies of Eugenius, Fulgentius, Gregory, and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome. To all which I Answer; that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage, or they did not: if they did persist in it, and no separation followed; then the casting off the Vsurpations of the

Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism; for these African Bishops did that, and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion; by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as af∣terwards, or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church, that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them, which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin, that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church. If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist; you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought; for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary. As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo,* 1.342 who indeed was willing enough to receive him; but what of that? Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwith∣standing that appeal, and ordained another in his place; and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Pro∣vince. Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them, so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them. And even Pope Gregory so long after,* 1.343 though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome; yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa, but yields to them the enjoy∣ment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times. And the testimonies of Eugenius, and Fulgentius imply no∣thing of subjection to Rome, but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others, which it might have without the other; as London may I hope be the Head-City of England, and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it. But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches, there is this sufficient account to be given of it; that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power, and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition, so a fit op∣portunity fell out for them to do it in Africa; For not long after that Council of Carthage, fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals; in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa, or lived under great sufferings; and by a strict edict of Gensericus, no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former. This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops; St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters, and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it, to advance her self by the ruins of other places.

But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches,* 1.344 to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great, about five hundred years, which begins thus, So soon as the Emperours be∣came Christian, the Church began to be put in better order;* 1.345 For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy, that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church. Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself, and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church, that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. The only difficulty then was to accommodate the places and preceden∣cies of Bishops, among themselves, for the very necessity of order and Govern∣ment. To do this the most equal and impartial way was, that as the Church is

in the Common-wealth, not the Common-wealth in it, (as Optatus tells us) So the Honours of the Church should follow the Honours of the State; and so it was insinuated if not ordered (as appears) by the Canons of the Councils of Chalcedon and Antioch. And this was the very Fountain of the Papal Greatness; the Pope having his Residence in the great Imperial City. But Precedency is one thing, and Authority another; It was thought fit therefore, that among Bishops there should be a certain subordination and subjection. The Empire therefore being cast into several Divisions (which they call'd Dio∣ceses) every Diocese contained several Provinces, every Province several Bi∣shopricks; The chief of a Diocese was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes a Patri∣arch; the chief of a Province a Metropolitan; next the Bishops in their sever∣al Dioceses (as we now use that word), among these there was effectual sub∣jection respectively grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law, in their several Quarters; but over them, none at all: all the Difference there, was but Hono∣rary not Authoritative. To all this part of his Lordships Discourse, you only say, That it is founded upon his own conjectural presumptions more then upon any thing else;* 1.346 and that you have shewed a far different Fountain of the Popes Authority from Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. The mean∣ing of what you say, is, That his Lordships Discourse hath too much Truth and Reason to be Answered solidly; but because it is against the Popes interest you defie him, and cross your self, and cry, Tu es Petrus, &c. and think, this will prevent its doing you any harm. For if we look for one dram of Reason against it, we must look somewhere else then in your Book, though you tell us, You have often evidenced the contrary; but when and where I must profess my self to seek, and I doubt shall continue so to the end of your Book.* 1.347 But his Lordship proceeds. If the ambition of some particular persons did attempt now and then to break these bounds, it is no marvel: For no calling can sanctifie all that have it. And Socrates tells us, that in this way the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome advanced them∣selves to a great height 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even beyond the quality of Bishops. Now upon view of story it will appear, that what advantage accrewed to Alexandria, was gotten by the violence of Theophilus Patriarch there. A man of exceed∣ing great Learning and no less violence; and he made no little advantage out of this, that the Empress Eudoxia used his help for the casting of St. Chryso∣stome out of Constantinople. But the Roman Prelats grew by a steady and constant watchfulness upon all occasions to increase the honour of that See. In∣terposing and assuming to themselves to be Vindices Canonum (as Greg. Naz. speaks) Defenders and Restorers of the Canons of the Church, which was a fair pretence and took extreamly well. But yet the world took notice of this their aim. For in all Contestations between the East and West, which were not small, nor few, the Western Bishops objected Levity to the Eastern; and they again arrogancy to the Bishops of the West, as Bilius observes, and upon very warrantable testimonies. For all this, the Bishop of Rome continued in good obedience to the Emperour, enduring his censures and judgements: and being chosen by the Clergy and people of Rome, he accepted from the Emperour, the ratification of that choice. Insomuch, that about the year 579. when all Italy was on fire with the Lombards, and Pelagius the second constrained through the necessity of the times contrary to the example of his Predecessours, to enter upon the Popedome without the Emperours leave, St. Gregory then a Deacon was shortly after sent on Embassie to excuse it. To all these things you give one general Answer,* 1.348 by calling them impertinencies, which is a general name for all that you cannot Answer. The Popes obedience to the Emperours

you say was constrained, their ratifications of Popes elections only declaring them Canonical, Socrates was a Heretick, the Eastern Bishops partial: This is the substance of all you say; whereof the two former are manifestly contrary to the truth of stories (as, when you desire it, may at large be manifested) and the two latter the pitiful shifts of such who have nothing else to say.

But, though you cannot answer particulars,* 1.349 you can overthrow his whole design (though you cannot Fiddle, it seems you can conquer Cities, but they must be very weak then.) His main design, you tell us,* 1.350 is to overthrow the Pope's Supremacy, by shewing, it was not lawful to appeal to Rome; but Catholick Authours (to be sure you are in the number) frame an unanswerable argument for his Supremacy, even from the contrary, thus; it was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs, from all the parts of Christendom; therefore, say they, The Pope must needs be Supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical mat∣ters. This is evidenced out of the 4, and 7, Canons of the Council of Sardica, ac∣counted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice, and often cited as the same with it.

Will you give us leave to come near and handle this unanswerable argu∣ment a little? for persons of your profession use to be very shie of that. But however, since it is exposed to common view, we may take leave to do it. And seriously, upon consideration of all the parts and circumstan∣ces of it, I am of your mind, without flattering you, that it is an unan∣swerable argument, but quite to another purpose than you brought it for, even against the Pope's Supremacy, as I shall presently discover; so that those Catholick Authors have served you just as Lazarillo did his blind Master, in bidding him leap over the water, that he might run his head full butt against the tree. For that which your best Authors shun as much as may be, and use their best arts to get besides it, you run blindly, and therefore boldly upon it, as though it were an excellent argument to your purpose. You say, The evidence for Appeals, is from the Canons of the Sardican Sy∣nod, but if this be an unanswerable argument for the Pope's Supremacy. 1. How come these Appeals to be pleaded from the Sardican Synod? 2. How come these Appeals to be denied, notwithstanding the Canons of it? The former will prove that the Supremacy, if granted from hence, was not acknowledged from Divine Right; the latter, that it was not universally acknowledged by the Church after; and therefore both of them will make an unanswerable argument against that which you would prove, viz. the Pope's Supremacy. First, If the Pope's Supremacy be evidenced from hence. 1. How comes it at all to depend on the Canons? 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica? 3. Why not at all mentioned in them? 1. How comes the Pope's Supremacy, if of Divine Right, to depend at all upon the Canons of the Church? We had thought it had been much more to your purpose, not to have mentioned any Canons at all of the Church about it, but to have produced evidences, that this was constantly acknowledged as of Divine Institution. But we must bear with you, in not producing that which is not to be found. For nothing can be more apparent, than that when the Popes began to pierk up, they pleaded nothing but some Ca∣nons of the Church for what they did, as Julius to the Oriental Bishops, Zosimus to the African, and so others. If it had been ever thought then, that this Supremacy was of Divine Right; What senseless men were these, to make use of the worst pleas, and never mention the best. For, suppo∣sing they had such a Supremacy granted them by the Canons of the Church,

Doth not this imply that their authority did depend upon the Churches grant? and, what the Church might give for her own conveniency, she might take it away, when she saw it abused to her apparent prejudice. And therefore if they had thought that God had commanded all Churches to be subject to them, it was weakly done of them to plead nothing but the Canons of the Church for it. 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica? Was the Church of Rome without her Supremacy till that time? Will no Canons of the Church evidence it before them? When this Council was not held till eleven years after the death of Constantine. Had the Pope no right of Appeals till it was decreed here? Yes, Zosimus pleads the Nicene Canons for it; But upon what grounds, will appear suddenly. 3. Why is not the Pope's Supremacy mentioned as the ground of these Appeals then? Certainly those Western Bishops, who made those Canons, should have only recognized the Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy; and not made a Ca∣non in such a manner as they do; that would make any one be confident they never knew the Popes Supremacy. For their decree runs thus; That in case any Bishop thought himself unjustly condemned; if it seem good to you,* 1.351 let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, that it be written by those who have judged the cause, to Julius the Bishop of Rome; and if it seem good, let the judgement be renewed, and let them ap∣point such as may take cognizance of it. Were these men mad to make such a Canon as this, if they be∣lieved the Popes Supremacy of Divine Institution? What a dwindling expression is that, for the Head of the Church, to call him Bishop of Rome only, when a matter concerning his Supremacy is decreeing? And why to Julius Bishop of Rome, I pray? Had it not been better to S. Pe∣ter's successor, whosoever he be? so it would have been, no doubt, if they had intended a Divine or Vniversal Right. And why for the honour of S. Peter's memory? Had it not been more becoming them to have said, out of obedience to Christ's Commands, which made him Head of the Church? And all this come in with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if it please you? What, if it please you, Whether the Pope should be Vniversal Pastor, or no? If it please you, Whe∣ther the Church should be built super hanc Petram, or no? If it please you, Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeds S. Peter, or no? Are these the men that give such evidence for the Popes Supremacy? You had better by far never mention them; for if that was the Lesson they had to say, never any Boyes at School said their Lesson worse than they do. They wanted such as you among them, to have penned their Canon for them; and no doubt it had run in a better strain; For as much as our Lord and Saviour did appoint S. Peter Head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome to succed him as Christ's Vicar upon earth; these are to let you know that he hath an absolute power by Divine Right over all persons and causes, and that men are bound to obey him upon pain of eternal damnation. This had been something like, if you could have found in some Canons of the Church; but, to produce a poor sneak∣ing, If it please you, What do you else but betray the Majesty and Grandeur of your Church? And yet after all this, no such thing as absolute Ap∣peals to Rome are decreed here neither, but only that the Bishop of Rome should have power to review the case; and in case it was thought neces∣sary, that other persons should be appointed to examine it. But, How much a Review differs from an Appeal, and that nothing but a power to re∣view cases is here given to the Bishop of Rome; are fully manifested by

Petrus de Marcâ, to whom I again referr you.* 1.352 So that we see from hence you have very comfortable evidence for the Pope's Supremacy.

2. Suppose it had been decreed here, you had not gained much by it; Because, notwithstanding this decree, it was far from being acknowledged by the Vniversal Church. Which I prove from hence,* 1.353 That the Sardican Canons were not received by the Church: Nothing can be more evident, than that these Canons were not so much as known by the African Bishops, when Pope Zosimus fraudulently sent them under the name of the Nicene Canons; insomuch that Cusanus questions,* 1.354 Whether ever any such thing were determined by the Sardican Synod or no: And it appears by S. Au∣stin, that the Council of Sardica was of no great credit in Africa; for when Fortunius the Donatist-Bishop would prove that the Sardican Synod had written to some of their party, because one Donatus was mentioned in it;* 1.355 S. Austin tells him, It was a Synod of Arrians; by which it seems very im∣probable, that they had ever received the decrees of the Western,* 1.356 but only of the Eastern part of it, which adjourned to Philippopolis. Neither was this ever acknowledged for an Oecumenical Council, for although it was in∣tended for such by the Emperours, Constans, and Constantius, yet but 70. of the Eastern Bishops appeared to 300. of the Western; and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other, and decreed things directly con∣trary to the other. So that Balsamon and Zonaras, as well as the elder Greeks, say, The decrees of it can at most only bind the Western Churches; and the arrogating of this power of reviewing causes decided by the Ea∣stern Churches by Western Bishops, was apparently the cause of the divi∣sions between them: the Eastern and Western Churches being after this divided by the Alpes Succiae between Illyricum and Thracia. And, although Hilary and Epiphanius expresly call this a Western Council, yet it was a long time, before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church. Which is supposed to be the reason, Why Zosimus would not mention the Sardi∣can, but called them the Nicene Canons; which forgery was sufficiently de∣tected by the African Bishops. And it is the worst of all excuses, to lay the blame of it (as you do) on the Pope's Secretary; for, Do you think Pope Zosimus was so careless of his business, as not to look over the Commo∣nitorium, which Faustinus carried with him? Do you think Faustinus would not have corrected the fault when the African Bishops boggled so at it? What made him so unwilling that they should send into the East to ex∣amine the Nicene Canons, but intreated them to leave the business wholly with the Pope, if he were not conscious of some forgery in the business? But, you say, as a further plea in Zosimus his excuse, That the Council of Sardica was an Appendix to the Nicene Council rather than otherwise.* 1.357 An excellent Appendix, made at two and twenty years distance from the other, and cal∣led by other Emperours, consisting of many other persons, and assembled upon a quite different occasion. If this had been an Appendix to the Ni∣cene Council, How comes that to have but twenty Canons? How came Atticus and Cyrillus not to send these with the other? How come all the Copies of Councils and Canons to distinguish them? How came they not to be contained in the Code of Canons, produced in the Council of Chal∣cedon, in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus? If this were the same Council, because some of the same things were determined, How comes that in Trullo not to be the same with the 6. Oecumenical? How comes the Council of Antioch not to be an Appendix to the Council of Nice, if this was; when it was celebrated before this, and the Canons of it inserted in the

Code of Canons owned by the Council of Chalcedon? So that by all the shifts and arts you can use, you cannot excuse Zosimus from Imposture in sending these Sardican under the name of the Nicene Canons. And, on what account the Pope satisfied the Canons then, is apparent enough, viz. for the advancing the Interess of his See; and this the African Fathers did as ea∣sily discern afterwards, as we do now. But by this we see, What good Foundations the Pope's claim of Supremacy had then, and what arts (not to say frauds) they were beholding to for setting it up, even as great as they have since made use of to maintain it.

CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop.

In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity. A three∣fold acceptation of it; as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches, which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity, besides the Bishop of Rome, as is largely proved. 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire. This accounted then Oecumenical, thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops: and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches. 3. Nothing Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it, so never given in Antiquity to the Bi∣shop of Rome. The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Of the proceedings of the Council of Chal∣cedon, about the Popes Supremacy. Of the Grammatical and Metaphori∣cal sense of this Title. Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gre∣gory should understand it in the Grammatical sense. The great absurdities consequent upon it. S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome. Of Irenaeus his oppositi∣on to Victor. Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops, argues no au∣thority he had over them. What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is. Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated. The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Ro∣man Empire. The Pope no Infallible successor of S. Peter, nor so acknow∣ledged to be by Epiphanius. S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles.

* 1.358HIs Lordship having undertaken to give an account, How the Popes rose by degrees to their Greatness under the Christian Emperours; in prosecution of that, necessarily falls upon the Title of Vniversal Bishop af∣fected by John the Patriarch of Constantinople, and condemned by Pela∣gius 1. and Gregory 2. This you call a trite and beaten way, because I sup∣pose the truth is so plain and evident in it; but withall, you tell us, This Objection hath been satisfied a hundred times over; if you had said, the same Answer had been repeated so often over, you had said true; but if you say, that it hath been satisfied once, you say more than you are able to defend, as will evidently appear by your very unsatisfactory Answer, which at last you give to it. So that if none of your party have been any wiser than your self in this matter; I am so far from being satisfied with what they say, that I can only pitty those persons, whose interest swayes their understand∣ings

so much (or at least their expressions) as to make them say any thing that seems to be for their purpose, though in it self never so senseless or un∣reasonable. And I can scarce hold my self from saying with the Oratour, when a like Objection to this was offered him, because multitudes had said so, Quasi verò quidquam sit tam valdè, quàm nihil sapere, vulgare, That truth and reason are the greatest Novelties in the world. For seriously, Were it possible for men of common understanding, to rest satisfied with such pitiful shifts as you are fain to make, if they would but use any free∣dom in enquiring, and any liberty of judging when they had done? But when once men have given (not to say sold away) the exercise of their free reason, by addicting themselves to a particular interest, there can scarce any thing be imagined so absurd, but it passeth currently from one to another, because they are bound to receive all blindfold, and in the same manner to deliver it to others. By which means it is an easie mat∣ter, for the greatest nonsense and contradictions to be said a hundred times over. And, Whether it be not so in the present case, is that we are now to enquire into. And for the same ends which you propose to your self, viz. that all obscurity may be taken away, and the truth clearly appear; I shall in the first place set down, What his Lordship saith, and then distinctly ex∣amine What you reply in Answer to it. Thus then his Lordship pro∣ceeds. About this time brake out the ambition of John Patriarch of Constan∣tinople, affecting to be Vniversal Bishop.* 1.359 He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperour, but sowrely opposed by Pelagius, and S. Gregory: Insomuch that S. Gregory plainly sayes, That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near.* 1.360 So as yet (and this was near upon the point of six hundred years after Christ) there was no Vniversal Bishop; no one Mo∣narch over the whole Militant Church. But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas; Phocas conferred upon Boniface the third, that very Honour which two of his predecessors had declaimed against as monstrous and blasphemous, if not Antichristian. Where, by the way, either these two Popes, Pelagius and S. Gregory erred in this weighty business, about an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church: Or, if they did not erre, Boniface and the rest, which after him took it upon them, were in their very predecessors judgement Antichristian. Before you come to a particular Answer, you think it ne∣cessary to make a way for it, by premising two things. 1. That the Title of Vniversal Bishop, was anciently attributed to the Bishops of Rome;* 1.361 but they never made use of it. 2. That the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never in∣tended by this usurped Title, to deny the Popes Vniversal Authority, even over themselves. These two things I shall therefore consider, because they tend much to the clearing the main Controversie. I begin therefore with the Title of Vniversal Bishop attributed to the Bishop of Rome; and before I an∣swer your particular allegations, we must more fully consider, in what sense that title of Vniversal Bishops was taken in Antiquity, and in what manner it was attributed to him. For when titles have different senses, and those senses evidently made use of by the ancient Writers, it is a most unreason∣able thing meerly from the title to inferr one determinate sense, which is the most contrary to the current of Antiquity. The title then of Vniver∣sal Bishop, may be conceived to import one of these three things. 1. A ge∣neral care and solicitude over all the Churches of the Christian world. 2. A pe∣culiar dignity over the Churches within the Empire. 3. Vniversal Jurisdiction over all Churches, so that all exercise of it in the Church is derivative from him as Vniversal Pastor and Head of the Church. This last is that which

you attribute to the Pope; and though you find the name of Vniversal Bishop a hundred times over, in the records of the Church, yet if it be taken in either of the two former senses, it makes nothing at all to your purpose. Our business is therefore now, to shew, that this title was used in the Church in the two former senses; and that nothing from hence can be in∣ferred for that Oecumenical Pastorship, which you say, doth, of Divine Right, belong to the Bishop of Rome.

* 1.362I begin with the first, as this Title may import a general care and solicitude over all the Christian Churches: and I deny not but in this sense this title might be attributed in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome; but then I assert, that nothing peculiar to him can be inferred from hence, because expressions importing the same care, are attributed to other Bishops, especially such who were placed in the greater Sees, or were active in promoting the Churches interest. For which we must consider, that power and authority in the Bishops of the Church, is given with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church; so that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church, they have authority enough by their Function to do it. But it not only being impossible that every Bishop should do it, but it being inconsistent with peace and order, that all should under∣take it; therefore it was necessary that there should be some restraints and bounds set, for the more convenient management of that authority which they had. From hence came the Original of particular Dioceses, that within such a compass they might better exercise that power which they enjoyed. As if many lights be placed in a great Room, though the inten∣tion of every one of these is to give light to the whole Room; yet that this might the better be done, these lights are conveniently placed in the seve∣ral parts of it. And this is that which S. Cyprian means in that famous ex∣pression of his, That there is but one Bishoprick in the whole world, a part of which is held by every Bishop; For the Church in common is designed as the Diocese of all Bishops, which is set out into several appartiments for the more advantagious governing of it. As a flock of many thousand sheep, being committed to the care of many Shepherds, these all have an eye to the good of the whole Flock, but do not therefore sit altogether in one place to over-see it; but every one hath his share to look after, for the benefit of the Whole: But yet so, that upon occasion, one of them may extend his care beyond his own division, and may be very useful for the whole, by counsel and direction. Thus we shall find it was in the Primi∣tive Church; though every Bishop had his particular Charge, yet still they regarded the common good of the whole Church, and upon occasion did extend their counsel and advice far beyond their particular Churches; and exercised their Functions in other places besides those, which the Churches convenience had allotted to them. Hence it was, that, dissentions arising between the Asian and Roman Churches, Polycarp comes to Rome, and there,* 1.363 as Eusebius from Irenaeus tells us, He exercised with Anicetus his con∣sent, his Episcopal Function. For, as Valesius observes, it cannot be under∣stood, as Franciscus Florens would have it, of his receiving the Eucharist from Anicetus, but something of honour is implied in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where∣as there was nothing but what was common in the other. Hence the se∣veral Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and others, for the advising, confirming,* 1.364 and settling Churches. Hence Irenaeus concerned himself so much in the business between Victor and the Asian Churches, either to pre∣vent, or repeal his sentence of Excommunication against them. Hence

S. Cyprian writes into Spain about the deposing Basilides and Martialis,* 1.365 two Apostatizing Bishops, and checks Stephen Bishop of Rome, for his inconsi∣derate restoring them. Hence, Faustus Bishop of Lyons writes to S. Cy∣prian, in the case of Martianus of Arles,* 1.366 and he writes to Stephen as being nearer, and more concerned in the business of Novatianism (for the honour of his predecessors) in order to his Deposition; yet so, as he looks on it as a common cause belonging to them all (cui rei nostrum est consulere & sub∣venire, frater charissime) in which they were all bound to advise and help. Hence S. Cyprian writes to the Bishop of Rome, as his Brother and Colleague, with∣out the least intimation of deriving any Jurisdiction from him, but often expressing that charge which was committed to every Bishop, which he must look to as mindful of the account he must give to God. Hence Nazianzen saith of S. Cyprian,* 1.367 That he not only governed the Churches of Carthage and Africa, but all the Western parts, and even almost all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern too, as far as his fame went.* 1.368 Hence Arsenius writes to Atha∣nasius, We embrace Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church, over which thou, through the Grace of God, dost preside. Hence Gregory Nazianzen saith of Athanasius, That he made Laws for the whole earth. Hence S. Basil writes to him, That he had care of all the Churches, as of his own; and in the same Epistle calls him, The Head and chief over all. Hence S. Chrysostome in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, That he was instructed by the Divine Spirit, that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set, but of the whole Church throughout the world. Hence came the great endeavours of Theophilus and Cyril, Patriarchs of Alexandria,* 1.369 of Eusebius Vercellensis, Hilarius Pictaviensis, and several others, for rooting out of Heresies; not confining themselves to those Provinces allotted to them, but extending their care over other Churches.* 1.370 Hence came fre∣quent ordinations of persons out of their own Dioceses, as of Paulinus at An∣tioch by Lucifer Caralitanus, of many Bishops in Syria and Mesopotamia by Eusebius Samosatenus; and of a Presbyter at Bethleem by Epiphanius; who when he was quarrel'd at by John of Hierusalem for it,* 1.371 he defends his action by this saying, That, In Sacerdotio Dei nulla est diversitas, i. e. where∣ever a Bishop was, he might exercise his power as such, although the Churches prudence had set limits to their ordinary Jurisdiction. From these things then we see, that a general care and solicitude of the Vniversal Church, doth belong to every Bishop, and that some of them have been ex∣presly said to have had the care of the whole Church, which in other terms is to say, They were Vniversal Bishops. So that from this sense of the Title, you gain nothing to your purpose, though the care of the Vniversal Church be attributed to the Bishop of Rome, though he acts and calls Coun∣cils, and orders other things out of his own Province, yet all this proves not the Supremacy you intend; for this is no more than other Bishops did, whom you will not acknowledge to be Heads of the Church, or Vniversal Bishops in that sense.

2. An Vniversal Bishop denotes a peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire: For which, two things will be sufficient to manifest it.* 1.372 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal. 2. That some Bishops in the Great Churches, were on that account called Oecumenical or Vniversal Bishops. 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniver∣sal; for which multitudes of testimonies might be cited, in which orbis Romanus, and orbis humanus were looked on as Synonymous; thence Trebel∣lius Pollio in Macrianus, qui ex diversis partibus orbis Romani restituant:

and as Salmasius witnesseth in those writers of the Imperial History;* 1.373 most of the ancient M S S. for orbis Romanus have orbis humanus; for, as he saith, Eâ gloriâ fuerunt Romani, ut totum orbem suum vocarent; hinc orbis Romanus passim apud auctores reperitur pro universo orbe; thence they cal∣led the Roman people, omnium gentium victorem; and from hence Ammia∣nus Marcellinus calls Rome,* 1.374 caput mundi (the head of the world) and the Roman Senate, Asylum mundi totius (the Sanctuary for the whole world;) thence Spartianus saith of Severus,* 1.375 orbem terrarum Romam{que} despexit, when, as Casaubon observes, he speaks only of the Roman Provinces. And from hence, whatever was out of the Roman Empire, was called Barbaria, thence the rura vicina Barbariae in Lampridius,* 1.376 for the Marches which lay next to the enemies Country; thence Marcellinus, visus est in Barbarico miles, and in the Imperial Constitutions, as Justellus observes, Barbari vocantur; qui∣cun{que} Imperio Romano non parebant (all were called barbarous out of the Roman Empire) and in the same sense barbaricum is used in the 58. Canon of the African Code, and in the 206. Canon of the Code of the Vniversal Church, that the Bishops 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.377 i. e. out of the Roman Empire, should be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now, since the Roman Em∣pire was called orbis Romanus, and in Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as appears, in that Augusius, Luk. 2.1. is said to tax 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole world, which could be only the Roman Empire; and the famine in the same, is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 11.28.) it is no wonder if these Bishops who enjoy∣ed the greatest dignity in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical; and those Councils so too, which consisted of the Bishops within those bounds. I come therefore to the second thing, That some Bishops in the Great Churches in the Roman Empire, were called Oecumenical, as that relates to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. the Roman Empire. For which we may consider, the primary ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople, was the greatness of the City, as is undeniably manifest by the proceedings of the Councils of Constantinople, and Chalcedon about him; wherein it was decreed, since that was New-Rome, that it should enjoy equal priviledges with the old. And in all probability the ground of the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople's usurping the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to corre∣spond with the greatness of his City, which at the time of the contest be∣tween Pope Gregory, and him, was in a better condition than Rome it self; being the seat of the Empire, and therefore he thought it suitable thereto, to be called Oecumenical Patriarch. But besides this peculiarity of Constan∣tinople, it was no unusual thing for the Bishop of the Patriarchal Churches, to have expressions given them, tantamount to the title of Vniversal Bishop in any sense but that of the Vniversal Jurisdiction; which I shall prove as to the three Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constanti∣nople. First, Of Alexandria: So Greg. Nazianzen saith of Athanasius,* 1.378 being made Bishop there, he had the Government of that people committed to him, which is as much as to say, of the whole world; and John of Hierusalem,* 1.379 writing to Theophilus Patri∣arch of Alexandria, saith, That he had the care of all the Churches. And St. Basil writes to Atha∣nasius about the establishing of Meletius as Pa∣triarch of Antioch,* 1.380 that so he might govern as it were the whole body of the Church. But most clear and full to that purpose is the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius

being made Patriarch of Constantinople. He was in∣trusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople,* 1.381 and thereby of the whole world. What work would you make with so illustrious a testimony in Antiquity for the Bishop of Rome as this is for the Patriarch of Constantinople? Use therefore and in∣terpret but these testimonies as kindly as you do any for the Roman See, and will you not find as large a power over the Church attributed to the other Patriarchs as you do to the Bishop of Rome? What is it then you would infer from the title of Vniversal Bishop being attributed to him? Will the very title do more then what is signified by it? Or must it of ne∣cessity import something more when given to the Bishop of Rome then it doth when given to other Bishops? if it doth, you must prove it from some other Arguments, and not barely from the title being attributed to them. Thus you see, though the title were granted to be attributed to him, there is nothing new, nothing peculiar in it.

But we must further examine, Who they are that attribute this title to him, and what the account is of their doing it. For this,* 1.382 you cite the Council of Chalcedon in a letter inserted in the Acts of it,* 1.383 the Council of Con∣stantinople sub Mena, John Bishop of Nicopolis, Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour, Basil the yonger, and Balsamon himself. To the first I An∣swer. 1. That this title was not given by the Council of Chalcedon. 2. If it had, no more was given to the Bishop of Rome, then to the Bishops of other Patriarchal Churches. 1. That this title was not given by the General Council of Chalcedon; this I know Gregory 1. in his Epistles about this sub∣ject repeats usque ad nauseam, that the title of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon and that he refused it; but there is as little evidence for the one as the other. That the title of Oecu∣menical Patriarch was attributed to the Bishop of Rome by some Papers read and received in that Council I deny not, but we must consider the persons who did it, and the occasion of it. The persons were such who came to inform the Council against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria,* 1.384 and they were no other then Athanasius a Presbyter, Theodorus and Ischy∣rion two Deacons, and Sophronius a Laick of Alexandria: now these persons not in a letter (as you relate it) but in their bills exhibited to the Council against Dioscorus give that title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Archbishop to Leo the Bishop of Rome. And is this now the offer made of the title of Vniversal Bishop by the Council of Chalcedon? But you say, This was insert∣ed into the Acts of the Council? I grant it was, but on what account? not with any respect to the title, but as containing the Accusations against Di∣oscorus. But where do any of the Bishops of that Council attribute that title to Leo? which of them mentions it in their subscriptions to the Depo∣sition of Dioscorus, though many of them speak expresly of Leo and Anato∣lius together with the same titles of honour to them both. Why did not the Council superscribe their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo with that title? so indeed Binius rather supposes they should have done,* 1.385 then proves they ever did it: and that only from Gregories Epistle (not Leo's as he mistakes it) to Eulogius where he mentions this offer, but upon what grounds we have seen already. But suppose, 2. We should grant, that the Council of Chalcedon should have offered the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome; there are none who understand any thing of the nature of that title, or the proceedings of that Council, who can imagine

they should intend any acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy by it. For the title it self as to the importance of it was common to other Bi∣shops, especially of the Patriarchal Sees, as I have proved by some instances already, and might do yet by more; but I shall content my self with the ingenuous confession of Sim. Vigorius; That when the Western Fathers,* 1.386 call the Roman Bishops, Bishops of the Vniversal Church, they do it from the custome of their Churches, not that they look on them as Vniver∣sal Bishops of the whole Church, but in the same sense that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexan∣dria, Jerusalem, are call'd so; or as they are Vniver∣sal over the Churches under their Patriarchate; or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church. And after acknowledgeth, that the title of Vniversal or Oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy in the Church. And if it doth not so when given by the Western Fathers, much less certainly when given by the Eastern, espe∣cially those who met in the Council of Chalcedon; For it is evident by their 16 Session, the 28 Canon, and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo, they designed the advancement of the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome. And therefore if they gave the Pope the title of Oecu∣menical Patriarch, or Bishop, it was that he might be willing that the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople might be call'd so too. And if, as Gregory saith, the Bishops of Rome would not accept the title of Vniversal Bishop, the truest account I know of it, is, lest the Patriarch of Constantinople should share with him in it; but we see when the great Benefactor to your Church the Benigne Phocas, as Gregory himself styles him, gave it to the Bishop of Rome alone, then hands and heart and all were ready to receive it. And I much fear Leo 1. and St. Gregory himself would have been shrewdly tempted to receive it, if it had been offered them upon those terms, that no one else should have it besides them; but they scorned it till they could have it alone. And for all their declamations against the pride of Anatolius and John, Patriarchs of Constantinople, they must look very favourably on the actions of those two Popes, that discern not their own Pride in condemning of them for it. For usually men shew it as much in suspecting or con∣demning others for it, as in any other way whatsoever. Thus it was in these persons; they thought the Patriarchs of Constantinople proud and ar∣rogant, because they sought to be equal with them. But, Was it not their own greater Pride, that they were able to bear no equals? and it is to be feared, it was their desire to advance their own Supremacy which made them quarrel so much with Anatolius, and John, and Cyriacus. For would they but have been contented to truckle under the Roman Bishops they had been accounted very meek and humble men. And St. Gregory him∣self, would not sure have thought much to have call'd them so, who most abominably flatters that monster Phocas, after the murder of Mauricius and his Children: for he begins his Epistle to him with, Gloria in excelsis Deo: Glory to God on high,* 1.387 who, according to what is written, changes times and transfers Kingdomes: and after, in such notorious flattering expressions congratulates his coming to the Throne, that any one who reads them would think Phocas the greater Saint; he rejoyces, that the benignity of his piety was advanced to the Imperial Throne, nay (laetentur coeli & exultet terra) let the heavens rejoyce and the earth be glad, and all the people which

hath been hitherto in much affliction, revive at the benignity of your actions. O rare Phocas! Could he do any less then pronounce the Bishop of Rome Vniversal Bishop after this, when poor Cyriacus at Constantinople suffered for his opposing him for the execrable murder of his Master? Therefore these proceedings of Leo and Gregory yield shrewd matter of suspicion, what the main ground of their quarrel against the Patriarchs of Constanti∣nople was. For before, the Emperours stood up for the honour of Constan∣tinople as being the seat of their Empire, and Rome began to sink, the Em∣pire decaying there; but now, there was a fit time to do something for the honour of the Roman See; Cyriacus was in disgrace with the Tyrant Phocas; and no such time as now to fall in with him and caresse him: and we see Gregory did it prety well for a Saint, but he lived not to enjoy the benefit of it; but Boniface did however.

After the Patriarchate of Constantinople was erected,* 1.388 the Popes had a double game to play, to advance themselves, and depress that, which it was very hard for them to do, because all the Eastern Bishops, as well as the Emperour favoured it. But after equal priviledges were decreed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome, by the Council of Constantinople, they could no longer dissemble their choler; but had no such occasion ministred to them to express it as after the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, (wherein were present 630 Bishops) which confirmed the former. For then Leo fumes and frets and writes to Martianus, and Pulcheria, to Anatolius and the Bishops of the East; but still pretends that he stood up for the priviledges of the other Patriarchs and the Nicene Canons, and what not? but one might easily discern what it was that pinched him, viz. the equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople with him∣self. Which it is apparent he suspected before, by the instructions he gave his Legats Paschasinus and Lucentius, to be sure to oppose whatever was proposed in the Council concerning the Primacy of that See. And accordingly they did; and complained that the Canon was surreptitiously made. Which they were hugely overseen in doing while the Council sat, for upon this the whole matter is reviewed, the Judges scan the business, the Bishops protest there were no practises used; that they all voluntarily consented to it; and all this in the presence of the Roman Legats? How comes it then to pass that this should not be a regular and Conciliar action? Were not the Bishops at age to understand their own priviledges? Did not the Bishop of Antioch know his own interest as well as Pope Leo? Must he be supposed more able to understand the Nicene Canons then these 630 Bishops? Why then was not this Canon as regular as any other. Why forsooth, The Pope did not consent to it. So true is that sharp censure of Ludovicus Vives, that, those are accounted lawful Ca∣nons and Councils which make for their interest,* 1.389 but others are no more esteemed then a company of tattling Gossips. But what made the Pope so angry at this Canon of the Council of Chalcedon? He pretends the honour of the Nicene Canons, the preserving the priviledges of other Patri∣archs; But Binius hath told us the true reason of it; because, they say,* 1.390 that the Primacy of Rome came, by its being the seat of the Empire; and therefore not by Divine right: and since Constantinople was become the seat of the Em∣pire too, therefore the Patriarch there should enjoy equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome. If Rome had continued still the sole seat of the Empire, this reason would not have been quarrelled at; but now Rome sinking

and Constantinople rising, this must not be endured, but all the arts and devices possible must be used to keep it under. And this is the true ac∣count of the pique which the Bishops of Rome had to the Patriarchs of Con∣stantinople: From whence we may easily, guess how probable it is that this Council of Chalcedon did acknowledge the Pope Oecumenical Bishop in any other sense then they contended the Patriarch of Constantinople was so too. And the same answer will serve for all your following Instances. For, as you pretend that the Council of Constantinople sub Menna did call Pope Agapetus Oecumenical Patriarch, so it is most certain that it call'd Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople so too. And which is more, Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius of Constantinople in the second Nicene Council calls him Vniversal Bishop. If therefore the Greek Emperours and Balsa∣mon call the Pope so, they import nothing peculiar to him in it, because it is most evident they call'd their own Patriarch so likewise. So that you find little advantage to your cause from this first thing which you premise, viz. that the Pope was anciently call'd Vniversal Bishop. But you say fur∣ther,* 1.391 2. That the Bishops of Constantinople never intended to deny by this usurped title, the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves. This is ambiguous, unless it be further explained what you mean by Vniversal Authority; for, it may either note some kind of prae-eminence and dignity which the Bishop of Rome had as the chief Patriarch, and who on that ac∣count had great Authority in the Church, and this your instances prove that the Patriarchs of Constantinople did acknowledge to belong to the Pope: but if by Vniversal Authority be meant Vniversal Jurisdiction over the Church as appointed the head of it by Christ, then not one of your instances comes near the shadow of a proof for it.

Thus having considered what you premise, we come to your Answer it self.* 1.392 * 1.393 For which you tell us, We are to take notice, that the term [Vniversal Bishop] is capable of two senses; the one Grammatical, the other Metaphorical. In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Vniversal Church, and of all Churches in particular, even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops; and consequently displaceable at his pleasure; as being only his, not Christs officers; and receiving authority from him, and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense, it signifies only so high and eminent a dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church, that though he, who is stiled Vni∣versal Bishop, hath a true and real Superintendency, Jurisdiction, and Autho∣rity over all other Bishops, yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Dioceses as he himself. This being clear'd (say you) 'tis evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Vni∣versal Bishop,* 1.394 takes it in the literal and Grammatical sense; which you very faintly endeavour to prove out of him, as I shall make it presently appear. This being then the substance of that Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over, must now once for all pass a strict and severe examination. Which it shall receive in these two Enquiries, 1. Whe∣ther it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense? 2. Whether all the Argu∣ments which he useth against that title, do not hold against that Vniversal Jurisdiction which you attribute to the Pope as Head of the Church?

1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense which you give of it? And he which can think so, must have some other way of understanding his meaning then by his words and arguments, which I confess I do not

pretend to. But if we examine them, we shall find how impossible it is that St. Gregory should ever think that John pretended to be the sole Bi∣shop of this world. 1. Because Gregory saith, That same title which John had usurped was offered to the Roman Bishops by the Council of Chalcedon,* 1.395 but none of them would ever use it, because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops. Now I pray think with your self, whether ever 630 Bishops would consent together to give away all their power and Authority in the Church? For you say, The literal sense of Vniversal Bishop doth suppose him to be Bishop of all particular Churches, to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops, and are displaceable at his pleasure. Can it now enter into your mind that Gregory should ever think that these Bishops should all make themselves the Popes Vassals of their own free choice? We see even under the great Vsurpations of the Bishop of Rome since, though they pre∣tend (for all that I can see) to be Oecumenical Bishops in a higher sense then ever John pretended to, that yet the Bishops of the Roman Communion are not willing to submit their office wholly to the Papal Jurisdiction; witness the stout and eager contests of the Spanish Bishops in the Council of Trent about the Divine Institution of the Episcopal office, against the pretences of the Italian Party. And shall we then think when the Pope was far from that power which he hath since Usurped, that such multitude of grave and resolute Bishops should throw their Miters down at the Popes feet and offer him in your literal sense, to be sole Bishop of the World. That they would relinquish their power, which they made no question they had from Christ, and take it up again at the Popes hands? But whether you can imagine this of so many Bishops or no, Can you conceive that Gregory should think so of them? and he must do it, if he took the title of Vni∣versal Bishop in your literal sense; and yet this Gregory saith,* 1.396 Hoc Vniversi∣tatis nomen oblatum est, That very name of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon; Sed nullus unquam Decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano Vocabulo uti consensit. Nothing then can be more plain, then that John took that which the Pope refused. And he that can believe that this title should ever be offered in this literal sense, I despair without the help of Physick to make him believe any thing. 2. This very title was not usurped wholly by John himself, but was given him in a Coun∣cil at Constantinople. This Gregory confesseth in his Epistle to Eulogius and Anastasius, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria,* 1.397 that about eight years before, in the time of Pelagius his predecessor, John called a Council at Con∣stantinople in which he endeavours to be called Vniversal Bishop; so Gregory:* 1.398 but he confesseth elsewhere that he effected it. And it appears by the Epistle of Pelagius himself writ on that occasion, that it was more then a meer endeavour, and that they did consent to it; else, Why doth Pelagius say, Quicquid in vestro conventiculo statuistis,* 1.399 Whatever they had deter∣min'd in their Conventicle (as on this account Pelagius calls it, because it wanted his approbation)? And it is evident from Gregories zealous writing to the other Patriarchs about it, that they did not ••ook on themselves as so much concerned about it. Now in this Council which met at Constan∣tinople,* 1.400 which was called together in the case of Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch, all the Patriarchs either by themselves or substitutes were present, as Evagrius tells us, and not only they but several Metropolitans too; now if they had taken this in the literal sense, Can you think they would have yielded to it? Were not they much more concerned about it then either Pelagius or Gregory were? for they were near him, and were sure to live

under this usurped power of his, and to smart by it, if it were so great as you suppose it to be. But it is apparent by their yielding to it, they look∣ed on it, to be sure, not in the Literal sense, and it may be as no more than the Honorary Title of Oecumenical Patriarch.

* 1.4013. How comes it to pass, that none of the successors of John and Cyriacus did ever challenge this Title in the Literal sense of it? For we do not see that they quitted it, for all Phocas gave it to Pope Boniface, since by your own confession, in the Greek Canon-Law, Sisinnius, German, Constantine, Alexius, and others are called Oecumenical Patriarchs: And it appears by the Epistles of Pelagius and Gregory, that was the Title which John had then given him.* 1.402 Si summus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris denegatur, saith Pelagius. Si enim hoc dici licentèr permittitur, honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur, saith Gregory. From which words I think it most probable, that the main ambition of the Patriarchs of Constan∣tinople, was not meerly that they would be called Oecumenical Patriarchs, but that Title should properly belong to them as excluding others from it, which was it that touched the Bishops of Rome to the quick; because then Constantinople flourished, as much as Rome decayed by the oppressions of the Lombards; and Gregory complained of this to Constantia the Empress, that for seven and twenty years together they had lived in Rome,* 1.403 inter Lon∣gobardorum gladios (among the swords of the Lombards) and this made them so jealous, that the honour of the Roman See was then sinking, and therefore they stickle so much against this Title, and draw all the invidi∣dious consequences from it possible, the better to set the other Patriarchs against it; and because that would not extend far beyond the Patriarchs themselves, they pretend likewise, that this was to make himself Vniver∣sal Bishop. But not certainly in your Literal sense; for then Gregory would have objected some actions consequent upon this Title; in depriving Bi∣shops of their Jurisdiction, and displacing some, and putting in others at his pleasure; which you say, is the natural effect of this Literal sense of Vni∣versal Bishop. But we read of nothing of this nature done either by John or Cyriacus; they acted no more than they did, only enjoyed a higher Title. And this is proved further,

4. By the carriage of the Emperour Mauricius in this business. Gregory writes a pitiful moaning Letter to him about it, and uses all the Rhetorick he had to perswade the Emperour, that he would either flectere, or coercere, incline, or force him to lay aside that arrogant Title: But for all this it ap∣pears by Gregory's Letter to the Empress, That the Emperour had checked him for medling in it, and was so far from opposing the Patriarchs Title,* 1.404 that in effect he bid him trouble him∣self no more about it: Which poor S. Gregory took very ill. And afterwards, when Cyriacus succeeded John in Constantinople, the Emperour being somewhat fearful, lest Gregory at the coming in of a new Patriarch, might, on the account of this new Title, deny his Communicatory Letters, he dispatches a Letter to him to quicken him about it. And he takes it very unkindly that the Emperour should suspect his indiscretion so much, that for the sake of this Title, which he saith,* 1.405 had sorely wounded him, he should deny Communion in the Faith with him; and yet in the same Epistle saith, That whosoever took the Title of Vni∣versal Bishop upon him, was a forerunner of Antichrist. But if this name had been apprehended in that which you call, The Literal and Grammati∣cal sense, Would not the Emperour (being commended by Gregory too for

his Piety) have rather encouraged him in it? where as he plainly tells him, It was a contest about a frivolous name, and nothing else;* 1.406 and that there ought to be no scandal among them about it. Upon which Gregory is put to his distincti∣ons of two sorts of frivolous things, some that are very harmless, and some that are very hurtful, i. e. frivolous things are either such as are frivolous,, or such as are not; for, Who ever imagined, that such things as are very hurtful, are frivolous? But however, S. Gregory speaks excellent sense; for his meaning is, that the Title it self may be frivolous, but the con∣sequences of it may be dreadful, and so we have found it since his time. So that this appears to be the true state of the business between them; the Patriarch of Constantinople, he challengeth the Title of Oecumenical Patri∣triarch or Bishop, as belonging of right to him, being Patriarch of the chief Seat of the Empire, but in the mean time challengeth no Vniversal Juris∣diction by virtue of this Title: On which account the Emperour and Ea∣stern Bishops admit of it: On the other side, the Bishops of Rome, partly looking at their own interest in it (for so it appears by one of Gregory's Epistles to the Emperour, that he suspected it to be his own interest which he stood so much up for) and partly foreseeing the dangerous consequences of this,* 1.407 if Vniversal Jurisdiction were challenged with it, they resolutely oppose it, not meerly for the Title sake, but for that which might follow upon that Title, taking it not in your Literal, but in your Me∣taphorical sense, as I shall shew presently. But neither party was so weak and silly, as to apprehend it in your Literal sense; for then neither would the Emperour have sleighted it, nor the Popes opposed it on those terms which they do, and on such grounds which reach your Metaphorical sense.

5. The same Title in the same sense which Gregory opposed it, did Boni∣face accept of, from the Emperour Phocas. This you confess your self, when you say, That all that Phocas did,* 1.408 was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome only; therefore the same Title which the Patriarch of Constantinople took to himself before, was both given by Phocas, and taken by Pope Boniface. This then being confessed by you, let me now seriously ask you, Whether the Title of Vniversal Bi∣shop, which Pope Gregory opposed, was to be taken in the Grammatical or Metaphorical sense? Take now, Whether of them you please; if in the Metaphorical, all his arguments hold against the Popes present Vniversal Ju∣risdiction, by your own confession; if in the Literal and Grammatical, then Pope Boniface had all those things belonging to him, which Gregory con∣demns that Title for. Then by your own confession Pope Boniface must be the forerunner of Antichrist, he must equal himself to Lucifer in pride, he must have that name of blasphemy upon him, and all those dreadful conse∣quences must attend him and all his followers, who own that Title of Vni∣versal Bishop, in that which you call the Literal or Grammatical sense of it.

6. Lastly, it appears from S. Gregory himself,* 1.409 that the Reasons which he urgeth against the Title of Vniversal Bishop, are such as hold against that which you call the Metaphorical sense of it; which in short is, An Vniver∣sal Pastor exercising Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church. And It is scarce possible to imagine, that he should speak more clearly against

such an Vniversal Headship than he doth; and urges such arguments against it, which properly belong to that Metaphorical sense of it. As when he saith to John the Patriarch, What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church in the day of judgement,* 1.410 who dost endeavour to subject all his members to thee, under the name of Vniversal Bi∣shop? What is there in these words which doth not fully belong to your Metaphorical sense of Head of the Church? Doth he not subject all Christs members to him? Doth he not challenge to himself pro∣per Jurisdiction over them? What then will he be able to answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church, as St. Gregory understands it exclusivè of any other? Doth not he arise to that height of singula∣rity,* 1.411 that he is subject to none, but rules over all? yet these are the very words he uses; and, Can any more expresly describe your Head of the Church than these do? Yet herein he saith, He imitates the Pride of Lucifer, who, according to St. Gregory, endeavoured to be the Head of the Church Triumphant, as the Pope of the Church Militant. And follows that parallel close, That an Vniversal Bishop imitates Lucifer in exalting his Throne above the Starrs of God: For (saith he) What are all the Brethren the Bishops of the Vniversal Church,* 1.412 but the Starrs of Heaven? and after parallels them with the Clouds, and so this terrestrial Lucifer ascends above the heights of the clouds. And again, saith he, Surely the Apostle Peter, was the first member (not the Head) of the Holy and Vniversal Church. Paul, Andrew, and John,* 1.413 What are they else but the Heads of particular Churches? And yet they are all members of the Church under one Head. Can any thing be more clear against any Head of the Vniversal Church, but Christ himself? when St. Peter is acknowledged to be only a prime member of the Church? How then come his successors to be the Heads of it? And, as he goes on, The Saints before the Law, and under the Law, and under Grace, who all make up the body of our Lord, they were all but members of the Church, and none of them would be called Vniversal. And, I pray, let his Holiness consider his following words, Let your Holiness acknowledge what pride it is to be called by that name,* 1.414 which none that was truly holy was ever call'd by. And, Do you think now that these expressions do not as properly reach your Head of the Church, as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own? What is there in all this, that implies that others should be no Bishops, but only titular? yes, they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be, i. e. as to their power of Order, but not as to their Jurisdiction. For this, you say and defend, comes from the Head of the Church; or else your Monarchical Go∣vernment in the Church signifies nothing. Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church, in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it? And when St. Gregory urges so often, That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop, if he fails, the Church would fail too; Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope? Doth not Bellarmine tell us, when he writes of the Pope, he writes de summâ rei Christianae, Of the main of all Christia∣nity, and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth? And I pray now consider with your self, Whether this Answer which you

say hath been given a hundred times over, can satisfie any reasonable man? Nay, Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous, that it is mat∣ter of just admiration, that ever it should have been given once; and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Obje∣ction upon the stage again. But, Do you think your Answers, like your Prayers, will do you good by being said so often over? Indeed therein they are alike, that they are both in an unknown tongue. Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation.

These things being thus clear, I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry, in that I have proved already,* 1.415 that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop, which you own and contend for, as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome. Although it were no difficult matter to prove, that, according to the most received Opinion in your Church, viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope (which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome, and was so at the Council of Trent) that that which you call the Literal sense, doth follow your Metaphorical, i. e. If the Pope hath Vniver∣sal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church, then other Bishops are not properly Bishops, nor Christ's Officers, but his. For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction? And therefore, if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis, and not in plenitudinem pote∣statis, according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome, it neces∣sarily follows, that they are but the Pope's Officers, and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them, and no more.* 1.416 And this Bel∣larmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops, whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him, and the ad∣ministration of it in spirituals and temporals. And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez, in the Council of Trent, How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome, and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him; that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch, with full and total power and Jurisdiction, and the Church is subject unto him, as it was to Christ. And, as when his Divine Majesty did govern it, it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction, but meer, pure, and total sub∣jection; so it must be said in all perpetuity of time, and so understood, that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom. And, that he is the Only Pastor, is plainly proved by the words of Christ, when he said, He hath other sheep which he will gather together, and so one Sheepfold should be made, and one Shepherd. What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop, for the Only Bishop? Are not the Only Bishop, and the Only Pastor all one? Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this, which any of you make use of to prove, that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense; nay, it goes higher. For Gregory only argues, that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop, and others could not be any true Bishops;* 1.417 but here it is asserted in plain terms, that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor, and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth; and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it,* 1.418 it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome, than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And there∣fore I pray think more seriously of what he saith, That to agree in that pro∣phane word, is to lose the Faith; That such a blasphemous name should be far from

the hearts of Christians, in which, by the arrogance of one Bishop, the honour of all is taken away. Neither will it serve your turn to say (which is all that you have to say) that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church, but that many in your Church hold otherwise, That there is power of Jurisdi∣ction properly in Bishops. For, although these latter are not near the num∣ber of the other, nor so much in favour with your Church, but are looked on as a discontented party, as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent; yet that is not it, we are to look after, What all in your Church are agreed on, but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself. Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome, as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent, and all the Italian party? Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be? Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself, to be Oecumenical Pastor, and the sole Foun∣tain of all Jurisdiction in the Church? If so, all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title, falls most heavily upon the Pope. For, St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him, but what he arrogated to himself, that therein, he was the Prince of Pride, the forerunner of Anti∣christ, using a vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, prophane, erroneous, wicked, hy∣pocritical, singular,* 1.419 presumptuous, blaspemous Name. For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it; and, I believe, if he could have thought of more, and worse, he would as freely have bestowed them. If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws, vio∣late the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise his Brethren, imitate Lucifer, How much more doth this belong to him, that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch, but the sole Pastor of the Church, and that all Juris∣diction is derived from him? And by this time I hope you see, that the Answer you say hath been given a hundred times over, is so pitifully weak, absurd and ridiculous, that you might have been ashamed to have produ∣ced it once, and much more to repeat it without saying any more for it than you do. For, your other discourse depends wholly upon it, and all that being taken away, the rest doth fall to the ground with it.

We must now therefore return to his Lordships discourse, in which he goes on to give an account of the rise of the Pope's Greatness.* 1.420

As yet, saith he, The right of Election, or ratification of the Pope, continued in the Emperour:* 1.421 but then the Lombards grew so great in Italy, and the Empire was so infested with Saracens, and such changes happened in all parts of the world, as that neither for the present, the homage of the Pope was useful for the Emperour; nor the protection of the Empe∣rour available for the Pope. By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself. A thing which as it pleased him well enough, so both he and his Successors made great advantage by it. For, being grown to that Eminence by the Emperour, and the greatness of that City and place of his aboad; he found himself the more free, the greater the Tempest was, that beat upon the other. And then first he set himself to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperour. Next he opposed himself against him. And about A. D. 710. Pope Constan∣tine 1. did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperour, in defence of Images; as Onuphrius tells us. After him Gregory 2. and the 3. did the same by Leo Isaurus. By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close, and to vex on all sides, not Italy only, but Rome also. This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron. And very fitly he meets with Charls Martell in France, that famous warrior against the Sarazens. Him

he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards. This ad∣dress seems very advisedly taken, at least it proves very fortunate to them both. For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, which had then stood two hundred and four years, which was the Popes security. And it brought the Crown of France into the house of Charls, and shortly after the Western Empire: And now began the Pope to be great indeed. For by the bounty of Pepin Son of Charls, that which was taken from the Lombards, was given to the Pope. So that now of a Bishop, he became a Temporal Prince. But when Charls the Great had set up the Western Empire, then he resumed the ancient and original power of the Emperour, to govern the Church, to call Councils, to order Papal Elections. And this power continued in his posterity. For this right of the Emperour was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time. Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth, whom he af∣terward deposed. And it might have continued longer, if the succeed∣ing Emperours had had abilities enough to secure, or vindicate their own Right. But the Pope keeping a strong Council about him, and meeting with some weak Princes, and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous warrs, grew stronger till he got the better. So this is enough to shew, How the Popes climed up by the Emperours, till they over-topt them, which is all I said before, and have now proved. And this was about the year 1073. Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success. The Emperour sometimes pluck∣ing from the Pope, and the Pope from the Emperour, winning and losing ground, as their spirits, abilities, aids, and opportunities were, till at the last the Pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by Gregory 7. in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world.

To all this you return a short Answer, in these words; We de∣ny not but that in Temporal power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours. But what is this to the purpose?* 1.422 If he would have said any thing material, he should have proved that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholick Church; which is the only thing they claim jure divino, and which is so annexed to the dignity of their office by Christ's institution, that, were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties, yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least diminution by it. But 1. Doth his Lordships discourse only contain an account of the Popes temporal great∣ness by the Patronage of Christian Emperours? Doth he not plainly shew, How the Popes got their power by rebelling, and contesting with the Empe∣rours themselves, How they assumed to themselves a power to depose Em∣perours: and, Do they claim these things jure Divino too? 2. What you say of the Popes Spiritual Authority, will then hold good when it is well pro∣ved; but bare asserting it, will never do it. We must therefore have pa∣tience till you have leisure to attempt it.

But in the mean time we must consider, How you vindicate the famous place of Irenaeus concerning, as you say,* 1.423 the Pope's Supreme Pastoral Authori∣ty, from his Lordships interpretation. Yet, before we come to the Authori∣ty, it self, there are some light skirmishes (as you call them) to be passed through; and those are, concerning Irenaeus himself. For his Lordship saith, That his Adversarie is much scanted of ancient proof, if Irenaeus stand alone; besides, Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church,* 1.424 and a very un∣likely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under the more powerful prin∣cipality

of Rome. And how can we have better evidence of his judgement, touching that principality, then the actions of his life? When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all at a blow, was not Irenaeus the chief man that reprehended him for it? A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus, in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderate∣ness, whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him, the Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversal Church. To which you Answer, 1. To the liberty of the Gallican Church; As if (forsooth) the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church, had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus his time;* 1.425 as though there were no difference between not captivating the Liberty of that Church to Rome, and asserting the Liberties of the Gallican Church in her obedience to Rome, yet these two must be confounded by you to render his Lordships Answer ridiculous; which yet is as sound and rational as your cavil is vain and impertinent But this you pass over and fix, 2. Vpon his reprehending Pope Victor, where (you say) that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension, but rather a friend∣ly and seasonable perswasion: his words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner, as reflecting on the Popes dignity, and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops, and by consequence over the whole Church. For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor, not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believed (as Protestant, contends he did) that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off. Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester, not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of his Province; over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Juris∣diction. I Answer, that if you say, that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension, it is a sign you have not read what Eusebius saith. For, doth not he expresly say, That the Epistle of some of the Bi∣shops are yet remaining,* 1.426 in which they do severely rebuke him? Among whom (saith he) Irenaeus was one, &c. It seems, Irenaeus was one of those Bishops who did so sharply reprehend him; but it may be, you would render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kissing his Holiness feet, or, exhorting him after a handsome man∣ner; and indeed, if they did it sharply, they did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suitably enough to what Victor deserved for his rash and inconsiderate proceedings in this business. But withall to let you see how well these proceedings of his were resented in the Christian world, Eusebius tells us before, That Victor by his letters did declare those of the Eastern Churches to be ex∣communicate:* 1.427 and he presently adds, But this did no wayes please all the Bishops; wherefore (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) they countermanded him, that he might mind the things of peace and unity and brotherly love. And will you still render that word too, by exhorting him after a handsome manner, when even Christopherson renders it by magnoperè adhortabantur, Valesius by ex ad∣verso hortati sunt: and although these seem not to come up to the full empha∣sis of the word, yet surely they imply somewhat of vehemency and earnestness in their perswading him as well as their being hugely dissatisfied with what Victor did. I grant that these persons did reflect (as you say) on the Pope, but not as you would have it on his dignity, but on his rashness and indiscretion, that should go about to cast the Asian Churches out of Communion, for such a tri∣fle as that was in Controversie between them. But you are the happiest man at making inferences that I have met with: for, because Irenaeus in the name

of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor, not to proceed so rashly in this action thence you infer, that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bi∣shops, and by consequence over the whole Church. Might you not every jot as well inferr, that when a man in passion is ready: to kill those that stand about him; whoever perswades him not to do it, doth suppose he might lawfully have done it, if he would. But if those Bishops had so venerable an esteem (as you would perswade us they had) then of the Bishop of Rome, How come they to dispute his actions in so high a manner as they did? If they had looked on him as Vniversal Pastor of the Church, it had more become them to sit still and be quiet, then severely to reprehend him who was alone able to judge what was fit to be done and what not in those cases. If the Pope had call'd them to Council to have known their advise, it might have been their duty to have given it him in the most humble and submissive manner that might be. But for them to intrude themselves into such an office as to advise the Head of the Church what to do in a matter peculiarly concerning him, as though he did not know what was fit to be done himself; methinks you should not imagine that these men did act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as became them, in doing it. Could they pos∣sibly in any thing more declare, how little they thought it necessary for all Churches to conform to that of Rome, when they plead for dissenters in such a matter which the Pope had absolutely declared himself about? And how durst any of them slight the thunderbolts which the Pope threat∣ned them with? Yet not only Polycrates and the Asian Bishops who joyned with him profess themselves not at all affrighted at them; but the other Churches looked not on themselves as obliged to forsake their communion on that account. If this be such an evidence of the Popes power in one sense, I am sure it is a greater evidence of his weakness in another: It seems the Head of the Church began betimes to be troubled with the fumes of passion; and it is a little unhappy, that the first Instance of his Authority should meet with so little regard in the Christian world. If the Pope did begin to assume so early, you see it was not very well liked of by the Bi∣shops of other Churches. But it seems he had a mind to try his power and the weight of his Arm; but for all his haste, he was fain to withdraw it very patiently again. Valesius thinks that he never went so far as to ex∣communicate the Asian Bishops at all,* 1.428 but the noise of his threatning to do it being heard by them, (it seems the very preparing of his thunderbolts amazed the world) Irenaeus having call'd a Synod of the Bishops of Gaul together, doth in their name write that Letter, in Eusebius, to Victor to dis∣swade him from it, and that it wrought so effectually with him, that he gave it over. And this he endeavours to prove. 1. Because Eusebius saith, he only endeavour'd to do it. But Cardinal Perron supposeth Eu∣sebius had a worse meaning then so in it; i. e. that though the Pope did de∣clare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in communion with them; and therefore he calls Eusebius an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome, when yet all the records of this story are derived from him. 2. Because the Epistles of Irenaeus tend to per∣swade him not to cut them off; whereas, if they had been excommuni∣cate, it would have been rather to have restored them to Communion; and that Photius, saith that Irenaeus writ many letters to Victor to prevent their excommunication. But because Eusebius saith expresly, That he did by letters pronounce them out of the Communion of the Church,* 1.429 the common opinion seems more probable, and so Socrates understands it;* 1.430 but still I

am to seek for such an Argument of the acknowledgement of the Popes Authority then, as you would draw from it. Yes, say you, because they do not tell him, He had no Authority to do what he did; which they would have done if they could without proclaiming themselves Schismaticks ipso facto and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Vnity. But all this proceeds from want of understanding the Discipline of the Church at that time; for excommunication did not imply any such authoritative act of throwing men out of the Communion of the whole Church, but only a declaring that they would not admit such persons to communion with themselves. And therefore might be done by equals to equals, and some∣times by Inferiours to Superiours. In equals it is apparent by Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicating Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria; and I suppose you will not acknowledge it may be done by Inferiours, if we can produce any examples of Popes being excommuni∣cated; and what say you then to the African Bishops excommunicating Pope Vigilius as Victor Tununensis an African Bishop himself relates it:* 1.431 Will you say now that Victors ex∣communicating the Asian Churches argued his autho∣rity over them, when another Victor tells us, that the African Bishops solemnly excommunicated the Pope himself? And I hope you will not deny but the Bishop of Rochester might as well excommunicate the Archbishop of York, as these Africans excommuni∣cate the Bishop of Rome. What say you to the expunging the name of Felix Bishop of Rome out of the Diptychs of the Church, by Acacius the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople? What say you to Hilary's Anathema against Pope Liberius? If these excommunications did not argue just power and authority over the persons excommunicated, neither could Pope Victors do it. For it is apparent by the practise of the Church that excommunication argued no such superiority in the persons who did it; but all the force of it lay in the sense of the Church; for by whomsoever the sentence was pro∣nounced, if all other Churches observed it, (as most commonly they did while the Vnity of the Church continued) then they were out of the Com∣munion of the Catholick Church; if not, then it was only the particular de∣claration of those persons or Churches who did it. And in this case the validity of the Popes excommunication of the Asian Bishops depended up∣on the acceptance of it by other Churches, which most consenting to it, he could not throw them out of the communion of the whole Church, but only declare, that if they came to Rome, he would not admit them to communion with him. And therefore Ruffinus well renders that place in Eusebius out of Irenaeus his Epistle to Victor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: by these words, Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclesiae societate, aut venientes ab illis partibus non sunt suscepti, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may as well signifie not to receive as to cast out; for the Churches not receiving, is her casting out. Thus, I hope, it is evident that his Lordship hath re∣ceived no injury by these lighter skirmishes.

We now follow you into hotter service; For you say, he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self,* 1.432 * 1.433 alleadged by A. C. out of St. Irenaeus; where, in the first place, you wink and strike; and let your blows fall be∣sides him, for fear he should return them, or some one for him. You quarrel with his translation of the Authority cited by him: but that the ground of this quarrel may be understood; we must first enquire what his Lordship hath to say for himself. The place of Irenaeus is, To this

Church (he speaks of Rome), propter potentiorem principalitatem, for the more powerful Principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is the faithful undique round about,* 1.434 should have recourse. Now for this, (his Lordship saith) there was very great reason in Irenaeus his time, that upon any difference arising in the faith, Omnes undique Fideles, all the faithful, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome being the Imperial City, and so a Church of more powerful Principality, then any other at that time in those parts of the world. But this (his Lordship saith) will not exalt Rome to be Head of the Church Vniversal. Here your blood rises, and you begin a most furious encounter with his Lordship for translating undique round about, as if (say you) St. Irenaeus spake only of those neighbour∣ing Churches round about Rome, and not the Churches throughout the world; whereas undique as naturally signifies, every where, and, from all parts: wit∣ness Thomas Thomasius, where the word undique is thus Englished, From all parts, places, and corners, every where. Can you blame me now if I seek for a retreat into some strong-hold, or if you will, some more powerful Prin∣cipality when I see so dreadful a Charge begun, with Thomas Thomasius in the Front? You had routed us once before with Rider, and other English Lexicons; but it seems Rider had done service enough that time, now that venerable person Thomas Thomasius must be upon duty, and do his share for the Catholick Cause. You somewhere complain how much Catholicks are straitned for want of Books, Would any one believe you that find you so well stored with Thomas Thomasius, Rider, and other English Lexicons? You would sure give us some cause of suspition that there is some Jesuits School taught in England, and that you are the learned Master of it, by your being so conversant in these worthy Authours. But although the Authority of Th. Thomasius signifie very little with us, yet that of the Greek Lexicons might do much more if we had the original Greek of Irenaeus instead of his barbarous Latin Interpreter. For now it is uncertain what word Ire∣naeus used, and so it is but a very uncertain conjecture which can be drawn from the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unless we knew, which of them was the genuine word in the Greek of Irenaeus. But you say, all of them undeniably signifie, from all parts Vniversally: and that because they are rendred by the word undique. So that this will make an excellent proof, undique must signifie from all parts; because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signifie so in Greek; and that these do undeniably signifie so much, ap∣pears because they are rendred by undique. And I grant they are so: for in the old Glossary which goes under the name of Cyril, undique is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and ••ully (than whom we cannot possibly desire a better Au∣thour in this case) renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by undi{que}. For in his Book de Finibus,* 1.435 he translates that of Epicurus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by undique comple∣rentur voluptatibus; and so he renders that passage in Plato's Timaeus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by undique aequabilem, although as Hen. Stephanus notes, that be rather the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but still there is some difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek Authours notes ex omni parte terrae, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only ex quâvis parte; so that the one signifies Vniversally, the other indefinitely: undique relating properly to the circumference, as undique aequalis, on all sides it is equal, so that qui sunt undique fideles, are, those which lye upon all quarters round about. And so it doth not imply that all

persons were bound to come, but that from all quarters some did come; as Herodian speaks of Rome,* 1.436 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it was very populous, and did receive them which came from all parts; which doth very fitly explain the sense of Irenaeus, that to Rome being the Impe∣rial City, men came from all quarters. But the sense of this will be more fully understood by a parallel expression in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch,* 1.437 in which it is decreed that the Metropolitan should have the care of all the Bishops in his Province, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because all persons who have business from all parts, resort to the Metropolis: here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the very same with the undi{que} convenire, in Irenaeus; so that it relates not to any Obligation on Churches to resort thither, but that being the Seat of the Empire, all believers from all parts did make their recourse thither. Which is most fully expressed by Leo, speaking of S. Peter's coming to Rome,* 1.438 Cujus nationis homines in hâc Vrbe non essent? aut quae uspiam gentes ignorarent, quod Roma didicisset? And so, if I grant you that it extends to all parts, I know not what advantages you will get by it: for Irenaeus his design is, to shew that there was no such secret Tra∣dition left by the Apostles, as the Valentinians pretended. And for this he appeals to the Church of Rome, which being seated in the Imperial City, to which Believers from all parts did resort, it is impossible to conceive that the Apostles should have left such a Tradition, and it not to be heard of there: which is the plain, genuine meaning of Irenaeus his words. Not as you weak∣ly imagine, That all Churches in all doubts of Faith, were bound to have their recourse thither,* 1.439 as to their constant guide therein. For Irenaeus was not dispu∣ting, What was to be done by Christians in doubts of Faith; but was enqui∣ring into a matter of fact, viz. Whether any such Tradition were ever left in the Church, or no; and therefore nothing could be more pertinent or convin∣cing, than appealing to that Church to which Christians resorted from all parts; for it could not be conceived, but, if the Apostles had left such a Tradi∣tion any where, it would be heard of at Rome. And you most notoriously pervert the meaning of Irenaeus, when you would make the force of his ar∣gument to lye in the necessity of all Christians resorting to Rome, because the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was, as it were, the touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine. But, I suppose you deal in some English Logicians, as well as English Lexicons, and therefore I must submit both to your Grammar and Logick: but your ingenuity is as great as your reason; for you first pervert his Lordships meaning, and then make him dispute ridiculously, that you might come out with your triumphant language, Is not this fine Mean∣drick Logick, well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth? Whereas his Lordships reasoning is so plain and clear, that none but such a one as had a Labyrinth in his brains, could have imagined any Meanders in it: As appears by what I have said already, in the explication of the meaning of Irenaeus.

But that I may see the strength of your Logick out of this place of Ire∣naeus,* 1.440 I will translate undi{que} and semper, as fully as you would have me, and give you the words at large, in which, by those who come from all places, the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies conserved. What is it you inferr hence? From the Premises you argue thus: All the faithful every where, must of neces∣sity have recourse to the Church of Rome,* 1.441 by reason of her more powerful prin∣cipality. This is S. Irenaeus his proposition. But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church, by reason of her more powerful prin∣cipality, if her said power extended not to them all. This is evident to reason.

Ergo, this more powerful principality of the Roman Church, must needs extend to all the faithful every where, and not only to those of the Suburbicary Churches, or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome, as the Bishop pleads. Now I see, you are a man at arms, and know, not only how to grapple with his Lord∣ship, but with Irenaeus to boot. But we must first see, How Irenaeus him∣self argues, that we may the better understand the force of what you de∣duce from him. The Question, as I have told you already, was, Whe∣ther the Apostles left any such Tradition in the Church, as the Valen∣tinians pretended: Irenaeus proves they did not, because, if there had been any such, the Apostolical Churches would certainly have preserved the memory of it; but because it would be too tedious to in∣sist on the succession of all Churches; he therefore makes choice of the most famous, the Church of Rome, in which the Apostolical Tradition had been de∣rived by a succession of Bishops down to his own time; and by this (saith he) we confound all those who through vain glory, or blindness, do gather any such thing. For (saith he) to this Church for the more powerful principality all Churches do make resort, i. e. the believers from all parts, in which by those who come from all parts the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies preserved. We must now see, How Irenaeus argues according to your sense of his words. If all the faithful every where, must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome, for her more powerful principality; then there is no se∣cret Tradition left by the Apostles. But, Where lyes the connexion between these two? What had the Valentinians to do with the power of the Church of Rome over other Churches? That was not the business they dis∣puted; their Question was, Whether there were no such Tradition as they pretended? And Rome might have never so great power over all Churches, and yet have this secret Tradition too. For now we see, when she pretends to the greatest power, nay, to Infallibility, she pretends the highest to Traditions. Where then lyes the force of Irenaeus his argu∣ment? Was it in this, that the Valentinians did acknowledge the Infalli∣bility of the Church of Rome then, in Traditions? This were indeed to the purpose, if it could be proved; Or, Doth Irenaeus go about to prove this first? But by what argument doth he prove it so, that the Valentinians might be convinced by it? Yes, say you, he saith, That all the faithful must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome? This is your way of pro∣ving indeed, to take things for granted; but, How doth this necessity ap∣pear? because, say you, she hath the more powerful principality: But, What principality do you mean? over all Churches? But that was the thing in Question. So that if you will make Irenaeus speak sense, and argue perti∣nently, his meaning can be no other than this. If there be such a Tradi∣tion left, it must be left somewhere among Christians: if it be left among them, it may be known by enquiry, Whether they own any such or no. But because it would be troublesome searching of all Churches, we may know their judgement more compendiously; there is the Church of Rome near us, a famous and ancient Church, seated in the chief City of the Empire, to which all persons have necessities to go; and among them, you cannot but suppose, but that out of every Church some faithful persons should come, and therefore it is very unreasonable to think, that the Apostolical Tradition hath not alwaies been preserved there, when persons come from all places thither. Is not every thing in this account of Irenaeus his words very clear and pertinent to his present dispute? But in the sense you give of them, they are little to the purpose, and very precarious and in∣consequent.

And therefore since the more powerful principality is not that of the Church, but of the City; since the necessity of recourse thither, is not for doubts of Faith, but other occasions: therefore it by no means follows thence, That this Churches power did extend over the faithful every where; thus by explaining your Proposition, your Conclusion is ashamed of it self, and runs away. For your argument comes to this; If English men from all parts be forced to resort to London, then London hath the power over all England; or if one should say, If some from all Churches in England must resort to London, then the Church at London hath power over all the Churches in England; and if this consequence be good, yours is; for it is of the same nature of it; the necessity of the resort, not lying in the Au∣thority of the Church, but in the Dignity of the City, the words in all pro∣bability in the Greek, being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so relate to the dig∣nity of Rome, as the Imperial City.

From whence we proceed to the Vindication of Ruffinus, in his Trans∣lation of the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice.* 1.442 The occasion of which is this. His Lordship saith, Supposing that the powerful principality be ascribed to the Church of Rome, yet it follows not that it should have power over all Churches; for this power was confined within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction;* 1.443 and that (saith he) was very large, containing all the Provinces in the Diocese of Italy (in the old sense of the word Diocese) which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicaries. There were ten of them; the three Islands, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, and the other seven upon the firm Land of Italy. And this, I take it, is plain in Ruffinus. For he living shortly after the Nicene Coun∣cil, as he did, and being of Italy, as he was, he might very well know the bounds of the Patriarchs Jurisdiction, as it was then practised. And he sayes expresly, that according to the old custom, the Roman Patriarchs charge was confined within the limits of the Suburbican Churches.* 1.444 To avoid the force of this testi∣mony, Cardinal Perron laies load upon Ruffinus. For he charges him with passion, ignorance, and rashness. And one piece of his ig∣norance is, that he hath ill translated the Canon of the Council of Nice. Now, although his Lordship doth not approve of it as a Translation; yet he saith, Ruf∣finus living in that time and place, was very like well to know and understand the limits and bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome, in which he lived. This (you say) is very little to his Lordships advantage, since it is inconsistent with the vote of all Antiquity,* 1.445 and gives S. Irenaeus the lye; but if the former be no truer than the latter, it may be very much to his advantage, notwith∣standing what you have produced to the contrary. What the ground is, Why the Roman Patriarchate was confined within the Roman Diocese, I have already shewed in the precedent Chapter, in explication of the Ni∣cene Canon. We must now therefore examine the Reasons you bring, Why the notion of Suburbicary Churches must be extended beyond the limits his Lordship assigns; that of the smalness of Jurisdiction compared with other Patriarchs, I have given an account of already, viz. from the corre∣spondency of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government; for the Civil Dio∣ceses of the Eastern part of the Empire did extend much farther than the Western did; and that was the Reason, Why the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, had a larger Metropolitical Jurisdiction than the Bishop of Rome had. But you tell us, That Suburbicary Churches must be taken as generally sig∣nifying all Churches and Cities any waies subordinate to the City of Rome; which was at that time known by the name of Urbs, or City, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by way of excel∣lency;

not as it related to the Praefect or Governour of Rome, in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction, we confess it commanded only those few places about it in Italy; but as it related to the Emperour himself; in which sense the word Suburbicary, rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire; as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Im∣perial Territory, as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this subject. But, this is one instance of what mens wits will do, when they are resolved to break through any thing: For, whoever that had read of the Suburbicary Re∣gions and Provinces in the Code of Theodosius, or other parts of the Civil Law, as distinguished from other Provinces under the Roman Empire,* 1.446 and those in Italy too, could ever have imagined that the notion of Suburbi∣cary Churches had been any other than what was correspondent to those Regions and Provinces.* 1.447 But let that be granted which Sirmondus so much contends for, That the notion of Suburbicary may have different respects, and so sometimes be taken for the Churches within the Roman Diocese, sometimes for those within the Roman Patriarchate, and sometimes for those, which are under the Pope as Vniversal Pastor; yet, How doth it appear that ever Ruffinus took it in any other than the first sense? No other Pro∣vinces being called Suburbicary, but such as were under the Jurisdiction either of the Roman Prefect within a hundred miles of the City (within which compass, references and appeals were made to him) or at the most, to the Lieutenant of the Roman Diocese, whose Jurisdiction extended to those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions. It is not therefore, In what sense words may be taken, but in what sense they were taken, and what Evidence there is that ever they were so understood. Never was any Controversie more ridiculous, than that concerning the extent of the Suburbicary Regions or Provinces, if Suburbicary were taken in your sense for all the Cities within the Roman Empire. But this extending of the Sub∣urbicary Churches, as far as the Roman Empire, is like the art of those Jesuits, who in their setting forth Anastasius de vitis Pontificum, in Stephanus 5. turn'd Papa Vrbis into Papa Orbis: for that being so mean and contemptible a title, they thought much it should remain as it did; but Papa Orbis was magnificent and glorious. I wonder therefore, that instead of extend∣ing the signification of Suburbicary Churches, you do not rather pretend that it ought to be read Suborbicary, and so to suit exactly with the Papa Orbis, as importing all those Churches which are under the power of the Vni∣versal Pastor. For, Why should you stop at the confines of the Roman Empire; How comes his Jurisdiction to be confined within that? By what right did he govern the Churches within the Empire, and not those with∣out? Surely not, as Primate, Metropolitan, or Patriarch of the Roman Em∣pire, for those are titles yet unheard of in Antiquity; if as Head of the Church, How comes the Jurisdiction of that to be at all limited? Were there no Churches without the Empire then? I hope you will not deny that: If there were, To whom did the Jurisdiction over them belong? to the Pope, or not? If not, How comes he to be Head of the Church, and Vni∣versal Pastor? If they did, Why were not these Suburbicary Churches, as well as those within the Empire? Besides, it is confessed by the learnedest among you, that when the notion of Suburbicary is extended beyond the Suburbicary Provinces, it is not out of any relation to the City, but to the power of the Bishop of the City, and therefore the Suburbicary Churches may be larger than the Suburbicary Provinces. But if this be true (as it is the only probable evasion) then it is impossible for you, to confine the

Suburbicary Churches within the Roman Empire, without confining the Ju∣risdiction of the Roman Bishop within those bounds too. For if the in∣larging the notion of Surburbicary Churches depends upon the extent of his power, the fixing the limits of those Churches, determines the bounds of his power too. Which is utterly destructive to your pretences of the Pope's being Head of the Vniversal Church, and not barely of the Churches within the Roman Empire. But if it had been Ruffinus his design to ex∣press by Suburbicary Churches, all those within the Roman Empire, surely he made choice of the most unhappy expression to do it by, which he could well have thought of. For, it being then so well known what the Subur∣bicary Provinces were, that in the Code of Theodosius, where they are so often mentioned, they are not distinctly enumerated, because they were then as well understood as the African, Gallican, or Britannick Provinces; How absurd were it for him, to take a word in common use, and so well known, and apply it to such a sense, as no example besides can be produced for it. For if any one at that time should have spoken of the African, Gallican, or Britannick Churches, no one would have imagined any other than those which were contained in the several Provinces under those names. What reason is there then, that any thing else should be appre∣hended by the Suburbicary Churches? I know the last refuge of most of your side, instead of explaining these Suburbicary Churches, hath been to rail at Ruffinus, and call him Dunce and Blockhead, and enemy to the Ro∣man Church (instances were easie to be given, if it were at all necessary) but besides that, it were easie to make it appear, that Ruffinus was no such fool, as some have taken him for: (And if they think so, because S. Hie∣rom gives him such hard words, they must think so of all whom S. Hie∣rom opposed) he is sufficiently vindicated in this translation by the An∣cient Vatican Copy of the Nicene Canons, out of which this very Canon is pro∣duced by Sirmondus, and the very same word of Suburbicary therein used. And that in such a manner, as utterly destroies your sense of the Suburbicary Churches,* 1.448 for such as are within the Roman Empire; for that Copy calls them, Loca Suburbicaria; and, Will you say, those are the Provinces within the Roman Empire too? Can any one rationally think that any other places should be called Suburbicary, but such as lye about the City; And by the same interpretation which you here use, you may call all Eng∣land the Suburbs of London; because London is the City, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you speak; and therefore all the Churches of England must be Suburbicary to London. But if you think this incongruous, you may on the same account judge the other to be so too: It appears then, that the Suburbicary places in the Vatican Copy (and in that very Ancient Copy which Justellus had, which agrees with the Vatican) are the same with the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus; and, if you will explain these latter of the Roman Empire, you must do the former too. But not only the Vatican Copy, but all other dif∣ferent Versions of the Nicene Canon utterly overthrow this Opinion of Car∣dinal Perron, that the Suburbicary Churches must be taken for those within the Roman Empire. For in the Arabick Version published by Turrianus, it is thus rendred, Siquidem similitèr Episcopus Romae, i. e. successor Petri Apo∣stoli, potestatem habet omnium civitatum, & locorum quae sunt circa eam. Are all the Cities and places in the Roman Empire, circa eam, about the City of Rome? If not, neither can the Churches be? And in that Arabick para∣phrase,

which Salmasius had of the famous Peireskius, it is translated much more agreeably to the Nicene Canon in these words; Propterea quod Episco∣pus Romanus etiam hunc morem obtinet, & hoc ei adjunctum est, ut potesta∣tem habeat supra civitates, & loca quae prope eam sunt. Which is yet more full, to shew the absurdity of your exposition, for these Suburbicary Churches must be then in places near the City of Rome. And agreeably to these, Aristinus, the Greek Collector of the Canons hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Ruffinus his Suburbicary doth exactly render. By whom now, must we be judged, What is meant by these Suburbicary Churches? by you who make a forced and strained interpretation of the word Suburbica∣ry to such a sense, of which there is no evidence in Antiquity, or Reason, and is withall manifestly repugnant to the design of the Canon, which is to proportion the Dioceses of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandrina, by the example of Rome (which had been very absurd if these Suburbicary Churches did comprehend the Dioceses of Alexandria and Antioch, and all other Provinces, as you make them)? or else must we be judged by the an∣cient Versions of the Nicene Canon, Latin and Arabick, and by other Greek Paraphrases, all which unanimously concurr to overthrow that Figment, that the Suburbicary Churches are all those within the Roman Empire. And this the learned Petrus de Marcâ was so sensible of, that he saith,* 1.449 Ruffinus did rectissimè & ex usu recepto, very agreeably both to reason and custom, compare the Alexandrian and Roman Bishop in this, that he should have the power over the Diocese of Aegypt, by the same right that the Bishop of Rome had over the Vrbicary Diocese; or, saith he, ut Ruffinus-eligantissime loquitur, In Ecclesiis Suburbicariis, id est, in iis Ecclesiis quae decem Provin∣ciis Suburbicariis continebantur; as Ruffinus most elegantly speaks (sure then he thought him no such ignorant person, as Perron and others from him have reproached him to be) In the Suburbicary Churches, that is, in those Churches which are contained in the ten Suburbicary Provinces. For, as as he goes on, the calling of Synods, the ordination of Bishops, the full admi∣nistration of the Churches in those Provinces, did belong to the Bishop of Rome; as to the Bishop of Alexandria in the Aegyptian Diocese, and to the Bishop of Antioch in the Oriental. Which he likewise confirms by the ancient La∣tin Interpreter of the Nicene Canons, who, he saith, was elder than Diony∣sius Exiguns; in whose interpretation, he makes the Suburbicaria loca to contain the four Regions about Rome, which made the proper Metropolitan Province of the Roman Bishop comprehending sixty nine Bishopricks; and that which he calls his Province, to be the Vrbicary Diocese, contained in those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions.

But the Pope's being Vniversal Bishop having so little evidence elsewhere,* 1.450 his Lordships adversary at last hath recourse to this, That the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's successor, and therefore to him we must have recourse. To which his Lordship answers; The Fathers I deny not,* 1.451 ascribe very much to S. Peter; but 'tis to S. Peter in his own person. And among them Epipha∣nius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter, as any of them: And yet did he never intend to give an absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter's right; which he at large manifests by a place particularly insisted on, in which he proves, that the building of the Church on S. Peter in Epiphanius his sense, is not as if he and his successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever: but it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ, by the Confession which S. Peter made. And so, saith he, he expresses himself else∣where most plainly, that Christ's building his Church upon this Rock, was upon

the Confession of S. Peter, and the solid Faith contained therein. And that Epiphanius could not mean that S. Peter was any Rock or Foundation of the Church, so as that he and his successors must be relyed on in all matters of Faith, and govern the Church like Princes and Monarchs, he proves not only by the Context, but because he makes S. James to succeed our Lord in the principali∣ty of the Church. And Epiphanius, saith he, was too full of learning and in∣dustry, to speak contrary to himself in a point of this moment. This is the summ of his Lordships discourse: to which you answer, That it is clear even by the Texts of Epiphanius, that this promise by Christ to S. Peter, is derived to his successors;* 1.452 which you prove from hence, because he saith, That by the Gates of Hell, Heresies and Hereticks are understood; now this, say you, can∣not be understood of S. Peter's person alone; for then, Why not Heresies and Hereticks prevail against the Church after S. Peter's death; yea so far as ut∣terly to extinguish the true Faith? But, Cannot God preserve the Church from being extinguished by Heresies, though S. Peter hath no Infallible Suc∣cessor? Is not the promise, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church? It doth not say, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against any that shall pretend to be his Successors at Rome: For if Heresies be those Gates, they have too often prevailed against him. And, Is this your way indeed to secure the Church, by providing S. Peter such successors, which may be Hereticks themselves? But much more wisely did S. Gregory say, If one pretends to be Vniversal Bishop, then upon his falling, the Church must fall too; much more wisely the Council of Basil in their Synodal Epistle, object this as the necessary consequent of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, that, errante Pontifice, quod saepe contigit & contingere potest, tota erraret Ecclesia; that, in case the Pope erre, which often hath happened, and often may, the whole Church must erre too. And yet this is your way to secure the Church from errours and heresies. If you designed to ruine it, you could not do it in a more compendious way, than to oblige the whole Church to believe the dictates of one, who is so far from that Infal∣libility which S. Peter had, that he follows him in nothing more than his Falls: I wish he would in his Repentance too, and that would be the best way to secure the Church from Errours and Heresies. Which she can never be secured from, as long as one pretends to be her Head, who may not only erre himself, but propound that to be believed infallibly, which is no∣toriously false. For that Popes as Popes may erre, and propound false Do∣ctrine to the Church, not only Protestants, but some of your own Com∣munion have abundantly proved; particularly Sim. Vigorius in his de∣fence of Richerius in his Commentary on the forecited Synodal Epistle of the Council of Basil.* 1.453 And calls that opinion, That the Pope may erre as a private Doctor, but not as Pope, ineptissimam opinionem, a most foolish opi∣nion. For otherwise, as he saith, it would be most absurd to say, That the Pope might be deposed for Heresie; for he is not deposed as a private Doctor, but as Pope. And this he proves by the contradictious decrees of Adrian 3. to Adrian 1. and Leo 7. and so of Formosus, Martinus, Romanus, to Jo∣hannes, Stephanus, and Sergius; Nay, he instanceth in that famous de∣cree of Boniface 8. in pronouncing so definitively, that it was de necessitate salutis, subesse Romano Pontifici (necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope) and that he decreed this as Pope, appears by those words, Declara∣mus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus, omnino esse▪ de necessitate salutis; than which words, nothing can be more express and definitive, and yet Pope Innocent 3. asserts, that the King of France hath no superiour upon

earth. Is not the Church like then to be well secured from Heresies, when her Infallible Heads may so apparently contradict each other, and this ac∣knowledged by men of your own Communion. Nothing then can be more absurd or unreasonable, than to say, That the Church cannot be pre∣served from being extinguished by Heresie, unless the Pope be S. Peter's suc∣cessor, as Head of the Church. To his Lordships testimonies out of Epi∣phanius, that S. James succceded our Lord in the principality of the Church,* 1.454 you answer, 1. That in the places he alledges, there's not a word of the Churches principality. 2. That he only implies that he was the first of the Apostles made Bishop of any particular place, viz. at Hierusalem, which is cal∣led Christs Throne, as any Episcopal Chair is in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers. But, whosoever will examine the places in Epiphanius, will find much more intended by him, than what you will allow: For not only he saith, that he first had an Episcopal Chair,* 1.455 but that our Lord committed to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Throne upon Earth, which surely is much more than can be said of any meer Episcopal Chair; and I believe you will be much to seek where Hierusalem was ever called Christ's Throne upon earth after his Ascension to Heaven. Besides, if it were, it is the strongest prejudice that may be against the principality of the Roman See; if Jerusalem was made by Christ his Throne here. And, that a principality over the whole Church is intended by Epiphanius, seems more clear by that other place which his Lordship cites, wherein he not only saith, That James was first made Bishop,* 1.456 but gives this reason for it, because he was the Brother of our Lord; and if you observe, How Epiphanius brings it in, you will say, he intended more by it, than to make him the first Bishop. For he was disputing before, How the Kingdom and the Priesthood did both belong to Christ, and that Christ had transfused both into his Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but his Throne is established for ever in his holy Church; consisting both of his Kingdom and Priesthood, both which he communi∣cated to his Church; quare Jacobus primus omnium est Episcopus constitu∣tus, as Petavius renders it, so that he seems to settle James in that princi∣pality of the Church, which he had given to it; and what reason can you have to think, but that Christ's Throne, in which Epiphanius, saith James, was settled in the other place, is the same with his Throne in the Church which he mentions here? And, What would you give for so clear a te∣stimony in Antiquity for Christ's settling S. Peter in his Throne at Rome, as here is for his placing S. James in it at Jerusalem?

His Lordship goes on. And he still tells us, the Bishop of Rome is S. Pe∣ter's successor. Well, suppose that, What then? What? Why then,* 1.457 he succeed∣ed in all S. Peter's prerogatives which are ordinary,* 1.458 and belonged to him as a Bishop, though not in the extraordinary, which belonged to him as an Apostle. For that is it which you all say, but no man proves. Yes, you say, Bellarmine hath done it in his disputations on that subject. For this you pro∣duce a saying of his, That when the Apostles were dead, the Apostolical Au∣thority remained alone in S. Peter's successor. I see with you still, saying and proving are all one. But since you referr the Reader to Bellarmine for▪ proofs, I shall likewise referr him to the many sufficient Answers which have been given him.

You argue stoutly afterwards, That because Primacy in the modern sense of it implies Supremacy,* 1.459 therefore wherever the Fathers attribute a Primacy to Peter among the Apostles, they mean his Authority and power over them. I see, you are resolved to believe that there cannot be one, two, and three; but

the first must be Head over all the rest. A Primacy of Order, his Lordship truly saith, was never denied him by Protestants; and an Vniversal Supre∣macy of power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians. Prove but in the first place that S. Peter had such a Supremacy of power over the Apostles, and all Christian Churches, and that this power is conveyed to the Pope, you will do something. In the mean time we acknowledge as much Primacy,* 1.460 Authority, and Principality in S. Peter, as D. Reynolds proves in the place you cite; none of which come near that Supremacy of power which you contend for, and we must deny till we see it better proved than it is by you.* 1.461 But you offer it from S. Hierom, because he saith, The Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism, but a meer precedency of or∣der is not sufficient for that. But, Doth not S. Hierom in the words imme∣diately before, say, That the Church is equally built on all the Apostles, and that they all receive the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them; and, Can he possibly then mean in the following words any other Primacy, but such as is among equals, and not any Supremacy of power over them? And certainly you think the Apostles very unruly, who would not be kept in order by such a Primacy as this is, unless a S. Peter's full jurisdiction over them. And since it is so evident, that S. Hierom can mean no other but such a preheminence as this for preventing Schism, you had need have a good art, that can deduce from thence a necessity of a Supremacy of power in the Church for that end. For, say you, Whatsoever power or jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for preventing Schisms, must, à fortiori, be necessary in all succeeding ages; but still be sure to hold to that power or jurisdiction which was in the Apostles times, and we grant you all you can prove from it. You still dispute gallantly, when you beg the Question, and argue as formally as I have met with one, when you have supposed that which it most con∣cerned you to prove; Which is, that God hath appointed a Supremacy of power in one particular person, alwaies to continue in the Church for preser∣vation of Faith and Unity in it. For, if you suppose the Church cannot be governed, or Schism prevented without this, you may well save your self a labour of proving any further. But, so far are we from seeing such a Supremacy of power as you challenge to the Pope to be necessary for pre∣venting Schisms, that we are sufficiently convinced that the Vsurping of it hath caused one of the greatest ever was in the Christian world.

CHAP. VII. The Popes Authority, not proved from Scripture, or Reason.

The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves. The impertinency of Luk. 22.32. to that purpose. No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause. That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as St. Peters successour, confessed and proved by Vigorius, and Mr. White. The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor, but not as Pope, acknowledged by them. John 21.15. proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy. How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings. T. C's. beggings of the Question, and tedious repetitions, past over. The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge, considered. The Government of the Church not Monarchical, but Aristocratical. The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason. No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church, but much against it. The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy. Gersons Testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae, explained and vindicated. St. Hieromes Testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church. The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of Temporal Princes. The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity, as well as the Church of England.

WE are now come to the places of Scripture insisted on for the proof of the Popes Authority;* 1.462 which you have been so often and suc∣cessfully beaten out of, by so many powerful assaults of our Writers, that it is matter of admiration that you should yet think to find any shelter there. For those which you yet account Fortresses and Bulwarks for your cause, have not only been triumphed over by your Adversaries, but have been slighted by the wisest of your party, and deserted as most untenable places. As I shall make it appear to you in the progress of this dispute: In which I shall not barely shew the palpable weakness of your pretended proofs, but bring unanswerable arguments against them from persons of your own Communion. For the force of that reason by which the Pro∣testants have prevailed over you in this dispute hath been so great, that it hath brought over some of the learnedst of your party, not only to an ac∣knowledgement of the insufficiency of these proofs, but to a zealous oppo∣sition against that very Doctrine which you attempt to prove by them. But such is the fate of a sinking cause, that it catcheth hold of any thing to save it self, though it be the Anchor of the ship which makes it sink the sooner. Thus it will appear to be in these baffled Proofs, which you only bring into the Field to shew what streights you are in for help; and no sooner appear there, but they fall off to the conquering side, and help only to promote your ruine. But since they are in the place where Arguments should be, we must in civility consider them, as if they were so. The first place then is, Luke 22.32. I have pray'd for thee that thy faith fail not. What would a Philosopher think, were he chosen as Vmpire between us, (as once one was between Origen and his Adversaries) to hear this place produced to prove the Popes Authority and Infallibility? And when a reason is de∣manded of so strange an Inference (from a promise of recovery to St. Peter,

to an impossibility of falling in the Pope) nothing else produced, but the forged Epistles of some Popes, and the partial Testimonies of others in their own cause? Could he think otherwise, but that these men loved their cause dearly, and would fain prove it, if they could tell how: but since there was neither evidence in reason or more indifferent writers in it, yet to let them see how confident they were of the Popes Infallibility, they would produce their Infallible Testimonies, to prove they were Infallible. For we ask, What evidence is there that the priviledge obtained for St. Peter, whatever it is, must descend to his Successours; if to his Succes∣sours, whether to all his Successours, or only to some; if only to some, why to those at Rome more then at Antioch or any other place; if to them at Rome, why it must be understood of a Doctrinal and not a saving Faith, as it was in St. Peter; if of Doctrinal, why not absolutely, but only conditionally, if they teach the Church? For all these and several other enquiries of this nature, we are told, It must be so understood; but if you ask Why, all the Answer we can get is, Because seven Popes at one time or other said so.

But at this you grow very angry; and tell us, 1. That Bellarmine, be∣sides these,* 1.463 * 1.464 gives several pregnant reasons from the Text it self. What were it worth, to have a sight of them? If you had thought them so pregnant you are not so sparing of taking out of Bellarmine, but you would have given them us over again. Bellarmins excellent proofs are two or three sine Dubio's.* 1.465 Sine dubio, saith he, hic Dominus speciale aliquid Petro impe∣travit. And who denies it? but we grant, it was so special to him that it ne∣ver came to his Successours; and again, Sine dubio, ipsis praecipuè debeat esse nota suae sedis auctoritas, speaking of the Popes Testimonies for themselves, Without all doubt they knew best their own Authority. They were won∣derfully to blame else; but all the difficulty is, to perswade others to be∣lieve them sine dubio, when they speak in their own Cause. And for that I can find no pregnant reason in him at all. Well, but we have a third sine dubio yet, which may be more to the purpose than either of the other two. For Bellarmin distinguishes of two priviledges which Christ obtain∣ed for St. Peter, the first is, That himself should never lose the true Faith though he were tempted of the Devil; and this his Lordship grants, that it was the special grace which Christs prayer obtained, that, notwithstanding Satans sifting him, and his threefold denyal of his Master, he should not fall into a final Apostacy: The second priviledge is, That he, as Bishop, should not be able to teach any thing against the Faith, sive, ut in sede ejus nunquam inve∣niretur qui doceret contra veram fidem, or, that there should be none found in his See who should do it. Is not here an excellent conjunction disjun∣ctive in this Sive, Or? that he should not do it himself, or, that his Succes∣sours should not do it? Doth not this want pregnant proofs? and we have them in the next words. The first of these, it may be (very modestly!) did not descend to his Successours; but secundum, sine Dubio, manavit ad posteros sive successores; the second, without all doubt, did descend to his Successours. Are not these pregnant reasons; three sine dubio's given us by Cardinal Bellarmin? For when he comes to confirm this last sine dubio, he produces nothing but those Testimonies, which his Lordship excepts against, as not fit to be Judges in their own Cause. If these then be Bellar∣mins pregnant reasons out of the Text, no wonder that his Lordship was not pleased to Answer them. But yet you are displeased, that his Lordship should think that Popes were interessed persons in their own Cause. No, no; all

that ever sat in that See, were such holy, meek, humble, self-denying men, that they would not for a world, let a word fall to exalt their own Au∣thority in the Church. And we are mightily to blame to think otherwise of them. Is it possible to think that Felix 1, and Lucius 1, should speak for their own interest; though the Epistles under their names be such notorious counterfeits, that all sober men among you are ashamed of them? Is it possible that Leo 1. should do it, who was so humble a man that he contended with 630. Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon about the Primacy of his See; and whose Epistles breathe so much of self-denyal in all the contests he had about it? And although Pope Agatho and the rest be of later standing, when the Popes did begin a little more openly to take upon them; yet, Can the Protestants think that these men were byassed with their proper Interest? Are not these weak pretences for them to reject their Authority upon? For your part (you say), you could never understand this proceeding of Protestants. The more a great deal is the pitty; and if we could help your understanding and not endanger our own, we would willingly do it. Well, but though Bellarmins pregnant reasons prove so abortive, and though the Popes Authorities should not be taken, yet his Lordship must needs wrong Bellarmin, in saying, That he doth upon the mat∣ter confess, that there is not one Father in the Church disinteressed in the Cause, who understands this Text as Bellarmin doth, before Theophylact. And the reason is, because, though Bellarmin cite no more,* 1.466 yet there might be more for all that: for, must he needs confcss, there are no more Authours citable in any subject, but what he cites himself? As though Bellarmin were wont to leave out any authorities which made for his purpose, especially in so weighty a subject as this? Do you think he was so weak a person to run to Popes Au∣thorities, if he could have found any other? and when he produces no more, is it not a plain confession he found no more to his purpose? But I am weary of such great Impertinencies: and would fain meet with some thing of matter that might hold up the Readers patience as well as mine. All that ever I can meet with, that hath any thing of tendency that way, is, That this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith doth not belong to him as an Apostle, but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles, and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him. Very handsomely begg'd again! but where is the proof for all this? Have you no Popes stand ready again to attest the truth of it? For none else that have any reason would ever say it? did St. Peter deny Christ as Prince of the Apostles? Indeed it was then much for his honour that the Captain should fly from his colours first? and Christs Vicar upon earth should the most need to have his Faith pray'd for, that it should not fail? I had thought St. Peter had been head of the Apostles, and not Simon: if Christ had spoke to him as his Vicar, he would sure have call'd him Peter, Peter, and not Simon, Simon. But it seems he did not attend, that Peter was the Rock, on which his Church must be built: or else he minded it so much, that he thought that name impro∣per when he mentions his falling; You have therefore stoutly and unan∣swerably (not proved, but) demonstrated that these words were spoken of St. Peter, not as an Apostle, but as Christs Vicar upon earth.

But suppose it were so; what is this to those who pretend to be his Successours? Yes very much. For (say you),* 1.467 Whatever our Saviour intend∣ed should descend by vertue of that prayer of his, did effectively so descend. You might have put one of Bellarmins sine dubio's to this. For, Whoever was so sensless as to question that? But you confess, It is a very disputable que∣stion,

Whether every thing which Christ by his prayer intended and obtained for St. Peter, was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours. Yet that some special priviledge was to descend to them, is, you say, manifest by Bellarmins Authorities and Reasons. If from nothing else, I dare confi∣dently say, no man in his wits will believe it manifest. And what that is, neither you, nor any one else can either prove or understand. Yes (say you) it is, that none of his Successours should ever so farr fall from the Faith, as to teach Heresie, in Pontificalibus, or, as you speak with Bellarmine, any thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex; i. e. in vertue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as St. Peters Successours. Here then we fix a while to see this proved; but our expectation is again frustrated: For instead of proofs we meet with the old Mumpsimus, of the Popes erring as private Doctor, but not as Pastour of the Church: A distinction so ridicu∣lous, that many among your selves deride it, as will appear presently. And therefore put in your tanquam Pontifex as long as you please,* 1.468 you will gain no great matter by it. When you can prove that Christ did intend in that one prayer, some part of the Gift personally and absolutely to St. Peter, and another part conditionally to his Successours, I will grant it no absurdity to say, that perhaps some part of the Gift did not belong to either of them. But these are such strange fetches out of a plain Scripture, that those may ad∣mire your subtilty, who cannot be convinced by your reason. Yet to let you see that these things are not so clear as you would have them, I shall bring you some Arguments out of your own Writers against your inter∣pretation of this place, and I pray Answer them at your leasure. Vigorius therefore proves that this place cannot be understood of St. Peter and his Successours,* 1.469 that their Faith should not fail; for then saith he. 1. The Canons had decreed to no purpose that a Pope might be deposed in case of Heresie; for those that suppose that he may fall into Heresie, do doubtless suppose that his Faith fails. Now here is a witness against you, from your own Church and that out of your Canons too; and that is better worth then twenty Testimonies of Popes for you. 2. If this were understood of St. Peters Suc∣cessours, they who succeeded him at Antioch would enjoy this priviledge as well as those at Rome; for they are, saith he, as well St. Peters Successours as the other. And, saith he, if they understand this of one and not of the other totis faucibus se deridendos propinarent, they expose themselves to contempt and laughter. 3. If this were true of St. Peters Successours at Rome, then the decrees of one Pope could not be revoked by the other; because, it is impossible they should erre in making those decrees. But it is not Vigorius alone who hath shewed the weakness of your Arguments from this place; for our learned Countryman Mr. White hath more fully and largely dis∣covered the weakness of all your pretences from Scripture, Fathers, and Reason, concerning the Popes succeeding St. Peter in his Infallibility. And particularly as to this place he saith,* 1.470 that either it concerns the present dan∣ger St. Peter was in, or else doth represent what was to be afterwards in the Church: and that it doth primarily and directly relate to St. Peters imminent tentation, all the circumstances perswade us; first, because he is called by his private name Simon, and not by his Apostolical name Peter. 2. Because Christ immediately subjoyns after St. Peters answer his threefold denyal of him. 3. The event it self makes it appear, by the Apostles flight, St. Peters tempta∣tion and fall, his conversion and tears when Christ looked on him; and by his confirming the Disciples after Christs resurrection. But (saith he), if this place be taken as respecting the future times of the Church, the same thing must

be expected in St. Peters Successours, which fell out in St. Peter himself, viz. that either through fear, or some other motive they may be drawn into the shew of Heresie, or into Heresie it self; but so, as either in themselves or their Suc∣cessours, they should be restored to the Catholick Faith. But what reason there is for this latter interpretation (though destructive to the Popes infalli∣bility) neither doth that person acquaint us, nor can I possibly under∣stand. All the evasion that you have to avoid the force of what ever is brought against you out of this place, is by conjuring up that rare distin∣ction of the Popes not erring when he defines any thing as matter of Faith. But see what that same person saith of this distinction of yours, Excipiunt aliqui, saith he, Papam posse esse haereticum, sed non posse haeresim promulgare.* 1.471 Adeò quidlibot effutire pro libidine, etiam licitum est. Some Answer, that the Pope may be a Heretick, but cannot promulge or define Heresie: So far do men think it lawful to say what they please. But can any man, saith he, be guilty of so much incogitancy, as not to see that these things are consequent upon each other; It is a Pear tree, and therefore it will bear Pears: It is a Vine, and therefore it will bring forth Grapes. Christ saith, An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit; but these say, an evil tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. The Apostle saith, the wisdom of the Flesh cannot be subject to God; but these say, it cannot but be subject to God. And then he further presseth, That they would de∣clare from what Authour they brought this contradiction into the Church of God, lest men should believe they were inspired by the Father of lyes when they made it. Nay he goes further yet in these stinging expressions, An putatis licere, in re quae totum Ecclesiae statum a••vivum tangit, novitatem adeò inau∣ditam, adeò rationi adversantem, adeò excedentem omnem fidem, ex somniis cerebri vestri inferre? Do you think it lawful, in a matter which toucheth the whole state of the Church to the quick, to produce so unheard of a novelty, so re∣pugnant to reason, so far above all Faith, out of the dreams of your own brain? Go now, and answer these things among your selves; complain not that we account such evasions silly, absurd, and ridiculous; you see they are accounted so by some of your own Communion (or, at least, who pretend to be so) and those no contemptible persons neither. But such as have seen so much of the weakness and absurdity of your common doctrine, that they openly and confidently oppose it, and that upon the same grounds that Protestants had done it before them. And I hope, this is much more to our purpose to shew the insufficiency of these proofs, than it was for you to produce the Testimonies of several Popes in their own Cause. Which was all the proof that Bellarmin or you had, that these words are extended to St. Peters Successours, when we bring men from among your selves, who produce several reasons, that they ought not to be so interpreted.

But yet there is another place as pertinent as the former; the celebrat∣ed Pasce oves & agnos, John 21.15, 16, 17. But sheep and Lambs, say you,* 1.472 * 1.473 are Christs whole flock. So there are both these, saith his Lordship, in every flock that is not of barren Weathers; and every Apostle,* 1.474 and every Apostles successour hath charge to feed both sheep and Lambs; that is weaker and stronger Christians, not people and Pastours, subjects and Governours, as A. C. expounds it, to bring the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride. No (say you), no such charge is given to any other Apostles, in the places his Lordship cites, Matth. 28.19. Matth. 10.17. for these speak of persons unbaptized, but that place of St. John, of those who were actually Christs Flock; and the words being absolutely and indefinitely pronounced, must be understood general∣ly

and indefinitely of all Christs sheep and Lambs, that is, of all Christians whatsoever, not excepting the Apostles themselves; unless it appear from some other place, that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christs sheep, as uni∣versally and unlimitedly committed to them, as they were here to St. Peter. But all this is nothing, as Vigorius speaks about the solvere, ligare, pascere, but dudum explosis cantilenis aures Christianorum obtundere, to bring us those things over and over,* 1.475 which have been answered as oft as they have been brought. For how often have you been told, that these words contain no particular Commission to St. Peter, but a more vehement exhor∣tation to the discharge of his duty, and that pressed with the quickness of the question before it, Lovest thou me? How often, that the full Com∣mission to the Apostles was given before?* 1.476 As the Father hath sent me, so send I you. And that, as Christ was by his Fathers appointment the chief Shep∣heard of the Sheep and Lambs too; so Christ by this equal Commission to all the Apostles gives them all an equal power and authority to govern his Flock: How often, that nothing appears consequent upon this, whereby St. Peter took this office upon him? but that afterwards we find St. Peter call'd the Apostle of the Circumcision, which certainly he would never have been,* 1.477 had he been looked on as the Vniversal Pastour of the Church; we find the Apostles sending St. Peter to Samaria,* 1.478 which was a very unman∣nerly action, if they looked on him as Head of the Church. How often, that these indefinite expressions are not exclusive of the Pastoral charge of other Apostles over the Flock of Christ? when they are not only bid to preach the Gospel to every creature,* 1.479 but even those Bishops which they or∣dained in several Churches are charged to feed the Flock;* 1.480 and there∣fore certainly the Apostles themselves had not only a charge to preach to unbaptized persons (as you suppose) but to govern the Flock of those who were actually Christs Sheep and Lambs, as well as St. Peter? How often, I say, have you been told all these and several other things in An∣swer to this place; and have you yet the confidence to object it, as though it had never been taken notice of, without ever offering to take off those Answers which have been so frequently given? But you must be pardoned in this, as in all other things of an equal im∣possibility.

* 1.481Well, but his Lordship objects a shrewd Consequence from this Uni∣versal Pastourship; that this brings the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride.* 1.482 And if Kings be meant, (his Lordship saith) yet the command is, pasce, feed them; but deponere, or occidere, to depose or kill them, is not pascere in any sense; Lanii id est, non Pastoris, that's the Butchers, not the Shepheards part. This, you call, his Lordships winding about, and falling upon that odious Question of killing and deposing Kings.* 1.483 An odious Que∣stion indeed, whether we consider the grounds, or the effects and conse∣quents of it. But yet you would seem to clear your selves from the odium of it. First, By saying that it is a gross fallacy, to argue a negatione speciei ad negationem generis, which is a new kind of Logick. It is indeed, for it is of your own coyning; for his Lordship argues ab affirmatione generis ad affirmationem speciei, and I hope this is no new Logick, unless you think he that saith, He hath power over all living creatures, hath not there∣by power over men too. His Lordship therefore doth not argue against the Popes Vniversal Supremacy from the denyal of that, but deduces that as a consequence from your assertion, and explication of what you mean by Sheep and Lambs. But this is but a sleight Answer in comparison

of what follows; Secondly, we answer,* 1.484 That the point of Killing Kings, is a most false and scandalous Imputation; scandalous enough indeed, if false: and though your Popes have not given express warrant for the doing it, yet it is sufficiently known, How the Pope in Consistory could not contain his joy when it was done, in the case of Henry 3. of France. And it hath been sufficiently confessed and lamented by persons of your own communion, How much the Doctrine of the Jesuits hath en∣couraged those Assassinations of those two successive Henryes of France. Will you, or dare you vindicate the Doctrines of Mariana, and others, which do not obscurely deliver their judgement, as to that very thing of Killing Haeretical Princes? But, if we should grant you this, That the Pope may not command to kill, What say you to that of deposing Princes; which seldome falls much short of the other? As to this, you dare not cry, It is a false and scandalous imputation, as you did to the other; but you answer, 'Tis no point of your Faith, that the Pope hath power to do it; and therefore you say it is no part of your task to dispute it. Is this all the security Princes have from you, that it is no point of your Faith, that the Pope hath power to do it? Is it not well enough known, that there are many things which are held undoubtedly by the greatest part of your Church, which yet you say, are no points of Faith? And yet in this you are di∣rectly contradicted by one who knew what were points of Faith among you, as well as you, and that was Father Creswell;* 1.485 whose testimony I have cited already; and he saith expresly, Certum est, & de fide, It is a thing certain, and of Faith: that the subjects of an Haeretical Prince, are not on∣ly freed from Allegiance, but are bound, ex hominum Christianorum domi∣natu ejicere, to cast him out of his power, which certainly is more than the deposing of him. And Sanders plainly enough saith,* 1.486 That a King that will not submit to the Popes Authority, is by no means to be suffered, but his sub∣jects ought to do their utmost endeavour that another may be placed in his room. Indeed, he saith not, as the other doth, That this is de fide, but that is the only reserve you have when a Doctrine is odious and infamous to the world, to cry out, It is not de side, when yet it may be as firmly be∣lieved among you, as any that you account de fide. And if you believe the Duke of Alva in his Manifesto at the siege of Pampelona, when the Pope had deposed the King of Navarre to whom that City belonged, he saith,* 1.487 That it is not doubted but the Pope had power to depose Heretical Princes. And if you had been of another opinion, you ought to have declared your self more fully than you do. If you had said, that indeed some were of that opinion, but you abhorred and detested it, you had spoken to the pur∣pose; but when you use only that pitiful evasion, That it is not of Faith, &c. you sufficiently shew, What your judgement is, but that you dare not pub∣lickly own it. It seems, you remember what was said by your Masters in reference to Emanuel Sà, Non fuit opus ad ista descendere, There was no need to meddle with those things. It seems, if there had been, there was no hurt in the Doctrine, but only that it was unseasonable. I pray God keep us from that time, when you shall think it needful to de∣clare your selves in this point. But you conclude this with a most unwor∣thy and scandalous reflection on Protestants, in these words; But what Protestants have both done and justified in the worst of these kinds, is but too fresh in memory. But, Were those the practices and principles of Protestants? Were they not abhorred and detested in the highest manner by all true Protestants, both at home and abroad? It will be well, if you can clear

some of your selves from having too much a hand in promoting both those principles and practices. I suppose you cannot but have heard, Who it was is said to have expressed so much joy at the time of that horrid execu∣tion; What counsels and machinations are said to have been among some devoted Sons of the Church of Rome abroad about that time: Therefore clear your selves more than yet you have done, of those imputations, be∣fore you charge that guilt on Protestants, which they express the highest abhorrence of. And let the names of such who either publickly or pri∣vately abett or justifie such horrid actions be under a continual Anathe∣ma to all Generations.

* 1.488After all this discourse about the Popes Authority, A. C. brings it at last home to the business of Schism. For, he saith, The Bishop of Rome shall ne∣ver refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock in such sort, as that neither par∣ticular man nor Church shall have just cause, under pretence of Reformation in manners of Faith, to make a separation from the whole Church. This (his Lordship saith) by A. C's favour,* 1.489 is meer begging the Question. For this is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him; namely, that he hath governed, if not the whole, yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power, so as that he hath given too just cause of the present con∣tinued Separation. And, as the corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith, in the Church of Rome, were the cause of the first Separation; so are they at this pre∣sent day the cause why the Separation continues. And the oppression of the Church of Rome, he further adds, is the great cause of all the errours in that part of the Church which is under the Roman Jurisdiction. And for the Pro∣testants, they have made no separation from the General Church properly so cal∣led, but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome, and such other Churches as by adhering to her, have hazarded themselves, and do now mis∣call themselves the whole Catholick Church. Nay, even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, but in her errours; not in the things which constitute a Church, but only in such abuses and corruptions, as work towards the dissolution of a Church. Let now any indifferent Reader be judge, Whether his Lordship, or A. C. be the more guilty in begging the Question.* 1.490 For all the Answer you can give, is, That his Lordship begs it, in saying that the Roman Church is not the whole Catholick Church, and that the Roman Catholick Church may be in an errour; but the former we have proved already, and I doubt not but the latter will be as evident as the other, before our task be ended. But, as though it were not possible for you to be guilty of begging the Question, after you have said that the Ro∣man Church cannot erre, you give this as the reason for it, Because she is the unshaken Rock of Truth; and that she hath the sole continual succession of law∣fully-sent Pastors and Teachers, who have taught the same unchanged Doctrine, and shall infallibly continue so teaching it to the worlds end. Now, Who dares call this, Begging the Question? No, it must not be called so in you, it shall be only Taking it for granted. Which we have seen, hath been your practice all along, especially when we charge your Church with er∣rour••; for then you cry out presently, What, your Church erre? No, you defie the language. What, the Spouse of Christ, the Catholick Church erre? that is impossible. What, the unshaken Rock of Truth to sink into errours? the Infallible Church be deceived? she that hath never taught any thing but Truth, be charged with falshood? she, that not only never did erre, but, it is impossible, nay, utterly impossible, nay, so impossible, that it cannot be imagined, that ever she should erre? This is the summ of all your argu∣ments,

which, no doubt, sound high to all such who know not what con∣fident begging the Question means, or, out of modesty, are loath to charge you with it.

Much to the same purpose do you go on, to prove, that Protestants have separated not from the errours, but the essence of your Church. And if that be true, which you say, That those things which we call Errours are essential to your Church, we are the more sorry for it; for we are sure, (and, when you please, will prove it) that they are not, cannot be, essential to a true Church; and if they be to yours, the case is so much the worse with you, when your distempers are in your vitals, and your errours essential to your Churches Constitution. What other things you have here, are the bare repetitions of what we have often had before in the Chapters you re∣fer us to. And here we may thank you for some ease you give us in the far greatest remaining part of this Chapter, which consists of tedious repeti∣tions of such things which have been largely discussed in the First part, where they were purposely and designedly handled; as that concerning Traditions, chap. 6. that concerning necessaries to salvation,* 1.491 chap. 2, 3, 4. that concerning the Scriptures being an Infallible Rule,* 1.492 throughout the Contro∣versie of Resolution of Faith; and that which concerns the Infallibility of Ge∣neral Councils, we shall have occasion at large to handle afterwards;* 1.493 and if there be any thing material here, which you omit there, it shall be ful∣ly considered. But I know no obligation lying upon me to answer things as often as you repeat them, especially since your gift is so good that way. It is sufficient that I know not of any material passage, which hath not re∣ceived an Answer in its proper place.

That which is most pertinent to our present purpose, is that which con∣cerns the necessity of a Living Judge,* 1.494 besides the Scriptures for ending Contro∣versies of Faith. As to which his Lordship saith, That, supposing there were such a one, and the Pope were he,* 1.495 yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil, and impious men, to keep the Church at all times from renting even in the Doctrine of Faith, or to soder the Rents which are made. For, oportet esse Haereses, 1 Cor. 11.19, Heresies there will be, and Heresies there properly cannot be but in the Doctrine of Faith. To this you answer, That Heresies are not within, but without the Church,* 1.496 and the Rents which stand in need of soder∣ing, are not found among the true members of the Church, who continue still united in the Faith, and due obedience to their Head; but in those who have deserted the true Church, and either made or adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations. A most excellent Answer! His Lordship sayes, If Christ had appointed an Infallible Judge besides the Scripture, certainly it should have been for preventing Heresies, and sodering the Rents of the Church. So it is (say you) for if there be any Heresies, it is nothing to him, they are out of the Church; and if there be any Schisms, they are among those who are divided from him: That is, he is an Infallible Judge only thus far, in condemning all such for Hereticks and Schismaticks, who do not own him. And his only way of preventing Heresies and Schisms, is the making this the only tryal of them, that whatever questions his Authori∣ty, is Heresie; and whatever separation be made from him, is Schism. Just as Absalom pretended that there was no Judge appointed to hear and deter∣mine causes, and that the Laws were not sufficient without one,* 1.497 and there∣fore he would do it himself; so doth the Pope by Christ, he pretends that he hath not taken care sufficient for deciding Controversies in Faith, there∣fore there is a necessity in order to the Churches Vnity, he should take it

upon himself. But now, if we suppose in the former case of Absalom, that he had pretended he could infallibly end all the Controversies in Israel, and keep all in peace and unity; and yet abundance of Controversies to arise among them by what right and power he took that office upon him, and many of them cry out upon it, as an Vsurpation, and a disparagement to the Laws and Government of his Father David; and upon this, some of the wiser Israelites should have asked him, Whether this were the way to end all Controversies, and keep the Nation in peace? Would it not have been a satisfactory Answer for him to have said, Yes, no doubt it is the on∣ly way; For, only they that acknowledge my power, are the Kings lawful sub∣jects, and all the rest are Rebels and Traytors. And, Is not this just the same Answer which you give here? That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church, because all that question his Authority, be He∣reticks and Schismaticks. But, as in the former case, the surest way to pre∣vent those Consequences, were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him, and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records, and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours; so, if you could produce the Letters Pattents, whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church, to determine all Controversies of Faith, and shew this attested by the con∣current voice of the Primitive Church, who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church; this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks, as you say they are, by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority. But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity, and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected, to say, That those are all out of the Church, is just as if a Shepherd should say, That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold, and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it, he should return this Answer, That those were without, and not within his Fold; and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant. So that his meaning was, those that would abide in, he could keep in, but for those that would not, he had nothing to say to them. So it is with you, the Pope he ends Controversies, and keeps the Church at Vnity; How so? They who do agree, are of his Flock, and of the Church; and those that do not, are out of it. A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way, only the Pope hath the greater num∣ber of his side; for, they will tell you, If they were hearkned to, the Church should never be in pieces; for all those who embrace their Do∣ctrines, are of the Church, and those who do not, are Hereticks and Schis∣maticks. So we see upon your principles, What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge, and to end all Controversies in the Church; that only this must be taken for granted, that all who will not own such an infal∣lible Judge, are out of the Church, and so the Church is at Vnity still, how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority. Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is, which you cry so much up in your Church; that you most gravely say, That, had not the Pope re∣ceived from God the power he challenges, he could never have been able to pre∣serve that peace and unity in matters of Religion, that is found in the Roman Church: Of what nature that Unity is, we have seen already: And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controver∣sies, ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent, in the case of the five Pro∣positions. For, How readily the Jansenists have submitted since, and

what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France, all the world can bear you witness. And, whatever you pretend, were it not for Policy and Interest, the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground; for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity, that there had need be a watchful eye, and strong hand to keep it up.

But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge;* 1.498 which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom, when matters cannot be composed by a Parlia∣ment (which cannot be called upon all occasions) hath, besides the Law-Books, some living Magistrates and Judges, and above all one visible King, the highest Judge, who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies, and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs. And, Shall we think that Christ, the wisest King, hath provided in his Kingdom the Church, only the Law-Books of holy Scri∣pture, and no living visible Judges, and above all one chief, so assisted by his Spirit, as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith? which can never be, if every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the Law-Books, as he list. This his Lordship saith,* 1.499 is a very plausible argument with the many; but the Foundation of it is but a similitude, and, if the similitude hold not in the main argument, is nothing. And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here. For whatever further concerns this Controversie con∣cerning the Popes Authority, is brought under the examination of this ar∣gument; which you mangle into several Chapters, thereby confounding the Reader, that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another. But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter alrea∣dy, I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it. And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design. I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together, and then more particularly go about the vindication of them. 1. Then, his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not pro∣perly a Monarchy, and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroy∣ed. 2. That supposing it a Kingdom, yet the Church Militant is spread in ma∣ny earthly Kingdoms, and cannot well be ordered like one particular King∣dom. 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour, our Gra∣cious Soveraign, hath, besides the Law-Book of the Scripture, visible Magistrates and Judges, Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace. 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws, which cannot be determined but in Parliament; so in the Church, the making such Canons which must bind all Christians, must belong to a free and lawful General Council. Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer, that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader.

We come now therefore to the first Answer. As to which his Lordship saith, It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom;* 1.500 for they are no mean ones which think, our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles, and their Successours, in an Aristocratical, or rather a mixt Government; and that the Church is not Monarchical, otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head. And in this sense indeed, and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom. And the very expressing of this sense, is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture, and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Mo∣narchy. But the Church being as large as the world, Christ thought fittest to

govern it Aristocratically, by divers, rather than by one Vice-Roy. And I be∣lieve, saith he, this is true. For so it was governed for the first three hundred years, and somewhat better; the Bishops of those times carrying the whole bu∣siness of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to, or rejecting them from, their Communion. And this, his Lordship saith, He hath carefully ex∣amined for the first six hundred years even to, and within, the time of S. Gre∣gory the Great. Now to this you answer. 1. That though A. C. urgeth the argument in a similitude of a Kingdom only,* 1.501 yet it is of force in any other kind of settled Government, as in a Common-wealth. But by this A. C. seems a great deal the wiser man, for he knew what he did when he instanced in in a Kingdom; for he foresaw that this only would tend to his purpose con∣cerning the Popes Supremacy; but though there be the same necessity of some Supreme Power in a Common-wealth, yet that would do him no good at all, for all that could be inferred thence, would be the necessity of a General Council. And by this you may see, How little your similitude will hold any other way than A.C. put it. Therefore, 2. You answer, That the Government of the Church is not a pure, but a mixt Monarchy, i. e. the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical, you confess: yet Bishops with∣in their respective Dioceses and Jurisdictions are spiritual Princes also, that is, chief Pastors and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right. How far this latter is consonant to your principles, I have already examin∣ed, but the former is that we dispute now, concerning the Supreme Go∣vernment of the Church, Whether that be Monarchical or no, and this is that which his Lordship denies; and, for all that I see, we may continue to do so too, for any argument you bring to the contrary.

Although you produce your Achilles in the next paragraph, viz. that since the Government of one in chief,* 1.502 * 1.503 is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect, What wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to go∣vern the Church by one Vice-Roy, than Aristocratically, or by many, as he would have it? But, Are you sure Christ asked the Philosophers opinions, in establishing a Government in the Church? The Philosophers judged truly that of all Forms of Civil Government, Monarchy was the best, i. e. most conducing to the ends of Civil Government: for the excellency of such things must be measured by their respect to the ends. Now, if we apply this to the Church, we must not measure it by such ends, as we fancy to our selves, or such as are only the ends of meer Civil Societies; but all must be considered with a respect to the chief design of him who first instituted a Church. And from thence we must draw our Inferences, as to what may tend most to the Peace and Vnity of it. Now it appearing to be the great design of Christ, that mankind should be brought to eternal Happi∣ness, we cannot argue from hence, as to the necessity of any manner of Government, unless one of them hath in it self a greater tendency to this than another hath. For in Civil Governments, the whole design of the Society, is the Civil Peace of it; but it is otherwise in the Church, the main end of it, is to order things with the greatest conveniency for a future life: Now this being the main end of this Society, and no manner of Go∣vernment having in it self a greater tendency to this than other: It was in the power of the Legislator, to appoint what Government he pleased him∣self. But when we consider that he intended this Church of his should be spread all over the world, and this to be his immediate errand he sent his Apostles upon, to preach to every creature, and to plant Churches in the most remote and distant places from each other; we can have the least ground

to fancy he should appoint an Vniversal Monarchy in his Church of any Go∣vernment whatsoever. For if we will take that boldness you put us up∣on, to enquire, What form is fittest for a Society dispersed into all parts of the world, and that are not bound, upon their being Christians, to live nearer Rome, than Mexico or Japan,; Could any one imagine it would be, to appoint one Vice-Roy to superintend his Church at such a place as Rome is? Suppose all the East and West-Indies consisted of Christian Churches, What advantage, in order to the Government of those Churches, could the Popes Authority be? What Heresies and Schisms might be among them be∣fore his Holiness could be acquainted with them? These are therefore ve∣ry slender and narrow Conceptions concerning Christs Institution of a Government over his Catholick Church, as though he should only have re∣gard to these few adjacent parts of Europe, without any respect to the good of the whole Church. But since we see, Christ designed such a Church which might be in most remote and distant places from each other, and yet at such a distance might equally promote the main ends, wherefore they became Churches, it is very unreasonable to think he should appoint one Vice-Roy to be Head over them all. For which, let us suppose, that Eu∣rope might be (as the Eastern Churches have been) over-run with the Turk∣ish Power, and only some few suffering Christians left here, and the Pope much in the same condition with the Patriarch of Constantinople: But on the other side, that Christianity should largely spread it self in China, and the East Indies, and the Christian Church flourish in America, Could any Philosopher think that fixing a Monarchy at Rome, or elsewhere, were the best way to Govern the Catholick Church, which consists of all these Chri∣stian Societies? For that is certainly the best Government which is suited to all conditions of that Society, which it is intended for; now it is ap∣parent the Christian Church was intended to be so Catholick, that no one Vice-Roy can be supposed able to look to the Government of it. If Christ had intended meerly such a Church which should have consisted of such persons which lay here near about Rome, and no others, the supposition of such a Monarchy in the Church would not have been altogether so in∣congruous (though liable to very many inconveniencies:) but when he intended his Religion for the universal good of the world, and that in all parts of it, without obliging them to live near each other, it is one of the most unreasonable suppositions in the world, that he should set up a Monarchical Government over his Catholich Church in such a place as Rome is. But now, if we suppose only an Aristocratical Government in the Church under Christ as the alone Supreme Head; nothing can be more suitable to the nature of the Church, or the large extent of it, than that is. For where-ever a Church is, there may be Bishops to govern it, and other Offi∣cers of the Church to over-see the lesser parts of it, and all joyn to promote the Peace and Unity of it, which they may with the more ease do, if no one challenge to be Supreme Head, to whom belongs the chief care of the Church. For by this means they cannot with that power and authority redress abuses, and preserve the Churches Purity and Peace, which other∣wise they might have done. So that considering barely the nature of things, nothing seems more repugnant to the end for which Christ institu∣ted a Catholick Church, than such a Monarchy as you imagine; and nothing more suitable than an Aristocracy; considering that Christian Churches may be much dispersed abroad, and that where they are, they are incorporated into that Civil Society in which they live (according to the known saying

of Optatus, Ecclesia est in republicâ, &c.) and therefore such a Monarchy would be unsuitable to the civil Governments in which those Churches may be. For it were easie to demonstrate, that such a Monarchy as you chal∣lenge in the Church, is the most inconvenient Government for it, take the Church in what way, or sense you please; Whether, as to its own peace and order, or to its spreading into other Churches, or to the respect it must have to the civil Government it lives under. And, if we would more largely enquire into these things, we might easily find, that those which you look on as the great ends, wherefore Christ should institute such a Monarchical Government in his Church, are things unsuitable to the nature of a Christian Church; and which Christ, as far as we can judge, did never intend to take care, that they should never be: which are, freedom from all kind of Controversies, and absolute submission of Judgement to the de∣crees of an Infallible Judge. We no where find such a state of a Christian Church described or promised, where men shall all be of one mind (only that peace and brotherly love be continued, is that, all Christians are bound to); much less certainly, that this Vnity should be by a submission of our understandings to an Infallible Judge, of whom we read nothing in that Book which perswades us to be Christians: and without which free∣dom of our understandings (which this pretended Infallibility would de∣prive us of) we could never have been judicious and rational Chri∣stians.

* 1.504But granting that wise men have thought Monarchy the best Government in it self; What is this to the proving, what Government Christ hath ap∣pointed in his Church? For that is the best Government for the Church, not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best, but which our Saviour hath appointed in his Word. For he certainly knew best, what would suit with the conveniencies of his Church. And these are bold and insolent disputes, wherein those of your side argue, That Christ must have instituted a Monarchy in his Church, because all Philosophers have judged That the most perfect Government. I need not tell you what these speeches im∣ply Christ to be, if he doth not follow the Philosophers judgement. Will you give him leave to judge what is fittest for his Church himself? or do you think he hath not wisdom enough to do it, unless the Philosophers in∣struct him? Let us therefore appeal to his Laws to see what Government he hath there appointed. And now I shall deal more closely with you. You tell me, therein Christ hath appointed this Monarchical Government. But I may be nearer your mind, when you will Answer me these follow∣ing Questions. When, and where did any wise Legislator appoint a mat∣ter of so vast concernment to the good of the Society, as the Supreme Go∣vernment of it, and express no more of it in his Laws, than Christ hath done of this Monarchical Government of the Church? Is there not parti∣cular care taken in all Laws about that, to express the rights of Soveraign∣ty, to hinder Vsurpations, to bind all to obedience, to determine the way of Succession by descent or election? And hath Christ instituted a Monar∣chy in his Church and said nothing of all these things? When the utmost you can pretend to, are some ambiguous places, which you must have the power of Interpreting your selves, or they signifie nothing to your pur∣pose. So that none of the Fathers, or the Primitive Church for several Centuries, could find out such mysteries in super hanc Petram, dabo tibi Claves, and pasce oves, as you have done. If such a Monarchy had been ap∣pointed in the Church, what should we have had more frequent mention

of in the Records of the Church, than of this? Where do we meet with any Histories that write the affairs of Kingdoms for some hundred of years, and never mention any Royal Acts of the Kings of them? If St. Peters being at Rome had setled the Monarchy of the Church there, what more famous act could have been mentioned in all Antiquity then that? What notice would have been taken by other Churches of him whom he had left his Successour? What addresses would have been made to him by the Bishops of other Churches? What testimonies of obedience and sub∣mission; what appeals and resort thither? And it is wonderful strange that the Histories of the Church should be silent in these grand Affairs, when they report many minute things even during the hottest times of persecution. Did the Christians conspire together in those times not to let their posterity know, Who had the Supream Government of the Church then? Or were they afraid the Heathen Emperours should be jealous of the Popes, if they had understood their great Authority? But then methinks they should have carried it however among themselves with all reverence and submission to the Pope, and not openly oppose him assoon as ever he began to exercise any Authority, as in the case of Victor and the Asian Bi∣shops. But of all things, it seems most strange and unaccountable to me, that Christ should have instituted such a Monarchy in his Church, and none of the Apostles mention any thing of it in any of the Epistles which they writ, in which are several things concerning the Peace and Government of the Church: nay, when there were Schisms and divisions in the Church, and that on the account of their Teachers, among whom Cephas was one (by that very name on which Christ said he would build his Church) and yet no mention of respect more to him, then to any other: no intimation of what power St. Peter had for the Government of the Church, as the Head and Monarch of it: no references at all made to him by any of the divided parties of the Church at that time: no mention at all of any such power given him in the Epistles written by him, but he writes just as any other Apostle did, with great expressions of humility; and, as if he foresaw what Vsurpations would be in the Church, he forbids any Lording it over Gods heritage, and calls Christ the chief Pastour of the Church. And this he doth in an Epistle not writ to the Catholick Church, which had been most proper for him if Head of the Church, but only to the dispersed Jews in some par∣ticular Provinces. Can any one then imagine he should be Monarch of the Church, and no act of his, as such, recorded at all of him; but carrying himself with all humility, not fixing himself as Head of the Church in any Chair, but going up and down from one place to another, as the rest of the Apostles for promoting the Gospel of Christ? To conclude all; Is it possi∣ble to conceive there should be a Monarch appointed by Christ in the Church, and yet the Apostle when he reckons up those offices which Christ had set in the Church, speak not one word of him: he mentions Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers; but the chief of all is omit∣ted, and he to whom the care of all the rest is committed;* 1.505 and in whose Authority the welfare, peace, and unity of the Church is secured. These things to me seem so incredible, that till you have satisfied my mind in these Questions, I must needs judge this pretended Monarchy in the Church to be one of the greatest Figments ever were in the Christian world. And thus I have at large considered your Argument from Reason, Why there should be such a Monarchy in the Church; which I have the rather done, because it is one of the great things in dispute between us, and because

the most plausible Argument brought for it, is, The necessity of it in order to the Churches peace, which Monarchy being the best of Governments would the most tend to promote. To return now to his Lordship.

* 1.506He brings an evidence out of Antiquity against the acknowledgement of any such Monarchy in the Church from the literae communicatoriae which certified from one great Patriarch to another,* 1.507 Who were fit or unfit to be admit∣ted to their Communion, upon any occasion of repairing from one See to another. And these were sent mutually, and as freely in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs, as from them to it. Out of which (saith his Lordship) I think this will follow most directly, that the Church-Government then was Aristocratical. For had the Bishop of Rome been then accounted sole Monarch of the Church, and been put into the definition of the Church (as he is now by Bellarmin) all these communicatory Letters should have been directed from him to the rest, as whose admittance ought to be a rule for all to communicate; but not from others to him, at least not in that even equal brotherly way, as now they appear to be written. For it is no way probable the Bishops of Rome, which even then sought their own greatness too much, would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily, had not the very course of the Church put it upon them.* 1.508 To this you Answer, That these literae communicatoriae do rather prove our assertion, being ordained by Sixtus 1, in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome, or otherwise forced to repair thither; to the end they might without scruple, be received into their own Diocese at their return: having also decreed, that without such letters communicatory, none in such case should be admitted. But that these letters should be sent from other Bishops to Rome in such an even, equal, and brotherly way, you say, is one of his Lord∣ships Chimaera's. But this difference, or inequality you pretend to be in them; that those to the Pope were meerly Testimonial; those from him were Mandato∣ry, witness (say you) the case of St. Athanasius and other Bishops restored by the Popes communicatory letters. But supposing them equal, you say, it only shewed the Popes humility; and ought to be no prejudice to his just authority, and his right and power to do otherwise if he saw cause. But all this depends upon a meer fiction, viz. That these communicatory letters were ordained by Sixtus 1, in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome, than which no∣thing can be more improbable. But I do not say, that this is a Chimaera of your own Brains,* 1.509 for you follow Baronius in it: for which he produceth no other evidence, but the Authour of the lives of the Popes: but Binius adds that which seems to have been the first ground of it, which is the second decretal Epistle of Sixtus 1, in which that Decree is extant: But whoso∣ever considers the notorious forgery of those decretal Epistles (as will be more manifested where you contend for them) on which account they are slighted by Card. Perron,* 1.510 and in many places by Baronius himself, will find little cause to triumph in this Epistle of Sixtus 1. And whoever reflects on the state of those times in which Sixtus lived, will find it improbable enough, that the Pope should take to himself so much Authority to sum∣mon Bishops to him, and to order that none should be admitted without Communicatory letters from him. It is not here a place to enquire into the several sorts of those letters which passed among the Bishops of the Primi∣tive Church, whether the Canonical, Pacifical, Ecclesiastical, and Communica∣tory, were all one; and what difference there was between the Communi∣catory letters granted to Travellers, in order to their Communion with forrain Churches, and those letters which were sent from one Patriarch to another. But this is sufficiently evident, that those letters which were

the tessera hospitalitatis, as Tertullian calls it, the Pass-port for Communion in forrain Churches, had no more respect to the Bishop of Rome, than to any other Catholick Bishop. Therefore the Council of Antioch passeth two Canons concerning them; one,* 1.511 That no Traveller should be received without them; another, That none but Bishops should give them. And that all Bi∣shops did equally grant them to all places,* 1.512 appears by that passage in St. Au∣stin, in his Epistle to Eusebius and the other Donatists, relating the con∣ference he had with Fortunius a Bishop of that party; wherein St. Austin asked him, Whether he could give communicatory letters whither he pleased? for by that means it might be easily determined whether he had communion with the whole Catholick Church, or no. From whence it follows, that any Ca∣tholick Bishop might without any respect to the Bishop of Rome grant Com∣municatory letters to all forrain Churches. And the enjoying of that Communion which was consequent upon these letters, is all that Optatus means in that known saying of his, that they had Communion with Siri∣cius at Rome, commercio formatarum,* 1.513 by the use of these communicatory letters. But besides these, there were other letters, which every Patriarch sent to the rest upon his first installment, which were call'd their Synodical Epistles, and these contained the profession of their Faith; and the answers to them did denote their Communion with them. Since therefore these were sent to all the Patriarchs indifferently, and not barely to the Bishop of Rome; there appears no difference at all in the letters sent to or from him and the other Patriarchs on this occasion. As for your instance of the Popes restoring Athanasius, I have sufficiently answered it already; and if the Popes letter were never so Mandatory (as it was not) yet we see it took no effect among the Eastern Bishops: and therefore they were of his Lordships mind, That the Government of the Church was not Monarchi∣cal, but Aristocratical. I did expect here to have met with the pretended Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople about the manner of making formed letters, wherein one Π is said to be for the honour of St. Peter; but since you pass it over, on this occasion, I hope you are convinced of the Forgery of it.

In the beginning of your next Chapter (which because of the coherence of the matter I handle with this) you find great fault with his Lordship for a Marginal citation out of Gerson,* 1.514 * 1.515 because he supposeth that Gersons judge∣ment, was, that the Church might continue without a Monarchical head, be∣cause he writ a Tract de Auferibilitate Papae; whereas, you say, Gersons drift is only to shew how many several waies the Pope may be taken away, that is, deprived of his office, and cease to be Pope as to his own person, so that the Church, pro tempore, till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head. But although the truth of what his Lordship proves, doth not at all de∣pend upon this Testimony of Gerson, which was only a Marginal citation; yet since you so boldly accuse him for a false allegation, we must further examine how pertinent this Testimony is to that which his Lordship brought it for. The sentence to which this Citation of Gerson refers, is this. For they are no mean ones,* 1.516 who think our Saviour Christ left the Church-militant in the hands of the Apostles, and their Successours, in an Aristocrati∣cal, or rather a mixt Government; and that the Church is not Monarchical, otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head. Over against these words, that Tract of Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae is cited. If therefore so much be contained in that Book as makes good this, which his Lordship sayes; he is not so much guilty of false

alledging Gerson, as you are of falsly accusing him. To make this clear, we must consider what Gersons design was in writing that Book, and what his opinion therein is concerning the Churches Government. It is well known, that his Book was written upon the occasion of the Council of Constance in the time of the great Schism between the three Popes; and that the design of it, is, to make it appear that it was in the power of the Council to depose the Popes,* 1.517 and suspend them from all Jurisdiction in the Church. Therefore, he saith, That the Pope may not only lose his office by voluntary cession; but that in many cases he may be deprived by the Church, or by a General Council representing the Church, whether he consent to it or no: Nay, in the next consideration, he saith, That he may be deprived by a Ge∣neral Council which is celebrated without his consent or against his will; And, in the following consideration adds, That this may be done not only decla∣ratively, but juridically: the Question now comes to this, Whether a per∣son who asserts these things, doth believe the Government of the Militant Church to be Monarchical, and not rather Aristocratical and mixt Govern∣ment? And I dare appeal to any mans reason, whether that may be ac∣counted a Monarchical Government, where he that is Supream may be de∣posed and deprived of his office in a Juridical manner, by a Senate that hath Authority to do these things? For it is apparent, the Supream power lyes in the Senate and not the Prince, and that the Prince is only a Ministerial Head under them. And this is plainly Gersons opinion as to the Church; al∣though therefore he may allow the supream Ministerial Authority to be in the Pope, (which is all your Citations prove) yet the radical and intrinse∣cal power lyes in the Church, which being represented in a General Council, may depose the Pope from his Authority in the Church. And the truth is, this opinion of Gerson makes the Fundamental power of the Church to be Democratical, and that the Supream exercise is by Representatives in a Gene∣ral Council, and that the Pope at the highest, is, but a Ministerial and ac∣countable Head. And therefore Spalatensis truly observes, That this opini∣on of Gerson (which is the same with that of the Paris Divines, of which he speaks) doth only in words attribute supream Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Pope,* 1.518 but in reality it takes it quite away from him. And this is the same Doctrine which then prevailed in the Council of Constance, and after∣wards at Basil, as may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle, defended by Richerius, Vigorius, and others. Now let any man of reason judge, whether, notwithstanding your charge of false citation, (from some expres∣sions intimating only a Ministerial Headship) his Lordship did not very pertinently cite this Tract of Gersons, to prove that no mean persons did think the Church Militant, not to be Governed by a Monarchical, but by an Aristocratical or mixt Government?

But no sooner is this marginal citation cleared, but the charge is renew∣ed about another,* 1.519 * 1.520 viz. St. Hierom; yet here you dare not charge his Lordship with a false allegation, but you are put to your shifts to get off this Testimony as well as you can. For, St. Hierom saying expresly in his Epistle to Evagrius, Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, &c. ejusdem meriti est, ejusdem est & sacerdotii; his Lordship might well inferr, That doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy. For what Bishop, saith he, is of the same merit or the same degree in the Priesthood with the Pope, as things are now carried at Rome? To this you Answer, That he speaks not of the Pope, as he is Pope, or in respect of that eminent Authority, which belongs to him as St. Peters Successour,

but only compares him with another private Bishop, in respect of meer character or power of a Bishop, as Bishop only. But though this be all which any of your party ever since the Reformation have been able to Answer to this place; yet nothing looks more like a meer shift than this doth. For had St. Hierom only compared these Bishops together in regard of their order, was not Sacerdotium enough to express that by; if St. Hierom had said only, that all Bishops are ejusdem sacerdotii, there might have been some plausible pretence for this distinction; but when he adds ejusdem meriti too, he wholly precludes the possibility of your evading that way. For, What doth merit here stand for as distinct from Priesthood, if it im∣ports not something besides what belongs to Bishops as Bishops? What can merit here signifie, but some greater Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another. St. Hierom was not so sensless, as not to see that the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, had greater Authority, and larger Jurisdiction in the Church, then the petty Bishops of Eugubium, Rhegium, and Tanis; but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church, that one Bishop should have larger po∣wer in the Church then another. But (saith he) if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church, then, saith he, Orbis major est urbe, it is no one City, as that of Rome (which he particularly in∣stanceth in) which can prescribe to the whole world; For (saith he) all Bishops are of equal merit, and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are, whe∣ther at Rome or elsewhere. So that it is plain to all, but such as wilfully blind themselves, that St. Hierom speaks not of that, which you call, the Character of Bishops, but of the Authority of them; for that very word he useth immediately before, Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character? They who say, It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense. For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life? But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here. For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus,* 1.521 that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church; ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus, deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas, &c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality; apply now but this sense to S. Hierom, and he may be very easily understood, All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus, of the same merit, Dignity or Au∣thority in the Church. But you say, he speaks not of the Pope, as he is Pope: good reason for it, for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope, as he now challengeth. And can you think, if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do, he would ever have used such words as these are, to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood. I cannot perswade my self you can think so, only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend. And since, Bellarmine, and such great men, had gone before you, you could not be∣lieve there were any absurdity in saying as they did. Still you say, He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome, as S. Pe∣ter's Successor. But if you would but read a little further, you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, &c. as equally the Apostles Successors: For, it is neither (saith he) riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower. Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt; but they are all the Apostles Successors; therefore he speaks of

them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles. And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here, if he had known any such thing, but he must be excused, he was ignorant of it. No, that he could not be (say you again) for he speaks of it elsewhere, and there∣fore he must be so understood there, as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself. But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it, a suf∣ficient account hath been given of that already: therefore you add more, and bid us go find them out, to see, Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm, because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church, and not of the the Popes, and that may import only dignity and preheminence, without au∣thority and jurisdiction: besides, that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus, Sixtus Senensis, and many others among your selves. Your second, ad Demetriadem Virginem, is much less to your pur∣pose; for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome, qui Apostolicae Cathedrae & supradicti viri successor & filius est, Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair; But, Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome, and had every one of them su∣preme authority over the Church of God? What, that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew, I cannot imagine, unless it be that S. Peter is called Prin∣ceps Apostolorum, which honour we deny him not, or that he saith, Aedifi∣cabo Ec••lesiam meam super te: But how these things concern the Popes Authority, unless you had further enlightened us, I cannot understand. That ep. 54. ad Marcellam, is of the same nature with the last, for the words which I suppose you mean, are, Petrus super quem Dominus funda••it Ecclesiam; and if you see, what Erasmus saith upon that place, you will have little cause to boast much of it. Your last place is, l. 1. Cont. Lucifer; which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence; Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet; but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you, it is understood of every ordinary Bishop, Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom, and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning him∣self, as to any thing which is here spoken by him. So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church.

His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus;* 1.522 * 1.523 that wheresoever there is a Church,* 1.524 there the Church is in the Common-wealth, and not the Common-wealth in the Church. And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire. Now from this ground (saith his Lordship) I argue thus. If the Church be within the Empire, or other Kingdom, 'tis impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical. For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion, that shall be greater than himself, since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch.* 1.525 Your answer to this, is, That these two Kingdoms are of different natures, the one spiritual, the other temporal: the one exercised only in such things as concern the wor∣ship of God, and the Eternal Salvation of souls; the other in affairs that con∣cern this world only. Surely you would perswade us, we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice, about the Popes Tempo∣ral Power, which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome; and although he minces the matter as much as may be, and much more

than Baronius and others did, who pleaded downright for the Popes Tem∣poral Power; yet he must be a very weak Prince, who doth not see how far that indirect and reductive power, may extend, when the Pope himself is to be Judge, What comes under it, and what not. And, What may not come under it, when deposing of Princes shall be reduced under that you call The Worship of God? and absolving subjects from their obedience, tend to pro∣mote their Eternal Salvation? But if the Pope may be Judge, What tem∣poral things are in ordine ad spiritualia, and bring them under his power in that respect, Why may not the Prince be Judge what spiritual things are in ordine ad temporalia, and use his power over them in that respect too? But in the mean time, Is not a Kingdom like to be at peace then? If the Pope challenged no other authority but what Christ or the Apostles had, his Government might be admitted, as well as that authority which they had; but, What do you think of us the mean while, when you would perswade us, that the Popes Power is no other than what Christ or the Apostles had? you must certainly think us such persons as the Moon hath wrought particu∣larly upon, as you after very civilly speak concerning his Lordship. Your instance from the Kings of France and Spain, his Lordship had sufficiently answered, by telling you, That he that is not blind may see if he will, of what little value the Popes Power is in those Kingdoms, further than to serve their own turns of him, which they do to their great advantage. And when you would have this to be upon the account of Faith and Conscience, Let the Pope exercise his power apparently against their Interest, and then see, on what account they profess obedience to him. But, as long as they can manage such pretences for their advantage, and admit so much of it, and no more, they may very well endure it, and his Lordship be far enough from contra∣dicting himself. When you would urge the same inconvenience against the Aristocratical Government of the Church, you suppose that Aristocratical Government wholly Independent on, and not subordinate to,* 1.526 the Civil Go∣vernment; whereas his Lordship and the Church of England assert the Kings Supremacy in Government over all, both persons and causes Ecclesiasti∣cal: And therefore this nothing concerns us. And if from what hath gone before, it must, as you say, remain therefore fully proved, that the ex∣ternal Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical. It may for all that I see, remain as fully proved, that you are now the man who enjoy this Monarchical Power over the Church. And whatever you stile the Pope, Whether the Deputy, or Vicar General of Christ, or Servus servorum, or what you will; it is all one to us as long as we know his meaning, whatever fair words you give him. As though men would take it one jot the better to have one usurp and Tyrannize over them, because he doth not call himself King or Prince, but their humble servant. Is it not by so much the greater Tyranny? to have such kind of Ecclesiastical Saturnalia, when the servus servorum must, under that name, tyrannize over the whole world?

We have already at large shewed, How destructive this pretended Su∣premacy is to that Government of the Church by Bishops, which, his Lord∣ship proves from the ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church,* 1.527 doth of right belong to them, viz. from several Canons of the Councils of Antioch and Nice, and the testimonies of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian. To all this you only say, That you allow the Bishops their portion in the Government of Christs Flock: But it is but a very small portion of what belongs to them,* 1.528 if all their Jurisdiction must be derived from the Pope; which I have shewed be∣fore to be the most current Opinion in your Church: And I dare say, you

will not dispute the contrary. His Lordship was well enough aware, to what purpose Bellarmine acknowledged that the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops; for he himself saith, It was to exclude temporal Prin∣ces; but then he desires A. C. to take notice of that, when Secular Princes are to be excluded, then it shall be pretended, that Bishops have power to govern: but when it comes to sharing stakes between them and the Pope, then hands off; they have nothing to do any further than the Pope gives them leave. What follows concerning the impossibility of a right executing of this Monarchy in the Church hath been already discussed of, and you answer no∣thing at all to it that hath any face of pertinency; for when you say, it will hold as well against the Aristocratical Form, I have plainly enough shewed you the contrary.

* 1.529That which follows about the design of an Vniversal Monarchy in the State, as well as the Church; about Pope Innocent's making the Pope to be the Sun, and the Emperour the Moon, the Spanish Friers two Scutchions, Cam∣panella's Eclogue,* 1.530 since you will not stand to defend them, I shall willing∣ly pass them over. But what concerns the Supremacy of the Civil Power, is more to our purpose, and must be considered. His Lordship therefore saith, That every soul was to be subject to the higher power, Rom. 13.1. And the higher Power there mentioned,* 1.531 is the Temporal. And the ancient Fathers come in with a full consent, that every soul comprehends all without exception: All spiritual men, even to the highest Bishop, even in spiritual causes too, so the Foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken: And where they are shaken, there ought to be prayer and patience, there ought not to be opposition by force. Nay, Emperours and Kings are custodes utriusque Tabulae; They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law, for wor∣ship to God, and duty to man, are committed. A Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time, to be given to the King, Deut. 17.18. And the Kings under the Law, but still according to it, did proceed to necessary Re∣formation in Church-businesses; and therein commanded the very Priests them∣selves, as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah, who yet were never cen∣sured to this day for usurping the High-Priests office. Nay, and the greatest Emperours for the Churches honour, Theodosius the elder, and Justinian, and Charls the Great, and divers others, did not only meddle now and then, but enact Laws to the great settlement and encrease of Religion in their several times. Now to this again, you answer, That the civil and spiritual are both absolute and independent powers, though each in their proper Orb, the one in spirituals, the other in temporals. But, What is this to that which his Lord∣ship proves, That there can be no such absolute independent spiritual power; both because all are bound to obey the Civil Power, and because the Civil Power hath a right to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters? And, though you express never so much honour to civil authority, yet still you limit it to the admi∣nistration meerly of civil affairs; and how far that is, is well enough known. You tell us plainly, That it doth not belong to the Emperour to or∣der the affairs of the Church; But why do you not answer the Reasons and Instances which his Lordship brings to the contrary? Yet you yield, That in case of notorious and gross abuses, manifestly contrary to Religion, and con∣nived at by the Pastors of the Church, Christian Princes may lawfully and pi∣ously use their Authority, in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastors,* 1.532 as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove. But in case the High-Priest would not have yielded to such a reformation, Might not those Princes, by the assistance of other Priests, have effected it? This is

the case you were to speak to: For whereas you fly out, and say, That Prin∣ces may not take the Priests office upon them. Whom do you dispute against in that? Not his Lordship certainly, nor any of the Church of England, who never said they might, though they have been most injuriously ca∣lumniated, as though they did. That which we assert, is, That Princes may enact Laws concerning Religion, and reform abuses in Divine Wor∣ship, but we do not say, they may take the Pastoral office upon them; and therefore you say no more in that than we do our selves. But when you say, They may not reform Religion in the substance of it, I cannot well tell How to understand you. If you mean, not so reform Religion, as to take away any of the substance, that is a Reformation to purpose; but if you bring it ad hypothesin, we utterly deny that any of the substance of Reli∣gion was taken away upon our Churches Reformation: If you mean, not reform abuses which go under the name of the substance of Religion, that will be to make the most unsufferable abuses the most incurable. But, when you add, That nothing must be enacted pertaining to Religion by their own Authority without, or contrary to the Priests consent (the High-Priest, I suppose you mean) shew us, Where the Kings of Israel were bound, not to reform in case the High-Priest did not consent: and if you could do this, you must prove such a High-Priest now, and that Princes are bound to wait his leisure for reforming abuses in Religion, when his pretended Authority is upheld by maintaining them. As for your commendations of Pope Hildebrand, and Innocent the Third, for very prudent men, and worthy Champions of your Church, we see, What prudence is with you, and what a worthy Church you have. But it is still an excellent evasion,* 1.533 That they never endeavoured to subject the Emperour to themselves in temporal matters; no nor Alexander the Third neither, when he trod upon the Emperours neck? But the proceedings of these Popes with the Emperours, as likewise Adrian 4. Lucius 3. and others, are so gross, that it had been more for your Interest with Christian Princes, to disown them, than to go about to palliate them with such frivolous distinctions, that his Vnderstanding must be as blind as his Obedience, that doth not see thorough them. You are much concerned, that his Lordship should seem to give a lash to those mortified self-denying men, the Jesuits, in bidding them leave their pra∣ctising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour; for, Who could be∣lieve they should deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of the world up∣on such designs? Undoubtedly you are one of the number, for I never heard that any other Order among you, did ever give them half so good words, but condemned them as much for their practising, as we do our selves. And, What holy men they are, and what excellent Casuistical Divinity about both the riches and pleasures of the world, if we did not otherwise know, the Mysteries of Jesuitism would sufficiently discover. To what his Lordship saith further,* 1.534 That there is no necessity of one Supreme Li∣ving Judge, to keep the Church in peace and unity, but that the several Bishops under their Soveraign Princes, are sufficient in order to it; you only say, That he quotes Occham for it. But, Doth he nothing else but quote Occham? Why do you not answer to the thing, and not barely to Occham? You have very good reason for it; for you have little to say to the thing it self; but for Occham, you have enough to tell him in his ear. 1. That he is in the Index of forbidden Books; a good testimony for the man's honesty. 2. That he sided with the Emperour; a crime beyond an Index Expurgato∣rius at Rome. 3. That if there were such a Government as Occham supposes,

all those Governours must be Infallible, or else there would be meer Anarchy in the Church: And, Why not as well in the State, without Infallibility there? You say, For want of this Infallibility, those Countries where it is not acknowledged, are in Schisms: And we say, The pretence of this Infallibi∣ty hath caused the greatest of them. 4. You say, Occham speaks only de pos∣sibili, of what might have been, if our Saviour had pleased; but Occhamsayes, There is no necessity there should be one chief Governour under Christ, and we say, You can never prove that Christ hath appointed that there shall be one; and therefore this is more than disputing a bare possi∣bility.

But now, as though all your beggings the Question had been argu∣ments, all your sayings proofs, and all your proofs demonstrations, with as much authority as if you were in Cathedrâ, you conculde; Remain it therefore a settled Catholick Principle, that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God; But you leave out something which should be at the end of it, among all those who can believe things as strongly without reason, as with it. And for the greater solemnity of the Sentence you give it in the words of the Oecumenical Council at Florence: And I must needs say, You have fitted them very well, for that was just as much an Oecumenical Council, as the Pope is Oecumenical Pastor: but, that neither the one nor the other is so, I have sufficiently proved already.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Council of Trent.

The Illegality of it manifested, first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceed∣ed by, different from that of the first General Councils, and from the Popes Presidency in it. The matter of Right concerning it, discussed. In what Ca∣ses Superiours may be excepted against as Parties. The Pope justly excepted against as a Party, and therefore ought not to be Judge. The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome, acknowledged by Roman Catholicks. The matter of fact enquired into, as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils. Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council. Two Councils held at Constantinople, within two years; these strangely confounded. The mistake made evident. S. Cyril not President in the third General Coun∣cil as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils. The justness of the Exception against the place, mani∣fested; and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope. The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent. Protestants not condemned by General Councils. The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks. The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated. A General Council in Antiqui∣ty not so called from the Popes General Summons. In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church. The vast difference between the pro∣ceedings in the Council of Nice, and that at Trent. The exception from the number of Italian Bishops, justified. How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants; with an account of the proceedings between them.

HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us,* 1.535 and shewed at large the weakness▪ and insufficiency of them, we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task, but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church, viz. the Council of Trent must be examined, to see whether it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or no; whether it came from Heaven, or was only the contrivance of some cun∣ning Artificers.* 1.536 And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent, hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse. Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great, that it was made Divina Palladis arte, the Spirit of God being said to be present in it, and concurring with it, yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving, and deceit in the managing the one as the other. And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art, to bring this Simili∣tude off, without reflecting on the honour of the Council; yet that Bishop, who in that Sermon pleaded so much, That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council, as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas, was him∣self in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said. For he spake as true in this, as if he had been High-Priest himself that year. But, as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine, That whatever spirit was within them, yet being met in Council, the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them, you set your self to a serious vindication

of the proceedings of that Council; and not only so, but triumph in it, as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue. And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawful∣ness and freedom of that Council; but, to keep to the Bishops Metaphor,

Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias; & crimine ab uno Disce omnes.

And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church, we shall have little reason to believe, that ever it fell from Heaven. His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils, for ma∣king some Laws which concern the whole Church; His Adversary thinks pre∣sently to give him a Choak-pear,* 1.537 by telling him, That the Council of Trent was a General Council; and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours. This you call, Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree; that Tree, you mean, out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut: for the ma∣nagement of this dispute about the Council of Trent, will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause. But you do well to add, That his Lordship was not taken unprovided:* 1.538 for he truly answered, That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal, nor a General Council. Both these we undertake to make good, in opposition to what you bring by way of an∣swer to his Lordships Exceptions to them.

* 1.539That which we begin with, is, That it was not a Legal Council, which his Lordship proves: First, Because that Council maintained publickly, that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie, and make it to be de Fide, and so in your judgement fundamental, though it have not a written word for its warrant; nay, so much as a probable testimony from Scripture. The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this, that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them; because according to their own principles, those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture: And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils, is, to decree according to the Scriptures. Now to this you answer, That the meaning of the Council, or Catholick Authours, is not, that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith,* 1.540 but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten; and this you confess, is defined by the Council of Trent, in these terms, that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture, but also on Tradition: which Doctrine (you say) is true, and that you have already proved it: And I may as well say, It is false, for I have already answered all your pretended proofs. But it is one thing, Whether the Doctrine be true or no; and another, Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle. For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true, because the Council hath defined it to be so: But if you will undertake to justifie the proceed∣ings of the Council as legal, you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by, in defining any thing to be matter of Faith. But if this appear to be false; and that you cannot in∣stance in any true General Council, which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon, then though the thing may, since that Decree, be believed as true, yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds. Name us therefore, What Council did ever offer to deter∣mine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition? In the four first General Councils it is well known, What authority was given to the Scripture

in their definitions; and I hope you will not say, That any thing they de∣fined, had no other ground but Tradition. But suppose you could prove this, it is not enough for your purpose, unless you can make it appear, that those Fathers in making such Decrees, did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them. For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition, yet all that you can inferr thence, is, That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds, when they had not. But still, if they made Scripture their Rule, and looked on nothing else as a Foundation for their definitions but the written word of God, then the Council of Trent did not proceed legally, in offering to define matters of Faith, on such grounds which were not acknowledg∣ed by the Primitive Church, to be sufficient Foundation for such Defini∣tions. Cardinal Cusanus at large gives an account of the method of pro∣ceeding in the Ancient General Councils, and therein tells us,* 1.541 not only that the Word of God was placed in the middle among those who sate in Council, but gives this as the only Rule of their proceeding, quòd secundum testimonia Scripturarum decrevit Synodus; that they decreed according to the testi∣monies of Scripture. Now if another Council shall go according to a dif∣ferent Rule from what the Church hath esteemed the only true and adae∣quate Foundation for definition of Faith, that Council breaks the inviolable Laws of Councils, and therefore its proceedings cannot be legal. As for Instance; Supposing a Parliament not to have power to make new Laws, but to declare only what is Law, and what not (for that is all you pretend to, as to General Councils) and that all other former Parliaments have all along professed this to be their Rule, viz. that they search into the body of the Laws; and if any thing be controverted, Whether it be a Law or no, they make a diligent search into it, and examine all circumstances con∣cerning it, for their own satisfaction, and according to the evidence they find of its being contained in this body of Laws, they declare themselves: but many things growing much in use among a prevailing party, which have no colour of being in the written Laws, but yet tend much to the Interest of that party; and these being opposed by such, who stand up for the an∣cient and known Laws, the other are forced to make use of as good an Expedient as they can, to preserve their interest and credit together. To which end they pack together a company of such, who are most concerned to maintain the things in Question, and among these, the great Innovator sits as President among them, and suffers none to come there, but such as are obliged by Oath to speak nothing against his Interest; and these, when met together, seeing how unable they are to manage their business according to former Precedents; the first thing they do, is to declare, That customs and usages have as much the force of Laws among them, as any contained in the body of them; and having established this their Rule, according to it they decree all the matters in difference, to be true and real Laws. Would any man say, That these men proceeded legally, who first make the Foundation they are to go on, contrary to all former Precedents, and then define ac∣cording to that? Yet this, in all particulars, is exactly the case of the Council of Trent; but the last part is that we are now about; that they should, contrary to the proceedings of all General Councils in matters of Faith, first make their Rule, and then bind all men to all those Decrees which are made according to it. And therefore, though the Council of Trent may be thought to act wisely in advancing Traditions to an equality with Scripture in the first place, yet he must have a great deal of confi∣dence

and little judgement, who say's, that in decreeing matters of Faith from Tradition, it acted legally; i. e. according to the rules of the un∣doubted General Councils. I cannot therefore say, whether you have more of the one, or less of the other, when you tell us without offering to prove it, That the Council did not proceed in a different manner, from other lawful General Councils whil'st she grounded her definitions, partly on Scri∣pture, partly on Tradition, even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical Inference from Scripture. The absurdity of which Doctrine in it self, I have at large discovered already in our discourse of the Resolution of Faith, where it is shewed in what sense his Lordship say's, That Apostolical Tradition is the Word of God; But that this was a legal way of proceeding in the Council of Trent, to define matters of Faith by such Traditions as have no ground in Scripture, had need be better proved, than by your bare Affirmation. And if that be a Tradition too, I am sure it is one that is neither contained in, nor deducible from, the Scripture.

2. His Lordship justly excepts against the Council of Trent, from the Popes sitting as President in it.* 1.542 For, saith he, Is that Council legal, where the Pope the chief person to be reformed shall sit President in it, and be chief Judge in his own cause against all Law, Divine, Natural, and Humane. To this you return an Answer,* 1.543 both to the matter of Right, and the matter of Fact. To the matter of Right, you say, That the Pope not being justly accusa∣ble of any crime, but such as must involve, not only the Council, but the whole Church as well as himself, the Protestants had no just cause to quarrel with the Popes presiding in it. Nay, that it is conformable to all Law, Divine, Natural, and Humane, that the Head should preside over the members: and to give No∣vellists liberty to decline the Popes judgement, or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon pretence of their being parties, is in effect to ex∣empt absolutely such people from all legal censure; and to grant there is no suffi∣cient means effectually to govern the Church, or condemn Heresie, Schism, and other offences against Religion. But is it not unanswerable on the other side, that this plea of yours makes it impossible, that the errours and cor∣ruptions of a Church should be reformed, in case the Governours of the Church do abett and maintain them? If you say, That it is not possible the Governours of the Church should do so, we have nothing but your bare word for it, and reason and experience manifest the contrary. In case then there be a vehement presumption at least, in a considerable party of the Church, that the Church is much degenerated and needs reformation, but those who call themselves the lawful Superiours of the Church utterly oppose it; What is to be done in this case? must the Church continue as it did, meer∣ly because the Superiours make themselves parties? Nay, suppose that which you would call Idolatry be in the Church, and the Pope and a Council of his packing declare for it; must there be no endeavours of a Reformati∣on, but by them who pronounce all Hereticks who oppose them? But you say, The Head must preside over the members: an excellent Argument to de∣fend all usurpations both in Church and State; for doubtless, they who are in power will call themselves the Heads of all others, if that will secure them from any danger. But this will exempt them from all legal censure: so will your principles, all Governours of the Church though guilty of Here∣sie, Blasphemy, Idolatry, or what crime soever. For still, I hope, the Head must be over the members; and you say, it will bring the Church to confusion, if any shall except against their Superiours as parties. You must therefore absolutely and roundly assert, that it is impossible that the Superiours in

the Church may be guilty of any errour or corruption; or that, if they be, they must never be called to an account for it; or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties. And if in some cases, then the question comes to this, whether the present be some of those cases or no? and here if you make those Superiours Judges again, what you grant∣ed before comes to nothing. This will be more clear by a parallel case: Suppose the setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been done with∣out such an open separation as that of Jeroboam was, but that the people had sensibly declined from the worship of God at Hierusalem, and had agreed to assemble at those places, the High-Priest, and the Priests and Levites having deserted Hierusalem, and approving this alteration of Gods worship: But although this might continue for many years; yet some of the Inferiour Priests and others of the people reading the Book of the Law, they find the worship of God much altered from what it ought to be, which they publish and declare to others, and bring many of the people to be of their mind; but the High-Priest and his Clergy (foreseeing how much it will be to their prejudice to bring things into their due order) they resolutely oppose it. I pray tell me now, what were to be done in this case? Must the people stand wholly to the judgement of those Su∣periour Priests, who have declared themselves to be utterly averse from any Reformation? And if a Council be called, is it reasonable or just, that he should sit as President in it, because he pretends to be the Head over the members? and that if Superiours be once accused as parties, all order and peace is gone? Is there any way left or no, whereby the Church of Israel might be reformed? Yes, say you, by a General Council; but, Must it be such a General Council, wherein the High-Priest sits as President, and all who sit with him sworn to do nothing against him? Is this a Free and Ge∣neral Council likely to reform these things? And is it not all the Justice in the world, that such a Council should be truly Free and General, and those freely heard who complain of these as great corruptions? and that before the most equal and indifferent Judges; or, in case such cannot be assembled, that by the Assistance of the civil power, the Church may be reformed by its parts: so that still these parts be willing to give an account of what they do before any Free and General Council, where the main party accused sits not as President in it? But what then, may you say? will you allow all Inferi∣ours to proceed to a Reformation, in case the Superiours do not presently con∣sent? No: but men ought first to exhibit their complaints of abuses, and the reasons against them, to those who are actually the Superiours of the Church; and that with all due reverence to Authority; but if, notwith∣standing this, they declare themselves willful and obstinate in defence of those things, by the concurrence of the Supream power they may lawfully and justly proceed to a Reformation.

Well, (but you say), all this comes not to your case,* 1.544 for the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime; for you deny not,* 1.545 but that other Bishops in Coun∣cil may proceed against the Pope himself, if the case do necessarily require it, as if he be a Heretick. If you will then grant, that in some cases, as in that of Heresie, the Pope may be excepted against as a Party, you destroy all that ever you say besides. For when the Pope is accused for Heresie in a Council, Who must sit as President in that Council? the Pope himself, or not? If the Pope must sit as President, (for the Head, you say still, must be over the members) Do you think he will ever be condemned for Heresie, if he hath the supream management of the Council? If he may not sit as Pre∣sident

then, by the same reason he ought not to do it, when he is accused of errour or Vsurpation; but the other Bishops of the Church, met together by the Assistance of Christian Princes in a Free and General Council, ought to be Judges in that case, as well as the former. And this is no more then is agreeable to the Doctrine and practise of the Councils of Constance and Basil; for if they had suffered the Popes to have been Presidents in them, or have had that power over them, which the Popes had in the Council of Trent, Do you think they could have done so to the present Popes as they did? But the Popes were grown wiser afterwards; they had these exam∣ples fresh in their memory, and therefore they were resolved never to be ridden by General Councils more. And thence came that continual oppo∣sition to all proposals of the Emperour for a General Council, till necessity put the Pope upon yielding to it: thence came the resolution at Rome, not to venture any more Councils in Germany, for that place breathed too much freedome for the Popes interest, though this were most vehemently desired by, both the Emperour, and German Princes and Bishops: Thence, when a Council must be call'd, he summons it first at Mantua, then at Vicenza, and when none would come thither, at last he yields it should be at Trent, a most inconvenient place for the Germans to come to: when they were there, though all art possible was used to prevent the mention of any thing of Reformation, yet sometimes some free words breaking out, troubled the Legats, who dispatch notice of it to Rome, and receive in∣structions what to do; yet all could not prevent their fears and jealousies, lest something concerning the Popes Interest should be discussed; upon which to make all sure they translate the Council to Bononia, and leave the Emperour's bishops to blow their fingers at Trent. And when upon the Emperour and King of France's Protestations, the Pope saw a necessity of removing it back to Trent again, though any fair pretence would have been taken to have dissolved the Council; yet since that could not be, the greatest care must be used to spin out the time, in hopes of some occur∣rence happening, which might give a plausible pretext for breaking it up. But to be sure nothing must pass, but what was privately dispatched to Rome and approved there first, (a good sure way to prevent any mischief) and thence the Holy Ghost came in a Portmantue once or twice a week, as the common by-word was then. But when, notwithstanding all this, the grand points of the Residence and power of Bishops were so hotly debated by the Spanish Bishops, What arts were used to divert them? when that would not do, How they bait them in Council by the flouting Italians? what private Cabals were kept by the Legats, what dispatching and post∣ing to Rome, what numbers of jolly Italians are made Bishops, and sent away to over-vote them? And when the French-Bishops were come, what Spies did they keep upon them, what bones were thrown to divide the French and Spanish Bishops, what caressing the Cardinal of Lorrain to bring him off by the Court of Rome? And when any others durst speak freely what checks, and frowns, and disgraces did they meet with? And all this to keep the Pope safe, who was still in bodily fear till the Council was end∣ed to his mind; and then what rejoycing, that they had cheated the world so, that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome, had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it. This was truly the Head's presiding over the members: for all the life and motion they had, proceeded from the Influence of their Head, the Pope: Call you this Presiding in a Council? It is rather riding of it, that by the spurring some and bridling

others, they may go just as the Pope would have them. And that this is a true account of it, appears, notwithstanding whatever your Cardinal Palavicino hath been able to object against the impartial history of it; whose two volumes pretended in Answer to it, consist of so many imper∣tinencies, and hath so very little material in it, that a Roman Catholick himself hath declared to the world,* 1.546 that he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer, then ever Father Paul did by his Histo∣ry: By whom, his two great Books are compared to those Night-birds that make a great shew, but are all Feathers and very little Flesh. This then being the way of management of things at Trent, judge you or any reasonable man, Whether the Protestants have not just cause to except against the Presidentship which the Pope had in that Council; and name you any General Council (that was truly accounted so) where ever he had any thing like it? The particulars you mention, will be considered after∣wards.

But you say, All this was because the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime, but what must involve not only the Council,* 1.547 * 1.548 but the whole Church as much as himself. If so, there was the greater reason that he should leave it to the Church in a Free Council to have impartially debated things, with∣out his acting and interposing so much as he did. But the Pope was wiser then to think so; he knew there were many things in the Court of Rome which many other Bishops struck at, as well as the Protestants; and that they desired a Reformation of Abuses as well as the other, especially the German, French, and Spanish Bishops. Nay, it is strange to see how much, interest or prejudice blinds men, that they will not acknowledge now that there was any such need of Reformation, when Pope Adrian 6, confes∣sed at the Dyet at Norimberg, A.D. 1522. by Cheregatus his Legat, that the Popes themselves had been the fountain and cause of all those evils in the Church; In these remarkable words (part of which have been cited already on another occasion) Scimus in hâc sancta Sede, aliquot jam annis, multa abominanda fuisse, abusus in Spiritualibus, excessus in mandatis, & omnia deni{que} in perversum mutata. Nec mirum, si aegritudo à capite in mem∣bra, à summis Pontificibus in alios praelatos descenderit. Omnes nos (sc. prae∣lati Ecclesiastici) declinavimus, unusquis{que} in vi••s suas, nec fuit jamdiu, qui faceret bonum, non fuit us{que} ad unum. Quamobrem necesse est, ut omnes de∣mus gloriam Deo, & humiliemus animas nostras ei: videat unusquisque no∣strûm unde exciderit, & se potius quilibet judicet, quàm à Deo in virga furoris sui judicari velit. Qua in re quod ad nos pertinet, polliceberis, Nos omnem operam adhibituros, ut primum Curia haec, unde forte omne hoc malum processit, reformetur: ut sicut inde corruptio in omnes inferiores emanavit, ita ab ea∣dem sanitas & reformatio omnium emanet. Ad quod procurandum nos tan∣to arctius obligatos reputamus, quando universum mundum hujusmodi refor∣mationem avidiùs desiderare videmus. Can you now for shame say, There was no need of Reformation at that time, and that the Popes were no more concerned then the whole Church? The whole Church was indeed concerned, to see the Court of Rome reformed, and we see the Pope confesseth, that all the world desired a Reformation. Doth not he ingenuously acknowledge, That many abominable things had been for many years in the Holy See (and very holy it was, the mean time) that all things were out of order. That the distemper had fallen from the Head to the members, from the Popes to other Prelates, that they had all gone out of the way, that for a long time there had been none that did good, no not one. That therefore it was necessary, that all

should give glory to God, and humble their souls; and every one see whence he was fallen, and judge himself, rather then be judged by God in the rod of his fury. Wherefore (saith he to his Legat) thou shalt promise for us, that we will use our utmost endeavour, that this Court, from whence all the mischief hath proceeded, may be reformed; that as the corruption hath flowed from thence unto inferiours, so the health and reformation of all may come from thence too. And we look on our selves as the more obliged to procure this, because we see the whole world doth earnestly desire such a Reformation. Whom must we now be∣lieve, the Pope or you? the Pope ingenuously and Christianly bemoaning the corruptions that had been in Popes themselves, and from them had spread to others; or you, who basely and untruly flatter the Popes, as though they needed no Reformation, but what concerned the Council and Church, as well as them? And the Pope gives you the true reason of it, Because the corruptions had been so great at Rome, that from thence they had spread over all others. And can you think now, that the Pope was not justly accused of any crime, but that he might sit as President, and manage the affairs of the Council, as though there had been no need at all of any Reformation? But I remember an observation of Baronius, that the providence of God was so great in watching over the Roman Se••, that the Popes who were un∣fit to Govern it, seldom continued long in it; which he makes upon Siri∣cius his favour to Ruffinus; and such a Pope was this Adrian accounted; this confession of his being very distastful at Rome, he continued not long after it. But yet I know you have another Answer ready at hand, That all this concerned only some abuses in manners and management of affairs, but nothing confessed to be amiss in Doctrine of Faith. However, since it belong∣ed to the Council to reform those abuses, the Pope as an interessed person ought not to have presided there, had it not been his intention to have prevented any real Reformation. For all the Decrees of the Council to that purpose were meerly delusory and nothing of Reformation followed upon them; and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council. And if we gain this, that the Pope ought not to be Judge, where himself is concerned, as to the Reformation of abuses; your former assertion will make the other follow, viz. that in case of Heresie, other Bishops may in Council proceed against the Pope, and, by the same reason, when any errours in Faith are charged upon him, or those who joyn in Communion with him; that such ought to be debated in a full and free Council, where no one concerned may preside to over-aw the rest. But such Presidents should be appointed as were in former General Councils, to whom it belonged to manage the debates of the Council, without any such Power and Jurisdiction over them, as the Pope pretended to have, over all those assembled at Trent. And thus it appears, that what his Lordship said, was just and true, That it is contrary to all Law, Divine, Natural and Humane, that the Pope should be chief Judge in his own Cause. Your instances of Pope Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, and Alexander at the Council of Nice, will be considered in their due place.

* 1.549Which that we may come to, we must examine the matter of fact, as to the Popes presidency in General Councils. His Lordship denying, that the Pope did preside in the Council of Nice, either by himself or Legats, because Hosius was the President of it; You Answer, That Hosius did preside in that Council,* 1.550 and so did likewise Vitus and Vincentius Priests of Rome, but (you say) they all presided as the Popes Legats and not otherwise. This (you say) appears by their subscribing the Conciliary Decrees in the first

place of which no other account can be given; and because Cedrenus and Photius confess that the Pope gave authority to this Council by his Legats; and in the old preface to the Council of Sardica, it is said expresly, that Hosius was the Popes Legat, and the same acknowledged by Hincmarus, and Gelasius Cyzicenus, whom you prove that Photius had read. These being then all the Evidences you produce for the Popes Presidency at the Nicene Council, we are obliged to afford them a particular consideration.

Your first argument, which Bellarmin and Baronius likewise insist on, is the order of subscription, because the name of Hosius is set first; but, if we mark it, this argument supposeth that which it should prove. For thus it proceeds, Hosius subscribed first, and therefore he was the Roman Legat; Hosius was the Roman Legat, and therefore he subscribed first: For it supposeth that the first Subscription did of right belong only to the Roman Legat; which we may as well deny, by an argument just like it, Vitus and Vincentius did not subscribe first, and therefore the Roman Legats did not subscribe first. But you ask, Why then did Hosius subscribe before the Patriarchs, and other Bishops, of greater dignity than himself. I answer, Because Hosius was President of the Council, and not they. But if you ask, Why they chose him President before others, the Nicene Fathers must answer you, and not I. But you say, Cedrenus and Photius confess, That the Pope gave Authority to the Nicene Council by his Legats; but, How comes that to prove, that Hosius was one of those Legats? Photius I am sure in his Book of the seven Synods (first published in Greek by Justellus out of the Sedan Library) sayes no such thing, but only mentions the two Presbyters who were there the Roman-Bishops Legats. And Cedrenus only mentions the Roman Legats amongst those who were chief in that Council, reckoning up the several Patriarchs. Your old preface to the Sardican Synod (supposed of Dionysius Exiguus) is no competent testimony, being of a later Author, and a Roman too: And Hincmarus is much younger than he, and there∣fore neither of their testimonies hath any force against the ancient Wri∣ters; neither hath that of Gelasius Cyzicenus, who lived under Basiliscus A. D. 476. And that you may not think I do you wrong, to deprive you of his testimony, you may see,* 1.551 How freely Baronius passeth his censure upon those Acts under the name of Nicene Council. Sed, ut liberè dicam, somnia puto haec omnia; that I may speak freely, I account them no better than dreams: And gives this very good reason for it; because ever since the time of that Council, all persons have been so extremely desirous of the Acts of that Council, and yet could never obtain them. But that which comes in the rear, transcends all the rest, which is, That Photius, though a Schismatical Greek, and bitter enemy of the Roman Church, witnesseth he had read this Book of Gelasius, and in it the above-cited testimony. And, I pray, What follows from thence? I hope Photius had read many other Books in that excellent collection of his Bibliotheca besides this; and, Will you say, that Photius believed all that he there saith he had read? No, but you say, That thereupon he confesses that the said Hosius was Legat for the Bi∣shop of Rome, at the Council of Nice. But you would have done well to have told us, Where this Confession is extant: for you seem to insinuate, as though it were in the same place where he mentions the reading this Book of Gelasius: but he only saith, That Gelasius affirms it,* 1.552 adding no∣thing at all of his own judgement; and in his Book of the seven Synods, where he declares his own mind, he only mentions Vitus and Vincentius,* 1.553 as the Legats of the Roman See: And brings in Hosius afterwards, not joyn∣ing

him with Vitus and Vincentius, but with Alexander of Constantinople, and Sylvester and Julius of Rome, and Alexander and Athanasius of Alex∣andria, whom he makes the Chief in the Council. For if Photius had in∣tended to have made Hosius one of the Popes Legats; there was all the rea∣son in the world he should have set him before Vitus and Vincentius, who were only Presbyters. And that the Pope had no other Legats there but these two Presbyters, we have the consent of all the ancient Ecclesiastical Historians; Eusebius mentioning the absence of the Roman Bishop, because of his Age adds,* 1.554 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, His Presbyters being present, supplied his place; so Theodoret the Bishop of Rome could not be present, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but he sent two Presbyters with power to give his assent; not to preside over the Council. To the same purpose Sozomen,* 1.555 Nicephorus, Zonaras speak. And it is very strange not one of all these Historians should mention this, if Hosius had presided there as Legat of the Bishop of Rome; and much more, that Hosius should not sub∣scribe first in that capacity, but only as Bishop of Corduba; for the Popes Legats do not use to be so forgetful of their place and honour. It seems then very plain, that the Pope had no manner of Presidency at the Council ef Nice: We come therefore to following Councils.

You grant, That in the second General Council, Nectarius Bishop of Con∣stantinople was President,* 1.556 * 1.557 and not the Pope or his Legats. But the reason (you say) was, because Pope Damasus having first summoned that Council to be held at Constantinople, and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being ac∣cordingly there met, the Pope, for some reasons, altered his mind, and would have had them come to Rome, to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled: which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner, al∣ledged such arguments as the Pope remained satisfied with them. So the Council (you say) was upon the matter held in two places, at Rome, and Con∣stantinople. So that while the Pope presided in the Council at Rome, and gave allowance to their proceedings at Constantinople, and that by reason of their entercourse, they were looked on but as one Council in effect, and the Pope to have presided therein. In all this you discover, How much you take up things upon trust, and utter them with great confidence, when they seem for your purpose, although they are built upon notorious mi∣stakes in Ecclesiastical History; as I shall make it plain to you this Answer of yours is. For neither was the General Council at Constantinople ever in the least summoned by the Pope, neither did it ••it at the same time that the Council at Rome under Damasus did; neither were any Letters sent from that Council to the Pope; and therefore certainly Pope Damasus could not in any sense be said to preside there. These things, I know, make you wonder at first; but I shall undertake to make it appear, How much your great Masters (I need not name them to you) have abused your credulity in this story. We are to know then, that the Emperour Theodosius ha∣ving been newly admitted into a share of the Empire by Gratian, and the Eastern parts of it being allotted to him, he considering what a deplorable condition the Churches of those parts were in, by reason of the factions and heresies which were among them, judges it the best expedient to call a Council at Constantinople; to see if there were any hopes to bring the Church to any peace. For this purpose 150. Bishops meet from the several Provinces at Constantinople, who condemn Macedonius, publish a new Creed, make several Canons, accept of Gregory Nazianzen's resignation of the See of Constantinople, chuse Nectarius in his room, and on the death of

Meletius at Antioch, elect Flavianus to succeed him, make a Synodical Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius, giving him an account of their proceed∣ings, and so dissolve. This is the short of the narration of it in Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen.* 1.558 But as soon as the report of their actions was come into the Western parts, great discontents are taken at their proceedings, especially at the election of Flavianus to the See at Antioch; because the Church of Rome had declared it self in favour of Paulinus at Antioch, during the life of Meletius, and therefore by no means would they now yield to the succession of Flavianus. Upon this, Damasus sollicits the Emperour Gra∣tian for a General Council, that the cause might be heard; and, that the Eastern Bishops might meet too, he sends other Letters to Theodosius to the same purpose; upon the intimation of which, the Eastern Bishops, who ei∣ther were detained at Constantinople by several occurrences there, or were sent again out of their Provinces thither, assemble together, and write a Synodical Epistle to Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerian, &c. wherein they give an account, Why they could not come to Rome, because the Eastern Churches could not, in so divided and busie a time, be left destitute of their Bishops, and therefore they desire to be excused; but however, they had sent Cyriacus, Eusebius, and Priscianus, as their Legats thither. This excuse the Emperour Theodosius accepted of, and Damasus and his Council were fain to rest satisfied with it; only some of Paulinus his party met him there, as Epiphanius and S. Hierom (although S. Hierom being no Bishop, could only shew his good will, and take that opportunity of re∣turning to Rome.) What this Council did under Damasus, we are to seek; for both Baronius and Binius confess, that the Acts of that Council, are wholly lost; only Baronius thinks,* 1.559 that the condemnation of Apollinaris and Timotheus (which Theodoret mentions) to have been done before; and that Paulinus was restored to the See of Antioch by this Council: which seems the more probable, in that Paulinus the next year returns to Antioch; and because the Bishops of Rome afterward took his part, and defended his successour against Flavianus in the See of Antioch. This being the true account of those proceedings, let now any indifferent person judge, Whe∣ther you were not much put to it, when you are fain to confound two Councils held at several times on several occasions, on purpose to blind the Reader, and to make him believe that Pope Damasus had somewhat to do, in calling and presiding in the General Council at Constantinople; because he requested the meeting of the Bishops again the year after the General Council. And the truth of this, is so plain, that Baronius and Binius con∣fess the difference of these two Councils,* 1.560 both as to the times and occa∣sions of them. Baronius placeth the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople A. D. 381. Eucherius and Syagrius being COSS. in May:* 1.561 but the other Council at Constantinople, he placeth the year after, A. D. 382. Syagrius and Antonius COSS. at which time likewise the Council at Rome sate. And so Binius reckons this Council as a second Council at Constantinople under Damasus, and, in all things concerning the times of this and the former,* 1.562 follows Baronius exactly. So much are the two great Cardinals, Bellar∣min and Perron mistaken,* 1.563 when they would have the Council at Constan∣tinople called Oecumenical on this account, because there was a Council at Rome sitting under Damasus,* 1.564 at the same time approving what was done at Constantinople. Whereas the occasion of the Council at Rome was given by some of the last Acts of the Oecumenical Council, viz. the election of Flavianus. But that this could not be, that those two Councils at Rome,

and Constantinople, should sit together at the same time, and on the same account,* 1.565 appears by the Synodical Epistle of the Council the year following sent to Damasus, which is exemplified both in Binius and Baronius, and is originally extant in Theodoret. Although Binius placeth it at the end of the Oecumenical Council, but Baronius much more fairly in the next year, as being the Act of the second Council.* 1.566 Now there are two things in that Synodical Epistle by which I shall prove it impossible, that either the Letters of Pope Damasus did concern the calling of the Oecumenical Coun∣cil, or that the sitting of the Council at Rome, and the General one at Con∣stantinople, could be at the same time. The first is from the date of those Letters, which is thus expressed there: that they met together at Constan∣tinople, having received the Letters which were sent the year before from them to the Emperour Theodosius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the Synod at Aquileia.* 1.567 Now the Synod at Aquileia by Baronius his computation, was held the same year A. D. 381. in which the Oecumenical Council at Con∣stantinople was held, and much later in the year too, for this was held in the Nones of September,* 1.568 and the other in May; and so much is likewise confessed by Binius in his notes on that Council. Now let me demand of you, Whether is it impossible that Damasus should, by his Letters, summon the Oecumenical Council, when the date of those Letters to Theodosius, is so long after the sitting of it? But besides this, these Eastern Bishops in that Council, which sate after these Letters of Damasus, clearly distinguished themselves from the Oecumenical Council of the year foregoing: for, after they had given a brief account of their Faith, they referr the Pope and Western Council to that declaration of Faith which had been made the year before by the Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· Is it possible then any thing should be more evident, than that this Council assembled upon the Letters of Damasus to Theodosius, and sitting with the Council at Rome, is clearly distinct from the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople? And thus I hope I have dispelled those mists which you would cast before the Readers eyes, by confounding these two Councils, and thereby offering to prove that the Pope had some kind of very remote Presidency in the second General Council. Which is so far from being true, that there is not any intimation in any of the ancient Historians, Theodoret, Socrates, or Sozomen, that the Pope, or any of the Western Bishops, had any thing at all to do in it. But you will ask, How comes it then to be accounted an Oecumenical Council? For this indeed Baronius would fain find out some hand that Damasus had in it, or else he cannot conceive how it should become Oecumenical; but all the proof he produceth, is, Because in the Acts of the sixth Council it is said, that Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius: and so I hope he might do by declaring his consent to the Doctrine decreed in this Council; not that thereby his approbation made it Oecumenical. And, as that Doctrine was received, and that Confession of Faith embraced all over the world, so that Council became Oecumenical. For I cannot see but that if Damasus had stood up for Macedonius, if the Decrees against him had been re∣ceived by the Catholick Church, it had been never the less Oecumenical in the sense of Antiquity: That testimony which Baronius brings out of his own Library, and a Copy of the Vatican, expressing that Damasus did summon the Council at Constantinople, is not to be taken against the consent of the ancient Church-Historians; it being well known what Interess those Roman Copies have a long time driven on. I deny not therefore but that

the Council of Constantinople was assented to by Damasus, and the Western Bishops, in the matters of Faith there decided, but I utterly deny that Da∣masus had any thing to do in the Presidency over that Council. So that we find a Council alwaies acknowledged to be Oecumenical, in which the Pope had no Presidency at all; and this very Instance sufficiently refutes your Hypothesis, viz. that the Popes Presidency is necessary to a General Council.

In the third General Council held at Ephesus A. D. 431. it is agreed on both sides, that S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, was the President of it:* 1.569 but the Question is, In what capacity he sate there, whether in his own, or as Legat of Celestine Bishop of Rome? All the proof you produce for the latter, is, That it appears by a Letter written to him by the Pope, long before he sent any other Legats to that Council:* 1.570 in which Letter he gives S. Cyril charge to supply his place, as is testified by Evag••ius, Prosper, Photius, and divers other Authours. But here again you offer to confound two things, which are of a distinct nature: for you would have your Reader believe, that this Letter was sent by Coelestine to Cyril, in order to his Presidentship in the Council, whereas this Letter was sent the year before, without any relation to the Council; as appears by the series of the story: which is briefly this; the differences in the Eastern Churches increasing about the Opinions broached by Nestorius, S. Cyril of Alexandria chiefly appearing in opposition to them they both write (much about the same time) to Pope Coelestine, impeaching each other of Heresie. But before Coelestine had read the Letters from Nestorius in vindication of himself, Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria comes with several dispatches from S. Cyril, wherein a large account is given of the heresie and actions of Nestorius; upon which the Pope calls a Council at Rome, and therein examines the allegations on both sides, which being done, the Council condemns Nestorius, and pas∣seth this sentence on him, That ten daies should be allowed him (after notice given) for his repentance; and, in case of obstinacy, he should be declared ex∣communicate. And for executing this sentence, Coelestine commits his power to Cyril; not as though it belonged to the Pope only to do it, but that by this means there might appear the Consent of the Western with the Eastern Bishops, in putting Nestorius out of the communion of the Catholick Church. S. Cyril having received these Letters by the return of Possidonius,* 1.571 dated the third of the Ides of August, as appears by the Letters extant in Baronius, calls a Council at Alexandria, in which four Legats are decreed to be sent to Constantinople in pursuance of the sentence against Nestorius, they de∣liver the Letters of Coelestine and Cyril to him, he returns them no answer at all, but addresses himself to the Emperour Theodosius, and complains of the persecutions of Cyril, which occasioned a very sharp Letter of the Empe∣rour to him, charging him with disturbing the Churches Peace. But this was not all; for Cyril having with the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Alexandria, sent twelve Anathematisms to be subscribed by Nestorius, he was so far from it, that he charges Cyril with the heresie of Apollinaris in them, and sends them to Johannes Antiochenus, who (with the Syrian Bishops of his Diocese) joyn with Nestorius in the impeachment of Cyril. So that by this means the sentence against Nestorius could not be put in exe∣cution, because of the dissent of the Eastern Bishops, and that S. Cyril stood charged with Heresie as well as the other. Things being grown to this height, Theodosius calls a General Council at Ephesus, to be held the en∣suing year, writes to all the Metropolitans to appear there at the time ap∣pointed, and bring such Bishops with them, as they thought convenient;

but what contentions happened there between the two parties, is not here our business to relate; but the Emperour foreseeing what disturbance was like to be there, sent the Count Candidianus for better management of the affairs of the Council. Now S. Cyril and his party having the advan∣tage of the other, both in number and forwardness of being there, Cyril sits as President among them. The Question now is, Whether he sate there by virtue of that Legantine Power he had for the excommunicating Nestorius the year before, or not? or only as Patriarch of Alexandria, and chief of that party? But by what authority he should challenge to be President of the Council, because he had been deputed by Coelestine to act his part in the excommunicating Nestorius, I think is somewhat hard to un∣derstand. Neither doth any thing appear in the Council which gives any ground for it; for Cyril subscribes to it meerly as Patriarch of Alexandria, the Council on all occasions call him, and Memnon of Ephesus their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when they speak of Coelestine, after his Legats came, they say, He did only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, assist together with them in Council: But, Why should Coe∣lestine send other Legats afterwards, viz. Arcadius, Philippus, and Pro∣jectus, if S. Cyril supplied the Popes place there already? Yet, although we should grant, that before the Legats came, Cyril did supply the place of Coelestine, yet it doth not follow, that he sate President of the Council on that account: but only to shew the concurrence of Coelestine with the Council in matter of Doctrine; and this there was good reason for, be∣cause Coelestine had fully declared himself to Cyril concerning that already. And this was usual in the Councils, as appears in this very Council by Flavia∣nus Bishop of Philippi; subscribing likewise in the place of Rufus of Thes∣salonica. So that if we grant Cyril to sit in the Council as Legat of Coelestine, yet it doth not follow, that he was President of the Council in that capacity; for the other was only to testifie his consent, this required a particular Com∣mission to that purpose. So that he might give a vote in the Council for Coelestine, and yet sit (as he did) President of the Council as Patriarch of Alexandria. Thus it being manifested, that in the three first General Councils, the Pope sate not either by himself or his Legats as President, it is sufficiently proved thereby, that his Presidency is no necessary condition to a General Council; and if not, then we say, It is unjust and unreasonable he should challenge it, when he is the person mainly accused. But in the mean while it is not at all necessary, that we should deny that ever he sate as President in any other General Council; for being the Bishop of the chief See, Why should he in a case of general concernment to the Church, as that of Chalcedon, not be allowed by his Legats to have the prime place: But there wants sufficient evidence too, that these were properly the Presidents of that Council. In the next at Constantinople you grant, that Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sate President; but you say, That he acknowledged this priviledge to be due to Pope Vigilius. But, How came it to pass then, that he would not sit there, though then at Constantinople? It appears by the many frivolous excuses he made, that he durst not trust himself in the Council, for fear that authority should not be given him which he expected. For that hath alwaies been the subtilty of the Popes in those elder times, when they began to encroach, not to venture them∣selves in presence in a General Council, for fear of opposition, but by their absence they reserved to themselves a liberty to declare their dissent, when any Acts passed which did not please them. As Leo did in the case of the Council of Chalcedon. But however, this is evident from the fifth

General Council, that the Popes Presidency was not then thought at all ne∣cessary. What was done in following Councils, is not material to our purpose, because it doth already sufficiently appear, that the Popes Pre∣sidency is not necessary to a General Council, and therefore you conclude with a notorious falsity, in saying with Bellarmin, That the Pope hath been possest full 1500 years of the right of presiding in General Councils.

His Lordships third exception against the Council of Trent, is,* 1.572 That the place was not free, but either in, or too near the Popes dominions. To this you Answer, That certainly Trent is not within the Popes dominion:* 1.573 but it is well enough known, that Trent was under the sole jurisdiction of the Bishop, and the Bishop to be sure was under the Popes dominion, having been particularly obliged too, by receiving a Cardinal's Hat. And there∣fore it was not without just reason that the place was protested against, not only by the German Protestants, as being out of Germany where the States of the Empire had often promised the Council should be; at the Diet at Norimberg 1524, at Auspurg 1526. Spire 1529. Ratisbone 1532, 1541. again at Norimberg 1543. and last of all at Spire 1544. but as a most inconvenient place for them to come to; being a weeks journey (as they say) from the borders of Germany, seated in a barren and almost in∣accessible place, having no freedom of passage almost amidst the Alps; This place, I say, was not only protested against by them, as being con∣trary to the promises made to them; but the German Bishops made it their earnest request, that the Council might be held in Germany; for at Trent, they said they could neither be present themselves, nor send any Legats thither: and particularly instance in the unpassableness of the Alps be∣tween them and Trent; and that it was rather in the borders of Italy then Germany. And the Pope himself in his Answer to the German Bishops, and the Emperours Protestation upon the removal of the Council from Trent to Bononia, insists upon the inconvenience of Trent for the long residence of the Bishops there. And in behalf of the Protestants declaring against this place in regard of the unsafeness of it, the places about being all under the Popes authority: du Ranchin tells you, That it is an exception allowable by the Doctors of the Canon Law, who all agree,* 1.574 that an exception against the safety of the place is pertinent, and ought to be admitted; that it is good, both by the Civil Law and the Law of Nature, that a man summon'd to a place where any danger threatens him, is not bound to appear, nor to send his Proctour, and that a Judge is bound to assign the parties a place of safety for the hearing of their cause, otherwise there is just cause of appeal. That the Council of Pisa excepted against appearing at Rome on the same accounts, and if they durst not venture to Rome upon the offer of safe-conduct, much less rea∣son had the Protestants to do it, to such a place as Trent, a City, by reason of the neighbouring woods very subject to treacheries and ambushments; that the very designing such a place yielded ground of fear and suspicion, especially to such as had not forgotten the late examples of John Husse, and Hierom of Prague at the Council of Constance. That the States of Ger∣many in the diet at Francford A. D. 1338. pleaded the nullity of the Popes excommunication of Lewis 5, because he was cited to Avignon where the Pope was Lord of the place; and the place being not free for him to appear at, the summons were not Canonical, but void and invalid in Law. This and many other instances are there brought by the same learned Authour to justifie the Protestants in not appearing at Trent, because the place was not free nor safe; although the Authour seems not to have been one

himself. All these things being considered, he must have been an Infidel indeed, who would pronounce Trent to have been the most indifferent place for both parties to meet at. For what you say, That it might have been as unsafe for the Pope and his party, if it had been in Germany: there is no reason at all for it, because of the Emperours openly owning that In∣terest; but if you plead the warrs of Germany which then broke out, I hope that may serve as a further plea for the Protestants, who were in a good condition to go to a free Council about matters of Religion, when a war was already begun upon them upon the account of Religion, as most evidently appears, not only by the supplies sent by the Pope, but by the transactions afterwards between the Pope and the Emperour, in some of which it is expresly confessed.

But supposing the place had been never so free, there is another great Exception remaining still,* 1.575 viz. That none had suffrage, but such as were sworn to the Pope and Church of Rome, and professed enemies to all that call'd for Reformation or a free Council. To this you Answer, 1. That it is no new thing for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope;* 1.576 for St. Gregory mentions it as an ancient custome in his time; and therefore this objection would serve as much against ancient General Councils as this of Trent. 2. That the Bishops oath doth not deprive them of the liberty of their suffrage; nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself, if they see just cause; but only that they will be obedient to him, so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sa∣cred Canons of the Church. But what falshood and fraud lies in both these Answers, it will not take up much time to discover. Could you without blushing offer to say, That no other oath was taken by the Bishops at the Council of Trent then what was taken in ancient General Councils? for so much your words imply, when you say, That the same objection would have held as well against them as this of Trent. Why do you not produce some instance of any oath taken to the Pope in any of the first General Councils? I dare challenge you to bring any footsteps of any such thing in any anci∣ent Council; and you must needs have exceedingly hardened your fore∣head that durst let fall any thing tending that way. It was in much later times before that oath of Canonical obedience from Bishops to their Metro∣politan came up; and when it did, no more took any such oath to the Bi∣shop of Rome, then such as were under his Metropolitical jurisdiction. In your citation of Gregory, you would let us see how far you can out-go Bel∣larmin himself in these things.* 1.577 For Bellarmin only proves, that it is not new for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope; but you say, That Gregory mentions it as an ancient custom in his time, which is egregiously false. For there is not one word in all that Epistle implying any thing of former custome, neither doth it contain an oath of Canonical obedience made by every Bishop at his consecration,* 1.578 but only a Form of re∣nunciation of Heresie by any Bishop who comes off from it to the Catholick Church, and so the title of it is, Promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresin suam anathematizantis; and what is this, I pray, to the oath taken by every Bishop at his consecration? wherein he swears, to defend and retain the Roman Pa∣pacy, and the Royalties of St. Peter (so their new Pontifical hath it, whereas in the old one it was regulas Sanctorum Patrum) against all men. And was this no more then a bare oath of Canonical obedience? The first mention we meet with of any oath of Canonical obedience taken by men in Orders, is in the eleventh Council of Toledo cap. 10. held, saith Loaysa, A. D. 675. and

therein indeed they say it is expedibile, a matter they judge expedient, That those in orders should, Promissionis suae vota sub cautione spondere, bind themselves by promise to observe the Catholick Faith, and obey their Su∣periours: but here is nothing at all concerning any oath to be taken by all Bishops to the Pope, though Bellarmin produce it to that purpose. For that was much later then the time of this Council, it beginning at the time of the contests between the Popes and Princes about Investitures; then the Pope to secure as many as he could to himself, binds them in oath of Fealty and Allegiance, rather then Canonical obedience to himself: by which, as Spalatensis truly saith, he makes the Bishops his slaves and vassals. And therefore in another place, he justly wonders,* 1.579 that any Christian Princes will suffer any Bishops to make that Homage by this oath to the Pope, which is only due to themselves. For, saith he, That oath which was only of Ca∣nonical obedience before, they have turned it into absolute homage to the Pope, so that none can be consecrated Bishops without it. But yet you would per∣swade us, that notwithstanding this oath they may proceed and vote against the Pope himself. Surely, Pope Pius 2 was of another mind, who (as the Appendix to Vrspergensis tells us) in an Epistle to the Chapter at Mentz, saith, That to speak truth against the Pope, is to break their oath. But all this will more evidently appear, if we produce the form of the Oath it self, I mean not that in the old Roman Pontifical, but that which was taken in Julius the third's time, which was in the time of the sitting of the Council of Trent. In which, besides in the first place a promise of obedience to the Pope and his Successours, and a promise of concealment of all his Councils, there are these express words, Jura, honores, privilegia,* 1.580 & autho∣ritatem Romanae Ecclesiae, Domini nostri Papae & successorum praedictorum conservare, defendere, augere, & promovere curabo. I will take care to pre∣serve, defend, increase, and promote the rights, honours, priviledges, and au∣thority of the Roman Church, and of our Lord the Pope and his Successours aforesaid; but lest this should not be full enough, there follows another clause, Nec ero in Concilio, in facto, seu tractatu, in quibus contra Dominum nostrum, vel Romanam Ecclesiam, aliqua sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum, juris, honoris, statûs, & potestatis eorum, machinentur. Et, si talia à quibus∣dam tractari cognovero, aut procurari, impediam hoc pro posse; & quantocyus potero commodè significabo eidem Domino nostro, vel alteri per quem ad ipsius notitiam possit pervenire. I will not be in any Council, action, or debate, in which they shall plot or contrive any thing to the prejudice of our Lord the Pope, or the Roman Church, or of any persons, right, honour, state or power, belong∣ing to them. Was not this now a fit Oath to send Bishops to a free Coun∣cil with? where the main thing to have been debated had been the usurped power of the Pope and Church of Rome. He that can believe a Council made up of such persons (who judge this Oath lawful) to be Free, may think those men free to rebell against their Soveraign, who had but just taken an Oath of Allegiance to him. Not that the Pope had any right or power to impose it, or that the Oath is in it self lawful; but that those who judged both these things true, could not possibly be more obliged, not to act in any measure against the Pope then they were. And there∣fore the Pope knew what he did, when he utterly denied to absolve the Bishops of this Oath, which the States of the Empire pressed him to, as ne∣cessary in order to the Freedom of the Council: No, said he, I do not mean to have my hands bound up so. He knew well enough, how much his In∣terest lay at stake, if the Bishops were released of this Oath, and therefore

he was resolved to hold them fast enough to himself by it. What re∣strictions or limitations can you now find out in this Oath, whereby these Bishops might freely debate the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome? They that swear, not to be in any Council or debate against the Pope, are not like to make any Free Council about the matters then in dispute. And, Do you think now the Protestants had no cause to except against this Council, where all the Bishops were swore before-hand to maintain and de∣fend that which they most complained of. And, Were there nothing else but this Oath, so unheard of a thing in all ancient Councils, so contrary to the ends of a Free Council; this were enough to keep them from ever submitting to the judgement of such a Council as that of Trent was.

And yet this is not all neither: for his Lordship adds, That the Pope himself, to shew his charity, had declared and pronounced the appellants Here∣ticks, before they were condemned by the Council. I hope, saith he, an As∣sembly of enemies are no lawful Council; and I think that the Decrees of such a one are, omni jure nulla, and carry their nullity with them through all Law. All the Answer you give to this,* 1.581 is, That the Pope did nothing therein but in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do, and of the Decrees of General Councils, which had already condemned their Opinions for Heresie. You mend the matter well: for it seems the Pope not only did so, but was bound to do so. For shame then never talk of a Free and General Council, to debate those things which you say were already condemned for Heresies by General Councils. One may now see, What the Safe-conduct had been for the Protestants, if they had come to Trent; for it seems they were condemned for Hereticks before they came there, and no∣thing then was wanting but execution. But if the Protestants Opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils, Why was the Council of Trent at all summoned? Why was the world so deceived with the promises of a Free and General Council? Why did they proceed to make new Decrees in these matters? In what ancient General Councils will you shew us the Popes Supremacy, the Infallibility of the Church of Rome decreed, that those who held the contrary should be accounted Hereticks? Speak them out, that we may find our selves therein condemned. Give us a Catalogue of the rest of your Tridentine Articles, and name us the General Councils in which they were decreed as they are there? But this is not a work for you to meddle in. However, What folly and madness would it be to account that a Free Council, in which the things to be debated are looked on as condemned Heresies already, and no liberty allowed to any persons to debate them?

The last Exception you say of his Lordship, is, against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council;* 1.582 and in the first place he men∣tions the Greeks whom he takes (say you) to have been unjustly excluded.* 1.583 To this you say, 1. The Pope called all who had right to come: (you should say, all whom he would judge to have right to come.) 2. The Greeks, by reason of their notorious Schism, had excluded themselves: And, Might not the Greeks (if they were in condition) every whit as well hold a General Council among themselves. and say, The Latins had excluded themselves by their noto∣rious Schism. You say, It is confessed that no known Heretick or Schisma∣tick, hath right to sit in Council: but still you make your own selves Judges, Who are Orthodox, and who Hereticks and Schismaticks; and, Might not the Greeks again say the very same of you? and for all that I know, with much more truth and reason. It was then very like to be a Gene∣general

Council, when the Pope and his party must sit as Judges, Who were to be admitted, and who not: Might not the Donatists in Africa have call'd their Council of seventy Bishops an Oecumenical Council upon the same grounds, because they accounted none to belong to the Church, but such as were of their own party? And if they did not belong to the Church, they could have no right to sit in Council. It seems, the more uncharitable you are, the freer your Councils are; For the Pope may, by pronouncing men Here∣ticks and Schismaticks, keep them from coming to Councils, and appear∣ing against him there: and the Council be never the less General for all that. If the Greeks be not called to the Council, they may thank them∣selves, they are notorious Schismaticks, and, if we believe you, Hereticks too; If the Protestants be not admitted, it is their own fault they are con∣demned Hereticks; if none appear from any other more remote Churches, still the same plea will serve to exclude them all. For my part I much approve the saying of Eugenius in the Council of Florence, when they spake of the paucity of Bishops for a General Council, That where he and the Emperour, and the Patriarch of Constantinople were present, there was a General Coun∣cil, though there were no more. And Pope Pius the fourth might have saved a great deal of mony in his purse, with which he maintained his Bishops Er∣rant at that Council, had he been of the same mind. But the scene of things was altered in Europe; there were such clamours made for a Gene∣ral Council, that something must be done to satisfie the world: and, as long as the Pope knew how to manage the business, there would be nothing could breed so great danger in it. He therefore barely summons a Council, without acquainting any of the Eastern Patriarchs with it (as was the cu∣stom in the ancient General Councils) among whom it was debated after the Emperours indicting of it; these summoned by the Emperours order their Metropolitans, the Metropolitans the Bishops; the Bishops they agreed among themselves, who should go to the Council, who on that ac∣count might be said to represent those Churches from whence they came. What was there like this in the Council of Trent? What messages were there sent to the Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexan∣andria? What Metropolitans came thence? What Bishops by the con∣sent of those Churches? And, if there were nothing of all this, What bold∣ness is it to call this a General Council? Just by the same figure that your Church is called the Catholick Church; which is▪ by an insufferable Catachre∣sis. And must six fugitive Greek-Bishops give vote here for all the Eastern Churches; and two fugitive English-Bishops for all the Church of England? I do not then at all wonder, How easily this might be a General Council, though there were so very few persons in most of the Sessions of it. But you say, There was no need of any particular sending from the Greeks, as the case then stood, and still continues;* 1.584 'tis sufficient they were called by the Pope. Sufficient indeed for your purpose; but not at all for a General Council; For if the Greek Churches had been in condition to have sent an equal number of Eastern to Western Bishops, the Popes would rather have lost all, than stood to the judgement of such a Council. And this you know well enough, for all your saying, That the Greek Church condemns the Pro∣testants: You dread the Greek Churches meeting you in a Free General Council; and therefore to prevent that, they must be called Schismaticks, and excluded as such, though you would never permit the debate of the Schism in a Free Council. As the case then stood, and still continues, there was no need of sending. And, Why so? Is it because those Churches were

then under persecutions, and are still, and therefore there is no hopes that the Bishops should come to a General Council? But all that thence follows, is, that as things stood then, and do still, there can be no truly General Council; and that is a just inference: but I suppose you rather mean, be∣cause those Churches were then in Schism, and are still, which still disco∣vers what a wonderful good opinion you have of your selves, and how un∣charitable you are to all others. And so great is the excellency of your Bishops, that one of them may represent a whole Nation; and so about fifty will be more than sufficient for the whole world. And therefore I rather wonder there were so many Bishops at Trent; for, if the Pope pleased, as he made Patriarchs, Primats, and Arch-Bishops of such places where they never durst go (which he knew well enough) it had been but appointing such to stand for such a Nation, and such for another, and a small number might have served turn, without putting any to the trouble of coming from any forein Countries at all. For otherwise, if we go about to examine the numbers of Bishops, by their proportions to the Churches they come from, as it ought to be in General Councils, we shall find a most pitiful ac∣count in the Council of Trent.

For as his Lordship saith, Is it to be accounted a General Council, that in many Sessions had scarce ten Arch-Bishops,* 1.585 or forty or fifty Bishops present? In all the Sessions under Paul 3. but two Frenchmen,* 1.586 and sometimes none; as in the sixth, under Julius 3. when Henry 2. of France protested against that Council. And from England but one or two (by your own confession) and those not sent by Authority. And the French (he saith) held off till the Car∣dinal of Lorrain was got to Rome. As for the Spaniards, they laboured for many things upon good grounds, but were most unworthily over-born. Now to this you have a double Answer ready, 1. That mission or deputation, is not of absolute necessity,* 1.587 but only of Canonical provision, when time or state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent, will permit; in other cases, it sufficeth they be called by the Pope. 2. For those who were absent, the impediment was not on the Councils part; and in the latter Sessions (wherein all that had been formerly desined by the Council, was de Novo confirmed and ratified by the unanimous consent of all the Prelates) 'tis manifest, the Council was so full, that in the number of Bishops it exceeded some of the first four General Councils. I begin with your first Answer, which necessarily implies, that a General Council is not so called by representation of the whole Church, but by rela∣tion to the Popes Summons. So that if the Pope make a General Summons, that must be called a General Council, though none be present but such whom the Pope shall think fit to call thither. But, Where do you find any such account of a General Council in all Antiquity? I have given you instances already of General Councils, in which the Popes had nothing at all to do with the summoning of them; nay, all the four General Councils were called by the Emperour, and not by the Pope, as any one may see, that doth not wilfully blind himself. The Pope sometimes did beseech and intreat the Emperour to call a Council, but never presumed to do it himself in those daies. And this is evident, not only from the Historians, but from the authentick Acts of the Councils themselves; and Cardinal Perron's di∣stinction of the temporal and spiritual call of Councils, is as ill grounded as the Popes temporal and spiritual power; there being no foundation at all in Anquity, nor any reason in the thing, for two such several Calls, the one by the Emperour, and the other by the Pope. But this is a meer evasion, the evidence being so clear, as to the Emperours calling those Councils, the Ni∣cene

by Constantine, the Constantinopolitan by Theodosius, the Ephesine by the Junior Theodosius, the Chalcedonian by Martian and Valentinian: And this is so clear, that Bellarmine in his Recognitions confesseth his mi∣stake about the Constantinopolitan Council being called by the Letters of Pope Damasus; and acknowledges that to be true,* 1.588 which I at large proved be∣fore, That the Synodical Epistle was not sent by the General Council, but by another the year after. If then the calling of Councils belongs not of right to the Pope, it is not his summoning which can make a General Council, with∣out mission and deputation from those Churches whom they are to re∣present. And any other sense of a General Council is contrary to the sense of Antiquity, and is forced, and unreasonable in it self. For it must be either absolutely general, or by representation; none ever imagined yet an absolutely General Council, and therefore it must be so called as it doth re∣present; if so, then there is a necessity of such a deputation. But here a Question might arise, Whether those Deputies of Churches have power by their own votes to oblige the Churches they are sent from, by conveying in a General Council; or else only as they carry with them the sense of those Churches whom they represent: and this latter seems more agreeable to the nature of a truly General Council, whose acts must oblige the whole Church. For that can only be said to be the act of the whole Church, which is done by the Bishops delivering the sense of all particular Churches; and it is not easie to understand, How the Vniversal Church can be obliged any other way; unless it be proved, that General Councils are instituted by some positive Law of Christ; so that what is done by the Bishops in them, must oblige the Catholick Church; and then we must find out not only the Institution it self, but the way and manner how General Councils should be called, of which the Scripture is wholly silent. And therefore there is no reason that there should be any other General Council imagined, but by such a representation; and in order to this, the consent of all those Churches must be known by the particular Bishops, before they can concurr with others, so as to make a General Council. The most suitable way then to a General Council, is, that the Summons of them being published by the consent of Christian Princes, every Prince may call together a National Sy∣nod, in which the matters to be debated in the Council, are to be discussed, and the sense of that Synod fully declared, which those Bishops who are appointed by it to go to the General Council, are to carry with them, and there to declare the sense of their particular Church, and what all these Bishops so assembled do all agree in, as the sense of the whole Church, may be called the decree of a General Council. Or in case some great impedi∣ment happen, that such Bishops cannot assemble from all Churches, but a very considerable number appearing and declaring themselves, which up∣on the first notice of it, is universally received by all particular Churches, that may ex post-facto be called a General Council; as it was with the first four Oecumenical Councils. And yet that in them there was such a deputa∣tion as this is, appears by that expression in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Constantinople before mentioned; for in that they give this ac∣count, Why they could not do what the Western Bishops desired, because they brought not with them the consent of the Bishops, who remained at home to that purpose.* 1.589 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And concerning this only Council, viz. at Constan∣tinople, have we brought the consent of those Bishops which remain in the Pro∣vinces. So that they looked on the consent of the other Bishops to be ne∣cessary

as well as their own. But now, if we examine your Council of Trent by this Rule, How far is it from any appearance of a General Coun∣cil? What Bishops were there sent from the most of Christian Churches? Those that did appear, What equality and proportion was there among them? For Voices in General Councils ought not to go by the number of Bishops, but by the number of Churches; so that if six were sent from the Church of England, or France, delivering the sense of that Church they come from, they have equal Votes with the greatest number of Italian Bishops. But here lay the great imposture of that Council; first, that the Councils being general, depended upon the Popes general Summons, though never so few Bishops appeared; next that the Decrees of the Council were to be carried by most Voices, and the Bishops to give their bare placet; these things being thus laid, when there was any fear that businesses would not go right, it was but the Legats using some art in delaying it, and send∣ing intelligence to Rome, and forty Bishops are made together, and posted to Trent, to help out the number of voices; and thus it was in the case of the Institution and Residence of Bishops: And this is that you call, a Ge∣neral Council. 2. To your other, That what was wanting in number at first, was made up at last when all former Decrees were confirmed by a full number of Bishops; it is soon replied, That this is, as all the rest of the proceedings of that Council was,* 1.590 but a meer Artifice. For it appears by the History of that Council, that in the last Session under Pius 4. a Proposition was made, that all the Decrees under Paul and Julius should be approved; which was opposed, because they said it would be a derogation to the Authority of the Council of those times, if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers, and would shew, that this and that was not all one, because none can confirm his own things. But up∣on the French Bishops earnest insisting upon it, it was determined simply to read them, and no more. And, Do you call this a confirming and ratify∣ing them de novo? So that, for all appears by this last Session, the Authori∣ty of those Decrees, must, as far as concerns the Council, depend upon the number of the Bishops then present, which was but very small certainly for a General Council, there being not so many in most of the Sessions, as were in the Donatists Council in Africa; so far were they from the number of the ancient General Councils.

But here comes your grand Objection in the way, That nothing is pre∣tended by us against the Council of Trent,* 1.591 * 1.592 which might not have been in effect as justly objected by the Arrians against the Council of Nice. But, Is not there easily discernable a vast disparity between these two, which way soever we conceive them? The one called by the Emperour, who in person sate in the Council, to prevent all disorders and clancular actions; the other by the Pope, who presided in it by his Legats, and ordered all things by his directions. In that of Nice, the Arrian Bishops were as freely admitted to debate, as any of the other; but it was far from being so at the Council of Trent. In the Nicene Council, though Alexander was no fur∣ther a party as to the Doctrine than the other Bishops (no more was Leo at the Council of Chalcedon,* 1.593 or Cyril at Ephesus, though those are the three you instance in before) yet he sate not as President of the Council, but the Em∣perour had the chief Inspection for the right management of it, and for the Conciliar actions Hosius was President: Would the Pope have been content∣ed with such a Council in his case, wherein the Emperour should have sate in chief, and some other person besides the Pope to have presided? If not,

never go about to parallel these two Councils with each other. Again, in the Council of Nice, all the Bishops came free, without any praeengage∣ment to maintain the party of Alexander; but the Bishops at Trent were all sworn to defend the Papal Interest. At Nice, the Bishops themselves debated the matters in Controversie; at Trent, the Divines dispute, the Bi∣shops in their formalities give their Placet. At Nice, every one was freely heard, none died for grief of checks being given them for their too free speaking, as there did at Trent. And these, I hope, shew, there was much greater reason for the Protestants to except against the Council of Trent, than for the Arrians against the Council of Nice. And yet, besides all these grounds of disparity, those two remain good still, which his Lordship in∣stanceth in, viz. That the Council of Nice proceeded wholly by the Scripture, and that the sentence of it hath been universally received by the Church,* 1.594 both be∣fore and after it; neither of which can be said of the Council of Trent. But to these two you offer something by way of Answer. To the first, That both these Councils had the Scripture for their Rule, but not their only Rule;* 1.595 for, you say, Theodoret expresly sayes,* 1.596 that in condemning the Arrian Here∣sie, the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition. But Theodoret sayes no such thing; only out of an Epistle of Athanasius, he sayes, When the Ar∣rians objected that they used words not contained in Scripture, they gave them this Answer, that so did they too; but the words which they used, were such as their Fathers had used before them; and, Do you call this the grounding the condemnation of them upon Tradition? Yet, to do you right, I must suppose that either you took this upon trust, without searching Theodoret; or, if you did, you looked no further than Christophorsons Translation, which in things concerning the Papal Controversies, doth notoriously trip (to say no worse of it, as it were easie to manifest from several examples) but we need no more than this present. For whereas the words in Greek run thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which Sirmondus faithfully renders, Nam cùm ipsi ex verbis non-scriptis impietatem suam adstruxerint: nusquam enim scriptum reperias Ex non extantibus; aut, Erat quando non erat; accusant quod per voces non-scriptas, piè tamen excogitatas, condemnati sint, i. e. Though the Arrians made use of unwritten words themselves; yet they accused their adversaries for condemning them by unwritten words; meaning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But Christophorson translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, afferunt, and there ends the sentence, and then makes a new sentence. Quapropter ex non-scriptis vocibus, piè tamen excogitatis, condemnati sunt. By this wee see, What necessity there is of searching your Citations in Antiquity, which you deliver with so much confidence, as though none had ever looked into the Fathers but your selves. But I find you so often tripping in your quotations, that where Bellarmine hath been used by the Latin Interpreter, you very securely follow him in it; as in another place mentioned in this Chapter, where Christophorson renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mandato lite∣rarum, which Bellarmine confidently cites, as importing Damasus his power to summon the Council of Constantinople, than which nothing can be fur∣ther from the meaning of those words. Thus you see, how vain your at∣tempt is, of proving that the Council of Nice grounded her definition on Tradition, as the Council of Trent did, which is directly contrary to the advice of Constantine, and the Proceedings of the Council, as his Lordship truly told you. To the second concerning the consent of the Church, you answer, That the like consent of the Church both is, and was, when Pro∣testans

first began. But, Will this reach to a Parity, if it were granted? for his Lordship speaks of the Consent of the Church in all ages, from the Pri∣mitive and Apostolical times. I pray, prove your Mass, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Purgatory, &c. by such a Consent as this, and then you may say, There is no such disparity between them: As to what you fur∣ther add of the Council of Nice, condemning the Quartodecimani for He∣reticks, I know not where you will find it, I am sure Constantine is far from saying so in his Epistle perswading to union as to that matter. Cannot the Council of Nice appoint time to celebrate Easter? or determine, that those who come from Hereticks, shall not be rebaptized, but they must presently condemn all who do otherwise, for Hereticks? But you must be pardoned; you are proving a Parity between the Council of Nice and Trent, and you know you could not do that sufficiently, unless they con∣demned all dissenters in any punctilio, for Hereticks.

* 1.597His Lordship further proves, That Trent could be no indifferent Council to the Church,* 1.598 the Pope having made himself a strong party in it; because there were more Italian Bishops there, than of all Christendom besides; yea more than double. For where the number of Prelates is expressed that had suf∣frage and vote in that Council, the Italians are set down to be a hundred eighty seven, and all the rest make but eighty three, so that there were more Italian Bishops by a hundred and four, than of all the rest of Christendom; sure (saith he) the Pope did not mean to be over-reached in this Council. And whatso∣ever became of his Infallibility otherwise, he might this way be sure to be Infallible in whatsoever he would have determined. And this without all doubt is all the Infallibility he hath.* 1.599 To this you answer, That the Popes making a party, is disproved by the very argument he brings to assert it, viz. the multitude of Italian Prelates; for, Who knows not, that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence, than in any other Nation of Christendom, by reason of the many Soveraign Principalities and States, into which Italy is di∣vided? But, What is this to the purpose, unless you could prove that the Italian Prelates were so divided in point of Interest and dependence? Since therefore they have all their dependence on the Pope, and not on those Principalities in which they live; this evasion, though very sleight, is yet the best your cause would bear. And the greater you say, the number of Bishopricks is in Italy, the more friends, I hope, the Pope must make by disposing them; and, Could they do the Pope better service, than to help him in this grand business at Trent, wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest. But not only the Protestants complained of this, but the Emperour and other Princes, and all impartial men in Germany, France; nay, and in some part of Italy too. But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine,* 1.600 viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present, as were of the East at Trent, and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils. 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on, but with it the Popes carriage, to be sure of a major part; but neither the Greek Church in general, nor any Patriarch of the East, had any pri∣vate interest to look to, in the Council at Nice. 2. It was not so much a dispari∣ty between the Eastern and Western Bishops, but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power, than of all Germany, France, Spain, and of all other parts of the West besides. 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils, as to Eastern and Western Bishops, there is this remarkable difference, that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice,

but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops. To the two first of these you Answer with your best property, silence. Only you would fain perswade some silly people (if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things) That the Pope had no private interest at Trent, but what was common to him with other Bishops. You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith, before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World. To the third you confess, It is some disparity, but no∣thing to the purpose, because if the Pope himself had ratified them,* 1.601 the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly. The more to blame was the Pope a great deal, for putting so many Bishops to so need∣less a trouble. But you say further, This Council was not held just at the same time. But Binius tells you, it was held assoon as might be, after the notice of what was done at Nice;* 1.602 shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time, and we will not quarrel with you, because it was not at the same time: Though these Answers may pass for want of better, they come not near your last, which is a prodigious one, the sense of it being, That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more univer∣sally received in the Church, then that of the Council of Nice. For that of Trent, you say, was universally received by the whole Catholick Church, and hath been more constantly held ever since; whereas many Provinces,* 1.603 either in whole or in part, deserted the Faith defined at Nice, and embraced the Arrian Heresie. It seems then, the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church, then the eternal existence of the Son of God; and consequently, that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory, or Transubstantiation, then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father: For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility, you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church, so firmly as that which hath been uni∣versally believed and constantly held. But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church, is so into∣lerable a falshood, that you would scarce have vented it, unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone.

To A. C's objection, That neither French, nor Spanish, nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council, his Lordship Answers, That there can be no certainty, who did agree, and who not,* 1.604 (or who might have agreed before the Council ended) be∣cause they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute. And it may be too, some Decrees would have been more favourable to them, had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer. Here you complain, of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes, of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council; which you call an empty and injurious suspicion, an unwor∣thy accusation, and arguing the want of Christian charity. But usually when you storm the most, you are the most guilty.* 1.605 For if you call this an empty suspicion, &c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship, and those, the greatest of your own Communion; what meant else, the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours, in which they often declared, that as things were managed, the Council was not Free? What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand, in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope?* 1.606 That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes: one, because every thing was first consulted of at Rome: another, because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of pro∣posing,

which ought to be common to all: the third, because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make. The French Ambassadour, Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master, That the Pope was so much Master of this Council, that his Pensioners, whatso∣ever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them, will do but what they list. Several of the like nature might easily be produced, so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity (as you call it) but all impar∣tial persons, who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council. Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it. But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free, because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived. And had they not good reason so to do, when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope, and having se∣cured him from danger of reformation by the Council, and subscribed the Decrees of it, they were as much bound to defend their own acts. And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops; yet when they were brought off, what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscripti∣ons? But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome, and by Pro∣testants both of the Court and Church? Was the Council any thing the more free, because that party which met there continued in what they had done? Just, as if a part of a Common-Council should suffer only such persons to come there whom they thought fit, and suffer nothing to be de∣bated, but what two or three of the leading men should propound, and yet this be call'd a free Common-Council, because they who were of it, did after they had done, persist in it? And this is all you have to plead for the Freedom of the Council of Trent.

* 1.607Touching the Greek Church and the writings of the Patriarch Hieremias, it is to little purpose, to say, That they differ from us in several things, unless you could prove, that they did agree with you in all. And if (as you say) they do condemn Protestantism, you cannot but know they do much more condemn Popery; and that in some of the main Articles of it. And there∣fore we have reason to believe, that you more dread a Free Council, where∣in the Greek Churches may be admitted to equal votes with the Latin, then the Protestants do the judgement of the Greek Church. For it is suf∣ficiently known, how much the Greeks agree with us in the opposition to the great points of the Popes Supremacy, and the Infallibility of the Church of Rome; how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in your sense, and several other things which are contained in the Decrees of the Council of Trent: If the Patriarch Hieremias did not in all things agree with the Lutheran Divines, doth it thence follow, that he would subscribe to the Council of Trent? But because you pretend to give us a full account of the proceedings, between the Patriarch Hieremias, and the Lutheran Divines, we must a little further enquire into them. You tell us then, That about the end of the last Century, some eminent Protestants of the Lutheran party, en∣deavoured to feel the pulse of the Greek Church,* 1.608 to see if they could there find any Symptoms of their own disease. The design was (you say) to close with the Greeks, for the better making out the pretended perpetual succession of their Church; which Project they so hotly pursued, though formerly in vain attempt∣ed, that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne, they had sent him the sum of their reformed belief, drawn up according to the Au∣gustan

Confession. After a long entercourse of letters, answers, and replies mutually continued for some years, and all Arguments used that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his communion, he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their Doctrine: but did in all his An∣swers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church, which those Lutherans endeavoured to overthrow. In so much, that the Patriarch tyred with their importunity, gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Do∣ctrine of the Catholick Church, and desired them not to trouble him any more with their writings. A very formal story! One would expect the next news should have been, that the Patriarch had come to kiss his Holiness's feet, or at least subscribed to the Council of Trent. But all your stories out of the East have not so much truth as formality in them: witness one for all, that solemn legation from Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria, to Pope Clement 8, wherein an acknowledgement was made of the Popes Suprema∣cy as Head of the Church; upon which, such joy was conceived at Rome, that Baronius unmeasurably triumphs upon it, and sayes, it tends as much to the joy of Catholicks, as to the confusion of Hereticks: and therefore hath very solemnly published the Legation it self; at the end of the sixth Tome of his Annals; but upon a further examination of it, it was all found to be a meer fiction and imposture of one Barton, as both Thuanus and Tho∣mas à Jesu confess. But we must suppose no such danger in this story,* 1.609 for you tell us, You have it from Spondanus, and he out of the writings of those Protestants themselves: but I much rather believe by the circumstances of your story, that either you, or Spondanus, had it from Socolovius their viru∣lent adversary, who having clancularly procured a Copy of the Patriarchs Answer, he publishes it in Latin with the title of Censura Orientalis Eccle∣siae, and gives much the same account as you do here. In which there are two grand mistakes, first, as to the design, which you say, was to be admit∣ted into Communion with the Greek Church: The second, as to the event which you say was, That the Patriarch did not shew the least approbation of their Doctrine, but did in all his Answers confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church. Both which, how notoriously false they are, will pre∣sently appear by a full account of the circumstances of this affair. We must know then, that the news of the Lutherans appearing in Germany against the Pope being spread at Constantinople, great enquiry was made what their doctrine was, and they were represented (by whose arts one may easily guess) as men holding strange opinions, denying the Divinity of Christ, &c. as appears by a letter lately published of a Divine about that time resident in Constantinople; and withall,* 1.610 that they were defamed generally as persons of no Religion at all, and of wicked and flagitious lives: upon this, those German Divines send by Stephanus Gerlachius Chaplain to the Emperours Embassadour, a Greek copy of the Augustan Confession, Marti∣nus Crusius having before sent a letter only of respect to the Patriarch Hie∣remias; who by the means of Cantacuzenus was made Patriarch in the room of Metrophanes, who was then deposed. Gerlachius, as appears by a letter of his dated May 24▪ A. 1575. carries the copy of the Augustan Confession to the Patriarch, who then had his Council about him, which with great joy and delight, he saith, he read in the presence of them, and delivered it to be read to the Priests and Calogeri; but five points he se∣lected out of it to be further discussed, and when afterwards he waited on the Patriarch to know his judgement concerning it, Johannes Zygoma∣las, who was then the Rhetor Patriarchicus a kind of Chancellour to him,

told him, that having read it almost all over, they approved almost all, except that about procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and unleavened bread; but he particularly desired the Patriarch to return an Answer to the Divines, who sent it with his judgement upon it: and having spoken with the Metropolitan of Nice and others, they seemed very much pleased with that Confession. With the Patriarchs letter Johannes Zygomalas writes to Martin Crusius, and therein tells him, that though in all things the Patriarch did not assent to them; yet it might be evident to all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they did agree in the most important Articles of Christian Faith;* 1.611 and that in other things they might easily agree, if they left the new and strange customs and adhered to the Catho∣lick Church with them, and there was the greater hopes of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome, or the Church which joynes with him, but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him: which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them. From hence we may easily gather, how true both those things were, viz. That the intent of their writing was, to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church, and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Do∣ctrine, but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church. But we must look further into the writings themselves, to see how far they agreed, and wherein they differed. It appears then, that the Patriarch did pro∣fess his consent with them in these things, besides the Articles of the Creed, and the satisfaction of Christ,* 1.612 and other more general points, viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds, that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy, though their custom is, that they must be married before they take Orders; besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy, and the Roman Churches Infallibility; Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine, but con∣firm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church? But withall, it must be confessed, that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit, wherein he disputes most earnestly; there are five others, in which they dissented from each other, about Free will, justification by Faith, the number of Sacraments, Invocation of Saints, and Monastick life, and about these the remaining disputes were. In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended, which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek; but the Patriarchs troubles coming on, Cantacuzenus deposing him too, and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration, he breaks off the Conference between them. But although he differed from them in these things, yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church, although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves. And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church, yet there are many considerable circumstances about them, wherein they differ from the Church of Rome, as hath been manifested by many others. As in the Article of Invocation of Saints, the Patriarch saith, They do not properly Invocate Saints but God, for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us, upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of

Saints. And in most of the other, the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them. But is this any such great matter of admiration, that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their con∣fession should declare his dissent from them in these things? It is well enough known, how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks, the means of Instruction being taken from them, and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all, in so much, that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest, and preaching there in Lent, was thereby under great suspicion, and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way. It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done, then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them. The most then, which you can make of the judgement of the Pa∣triarch Hieremias, is, that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants, as in others to the Church of Rome. But what would you have said, if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome, as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants? who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits, of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard.* 1.613 And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him, yet another Parthe∣nius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him. Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world, and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church, as to these things; there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is, as to all our differences, till they have further declared themselves.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• * 1.2

  §. 2.
• * 1.3

  §. 3.
• * 1.4

  §. 4.
• * 1.5

  P. 127. sect 20. n. 1.
• * 1.6

  N. 2.
• * 1.7

  P. 127. c. 2. n. 1.
• * 1.8

  P. 128. n. 2.
• * 1.9

  N. 3.
• * 1.10

  Sect. 20. n. 2.
• * 1.11

  P. 129.
• * 1.12

  §. 5.
• * 1.13

  P. 129. n. 3.
• * 1.14

  §. 6.
• * 1.15

  P. 129 n. 4.
• * 1.16

  P. 130 n 4.
• * 1.17

  P. 131.
• * 1.18

  P. 130. n. 5.
• * 1.19

  §. 7.
• * 1.20

  Hanc praedicationem cum acceperit, & hanc fidem quem idmodum praediximus Ecclesia, & quidem in universum mundum dissemina∣ta, diligentèr custodit, quasi unam domum in∣habitans, & similiter credit iis, videlicet quasi unam animam habens, & unum cor, & consonantèr haec praedicat & docet & tradit quasi unum possidens os. Irenaeus advers. haeres. l. 1. c. 3.

  Ecclesia enim per universum orhem us{que} ad fines terrae disseminata, & ab Apostolis & à discipulis eorum accepit eam fidem, &c. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.21

  Statim igitur Apostoli—1. per Judae∣am contesta••â fide in Jesum Christum & Ec∣clesiis institutis; dehinc in orbem profecti, eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei Nationibus promulgavâ••unt, & proinde Ecclesias apud unamquamq, civitatem condidêrunt, à quibus traducem fidei & semia•• doctrine, ceterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, & quotidie mutuantur ut Ecclesiae fiant: ac per hoc & ipsae Apostolicae deput••ntur, ut soboles Apo∣stolicarum Ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad ori∣gin••m suam recenseatur, nec••sse est. Ita{que} tot ac tantae ecclesiae, una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primae & Apostolicae, dum unà omnes probant unita∣tem▪ dum est illis communica••io pacis, & appellatio fraternitatis, & contesseratio ho∣spita••itatis. Tertul. de prescript. haeretic. cap. 20.
• * 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theo∣doret. in Psal. 47.4. Tom. 1. p. 580. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodoret. Ecclesi. hist. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.23

  Perrons Reply to King James l. 4. c 9.
• * 1.24

  §. 8.
• * 1.25

  v. Rigalt. ad Cypr. ep. 49. Petav. ad Epiphan. haeres. 59. p. 226. Vales. ad ••u∣seb. l. 6. c. 43, 44. Albaspin. & Balduin. in Optat.
• * 1.26

  Cyprian. ep. 52. ed. Rigalt.
• * 1.27

  Manente concordiae vinculo, & perseverante Catholicae ecclesiae individuo sacramento, actū suum disponit ac dirigit unusquis{que} episco∣pus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Cyprian.ep. 52.
• * 1.28

  c••m sit à Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa: item Epis∣copatus unus, Episcoporum multorum con∣cordi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 diffusus. Id ib p. 81.
• * 1.29

  Ita{que} ex unitatis Ecclesiasticae disciplinā, Cy∣prianus solicitudinem omnium Ecclesiarum ad se pertinere non ambigens, etiam Romam se dedisse literas ait ad clerum. Eas veròlite as per totum mundum missas, h. e. per Eccle∣siam Catholicam, cujus Ecclesiae unus est Epis∣copatus: at{que} hujusmodi Episcopatûs à sin∣gulis Ep••scopis in solidum pa••s tenebatur. Rigalt. observ. ad Cypr. p 64.
• * 1.30

  §. 9.
• * 1.31

  Quae autem causa veniendi & pseudo episco∣porum contra Episcopos factum nunciandi? Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt, & in suo scelere perseverant: Aut, si disp••icet & rece∣d••at, sciunt quò revertantur. Nam cùm sta∣tutum sic omnibus nobis, & aequum sit paritèr ac justum, ut uniuscujus{que} causa illic audia∣tur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquis{que} & gubernet, rationem sui actûs Domino redditurus: oportet uti{que} eos quibus praesumus non circumcu••sare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illis causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint: nis•• si paucis desperatis & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africâ consti∣tutorum, qui jam de illis judicavérunt, & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctam judicii sui nuper gravitate damn••∣runt. Cyprian ep. 55. p. 95.
• * 1.32

  De Unitate Eccles. p. 208▪
• * 1.33

  Ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi cor∣poris membra componere••t. Cypr. ep. 42.
• * 1.34

  §. 10.
• * 1.35

  Eusebius histor. Ecclesiastic. lib. 5. cap. 24. Hieronym. de scriptor. ecclesiast. To. 1.
• * 1.36

  Socrat. l. 2 c. 5. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Socrat. l. 2 c. 11
• * 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epi∣phanius. haeres. 42. sect. 1.
• * 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synes. epist. 58. p. 203. ed. Petav.
• * 1.39

  §. 11.
• * 1.40

  P. 131.
• * 1.41

  Advocavit a•• se Episcopum loci, perconta∣••us{que} est, utrûranam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Roman•• Ecclesiâ conveniret. D. Ambros. orat. in obit. fra••r.
• * 1.42

  Et forte & ad id locorum in Schismate regi∣onis illius ecclesia erat. Lucifer enim se à no∣strā tunc temporis communione diviserat, & quanquam pro fide exulâ;sset, & fidei suae reliquisset haeredes, non putavit tamen fidem esse in Schismate. Id. ib.

  Nec ob Sardorum tantum mastrucam Dei Fili∣um descendisse. Hieronym. c. Lucifer. init. Mastruca vestis Barbaricae genus, quam Sar∣disu•• linguâ Nastrucam appellant: signifi∣cans multos adhuc superesse bonos Christia∣nos, etiamsi nulli essent in Sardinia, in quâ solâ ille Christi ecclesiam esse volebat. Eras∣mus in Scholiis.
• * 1.43

  Sed tu scito, &c. Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam, cujus se esse▪ participem Alex∣andrina Ecclesia gloriatur. Hieronym. ep. 68. ad Theophil.
• * 1.44

  Sed tamen scito, nobis nihil esse antiquiu•• quàm Christi jura servare, nec patrum tran∣sire terminos, semper{que} meminisse Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam, cujus se esse participem Alexandrina Ecclesia gloriatur. Hieronym. Theoph. Tom 2. p. 110. ed▪ Chevall, 1533.
• * 1.45

  Sic omnes fer•• Latini Patres, Pauli ad Ro∣manos verba accep••runt, quasi rectior & sincerior fuisset apud Romanos fides: cum hoc tantum dicat Apostolus; agere se gratias Deo, quod ubi{que} passim fama fit, etiam Roma∣nos rerum Dominos, fidem Christianam suscepisse. Quod certe ob dignitatem Urbis, quae totius orbis erat▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & gentium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 valdè ad fidei Christianae propagationem conducebat. Rigaltius Observat ad Cyprian, epist. p. ••••.
• * 1.46

  Quia nulla virtutum videntes insignia, susce∣p••runt fidem Christi, quamvis corrupto sensu. Ambros. praefat. in ep. ad Roman.

  Quamvis non secundum regulam ab autoribus traditae veritatis, tamen quia quod ab uno Deo erat, interposito nomine Christi, caeperant venerari, gratulatur; sciens illos posse profi∣cere. Id. ad v. ••. c. 1.
• * 1.47

  Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem, nisi hanc quam omnes Christi Ecclesiae; sed quod devotio in eis major fit & simplicitas ad cre∣dendum. Hieronym. praefat in l. 2. comment. in epist. ad Galat. Tom. 9.
• * 1.48

  §. 12.
• * 1.49

  Concil. Tom. ••. p. 767.
• * 1.50

  Sanctissimas enim Dei Ecclesias, i. e. superi∣ores vestrae, & novellae istius Romae unam esse accipio, illam sedem Apostoli Petri, & istius Augustae civitatis unam esse definio. Joh. Patriarch. ep. inter ep. Hormisd. 35.
• * 1.51

  §. 13.
• * 1.52

  Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsâ sede Petri & in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit videte. Ipsa est P••tra quam non vincunt su∣perbae Inferorum Portae. D. Aug. in Psalm. C. part. Donat. Tom. 7. col. 9.
• * 1.53

  Venite fratres, si vultis ut inseramini in vite: Dolor est cum vos videmus praecisos it•• jacere.
• * 1.54

  Tertul. de prae∣script. c. 36. Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.55

  August. de baptism. c. Donatist. l 3. c. 18. l. 4. c. 12. l. 7. c. 51. Advers. Petilian. l. 2. c 70. De Unitat. Eccles. cap. 20.
• * 1.56

  Ecce Roma, ecce Carthago, ecce aliae & aliae civitates: ••iliae Regum sunt, & delectave∣runt Regem suum in honore ipsius; & ex omnibus fit una quaedam Regin••. Aug. in Ps. 44. p. 282. ed. Froben.
• * 1.57

  Propter unitatem Ecclesiae, una Ecclesia; pro∣pter congregationes fraternas per lo••a, multae sunt Ecclesiae. Id. in Psal. 141.

  An placet vo••is, ut contra Ecclesias quae mem∣bra sunt unius Ecclesi•• tot o••be d••ffusae, &c. Id. de Unitat. Eccles. c. 11.
• * 1.58

  Verum etiam illas Ecclesias suas in Scriptu∣ris Apostolicis & Canonicis pariter legimus non solum Romanorum, verum etiam Corin∣thiorum, Galatarum, Ephesiorum, &c. Vt raceam de aliis tam latis at{que} universis terra∣rum partibus, in quas ex his Apostolicis la∣boribus & plantationibus p••rrecta crevit & crescit Ecclesia. Id. c. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 2. c. 37.
• * 1.59

  §. 14.
• * 1.60

  Ibid.
• * 1.61

  Ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici nominis, cuminde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationa∣bilis & ubi{que} diffusa. Optat. l. 2.
• * 1.62

  Cathedram Episcopalem, primam missionem, omnem potestatem, à quâ caeterae deducerentur. Albaspinaeus in Optat. lib. 2.
• * 1.63

  Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Rom•• Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse col∣latam in quâ sederit o••nium Apostolorum caput Petrus; inde & Cephas appellatus est; in quâ unâ Cathedrâ, unitas ab omn••bus ser∣varetur, nè caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quis∣que defenderent: ut jam Schismaticus & pec∣cator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram, alteram co••locaret. Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit Linus, Lino Clemens, &c. Damaso Siricius hodie, qui noster est Socius: Cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum, in unâ communionis societate concordat. Vestrae Ca∣thedrae vos originem reddite, qui vobis vul••is sanctam Ecclesiam vindicare. Optatus l. 2. Sed suspicor haec verba (unde Cephas apel∣latus est) esse ineptae alicujus glossae ad mar∣ginem temerè ascriptae & deinde abs librariis contextui insertae. Balduin in Optat l. 2.
• * 1.64

  Vbi sedit victor Garbiensis, à vestris jam du∣dum de Africâ ad paucos erraticos missus, &c. Optatus ibid.
• * 1.65

  Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid soris est alienum est. Id. ib.
• * 1.66

  Tibi unitas displicet; hoc si crimen putas, argue nos Thessalonicensibus, Corinthiis, Galatis, septem Ecclesiis quae sunt in Asia, communicâsse. Ibid.
• * 1.67

  Percurre Ec••lesias Apostolicas apud qua•• ipsae nunc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur. Tertul. praescript. ad hae∣ret. cap. 36.

  Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 32.
• * 1.68

  §. 15.
• * 1.69

  Ibid.
• * 1.70

  Ego nullum primum (praemium for••asse recti∣us) nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior. Su∣per illam Petram aedific••tam Ecclesiam scio. Quicun{que} extra hanc domum Agnum come∣derit, profanus est—Quicun{que} tecum non colligit, spargit; hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. Hieron. ep. 57. ad Damas.
• * 1.71

  Theodoret. l. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.72

  Tota secularium literarum Schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 novit. Id. ib.
• * 1.73

  Inde nunc mea animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi. Ib.

  Ab Arrianorum praesule & Camp••nsibus, novellum à me homine Romano nomen exi∣gitur. Ib.
• * 1.74

  Non super Roman arbitror, nam fieri potest ut Roma degen••ret, sed super illam fidem quam Petrus professus est. Erasmus in Schol. Et si non minus aliis cam laborâsse, Erasmus hic mentiatur. Mar. Victor. Schol. in ep. 57.
• * 1.75

  Vid. Fortunat. & Acacius.
• * 1.76

  Profligato à sobole malâ pa••rimonio, apud vos s••los incorrupta Patrum servatur hae∣r••di••as.—Nunc in Occide••te Sol Justitiae oritur: in Oriente a••tem Lucifer ille, qui ceciderat, super sydera posuit thronam s••∣um, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.77

  P. 132. n. 6.
• * 1.78

  §. 16.
• * 1.79

  P. 133.
• * 1.80

  Post ista adhuc insuper pseudoepiscop•• sibi ab haereticis constituto, navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram, at{que} ad Ecclesiam Prin∣cipalem; unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, à Schismaticis & prophanis literas ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides Apo∣stolo praedicante laudata est) ad quos perfi∣dia habere non possit access••m. Cyprian. ep. 55. ad Cornel. n. 16.
• * 1.81

  P. 134.
• * 1.82

  Sect. 3. n. 3, &c.
• * 1.83

  P. 133.
• * 1.84

  Tertul. de pre∣script. c. 36. Greg. l. 7. Ind. 1. ep. 32.
• * 1.85

  Ibid.
• * 1.86

  Synes. ep. 67.
• * 1.87

  Ibid.
• * 1.88

  Stepha••us frater noster Haereticorum causam contra Christianos & contra Dei Ecclesiam asserere conatur. Cypr. ad Pompeium per Erasm. Basil. p. 327.
• * 1.89

  P. 134.
• * 1.90

  Attamen scito Romanam fidem Apostolic•• voce laudatam ejusmodi praestigias non re∣cipere, etiamsi Angelus aliter annun••iet, quam semel praedicatum est, Pauli authoritate munitam non posse mutari. Hierony. l. 3. Apol. c. Ruff. cap. 4.
• * 1.91

  P. 135.
• * 1.92

  1 Thes. 1.8.
• * 1.93

  Non tibi sufficit scandalum Graeciae, nisi illud & Latinorum auribus ingeras. Id. ib.
• * 1.94

  P. 136, 137.
• * 1.95

  §. 18.
• * 1.96

  Petram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quàm inconcussam & firmissimam di∣scipuli fidem vocavit; in quâ Ecclesia Chri∣sti ita fundata & firmata esset, ut non labe∣retur, & esset inexpugnabilis inserorum por∣tis, in perpetuum manens. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trinit. l. 4. p. 278. Paris. A. 1604.
• * 1.97

  P. 138, 139.
• * 1.98

  P. 16.
• * 1.99

  Ruffin▪ in Symbol. p. 188, 189. P. 139.
• * 1.100

  P. 140.
• * 1.101

  §. 1.
• * 1.102

  P. 133. sect. 21. n. ••.
• * 1.103

  P. 135. n. 3.
• * 1.104

  P. 136, n. 4.
• * 1.105

  P. 142. n. 6.
• * 1.106

  §. 2.
• * 1.107

  P. 131. n. 5.
• * 1.108

  P. 142.
• * 1.109

  Matth. 13.25.
• * 1.110

  §. 3.
• * 1.111

  P. 142. n. 1.
• * 1.112

  §. 4.
• * 1.113

  P. 143.
• * 1.114

  P. 139. sect 18. n. 5.
• * 1.115

  P. 141.
• * 1.116

  §. 5.
• * 1.117

  §. 6.
• * 1.118

  Cùm infiniti abusus, Schism••ta quo{que} & hae∣reses, per totum nunc Ch••istianum orbem in∣valescant; Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere reformatione, nemini non apertum erit. Petrus de Alliaco lib. de Reform. Eccles.
• * 1.119

  P. 143.
• * 1.120

  Papa potest errare, errore judiciali; de per∣sonali, omnibus notum est. Jac. Almain. de auctorit. Eccles. cap. 10.

  Quorum unus determinavit judicialiter, Chri∣stum & Apostolos nihil habuisse in communi nec in proprio; alter, oppositum. Id. ib.
• * 1.121

  Lyra in Matth. 16. Cusan. Concord. l. 1. c. 14. Alphons. c. haeres l 1 c 2. Carranz. Controv. 4. Canus loc Com. l. 6 c. ult.
• * 1.122

  De haeres. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.123

  P. 144.
• * 1.124

  Cassand. Con∣sult. act. 21.
• * 1.125

  N. 3.
• * 1.126

  §. 7.
• * 1.127

  N. 4. ibid.
• * 1.128

  P. 145.
• * 1.129

  §. 8.
• * 1.130

  P. 145.
• * 1.131

  §. 9.
• * 1.132

  P. 146.
• * 1.133

  §. 10.
• * 1.134

  P. 135. n. 3.
• * 1.135

  P. 147.
• * 1.136

  §. 11.
• * 1.137

  P. 136. n. 4.
• * 1.138

  Ibid.
• * 1.139

  Ibid.
• * 1.140

  P. 148.
• * 1.141

  §. 12.
• * 1.142

  P. 137.
• * 1.143

  Quae major superbia quam ut unus hamo to∣ti Congregatione judicium suum praeserat, tanquam ipse solus Spiritum Dei habeat, S. Bern. Serm. 3. de Resurrect.
• * 1.144

  Ibid.
• * 1.145

  P. 138.
• * 1.146

  P. 149.
• * 1.147

  Ibid.
• * 1.148

  P. 150, 151.
• * 1.149

  §. 1.
• * 1.150

  P. 143. n. 7.
• * 1.151

  P. 152.
• * 1.152

  §. 2.
• * 1.153

  Praesens sancta Synodus ex quovis salvo-con∣ductu per Imperatorem, reges, & alios feculi principes, haereticis, vel de haeresi diffamatis, putantes eosdem sic à suis erroribus revocare, quocun{que} se vinculo▪ obstrinxerint, concesso, nullum fidei Catholicae vel jurisdictioni Eccle∣siasticae praejudicium generari, vel impedimen∣tum praest••••i posse, seu debere declarat, quo minus dicto salvo-conductu non obstante, li∣ceat judici competen••i & Ecclesiastico, de hu∣jusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere, & aliàs contra eos debitè procedere, eosdem{que} punire, quantum justitia suadebit, si suos er∣rores revocare pertinacitêr recusaverint, etiamsi de salvo-conductu confifi ad locum venerint judicii aliás non venturi; nec sic pro∣mittentem cum secerit quod in ipso est, ex aliquo remansisse obligat••m Concil Con∣stant. sess. 19. p. 1075. Tom. 7. Concil. p. 2. ed. Binii.
• * 1.154

  P. 153 n. 2.
• * 1.155

  §. 3.
• * 1.156

  Ibid.
• * 1.157

  Verba salvi-conductus sunt verba fidei 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ & sapiunt naturam pacti: quare, si genera∣lia sint, extenduntur quatenus verba p••tiuntur. Omnes Doctores uno ore asserunt, Generalem promissionem Securitatis veniendi ad judi∣cem seu compare••di in judicio, etiam liberta∣tem recedendi ab••undi{que} complecti. Pet. Pre∣mus de Securit. quaest. 6. p. 33, 36.
• * 1.158

  §. 4.
• * 1.159

  §. 5.
• * 1.160

  P. 154.
• * 1.161

  H••c Sancta Synodus Con∣stantiensis Jo∣hannem Hus, attento quòd Ecclesia Dei non habeat ultra quid gerere valeat, judicio seculari relinquere, & ipsum curiae seculari relinquendum sore decernit, Concil. Constant. sess. 15. p. 1056.
• * 1.162

  §. 6.
• * 1.163

  Fides Haereticis data servanda non est, sicut nec Tyrannis, Piratis, & caeteris publicis prae∣donibus. Simanca Instit. Cathol. tit. 46. sect. 51.

  Jures igitur Haretici quid••m gravissimo Concilii Constantiensis judicio, legitimâ flaminâ concremati sunt, quamvis promis∣sa illis securitas faiss••t. Instit. tit. 46. sect. 52.
• * 1.164

  P. 155.
• * 1.165

  Si Ty••annis, Piratis, & caete••is praedonibus fides servanda non est, qui corpus occidunt; longe m••nus haereticis pertinacibus, qui occi∣dunt animas. Id. ib.
• * 1.166

  Quamobrem fides illis data, etiam juramen••o firmata, contra publicum bonum, contra sa∣lutem animarum, contra jura divina & hu∣mana, nullo modo servanda. Ib.
• * 1.167

  Scribit etiam Salomonius in d. l. 2. exact. de orig. juris, & refert Petrus laca. l. 1. epit. delict. c. 37. in fin. Ita observatum fuisse contra haereticos vocatos in Concilio Constan∣tiensi sub salvo-conductu, qui tamen contra datam fidem ne••ati fuerunt. Non ergo salvo-conductui fidere d••buit. D. Scipio. Meno∣chius. lib. 1 Concil. 100. n. 191.

  Quod verò scribit Placa d. c. 37. in fin. hae∣reticis datam fidem servandam non esse, intel∣ligo um data fides est ad detrimentum fidei Catholicae. Id Concil. 100. n. 219.

  Ita enim loquitur Conradus Brunus in tract. de haere••. c. 14. l 3. cum scribit, Non licere pacisci cum haereticis, ut liberè possent in dam∣natâ eorum sectâ vivere. n. 220.

  Quod si ob••ic••atur, Concilium Constantiense non observâsse sa••vos-conductos concessos ab Imperatoribus & Regibus; facile erit re∣spondere, Non licuisse illis Imperatoribus & Regibus, concedere tutos reddere haereti∣cos; tum quia inferior non potest salv••m-conductum concedere damnato à majori, tum etiam quia Im••eratorum & Regum est haereti∣cos expugnare, non autem securos & tutos reddere; quemadmodum abund•• tradit Con. rad. Brunus. l. 3. de haeret. c. 15. Rectè à Concilio salvi-conductus illi annullati fue∣runt. n. 227, 128.
• * 1.168

  Nunquam patiaris ullâ te ratione ad ea quae promisisti praestanda teneri; quia juramentum non debet esse vinculum iniquitatis. Hosius Cardinal. epistol. 193, 202, 220.
• * 1.169

  §. 7.
• * 1.170

  Scilicet has artes nuper gens gnara nocendi Exitio invexit, Gallia, nata tuo. Hesperiae suscis gens emissaria ab oris Fucum affectatâ quae gravitate tegit, Nata Magistratum convell••re, nata Ministris Substrahere obsequium, Praesulibus{que} suum: Geryonae qua dum placeat, faveat{que} trifauci, Terrarum reliquos non facit assis heros. Et coelo facinus dignum putat, omnia saevi In Regis longas tradere sceptra manus. Quae disciplinam morum, quae Gallica venit, Exuto, legum solvere jura, metu, Et vileis regnantum anima••, ipsos{que} necandos Horrendâ Reges proditione docet; Servandam{que} fidem negat, argutis{que} cavillis Detorquet magni jussa severa Dei. Nos patimur segnes, lenti{que} sedemus ad iram Et pietas ipsâ religione perit▪ Protinus Induciae violantur patre Quiritum Auctore, & Martis nuncius urbe venit. Nos juvat antiquo vitam producere ritu, Nos juvat in priscâ simplicitate mori. Jac. Aug. Thuanus Eleg. in Parricidas.
• * 1.171

  Vniversa Theologorum Schola tenet, & est certum ac de fide, Quemcun{que} principem Chri∣stianum, si à Catholicâ Romanâ Religione manifestè deflexerit, & alios avocare volue∣rit, excidere statim omni potestate, & digni∣tate ex ipsá vi juris divini & humani: hoc∣que & ante sententiam Pontificis & Judicis contra ipsum prolatam; & subditos quoscun∣que liberos esse ab omni juramenti obligatione, quod de obedientiâ praestitissent, posse{que} & debere hujusmodi hominem tanquam Aposta∣tam & haereticum ex dominatu ejicere, nè alios insiciat. Andreas Philopator Resp. ad edict. Regin. Angl. p. 149. n. 157.
• * 1.172

  P. 156.
• * 1.173

  §. 8.
• * 1.174

  P. 157.
• * 1.175

  P. 185.
• * 1.176

  §. 1.
• * 1.177

  P. 146. sect. 22.
• * 1.178

  P. 185. n. 1.
• * 1.179

  §. 2.
• * 1.180

  P. 159.
• * 1.181

  §. 3.
• * 1.182

  P. 158 n. 1.
• * 1.183

  §. 4.
• * 1.184

  P. 146. n. 22.
• * 1.185

  P. 159.
• * 1.186

  Erasm. in Mat. 6.7.
• * 1.187

  Hodie videmus Sacerdotes, nihil dicam quali∣bus sed certè nimium prolixis precibus, his{que} praescriptis, aliquoties ineptis ac ridiculis, nè dicam impiis, oneratos. Erasm. in Mat. 6.7. Ad haec qui modestè pii sunt taciti secum in∣gemiscunt: qui populi malis aluntur, & quo∣rum interest Christi gregem, quem ille suo sanguine liberum reddidit, quam maximè ser∣vum esse & ebnoxium, adeò non reclamant ut modis omnibus exaggerent. Accedunt iis qui vel ambiunt praemium aliquod obsequii vel ti∣ment poenam libertatis. Ita dum nemo succur∣rit, re•• p••••••atim eò prolabitur ut penè nihil jam pudeat. Id. in Mat. 11.30.
• * 1.188

  P. 160.
• * 1.189

  §. 5.
• * 1.190

  P. 147. n. 2.
• * 1.191

  P. 160.
• * 1.192

  P. 149. sect. 24.
• * 1.193

  Hos. 4.15.
• * 1.194

  P. 160. n. 2.
• * 1.195

  Hos. 6.4.7.
• * 1.196

  Hos. 12.2.
• * 1.197

  Hos. 11.12.
• * 1.198

  2 King 18.4.
• * 1.199

  Hos. 1.1.
• * 1.200

  2 King. 15.4. v. 35.
• * 1.201

  2 King. 16.3, 4
• * 1.202

  2 King. 16.10, 11.
• * 1.203

  2 King. 17.19.
• * 1.204

  Ibid.
• * 1.205

  P. 161:
• * 1.206

  Ibid.
• * 1.207

  P. 162.
• * 1.208

  §. 6.
• * 1.209

  P. 150. n. 2.
• * 1.210

  P. 162▪ n. 3.
• * 1.211

  P. 164.
• * 1.212

  P. 163.
• * 1.213

  §. 7.
• * 1.214

  Ibid.
• * 1.215

  §. 8.
• * 1.216

  §. 9.
• * 1.217

  P. 164. n. 6.
• * 1.218

  P. 151. n. 3.
• * 1.219

  §. 10.
• * 1.220

  P. 152. n. 4.
• * 1.221

  P. 165.
• * 1.222

  P. 152. n. 5.
• * 1.223

  P. 166. n. 8.
• * 1.224

  §. 11.
• * 1.225

  P. 153.
• * 1.226

  P. 167.
• * 1.227

  Ibid.
• * 1.228

  Ibid.
• * 1.229

  P. 154.
• * 1.230

  Council. Toles▪ 4. Can. 3.
• * 1.231

  P. 168.
• * 1.232

  §. 12.
• * 1.233

  Ibid.
• * 1.234

  P. 155.
• * 1.235

  The instituti∣on of a Chri∣stian man. A. 1534.

  In Synodo Lon∣d••n. Sess. 8. die Veneris Jan. An. 1562.
• * 1.236

  P. 168. n. 9.
• * 1.237

  Ibid.
• * 1.238

  P. 169.
• * 1.239

  A••t 19.
• * 1.240

  §. 13.
• * 1.241

  168, 169.
• * 1.242

  White and Watson.
• * 1.243

  §. 14.
• * 1.244

  P. 196.
• * 1.245

  P. 170.
• * 1.246

  P. 156. n. 6.
• * 1.247

  Ibid.
• * 1.248

  §. 1.
• * 1.249

  Chap. 14.
• * 1.250

  P. 171, 172.
• * 1.251

  P. 173.
• * 1.252

  P. 157.
• * 1.253

  ad p. 181.
• * 1.254

  §. 2.
• * 1.255

  P. 166.
• * 1.256

  P. 182. n. 1.
• * 1.257

  §. 3.
• * 1.258

  P. 167.
• * 1.259

  P. 183.
• * 1.260

  Arbitramur—adjuvante misericordiā Do∣mini nostri Jesu Christi—Authoritati San∣ctitati•• tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum Au∣thoritate depromptae, facilius eos qui tam per∣versa & perniciosa sentiunt, esse cessur••s. Aug. ep. 92.
• * 1.261

  §. 4.
• * 1.262

  P. 184.
• * 1.263

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 7. ed. Sirmond. 1642.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gelas. Acta Concil. Nicen. lib. 2.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Niceph. Ec∣clesiast. hist. l 8. c 19.

  Quanquam Graci omnes asserant et tu••antur, Nicaeni Concilii Canones viginti tantum ••uisse, &c. Bin not. in Concil. Nicaen p 366.10.1.
• * 1.264

  Ruffin. Ecclesiast. hist. lib. 1. cap. 5.
• * 1.265

  Viginti tantum capitula Nicanae Synodi in Sanctâ Romanâ Ecclesiâ haberi. Gratian▪ distinct. 16. c. 20.
• * 1.266

  Deinde etiam 20. capitulis Nicani Concilii recitatis, communi decreto statuerunt capi∣tula 37. (sive 39.) quae subsequuntur. Vid. Justell. not. in Cod. Eccles. African. p. 14.
• * 1.267

  Quod non nisi viginti capitula quae habemus in Nicaeno Concilio fuerunt constituta. c. 21. apud Justell. ibid.
• * 1.268

  Codex Can. Eccles. Afric; p: 58.
• * 1.269

  Codex Canon. p. 363.
• * 1.270

  Id. p 360.
• * 1.271

  Turrian. praef. in Canon. Arab.
• * 1.272

  Consultatio de Controvers. inter Paul. 5: & Rempub. Venet. apud Goldast. Monarch. Tom. 3. p. 444.
• * 1.273

  Quoniam hac ignorâsse ma∣jores visi sunt, quando ••borta controversia in Ecclesiâ Afri∣can••, de iis mentio necessaria incubuisset; haec libentius aliis disserenda relinquemus. Baron. ad. An. 325. parag. 108.
• * 1.274

  Quamobrem quod in epistol•• quâdam Marci nomine 70. recenseantur.—quod{que} Tur••i∣anus profiteatur 80. inventos Arabicá lin∣guá Scriptos, Latinitate se donâsse—quoniam haec omnia scripta quibus ingens ille numerus Canonum stabilitur, prorsus incertae vel po∣tius nullius sunt fidei; nec aliquis unquam probatus antiquitatis auctor amplius quam 20. Canones Nicenae Synodi agnovisse repe∣riatur, ceteros ab aliis assertos libentius rejici∣mus. Spondan. Epitom. Baron. ad A. 325. n. 42.
• * 1.275

  §. 5.
• * 1.276

  P. 184.
• * 1.277

  Nicol. Pap. ••p. ad Michael. Imperat▪
• * 1.278

  Zozom. l. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.279

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Concil. Nicen. Can. 6.
• * 1.280

  Codex Theodos. de Episcop. l. 23. Qui mos est causarum civilium, iidem in negotiis Ecclesiasticis obtine••di sunt, ut, si qua sunt —ad religionis observantiam per∣tinentia, locis suis & à suae dioec••s••os Syno∣dis audiantur.
• * 1.281

  §. 5.
• * 1.282

  Quarta igitur & vera expositio est, Alex∣andrinum debere gubernare illas provincias, quia Romanus Episcopus ita consuevit, ••d est, quia Romanus Episcopus ante omnem Co••ci∣liorum definitionem consuevit pe••mittere Episc••po Alexandrino regimea Aegypti, Li∣byae & Pentapolis. Bellarm. de Rom. ont, l. 2. c▪ 13.
• * 1.283

  Theodoret. l. 1. c 9. Syncs. ep. ad Theophil. Alexand.
• * 1.284

  Cùm vera hujus instituti ratio in eo consistat, quòd cum Mediolanum esset caput Dioeces••os Italicae, ut constat ex Concilio Aquileiensi, ordinatio Metropolitae Aquileie••sis ad Epis∣copum Mediolanensem optimo jure pertine∣bat; Primatis verò Mediolanensis ordinatio ad Aquileiensem Episcopum, quòd primus esset inter Metropolitanos Synodi Generalis Dioeceseos Italicae. Petrus de Marcâ de Con∣cord. Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 6. c. 4. sect. 7.
• * 1.285

  Ibid. sect. 8.
• * 1.286

  §. 6.
• * 1.287

  Concil Ephes. act. 7. part. ••. p. 424.
• * 1.288

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concil. Ephes. Can 8. in edit. verò Binii ante Canones habetur. Tom. 2. Con∣cil. Part. 2. Act. 7. p. 426.
• * 1.289

  Insula autem Britanniae gavisa est olim pri∣vilegio Cyprio ut nullius Patriarchae legibus subderetur. Hoc autem privilegium et si abo∣litum olim fuit bellorum tumultibus & vi, tamen cum tempore Henrici 8. totius regni consensu fuerit repetitum, & ab eo tempore pacificè praescriptum: videtur pacis ergô re∣tineri debere, sine dispendio Catholicism••, & abs{que} Schismatis ullius notâ▪ Barns Catho∣lico-Romanus Pacificus MS. sect. 3.
• * 1.290

  Quod ad Patriarchas attinet, responderi po∣test, Confirmationem illam non esse signum ju∣risdictionis, sed tantum susceptionis in com∣munionem, & testimonium quo conslabat, summum Pontificem consentire consecratio•••• jam peractae. Petrus de Marcâ de Concord. c. Sacerdot. & Imper. l 6. c 5. sect. 2.
• * 1.291

  Factus est autem Cora••lius Episcopus de Dei & Ch••isti ejus judicio, de Cle••icorum pen•• omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tan•• affu••t suffragio, & de Sacerdotum a••liquorum & bono••um ••irorum Coll••gio—Cum Fabiani ••ocus vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntare & omnium nostrûm consentione Firmato. Cyprian. ep. 52. p. 75. ed. Rigalt.
• * 1.292

  Quippe usu receptum erat per illas tempesta∣tes, ut Patriarchae, & ipse etiam Romanus Pontifex recens electus, literas de suâ ordi∣natione mitterent; quibus addebatur prefes∣sio fidei in Synodicis eorum Epistolis con∣scripta. Petrus de Marcâ. ib.
• * 1.293

  Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius Communionis integr••tas, in quâ societatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur, & gestorum quae sumpsim••s serien••, necessariis munitam sub∣scription••bus approbamus. Leo 1. ep. 38.
• * 1.294

  Theodoret. l. 5. c. 13.
• * 1.295

  §. 8.
• * 1.296

  P. 184.
• * 1.297

  De Concord. l 7. c. 1. sect▪ 6.
• * 1.298

  Au•• nunquam omnino, aut certè vix, horum aliquis sine consensu Romani Pontificis re∣peritu•• ejectus. Nicol. 1. epist. 8. Michael. Imp. Tom. 6. Concil. p. 506.
• * 1.299

  Tom. 2. Concis. p. 685.
• * 1.300

  L. 7. c. 4. sect. 6.
• * 1.301

  §. 9.
• * 1.302

  In Romana Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Ca∣thedrae viguit Principatus. S. Aug. Epist. 162.
• * 1.303

  P. 168.
• * 1.304

  P. 184.
• * 1.305

  P. 169.
• * 1.306

  Pergant ad Fratres & Collegas nostros trans∣marinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos. S. Aug. Ep 162.

  An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Mel∣ciades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris Septuaginta, ubi Primas Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerit terminatum. Quid quod nec ipse usurpaverit? Rogatus quippe Imperator, Judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo seder••nt, & de totâ illâ causâ, quod justum videretur, statuerent. S. Aug. ib.
• * 1.307

  Ad cujus curam, de quâ rationem Deo reddi∣turus est, res illa maximè pertinebat. Id. ib.
• * 1.308

  Aug. ep. 162.
• * 1.309

  P. 185.
• * 1.310

  P. 186.
• * 1.311

  §. 10.
• * 1.312

  Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.
• * 1.313

  P. 187.
• * 1.314

  §. 11.
• * 1.315

  Valesius de Schismate Donatist. cap. 11.
• * 1.316

  Ait quidam, Non debuit Episcopus Procons••∣lari judicio purgari: quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparaverit, ac non Imperator ita quaeri jusserit, ad cujus curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maximè pertine∣bat. Augustin. ep. 162.
• * 1.317

  §. 12.
• * 1.318

  P. 170.
• * 1.319

  ••od. l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Authent. Collat. 9 ti•• 15. c. 22.
• * 1.320

  P. 188. n. 4.
• * 1.321

  Concil. Afric. Can 101. Epist. ad Boni∣fac.
• * 1.322

  Item placuit ut Presbyteri, dia∣coni, vel caeteri inferiores Cle∣rici, in causis quas habue∣rint, si de judi∣ciis episcopo∣rum suorum questi fuerint, vicini episcopi, eos cum con∣sensu episcopi sui audiant, & inter eos definiant, adhibiti ab eis episcopi: quod si & ab iis provocandum putaverint, non provocent ad transmarina judicia; sed ad primites suarum provinciarum, aut ad Universale Concilium; Sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est. Ad transmarina au∣tem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam ad Communionem suscipiatur, Codex Canon. Eccles African. Can. 28.
• * 1.323

  §. 13.
• * 1.324

  De Concord. Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 7. c. 13. sect. 6, 7, 9.
• * 1.325

  §. 14.
• * 1.326

  Ut Romam liceat Episcopis provocare & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum provinciarum episcopos finiant••r, jam priore anno etiam li∣teris nostris ad eundem ven••rabilis memoriae Zosimum episcopum datis, insinuari curavi∣mu••, &c.

  Ut ea servare sine ullâ ejus injuriâ paulisper sinerem••s, us{que} ad exquisitionem statutorum Concilii Niceni.
• * 1.327

  Praesato ita{que} debitae Saluta∣tionis officio, Impendio de∣precamur, ut deinceps ad ve∣stras aures hinc venientes non faciliùs ad∣mittatis, nec à nobis excom∣municatis in communionem ultrà velitis excipere; quia hoc etiam Ni∣caeno Concilio definitum fa∣cilè advertet Venerabilitas tua. Nam et si de inferioribus Cleric••s vel de Laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de episcopis voluit obser∣vari, nè in suá provinciâ à communione suspensi à tuâ Sanctitate praeproperè, vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui. Presbyterorum quo{que} & sequentium Clericorum improbaref••∣gia, sicut te dignum est, ••epellat sanctitas tua, quia & nullâ Patrum definitione hoc ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae, & decre•••• Nicena sive inferioris gradus Ciericos sive ipsos episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisérunt. Prudentissimè enim justis∣sime{que} vidêrunt, qu•• cun{que} negotia in suis locis, ubi o••••a sunt, finicuda; nec unicui{que} provinciae gratiam Sancti Spiritus de∣futuram: quae aequitas à Christi Sacerdotibus, & prudentèr videatur, & constantissimè teneatur: maximè quia unicui{que} con∣cessum est, si jud••c••o offensus suerit cognitorum, ad Concilia suae provinciae, vel etiam Universale provocare. Nisi forte quis∣quam est qui credat, unicuilib••t posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam; & innumerabilibus co••gregatis in Concili•••• Sacerdotibus denegare. Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus, vel pro••ter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis aliis impedimentis adduci non poterunt? Nam ut aliqui tanquam à tu•• sanctitatis latere mittantur, nullâ invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum. Quia illud quod pridem per eundem cocpiscopu•• Faustinum tanquam ex parte Niceni Concilii exinde transmisistis, in Conci••iis verioribus qua accipiuntur Ni••••ni, à S. Cyrill•• coepiscopo nostro Alexandrinae Ecclesiae, & à venerabili Attico Constantinopolitano Antistite, ex authentico missis, quae etiam ante hoc per Innocentium Presbyterum & Marcellum Subdiaconum, per quos ad nos abiis directa sunt, venerabilis memoriae Bonifacio episcop•• dec••ssori vestro à nobis transmissa sunt, in quibus tale aliquid non potuimus invenire. Executores etiam Cle∣ricos vestros quibus{que} petentibus nolite mittere, nè ••umosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi quae lucem simplicitatis & humi∣litatis d••••m, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. Nam de fratre nostro Faustino (amoto jam, pro suis nefandi•• n••quit••is, de Christi Ecclesiâ dolendo Apiario) securi sumus, quod cum probitate ac moderatione tuae sanctitatis, salvâ frater∣nâ charitate ulterius Africa minimè patiatur. Concil. Carthag. Epist. ad Caelestinum.
• * 1.328

  §. 15.
• * 1.329

  Greg. l. 11. Indict▪ 6. ep. 54
• * 1.330

  P. 171.
• * 1.331

  P. 188.
• * 1.332

  P. 189.
• * 1.333

  Ibid. n. 5. Bed. l. 5. c. 20.
• * 1.334

  Bramhall Just. Vindica∣tion. c. 4. p. 60.
• * 1.335

  Spelman. Con∣cil. An. 705.
• * 1.336

  §. 16.
• * 1.337

  Bed l. 1. c. 29▪
• * 1.338

  P. 190.
• * 1.339

  §. 17.
• * 1.340

  P. 172.
• * 1.341

  P. 191.
• * 1.342

  Leo. ep. 87. c. 2.
• * 1.343

  Greg. l. 1 ep. 75
• * 1.344

  §. 18.
• * 1.345

  P. 175. n. 12▪
• * 1.346

  P. 192.
• * 1.347

  P. 177.
• * 1.348

  P. 193.
• * 1.349

  §. 19.
• * 1.350

  P. 193. n. 9.
• * 1.351

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concil. Sardic. c. 3.
• * 1.352

  De Concord. sacerd. & Imp. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 6, 7, &c. l. 7. c. 4. sect. 2.
• * 1.353

  §. 20.
• * 1.354

  Concord Ca∣thol. l. 2. c. 15
• * 1.355

  Aug ep. 163.
• * 1.356

  Contra Cresc. l. 3. c. 34. l. 4. c. 44.
• * 1.357

  P. 195▪
• * 1.358

  §. 1
• * 1.359

  P. 178.
• * 1.360

  L. 4. ep. 78.
• * 1.361

  P. 196. n. 1, ••
• * 1.362

  §. 2.
• * 1.363

  Euseb. l. 5. cap. 24. Not. in l.
• * 1.364

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 25
• * 1.365

  Cyprian. ep. 68
• * 1.366

  Cypr. ep. 67.
• * 1.367

  Nazian. Orat. 18. p. 281.
• * 1.368

  Athanas. Ap. ad Imp. Const. p. 786. Tom 1. Nazianz. Orat. 21. p. 392. Basil. ep. 52. Tom. 3. p. 79. Chrysost. Tom. 5. p. 631. ed Savil.
• * 1.369

  Hieron. ep. 71. Ruffin. l. 11. c. 27, 30, 31.
• * 1.370

  Theodoret. l. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.371

  Hieron. ep. 60
• * 1.372

  §. 3.
• * 1.373

  Not. in Hist. August. p. 306
• * 1.374

  Amm. Marcel. l. 14. l. 16.
• * 1.375

  Spartian. in Severo.
• * 1.376

  Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. Marcel. l. 18. Justel. Not. in Cod. Afric. Can. 58.
• * 1.377

  Cod. Eccles. Uni Can. 206. & ibi Justel.
• * 1.378

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Na∣zianzen. 21. p. 377.
• * 1.379

  Tu quidem ut homo Dei & Apostolicâ ••rna∣tus gratiâ curam omnium Ecclesiarum susti∣nes. Apud Hieronym. ad Pammach. To. 2. ep. 61. c. 15.
• * 1.380

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. ep. 50.
• * 1.381

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The∣odoret. haeret. fabul. l. 4. c. 12. p. 245. To. ••. oper.
• * 1.382

  §. 4.
• * 1.383

  P. 196.
• * 1.384

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. part 3. p. 243.
• * 1.385

  Bin. not. in Chalced. Con. Tom. 3. Concil. p. 562.
• * 1.386

  Et harum rerum ignari Andabatae nostri, non advertunt, cum Occidentales Patres, Ponti∣fices Romanos vocant, universalis Ecclesiae Episcopos, id more suarum Ecclesiarum facere, & eâ notione, non quod putent totius orbis universalis, universales esse Episcopos, sed eâdem quâ Constantinopolitanus, Alexandri∣nus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus, dicun∣tur Universales: aut ut universales Ecclesi∣arum quae sunt sub eorum Patriarchatu: aut quod in Conciliis Oecumenicis toti Ecclesiae praesint. Vigorius Comment. ad Resp. Sy∣nodal. Concil. Basil. p. 36.
• * 1.387

  Greg. l. 11. ep. 36. Ind. 6.
• * 1.388

  §. 5.
• * 1.389

  Itaque illa demum eis videntur edicta & con∣cilia quae in rem suam faciunt, reliqua non pluris aestimanda, quam conventum mulier∣cularum in textrinâ vel thermis. Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civit. Dei I. 20. cap. 26.
• * 1.390

  Bin. not. in Chalced. Con•• p. 561.
• * 1.391

  P. 196. n. 2.
• * 1.392

  §. 6.
• * 1.393

  P. 197. n. 3.
• * 1.394

  N. 4.
• * 1.395

  Greg. ep. l. 4. ep. 32.
• * 1.396

  Greg. l. 4. ep. 36
• * 1.397

  Ibid.
• * 1.398

  Greg. ep. l. 4. ep. 34.
• * 1.399

  Pelag. 2. ep. 8. apud Bin. To. 4▪ Concil.
• * 1.400

  Evagr. hist. l. 6. c. 7.
• * 1.401

  §. 7.
• * 1.402

  Ibid.
• * 1.403

  L. 4. ep. 34.
• * 1.404

  Triste mihi aliquid sere••issimus Dominus in∣nuit, quòd non eum corripuit qui superbit, sed me magis ab intentione med declinare stu∣duit. Greg. l. 4. ep. 34.
• * 1.405

  Greg. l. 6. ep 30.
• * 1.406

  De quâ re mihi in suis jussionibus pietas prae∣cepit dicens, ut pro appellatione frivoli no∣minis inter nos scandalum generari non de∣beat. Greg. ibid.

  Sed rogo ut imperiatis pietas penset, quia alia sunt frivola valdè innoxia, alia valdè nociva. Ibid.
• * 1.407

  Nunquid ego hâc in re pessime Domine pro∣priam causam desendo? nunquid specialem injuriam vindico? Id. l. 4. ep. 32.
• * 1.408

  P. 199. n. 5.
• * 1.409

  §. 6.
• * 1.410

  Tu quid Christo universalis sc. Ecclesiae ca∣piti, in extremi judicii examine dicturus es, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris uni∣versalis appellatione supponere. Greg. l. 4. ep. 38.
• * 1.411

  Ad culmen conatus est singularitatis cr••mpe∣re, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus prae∣esse videretur. Id. ib.
• * 1.412

  Quid enim fratres tui omnes universalis Ec∣clesiae Episcopi, nisi astra coeli sunt? Ib.
• * 1.413

  Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, Johannes, quid aliud quam singula∣rium sunt plebum capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes sunt membra Ecclesiae. Ibid.
• * 1.414

  Vestra autem Sanctitas agnoscat, quantum apud se tumeat, quae illo nomine vocari appe∣tit, quo vocari nullus praesumpsit, qui vera∣citer sanctus fuit. Ibid.
• * 1.415

  §. 9.
• * 1.416

  Bellarm. de Pontif. l. 4. cap. 24. Hist. Concil. Trid. l 7. p. 611
• * 1.417

  Greg. l. 4. ep. 34. l. 7. ep. 69.
• * 1.418

  Consentive in hoc scelesto vo∣cabulò, est fidem perdere. Greg. l. 4. ep. 39. Absit à cordi∣bus Christiano∣rum nomen istud blasphemiae, in quo omnium Sacerdotum honor adimitur dum ab uno sibi dementèr arrogatur. l. 4. ep. 32.
• * 1.419

  Greg. l. 4: ep. 32, 34, 38, 39. l. 6. ep. 2.34.
• * 1.420

  §. 10.
• * 1.421

  P. 179.
• * 1.422

  P. 200.
• * 1.423

  §. 11.
• * 1.424

  P. 181. n. 13.
• * 1.425

  P. 201. n. 6.
• * 1.426

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24,
• * 1.427

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. ibid.
• * 1.428

  Vales. not. in Euseb. l. 5. c. 24,
• * 1.429

  Euseb. ibid.
• * 1.430

  Socrat. l. 5. c. 2••
• * 1.431

  Africani Antistites Vigilium Romanum Epis∣copam damnatorem trium capitulorum Syno∣dalitèr à Catholic•• communione, reservat•• ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt. Victor Tunu∣nens. Chronic. p. 10.
• * 1.432

  §. 12.
• * 1.433

  P. 201.
• * 1.434

  Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem prin∣cipalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ec∣clesiam, i. e. eo•• qui sunt undique fideles: In quâ semper ab ••is qui sunt undique, conser∣vata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.435

  De Finib. l. 2. v. Hen▪ Steph. Lexicon Cice∣ron. p. 55.
• * 1.436

  Herod. hist. l. 1. p. 18.
• * 1.437

  Concil. An∣tioch. Can. 9.
• * 1.438

  Leo Sermon. de S. Petro & Paulo.
• * 1.439

  P. 202.
• * 1.440

  §. 13.
• * 1.441

  P. 203·
• * 1.442

  §. 14.
• * 1.443

  P. 183.
• * 1.444

  Apud Alexandriam ut in Urbe Romā, vetu∣sta consuetudo servetur, ut ille Aegypti ut hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum solicitudi∣nem gerat. Ruffin. Eccles. hist. l. 1. c▪ 6.
• * 1.445

  P. 203. n. 7.
• * 1.446

  Cod. Theo∣dos. l. 11. tit. 1. c 9. tit. 16. c. 12. tit. 28.12
• * 1.447

  Adventor. p. 2. de Eccles. sub∣urbic. c. 1.
• * 1.448

  De primatu Ecclesiae Romana & aliarum civitatum Episcopis. Antiqui moris est, ut Episcopus Urbis Romae habeat Principatum; ut Suburbicaria loca, & omnem Provinciam suam sollicitudine gubernet. Codex Vatica∣nus apud Sirmond. de Region. & Eccles. Suburb.
• * 1.449

  De Concordi•• Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 6.
• * 1.450

  §. 15.
• * 1.451

  P. 185. n. 14.
• * 1.452

  P. 204. n. 9.
• * 1.453

  Vigorius Com. in ep. Synod. Con∣cil. Basil. c. 7. p. 63.
• * 1.454

  P. 205.
• * 1.455

  Epiph. haeres. 78. p. 1039.
• * 1.456

  Haeres. 29. p. 119.
• * 1.457

  §. 16.
• * 1.458

  P. 187. n. 15.
• * 1.459

  P. 206.
• * 1.460

  Reynolds against Hart. c. 5. div. 3.
• * 1.461

  Hieronym. l. 1. Jovin. c. 14.
• * 1.462

  §. 1.
• * 1.463

  §. 2.
• * 1.464

  P. 208.
• * 1.465

  Bell de Pontif. l. 4. c. 3.
• * 1.466

  P. 209,
• * 1.467

  §. 3.
• * 1.468

  P. 210.
• * 1.469

  Comment. in ep. Synod Con∣cil. Basil. c. 7. sect. 3.
• * 1.470

  Tabulae suffr. ••ab. 10. p. 111.
• * 1.471

  Tabul. suffrag. p. 145.
• * 1.472

  §. 4.
• * 1.473

  P. 211.
• * 1.474

  P. 191.
• * 1.475

  Vigor. p. 61.
• * 1.476

  John. 20.21.
• * 1.477

  Gal. 2 7.
• * 1.478

  Acts 8.14.
• * 1.479

  Mark 6.16.
• * 1.480

  Acts 20.28.
• * 1.481

  §. 5.
• * 1.482

  P. 191.
• * 1.483

  Ibid.
• * 1.484

  P. 212.
• * 1.485

  Philopator. sect. 157. p. 149.
• * 1.486

  De visib. Mo∣narch. l. 2, c. 4.
• * 1.487

  Nebrissens. de bello Navarr. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.488

  §. 6.
• * 1.489

  P. 191. n. 18.
• * 1.490

  P. 212.
• * 1.491

  N. 6.
• * 1.492

  N. 8.
• * 1.493

  N. 57.
• * 1.494

  §. 7.
• * 1.495

  P. 198. n. 6.
• * 1.496

  P. 218.
• * 1.497

  2 Sam. 15.2.
• * 1.498

  §. 8.
• * 1.499

  P. 199. n. 7.
• * 1.500

  P. 200.
• * 1.501

  P. 219.
• * 1.502

  §. 9.
• * 1.503

  P. 220.
• * 1.504

  §. 10.
• * 1.505

  Eph. 4 12.
• * 1.506

  §. 11.
• * 1.507

  P. 201.
• * 1.508

  P. 220.
• * 1.509

  Baron Annal. A.D. 142. s. 6. Bin. Concil. T••. 1. p. 74.
• * 1.510

  Baron. An. 865. sect. 5.8.
• * 1.511

  Concil. Antioch. can. 7, 8.
• * 1.512

  Aug. Epist. 163.
• * 1.513

  Optat. l. 2,
• * 1.514

  §. 12.
• * 1.515

  P. 221.
• * 1.516

  P. 220.
• * 1.517

  Gerson de Au∣feribilitate Pa∣pae Consider. 10
• * 1.518

  Spalat. de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 1. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 5.
• * 1.519

  §. 13.
• * 1.520

  P. 222.
• * 1.521

  Concil. Rom. 3. sub Symmacho. To. 3. p. 688.
• * 1.522

  §. 14.
• * 1.523

  P. 200.
• * 1.524

  Optat. l. 3.
• * 1.525

  P. 223.
• * 1.526

  P. 224.
• * 1.527

  P. 202.
• * 1.528

  P. 224.
• * 1.529

  §. 15.
• * 1.530

  P. 225, 227.
• * 1.531

  P. 205.
• * 1.532

  P. 226.
• * 1.533

  P. 227.
• * 1.534

  P. 211.
• * 1.535

  §. 1.
• * 1.536

  Hist. Council of Trent. l. 1. p. 132.
• * 1.537

  P. 229.
• * 1.538

  P. 213.
• * 1.539

  §. 2.
• * 1.540

  P. 230.
• * 1.541

  Causanus de Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.542

  §. 3.
• * 1.543

  P. 230, 231.
• * 1.544

  §. 4.
• * 1.545

  P. 231.
• * 1.546

  Caesar Aquili∣nus de tribus historicis Con∣cilii Trident. P. 49, 51.
• * 1.547

  §. 5.
• * 1.548

  Ibid.
• * 1.549

  §. 6.
• * 1.550

  Ibid.
• * 1.551

  Baron. A. D. 305. sect. 6.
• * 1.552

  Photius in Bib∣lioth. Cod. 88. p. 21.
• * 1.553

  Phot. de 7. Sy∣nod. &c. p. 163
• * 1.554

  Euseb. de vit •• Const. l. 3. c. 7. Theod. hist. Ec∣cles. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.555

  Sozom. l. 1. c. 16. Nicephor. l. 8. c. 14.
• * 1.556

  §. 7.
• * 1.557

  P. 232.
• * 1.558

  Theodoret. Ec∣cles. hist. l. 5., c. 8. 9. Socrat. l. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.559

  Baron. Ann. 382. sect. 17.
• * 1.560

  Annal. Ann. 381. sect. 17.
• * 1.561

  A. D. 382. sect. 4, &c.
• * 1.562

  Tom. 1. Concil. p. 686.
• * 1.563

  Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c 5.
• * 1.564

  Perrons R••ply. l. 1. cap. 34.
• * 1.565

  Bin. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 665. Theod. hist. Ec∣cles. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.566

  A D. 382. sect. 9.
• * 1.567

  Ann. 381. sect. 80.
• * 1.568

  Tom. 1. Concil. p. 682.
• * 1.569

  §. 8.
• * 1.570

  P. 232.
• * 1.571

  Ann. 430. sect. 23, 24.
• * 1.572

  §. 9.
• * 1.573

  Ibid.
• * 1.574

  Review of the Council of Trent. l. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.575

  §. 10.
• * 1.576

  P. 233.
• * 1.577

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.578

  Greg. ep. l. 10. c. 31.
• * 1.579

  De Repub. Eccles. Tom. 1. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 52. Tom. 2. l. 6. c. 7. n. 102.
• * 1.580

  Protestatio ad∣versus Concil. Trident. p. 22. A.D. 1563.
• * 1.581

  Ibid.
• * 1.582

  §. 11.
• * 1.583

  Ibid.
• * 1.584

  P. 234.
• * 1.585

  §. 12.
• * 1.586

  P. 215.
• * 1.587

  Ibid.
• * 1.588

  Recogniti. p. 46.
• * 1.589

  Tom. 1. Concil. p. 667.
• * 1.590

  Hist. Council of Trent. l. 8. p. 804.
• * 1.591

  §. 13.
• * 1.592

  Ibid. n. 4.
• * 1.593

  P. 230. n. 2.
• * 1.594

  P. 216.
• * 1.595

  P. 235.
• * 1.596

  Hist. l. 1. c. 8.
• * 1.597

  §. 14.
• * 1.598

  P. 218.
• * 1.599

  P. 236.
• * 1.600

  P. 220.
• * 1.601

  P. 237.
• * 1.602

  Tom. 1. Conc. p. 449.
• * 1.603

  Ibid.
• * 1.604

  P. 222.
• * 1.605

  Ibid. n. 8.
• * 1.606

  Hist. Council of Trent. l. 7. p. 683.
• * 1.607

  §. 15.
• * 1.608

  P. 238.
• * 1.609

  Thuan. hist: l. 114. ad A. 1595.

  Thom. à Jesu de Convers. omn. gent. l. 7. c. 6. p. 364.
• * 1.610

  Hottinger. Archaiolog. Orie••t. cap. 3. p. 69.
• * 1.611

  Apud Chytrae. de statu Eccl. Orient. p. 122.
• * 1.612

  Primum Pa∣triar. Resp. p. 1.9.
• * 1.613

  Epist. Remons••. p. 412.