Schism dispach't or A rejoynder to the replies of Dr. Hammond and the Ld of Derry.

THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST THE PRETENDED REPLY OF Dr. Bramhall L^d of Derry.

THE INTRODVCTION.

LITTLE remains to bee reply'd to my second Adversary in substantiall and fundamentall points, either in behalf, of R. C. or S. W. if those passages in which I bring Dr. H. to Grounds bee duly reflected on: since, neither can my Lord of Derry deny but that there is now a breach made between us in the points now controverted; nor does hee pretend demonstrative and rigorous Evidence that the Pop'es Authority was an vsurpation, and so their renouncing it no criminall breach but a lawfull self-enfranchisement: Nor lastly, does hee endeavour to shew that less, than such rigorous Evidence (that is, that pro∣bable reasons) are sufficient ground to renounce, such an Authority; and soe strongly supported by a long posses∣sion, an vniversall delivery of immediate forefathers as come from Christ, &c. or, that it was prudence to hazard

a Schism, & consequently their salavations upon the un∣certain lottery of a probability. This was all which funda∣mentally concern'd this Controversy; and this is wholly omitted by his fellow Mr. H. aswell as himself; and, con∣sequently, till they speak out directly to this point (to do which they are ever very warily loath) they can one∣ly hope it from courtesy, not claim it from iustice, that they are vouchsafed any answer at all; since, they who will not bee drawn to speak to the purpose, deserve to been neglected, and suffer'd to talk to no purpose.

Now, for satisfaction how little can bee said to those most concerning points, to omit other places, I refer my Reader to Sect. 9. & 10th of the 2^d part of Schism Di∣sarm'd left in a manner wholly unanswer'd as yet by Mr. H. and to my Grounds before the foregoing Treatise.

In answer to the Title Down-Derry hee shows himself mystically proverbiall, and tells the amused Readers, that it were strange if hee should throw a good cast who seals his Bowl upon an undersong. I must confess the Bp. is far the better Bowler; & that S. W. is so unexpert as not to understand what should bee mean't by sealing a Bowl vpon an under∣song. Onely lest hee should conceit some petty victorie in having thus pos'd his Adversary, hee may please to take notice that it nothing concerns him; for the Bp: is behol∣ding for the title Down-Derry (and consequently the world, for this rare bowling phrase sprung from that hap∣py occasion) to the merry stationer; who without my knowledge or approbation would needs make it the post∣past to his Bill of fare. The iest was very proper & fa∣tall; but, whether courteous or no, I leave the Bp. and him to scuffle for it: and address my self to a serious exa∣min of the Bishop's Reply. Wee have seen already that hee is a good Bowler, let us see now whether hee bee an honestman.

Sect. 1.

How my L^d of Derry omits totally to mention the second part of our charge; and preuaricates from answering any title of the first, by cavilling groundlesly at unconcerning toyes; giving us generall terms in stead of the particular thing; falsifying openly the Council of Ephesus; contra∣dicting common sence; of controvertist turning Lawyer, and impugning the Extent of the Pope's Authority, in∣stead of the substance of it; wilfully misrepresenting every word of our Rule of faith, as put down by his Adversary; and, lastly, by plainly confessing hee will not answer our charge or Objection.

IT was objected that the crime of Schism would appear to bee iustly charged upon his Church not onely with colour, but with undeniable Evidence of fact; by the very position of the case and the nature of his exce∣ptions.

Meaning, that there was a manifest fact of re∣nouncing and breaking from an Authority long acknow∣ledg'd as of Christ's Institution, upon Exceptions short of Demonstration; that is, short of power to convince a rationall understanding; that is, Passion & not those reasons must move first the will, and by it the understan∣ding to a conuiction; that is, the breach or Schism was criminall. Now the good Bishop

First leaves out the second part of these words, [the nature of his Exceptions] which concern'd himself; and puts down onely the first part, to wit, the position of the case. Whereas, wee charge them not with Schism upon this single account, that they broke from a formerly-acknowledg'd Authority, which is the position of the case; but, that they broke from it without hauing Evi∣dent & demonstratiue reasons and Exceptions against it,

but, at best, pretended probable ones onely; that is, such as are no waies either able to oblige the understanding to assent upon them, nor sufficient Grounds to renoun∣ce any Authority at all, much less an Authority held sa∣cred before, & thus qualify'd. For, what a slack thing would the world bee, if probable Exceptions of the sub∣jects (I mean, such as are held noe more than proba∣ble by the subjects themselves) should bee held suffi∣cient ground to disacknowledge their Governour's right, and alter the present Government? Would any Govern∣ment in the world remain on foot three years to an end, if this method were allow'd and practised; unles, per∣haps, force preuaild over reason? The Bishop had good reason then to omit that which concern'd the nature of his own Exceptions: For, though himself and his friends love extremely to talk prettily, yet they cannot endure the reasons which make up their Discourse should bee brought to the test, or their validity to convince the un∣derstanding scann'd; that is, they love not to speak out whether they bee demonstrative, or probable onely. They dare not assert the former, conscious that their best way of discoursing is onely thetoricall, topicall, and for the most part quibbling and blūdering in a wordish testimo∣ny, whence no demonstration, or (it's proper effect) con∣viction is likely to bee expected. Nor yet dare they for shame confess the latter; knowing that a probability, though never so strong, still leaves room for a may bee-otherwise; and so can never conclude that the thing must-bee; that is, can never, without iniury to a rationall na∣ture, claim it's assent that the thing 〈◊〉〈◊〉: for, how can any man in reason assent that the thing is so upon that motive, which very motive permits that it may not bee so? It was not therefore dishonesty in the Bishop, going about to impugn his Adversary, to omit one halfe of that which hee grounded himself on; but a great deal of prudenc••

and warines, or indeed a kind of necessity.

Secondly proceeding upon this mistake of his own, hee wrangles with us, for calling this our chief objection against them; as king us if stating the question and objecting bee all one? No sure; if wee speak rigorously: but a Charge against one is often call'd, an Objection. Now ours against you (which you here purposely mutilate) is this, that you left a preacknowledg'd Ecclesiasticall Authority, upon fantastick Exceptions, that is, unpon uncertain Grounds: Which objection (if verify'd) so euidently concludes you wilfull Schismaticks, that it is impossible to bee cloak't or evaded. Now the first part, which cōcerns your actuall reiecting that actuall Authority, is notorious to the who∣le world, and confest by your selves. The second, that you did it upon uncertain Grounds, your self when you are prest to it will confess also; for, I presume, you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration; Both, because your self would bee the first Protestant that ever preten∣ded it; as also, because your best Champions grant your faith & it's Grounds but probable. And, should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point, wee should quickly make an end of the Controversy, by showing it short of conclu∣ding evidently, as you well know: which makes you al∣waies either disclaime, or decline that pretence; never pitching upon any one pretended conuincing or demon∣strative reason which you dare stand to, but hudling to∣gether many in a diffused Discourse; hoping that an ac∣cumulation of may-bee will persuade vulgar and half wit∣ted understandings that your tenet is certain, & must bee.

Thirdly, the Bp. asks us who must put the case, or state the question? telling us, that if a Protestant do it, it will not bee so undeniably evident. I answer, let the least child put it; let the whole world put it; let themselves put it: Do not all these grant & hold that K. H. deny'd the

Pope's Supremacy? Does not all the world see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in or∣der to the Church of Rome, than it did in H. the 7ths dayes? Does not the Bps. of Schism. c. 7. par. 2. fellow-fencer, Dr. H. confess in expresse terms, And first, for the matter of fact, it is acknowledg'd that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th, the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs, was, both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy, & by statutes or Acts of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdome? Was this power it self thus cast out before? that is, was it not in actuall force till and at this time? and is not this time ex∣toll'd as that in which the Reformation in this point be∣gan? Wee beg then nothing gratis, but begin our process, upon truth acknowledg'd by the whole world. Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact: whence wee conclude them, criminally-Schismati∣call, unles their Exceptions against this Authority's right bee such as, in their owne nature, oblige the understan∣ding to assent that this Authority was vsurpt; onely which can iustify such a breach. So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half, of that on which wee build our charge, (to wit, the nature of their Exceptions;) and, when hee hath done, wilfully mistakes, and mis∣presents the other: persuading the unwary Reader that the case wee put is involu'd in ambiguities, and may bee stated variously; whereas 'tis placed in as open a manife∣station as the sun at noonday, and acknowledg'd uni∣versally. In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man.

Now, let us see what hee answers to the case it self. It was put down, Schism Disarm. p. 307. thus; that in the beginning of H. the 8ths reign, the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion, in two points, which were then and are now the bonds of vnity, betwixt all her Members. One concerning faith, the

other Government. For faith, her Rule was, that the Do∣ctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory, and nothing in them to bee chan∣ged. For Government, her Principle was, that Christ had made S. Peter first, or chief, or Prince of his Apostles; who was to bee the first Mover under him in the Church af∣ter his departure out of this world, &c. and, that the Bis∣hops of Rome, as successours of S. Peter, inherited from him this priuiledge in respect of the successours of the rest of the Apostles; and actually exercised this power in all those coun∣tries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very year wherein this unhappy separation began.

It is noe lesse evident that, in the reigne of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successours, neither the former Rule of Vni∣ty of faith, nor this second of Vnity of Government (which is held by the first) have had any power in that Congrega∣tion, which the Protestants call the English Church. This is our objection against you, &c.

This is our case, ioyntly put by us and by the whole world; which the Bp. calls an Engine, and pretends to ta∣ke a view of it. But, never did good man look soe as∣quint upon a thing which hee was concern'd to view, as my L^d of Deity does at the position of this plain case.

First, hee answers, that wee would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and it's dependents for the Catholike Church. Whereas, wee neither urge any such thing in that place, nor so much as mention there the word Catho∣lik; as is to bee seen in my words put down here by him∣self, p. 3. but onely charge them, that the Church of En∣gland formerly agreed with the Church of Rome in these two a foresaid Principles, which afterwards they renoun∣ced. In stead of answering positiuely to which, or replying I or noe, the fearfull, Bishop starts a side to this needles disgression.

Next, hee tells us what degree of respect they owe, now to the Church of Rome: Whereas the question is not what they owe now, but what they did or acted then; that is, whether or no they reiected those two Principles of faith and Government, in which formerly they consented with her. To this the wary Bp. saies nothing.

After these weak evasions, hee tells us, that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion; that the world is greater than the City: and so runs on with his own wise sayings of the same strain, to the end of the parag. Whereas, the present circumstances inuite him onely to confess or de∣ny what they did; and whether they renounced those two Principles of Vnity, or no: not to stand railing thus un∣seasonably upon his own head what our Church did; shee shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse. Again, whenas wee object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome; hee falls to talk against the Court of Rome: as if all those particular Churches, which held Communion with the see of Rome, had well approved of nor ever ab∣hominated their breach from those two a foresaid Prin∣ciples; but the Court of Rome onely. Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which hee aimed to reply to; or did ever Hocus-pocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what hee was about: than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand? In a word, all that can bee gather'd from him in order to this matter consists in these words [this preten∣ded separation:] by which hee seems to intimate his de∣niall of any separation made in the a foresaid Principles; but it is so shameles and open an vntruth, that hee dares not own it in express terms; nor yet, (such is his shuf∣fling) will hee confess the contrary. I know his party so∣metimes endeavours to evade, by saying that our Church

caused the breach by excommunicating them: but, ask whether they broke from and renounced that Govern∣ment (and so deserved excommunication) ere they we∣re thus excommunicated by it; and, their own conscien∣ce with the whole world will answer, they did. It is that former breach of theirs, then, and reiection of that Go∣vernment, which denominates them Schismaticks; till they can render sufficient, that is, evident Grounds why they reiected it: for, otherwise, nothing is more weak, than to imagine that Governours should not declare themselves publikely and solemnly against the renoun∣cers of their Authority; or, that a King should not pro∣c••ame for Rebells and incapable of any priuiledges from the commonwealth, those persons who already had dis∣acknowledg'd his Right, and obstinately broken it's laws. Either show us, then, that our Excommunication sepa∣rated you from your former tenets, to wit, from holding those a foresaid Principles of Vnity in faith and Govern∣ment; or else grāt that your selves actually separated from them both, that is, from our Church. This, my Lord, is the separation which uniustify'd, makes a criminall Schism: Excommunication is onely the punishment due to the antecedent crime.

Order, which consists in Government being essentiall to a Church if intended to continue, it follows that sin∣ce Christ intended his Church should continue, hee con∣stituted the order of the Church, otherwise hee had not constituted a Church, since a Church cannot bee with∣out that which is essentiall, to a Church. Wherefore, seing that which Christ instituted is of faith, it follows that or∣der of Government is of faith, and so, must bee, recom∣mended to us by the same Rule that other points of faith are. Hence, speaking of the two Principles, one of Vni∣ty in faith, the other of Vnity in Government, I affir∣med that the truth of the latter is included in the former, and

hath it's Evidence from it. Must not hee now bee very quarelsome, who can wrangle with such an innocent and plain truth?

The iealous Bishop first alledges, 'tis done to gain the more opportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Po∣pe's, into the ancient discipline of the Church. Not a iot, my Lord: the standing to this Rule, to wit, the imme∣diate delivery of fathers to sons attestation, renders it im∣possible for an usurpation to enter; Nor can you, or any else instance, that any usurpation either in secular or Ec∣clesiastical Government ever came in, prerending that te∣nour; or show that it ever could, as long as men adhered to that method. It must bee either upon wit explications of word in the laws, or of ambiguous peeces of Antiqui∣ty, not upon this immediate delivery from hand to hand, (in which wee place our Rule of faith) that encroach∣ments are built. Had wee, then, a mind to obtrude usur∣pations upon you, wee had recurr'd to testimony-proofs, (the Protestants onely method;) where with hath a lar∣ge field to maintain a probability-skirmish of the absur∣dest positions imaginable: not to this Rule of soe vast a multitude of eye-witnesses of visible things from age to age; Which Rule is as impossible to bee crooked, as it is for a world of fathers to conspire to tell a world of Chil∣dren this ly, that ten years ago they held and practised what themselves and all the world besides knew they did not.

His second exception is far more groundlesly quarrel∣som. 'Tis against my making two Principles; one in do∣ctrine, the other in discipline: whereas, euery Child sees that doctrine & discipline, or faith, and Government ma∣ke manifestly two distinet ranks or Orders; the one re∣lating immediately to information of the understanding or speculative holding, the other to action. But his reasons why they should bee but one are pretty: because, frustra

fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora, It is in vain to make two rules where one will serve. By which maxim, ri∣gorously misunderstood, as 'tis by him, one may dispu∣te against the making severall laws, and severall Com∣mandments, with the like Logick, and say, all the trea∣ting them with distinction is vain, because this one Com∣mandment to do well, or, to do no ill, includes all the rest. Again, hee imagins, because the truth of one depends on the other, therefore they ought not to bee treated distinct∣ly: as if it were vain or needles, to deduce consequences, or, as if Mathematicians ought not to conclude any thing, but hover still in the generall Principles of Euclid, without making any progresse farther, because the truth of the consequences depends on those Principles. Are these men fit to write Controversies; who cannot, or will not, write common sence?

After hee had been thus frivolously backward, hee adds, that hee readily admits both my first & second Ru∣le, reduced into one in this subsequent form: those doctrines and that discipline, which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ & his Apostles, ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory, and nothing in them to bee changed that is substantial or essentiall. See here, Reader, the right Protestant method, which is, to bring the Con∣troversy, from a determinate state, to indetermination and confusion; and, from the particular thing, to common words. Wee point them out a determinate form of Go∣vernment, to wit, that of one supreme Bishop in God's Church: 'tis known what it means: 'tis known that the acknowledgment of that Government is now, and was at the time of the breach, the bond of Vnity between tho∣se Churches which held that Government, of which the Church of England was one: 'tis known they renounced this form of Government, that is, that, which was and still is, to the Church they formerly communicated with,

a bond of Vnity in discipline. Again, 'tis known that wee hold the voice of the Church, that is, the consent of Catholick fathers immediately attesting that they recei∣ved this doctrine from their forefathers, infallible; and, that none cannot bee ignorant of what their fathers teach them & bring them up in: Which immediate receiving it from fathers wee call, here, inheritance.

These, I say, are determinate points, manifesting themselves in their known particularities Now, the Bis∣hop, instead of letting us know, I or noe, whether they broke that Principle of Vnity in discipline (which 'tis evi∣dent they did, by renouncing the Pope's Authority) or that Principle of Vnity in doctrine, to wit, Tradition, delivery, or handing down by immediate forefathers, (which 'tis evident they did, out of the very word, Re∣formation, which they own & extoll; Or, instead of tel∣ling us what particular Rule of faith, what particular form of Government, they have introduc't into God's Church in room of the former; He refers us to Platonick Ideas of both, to bee found in Concavo Lunae; wrapping them up in such generall terms, as hee may bee sure they shall never come to open light, lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences.

Observe his words. Those doctrines & that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory; and nothing in them is to bee changed, which is substantiall or essentiall. But, what and how many those doctrines are, what in particular that discipline is, what hee means by In heriting, what by forefathers, what by sub∣stantiall: none must expect in reason to know: for him∣self, who is the relater, does not. Are those doctrines their 39 Articles? Alas, noe: those are not obligatory, their best Champions reiect them at pleasure. Are they con∣tain'd in the Creed onely? Hee will seem to say so some∣times,

upon some urgent occasion: but then ask him, are the processions of the divine Persons, the Sacraments Bap••ism of children, Government of the Church, the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word, or Scripture, &c. obligatory? the good man is gravelld. In fine, when you urge him home, his last re∣fuge will bee, that all which is in God's word is obligato∣ry: and then hee thinks himself secure; knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yea∣res there, ere any Evidence, that is, conviction, bee brought. Thus the Bishop is got into a wood, and leaves you in another, and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are, than you were at first.

Again, ask him what in particular that discipline is, own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles, as their Legacy, (for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely;) and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before. Will hee say, 'tis that of the secular power being Head of the Church, or that of Bishops? Neither of these can bee: for, they ack∣nowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant, and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to ha∣ve come from Christ, but that of Presbyters onely; which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Le∣gacy. It remains, then, that the Protestants have intro∣duc't into the Church, at or since the Reformation, in stead of that they renounced, no particular form of Go∣vernment, that is, no one, that is, they have left none; but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall, put∣ting them of with words for realities, and names for things.

Again, ask him what hee means by inheriting: and hee will tell us, if hee bee urged and prest hard, (for, till then, no Protestant speaks out,) that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and tea∣chers; which is our Rule of faith and that which inheri∣ting

properly signifies (this would cut the throat of Re∣formation at one blow; since, Reformation of any point, and a former immediate delivery of it, are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once.) But, that which hee means by inheriting is, that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity; that is, in a vast Library of books filld with dead words, to bee tost and explicated by witts & criticks: where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty, find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false; and that, rather than take so much pains, they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows.

Thou seest then, Reader, what thou art brought to: namely, to relinquish a Rule, (that I may omit demon∣strable) open, known, and as easy to teach thee faith, as children learne their A. B. C. (for, such is immediate de∣livery of visible and practicall points by forefathers;) to embrace another method, soe full of perplexity, quib∣bling-ambiguity and difficulty, that, without running over & examining thousands of volumes, (that is, scarce in thy whole life time) shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it, or to chuse thy faith: that is, if thou followst their method of searching for faith, and pursvest it rationally, thou may'st spend thy whole life in sear∣ching, and, in all likelihood, dy, ere thou chusest or pit∣chest upon any faith at all.

The like quibble is in the word forefathers, hee means not by it immediate forefathers, as wee do, (that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation;) but, ancient writers: and, so, hee hath pointed us out no determina∣te Rule at all, till it bee agreed on whom those forefa∣thers must bee, and how their expressions are to bee un∣derstood; both which are controverted, and need a Ru∣le themselves.

But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last

words, that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies, which is substantiall or essentiall: That is, when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point, though never so sacred, nay, though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves; 'tis but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall, and then they are licenc't to reiect them. Wee urge; the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points & essentiall to a Church, if Vnity it self bee essen∣tiall to it: These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such; these youreiected and renounc't; this fact, therefore, of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks, till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation, the former Rule fallible; onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature.

It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L^d of Derry's former proposition; and to observe, that, though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it, yet hee would persua∣de his Readers hee holds the same with us: saying, that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced in∣to one, in this subsequent form, &c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing; making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is suffi∣cient to ty Churches together, and make them one. Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel, the Rabbi of the late Iews, in the close of his petition, would make those who profess Christ, and the Iews, bee of one faith; by an aiery gene∣rall expression, parallell to the Bishops, here, that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed. Thus, dear Protestant, Reader, thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to: to neglect sence, and the substantiall solid import of words; and, in stead thereof, to bee content

to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms, hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies. In a word either the sence of your cōtracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one, or not: If not, then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church, (unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely) and by consequence are flat Schismaticks. But if you say 'tis the same, you are re∣uinc't by the plain matter of fact, nay by the most un∣deniable force of self-evident terms: since no first Prin∣ciple can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held, was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers; and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it.

After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith, (that is, indeed a different thing, but the same words;) hee immediately disgraces the said Rule, by adding, that the question onely is, who have changed that doctrine, or this discipline; wee, or they? the one by substraction, the other by addition. Which is as much as to say, the preten∣ded Rule is noe Rule at all; or else that wee do not agree in it, which yet hee immediately before pretended; for, sure, that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled, as one of us must necessarily bee, who according to him, hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines. Either then there is no Rule of faith at all; or, if there bee, one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another; ere hee could embrace'an errour, or differ from the other. It being known, then, and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reforma∣tion, that is, the Tradition of immediately forefathers; it is evident out of the very word Reformation, that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it.

Next, hee assures his Reader, that the case is clear; to wit, that wee have changed that doctrine & discipline by addition. This hee proves, by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head: Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary, that is, the creed; and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Chri∣stian at his Baptismall profession; whereas wee now exact more. What a piece of wit is here? did ever Protestant hold, that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed? doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of Infants, the Sacraments, &c. are the Legacies of the Apostles, and so of faith: yet, not found in that creed? Is it not of faith with them, that there is such a thing as God's words; though it bee not in that creed? How then follows it, that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition, who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles? may not wee, by the same Logick, accuse the Church at the ti∣me of the Nicene Council; who prest the word Consub∣stantiall, to distinguish Catholicks from Arians? nay, may not wee, by the self-same argument, charge his own Church, for making & pressing the profession of their 39. Articles, in which are many things (as hee wel knows) not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed? What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then, to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition; from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed: whereas, 'tis evident and acknow∣ledg'd, that very many points were held anciently and ever, which are not put there? And what a self contra∣dicting absurdity is it, to alledge for a reason against us, that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation?

It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith; it follows, that it was not institu∣ted,

as such, by them, or receiv'd, as such, by the an∣cient Church. Let us see then to what end it served, and how it was used by them; the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity: which hee might partly ha∣ve corrected, had hee reflected on his owne words, [Ba∣ptismall profession.

It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever, not to admit any to their Communion or suf∣fer them to live amongst them, till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party. Hence at their Baptism, (the solemnity which admits persons into the Church) they proposed to them some such form of tenets (which they therefo∣re call'd a symboll or badge) as might distinguish them from all the other sects, rife at that time, for some time, the Apostles creed was sufficient for that, and to diffe∣rence a Christian from all others: because, at the time it was made, the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews. Afterwards, when other Adversaries of the Church, that is, Hereticks, arose against points not found in that creed; it was necessary, upon occasion, to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll, soe as to signi∣fy a detestation of, or an aversion from that heresy. Ei∣ther, then, the Bp. must say, that no new heresy shall or can arise, against any point not found in the creed; and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England: or else hee must grant that the Church, when such arise, must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes; unles shee will admit promis∣cuously into her Bowells, Adversaries for friends; a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth, either Ecclesiasti∣call or temporall. This is evident out of naturall pruden∣ce; yet this is that which my L^d D. carps at, that when new up start heresies had risen, the Church should or∣dain

such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points, as may stop the entrance of such into the Church. As then, if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now, at age, and so make him one of their company, none can doubt but it were prudence in her (had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church) to ask him such questions first, as should manifest hee were not a Socinian, Anabaptist, or Papist, but Protestant-like affected, that is, propose to him a Profession of faith, larger than is that of the creed, (for each of those sects admits this, and yet differs from the Protestant:) so, it could not bee imprudent in our Church, when new he∣resies arose, who yet admitted the creed, to propose so∣me larger form of Profession, which might discover the affection of the party; lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community, an arrant Adversary, who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could. Yet, this due examination before∣hand, the Bp. calls: changing of faith by addition; thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack, when Prote∣stant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism; and, to ma∣ke the non-sence more pithy, hee calls this a clear case, that wee have thus offended by addition.

Again, hee tells us, to confirm this, that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed. Which is, first, a very round falsification and an open abuse of the Council. For, as may bee seen, im∣mediately before the 7th Canon, Theodorus Mopsuesten∣sis & Carisius had made a wicked creed, which was brought and read before the Council. After this begins the 7th Canon, thus; His igitur lectis, decreuit sancta, &c. These things being read, the holy synod decreed, that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose, write, or produce [alteram fidem] another faith; praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis

Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congrega∣tis, besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice. Where, wee see, the intention of the Council was no other than this, that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one; not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession, as the Bishop would persuade us. Hence,

His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem (which, taken by themselves, and, most evidently, as spoken in this occasion, signify a different or contrary faith) to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession: So, by the words, any more, which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose; making the Council strike directly at the en∣largment of such Profession. Very good!

His 2^d is, that, to play Pope Pius a trick, hee assures us, the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession; whereas, there is no news the∣re of exacting, (but, of producing, writing, or composing false creeds) lesse of Baptismall profession. And, though the Council forbide this to bee done, his qui volunt ad cog••itionem veritatis conuerti, to those who are willing to ••ee converted to the knowledge of the truth: yet, the punish∣ments following, extended also to Laymen, in those words, si vero Laici fuerint, anathematiz entur, if they (the proposers of another faith) bee Laym••n, let them bee excommunicated, makes it impossible to relate to Ba∣ptism; unles the Bishop will say that, in those dayes, Laymen were Ministers of Baptism, or exacted, (as hee phrases it) Baptismall Professions.

His third falsification is, that hee pretends the Coun∣cil forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed: whereas, the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice. So that, according to

the Bishop, the creed defined by the fathers in the Coun∣cil of Nice, and the Apostles creed, are one and the sa∣same creed.

His fourth is, that hee pretends from the bare word [fidem] a Baptismal profession, for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose. Now, the truth is, that, upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine, the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't; as appears more plainly from that which fol∣lows concerning Carisius, Pari modo, &c. In like man∣ner, if any either Bishops, Priests or Laymen bee taken, (sentientes aut docentes,) holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine, &c. let them bee thus or thus punisht. Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall profes∣sions, or their enlargments, as the Bp. fancies; but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed.

Ere wee leave this point, to do my L^d D. right, let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it, and it stands thus; that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any [proferre, scribere; aut com∣ponere] to exact, [alteram] any more, or a larger, [fidem] Baptismall profession, [praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit] than the Apostles creed. Well, go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Pro∣testants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils, they are false to their best interests: The cau∣se cannot but stand, if manag'd by such sincerity, wit, and learning; as long as women prejudic'd men and fools, who examin nothing, are the greater part of Readers.

Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity, hee presu∣mes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word: and then, without any either reason or Authority alledged, or so much as pretended, but on his bare word onely,

hee assures the Reader, if hee will beleeve him, that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church, and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Ge∣nerall Councells, &c. Yet, the candid man, in his vindi∣cation, durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us, or held by all; but onely, p. 232. alledges, first, that it is maintaind by many; that is, that it is an opinion onely, and then 'tis not his proper task to dispu∣te against it, our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us, that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations, that th••y signify nothing. So that the Bishop, grants that some onely and not all, add this to the Pope's Authority; and that this which is ad∣ded signifies nothing: and yet rails at it here in high terms, as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it, and claps it upon the whole Church.

After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles, or first mover in the Church, in a right sence, as hee styles it: yet tells us, for prevention sake, that all this extends but to a Primacy of order. Whereas all the world, till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it, imagin'd, that to move did in a sence right enough, signi∣fy to act; and so, the first mover meant the first Acter. Wee thought likewise that, when God was call'd primum mo∣uens, the first mover, those words did, in a very right sen∣ce, import actiuity and influence; not a primacy of order onely, as the acute Bp. assures us: But his meaning is this, that though all the world hold that to move first, is to act first; yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong, and this onely right, which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie: who are so wonderfully acute, that, according to them, hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council, or some things, (which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope) shall, in a right sence, bee said to move first or to bee first mover.

I alledged, as a thing unquestionable even by understan∣ding Protestāts, that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation, in this Principle of Government, that the Bishops of Rome, as success••urs of S. Peter, inherited his priviledg••s, &c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English. Now, the Bishop, who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour, omits the former pa••t of my proposition, and changes the busines from an evident matter of fact and acknowledged by Protestants, (viz: that the Church of Englands Princi∣ple was actually such, and such at that time) into the point and tenet it self, which is question'd and controver∣ted b••tween us. His words are these, p. 6. Thirdly h••e ad∣deth that, [the Bishops of Rome, as successours of S. I••e er, inherited his priviledges;] whereas hee ought to have re∣p••esented my words thus, that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such; and th••n have told us what hee thought of it, by ••••her expressing a deniall, or •• grant. But positivenes, even in things manifest and acknow∣ledg'd, is a thing th•• Bishop hates wi••h all his heart: for, were I or noe said to any point, the discourse might pro∣ceed rigo••ously upon it, which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk.

It follows in my words put down by him, p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power (viz: of first mover in the Church; S. Peter's priviledge) in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very year wherein this unhappy separation be∣gan Mee thanks, it is not possible to avoid being ab∣solute here. But, nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all, or, if hee does, it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us, first, that it cometh much short of the truth in one res∣pect:

and why? for the Pope's (saith hee) exercised much mo∣re power in those countries which gave them leave, than ever S. Peter pretended to. So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power, because hee exer∣cised a power far greater, that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power, because hee exercised S. Peter's power, and much more; which is as much as to say, Totum est minus parte, and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant, who chuses rather to run upon such rocks, then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supre∣me in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny, dangerous positive∣ly to confess; and therefore necessary to bee thus blun∣der'd.

Secondly, hee tells us, that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy, which the Pope did then and doth still claim. And why? for (saith hee) as I have already said (observe the strength of his discourse, his saying is proving) two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion; meaning the Greeks, Arme∣nians, &c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man, who in every line mani∣fests himself in the highest degree deserving them? Our position as put down even by himself was this, that the Pope's did actually, then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Ro∣me; and the Bps answer comes to this, that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Commu∣nion with the Church of Rome.

But, to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences, I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those coun∣tries; as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters, whom hee cannot other∣wise reduce. As, then, a Governour exercises his power

over obedient subjets, by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good; but cannot exercise it over contuma∣cious and too potent Rebells, any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth: so, neither could it bee imagi••'d or expected by any ratio∣nall man that the Pope, in those circumstances, though hee were supposed and granted by both sides law••ull Governour) could exercise power over them in any other way, h••n onely in i••flicting on them Ecclesiasticall pu∣nishments or censures, and excommunicating or out∣lawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed en•• to him; as he Bp. complainingly grant; hee did.

Having thus shustled in every tittle of the sta••e of the question, hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all. Can there bee a more candid sta∣ting a question and free from all equivocation, than to beg••n with a known matter of fact and acknowle••ge•• by bo••h sides; and thence to conclude those acters, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is, breakers, Schismaticks, unles they can bring ••••ffi∣c••ent reasons to warrant such a breach? But, let u•• exa∣mi•• a lit••l•• the ground of his Exception. The true que∣stion (saith hee) is not, whether the Bishop of R••me had any Authority in the Catholi••e Church. Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter, or any Catholike, or even moderate Protestant, ever mou••d such a question: and, wh••ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract, to impose on us such as stating of the que∣stion; whenas every child sees, it is not barely his ha∣v••ng any Authority, but his having a supreme Authority, which is question'd and deba••ed between us and the Pro∣testant?

It follows in him immediately, The Pope had Autho∣rity in his Diocese, as a Bishop, in his Province, as a Me∣tropolitane,

in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Proto∣patriarchs; and all over, as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, or S. Peter. Where, all the former words are to∣tally besides the purpose, nor ever made the question by us, as the Bp. calumniates. But, the last words▪ which grant the Pope had Authority all over, as successour of S. Peter, deserve consideration and thanks too, if meant really: for, these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall; nor a ••••y primacy onely but an Au∣thori••y all over, that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church, that is, an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church, at least in some cases. Now, in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority; and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority, as thus character'd; they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely. But, the misery is, that this our back-friend, after hee hath given us al•• this fair promising lan∣guage, that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriar∣chall, (as the Climax in his discourse signifies;) that it is all over or universall; and lastly, that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter: after all this, I say, if hee been prest home to declare himself; as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church, and then told us that, in a right sence, it meant but a Pri∣macy of order; so hee will tell us the same of these flatte∣ring expressions, and th••t the words [Authority] doth not, in a right sence, signify a power to act as a Gover∣nour, (though all the world else understand it so) but onely a right to sit, talk, or walk first: Et sic vera re∣rum nomina amisimus.

Thus, my Refuter hath shown that I stated the que∣stion wrong: now, let us hear him state it right. The true question (saith hee) is, what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority: and then reckons up a company of

particularities, some true, most of them co••••erning the extent of the Pope's Authority i••self and debated amōgst our owne Canon-Lawyers, some flat lies and calumnies; as, whether the Pope have power to sell palls, pardons, and Indulgences, to impose pensions at his pleasure, to in∣fringe the liberties and customes of whole nations, to depri∣ve Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance, &c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist? or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us; that is, to pretēd that our Church holds these things as of faith?

To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary; the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority, as held by us, and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this, that hee is Head of the Church, that is, first mover in it, and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the na∣ture of a first Governour. This is held with us to bee of faith, and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faith∣full as come from Christ and his Apostles; so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it: nor is this de∣bated at all between Catholike & Catholike, but bet∣ween Catholike and Heretike onely. Hence, this is held by our Church as a Church; that is, as a multitude recei∣ving it upon their Rule of faith, universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours, as from theirs, and so upwards as from Christ; and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen. The, extent of this Authority consists in de∣termining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no; the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines, Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen: and, though some∣times some of those points bee held as a common opi∣nion of the schoolmen, and (as such) embraced by ma∣ny Catholikes; yet, not by them as faithfull, that is,

as relying ••pon their Ancestours, as from theirs, as from Christ; but, as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon∣law; and; implicitely, upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid: which is as much as to say, such points are not held by a Church as a Church, no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae, or that Co∣lumbus found out the Indies. The points, therefore, are such, that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull: nor bee blameable for holding otherwise, if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other lear¦ned men had for theirs, as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth.

Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better. The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore (as wee may say) a point of civill faith, nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this; in the undif∣putable acknowledgment of which cōsisted the substance of their Authority: But, whether they had power to rai∣se ship money, impose subsidies, &c. alone and without a Parliament, belong'd to the extent of their Authority, was subject to dispute, and the proper task of Lawyers; nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw, or (as wee may say) a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority, so hee admitted the Authority it self: I concieve the parallell is soe plain, that it will make it's owne application.

This being settled, as I hope it is; so let it stand a whi∣le, till wee make another consideration.

A Controversy (in the sence which our circumstances determine it) is a dispute about faith; and so a Contro∣vertist, as such, ought to impugn a point of f••ith; that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hee ought to i•• pugn that which is held by a Church

as a Church, or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence, if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance, and not held of faith according to it's extent; hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government, and not it's extent: otherwise, hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist, not impugning faith but opinions, no•• that Church as a Church and his Adver∣sary; but, falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company, and to hold all the substance of it's Authority, hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other, in a point indifferent to faith, uncon∣cerning his duty.

These things, Reader, observe with attention; and then bee thine own judge, whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist, who, in his former book, pretended to vindicate the Church of England (which renounced the substance of this Authority) by impugning the extent of it onely: and here, undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly, first grants, in very plain but wrong mean't terms, the whole question, to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter; and then tells thee, that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority, which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true mem∣bers of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn.

His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine: and 'tis this, that I affirmed it was and is the con∣stant beleef of the Casholike world, (by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome, whom one∣ly I may call Catholikes) that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture. Whereas,

hee cannot but know, that all our Doctour••s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that for∣mer Principle, to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith, as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apost∣les: nor is it new that the succession of Pastours, till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory, should bee Christ's own Or∣dination, and recorded there likewise: Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of En∣gland, who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith, can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino, unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded, and bee Christ's Ordination, that following Pastours succed into the Au∣thority of their predecessours.

But the pretended mistake lies here, that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Pe∣ter, m••aning that those who are Bp•• of Rome being S. Pe∣ter's successours, inherited this power; hee will needs ta∣ke mee in a reduplicative sence, as if I spoke of the Bis∣hop of Rome, as of Rome: and then hee runs on, wildly and boldly challenging mee that I cannot show out of Scripture that S. Peter was at Rome, that our own Au∣thours say S. Peter might have dy'd at Antioch, and the succession into his power have remain'd th••re, &c. Ans∣wers soe frivolous, soe totally impertinet to the point in hand, that I wonder how any man can have the patience to read such a trifler or the folly as to think him worth heeding.

To omitt that hee pick't these words, which hee im∣pugns here, out of a paragraph following a leaf after, which totally concern'd a dangerous and fundamentall point, as shall presently bee seen; and so, it importing him to neglect it, hee cull'd out and mistakingly glanc't at these few loose words, which hee thought by a device of his own he could best deal with, for a colour of his necessary negligence.

What hee adds of the Council of Chalcedon hath been answer'd an hundred times over, and by mee, Schism Disarm. p. 109. 110. &c. nor deserves any reiteration, till hee urge it farther; especially being soe rawly put down. Onely because hee builds upon their giving equall priviledges to Constantinople▪ without manifesting what those priviledges were: wee shall take leave to think that, as Rome still remain'd first in order, (as his late words gran∣ted, and Protestants confess) notwithstanding those equall priviledges; so, for any thing hee knows, it might still remain Superiour in Iurisdiction; and, till hee evince that priviledges in that place mean't Iurisdiction, to which the word will bee very loath, hee is far from bringing it to our question, or to any purpose.

His next task is a very substantiall and important one, striking at the Rule and Root of all our faith: yet, by voluntary mistaking no less than every syllable of it, hee quickly makes clear work with it. Hee was told, that wee hold our first Principle by this manifest Evidence, that still the latter age could not bee ignorant of what the former be∣lieved, and, as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could bee alter'd in it Which the wily Bp. answers, by telling us that the Tradition of some particular persons or so∣me particular Churches, in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature, which are neither soe necessary to hee known, nor firmly believed, nor so publikely and uniuersal∣ly professed, nor derived downwards from the Apostolicall age by such unin••or upted succession, doth produce no such cer••a••nty either of Evidence or adherence. Where.

First, hee knows, wee mean Tradition of all the Chur∣ches in Communion with the see of Rome, that is, of all who have not renounced this Rule of immediate Tradi∣tion: for all who differ from her never pretended this im∣medi••te delivery, for those points in which they differ from her, but receded from that Rule; as the Apology

for Tradition hath manifested, indeed plain reason may inform us: It being impossible and self condemning, where there was an Vnity before, for the beginners of a Novelty to pretend their immediate fathers had taught them that which the whole world sees they did not. Now, the Bp. talkes of Traditions of some particular persons, or some particular Churches: desirous to make his Readers believe wee rely on such a Tradition and so defective as hee expresses; that is, hee makes account our pretended Tradition must not bee styl'd universall, unles it take in those persons and those Churche also who have former∣ly renounced and receded from this Rule of Tradition. Which is as much as if hee had said, a thing cannot bee absolutely white, unles it bee black too.

Secondly, wee speake of believing, that is, of points of faith: but, the Bp. talkes of opinions, and those not concerning ones neither, but (as hee styles them) opi∣nions of an inferiour nature. And then, having, by this sleight, changed faith into opinion, hee runs giddily for∣wards, telling us fine things concerning questionable and controverted points, of Opinions in the Schools, and how hard a thing it is to know which opinion is most current, &c. Is not this sincerely done and strongly to the purpose?

Thirdly, hee cants in these words [So necessary to bee known.] I ask, are they necessary or no? If they bee not necessary, why does hee seem to grant they are, by saying onely that they are not so necessary? But, if they bee ne∣cessary, then why does hee call them opinions onely, and that too of an inferiour nature? Can that bee necessary to bee held or known, which hath no necessary Grounds to make it either held or known? Opinions have neither.

Fourthly, hee speaks of points not so publike••y profes∣sed: whereas, every point of faith is publike and noto∣rious; being writ in the hearts of the faithfull by the tea∣ching of their Parents and Pastouts, sign'd by all their

expressions, and seal'd by their actions: Nor is there any point of faith (for example, in which the Protestant dif∣fers from us, which is not thus visible and manifesting our Church now, and was then when they first broke from that doctrine of their immediate? ••ncestours.

Fifthly, hee speaks of points not universally professed: that is, if any heretick, receding from immediate Tra∣dition of his fathers, shall start a novelty, & propagate it to posterity▪ the Tradition and profession of this point in the Church must not bee said to bee universall, becau∣se that heretick professes and delivers otherwise: and so, Socinians, by the Bps argument, may assist their cause and say, it was not universally professed that Christ was God, because the Arians anciently profest otherwise. The like service it would do an Arian or any other He∣retick, to alledge (as the Bp. does) that the Christian world must bee vnited, otherwise the Tradition is not cer∣tain; for, as long as that Heretick has a mind to call him∣self and his friends Christians (which hee will ever do,) so long hee may cheaply cavill against the Authority of the whole Church. But, empty words shall not serve the Bps turn: Let him either show us some more certain Rules to know who are Christians, who not, that is, so∣me certainer Rule of faith than is the immediate & pra∣cticall delivery of a world of fathers to a world of sons: o•• else let him know, that all those who have receded from this immediate delivery, (as did acknowledgd'∣ly, the Protestants at the time of their Reformation, as also the Greeks, Arians, &c. in those points of faith in which they differ from us) are not truly, but improper∣ly, call'd Christians; neither can they claim any share in Tradition or expect to bee accounted fellow-deliverers of faith, who have both formerly renounced that Rule and broach't now doctrines against it, which like giddy whirl∣pools run crossely to that constantly-and directly flo∣wing stream.

Lastly, hee requires to the Evidence and certainty of Tradition, that it bee derived downwards from the Apost∣les, by such an uninterrupted succession. Wee are speaking of the Rule of faith itself, that is, of Tradition or the deriving points of faith from the Apostles immediately from age to age, (or, if hee pleases, from ten years to ten years; and wee tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence, because 'tis impossible the latter age should bee ignorant of what the foregoing age beleeved: Hee runs away from Tradition, or the delivering, to points delivered, and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly, ere they can bee certain: Whereas, this point is confest by all and avouched most by us, who place the whole certainty of faith in this un∣interrupted succession. The point in question is, whether there be any certain way to bring a point downwards un∣interruptedly from the Apostles, but this of Tradition or attestation of immediate fathers to sons? or rather, wee may say, 'tis evident from the very terms, that it could not come down uninterruptedly bur by this way: since, if it came not down, or were not ever delivered imme∣diately, the descent of it was mediate or interrupted, and so it came not down uninterruptedly.

The like voluntary mistake hee runs into, when hee calls the Apostles creed a Tradition: since, hee knows wee speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards; not, of the points convey'd. But, I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeni••ble Evi∣dence that it came from the Apostles; If hee reflect, hee shall find that there is scarce one point of fai••h, now controverted between us and Protestants, but was re∣commended to his first Reformers by immediate fore∣fathers as derived from the Apostles, in a practice as dai∣ly visible, as is the Apostles creed; and, that the lawful∣nes

of Invoking saincts for their intercession, the lawful∣nes of Images, Praying for the Dead, Adoration of the B. Sacrament, &c. and, in particular, the subjection to the Pope as supream Head, were as palpable in most ma∣nifest and frequent circumstances, as was that creed by being recited in Churches and professed in Baptism.

After I had set down the first part of the matter of fact, to wit, that, at the time of the Reformation, the Church of England did actually agree with the Church of Ro∣me in those two Principles; I added the second part of it in these words, It is noe lesse evident that, in the dayes of Edward the sixth, Q Elizabeth and her successours, nei∣ther the former Rule of Vnity in faith, nor this second of Vnity in Government have had any power, in that Congre∣tion, which the Protestants call the English Church. The Bp. who must not seem to understand the plainest words lest hee should bee obliged to answer them, calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference; and, for answer, tells us hee holds both those Rules. Well shuffled my Ld pray let mee cut. Either you mean you hold now the sence of those Rules, that is, the thing wee intend by them; and then you must say you hold the Pope's supremacy, and the Tradition of immediate forefathers, both which the world knows and the very terms evince you left of to hold at your Reformation: or else you must mean that you hold onely the same words taken in another sence, that is, quite another thing; and then you have brought the point, as your custome is, to a meere logomachy, and shown yourself a downright and obstinate prevaricatour, in answering you hold those words, in stead of telling us whether you hold the thing or noe. Possum-ne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum? The Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately be∣fore your Reform, was de facto the acknowledgment of

the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church; the Prin∣ciple of Vnity in faith was, then, de facto the ineheriring from, or, the immediate Tradition of Ancestours: De fac••o you agreed with those of the Church of Rome in those two Principles; de facto you have now renounced both those principles and hold neither of them; therefore you have de facto broke both those bonds of Vnity; there∣fore de facto you are flat Schismaticks.

As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logick ••all'd of more interrogations than one, I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logick, but not in my discourse who put no interrogatory at all to him. As for the two positions which so puzzle him, the former, of S. Peter's being supreme more than meerly in order, hee knows well is a point of my faith, which I am at present defe••∣ding against him, and have sufficiently exprest my self, p. 307. l. 1•• &c. by the words first Mover ••o mean a Pri∣macy to act first in the Church, and not to sit first in or∣der onely. The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place.

No sincerer is his 12. page than the former: I onely put down, p. 308 what our tenet was, and hee calls my bare narration my second inference; and, when hee hath done, answers it onely with voluntary railing, too silly to merit transcribing or answering.

The matter of fact being declared, that actually now they of the Church of England had renounced both the said Principles; it was urged next, that, his onely way to clear his Church from Schism is, either by disproving the former to bee the necessary Rule of Vnity in faith, or the latter the necessary bond of Government? for, if they: bee such Principles of Vnity, it follows inevitably that they, having broke them both, (as the matter of fact evinces) are perfect Schismaticks; since a Schisma∣tick signifies one who breaks the Vnity of a Church,

What sayes my Ld D. to this? this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question, and so deserves clea∣ring Hee clears it, by telling us wee are doubly mistaken, and that hee is resolu'd to disprove neither; though, un∣les hee does this, the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him ••chismatick.

But, why is hee, in these his endeavours to vindicate his Church from Schism, so backwards to clear this con∣cerning point? Why? first, because they are the persons accused: By which method, no Rebell ought to give any reason why hee did so; because hee is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour. Very learnedly. Now, the truth is wheresoever there is a contest, each side accuses the other, and each side again defends it self against the the others accusations: but, that party is properly call'd the defendant, against which accusations or objections were first put; and that the Opponēt or Aunswerer which first mou'd the accusations. It being then most manifest, that you could not with any face have pretended your Reform, but you must first accuse your former actuall Governour of vsurpation, your former Rule▪ of faith of Erroneousnes: it follows evidently, that wee were the parties first accused, that is, the defendants; you, the ac∣cusers or opponents: for, whoever substracts himself from a former actuall Governour, and accuses not that Go∣vernour of something which hee alledges for his motive of rising; that person, eo ipso, accuses himself: since then wee never accused you of breaking from our Go∣verment till you had broke from it; and, you could not have broke from it, without first accusing the say'd Go∣vernment, and objecting some reason against it, as the motive of your breaking: You must therefore oppose, and alledge those reasons, and show them sufficient ones; else, your very fact of renouncing that former Govern∣ment doth unavoidable convince you of Schism.

Next, hee tells us, that if the proof did rest on their si∣des, yet hee does not approve of my advice. And, I dare swear in the Bps behalf that hee never spoke truer word in his life; and will bee bound for him that hee shall ne∣ver follow any advice that bids him speak home to the point or meddle with such a method as is likely to bring a speedy end to the Controversy. Make an Heretike speak out (saith S. Augustin) and you have h••lf-con∣futed him But, what reason gives hee why hee disappro∣ves of my advise? Will hee shew us a more easy, effica∣cious or likely way to bring the dispute to a finall Con∣clusion. His reason is, because, saith hee, it is not wee who have alter'd the doctrine or discipline which Christ lef•• in the Church but they, &c. and so runs rambling forwards with his own sayings to the end of the Section. All the world sees and Dr. H. acknowledges you have alter'd the disci∣pline left in the Church of England in K. H's dayes; and now you are to give a reason to iustify this alteration. you tel us you have made none. I am not ignorant of the dexterity with which you have shuffled a reserve into those words, [which Christ left in the Church] to persua∣de the Reader the discipline of the Church of England in H the ••th's d••yes was not the same which Christ left to his Church. But, I prest no more than that it was used then as a thing held to have been inherited from Christ▪ and that it was then and still is a bond of Vnity to all ••ho∣se that communicated in it; and, therefore, that you now reiecting it must either shew it to bee no necessary bond of Vnity, or necessarily remain convinced of de∣stroying Vnity, that, of Schism. Mee thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I, or No; they are usvally the returns wee make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle; no speaking out, hee thanks you. Hee knew well enough that either part of the Contra∣diction own'd would have some means to go about to dis∣prove;

which, by destroying all doubt in the case, would have destroy'd his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence. Altum silentium is all you can get from him; onely, in the hard streight hee is dri∣ven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpo∣se, hee tels you hee is not obliged to answer, because hee has not alter'd the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's dayes, of which my obje∣ction runs, 'tis false even to ridiculousnes; for, I cannot imagin hee fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with, as to hope to make him beleeve the Church of England in his Lops time had the same discipline she had in K. H's dayes. If hee mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times, 'tis no less false and more impertinēt: first▪ in answering of the Primitive times, to an objection con∣cerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly, whenas I be∣gun with an evident matter of fact, beyond alldispute, and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse, in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us, in stead of answering to that Evidence, and, which is still weaker, by thinking to carry that whole matter by ba∣rely saying it. And, if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye, I am confident hee will percieve that (besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us) above three quarters of the said Se∣ction is made up of this stuff: to wit, of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question, and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syl∣lable of proof; and, twice or thrice, where hee pretends any, they are mere falsifications & abuses; as hath been shown.

I must request the Reader, whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature, to right himself the Bp. and mee, by giving a

glance back upon my words, p. 306. 307. where I affir∣med that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith, by two things, viz: out of the very position, of the case, and out of the nature of his Exceptions. How hee hath reply'd to the first, which is the position of the case, hath already been shown: to wit, that hee would not speak one positive word, I or no to a plain matter of faith; nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question; but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air, at the pleasure of his own fancy. As for the second thing, to wit, that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Exceptions; I show'd that hee, in reciting my charge, had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason, or have their suffi∣ciency examin'd. And, to let thee see that hee did this purposely, looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph, which concern'd that second point, omitted, without any Reply pretended. I shall therefore repeat it again here, and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts. They must remember how their forefa∣thers, who began that which they call Reformation, were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform. They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration. They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach, unles they can al∣ledge causes sufficient to have begun it, had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes. For, the constant beleef of the Catholike world was, at the time of our division, and still is, that these Principles are Christ's own ordination, re∣corded in Scripture, derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was do∣ne in Antiquity: Evidences inviolable by any humane ei∣ther poweror proof, except perfect and rigorous demonstra¦tion;

to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend; and, therefore, without farther dispute, remain unanswera∣bly convicted of Schism.

I suppose I need not inform the Reader, what service it would have done to the Controversy, and how neces∣sary it was for my Ld D. to tell us, whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative; or else, that less than demonstrative reasons, that is, probable ones would serve: This would quickly have decided the busi∣nes. For, nothing is easier than to show, that a wrongly pretended demonstration does not conclude evidently or convince that the thing is; nothing easier, than to show, out of the very terms, that a probability cannot rational∣ly convince the understanding: But, the danger of this disadvantage and the fear of this quick decision is the reason his Ld. will tell us neither.

Thus, Protestant Reader, thou seest how dextrously thy Bp. hath behaved himself in answering both parts of our charge against him; and which alone fundamental∣ly concern our question: to wit, how hee hath, by shuf∣fling about, avoided to say a positive word to one; and totally omitted so much as to mention the other. And this, in the Bishops right sence, is call'd vindicating the Church of England and replying to S. W.

Sect. 2.

How my Ld of Derry goes about to acquit the Protestants both (a tanto) and (a toto) as hee styles it: grounding his violent pr••sumptions of their innocency on contradictions both to common reason and his good Friend Dr. H. on his own bare word that his party are Saints; and his non-sen∣cicall plea that those who began first to separate from our Church, were, ere that, united to it.

HItherto I have been somewhat larger in replying, than I intended, because the former points were

fundamentally concerning and totally decisive of the question. His Exceptions (since hee dares not own them for demonstrations,) are, consequently, in our case, trifles, toyes, and nothing to the purpose: and there∣fore, as they cannot challenge any at all, so I ought not to wrong my self in giving them too large an Answer; unles in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important.

In the first place hee maintains, that, it many wayes acquits the Protestants continuing the breach, because, not they, but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation. Wee will omit the perfect non-sence of this plea; which equally acquits any Villain in the world, who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains. For, may not hee argue against honest men by the same Logick, and say, that they are acquitted; because, not Villains, but they who were honest men formerly, begun first the Villany: It being equally infallible and necessary, that hee who first turn'd naught, was, ere hee turn'd so, good before; as it is, that hee who first separated was, ere hee separated, united to that Church, that is, a Roman Ca∣tholike. But I have say'd enough of this, Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore: let us now examin his reasons, why this many wayes (as hee sayes) acquits them.

First, hee sayes, it is a violent presumption of our guilt, that our own best friends did this. The word best might ha∣ve been left out: they were ever accounted better friends who remain'd in their former faith; and the other Bps look't upon as Schismaticks, by the obedient party. But yet, it might seem some kinde of argument against us, did those, who were friends in all other respects, volun∣tarily oppose us in this, and out of a free and unbiassed choice; as the Bp. must pretend, else hee does nothing. Let us examin this then. Your own good friend, Dr. H. shall give you satisfaction in that point (of Schism p. 136)

where, speaking of this Act of the Clergy in renouncing the Authority of the Roman see, (the palpable truth obliging him) hee hath these words, It is easy to beleeve, that nothing but the apprehension of dangers, which hung overthem by a premunire incurred by them, could probably have inclined them to it. Thus hee. The, violent presum∣ption, then of our guilt, which you imagin concluded hen∣ce, is turn'd into a iust presumption, or rather a confest Evidence, of the King's violent cruelty and their fearfull weaknes. Rare Grounds doubtles, to acquit you for being led by their Authority, or following their example.

Secondly, hee tells us that, though it do not alwaies excuse a toto, from all guilt, yet it excuses a tanto, and les∣sens the guilt; to bee misled by the examples and Authority of others, &c. Let us examin this, as apply'd to the Pro∣testants. How could they think their example to bee fol∣low'd or their Authority to bee rely'd on, whom they confess to have done what they did out of fear, that is, out of passion, and not out of the pure verdict of reason & conscience? Again, if their example were to bee fol∣low'd, why do not they follow it rather in repenting of their Schism, and renouncing it; as those Bps did after the King's death? since, the imminent fear, which aw'd them at the time of their fall and during the King's life, ioyn'd with their retraction after his death, of what they had done, render it a thousand times more manifest that their conscience took part with the obedient side, had they had courage enough to stand to it.

Moreover, sometimes, the first beginners of a fault may bee less culpable then their followers; according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses. Theirs wee have seen to bee no less than the expectation of death and destruction; such was the vio∣lence of the King's in humane cruelty, and their present disadvantageous case which expos'd them to it. Your con∣••inuance

in Schism, compar'd to the motiv••s of their fault, is, in a manner, gratis; All your reason, hereto∣fore, of thus continuing being for your Livings and inte∣rest; and, at present, onely a vain-glorious itch to appro∣ve your selves to your party for braue fellows; in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimera bom••inans in vacuo (the Church of England) found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies▪

Thirdly, hee assures us, that, in this case, it doth ac∣quit them not onely a tanto, but, a toto, from the least degree of guilt; as long as they carefully seek after truth, and do not violate the dictates of their own conscience: and then bids mee, if I will not beleeve him, beleeve S. Austin; who sayes, that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity, but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errours when they finde them, are not Hereticks. I Answer, S. Austin sayes well; onely obstinacy makes an here∣tick: and so far wee beleive him. But, does S. Austin say that Bp. Bramhall ad his fellows are not obstinate, or that they neglect not to seek, not refuse not to embrace truth found; and, by consequence, are not Hereticks and Schis∣maticks? The generall words of the father signify nothing to your purpose; unles they bee apply'd to your party: and who makes the application? The Bp. himself: and upon what Grounds? upon his own bare word; and then cries, They are totally acquited from Schism: That is, hee makes an acquittance himself for himself; writes it with his own hand, set his own seal to it, and subscribes it with his own name; and then brings it into the Court to clear himself of the whole debt, and that by his own Au∣thority.

Reader, trust neither side as they barely testify of them∣selves: but, trust what Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee. Reason tells thee, 'tis evident they re∣nounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity

to the former Church both in faith and Government: Reason tells thee, that such a fact is, in it's own nature, schismaticall; unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it: Reason tells thee, that noe motives less than certain, that is, demonstrative ones, can suffice to alledge for such a revolt; which yet they never pretend to: Therefore, reason tells thee and any one who under∣stands morality and nature, as evidently as that two and three are five, that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason; but, from an irrationall Principle, that is▪ from passion and vice: And, so, wee cannot but judge them obstinate and, consequently, Schismaticks; unles they can show us these sufficient, that is, demonstra∣tive reasons to excuse their, otherwise manifestly schis∣maticall fact: or, if wee do, wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour.

Thus much in generall. Now, as for this Bp. in parti∣cular; Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected: Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over, to evade answering: Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge, and totally to avoid the whole import, nay, every tittle of the other. There needs no∣thing but thine own eyes, directed by any first Section, to make all this evident to thee. 'Tis by these evident testimonies of thine eyes, these undeniable verdicts of thy reason, Reader, by which thou must judge of these men, whether they bee carefully inquisitive after & rea∣dily embrace the truth, or rather bee obstinate Schisma∣ticks; and not by the dark holes of their consciences; which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings oue∣ly; obtrude them, thus weakly authoriz'd upon they ea∣sy credulity, and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Au∣stin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism.

In the second place, I glanced at the inconsequence of

his proof, that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants; instancing in some sects of Protestants, which persecuted others. Hee replies: what then were Watham and Heath, &c. all Protestants? Then, My Ld (which is onely the question between us) your argument was naught: for, let them bee accidentally what they will, you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants; as long as 'tis shown and known, that those who were Protestants did the same. Secondly, if they were Protestants, hee demands, of which sect they were? I answer, that, as, between every species of colour which wee have names for, there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names; or, as, in a perpetuall motion, there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress, to whose quantities wee can give no particular names: so, within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it, there are thousands of others soe petite and minute, that they have not deserved a name from the world. I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect; for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subor∣dinate sects are fixt things, which may bee defined: whe∣reas Experience teaches us, that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon, to fit her right with a coat, as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant. 'Tis ever in motion, like the row∣ling sea, and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it, that it admits noe positive definition; but, must bee de∣scribed, like a privation in order to the former habit. No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it. Since, then, those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists, (for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination, & reformed in that point:) it follows, that they were Protestants, though the new∣born thing was not as yet christend with any other name

than that common one of Reformation▪ But, my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant, unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe: Whereas, 'tis against nature and reason, to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets; ne∣mo repentè fit turpissimus. The former faults must by de∣grees get countenance, by growing vulgar & quotidian, an by little & little digest their shamefulnes; ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones. First, they re∣nounc't one point, then another, and so forwards, till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism; which the∣refore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation.

Thirdly, whereas I told him, those Bishops, by re∣nouncing the Pope, held the most essentiall point of their Reformation, and so had in them the quintessence of a Pro∣testant: The Bp. first, calls this, our Reformation; as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks, that is, sepa∣rated from our Church, for doing so. Since, then, they went out from us, by that fact; they left to bee of us: and, if they were not of us, how was it our Reformation, in any other sence, than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still? was ever common sence so abus'd? Next, hee braggs, that, then (to wit, if renoun∣cing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant) the Primi∣tive Church were all Protestants; which is onely sayd, and flatly false: that then, all the Greci••n, Russian, Arme∣nian, Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day; which is onely said, again, and partly true, partly false, and that which is true onely steads him soe far, as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks: And lastly, that then, they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self; which (to speak moderately) is an impudent

falshood, and a plain impossibility. For, who ere renoun∣ces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church, doth, ipso facto, renounce the Ru∣le of Vnity of Government in our Church, and, by con∣sequence, the Rule of Vnity of faith, which Grounds and asserts the former; that is, such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church, and, so, becomes totally disunited from our Church: Now, how one, who is totally disunited and separated from the who∣le body of our Church, can bee intimately united to her still, no understanding but the BP^s can reach; which, as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food, can, without difficulty, digest contradictions, and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the soli∣dest demonstrations.

Now, if my L^d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my rea∣sons, p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism; to which yet hee is pleased to give no ans∣wer: I send him to learn it of his friend, Dr. H. who (of Schism p. 145. l. 5.) seems even to strain sence it felf to express this; calling this disclaiming the Pope's power tbe Bottome upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid, that is, the foundation of their foundation, their fundamentall of fundamentalls. Now then, how those Bishops should not bee then Protestants, who held the fundamentall of fundamentalls of Protestantism, passes my skill to explicate, and, as I am persuaded, my L^ds, too.

Sect. 3.

How my L^d of Derry endeavours to clear his Church from Schism, by bringing Protestants to speak in their own cau∣se, nay the very Act or statute for which wee accuse them, as an undeniable Testimony for them. Likewise, how hee produces for his chief Plea a Position opposit both to his own and our party's acknowledgment, nay, to the very ey∣sight of the whole world; twisting in it self a multitude of most direct contradictions; and, lastly, quite annihila∣ting at once all the Papists in the world.

HIs third Section pretends to make good his second grownd for dividing from the Church; which was this; because, in the separation of England from Rome, there was no now law made, but onely their ancient liberties vindicated. This I calld (as I could do no less) notoriously false, and impudence it self; alledging that a law was ma∣de, in H. the 8th's time, and an oath invented, by which it was given the King to bee Head of the Church, and to ha∣ve all the power which the Pope did, at that time, possess in England. Hee asks, if this bee the language of the Roman Schools? No, my L^d, it is and ought to bee the langua∣ge of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth, shame, or honesty, against those who are profest and sworn Enemies of all three; in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and con∣fute them. Hee appeals to any indifferent Christian jud∣ge. I decline not the Tribunal; nay more, I shall bee willing to stand to the award of the most partiall Prote∣stant living, who hath but so much sincerity as to ack∣nowledge the Sun's shining at noonday, or that the sa∣me thing cannot both bee & not bee at once. But.

First, hee goes about to acquit himself, by confessing

that hee sayd no new law was made then; but denying that hee said no new statute was made. Wee will not wrangle with him about the words; onely, I say, if there were something new, it was new; and, a statute, made and ap∣proved by the King and his Parliament, (as this was,) wee Englishmen use to term a law: if then there were a new statute made (as hee confesses,) I concieve I have not wrong'd in the least the common language of En∣gland, to call it a new law. But, his meaning is, that King H. the 8th did noe new thing when hee renounced the Pope's Authority, but what had been done former∣ly; and therefore.

Secondly, hee quotes Fitz-herbert and my Lord Cook, who say, that this statute was not operative to crea∣te a new law, but declarative to restore an ancient law: That is, hee quotes two of his own party to prove hee sayd right; and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Prote∣stants. Convincing proofs, doubtles against us.

Thirdly, hee promises to make it appear undeniably. Whence, or from what Authority? from the very statu∣te it self; which sayes, That England is an Empire, and that the King as Head of the body politick, consisting of the Spirituality and temporality, hath plenary power to render fi∣nall iustice for all matters. That is, hee quotes the schis∣maticall King himself and his schismaticall Parliament, (who made this statute,) to speak in their own behalfs. Does such a trifler deserve a Reply? who, in a dispute against us, cites the authorities of those very persons against whom wee dispute; nay, that very Act of theirs which wee are challenging to have been schismaticall: and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies.

Fourthly, hee alledges another statute, made in the 24. of King H. the 8th: the best hee could pick out, you may bee sure; yet, there is not a syllable in it con∣cerning spirituall Iurisdiction; directly, that is, not a

syllable to his purpose. 'Tis this, The Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection; but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality, and to no other; and ought not to bee submitted to the Pope. Wee are disputing about spirituall Iurisdiction, and whether it were due to the Pope: and, the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of En∣gland it self, as not to bee submitted to the Pope, as touching it's Regality; that is, a statute which expresly speaks of temporall Iurisdiction. Hee tells us, that Ec∣clesiasticall greivances are mention'd in that statute; but sleightly omits so much as to name them, much less to urge them; which were they worth it, wee may bee sure hee would have done with a triumph. And, besides, hee knows wee hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiasticall grievances remedy'd, and the Canons of the Church observ'd: Nay, hee knows (if hee knows any thing) our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiasticall affairs sometimes fall under temporall power indire∣ctly; as, on the other side, temporall affairs fall in∣directly under the Ecclesiasticall. Yet, that there is any more than this, nay even so much in this statute my L^d D. hath not shown us; and, if wee will bee judged by the words of the statute which hee cites, they look quite ano∣ther way. But, what matters it what this statute sayes? being made two years after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullon: which was the source of all his rebellion; intended, in all Likelihood, when that match was made up. As for his pretence that I conceal'd some of his par∣ticulars; hee knows, I undertook no more than to ans∣wer the substance, and to show that such kindes of par∣ticularities were not worth alledging: as I did in this very place, and shall do again presently more amply.

Fifthly, hee quarrells with mee for calling his Authori∣ties, meer Allegations, which hee tells us are authentick

Records, &c. whereas my words were onely these, (p. 311. l. 30.) that hee brought diverse allegations, in which the Po∣pe's pretences were not admitted, &c. Now, I concieve, a Record or any other Authority alledged, is an Allega∣tion; which was the word I vsed: the word [meer] was meerly his own fiction, to gain an occasion to cavill; as the place now cited, where my words are found, will in∣form the Readers eyes.

These straws being stept over, with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage; Wee come to the point it self. Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestours. My L^d of D. in his vindication; to show hee did no more or made no new law, gathers up Instan∣ces from our former laws and reiterates them here, (though sometimes hee uses a phrase louder than h••s proofs) how the Pope's were curb'd or limited in their pretences. Wee answer'd, that, to limit an Authority im∣plies an admittance of it, in cases to which the restraints ex∣tend not: Hee replies, that this (meaning those laws) was not meerly to limit an Authority; but to deny it (p. 20. l. 20.) yet, in the next page, hee denies not equivalent laws in france, spain, Germany, Italy, and, in his (vindication (p. 73. l. 7. 8. &c.) hee affirms that the like laws may bee found in Germany, Poland, france, spain, Italy, sicily, and, if wee will trust Padre Paolo, in the Papacy it self. These things being put, granted, and confest, from his own words, I shall now appeal, even to the Bp^s best and bosom-friend, whether impudence was not a moderate character for that man's genius or humour, who should go about to pretend that King H. the 8th did no more in this particular, that is, renounced the Pope's Authority no more than his Ancestour Kings had done before him. For.

First, this is opposite to the common notion and ge∣nerall opinion of the whole world, both Catholicks,

Protestants, Puritans, and of what ever sect or sort: who ever deem'd Henry the 8th to bee the first King of En∣gland who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and chal∣lenged it to himself: Nor had they ever that conciet of France, Spain, Italy, &c. in which, notwithstanding, the Bp. grants equivalent laws to the former laws of England, to which (according to him) K. H. superadded nothing. This particularity, I say, in K. H. the 8th all the world, as far as I ere heard, always held in their free and natu∣rall thoughts: though, when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause, artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their non-plust Controvertists to assert and maintain the most open absurdities.

Secondly, it is, in particular, against the confession and profession of his own party, the Protestants; who sing Halleluiahs incessantly to this happy time, in which England was freed from the yoke of Rome: which is an evident argument of their pretence, that, till now, they groan'd under this yoke; that is, that, till now, the Po∣pe's Headship was acknowledg'd here; and, by conse∣quence, that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestours did formerly, when hee shook it of.

Thirdly, this position contradicts in terms their Refor∣mation in this point of the Pope's Supremacy, which yet rings in every man's ears and is confest by themsel∣ves: for, it is impossible and contradictory there should bee a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before. It was, therfore, otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time, notwithstanding all these former po∣wer-limiting laws alledged by the Bp. and consequently, 'tis evident from the very terms, that K. H. superadded to these laws in renouncing the Pope's Authority; and that the contrary position is most absurd, impossible and contradictory.

Fourthly, it being confest by themselves, and particu∣larly

by Dr. H. (of Schism p. 132.) in these very words, For the matter of fact, it is acknowledg'd that, in the reign of K. H. the 8th, the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was, both by Acts of convocation of the Clergy and by statutes or Acts of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdome. This, I say, being confest; and it being also evident in terms, that nothing can bee said to bee cast out of a place unles before it were in it: 'tis likewise evident in terms, that this power was in England before, notwithstanding the former laws, cited by my L^d D. then in power in this country: and, that those statutes and Acts of Parliament, made by K. H. which cast it out, did some new thing against that Authority, that is, did create new laws, and not one∣ly declare the old.

Fifthly, since, according to him, these laws made by H. the 8th did no more than the former laws, those former laws also must bee pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy, and to have begun a Reformation: which yet wee never heard pretended, and hee must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again; otherwise it could ne∣ver bee said to bee cast out a fresh in K. H's reign.

Sixthly, this position of his is particularly opposite, also, to the common consent of all Catholike countries, (in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws;) who all look't on K. H. the 8th, after those Pope renouncing Acts, as a Schismatick, and on England, both then and ever since, as schismaticall. Now, that they should esteem and abhor England as schisma∣ticall, for doing the same things themselves also did, is against common sence and impossible.

Seventhly, since (iust vindication, p. 73. l. 8.) hee quo∣tes Padre Paulo, that the like laws were to bee found in the Papacy it self: and 'tis perfect non-sence to affirm that, in the Papacy, of which the Pope is both spirituall and

temporall Governour, hee should not bee held for Head of the Church: 'tis most manifest that the like laws in other places, and in particular amongst our Ancestours in England, did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiasticall matters; and, by consequence, that K. H. the 8th, who deny'd him that Headship, did some∣thing new which his Ancestours had not done, and, when hee enacted this, created new law. 'Tis most manifest, li∣kewise, that those like laws in the Papacy are onely to distinguish the Pope's spirituall power, there, from his temporall, that is, to limit it's bounds, not to deny it: and, consequently, those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly, did onely limit it li∣kewise: Whence follows inevitably, that K. H's law, which totally abolish't, renounc't, and deny'd it, was of ano∣ther far different strain, and new law.

Eightly, this position is demonstratively convinc't of falshood, by the evidēt and acknowledg'd effect: for, who sees not that, upon this new law made by K. H. England stood at another distance from Rome than formerly? for, formerly, notwithstanding all their laws, they held still the Pope was Head of the universall Church, reverenced him as such, held this as of faith▪ and this till the very time of the breach: Whereas, after K. H's law, hee was held, by the party which adhered to that law, no Head of the universall Church, nor reverenc't as such; & (if any thing) rather the contrary, that England was abso∣lutely independent on him was held as of faith. Is not this as evident, as that the sun shines; and may it not, with equall modesty, bee den'yd that there ever was such a man as K. H. the 8th?

Ninthly, this very position takes away the whole que∣stion between us, and makes both us and all the Con∣trovertists in England on both sides talk in the aire; wrangling, pro and con, why K. H. cast out the Pope's

Authority here: whenas, (according to this illuminated Adversary of mine) hee had actually noe Authority the∣re, at that time, to cast out.

Lastly, this position is so thriving an absurdity, that, from non-sence and contradiction, it prosperously pro∣ceeds to perfect madnes and fanaticknes; and comes to this, that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world. For, since 'tis evident in terms, that the King and his complices, who made that Pope disclai∣ming Act, were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Po∣pe's Authority, after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority: Again, since, according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd, and executed in En∣gland; it follows, that our Ancestours equally renoun∣ced the Pope's Authority also, and so could bee no Pa∣pists neither: and, lastly, since hee grants equivalent laws infrance, Spain, Italy, Sicily, Germany, Poland, &c. it follows by the same reason, that those countries are not Papists neither, no, not the very Papacy it self. And, so, this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and an∣nihilated all the Papists in the world, with one self con∣tradictory blast of his mouth.

And now, Christian Reader, can I do any less, if I in∣tend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man, than appeal to thy judgment, whether any mad man, or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence? Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very pro∣per to character this man's way, when I said, How ridi∣culous, how impudent a manner of speaking is this, to force his Readers to renounce their eyes & ears and all Evidence? Could any man, without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism, (a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry,) by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excu∣se

or ground; when the acknowledg'd fact of schisma∣tizing and renting God's Church, cries loudly against them: nay more, (since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact, nor a continuance of it) to bring such an heap of contradictions, for perfect Evidences and de∣monstrations?

Pardon mee you, whose weaker or seldomer refle∣ctions on the certainty of faith, and, by consequence, of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies, make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions; which may breed a smart refle∣xion, and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's. Examin my harshest words in the ut∣most rigour, as apply'd to his Demerits; and, if they ex∣ceed, hold mee for blamed; if not, then think, (as rea∣son grants) that it is equally moderate, (but far more ne∣cessary) to call great and wilfull faults by their right na∣mes of Cosenage, impudence, &c. if they deserve them; as 'tis to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight. How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted; as long as her Adversaries may take the li∣berty to act impudently against her, and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do?

Again, were this shameles position of this Bp^s some odd saying on the by, or some petty branch of his dis∣course, it deserv'd less animadversion: but, 'tis the sub∣stantiallest part of his vindication, where hee huddles to∣gether many laws, which, de facto, consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in En∣gland and other Catholike countries, to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it, and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Ca∣tholikes did. So that, hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication, and wee shall see again afterwards an

whole Section built on this one particular ground. Now, had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability, it had been (though still insufficient, yet more pardonable and (in comparison of the other) ho∣nourable; or, on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head (as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces,) it had been to bee pittied, if sprung from weaknes, or laught at, if from wilfulnes: but, to ground his vindication, that is, to build his and his ad∣herents security from Schism and eternall damnation, on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect cōtradiction, confutable by the contrary tenet, acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes; is such a piece of shame∣lesnes that it can admit no sufficient character; as a non ens is incapable of a definition.

As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority, whether they were lawfully done or no, how far they extended, in what cir∣cumstances and cases they held, in what not, how the letter of those laws are to bee understood, &c. all which the Bp. omits, though hee press the bare words; it be∣longs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them, not to mee: I hold my self to the lists of the que∣stion, and the limits of a Controvertist. And,

Whenas hee asks mee, what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England, where such and such laws had force? I answer, the same that remains still to him in france, where you confess equivalent laws have force; the same that remains to him still in Spain, Italy, Sicily, &c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds, and say there it not a Papist country in the world, that is, not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church; which is to put out the eyes of the whole world, for wee see de facto that hee is ac∣nowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike count¦tries

or else confess that they retain still something, not∣withstanding those equivalent laws, which you renounc't. This something, which they still retain more than you doe, is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it; and is so far from grounding your excuse, (for which you produce it,) that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you: that, Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of En∣gland (as are also in Catholike countries) to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmēts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviled∣ges inviolated, yet, your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in Cōmunion with you enioy'd, but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self, to∣tally abolish and renounce the very substance of th•• for∣mer Ecclesiasticall Government, and cast it out of the Kingdome.

Sect. 4.

My L^d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of En∣gland's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction, and the uniustifia∣blenes of those pretensions. The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof, and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles.

THe scope of his fifth Chapter, as himself here ac∣knowledges, was to show that the Britannik Chur∣ches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. ye••rs. Now, his book being entitled a vindication of the ••hurch of England, to show this whole process fri∣volous I ask't what this belong'd to us; unles it bee proved

that their practicks were an obliging precedent to us? To show more the impertinency of this allegation; I deny'd, that the Church of England hath any title from the Britan∣nick Churches, otherwise than by the Saxon Chri∣stians; who onely were our Ancestours, and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannick world be∣longs and is derived to us. The Bp. replies: yes, well enough? and, why? first (saith hee) Wales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession; and there∣fore noe man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannick Churches. Grant it: what is this to our pur∣pose? how does this vindicate the Church of England or take of my exception? For, let their succession bee what it will, it follows not that the body of England (of which our Controversy is) hath any such priviledges by des∣cending from Cornwall or Wales. Again, 'tis evident that for these many hundred years, they acknowledg'd the Pop'es Authority as much as England. And lastly, 'tis a clear case, they were under those which were under the Pope. But, the wily Bp. being ask't an hard question, to wit, whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannick Churches, answers quite another matter, and then tels us hee hath done well enough.

Secondly, hee sayes, that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts, who were no more subjected to forrain Iurisdiction than the Britans themselves. I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated, & so no succession from them: And, as for the Scots, what doe they concern the Church of England's vindication, our purpose, or my question; unles hee can show, which hee never pretends, that his Church of England receives title to any thing by way of the scottish Churches? Again, since they have been submitted to the Pope, what avails it if they had any exemption anciently: for, they could

never derive it to us, for want of continuation of succes∣sion? yet as long as hee tells us hee does well enough, all is well.

Thirdly (hee should have said first, for, the two for∣mer answer are nothing to the purpose,) hee tells us, that, among the saxons themselves, the great Kingdomes of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the an∣cient Scots, and had their Religion and Ordination first from them, afterwards among themselves, without any forrain de∣pendance; and so were as free as the Britons. where, all the force lies in those words, [without any forrain dependance] which hee obtrudes upon us on his own credit onely, without a word of proof: or, if there bee any shadow of reason for it there, it must bee this, that ••hey were con∣verted by the ancient Scots, which himself tells us, two pages after, is nothing at all to Iurisdiction. But, that which is of main importance is, that hee brings, here, no proof, that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no forrain dependance, save his own word onely: And, the trifles hee brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words; as will bee seen when they come to scanning.

Fourthly, hee assures us, ••••at, after the Conquest, throughout the rest of England, a wo••••d of British Christians did still live mixt with the saxons. And how proves hee, this? because otherwise the saxons had not been able to peo∣ple the sixth part of the Land. I ask, did hee measure the Land, and number the saxons? If not, how does hee know, or how can hee affirm this? Or how does hee prove the Land must necessarily bee peopled, as fully as before, immediately after a Conquest so universall and cruell? Our historians tell us that, to avoid their barba∣rous cruelty which spared none, the ancient Britains re∣tired into Wales: yet hee would persuade us, both wit∣hout and against all history, that a world stayd behind; and this, not because the saxons stood in need of them

(as hee pretends,) who as 'tis known, brought their whole families with them; but, indeed, because the Bp. stood in need of them, to make good his cause. But, granting the likelihood, that some few of them remain'd still in their former homes, how can the Bp. make any advantage of it? Thus: Who can deny (saith hee) those poore conquer'd Christians and their Christian posterity, though mixed with saxons, the iust priviledges of their An∣cestours? A compassionate man! who speaks a great deal of tender-hearted non-sence, rather than hee will seem unmercifull, not to the ancient Britons (as hee pretends,) but to his own cause; which hee shows to bee good-na∣turd, at least, though it bee destitute of reason: for, un∣les hee can show,) which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sence) that those who remain'd had yet British Bishops amongst them; or, un∣les hee can pretend that they remain'd not subject to the Bishops of the saxons; it is a madnes to imagin those few lay people should inherit those former supposed privi∣ledges: For, since, all the world grants that they (if the∣re were any such) became subject to the Bishops of the saxons, which were subject to the Pope; all pretence of their exemption from that power to which their Gover∣nours were subject is taken away: And the Bp^s mercifull reason is all one, as if some few Englishmen by some ac∣cident remaining and settling in France, should pretend an exemption from the french laws both Ecclesiasticall and temporall, and to enioy the priviledges they had whi∣le they were in England, that is, while they were under another Government. But,

His last reason is to the purpose and a rare one; 'tis this, that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the priviledges, as to the Lands of the Britons. As if hee made account, that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to bee won by the sword; or that the Saxons

could plunder the Britons of their spirituall priviledges as well as of a bag of money. But, the iest is, hee would have those priviledges at once goe into Wales, with the British Bishops, and stay at home in England: not considering that Ecclesiasticall priviledges are things in∣herent in men, that is, in the Ecclesiasticall Governours, as enioyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people; and, in the Governed, as subiect to tho∣se Governours and laws; not, in stones, woods and moun∣tains, as hee fancies. Again, whereas those priviledges originally belong to Ecclesiasticall Governours and are annex't unto them as such, as they are supposed to doe in the Bp^s case; they cannot bee transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governours: wherefore, let him either show that the after Bps of the Church of England ever had succession of Authority from or were impower'd by the British Bis∣hops; or else let him confess that they could inherit no priviledges from them; and, by consequence, that his pretence of it is groundles and impertinent.

What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those priviledges from the British to ••he English Church, in case the British had any such priviledge of independency, as the Bishop contends: But,

My second objection was, that this pretended exem∣ption of the British Church was false. My reason was, be∣cause the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica. In answer

First, hee tells mee, that, ere I can alledge the Autho∣rity of the Council of Sardica, I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy: and why? for (said hee) that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers, and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter, not the Institution of Christ. Which is, first, flat falsification of the Coun∣cil: there being not a word in it either concerning the

Papall power it self, or it's Institution; but concerning Appeals onely. Next, since wee call that of divine Insti∣tution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd; and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's, and so give them a Primacy; but▪ that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter, whiles hee lived here on earth: This, I say, being evidently our tenet; and the Council never touching this point at all; what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy, and to abuse the Council, saying, that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers?

Secondly, hee asks, how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon? which a little after hee calls my presumption: And truly, I shall ever think it a most iust presumption, that they, who confessedly sate in the Council, assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate (as was their duty) unles so∣me objection bee alledged to the contrary; as the Bp brings none.

Thirdly, hee sayes the Council of sardica was no gene∣rall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed; as they were before the making of that Canon. What means hee by the Eastern Bishops? the Catholicks, or the Arians? The Arian Bishops indeed fled away, fearing the judgment of the Church, as Apol. 2. & ep. ad solita∣rios S. Athanasius witnesses: but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops, were gone, ere this Canon, (which is the third in that Council) was made? So that, my L^d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause, by clin∣ging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church (as hee does also in his foregoing Trea∣tise, p. 190. 191) denying, with them, this to have been a generall Council, because his good Brother Arians had run away from it, fearing their own just cōdēmnation.

Fourthly, hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the En∣glish laws. I ask, has hee read the British laws in those times? if not, for any thing hee knows, they were in∣corporated into them; and so, according to his former Grounds, must descend down to the English. But, wee are mistaken in him: his meaning is onely that the ad∣uantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons, not their disadvantages or subjection: So since∣re a man hee is to his cause, though partiall to com∣mon sence.

Lastly (saith hee) this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon, which our Church recei∣veth. Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing, nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sar∣dica Canon is found worth mentioning: which argues, it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confi∣dent hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there: It must therefore bee his own deduction, on which hee relies; which, till hee puts it down, can∣not bee answerd. As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon; the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope, not their good will to receive Coun∣cils: For any Council, in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him, they receive with open arms; But, those Councils which are clear and ex∣press for him, though much ancienter (as this of Sardi∣ca was) shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Au∣thority; and, when a better excuse wants, the very run∣ning away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Coun∣cil and depriue it of all it's Authority.

Hee subjoyns, there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius: (I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times:) but the contrary: for, hee referd the

legislative part to King Lucius, and the British Bishops. Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute: But, look into his Vindication, p. 105. and you shall see what Au∣thority hee relies on for this positive confidence; viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius; which, himself, conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there, graces with a parenthesis, in these words (If that Epistle bee not counterfeit:) But, now wee have lost the candid conditionall [If,] and are grown absolute. Whence wee see, that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause, is forced still to ab••te some degree of his former little sincerity: And thus, this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demon∣strations, to clear himself and his Church from Schism.

Now, though our faith relies on immediate Traditiō for it's onely and certain Rule, and not upon fragments of old Authours: yet, to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England, I alledged S. Prosper, that Pope Celestin [Vice sua] in his own stead sent S Ger∣man to free the Britons from Pelagianism, and converted the scots by Palladius. My L^d answers, that converting and ordaining, &c. are not acts of Iurisdiction: yet him∣self sayes here, p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdi∣ction doth follow the right of ordination. Now what these words [all other] mean is evident by the words immedia∣tely foregoing, to wit, all other besides Ordination and Election; by which 'tis plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction. So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence. But the point is, hee leaues out those words I relied on [Vice sua, in his own stead,] which show'd, that it belong'd to his office to do it. These words omitted, hee tells us, that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one, or the other: that is, hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father, who lived neer about the same time and was conversant

with the affairs of the Pelagians; and chuses to relie ra∣ther on an old obscure Authour, whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing, and which, if hee would speak out, himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit.

What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings? His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee he∣retofore, Par••. 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him.

I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchal••: And, I concieve it stands with very good reason to reprehend mine Adversary, and call him back, when hee runs away from the whole question. First, hee observes how readily wee decline all manner of discourse concerning the Pope's Pa∣triarchall power. When 'tis not the question, wee do; as any man, who understands what it is to dispute, would: But, does hee ever find that wee decline it when 'tis the question? I suppose, by this time, my largenes in hand∣ling it in this foregoing treatise, Part. 1. Sect. 15. hath corrected his wrong apprehension in that point. Next, hee is puzzled to know the reason of this, but hee may well conjecture (hee sayes,) that 'tis because wee find that our spirituall Monar••hy, and a Patriarchall dignity are inconsistent in the same subject. What insuperable difficul∣ties the Bp's sooth-saying fancy proposes? As if it were soe hard a matter for Bp. Vscher to have beenat once Bp. of Armagch, and yet Primate too of Ireland; and, as such, my Lord of Derry's Superiour: what greater diffi∣culty hee imagins, that a Primate and an higher, (that is, a Papall) power should joyn in one person, than the∣re is that a Primacy, that is, the highest in that conti∣nent, should bee thus linkt with an inferiour dignity in the same continent, needs a revelation from the fancy that first dream't it. Lastly, hees is shrewdly peremptory,

and shuts up thus, And yet, a Patriarch the Pope was, and so always acknowledg'd to bee, and they cannot deny it. Is not this a pleasant man to wanton it thus with a need∣les cruelty; who puts us upon the rack, and will make us by force confess a truth, which himself knows every Catholike in the world ever granted, held, and main∣tain'd? And, what weak-iudging Reader, seeing such confident expressions, would not remain astonisht at it and admire the Bp. for a most terrible disputant; who over bears his Adversary with such an unresistable career of Authority, and all to beats with such mighty stroaks the hissing aire?

Amongst other proofs of the British liberties, (as the BP. tells us here,) hee produced the answer of Dinoth to Austin; which hee deems soe choyce and rare a proof that hee reiterates it, and with new vigour insists on it here: gleaning those exceptions hee thought the easiest, from this treatise, my former against Dr. H. and partly from the Appendix to the Manuall of Controversy.

My first exception, in this place, was, that the word Pope was not then used alone to signify the Bp. of Ro∣me: Hee quotes Bellarmin against mee, and (so wise a man hee is) expects that Catholike Writers shall bee of the same mind in all things, even in controvertible and indifferent point, that is, hee makes account there are neither Catholick Schools, nor that any difficulties oc∣cur in Historians; nor, to come neerer the point, that Catholikes should disagree even so much as in a Criti∣cism about a word, as this is. As for the instance from the Council of Chalcedon, Beatissimus & Apostolicus vir Papa, hoc nobis praecepit, I answer that, though there bee neither Vrbis Romae or any such like expression im∣mediately conjoyn'd to the word Papa, yet, which is equivalent, the comitant circumstances sufficiently de∣••ermin'd and indigitated the person; nay, although the

word Papa had been totally omitted, yet the person had been perfectly known: for, these words are down in the Council as spoken by Boniface, sedis Apostolicae vica∣rius, the Pope's vice gerent, in answer to a demand of the Council what orders hee had received from Pope Leo. So far then is the word Papa in that place from being emphaticall or expressive of the BP. of Rome, taken sin∣gly and alone; that it was rather, rigorously speaking, a needles word as found in that place.

My second exception against their being called Bis∣hops of Caerleon, after the remouall of the seat to S. Da∣vids, was not put by mee in this place nor urged against him at all, but against Dr. H. But, conceptum sermonem retinere quis potest? though it concern'd not his Province hee must still needs bee doing. Hee had found by chan∣ce an odd testimony, (the best Minerva of a word stuff't brain;) and hee was with child till hee had brought it to light. Nor hath hee yet any thing to take of my exce∣ption, besides one testimony of an historian, (for Sr Henry's is either built on the welsh paper or on this same Authour's words:) and, on the other side, himself must confess, that it is a passage unparallell'd in history, per∣haps ever since the beginning of the world, that a seat should bee translated from one place to another, as this was from Caerleon to Menevia; and yet retain the title of the seat whence it was translated; and this during the successive Government of five and twenty Bishops, as this testimony sayes. Again, had the name Caerleon been translated likewise to Menevia, that is, had Menevia changed it's name into Caerleon, it had been more like∣ly; or, had Caerleon's Arch Bishops, onely for some conveniency, resided at Menevia, and the right of Iu∣risdiction belonged still to Caerleon, it might more ea∣sily bee conceived feisible: but, that the seat it self should bee translated, and Menevia bee made the lawfull Me∣tropolis,

and yet not own her self for such, but let a cas∣hier'd place so long keep the title due in right to her, is highly improbable. But, the maine is, that it is most evi∣dent in history, the Bp's of S. Davids or Menevia were called Menevenses, (as himself cannot but know, is fre∣quent in history;) and so styled by their good friend, Dr. H. in his Appendix, p. 176. by Ranulphus Cestren∣sis, l. 1. c. 52. by Daniel Powell, a Protestant, who set forth Giraldus (the BP's Authour,) in his marginall no∣tes on Itinerarium Cambriae, ••. 1. c. 1. and lastly by Di∣noth himself, the title of whose book (cited by Pi••seus) is Defensorium Iurisdictions sedis Menevensis: I conceive all these Testimonies will easily outweigh the BP's single one: which yet is all that secures it from being contra∣dictory to cōfest history; & so, 'tis uterly undeserving any credit. Add, that, grant the name of Caerleon had been retain'd by them, so that the Bishops of menevia were call'd Bishops of Caerleon; yet they could not but very unhandsomely bee, called BP's of Caerleon upon Vske. This particular exactnes then in this expressing the lo∣cality of his Bishoprick, which is found in the Abbot's words, argue that the counterfeiter of this paper ima∣gin'd this Bishop still to have resided neere Vske at Caer∣leon, after the locall translation of the seat thence; and so, still it remains an argument of it's imposture.

My third exception, as hee calls it, is such that the Bp. cannot, hee confesses, find the edge of it. Perhaps the bluntnes lies in his apprehension, not in my exce∣ption. Let us see. I objected, that S. H. spilman found no other Antiquity in that Welsh manuscript worth the mentioning; and, that this shrewdly imply'd, it was ma∣de for this alone. Hee asks how I know S^r H. found no other Antiquities in it? and alledges, that there might bee many more, and yet not proper for a Collection of Ecclesia∣sticall Councils. Pray does S^r H. neglect all passages which

are not of this grave nature? How came hee then to ta∣ke notice of this toy? was this single Abbot either pre∣tended to bee a Council, or these words of his some au∣thentick act of a Council? I conceive you will not con∣clude it was; otherwise Dr H. would not have underva∣lued it as inconsiderable, and a proof you could unconcer∣nedly and easily partwith as he does in his Appēdix, p 168. How then was it so proper for à Collection of Ecclesia∣sticall Councils? whereas the Collection might have been entire and perfect, though this had been omitted. Since then Sr H. who adored any new reuived piece of Antiquity, found nothing in this manuscript worth men∣tioning but this; in all likelihood it was made for this onely. Secondly, hee replies, in case there had been no other Antiquity in it, would S. W. condemn his creed for a counterfeit, because it is not huddled together confusedly with some other Treatise in one Volume. No; my Ld: my creed is sufficiently authoriz'd to my hand, nor hath any iust exceptions against it: This poor manuscript hath no∣thing at all to assert it's Authority, and lies under many and very suspicious Exceptions. But, in case one, who holds not his creed, should bee dealt with to beleeve it onely upon these Grounds, that it was found in a cer∣tain manuscript newly brought to light by one who holds the same creed; and this manuscript not autho∣riz'd by any testimony asserting it to have been writ by the Apostles, but onely that it might bee it was; and against this very might bee many exceptions brought, and amongst the rest, that the style was very new and mo∣dern, and so unlikely to have been the Apostles own words; again, in case this manuscript, whence onely this creed is pretended to bee evinced, had nothing in it worth note but this very creed: that man were very weak and foolish, to beleeve his creed thus slenderly proposed or rather totally unauthoriz'd; nor can they bee iudg'd less

weak who can think such a manuscript, absolutely un∣authentick and manifoldy excepted against, a fitt Ground to build their assent upon to clear themselves from Schism, that is, to secure themselves from, otherwise, due damnation, as themselves confess. Will hee have mee reckon up again the exceptions against it? To omit then what hath been sayd here,

First, it is onely Sr H's coniecture, that M. Moston's manuscript was transcribed out of an ancienter Copy: now, if this meer conjecture happen to fail, the wise bu∣sines is at an end.

Secondly Sr H. who brought it to light, confesses, hee knows not when and by whom that manuscript was com∣posed: which is as much as to say, it hath nothing to authorize it.

Thirdly, 'tis onely Sr H's conjecture, that those words were the answer of Dinoth to S. Austin upon that occa∣sion.

4ly the same conjecture is all the Ground that the fa∣mous Dinoth was that Abbot.

5ly the English found, in an interlineary manner with the Welsh, in that manuscript, is evidently modern and later than K. H. the 8th: which altogether disgraces the pretended Antiquity of that manuscript, and Grounds a iust presumption of it's being forged to countenance his or his successours renouncing the Pope's Authority.

6ly the learned in Welsh affirm, that both the welsh language is modern, and the spelling it is unlike to the ancient manner; and doth manifestly and particularly resemble externs smattering, when they first learn or write that language. Diuers instances of which are found in few lines, which evidences a forgery.

7ly, the Protestants are challenged to have abus'd it in the translation; and yet (so brave a proof it is) they are glad to add paraphrases to make sence of it.

8ly, it is not past seventeen or eighteen years, since this new piece of Antiquity came to light. All which and much more to the same purpose may bee seen in the Appendix to the Manuall of Controuersies.

9ly, considering the foresayd exceptions; as also that an English line is put alwayes word by word under each welsh line, (a method unheard of in Antiquity) as our Ianua linguarum or the Praxis at the end of Clenard's Greek Grammar uses to bee; it was in all likelihood in∣vented (after the form of our ••ueriles, or Ianua lingua∣rum) by some Minister, who was a Schoolmaster, to teach the welsh School boy's English, and withall to in∣still into them a dislike of the Pope: the chief and most necessary point of their Cathecism in those days; when all art was used to pervert the minds of the welsh and English, and to blot out and disgrace, (as much as in them lay) whatever concern'd the Catholike Church or it's Government.

10ly, in case all these exceptions were waved, still the book is of no Authority in the world: for, there is no difficulty, but a craf••y fellow may counterfeit a passage, & pretend it to have been found in Antiquity, which may cohere so handsomly together, that no great flaw can bee found in it, nor grounded exceptiō taken against it; yet, it follows not hence that this piece of handsome forgery must therefore bee rely'd on as authentick, un∣les hee can produce sufficient Grounds to authorize it: viz. prove from Antiquity that such a person was held to bee the Authour of it; & that this pretended saying of this Authour, or the book which recommended it, was acknowledg'd by the common consent of good and lear∣ned men (which is that which gives Authority to all books) to have come down not corrupted, (at least in that passage) to our times. Vnles these bee shown, still such a book, however it tells it's tale handsomly, fall••

short of having any Authority; since it wants all things which can Ground Authority.

See then Reader, what weak men wee have to dispu∣te with; who think the deed done and that they may iustly obtrude upon the easy credulity of the world any pretended scrap of Antiquity; so they can solve exce∣ptions against it, (which yet they will never doe) though they bring not nor even goe about to bring the least proof to gain it Authority, but totally neglect that ne∣cessary task; nay more, confess themselves to seek in those points, as wee have seen lately, and as Mr Fuller tacitly grants by waving to patronize it; who (in his Church History, Cent. 7. part. 3.) going about to rehear∣se this wise testimony, bid it in plain terms Shift as well as it could for it's own authenticalnes. In a word, the busines comes to this, that, had there been some welsh pam∣phlet or ballad, made in Ed. the 6th's dayes against the Pope, found in some Library in manuscript, printed & put forth by some Protestant Authour, and supposed by the partiall Antiquary, without the least proof, extra∣cted out of ancienter copies, presently there needs no more to authorize it, soe it bee but against the Pope: that Ballad shall bee confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards, and to have signify'd the sence of the British Churches in those days And thus, Protestant Reader, thou seest what demonstrations thy BP's and Dr's bring thee, to secure thy Soul from the hor∣rid sin of Schism; which yet (Dr. H. of Schism, c. 1.) they tell thee is greater than Idolatry.

Lastly▪ put case all had been true, yet what had they concluded; unles they had proved likewise that this Ab∣bot, in saying so, had spoken the mind of the then Ca∣tholike world? for, no man that hath any sence in his head will undertake to defend, that, in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years, there cannot bee found some few

who, either out of disgust, ambition, interest or igno∣rance, might speak or act against the Pope's Authority or against the most inuiolable right that can be imagined, but 'tis clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying, they pronounced not the sence of the then Catholike world. Have there been heresies, against almost all other points of faith arisen in severall ages; and shall wee ima∣gin noe possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government? Or, will it bee deem'd by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith, to say, that such and such hereticks deny'd it? No more ought it to bee held sufficient, that such or such persons now and then deny'd that point which concerns Gover∣nment; unles such a deniall can Ground an inference that God's Church in that age held otherwise. If then the Bp. will, first, clear his welsh copy book of all the ex∣ceptions brought against it; next, assert and establish it's Authority; and lastly, evince that this Abbot, in thus saying, spoke the thoughts of the world at that time; hee will conclude strongly against us: and, till hee does this hee does nothing; For, onely the beleef of a Church, relying on immediate Tradition, pretended and evinced, can bee possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradi∣tion possest.

As for what the Bp. addes concerning his corroborato∣ry proof from the British Synods, I must confess indeed that corroboratory is a very thumping and robust word; but what does it corroborate? Does it prove that the Au∣thour of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw? Not a iot. The chief strentgh of this corrobototy proof lies in this, that all the British Clergy did, in those Synods, renounce all obedience to the see of Rome: as hee tells us here, p. 29. and urges mee to answer it. I shall; and reply, that 'tis an arrant falsification at once of all Historians: for, if hee

means that they onely disobey'd the Pope, in not con¦forming themselves to his commands, I grant 'tis clear in all history they did so; and so have many, who re∣main Catholikes, done, who yet own the Pope's Autho∣rity it self: but, if it signifies, as his circumstances and words make it, that they renounced the Pope's Authori∣ty and deny'd his power to command or Supremacy, 't, is absolutely false; no such thing being debated or deny••d in those Synods. Yet, to corroborate this, this Bp. tells us, (in his iust vindication p. 104.) That Austin, S. Gre∣gory's Legate, proposed three things to them; first, that they should submit to the Roman Bishop: 2ly that they should conform to the Roman customes about the obseruation of Easter, and administration of Baptism; and Lastly, that they should ioyn with him in preaching to the saxons. All which are pretēded to bee deny'd in those Synods. Whe∣reas, again, the first pretended proposall of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's; no such thing being there proposed: The three proposalls were concerning Easter, Baptism and preaching to the English, as your friend, Dr. H. (who happen'd here to bee more inge∣nuous) tells you expresly out of Bede (Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9.) Yet the Bp. cites there for this proposall and de∣niall, Beda & omnes alij, in the margent; that is, at on∣ce belies Bede and all our Historians: and, to compleat the iest (in his vindication, p. 104. l. 1. 2.) hee brags that this would strike the question dead And truly soe it hath: for, whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words, and partly on his sinc••rity; nothing is more questionles now than this, that hee is a most unquestionable falsifier. Now, to falsify, wee are told, signifies to corroborate, that Protestant cause; and so is no shame, but a beautifull stain and an honorable scar.

Again, hee assures us here from his corroboratory proof, that all the British Cler••y, did r••nounce all obedience to

the Bp of Rome, of which all our Historiographers do bear witnes. You see by his many [All's] what care hee hath of sincerity. Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play, much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience, but onely in not conforming to the custo∣mes of another Church. Nor shall hee find one Histo∣riographer who affirms that they deny'd all subjection due, or disacknowledg'd the Pope's Headship (though in some things they disobey'd him) except his welsh pa∣per, and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture. And to confute his [All] Pitseus tells us onely, that neque in maiori tonsurâ, neque in ritu ba∣ptismatis, neque in celebratione Paschatis se Romanae Ec∣clesiae ullâ ratione conformare voluerunt. Which shows that there was no talk there of the Pope's Authority, but of conforming to rites and customes. Yet this the corroborating Bp. there calls an evident demonstration, that I but trifle vainly against the testimony of Dionothus.

But, in case this British Clergy which made these laws had renounced the Pope's Authority: Let us see what cause hee had to brag of them. S. Bede, l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithfull, naughty and detestable people. Their own Country man, Gildas, sayes they were wolues, ene∣mies of truth, and friends to lies, enemies of God, and not Priests, marchants of mischief and not Bp's, impugners of Christ and not his Ministers, more worthy to bee drawn to Prison, than to Preisthood. And the Bp's dear friend, Iohn Fox, tell us, out of an old Chronicle, (Acts l. 2. p. 114.) that all things, whether they pleased or displeased Cod, they regarded alike; &, not onely secular men did this, but their Bishops and Teachers without distinction. Thus my Ld D. hath again corroborated the Protestant cause by crying Hail Brethren well met, to those folks who have been proved to bee detestable fellows and enemies of God, that is, as good as Atheists: of which gang if this Dinoth

were one, wee shall neither wish the Pope such friends, nor enuy them to the Protestants. And this may serue for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope, to vindicate his Church from Schism, and secure his Readers from damnation, (which hee acknowledges due to that vice;) by their relying on such proofs, and adhering to such good company.

I am not ignorant that there is a thing, call'd an Ans∣wer or account to H. T's Appendix, which confuted this forged manuscript, writ by Dr. H though I briefly hin∣ted here some exceptions found in it, without taking no∣tice of their pretended answer; partly, because I know by long experience, that nothing but shuffling imperti∣nences▪ paralogisms, and falsifications are to bee expe∣cted from that Authour; and principally because I un∣derstood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the sa∣me learned pen that writ it; and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary. Thi∣ther I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP. more fully confuted, and my pre∣sent charge against the sleight Accountant, most amply made good.

Sect. 5.

How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall; that is from t? whole question. His pra∣fest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions, and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to. His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse: together with diverse impertinent, non sencicall and unskilfull Replies.

MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter: first, that the King & Church

of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch. 2^ly, that they had iust Grounds to do it; and 3^ly, that they did it with due moderation.

I objected, that this was to shuffle away the whole question. For, whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter, and from him descended to the Pope's his successours; that is, whereas our Con∣troversy is about a Papall Authority, or that of the Head of God's Church, held by us and by themselves former∣ly to bee of faith, and of divine Institution; hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority, not held as from Christ, but of humane Institution. By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation, and then re∣nounced, was onely Patriarchall, not Papall: which wa∣ves the main, if not the whole charge, and is plainly con∣tradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time.

Now, what excuse brings the Bishop for this funda∣mentall shuffling, importing no less than the avoiding the whole question? Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee cōceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate. By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely, I shall grant it, but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly, I have so good an opinion of those of his own party, that I am confident the most par∣tiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wi∣se to beleeve him. For, how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Pa∣pall Authority and higher than Patriarchall, and that a Papall Authority, that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters, was held immediate∣ly before the Reformation or rejection of it. Who knows

not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall? yet this Bp. undertaking that subject (that is to vindica∣te his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority) pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate; though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human, that Papacy of divine Institution; the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church, the Papacy, (which they actually renounced) held to bee universal∣ly extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church; the Papacy superior, nay supreme; the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former. This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy, at least ere they rejected it; which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other. But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now, though in his for∣mer book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Pa∣triarchall power, that is, pretended none for these last 600. years, and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Pro∣testant fraternity, and have the same fundamentall faults common to both.

But now being taken tardy, and caught running away from the question, hee is well contented (hee sayes) to gi∣ve over that subject, (to wit his disgression to the Patriar∣chate) but yet, not but upon two conditions; wise ones you may bee sure. Observe by the way, Reader, that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand; in the Bp. 'tis a courtesy and to bee condescended to condi∣tionally, 'tis against his nature and inclination to hold to the question, and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s••bscribing to the bargain hee proposes. The first

condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate, and come home to the question, is, that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch wit∣hout proving it. What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not; 'Tis a word without sence till it bee expli∣cated: For, either hee means by Monarch a Comman∣der in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put, so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists; and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch; for this, however it bee call'd Monarch, is indeed flat Tyranny: or else, hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour, and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church, and shall ever presume hee is so, till his sub∣jects who actually rebell'd against his Authority dispro∣ve it. Wee hold on the Governours side; your first Re∣formers were, before their separation, actually his sub∣jects; actually they deny'd their subjection, and rose against his Government: 'This actuall rising against him, this very fact, I say, proves you Rebells; his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper; or, though none, yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't. But the Bp. will not hold to the question, unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long pos∣sest Governour, hee shall at pleasure call the Gover∣nour to account, and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him; and, on the other side, that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give ac∣count of his rising against his Governour, or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust. Good sence, but hard law!

His second condition ere hee will come to the question is, that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall privi∣ledges to bee Royall Prerogatives, what hee means by Royal Prerogatives, I know not, there being no deter∣minate

certainty what Royalty is; the notion varying ac∣cording to diuerse countries. But, hee understands per∣haps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate, and that this is the King's priviledge; to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former; otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome, if Nero were a King; not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod. Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee; for, as I will not condescend to his conditions, so, on the other side, hee neither hath he∣retofore, nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point; as hath been seen hitherto all along, and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter. Nor will hee long defer his revenge, but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does; being assured to have demanded such conditions, as should never bee granted; for,

Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority, held of divine, to a Patriarchall acknow∣ledg'd but of human Institution; not to desert our que∣stion totally, and to give him fair law, I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Insti∣tution, it ought not to have been rejected unles the abu∣ses had been irremediable. I urged that considering, this Head was chosen, in that case, to preserve Vnity in Religion, and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection, and a separation of the reje∣cters from the rest of that common-wealth which ack∣nowledg'd that Head, therefore far weightier causes must bee expected, or greater abuses committed, ere, not onely the person, but this very Government should bee abolish't. Now the matter of fact being evident, and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in

their submitting to that Authority, till they began to reject it; that they acknowledg'd it lawfull, ere they be∣gan to disclame it as unlawfull; that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed, consen∣ted and submitted to that Authority; that the acknow∣ledging this Head then was, (as it still is to us) the Prin∣ciple of Vnity in Government for all Christianity, & as such then held by them: Likewise, it being equally evi∣dent & confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held, acknowledg'd, and submitted to by all, whom they then deemed Christians, as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth: These things, I say, being so, I had good reason to put that supposition, not as our bare tenet, (as the Bp. seems to imagin) but as the evident matter of fact, as the ca∣se stood then. One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that, notwithstanding all this, the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it; and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it, so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity, though once establisht; or, (which is all one) long ac∣cepted by their common consent, as this was de facto. What does the Bp.? Hee tells us what hee and the Pro∣testants now held concerning that point, putting (as it were) his counter tenet to ours, sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly, was their steward, that is, not their Governour, (all contrary to the mat∣ter of fact which my case is built on) that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee, and such other stuff all out of his own head, without a word of proof, & then thinks the deed is done. Was ever such an Answer con∣triu'd? the poak-full of plums was pertinent, if compar'd to 'this. But still the Bishop is innocent; twas my fault, who would not accept of the two conditions hee propo∣sed

which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question; that is, without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose; And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray.

Observe, Reader, in what a different manner the Bp. & I treat thee. I still bring thee to evident and acknow∣ledg'd matter of fact, or such suppositions which need onely application, and another name to bee so, accor∣ding as the case stood at the time of the first breach; Whereas, the Bp. brings thee his own sayings, their par∣ty's tenet for Grounds and proofs: things not acknow∣ledg'd, but disputable, nay disputed in this present deba∣te; that is, obscure, as far as concerns this question. And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise; which shows that hee hates the light, his unfriendly betrayer, but truth's Glory; and, that the obscurity of ambigui∣ties is most proper and least offensive to his errour-dark∣ned eyes.

I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy, and to the extirpation of Episcopa∣cy for the misgovernment of Princes, or abuses of Prela∣tes. Hee answers that never such abuses as these were ob∣jected either to Princes or Prelates in England. Not obje∣cted? that's strange! Read the Court of K. Iames, and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall. Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery, intolera∣ble pride, and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's. Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds? or is not the design to bring in Popery (which makes such a noise in your book, as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences) as horrid an accusation against you, as the same inconve∣niences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K.

H's daies. I was told by a worthy grave person and who∣se candour I have no reason to suspect, that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism, the Arch-Bishop confest, upon his urging the evident matter of fact, that hee was in a Schism; upon which free confession of his, being prest again by that Gentle∣man how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church, hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reuni∣te by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from: citing to make good his plea, a place from S. Austin, in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end. Now, I ask, whether in case the Arch-Bishop had en∣deavoured to bring in Popery, Episcopacy (held to bee of divine right) ought therefore to bee abolisht? If bee answer; No, (as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him) then I ask again why an infe∣riour actuall power, to wit, Episcopacy, should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake; and introdu∣cing it so fraught with inconveniences, which Popery, (so full alas! of grievances) though held immediately before equally of divine Institution, and of far higher Authority, deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake, as accompany'd with the sayd grievances!

Secondly, the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy, but the reducing it to the primitive constitu∣tion: which is as good sence, as to give a manabox on the ear, and then tell him you intend not to strike him. They have already totally extirpated it in England, in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Po∣pe hath not the least influence upon the English Congre∣gation, over which before hee had the greatest; yet, they hope to bee taken for moderate men, as long as they

speak courteous non-sence and tell us, they seek not to extirpate it. Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose; but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two con∣ditions.

Thirdly, hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution, so is not, (saith hee) a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction. That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution, I much wonder, surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then, who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Command∣ments; especially, their Brethren, the Hollanders, who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain. But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever loo∣king into Politicks, the science which concerns such points & passages; which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Gover∣ned; and, that, since human affairs are subject to per∣petuall mutability and change, it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Gover∣nment is convenient, in others another, according as it happens to bee best for the Governed: which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution, and constituted to endure ever, seing the end to which all Government is directed, the good of the Governed, is mutable and changeable.

As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution, as Episcopacy is; you see 'tis his old trick; onely his own bare saying, and which is worse, saying over again the very point in dispute between us. Whe∣reas, the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact, that those who first renounc't the Papall Authori∣ty, held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly

that it was divine Institution, as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now; and therefore ought to have renounc't it, upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies, no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences. Nay more, the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind, held it much more firmly; for they held it a point of faith, and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both; whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers, who yet deny Epis∣copacy, which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution. But, 'tis all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no; if they do but hate Rome; they are saints and Brothers. The common faction against the Pope is more power∣full to unite them, than the professed and obstinate reje∣cting Christ's ordinances, is to disunite them. As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy, what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall, may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise, bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece.

Sect. 6.

How my L•• of Derry states the whole question false, by pre∣tending, against the plain matter of fact, that they sepa∣rated onely from the Court, and not from the Church of Rome. His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards; nay confest such by himself, granting there was another remedy besides division. That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith, nor any form of Government in God's Church, nor by consequence any Church. His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephe∣sus. Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together, which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors.

HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation; to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him ob∣serve and wonder. Nor can I doe any less, seeing such mon∣strous stuff throughout this whole Section.

It begins, we are now come to the Grounds of our sepa∣ration from the Court of Rome. And this is the first Mon∣ster, which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatu∣res, than Africk it self, proposes to our observation. Which, if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch, and obstinate Schism maintain, you shall pay but pence a peece to see it, and say I have abus'd you too.

The charge against the Protestants was this, manife∣sted by undeniable matter of fact; that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters, and his successours, (the Pope's) Headhip over God's Church; and that they had receded from this Rule of faith, that nothing is to bee adhered to, as of faith, but what was inheri∣ted, (that is immediately delivered) by their forefa∣thers, as the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles? That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession; That they renounced the latter, is no less manifest, by the same undeniable attestation; and indeed out of the very word Reforma∣tion, which signifies a not immediate delivery. It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former, both was at the time of the Reformation, and now is the Prin∣ciple of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Com∣munion with the see of Rome; that is, to all the Chur∣ches they themselves communicated with, or were uni¦ted

to, before they broke; for, 'tis as visible as the sun at nonday, that France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, &c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship, and are therefore held by Protestants, Puritans, and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys. It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was, and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith, for they ever held the living voice of the Church, that is, the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith; whe∣refore, 'it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from, and disagreeing in both the sayd Prin∣ciples, in which these then-fellow-Churches consented and agreed, were and are separated from all those Chur∣ches, and all that belong to those Churches: And this ac∣cording to the two sayd Principles. Again, since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule, and Root of Vnity both in faith and Govern∣ment, it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly, that is, having separated accor∣ding to both, separated and broke from the former Church, consisting of those Churches thus united, ac∣cording to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church▪ Now then after all this, as evident as that two ad three make five, to wave answering this true charge, that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches, and to make as though they separated from the Court of Ro∣me onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court, is to say, that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome; which (to speak moderately (is perfect Impudence, the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of wri∣ting; but the blame is mine, for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions, the Bishop, had not thus ••huf∣fled of the true charge, nor avoided thus the whole que∣stion.

I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge, for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation; as likewise to reflect that, though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds, yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point (as I urged him he∣retofore) nor tell us whether those Grounds of his ex∣ceptions bee demonstrative, that is apt to infer with ab∣solute necessity, therefore the Authority was an vsurpa∣tion, and not come from Christ; or, though come from Christ, yet, for those reasons, to bee rejected: nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable, yet sufficient: For, if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Au∣thority as an vsurpation, held, till those reasons appear'd, to have been of Christ's Institution; what Government in the world could stand? Nor lastly, that there is a mid∣dle sort of proof between demonstration and Probabili∣ty; that is, above a may bee, yet below a must bee, which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith. These points are of too hard digestion for verb ••ll souls, and come so neer the first Principles, that they would quickly end this and all Controversies, should they come to bee per∣fectly scann'd. Wherefore, as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to de∣clare himself in that point; so, here, constant to his Prin∣ciples, hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee; onely hee calls them Grounds, & sayes they are just and sufficient.

His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads: some of them entrench upon Eternity & con∣science: some urge onely temporall inconveniences; Lastly, some are of a middle nature, and pretend to more knowledge of Right.

Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and ca∣lumnies,

and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion; that is, are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause. For, may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him, when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith, but what agreed with his own fancy? Might not hee com∣plain of new creeds impos'd, when the Church, upon oc∣casion of new emergent heresies, added to her publick Professions some points of faith (held so formerly) which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes? Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry, as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses, and your reform'd Communion-table, when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians, or to re∣nounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church; might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks in the world were good Christians, and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommu∣nicate? Might not hee shuffle together faith with opi∣nions, and alledge falsly, as you doe here, you were for∣ced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Coun∣cils, and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope; whenas, you know and confess your self, one may bee of our Church, and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths (Iust vindic. p. 200.) Again, all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us; wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons, whether tho∣se Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such, and endangering Idolatry, or no; in iudging which concer¦ning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason, that is, demonstration, can bee presumed sufficient to render points, held formely by themselves, and their immediate forefathers as of faith,

sacred and Christ's doctrine, to bee obnoxious to Ex∣ceptions of new, false and Idolatrous. Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons, for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers, in such a manner, that (to speak much wit∣hin compass) the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly, and conclu∣cluded decisively against us; which is an Evidence, that you have not evidenced against us, nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your con∣trary tenet. To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controver∣tists, and as yet unreply'd upon by your party; nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but pro∣••ability wheron to Ground your faith. All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry, and new points of faith, and cōcludes your breach temerarious and irrationall. And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Chri∣stendome, it shall bee shown hereafter (Sect. 10) from your own side, that you had ten times more Commu∣nion even with that in materiall points, when you were in our Church, than you can pretend to have had since.

His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences, and injuries to the civill sta∣te, by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments; against all which hee hath told us before (p. 21.) that di∣verse Catholike countries have laws in force; that is, that men may remain Catholiks without holding, nay resisting those pretended encroachments; and tells us here p. 36. that al▪ other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated. Yet these pretended inconvenien∣ces hee huddles together in big terms, and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church, in which Church yet hee confesses they might have con∣tinued

still in union, and have stood out against them▪ Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canō and civil Lawyers; of which kinde of Cōtroversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge, since this kind of learning is not our proper profession. Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions, nothing concerning our present quarell, which is about a point of faith, not a point of law. Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Autho∣rity it self, and separating from the former Church. That they were not, I show.

First, those inconveniences hee reckons up, as extor∣tions, vsurpations of more than belong'd to them, causing animosities between the crown and the miter, &c. though they had been true, are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church, nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away.

Secondly, some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely; as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction; which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks, which is proper to those matters, nor any thing else of this natu∣re; but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes; and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated.

Thirdly, that some of those pretended Abuses are in∣deed such, and not rather just Rights. hee no way pro∣ves; for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done, but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor, as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature▪ And, on the other side, none is ignorant

that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences. I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence, as in that of in∣vestitures.

Fourthly, the temporall laws hee cites, conclude not evidently a Right; for, it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasti∣call, as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs; but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Eccle∣siasticall laws, than temporall, by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church, and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude.

Fifthly, hee abuses those pretended Abuses most un∣conscionably; saying, that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right, civill, Ecclesiasticall, sacred, prophane, of all orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops, &c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie; such a far-stretching fi∣ction, that it is as big as all Christendome. For, by this, no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome, Estate, house, nay not of the very bread hee eat, but by the Pope's good leave. Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath; nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence, but my granting him his two conditions, that is my denying my own tenet, which I am defending.

Sixthly, grant all those Abuses had been true; was the∣re no other remedy but division? Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand? did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights? yes: for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries, (which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy, as well as England) do main∣tain

their own Priviledges inviolated: And, as for En∣gland, hee tells us, in a slovenly phrase, that our Ance∣stours were not so stupid as to sitt still, and blow their noses; meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did; so that, according to himself, there was a remedy still, and a means to keep their priviledges invio∣lated.

Seventhly, put case, these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable, I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is, will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments ima∣ginable: For, first, that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity, is so evident, that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it; since distraction and dissention, (the parents of dissolution and ruine) must needs bee where there is no Vnity. Secondly, not onely the well being of a Church, but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity; for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity, (nor consequently Entity or Being) but that of order, that is of Superiority and subordina∣tion: Whence follows, that, if this Order bee broken, which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesia∣sticall chief Magistrate, the Vnity of the Church is dis∣solu'd, that is, her Entity is annihilated, that is, there is no one Church, that is, there is no Church. This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church, was in it's own na∣ture destructive, of a Church. A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable. Thirdly, since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church, and the Being of a Church consist in Order, it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church; otherwise hee had not consti∣tuted

a Church; that is, hee had not done what hee ca∣me to do: Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church, and that in the highest manner by disack∣nowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church, is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command, that is, in the highest man∣ner sinfull and criminall; and so, no temporall inconve∣niences can bee a competent plea for such a fact; since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin. Fourthly, if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpo∣se; since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state, that is, sute not with the humours of the Gover∣ned, but are likely to breed combustion, the remedying the temporall ills (according to the Bp.) ought to over∣sway. The consequence is evident; for general Coun∣cils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church, since they are the effects of it; or rather, indeed, they have their form and Essence from this Communion. Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion, and by the Bishop's plea, because of temporall inconveniences, they may for the same and with better reason break Coun∣cils too, and there's an end of all.

Fifthly, faith, that is, the supernaturall knowledge of God, is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde, that no worldly consideration ought to bal∣lance it. Now then since faith, if not one is none; nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one, it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith: Wherefore, temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who

held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voi∣ce of the present Church, that is immediate Tradition (as did the first Reformers) for a plea for them to re∣nounce the said Rule of faith; which brings faith to an uncertainty, that is, to a nullity, or no obligation of hol∣ding any thing to bee of faith. Yet this former Rule of faith, the first Reformers renounc't, when they renoun∣ced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule.

Sixthly, the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Govern∣ment in the Church you left, and by consequence (since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church) broke Church Communion, but it is also equally evi∣dent, that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either, but have substituted opinion in stead of faith, or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority, and Anarchy in stead of Gover∣nment. For, the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it; what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught, and practice as they were shownd. What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to ei∣ther errour or malice, in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their who∣le lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine, and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery? And, what more evi∣dent than that they who proceed upon this principle, (as Catholikes do) will alwaies continue, and ever did to deliver & embrace what was held formerly; that is, to conserve true faith. Now in stead of this, though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their im∣mediate forefathers, yet if wee goe backward to King H.

the 8th's time, their chain of immediate delivery is inter∣rupted, and at an end, (the Reformation, which they own, broke that, and shows their recourse to i•• a false hearted pretence) ours goes on still: Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here, for an easy, open, and certain method of faith. Why, they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scri∣ptures: ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it; they'l tell you, 'tis plain, or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith; nay less, and that common people, who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means, may find it there, though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it. Ask them for a certain interpreter; perhaps someti∣mes they will answer you faintly that the generall Coun∣cils and fathers are one; that is, you must run over Li∣braries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all; and, if you bee so sincere to your nature, reason, as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers, which not; which Councils generall, authentick, and to bee beleeved, which not? you are engag'd again to stu∣dy all the School-disputes, & Controversies which con∣cern those questions. And, if you repine at the endles la∣boriousnes of the task, the insecurity of the method, and the uncertainty of the issue, and urge them for some other certainer, shorter, and plainer way of finding faith; they will reply at length, and confess, as their best Champions, Chillingworth and Faulkland do very can∣didly, that there is no certainty of faith, but probability onely; which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian, or have any obligation to beleeve any thing; since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any oblig••tion to assent upon a probability. And thus, Reader, thou se est what pass they bring faith

and it's Vnity to; to wit, to a perfect nullity and totall ruin.

Next, as for Government, let us see whether they ha∣ve left any Vnity of that in God's Church! That which was held for God's Church by them, while they conti∣nued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome; the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident, and known to all in what it con∣sisted, to wit, in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head. Since they left that mo∣ther, they have got new Brothers, and sisters, whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens: so that, God's Church now, according to them, is made up of Greeks, Lutherans, Huguenots; perhaps Socinians, Pre∣sbyterians, Adamites, Quakers, &c. For they give no Ground, nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it, which not. But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites. First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church. Next the Huguenots, (whom they own for dear Brothers, and part of God's Church) hold neither King, nor yet Bis∣hop, but the Presbyte••y onely: strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction! Thirdly, the Papists are accounted by them, lest they should spoil their own Mission, part of God's Church too; and these acknow∣ledge noe Head but the Pope. Fourthly, the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church; and, amongst them, for the most part, each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish, without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour. Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part, and it acknow∣ledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all. (Is not this now a brave Vni∣ty where there are five disparate forms of Government, which stand aloof, and at arms end with one another,

without any commonty to unite or connect them? Let them not toy it now, as they use, and tell us of an union of charity; our discourse is about an Vnity of Go∣vernment, either then let him show that God's Church, as cast in this mold, has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government, tha•• is, any commonty to sub∣scribe to some one sort of Government either acknow∣ledg'd to have been instituted by Christ, or agreed on by common cōsent of those in this new-fashion'd Church; or else, let him confess that this Church thus patch't up, has no Vnity in Government at all. Wee will do the Bis∣hop a greater favour, and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest, and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected; to wit, that the King, or temporall power, should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs. Bee it so then, and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd, wee see that they of England under their King, would make one Church; they of Holland, under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates ano∣ther; France under it's King a third, and so all the rest of the countries in the world. Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds, and many distinct inde∣pendent Governours; but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole? where is there any supreme Governour, or Governours to whom all are bound to submit, and conform themselves in the common con∣cerns of the Church? Or, without this, how is it pos∣sible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church, that is, a thing connected, united, or made one by Order, or by Vnity of Government? The Church is God's Family; can that bee calld a Family, where mu∣tually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house, (that is are many families) without any Master, or Mistress of the house, or some person, or persons

higher than the rest, by subordination to whom they be∣come united or made one. The Church is a City, whose Vnity is in it self: can that bee calld a City, where each Master of a family is supreme, that is, where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves un∣der the notion of Governed; by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole, which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates? The Church is a Christian Common-wealth; can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one, if every City and town have a parti∣cular supreme Governour of it's own, without owing de∣ference to any superiour or superiours? Does not com∣mon sence inform us that in this cause each City is a par∣ticular, that is, one compleat self bounded Common-wealth? that is, that those many Cities are more ones, that is, many Cōmon-wealths? Wherefore either show us some one standing, ordinary form of Magistracy or Go∣vernment to which all Christendome ought to submit, and some Magistrate, or Magistrates, Governour, or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience, (which is impossible in your Grounds) or else acknow∣ledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Govern∣ment in God's Church at all, but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church, which consisted essentially in Order; and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand. Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles, they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence, and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases.

Perhaps, the Bp. will reply, that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority; and that, therefore, there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church. Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men. But this is indeed the greatest mocke∣ry that can bee invented. For, first, they give us no cer∣tain Rule to know which is a generall Council, which not, that is who are to bee call'd to that Council, who not; for once taking away a certain Rule of faith, the∣re is no certainty who are Hereticks, that is, men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote; who good Catholiks, that is, to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there. Next, generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities, if the Churche's Vnity in Govern∣ment consist onely in them, it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd; that is, it is never a Church, but at that happy time onely, when it is most unhappy. But, the greatest piece of foolery is, that, they having renounc't an actuall standing Autho∣rity, pretend (to show their goodnes,) a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council, which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath im∣possible to bee had; that is, they profess themselves ve∣ry humbly and heartily ready, though they have re∣nounc't one Government, yet to submit to another, which can never bee, and so is never likely to trouble or controll them. Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility. Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible, Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words, generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had, the Christian world being under so many Empires, and divided into so many Cōmu∣nions, that it is not visible to the eye of man, how they should

bee regularly assembled; Here, Reader, thou seest all n••y discourse asserted; to wit, that God's Church, as they have form'd it, is so divided into disparate parts, that, as there is no Vnity of Government in it now, (for if there were, there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council) so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds, till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ov••r the who∣le, or greatest part of the Christian world, which in all likelihood will bee never. Consider again their candour, they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church, and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church, as hee did of∣ten, and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council, or a Representative of their new notion'd Church; but, with the next breath, lament (alas) that such a generall Council, or Representative cannot possi∣bly bee had, (after themselves had taken order to hin∣der all means of having it) and so they are free and need obey no body. How much better and stronger were it argued thus; that, since it is most irrationall and unbe∣seeming God's Providence, that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities, that is; of means to gather a generall Council, and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority, and by your own Confession no possibility of it since; that therefore, you have renounced the right notion of a Church, and the right Government of that Church.

This then is our totall charge against you; that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church, (and not of the Court onely, as you trifle it) which you were in, by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government, and to which Prin∣ciples the whole Church, you broke from, consented.

Thus far the matter of fact evidences. Nor is it less evi∣dent that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith, nor any certain or particular form of Government; which can ground an Vnity, to your new fashion'd Church in either respect, but, that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority (the onely certain Rule and Root of faith) into a drowsy probability; and, by consequence, faith thus grounded, into Opinion; as, likewise, that you ha∣ve turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy; there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together, ty any by of Government; and that (had not God's mercy been above your malice) you had made the Church, our Hierusalem, which is built as a City at Vnity with it self, (that is which hath an Vni∣ty of Government) an heap of stones; without, conne∣xion, without order, and consequently without being which consisted in that Order. This is your crime, in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy, that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church, and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder. A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude, as the renoūcing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods; and, therefore, no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences; since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth; that is, infinitely.

His third sort of Grounds, is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences, and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus. For the fitst, the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence, of his supreme Authority, much lesse impugnes it, save onely a little on the by (as it were) in his sleight way:

'tis this, that it was held and deliver'd by a world of im∣mediate fathers to sons as from their fathers, & so up∣wards as from Christ, that this Authority was sacred, of Christ's Institution, of faith, and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God. Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear, held demonstrably evident, and so shown by us; not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party, wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Head∣ship, or the substance of his Authority: But, I fear, the Bp. either understands not our tenure, (for, otherwise, sure hee would have nam'd it) or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier, and the extent of the Pope's Au∣thority; in stead of impugning the Church, and the sub∣stance of the said Authority As for his second trifle; I have already shown (Sect. 4.) that the Britannick Chur∣ches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons; nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction, as Head of the Church; however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbou∣ring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them; But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section.

The Vnity of the Church being of such importance, and the fact breaking it, by consequence so hainous, the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact; much mo∣re, unles it bee shown, there were no other possible means to remedy them. Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false, since hee does not show there was no other re∣medy, but division. First, the Bishop replies sharply. What? is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no? well leap't my Lord; I speak

of the inconsiderablenes of their truth, or falshood; your L•• talks of inconsiderablenes of their s••fficiency, & pre∣tends against both plain words and conscience that I wa∣ve that. There may bee ob••ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world, and these also true: but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for re∣jecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self, and that there is another cure: This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main, because you never prou'd nor ever shall, that there was no other remedy except division; for, unles you put in this (and more too) your argument stands in this posture, True complaints against Governours, whether otherwise remedia∣ble or no, are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Govern∣ment. At which position, if spoke out candidly, I hope you will blush: though it bee perfectly your own, cloak't a little in other, (but equivalent) terms. Next, hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it. Yes, my Ld, it belongs to your party, or any one who rises against an actuall Authority, either to show that that Authority was none, or else that though it was a lawfull one, yet there was no other remedy for it's Abu∣ses, but a totall Abolishment of it. Otherwise, the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion, the Vnity, peace, and a thousand blessings and convenien∣ces which spring from that Vnity, found in the common acknowledment of that Authority, oversway the priva∣te credit, or any other less publike concerns, which the disobedient party can pretend to; and render's their fact of rising, irrationall and destructive to the common, en∣gaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions, and by consequence, hazards of ruin which attend such divi∣sions. Thirdly, hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof, or at least not so easily

capable of it; for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities, who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee con∣cluded in Celarent & Ferio as affirmatives may in Barba∣ra, and Darij. Lastly, the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy, (but dares not much stick to them) are both equally competent to France, Spain, &c who yet (as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself, here) found other re∣medies to preserve their priviledges inviolated, and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones, (though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives) that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces. They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account, and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made? what then? Had not the King the sword in his own hands? did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee ••isted, and to ad∣mit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting? Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of En∣gland but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often, and by doing so preserve their priviled∣ges inviolated? How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church, since your self confess so often it could have been reme∣died otherwise? Or, how is it a sufficient motive to abo∣lish an Authority for the Abuses, which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within com∣pass without dividing, and so that they should not viola∣te their priviledges? Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division, that is, that there was no other remedy: but, in stead thereof, ex∣presly told us the contrary, and manifoldly contradicted himself.

I added. And much more, if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly ••ee given for it's abo∣lishment. The merry Bp. laughs at this, (as hee calls it) Kind of arguing; which neither looks like an Argument, nor was pretended by mee as such; but as a considera∣tion which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of th••t their divi∣sion: For since it follows out of the terms, that, ere they renounced it, and by thus renouncing it left to bee Ca∣tholikes, they immediately before held it as Catholikes do, that is, held it as a point of faith, and of Christ's In∣stitution; and since it is evident that none ought to chan∣ge his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorial∣ly embrac'd but upon evident Grounds; again, since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands, which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted: Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage; one, that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it, since d••nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage, and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach: The other, that the pretended causes (especially temporall inconveniences) for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith, since no iust causes can bee given to re∣nounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ; As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike, and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority, upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his An∣cestours had held it of divine Institution and that there∣fore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it, so it is

equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry, who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing, that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break, because ere they begun the breach, they held this Authority to bee of Christ's In∣stitution; and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives, and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point, grea∣ter than the pretended Evidence of Authority, universall Tradition, which they actually had for their former tenet

If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect, and equal∣ly apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow. Hen∣ce, as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division, I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions, yet neither broke formerly, nor fol∣low your Example. Hee answers, first; Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression; which signifies, I know not well whether any have or no: or, for any thing I know, some have; Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope. Any thing will ser∣ve him. Next hee tells us, all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges, as Brittain hath. And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council? Is England named in the Council of Ephesus, which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch? No. Is Brittain at least? No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council. Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so. His Grounds? Because that Council ordains, that no Bp. should occupy a Province, which was not from, the beginning under his Predecessours. And how proves hee the application, that England was never an∣ciently under the Pope as Head of the Church? from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript, and two or

three raggs of History, or misunderstood Testimonies. Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences? Here my Ld is wisely silent. Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation? Hee is silent again. Were they a thousand times as many, are they of a weight compa∣rable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate d••livery from hand to hand, which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary? Alas! hee never thinks of nor considers that at all; but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales, ne∣gl ••cting to put our pounds in the other; and then brags that his thin grains are overweight.

The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying, and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers. Is this the way to argue against us! To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ, and communicate with himself in the same guilt, and then say hee hath fellows in his schism? Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians, but in the name onely and equi∣vocally, as a painted man is styld' a man; If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome, let him show that these pretended Christians, for those points in which they differ from us, did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith, Tradition, or delivery of imme∣diate forefathers; or, that there is any certain and infal∣lible Rule but that. Otherwise, they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith, and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians; otherwise, they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated, and so are to us no properly call'd Christians, but, according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans: I mean those who knowingly & wilfully separated. Tal∣king

voluntarily, my Ld, according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controver∣sy. First, show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith, and so any faith, and, that they have not onely a probable and fallible Groūd, that is opinion onely for their faith; and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms; and do such a miracle as your Ance∣stours never attain'd to; nor any of wit and ingenuity at∣tempted, seeing it impossible to bee done rationally.

I alledged, in the next place, to show more their in∣excusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking, the example of our own country and forefathers, who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land, yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church, than to att••mpt so destructive an innovation. The Bp. replies, first, that wee should not mistake them, a••d that they still desire to live in the Com∣munion of the Catholike Church, &c. No, my Ld, I doe not mistake you, but know very well you would bee willing and glad too, the former Church should own you for hers; I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes; and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks by us. But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall, that you may bee permitted to remain in her Communion, and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list. Do you not think every Rebell, that renounces both the former Government and laws, loves not still to bee held a good Commonwealths man, and not to bee outlaw'd or punish't, but permitted to enjoy the priviledge of the Commonwealth, whose Vni∣ty hee hath broken, so hee may have his own intentions? Had Iack Straw, or Wat Tiler, after they had rebell'd,

a mind to bee thought Rebells, or to bee hang'd; or, upon the Governours declaring them Outlaws and pu∣nishable, was it a competent plea for them to say they desir'd to remain in the peaceable Communion of the Com∣monwealth as far as the Court would give them leave? Your fact, my Ld, of breaking the Vnity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs, being visible to the eyes of the whole world; and infinitely more hainous, since it concerns the order to Eternity. After this fact so visible, so enormous; 'tis no charity nor courtesy in you, but a request of an unreasonable favour from us, to admit you into Communion; and would bee most ab∣surd in Government, most contradictory in terms; si∣gnifying thus much that they should bee still held by us for good subjects, who profess and defend still their Re∣bellion against the former Church Government; and for the right faithfull, who have no Rule of faith at all, nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-groun∣ding or probability.

Secondly, hee tells us, our Ancestours did not stupid∣ly sit still and blow their noses, when they saw themselves thus abused? I answer whether they blew their noses or no it matters not; but, did they renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church? This is the thing I deny'd of them, and charge upon the Bp. what saies hee to this? Hee denies it too, after hee had shuffled about a while; (for hee must have the liberty to take his swing) that is, hee saies the same I do, and grants, what hee pretend's to confute. For, after hee had reckon'd up what things our Ancestours had done against the Pope, hee adds, as the top of the Climax, that they threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them. Which shows that this is the most they did. For, if they but threatned they did it not. But, 'tis evident that you have done what they onely threatned to do, and in

excuse of your doing it, you adde immediately, that you have more Experience than your Ancestours had. Thus the Bp. something candidly at present: Yet, wee have seen him heretofore, in contradiction to himself here, both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when hee re∣nounc't the Pope made no new law, but onely declar'd the ancient law of England; which signifies that the wall of separation was not onely threaten'd but made former∣ly; for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time, nay in the very beginning of his Raign, as himself confesses p. 2s. l. 7. 8. And wee shall see him he∣reafter bring an whole Chapter to make good the same impudent assertion, which would put out the eyes and blot out the acknowledg'd notions of the whole world. An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good me∣mory.

Now then since you have at unawares acknowledg'd so much truth as that they who had the same causes of se∣paration which you have, yet did not separate as you do, let us reflect a little upon the reason you give of this dif∣ference. 'Tis this, that you have more experience than your Ancestours; but whence this greater experience springs, or out of what Experiments which they had not, you gather'd this experience, you have not one word. Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point? Sure your self do not beleeve it, nor can say it with modesty; since by professing you made no new law in this matter, (that is retain'd the old, which you receiu'd from them) you confess you know not how to make better. Were they cowards and durst not ma∣ke those prouisions they saw necessary for the common good! Neither. They actually did (say you) exclude the Pope's Supremacy out of England as far as they judged it ne∣cessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdome. Well then, if they did as much as they judged necessary, and knew as

well what was necessary as you, why did you do more, Because, forsooth, you had more experience. But does this experience, furnish you with a reason sufficient to iustify your separation! If it do, produce it; if not, why do you alledge this more experience? And, indeed, how come you to pretend to it! For, since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 'tis deriu'd, either some new thing happen'd by which this great necessity of se∣paration which your Ancestors were ignorant of ca∣me to bee discover'd to you, or else you had no more experience than they. Therefore, good my Ld, tell us what this new Experimēt was: But, it seems you thought it either not handsom to bee owned, or not worth the owning that assigne us none at all, telling us onely in generall terms you have more experience than your An∣cestors had, &c. that is, in stead of producing some cau∣se of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism, to assigne an effect without a cause; and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Re∣bellion, who rising against his actuall Governours, and upon that score standing accused of Treason, should go about to maintain it was therefore lawfull for him to Re∣bell, because hee was wiser than the former sub••ects; and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisedome, that hee has more experience, and that hee is so.

However, since you are resolu'd to make a secret of this rare Experiment, and that, by consequence, wee are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater ex∣perience, let us see at least what it is you pretend to have more enperience of. 'Tis this, that their Ancestors remedies were not soueraign or sufficient enough, &c. Now these re∣medies of theirs being their rationall laws, (as hee inti∣mates presently after) do but observe how, like a ree∣ling Dutchman making indentures with his legs, the

Bp's discourse staggers now to the one, now to the other far distant side of the contradiction. Hee tells us here that the remedies, that is, laws of our Ancestours were not sufficient enough; yet maintains stoutly before that in the separation no new law was made, that is, that the same laws or remedies were formerly as then, but were not formerly sufficient; that is, that the same thing is not as sufficient as it is. And this signifies for the Bp. to have more experience than his Ancestors. Again, it being al∣ledged here that the former laws were insufficient, and acknowledg'd the page before that all other Catholike countries do maintain their priviledges inviolate, by means of their laws (as I conceive and hee intimates) which laws hee sayes, p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which hee pretends here not to bee sufficient; it follows that the laws of other countries were equivalent to those of England, but those of England not equivalent to them; or, that, though equivalent to one another, that is, of equall force, yet the one was sufficient, the others not, that is, of less force: And, thirdly, that all Catholike coun∣tries did maintain their priviledges inviolate by means which did not maintain them, or by laws which were not sufficient to do it. Lastly, hee tells us, p. 20. that the former laws deny'd the Pope any Authority in England, and p. 21. l. 9. that those laws were in force before the breach, that is, did actually leave him no Authority in England; and here, that those nationall laws were not sufficient remedies; Whence 'tis manifestly consequent, according to him, that those laws which deny'd the Pope all Authority, and were actually in force, that is, actual∣ly left him none, were not sufficient remedies against the Abuses of that Authority, which they had quite taken a way. And this plenty of contradictions the Bp's book is admirably stor'd with; which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism; onely hee christens

the monstrous things with a finer name, and calls them their greater experience. Whereas, indeed, as for more experience hee brags of, God know (poor men) 'tis one∣ly that which Eve got by eating the Apple, the expe∣perience of evill added to that which they had formerly of good. Their Ancestors experienc't an happy Vnity, Vnanimity, Vniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remain'd united to the former Church; and they since their breach have experienc't nothing but the contrary; to wit, distractions, dissentions, Vnconfor∣mity, with a perpetually-fleeting Changeablenes of their tenet; and, at last, an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church, built onely in the Air of phan∣tastick probabilities.

In the last place I alledged, that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those hee now takes up to defend it. For, it is well known that had the Pope consented that K. H. might put away his wife and marry another, there had been no thoughts of renouncing his Au••hority. Which shows that at most, the scales were but equally ballanc't before, and the mo∣tives not sufficient to make them break, till this consi∣deration cast them. A great prejudice to the sufficiency of the other reasons you alledge, which you grant, in the next page, were most certainly then obseru'd or the grea∣test part of them. For since they were observed then, that is, since the same causes were apply'd then, apt to work upon men's minds, those same causes had been also for∣merly efficacious, that is, had formerly produc't the ef∣fect of separating as well as now, had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient; and what par∣ticular disposition can bee shown at the instant of brea∣king, save the King's lust, which was most manifest and evident, I confess I cannot imagin, nor (as I am per∣suaded (the Bp. himself; at least hee tells us none, but

onely in generall terms sayes they had more experience than their Ancestours.

Sect. 7.

The first part of the Protestant's Moderation, exprest by my L^d of Derry in six peeces of non-sence and contradiction; with an utter ruin of all Order and Government. His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rational∣ly deny'd. His Churche's inward charity, and the spe∣ciall externall work thereof (as hee calls it) her Good-friday-Prayer, found to bee self contradictory Preten∣ces. His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds, which hee cannot digest; and indifferent Opinions, which hee will not bee obliged to hold. That according to Pro∣testant Grounds 'tis impossible to know any Catholike Church, or which sects are of it.

HIs next Head is the due Moderation of the Church of England in their reformation. This I called a pleasant Topick; Hee answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus, I Reply, the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder peece of Logick produced by a non-plust Sophister, yet withall so mirthfull, as it would move laughter even in Heraclitus.

The first point of their Moderation, is this, that they deny not the true being to other Churches, nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errors. Now, the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they se∣parated from those points which were the Principles of vnitie both in faith & Governmēt to the former Church with which they communicated, and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles; and, had their separation been exprest in these plain terms and true language, nothing had sounded more intolerable and

immoderate: wherefore my L^d took order to use his own bare Authority, to moderate and reform the truth of the∣se points into pretended erroneousnes, and the concer∣ningnes or fundamentalnes of them into an onely acci∣dentalnes, and then all is well, and hee is presently (if wee will beleeve his word against our owne eyes) a mo∣derate man; and so are the Protestans too who partici∣pate his Moderation. But, if wee demand what could be Essentiall to the former Church if these too Principles (renounced by them) which grounded all that was good in her, were accidentall onely? or how he can iustly hold her a true Church whose fund••mentall of fundamentalls, the Root & Rule of all her faith, was, as he saies here, an error; his candid answer would shew us what common sence already informs us that nothing could be either Essentiall or fundamentall to that Church. And so, this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain non-sence, in thinking any thing could be more Essentiall to a Church then Vni••y of faith, and Go∣vernment; on the other side into meer folly and indeed cōtradiction in holding her a true Church, whose Grounds of both (that is of all which should make her a true Church) are Errors & Lies.

His Church of England defines, Art. 19. that our Church erres in matters of faith; Art. 22. that four points of our faith are vain fictions & contradictory to God's word. The like character is given of another point Art. 28. Our highest act of deuotion, (Art. 31. is styled a blas∣phemous fiction & pernicious imposture; and (Art. 33.) that those who are cut of from the Church publikely (I conceive they mean Catholikes or at least include them, whom they used to excommunicate publikely in their Assem∣blies) should be held as Heathens and Publicans. Again, nothing was more uncontrollably, nay more laudably common in the mouths of their Preachers, then to call

the Pope, Antichrist; the Church of Rome, the whore of Babylon, Idolatrous, Superstitious, Blasphemous, &c. And, to make up the measure of his fore fathers sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Vnity both in faith & Government, without which she neither hath nor can have any thing of Church in her (as hath been shown in the foregoing Section) both Errors and fal∣shoods. Now, these expressions, if taken as falling from their mouths & pens, I conceive sound not over much of Moderation. All the Moderation consists here, that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest, and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that (notwithstanding all this) they forbear to censure us; which signifies, first, that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height (as is manifest by their former expressions;) next, that though they beleeve those former expres∣sions to be true, and that wee are indeed such, that is though they hold us for such, yet they do not censure us for such: Awitty contradiction! And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis, contradict Scripture blasphe∣mously & perniciously in her doctrine, nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors, and that she perti∣naciously & unrelentingly persist in those doctrines (as she does) nor is ever likely to change or retract them, yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall (though this be the very definition of Heresie) but as a true Church still, nor is to be censured to be otherwise. Good chari∣table non-sence!

Hee tells me, first, that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches, but I answer of communicating with them, and that therefore I err from the purpose. Yet him∣self six lines before (so forgetfull he is) quotes S. Cy∣prian for removing no man from our Communion, &c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any, unles they first iudge him & censure him to deserve to be avoi∣ded,

that is, naught, I must confess I know not.

Next, hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters, Hereticks, &c. In pious offices, though not in their Idolatry, Heresie, &c. Thus we have lost the question. Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them, or such like religious du∣ties? The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act, performable by Catholikes, as they are subjects of such a common wealth, from which the other is out law'd, or performa∣ble by those others, as belonging to a distinct sect? Again this position of Moderation destroies all order & Government both of Church & state; for, by this, out law'd persons may be traffick'r & treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion; and all the whole world (heathens too) may be of one Communion; es∣pecially all Hereticks, who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest. The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers & friends, though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God & his Church; for still, as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors, God's Church shall become a courteous galli∣mafry of all the filth Hell & Error could compound to deform her, and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world: Per∣haps Heathens too must make up a part of this Com∣munion, provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry. Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government, are forced to em∣brace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes; and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence, reason, order, discipline, Government, common wealth, Church.

Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did so∣metimes

communicate with the hereticall Arians. By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie. The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words, that they could not for a long time be certainly disco∣ver'd; nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated, untill they be both heard and a time of re∣pentance be prescribed them.

Fourthly, he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Nova∣tians in the same publike divine offices. But he is so reser∣ved as not to direct us where he hath shown this; nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out; and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse, he onely names the word [Novatians] without proving any thing concerning them. Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks, and transported onely by a too ri∣gorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a former∣ly received practice; with such as these it is lawfull to communicate, till, upon their contumacy, the Church shall excommunicate them. Again, as long as Schisma∣ticks & those who are erroneous in faith, are onely in via (as we may say) and not in termino, and hardned into an obstinacy, there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church, delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government, as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Eliza∣beth: But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion, because they were tolerated for a cer∣tain time while there was hope they would not be obsti∣nate, but would return, the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall, before they are to be avoided upon ne∣cessitie. But, can my L^d of Derry show a parallell to our case, that any renounc't the former Rule of faith, im∣mediate Tradition of Ancestors, the former Govern∣ment,

and many other points recommendedy that Rule, and obstinately persisted to disavow both, revi∣ling, writing against, excommunicating, nay persecu∣ting with loss of Estates, and often times of life the pro∣fessors of the thus renounced faith & Government; can he show, I say, that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion? unles he can show this, he beats the Air, for this onely comes to our point. S. Cy∣prian's case reaches not hither; he had no reason to re∣move any from his Communion, since he was in the wrong; nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the imme∣diate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet, for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie; your renouncing the former Rule of faith, immediate delivery of fore fathers, and the former Government, with many other points re∣commended by that Rule, is most evident, nay confest, avouched, & still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves.

Fifthly, hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Do∣natists their brethren. I answer, so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now; nay Turks, Heathens, and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude, that is, all but the damned in hell, who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God. S. Peter (Art. 3. v. 17.) call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ, his Bre∣thren, yet never meant by that appellation that they we∣re good Christians.

Sixthly, he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren. And what is this Principle of mine? 'Tis this, as put down here by himself; that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say the opposite is false; nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's. Good Reader, reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills

at, and then take, if thou canst, the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors. Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their no∣tions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood & error? Does not true signifie not-false? How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it's opposite false? yet this plain self evident proposition, in other terms the self∣same with this, that a thing cannot both be & not be at once, is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it. Whereas, indeed, it is not mine nor the Dona∣tists onely, but the common Principle of nature, which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of rea∣son cannot but know. Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles.

The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one, proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own, which he calls evident & undeniable, so to confute the former. The first is, that particular Chur∣ches may fall into error: where, if by Errors, he means opinions onely; 'tis true: if points of faith, 'tis not so un∣deniable as he thinks; in case that particular Church ad∣here firmly to her Rule of faith, immediate Tradition, for that point already there setled; that is, if shee pro∣ceed as a Church. If he wonder at this, I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde, that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England (could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers, and onely proceeded & stuck close to that Rule) should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef; for, as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now, and the Children (without looking

farther) beleeved their fathers and taught their Chil∣dren as they beleeved, and so successively, it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand genera∣tions would still beleeve as their fathers do now. But, as their religion, built on Reformation, that is, not imme∣diate Tradition, will not let them own immediate Tra∣dition for their Rule of faith, so neither, did they own it, could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches, strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances.

His second Principle is, that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall. I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions, as he seems to say in the next paragraph, then none at all are Essentiall; but what is this to my proposi∣tion which spoke of Religion not of opinions; unles per∣haps (which is most likely & consonant to the Prote∣stant Grounds) the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one. But, if he means Error in a mat∣ter of faith, then every such error is fundamentall and (to answer this third Principle with the same labour) destroies the being of a Church. For, since a Church must neces∣sarily have a Rule of faith, otherwise she were no Church, and that 'tis impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Princi∣ples as to hold a thing as a matter of faith, not procee∣ding upon her onely Rule of faith, this being a flat con∣tradiction; Again, since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain (without which properties 'tis no Ru∣le) it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith, which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church.

His fourth Principle is that every one is bound, according to the just extent of his power, to free himself from those not essentiall errors. Why so, my L^d? if those errors be not essentiall, they leave according to your own Grounds, sufficient means of Salvation, and the true being of a

Church: How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this, or hazard your Salvation) as you know well Schism does) when you might have rested secure? Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you con∣fess can consist with the being of a Church? or, is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity? Say not I suppose things gratis, your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is, how vtter∣ly unexcusable; the undeniable evidence of fact mani∣fests you to have broke Church Communion, that is to have Schismatized from the former Church, which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government. These are the points which you vio∣lently broke and rejected; show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequent∣ly the Entity of the former Church, or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them, and so that you are plainly both Schismatick & Heretick. But 'tis sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall, were accidentall, were errors, vlcers, opinions, hay & stubble, the plague, weeds, &c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation, as full of contradictions & absurdities as of words.

The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity. I love to see charity appearing out-wardly: me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much, and your still clamorous noises against us, envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very

much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly. He proves this in ward charity by their externall works, as he calls them their prayers for us; He should have said, words, the former were their works, and prou'd nothing but their malice. But let us examin their prayers: they pray for us he sayes daily; and we do the same for them; nay more, many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves, our enemies; and to free them, as much as in us lies, from a beleeved danger. Which shows now the greater charity? But their speciall externall work, as he calls it, is their solemn an∣niversary prayer for our conversion every good friday. And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church; being ignorant (good man) that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday, as is to be seen in our Missall, and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer, among many other things; But let us see whether the Protestants, ac∣cording to their Grounds, can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday, or for our conversion, as he, forget-full of his own tenet, affirms. Their prayer is this, Mercifull god, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a Sin∣ner, but rather that he should be converted and live; have mercy upon all Iews, Turks, Infidells, and Hereticks, &c. Fetch them home to thy flock, that they may be saved, &c. I ask, now, under which of these heads does he place Papists, when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular? Vnder that of Hereticks? How can this stand with his Principles, who acknowledges ours a true Church, that is, not hereticall? and, lately told us, as a point of his Churches Moderation, that she forbears to censure others. Again, they grant us to be of Christ's flock, already, & in a capacy to be saved, whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's

flock, (that is, not yet of it) and by being thus reduced, capable of Salvation; that is, incapable of it before they be thus reduced; none of these therefore are competent to us, nor are we prayed for there, as Hereticks, if his own Grounds & his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself. Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews, Turcks, or Infidels, for this were to censure us worse, nor was ever pretended by Protestants. It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all, but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine & her practice, that her greatest Bp's & Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other. Nay more, since hee culls out this Good friday, prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity to∣wards us, and that this cannot concern us at all (without a self contradiction) it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us. And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of, as a proof of their due Moderation.

He adds, that we excommunicate them once a year, that is the day before Good-friday. I reply, that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks, is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice, and the common Principles of Government. It being equally evident, that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith, as it is, that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets & friends. If then they hold us Hereticks, (and unles they hold us such, they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended) they ought in all reason to excommu∣nicate; as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches; though not all our

Church in generall, their new started congregation was conscious to herself, that she had no such Authority; which made her also instead of those words in our Good∣friday prayer, ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholi∣cam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris, recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike & Apostolike Church, vary the grave and too authoritative phrase, (too loud (alas) for her as taken in contra distinction to us) into that dwindling, puling puritanicall expressions of one flock, the rem nant of the true Israelites, one fold, under one Shepheard, &c. equally pretendable (if taken alone) by Quakers, as by them, since they include no visible Marks in their notion, which can satisfy us of any di∣stinction between the one & the other.

The third proof of their Moderation is, that they ad∣ded nothing but took away onely from the former do∣ctrines of the Church, which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds, but retain all the plants of saving truths. I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill, &c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors. No my L^d, this was not the intent of your discourse there; both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away, proves nothing, but is a meere self supposition, as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors, but a rigorous∣ly requisite act of Iustice. Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding, which you pretended all the way long, to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old. This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence; since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith, that the former of immediate Tra∣dition which asserted those points denied by you did the∣re in erre, the presumption stands against you that it was

Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it; or, if you suppose gratis that 'twas not Christ's doctrine, but errors & falshoods, then it is not proper to call it Moderation, but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out: I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest; but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you, which one∣ly could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word, be a weed, I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower. What he vapours of hol∣ding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does, is an emptie brag & vanis∣hes into smoak by it self, since (as shall shortly bee shown) their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church.

In order to the same proof of his Moderation, I like∣wise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary, to what he takes away; and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory, no mass, no prayer to Saints, has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary. He replies that he knows the contra∣ry: instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory, nor that there is none. I ask, what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles? Are they of faith, or opinions onely? I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions, but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours; at least the good simple Mi∣nisters were made beleeve so when they swore to main∣tain them, and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles; how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef. Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory & three other points of our doctrine; yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother, the Church of England, that she lies & that

he knows the contrary. Now his reason is better then his position; 'tis this because a negative cannot be an Ar∣ticle of faith. So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees, that there are not two God's; be∣cause the proposition is negative; nor that the Divells shall not be saved, nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd, nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ; all the∣se by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith, and become indifferent and unconcerning opi∣nions, because they are all negatives. After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is, of Theologicall opi∣nions, indifferent opinions, &c. and then on his own kin∣de word assures us that these points are such, and so wipes his hands of them.

His last proof of their Moderation, is their prepara∣tion of minde to beleeve & practice what ever the Catholi∣ke Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve & practice. Proofs should be visible & known; and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts, nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely; all other Symptoms stan∣ding in opposition to it. But the greatest foolery is, that, as I told him, they first say there is no universall Church; or, if any, indeterminate, so that no body can tell which it is, and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it, and conclude themselves modera∣te Reformers. My Ld replies that then they have renoun∣ced their creed the badge of their Christianitie. I answer, we doubt not but they have; and that, as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing, so they hold onely the word, the creed, and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases. Is it not then wisely argued, to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie (as he imagins) that then they have renounced their creed; whereas 'tis our known tenet, which

we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church. The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account, is, that then they have renounc't their reason also. As little can we doubt of this as of the former, ha∣ving seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discour∣se; and, even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of. But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason? Thus; for, if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church, whereof Christ is the Head and King. Very good, my Ld, but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such, but he∣reticall, and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church, how will you make up of them one universall Church, which may bee known for such? This is the thing we object (as you well know) that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by; This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church, because you deny all Grounds which can esta∣blish such a Church.

As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Ca∣tholike Church 'tis indetermin'd, that is none knows which it is; He answers, first, that then 'tis all one as if it were not. Very true, for if there be no determinate one, there is none at least to us. Next, that this is a calumny, to say they know not determinately which this Church is. Let us examine whether it be or no.

Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church. One, that the particular companies, which compound it, be indeed true Churches; that is, consisting of true beleevers, and not hereticall Congre∣gations; without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church, made up

of them; The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together, by mean's of order, in∣to one entire company, to be called, when thus united, one universall Church.

For the first, I appeal to any candid & learned Prote∣stant, whether he ever in his life knew any of their Au∣thors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which parti∣cular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall; which no, but to be exclu∣ded from it as hereticall: or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given & agreed upon by them, that such & such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church, such with in it. My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are; and I profess sincerely were my life at stake & onely redeemable by the resol∣ving this question, I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them, whe∣ther Presbyterians, Anabaptists, or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church, or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand, though prest to it by our conversation & carriage to declare & ex∣press our selves distinctively, much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians, Ethiopians, Iacobites, with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted

But alas! how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false, who have no Grounds to make such a distinction. For what Prin∣ciples have they to character a true beleever? Is it to ac∣knowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient? All Hereticks in the world almost own this; Arians & So∣cinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all. Is it the true sence of it? how shall they agree in this without so∣me certain mean's or Rule to interpret it & make them agree. Must the common doctrine of the universall

Church interpret it? This is the very thing we are in quest of, and (till wee know what particular Congrega∣tions are to bee held true Churches) know not yet which it is. Must consent of fathers? They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived, and as decla∣rers of her doctrine; unles therefore we have some Ru∣le to conclude antecedently, that the Church whose do∣ctrine they taught was the true Church, we are still igno∣rant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved, or no. Is it the private Spirit? The most frantick Enthu∣siasts then have an equall pretence? Is it private reason? In steps the Socinian, and indeed all heresies in the world, for every one hath a private reason of his own, and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture. But my L^d of Derry seems to drive another way, affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed, though other Protestant Authors affirm more. This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers, who not. The Puritans there∣fore who deny'd one of those Articles, to wit Ghrists des∣cent into Hell, must be excluded quite from the univer∣sall Church; yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists, nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects, or as more separated from the Church than the rest. Again, as Puritans are excluded by this Principle, so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it, as part of God's Church. Hence it fol∣lows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King, by Bishops, by Pope, by Patriarch, by Lay-elders, by private Ministers, nay all Govern∣ment, the Procession of the holy Ghost, all the Sacra∣ments, nay all the whole Scripture, except what inter∣feres with those twelve points, are members of God's

Church. Reader, canst thou imagin a greater blasphe∣my? Again, when he says the Apostle's creed is onely ne∣cessary and fundamentall, he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely, or the sence & meaning of it. If the former, the Socinians and Arians hold it, whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church. If the latter, either the Protestants or we must be excluded (contrary to his tenet) from the universall Church; for since points of faith are sence, and we take two Articles, to wit, that of Christ's descending into Hell & that of the Catholike Church, in a different sence, it follows that we have different points of our creed, or different creeds; and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church. Where then is this determinate universall Church, or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles, no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall; which not, & to be excluded from her.

For the second point; in case there were many parti∣cular Churches, yet an universall signifies one universall, every universality involving an Vnity; and so, they must have some ty to vnite them, according to the natures of those particulars: Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law; and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government, for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united. But I have already shown (in the fo∣regoing Section) that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order & subordination of universall Govern∣ment in God's Church; therefore no universall Chri∣stian Common-wealth, that is, no universall Church.

To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point. First, he toyes it childishly,

telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a vir∣tuall Church, that is one man who is as infallible as the uni∣versall Church. I answer nor wee neither: Ere he calum∣niates the Church with any such pretended tenets, let him show out of her decrees they were hers, otherwise if he will dispute against private men, let him quote his Authors & fall to work. Secondly, he tells us they ac∣knowledge a Representative Church, that is a generall Councill: with signifies nothing, unles they first deter∣ming certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there, who Hereticks & so vnfit; that is, till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches; and what Church, made up of such and such, is to be estee∣med universall; otherwise, how can a Representative of the universall Church, which is a relative word, be un∣derstood to be such, unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent. Thirdly, he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church. I marry, now we come to the point. Expect now, Reader, a determi∣nate universall Church, so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it. The Essentiall Church, that is (saith he) the multitude or multitudes of beleevers. His [that is] seem'd to promise us some de∣terminate mark of this Church; and he onely varies the phrase into [beleevers] a word equally obscure as the former, equally questionable, nay the self same que∣stion. For 'tis all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers, as to ask which is a true Church. But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick, with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers, and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it. They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms & hold still to indeterminate, confu∣sed, & universall expressions, who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things.

He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith. Whither away my Lord? The question at present is not about the resolu∣tion of faith, nor about the formall definition of a Church. but about what visible materiall persons & countries ma∣ke up the Church. That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown; that we can, is as visi∣ble as the sun at noon day; to wit those countries in Com∣munion with the See of Rome. These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church. Every ordinary fel∣low of your or our side can tell you what these are; 'tis as easie to do it, as to know which is a Papist-Country (as you call it) which not: And, even in those places where they live mixt with others, as in England, they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks. Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers, is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule & Root of faith; and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor; who so ever renounced this Government, or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule, at the same ti∣me and in the same act, renounced the said ever con∣stantly certain Rule (and, by renouncing it, their being of the Church;) as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us. To this all Catholikes agree, what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith. Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly, and such evident & manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it, or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church, nor hold or know any.

Sect. 8.

Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section. How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own. The Incohe∣rence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles. How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church, to invisible holes. The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies, non-sence and quibbling mistakes. The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church.

HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation; and 'tis this that the King and Church of England did no more than all other Princes & Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in ef∣fect. This word [in effect] deserves a Comment; and then, if it bee candidly explicated, we shall finde it ••igni∣fies the whole busines, though it seeme to speak coyly & mincingly. Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority, and define absolutely against essentiall right? Did they ever erect an Ecclesia∣sticall Superior (as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury) and pretend that he was in no manner of way su∣bordinate to the Pope, but vtterly independent on him? Did any of them ever separate from the Church by dis∣acknowledging his Head ship, and by consequence the Rule of faith, immediate Tradition, which asserted it? Not one: Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes, when you came to the point con∣fess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions, but the Emperors

(with whom you run along with your parallel in other points) did not so. Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the for∣mer Kings to the Pope tell us onely, as the highest step of it, that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him & them. If then they but threa∣ned to do what K. H. (as appears by this law which vt∣terly renounces the Pope) did, it follows plainly that they did nothing, and King Henry did all, as farr as con∣cerns our Controversy; which is not about extent of his Authority, or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority, but about the denying the very Right it self, and (which is conse∣quent) by denying joyintly the Rule of faith, and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church, which held both. The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect (as apply'd to our purpose) by his own interpretation, is this; that other Catholike countries did just nothing, and King Henry the 8th did all. To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes, are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such & such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he inten∣ded, unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely.

But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes, which (the way being new) he made account would come of bravely, grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by sho∣wing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose, and therefore both heretofore and especially at present com∣plains much that we answer them not in particular, assu∣ring the Reader, that would our cause have born it, we had done so. Was ever man so ignorant of the common

laws of disputing? Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to, than to say he grants them? We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings & Popes, and yeeld willin∣gly that such & such materiall facts happen'd & many more; not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly, how far un iustly, which is little to our pur∣pose, since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides. What need we answer each in particular, by saying, first I grant this, next I grant the other. Now the use or application he makes of them, that is, to pre∣tend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th, so to iustify him, is a particular point and, one; and to this I have answer'd particularly, both here and also in my third Section, where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles & manifoldly contradictory absurdi∣ty, that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledg∣ment and ey-verdict of the whole word.

Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike coun∣tries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Prote∣stants, I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing; To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception? nothing but a contradiction. As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of no∣thing, nor worth excepting against. His contradiction is this, that our doctrine concerning the Pope is inju∣rious to Princes & prejudices their crowns, and yet that we hold & do the same against the Pope in effect as Pro∣testants do. He would salve the contradiction, first, by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect & one time, and do them right in another respect and another time. Well, my Lord; but, since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Au∣thority is ever constantly the same (for none can be Pa∣pists longer then they hold it) it knows no varitie of

respectt not times, and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 'tis prejudiciall alwayes. The extent of it varies upon occasions: this consists in an indivisible & cannot alter. This substance of his Authority, is the point which be∣longs to you to impugn, if you go to work consequent∣ly, since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this, not for hindring him from acting in particular ca∣ses. Either grant then that this tenet is not pre••udiciall to Princes, being like yours, and then you contradict your former pretence, that it was; or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also, being the same in effect with it; and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction, but by as great an absurdity.

Secondly, to show his former answer was nothing worth, he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition, and that he spoke not of Papists, but of the Po∣pe & Court of Rome; No Ld, but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question. 'Tis a separa∣tion from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of; the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by re∣nouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree. This is our accusation against you, and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all. Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes; and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches, else why did you separate from all those Chur∣ches upon that pretence. But those Churches universally (as you say) hold the same in effect with the Protestants (for you say you separated from the Court onely:) what needed them excuses from you to them, unles there had been a contradiction in the busines. Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your te∣net, you might have remain'd still united with France,

Spain, &c who did (as you confess) the same in effect; but now you remain disunited from Catholike countries and their Churches in the very tenet of the Pope's Au∣thority, held by them as our eyes testify, therefore 'tis evident 'twas the doctrine of all those Churches you lest, and would vindicate your self for leaving by pretending that doctrine injurious to Princes, and by consequence you contradict your self.

In order to the same point, and to let him see that tho∣se restrictions of the Pope's Authority avouched by the laws & practice of Catholike countries concern'd not faith as the Protestants renouncind the Authority it self did, I told him (Schism Disarm. p. 321.) that

the Po∣pe's did not cast out of Communion those Catholike divines which opposed them; and that this argues that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publike tenet in their Church which binds any to these rigorous asser∣tions which the Protestants condemn.

He replies first thus, I know it is not the Roman Religion, their Religion & & ours is the same. So you say, my L^d to honour your selves which such good company; but, answer serious∣ly, are not the Roman Religion & yours different in this very point of the Pope's Supremacy, which is the thing in hands? and do not the Romanists excommuni∣cate you and think you of another Religion because you hold it? True it is you may account them of your Religion because you have no bounds but voluntary, and so can take in & put out whom you please; but they who are bound to a certaine Rule of Religion, cannot do so; because your new fashion'd tenets stand not with their Rule: To what end then is this show of condiscen∣sion, to shuffle away the point? Again, if these rigorous assertions which you impugn be not their Religion, so∣me other more moderate tenet concerning the Pope's Authoritz is their Religion; for 'tis evident that all Ca∣tholike

Doctors defet something to the Pope as a point of their Religion, or as received upon their Rule of faith; why did you then reject the more moderate tenet which belongd to their Religion, because some men attribute more to him by their more rigorous tenets, which you acknowledge belong not to their Religion? or how do you hope to excuse your self for rejecting the more mo∣derate tenet of the substance of the Pope's Authority, by alledging that others held the extent of it too rigorously? Is this a sufficient Plea for your breaking God's Church?

Secondly, he confesses that those rigorous assertions extending thus the Pope's Authority are not the generall tenet of our Church. Whom do you impugn then? or to what end do you huddle together those pretended extra∣vagancies for your vindication? must you necessarily re∣nounce the substance of the Popes Authority which was generally held by all, and so break the vnitie of the Church, because there was a tenet attributing too much to him, which you confess to have been not generally held, nay generally resisted? what Logick can conclude such an Act pardonable by such a Plea?

Thirdly, hee affirms that the Pope's many times ex∣communicated Princes, Doctors and whole Nations, for resisting such rigorous pretences. True, he excom∣municated them, as pretending them disobedient, or infringing some Ecclesiasticall right, as he might have done, for violently and unjustly putting to death some Ecclesiasticall person, and in an hundred like cases: and no wonder, because as a Prelate he has no other Wea∣pons to obtain his right when it is deny'd him. But did he ever excommunicate them as directly infringing the Rule of faith, or did the Catholike world ever looke upon them as on Hereticks when thus excommunica∣ted, as they look't upon you renouncing in terms the very Authority it self? Nay did not the Pope's when

their Passion heated by the present contest, was over, admit them into Communion again, though still persi∣sting in their unretracted opposition? what weaker then than to think they were separated from the Church for oppositing those more rigorous pretences? or that tho∣se came down recommended by that Rule of faith, as did the Authority it self which you rejected, and for re∣jecting it be came held by all the Churches of that Com∣munion for Schismaticks & Hereticks.

Fourthly, to let us see that hee will not stand to his former Answer hee tells us that the Pope & his Court had something else to do than to enquire after the tenets of priva∣te Doctors. That is, after himself had taken a great deal of pains to prove that all Catholike Kings, abetted by their Doctors and Casuists, had thus resisted the Pope in these particular cases that is, that it was Publikely done all over the whole Church, hee alledges in the next pla∣ce that onely private. Doctors held it. So fruitfull is er∣ror of contradictions.

Fifthly, hee alledges, that perhaps those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of constance & Basile, and then the Popes durst not meddle with them. Yet many, if not most of the instances produced by him are mo∣dern, some of them, as that of Portugall, in our dayes, and not past seaven years ago, another of the Venetians in this very last age; which no [perhaps] can make hap∣pen in the time of those Councells. Score up another self contradiction. What hee means by their living perhaps out of the Pope's reach, none can tell. The Pope's Spiri∣tuall Iurisdiction, by which hee acts such things, & ex∣communicates, reachers as far as those Churches in Communion with Rome, as all men know, and if our Bishop speak of those who lived in other places, hee changes the subject of the question, for wee speake of Doctors abetting Roman Catholike Kings & Kingdo∣mes, in such opposition.

Sixthly, hee asks what did the Sorbon Doctors of old value the Court of Rome S. Trifle not my Ld; they ever valued the tenet of the Popes Supremacy as a point of faith; what they thought of the Court concerns not you, nor our Question; nor are you accused or out of the Church for not over valving or not justly valuing the Court, but for under-valuing the very substance of the Pope's Authority, and calling that an Error which the Rule of faith delivered us as a point of faith. In a word all your process here is convinced to be perfectly frivolous & to no purpose; since none of these things you alledge as done by Catholike countries are those for which you are excommunicate, cast out of the Church, & accused for Schismaticks & Hereticks by us: but another far greater, not at all touched by you; towit, the renoun∣cing & disacknowledging the very inward Right of the Pope. Which shows that all your allegations are nothing but laborious cobwebs, signs of a fruitles industries, but vtterly unable to support Truth.

I upbraided them upon occasion, for their bloody laws and bloodier execution. Hee referrs me for Answer, to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon. Where hee ma∣kes a long-law preamble no wayes appliable to the pre∣sent case; which even by his own Confession is this, whether (though treasonable acts be punishable) acts of Religion ought for any reason be made treason, and the exercisers of them punish't as Traitors meerly upon this Score because they performed such acts. That this was the case, is evidenced most manifestly out of the laws themselves every where extant; which make it trea∣son and death to hear a Confession, or to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice of our Saviours Body, &c. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp, nay rewarding the persons osten, if they would renounce their tenets & accompany them to their Chur∣ches.

These are our manifest and undeniable proofs: what arguments does hee hring to blinde the Evidences? no∣thing but obscure conceits to be look't for in mens breasts, pretended fears & ielousies that all who exerci∣sed such acts of Religion were Traitors, & meant to kill and slay the Governors, or at most some particular at∣temps of private persons, either true or counterfeited; if some were true, it was, no wonder that such hert bur∣nings & passions should happen, where people were vio∣lently forced to renounce the faith they had so zealous∣ly embraced & were bred & brought up in; and per ad∣venture no Protestant party living under Catholikes but have had the same or greater examples of the like attempts. Yet I excuse not those who attempted any thing against Government, nor accuse the Governors for trea∣ting them as they deserved: onely that the faults of so∣me should be so unreasonably reflected upon all, nay upon Religion it self, as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion, was most senceles, malicious, nay self condemning, since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawfull act of Religion, and you would yet willingly hear them, if the people were not wiser then to go to such sleightly authoriz'd Ghostly fathers. Nor do I appre∣hend that you would think your selves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some ••isings of some of your party against them, which they know to have been back't, promoted, & fomented by some of your Lay Clergy, should there upon presently ma∣ke laws to hang as Traitors every one of the said Clergy, whom they found either hearning a Confession or spea∣king of the Church Government by Bishops; a point as much condemn'd by the present Government as any of our tenets was by Queen Elizabeth. If then you would think this very hard dealing, acknowledge others com∣paratively

moderate, and your selves to have been most unreasonably cruell.

In his p. 48. if hee mean as hee sayes, hee clears our Religion from destroying subjection to Princes, I subsu∣me; But, the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of faith, that is a point of Religion, therefore the holding the said Supremacy, is according to him (if hee means honestly, that is, as hee speaks) no wayes injurious to Princes. If any extent of this power, pretended to bee beyond it's just limits, hath been introduced by Canon-Lawyers or others, let him wrangle with them about it; our Religion and Rule of faith owns no such things, as is evident by the universality of Catholike Doctors de∣claring in particular cases against the Pope, when it is necessary, as the Lawyers in England did against the King, without prejudice to their Allegiance; which I hope characters those Doctors in his eye to bee good sujects to their Governors. Yet he is sorry to have done us this favour, or to stand to his own words, even when they signify onely Courtesy. Hee alledges therefore that these instances cited by him (of Catholikes disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings,) were before these poysonous opinions were hatched, and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholikes at this time are loyall subjets. Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. (so naturall is self con∣tradiction to him) told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinall Richlieu's dayes; in Portugall ve∣ry lately, and in a maner the other day, in which also the Portugeses were abetted by a Synod of French Bis∣hops in the year one thousand six hundred fi••ty one, who were positive & very round with the Pope in their behalf. These were some of his instances in this very seventh Chapter; which now (a badd memory and self contra∣diction is ever a certain curse to falshood) hee tells us were before our seditions, opinions were hatched. Now what

seditious opinions have been hatched or can bee preten∣ded to have been hatched within this five years, I dare say hee is ignorant: And, lest you should think I wrong him, you shall hear him contradict himself yet once-more (so fully does hee satisfy his Reader on all sides) & affirm here p. 49. that hee hopes that those seditio••s doctrines at this day are almost buried. So that spell the Bishop's words together, and they sound thus much, that those pretended seditious doctrines had their birth & buriall both at once, and were entomb'd in their shell; that is, were never hatch't at all: So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same Ianus does hee fall together by the ears with himself, baffle & break his self divided head, & with one splay leg trip up the other.

After this, hee presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by mee, as hee sayes; for which gree∣vous fault he reprehends mee ironically, telling mee that 'tis pitty I had not been one of Christ's Councellors when hee form'd his Church; that I am sawcy with Christ, what not? Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councellors at all when he first form'd his Church, till the Bishop told mee hee had, & wish't I had been one of them; or fancied any thing at all, unles hee will say that what Ca∣tholikes received from their forefathers and what with their eyes wee see left in the Church still, is onely the work of my fancy: which is non-sence; for I onely took what was delivered, as of faith, by immediate Tradition, to wit that S. Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of his Apostles, and that the Pope was his Successor into that Office; and then show'd the admirable convenien∣cies, the moderation, the necessity of that form of Go∣vernment, how innocent if taken in it's due limits (as held out to us by the Rule of faith) to temporall Go∣vernment, nay how beneficiall to the same, how abso∣lutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Vnity

in the Church; how impossible the said Vnity is without it, &c. which, if it bee Saucines, hee may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Saucines which takes what faith hath delivered, for example that Christ was Incar∣nate, & thence proceeds to show the conveniency, ne∣cessity, &c. of the Incarnation; But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in quaint concieted stories & odd ends of Testimonies, never had leisure to reflect, that this is the method which Science takes when it pro∣ceeds a posteriori; first building upon what it finds to ha∣ve been done, by experience or other Grounds, and thence proceeding to finde out the causes why or by which such things were done.

In Answer, the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces; whereas hee not so much as handles it, or looks upon it; formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity, his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars, all which (except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism) are invisible & latent, & some of them no wayes proper to a Church.

The first is, one Body. Well leap't again, my L^d, you are to prove first we are one Body, if the Vnity of Govern∣ment (conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Po∣pes Head ship) be taken away by you; but you suppo∣se this, and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one ano∣ther? wee were inded once one Body, and as long as the mēbers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them: But, as when some member becomes corrupted, the rest of the members if they do wisely, ta∣ke order to cut it of, lest it infect the rest, so 'twas no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of, when you would needs be infected, and obstinacy had made you incurable: nay when you would needs be no longer of

that Body. The former Body was One by having a visi∣ble Head, common nerves & Ligatures of Govern∣ment & Discipline united in that Head; the life••giving Blood of faith, essentiall to the faithfull as faith••full, de∣rived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition: You separated from that Head, you broke a••sunder those nerves of Government, you stop't••up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef (that is certainty grounded faith) your task then is to show us by visible tokens, that is, by common exterior ties, that you are one Body with us still, not to suppose it, and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition.

Secondly, one Spirit; that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles, the common soul of the Church. But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church, ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it. It is not enough to talk of the Spirit, which is latent & invisible; & Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure; but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body, and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul; otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit.

Thirdly, one hope of our calling. This token is both invisible again; and besides makes all to be of one Church; Iews & all, if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven; & who will stick to say that?

Fourthly, one Lord; in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends, because wee serve the same Lord Dark again! How shall wee know they serve the same Lord? Because they cry Lord, Lord? or because they call him Lord? Their visible acts must decide that. If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church, & renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law, they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their

service and restore both to their former integrity by re∣acknowledging them; else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord, but Rebells & enemies against this Lord & his Church.

Fifthly one faith. But how they should have one faith with us, who differ from us in the onely certain, that is▪ in the onely Rule of faith; as also in the sence, that is, in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed; or, in∣deed, how they can have faith at all but opinion onely, whose best Authors & writers confess they have no mo∣re than probability to Ground their faith, hee knows not▪ & so sayes nothing; and therefore is not to be be∣leeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith.

Sixthly, one Baptism. As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard. That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed; But, as hee who wears the colours of his Generall, & yet de∣serts his Army & fights against it, will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him, that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law & treatable as a greater enemy; so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism, is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers, if they run away from her & take par∣ty against her, that it much more hainously enhances their accusation, and condemns you whom the unde∣niable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both.

Lastly, one God who is father of all, &c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence, them Iews, Pagans, & Atheists are of God's Church too; if in the sence as God is fathers of Chri∣stians, you must first prove that you have his Church on

earth for your Mother, ere you can claim God in Hea∣ven for your father.

But, to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Rea∣der peruse here my p. 324. & 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government, they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth; and therefore, that having rejected that Government, unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that, they can∣not be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock, but separates & Aliens from it. Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty; now the Bishop, instead of showing us this, supposes all hee was to prove; towit that they are of Christ's Church, and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul, to Christians already acknowledg'd for such, to vnite them, not into one Church▪ (for that was presupposed) but into one harmony of affections. There is no doubt then, but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills; but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended, (and being invisible they can be but pretended) is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian, who not: nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to, who were all Christians. Now Chri∣stians being such because of their faith, it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such, and consequently in Government (which, by reason of it's concernment, ought in all reason to bee a point of faith) & not in charity onely, for this extends it self to Infidells & all the world. Since then, the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith, that is, a common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest, nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly, & to us, to be of the Church, and on the

other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were & are visibly such to the Church they broke from, 'tis no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away (as his custome is) from the open field of the plain char∣ge to invisible holes. In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills, and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church, and Christian common wealth, not the proper ties which make them of it; for these must be visible, remarkable & known, as are de facto, our form of Government, our Rule of faith. The frame then of the Church, as put by me, was thus visible; the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisi∣ble; yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces; & to look upon it in parcells. Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question, and, instead of answering, to abu∣se & wrong his Adversary.

Secondly, hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles, so wee will be content with a Principality of order; and hee wis∣hes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order & Vnity, or for a single Head of power & Iurisdiction. I answer, I contende for no such singular Head ship of power, that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee; for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople; A Principality or Primacy of or∣der I like well; provided this order signify not, as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing; but such an order as can act & do something, according to it's degree & rank; as the word order imports, if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence; and as it is taken when it is ap∣pl••'d to the Hierarchy, as for example to P••triarch••▪

Primates, Arch Bishops, Bishops, &c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy, it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence. As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resi••es now in a ge∣nerall Council, besides other faults already noted, it fal∣ters in this, that generall Councils are extraordinary Iu∣dicatures, and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council. But, our Question is, whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing, Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns, to promote the interests & con∣serve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth, by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed; If this bee necessary, as plain reason avouches, then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power, since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy?

Thirdly I added, and consequently to his Successors. This consequence exprest in generall terms, hee tells us, hee likes well enough, and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church; but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome: yet, what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such, (that is such a one who succeeded him dying) except the Bp. of Rome, himself will never attempt to show us. This consequence then of ours, ap∣plying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome) which hee calls a rope of sand) hangs together thus, that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church, and has taken no further order for it's conti∣nuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come. Now the naturall order requires that offices & di∣gnities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those

persons dying who were vested with them, in case there bee no other ordinary & convenient mean•• instituted to elect or transfer it to another. That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election, or traverse the common method of succession, wee never read; but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession, & not by nomination of the Catholike Church; nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall, that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity (as hee grants) the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope, till all the Chur∣ches in Iapan, China, India, or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world, should bee ask't & give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality, or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession, as appears by common sence and the practi∣ce of the Church, it follows that this naturall order must take place, and so the particular dignity of S. Peter re∣main to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Ro∣me. His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine, that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord C••ancel∣lor of England, therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of En∣gland, comes nothing home to my case; for here is a supreme standing Magistrate, to elect another & tra∣verse succession; the transfering that charge is easily & conveniently performable; here are positive laws & in∣stitutes made known & accepted that a King should do this; But, put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person, on foot in the world, and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated, there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also, and the Successors of

that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship.

Christ left (hee tells us) the cheif managing of his fami∣ly to his spouse, that is, the Church. Pretty sence! signi∣fying thus much that the Church or universality of ••hri∣stians must govern themselves, & have no cheif Gover∣nour at all; Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family, and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things! What hee adds, that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse; is ve∣ry true; and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed, as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij, yet no more can the subjects command their Governours, than wee can command Angells. And so the chief Church, & her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church, thouh over the Church; ho∣wever my L^d who looks into the sounds of words & not the meaning of them, enflames the expressions, & im∣proves them to flanting & proud sence.

Hee tells us that Rome may bee destroyed with an Earth∣quake; I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese; for, if the Ci∣ty onely run that hazard, the Clergy of the Roman Dio∣cese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bis∣hop; And no harm will succed to our cause. Next, hee sayes, it may become hereticall or Mahumetan? True, so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes. But that it pleases him not wee have this strong presumption, that the good of his Church, so much concern'd in the perpetuity of this succession (as hath been shown) will crave his perpetuall assistance to that see. Wee have also for pledge of this perpetuity the expe∣rience of his gratious conservation of it for sixteen hun∣dred years, & the establishment of it at present, not gi∣ving us the least Ground to think it's ruine likely. If his

Lp do, and that this trouble him, at least let him yeeld his obedience till that happens, and then preach liberty from Rome's Iurisdiction to those that shall live in that age. What hee addes concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is meer folly: Himself granted in the fore∣going page that Christ himself (& not the Church) in∣stituted this Principality; let him them show first that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institu∣tes, ere he thus frankly presume it left to the Churches disposall.

Next, hee tells us that betweene Tyranny & Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church. Wee blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church; and alledge that there is no Kinde of Govern∣ment which actually vnite? God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship. An Aristocracy signifies a Go∣vernment by some cheif persons, who sitt either constant∣ly or else often, & easily meet that the difficulties occur∣ring in the ordinary Government of the Cōmonwealth may bee settled by them. Was this the ordinary Govern∣ment of the Primitive Church? Had they any generall Council (which the Bishop means by Aristocracy, as appears by his p. 56. l. vlt. till Constantine's time? Nay have wee had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to bee such! or, shall wee have any for the future? they tell us not till towards the end of the world, and that even then 'tis but probable neither (See D^r H. Reply p. 30.) His po∣sition then comes to this, that Aristocracy in a generall Councill being the Ecclesiasticall H••ad (p. 56. l. vlt.) or the Government which vnites God's Church, the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constan∣tine's time; none betweene Council & Council after∣wards; none at all again this six or seven hundred years

past; and lastly perhaps shall have none at all for the fu∣ture. Farewell Church Government, and many thanks to my good L^d of Derry & D^r. H^d. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could finde no middle sort of Government between Tyranny & Anarchy but Ari∣stocracy; Is Monarchy with him none at all, or none of the best, which even now hee told us was of divine In∣stitution? You good people who depend so zealously of this new Prelacy, observe how your Dooctrs have ei∣ther a very short memory to inform you right, or a ve∣ry strong will to cheat you into the wrong.

Heed adds, that a Primacy of order is more sufficient in this case to prevent dangers and procure advantages to the Church than a Supremacy of power. Which signifies thus much directly in other terms, that hee who hath no po∣wer to act at all in order to the universall Church or as a first, hath power to procure her more good, & prevent more harms towards her, that is, hath power to act bet∣ter for that Church, than hee, who has power to act, hath. And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions, his whole discourse being such in it's self & wants onely to bee put into something more imme∣diate terms of the same signification.

After I had put down the necessity & yet moderatenes of the Pope's Authority as held of faith by us, I added,

that this was the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church, to wield it sweetly which way hee plea∣sed.

My Bp. replies that I make the Church to bee the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church. No, my Lord, I styl'd the Pope's office, the Bridle; do bridles use to ride upon horses? or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on hors∣back? I see the Bishop is a better Bowler then hee is an Hors-man. Next, hee tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church. Good my L^d inform us (for you chop your Logick so snall & are

grown so mysteriously acute that without a revelation none can understand you) when the Church holds the bridle in her hand, as you say, whom does she govern by that bridle? Do the whole multitude of beleevers hold the bridle & govern themselves? Then there are no Governors at all, o••at least none distinct from the go∣verned, which is all one. Or, do some Governors one∣ly hold the bridle & weild by it the multitude of belee∣vers? then returns his Lp's cavill & buffets himself, that then the Church is the Beast (as hee irreverently wantons it) and those Governors ride upon the Beast, and the brid∣le gets into the Mouth of the Church again, for as Go∣vernors are said to hold the reins or bridle, so, if wee will prosecute the metaphor into an Allegory, the Governed must be said to have it in their Mouths, that is to be ru∣led & guided by it. So unfortunate is his Lp that hee can neither approve himself a good Controvertist, nor a tolerable guibbler; but, while hee pretends to be so∣lid in the former, he still runs into contradictions; when witty in the latter hee rambles into absurdities; and, in either performance, his own both Arguments & Quips light upon his own head.

I represented the advantages & cōveniences this Head∣ship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's. Hee replies that I write dreaming as Plato did, and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to bee. This mistake is of the same strain, onely something mo∣re voluntary. I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place, but speak of the Office it self; how admirabily convenient it is if rightly performed. What men do, or how they execute it, whether well or ill concerns not a Controvertist no•• mee; the point or tenet concerns mee. The personall managing this office is not of faith, and belongs not to mee but to Historians & Lawyers to talk of; the Office it self is of faith, fals under the sphere of

Controversy & is my task to defendit. What say you to the Office it self, as put down here by mee. Return my L^d whence you stray'd; and tell us, is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace, Vnity, Faith, Discipline, & other universall conveniencies of Christendome? or is it, though thus advantageous to the whole Church, to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons? These are the points between us; what say you to these? why, in the next parag. hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee; no my Lord, I ought not in reason to quit that method; you & I are not disputing about mens lives, but the Catho∣like tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not. If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question. Yet wee must leave the Question, else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute; telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if, or, as the Pope should bee (that is indeed if wee look not upon the case) then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been (sayes hee) the cause of Schisms, Ecclesiasticall dissen∣tions, war amongst Princes, &c. Where first, if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive (as it is sett∣led, or would have been) then it remains for any thing hee expresses, that, as it is settled, it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences; but onely would have been, in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church. Next, if hee speak of the Papacy, as it is settled, hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknow∣ledg'd by all Romane Catholikes; otherwise if hee con∣siders it according to what is disputable & wrangled about between Catholike & Catholike, hee considers it not as settled, for this is to bee not setled: nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self (about which Ca∣tholikes

have no debates) but of the extent of it. Now, let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held uni∣versally by all Catholikes, is in it's own nature the cau∣se of Schisms, dissentions, Warrs, &c. Or grant that 'tis not such, but the contrary; as hee does here tacitly, by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles, and presently doubting whether it bee right sett∣led, (that is, as it should bee) or no.

The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated, I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head; because, not with standing such disputes, it is evident

that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved; the Papacy standing firm in those very Ca∣tholike countries, which resisted the Pope, and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith & Sacraments, & correspondence like one Body, as is visible; whereas their Reform or renouncing the Po∣pe has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence, and made it no part of one Church greater then it self, but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order.

Hee replies; Neither so, nor so. How then, my Lord? why hee tells us first that the Ea∣stern Southern & Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch. Well, my L^d, are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs, or any other common Government? If not, how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Gover∣ned? Next, hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke. Grant it were so, and that those Congregations were in reality Churches, (which wee deny) yet are you united with those Chur∣ches under some common Christian Government, joy∣ning you & them into one Christian Commonwealth? If not (as your eyes witnes 'tis not) then how are you their Brothers or of their community? Show us this vi∣sible

ty of order uniting you together; To say you are one or united to them, without showing us this extern ty, is very easy, but convinces nothing. Thirdly, hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy, do it with very many reservations, cautions, and restrictions. Very good, my Lord! if they onely re∣strain'd, they restrain'd something which they admitted, as thus restrain'd; to wit, the substance of the Pope's Authority. Are you at least united with them? Alas no: you are disunited from them, by totally renouncing (and not restraining onely) that Authority which visibly uni∣ted them. Where then is your Brother hood? where is your order? Fourthly, hee answers, that for order, they are for it as much as wee. That you are for it & desire it (if your Grounds would let you (wee doubt not: But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world? To say you are for it, when the Question is whether you have it no, without ever at∣tempting to show us this visible order, signifies you nei∣ther have any nor can show any; or, that you have in∣deed a feeble wish for it, but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it.

Fifthly, hee tells us, that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee; But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government, uniting them into one Cōmonwealth or Brother hood. 'Tis a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it; that is, they call more Brothers then wee do; but, whe∣ther they are so indeed or no 'tis so evident with him (though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary, as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religio••s) that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question; Sixthly, as for their being an headles Synagogue, hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head. Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif Governmēt

of the whole Church common to England with the rest, and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven. Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind, must they therefore be∣cause of this invisible relation become one Cōmonvealth. Again, this latter, towit, whether Christ bee their spi∣rituall Head or no, is invisible & unknown, and is to bee judged by the other thus; that, if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept, and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity, 'tis evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church, and so falsly pretend to ha∣ve him for their spirituall Head. Next, hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head. Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church, but extraordinary onely, when a Council sits, that is, there is none de facto at pre∣sent, nay morally impossible there should bee any (as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39.) and 'tis a great chance when there is any, perhaps towards the end of the world, as the same Dr. imaginarily ghesses; which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time, who (according to their princi∣ples) will bee the Head of the Church. And, lastly, that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head. Whose inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the who∣le world grants it many, it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant. But I wonder the Bishop is so dis∣courteous to his own tenet, that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church, or cheif in Ecclesia∣sticall matters, hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head, as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall; that is, give him no more then France, Spain, &c. Vse to do to their Kings, where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd. Again, wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pre∣tended

visible Head or Government, but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world, though having that pretended Head? Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head? If not, where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole, Church? or how is England vi∣sibly▪ united to it, vnder this notion? If there bee, why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which (& onely which) would satisfy the point, clear his credit, & vindicate his Church.

His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads, sometimes never an Head, is false & groundles; since the∣re can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope, howe∣ver there may bee more pretended ones; and, till hee who is chosen bee known & euidenced to bee such, the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see, whom wee call Cardinalls; unles a generall Council actually sit. As secure a method for the peace & Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power, as mans wit can invent; though (as in all huma∣ne affairs) the contingency of the subject admits some∣times of miscarriages, sidings & animosities.

Hee promises us (to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves) that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world, that their Contro∣versies are not so many, nor of so great moment as imagining. I answer, that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences, that I know not even what the word Contreversy means; till they give us some cer∣tain Rule to settle Controversies, & to tell us which Controversies are of faith, which of opinion onely: But does the Harmony of Confessions show us (not in the com∣mon expressions of the word, but) in the particularity of the thing, that they have one common certain Rule of faith, infallibly securing then that such points & no

other were taught by Christ and his Apostles, or any par∣ticular sort of Government, obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed, as a common ty? No∣thingless; that is, it does less than nothing: and leaves my other objection good, that otherwise they have no mo∣re Vnity then a body composed of Turks, Iews, Here∣ticks, and Christians; Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former moti∣ves to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul: Six of which are invisible; and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks, Hereticks, &c. As de∣niable to them by him; nor can they be in reason refu∣sed them, till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith, obligingly & satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted, such to bee absolutely re∣jected, which hee will never do without entangling him∣self worse than formerly. And, as for Baptism, the se∣ve••th motive; 'tis out of doubt amongst all the world, that Hereticks may have true Baptism, though the Bp. here forgets himself, & says the contrary. At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians, & so Baptised, cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants; this being the onely vi∣sible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of.

Lastly, I alledged, that their pretended faith consi∣sted in vnknown fundamentalls, which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points & prove them satisfactorily, that they, & onely they, are essentiall to Christian Communion.

Hee replies, they need not do it. Why? mee thinks the point seems very needfull; yes, but the Apostles have done it (hee sayes) to their hands in the creed. And how proves hee that the Apost∣les intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls? one∣ly (for hee put neither before, nor yet here any other

proof) in that the Primitive Church (saith hee) hath or∣dained that no more should bee exacted of any, of Turks, or Iews in point of faith, when they were converted from Pa∣ganism or Iewism to Christianity. And, how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more? out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested (Sect. 1.) And this is the whole Ground of his certainty, that those points are onely fundamentall, or that they have any list of fundamentalls, and conse∣quently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches, or that they are of the Church, since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity. I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans, or to bee converted from Pa∣ganism; whereas, 'tis known they acknowledge a God: and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus (for to this hee relates as appears p. 5.) held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks, which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after. Both good sport, did not the Bp. cloy us with such sce∣nes of mirth.

Again, when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls; either hee means the letter of the creed, and then hee grants Socinians & Arians to bee Chri∣stians; both which admit the letter of the creed, inter∣preted their own way; and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall, towit, Christs descent into Hell. Or else, hee means the sence of the creed; and then hee excludes the Roman Catholi∣kes, whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowled∣ges to bee of the Church; for they hold some Articles found there, in another sence than do the Protestants. Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed; next tell us whether hee means the letter

onely or the sence of the creed; then show us satisfa∣ctorily which is the onely true sence of it; and, lastly, apply that piece of doctrine to particulars, and so show us which sects are of the Church, which excluded, & wee shall remain very much edifyd.

Sect. 9.

How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words & brings a Testimony against himself, attended by a direct contradiction, which hee terms, Fortifying. With what incomparable art hee clears himself of another. And, how hee totally neglects the whole Question & the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held onely by some in stead of points of faith held by the whole Church.

HHis Eighth chapter pretends to prove the Pope & the Court of Rome most guilty of the Schism. Which hee makes account hee hath done so strongly that hee needs not fortify any thing; yet, hee will needs do a needless bufines, and goes about to fortify (as hee calls it) in his way not with standing.

To the first argument (saith hee) hee denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a Mother, and not Mi∣stress to other Churches. Which is first flatly to falsify my words, to be seen Schism Disarm. p. 327. which never deny her to bee a Mother but a Sister onely; and this is his first endeavour of needles fortifying. Next, whereas the words Mistress may signify two things; to wit a per∣son that imperiously and proudly commands; in which acception 'tis the same with Domina, and correlative to Serva, a slave or hire ling slave: Or else a Teacheress (as I may say) or one which instructs, and so is coincident with Magistra, and correlative to Discipula, a Disciple

or schollar; Again, it being evident both out of the Coun∣cil of Florence (where it is defined Romanam Ecclesiam esse Matrem Magistramque omnium Ecclesiarum) and also out of common sence that wee take it in this latter signification; the quibbling Bp. takes it in the former; that is not as understood by us but by himself, and then impugns his own mistake citing S. Bernard who exhor∣ting Pope Eugenius to humility, bids him consider that the Roman Church, Ecclesiarum Matrem esse non Domi∣nam, is the Mother not Lady of all Churches. And this is another attempt of his needles fortifying. My L^d of Derry may please then to understand that when wee say that the Roman Church is Mother & Mistress of other Churches; wee take the word [Mother] as relating to her Government, or power of governing, whose correla∣tive is a sweet subjection, not a hard or rigorous slavery: and the word [Mistress] as expressing her power of tea∣ching. Or, if the Bp. bee loath to grant the word [Mi∣stress] taken in our sence, (which yet hee never goes about to impugn or disprove) let him but allow & stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches, to wit that shee is Mother of other Churches, and that shee hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do, & 'tis as much as wee desire.

Now, let us apply this & see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism & layd it at our do••e: Hee hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to bee the Mother of other Churches, and so of the Church of England too, if shee be Church; nor does himself in this place deny her that title, but seems to grant it; But it is manifest de facto and by their solemn ordinances & publike writings, that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly shee will not, ought not obey her; and thus by the Bp'^s Logick shee becomes acquit∣ted of Schism. Which I must confess is not onely a need∣les

but a sleeveles manner of fortifying. Again, Schism involves in it's notion disobedience, and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismaticall, that is dis∣obedient; to do which hee brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to bee Mother of other Churches; and then concludes the Mother Schismaticall, because shee is disobedient to her Daughter: Pithy non-sence! or, if made sence, flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother; and this deducible cleerly from that very testimony hee brought to prove the contrary, which kind of arguing is in the Bp^s phrase call'd needles fortifying.

His pretence of a new creed (which was his second ar∣gument to prove us Schismaticall) made by Pope Pius the fourth, is already shown (Sect. 1.) to bee a calumny: To which I add, that our creed is the points of our be∣leef or faith: since then 'tis known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him, was held as of faith by the former Church, ere hee thus collected them, 'tis a contradiction to pretend that hee made a new creed till it be shown that any of those points there contained was not formerly of faith, and prove satisfactorily that the Apostles containes all necessary points of faith, which will bee manifested at the Greek calends.

His third argument was because wee maintain the Po∣pe in a rebellion against a generall Council. To this hee sayes I answer not a word. Let us see whether it deserves a word of Answer. The difference between a Controvertist and a Schoolman is the same as is between a Church & a School Controvertists therefore of severall Churches de∣fend those points & impugn the contrary ones, which are held by those Churches as Churches, that is, as Con∣gregations relying upon their Rule of faith. Either then let him show that our Church holds as of faith, or as re∣ceived upon her Rule of faith the Pope's Supremacy to a

generall Council, else in impugning that point hee to∣tally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist, hath done nothing which was his duty, and so merits no ans∣wer save onely this, that if hee will dispute against priva∣te opinions, hee must cite his Authors, & argue against them not the Church; whose beleef is contained in the decrees of Councils, and universall consent of fathers & Doctors. Which answer I then gave him expresly, Schism Disarm. p. 327▪

Now, to show the vanity of this third argument, let him either manifest that our Church prest upon them this point of holding the Pope above Councils, so as to excommunicate them upon their contrary tenet; else all pretence of our causing the Schism is avoided; for, in case it were not thus prest, his argument stands thus; ve∣ry many Schoolmen & a great party among them held that opinion, where upon wee left their Church; ergo, they are most guilty of the Schism. Which is as senceles a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on. For, why should any break Church-Communion as long as hee can keep it with conscience? or, how is my conscience concern'd in other men's opinions as long as they permit mee to hold the contrary: Now, that our Church permits the contrary tenet, and denies none Communion for it, himself testifies vindication p. 200. where hee puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church, that generall Councils are above the Pope, and may depose him, &c.

The Bishop was conscious that hee had neglected the office of a Controvertist by impugning Schoolmen, Lawyers, & Courtiers instead of our Church; and an opi∣nion held by many, instead of a point of faith held by all. To delude the Reader, & in reality to oppose the for∣mer which belonged not to him, yet seem to strike at the latter, as hee ought, hee joyns both, however in

consistent, into one; and, being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship, proposes it first under this Chimeri∣call notion, The Papacy (Quà talis, or, as such) as it is maintained by many. And this hee calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism, though it bee as directly leuell'd a stroak at his own legs, and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sence. For since all Papists as such hold a Pa∣pacy or the Pope's Headship of Iurisdiction over the whole Church, and differ in this point from Protestants, it is evident that the Papacy of such, is that which is held by all; for none can be Papists longer then they hold it. Now then to say the Papacy as such, as it is now held by many; is the same as to say, the Papacy as held by all, as held by many onely: which is in other language to legiti∣mate an Hircoceruus, and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion.

But, how does hee clear himself of this shuffling non∣sence? why first hee asks, do not some Roman Catholikes subject the Pope to a generall Council; and others, nay the greater part of them, &c subject a generall Council to the Pope? What is this to the Question whether these words [the Papacy as such, as it is now maintain'd by many] cohere in sence or no?

Secondly, hee asks whether hee might not then well say [the Papacy quà talis, &c.] No, my L^d, for, it being evident that all Roman Catholikes hold the Papacy in some sence, if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many, pray how will you stile it as held by all? as not such? or the Papacy with super additions? or can all hold what some do not hold?

Thirdly, hee saies, his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in generall, but against the Pope & Court of Rome, that they were guilty of the Schism. For what? for maintaining the substance of the Pope's Authority

held by all? then you accuse the Church of Rome in generall of Schism, for the Church in generall holds what all in her hold. Or was it for this opinion of the Po∣pe above the Council, and others of this strain? How were they guilty of Schism for this, unles they had de∣ny'd you Communion for holding the contrary, or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it, which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my L^d; 'twas not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome, but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all God's Church, held by all Catho∣likes and by that whole Church equally then as it is now, for which you are excommunicated: and so, ought either to submit to that whole Church again in that point, as formerly; or else (if you would deal candidly) im∣pugn that whole Church (and not the Court onely) thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point.

Fourthly, as hee saies although, aliquando bonus dormi∣tat Homerus, that is, sometimes honest Homer takes a nodd, and though hee had stol'n a napp it had been neither felony nor treason, yet to let us see hee did not sleep, he will put his argument into form without a [quâ talis] which is to affect a sleepines still, or (as our English Proverb saies) to sleep fox sleep. Hee is accus'd of a contradiction & non-sence, and to clear himself hee tells us hee will now lay aside one part of the contradiction, and endea∣vour to make good sence of the other. Now his first ar∣gument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a generall Council, to which I have already answer'd. His second, is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolicall succession & Episcopall Iurisdiction come from Rome onely. By which, if hee means our Church as a Church holds it; (as hee ought if hee speak like a Controvertist) 'tis a most gross & false imputation, as I told him: If of the Court of Rome

onely, then, since they neither prest it as of faith nor deny'd you Communion for these points, but for ano∣ther held by all (as I lately show'd) they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltles of Schism. This argument past over, hee confesses this tenet is not gene∣rall amongst us; I add, but points of faith are generally held, therefore this tenet is but an opinion; and being not generall (as hee grants) it follows that it is onely a par∣ticular or private opinion; as I call'd it, & his own words evince it.

Yet hee is loath these should be call'd private opinions because they are most common & most current: Whereas, unles they come down recommended by our Rule of faith, immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church, & so become perfectly common, generall, universall, & undoubtedly current, our Church looks upon them onely as deductions of private men's reasons, nor shall I own them for other.

That the former is a common tenet hee brings Cardi∣nal Bellarmine to say that it is almost de fide, or a point of faith, which the good Bp. sees not that it signifies it was almost reveald, or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge; or, that God has not indeed reveald it, but yet that twas twenty to one but hee had done it. Next that the Council of Florence seem'd to have defin'd it: now the word [seems] signifies I know not that ever it defin'd it at all; or, if it defin'd it so, 'tis more than I know. Thirdly, that the Council of Lateran (I suppose hee means not the generall Council there held) defin'd it most expresly Yet the Bp, here descanting upon the words of that Council, sayes onely that they seem to import no less; that is, it may bee they mean no such thing, or it may bee they mean much less.

For the latter opinion (as hee candidly here calls it) hee tells us Bellarmine declares it to bee most true, that hee ci∣tes

great Authors for it, saith that it seemeth (again) to ha∣ve been the opinion of the old Schoolmen; speaking highly (at least seemingly) of the Pope's Authority. So that all is seeming, all opinion and uncertainty. Now the use the Bp. makes of this gear is this; The Court of Rome & many with it, held an over weening opinion of their own Authority, though they permitted us & whole Churches to hold the contrary, therefore wee very innocently broke God's Church; or, therefore wee quite renounc't the Principles of Vnity in both faith & Government (as the fact witnesses you did) because they held an erro∣neous op nion too much extending the latter. In a word let Bellarmine & the Bp. wrangle about the opinionative point, I shall not think my self concern'd, as a Contro∣vertist, to interrupt their dispute or ••oyn mine interest with either party however did I pretēd to treat a point of Canon-Law I might. The point of faith I undertook to defend as a Controvertist, whensoever I see any oppo∣sition to that, I acknowledge it my Province to secure it by my resistance.

Sect. 10.

My L^d of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Com∣munion. His frivolous and groundles exceptions against the Council of Trent. How weakly hee clears himself of calumny And how, going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself hee brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation.

HEe pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do. I reply'd that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny'd his Answer nor en∣vy'd him his multitude; for Manichees, Gnosticks,

Carpocratians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and others without number, do all usurp the honour of this title. I added that I did not think hee had any solid rea∣son to refuse Communion to the worst of them. Now, the Bp'^s task is evidently this to give us this solid reason & show it conclusive why hee admits some of these & re∣jects others. But 'tis against his humour to go about to prove any thing; Talking is his & an angry woman's best weapon; and of voluntary talk he is not niggard∣ly but deals us largess of it.

First hee falls into rhetoricall exclamations against our prejudice, partiality, want of truth, charity, candour, & ingenuity Words are but vapour; let him put certainly-establish't Grounds to conclude himself or any of his. sects, true Christians, which may not as well infer that all those other sects are such also; otherwise his excl••ma∣tions which sound so high in Rhetorick, are very-flat noted and signify just nothing in Controversy, where the concernment of the subject renders all proofs infe∣rior to rigorous & convincing discourse, & dull & toyish.

Secondly, hee asks, wherein can I or all the world charge the Church of England, of Greece, or any of the Eastern, Southern, or Northern Christians, with any of these Heresies, and then reckons up afterwards the mate∣riall points held by the Manichees, Gnosticks, &c. Sup∣pose I could not; are there no other heresies in the world but these old ones, or is it impossible that a new heresy should arise! It was not for holding those very mate∣riall points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as hee purposely misrepresents mee; but this, that having no determinate certain Rule of faith, they had no Grounds to reject any from their Communion who held some common points of Christianity with them though differing in others. Again, since the Rule of faith Protestants pretend to is the Scripture, and all those

Hereticks recurr'd still & rely'd upon the same (nay even the Manichees upon the new Testament) it follows that these are all of the Protestants Communion becau∣se they have the same Grounds & Rule of their faith; if the Bp. reply that the letter of the Scripture is not the Rule of faith but the sence, hee must either show us so∣me determinate certain way to arrive to the true sence of it, or else confess that this Rule is indeterminate & uncertain, that is (as far as it concerns us) none at all. Now, though indeed the Protestants hapt not to light into all the same materiall errors as did the Manichees, Arians, &c. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error; that is, in having deny'd and renounc't the onely Ground of faiths certainty, Tradition of imme∣diate forefathers, which alone could bring down to us security that Christ was God or that there was such a thing as God's word: and so, the deniall of this is in it's consequences equally nay more pestilentiall then is the denying the materiall point it self of Christ's divinity, or the asserting any other held by the worst of those He∣reticks; They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors, though the branches chance (and they but chance) to be diverse; as may bee seen if you do but consider what varieties of sects are sprung in England, since your strong hand which truly did forbid the liber∣ty of interpreting Scripture is taken from you; whereof some be as learned as yourselves, witnes the books of the Socinians; for 'tis an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors, as was cleerly seen in Luther; who because Carolostadius had publish't the absence of Christ's Body from the Blessed Sacrament be∣fore himself, found the middle tenet of compresence of both Body & Bread; and so, by that base affection, sa∣ved a great part of the world, through God's Providen∣ce, from a wickeder error.

Thirdly, hee tells us that some few Eastern Christians are called Nestorians, others suspected of Eutychianism, but most wrongfully. Though indeed nothing is more right full then to call them so, as even Protestants confess. But you see nature works in despite of Design, and that hee hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovin∣gly with the Nestorians & Eutychians, though hee saies hee will not; and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph hee pretends to detest as accursed errors, here hee strokes with a ge••tle hand, assuring us they are nothing but some unvs••all expressions: as if all heresies when exprest were not expressions, and also very unvsuall & new to faith & the faithfull Now their un∣vsuall expressions were onely these, that Christ had two di∣stinct persons, and no distinct natures; which are nothing in the Bp'^s mind; had they deny'd Christ to be God too, it had been also an unvsuall expression: but, I must con∣fess, a very scurry and pestiferous one, as were the for∣mer. But our favourable Bishop thimking it necessary to bolster up his Church with a multitude, boldly pro∣nounces what hee knows not in excuse of those Here∣ticks, though it be contrary to the publike and best intelligence wee have from those remote countries.

Fourthly, hee is very piously rhetoricall & tells us, that the best is, they are either wheat or chaff of the Lord's floar, b••t that our tongues must not winnow them. Which is as absurd as the former. That it is best for them to be wheat, I understand very well, but that it should be best (as hee says) that they are either wheat or chaff, I con∣fess I am at a loss to conceive. Chaffe Ps. 1. v. 5. signifies the vngodly, and Mat. 3. v. 12. (the very place which his Allego••y relates to) it is said that Christ will burn the chaff (of his floar) in vnquenchable fire: which, mee thinks, is far from best. So miserably the Bp. comes of still, w••ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly. Our

tongues indeed shall not winnow them, as hee says, nor do we pretend, to do so by our tongues, or voluntary talking (that were to vsurp the method of discourse pro∣per to himself onely) but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts & use it not; our proofs, if they be evident, as our charge of their Schismaticall breach is, will winnow them; the Rule of faith (the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition) will winnow, or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it, having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens & Publicans. Since then 'tis evi∣dent out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your n••w fangled Reformations, nor Ground those te∣nets upon the voice of the Church, nay according to your Grounds have left no Church, nor common suprem Government in the Church, to hear, it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff (I mean tho∣se who have voluntarily broken Church Communion) as Publicans & Heathens. Now, to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as ma∣ny Christians as wee, to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in te∣nets (by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages) and whether the Protestants or wee ap∣proach nearer them in more points held equally by both. I will collect therefore out of one of their own side, Ale∣xander Ross, the tenets of the present Greek Church, in which they agree with us, though in his manner of ex∣pressing our tenet, hee sometimes wrongs us both. The Greeks place (saith hee) much of their deuotion in the wor∣ship of the Virgin Mary, and of painted Images; in the intercession, prayers, help and merits of the saints, which they invocate in their Temples. They place Iustification, not in

faith, but in works. The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead. They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned, where they re∣main who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life; If this place bee not Purgatory (adds Ross) I know not what it is nor what the souls do there. (View of all Religions p. 489.) And, afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living. They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Ro∣man Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it, and falling on their knees kiss the earth. In all these main points (if candidly represented) they agree with us and differ from Protestants. Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both, as in denying the Proces∣sion of the Holy Ghost, not using Confirmation, observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L^d'^s day, &c. As also, some practises, not touching faith, in which they hold with the Protestants, not with us; as in administring the Sa∣crament in both kinds, using leauened bread in the Sacra∣ment, Priests marriage, there is no one point, produced by him, which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supre∣macy; for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction, which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull, or deny it. Iudge then candid Protestant Reader, of they Bp'^s sincerity, who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do; whereas, if wee come to examin particulars, they neither communicate in one common Government, one common Rule of faith, if wee may trust this Authour of their own side (since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do, as hee sayes, they must hold it as their Rule of faith, for so Catholikes hold it) nor yet in

any one materiall point in opposition to us, save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy. And how more mo∣derate they are even in this than the greatest part of, if not all Protestants, may bee learned from the Bp'^s mi∣staken testimony, at the end of this Section, as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine, and one of the gravest Bp'^s and Au∣thours of that party, who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy, in these words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The summe is this; As long as the Pope preserves order, and stands with truth, hee is not re∣moved from the first and his proper Principality, and hee is the Head of the Church, and chief Bishop, and the succes∣sour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles, and it behoo∣ves all men to obey him, and there is nothing which can de∣tract from the honour due to him; but if, when hee hath on∣ce strayed from the Truth, hee will not return to it, hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned. Where, the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant te∣net; and, as for the latter words, But if, &c. There is no Catholike but will say the same. Thus much then for my L^d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church. And as for his Communion with the Southern, Northern, & Western Churches, which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion, if examin'd 'tis no better than the former; sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith, which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fun∣damentalls.

Nor has hee any other Rule of faith, that is, a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly rel••ted Brethren; so that if they hit sometimes in some points, 'tis but as the Planets, whichare ever wandring, hap now and then to have conjunctions, which hold not long, but pursving their unconstant course, decline and vary from one ano∣ther by degrees, and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions.

The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points, which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus, as hath been shown heretofore. To my ma∣ny former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this, that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word (or the Scripture) or not: If not, then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith? Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point? But if it bee a necessary point, then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed; for there is no news there of the Scripture: nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed, what hee adds of our having chāged from our Ancestors in opinions; either hee means by opinions, points of faith held so by us, and then 'tis calumny, and is to be solidly proued not barely said; But, if hee mean School opinions, what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their own nature changeable? Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point, and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is preten∣ded to have proved: nor am I further concern'd, unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering, as hee brings none at all.

After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one. His exceptions that the summons were not generall, that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies; that the∣re were not some present from the greater parts of all Chri∣stian Provinces, are already shown to bee frivolous & impertinent, till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church, and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it, what excluded, as I have al∣ready manifested his Ground could give none. For, other∣wise, those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither (unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents) nor to sit there, nor are to be accounted Christians; and so the summons may bee Generall, all may bee there that should be the∣re, and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces, notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens. Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians, & ought to bee call'd, who not; ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council. Our Grounds why it was gene∣rall are these. The onely certain Rule of faith and (by consequence) root of Christianity, which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delive∣ry or Tradition of forefathers; Those therefore & one∣ly those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church; those who broke from it any time (as did the Protestants professedly, the Greeks & the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point) are not properly Christians, nor of the Church; therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire, universall & Generall, though those latter (who are not of the Church) bee neither call'd, Summon'd nor present, provided those others who adhe∣re to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians, or

adherers to Christ's law, be Summon'd & admitted: But such was our Council of Trent; therefore it was Ge∣nerall. Now, to disprove this Council to bee Generall, if hee would go to work solidly, the Bp. should first al∣ledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church, which must bee done by manifesting defi∣nitely and satisfactorily, who in particular are of the Church, who not: nor can this bee performed otherwi∣se than by showing some Rule & root of faith & Chri∣stianity better qualify'd to bee such, that is, more certain & more plain than this, which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it; or else to convince that the Greeks, Protestants, Lutherans, &c. When they began to differ from the Roman, inno∣vated not, but were found adhering to that immediate delivery: otherwise they must confess that all were Sum∣mon'd that ought to have been Summon'd, all were the∣re or might have been there who ought to have been there, and so the Council was Generall. Till this bee do∣ne all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces, of the greater part of Christendome, want of due summons, fewnes of the members present, that the Greeks are not known Rebells, &c. are con∣vinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise, this being his peculiar manner of discour∣sing; more fit for old wives & Gossips at their frivolous meetings, then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith. Hee sayes that the Greeks though Here∣ticks should have been lawfully heard & condemned in a generall Council. What needed hearing, when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed, main∣tained, & avowed their imputed fault: Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore, though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such, nor yet give us

some certain way to know which Councils are such. Or, had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard & condemned there, still the B^p. had an evasion in lavender; hee laid up in store this reserve of words fol∣lowing, that they were never heard, or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them; and then hee is secure by talking boldy & pro∣ving nothing.

His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd: signifies thus much, that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither, than that Orthodox fa∣thers bee so. A substantiall peece of sence & worthy consideration!

I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd,

hee will needs have it run on four feet & prosecutes it terribly: some of his best trifles I shall reckon up.

First, hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament. I ans∣wer; I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies: some Kings have mo∣re, some less Authority; so have Parliaments; witness those of England & France. To expect then I should know ••ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country, or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain. That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names; but how great I know not. Words, my Ld, may serve you to give, whose cause will not bear sence, but they must not serve mee to take.

Secondly, that the Greek Patriarchs are not known &

condemned Rebells. Answer, this is onely said again, not prou'd, and so 'tis sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council & all in the Council held them so. Again, the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils, & for the most part some of their own party being present. Now, why those who pu∣blikly profess those Errours should need a further cal∣ling to triall, or why they are not known Rebells is the B^p'^s task to inform us.

Thirdly, he sayes, that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent. They were therefore graver and more choice persons. The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town, as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation. Again, what was, it matters not; but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found in that Council, and yet bee a lawfull one too? Rub up your memory, my L^d. (you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer) and I be∣leeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament; and before that law was made common consent & custome (which is either equivalent or perhaps above law) gave the same for granted.

Fourthly, he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province, which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had. I ask, if other Pro∣vinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come, by what law, by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council? Now, 'tis certain and not deny'd by any, but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased. Again, the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages, & a small number of Bishops serving for that; and the collaterall

or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties tho∣se Hereticks, which were the occasion of the Council, produced, that they might be confuted fully, & out of their own mouthes, which is a thing to bee performed by committees, in which learned men that were not Bis∣hops might sit, it little inferred the want of Bishops. Wherefore, if there were any error in the supernumera∣rines of Bishops out of some one Province, it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies, & so is nothing to our purpose; unles perhaps my L^d will pretend that had those Catholike B^p'^s out of other Pro∣vinces been there, they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin. which were a wise Answer indeed.

Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not re∣ceived in France in point of Discipline. What then? why, by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence twas no lawfull Council. Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world, who all see that France, who denies the admission of those points of Discipline, acknowledges it not with∣standing a generall & lawfull Council, and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith, which are so es∣sential to it as it were disacknowledg'd, were they deny'd; though not in matters of fact, which are accidentall to it's Authority, nay allow'd by the Church it self (however made & exprest generally) to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances & according to their conve∣niencies.

Lastly, hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent. Which is a flat calumny; and though most important to his cause could hee prove it, yet after his bold custome, 'tis onely asserted by his own bare saying, by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side, and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent, whereof the first is onely a ieering

expression (any thing will serve the B^p.) the other con∣cerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose; since both these new & the other old B^p'^s were all of one Religion & Catholikes; & so not likely to dissent in vo••ing Doctrines; which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council & pertinent to our discourse, which is about Doctrines not about Discipline.

After this hee puts down three solutions (as hee calls them) to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority. First, that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate. And this hee calls his first solution. Secondly that though it had been, yet the Popes have both quitted & forfeited their Pa∣triarchall power; and, though they had not, yet it is lawful∣ly transferred And this is his second solution. The third is, that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority. And this is his third solution; which is a very really good one, & shows that the other need no reply: our charge against them being for re∣nouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divi∣ne Institution; not a Patriarchate onely, of humane In∣stitution. If further answer bee demanded, first, the Greek Schismaticks, our enemies, confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a We∣stern Church; see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Princi∣patu, c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Trea∣tise. Next, it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have ei∣ther quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority; and may with equall reason bee concluded, that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch; or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own fa∣mily, because hee is made King and his Authority uni∣versally extended to all England. Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power, if it need any more ans∣wer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4.

I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority cha∣ractering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny. And his thrice repeated non-sence; when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority: a Patriarchy being a Govern∣ment by one, an Aristocracy by many. Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority, a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty: sin∣ce it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church.

The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative, the failing of the one destroyes the other: since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests. This point in particular hee never touch't, but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter & form of ordi∣nation, as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased, and do what actions they pleased. To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly. Next, hee tells us their Registers are publike offices, whether any man may repair at pleasure. whereas, our question is not of the Registers in generall, but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops, kept con∣ceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances (to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination) requir'd it should bee shown.

His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended.

My expedient to procure peace & Vnity, which was to receive the root of Christianity, a practicall infalli∣bility in the Church,

hee seems willing to admit of. One∣ly hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Ca∣tholike Church is; and indeed to his party 'tis an insupe∣rableone; though to us most facil, as I have shown for∣merly, Sect. 7.

Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy, the Pope's parasiticall pentioners; I reply'd, it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any. Hee ans∣wers, hee was not in passion, and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles; which is to show that his pas∣sion is nothing abated yet; by adding such unsavory Phrases to his former calumny. Next, hee says that, as for his self, hee never raised himself by any insinuations. I know, my L^d, you are a Saint: but the point is can you clear your self from calumny and prove that those Bishops (whom otherwise you calumniate) ever used such insinuations. Hee was never (hee saies) parasiticall pentioner to any man, nor much frequented any man's table. You are still more Saint then formerly, my L^d: But, can you prove that those Bishops (whom otherwise you ca∣lumniate) are parasites, or was it ever heard of or pre∣tended that they sit at the Pope's table? Hee adds, that, if his own table bee not so good as it hath been yet con∣tentment & a good conscience is a continuall feast. Much good may it do you, my L^d; fall to, and eat heartily; cannot you fare well & hold your tongue, but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours, men better then your self, by calling them parasites, Episco∣pelles, the Pope's creatures, hungry, &c. Or if you do, can you expect less but that it shall be laid in your dish, to sauce your dainties? But the point is how hee proves the∣se worthy persons to bee hungry parasiticall pentioners, which unles hee does hee yeelds himself to bee a mali∣tious calumniator. Now, his proof of it is contained in those words, whether those Bishops were not his hun∣gry parasiticall pentioners they knew best, who know most. Well argued my L^d; theres none can overthrow such a proof, because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it. Or, if any can bee taken, 'tis this that the Bp. of Derry knows better then all the world besides. As for

his pretence of his good conscience, and to free himself from being a Parasite, I would entreat his Lordship to examin his conscience truly, whether hee does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which hee puts in his books, the which how many notorious falsities con∣tradictions & tergiversations they have in them may bee judged by this present work. Now, if hee does, let him consider whether any like parasitism can bee found as to hazard to carry men to damnation by taking away the highest principle that can correct them and bring all faith and Ground of faith to uncertainty & dispute, meerly to get his own bread; for your other actions my L^d I neither know what you do, nor think it handsom to enquire.

In the close hee pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarm'd.

'Twas this, that hee quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself, which showed that the Greeks acknowledg'd the Pope's Au∣thority, by their departing from the then Pope (as Gerson sayes)

with these words, wee acknowledge thy power, wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes, live by your sel∣ves. Hee replies & endeavours to show that by [Power] in that place is mean't not Authority, nor iust power, but might. Whereas.

First the very opposition of [Power acknowledged] to (covetousnes which they could not satisfy) argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the lat∣ter, not the former, which was there acknowledg'd: Now if [might] were signify'd by the word [Power] in that place, the sence of the whole would stand thus; wee se∣parate not for want of acknowledging thy might, but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousnes, which is as good as non-sence. For, if hee had might to force them, what sence is there to say, wee depart because wee cannot satisfy your avarice, when departing could not save them? whe∣reas,

in the other sence it runs very currently; wee sepa∣rate not for de fault of acknowledging thy Authority or iust power, but, because (however this be iust, yet) it is im∣possible wee should satisfy your covetousnes.

Secondly, what, might or power, except that of Spiri∣tuall Iurisdiction, the Pope can bee pretended to have then had over the Greeks, appears not: It was mean't therefore of no such might, but of a rightfulnes of power.

Thirdly, whereas hee sayes that Gerson apprehended the words in his sence, & cites the context for it, the very proof hee brings for him is against him. Gersons position (according to the Bp.) is this, that men ought not general∣ly to be bound to the positive determinations of Pope's to hold & beleeve one & the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospell. After which testimony the Bp. addes these words: From thence hee proceedeth to set down some diffe∣rent customes of the Greek & Latin Churches, both which hee doth iustify, citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custome of the country is to bee observed. And amongst the rest of the differences this was one that the Creek Church paid not such subsidies & duties as the Gallican Church did. Thus far the Bishop. Where it is manifest that the lawfulnes of resisting the Pope's determinations being in order to the not paying undue subsidies & Taxes, the discourse there relates to the no obligation of satis∣fying covetousnes, and touches not at all the point of power or might, as hee will have it. Let us take then Ger∣sons sence in the former, and mine of iust power in the latter, and the discourse stands thus, that though men ac∣knowledge the rightfull power of Pope's, yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith, but belonging onely to the severall forms of Government & customes in severall countries, as paying

subsidies, duties, &c. And pertinently to the same sence, the Greeks might bee imagined, as indeed they did, to answer. Wee acknowledge thy power, or cannot deny your rightfull Authority, but esteem not our selves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands, con∣trary to the custome and Priviledges of our Church; where∣fore wee think our selves excused not to meddle with you at all.

Fourthly, the Bp. sayes that it seems the Pope would ha∣ve exacted those subsidies & duties of the Grecians, and that there upon they separated from him. Which counte∣nances all I said formerly, & implies more strongly my sence; towit, that it was there upon (as the Bp. confesses) that is, upon their denying subsidies, not upon their de∣nying the rightfulnes of his power as coming under ano∣ther & a cheaper notion, that they separated.

Fifthly, the very demanding subsidies, had there not been some preacknowledg'd power to Ground & counte∣nance such a demand, seems incredibile, & had requi∣red a more positive Answer, then (wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes) and rather this, you have nothing at all to do with us, nor the least Superiority to Ground the pretence of paying you any thing at all. Whereas this answer rather sayes, wee ow you indeed subjection, but not such a sub∣jection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching de∣mands.

Lastly, hee sayes Gerson hence concludes that upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the french Churches and the Liberties thereof, notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make, which more & more evidences that the ac∣knowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks, and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd, which the French Church intended to imitate; Now, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame

that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknow∣ledge the Pope's iust power, as Head of the Church, nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended; for then without any (perhaps) not onely some (as hee doubts) but all in the Court of Rome would most certain∣ly have contradicted it. Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks, as the Bp. grants, it fol∣low'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than hu∣mour a demand which they deem'd irrationall.

Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against him∣self, as was shown in Schism Disarm'd; and would excu∣se it by bringing three or four proofs, each of which is against himself also; so that as hee begun like a Bowler, hee ends like one of those Artificers, who going to mend one hole use to make other three.

THE CONCLVSION.

The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms.

1. THat (whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Autho∣rity bee or bee not, yet) 'tis cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes, that is, all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists (as they call them) hold the substance of the Pope's Authority; that is, hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church. This is euident out of the very terms, since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome.

2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it, that is to the whole Church of Rome, or to all those particular Churches united with Rome, a Principle of Vnity of Government. This is plain likewise out of the

terms; since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Go∣vernour either in Secular, or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in sub∣mission to that one Government; that is, 'tis to them a Principle of Vnity in Government.

3. 'Tis euident and acknowledg'd that (whateuer some Catholikes hold besides, or not hold, yet) all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church, that is, of Pastours and Fathers of Fam••lies, shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fa∣thers as taught by Christ and his Apostles, is to bee undoub∣tedly held as indeed taught by them, that is, is to bee held as a point of faith; and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible, that is, that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs, as from Christ, is an infallible and certain Rule of faith, that is, is a Principle of Vnity in faith. This to bee the tenet of all these Chur∣ches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowled∣ge, and is Evident hence that the Body made up of the∣se Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure.

4. 'Tis manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reforma∣tion in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now, that is, the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church, and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infalli∣ble Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship; nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then, or that they have renounc't them since.

5. The Church of England immediately before the Refor∣mation

was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome, (as all the world grants) and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government.

6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common∣wealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome, holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope, was a true and reall Church. This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment, who grant the now Church of Ro∣me, even without their Church, to bee a true and reall one, though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government.

7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome, was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity. For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith, that is, to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknow∣ledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Eccle∣siasticall Commonwealth. Now nothing can more neer∣ly touch a Church, than the Rules of faith and Govern∣ment, especially if the Government bee of faith and re∣cieved upon it's Rule. Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity, and Communion as Faithfull, and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth, it must necessarily bee Church Vnity, and Comunion which it gave them.

8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Prin∣ciples. This is undeniably evident since they left of to

hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs, and also to hold diverse points, which the former Church immediately before the breach, had recieved from immediate Pastours & fathers, as from Christ.

9. Hence follows unavoidably, that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion, or Schismatizing. This is demon∣strably consequent from the two last Paragraphs, where 'tis proved that those two Principles made Church Communion, that is, caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church; as also that they renounced or broke those Principles; therefore they broke that which united the Church, therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd.

10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion, prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity, was antecedent to the Pope's excommunica∣ting the Protestants, and his commanding Catholikes to ab∣stain from their Communion. This is known, and acknow∣ledg'd by all the world; nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommu∣nicated as Protestants.

11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's, E^d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication, as to it's cause. 'Tis plain, since the effect cannot bee befo∣re the cause.

12. Those subsequent Excommunications, caused not the actuall breach or Schism between us. For the antecedent renouncing those two points, shown to have been the Principles of Ecclesiasticall Vnity, had already caused the breach, disvnion or diuision between us; But, tho∣se between whom an actuall diuision is made are not still diuisible, that is, they who are already diuided are not now to bee diuided: Whefore, however it may bee pre∣tended,

that those Excommunications made those Con∣gregations, who were antecedently thus diuided, stand at farther distance from one another; yet 'tis most senceles and unworthy a man of reason to affirm that they diui∣ded those who were already diuided ere those Excom∣munications came. Especially, since the Rule of faith, and the substance of the Pope's Authority consist in an indiuisible, and are points of that nature, that the renouncing these is a Principle of renouncing all faith and Government: For, who so renounces a y Ru∣le may, nay ought, if hee go to work consequently, renounce all hee holds upon that Rule, whether points of faith, or of Government, nay even the letter of God's written word it self; that is, all that Christ left us, or that can concern a Church.

13. The renouncing those two Principles of the former Church Vnity, as it evidently disv••ited mens minds in or∣der to faith and Government; so, if reduced into practice, it must necessarily disvnite or diuide them likewise in exter∣nall Church carriage. This is clear, since our tenets are the Principles of our actions, and so contrary tenets of con∣trary carriage.

14. Those tenets contrary to the two Principles of Church Vnity were de facto put in practice, by the Reforming party; and consequently, they diuided the Church, both internal∣ly and externally. This is most undeniably evident; since they preach't, writ and acted against the Tradition, or delivery of the immediately foregoing Church as erro∣neous in many points, which shee deliver'd to them as from immediate. fathers and so upwards as from Christ; and proceeded now to interpret Scripture, by another Rule than by the tenets, and practice of the immediate∣ly foregoing faithfull. And, as for the former Govern∣ment, they absolutely renounc't it's influence in En∣gland, preach't, and writ against it: Nay kept Congre∣gations

apart before they had the power in their hands; and, after they had the power in their hands, punish't and put to death (and that vpon the score of Religion) many of the maintainers of those two Principles of Church Vnity.

15. Hence follows that the Protestants breach was a per∣fect and compleat fact of Schism. For, it diuided the for∣mer Ecclesiasticall Body both internally and externally, and that, as it was an Ecclesiasticall Body, since those two said Principles concern'd Ecclesiasticall Vnity.

16. The subsequent Excommunication, of our Church was therefore due, fitting and necessary. Due; for it is as due a carriage towards those who have actually renounced the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government, and so broken Church Vnity, to bee excommunicated by that Body from which those Renouncers thus broke, as it is towards rebells, who have renounc't both Supre∣me Government and fundamentall laws of a Common∣wealth, and so, diuided the Temporall Body, to bee de∣nounced and proclaimed Rebells by the same Common∣wealth. Fitting, since the effect of it they most resent, which was to keep the true faithfull apart in Ecclesiasti∣call actions from them, signify'd no more than this, that they who had broken both internally and externally from the former Body should not bee treated with, in Ecclesiasticall carriages, as still of it, nor bee owned for parts of that Commonwealth of which already they had made, themselves no parts. Lastly, necessary; all Go∣vernment and good order going to wrack if opposite parties bee allow'd to treat together commonly in such actions in which their opposition must necessarily, and frequently burst out and discover it self; which will ineuitably disgust the more prudent sort, hazzard to peruert the weaker, and breed disquiet on both sides.

Thus far to evidence demonstrably that the Extern

Fact of Schism was truly theirs; Which done, though it bee needless to adde any more to prove them formall Schismaticks, themselves confessing that such a fact can∣not bee iustifiable, by any reasons or motives whatsoe∣ver, of Schism, c. 1. Yet I shall not build upon their stan∣ding to their own words, knowing how easy a thing it is, for men who talk loosely and not with strict rigour of Discourse to shuffle of their own sayings; I shall there∣fore prosecute mine own intended method, and alledge that,

17. The very doing an Extern fact, of so hainous a Na∣ture, as is breaking Church Vnity concludes a guilt in the Acters, unles they render reasons truly sufficient to excuse their fact. This is evident, a fortiori, by parallelling this to facts of far more inferiour malice. For, who so rises against a long settled, and acknowledg'd Temporall po∣wer, is concluded by that very fact of rising to bee a Re∣bell, unles hee render sufficient reasons, why hee rose. Otherwise, till those reasons appear, the Good of Pea∣ce, settlement, order and Vnity, which hee evidently violates by his rising conclude him most irrationall, that is, sinfull, who shall go about to destroy them. The like wee experience, to bee granted by all Mankind in case a son disobey or disacknowledge one for his father, who was held so formerly, nay if a schoolboy disobey a petty schoolmaster; for, unles they give sufficient reasons of this disobedience, the order of the world, which consists in such submission of inferiours, to formerly-acknow∣ledg'd Superiours gives them for faulty for having bro∣ken, and inverted that order. How much more then the fact of breaking Church Vnity, since this entrenches upon an order infinitely higher, to wit Mankind's order to Beatitude, and in it's own nature dissolves, that is, de∣stroyes Christ's Church by destroying it's Vnity; and, by consequence, his law too; since there remaining no

means to make particular Churches interpret Scripture the same way, each of them would follow the fancy of some man it esteems learned, and so there would bee as many faiths as particular Congregations; as wee see pra∣ctic't in Luther's pretended Reformation, and this last amongst us.

18. No reasons can bee sufficient to excuse such a fact, but such as are able to conuince that 'twas better to do that fact, than not to do it. This is most Evident; since, as when reason convinces mee 'tis worse, to do such a thing I am beyond all excuse irrationall, that is, faulty in doing it; so, if I bee conuinc't that 'tis, onely-equally good, I can have no reason to go about it; for, in regard I cannot act in this case without making choice of the one parti∣cular before the other, and in this supposed case there, is no reason of making such a choice, since I am convinc't of the equality of their Goodnesses, 'tis clear my action in this case cannot spring from reason. 'Tis left then that none can act rationally nor by consequence excusably, unles convinc't that the fact is better to bee done, than not to bee done.

19. In this case, where the point is demonstrable, and of highest concern, no reason meerly probable, how strongly so∣ever it bee such, can convince the understanding, that the Contrary was better to bee done, but onely a manifest, and rigorous demonstration. For, though in the commoner sort of humane actions an high Probability, that the thing is in it self better, bee sufficient for action, yet there are some things of a nature, so manifest to all Mankind to bee universally good, that nothing, but rigorous Evi∣dence, can bee pretended a Ground sufficient to oppose them. For example, that Parents are to bee honored, that Government is to bee in the world, that Vnity of Govern∣ment is to bee kept up in God's Church, that there ought to bee certain Grounds for faith, and such like. Which, since

on the one side they are such as are in their own nature demonstrable, and indeed self evident; on the other so universally beneficiall, and consequently an universall harm, or rather a deluge of inconveniences, and mischief break in if the Acter against these should hap to bee in the wrong; hee is, therefore, bound in these cases not to act till hee sees the utmost that is to bee seen concer∣ning such affairs; but affairs of this nature are demon∣strable, or rather self evident (as is said) on the one si∣de, therefore hee ought not to act, unles hee could see perfect demonstration, that 'tis better to do the other: Wherefore, it being evidenced most manifestly in the 6th Section of this, Vindication of my Appendix, that this fact of theirs left neither, Certain Ground of faith, nor Ʋnity of Government in God's Church, nothing but a perfect and rigorous demonstration, could bee able to con∣vince, the understanding that 'twas better to ••ct.

20. The Protestants produce no such demonstration, that ••was better to act in this case. For, they never clos'd with severe demonstration, in any of their writings I have yet seen to Evidence rigorously either, that the Rule of im∣mediate delivery was not certain, or that the Pope had no Supreme Authority in Ecclesiasticall affairs, or, last∣ly, that, though hee were such, yet the Authority was to bee abolish't for the Abuses sake; Which were neces∣sary to bee done ere they could demonstrate it better to break Church Vnity. Nor, indeed, does their manner of writing bear the slenderest resemblance, of rigorous demonstration: since demonstration, is not a connecting of Ayre and words, but of Notions and sence, and this from self evident Principles even to the very intended conclusion. Whereas their way of writing is onely to find out the sence of words by a Dictionary kind of manner; which sort of Discourse, is the most fallible, most sleight and most subject to Equivocation, that can

bee imagin'd. To omit that rigorous demonstration, is pretended by our party for our Rule of faith, imme∣diate Tradition, which they renounc't; and, conse∣quently, for whatsoever was recieved upon it (as was the Pope's Authority) as yet unanswer'd by their side. Nay their own side sometimes acknowledge, our said Rule of faith infallible. See Schism Dispatch't. p. 104. & p. 123.

21. 'Tis the most absurd, and impious folly imaginable to bring for their excuse, that they were fully persuaded the thing was to bee done or is to bee continued. For, since a full persuasion, can spring from Passion or Vice aswell, as from reason and virtue (as all the world sees, and grants) it signifies nothing in order to an excuse to say one was fully persuaded hee was to do such a thing till hee show whence hee became thus persuaded; otherwi∣se his persuasion, might bee a fault it self, and the occa∣sion of his other fault in thus acting. 'Tis not therefore his persuasion, but the Ground of his persuasion, which is to bee alledged and look't into. Which, if it were rea∣son, whence hee became thus persuaded, and that hee knew how hee came to bee persuaded (without knowing which 'twas irrational to bee persuaded at all) then hee can render us this reason, which persuaded him; and rea∣son telling us evidently that no reason, less than demon∣stration, is in our case able to breed full persuasion, or conviction, that it was, better to act (as hath been pro∣ved Aph. 19.) it follows they must give us a demonstra∣tive reason, why 'twas better to bee done, otherwise they can never iustify that persuasion, much less the fact which issued from it: But, the fact being evidently enor∣mous, and against a present order of highest concern, and no truly Evident reason appearing, why 'twas bet∣ter, to do that fact, 'tis from it self convinc't, and con∣cluded irrationall, precipitate and vicious. If they com∣plain of this doctrine, as too rigorous in leaving no ex∣cuse

for weak, and ignorant persons who act out of sim∣plicity; I reply: Either their first Reformers, and them∣selves the continuers of the Breach, thought themselves ignorant in those things they went about to reform, or no. If they thought themselves ignorant, and yet at∣tempted to make themselves iudges, 'tis a plain self-Condemnation, and irrationall. If they were ignorant, or in some degree ignorant and yet either thought them∣selves not ignorant, or in some degree less ignorant, then I ask what made them think themselves wiser than they were except their own Pride: So that which way soever they turn, their fault and guilt pursve them. But, if they were indeed knowing in those things, then 'tis apparent there are no truly sufficient, convincing or demonstrati∣ve reasons to bee given why they acted, since they were never able to produce any such, though urged and obli∣ged there unto by the highest motives imaginable. When∣ce they remain still criminall as in the former cases, and indeed much more, leaving it manifest, that neither per∣suasion, nor their fact which was originiz'd from it, sprung from reason in their understanding, but from Passion and Affection in their Wills.

THEREFORE THE PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY BOTH OF MATERIALL, AND FORMALL SCHISM; SINCE 'TIS EVI∣DENT THEY HAVE DONE BOTH A SCHISMATICALL FACT, AND OVT OF A SCHISMATICALL AFFECTION.

FINIS.