The disarmers dexterities examined. In a second defence of the treatise of schisme. / By H. Hammond, D.D.

CHAP. IV.

A Survey of the Second Part of Schism Disarm'd.

SECT. I.

S. W. his one Evidence, Possession in the belief of Infallibility, Examined, in the general result, and the Special branches of it.

[ 1] BEing now to enter on this second part of my Disarmers dexte∣rities, I meet with one in the front, which if thought on timely, and well husbanded, might have superseded, and saved him the expense of all the rest both foregoing and subsequent, the one Evidence that he pretends to for his whole tenure, their Churches long and quietly enjoyed possession of the belief of Infalli∣bility. Possideo saith he, quia possideo, olim possideo, prior possideo, is all the evidence and all the reason she is bound to give to her Rebel Sons or outlawed Subjects.]

[ 2] This indeed might make short work, decide and conclude Con∣troversies, sixty an hour for an age together, if there were but this one thing granted, that the guilty were not only innocent but in∣fallibly and unavoidably such, or that S. W. might be credited, when he affirms it.

[ 3] By this we see to what purpose it had been for me to have re∣formed upon his admonitions (concerning my omitting his strongest and most important place of Pasce Oves—) when if I had let loose upon his direction, and refuted all D. Staple∣tons, and other Romanists pretensions from those words, I had been still as far as ever, from moving this rock: for when all other pleas fail, he is still as safe as the clearest Deeds could make him; he hath an inchanted castle to retire to, their Churches Infallibility; and if any man will question that, it matters not; the

belief of Infallibility will serve turn; and if still you wil be impor∣tunate, and demand some reason to found such belief, and that for the satisfaction of the weak (who would really give all the goods in the world, that they might be assured of the truth of it, but cannot arrive to ••uch heights of believing without, and against all grounds of believing) why then in stead of satisfying those de∣mands of frail fallible reason, here is the great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the engine of batterie, that will subdue in a moment all the intel∣lectual fortresses, the long and quietly enjoyd possession of this be∣lief, and so by these degrees S. W. his grand indenture is per∣fected, and all his evidence and reason summed up in this Brevi∣ate, Possideo quia possideo: Our Church is schismatical; why? because the Pope is universal Pastor, and we are divided from him. How doth he appear to be so? Why, the Church (that must be the Romane Church) affirms it, which is Infallible: But how is she evidenced to be Infallible? why she believes she is so. I beseech him, upon what grounds doth she believe so? why, she hath possession of this belief. But a thief may possess that which he should not possess, and one may ask (with a desire to learn) how came she by this possession? Why she hath long and quietly enjoyed it: And if you further insist, and be so ill-natured, as to ask one question more, you are to know, You are Rebel Sons and outlawed Subjects, and this is all the reason S. W. in her name, is bound to give you, and (as he goes on) Tis your part to evidence; hers to hold and possess her own (Poor Protestants are bound to dispute, and demonstrate, to grind in the mill, or digg in the quarry, 'tis enough for them to possess the belief of Infallibility) till you sufficiently i.e. demon∣strably evidence her title to be unjust.] One would think the very reciting of this arguing were sufficient reply to it.

[ 4] And yet if after all this, it be remembred, either what title it is, that we are to prove to be uniust, or what kind of pos∣session it is that is maintained by this title, the arguing will yet appear more admirable. 1. Tis evident there is no title (pro∣perly so called) so much as pretended; Possession, long quietly enioyed is all that is tendred; and I hope possession, be it never so long and quiet, is no more then possession; a title is praece∣daneous, and somewhat else, in which the Possession is, or ought

to be founded; and if it were not, tis not bonae fidei Possessio. For though praescription by humane Laws may be allowed to create a right; Yet it hath no such power by the Laws of Christ either in vertue and vice, or in matters of true or false. If it had, both Heathenism of old and Turcism now would hold by the same tenure. But of this I have spoken in the Reply, p. 21.

[ 5] So that this indeed proves S. W. to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an immortal invincible combatant. He need never dispute, or offer one word of reason for his Church till we have demonstrably evi∣denced her title to be uniust; and yet he saith, he is not bound to produce any title at all; and then how shall it be possible for us to demonstrate it uniust? And yet this is but one less consi∣derable part of his arguing. The possession which is wont to sup∣ply the place of a title, and to be ingredient in a plea, is we know the possession of some outward thing of Land, of Goods, moveable or immovable, of Power, and the like: but the possession, which S. W. speaks of, is the Possession of one of our own operations, an internal act; for such is Belief; But of that also, as such, we have spoken already. Reply Chap. 7. Sect. 1. n. 11. and I need add no more now, but this, that possession of belief, and the length of that possession, can signifie no more then that they have long believed it; and if that were sufficient ground to be ren∣dred to any (whether Subiect or Slave) who should demand a reason of the Faith that is in them, [they believe it, because they do, and have long believed it] I would gladly know, what the Apostle meant by that precept, 1 Pet. 3.15. that we be rea∣dy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to give an account, such sure as hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reason in it, i. e. an account of the cause and reason, as of our hope, so of our belief, to every man that demands such a reason from us, or whether the bare having so long believed it, without any offer of reason for it, be yet a reasonable account of that belief.

[ 6] Nay when to the plea of a possesion it is necessary that some competent testimonies to prove the prescription be produced, and so S. W. might be supposed to have some reserve of expedient, to extricate him out of this Labyrinth; the present specification of the obiect of this belief makes this issue yet more impossible; For tis The belief of their Infallibility, and not only of their

veracity which he speaks of, (and of that I hope I have said enough in the view of the Romanists exceptions to my Lord of Falklands discourse of Infallibility.) 2. of their Infallibility, in∣definitely (and that is in effect universally) the impossibility that their Church should err in any thing she affirms, or de∣fines; or shall ever affirm, or define; A thing, which as they cannot pretend to prove so much as by that way, that possessi∣ons are evidenced to be Possessions, by Testimonies of ancient men, for sure never any Apostle or ancient Dr. of the Church did by way of prophesie foretel this, that the Church of Rome never should err, or render her self capable of erring, so after all this tis as necessarily refuted by every particular dispute of ours, wherein we have or shall prove her actually to have erred, and wherein we shall demonstrate her to have varied from her self (as it is certain we can demonstrate) as any title in the world can be evidenced to be unjust.

[ 7] That I descend not here to this way of perfecting this demon∣stration, I have many reasons to perswade me. I shall mention but one, that this digression of his to the discourse of his one evi∣dence, the belief of Infallibility, pretends to be founded in no more then an intimation of mine, that it belongs to them to evi∣dence. And what had I said to intimate this? For••ooth the Title of my fift Chapter was, The evidences from the Bishop of Rome succeeding S. Peter examined] A foul iniury indeed to S. W. to imagine that they use any such evidence, or that they are bound to use any at all. Well if I have made such a dangerous intimation, I have now more then intimated my reasons for it, and when my intimations are more express (my whispers become vocal) I will endeavour my demonstrations shall be so also. In the mean this may serve to secure my intimation, and so the title of my fifth Chapt. For sure the last crime that is laid to it, in relation to the subsequent matter of the Chapter, viz. that the Dr. is contrary to himself, inscribing the chapter, an answer to their evidences, yet spending almost the whole chapter in producing evidences of his own,] will soon be pardoned him. When its considered, that those evidences of his own were produced to refute and invalidate their evidences, and so as proper a method as could have been used in the examining of them.

SECT. 2.

Bishops properly Successors of the Apostles, and stiled Apostles. S. W. his disadvantage from pretending the contrary. The frail grounds of the Bishop of Romes supremacy. The place of St. Peters death no means to affix the pretended universal Pastorship to the See of Rome; Peters third coming to Rome. The Bishop of Rome succeeded him living.

[ 1] HIs answer to my first Paragraph, is most of it triumph for the victories of his former part (which I suppose have proved no better then those in Thucydides's storie, the victories vanished, before he hath taken full possession of them) yet he cannot take leave of it without giving us one tast of his faculty; I had said that after the first evidence, which concerned S. Peter, was manifested to be incompetent to inferr the conclusion, twas unnecessary to proceed to the other; and he recites this into another form that I brag I have supererrogated, and said more then needs, applying it to what I had done in the former chapter, when my words evidently look forward, and relate to that which was next to be handled.

[ 2] What follows next concerning the Succession to S. Peter at An∣tioch, compared with that at Rome, hath been spoken to and vin∣dicated against the Cath. Gentl. in the Reply. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and here is little Addition made by S. W. save only 1. His denying, that Peter planted a Church at Antioch of Jewish be∣lievers only (whereas 1. the contrary is manifested in the for∣mer chapter by the distinctness of the two caetus there; and 2. This is not at all to the matter of our present argument, which is founded onely in Peters planting a Church, and leaving a Successor Bishop at Antioch, which he equally did, were it of Jews or Gentiles) 2. The recounting the two divers qualities of dignity in S. Peter resident at Antioch; the first of particular care of that Church, as private Bishop of that See, wherein, saith he, he left an improperly so called successor, viz. a Bishop: the second of publike office of head of the Church, in which con∣sists his Primacy, and in which he only could claim the inheritance,

who succeeded him dying.] Herein there be three things to be briefly adverted to. 1. That his whole answer is founded in a visible begging the question, viz. that S. Peter was head of the Church, and so had the Primacy, i. e. the supreme Pastorship of the Church; for as to any other notion of Primacy, that title will not be proper. 2. That in his opinion a Bishop was but im∣properly a successor of St. Peter whereas tis notorious in all an∣tiquity, that the Bishops were the only (properly so called) suc∣cessors of the Apostles, and themselves frequently upon that ac∣count stiled Apostles, and the Successors of St. Paul and other Apostles in other cities equally so stiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,† 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,‖ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Apostle Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Ignatius, and many the like, as the successor of S. Peter at Rome,† A∣postolus Clemens. And if it be said, that Bishops succeeded not in the whole Apostolical Power, that of preaching to all Nations, and so were but improperly their Successors; I answer, that is true; but little for S. W. his advantage. For then the Bishop of Rome not succeeding S. Peter in the plenitude of his power, can the less be proved to succeed in the Ʋniversal Pastorship of S. Peter (which if ever S. Peter had been possest of, must needs be founded in, and superstructed on his commission Apostolike) his succession in the Episcopal chair may be sufficient.

[ 3] 3^dly, That all the Bishop of Romes supremacy depends upon these frail grounds, and besides upon another perfect uncertain∣ty; (even according to S. W. his unproved assumptions) viz. that none could succeed him dying, but only the Bishop of Rome; whereas 1. Tis evident, that whatsoever power S. Peter was invested in, he might at death, have delegated to any other Bi∣shop constituted by him, as well as to the Bishop of Rome, to Eu∣odius as to Clemens; If it be said, he could not: I ask what should hinder him? sure no command of Christ, for he had not said a word to this matter; Nor was Peters will subject to any other authority; and therefore certainly he might, if he would, thus have delegated it; and that he would not, is not pretended, or attempted to be proved, and so it remains a meer groundless, uncertain assertion, or conjecture, of which sort many millions might be produced, which yet have really no truth in them.

And whereas here is pretend••d a necessity in the matter, that where he dyed and was divested, there was necessary a succession into the dignity, which he left, and was wanting by his death to the whole Church] This is perfectly vain. For 1. that want, if any such there had been to the whole Church, might by any de∣clared act of his will, by his delegation and institution have been as well supplied in any other city, if he had so pleased, as in that wherein he dyed: and without such expression of his will, the place of his death would have been utterly ineffectual; There is not the least necessity consequent to the Archbishop of Canter∣bury his dying at London, yea though he were also Bishop of London, when he dyed, to affix the Archiepiscopal power to that See; nor doth any kind of inheritance depend on such uncertain emergents as is the place of a mans dying.

[ 4] Suppose the Emperour of the whole world were by parti∣cular title of Conquest, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 plantation, King of France first, and afterward of England, and before, or at the time of his death had assigned one successor in France to his crown and kingdom of France, and another in England to that crown, and without any provision appearing to be made for the succession in the Empire, he should dye intestate in England, would there be any necessity now from his dying there, that the King of England should succeed to the Empire of the world? His answer to this question, and his solid grounds of reason, on which to found his answer, whatsoever it shall be, will be useful to the clearing of this matter.

[ 5] Meanwhile, as tis obvious to any, that he that hath long lived in one city, may upon some suden occasion remove, and dye in another; so it seems most probable that this last coming of S. Peter to Rome was after this manner, not long before his death. For though in Eusebius Chronicon there is mention of his sitting 7. years at Antioch, and then five and twenty years at Rome, im∣mediately before his death, (which is no way reconcileable with evidence of History in many particulars) yet in the third of the Ecclesiastical History 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the words are express. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Peter having preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia— to the Jews, which were of the

dispersion at the end being at Rome, he was put to Death, &c. And accordingly Onuphrius, to reconcile the contrary appearan∣ces, is forced to place this his third coming, and last return to Rome, in the last year of the reign of Nero, under whom he was put to death.

[ 6] Add hereunto the affirmation of Epiphanius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— that of those that belonged to Peter and Paul, there were ordained other Bishops, because they went to other Countreys to preach the faith; and Rome might not be without a Bishop: which is farther preiudice to S. W. his argument for the Bishop of Romes succession to the plenitude of S. Peters power, upon that only score of his dy∣ing [ 7] there; For thus his argument lies. The dignity of Primacy annext to S. Peters person went along with him whithersoever he went, and remained with him living, so that he onely who succeedeth him dying (the Bishop of Rome) could claim the inheritance of this sacred dignity] To this I reply; but if the Bishop of Rome succeed∣ed him not dying but living, i. e. was constituted Bishop there in S. Peters life time, as Epiphanius expresly affirms he was, then all force of this argument is vanished. But of this whole matter I have formerly spoken in the reply, ch. 5. Sect. 2. and therefore I add no more of that.

SECT. 3.

The Canon of Chalcedon. What the Bishop of Romes Primacy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Constantinople equal to Rome in all but place. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, noting an equality. Constantinoples Civil greatness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all Ecclesi••stical affairs.

[ 1] IN the next place my testimony from the Council of Chalcedon is to be examined by S. W. But that also was largely vindi∣cated in the Reply, c. 5. sect. 3. But S. W. will ask some posing questions, which the Catholike Gentlemans curiosity did not sug∣gest to him, as 1. How I know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the Pri∣macy,

asking whether there be no other priviledges besides the Pri∣macy] The Pertinence of this question, is first observable. The thing which I had in hand, was to shew the original of the prae∣cedence of the Bishop of Rome: For this I cited the Canon of Chalcedon, that Constantinople should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aequal pri∣viledges with Rome, (and be in place second, or next after Rome) upon this account particularly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was (at that time) the seat of the Empire, affirming that to be the reason (and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter, or suc∣cession of the Bishop of Rome from him) that Rome en∣ioyed such priviledges. And upon view of this, S. W. very de∣murely asks, how I know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the Primacy] What propriety or seasonableness to the matter in hand, the original of Romes dignity, is yet discoverable in this question?

But then 2. I shall answer this question by this other, Whe∣ther [ 2] the Bishop of Rome his Primacy were any thing else above what the Bishops of other Prime Metropoles enjoyed save only Primacy of order or place? If it were in his opinion no more, then as I willingly yield it to the Bishop of Rome, so it is the dis∣claiming all his pretended supremacy of Jurisdiction over all others, in which alone the charge of our Schism is found∣ed. If it were more, then the Councel of Chalcedon, that con∣firms to Constantinople the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Rome, excepting none but the praecedency of place or order (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be advanced like her or to have the like greatness in Ecclesiastical affairs, that Rome had, being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, second, or next after it) must needs give Constantinople that Primacy also. Or in plainer terms, was the Primacy that belonged to old Rome any real privi∣ledge above other Primates? If it w••re, then Constanti∣nople, that must have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal priviledges, with old Rome, and not onely some few equal priviledges without others, must have the Primacy also. For when that Canon con∣firms the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it doth it 1. Indefinitely, i. e universally, equal priviledges, and 2. ••hat equality is founded in having the same original of those priviledges, which therefore equally di∣volves them all that flow from that original; and Rome had no other claim by which to hold them, in the opinion of that

Council, and she is judged to have them, with one exception, and that only of place or order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. (and we know an ex∣ception confirms the rule to all things which are not excepted) And so sure that gives grounds of inferring the conclusion in that full latitude of all but place, and so of Primacy in the widest no∣tion (place onely excepted) in which Rome had it.

[ 3] To his second question, why [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which can exact no other interpretation but [as she] must be rendred [as much as she] deducing an equality or identity from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which onely notes a simili∣tude or likeness] the answer is obvious. 1. Because the parity, or agreement betwixt them in that place, is specified to be in respect of greatness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Constantinople shall be great in Ecclesiastical affairs as she; that must conclude it as great as she to any reality of power or greatness. 2. By the only exception mentioned, that of place, as was before said. 3. By the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which were expresly mentioned before, equal priviledges, and those, I hope, signifie equality, and not similitude or l ke∣ness only. 4. By the ground of these equal priviledges, the dig∣nity of the city of which we have the sense of Gregory Nazian∣zen in his Orat. 27. where he thus addresses himself unto them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Constantinople is the great city (S. Chrysostom cals it the metropolis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the whole world) the first after the first, or not yielding so much as this to it. And then if the Church were to keep the like proportion, we know what to conclude of it.

[ 4] Thus when‖ Sozomen sets down the passages of the first Council of Constantinople where these priviledges were conferred, he hath these words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Bishop of Constantinople shall have privi∣ledges of dignity next after Rome, as having the throne or chair of New Rome. For already (at that time) the city had not only that appellation, and a senate, and orders of the people and magistracies, the like to those at Rome, but also the ensigns of dignity, according

to what was customary to the Romans in Italy, were adjudged to them, and the rights and dignities in all particulars were equal to them both.

[ 5] In the third place his questions are turned into chiding the Dr. for Englishing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in all Ecclesiastical bu∣sinesses, whereas (saith he) there is no such word as [All] there;] I answer, that if by Englishing he means translating, I did not intend to English it, and the varying the letter is an evidence of that. But that I so concluded by way of inference from those, and the praecedent words of the Canon, I willingly acknowledge; but am not, I conceve, to be chid for it. For if Constantinople be in Ecclesiastical affairs advanced to the same height of power as Rome, if it have indefinitely without any exception, but only of pre∣cedence of place, equal priviledges with Rome; and if this it have, upon this demonstrative account, because Constantinople now is what Rome was, and agrees with it in that for which Rome had her priviledges, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Themistius, reigning together with Rome, then must this belong to all Ecclesiastical businesses (precedence of place beeing either excepted, or not deemed such a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) for otherwise if there were any matter of the Church, to which Constantinoples power was not exalted, so as to be mag∣nified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like Rome, in that, whatsoever it were, there would be a real inequality, and so that Canon fail of its design of confirming the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not this or that priviledge in some particular matters, but indefinitely, priviledges equal to those which Rome had. And therefore sure my pen was not herein, as he saith, too liberall of its ink; I made no addition to the real necessary importance of that testimony.

SECT. 4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Honorary, Pompous, Ceremonious priviledges. Some such belonged to Rome as the first Patriarchate, but no su∣pream universal Jurisdiction from St. Peter. Constantinople equal to Rome in real priviledges. The notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Glossaries, and in the Councels, further proved by Leo's Epistles. Primacy an ambiguous word.

[ 1] FOurthly, From questioning and chiding, he at length comes to some matter, and will give account why the Popes Le∣gates might omit to oppose the reason there given for the collation of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And for his groundwork he first lays this supposition, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies nothing but certain honorary, pompous or ceremonious priviledges: which he will allow might ac∣crue to some Church by the residence of the supreme secular power there.

[ 2] Before I give answer to this, I must first ask, what he means by honorary pompous or ceremonious priviledges? If only those that have no reality of jurisdiction joyned to them more then be∣longed to that city before, or abstracted from the collation of those honourary priviledges, then his words may bear this sense, that the priviledges of a Patriarch, as that differs from a Primate of a Diocess in the East or West (there being fourteen such into which the Empire was most anciently divided) were but honorary priviledges, precedence in Councels, and the like without any ac∣cession of power or jurisdiction above that which belonged to them as Primates, and that these may accrue to some Church by the residence of the supreme secular power there And in this sense, his words are most true, and applicable to the notion which I have of the Church of Rome from the Canon of Chalcedon, viz. that the Church of Rome, being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 originally a Primacy (proportionable to the Prefecture of the City of Rome in the division of the Empire) by being the seat and first city of the Empire, became a Patriarchate, and the most honourable or first of the Patriarchates, and thereby had the first place in any oecumenical Councel, and the like. But this was nothing but an

honrary priviledge without any thing of iurisdiction (any further then the Province which belonged to her as Primate, extended) accruing to her by these means. And when the Canon of Chalce∣don speaking of this, saith, she hath it assigned her by the Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because she was the imperial city, the Le∣gates did not, because they could not with any iustice, oppose this reason: But S. W. I suppose, will have more to belong to Rome then this, and means more by Romes Primacy, even a suprema∣cy of iurisdiction above all other Primates and Patriarchs, and that as coming down to her from St. Peter. And against both these I argued from that Canon of Chalcedon; And by Constantino∣ples having equal priviledges with Rome, i. e. first the power of a Primate, then the dignity or honour of a Patriarch, and the next place to Rome it self, and this upon this account of being the seat of the Empire, as Rome was, I conceiv'd, I had demonstrated 1. That Rome, in the iudgement of that Councel, had no such supremacy of iurisdiction; for that was not conferred on Constantinople; nor indeed could it be competible to any second if Rome had been thought to have had it, and so was prejudged by the decree for Constantinoples having equal priviledges with Rome. And 2. That what Rome had above other cities, Antioch, &c. it was not deemed to have by any right from Peter, but from being the Imperial See, and this by way of interpretation acknowledged by the Legates of Rome, by their not opposing this, when for other reasons, and not for that, they refused to approve that Canon.

[ 3] And this might serve for answer to his supposition of the bare pompousness of these Priviledges. But because he may more probably have another meaning in his words, that the Privi∣ledges here made equal and common to Constantinople with Rome, were but some pompous, honorary priviledges, which not∣withstanding, Constantinople fell much short of Rome in real power and jurisdiction, and so still Rome might have the univer∣sal Pastorship, though Constantinople communicated with it in the ceremonious priviledges: I shall therefore now farther examine the truth of this unproved suggestion, which indeed being thus taken out of the ambiguous words, and put into intelligible sense, hath not any the least appearance of truth in it. And having none, we may thence pass judgement, what S. W. will

adventure on to maintain his cause, and what supports that cause stands in need of, and cannot subsist without them. What 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie (which Constantinople is adjudged to have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal to Rome) seeing it is his interest to question, it must be de∣cided by competent testimonies. And such (for an ordinary Greek word) are the Greek Glossaries. Of these Hesychius may be allowed our first consideration. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. it denotes Government, chief Priest∣hoods, Pr ncipalities, and holy offices, or (as I may guess the reading should be, without the last 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) sacred Principalities, proportionably to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Senators, Kings, Princes, those that are digni∣fied above other men. Phavorinus to the same purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It signifies that preeminence of d gnity that belongs to any in respect of honour, or the honour it self thus given in respect of this praemi∣nence, Honour for eminence, Primacy, the honours that belong to the first order. And Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dignities, All manifestly shewing them to be real dignities, and power, and not only pompous and meerly ceremonious, which are compre∣hended under that word.

[ 4] 2^dly Beeing a style of the Canons, the more antient Canons will best evidence the importance of it. In the sixth Nicene Canon we find the word, where having defined, according to the antient or original customs, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have power of all that are under that Patriar∣chate, in proportion to what was customary to the Bishop of Rome, it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that in like manner at Antioch, and in other Provinces the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be preserved to the Churches; There it signifies evidently the power that any the greatest Bishops even of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had in their Churches, and (which may prevail somewhat with S. W.) Antonius Salmatia a Doctor of the Ambrosian College, who set out Zonaras's Comments on that Canon, and is approved by Anton. Olgiat. the President of that College, and by Camillus Olevanus, Commissary for the Inquisitor, and others, hath

given it us rendred by no less then privilegia, dignitates, & au∣thoritates, as if he had (prophetically) meant malice to S. W. his affirmation in this place. Yet more particularly in this mat∣ter of Constantinople, the third Canon of the Constantinopolitan Councel hath the word, and there it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the priviledges of dignity after Rome: and the Scholiast gives us the notion of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Primacy (or principal powers) and privilegia singu∣laria, singular priviledges, saith Salmatia. And not to be infinite in so plain a matter, the Canon of Chalcedon it self makes it clear enough, where all the Patriarchal power (conteining the Pri∣matus in it) which was certainly conferred before, and there confirmed to the Bishop of Constantinople, and this equal to that which Rome formerly had enioyed (which I hope was more then bare‖ honorary, pompous, ceremonious priviledges) and by name the Ordaining of Metropolitans, which was sure a real material priviledge, are comprehended under that title.

[ 5] This therefore of lessening or rather annihilating these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 subduing them into nothing but honorary, pompous, ceremonious priviledges] is clearly an invention of S. W. contrary to the ex∣press nature of the word, the Canonical use of it, and the evi∣dence of the fact in that Canon; and yet farther it is abundantly refuted by Pope Leo's three long Epistles, the 54^th to Ana••olius the then Bishop of Constantinople, the 55^th to the Emperor Mar∣tian, the 56^th to the Empress Pulcheria and a 4^th also, the 62^d to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, all sadly complaining of the in∣vasion of the Primacies and rights of the Metropolitans‖ (alienum Jus praeripere, tot Metropol••tanorum impugnare Primatus) di∣sturbing the Provinces which had been setled by the Decrees of Nice; desiring other mens rights, robbing the Churches of their priviledges instituted by Canons of Councels, and a great deal more: which I hope Pope Leo would not so declamatorily have poured out, if all that was confirmd to the Bishop of Constantinople in that Councel, had been nothing but honorary priviledges; for those sure might have been enjoyed by him, without invading the rights of any others: nor indeed can it be imagined, that those were the priviledges of the Churches, which the Councel of Nice had setled, Can. 6.

[ 6] In the next place upon this ground, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies no more but these honorary priviledges, he thinks he can give account why the Popes Legates did not oppose the reason there given for the collation of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas, saith he, had the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sign••fied Primacy, which was then as strongly and ex∣presly pretended to come from Christs donation to S. Peter (as is evident in Pope Leo's Epistles, whose Legates presided in this Councel) as it is now by the present Pope, then we should have heard another story] i. e. then the Legates would have oppo∣sed the reason there given for the collation of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

[ 7] By Primacy I suppose he here means the Popes supreme power over all, & then the whole vertue of this argument lies in this, that Pope Leo, at the time of the Councel of Chalcedon pretended this primacy of the Bishop of Rome to come from Christs donation to S. Peter. But to this semblance of proof, I answer, that S. W. having not produced any testimony of Leo's whereby we may discern his notion of Primacy, which is an ambiguous word, I must first demand the opinion of S. W. what Leo meant by Pri∣macy? whether no more then that which belonged to the B••shop of Alexandria and Antioch, and some other Prime Metropoli∣tanes in their Provinces? Thus, 'tis certain he useth the Phrase in his Epistle to the Empress, tot Metropolitanorum Primatus —the Primacies of so many Metropolitans: and if this were all that he petended to from S. Peter, such his pretensions were easi∣ly reconcileable with the Canon of Chalcedon, which neither robd him of his Primacy, nor prejudged his having it from. S. Peter, but (yet farther) supposed and yielded him the dignity of a Patriarch, and of the Prime or first Patriarch, and affirm∣ed him to have ascended to this ••ight by Romes being the seat of the Empire. But then, not to build on this possible notion of the word ••rimacy (which I must not deem S. W. his notion of it) nor yet on a second thing observable from those Epistles of Leo, which concerned this matter, viz. that be seems to inter∣pret all the injury that was done in that Councel of Chalcedon, to have been only a breach against the Canons of Nice, and the dispositions of Eclesiastical affairs made there (never making the least mention, that I discern of any other) I answer 2. That tis most plain through those Epistles of Leo, that in them he

neither ever deduces his Primacy from S. Peter, for the bare mentioning the‖ authority of the blessed Apostle Peter by which he himself acted (and so it is certain that by the same Authority the Bishop of Antioch acted also) or S. Peters founding Chri∣stian Doctrine speciali magisterio in Antioch and Rome, cannot be deemed the thus deducing it) nor takes notice of any the least injurie done to himself by that Councel, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria, and (especially) of Antioch, and other Metro∣politans; which is a further testimonie of the truth of what I had said, that the deducing the original of the dignity of the Ro∣man See from the greatness of that Imperial Citie, was never so much as quarreld at by the Legates in the Councel, nor, as now I add, by the Pope afterwards, in this whole contest. And then still all that I said hath perfect truth, and it matters little what ar any other time either Leo or any other Pope pretended, whether con∣cerning the universality of their jurisdiction, or the tenure by which they assume to hold it from S. Peter. For thus they might pretend, without such reality of solid grounds, which would be sufficient to justifie them in a Councel.

SECT. 5.

How Constantinople struck not at the Primacy. The Canon of Chalcedon doth more then strike at Romes supremacy. No ad∣vantage to Rome that the Canon is equally derogatory to Anti∣och. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not noting Supremacy, is no advantage to S. W. His unjustice. Constantinoples greatness only confirmed by the Canon of Chalcedon. So the second place. The regula∣rity of this Act, and the great force of it to conclude this de∣bate. The Romanists collection of Canons.

[ 1] HIs fift attempt is contained in these words, The Dr. grants th••t this decree was as derogatorie to the authority of An∣tioch as of Rome; but it is evident that Antioch pretended to no Primacy over the whole Church; therefore evident it is, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 could not signifie Primacy of jurisdiction, nor consequent∣ly was that struck at by the tumultuous Constantinopoli∣tans.

[ 2] Here now it is plain what he means by Primacy, that of jurisdiction, and over the whole Church. And this, saith he, tis plain the Constantinopolitans struck not at. This is true in some sense. 1. That the Constantinopolitan See at that time pretended not to any such universal jurisdiction for it self. 2. That it struck no blow at it in Rome, nor indeed could it, not apprehending (that is discernable by that whole transaction) any such to be pre∣tended to by Rome, any more than what properly belonged to it as a Primacy (of which there were many other in the East and West) only with the honorarie addition of the Patriarchate of the West, and the first or prime Patriarchate, and that upon the score of being the seat of the Empire. But then in another sense, which alone is to the purpose in hand, it is manifest, that this Canon of Chalcedon, that confirmed the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Constanti∣nople doth more then strike at the universal Pastor-ship of Rome, viz. by necessarie consequence of their decree; for if Constantin∣ople have equal priviledges, and so all the greatness that Rome hath, except only the dignity of the first place; and if all that

Rome hath above other Prime Metropoles, belonged to her only upon the account of being the Imperial City, then sure this not only strikes at, but destroyes all her pretensions to the universal Pastorship from S. Peter.

[ 3] What he here adds from me, as my concession, that the decree was as derogatorie to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome] will little avail him in this matter. Not only because it is no affir∣mation of mine, but a conclusion, inferrd ad homines, from a sug∣gestion of the Romanists (as is apparent in the‖ place) but also, and especially because it is confest by me and inferred in this argu∣ing, that it was only a Patriarchal power, and not a Primacy over the whole Church, that was in that ••anon adjudged to Constan∣tinople. The truth is, Antioch only suffered real diminution by the exalting Constantinople, some part of the Province thereof being assigned Constantinople, and both that and Alexandria sunk a little lower in dignity of place; Constantinople being now placed next Rome, and consequently above each of them. But what doth this avail S W. or how can he with the lest color conclude thence for Romes either having, or retaining the Primacy, as that signifies the Supremacy over the whole Church? Certainly no∣thing at all.

[ 4] With what truth it is here suggested, that the Constantinopoli∣tans were tumultuous, hath been shewed at large in the Reply, ch. 5. sect. 3.

[ 5] To his 6. I answer, that I grant most willingly. 1. That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meant not the Primacy in his sense, for Supremacy: and 2. For the other Primacy which really belonged to Rome, to be the chief or first Patriarchate, I grant also that this was not concernd or taken from her by the decree, but remained untoucht. But then what hath S.W. gained by both these? and yet these are the utmost that all his endeavour can bring in to him; for these notwithstanding the Councel that gives Constantinople 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal priviledges with Rome, prejudges Romes having any such Supremacy; for that cannot equally be had by any other and besides, that Primacy that Rome is there said to have from being the Imperial City, cannot be the universal Pastorship which it (had not, but) pretends to have from S. Peter.

[ 6] His 7. exception to me is very unjust, in making that my gross

mistake, and an evidence of my not fetching this testimonie from the fountains (the Canons I had thought, and Acts of the Coun∣cel were the fountains, and from thence I fetcht it immediately, see Reply p. 83, &c.) which was only my inference from the Ro∣manists concession. The Romanists rejecting this Canon, add, though most untruly, that the Church of Antioch rejected it also, (when it is visible in the Acts of the Councel, that Maximus Bishop of Antioch subscribed it.) However this is most true, that Leo then pretended it for his chief reason not to subscribe it, be∣cause it was to the Bishop of Antiochs prejudice, and so against the disposition of the Council of Nice, which he would not see in∣fringed, never mentioning any injurie done to himself by it, or to the See of Rome. Hence (i. e. from this their concession) I assumed it was granted by them that Constantinoples acquisitions by this decree of Chalcedon, were as derogatorie to Antioch as to Rome; and from thence again I further inferred, 1. That it must be confessed of Antioch that it had equal priviledges with Rome (for else how could it be as derogatorie to Anitoch, as to Rome, that Constantinople had those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Rome) and so 2. That Rome was no more but a Patriarchate, because it was certain, that Antioch was no more then a Patriarchate. 3 That all that Constantinople had wanted of Rome (I mean ever since it became a Primates seat, for of old it is acknowledged that By∣zantium was much lower) was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinarie jurisdiction over other Churches. All this being thus evident, S. W. would fain pick some holes, and first suggests that the Dr. tells him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Patriarchate, and the pomps attending it: I said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal priviledges with Rome signified the dignity of a Patriarchate. And so much evidently it must, and no more; So much sure it must; for Rome was a Patriarchate, and none that was less, or under a Patriarch could have equal priviledges with Rome. And no more it could signifie: for supposing Rome to have had more than Patriarchal power (that of universal Pastorship) none other could have that equal to it. If Rome were the universal Ecclesiastick Mo∣narch, Constantinople could not be adjudged to be so al∣so.

[ 7] Secondly, Saith he, Constantinople was a Patriarchate before,

but the fourth, and now pretended to be the second.] Some truth there is in this for the first part of it, but that such as is nothing to the prejudice of my pretensions, or to the advantage of my Disarmer. 'Tis true Constantinople was a Patriarchate before this Councel of Chalcedon, first by a long continued custom, and then by force of the Canon of Constantinople, and accordingly I‖ took not this at Chalcedon to be the first conferring of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on Constantinople, but only a confirming of what formerly was deemd to belong to that Church, and so the Fathers of Chalcedon expressly tell Leo the Pope,‖ in their Epistle sent to him, and that what they now did, was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the confirmation of that dignity by this Oecumenical Councel, which before it enjoyed. And thus far S. W. said truth; let him make his best advantage of it. But what he adds [but the fourth] as if till the time of this Canon of Chalcedon, Constantinople had been but the fourth Patriarchate, but now became the second, there sure my Disarmer struck at adventure, and that none of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lucky blows, which Aristotle saies, they that wink or are blind, strike sometimes. For it is evident, that for this se∣cond place, the foreging Canon of Constantinople was equally of force, as for the Patriarchal power. So the words of that third Canon are express, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It shall have the priviledges of dignity after the Bishop of Rome because the City is new Rome; and so in the Epistle of the Fathers at Chalcedon to Pope Leo, it is voucht 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we have confirmed the Canon of the 150. Fathers, that assembled at Constan∣tinople in Theodosius's reign, which decrees, or declares that after your most holy Apostolick See, the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the priviledges (of honor or first-place.) So when‖ Eva∣grius speaks of this Act, he doth it exactly after the same man∣ner. Judgement, saith he, was given that the See of Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was rightly placed, or ordered alrea∣dy after the See of Rome, that surely must be next after, & so not now first advanced from the fourth to this second place. And what hath S. W. gained by such adventures as these, undertaking to discover the gross mistakes of another?

[ 8] What follows of the tumultuousness and irregularity and want of freedom in this Act, had been suggested by the Cath. Gentl. (and proved to have no degree of truth in it. Reply. p. 82, 83. —) save only that tis here added, that it was disa∣vowed and rejected by the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him.] Which is most absolutely false, the Bishop of Antioch sub∣scribing, and defining in that Councel, in the next place after the Bishop of ••onstantinople. (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the Bishop of the Metropoles of Asia, Pontus and Thracia, being called out in the Councel, and examined be∣fore the Emperors Proxies or Judges, whether they consented 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the••r own will, and subscribing with profession 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before God, that they did it willingly, and yet these we know of all others were the most concerned in this matter. So that we may believe there was some truth in the Fathers words, that what they had decreed was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the removing of all confu∣sion, and the settling of Ecclesiastical good order.

[ 9] And so now I hope by what hath here been added, to what is at large set down in the reply, I may assume that I have obeyed S. W. his charge, laid so heavily upon me, to vindicate the vali∣dity of this Canon of Chalcedon. And truly when that is done, there is little need of adding more testimonies in that matter, it being evident by that Canon, that all the Greatness that Rome had above other Primates, was, in the opinion of those Fathers, by being the seat of the Empire, not by any title of succession from S. Peter, and that beside only the precedence of place, other Churches had equal priviledges and dignities with it, and so that Rome had not the Ʋniversal Pastorship or jurisdiction over all Churches.

[ 10] What he adds concerning the Power the Pope had to reject this Canon, as being head of the Church, is on his side a begging the Question, that the Pope is such, and withal is answered at large. Repl. cap. 5. sect. 4. and the truth of,‖ Al∣maines resolution cleared, both to the issue, and to the Justice of it meritò Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse: the Councel of Chalcedon prevailed against Leo's resistance, and that justly.

[ 11] ‖In this place he tells us, this Act it self was not numbred a∣mong the Acts of the Councel, till— And truly this was well remembred of him; for this is an indication, that it hath by S. W. his ancestors, been thought to be really preiudicial to the Pope. (Howsoever he would by many attempts now sooth over the mat∣ter) 2. It admonisheth us what care we ought to have in rely∣ing on the Romanists collections. For it is certain this Canon is in all the Greek copies both Printed and Manuscript, and from thence the copie of that councel must originally be fetcht: And many of the Romanists confess there was such a Canon made, and the storie of the fact is by all the Antients agreed on; and Leos Epistles, and many other evidences put it beyond all dispute; and indeed Leos Legates resisting and not consenting to it, and complaining to the Judges, that it was done without them (when yet it was proved, that they voluntarily absented themselves) is an evidence still of the fact, that there was such a Canon made, and made by the Councel (though without the consent of the Legates) and yet it is left out in Charanza's summa Conciliorum, in the Codex vetus Ecclesiae Romanae, in Dionysius Exiguus his Codex, and in Peter Crabs large Edition of the Councels. I shall pass no further censure on these collectors, knowing in whose in∣terest it was, that they thus did it.

SECT. 6.

The Ephesine Canon, what 'twas voucht to prove. Cyprus inde∣pendent for jurisdiction as well as ordination. Cedrenus's mis∣takes. Justinianopolis. The Canon of Ephesus extended to all other Primates, as well as Cyprus. What influence this hath on Romes pretensions. The Abassins. Britains. Romes Pa∣triarchy limited. The Nicen Canon.

[ 1] THe second Section begins with a view of the Testimony, which I brought from the Ephesine Canon, and thus it sets out; The Doctors next evidince, that the Pope is not head of the Church, is from a Canon in the Councel of Ephesus.

[ 2] But before I read on, I must take notice of S. W. his constant art of deforming of arguments, before he adventures to Answer th••m, like the persecutors of old, that disguised, Christians in beasts skins, and then brought them out to the Theatre, to be torn in pieces in those shapes. And none more ordinary with him then this, viz. having recited the premisse right, to affix some re∣mote conclusion to it, as if it were produced by me for the in∣ferring of that, and then to shew that it is unconcludent. Thus is it in this place. That which I vouched from that Canon, he duely recited, viz. that the Independency of Cyprus not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others, was contested then, as from the Apostles times— But for the conclusion, which he pretends me to deduce from thence, he hath wholly changed it; for he that will review the Tr. of Schisme, Sect. 6. p. 100. will find that the conclusion, for the proving of which the Ephe∣sine Canon is produced, is not the Popes not being head of the Church (that had been shewed, Sect. 5. by Antioch and Con∣stantinoples having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal dignity with Rome, which manifested Rome to be no more then a Patriarchal See) but the reconcilableness of this kind of eminence (Patriarchal) in Rome, with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and independence, the no subordination, or subjection of other Primates. For tis manifest that this was the last thing mentioned in the close of Sect. 5. and then Sect. 6. be∣gins

thus: This hath formerly been manifested. What this? Why sure the immediate Antecedent, that that eminence is re∣concilable. And this appears beyond all dispute, by the place to which I refer, where I say it had been manifested, the dis∣course of the Original, and power, and dignity of Primates and Pa∣triarchs, viz. chap. 3. Sect. 21. where I had manifested this very thing (but did not so early attempt to manifest that which I had not then till chap. 4. so much as proposed, that the Pope was not head of the Church) And this, and this onely, is it, which I there say is put beyond all controle by that Canon of Ephesus. And so certainly it is; for 'tis there determined that the Bishops of Cyprus shall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be ordained by them∣selves (i. e. by their own Metropolitane, the Bishop of Salamis, or which is all one, Constantia (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Stephanus) and his Councel of Bishops) and so in that respect be independent from Antioch, though Antioch were the Partriarchate of the Orient of which Cyprus was a Province.

[ 3] And whatsover S. W. suggests of a dependency of subiection to the Jurisdiction of another, though they never received from that other their ordination] 'tis perfectly gratis dictum; & if it had any truth in it, 'twere yet a pitiful refuge; For though all other jurisdiction be not particularly named in the Canon, yet in all reason it must be concluded from the story, that Cyprus was ex∣empt from Antioch in that respect, as well as of ordination. For this, saith Severinus Binius, was the occasion of the Canon, Johannes Antiochenus sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur, the Bishop of Antioch indevoured to bring the Cyprian Churches under him; and, Decretum fuit ne Iohannes Cyprias Ecclesias neve alii Episcopi alias Ecclesias invaderent, It was decreed that Iohn should not invade the Churches of Cyprus, and farther in∣tended, that other Bishops should not invade other Churches, and this say both the Scholiasts on the Canon, by force of the Ca¦non of Antioch and the‖ Apostolike Canon, which forbids Bi∣shops to usurpe ordination 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on provinces which are not subj••ct to them, supposing Cyprus not to be thus subject to Antioch, and therefore that this was an invasion to require to ordain the B shops there and according∣ly Baltamon ca is the Archbishop of Cyprus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) one that was head to himself, no more under Antioch for juris∣diction then for ordination. And it visibly appears by some con∣tests of this kind, which soon after followed: as when Dios∣curus Deacon of Antioch, to gratifie Peter then Bishop there, prest vehemently at Constantinople, that the Bishops of Cyprus should be subjected to Antioch (See Surius die 11. Junii; and Baronius c. 6. an. 485. n. 63.) By which it is as evident that all other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and independency from Antioch remained intire to Cyprus as well as that of ordination, viz that that Island having not been converted from Antioch, but by Barnabas his preaching immediately, should remain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 under its own Primate: And then what was thus defined in respect of Anti∣och, did certainly exclude all imaginable pretensions to the like of any other Patriarch, no cause being conceivable, why that which was free within it self, and so not dependent on Antioch, the Patriarchate of the Orient, should fall under the power of any other Patriarch, which had no more power then An∣tioch.

[ 4] 'Tis true indeed Cedrenus saith, that in Zeno's time be∣ing taken from Antioch 'twas put under Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, From that time Cyprus became a Me∣tropolis, and was not under Antioch, but Constantinople. But there are more errors then one in those few words; one mistake there is, in making the Island the Metropolis; he should have said Salamis, or Constantia the chief City of that Island: a second, that in Zeno's time it commenced a Metropolis; which was so long before at the Councel of Ephesus: nay even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the first conversion; a third, that it now ceased to be under Antioch, which as appears both by ancient custome and Canons, mentioned in the Councel of Ephesus long before Zeno, was never under Antioch; and a fourth beyond the size of all the former, that being taken from Antioch, it now was put under Constantinople (which could not have been done without great injury both to Cyprus and Antioch too) whereas it is clear, that it was at that time vindicated to its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so after confirmed by Iustinian (both which are taken notice of

by Nicephorus, Hist. 16. c. 37. though mixt with some other manifest mistakes) and when the Archbishop of Cyprus was dri∣ven thence by the Barbarians, and betook himself to Iustiniano∣polis, he there retained the same liberty, that he held by the Ephesine Canon, as may appear by the sixt Councel in Trullo, Can. 39. which decrees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the priv••ledges confirmed to that See by the Ephesine Fathers, should be preserved to him intire: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so that new Iustinianoplis to which Iohn Archbishop of Constance was now removed, shall have the right of Constantinople, i. e. be as free and independent in his own Province, as the Bishop of Constantinople is in his; unless, as Phil. Berterius conjectures, it should be rather read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Bishop being thus removed shall retain the pri∣viledges that belonged to that former city the Metropolis of Cy∣prus, Salamis or Constantia. But this by the way, as a digressi∣on, not to satisfie any importunites of S. W. but to prevent mistakes.

[ 5] Mean while what was thus defined there in behalf of Cyprus being by that Canon expresly affirmed to extend to all other Churches in like manner (the thing being lookt on as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a common disease, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which concerned the liberty of all, and proportionably care taken for the cure of all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the same shall be observed in the other D••oceses (that was the word that then belonged to the fourteen divisions of the Empire, of which Rome was one) and all the Provinces every where) must in all reason be of equal and full force to the vindicating of the liberties of all other Primates, as well as of Cyprus, and an evidence that the Preeminence of a few Patriarchs is no prejudice to the freedom and independency of the many Primates and Metropolitans in the world, which be∣ing so, it is clear that what I pretended to prove from the Ephe∣sine Canon, was really proved from it.

In conclusion of that 6. Sect. upon mention of that order gi∣ven in that Canon indefinitely against all invasions for time to come, in whatsoever Diocese, that no Bishop shall usurpe a power

where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it, I add [which how directly it prejudges the pretensions of Rome, as well as An∣tioch, is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating.] Here saith S. W. Dr. H. supposes it a first principle evident by the light of Nature, or begs it gratis, that the Pope hath thus incroached, though that be the onely thing in controversie] and there is a Syl∣logism formed to shew the groseness of my arguing, and on this there is great rejoycing.

[ 7] But to this I answer, 1. That there be divers things (beside first principles, evident by the light of nature) which need no far∣ther demonstrating; such are those that are sufficiently testified already, such are matters of fact, obvious to every mans obser∣vation. And of this nature is that which I here speak of, that Rome pretends, and so usurps a power, where from the A∣postles times she hath not enjoyed it. The power which Rome pre∣tends to is universal over all the world of Christians. And is it not visible that this hath not been enjoyed by her through all time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? The Abyssenes sure are a very consider∣able part of the world, and yet were not from their first planta∣tion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, under the hand, or power of the Bishop of Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or of his predecessors in that See. The Histories of those Aethiopick Christians tell us, that they were very early Primi, vel inter Primos, the first or among the first of the Gentiles converted to the faith, first by Indica, the Eunuch whom Philip baptized, Act. 8. then more fully by Saint Matthew, qui distributo Apostolis Orbe Ethiopiam sortito obtinuit, who in the division of the world among the Apostles, had Ethiopia for his Province; that by the Arabick‖ Canons, their chief Bishop is called Catholicus, & loco Patriarchae, but hath not the power of Patriarch for Ordination, &c. but is under the See of Alexan∣dria; that they use not the Romane Rites, but are averse from them,‖ fast exactly on Wednesdays and Fridayes; and taste no∣thing till Sun set, and many the like;‖ have kept no kind of Communion with Europe, till by the Portugueses navigation thi∣ther, David their King was inclined to desire the friendship of Emmanuel King of Portugal, and wrote to Pope Clement the seventh, that he acknowledged the Bishop of Rome Pastor of the Ʋniversal Church: yet when upon this, soon after, Pope Iulius

the third sent Iohannes Nonnius to be their Patriarch, Claudius the successor of that David rejecting him, the design vanisht, and came to nought. And so still the power of their Ecclesi∣astical affairs remains in their own Patriarch, saith Damian a Goes. I shall therefore onely ask S. W. whether from Saint Matthews time to this, the Bishop of Rome hath enjoyed a power over the Ab••ssines? and if not, whether without breach of the Ephesine Canon he can now pretend to have any such power, or whether this need any further demonstrating?

[ 8] Or if he be unwilling to go so far off, for the perfecting this demonstration, I shall need draw him no farther then these Bri∣tish Islands of ours (the matter of our present controversie) and desire him to shew me any evidences, which may clear the Bishop of Romes pretensions to the supreme jurisdiction over these Churches at the time of the Ephesine Councel, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the time of planting the Christian faith here, till then: If he can, I desire he will produce them, and shew us, what Bishops of Rome they were which exercised it. If he cannot, then the Canon of Ephesus defines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he shall not assume any such power, or if he have assumed, that he shall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make restitution, quit, and disclaim that power. And so this, I hope, needs no further demonstration.

[ 9] Secondly, That what I say, needs no farther demonstrating, is not by me supposed, or begged as a Principle, but as a conclusion so far formerly inferred, that on this occasion, loco non suo, it needed not be farther demonstrated. The interposition of the word [farther] prevented all this triumph of his. For to omit all that had been said in the former chapter, which I must be allowed to think, had so far disproved the Popes pretended Ʋniversal juris∣diction in the very fountain of it, the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter, that I should not be bound under the pain of begging the question, to prove it anew in every Paragraph of the insuing discourse; to omit this, I say, the Section immediately precedent had manifested, that Rome was no more then a Patriarchate; and then looking upon it as such, and no more, the conclusion was irrefragable, that Romes present pretensions are incroach∣ments, and most directly not onely prejudiced, but destroyed by that Canon: For 1. as a Patriarch, tis not imaginable that the

Bishop of Rome can have any authority farther then his own Patriarchal Province, and that is not the whole world, because there be other Patriarchs, and each of them hath his distinct as∣signation of Province. And 2. A Patriarch hath no jurisdiction over the Primates in his own Province, the Authority of Pri∣mates and Patriarchs being the same, as hath been shewed out of Anacl••tus, Tr. of Schism, p. 58. And 3. Some Metropolitans were exempt from the power of the Patriarch, as is evident by the Ephesine Canon. And so still this is destructive to Romes pretensions to Ʋniversal jurisdiction upon this account which had formerly from the Canon of Chalcedon been proved to be∣long to it, of its being a Patriarchy. And 4. the Ephesine Ca∣non referring to ancient and original Canons and customes, it must be supposed to agree to the sixt Canon of Nice. Now in that Nicene Canon tis plain, that there are bounds and limits supposed to belong to every Patriarchate, and order given that they shall be observed; that order expresly given for Alexandria, that Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis shall belong to that, and the Bishop of Alexandria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have the power of all them; and the reason given for the observing those bounds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because this also is customary to the Bishop of Rome. Where unless the Romane Diocese were limited, it could not possibly be a copy, and reason of the limiting of the Alexandrian (sure twould never be deemed reasonable to say, Alexandria must have limits, because Rome hath, if it were possible to affirm that Rome had none) which yet that it was (besides the evidence of the words them∣selves) tis the express affirmation of one of their own Popes, Nicholas 1. Epist. 8. Nicena Synodus Romanae Ecclesiae nullum contulit incrementum, sed potius ex ejus forma quod Alexandrinae Ecclesiae tribueret, particulariter sumpsit exemplum. The Nicene Synod conferred no increase on Rome, but rather took from Rome an example particularly, what to give to the Church of Alexan∣dria. And then if at the making of the Nicene Canon, Rome had bounds, it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon, that those bounds must be to all time observed and so that will be most de∣structive to the Ʋniversal (for that is boundless, unlimited) Pastorship of that See. So that having now joyned the force

of the Nicen and Ephesin Canon into one, I shall flatter my self, that it will not be easily broken asunder by S. W. And so though much more might be fitly added to this purpose (and somewhat hath been said in the Reply, Ch. 5. Sect. 5.) this shall suffice at this time, till S. W. shall undertake to recon∣cile a limited Diocess with universal Pastorship; or shew that by the Nicen Canon, the Roman was not then such; or that be∣ing such then, it could commence so afterward, without violati∣tion of the Ephesine.

SECT. VII.

Justiniana, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Receiving the Pall, no sign of sub••ection antiently. Since it hath brought in gain and power to the Papacy. Supremacy in his own Province not reconcilable with subjection to the Pope. A Manuscript chidden for being old, and of no anti∣quity. All Primates supreme in their Province. The dignity conferr'd by the Emperour, not the Pope. Locus Apostolicae sedis. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for dignity. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All the Popes substitutes are not his sub••ects. Subiection for Ordination must be subjecti∣on. Ordination of Primates by their own Councel. Of inferiour Bishops by Primates. Few independent Archbishopricks. All Primates such. Independency of Primates is no denying the Catholick Church. The Government whereof is not Monarchick. The Doctrine of the Councels, which the Pope vows to maintain, unreconcileable with universal Pastorship. The Milevitan and Constantinopolitan Canon. The Canon of Nice cited by the Pope, but not found in the Authenticks.

[ 1] WHAT he adds in the latter part of this 2. Sect. concern∣ing Justiniana Prima, hath in part been prevented in the Reply, ch. 5. sect. 6. But some things are said by S.W. which were not there tendred, and therefore a few words may be thought due to them: First, saith he, Justinian's constitution is no decree of a Councel] Neither said I it was; yet being the constitution of a Christian Emperour, and formally inserted into the body of the Law, and never checked at (that we discern, or is pretended) either by any Councel, or by the Bishops of the Church then li∣ving, or noted as irregular, or intrenchment on the Priviledges or Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, or any other, and yet in∣stating on that City all Ecclesiastical censure, supreme Priesthood, supreme dignity, it is a competent evidence, that this might law∣fully be done, and consequently that the Church of a City and Province under it might be exempt from all forreign Jurisdiction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, within it self. And then that is all that it was produ∣ced to testifie.

[ 2] Secondly, saith he, Justinians fact (in case he had pretended it) is not able to invalidate that sacred dignity of head of the Church, had any such been constituted by our Saviour. But here is a begging the question, that the Pope was by our Saviour constituted head of the Church; and it matters not what Iustinians constitution would have done in that case, when it is so far from granted that this was the case. It is much more reasonable to assume, that he was not in that age deemed head of the Church, or uni∣versal Pastor, by Christs constitution, when this act of the Em∣perour, which supposes the contrarie, was yet entred into the Law, and stood in full effect, and never appears to be by any in that time lookt on as an injury or innovation.

[ 3] Thirdly, saith he, Justinian never intended to crop the aspiring growth of Rome, as the Dr. imagines, which is manifest by his sending to Pope Vigilius to bestow a Pall upon his new Archbishop.] And truly I never said Iustinian intended it; he intended only kindness, and to express that, honour and power to the place of his own birth, Achrida a City of Bulgaria, making it an Archiepis∣copal See, and subjecting many regions to it, but leaving it sub∣ject to none, an image of his own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or independent power. And this was no kind of diminution of that Patriarchal power, which Rome then had, the absoluteness of Primates be∣ing, as was shewed, reconcileable with that; and this that Justi∣niana now had, being no more than such. And at this time, whilest Iustinian reigned, the Bishop of Rome had not ascended to any greater sublimity then that of the first Patriarch, the title of universal Bishop, which signifies that unlimited power, and Pastorship, which is now pretended to, being the concession of Phocas to Boniface, after the reign of Iustinian. And therefore it signifies very little, what is here added for an evidence on S. W. his side, viz. Pope Vigilius his sending him a Pall. That was an honorarie ornament, which the Emperours first gave the Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs sent to Arch-Bishops and Metro∣politanes (but was in the East, common to all Bishops) and was then far from what since it hath been taught to be, a sign of subjection to him that sends it. The antient custom was for the new Arch-Bishop to make his profession of the Christian faith be∣fore his Patriarch, and from him to receive the Pall, as appears

by the words of‖ Pelagius in the Canon Law; But latter Popes have made this matter of gain first, and then of Power to them∣selves: Of gain, as appears in Gregories Epistle to Iohn Bi∣shop of Corinth, where he notes this in his Predecessors, but saith an Act of Councel had lately past against it. As for some‖ Xenia, gifts or presents, though he tells the Arch-Bishop of this Justiniana, that he would not have received such à praedatis & afflictis fratribus from pillaged and distrest brethren (which seems no reiecting them from others) yet upon remonstrance, that they were sent as an offering to God, he receives them from him. As for power and gain both, Pope Hildebrand laid the grounds, who required that every Archbishop should personally come to Rome (bringing presents was a consequent to that) and receive the Pall, which formerly had used to be sent; and Paschalis II. that soon followed him, made a decree that they that asked the Pall should make an oath of fidelity to him; And so now the recei∣ving the Pall may be an argument for S. W. to witness subjection to the Papal power, but signified no such thing in Vigilius his time, and so is no prejudice to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and summum fa∣stigium, the independent power (as of a Primate) which Iustinian conferrd upon him.

Fourthly, he will hope to get some advantage by our answer to this question, Whether all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, supreme Priesthood and supreme honor must mean a supremacy over the [ 4] whole Church, or only in his own particular dioecese? and supposing wi••h reason that the former will not be said, he fastens on the latter, and then, saith he, he might be supreme there, and yet sub∣iect to the Pope too.] But to this I answer that acknowledging it to belong to him only in his own Province, now assigned him by Iustinian, it must yet necessarily exclude the Popes Iurisdiction over him. For he that is supreme within himself, and hath power finally to conclude all differences, within his own Province, so that there shall be no resort to any other, is certainly so supreme in his own Province, that he is not subiect to the Pope. And this was the express priviledge of Iustiniana, in the Constitu∣tion set out by Gothofred, Dirimant, finem imponant, nec ad al um quemvis eatur; and if other Primates may have the same priviledge, and exemption from all forraign Iurisdiction, I

have little more to ask of S. W. for the gaining the whole Con∣troversie; for then our Primates shall have final, conclusive power within their own Provinces, and the Bishop of Rome have nothing of jurisdiction here, which was all, (if not somewhat more) that by this instance I designed to demonstrate.

[ 5] It was therefore but necessarie, that the witness that adventu∣red to speak so contrary to S. W. his interest, should in the next place, be defamed; The testimonie, saith he, is from an old mouse-eaten Manuscript of he knows not what authority; and yet after he hath called it old, &c. he adds, it is of no antiquity nor huma∣nity, and yet after all this, he saith most truly, that he hath not seen the Book, and it is hard to be found.]

[ 6] I wish his memorie would serve him from the beginning to the end of a period, or that he would teach us the new art of dis∣cerning, how that is old, which is of no antiquity; or how he can affirm that to be mouse-eaten, which he confesseth, he hath not seen. But the short is, the weakest answers may by being well worded be much improved, and accordingly the authority of an antient Manuscript, published by a learned man, and ready for all men to view, that can but read, may be invalidated, and put off with the bare scorn first of old (which seriously spoken were the greatest honor to it; sure new Manuscripts are not like new clothes, but like new wine, and new friends, the old are infinitely better) and then of hard to be found, and Mouse-eaten, which are equally pertinent, and true, and for want of more evasions, the Latine must be said to have no humanity nor antiquity in it; and but one thing really wanting all this while, all degree of care that there should be any the least colour or appearance of truth in all this.

[ 7] And when his conscience could not but tell him this, and how discernable it was, he must then still proceed, and add, that this testimonie is still nothing to the purpose.

[ 8] And can any man imagine him to think what now he saith, who would call in, and make use of such strange prelusorie arts to divert it? Sure if the force of this instance had been avoid∣able, and he had heartily thought it so, that would have been earlyer said he would not have put himself upon the so much harder and less creditable task of reconciling contradictions.

[ 9] But wherefore is it not to the purpose? Why, saith he, here is nothing said which was not common to the Patriarchs, and such Metropolitanes as Cyprus was, to wit that they had no ordinarie ap∣peal further, which, saith he, no way hinders but that extraordinary cases, which could not be ended among themselves, should be carried to Rome; and so (he concludes) this leaves this Bishop as subiect to the Pope, as any of the Patriarchs, or any out of the Patriar∣chate of the West was.] And truly I can grant this conclusion, and yet receive as much benefit by this testimonie, find it as much to my purpose, as I ever designed it to be. For I that conceive (and have shewed) every Patriarch to have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal power and priviledges with the Bishop of Rome (place only ex∣cepted, and the honorarie consequents of that) and 2. Every Primates power to be equal to a Patriarchs, and to be absolute and independent from him, shall most willingly grant that neither Justiniana nor Carthage, after their exemption, ascended any higher then these; and yet am thereby competently secured, that Rome had no jurisdiction over it, either ordinarie or extraordi∣nar••e; for so certainly the summum signifies, and the finem impo∣nant, and the nec ad alium quemvis eatur, the supreme power, conclusive, and exclusive of all others, unless either there be higher than the supreme, posterior to the last, and some-body who is no body, and the Bishop of Rome be all ••hese.

[ 10] There is no other force in this argument, but that which is willingly yielded to S. W. that what thus appears to have been the state of Justiniana, is really the state of all Primates; and then when it is his own conclusion, I hope he will not chide me for assuming it, that in very deed every Primate, and so the Bi∣shop of Canterbury in this Nation hath the supreme Priesthood, Dignity, Jurisdiction belonging to him, within his own Province, that he hath power of defining all controversies finally, without farther resort or appeal ad alium quemvis, to any other. And that is all S. W. hath as yet acquired by this answer.

[ 11] A next Attempt he makes out of my own Testimonie from Iu∣sti••i••n, Nov. 131. c. 3. which he resolves will determine it for him after all this.] The words are, he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis, which he will render, he shall be in all that Diocess the Popes Le∣gate, and after, he shall have the place or lieu of the Apostolical

seat, or be the Popes substitute, asking me where I have read the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explicated for honour or dignity.] To this I answer, 1. That it were to be wisht that he would provide him some testimonies of his own, and not so wholly, and so constantly rely on the advantages which his arts and dexterit es can extract out of those which I have produced against him; he must be a greater Master then S.W. yet appears to be, that can come thus weaponless into the field, and yet undertake to be a Disarmer: Mean while tis visible where his confidence (not his strength) lies: it is pure slight of hand, that must work his victories, and supply all his want out of his enemies Magazin. How well this trust hath yet succeeded to him, hath formerly appeared, as oft as it hath been depended on, and now it is as visible as ever. To evidence it, I shall but demand, who it was that gave the Arch-Bishop of Justiniana this priviledge (and that not personally to the first, but to all that should succeed in that See) was it the Pope or the Emperour? If it had been the Pope, there might have been some colour for S. W. his affirmation, for then he might reasonably be yielded to make his own Legate or Substi∣tute, and perhaps to do it to a whole succession, to affix that honor to a particular See. But it is plain my Testimonie was fetcht out of Justinians Novell, not out of Vigilius's Epistle, an extract or copie of the Emperours (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) constitution, not of the Popes deputation. And I hope the Emperour is not so much Ma∣ster of the Popes Acts and will, as that he can decree, to whom (to all posterity) the Pope shall give his Deputations. If he be, this is as much as I shall demand at this time, and that I am sure the Novell will give me, that whatsoever is meant by this locum Apostolicae sedis, the place of the Apostolical See, it was not by the Pope, which ordain'd the first Bishop of Justiniana (yet none of the succeeding) but by the Emperour, who raised that See to that summum fastigium, supreme height, conferrd upon him.

[ 12] In this matter it is possible S. W. may have a little mistaken my meaning, and therefore to cure it in him, or to prevent that possibility in others, I assure him I mean by the phrase locum Apo∣stolicae sedis, the same that he would have me, the place of the Apostolick, as that signifies the Roman seat. And though the

particle [an] instead of [the] may seem to prejudice that sense, yet I never made that use of it, but contrariwise in the Reply, added the Greek words, which take away all ambiguity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he shall in the Provinces subject to him, hold the place of the Apostolical throne of Rome; But still this is far enough from favouring S. W. his pretension, of his being no more but the Popes substitute. For as that is alrea∣dy prejudged by the Emperors giving him this place, so other cir∣cumstances concurr to avert that interpretation. 1. The express words of‖ Julianus Antecessor, Nov. 109. Archiepiscopum Iu∣stinianae Primae eadem jura super Episcopos sibi subjectos habere, quae Papa Romanus habet super Episcopos sibi suppositos, that the Arch-Bishop of Iustiniana shall have the same rights over the Bishops that are under him, which the Pope of Rome hath over the Bishops that are under him. This gives him as clear an example of my interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as full an answer to his question, as he could have wisht; He asks where I met it for honor and d g••ity? And I answer, I rendred it place or dignity, and here it signifies that, yea and more added to it, the power and jurisdiction over those which are under him, equal, because the same with those which Rome had over her subjects. And if he desire more testi∣monies for this notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I shall not omit to satisfie his curiosity in that also, though it be now very impertinent, and superfluous.‖ Of Alexandria, Dion. Chrysostom hath these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for your City doth very much excell both in greatness and place (sure that must be dignity, attending that greatness) and is illustriously demonstrated to be the second of all under the Sun, i. e. next unto Rome in dig∣nity. So when Ios••phus saith of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,‖ it hath the third place in the world which is under Rome, he expresses what he means by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; such as belongs to it in respect of the greatness and oth•••• f••licity, that sure is the d••gnity of that City. And what thinks he of the words of Ausonius, Ambarum lo∣cus unus, they have b••th of them the same place; that sure must be the same dign••ty. ••nd ••f S. W. will but have patience to spend a very little necess••••ie time in Books, I believe he will soon be

able to throw in more examples under this head.

[ 13] Lastly, S. W. must learn a difference betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have, to hold a place on one side, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to keep, supply, and minister a place, on the other side. The latter of these indeed doth constantly belong to a substitute as of the Pope, &c. his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or place-keeper, which the Law deduces 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from keeping or supplying the places of them who send them, as is frequently to be met with in the subscriptions of Councels; But to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have or hold a place, (as when they are used of having the first or second place) that sense of substitution or vicegerency is not applicable, but this other of having, or possessing such a dignity, as ones own, in his own right, I shall not need to seek instances of this, the thing being fully cleared, as far as concerns the business in hand, by comparing the words of Iulianus Antecessor, even now vouched, with these in Iustinians Novel, both speaking of the very same thing, and one expressing it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, locum habere, to have the place, and the other by habere eadem jura or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have the same rights or powers, which evidently proves the matter in hand, and satis∣fies his demand, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 place doth, and doth in this Novel, signifie dignity, and that the place of the Apostolick seat of Rome, is the same power in his, that the Pope hath in his Diocess, which was the thing incumbent on me to be pro∣ved.

[ 14] And having thus far attended him, One farther mis-adven∣ture there is yet in this Answer of S. W. (and there could not have been more expected in one paragraph) For having resolved from the words of the Novel, that this Bishop was the Popes Le∣gate in all that Diocess; he concludes it thence clear that his Dio∣cess remained, notwithstanding all these priviledges, subject to the Pope.

[ 15] How clearly this is hence deducible, will soon be discerned; That the Pope may chose one of his subjects to be his Legates, I wi••lingly grant; but it follows not from hence, nor from any other medium here tendred by S.W. that this holds in conversion, that whosoever is his Legate, is his subject. And yet this is abso∣lutely necessarie to the clear inferring his conclusion from this me∣dium,

it being certain that he which by being the Popes Legate is not made free from his subjection, may yet be upon some o∣ther account; such is the Emperors giving him here the summum fastigium, and the final, conclusive, and exclusive power foremen∣tioned.

[ 16] Now that the Pope may have a Legate or Substitute, who is not his subject, may 1. appear by the testimony of Balsamon in his preface to the Councel in Trullo. Where both from the nature of a Legate de latere, that it is one that must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, represent his person, when it is needful, and from the Bishop of Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Crete, Patrae, and Ravenna and others thus representing him, over whom, saith he, the Pope hath no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right of ordination, he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— That those are the Popes Legats, whom he hath particularly chosen, but yet that they are not all within his bounds under him, but that this of having Legates was invented because of the length of the way, not as of his subjects, but as of those that were neerest at hand, to represent him the more easily.

[ 17] If Balsamons judgement be not here thought fit to be taken, as being no friend to the Romane greatness (though I know no obligation lies on me to rely on no body but S. W. his friends, as long as he is so careful not to believe, or be concluded by his enemies, that in this, and generally in his affirmations, he makes use of no other but his own testimony) I shall offer this confir∣mation of it. A superior (or an equal) may have the proxy of an inferior, and be substituted by him, as is evident in the Guar∣dian substituted by the Pupil, and acting for him. And so a Bishop may in Councel have the proxy, and so represent the per∣son of another Bishop from whom he hath no dependence, or sub∣jection. Philippi was a Metropolis of a Province of Macedonia. Besides the words, Act. 16.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a first or prime City of that portion of Macedonia,‖ Photius is clear in it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the City of Philippi the Metropolis of a Province of Macedonia, and by be∣ing such, it is secured from being under any other (no more then) Metropolis. Yet in the great Councel of Ephesus, Flavianus

of Philippi supplied the place of Rufus of Thessalonica, and so was his Legate, had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 place, in S. W. his sense. And I suppose nothing is more ordinary in Councils than this, that one Metropolitane, that is present, shall receive the proxy, and supply the place of any other Metropolitan indifferently, without losing his liberty, or becoming his subject, or inferior, whose place he supplies: and if in those parts, the Bishop of Justiniana were by the Pope thus delegated, and made his perpetuall substitute (as by the Novell 'tis plain he was not, for whatsoever was meant by it, 'tis evident that from the Emperour he had it, not from the Pope) yet would not that conclude him subject to the Pope, when the Emperour's so liberall donations had explicitely exem∣pted him.

[ 18] His next answer, or endeavour (again, after his old manner) to shew me doing against my self, and by a Testimony out of Nicephorus, convincing, as he suggests, all my processe of nullity, was made use of before him by the Cath. Gent. and is answered in the Reply, sect. 5. n. 5. &c.

[ 19] But we are not yet at end of this matter. For beside that from the Pope's ordaining the first Bishop, he will needs conclude, that he consented to his erection (which I shall willingly grant (so he meane not authoritative consent) assuring my selfe the erection was an act of the Emperour onely, wherein the Pope had nothing to do) and so somewhat again, from his giving him the Pall, though he know not well what; It was, saith he, a signe of superiority, and a kinde of benediction, and at least an ho∣nour, if not a jurisdiction (and if it were thus, then perhaps it was no jurisdiction, and I have accounted for this of the Pall al∣ready) beside these, I say, he proceeds in these words, In the next Paragraph the Doctor tells us, that this particularity that his Successors were to be consecrated by their Counsel of Metropoli∣tanes, is a second instance of the point in hand; and (saith he) I do not deny, but sometimes to be subject for ordination, was a signe of subjection, but not alwaies. The Bp. of Ostia hath the priviledge to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not held to be his subject.—]

[ 20] Here be some considerable frailties discernable; first, in his intellective faculty, which had made this particularity, that his Successors were to be consecrated by their Council— to be a second

instance of the point in hand, whereas 'tis most evident in the place, that the whole precedent discourse of the erection, and in∣dependency of Justiniana Prima, and not onely this branch of it, was the second instance, as the priviledges of the Archbishop of Carthage had been the former, p. 101. but this was but a slip. What then was the second, that to be subject for ordination was sometimes a signe of subjection, but not alwaies. In propriety of speaking indeed, being subject cannot be a sign of subjection, either alwaies, or sometimes; but yielding him that impropriety also, what shall we say to this part of the proposition, being subject, for ordination is not alwayes a sign of subjection] This is something like the hard headed respondent, that satisfied himself, that a Goose-py was not a pye; for none but that sort of Logick can ever conclude, that he that is subject for ordination is not subject.

[ 21] But sure S. W. had here some good meaning also, that subje∣ction for ordination doth not argue all kinde of subjection, or that he may be subject for ordination, that is not subject for jurisdi∣ction: But 1. this is no way proved; 2. it can by no meanes be assistant to S. W. unlesse he could prove è converso, that they that are subject for jurisdiction, may yet not be subject for ordi∣nation, for that onely can answer my argument of Justiniana's not being subject to Rome's jurisdiction, because 'twas not sub∣ject to it for ordination, the Bishop being to all succession al∣lowd by Justinian to be ordained by his own Counsel of Bishops.

[ 22] As for that which he saith in the instance of Ostia, that that Bishop hath the priviledge to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not held his subject] it might easily have been seen through by S.W. his Optick. For no doubt the Pope may be consecrated by him, without being subject to him for ordination, as the Patriarch of Constantinople was wont to be consecrated by the Bishop of Heraclea, one of his Suffragans, or as the Kings of England have generally been crowned by the Bishop of Canterbury, with∣out any subjection on either side, either for ordination, or coro∣nation. And so all Primats are, I suppose, to be consecrated by the Counsel of their own Bishops, and there is no shew of subjection in all this, for it being impossible that a Primate shall become such, without being consecrated, it is necessarily consequent to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or independence from all other Superiors, that his

own Bishops should consecrate him, but this without any note of subjection herein; But if the case be put of a Bishop which is subject to the jurisdiction of some superiour Bishop (as S. W. must suppose the Bishop of Justiniana to have been) Metropolitane, Primate, or Patriarch, I shall then demand, whether subjecti∣on for ordination would not be that Bishops portion, as well as any other kinde of subjection? To this case he knowes his in∣stance of Ostia belongs not, and as little that other which he brings of the decree of the Council of Sardica, that the next Pro∣vince shall give Bishops to a Province that wants, for this is visi∣bly but an act of charity to those that want that almes; And when that Province is once furnisht, I shall suppose for the fu∣ture, it may lawfully give Bishops to it self.

[ 23] As for his other two instances of Alexandria giving the Indians Bishops, and consecrating the Patriarch of Constantino∣ple, 'tis notorious that that Patriarch was customarily consecra∣ted by his own Suffragan, the Bishop of Heraclea, and for the Indians, all that is pretended is, that the Patriarch of Alexan∣dria gave them Bishops, when they wanted, and so that falls under the other forementioned head of mercy, which is distant from all colour of jurisdiction; or if it did not, I am no way concern'd to vindicate the Indians liberties, or non-subjection to that Patri∣arch; so that still it remaines most firme, that if Justiniana prima had been subject under the obedience of the Bp. of Rome, the B^ps. of Rome would have continued to ordain him as a Primate, or Pa∣triarch ordaines all that are under their subjection, and this being part of Justiniana's priviledge, that the Archb: be ordained by his own Counsel, as all other independent Archbishops (of which the store is not great) and all Primates and Patriarchs are, this is a strong prejudice to the Pope's having any jurisdiction over him.

[ 24] What here next followes, is by asking Who can tell what the Doctor meanes, when he saith the Emperour did all this onely by making Justiniana a Primate's or chief Metropolitan's See, & that Carthage's being the prime Metropolis of Africk, is expressed by having the same priviledges with prima Justiniana, pretending that this is nothing else, but to mock my Auditory, and that as farre as he understands, these words signifie that the Emperour said onely, be thou a Metropolis, and in so saying, gave all these privi∣ledges.]

'Tis much his understanding should be rendred so in∣capable in an instant, which hath served him so faithfully, and sure pac'd for very pregnant and piercing all this while. It is as if a man should say to himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doe not see what is before thine eyes, and then let him look never so in∣tently, he shall be able to descry nothing; Otherwise sure the words are plaine, and the sense as discernible, as of any period in the Book, that every Primacy is really thus independent, as a Pri∣macy, (but that is not all one with a Metropolis, as he would set it. Justiniana had six Metropolies under it, saith Miraeus from Nectarius Bishop thereof:) and so that all Justinians Privileges bestowed on Acridae, the place of his birth, are no more than what every Primate by right enjoyed, and consequently that when Carthage was raised to this Privilege of Independency, or Primacy, being but an Arch-bishops See, and every such not be∣ing necessarily a Primacy, the compendious method was, to give it the Privileges of Justiniana, which being but an Arch∣bishops See, had yet the Independent exemptions of a Pri∣macy.

[ 25] Here is no subtilty to torture S. W. his understanding, but grosse matter of right, and of fact; the former of which he might have seen deictically laid before him, in chap. 3. sec. 21. &c. if he had not fastidiously overlookt it, indeavouring to per∣swade his Reader, that there were not five words in that Chapter which could in any way be preparative to the question before us, whereas indeed nothing can be more to the purpose, than the due stating the originall and rights of Primacies, which was there handled.

[ 26] But perhaps there was some obstruction in the way, which thus made plain sense so unintelligible with my otherwise quick-sight∣ed Disarmer, & if we may believe him, 'twas this, that all the Do∣ctor's labour and the texts by him cited, wherein every privilege is set down so particularly, had infused this prejudice into him, for, saith he, they make it manifest that there were none, or not eminent ex∣amples of any such Cities, or Bishopricks, and therefore so many par∣ticularities were necessary to be expressed, and it be made an exam∣ple to others. Yet upon this relieth the Doctors main evidence, and demonstration, though if you will believe him, the conclusion of it selfe

is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences, which he ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevity sake.

[ 27] If there be now any sincerity in this Disputer, here will be a triall of it: for this prejudice, and misapprehension of his owne, being once removed, the matter will be so cleare before him, that he will not be able to escape the apprehending of it.

[ 28] First then he is to know, that every Archbishop's See is not in∣dependent, Nay, that of such there are but few examples, viz. Justiniana, and Cyprus, and Carthage, and Ravenna, and the Metropolis of Iberians, now called the Georgians in Asia (as Miraeus concludes from the Council of Antioch) and so he sees the reason, why four the most famous of these were the chosen instances to be insisted on, viz. of Archiepisco∣pall Sees, that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, heads to themselves, subject to no other, whether Primate, or Patriarch, nor consequently to the Bishop of Rome.

[ 29] Secondly, That all Primates are of this independent nature, no way differing from Patriarchs, but in respect of place or order, having, what Justinian gave Achridae, Summum sacerdotium, sum∣mum fastigium, summam dignitatem omnem Ecclesiasticam Censu∣ram, the highest Priesthood & Dignity, all Ecclesiasti••all Jurisdiction, power of deciding all Controversies within their Province, and doing this ultimately; so that it is not lawfull to retort or ap∣peale to any other, and so also he sees that there be as many evidences against the Pope's Ʋniversall Pastorship, as there are evidences in bookes of the Independent power of Primates: those I was bold by S. W. his good leave, to call innume∣rable evidences, not knowing any certaine way to help me or him to the certaine number of them. And so this great posing riddle is explaned, I hope, to S. W. his capacity: and that he may not thinke my ungrounded affirmations have helpt it to this perspicuity, I referre him to the Councill of Ephesus, where what was adjudged to Constantia is ex∣tended to all other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Provinces, that the Pri∣mate thereof, he that had beene so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the begin∣ning, should be independent from all others, or, if he will, to

the constitution it selfe, wherein Justiniana's independent power is set down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For there, as it followes imme∣diately, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — that the Archbishop of Carthage shall have this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this priviledge of the Chiefe Priest-hood in the like manner, that Justiniana, so it concludes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And other cities, and the Bishops of them who in se∣veral places have Metropolitical jurisdiction allowed them, shall for perpetuity enjoy the like prerogative. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the like] must surely refer to the precedent examples of Justiniana, and Car∣thage, and then the conclusion is evident, that all Primacies shall enjoy the same (for so I conceive 'tis necessary the place must be interpreted of Prime Metropolies, or Primacies, and not of every lower Metropoliticall See, for such had not that supreme Priesthood, &c.) which was adjudged to Justiniana, there being six Metropolies, as was said, under that, and many under each Primate.

[ 30] But there is yet one reserve behinde, and that he promises, will make any sensible man understand my former discourses, that they were all vain and wicked, viz. that this my reasoning from the independent power vested in each Primate, is the denying of the Catholique Church, of which we ought to be members. And this he thus inferres from my discourse, You say, saith he, every chief Metropolitane was independent from all others, they made therefore so many absolute Churches, therefore made not any one Church, where then is the Catholique Church? many houses to be one house, is as fairly contradictory, as many men or horses to be one man, or one horse, and so of many Churches to be one Church: Ad∣ding from S. Cyprian, that a Church is a People united to their Bishop: if then, saith he, there be a Catholique Church, there must be a Catholick Bishop, & taking away the obedience of one Bi∣shop, you cannot save one Church] What solidity there is in this last refuge will be soon discernable, by going along with him step by step: For, 1. The affirming an independent power to be vested in each Primate, is far from denying a Catholike Church, All those Primates are eminent Governours of so many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or divisions, of which the world first, and now the Catholike Church consists.

[ 31] 2. Nothing here produced by S. W. hinders in the least but that every such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 diocesse in the antient notion of that word, for that which conteins many Provinces under it, may be an absolute Church, Independent from any Superior on earth, under no others jurisdiction, but that of its own Primate.

[ 32] For Thirdly, when from thence, i. e. from the absolutenesse of all the Primacies, he concludes, that therefore they make not one Church, there is no consequence in that, Many particular, or na∣tionall Churches, each of them independent from any Superior, may yet fraternally be connected one with another, & make up the Catholique Church, as many nations of the world, no one subjected to another, but each independent, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may make up the World, or Ʋniverse, and yet these, as now 'tis evi∣dent, be under no one Governour on earth, Emperour, or what∣ever Monarchicall supreme power. And so still his curiosity is satisfied, he sees, where the Catholique Church is.

[ 33] 4. Though many houses cannot be one house, any more than many horses, or men, can be one horse, or man, yet many houses may be one city, many Cities one Province, many Provinces one Diocesse, many Diocesses one World, or one Catholique Church. And the word Church being both in propriety and vulgar use capable of as many significations, as there can be sorts of Christian coetus, or assemblies imaginable, is thereupon an ambiguous word, and belongs to the larger, as well as nar∣rower Societies, equally fit to signifie a Parochial, Diocesan, Provincial, Nationall, or Ʋniversall Church, and then many of these in the narrower, lesse comprehensive notion, may yet be but one in the larger, and more comprehensive. Thus we know many heaps may be put together, and make one heap, many rivers may meet, and make one river; And there can be no need of examples to illustrate this so obvious visible truth, that many Parish Churches among the Romanists, as well as us, make one Dioecesan; many Dioecesan, one Provincial; many Provinci∣al, one National; and many National, one Catholick Church. And so still for all his colours of the house, the man, and the horse, we have not lost the Catholick Church: such thin So∣phismes may be seen through by ordinary eyes, and so, many particulars be as competent as one could wish, to make up an Ʋniversal.

[ 34] 5. When S. Cyprian saith, a Church is a People united to their Bishop, 'tis certain he speaks of a particular Church, and so of a particular Bishop. The place where S. Cyprian saith it, is not referred to by him, but I who had used the testimony, know where to turn to it, Ep. 69. where the Church is defined Plebs Sacerdoti adunata, & pastori suo grex adhaerens, a People uni∣ted to their Priest, a Flock adhering to their Shepheard: and the circumstances of the Epistle make it cleare, that the Bishop there mentioned, is such as himself, the Bishop of Carthage, and every of the Coëpiscopi with him, and consequently the Church there spoken of, the Church of Carthage, the exact parallel to the Church of Justiniana, now before us; and if you would know how that being a Church can joyn with other Churches, and remain a Church still, he will tell you in that Epistle, that individual concord and charity of all the members of the Church, is that vinculum unitatis, band of unity, by which all Churches over the whole world may conjoyn and become one together.

[ 35] 6. When from this one testimony of Cyprian hastily cast down, he makes such full speed to conclude, that if there be a Catholick Church, there must be a Catholick Bishop; what is this but to in∣ferre, because Carthage is governed by one Bishop, and every other Diocesse by another, therefore the whole world is govern'd by one Bishop. Because Spaine is governed by one King, and France by another, therefore the whole world is governed by one also; which as it is de facto, visibly false, so the unproved asserting of it is founded on two Hypotheses, neither of which hath the least truth in it. First, that every the vastest body (for such is the Ʋniversall Church all the world over) must be under some one particular government; and secondly, that that particular government of the Church must needs be Monarchi∣call; whereas 1. the whole managery of the world is certainly transacted without being under any common governor on earth; and no doubt the affaires of the Church may be so too, a fra∣ternall union and communion of all Patriarchs, or even of all Prima••es, each ruling in their severall Provinces by the Lawes of Christ, may suffice for all ordinarie wants of all; Ecce homo, ecce Carthàgo, ecce ali••e & aliae civitates, saith S. Augustine, in Psal. 44. filiae Regum sunt,— & ex omnibus fit una Regina; Be∣hold

Rome, saith he, behold Carthage, behold other, and other Cities, they are daughters of Kings, and of all of them one Queen is made. And 2. for extraordinary, an universal Counsel, or assembly of all these, may by way of Aristocracy, provide for, & administer them. And so still the Catholick Church is saved, and all our Phaenome∣na preserved intire, without either talking (as he saith like a Saint) of Christ our head in heaven, or paying all our obedience to any one supreme Bishop upon earth, as to him that is by Christ thus delegated to preside (but will never be able to pro∣duce his commission) over the whole world.

[ 37] This fifth Chapter of the Tr: of Schisme I concluded with some words of our Bishops, in Convocation 1537. (and the same are recited again in the Necessary Doctrine, Anno 1543.) and there was great evidence of reason in them, two things af∣firmed, the truth of which is to be contested by proofs, and if evinced on our side, the whole cont••oversie now depending be∣twixt us is concluded, 1. That it was many hundred years before the Bish p of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were not within his Province of Italy. 2. That the Pope now professing at his consecration, that he will inviolably observe all the decrees of the first eight generall Coun∣cils, among which this is certainly one, that all causes shall be de∣termined within the Province where they be begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province; this absolutely excludes all for∣reign and so papall power out of this realm. Now for the for∣mer of these, I thought I had evidenced it by the proofs pre∣ceding in that chapter, the Canons of Chalcedon, and Ephesus, and the Novel about Justiniana, as that was extended like the Ephesine Canon, to all Primates, and then it was no hurt, I hope, to recapitulate in the words of our Bishops. As for the second, it was both built on the same foundation, and also a visible matter of fact in each branch of it, 1 that such was the matter of those Decrees, most unreconcileable with Ʋniversall primacy; and 2. that the Pope professes, and vowes obedience to all those decrees. And to all this he hath no least word of reply, but onely in lieu of that, is willing to mistake my procedure, and so to feign that I appealed to our Bishops as to witnesses, and then to answer me with a proverb or two. But to this I reply,

1. that as for this purpose I acknowledge them incompetent to be produced to S.W. or others of his perswasion, so I never laid any such weight on their testimony, but onely as what they said, had solidity of reason, and somewhat of evidence in it, and so would have deserved some reply from my Disarmer, if it had not been more for his turn and temper, to gibe than to discourse, to divert than to answer arguments.

[ 38] 2. That what I set down as our Bishops conclusion, was by them, if he had pleased to have resorted to the Book, inferred by such reasons, as S. W. will not easily be able to answer, and so could not with justice complain of my brief reference to their conclusion, without setting down their premisses, which was his, not mine advantage. To clear this therefore, and because these books are not commonly to be had, I shall recite but three of their many heads of argument.

[ 39] 1. From the Milevitan Council, where S. Augustine was pre∣sent and subscribed it, which decreed excommunicate any Clerk of Africk, that should appeale to any Bishop beyond the Sea.

[ 40] 2. From the Generall Council of Constantinople, decreeing that every cause, or controversie, should be determined within the Province, where the matter did lye, and that by the Bishops of the same Province, and that no Bishop should exercise power out of his own Dioecese, or Province, this being also the mind of Cyprian, and the other Afric••n Fathers, before the time of any Generall Council.

[ 41] 3. From the story of the sixt Great Coun••il of Carthage, whi∣ther the Bishop of Rome sent his Legates to allege and vindicate his Primacy, and by that title to maintain the receiving of ap∣peales made unto him of controversies commenced in Africk And when in the debating of this, the Bishop of Rome alleged a Canon of the first Coun••il of Nice, and the Bishops of Africk, denied there was any such Canon; for triall thereof, Messengers were sent to the Patriarchs Sees of the East (Constan••inople, Alexandria, and Antioch) to make search for the intire volume of the Canons of Nice, and when they were brought from thence, there was no such Canon among them, as the Bishop of Rome had alleged (the truth of all which is now visible to any

in the Acts of that Council of Carthage, and particularly in their Epistle to Caelestine, Bp. of Rome.) From this one instance they thought they might conclude these two things, 1. that the Bp. of Rome had no challenge of such Primacy, by any words of Scripture; for if he had, he would then certainly have alleged it on so important an occasion; and besides, the African Fa∣thers were so learned in holy Scripture, that they could not have bin ignorant of it; & so vertuous, that if they had known it, they would never have made any Act to the contrary, nor after so earnestly have refused it. 2. That the Bishops of Rome have no such power given them by any ancient Generall Council; or if they had, they would then have alleged it, rather than have vouched a pretensed Canon, which upon search, could never be found in the Authenticks. And these two conclusions thus deduced, might well set a period to this controversie. As it is, I shall, I hope, need adde no more reply to his second Section, for the vindicating of my fifth Chapter, and refuting the Roma∣nists second Plea drawne from the Pope's succession to Saint Peter.

Notes

• p. 106.
• Anom. a••. Phat. Num. 254. & Theodor. in 1. Tim. 3.1. & Th••ophan.
• †

  Th••od. in T••t.
• ‖

  Phil. 2.25. Theod. in Phil. 1.1. & in c. 2. Chrys. ibid.
• Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• †

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 4.
• Annot. in Pl••tin. de vit. Pontif. in Pet. Apost.
• Her. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖

  l 7. c. 29.
• ‖

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• ‖

  fol 110.
• Indebita concupiscit, illicito cresci∣re optat aug∣mento, Priv∣legia Ecclesi∣arum, sanct••∣rum Patrum Canonibus instituta con∣velli— fol. 119.
• ‖

  Per autho∣ritatem Beati Petri Apostoli. Ep. 55. Ep. 62.
• ‖

  Of Schis. p. 99.
• ‖

  See Repl. p. 83.
• ‖

  Concil. Tom. 3. p. 475. D. F.
• ‖

  Lib. 2. in si••e.
• Concil. tom. 3. p. 475. E.
• ‖

  De Author. Eccl. 7.
• ‖

  p. 113
• Concil. Tom. 2. p. 670. A.
• Can. 3.
• ‖

  Can. 35.
• Resp. de Pa∣triarch.
• Godign de reb. Abass. l. 1. c. 18.
• ‖

  Nicen. Can. 36.
• Codig. l. 1. c. 22.
• ‖

  Ib. c. 19.
• ‖

  Auber Mirae. Not. Episcop. l. 1. c. 21.
• ‖

  Fidem tuam sancte sedi Apostolicae exponere, u∣sumque Pallii expetere & excipere. Corp. Iur. Decret. part. 1. Dist. 100. c. 1.
• Ep. ex Re∣gist. l. 4. ••n∣dict, 13. Ep. 55 Et Corp. Iur. Decret. par. 1. D••st. 100. c. 3. Novit sancti∣tas tua quia prius pallium nisi dato com∣modo non da∣batur.
• ‖

  Epist. 15 and Corp. Iur. Decret. par. 1. Dist. 63. Quia.
• ‖

  Vid. Phil. Berter. Pitha. l. 2. c. 3 Auber. Miraū Not Episc. l. 1. c. 9.
• ‖

  Or. 22. ad Alexand.
• ‖

  De Bell. Iud. l. 5. c. 3.
• Vid. Zon••∣ram in Praes. ad Concil. Carthag. p. 384.
• Pag. 359.
• ‖

  Ep. 247.
• Not Episc. l. 1. c. 9.
• Not Ep. l. 1. c. 9.
• Of Schism, P. 41.
• Vide Zonar. p. 521.